1

Framework of Channel Estimation for Hybrid
Analog-and-Digital Processing Enabled Massive
MIMO Communications

arXiv:1712.08846v1 [] 23 Dec 2017

Leyuan Pan, Student Member, IEEE, Le Liang, Student Member, IEEE,
Wei Xu, Senior Member, IEEE, and Xiaodai Dong, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—We investigate a general channel estimation problem
in the massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system
which employs the hybrid analog/digital precoding structure
with limited radio-frequency (RF) chains. By properly designing
RF combiners and performing multiple trainings, the proposed
channel estimation can approach the performance of fullydigital estimations depending on the degree of channel spatial
correlation and the number of RF chains. Dealing with the hybrid
channel estimation, the optimal combiner is theoretically derived
by relaxing the constant-magnitude constraint in a specific singletraining scenario, which is then extended to the design of combiners for multiple trainings by Sequential and Alternating methods.
Further, we develop a technique to generate the phase-only RF
combiners based on the corresponding unconstrained ones to
satisfy the constant-magnitude constraints. The performance of
the proposed hybrid channel estimation scheme is examined
by simulations under both nonparametric and spatial channel
models. The simulation results demonstrate that the estimated
CSI can approach the performance of fully-digital estimations in
terms of both mean square error and spectral efficiency. Moreover, a practical spatial channel covariance estimation method
is proposed and its effectiveness in hybrid channel estimation is
verified by simulations.
Index Terms—Massive MIMO, channel estimation, hybrid
precoding, millimeter wave

I. I NTRODUCTION

M

ASSIVE multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) is potentially one of the most promising and key technologies to meet the stringent performance requirements for
the next-generation, i.e., 5G, wireless communications [1],
[2]. It has attracted considerable research interests from
both academia and industry since the seminal work [3] was
published in 2010 [4]–[7]. Most notably, with an excessive
amount of antennas mounted at the transmitter and/or receiver,
signal processing, including both transmission precoding and
receiving combining, can be greatly simplified while achieving
highly optimal performance [8]–[11]. Simple linear precoding
schemes, such as zero-forcing (ZF), are virtually optimal and
comparable to the capacity-achieving nonlinear dirty paper
L. Pan and X. Dong are with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada (Email:
leyuan@uvic.ca, xdong@ece.uvic.ca).
L. Liang is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA (Email:
lliang@gatech.edu).
W. Xu is with the National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210096, China (Email:
wxu@seu.edu.cn).

coding (DPC). Thanks to the employment of millimeter wave
(mmWave) bands, a large number of antennas can be packed
into a small area due to the short wavelength [12].
However, the conventional signal processing is typically
performed at the baseband, which means that the signal
received from each antenna port needs to be properly filtered, down-converted, and then sampled, where the hardware
module performing such tasks is normally referred to as a
radio-frequency (RF) chain. Analogous procedure exists for
signal transmission. Given a large number of antennas in a
massive MIMO system, it would be formidable to feed each
antenna with a dedicated RF chain due to high cost and power
consumption. To circumvent the challenging requirement of
massive RF chains, an analog/digital hybrid structure has
been proposed for massive MIMO systems operated on both
centimeter wave (cmWave) [13] and mmWave [14] bands1. On
the transmitter side of a hybrid system, low-dimensional baseband signals (after digital processing) are converted to the RF
domain, feeding a phase-shifting network to properly adjust
the phases of transmission signals which are then transmitted
to wireless channels by antennas [12], [13]. The design of the
RF and baseband precoding/combining matrices in a hybrid
structure is a challenging problem and has been extensively
studied in recent years, e.g., [14], [16]–[19]. However, these
papers all assume the availability of channel state information
(CSI). Other beamforming solutions without the explicit need
of channel knowledge depending on iterative beam trainings
and multi-stage codebooks have been developed in [20]–[23].
These solutions, however, naturally have the common disadvantage that the beamforming converges towards a single beam
which is not capable to achieve multiplexing gains or support
multiple streams in multi-user systems. Hence, the explicit
channel estimation is one of the most important elements in
reaping all the advantages and gains of massive MIMO, and
unsurprisingly has been under extensive investigation. It is a
challenging task, yet is even more difficult to fulfill under the
limited RF-chain hybrid structure constraint.
The main task of the channel estimation in a hybrid precoding system is to recover the M -dimensional channel vector
from L observations at baseband, where L (< M ) is the
number of limited RF chains. The conventional fully-digital
MIMO channel estimation methods in the literature cannot
1 According to the notation in [15], the cmWave bands generally denote
1 − 10 GHz while mmWave denotes 10 − 100 GHz.

2

be applied in a hybrid structure to obtain full CSI [24]–
[28]. So far, only a few papers have studied channel estimation with limited RF chains in hybrid structured mmWave
communications. An adaptive compressed sensing solution for
the hybrid channel estimation was proposed in [29] from the
perspective of angular sparsity of mmWave channels. Scanning
in the angular domain is performed at both the transmitter
and receiver sides. As such, the complexity and resource
consumption of the proposed channel estimation scheme is
dominated by the sparsity of channel scattering. For instance,
it will consume much more resource with higher complexity
to achieve a desired angular resolution in channel estimation
when the scattering paths are rich, compared to the case of
very sparse channels. A similar method was developed in a
frequency-selective channel scenario [30]. In [31], channel estimation with phase-shifters or switches in a hybrid structured
system was discussed. Still, it employs the high-complexity
compressed sensing method with angular domain scanning to
estimate the angle of arrival/angle of departure (AoA/AoD) of
each scattering path. Few prior literature has considered the
general problem of channel estimation in a hybrid structured
massive MIMO system without significant dependence on the
channel sparsity. Since the degree of freedom (DoF) of the
received signals at baseband is limited by the number of RF
chains, it becomes prohibitively difficult to obtain satisfactory
higher-dimensional vector channel estimates, especially for
rich scattering environments, in a hybrid precoding system
using conventional channel estimation approaches.
In this paper, we consider the uplink channel estimation
of a multi-user massive MIMO system with the hybrid RFbaseband processing structure where the base station (BS) is
equipped with a large number of antennas but driven by a
far smaller number of RF chains, and each mobile station
(MS) is equipped with a single antenna, and propose an
efficient channel estimation scheme by exploiting the spatial
correlation of massive MIMO channels where both single
and multiple trainings are investigated. One may suspect the
necessity of investigation on multiple trainings. Theoretically,
one pilot symbol is optimal, and in fact enough, for a singleantenna user to assist uplink estimation of uncorrelated MIMO
channels under some mild assumptions [32]. In a massive
MIMO system with limited RF chains, however, only much
smaller L-dimensional (compared to the number of antennas,
M ) signal is captured at baseband per training. It is, therefore,
evident that a single training symbol becomes insufficient for
the BS to conduct full-dimensional channel estimation of M
(independent) channel coefficients. To approach the performance of fully-digital channel estimation, multiple trainings
are required to achieve the DoF of fully-digital baseband
signal measurements. That is, T L observations can be utilized
to estimate the M -dimensional MIMO channels, where T is
the number of trainings. Hence, it needs to properly design
RF combiners for different training phases to capture the
channel energy and then recover the CSI as accurately as
possible. Furthermore, how many trainings are required to
achieve the performance of fully-digital channel estimation?
Empirically, T = M/L training symbols can be utilized to
achieve the DoF of a fully-digital training in the estimation

of uncorrelated channels. However, such conclusions may not
hold for correlated channels. As revealed in both [33] and
[34], the optimal number of training symbols can be reduced
due to the fact that the dimension of statistically dominant
subspaces is less than the number of antennas. In practice,
massive MIMO and mmWave channels are inevitably spatially
correlated due to the limited number of propagation paths
and angular spreads [24], [29], [35]. Thus, less than M/L
trainings could be sufficient to achieve the fully-digital channel
estimation performance in such spatially correlated channels.
Finally, we summarize the main contributions of this paper as
follows:
•

•

•

RF Combiner Design for Single Training: We investigate the channel estimation in a hybrid precoding
system and formulate an optimization problem on channel
estimation following the minimum mean square error
(MMSE) criteria. To solve the problem, the constantmagnitude constraint of the RF combiner is temporarily
relaxed. By employing the properties of Block Generalized Rayleigh Quotient, the theoretical optimizer of
the formulated optimization problem is solved and the
corresponding optimal RF combiner is designed in the
single training scenario. Analyses of the designed combiner show that the mean square error (MSE) of the
channel estimation decreases when (1) the channel is
more spatially correlated, (2) more RF chains for channel
estimation are deployed, (3) larger transmission power
for training pilots is utilized. Moreover, the closed-form
expression of the MSE is derived and verified to be
quite accurate compared to the simulation results, thus
providing useful guidelines in practical system designs.
RF Combiner Design for Multiple Trainings: We formulate the optimization problem to design RF combiners
for multiple trainings and solve it by Sequential and
Alternating methods with the assistance of the singletraining result. The Sequential method can achieve stepwisely minimum MSE with low complexity while the
Alternating one solves the joint optimization problem
iteratively with high complexity, however, achieving the
local optimum. The performance and complexity of the
proposed RF combiners are examined in simulations
under both nonparametric and parametric channel models
[36].
Spatial Channel Covariance Estimation in HybridStructured System: To perform the proposed RF combiner design and channel estimation, the spatial channel
covariance matrix needs be known by the BS to perform
the design of RF combiners for channel estimation. In
this paper, a covariance estimation method is proposed in
the hybrid-structured massive MIMO system. From simulation results, it achieves comparable spectral efficiency
with the estimated covariance matrix compared to that
with the perfect one, which proves the effectiveness of
the proposed method.

Note that the considered system structure and channel estimation scheme is also applicable to mmWave channels [15],
[17], [37].

3

Apart from the contributions, we also present the main
characteristics differentiating this paper from the existing
works as summarized below.
• Compared to the typical fully-digital massive MIMO
systems, the signal dimension in the considered system
is reduced after the processing of the phase-shifting
network. That is, it converts the received M -dimensional
RF signal to L-dimensional baseband signal where M
denotes the number of antenna elements and L represents
the number of RF chains typically satisfying L < M
in hybrid precoding/combining systems. As such, the
channel estimation performed in baseband cannot utilize
the complete training information as the fully-digital
massive MIMO does.
• Compared to existing work on channel estimation in a
hybrid-structure mmWave system, no explicit usage of
channel sparsity is required by our proposed methods to
perform the estimation, which is adaptive to both nonsparse cmWave and sparse mmWave channel scenarios.
In addition, the complexity of our proposed scheme is
determined by the number of RF chains and training
phases which are fixed in an online system, rather than the
scattering circumstance which is time-variant and difficult
to be guaranteed.
Organization: The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section II illustrates the system model of the massive MIMO
system with the hybrid precoding structure and the channel
models adopted in this paper. In Section III, the channel
estimation schemes in the hybrid structure are proposed and
analyzed. Section ?? proposes the method to generate the
channel covariance matrices which can be employed in practical system implementations. The numerical and simulation
results are presented in Section V. Finally, Section VI concludes our work in this paper.
Notation: The boldface capital and lowercase letters are
used to denote matrices and vectors, respectively, while the
plain lowercase letters are scalars. Superscripts (·)∗ , (·)T and
(·)H stand for the conjugate, transpose and conjugate-transpose
of a vector or matrix, respectively. IM represents the identity
matrix of size M . Operators k · k, k · kF and tr(·) denote
the Euclidean norm of a vector, the Frobenius norm and the
trace of a matrix, respectively. blkdiag{A1 , · · · , AL } stands
for the block matrix with diagonal elements as A1 , · · · , AL
in sequence. For statistical vectors and matrices, E{·} and
Var{·} are utilized to represent the expectation and variance,
respectively. Moreover, x ∼ CN (0, Σ) represents the complex
Gaussian random vector x with zero mean and covariance matrix Σ. Finally, a ≻ b means that a majorizes (or dominates)
b and vice versa.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We investigate a single-cell hybrid massive MIMO communication structure as shown in Fig. 1 where K single-antenna
mobile stations (MSs) are served by a base station (BS)
equipped with M antennas driven by L RF chains which are
interfaced by an analog RF phase-shifting network converting
the high-dimensional received signal to low-dimensional one

RF Chain

Baseband
Processing

L

RF Chain

Base Station

Analog
RF
Combiner
F

gK

MS K

g1

MS 1

M

Mobile Station

Fig. 1: Block diagram of massive MIMO with a hybrid
structure.
through phase-only linear combing. Here, L < M means
limited RF chains while L = M implies full chains. The
combined RF signal after the phase-shifting network is then
down-converted to baseband and sampled by analog-to-digital
converter(s) for further digital processing [12].
Due to its reciprocity in TDD operation, the channel between the BS and each MS can be obtained by the uplink
training and used for downlink precoding within a coherence
interval [38]. Different from the downlink training employed
in [39], the uplink training requires the pilot sequences transmitted by all MSs to be orthogonal to each other to avoid
pilot contamination. Hence, the duration of each pilot sequence
should be at least K symbols to guarantee the orthogonality
conditions [38]. Among all, the identity matrix IK is one of
the simplest orthogonal pilots, which implies that the MSs
transmit pilot sequentially and all others keep mute when
a MS is transmitting pilot. Moreover, the performance of
channel estimation with identity matrix as pilot is the same
as that with others under block-fading channels. On the other
hand, it is more practical to design the channel-estimation-used
analog combiner based on the corresponding spatial channel
covariance matrix of a single MS per training, which can be
understood from the perspective of hybrid beamforming that
the beamformer is toward one of the uncorrelated MSs when
it is transmitting pilot signal and leads to better performance
in sparse mmWave channels where the number of scattering
paths is limited. Consequently, the channel estimation of each
MS can be performed one by one with similar manipulations.
For simplicity, we select a single MS to illustrate the hybrid
channel estimation framework in the following elaborations.
During the uplink training period, a single-antenna MS
transmits T pilots to the BS. Considering the tth (t =
1, 2, · · · , T ) pilot training, the received baseband signal at BS
after pilot compensation can be expressed as
√
√
yt = Ft ( ρgϕt + ñt ) ϕ∗t = ρFt g + Ft nt ,
(1)
where g ∈ CM×1 represents the uplink channel from the
MS to BS which is assumed to remain static throughout a
coherence interval, ϕt stands for the tth training symbol with
ϕt ϕ∗t = 1, ρ is the pilot power per transmission, ñt ∈ CM×1
denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with
zero mean and unit variance, nt , ñt ϕ∗t which persists
as CN (0, IM ) AWGN, and Ft ∈ CL×M is the RF phaseshifting matrix constructed by unit-magnitude elements. For
T pilot transmissions, the received signal can be stacked as a

4

concatenated vector yc = [y1T , y2T , · · · , yTT ]T ∈ CT L×1 given
by
√
(2)
yc = ρFc g + Fd nc ,
where the pilot power is identical for each training peT T
riod, the compact matrices Fc = [FT
1 , · · · , FT ] , Fd =
T
T T
blkdiag{F1 , · · · , FT }, and nc = [n1 , · · · , nT ] .
In this paper, we consider the spatially correlated MIMO
channel model, which is a typical case in most MIMO scenarios due to the limited number of incident paths and angular
spreads on BS [24]. The spatial channel covariance matrix can
be expressed by R = E{ggH }. Without loss of generality,
we normalize tr (R) = M . In Section III, R is assumed to
be known by the BS while the estimation of the covariance
matrix in practice will be discussed in Section IV.

through numerical approaches without sustainable resource
consumption due to the non-convex constraint.
To facilitate further analysis, we temporarily drop the
constant-magnitude constraint in the following design. This is
a good way to begin with because it is capable to derive some
closed-form expressions and provide guidelines for the design
of phase-only combiners. Note that the design of phase-only
combiners will be considered in Section III-C.
Without the phase-only constraint, it can be shown that the
optimal RF unconstrained combiner has a structure characterized in the following lemma.
Lemma 1. For any optimal solution to the unconstrained RF
combiners given their singular value decompositions (SVD) as
F̃opt
= Ut [Σt 0][Vt,L Vt,R ]H ,
t

(7)

it is safe to reconstruct the optimal combiners according to
III. C HANNEL E STIMATION WITH H YBRID S TRUCTURE
For channel estimation at the BS, the task is to obtain
the channel estimate in the MMSE sense with the designed
phase-shifting matrix. By employing the MMSE aimed linear
estimator, the channel estimation problem can be formulated
as follows:

minimize E kg − ĝk2
Fc ,W

subject to: ĝ = Wyc
√
yc = ρFc g + Fd nc

(3)

Fi ∈ F , i = 1, · · · , T
where W represents the baseband processing matrix, and F
denotes the set of all feasible phase-only RF combiners. In
order to minimize MSE, the optimal solution to W is the
well-known Weinner filter [40] given by
−1
√
H
,
(4)
W = ρRFH
c ρFc RFc + RFd

where Fc is assumed to be known as a prior and RFd , Fd FH
d
for notation simplification. Using (4), the objective function in
(3) equals
o
n
2
MSE =E kg − ĝk


−1
H
Fc R
=tr R − ρRFH
c ρFc RFc + RFd

−1 
−1
,
(5)
=tr R−1 + ρFH
R
F
c
c
Fd

where the last equality holds due to the Woodbury matrix
identity [41] and it is assumed that R is in full rank. If R
is rank deficient, remedies similar to the one discussed in [33]
can be applied which does not affect the MSE. Combining
(3)–(5), the primal channel estimation problem is readily
equivalent to the following problem as

−1 
−1
minimize tr R−1 + ρFH
c RFd Fc
Fc
(6)
subject to: Ft ∈ F , t = 1, · · · , T.
The optimization problem (6) aims to find the optimal and
feasible RF combiners Ft (t = 1, · · · , T ) for the T -length
training sequence. However, it is difficult to directly obtain
the optimal solution in either closed-form expressions or

H
= Vt,L
,
Fopt
t

which yields the same MSE performance as
t = 1, · · · , T

(8)
F̃opt
t

does, where

Proof: See Appendix A
Lemma 1 indicates that the optimal unconstrained RF
combiner Fopt
can always be restricted as row-unitary and
t
is thus independent of both Ut and Σt . Hence, we can set
both of them to be identity matrices and equivalently simplify
the MSE in (5) as

!−1 
T
X
,
MSE = tr  Λ−1 + ρ
Ṽt ṼtH
(9)
t=1

where Ṽt , UH Vt,L , Λ = diag{λ1 , · · · , λM } and U are the
eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of R, i.e., R =
UΛUH , respectively. Without loss of generality, it is assumed
that the eigenvalues are arranged
the decreasing order, i.e.,
Pin
M
λ1 ≥ · · · ≥ λM , and hence
t=1 λt = tr(R) = M . In
addition, there exists ṼtH Ṽt = IL due to the unitary property
of both U and Vt,L . To design the optimal RF combiners, we
first investigate the single-pilot strategy, i.e., T = 1, and then
extend to the multiple pilot trainings where T > 1.
A. Optimal Combiner Design of Single Training
When T = 1, the MSE expressed in (9) reduces to


−1

Ṽ1H Λ
MSE = tr Λ − ΛṼ1 Ṽ1H ΛṼ1 + ρ−1 IM

(10a)


−1

H 2
−1
H
Ṽ1 Λ Ṽ1 ,
= tr(Λ) − tr
Ṽ1 Λ + ρ IM Ṽ1
(10b)

where (10a) follows from the Woodbury matrix identity [41]
and (10b) is derived on the fact that tr(AB) = tr(BA). From
(10), the design of the unconstrained optimal RF combiner in
(6) can be reformulated as the following optimization problem:


 −1 H 2
H
−1
maximize tr
Ṽ1 Λ + ρ IM Ṽ1
Ṽ1 Λ Ṽ1
Ṽ1

subject to: Ṽ1H Ṽ1 = IL .

(11)

5

To solve (11), we employ the block generalized Rayleigh
quotient which is presented as Lemma 2 in Appendix B.
Applying Lemma 2, the objective function of (11) is the
block generalized Rayleigh quotient of Ṽ1 with respect to the
pencil (Λ2 , Λ + ρ−1 IM ). The property of block generalized
Rayleigh quotient described by Lemma 2 indicates that the
maximizer of (11) is the matrix spanned by the L generalized
eigenvectors corresponding to the L largest eigenvalues of the
pencil (Λ2 , Λ + ρ−1 IM ) if the matrix happens to satisfy the
constraint in (11). As Λ2 and Λ+ρ−1 IM are both diagonal, the
generalized eigenvalues and corresponding
ieigenvectors can
h
be directly obtained as Λ̃ = λ̃1 , · · · , λ̃M and Ũ = IM ,
respectively, where λ̃i = λ2i /(λi + ρ−1 ) (i = 1, · · · , M )
and λ̃1 ≥ · · · ≥ λ̃M according to the decreasing order of
λi . Therefore, the maximizer of (11) is constructed by the
eigenvectors corresponding to the largest L eigenvalues of the
pencil (Λ2 , Λ + ρ−1 IM ), denoted as
Ṽ1opt = Ũ[1:L] = IM[1:L] ,

(12)

where (Ṽ1opt )H Ṽ1opt = IL satisfies the constraint in (11). Now,
we can arrive at the following Theorem 1 which presents
the optimal design of the unconstrained single-training RF
combiner.
Theorem 1. The optimal unconstrained RF combiner for the
single pilot strategy can be designed as follows:
Fopt
= (U[1:L] )H ,
1

(13)

where U is the matrix spanned by the eigenvectors of R.
Proof: By substituting (12) into (8) with the transition
defined by Ṽt , UH Vt,L , the optimal unconstrained singletraining RF combiner can be obtained.
Theorem 1 implies that the RF combiner should receive the
training pilots along the largest L dominant eigen-directions
of R to minimize the MSE of channel estimations. More
explicitly, we substitute (12) into (10) and obtain the optimal
MSE as follows:
−1 !


IL
−1
MSE =tr
Λ +ρ
0M−L
=

L
X
l=1

M
X
λl
+
λl
1 + ρλl

=M −

l=L+1

L
X
l=1

λ2l
,
λl + 1/ρ

(14)

where (14) P
is obtained by applying the power constraint
M
defined by
i=1 λi = M . Prior to stating more insights
obtained from (14), we define a useful concept of one channel
being more spatially correlated than another in the following
way.
Definition 1. Let channel vectors g1 ∈ CM and g2 ∈ CM
have covariance matrices R1 ∈ RM×M and R2 ∈ RM×M ,
respectively. We say g1 is more spatially correlated than g2
if and only if λ1 ≻ λ2 , where λ1 and λ2 are composed of
the eigenvalues sorted in a descending order of R1 and R2 ,
respectively.

By Definition 1 and observing (14), we can conclude the
following corollaries on the design insights of the optimal
unconstrained RF combiner revealed in Theorem 1.
Corollary 1. Given the number of RF chains and pilot
power fixed, the MSE of channel estimation with the optimal
unconstrained single-training RF combiner decreases if the
channel is more spatially correlated.
Proof: See Appendix C.
Corollary 2. Given the channel correlation and pilot power
fixed, the MSE of channel estimation with the optimal unconstrained single-training RF combiner decreases with more RF
chains deployed.
Corollary 3. Given the channel correlation and number of
RF chains fixed, the MSE of channel estimation with the
optimal unconstrained single-training RF combiner decreases
with increasing pilot power.
Corollary 2 and 3 can be directly proved by checking the
fact that the MSE in (14) monotonously decreases with the
increase of ρ and/or L.
B. Combiner Design of Multiple Trainings
In a typical fully-digital MIMO system, the M -dimensional
signal can be observed at baseband to estimate the M dimensional MIMO channels. However, the hybrid structure
MIMO system can only capture L-dimensional signal from the
phase-shifting network fed by M antennas for each training.
Note that L < M in the limited RF chain scenario. Hence,
the observed low-dimensional signal is not sufficient to recover
the high-dimensional channel information for a single training.
To approach the performance of fully-digital channel estimation, multiple trainings can be employed to achieve the DoF
of fully-digital baseband signal measurements, namely, T L
observations can be utilized to estimate the M -dimensional
MIMO channels. Typically, it is assumed that T L ≤ M .
Therefore, the RF combiner for each training phase needs to
be properly designed to capture the channel energy for channel
recovery as accurate as possible.
In this subsection, we investigate the design of unconstrained combiners for multiple trainings, i.e., F1 , · · · , FT .
Intuitively, the multiple trainings can be performed by simply
repeating the single-pilot training for multiple times. Inspired
by Theorem 1 where the most dominated L eigen-directions of
R are selected to construct the combiner, it is heuristic to select the most dominated T L eigen-directions to establish the T
combiners for multiple trainings, namely, the Block Selection
method, where the RF combiner for the tth (t = 1, 2, · · · , T )
training can be composed of the tth most dominated Leigenvector block of R, as expressed by
Fopt
= (U[(t−1)L+1:tL] )H .
t

(15)

Evidently, the Block Selection method has low complexity, yet
leading to non-optimal performance.
In order to improve the performance of channel estimation
with multiple trainings, we formulate the optimization problem

6

to design combiners for multiple trainings by recalling (9)
shown as follows:
maximize MSE
Ṽt

subject to: ṼtH Ṽt = IL ,

(16)
t = 1, · · · , T

where the MSE of the objective function is expressed by
(9). The designed Ṽt can be employed to construct the RF
combiners according to Theorem 1. Hence, it is necessary to
find the optimizer of (16) to design RF combiners for multiple
trainings. Dealing with the optimization problem, we propose
two methods to solve it in the following part of this section.
1) Sequential Optimization: It has been investigated in
Subsection III-A that the closed-form expression of the optimal combiner can be obtained in the single-training scenario.
For multiple trainings, however, it is difficult to obtain the
global optimal solution directly. Nevertheless, we propose
a sequential approach, namely, the Sequential Optimization
(short as Sequential) method, to minimize MSE step-wisely
when T > 1. To illustrate the Sequential Optimization method,
recall (9) and reformulate it in the following form:

−1 
−1
H
,
(17)
MSE = tr
ΓT + ρṼT ṼT

where

Γ−1
t

=

(

H
Γ−1
t−1 + ρṼt−1 Ṽt−1 , t > 1
−1
Λ ,
t = 1.

(18)

Following the iterative definition of Γ−1
denoted by (18), the
t
MSE can be minimized by the Sequential Optimization method
as follows.
Firstly, by setting T = 1 the problem reduces to the singlepilot training case which can be solved as presented in Section
III-A.
Subsequently, with T = 2, the MSE denoted by (17) can
be reformulated as

−1 
−1
H
.
(19)
MSE = tr
Γ2 + ρṼ2 Ṽ2

By applying the same manipulations as in Section III-A, the
optimal Ṽ2 to minimize the MSE expressed by (19) can
be obtained. Similar to (12), the optimal Ṽ2 , say Ṽ2opt , is
constructed by the most dominated L eigen-directions of the
pencil (Γ22 , Γ2 +ρ−1 IM ). In other words, Ṽ2opt is combined by
L generalized eigenvectors corresponding to the L largest generalized eigenvalues of (Γ22 , Γ2 + ρ−1 IM ). For ease of exposition, we denote Γ2 = diag{γ1,2 , · · · , γM,2 }. The generalized
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of pencil (Γ22 , Γ2 + ρ−1 IM ) can
T
be obtained as γ̃2 = [γ̃1,2 , · · · , γ̃M,2 ] and IM , respectively,
2
−1
where γ̃j,2 = γj,2 /(γj,2 + ρ ) for j = 1, · · · , M . Therefore,
Ṽ2opt = IM[j1 ,··· ,jL ] ,

(20)

where the indices [j1 , · · · , jL ] are the first L numbers of
[j1 , · · · , jM ] which follow from the descending order of γ̃i,2
shown as γ̃j1 ,2 ≥ · · · ≥ γ̃jM ,2 .
In the similar manner as T = 2, we can obtain each ṼTopt
for any T > 2 successively according to the generalized
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of pencil (Γ2T , ΓT + ρ−1 IM ).

Finally, the combiners are derived by applying the definition
of Ṽi and Lemma 1. For instance, the optimal F2,opt can be
expressed by
(21)
Fopt
= UH
2
[j1 ,··· ,jL ] .
By reviewing (18) and the Sequential Optimization method,
a natural question arises here: Whether Γt is invertible or
not? To check this question, we start with considering a twostage training with Γ1 and Γ2 . Note that the known covariance
matrix R is assumed to be symmetric and full-rank2, thus it
is positive definite with all eigenvalues positive. Hence, Γ1
is composed of positive diagonal elements which indicates
that it is invertible. By setting T = 2 in (18), we have
−1
H
Γ−1
2 = Γ1 + ρṼ1 Ṽ1 . In addition to positive diagonal Γ1 ,
the optimal Ṽ1 solved in Section III-A is shown to be IM[1:L] .
H
Hence, it is guaranteed that Γ−1
1 + ρṼ1 Ṽ1 is always diagonal
with positive entries for ρ > 0. So is Γ2 invertible. Using the
similar manipulation, one can successively verify that ΓT −1
is composed of positive diagonal entries and hence ΓT is
diagonal and invertible for any T > 2.
Remark 1. In the aforementioned illustrations, each Ṽtopt
(t = 1, · · · , T ) during the Sequential Optimization has the
same structure in which they are constructed by column-wise
permutations of IM which denotes the set of generalized
eigenvectors of pencil (Γ2t , Γt + ρ−1 IM ), and the selected
columns correspond to the L largest generalized eigenvalues
of this pencil. Accordingly, each combiner for the multiple
trainings, namely Fopt
t , is the Hermitian of the matrix constructed by the consistent column-wise permutations of U
as the construction of Ṽtopt . Note that the eigenvectors of
the above pencil always compose an identity matrix due to
diagonal Γt .
Remark 2. Inevitably, the optimum Ṽtopt (t = 1, · · · , T )
obtained by the Sequential Optimization method is not a global
minimizer of the MSE in (9). Nevertheless, it minimizes the
MSE reformulated by (17) for each step of iterations, namely
the step-wise minimizer. The performance of such sub-optimal
combiners will be evaluated by numerical results in Section
V.
2) Alternating Optimization: For further performance enhancement, we solve (16) via joint optimization over Ṽt ’s. It
in many cases can achieve near optimal performance via the
alternating optimization to solve non-convex problems. More
specifically, we consider fixing all the other Ṽt (t 6= j) while
optimizing only a single Ṽj . And then, iterations are taken
to update each Ṽj (j = 1, · · · , T ) alternatively until convergence. This solution is named as Alternating Optimization
(short as Alternating) throughout this paper.
For an explicit exposure of alternating optimization, we
reformulate the MSE expressed by (9) to separate Ṽj from
the sum as given by

−1 
H
Ṽ
, j = 1, · · · , T
+
ρ
Ṽ
MSE(Ṽj ) = tr
Q−1
j j
j

(22)

2 If R is rank deficient, the method mentioned below (5) can be employed
for adjustment.

7

PT
where Q−1
= Λ−1 + ρ t=1,t6=j Ṽt ṼtH . With given values
j
of Ṽt (t 6= j), Ṽj can be solved in the same manner as
Subsection III-A where Lemma 2 is applied. In this paper, the
relative MSE increment of each iteration round, namely,
 





(n)
(n−1)
(n)
(n−1)
ǫj = MSE Ṽj
− MSE Ṽj
,
MSE Ṽj

will be taken as the error measurement. The iterations continue
(n)
until ǫj falls below a prescribed tolerance ǫ and the last
(n)
iterate Ṽj is taken as the solution.
Finally, the unconstrained near-optimal RF combiners are
computed from the solved Ṽtopt (t = 1, · · · , T ) by applying
Lemma 1. The alternating optimization method is summarized
step-by-step in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Alternating Optimization to Design Optimal
Unconstrained Combiners for Multiple Trainings
Input: M , T and R
Output: Optimal unconstrained RF combiners for multiple
trainings, Fopt
(t = 1, · · · , T )
t
(0)
1: Initialize n = 0 and Ṽt for t = 1, · · · , T
2: loop
(n)
(n)
3:
Use Ṽt (t 6= j) to obtain Ṽj which minimizes
MSE expressed by (22) for j = 1, · · · , T sequentially
(n)
and update Ṽj  with the new solved values
(n)

4:

5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:

if

MSE Ṽj

(n−1)

−MSE Ṽj


(n−1)
MSE Ṽj

< ǫ then

Stop loop
else
Update n by 1 (i.e., n = n + 1)
end if
end loop
Compute Fopt
with Ṽtopt by applying Lemma 1
t
opt
Output Ft

Since Algorithm 1 is implemented via iterations, the convergence issue is needed to be addressed here. During each
(n)
iteration, the solution Ṽj always minimizes (22). Hence, the
objective MSE is monotonically decreasing as the increasing
of iterations until it achieves the minimal MSE. This proves
the convergence of Algorithm 1.
C. Design of Phase-only RF Combiners
In the previous subsections, we first omit the phase-only
constraints when designing the RF combiners. However, the
RF combiners are implemented using phase shifters in practical hybrid systems, which can only perform phase rotations
on the received RF signals. Hence, the magnitude of each
element of a RF combiner matrix must keep constant. In
this subsection, we propose a method to design the phaseonly RF combiners based on the unconstrained optimal ones.
Moreover, the performance loss incurred by the constantmagnitude constraint is characterized by numerical evaluation
shown in Section V-A3.
Inspired by the fact that the phase shifters only perform
phase adjustments on the received signal, we take out the phase

of each unconstrained combiner and construct the constantmagnitude RF combiners according to
(i,j)

Ft

(i,j)

= ejφt

(i,j)
denotes the phase
where φt
(i,j)
(i,j)
(i,j)
i.e., Ft,opt = at ejφt .

, t = 1, · · · , T,

(23)

of the (i,j)th element of Ft,opt ,

It is interesting to find that such heuristic phase-only RF
combiners achieve desirable performance via simulation verifications in Section V. Besides its effectiveness, the very low
complexity is another advantage of this design. Furthermore,
the performance of the phase-only combiners designed above
will be examined and analyzed in Subsections V-A3 and V-A4
in terms of both MSE of channel estimation and spectral
efficiency in hybrid precoded multiuser massive MIMO communications.
IV. E STIMATION OF S PATIAL C HANNEL C OVARIANCE
The prior knowledge of spatial channel correlations, which
can be characterized by the channel covariance matrix, is one
of the most important prerequisites to improve the performance
of not only channel estimations but also precoding designs
[42]. While it has been assumed to be known by the BS in
our proposed channel estimation framework, the covariance
estimation should not be overlooked in practice. Due to the
limited RF chains, it is infeasible to estimate the covariance
matrix in hybrid precoding systems by employing conventional
approaches [43]–[46]. Dealing with this problem, some of the
prior works have made their efforts, but still have limitations
when applied to practical hybrid-structured massive MIMO
or mmWave systems. [47] has proposed a parallel subspace
estimation and tracking by recursive least squares from partial
observations, namely the PETRELS method, which can be
employed in the hybrid massive MIMO system to perform
covariance estimation, whereas tremendous observations are
needed to achieve desirable performance due to no consideration on the symmetry property of a spatial channel covariance matrix. A less complicated method has been proposed
in [48], however, by employing a parallel switch network
which increases the hardware cost. In [49], a compressive
sensing based spatial channel covariance estimation has been
proposed while a strong condition is assumed that AoAs do not
change during the long-term covariance estimations which is
impractical. In this section, we propose a practical covariance
matrix estimation method which can be employed in a hybridstructured massive MIMO system with limited RF chains. The
estimates of spatial channel covariance matrix can be utilized
in our proposed channel estimation framework.
Let T = M/L and consider the ith (i = 1, · · · , Nc )
coherence interval, (2) can be rewritten as
√
(24)
yc [i] = ρFc [i]g[i] + Fd [i]nc [i],
where Fc [i] ∈ CM×M denotes the compacted phase
shifting matrix in the ith coherence interval, Fd [i] ,
T
T
ML×1
[FT
is the AWGN and Nc
1 [i], · · · , FT [i]] , nc [i] ∈ C
stands for the number of coherence intervals during which the
spatial channel
covariance matrix can be viewed constant, i.e.,

R = E g[i]g[i]H . For the purpose of simplifying trainings,

8

By substituting (26) into (25), it derives the estimate of the
spatial channel covariance matrix.
Note that it may need many trainings to approximate the
covariance matrix of the received signal with its sample covariance, which increases the overhead of channel estimation.
One may concern how much resource is consumed to estimate channel covariance in practical systems. Theoretically,
the covariance matrix exploits the second-order statistics of
the Wide-Sense Stationary Uncorrelated Scattering (WSSUS)
channel nature which varies slowly over time and frequency,
and a one-time estimate can be used for long-term communications [50]. In fact, the experimental results in [51] have
revealed that the spatial covariance matrix can be viewed
constant over 22.6 s, 9.7 s and 4.8 s in the urban, rural
and indoor environment, respectively. Considering a system
with 10 MSps, for example, the estimated spatial channel
covariance can be used for 1 × 109 times within 10 s, which is
far more than the consumption of channel usage on covariance
estimation. Therefore, the overhead of covariance estimation
is negligible in practice. Apart from overhead, the estimation
accuracy of covariance matrix and its impact on channel
estimation performance is another issue need to be considered
in practical systems. According to (25) and (26), the estimation
accuracy of R is determined by R̂yc , which can be increased
by extending the averaging time. In Section V, simulation
results will demonstrate the number of channel usages needed
to achieve the required estimation accuracy.
V. N UMERICAL

AND

S IMULATION R ESULTS

In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed
channel estimation scheme by employing both unconstrained
and phase-only RF combiners to perform uplink channel
estimation in the massive MIMO system with the hybrid
precoding structure. The evaluations are performed with nonparametric channel models followed by parametric ones.
In simulations, we consider both single-user and multi-user
scenarios. In the single-user scenario, a single-antenna MS is
served by a BS deployed in the hybrid analog/digital system

structure which is shown by Fig. 1 with K = 1. The multiuser scenario adopts K = 8 single-antenna MSs served by
the BS with the same structure as that employed in the singleuser case. Without explicit indications, the BS is equipped with
M = 64 antennas followed by L = 8 RF chains. As the power
of noise is normalized to 1, the transmission power ρ can be
used to denote the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Each
simulation result is obtained by averaging over 10, 000 channel
realizations. Moreover, we adopt the low-complexity hybrid
precoding scheme proposed by Liang et al. in [17] to preprocess the transmission signal in downlink communications.
A. Performance with Nonparametric Channel Model
In this subsection, the nonparametric channel model denoted
by g = R1/2 h is considered, where h ∈ CM×1 stands for the
small-scale fading of the channel constructed by independently
and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian random variables,
i.e., h ∼ CN (0, IM ), and R is modeled by exponential
correlation model as [R]m,n = a|m−n| with [R]m,n denoting
the (m, n)th element of R and 0 ≤ a < 1 being a real number
that controls the correlation introduced to the channel model
[24], [25]. Here, a larger a corresponds to a more spatially
correlated channel and g degenerates to an i.i.d. Rayleigh
fading channel when a = 0.
0

Normalized MSE (dB)

it is durable to employ the same phase shifting matrix for each
coherence interval, i.e., Fc [i] = Fc . Further, we can select an
invertible Fc from the feasible constant-magnitude matrix set
F for training purpose, e.g., the DFT matrix. Hence, the spatial
covariance matrix of the channel can be derived from (24) as
 −1 H
1
,
(25)
Fc
Ryc − Fd FH
R = F−1
d
c
ρ

where Ryc = E yc [i]yc [i]H denoting the covariance matrix
of the received signal.
From (25), the estimation of spatial channel covariance
matrix can be converted to that of the received signal covariance, where both phase shifting matrix Fc and pilot
transmission power ρ are assumed to be known by the BS. In
practice, the statistical covariance of the received signal can be
approximated with the sample covariance matrix constructed
as follows:
Nc
1 X
R̂yc =
yc [i]yc [i]H .
(26)
Nc i=1

L=[4,8,16,32,48]

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
-20

Unconstrained combiner simulation
Unconstrained combiner closed-form
DFT combiner
Fully-digital estimation
-10

0

10

20

SNR (dB)

Fig. 2: Performance comparison of the single-training hybrid
channel estimation with different RF chains. (M = 64, a =
0.8)
1) Single Training Performance Evaluation: Fig. 2 shows
the normalized MSE performance of the hybrid channel estimations with the designed single-training unconstrained combiner at different numbers of RF chains. As a benchmark, the
performance of the fully-digital estimation is also presented.
Note that the fully-digital estimation is performed with single
training throughout this section. From the comparison, it is
evident to find that the MSE decreases with the increase of
the pilot training power, which verifies Corollary 3. Moreover,
with more RF chains equipped at the BS, the channel estimation performance is also improved, which confirms Corollary
2. Note that in Fig. 2, we also plot the estimation performance

9

with RF combiners composed of the columns randomly selected from a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix. Its poor
performance as compared to the designed combiners proposed
in this paper justifies the necessity to properly design RF
combiners and the effectiveness of our design. Furthermore, it
is observed that the derived closed-form expressions are quite
accurate in characterizing the MSE performance of the channel
estimations throughout the whole SNR range, thus providing
valuable guidelines in practical system designs. Finally, the
figure also shows that the performance gap between the
fully-digital estimation and the limited-chain hybrid channel
estimations is tolerably small at low SNR regions. There is
only about 0.5 dB MSE gap between the hybrid 16-chain and
the conventional fully-digital estimations at SNR=0 dB, where
three-quarter RF chains are saved with the hybrid structure.
However, one may argue: how about the performance gap at
high SNR regions? Due to limited chains, the single training
is not sufficient to achieve the performance of fully-digital
channel estimation. To improve the performance of the hybrid
channel estimations at full SNR regions, multiple trainings are
introduced in this paper and the performance is examined in
the next subsection.
0

-5

0
T=[1,2,4,6,8]

-10

Normalized MSE (dB)

Normalized MSE (dB)

T=[1,2,4,6,8]

to find that even T = 2 trainings can outperform the fullydigital estimation. This phenomenon reveals the fact that, when
the dimension of the dominated subspaces of the correlated
channels is far less than M , the limited-chain estimation can
suppress noise better than the fully-digital one due to multiple
trainings, which results in the distinct performance gap in
the low SNR regions. On top of that, more performance
differences can also be compared from the observation of Fig.
3. In the figure, the normalized MSE of the Block Selection
method denoted by the triangle curve is always larger than
or equal to that of the other two methods, i.e., the Sequential
and Alternating solutions. The performance gap is particularly
obvious at the low SNR regions. Such performance loss of
Block Selection is caused by the fact that the noise is not
considered when designing the combiners for the second
and later pilot trainings. However, little performance gap
can be observed between Block Selection and the others at
high SNR regions due to the less significance of noise to
channel estimation. By comparing the performances between
the Sequential and Alternating solutions, it is evidenced that
they achieve almost the same MSE no matter at high or low
SNR regions which implies that the Sequential method can
achieve the local optimum in solving (16). On the other hand,
the lower designing complexity of the Sequential designates
its superiority than the Alternating method.

-15

-20

-25
-20

Block selection
Sequential solution
Alternating solution
Fully-digital estimation
-10

0

10

20

-5

-10

-15

-20

SNR (dB)

Fig. 3: Performance comparison of the multiple-training hybrid
channel estimation with different training times. (M = 64,
L = 8, a = 0.8)
2) Multiple Trainings Performance Evaluation: In this
paper, the design of unconstrained combiners for multiple
trainings is formulated as (16), which are solved by both
Sequential and Alternating approaches alongside of the intuitive Block Selection method. The performance is examined
in Fig. 3 with T = 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8. The figure shows that the
normalized MSE of the hybrid channel estimation decreases
as the increasing of training times due to the increased DoF
of baseband observations. Additionally, it is interesting to
find that the MSE performance with L = 8 and T = 8
almost achieves that of the fully-digital estimation at high
SNRs. This phenomenon verifies that the performance of fullydigital channel estimation can be achieved by the limited-chain
hybrid channel estimation with sufficient DoF of trainings,
i.e., T × L = M . In the low SNR regions, it is evident

-25
-20

Phase-only combiners
Unconstrained combiners
Fully-digital estimation
-10

0

10

20

SNR (dB)

Fig. 4: Performance comparison of channel estimation between
unconstrained and phase-only combiners with the Sequential
method under different pilot trainings. (M = 64, L = 8, a =
0.8)
3) Performance Evaluation of Phase-only RF Combiners:
In the previous two subsections, the performance of the hybrid
channel estimation with unconstrained RF combiners are evaluated. However, only phase shifters can be employed in the
current practical applications with hybrid precoding structure,
which means that only phase-only combiners are applicable
in practice. In this subsection, we examine the performance
in hybrid channel estimation with the phase-only combiners
and compare it to that of the corresponding unconstrained
ones, where the combiners for multiple trainings are designed
by employing the Sequential method. In Fig. 4, the dashed

10

Normalized MSE (dB)

a=[0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9]
-5

-10

-15
Phase-only combiners
Unconstrained combiners
-20

-10

0

10

20

SNR (dB)

Fig. 5: Channel estimation performance of both unconstrained
and phase-only combiners with the Sequential method under
different channel correlations. (M = 64, L = 8, T = 6)

lines marked by triangles denote the MSE performance of the
hybrid channel estimation with phase-only combiners which
are designed according to (23), where the performance of the
unconstrained combiners are denoted by the circled solid lines.
From comparisons, it is obvious that the performance loss
caused by the phase-only combiners is tolerable at high SNR
regions and is negligible throughout the low SNR regions.
For instance, there is only 1.5 dB MSE loss at SNR=20
dB while 0.08 dB loss at SNR=−20 dB when T = 8. The
figure also shows that the performance loss is smaller with
fewer trainings, i.e., smaller T . Therefore, the hybrid channel
estimation with phase-only combiners achieve the desirable
performance measured by the normalized MSE. Furthermore,
we also present the performance of hybrid channel estimation
at different channel correlation shown in Fig. 5. It is evident
that the normalized MSE of the hybrid channel estimation
decreases, thus the performance increases, as the increasing
of a, namely, with more spatially correlated channels, which
verifies Corollary 1. Moreover, it is obvious that the performance between the phase-only and unconstrained combiners
is tight throughout the SNR regions, e.g., there exist only 0.7
dB of MSE gap at SNR=20 dB when a = 0.9.
4) Spectral Efficiency Evaluation with Hybrid Channel
Estimation: Apart from the normalized MSE performance
presented in previous subsections, the spectral efficiency of
the hybrid channel estimation is examined in this part. In
the simulation, the spatial channel covariance matrix of each
user is estimated by the method proposed in Section IV with
300 training intervals. The following channel estimation is
performed with the estimated covariance matrix. Within each
coherence interval, K MSs transmit orthogonal training pilots
to the BS for channel estimations during uplink communications, while the BS broadcasts data to all MSs during the
downlink communications by employing the hybrid precoding
with the estimated channels. Note that the uplink and downlink
channels are assumed reciprocal in this simulation and the

spectral efficiency is calculated over the downlink data transmissions. Fig. 6 shows comparisons of the spectral efficiency
with the precoding scheme designed from the perfect CSI and
estimated CSI with perfect and estimated covariance matrices,
respectively, where the phase shifters are considered both ideal
with no quantizations and non-ideal with 2-bit, 3-bit and 4bit quantizations, respectively. From the figure, we observe
that the spectral efficiency curves denoting the estimated and
ideal covariance matrices are very tight which means that
the estimated covariance matrix with 300 training intervals is
accurate enough to be comparable with the ideal one when
employed in hybrid channel estimations. By recalling the
example in Section IV, it is shown that the overhead of
covariance estimation is only 2.4 × 10−6 per user, which is
negligible in practice. The figure further shows that the spectral
efficiency with the estimated CSI approaches that with the
perfect one, especially in low SNR region which is always
the scenario in realistic massive MIMO systems. Moreover,
we can see that the hybrid precoding scheme with estimated
CSI achieves highly desirable performance as compared to
the gene-assisted system where perfect CSI is available to
the transmitter, particularly in the low SNR regions, where
the negligible performance gap is introduced by the constantmagnitude constraint. Finally, the curves denoting different
phase quantizations show that the 2-bit quantization is not
sufficient to achieve the no-quantization performance while
the 3-bit, especially the 4-bit, quantized phase shifters produce
comparable spectral efficiency to the no-quantized ideal phase
shifters, with only slight performance gap, which means that
our proposed hybrid channel estimation is insensitive to the
quantization of phase shifters.
70

Spectral efficiency (bits/s/Hz)

0

60

Perfect CSI
Estimated CSI, perfect covariance
Estimated CSI, estimated covariance

50
40
No quant.
4-bit quant.
3-bit quant.
2-bit quant.

30
20
10
0
-20

-10

0

10

20

SNR (dB)

Fig. 6: Spectral efficiency performance with the hybrid precoding scheme using both estimated and perfect CSI where the
non-perfect CSI is estimated with both perfect and estimated
spatial channel covariance matrix. (M = 64, L = 8, K = 8,
T = 8, Nc = 300, ρ = 10 dB and a = 0.8)
B. Performance with Spatial Channel Model
In Subsection A, the nonparametric channel models are
employed in simulations to evaluate the performance of the

11

proposed channel estimation design in the hybrid precoding
system. In this subsection, the proposed channel estimation
framework is evaluated in the practical spatial channel model
(SCM) under suburban macro, urban macro and urban micro
environments. The SCM channels are generated from the
open source software provided by [52] with default settings
(6 scattering paths with 20 subpaths each, which is rich
scattering) and random seed 1. The spatial channel covariance
matrix is estimated by the proposed method in Section IV. Fig.
7 shows the spectral efficiency performances of the perfect
and estimated CSI obtained by the proposed method and by
the compressed sensing based channel estimation in [29],
respectively. From the figure, it is obvious that the spectral
efficiency with the proposed channel estimation method almost
overlaps that with the perfect CSI in all three environments
with only visible minor performance gap in the high SNR
region, i.e., 15 to 20 dB, which explicitly show the high
accuracy of the proposed channel estimation frame. Note that
only 6 trainings are employed in the simulation which verifies
that less than M/L trainings can be sufficient to achieve
the performance of the perfect CSI in spatially correlated
channels. Moreover, the comparisons with the compressed
sensing based hybrid channel estimations proposed in [29]
evidently show that our proposed method is more effective
in the rich scattering channels which verifies that no sparsity
is required by our proposed method to estimate CSI.

Spectral efficiency (bits/s/Hz)

80
70
60
50
40

A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Lemma 1
By applying the eigenvalue decomposition of a positivedefinite R, i.e., R = UΛUH , the objective function in (6)
can be derived as

−1 
−1
MSE =tr R−1 + ρFH
c RFd Fc

−1 
−1
=tr Λ−1 + ρUH FH
R
F
U
c
c
Fd

! !−1 
p
X
H −1
,
FH
Fi U
=tr  Λ−1 + ρUH
i (Fi Fi )
i=1

Perfect CSI: suburban macro
Perfect CSI: urban macro
Perfect CSI: urban micro
Estimated CSI: suburban macro
Estimated CSI: urban macro
Estimated CSI: urban micro
Ref.: suburban macro
Ref.: urban macro
Ref.: urban micro

(27)

where the last equality uses

−1
H −1
.
, · · · , (FT FH
R−1
T)
Fd = blkdiag (F1 F1 )

Substituting (7) into the above equation yields

!−1 
T
X
H
,
UH Vi,L Vi,L
U
MSE = tr  Λ−1 + ρ

30

(28)

(29)

i=1

which indicates that the MSE is independent of both Ui
and Σi . Hence, we can safely set both of them to identity
H
matrices and obtain Fopt
= Vi,L
from (7) without loss of the
i
optimality, which completes the proof.

20
10
0
-20

theoretical analyses have shown that the channel estimation
performance can improve when the channel is more spatially
correlated, the BS deploys more RF chains or the MSs increase
training power, which has been verified by simulation results.
In addition, the RF combiners have been designed in the
case of multiple trainings to increase the DoF of the received
signal measurements at BS. The simulation results reveal that
multiple trainings can approach the performance of fullydigital estimation with single training and even outperform
it at low SNR regions when the channel is highly correlated.
Finally, this paper has proposed a practical spatial channel
covariance matrix estimation method in the hybrid-structured
massive MIMO system. The simulation results have shown the
effectiveness of the proposed method under various scenarios
in terms of the spectral efficiency with the hybrid precoding.

-10

0
SNR (dB)

10

20

Fig. 7: Spectral efficiency performance with the hybrid precoding scheme in practical SCM channels using both perfect and
estimated CSI. The Ref. result follows the channel estimation
algorithm proposed in [29]. (M = 64, L = 8, T = 6,
Nc = 1000, ρ = 20 dB and 3-bit phase quantization)
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper has investigated and proposed a channel estimation framework for massive MIMO systems employing a hybrid transceiver structure with a limited number of RF chains
and a phase shifting network. The optimal RF combiners have
been designed in the case of single training by exploiting
the channel covariance matrix and the complete CSI is estimated in the hybrid structured massive MIMO system. The

B. Block Generalized Rayleigh Quotient
Lemma 2. (Block Generalized Rayleigh Quotient) [53] Given
a full column rank matrix V, the block generalized Rayleigh
quotient with respect to the pencil (A, B) is defined as


−1 T
GRQ(V) = tr VT BV
V AV ,
(30)

where V ∈ CN ×T . Suppose the generalized eigenvalues
and the corresponding eigenvectors of the pencil (A, B) are
denoted by λ1 ≥ · · · ≥ λN and (v1 , · · · , vN ), respectively,
where the eigenvalues are arranged in decreasing order,
without loss of generality. For a matrix containing a subset
of distinct generalized eigenvectors, the generalized Rayleigh
quotient evaluates to the sum of the associated eigenvalues:
GRQ([vi1 , · · · , viT ]) =

T
X
j=1

λij

(31)

12

and bounds can be placed on the Rayleigh quotient of an
N × T matrix as
λ1 + λ2 + · · · + λT ≥ GRQ(V) ≥ λN −T +1 + · · · + λN , (32)
where an equality in this bound indicates that
V is composed of the extreme eigenvectors as
colsp(V)
=
colsp([v1 , · · · , vT ]) or colsp(V)
=
colsp([vN −T +1 , · · · , vN ]). Here colsp(·) represents the
column space spanned by the specified matrix.
C. Proof of Corollary 1
We start with the definition of function φ : RL → R as
φ(x) =

L
X

ψ(xl ),

(33)

l=1

x2

l
where ψ(xl ) , xl +1/ρ
. Note that the MSE shown in (14)
can be denoted by MSE = M − φ(λ). It is straightforward
to show that ψ(xl ) is convex and hence φ(x) is Schur-convex
according to [54]. Suppose channel g1 ∈ CM is more spatially
correlated than g2 ∈ CM which can be mathematically
expressed as λ1 ≻ λ2 , where λ1 = [λ1,1 , · · · , λM,1 ]T and
λ2 = [λ1,2 , · · · , λM,2 ]T denote the eigenvalues sorted in
descending order of the covariance matrices of channel g1
and g2 , respectively. Applying the majorization theory on the
Schur-convex function φ(x), there exists

φ(λ1 ) ≥ φ(λ2 ).

(34)

Hence, MSE(g1 ) ≤ MSE(g2 ), which proves Corollary 1.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. K.
Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[2] W. Chin, Z. Fan, and R. Haines, “Emerging technologies and research
challenges for 5G wireless networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 21,
no. 2, pp. 106–112, Apr. 2014.
[3] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9,
no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[4] J. Hoydis, S. Ten Brink, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIMO in the UL/DL
of cellular networks: How many antennas do we need?” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–171, Feb. 2013.
[5] E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive
MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014.
[6] S. Jin, X. Wang, Z. Li, and K.-K. Wong, “Zero-forcing beamforming in
massive MIMO systems with time-shifted pilots,” in Proc. IEEE ICC,
Jun. 2014, pp. 4801–4806.
[7] Y. Dai and X. Dong, “Power allocation for multi-pair massive MIMO
two-way AF relaying with linear processing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 5932–5946, Sep. 2016.
[8] L. Pan, Y. Dai, W. Xu, and X. Dong, “A novel block-shifted pilot design
for multipair massive MIMO relaying,” in Proc. EUSIPCO, Aug. 2016,
pp. 848–852.
[9] F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta,
O. Edfors, and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and
challenges with very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 40–60, Jan. 2013.
[10] E. Björnson, L. Sanguinetti, J. Hoydis, and M. Debbah, “Optimal design
of energy-efficient multi-user MIMO systems: Is massive MIMO the
answer?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 3059 –
3075, Jun. 2015.
[11] L. Pan, Y. Dai, W. Xu, and X. Dong, “Multipair massive MIMO relaying
with pilot-data transmission overlay,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, Mar. 2017.

[12] R. W. Heath Jr., N. González-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M.
Sayeed, “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter
wave MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 436–453, Apr. 2016.
[13] X. Zhang, A. F. Molisch, and S.-Y. Kung, “Variable-phase-shift-based
RF-baseband codesign for MIMO antenna selection,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., 2005.
[14] O. E. Ayach, R. W. Heath, Jr., S. Abu-Surra, S. Rajagopal, and Z. Pi,
“The capacity optimality of beam steering in large millimeter wave
MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE SPAWC, Jun. 2012, pp. 100–104.
[15] A. F. Molisch, V. V. Ratnam, S. Han, Z. Li, S. L. H. Nguyen,
L. Li, and K. Haneda, “Hybrid beamforming for massive MIMO
A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05078, Apr. 2016. [Online].
Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05078.pdf
[16] O. E. Ayach, S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, Z. Pi, and R. W. Heath, Jr.,
“Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499–1513, Mar. 2014.
[17] L. Liang, W. Xu, and X. Dong, “Low-complexity hybrid precoding
in massive multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.,
vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 653–656, Dec. 2014.
[18] A. Alkhateeb, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Limited feedback hybrid
precoding for multi-user millimeter wave systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6481–6494, Nov. 2015.
[19] A. Alkhateeb and R. W. Heath Jr., “Frequency selective hybrid precoding
for limited feedback millimeter wave systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1801–1818, May 2016.
[20] J. Wang, Z. Lan, C.-W. Pyo, T. Baykas, C.-S. Sum, M. A. Rahman,
J. Gao, R. Funada, F. Kojima, H. Harada, and S. Kato, “Beam codebook
based beamforming protocol for multi-Gbps millimeter-wave WPAN
systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1390–1399,
Oct. 2009.
[21] L. Chen, Y. Yang, X. Chen, and W. Wang, “Multi-stage beamforming
codebook for 60GHz WPAN,” in Proc. ICST CHINACOM, Aug. 2011,
pp. 1–5.
[22] S. Hur, T. Kim, D. J. Love, J. V. Krogmeier, T. A. Thomas, and
A. Ghosh, “Millimeter wave beamforming for wireless backhaul and
access in small cell networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10,
pp. 4391–4403, Oct. 2013.
[23] Y. M. Tsang, A. S. Y. Poon, and S. Addepalli, “Coding the beams:
improving beamforming training in mmWave communication system,”
in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOMM 2011, Kathmandu, Nepal, Dec. 2011, pp.
1–6.
[24] J. Choi, D. J. Love, and P. Bidigare, “Downlink training techniques for
FDD massive MIMO systems: open-loop and closed-loop training with
memory,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 802–814,
Oct. 2014.
[25] M. Biguesh and A. B. Gershman, “Training-based MIMO channel
estimation: A study of estimator tradeoffs and optimal training signals,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 884 – 893, Mar. 2006.
[26] C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, K.-K. Wong, J.-C. Chen, and P. Ting, “Channel estimation for massive MIMO using Gaussian-mixture Bayesian learning,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1356–1368, Mar.
2015.
[27] D. Fan, Z. Zhong, G. Wang, and F. Gao, “Channel estimation for wireless
cellular systems with massive linear receiving antennas,” in Proc. 10th
Int. Conf. Commun. and Netw. in China (ChinaCom), Aug. 2015, pp.
95–99.
[28] H. Xie, F. Gao, S. Zhang, and S. Jin, “UL/DL channel estimation for
TDD/FDD massive MIMO systems using DFT and angle reciprocity,”
in Proc. VTC Spring, May 2016, pp. 1–5.
[29] A. Alkhateeb, O. E. Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Channel
estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,”
IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846, Oct.
2014.
[30] Z. Gao, C. Hu, L. Dai, and Z. Wang, “Channel estimation for millimeterwave massive MIMO with hybrid precoding over frequency-selective
fading channels,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1259–1262,
Jun. 2016.
[31] R. Méndez-Rial, C. Rusut, A. Alkhateeb, N. González-Prelcic, and R. W.
Heath Jr., “Channel estimation and hybrid combining for mmWave:
Phase shifters or switches?” in Proc. ITA, Feb. 2015, pp. 90–97.
[32] B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in
multiple-antenna wireless links?” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 4,
pp. 951–963, Apr. 2003.
[33] J. H. Kotecha and A. M. Sayeed, “Transmit signal design for optimal
estimation of correlated MIMO channels,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 546–557, Feb. 2004.

13

[34] E. Björnson and B. Ottersten, “A framework for training-based estimation in arbitrarily correlated Rician MIMO channels with Rician
disturbance,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 3, Mar. 2010.
[35] A. Alkhateebt, O. E. Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Singlesided adaptive estimation of multi-path millimeter wave channels,” in
Proc. IEEE SPAWC, Jun. 2014, pp. 125–129.
[36] A. Forenza, D. J. Love, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Simplified spatial
correlation models for clustered MIMO channels with different array
configuration,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1924–
1934, Jul. 2007.
[37] T. E. Bogale, L. B. Le, A. Haghighat, and L. Vandendorpe, “On the
Number of RF Chains and Phase Shifters, and Scheduling Design With
Hybrid AnalogDigital Beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 3311–3326, May 2016.
[38] T. L. Marzetta, “How much training is required for multiuser MIMO?”
in Proc. ACSSC, Oct. 2006, pp. 359–363.
[39] A. Alkhateeb, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Compressed sensing
based multi-user millimeter wave systems: How many measurements
are needed?” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP, Apr. 2015, pp. 1–5.
[40] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation
Theory, 1st ed. Prentice Hall PTR, Apr. 1993, vol. 1.
[41] N. J. Higham, Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, 2nd ed.
SIAM, 2002.
[42] A. Liu and V. K. N. Lau, “Two-stage subspace constrained precoding
in massive MIMO cellular systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirelss Commun.,
vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 3271–3279, Jun. 2015.
[43] B. D. Carlson, “Covariance matrix estimation errors and diagonal
loading in adaptive arrays,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst, vol. 24,
no. 4, pp. 397–401, Jul. 1988.
[44] Y.-C. Liang and F. P. S. Chin, “Downlink channel covariance matrix
(DCCM) estimation and its applications in wireless DS-CDMA systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 222–232, Feb.
2001.
[45] W. L. Melvin and G. A. Showman, “An approach to knowledge-aided
covariance estimation,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst, vol. 42,
no. 3, pp. 1021–1042, Jul. 2006.
[46] R. Méndez-Rial, N. González-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Augmented
covariance estimation with a cyclic approach in DOA,” in Proc. IEEE
ICASSP, Apr. 2015, pp. 2784–2788.
[47] Y. Chi, Y. C. Eldar, and R. Calderbank, “PETRELS: Parallel subspace
estimation and tracking by recursive least square from partial observations,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2013.
[48] R. Méndez-Rial, N. González-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Adaptive
hybrid precoding and combining in mmWave multiuser MIMO systems
based on compressed covariance estimation,” in Proc. IEEE CAMSAP,
Dec. 2015, pp. 213–216.
[49] S. Park and R. W. Heath Jr., “Spatial channel covariance estimation for
mmWave hybrid MIMO architecture,” in Proc. IEEE Asilomar 2016,
2016, pp. 1–5.
[50] S. Haghighatshoar and G. Caire, “Massive MIMO channel subspace estimation from low-dimensional projections,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 303–318, Jan. 2017.
[51] I. Viering, H. Hofstetter, and W. Utschick, “Spatial long-term variations
in urban, rural and indoor environments,” in Proc. European Cooperation in the Field of Scienific and Technical Research (COST), Sep. 2002,
pp. 1–9.
[52] J. Salo, G. D. Galdo, J. Salmi, P. Kyosti, M. Milojevic, D. Laselva,
and C. Schneider, “MATLAB implementation of the 3GPP Spatial
Channel Model (3GPP TR 25.996),” Jan. 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.tkk.fi/Units/Radio/scm/
[53] C. G. Baker, “Riemannian manifold trust-region methods with applications to eigenproblems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University,
May 2008.
[54] A. W. Marshal, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of
Majorization and Its Applications, 2nd ed. Springer, 2010.

