1

Compressive Sensing for Millimeter Wave
Antenna Array Diagnosis

arXiv:1612.06345v4 [] 9 Oct 2017

Mohammed E. Eltayeb, Tareq Y. Al-Naffouri, and Robert W. Heath, Jr.

Abstract—The radiation pattern of an antenna array depends
on the excitation weights and the geometry of the array. Due
to wind and atmospheric conditions, outdoor millimeter wave
antenna elements are subject to full or partial blockages from a
plethora of particles like dirt, salt, ice, and water droplets. Handheld devices are also subject to blockages from random finger
placement and/or finger prints. These blockages cause absorption
and scattering to the signal incident on the array, modify the
array geometry, and distort the far-field radiation pattern of the
array. This paper studies the effects of blockages on the far-field
radiation pattern of linear arrays and proposes several array
diagnosis techniques for millimeter wave antenna arrays. The
proposed techniques jointly estimate the locations of the blocked
antennas and the induced attenuation and phase-shifts given
knowledge of the angles of arrival/departure. Numerical results
show that the proposed techniques provide satisfactory results in
terms of fault detection with reduced number of measurements
(diagnosis time) provided that the number of blockages is small
compared to the array size.
Index Terms—Antenna arrays, fault diagnosis, compressed
sensing, millimeter wave communication.

I. I NTRODUCTION

T

HE abundance of bandwidth in the millimeter wave
(mmWave) spectrum enables gigabit-per-second data
rates for cellular systems and local area networks [1], [2].
MmWave systems make use of large antenna arrays at both
the transmitter and the receiver to provide sufficient receive
signal power. The use of large antenna arrays is justified by
the small carrier wavelength at mmWave frequencies which
permits large number of antennas to be packed in small form
factors.
Due to weather and atmospheric effects, outdoor mmWave
antenna elements are subject to blockages from flying debris or
particles found in the air as shown in Fig. 1. The term “blockage” here refers to a physical object partially or completely
blocking a subset of antenna elements and should not be
confused with mmWave channel blockage. MmWave antennas
on handheld devices are also subject to blockage from random
finger placement and/or fingerprints on the antenna array.
Part of this work was presented in the 2016 IEEE Global Communications
Conference [3]. Mohammed E. Eltayeb is with the California State University, Sacramento, California, USA (e-mail: mohammed.eltayeb@csus.edu),
Robert W. Heath, Jr. is with the University of Texas at Austin, USA
(email: rheath@utexas.edu), and Tareq Y. Al-Naffouri is with King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia (e-mail:
tareq.alnaffouri@kaust.edu.sa). This research was partially supported by the
U.S. Department of Transportation through the Data-Supported Transportation
Operations and Planning (D-STOP) Tier 1 University Transportation Center
and by the Texas Department of Transportation under Project 0-6877 entitled
Communications and Radar-Supported Transportation Operations and Planning (CAR-STOP).

Partial or complete blockage of some of the antenna elements
reduces the amount of energy incident on the antenna [4],
[5]. For instance, it is reported in [6] that 90% of a 76.5
GHz signal energy will be absorbed by a water droplet of
thickness 0.23 mm. A thin water film caused by, for example
a finger print, is also reported to cause attenuation and a
phase shift on mmWave signals [6]. Moreover, snowflakes,
ice stones, and dry and damp sand particles are reported
to cause attenuation and/or scattering [4]-[8]. Because the
size of these suspended particles is comparable to the signal
wavelength and antenna size, random blockages caused by
these particles will change the antenna geometry and result
in a distorted radiation pattern [9], [10]. Random changes
in the array’s radiation pattern causes uncertainties in the
mmWave channel. It is therefore important to continuously
monitor the mmWave system, reveal any abnormalities, and
take corrective measures to maintain efficient operation of
the system. This necessitates the design of reliable and low
latency array diagnosis techniques that are capable of detecting
the blocked antennas and the corresponding signal power loss
and/or phase shifts caused by the blocking particles. Once a
fault has been detected, pattern correction techniques proposed
in, for example, [9]-[13] can be employed to calculate new
excitation weights for the array.
Several array diagnostic techniques, which are based on
genetic algorithms [14], [15], matrix inversion [16], exhaustive
search [17], and MUSIC [18], have been proposed in the
literature to identify the locations of faulty antenna elements.
These techniques compare the radiation pattern of the array
under test (AUT) with the radiation pattern of an “error free”
reference array. For large antenna arrays, the techniques in
[14]-[18] require a large number of samples (measurements) to
obtain reliable results. To reduce the number of measurements,
compressed sensing (CS) based techniques have recently been
proposed in [19]-[21]. Despite their good performance, the
techniques in [14]-[21] are primarily designed to detect the
sparsity pattern of a failed array, i.e. the locations of the
failed antennas and not necessarily the complex blockage
coefficients. Moreover, the CS diagnosis techniques proposed
in [19] and [20] have the following limitations: (i) They require
measurements to be made at multiple receive locations and
are not suitable when both the transmitter and the receiver
are fixed. (ii) They assume fault-free receive antennas, i.e.
faults at the AUT only, however, faults can occur at both the
transmitter and the receiver. (iii) They can not exploit correlation between faulty antennas to further reduce the diagnosis
time. (iv) They do not estimate the effective antenna element
gain, i.e. the induced attenuation and phase shifts caused

2

by blockages. These estimates can be used to re-calibrate
the array. v) They do not optimize the CS measurement
matrices, i.e. the restricted isometry property might not be
satisfied. While the CS technique proposed in [21] performs
joint fault detection/estimation and angle-of-arrival/departure
(AoA/D) estimation, it is not suitable for mmWave systems
as it requires a separate RF chain for each antenna element.
The high diagnosis time required by the techniques proposed
in [14]-[18] and the limitations of the CS based techniques
proposed in [19]-[21] motivate the development of new array
diagnosis techniques suitable for mmWave systems.
In this paper, we develop low-complexity array diagnosis
techniques for mmWave systems with large antenna arrays.
These techniques account for practical assumptions on the
mmWave hardware in which the analog phase shifters have
constant modulus and quantized phases, and the number of
RF chains is limited (assumed to be one in this paper). The
main contributions of the paper can be summarized as follows:
• We investigate the effects of random blockages on the
far-field radiation pattern of linear uniform arrays. We
consider both partial and complete blockages.
• We derive closed-form expressions for the mean and variance of the far-field radiation pattern as a function of the
antenna element blockage probability. These expressions
provide an efficient means to evaluate the impact of the
number of antenna elements and the antenna element
blockage probability on the far-field radiation pattern.
• We propose a new formulation for mmWave antenna
diagnosis which relaxes the need for multi-location measurements, captures the sparse nature of blockages, and
enables efficient compressed sensing recovery.
• We consider blockages at the transmit and/or receive
antennas and propose two CS based array diagnosis
techniques. These techniques identify the locations and
the induced attenuation and phase shifts caused by unstructured blockages.
• We exploit the two dimensional structure of mmWave
antenna arrays and the correlation between the blocked
antennas to further reduce the array diagnosis time when
structured blockages exist at the receiver.
• We evaluate the performance of the proposed array diagnosis techniques by simulations in a mmWave system
setting, assuming that both the transmit and receive
antennas are equipped with a single RF chain and 2-bit
phase shifters.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we formulate the array diagnosis problem and
study the effects of random blockages on the far-field radiation
pattern of linear arrays. In Section III, we introduce the
proposed array diagnosis technique assuming a fault free
transmit array and in Section IV, we introduce the proposed
array diagnosis technique when faults are present at both the
transmit and receive arrays. In Section V we provide some
numerical results and conclude our work in Section VI.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
We consider a two-dimensional (2D) planar antenna array
with Nx equally spaced elements along the x-axis and Ny

Fig. 1: An example of an outdoor millimeter wave antenna array
with different suspended particles partially blocking the array. The
suspended particles, with different absorption and scattering properties, modify the array geometry.

equally spaced elements along the y-axis; nonetheless, the
model and the corresponding algorithms can be adapted to
other antenna structures as well. Each antenna element is
described by its position along the x and y axis, for example,
the (Nx , Ny )th antenna refers to an antenna located at the Nx th
position along the x-axis and the Ny th position along the yaxis. The ideal far-field radiation pattern of this planar array
in the direction (θ, φ) is given by [22]
Ny −1 Nx −1

f (θ, φ) =

X X

wn,m ejm

2πdx
λ

sin θ cos φ jn

e

2πdy
λ

sin θ sin φ

,(1)

n=0 m=0

where dx and dy are the antenna spacing along the x and y
axis, λ is the wavelength, and wn,m is the (n, m)th complex
antenna weight.
Let ax (θ, φ) ∈ C Nx ×1 and ay (θ, φ) ∈ C Ny ×1 be two
vectors where the mth entry of ax (θ, φ) is [ax (θ, φ)]m =
2πdx
ejm λ sin θ cos φ and the nth entry of ay (θ, φ) is [ay (θ, φ)]n =
2πdy
ejn λ sin θ sin φ . Also, let the matrix W ∈ C Ny ×Nx be a
matrix of antenna weights, where the (n, m)th entry of W
is [W]n,m = wn,m . Then (1) can be reduced to
T

f (θ, φ) = vec(W) a(θ, φ),

(2)

where vec(W) is the Nx Ny × 1 column vector obtained by
stacking the columns of the matrix W on top of one another,
the vector a(θ, φ) = ax (θ, φ) ⊗ ay (θ, φ) is the 1D array
response vector, and the operator ⊗ represents the Kronecker
product. The formulation in (2) allows us to represent the 2D
array as a 1D array, and as a result, simplify the problem
formulation.
In the presence blockages, the far-field radiation pattern of
the array in (2) becomes
T

g(θ, φ) = vec(W) (b ◦ a(θ, φ)),
{z
}
| {z } |
x

(3)

z

where operator ◦ represents the Hadamard product, the vector
x ∈ C Nx Ny ×1 is a vector of antenna weights and the vector
z ∈ C Nx Ny ×1 is the equivalent array response vector. The nth
entry of the vector b ∈ C Nx Ny ×1 is defined by

3

0
Original pattern
Pattern after phase correction
Damaged pattern

-5

Normalized amplitude (dB)

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Directional angle φ (degrees)

Fig. 2: Original and damaged beam patterns of a 16 element (4 × 4)
d
planar array with θ = 90 degrees and dλx = λy = 0.5. The third,
fifth and thirteenth array elements of the equivalent 1D array (see (2))
are blocked with b3 = 0.37 + j0.22, b5 = −0.1 + j0.34, and b1 3 =
−0.64−j0.1. Blockages result in an increase in the sidelobe level and
a decrease in gain. Phase correction improves beam pattern, however,
more complex precoder design is required for pattern correction.


bn =

αn ,
1,

if the nth element is blocked
otherwise,

(4)

where n = 1, ..., Nx Ny , αn = κn ejΦn , 0 ≤ κn ≤ 1 and
0 ≤ Φn ≤ 2π are the resulting absorption and scattering
coefficients at the nth element. A value of κn = 0 represents
maximum absorption (or blockage) at the nth element, and
the scattering coefficient Φn measures the phase-shift caused
by the particle suspended on the nth element. This makes bn
a random variable, i.e. bn = αn with probability Pb if the
nth antenna is blocked and bn = 1 with probability 1 − Pb
otherwise. It is clear from (3) that blockages will change the
array manifold and result in a distorted radiation pattern as
shown in Fig. 2. The resulting pattern is a function of the
number of the particles suspended on the array and their
corresponding dielectric constants.
In Tables I and II, we summarize the effects of blockages on
a linear array. Specifically, we tabulate the mean and variance
of a distorted far-field radiation pattern of a linear array subject
to blockages. The total number of blockages is assumed to be
fixed, however, block locations and intensities (for the case
of partial blockage) are assumed to be random. For ease of
exposition, we study the effects on the azimuth direction only.
A similar analysis can be performed for the elevation pattern.
Derivations of the results in Tables I and I can be found in [23]
and are omitted for space limitation. From Table I, we observe
that both complete and partial blockages reduce the amplitude
of the main lobe. This reduces the beamforming gain of the
array. We also observe that complete blockages have no effect
on the variance of the of the main lobe, and hence do not
cause randomness in the main lobe. Random partial blockages,
however, randomize the main lobe and lead to uncertainties
in the mmWave channel. From Table II, we observe that

complete and partial blockages distort the sidelobes of the farfield radiation pattern. Table II also shows that the variance of
this distortion is a function of the blockage intensity and the
antenna element blockage probability Pb .
In the following sections, we propose several array diagnosis
(or blockage detection/estimation) techniques for mmWave
antenna arrays. Once array diagnosis is complete, the estimated attenuation and phase shifts caused by blockages can
be used to calibrate the array. Fig. 2, for example, shows
the resulting pattern when phase correction is applied to
the affected antenna elements. As shown, the resulting beam
pattern is slightly improved, however, more complex precoder
design is required to modify the excitation weights of the
antenna elements and calibrate the array. The calibration process could for example focus on maximizing the beamforming
gain and/or minimize the sidelobe level, and as a result,
reduce the uncertainty in the mmWave channel. While the
excitation weights of failed arrays can be easily modified
in digital antenna architectures, additional hardware, e.g. RF
chains, antenna switches, subarrays, etc., might be required
to generate more degrees of freedom for the precoder design.
Hybrid architectures (see e.g. [24] and [25]) can be used to
modify the excitation weights of the failed array and also
reduce the diagnosis time since each RF chain can now
obtain independent measurements. Beam pattern correction
and precoder design for failed arrays is beyond the scope
of this work and is left for future work. Before we proceed
with the proposed techniques, we lay down the following
assumptions: (i) The number of blockages is assumed to be
small compared to the array size. (ii) The channel between
the transmitter and the receiver is line-of-sight (LoS) with a
single dominant path. In the case of multi-path, the transmitter
waits for a period τ , where τ is proportional to the channel’s
delay spread, before it transmits the following training symbol.
(iii) The transmit and receive array manifolds as well as the
transmitter’s angle-of-departure and the receiver’s angle-ofarrival are known at the receiver. The AoA/D can be known
a priori, obtained by, for example, using prior sub-6 GHz
channel information [28], or provided by an infrastructure
via a lower frequency control channel. (iv) Blockages remain
constant for a time interval which is larger than the diagnosis
time.
III. FAULT D ETECTION AT THE R ECEIVER
In the previous section, we showed that blockages distort
the beam pattern of the array. To mitigate the effects of
blockages, it is imperative to design reliable array diagnosis
techniques that detect the fault locations and estimate the
values of the blockage coefficients with minimum diagnosis
time. Array diagnosis can be initiated after channel estimation.
For example, the optional training subfield of the SC PHY
IEEE 802.11ad frame could be utilized for periodic array
diagnosis. Since the system performance is greatly affected
by the antenna architecture and precoder design, which we
do not undertake in this work, we do not simulate the effect
of CSI training loss in this paper and simply focus on the
array diagnosis problem. Note, however, that beamforming at

4

TABLE I: Mean and variance of the far-field beam pattern of a linear array steered at φ = φT as a function of the antenna element blockage
probability Pb and the blockage coefficient αn . The blockage coefficient is constant if the array is subject to a single type of blockage, and
random if the array is subject to multiple types of blockages. Derivation of results can be found in [23] and are omitted for space limitations
Fault Type
Complete blockage (αn∈Ik = 0)
Partial blockage (αn∈Ik = β)
Partial blockages (αn random)

Mean
1 − Pb
1 − Pb + Pb β
1 − Pb + Pb E[αn ]

Variance
0
0
Pb var[αn ]

TABLE II: Mean and variance of the far-field beam pattern of a linear array steered at φ 6= φT as a function of the antenna element blockage
probability Pb and the blockage coefficient αn ; γ = πdλx (cos(φ) − cos(φT )). Derivation of results can be found in [23] and are omitted for
space limitation.
Fault Type
Complete blockage (αn∈Ik = 0)

Mean
sin(Nx γ) j(Nx −1)γ
e
(1 − Pb ) N sin(γ)

Partial blockage (αn∈Ik = β)

(1 − Pb (1 − β)) N

Partial blockage (αn random)

x

(1 − Pb (1 −

A. Generic Fault Detection
To start the array diagnosis process, the receiver with the
AUT requests a transmitter, with known location, i.e. θ and φ,
to transmit K training symbols (known to the receiver). The
receiver with the AUT generates a random beam to receive
each training symbol as shown in Fig. 3(a), i.e., random
antenna weights are used at the AUT to combine each training
symbol. Mathematically, the kth output of the AUT can be
written as
√

ρsxT
k z + ek ,

(5)

where k = 1, ..., K, ρ is the effective signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) which includes the path loss, s = 1 is the training
symbol, and ek ∼ CN (0, 1) is the additive noise. The entries
of the weighing vector xk at the kth instant are chosen
uniformly and independently at random. Equipped with the
path-loss and angular location of the transmitter, the receiver
generates the ideal pattern f (θ, φ) using (1). Subtracting the
ideal beam pattern from the received signal in (5) we obtain
T
yk = hk (θ, φ) − fk (θ, φ) = xT
k (b ◦ a(θ, φ)) − xk a(θ, φ) + ẽk

= xT
k (c ◦ a(θ, φ)) + ẽk ,

x

sin(Nx γ) j(Nx −1)γ
e
x sin(γ)
sin(Nx γ) j(Nx −1)γ
E[αn ])) N sin(γ) e
x

both the transmitter and receiver leads to larger coherence time
[26], [27] and the angular variation is typically an order of
magnitude slower than the conventional coherence time [26].
Since all AoDs/AoAs are assumed to be known a priori in this
paper, the loss in CSI training time becomes unsubstantial.
In this section we propose three array diagnosis techniques.
The first technique is generic in the sense that it does not
exploit the block structure of blockages while the second and
third techniques exploit the dependencies between blocked
antenna elements to further reduce the array diagnosis time.

hk (θ, φ) =

Variance
Pb
(1 − Pb )
N

(6)

ek
where ẽk = √
ρ , and the nth entry of the vector c is [c]n = 0
when there is no blockage at the nth element, and [c]n = bn −1
otherwise. Let q = c ◦ a(θ, φ), after K measurements we
obtain



 

x1,1
x2,1
..
.

x1,2
x2,2
..
.

xK,1
yK
| {z } |

xK,2






y1
y2
..
.

1
(1 − Pb
Nx
Pb
(1 − Pb
Nx

 
 
=
 

y

1
(1 − Pb
Nx
Pb E[αn ]2 )

+ Pb |β|2 ) −
+

E[α2n ]

−

···
···
..
.

x1,NR
x2,NR
..
.

···

xK,NR

{z
X






}|

+ Pb β)2

q1
q2
..
.

 
 
 
+
 

ẽ1
ẽ2
..
.







ẽK
qNR
{z } | {z }
q

e

or equivalently
y = Xq + e,

(7)

where NR = Nx Ny is the total number of antennas at
the receiver. Assuming that the number of blocked antenna
elements is small, i.e. S  NR , the vector q in (7) becomes
sparse with S non-zero elements that represent the locations
of the blocked antennas.
To mitigate the effects of blockages, it is desired to first
detect the locations of the blocked antennas and then the
complex random variable bn with few measurements (or
diagnostic time). Note that the system in (7) requires K ≥ NR
measurements to estimate the vector q. While this might be
acceptable for small antenna arrays, mmWave systems are usually equipped with large antenna arrays to provide sufficient
link budget [29]. Scaling the number of measurements with
the number of antennas would require more measurements
and would increase the array diagnosis time. In the following,
we show how we can (i) detect the locations of the blocked
antennas, and (ii) estimate the complex blockage coefficients
bn with K  NR measurements by exploiting the sparsity
structure of the vector q under the assumption that blockages
remain constant for a time interval which is larger than
the diagnosis time. If the time interval is small, a hybrid
architecture (see e.g. [24] and [25]) can be employed with
multiple RF chains and each RF chain can obtain independent
measurements. This reduces the diagnosis time by a factor of
NRF , where NRF is the number of RF chains.
1) Sparsity Pattern Detection: Compressive sensing theory
permits efficient reconstruction of a sensed signal with only
a few sensing measurements. While there are many different
methods used to solve sparse approximation problems (see,
e.g., [31], [32]), we employ the least absolute shrinkage and
selection operator (LASSO) as a recovery method. We adopt

5

Transmitter

Receiver

Transmitter

Receiver

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3: An example of real time array diagnosis. (a) Diagnosis of the receiver array. Transmitter sends K training symbols and the receiver
receives each training symbol using a random receive beam. (b) Joint diagnosis of both the transmit and the receive arrays. Transmitter sends
training symbols using kt random transmit beams and the receiver receives each training symbol using kr random receive beams.

the LASSO since it does not require the support of the vector
q to be known a priori. This makes it a suitable detection
technique as blockages are random in general. The LASSO
estimate of (7) is given by [31]
arg

min

ν∈CNR ×1

1
ky − Xνk22 + Ωσkνk1 ,
2

(8)

where σ is the standard derivation of the noise ẽ, and Ω is a
regularization parameter. The antennas weights, i.e. the entries
of the matrix X, are randomly and uniformly selected from the
set {1 + j, 1 − j, −1 + j, −1 − j} in this paper, i.e. weights can
be applied to a mmWave antenna with 2-bit phase shifters. In
the special case of 1-bit phase shifters, X becomes a Bernoulli
matrix which is known to satisfy the coherence property with
high probability [30], [32], [33].
2) Attenuation and Induced Phase Shift Estimation: Once
the support S, where S = {n : qn 6= 0}, one can apply
estimation techniques such as least squares (LS) estimation to
estimate and refine the complex coefficient bn∈S . To achieve
this, the columns of X which are associated with the non-zero
entries of q are removed to obtain XS ∈ CK×S . Hence, the
vector y in equation (7) can now be written as
y = XS qS + e,

(9)

where qS is obtained by pruning the zero entries of q. Since
K > S, the entries of qS can be estimated via LS estimation.
In particular, one can write the LS estimate after successful
sparsity pattern recovery as [34]
q̂S = (X∗S XS )−1 X∗S y = qS + ě,

number of measurements without scarifying robustness. In
this section, we reformulate the CS problem to exploit this
structure and reduce the array diagnosis time. To formulate
the problem, we first rewrite f (θ, φ) in (2) and g(θ, φ) in (3)
as

(10)

where q̂S is a noisy estimate of qS , and the entries of the
output noise vector ě are Gaussian random variables as linear
operations preserve the Gaussian noise distribution. Note that
the nth entry of the vector q is [q]n = (bn −1)an , where an is
the nth entry of of the vector a(θ, φ) (see (6)-(7)). Therefore,
+ 1| and
the estimated attenuation coefficient κ̂n∈S = | aq̂n∈S
n∈S


q̂n∈S
the estimated induced phase Φ̂n∈S = ∠ an∈S + 1 .
B. Exploiting the Block-Structure of Blockages
Due to the small antenna element size, it is likely that
a suspended particle will block several neighboring antenna
elements as shown in Fig. 1. This results in a block sparse
structure which could be exploited to substantially reduce the

T

f (θ, φ) = vec(W) vec(A),

(11)

and
T

g(θ, φ) = vec(W) vec(A ◦ B),

(12)

where A = ay (θ, φ)aT
x (θ, φ) is the array response matrix, W
is the weighting matrix, and B is the sparse blockage matrix,
i.e the entries of B are “1” in the case of no blockage and a
random variable (see (4)) in the case of a blockage. Substituting (11) and (12) in (5)-(6), the kth received measurement
(after subtracting it form the ideal pattern) becomes
T

T

yk = vec(Wk ) vec(A) − vec(Wk ) vec(A ◦ B) + ẽk (13)
T

= vec(Wk ) vec(As ) + ẽk ,

(14)

where Wk is the kth random weighting matrix, the innovation
matrix As = A − As is sparse, and ek is the additive noise.
Observe that the columns of the matrix A are either all 0’s,
in the case of no blockage, or contains a block of non-zero
entries. We exploit this structure to reduce the number of
measurements and as a result, reduce the array diagnosis time.
Let X = [vec(W1 ), vec(W2 ), · · · , vec(WK )]T be the
measurement matrix which consists of K random antenna
weights and q = vec(As ), then after K measurements the
innovation vector becomes
y = Xq + e.

(15)

Observe that (15) is similar to (7) with the exception that
the new formulation allows the vector q to be block sparse.
While the structure of the all 0 columns of As is known,
the structure of the non-zero elements is unknown. This
makes the block structure of the vector q in (15) random
and a function of the number of blockages and their size.
To complete the array diagnosis process, we employ the expanded block sparse Bayesian learning algorithm with bound
optimization (EBSBL-BO) proposed in [35] to recover the
block sparse matrix q. The EBSBL-BO algorithm exploits the
intra-block correlation of the sparse vector to improve recovery
performance without requiring prior knowledge of the block

6

structure. From q, the amplitude and induced phase shifts can
be estimated as shown in Section III-A2.
C. Extension to Complete Group-Blockages
When blockages are complete, i.e. αn = 0, and span
multiple neighboring antennas, the innovation matrix As in
(14) becomes sparse with J groups (or clusters) of non-zero
entries at the locations of the faults as shown in Fig. 4. In this
section, we exploit the structure of these faults and propose a
technique that identifies the locations of these faults with just
Nx + Ny measurements provided that the number of groups is
small, independent of the group size. Recall Nx is the number
of antennas along the x-axis and Ny is the number of antennas
along the y-axis. The idea is to decompose the matrix As into
two dense vectors as shown in Fig. 4. The first vector is a
weighted sum of the rows of As while the second vector is
a weighted sum of the columns of As . Since the number of
unknown is now Nx + Ny , only Nx + Ny measurements are
required to recover the vectors. Once the vectors are recovered,
the intersection of the non-zero elements of both vectors
provides the location of potential faults. Equipped with the
ideal matrix A, the locations of the faults can be refined via an
exhaustive search over all possible locations. In what follows,
we formulate the problem and show how this is performed.
To formulate the problem, we rewrite ideal far-field radiation pattern in (1) as
f (θ, φ) = wT Ap,

(16)

and the damaged pattern in (3) as
g(θ, φ) = wT (A ◦ B)p,

(17)

where w ∈ C Ny ×1 and p ∈ C Nx ×1 represent the receive
antenna weights, and the matrix A ∈ C Ny ×Nx is the antenna
response matrix. Substituting (16) and (17) in (5)-(6), the
kth received measurement (after subtracting it form the ideal
pattern) becomes
yk = wkT Apk − wkT (A ◦ B)pk + ẽk = wkT As pk + ẽk , (18)
To start the diagnosis process, the receiver obtains Ny measurements using the weighting vector w while fixing the
weighting vector p. After Ny measurements, the receiver
obtains Nx measurements using the weighting vector p while
fixing the weighting vector w. Mathematically, the innovation
vector can be written as
y1 = w1T As p0 + ẽ1
..
.. ..
.
. .
yNy

T
= wN
As p0 + ẽNy
y

yNy +1 = w0T As p1 + ẽNy +1
..
.. ..
.
. .
yNy +Nx

= w0T As pNx + ẽNy +Nx ,

where the weighting vectors w0 ∈ C Ny ×1 and p0 ∈ C Nx ×1
consist of random weighting entries and are fixed throughout
the diagnosis stage. Note that the term As p0 represents a

weighted sum of all the columns of matrix As , and the term
w0T As represents a weighted sum of the rows of As (see Fig.
(4)). To simplify above system of equations, let x1 = As p0 ,
x2 = (w0T As )T , and the matrix Φ be


W 01
Φ=
,
(19)
02 P
where the weighting matrices W ∈ C Ny ×Ny and P ∈ C Nx ×Nx
are both orthonormal matrices, the matrix 01 is an all zero
matrix of size Ny × Nx , the matrix 02 is an all zero matrix of
size Nx × Ny . Then, the innovation vector can be simplified
to




ẽ1
y1



x1
W 01




..
..
+
 , (20)

= 0
.
.
x2
P
2
{z
} | {z }
|
ẽNy +Nx
yNy +Nx
Φ

x

or equivalently
y = Φx + e.

(21)

To recover the locations of the blockages, we estimate the
vectors x1 and x2 in (20) as follows
x̂ = Φ∗ y = Φ∗ Φx + Φ∗ e = x + é,

(22)

where x̂ is a noisy estimate of x, the estimates x̂1 = [x̂]1:Ny
and x̂2 = [x̂](Ny +1):(Ny +Nx ) . The intersection of the indices of
the non-zero elements in x̂1 and x̂1 correspond to potential
blocked/fault locations.
Using x̂1 and x̂2 , we form the approximate binary matrix
B̃ as follows

1, if [x1 ]m and [x2 ]n are non-zero
[B̃]m,n =
(23)
0, otherwise.
The binary matrix B̃ can be refined as follows


(A − (A ◦ D))p0
B̂ = arg min x̂ −
(w0T (A − (A ◦ D)))T
D∈{0,1}

, (24)
2

where the matrix D is a submatrix of the matrix [B̃]. The zero
entries of B̂ correspond to the locations of the blocked/faulty
antennas.
Remarks:
1) For the special case of a single group blockage, i.e. J =
1, the zero entries of the matrix B̃ in (23) correspond to
the locations of the faulty antennas and the search step
in (24) is not required.
2) When the number of groups increases, the computational
complexity in (24) increases and as a result, conventional
compressed sensing recovery techniques might be more
favorable in this case.
3) For large group sizes, the matrix As becomes dense and
compressed sensing recovery techniques may fail in this
case. The technique proposed in this section is able to
identify the locations of the faulty antenna elements with
just Ny +Nx measurements. Even if compressed sensing
recovery techniques succeed, the required number of
measurements would be much higher than Ny + Nx .
4) When blockages are partial, the entries of the matrix D
in (24) would be complex instead of binary numbers,

7

weighting matrix at the transmitter, and E is the additive
noise matrix. Equipped with the weighting matrices F and
W, the receiver generates the ideal vector YI = W∗ AI F,
where AI = a(θ, φ)a∗T (θ, φ), and subtracts it from Yr in (26)
to obtain
Y = Yr − YI = W∗ As F + E,

(27)

where As ∈ CNR ×NT is a sparse matrix. The non-zero entries
of the columns of As represent the indices of faulty antennas
at the transmitter and the non-zero entries of the rows of As
represent the entries of the faulty antennas at the receiver.
To formulate the CS recovery problem, we vectorize the
measurement matrix Y in (27) to obtain
Fig. 4: An example of an innovation matrix (i.e. As = A − A ◦ B)
of a 128 element antenna with 19 blocked/faulty elements. The
equivalent dense vectors are obtained by summing the rows and
columns of the matrix As . Intersection of the indices of the nonzero elements (of the dense vectors) correspond to the location of
potentially blocked/faulty elements.

and the complexity of the exhaustive search step would
be high if not prohibitive. A two-stage setting where
the entries of B̃ are independently examined might be
favorable in this case.
IV. J OINT FAULT D ETECTION AT THE T RANSMITTER AND
THE R ECEIVER
In the previous section, we assumed that the transmit
antenna is free from blockages. When blockages exist at
the transmit antenna, the receiver receives distorted training
symbols and as a result, the technique proposed in the previous
section will fail. In this section, we propose a detection
technique that jointly detects blockages at both the transmitter and the receiver. For this technique, we assume that
the receiver is equipped with the path-loss, angular location
and array manifold of the transmitter. To start the diagnosis
process, the transmitter sends a training symbol s = 1 using
kt random antenna weights (assumed to be known by the
receiver). The receiver generates kr random antenna weights to
receives each training symbol, thus making the total number of
measurements K = kt kr . Let aT (θ, φ) = atx (θ, φ) ⊗ aty (θ, φ)
be the NT × 1 1D transmit array response vector. The kth
received measurement at the receiver can be written as
yk = wi∗ (b ◦ a(θ, φ))(bT ◦ aT (θ, φ))∗ fo + ẽk ,

(25)

where wi is a random weighting vector at the receiver, fo
is a random weighting vector at the transmitter, and bT is a
vector of complex coefficients that result from the absorption
and scattering caused by the particles blocking the transmit
antenna array. After K measurements the receiver obtains the
following measurement matrix
Yr = W∗ AF + E,

(26)

where Yr is the received measurement matrix, W ∈
CNR ×kr is a random weighting matrix at the receiver, A =
(b ◦ a(θ, φ))(bT ◦ aT (θ, φ))∗ is the NR × NT equivalent array response matrix, the matrix F ∈ CNT ×kt is a random

vec(Y) = vec(W∗ As F) + vec(E)
= (FT ⊗ W∗ ) vec(As ) + vec(E),
{z
} | {z } | {z }
|
U

g

(28)
(29)

e

where the vector y = vec(Y), the matrix U ∈ CK×NT NR is
the effective CS sensing matrix, and the vector g ∈ CNT NR ×1
is the effective sparse vector. Note that if the matrices W
and F in (28) both satisfy the coherence property, examples
include Gaussian, Bernoulli and Fourier matrices [30], then the
matrix U = W ⊗ F also satisfies the coherence property and
it can be applied in standard CS techniques. For simplicity, the
entries of W and F are chosen uniformly and independently at
random from the set {1+j, 1−j, −1+j, −1−j} in this paper.
This corresponds to 2-bit phase shifters at both the transmitter
and the receiver.
A. Sparsity Pattern Detection and Least Squares Estimation
The LASSO estimate of (28) is given by
arg

min

ν∈CNT NR ×1

1
ky − Uνk22 + Ωσe kνk1 ,
2

(30)

where σe is the standard derivation of the noise e. Once the
support S, where S = {i : gi 6= 0}, of the vector g is
estimated, the columns of U which are associated with the
non-zero entries of g are removed to obtain US . Hence, the
vector y in (28) becomes
y = US gS + e,

(31)

where gS is obtained by pruning the zero entries of g. The LS
estimate after successful sparsity pattern recovery becomes
ĝS = (U∗S US )−1 U∗S y = gS + e,

(32)

where ĝS is a noisy estimate of gS .
B. Attenuation and Induced Phase Shift Estimation
Let r be a vector of size NT NR × 1 and its ith entry is
[r]i = [gS ]i in (32), if i ∈ S and ri = 0 otherwise. Reshaping
r into NR rows and NT columns we obtain an estimate Âs
of the sparse matrix As in (27). The non-zero columns of
Âs represent the IDs of the transmit array faulty antennas,
and the non-zero rows of Âs represent the IDs of the receive
array faulty antennas. Let the set Ir contain the indices of the
zero rows of Âs and the set It contain the indices of the zero

8

columns of Âs . Removing the rows associated with the IDs
of the faulty receive antennas from Âs we obtain the matrix
Ar = [Âs ]Ir ,: , and the sparse vector that represents the faulty
transmit antennas becomes
(ar (θ, φ)∗ Ar )∗
,
(33)
q̂t =
kar (θ, φ)k22
where the vector ar (θ, φ) results from selecting the Ir entries
from the vector a(θ, φ) in (25). Based on (33), the estimated
attenuation coefficient and induced phase of the ith antenna
t ]i
element at the transmit array becomes κ̂t,i = | [aT[q̂
(θ,φ)]i + 1|


t ]i
and Φ̂t,i = ∠ [aT[q̂
(θ,φ)]i + 1 .
Similarly, removing the columns associated with the IDs
of the faulty antennas from Âs we obtain the matrix At =
[Âs ]:,It , and the sparse vector that represents the faulty receive
antennas becomes
At at (θ, φ)
,
(34)
q̂r =
kat (θ, φ)k22
where the vector at (θ, φ) results from selecting the It entries
from the vector aT (θ, φ) in (25). From (34), the estimated
attenuation coefficient and induced phase of the ith antenna
[q̂r ]i
element at the receive array becomes κ̂r,i = | [a(θ,φ)]
+ 1| and
i


[q̂r ]i
Φ̂r,i = ∠ [a(θ,φ)]i + 1 .
V. N UMERICAL VALIDATION
In this section, we conduct numerical simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed techniques. We consider
d
a 2D planar array, with dλx = λy = 0.5, that experiences
random and independent blockages with probability Pb . To
generate the random blockages, the values of κ and Φ in (4) are
chosen uniformly and independently at random from the set
{i ∈ R : 0 ≤ i ≤ 1} and {0, .., 2π} respectively. We adopt the
success probability, i.e. the probability that all faulty antennas
are detected, and the normalized mean square error (NMSE) as
a performance measure to quantify the error in detecting the
blocked antenna locations and estimating the corresponding
blockage coefficients (κ and Φ). The NMSE is defined by
NMSE =

kv − v̂k22
.
kvk22

(35)

When blockages only exist at the receiver, v = c ◦ a(θ, φ)
(see (6)), and the ith entry of the estimated vector v̂ is
[v̂]i∈S = [q̂]i∈S in (10) and zero otherwise. When blockages
exist at both the receiver and the transmitter, v = (bT ◦aT )−aT
(see (25) and (27)) and v̂ = q̂t in (33) when detecting
blockages at the transmitter array, and v = (b ◦ a) − a and
v̂ = qˆr in (34) when detecting blockages at the receiver array.
To implement the LASSO, we use the function SolveLasso
included in the SparseLab toolbox [36]. As a benchmark,
we compare the NMSE of the proposed techniques with the
NMSE of the Genie aided LS estimate which indicates the
optimal estimation performance when the exact locations of
the faulty antennas is known, i.e., the support S in (10) and
(32) is assumed to be provided by a Genie.
In Figs. 5-8 we consider faults at the receiver antenna array
and assume that the transmitter antenna array is fault free. To

study the effect of the number of measurements (or diagnosis
time) on the performance of the proposed fault detection technique in Section III-A, we plot the NMSE when the receive
array is subject to blockages with different probabilities in Fig.
5a. For all cases, we observe that the NMSE decreases with
increasing number of measurements K. The figure also shows
that for sufficient number of measurements (on the order of
K ∼ O(Pb NR log NR )), the NMSE of the proposed technique
matches the NMSE obtained by the Genie-aided LS technique.
This indicates for sufficient number of measurements, the
proposed technique successfully detects the locations of the
blocked antennas and the corresponding blockage coefficients
with K  NR measurements. The figure also shows that as
the blockage probability increases, more measurements are
required to reduce the NMSE. The reason for this is that as the
blockage probability increases, the average number of blocked
antennas increases as well. Therefore, more measurements are
required to estimate the locations of the blocked antennas
and the corresponding blockage coefficients. In the event of
large number of blockages or fast varying blockages, a hybrid
antenna architecture with a few RF chains can be adopted to
reduce the array diagnosis time.
For comparison, we plot the performance of the CS-based
diagnosis technique proposed in [19] which requires measurements to be randomly taken at NR locations, in Figs. 5a and 5b.
This technique is chosen as it is based on analog beamforming,
and therefore, it can be applied to mmWave systems. For
both Pb = 0.01 and Pb = 0.1, the proposed technique
provides a lower NMSE while requiring lower number of
measurements. For instance, to obtain a target NMSE of 30dB with Pb = 0.01, the proposed technique requires 45
measurements while the algorithm proposed in [19] requires
110 measurements, taken at 110 independent locations. This
makes the proposed algorithm superior as it is able to obtain
lower NMSE with lower number of measurements without the
need for taking measurements at multiple locations.
To examine the effect of the array size on the number of
measurements, we plot the NMSE of the proposed technique
with NR = 512 in Fig. 5b. The figure shows that the
NMSE decreases with increasing number of measurements
K. Nonetheless, this decrease occurs at a lower rate when
compared to the case when NR = 256 in Fig. 5a. This is
particularly observed for higher blockage probabilities. The
reason for this is that as the array size increases, the average
number of blocked antennas increases as well. Therefore, more
measurements are required to estimate the locations of the
blocked antennas and the corresponding blockage coefficients.
Similar to the case when NR = 256, the proposed technique
results in lower NMSE with lower diagnosis time when
compared to [19]. This is mainly due to the CS sensing matrix
which in this paper is optimized to satisfy the coherence
property, thereby requiring lower number of measurements.
The effect of the SNR on the performance of the proposed
technique is shown in Fig. 6. The figure shows that for
sufficient number of measurements, the NMSE obtained by
the proposed technique approaches the NMSE obtained by the
Genie-aided techniques. The figure also shows that required
number of measurements is a function of the receive SNR. For

9

10

5

CS [19] + LS; Pb = 0.1

CS [19] + LS; Pb = 0.1

0

Genie-aided LS, P b = 0.1

Genie-aided LS, P b = 0.1

CS [19] + LS; Pb = 0.01

0

CS [19] + LS; Pb = 0.01

-5

Proposed, P b = 0.1

5

Proposed, P b = 0.1

Proposed, P b = 0.01

Proposed, P b = 0.01

-10

NMSE (dB)

NMSE (dB)

-10

Genie-aided LS, P b = 0.01

-5

Genie-aided LS, P b = 0.01

-15

-20

-15
-20

-25
-25

-30
-30

-35
-35

-40
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-40
20

200

Number of measurements

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of measurements

(b) NR = 16 × 32 = 512.

(a) NR = 16 × 16 = 256.

Fig. 5: Detection and estimation of faults in a 2D receive planar array subject to random partial blockages with different blockage probability
Pb ; ρ = 10 dB, and NR = 16 × 16 = 256. Blockages do not occur in groups and the technique proposed in Section III-A is used for
diagnosis.

5

5

∆θ~ U(-1,1) , ∆φ ~ U(-1,1)
∆θ~ U(-0.5,0.5), ∆φ ~ U(-0.5,0.5)
∆θ~ U(-0.25,0.25), ∆φ ~ U(-0.25,0.25)
∆θ = 0, ∆φ =0

Proposed

0

Genie-aided LS

0

-5

-5

-10

-15

NMSE (dB)

NMSE (dB)

-10

SNR = 5, 10, 15 dB
-20

-15

-20

-25
-25

-30
-30

-35
-35

-40
-45
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of measurements

-40
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of measurements

Fig. 6: Detection and estimation of faults in a 2D receive planar
array subjected to random partial blockages with different receiver
SNR; Pb = 0.1, and NR = 16 × 16 = 256. Blockages do not occur
in groups and the technique proposed in Section III-A is used for
diagnosis.

Fig. 7: Detection and estimation of faults in a 2D receive planar
array subject to random partial blockages with AoD estimation errors;
Pb = 0.1; ρ = 10 dB, and NR = 16 × 16 = 256. Blockages do not
occur in groups and the technique proposed in Section III-A is used
for diagnosis. Dashed lines represent Gene aided LS estimation.

instance, for a receive SNR of 15 dB and 120 measurements,
the NMSE of the proposed technique is similar to the NMSE
obtained by the Genie-aided technique. As the SNR decreases
to 5 dB, more than 200 measurements are required to match
the NMSE of the Genie aided technique. To reduce the number
of measurements, one can increase the receive SNR by either
placing more antennas at the transmitter to increase the array
gain or reduce the transmitter-receiver distance to minimize
the path-loss.
To investigate the effect of imperfect AoD/AoA estimation
on the NMSE performance, we plot the NMSE of the proposed
technique in Fig. 7 under the assumption of imperfect azimuth
and elevation angles of departure, i.e. φ = φ + ∆φ, and
θ = θ + ∆θ, where ∆φ and ∆θ are uniformly distributed

random variables. Fig. 7 shows that angular deviations (as
small as ±0.25◦ ) result in a 10 dB loss in NMSE performance
and this loss increases with larger angular deviations. The
reason for this NMSE increase is due to the AoD/AoA
mismatch which increases the system noise. Fig. 7 also shows
that for sufficient number of measurements, the NMSE of
the proposed technique matches the NMSE of the Gene-aided
LS estimation technique (which assumes perfect knowledge
of the location of blockages). This suggests that majority of
the NMSE results from blockage coefficient estimation errors
rather than blockage location detection errors.
In Fig. 8 we study the impact of random multipath on the
NMSE performance. Similar to the imperfect AoD/AoA case,
multipath introduces interference which increases the noise

10

10

(a) Location and intensity of blockage coefficients; |1-B|

Proposed: multi-path
Gene aided LS: multi-path
Proposed: no multi-path
Genie-aided LS: no multi-path

5

0.8

5

0

y

0.6

10

-5

0.2

-10

NMSE (dB)

0.4

15

-15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

x
(b) Reconstruction error in dB using conventional CS

-20

-10
-25

5

-15

y

-30
-35

10

-40
20

15

-20
-25

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Number of measurements

4

6

8

10

12

14

x
(c) Reconstruction error in dB using Block CS

16
-6
-8

5

-10
-12

y

Fig. 8: Detection and estimation of faults in a 2D receive planar array
subject to random partial blockages in the presence of random indirect
(or scattered) path; Pb = 0.1; ρ = 10 dB, NR = 16 × 16 = 256.
Total number of path = 3 (one direct path plus two random path with
random delays uniformly distributed across the diagnosis period), and
90% of the energy is located in the direct path.

-30

2

-14

10

-16
-18

15
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

x

floor of the system and, as a result, deteriorate the NMSE
performance. We consider a direct path and 2 multipath with
random delays and gains. For this setup, 90% of the received
signal energy is contained in the direct path and the scattered
path delays are uniformly distributed across the diagnosis time.
As expected, Fig. 8 shows that the NMSE is lower in the
presence of multipath and the NMSE does not decrease with
increasing number of measurements. This is mainly attributed
to multipath interference which is treated as noise in this paper.
In Figs. 9-12 we consider blockages that span a group of
neighboring antennas. More specifically, in Fig. 9 we consider
blockages that affect 16 neighboring antennas. To model the
random shapes of the blocking particles, we assume that each
antenna element within a block experiences a random blockage
intensity, i.e. the values of κ and Φ in (4) are chosen uniformly
and independently at random from the set {i ∈ R : 0 ≤ i ≤ 1}
and {0, .., 2π}. In Fig. 9(a), we plot an example of a 256
element array subject to 2 blockages and each blockage affects
a group of 16 antennas with random intensities. In Fig. 9(b),
we plot the reconstruction error when the proposed technique
is used to detect and estimate the blockage coefficients without
exploiting the block structure of blockages. As shown, the
proposed technique, using conventional CS, identifies locations of the blocked antennas, however, it also results in some
false positives which can be reduced by increasing the number
of measurements. In Fig. 9(c), we plot the reconstruction
error when we exploit the block structure of blockages to
detected and estimate the blockage coefficients. As shown,
this technique leverages the dependencies between the values
and locations of the blockages in its recovery process and as
a result it minimizes false positives and reduces the number
of required measurements.
To highlight the benefit of exploiting correlation between the

Fig. 9: Comparison of the proposed array diagnosis techniques in
detecting antenna faults in an NR = 16 × 16 = 256 element antenna;
(a) Location and intensity of blockages incident on the array (|1−B|,
where 1 is an all-ones matrix). (b) Reconstruction error (|B − B̂|)
in dB when ignoring the block structure. The reconstructed matrix
is denoted by B̂. (c) Reconstruction error when exploiting the block
structure of blockages using EBSBL-BO+LS. For (b) and (c), ρ =
10 dB, number of blocks is 2, block size J = 16, and the number of
measurements are fixed to 130.

blocked antenna elements, we compare the NMSE achieved
when (i) ignoring the block structure of the blockages and
using conventional CS recovery, and (ii) exploiting the block
structure of blockages by implementing the technique proposed in Section III-B in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Specifically,
we consider random blockages and each blockage spans Γ
antennas with random blockage intensity. For array diagnosis,
we plot the performance of the proposed techniques with
and without exploiting the block structure. For Γ = 32 and
J = 1, Fig. 10 shows that lower NMSE can be achieved
when exploiting the block structure. For fixed number of
blockages, Fig. 10 shows that the performance gap decreases
with decreasing block size Γ. As the block size decreases, the
correlation between the blocked antenna elements diminishes
and hence the performance of this technique comes closer to
that achieved by techniques that ignore the block structure
of blockages. In Fig. 11 we compare the performance of the
proposed techniques when exploiting and ignoring the block
structure of blockages for different receive SNRs. For all cases,
the plots show a clear performance benefit when exploiting the
block structure in the array diagnosis process.

11

0

NMSE (dB)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
40

LASSO, S=32x1
EBSBL-B0, S=4x8
EBSBL-B0, S=16x2
EBSBL-B0, S=32x1

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of measurements

Fig. 10: Comparison of the proposed techniques in detecting faults in
a 2D receive planar array subjected to random group blockages. The
proposed technique that ignores the block structure uses conventional
LASSO as a recovery method, while the technique that exploits
the block structure uses the EBSBL-B0 [35] algorithm for recovery.
Blockages affect a group of S = Γ × J antenna elements, where Γ is
the group size and J is the number of groups. Each antenna element
within a group experiences a random blockage intensity; ρ = 10 dB,
NR = 16 × 16 = 256.

0

NMSE (dB)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
40

LASSO; S=16x2, SNR = 0dB
LASSO; S=16x2, SNR = 10dB
EBSBL-B0; S=16x2, SNR = 0dB
EBSBL-B0; S=16x2, SNR = 10dB

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of measurements

Fig. 11: Comparison of the proposed techniques in detecting faults
in a 2D receive planar array subjected to random group blockages
and different noise levels. Each antenna element within a group
experiences a random blockage intensity; NR = 16 × 16 = 256.

In Figs. 12a and 12b, we consider complete blockages and
compare the performance of the technique proposed in Section
III-C with conventional CS recovery techniques (LASSO) for
fixed number of measurements K = 16. Fig. 12a shows that
the proposed technique achieves higher success probability
when compared to conventional CS recovery techniques. The
success probability of the proposed technique is highest when
the number of blocks is J = 1. When the number of blocks increases, however, the search space increases (see (24)), and as

a result, we observe a performance hit especially at low SNR.
In Fig. 12b we fix the total number of blockages and study
the impact of the block size on the success probability. Fig.
12b shows that for fixed number of blockages, higher success
probability is achieved for larger block sizes and the success
probability decreases with increasing number of groups. As the
number of groups increases, the search space in (24) increases,
and in the presence of noise, false alarms could occur. This
reduces the success probability. Note that in Figs. 12a and 12b,
conventional CS techniques fails since the required number of
required measurements is K > S log Ny Nx which is much
more than Ny + Nx .
In Figs. 13-14, we assume that both the transmit and
receive arrays are subject to random blockages. To analyze
the effect of the number of measurements (or diagnosis time)
on the NMSE performance when jointly detecting faults on
both the transmit and receive arrays, we plot the NMSE of
the technique proposed in Section IV and the Genie-aided
technique in Fig. 13. For both cases, we observe that the
NMSE decreases with increasing number of measurements K,
and for sufficient K, the NMSE of the proposed technique
matches the NMSE obtained by the Genie-aided technique.
The figure also shows that the NMSE of the receive array
is lower than the NMSE of the transmit array. This is due to
the transmit-receive array size difference. For a fixed blockage
probability Pb , larger array sizes encounter more blockages on
average, and therefore, require more measurements to detect
faults.
The success probability when detecting faulty antennas in
both the transmit and the receive arrays is plotted in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14 (a) shows that for both the transmit and receive array,
the success probability increases with increasing number of
measurements. Fig. 14 (b) shows that lower number of measurements are required to detect faulty antennas at the receiver
when the transmit array size is larger than the receive array
size. As the transmit array size increases, the average number
of blocked antennas increases as well, thereby requiring more
measurements to successfully detect the fault locations.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we investigated the effects of blockages on
mmWave linear antenna arrays. We showed that both complete
and partial blockages distort the far-field beam pattern of a
linear array and partial blockages result in a higher beam
pattern variance when compared to complete blockages. To
detect blockages, we proposed several compressed sensing
based array diagnosis techniques. The proposed techniques
do not require the AUT to be physically removed and do
not require any hardware modification. When faults exist at
the receiver only, we showed that the proposed techniques
reliably detect the locations of the blocked antennas, if any,
and estimate the corresponding attenuation and phase-shift
coefficients caused by the blocking particles. Moreover, we
showed that the dependencies between the blocked antennas
can be exploited to further reduce estimation errors and lower
the diagnosis time. When faults exist at both the receiver and
the transmiter, we showed that reliable detection and estimatation of blockages can be achievded. Nonetheless, high number

12

1

1
S=4x1
S=4x2
S=4x4
S=4x1; LASSO
S=4x2; LASSO
S=4x4; LASSO

Success Probability

0.8
0.7

0.8

Exploiting
2D/block structure

0.6

S=16x2
S=8x4
S=4x8
S=16x2; LASSO

0.9

Success Probability

0.9

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.7
Exploiting 2D/block
structure

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Conventional CS
0.1
0
-20

0.1

-15

-10

-5
0
SNR (dB)

5

10

Conventional CS

0
-20

15

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

SNR (dB)

(a) Fixed block-size.

(b) Variable block size.

Fig. 12: Detection of faults in a 2D receive planar array subjected to complete (non-partial) blockages that occur in groups as a function of
the receive SNR; K = 16 measurements, and NR = 8 × 8 = 64.

1

5
Proposed (transmit array)
Genie-aided LS (transmit array)
Proposed (receive array)
Genie-aided LS (receive array)

0

(a) N T /N R = 1

1
0.9

0.9

-5

(b) NT /N R = 4

0.8

0.8

-10

0.7

NMSE (dB)

-15
-20
-25

Success probability

Success probability

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.4
-30

0.3
0.3

-35

0.2
Receive array

0.2

-40

Receive array

0.1

Transmit array

-45
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Number of measurements

Fig. 13: Joint detection of faults in 2D transmit and receive planar
arrays both subject to random partial blockages; Pb = 0.1 for both
arrays, ρ = 0 dB, NR = 16, NT = 32, and NT NR = 512.

of measurements are required in this case, even if compressed
sensing is used. For all cases, the estimated coefficients can be
used to calculate new antenna excitations weights to recalibrate
the transmit/receive antennas. Due to their reliability and
low diagnosis time, the proposed techniques can be used to
perform real-time mmWave antenna array diagnosis at the
receiver and enhance the mmWave communication link.
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Boccardi, R. Heath Jr., A. Lozano, T. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five
disruptive technology directions for 5G,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52,
no. 2, pp. 74-80, Feb. 2014.
[2] T. Rappaport, R. Heath Jr., R. Daniels, and J. Murdock, Millimeter wave
wireless communications. Pearson Education, 2014.
[3] M. Eltayeb, T. Al-Naffouri, and R. Heath Jr., “Compressive sensing
for vehicular millimeter wave antenna array diagnosis,” in IEEE Global
Commun. Conference, Washington, DC USA, Dec. 2016 pp. 1-6.

0.1
200

300

400

Number of measurements

Transmit array

500

0
200

300

400

500

Number of measurements

Fig. 14: Joint detection of faults in 2D transmit and receive planar
arrays all subject to constant blockages; Pb = 0.1 for both arrays,
[bT ]i ∈ {0, 1}, [b]i , ∈ {0, 1}, and NT NR = 1024. In (a) NR = 32,
and NT = 32, and in (b) NR = 16, and NT = 64.

[4] S. Dudzinsky, Jr., Atmospheric effects on terrestrial millimeter-wave
communications, The Rand Corporation, R-1335-ARPA, March 1974.
[5] Y. Kuga, F. Ulaby, T. Haddock, and R. DeRoo, “Millimeter-wave radar
scattering from snow: 1. Radiative transfer model”, Radio Sci., vol. 26,
no. 2, pp. 329-341, 1991.
[6] A. Arage, W. Steffens, G. Kuehnle, and R. Jakoby, “Effects of water and
ice layer on automotive radar” in Proc. of the German Microwave Conf.,
2006.
[7] E. Vinyaikin, M. Zinicheva, and A. Naumov, “Attenuation and phase
variation of millimeter and centimeter radio waves in a medium consisting
of dry and wet dust particles,” Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics,
vol. 37, no. 11, 1994.
[8] F. Ulaby, T. Haddock, R. Austin, and Y. Kuga, “Millimeter-wave radar
scattering from snow: 2. Comparison of theory with experimental observations”, Radio Sci., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 343-351, 1991.
[9] M. Li and Y. Lu, “Source bearing and steering-vector estimation using
partially calibrated arrays,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 45,
pp. 1361-1372, Oct. 2009.

13

[10] R. Mailloux “Array failure correction with a digitally beamformed
array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1543-1550,
Dec. 1996.
[11] M. Li, M. McGuire, K. S. Ho and G. Hayward, “Array element failure
correction for robust ultrasound beamforming and imaging,” in IEEE
Ultrasonics Symposium, San Diego, CA, 2010, pp. 29-32.
[12] B.-K. Yeo and Y. Lu, “Array failure correction with a genetic algorithm,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 823-828, 1999.
[13] J. Rodrguez, F. Ares, E. Moreno, and G. Franceschetti, “Genetic algorithm procedure for linear array failure correction,” Electronics Letters,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 196-198, 2000.
[14] R. Iglesias, F. Ares, M. Delgado, J. Rodriguez, J. Bregains, and S.
Barro, “Element failure detection in linear antenna arrays using casebased reasoning,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 198204, Aug. 2008.
[15] J. Rodriguez, F. Ares, E. Moreno, and G. Franceschetti, “Genetic
algorithm procedure for linear array failure correction,” Electron. Lett.,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 196-198, Feb. 2000.
[16] O. Bucci, M. Migliore, G. Panariello, and G. Sgambato, “Accurate
diagnosis of conformal arrays from near-field data using the matrix
method,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1114-1120,
Mar. 2005.
[17] J. R.-Gonzalez, F. A.-Pena, M. F.-Delgado, R. Iglesias, and S. Barro,
“Rapid method for finding faulty elements in antenna arrays using far
field pattern samples,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 57, no. 6, pp.
1679-1683, June 2009.
[18] A. Buonanno and M. D’Urso, “On the diagnosis of arbitrary geometry
fully active arrays,” in the Eur. Conf. Antennas Propag. (EuCAP),
Barcelona, Apr. 2010.
[19] M. Migliore, “A compressed sensing approach for array diagnosis from
a small set of near-field measurements,“ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2127-2133, June 2011.
[20] G. Oliveri, P. Rocca, and A. Massa, “Reliable diagnosis of large linear
arrays-Bayesian compressive sensing approach,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 4627-4636, Oct. 2012.
[21] B. Friedlander and T. Strohmer, “Bilinear compressed sensing for array
self-calibration,” in 48th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, 2014, pp. 363-367.
[22] C. Balanis, Antenna Theory, Analysis, and Design, 1997, Wiley.
[23] M. Eltayeb, T. Al-Naffouri, and R. Heath, “Compressive
sensing for millimeter wave antenna array diagnosis,” archived,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.06345, arXiv:1612.06345v3.
[24] A. Alkhateeb, O. Ayach, and R. Heath Jr., “Channel estimation and
hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,” IEEE J. on Select.
Areas in Commun., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831-846, Oct. 2014.
[25] M. Eltayeb, A. Alkhateeb, R. Heath Jr., and T. Y. Al-Naffouri, “Opportunistic beam training with hybrid analog/digital codebooks for mmwave
systems,” in Proc. of IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Info. Proc., Dec.
2015.
[26] V. Va, J. Choi, and R. Heath, “The impact of beamwidth on temporal
channel variation in vehicular channels and its implications,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 5014-5029, June 2017.
[27] D. Chizhik, “Slowing the time-fluctuating MIMO channel by beamforming,” IEEE TWC, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1554-1565, Sep. 2004.
[28] A. Ali, N. Gonzlez-Prelcic and R. Heath Jr., “Estimating Millimeter
Wave Channels using Out-of-Band Measurements”, in Proceedings of
Information Theory and Applications (ITA) Workshop, 2016.
[29] M. Akdeniz, Y. Liu, M. Samimi, S. Sun, S. Rangan, T. Rappaport,
and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capacity
evaluation,” IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp.
1164-1179, June 2014.
[30] M. Wainwright, “Sharp thresholds for high-dimensional and noisy
sparsity recovery using `1 -constrained quadratic programming (Lasso),”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2183-2202, May 2009.
[31] E. Candes and Y. Plan, “Near-ideal model selection by l1 minimization,”
Ann. Statist., vol. 37, pp. 2145-2177, 2009.
[32] A. Fletcher, S. Rangan, and V. Goyal, “Necessary and sufficient conditions for sparsity pattern recovery,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 55,
no. 12, pp. 5758-5772, Dec. 2009.
[33] M. Rudelson and R. Vershynin, “On sparse reconstruction from fourier
and gaussian measurements,” Communications on Pure and Applied
Mathematics, vol. 61, pp. 1025-1045, 2008.
[34] A. Sayed, Fundamentals of adaptive filtering, John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[35] Z. Zhang and B. D. Rao, “Extension of SBL Algorithms for the
Recovery of Block Sparse Signals With Intra-Block Correlation,” IEEE
Trans. Sig. Process., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 2009-2015, April, 2013.
[36] http://sparselab.stanford.edu.

