1

Low RF-Complexity Technologies to Enable
Millimeter-Wave MIMO with Large Antenna Array
for 5G Wireless Communications

arXiv:1607.04559v3 [cs.IT] 1 Oct 2017

Xinyu Gao, Student Member, IEEE, Linglong Dai, Senior Member, IEEE, and Akbar M. Sayeed, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Millimeter-wave (mmWave) MIMO with large antenna array has attracted considerable interests from academic
and industry communities, as it can provide larger bandwidth
and higher spectrum efficiency. However, with hundreds of
antennas, the number of radio frequency (RF) chains required by
mmWave MIMO is also huge, leading to unaffordable hardware
cost and power consumption in practice. In this paper, we investigate low RF-complexity technologies to solve this bottleneck.
We first review the evolution of low RF-complexity technologies
from microwave frequencies to mmWave frequencies. Then,
we discuss two promising low RF-complexity technologies for
mmWave MIMO systems in detail, i.e., phased array based
hybrid precoding (PAHP) and lens array based hybrid precoding
(LAHP), including their principles, advantages, challenges, and
recent results. We compare the performance of these two technologies to draw some insights about how they can be deployed
in practice. Finally, we conclude this paper and point out some
future research directions in this area.

I. I NTRODUCTION

M

Illimeter-wave (mmWave) (30-300 GHz) multipleinput multiple-output (MIMO) with large antenna array
has been considered as a promising solution to meet the one
thousand times increase in data traffic predicted for further
5G wireless communications [1]. On one hand, mmWave can
provide nearly 2 GHz bandwidth [2], which is much larger
than the 20 MHz bandwidth in current 4G wireless communications without carrier aggregation. On the other hand,
the short wavelengths associated with mmWave frequencies
enable a large antenna array to be packed in a small physical
size, which means that MIMO with a large antenna array is
possible at mmWave frequencies to effectively compensate the
high path loss induced by high frequencies and considerably
improve the spectrum efficiency [3].
This work has been posted on arXiv (arXiv:1607.04559) on 15 July, 2016
and revised on 16 Sep, 2017. It has also been posted on the personal website
at: http://oa.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn/dailinglong/publications/publications.html.
X. Gao and L. Dai (corresponding author) are with the Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology (TNList), Department of Electronic Engineering, Beijing 100084, China (e-mails: xygao14@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, daill@tsinghua.edu.cn).
A. Sayeed is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA (email: akbar@engr.wisc.edu).
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China for Outstanding Young Scholars (Grant No. 61722109), the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61571270), the Royal
Academy of Engineering through the UK-China Industry Academia Partnership Programme Scheme (Grant No. UK-CIAPP\49), and the US National
Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 1548996 and 1444962).

However, realizing mmWave MIMO in practice is not a
trivial task. One challenging problem is that each antenna in
MIMO systems usually requires one dedicated radio-frequency
(RF) chain, including digital-to-analog converters (DACs),
mixers, and so on [3]. This will result in unaffordable hardware
cost and power consumption in mmWave MIMO systems, as
the number of antennas is huge (e.g., 256 compared with 8)
and the power consumption of RF chain is high (e.g., 250 mW
at mmWave frequencies compared with 30 mW at microwave
frequencies) [3]. Therefore, the large number of RF chains
with prohibitively high power consumption is a bottleneck for
mmWave MIMO with large antenna array in practice [1], [3].
In this paper, we investigate low RF-complexity technologies for mmWave MIMO systems. Our contributions
can be summarized as follows: i) We provide a review for
the evolution of low RF-complexity technologies from microwave frequencies to mmWave frequencies, and highlight
two promising technologies proposed recently, i.e., phased
array based hybrid precoding (PAHP) [4] and lens array based
hybrid precoding (LAHP) [5]. We give detailed overview for
these two technologies including their principles, advantages,
challenges, and recent results; ii) We propose a novel adaptive
selecting network for LAHP with low hardware cost and
power consumption. For data transmission, it can select beams
like the traditional one, while for channel estimation, it can
formulate the beamspace channel estimation as a sparse signal
recovery problem and estimate the beamspace channel with
considerably reduced pilot overhead; iii) We provide the sumrate and power efficiency comparisons between PAHP and
LAHP in a practical outdoor mmWave MIMO system, where
the channel estimation error and inter-cell interference are also
included. Then, we draw some insights about how these two
technologies can be deployed in practice.

II. T RADITIONAL L OW RF-C OMPLEXITY T ECHNOLOGIES
We first review two typical low RF-complexity technologies, i.e., antenna selection and analog beamforming. Antenna
selection may be considered as the most classical low RFcomplexity technology for microwave MIMO systems. By
contrast, analog beamforming is the most widely used low RFcomplexity technology for indoor mmWave communications.
These two technologies can be regarded as the basics of PAHP
and LAHP.

2
Amplifier

loss [3]. More importantly, analog beamforming can only
support single-stream transmission, which cannot be used in
multi-stream or multi-user scenarios [3].

Data Streams
RF Chain
Baseband
Signal
Processing
RF Chain

N s £ N RF

N RF < N

Switches

N

(a)
Amplifier

Power Splitter

Data Stream
Baseband Signal Processing

RF Chain

Ns = 1

N RF = 1

Phase Shifters

N

(b)

Fig. 1. Architectures of traditional low RF-complexity technologies: (a)
antenna selection; (b) analog beamforming.

A. Antenna selection
As shown in Fig. 1 (a), the key feature of antenna selection [6] is that there is one selecting network between NRF RF
chains and N antennas. Based on the channel state information
(CSI), the target of antenna selection is to select NRF best
antennas out of total N antennas for data transmission to
maximize the achievable sum-rate [6].
An exciting result of antenna selection is that when the
number of RF chains NRF is larger than the number of
transmitted data streams Ns , the performance loss induced by
antenna selection is negligible under independent identically
distributed (IID) Rayleigh fading channels [6]. However, when
channels are highly correlated, the achievable sum-rate of
antenna selection will decrease drastically [6], as antenna
selection incurs more channel information loss in this case.
B. Analog beamforming
As shown in Fig. 1 (b), the key idea of analog beamforming [7] is to use only one RF chain to transmit single
data stream, and employ the phase shifter network to control
the phases of original signals to maximize the array gain
and effective signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Building the beamforming vectors (include the relative amplitudes and phases
applied to the different antenna elements to shape the signal
strength at a specific direction in the far field) requires beam
training, which involves an iterative and joint design between
the transmitter and receiver. For example, in IEEE 802.11ad,
a multi-resolution beamforming codebook (consists of several
pre-defined beamforming vectors) is adopted to progressively
refine the selected beamforming vectors [7].
The advantage of analog beamforming is that it only requires one RF chain, leading to quite low hardware cost and
power consumption [7]. However, the analog beamforming
can only adjust the phases of the signals, which means
that all the elements of beamforming vector have the same
amplitude. Such design constraint will incur some performance

C. Can traditional low RF-complexity technologies be used in
mmWave MIMO systems?
Note that the outdoor mmWave MIMO channel is significantly different from the one at microwave frequencies. One of
the most important differences is that the scattering of outdoor
mmWave communications is usually limited. This is because
that the wavelengths at mmWave frequencies are quite small
compared to the obstacle size, leading to poor diffraction [3].
Moreover, though scattering occurs, it incurs significant 5-20
dB attenuation at mmWave frequencies [2], [5]. A study in
New York has shown that the average number of paths in 28
GHz outdoor mmWave communications is only 2.4 [2]. This
means that the outdoor mmWave MIMO channel is usually
low-rank with high correlation in the spatial domain and sparse
in the angular domain [5].
Based on these facts, we know that antenna selection is not
appropriate for mmWave MIMO systems [2], since it suffers
from serious performance loss with highly correlated channels. Moreover, although analog beamforming is developed
for mmWave communications, it can only support singlestream transmission without multiplexing gains. This means
that analog beamforming cannot fully exploit the potential of
mmWave MIMO in spectrum efficiency [3], [5]. Next, we will
investigate two promising low RF-complexity technologies
proposed recently for mmWave MIMO systems, i.e., PAHP
and LAHP.
III. P HASED A RRAY BASED H YBRID P RECODING
A. Principle
Precoding is used to adjust the weights of transmitted signals to maximize the achievable sum-rate [3]. As shown in Fig.
2 (a), the conventional fully digital precoding can arbitrarily
adjust the amplitudes and phases of the original signals. It
can achieve multiplexing gains, and enjoys higher design
freedom than analog beamforming. However, it requires one
dedicated RF chain for each antenna, which brings unaffordable hardware cost and power consumption when the number
of antennas is large. Hybrid precoding can be considered as
a promising compromise between the optimal fully digital
precoding and the low-cost analog beamforming [4], [5]. Its
key idea is to divide the large-size digital precoder into a largesize analog beamformer (realized by the analog circuit) and a
small-size digital precoder (requiring a small number of RF
chains).
PAHP is one of the realization of hybrid precoding, where
the analog beamformer is realized by phase shifters. Assume
there are Ns single-antenna users to be served. As shown
in Fig. 2, the received signal vector y for Ns users in the
downlink can be presented as
y = HADs + n,

(1)

where H of size Ns × N , s of size Ns × 1, and n of size
Ns × 1 denote the mmWave MIMO channel matrix, transmitted signal vector, and noise vector, respectively, A of size

3

N × NRF is the analog beamformer, and D of size NRF × Ns
is the digital precoder. Note that PAHP has two architectures,
i.e., full-PAHP [4] and sub-PAHP [8], as illustrated in Fig.
2 (b) and Fig. 2 (c), respectively. In full-PAHP, each RF
chain is connected to all N antennas via phase shifters, and
the analog beamformer A is a full matrix. It can achieve
satisfying performance, but usually requires a large number
of N NRF phase shifters (e.g., N NRF = 256 × 16 = 4096),
together with the complicated power splitters/cominbers and
signal/control lines. By contrast, in sub-PAHP, each RF chain
is only connected to a subset of antennas, leading A to be a
block diagonal matrix. Obviously, sub-PAHP can reduce the
number of phase shifters from N NRF to N and avoid using
power combiners [8]. Therefore, although sub-PAHP suffers
from a loss in array gains by a factor of 1/NRF , it may be
preferred in practice [8].
B. Advantages
PAHP can achieve a better tradeoff between the hardware
cost/power consumption and the sum-rate performance. It can
significantly reduce the number of required RF chains from
N (e.g., N = 256) to Ns (e.g., NRF = Ns = 16), leading
to lower power consumption. Besides, as explained above,
the outdoor mmWave MIMO channel matrix is usually lowrank [2]. This indicates that the maximum number of data
streams that can be simultaneously transmitted by such channel is limited. Therefore, as long as the number of RF chains
is larger than the rank of channel matrix, the small-size digital
precoder is still able to fully achieve the multiplexing gains
and obtain the near-optimal performance compared to the fully
digital precoding [4], [8].
C. Challenges and recent results
Optimal design of hybrid precoder: Maximizing the achievable sum-rate by designing the hybrid precoder P = AD is
the main target of PAHP. However, this optimization problem
imposes new challenges, since there are several non-convex
hardware constraints on the analog beamformer A. For example, all the nonzero elements of A should share the same
amplitude due to the constant modulus constraint on phase
shifter. To this end, one feasible way is to approximate the
original optimization problem as a convex one to obtain a
near-optimal hybrid precoder with low complexity.
Following this idea, some advanced schemes have been
proposed recently. In [4], a spatially sparse scheme is proposed for single-user full-PAHP. It approximates the sumrate optimization problem as the one minimizing the distance
between the optimal fully digital precoder and the hybrid
precoder. Then, a variant of the orthogonal matching pursuit
(OMP) algorithm [9] is developed to obtain the near-optimal
hybrid precoder. In [10], full-PAHP is extended to multi-user
scenario, where a two-stage multi-user scheme is proposed. In
the first stage, the optimal analog beamformer is searched from
a pre-defined codebook to maximize the desired signal power
of each user. In the second stage, the classical zero forcing
(ZF) precoder is used to cancel multi-user interference. In [8],
a successive interference cancelation (SIC)-based scheme is

proposed for sub-PAHP. It first decomposes the sum-rate
optimization problem into a series of simple and convex subproblems, each of which only considers one sub-phased array.
Then, inspired by the classical SIC multi-user signal detector,
the near-optimal hybrid precoder for each sub-phased array is
obtained in an one-by-one fashion.
Channel estimation: The maximum gain of PAHP can be
only achieved with perfect CSI, which is difficult to obtain
in mmWave MIMO systems. Firstly, due to the lack of
array gains before the establishment of the transmission link,
the SNR for channel estimation in PAHP is quite low [3].
Secondly, the number of RF chains in PAHP is usually much
smaller than the number of antennas. Therefore, we cannot
directly observe the channel matrix like that in fully digital
precoding.
Two typical solutions have been proposed to solve this
problem. The first divides the channel estimation problem into
two steps. In the first step, the BS and users will perform beam
training like analog beamforming [7] to determine A. In the
second step, the effective channel matrix HA with smaller
size Ns × NRF (NRF ≪ N ) is estimated by classical schemes,
such as least squares (LS). The second solution is to exploit the
low-rank characteristic of mmWave MIMO channel. Instead
of estimating the effective channel matrix HA, it can directly
obtain the complete channel matrix H with low pilot overhead.
For example, an adaptive compressive sensing (CS) [9] based
channel estimation scheme is proposed in [3]. It divides the
total channel estimation problem into several sub-problems,
each of which only considers one channel path. For each
channel path, it first starts with coarse direction grids, and
determines the direction of this path belonging to which grid
by employing OMP algorithm. Then, the narrowed direction
grids are used, and the direction of this path is further refined.
Note that the first solution usually involves low complexity and
is easy to implement. By contrast, the second solution can
significantly reduce the pilot overhead, but usually involves
higher complexity.
IV. L ENS A RRAY BASED H YBRID P RECODING
A. Principle
Although full-PAHP can achieve the near-optimal performance with reduced number of RF chains, it usually requires
a large number of high-resolution phase shifters, together
with the complicated power splitters/combiners. Sub-PAHP
can partly solve these problems, but it suffers from some
performance loss due to the reduced array gains.
These problems above can be solved by LAHP [5], another
realization of hybrid precoding, where the analog beamformer
is realized by lens array and selecting network as shown in
Fig. 3 (a). By employing a lens array (an electromagnetic lens
with directional energy focusing capability and a matching
antenna array with elements located in the focal surface of
the lens [5]), the signals from different directions (beams) can
be concentrated on different antennas, and the spatial channel
can be transformed to the beamspace channel. Mathematically,
the lens array plays the role of a spatial discrete fourier
transform (DFT) matrix U of size N × N , whose N columns

4

correspond to the orthogonal beamforming vectors of N predefined directions (beams) that cover the whole angular space.
The system model of LAHP can be presented by
ỹ = HUDs + n = H̃Ds + n,

(2)

where ỹ, s, and n of size Ns × 1 denote the received signal
vector in the beamspace, transmitted signal vector, and noise
vector, respectively, D of size N × Ns is the digital precoder,
and the beamspace channel H̃ of size Ns × N is defined as
H̃ = HU, whose N columns correspond to N orthogonal
beams.
B. Advantages
LAHP can also achieve the near-optimal performance with
low hardware cost/power consumption. This advantage comes
from the fact that the beamspace channel H̃ at mmWave
frequencies is sparse due to the limited scattering [2]. Therefore, similar to antenna selection, we can select only a
small number of dominant beams to reduce the MIMO dimension as ỹ ≈ H̃r Dr s + n, where H̃r = H̃(:, l)l∈B is the
dimension-reduced beamspace channel, B denotes the set of
selected beams, and Dr of size |B| × Ns is the corresponding
dimension-reduced digital precoder. As the dimension of Dr
is much smaller than that of D in (2), LAHP can significantly
reduce the number of required RF chains without obvious
performance loss. Another advantage of LAHP is that the
array gains can be always preserved by the low-cost lens array.
Therefore, even though the simple selecting network is used,
the satisfying performance can be still guaranteed [5].

different hardware architectures; ii) we need to estimate the
sparse beamspace channel instead of the conventional lowrank spatial channel [5].
This problem can be solved by following two recently
proposed solutions. The first one is to reduce the dimension of
beamspace channel estimation problem. For example, in [13],
a two-step channel estimation scheme is proposed. In the first
step, the BS utilizes the selecting network to scan all the
beams, and selects several strong beams. In the second step, LS
is used to estimate the dimension-reduced beamspace channel.
The second solution is to completely estimate the sparse
beamspace channel by utilizing CS algorithms. However, if
we use the traditional selecting network as shown in Fig. 3 (a)
(each RF chain can only select one beam via one switch) to
sample the beamspace channel with reduced number of pilots,
the sensing matrix will be rank-deficient and CS algorithms
cannot work [9]. To this end, we propose an adaptive selecting
network for LAHP as shown in Fig. 3 (b), where each RF
chain is connected to all antennas via switches. For data
transmission, it can select beams like the traditional one, while
for channel estimation, it can perform as a sensing matrix with
randomly selected 0/1 elements, which has full rank [9]. Then,
we can estimate the sparse beamspace channel via efficient
CS algorithms such as OMP, and considerably reduce the
pilot overhead1. Note that the extra power consumption and
hardware cost incurred by the adaptive selecting network is
limited, since the switches are easy to implement with low
power consumption [15]. Finally, similar to PAHP, the first
solution usually involves low complexity while the second one
can considerably reduce the pilot overhead.

C. Challenges and recent results
V. P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON

Optimal design of beam selection: The performance of
LAHP depends on beam selection, which aims to select |B|
beams out of the total N beams to maximize the achievable
sum-rate. The most intuitive beam selection scheme is exhaustive search. It has the optimal performance but prohibitively
high complexity, which exponentially increases with the number of selected beams. This means that more efficient beam
selection schemes should be designed.
In [5], a magnitude maximization (MM) beam selection
scheme is proposed, where several beams with large power
are selected for data transmission. MM beam selection scheme
is simple, but it only aims to preserve the power as much
as possible without considering interference, leading to some
performance loss. In [11], the authors propose a more efficient
beam selection scheme by using the incremental algorithm
developed from antenna selection. It selects |B| beams one by
one. In each step, the beam with the greatest contribution to
the achievable sum-rate is selected. In [12], an interferenceaware (IA) beam selection scheme with better performance
is proposed. The key idea is to classify all users into two
user groups according to the potential interference. For users
with small interference, it directly selects the beams with large
power, while for users with severe interference, the incremental algorithm is employed to search the optimal beams.

In this section, we compare the performance of full-PAHP,
LAHP with the proposed adaptively selecting network, and
fully digital precoding. We first consider an outdoor multiuser mmWave MIMO in single-cell scenario, where the BS
employs N = 256 antennas to simultaneously serve Ns = 16
single-antenna users. The widely used Saleh-Valenzuela multipath model is adopted to capture the characteristics of
mmWave MIMO channels [2]. Each user has one LoS path
and two NLoS paths. The gain of LoS path is normalized to
1, while the gain of each NLoS path is assumed to follow
CN (0, 0.1). The directions of all paths of users are assumed
to follow the IID uniform distribution within [−π/2, π/2].
Fig. 4 shows the comparison of achievable sum-rate
against the SNR for data transmission. For full-PAHP with
NRF = Ns = 16 RF chains, we use the adaptive CS based
channel estimation scheme proposed in [3] (the number of
initial direction grids is set as 1024) to estimate the spatial channel, and employ the two-stage multi-user scheme
proposed in [10] (4-bit phase shifters are used) to transmit
data. For LAHP also with NRF = Ns = 16 RF chains, we
utilize the proposed adaptive selecting network to estimate
the beamspace channel as illustrated above, and adopt the
IA beam selection scheme [12] to transmit data. Finally, for

Channel estimation: The channel estimation for LAHP is
different from that for PAHP since: i) PAHP and LAHP have

1 In practice, the beamspace channel may not be sparse enough due to the
power leakage effect, but this can be relieved following the idea in [14].

5
1.8

90

Fully digital precoding, perfect channel
Fully digital precoding, estimated channel
Phased array based hybrid precoding, perfect channel
Phased array based hybrid precoding, estimated channel
Lens array based hybrid precoding, perfect channel
Lens array based hybrid precoding, estimated channel

Achievable sum−rate (bits/s/Hz)

70

Fully digital precoding
Phased array based hybrid precoding
Lens array based hybrid precoding

1.6

1.4

Power efficiency (bps/Hz/W)

80

60

50

40

30

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4
20

0.2
10

0
0

0

5

10

15

20

25

SNR (dB) for data transmission

Fig. 2.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of users Ns

30

Fig. 3.

Comparison of sum-rate against the SNR for data transmission.

Comparison of power efficiency against the number of users Ns .

80

Fully digital precoding
Phased array based hybrid precoding
Lens array based hybrid precoding

fully digital precoding with NRF = N = 256 RF chains, the
classical LS channel estimation scheme and ZF precoding
scheme are adopted. For fair comparison, we set SNR as 20 dB
and use 96 pilots for all of the three adopted channel estimation
schemes. From Fig. 4, we observe that, although the number
of RF chains is significantly reduced, both PAHP and LAHP
can achieve the sum-rate performance close to that of fully
digital precoding. This is due to the fact that PAHP can fully
exploit the low-rank characteristic of mmWave channels in
the spatial domain, while LAHP can benefit from the sparse
characteristic of mmWave channels in the beamspace (angular
domain). Since the lens array plays the role of spatial DFT,
the beamspace channel and the spatial channel are essentially
equivalent but expressed in different forms, just like the same
signal can be expressed in the time domain and equivalently in
the frequency domain. Moreover, Fig. 4 also shows that with
the perfect channel, PAHP outperforms LAHP by about 2 dB,
since the phase shifter has higher design freedom than switch.
Finally, Fig. 4 shows that LAHP is more robust to the channel
estimation error, since only the dimension-reduced beamspace
channel is effective for data transmission and a little inaccurate
channel may still achieve satisfying performance.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison of power efficiency. We define
the power efficiency η as η = R/ (PT + PH ) [11], where
R is the achievable sum-rate, PT is the transmission
power, which can be set as PT = 2.5W (34 dBm)
for outdoor mmWave MIMO in a small cell [2],
PH is the power consumed by hardware architecture.
For full-PAHP as shown in Fig. 2 (b), we have
PT = N PA + NRF N PPS + NRF PSP + N PCO + NRF PRF ,
where PA , PPS , PSP , PCO , and PRF are the power consumed
by amplifier, phase shifter, power splitter, power combiner,
and RF chain, respectively. For LAHP with the proposed
adaptive selecting network as shown in Fig. 3 (b), we have
PT = N PA + NRF N PSW + NRF PSP + N PCO + NRF PRF ,
where PSW is the power consumed by switch. Finally, for
fully digital precoding as shown in Fig. 2 (a), we have

Achievable sum−rate (bits/s/Hz)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SNR (dB) for data transmission

Fig. 4.

Comparison of sum-rate in multi-cell scenario.

PT = N PA + N PRF . In this paper, some referenced values2
are adopted as PA = 20mW [15], PSP = PCO = 10mW [15],
PRF = 250mW [3], PPS = 30mW for 4-bit phase shifter [15],
and PSW = 5mW [15]. Fig. 5 shows that both PAHP and
LAHP can achieve much higher power efficiency than fully
digital precoding when the number of users is not large (e.g.,
Ns ≤ 8). However, when Ns > 12, LAHP still enjoys high
power efficiency, but PAHP performs even worse than fully
digital precoding. This conclusion is contrary to the widely
accepted misconception that PAHP is more power efficient
than fully digital precoding, but consistent with a very recent
analysis in [11]–[13]. It can be explained by the fact that as
Ns grows, the number of phase shifters required by PAHP
increases rapidly. As a result, the power consumption of
phase shifters will be huge, even higher than that of RF
chains.
Next, we extend the performance comparison to multi-cell
2 Note that the power consumption of RF modules usually presents high
variability, which depends on the specific implementation type and performance requirement [15]. In this paper, we just adopt the conservative (high)
values, and the results in Fig. 5 can be considered as the lower bounds of the
power efficiencies in practice.

6

scenario as shown in Fig. 6, where the number of cells is set
as 2 for simplicity but without loss of generality. Each cell has
one BS with N = 256 antennas to serve K = 16 users with
the same transmission power. The channels between the BS
and the users in its own cell, and the channels between the
BS and the users in the neighbor cell, are generated following
the same model in Fig. 4. We assume that no cooperation
between BSs exists, and each BS only knows the channels
of the users in its own cell. From Fig. 6, we observe that the
achievable sum-rates of all technologies will not grow without
bound when the SNR for data transmission increases. This
is due to the fact that high SNR also incurs high inter-cell
interference. However, Fig. 6 still shows that both PAHP and
LAHP can achieve the near-optimal performance, even in the
multi-cell scenario with inter-cell interference.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have introduced two promising low RFcomplexity technologies for mmWave MIMO with large antenna array, i.e., PAHP and LAHP, in detail. We have also
proposed an adaptive selecting network for LAHP with low
hardware cost and power consumption, which can formulate
the beamspace channel estimation as a sparse signal recovery
problem, and considerably reduce the pilot overhead. Finally,
we have provided the complete and systematic performance
comparison between PAHP and LAHP. It shows that PAHP
achieves higher achievable sum-rate than LAHP when the
channel is perfectly known, but LAHP is more robust to the
channel estimation error. It also shows that LAHP enjoys
higher power efficiency than PAHP, since the phase shifter
network is replaced by the low-cost lens array and switches.
Besides the discussions above, there are still some open issues on low RF-complexity technologies for outdoor mmWave
MIMO systems. For example, most of the existing low RFcomplexity technologies are designed for the narrowband and
time-invariant channels. However, due to the large bandwidth
and the high frequency, the mmWave MIMO channels are
more likely to be broadband and time-varying, which incurs
new challenges. Take the PAHP for example, “broadband”
means that the analog beamformer cannot be adaptively adjusted according to the frequency, leading to more difficulties
in signal processing design, while “time-varying” means that
we need to re-estimate the channel and re-compute the hybrid
precoder frequently, leading to high pilot overhead and computational complexity. Therefore, designing low RF-complexity
technologies for broadband time-varying channels will be an
urging problem to solve.

[5] J. Brady, N. Behdad, and A. Sayeed, “Beamspace MIMO for millimeterwave communications: System architecture, modeling, analysis, and
measurements,” IEEE Trans. Ant. and Propag., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3814–
3827, July 2013.
[6] A. F. Molisch and M. Z. Win, “MIMO systems with antenna selection,”
IEEE Microwave Mag., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46–56, Mar. 2004.
[7] S. Hur et al., “Millimeter wave beamforming for wireless backhaul and
access in small cell networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10,
pp. 4391–4403, Oct. 2013.
[8] X. Gao et al., “Energy-efficient hybrid analog and digital precoding for
mmWave MIMO systems with large antenna arrays,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 998–1009, Apr. 2016.
[9] W. U. Bajwa et al., “Compressed channel sensing: A new approach to
estimating sparse multipath channels,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 98, no. 6, pp.
1058–1076, June 2010.
[10] A. Alkhateeb, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Limited feedback hybrid
precoding for multi-user millimeter wave systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6481–6494, Nov. 2015.
[11] P. Amadori and C. Masouros, “Low RF-complexity millimeter-wave
beamspace-MIMO systems by beam selection,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 2212–2222, June 2015.
[12] X. Gao et al., “Near-optimal beam selection for beamspace mmWave
massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1054–
1057, May 2016.
[13] J. Hogan and A. Sayeed, “Beam selection for performance-complexity
optimization in high-dimension MIMO systems,” in Proc. CISS, Mar.
2016, pp. 337–342.
[14] G. Taubock et al., “Compressive estimation of doubly selective channels
in multicarrier systems: Leakage effects and sparsity-enhancing processing,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 255–271, Apr.
2010.
[15] R. Méndez-Rial et al., “Hybrid MIMO architectures for millimeter wave
communications: Phase shifters or switches?” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp.
247–267, Jan. 2016.

PLACE
PHOTO
HERE

PLACE
PHOTO
HERE

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Mumtaz, J. Rodriguez, and L. Dai, MmWave Massive MIMO: A
Paradigm for 5G. Academic Press, Elsevier, 2016.
[2] T. S. Rappaport et al., “Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G
cellular: It will work!” IEEE Access, vol. 1, pp. 335–349, May 2013.
[3] R. W. Heath et al., “An overview of signal processing techniques for
millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, Apr. 2016.
[4] O. El Ayach et al., “Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave
MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
1499–1513, Mar. 2014.

PLACE
PHOTO
HERE

Xinyu Gao (S’14) received the B.E. degree of
Communication Engineering from Harbin Institute
of Technology, Heilongjiang, China in 2014. He is
currently working towards Ph.D. degree in Electronic Engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. His research interests include massive
MIMO and mmWave communications. He has received the national scholarship in 2015 and the IEEE
WCSP Best Paper Award in 2016.

Linglong Dai (M’11-SM’14) received the Ph.D.
degree from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
in 2011. He is currently an Associate Professor of
Tsinghua University. His current research interests
include massive MIMO, millimeter-wave communications, multiple access, and sparse signal processing. He has received five conference Best Paper
Awards (IEEE ICC 2013, IEEE ICC 2014, WCSP
2016, IEEE ICC 2017, and IEEE VTC 2017 Fall).

Akbar M. Sayeed (F’12) received the Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, USA, in 1996. He is a Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests
include wireless communications, statistical signal
processing, communication and information theory,
wireless channel modeling, time-frequency analysis,
and development of basic theory, system architectures, and prototypes for new wireless technologies.

