1

Hybrid Analog-Digital Beamforming for Massive
MIMO Systems

arXiv:1712.03485v1 [cs.IT] 10 Dec 2017

Shahar Stein, Student IEEE and Yonina C. Eldar, Fellow IEEE

Abstract—In massive MIMO systems, hybrid beamforming
is an essential technique for exploiting the potential array
gain without using a dedicated RF chain for each antenna. In
this work, we consider the data phase in a massive MIMO
communication process, where the transmitter and receiver use
fewer RF chains than antennas. We examine several different
fully- and partially connected schemes and consider the design
of hybrid beamformers that minimize the estimation error in the
data. For the hybrid precoder, we introduce a framework for
approximating the optimal fully-digital precoder with a feasible
hybrid one. We exploit the fact that the fully-digital precoder
is unique only up to a unitary matrix and optimize over this
matrix and the hybrid precoder alternately. Our alternating
minimization of approximation gap (Alt-MaG) framework improves the performance over state-of-the-art methods with no
substantial increase in complexity. In addition, we present a
special case of Alt-MaG, minimal gap iterative quantization
(MaGiQ), that results in low complexity and lower mean squared
error (MSE) than other common methods, in the case of very
few RF chains. MaGiQ is shown to coincide with the optimal
fully-digital solution in some scenarios. For combiner design, we
exploit the structure of the MSE objective and develop a greedy
ratio trace maximization technique, that achieves low MSE under
various settings. All of our algorithms can be used with multiple
hardware architectures.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive MIMO wireless systems have emerged as a leading
candidate for 5G wireless access [1], [2]. Along with mmWave
technologies, that were recently recognized as essential for
coping with the spectrum crunch [3], it offers higher data
rates and capacities than traditional MIMO systems. The
use of large-scale antenna arrays at both the transmitter and
receiver holds the potential for higher array gain than before.
To utilize this gain, precoding and combining techniques
are used. Traditionally implemented in the baseband (BB),
these methods require a dedicated RF hardware per antenna.
Unfortunately, when taking a massive amount of antennas into
account, this results in a huge computational load and cost,
as the RF components are expensive and have high power
consumption, especially for mmWave technologies. Hence, it
is desirable to design economical hardware that will utilize the
potential gain from a large number of cheap antenna elements
using a small number of expensive RF chains.
To achieve this goal, several hybrid analog-digital schemes
have been suggested [4]–[13]. In hybrid precoding and combining, the operations are split between the digital and analog
domains: at the transmitter side a low dimensional digital
precoder operates on the transmitted signal at BB. An analog
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 646804-ERCCOG-BNYQ, and from the Israel Science Foundation under Grant no. 335/14.

precoder then maps the small number of digital outputs to
a large number of antennas, and the same is performed at
the receiver side. Common analog architectures are based
on analog phase shifters and switches. The specific schemes
can vary according to the power and area budget. Two main
families of architectures are the fully- and partially connected
structures. Fully connected networks offer a mapping from
each antenna to each RF chain and allow to maximize the precoding and combining gain. In the partially connected scheme,
a reduced number of analog components is used. This degrades
the achieved gain but offers lower power consumption and
hardware complexity.
In the data phase of each coherence interval of the MIMO
communication process, the transmitter sends multiple data
streams to the receiver over the constant and known channel,
using precoding techniques. At the receiver side, a combiner is
used to estimate the data vector from the received signal at the
antennas. The precoder and combiner are chosen to optimize
some desired performance measure, such as estimation error
or spectral efficiency of the system. Unlike the fully-digital
case, when considering a hybrid beamformer, the precoder
and combiner matrices cannot have arbitrary entries, but are
constrained according to the specific hardware choice. For
example, when using a phase shifter network at the analog
side, only unimodular matrices for the analog beamformer
are considered. The goal then is to optimize the performance
measure over all pairs of digital and analog precoder matrices,
which yields a non-convex difficult optimization problem.
The majority of past works considered the fully-connected
phase shifter network. It was suggested in [4] to separate the
joint precoder and combiner design problem into two subproblems and solve each independently. Although this approach is
sub-optimal, it greatly simplifies the difficult joint optimization
problem. For the precoder, it was shown that minimizing
the gap between the hybrid precoder and the optimal fullydigital one over all hybrid precoders, approximately leads to
the maximization of the system’s spectral efficiency. On the
combiner side, minimizing the mean squared error (MSE)
over all hybrid combiners was shown to be equivalent to
minimizing the weighted approximation gap between the fullydigital combiner and the hybrid one, with the weights given
by the received signal correlation. Methods for solving these
approximation problems were suggested in [4]–[6], [8]–[10],
[12].
The works [4]–[6] considered precoder design and aimed
at maximizing the system’s spectral efficiency. They exploit
the mmWave sparse multipath channel structure and deduce
that the optimal fully-digital precoder is composed of a small
sum of steering vectors. They then suggest a variant of the or-

2

thogonal matching pursuit (OMP) [14] algorithm to construct
a feasible precoder that approximates the optimal one using a
dictionary of steering vectors. This solution greatly reduces
the problem complexity but results in a large performance
gap from the optimal precoder due to restricting the space
of possible precoder vectors to steering vectors.
Similar approaches were taken in [4], [8], [9] for the
combiner design, under a MSE or spectral efficiency objective.
In [10], two algorithms were suggested to approximate the
optimal fully-digital precoder with a feasible one. The first,
MO-AltMin, is based on manifold optimization. In each iteration of the algorithm, it assumes a given digital precoder
and develops a conjugate gradient method to find an analog
precoder that is a local minimizer of the approximation gap
from the fully-digital one. Next, the digital precoder is computed using a least squares solution. This method achieves
good performance but suffers from high complexity and run
time, and is only suitable for fully-connected phase shifter
networks. The second approach is a low complexity algorithm
that assumes the digital precoder to be a scaled unitary matrix
and uses this assumption to produce an upper bound on the
approximation gap, which is then minimized over all analog
precoders. However, limiting the combiner to such a structure
results in performance loss.
For the partially connected architecture, most of the existing
works concentrated on fixed sub-arrays where each RF chain
is connected to a predetermined sub-array. In [11], the authors
suggested a low complexity codebook design producing a
small dictionary of feasible precoding vectors, that are chosen
based on the transmitted signal strength. They then exhaustively search over all possible combinations from the small
dictionary to maximize the mutual information between the
receiver and transmitter. This last step can result in heavy
computational load when the channel is not sparse. In [10], the
authors consider disjoint sub-arrays and suggest an iterative
method to approximate the optimal fully-digital precoder,
which optimizes over the analog and digital combiners alternately. It is shown that for disjoint arrays, the analog precoder
problem is separable in the antennas, and has a closed form
solution. For the digital precoder, a semidefinite relaxation
is suggested. However, this is both computationally heavy
and unnecessary since a closed form solution for the digital
combiner is available. This alternating minimization approach
still results in large performance gap. Some less restrictive
schemes were considered in [12], [13]. In [12], a double phase
shifter with dynamic mapping is considered. The use of two
phase shifters per antenna relaxes the unit modulo constraint
that limits the previous solutions, but costs twice the power
consumption, area and complexity. In [13], a dynamic subarray approach is considered for orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing (OFDM), and a greedy algorithm to optimize the
array partition based on the long-term channel characteristics
is suggested. However, this method is relevant only for OFDM
transmissions.
Most of the above works concentrated on specific channel
models and hardware architectures and suggested a tailored
algorithm for the chosen scenario. In this work, we develop a
general framework suitable for various channels and hardware:

full and partial networks with different amounts of phase
shifters and switches. We consider the data estimation problem
in a single user massive MIMO system where both the receiver
and transmitter are equipped with large antenna arrays and
fewer RF chains than antennas. We assume a Bayesian model
where the data and interference are both random, and aim
at minimizing the MSE of the transmitted data from the low
dimensional received digital signal at the receiver, over all
hybrid precoders and combiners, assuming a fixed number of
RF chains. Like previous works, we relax the difficult joint
optimization to two separate problems in the precoder and
combiner.
To design the precoder, we present a framework for approximating the optimal fully-digital precoder with a feasible hybrid
one. Our alternating minimization of approximation gap (AltMaG) method, exploits the fact that there exists an infinite set
of optimal precoders, which differ by a unitary matrix. We
suggest optimizing over this matrix and the hybrid precoder
alternately, to find the fully-digital solution that results in
the smallest approximation gap from its hybrid decomposition. For the hybrid precoder optimization step, any of the
previously suggested methods [4]–[6], [8]–[10], [12] may be
used, according to the hardware constraints. By optimizing
over the unitary matrix as well, Alt-Mag achieves additional
reduction in MSE compared to state-of-the-art algorithms, with
no significant increase in complexity.
We then present a simple possible solution for to hybrid
precoder optimization step, that results in a low complexity algorithm, termed minimal gap iterative quantization (MaGiQ).
In each iteration of MaGiQ, the fully-digital solution is approximated using the analog precoder alone. This results in a
closed form solution, given by a simple quantization function
which depends on the hardware structure. We demonstrate in
simulations that MaGiQ achieves lower MSE than other low
complexity algorithms when using very few RF chains. In
addition, in some specific cases, it coincides with the optimal
fully-digital solution.
Next, we show that MaGiQ can also be used for the
combiner design with mild adjustments. We then suggest an
additional greedy ratio trace maximization (GRTM) algorithm
that directly minimizes the estimation error using a suitable
dictionary that is chosen according to the hardware scheme.
In simulations, we demonstrate that GRTM enjoys good performance and short running time, especially when the number
of RF chains increases.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section II
we introduce the signal model and problem formulation, and
review common combiner hardware schemes. In Section III
we introduce the massive MIMO data estimation problem
and derive the relevant MSE minimization over the precoder
and combiner. Sections IV and V consider the precoder and
combiner design problems, respectively. In Section VI we
evaluate the proposed algorithms using numerical experiments
under different scenarios.
The following notations are used throughout the paper:
boldface upper-case X and lower-case x letters are used to
denote matrices and vectors respectively, and non-bold letters
x are scalars. The ith element in the jth column of X is [X]ij .

3

We let I denote the identity matrix of suitable size, X T , X ∗
the transpose and conjugate-transpose of X respectively, E {⋅}
the expectation and ∥ ⋅ ∥2p , ∥ ⋅ ∥2F the `p and Forbenius norms.
The determinant of X is ∣X∣, and CN (x, X) is the complexGaussian distribution with mean x and covariance matrix X.
The real part of a variable is denoted as R {⋅}, R (X) is the
range space of X and P X is the orthogonal projection onto
R (X).

r

with W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF the analog combining matrix and
r
r
W BB the NRF
× NRF
digital combining matrix. The properties of the set W vary according to the specific analog
hardware scheme.
We wish to design W RF , W BB , F RF , F BB to minimize
the estimation error of s from r, under different hardware
constraints, i.e different feasible sets W, F. Thus, we consider
the problem
min
W RF ,W BB F RF ,F BB

II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

s.t. ∶
A. Signal Model

r

x = F RF F BB s,

(1)

with s the Ns × 1 symbol vector. We assume, without loss
of generality, that s ∼ N (0, I Ns ). The signal is transmitted
over a narrowband block-fading propagation channel such that
the Nr × 1 received analog signal vector y at the receiver’s
antennas is
√
(2)
y = pr HF RF F BB s + z,
where H is the Nr × Nt channel matrix, pr is the received
average power and z is an Nr ×1 interference vector with zero
mean and autocorrelation matrix E [zz H ] = Rz . Here, z can
represent either noise or an interfering signal. We assume full
channel state information (CSI), i.e. the matrix H is known.
The interference correlation matrix Rz is also known and
assumed to be full rank.
At the receiver, an analog combiner maps the Nr inputs to
r
NRF
RF chains that are then processed at baseband using a
digital combiner. This yields the discrete signal
√

t

F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF , ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ Ns ,
W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF .

Consider a single user massive MIMO system in which a
transmitter with Nt antennas communicates Ns independent
t
t
data streams using NRF
RF chains, Ns ≤ NRF
≤ Nt , to a
r
receiver equipped with Nr antennas and NRF RF chains, Ns ≤
r
NRF
≤ Nr . At the transmitter, the RF chains are followed by a
network of switches and phase shifters that expands the NRF
digital outputs to Nt precoded analog signals which feed the
transmit antennas. Similarly, at the receiver, the antennas are
followed by a network of switches and phase shifters that feed
r
the NRF
RF chains. The specific architecture of the analog
hardware at each end can vary according to budget constraints.
Some possible choices are presented in the next subsection.
t
r
For simplicity, we assume in this paper that NRF
= NRF
= Ns ,
which corresponds to the minimal possible number of chains,
and hence the worst-case scenario.
The hybrid architecture enables the transmitter to apply a
t
t
BB precoder F BB ∈ CNRF ×NRF , followed by a RF precoder
t
F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF . The properties of the set F are determined
by the specific hardware scheme in use. For example, in fullyconnected phase shifter networks, F is the set of unimodular
matrices. The transmitter obeys a total power constraint such
that ∥F RF F BB ∥2F = Ns .
The discrete-time Nt × 1 transmitted signal can be written
as

r=

E [∥s − W ∗BB W ∗RF y∥22 ]

pr W ∗BB W ∗RF HF RF F BB s + W ∗BB W ∗RF z,

(3)

(4)
B. Precoder and Combiner Hardware Schemes
We now present some possible hardware schemes and the
feasible sets they dictate. We focus on the combiner architecture and the feasible set W, but all the options presented
here can be translated to similar precoder architectures and
feasible sets F. The networks below are based on phase
shifters and/or switches, with different connectivity levels. In
practice, the choice of scheme can be affected by a variety of
budget constraints such as power consumption, price, and area
against the requested array gain. For example, phase shifters
allow for a more flexible design than switches, but their power
consumption is higher.
(S1) Fully Connected Phase Shifters and Switches Network: Each antenna is connected to an RF chain
through an independent on/off switch followed by a
phase shifter. All the incoming analog signals from the
different antennas are combined before feeding the RF
chain. In this architecture, the entries of the analog
combining matrix W RF can be either zeros or unit
r
modulus. Hence the set W is defined by W Nr ×NRF =
r
{W ∈ CNr ×NRF ∶ ∣wij ∣ ∈ {0, 1}}. The orthogonal projection P W onto the feasible set dictated by this scheme is
defined as
⎧
⎪ej2π∠[A]il , ∣[A]il ∣ ≥ 1
⎪
2 .
(5)
[P W (A)]il = ⎨
⎪
0,
∣[A]il ∣ < 12
⎪
⎩
The fully-connected phase shifters and switches network
is presented in Fig. 1a.
(S2) Fully Connected Phase Shifters Network: (architecture
A1 in [8]). In this case, each antenna is connected
to an RF chain through an independent phase shifter,
without a switch. Thus, W RF is a unimodular matrix:
r
r
W Nr ×NRF = {W ∈ CNr ×NRF ∶ ∣wij ∣ = 1}. Here we have
[P W (A)]il = ej2π∠[A]il .

(6)

Figure 1b. demonstrates this setting.
(S3) Switching Network: (architecture A5 in [8]). This
is an antenna selection scheme, where each RF
chain is preceded by a single switch that can togr
gle between the Nr antennas. A total of NRF
antennas are selected and sampled. It follows that
r
W RF is partial permutation matrix: W Nr ×NRF =

4

r

{W ∈ CNr ×NRF ∶ wij ∈ {0, 1} , ∥wj ∥0 = 1}. The projection P W (A) chooses the entry with largest absolute
value in each column of A and sets the corresponding
entry of the output to 1, while all other entries are set
to 0. This setting is shown in Fig. 1c. Another structure
is the switching network with sub-arrays (architecture
A6 in [8]), where the switching range is limited to a
certain subset of antennas for each RF chain. Note that
in switching networks, phase shifters are unnecessary,
since each input can be processed independently at BB.
(S4) Partially Connected Phase Shifters Network with
Fixed Sub Arrays: (architecture A2 in [8]). This
scheme divides the array into (possibly overlapping)
sub-arrays of size G. Each sub-array operates as a
fully-connected phase shifter network with a single
r
RF chain. This results in the feasible set W Nr ×NRF =
r
Nr ×NRF
{W ∈ C
∶ ∣wij ∣ = 1, ∀i ∈ Sj , ∣wij ∣ = 0, ∀i ∉ Sj },
with Sj the group of indices corresponding to antennas
that belong to the jth sub-array. In this case P W (A)
applies the mapping in (6) to the G entries of aj that
belong to Sj , and sets all others to 0. The fixed subarrays network is presented in Fig. 1d. The parameter
G represents the connectivity factor; for G = Nr , we get
the fully-connected network S2.
(S5) Flexible Partially Connected Phase Shifters Network with Sub Arrays: This architecture is similar
to the previous one, except that the contributing antennas to each RF chain are not fixed, but can be
optimized, i.e. the subgroups Sj are flexible. This is implemented using a Nr -to-1 switch that precedes the phase
r
shifters. The corresponding feasible set is W Nr ×NRF =
r
Nr ×NRF
{W ∈ C
∶ ∣wij ∣ ∈ {0, 1} , ∥wj ∥0 = G}. The function P W (A) in this case chooses the G entries with
largest absolute value in each column of A and applies
(6) to them while setting all others to 0.
The networks above constitute some of the main classes
of existing analog architectures. They present different levels
of challenge in terms of hardware complexity, as in Table I.
For a complete power consumption comparison, the reader is
referred to the example in [8]. One may define many additional
architectures based on the above networks by modifying their
components and connectivity factors.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Fig. 1: Combiner hardware schemes. (1a) S1: Fully connected
phase shifters and switches network, (1b) S2: Fully connected
phase shifters network, (1c) S3: Switching network, (1d) S4:
Fixed partially connected phase shifters network with subarrays, and (1e) S5: Flexible partially connected phase shifters
network with sub-arrays.
The resulting estimate
∗

∗

ŝ = H̄ W RF [W RF ∗ (H̄ H̄ + Rz ) W RF ]
and its MSE is equal to

∗

To optimally design the precoder and combiner we consider
the MSE minimization problem in (4).
Since there are no constraints on W BB in (4), it can be
r
r
matrix, including the linear MMSE
chosen as any NRF
×NRF
estimator of s from the measurements ỹ = W ∗RF y. This
estimator depends on the matrices F RF , F BB ,W RF and is
given by
∗

∗

W ∗RF y, (9)

E[∥s − ŝ∥2 ] = Ns −

III. MSE M INIMIZATION

W ∗BB,opt = H̄ W RF [W RF ∗ (H̄ H̄ + Rz ) W RF ]

−1

−1

with

−1

W ∗RF H̄) .
(10)
The digital combiner of (7) is the optimal linear estimator
in the MSE sense for any given precoders F RF , F BB and
analog combiner W RF . Thus, our remaining goal is to design
W RF , F RF , F BB to minimize (10). This is equivalent to the
following maximization problem:
max

,
(7)

∗

tr (H̄ W RF [W RF ∗ (H̄ H̄ + Rz ) W RF ]

f (W RF , F RF , F BB )

W RF ,F RF ,F BB

s.t. ∶

t

F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF , ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ Ns ,
r

√
H̄ = pr HF RF F BB .

W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF ,
(8)

(11)

5

TABLE I: Hardware complexity comparison between different architectures
Phase Shifters #
Switches #
Switch Type

S1
r
Nr ⋅ NRF
r
Nr ⋅ NRF
on-off

S2
r
Nr ⋅ NRF
0
-

with
f (W RF , F RF , F BB ) =

(12)

∗
∗
tr(W ∗RF H̄ H̄ W RF [W RF ∗ (H̄ H̄

−1

+ Rz ) W RF ] ).

Similar to the case considered in [4], the joint optimization
problem (11) is non-convex and has no known solution.
Hence, as in previous works [4], [10], [12], we simplify the
problem by decoupling it. First, in Section IV, we optimize
the precoders F RF , F BB given W RF . Then, in Section V, we
assume fixed F RF , F BB and optimize the combiner W RF .
IV. P RECODER DESIGN
We now consider the problem of designing the precoder
F = F RF F BB . For this purpose we assume a fixed analog
combiner and rewrite (11) as
∗

∗

−1

max tr (H̃F F ∗ H̃ [H̃F F ∗ H̃ + R̃] )
(13)

F RF ,F BB
t
Nt ×NRF

∥F RF F BB ∥2F

,
≤ Ns ,
s.t. ∶ F RF ∈ F
√
with H̃ = pr W ∗RF H and R̃ = W ∗RF Rz W RF . If we relax
t
the constraint F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF to the fully-digital case F RF ∈
t
CNt ×NRF , then (13) has a closed form solution [15]
F opt = V ΦT

(14)

t
where V contains the first NRF
eigenvectors of the matrix
∗ −1
t
t
H̃ R̃ H̃, Φ is an NRF × NRF diagonal matrix with power
t
t
allocation weights as in [15], and T denotes any NRF
× NRF
unitary matrix. It follows that there is a set of optimal
solutions, one for every unitary T .
t
Previous works [4]–[6], [8], [10], [12] considered T = I NRF
and suggested to approximate F opt with a decomposition
F RF F BB , which yields the problem

S3
0
r
NRF
Nr -to-1

S4
r
G ⋅ NRF
0
-

S5
r
G ⋅ NRF
r
G ⋅ NRF
Nr -to-1

the amount of phase shifters per RF chains, and is irrelevant
for other schemes. None of the above works take advantage
of the flexibility in choosing T , which we show below can
boost the performance of existing solutions with only a small
computational price.
Specifically, we exploit the flexibility in the choice of
T , and find the unitary matrix that results in the smallest
approximation gap ∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F . To this end, we
develop an alternating minimization framework inspired by
[16], that alternately optimizes over F RF , F BB and T . In the
simulations in Section VI, we demonstrate that by adding the
optimization over T , we are able to improve the performance
of state-of-the-art algorithms, with no substantial increase in
complexity.
A. Alt-MaG - Alternating Minimization of Approximation Gap
Plugging (14) into (15) and adding T as an optimization
variable, our problem becomes
min
T ,F RF ,F BB

∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F
t

F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF , ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ Ns ,

s.t. ∶

T ∈U

t
NRF

,

M

with U the set of all M ×M unitary matrices. To approximate
the solution of (16), we consider an alternating minimization
approach. First, we fix F RF , F BB and solve
min
T

s.t. ∶

∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F
(17)

t

T ∈ U NRF .

Next, using the resulting T , we solve
min
F RF ,F BB

∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F
(18)

t

s.t. ∶ F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF , ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ Ns ,

min ∥F opt − F RF F BB ∥2F

F RF ,F BB

s.t. ∶ F RF ∈ F

t
Nt ×NRF

(16)

(15)
, ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ Ns .

This approach is motivated by the approximation in [4] which
shows that minimizing (15) approximately maximizes the
system’s spectral efficiency. However, these solutions suffer
from several disadvantages. In [4]–[6], [8], [9], the suggested
design for the analog precoder is based on a dictionary
composed of candidate vectors. This constraint leads to a large
performance gap from the fully-digital precoder, especially in
the case where the number of RF chains is much less than
the number of multipath components in the channel H. In
[10], the author suggests a manifold optimization algorithm
termed MO-AltMin that achieves good performance, but has
very high complexity and is suitable only for scheme S2. The
solution in [12] is based on the network S4 but with twice

and repeat iteratively.
If both (17) and (18) can be solved, then the objective value
decreases in each step, and since it is bounded from below, the
algorithm will converge to a local optimum. However, while
(17) has a (closed form) optimal solution, problem (18) is a
special case of (15), which has no known solution. To attain
a sub optimal solution, any of the mentioned algorithms [4]–
[6], [8]–[10], [12] can be used (provided it is compatible with
the hardware choice). Each of these solutions will result in a
different algorithm from the Alt-MaG family.
A closed form solution to problem (17) is given in the next
theorem.
Theorem 1. Given the svd decomposition F ∗BB F ∗RF V Φ =
∗
Ũ ΛṼ , the optimal solution T opt to (17) is given by
T opt = Ṽ Ũ

∗

(19)

6

Proof. First note that ∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F = ∥V Φ∥2F +
∥F RF F BB ∥2F − 2R(tr (F ∗BB F ∗RF V ΦT )). Thus, it is sufficient to maximize R(tr (F ∗BB F ∗RF V ΦT )). Denote Λ = Ω2 .
Then,
R(tr(F ∗BB F ∗RF V ΦT ))

Note that since the optimal solution V ΦT obeys the transmit
power constraint ∥V ΦT ∥2F ≤ NS , it follows that
∥F RF F BB ∥2F = ∥F RF [F ∗RF F RF ]

−1

F ∗RF V ΦT ∥2F

= ∥P F RF V ΦT ∥2F ≤ ∥V ΦT ∥2F ≤ NS .
Therefore, (23) complies with the transmit power constraint.
MaGiQ is summarized in Algorithm 2. Since the nonnegative objective function ∥V ΦT −F RF ∥2F does not increase
at each iteration of Algorithm 2, the algorithm converges. In
the simulations in Section VI, we demonstrate that MaGiQ has
lower MSE than other low-complexity methods in the case of
very few RF chains.

≤ ∣tr(F ∗BB F ∗RF V ΦT )∣
= ∣tr((Ũ Ω) (T ∗ Ṽ Ω)∗ )∣
√
∗
∗
tr(Ũ Ω2 Ũ )tr(T ∗ Ṽ Ω2 Ṽ T )
≤
(∗)

= tr (Ω2 ) ,
where (∗) stems from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. For
∗
T = Ṽ Ũ , the upper bound is achieved with equality.
The resulting family of Alt-MaG algorithms is outlined in
Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 2 MaGiQ - Minimal Gap Iterative Quantization
Input: fully-digital precoder V Φ, threshold t
Output: digital precoder F BB , analog precoder F RF
t
t
Initialize T = I NRF
, F RF = 0, F BB = I NRF
2
While ∥V ΦT − F RF ∥F ≥ t do:
1) Calculate F RF = P F (V ΦT )
∗
2) Calculate the svd decomposition F ∗RF V Φ = Ũ ΛṼ
∗
3) Set T = Ṽ Ũ
−1
Calculate F BB = [F ∗RF F RF ] F ∗RF V ΦT

Algorithm 1 Alt-MaG - alternating minimization of approximation gap
Input: fully-digital precoder V Φ, threshold t
Output: digital precoder F BB , analog precoder F RF
t
Initialize T = I NRF
, F RF = 0, F BB = 0
While ∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F ≥ t do:
1) Calculate (F RF , F BB ) from (18) using one of
A version of Algorithm 2, PE-AltMin, has been previously
the methods in Section IV
suggested
in [10] for the scheme S2, as an optimization of
∗
2) Calculate the svd decomposition F ∗BB F ∗RF V Φ = Ũ ΛṼ an upper bound on (18). There, the authors assumed that the
∗
optimal F BB is an orthogonal matrix of the form F BB = αT ,
3) Set T = Ṽ Ũ
and considered the problem
Next we suggest a possible simplification to (18) that can
min ∥V Φ − αF RF T ∥2F
T ,α,F RF
be used with any of the schemes S1-S5, and results in a simple
t
(24)
closed form solution for F RF , F BB .
s.t. ∶ F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF , ∥αF RF T ∥2F = Ns ,
t

T ∈ U NRF .

B. MaGiQ - Minimal Gap Iterative Quantization

√

The complexity of Algorithm 1 is determined by the method
used in step 1 and could be accordingly high. One approach
that yields a low complexity algorithm, is approximating
V ΦT by an analog precoder only, setting the digital precoder
t
to F BB = I NRF
. That is, in every iteration, solving
min ∥V ΦT − F RF ∥2F
F RF

t

(20)

s.t. ∶ F RF ∈ F Nt ×NRF .
The benefit of this approach is the existence of a simple,
optimal, closed form solution to (20), given by
F RF = P F (V ΦT ) ,

(21)

with P F (⋅) defined in Section II.
Once F RF and T converge, F BB is calculated as the
solution to
min ∥V ΦT − F RF F BB ∥2F
F BB
(22)
s.t. ∶ ∥F RF F BB ∥2F ≤ NS .
Note that F RF depends on V ΦT which are a function of the
random channel and interference. With high probability, it has
full column rank. In this case, (22) has a closed form solution
−1

F BB = [F ∗RF F RF ]

F ∗RF V ΦT .

(23)

Setting α = ∥F RFNTS ∥F , and using some mathematical manipulations, they bounded the objective in (24) from above
with the expression ∥V ΦT ∗ − F RF ∥2F . After optimizing the
upper bound
√ over T and F RF alternately, they set F BB as
F BB = ∥F RFNTS ∥F T , which is sub optimal, as demonstrated
in Section VI, where we compare both methods. The main
difference between this approach and MaGiQ, is that while
we exploit the degree of freedom in the fully-digital precoder,
PE-AltMin restricts the set of possible digital precoders to
orthogonal matrices alone, which degrades performance. In
addition, Algorithm 2 is relevant to any hardware structure.
Alt-MaG and MaGiQ where developed for MSE minimization, but can be generalized to other performance criteria, by
replacing the optimal unconstrained solution expressions. For
example, when considering the system’s spectral efficiency as
in [4], [10], the optimal solution is (14) with Φ now being a
diagonal matrix with the power allocation weights given by
water filling [15].
C. Optimality of MaGiQ
One advantage of MaGiQ over other existing techniques is
that in some special cases it converges to the optimal fullydigital solution, as we show in the following proposition.

7

Proposition 1. Define F opt as in (14), and assume that Φ has
positive values on its diagonal. Denote F̃ the hybrid precoder
t
produced by MAGiQ for the input F opt . If V Ψ ∈ F Nt ×NRF ,
for some diagonal, positive definite matrix Ψ, then

It follows that F ∗RF V Φ = ΨΦ, which is diagonal. Thus,
step 3 yields
t
T = I NRF

with αil the complex gain of the lth ray in the ith cluster,
r
t
), (φril , θil
) the azimuth and elevation angles
and (φtil , θil
of departure and arrival for the lth ray in the ith cluster
t
r
) and ar (φril θil
respectively. The vectors at (φtil , θil
) represent
the transmit and receive array responses, and depend on the
array geometry.
For Nray = 1, (26) can be written √
as (25) with Λ a Ncl ×Ncl
Nt Nr
diagonal matrix with the elements
α on its diagNcl Nray il
onal, and Ar , At being steering matrices composed of the
r
t
) respectively. As Nr , Nt
vectors ar (φril , θil
) and at (φtil , θil
grow to infinity, the matrices Ar , At become orthogonal.
Hence, in a noise-limited system, V is asymptotically equal to
the steering vectors (up to some normalization constant) and
thus unimodular.
The above example can be generalized easily to a hybrid
fully-connected phase shifter combiner rather than a fullydigital one.
To summarize the results of this section, MaGiQ is a low
complexity algorithm that yields low MSE with very few RF
chains. When the number of chains increases, Alt-Mag can
be used with other methods to solve problem (18) in its first
step. The choice of algorithm should be made according to
the complexity requirement. For example, if the computational
load is not a limiting factor, then MO-AltMin from [10] is a
good choice.

and the algorithm converges after a single iteration. For F BB
we get

V. A NALOG C OMBINER D ESIGN

F̃ = V Φ.
Proposition 1 implies that if each column of V lies in
the feasible set F Nt ×1 up to some scaling, then MaGiQ will
produce a globally optimal solution. This property is not
assured in other algorithms, as demonstrated in the simulations
in Section VI.
Proof. For simplicity, we consider here the fully-connected
phase shifter network S2. However, Proposition 1 holds for any
t
hardware scheme with the same condition V Ψ ∈ F Nt ×NRF ,
and similar proofs can be constructed accordingly.
t
For S2, V Ψ ∈ F Nt ×NRF implies that V has columns
with constant modulus. In the first iteration of MaGiQ, T is
t
initialized as T = I NRF
. Since Φ is a diagonal matrix with
positive diagonal values, step 1 of the algorithm leads to
F RF = P F (V Φ) = V Ψ.

F BB = [F ∗RF F RF ]

−1

We now turn to design the analog combiner

F ∗RF V Φ = Ψ−1 Φ,

W = W BB W RF .

and the received hybrid precoder is F̃ = V Φ.
Note that the diagonal matrix Φ represents non-negative
weights [15]. If one of the weights is equal to zero, then
the corresponding column in the optimal fully-digital precoder
is all zeros. In that case, we can drop the relevant column,
and use the above proposition with the remaining fully-digital
precoder.
One example of a scenario in which the conditions of
Proposition 1 hold, is a fully-connected phase shifter precoder (for simplicity we assume fully-digital combiner) with
Rz = σz2 I Nr , and circulant channel matrix, that is
H = Ar ΛA∗t ,

(25)

where Ar , At are DFT matrices and Λ is a diagonal gain
matrix. In this case, the singular vectors of H ∗ R−1
z H are
columns of the DFT matrix which are unimodular, and thus
lie in F Nt ×1 for S2. Therefore, from Proposition 1, MaGiQ
produces the optimal solution (14).
A common special case of (25), is the well-known narrowband mmWave clustered channel [17]–[19], with a single ray
at each cluster and asymptotic number of antennas. This model
consists of Ncl clusters with Nray propagating rays, each ray
associated with transmit and receive directions, and complex
gain. The channel matrix can be written as
√
Nt Nr Ncl Nray
r
r
t
t ∗
H=
∑ ∑ αil ar (φil , θil ) at (φil , θil ) , (26)
Ncl Nray i=1 l=1

(27)

For this purpose we assume a fixed precoder, that is, H̄ in (8)
is fixed and known.
r
r
In (7), we derived the optimal NRF
×NRF
digital combiner,
given the hybrid decomposition (27), and reduced the problem
to W RF alone. A different approach is to first allow the
r
entire Nr × NRF
hybrid combiner to be digital, and then
try and approximate the fully-digital solution with a hybrid
decomposition, similar to the precoder optimization in the
previous section.
This approach was adopted in [4], [9]. There, the authors ber
gun by allowing W to be fully-digital, that is W ∈ CNr ×NRF ,
and solved problem (4) for fixed precoders. This yields the
MMSE estimator of s from y, given by
W mmse = B −1 H̄,

(28)

with
∗

B = H̄ H̄ + Rz .

(29)

It was shown in [4] that minimizing (4) (for fixed precoders)
is equivalent to solving the following optimization problem:
min
W RF ,W BB

s.t. ∶

1

∥B 2 (W mmse − W RF W BB ) ∥2F
r

(30)

W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF .

That is, finding the hybrid decomposition of W mmse that
minimizes the weighted norm in (30).

8

Unlike the precoder case, here (30) and (4) are equivalent.
Motivated by this, the authors in [4], [9] assumed a multipath channel structure as in (26), which implies that the
optimal combiner is a sparse sum of steering vectors. They
then suggested a variation of simultaneous OMP (SOMP) to
solve (30), that chooses the analog combiner vectors from
a steering dictionary and sets the digital combiner as the
corresponding weights. However, this algorithm suffers from
degraded performance due to the dictionary constraint.
1
By dropping the weights matrix B 2 , (30) becomes
min
W RF ,W BB

s.t. ∶

combiner, while looking for an S that yields a minimal
approximation gap between the two.
In (33), S is only required to be invertible, in contrast to
r
the unitary constraint in (14). Hence, limiting it to U NRF is
restrictive. However, this is a convenient way to enforce the
invertibility constraint. The optimization problem we consider
is therefore
1

min ∥B − 2 U S − W RF ∥2F

W RF ,S

r

W RF ∈ W

t
Nt ×NRF

which constitutes an upper bound on (30) (divided by the
1
constant factor ∥B 2 ∥2F ), and is identical (up to the power
constraint) to the precoder problem (15) in the previous
section. Hence the methods in [5], [6], [8], [10], [12] can be
used to solve it. However, solving (31) is only optimizing an
upper bound on the original objective, and is thus sub-optimal.
A. MaGiQ for Combiner Design
As opposed to previous works, we impose the hybrid
decomposition (27), and optimize (4) over both W BB and
W RF , as in Section III. This leads to the problem of minimizing (10) over W RF , which is equivalent to
−1

max tr (W ∗RF AW RF [W ∗RF BW RF ] )
W RF

r

(32)

s.t. ∶ W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF ,
∗

with A = H̄ H̄ , B as in (29), and W the feasible set of the
given hardware scheme as described in Section II. Note that
since Rz is positive definite, it follows that B is invertible.
Proposition 2. The optimal fully-digital solution to (32), is
given by
1
W opt = B − 2 U S,
(33)
r
NRF
∗

where U contains the first
eigenvectors of the matrix
− 12
− 12
B AB , with A = H̄ H̄ , and H̄, B are as in (8), and
r
r
(29). The matrix S is any NRF
× NRF
invertible matrix.
Proof. The fully-digital problem corresponding to (32) is
−1

max tr (W ∗RF AW RF [W ∗RF BW RF ] ) .

W RF

r

S∈U

(31)
,

(34)

1

Let Q ∈ CNr ×NRF be defined by Q = B 2 W RF . Then
1
1
the objective in (34) equals to tr(P Q B − 2 AB − 2 ). Let V
r
be a Nr × NRF
matrix with orthogonal columns that span
R(Q). Then, P Q = V V ∗ and Q = V S for some invertr
r
ible NRF
× NRF
matrix S. Thus, the objective becomes
− 21
∗ − 21
tr(V B AB V ) which is maximized by choosing V
1
1
r
as the first NRF
eigenvectors of B − 2 AB − 2 , i.e. V = U .
Therefore,
Q = U S,

(35)

s.t. ∶ W RF ∈ W Nr ×NRF ,

∥W mmse − W RF W BB ∥2F

r
NRF

,

which can be solved using the MaGiQ approach presented
in Section IV. Note that here Alt-MaG and MaGiQ coincide,
since in step 1 of Alt-MaG the optimization is over W RF
alone. Once the algorithm converges, W BB is calculated as
in (7).
MaGiQ enjoys good performance with very few RF chains,
but when the number of chains increases, other methods are
preferable. One of the main factors that degrade MaGiQ,
is that it only optimizes a bound (31) on (30), rather than
directly maximizing (30) (which is equivalent to (32)). Next,
we exploit the special structure of the ratio-trace objective in
(32), and construct a greedy method for its direct maximization
over W RF . The proposed GRTM algorithm solves a ratio-ofscalars problem at each step and achieves low MSE when the
number of RF chains increases.
Both GRTM and MaGiQ enjoy low complexity and each has
its merits. For a small number of RF chains or a noise-limited
case with a fully connected phase shifters network and channel that has unimodular singular vectors, one should choose
MaGiQ. For a more general channel model and increasing
number of RF chains, GRTM is preferable.

B. GRTM - Greedy Ratio Trace Maximization
We now describe the GRTM approach for directly solving
(32). The concept of GRTM is to solve (32) in a greedy
manner, where in each iteration we add one RF chain and
choose the optimal combiner vector to add to the previously
r
K selected vectors, 1 ≤ K ≤ NRF
.
(K)
Assume we have a solution W RF ∈ W Nr ×K for the Kr
sized problem, i.e. (32) with NRF = K. We now want to
add an additional RF chain, and compute the optimal column
(K+1)
(K)
w such that W RF
= [W RF w]. First, note that in order
(K+1) ∗
(K+1)
for W RF
BW RF
to be invertible and the objective in
(32) to be well defined for the (K + 1)-sized case, we require
(K)
w ∉ R(W RF ). In practice, this condition implies that each
RF chain contributes new and independent information with
respect to the other chains. Given this condition, the (K + 1)sized optimization problem is
(K+1) ∗

which yields the solution (33).

max tr (W RF

Similarly to the previous section, we can now approximate the optimal unconstrained solution (33) with an analog

s.t. ∶

w

(K+1)

AW RF

(K+1) ∗

[W RF

(K+1) −1

BW RF

] )

w ∈ W Nr ×1 , w ∉ R (W RF ) .
(K)

(36)

9

In the next proposition, we show that (36) is equivalent to
solving the following vector optimization problem, referred to
as the base case:
w∗ Cw
max
w
(37)
w∗ Dw
s.t. ∶ w ∈ W Nr ×1 , w∗ Dw > 0,
where D and C are specific Nr × Nr positive semi definite
(psd) matrices.
Using Proposition 3 leads to the GRTM solution of (32),
where in each iteration we choose the best column vector to
add to the previously selected combiner vectors by solving
(37). The GRTM algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 3.
Proposition 3. Problems (37) and (36) are equivalent with
1

1

D = B 2 (I Nr − P B 12 W (K) ) B 2 ,
RF

γ = tr (P B 12 W (K) B

− 21

1

1

A 2 B− 2 ) ,

RF

1

1

1

1

G = B 2 P B 12 W (K) B − 2 A 2 − A 2 ,
RF

C = γD + GG∗ .
Proof. To prove the proposition, we rely on the following
lemma:
−1

Lemma 1. Let W̃ = [W w] and denote Q = (W ∗ W ) .
Then [20]
−1

∗

(W̃ W̃ )
with α =

=[

Q + αQW ∗ ww∗ W Q∗
−αw∗ W Q∗

−αQW ∗ w
],
α

1
.
w∗ w−w∗ W QW ∗ w

Using Lemma 1 and straightforward algebraic operations we
get equality between the two objectives. The first constraint is
identical in both problems. It remains to show that the second
constraints of (37) and (36) are equivalent.
1
(K)
Since B is invertible, w ∈ R(W RF ) if and only if B 2 w ∈
1
(K)
(K)
R(B 2 W RF ). Therefore, if w ∈ R(W RF ), then
1

1

w∗ Dw = w∗ Bw − w∗ B 2 P B 12 W (K) B 2 w
RF

1

Algorithm 3 GRTM
Input effective channel H̄, interference correlation Rz
Output analog combiner W RF
∗
∗
Initialize A = H̄ H̄ , B = H̄ H̄ + Rz , C = A, D = B,
(0)
W RF = []
r
For K = 0 ∶ NRF
− 1:
1) Solve the base case (37) to obtain w
(K+1)
(K)
2) Update W RF = [W RF w]
3) Update

1

= w∗ Bw − w∗ B 2 B 2 w = 0.

1

1

1

D = B 2 (I Nr − P B 21 W (K+1) ) B 2

In the other direction, note that D is a non-negative Hermitian
matrix, and can be decomposed as D = QQ∗ for some Q.
Thus, w∗ Dw = 0 if and only if Q∗ w = 0. Multiplying
1
both sides of the equation by Q yields Dw = B 2 (I Nr −
1
P B 12 W (K) )B 2 w = 0. Since B is invertible, it follows that
RF

Problem (37) has several advantages over (36): 1) its objective is a scalar ratio and does not involve matrix inversion. 2)
this problem is both a constrained ratio-trace, trace-ratio [21]
and a Rayleigh quotient problem, and therefore may be solved
using techniques for either of these well known problems.
However, these methods require adaptation to fit the additional
hardware constraints, which will not be investigated in this
work.
One simple method for obtaining a (sub-optimal) solution to
(37) is searching over a dictionary W̄ with columns in W Nr ×1 ,
and calculating the objective value in (37) for each vector. The
vector that corresponds to the largest objective is then chosen.
This solution has low computational load thanks to the simplicity of the scalar ratio objective. The choice of dictionary
depends on the channel model and hardware constraints. For
a fully-connected scheme and a sparse mmWave channel as
in (26), a steering vector dictionary as used in [4] exploits
the channel structure and yields good performance. For a
more general model, Gaussian randomization can be used to
construct a good dictionary. In this case, W̄ = P W (X), with
P W (⋅) as defined in Section II, and where X is a random
dictionary, commonly chosen as a matrix with columns drawn
from CN (0, W opt W ∗opt ), with W opt from (33). In the
simulations section, we used the dictionary based solution with
Gaussian randomization. To comply with the problem’s second
constraint, it is necessary to remove the selected column from
the dictionary at each iteration. The other columns are, with
(K)
high probability, not in R(W RF ) due to the random complexGaussian distribution.

1

1

RF

1

1

1

γ = tr (P B 12 W (K+1) B − 2 A 2 B − 2 )
RF

1

1

1

1

G = B 2 P B 12 W (K+1) B − 2 A 2 − A 2
RF

C = γD + GG∗

(K)

(I Nr − P B 12 W (K) )B 2 w = 0, or B 2 w ∈ R(B 2 W RF ),
RF

(K)

which is equivalent to w ∈ R(W RF ). Hence, we proved that
(K)

w ∈ R (W RF ) ⇐⇒ w∗ Dw = 0.
Since D is non-negative definite, w∗ Dw ≥ 0, for all w. The
previous connection then yields

Simulations demonstrate that GRTM has lower MSE than
MaGiQ when the number of RF chains increases. In that case,
it outperforms other low complexity methods in various SNR,
channel models, and hardware scenarios.

w ∉ R (W RF ) ⇐⇒ w∗ Dw > 0.

C. Combiner Design for Kronecker Model Channel Estimation

As there is equality between the objectives and feasible sets
of (37) and (36), both problems are equivalent.

Problem (32) arises in other communication problems, so
that GRTM can be used to address those problems as well. One

(K)

10

such scenario is MIMO channel estimation under a Kronecker
model in the interference limited case [22], [23].
This problem consists of a single base station (BS) with
NBS antennas and NRF < NBS RF chains, and K singleantenna users in a time-synchronized time division duplex
(TDD) system. In the uplink channel estimation phase, each
user sends τ training symbols to the BS, during which the
channel is assumed to be constant.
The (discrete time) received signal at the BS can be written
as
X = W ∗RF HS T + Z,

(38)

where H ∈ CNBS ×K is the desired channel between the users
to the BS, S ∈ Cτ ×K is the pilot sequence matrix, W RF ∈
W NBS ×NRF is the analog combiner and Z is the interference.
Both the channel and interference follow the doubly correlated Kronecker model [24]
1

1

1

1

H = Rr2 H̄Rt2 , Z = Rr2 Z̄Q 2 ,

(39)

Nbs ×Nbs

with Rr ∈ C
the BS’s receive side correlation matrix,
Rt ∈ CK×K the transmit side correlation matrix of the
users and Q ∈ CKτ ×τ the transmit side correlation matrix
N ×K
of the interference. The matrices H̄ bs , Z̄ ∈ CNbs ×τ have
independent entries with i.i.d complex-normal distribution. All
correlation matrices are known.
In the channel estimation phase, the goal is to estimate H
from X. For this purpose it is desirable to design the analog
combiner W RF to minimize the MSE in estimation. As shown
in [22], the estimation error of the MMSE estimator for H
from X is inversely proportional to
µ ≜ tr (W ∗RF R2r W RF (W ∗RF Rr W RF ) ) ,
−1

(40)

which is equal to (32) with A = R2r and B = Rr . Hence,
all the previously mentioned methods may be used to design
W RF .
VI. N UMERICAL E XPERIMENTS
We now demonstrate the performance of the suggested
beamformers under different hardware constraints. Unless
mentioned otherwise, the channel model used is the narrowband mmWave clustered channel defined in (26), with αil ∼
N C (0, 1), Ncl = 6, and Nray = 1. We consider a simple
uniform linear array (ULA) with spacing d = λ2 , where λ is the
carrier wavelength. It follows that the steering vectors depend
only on the azimuth and are given by
1
aq (φ) = √ [1, ej2π sin(φ),⋯, ej2π(Nq −1) sin(φ) ] ,
N

(41)

for q ∈ {r, t}. The angles φtil , φril are distributed uniformly over
the interval [0, 2π).
In all simulations, the number of transmit antennas is
Nt = 10 and the number of receive antennas is Nr = 15. Unless
mentioned otherwise, the interference is a white complexGaussian noise with zero mean and variance σz2 = 1. For
the precoder experiments, we used a fully-digital receiver, i.e.
r
NRF
= Nr , and for the combiner experiments we used a fullyt
digital transmitter, i.e. NRF
= Nt .

A. Hybrid Precoder Performance
First, we present the performance of different hybrid precoders. Here, we compare 5 design methods. The first two
are the MO AltMin algorithm from [10], which performs
manifold optimization to minimize (15) over F RF and F BB ,
and the PE AltMin method, also from [10], that assumes F BB
to be a scaled orthogonal matrix and employs an algorithm
similar to Algorithm 2,√ only with F BB calculated in the
last step as F BB = ∥F RFNTS ∥F T . The third is the SOMP of
[4], that reformulates (15) as a sparsity problem and chooses
the columns of F RF from a dictionary of candidate vectors,
and simultaneously solves the corresponding weights F BB .
Last two are our methods, the MaGiQ in Algorithm 2 and
the Alt-MaG method in Algorithm 1 with the MO AltMin
solution used to obtain F RF , F BB in step 1. For the AltMin algorithms, we used the Matlab’s functions [25]. The
dictionary used for the SOMP algorithm consists of 1000
1000
2π
q)}q=1 . As performance measure
steering vectors {at ( 1000
we consider the gap between the estimation error of the
optimal precoder (14) and the hybrid one, defined by  − opt
2
with  = Ns1⋅Q ∑Q
q=1 ∥ŝ − s∥ and Q the number of realizations.
We begin by comparing MaGiQ and PE AltMin considering
a fully-connected phase shifters network S2. As mentioned
before, these two algorithms are very similar except for the last
step of calculating F BB which is suboptimal in PE AltMin.
This is demonstrated in Fig. 2 where MaGiQ’s lower MSE
can be seen. In the next simulations, PE AltMin will not be
tested.
Figure 3 presents the estimation gap with respect to the
number of RF chains for the different design methods. The
SOMP algorithm suffers from a large performance gap, especially when the number of RF chains is much less than the
t
number of multipath components, i.e. NRF
≪ Nc . MaGiQ
enjoys both low complexity and good performance due to
the alternating minimization over T in (16). The MO-AltMin
algorithm achieves low MSE at the cost of long running time.
The gap between Alt-MaG and MO AltMin demonstrates
the potential gain in optimizing over the matrix T in (16),
in comparison to optimizing only F RF , F BB as in (15).
This approach substantially improves the performance, with
negligible increase in complexity.
B. Hybrid Combiner Performance
We now investigate the combiner’s performance. Here, an
additional algorithm is tested, the GRTM in Algorithm 3, with
the dictionary-based method in Section V-B as the base case
solution. In contrast to the precoder case, here the SOMP
algorithm solves the problem (30) as suggested in [4].
Figure 4 presents the estimation gap from the optimal
combiner for all approaches with the fully-connected phase
shifters scheme S2. It can be seen that MO-AltMin provides
the best results. However, its runtime is an order-of-magnitude
larger than the runtime of the other methods. Again, in the
case of very few RF chains, MaGiQ is preferred over the
greedy methods GRTM and SOMP, which suffer from large
performance gap in that scenario. With additional RF chains,

11
10 -3

11

0.06

PE_AltMin
MaGiQ

10

SOMP
MO_AltMin
MaGiQ
GRTM

0.05
9
0.04

8
7

0.03

6
0.02
5
0.01

4
3
3

4

5

Fig. 2: Precoder estimation gap  − opt vs. number of RF
t
chains NRF
, for MAGiQ and PE AltMin.

0
3

4

5

6

7

Fig. 4: Combiner estimation gap  − opt vs. number of RF
t
chains NRF
, for a fully-connected phase shifters network S1.

0.035

SOMP
MO_AltMin
MaGiQ
Alt-MaG+MO_AltMin

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
2

3

4

5

Fig. 3: Precoder estimation gap  − opt vs. number of RF
t
chains NRF
, for a fully-connected phase shifters network S1.

the greedy algorithms outperform the simple MaGiQ, with a
slight advantage to GRTM.
Next, we show that in some special cases, MaGiQ coincides
with the fully-digital solution and outperforms other methods.
We demonstrate this using the scenario from the asymptotic
example given in Section IV. Here, H is the mmWave channel
r
(26), with Nc = 4, NRF
= 4, and Nr = 150. In this case,
MO-AltMin cannot be used due to its long runtime that
grows with the number of antennas. Since Nc ≪ Nr the
asymptotic analysis holds, and H has unimodular singular
vectors. Figure 5 shows the estimation error  of the different
algorithms. It can be seen that MaGiQ’s performance coincides
with the fully-digital combiner. We used a steering dictionary
for both SOMP and GRTM. Since the singular vectors of
the channel also have steering structure, the greedy methods
performance gap is small, but still exists.
Next, we investigate the partially connected schemes. Figure 6 shows the performance of different combiners for the
fixed sub-arrays network S4 and for the flexible one S5. For

both scenarios, we set G = 5. We first notice the additional
performance gain of the flexible architecture. This result is
natural since the additional switches allow each RF chain to
choose the antennas that contribute to it, in contrast to the fixed
sub-arrays case, that enforces each RF chain to be connected
to a small predetermined array. In both scenarios, the greedy
methods outperform MaGiQ, but while SOMP yields better
performance for the fixed arrays, when adding switches to
allow for flexibility, GRTM is preferred.
The fully-connected network S1, that involves switches as
well as phase shifters is considered next. Here, we use a
general channel model such that H has i.i.d complex-Gaussian
entries and the interference z is now a complex-Gaussian
vector with arbitrary full rank covariance matrix Rz . For
the SOMP and GRTM algorithms, we used the dictionary
W̄ = P W (X), with W the feasible set for scheme S1,
as explained in Section V-B. Figure 7 presents the MSE 
as a function of SNR. The complex MO-AltMin algorithm
now achieves approximately the same performance as the low
complexity GRTM. This is because MO-AltMin cannot use
the additional flexibility of the switches and produces only
unimodular beamformer vectors. This demonstrates a tradeoff between hardware and computational complexity: one may
use the simpler architecture S2 while achieving the same
performance as the complex network S1, with the cost of
using a heavy computational algorithm such as MO-AltMin. It
can be further noticed that SOMP’s performance falls short in
comparison to others, possibly due to the different interference
structure.
C. Hardware Schemes Comparison
The last simulation considered the different hardware
choices. In Fig. 8, the performance of the MaGiQ combiner
under different hardware constraints is demonstrated. As expected, the simple switching network S3 suffers from the
largest MSE, as its connectivity is the most limited. The two
partially connected cases S4 and S5 with G = 5 offer lower

12

1

Optimal
SOMP
MaGiQ
GRTM

0.7

0.9

0.8
0.65
0.7
0.6
0.6

0.5

0.55

0.4
0.5
0

1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 5: Combiner estimation error vs. SNR for a fullyconnected phase shifters network S2 and mmWave channel
with asymptotic number of antennas.

0.3
-5

Optimal
S1-Fully Connected
S2-Fully Connected Phase Only
S3-Switching Network
S4-Fixed Sub Arrays
S5-Flexible Sub Arrays
0

5

10

Fig. 8: Combiner estimation error vs. SNR for a partially
connected phase shifters network S4 with G = 3.

MSE, due to the additional hardware complexity, where the
second performs better as a result of the additional switches.
The two fully-connected architectures S1 and S2 show similar
performance, suggesting that the additional switches in the
first offer negligible improvement. This surprising result can
be explained by the channel model which implies that the
optimal combiner consists of sums of steering vectors, that
can be efficiently described using unimodular vectors.

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

Optimal
SOMP_Partiall
MaGiQ_Partiall
GRTM_Partiall
SOMP_Flexible
MaGiQ_Flexible
GRTM_Flexible

0.7

0.65

0.6
-2

-1

VII. C ONCLUSIONS

0

1

2

Fig. 6: Combiner estimation error vs. SNR for the partially
connected phase shifters networks S4 and S5 with G = 5.
0.6

Optimal
SOMP
MO_AltMin
MaGiQ
GRTM

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35
2

3

4

5

Fig. 7: Combiner estimation error vs. SNR for the fullyconnected phase shifters and switches network S1 with general
channel model and interference.

We developed a framework for hybrid precoder and combiner design, suitable for various channel models and hardware
settings. We considered a data estimation problem and aimed
at minimizing the estimation MSE over all possible hybrid
precoders/combiners. For the precoder side, we suggested a
family of iterative algorithms, Alt-MaG, that approximates
the optimal fully-digital precoder while seeking the solution
in the optimal set that results in the smallest approximation
gap from the hybrid precoder of the previous iteration. The
potential gain in exploiting the unitary degree of freedom in
the fully-digital precoder was demonstrated in simulations.
We further suggested a simple low complexity algorithm,
MaGiQ, that achieves good approximation using a simple
quantization function, and yields better performance than other
methods suggested in the literature. We also showed that in
some special cases it coincides with the optimal fully-digital
solution.
Next, we adjusted the MaGiQ algorithm so that it can be
used for combiner design. We then suggested an additional
greedy algorithm, GRTM, that directly minimizes the MSE
using a simple scalar-ratio objective at each iteration. GRTM
achieves lower MSE than MaGiQ when the number of RF
chains increases. Experimental results showed that our lowcomplexity algorithms enjoy good performance in various
scenarios.
Finally, using simulations, we showed that in partially
connected schemes and sparse multipath mmWave channels,
adding switches to the analog network offers a large increase in

13

performance, while in fully-connected cases the improvement
is negligible.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. K.
Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5g be?” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[2] F. Rusek, D. Persson, Buon Kiong Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta,
and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and challenges with
very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 30, no. 1, pp.
40–60, Jan. 2013.
[3] T. S. Rappaport, Shu Sun, R. Mayzus, Hang Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang,
G. N. Wong, J. K. Schulz, M. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez, “Millimeter
wave mobile communications for 5g cellular: it will work!” IEEE
Access, vol. 1, pp. 335–349, 2013.
[4] O. E. Ayach, S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, Z. Pi, and R. W. Heath,
“Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499–
1513, Mar. 2014.
[5] A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Hybrid
precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems with partial channel
knowledge,” in Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA),
2013. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[6] Y.-Y. Lee, C.-H. Wang, and Y.-H. Huang, “A hybrid RF/baseband
precoding processor based on parallel-index-selection matrix-inversionbypass simultaneous orthogonal matching pursuit for millimeter wave
MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 63, no. 2,
pp. 305–317, Jan. 2015.
[7] S. Han, I. Chih-Lin, Z. Xu, and C. Rowell, “Large-scale antenna systems
with hybrid analog and digital beamforming for millimeter wave 5g,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 186–194, 2015.
[8] R. Mendez-Rial, C. Rusu, N. Gonzalez-Prelcic, A. Alkhateeb, and R. W.
Heath, “Hybrid MIMO architectures for millimeter wave communications: phase shifters or switches?” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 247–267,
2016.
[9] M. Kim and Y. H. Lee, “MSE-based hybrid RF/baseband processing
for millimeter-wave communication systems in MIMO interference
channels,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 64, no. 6,
pp. 2714–2720, Jun. 2015.
[10] X. Yu, J.-C. Shen, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Alternating minimization
algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,”
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 10, no. 3,
pp. 485–500, Apr. 2016.
[11] J. Singh and S. Ramakrishna, “On the feasibility of codebook-based
beamforming in millimeter wave systems with multiple antenna arrays,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 5, pp.
2670–2683, May 2015.
[12] X. Yu, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Partially-connected hybrid precoding in mm-Wave systems with dynamic phase shifter networks,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1705.00859, 2017.
[13] S. Park, A. Alkhateeb, and R. W. Heath, “Dynamic subarrays for hybrid
precoding in wideband mmWave MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2907–2920, May 2017.
[14] Y. C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Compressed sensing: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[15] A. Scaglione, P. Stoica, S. Barbarossa, G. Giannakis, and H. Sampath,
“Optimal designs for space-time linear precoders and decoders,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1051–1064, May
2002.
[16] S. X. Yu and J. Shi, “Multiclass spectral clustering,” in Proceedings of
the Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision - Volume
2, ser. ICCV ’03. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society,
2003.
[17] A. Sayeed, “Deconstructing multiantenna fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2563–2579, Oct. 2002.
[18] P. F. M. Smulders and L. M. Correia, “Characterisation of propagation
in 60 GHz radio channels,” Electronics & communication engineering
journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 73–80, 1997.
[19] H. Xu, V. Kukshya, and T. S. Rappaport, “Spatial and temporal characteristics of 60-GHz indoor channels,” IEEE Journal on selected areas
in communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 620–630, 2002.
[20] K. B. Petersen, M. S. Pedersen, J. Larsen, K. Strimmer, L. Christiansen,
K. Hansen, L. He, L. Thibaut, M. Baro, S. Hattinger, V. Sima, and
W. The, “The matrix cookbook,” Tech. Rep., 2006.

[21] H. Wang, S. Yan, D. Xu, X. Tang, and T. Huang, “Trace ratio vs. ratio
trace for dimensionality reduction,” in Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2007. CVPR’07. IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp.
1–8.
[22] S. S. Ioushua and Y. C. Eldar, “Pilot contamination mitigation with
reduced RF chains,” Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), July 2017.
[23] E. Bjornson and B. Ottersten, “A framework for training-based estimation in arbitrarily correlated rician MIMO channels with rician
disturbance,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 58, no. 3,
pp. 1807–1820, Mar. 2010.
[24] A. Tulino, A. Lozano, and S. Verdu, “Impact of Antenna Correlation
on the Capacity of Multiantenna Channels,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2491–2509, Jul. 2005. [Online].
Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1459054/
[25] N. Boumal, B. Mishra, P. Absil, and R. Sepulchre, “Manopt, a matlab
toolbox for optimization on manifolds,” J. Mach. Learn. Research, vol.
15, pp. 1455-C1459,, Jan. 2014.

