arXiv:1712.05819v1 [cs.IT] 15 Dec 2017

mmWave Massive MIMO with Simple RF and
Appropriate DSP
Amine Mezghani

A. Lee Swindlehurst

Wireless Networking and Communications Group
Department of ECE, University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712, USA
Email: amine.mezghani@utexas.edu

Center for Pervasive Communications and Computing
Department of EECS, University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697, USA
Email: swindle@uci.edu

Abstract—There is considerable interest in the combined use
of millimeter-wave (mmwave) frequencies and arrays of massive numbers of antennas (massive MIMO) for next-generation
wireless communications systems. A symbiotic relationship exists
between these two factors: mmwave frequencies allow for densely
packed antenna arrays, and hence massive MIMO can be
achieved with a small form factor; low per-antenna SNR and
shadowing can be overcome with a large array gain; steering
narrow beams or nulls with a large array is a good match
for the line-of-sight (LOS) or near-LOS mmwave propagation
environments, etc.. However, the cost and power consumption for
standard implementations of massive MIMO arrays at mmwave
frequencies is a significant drawback to rapid adoption and
deployment. In this paper, we examine a number of possible
approaches to reduce cost and power at both the basestation
and user terminal, making up for it with signal processing
and additional (cheap) antennas. These approaches include lowresolution Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs), wireless local
oscillator distribution networks, spatial multiplexing and multistreaming instead of higher-order modulation etc.. We will
examine the potential of these approaches in making mmwave
massive MIMO a reality and discuss the requirements in terms
of digital signal processing (DSP).
Index Terms—massive MIMO, millimeter-wave, wireless synchronization, one-bit ADCs, linear DSP.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The deployment of large numbers of possibly on-chip
integrated or distributed antennas, known as massive Multiple
Input Multiple Output (MIMO) systems, the access to more
bandwidth through the use of mmwave frequencies, and
the use of low-cost wired and wireless optical links are all
considered as key enablers to meet the impending demand for
gigabit per second wireless data. However the implementation
of these large and sophisticated wireless systems will lead to a
significant increase in cost, complexity and power dissipation.
In particular, synchronization, local oscillator (LO) generation
and distribution is very challenging and the need to feed each
antenna with the LO signal for the demodulation process
as shown in Fig. 1(a) is a very critical issue. Due to the
losses of electrical wires that increase with trace length
and frequency, we propose and analyze, as alternative, the
concept of wireless LO distribution for large MIMO receivers,
following the approach in [1]. The basic idea is to deploy a
“dummy” radiating antenna placed at a distance (several wave
lengths) away from the intended receiving antenna array to

radiate, and thus wirelessly broadcast, a very weak carrier
signal for synchronization and direct detection, as depicted
in Fig. 1(b). Then, the receiving antenna elements can apply
simple additive mixing, e.g. direct detection with a diode,
and have almost perfect access to the in-phase and quadrature
signals of the users. A major advantage of wireless is the
fact that the LO power attenuation follows just the inverse
square law of free space propagation with respect to the array
dimension, while it suffers from an exponential attenuation
with respect to the trace length in wired synchronization due
to the skin-effect. Due to regulatory restrictions, however,
the radiated LO power has to be kept at a very low level.
In this paper we show that the achievable rate of this RF
architecture with weak wireless LO power and simple direct
detection antennas can still approach the ideal performance
by using asymmetric low order bandpass filtering. This
solution also offers the advantage of integrating the complete
millimeter-wave demodulation circuit into the antenna for
better sensitivity, and enabling the use of “cheap” active
antennas.
Furthermore, the idea of wirelessly synchronized antennas
can be combined with the utilization of low-resolution, for
instance, one-bit ADCs that essentially possess a unique circuit
implementation and might therefore qualify as a fundamental
research area in modern communication theory. In fact, the
analysis of the quantization process has gained a lot of
attention in academic research [2]–[8]. The proposed frontend structure with combined wireless synchronization and onebit ADCs can be significantly simplified by employing such
low performance devices. Since just one-bit ADCs is used,
no further amplification is needed after the power detection.
This avoids the issues of other analog implementations (calibration, power, chip-area, aging, etc.) and leads to a very
cost and energy efficient front-end implementation with direct
high speed speed digital output, which we referred to as a
direct digitization one-bit antenna. Surprisingly, at low SNR,
prior to processing like beamforming, the loss due to one-bit
quantization is approximately equal to only π/2 (1.96dB) in
conventional MIMO systems regardless of the type of available
channel state information [3], [4], [9]. We analyze in this paper
the validity of this result in the context of massive MIMO and

dk

deduce some implications in terms of DSP requirements.
Notation: Vectors and matrices are denoted by lower and
upper case italic bold letters. The operators (•)T , (•)H , tr(•)
and (•)∗ stand for transpose, Hermitian (conjugate transpose),
trace, and complex conjugate, respectively. The terms 1M
and IM represent the all ones vector and the identity matrix of size M , respectively. The vector xi denotes the ith column of a matrix X and [X]i,j or xi,j denotes the
(ith, jth) element, while xi is the i-th element of the vector
x. We represent the Hadamard (element-wise in each real
dimension) and n-th power of vectors and matrices by the
operators ”A ◦ B” and ”A◦n ”, respectively, i.e., [A ◦ B]i,j =
Re[A]i,j Re[B]i,j + jIm[A]i,j Im[B]i,j . Additionally, diag(B)
denotes a diagonal matrix containing only the diagonal elements of B and nondiag(B) = B − diag(B). Further, we
define C x = E[xxH ] − E[x]E[xH ] as the covariance matrix
of x and C xy as E[xy H ]. Finally, O(·) and o(·) represent the
Bachmann-Landau notation for asymptotic behaviors.
RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

εxLO
B
2
−B
2

Filter y(t)

x

G(f )

2B
|•|

2

z
Fig. 2. Baseband representation of additive mixing at each antenna.

we show next that, interestingly, even a simple purely passive
bandpass filter G(f ) of low order (smooth 1/f passband
characteristic) is potentially sufficient for joint processing of
the carrier and data signal and approaching ideal performance
without isolating the LO signal.
Since a real valued bandpass signal and its complex
baseband envelope representation have the same magnitude/absolute value, we represent all the signals in the baseband for simplicity. The baseband model of each direct detection antenna is shown in Fig. 2. Assuming for simplicity the
LOS case and ignoring the array phase shift, the individual
antenna signal is described in the frequency domain as
Y (f ) = G(f ) (X(f ) + XLO (f ) + Z(f )) ,

(a)
RF
RF

RF
RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

RF

PSfrag replacements

RF

RF
RF

RF

RF

(b)
Fig. 1. LO distribution network: (a) Standard implementation (b) Wireless
synchronization.

II. A NALYSIS

OF THE W IRELESS S YNCHRONIZATION
A RCHITECTURE

In the proposed wireless LO distribution system with
additive mixing, the receiver needs an appropriate way to lift
the weak carrier to a higher power level compared to the data
signal such that the mixing at the diode occurs almost with
negligible intermodulation products leading to an intact signal
in the baseband. This enables approaching ideal performance
with a low power penalty. However, to achieve this goal, a
popular approach widely used in the literature and in practice
is to include an additional separate processing path to recover
a replica of the residual carrier, typically using active circuits
for phase injection-locking [10]. Then, the filtered signal
and the reconstructed carrier are recombined before being
applied to the diode (or a mixer). The resulting complexity
is, however, still substantial for massive MIMO. In contrast,

rDD [n]

(1)

with the information signal X(f ) having power spectral density Φx (f ) limited to bandwidth B and the noise Z(f ) having
the power spectral density Φn (f ) = N0 , while G(f ) is the
transfer function of the receive bandpass filter (BP) in the
baseband representation. The additive mixing with the LO
signal is obtained by taking the instantaneous power (squaredmagnitude) of y(t) and sampling it at 2B Hertz:
2

1
,
(2)
rDD [n] = y n
2B
where n is the discrete time index and 2B is the Nyquist
sampling frequency. In a coherent receiver the filter G(f ) plays
the role of a band limiting anti-aliasing filter where the shape
in the passband is irrelevant from a theoretical point of view as
long as it is reversible. However as shown later, in the additive
mixing case, the shape of this filter is crucial.
Further, let us assume that x(t) consists of a complex
Gaussian process with a rectangular spectral density that is
band-limited to the two-sided bandwidth B. In addition, in the
proposed wireless synchronization architecture, a monotone
carrier signal is superimposed at the boundary of (or outside)
the information signal band by means of a “dummy” antenna.
The PSD of the noiseless received signal reads then as
ρ
B
· rect(f /B) + εPLO · δ(f − ),
(3)
B
2
where 0 < ε < 1 is the portion of the radiated carrier tone
power PLO captured on each antenna and the rectangular
function rect(f ) equals 1 for |f | ≤ 1/2 and is 0 elsewhere.
Due the strict regulatory restrictions in terms of radiated
power spectral density (especially for receivers), the power
PLO of the spectrally peaky LO signal has to be very low
(≤ 1µW). Additionally, one could alternatively aim at using
an LO frequency outside the authorized band to downconvert
Φx+xLO (f ) =

rag replacements

L1

R1

C1

L

C

In general the achievable rate RDD with wireless LO
mixing, which is upper bounded by the ideal Shannon limit
log2 (1 + N ρ/(BN0 )) with N antennas, is not trivial to
determine, we will derive a capacity lower bound assuming a
Gaussian input, and show that this lower bound can arbitrarily
approach the upper bound under the assumption of certain
asymptotic behavior for G(f ) in (4). At the output y(t) of
this analog receive filter, we get the following PSD for y(t)
in each antenna

R

GBP(f ) = G(|f |−f0 )
Fig. 3. RLC-ladder circuit for the bandpass filter.
3

10

Exact Behavior
Approx.

Φy (f ) = |G(f )|2 · (Φx+xLO (f ) + N0 ) .

2

10

Next, the Fourier transform of the energy-detected signal
|y(t)|2 reads as the following convolution

1

H(f)

10

F {|y(t)|2 } = Y (f ) ⊗ Y (−f )∗ .

0

10

10

−2

10

−3

(6)

Given that Y (f ) is uncorrelated across frequency, the PSD
of |y(t)|2 is obtained as

−1

rag replacements
|G(f )|2

(5)

−2

−1

0

f /B

1

2

3

Fig. 4. Example of asymmetric
baseband p
transfer function of√the RLC BP
p
−1
L1 /C1 = 80, R C/L = 4, (2π
in Fig. 3 with R−1
1
√ L1 C1 ) −
√
R C/L
−1
√
(2π LC) = B, and its approximation in (4) for σ = −1
= 0.05.
R1

L1/C1

the signal to an intermediate frequency with more restricted
emission limits but for easier filtering and better performance
than the tight choice in (3). Together with the fact that the
attenuation factor ε decreases with the number of antennas,
this does not ensure the dominance of the LO signal compared
to the noise and information signal and consequently the use
of additive mixing at each antenna is not obvious. Therefore,
a careful analysis of this concept is required.
To cope with this issue and enhance the LO signal prior
to mixing, we utilize the following asymmetric receive filter
transfer function in the baseband representation with 1/f first
order roll-off rate in the passband:

 0
for |f | > B2
1
(4)
G(f ) =
for |f | ≤ B2 ,

j(2f /B − 1) + σ
with a parameter σ > 0 called the dissipation factor or inverse
Q-factor. This filter corresponds in the passband to a simple
second order RLC filter with resonant frequency around f0+ B2
(f0 is the center frequency) multiplied with an ideal bandpass
filter of bandwidth B. A tentative approximate implementation
of the desired frequency behavior using RLC-ladder circuits
is illustrated in Fig. 3 and 4 and consists of a cascade of
RLC series and parallel circuits with slightly different resonant
frequencies, i.e. | 2π√1LC − 2π√1L C | ∝ B, while one of the
1 1
resonant circuits has an increasingly higher Q-factor 1/σ
(lower resistive loss) when ε decreases. The stopband behavior
of the filter is ignored in the model (4) (assumed to be ideal)
since it only affects the noise reduction and our focus is instead
on the self-interference issue.

1
Φ|y|2 (f ) = lim E[|F {|y(t)|2 }|2 ]
T→∞ T
Z

Z
1
Y (f ′ )Y (f ′ −f )∗ df ′ Y (f ′′ )∗ Y (f ′′ −f )∗ df ′′
= lim E
T→∞ T
Z Z

1
Y (f ′ )Y (f ′ −f )∗ Y (f ′′ )∗ Y (f ′′ −f )∗ df ′ df ′′
= lim E
T→∞ T
Z

1
f 6=0
′ 2
′
2
′
= lim 2 E
|Y (f )| |Y (f − f )| df
T→∞ T
Z
1
= lim 2 E[|Y (f ′ )|2 ]E[|Y (f ′ − f )|2 ]df ′
T→∞ T
Z
= Φy (f ′ )Φy (f ′ − f )df ′ =Φy (f ) ⊗ Φy (−f ),

(7)
where the last four steps hold for f 6= 0 and follow by
expressing integrals as Riemann sums (df ′′ = T1 ). In summary,

!2
Z − B2


Φy (f )df
δ(f )
for f = 0
Φ|y|2 (f ) =
(8)
−B
2


Φy (f ) ⊗ Φy (−f )
for f 6= 0.

Since the DC component at the output of the energy detector
is irrelevant to the information rate1 , we restrict the following
analysis to the case of f 6= 0. Using (3) and (5), we obtain
for f 6= 0
2
2
ρ
B
B
f 6=0
+
Φ|y|2 (f ) = εPLO G( ) G( − |f |) N0 +
2
2
B

ρ 2
|G(f )|2 ⊗ |G(−f )|2 N0 +
B
2
B
ρ
f 6=0 εPLO
G( − |f |)
+
N0 +
=
2
σ
2
B

ρ 2
|G(f )|2 ⊗ |G(−f )|2 N0 +
.
B
(9)
1 The DC component is removed by a second filter after diode mixing in
order to fully exploit the ADC dynamic range.

We notice that the first term in (9) corresponds to a
scaled version of the undistorted received signal, while
the second term includes the non-Gaussian signal-to-signal
intermodulation distortion, which is uncorrelated with the
desired undistorted part by the symmetry of the Gaussian
distribution. In this case, treating this distortion as Gaussian
noise with the same PSD in addition to the original additive
noise leads to a lower bound on the information rate as
discussed next.

9
8

Rate in Gbit/s

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Furthermore, when combining the signal fromPSfrag
N suchreplacements
direct
0
2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
detection antennas, with channel vector h having khk = N ,
N
the desired signal part corresponding to ρ/B combines coherFig. 5. Achievable rates with wireless synchronization vs. N for fixed
ently, while the noise and
part
√ do not 2com- bandpass filter with σ = 0.05, ρ/(BN0 ) = 0dB, B = 1GHz, PLO = 1µW,
PNeven∗ the distortion
2
bine coherently, since i=1 hi |hi x(t)| = O( N )|x(t) | for N0 = −174.2dBm/Hz, Noise figure = 3dB.
most practical channels (except for a planar array in the frontlogarithm in (11) converges to 0 for all frequencies f 6= 0 if
fire direction). Note that hH is not the optimal linear receiver
σ ≤ o(ε). We deduce that
(see next Section) due to the spatially colored second order
Nρ
distortion and the following results can be further improved.
).
(13)
lim Cε (f ) = C = log2 (1 +
H
ε→0,f 6=0
BN0
Assuming for simplicity h as combiner, we get the following
lower bound on the achievable (proof technique similar to Since Cε (f ) converges to C almost everywhere except at
Theorem 2 in the next section)
{0} which has zero Lebesgue measure, and since Cε (f )
Z B
is majorized by C = log2 (1 + N ρ/(BN0 )), we have by
RDD ≥
Cε (f )df,
(10) the dominated convergence theorem [11] the following lower
0

bound for RDD

with



Cε (f ) = log2 1+

N Bρ
N0 +

σ2 |G(f )|2 ⊗|G(−f )|2
2
εPLO |G( B
2 −|f |)|

N0 +



 ,
ρ 2

B

(11)
where notably G(f ) from (4) also depends on σ. Further, we
calculate for −B ≤ f ≤ B
|G(f )|2 ⊗ |G(−f )|2 =
B B
min( Z
2 , 2 +f )

(2f ′ /B

B
max(− B
2 ,− 2 +f )

1
1
df ′
2
2
′
− 1) + σ (2(f − f )/B − 1)2 + σ 2





2
2(2−f¯)(σ2 +f¯)
(4+σ2 )
B ln (σ2 +(σf¯−2)
B arctanπ σ(σ
2 −4+f¯(6−f¯))
2 )(σ 2 +f¯2 )
+
,
=
2σ(4σ 2 + f¯2 )
2f¯(4σ 2 + f¯2 )
(12)
where f¯ = 2|f /B| and the arctanπ function is the arctangent
mapping on the codomain [0, π].
Now, assuming the inverse square law for the LO coefficient
ε, i.e. free space attenuation, ε ∝ N −2 , then we state the
following theorem on the convergence of the achievable rate
to the ideal case for large N .
Theorem 1. If σ ≤ o(ε) then the achievable rate RDD with
Nρ
) when
wireless LO distribution converges to B log2 (1 + BN
0
ε converges to zero. In other words, the resistive losses have
to go to zero faster than the LO power portion ε when the
number of antennas increases.
f 6=0

Proof. The expression
σ 2 ε−1 |G(f )|2 ⊗ |G(−f )|2 =
2 −1
−1
−1
σ ε O(σ ) = O(σε ) present in the denominator of the



Nρ
.
lim Cε (f )df = B log2 1 +
ε→0 0
BN0
0 ε→0
(14)


Nρ
As B log2 1 + BN0 is at the same time an upper bound on
RDD by the data processing theorem, the theorem is proved.
lim

Z

B

Cε (f )df =

Z

B

The reasoning used to prove the achievability of the ideal
capacity with a wireless LO signal does not explicitly make
use of the properties of the propagation channel. Therefore
it can be easily generalized to more general channels with
multiple users and frequency selectivity.
From a practical point of view the Q-factor σ −1 of the filter
G(f ) is limited and cannot be arbitrarily high. Therefore, we
consider in Fig. 5 the achievable rate (10) for fixed σ = 0.05
and PLO = 1µW as function of the number of antennas N ,
while the LO attenuation scales as ε = N −2 . We observe that
the maximum is achieved at around N = 2000, which is very
encouraging in terms of the use of wireless synchronization
for massive MIMO.
III. S YSTEM WITH O NE - BIT ADC S
In this section, we aim at further simplifying the RF frontend by using one-bit ADCs to convert the baseband signal
into the digital domain. It is worth mentioning that sampling
the RF signal directly at passband without frequency mixing
would also be possible with one-bit ADCs, but the analog
filtering, the timing jitter and the required sample-and-hold
circuit might be critical. Therefore, we focus in the following

on coarse quantization of the baseband signal, while the
wirelessly synchronized mixing can potentially be used for
the down-conversion. For the analysis, we consider K single
antenna users and N receive antennas in the uplink. For
simplicity, we assume a frequency flat channel, even though
the concept can be generalized to a frequency selective setting.
After propagation through the channel, and a desirably
simple analog preprocessing, the unquantized received signal
prior to the ADCs reads as
y = H · x + z,

= H ′x + z′,
where we introduced the effective channel

(15)

while the one-bit converted signal for the digital processing is
j
1
r = √ sign(Re{y}) + √ sign(Im{y}),
2
2

(16)

where z ∈ CN is the noise vector having i.i.d. elements with
unit variance, H = [h1 , . . . , hK ] ∈ CN ×K comprises the user
channels hk , k = 1, . . . , K, that are assumed to be known at
the receiver and x is the transmitted data which is assumed
to be i.i.d. Gaussian distributed with variance ρ (representing
the SNR)2 . Similarly, the entries of H are assumed to be i.i.d.
Gaussian with unit variance 3 .
IV. B USSGANG

where we used the fact that the Bayesian estimator E[x|y]
corresponds to a linear estimator for jointly Gaussian signals
x and y. Based on this decomposition, the channel output r
can be written as function of the channel input in the following
form
r = Dy + e
= DHx + Dz + e
(21)

DECOMPOSITION AND PERFORMANCE

H ′ = DH = C ry C −1
y H,

and the non-Gaussian effective noise z ′ with the covariance
matrix
C z′ = C e + DD H
−1
= C r − C ry C y−1 C yr + C ry C −1
y C y C yr
′

r = Dy + e,

(17)

where D can be obtained from the linear minimum mean
square error (MMSE) estimation of r from y
H

H −1

D = E[ry ]E[yy ]

=

C ry C −1
y ,

(18)

and the distortion error e has the following correlation matrix
C e = E[(r − Dy)(r − Dy)H ]

= C r − C ry D H − DC yr + DC y DH

= Cr −

(19)

C ry C −1
y C yr .

The Bussgang decomposition ensures also that e and x are
uncorrelated if x is jointly Gaussian with y. To prove that, we
use the fact, that e = Q(y) − Dy is a deterministic function
of y, and thus, when conditioned on y, is independent of all
other signals. That is
H

H

E[x · e ] = Ey [E[x · e |y]]

= Ey [E[x|y] · E[eH |y]]

H
= Ey [C xy C −1
y · E[e |y]]

(20)

H
= C xy C −1
y E[y · e ] = 0,

2 The Gaussian assumption is not essential here as the noise dominates the
signal on each antenna especially in the mmwave bands. It is made to provide
a lower bound on the performance and characterize the gap to the ideal case.
3 The asymptotic results derived later turn out to be quite useful also for
sparse channels according to our simulations.

(23)

′H

= C r − ρH H .

Based on this decomposition, the following lower bound has
been derived in [9], [13].
Theorem 2. For the quantized system with i.i.d. Gaussian
input x of covariance matrix C x = ρI, we have

CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE ONE - BIT SYSTEM

The Bussgang theorem [12] implies that one can decompose
the output of the nonlinear quantizer r = Q(y) into a desired
signal component and an uncorrelated distortion e

(22)

I(xk ; r) ≥ Rk ,

(24)

with
′ ′H −1 ′
Rk = log2 (1 + ρh′H
hk ) = log2 (1 + γk ),
k (C r − ρhk hk )
(25)
wehre H ′ and C z′ are given in (22) and (23) respectively.

Proof. We first introduce the linear minimum mean square
error (LMMSE) estimate of x given the quantized observation
r reading as
x̂ = C xr C r−1 r = C x H ′H (H ′ C x H ′H + C z′ )−1 r.

(26)

Then we have the lower on the achievable rate per user
I(xk , r) =
=
≥
≥

h(xk ) − h(x|r) = h(xk ) − h(xk |r)
h(xk ) − h(xk − xˆk |r)
(27)
h(xk ) − h(xk − x̂k )
| {z }

cx
log2 k .
cǫ k

(28)

ǫk

(29)

We get (27) as x̂ is a deterministic function of r. Since
conditioning reduces entropy, we obtain inequality (28). On
the other hand, The second term in (28) is upper bounded by
the entropy of a Gaussian random variable whose covariance
−1 ′
is equal to the error variance cǫk = ρ − ρ2 h′H
k C r hk of
the linear minimum mean square error (MMSE) estimate of
xk , leading to (29). Finally we obtain the lower bound on
the mutual information as in (25) using the matrix inversion
lemma.

A. Bussgang decomposition based on the Price’s theorem and
Taylor expansion
An elegant way to perform the Bussgang decomposition for
general types of nonlinearities is to use Price’s theorem [14]
which can provide the derivatives of the output covariance
matrix C r as function of the covariance matrix C y as follows
[15]
#
"
∂ k cr i r j
∂ k Q(yi ) ∂ k Q(yj )∗
.
=E
∂ckyi yj
∂yik
∂yjk,∗

(30)

Since the derivative of the quantization operation is described
by the Dirac-delta function, the calculation of the first order
derivative or higher of [C r ]i,j with respect to [C y ]i,j with i 6=
j is possible in closed form. Therefore, even if calculating C r
in closed form might be not possible, one can still determine
the following Taylor expansion around nondiag(C y ) = 0
nondiag(C r ) = nondiag(Σ1 ◦C y )+nondiag(Σ3 ◦C ◦3
y )+· · ·,
|
{z
} |
{z
}
desired part

distortion uncorrelated with x

(31)
where Σℓ are matrices that are only a function of diag(C y ).
Due to the odd symmetry of the quantization function, the
even-order terms vanish. The expansion is decomposed into
two part as explained in the following. Bussgang’s theorem
states that the matrix C ry is row-wise proportional to C y .
Consequently, the desired (undistorted) part C ry C −1
y C yr in
the decomposition (19) is a diagonally scaled version of
C y which turns to be given by (again based on the Price’s
theorem)
[C ry C −1
y C yr ]i,j =

∂cri rj
∂cyi yj

cyi yj =0

· cyi yj = [Σ1 ]i,j · cyi yj

(32)
for i 6= j. In other words, the Bussgang decomposition (19)
can be interpreted as extracting the linear term in the Taylor
expansion (31) and considering it as the desired signal part,
while treating the remaining higher order terms as additive
distortion noise. To study the impact of the nonlinearity, it is
very useful to consider the first and third order terms. These
terms will be studied in the next two subsections.
In the special case of a one-bit symmetric quantizer, it is
even possible to express C r in closed form. In fact, due to
the classical arcsine law [14], the output of a decision device
ri,Re/Im = √12 sign[yi,Re/Im ] ∈ {− √12 , √12 } applied to a multivariable Gaussian input y has the following correlation matrix

i
1
1
2h
arcsin diag(C y )− 2 C y diag(C y )− 2 , (33)
Cr =
π
with C y = ρHH H + I, where the arcsine function is
applied element-wise to its matrix argument. Additionally, the
correlation matrix between the input and the output of the 1-bit
quantizer can be obtained as [12]
r
1
2
diag(C y )− 2 C y .
(34)
C ry =
π

Then, we get the effective channel from (22) as
r
2
1
(35)
diag(C y )− 2 H,
H′ =
π
while the effective noise covariance in (23) becomes
i

1
1
2h
C z′ = arcsin diag(C y )− 2 C y diag(C y )− 2 −
π
(36)
1
1
2
ρdiag(C y )− 2 HH H diag(C y )− 2 .
π
The arcsine law is however not tractable when characterizing
the performance in the large system limit. Therefore, we resort
to the first order and third order approximations introduced
previously.
B. First order approximation
For low SNR per antenna, which is relevant for mmwave
applications, we can make the first order approximation following (31)


ρ≪1
1
2
− 21 2
C y + (1 − )diag(C y ) diag(C y )− 2 ,
C r ≈ diag(C y )
π
π
(37)
leading to the uncorrelated effective noise from (23)


ρ≪1
2
1
− 21 2
′
C z ≈ diag(C y )
I + (1− )diag(C y ) diag(C y )− 2.
π
π
(38)
This approximation is also only valid when N is not significantly larger than K, an observation that will be discussed later
on. Next, using the fact that ρ ≪ 1, we obtain the effective
signal-to-interference-noise-and-distortion ratio (SINDR)

−1
X
C z′ + ρ
 h′k
h′k′ h′H
(39)
γk = ρh′H
k′
k
k′ 6=k

ρ≪1

≈

ρhH
k

X
π
hk′ hH
I + ( −1)diag(I+ρHH H )+ρ
k′
2
′
k 6=k

!−1

hk .

(40)

Further, following the common massive MIMO assumption
N ≫ K ≫ 1, we have diag(HH H ) → KI and hH
k′ hk → 0
for k ′ 6= k, and N for k ′ = k, which yields the asymptotic
first order result

−1
π
Nρ
Kρ
ρ
= π
−
γ≈N
,
π
1 + Kρ 2
1 + Kρ
+
(
2
2 − 1)Kρ
(41)
corresponding to the well known performance loss of factor
2/π (≈ −1.96dB) of the one-bit system compared to the ideal
case at low SNR per antenna ρ [3], [9], [16]. In the next subsections, we provide a more accurate third order approximation
and discuss the validity of the first order approximation. In
addition, we investigate the efficiency of linear processing
treating the quantization error as additive noise. In fact, the
third order approximation provides an indication of whether
or not linear processing is appropriate for quantized massive
MIMO, and when advanced DSP is required to maintain the
large antenna gain.

C. Third order approximation

300

From (39), (36), (35), we obtain the following expression
using the third order Taylor expansion of the arcsine function
(c.f. (31)), together with the large system limit diag(C y ) →
(1 + Kρ)I:

250

Small gap:
linear DSP
is sufficient
(e.g. QPSK)

Large gap:
advanced DSP
is needed
(e.g. higher QAM)

200

γ/ρ

150
π
Kρ
ρ
hH
−
)I +
k (
1 + Kρ
2
1 + Kρ
100
!−1

3
X
1
ρ
ρ
Exact lower bound, ρ=−6dB
nondiag((HH H )◦3 )+
hk′ hH
hk .
50
k′
First order approximation, ρ=−6dB
6 1 + Kρ
1 + Kρ ′ PSfrag replacements
k 6=k
Third order approximation, ρ=−6dB
(42)
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Next, we consider the matrix nondiag((HH H )◦3 ) and aim at
N
simplifying it by identifying the significant distortion part in
the direction of the channel hk
Fig. 6. Achievable linear processing gain (39) versus N for i.i.d. channel and

ρ≪1

γk ≈

H ◦3
hH
k nondiag((HH ) )hk
(a)

H ◦2
≈ 3hH
◦ hk hH
k nondiag((HH )
k )hk

ρ = −6dB using the exact formula (39) based on (36) and the approximations
(41) and (44). For QPSK, linear processing can be sufficient; for 16QAM,
however, nonlinear advanced processing [17]–[20] is required.

(b)

60

γ/ρ

H
H ◦2
≈ 3hH
k nondiag(E[(HH ) ] ◦ hk hk )hk
(43)
Two streams at 2ρ= 0dB
Single stream at ρ=0dB
jK
K
H
H
50
) ◦ hk hk )hk
= 3hk nondiag(( +
2
2
3K H
H
40
h nondiag(hk hk )hk ,
=
2 k
30
where, in (a), we neglect the terms that do not combine
coherently with respect to the direction hk , and in (b), we ap20
proximate the matrix (HH H )◦2 by its expectation. Thus, we
H
nondiag(h
h
)
≈
can replace nondiag((HH H )◦3 ) by 3K
k
k
2
H
10
3K
2 hk hk (approximation in the Frobenius norm sense) in (42).
PSfrag
Further, we neglect the inter-user interference in
(42) replacements
via the
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
assumption N ≫ K to obtain the final expression
N

−1
π
Kρ
ρ
·
−
γ ≈N
Fig. 7. Achievable processing gain versus N for ρ = 0dB (one stream,
1 + Kρ 2
1 + Kρ


K = 1) and ρ = −3dB (two streams/dual polarization, K = 2).
(44)
1.5N · K


1 − 
.

3
whether or not linear DSP would be sufficient. The achievable
Kρ
1+Kρ
6 π2 − 1+Kρ
+
1.5N
·
K
ρ
linear processing gain γ/ρ from (39) versus N for K = 10 and

This formula reveals that the processing gain is actually
bounded, as some distortion terms combine coherently in the
user’s channel direction when N → ∞:

2
4 1 + Kρ
(45)
.
lim γ ≈
N →∞
K
ρ

The linear behavior predicted by the first order approximation
(41) is only valid up to a certain N and holds longer the
smaller ρ is. The approach presented here can be also applied
to higher resolution or other type of nonlinearities.
D. Validity of the uncorrelated distortion assumption and the
benefits of spatial multi-streaming
Let us first consider some numerical examples. Then, we
will discuss the validity of the first order approximation
(41) that assumes uncorrelated distortion error and draw key
consequences for the design of such low resolution systems. In
fact, the validity of this approximation is also an indicator of

ρ = −6dB is plotted in Fig. 6 using the exact formula (39), the
first order approximation (41) and the first order approximation
(44). The third order formula seems to reflect the behavior of
γ accurately as we observe in Fig. 6, and it is also useful for
evaluating the performance of linear detection methods for
one-bit massive MIMO systems with N antennas and ρ as the
SNR per data stream and per antenna. In contrast, we observe
an increasing gap between the first order approximation (41)
and the exact formula (39), since the correlations of the
quantization errors become more effective with more antennas
compared to the noise. The observed increasing gap suggests
that with a very large number of antennas, the nonlinear effects
do not completely vanish and one should consider the use of
advanced nonlinear DSP as developed in [17]–[20] to further
maintain the array gain, particularly if higher order modulation
is desired which requires higher processing gain. This is in
contrast to the common assumption that linear processing is
nearly optimal with larger N in the ideal case. This assumption

is not necessarily sufficient for low resolution receivers even
for a single user scenario if higher order modulation schemes
are intended. By comparing (41) and (44), we deduce the
following proposition

with coarsely quantized massive antenna arrays, generally requires advanced nonlinear processing techniques, while multistreaming with QPSK modulation can still be performed with
linear techniques at low RF and DSP complexity.

Proposition 1. In addition to the common massive MIMO
assumption, N ≫ K, the following condition is required for
the near-optimality of linear processing with one-bit ADCs:
q
πp
π
Nlinear DSP ≫
Kγ 3 =
K(2R − 1)3 .
(46)
4
4
Proof. Linear processing is nearly optimal when the approximation (41) is valid, i.e., when the i.i.d. quantization noise
assumption holds. To ensure this, we deduce from the more
accurate approximation (44) the following condition:

R EFERENCES

1.5N · K ≪

3
−2 3


1 + Kρ
N
Kρ
π
Kρ
π
≈6
.
−
−
6
2
1 + Kρ
ρ
2
1 + Kρ
γ3
(47)
After straightforward simplifications, we obtain the result.
The required number of antennas increases cubically with
the desired γ, which might become inconvenient (1000s of
antennas) for higher-order modulation schemes. To rely on
linear DSP, this suggests that the user’s terminals should
instead aim at reducing their initial SNR per dimension, by
using the entire bandwidth and the time interval and having
more streams instead of using higher order modulation and/or
concentrating the signals in space, time or frequency. In
fact, making use of all available dimensions decorrelates the
quantization error, which is extremely beneficial as we can
observe in Fig. 7, where very surprisingly γ after processing
can be higher with two parallel streams than with one stream
for the same total power and a larger number of antennas.
In other words, the achievable rate is more than doubled
when going from one-stream to double-stream transmission
and linear DSP becomes more efficient. This effect is essential
in low resolution receivers and can be even more impactful
with more superimposed independent signals in space, time or
frequency. It is worth noting that two spatial streams are even
possible in a line-of-sight condition based on dual polarization.
V. C ONCLUSION
We considered the use of wireless LO synchronization and
one-bit receivers for reducing the RF complexity of large
array base stations in the uplink. We showed that wireless LO
synchronization is possible with limited losses for more than
1000 antennas even with practical band-pass filters and strict
emission requirements. Low resolution receivers with a large
number of antennas are intended to operate at low to moderate
SNR per antenna and information dimension. To this end, it
is very desirable that users simultaneously exploit the entire
available bandwidth and spatial dimensions. That implies that
the popular FDMA or TDMA schemes are not appropriate
for low resolution systems while SDMA and spatial multistreaming strategies are extremely beneficial. In fact, the use
of higher order modulations, which is principally possible

[1] A. Mezghani and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Approaching Blog (1 +
mathrmSN R) With Direct Detection and Low-Order Asymmetric
Bandpass Filtering,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 21, no. 11, pp.
2372–2375, November 2017.
[2] A. Mezghani and J. A. Nossek, “Belief Propagation based MIMO
Detection Operating on Quantized Channel Output,” IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Seoul, South Korea, June
2010.
[3] ——, “On Ultra-Wideband MIMO Systems with 1-bit Quantized Outputs: Performance Analysis and Input Optimization,” IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Nice, France, June 2007.
[4] ——, “Analysis of 1-bit Output Noncoherent Fading Channels in the
Low SNR Regime,” IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT), Seoul, Korea, June 2009.
[5] J. Mo and R. Heath, “Capacity Analysis of One-Bit Quantized MIMO
Systems With Transmitter Channel State Information,” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 63, no. 20, pp. 5498–5512, October
2015.
[6] ——, “Capacity Analysis of One-Bit Quantized MIMO Systems With
Transmitter Channel State Information,” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 63, no. 20, pp. 5498–5512, October 2015.
[7] C. Mollén, J. Choi, E. G. Larsson, and R. W. Heath, “Uplink Performance of Wideband Massive MIMO With One-Bit ADCs,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87–100,
Jan 2017.
[8] S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, U. Gustavsson, and C. Studer,
“Throughput Analysis of Massive MIMO Uplink With Low-Resolution
ADCs,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 4038–4051,
June 2017.
[9] A. Mezghani and J. A. Nossek, “Capacity Lower Bound of MIMO Channels with Output Quantization and Correlated Noise,” in Proceedings of
2012 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, July 2012,
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1171263/1171263.pdf (not available on
IEEE Xplore.).
[10] D. J. Malyon, “Digital fiber transmission using optical homodyne
detection,” Electron. Lett., vol. 20, pp. 281–283, 1984.
[11] R. Bartle, The elements of integration and Lebesgue measure. Wiley
Interscience, 1995.
[12] J. J. Bussgang, Crosscorrelation functions of amplitude-distorted Gaussian signals.
Technical Report No. 216, Research Laboratory of
Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
USA, March 1952.
[13] A. Mezghani, M. S. Khoufi, and J. A. Nossek, “A Modified MMSE
Receiver for Quantized MIMO Systems,” In Proc. ITG/IEEE WSA,
Vienna, Austria, February 2007.
[14] R. Price, “A useful theorem for nonlinear devices having Gaussian
inputs,” IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 69–72, June 1958.
[15] A. van den Bos, “Price’s theorem for complex variates,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 286–287, Jan. 1996.
[16] Y. Li, C. Tao, G. Seco-Granados, A. Mezghani, A. L. Swindlehurst,
and L. Liu, “Channel Estimation and Performance Analysis of OneBit Massive MIMO Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 65, no. 15, pp. 4075–4089, August 2017.
[17] A. Mezghani, M. S. Khoufi, and J. A. Nossek, “Maximum Likelihood
Detection For Quantized MIMO Systems,” in In Proc. ITG/IEEE WSA,
Darmstadt, Germany, February 2008.
[18] S.-N. Hong, S. Kim, and N. Lee, “Uplink massive mimo systems with
one-bit adcs: A low-complexity weighted minimum distance decoding,”
in 2017 IEEE Global Communications Conference, December 2017.
[19] J. Choi, J. Mo, and R. W. Heath, “Near Maximum-Likelihood Detector
and Channel Estimator for Uplink Multiuser Massive MIMO Systems
With One-Bit ADCs,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 64,
no. 5, pp. 2005–2018, May 2016.
[20] C. K. Wen, C. J. Wang, S. Jin, K. K. Wong, and P. Ting, “BayesOptimal Joint Channel-and-Data Estimation for Massive MIMO With
Low-Precision ADCs,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 64,
no. 10, pp. 2541–2556, May 2016.

