1

Finite-Alphabet Precoding for Massive MU-MIMO
with Low-resolution DACs

arXiv:1709.05755v2 [cs.IT] 19 Feb 2018

Chang-Jen Wang, Chao-Kai Wen, Shi Jin, and Shang-Ho Tsai

Abstract—Massive multiuser multiple-input multiple-output
(MU-MIMO) systems are expected to be the core technology
in fifth-generation wireless systems because they significantly
improve spectral efficiency. However, the requirement for a large
number of radio frequency (RF) chains results in high hardware
costs and power consumption, which obstruct the commercial
deployment of massive MIMO systems. A potential solution is to
use low-resolution digital-to-analog converters (DAC)/analog-todigital converters for each antenna and RF chain. However, using
low-resolution DACs at the transmit side directly limits the degree
of freedom of output signals and thus poses a challenge to the
precoding design. In this study, we develop efficient and universal
algorithms for a downlink massive MU-MIMO system with finitealphabet precodings. Our algorithms are developed based on the
alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) framework.
The original ADMM does not converge in a nonlinear discrete
optimization problem. The primary cause of this problem is that
the alternating (update) directions in ADMM on one side are
biased, and those on the other side are unbiased. By making the
two updates consistent in an unbiased manner, we develop two
algorithms called iterative discrete estimation (IDE) and IDE2:
IDE demonstrates excellent performance and IDE2 possesses
a significantly low computational complexity. Compared with
state-of-the-art techniques, the proposed precoding algorithms
present significant advantages in performance and computational
complexity.
Index Terms—Massive MIMO, multiuser MIMO, precoding,
low-resolution DAC, discrete phase shifter.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the expansion of the Internet of Things and the
increase in the data rate demand for mobile devices, the
requirement for wireless data rate continues to surge. Massive multiuser multiple-input multiple-output (MU-MIMO)
systems are believed to be a key technology for reaching
and surpassing the high data rate demand. This technology
involves equipping a base station (BS) with a few hundreds
of antennas in a centralized [1, 2] or distributed [3] manner to
achieve a quasi-orthogonal channel vector between users and
a BS. This system demonstrates several advantages, including
improvement of network coverage and cell throughput and
enhancement of user energy efficiency.
Although the benefits of using massive MU-MIMO systems
in BS increase with the number of antennas, the requirement
for a large number of radio frequency (RF) chains results in
C.-J. Wang and S.-H. Tsai are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. E-mail:
dkman0988@gmail.com, shanghot@mail.nctu.edu.tw
C.-K. Wen is with Institute of Communications Engineering, National Sun
Yat-sen University, Taiwan. E-mail: chaokai.wen@mail.nsysu.edu.tw
S. Jin is with the National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory,
Southeast University, Nanjing, China. E-mail: jinshi@seu.edu.cn

high hardware costs and power consumption, which obstruct
the commercial deployment of massive MIMO system. A
potential solution is the use of low-resolution digital-to-analog
converters (DACs)/ analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) for
each antenna and RF chain [4–7]. High-resolution ADC chains
are the most power-hungry component on the receiver side.
Thus, the hardware complexity and power consumption can
be exponentially reduced by decreasing the resolution (in bits)
of ADCs [4]. Although power expenditure is dominated by
power amplifiers (PAs) [5–7] on the transmit side, the use
of low-resolution DACs reduces variations in amplitude and
allows the PAs to operate closer to saturation, thus increasing
the efficiency of PAs. The problems caused by low-resolution
ADCs/DACs have stimulated many discussions [8–34]. Several contributions have been proposed for uplink systems with
low-resolution ADCs, and related studies have considered
multifold assessments, such as time/frequency synchronization
[8], channel estimation [9–15], data detection [11, 12, 14–21],
and related performance analyses [15, 17, 22–28]. To date, only
a small number of contributions [29–34] consider problems in
downlink systems with low-resolution DACs, which piqued
our interest.
In downlink massive MU-MIMO systems, BS transmits data
to multiple independent user equipment (UE) simultaneously.
Maximal ratio transmission, zero-forcing (ZF), and Wiener
filter (WF) precoders are commonly used to mitigate interuser interference (IUI) caused by simultaneous transmission.
Using low-resolution DACs at the transmit side directly limits
the degree of freedom of output signals. A straightforward
approach is to quantize the values of these conventional precoders directly. However, this approach results in a significant
performance loss when heavily quantized DACs are applied.
Relevant prior art—The use of 1-bit DACs at the transmitter not only ensures constant-envelope (CE) signals in
the input of power amplifiers but also minimizes the energy
consumption of a DAC itself. Therefore, massive MU-MIMO
systems with 1-bit DACs have elicited much attention [29–34].
For example, a minimum mean-square error (MMSE) criterion
precoder for a 1-bit MIMO downlink system with higher-order
modulation signals was proposed in [30]. This work breaks the
myth that the 1-bit precoder is restricted to QPSK signaling.
By using biconvex relaxation, [31] proposed 1-bit precoding
algorithms for massive MU-MIMO systems that demonstrate
better error-rate performance than the ZF precoder directly
followed by quantization. Moreover, [31] considered VLSI
architectures that enable hundreds of antennas to serve tens of
UE. In contrast to [31] where the precoders are designed for
1-bit massive MIMO systems based on the MMSE criterion to

2

mitigate IUI, [32] changed the design criterion to the minimum
bit error-rate (BER). In [33], the proposed precoder design
considers the signal distortions caused by 1-bit quantization
at the transmitter and receiver. Aside from 1-bit DACs, [29]
investigated the problem of downlink precoding with lowresolution DACs (e.g., 1–3 bits) at the BS by using Bussgang’s theorem. [34] extended the work of [29] from cases
with frequency-flat channels to those with frequency-selective
channels.
Another type of hardware-aware precoding is the use of CE
precoding (e.g., [35–40]), which reduces the peak-to-average
power ratio (PAPR) in the output signals1 and thus decreases
the linearity requirements at the BS. In CE precoding, the
transmitted signals are strictly limited by a fixed amplitude,
and their phases are optimized to minimize IUI. Phase rotation
can be implemented by installing an analog or digital phase
shifter (PS) in each antenna. The authors in [35–38] assumed
that infinite-resolution PSs can generate any required phase.
The design of infinite-resolution PSs leads to high hardware
complexity and power consumption. Low-resolution PSs are
therefore typically used in practice. When finite-resolution
PSs are employed, a straightforward approach that utilizes the
quantized values of each continuous PS in a finite set also
leads to a significant performance loss [39, 40]. Notably, the
1-bit DAC precoding problem can be considered as a special
case of CE precoding, in which the phase of the transmitted
signal is limited to only four different values.
The mentioned architectures, such as low-resolution DACs,
low-resolution PSs, or their hybrids [7] can be energy-efficient.
Given that these architectures result in finite alphabet signals,
we call them finite-alphabet precodings. Thus far, existing
finite-alphabet precodings are designed individually. Thus far,
existing finite-alphabet precodings are designed individually.
For example, most algorithms are designed specifically for
the 1-bit DAC precoding problem, and extending these algorithms from 1-bit DAC precoding to general finite-alphabet
precodings remains unjustified. In fact, all of the precoding
problems mentioned above are related to a nonlinear leastsquares (NLS) problem that attempts to minimize IUI (formed
by a minimum Euclidean norm) with a finite-alphabet feasible
set. The NLS problem is non-convex and difficult to solve
explicitly. A common approach to address this optimization
problem is to formulate it into a nonlinear integer (discrete)
optimization problem and solve it using the branch-and-cut
technique [42] (such as the sphere-decoding method [29]).
However, the worst-case complexity of the sphere-decoding
method increases significantly with the problem dimensions.
Therefore, this approach is un-suitable for massive MIMOs
with a large number of antennas. In [43], the authors proposed
an algorithm called trellis-based CE precoder (TB-CEP) that
searches the precoding by using a trellis structure and only retains a few possible combinations of the trellis states. However,
1 CE precoding has a perfectly constant envelope at the discrete-time domain
but does not result in continuous-time transmit signals with a perfectly
constant envelope. However, compared with precoding methods, which result
in large amplitude variations in the discrete-time domain, CE precoding results
in continuous-time transmit signals that have significantly improved PAPR
[41].

TB-CEP does not provide a good trade-off between complexity
and performance (which will be shown subsequently in our
simulations). Meanwhile, the alternating direction method of
multipliers (ADMM) is a common algorithm for nonlinear
discrete optimization. The individual steps in ADMM can be
implemented exactly. However, ADMM does not converge,
and even when it converges, it does not converge to a good
suboptimal point.
Contribution—Unlike existing algorithms that are individually designed for each specific architecture, we develop a
universal algorithm for a downlink massive MU-MIMO system with finite-alphabet precodings that minimize IUI. Most
importantly, compared with existing algorithms, the proposed
precoding algorithms also present significant advantages in
performance and computational complexity. The key contributions of this study are threefold.
•

•

•

Our algorithms are developed based on the ADMM
framework. We reveal that the primary reason for the
failure of ADMM to generate a good solution in nonlinear discrete optimization is as follows: the alternating
(update) directions in ADMM on one side are biased
and those on the other side are unbiased. By making
the two updates consistent in a unbiased manner, we
develop a universal framework for finite-alphabet precodings called iterative discrete estimation (IDE), which
possesses better convergence properties than other local
optimization methods. The proposed algorithms possess a
unified structure, such that they can be applied to various
finite-alphabet problems.
Although IDE generally achieves excellent error-rate performance, it has a slightly higher complexity than stateof-the-art methods because it requires matrix inversion.
Following the same framework as IDE but using an
approximation for matrix inversion, we propose a lowcomplexity version of IDE called IDE2. The simulations
show that IDE2 provides good trade-offs between complexity and error-rate performance and is thus highly
suitable for massive MU-MIMO systems.
Most authors (e.g., [29, 31, 34]) only evaluated their precoders under QPSK signaling. In fact, their precoders
do not need to perform well under a generally high
QAM signaling (e.g., 16-QAM and 64-QAM) because the
precoders only need to transform the desired signals into
four quadrants for QPSK signaling. In contrast to stateof-the-art precoders, IDE and IDE2 are universal and can
work efficiently under any high-level QAM signaling.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section
II introduces the system model and problem formulation.
Section III presents ADMM and the reason for its failure to
work well in nonlinear discrete optimization problems. The
proposed algorithms are introduced, optimized, and simplified. Moreover, the complexity of the proposed algorithms is
compared with the complexity of state-of-the-art methods. The
simulations are presented in Sections IV. The conclusions are
provided in Section V.
Notations—For any matrix A, AH is the conjugate transpose of A and tr(A) denotes the traces of A. diag(A) returns

3

of channel matrix H. As an example, if the ZF precoder is
used, then we have
1
x = P(s, H) = HH (HHH )−1 s,
(2)
β

(a) Low-resolution DAC
DAC
DAC

RF

user 1

DAC
DAC

RF

user 2

DAC
DAC

RF

user K

RF chain

+
oscillator
(b) Analog PS

power
amplifier

RF

ADC

det.

(c) Hybrid
DAC
DAC

RF

DAC
DAC

RF

RF
unit signal
generator

Fig. 1. Massive MU-MIMO downlink system with the BS utilizing (a) lowresolution DACs, (b) low-resolution analog PSs, (c) hybrid.

a diagonal matrix with its diagonal elements containing the
diagonal elements of A. Ex {·} represents the expectation
with respect to random variable x. When a complex-valued
random variable x is the Gaussian distribution with mean µ
and variance σ 2 , we write x ∼ CN (µ, σ 2 ).

where β is the precoding factor selected to ensure that a power
constraint is satisfied. In this study, we consider the average
power constraint as follows:
1
Es {kxk22 } ≤ Ptx ,
(3)
N
where Ptx is the transmit power
q of each antenna. If
H )−1 )
H
. We define
Es {ss } = I, then we obtain β = tr((HH
N Ptx
SNR = N Ptx /σ 2 as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This
definition of SNR includes the array gain and can be regarded
as the received SNR perceived by each UE.
If the ZF precoder is used, then the received signal is Hx =
1
s
rather than s. The users should (be able to) rescale the
β
received signal by a factor β to obtain an estimate of the
transmit constellation points. Therefore, we define the metric
for IUI as
IUI = Es {ks − βHxk22 }.
(4)

where y = [y1 , . . . , yK ]T ∈ CK contains the received signals
of all users, x = [x1 , . . . , xN ]T ∈ CN is the transmitted signal from the BS, H = [Hk,n ] ∈ CK×N denotes
the downlink channel with element Hk,n being the channel
response between transmitting antenna n and user k, and
z = [z1 , . . . , zK ]T ∈ CK is the noise vector. We assume that
channel matrix H is perfectly known at the BS and zk ’s are
i.i.d. circularly symmetric complex Gaussian with mean 0 and
variance σ 2 , that is, z ∼ CN (0, σ 2 I).
In the downlink transmission, the BS aims to transmit
constellation points sk ∈ O for k = 1, . . . , K to each of
K users, where O is the set of constellation points (e.g.,
QPSK, 16-QAM, and 64-QAM). To this end, symbol vector
s = [s1 , . . . , sK ]T is mapped into N -dimensional vector x
through a precoder denoted by x = P(s, H). The notation
P(s, H) implies that the precoder not only depends on the
transmit constellation points s but also utilizes the realization

Although the ZF precoder can achieve zero IUI, it presents several challenges to the BS, such as requiring infinite-resolution
DACs and high-linearity power amplifiers. In this study, we are
interested in a practical setting where each antenna is equipped
with a low-cost constrained RF chain. For example, the BS is
equipped with low-resolution DACs (e.g., 1-bit DACs), lowresolution analog PSs, or hybrid architectures, as illustrated
in Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), respectively. The former two
architectures are straightforward, and the hybrid architecture
is highly general. To better understand the hybrid architecture,
we consider an example that the number of DAC/RF chains is
N RF , the resolution of DACs is one-bit, and each PS employs
four discrete-phase resolution 4-PSK. In this case, the signal
outputs of each complex ADC is one of the following 4-QAM
signals: {±1 ± j}. The output of each DAC/RF chain i is then
connected to N PSs and yields the precoded signal xi , which
is 16-QAM that results from the superposition of 4-QAM
and 4-PSK. Afterwards, signals xi are combined by N RF port power combiners to generate the final transmitted signal
PN RF
x = i=1 xi . This architecture employs in total N RF N PS
elements. Notice that x can be represented by a finite set of
values. Designing the finite-alphabet set can relax the linearity
requirement, thus allowing the amplifiers to operate closer to
saturation and increasing their efficiency.
In these applications, each entry of transmit vector x is
restricted to a finite-alphabet X = {χ0 , . . . , χM −1 }, where
χm represents the possible quantization output. We refer to
M = |X | and B = log2 M as the number of quantization
levels (per dimension3 ) and the number of quantization bits
(per dimension), respectively. We call the transmitted signal
x ∈ X N the finite-alphabet precoder.

2 For the frequency-selective fading channel, the input-output of the downlink channel still can be expressed in a form similar to (1). Please see [34,
Eq. (10)] for details. As such, the proposed algorithms also can be applied to
the frequency-selective fading channel.

3 In low-resolution DAC case, we assume the same quantization alphabet for
the real and imaginary parts. Therefore, the nth entry of the transmit vector
x is xn = xR,n + jxI,n with xR,n , xI,n ∈ X .

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. System Model
As illustrated in Fig. 1, we consider the downlink transmission of a massive MU-MIMO system, in which a BS with
N antennas serves K single-antenna users simultaneously in
the same time frequency resource. For simplicity, we assume
that the ADCs at the UEs have infinite resolution. The input
output of the downlink frequency-flat fading channel can be
expressed as2
y = Hx + z,
(1)

4

B. Problem Formulation

1

Factor β serves as a trade-off between IUI and noise enhancement. By using (5) as the objective function, the precoder
design can be formulated as follows:
min
x, β

2

ks − βHxk2 + β 2 Kσ 2 ,

s.t. x ∈ X N , β > 0.

-1
-3
-5
IUI (dB)

If the precoder belongs to a finite-alphabet, that is, x ∈ X ,
then obtaining zero IUI becomes difficult in general. The users
will experience additional distortion. Our goal is to design a
precoder that minimizes IUI under the power constraint (3).
Notably, we have rescaled the received signal by the factor β.
Therefore, given the transmitted symbol s, the mean squared
error of the estimated symbols at the receivers can be written
as [29]
ks − βHxk22 + β 2 Kσ 2 .
(5)

-7
-9
-11
-13
-15

0

100

200

(6)

If x ∈ X N , then the average power of x is always determined.
Therefore, the power constraint is removed.
The problem formulation in (6) is general and can be used
in several applications by setting support X to be of several
given forms. For example, if the BS is equipped with infiniteresolution DACs, then we can set X = C and introduce the
average power constraint (3). In this case, the solution to (6)
is the WF precoder [44] expressed as follows:

−1
Kσ 2
1
H
H
s,
(7)
H
HH +
I
x=
βWF
N Ptx
{z
}
|

IDE, fixed
IDE, adaptive
IDE2

ADMM
ADMM2 (ADMM, damp)
ADMM3 (ADMM, damp, u=0)

N

300

400

500

Iteration

Fig. 2. IUI versus the number of iterations in the same simulation environment
for different algorithms.

We develop a numerically efficient algorithm for solving
problem (8). We begin by introducing a commonly used
ADMM framework for nonconvex problems to explain why
it fails to generate a good solution, and we describe in detail
our novel algorithms.

,WWF

A. Why ADMM Fail

where

s
βWF =

H W
tr(WWF
WF )

N Ptx

.

The 1-bit quantized
obtained
√precoder problem [29, 31]√can be 2πk
by setting X = Ptx (±1 ± j). If X = Ptx ej M with
k = 0, . . . , M − 1, the precoder is called a CE precoder [36,
38, 45]. In the CE precoder, a high-efficiency power amplifier
can be used because the antenna elements have the same
output amplitude. The problem of (6) is also related to an
integer programming problem, which is NP-hard in general.
Many techniques, such as sphere decoding [29], NOMAD
[46], and TB-CEP [43], have been proposed to solve these
problems. However, the computation complexity of these techniques dramatically increases with the increase in BS antennas
N . Recent interest has shifted to the design of numerically
efficient precoding methods suitable for massive MU-MIMO
systems.
III. A LGORITHM
The simultaneously optimizing x and β make the problem
increasingly complicated. In the following discussion, we
consider the case with a fixed β and remove β 2 Kσ 2 from
e = βH and
the objective function. Specifically, we denote H
consider the following optimization problem
e 2,
min ks − Hxk
2
x

s.t.

x ∈ XN.

(8)

To use the ADMM framework, we rewrite problem (8) in
a consensus form as follows [47]:
e 1 k2 + IX (x),
min ks − Hx
2
x1 ,x

s.t.

(9)

x1 − x = 0,

where IX (·) is the indicator function of X N , that is,

0, if x ∈ X N ,
IX (x) =
∞, otherwise.

(10)

The augmented Lagrangian of (9) is expressed as
e 1 k2 +IX (x)+uH (x1 −x)+γ kx1 − xk2 ,
Lr (x1 , x, u) = ks−Hx
2
2
(11)
where u is the dual vector, and γ > 0 is the penalty parameter
(or the augmented Lagrangian parameter). The ADMM for this
problem is expressed as

xt+1
= argmin Lr x1 , xt , ut ,
(12a)
1
x1

t
xt+1 = argmin Lr xt+1
(12b)
1 , x, u ,
x

ut+1 = ut + γ xt+1
− xt+1 .
(12c)
1
In (12), the x1 -update involves solving the IUI minimization problem, the x-update involves projection onto a finitealphabet set X N , and the u-update can be interpreted as
a consensus adjustment step with step size γ. After some

5

algebraic manipulation, (12) can be expressed explicitly as


−1 
e HH
e + γI
e H s + γxt − ut ,
xt+1
=
(13a)
H
H
1


1 t
xt+1 = ΠX xt+1
+
u ,
(13b)
1
2γ

(13c)
ut+1 = ut + γ xt+1
− xt+1 ,
1
where ΠX is projected onto {xn ∈ X , n = 1, . . . , N }.
The x1 -minimization step (13a) is convex, but the x-update
(13b) is projected onto a nonconvex set X N . Although the
use of ADMM for nonconvex problems is common, ADMM
may not converge. Fig. 2 shows the experimental result of IUI
versus iteration for one trial, in which N = 64, K = 16,
1
{±1 ± j}, to better
Hn,k ∼ CN (0, 1), ∀n, k, and X = √128
understand this problem. If we do not specify the update
mechanism of γ, then the default is γ = 1 in subsequent
experiments. We see that the IUI of ADMM changes dramatically in each iteration and cannot converge.4 By checking
the program itself, we determine that the main reason for this
problem is projection ΠX . In each iteration, projection ΠX
generates xt+1 onto a discrete point, which makes xt+1 clearly
different from xt+1
1 , and the variation is too large to make
the iteration converge. To solve the rapid change problem, we
introduce damping factor α ∈ [0, 1] after (13c) as follows:
xt+1
= αxtd + (1 − α) xt+1 ,
d

(14a)

ut+1
= αutd + (1 − α)ut+1 .
d

(14b)

We simply refer to ADMM (13) in conjunction with (14) as
ADMM2. Notice that for ADMM2, xt in (13a) and ut in
(13c) should be replaced by xtd and utd , respectively. In Fig.
2, ADMM2 is more stable than ADMM, and its track behaves
as a stepped line because as the updates do not surpass a
threshold, xt+1 does not change in each iteration.
Although ADMM2 behaves like a smooth version of
ADMM, the IUI track of ADMM2 is not monotonically
decreasing and still cannot converge. By checking the program
itself again, we realize that the problem is in the u-update.
Recall that the u-update in ADMM is a consensus adjustment
step, which attemps to make x and x1 reach a consensus. However, this update cannot perform like a consensus adjustment
as expected because the alternative update between x1 and
x is conflictive: the x-update always outputs a discrete point
in X N , whereas the x1 -update never does. Trying to force
x1 and x to reach a consensus instead results in divergence.
Therefore, we remove dual vector u in each iteration and

4 We find that the same ADMM algorithm works well for massive MUMIMO detection [48]. Notice that the detection problem is completely
different from the precoding problem at the x1 -update stage. For the detection
problem, the x1 -update solves the least-squares solution, in which no local
optimal point exists. Therefore, the variation in each iteration is minor because
the optimal solution x is already close to that found through the least-squares
solution, especially for a massive MIMO system. However, for the precoding
problem, the x1 -update itself has an infinitely number of solutions. Therefore,
the variation in each iteration shall be too large for the iteration to converge.

obtain the following algorithm

−1 

e HH
e + γI
e H s + γxt ,
xt+1
=
H
H
d
1

t+1
t+1
x
= ΠX x1 ,
xt+1
d

=

αxtd

+ (1 − α) x

t+1

(15a)
(15b)

.

(15c)

We refer to the algorithm as ADMM3. In ADMM3, x1 and
x are updated in an alternating manner without a consensus
adjustment. Specifically, the x1 -update involves solving a
linearly-constrained minimum Euclidean norm problem, i.e.,
e 1 k2 + γ x1 − xt
argmin ks − Hx
2
d
x1

2
2

.

(16)

Then, the x-update projects the resulting point onto a finitealphabet to obtain the subsequent iteration. This update strategy is straightforward. However, Fig. 2 shows that ADMM3
only updates one time and then falls into a local optimum
solution with poor IUI.
B. Proposed Methods
From the previous presented experiments, we realize that all
ADMM-based algorithms experience a similar problem: the
x1 -update intends to minimize IUI, which is not necessarily
an alphabet point, whereas the x-update aims to project the
result onto an alphabet point. Their updates cannot easily reach
a consensus stage. To understand this problem, we rewrite the
x1 -update in (15a) as follows:


e t ,
xt+1
= xtd + W s − Hx
(17)
d
1
where

−1

e H.
e HH
e + γI
H
W= H

(18)

From the perspective of estimation theory [49], (17) can be
interpreted as the optimal linear MMSE estimate of x given
prior knowledge on

1
(19)
E{x} = xtd and E (x − xtd )(x − xtd )H = I.
γ
Such a linear MMSE estimate is biased for each iteration [49]
(see Appendix A for this argument). However, the projection
step in the x-update always returns an alphabet point, which
is an unbiased estimate of x.
To make the two updates consistent, we change (17) into
an unbiased version by replacing W with Wu = DW, where
D is a diagonal matrix with its entries selected, such that the
e = D(H
e HH
e + γI)−1 H
e HH
e are 1.
diagonal elements of Wu H
e
If the diagonal elements of Wu H are 1, then the bias in (17)
is approximately removed (see Appendix A for this argument).
e −1 . By substituting the
To this end, we let D = [diag(WH)]
unbiased version of (17) into (15b), we obtain the following
algorithm



e t ,
xt+1 = ΠX xtd + Wu s − Hx
(20a)
d
xt+1
= αxtd + (1 − α) xt+1 ,
d

(20b)

where
e −1 W.
Wu = [diag(WH)]

(21)

6

Notably, we consider the diagonal entries before performing
the matrix inversion in (21). Given that each iteration consists
of an estimation step and a discrete projection step, we refer
to the algorithm as IDE. Fig. 2 shows that the performance of
IDE is significantly better than that of ADMM3 and does not
have an instability problem similar to that of ADMM2.
The estimation in IDE is based on the problem in (16),
in which penalty parameter γ is used to regulate IUI minimization and the previous estimate. Generally, small values
of γ tend to produce a small IUI but at the expense of a
low convergence rate. Therefore, we use different penalty
parameters γ t for each iteration with the goal of making
performance less dependent on the choice of the penalty
parameter. Our setting of γ t is based on a simple observation:
from linear estimation theory, γ in (18) should be set as an
inverse of covariance (19), such that the estimate (17) can
achieve MMSE. Given that the targeted x is unknown, we
estimate the error variance as follows:
e t k2
ks − Hx
−1
2
.
(22)
(γ t ) =
H
e
e
tr(H H)

We address the complexity issue by using an approximation
for the matrix inversion. In particular, if γ is large5 , then we
can obtain the following approximation
e HH
e + γI)−1 ≈
(H

1
I,
γ

(23)

e H . Consequently, we obtain
which results in W ≈ γ1 H
e H H)]
e −1 H
e H.
Wu ≈ [diag(H

(24)

By substituting Wu into (20), we obtain a low-complexity
version of IDE (summarized in Algorithm 2). We refer to
the algorithm as IDE2. As shown in Fig. 2, the performance
of IDE2 is only slightly degenerated because of the low
complexity.
Algorithm 2: IDE2
e = βH
1 Inputs: s, H
0
2 Initial: t = 0, xd = 0, α = 0.95
3 while t < T do
e H e −1 e H
4
Wu = [diag(
 H H)] H

e t)
5
xt+1 = ΠX xtd + Wu (s − Hx
d

e H H)
e serves as a normalization factor to remove
In (22), tr(H
−1
the channel effect; thus, (γ t ) ≈ N1 kx − xt k2 corresponds
to the error variance (19). The algorithm of IDE with adaptive
γ is summarized in Algorithm 1. We always use IDE with
adaptive γ; therefore, we simply refer to Algorithm 1 as IDE.
Selection of damping factor α requires a trade-off between
stability and speed of convergence. In Algorithm 1 (as well
as Algorithm 2), we set α = 0.95 based on experience. In
addition, through exhaustive simulations, we find that the IUI
results of the converged solutions with different initial points
of x0d are similar. Therefore, we simply set x0d = 0 as the
initial point.

IDE2 appears nearly similar to classical gradient descent.
e 2 denotes the objective function of (8). The
F (x) = ks − Hxk
2
e H (s − Hx).
e
negative gradient of F (x) is −∇F (x) = H
In
gradient descent, the update should be in the following form



e H s − Hx
e t ,
xt+1 = ΠX xt + γ H
(25)

Algorithm 1: IDE
e = βH
1 Inputs: s, H
0
0
2 Initial: t = 0, xd = 0, γd = 1, α = 0.95
3 while t < T do

−1
e HH
e + γtI
eH
4
W= H
H

where step size γ should be sufficiently small, such that
F (xt+1 ) ≤ F (xt ). The main difference between IDE2 and
gradient descent is the step size. The set size in IDE2 is in
e H H)]
e −1 , which attempts to make
vector form, i.e., [diag(H
each update in an unbiased manner. Meanwhile, the set size
in gradient descent is a constant γ, which makes each update
in a biased manner.

5
6
7

7
8

xt+1
= αxtd + (1 − α)xt+1
d
t←t+1
Output x = xt+1

e −1
D = [diag(W
 H)]



e t
xt+1 = ΠX xtd + DW s − Hx
d

γ

t+1

xt+1
d
γdt+1

=

e H H)
e
tr(H
e t+1 k2
ks−Hx
2
αxtd + (1 − α)xt+1
αγdt + (1 − α)γ t+1

10

=
=
t←t+1

11

Output x = xt+1

8
9

6

Fig. 2 shows that IDE with adaptive γ converges rapidly
and performs significantly better than the other algorithms.
Although the performance of IDE is good, its complexity could
be high for massive MIMO systems. The complexity of IDE
is dominated by the matrix inversion in line 4 of Algorithm 1,
which is expressed as O(N K 2 ). Notably, matrix inversion has
to calculate each iteration because γ t changes in each iteration.

C. Alternative Update Mechanism for β
In the previous discussion, we fix precoding factor β. For
any given xt+1 , precoding factor β that minimizes (6) is
expressed as follows:

Re sH Hxt+1
t+1
.
(26)
β
=
kHxt+1 k22 + Kσ 2
Appendix B shows the derivation. Then, we fix the estimate
β t+1 and use the proposed algorithms to derive xt+2 . The
algorithm alternates between the updates of β t and xt+1 .
Specifically, we plug (26) after line 6 of Algorithm 1 and
line 5 of Algorithm 2 with initial β 0 = 1.
5 From (16), a large value of γ implies x ≈ xt ; that is, x is close to its
1
1
previous iteration xt . Therefore, we observe from Fig. 2 that IDE with this
approximation exhibits fast convergence but high IUI.

7

TABLE I
C OMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY FOR DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS
Algorithm

1-st iteration

Subsequent iteration (each)

T iterations

2N K + N

T (2N K + N ) + 13 K 3

+ 13 K 3
+ K2 + N

2N K 2

SQUID

+4N K

N K 2 + 13 K 3

C1PO

+2N K +

K2

+2N K 2 + 2N K + K 2
2N K + K 2 + N

T (2N K + K 2 + N ) + 13 K 3
+N K 2

+ 2N

2N K 2 + 43 K 3

N K 2 + 43 K 3

T (N K 2 + 43 K 3 + 5N K

+5N K + 3N + K

+5N K + 3N + K

+3N + K) + N K 2

4N K + 3N

2N K + N

T (2N K + N ) + 2N K + 2N

IDE
IDE2

N 2 KM L+1

TB-CEP

TABLE II
T HE TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTIPLICATIONS (MCL S ) FOR DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS

Algorithm

Max iterations #

SQUID
C1PO
IDE
IDE2

100
24
100
100

MCLs #
for (N, K) = (64, 16)
0.24E+6
0.07E+6
2.7E+6
0.21E+6

Output 4-PSK

(N, K, L)

(N, K, L)

(M = 4)

= (64, 16, 0.1N )

TB-CEP

1000E+6

D. Complexity Analysis
We analyze the computational complexity of the proposed
algorithms and other prior state-of-the-art methods, such as
SQUID [29], C1PO [31], and TB-CEP [43], in terms of
the number of multiplication operations. We only consider
e s, and x are realthe real-valued model of (8), that is, H,
valued matrices or vectors. Our analytical results can be easily
extended to the complex-valued model by using real-valued
representation of the complex-valued matrix and vector.6
We analyze the complexity of IDE (Algorithm 1). In line 4
of Algorithm 1, given that H is fat (i.e., K < N ), we apply
the matrix inversion lemma [50]


−1 
e HH
e + γ t I)−1 = 1 I − H
eH H
eH
e H + γtI
e ,
(H
H
γt
(27)
and only compute the matrix inversion of the small matrix
eH
e H + γ t I. The computation of (H
eH
e H + γ t I)−1 requires
H
2 1 3
N K + 3 K multiplications, which involve the cost of forming
eH
e H and computing the Cholesky factorization. We cache
H
e
e H + γ t I)−1 for the subsequent steps in lines 4 and 5.
(HH
Applying (27), W in line 4 is implemented by
e HH
e + γ t I)−1 H
eH
(H


−1
1 eH eH e eH
eH
e H . (28)
= t H
−H
HH + γ t I
H
γ
6 A straightforward method is to replace the dimensions in the complexity
analysis from N and K to 2M and 2K, respectively.

= (64, 16, 0.5N )
4.80E+24

MCLs #
for (N, K) = (128, 16)
0.48E+6
0.14E+6
4.9E+6
0.43E+6
(N, K, L)
= (64, 16, 0.9N )
2.00E+40

Notice that we do not compute W in line 4 because it is the
side product of the computation of D in line 5. Specifically,
the computation of D is implemented as follows:
h

i−1
e
diag WH
 
−1
−1


1
eH
e HH
e
eH
e H + γtI
eH H
e H H)
e − diag H
H
,
= t diag(H
γ
(29)
which involves the computation of the diagonal entries of
e HH
e (required N K multiplications), the computation of
H
eH
e H + γ t I)−1 and H
eH
e H (required
the matrix product of (H
3
K multiplications), the computation of the diagonal entries
e H (H
eH
e H + γ t I)−1 H
eH
e HH
e (required N (K 2 + K)
of H
multiplications), the computation of a scalar multiplication by
1/γ t (required N multiplications), and the computation of the
inverse of the diagonal matrix (required N multiplications).
The total cost of this step is 2N K 2 + 34 K 3 + 2N K + 2N .
Similarly, the x-update in line 6 requires 2N K +N multiplications. The cost of projection ΠX in the x-update is negligible.
Line 7 involves N K + K multiplications for computing
e t+1 k2 . The cost of the damping updates in lines 8
ks − Hx
2
and 9 is negligible because multiplication by constant damping
factor α can be implemented using a sequence of shifts and
additions or subtractions. Therefore, Algorithm 1 requires a
total of 2N K 2 + 34 K 3 + 5N K + 3N + K multiplications
eH
e H does not change in each
for t = 1. Given that H
iteration, we can cache the result to perform the subsequent
iterations efficiently. Accordingly, Algorithm 1 requires a total

8

of N K 2 + 43 K 3 + 5N K + 3N + K multiplications for each
iteration when t ≥ 2. The total number of multiplications for
Algorithm 1 is T (N K 2 + 43 K 3 + 5N K + 3N + K) + N K 2 ,
where T denotes the number of iterations required to reach a
stopping criterion. We summarize the number of multiplications of IDE in Table I.

Following the analysis framework mentioned previously, we
analyze the complexity of SQUID, C1PO, and TB-CEP and
summarize the corresponding results in Table I. Notice that in
the complexity analysis, we neglect the cost for calculating
precoding factor β because it is only updated every few
iterations. In contrast to the other schemes, TB-CEP does not
operate in an iterative manner. TB-CEP searches the precoding
by using a trellis structure similar to that used by the Viterbi
algorithm in decoding or channel equalization. In each step,
TB-CEP retains one path from M L possible combinations of
the trellis states. The number of trellis states M L serves as a
trade-off between complexity and performance.
We provide the total number of multiplications in Table II
given specific values for system configurations to thoroughly
understand the complexity of the mentioned schemes. We fix
the number of users to K = 16 and show the results for
two settings: i) N = 64 and ii) N = 128. The complexity
of SQUID, C1PO, and the proposed algorithms depends on
the number of iterations T . For SQUID and C1PO, we set
T = 100 and 24, respectively, following the suggestions of
their original proponents [29, 43]. For IDE and IDE2, we
set T = 100, although good convergence is observed after
approximately 50 iterations. Table II indicates that TB-CEP
always exhibits relatively higher complexity than the others
algorithms. C1PO exhibits the better computational efficiency
than the other algorithms for the large MIMO system. IDE
requires a slightly higher complexity than SQUID and C1PO
but generally achieves excellent error-rate performance (to be
shown subsequently in the simulations). In the simulations, we
show that IDE2 can achieve the better error-rate performance
than SQUID, C1PO, and TB-CEP. In addition, the complexity
of IDE2 increases linearly with the number of UE size K.
Consequently, IDE2 exhibits the best trade-offs between complexity and error-rate performance among all the compared
algorithms.

10

0

SQUID
IDE

SDRr
IDE2

WF, Inf. Res.

6

10

-1

R=2

10

-2

BER

R=4

10

-3

R=8

10

-4

0

2

4

8
SNR (dB)

12

14

16

Fig. 3. BER with QPSK signaling as a function of the SNR for different 1-bit
DAC precoders with adaptive β. The number of users is fixed to K = 16,
and the total BS antenna number is scaled N = R × K from 32 to 64 and
128 by selecting R = 2, 4, 8.

0

R=2, IDE
R=2, SQUID
R=2, IDE2

R=4, IDE
R=4, SQUID
R=4, IDE2

R=8, IDE
R=8, SQUID
R=8, IDE2

-5

IUI (dB)

Then, we analyze the complexity of IDE2 (Algorithm 2).
The analysis of IDE2 is nearly similar to that of IDE, except
for the fact that IDE2 does not require matrix inversion.
In line 4 of Algorithm 2, we only form the reciprocal vale HH
e and cache this result
ues of the diagonal entries of H
for the subsequent x-update, which only costs N K + N
multiplications. Line 5 requires N K + N and 2N K + N
e t , respectively.
multiplications to compute Wu s and Wu Hx
Similarly, the costs for projection ΠX and damping update
are negligible. Therefore, Algorithm 2 requires a total of
4N K + 3N multiplications for t = 1. For t ≥ 2, lines 4
e t because the other parts do not
and 5 only update Wu Hx
d
change. Accordingly, Algorithm 2 requires a total of 2N K+N
multiplications for each iteration when t ≥ 2. The overall
complexity required by IDE2 is T (2N K + N ) + 2N K + 2N
when performing T iterations.

10

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

2

4

6

8
10
SNR (dB)

12

14

16

Fig. 4. IUI versus SNR for different 1-bit DAC precoders with adaptive β.

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We conduct simulations to evaluate the performance of the
proposed methods in terms of average IUI and BER. We
consider a setting in which each antenna at the transmitter is
equipped with a low-resolution DAC or PS. The 1-bit DAC is
the extreme case of this setting. If no specification is provided,
then the message symbol s intended for each user is QPSK,
and precoding factor β is fixed to 1. We fix the number of users
to K = 16 and scale the total BS antenna number N = R×K
from 32 to 64 and 128 by selecting R = 2, 4, 8. We refer to
R as the system load factor. The channel responses between
the BS and each user follow a circular Gaussian distribution
CN (0, 1) in an i.i.d. manner. Performances is evaluated via

9

10

BER

10

10

10

10

0

IDE2
SQUID
IDE
WF, Inf. Res.
SDRr

-1

-2

-3

-4

0

2

4

6

8
SNR (dB)

10

12

14

16

Fig. 5. BER with 16-QAM signaling as a function of the SNR for different
1-bit DAC precoders with adaptive β; K = 16, N = 128, and R = 8.

30,000 channel realizations. Following [30], we assume that
factor β is perfectly known for UEs because it can be estimated
through pilot transmissions or blind estimation techniques. For
IDE and IDE2, we set T = 100, although good convergence is
observed after approximately 50 iterations. Notably, the update
of the precoding factor β t depends on xt as expressed in (26).
We begin with a fixed β and update β every 10 iterations of
xt to ensure that xt has converged to a good state.7
A. 1-bit Precoding
In Fig. 3, we compare the BER and SNR of our proposed
algorithms and state-of-the-art methods, such as SDRr and
SQUID [29]. As reported in [29], the performance of SDRr is
close to that observed in exhaustive search. Given that exhaustive search is impossible, we regard SDRr as a performance
benchmark in this experiment. However, the computational
complexity of SDRr is still high with the increase in the
number of BS antenna N . In [29] and [31], the authors
proposed low-complexity versions called SQUID and C1PO,
respectively. The performance of SQUID and C1PO is comparable. Thus, we only consider SQUID in the comparison. In
this figure, we use the adaptive precoding factor β for all of
the algorithms (including SDRr and SQUID). For comparison,
we also report the performance of the WF precoder for the
infinite-resolution case.
We observe that the BER performance of IDE is comparable
to that of the benchmark SDRr. IDE has a low computational
complexity. The proposed algorithms (i.e., IDE and IDE2)
present significant advantages in terms of BER compared
with SQUID, particularly when R is small (e.g., R = 2, 4).
7 This update setting is based on experience. Decreasing the iteration
numbers of xt for each update of β can facilitate escape for shallow local
minima. However, fluctuations may occur. We also examine the damped
update mechanism for β. This mechanism, however, degrades performance.

The performance of IDE2 is comparable to that of IDE, and
IDE2 has a significantly lower computational complexity than
IDE. When R = 8, the gap between the performance of the
proposed algorithms and that of SQUID becomes negligible.
However, this result does not imply that their behaviors are
similar. We also show the corresponding IUIs for the three
precoding algorithms in Fig. 4 to thoroughly understand their
differences. When R = 8, the proposed algorithms provide
a significantly lower IUI than SQUID. The IUI of SQUID is
saturated at -14 dB. The error floor for IUI degenerates the
BER performance when a high-modulation symbol (e.g., 16QAM) is used because such a high modulation has to work in
the high-SNR regime. In Fig. 5, we compare the BER with the
16-QAM symbol and 1-bit DACs of our proposed algorithms
and other algorithms under R = 8 to justify this argument.
Notably, the gaps between the performance of SQUID and
our proposed algorithms increase with the increase in SNR
because the IUI of SQUID saturates in the low-SNR regime
(Fig. 4). In addition, the BERs of our proposed algorithms are
similar to SDRr.
Another interesting observation from Fig. 4 is that the IUIs
of the three algorithms are similar when R = 2. However,
IDE and IDE2 offer significant advantages in terms of BER
compared with SQUID (Fig. 3). The reason is that as R = 2,
their precoding factors β are different and thus lead to different
BERs. The precoding factor serves as a trade-off between IUI
and noise enhancement. Therefore, this result indicates that
IDE and IDE2 provide better trade-off in this regard than
SQUID.
B. Robustness to Channel Estimation Errors
In this section, we present our investigation of the robustness
of our proposed algorithms to channel estimation error. Following [29], we assume that the BS acquires a noisy version
of channel state information (CSI)
√
√
(30)
Ĥ = 1 − H + E,
where  ∈ [0, 1] is used to control the channel estimation error,
and E has CN (0, 1) entries. The value of  = 0,  ∈ (0, 1), and
 = 1 correspond to cases with perfect CSI, partial CSI, or no
CSI, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the BER with QPSK signaling
as a function of the channel estimation error  for SNR=12
dB and (N, K, T, β) = (64, 16, 100, 1). Under imperfect CSI,
the proposed IDE and IDE2 still outperform SQUID and are
comparable with SDRr. This result is similar as that obtained
under perfect CSI.
C. Low-resolution PSs
We examine our algorithms under a more general setting with finite-resolution PSs, that is, the possible values
of the transmitting antenna outputs are from a set of M PSK constellation points. In this setting, we compare the
proposed precoding algorithms with TB-CEP [43] rather than
SQUID because SQUID cannot work in cases with general
M -PSK outputs. As previously analyzed in Section III.D,
TB-CEP searches the precoding by using a trellis structure,
and the number of trellis states M L in TB-CEP serves as a

10

0

10

10

TB-CEP, 4-PSK, L=2
TB-CEP, 8-PSK, L=2
TB-CEP, 16-PSK, L=2
TB-CEP, 64-PSK, L=2

-1

10

10

-1

-2

10

BER

BER

0

IDE
WF, Inf. Res.
SQUID
SDRr
IDE2

-3

10

10

10

-2

IDE2, 4-PSK
IDE, 4-PSK
IDE2, 8-PSK
IDE, 8-PSK
IDE2, 16-PSK
IDE, 16-PSK
IDE2, 64-PSK
IDE, 64-PSK

-3

-4

10

0

0.2
0.4
0.6
Channel estimation error

0.8

10

1

-4

0

5

10

15

SNR (dB)
Fig. 6. BER with QPSK signaling for channel estimation error  under 1-bit
DACs with SNR=12 dB and (N, K, T, β) = (64, 16, 100, 1).

Fig. 7. BER with QPSK signaling as a function of the SNR for different
precoders with fixed β under different PSK outputs; K = 16, N = 64, and
R = 4.

TABLE III
AVERAGE RUNNING TIMES IN SECONDS
10

TB-CEP
0.0753
0.2538
0.7546
2.0994
5.1339
7.4925

IDE

IDE2

0.027

0.025

trade-off between complexity and performance. Following the
commonly used setting in [43], we take L = 3. In Fig. 7,
we compare the BER of our proposed algorithms with those
of TB-CEP [43] under different PSK outputs. Our proposed
algorithms outperform TB-CEP. TB-CEP can achieve the same
performance as our proposed algorithms when L increases to
a high level. However, the computational complexity of TBCEP is too high to be practical. In addition, Fig. 7 shows that
IDE2 can be close to IDE as the number of resolution levels,
M , increases.
We consider a small MU-MIMO system with eight BS
antennas and two users, that is, N = 8 and K = 2, to
determine the gaps between the optimal precoder (exhaustive
search) and the considered algorithms. The optimal precoding
can be obtained by exhaustive search or TB-CEP with L = 8.
Fig. 8 compares the BERs of IDE, IDE2, TB-CEP, and the
optimal precoder when the four-phase state of the PSs is
employed. We determine that the gap between the performance
of the optimal precoder and the performance of IDE (or IDE2)
is small, namely, approximately 2 dB for a target BER of 10−3 .
When L = 7, TB-CEP presents a comparable performance to
that of the proposed algorithms. However, the computational
complexity of TB-CEP is too high to be practical when the
number of BS antennas is large. We summarize the average

10

10

-1

-2

BER

Memory length
L=3
L=4
L=5
L=6
L=7
L=8

0

10

10

-3

-4

0

TB-CEP, L=3
TB-CEP, L=4
TB-CEP, L=5
TB-CEP, L=6
TB-CEP, L=7
IDE2
IDE
Exh. search (TB-CEP, L=8)
2

4

6

8
SNR (dB)

10

12

14

16

Fig. 8. BER with QPSK signaling as a function of the SNR for different
precoders with the four-phase state of the PSs; K = 2, N = 8, and R = 4.

running times8 (in seconds) of the algorithms in Table III.
IDE and IDE2 provide significant advantages in terms of
complexity compared with TB-CEP.
D. Low-resolution Precoding
In the previous experiments, the algorithms are evaluated
by using either 1-bit DACs or PSs at the transmitters. Both
of them are CE precoding. Then, we shift our attention to
8 The simulations are performed with MATLAB v8.6.0 (R2015b) on a 64bit Windows 7 PC equipped with a 3.4-GHz Intel Core i7-3370 CPU and 4
GB of memory.

11

10

10

0

10
IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit

-1

WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.
10

10

-2

10

10

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-1

-2

BER

BER

10

0

-3

-3

10

0

0

5

5

10 10
SNRSNR
(dB) (dB)

-4

15 15

00

(a) QPSK, K = 16, N = 64, and R = 4

DE, 1-bit
DE, 2-bit
DE, 3-bit
DE2, 1-bit
DE2, 2-bit
DE2, 3-bit

WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

10

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-1

BER

-2

10

10

10

-2

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-3

10

-3

-4

-4

10

100
0
0

15

SNR (dB)

0

0

10 0
10 10

IDE, 1-bit

10

-2

10

IDE2,
1-bit
IDE2,
1-bit
IDE2,
2-bit
IDE2,
2-bit
IDE2,
3-bit

10
-1

0

10

WF,
1-bit
WF,
1-bit
WF,
2-bit
WF,
2-bit
WF,
3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-3

10

-4

10

-5

2

2

4

4

5

6

6

8

8

10

10
10

12

14

SNR
SNR(dB)
(dB)
(d) 16-QAM, K = 16, N = 128, and R = 8

16

15

10

0

2

0

10

-1

10

-2

BER

BER

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

10

-3
-4

10

0

-3

-3
1010
0
00

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-2

-410-5

-2

-4

-3

10

10

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-2

10 10
15 15
5
10
15
SNR
(dB)
SNR
(dB)
SNR (dB)
(c) 16-QAM, K = 16, N = 64, and R = 4
Desired 16-QAM, R=8, more-bit DAC
IDE,
1-bit
IDE,
1-bit
IDE,
2-bit
IDE,
2-bit
IDE,
3-bit

-1

10

10

5 5

10

15

-1
-1

-2

10

WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit

10

10

10

10

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit

10

-1

10

15
15

0

10100

10 10-1

10

10
10
SNR (dB)
(dB)
SNR
(b) QPSK, K = 16, N = 128, and R = 8

0

0

BER

10

0

55

IDE, 1-bit
IDE, 2-bit
IDE, 3-bit
IDE2, 1-bit
IDE2, 2-bit
IDE2, 3-bit
WF, 1-bit
WF, 2-bit
WF, 3-bit
WF, Inf. Res.

-3

10

-4

10

-5

4

6

8

5

10

12

14

16

10
SNRSNR
(dB)(dB)
(e) 64-QAM, K = 16, N = 64, and R = 4

18

15

20

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

SNR (dB)
(f) 64-QAM, K = 16, N = 128, and R = 8

Fig. 9. BER as a function of the SNR for different DAC resolution precoders with adaptive β.

multi-bit precoding for low-resolution DACs, in which the
precoding has multiple amplitude levels. When low-resolution
DACs are employed, [29] suggests quantizing the values of
WF precoding to a finite set directly. In Fig. 9, we compare the
BERs of the quantized WF precoding with those of IDE and
IDE2 under different DAC resolution precoders, modulation
symbols, and load factors.
First, we focus on the case with 4-QAM signaling (Figs. 9(a)
and 9(b)). When R = 4, the 1-bit WF precoder cannot achieve
BER below 10−3 and has significant gaps compared with IDE

and IDE2. For 2-bit DACs, IDE and IDE2 gain 2 dB compared
with the 2-bit WF precoder for a target BER of 10−3 . In the
case with 3-bit DACs, all algorithms perform similarly, but
IDE and IDE2 exhibit the better performance. In this case, all
algorithms are close to the limit performance of the infiniteresolution WF precoder. Similar characteristics are observed
when R = 8. Second, we focus on cases with 16-QAM and
64-QAM signaling (Figs. 9(c) to 9(f)). IDE and IDE2 have a
significant performance gain over the quantized WF precoder
in all quantization levels. For 3-bit DACs, IDE and IDE2

4

6

12

10

L=5, TB-CEP
L=4, TB-CEP

2

SDRr
IDE

10

SQUID
IDE2

R=8, IDE
R=4, IDE2
R=4, IDE
R=8, IDE2

7

1

1

0.09%
10

0

0.23%
0.68%

10

-1

5.53%
59%
10

-2
IUI (dB)

Average excution time (second)

4
10

-2

-5
-8

-11.91

-11

-12.49

-14

-14.76

-13.13
-13.84
-16.53

-17
10

-15.8

-3

40

50

60

70
80
90
100
The number of BS antenna

110

120

Fig. 10. Average execution time versus the number of BS antennas for all of
the concerned precoders. We consider PSs with four-phase state and T = 100.

are close to the limit performance of infinite-resolution WF
precoding, whereas the 3-bit WF precoder is still far from
the limit performance. Moreover, the performance of IDE2
is compared with the performance of IDE while exhibiting
significantly lower computational complexity.
The discussions in the previous subsections focus on the
1-bit precoder, low-resolution PSs, and multi-bit precoder.
In prior state-of-the-art methos, the precoding techniques
for different settings are completely different. Notably, our
algorithms are not only universal but can also perform well in
various finite-alphabet precoders with general QAM signaling.

E. Complexity and Convergence Rate
Fig. 10 compares the average running times versus N for all
of the concerned algorithms. We consider PSs with four-phase
state and T = 100. IDE2 exhibits the lowest timing complexity
among the algorithms, followed by SQUID and IDE. The timing complexity of SDRr and TB-CEP increases significantly
with the number of BS antennas. After integrating all of the
previous experiments, we conclude that IDE2 exhibits the best
trade-off between performance and complexity among all the
algorithms.
Timing complexity heavily depends on the number of iterations T . As previously mentioned, IDE and IDE2 perform
well after approximately 50 iterations. Fig. 11 shows the IUI
versus iteration under 1-bit DACs with fixed β for R = 4, 8
and SNR = 0 dB to justify this argument. We observe that
IUI only decreases by approximately 1 dB as the iterations
increase from 50 to 100. The IUI at T = 50 is sufficient to
obtain good detection for 4-QAM or 16-QAM symbols. In
addition, x does not obtain a good IUI result after the first
few iterations. Therefore, as mentioned at the beginning of
this section, we update β after every 10 iterations of xt .

-20

0

50

-17.18
100
Iteration

150

200

Fig. 11. IUI versus iteration under 1-bit DACs with fixed β for R = 4, 8
and SNR = 0 dB.

V. C ONCLUSION
We propose novel precoding algorithms called IDE and
IDE2 for a massive MU-MIMO system where each antenna
at the BS is equipped with coarse-resolution DACs or PSs.
The algorithms have a unified structure, such that they can
be applied to various finite-alphabet input problems that aim
to minimize IUI. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, the
proposed precoding algorithms show significant advantages
in terms of performance and computational complexity. In
particular, IDE demonstrates excellent performance and is
comparable with the benchmark in all test scenarios. The
performance of IDE2 is comparable with that of IDE, whereas
IDE2 is simple and exhibits low per-iteration complexity. From
the perspective of complexity-performance trade-off, IDE2 is
highly suitable for massive MU-MIMO systems.

A PPENDIX A: A PPROXIMATELY U NBIASED E STIMATOR
This appendix aims to show that (20a) is an approximately
unbiased estimator of x. We begin by showing that (17) can
be interpreted as the optimal linear MMSE estimate of x
given prior knowledge on (19). To this end, we introduce the
following virtual channel model
s = Hx + z̃,

(31)

where z̃k ’s are i.i.d circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian
with mean 0 and variance 1, that is, z̃ ∼ CN (0, I). Suppose
that we wish to construct an estimator for x from s. We restrict
our estimator to be in the form
x̂ = Ws + b,

(32)

where matrix W and vector b are to be determined to
minimize E{(x̂ − x)H (x̂ − x)}. Notably, the expectation is

13

taken over the joint density of s and x. The optimal W and
b are expressed as follows [49]:
W = Cxs C−1
s ,

b = x̄ − Ws̄,

(33)

where x̄ = E{x}, s̄ = E{s}, Cxs is the cross-covariance
matrix between x and s, and Cs is the auto-covariance matrix
of s. Specifically, by substituting (31), we obtain
Cxs = E{(x − x̄)(s − s̄)H },
e H + (x − x̄)z̃H },
= E{(x − x̄)(x − x̄)H H
e H,
= Cx H

β>0

(34)

(35)

−1
eH e eH
e HH
e + γI)−1 H
e H,
W = Cxs C−1
= (H
s = H (HH + γI)

(36a)
(36b)

The optimal linear MMSE estimate is
(37)

which is completely identical to (17).
Taking the expected value on both sides of (37) produces
e t + Ws},
E{x̂} = E{xtd − WHx
d
e t + WHE{x}
e
= (I − WH)x
=
6 E{x}.
d

(38a)
(38b)

Clearly, x is a biased estimator of x as long as E{x} 6= xtd .
xtd is obtained from the previous iteration, which could not be
equal to xtd before convergence. We can remove the bias of x̂
by setting γ = 0. In this case, (37) becomes
e H H)
e −1 H
e H s.
x̂ = (H

(39)

e H H)
e −1 H
e H s} = E{x}. However,
Moreover, we obtain E{(H
this approach degenerates the iteration algorithm because it
causes the estimation step to completely ignore knowledge on
the previous iteration result xtd .
From the discussion above, we realize that factor γ should
be preserved. However, as long as γ appears, the form expressed in (38b) always presents a biased estimate because
e are smaller than 1. To
the main diagonal elements of WH
approximately remove the bias, we normalize the diagonal
e as follows:
elements of WH
e = [diag(WH)]
e −1 WH.
e
DWH

(40)

e t ) and
By doing so, we obtain x̂ = xtd + DW(s − Hx
d
E{x̂} = (I − F)xtd + FE{x},

We unfold the objective function as follows:
H

Using prior knowledge on x in (19) and Cz̃ = I, we obtain

e t ),
x̂ = x̄ + W(s − s̄) = xtd + W(s − Hx
d

(42)

(s − βHx) (s − βHx) + β 2 Kσ 2

= sH s − 2βRe sH Hx + β 2 kHxk22 + β 2 Kσ 2 . (43)

e xH
e H + Cz̃ .
= HC

e t.
b = xtd − WHx
d

A PPENDIX B: D ERIVATIONS OF β
When x is given, the minimum problem (6) can be written
in the form:
min ks − βHxk22 + β 2 Kσ 2 .

and
Cs = E{(s − s̄)(s − s̄)H },


H 
e
e
=E
H(x − x̄) + z̃ H(x − x̄) + z̃
,

According to the central limit theorem, this approximation
becomes good when N becomes large. The new estimator is
an approximately unbiased estimator.

(41)

e Given that the diagonal elements of F are
where F = DWH.
1 and the off diagonal elements of F are smaller than 1, we
obtain (I − F)xtd ≈ 0, FE{x} ≈ E{x}, and E{x̂} ≈ E{x}.

By equating the differential of (43) with respect to β to zero,
we obtain

−2Re sH Hx + 2βkHxk22 + 2βKσ 2 = 0.
(44)
If kHxk22 + Kσ 2 6= 0, then we obtain β =

Re(sH Hx)
.
kHxk22 +Kσ 2

R EFERENCES
[1] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9,
no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[2] J. Hoydis, S. ten Brink, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIMO in the UL/DL
of cellular networks: How many antennas do we need?” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–171, Feb. 2013.
[3] J. Zhang, C. K. Wen, S. Jin, X. Gao, and K. K. Wong, “On capacity
of large-scale MIMO multiple access channels with distributed sets of
correlated antennas,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp.
133–148, Feb. 2013.
[4] R. H. Walden, “Analog-to-digital converter survey and analysis,” IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 539–550, Apr. 1999.
[5] C. Toumazou, G. S. Moschytz, and B. Gilbert, Trade-Offs in Analog
Circuit Design: The Designer’s Companion. Kluwer Academic, 2002,
pp. 592–594.
[6] Y. Li, B. Bakkaloglu, and C. Chakrabarti, “A system level energy
model and energy-quality evaluation for integrated transceiver frontends,” IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
90–103, Jan 2007.
[7] L. N. Ribeiro, S. Schwarz, M. Rupp, and A. L. F. de Almeida, “Energy
efficiency of mmWave massive MIMO precoding with low-resolution
DACs,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05139
[8] A. Wadhwa and U. Madhow, “Blind phase/frequency synchronization
with low-precision ADC: A bayesian approach,” in Proc. 51st Allerton
Conf. Communication, Control and Computing, IL, USA, Oct. 2013, pp.
181–188.
[9] G. Zeitler, G. Kramer, and A. C. Singer, “Bayesian parameter estimation
using single-bit dithered quantization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2713–2726, Jun. 2012.
[10] J. Mo, P. Schniter, and R. W. Heath Jr, “Channel estimation in broadband
millimeter wave MIMO systems with few-bit ADCs,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., to be published.
[11] C. K. Wen, C. J. Wang, S. Jin, K. K. Wong, and P. Ting, “Bayes-optimal
joint channel-and-data estimation for massive MIMO with low-precision
ADCs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 2541–2556,
May 2016.
[12] 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 Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 2005–2018,
May 2016.
[13] Y. Li, C. Tao, G. Seco-Granados, A. Mezghani, A. L. Swindlehurst,
and L. Liu, “Channel estimation and performance analysis of one-bit
massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 15,
pp. 4075–4089, Aug. 2017.

14

[14] 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.
[15] N. Liang and W. Zhang, “Mixed-ADC massive MIMO,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 983–997, Apr. 2016.
[16] C. Risi, D. Persson, and E. G. Larsson, “Massive MIMO with 1-bit
ADC,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7736
[17] N. Liang and W. Zhang, “Mixed-ADC massive MIMO uplink in
frequency-selective channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun, vol. 64, no. 11,
pp. 4652–4666, Nov. 2016.
[18] A. Mezghani, M. S. Khoufi, and J. A. Nossek, “Maximum likelihood
detection for quantized MIMO systems,” in Int. ITG Workshop Smart
Antennas, Vienna, Austria, Feb. 2008, pp. 278–284.
[19] U. S. Kamilov, V. K. Goyal, and S. Rangan, “Message-passing dequantization with applications to compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 6270–6281, Dec. 2012.
[20] Z. Wang, H. Yin, W. Zhang, and G. Wei, “Monobit digital receivers
for QPSK: Design, performance and impact of IQ imbalances,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3292–3303, Aug. 2013.
[21] S. Wang, Y. Li, and J. Wang, “Multiuser detection in massive spatial
modulation MIMO with low-resolution ADCs,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2156–2168, Apr. 2015.
[22] Y. Dong and L. Qiu, “Spectral efficiency of massive MIMO systems
with low-resolution ADCs and MMSE receiver,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1771–1774, Aug. 2017.
[23] J. Zhang, L. Dai, S. Sun, and Z. Wang, “On the spectral efficiency of
massive MIMO systems with low-resolution ADCs,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 842–845, May 2016.
[24] C. Kong, C. Zhong, S. Jin, S. Yang, H. Lin, and Z. Zhang, “Fullduplex massive MIMO relaying systems with low-resolution ADCs,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 5033–5047, Aug.
2017.
[25] C. Kong, A. Mezghani, C. Zhong, A. L. Swindlehurst, and Z. Zhang,
“Multipair massive MIMO relaying systems with one-bit ADCs and
DACs,” Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08657
[26] L. Fan, S. Jin, C.-K. Wen, and H. Zhang, “Uplink achievable rate for
massive MIMO systems with low-resolution ADC,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2186–2189, Dec. 2015.
[27] X. Zhang, M. Matthaiou, M. Coldrey, and E. Björnson, “Impact of
residual transmit RF impairments on training-based MIMO systems,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 2899–2911, Aug. 2015.
[28] J. Mo and R. W. Heath, “Capacity analysis of one-bit quantized MIMO
systems with transmitter channel state information,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 63, no. 20, pp. 5498–5512, Oct. 2015.
[29] S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, T. Goldstein, and C. Studer,
“Quantized precoding for massive MU-MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
to be published.
[30] ——, “Nonlinear 1-bit precoding for massive MU-MIMO with higherorder modulation,” in Proc. Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst. and Comput.,
Pacific Grove, CA, USA, Nov 2016, pp. 763–767.
[31] O. Castañeda, S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, T. Goldstein,
and C. Studer, “1-bit massive MU-MIMO precoding in VLSI,” 2017.
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03449
[32] H. Jedda, J. A. Nossek, and A. Mezghani, “Minimum BER precoding
in 1-bit massive MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE Sensor Array and
Multichannel Signal Process. Workshop (SAM), Rio de Janerio, Brazil,
Jul. 2016, pp. 1–5.
[33] O. B. Usman, H. Jedda, A. Mezghani, and J. A. Nossek, “MMSE
precoder for massive MIMO using 1-bit quantization,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), Shanghai, China,
Mar. 2016, pp. 3381–3385.
[34] S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, and C. Studer, “Massive
MU-MIMO-OFDM downlink with one-bit DACs and linear precoding,”
2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04607
[35] S. K. Mohammed and E. G. Larsson, “Single-user beamforming in
largescale MISO systems with per-antenna constant-envelope constraints: The doughnut channel,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11,
no. 11, pp. 3992–4005, Nov. 2012.

[36] ——, “Per-antenna constant envelope precoding for large multi-user
MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1059–1071,
Mar. 2013.
[37] ——, “Constant-envelope multi-user precoding for frequency-selective
massive mimo systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 5,
pp. 547–550, Oct. 2013.
[38] J. C. Chen, C. K. Wen, and K. K. Wong, “Improved constant envelope
multiuser precoding for massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1311–1314, Aug 2014.
[39] W. X. L. Liang and X. Dong, “Low-complexity hybrid precoding in
massive multiuser mimo systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 3,
no. 6, pp. 653–656, Dec. 2014.
[40] J. C. Chen, “Hybrid beamforming with discrete phase shifters for
millimeter-wave massive mimo systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 7604–7608, Aug. 2017.
[41] S. K. Mohammed and E. G. Larsson, “Per-antenna constant envelope
precoding for large multi-user MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1059–1071, Mar. 2013.
[42] P. M. Pardalos and M. G. C. Resende, Handbook of applied optimization.
Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 65–67.
[43] M. Kazemi, H. Aghaeina and T. M. Duman, “Discrete-phase constant
envelope precoding for massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2011–2021, May 2017.
[44] M. Joham, W. Utschick, and J. A. Nossek, “Linear transmit processing in
MIMO communications systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53,
no. 8, Aug. 2005.
[45] A. Liu and V. K. N. Lau, “Two-stage constant-envelope precoding for
low-cost massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64,
no. 2, pp. 485–494, Jan. 2016.
[46] S. Le Digabel, “Algorithm 909’: NOMAD: Nonlinear optimization with
the MADS algorithm,” ACM Trans. Math. Software (TOMS), vol. 37,
no. 4, p. 44, Feb. 2011.
[47] S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed
optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method
of multipliers,” Found. and Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, pp. 1–122,
2011.
[48] S. Shahabuddin, M. Juntti, and C. Studer, “Admm-based infinity norm
detection for large mu-mimo: Algorithm and vlsi architecture,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits and Syst. (ISCAS), MD, USA, May 2017, pp.
1–4.
[49] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: I. Estimation
Theory. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1993, Ch.
2.
[50] W. W. Hager, “Updating the inverse of a matrix,” SIAM Rev., vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 221–239, 1989.

