1

Downlink Performance of Superimposed Pilots
in Massive MIMO Systems
Karthik Upadhya, Student Member, IEEE,

arXiv:1606.04476v3 [cs.IT] 20 Mar 2018

Sergiy A. Vorobyov, Fellow, IEEE,
Mikko Vehkaperä, Member, IEEE

Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the downlink throughput performance of a massive multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) system that employs superimposed pilots for channel estimation. The component of downlink (DL) interference that results from transmitting data alongside pilots in the uplink
(UL) is shown to decrease at a rate proportional to the square root of the number of antennas at the BS.
The normalized mean-squared error (NMSE) of the channel estimate is compared with the Bayesian
Cramér-Rao lower bound that is derived for the system, and the former is also shown to diminish with
increasing number of antennas at the base station (BS). Furthermore, we show that staggered pilots
are a particular case of superimposed pilots and offer the downlink throughput of superimposed pilots
while retaining the UL spectral and energy efficiency of regular pilots. We also extend the framework
for designing a hybrid system, consisting of users that transmit either regular or superimposed pilots, to
minimize both the UL and DL interference. The improved NMSE and DL rates of the channel estimator
based on superimposed pilots are demonstrated by means of simulations.

Index Terms
Massive MIMO, pilot contamination, superimposed pilots, staggered pilots, downlink performance.

K. Upadhya, S. A. Vorobyov, and M. Vehkaperä are with the Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics, Aalto University,
FI-00076 Aalto, Finland (E-mails: karthik.upadhya@aalto.fi, svor@ieee.org, mikko.vehkapera@aalto.fi). Parts of this paper were
presented at IEEE GlobalSIP, Greater Washington, D.C., 2016 and IEEE ICASSP, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2017.

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication systems employ base stations
(BS) with a large number of antennas and have garnered significant interest in recent years as
a candidate for future fifth generation (5G) cellular systems [1]–[5]. These systems promise
a logarithmic increase in the uplink (UL) spectral and energy efficiency, with respect to the
number of antennas at the BS, when the exact channel state information is assumed to be
available for designing the detector [6]. In practice, the channel state information (CSI) has to
be obtained at the BS using orthogonal pilot sequences that are transmitted by the users. These
orthogonal sequences typically occupy a portion of the time-frequency resource dedicated for
pilot transmission (henceforth referred to as regular pilots (RP)). The overhead for obtaining the
CSI increases linearly in the number of orthogonal pilot sequences transmitted, and therefore, in
order to limit this overhead, pilot sequences are shared/reused across cells in multi-cell systems.
This sharing results in inter-cell interference in both the UL and downlink (DL), which is known
as pilot contamination [7]. Pilot contamination diminishes the promised gains of massive MIMO
systems and hence is considered a major impediment [8]. Approaches for pilot decontamination
have garnered significant interest in recent years and they primarily rely on separating the users
based on properties such as asymptotic orthogonality between user channels, non-overlapping
angle of arrivals of the signal at the BS, and pilot reuse [9]–[14].
Superimposed pilots (SP) have been extensively studied for channel estimation in MIMO
systems [15]–[19], especially in the context of rapidly changing channels in which reserving a
set of symbols for pilot transmission would be impractical. Recently, in [20], SPs have been
studied as an alternative pilot structure to mitigate/avoid pilot contamination in massive MIMO.
SPs have also been investigated for use in massive MIMO systems in [21], [22]. In [21], the
authors derive expressions for the UL spectral and energy efficiency of SP and compare them
with those for RP. In [22], the authors have considered the case when the number of symbols
in the UL time-slot is larger than the number of users in the system.
In [20], approximate expressions have been derived for the UL signal-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (SINR) and rate at the output of a matched filter (MF) that employs the least-squares
(LS)-based channel estimate in an iterative and non-iterative way. The expressions have been
derived under the condition that the total number of users in the system is smaller than the number
of symbols in the UL time-slot. The importance of power control for a system employing SP

3

has been highlighted and the fractions of power that should be assigned to pilots and data,
respectively, in order to maximize an approximation on the UL per cell rate, have been derived.
It has been found that with increasing number of antennas at the BS, the optimal fraction of
the power assigned to the data would decrease proportional to the square root of the number
of antennas at the BS. In addition, a hybrid system that employs both RP and SP has been
introduced to minimize the total UL interference, and shown to be superior to a system that is
optimized for maximal spectral efficiency [11] but employs only RP.
In this paper, we provide additional important theoretical results with regard to SP for
massive MIMO systems through performance metrics such as the normalized mean-squared
error (NMSE) of the channel estimate and especially the DL rate. In particular, the following
are the contributions of this paper.
•

Closed-form expressions for the DL achievable rate are derived when the channel estimates
obtained from SP are employed in a MF precoder at the BS.

•

We discuss the relationship between staggered pilots and SP and derive the DL rate for the
former scheme.

•

We derive expressions for the NMSE and compare it against the Bayesian Cramér-Rao
lower bound (CRLB) that we also derive for the system.

•

The hybrid system described in [20], which consists of users that transmit both RP and SP,
is extended to the DL and is designed by minimizing both the UL and DL interference.

•

Simulations are carried out to validate the MSE and DL performance of SP and the hybrid
system.

Some initial results, for the CRLB and approximate DL rate, have been reported in [23] without
detailed derivations. In addition, some results for the hybrid system, with approximate UL and
DL rates, have been reported in [24].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we briefly review the system model for the
UL and introduce the system model for the DL. In Section III, the DL rate is derived when the
channel estimates are employed in an MF precoder. In addition, the expressions for the MSE
and the corresponding CRLB of the channel estimate are derived for a system that employs
SP. These metrics are then compared with the corresponding metrics that are obtained for a
system employing RP. In Section IV, staggered pilots are shown to be a particular case of SP
and the DL rate for this scheme is derived. In Section V, the framework for the hybrid system
proposed in [20] is extended to include the downlink. Using simulations, Section VI discusses

4

the performance of the hybrid system and compares the MSE and DL performance of RP and
SP. Section VII concludes the paper. Some of the lengthy proofs and derivations are detailed in
the appendix.
Notation : Lower case and upper case boldface letters denote column vectors and matrices,
respectively. The notations (·)∗ , (·)T , (·)H , and (·)−1 represent the conjugate, transpose, Hermitian
transpose, and inverse, respectively. The Kronecker product is denoted by ⊗. The notation
µ, Σ) stands for the complex normal distribution with mean µ and covariance matrix Σ
CN (µ
and E {·} denotes the expectation operator. The notation IN is used to denote an N × N identity
matrix and k · k denotes the Euclidean norm of a vector. Upper case calligraphic letters denote
sets and 1{S} represents the indicator function over the set S, while δn,m denotes the Kronecker
delta function. The empty set is denoted by ∅, whereas the symbols ∪ and \ stands for the
union and the relative complement operations, respectively. The operator ⌊x⌋ returns the largest
integer smaller than x. The trace of matrix A is represented as trace {A}.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a time-division duplexing (TDD) massive MIMO system with L cells and K
single-antenna users per cell. Each cell has a BS with M antennas. In the UL phase, the users
transmit Cu symbols, which include both data and pilots. Using the tuple (ℓ, k) to denote user
k in cell ℓ, the matrix of received symbols Y j ∈ CM ×Cu at BS j can be written as
Yj =

L−1 K−1
X
X√

µℓk hjℓk sTℓk + W j

(1)

ℓ=0 k=0

where hjℓk ∈ C

M

is the channel response between BS j and user (ℓ, k), sℓk ∈ CCu is the vector

of symbols transmitted by user (ℓ, k) with power µℓk , and W j ∈ CM ×Cu is the matrix of additive

white Gaussian noise at BS j with each column distributed as CN (0, σ 2 I) and being mutually
independent of the other columns. The channel vectors hjℓk are assumed to be distributed as
CN (0, βjℓk I) where βjℓk denotes the large-scale path-loss coefficient. In addition, the channel
is assumed to be constant during the coherence time, i.e., C symbols whereas βjℓk is constant
for a significantly longer duration than C symbols.
The symbol sℓk is dependent on the nature of the pilot transmitted in the UL. For example,
when RP is employed, a part of sℓk is reserved for pilots and the remaining part is used for data
transmission. Whereas, when SP is employed, the whole of sℓk contains both pilots and data.

5

Assuming channel reciprocity, if the BS ℓ uses the precoder g ℓk and if dℓk ∈ C is the data
symbol transmitted to user (ℓ, k) by BS ℓ, then the received symbol at user (j, m) can be written
as
√
dbjm = γ

L−1
X

hH
ℓjm

ℓ=0

K−1
X

√

νℓk g ℓk dℓk + wjm

(2)

k=0

where γ is the DL SNR of user (j, m) and is assumed to be same in all the cells, and wj,m is
zero-mean unit-variance additive Gaussian noise at the user terminal. The symbols dℓk , ∀ (ℓ, k)
are assumed to be distributed as dℓk ∼ CN (0, 1) and are statistically independent of the channel

vectors h and the UL symbols s. The parameter νℓk = qℓk /E {kg ℓk k2 } normalizes the average
transmit power to user (ℓ, k) to be qℓk [11], [25].
III. E FFECT

OF

P ILOT C ONTAMINATION

ON THE

D OWNLINK

In TDD massive MIMO, under the assumption of channel reciprocity, the precoder for data
transmission in the DL is designed using the channel estimate that is obtained from UL training.
Therefore, the throughput in the DL depends on the quality of the channel that has been estimated
in the UL. In this section, the quality of the channel estimate obtained from both RP and SP
transmission schemes are quantified through the normalized MSE and the latter is compared
with the CRLB. In addition, the closed form expressions for the DL achievable rate at the user
terminal are derived and compared when the channel estimates are used in an MF precoder.
A. Regular Pilots
With RP, each user transmits a τ ≥ K length pilot sequence for channel estimation followed
by UL data. Let the length-τ pilot sequences be taken from the columns of a scaled unitary
matrix Φ ∈ Cτ ×τ such that ΦH Φ = τ I τ . These orthogonal pilot sequences are distributed
across r RP , ⌊τ /K⌋ cells, where r RP is assumed to be a positive integer. In other words, the

pilot sequence φ ℓk that is transmitted by user (ℓ, k) is reused at every r RP th cell. Assuming that
all the pilot transmissions are synchronized, the LS estimate of the channel can be easily found
as [7], [20]
b RP
h
jjm

= hjjm +
Lj

X

(r RP )∋ℓ6=j

r

µℓm
hjℓm + w jm
µjm

(3)

6


√
where w jm = W j φ∗jm / τ µjm and Lj (r RP ) is the subset of the L cells that use the same
b RP is defined as
pilot sequences as cell j. The normalized MSE of the channel estimate h
jjm
o
n RP


2
b
E kh
2
X
jjm − hjjm k
1 
σ 
µℓm
NMSERP
.
(4)
=
βjℓm +
jm ,
2
E {khjjmk }
βjjm
µjm
τ µjm
RP
Lj (r

)∋ℓ6=j

The first term in (4) is the estimation error due to pilot contamination from users in the
neighboring cells which employ the same pilots as user (j, m).
If Cd symbols are transmitted from the BS to the user terminals in the DL phase, then the
rate in the downlink for user (j, m) can be expressed as [7]
RP−dl
Rjm
=


Cd
log2 1 + SINRRP−dl
jm
C

(5)

where C = Cu + Cd is the smallest channel coherence time of all the users in the system, and
SINRRP−dl
is the DL SINR at user (j, m). If the channel estimate in (3) is used in an MF
jm
precoder, then [26]
2
νjm βjjm

SINRRP−dl
=
jm
Lj

P

(r RP )∋ℓ6=j

where

νℓk =

µjm
ν β2
µℓm ℓm ℓjm

+ M1

L−1
P K−1
P
ℓ=0 k=0



qℓk
qℓk 
=
E {kgℓk k2 }
M

νℓk
µℓk

X

n∈Lℓ (r RP )

!

P

σ2 β
µnk βℓjm βℓnk + τℓjm
n∈Lℓ (r RP )

2

−1

σ 
µnk
βℓnk +
µℓk
τ µℓk

.

(6)
+

1
M 2γ

(7)

The estimation error due to pilot contamination limits the asymptotic (M → ∞) DL SINR of
user (j, m) to [7]
SINRRP−dl
jm

=

2
νejm βjjm
P
.
2
νeℓm βℓjm

(8)

Lj (r RP )∋ℓ6=j

where νeℓk = Mνℓk . Note that νeℓk is independent of M.

B. Superimposed Pilots

When employing SP, the estimate of the channel is obtained from pilots that are transmitted
at a reduced power alongside the data. The LS estimate of the channel can be written as [20]
L−1 K−1 r
X r µnk
SP
ρ X X µnp
W j p∗ℓk
b
hjnk +
hjnp xTnp p∗ℓk +
(9)
hjℓk =
√
µℓk
Cu λ n=0 p=0 µℓk
Cu λ µℓk
SP
n∈Lj (r

)

7

where pjm ∈ CCu and xjm ∈ CCu are, respectively, the pilot and data vectors transmitted by

user (j, m), r SP , ⌊Cu /K⌋ is a positive integer representing the number of cells over which

SP are reused, Lj r SP is the subset of the L cells that use the same pilot sequences as cell
j. In addition, the pilots are taken from the columns of a scaled unitary matrix P ∈ CCu ×Cu

2
2
such that P H P = Cu I Cu , and therefore, pH
ℓk pnp = Cu δℓn δkp . The parameters λ > 0 and ρ > 0

are the fractions of the UL transmit power reserved for pilots and data, respectively, such that
λ2 + ρ2 = 1. Moreover, in (9), it is assumed that every user in the system uses the same value
of λ and ρ.
Similar to (4), the normalized MSE for the channel estimate obtained from SP is defined as
o
n SP
2
b
−
h
k
E kh
jjm
jjm
NMSESP
jm ,
E {khjjm k2 }


L−1
K−1
2
2
1  X
ρ X X µℓk
σ
µℓm
 .
=
βjℓm +
β
+
(10)
jℓk
2
2C µ
βjjm
µ
C
λ
µ
λ
jm
u
jm
u
jm
SP
ℓ=0 k=0
Lj (r

)∋ℓ6=j

The first error term in (10) results from reusing pilots every r SP cells, whereas the second error

term results from transmitting pilots alongside data. As in the case of RP, both the errors lead to
interference in the DL phase. Under the assumption that the interference from outside the r SP
contiguous cells which contain the reference BS can be neglected, the CRLB for the channel
estimate can be derived as (the derivation is in Appendix C)
CRLB (hjjm) =

M
Cu
σ2

+

1
µjm βjjm

≈

Mσ 2
Cu

(11)

where the approximation is valid when σ 2 /Cu ≪ µjm βjjm. Therefore, we have the relation,
NMSESP
jm ≥

1
σ2
CRLB (hjjm) ≈
.
Mβjjm
βjjmCu

(12)

The Bayesian CRLB is a lower bound on the MSE of a minimum mean-squared error (MMSE)
channel estimator, and its value in (11) is the MSE of an MMSE estimator when ρ = 0 or all
the power is allocated to the pilots. In addition, the approximation in (11) is the MSE of the LS
estimator when ρ = 0.
The NMSE in (10) is parameterized by both ρ2 and λ2 . However, the CRLB is loose for
non-zero values of ρ2 and an estimator will attain this bound only when ρ2 = 0, i.e., when
all the power is allocated to the pilots. Nevertheless, the CRLB is a standard, as well as, a
useful benchmark to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. For example, in the
same context of massive MIMO, the performance of a semi-blind channel estimation method is

8

also compared against the CRLB in [27]. We will also see in Section VI that the CRLB in (11)
is achieved1 by the estimator in (9) when M → ∞.
A lower bound on the DL ergodic capacity can be obtained for superimposed pilots using a
similar approach as in [26]. Rewriting (2) as


 H
√
√
djm
γνjm hH
dbjm = γνjm E hH
jjm g jm djm +
jjm g jm − E hjjm g jm
√ XX √
+ γ
νℓk hH
ℓjm g ℓk dℓk + wjm ,

(13)

(ℓ,k)6=(j,m)

and noting that the first term is uncorrelated with the subsequent terms, a lower bound on the
ergodic capacity can be computed as [28]
SP−dl
Rjm
=

where
SINRSP−dl
jm


Cd 
E log2 1 + SINRSP−dl
jm
C

(14)


2
νjm |E hH
jjm g jm |
= PL−1 PK−1
 H

2
2 − ν |E hH g
jm
jjm jm | +
k=0 νℓk E |hℓjm g ℓk |
ℓ=0

1
γ

.

(15)

In (14) and (15), the expectation outside the logarithm is with respect to the user locations
whereas the inner expectation is with respect to the channel and noise vectors. In addition, these
expressions are valid for any combining scheme. However, to obtain closed-form expressions
for precoders such as zero-forcing (ZF) or MMSE, we require the channel estimation error
to be independent of the estimate. But, as outlined in [21], the LS channel estimate and the
estimation error when SP is employed are not Gaussian. As a result, even if a linear minimum
mean-squared error (LMMSE) channel estimate were to be employed, it would only result in
the estimation error being uncorrelated with the estimate but not independent of it. This renders
it difficult/impossible in general to obtain closed-form expressions for precoders such as ZF and
MMSE. We will therefore obtain a closed form expression for the SINR for MF precoding and
b ℓℓk ,
numerically evaluate (14) and (15) in Section VI for methods such as ZF. Setting g = h
ℓk

the DL SINR for the MF precoder has been obtained in Appendix A as



L−1 K−1
2
X
X
X
X µjm
νℓk βℓjm
1
σ 
2
2 
νℓm βℓjm
+
µnk βℓnk +
SINRSP−dl
= νjm βjjm
jm
µℓm
M ℓ=0 k=0 µℓk
C u λ2
SP
SP
Lj (r

L−1 K−1
ρ2 X X νℓk
+
Cu λ2 ℓ=0 k=0 µℓk

1

n∈Lℓ (r

)∋ℓ6=j

L−1 K−1
1 XX
2
µjm βℓjm +
µnp βℓnp βℓjm
M n=0 p=0

In fact, it is the approximation in (11) that is achieved by the estimator.

!

)

1
+ 2
M γ

!−1

(16)

9

where
νℓk =



qℓk µℓk 
qℓk
=
2
E {kgℓk k }
M

X

n∈Lℓ

µnk βℓnk +

L−1 K−1
X
X
n=0 p=0

(r SP )

2

µnp

2

−1

ρ
σ 
βℓnp +
2
Cu λ
C u λ2

.

(17)

In [20], the optimal values of ρ2 and λ2 were computed by maximizing an approximation
of the UL sum-rate which was obtained assuming that Cu ≥ LK. However, since in practice
Cu ≤ LK, the results obtained in [20] do not necessarily hold. In this paper, we obtain the

optimal values of ρ2 and λ2 by maximizing an achievable lower bound on the channel capacity
when Cu ≤ LK.

Proposition 1. The values of ρ2 and λ2 that maximize the achievable rate in the UL are
−1

√
(18)
ρ2opt = 1 + Mκ
−1

1
2
λopt = 1 + √
(19)
κ M
where
κ,
α1 ,

s

α1 + αM2 + αM4 + αM6
α3 + α4 + α5

N
−1
X
k=0

α4 ,

N
−1
X
k=0

(20)

N
−1 N
−1
N
−1
X
X
X
µk d k Cu
µ2k βk2
µk µn βk βn
, α2 ,
; α3 ,
µ0 (Cu − 1)
µ0 (Cu − 1)
(Cu − 1)
k=0 n=0
k=0
N
−1 2
X
X µk
µk ek Cu
σ4
σ µk
2
+
; α5 ,
βk ; α6 ,
βk .
σ
Cu − 1 µ0 Cu
µ0
Cu µ0
k∈P0

(21)

(22)

k=0

Proof. The achievable rate in the UL as well as expressions for ρ2opt and λ2opt are derived in
Appendix B.
Remark 1: Note that the exact expressions for achievable rate for SP when LK ≥ Cu have
been derived earlier in [21] (c.f. Theorem 1 and Corollary 1). However, Theorem 1 in [21]
underestimates the UL rate since it treats the pilot that is transmitted alongside data in each
UL symbol as interference, whereas Corollary 1 over-estimates the rate since it assumes that
the pilots are perfectly removed. On the other hand, in the expression for the UL rate derived
in Appendix B, we side-step this issue by multiplying the received observations with a unitary
matrix that relegates all the interference resulting from transmitting pilots alongside data to a
single symbol. This symbol can then be discarded since we are anyway interested in only a
lower bound on the ergodic capacity. The remaining Cu − 1 symbols of the reference user are

10

free of interference from the UL pilot of that user, and therefore, standard methods can be used
to calculate the UL throughput in these symbols.
Substituting (18) and (19) into (10), the expression for the NMSE becomes

L−1 K−1
X
X µℓk
X
1
µℓm
1 
SP
√
βjℓk +
βjℓm
NMSEj,m
=
βjjm
µjm
M κCu ℓ=0 k=0 µjm
ρopt ,λopt
SP
Lj (r )∋ℓ6=j



2
σ
1
.
+ 1+ √
M κ Cu µjm

(23)

Thus, with optimized values of ρ2 and λ2 , the component of the NMSESP
j,m resulting from
transmitting data alongside pilots reduces proportional to the square root of the number of
antenna elements. This behavior is in contrast to (4), wherein NMSERP
j,m is independent of M.
Consequently, the reduction in the NMSE also leads to a higher DL throughput, as shown below.
Substituting (18) and (19) into (16), the expression for the DL SINR becomes
SINRSP−dl
=
jm

P

Lj (r SP )∋ℓ6=j

where
L−1 K−1
X
X

2
νjm βjjm
µjm
ν β2 +
µℓm ℓm ℓjm

√ t1
M κCu

+

t2
M

µjm 2
βℓjm
µ
ℓk
ℓ=0 k=0


 2

L−1 K−1
X
X
X νℓk βℓjm
σ 
1

µnk βℓnk + 1 + √
t2 =
µℓk
M κ Cu
ℓ=0 k=0
n∈L (r SP )

t1 =

νℓk

(24)

(25)

ℓ

L−1 X
L−1 X
L−1 K−1
X
X

1
µnp νℓk βℓnp βℓjm
√
+
.
(26)
Mγ
M µℓk κCu
ℓ=0 k=0 n=0 p=0
√
From the above expression, it can be observed that t1 / M , which is the component of
+

interference from users that do not share a pilot with user (j, m), decreases proportional to
the square root of M. Since Cu ≫ K, more orthogonal pilot sequences are available when SPs
are employed in comparison with RP. As a result, SP can be reused over a larger number of
cells, i.e., r SP > r RP . Therefore, we have the following result.
Proposition 2. If r SP > r RP , the ceiling of SINRSP−dl
when M → ∞ is higher than that of
jm

SINRRP−dl
.
jm

11

Proof. When M → ∞ (16) becomes
SINRSP−dl
jm

=

2
νejm βjjm
P
.
µjm
νe β 2
µℓm ℓm ℓjm

(27)

Lj (r SP )∋ℓ6=j

Therefore, comparing (8) and (27), the denominator of (27) is smaller than that of (8) when
r SP > r RP . Here νejm = limM →∞ Mνjm and is independent of M.
IV. S TAGGERED P ILOTS

AS A

PARTICULAR C ASE

OF

S UPERIMPOSED P ILOTS

When transmitting staggered pilots [29], [30], the users in each cell stagger their pilot
transmissions so that the users of no two cells within the r SP cells, which share the Cu UL pilots,
are transmitting UL pilots simultaneously, i.e., if the users in a particular cell are transmitting
UL pilots, the users in the remaining r SP − 1 cells transmit data. Let Y n be the observation at

BS j when the users in the nth cell (where 0 ≤ n ≤ r SP − 1) transmit UL pilots. Note that the
index j has been dropped from Y n for the sake of simplicity of notation. Then, Y n ∈ CM ×τ
can be written as
Yn,

X

ℓ∈Ln

(r SP )

X√
µℓk pp hjℓkφ Tnk +
k

X

ℓ∈L
/ n

(r SP )

X√

µℓk pd hjℓk (xnℓk )T + W n

(28)

k

where φ n,k ∀n, k are the orthogonal pilot sequences described in Subsection III-A, pp and pd are

the powers at which the pilots and the data, respectively, are transmitted, and xnℓ,k ∈ Cτ is the
vector of data symbols transmitted by user (ℓ, k) in the nth block. We then have the following
proposition.
Proposition 3. The UL in a system that employs staggered pilots in (28) is a particular case of
q
Φ0 , . . . , Φ L−1 }.
superimposed pilots if pp = µλ2 Cu /τ , pd = µρ2 and P = Cτu blkdiag {Φ
An important conclusion of Proposition 3 is that staggered pilots are capable of achieving the

downlink throughput of SP while maintaining the UL spectral efficiency of RP. Indeed, utilizing
the same approach used to derive (16), a lower bound on the DL ergodic capacity when the
channel estimate obtained from staggered pilots is employed in a MF precoder can be obtained
as
ST−dl
Rjm
=


Cd
log2 1 + SINRST−dl
jm
C

(29)

12

where



2 
SINRST−dl
= νjm βjjm
jm



X



L−1 K−1
2
X
X
X
νℓk βℓjm 
σ 
1
µjm 2
µnk βℓnk +
βjℓm +
νℓm
µℓm
M ℓ=0 k=0 µℓk
pp τ
SP

Lj (r SP )∋ℓ6=j

n∈Lℓ (r

L−1 K−1
1
pd X X νℓk 
2
µjm βℓjm
1{j ∈L
+
/ ℓ (r SP )} +
τ pp
µℓk
M
ℓ=0 k=0

and

νℓk =



qℓk
qℓk 
=
2
E {kgℓk k }
M

X

n∈Lℓ (r SP )

X

n∈L
/ ℓ

(r SP )

pd
µnk
βℓnk +
µℓk
τ pp

K−1
X
p=0

X



µnp βℓjm βℓnp  +
K−1
X

n∈L
/ ℓ (r SP ) p=0

)

−1

1 
M 2γ
2

−1

µnp
σ 
βℓnp +
µℓk
τ pp µℓk

(30)

. (31)

Therefore, staggered pilots can achieve the DL performance of RP with a reuse factor r SP
with an overhead equivalent to that of RP with pilot-reuse factor r RP . As a result, similar to
Proposition 2, we have
Proposition 4. If r SP > r RP , the ceiling of SINRST−dl
when M → ∞ is higher than that of
jm

SINRRP−dl
.
jm

The concept described in this section can be further demonstrated by a simple example.
Consider a system with two users A and B. Without loss of generality, it is assumed that the
large-scale path-loss between the BS and users A and B are unity. In the UL phase, let user B
transmit data with power ρ2 ≥ 0 when user A transmits its pilot at unit power. In the DL phase,

user B receives interference at a power ρ2 from the DL transmission to user A. Thus, increasing

the number of antennas M at the BS increases the array gain at the BS, allowing for user B to
transmit with a smaller power ρ2 , thereby reducing the interference it sees in the DL.
V. E XTENSION

OF

H YBRID S YSTEM

TO

DL

Using the DL SINR analysis in Section III, we extend the hybrid system in [20] to include the
DL as well. The hybrid system consists of two sets of users URP and USP that transmit RP and
SP, respectively. As shown in Fig. 1, users in URP obtain channel estimates in the UL using RPs,
transmitted over τ symbols, and use these estimates to detect data using a spatial filter. However,
users in USP maintain radio silence during the pilot training phase of the users in URP , i.e., for
τ symbols in the frame, and transmit orthogonal pilots superimposed with data during the UL
data phase of Cu − τ symbols. By this construction, users in USP effectively transmit the zero
vector for the τ training symbols and since the zero vector is orthogonal to all other vectors,

13

τ

Cd

URP
Uplink Data

Pilots

Downlink Data

Cu
τ

Uplink Data

No
Transmission

Cd

USP

Downlink Data

+
Superimposed Pilots

Cu

Fig. 1. Frame structure of a hybrid system with users employing RP and SP pilots.

the users in USP can be viewed as having orthogonal pilots, thus not affecting the performance
of any user in URP .
Employing the channel estimates obtained from URP and USP in a MF precoder and combiner,
the SINR in the UL (see [20]) and DL from users in URP and USP when M ≫ K

2

can be

obtained as
2
βjjm
P
SINRRP−ul
=
jm
2
βjℓm

(32)

ℓ6=j
(ℓ,m)∈URP

2
νejm βjjm
P
SINRRP−dl
=
jm
2
νeℓm βℓjm

(33)

ℓ6=j
(ℓm)∈URP

SINRSP−ul
jm

≈

SINRSP−dl
≈
jm

2
βjjm
PP

1
(Cu −τ )λ2

ℓ k
(ℓ,k)∈USP

2
βjℓk

2
νejm βjjm
PP
ρ2
2
νeℓm βℓjm
(Cu −τ )λ2

(34)

(35)

ℓ k
(ℓ,k)∈USP

2

Since this section is devoted to designing a suboptimal algorithm to partition users into those that use RP and SP, we rely on

approximate asymptotic expressions (33) – (35), for the sake of simplicity, since the problem is anyway solved sub-optimally.

14

where the approximations in (34), and (35) reflect on the assumption that the users in URP and
USP do not interfere with each other. This assumption is valid if the UL transmission power of
the users in URP is significantly smaller than those in USP . This assumption is made for the sake
of simplicity and clarity only. In the absence of this assumption, the BS will have to estimate and
remove the interference from the users in URP before estimating the channel vectors of the users

in USP . In addition, for the sake of simplicity, we assume that r RP = 1 and that the interference

from the cells other than the ones adjacent to the reference cell are negligible. Furthermore, the
UL transmit powers µℓk are subsumed into the coefficients βjℓk .
In [20], the objective of the hybrid system design has been defined as to partition the users
into disjoint sets URP and USP by minimizing the overall UL interference. Using (33) and (34),
we extend here the objective to jointly minimize the UL and DL interference.
RP−ul
RP−dl
Let Ijm
or Ijm
, respectively, be the contributions of user (j, m) to the total UL and
SP−ul
SP−dl
DL inter/intra-cell interference power when assigned to URP . Similarly, let Ijm
or Ijm
,

respectively, be the contributions of user (j, m) to the total DL inter/intra-cell interference power
when assigned to USP . If users (j, m) and (ℓ, k) are members of URP , then from the denominator

2
of (32), the amount of interference that user (j, m) causes to user (ℓ, k) in the UL is βℓjk
δm,k .

Similarly, from (33), the amount of interference that user (j, m) causes to user (ℓ, k) in the DL
2
is βnℓk
δj,ℓ δm,k , ∀n 6= ℓ, n ∈ Lj (r) , (n, k) ∈ URP . Likewise, from (34) and (35), if both users

are members of USP then the amount of interference that user (j, m) causes to user (ℓ, k) in

2
2
the UL and DL is βℓjm
/ ((Cu − τ ) λ2 ) and ρ2 βnjm
/ ((Cu − τ ) λ2 ) , ∀n 6= j, n = 0, . . . , L − 1,
RP−ul
RP−dl
SP−ul
SP−dl
respectively. Therefore, Ijm
, Ijm
, Ijm
, and Ijm
can be obtained as
XX
X
2
RP−ul
2
βℓjm
Ijm
=
βℓjk
δm,k =
ℓ6=j k
ℓ∈Lj (r)
(ℓ,k)∈URP

RP−dl
Ij,m
=

XXX

2
δj,ℓ δm,k =
βnℓk

X

2
βnjm

(37)

n6=j
n∈Lj (r)
(n,m)∈URP

n6=j ℓ
k
n,ℓ∈Lj (r)
(n,k)∈URP

SP−ul
Ijm
=

(36)

ℓ6=j
ℓ∈Lj (r)
(ℓ,m)∈URP

XX
1
2
βℓjm
2
(Cu − τ ) λ ℓ k

(38)

XX
ρ
SP−ul
β 2 = ρ2 Ijm
.
(Cu − τ ) λ2 ℓ k ℓjm

(39)

(ℓ,k)∈USP

SP−dl
Ijm
=

2

(ℓ,k)∈USP

15

Let ξ ul > 0 and ξ dl > 0 be the weights for the interference powers in the UL and DL,
respectively, such that ξ ul + ξ dl = 1. Then, the total cost due to inter/intra-cell interference can
be expressed as
I (URP , USP ) =

L−1 K−1
X
X
ℓ=0 k=0

RP
SP
Tℓk
1{(ℓ,k)∈URP } + Tℓk
1{(ℓ,k)∈USP }



(40)

RP
SP
where Tℓk
and Tℓk
are the costs incurred when user (ℓ, k) is assigned to URP and USP ,

respectively, and are defined as
RP
RP−ul
RP−dl
Tℓk
, ξ ul Iℓk
+ ξ dl Iℓk

(41)

SP
SP−ul
SP−dl
Tℓk
, ξ ul Iℓk
+ ξ dl Iℓk
.

(42)

Minimizing (40) over the possible choices of URP and USP , the optimal sets URP and USP can
be obtained as the solution of the following optimization problem
(URP , USP ) = arg min I (URP , USP )
URP ⊆U
USP ⊆U

subject to URP ∪ USP = U
URP ∩ USP = ∅

(43)

where U is the set of all users in the L cells. However, obtaining the solution to the optimization
problem in (43) is combinatorial in nature with 2card{U } possible choices for URP and USP . A
simple greedy algorithm to partition the users by minimizing only the overall UL interference
has been devised in [20], and it can be straightforwardly extended to jointly minimize both the
UL and DL interference powers.
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS
A. Downlink and Channel Estimation Performance
We compare the DL throughput and MSE performance of systems that employ the LS-based
channel estimates obtained from RP to the performance of the massive MIMO systems that
obtain channel estimates from SP and staggered pilots.
Unless otherwise specified, the simulation parameters are as follows. The users are uniformly
distributed in hexagonal cells and are at a distance of at least 100m from the BS. The inter-BS
separation is 2km. The channel estimation methods are tested with L = 91 cells and K = 5 users
per cell. Both the SP and staggered pilots have reuse factors r SP = 7. The path loss coefficient

16

1
Staggered Pilot
SP
RP: r RP = 1
RP : r RP = 3
RP : r RP = 7

0.9
Cumulative distribution

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0

0.5

1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Per-user achievable rate - bps/Hz

4

4.5

Fig. 2. Cumulative distribution of DL throughput for M = 100 antennas. The black line indicates rates with probability ≥ 0.95.
The DL rates for SP and staggered pilots that have a probability ≤ 0.05 are significantly higher than those of RP with r RP = 1.

is assumed to be 3. The number of symbols in the UL and DL, i.e., Cu and Cd , respectively, are
both chosen as 35 symbols. The values of ρ and λ are computed from (18) and (19), respectively,
and are used for both SP and staggered pilots. The UL transmit power µℓk is chosen based on the
statistical channel-inversion power-control scheme [11], i.e., µℓk = ω/βℓℓk where ω is a design
parameter. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the UL and DL, i.e., ω/σ 2 and γ, respectively, is
set to 10dB. The plots are generated by averaging over 104 realizations of user locations across
the cell. For the sake of simplicity, the effects of shadowing are not taken into account in this
paper, but the conclusions are valid provided the users associate themselves with the strongest
BS.
In Fig. 2, the cumulative distribution of the DL rate of an arbitrary user in the reference BS
is plotted for SP, RP, and staggered pilots for M = 100 antennas. The values of pilot reuse ratio
for RP are r RP = 1, r RP = 3, and r RP = 7 in the plot. It can be observed that rates obtained
from the channel estimate based on SP and staggered pilots are significantly higher than those
obtained from RP with r RP = 1. Furthermore, it has to be noted that no additional UL overhead
is required by staggered pilots and SP to achieve this DL throughput. However, while RP with
r RP = 3 offers comparable performance to staggered pilots with r SP = 7, it has to be noted
that, in addition to the increased UL overhead, pilot reuse with RP comes with the additional
requirement that all users transmit their UL pilots simultaneously. This requirement will result in

17

80

DL Sum Rate - bps/Hz

70
60
50
40
30
Staggered Pilot
SP

20

RP : r RP = 1

10

RP : r RP = 3
RP : r RP = 7

0 0
10 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012
Number of antennas at the BS (M)

Fig. 3. DL Sum Rate vs M with MF precoder. SP and Staggered pilots offer an asymptotic DL throughput equivalent to that
of RP with r RP = 7, even though the UL overhead is as much as that of RP with r RP = 1.

40
SP - ZF

DL Sum Rate - bps/Hz

35
30

RP : r RP = 1 - ZF
Staggered Pilot - ZF
SP - MF
RP : r RP = 1 - MF
Staggered Pilot - MF

25
20
15
10
150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

M

Fig. 4. DL Sum Rate vs M with ZF precoder.

pilot reuse capable of being implemented across only a few cells in the network, and therefore,
the remaining cells can benefit from using either SP or staggered pilots.
In Fig. 3, the DL sum rate of staggered, RP, and SP is plotted against the number of antennas
M when the channel estimates are used in an MF precoder. The DL rate ceiling of SP and
staggered pilots is significantly higher than that of RP with r RP = 1. Moreover, the DL rate of
staggered pilots is close to that of RP with r RP = 7 and SP achieves this rate asymptotically. The

18

0
−5

Staggered Pilot
SP
SP : Single-tier interference

MSE (dB)

RP : r RP = 1

−10

RP : r RP = 7
CRLB

−15
−20
−25
−30

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012
Number of antennas at the BS (M)

Fig. 5. NMSE vs M . Similar to Fig. 3, the asymptotic MSEs of SP and staggered pilots are equivalent to that of RP with
r RP = 7. In addition, the component of interference from users that transmit a pilot orthogonal to that of the reference user
reduces asymptotically to zero.

key difference between SP and staggered pilots is that in the former, the strongest interference
seen by a particular user in the reference cell is due to the remaining users of that cell, which
results from transmitting data alongside pilots. However, in the latter case, this component of
interference is absent. Since the strongest component of the interference has been removed in the
case of staggered pilots, they are capable of achieving a rate close to that of RP with r RP = 7.
In Fig. 4, the DL sum rates are plotted when the channel estimates are used in a ZF precoder
which is given as
 H
−1
cj H
c H
cj
g jm = H
em
j

(44)

h
i
b jj0, . . . , h
b jj,K−1 and em is the mth column of I K . The parameter νℓk is chosen
cj = h
where H

to constrain the instantaneous transmit power to 1. The sum rates are obtained numerically with
L = 7 and K = 5. It can be observed that the behavior of SP and RP is similar to that in Fig. 3,
whereas the gap between staggered pilots and SP/RP is significantly higher than that in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 5, the MSE of the channel estimate is plotted against M. Similar to the behavior in
Fig. 3, the MSE of the channel estimate obtained from SP and staggered pilots asymptotically
approaches the MSE of the estimate from RP with r RP = 7. In addition, since we have assumed
that the interference from second and subsequent tiers of cells are negligible when deriving the
CRLB, the interference from these cells results in a gap between the MSE of SP and the CRLB.

19

RP
SP
Hybrid System

UL Sum Rate - bps/Hz

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Radius

Fig. 6. Sum rate in the UL over users in the first tier of cells vs. user radius. The algorithm assigns users RP and SP in scenarios
with low and high interference, respectively.

RP
SP
Hybrid System

DL Sum Rate - bps/Hz

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Radius

Fig. 7. Sum rate in the DL over users in the first tier of cells vs. user radius. The non-smooth nature of the DL rate of the
hybrid system in the range of user radius [0.6, 0.8] is due to the suboptimal nature of the greedy algorithm.

In the absence of this component of the interference, it can be seen that the MSE of the channel
estimate attains the CRLB asymptotically as M → ∞.

20

TABLE I
UL AND DL PERFORMANCE OF RP, SP, AND HYBRID SYSTEMS

UL Sum Rate (bps/Hz)

DL Sum Rate(bps/Hz)

Total Rate(bps/Hz)

Hybrid System

48.12

84.94

133.07

RPs (r RP = 1)

50.42

65.85

116.27

SPs

35.30

75.02

110.32

B. Hybrid System
The hybrid system is simulated with L = 19 hexagonal cells, i.e., a central cell with two tiers
of interfering cells. Each cell has K = 5 users and the values of Cu and Cd are both chosen
as 40 symbols. Although L is set to 19, the partitioning of users and the computation of the
performance metrics is performed over 7 cells which consist of the central and the first tier of
cells. The weights ξ ul and ξ dl are both set to 0.5. The value of ω for the users in USP is set to
10 and µ for the users in URP is set to 1.
For obtaining Figs. 6 and 7, the users are assumed to be distributed uniformly on a circle
around the BS. Then, the sum rates in the UL and DL are plotted in the figures against the
radius of the circle around the BS. As can be observed in Figs. 6 and 7, when the user radius
is smaller than 0.6, RP are superior both in the UL and DL. However, SP are superior both in
the UL and DL, when the user radius is larger than 0.8. Therefore, for user radius in the ranges
[0, 0.6] the greedy algorithm chooses RP and it chooses SP in the range [0.8, 1]. However, in the
range [0.6, 0.8], RP offer a better performance in the UL but a poorer performance in the DL,
with respect to SP. Therefore, the choices of URP and USP are determined by ξ ul and ξ dl . Since

for these simulations ξ ul and ξ dl are both chosen as 0.5, the greedy algorithm attempts to strike

a balance between the UL and DL throughputs and offers a total throughput that is in between
that of the systems that employ only RP or SP. In addition, since the algorithm is greedy, the
variation of this throughput with respect to the user radius is non-smooth in nature, as can be
seen in the figures.
Table I details the UL and DL performance of a system with users transmitting RP, SP, and
a hybrid of both, when the users are uniformly distributed across the cells. The hybrid system
offers roughly 14.44% higher total rate than the system that employs only RP. Moreover, both

21

SP and the hybrid system offer a significantly higher throughput in the DL, albeit at the cost
of a lower UL throughput than when compared with RP. However, the hybrid system enables
controlling the trade-off between the UL and DL throughputs using the weights ξ ul and ξ dl .
It has to be noted that there is an important difference between the results in Section VI-B
and those in [20], [24]. In the latter, the computed rates are approximate for finite M, since the
correlation between the signal and interference components have been ignored and approximated
to be zero. However, using the approach in Appendix A, the signal and interference terms are
uncorrelated and both the UL and DL rates shown in Figs. 6 and 7, and Table I are lower bounds
on the achievable rates.
VII. C ONCLUSION
We have shown that SPs offer a significantly better asymptotic MSE and DL performance
than RPs. This improvement is attributed to utilizing the array gain of the antenna for reducing
the fraction of UL power allocated to data in favor of allocating a larger fraction of power for
pilot transmission. We have also shown that staggered pilots are a particular case of SPs and
therefore, offer a DL performance similar to that of SPs, while offering the same UL spectral and
energy efficiency as RPs. Furthermore, we have shown that higher asymptotic DL throughput
offered by SPs and staggered pilots are at the same or lower UL transmission overhead than
RPs. We have also extended the hybrid system to partition the users into two disjoint sets of
users that use RPs and SPs by minimizing both the UL and DL interference. We show, by means
of simulation, that the hybrid system offers a higher throughput than when only RPs or SPs are
employed.

22

A PPENDIX A
Downlink SINR for Channel Estimate Based on SP Pilots
b ℓℓk . Then,
For MF precoding, g ℓk = h


E hH
jjm g jm = Mβjjm

2
2 µjm
1{k=m,j∈Lℓ(rSP )} + M
E |hH
= M 2 βℓjm
ℓjm g ℓk |
µℓm

(45)
X

n∈Lℓ (r SP )

µnk
βℓjm βℓnk
µℓk

L−1 K−1
X
X ρ2 µnp
M 2 ρ2 µjm 2
Mσ 2
β
β
+
β
+
+M
ℓnp
ℓjm
Cu λ2 µℓk
Cu λ2 µℓk ℓjm Cu λ2 µℓk
n=0 p=0


L−1
K−1
2
2
2
X X ρ µnp
E {kgℓk k }
M  X µnk
σ
1

=
=
βℓnk +
β
+
ℓnp
2 µ
2µ
νℓk
qℓk
qℓk
µ
C
λ
C
λ
ℓk
u
ℓk
u
ℓk
SP
n=0 p=0
n∈Lℓ (r

(46)

(47)

)

Substituting (45) to (47) into (15), the SINR can be obtained as



L−1 K−1
2
X µjm
X
X
X
σ 
1
νℓk βℓjm
2 
2
SINRSP−dl
= νjm βjjm
µnk βℓnk +
νjm βℓjm
+
jm
µℓm
M
µℓk
C u λ2
SP
SP
Lj (r

ℓ=0 k=0

)∋ℓ6=j

L−1 K−1
ρ2 X X νℓk
+
Cu λ2 ℓ=0 k=0 µℓk

2
µjm βℓjm

L−1 K−1
1 XX
+
µnp βℓnp βℓjm
M n=0 p=0

n∈Lℓ (r

!

)

1
+ 2
M γ

!−1

(48)

This completes the derivation of (16).
A PPENDIX B
Calculation of ρ2opt and λ2opt
Equation (1) can be written as
Ye j =

L−1 K−1
X
X√
ℓ=0 k=0

fj
µℓk hjℓk (λpℓk + ρe
xℓk )T + W

(49)

e ℓk ∼ CN (0, I). The receiver applies the following linear invertible transformation to the
where x

received observation

 p
T
XX√
1
Y j , √ Ye j P ∗ =
µℓk hjℓk λ Cu eℓk + ρxℓk + W j
Cu
ℓ=0 k=0
L−1 K−1

(50)

where eℓk = P H pℓk /Cu has ones in locations corresponding to the column index of pℓk in
√
√
f P H / Cu . Note that the distributions of xℓk and W j
e ℓk / Cu , and W j = W
P , xℓk = P H x
√
are unchanged since P / Cu is a unitary matrix. Therefore, from the perspective of calculating

the achievable rate, both (49) and (50) are equivalent. We simplify notation by dropping the

23

subscript j and replacing the tuple (ℓ, k) with a single index k such that 0 ≤ k ≤ N − 1, where

N , LK − 1. Defining y t as the tth vector of received observations and xnt as the tth element
of xn , y t for 0 ≤ t ≤ Cu − 1 can be written as
yt =

N
−1
X
X p
√
ρ µk hk xkt + wt
λ µk Cu hk +

(51)

k=0

k∈Pt

where Pt = {k ∈ {0, . . . , LK − 1} | pk = pt } is the set of all users that transmit their pilot in
symbol t, and Pt = ∅ for t ≥ LK.
Without loss of generality, let user 0 be the reference user, and let this user transmit its pilot
in symbol 0 in (51). The LS estimate of the channel of user 0 can then be written as
r
N
−1
X
X r µk
ρ
wt
1
µk
b
√
hk +
hk xk0 + √
.
h0 = √ √
y0 =
µ
µ
C
µ
λ
µ0 Cu λ
C
λ
0
0
u
0
u
k=0
k∈P

(52)

0

Then, the output of the MRC when t ≥ 1 is
n H o
 H
n H o
X p
b H y t = ρ√µ0 E h
b H hk
b h0 x0t + ρ√µ0 h
b h0 − E h
b h0 x0t +
x
b0t = h
λ µk Cu h
0
0
0
0
0
k∈Pt

+

N
−1
X
k=1

√ bH
bH
ρ µk h
0 hk xkt + h0 w t .

(53)

b 0.
Since x0t when t ≥ 1 is independent of xn0 for all 0 ≤ n ≤ LK − 1 , x0t is independent of h

As a result, in (53), the first term is uncorrelated with the remaining terms. Then, (53) can be
written as x
b0t = st + it where
n H o
√
b h0 x0t
st , ρ µ 0 E h
0

(54)

N
−1
n H o
X
X p
H
√ bH
√ bH
b
bH
b
ρ µk h
it , ρ µ0 h0 h0 − E h0 h0 x0t +
λ µk Cu h0 hk +
0 hk xkt + h0 w t .
k=1

k∈Pt

(55)

Defining Ψ (x) = log2 (1 + x), a lower bound on the ergodic capacity for user 0 in symbol t
can be obtained as [28]
R0t = Ψ



E {|st |2 }
E {|it |2 }



.

(56)

Since s , E {|st |2 } is independent of t for t ≥ 1 and since log2 (1 + 1/x) is convex in x, an
achievable lower bound on the capacity can be obtained using Jensen’s inequality as





Cu −1 
Cu −1

1 X
Cu − 1 
s
s
s
1 X
 (57)

Ψ
≥
Ψ
≥
Ψ
R0 =


CP
u −1
Cu t=0
E {|it |2 }
Cu t=1
E {|it |2 }
Cu
1
2}
E
{|i
|
t
Cu −1
t=1

24

where, in the first inequality, the throughput in symbol 0 in which user 0 transmits both pilot and
data is ignored. Jensen’s inequality is applied in the second inequality to render the right-hand
side independent of t. Now,
CX
N
−1
u −1
o
n H o
n H
X
 2
1
b h0
b hk |2 − ρ2 µ0 E h
E |it | =
ρ2 µk E |h
i,
0
0
Cu − 1 t=1
k=0

2

CX
u −1 X
o
o
n H
n H
1
2
2
2
b
b
+
µk λ Cu E |h0 hk | + E |h0 wt |
Cu − 1 t=1 k∈P
t

≤

N −1
o
n H o2
o
n H
n H
Cu X
b hk |2 − ρ2 µ0 E h
b h0
b w t |2
µk E |h
+
E
|
h
0
0
0
Cu − 1 k=0

(58)

CS
u −1

Pt = Ω\P0 ⊂ Ω with Ω ,
o
n H
b h k |2
{0, . . . , N − 1} being the set of all users, and that Cu /(Cu − 1) > 1. Using (52), E |h
0

where, to obtain the inequality, we have used the property that

t=1

in (58) can be obtained as

where


vk
o 
n H
2
b
E |h0 hk | =

M 2 β 2 µk + vk
k µ0

2 2

vk , M ρ



1
1
ck
+
dk +
ek
2
2
Cu λ
Mρ
Mρ2 λ2

k∈
/ P0

(59)

k ∈ P0



N −1
X µn
µk 2
1 X µn
βk σ 2
ck ,
βk +
βn βk , dk ,
βn βk , ek ,
µ0
M n=0 µ0
µ0
µ0 Cu
n∈P

(60)
(61)

0

b 0 , we obtain
Substituting (60) into (58) and noting that wt is independent of h
 2

ρ2
λ 2 α3
1 α4
1 α5
1 α6
2 2 ρ
i≤M ρ
α1 +
α2 + 2
+ 2 2
+ 2
+ 2
+ α7
λ2
Mλ2
ρ M
ρλ M
ρ M
λ M

(62)

where
α1 =

N
−1
X
k=0

α4 =

N
−1
X
k=0

N
−1 N
−1
N
−1
X
X
X
µk d k Cu
µk µn βk βn
µ2k βk2
, α2 =
; α3 =
µ0 (Cu − 1)
µ0 (Cu − 1)
(Cu − 1)
k=0 n=0
k=0
N
−1 2
X µk
X
µk ek Cu
σ µk
σ4
2
σ
+
; α5 =
βk ; α6 =
βk
Cu − 1 µ0 Cu
µ0
Cu µ0
k∈P
k=0

(64)

0



N −1
X µ2
Cu X
ck
1
k 2
µk
α7 =
βk +
+ dk .
µ
C
C
M
0
u−1
u
k=0
P ∋k6=0
0

(63)

(65)

25

Given that s = E {|st |2 } = µ0 ρ2 M 2 β02 , substituting (62) into (57), a lower bound on the UL
ergodic capacity is obtained as
Cu − 1
Ψ
R0 =
Cu

µ0 β02
ρ2
α
λ2 1

+

ρ2
α
M λ2 2

+

λ2 α3
ρ2 M

+

1 α4
ρ2 λ2 M

+

1 α5
ρ2 M

+

1 α6
λ2 M

+ α7

!

(66)

which is maximized when the denominator inside Ψ (·) is minimized. To obtain ρ2opt , we set
λ2 = 1 − ρ2 in (66), differentiate the denominator with respect to ρ2 , and set the result to zero.
We then get,
ρ2opt
where



= 1+

√


−1
−1
1
2
Mκ
, λopt = 1 + √
.
κ M

κ,

s

α1 + αM2 + αM4 + αM6
.
α3 + α4 + α5

(67)

(68)

A PPENDIX C
CRLB for Channel Estimates Obtained From SP Pilots
To derive the CRLB, the received signal when using SP pilots can be written as [20]
Y = H d (ρX d + λP d ) + H i (ρX i + λP i ) + W
where H d

,

(69)

[hj,j,0, . . . , hj,j,K−1] are the channel vectors of the desired users and

X d , [xj,0 , . . . , xj,K−1]T are the data symbols from the desired users. Similarly, H i ∈
CM ×(r

SP −1)K

and X i ∈ CCu ×(r

SP −1)K

are the data and channel vectors, respectively, of the

interfering users. The subscript j has been dropped from H d , H i , X d , X i , and W for notational
convenience. In addition, the UL transmit power µℓk for each user is assumed to be absorbed
into βjℓk . The vectorized form of (69) can be written as
y = vec (Y ) = (I Cu ⊗ H d ) (ρxd + λpd ) + (I Cu ⊗ H i ) (ρxi + λpi ) + w




T
T
= (ρX d + λP d ) ⊗ I M hd + (ρX i + λP i ) ⊗ I M hi + w

(70)

where the over-bar denotes the vec operation, i.e., x , vec(X) and the property vec (AB) =

(I m ⊗ A) b = B T ⊗ I n a has been used.

26


For the set of unknown parameters θ , xd , xi , hd , hi , the Fischer information matrix can

be defined as [31]


H )
∂ ln p (Y , θ ) ∂ ln p (Y , θ )
J (θθ ) = EY ,θθ
∂θθ ∗
∂θθ ∗
(

H )
∂lnp (θθ ) ∂lnp (θθ )
.
= Eθ {J θθ H } + Eθ
∂θθ ∗
∂θθ ∗
(

where
J θθ H , EY

θ

(

Using (70), J θθ H can be written as

J θθ H

where

∂lnp (Y | θ )
∂θθ ∗

H

 J xd J xd



 J xi J H
xd

=

J h J H
 d xd


J hi J H
xd



∂lnp (Y | θ )
∂θθ ∗

H

θ

)

.

(71)

(72)



H
H
J xd J H
xi J xd J hd J xd J hi 


H
H
H
J xi J xi J xi J hd J xi J hi 



H
H
H
J hd J xi J hd J hd J hd J hi 


H
H
H
J hi J xi J hi J hd J hi J hi

ρ
ρ
(I Cu ⊗ H d )H , J xi , (I Cu ⊗ H i )H
σ
σ
H
H
1
1
(ρX d + λP d )T ⊗ I M
(ρX i + λP i )T ⊗ I M
,
, J hi ,
.
σ
σ

(73)

J xd ,

(74)

J hd

(75)

Using (73) to (75), the first term in (71) can be expressed as


Mρ2
Cu
Cu
Eθ [J θθ H ] = 2 blkdiag I Cu ⊗ Dd , I Cu ⊗ Di ,
IMK ,
I M (N −K)
σ
Mρ2
Mρ2

(76)

where D d , diag {βj,j,0, . . . , βj,j,K−1} is the diagonal matrix containing the path-loss coefficients
of the desired users and D i is the diagonal matrix containing the path-loss coefficients of the
interfering users. The second term in (71) can be found as
(

H )

∂lnp (θθ ) ∂lnp (θθ )
−1
−1 
Eθ
=
blkdiag
Γ
,
Γ
,
(I
⊗
D
)
,
(I
⊗
D
)
(77)
x
x
M
d
M
i
i
d
∂θθ ∗
∂θθ ∗

where


H )
∂ ln pxd (xd ) ∂ ln pxd (xd )
Γxd , Exd
∂x∗d
∂x∗d
(

H )
∂ ln pxi (xi ) ∂ ln pxi (xi )
.
Γxi , Exi
∂x∗i
∂x∗i
(

(78)

(79)

27

Therefore, the CRLB for the parameter H d and the channel vector hj,j,k are given as
(
−1 )
Cu
−1
I KM + (I M ⊗ D d )
CRLB (H d ) = trace
σ2
(
−1 )
Cu
M
1
CRLB (hj,j,m) = trace
.
= Cu
IM
IM +
1
2
σ
βj,j,m
+ βj,j,m
σ2

(80)

(81)

This completes the derivation of (11).
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Boccardi, R. Heath, A. Lozano, T. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.
[2] J. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. Soong, and J. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[3] V. Jungnickel, K. Manolakis, W. Zirwas, B. Panzner, V. Braun, M. Lossow, M. Sternad, R. Apelfrojd, and T. Svensson,
“The role of small cells, coordinated multipoint, and massive MIMO in 5G,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp.
44–51, May 2014.
[4] E. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014.
[5] A. Osseiran, F. Boccardi, V. Braun, K. Kusume, P. Marsch, M. Maternia, O. Queseth, M. Schellmann, H. Schotten, H. Taoka,
H. Tullberg, M. A. Uusitalo, B. Timus, and M. Fallgren, “Scenarios for 5G mobile and wireless communications: the vision
of the METIS project,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 26–35, May 2014.
[6] H. Q. Ngo, E. Larsson, and T. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436–1449, Apr. 2013.
[7] T. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[8] L. Lu, G. Li, A. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,”
IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, Oct. 2014.
[9] R. Muller, L. Cottatellucci, and M. Vehkapera, “Blind pilot decontamination,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8,
no. 5, pp. 773–786, Oct. 2014.
[10] H. Q. Ngo and E. Larsson, “EVD-based channel estimation in multicell multiuser MIMO systems with very large antenna
arrays,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Kyoto, Mar. 2012, pp. 3249–3252.
[11] E. Björnson, E. G. Larsson, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIMO for maximal spectral efficiency: How many users and pilots
should be allocated?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1293–1308, Feb. 2016.
[12] K. Upadhya and S. A. Vorobyov, “An array processing approach to pilot decontamination for massive MIMO,” in Proc.
IEEE 6th Int. Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), Cancun, Dec. 2015,
pp. 453–456.
[13] H. Yin, D. Gesbert, M. Filippou, and Y. Liu, “A coordinated approach to channel estimation in large-scale multiple-antenna
systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 264–273, Feb. 2013.
[14] E. Björnson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, “Pilot contamination is not a fundamental asymptotic limitation in massive
mimo,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), May 2017, pp. 1–6.

28

[15] K. Takeuchi, R. R. Müller, M. Vehkaperä, and T. Tanaka, “On an achievable rate of large rayleigh block-fading MIMO
channels with no CSI,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6517–6541, Oct. 2013.
[16] S. He, J. Tugnait, and X. Meng, “On superimposed training for MIMO channel estimation and symbol detection,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3007–3021, Jun. 2007.
[17] M. Coldrey and P. Bohlin, “Training-based MIMO systems – part I: Performance comparison,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 5464–5476, Nov. 2007.
[18] H. Zhu, B. Farhang-Boroujeny, and C. Schlegel, “Pilot embedding for joint channel estimation and data detection in MIMO
communication systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 30–32, Jan. 2003.
[19] T. Cui and C. Tellambura, “Pilot symbols for channel estimation in OFDM systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf. (GLOBECOM), St. Louis, vol. 4, Dec. 2005, pp. 5 pp.–2233.
[20] K. Upadhya, S. A. Vorobyov, and M. Vehkapera, “Superimposed pilots are superior for mitigating pilot contamination in
massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 2917–2932, Jun. 2017.
[21] D. Verenzuela, E. Björnson, and L. Sanguinetti, “Spectral and energy efficiency of superimposed pilots in uplink massive
MIMO,” arXiv Preprint, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07722
[22] H. Zhang, S. Gao, D. Li, H. Chen, and L. Yang, “On superimposed pilot for channel estimation in multi-cell multiuser
MIMO uplink: Large system analysis,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1492–1505, Mar. 2016.
[23] K. Upadhya, S. A. Vorobyov, and M. Vehkapera, “Downlink performance of superimposed pilots in massive MIMO systems
in the presence of pilot contamination,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP),
Washington D.C., Dec. 2016, pp. 665–669.
[24] ——, “Time-multiplexed / superimposed pilot selection for massive MIMO pilot decontamination,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), New Orleans, LO, Mar. 2017, pp. 3459 – 3463.
[25] 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.
[26] J. Jose, A. Ashikhmin, T. Marzetta, and S. Vishwanath, “Pilot contamination and precoding in multi-cell TDD systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2640–2651, Aug. 2011.
[27] E. Nayebi and B. D. Rao, “Semi-blind channel estimation for multiuser massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 540–553, Jan 2018.
[28] B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links?” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 951–963, Apr. 2003.
[29] D. Kong, D. Qu, K. Luo, and T. Jiang, “Channel estimation under staggered frame structure for massive MIMO system,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1469–1479, Feb. 2016.
[30] W. A. W. M. Mahyiddin, P. A. Martin, and P. J. Smith, “Performance of synchronized and unsynchronized pilots in finite
massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 6763–6776, Dec. 2015.
[31] A. Van Den Bos, “A Cramér-Rao lower bound for complex parameters,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 42, no. 10, pp.
2859–, Oct. 1994.

