SYMBOL-LEVEL PRECODING IS SYMBOL-PERTURBED ZF WHEN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IS SOUGHT
Yatao Liu and Wing-Kin Ma

arXiv:1803.05094v1 [cs.IT] 14 Mar 2018

Department of Electronic Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
E-mail: ytliu@ee.cuhk.edu.hk, wkma@ee.cuhk.edu.hk
ABSTRACT
This paper considers symbol-level precoding (SLP) for multiuser
multiple-input single-output (MISO) downlink. SLP is a nonlinear
precoding scheme that utilizes symbol constellation structures. It
has been shown that SLP can outperform the popular linear beamforming scheme. In this work we reveal a hidden connection between SLP and linear beamforming. We show that under an energy minimization design, SLP is equivalent to a zero-forcing (ZF)
beamforming scheme with perturbations on symbols. This identity gives new insights and they are discussed in the paper. As a
side contribution, this work also develops a symbol error probability
(SEP)-constrained SLP design formulation under quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellations.
Index Terms— multiuser MISO, symbol-level precoding, energy efficiency, symbol error probability.
1. INTRODUCTION
In multiuser MIMO downlink scenarios, linear precoding or beamforming is arguably the most widely used physical-layer transceiver
scheme. Linear beamforming is simple in terms of transceiver structures, and it has been found in numerous studies that linear beamforming is effective in improving system performance such as total
throughput. Recently there has been interest in another class of precoding schemes called constructive interference, directional modulation, or symbol-level precoding (SLP) [1–9]. For convenience, we
will use the name SLP when we refer to such schemes. SLP leverages on the fact that transmitted symbols are drawn from a constellation, such as quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and M -ary
phase shift keying (MPSK), in real world. By contrast, in linear
beamforming, we usually take a level of abstraction from the symbol level. To be specific, when we design linear beamformers, it
is common to adopt quality-of-service (QoS) performance metrics
such as the signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR), achievable
rate, and symbol mean square error (MSE). The use of such metrics
frees us from symbol level details and allows us to directly work
on the higher level problem of beamforming optimization. On the
other hand, such an abstraction also precludes utilization of symbol
constellation structures that appear in all practical digital communication systems.
The early idea of SLP dates back to the early 2010 under the
name of constructive interference [1–3]. There, the rationale is to
consider a symbol-dependent linear beamforming scheme in which
interference is beneficially aligned at the symbol level. This requires
exploitation of the underlying constellation structures, and an SLP
design for one constellation (e.g., QAM) can be different from that
of another (e.g., MPSK). In recent studies, this rationale is gradually
shifting toward a more general philosophy, where SLP is regarded

as a generally nonlinear precoder that takes an optimization form.
It is worthwhile to mention that, coincidently, the same precoding
philosophy is also seen in the concurrent developments of constant
envelope precoding [10, 11] and one-bit MIMO precoding [12].
The principles of SLP and linear beamforming are, in essence,
different. In this paper, we draw a connection between the two. Simply speaking, we show that if we seek to minimize the total transmission energy in the SLP design, the resulting SLP is equivalent to a
zero-forcing (ZF) beamforming scheme with perturbations on symbols. This result gives new insights into SLP. We derive the above
result based on a symbol error probability (SEP)-constrained SLP
design formulation for QAM constellations, which, as a side contribution, is developed in this paper. After the submission of this work,
it has come to our attention that the symbol-perturbed ZF scheme we
mentioned above was independently developed in [13]. However,
the work in [13] neither noticed nor showed the equivalent relationship of SLP and symbol-perturbed ZF. In our work we also study
a less explored issue in the existing SLP literature, which is about
block-level optimization of symbol gains at the user side and will be
discussed in Section 5. Incorporating this issue into the design gives
rise to interesting insights as we will illustrate through simulations.
2. BACKGROUND
We consider a multiuser multiple-input single-output (MISO) downlink scenario where a multi-antenna base station (BS) serves K
single-antenna users. The channels from the BS to the users are
assumed to be frequency-flat block faded. Under such settings, the
received signals of the users over one transmission block may be
modeled as
yi,t = hH
i xt + vi,t ,

i = 1, . . . , K,

t = 1, . . . , T.

(1)

Here, yi,t is the received signal of user i at symbol time t; xt ∈ CN
is the multi-antenna transmitted signal from the BS at symbol time t,
with N being the number of transmit antennas at the BS; hi ∈ CN
represents the MISO channel from the BS to user i; T is the transmission block length; vi,t is noise and we assume vi,t ∼ CN (0, σv2 )
where σv2 denotes the noise variance. Assuming perfect channel state
information (CSI) at the BS, the task is to send symbol streams, one
designated for one user, via a pertinent MIMO precoding scheme.
Let us briefly recall how the above task is done in conventional
linear beamforming. Let {si,t }Tt=1 be a symbol stream of user i. The
transmitted signal xt of linear beamforming takes the form
xt =

K
X

wi si,t ,

(2)

i=1

where wi ∈ CN is the beamformer associated with the ith symbol stream. There are numerous ways to design the beamformers

[14–18], although the QoS performance metrics used often fall into
several types. In particular, it is common to adopt the SINR
SINRi , P

2
ρi |hH
i wi |
,
H
2
2
j6=i ρj |hi wj | + σv

where ρi = E[|si,t |2 ], 1 as the QoS performance metric. The SINR
takes a level of abstraction from the symbol level: it evaluates interference by means of average power, and consequently the underlying constellation structures are not exploited. A popular beamforming formulation under the SINR metric is the following SINRconstrained design:
P
2
min E[kxt k22 ] = K
i=1 ρi kwi k2
w1 ,...,wK
(3)
s.t. SINRi ≥ γi , i = 1, . . . , K,
where γi > 0, i = 1, . . . , K, are pre-specified SINR requirements;
see the literature [14, 17] for further description.
3. SEP-CONSTRAINED SYMBOL-LEVEL PRECODING
In this section we consider SLP. Unlike linear beamforming, which
restricts the transmitted signal xt to take the linear form (2), SLP
allows xt to be any vector (in CN ). It aims at finding an appropriate
xt such that desired symbols are shaped at the user side. To be more
specific, we intend to achieve, as accurately as possible,
hH
i xt ≈ di si,t ,

for all i, t,

(4)

for some given signal gain factors d1 , . . . , dK > 0; si,t ’s are again
the symbols. In doing so, we also incorporate other design considerations such as energy efficiency. Several design formulations for
SLP have been proposed in previous works [3–9], and in this work
we are interested in an SEP-constrained formulation. In the SEPconstrained formulation, we seek to to minimize the total transmission energy in an instantaneous sense, and, at the same time, we must
guarantee the SEP of every user to be no worse than a pre-specified
value. Mathematically, this is formulated as an optimization problem
min kxt k22
xt

s.t. SEPi,t ≤ εi ,

(5)
i = 1, . . . , K,

where SEPi,t denotes the symbol error probability of si,t given si,t ,
which we will define and characterize later, and εi ’s are pre-specified
SEP requirements. We should mention that SLP requires solving
optimization problems on a per-symbol basis, whilst linear beamforming usually solves an optimization problem once for the whole
transmission block (cf. (2)–(3)).
Let us characterize the SEP, which depends on the constellation
and the detection process at the user side. We assume that the symbol
stream {si,t }Tt=1 of user i is drawn from a QAM constellation
Si = {sR + jsI | sR , sI ∈ {±1, ±3, . . . , ±(2Li − 1)}},
√
where j = −1, and Li is a positive integer; note that the constellation size is 4L2i . Also, we assume that every user has access
to its corresponding signal gain factor di . In practice, this can be
made possible by designing the training phase such that users are
1 Note

that in arriving at the SINR expression, we have made two mild assumptions, namely, that i) every stream {si,t }T
t=1 is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) with mean zero and variance ρi = E[|si,t |2 ], and ii)
one stream is statistically independent of another stream.

able to acquire di ’s from the training signals. With knowledge of
di ’s, the users detect their symbol streams by a simple detection process ŝi,t = deci (yi,t /di ), where deci denotes the decision function
corresponding to Si . To get some insight with what we will see in
the SEP derivations, observe from the signal model (1) that
yi,t
bi,t + vi,t
= si,t +
,
di
di
where
bi,t = hH
i xt − di si,t
denotes a residual term of the approximation in (4). Now, define
SEPi,t = Pr(ŝi,t 6= si,t | si,t ).
as the (conditional) SEP in (5). Also, define
SEPR
i,t = Pr(ℜ(ŝi,t ) 6= ℜ(si,t ) | si,t ),

SEPIi,t = Pr(ℑ(ŝi,t ) 6= ℑ(si,t ) | si,t ),

as the conditional SEPs of the real and imaginary parts of si,t , respectively. As a standard SEP analysis result, one can show that
√

√

2
2
SEPR
=
Q
(d
−
ℜ(b
))
+
Q
(d
+
ℜ(b
))
i
i,t
i
i,t
i,t
σv
σv
√

2
≤ 2Q
(di − |ℜ(bi,t )|) ,
|ℜ(si,t )| < 2Li − 1,
σv

√
2
(di + ℜ(bi,t )) ,
ℜ(si,t ) = 2Li − 1,
SEPR
i,t = Q
σv
√

2
SEPR
=
Q
(d
−
ℜ(b
))
,
ℜ(si,t ) = −2Li + 1.
i
i,t
i,t
σv
(6)
Also, the same result applies to SEPIi,t if we replace “R” with “I”
and “ℜ” with “ℑ”.
Our next task is to turn the SEP constraints in (5) to a form
suitable for optimization. Let
√
ε̄i = 1 − 1 − εi ,
and observe that
I
SEPR
i,t ≤ ε̄i , SEPi,t ≤ ε̄i

=⇒

SEPi,t ≤ εi .

(7)

Also, it is shown from (6) that
SEPR
i,t ≤ ε̄i
where
aR
i,t

cR
i,t
with

⇐=

R
−di + aR
i,t ≤ ℜ(bi,t ) ≤ di − ci,t ,


 αi ,
βi ,
=
 −∞,

 αi ,
−∞,
=
 β,
i

(8)

|ℜ(si,t )| < 2Li − 1
ℜ(si,t ) = 2Li − 1
ℜ(si,t ) = −2Li + 1

|ℜ(si,t )| < 2Li − 1
ℜ(si,t ) = 2Li − 1
ℜ(si,t ) = −2Li + 1

 ε̄ 
σv
σv
i
αi = √ Q−1
, βi = √ Q−1 (ε̄i ) ,
2
2
2
and that the same result applies to SEPIi,t if we replace “R” with “I”
and “ℜ” with “ℑ”. Using (7)–(8), we obtain the implication
R
−di + aR
i,t ≤ ℜ(bi,t ) ≤ di − ci,t ,

−di + aIi,t ≤ ℑ(bi,t ) ≤ di − cIi,t

=⇒

SEPi,t ≤ εi .

By plugging the above implication into the constraints of Problem (5), we obtain a tractable SLP design problem. Let us summarize the result.

Fact 1 The SEP-constrained SLP design problem (5) can be handled, in a restrictive sense, by the following problem
min kxt k22
xt

R
s.t. − d + aR
t ≤ ℜ(Hxt − Dst ) ≤ d − ct ,

aIt

(9)

P
Fact 2 Consider the linear beamforming scheme xt = K
i=1 wi si,t .
Suppose that H has full row rank, and that wi ∈ R(H H )
for all i. Then the linear beamforming scheme is equivalent to
a symbol-perturbed ZF scheme xt = H † (Dst + ut ) where
ut = (HW − D)st , and W = [ w1 , . . . , wK ].

cIt ,

Fact 2 can be easily shown by putting ut = (HW − D)st into the
symbol-perturbed ZF scheme. Fact 2 suggests that a linear beamwhere H = [ h1 , . . . , hK ]H , d = [ d1 , . . . , dK ]T , D =
forming scheme, under a mild assumption, can be regarded as an
R
R
T
I
I
I
T
Diag(d1 , . . . , dK ), aR
t = [ a1,t , . . . , aK,t ] , at = [ a1,t , . . . , aK,t ] , instance of symbol-perturbed ZF. Some further discussions are as
R
R
T
I
I
I
T
cR
follows.
t = [ c1,t , . . . , cK,t ] , ct = [ c1,t , . . . , cK,t ] . In particular, any
feasible solution to Problem (9) is a feasible solution to Problem (5).
1. While the original SLP problem (9) and its equivalent forAlso, Problem (9) is a convex quadratic program.
mulation (10) are both convex, the latter is easier to handle.
−d+

≤ ℑ(Hxt − Dst ) ≤ d −

In this paper we will focus on Problem (9). Note that this new
formulation is restrictive owing to the inequality in (6) and the implication in (7). In practice, such restriction is considered mild especially if the SEP requirement εi is small. Problem (9) is similar to
the formulation in [8] in which a more intuitive idea of “relaxed decision region” was introduced to guarantee certain SNR performance.
Our formulation, in comparison, provides a more precise control on
SEP performance guarantees.

Problem (10) is a quadratic program with bound constraints,
which has been extensively studied and has efficient solvers
readily available [19].
2. We see from Problem (10) that the signal gain factors di ’s also
control the bounds of the perturbations ut ’s. In particular,
if we choose di = αi for all i, then, for instances where
|si,t | < 2Li − 1 for all i, we have ut = 0 and the SLP
scheme reduces to the ZF.

4. MAIN RESULT

5. FURTHER ISSUES

Our main result is described as follows.
Proposition 1 Suppose that H has full row rank. The optimal solution x⋆t to Problem (9) is given by
x⋆t = H † (Dst + u⋆t ),
†

H −1

H

where H = H (HH )
is the solution to

x1 ,...,xT ,d

is the pseudo-inverse of H, and

u⋆t

min (Dst + ut )H R(Dst + ut )
ut

s.t. − d +
−d+

aR
t
aIt

≤ ℜ(ut ) ≤ d −
≤ ℑ(ut ) ≤ d −

Thus far, in our development, we have assumed that the signal gain
factors di ’s are given. A question arising is how we may choose di ’s.
An optimal way of doing so is to consider the following problem
PT
2
1
min
t=1 kxt k2
T

(10)

cR
t ,
cIt .

with R = (HH H )−1 .

s.t. SEPi,t ≤ εi ,
d ≥ 0;

where we seek to optimize SLP and the signal gain factors simultaneously by minimizing the total power over the transmission block.
Using Proposition 1, we can recast the problem (in a restrictive
sense) as
PT
H
1
min
t=1 (Dst + ut ) R(Dst + ut )
T
R
s.t. − d + aR
t ≤ ℜ(ut ) ≤ d − ct ,

−d+
d ≥ 0,

xt = H H R(Dst + ut ) + ηt ,
for some ut ∈ CK , ηt ∈ R(H H )⊥ . Here R(H H )⊥ denotes the
orthogonal complement of the range space of H H . By the above
change of variable, and using Hηt = 0, Problem (9) can be equivalently transformed to
min

(11)

u1 ,...,uT ,d

Proof: Note that R is nonsingular. Thus, any xt ∈ CN can be
represented by

ut ∈CK ,ηt ∈R(H H )⊥

i = 1, . . . , K, t = 1, . . . , T,

(Dst + ut )H R(Dst + ut ) + kηt k22

R
s.t. − d + aR
t ≤ ℜ(ut ) ≤ d − ct ,

−d+

aIt

≤ ℑ(ut ) ≤ d −

cIt .

It is seen from the problem above that ηt = 0 must be true at the
optimum. The proof is complete.

Proposition 1 reveals a hidden connection between SLP and linear beamforming: under the total energy minimization formulation
considered above, SLP is equivalent to a symbol-perturbed ZF beamforming scheme—which takes the form xt = H † (Dst +ut )—with
the symbol perturbation ut being optimized according to st . It is
also interesting to note the following identity:

aIt

≤ ℑ(ut ) ≤ d −

cIt ,

t = 1, . . . , T,

t = 1, . . . , T,

(12)
The above problem is convex. We can also consider an alternative
formulation wherein the peak energy, rather than the average, is minimized:
min

max (Dst + ut )H R(Dst + ut )

u1 ,...,uT ,d t=1,...,T

R
s.t. − d + aR
t ≤ ℜ(ut ) ≤ d − ct ,

−d+
d ≥ 0,

aIt

≤ ℑ(ut ) ≤ d −

cIt ,

t = 1, . . . , T,
t = 1, . . . , T,

(13)
The above formulation may be useful when one desires to reduce the
energy spread of the transmitted signals over symbol time. Again,
the above problem is convex.
Although the two design problems in (12) and (13) are convex,
they are by no means easy to deal with. The reason is that the number
of variables of Problems (12) and (13) scales with the block length
T . As such, they are large-scale problems when T is large (which is

typical in standards), and development of fast algorithms is required.
We leave the latter as an open problem for future work. In this paper
we will use general purpose convex optimization software (such as
CVX) to solve Problems (12) and (13), and our emphasis will be
placed on demonstrating performance gains of Problems (12) and
(13) by simulations.
On the other hand, one can use heuristics to determine d. Suppose that Li > 1 for all i. Also, let us make a mild assumption
that there exist si,t such that |si,t | < 2Li − 1 for all i. From Problem (10), one can verify that it must hold that

SLP schemes are also tried. The results, shown in Fig. 2, illustrate
that the SLP schemes, even the heuristic SLP ones, outperform the
benchmark schemes significantly. However, unlike the previous total
power result, there is a large performance gap between the optimal
SLP and heuristic SLP schemes. We thus conclude that optimal SLP
is powerful in the case of peak total energy minimization.
44

ZF
Opt. BF
SLP; opt. d
SLP; ζ=1
SLP; ζ=1.5
SLP; ζ=2.5

42

for all i.

Since using smaller di ’s should be helpful in reducing the total transmission energy, we can choose
di = ζ · αi ,

i = 1, . . . , K,

(14)

where ζ ≥ 1 is a manually chosen scaling factor.

Total transmission power (dB)

40

di ≥ αi ,

38
36
34
32
30
28

6. SIMULATION RESULTS

26

Fact 3 Consider the linear beamforming scheme in (2)-(3). Suppose
that the multiuser interferences are approximated as complex circular Gaussian random variables. The optimal beamforming design in
(3) guarantees the SEP requirements in (5) if we choose
√


2
ρi
1 − 1 − εi
γi =
, i = 1, . . . , K.
Q−1
2
2
We skip the proof of the above fact. In fact, the result is almost a
folklore.
We first examine total transmission power performance. We
consider the optimal SLP design in Problem (12). We also try SLP
designs using the heuristic choice of di ’s in (14). The results are
shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen, the SLP schemes consume much
less power than the two benchmark schemes. Moreover, we see that
the heuristic SLP schemes can also achieve surprisingly good performance. In particular, when ζ = 1, the performance is almost
optimal. As a future work, it would be interesting to further study
why this is so.
Next, we turn to peak total energy performance. We replace
the average power minimization design (12) with the peak total
energy minimization design (13). The previously tested heuristic

24
10-4

10-3

Fig. 1. Total transmission power
SEP requirement ε.

10-2

1
T

PT

t=1

10-1

kxt k22 with respect to the

65

ZF
Opt. BF
SLP; opt. d
SLP; ζ=1
SLP; ζ=1.5
SLP; ζ=2.5

60

Peak total energy (dB)

In this section, we present simulation results to show the performance of SLP and compare it with other schemes.
In the simulaP
tions, we use the total transmission power T1 Tt=1 kxt k22 and peak
total energy maxt=1,...,T kxt k22 as the performance metrics. The
simulation settings are as follows. The number of transmit antennas N = 16; the number of users K = 16; the elements hij of
H are randomly generated at each trial and follow CN (0, 1) in an
i.i.d. manner; the power of noise is σv2 = 1; the transmission block
length is T = 50; the symbols si,t ’s are uniformly generated from
the 16-QAM constellation; we set ε1 = · · · = εK = ε. For each
simulation scenario, we generate 100 channel realizations to get an
average result of the performance metrics.
Here we consider two benchmark schemes: the ZF scheme [20]
and optimal linear beamforming scheme [14]. The two schemes are
designed such that the SEP requirements in (5) are satisfied. For the
ZF scheme, it can be verified that xZF
= H H (HH H )−1 Dst with
t
di = αi for all i achieves the requirements. For the optimal linear
beamforming scheme, we have the following fact:

55

50

45

40

35

30
10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

Fig. 2. Peak total energy maxt=1,...,T kxt k22 with respect to the SEP
requirement ε.

7. CONCLUSIONS
In previous works, SLP has been considered as a nonlinear precoding technique. In this work we showed that SLP can be regarded as
a linear ZF scheme with perturbations on symbols. We also examined new SLP designs and demonstrated their potential by simulations. Numerical results illustrated that SLP can lead to significant
improvement in energy efficiency.

8. REFERENCES
[1] C. Masouros and E. Alsusa, “Dynamic linear precoding for the
exploitation of known interference in MIMO broadcast systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1396–
1404, 2009.
[2] C. Masouros, “Correlation rotation linear precoding for MIMO
broadcast communications,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 252–262, 2011.
[3] M. Alodeh, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Constructive
multiuser interference in symbol level precoding for the MISO
downlink channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 9,
pp. 2239–2252, 2015.
[4] D. Spano, M. Alodeh, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Perantenna power minimization in symbol-level precoding,” in
Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[5] M. Alodeh, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Energy-efficient
symbol-level precoding in multiuser MISO based on relaxed
detection region,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15,
no. 5, pp. 3755–3767, 2016.
[6] A. Kalantari, M. Soltanalian, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, and
B. Ottersten, “Directional modulation via symbol-level precoding: A way to enhance security,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal
Process., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1478–1493, 2016.
[7] M. Alodeh, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Symbol-level
multiuser MISO precoding for multi-level adaptive modulation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 5511–
5524, 2017.
[8] A. Kalantari, C. G. Tsinos, M. Soltanalian, S. Chatzinotas, W.K. Ma, and B. E. Ottersten, “Energy-efficient M-QAM precoder design with spatial peak power minimization for MIMO
directional modulation transceivers,” Arxiv, 2017. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06878.
[9] C. Masouros and G. Zheng, “Exploiting known interference as
green signal power for downlink beamforming optimization,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 14, pp. 3628–3640,
2015.
[10] S. K. Mohammed and E. G. Larsson, “Single-user beamforming in large-scale MISO systems with per-antenna constantenvelope constraints: The doughnut channel,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 3992–4005, 2012.
[11] J. Pan and W.-K. Ma, “Constant envelope precoding for singleuser large-scale MISO channels: Efficient precoding and optimal designs,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5,
pp. 982–995, 2014.
[12] S. Jacobsson, G. Durisi, M. Coldrey, T. Goldstein, and
C. Studer, “Quantized precoding for massive MU-MIMO,” to
appear in IEEE Trans. Commun., 2017.
[13] J. Krivochiza, A. Kalantari, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Low complexity symbol-level design for linear precoding systems,” in Proceedings of 2017 Symposium on Information Theory and Signal Processing in the Benelux,
Delft, the Netherlands, May 2017, available online at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.09062.
[14] M. Bengtsson and B. Ottersten, “Optimal and suboptimal
transmit beamforming,” Chapter 18 in Handbook of Antennas
in Wireless Communications, L. C. Godara, Ed., CRC Press,
Aug. 2001.

[15] M. Schubert and H. Boche, “Solution of the multiuser downlink beamforming problem with individual SINR constraints,”
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2004.
[16] A. Wiesel, Y. C. Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Linear precoding via
conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 161–176, 2006.
[17] A. B. Gershman, N. D. Sidiropoulos, S. Shahbazpanahi,
M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Convex optimization-based
beamforming,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
62–75, 2010.
[18] Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z.-Q. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively
weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4331–4340, 2011.
[19] S. Bochkanov and V. Bystritsky, “Alglib,” Available from:
www. alglib. net, vol. 59, 2013.
[20] A. Wiesel, Y. C. Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Zero-forcing precoding and generalized inverses,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4409–4418, 2008.

