1

Max-Min Fair Transmit Precoding for
Multi-group Multicasting in Massive MIMO
Meysam Sadeghi, Student Member, IEEE, Emil Björnson, Senior Member, IEEE, Erik G. Larsson, Fellow, IEEE,

arXiv:1705.10968v1 [cs.IT] 31 May 2017

Chau Yuen, Senior Member, IEEE, and Thomas L. Marzetta, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract
This paper considers the downlink precoding for physical layer multicasting in massive multipleinput-multiple-output (MIMO) systems. We study the max-min fairness (MMF) problem, where channel
state information (CSI) at the transmitter is used to design precoding vectors that maximize the minimum
spectral efficiency (SE) of the system, given fixed power budgets for uplink training and downlink
transmission. Our system model accounts for channel estimation, pilot contamination, arbitrary pathlosses, and multi-group multicasting. We consider six scenarios with different transmission technologies
(unicast and multicast), different pilot assignment strategies (dedicated or shared pilot assignments),
and different precoding schemes (maximum ratio transmission and zero forcing), and derive achievable
spectral efficiencies for all possible combinations. Then we solve the MMF problem for each of these
scenarios and for any given pilot length we find the SE maximizing uplink pilot and downlink data
transmission policies, all in closed-forms. We use these results to draw a general guideline for massive
MIMO multicasting design, where for a given number of base station antennas, number of users, and
coherence interval length, we determine the multicasting scheme that shall be used.

Index Terms
Multicast transmission, Massive MIMO, physical layer precoding, large-scale antenna systems.
M. Sadeghi (meysam@mymail.sutd.edu.sg) and C. Yuen (yuenchau@sutd.edu.sg) are with Singapore University of Technology
and Design, Singapore. E. Björnson (emil.bjornson@liu.se) and E. G. Larsson (erik.g.larsson@liu.se) are with Department of
Electrical Engineering (ISY), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. T. L. Marzetta (tom.marzetta@nokia-bell-labs.com) is
with Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent, 600 Moutain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ, 07974, USA. This work was supported in part
by the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF), and ELLIIT.
Parts of this paper has been submitted to IEEE GLOBECOM 2017 [1]. In [1], we briefly present ZF-undp and ZF-mudp,
refer to Fig. 1. In this manuscript, we present a detailed description of all six scenarios of Fig. 1.

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
The advent of smartphones and tablets, data hungry applications, and the ever growing amount
of digital content have increased the mobile data traffic unprecedentedly [2]. It is anticipated
that the mobile data traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 53% from 2015 to
2020 and reach 30.6 exabytes per month [2]. A considerable portion of this traffic belongs to the
contents that are of interest for groups of users in the network, for example, live broadcast of
sporting events, mobile TV, and regular system updates [3]–[5]. Although these types of traffic
can be delivered by unicast1 transmission, theoretically it is more efficient to employ multicast
transmission2 [6] and therefore it has been considered in different releases of the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project [3].
Multicasting can be performed in two different ways, either with the blind isotropic transmission as in digital video broadcasting [4], [5] or by downlink precoding based on channel
state information (CSI) [6], [7]. As detailed in [7], the latter approach is more desirable for
wireless systems. In this paper by multicasting we refer to this second approach, where the
multi-antenna transmitter employs its CSI to perform precoding such that a desired metric of
interest is optimized [6], [7]. A seminal study of multicasting is presented in [6], where the
precoder design for the so-called max-min fairness (MMF) and quality of service (QoS) problems
is investigated. Considering a single-group single-cell system, it is shown that both MMF and
QoS problems are NP-hard and a suboptimal solution is presented. This work is then extended
to a multi-group single-cell scenario and it is shown that there exists a duality between the MMF
and QoS problems [7]. The MMF problem is then revisited under per-antenna power constraint
for multi-group single-cell systems in [8]. Also, the coordinated multicasting transmission for a
single-group multi-cell scenario is investigated in [9]. Note that [6]–[9] assume perfect CSI is
available at the base station (BS) and also at the user terminals (UTs).
The aforementioned works (among many others) are based on the semidefinite relaxation
(SDR) technique and suffer from high computational complexity. Considering a multicasting
system with an N -antenna BS and G different multicasting groups, the complexity of SDR
based techniques is of O(G3.5 N 6.5 ) [7]. This high complexity makes the SDR based multicasting
1

We present a formal definition of unicast and multicast transmissions in Section II. B.

2

For the sake of brevity, in this paper we refer to physical layer multicasting as multicasting.

3

algorithms impractical for large dimensional systems, e.g. massive MIMO systems where they
deploy hundreds of antennas [10].
Due to significant performance of massive MIMO in terms of energy and spectral efficiency
[11]–[13], it is a promising candidate for the fifth generation of cellular networks [14], [15].
Therefore recent works on multicasting have tried to address the high computational complexity
of massive MIMO multicasting [16]–[18]. Particularly, [16] presents a successive convex approximation technique for single-group single-cell multicasting of large-scale antenna arrays which
reduces the computational complexity to O(N 3.5 ). The system set-up of [16] is extended to a
multi-group single-cell multicasting in [17]. Therein a feasible point pursuit based algorithm with
a complexity of O((GN )3.5 ) is presented. However, the complexity is still high for large-scale
antenna systems with hundreds of antennas. Recently a low-complexity algorithm, O(N ) for
single-group and O(GN 2 ) for multi-group multicasting, for massive MIMO system is presented
in [18]. This algorithm not only reduces the complexity but also significantly outperforms the
SDR based methods.
The common denominator of the aforementioned algorithms is the perfect CSI assumption,
both at the BS and at the UTs. However, in practice the CSI is not available neither at the
BS nor at the UTs, and should be obtained. This introduces new challenges to the multicasting
problem, which is already NP-hard. To address the CSI acquisition problem, two approaches
have been presented in the literature. The first approach leverages the asymptotic orthogonality
of the channels in massive MIMO, which simplifies the precoding design [19]–[21]. The main
problem with the asymptotic approach is that a very large number of antennas, e.g., N > 4000,
is required to get close to the asymptotic performance, while the performance is poor for realistic
antenna numbers [20], [21].
The second approach relies on employing predefined multicasting precoders [22]. More precisely, considering a single-cell multi-group multicasting system, [22] presents a maximum ratio
transmission (MRT) based multicast precoder with a novel pilot allocation strategy. Contrary to
the common approach where a dedicated pilot is used per UT, it uses a shared pilot for all the
UTs within each multicasting group, hereafter called co-pilot assignment. They show numerically
that MRT multicasting with co-pilot assignment substantially outperforms the MRT unicasting
with dedicated pilot assignment in terms of minimum spectral efficiency (SE).
The improvement in the SE of multicast transmission, shown by [22], has motivated the
application of co-pilot assignment in the subsequent works [19]–[21]. But as this improved SE

4

The six cases considered in this paper

Multicasting
(mu)

Layer 1

Unicasting
(un)

Co-pilot
Assignment
(cp)

Layer 2

Layer 3

Dedicated Pilot
Assignment
(dp)

Dedicated Pilot
Assignment
(dp)

MRT

ZF

MRT

ZF

MRT

ZF

MRT-mucp

ZF-mucp

MRT-mudp

ZF-mudp

MRT-undp

ZF-undp

Equivalent*
Equivalent* : It will be shown in the proof of Theorem 1 that MRT-mudp and MRT-undp are equivalent.

Fig. 1: The six considered scenarios in this paper.

is observed by numerical comparison of MRT multicast transmission with co-pilot assignment,
and MRT unicast transmission with dedicated pilot assignment, a series of questions remain to
be answered:
•

Does the same observation hold for zero forcing (ZF)?

•

When is beneficial to employ co-pilot assignment instead of dedicated pilot assignment?

•

Given a set of system parameters, which precoder and pilot assignment shall be used?

To answer these questions, we study six different possible scenarios as shown in Fig. 1. The first
layer of Fig. 1 considers the two possible transmission technology, unicast (un) and multicast
(mu). The second layer considers the employed pilot assignment strategy3 , i.e., dedicated pilot
(dp) or co-pilot (cp). The third layer determines the precoding scheme, which is either MRT or
ZF. Then the six considered scenarios are: MRT-undp, ZF-undp, MRT-mudp, ZF-mudp, MRTmucp, and ZF-mucp.4
3

Note that for unicast we just consider dedicated pilot assignment as the co-pilot assignment results in very weak performance

due to high inter-group interference and extreme pilot contamination.
4

As an example note that MRT-mucp means MRT multicasting with co-pilot assignment.

5

In this paper, we answer the aforementioned questions while considering a multi-group massive
MIMO multicasting system with realistic CSI acquisition. Our main contributions are as follows:
•

We derive achievable SEs for each UT in the system considering the set-ups depicted in
Fig. 1.

•

We formulate the MMF problem for each of the six scenarios in Fig. 1. For an arbitrary
pilot length, we find 1) the optimal uplink pilots powers; 2) the optimal downlink data
transmission powers; and 3) the optimal SE for each UT in the system, all in closed-forms.

•

Based on our analytical and numerical results, we draw a guideline for massive MIMO
multicasting design. More precisely, given the number of BS antennas, the number of UTs,
and the length of coherence interval, we determine the multicasting scheme that shall be
used.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the system model, the
channel estimation, and elaborates the unicast and multicast transmissions. Section III presents the
precoding schemes and their associated achievable SEs. Section IV studies the MMF problem for
all set-ups of Fig. 1. Section V presents the numerical analysis and further detailed discussions.
Section VI summarizes the paper and presents the main conclusions.
Notations: The following notation is used throughout the paper. Scalars are denoted by lower
case letters whereas boldface lower (upper) case letters are used for vectors (matrices). We denote
by IG the identity matrix of size G and represent the j column of IG as ej,G . The symbol CN (., .)
denotes the circularly symmetric complex Gaussian distribution. The trace, transpose, conjugate
transpose, and expectation operators are denoted by tr(.), (.)T , (.)H , and E[.], respectively. We
denote the cardinality of a set G by |G|.
II. S YSTEM AND S IGNAL M ODEL
We consider multi-group multicasting in a single-cell massive MIMO system. We assume the
system has one BS with N antennas and it transmits G data streams toward G multicasting
groups. We denote the set of indices of these G multicasting groups as G, i.e., G = {1, . . . , G}.
We assume the jth data stream, j ∈ {1, . . . , G}, is of interest for Kj single antenna UTs, and we
say these Kj UTs belong to the jth multicasting group. We denote the set of indices of all the
UTs in jth multicasting group as Kj , i.e. Kj = {1, . . . , Kj }. Therefore |G| = G and |Kj | = Kj .
We assume each UT is assigned to just one multicasting group, i.e. Ki ∩ Kj = ∅ ∀i, j ∈ G, i 6= j.
P
We denote the total number of UTs in the system as Ktot = G
j=1 Kj .

6

We consider a block flat-fading channel model where CB (in Hz) is the coherence bandwidth
and CT (in seconds) is the coherence time. Hence the channels are static within a coherence
interval of T = CB CT symbols. We assume the BS does not have a priori CSI but estimates
the channels by uplink pilots transmission using a TDD protocol, exploiting channel-reciprocity.
The procedure is detailed next. Under these assumptions, we represent the channel between
the BS and UT k in multicasting group j as gjk . We assume all the UTs have independent
Rayleigh fading channels, as it well-matches non-line-of-sight measurements [23]. This implies
that gjk ∼ CN (0, βjk IN )∀k, j, where βjk represents the large-scale fading.
A. Channel Estimation
The BS uses uplink pilot transmission to estimate the channels to the UTs in the system.
As detailed in Section I, it can be performed either by dedicated pilot assignment [11], [12],
or by co-pilot assignment [22]. The dedicated pilot approach sacrifices more resources, e.g.,
time-frequency slots in each coherence interval, to achieve a better estimation of the channel
of each UT in the system. On the other hand, the co-pilot approach enforces deliberate pilot
contamination among UTs of each multicasting group in order to reduce the consumed timefrequency resources. In the sequel we elaborate the channel estimation under each of these
scenarios.
1) Channel Estimation with Dedicated Pilot Assignment: The dedicated pilot assignment uses
one pilot per UT, so it requires Ktot pilots per coherence interval. Denoting the pilot length as τpdp ,
to have orthogonal pilots we have τpdp ≥ Ktot . Under dedicated pilot assignment, the minimum
mean-square error (MMSE) estimate of the channel of UT k in group j is
q

τpdp pujk βjk q
dp
dp u
τp pjk gjk + n
ĝjk =
1 + τp pujk βjk

(1)

where n ∼ CN (0, IN ) is the normalized additive noise and pujk is the uplink pilot power of
2
τpdp pujk βjk
dp
dp
dp
UT k in group j. Therefore we have ĝjk
∼ CN (0, γjk
IN ) with γjk
=
. Also
1 + τpdp pujk βjk
dp
dp
dp
− gjk ∼ CN (0, (βjk − γjk
)IN ). Moreover, we denote the
the estimation error is g̃jk
= ĝjk
N × Ktot matrix obtained by stacking the estimated channel of all the UTs in the system as
dp
dp
Ĝdp = [Ĝ1 , . . . , ĜG ], where Ĝj = [ĝj1
, . . . , ĝjK
] ∀j ∈ G.
j

2) Channel Estimation with Co-pilot Assignment: The co-pilot assignment uses one pilot per
multicast group, so it requires G pilots per coherence interval. Denoting the pilot length as τpcp ,

7

to have orthogonal pilots we need τpcp ≥ G. Under co-pilot assignment the MMSE estimate of
the channel of UT k in multicasting group j is
q


Kj q
τpcp pujk βjk
X
cp

=
τpcp pujm gjm + n
ĝjk
cp PKj
u
1 + τp
m=1 pjm βjm
m=1

(2)

2
τpcp pujk βjk
. From (2) it is easy to observe
PKj u
1 + τpcp m=1
pjm βjm
that the channel estimate of each UT is contaminated by other UTs in its multicasting group.

cp
cp
cp
where ĝjk
∼ CN (0, γjk
IN ) with γjk
=

cp
cp
cp
The estimation error of gjk is g̃jk
= ĝjk
− gjk ∼ CN (0, (βjk − γjk
)IN ). Moreover, we need the

estimation of a linear combination of the channels of all the UTs within this multicasting group,
PKj q cp u
which we denote as gj = k=1
τp pjk gjk .5 Its MMSE estimate is


PKj u
Kj q
cp
X
τp
k=1 pjk βjk

ĝj =
τpcp pujk gjk + n
(3)
cp PKj
u
1 + τp
p
β
jk
k=1 jk
k=1
PKj

u
2
k=1 pjk βjk )
. Also we denote the N × G
P
Kj
1 + τpcp k=1
pujk βjk
matrix obtained by stacking the vectors ĝj ∀j ∈ G as Ĝcp = [ĝ1 , . . . , ĝG ].

and we have ĝj ∼ CN (0, γj IN ) with γj =

(τpcp

B. Transmission Mode: Unicast versus Multicast
As motivated in Section I, we want to understand when it is beneficial to employ multicast
transmission instead of unicast transmission. Therefore we consider both unicast and multicast
transmissions in the sequel. Let us denote by si ∼ CN (0, 1) ∀i ∈ G the signal requested by the
UTs in the ith multicasting group, i.e., Ki . We assume si is independent across i. We stack them
in a vector s = [s1 , . . . , sG ]T .
1) Unicast Transmission: In unicast transmission we consider a Ktot × 1 data vector x where
x = [s1 , . . . , s1 , s2 , . . . , s2 , . . . , sG , . . . , sG ]T .
| {z }
| {z } | {z }
K1

K2

(4)

KG

Also the precoding matrix is an N × Ktot matrix Wun = [w11 , . . . , wjk , . . . , wGKG ], where wjk
is the precoding vector of UT k in multicasting group j. We will provide more details on the
5

Note that for Kj = 1, gj =

q

τpcp pujk gjk .

8

exact structure of the precoding vectors in Section II. The received signal of UT k in multicasting
group j during downlink transmission is
yjk =

H
gjk
Wun x

+n=

H
gjk

Ki
G X
X

wit si + n

(5)

i=1 t=1

where n ∼ CN (0, 1) is the normalized noise.
2) Multicast Transmission: In the multicast case we use s as the data vector. Also the
precoding matrix becomes an N × G matrix Wmu = [w1 , . . . , wG ] where wj is the joint
precoding vector of all the UTs in jth multicasting group. In this case, the received signal
of UT k in multicasting group j is
yjk =

H
gjk
Wmu s

+n=

H
gjk

G
X

wi si + n.

(6)

i=1

III. P RECODER S TRUCTURES AND ACHIEVABLE SE S
It is well known that in massive MIMO systems linear precoding schemes provide close-tooptimal performance [24]. Also it has been shown that the asymptotically optimal precoders in
massive MIMO multicasting are linear combinations of the channels [19], [21]. Therefore, in
the sequel we consider two common linear precoding schemes in the context of massive MIMO
systems, namely MRT and ZF [25], and derive the achievable SE for them.
A. Precoder Structure and Achievable SE for Unicast Transmission
Consider the N × Ktot precoding matrix Wun = [w11 , . . . , wjk , . . . , wGKG ] for unicast transmission with dedicated pilots. Then the MRT and ZF precoding vectors of UT k in group j
are
v
u dl
u pjk dp
MRT−undp
ĝ
wjk
=t
dp jk
N γjk
q
ZF−undp
dp
H
−1
wjk
= pdl
jk γjk (N − Ktot ) Ĝdp (Ĝdp Ĝdp ) eνjk ,Ktot
where νjk =

Pj−1
t=1

(7)
(8)

Kt + k, eνjk ,Ktot is the νjk th column of IKtot , and pdl
jk is the downlink

MRT
ZF
MRT 2
power allocated to this user. Note that for wjk
and wjk
, we have E[kwjk
k ] = pdl
jk and
P
P
Kj
G
ZF 2
dl
E[kwjk
k ] = pdl
jk . We denote the total utilized downlink power as Pdp =
k=1 pjk . Given
j=1

(7) and (8), we can achieve the following SEs for the UTs in the system.

9

Proposition 1. With MRT unicast transmission and dedicated pilot assignment, an achievable
SE for user k of group i is
SEMRT−undp
ik
=
where SINRMRT−undp
ik

=

τpdp
1−
T

!
)
log2 (1 + SINRMRT−undp
ik

(9)

dp dl
N γik
pik
is the effective SINR of this user.
1 + βik Pdp

Proof. The proof follows the conventional bounding6 technique in [26] and is omitted for brevity.

Proposition 2. With ZF unicast transmission and dedicated pilot assignment, an achievable SE
for user k of group i is
SEZF−undp
=
ik
where

SINRZF−undp
ik

=

τpdp
1−
T

dp dl
(N − Ktot )γik
pik
dp
1 + (βik − γik
)Pdp

!
log2 (1 + SINRZF−undp
)
ik

(10)

is the effective SINR of this user.

Proof. The proof follows the conventional bounding technique in [26] and is omitted for brevity.

B. Precoder Structure and Achievable SEs for Multicast Transmission
As detailed in Section II.A, the required CSI for multicast transmission can be achieved either
by dedicated pilot assignment or by co-pilot assignment. In the sequel we present the precoder
structure and achievable SEs for both cases.
6

In Propositions 1 and 2, the achievable SE is obtained by employing the use and then forget (UatF) bounding technique

[26], [27]. Compared to the classic application of UatF in massive MIMO, here we have a subtle technicality as follows. The
interference caused by the transmission to the other UTs in group i is uncorrelated with the effective transmission to user k
in group i, however the message is the same. Therefore the transmission to the other UTs within a multicast group does not
contribute to the desired signal power and act as interference.

10

1) Precoder Structure and Achievable SE for Multicast Transmission with Dedicated Pilot
Assignment: If dedicated pilot assignment is employed then the MRT and ZF precoding vectors
of jth multicast group are
wjMRT−mudp

wjZF−mudp

v
Kj u
X
u pdl
t jk ĝdp
=
dp jk
N γjk
k=1

= (IN −

−1 H
Ĝ−j (ĜH
−j Ĝ−j ) Ĝ−j )

(11)
Kj
X
√

dp
µjk ĝjk

(12)

k=1

the downlink power of UT k in group j, Ĝ−j = [Ĝ1 , . . . , Ĝj−1 , Ĝj+1 , . . . , ĜG ],
where pdl
jk iss
pdl
jk
and µjk =
with νj = Ktot − Kj . For wjMRT−mudp and wjZF−mudp we have
dp
(N − νj )γjk
PKj dl
PKj dl
MRT−mudp 2
E[kwj
k ] = k=1
pjk and E[kwjZF−mudp k2 ] = k=1
pjk .
Note that there is a subtle difference between ZF-undp and ZF-mudp. The ZF-undp scheme
ensures that (within the limitations of channel estimation errors) any UT is immune to the
transmissions intended for all other UTs, in its own multicasting group and also in other
multicasting groups. Therefore it requires N ≥ Ktot . However, ZF-mudp just ensures that the
UTs within each multicasting group are rendered immune (within the limitations of channel
estimation errors) to the transmissions to the rest of UTs in other multicasting groups and every
UT experiences intra-group interference from the transmissions intended for the other UTs in
its own group. Hence it requires N ≥ (Ktot − maxj∈G Kj ).
Remark 1. Notice that (12) is a generalized version of the precoder proposed in [18], since that
it accounts for imperfect CSI. As the precoder presented in [18] outperforms the SDR based
multicasting schemes, this generalization works as a benchmark and enable us to indirectly
compare our proposed methods with the SDR based algorithms. This is of particular interest,
as the SDR-based algorithms, which are assuming perfect CSI is available at both BS and UTs,
are the baseline schemes used in the literature [6]–[9].
Given (11) and (12), we can achieve the following SEs.
Theorem 1. With MRT multicast transmission and dedicated pilot assignment, an achievable
SE for user k of group i is
SEMRT−mudp
=
ik

τpdp
1−
T

!
log2 (1 + SINRMRT−mudp
).
ik

(13)

11

where

SINRMRT−mudp
ik

dp dl
N γik
pik
=
is the effective SINR of this user.
1 + βik Pdp

Proof. The proof follows by showing that when we have a common message for all the users
in each multicasting group, the MRT-mudp is equivalent with MRT-undp:
Wun x =

Kj
G X
X

MRT−undp
wjk
sj

=

j=1 k=1

G
X

wjMRT−mudp sj = Wmu s.

j=1

Hence the SINR and SE are the same as Proposition 1.
Theorem 2. With ZF multicast transmission and dedicated pilot assignment, an achievable SE
for user k of group i is
=
SEZF−mudp
ik
where

SINRZF−mudp
ik

τpdp
1−
T

!
).
log2 (1 + SINRZF−mudp
ik

(14)

dp dl
(N − νi )γik
pik
=
is the effective SINR of this user.
dp
dp PKi
dl
)Pdp
1 + γik m=1 pim + (βik − γik

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix A.
2) Precoder Structure for Multicast Transmission with Co-pilot Assignment: If co-pilot assignment is utilized then the MRT and ZF precoding vectors of jth multicast group are
s
pdl
j
ĝj
wjMRT−mucp =
N γj
q
H
−1
wjZF−mucp = pdl
j γj (N − G) Ĝcp (Ĝcp Ĝcp ) ej,G

(15)
(16)

MRT−mucp
where pdl
j is the downlink power of the precoding vector of group j. Note that for wj
ZF−mucp 2
and wjZF−mucp we have E[kwjMRT−mucp k2 ] = pdl
k ] = pdl
j and E[kwj
j . We denote the
PG dl
utilized downlink power as Pcp = j=1 pj . By using MRT as in (15), it has been shown that

the following achievable SE for user k of group i can be obtained [22]


τpcp
MRT−mucp
SEik
= 1−
log2 (1 + SINRMRT−mucp
)
ik
T

(17)

cp dl
pi
N γik
is the effective SINR of this user. By using ZF as in (16),
1 + βik Pcp
we can achieve the following SE.

where SINRMRT−mucp
=
ik

Theorem 3. With ZF multicast transmission and co-pilot assignment, an achievable SE for user
k of group i is
SEZF−mucp
ik



τpcp
= 1−
log2 (1 + SINRZF−mucp
).
ik
T

(18)

12

where

SINRZF−mucp
ik

cp dl
pi
(N − G)γik
=
is the effective SINR of this user.
cp
1 + (βik − γik )Pcp

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix B.
In Theorem 3 we obtained a simple closed-form for the SINR of ZF-mucp, while the precoder
is entirely based on the composite channels, e.g., ĝj ∀j ∈ G. This is because we took advantage
cp
of the fact that ∀j ∈ G, ∀k ∈ Kj , ĝjk
and ĝj are equal up to a scalar coefficient. Hence ZF-mucp

can cancel the inter-group interference, within the limitation of the channel estimates, which
leads to the obtained simple closed-form for the SINR of ZF-mucp. The proof details are given
in Appendix B.
Remark 2. Note that when we switch from MRT to ZF in the above scenarios, e.g., from
Proposition 1 to Proposition 2, the SINR terms always change in a particular way. The signal
power in the numerator reduces by a factor of

N −κ
,
N

where κ depends on the considered scenario.

dp
Also the interference in the denominator reduces from βik Pdp to (βik − γik
)Pdp or from βik Pcp
cp
to (βik − γik
)Pcp . This is due to the fact that ZF uses these κ degrees of freedom to cancel the

interference toward other UTs at the cost of reducing the received power of each UT.
IV. M AX -M IN FAIRNESS P ROBLEM
The MMF problem is the common problem of interest in multicasting systems, where we
maximize the minimum of a metric of interest given some constraints on the resources. For the
sake of simplicity, the existing works in the literature [6]–[9], [17]–[22] consider the SINR as
the metric of interest and the available power at the BS as the resource constraint, while ignoring
CSI acquisition. Here we consider a more general problem formulation for MMF that accounts
for the CSI acquisition. We choose the SE as our metric of interest and also we set our resource
constraints as 1) the available power at the BS; 2) the uplink training power limit of the UTs;
and 3) the length of the pilots. Therefore the MMF problem for dedicated pilot assignment is
P1 :

max

min min

u
∀j∈G ∀k∈Kj
τpdp ,{pdl
jk },{pjk }

s.t.

τpdp
) log2 (1 + SINRdp
(1 −
jk )
T
pujk ≤ putot
jk
Pdp =

∀ k ∈ Kj , ∀ j ∈ G

Kj
G X
X

pdl
jk ≤ P

(19)
(19-C1)
(19-C2)

j=1 k=1

τpdp ∈ {Ktot , . . . , T }

(19-C3)

13

where putot
jk is the maximum pilot power of user k in group j, and P is the total available power
at the BS. Similarly, the MMF problem for co-pilot assignment is

P2 :

max

min min

u
∀j∈G ∀k∈Kj
τpcp ,{pdl
j },{pjk }

(1 −

τpcp
) log2 (1 + SINRcp
jk )
T

pujk ≤ putot
jk

s.t.

G
X

∀ k ∈ Kj , ∀ j ∈ G

(20)
(20-C1)

pdl
j ≤ P

(20-C2)

τpdp ∈ {G, . . . , T }.

(20-C3)

Pcp =

j=1

Note that the constraints (19-C2) and (20-C2) are due to the total available power at the BS,
but are slightly different. When we use a dedicated pilot per UT, we obtain a dedicated estimate
of the channel of each user. Hence in the downlink we can decide on the amount of power we
allocate to the UTs on a per UT basis, e.g., pdl
jk . On the other hand, for co-pilot transmission, the
channel estimates of all UTs within a multicasting group are different just by a scalar coefficient.
Hence we just can allocate the power on a per group basis, e.g., pdl
j . It is straightforward to show
that for both P1 and P2, the constraints (19-C2) and (20-C2) should be met with equality. To
P
dl
see this, assume the contrary, e.g., at the optimal solution of P2 we have P > Pcp = G
j=1 pj .
Then one can increase all the pdl
j by a factor of

P
.
Pcp

This increases each UT’s SE, hence improves

the minimum SE of the system. This contradicts our assumption. Consequently at the optimal
solution of P2, P = Pcp . In the remainder of this section, we find the optimal solutions to P1
and P2 for the six considered scenarios of Fig. 1.
To solve P1 and P2, we use a two-step approach. First, we solve them for any arbitrary value
of τpdp or τpcp and determine their optimal solution in closed-form. Second, we find the optimal
value of τpdp or τpcp by searching over the finite discrete set of all the possible values, thanks
to the closed-form obtained in the first step. Given an arbitrary τpdp , as logarithm is a strictly
increasing function, P1 can be replaced with a problem P 0 1 as follows
P 01 :

max

u
{pdl
jk },{pjk }

min min

∀j∈G ∀k∈Kj

s.t.

SINRdp
jk
19-C1 and Pdp = P.

(21)

14

Similarly, P2 can be replaced with a problem P 0 2 as follows
P 02 :

max

u
{pdl
j },{pjk }

min min

∀j∈G ∀k∈Kj

s.t.

SINRcp
jk

(22)

20-C1 and Pcp = P.

A. MMF solution for MRT-undp
Theorem 4. Consider P 0 1 with MRT-undp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR and it is equal to

Γ = NP 

Kj
G X
X
1 + βik P
i=1 k=1

dp∗
with γik
=

2
τpdp putot
ik βik

1 + τpdp putot
ik βjt
UT k in group i are

dp∗
γik

−1


(23)

. The optimal uplink training and downlink transmission powers of

utot
pu∗
ik = pik

pdl∗
ik =

1 + βik P
dp∗
γik
N

(24)
Γ.

(25)

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix C.
B. MMF solution for ZF-undp
Theorem 5. Consider P 0 1 with ZF-undp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR and it is equal to
Γ=

(N − Ktot )P
dp∗
PG PKi 1 + (βik − γik
)P
i=1

dp∗
with γik
=

2
τpdp putot
ik βik

1 + τpdp putot
ik βik
UT k in group i are

k=1

(26)

dp∗
γik

. The optimal uplink training and downlink transmission powers of

utot
pu∗
ik = pik

pdl∗
ik

=

dp∗
1 + (βik − γik
)P
dp∗
γik
(N − Ktot )

(27)
Γ.

(28)

Proof Sketch. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4 and its sketch is presented for
brevity. First it should be shown that for every UT k in group i its SINR is monotonically

15

increasing with puik which results in (27). Then it should be shown that at the optimal solution
all UTs will have the same SINR, which also determines (28). Now using this fixed value for
the SINR and the downlink transmission power constraint, we obtain (26).
Remark 2 described the similarities between the SE expressions with MRT and ZF, and the
same pattern appears in the optimal solutions to the MMF problem. As we switch from the
MRT to ZF in Theorems 4 and 5, the coherent beamforming gain reduces from N to N − Ktot .
dp∗
βik P
(βik − γik
)P
Also the interference in the denominator reduces from dp∗ to
. This is due to
dp∗
γik
γik
the fact that ZF uses the degrees of freedom provided by the large-scale antenna array to cancel
the interference toward other UTs at the cost of reducing the desired signal power at each UT.
C. MMF solution for MRT-mudp
Corollary 1. Consider P 0 1 with MRT-mudp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR and it is equal to (23).
Proof. From Theorem 1, we know MRT-mudp is equivalent to MRT-undp. Hence it provides
the same SINR for each UT. Therefore its optimal solution is the same as Theorem 4.
D. MMF solution for ZF-mudp
Theorem 6. Consider P 0 1 with ZF-mudp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR, i.e., Γ = SINRZF−mudp∗
∀i, k, and it is the solution of the equation
ik
P =

G
X
i=1

where ∆i =

PKi

k=1

1
dp∗
γik

+P

βik
dp∗
γik

Γ∆i
N − νi − ΓKi

!
−P

with

dp∗
γik

=

(29)

2
τpdp putot
ik βik

τpdp putot
ik βik

and Γ < mini∈G { NK−νi i }.

1+
Also the optimal uplink training and downlink transmission powers of UT k in group i are
utot
pu∗
ik = pik

pdl∗
ik =
where Pidl =

Γ
N − νi

(30)
1
dp∗
γik

+ Pidl + P

βik
dp∗
γik

!
−P

(31)

Γ∆i
.
N − νi − ΓKi

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix D.
Note that as the right hand side of (29) is an increasing function of Γ, its solution can simply
be obtained by line search.

16

E. MMF solution for MRT-mucp
Theorem 7. Consider P 0 2 with MRT-mucp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR and it is equal to
Γ=

NP
PKi
cp

PG 1 + τp
i=1

m=1
cp
τp Υi

pu∗
im βim

(32)

βit2 ptot
it
∀i ∈ G. The optimal uplink training and downlink transmission
1 + P βit
powers of UT k in group i are
with Υi = mint∈Ki

1 + P βik
Υi
∀i ∈ G, K ∈ Ki
2
βik
P i u∗
Γ(1 + τpcp K
m=1 pim βim )
∀j ∈ G.
=
cp
τp N Υi

pu∗
ik =

(33)

pdl∗
i

(34)

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix E.
F. MMF solution for ZF-mucp
Theorem 8. Consider P 0 2 with ZF-mucp, then at the optimal solution all the UTs receive the
same SINR and it is equal to
P (N − G)
Γ = PG 1

(35)

j=1 ∆j

2
putot
τpcp Υj
PKj
1
jk βjk
with ∆j =
, and Υj = mink∈Kj
∀j ∈
, Ej = Kj Υj P +Υj m=1
1 + τpcp (Ej − P Υj )
βjm
1 + βjk P
G. The optimal uplink training and downlink transmission powers of UT k in group i are

1 + βik P
Υi
2
βik
!−1
G
X
∆i
=
P
∆
j
j=1

pu∗
ik =

∀k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G

(36)

pdl∗
i

∀j ∈ G.

(37)

Proof. The proof is given in Appendix F.
The achieved results (Theorems 4 to 8 and Corollary 1), determine the optimal value of the
SINR, the uplink training powers, and the downlink transmission powers in closed-form, for any
given pilot length. These closed-form results enable us to find the optimal value of SE by simply
searching over τpdp ∈ {Ktot , . . . , T } or τpdp ∈ {G, . . . , T } and find the pilot length that provides
the highest SE.

17

V. N UMERICAL A NALYSIS AND F URTHER D ISCUSSIONS
In this section, we use the results of Section IV to perform a numerical analysis and propose
a guideline for multicasting design in massive MIMO systems. In our simulations we consider
a system with G multicasting groups where each group has K UTs, i.e., Ki = K ∀i ∈ G. The
cell radius is considered to be 500 meters and the UTs are randomly and uniformly distributed
in the cell excluding an inner circle of radius 35 meters. The large-scale fading parameters are
¯ ν where ν = 3.76 is the path-loss exponent and the constant d¯ = 10−3.53
modeled as βik = d/x
ik
regulates the channel attenuation at 35 meters [28]. Also xik is the distance between UT k in
group i and the BS in meters. At a carrier frequency of 2 GHz, the transmission bandwidth
(BW) is assumed to be 20 MHz, the coherence bandwidth and coherence time are considered
to be 300 kHz and 2.5 ms, which results in a coherence interval of length 750 symbols for a
vehicular system with speed of 108 kilometers per hour [26]. The noise power spectral density
is considered to be −174 dBm/Hz.
Fig. 2 studies the effect of the system parameters, i.e., G, K, N , putot
jk , and P , on the optimal
SEs that can be obtained for the six scenarios depicted in Fig. 1. Figs. 2a, 2c, and 2e represent the
high SNR regime, where for the cell-edge, the training SNR is −5.8 dB (equivalent to putot
jk = 1
Watt over the BW) and the downlink SNR is 10 dB (equivalent to P = 40 Watt over the BW).
Also Figs. 2b, 2d, and 2f are representing the low SNR regime, where for the cell-edge, the
training SNR is −15.8 dB (equivalent to putot
jk = 0.1 Watt over the BW) and the downlink SNR
is −5.8dB (equivalent to P = 1 Watt over the BW).
From Fig. 2 we make the following observations:
•

The dedicated pilot assignment is more vulnerable to SNR reduction than the co-pilot
assignment, comparing the two SNR regimes. For example, consider N = 600, then the
average reduction in SE of ZF-undp comparing Figs. 2a, 2c, 2e respectively with Figs. 2b,
2d, 2f is 6.85 times while with MRT-mucp and ZF-mucp it is 1.69 times. This is because
the emphasis in dedicated pilot assignment is on achieving good channel estimates, while
the co-pilot assignment is focusing on saving time-frequency resources. Hence in the low
SNR regime as long as Ktot is large enough, e.g. Ktot ' 0.2N , MRT-mucp and ZF-mucp
provide better performance than other schemes.

•

In the high SNR regime, ZF-undp significantly outperforms the co-pilot approaches as
soon as N becomes slightly bigger than Ktot (N ' 1.15Ktot ), as it can be verified from

18

35

    !

7
6

25

5
4
3
2
0
011

3

   !"

8

211

311

9

411

511

9

"#$%
"#$ %
&'($ )$* 
"#$ )
&'($ )
&'($%
&'($ %

611

711

2

05
0
011

811

(a) G = 3, K = 10, P = 40, and putot = 1 Watt.

5
4

"#$%
&'($ )$* 
"#$ %
"#$ )
&'($ )
&'($%
&'($ %

3
2
0
1
011

211

311

9

411

511

9

611

711

08
06
04
02
0
18
16
14
12
1
011

811

(c) G = 3, K = 50, P = 40, and putot = 1 Watt.

2

05

18

#$%&
'()% *%+ 
'()% *
#$% *
#$% &
'()%&
'()% &

17
16
15

411

511

9

611

711

811

#$%& '&( 
#$%& '
)*& '
)*&+
)*& +
#$%&+
#$%& +

211

311

9

411

511

9

611

711

811

#$%& '
()& '
#$%& '&* 
#$%&+
#$%& +
()& +
()&+

14

0

13
12

15
1
011

9

(d) G = 3, K = 50, P = 1, and putot = 0.1 Watt.

   !"

   !"

25

311

(b) G = 3, K = 10, P = 1, and putot = 0.1 Watt.

   !"

    !

6

211

#$%&
'()% *%+ 
#$% *
#$% &
'()% *
'()%&
'()% &

10
211

311

9

411

511

9

611

711

(e) G = 10, K = 50, P = 40, and putot = 1 Watt.

811

1
011

211

311

9

411

511

9

611

711

811

(f) G = 10, K = 50, P = 1, and putot = 0.1 Watt.

19

Figs. 2a, 2c, and 2e. The reason is twofold. First, with dedicated pilot assignment a pilot
contamination free channel estimation is achieved. Second, in high SNR regime τpdp is close
to Ktot , and as N ' 1.15Ktot there are enough time-frequency resources for downlink
transmission. While for co-pilot assignment the channel estimates are highly contaminated
due to the shared pilots.
•

It is plausible that MRT-mucp can provide a better SE than ZF-undp if there is downlink
pilot transmission, as downlink pilot transmission can be done efficiently just by employing
G symbols of the coherence interval for downlink training [29]. Therefore in Fig. 2 we also
have presented the minimum SE of MRT-mucp with genie UTs, i.e., MRT-mucp-Genie,
where we assume the UTs perfectly estimate their channels from G downlink training
symbols. Even in this case, in the high SNR regime, ZF-undp significantly outperforms
the MRT-mucp with genie UTs, as soon as N becomes slightly bigger than Ktot , e.g.,
N ' 1.2Ktot , see Figs. 2a, 2c, and 2e.

•

The SE of the co-pilot assignment approaches is more robust to adding more UTs to the
system than the SE of the dedicated pilot assignment approaches. For example, consider
N = 700 and compare the SE of ZF-undp and MRT-mucp in Figs. 2c and 2d (where
Ktot = 150) respectively with Figs. 2e and 2f (where Ktot = 500). For ZF-undp the SE
reduces by a factor of 2.95 (comparing Fig. 2c with Fig. 2e) and 7.77 (comparing Fig. 2d
with Fig. 2f) while for MRT-mucp it reduces by a factor of 2 (comparing Fig. 2c with Fig.
2e) and 2.36 (comparing Fig. 2d with Fig. 2f). This is because adding more UTs increases
the pilot overhead in dedicated pilot assignment approaches while it has a slight effect
for co-pilot approaches. Hence co-pilot approaches are more suitable for applications like
DVB-H or mobile TV over wide areas with many users [4], [5].

•

As we increase Ktot by adding more multicasting groups, e.g., in applications with large
number of multicasting UTs such as DVB-H [4], the downlink training becomes less
important and can be neglected, e.g., compare Figs 2a, 2c, and 2e or Figs 2b, 2d, and 2f.
This is because adding more groups requires more time-frequency resources for downlink
training.

•

MRT-mucp nearly provides the same SE as ZF-mucp, e.g. see Figs. 2c, 2d, 2e. This is
because the deliberate pilot contamination that was enforced to the precoder structure, (16),
prevents the ZF-based pecoder from suppressing the interference efficiently. Therefore due
to the higher complexity of ZF, if the co-pilot strategy is employed, it is beneficial to use

20

MRT-mucp rather than ZF-mucp.
•

MRT-mucp always outperform MRT-undp and MRT-mudp, e.g., see Figs 2e and 2f. Hence
if MRT is employed for multicasting, it is better to use the MRT-mucp scheme.

•

In all of the considered setups in Fig. 2, the maximum performance is either achieved by
ZF-undp or MRT-mucp. Hence a multicasting system need to support these two transmission
modes and switch between them depending on the system parameters.

•

As detailed in Remark 1, ZF-mudp is the generalized version of the precoder proposed in
[18] and it outperforms the SDR-based precoding schemes [7]. Also ZF-mudp is always
outperformed by either MRT-mucp or ZF-undp. Therefore in a massive MIMO system
that accounts for CSI acquisition, a system with hybrid transmission that switches between
MRT-mucp and ZF-undp outperforms SDR-based approaches [7], [18].

The aforementioned observations were achieved either at high or low SNR regime. Fig. 3
verifies them for a wide range of SNR. Considering N = 300, G = 4, K = 50, Fig 3a presents
the SE of the proposed scheme for a fixed cell edge training SNR of −5.8 dB, while the cell
edge downlink SNR is changing from −20 dB to 20 dB. Fig. 3b presents the SE for a fixed cell
edge downlink SNR of 10 dB while the cell edge training SNR is changing from −30 dB to 5
dB. Note that the same observation holds true, e.g., 1) MRT-mucp and ZF-mucp have the same
performance; 2) The optimal performance is achieved by switching between MRT-mucp and
ZF-undp; 3) at low SNR the co-pilot approaches perform better than the dedicated approaches,
and the opposite holds for high SNR; and 4) MRT-mucp always outperform MRT-undp and
MRT-mudp.
As some of the state of the art multicast standards and applications, e.g. DVB-H and mobile
TV, employ omnicast transmission [4], [5], it is interesting to compare the performance of the
proposed multicast schemes with omnicast transmission. Therefore in Fig. 4 we consider a system
with P = 40 Watt, puot
jk = 1 Watt, and G multicasting groups where G is changing from 1 to 30
with K UTs per group. It presents the minimum SE versus the number of multicasting groups
for the proposed multicasting schemes and the omnicast transmission. For omnicast transmission
we assume the channels are perfectly known at the UTs, and the minimum SE is computed as
follows



P khjk k2
1
log2 1 +
|βjk
= E min E
{j},{k}
G
σ2


SEOmnicast



(38)

where the outer expectation is with respect to large-scale fading and the inner expectation is with

21

1

34

1

%&0'
()0'
()09
()0 9
%&0 9
%&09

34

7 7  !"#$

6 6 !"#$

14

54

3

24
2
012

3

%&0'
()0'
()0
()0
%&0
%&0

5

24

034

032

04

2

4

32

567769 69 79

34

12

2
012

034

(a) SE vs Downlink SNR.

032

054

052

04

67887 7  

2

4

(b) SE vs Training SNR.

Fig. 3: SE versus SNR.

respect to small-scale fading. Note that (38) provides an upper bound on the performance of
an omnicast transmission as we assumed perfect channel knowledge at the UTs. In practice,
terminals will have to rely on channel estimates obtained from downlink pilots. This pilot
transmission is complicated by the fact that optimal training entails the transmission of mutually
orthogonal pilots from each antenna; with a large number of antennas, this pilot overhead can
be significant. A reduction of the pilot overhead, at the cost of some spatial diversity order
loss, can be achieved by transmission into a pre-determined subspace [30], [31]. Note that
in independent Rayleigh fading, a conventional omnicast system that uses a single antenna is
equivalent to the considered array [31], while maximal dimensionality reduction applied. A
corresponding achievable SE can be obtained from [32], by setting ρ0b = 0 in equation (49)
therein7 , which we refer to as omnicast with imperfect downlink CSI. From Fig. 4 one can see
that for any Ktot = GK, at least ZF-undp or MRT-mucp provide significantly better performance
than omnicast transmission. Note that even when we have Ktot = 1500 UTs in the system, MRTundp provides more than 3 times higher SE than omnicast transmission. This highly motivates
7

There is an M 0 parameter in equation (49) of [32], that in Fig. 4 we found its optimal value by exhaustive search, which

gives us the best lower bound that can be obtained for omnicast transmission based on [32].

22

00
00
00
003
0
1

20

21



#$%6&
'(%76
#$%76
#$%76&
'(%6&
'(%76&
)7*9 9+,-.
)7*79 9+,-.




767 8!"

$%&6'
()&76
$%&76
$%&76'
()&6'
()&76'
*7+9 9,-./
*7+79 9,-./

767 8!"#





1

4
3
2
0
0

1


0/
0/
0/3
0

4
3

30

31

40

2

30

31

40

0
0

56789 76 6
(a) K = 20 and N = 300.

1

20

21

30

31

40

30

31

40

56789 76 6
(b) K = 50 and N = 500.

Fig. 4: Comparison between Multicast and Omnicast transmissions.

the application of massive MIMO in new multicasting standards [4], [5].
Based on the numerical analysis provided in this section, Fig. 5 presents a guideline for
multicasting in massive MIMO systems. Given the system parameters, it determines which
scheme should be applied in different scenarios. Also based on our derived results in Section
IV, we can explicitly specify the SE that can be obtained using this selected scheme.
VI. S UMMARY AND C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we studied multi-group multicasting in the context of massive MIMO. First, we
introduced different transmission technologies (multicast and unicast), different pilot assignment
strategies (co-pilot or dedicated pilot assignment), and the two common precoding schemes in
massive MIMO (MRT and ZF). The six possible combinations were outlined in Fig. 1. Second,
for each of these schemes we derived an achievable SE while accounting for the uplink pilotbased CSI acquisition. Third, for any given training length, we solved the max-min fairness
problem for the proposed schemes and found the optimal uplink pilot powers, downlink precoding
powers, and the optimal SEs, all in closed-forms. Fourth, based on the achieved results we
evaluated the proposed schemes numerically and drew a guideline for practical multi-group
massive MIMO multicasting design. We showed that a massive MIMO multicasting system

23

<

MRT-mucp
<
K

<

MRT-mucp
Either*

≲ 1.2

High SNR

Massive MIMO
Multicasting Regimes

1.2

<

≲

≲2

Either*

≲

ZF-undp

2

>
≲5
5

≲

MRT-mucp
≲7

Either*

Low SNR

≲2
7

Either* means either MRT-mucp or ZF-undp.

≲

2

Either*
≲

ZF-undp

Fig. 5: The massive MIMO multicasting regimes.

need to support two transmission modes, i.e., MRT-mucp and ZF-undp, and switches between
them depending on the system parameters.
A PPENDICES
The appendix provides the proof of proposed theorems and propositions. We will frequently
use the following lemma, which can be proved by standard techniques (for example see Section
II of [26]).
Lemma 1. Consider a discrete memoryless channel with input x ∈ C and output y = hx + v + n,
where h is a deterministic channel coefficient, v is a random interference with zero mean and
power E[|v|2 ] = pv that is uncorrelated with x, and n ∼ CN (0, σ 2 ) is independent circularly
symmetric complex Gaussian noise. Then if the input power is limited as E[|x|2 ] = P and
the channel response h ∈ C and interference power pv ∈ R+ are known at the output, then
P |h|2
SINR =
and r = log2 (1 + SINR) are the achievable SINR and SE for this channel.
pv + σ 2
A PPENDIX A - ACHIEVABLE SE WITH ZF- MUDP
Starting from (6) and applying (12) we have
G
X
dpH ZF−mudp
dpH ZF−mudp
dpH ZF−mudp
dpH
yik= E[ĝik
wi
] si +(ĝik
wi
−E[ĝik
wi
])si −g̃ik
wjZF−mudp sj +n.
|
{z
} |{z}
j=1
x
h
|
{z
}
v

(39)

24

Now using Lemma 1 while considering h, x and v as shown in (39), we obtain the following
effective SINR for UT k in group i:
=
SINRZF−mudp
ik

dpH ZF−mudp 2
|E[ĝik
wi
]|
.
PG
dpH ZF−mudp
dpH ZF−mudp 2
1 + var(ĝik wi
) + j=1 E[|g̃ik
wj
|]

(40)

dpH ZF−mudp
Next we find the exact value of each term in (40). For the term E[ĝik
wi
] we have
Ki
h √
i
X
dpH ZF−mudp
dp dpH
−1 H
H
(41)
E[ĝik wi
]=
E tr
µim ĝim ĝik (IN − Ĝ−i (Ĝ−i Ĝ−i ) Ĝ−i )
m=1

=

Ki
X


 √
dp dpH
−1 H
Ĝ
)]
Ĝ
)
ĝik ]E[(IN − Ĝ−i (ĜH
tr E[ µim ĝim
−i
−i
−i

m=1

=

√

dp
µik γik



i √
h 
dp
H
−1 H
= µik γik
N − E tr Ĝ−i (Ĝ−i Ĝ−i ) Ĝ−i
(N − νi ).

Now let us consider the interference term due to imperfect CSI. We have
dpH ZF−mudp ZF−mudpH dp
dpH ZF−mudp 2
| ] =E[g̃ik
wj
wj
g̃ik ]
E[|g̃ik
wj

=(βik −

(42)

dp
γik
)tr(E[wjZF−mudp wjZF−mudpH ])

= (βik −

dp
γik
)

Kj
X

pdl
jt .

t=1

Now we need to calculate the variance term,
dpH ZF−mudp
dpH ZF−mudp 2
dpH ZF−mudp 2
var(ĝik
wi
) = E[|ĝik
wi
| ] − |E[ĝik
wi
]| .

(43)

dpH ZF−mudp 2
−1 H
| ] we have
Denote Ci = IN − Ĝ−i (ĜH
−i Ĝ−i ) Ĝ−i . For the term E[|ĝik wi
dpH ZF−mudp 2
E[|ĝik
wi
|]

=

dpH
E[ĝik
Ci

Ki
X
√

dp
µim ĝim

Ki
X
√
dp
µit ĝitdpH Ci ĝik
]

m=1

"
dp dpH
ĝik
ĝik Ci

= tr E
|

t=1

! #!

2 
√
dpH
dp
dp dpH
+ µik E ĝik Ci ĝik
µim µit ĝim ĝit Ci
m=1,m6=k t=1,t6=k
{z
}
{z
} |
Ki
X

Ki
X

(ii)

(i)

"
dp dpH
+ tr E ĝik
ĝik Ci

Ki
X
√

Ki
X

dp dpH
µik µit ĝik
ĝit +

√

!
dp dpH
µim µik ĝim
ĝik

#!
Ci

.

m=1,m6=k

t=1,t6=k

|

{z

}

(iii)

dp
Notice that (iii) is equal to zero due to the independency of ĝik
and ĝitdp ∀t 6= k, t ∈ Ki . The

term (i) reduces to
Ki
X
m=1,m6=k

=

dp
γik

Ki
X

i
 h
dp dpH
dp dpH
dp
µim tr E ĝik ĝik Ci ĝim ĝim Ci = γik

m=1,m6=k
Ki
X

m=1,m6=k

(a)
dp
µim γim
E [tr (Ci )] =

dp
γik

Ki
X
m=1,m6=k

pdl
im

 h
i
dp dpH
µim tr E Ci ĝim ĝim Ci

25

where in (a) we used the fact that N − νi = tr (Ci ). For the term (ii), denote

dp
ĝik

q
dp
= γik
ĥik

with ĥik ∼ CN (0, IN ), then we have


dp
2 
2 

pdl
dp 2
dpH
dp
ik γik
H
=
µik E ĝik Ci ĝik
= µik (γik ) E ĥik Ci ĥik
tr(Ci )2 + tr(C2i )
N − νi

(44)

dp
dl dp
= pdl
ik γik (N − νi ) + pik γik .
dp
dpH ZF−mudp
wi
) = γik
Therefore var(ĝik

PKi

m=1

pdl
im . Now, inserting (41), (42), and (43) into (40)

and utilizing that the pilot length is τpdp , the SE is obtained as given in (14).
A PPENDIX B - ACHIEVABLE SE WITH ZF- MUCP
Starting from (6) and applying (16) we have
p cp
G
G
G
X
X
τp pu βik X H ZF−mucp
(a)
cp
cp H
ZF−mucp
cpH
yik=(ĝik − g̃ik )
wj
sj +n = cp PKi iku
ĝi wj
sj −g̃ik
wjZF−mucpsj +n
τp
m=1 pim βim j=1
j=1
j=1
p cp
G
q
X
τp pu βik
cpH
= cp PKi ik u
pdl
γ
(N
−
G)
s
−
g̃
wjZF−mucp sj +n
(45)
i
i i
ik
|{z}
τp
p
β
im
m=1 im
j=1
|
{z
} x
|
{z
}
h

v

q

τpcp pujk βjk
cp
where in (a) we used ĝjk
ĝj . Now applying Lemma 1 considering h, x and
= cp PKj
u
τp
p
β
jk
k=1 jk
v as shown in (45), we obtain the effective SINR

SINRZF−mucp
ik

2 dl
pi γi (N − G)
τpcp puik βik
cp PKi
u
2
(τp
m=1 pim βim )
.
=
PG
cpH ZF−mucp 2
wj
|]
1 + j=1 E[|g̃ik

(46)

cpH ZF−mucp 2
In the above equation for the terms E[|g̃ik
wj
| ] we have
cpH ZF−mucp ZF−mucpH cp
cp cpH ZF−mucp ZF−mucpH
cpH ZF−mucp 2
wj
])
E[|g̃ik
wj
| ] = E[g̃ik
wj
wj
g̃ik ] = tr(E[g̃ik
g̃ik wj
(a)

cp cpH
= tr(E[g̃ik
g̃ik ]E[wjZF−mucp wjZF−mucpH ]) = (βik − γik )tr(E[wjZF−mucp wjZF−mucpH ])

= (βik − γik )E[wjZF−mucpH wjZF−mucp ] = (βik − γik )pdl
j

(47)

cp
where (a) is due to the fact that g̃ik
and ĝi are independent. Inserting (47) into (46) and noting

that the pilot length is τpcp , we obtain (18) for the SE of this UT.

26

A PPENDIX C - MMF PROBLEM FOR MRT- UNDP
First note that SINRMRT−undp
, given in Proposition 1, is monotonically increasing with respect
ik
dp
dp
to γik
, and also γik
is monotonically increasing with respect to puik . Therefore, the optimal value
2
τpdp putot
ik βik
dp∗
utot
u∗
u
. Now we prove that at the optimal solution
for pik is pik = pik and γik =
1 + τpdp putot
ik βik
SINRMRT−undp
= SINRMRT−undp
= Γ ∀k, t, i, j. Assume the contrary, i.e., that UT t in group
jt
ik

j has the minimum SINR and there exists a UT k in a group i with (i, k) 6= (j, t) such that
dl
SINRMRT−undp
> SINRMRT−undp
. Then one can improve SINRMRT−undp
by changing pdl
jt
jt
ik and pjt
ik
1 + βik P
MRT−undp
dl
.
− SINRMRT−undp
)
respectively to pdl
jt
ik − δ and pjt + δ, where 0 < δ < (SINRik
dp∗
N γik
MRT−undp
Note that this just changes the SINRik
and SINRMRT−undp
, and the other SINRs remain
jt

intact. By performing this process once (or repeating it multiple times, if we have multiple
UTs with same minimum SINR), we can increase the minimum SINR of the system, which
contradicts our optimality assumption. Hence at the optimal solution all the SINRs are equal.
Γ(1 + βik P )
Therefore, pdl∗
. Now by summing over all UTs in all groups and performing
ik =
dp∗
N γik
PG PKj 1+βjt P −1
some straightforward operations we can find Γ = N P
.
t=1 γ dp∗
j=1
jt

A PPENDIX D - MMF PROBLEM FOR ZF- MUDP
Starting from SINRZF−mudp
, given in Theorem 2, and similar to Appendix C we can show
ik
2
τpdp putot
ik βik
dp∗
utot
. Now we prove that
that the optimal value for puik is pu∗
=
p
and
γ
=
ik
ik
ik
1 + τpdp putot
β
ik
ik
at the optimal solution SINRZF−mudp
= SINRZF−mudp
= Γ ∀k, t, i, j. Assume the contrary,
jt
ik
i.e., that UT t in group j has the minimum SINR, and there exists a UT k in a group i with
dp∗ dl
(i, k) 6= (j, t) such that SINRZF−mudp
> SINRZF−mudp
. Denote aik = (N − νi )γik
pik and
jt
ik
P
Ki
dp∗
dp∗
dl
bik = 1 + γik
m=1 pim + P (βik − γik ). Then one can increase the minimum SINR of the
aik bjt − ajt bik
dl
, which contradicts
system by reducing pdl
ik to pik − δ, where 0 < δ <
dp∗
dp∗
bjt − ajt γik
(N − νi )γik
the assumption. Therefore at the optimal solution all UTs have the same SINR. Now consider
P i dl
UTs k and t in ith multicasting group. Let us denote Pidl = K
m=1 pim , then we have

Γi =

dp∗ dl
γik
pik
dp∗
dp∗ dl
Pi + P (βik − γik
)
1 + γik

=

γitdp∗ pdl
it
1 + γitdp∗ Pidl + P (βit − γitdp∗ )

(48)

with Γ = (N − νi )Γi . Hence we can write
pdl∗
ik =

Γ
1
βik
( dp∗ + Pidl + P dp∗ − P ).
(N − νi ) γik
γik

(49)

27

Summing over the downlink power of all UTs in group i and after some straightforward
P i
βik
1
operations we obtain Pidl = Γ∆i (N − νi − ΓKi )−1 , where ∆i = K
k=1 ( γ dp∗ + P dp∗ − P ).
ik
γik
PKi dl
N −νi
dl
Note that as ∀i ∈ G Pi ≥ 0 and k=1 Pi = Pdp = P , we have Γ < mini∈G { Ki }. Summing
over all groups downlink powers we have (29) and Γ can be found by solving it.
A PPENDIX E - MMF PROBLEM FOR MRT- MUCP
First we prove that at the optimal solution SINRMRT−mucp
= SINRMRT−mucp
∀t, k, i, j. Let us
it
jk
denote the user with the minimum SINR in ith group as kmini , i.e., kmini = arg mink∈Ki . Now
we prove that at the optimal solution of P 0 2 we have SINRMRT−mucp
= SINRMRT−mucp
∀i, j.
jkminj
ikmini
Assume the contrary, then ∃j, i ∈ G such that SINRMRT−mucp
> SINRMRT−mucp
. Now one
jkminj
ikmini
MRT−mucp
dl
dl
dl
−
can change pdl
j and pi respectively to pj − δ and pi + δ with 0 < δ < (SINRjkminj
1 + βjkminj P
and improve the minimum SINR of the system8 , which contradicts
SINRMRT−mucp
)
cp
ikmini
N γjkmin
j
our optimality assumption. Now we prove that at the optimal solution the SINR of all the

users within each group are the same, i.e., SINRMRT−mucp
= SINRMRT−mucp
∀k, t ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈
it
ik
G. Assume the contrary, ∃k, t ∈ Ki such that SINRMRT−mucp
> SINRMRT−mucp
. Then one
it
ik
u
u
can improve
PKi the uminimum SINR of this group by reducing pik to pik − δ, where 0 < δ <
cp
(1 + τp
m=1 pim βim )(1 + βik P )
(SINRMRT−cp
− SINRMRT−cp
). Hence at the optimal answer
cp 2
it
ik
dl
τp βik N pi
for group i we have
cp
γitcp
γik
=
∀t, k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G
(50)
Φi =
1 + βik P
1 + βit P
where Φi is a fixed number. Equivalently we have
2
puik βik
puit βit2
Υi =
=
∀k, t ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G
(51)
1 + βik P
1 + βit P
where Υi is a fixed constant. Considering the fact that SINRMRT−mucp
is strictly increasing with
ik

respect to puik and noting that puik ≤ putot
ik , the optimal uplink power will be equal to
1 + βik P
pu∗
Υi ∀k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G
(52)
ik =
2
βik
cp
N pdl
putot β 2
i τp
where Υi = mink∈Ki ik ik . Therefor SINRMRT−mucp
=
Υ
. As we
P i u
i
ik
1 + βik P
1 + τpcp K
p
β
im
m=1 im
already showed the SINR at the optimal point is equal among all UTs and we have Γ =
P i u∗
cp
SINRMRT−mucp
∀i, k. Hence we have pdl∗
= Γ(1 + τpcp K
i
ik
m=1 pim βim )/τp N Υi . Now summing
pdl∗
over all groups and employing the total available power constraint we achieve (32).
i
8

If we have multiple groups with equal value of minimum SINR, we can improve the minimum SINR of the system by

repeating the same procedure multiple times.

28

A PPENDIX F - MMF PROBLEM FOR ZF- MUCP
First we prove that at the optimal solution SINRZF−mucp
= SINRZF−mucp
∀t, k, i, j. Let us
it
jk
denote the user with the minimum SINR in ith group as kmini , i.e., kmini = arg mink∈Ki . Now
we prove that at the optimal solution SINRZF−mucp
= SINRZF−mucp
. Assume the contrary, then
jkminj
ikmini
dl
∃j, i ∈ G such that SINRZF−mucp
> SINRZF−mucp
. Now one can change pdl
j and pi respectively
jkminj
ikmini
cp
 1 + (βjkminj − γjkminj )P
ZF−mucp
ZF−mucp
dl
dl
and
to pj −δ and pi +δ with 0 < δ < SINRjkminj −SINRikmini
cp
(N − G)γjkmin
j
improve the minimum SINR of the system, which contradicts our optimality assumption. Now

we prove that at the optimal answer the SINR of all the UTs within each group are the same,
i.e., SINRZF−mucp
= SINRZF−mucp
∀k, t ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G. Assume the contrary, ∃k, t ∈ Ki such
it
ik
that SINRZF−mucp
> SINRZF−mucp
. Then one can improve the minimum SINR of this group by
it
ik
cp
1 + (βik − γik
)P
u
u
(SINRZF−mucp
− SINRZF−mucp
). Hence
reducing pik to pik − δ, where 0 < δ <
it
ik
dl
pi (N − G)
at the optimal answer the SINR of all users within group i are equal and we have
∆i =

cp
γitcp
γik
∀t, k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G.
=
cp
1 + (βik − γik
)P
1 + (βit − γitcp )P

(53)

cp
Equivalently we have γik
(1 + P βit ) = γitcp (1 + P βik ) ∀t, k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G. Therefore

Υi =

2
puik βik
puit βit2
=
∀t, k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G
1 + βik P
1 + βit P

(54)

where Υi is a fixed constant. Now note that it is exactly the same as (51) and hence the optimal
uplink powers are given as
pu∗
ik =

1 + βik P
Υi ∀k ∈ Ki , ∀i ∈ G
2
βik

(55)

2
putot
ik βik
. Using the above result and after straightforward calculation we
1 + βik P
cp
τp Υi
P i
1
obtain ∆i =
∀i ∈ G, where Ei = Ki Υi P + Υi K
. Since we proved
cp
m=1
1 + τp (Ei − P Υi )
βim
that the SINR is equal for all UTs, we have Γ = SINRZF−mucp
= (N − G)∆i pdl
i , where Γ is a
ik
Γ
fixed constant. Now, pdl
, and summing over all downlink powers and using the
i =
(N − G)∆i
total available power constraint we achieve (35) and (37) for the Γ and pdl∗
i , respectively.

where Υi = mink∈Ki

R EFERENCES
[1] M. Sadeghi, E. Björnson, E. G. Larsson, C. Yuen, and T. L. Marzetta, “Multigroup multicast precoding in massive MIMO,”
in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom), Singapore, Dec. 2017, submitted.
[2] Cisco Visual Networking Index, “Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2015 – 2020,” San Jose, CA, Tech. Rep., Feb.
2016.

29

[3] D. Lecompte and F. Gabin, “Evolved multimedia broadcast/multicast service (eMBMS) in LTE-advanced: Overview and
Rel-11 enhancements,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 68–74, Nov. 2012.
[4] G. Faria, J. A. Henriksson, E. Stare, and P. Talmola, “DVB-H: Digital broadcast services to handheld devices,” Proc. IEEE,
vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 194–209, Jan. 2006.
[5] M. El-Hajjar and L. Hanzo, “A survey of digital television broadcast transmission techniques,” IEEE Communications
Surveys Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1924–1949, Apr. 2013.
[6] N. D. Sidiropoulos, T. N. Davidson, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Transmit beamforming for physical-layer multicasting,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2239–2251, Jun. 2006.
[7] E. Karipidis, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Quality of service and max-min fair transmit beamforming to multiple
cochannel multicast groups,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1268–1279, Mar. 2008.
[8] D. Christopoulos, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Weighted fair multicast multigroup beamforming under per-antenna
power constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 19, pp. 5132–5142, Oct. 2014.
[9] Z. Xiang, M. Tao, and X. Wang, “Coordinated multicast beamforming in multicell networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 12–21, Jan. 2013.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,”
IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436–1449, Apr. 2013.
[13] M. Sadeghi, L. Sanguinetti, R. Couillet, and C. Yuen, “Large system analysis of power normalization techniques in
massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2017, to appear. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07183
[14] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. K. Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[15] F. Boccardi, R. W. Heath, A. Lozano, T. L. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.
[16] L. N. Tran, M. F. Hanif, and M. Juntti, “A conic quadratic programming approach to physical layer multicasting for
large-scale antenna arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 114–117, Jan. 2014.
[17] D. Christopoulos, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Multicast multigroup beamforming for per-antenna power constrained
large-scale arrays,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), Jun. 2015, pp. 271–275.
[18] M. Sadeghi, L. Sanguinetti, R. Couillet, and C. Yuen, “Reducing the computational complexity of multicasting in large-scale
antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2963–2975, May 2017.
[19] Z. Xiang, M. Tao, and X. Wang, “Massive MIMO multicasting in noncooperative cellular networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1180–1193, Jun. 2014.
[20] H. Zhou and M. Tao, “Joint multicast beamforming and user grouping in massive MIMO systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Commun. (ICC), London, Jun. 2015, pp. 1770–1775.
[21] M. Sadeghi and C. Yuen, “Multi-cell multi-group massive MIMO multicasting: An asymptotic analysis,” in Proc. IEEE
Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom), San Diego, CA, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[22] H. Yang, T. L. Marzetta, and A. Ashikhmin, “Multicast performance of large-scale antenna systems,” in 2013 IEEE 14th
Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), Jun. 2013, pp. 604–608.
[23] X. Gao, O. Edfors, F. Rusek, and F. Tufvesson, “Massive MIMO performance evaluation based on measured propagation
data,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3899–3911, Jul. 2015.

30

[24] E. Björnson, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta et al., “Massive MIMO: Ten myths and one critical question,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 114–123, Feb. 2016.
[25] H. Yang and T. L. Marzetta, “Performance of conjugate and zero-forcing beamforming in large-scale antenna systems,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 172–179, Feb. 2013.
[26] T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals of Massive MIMO. Cambridge University Press,
2016.
[27] J. Jose, A. Ashikhmin, T. L. 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.
[28] “Further advacement for E-UTRA physical layer aspectes (Release 9),” 3GPP TS 36.814, Tech. Rep., Mar. 2010.
[29] H. Q. Ngo and E. G. Larsson, “No downlink pilots are needed in TDD massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
2017, to appear. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02348
[30] X. Meng, X. Gao, and X.-G. Xia, “Omnidirectional precoding based transmission in massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 174–186, Jan. 2016.
[31] M. Karlsson and E. G. Larsson, “On the operation of massive MIMO with and without transmitter CSI,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), Jun. 2014, pp. 1–5.
[32] E. G. Larsson and H. V. Poor, “Joint beamforming and broadcasting in massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 3058–3070, Apr. 2016.

