1

RAF: Robust Adaptive Multi-Feedback Channel
Estimation for Millimeter Wave MIMO Systems

arXiv:1801.03619v1 [cs.IT] 11 Jan 2018

Sina Shaham, Matthew Kokshoorn, Zihuai Lin, Ming Ding
School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia
Email: {sina.shaham, matthew.kokshoorn, zihuai.lin}@sydney.edu.au, ming.ding@data61.csiro.au

Abstract—Millimeter wave is a promising technology for the
next generation of wireless systems. As it is well-known for its
high path loss, the systems working in this spectrum tend to
exploit the shorter wavelength to equip the transceivers with
a large number of antennas to overcome the path loss issue.
The large number of antennas leads to large channel matrices
and consequently a challenging channel estimation problem. The
channel estimation algorithms that have been proposed so far
either neglect the probability of estimation error or require
a high feedback overload from receivers to ensure the target
probability of estimation error. In this paper, we propose a
multi-stage adaptive channel estimation algorithm called robust
adaptive multi-feedback (RAF). The algorithm is based on using
the estimated channel coefficient to predict a lower bound for the
required number of measurements. Our simulations demonstrate
that compared with existing algorithms, RAF can achieve the
desired probability of estimation error while on average reducing
the feedback overhead by 75.5% and the total channel estimation
time by 14%.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Millimeter Wave (MMW) communication is one of the front
runner technologies for the next generation of wireless systems
[1], [2]. Due to its large bandwidth (30 to 300 GHz), MMW
communication enables transmissions of higher data rates. The
main challenge of MMW is the large propagation loss [3]. This
problem can be alleviated by exploiting the short wavelength
of MMW which enables transceivers to install a higher number
of antennas in the same space as traditional communication
systems [4]. However, having a larger antenna array results in
complexity of channel estimation.
The channel estimation in MMW differs from the traditional
communication systems. In order to reduce the effects of
comparably higher path loss, MMW systems can use the
shorter wavelength of the signal to equip the transceivers with
more antennas. This leads to large antenna arrays at both the
transmitter and receiver which makes it impractical to use a
dedicated RF chain for each of the antennas [2]. Hence, the
research in this area is mainly focused on analog beamforming
[5]. The principle idea behind this approach is to conduct
beamforming using phase shifters and benefit from a single
RF chain powering a series of antennas.
Recent measurements have demonstrated the sparse nature
of MMW communication channel [6]. Therefore, Channel
estimation is focused on finding three factors: angle of arrival
(AoA), angle of departure (AoD) and channel coefficient (α).
In [7], the authors developed a multi-stage channel estimation
algorithm. In each stage, AoA and AoD are divided into two

subspaces (K = 2), and the most likely subspaces are chosen
for further refinement in the next stage. The channel coefficient
is estimated after channel estimation is completed. Furthermore, the authors in [8] followed the same approach, but used
K = 3 and also considered the overlapped beam-patterns. One
major challenge is that if in any of the stages the estimated
angles are incorrect, then the estimation in the following stages
will also be incorrect due to the error propagation effect.
The authors in [9], developed a rate adaptive algorithm called
RACE to ensure that the probability of estimation error (PEE)
is below the desired threshold. Unfortunately, the algorithm
requires a large number of feedback bits, particularly in low
SNR regime.
In this paper, motivated by this problem, we propose a
new multi-stage adaptive algorithm called RAF in order to
address the issue of high feedback overhead. To construct a
benchmark to compare our algorithm, the minimum number
of feedback bits to achieve a certain PEE is derived. This
minimum number is verified by developing an algorithm to
achieve it. The algorithm is optimal in terms of feedback
overload, but it is not practical due to the high number of
channel measurements which increases the channel estimation
time. We show via simulations that the RAF algorithm can
improve the feedback performance by 75.5% and reduce
the overall channel estimation time by 14% on average. In
low SNR regime, the improvement in channel estimation
time is as high as 30%. Another novelty of RAF is that in
contrary to the prior works which neglected the importance
of channel coefficient (α), RAF exploits the estimation of α
and determine an optimal number of feedback bits from the
receiver. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time
that a channel estimation algorithm is proposed based on the
estimated channel coefficient.
Notation : We use capital bold-face letter (A) to denote
a matrix, a to denote a vector, a to denote a scalar, and
A denotes a set. The notation |a| is the absolute value of
a, ||A|| is the magnitude of A and determinant is shown
by det(A). Moreover, AT , AH and A∗ are the transpose,
conjugate transpose and conjugate of A, respectively. For a
square matrix A, A−1 represents its inverse. Also, I N is the
N × N identity matrix and ⌈·⌉ denotes the ceiling function. A
complex Gaussian random vector with mean m and covariance
matrix R is shown by CN (m, R), and E[a] and Cov[a] denote
the expected value and covariance of a, respectively.

2

II. S YSTEM M ODEL

III. C HANNEL

We consider a MMW communication system consisting of
a receiver (RX) with Nr antennas and a transmitter (TX) with
Nt antenna. A single RF chain is assumed at each node, but
our results could be applied to multiple data streams using
hybrid beamforming [7]. The channel estimation between the
RX and TX is based on the transmission of pilots. The pilots
are assumed to have a unit power and occupy one time slot. If
Nt × 1 beamformer f is applied to transmit pilot x (|x| = 1),
the transmitted signal can be written as
s = f x.

(1)

We adopt a narrowband block-fading channel model for the
communication system. Hence, at the receiver we observe
r = Hf x + n,

(2)

where H is Nr × Nt matrix representing the channel between
the RX and TX, and n is additive white Gaussian process
noise (AWGN) assumed to be circularly symmetric with zero
mean and variance N0 (n ∼ CN (0, N0 I)). At the RX, the
1 × Nr combining vector w is applied to receive the signal r.
Therefore, the processed received signal can be written as
y = wH Hf x + wH n.

(3)

MMW communication is assumed to be sparse [10]. Therefore, we assume that L paths exist between the RX and TX.
Using this model, the channel matrix is given by
L
X
p
H = Nt Nr
αl ar (θl )aH
t (φl ),

(4)

l=1

with the index l indicating the l-th propagation path. The
complex channel coefficient is denoted by αl and the angles
θl , φl are the azimuth AoAs and AoDs. The extension to
3D is straightforward [11]. At last, ar (θl ) and aH
t (φl ) are
the receiver and transmitter antenna array response vectors,
respectively. Following [7], we assume the response vectors
to be uniform linear arrays (ULA). Hence, they are expressed
as
2π
1
2π
ar (θl ) = √ [1, e−j λ d cos θl , ..., e−j(Nr −1) λ d cos θl ]T (5)
Nr
2π
2π
1
at (φl ) = √ [1, e−j λ d cos φl , ..., e−j(Nt −1) λ d cos φl ]T ,
Nt
(6)

where λ and d denote the carrier wavelength and the antenna spacing, respectively. Exploiting sparsity characteristic
of MMW communication, the channel estimation algorithm
to be presented in the following section can be applied to
different paths separately [7], [9]. Therefore, we focus on
reducing the channel estimation feedback bits from the RX,
ensuring the desired PEE in a single path. Hence, the channel
matrix is simplified to
p
(7)
H = Nt Nr αl ar (θ)aH
t (φ).

ESTIMATION

Extending the approach in [7], during each stage, possible
AoAs and AoDs are divided into K sub-spaces creating
K 2 combination. The target path is located in one of the
candidate pairs of angle sub-spaces and will be estimated.
After estimating the sub-spaces, they are further divided into
another K sub-spaces. The process continues until the AoD
and AoA reach the specified resolution. In the s-th stage, the
beamforming vectors at the TX and RX for the k-th sub-space
are represented by f sk and wsk . To simplify the explanation,
we assume that the TX and RX have the same number of
antennas (Nt = Nr = N ). Therefore, the number of stages
2π
required for the resolution
is equal to ⌈logK (N )⌉. The
N
estimation procedure of sub-spaces is explained below.
The pilot signal (|x| = 1) is sent in each of the K 2 transmitter and receiver angle combinations where each combination
corresponds to one AoA candidate at the receiver and one
AoD candidate at the transmitter. Therefore, the system can
be represented as
√
2
2
2
(8)
y s,K = P xhs,K + ns,K ,
where p is the transmit power, superscripts represent the stage
number and number of measurements, n is K 2 × 1 vector
of
2
i.i.d white Gaussian noise random variables, and hs,K is a
vector containing the channel response to all the combinations
of transmit and receive beamforming vectors,


(w s1 )H Hf s1
 (w s2 )H Hf s1 




..


.


2
s 
s,K
s H

(9)
h
=  (w 1 ) Hf 2  .
 (w s2 )H Hf s2 




..


.
(w sK )H Hf sK
In order to find the desired beamforming vectors, the dictionary matrix of all the possible steering vectors for the angles
is defined as
2π
2π(N − 1)
ADIC = [a(0), a( ), . . . , a(
)].
(10)
N
N
Finding the beamforming vector for the kth sub-range at the
TX is performed by computing
s,k
s
AH
DIC f k = z i ,

z s,k
i

=



Cs , if i2π
N is in the subrange
0, elsewhere

(11)
(12)

where Cs is a constant that is chosen to make the magnitude
of the beamforming vectors equal to one (kf k = 1 ). From
equation (11), f sk is calculated as
−1
f sk = (ADIC AH
ADIC z s,k .
DIC )

(13)

The same procedure is used to find the beamforming vectors
of the RX. After K 2 measurement, the RX will compare the
magnitude of K 2 received pilots and choose the one with
the largest magnitude which is the desired path. In other

3

words, we estimate the AoD (kˆt ) and AoA (kˆr ) based on the
corresponding pilot.
IV. F EEDBACK

REDUCTION ALGORITHMS ENSURING

PEE

In this section, first, we introduce the sparse representation
of the communication system. Next, we explain the maximum
likelihood detection (MLD) method which is used in the
algorithms for channel estimation. Then, the optimal number
of feedback is explained, and finally, the RAF algorithm is
presented.

A new matrix GM at its initial state is defined as
2

(w sK )H Hf sK

s
(w sK )H ar (θ)aH
t (φ)f K
(15)
s
(φ)f
The multiplication of (ws1 )H ar (θ) and aH
is
only
nont
1
zero if the AoA and AoD are aligned to the beamforming
2
vectors. Therefore, only one row of hs,K is non-zero. Finding
the AoA and AoD is equivalent to finding a K 2 × 1 vector
v which is zero everywhere except the desired row of GM
2
where it is equal to one. Hence, hs,K and the observation
vector can be written as

hs,K = xN Cs2 αGM v T

(16)

y M = xN Cs2 αGM v T + nM .

(17)

Assuming element d of v is one, the estimated AoA (k̂t ) and
AoD (k̂r ) are calculated by
d
⌉, k̂r = d − K(k̂t − 1).
(18)
K
The new presentation of the system indicates that the possible
outcomes of the channel estimation are equivalent to the rows
of matrix GM .
k̂t = ⌈

B. Maximum Likelihood Detection (MLD)
In our algorithms, the MLD method will be used for the
estimation of AoA and AoD. In this section, the method is
described. After M measurement, the distribution of observation vector y M can be written as
y M = CN (0, Σv ),

(20)

We refer to [8] for the derivation. It can be seen that the received vector follows circularly symmetric complex Gaussian
(CSCG) distribution which has the distribution of
f (yM |v, GM ) =
1
M
exp(−(y M )H Σ−1
2
M y ).
K
π det(Σv )

(21)

(14)

The index M used in the notation denotes the number of
measurements. After initial channel estimation, M is equal
to K 2 . Substituting equation (7) into (9), we have



s 
(ws1 )H Hf s1
(ws1 )H ar (θ)aH
t (φ)f 1
s 
 (ws2 )H Hf s1 
 (ws2 )H ar (θ)aH
t (φ)f 1 







..
..




.
.




2
s,K
s 
s 
s H
s H
H


h
=  (w1 ) Hf 2  = N α  (w1 ) ar (θ)at (φ)f 2 
s 
 (ws2 )H Hf s2 
 (ws2 )H ar (θ)aH
t (φ)f 2 







..
..




.
.

2

Σv = P N 2 Cs4 GM vv T (GM )H + N0 I M .

In order to get a better understanding of the probability density
function, it is useful to see them in terms of probability.
Defining the set V as all possible K 2 outcomes of the vector
v, the probability can be written as

A. A sparse representation of the system

GM = GK = IK×K ,

where

(19)

f (y M |v)
p(v|y M ) = P
.
f (y M |w)

(22)

w∈V

C. Optimal number of feedback to achieve the PEE
In order to have a benchmark to compare the RAF algorithm’s feedback performance, we need to know what the
optimal number of feedback bits is. Note that the number has
to ensure the desired PEE. In other words, we are looking
for the minimum implementable feedback bits number from
the RX that guarantees the desired PEE. From information
theory, we know that the minimum number is one with a
single feedback including ⌈log2 (K)⌉ bits [12]. We verify that
this number is actually achievable by developing an algorithm
which only needs ⌈log2 (K)⌉ bits feedback. The cost of having
the optimal number of feedback bits is a large number of
channel measurements. Therefore, this algorithm is just used
as a benchmark and can not be a good alternative in practice.
We denote Γ as the probability of the event that a channel
estimation is incorrect. The algorithm starts by having the
initial K 2 measurements which result in the primary channel
estimation. The TX continues to send the pilots using the same
sequence as the initial measurements. After each transmission,
using MLD the RX calculates p(v|y M ). As soon as reaching
the desired PEE (p(v|y M ) > (1 − Γ)) the RX will feedback
⌈log2 (K)⌉ bits to notify the TX about the estimated AoD. The
process of adding a new measurement is written mathematically as


√
hM
M+1
y
= Px
(wsM/K )H Hf s mod (M+1,K)+1
 (23)

n(M)
,
+
(w sM/K )H n
where n is the noise on the (M + 1)-th measurement. Note
that there is always a probability of ‘outage’ when the channel
coefficient is close to zero. In order to prevent the excessive
number of measurement, we set a maximum to the number
of pilots which can be transmitted denoted by Mmax . The
complete flowchart of the algorithm is given in Fig. 1.

4

[12]
K2
≤ log2 (1 + SN R)
M
K2
→M ≥
,
log2 (1 + SN R)

C=

(24)
(25)

where SN Rs (in stage s) can be written as
SN Rs =

|α|2 P K (2s−2)
.
N0

(26)

Substituting equation (26) in (25), a lower bound can be
found for the number of measurements that are required in
each stage on condition of the estimated value of α. After
M measurements (M ≥ K 2 ), if the mean of observations
received in the estimated AoA and AoD are denoted by Y M ,
the value of α can be estimated as
YM
.
α̂ = √
P N Cs2

Fig. 1. Flow Diagram of an algorithm which requires the optimal number of
feedback bits.

D. Robust adaptive multi-feedback algorithm (RAF)
Multi-stage channel estimation algorithms are mainly based
on a fixed number of channel estimation. As an example,
authors in [7] used K 2 measurements in each stage to estimate
the channel. Although the proposed algorithms are effective,
they did not derive the performance in terms of the PEE.
If due to the additive noise, the detection of the estimated
AoA and AoD is incorrect in any of the stages, the algorithms
will not be able to estimate the channel correctly. Therefore,
devising an algorithm to ensure the PEE is crucial. Authors
in [9], proposed a rate adaptive algorithm (RACE) in order to
reach the desired PEE. Unfortunately, the algorithm requires
a large number of feedback bits even for K = 2, particularly
in low SNR. We propose the RAF algorithm. In contrary to
the existing algorithms, RAF exploits the estimated channel
coefficient. As it will be illustrated, the significance of using
channel coefficient is the entailed information about the number of measurements required for the channel estimation. This
helps to estimate the time to commence sending the feedback
bits from the receiver. The algorithm requires a low feedback
overload and pilot transmissions.
Before explaining the algorithm we use information theory
to find a lower bound for the number of measurements. The
channel estimation is equivalent to finding a vector v which
contains K 2 binary bits encoded into M (number of pilots
transmitted) symbols. Therefore, the system has a transmission
K2
. According to the Shannon-Hartley theorem
rate of C =
M

(27)

Therefore, we have a lower bound for the number of measurements required.
In each stage, the algorithm starts by conducting K 2 initial
channel measurements. The MLD enables the system to have
an estimation of the AoA and AoD which can be used to
estimate the value of channel coefficient (α). Having the
estimated α, the receiver can predict a lower bound for the
required number of measurements. Up to the point of reaching
the PEE threshold, the TX continues to send the pilots as
explained in the optimal feedback algorithm. As the pilots are
accumulated, the same process of MLD is used to achieve
a better estimation of α which results in obtaining a more
accurate lower bound. After reaching the PEE threshold, the
RX feeds back the estimated AoD. At this point, the TX stops
sending the pilots in the order of initial channel estimation
and only sends a pilot in the estimated AoD. The RX knows
the estimated AoA and utilizes the corresponding combiner to
receive the pilot. Following the same process after receiving
each pilot, the RX estimates the AoA and AoD and feeds
back the estimated AoD. This procedure is terminated as soon
as the required estimation precision is reached. In the final
transmission of feedback, an extra bit will be transmitted to
notify the transmitter to stop the transmission of pilot signals.
The flowchart of RAF algorithm is shown in Fig. 2.
V.

SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this section, we show numerical results to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The system is
assumed to have N = 64 antennas at both the TX and
RX. The channel coefficient is assumed to follow a Gaussian
distribution with zero mean and unit covariance (CN (0, 1)).
Since the algorithm follows the same process in each stage,
we compare the results of the different algorithms in a single
stage. The results can be scaled for all of the stages. In order
to compare the results to [7] and [9], we use K = 2. The
target PEE is set to 10−2 . Finally, the maximum number of
measurements is set to Mmax = 264 for all the algorithms.

5

Probability of Estimation Error (PEE)

100
Fixed Rate Algorithm
RACE Algorithm
RAF Algorithm

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4
-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

P/N0 (dB)

Fig. 3. Performance of the RAF algorithm compared to the algorithms in [9]
and [7] in terms of PEE.

Fig. 2. Flow Diagram of the Proposed RAF Algorithm.

A. PEE performance and its comparison to prior work
Fig. 3 represents the probability of estimation error for
different signal to noise ratios. The results are compared to two
prior work [7] and [9]. In [7], the authors were only concerned
with the channel estimation. As it can be seen from Fig. 3,
the algorithm can not ensure that the probability of estimation
error stays below the threshold. This algorithm is used as a
baseline in this figure. The main comparison is between [9]
and our work. The figure indicates that both algorithms achieve
the desired PEE. Note that there is always a probability of
outage in the system. That is the reason why in low SNR
the PEE is over the predetermined threshold. The difference
between the achieved PEE of the two algorithms is negligible.
B. Overall channel estimation time and its comparison to
prior work
Each pilot transmission requires one time slot. On the other
hand, each feedback also consists of one bit of information
transmitted in one time slot. Therefore, the overall time of
the channel estimation is the sum of these two numbers. In
order to evaluate the overall performance, these two factors
need to be studied. Recall that the algorithms are ensuring
the PEE in addition to channel estimation. Here, we see how
the RAF algorithm significantly decreases the overall channel
estimation time.
We compare our results in terms of the feedback overhead
and number of pilot transmissions (measurements) with prior
work in [9]. Fig. 4 explains the performance of the algorithms

for the number of feedback bits they need. It can be seen
that the RAF algorithm requires a significantly low number of
feedback. The average feedback bits required is almost as low
as the optimal number. The difference between the algorithms
becomes obvious particularly in low SNR regime. In terms
of the number of pilot transmission, the RAF algorithm
demonstrates a slightly higher performance (Fig. 5).
The trade-off between the number of measurements and
feedback overhead is explained in Fig. 6. It is clear to see that
the reduction in feedback bits is much higher than the increase
of pilot transmissions required for the channel estimation.
On average, the feedback reduction is 75.5%, whereas the
increase in the number of measurement is only 34.4%. The
overall time of the channel estimation in each stage of the
algorithms is shown in Fig. 7. This figure illustrates the
superior performance of the RAF algorithm. On average, from
SNR of -15dB to 15dB, the performance improves by 14%.
At low SNRs, the difference is more significant. For instance,
in an SNR of -15dB, the overall time required for the channel
estimation is 30% reduced using the RAF algorithm.
VI.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, a robust adaptive multi-stage algorithm called
’RAF’ was proposed to reduce the high overhead of channel
estimation feedback in the existing algorithms. The RAF
algorithm exploits the estimation of channel coefficient to find
a lower bound for the number of measurements. Hence, it is
able to predict when to start the feedback transmission which
results in a significant reduction of feedback overhead. The
simulation results indicate that the algorithm reduces the time
required for the channel estimation On average by 14% and
the feedback overhead by 75.5%.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, R. Mayzus, H. Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang, G. N.
Wong, J. K. Schulz, M. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez, “Millimeter wave
mobile communications for 5g cellular: It will work!” IEEE Access,
vol. 1, pp. 335–349, 2013.

6

100

140
Optimal Feedback
RACE Algorithm
RAF Algorithm

Decrease in Feedback
Increase in Number of Measurement

90
80

100

70

Percentage

Average Number of Feedbacks

120

80

60

60
50
40
30

40

20
20
10
0
-15

0
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-15

-10

-5

P/N0 (dB)

Fig. 4. Feedback performance of the RAF algorithm compared to [9] and the
optimal number of feedbacks.

10

15

300
RACE Algorithm
RAF Algorithm

180

Total time slots required for the channel estimation

Average Total Number of Channel Measurements

5

Fig. 6. Change in the performance of the RAF algorithm in comparison with
[9]. The graph explains the trade-off between the rise in the average number
of measurements and feedback reduction.

200

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-15

0

P/N0 (dB)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

P/N0 (dB)

Fig. 5. Performance of the RAF algorithm compared to the algorithm in [9]
in terms of the average number of measurements required in each stage.

[2] Z. Pi and F. Khan, “An introduction to millimeter-wave mobile broadband systems,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 6, pp.
101–107, June 2011.
[3] H. Zhang, S. Venkateswaran, and U. Madhow, “Channel modeling
and mimo capacity for outdoor millimeter wave links,” in 2010 IEEE
Wireless Communication and Networking Conference, April 2010, pp.
1–6.
[4] R. W. Heath, N. González-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M. Sayeed, “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave
mimo systems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, April 2016.
[5] J. Wang, Z. Lan, C. W. Pyo, T. Baykas, C. S. Sum, M. A. Rahman,
R. Funada, F. Kojima, I. Lakkis, H. Harada, and S. Kato, “Beam
codebook based beamforming protocol for multi-gbps millimeter-wave
wpan systems,” in GLOBECOM 2009 - 2009 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, Nov 2009, pp. 1–6.
[6] G. R. MacCartney and T. S. Rappaport, “73 ghz millimeter wave
propagation measurements for outdoor urban mobile and backhaul communications in new york city,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), June 2014, pp. 4862–4867.
[7] A. Alkhateeb, O. E. Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Channel
estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,”
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 8, no. 5, pp.

RACE Algorithm
RAF Algorithm

250

200

150

100

50

0
-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

P/N0 (dB)

Fig. 7. Comparison of the time required for the channel estimation in each
stage.

831–846, Oct 2014.
[8] M. Kokshoorn, H. Chen, P. Wang, Y. Li, and B. Vucetic, “Millimeter
wave mimo channel estimation using overlapped beam patterns and rate
adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 3, pp.
601–616, Feb 2017.
[9] M. Kokshoorn, H. Chen, Y. Li, and B. Vucetic, “Race: A rate adaptive
channel estimation approach for millimeter wave mimo systems,” in
2016 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec
2016, pp. 1–6.
[10] R. W. Heath, N. González-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. M. Sayeed, “An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave
mimo systems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 436–453, April 2016.
[11] O. E. Ayach, S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, Z. Pi, and R. W. Heath,
“Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave mimo systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499–
1513, March 2014.
[12] C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” The Bell
System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, July 1948.

