1

FDD Massive MIMO: Efficient Downlink
Probing and Uplink Feedback via Active Channel
Sparsification

arXiv:1710.07993v1 [cs.IT] 22 Oct 2017

Mahdi Barzegar Khalilsarai∗ , Saeid Haghighatshoar∗ , Xinping Yi† , Giuseppe Caire∗
∗ Communications and Information Theory Group, Technische Universität Berlin
† Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool
Emails: ∗ {m.barzegarkhalilsarai, saeid.haghighatshoar, caire}@tu-berlin.de, † xinping.yi@liverpool.ac.uk

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a novel method for
efficient implementation of a massive Multiple-Input MultipleOutput (massive MIMO) system with Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) operation. Our main objective is to reduce the
large overhead incurred by Downlink (DL) common training
and Uplink (UL) feedback needed to obtain channel state
information (CSI) at the base station. Our proposed scheme
relies on the fact that the underlying angular distribution
of a channel vector, also known as the angular scattering
function, is a frequency-invariant entity yielding a UL-DL
reciprocity and has a limited angular support. We estimate
this support from UL CSI and interpolate it to obtain the
corresponding angular support of the DL channel. Finally we
exploit the estimated support of the DL channel of all the users
to design an efficient channel probing and feedback scheme
that maximizes the total spectral efficiency of the system. Our
method is different from the existing compressed-sensing (CS)
based techniques in the literature. Using support information
helps reduce the feedback overhead from O(s log M ) in CS
techniques to O(s) in our proposed method, with s and M
being sparsity order of the channel vectors and the number
of base station antennas, respectively. Furthermore, in order
to control the channel sparsity and therefore the DL common
training and UL feedback overhead, we introduce the novel
concept of active channel sparsification. In brief, when the
fixed pilot dimension is less than the required amount for
reliable channel estimation, we introduce a pre-beamforming
matrix that artificially reduces the effective channel dimension
of each user to be not larger than the DL pilot dimension,
while maximizing both the number of served users and the
number of probed angles. We provide numerical experiments
to assess the performance of our method and compare it with
the state-of-the-art CS technique.
Index Terms—FDD massive MIMO, training and feedback
overhead, sparse angular scattering function, active channel
sparsification.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive base station (BS) antenna arrays (massive MIMO)
promise huge improvements in a variety of aspects, including data rate, reliability, energy efficiency and interference reduction in wireless networks [1]. Realizing massive
MIMO with Time Division Duplexing (TDD) operation is
convenient, due to the inherent Uplink-Downlink (UL-DL)
channel reciprocity [2]. In contrast, channel reciprocity does
not hold in Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) operation,
since UL and DL take places in different bands, which
are separated by much more than the fading coherence
bandwidth. Therefore, the UL channel state information
(CSI) can not be used for DL data transmission, so that the

BS has to probe the DL channel via training and ask for
CSI feedback from the users. Both the DL training and UL
feedback impose huge overheads, particularly in massive
MIMO systems. For example, by conventional orthogonal
training the BS needs T ≥ M pilot symbols to train M
antennas and since M  1, the BS may lack enough signal
dimensions even for training the channel. In addition, we
have a similar problem in UL, where the users have to
feedback the high-dimensional CSI, which will consume a
large part of the available UL signal dimensions.
Despite these issues, FDD massive MIMO systems are
still desirable because most of the current wireless networks are based on FDD and FDD systems show a better
performance in scenarios with symmetric traffic and delaysensitive applications [3, 4]. In recent years numerous techniques have been proposed to reduce the DL training and
UL feedback overhead in FDD massive MIMO systems.
Some of these techniques rely on code-book based CSI
quantization and fall in two categories: the designs based
on time correlation of the channel vectors [5, 6] and the
designs based on spatial correlation of the channel vectors
[3, 7–9]. Other techniques are based on exploiting the lowrank or sparse structures to reduce DL training overhead,
since in a massive MIMO scenario, the received signal from
a user at the BS consists of a few multi-path components
with a limited Angle of Arrival (AoA) support, resulting in
a sparse representation. Compressed sensing (CS) methods
leverage this structure to recover the channel vector at
the user side, from a handful of measurements received
during DL channel probing. An important example of these
methods is presented in [4]. In this work, the user channels
are estimated via running a Joint Orthogonal Matching
Pursuit (J-OMP) algorithm on the compressed channel measurements collected from all users, achieving a considerable
reduction in the feedback overhead. In [10], compressed
channel feedback methods for spatially correlated channels
are proposed by introducing a sparsifying dictionary for the
channel vector based on Karhunen-Loève transform (KLT).
A dictionary-learning based approach for sparse channel
modeling is presented in [11]. Exploiting angular UL-DL
reciprocity, this work proposes a joint UL-DL sparsifying
dictionary which allows for compressed channel estimation
with much fewer measurements.
In this paper we focus on the UL-DL angular reciprocity,
which is characterized in terms of a continuous, frequencyinvariant angular scattering function, modeling the density

2

of the power received from the user in the AoA domain.
We make the key observation that although the channel
vectors in the UL and DL are statistically independent from
each other, thus, the channel reciprocity in the traditional
sense does not hold, we still have a type of reciprocity
due to the fact that the angular scattering function is
the same for UL and DL transmission. We refer to this
feature as the reciprocity of the angular scattering function.
This is a manifestation of the angular reciprocity which
is already known and exploited in the literature [11–13],
expressed in more general terms since we do not assume
necessarily discrete, seperable angles, but a continuum of
AoAs. This is important because explicit superresolution
angle estimation (such as the one presented in [12]) would
fail in the presence of a continuous angular scattering
function, while our method works regardless of the shape of
the angular scattering function. We exploit the reciprocity
of this function to derive the DL channel support given
UL channel observations. This information helps us to
estimate the DL channel using far fewer measurements
even compared to CS based methods, in the order of the
maximum angular sparsity of DL channel vectors. This
results in a huge reduction in the necessary DL training
dimension and UL feedback overhead.
In general, when the number of DL pilot dimensions
is less than the channel sparsity (number of significant
coefficients in the angular basis with respect to which the
channel is sparse), any estimation technique yields a very
large estimation error. Here, we also propose a method to
partially estimate all DL channel vectors even with a very
small pilot dimension. This method is referred to as active
channel sparsification and is obtained by introducing a prebeamforming (pre-BF) matrix, which can be optimized such
that the effective channel dimension of any user is not larger
than the DL pilot dimension, so that all effective channels
can be estimated, while the overall number of probed (and
eventually served) users and signal space dimension are
maximized. Active channel sparsification is done using a
linear integer programming (ILP) optimization problem,
which can be solved using off-the-shelf solvers such as
MATLAB.
We denote vectors by boldface small letters (e.g. x),
matrices by boldface capital letters (e.g. X), scalars by
non-boldface letters (e.g. x or X), and sets by calligraphic
letters (e.g. X ). The ith element of a vector x and the
(i, j)th element of a matrix X will be denoted by [x]i
and [X]i,j . For a matrix X, we denote its ith row and j th
column with the row vector Xi,. and the column vector
X.,j , respectively. We use the shorthand notation [k] to
denote the set of integers {1, ..., k}. For arguments that
are intervals over the real line, | · | returns the length of the
interval and for arguments that are discrete sets, it returns
the cardinality of the set. We always denote the identity
matrix of order p with Ip .
II. S YSTEM S ETUP
We consider the geometry-based stochastic channel model
(GSCM), which consists of clusters of multipath components (MPCs) and visibility regions (VRs) as its building
blocks. An MPC cluster is generated by the reflection

Fig. 1: A sketch of MPC clusters and visibility regions in
a propagation environment.
of signal from objects in the environment. A visibility
region represents the region over which the signal from a
user can reach the BS by propagating through a particular
MPC cluster. Fig. 1 illustrates a sketch of the described
model. By adopting GSCM one can assume that the channel
scattering geometry for a user is piecewise time invariant,
since moving across a VR occurs in time scales much larger
than moving across one wave-length. Hence we focus on
this piecewise stationary situation and consider the channel
model for a fixed scattering geometry.
Consider a BS equipped with a uniform linear array
(ULA) of M  1 antennas and a user with a single
antenna. Fig. 2a illustrates an example of the propagation
geometry for a single user along with the array formation.
During UL, the signal is received at the BS through a
continuum of AoAs and for a time-frequency resource
block it can be written as r = ȟul x + n, where
Z
ȟul :=
ρul (θ)aul (θ)dθ ∈ CM
(1)
Θ

denotes the UL channel vector, where Θ := [−θmax , θmax )
is the angular range scanned by the BS array, where x ∈ C
is the transmitted UL pilot symbol of the user along the
channel vector ȟul , which typically belongs to a signal
constellation such as QAM, where n ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM ) is
the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) of the antenna
elements, and where aul (θ) ∈ CM is the UL array response
at AoA θ, whose `th component is given by [aul (θ)]` =
2π
ej c ful `d sin θ , where ful , c and d are the carrier frequency
over the UL band, the speed of light, and the antenna
spacing, respectively. In (1), ρul (θ) denotes a complex,
circularly symmetric, zero-mean, Gaussian random process
representing the random gain of the scatterers at different
AoAs. This random process is completely characterized by
its second order statistics.

E[ρul (θ)ρ∗ul (θ0 )] = γ(θ)δ(θ − θ0 ),

(2)

where γ(θ) is the angular scattering function, which represents the received signal energy density as a function of
the AoA. Fig. 2b illustrates the angular scattering function
corresponding to the geometry presented in Fig. 2a. Since
the MPC clusters occupy only a limited portion of the
angular range, γ(θ) has a limited support, denoted by Xγ :=
{θ : γ(θ) 6= 0}. As a result, as we will show, the channel

3

2π

(M − 1)d •

[adl (θ)]` = ej c `dfdl sin θ denotes the array response in
DL with fdl being the DL carrier frequency. Note that
the generating Gaussian process of the DL channel, i.e.
ρdl (θ), has the same statistics as its UL counterpart ρul (θ).
Defining the vector of Fourier coefficients for the DL
hdl := FH ȟdl we have that E{hdl } =
Rchannel vector by
H
E {ρdl (θ)} F adl (θ)dθ
Θ

R = 0 and the vector of variances
is given by vdl = diag Θ γ(θ)FH adl (θ)adl (θ)H Fdθ and
2
R
sin(πψ
(θ)M )
1
[vdl ]i = M
γ(θ) sin(πψdl,i
dθ. Here ψdl,i (θ) :=
Θ
dl,i (θ))

MPC 1

4d •

Θ1

User

3d •
2d •
Θ2

d•

MPC 2

0•

sin θ − Mi + 21 with the only difference being the
different carrier frequency in DL. In a similar fashion the
support set in DL is given by
d
c fdl

(a)
γ(θ)

Sdl = {i ∈ [M ] : Idl,i ∩ Xγ 6= ∅},

−θmax

Θ2

Θ1

1
}. With the same reasonwhere Idl,i = {θ : |ψdl,i (θ)| ≤ M
ing as before, hdl has a block-sparse structure. Having an
estimate of the DL support helps the BS to probe the DL
channel with much fewer measurements. Hence, our idea
is to estimate the DL support set Sdl for each user using
its UL pilot signals as described in the next section.

θmax

(b)

Fig. 2: (a) An example of the propagation geometry. (b) The
angular scattering function corresponding to the example
geometry in (a).
vectors generated by this angular scattering function are approximately sparse in the Fourier basis. Let hul := FH ȟul
be the vector of Fourier coefficients for ȟul , where F ∈
CM ×M is the DFT matrix whose (k, `) element is given by
2π
M
[F]k,` := √1M ej M k(`− 2 ) . We show that only a few entries
in
variance. First note that E{hul } =
R hul have a significant
H
E
{ρ
(θ)}
F
a
(θ)dθ
= 0. The variance of each
ul
ul
Θ
component in hul is given byR the corresponding component

in the vector vul = diag Θ γ(θ)FH aul (θ)aul (θ)H Fdθ .
By a simple calculation one can show that
[vul ]i =

1
M

Z
γ(θ)
Θ

sin (πψul,i (θ)M )
sin (πψul,i (θ))

2

dθ,

(3)

where we have defined ψul,i (θ) := dc ful sin θ − Mi + 12 .
)
The function DM (ψ) := sin(πψM
sin(πψ) is the Dirichlet ker2
nel with parameter M and as we know |DM (ψ)| has
a significant magnitude only for |ψ| ≤ 1/M , hence
sin(πψul,i (θ)M )
sin(πψul,i (θ))

2

is non-negligible only for those angles
1
, i.e. for θ ∈ Iul,i , where
θ for which |ψul,i (θ)| ≤ M
1
Iul,i = {θ : |ψul,i (θ)| ≤ M
}. From this observation
and (3) we conclude that the ith element in hul has
significant variance if and only if Iul,i ∩ Xγ 6= ∅ and since
|Iul,i | ≈ O(1/M ), the vector hul has significant variance
only for a small set of indices i. We denote this set by the
support set Sul and define it as
Sul = {i ∈ [M ] : Iul,i ∩ Xγ 6= ∅}.

(5)

(4)

Furthermore, since the support of γ(θ) consists of intervals
over the real line corresponding to MPC clusters, we expect
hul to have a block-sparse structure. In other words, the
non-zero elements in hul come in clusters.
The DL channel vector
can be described in a simR
ilar way by ȟdl := Θ ρdl (θ)adl (θ)dθ ∈ CM , where

III. D OWNNLINK S UPPORT E STIMATION
We assume that the channel is approximately constant
across a resource block of Nc = ∆fc ×∆tc time-frequency
tiles. We call each tile a signal dimension. The BS or the
users devote a part of these Nc signal dimensions to channel
probing via pilot transmission and the remaining for data
communication. Now, let assume that during UL each user
sends L pilot symbols {xi }L
i=1 through L signal dimensions
to the BS. Without loss of generality we can assume xi = 1
for all i. The received signal at the BS can be written as
yi = ȟul,i + ni ,

(6)

where ȟul,i is the channel vector corresponding to the ith
signal dimension and ni ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM ) is the AWGN.
We can safely assume that the vectors {ȟul,i }L
i=1 share
the same support set since the sparsity pattern depends
only on the slow varying geometry of the propagation
environment. There are plenty of denoising techniques to
estimate the support set from noisy observations {yi }L
i=1 ,
among which we choose the one presented in [14]. Define
Y = [y1 , . . . , yL ] and N = [n1 , . . . , nL ]. The support
estimation problem amounts to finding the set of indices
corresponding to the non-zero rows of the solution matrix
X∗ ∈ CM ×L in a Multiple Measurement Vectors (MMV)
problem. This problem can be formulated as follows,
√
X∗ = arg min kXk2,1 , subject to kY−FXk ≤ M L σ,
X∈CM ×L

(7)
PL−1
where the `2,1 -norm is defined by kXk2,1 = i=0 kXi,. k2
and k · k denotes Frobenius norm. Once (7) is solved, we
obtain the UL support set by calculating the `2 -norm of
each row of matrix X. If the `2 -norm of a particular row is
greater than a certain threshold , then it is labeled as active
and otherwise it is labeled as inactive. In other words
Ŝul := {i ∈ [ M ] : kX∗i,. k2 ≥ }

(8)

denotes the estimated UL channel support of the user.
Now recall that each index i in Ŝul corresponds to an
interval Iul,i . As we described in the previous section, the

4

AoA
z1 z2 z3 z4 z5 z6 z7 z8 z9 z10 z11z12 z13
u1
u2
Users u3
u4
u5

(a)
Effective Angular Directions (A)
z1

z2

u1

z3

z7

u2

z8

u3

z9

u4

z12

z13

u5

Users (K)

(b)

Fig. 3: (a) Schematic of estimated DL support profile for
different users, available at the BS before DL probing. The
colored grid points represent support elements. (b) The
corresponding bipartite graph G.
variance of element j is significant only if Iul,i ∩ Xγ 6= ∅.
This gives us a hint that, if i is in the support set, its
corresponding interval Iul,i should have a non-empty intersection with the support of the continuous angular scattering
function, i.e. with Xγ . Therefore we can use the estimated
UL support set to estimate Xγ as X̂γ = ∪ Iul,i . This
i∈Ŝul

gives a fine approximation of the support of the angular
scattering function, particularly when it has a block-sparse
structure and M  1. Now, the DL support is estimated
by
Ŝdl = {i ∈ [M ] | Idl,i ∩ X̂γ 6= ∅}.
(9)

In words, we determine those indices whose corresponding
intervals intersect with the estimated support of the continuous angular scattering function and in this way obtain
an estimate of the DL channel support set. This procedure
takes place at the BS for all users, resulting in the example
schematic of Fig. 3a.
IV. S PARSIFICATION , P ROBING AND E STIMATION
Using the estimated DL channel support information, in
this section we propose a novel technique that allows a
flexible channel probing depending on the amount of pilot
overhead tolerated by the system. To estimate DL channels,
the BS broadcasts T pilot vectors in T < Nc of its available
signal dimensions in the same channel resource block to
probe the channel vectors. Since the channel vector is a M dimensional, to estimate the channel, in the conventional
scheme the BS needs to probe it over at least M signal
dimensions, i.e. T ≥ M . After collecting the T ≥ M
pilot measurements, each user must feedback its estimated
channel vector. The feedback can be done either using
analog feedback, by sending the unquantized coefficients as

I and Q symbols over the UL, or using quantized feedback,
implemented by a variety of schemes [15].
CS-based techniques exploit the sparsity of the channel
vectors to reduce the necessary DL pilot dimension to
T = O (s log M ), with s being the sparsity order of the
channel vector. However, these techniques also fail when
the devoted resource for channel probing is less than the
required amount. To address this issue, here we propose a
new technique, referred to as active channel sparsification.
The main idea is that since the angular support of all the
users is estimated during UL pilot transmission, the BS
can, depending on the resource budget devoted to channel
training, design a pre-BF matrix such that the effective
channel, which is the product of the pre-BF matrix and
the actual physical channel, has a small dimension for every
user. In this way, we can control the sparsity order of the DL
channels and therefore obtain a flexible channel estimate.
We can formulate the problem of sparsification as fol(k)
lows. Given the estimated support sets, let A := ∪K
k=1 Ŝdl
denote the set of indices corresponding to all coupled
angular directions. Now, we introduce the bipartite |A|×K
graph G = (A, K, E) where on one side we have the
elements of A and on the other side we have nodes, each
(k)
corresponding to a support set Ŝdl . An edge between
(k)
element a ∈ A and set node k ∈ K exists if a ∈ Ŝdl .
Fig. 3b illustrates G for the example estimated DL support
sets in Fig. 3a. Let W ∈ {0, 1}|A|×K be the adjacency
matrix corresponding to the bipartite graph G and let a
denote the label of an angular direction. We know that
[W]a,k = 1 if and only if the angular direction a is included
(k)
in the set Ŝdl . We want to maximize both the number of
probed angular directions and the number of probed (and
eventually served) users. Probing more angles is desirable
because it increases the signal dimension and probing more
users is desirable because then we can serve more users.
In addition these two objectives are not in contrast. Now,
we introduce two sets of binary variables {za }a∈A and
{uk }k∈[K] , where the first set represents the set of effective
angular directions and the second set represents the set
of users. The optimization problem can be formulated as
follows,
X
X
maximize
za +
uk ,
za ,uk ∈{0,1}∀a,k

subject to

a∈A

k∈[K]

za ≤
uk ≤
X
a∈A

X

[W]a,k uk , ∀a,

k∈[K]

X
a∈A

[W]a,k za , ∀k,

[W]a,k za ≤ M (1 − uk ) + T, ∀k.

(10)
Let us explain this problem in detail. The objective function
in (10) stands for the total number of probed angular directions plus the number of served users. The first constraint
ensures that if an angular direction a is selected, i.e. if
za = 1, then there should exist at least one served user,
e.g. user j (uj = 1) that is coupled with this angular
direction. The second constraint on the other hand ensures
that if a user k is served, i.e. if uk = 1, then there
should exist at least one selected angular direction, e.g.
angular direction i (zi = 1) that is coupled with this

5

user. The third constraint states that when when user k is
served, i.e. when uk = 1, the maximum number of selected
angular directions coupled with this user is no more than
T , satisfying the restriction to pilot dimension, while if
uk = 0, this constraint is redundant. The problem (10)
is an LIP optimization problem which can be easily solved
by off-the-shelf solvers such as MATLAB.
M
After obtaining the solution of problem (10), i.e. {za∗ }a=1
∗ K
and {uk }k=1 , we obtain the set of probed angular directions
as B = {a : za∗ = 1}. Then we can define the preBF matrix B ∈ C|B|×M by B = FH
B , where FB is a
sub-matrix of the DFT matrix, formed by selecting those
columns of F whose indices are in B. Now, the effective
DL channel coefficients vector heff ∈ C|B|×1 is simply a
product of the actual channel ȟdl and the pref-BF matrix
B, i.e. heff = Bȟdl . For every user k, heff has less than
T non-zero elements. The locations of these elements are
given by a set Ωk ⊂ {1, . . . , |B|} and are known to the BS
(each element in Ωk has a one to one correspondence to an
(k)
element in B ∩ Ŝdl which is the set of effective angular
directions for user k). As a result, the BS can estimate the
effective channel for all users by T pilot vectors.

0

b (1) , . . . , h
b (K ) ] be the matrix consisting
b eff = BH [h
Let H
eff
eff
of estimated effective DL channel vectors for the served
users. The ZF precoder is a matrix denoted by T.,k :=
Q.,k
b H )† . The transmit signal at the BS
eff
kQ.,k k , where Q = (Hq
P
K 0 ×1
is then given by x =
is the
K 0 Ts, where s ∈ C
vector of unit-power user symbols sk and P is the transmit
power. The received signal at user k can be written as
r
P (k) H
(ȟdl ) Ts + nk
rk =
0
K
r
r
P (k) H
P X (j) H
=
(ȟdl ) T.,k sk +
(ȟdl ) T.,j sj + nk ,
0
K
K0
j6=k
(13)
where nk ∼ CN (0, 1). As a performance metric, we use the
lower and upperq
rate bounds presented in [16]. Define the
(k)
variable gk,k0 = KP0 (ȟdl )H T.,k , k, k 0 ∈ [K 0 ]. For a user
k, an upper and a lower bound for the rate are respectively
given by
Rkub = (1 −

2

T
|gk,k0 |
)E[log(1 +
P
2 )],
Nc
1 + k0 6=k |gk,k0 |

A. Channel Probing and Estimation
Following the previous discussions, if for a user j we
have that u∗j = 0, this user will not be probed and served
because its effective dimension is larger than the pilot
dimension. To estimate the effective DL channels belonging
to other users, the BS broadcasts T random Gaussian
vectors in T time-frequency signal dimensions. We denote
the transmitted probing Gaussian vector in the j th signal
dimension by ψ j ∈ C|B|×1 , and denote the set of BS
probing vectors by a matrix Ψ ∈ CT ×|B| where Ψj,. = ψ T
j.
The received signal at user k after pilot transmission is
given by
(k)

(k)

y(k) = ΨBȟdl + n(k) = Ψheff + n(k) ,

(11)

(k)

where heff is the effective DL channel coefficients vector
for user k and n(k) ∼ CN (0, IT ) is the AWGN vector at
the user side, with i.i.d unit-variance entries. We assume
that kΨj,. k2 = P for all j, where P is the power spent on
a single probing vector by the BS. The measurement vector
y(k) is received at the BS for k ∈ [K] via analog feedback.
Then the BS uses its estimate of the DL support of each
of the users to estimate their effective channel by
h
i
†
b (k)
h
= (Ψ.,Ωk ) y(k) ,
(12)
eff
Ωk

†
hwherei (·) is the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse, where
(k)
b (k) whose indices are in
b
heff
denotes the entries of h
eff
Ωk
Ωk and Ψ.,Ωk is a sub-matrix of Ψ formed by concatenating
the columns whose indices are in Ωk . All other entries of
b (k) whose indices are not included in Ωk are set to zero.
h
eff
For DL data transmission, we propose using the greedy
zero-forcing (ZF) precoder to reduce inter-user interference.
Having an estimate of the to-be-served DL channel vectors, this precoder selects a subset of linearly independent
vectors with maximum size. Without loss of generality we
assume that the first K 0 users are eventually served and
derive the rate expression.

(14)

2

|gk,k0 |
T
)E[log(1 +
P
2 )]
Nc
1 + k0 6=k |gk,k0 |
,
K0
T 1 X
)
− (1 −
log (1 + Nc Var (gk,k0 ))
Nc Nc 0

Rklb = (1 −

(15)

k =1

where Var(·) denotes the variance.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section we provide numerical simulation results
to assess the performance of our proposed algorithm empirically. We compare our algorithm with the CS based
algorithm proposed in [4]. This algorithm uses a joint
orthogonal matching pursuit (J-OMP) method to reconstruct
(k)
the sparse vector of channel coefficients hdl from noisy
(k)
measurements y . The measurements in this method are
obtained using a random Gaussian sensing matrix. We
consider a BS with M = 128 antennas and K = 20
users. Adopting the GSCM channel model, we assume that
there are three MPC clusters in the environment, located at
random within the range Θ := [−θmax , θmax ), each with
max
, which is roughly equivalent to
an angular span ≈ 2θ10
M
128
=
'
13
support
elements. Each user is coupled
10
10
with one, two, or three of these MPCs, chosen at random.
Since we have three clusters in total, the maximum sparsity
order of a channel vector is smax = 3 × 13 = 39. Unlike
[4], we do not assume that the users share a common MPC,
although this might be the case in a random setting. It is
important to note that since we use a continuous scattering
model, when the channel is represented in the Fourier basis,
the corresponding vector of coefficients is not sparse in
the strict sense, but rather well-approximated by a sparse
vector. This is slightly different from the setting proposed
in [4], where the channel is assumed to be strictly sparse.
We feed the sparsity order of each channel vector to the
J-OMP algorithm while this information is not provided to
our proposed algorithm. We assume a resource block of size

6

TABLE I: Table of simulation parameters.
Nc = 128 to be available at the BS. Table I summarizes
the main parameters used in our simulations.
During the simulations the users transmit their UL pilots
each over L = 10 orthogonal dimensions. The SNR for UL
transmission is set to 15 dB. Then, the BS estimates the
UL angular support of each user according to the method
described in section III and interpolates the DL support
set. Note that this process takes place only once for a fixed
geometry and the information is used for all instantaneous
channel realizations. If the pilot dimension T is not less
(k)
than the maximum user support size, i.e. T ≥ max Ŝdl ,
k
active channel sparsification is trivial and one can assume
the set of probed angular directions to be the union of
effective beam directions among all users. However, when
(k)
T < max Ŝdl , active channel sparsification is crucial,
k
otherwise channel estimation has a large error. We adopt the
method developed in section IV to perform active channel
sparsification. Obviously this step is not performed for the
J-OMP method. After estimating DL channels, we construct
the Greedy ZF precoding matrix for our proposed method
and the J-OMP method. The ZF precoding matrices are
then used to transmit in the DL.
As a performance metric, we consider the sum-rate as a
function of the available pilot dimension T for two different
values of Downlink SNR. To have a reliable channel
estimate the J-OMP method needs a pilot dimension much
larger than smax = 39. However, using the estimated DL
channel support information, our algorithm is capable of
a highly accurate DL channel estimation using only T ≈
smax pilots. In addition, even for lower pilot dimensions,
we obtain a good estimate of the channel vectors, using
the active channel sparsification method. Fig. 4 illustrates
the comparison between our proposed method and the JOMP method in terms of sum-rate lower and upper bounds
formulated in (15) and (14), calculated via Monte-Carlo
simulations. This figure shows that our method achieves
a much better performance compared with J-OMP, even
with very low pilot dimensions. In fact the achievable lower
bound in our method is higher than the rate upper bound
of the J-OMP method for both SNR values.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented a method for an efficient
implementation of FDD massive MIMO systems, based
on the idea of UL-DL reciprocity of the angular scattering function. Using this method dramatically reduces
both the necessary DL pilot dimension and the feedback
overhead, even compared with the state-of-the-art CS-based
techniques. We further proposed the active channel sparsification method, which designs a pre-BF matrix to smartly

Our Alg. UB, SNR = 20 dB
Our Alg. LB, SNR = 20 dB
Our Alg. UB, SNR = 15 dB
Our Alg. LB, SNR = 15 dB
J-OMP UB, SNR = 20 dB
J-OMP UB, SNR = 15 dB
J-OMP LB, SNR = 20 dB
J-OMP LB, SNR = 15 dB

100

80
bits
Sum-Rate [ s·Hz
]

Simulation Parameters
2π
Maximum Angular Range
2θmax
3
λul
Antenna Spacing
d
2 sin(θmax )
Carrier Frequency over DL band
fdl
≈ 1.1ful
Number of Antennas
M
128
Number of Users
K
20
Number of Uplink Pilot Symbols
L
10
Downlink Transmit Power
P
M × Downlink SNR
Resource Block Size
Nc
128

60

40

20

0
10

20

30

40

50
60
70
80
Pilot Dimension (T)

90

100

110

120

Fig. 4: Comparison of Sum-Rate upper and lower bounds
vs. pilot dimension T for our algorithm and J-OMP with
two different DL SNR Values.
reduce the effective channel dimension for each user, such
that all channel vectors can be estimated with controllable
error proportional to the available pilot dimension at the
BS. Our simulation results show that our proposed method
outperforms the state-of-the-art work based on CS in terms
of achievable sum-rate.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. L. Marzetta,
“Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–
195, 2014.
[2] T. L. Marzetta, “How much training is required for multiuser
MIMO?” in Fortieth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2006. ACSSC’06. IEEE, 2006, pp.
359–363.
[3] Z. Jiang, A. F. Molisch, G. Caire, and Z. Niu, “Achievable
rates of FDD massive MIMO systems with spatial channel
correlation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2868–2882, 2015.
[4] X. Rao and V. K. Lau, “Distributed compressive CSIT
estimation and feedback for FDD multi-user massive MIMO
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62,
no. 12, pp. 3261–3271, 2014.
[5] J. Choi, D. J. Love, and T. Kim, “Trellis-extended codebooks
and successive phase adjustment: A path from LTE-advanced
to FDD massive MIMOsystems,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2007–2016,
2015.
[6] R. W. Heath, T. Wu, and A. C. Soong, “Progressive refinement of beamforming vectors for high-resolution limited
feedback,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol. 2009, p. 6, 2009.
[7] A. Adhikary, J. Nam, J.-Y. Ahn, and G. Caire, “Joint spatial
division and multiplexing: the large-scale array regime,”
IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6441–
6463, 2013.
[8] A. Adhikary, E. Al Safadi, M. K. Samimi, R. Wang, G. Caire,
T. S. Rappaport, and A. F. Molisch, “Joint spatial division
and multiplexing for mm-wave channels,” IEEE J. on Sel.
Areas on Commun. (JSAC), vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1239–1255,
2014.
[9] J. Nam, “Fundamental limits in correlated fading MIMO
broadcast channels: Benefits of transmit correlation diversity,” in Information Theory (ISIT), 2014 IEEE International
Symposium on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 2889–2893.
[10] P.-H. Kuo, H. Kung, and P.-A. Ting, “Compressive sensing
based channel feedback protocols for spatially-correlated
massive antenna arrays,” in Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC), 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012,
pp. 492–497.
[11] Y. Ding and B. D. Rao, “Dictionary learning based sparse

7

channel representation and estimation for FDD massive
MIMO systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.06553, 2016.
[12] D. Vasisht, S. Kumar, H. Rahul, and D. Katabi, “Eliminating
channel feedback in next-generation cellular networks,” in
Proceedings of the 2016 conference on ACM SIGCOMM
2016 Conference. ACM, 2016, pp. 398–411.
[13] H. Xie, F. Gao, S. Jin, J. Fung, and Y.-C. Liang,
“Channel estimation for TDD/FDD massive MIMO systems with channel covariance computing,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1710.00704, 2017.

[14] S. Haghighatshoar and G. Caire, “Massive MIMO channel subspace estimation from low-dimensional projections,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 2, pp.
303–318, 2017.
[15] N. Jindal, “MIMO broadcast channels with finite-rate feedback,” IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 52,
no. 11, pp. 5045–5060, 2006.
[16] G. Caire, “On the ergodic rate lower bounds with
applications to massive MIMO,” CoRR, vol. abs/1705.03577,
2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03577

