MMSE precoding for multiuser MISO downlink transmission with nonhomogeneous user SNR conditions
 Duy HN Nguyen^{1, 2}Email author and
 Tho LeNgoc^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/16876180201485
© Nguyen and LeNgoc; licensee Springer. 2014
Received: 6 February 2014
Accepted: 22 May 2014
Published: 6 June 2014
Abstract
This paper is concerned with linear precoding designs for multiuser downlink transmissions. We consider a multipleinput singleoutput (MISO) system with multiple singleantenna user equipment (UE) experiencing nonhomogeneous average signaltonoise ratio (SNR) conditions. The first part of this work examines different precoding schemes with perfect channel state information (CSI) and average SNR at the basestation (eNB). We then propose a weighted minimum mean squared error (WMMSE) precoder, which takes advantage of the nonhomogeneous SNR conditions. Given in a closedform solution, the proposed WMMSE precoder outperforms other wellknown linear precoders, such as zeroforcing (ZF), regularized ZF (RZF), while achieving a close performance to the locally optimal iterative WMMSE (IWMMSE) precoder, in terms of the achievable network sumrate. In the second part of this work, we consider the nonhomogeneous multiuser system with limited and quantized channel quality indicator (CQI) and channel direction indicator (CDI) feedbacks. Based on the CQI and CDI feedback models proposed for the LongTerm Evolution Advanced standard, we then propose a robust WMMSE precoder in a closedform solution which takes into account the quantization errors. Simulation shows a significant improvement in the achievable network sumrate by the proposed robust WMMSE precoder, compared to nonrobust linear precoder designs.
Keywords
1 Introduction
Multiuser downlink precoding in a wireless system refers to a scenario where a multipleantenna base station (eNB) multiplexes several user data streams in space, then simultaneously transmits to multipleuser equipment (UE). When full channel state information (CSI) is available at the eNB, it is possible to improve the system’s spectral efficiency, albeit proper precoding techniques at the eNB. Research on multiuser precoding designs is plentiful in the literature. Dirtypaper coding (DPC) has been proved as the capacityachieving multiuser precoding strategy [1–4]. Unfortunately, due to its high complexity implementation that involves random nonlinear coding, DPC only remains as a theoretical benchmark. This makes linear beamforming techniques an attractive alternative because of their reduced complexity relative to DPC.
Finding the optimal transmit beamforming design to maximize the network sumrate subject to a transmit power constraint is a nonconvex and nontrivial problem [5]. Thus, it is desirable to study suboptimal beamforming strategies whose performance is close to that of DPC. In zeroforcing (ZF) precoding, the beamforming weights are designed to eliminate all interuser interference. While ZF precoding is simple to implement, its performance is poor, especially at low signaltonoise ratio region [6]. Regularized ZF precoding [6] was then proposed to address the drawback of ZF precoding and improve its performance significantly. Interestingly, regularized ZF precoding can also be interpreted as a Wiener transmit filter, i.e., minimum mean squared error (MMSE) precoding, which is obtained from the minimization of the nonweighted sum mean squared error (MSE) [7, 8].
Another approach to find the optimal transmit beamforming vectors is to directly solve the nonconvex sumrate problem [5, 9]. In particular, the work in [9] proposed an iterative algorithm based on the uplinkdownlink MSE duality. Using the MSE duality, the algorithm’s approach is to iterate between the optimization of the uplink power using geometric programming, uplink receive filters, and downlink receive filters. Different from [9], the approach in [5] was to establish the equivalence between the sumrate maximization problem and the minimization of weighted sum MSE problem. Thus, the nonconvex former problem can be solved via the latter by iteratively updating the weights, the receive filters, and the transmit filters. While both approaches in [5, 9] are capable of achieving at least a local optimum, they come with the drawback of high complexity due to the iterative optimization procedure.
In this work, we are interested in designing linear MMSE precoders for a multipleinput singleout (MISO) system with nonhomogeneous average signaltonoise ratio (SNR) conditions. In particular, the UEs, each equipped with a single antenna, are assumed to experience different channel strength statistics and the background noise power, which reflects in different average SNRs. The reason for our consideration to a nonhomogeneous system arises from practice where the UEs are randomly located within the eNB’s cell limit. Since the largescale fading depends on the transmission environment and the distance between the eNB and each individual UE, the channel strength statistics to distinct UEs are effectively different. Similarly, the background noise including both thermal noise and cochannel interference from nearby cells, should be also different for each UE.
In the first part of this work, we study the MMSE precoder for the system with perfect CSI and average SNR knowledge at the eNB. Due to the consideration of nonhomogeneous SNR conditions, the approach in [6] to derive the regularized ZF precoder is no longer possible. On the other hand, the MMSE precoder obtained from the nonweighted sumMSE minimization [7, 8] may result in poor network sumrate performance. Inspired by the iterative weighted minimization of MSE algorithm [5], we propose a weighted MMSE (WMMSE) precoder where the weights and receive coefficients are predetermined. The key aspect of the proposed WMMSE precoder is that it does take advantage of the nonhomogeneous average SNR conditions at the UEs to judiciously determine the weights and receive coefficients. The proposed WMMSE precoder will be presented in a closedform solution using a noniterative procedure, which is much simpler to obtain than the iterative WMMSE precoder in [5]. Interestingly, numerical results show that the proposed precoder can achieve the sumrate performance close to the locally optimal one obtained by the iterative algorithm in [5].
In the second part of this work, we examine the MMSE precoding design for the system with limited and quantized channel quality indicator (CQI) and channel direction indicator (CDI) feedbacks. Under this consideration, the eNB only acquires imperfect CSI and average SNR through the quantized CDI and CQI feedbacks from each UE. Thus, robust precoding designs are necessary to address the errors in the quantization process. Robust regularized ZF precoding and robust MMSE precoding have been investigated in [10, 11] for the system with homogeneous SNR conditions. Applying the same method to predetermine the weights and receive coefficients, we then propose a robust WMMSE precoder in a closedform solution that accommodates the nonhomogeneous SNR conditions as well as the quantization errors. Simulations show that the proposed scheme outperforms the robust MMSE precoder proposed in [11] as well as other nonrobust precoding designs.
Notations: (X)^{∗}, (X)^{ T }, and (X)^{ H } denote the conjugate, transpose, and conjugate transpose (Hermitian operator) of the matrix X, respectively; [ X]_{u,p} stands for the (u,p)th entry of the matrix X; Tr{X} denotes the trace of the matrix X; and x^{⋆} denotes the optimal value of the variable x.
2 System model
Consider the downlink transmission of a multiuser MISO (MUMISO) system with an Mantenna eNB sending independent data symbols to K remote singleantenna UEs. Let u_{ i } be the information symbol of UEi with unit average energy, i.e., $\mathbb{E}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left[\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\right{u}_{i}{}^{2}]=1$, and ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}$ be the M×1 beamforming vector for UEi. By means of linear precoding, the transmitted signal is formed as $\mathbf{x}=\sum _{i=1}^{K}{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}{u}_{i}$, where $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{M}$ is the signal vector transmitted over the M antennas. Given P as the power budget at the eNB, the beamformers are imposed by the power constraint $\sum _{i=1}^{K}\parallel {\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}{\parallel}^{2}=\text{Tr}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}}^{H}\right\}\le P$, where $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}[\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{1},\dots ,{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{K}]$.
where ${\mathbf{h}}_{i}^{\ast}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{M\times 1}$ is the smallscale fading channel vector from the eNB to the i th UE, n_{ i } is the AWGN at UEi, and ρ_{ i } represents the average SNR of UEi. Herein, h_{ i } and n_{ i } can be normalized such that they contain i.i.d. circular symmetric complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance. Due to the normalization, ρ_{ i } contains the effects of both largescale fading and background noise at UEi. To reflect the nonhomogeneous SNR conditions, ρ_{ i }’s are assumed to be different for the K users. In addition, it is assumed that each UE, say UEi, has perfect estimation of its downlink channel h_{ i } and its average SNR ρ_{ i }, which are then fed back to the eNB.
where Σ = diag(ρ_{1},…,ρ_{ K }).
3 Review of linear precoding strategies for the multiuser MISO downlink transmission
It is wellknown that the optimization problem (4) is nonconvex due to the presence of the variables ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{1},\dots ,{\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{K}$ in the denominator of the SINR expression (3). Thus, determining the optimal ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}$’s is difficult and computationally complicated in practice. In this section, we briefly review three exemplary linear beamforming schemes that may provide good approximated solution to problem (4).
3.1 Zeroforcing precoding
3.1.1 Equal power scaling allocation
Under this power allocation strategy, each beamformer vector ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}$ is scaled up from the unnormalized beamformer vector w_{ i } with the same normalization factor η, i.e., ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}=\eta {\mathbf{w}}_{i}$. To meet the sum power constraint at the eNB, η is given by $\eta =\sqrt{P/\text{Tr}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\mathbf{W}}_{\text{ZF}}{\mathbf{W}}_{\text{ZF}}^{H}\right\}}.$ Hereafter, this ZF precoding and equal power scaling allocation strategy will be referred to as the ZFEPS scheme.
3.1.2 Optimal power allocation  waterfilling solution
where [ x]^{+}= max(x,0) and the water level μ is chosen to meet the sum power constraint $\sum _{i=1}^{K}{\left[\mu {\gamma}_{i}{\rho}_{i}^{1}\right]}^{+}=P$. In general, a user with higher SNR will be allocated with more power in the waterfilling process. Hereafter, the ZF precoding with the waterfilling power strategy will be referred to as the ZFWF scheme. Certainly, the ZFWF scheme always outperforms the ZFEPS scheme.
3.2 Regularized zeroforcing precoding
where α>0 is the regularizer factor. The normalized beamformer matrix is then given as $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}=\eta {\mathbf{W}}_{\text{RZF}}$, where η is given as $\eta =\sqrt{P/\text{Tr}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\mathbf{W}}_{\text{RZF}}{\mathbf{W}}_{\text{RZF}}^{H}\right\}}$.
where ${\text{MSE}}_{i}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathbb{E}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\left{u}_{i}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\eta}^{1}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\rho}_{i}^{1/2}{y}_{i}\right}^{2}\right\}$ is the MSE at UEi.^{a}
Again, the normalized beamformer matrix is then given by $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}=\eta {\mathbf{W}}_{\text{RZF}}$. Hereafter, the precoder given in (9) will be referred to as the regularized ZF (RZF) precoder.
3.3 Iterative weighted minimization of mean squared error algorithm
where Λ=diag(λ_{1},…,λ_{ K }) is the set of receive coefficients and Ω=diag(ω_{1},…,ω_{ K }) is the set of weights associated with the MSEs at the K UEs. Note that the receive coefficients and the weights are to be optimized as well as the beamforming matrix $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}$ in problem (10). Compared to the nonweighted MMSE problem (8), the optimization in (10) assigns distinct receive coefficients λ_{ i }’s as well as distinct weights ω_{ i }’s to the achievable MSEs ${e}_{i}\triangleq \mathbb{E}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\left{u}_{i}{\lambda}_{i}{y}_{i}\right}^{2}\right\}$’s for different UEs.
where the matrix manipulation A^{1}B(B^{ T }A^{1}B+I)^{1} = (B B^{ T }+A)^{1}B is taken (cf. Equation 162 in [12]).
 1.
Initialize: randomize ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i},\forall i$ with $\parallel {\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{w}}}_{i}{\parallel}^{2}=P/K$.
 2.Repeat until convergence:

Update the receive coefficients λ_{ i }’s as in (11).

Update the weights ω_{ i }’s as in (12).

Update the transmit beamformer $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}$ (14).

4 The proposed WMMSE precoder with perfect CSI and average SNR knowledge
4.1 The proposed WMMSE precoder
As reviewed in Section 3, the IWMMSE algorithm can obtain at least a locally optimal solution to the original sumrate maximization problem (4). While the IWMMSE algorithm can significantly outperform the ZFEPS, ZFWF, and RZF schemes, it comes with the drawback of high complexity due to the iterative optimization procedure. In this section, we propose a WMMSE precoder in a closedform solution, which can approach the performance of the IWMMSE scheme. The key aspect of the proposed WMMSE precoder is to take advantage of the nonhomogeneous SNR conditions at the UE to predetermine the weights and receive coefficients and thus remove the iterative procedure of the IWMMSE algorithm.
where η is normalization factor to meet the power constraint at the eNB. Herein, ${\eta}^{1}{g}_{i}^{1}{\rho}_{i}^{1/2}$ is chosen the receive coefficient, whereas ${g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$ is chosen as the weight for the MSE at UEi, which is given as $\mathbb{E}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\left{u}_{i}{\eta}^{1}{g}_{i}^{1}{\rho}_{i}^{1/2}{y}_{i}\right}^{2}\right\}$. The intuitions for choosing these coefficients are as follows:

The receive coefficients ${\eta}^{1}{g}_{i}^{1}{\rho}_{i}^{1/2}$’s reflect the different SNR conditions. In addition, these coefficients can normalize the channels $\sqrt{{\rho}_{i}}{\mathbf{h}}_{i}$’s to the same statistics with the same unit norm.

The weights ${g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$’s normalize (or whiten) the colored noises (by ${g}_{i}^{1}{\rho}_{i}^{1/2}$’s) at the UEs. In the IWMMSE algorithm, the optimal weight ω_{ i }, given by 1+SINR_{ i } as in (12), is analogous to the instantaneous SINR at the UEi. Our predetermined weight ${g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$ indeed reflects this instantaneous SINR, especially at highSNR region.
It is to be noted that the proposed approach in minimizing the weighted MSE maintains higher emphasis for users with better SNR conditions. Unlike the nonweighted MSE minimization in (8), which indirectly leads to balance the biterrorrate performance across the users, our approach is to boost the sumrate performance instead.
It is observed that both the cost function and constraints are quadratic in W and linear in γ. Thus, problem (17) is jointly convex in W and γ, which enables efficiently optimization techniques to find its optimal solution [13].
where the matrix manipulation A^{1}B(B^{ T }A^{1}B+I)^{1}=(B B^{ T }+A)^{1}B is again utilized. Finally, the optimal normalization factor η^{⋆} is given by ${\eta}^{\star}=\sqrt{P/\text{Tr}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\mathbf{W}}^{\star}{\left({\mathbf{W}}^{\star}\right)}^{H}\right\}}$ and the optimal normalized beamforming matrix is ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}}^{\star}={\eta}^{\star}{\mathbf{W}}^{\star}$. Hereafter, the proposed precoder in (22) will be referred to as the WMMSE precoder.
Remark 1
It is observed that the proposed WMMSE precoder resembles the one obtained from the IWMMSE algorithm in (14). Compared with the RZF precoder (9), it is interesting to observe that the precoder (22) has a nonidentity regularizer matrix in Σ^{1}.
5 MMSE precoding with quantized CDI and CQI feedbacks
5.1 CDI and CQI feedback model
UEi then feeds back only the index of ${\widehat{\mathbf{h}}}_{i}$ to the eNB, which requires B bits per feedback.
Instead of transmitting the average SNR ρ_{ i } or the channel gain ${g}_{i}^{2}$ exactly, UEi uses CQI feedback to inform the eNB its instantaneous SNR. With unquantized CQI feedbacks, the eNB can perfectly recover the effective channel gain ${g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$ for each user. Whereas with quantized CQI feedbacks, the measured SNR at each UE is mapped into a certain number of CQI bits. In LTEAdvanced, the number of CQI feedback bits is typically set at 4 [15]. From this CQI, the eNB then can apply the CQISNR mapping to approximate the SNR for each UE [15]. Denote ${\hat{\text{SNR}}}_{i}$ as the quantized SNR value obtained from the CQISNR mapping at UEi, its effective channel gain can be approximated as ${\u011d}_{i}^{2}{\widehat{\rho}}_{i}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}(M/P){\hat{\text{SNR}}}_{i}$.
Note that the SINR at UEi is unchanged by replacing h_{ i } and ρ_{ i } by ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{h}}}_{i}$ and ${g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$, respectively. Thus, in case of limited quantized CDI and CQI feedbacks, the linear precoding strategies ZFEPS, ZFWF, RZF, IWMMSE mentioned in Section 3 can be straightforwardly applied by replacing the channel h_{ i }’s with the quantized channel ${\widehat{\mathbf{h}}}_{i}$’s and replacing the average SNR ρ_{ i }’s with the approximated effective channel gain ${\u011d}_{i}^{2}{\widehat{\rho}}_{i}$’s. However, these designs are nonrobust to the quantization errors.
5.2 The proposed robust MMSE precoding for limited quantized feedbacks
where $\zeta =\mathbb{E}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left[\sqrt{1{z}_{i}}\right]$. As will be shown later, the exact calculation of ζ is not needed.
where S N R=diag{SNR_{1},…,SNR_{ K }}. Finally, the optimal normalization factor η^{⋆} is given by ${\eta}^{\star}=\sqrt{P/\text{Tr}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left\{{\mathbf{W}}^{\star}{\left({\mathbf{W}}^{\star}\right)}^{H}\right\}}$ and the optimal normalized beamforming matrix is ${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{W}}}^{\star}={\eta}^{\star}{\mathbf{W}}^{\star}$. Hereafter, the precoder (37) will be referred to as the Robust WMMSE precoder.
Remark 2.
For the case of unquantized CDI and CQI feedbacks, one has $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{H}}=\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$, δ = 0, and S N R = (P/M)G^{2}Σ. It is easy to verify that the robust WMMSE precoder (37) is exactly the same as the original WMMSE precoder (22). This observation allows us to validate the proposed robust WMMSE precoder.
Remark 3.
In solving problem (28), we first assume that the effective channel gains G^{2}Σ are known. Interestingly, the optimal solution given in (37) shows its dependence on the instantaneous SNRs $(P/M){g}_{i}^{2}{\rho}_{i}$’s at the UEs, but not on G or Σ individually. Clearly, the SNRs at the UEs can be easily estimated at the eNB by the CQI feedbacks. With unquantized CQI feedbacks, the eNB can apply the perfectly estimated SNRs into the precoder as in (37). In contrast, with quantized CQI feedbacks, the imperfectly estimated ${\hat{\text{SNR}}}_{i}$’s can be utilized at the eNB instead.
Remark 4.
Although the precoder (40) seems to be different to the original precoder given in [11], one can validate the precoder (40) through the following observation. If one applies, the precoder (40) for the case of homogeneous SNR conditions by replacing G with its expectation as $\sqrt{M}\mathbf{I}$, and Σ with I, the precoder (40) is the same as the original precoder (39). On the other hand, for the case of perfect CDI feedbacks, i.e., $\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{H}}=\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ (which makes $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{G}\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$) and δ = 0, the precoder (40) returns to original nonrobust precoder (9).
It is observed that the precoder (40) requires a perfect knowledge of the channel gains in G and average SNRs in Σ individually. Thus, the precoder (40) does not fit into the CQI feedback model (24), unlike our proposed robust WMMSE precoder (37). Nevertheless, we will present some numerical simulations and compare the performances obtained by our proposed WMMSE precoder (37) and the precoder (40) (assuming G and Σ known at the eNB to implement the precoder (40)).
6 Simulations results
Simulation parameters and settings
Parameter  Value 

Number of cells  2 
Sitetosite distance  500 m 
Antenna height  base station  30 m 
Antenna height  mobile station  1.5 m 
Carrier frequency f_{ c }  2 GHz 
Bandwidth per radio block  15 KHz 
Number of radio blocks  180 
AWGN  174 dBm/Hz 
eNB2 transmit power  10 dBW 
Shadowing (smallscale fading)  0 dB 
Path loss model (largescale fading)  COST231 [18] 
6.1 Achievable sumrate with perfect CSI and average SNR
In Figure 3, we plot the network sumrate as a function of P with four transmit antennas and four UEs. As the transmit power increases while the average powers of the intercell interference and background noise are unchanged, the average received SINR at each UE is expected to increase. Thus, an increase in the network sumrate is observed for each precoding scheme. Similar to the previous simulation, the proposed WMMSE precoder also outperforms the ZFEPS, ZFWF, and RZF schemes while obtaining a very close performance to the locally optimal IWMMSE scheme. It is worth mentioning that the proposed WMMSE precoder is much simpler to compute than the IWMMSE scheme.
6.2 Achievable sumrate with limited CDI and CQI feedbacks
These simulations are to present the achievable network sumrates with quantized CQI and CDI feedbacks, where we compare performance of the proposed Robust WMMSE precoder and nonrobust precoders such as ZFEPS, ZFWF, RZF, IWMMSE, DPC, and the proposed WMMSE. For CQI feedbacks, we use the CQI feedback model (24) with the 4bit SNRCQI mapping [15]. For CDI feedbacks, the Gaussian codebook is assumed for each UE. It is stated in [16] that the number of CDI feedback bits per UE has to increase linearly with the SNR (in dB) at the rate $B\approx \frac{M1}{3}{P}_{\text{dB}}$ in order to obtain the full multiplexing gain of M. Note that the result given in [16] is for systems with homogeneous SNR conditions (ρ_{1}=…=ρ_{ K }). Thus, with the nonhomogeneous system under consideration, we also set the number of CDI feedback bits growing linearly to the number of transmit antennas M or the transmit power P (in dBW).
7 Conclusion
In this work, we proposed two WMMSE precoders for a multiuser system with nonhomogeneous SNR conditions. The first precoder was proposed for the system with perfect CSI and average SNRs at the eNB. Whereas the second one was proposed for the system with quantized CDI and CQI feedbacks. The principle of the proposed WMMSE precoders is to utilize the different SNR conditions to distinctly predetermine the weights and receive coefficients to the MSE cost function. Both precoders are presented in closedform solutions, thus significantly reduce the complexity in computing them. Simulations showed that the proposed precoders significantly outperformed other wellknown linear precoders, e.g., ZFEPS, ZFWF, RZF, while achieving a close sumrate performance to the locally optimal IWMMSE algorithm.
Endnotes
^{a} As suggested in [8], the conventional MSE $\mathbb{E}\left\{{\left{u}_{i}{\eta}^{1}{y}_{i}\right}^{2}\right\}$, is modified to reflect the impact of different SNR conditions at the UEs.
^{b} The instantaneous SNR defined by (24) should not be confused with the SINR defined by (3). We assume that each UE can perfectly estimate its SNR in the absence of the intracell interference during the training phase.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper is partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Program and the NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Grant with InterDigital Canada.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Costa M: Writing on dirty paper. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 1983, 29(3):439441. 10.1109/TIT.1983.1056659MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Caire G, Shamai S: On the achievable throughput of a multiantenna Gaussian broadcast channel. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2003, 49(7):16911706. 10.1109/TIT.2003.813523MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Vishwanath S, Jindal N, Goldsmith A: Duality, achievable rates, and sumrate capacity of Gaussian MIMO, broadcast channels. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2003, 49(10):26582668. 10.1109/TIT.2003.817421MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yu W, Cioffi JM: Sum capacity of Gaussian vector broadcast channels. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2004, 50(9):18751892. 10.1109/TIT.2004.833336MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Christensen SS, Argawal R, de Carvalho E, Cioffi JM: Weighted sumrate maximization using weighted MMSE for MIMOBC beamforming design. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2008, 7(12):47924799.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Peel CB, Hochwald BM, Swindlehurst AL: A vectorperturbation technique for nearcapacity multiantenna multiuser communications  Part I: channel inversion and regularization. IEEE Trans. Commun 2005, 53(1):195202. 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.840638View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Joham M, Kusume K, Gzara MH, Utschick W: Transmit Wiener filter for the downlink of TDD DSCDMA systems. In IEEE 7th Symposium on SpreadSpectrum Techniques and Applications (ISSSTA). Prague, Czech Republic; 2–5 Sept 2002:913.Google Scholar
 Lee H, Sohn I, Kim D, Lee KB: Generalized MMSE beamforming for downlink MIMO systems. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2011). Kyoto, Japan; 5–9 June 2011:16.Google Scholar
 Shi S, Schubert M, Boche H: Rate optimization for multiuser MIMO systems with linear processing. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2008, 24(8):40204030.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Wang Z, Chen W: Regularized zeroforcing for multiantenna broadcast channels with user selection. IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett 2012, 1(2):129132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhang C, Xu W, Chen M: Robust MMSE beamforming for multiuser MISO systems with limited feedback. IEEE Signal Proc. Lett 2009, 16(7):588591.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Petersen KB, Pedersen MS: The Matrix Cookbook. Available: (2012). Accessed 01 May 2014 http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/p.php?3274 Available: (2012). Accessed 01 May 2014
 Boyd S, Vandenberghe L: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, UK; 2004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 4G Americas: 4G Mobile Broadband Evolution: 3GPP Release 10 and Beyond  HSPA+, SAE/LTE and LTEAdvanced, White Paper. 4G Americas, Bellevue; 2011.Google Scholar
 Mehlführer C, Wrulich M, Ikuno JC, Bosanska D, Rupp M: Simulating the long term evolution physical layer. In Proceedings of the 17th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2009). Glasgow, Scotland; 24:14711478.Google Scholar
 Jindal N: MIMO broadcast channels with finiterate feedback. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2006, 52(11):40455050.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 3GPP: Further advancements for EUTRA physical layer aspects. 3GPP, Tech. Rep. TR 36.814 V9.0.0 (2010)Google Scholar
 Goldsmith A: Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press, UK; 2004.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.