Nonlinear joint transmitreceive processing for coordinated multicell systems: centralized and decentralized
 Zhirui Hu^{1, 2}Email author,
 Chunyan Feng^{1},
 Tiankui Zhang^{1},
 Qin Niu^{1} and
 Yue Chen^{3}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363401501932
© Hu et al.; licensee Springer. 2015
Received: 3 August 2014
Accepted: 5 January 2015
Published: 6 February 2015
Abstract
This paper proposes a nonlinear joint transmitreceive (txrx) processing scheme for downlinkcoordinated multicell systems with multistream multiantenna users. The nonlinear joint txrx processing is formulated as an optimization problem to maximize the minimum signaltointerference noise ratio (SINR) of streams to guarantee the fairness among streams of each user. Nonlinear TomlinsonHarashima precoding (THP) is applied at transmitters, and linear receive processing is applied at receivers, to eliminate the interuser interference and interstream interference. We consider multicell systems under two coordinated modes: centralized and decentralized, corresponding to systems with high and lowcapacity backhaul links, respectively. For the centralized coordinated mode, transmit and receive processing matrices are jointly determined by the central processing unit based on the global channel state information (CSI) shared by base stations (BSs). For the decentralized coordinated mode, transmit and receive processing matrices are computed independently based on the local CSI at each BS. In correspondence, we propose both a centralized and a decentralized algorithm to solve the optimization problem under the two modes, respectively. Feasibility and computational complexity of the proposed algorithms are also analyzed. Simulation results prove that the proposed nonlinear joint txrx processing scheme can achieve user fairness by equalizing the bit error rate (BER) among streams of each user and the proposed scheme outperforms the existing linear joint txrx processing. Moreover, consistent with previous research results, performance of the proposed centralized nonlinear joint txrx processing scheme is proved to be better than that of the decentralized nonlinear joint txrx processing.
Keywords
Coordinated multicell Centralized coordinated Decentralized coordinated Joint transmitreceive processing Nonlinear precoding TomlinsonHarashima precoding (THP)1 Introduction
Coordinated multicell is a promising technology to reduce intercell interference and increase user data rate, which has been considered as one of the potential technologies for LTE Advanced [1,2]. To fully utilize the advantage of coordinated multicell technology, it is essential to manage the multiuser interference (MUI) within the coordinated area appropriately as it is directly related to the achievable spectrum efficiency [3]. Precoding is a wellknown technique for MUI mitigation in multiuser multipleinput multipleoutput (MUMIMO) systems [4,5]. The joint transmitreceive (txrx) processing can be used to further improve the downlink performance of MUMIMO systems by optimizing the transmit precoding and receive filter matrices jointly. According to the processing of the transmit precoding, the joint txrx processing technology can be divided into two types, linear and nonlinear schemes.
The coordinated multicell technology can be implemented in a centralized or decentralized mode based on the backhaul capacity of the systems. The centralized coordinated mode can achieve higher data rate at the cost of highcapacity backhaul links in order to enable base stations (BSs) to share their channel state information (CSI) (defined as local CSI) and data. Hence, the centralized approach is limited to systems with sufficient backhaul capacity [6,7]. The decentralized coordinated mode does not require BSs to share their local CSI, and the precoding or txrx processing is conducted at each BS [8]. This approach has less requirement on backhaul link capacity at some loss on the data rate in comparison to the centralized coordinated mode.
In recent years, relevant works on joint txrx processing in coordinated multicell systems have been widely studied under either centralized [919] or decentralized mode [2023]. For designing the nonlinear joint txrx processing, many different optimal objectives have been considered, such as minimizing the sum mean square error (SMSE) or maximizing the SINR; yet, the fairness among the streams of each user has not been solved for the coordinated multicell systems with multistream multiantenna users.
1.1 Prior art
Linear joint txrx processing algorithms have been widely studied for coordinated multicell systems under centralized mode [914]. In [9], block diagonalization (BD) precoding was designed to maximize the weighted sum rate of all users. The txrx processing optimization with the criterion of minimizing the SMSE was presented in [1012], and the authors of [13] proposed a weighted SMSE minimization algorithm by considering the channel gain as the weight factor. In [14], the energy efficiency was considered in the txrx processing design. A new criterion of maximizing weighted sum energy efficiency was formulated, and the optimization problem was solved by an iterative algorithm. For the decentralized coordinated mode, D. Gesbert and R. Holakouei, et al. studied the decentralized linear precoding techniques for the system with singleantenna users recently [2022]. In [20], a distributed precoding scheme based on zeroforcing (ZF) criterion (defined as DZF) and several centralized power allocation approaches was proposed. In [21,22], a characterization of the optimal linear precoding strategy was derived. Distributed virtual SINR (DVSINR) precoding approaches, where each BS balances the ratio between signal gain at the intended user and the interference caused by other users, had been proposed for the particular case of two users in [21] and generalized for multiuser in [22]. The DVSINR scheme was illustrated to satisfy the optimal precoding characterization and outperform DZF.
Compared with the linear joint txrx processing schemes, the nonlinear joint txrx processing schemes are more complex but can obtain more system gain, which have gained much attention recently. Most research about the nonlinear precoding focus on TomlinsonHarashima precoding (THP), as it can achieve approximate performance with the optimal dirty paper coding but has a much lower complexity [5]. For the centralized coordinated mode, the txrx processing scheme was designed to minimize the SMSE in [15] and maximize the SINR in [16], wherein both should be solved by an iterative method, resulting in high computational complexity. The schemes with low complexity were proposed and derived a closedform solution based on minimum average bit error rate (BER) in [17], minimum mean square error (MMSE) in [18], or ZF criterion in [19]. In [18], the receive processing matrix was firstly computed by CSI. Then,the transmit processing matrix and receive weight coefficient were computed based on MMSE. In [19], the algorithm decomposed the MUMIMO channel into parallel independent single user MIMO (SUMIMO) channels, and then, closedform expressions of transmit and receive processing matrices were derived to optimize the performance of each user. The above research works on nonlinear txrx processing were all developed for the centralized coordinated mode. The relevant works for the decentralized coordinated mode are relatively fewer. A decentralized nonlinear precoding, ZFTHP, was proposed in [23] but can only be applied for the system with a single user. To the best of our knowledge, for the system with multistream multiantenna users, the txrx processing solutions under decentralized coordination mode have not been addressed in the literature.
Previous work did not consider fairness among streams of each user in the coordinated multicell system with multistream multiantenna users. It is essential to study the fairness for nonlinear scheme, as unfairness is an inherent character of THP and the worst performance determines the whole performance of the user [24].
1.2 Contributions
In this paper, a nonlinear joint txrx processing scheme is proposed to improve fairness among streams of each user with multiantenna. The nonlinear joint txrx processing is formulated as an optimization problem to maximize the minimum SINR of streams. The performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated under both centralized and decentralized coordinated modes. Two algorithms for solving the optimization problem are derived.

Nonlinear joint txrx processing scheme is developed for a coordinated multicell system with multistream multiantenna users under two coordinated modes, centralized and decentralized mode.

Two algorithms, the centralized and the decentralized algorithms, are proposed to solve the optimization problem, and both of them derive the closedform solutions.

The algorithms guarantee the fairness among the streams of each user, which not only boost the performance of each user, but bring much convenience to the modulation/demodulation and coding/decoding procedures.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the coordinated multicell system model. The proposed nonlinear joint txrx processing scheme is described in detail in Section 3. A performance analysis of the proposed algorithms is developed in Section 4. Simulation results and conclusions are presented in Section 5 and Section 6, respectively.
1.3 Notation
We use uppercase boldface letters to denote matrices and lowercase boldface to denote vectors. The operators (⋅)^{ T }, (⋅)^{ H }, (⋅)^{†}, E(⋅), and Tr(⋅) stand for transpose, Hermitian, MoorePenrose pseudoinverse, expectation, and the trace of a matrix, respectively. diag(⋅) and blockdiag(⋅) denote diagonal and block diagonal matrix. I and 0 are the identity and the allzero matrix, respectively, with appropriate dimensions. ‖ ⋅ ‖_{ F } represents the Frobenius norm of a matrix. [⋅]_{ i : j,k : l } denotes the submatrix comprised of row i through row j and column k through column l of a matrix.
2 System model
Consider a downlink coordinated multicell system, where N BSs cooperatively serve K users. Each BS and user is equipped with n _{ t } and n _{ r } antennas, respectively. All BSs share user data and cooperatively transmit the data to an intended user. Each BS transmits \( L={\displaystyle {\sum}_{k=1}^K{l}_k} \) data streams to K users, where l _{ k } is the number of transmitted data streams for user k.
Then, the system sum rate can be obtained by \( r={\displaystyle {\sum}_{k=1}^K{r}^k} \).
The coverage of Ncoordinated BSs is defined as one coordinated area. We mainly focus on the interference within the coordinated area. The interference from other coordinated areas is ignored in this paper, which can be eliminated by intercell interference coordination technology [25] or interference alignment technology [26].
For the centralized coordinated mode, it is assumed that all BSs exchange their local CSI, and the txrx processing matrices are jointly designed at the central processing unit. The system can be seen as a virtual MUMIMO system with N _{ t } = Nn _{ t } transmit antennas. On the contrary, for the decentralized coordinated mode, BSs do not share their CSI, and every BS only has knowledge of local CSI between itself and K users. Therefore, the txrx processing matrices are independently designed at each BS.
3 Nonlinear joint transmitreceive processing algorithm
In this section, we present nonlinear joint txrx processing algorithms for a coordinated multicell system under two different coordinated modes. The algorithm structure is firstly shown. Then, we formulate the optimization problem, aiming at maximizing the minimum SINR of streams to guarantee the fairness among the streams of each user. Finally, the algorithms for different coordinated modes are proposed.
3.1 Algorithm structure
3.2 Problem formulation
3.3 Centralized algorithm
We assume that F ^{ k } is represented as \( {\mathbf{F}}^k={\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k{\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}^k \). Then, \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k={\mathbf{V}}_0^k\in {C}^{N_t\times \left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]} \) is named as the transmit space matrix and \( {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}^k \) is the transmit diversity matrix with \( \left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\times {l}_k \) size.
It can be seen that every stream of the kth user can achieve equal SINR.
Note that for the computation of the transmit space matrix of the kth user \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k \), we need to know the receive processing matrices of the first (k − 1) users R ^{ t }(t < k) and that, for the computation of the receive processing matrix of the kth user R ^{ k }, we need to know the transmit space matrix of the kth user. Therefore, \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k \) and R ^{ k } are designed stepbystep, which starts by computing the transmit space matrix and the receive processing matrix of the first user, then computes the matrices for the second user by utilizing the receive processing matrix of the first user and so on.
Centralized nonlinear joint txrx processing algorithm
1  for k = 1:K 
2  Compute \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k \) using Equation 17 
3  Obtain \( {\mathbf{R}}^k,{\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}^k \), and B ^{ k,k } using Equation 22 
4  Compute F ^{ k } by \( {\mathbf{F}}^k={\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k{\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}^k \) 
5  end 
6  Compute B by B = W ^{− 1} RHF ^{'} 
3.4 Decentralized algorithm
We assume that \( {\mathbf{F}}_n^k \) is represented as \( {\mathbf{F}}_n^k={\overline{\mathbf{F}}}_n^k{\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}_n^k \). We define \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}_n^k={\mathbf{V}}_{n0}^k\in {C}^{n_t\times \left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]} \), and \( {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}_n^k \) is a \( \left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\times {l}_k \) matrix.
Actually, \( {\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k}{\mathbf{e}}_i^k \) denotes the ith column of \( {\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k} \). The objective of Equation 34 is equivalent to minimizing \( {\left\Vert {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{H}}}}_n^{k^{\dagger }}{\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k}{\mathbf{e}}_i^k\right\Vert}^2 \) for any i(i = 1, ⋯, l _{ k }).
Finally, B _{ n } is determined by \( {\mathbf{B}}_n={\mathbf{W}}_n^{1}\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{H}}_n{\mathbf{F}}_n \).
Decentralized nonlinear joint txrx processing algorithm
1  for k = 1:K 
2  Doing SVD on H ^{ k }. Obtain \( {\mathbf{U}}_1^k={\left[{\mathbf{U}}^k\right]}_{:,1:{l}_k}^H \) 
3  end 
4  for n = 1:N 
5  for k = 1:K 
6  Compute \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}_n^k \) using Equation 30 
7  Obtain l _{ k } columns of \( {\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k} \) using Equation 37 
8  Compute γ _{ n } by \( {\gamma}_n^2=\tau {\left\Vert {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{H}}}}_n^{k^{\dagger }}{\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k}\right\Vert}_F^2/p \) 
9  Compute \( {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}_n^k \) by \( {\overline{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}}_n^k={\gamma}_n^{1}{\overline{\overline{\mathbf{H}}}}_n^{k^{\dagger }}{\mathbf{B}}_n^{k,k} \) 
10  Compute G ^{ k } = α ^{ k } I using Equation 38 and derive R ^{ k } by \( {\mathbf{R}}^k={\mathbf{G}}^k{\left({\mathbf{U}}_1^k\right)}^H \) 
11  end 
12  Compute B _{ n } by \( {\mathbf{B}}_n={\mathbf{W}}_n^{1}\mathbf{R}{\mathbf{H}}_n{\mathbf{F}}_n \) 
13  end 
3.5 Remark 1 (applicability)
It should be noted that the proposed two algorithms are also suitable for the system with a singledata stream transmitted for each user. Moreover, the proposed two algorithms both are applicable to the noncoordinated system. However, the centralized scheme is suggested to apply for the noncoordinated system, as the decentralized scheme is a suboptimal solution in this situation.
4 Performance analysis
From Equation 23 and Equation 38, it is noted that both of the proposed two algorithms can achieve equal SINR for every stream of the user. They guarantee the balance performance among streams of each user, which bring much convenience to the modulation/demodulation and coding/decoding procedures. In this section, we analyze the feasibility and the computational complexity of the proposed two algorithms.
4.1 Feasibility analysis
In the MIMO system, in order to distinguish every transmit stream, the constraint that the number of transmit data streams is no more than the number of transmit and receive antennas should be satisfied. For the centralized coordinated mode and the decentralized coordinated mode, the constraint on the number of transmit data streams is specified as follows:
Lemma 1: For the centralized coordinated mode, the number of transmit data streams are bounded by L ≤ N _{ t }, l _{ k } ≤ n _{ r } ; for the decentralized coordinated mode, the number of transmit data streams are bounded by L ≤ n _{ t }, l _{ k } ≤ n _{ r } .
In the proposed centralized algorithm, the design of the transmit space matrix \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k\left(k=1,\cdots, K\right) \) requires \( {N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}>0 \). Furthermore, to guarantee that the optimization problem Equation 19 has solutions, S ≥ l _{ k } is required. As the entries of \( {\mathbf{H}}^k{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k \) are zeromean complex Gaussian variables, the rank of \( {\mathbf{H}}^k{\overline{\mathbf{F}}}^k \) is \( S= \min \left({n}_r,{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right) \) with a probability of 1. Therefore, S ≥ l _{ k } is the necessary condition to carry out the algorithm. Base on Lemma 1, the necessary condition is satisfied to the centralized coordinated system. Therefore, the proposed centralized algorithm is feasible.
In the proposed decentralized algorithm, \( {n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}>0 \) is required to guarantee the existence of the transmit space matrix \( {\overline{\mathbf{F}}}_n^k\left(k=1,\cdots, K,n=1,\cdots, N\right) \). Moreover, the solution of optimization problem Equation 34 requires \( {n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\ge {l}_k \), which is satisfied in the decentralized coordinated system. Therefore, the proposed decentralized algorithm is feasible.
4.2 Computational complexity
For simplicity, the number of float point operations is used to measure the computational complexity of the proposed algorithms.
In the proposed centralized algorithm, the design of the relative matrices for the kth user includes the following: a onetime multiplication of a l _{ k − 1} × n _{ r } matrix and a n _{ r } × N _{ t } matrix, the complexity of which is O(l _{ k − 1} n _{ r } N _{ t }); a onetime computation of the null space of a \( {\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\times {N}_t \) matrix with \( O\left({\left({\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right)}^2{N}_t\right) \) complexity; a onetime multiplication of a n _{ r } × N _{ t } matrix and a \( {N}_t\times \left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right] \) matrix, the complexity of which is \( O\left({n}_r{N}_t\left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\right) \); and a onetime computation of the singular value of a \( {n}_r\times \left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right] \) matrix with \( O\left({n}_r^2\left[{N}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\right) \) complexity. Therefore, the complexity of the relative matrices designed for the kth user is \( O\left({\left({\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right)}^2{N}_t+{n}_r^2{N}_t+{n}_r{N}_t^2\right) \).
In the proposed decentralized algorithm, every BS has the same computational complexity. For any BS, the design of the relative matrices for the kth user includes the following: a onetime computation of the singular vector of a n _{ r } × n _{ t } matrix with \( O\left({n}_r^2{n}_t\right) \) complexity; onetime multiplications of a l _{ k } × n _{ r } matrix and a n _{ r } × n _{ t } matrix, the complexity of which is O(l _{ k } n _{ r } n _{ t }); a onetime computation of the null space of a \( {\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\times {n}_t \) matrix with \( O\left({\left({\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right)}^2{n}_t\right) \) complexity; a onetime multiplication of a l _{ k } × n _{ t } matrix and a \( {n}_t\times \left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right] \) matrix, the complexity of which is \( O\left({l}_k{n}_t\left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\right) \); and l _{ k }times computation of the MoorePenrose pseudoinverse of a \( \left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]\times \left[{l}_ki\right]\left(i=1,\cdots, {l}_k\right) \) matrix, the complexity of which is \( O\left(\left[{n}_t{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right]{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{l_k}{\left[{l}_ki\right]}^2}\right) \). The complexity of other scalar computations can be ignored. Therefore, the complexity of the relative matrices designed for the kth user is \( O\left({\left({\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=1}^{k1}{l}_i}\right)}^2{N}_t+{n}_r^2{N}_t+N{l}_k{n}_t^2+{l}_k^3{N}_t\right) \).
Assume that the data streams for every user is equal, i.e., l _{1} = ⋯ = l _{ K } = l. Thus, the complexity of the proposed centralized algorithm is \( O\left(K{L}^2{N}_t+K{n}_r^2{N}_t+K{n}_r{N}_t^2\right) \), and the decentralized algorithm is \( O\left(K{L}^2{N}_t+K{n}_r^2{N}_t+NL{n}_t^2+K{l}^3{N}_t\right) \).
4.3 Remark 2 (backhaul latency effect)
For centralized coordinated mode, txrx processing matrices are jointly computed at the central processing unit and then reported to every BS through the backhaul link. The existing backhaul latency can affect the system performance. We ignore the backhaul latency effect in the paper and will study it in the future work.
5 Numerical results and discussions
This section presents some simulation results to evaluate the BER performance of the proposed two algorithms. We compare them with the following algorithms: the interferencefree algorithm, the joint transitreceive processing algorithm proposed in [19], and the centralized BD (CBD) and decentralized BD (DBD). As the traditional BD cannot be directly applied in a decentralized manner, here in DBD, receive processing matrix is derived firstly based on the same method for receive processing matrix in the proposed decentralized algorithm, then the precoding matrix is derived based on the ZF criterion. For the system with a single stream transmitted for each user, i.e., l _{ k } = 1 (k = 1,…,K) system, we also compare the proposed decentralized algorithm with DZF [20] and DVSINR [22]. Flat Rayleigh fading channels are considered in simulations. The elements of the channels are i.i.d. complex Gaussian variables with zero mean and unit variance. In this simulation, a 64QAM modulation scheme is employed in the simulation. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) is defined as SNR = P/(SMσ^{2}), where M = 4 is the signal constellation size and S is the average number of the data streams transmitted for each user.
5.1 Balance BER performance among streams of each user
5.2 BER performance comparison of different algorithms
5.3 The effect of the receive antennas and user's number to centralized algorithms
5.4 BER performance of the proposed algorithms in a noncoordinated system
6 Conclusions
Nonlinear joint txrx processing technology for a coordinated multicell system with multistream multiantenna users has been studied. The capacity of the backhaul link determines different coordinated modes among BSs, including centralized and decentralized coordinated. The proposed centralized algorithm is proposed to derive the txrx processing matrices jointly at the central processing unit. The proposed decentralized algorithm allows each BS design to transmit precoding in a decentralized manner, which alleviates the demand on the backhaul capacity. The analysis and simulation results show that the centralized algorithm achieves better performance than the decentralized algorithm. And, the proposed algorithms achieve better performance than the existing joint txrx processing algorithms and the decentralized linear precodings.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Special Funding for Beijing Common Construction Project and the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (4144079).
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 M Sawahashi, Y Kishiyama, A Morimoto, D Nishikawa, M Tano, Coordinated multipoint transmission/reception techniques for LTEadvanced [Coordinated and Distributed MIMO]. IEEE Wireless Commun. 17(3), 26–34 (2010)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 D Lee, H Seo, B Clerckx, E Hardouin, D Mazzarese, S Nagata, K Sayana, Coordinated multipoint transmission and reception in LTEadvanced: deployment scenarios and operational challenges. IEEE Commun. Mag. 50(2), 148–155 (2012)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 D Gesbert, S Hanly, H Huang, S ShamaiShitz, O Simeone, W Yu, Multicell MIMO cooperative networks: a new look at interference. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 28(9), 1380–1408 (2010)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 K Karakayali, GJ Foschini, RA Valenzuela, R Yates, On the maximum common rate achievable in a coordinated network. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference Communications (IEEE, Istanbul, 2006), pp. 4333–4338Google Scholar
 Z Keke, RC de Lamare, M Haardt, Multibranch TomlinsonHarashimaprecoding design for MUMIMO systems: theory and algorithms. IEEE Trans Commun. 62(3), 939–951 (2014)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 S Jing, D Tse, J Soriaga, J Hou, J Smee, R Padovani, Multicell downlink capacity with coordinated processing. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun.Netw 2008, 586878 (2008)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 S Liyan, Y Chenyang, H Shengqian, The value of channel prediction in CoMP systems with large backhaul latency. IEEE Trans Commun. 61(11), 4577–4590 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Papadogiannis, E Hardouin, D Gesbert, Decentralisingmulticell cooperative processing: a novel robust framework. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun.Netw 2009, 890685 (2009)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 R Zhang, Cooperative multicell block diagonalization with perbasestation power constraints. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 28, 1435–1445 (2010)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 S Shi, M Schubert, N Vucic, H Boche, MMSE optimization with perbasestation power constraints for network MIMO systems. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference Communications (IEEE, Beijing, 2008), pp. 4106–4110Google Scholar
 J Zhang, Y Wu, S Zhou, J Wang, Joint linear transmitter and receiver design for the downlink of multiuser MIMO systems. IEEE Commun Lett 9(11), 991–993 (2005)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 RC de Lamare, Adaptive and iterative multibranch MMSE decision feedback detection algorithms for multiantenna systems. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 12(10), 5294–5308 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 H Park, SH Park, HB Kong, I Lee, Weighted sum MSE minimization under perBS power constraint for network MIMO systems. IEEE Commun. Lett 16(3), 360–363 (2012)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 S He, Y Huang, L Yang, B Ottersten, Coordinated multicell multiuser precoding for maximizing weighted sum energy efficiency. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 62(3), 741–751 (2014)View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 M Wei, C Xiang, Z Ming, W Jing, Joint streamwise THP transceiver design for the multiuser MIMO downlink. IEICE Trans. Commun. 92(1), 209–218 (2009)Google Scholar
 W Hardjawana, B Vucetic, Y Li, Multiuser cooperative base station systems with joint precoding and beamforming. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(6), 1079–1093 (2009)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 S Adão, H Reza, G Atílio, Power allocation strategies for distributed precodedmulticell based systems. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw 2011, 1 (2011)Google Scholar
 Y Sun, M Wu, M Zhao, C Xu, Transceiver designs using nonlinear precoding for multiuser MIMO systems with limited feedback. Proceedings of the IEEE VehicularTechnology Conference (IEEE, Dresden, 2013), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
 L Sun, M Lei, Adaptive joint nonlinear transmitreceive processing for multicell MIMO networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Globe Communications Conference (IEEE, Anaheim, 2012), pp. 3766–3771Google Scholar
 R Holakouei, A Silva, A Gameiro, Distributed versus centralized zeroforcing precoding for multicell OFDM systems. Proceedings of the IEEE Globe Communications ConferenceWorkshops (IEEE, Houston, 2011), pp. 188–193Google Scholar
 R Zakhour, D Gesbert, Distributed multicellMISO precoding using the layered virtual SINR framework. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 9(8), 2444–2448 (2010)View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 E Bjornson, R Zakhour, D Gesbert, B Ottersten, Cooperative multicell precoding: rate region characterization and distributed strategies with instantaneous and statistical CSI. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing 58(8), 4298–4310 (2010)View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 X Zhao, H Xu, X Yang, Performance enhancement for CoMP based on power allocation and a modified ZFTHP. Proceedings of the IEEE Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (IEEE, Sydney, 2012), pp. 2309–2313Google Scholar
 I Krikidis, B Ottersten, Diversity fairness in Tomlinson–Harashimaprecoded multiuser MIMO through retransmission. IEEE Signal Process Lett. 20(4), 375–378 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 G Boudreau, J Panicker, N Guo, R Chang, N Wang, S Vrzic, Interference coordination and cancellation for 4G networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 47(4), 74–81 (2009)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 J Tang, S Lambotharan, Interference alignment techniques for MIMO multicell interfering broadcast channels. IEEE Trans. Commun. 61(1), 164–175 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 R.F.H.Fisher, Precoding and signal shaping for digital transmission (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002)Google Scholar
 Y Jiang, W Hager, J Li, The generalized triangular decomposition. Math. Comput. 77, 1037–1056 (2007)View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 A Wiesel, E Yonina, CS Shlomo, Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 54(1), 161–176 (2006)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
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.