Physical Communication ( ) –

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physical Communication
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/phycom

Full length article

A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing

Mário Marques da Silva a, *, Rui Dinis b
a
Instituto de Telecomunicações, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, Autonoma TechLab, Portugal
b
Instituto de Telecomunicações, Universidade Nova, Portugal

article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper considers the use of massive multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) combined with single-
Received 18 November 2016 carrier with frequency-domain equalization (SC-FDE) modulations, associated to millimeter wave (mm-
Received in revised form 15 March 2017 Wave) communications using precoding. For the sake of comparison, this paper performs a comparison
Accepted 11 June 2017
of pre and post-processing methodology, using the same algorithms. In this paper, we consider three
Available online xxxx
different types of algorithms: Zero Forcing Transmitter (ZFT), Maximum Ratio Transmitter (MRT), and
Keywords: Equal Gain Transmitter (EGT), both of the latter two with iterative detection schemes. The advantage of
Massive MIMO both MRT and EGT relies on avoiding the computation of pseudo-inverse of matrices. The performance
Precoding of MRT and EGT are very close to the matched filter bound just after a few iterations of a new proposed
SC-FDE interference cancellation, even when the number of receiving antennas is not very high.
5G © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Interference cancellation
mm-Wave

1. Introduction above current wireless systems. In fact, mm-Wave systems can

Massive MIMO (m-MIMO) schemes involving several tens or
even hundreds of antenna elements are expected to be central
technologies for 5G (Fifth Generation) systems [1], where higher
capacity and spectral efficiency are required [2], as compared to
current systems. To avoid implementation complexity, massive
MIMO schemes should use simple techniques to separate data
streams that avoid matrix inversions inherent to conventional
MIMO receivers. mm-Wave communications are expected to be
a crucial part of 5G systems due to their increased channel co-
herence bandwidth, as compared to centimeter wave. The same
technological approach is utilized in the ieee 802.11 standard, as in
802.11ad [3]. These systems use carrier frequencies above 30 GHz
where we have large unoccupied bandwidth (there are proposals
for several bands in the vicinity of 40 GHz, 60 GHz, 70 GHz, or even
above [4,5]). However, mm-Wave transmission has important
problems like high free-space path losses, very small diffraction
effects, huge losses due to obstacles and implementation difficul-
ties, namely with the power amplification [6]. On the other hand,
the small wavelength means that we can have small antennas and
small-sized antenna aggregates with a large number of elements,
facilitating the deployment of m-MIMO schemes [4]. Moreover,
the high reflection effects can be used to improve coverage [6].
By taking advantage of these characteristics, we can design mm-
Wave communications with capacities several orders magnitude
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marques.silva@ieee.org (M. Marques da Silva).
take full advantage of techniques like small cells networks (pico
or femto) and m-MIMO schemes. By combining small cells with
m-MIMO systems we can have large gains to cope with propa-
gation losses and/or accommodate a large number of co-channel
users, with high frequency reuse [2].
As with other wireless systems, mm-Wave communications
should have high power and improved spectral efficiencies, which
are conflicting requirements. In general, high spectral efficiency
means using large constellations and strictly band-limited signals,
which have high power requirements and the inherent high peak-
to-average power ratio (PAPR) leads to low amplification effi-
ciency [7]. It is well-known that high power and spectral efficien-
cies are contradictory goals. In fact, increased spectral efficiency
means the use of larger constellations, which leads to higher power
requirements since the average bit energy for a given minimum
Euclidean distance increases with the constellation size. More-
over, in general larger constellations also have higher linearity
requirements since the associated signals have higher envelope
fluctuations and, consequently, lower amplification efficiency [8].
Block transmission techniques, with appropriate cyclic prefixes
and employing Frequency-Domain Equalization (FDE) techniques,
have been shown to be suitable for high data rate transmission
over severely time-dispersive channels [7]. Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is the most popular modulation
based on this technique. Single Carrier (SC) modulation using FDE
is an alternative approach based on this principle. As with OFDM,
the data blocks are preceded by a cyclic prefix, long enough to
cope with the overall channel length. Due to the lower envelope

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002
1874-4907/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
2 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication ( ) –

fluctuations of the transmitted signals (and, implicitly lower PAPR),

SC-FDE schemes are especially interesting when a low-complexity
and efficient power amplification is required [7].
A promising Iterative Block-Decision Feedback Equalization
technique (IB-DFE) for SC-FDE was proposed in [8,9] and extended
to other diversity [9,10] and spatial multiplexing scenarios [11,12].
These IB-DFE receivers can be regarded as iterative DFE receivers
where the feedforward and the feedback operations are imple-
mented in the frequency domain offering much better perfor-
mance than non-iterative methods [9–11]. IB-DFE receiver can
also be regarded as turbo equalization schemes [12,13] that are
implemented in the frequency-domain [14].
A disadvantage of the precoding using the Zero Forcing (ZF) al-
gorithm relies on the need to compute the pseudo-inverse channel
matrix, for each frequency component, valid for both precoding
and post-processing. In this paper, we avoid this by implementing
the m-MIMO using MRT for precoding or Maximum Ratio Combin-
ing (MRC) for post-processing, and EGT for precoding or Equal Gain
Fig. 1. Block Diagram of m-MIMO for (a) SC-FDE (b) details of MIMO receiver and
Combining (EGC) for post-processing. Note that MRT and MRC are
interference cancellation using pre-processing.
the same algorithms, with the difference of the location where they
are implemented. The same rational applies to EGT versus EGC.
Since these algorithms originate a certain level of interference,
we include an interference cancellation process in the receiver, where {Hk ; k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} = DFT {hn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}
whose design is based on the IB-DFE receiver, which makes these denotes the channel frequency response for the kth subcarrier (the
algorithms performing very close to matched filter bound. channel is assumed invariant in the frame) and Nk is the frequency-
In this paper we propose an m-MIMO architecture using an domain block channel noise for that subcarrier.
efficient precoding using broadband mm-Wave communications At the output of the FDE we have the samples
that can employ highly efficient, low-cost saturated amplifiers. For Yk Hk∗
the sake of comparison, this paper performs a comparison with the X̃k = . (3)
post-processing methodology, using algorithms similar to those α + |Hk |2
utilized in precoding. We assume the frame structure with N subcarriers per block and
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the NT time-domain blocks, each one corresponding to an ‘‘FFT block’’.
system characterization associated to generic SC-FDE signals. Sec- Assuming the conventional linear FDE for SC schemes, the post-
tion 3 considers the transmitter structure for the proposed m- processing comes,
MIMO using precoding. Section 4 considers the transmitter struc-
(2)
X̃k = Yk Hk∗ βk
[ ]
ture for the proposed m-MIMO using post-processing. Finally, Sec- (4)
tion 5 analyzes the performance results and Section 6 concludes
(2) ))−1
where βk = α + |Hk |2
( (
the paper. . As expected,

(2)
2. System characterization associated to generic SC-FDE signals X̃k = Xk |Hk |2 βk + Nkeq . (5)
] eq
In addition, we define α = E |Nk | /E |Xk |2 . Nk [denotes
2
[ [ ]
We consider block transmission schemes and the transmitted the
⏐ eq ⏐2 ]
block has the form equivalent noise for detection purposes, with E Nk ⏐ ⏐ =
N −1 ] (2)
2σN |Hk | βk , and with σN = E |Nk | /2.
2 2
∑ [ 2 2
[ ]
x (t ) = xn hT (t − nTS ) , (1)
The post-processing for OFDM signals is the same as defined in
n=−NG (2)
(4) but without multiplying by the βk component.
with TS denoting the symbol duration, NG denoting the num-
ber of samples at the cyclic prefix and hT (t ) is the adopted 3. Transmitter structure for the proposed massive MIMO using
pulse shaping filter. The signal x (t ) is transmitted over a time- precoding
dispersive channel and the signal at the receiver input is sam-
pled and the cyclic prefix is removed, leading to the time- 3.1. Computation of the precoding coefficient
domain block {yn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}, which is then subject to
the frequency domain equalization. For SC-FDE schemes, the time-
We consider the multi-user massive MIMO scenario depicted in
domain block to be transmitted are {xn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} de-
Fig. 1 which concerns the transmission between an emitter with T
noting the length-N data block to be transmitted, where xn is the
antennas and a receiver with R antennas.
nth data symbol, selected from a given constellation (e.g., a QPSK
This system can be employed between a Base Station (BS) and a
constellation) under an appropriate mapping rule (it is assumed
Mobile Terminal (MT) with R receiving antennas, to send multiple
that x−n = xN −n , n = −NG , −NG + 1, . . . , −1). The trans-
mitter frequency-domain block is {Xk ; k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} = streams of data. In either case consider that T ≫R. Finally, this
DFT {xn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}. system can also be applied between two MTs, or in the uplink
Assuming that the cyclic prefix is longer than the overall chan- scenario, but it is required that the MT has enough processing
nel impulse response of each channel, the frequency-domain block to implement the precoding, which is not problematic with the
after the FDE block (i.e., the DFT of the received time-domain block, precoding based on MRT and EGT.
after removing the cyclic prefix) is {yn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} = Without loss of generality, in the signal description we assume
IDFT {Yk ; k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}, with the downlink direction. The channels between each transmitting
and receiving antenna are assumed to be highly selective in the
Yk = Xk Hk + Nk (2) frequency domain, requiring powerful equalization schemes. For

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication ( ) – 3

this reason, SC-FDE modulations are employed. The BS has a block different transmitting and receiving antennas, the elements out-
(r)
of N data symbols {xn ; n = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} to send, which side the main diagonal of
are subject to precoding first. The received block at the rth MT is
{y(r) Hk Bk (12)
n ; k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1}. As with other SC-FDE schemes, a cyclic
prefix longer than the maximum overall channel impulse response are much lower than the ones at its diagonal, where (i, i )th ele- ′
is appended to each transmitted block and removed at the receiver. ment of the matrix B are defined as:
(r)
In this case, the corresponding frequency-domain block {Yk ; k =
0, 1, . . . , N − 1} satisfies 1. For MRT: [B]i,i′ = [H]H ′ /T .
i,i
2. For EGT: [B]i,i′ = exp j arg [H]i,i′ /T , i.e., they have
( ( ))
[ ]T
(1) (R)
Yk = Yk , . . . , Yk = Hk Wk + Nk (6) absolute value 1 and phase identical to the corresponding
element of the matrix H.
where Hk denotes the R × T channel matrix for the kth frequency,
(r ,t)
with (r , t)th element Hk . T refers to the number of transmitting For SC-FDE signals we could employ a frequency-domain process-
antennas and R denotes the number of receiving antennas. In this ing with MRT or EGT at each frequency, based on Hk Bk . However,
paper it is assumed that channel is known at the transmitting side, the residual interference levels can still be substantial, especially
as in TDD systems. for moderate values of T /R. To overcome this problem, we propose
Considering a precoding approach, the transmitted symbols the iterative interference canceller (receiver) depicted in Fig. 1(b),
(1) (T ) T where
comes Wk = [Wk , . . . , Wk ] , defined by
X̃k = Yk − Ck Xk . (13)
Wk = Bk Xk (7)
The interference cancellation matrix Ck comes defined by
where Bk denotes the T × R precoding matrix, and the data symbols
(1) (R) T Ck = Hk Bk − I (14)
Xk = [Xk , . . . , Xk ] . The precoding matrix Bk can be computed
using different algorithms. where I is an R × R identity matrix.
1. Using the zero forcing transmitter (ZFT)1 algorithm Bk comes: [ This interference canceller is implemented using Xk =
X 0 , . . . , X N −1 , with Xk denoting the frequency-domain average
]
)−1
Bk = HH H
.
(
k Hk Hk (8) values conditioned to the FDE output for the previous iteration
[15].
2. Using the MRT algorithm Bk comes:
Before defining Xk , let us define the LLRs (Log Likelihood Ratios)
I (i)
of the ‘‘in-phase bit’’ and the ‘‘quadrature bit’’, associated to xn and
k /T
Bk = HH (9) Q (i)
xn , respectively, given by
where T stands for the number of transmitting antennas.
2
3. Using the EGT algorithm Bk comes: LIn(i) = X̃nI (i)
σi2
(15)
Bk = exp j arg HH /T .
{ ( )}
k (10) 2
LQn (i) = X̃ Q (i)
2 n
A disadvantage of the MRT and EGT relating to ZFT relies on the σi
generated interference, which degrades the performance. In order respectively, with
to improve the performance, we consider an iterative receiver.
N −1
1 [⏐ ⏐2 ] 1 ∑ ⏐ ⌢(i)
σi2 = E ⏐xn − x(ni) ⏐ ≈ ⏐ x − X̃ (i) ⏐2 .
⏐
3.2. Interference cancellation using precoding n n (16)
2 2N
n=0

Let us consider the frequency domain estimated data symbols (σi2 is almost independent of l for large values of N, provided that
(1) (R) T
X̃k = [X̃k ,..., X̃k
] Since the precoding approach considers the
. Hk remains constant for the frame duration).
processing at the transmitter side, the detector computes the data The conditional average values associated with the data sym-
(r) (r) bols are given by
symbols obtained from the IDFT of the block {X̃k = Yk ; k =
0, 1, . . . , N − 1} with: I (i) Q (i)
( ) ( )
(i) Ln Ln
xn = tanh + j tanh . (17)
x̃n = IDFT (Yk ) . (11) 2 2

Note that, in the precoding case, it does not need to perform
the equalization process, as defined as (4). The estimated bits are
obtained by applying the sign function to (11), depending on the
modulation scheme.
In the case of ZF precoding (that is, ZFT), since interference is
not generated, this detection tends to perform well. However, this
involves the inversion of a matrix for each frequency component,
and the dimensions of these matrices can be very high in massive
MIMO systems. Massive MIMO schemes should usually employ
simpler receivers. The simplest approach is probably to perform
the MRT or EGT. This can be performed either at the receiver or at
transmitter side. This paper considers the processing at the trans-
mitter side, i.e, a precoding approach is employed. The proposed
MRT or EGT take advantage of the fact that, for massive MIMO
systems with T ≫1 with small correlation of the channels between
1 ZFT refers to the ZF algorithm implemented as precoding at the transmitter side.
For the first iteration there is no information about the transmitted
symbols and Xk = 0. This means that our receiver can be regarded
as a simple SC-FDE receiver with an interference cancellation,
performed in the frequency domain, of the signals associated to
different receiver antennas, while the MRT or EGT processing is
performed at the transmitter side (precoding approach). For the
subsequent iterations we employ the average values conditioned
to the receiver output at the previous iteration to remove the
residual intersymbol interference and inter user interference.
In general, for moderate-to-high signal-to-noise ratio, the av-
erage values conditioned to the receiver output approach the
transmitted signals as we increase the number of iterations, which
means that the interference cancellation performed by Ck becomes
more effective and the performance improves. Moreover, since the
average values conditioned to the receiver output can be regarded
as soft decisions [15], this reduces significantly error propagation
effects in our iterative receiver (in fact, we did not observe error
propagation effects).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
4 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication ( ) –

3. Using the EGC receiver, X̃k comes:

X̃k = exp j arg HH Yk .

{ ( )}
k (21)

Similar to the precoding case, a disadvantage of the MRC and

EGC relating to ZFR relies on the generated interference, which
degrades the performance. In order to improve the performance,
we consider an iterative receiver, as defined in the following.

4.2. Interference cancellation using post-processing

Since the post-processing approach considers the processing at

the receiver side, the detector computes the data symbols obtained
(r)
from the IDFT of the block {X̃k ; k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1} with:

x̃n = IDFT X̃k .

( )
(22)

The estimated bits are obtained by applying the sign function to x̃n ,
depending on the modulation scheme.
In the case of ZFR receiver, this involves the inversion of a
matrix for each frequency component, and the dimensions of these
Fig. 2. Block Diagram of m-MIMO for (a) SC-FDE (b) details of MIMO receiver and matrices can be very high in massive MIMO systems. Massive
interference cancellation using post-processing.
MIMO schemes should usually employ simpler receivers. The sim-
plest approach is probably to perform the MRC or EGC. This take
advantage of the fact that, for massive MIMO systems with R ≫1
4. Transmitter structure for the proposed massive MIMO using
with small correlation between the channels between different
post-processing
transmit and receiving antennas, the elements outside the main
diagonal of
4.1. Computation of the post-processing coefficient
AH
k Hk (23)
We consider the multi-user massive MIMO scenario depicted in
Fig. 2 which concerns the uplink transmission between T MTs and are much lower than the ones at its diagonal, where (i, i )th ele-
′
a BS with R antennas. For the sake of simplicity, and without loss ment of the matrix A are defined as:
of generality, we assume a single antenna at each MT.
Alternatively, this system can be employed between a MT with 1. For MRC: [A]i,i′ = [H]H ′ .
i,i
T antennas and a BS with R receiving antennas, to send multiple
( ( ))
2. For EGC: [A]i,i′ = exp j arg [H]i,i′ , i.e., they have absolute
streams of data. In either case we consider that R ≫T. Finally, this value 1 and phase identical to the corresponding element of
system can also be applied between two MTs. the matrix H.
Similar to the precoding scenario, SC-FDE modulations are em-
(t)
ployed. The tth MT has a block of N data symbols {xn ; n = For SC-FDE signals we could employ a frequency-domain process-
(r)
0, 1, . . . , N − 1} to send. The received block at the BS is {yn ; k = ing with MRC or EGC at each frequency, based on AH k Hk . However,
0, 1, . . . , N − 1}. As with other SC-FDE schemes, a cyclic prefix the residual interference levels can still be substantial, especially
longer than the maximum overall channel impulse response is for moderate values of T /R. To overcome this problem, we propose
appended to each transmitted block and removed at the receiver. the iterative interference canceller (receiver) depicted in Fig. 2(b),
(r)
In this case, the corresponding frequency-domain block {Yk ; k = where
0, 1, . . . , N − 1} satisfies
[ ]T k Yk − Dk Xk .
X̃k = AH (24)
(1) (R)
Yk = Yk , . . . , Yk = Hk Xk + Nk (18)
The interference cancellation matrix Dk comes defined by
where Hk denotes the R × T channel matrix for the kth frequency,
(r ,t ) Dk = A H
k Hk − I (25)
with (r , t )th element Hk . The transmitted symbols comes Xk =
[ ]T
(1) (T ) where I is an R × R identity matrix.
Xk , . . . , Xk .
[ This interference canceller is implemented using Xk =
Let[us consider the ]T frequency domain estimated data symbols X 0 , . . . , X N −1 , with Xk denoting the frequency-domain average
]
(1) (R)
X̃k = X̃k , . . . , X̃k . values conditioned to the FDE output for the previous iteration
1. For the Zero Forcing Receiver (ZFR),2 the data symbols can be [15], as defined for the precoding.
obtained from the IDFT of the block X̃k , where [16]
)−1 5. Performance results
X̃k = HH k Yk .
HH
(
k Hk (19)
In this section we present a set of performance results concern-
2. Using the MRC receiver, X̃k comes:
ing the proposed m-MIMO scheme using precoding optimized for
X̃k = HH mm-wave associated to SC-FDE signals. For the sake of compari-
k Yk (20)
son, this section performs a comparison with the post-processing
where R stands for the number of receiving antennas. methodology, using the same algorithms as those utilized in pre-
coding. We consider Bit Error Rate (BER) performances, which are
2 ZFR refers to the ZF algorithm implemented as post-processing at the receiver expressed as a function of Eb /N0 , where N0 is the one-sided power
side. spectral density of the noise and Eb is the energy of the transmitted

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication ( ) – 5

Fig. 3. BER results with 32 × 8m-MIMO using precoding. Fig. 4. BER results with 64 × 8 m-MIMO using precoding.

bits (i.e., the degradation due to the useless power spent on the
cyclic prefix is not included).
Each block has N = 256 symbols selected from a QPSK constel-
lation under a Gray mapping rule (similar results were observed
for other values of N, provided that N ≫ 1). Our channel has 16
equal power paths with uncorrelated Rayleigh fading. The channel
is assumed to be invariant during the block. The duration of the
useful part of the blocks (N symbols) is 1 µs and the cyclic prefix
has duration 0.125 µs. For SC-FDE systems we considered the linear
FDE (i.e., just the first iteration of the interference canceller) up to
four iterations of the interference canceller. Beyond this number,
the performance improvement was almost negligible.
Linear power amplification is considered at the transmitter and
perfect synchronization is assumed at the receiver.
Fig. 3 considers BER results for massive MIMO with 32 trans-
mitting antennas and 8 receiving antennas (32 × 8), using pre-
coding. The three proposed algorithms are plotted (ZFT, MRT and
EGT). Moreover, the matched filter bound is also plotted. Fig. 3
Fig. 5. BER results with 128 × 8 m-MIMO using precoding.
considers results with and without interference cancellation. In the
case without interference cancellation, a regular SC-FDE receiver
is considered (that is, a linear FDE receiver). Moreover, when in-
terference cancellation is adopted, an iterative receiver is adopted. As compared to the previous graphic, we have increased the num-
From Fig. 3 it is shown that the ZFT achieves a performance very ber of transmitting antennas, while leaving the number of receiv-
close to the Matched Filter Bound (MFB). It is worth noting that ing antennas unchanged. As can be seen from the results, with such
the receiver employed with the ZFT is a regular SC-FDE receiver, increase of transmitting antennas, the performance obtained with
without interference cancellation, because the ZFT algorithm does both MRT and EGT with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation
not generate interference. As opposed to the ZFR (post-processing becomes closer to the ZF and MFB.
approach), the ZFT precoding (pre-processing) does not generate Fig. 5 considers BER results for massive MIMO with 128 trans-
noise enhancement, because when the processing is applied, the mitting antennas and 8 receiving antennas (128 × 8), using pre-
noise does not exist. As previously described, a disadvantage of coding. As compared to the previous graphics, we have increased
the ZFT algorithm relies on the need to compute the pseudo- the number of transmitting antennas, while leaving the number
inverse of the channel matrix, for each frequency component. To of receiving antennas unchanged. As before, with such increase of
simplify this process, we proposed the use of the MRT and EGT, transmitting antennas, the performance obtained with both MRT
with the disadvantage of generating a certain level of interference. and EGT with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation becomes
Fig. 3 shows results for 2 up to 4 iterations of the interference even closer to the ZFT and MFB.
cancellation associated to MRT and EGT. Results with more than 4 Fig. 6 shows the BER results for the massive MIMO with 32
iterations are not shown because the performance keeps approx- transmitting antennas and 2 receiving antennas (32 × 2), using
imately unchanged, as compared to 4 iterations. It is shown that, precoding. As compared to Fig. 3 (32 × 8), we have reduced
with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation, the performance the number of receiving antennas, which leads to a performance
obtained with the MRT approximates that of the ZFT and MFB. improvement because the level of interference decreases for MRT
Moreover, with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation, the and EGT. Note that the level of interference increases with the
MRT algorithm tends to achieve a performance slightly better than number of receiving antennas. As expected, it is noticeable that the
that of the EGT. performance obtained with MRT with 4 iterations of interference
Fig. 4 considers BER results for massive MIMO with 64 transmit- cancellation is very close to the MFB and ZFT, even with only 32
ting antennas and 8 receiving antennas (64 × 8), using precoding. transmitting antennas.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
6 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication (
Fig. 6. BER results with 32 × 2 m-MIMO using precoding.
Fig. 7. BER results for m-MIMO with different number of transmit and receiving
antennas using Precoding (MRT and EGT have 4 iterations of interference cancella-
tion).
Fig. 7 shows the performance comparison for massive MIMO,
using precoding, with different number of transmit and receiv-
ing antennas, considering the ZFT. Moreover the MRT and EGT is
plotted always with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation,
because this represents a signal clear enough of interference (see
previous figures).
As can be seen, for a certain number of receiving antennas, the
increase of transmitting antennas leads to performance improve-
ment. This is visible when we move from 32 × 8 into 128 × 8
configuration. Moreover, the increase of receiving antennas cor-
responds to a decrease of performance, due to the raise in the
level of interference. This is visible when we move from 32 × 2
into 32 × 8 configuration. Finally, it is noticeable that the per-
formance obtained with the ZFT is very insensitive to variations
in the number of transmit and receiving antennas, but this is
obtained at the cost of a high level of computation associated to
the precoding (computation of the pseudo-inverse of a matrix, for
each frequency).
Fig. 8 considers BER results for massive MIMO using both
precoding and post-processing. In the case of precoding the m-
MIMO adopted comprises 32 transmitting antennas and 8 receiv-
ing antennas (32 × 8), while the post-processing comprises 8
Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
) –
Fig. 8. BER results with m-MIMO using precoding (32 × 8) versus post-processing
(8 × 32).
transmitting antennas and 32 receiving antennas (the reciprocal).
The three proposed algorithms used in both precoding and post-
processing are ZFT/ZFR, MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC. Moreover, the
matched filter bound is also plotted. Fig. 8 considers results with
and without interference cancellation. From Fig. 8 it is shown that
the ZF in precoding (ZFT) achieves a performance very close to
the MFB, while the ZF in post-processing (ZFR) presents a worse
performance. It is worth noting that the receiver employed with
either precoding or post-processing ZF is a regular SC-FDE receiver,
without interference cancellation, because the ZF algorithm does
not generate interference. Moreover, as opposed to the ZFR (post-
processing approach), the ZFT (pre-processing) does not generate
noise enhancement, because when the processing is applied, the
noise does not exist. As previously described, a disadvantage of
the ZF algorithm relies on the need to compute the pseudo-inverse
of the channel matrix, for each frequency component. To simplify
this process, we proposed the use of the MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC
(using both pre and post-processing), with the disadvantage of
generating a certain level of interference. Fig. 8 shows results for
2 and 4 iterations of the interference cancellation associated to
MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC. Results with more than 4 iterations are not
shown because the performance keeps approximately unchanged,
as compared to 4 iterations (using both pre and post-processing).
It is viewed that, for MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC, the post-processing
tends to achieve a performance slightly better than those achieved
with the pre-processing (precoding). Exceptionally, the results
obtained without interference cancellation are the same for both
MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC. It is also viewed that the MRT/MRC with
interference cancellation always performs better than the EGT/EGC
(for the same number of iterations), either in pre-processing or
post-processing. Finally, it is viewed that, with 4 iterations of the
interference cancellation, the performance obtained with the MRC
using post-processing approximates that of the MFB, while the
MRT using pre-processing presents a slightly worse performance.
Fig. 9 considers BER results for massive MIMO using both pre-
processing (precoding) and post-processing. In the case of pre-
coding the m-MIMO adopted comprises 64 transmitting antennas
and 8 receiving antennas (64 × 8), while the post-processing
comprises 8 transmitting antennas and 64 receiving antennas
(the reciprocal). As compared to the previous graphic, we have
increased the number of transmit or receiving antennas (precoding
or post-processing, respectively), while leaving the other number
of antennas unchanged. As can be seen from the results, with
such increase of antennas, and for both pre and post-processing
 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication (
Fig. 9. BER results with m-MIMO using precoding (64 × 8) versus post-processing
(8 × 64).
for MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC, for different number of iterations of
the interference cancellation, the performance improves relating
to the scenario with 32 antennas (previous graphic). For the case
with 4 iterations of the interference cancellation, the MRT/MRC im-
plemented either using the pre-processing or the post-processing
achieves a performance very close to the MFB. Moreover, as before,
the ZF using the pre-processing (ZFT) performs better than that
using post-processing (ZFR). This occurs because the ZFR presents
noise enhancement while the pre-processing does not.
6. Conclusions
In this paper we considered the massive MIMO using precoding,
with different algorithms optimized for mm-Wave. For the sake of
comparison, the post-processing methodology was also described,
analyzed and compared, using the same algorithms as those uti-
lized in precoding.
It was viewed that the precoding ZFT achieves a performance
very close to the MFB, while the post-processing ZFR does not,
due to the noise enhancement. Moreover, it was described that a
disadvantage of the ZF algorithm relies on the need to compute
the pseudo-inverse of the channel matrix, for each frequency com-
ponent. To avoid this and simplify this process, we have proposed
the use of the MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC. These two algorithms were
described in both pre-processing and post-processing methodolo-
gies. A disadvantage of these algorithms rely on a certain level
of interference that is generated. To remove this interference,
we have proposed a novel iterative interference canceller. It was
viewed that the MRT/MRC tends to outperform the EGT/EGC.
These algorithms implemented in post-processing achieve a per-
formance slightly better than in the pre-processing methodology.
Implementing the MRT/MRC and EGT/EGC algorithms for m-MIMO
with mm-Wave, associated to the interference cancellation, we
avoid the computation of the pseudo-inverse matrix, and there-
fore simplify the processing (either pre or post-processing), while
achieving a performance very close to the MFB, especially with 4
iterations of the interference canceller.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for the
Science and Technology (FCT) under project UID/EEA/50008/2013.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.
) – 7
References
[1] F. Rusek, D. Persson, B.K. Lau, et al., Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and
challenges with very large arrays, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 30 (1) (2013) 40–
60.
[2] F. Boccardi, R. Heath, A. Lozano, T. Marzetta, P. Popovski, Five disruptive
technology directions for 5G, IEEE Commun. Mag. 52 (2) (2014) 74–80.
[3] IEEE 802.11 Task Group, AD, PHY/MAC Complete Proposal Specification, IEEE
802.11-10/0433r2, May 2010.
[4] T.S. Rappaport, Shu Sun, R. Mayzus, Hang Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang, G.N. Wong,
J.K. Schulz, M. Samimi, F. Gutierrez, Millimeter wave mobile communications
for 5G cellular: It will work! IEEE Access 1 (2013) 335, 349.
[5] S. Nie, G. MacCartney, S. sun, T. Rappaport, 28 GHz and 73 GHz signal outage
study for millimeter wave cellular and backhaul communications, in: IEEE
ICC’2014, Sydney, Australia, Jun., 2014.
[6] S. Rangan, T.S. Rappaport, E. Erkip, Millimeter-wave cellular wireless net-
works: Potentials and challenges, Proc. IEEE 102 (3) (2014) 366, 385.
[7] D. Falconer, S. Ariyavisitakul, A. Benyamin-Seeyar, B. Eidson, Frequency do-
main equalization for single-carrier broadband wireless systems, IEEE Com-
mun. Mag. 4 (4) (2002) 58–66.
[8] Y. Li, K. Han, C. Dong, A multi-band low-noise transmitter with digital carrier
leakage suppression and linearity enhancement, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I
60 (5) (2013).
[9] N. Benvenuto, S. Tomasin, Block iterative DFE for single carrier modulation, IEE
Electron. Lett. 39 (19) (2002).
[10] R. Dinis, A. Gusmão, N. Esteves, On broadband block transmission over strongly
frequency-selective fading channels, in: Wireless 2003, Calgary, Canada, July,
2003.
[11] R. Dinis, R. Kalbasi, D. Falconer, A. Banihashemi, Iterative layered space-time
receivers for single-carrier transmission over severe time-dispersive channels,
IEEE Commun. Lett. 8 (9) (2004) 579–581.
[12] M. Marques da Silva, A. Correia, R. Dinis, N. Souto, J. Silva, Transmission
Techniques for Emergent Multicast and Broadcast Systems, first ed. CRC Press
Auerbach Publications, New York, USA, ISBN: 9781439815939, 2010.
[13] M. Tuchler, R. Koetter, A. Singer, Turbo equalization: Principles and new
results, IEEE Trans. Commun. 50 (2002).
[14] A. Gusmão, P. Torres, R. Dinis, N. Esteves, A class of iterative FDE techniques for
reduced-CP SC-based block transmission, in: Int. Symposium on Turbo Codes,
April, 2006.
[15] P. Silva, R. Dinis, Frequency-Domain Multiuser Detection for CDMA Systems,
River Publishers, Aalborg, 2012.
[16] P. Montezuma, D. Borges, R. Dinis, Low complexity MRC and EGC based
receivers for SC-FDE modulations with massive MIMO schemes, in: IEEE GLOB-
ALSIP, Washington DC, Dec., 2016.
Mário Marques da Silva is an Associate Professor and
the Director of the Department of Sciences and Technolo-
gies at Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa. He is also a
Researcher at Instituto de Telecomunicações, in Lisbon,
Portugal. He received his B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering
in 1992, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical
and Computers Engineering (Telecommunications), re-
spectively in 1999 and 2005, both from Instituto Superior
Técnico, University of Lisbon.
Between 2005 and 2008 he was with NATO Air Com-
mand Control & Management Agency (NACMA) in Brussels
(Belgium), where he managed the deployable communications of the new Air Com-
mand and Control System Program. He has been involved in multiple networking
and telecommunications projects. His research interests include networking and
mobile communications, namely block transmission techniques (OFDM, SC-FDE),
interference cancellation, space-time coding, MIMO systems, smart and adaptive
antennas, channel estimation, software defined radio, IP technologies and network
security. Mário Marques da Silva is also a Cisco certified CCNA instructor.
He is the author of five books entitled Multimedia Communications and Network-
ing, Transmission Techniques for Emergent Multicast and Broadcast Systems, Transmis-
sion Techniques for 4G Systems, MIMO Processing for 4G and Beyond: Fundamentals
and Evolution and Cable and Wireless Networks: Theory & Practice (all from CRC
Press). Moreover, he is author of several dozens of journal and conference papers, a
member of IEEE and AFCEA, and reviewer for a number of international scientific
IEEE journals and conferences. Finally, he has chaired many conference sessions
and has been serving in the organizing committee of relevant EURASIP and IEEE
conferences.
Links to detailed CV:
https://www.it.pt/Members/Index/791
https://www.crcpress.com/authors/i262-mario-marques-da-silva
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mario_Marques_da_Silva2
http://wirelesscommunication.conferenceseries.com/
8 M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis / Physical Communication ( ) –

Rui Dinis received the Ph.D. degree from Instituto Supe-

rior Técnico (IST), Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal,
in 2001. From 2001 to 2008 he was a Professor at IST. Since
2008 he is teaching at FCT-UNL (Faculdade de Ciências
e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa). He was a
researcher at CAPS/IST (Centro de Análise e Processamento
de Sinais) from 1992 to 2005; from 2005 to 2008 he was
researcher at ISR/IST (Instituto de Sistemas e Robótica);
in 2009 he joined the research center IT (Instituto de
Telecomunicações).
He is serving as editor at IEEE Transactions on Com-
munications in the Transmission Systems area, sub-area of Frequency-Domain
Processing and Equalization. He has been involved in several research projects in
the broadband wireless communications area. His main research interests include
modulation, equalization, channel estimation and synchronization.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Marques da Silva, R. Dinis, A simplified massive MIMO implemented with pre or post-processing, Physical Communication (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2017.06.002.