Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Best 3
Best 3
Best 3
Abstract—Hybrid analog and digital beamforming (HBF) has leads to non-trivial practical constraints. The traditional full-
arXiv:1902.08343v1 [cs.IT] 22 Feb 2019
recently emerged as an attractive technique for millimeter-wave digital multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) beamform-
(mmWave) communication systems. It well balances the demand ing which requires one dedicated radio frequency (RF) chain
for sufficient beamforming gains to overcome the propagation
loss and the desire to reduce the hardware cost and power per antenna element is prohibitive in mmWave systems due to
consumption. In this paper, the mean square error (MSE) is the unaffordable hardware cost and power consumption of a
chosen as the performance metric to characterize the transmis- large number of antenna elements [8], [9]. By separating the
sion reliability. Using the minimum sum-MSE criterion, we in- whole beamformer into a low-dimensional baseband digital
vestigate the HBF design for broadband mmWave transmissions. one and a high-dimensional analog one implemented with
To overcome the difficulty of solving the multi-variable design
problem, the alternating minimization method is adopted to opti- phase shifters, the hybrid analog and digital beamforming
mize the hybrid transmit and receive beamformers alternatively. (HBF) architecture has been shown to dramatically reduce
Specifically, a manifold optimization based HBF algorithm is the number of RF chains while guaranteeing a sufficient
firstly proposed, which directly handles the constant modulus beamforming gain [9]–[15].
constraint of the analog component. Its convergence is then
proved. To reduce the computational complexity, we then propose A. Related Works and Motivations
a low-complexity general eigenvalue decomposition based HBF
algorithm in the narrowband scenario and three algorithms via Compared with the traditional full-digital beamforming de-
the eigenvalue decomposition and orthogonal matching pursuit sign, in HBF, besides the difficulty of the joint optimization
methods in the broadband scenario. A particular innovation in over the four beamforming variables (the transmit and receive
our proposed alternating minimization algorithms is a carefully analog and digital beamformers), the constant modulus con-
designed initialization method, which leads to faster convergence.
Furthermore, we extend the sum-MSE based design to that with straints of the analog beamformers due to the phase shifters
weighted sum-MSE, which is then connected to the spectral make the problem highly non-convex and difficult to solve
efficiency based design. Simulation results show that the proposed [9], [16], [19]. Most existing works overcome the difficulty
HBF algorithms achieve significant performance improvement by first decoupling the original problem into hybrid precoding
over existing ones, and perform close to full-digital beamforming. and combining sub-problems and then focusing on the constant
modulus constraint in solving the sub-problems. One effective
Index Terms—Millimeter-wave (mmWave) communications, and widely used approach is to regard the HBF design as a
Minimum mean square error (MMSE), Hybrid analog and matrix factorization problem and to minimize the Euclidean
digital beamforming (HBF), Alternating optimization, Manifold
optimization (MO) distance between the hybrid beamformer with a full-digital
beamformer [9], [17], [18]. To solve this matrix factorization
problem, in [9], the authors exploited the spatial structure
I. I NTRODUCTION of the mmWave propagation channels and proposed spatially
sparse precoding and combining algorithms via the orthogonal
Millimeter-wave (mmWave) communications is a key tech- matching pursuit (OMP) method. In [18], a manifold opti-
nology for 5G, which can address the bandwidth shortage mization (MO) based HBF algorithm, as well as some low-
problem in current mobile systems [1]–[5]. The large-scale complexity algorithms, was proposed. Besides the matrix fac-
antenna array is needed to compensate for the severe path torization approach, another idea for HBF design is to tackle
loss and penetration loss at the mmWave wavelengths [6], [7]. the original problem directly. In [19], [20], the closed-form
However, the substantial increase in the number of antennas solution of digital beamformers was first derived according to
the original objective, followed by several iterative algorithms
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China for the analog ones with the constant modulus constraint.
under Grant No. 61771147, and the Hong Kong Research Grants Council
under Grant No. 16210216. All the above works, as well as most of the other previous
T. Lin, J. Cong, and Y. Zhu are with the Department of Communica- studies, design the HBF with the objective of maximizing
tion Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, China (e-mail: the spectral efficiency. By recalling the joint precoding and
lint17@fudan.edu.cn, jqcong16@fudan.edu.cn, zhuyu@fudan.edu.cn).
J. Zhang is with the Department of Electronic and Information Engineering, combining designs in conventional full-digital MIMO systems,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), Hung Hom, Hong Kong. besides spectral efficiency, the mean square error (MSE) is
Email: jun-eie.zhang@polyu.edu.hk. another important metric [21]–[24]. One direct motivation to
K. B. Letaief is with the Department of Electronic and Computer Engineer-
ing, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong consider MSE is that a practical system is normally con-
Kong (e-mail: eekhaled@ust.hk). strained to some particular modulation and coding scheme
2
instead of the Gaussian code [22], and thus MSE is a direct particular, we decompose the original sum-MSE min-
performance measure to characterize the transmission relia- imization problem into the transmit hybrid precoding
bility. Furthermore, it has been shown that the variants of and receive combining sub-problems, and show that the
the MSE such as sum-MSE, minmax MSE, modified MSE, two sub-problems can be unified in almost the same
weighted MSE, etc., are related to other important performance formulation and solved through the same procedure. The
measures (e.g., signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) alternating minimization method is adopted to solve the
and symbol error rate) [21]–[25]. For example, it has been overall HBF problem, for which a novel initialization
shown in [21], [22] that the MSE is related to the SINR and method is proposed to reduce the number of iterations.
SER (BER) metrics in the beamforming design for the full- Furthermore, following the approach of extending the
digital MIMO systems with multiple data streams. Thus, it is sum-MSE minimization problem to the weighted sum-
of great interest to take MSE as an alternative optimization MSE minimization (WMMSE) problem and connecting
objective for HBF. Actually, even in some existing HBF it to the spectral efficiency maximization problem in the
designs with the spectral efficiency as the objective, the hybrid narrowband scenario [28], we show that in the broadband
receive combining matrices were optimized by minimizing the scenario the proposed MMSE based HBF algorithms can
MSE instead [9], [19], [20], [28]. Moreover, in [26], [30], [31], be generalized to the ones for maximizing the spectral
it was illustrated that precoding design based on the minimum efficiency.
MSE (MMSE) criterion can also achieve good performance in • To deal with the constant modulus constraint in the
spectral efficiency. analog beamforming optimization, we apply the manifold
There have been some works on the HBF design using the optimization (MO) method [18], [33]. In contrast to the
MMSE criterion for mmWave systems. In [26], the authors application of the MO method in [18] for minimizing the
focused on the hybrid MMSE precoding at the transmitter side Euclidean distance between the hybrid beamformer and
and proposed an OMP-based algorithm. To improve the system the target full-digital beamformer, in this study, the MO
performance, in our previous work [27], we tackled the MMSE method is applied to directly minimize the sum-MSE and
precoding problem directly and proposed an algorithm based the new contribution is to derive the more complicated
on the general eigen-decomposition (GEVD) method. In [17], Euclidean conjugate gradient of the sum-MSE with some
the authors replaced the hybrid MMSE precoding problem by skilled derivations so that the Riemannian gradient can
the one of factorizing the optimal full-digital MMSE precoder. be computed. This provides a direct approach with guar-
In their later work [28], the hybrid MMSE combiner was anteed convergence to solve the MMSE HBF problem
further considered with a similar approach to that in [9], instead of the indirect approach in [18].
[16], aiming at minimizing the weighted approximation gap • To avoid the high complexity in the MO-HBF algorithm,
between the hybrid combiner and a full-digital combiner. How- we propose several low-complexity algorithms. In the
ever, all of these works considered the narrowband scenario narrowband scenario, we show that the analog beam-
and cannot be straightforwardly extended to the broadband forming matrix can be optimized column-by-column with
scenario, which is more relevant for mmWave communication the GEVD method. In the broadband scenario, we derive
systems. both upper and lower bounds of the original objective
and then propose two eigen-decomposition (EVD) based
HBF algorithms. Compared with the existing algorithms
B. Contributions and Paper Organization
based on the OMP method [17], [26], [28], the proposed
In this paper, we investigate the joint transmit and receive algorithms directly tackle the original sum-MSE objective
HBF optimization for broadband point-to-point mmWave sys- without the restriction of the space of feasible solutions
tems, aiming at minimizing the modified MSE [24]. Besides and thus result in better performance.
the aforementioned challenges in the joint optimization of
the four beamforming variables and the constant modulus The rest of the paper is organized as follows. For the ease
constraint on the analog beamformers, it is also worth noting of presentation, we start with the narrowband scenario and
that in the broadband scenario, yet another challenge is that introduce the system model along with the HBF problem
the digital beamformers should be optimized for different formulation in Section II. In Section III, we present the basic
subcarriers while the analog one is invariant for the whole idea and the optimization procedure, and propose the MO-HBF
frequency band. Aiming at these challenges in the MMSE and GEVD-HBF algorithms. In Section IV, we extend the
based HBF design for broadband mmWave MIMO systems, problem formulation and design procedure to the broadband
the contributions in this paper can be summarized as follows. scenario, and propose three HBF algorithms. In Section V,
• Instead of factorizing the optimal full-digital beamformer we extend the MMSE based HBF design to the WMMSE
in the indirect HBF design approach [9], [17], [18], we one for maximizing the spectral efficiency. We discuss the
optimize the hybrid beamformers by directly targeting the convergence property and analyze the computational complex-
MMSE objective for better performance. Different from ity for all the proposed HBF algorithms in Section VI. We
the conventional MMSE based HBF designs [17], [26], demonstrate various numerical results in Section VII. Finally,
[28] which only considered the narrowband scenario, we we conclude the paper in Section VIII.
propose a general HBF design approach for both the Throughout this paper, bold-faced upper case letters, bold-
narrowband and broadband mmWave MIMO systems. In faced lower case letters, and light-faced lower case letters are
3
used to denote matrices, column vectors, and scalar quantities, B. Problem Formulation
respectively. The superscripts (·)T , (·)∗ , and (·)H represent In this work, we take the modified MSE [24] as the
matrix (vector) transpose, complex conjugate, and complex performance measure and optimization objective for the joint
conjugate transpose, respectively. k·k denotes the Euclidean transmit and receive HBF design, which is defined as
norm of a vector. tr(·), and k·kF denote the trace and the
Frobenius norm of a matrix. ∇(·) denotes the conjugate MSE , E{kβ −1 y − sk2 }, (3)
gradient of a function. E{·} denotes the expectation operator. where β is a scaling factor to be jointly optimized with the
|.| denotes the absolute value or the magnitude of a complex hybrid beamformers. By substituting (2) into (3) and after
number. [A]ij denotes the (i, j)-th entry of a matrix A. some mathematical manipulations, we have
MSE = E{kβ −1 (WH HVs + WH u) − sk2 }
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
= tr(β −2 WH HVVH HH W − β −1 WH HV (4)
A. System Model −1 H H 2 −2 H
−β V H W+σ β W W + INs ),
For the ease of presentation, we first consider a point-
to-point narrowband mmWave MIMO system with HBF as where W , WRF WB , V , VRF VB are defined as the
in Fig. 1, where Ns data streams are sent and collected by overall hybrid transmit and receive beamformers, respectively.
Nt transmit antennas and Nr receive antennas, respectively. Notice that since the analog beamformers are assumed to
Both the transmitter and receiver are equipped with NRF RF be implemented with phase shifters which only adjust the
chains, where min(Nr , Nt ) ≫ NRF . The original Ns × 1 phases of the input signals, the elements of analog beamform-
symbol vector, denoted by s with E{ssH } = INs , is firstly ers should satisfy the constant modulus constraint, namely
precoded through an NRF × Ns digital beamforming matrix |[VRF ]ij | = 1 for i = 1, . . . , Nt and j = 1, . . . , NRF , and
VB , and then an Nt × NRF analog beamforming matrix VRF |[WRF ]ml | = 1 for m = 1, . . . , Nr and l = 1, . . . , NRF .
which is implemented in the analog circuitry using phase With the derived MSE expression in (4), the transmit power
shifters. From the equivalent baseband representation point constraint and the constant modulus constraint of the phase
of view, the precoded signal vector at the transmit antenna shifters, the HBF optimization problem in the narrowband
array can be represented as x = VRF VB s. Without loss of scenario can be formulated as
generality, the normalized transmit power constraint is set to minimize MSE
H H VRF ,VB ,WRF ,WB ,β
tr(VRF VB VB VRF ) ≤ 1.
subject to kVk2F ≤ 1; |[VRF ]ij |2 = 1, ∀i, j;
Similar to that in [9], [19], the mmWave propagation chan-
|[WRF ]ml |2 = 1, ∀m, l.
nel is characterized by a geometry-based channel model with (5)
NC clusters and NR rays within each cluster. Considering the It is worth noting that there are mainly three reasons or
mmWave system with a half-wave spaced uniform linear array advantages for introducing the scaling factor β and taking the
(ULA) at both the transmitter and the receiver, the Nr × Nt modified MSE as the objective function. First, as the joint
channel matrix H can be represented as transmit and receive HBF problem will be decoupled into the
r NC XNR hybrid precoding and combining sub-problems, adjusting β
Nt Nr X r t H
H= αij ar (θij )at (θij ) , (1) achieves a better performance for the precoding optimization
NC NR i=1 j=1
by considering the noise effect (which is also referred to as
where αij denotes the complex gain of the the transmit Wiener filter) [24]. Second, β is also helpful
jth ray in the ith propagation cluster, and in dealing with the total transmit power constraint and thus
r
ar (θij
r
) = √1N 1 ejπ sin θij . . . ejπ(Nr −1) sin θij
r T
and simplifies the precoding optimization procedure [30], [31].
jπ sin θt
r
t T
jπ(Nt −1) sin θij
Finally, by introducing β, the hybrid precoding and combining
t 1
at (θij ) = N 1 e
√ ij ... e denote the sub-problems can be unified and solved in the same way
t
normalized responses of the transmit and receive antenna aiming at the same modified MSE objective. These advantages
r
arrays to the jth ray in the ith cluster, respectively, where θij will be elaborated in more details in the following sections.
t
and θij denote the angles of arrival and departure.
With a similar HBF at the receiver, i.e., an Nr ×NRF analog III. H YBRID B EAMFORMING D ESIGN BASED ON T HE
combiner WRF followed by an NRF × Ns digital baseband MMSE C RITERION
combiner WB , we finally have the processed signal as Since the HBF problem in (5) involves a joint optimization
H
y = WB H
WRF H
HVRF VB s + WB H
WRF u, (2) over five variables, along with non-convex constraints, it
is unlikely to find the optimal solution. A sub-optimal but
where u denotes the additive noise vector at the Nr receive efficient way to overcome the difficulties is to separate the
antennas satisfying the complex circularly symmetric Gaussian original problem into two sub-problems corresponding to the
distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix σ 2 INr , optimization for the hybrid transmit precoder and receive
i.e., u ∼ CN (0, σ 2 INr ). Similar to existing works on the combiner, respectively, and solve each independently [9],
HBF design (e.g. [10], [18]–[20]), in this paper, it is assumed [19], [20], [28]. Taking this approach, we propose several
that perfect channel state information (CSI) is available at HBF algorithms in the following two subsections. Finally, we
both the transmitter and receiver and that there is perfect develop the whole alternating minimization algorithm for the
synchronization between them. HBF optimization based on the MMSE criterion.
4
RF .. .. RF
.. .. Chain . . Chain .. ..
. Digital . Analog Analog . Digital .
Precoder Precoder Nt Nr Combiner Combiner
Ns N RF .. .. N RF Ns
.. .. . . .. ..
. VB . RF VRF WRF RF . VB
W
D .
Chain Chain
Here we propose two algorithms for optimizing the analog It can be further derived that
precoding matrix VRF with the constant modulus constraint, 1 H
d(P) = 2 HH VRF (d (VRFH
VRF )−1 VRF
which are based on the MO and GEVD methods, respectively. σ w 1 (14)
H H
+ (VRF VRF )−1 d(VRF ))H1 ,
1 Note that the above derivations benefit from the introduction of β. To
show this, it can be checked that if we remove β from (6) (or just set β = 1 where
in (6)), it is highly challenging to get a closed-form expression of VB via H
H H H
the KKT conditions and further get a closed-form expression of the MSE as d (VRF VRF )−1 = −(VRF VRF )−1 d(VRF )VRF (VRF VRF )−1 .
a function of VRF for the optimization of the analog precoder. (15)
5
Substituting (20) back into the problem in (19), we have optimization starts from the transmit beamforming problem in
(6), we assume that there is a virtual full-digital combiner at
minimize I(WRF ) , tr((INs + σ −2 β 2 HH the receiver in the initialization step. Namely, we initialize the
2 WRF
WRF
H H
concatenation of the hybrid combiner, W(0) , as the optimal
×(WRF WRF )−1 WRF H2 )−1 ) full-digital combiner in [21] and substitute it into (6) for
subject to |[WRF ]ml | = 1, ∀m, l. the precoder optimization in the first iteration. We refer to
(21)
the proposed initialization method as the virtual full-digital
Comparing (20) with (8) and (21) with (10), it can be seen
beamformer (VFD) method. It is worth noting that as the VFD
that they have almost the same form respectively. Thus, the
initialization method assumes a virtual full-digital beamformer
MO-HBF and GEVD-HBF algorithms, which were introduced
at one side, which generally cannot be directly implemented
in Section III-A, can be directly applied to optimize the hybrid
using the HBF structure, at least one outer iteration is needed
combiner.
to obtain the hybrid beamformers for both sides. As the VFD
initialization does not require the alternating optimization to
C. Alternating Minimization for Hybrid Beamforming obtain the full-digital beamformer, its additional complexity is
1) Alternating Optimization: A joint hybrid precoding and much lower compared with that of the main HBF algorithms.
combining design based on the MMSE criterion can be devel- Simulations in Section VII will show that with the VFD
oped by iteratively and alternatively using the hybrid precoding method, the convergence speed improves significantly with
design in Section III-A and the hybrid combining design in even some MSE performance improvement, in comparison
Section III-B. Specifically, during the nth iteration, first for the with random initialization.
optimization of the hybrid precoder, by updating the problem
(n−1) (n−1)
in (6) with the optimized combiners WRF and WB in IV. H YBRID B EAM F ORMING D ESIGN FOR B ROADBAND
(n)
the (n − 1)th iteration, the hybrid precoding matrices VRF , M M WAVE S YSTEMS
VU (n) and the scaling factor β (n) are optimized via the MO- Due to the large available bandwidth of mmWave systems,
HBF or the GEVD-HBF algorithm. Similarly, with the new frequency selective fading will be encountered. Therefore, in
hybrid precoder, the hybrid combining optimization problem this section we generalize the previous hybrid beamformer
in (19) is then updated and solved via the same algorithm. design to broadband mmWave systems. In particular, we point
This alternating optimization is repeated until a stop condition out that similar to the narrowband scenario, the optimization
is satisfied. of precoder and combiner in the broadband scenario can also
2) Stopping Condition: To distinguish the iteration of the be unified and solved through the same procedure. Thus, we
alternating minimization between the transmitter and receiver focus on the hybrid transmit precoder design in the broadband
beamforming optimization and the iteration in the optimization scenario and propose three algorithms.
of the analog beamformer (i.e., Algorithms 1 and 2), we
refer to the former as the outer iteration and the latter as the
inner iteration. The stopping condition of these two iterations A. System Model in the Broadband Scenario
can be set as either the number of iterations exceeding a To overcome the channel frequency selectivity, we assume
specified value α, or the relative difference between the MSE that the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
values of two consecutive iterations becoming smaller than a technology is applied so that the channel fading on each
specified value δ. For example, considering a typical system subcarrier can be regarded as being flat. To facilitate the
configuration in Section VII, according to the observation in following system design, the broadband mmWave MIMO
simulations, good performance can be achieved when we set channel model with half-wavelength spaced ULAs at both the
δ = 10−5 for both the inner and outer iterations for the transmitter and the receiver in [20] is adopted here, where the
alternating MO-HBF algorithm and set α = 1 for the inner channel matrix at the kth subcarrier, for k = 0, . . . , N − 1
iteration and δ = 10−5 for the outer iteration for the alternating with N being the total number of subcarriers, is given by
GEVD-HBF algorithm. r NC XNR
Nt Nr X r t H −j 2π
3) Beamforming Initialization: It is worth noting that the Hk = αij ar (θij )at (θij ) e N (i−1)k ,
number of iterations for the alternating optimization highly NC NR i=1 j=1
depends on the initialization of the beamformers. One simple (22)
idea is to randomly generate a hybrid combiner (precoder) for where the other parameters are defined in the same way as
the optimization of the precoder (combiner) at the beginning that in (1). It is worth noting that although the geometry-based
of the alternating minimization. This method does not require spatial channel model is applied in simulations, all proposed
extra information, but may need a lot of iterations to converge HBF algorithms are compatible for other general models.
to a local optimal point with certain performance loss. As As shown in Fig. 2, the processed signal vector at the kth
the concatenation of the hybrid beamformer will gradually subcarrier after the hybrid receive combining can be expressed
approach the full-digital one during the iterations, we propose as
to take a full-digital beamformer as the initialization for better H H H H
yk = WB,k WRF Hk VRF VB,k sk + WB,k WRF uk , (23)
convergence. Specifically, the optimal full-digital precoder
based on the MMSE criterion proposed in [21] can be used where sk and uk denote the transmitted symbol vector and the
here. Assuming without loss of generality that the alternating additive noise vector at the kth subcarrier, respectively, VB,k
7
s N -1 RF .. .. RF y N -1
IFFT .. . . .. FFT
. chain
N. t N. r chain .
rs
N su
Analog Analog
rrie
N RF Precoder .. .. Combiner N RF
Digital Digital
bca
bca
Precoders
.. ..
Combiners
rrie
. .
N su
RF RF
IFFT VRF WRF FFT
rs
{VB,k }kN=-01 chain chain
{WB,k }kN=-01
s0 y0
Fig. 2: Diagram of a broadband mmWave MIMO system with HBF.
and WB,k denote the digital precoder and combiner at the kth optimal VU,k can be derived as a function of VRF . That is,
subcarrier, respectively, and VRF and WRF denote the analog
H 2
precoder and combiner, respectively. It is worth noting that VU,k = (VRF H1,k HH H
1,k VRF + σ wk VRF VRF )
−1 H
VRF H1,k ,
in the broadband scenario, the digital beamformers VB,k and (26)
H
WB,k must be optimized for different subcarriers while the where H1,k , HH k W k and wk , tr(W k W k ). Now the
analog precoder or combiner is invariant for all subcarriers due original problem in (25) is reduced to the one for VRF as
to the post-IFFT or pre-FFT processing. Similar to [18], [20], follows
we assume equal power allocation among subcarriers at the NP
−1
transmitter, namely kVRF VB,k k2F ≤ 1, for k = 0, . . . , N − 1. minimize J(VRF ) = Jk (VRF )
(27)
VRF k=0
To deal with the new difficulty in the HBF design for broad- 2
subject to |(VRF )ij | = 1, ∀i, j,
band mmWave MIMO systems, we take the sum-MSE of all
the subcarriers and all thePNstreams as the objective function. where
−1
That is, define MSE = k=0 MSEk , where MSEk denotes
1
the modified MSE on the kth subcarrier and is given by Jk (VRF ) , tr((INs + HH H
1,k VRF (VRF VRF )
−1 H
VRF H1,k )−1 )
σ 2 wk
(28)
MSEk = E(ksk − βk−1 yk k2 )
1) Analog Precoding Based on the MO Method: Although
= tr(βk−2 WkH Hk Vk VkH HH −1 H
k Wk − βk Wk Hk Vk the objective function for analog precoding optimization in
2 −2
− βk−1 VkH HH H
k Wk + σ βk Wk Wk + INs ), the broadband scenario is more complicated than that in the
(24) narrowband scenario, the MO method can still be applied here.
where Wk , WRF WB,k , Vk , VRF VB,k , and βk is a Using some differentiation rules for complex-valued matrices,
scaling factor for the kth subcarrier as similar to that in the the conjugate gradient of the function J(VRF ) with respect
narrowband scenario. Then, the optimization problem in the to VRF can be expressed as
broadband scenario can be formulated as
N
X −1
PN −1
minimize k=0 MSEk ∇J(VRF ) = ∇Jk (VRF ), (29)
VB,k ,VRF ,WU,k ,WRF ,βk
k=0
subject to kVk k2F ≤ 1, (25)
|[VRF ]ij | = 1, ∀i, j, where ∇Jk (VRF ) can be derived as follows according to
|[WRF ]ml | = 1, ∀m, l. Lemma 1
H
and add a new constraint of VRF VRF = Nt INRF . Then, we where x is a non-zero vector, U denotes a k-dimension
have the following new problem subspace of Cm and F is a new subspace after a linear
PN −1 transform of B to U. Similarly, as 1/µk can be proved to
minimize J(VRF ) = k=0 tr((INs + σ2 w1k Nt
VRF be the (b − k + 1)th largest eigenvalue of BH AB, we have
×HH VRF VH H1,k )−1 ) (31)
1,k RF
H 1 xH BH ABx xH Ax
subject to VRF VRF = Nt INRF . = min max = min max . (35)
µk U x∈U xH x U x∈F xH x
It turns out that the above optimization problem is still difficult
xH x
to solve. Therefore, we devote to derive its lower bound first Then we have µk = max min x H Ax . Since A is positive
U x∈F
with the help of the following lemma. definite, by Jensen’s
H
inequality, xxH Ax
x H
≤ x xA
−1
x
holds for
Hx
Lemma 2. A lower bound of the objective in (31) is given by any non-zero vector x. Thus, the proof is completed.
N 2 Ns2 Then, denoting INt + σ2 w1k Nt H1,k HH 1,k as Ak , and us-
J(VRF ) ≥ PN −1 1
. ing Lemma 3, the objective in (31) can be further upper
tr(INs + H H
k=0 σ2 wk Nt H1,k VRF VRF H1,k ) bounded as
(32)
N −1
(a) X
−1
H
Proof : For notational brevity, we define Qk , INs + J(VRF ) = tr VRF Ak VRF
1 H H
σ2 wk Nt H1,k VRF VRF H1,k and have k=0
N N Ns N −1 (b) N
X −1
NX−1
X −1 X −1 X
1 (a) X Ns2 ≤ H
tr VRF A−1 = tr(V H
( A−1
J(VRF ) = tr(Q−1 ≥ k VRF RF k )VRF )
k ) = PNs
λi,k i=1 λi,k
k=0 k=0
k=0 k=0 i=1 k=0 (36)
N
X −1
Ns2 (b) N 2
Ns2 where (a) follows from the relationship between a matrix’s
= ≥ PN −1 , trace and eigenvalues and (b) follows from Lemma 3. Using
tr(Qk ) k=0 tr(Qk )
k=0
(33) the matrix inversion lemma [36], we have A−1 k = INt − Gk ,
where λi,k denotes the ith eigenvalue of Qk and is positive where Gk , σ2 w1k Nt H1,k (INs + σ2 w1k Nt HH 1,k H1,k )
−1 H
H1,k .
because Qk is positive definite. The inequalities (a) and (b) in The optimization problem in (31) can be converted to the one
(33) both come from the Jensen’s inequality, with equality of minimizing its upper bound in (36), or equivalently
P
(a) satisfied if λ1,k = λ2,k = . . . = λNs ,k and equality of (b) maximize tr VRF H N −1
G V
k=0 k RF
satisfied if tr(Q0 ) = tr(Q1 ) = . . . = tr(QN −1 ), respectively. VRF (37)
H
Substituting the definition of Qk , the proof is completed. subject to VRF VRF = Nt INRF .
Then, instead of the objective function in problem (31), we Similar to that for (34), the solution can be obtained through
devote to minimize
P −1 its lower-bound, which is equivalent to the EVD and phase extraction operations. To distinguish, we
maximizing N k=0 tr(Qk ). After omitting the constant terms, refer to this algorithm as the EVD-UB-HBF algorithm, where
the optimization problem can be rewritten as UB denotes the abbreviation for upper bound.
P 3) Analog Precoding Based on the OMP Method: By
H N −1 H
maximize tr VRF k=0 H 1,k H 1,k V RF
VRF (34) combining the OMP-MMSE-HBF algorithm for narrowband
H
subject to VRF VRF = Nt INRF . multiuser mmWave MIMO systems [26] and the OMP-based
√ HBF algorithm aiming at maximizing the spectral efficiency
It can be proved that the optimal VRF is Nt times the
for broadband mmWave MIMO systems [29], we come up
isometric matrix containing the NRF P eigenvectors associated
N −1 H
with the low-complexity OMP-MMSE precoding algorithm for
with the largest NRF eigenvalues of k=0 H H
1,k 1,k [34], broadband mmWave systems. Specifically, by restricting the
which can be obtained through EVD. To further make the search range of VRF within a set of NC × NR basis vectors
constant modulus constraint satisfied, similar to that in Section t
{at (θ1,1 t
), . . . , at (θN )}, the hybrid beamforming problem
C ,NR
III-A, we just extract the phase of each element of the optimal can be rewritten as
VRF . The algorithm is referred to as the EVD-LB-HBF
PN −1 b
2
2 2
algorithm, where LB denotes the abbreviation for lower bound. minimize k=0 INs − H1,k At VU,k + σ βk wk
b U,k ,βk
V F
In the following, we propose a better algorithm, where instead
of minimizing a lower bound of (31) in EVD-LB-HBF an subject to diag{V b H } = NRF ,
b U,k V
U,k
0
upper bound is derived for minimization. b U,k V
tr(At H At V b H ) ≤ β −2 ,
U,k k
Lemma 3. For an a×a positive definite and Hermitian matrix (38)
A and an arbitrary a × b (a > b) para-unitary matrix B, where ||.||0 denotes the zero norm of a matrix. At ,
t
[at (θ1,1 t
), . . . , at (θN b U,k is an NC NR ×Ns matrix
)] and V
i.e., BH B = In , define the eigenvalues of (BH AB)−1 and C ,NR
BH A−1 B in descending order as µ1 , ..., µn and λ1 , ..., λn , having NRF non-zero rows which constitute VU,k as defined
respectively. Then we have µk ≤ λk , ∀k. in [9], [26], [29]. With the readily derived closed-form solution
of the digital precoder in (26), the algorithm developed based
Proof : According to Courant-Fisher min-max theorem [36], on the OMP method can be applied to choose the columns of
xH BH A−1 Bx xH A−1 x At that are most strongly correlated with the residual error
λk = max min H
= max min , {VRES,k } to form the analog precoder.
U x∈U x x U x∈F xH x
9
V. E XTEND TO S PECTRAL E FFICIENCY BASED ON THE the result to zero, the optimal Λ is then given by Λ = T−1 .
WMMSE C RITERION In the last step, V is optimized through the following problem
Spectral efficiency is another important performance metric with the newly updated W and Λ.
for the HBF design [9], [18], [20]. Based on the full-digital
minimize tr(Λ(HH H H H
1 VV H1 − H1 V − V H1
beamforming design approach in [25], the authors in [28] VRF ,VU ,β
investigated the HBF design with the WMMSE criterion and +σ 2 β −2 WH W + INs )) (42)
connected it to the one for sum-rate maximization. However, subject to kVk2F ≤ 1; |[VRF ]ij | = 1, ∀i, j,
their HBF algorithm is based on the OMP method, which has a
limited feasible set for the analog beamformers, and is only for where H1 , HH WRF WB . Then, the optimal VU and β are
the narrowband scenario. In this section, following the design given by
approach in [25], [28], we first show that in the narrowband
− 12
scenario our proposed HBF algorithms in Section III can be β = tr VRF VU VU H H
VRF ,
extended to the ones for achieving better spectral efficiency H H 2 H H
VU = (VRF H1 ΛH1 VRF + σ ψVRF VRF )−1 VRF H1 Λ,
than the OMP based algorithm. We also extend the sum-MSE
minimization problem to the WMMSE problem and connect
where ψ , tr(ΛWH W) is a constant scalar during the
it to the spectral efficiency maximization problem in the
optimization for V. Substituting the optimal VU and β into
broadband scenario. It is shown that the proposed broadband
the objective function in (42), we have
HBF algorithms in Section IV can be generalized to the ones
for maximizing the spectral efficiency. Simulation results in 1
Section VII will show that the WMMSE HBF algorithms J(VRF ) , tr((Λ−1 + HH VRF (VRF H
VRF )−1 VRFH
HH 1 )
−1
).
σ2 ψ 1
proposed in this section provide better or comparable spectral (43)
efficiency than the conventional ones [18]–[20], [28]. By comparing it with (9), we see that they have the same
First start from the narrowband scenario. Assuming that the form except that the constant identity matrix INs in (9) is
transmitted symbols follow a Gaussian distribution, the achiev- replaced by another constant matrix Λ in (43). Thus, both the
able spectral efficiency is then given by R = log det(INs + MO-HBF and the GEVD-HBF algorithms in Section III can
1 H
σ2 ((W W)
−1
WH )HVVH HH W), where V = VRF VB also be applied here. By iteratively performing the above three
and W = WRF WB denote the hybrid precoder and combiner, steps, the optimization problem in (39) can finally be solved.
respectively. Inspired by [25], [28], a suboptimal but efficient Following the above design approach, we now consider the
HBF design for maximizing the spectral efficiency can be the broadband scenario. From (39), we formulate the following
connected to the following WMMSE problem broadband WMMSE HBF optimization problem
minimize tr(ΛT) − log|Λ| NP
−1
V,W,Λ,β
subject to kVk2F ≤ 1; |[VRF ]ij |2 = 1, ∀i, j; (39) minimize (tr(Λk Tk ) − log|Λk |)
Vk ,Wk ,Λk ,βk k=0
|[WRF ]ml |2 = 1, ∀m, l, subject to kVk k2F ≤ 1; (44)
where Λ is an Ns × Ns weighting matrix to be optimized, |[VRF ]ij |2 = 1, ∀i, j;
H
and T , E{ β −1 y − s β −1 y − s } denotes the modified |[WRF ]ml |2 = 1, ∀m, l,
MSE matrix. According to [25], [28], a three-step procedure
where Λk and Tk denote the weighting matrix and the MSE-
is applied to solve (39). In the first step, W is optimized by
matrix at the kth subcarrier, respectively. By combining the
fixing Λ and V in (39). That is,
procedure in Section IV and that for solving (39), we can
minimize tr(Λ(WH H2 HH H H
2 W − W H2 − H2 W solve the WMMSE problem in (44). In particular, it can be
WRF ,WB
shown that the MO-HBF and the EVD-LB-HBF algorithms
+σ 2 β −2 WH W + INs ))
can be directly applied to solve the problem with slight
subject to |[WRF ]ml | = 1, ∀m, l,
(40) modification as the only difference is the constant matrix Λk .
where H2 , HVRF VU . By comparing (40) with (19), it can However, the EVD-UB-HBF algorithm cannot be generalized
be shown that the optimal WB has exactly the same form as for the WMMSE problem as Lemma 3 does not hold with the
that in (20). After substituting the optimal WB into (40), the weighting matrices. Note that compared with the conventional
objective function for WRF is given by algorithms [18]–[20], our proposed WMMSE based HBF algo-
rithms can benefit from the alternating optimization between
I(WRF ) , tr(Λ(INs + σ −2 β 2 HH2 WRF the transmitter and receiver sub-problems, and thus possess
(41)
× WRFH −1 H
HH −1 competitive performance, as will be shown in Section VII.
WRF WRF 2 ) ),
which has almost the same form as (21) except a constant
matrix multiplier Λ. Thus, both the MO-HBF and the GEVD- VI. S YSTEM E VALUATION
HBF algorithms in Section III can be modified to solve the
new problem. In the second step, the weighting matrix Λ In this section, we first discuss the convergence property
is optimized with fixed W and V. By differentiating the for all the proposed HBF algorithms and then analyze their
objective function in (39) with respect to Λ and then setting computational complexity.
10
2
complexity can be reduced to O(Np Nant ) by using the 0.14
power method [37], where Np denotes the number of
iterations in the power method. By extensive simulations,
it is observed that Np = 10 would be large enough to 0.12
obtain an accurate result.
According to the description of the iteration stop condition in
Section III-C2, one inner iteration (i.e., Nin = 1) is enough 0.1
for GEVD-HBF. Then, the total complexity of GEVD-HBF
2 3 2 2
is Nout (O(Np Nant ) + O(NRF ) + 2Nant NRF + 5NRF Nant +
3 0.08
2NRF ).
2) Broadband algorithms: For the MO-HBF algorithm in
the broadband scenario, according to (29), the complexity is
0.06
approximated as N times that in the narrowband scenario, 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 2
which is N Nout Nin (4Nant NRF + 13Nant NRF + 3Nant NRF +
3 3
4NRF + 4O(NRF )). For the EVD-LB-HBF algorithm, the
PN −1 Fig. 3: Average MSE performance v.s. the number of outer iterations when SNR =
main complexity is in computing ( k=0 H1,k HH 1,k ) and the −16dB in the narrowband scenario.
2
EVD operation. The former one is (N Nant NRF ). For the
latter one, according to the power method [38], the complexity
2
can be reduced to O(NRF Nant ) for computing the largest 10 0
NRF eigenvectors. As for the EVD-UB-HBF algorithm, while
the analysis of P the EVD operation is similar, the complexity
N −1
in computing ( k=0 Gk ) is (N Nant 2
NRF + 2N Nant NRF 2
+ 10 -1
3
O(NRF )). Finally, the main complexity of OMP-MMSE-
PN −1
HBF algorithm is in computing ( k=0 Φk ΦH k ), which is 10 -2
N Nout (NRF Ns NC NR Nant + NRF NC2 NR2 ).
In summary, we list the above complexity evaluation results 10 -3
in Table I. For a more intuitive expression, we provide the
average numbers of inner and outer iterations over 1000
10 -4
independent channel realizations in simulations, where the
mmWave MIMO system configuration is given in Section
VII and the iteration stop conditions are set according to 10 -5
-24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12
Section III-C2. It can be seen from Table I that all the HBF
algorithms have similar number of outer iterations. However,
because the MO-HBF algorithm requires a large number of
Fig. 4: BER v.s. SNR for different HBF algorithms when NRF = Ns = 2 in the
inner iterations in the gradient descent operation, it has the narrowband scenario.
highest computational complexity.
VII. S IMULATION R ESULTS stated, we assume that the HBF optimization starts from the
In this section, simulation results are provided to show the transmit precoding optimization and apply the proposed VFD
performance of the proposed HBF algorithms, in comparison initialization method in Section III-C3 to generate a hybrid
with existing HBF algorithms and the optimal full-digital combiner in the simulation of the proposed HBF algorithms.
algorithms based on the MMSE criterion. The channel models
for both the narrowband and the broadband scenarios, as
introduced in Section II-A and Section IV-A, respectively, A. Performance in the Narrowband Scenario
are used in the simulation, where the number of clusters is
set to NC = 5 and the number of rays in each clusters To test the convergence and performance of the proposed
is set to NR = 10. Similar to [18], [19], we assume that algorithms, we first consider the narrowband scenario. Fig. 3
αij ∼ CN (0, 1) and the angles of arrival and departure are shows the optimized MSE value averaged over 1000 channel
generated according to the Laplacian distribution with the realizations as a function of the number of outer iterations
mean cluster angles θir and θit , which are independently and when SNR = −10dB and Ns = NRF = 2. As shown in Sec-
uniformly distributed in [0, 2π]. The angular spread is 10 tion VI, the proposed MO-HBF algorithm (labeled with ‘MO’)
degrees within each cluster. It is assumed that the channel is guaranteed to converge. Although the proposed GEVD-HBF
estimation and system synchronization are perfect. Throughout algorithm (labeled with ‘GEVD’) does not necessarily expe-
the simulation, the numbers of transmit and receive antennas rience a monotonic convergence, the simulation results show
are set to Nt = Nr = 64 unless otherwise mentioned and that this is often the case. Furthermore, the performance of
uncoded quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) modulation is two initialization methods, i.e., the random initiation method
considered. Besides, SNR is defined as σ12 . Unless otherwise (labeled with ‘random’) and the proposed VFD method in
12
Narrowband Scenario
HBF Algorithms Computational Complexity Nout Nin
2 N
Nout Nin (4Nant 2 3 3
MO-HBF RF + 13Nant NRF + 3Nant NRF + 4NRF + 4O(NRF )) 4.8 49.8
Nout (O(Nant2 N ) + 2N 2 N 2 3 3
GEVD-HBF p ant RF + 5NRF Nant + 2NRF + O(NRF )) 5.8
Broadband Scenario
HBF Algorithms Computational Complexity Nout Nin
2 N
N Nout Nin (4Nant 2 3 3
MO-HBF RF + 13Nant NRF + 3Nant NRF + 4NRF + 4O(NRF )) 4.7 52.3
EVD-LB-HBF 2 2
Nout (O(Nant NRF ) + N Nant NRF ) 5.9
Nout (O(Nant2 N 2 2 3
EVD-UB-HBF RF ) + N Nant NRF + 2N Nant NRF + O(NRF )) 5.7
OMP-MMSE-HBF N Nout (NRF Ns NC NR Nant + NRF NC2 N2 ) 6.2
R
10 0 12
10
10 -1
8
10 -2
6
-3
10
4 6.5
10 -4 6
2
5.5
-15.5 -15 -14.5
0
-27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9
Fig. 7: BER v.s. SNR for different HBF algorithms when NRF = Ns = 2 in the Fig. 9: Spectral efficiency v.s. SNR for different HBF algorithms when NRF = Ns = 2
broadband scenario. in the broadband scenario.
10 0
of the analog beamformers in the OMP-HBF algorithm also
leads to certain performance loss in the broadband scenario.
10 -1 As for both the EVD-UB-HBF and EVD-LB-HBF algorithms,
the adoption of an upper or lower bound as a surrogate
10 -2 of the objective function and the phase extraction operation
applied to obtain the final analog beamformers lead to some
performance loss. However, the MO-HBF algorithm directly
10 -3 tackles the original problem without making approximations
and therefore achieves much better performance than other
10 -4 algorithms. Finally, by comparing Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, it can be
seen that for different HBF algorithms their difference in the
average BER performance (plotted in a base 10 logarithmic
-27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 scale) is more obvious than that in the corresponding MSE
performance. To explain the phenomenon, we checked the
performance of each channel realization and found that the
Fig. 8: BER v.s. SNR for different HBF algorithms when Nt = 64, Nr = 32, NRF =
4, Ns = 2 in the broadband scenario. average BER performance is mainly dominated by the chan-
nels in ‘bad’ conditions and the average MSE performance is
less affected by these channels.
the HBF algorithms, and thus greatly save the computational Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 show the spectral efficiency as a function
complexity, when compared with the random initialization of SNR in the above two broadband systems for the two
method. proposed WMMSE HBF algorithms (labeled with ‘MO-W’
We then illustrate the BER performance as a function of and ‘EVD-LB-W’) in Section V. For comparison, the per-
SNR for the four proposed algorithms (labeled with ‘MO’, formance of the full-digital beamforming algorithm and the
‘EVD-LB’, ‘EVD-UB’, ‘OMP’, respectively). Two system two conventional HBF algorithms in [18] and [20] (labeled
configurations are considered, where in Fig. 7 we set Nt = with ’HBF [18]’ and ’HBF [20]’) aiming at maximizing the
Nr = 64, NRF = Ns = 2, and in Fig. 8 we set Nt = 64, Nr = spectral efficiency is also provided. It can be seen that, all
32, NRF = 4, Ns = 2. For comparison, a full-digital scheme is the HBF algorithms perform close to each other with the
straightforwardly extended from the result in [21] and adopted little difference depending on the system configurations. The
as a performance benchmark. Comparing Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, competitive performance of the proposed WMMSE HBF algo-
it can be seen that as the analog precoder or combiner is rithms comes from the close connection between the WMMSE
consistent over all the subcarriers in the broadband scenario, based formulation and the spectral efficiency objective, as well
the gaps between the proposed HBF algorithms and the full- as the benefit of the alternating optimization of the transmitter
digital one are larger than those in the narrowband scenario, and receiver beamformers. Furthermore, similar to that in Fig.
especially in the extreme case when NRF = Ns . However, 8, with more RF chains, the HBF performance becomes closer
when more RF chains are available, as shown in Fig. 8, there to the full-digital one.
are more optimization freedom in the HBF design and the gap Finally, considering that practical phase shifters have
to the full-digital one shrinks. Furthermore, comparing the four limited resolution, we uniformly quantize the analog
proposed HBF algorithms, the restriction on the feasible set beamforming coefficients with a limited number of bits and
14
R EFERENCES
0.25 [1] Z. Pi and F. Khan, “An introduction to millimeter-wave mobile broad-
band systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 101-107, Jun.
2011.
0.2 [2] W. Roh, J. Seol, J. Park, B. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Kim, J. Cho, K. Cheun, and
F. Aryanfar, “Millimeter-wave beamforming as an enabling technology
for 5G cellular communications: Theoretical feasibility and prototype
0.15
results”, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 106-113, Feb. 2014.
[3] A. Ghosh, T. A. Thomas, M. Cudak, R. Ratasuk, P. Moorut, F. W. Vook,
0.1 T. S. Rappaport, G. R. Maccartney, S. Sun, and S. Nie, “Millimeter-
wave enhanced local area systems: A high-data-rate approach for future
wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp.
0.05 1152-1163, Jun. 2014.
[4] P. Wang, Y. Li, L. Song, and B. Vucetic, “Multi-gigabit millimeter
wave wireless communications for 5G: From fixed access to cellular
0 networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 168-178, Jan. 2015.
1 2 3 4 5 [5] S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter-wave cellular
wireless networks: Potentials and challenges,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 102,
no. 3, pp. 366-385, Mar. 2014.
[6] M. R. Akdeniz, Y. Liu, M. K. Samimi, S. Sun, S. Rangan, T. S.
Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave channel modeling and
Fig. 11: BER v.s. the number of quantization bits q when NRF = Ns = 2, SNR = cellular capacity evaluation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no.
−16dB in the broadband scenario. 6, pp. 1164-1179, Jun. 2014.
[7] A. L. Swindlehurst, E. Ayanoglu, P. Heydari, and F. Capolino,
“Millimeter-wave massive MIMO: the next wireless revolution?” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 56-62, Sept. 2014.
provide in Fig. 11 the BER performance of different HBF
[8] S. Han, I. Chih-Lin, Z. Xu, and C. Rowell, “Large-scale antenna systems
algorithms as a function of the number of quantization bits, with hybrid analog and digital beamforming for millimeter wave 5G,”
q, when NRF = Ns = 2, SNR = −16dB. It can be seen that IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 186-194, Jan. 2015.
the performance loss due to the finite resolution decreases [9] O. E. Ayach, S. Rajagopal, S. Abusurra, Z. Pi, and R. W. Heath,
“Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE
as q increases and becomes negligible when q ≥ 5. While a Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499-1513, Mar. 2014.
simple quantization method is adopted here, the investigation [10] A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Channel
of the HBF algorithms with more sophisticated quantization estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,”
IEEE J.Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831-846, Oct. 2014.
methods is of great interest in future work. [11] R. W. Heath, N. Gonzlez-Prelcic, S. Rangan, W. Roh, and A. Sayeed,
“An overview of signal processing techniques for millimeter wave
MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 3,
pp. 436-453, Apr. 2016.
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS [12] A. Alkhateeb, J. Mo, N. Gonzlez-Prelcic, and R. W. Heath, “MIMO
In this paper, we investigated the HBF optimization for precoding and combining solutions for millimeter-wave systems,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 122-131, Dec. 2014.
broadband mmWave MIMO communication systems. Instead [13] T. E. Bogale, L. B. Le, A. Haghighat, and L. Vandendorpe, “On the
of maximizing the spectral efficiency as in most existing number of RF chains and phase shifters and scheduling design with
works, we took the MSE as a performance metric to character- hybrid analog-digital beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 3311-3326, Jan. 2016.
ize the transmission reliability. To directly minimize MSE, sev- [14] A. Alkhateeb and R. W. Heath, “Frequency selective hybrid precoding
eral efficient algorithms were proposed based on the principle for limited feedback millimeter wave systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
of alternating optimization. The MMSE based HBF design was vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1801-1818, May 2016.
[15] X. Yu, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “A hardware-efficient analog network
also extended to the WMMSE one and further used to solve the structure for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave systems,” IEEE J. Sel.
spectral efficiency maximization problem. Simulation results Topics Signal Process., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 282-297, May, 2018.
15