Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Local Partial Zero-Forcing Precoding for Cell-Free Massive MIMO

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that local partial zero-forcing and its protective variant give cell-free Massive MIMO downlink rates comparable to regularized zero-forcing, with closed-form SINRs and no CSI exchange.

desk verdict The closed-form SE derivations are solid and Monte-Carlo validated; the abstract's 'optimal power control also suitable for RZF' claim exceeds what the paper actually demonstrates. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01034 v3 pith:YH7ZOR7Q submitted 2019-09-03 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Giovanni Interdonato , Marcus Karlsson , Emil Björnson , Erik G. Larsson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords cell-freemassiveMIMOlocalpartialzero-forcingprotectivedistributedprecodingpilotcontaminationspectralefficiencymax-minfairnesspowercontrolregularized
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that cell-free Massive MIMO downlink can run entirely on local channel estimates with precoders that are comparable to the regularized zero-forcing benchmark without any instantaneous CSI exchange. Its two schemes, local partial zero-forcing (PZF) and local protective partial zero-forcing (PPZF), let each access point split its users into strong and weak groups, cancel interference only toward the strong group, and steer the weak-group signals either with maximum-ratio transmission or with that transmission projected away from the strong directions. The payoff is twofold: the effective SINRs become closed-form expressions under independent Rayleigh fading, channel estimation error, and pilot contamination, and these expressions make max-min fairness power control a convex problem, which was previously not available for regularized zero-forcing. The paper thereby establishes that the trade-off between interference cancelation and array gain is tunable, and that APs with few antennas can still participate in interference suppression.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-AP pilot-domain channel estimate $\bar{H}_l = Y_l \Phi$, a full-rank $M \times \tau_P$ matrix whose columns are the channel estimates associated with the orthogonal pilots. For PZF, the precoder to a strong user is built from the reduced matrix $\bar{H}_l E_{S_l}$, which keeps only the $\tau_{S_l}$ pilots used by strong users; a standard central-Wishart expectation turns the required normalization into $1/((M - \tau_{S_l})\theta_{l,k})$ and the effective SINR into the closed form in (29). For PPZF, the additional load-bearing object is the projection matrix $B_l = I_M - \bar{H}_l E_{S_l}(E_{S_l}^H \bar{H}_l^H \bar{H}_l E_{S_l})^{-1} E_{S_l}^H \bar{H}_l^H$ onto the orthogonal complement of the strong-user subspace, so that weak-user transmissions are invisible to strong users except for estimation error; this gives the second closed-form SINR, (33).

What would settle it

A direct test is to simulate or build a small cell-free setup with $M=4$ antennas per AP, $\tau_P=3$ pilots, and two strong users sharing one pilot, then compare the time-averaged SINR to the prediction of (29) and (33). A consistent match under the paper's Rayleigh model would confirm the derivations, while a systematic mismatch under spatially correlated antennas (for example, an exponential correlation coefficient of 0.5) would show which independence assumption is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that partial zero-forcing is not merely a compromise: each AP can choose the number $\tau_{S_l}$ of pilots whose users it will zero-force, and the cost in array gain is exactly $M - \tau_{S_l}$, the same cost full-pilot zero-forcing would pay for all $\tau_P$ pilots. Because the strong-user matrix $E_{S_l}$ selects only a subset of the columns of the full-rank estimate matrix $\bar{H}_l = Y_l \Phi$, the PZF precoder in (23) has a normalization given by the Wishart expectation in (24), which yields the closed-form SINR in (29). The PPZF precoder in (32) projects the weak-user maximum-ratio transmission onto the orthogonal complement of the strong-user subspace, and its SINR is given in (33). The paper argues that these formulas are achievable lower bounds on the ergodic downlink capacity, that they agree with Monte Carlo simulations, and that PZF and PPZF substantially outperform maximum-ratio transmission and full-pilot zero-forcing while matching regularized zero-forcing.

Load-bearing premise

The whole closed-form analysis stands on the assumption that the channels from an AP to a user are independent Rayleigh fading with known large-scale coefficients and that uplink and downlink are perfectly reciprocal, because only then are the estimated channel columns independent complex-Gaussian with a Wishart normalization; if antennas are spatially correlated or calibration is imperfect, equations (29) and (33) are not guaranteed to hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each AP can serve weak users with maximum-ratio transmission while zero-forcing only a chosen subset, so the antenna requirement drops from $M > \tau_P$ to $M > \tau_{S_l}$, which is what makes implementation with very few antennas feasible.
  • Max-min fairness power control becomes a convex second-order cone program solvable by bisection for PZF and PPZF, and the PPZF solution can also be used to allocate power to regularized zero-forcing.
  • Only one precoding vector per pilot is needed rather than one per user, and the computational complexity is lower than full-pilot zero-forcing because $\tau_{S_l} \le \tau_P$.
  • All precoding is fully distributed: no instantaneous CSI exchange between APs and the central unit is required, and only long-term statistical coefficients are needed for optimal power control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the closed-form SINRs are as accurate as the paper's Monte Carlo checks suggest, the strong-user threshold could be optimized per AP or per coherence interval, rather than fixed at the 95% used in the simulations, giving an extra tunable degree of freedom.
  • The same projection-based logic transfers to the uplink: an AP could combine partial zero-forcing toward strong users with projected maximum-ratio combining toward weak users, likely producing uplink SINR expressions of the same algebraic form.
  • Under spatial correlation or imperfect reciprocity, the independence-based Wishart normalization would likely understate the effective interference; estimating an effective number of independent antennas could yield a robust variant of (29) and (33).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two fully distributed downlink precoding schemes for cell-free massive MIMO, termed local partial zero-forcing (PZF) and local protective partial zero-forcing (PPZF). The schemes split each AP's users into strong and weak sets; strong users are zero-forced on the subspace spanned by their pilots, while weak users are served by MRT (PZF) or by MRT projected into the null space of the strong-user subspace (PPZF). Under independent Rayleigh fading, MMSE channel estimation, and pilot contamination, the authors derive closed-form achievable spectral-efficiency expressions (Eqs. (29) and (33)) using Wishart-based normalizations, and validate them against Monte Carlo simulations. They then formulate a max-min fairness power-control problem as a second-order cone program and compare the resulting performance against MRT, full-pilot zero-forcing (FZF), and regularized zero-forcing (RZF) in simulations. The paper claims that PZF and PPZF substantially outperform MRT and FZF while being comparable to RZF, and that the closed-form expressions enable optimal power control that is also suitable for RZF.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the paper contributes a versatile, fronthaul-free precoding framework for cell-free massive MIMO with multi-antenna APs, together with tractable closed-form SE expressions that support power control. The Monte Carlo overlap in Figs. 2 and 3 gives strong evidence that the algebraic derivations are correct, and the paper provides explicit proofs in the appendices, which is a strength. The max-min power-control reformulation is a useful extension of existing cell-free massive MIMO results. The main advertised advantage over RZF—namely, the availability of closed-form SE expressions—is genuine and could be practically valuable. The comparative claim relative to RZF is, however, overstated in its current form, as explained in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV-A, Fig. 4] The claim that the closed-form expressions can be used to devise 'optimal' power control strategies 'also suitable for RZF' is not established. The optimization problem (39) is solved with ps = PPZF, and the resulting coefficients {rho^{MMF}_{l,k}|PPZF} are then plugged into the RZF evaluation (15) and (34); RZF's own achievable SE is never optimized, because no closed form exists. The notation RZF({rho^{HCD}}, {rho^{MMF}}^{PPZF}) in Fig. 4 makes this explicit. Consequently, the word 'optimal' is unsupported when applied to RZF; the RZF comparison is at best a heuristic transfer of PPZF-optimized powers. Since RZF is the headline benchmark, the authors should either rephrase the claim to state that the PPZF-optimal power coefficients can be heuristically applied to RZF, or provide evidence (e.g., a search over RZF regularization parameters or power coefficients) that the PPZF-optimal coefficients are near-optimal for RZF.
  2. [Section VI-B, third paragraph] The sentence 'PPZF performs as well as RZF (benchmark), suggesting that (33) might be a reliable closed-form expression to estimate the performance of RZF' is a speculation that goes beyond the demonstrated results. The simulation in Fig. 3 uses HCD power control and a particular simulation setup; the match between PPZF and RZF is not proven analytically, and RZF's performance depends on the regularization parameter inside (34). This claim should be softened or explicitly stated as an observation for the simulated scenario, not as a general reliability statement.
  3. [Eq. (29) and Appendix B] The closed-form derivation for PZF is long, and the proof in Appendix B relies on several independence and zero-mean arguments (e.g., in (51)-(56)). I checked the key steps: the use of the Wishart normalization in (24), the decomposition into coherent and non-coherent interference, and the combination via (58) appear internally consistent. The Monte Carlo validation in Fig. 2 provides strong numerical support. I do not find a specific algebraic error, but given the complexity of the expression, it would help the reader if the authors added a short statement in the text or proof indicating which of the terms in (50) correspond to which physical interference components, and how the final compact form (29) groups them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A, Eq. (5)] Remark 1 states that co-pilot channel estimates are linearly dependent; the scaling in (5) is correct but the notation (using both k and t) may be slightly confusing. Suggest clarifying that the relation holds for any pair of UEs sharing the same pilot index.
  2. [Section III-D, Eq. (23)] The definition of lambda (the precoding vector) uses subscripts l,i_k; later the notation switches between w_{l,i_k} and w_{l,k}. The paper would be easier to read if a single consistent subscript notation were used for pilot-index-based precoders.
  3. [Section VI-B, Fig. 5] The figure shows median SE curves, but the text refers to 'SE' without specifying that it is the median; adding 'median' to the axis label or caption would improve clarity.
  4. [Table II] The complexity expressions are useful, but the entries for PZF and PPZF count 'multiplications and divisions' without a row label saying which operations are counted; the caption should state explicitly that only complex multiplications and divisions are counted, as in the text.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typos and formatting issues, such as 'INTERDONA TOet al.' in the header and occasional inconsistent use of 'front-hauling' versus 'fronthaul'. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core PZF/PPZF closed-form derivations are self-contained and Monte-Carlo-verified; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and a disclosed transfer of PPZF-optimized power control to the RZF benchmark remain.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is internally consistent: the generic SINR bound in (15) is not PZF-specific; PZF and PPZF precoders (23) and (32) are defined with explicit unit-power normalizations; the Wishart-based moments in (19), (24), and (60)-(63) are standard; and the SINR formulas (29) and (33) are obtained by direct expectation computations in Appendices B and C, subtracting the coherent mean from the interference power. Nothing is fitted from the data that the formulas are then used to predict. The grouping rule (45) and the heuristic power control (41) are inputs and design choices, not outputs derived from the SINR expressions. The same closed forms are used in the max-min problem (39), whose SOCP reformulation (40) is shown in the paper rather than imported from an external source. Monte-Carlo simulations in Fig. 2 overlap the closed forms, confirming the algebra. The paper does cite prior work by the same author group ([12], [20], [27]) for the cell-free model, the FZF baseline, and the hardening-bound technique, but the load-bearing steps are re-derived or restated here, so these self-citations are not circular. The only noteworthy caveat is that the RZF benchmark in Fig. 4 is evaluated with power coefficients optimized for PPZF, not for RZF, so the abstract's wording that optimal power control is 'also suitable for RZF' is stronger than demonstrated; this is a benchmarking limitation, not a circularity in the derivation. Overall circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central closed-form derivations themselves use no fitted parameters; the only tuned values are the simulation-level grouping thresholds v and kappa, selected by median-SE sweeps in Fig 6. The mathematical analysis rests on standard Rayleigh-fading and MMSE assumptions plus Wishart lemmas.

free parameters (2)
  • UE grouping threshold v (upsilon) = 95% (default in simulations)
    Defines the strong UE set via Eq. (45). The value 95% is selected after a median-SE sweep in Fig. 6(a) and is used in the headline comparisons; performance depends on it.
  • AP clustering threshold kappa = 95% (used in Figs. 6(b) and 7)
    Used to form user-specific AP clusters in Eq. (46); set to the value that maximizes median SE in Fig. 6(b). This parameter is secondary to the main claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Independent Rayleigh fading with spatially white channels, h_l,k ~ CN(0, beta_l,k I_M), and perfect channel reciprocity.
    Invoked in Section II and used throughout Section III to justify the covariance structure of estimates and the Wishart-based normalizations in (19), (24), (60)-(63). If channels are spatially correlated or LoS, the closed-form SINRs in (29) and (33) do not hold.
  • domain assumption MMSE channel estimation with known large-scale fading coefficients and orthogonal pilots, yielding linearly dependent estimates for co-pilot UEs.
    Section II-A, Eqs (2)-(5). The linear dependence in Remark 1 is what makes the pilot-to-precoder mapping in Remark 3 possible and underlies the grouping rule in Remark 4.
  • standard math Hardening bound: treating precoding-gain uncertainty, multi-user interference, and noise as uncorrelated effective noise yields an achievable SE.
    Used in Theorem 1 and Eq. (15), citing [10, Sec. 2.3.2], [26], [27]. This is a standard lower-bounding technique in Massive MIMO.
  • standard math Wishart lemmas from [30] for expected inverse and projection norms under Gaussian matrices.
    Used for the normalizations in (19), (24), and (60)-(62). These are standard results in random matrix theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Co-pilot UEs are always placed in the same group (strong or weak) at each AP.
    Remark 4. This rule is necessary for the SINR derivation to hold, because the derivation assumes t in P_k implies delta_l,t = delta_l,k. It is a design constraint, not derived from the channel model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local Partial Zero-Forcing Precoding for Cell-Free Massive MIMO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YH7ZOR7Q

@misc{pith2026190901034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local Partial Zero-Forcing Precoding for Cell-Free Massive MIMO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YH7ZOR7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01034}
}
read the original abstract

Cell-free Massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) is a promising distributed network architecture for 5G-and-beyond systems. It guarantees ubiquitous coverage at high spectral efficiency (SE) by leveraging signal co-processing at multiple access points (APs), aggressive spatial user multiplexing and extraordinary macro-diversity gain. In this study, we propose two distributed precoding schemes, referred to as \textit{local partial zero-forcing} (PZF) and \textit{local protective partial zero-forcing} (PPZF), that further improve the spectral efficiency by providing an adaptable trade-off between interference cancelation and boosting of the desired signal, with no additional front-hauling overhead, and implementable by APs with very few antennas. We derive closed-form expressions for the achievable SE under the assumption of independent Rayleigh fading channel, channel estimation error and pilot contamination. PZF and PPZF can substantially outperform maximum ratio transmission and zero-forcing, and their performance is comparable to that achieved by regularized zero-forcing (RZF), which is a benchmark in the downlink. Importantly, these closed-form expressions can be employed to devise optimal (long-term) power control strategies that are also suitable for RZF, whose closed-form expression for the SE is not available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized computational complexity per coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CDFs of the SE achieved by different distributed prec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. CDFs of the per-user SE for different precoding schem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median SE, averaged over many large-scale fading rea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CDF of the 95%-likely SE achieved by PPZF and PPZF with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhanced intercell interference coordinati on challenges in heterogeneous networks,

    D. Lopez-Perez, I. Guvenc, G. de la Roche, M. Kountouris, T. Quek, and J. Zhang, “Enhanced intercell interference coordinati on challenges in heterogeneous networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 22–30, Jun. 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Are we approaching the fundamental limits of wireless network den sification?

    J. G. Andrews, X. Zhang, G. D. Durgin, and A. K. Gupta, “Are we approaching the fundamental limits of wireless network den sification?” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 184–190, Oct. 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Distributed w ireless communication system: A new architecture for future public wireless access,

    S. Zhou, M. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Wang, and Y . Y ao, “Distributed w ireless communication system: A new architecture for future public wireless access,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 108–113, Mar. 2003

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Downlink performance and capa city of distributed antenna systems in a multicell environment,

    W. Choi and J. G. Andrews, “Downlink performance and capa city of distributed antenna systems in a multicell environment,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69–73, Jan. 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Network MI MO: Over- coming intercell interference in indoor wireless systems,

    S. V enkatesan, A. Lozano, and R. V alenzuela, “Network MI MO: Over- coming intercell interference in indoor wireless systems, ” in Proc. Asilo- mar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput. , Nov. 2007, pp. 83–87

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Coordinated multipoi nt: Concepts, performance, and field trial results,

    R. Irmer, H. Droste, P . Marsch, M. Grieger, G. Fettweis, S . Brueck, H.-P . Mayer, L. Thiele, and V . Jungnickel, “Coordinated multipoi nt: Concepts, performance, and field trial results,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 102–111, Feb. 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: A new look at interf erence,

    D. Gesbert, S. Hanly, H. Huang, S. Shamai, O. Simeone, and W. Y u, “Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: A new look at interf erence,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1380–1408, Dec. 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Fundamental li mits of cooperation,

    A. Lozano, R. W. Heath, and J. G. Andrews, “Fundamental li mits of cooperation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 5213–5226, Sep. 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Coordinated multi-point transmission in 5G,

    R. Fantini, W. Zirwas, L. Thiele, D. Aziz, and P . Baracca, “Coordinated multi-point transmission in 5G,” in 5G Mobile and Wireless Commu- nications Technology, A. Osseiran, J. Monserrat, and P . Marsch, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 248276

    2016

  2. [10]

    T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Y ang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals of Massive MIMO . Cambridge University Press, 2016. INTERDONA TOet al. : LOCAL PARTIAL ZERO-FORCING PRECODING FOR CELL-FREE MASSI VE MIMO 17

    2016

  3. [11]

    The viability of distribut ed antennas for massive mimo systems,

    K. T. Truong and R. W. Heath, “The viability of distribut ed antennas for massive mimo systems,” in Proc. Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput. , Nov. 2013, pp. 1318–1323

    2013

  4. [12]

    Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,

    H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Y ang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. M arzetta, “Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–1850, Mar. 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Ubiquitous cell-free massive MIMO communications,

    G. Interdonato, E. Bj¨ ornson, H. Q. Ngo, P . Frenger, and E. G. Larsson, “Ubiquitous cell-free massive MIMO communications,” EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw. , vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 197, Aug. 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Cooperative multicell precoding: Rate region characterization and dis tributed strate- gies with instantaneous and statistical CSI,

    E. Bj¨ ornson, R. Zakhour, D. Gesbert, and B. Ottersten, “Cooperative multicell precoding: Rate region characterization and dis tributed strate- gies with instantaneous and statistical CSI,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4298–4310, Aug. 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Optimal resource alloc ation in coordi- nated multi-cell systems,

    E. Bj¨ ornson and E. Jorswieck, “Optimal resource alloc ation in coordi- nated multi-cell systems,” F oundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory , vol. 9, no. 2-3, pp. 113–381, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    The role of small cells, coordinated multipoint, and massive MIMO in 5G,

    V . Jungnickel, K. Manolakis, W. Zirwas, B. Panzner, V . B raun, M. Los- sow, M. Sternad, R. Apelfr¨ ojd, and T. Svensson, “The role of small cells, coordinated multipoint, and massive MIMO in 5G,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 44–51, May 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    User- centric 5G cellular networks: Resource allocation and comparison wit h the cell-free massive MIMO approach,

    S. Buzzi, C. D’Andrea, A. Zappone, and C. D’Elia, “User- centric 5G cellular networks: Resource allocation and comparison wit h the cell-free massive MIMO approach,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , pp. 1–1, 2019, early access

    2019

  10. [18]

    Making cell-free mas sive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and centralized implemen tation,

    E. Bj¨ ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making cell-free mas sive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and centralized implemen tation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, Jan. 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Pre- coding and power optimization in cell-free massive MIMO sys tems,

    E. Nayebi, A. Ashikhmin, T. L. Marzetta, H. Y ang, and B. D . Rao, “Pre- coding and power optimization in cell-free massive MIMO sys tems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 4445–4459, Jul. 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Downlink spectral efficiency of cell-free massive MIMO with full-pil ot zero- forcing,

    G. Interdonato, M. Karlsson, E. Bj¨ ornson, and E. G. Lar sson, “Downlink spectral efficiency of cell-free massive MIMO with full-pil ot zero- forcing,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Inf. Process. (GlobalSIP), Nov. 2018, pp. 1003–1007

    2018

  13. [21]

    Massive MIM O for maximal spectral efficiency: How many users and pilots shoul d be allocated?

    E. Bj¨ ornson, E. G. Larsson, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIM O for maximal spectral efficiency: How many users and pilots shoul d be allocated?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1293– 1308, Feb. 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Reciprocity calibration for massive MIMO: Proposal, mode ling, and validation,

    J. Vieira, F. Rusek, O. Edfors, S. Malkowsky, L. Liu, and F. Tufvesson, “Reciprocity calibration for massive MIMO: Proposal, mode ling, and validation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3042– 3056, May 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Maxmin rate of cell-free massive MIMO uplink with o ptimal uniform quantization,

    M. Bashar, K. Cumanan, A. G. Burr, H. Q. Ngo, M. Debbah, an d P . Xiao, “Maxmin rate of cell-free massive MIMO uplink with o ptimal uniform quantization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6796– 6815, Oct. 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Energy efficiency of the cell-free massive MIMO upl ink with optimal uniform quantization,

    M. Bashar, K. Cumanan, A. G. Burr, H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson , and P . Xiao, “Energy efficiency of the cell-free massive MIMO upl ink with optimal uniform quantization,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 971–987, Dec. 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: Estimatio n theory. Prentice Hall, 1993

    1993

  18. [26]

    The effect upon channel capacity in wireles s communica- tions of perfect and imperfect knowledge of the channel,

    M. Medard, “The effect upon channel capacity in wireles s communica- tions of perfect and imperfect knowledge of the channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 933–946, May 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Massive M IMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,

    E. Bj¨ ornson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, “Massive M IMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,” F oundations and Trends R© in Signal Processing , vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 154–655, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Channel coding r ate in the finite blocklength regime,

    Y . Polyanskiy, H. Poor, and S. V erd´ u, “Channel coding r ate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307– 2359, May 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    On the total energy efficiency of cell-free massive MIMO,

    H. Q. Ngo, L. N. Tran, T. Q. Duong, M. Matthaiou, and E. G. L arsson, “On the total energy efficiency of cell-free massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Green Commun. Netw. , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–39, Mar. 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Random matrix theory and wireless commu- nications,

    A. M. Tulino and S. V erd´ u, “Random matrix theory and wireless commu- nications,” F oundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–182, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Multi-antenna c ommunication in ad hoc networks: Achieving MIMO gains with SIMO transmiss ion,

    N. Jindal, J. G. Andrews, and S. Weber, “Multi-antenna c ommunication in ad hoc networks: Achieving MIMO gains with SIMO transmiss ion,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 529–540, Feb. 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Performance of P ZF and MMSE receivers in cellular networks with multi-user spatial mul tiplexing,

    S. T. V eetil, K. Kuchi, and R. K. Ganti, “Performance of P ZF and MMSE receivers in cellular networks with multi-user spatial mul tiplexing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 4867–4878, Sep. 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Coverage analysis f or millimeter wave uplink cellular networks with partial zero-forcing re ceivers,

    C. Fang, B. Makki, and T. Svensson, “Coverage analysis f or millimeter wave uplink cellular networks with partial zero-forcing re ceivers,” in Proc. International Symposium on Modeling and Optimizatio n in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt) , May 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  26. [34]

    User-centric cel l-free massive MIMO with interference cancellation and local ZF downlink p recod- ing,

    S. Buzzi, C. D’Andrea, and C. D’Elia, “User-centric cel l-free massive MIMO with interference cancellation and local ZF downlink p recod- ing,” in Proc. International Symposium on Wireless Commun. Systems (ISWCS), Aug. 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  27. [35]

    A vector-pe rturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser commu nication–part I: Channel inversion and regularization,

    C. Peel, B. Hochwald, and A. Swindlehurst, “A vector-pe rturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser commu nication–part I: Channel inversion and regularization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 195–202, Jan. 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    On the uplink maxmin SINR of cell-free massive MIMO systems,

    M. Bashar, K. Cumanan, A. G. Burr, M. Debbah, and H. Q. Ngo , “On the uplink maxmin SINR of cell-free massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2021–2036, Apr. 2019

    2021

  29. [37]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplin ed convex programming,

    CVX Research Inc., “CVX: Matlab software for disciplin ed convex programming,” http://cvxr.com/cvx, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. V andenberghe, Convex Optimization . Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  31. [39]

    Clus- tered cell-free massive MIMO,

    F. Riera-Palou, G. Femenias, A. G. Armada, and A. P´ erez -Neira, “Clus- tered cell-free massive MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom W orkshops (GC Wkshps) , Dec. 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  32. [40]

    Scalabi lity aspects of cell-free massive MIMO,

    G. Interdonato, P . Frenger, and E. G. Larsson, “Scalabi lity aspects of cell-free massive MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , May 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  33. [41]

    3GPP TS 36.814, Mar

    3GPP , Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (Re - lease 9) . 3GPP TS 36.814, Mar. 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.