MIMO systems in the lower part of the millimetre-wave (mmWave) spectrum band (i.e., below 28 GHz) do not exhibit enough directivity and selectively, as compared to their counterparts in higher bands of the spectrum (i.e., above 60 GHz), and thus still suffer from the detrimental effect of interference, on the system sum rate. As such systems exhibit large numbers of antennas and short coherence times for the channel, traditional methods of distributed coordination are ill-suited, and the resulting communication overhead would offset the gains of coordination. In this paper, we propose algorithms for tackling the sum-rate maximization problem that are designed to address the above-mentioned limitations. We derive a lower bound on the sum rate, a so-called difference of log and trace (DLT) bound, shed light on its tightness, and highlight its decoupled nature at both the transmitters and receivers. Moreover, we derive the solution to each of the subproblems that we dub non-homogeneous waterfilling (a variation on the MIMO waterfilling solution), and underline an inherent desirable feature: its ability to turn-OFF streams exhibiting low SINR, and contribute to greatly speeding up the convergence of the proposed algorithm. We then show the convergence of the resulting algorithm, max-DLT, to a stationary point of the DLT bound. Finally, we rely on extensive simulations of various network configurations, to establish the fast-converging nature of our proposed schemes, and thus their suitability for addressing the short coherence interval, as well as the increased system dimensions, arising when managing interference in lower bands of the mmWave spectrum. Moreover, our results suggest that interference management still brings about significant performance gains, especially in dense deployments.
9 Figures and Tables
Fig. 1. L-cell MIMO interfering multiple-access channel.
Fig. 2. Basic structure of forward-backward iteration.
Fig. 3. Example of separability for Definition 2.
Fig. 4. Ergodic sum-rate vs 1/σ 2, for L = 3, K = 1, M = N = 4, d = 2, T = 4 (MIMO IFC).
Fig. 5. Ergodic sum-rate vs T , for L = 2, K = 2, M = 4, N = 4, d = 2.
Fig. 6. Ergodic sum-rate vs 1/σ 2, for L = 5, K = 5, M = 4, N = 32, d = 2 (Uplink).
Fig. 7. Ergodic sum-rate vs T , for L = 5, K = 5, M = 32, N = 4, d = 2 (Downlink). Solid curves correspond to noise power σ2 = 10−2, and dashed ones to σ 2 = 10−1.
Fig. 8. Ergodic sum-rate vs T , for dense uplink (N = 8, M = 4, d = 2, L = 9, K = 8).
Fig. 9. Ergodic sum-rate vs T for dense downlink (M = 16, N = 4, d = 1, L = 9, K = 8).
Download Full PDF Version (Non-Commercial Use)