Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells1

1834 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 16, NO.
3, MARCH 2017
Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells

Hien Quoc Ngo, Alexei Ashikhmin, Hong Yang, Erik G. Larsson, Fellow, IEEE,
and Thomas L. Marzetta, Fellow, IEEE,
Abstract— A Cell-Free Massive MIMO (multiple-input arrays at the base stations can be deployed in collocated or
multiple-output) system comprises a very large number of distributed setups. Collocated Massive MIMO architectures,
distributed access points (APs), which simultaneously serve a where all service antennas are located in a compact area,
much smaller number of users over the same time/frequency
resources based on directly measured channel characteristics. have the advantage of low backhaul requirements. In contrast,
The APs and users have only one antenna each. The APs in distributed Massive MIMO systems, the service antennas
acquire channel state information through time-division duplex are spread out over a large area. Owing to their ability
operation and the reception of uplink pilot signals transmitted to more efficiently exploit diversity against the shadow
by the users. The APs perform multiplexing/de-multiplexing fading, distributed systems can potentially offer much higher
through conjugate beamforming on the downlink and matched
filtering on the uplink. Closed-form expressions for individual probability of coverage than collocated Massive MIMO [4],
user uplink and downlink throughputs lead to max–min power at the cost of increased backhaul requirements.
control algorithms. Max–min power control ensures uniformly In this work, we consider a distributed Massive MIMO
good service throughout the area of coverage. A pilot assignment system where a large number of service antennas, called access
algorithm helps to mitigate the effects of pilot contamination, but points (APs), serve a much smaller number of autonomous
power control is far more important in that regard. Cell-Free
Massive MIMO has considerably improved performance with users distributed over a wide area [1]. All APs cooper-
respect to a conventional small-cell scheme, whereby each user is ate phase-coherently via a backhaul network, and serve all
served by a dedicated AP, in terms of both 95%-likely per-user users in the same time-frequency resource via time-division
throughput and immunity to shadow fading spatial correlation. duplex (TDD) operation. There are no cells or cell boundaries.
Under uncorrelated shadow fading conditions, the cell-free Therefore, we call this system “Cell-Free Massive MIMO”.
scheme provides nearly fivefold improvement in 95%-likely
per-user throughput over the small-cell scheme, and tenfold Since Cell-Free Massive MIMO combines the distributed
improvement when shadow fading is correlated. MIMO and Massive MIMO concepts, it is expected to reap all
Index Terms— Cell-Free Massive MIMO system, conjugate benefits from these two systems. In addition, since the users
beamforming, massive MIMO, network MIMO, small cell. now are close to the APs, Cell-Free Massive MIMO can offer
a high coverage probability. Conjugate beamforming/matched
I. I NTRODUCTION filtering techniques, also known as maximum-ratio processing,
are used both on uplink and downlink. These techniques
M ASSIVE multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO),

where a base station with many antennas
simultaneously serves many users in the same time-frequency
are computationally simple and can be implemented in a
distributed manner, that is, with most processing done locally
at the APs.1
resource, is a promising 5G wireless access technology that In Cell-Free Massive MIMO, there is a central processing
can provide high throughput, reliability, and energy efficiency
unit (CPU), but the information exchange between the APs
with simple signal processing [2], [3]. Massive antenna and this CPU is limited to the payload data, and power
Manuscript received August 3, 2015; revised February 22, 2016, control coefficients that change slowly. There is no sharing
August 25, 2016, and December 16, 2016; accepted January 5, 2017. Date of instantaneous channel state information (CSI) among the
of publication January 19, 2017; date of current version March 8, 2017. APs or the central unit. All channels are estimated at the
The work of H. Q. Ngo and E. G. Larsson was supported in part by
the Swedish Research Council and in part by the ELLIIT. Part of this APs through uplink pilots. The so-obtained channel estimates
work was presented at the 16th IEEE International Workshop on Signal are used to precode the transmitted data in the downlink
Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, Stockholm, Sweden, and to perform data detection in the uplink. Throughout we
June 2015 [1]. Portions of this work were performed while H. Q. Ngo
was with the Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA. The associate emphasize per-user throughput rather than sum-throughput.
editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication To that end we employ max-min power control.
was M. Vu. In principle, Cell-Free Massive MIMO is an incarnation of
H. Q. Ngo is with the Department of Electrical Engineering (ISY),
Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden, and also with the School of
general ideas known as “virtual MIMO”, “network MIMO”,
Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University “distributed MIMO”, “(coherent) cooperative multipoint joint
Belfast, Belfast BT3 9DT, U.K. (e-mail: hien.ngo@liu.se). processing” (CoMP) and “distributed antenna systems” (DAS).
A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, and T. L. Marzetta are with the Nokia Bell Labs,
Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA (e-mail: alexei.ashikhmin@nokia-belllabs.com;
The objective is to use advanced backhaul to achieve
h.yang@nokia-bell-labs.com; tom.marzetta@nokia-bell-labs.com). coherent processing across geographically distributed base
E. G. Larsson is with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing (ISY), Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden (e-mail: 1 Other linear processing techniques (e.g. zero-forcing) may improve the
erik.g.larsson@liu.se). system performance, but they require more backhaul than maximum-ratio
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available processing does. The tradeoff between the implementation complexity and
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. the system performance for these techniques is of interest and needs to be
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2017.2655515 studied in future work.
1536-1276 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI. Downloaded on June 24,2022 at 06:14:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NGO et al.: CELL-FREE MASSIVE MIMO VERSUS SMALL CELLS 1835
station antennas, in order to provide uniformly good ser- systems. Most previous work compares collocated Massive
vice for all users in the network. The outstanding aspect of MIMO and small-cell systems [25], [26]. In [25], the authors
Cell-Free Massive MIMO is its operating regime: many single- show that, when the number of cells is large, a small-cell sys-
antenna access points simultaneously serve a much smaller tem is more energy-efficient than a collocated Massive MIMO
number of users, using computationally simple (conjugate system. By taking into account a specific transceiver hardware
beamforming) signal processing. This facilitates the exploita- impairment and power consumption model, paper [26] shows
tion of phenomena such as favorable propagation and channel that reducing the cell size (or increasing the base station
hardening – which are also key characteristics of cellular Mas- density) is the way to increase the energy efficiency. However
sive MIMO [5]. In turn, this enables the use of computationally when the circuit power dominates over the transmission power,
efficient and globally optimal algorithms for power control, this benefit saturates. Energy efficiency comparisons between
and simple schemes for pilot assignment (as shown later in collocated massive MIMO and small-cell systems are also
this paper). In summary, Cell-Free Massive MIMO is a useful studied in [27] and [28]. There has however been little
and scalable implementation of the network MIMO and DAS work that compares distributed Massive MIMO and small-
concepts – much in the same way as cellular Massive MIMO cell systems. A comparison between small-cell and distributed
is a useful and scalable form of the original multiuser MIMO Massive MIMO systems is reported in [12], assuming perfect
concept (see, e.g., [5, Chap. 1] for an extended discussion of CSI at both the APs and the users. Yet, a comprehensive
the latter). performance comparison between small-cell and distributed
Massive MIMO systems that takes into account the effects
A. Related Work of imperfect CSI, pilot assignment, and power control is not
Many papers have studied network MIMO [6], [8], [9] and available in the existing literature.
DAS [7], [10], [11], and indicated that network MIMO and
DAS may offer higher rates than colocated MIMO. However, B. Specific Contributions of the Paper
these works did not consider the case of very large numbers of • We consider a Cell-Free Massive MIMO with conjugate
service antennas. Related works which use a similar system beamforming on the downlink and matched filtering on
model as in our paper are [12]–[18]. In these works, DAS the uplink. We show that, as in the case of collocated
with the use of many antennas, called large-scale DAS or systems, when the number of APs goes to infinity, the
distributed massive MIMO, was exploited. However, in all effects of non-coherent interference, small-scale fading,
those papers, perfect CSI was assumed at both the APs and and noise disappear.
the users, and in addition, the analysis in [18] was asymptotic • We derive rigorous closed-form capacity lower bounds for
in the number of antennas and the number of users. A realistic the Cell-Free Massive MIMO downlink and uplink with
analysis must account for imperfect CSI, which is an inevitable finite numbers of APs and users. Our analysis takes into
consequence of the finite channel coherence in a mobile sys- account the effects of channel estimation errors, power
tem and which typically limits the performance of any wireless control, and non-orthogonality of pilot sequences.
system severely [19]. Large-scale DAS with imperfect CSI • We compare two pilot assignment schemes: random
was considered in [20]–[23] for the special case of orthogonal assignment and greedy assignment.
pilots or the reuse of orthogonal pilots, and in [24] assum- • We devise max-min fairness power control algorithms
ing frequency-division duplex (FDD) operation. In addition, that maximize the smallest of all user rates. Globally opti-
in [20], the authors exploited the low-rank structure of users’ mal solutions can be computed by solving a sequence of
channel covariance matrices, and examined the performance second-order cone programs (SOCPs) for the downlink,
of uplink transmission with matched-filtering detection, under and a sequence of linear programs for the uplink.
the assumption that all users use the same pilot sequence. • We quantitatively compare the performance of Cell-Free
By contrast, in the current paper, we assume TDD operation, Massive MIMO to that of small-cell systems, under
hence rely on reciprocity to acquire CSI, and we assume the uncorrelated and correlated shadow fading models.
use of arbitrary pilot sequences in the network – resulting in The rest of paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
pilot contamination, which was not studied in previous work. we describe the Cell-Free Massive MIMO system model.
We derive rigorous capacity lower bounds valid for any finite In Section III, we present the achievable downlink and uplink
number of APs and users, and give algorithms for optimal rates. The pilot assignment and power control schemes are
power control (to global optimality) and pilot assignment. developed in Section IV. The small-cell system is discussed
The papers cited above compare the performance between in Section V. We provide numerical results and discussions in
distributed and collocated Massive MIMO systems. An alter- Section VI and finally conclude the paper in Section VII.
native to (distributed) MIMO systems is to deploy small Notation: Boldface letters denote column vectors. The
cells, consisting of APs that do not cooperate. Small-cell sys- superscripts ()∗ , ()T , and () H stand for the conjugate, trans-
tems are considerably simpler than Cell-Free Massive MIMO, pose, and conjugate-transpose, respectively. The Euclidean
since only data and power control coefficients are exchanged norm and the expectation operators are denoted
by · and
between the CPU and the APs. It is expected that Cell-Free E {·}, respectively. Finally, z ∼ CN 0, σ 2 denotes a circularly
Massive MIMO systems perform better than small-cell sys- symmetric complex Gaussian random variable (RV) z with
tems. However it is not clear, quantitatively, how much Cell- zero mean and variance σ 2 , and z ∼ N (0, σ 2 ) denotes a real-
Free Massive MIMO systems can gain compared to small-cell valued Gaussian RV.
1836 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 16, NO. 3, MARCH 2017
perfect calibration of the hardware chains. The feasibility

of the latter is demonstrated for example in [31] for
collocated Massive MIMO and it is conceivable that the
problem can be similarly somehow for Cell-Free Massive
MIMO. Investigating the effect of imperfect calibration is
an important topic for future work.
• We let gmk denote the channel coefficient between the
kth user and the mth AP. The channel gmk is modelled
as follows:
1/2
gmk = βmk h mk , (1)
where h mk represents the small-scale fading, and βmk
represents the large-scale fading. We assume that h mk ,
m = 1, . . . , M, K = 1, . . . K , are independent and iden-
Fig. 1. Cell-Free Massive MIMO system.
tically distributed (i.i.d.) CN (0, 1) RVs. The justification
of the assumption of independent small-scale fading is
II. C ELL -F REE M ASSIVE MIMO S YSTEM M ODEL
that the APs and the users are distributed over a wide area,
We consider a Cell-Free Massive MIMO system with M and hence, the set of scatterers is likely to be different
APs and K users. All APs and users are equipped with a for each AP and each user.
single antenna, and they are randomly located in a large area. • We assume that all APs are connected via perfect back-
Furthermore, all APs connect to a central processing unit via haul that offers error-free and infinite capacity to the
a backhaul network, see Figure 1. We assume that all M APs CPU. In practice, backhaul will be subject to signif-
simultaneously serve all K users in the same time-frequency icant practical constraints [32], [33]. Future work is
resource. The transmission from the APs to the users (down- needed to quantify the impact of backhaul constraints on
link transmission) and the transmission from the users to the performance.
APs (uplink transmission) proceed by TDD operation. Each • In all scenarios, we let qk denote the symbol asso-
coherence interval is divided into three phases: uplink training, ciated with the kth user. These symbols are mutually
downlink payload data transmission, and uplink payload data independent, and independent of all noise and channel
transmission. In the uplink training phase, the users send pilot coefficients.
sequences to the APs and each AP estimates the channel to all
users. The so-obtained channel estimates are used to precode
the transmit signals in the downlink, and to detect the signals A. Uplink Training
transmitted from the users in the uplink. In this work, to avoid The Cell-Free Massive MIMO system employs a wide
sharing of channel state information between the APs, we spectral bandwidth, and the quantities gmk and h mk are
consider conjugate beamforming in the downlink and matched dependent on frequency; however βmk is constant with
filtering in the uplink. respect to frequency. The propagation channels are assumed
No pilots are transmitted in the downlink of Cell-Free to be piece-wise constant over a coherence time interval
Massive MIMO. The users do not need to estimate their and a frequency coherence interval. It is necessary to per-
effective channel gain, but instead rely on channel hardening, form training within each such time/frequency coherence
which makes this gain close to its expected value, a known block. We assume that βmk is known, a priori, wherever
deterministic constant. Our capacity bounds account for the required.
error incurred when the users use the average effective channel Let τc be the length of the coherence interval (in samples),
gain instead of the actual effective gain. Channel hardening in which is equal to the product of the coherence time and the
Massive MIMO is discussed, for example, in [2]. coherence bandwidth, and let τ cf be the uplink training dura-
Notation is adopted and assumptions are made as follows: tion (in samples) per coherence interval, where the superscript
• The channel model incorporates the effects of small-scale cf stands for “cell-free”. It is required that τ cf < τc . During the
fading and large-scale fading (that latter includes path training phase, all K users simultaneously send √ pilot sequences
of length τ cf samples to the APs. Let τ cf ϕ k ∈ Cτ ×1 ,
cf
loss and shadowing). The small-scale fading is assumed
to be static during each coherence interval, and change where ϕ ϕ k 2 = 1, be the pilot sequence used by the kth user,
independently from one coherence interval to the next. k = 1, 2, · · · , K . Then, the τ cf × 1 received pilot vector at the
The large-scale fading changes much more slowly, and mth AP is given by
stays constant for several coherence intervals. Depending

K
on the user mobility, the large-scale fading may stay
yp,m = τ cf ρpcf gmk ϕ k + wp,m , (2)
constant for a duration of at least some 40 small-scale
k=1
fading coherence intervals [29], [30].
• We assume that the channel is reciprocal, i.e., the channel where ρpcf is the normalized signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of
gains on the uplink and on the downlink are the same. each pilot symbol and wp,m is a vector of additive noise at the
This reciprocity assumption requires TDD operation and mth AP. The elements of wp,m are i.i.d. CN (0, 1) RVs.
Based on the received pilot signal yp,m , the mth AP esti- where
mates the channel gmk , k = 1, . . . , K . Denote by y̌p,mk the 2
projection of yp,m onto ϕ kH : γmk E ĝmk = τ cf ρpcf βmk cmk . (8)
y̌p,mk = ϕ kH yp,m
The received signal at the kth user is given by

K
= τ cf ρpcf gmk + τ cf ρpcf gmk ϕ kH ϕ k + ϕ kH wp,m .
M
k =k rd,k = gmk x m + wd,k
(3) m=1

M
K
Although, for arbitrary pilot sequences, y̌p,mk is not a sufficient = ρdcf
1/2 ∗
ηmk gmk ĝmk qk + wd,k , (9)
statistic for the estimation of gmk , one can still use this quantity m=1 k =1
to obtain suboptimal estimates. In the special case when any
two pilot sequences are either identical or orthogonal, then where wd,k is additive CN (0, 1) noise at the kth user. Then
y̌p,mk is a sufficient statistic, and estimates based on y̌p,mk are qk will be detected from rd,k .
optimal. The MMSE estimate of gmk given y̌p,mk is

∗
E y̌p,mk gmk C. Uplink Payload Data Transmission
ĝmk = 2 y̌p,mk = cmk y̌p,mk , (4)
E y̌p,mk In the uplink, all K users simultaneously send their data
to the APs. Before

sending the data, the kth user weights its
where √
symbol qk , E |qk |2 = 1, by a power control coefficient ηk ,
τ cf ρpcf βmk 0 ≤ ηk ≤ 1. The received signal at the mth AP is given by
cmk 2 .
τ cf ρpcf kK =1 βmk ϕ kH ϕ k + 1
K
√
Remark 1: If τ cf≥ K , then we can choose ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 , · · · , ϕ K yu,m = ρucf gmk ηk qk + wu,m , (10)
so that they are pairwisely orthogonal, and hence, the second k=1
term in (3) disappears. Then the channel estimate ĝmk is inde-
where ρucf is the normalized uplink SNR and wu,m is additive
pendent of gmk , k = k. However, owing to the limited length
noise at the mth AP. We assume that wu,m ∼ CN (0, 1).
of the coherence interval, in general, τ cf < K , and mutually
To detect the symbol transmitted from the kth user, qk , the
non-orthogonal pilot sequences must be used throughout the
mth AP multiplies the received signal yu,m with the conjugate
network. The channel estimate ĝmk is degraded by pilot signals
of its (locally obtained) channel estimate ĝmk . Then the
transmitted from other users, owing to the second term in (3). ∗ y
so-obtained quantity ĝmk u,m is sent to the CPU via a backhaul
This causes the so-called pilot contamination effect.
network. The CPU sees
Remark 2: The channel estimation is performed in a decen-
tralized fashion. Each AP autonomously estimates the channels
M
∗
to the K users. The APs do not cooperate on the channel ru,k = ĝmk yu,m
estimation, and no channel estimates are interchanged among m=1
the APs. K M
M
∗ ∗
= ρucf ηk ĝmk gmk qk + ĝmk wu,m . (11)
B. Downlink Payload Data Transmission k =1 m=1 m=1
The APs treat the channel estimates as the true channels, and Then, qk is detected from ru,k .
use conjugate beamforming to transmit signals to the K users.
The transmitted signal from the mth AP is given by
K III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
1/2 ∗
x m = ρdcf ηmk ĝmk qk , (5)
A. Large-M Analysis
k=1

In this section, we provide some insights into the perfor-
where qk , which satisfies E |qk |2 = 1, is the symbol intended
mance of Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems when M is very
for the kth user, and ηmk , m = 1, . . . , M, k = 1, . . . K ,
large. The convergence analysis is done conditioned on a set of
are power control coefficients chosen to satisfy the following
deterministic large-scale fading coefficients {βmk }. We show
power constraint at each AP:
that, as in the case of Collocated Massive MIMO, when
E |x m |2 ≤ ρdcf . (6) M → ∞, the channels between the users and the APs become
orthogonal. Therefore, with conjugate beamforming respec-
With

the channel model in (1), the power constraint tively matched filtering, non-coherent interference, small-scale
E |x m |2 ≤ ρdcf can be rewritten as: fading, and noise disappear. The only remaining impairment

K is pilot contamination, which consists of interference from
ηmk γmk ≤ 1, for all m, (7) users using same pilot sequences as the user of interest in
k=1 the training phase.
On downlink, from (9), the received signal at the kth user non-orthogonality:
can be written as: M
rd,k τ cf ρpcf ρdcf

M −
1/2
ηmk cmk βmk qk
1/2 ∗ M M
rd,k = ρdcf ηmk gmk ĝmk qk m=1
⎞
m=1
1/2
M K
P
DSk + ηmk cmk βmk ϕ kT ϕ ∗k qk ⎠ → 0. (17)
M→∞

M
K m=1 k =k
1/2 ∗
+ ρdcf ηmk gmk ĝmk qk +wd,k , (12) If the pilot sequences are pairwisely orthogonal,

m=1 k =k
i.e., ϕ kH ϕ k = 0 for k = k , then the received signal
MUIk becomes free of interference and noise:

where DSk and MUIk represent the desired signal and rd,k τ cf ρpcf ρdcf
M
P
1/2
− ηmk cmk βmk qk → 0. (18)
multiuser interference, respectively. M M M→∞
m=1
By using the channel estimates in (4), we have
Similar results hold on the uplink.

M
1/2 ∗
ηmk gmk ĝmk B. Achievable Rate for Finite M
m=1
∗ In this section, we derive closed-form expressions for the

M
K
1/2 downlink and uplink achievable rates, using the analysis
= ηmk cmk gmk τ cf ρpcf gmk ϕ kH ϕ k + w̃p,mk
technique from [35] and [21].
m=1 k =1
1) Achievable Downlink Rate: We assume that each user

M
has knowledge of the channel statistics but not of the channel
ηmk cmk |gmk |2ϕ kT ϕ ∗k
1/2
= τ cf ρpcf
realizations. The received signal rd,k in (9) can be written as
m=1
K M
K
1/2 ∗ T ∗ rd,k = DSk · qk + BUk · qk + UIkk · qk + wd,k , (19)
+ τ cf ρpcf ηmk cmk gmk gmk ϕ k ϕ k
k =k m=1 k =k

M where
+
1/2 ∗
ηmk cmk gmk w̃p,mk , (13)

M
1/2 ∗
m=1 DSk ρdcf E ηmk gmk ĝmk , (20)
m=1
where w̃p,mk ϕ kH wp,m . Then by Tchebyshev’s M
M
1/2

2
theorem [34], we have 1/2 ∗ ∗
BUk ρdcf ηmk gmk ĝmk −E ηmk gmk ĝmk ,
m=1 m=1
1 cf cf
M M
1 ∗ (21)
ηmk cmk βmk ϕ kT ϕ ∗k
1/2 1/2
ηmk gmk ĝmk − τ ρp
M M
M
m=1 m=1 1/2 ∗
P
UIkk ρdcf ηmk gmk ĝmk , (22)
→ 0. (14) m=1
M→∞
represent the strength of desired signal (DS), the beamform-
Using (14), we obtain the following results: ing gain uncertainty (BU), and the interference caused by
the k th user (UI), respectively.
1 cf cf cf 1/2
M
1 P We treat the sum of the second, third, and fourth terms
DSk − τ ρp ρd ηmk cmk βmk qk → 0, (15)
M M M→∞ in (19) as “effective noise”. Since qk is independent of DSk
m=1
and BUk , we have
1 cf cf cf 1/2
M K
1

MUIk − τ ρp ρd ηmk cmk βmk ϕ kT ϕ ∗k qk E DSk · qk × (BUk · qk )∗ = E DSk × BU∗k E |qk |2 = 0.
M M
m=1 k =k
P Thus, the first and the second terms of (19) are uncorrelated.
→ 0. (16) A similar calculation shows that the third and fourth terms
M→∞
of (19) are uncorrelated with the first term of (19). Therefore,
The above expressions show that when M → ∞, the effective noise and the desired signal are uncorrelated.
the received signal includes only the desired signal By using the fact that uncorrelated Gaussian noise represents
plus interference originating from the pilot sequence the worst case, we obtain the following achievable rate of
the kth user for Cell-Free (cf) operation:
2 Tchebyshev’s theorem: Let X , X , ...X be independent RVs such that
1 2 n

E {X i } = μi and Var {X i } ≤ c < ∞, ∀i. Then cf |DS k | 2
Rd,k = log2 1 +

.
1 1 P
E |BUk |2 + kK =k E |UIkk |2 + 1
(X 1 + X 2 + ... + X n ) − (μ1 + μ2 + ...μn ) → 0.
n n (23)
We next provide a new exact closed-form expression for the

achievable rate (23), for a finite M.
Theorem 1: An achievable downlink rate of the transmis-
sion from the APs to the kth user in the Cell-Free Massive
MIMO system with conjugate beamforming, for any finite
M and K , is given by (24), shown at the top of the next
page.
Proof: See Appendix A.
Remark 3: The main differences between the capacity
bound expressions for Cell-Free and collocated Massive
MIMO systems [3] are: i) in Cell-Free systems, in general
βmk = βm k , for m = m , whereas in collocated Massive
MIMO, βmk = βm k ; and ii) in Cell-Free systems, a power
constraint is applied at each AP individually, whereas in
collocated systems, a total power constraint is applied at each
base station. Consider the special case in which all APs are
collocated and the power constraint for each AP is replaced
by a total power constraint over all APs. In this case, we have
βmk = βm k βk , γmk = γm k γk , and the power control
Fig. 2. Achievable rate versus the number of APs for different K . Here,
coefficient is ηmk = ηk /(Mγmk ). If, furthermore, the K pilot
ρdsc = 10 dB, ρpcf = 0 dB, τ cf = K , βmk = 1, ηmk = 1/(K γmk ), and pilot
sequences are pairwisely orthogonal, then, (24) becomes sequences are pairwisely orthogonal.

Mρdcf γk ηk
Rd,k = log2 1 +
cf
, (25)
ρdcf βk kK =1 ηk + 1 Remark 5: In the special case that all APs are collocated
which is identical to the rate expression for collocated Massive and all K pilot sequences are pairwisely orthogonal, then
MIMO systems in [3]. βmk = βm k βk , γmk = γm k γk , and ϕ kH ϕ k = 0, ∀k = k.
Remark 4: The achievable rate (24) is obtained under the Equation (27) then reduces to
assumption that the users only know the channel statistics.
Mρ cf η γ
u k k
However, this achievable rate is close to that in the case cf
Ru,k = log2 1 + , (28)
where the users know the actual channel realizations. This is a ρucf kK =1 ηk βk + 1
consequence of channel hardening, as discussed in Section II. which is precisely the uplink capacity lower bound of a single-
To see this more quantitatively, we compare the achievable cell Massive MIMO system with a collocated array obtained
rate (24) with the following expression, in [21], and a variation on that in [36].
⎧ ⎛ M 2 ⎞⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎜ ρdcf
1/2
ηmk gmk ĝmk∗ ⎟⎪
⎪ IV. P ILOT A SSIGNMENT AND P OWER C ONTROL
⎨ ⎜ ⎟⎬
⎜
R̃d,k = E log2 ⎜1 +
m=1 ⎟
⎟⎪,
cf To obtain good system performance, the available radio
⎪ K
M 2
⎪
⎪ ⎝ ⎠⎪
ηmk gmk ĝmk + 1 ⎪
⎪ 1/2 ∗ ⎪ resources must be efficiently managed. In this section, we
⎩ ρdcf
⎭
k =k m=1
will present methods for pilot sequence assignment and power
(26) control. Importantly, pilot assignment and power control can
be performed independently, because the pilots are not power
which represents an achievable rate for a genie-aided user controlled.
that knows the instantaneous channel gain. Figure 2 shows
a comparison between (24), which assumes that the users
A. Greedy Pilot Assignment
only know the channel statistics, and the genie-aided rate (26),
which assumes knowledge of the realizations. As seen in the Typically, different users must use non-orthogonal pilot
figure, the gap is small, which means that downlink training sequences, due to the limited length of the coherence interval.
is not necessary. Since the length of the pilot sequences is τ cf , there exist τ cf
2) Achievable Uplink Rate: The central processing unit orthogonal pilot sequences. Here we focus on the case that
detects the desired signal qk from ru,k in (11). We assume τ cf < K . If τ cf ≥ K , we simply assign K orthogonal pilot
that the central processing unit uses only statistical knowl- sequences to the K users.
edge of the channel when performing the detection. Using A simple baseline method for assigning pilot sequences of
a similar methodology as in Section III-B.1, we obtain a length τ cf samples to the K users is random pilot assign-
rigorous closed-form expression for the achievable uplink rate ment [37]. With random pilot assignment, each user will be
as follows. randomly assigned one pilot sequence from a predetermined
Theorem 2: An achievable uplink rate for the kth user in set Sϕ of τ cf orthogonal pilot sequences. Random pilot assign-
the Cell-Free Massive MIMO system with matched filtering ment could alternatively be done by letting each user choose
detection, for any M and K , is given by (27), shown at the an arbitrary unit-norm vector (i.e. not from a predetermined set
top of the next page. of pilots). However, it appears from simulations that the latter
⎛ ! "2 ⎞

M
1/2
⎜ ρdcf ηmk γmk ⎟
⎜ ⎟
= log2 ⎜ ⎟,
m=1
⎜1 +
cf
Rd,k ! "2 ⎟ (24)
⎝
K
M
K
M ⎠
ηmk γmk ββmk
1/2
ρdcf ϕ kH ϕ k |2
|ϕ + ρdcf ηmk γmk βmk + 1
mk
k =k m=1 k =1 m=1
⎛ ! "2 ⎞

M
⎜ ρucf ηk γmk ⎟
⎜ ⎟
= log2 ⎜ ⎟,
m=1
⎜1 +
cf
Ru,k ! "2 ⎟ (27)
⎝
K
M
β
K
M
M ⎠
ρucf ηk γmk βmk ϕ kH ϕ k |2
|ϕ + ρucf ηk γmk βmk + γmk
mk
k =k m=1 k =1 m=1 m=1
scheme does not work well. While random pilot assignment unit significantly. Furthermore, since ϕ k ∗ is chosen from Sϕ ,
is a useful baseline, occasionally two users in close vicinity to inform the users about their assigned pilots, the CPU only
of each other will use the same pilot sequence, which results needs to send an index to each user.
in strong pilot contamination.
Optimal pilot assignment is a difficult combinatorial
B. Power Control
problem. We propose to use a simple greedy algorithm,
which iteratively refines the pilot assignment. The K users We next show that Cell-Free Massive MIMO can provide
are first randomly assigned K pilot sequences. Then the uniformly good service to all users, regardless of their geo-
user that has the lowest downlink rate, say user k ∗ , updates graphical location, by using max-min power control. While
its pilot sequence so that its pilot contamination effect power control in general is a well studied topic, the max-
is minimized.3 The pilot contamination effect at the k ∗ th min power control problems that arise when optimizing Cell-
user is quantified by the second term in (3) which has Free Massive MIMO are entirely new. The power control is
variance performed at the CPU, and importantly, is done on the large-
⎧ 2 ⎫ scale fading time scale.
⎨
⎪ ⎪
K
⎬ K
H 2
1) Downlink: In the downlink, given realizations of the
E gmk ϕ kH∗ ϕ k = ϕ k∗ ϕ k .
βmk ϕ (29) large-scale fading, we find the power control coefficients
⎪
⎩k =k ∗ ⎪⎭ k =k ∗
ηmk , m = 1, · · · , M, k = 1, · · · , K , that maximize the
minimum of the downlink rates of all users, under the power
The k ∗ th user is assigned a new pilot sequence which mini-
constraint (7). At the optimum point, all users get the same
mizes the pilot contamination in (29), summed over all APs:
rate. Mathematically:

M
K
H 2 cf
arg min ϕ k∗ ϕ k
βmk ϕ max min Rd,k
ϕ k∗ {ηmk } k=1,··· ,K
m=1 k =k ∗
# K $
K
M
ϕ kH∗ m=1 k =k ∗ β mk ϕ k ϕ kH ϕ k∗ subject to ηmk γmk ≤ 1, m = 1, . . . , M
= arg min , (30) k=1
ϕ k∗ ϕ kH∗ ϕ k ∗ ηmk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K , m = 1, . . . , M, (31)
where we used the fact that ϕ ϕk ∗
= 1. The algorithm
2
cf is given by (24). Define ς 1/2
where Rd,k mk ηmk . Then,
then proceeds iteratively for a predetermined number of
from (24), (31) is equivalent to
iterations.
The greedy pilot assignment algorithm can be summarized max min
in Algorithm 1. {ηmk } k=1,··· ,K
Remark 6: The greedy pilot assignment can be performed # $2

M
m=1 γmk ςmk
at the CPU, which connects to all APs via backhaul links.
The pilot assignment is recomputed on the large-scale fading ! "2
time scale.4 This simplifies the signal processing at the central
K
M
γmk βmk ςmk
M
K
ξkk βmk + βmk γmk ςmk
2 +

1
ρdcf
3 In principle, this “worst user” could be taken to be the user that has either k =k m=1 m=1 k =1
the lowest uplink or the lowest downlink rate. In our numerical experiments,
we reassign the pilot of the user having the lowest downlink rate, hence giving
K
downlink performance some priority over uplink performance. s.t. ηmk γmk ≤ 1, m = 1, . . . , M
4 Hence this recomputation is infrequent even in high mobility. For example,
k=1
at user mobility of v = 100 km/h, and a carrier frequency of f c = 2 GHz,
the channel coherence time is on the order of a millisecond. The large-scale
fading changes much more slowly, at least some 40 times slower according ηmk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K , m = 1, . . . , M, (32)
to [29], [30]. As a result, the greedy pilot assignment method must only be
done a few times per second. ϕ kH ϕ k |2 .
where ξkk |ϕ
Algorithm 1 Greedy Pilot Assignment Algorithm 2 Bisection Algorithm for Solving (34)
1) Initialization: choose K pilot sequences ϕ 1 , · · · , ϕ K 1) Initialization: choose the initial values of tmin and tmax ,
using the random pilot assignment method. Choose the where tmin and tmax define a range of relevant values of
number of iterations, N, and set n = 1. the objective function in (34). Choose a tolerance > 0.
2) Compute Rd,k cf , using (24). Find the user with the lowest 2) Set t := tmin +t
2
max
. Solve the following convex feasibility
rate: program:
⎧
k ∗ = arg min Rd,k
cf
. (33) ⎪
⎪ M
k ⎪
⎪ v k ≤ √1 γmk ςmk , k = 1, . . . , K ,
⎪
⎪ t
3) Update the pilot sequence for the k ∗ th user by choosing ⎪
⎪
m=1
⎪
⎪ K
ϕ k ∗ from Sϕ which minimizes ⎪
⎨ γmk ςmk
2 ≤ ϑ 2 , m = 1, . . . , M,
m

k =1 (35)

M
K ⎪
⎪ M
β
H 2 ⎪
⎪
γmk β ςmk ≤ k k , ∀k = k,
mk
ϕ k∗ ϕ k .
βmk ϕ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ m=1 mk
m=1 k =k ∗ ⎪
⎪ 0 ≤ ϑm ≤ 1, m = 1, . . . , M,
⎪
⎩
4) Set n := n + 1. Stop if n > N. Otherwise, go to Step 2. ςmk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K , m = 1, . . . , M,
% &T
where vk T I
vk1 T
−k vk2 1 , and where vk1
ρdcf
By introducing slack variables k k and ϑm , we reformu- ' H (T
ϕ 1 ϕ k 1k ... ϕ KH ϕ K K k , I−k is a K ×(K −1) matrix
late (32) as follows: obtained from the K × K identity matrix with the(kth
'√ √ T
column removed, and vk2 β1k ϑ1 ... β Mk ϑ M .
# $2 3) If problem (35) is feasible, then set tmin := t, else set
M
m=1 γmk ςmk tmax := t.
max min
{ςmk ,k k ,ϑm } k=1,··· ,K
K
M 4) Stop if tmax − tmin < . Otherwise, go to Step 2.
ϕ kH ϕ k |2 k2 k +
|ϕ βmk ϑm2 + 1
ρdcf
k =k m=1

K
cf is given by (27). Problem (36) can be equivalently
subject to γmk ςmk
2
≤ ϑm , m = 1, . . . , M
2 where Ru,k
k =1
reformulated as
M
βmk max t
γmk ςmk ≤ k k , ∀k = k {ηk },t
βmk
m=1 subject to t ≤ Ru,k
cf
, k = 1, . . . , K
0 ≤ ϑm ≤ 1, m = 1, . . . , M
0 ≤ ηk ≤ 1, k = 1, . . . , K . (37)
ςmk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K , m = 1, . . . , M. (34)
Proposition 2: The optimization problem (37) is quasi-
linear.
The equivalence between (32) and (34) follows directly from Proof: From (27), for a given t, all inequalities involved
the fact that the first and second constraints in (34) hold with in (37) are linear, and hence, the program (37) is quasi-linear.
equality at the optimum.
Proposition 1: The objective function of (34) is quasi- Consequently, Problem (37) can be efficiently solved by using
concave, and the problem (34) is quasi-concave. bisection and solving a sequence of linear feasibility problems.
Proof: See Appendix B.
Consequently, (34) can be solved efficiently by a bisection
search, in each step solving a sequence of convex feasibility V. S MALL -C ELL S YSTEM
problem [38]. Specifically, Algorithm 2 solves (34). In this section, we give the system model, achievable
Remark 7: The max-min power control problem can be rate expressions, and max-min power control for small-cell
directly extended to a max-min weighted rate problem, systems. These will be used in Section VI where we compare
where the K users are weighted according to priority: the performance of Cell-Free Massive MIMO and small-cell
max min{wk Rk }, where wk > 0 is the weighting factor of systems.
the kth user. A user with higher priority will be assigned a For small-cell systems, we assume that each user is served
smaller weighting factor. by only one AP. For each user, the available AP with the
2) Uplink: In the uplink, the max-min power control largest average received useful signal power is selected. If an
problem can be formulated as follows: AP has already been chosen by another user, this AP becomes
unavailable. The AP selection is done user by user in a random
cf order. Let m k be the AP chosen by the kth user. Then,
max min Ru,k
{ηk } k=1,··· ,K
m k arg max βmk . (38)
subject to 0 ≤ ηk ≤ 1, k = 1, . . . , K , (36) m∈{available APs}
We consider a short enough time scale that handovers between constraint. Channel estimation at the user is required in order
APs do not occur. This modeling choice was made to enable to demodulate, as there is no channel hardening (see discussion
a rigorous performance analysis. While there is precedent for above).
this assumption in other literature [12], [39], future work may 1) Achievable Downlink Rate: Treating the last three terms
address the issue of handovers. As a result of this assumption, of (41) as uncorrelated effective noise, we obtain the achiev-
the performance figures we obtain for small-cell systems may able downlink rate for the kth user as in (42), shown at the
be overoptimistic. top of the next page.
In contrast to Cell-Massive MIMO, in the small-cell sys- Since the channel does not harden, applying the bound-
tems, the channel does not harden. Specifically, while in ing techniques in Section III, while not impossible in
Cell-Free Massive MIMO the effective channel is an inner principle, would yield very pessimistic capacity bounds.
However, since ĝm k k is exponentially distributed with
2
product between two M-vectors—hence close to its mean, in
the small-cell case the effective channel is a single Rayleigh mean μm k k , the achievable rate in (42) can be expressed
fading scalar coefficient. Consequently, both the users and in closed form in terms of the exponential integral function
the APs must estimate their effective channel gain in order Ei(·) [40, Eq. (8.211.1)] as:
to demodulate the symbols, which requires both uplink and ! "
1
downlink training. The detailed transmission protocols for the sc
Rd,k = −(log2 e)e1/μ̄m k k Ei − , (43)
uplink and downlink of small-cell systems are as follows. μ̄m k k
where
A. Downlink Transmission ρdsc αd,k μm k k
μ̄m k k .
In the downlink, the users first estimate their channels based K
on pilots sent from the APs. The so-obtained channel estimates ρdsc αd,k (βm k k − μm k k ) + ρd
sc αd,k βm k k + 1
k =k
are used to detect the desired signals.
(44)
) Let τdsc be the downlink training duration in samples,
τd φ k ∈ Cτd ×1 , where φ
sc
sc φ k 2 = 1, is the pilot sequence 2) Max-Min Power Control: As in the Cell-Free Massive
transmitted from the m k th AP, and ρd,psc is the transmit power
MIMO systems, we consider max-min power control which
per downlink pilot symbol. The MMSE estimate of gm k k can can be formulated as follows:
be expressed as
sc
max min Rd,k
ĝm k k = gm k k − εm k k , (39) {αd,k } k=1,··· ,K
subject to 0 ≤ αd,k ≤ 1, k = 1, · · · , K . (45)
where εm k k is the channel estimation error, which is inde-
Since Rd,k sc is a monotonically increasing function
pendent of the channel estimate ĝm k k . Furthermore,
we have

ĝm k k ∼ CN 0, μm k k and εm k k ∼ CN 0, βm k k − μm k k , of μ̄m k k , (45) is equivalent to
where
max min μ̄m k k
τdsc ρd,p
sc β 2 {αd,k } k=1,··· ,K
mk k
μm k k K H 2 . (40) subject to 0 ≤ αd,k ≤ 1, k = 1, · · · , K . (46)
τdsc ρd,p
k =1 m k k φ k φ k + 1
β
sc
Problem (46) is a quasi-linear program, which can be solved

After sending the pilots for the channel
estimation,

√ by using bisection.
the K chosen APs send the data. Let αd,k qk , E |qk |2 = 1,
be the symbol transmitted from the m k th AP, destined for
the kth user, where αd,k is a power control coefficient, B. Uplink Transmission
0 ≤ αd,k ≤ 1. The kth user receives In the uplink, the APs first estimate the channels based on

K pilots sent from the users. The so-obtained channel estimates
√ are used to detect the desired signals. Let ρusc and 0 ≤ αu,k ≤ 1
yk = ρdsc gm k k αd,k qk + wk
k =1 be the normalized SNR and the power control coefficient at the

√ √ kth user, respectively. Then, following the same methodology
= ρdsc ĝm k k αd,k qk + ρdsc εm k k αd,k qk as in the derivation of the downlink transmission, we obtain

K the following achievable uplink rate for the kth user:
√
+ ρdsc gm k k αd,k qk + wk , (41) ! "
1/ω̄m k k 1
k =k Ru,k = −(log2 e)e
sc
Ei − , (47)
ω̄m k k
where ρdsc is the normalized downlink transmit SNR and
wk ∼ CN (0, 1) is additive Gaussian noise. where
Remark 8: In small-cell systems, since only one single- ρusc αu,k ωm k k
antenna AP is involved in transmission to a given user, the ω̄m k k ,
K
concept of “conjugate beamforming” becomes void. Downlink ρusc αu,k (βm k k − ωm k k ) + ρusc αu,k βm k k + 1
k =k
transmission entails only transmitting the symbol destined for
the kth user, appropriately scaled to meet the transmit power (48)
⎧ ⎛ ⎞⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎜
ρd αd,k ĝm k k
sc ⎟⎬
⎜
= E log2 ⎜1 + ⎟
⎟⎪ ,
sc
Rd,k (42)
⎪
⎪ ⎝ K
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ρd αd,k (βm k k − μm k k ) + ρd
sc sc αd,k βm k k + 1 ⎠⎪
⎪
⎭
k =k
and where ωm k k is given by where
τusc ρu,p
sc β 2
mk k L 46.3 + 33.9 log10 ( f ) − 13.82 log10 (h AP )
ωm k k H 2 . (49)
τusc ρu,p K − (1.1 log10 ( f ) − 0.7)h u + (1.56 log10 ( f ) − 0.8),
k =1 βm k k ψ k ψ k + 1
sc
(53)
In (49), τusc is the uplink training duration in samples,
)
τuscψ k ∈ Cτu ×1 , where ψ
sc
ψ k 2 = 1, is the pilot sequence and where f is the carrier frequency (in MHz), h AP is the AP
transmitted from the kth user, and ρu,p
sc is the transmit power
antenna height (in m), and h u denotes the user antenna height
per uplink pilot symbol. (in m). The path loss PLmk is a continuous function of dmk .
Similarly to in the downlink, the max-min power control Note that when dmk ≤ d1 , there is no shadowing.
problem for the uplink can be formulated as a quasi-linear 2) Shadowing Correlation Model: Most previous work
program: assumed that the shadowing coefficients (and therefore z mk )
are uncorrelated. However, in practice, transmitters/receivers
max min ω̄m k k
{αu,k } k=1,··· ,K that are in close vicinity of each other may be surrounded by
subject to 0 ≤ αu,k ≤ 1, k = 1, · · · , K , (50) common obstacles, and hence, the shadowing coefficients are
correlated. This correlation may significantly affect the system
which can be solved by using bisection. performance.
For the shadow fading coefficients, we will use a model
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS with two components [42]:
√ √
We quantitatively study the performance of Cell-Free Mas- z mk = δam + 1 − δbk , m = 1, . . . , M, K = 1, . . . , K ,
sive MIMO, and compare it to that of small-cell systems. (54)
We specifically demonstrate the effects of shadow fading
correlation. The M APs and K users are uniformly distributed where am ∼ N (0, 1) and bk ∼ N (0, 1) are independent
at random within a square of size D × D km2 . random variables, and δ, 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1, is a parameter. The
variable am models contributions to the shadow fading that
result from obstructing objects in the vicinity of the mth AP,
A. Large-Scale Fading Model
and which affects the channel from that AP to all users in the
We describe the path loss and shadow fading correlation same way. The variable bk models contributions to the shadow
models, which are used in the performance evaluation. The fading that result from objects in the vicinity of the kth user,
large-scale fading coefficient βmk in (1) models the path loss and which affects the channels from that user to all APs in
and shadow fading, according to the same way. When δ = 0, the shadow fading from a given
σsh z mk user is the same to all APs, but different users are affected by
βmk = PLmk · 10 10 , (51) different shadow fading. Conversely, when δ = 1, the shadow
σsh z mk fading from a given AP is the same to all users; however,
where PLmk represents the path loss, and 10 repre-
10
different APs are affected by different shadow fading. Varying
sents the shadow fading with the standard deviation σsh , and δ between 0 and 1 trades off between these two extremes.
z mk ∼ N (0, 1). The covariance functions of am and bk are given by:
1) Path Loss Model: We use a three-slope model for the
) )
path loss [41]: the path loss exponent equals 3.5 if distance − dda (m,m − ddu (k,k
E {am am } = 2 decorr , E {bk bk } = 2 decorr , (55)
between the mth AP and the kth user (denoted by dmk ) is
greater than d1 , equals 2 if d1 ≥ dmk > d0 , and equals 0 if where da (m, m ) is the geographical distance between the mth
dmk ≤ d0 for some d0 and d1 . When dmk > d1 , we employ the and m th APs, du (k, k ) is the geographical distance between
Hata-COST231 propagation model. More precisely, the path the kth and k th users, and ddecorr is a decorrelation distance
loss in dB is given by which depends on the environment. Typically, the decorre-
⎧ lation distance is on the order of 20Â—200 m. A shorter
⎪
⎪ −L − 35 log10 (dmk ), if dmk > d1
⎪
⎨−L − 15 log (d ) − 20 log (d ), decorrelation distance corresponds to an environment with
10 1 10 mk
PLmk = (52) a lower degree of stationarity. This model for correlation
⎪
⎪ if d0 < dmk ≤ d1
⎪
⎩
between different geographical locations has been validated
−L − 15 log10 (d1 ) − 20 log10 (d0 ), if dmk ≤ d0 both in theory and by practical experiments [42], [43].
TABLE I are the same for all users; 3) a cumulative distribution is

S YSTEM PARAMETERS FOR THE S IMULATION generated over the so-obtained per-user net throughputs.
• For the case without power control: same procedure, but
in 2) no power control is performed. Without power
control, for Cell-Free Massive MIMO, in the downlink
transmission, all APs transmit with full power, and at the
mth AP, the power control # coefficients$ηmk , k = 1, . . . K ,
−1
K
are the same, i.e., ηmk = k =1 γmk , ∀k = 1, . . . K ,
(this directly comes from (7)), while in the uplink, all
users transmit with full power, i.e., ηk = 1, ∀k = 1, . . . K .
For the small-cell system, in the downlink, all chosen
B. Parameters and Setup APs transmit with full power, i.e. αd,k = 1, and in the
uplink, all users transmit with full power, i.e. αu,k = 1,
In all examples, we choose the parameters summarized k = 1, . . . K .
in Table I. The quantities ρ̄dcf , ρ̄ucf , and ρ̄pcf in this table are • For the correlated shadow fading scenario, we
the transmit powers of downlink data, uplink data, and pilot use the shadowing correlation model discussed
symbols, respectively. The corresponding normalized transmit in Section VI-A.2, and we choose ddecorr = 0.1 km and
SNRs ρdcf , ρucf , and ρpcf can be computed by dividing these δ = 0.5.
powers by the noise power, where the noise power is given by • For the small-cell systems, the greedy pilot assignment
noise power = bandwidth × kB × T0 × noise figure (W), works in the same way as the scheme for Cell-Free
Massive MIMO discussed in Section IV-A, except for
where kB = 1.381×10−23 (Joule per Kelvin) is the Boltzmann that in the small-cell systems, since the chosen APs do
constant, and T0 = 290 (Kelvin) is the noise temperature. not cooperate, the worst user will find a new pilot which
To avoid boundary effects, and to imitate a network with an minimizes the pilot contamination corresponding to its
infinite area, the square area is wrapped around at the edges, AP (rather than summed over all APs as in the case of
and hence, the simulation area has eight neighbors. Cell-Free systems).
We consider the per-user net throughputs which take into
account the channel estimation overhead, and are defined as
C. Results and Discussions
follows:
We first compare the performance of Cell-Free Massive
1 − τ cf /τc cf
cf
SA,k = B RA,k , (56) MIMO with that of small-cell systems with greedy pilot
2 assignment and max-min power control. Figure 3 compares the
1 − (τd + τu )/τc sc
sc sc
sc
SA,k = B RA,k , (57) cumulative distribution of the per-user downlink net through-
2 put for Cell-Free Massive MIMO and small-cell systems, with
where A ∈ {d, u} correspond to downlink respectively uplink M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = τdsc = τusc = 20, with and
transmission, B is the spectral bandwidth, and τc is again without shadow fading correlation.
the coherence interval in samples. The terms τ cf /τc and Cell-Free Massive MIMO significantly outperforms small-
(τdsc + τusc )/τc in (56) and (57) reflect the fact that, for each cell in both median and in 95%-likely performance. The
coherence interval of length τc samples, in the Cell-Free net throughput of Cell-Free Massive MIMO is much more
Massive MIMO systems, we spend τ cf samples for the uplink concentrated around its median, compared with the small-cell
training, while in the small-cell systems, we spend τdsc + τusc systems. Without shadow fading correlation, the 95%-likely
samples for the uplink and downlink training. In all examples, net throughput of the Cell-Free downlink is about 14 Mbits/s
we take τc = 200 samples, corresponding to a coherence which is 7 times higher than that of the small-cell downlink
bandwidth of 200 KHz and a coherence time of 1 ms, and (about 2.1 Mbits/s). In particular, we can see that the small-cell
choose B = 20 MHz. systems are much more affected by shadow fading correlation
To ensure a fair comparison between Cell-Free Massive than Cell-Free Massive MIMO is. This is due to the fact
MIMO and small-cell systems, we choose ρdsc = M K ρd ,
cf
that when the shadowing coefficients are highly correlated,
ρu = ρu , and ρu,p = ρd,p = ρp , which makes the total radi-
sc cf sc sc cf
the gain from choosing the best APs in a small-cell system
ated power equal in all cases. The cumulative distributions of is reduced. With shadowing correlation, the 95%-likely net
the per-user downlink/uplink net throughput in our examples throughput of the Cell-Free downlink is about 10 times higher
are generated as follows: than that of the small-cell system. The same insights can be
• For the case with max-min power control: 1) 200 random obtained for the uplink, see Figure 4. In addition, owing to the
realizations of the AP/user locations and shadow fading fact that the downlink uses more power (since M > K and
profiles are generated; 2) for each realization, the per- ρdcf > ρucf ) and has more power control coefficients to choose
user net throughputs of K users are computed by using than the uplink does, the downlink performance is better than
max-min power control as discussed in Section IV-B for the uplink performance.
Cell-Free Massive MIMO and in Section V for small-cell Next we compare Cell-Free Massive MIMO and small-
systems—with max-min power control these throughputs cell systems, assuming that no power control is performed.
Fig. 3. Cumulative distribution of the per-user downlink net throughput for Fig. 5. Cumulative distribution of the per-user downlink net throughput for
correlated and uncorrelated shadow fading, with the greedy pilot assignment correlated and uncorrelated shadow fading, with the greedy pilot assignment
and max-min power control. Here, M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = τdsc = 20. and without power control. Here, M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = τdsc = 20.
Fig. 6. Same as Figure 5 but for the uplink, and τ cf = τusc = 20.
Fig. 4. Same as Figure 3 but for the uplink, and τ cf = τusc = 20.
control. For the small-cell system, power control improves the

Figures 5 and 6 show the cumulative distributions of the 95%-likely throughput but not the median throughput (recall
per-user net throughput for the downlink and the uplink, that the power control policy explicitly aims at improving the
respectively, with M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = τdsc = performance of the worst user).
τusc = 20, and with the greedy pilot assignment method. In Figures 7 and 8, we consider the same setting as in
In both uncorrelated and correlated shadowing scenarios, Cell- Figures 3 and 4, but here we use the random pilot assign-
Free Massive MIMO outperforms the small-cell approach ment scheme. These figures provide the same insights as
in terms of 95%-likely per-user net throughput. In addition, Figures 3 and 4. Furthermore, by comparing these figures
a comparison of Figure 3 (or 4) and Figure 5 (or 6) shows with Figures 3 and 4, we can see that with greedy pilot
that with power control, the performance of Cell-Free Massive assignment, the 95%-likely net throughputs can be improved
MIMO improves significantly in terms of both median and by about 20% compared with when random pilot assignment
95%-likely throughput. In the uncorrelated shadow fading sce- is used.
nario, the power allocation can improve the 95%-likely Cell- In addition, we study how the M APs assign powers to
Free throughput by a factor of 2.5 for the downlink and a factor a given user in the downlink of Cell-Free Massive MIMO.
of 2.3 for the uplink, compared with the case without power From (5), the average transmit power expended by the mth AP
Fig. 7. Cumulative distribution of the per-user downlink net throughput for Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution of the effective number of APs serving each
correlated and uncorrelated shadow fading, with the random pilot assignment user. Here, M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = 5 and 20.
and max-min power control. Here, M = 100, K = 40, and τ cf = τdsc = 20.
Fig. 10. Average downlink net throughput versus the number of users for
Fig. 8. Same as Figure 7 but for the uplink, and τ cf = τusc = 20. different τ cf . Here, M = 100.
K = 40 users; 2) for each user k in each realization, we found

on the kth user is ρdcf ηmk γmk . Then the minimum number of APs, say n, such that the n largest
ηmk γmk values of { p(m, k)} sum up to at least 95% (k is arbitrary
p(m, k) M (58) here, since all users have the same statistics); 3) a cumulative
m =1 ηm k γm k distribution was generated over the 200 realizations. We can
is the ratio between the power spent by the mth AP on the see that, on average, only about 10–20 of the 100 APs really
kth user and the total power collectively spent by all APs on participate in serving a given user. The larger τ cf , the less
the kth user. Figure 9 shows the cumulative distribution of the pilot contamination and the more accurate channel estimates—
effective number of APs serving each user, for τ cf = 5 and 20, hence, more AP points can usefully serve each user.
and uncorrelated shadow fading. The effective number of Finally, we investigate the effect of the number of users K ,
APs serving each user is defined as the minimum number number of APs M, and the training duration τ cf on the per-
of APs that contribute at least 95% of the power allocated formance of Cell-Free Massive MIMO and small-cell systems.
to a given user. This plot was generated as follows: 1) 200 Figure 10 shows the average downlink net throughput versus
random realizations of the AP/user locations and shadow K for different τ cf , at M = 100 and uncorrelated shadow fad-
fading profiles were generated, each with M = 100 APs and ing. The average is taken over the large-scale fading. We can
TABLE II
T HE 95%-L IKELY P ER -U SER N ET T HROUGHPUT (M BITS /s) OF THE C ELL -F REE AND S MALL -C ELL D OWNLINK ,
FOR M = 100, K = 40, AND τ cf = τdsc = 20
TABLE III
T HE 95%-L IKELY P ER -U SER N ET T HROUGHPUT (M BITS /s) OF THE C ELL -F REE AND S MALL -C ELL U PLINK ,
FOR M = 100, K = 40, AND τ cf = τusc = 20
small-cell systems, under uncorrelated and correlated shadow

fading.
VII. C ONCLUSION
We analyzed the performance of Cell-Free Massive MIMO,
taking into account the effects of channel estimation,
non-orthogonality of pilot sequences, and power control.
A comparison between Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems and
small-cell systems was also performed, under uncorrelated and
correlated shadow fading.
The results show that Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems
can significantly outperform small-cell systems in terms
of throughput. In particular, Cell-Free systems are much
more robust to shadow fading correlation than small-cell
systems. The 95%-likely per-user throughputs of Cell-Free
Massive MIMO with shadowing correlation are an order
of magnitude higher than those of the small-cell systems.
In terms of implementation complexity, however, small-cell
Fig. 11. Average downlink net throughput versus the number of APs for systems require much less backhaul than Cell-Free Massive
different τ cf . Here, K = 20.
MIMO.
see that when reducing K or τ cf , the effect of pilot con- A PPENDIX

tamination increases, and hence, the performance decreases.
As expected, Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems outperform A. Proof of Theorem 1
small-cell systems. Cell-Free Massive MIMO benefits from To derive the closed-form expression for the
favorable propagation, and therefore, it suffers less from
achievable

rate

given in
(23), we need to compute DS k , E |BUk |2 , and
interference than the small-cell system does. As a result, for E |UIkk |2 .
a fixed τ cf , the relative performance gap between Cell-Free 1) Compute DSk : Let εmk gmk − ĝmk be the channel
Massive MIMO and small-cell systems increases with K . estimation error. Owing to the properties of MMSE estimation,
Figure 11 shows the average downlink net throughput versus εmk and ĝmk are independent. Thus, we have
M for different τ cf , at K = 20. Owing to the array gain
M
(for Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems) and diversity gain (for 1/2
∗
small-cell systems), the system performances of both Cell- DSk = ρdcf E ηmk (ĝmk + εmk )ĝmk
Free Massive MIMO and small-cell systems increase when M m=1
increases. Again, for all M, Cell-Free Massive MIMO systems
are significantly better than small-cell systems.
M
1/2
Tables II and III summarize the downlink respectively = ρdcf ηmk γmk . (59)
uplink performances of the Cell-Free Massive MIMO and m=1

2) Compute E |BUk |2 : Since the variance of a sum of where
⎧ 2 ⎫
independent RVs is equal to the sum of the variances, ⎨ M ⎬
1/2
we have T1 E ηmk cmk |gmk |2ϕ kH ϕ k , (64)
⎩ ⎭
m=1
E |BUk |2 ⎧ ⎛ ⎞ ∗ 2 ⎫
⎪
⎨ ⎪

M K
⎬

M

T2 E 1/2
ηmk cmk gmk ⎝ gmi ϕ k ϕ i . (65)
H ⎠
= ρdcf ηmk E gmk ĝmk
∗ ∗ 2
−E gmk ĝmk ⎪
⎩m=1 ⎪⎭
i =k
m=1
M #
2$ We first compute T1 . We have
= ρdcf ηmk E gmk ĝmk
∗ 2 ∗
− | E gmk ĝmk |
M M
H 2 1/2 1/2
m=1 T1 = ϕϕ k ϕ k E ηmk ηnk cmk cnk |gmk | |gnk |
2 2
M ! * 2 + "
∗ M
m=1 n=1

= ρdcf ηmk E εmk ĝmk + |ĝmk |2 − γmk
2

H 2
m=1 ϕ k ϕ k E
= ϕ ηmk cmk
2
|gmk |
4
(a) M # $ m=1
= ρdcf ηmk E εmk ĝmk
∗ 2
+ E |ĝmk |4 − γmk
2 ⎧ ⎫
2 ⎨ M
M ⎬
H 1/2 1/2
m=1
ϕ k ϕ k E
+ ϕ ηmk ηnk cmk cnk |gmk |2 |gnk |2
M # $ ⎩ ⎭
(b) m=1 n =m
= ρdcf ηmk γmk (βmk − γmk ) + 2γmk
2
− γmk
2
M
m=1 H 2
ϕ k ϕ k
= 2 ϕ 2
ηmk cmk 2
βmk
M
m=1
= ρdcf ηmk γmk βmk , (60)
M M
m=1 H 2 1/2 1/2
ϕ k ϕ k
+ ϕ ηmk ηnk cmk cnk βmk βnk . (66)
where (a) follows that fact that εmk has zero mean and is m=1 n =m

of ĝ2 mk , while
independent
(b) 2follows
from the facts that Similarly, we have
E |ĝmk |4 = 2γmk
and E |ε | = β − γmk .
mk mk

M
K
3) Compute E |UIkk |2 : From (4) and (22), we have H 2
T2 = 2
ηmk cmk ϕ k ϕ i .
βmk βmi ϕ (67)
m=1 i =k
E |UIk |2
⎧ Substitution of (66) and (67) into (63) yields
⎨ M M 2

= ρd E
cf 1/2
ηmk cmk gmk H 2 1/2 βmk
⎩ E |UIkk | = ρd ϕ
2 cf
ϕ k ϕ k ηmk γmk
m=1 βmk
⎫ m=1
∗ 2 ⎪
⎬
M
K
× τ cf ρpcf gmi ϕ kH ϕ i + w̃mk , (61) + ρdcf ηmk γmk βmk . (68)
⎭⎪ m=1
i=1
Plugging (59), (60), and (68) into (23), we obtain (24).
where w̃mk ϕ kH wp,m ∼ CN (0, 1). Since w̃mk is indepen-
dent of gmi , ∀i, k , we have B. Proof of Proposition 1
Denote by S {ςmk , k k , ϑm } the set of variables, and f (S)
E |UIkk |2 the objective function of (34):
⎧ 2 ⎫ # $2
⎨ M ⎬ M
m=1 γmk ςmk
1/2 ∗
= ρdcf E ηmk cmk gmk w̃mk f (S) min . (69)
⎩ ⎭ k=1,··· ,K
K
M
m=1
⎧ ⎫ ϕ k ϕ k | k k + βmk ϑm + cf
|ϕ H 2 2 2 1
⎪ K ∗ 2 ⎪ k =k
ρd
⎨
m=1
M ⎬
+ τ cf ρpcf ρdcf E gmi ϕ kH ϕ i . For any t ∈ R+ , the upper-level set of f (S) that belongs
1/2
ηmk cmk gmk
⎪
⎩m=1 ⎪⎭ to S is
i=1
(62) U ( f, t) = {S : f (S) ≥ t}
⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ # $ ⎪
⎪
Using the fact that if
X and Y are two ⎪
⎪ M 2 ⎪
⎪

independent

RVs
and ⎨ m=1 γmk ςmk
⎬
E {X} = 0, then E |X + Y |2 = E |X|2 + E |Y |2 , (62) = S: ≥ t, ∀k
can be rewritten as follows ⎪
⎪ K
M ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ϕ kH ϕ k |2 k2 k + βmk ϑm2 + 1cf
|ϕ ⎪
⎪
⎩ ρ ⎭

M k =k m=1 d
2
E |UIkk | = ρdcf 2
ηmk cmk cf cf cf
βmk + τ ρp ρd (T1 + T2 ),
1
M
m=1 v
= S: k ≤√ γmk ςmk , ∀k , (70)
(63) t m=1
% &T
[20] H. Yin, D. Gesbert, and L. Cottatellucci, “Dealing with interference
where vk T I
vk1 −k
T
vk2 1 , and where vk1 in distributed large-scale MIMO systems: A statistical approach,”
ρdcf IEEE J. Select. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 942–953,
' H (T Oct. 2014.
ϕ 1 ϕ k 1k ... ϕ KH ϕ K K k , I−k is a K × (K − 1) matrix [21] H. Yang and T. L. Marzetta, “Capacity performance of multi-
obtained from the K × 'K identity matrix with(the kth column
√ √ T
cell large-scale antenna systems,” in Proc. 51st Allerton Conf.
is removed, and vk2 β1k ϑ1 ... β Mk ϑ M . Commun., Control, Comput., Monticello, IL, USA, Oct. 2013,
pp. 668–675.
Since the upper-level set U ( f, t) can be represented as [22] K. T. Truong and R. W. Heath, Jr., “The viability of distributed antennas
a SOC, it is a convex set. Thus, f (S) is quasi-concave. for massive MIMO systems,” in Proc. 47th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst.
Furthermore, the optimization problem (34) is a quasi-concave Comput., Monterey, CA, USA, Nov. 2013, pp. 1318–1323.
[23] E. Nayebi, A. Ashikhmin, T. L. Marzetta, and H. Yang, “Cell-
optimization problem since the constraint set in (34) is also free massive MIMO systems,” in Proc. 49th Asilomar Conf. Sig-
convex. nals, Syst. Comput. (ACSSC), Pacific Grove, CA, USA, Nov. 2015,
pp. 695–699.
[24] H. Huh, A. M. Tulino, and G. Caire, “Network MIMO with linear zero-
R EFERENCES forcing beamforming: Large system analysis, impact of channel esti-
[1] H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, mation, and reduced-complexity scheduling,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
“Cell-free massive MIMO: Uniformly great service for everyone,” in vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 2911–2934, May 2012.
Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. [25] W. Liu, S. Han, and C. Yang, “Energy efficiency comparison of massive
(SPAWC), Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 2015, pp. 201–205. MIMO and small cell network,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. Signal Inf.
[2] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited num- Process. (GlobalSIP), Dec. 2014, pp. 617–621.
bers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, [26] E. Bj “ornson, L. Sanguinetti, and M. Kountouris, “Deploying dense
no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010. networks for maximal energy efficiency: Small cells meet massive
[3] H. Yang and T. L. Marzetta, “A macro cellular wireless network with MIMO,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 832–847,
uniformly high user throughputs,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. Apr. 2016.
(VTC), Sep. 2014, pp. 1–5. [27] H. S. Dhillon, M. Kountouris, and J. G. Andrews, “Downlink
[4] S. Zhou, M. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Wang, and Y. Yao, “Distributed wireless MIMO HetNets: Modeling, ordering results and performance analy-
communication system: A new architecture for future public wireless sis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 5208–5222,
access,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 108–113, Mar. 2003. Oct. 2013.
[5] T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals [28] L. W. A. He, M. Elkashlan, Y. Chen, and K. K. Wong, “Spec-
Massive MIMO. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016. trum and energy efficiency in massive mimo enabled HetNets: A
[6] M. K. Karakayali, G. J. Foschini, and R. A. Valenzuela, “Network stochastic geometry approach,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, no. 12,
coordination for spectrally efficient communications in cellular systems,” pp. 2294–2297, Dec. 2015.
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 56–61, Aug. 2006. [29] T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice.
[7] W. Choi and J. G. Andrews, “Downlink performance and capacity of Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1956.
distributed antenna systems in a multicell environment,” IEEE Trans. [30] A. Ashikhmin, T. L. Marzetta, and L. Li, “Interference reduction in
Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69–73, Jan. 2007. multi-cell massive MIMO systems I: Large-scale fading precoding and
[8] R. Irmer et al., “Coordinated multipoint: Concepts, performance, and decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, to be published.
field trial results,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 102–111, [31] F. Kaltenberger, H. Jiang, M. Guillaud, and R. Knopp, “Relative channel
Feb. 2011. reciprocity calibration in MIMO/TDD systems,” in Proc. Future Netw.
[9] X. Hong, Y. Jie, C.-X. Wang, J. Shi, and X. Ge, “Energy-spectral Mobile Summit, Florence, Italy, Jun. 2010, pp. 1–10.
efficiency trade-off in virtual MIMO cellular systems,” IEEE J. Sel. [32] P. Marsch and G. Fettweis, “Uplink CoMP under a constrained backhaul
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 2128–2140, Oct. 2013. and imperfect channel knowledge,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
[10] D. Castanheira and A. Gameiro, “Distributed antenna system capacity vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1730–1742, Jun. 2011.
scaling,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 68–75, [33] O. Simeone, O. Somekh, E. Erkip, H. V. Poor, and S. Shamai,
Jun. 2010. “A broadcast approach to robust communications over unreliable multi-
[11] R. Heath, S. Peters, Y. Wang, and J. Zhang, “A current per spective on relay networks,” in Proc. Inf. Theory Appl. Workshop (ITW), Taormina,
distributed antenna systems for the downlink of cellular systems,” IEEE Italy, Feb. 2009, pp. 334–340.
Commun. Mag., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 161–167, Apr. 2013. [34] H. Cramer, Random Variables and Probability Distributions. Cambridge,
[12] Z. Liu and L. Dai, “A comparative study of downlink MIMO cellular U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970.
networks with co-located and distributed base-station antennas,” IEEE [35] B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 6259–6274, Nov. 2014. multiple-antenna wireless links?” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 4,
[13] Q. Sun, S. Jin, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, X. Gao, and K.-K. Wong, “On pp. 951–963, Apr. 2003.
scheduling for massive distributed MIMO downlink,” in Proc. IEEE [36] H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral effi-
Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Atlanta, GA, USA, Dec. 2013, ciency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
pp. 4151–4156. vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436–1449, Apr. 2013.
[14] M. Matthaiou, C. Zhong, M. R. McKay, and T. Ratnarajah, “Sum rate [37] H. Ahmadi, A. Farhang, N. Marchetti, and A. MacKenzie, “A game
analysis of ZF receivers in distributed MIMO systems,” IEEE J. Sel. theoretic approach for pilot contamination avoidance in massive MIMO,”
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 180–191, Feb. 2013. IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 12–15, Feb. 2016.
[15] K. Hosseini, W. Yu, and R. S. Adve, “Large-scale MIMO versus network [38] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.:
MIMO for multicell interference mitigation,” IEEE J. Select. Topics Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 930–941, Oct. 2014. [39] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to
[16] J. Joung, Y. K. Chia, and S. Sun, “Energy-efficient, large-scale coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59,
distributed-antenna system (L-DAS) for multiple users,” IEEE J. Select. no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011.
Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 930–941, Oct. 2014. [40] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and
[17] Q. Ye, O. Y. Bursalioglu, and H. C. Papadopoulos, “Harmonized cellular Products, 7th ed. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic, 2007.
and distributed massive MIMO: Load balancing and scheduling,” in [41] A. Tang, J. Sun, and K. Gong, “Mobile propagation loss with a low
Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), San Diego, CA, base station antenna for NLOS street microcells in urban area,” in Proc.
USA, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–6. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), May 2001, pp. 333–336.
[18] J. Wang and L. Dai, “Asymptotic rate analysis of downlink multi-user [42] Z. Wang, E. K. Tameh, and A. R. Nix, “Joint shadowing process in
systems with co-located and distributed antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless urban peer-to-peer radio channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 57,
Commun., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 3046–3058, Jun. 2015. no. 1, pp. 52–64, Jan. 2008.
[19] A. Lozano, R. W. Heath, Jr., and J. G. Andrews “Fundamental limits of [43] M. Gudmundson, “Correlation model for shadow fading in mobile
cooperation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 5213–5226, radio systems,” Electron. Lett., vol. 27, no. 23, pp. 2145–2146,
Sep. 2013. Nov. 1991.
Hien Quoc Ngo received the B.S. degree in elec- Erik G. Larsson (S’99–M’03–SM’10–F’16)
trical engineering from the Ho Chi Minh City received the Ph.D. degree from Uppsala University,
University of Technology, Vietnam, in 2007, the Sweden, in 2002. He was with the Royal Institute
M.S. degree in electronics and radio engineering of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, the
from Kyung Hee University, South Korea, in 2010, University of Florida, USA, The George Washington
and the Ph.D. degree in communication systems University, USA, and Ericsson Research, Sweden.
from Linköping University (LiU), Sweden, in 2015. In 2015, he was a Visiting Fellow with Princeton
In 2014, he visited the Nokia Bell Labs, Murray Hill, University, Princeton, NJ, USA, for four months. He
NJ, USA. is currently a Professor of communication systems
He is currently a Post-Doctoral Researcher with with Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
the Division for Communication Systems, Depart- His main professional interests are within the
ment of Electrical Engineering, LiU. He is also a Visiting Research Fel- areas of wireless communications and signal processing. He has co-authored
low with the School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Com- some 130 journal papers on these topics and is a co-author of the two
puter Science, Queen’s University Belfast, U.K. His current research Cambridge University Press textbooks Space-Time Block Coding for Wireless
interests include massive (large-scale) MIMO systems and cooperative Communications (2003) and Fundamentals of Massive MIMO (2016). He is a
communications. co-inventor on 16 issued and many pending patents on wireless technology.
Dr. Ngo has been a member of the technical program committees for several Dr. Larsson is a member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Awards
IEEE conferences such as the ICC, the Globecom, the WCNC, the VTC, Board during 2017–2019. He served as an Associate Editor of the IEEE
the WCSP, the ISWCS, the ATC, and the ComManTel. He was a recipient T RANSACTIONS ON C OMMUNICATIONS from 2010 to 2014 and the IEEE
of the IEEE ComSoc Stephen O. Rice Prize in Communications Theory in T RANSACTIONS ON S IGNAL P ROCESSING from 2006 to 2010. From 2015 to
2015. He also received the IEEE Sweden VT-COM-IT Joint Chapter Best 2016, he served as the Chair of the IEEE Signal Processing Society SPCOM
Student Journal Paper Award in 2015. He was an IEEE C OMMUNICATIONS Technical Committee, and in 2017 he is the past chair of this committee.
L ETTERS Exemplary Reviewer for 2014, an IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON He served as the Chair of the Steering Committee for the IEEE W IRELESS
C OMMUNICATIONS Exemplary Reviewer for 2015, and an IEEE W IRELESS C OMMUNICATIONS L ETTERS from 2014 to 2015. He was the General Chair
C OMMUNICATIONS L ETTERS Exemplary Reviewer for 2016. of the Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers in 2015,
and the Technical Chair in 2012.
He received the IEEE Signal Processing Magazine Best Column Award,
in 2012 and 2014, and the IEEE ComSoc Stephen O. Rice Prize in
Communications Theory in 2015.
Alexei Ashikhmin is currently a Distinguished
Member of the Technical Staff of the Communi-
cations and Statistical Sciences Research Depart-
ment, Nokia Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA. His
research interests include communications theory,
massive MIMO, classical and quantum information
theory, and error correcting codes.
In 2014, he received the Thomas Edison Patent
Award for Patent on Massive MIMO System with
Decentralized Antennas. In 2004, he received the
Stephen O. Rice Prize for the best paper of the
IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C OMMUNICATIONS. In 2002, 2010, and 2011 he
received the Bell Laboratories President Awards for breakthrough research in
communication projects.
Dr. Ashikhmin served as an Associate Editor of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS
ON I NFORMATION T HEORY from 2003 to 2006 and from 2011 to 2014. Thomas L. Marzetta (F’13) was born in
Washington, D.C. He received the PhD and SB
in Electrical Engineering from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1978 and 1972, and the
MS in Systems Engineering from University of
Hong Yang received the Ph.D. degree in applied Pennsylvania in 1973. After careers in petroleum
mathematics from Princeton University, Princeton, exploration at Schlumberger-Doll Research and
NJ, USA. He was with the Systems Engineering defense research at Nichols Research Corporation,
Department and the Wireless Design Center, Lucent he joined Bell Labs in 1995 where he is currently
Technologies and Alcatel-Lucent, and has worked a Bell Labs Fellow. Previously he directed
for a start-up network technology company. He is the Communications and Statistical Sciences
currently a Member of the Technical Staff with Department within the former Mathematical Sciences Research Center.
the Mathematics of Networks and Communications Dr. Marzetta is on the Advisory Board of MAMMOET (Massive MIMO
Research Department, Nokia Bell Labs, Murray Hill, for Efficient Transmission), an EU-sponsored FP7 project, and he was
NJ, where he is involved in research in communica- Coordinator of the GreenTouch Consortium’s Large Scale Antenna Systems
tions networks. He has co-authored many research Project. He has received awards including the 2015 IEEE Stephen O. Rice
papers in wireless communications, applied mathematics, and financial eco- Prize, the 2015 IEEE W. R. G. Baker Award, and the 2013 IEEE Guglielmo
nomics, co-invented many U.S. and international patents, and co-authored the Marconi Prize Paper Award. He was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2003,
book Fundamentals of Massive MIMO (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016). and he received an Honorary Doctorate from Linköping University in 2015.

Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1834 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 16, NO.

Cell-Free Massive MIMO Versus Small Cells

M ASSIVE multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO),

perfect calibration of the hardware chains. The feasibility

We next provide a new exact closed-form expression for the

Remark 6: The greedy pilot assignment can be performed # $2

Problem (46) is a quasi-linear program, which can be solved

and where ωm k k is given by where

TABLE I are the same for all users; 3) a cumulative distribution is

control. For the small-cell system, power control improves the

K = 40 users; 2) for each user k in each realization, we found

small-cell systems, under uncorrelated and correlated shadow

see that when reducing K or τ cf , the effect of pilot con- A PPENDIX

You might also like