Altruistic Transmit Beamforming for

Cross-layer Interference Mitigation in

Heterogeneous Networks
(12.09.2012)
Christos Karaiskos
Supervisor: Prof. Jyri Hmlinen
Instructor: D.Sc. Alexis Dowhuszko
Espoo 2012

Outline
Introduction/Problem Description
Background
Methodology
Results:
I. G-mode 1 with Infinite Phase Resolution
II. Finite Feedback- Multiple Dominant Interferers
III. Increasing Amplitude Resolution
IV. Increasing the Number of Transmit Antennas
Conclusions
Future Work
2
Introduction/Problem Description
3

Macro cell-splitting techniques cannot deal with the data deluge.

The future belongs to heterogeneous networks, where macro, pico, relay and femto nodes
coexist.

The main challenge for co-channel overlaid deployments is cross-layer interference.
Background: Transmit Beamforming (1/2)
4
Adjust Phase &
Amplitude
X X
Ideal Interference Mitigation for 2 antenna case:
Interference SNR 0
Altruistic TBF
Egoistic TBF
T
N
t
w w w w ] ... [
2 1
=
] ... [
2 1
t
N
h h h h =
Transmitter Selection Combining (TSC):
Chooses the best channel after comparison of amplitudes


G-mode 1:Attempts to align phases of channel gains




G-mode 2: Attempts to align phases and adjust amplitudes of channel gains

Background: Transmit Beamforming (2/2)
5
We will present the codebooks for two Tx antennas:
1 =
p
N
3 =
p
N
1
3
=
=
a
p
N
N
if
if
egoistic (MBS)
altruistic
(FBSi)
6
Methodology (1/2)









For results in I, II:
Consider a highly interfered Macro User Equipment (MUE) and multiple interferer Femto Base
Stations (FBSs), of which k are altruistic and the rest egoistic. The received SINR at the MUE
is:
)
`

=
) (d L P
P
E
I
Tx

includes egoistic FBSs power and noise

L(d) is path loss attenuation
is transmit power
I
P
Tx
P
represents mean SINR from a given transmitter to the MUE.
7
Methodology (2/2)
We model the SINR as a random variable, which is a function of random variables.
Goal 1: Find cumulative distribution function (CDF) of Z analytically to measure MUE outage.
For results in III,IV:
Goal 2: Compute the mean instantaneous SNR gain of methods and compare it against no TBF.
)
`

E
2
w h
I. G-mode 1 with Infinite Phase Resolution (1/3)
8
System Model:
1 dominant altruistic
FBS interferer
Infinite feedback
capacity
I. G-mode 1 with Infinite Phase Resolution (2/3)
9
What infinite phase resolution means:
Egoistic MBS-MUE (numerator of SINR):
maximum possible SNR with respect to finite
g-mode 1
Altruistic FBS-MUE (denominator of SINR:
minimum possible SNR with respect to finite
g-mode 1

So, SINR at MUE is the maximum possible
with respect to g-mode 1: Upper Bound

egoistic (MBS)
altruistic
(FBS)
Perfect phase feedback
I. G-mode 1 with Infinite Phase Resolution (3/3)
10
where
,
Whittaker W
II. Finite FeedbackMultiple Altruistic Interferers (1/4)
11
System Model:
multiple dominant FBS
interferers
12
II. Finite FeedbackMultiple Altruistic Interferers (2/4)
Consider chi-squared approximations found in [1]:
Result:
[1] A.A. Dowhuszko, G. Corral-Briones, J. Hmlinen and R. Wichman, On Throughput-Fairness Tradeoff in
Virtual MIMO Systems with Limited Feedback.
0 2 4 6 8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Spectral Efficiency (bps/Hz)
C
D
F
FBSs apply g-mode 2 with 4 bits


0 2 4 6 8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Spectral Efficiency (bps/Hz)
C
D
F
FBSs apply g-mode 1 with 2 bits
0 2 4 6 8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Spectral Efficiency (bps/Hz)
C
D
F
FBSs apply TSC with 1 bit
All FBSs Egoistic
Dominant FBS Altruistic
2 Dominant FBSs Altruistic
3 Dominant FBSs Altruistic
4 Dominant FBSs Altruistic
All FBSs Altruistic
13
II. Finite FeedbackMultiple Altruistic Interferers (3/4)
MBS is assumed to always apply egoistic g-mode 1 with
N=2 bits resolution.

14
II. Finite FeedbackMultiple Altruistic Interferers (4/4)
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Number of Altruistic Interferers
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
b
p
s
/
H
z
)
10th Percentile


g-mode2 (N=4)
g-mode2 (N=3)
g-mode1 (N=3)
g-mode1 (N=2)
TSC (N=1)
III. Increasing Amplitude Resolution
15
Altruistic g-mode 2 has 1 bit for amplitude feedback denoting the weakest antenna

Extended altruistic g-mode 2 has 2 bits for amplitude feedback:
1 bit denotes the weakest antenna
1 bit denotes if the difference between channel gain amplitudes is above or below a
predefined threshold

After simulations, best threshold value was found approximately 6 dB.

Comparison of altruistic g-mode 2 and extended altruistic mode-2:

IV. Increasing the Number of Transmit
Antennas (1/2)
16
For cases of 4+ antennas:

(Randomly) Group antennas 2 by 2

Stage1: Perform altruistic TSC, g-mode 1 or g-
mode 2 to each pair (same method/same
resolution)

Stage 2:Perform altruistic TSC, g-mode 1 or g-
mode 2 with different or same resolution to the
outcome of the 2 pairs
Stage 1 Stage 2 Outcome
IV. Increasing the Number of Transmit
Antennas (2/2)
17
V. Conclusions
18
For 2 Tx Antennas:
For g-mode 1, it is not efficient to consider more than 4 bits of phase feedback,
since improvements in the performance of the interfered MUE are almost
unnoticeable after that point.

When there are multiple dominant interferers, applying altruistic beamforming in
clusters of interferers can provide the best gains for the interfered MUE and
significantly reduce outage probability for a given rate.

Increasing the amplitude resolution could provide further gains compared to g-
mode 2, when the number of feedback bits is greater than 4. This is because g-mode
2 relies mainly on phase, so its performance becomes saturated after some point.

For more Tx Antennas:
Grouping the antennas in pairs and applying altruistic TBF methods in stages
could produce a low complexity interference mitigation scheme for multi-antenna
systems.
V. Future Work
19
Analyze the case in which more than one beamforming vectors are proposed to the
interferer. Then, the interferer is given a choice to choose the one that degrades as
less as possible the performance of its own user.

Produce analytical results for the extended g-mode 2 algorithm.

Investigate and analyze further techniques for interference mitigation with more than
two transmit antennas.
20
Thank You!