Predetermined Power Allocation For Opport Beam

84
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011
Predetermined Power Allocation for

Opportunistic Beamforming with Limited Feedback
Hyukjoon Kwon, Student Member, IEEE, Edward W. Jang, Student Member, IEEE,
and John M. Cioffi, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis paper proposes an enhanced opportunistic

beamforming scheme with power allocation search algorithms
over finite feedback channels for a broadcast channel. Instead
of continually varying the power allocation for multiple beams
based on instantaneous channel state information (CSI) feedback,
the proposed scheme determines power allocation in advance
solely based on channel statistics and the number of mobile
stations (MSs). This scheme maintains power allocation throughout multiple training and data transmission periods as long
as channel statistics and the number of MSs are unchanged.
As a result, the proposed scheme reduces the complexity for
searching power allocation, and becomes robust over finite
feedback channels. Computer simulations show that the proposed
power allocation search algorithms efficiently find the near
optimal power allocation with low complexity. The simulations
also show that, although the proposed scheme predetermines
power allocation solely based on channel statistics and the
number of MSs, it outperforms the opportunistic beamforming
scheme using instantaneous CSI feedback with finite feedback
rates.
Index TermsOpportunistic random beamforming, power allocation, finite feedback rate, multi-user diversity.
I. I NTRODUCTION
INCE it is shown that the channel capacity of wireless

networks significantly increases by using multiple antennas [1], there has been considerable research not only on
point-to-point communications but also on multi user systems
such as broadcast channels. Theoretically, dirty paper coding
(DPC) has been revealed as an optimal precoding technique to
achieve the sum-capacity of Gaussian broadcast channels [2]
[4]. However, this nonlinear method requires a presubtraction
of noncausal multi user interferences based on the perfect
channel state information (CSI) of mobile stations (MSs)
at a base station (BS). Alternatively, the linear beamforming method has been proposed in [5], which asymptotically
achieves the same throughput as dirty paper coding for a large
number of MSs. However, it still assumes that the perfect
CSI of MSs is known at the BS. In a practical scenario, the
feedback channel only uses a few number of feedback bits.
Thus, it is difficult to obtain the perfect knowledge of CSI at
Manuscript received August 13, 2008; revised April 10, 2009, June 14,
2009; May 7, 2010, and September 15, 2010; accepted September 26, 2010.
The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it
for publication was Y. J. Zhang.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 (e-mail: {hjkwon, ej1130,
cioffi}@stanford.edu).
The material in this paper was presented in part at the IEEE International
Conference on Communications, Glasgow, Scotland, June 2007.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2010.102810.091716
the BS. Instead, the research using partial CSI at the BS has
been actively investigated for these practical systems.
To enhance the sum-rate with the partial CSI at the BS, opportunistic beamforming has been proposed for multiple-input
single-output (MISO) broadcast channels [6]. This scheme
achieves multi user diversity by supporting the best MS
based on the signal-to-noise power ratio (SNR) feedback
from every MS. Since multi user diversity is best obtained
when the dynamic range of channel fluctuation is high,
opportunistic beamforming multiplies random coefficients at
the BSs transmit antennas to induce intentional channel
variation. This opportunistic beamforming was based on a
single beam and sequentially a new idea to use multiple beams
was proposed in the appendix of [6]. In [7], this idea has
been embodied concretely by using equal power allocation
across multiple beams in order to increase the achievable sumrate. However, this opportunistic beamforming degrades the
performance as the number of MSs decreases. In the low
number of MS regime, it is likely that the selected MSs
channels are misaligned with the randomly generated beams.
As a result, the interference would not be mitigated enough.
[9] has suggested a beam selection scheme where MSs feed
their effective channel gain, which is the inner product of
the channel vector and the beam vector, back to the BS.
Then, using the feedback from the MSs, the BS varies the
numbers of beams during training periods and during data
transmission periods while maintaining equal power allocation
across the beams. [10] also proposed the scheme adapting
the number of active beams to the number of MSs and the
number of antennas which are spatially correlated at the BS.
In [11], based on the signal-to-interference-and-noise power
ratio (SINR) or the effective channel gain feedback from the
MSs, the BS varies power allocation across multiple beams
by performing iterative waterfilling.
To be applicable into current broadband networks, opportunistic beamforming scenarios need to be adapted to both
practical constraints of low complexity and limited feedback,
while achieving high performance. This paper is motivated to
overcome these challengeable issues. When the BS changes
the number of beams or varies the power allocation across
multiple beams, the information should be updated shortly
between a training period and a data transmission period.
However, the frequent update could be burdened to broadband
networks because of high complexity to adapt into channel
variations. Thus, the low complexity process is crucial in order
for a system to be stable. In addition, the constraint of limited
feedback should be also significantly considered because the
c 2011 IEEE
1536-1276/11$25.00
KWON et al.: PREDETERMINED POWER ALLOCATION FOR OPPORTUNISTIC BEAMFORMING WITH LIMITED FEEDBACK
sum-rate highly depends on the quality of feedback information. The finite feedback rate requires each MS to quantize
its CSI, thereby preventing the BS from having the precise
channel knowledge of MSs and degrading the performance.
This issue draws an attention of solid algorithms to reduce
the amount of degradation even with limited feedback.
This paper proposes to enhance opportunistic beamforming
with the predetermined power allocation for MISO broadcast
channels. The BS receives SINR feedbacks from MSs at each
data transmission period and uses these received SINRs to
achieve multi user diversity, i.e., to select the best MS for
each beam, and to support those MSs. Contrary to the power
allocation scheme based on instantaneous CSI feedback from
MSs at each data transmission period, this paper determines
the power allocation a priori based on channel statistics and
the number of MSs, and maintain it throughout multiple
training and data transmission periods. The power allocation
across multiple beams is calculated by using the channel
ergodicity and is updated only when the number of MSs or the
average SNR is changed. Therefore, the proposed scheme is
named opportunistic beamforming with predetermined power
allocation (OBPPA).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the system model. Section III formulates the power
allocation search problem for the OBPPA scheme. Section IV
offers various power allocation search algorithms. Section V
analyzes the optimal power allocation strategy and the scaling
law of the OBPPA scheme. Computer simulations in Section
VI evaluate the sum-rate of each power allocation algorithms.
Finally, Section VII provides the conclusion and remarks.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
This paper considers a MISO broadcast fading channel with
a BS equipped with transmit antennas for MSs, each
having a single receive antenna. The channel is assumed to
be quasi static, i.e., it is invariant during each block, which
comprises a training period and a data transmission period.
The channel input-output relationship for MS is,
= h
b +
= 1, 2, , ,
(1)
=1
where , h 1 , and are the received signal, the

channel vector, and the additive white noise, respectively. The
elements of the vector h and the scalar are independent
zero mean circularly symmetric complex Gaussian with variances equal to 1 and 0 , respectively [12]. Thus, the channel
follows a Rayleigh fast fading model. The distance from the
BS is normalized for all the MSs so as to have an equal
path loss to each MS. The set {b }
=1 denotes orthonormal
random beamforming vectors which are generated according
to an isotropic distribution [8], and denotes the symbol
transmitted over the beamforming vector b .
III. O PPORTUNISTIC B EAMFORMING WITH
P REDETERMINED P OWER A LLOCATION
This section describes how power allocation is predetermined by using the channel ergodicity based on a Rayleigh
fast fading model. If the power allocated for beam is ,
85
then
=1 , where is the total power constraint
at the BS. The average SNR is defined as = / 0 . Then,
the SINR of MS for beam is expressed as
SINR, =
h b 2

=
0 + = h b 2
0
+
(2)
where the effective channel gain h b 2 is i.i.d. over and

, and follows a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of
freedom, denoted 2 (2), with the average channel power equal
to 1, for = 1, . . . , and = 1, . . . , as explained in [7].
Hence, follows a 2 (2) distribution scaled by

,
which is equivalent to an exponential distribution with the

same scale [13]. In addition, is a sum of weighted chisquare random variables. Since the coefficient of each effective
channel gain in is not identical, does not follow a
scaled 2 (2 2) distribution as in [7]. Unfortunately, the
distribution of a sum of weighted chi-square random variables
lacks a simple closed form [14]. Nonetheless, by constructing
a random variable with the first three moments equal to the
original random variable, it is possible to obtain a simple
approximate distribution of a sum of weighted chi-square
random variables from [15]. To calculate this approximate
distribution, each coefficient in needs to be normalized
so that a sum of all the coefficients becomes 1.
2
For example, let an auxiliary variable =
=1 ,
where is i.i.d. with the standard normal distribution and
is the number of . This corresponds to 1 for
in (2). The weighting factor is
satisfied with the following
two conditions: > 0, and
=1 = 1. Then, based on
[15], the distribution of is approximated as
( ) 21 1

2
1
()
, > 0.
(3)
2 =1
( 21 )
Since corresponds to , the distribution of also
corresponds to the distribution of with the normalized power
coefficient in (2).
Using the approximate distribution of , the probability
density function (PDF) of SINR, , (), can be derived by
conditioning on as

() =
() ()
(4)
0
where the conditional PDF, (), follows an exponential

distribution when is given as . The PDF of , (),
corresponds to the PDF of in (3). Sequentially, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of SINR, , (), can be
written as

() =
() ()
0
{
}

(0 + ( ))
= 1
exp
()
0
(
)
( ) 21 1
( )
1
2
+
2
0
1
()
= 1
2
( 21 )
0
=1
) 1 1 (
) 21
(
0
1 2
1
1
( )
()
= 1
+
2
2
2
=1
(5)
86
where () is the conditional CDF given as of an

exponential distribution. In (a), the approximate distribution of
in (3) is applied with the weighting factor corresponding
to the SINR of (2). Further, (b) is derived with the definition
of the Gamma function using exponential integral as in [16].
In the OBPPA scheme, the BS sends data streams over
beams and each data stream supports the best MS with the
highest SINR for each beam. Thus, when the number of MSs
is , the expected sum-rate sum achieved by the OBPPA
scheme with power allocation { }
=1 is
{
}
(
)
log 1 + max SINR,

sum
=1
=1
1
log(1 + ) ()
(), (6)
where is used because of the small probability that one MS

might have the highest SINR for multiple beams. For ease
of analysis, this work excludes the small probability which
are going to zero as the number of MSs increases. Thus, the
approximation above is justified for a large number of MSs.
Since the SINR, is i.i.d. over , the CDF of max SINR,
for = 1 . . . can be expressed as () as in [7]. The
corresponding PDF of max SINR, can also be calculated
to derive (6).
Consequently, with the objective of maximizing the sumrate, the proposed OBPPA scheme formulates the following
power allocation search problem:
maximize
sum ({ }
=1 )
subject to 0 ,
=1 .
(7)
This problem is too complex to solve directly because the

objective is not only strictly nonconvex but also hard to
be transformed into a convex form. Instead, the power allocation search algorithms are proposed to solve this nonconvex
optimization problem in the next section.
IV. P OWER -A LLOCATION -S EARCH A LGORITHMS
This section proposes three power allocation search algorithms. For ease of understanding, a sum of power allocation
is normalized to the number of transmit antennas such that
total power constraint is expressed as 1 , where is
the normalized power allocation vector and 1 represents a
1 norm. The normalized power increment scalar is which
is directly related to the complexity of the OBPPA scheme.
A. Exhaustive Search Algorithm
The exhaustive search algorithm searches over all the possible power allocations under total power constraint and selects
the best one. To maximize the sum-rate, full power at the BS
is considered to use. Table I shows how the exhaustive search
algorithm finds the optimal power allocation. The exhaustive
search algorithm becomes optimal to find the best power
allocation when is small enough. However, this algorithm suffers from high computational burden which grows
exponentially with small . Therefore, other suboptimal
search algorithms but with less complexity are proposed in
the following subsections.
TABLE I
E XHAUSTIVE - SEARCH ALGORITHM
Initialization:
such that
1 =
for all
)
calculate sum (
Result:
= arg max sum (
)
) = sum (
)
sum (
TABLE II
L INE - SEARCH ALGORITHM
Initialization:
= [0 0 0], [1 1 1], or [ 0 0]
)
calculate sum (
Recursion:

1 =
such that
for all
)
calculate sum (
)
= arg max sum (
if sum ( ) sum ( )
) = sum (
)
=
, sum (
elseif sum ( ) < sum ( )

break
Result:
=
, sum (
) = sum (
)
B. Line Search Algorithm

The line search algorithm starts to search one power allocation and compares it with the next power allocation to
decide whether the next one is better or not. Even though
this algorithm is suboptimal, it is usually known as a fast
convergence algorithm [17]. The OBPPA scheme implements
this line search algorithm with three different starting points:
zero power allocation, full power allocation uniformly across
all beams, and full power allocation on a single beam. As a
reference for the complexity, this work includes zero power
allocation as a starting point. In details, this algorithm works
as follows: Starting from one of three points, the line search
algorithm finds another power allocation that differs from
current power allocation by in terms of 1 norm. If
achieves a higher sum-rate compared to , the algorithm
updates with and repeats the process until the sum-rate
saturates. Table II illustrates how the line search algorithm
operates.
C. Bisection Search Algorithm
Another viable solution for the power allocation search
problem is a bisection search algorithm, which is also suboptimal like a line search algorithm but has a faster convergence
speed [18]. The bisection search algorithm works as follows:
First, all power allocation distributions are sorted linearly. In
other words, the index of full power allocation on a single
beam such as [ 0 . . . 0 ] is given to 1, while the index
of full power allocation uniformly across all beams such as
[ 1 1 . . . 1 ] is given to , where denotes the cardinality
of the possible power allocation set. From the smallest index,
the power allocation index increases as is removed from
the beam having large power and is added to the beam having
small power. Hence, the power allocation that concentrates
its power on fewer beams has a smaller index, and the power
V. M ATHEMATICAL A NALYSIS
This section analyzes the performance of the proposed
scheme from two perspectives. Theorem 1 shows how the
sum-rate is affected when the number of MSs and the number
of BSs transmit antennas are fixed but the average SNR
increases. Theorem 2 shows how the sum-rate scales when
the average SNR is fixed but the number of MSs and the
number of BSs transmit antennas change.
A. The Optimal Power Allocation Strategy
Theorem 1 When the number of MSs and the number of
transmit antennas at the BS are fixed, the optimal power
allocation of the OBPPA scheme to maximize the average sumrate at the high SNR region is to concentrate the BSs transmit
power on a single beam.
Proof: See Appendix A.
For the fixed number of MSs and BSs transmit antennas,
using multiple beams has intuitively two opposite effects on
the performance. First, it enables the simultaneous support
of multiple MSs, thereby increasing the sum-rate. On the
other hand, it increases the interference, thereby decreasing
the sum-rate. In the high SNR region, the interference effect
is dominated on the sum-rate. Thus, the BS should use a single
beam instead of multiple beams to minimize the interference
in order to increase the sum-rate. The Theorem 1 aligns well
with this intuition.
B. The Scaling Law
Theorem 2 When the SNR is fixed, the sum-rate of the
OBPPA scheme scales as log log , where is the
100
2.5
80
Number of Searches
120
All Beams
Single Beam
ExhaustiveSearch
LineSearchFA
LineSearchFS
LineSearchZP
BisectionSearch
1.5
0.5
10
20
30
40
Number of Mobile Stations, N
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
50
Fig. 1. Comparison of power-allocation-search algorithms for SNR = 0 dB.

8
120
100
6
Number of Searches
allocation that distributes its power across more beams is likely

to have a larger index. Next, after sorting power allocation
distributions, the bisection search algorithm compares the
sum-rates of power allocation between the lowest index and
the highest index, and updates the index of power allocation
having the smaller sum-rate into the middle between two
indices. Finally, this bisection search algorithm repeats the
same procedure at the higher sum-rate region selected in the
previous step, and updates power allocation indices until the
sum-rate saturates. Table III summarizes how the bisection
search algorithm operates.
3.5
Average Sum Rate (bps/Hz)
Initialization:
that are
1 = based on their biases
sort all
, = 1, , , = 1, =
denote them as
Recursion:
) sum (
)
if sum (
= ( + )/2
) > sum (
)
elseif sum (
= ( + )/2
if 1
) > sum (
)
if sum (
=
break
Result:
, sum (
) = sum (
)
=
TABLE III
B ISECTION - SEARCH ALGORITHM
87
4
All Beams
Single Beam
ExhaustiveSearch
LineSearchFA
LineSearchFS
LineSearchZP
BisectionSearch
10
20
30
40
80
60
40
20
50
0
0
20
40
number of BSs transmit antennas and is the number of

MSs, as long as does not grow faster than log .
Proof: See Appendix B.
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS
This section shows the results of MATLAB simulations
to verify the performance of the proposed scheme. In both
subsections, the number of BS antennas is 4 and the
number of MSs varies from 1 to 50. The total power
constraint at the BS is 1 4 and = 0.2. The average
SNRs respectively equal to 0 dB, 10 dB, and 20 dB are used
for the following results.
A. Performances of Power Allocation Search Algorithms
Fig. 1, 2, and 3 show both the sum-rate and the complexity
of the proposed power allocation search algorithms. The
exhaustive search algorithm achieves the highest sum-rate by
finding the best power allocation distribution for all SNRs
and all number of MSs. However, this algorithm requires the
highest complexity.
For the line search algorithm, the sum-rate and the number
of searches vary according to starting points. When it starts
with uniform power allocation, the line search algorithm
88
11
120
10
7
6
5
All Beams
Single Beam
ExhaustiveSearch
LineSearchFA
LineSearchFS
LineSearchZP
BisectionSearch
3
2
0
10
20
30
40
60
40
20
50
3
2.5
2
1
0.5
0
0
20
40
performs well for the low SNR region but poorly for the
high SNR region. On the other hand, when it starts with concentrated power allocation, the performance of linear search
algorithm is opposite. This indicates that the optimal power
allocation depends on the SNR region. This can be verified
from observing the cross-over points between the sum-rates of
uniform power allocation and concentrated power allocation.
As the SNR increases, the cross-over point moves to the right.
Therefore, for a fixed number of MSs, it is implied that the
optimal power allocation is to concentrate total power to fewer
beams as the SNR increases.
The bisection search algorithm achieves the sum-rate almost
equal to that of the exhaustive search algorithm for all SNRs
and all number of MSs. Simultaneously, as opposed to the
other power allocation search algorithms, the number of
searches is relatively low for all SNRs and all numbers of
MSs. Even though the use of bisection search algorithm is not
concretely validated in a mathematical form, this numerical result for both the sum-rate and the number of searches presents
how practically effective the bisection search algorithm is.
As a result, figures demonstrate that the proposed OBPPA
scheme significantly improves the average sum-rate over the
opportunistic beamforming scheme that uses all beams with
uniform power allocation. This is especially shown when the
SNR is high. Due to the approximation used in (6), it could
be possible that the sum-rate is affected when the number of
MSs is quite small. However, as the number of MSs increases,
this effect becomes negligible and the sum-rate curves support
the mathematical analysis in Sec. V.
B. Effect of the Finite Feedback Rates
Computer simulation compares how finite feedback rates
affect the sum-rate of both the proposed OBPPA scheme
and the beamforming scheme that varies the power allocation
based on instantaneous channel gain feedback, abbreviated as
the OBVPA scheme. In the OBPPA scheme, the BS finds
power allocation in advance by using the bisection search
algorithm and support the selected MSs based on instantaneous SINR feedback where the MSs quantize their SINRs
based on [19]. The BS uses this SINR feedback only to
achieve multi user diversity during data transmission periods.
OBPPAunlimited
OBVPAunlimited
OBPPA3bit
OBVPA3bit
OBPPA2bit
OBVPA2bit
OBPPA1bit
OBVPA1bit
1.5
Fig. 4.
20
40
60
80
100
Effect of the feedback load on the sum rate for SNR = 0 dB.
9
8
Average SumRate (bps/Hz)
80
Number of Searches
3.5
100
7
6
5
OBPPAunlimited
OBVPAunlimited
OBPPA3bit
OBVPA3bit
OBPPA2bit
OBVPA2bit
OBPPA1bit
OBVPA1bit
4
3
2
1
Fig. 5.
20
40
60
80
100
On the other hand, in the OBVPA scheme, the MSs quantize

their instantaneous effective channel gain feedback for all
beams with Lloyd algorithm in [20]. At each data transmission
period, the BS updates power allocation by using an exhaustive
search algorithm. For both schemes, the number of feedback
bits over finite feedback channels are available from 1 bit to
3 bits, and infinite feedback channels are also considered for
reference.
Fig. 4, 5, and 6 show the sum-rate of the OBPPA scheme
and the OBVPA scheme for the average SNR equal to 0 dB,
10 dB, and 20 dB, respectively. When feedback rates are
infinite, the OBPPA scheme performs worse than the OBVPA
scheme. However, as the number of feedback bits becomes
finite, the situation is opposite. The BS under the OBVPA
scheme determines the power allocation based on quantized
channel gain feedback which comprises both signal power and
interference power. Then, the sum-rate severely degrades with
the feedback quantization. On the other hand, the BS under the
OBPPA scheme predetermines the power allocation and uses
quantized SINR feedback only to exploit multi user diversity.
Contrary to the OBVPA scheme, the sum-rate of the OBPPA
is less affected by the feedback quantization. As a result, the
proposed OBPPA scheme outperforms the OBVPA scheme
over finite feedback channels.
When the average SNR is large enough, the PDF in (10) can
be expanded by using the Taylor series as
}
{

1+
(1 + )
+ ()
1
() =

0
1 + { }
.
(11)
14
12
10
8
OBPPAunlimited
OBVPAunlimited
OBPPA3bit
OBVPA3bit
OBPPA2bit
OBVPA2bit
OBPPA1bit
OBVPA1bit
Fig. 6.
89
20
40
60
80
100
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper proposed the opportunistic beamforming with
predetermined power allocation (OBPPA) scheme to maximize the sum-rate for broadcast channels over finite feedback
channels. The OBPPA scheme predetermines power allocation
solely based on channel statistics and the number of MSs, and
maintains the power allocation throughout even multiple transmission periods. This paper proposed three power allocation
search algorithms. The bisection search algorithm performed
as well as the exhaustive search algorithm while achieving the
almost same sum-rate and requiring less complexity.
The OBPPA scheme could be extended into a hybrid
algorithm using both exhaustive search and bisection search.
In advance, analytical sum-rates can be calculated based on
the exhaustive search. Then, the bisection search obtains the
best sum-rate adapted to practical scenarios.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
The average sum-rate with multiple beams is calculated
as follows. If the transmit power is allocated across multiple
beams as [ 1 2 ]
with the weighting scalar
such that =1 = , then the SINR of MS for beam

is given by
h b 2

=
,
(8)
2
1 + = h b
1 +
2
where = h b 2 and =
= h b
are redefined, respectively. For notational brevity,
let =
h b 2 , then 2 (2)/2 and =
= .
Accordingly, the following equations are derived.
{ } =
{ } =
= ( ). (9)
SINR, =
The approximation is justified with the moment-generation

function (MGF) of a chi-square variable. Since the MGF
exists on an open interval, the th moments of the chi-square
variable also exists. This work expects the sum-rate does not
diverge for all the SNR regions, meaning that any moments
caused by () in sum are expected to be finite. As a result,
as goes to infinity, the second and more order terms in ()
go to zero so that they are removed in the approximation.
Similarly, the CDF is also approximated with the same reason
as
(1 + { })
(12)
()

Thus, the average-sum rate with multiple beams is
)

(
sum,
log (1 + ) 1
1
.
0
=1
(13)
On the other hand, the average sum-rate with a single beam
is calculated as follows. When the power is concentrated to a
single beam, there is no interference. The SNR of MS for
beam 1 is
SNR,=1 =
h b1 2 = 1 .
(14)
0
The PDF and CDF of SNR,=1 are respectively as follows.
(
(
)
)
1 () = exp
, 1 () = 1 exp
.
(15)
Therefore, the average sum-rate with a single beam is

sum,1 =
log(1 + ) (1 ) 1 (). (16)
0
From (13) and (16), the ratio of the sum-rate with multiple
beams to the sum-rate with a single beam is
lim
sum,
= 0.
sum,1
(17)
Thus, when the number of MSs and the number of BSs

transmit antennas are fixed, and when the average SNR
increases, the optimal power allocation strategy of the OBPPA
scheme to maximize the average sum-rate is to concentrate the
transmit power on a single beam.
By conditioning on as , the SINR, follows an exponential distribution with the mean /(1 + ). Using the
conditional distribution, the PDF and CDF of the SINR,
can be written as follows:

1 + (1+)
() =
(),
0
(1+)
() = 1
().
(10)
0
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
In [7], the opportunistic beamforming using equal power
allocation scales as log log , as long as does not grow
faster than log . Since equal power allocation is one of
many possible power allocation, the sum-rate of the proposed
OBPPA scheme is lower bounded by the sum-rate using the
equal power allocation.
90
In [22, Lemma 2], it is proved that the sum-rate capacity of

Gaussian MISO broadcast channels achieved by dirty-paper
coding follows
{DPC }
= 1.
(18)
log log
Since the OBPPA scheme cannot perform better than dirtypaper coding, the sum-rate of the OBPPA scheme is upper
bounded by log log .
Therefore, from the lower bound and the upper bound,
the scaling law of the OBPPA scheme is proved to be
log log , which is the same scaling law of dirty paper
coding in Gaussian MISO broadcast channels.
lim
R EFERENCES
[1] I. E. Telatar, Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels, Bell Labs
Technical Memorandum, 1995.
[2] G. Caire and S. Shamai (Shitz), On the achievable throughput of a
multiantenna Gaussian broadcast channel, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
49, no. 7, pp. 1691-1706, July 2003.
[3] W. Yu and J. M. Cioffi, Sum capacity of Gaussian vector broadcast
channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1857-1892, Sep.
2004.
[4] H. Weingarten, Y. Steinberg, and S. Shamai(Shitz), The capacity region
of the Gaussian multiple-input multiple-output broadcast channel, IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 3936-3964, Sep. 2006.
[5] T. Yoo and A. Goldsmith, On the optimality of multi-antenna broadcast
scheduling using zero-forcing beamforming, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 528-541, Mar. 2006.
[6] P. Viswanath, D. Tse, and R. Laroia, Opportunistic beamforming using
dumb antennas, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1277-1294,
Nov. 2002.
[7] M. Sharif and B. Hassibi, On the capacity of MIMO broadcast channel
with partial side information, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 2,
pp. 506-522, Feb. 2005.
[8] B. Hassibi and T. L. Marzeta, Multiple antennas and isotropicallyrandom inputs: the received signal density in closed form, IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1473-1484, June 2002.
[9] J. Wagner, Y. C. Liang, and R. Zhang, On the balance of multiuser
diversity and spatial multiplexing gain in random beamforming, IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 2512-2525, July 2008.
[10] E. Jorswieck, P. Svedman, and B. Ottersten, On the Performance
of TDMA and SDMA based opportunistic beamforming, IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 4058-4063, Nov. 2008.
[11] Y. Kim, K. Song, R. Narasimhan, and J. M. Cioffi, Single user random
beamforming in Gaussian MIMO broadcast channels, in Proc. IEEE
Inter. Conf. on Comm., Seoul, Korea, vol. 4, pp. 2695-2699, May 2005.
[12] A. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to Space-Time Wireless
Communications. Cambridge, 2003.
[13] W. Nelson, Applied Life Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
[14] A. Castano-Martinez and F. Lopez-Blazquez, Distribution of a sum of
weighted central chi-square variables, Commun. in Statistics - Theory
and Methods, vol. 34, pp. 515-524, 2005.
[15] S. Gabler and C. Wolff, A quick and easy approximation to the
distribution of a sum of weighted chi-square variables, Statistics Hefte,
vol. 28, pp. 317-325, 1987.
[16] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions
with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. New York: Dover,
1972.
[17] J. M. Cioffi, Advanced Digital Communication, EE379C Stanford University Course Reader, http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee379c.
[18] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, 2004.
[19] E. W. Jang, C.-S. Hwang, and J. M. Cioffi, Flexible AMC tables for a
wireless network, in Proc. IEEE Inter. Conf. on Comm., Beijing, China,
pp. 3378-3382, May 2008.
[20] S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in PCM, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129-137, Mar. 1982.
[21] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 4th edition. McGraw Hill, 2001.
[22] M. Sharif and B. Hassibi, Scaling laws of sum rate using time-sharing,
DPC, and beamforming for MIMO broadcast channels, in Proc. IEEE
Inter. Symp. of Info. Theory, Chicago, IL, p. 175, June 2004
Hyukjoon Kwon [S06] received his B.S. degree
in electrical engineering from Seoul National University, Korea, in 2001. He also received his M.S.
degree and Ph.D. degree all in electrical engineering
from Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 2006 and
2010, respectively. From 2001 to 2004, he worked
for Corecess, Inc. His Ph.D. thesis was about MIMO
systems with cooperation over finite feedback rates.
He is currently with Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
Edward W. Jang [S04] received his B.S. degree

in electrical engineering from Seoul National University, Korea, in 2002. He also received his M.S.
degree and Ph.D. degree all in electrical engineering
from Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 2004
and 2008, respectively. His Ph.D. thesis was about
transmission schemes for systems with a limited
feedback rate and for MIMO systems with hybrid
ARQ. He is currently with McKinsey & Company.
John M. Cioffi is Chairman and CEO of ASSIA

Inc, a Redwood City, CA based company pioneering DSL management software sold to DSL service providers, specifically known for introducing
Dynamic Spectrum Management or DSM. He is
also the Hitachi Professor Emeritus at Stanford
University, where he held a tenured endowed professorship before retiring after 25 full-time years.
Cioffi received his BSEE, 1978, Illinois; PhDEE,
1984, Stanford; Honorary Doctorate, University of
Edinburgh 2010; Bell Laboratories, 1978-1984; IBM
Research, 1984-1986; EE Prof., Stanford, 1986-present. Cioffi also founded
Amati Com. Corp in 1991 (purchased by TI in 1997 for its DSL technology)
and was officer/director from 1991-1997. Cioffi designed the worlds first
ADSL and VDSL modems, which design today accounts for roughly 98% of
the worlds over 350 million DSL connections.
Cioffi currently is also on the Board of Directors of Alto Beam and
ClariPhy. Various other awards include IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal
(2010), Economist Magazines 2010 Innovation Award, International Marconi
Fellow (2006); Member, United States National Academy of Engineering
(2001); International Fellow United Kingdoms Royal Academy of Engineering (2009); IEEE Kobayashi Medal (2001); IEEE Millennium Medal
(2000); IEEE Fellow (1996); IEE JJ Tomson Medal (2000); 1999 U. of Illinois
Outstanding Alumnus and 2010 Distinguished Alumnus. Cioffi has published
several hundred technical papers and is the inventor named on over 100
additional patents, many of which are heavily licensed in the communication
industry.

Predetermined Power Allocation For Opport Beam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Predetermined Power Allocation For Opport Beam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

84

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 10, NO. 1, JANUARY 2011