1 Differential Feedback Scheme for Closed-Loop Beamforming IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09_0927.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

IEEE C802.16m-08/539 Coding for IEEE802.16m Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/539 Date Submitted: Source: Mohammed Nafie, Cairo University Ahmed.

Advertisements

1 DL Pilot Comparison Summary from Contributions IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/847r2 Date Submitted:

Flexible Frequency Reuse for 16m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/588 Date Submitted: xx.

1 UL Pilot Evaluation Results Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/1098r1 Date Submitted: Source: Jiacheng Huaning.

Sounding Antenna Switching for IEEE m Amendment Working Document IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-0848.

Discussion of Control Channel Power Control Design IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-09/2846 Date Submitted:

8Tx Dedicated Pilot Pattern Simulation Results IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0805 Date Submitted:

8Tx Pilot Pattern Performance for IEEE m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0544 Date Submitted:

Performance Comparison of CDM and FDM for Sounding Channel of m AWD IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-0850.

Analysis of BR preamble selection strategies in 5-step BR procedure IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-10_1249r1.

Sounding Sequences Comparison for IEEE m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09/2232 Date Submitted:

16m Relay frame structure considering interfering issue IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/1176r1.

Performance Evaluation of Transformation Codebook for 8TX IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/2731.

1 MIMO Supports for IEEE m Broadcast Channel IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/1416r1 Date.

Performance Evaluation of MIMO midamble design for IEEE m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/1237.

1 Pilot Pattern for 8-Stream Transmission Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09/1138 Date Submitted: Source: Debdeep Chatterjee, Jong-kae (JK) Fwu,

Evaluation of DL subchannelization IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0347 Date Submitted:

MU-MIMO System Performance of 8TX codebook IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0803 Date Submitted:

Performance Evaluation of LBS Basic Mode Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09_2197 Date Submitted: Source: Lei Zhou Fangmin.

Uplink Pilot Structure for IEEE802.16m Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/293r4 Date Submitted: Source: Mohammed Nafie, Cairo University Mohamed.

Title: Evaluation of DL MIMO Schemes: OL SU Spatial Multiplexing with 2-D MMSE channel estimation Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/1043r2 Date Submitted:

MIMO midamble sequence proposal (AWD ) IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S80216m-09/1313 Date Submitted:

Performance Evaluation of Pilots for MIMO Mode 5 (CDR) IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S80216m-09_2253 Date.

1 Uplink MIMO Proposal for IEEE m Document Number: S80216m-08/744 Date Submitted: July 16, 2008 Source: shaohua Nokia Siemens.

Preamble Requirements in IEEE802.16m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/485 Date Submitted:

Relay to Relay Communication - A SDD Proposal for m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-08/047 Date.

Distributed Sounding Channel – Simulation Results Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0749 Date Submitted: Source: Bishwarup Mondal, Fan Wang,

Synchronization Drafting Group Schedule Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0379 Date Submitted: Source: Paul Cheng

1 Comparison of DL Pilot Patterns IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08/798r1 Date Submitted:

HARQ Buffer Management for Aggressive HARQ transmission IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-09/0891r1.

Uplink Control PHY Design for HARQ Tri-State Feedback IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-09/0890r1 Date.

MLD Performance for CL MU-MIMO with ZF precoding (AWD ) IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09/1312.

1 Miniband Permutation Formula Update for DL/UL PHY IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0886r1 Date.

Performance Evaluation of Transformation Codebook for 8TX IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/2731.

Results on Downlink Pilot Structures IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-08/762 Date Submitted:

MCS table design for 16m Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/1007 Date Submitted: Source: Zhou Liang

Collaborative uplink MIMO techniques for IEEE m Document Number: C80216m-08/638 Date Submitted: 7/7/2008 Source: Mohamed Abdallah Mohammed Nafie.

1 Proposal of the UL Pilot Pattern IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-08_977 Date Submitted:

Relay/EMBS Ad-Hoc Group Report Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/2678r1 Date Submitted: Source: Kanchei(Ken) Loa Relay/LBS/EMBS.

Multi-Level Codes Sequence for Simultaneous MCS Feedback IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S80216m-08/1152 Date.

Multiple user MIMO with only precoded pilot and limited feedback for FDD DL Document Number: C802.16m-08/379 Date Submitted: Source: Dongjun.

System Level Performance of 8TX Measurement Pilot IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0808 Date Submitted:

1 Proposed Randomization for 16m Document Number: S80216m-09/1415 Date Submitted: Source: Changlong Xu, Tom Harel, Huaning Niu, Jong-Kae Fwu,

UL MIMO Structures for 16m Document Number: C802.16m-08/691 Date Submitted: Source: Jianjun.Li, Dongjun Lee, Rajagopal Iyengar, Jungnam Yun,

Comparison of Two Differential Feedback Schemes for Beamforming IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09_0528.

1 Comparison of Variable and Fixed MCS for DL Unicast Service Control Channel Document Number: IEEE C80216m-08/1269 Date Submitted: Source:

1 Proposed Randomization for 16m Document Number: S80216m-09/1415r1 Date Submitted: Source: Changlong Xu, Tom Harel, Huaning Niu, Jong-Kae Fwu,

IEEE S802.16maint-08/218 [ 3-Bit 2-Transmit and 4-bit 4-Transmit Antenna Codebooks for Closed-Loop MIMO ] IEEE Presentation Submission Template.

Basic and Enhanced 2-bit HARQ Feedback IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-09/0501r2 Date Submitted:

HARQ 1-bit Feedback Design IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S802.16m-09/0223 Date Submitted: Source:

MIMO midamble sequence proposal (AWD ) IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S80216m-09/1313r2 Date Submitted:

Signaling Overhead Reduction Technique for PMI Coordination

802.16m sounding sequences comparison

Discussion of Explicit vs. Implicit PC-A-MAP IE Assignment (15.2.3)

Uplink MIMO proposal for IEEE m

Feedback for long term beamforming

Collaborative uplink MIMO techniques for IEEE m

Sounding Antenna Switching for IEEE m Amendment Working Document

Text Proposal of PC-A-MAP IE Assignment in IEEE D3 (

[Modification of CL-MIMO Codebooks]

Differential Feedback Scheme for Closed-Loop Beamforming

Investigation on One- and Two-Stream BCH MIMO Schemes

QPSK Mapping Rule for Constellation Rearrangement

Performance Evaluation of Codebooks for CL SU MIMO and CL MU MIMO

Investigation on one and two stream BCH MIMO Schemes

PMI Feedback Mechanism

Uplink MIMO proposal for IEEE m

PHY Structure for UL Fast Feedback Channel in m Systems

UL Pilot Evaluation Results

Presentation transcript:

1 Differential Feedback Scheme for Closed-Loop Beamforming IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09_0927 Date Submitted: Source: Qinghua Li, Yuan Zhu, Eddie Lin, Shanshan Zheng, Jiacheng Wang, Xiaofeng Liu, Feng Zhou, Guangjie Li, Alexei Davydov, Huaning Niu, and Yang-seok Choi Intel Corporation Venue: Session #61, Cairo, Egypt Re: TGm AWD Base Contribution: None Purpose: Discussion and adoption by TGm AWD Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and. Further information is located at and.

2 Outline Introduction Differential feedback –Scheme I: C80216m-09_0528r4, Qinghua Li, et al. –Scheme II: C80216m-08_1187, Bruno Clerckx, et al. Comparison of throughput, reliability, overhead, and complexity Conclusions Proposed text

3 Signal model — a sense about matrix dimensions is channel matrix of dimension. is beamforming matrix of dimension. is transmitted signal vector of dimension.

4 One-shot reset and differential feedback

5 There is always correlation between adjacent precoders. Adjacent beamforming matrixes are nearby. Distance between adjacent matrixes is determined by channel variation and determines beamforming gain degradation within each feedback period.

6 Differential codebook — polar cap

7 Scheme I Differentiation at SS: Quantization at SS: Beamforming matrix reconstruction at BS: Beamforming at BS: Sanity check: Beamforming matrix needs to be fed back.

8 Actual implementation Actual quantization at SS: Beamforming matrix reconstruction at BS: Beamforming at BS: Note that quantization criterion here is better than that in C80216m-09_0058r4.

9 Computation of Q(t-1) Low computational complexity – Householder matrix for rank 1 – Gram-Schmidt for rank 2 Add no hardware – Reuse hardware of the mandatory, transformed codebook

10 Scheme II Actual quantization at SS: Beamforming matrix reconstruction at BS: Beamforming at BS: Note that quantization criterion here is better than that in C80216m-08_1187.

11 Updates of Scheme II Identity matrix is included into the codebook lately. Polar cap size is reduced through increased correlation 0.95.

12 Scheme I and Scheme II track perturbations of e 1 and [e 1 e 2 e 3 e 4 ], respectively. Scheme I’s codewords quantize perturbations of e 1 on unit circle with 6 degrees of freedom (DOF), while Scheme II’s codewords quantize perturbations of whole identity matrix on Stiefel manifold with 12 DOF. Scheme I Scheme II

13 Scheme I codebook matches to precoder delta distribution while Scheme II’s doesn’t. Differential matrix is symmetric about center [e 1 ] or identity matrix. Scheme I’s codebook is symmetric about [e 1 ], while Scheme II’s codebook is asymmetric about identity matrix with uneven quantization errors.

14 Other differences Correlation adaptation – Scheme I has two codebooks for small and high correlation scenarios, respectively. The two codebooks are pre-defined and stored. – Scheme II varies codebook using measured correlation matrix and costly online SVD computation. Rank adaptation – Scheme I can change precoder rank anytime. – Scheme II can not change precoder rank during differential feedbacks and has to wait until next reset.

15 The complexity of Scheme II’s 4-bit version is more than triple of Scheme I's 3-bit because Scheme II uses 4x4 matrix operation rather than 4x1 or 4x2.

16 Scheme II's 4-bit complexity is more than 50% of Scheme I's 4-bit because Scheme II uses 4x4 matrix operation rather than 4x1 or 4x2.

17 Summary of Differences Scheme IScheme II Principle Track perturbation of e 1 or [e 1 e 2 ]. Track perturbation of [e 1 e 2 e 3 e 4 ]. Codebook dimension 4x1 and 4x24x4 Computational Complexity LowHigh No. of codebooks One small codebook for each rank One large codebook for all ranks Codeword distribution Even distribution on Grassmannian manifold Uneven distribution on Grassmannian manifold Rank adaptation Rank can be changed at anytime. Rank changes only after reset. Correlation adaptation Two predefined codebooks for small and large correlation scenarios, respectively. Adaptive codebooks with online SVD computation for different correlation scenarios. Support of 8 antennas EasyDifficult because of wasted codewords and high complexity.

18 Comparison of throughput and reliability System level simulation Single-user MIMO Implementation losses are included – Feedback error and error propagation – Quantized reset feedback

19 General SLS parameters Parameter NamesParameter Values Network Topology57 sectors wrap around, 10 MS/sector MS channelITU PB3km/h Frame structureTDD, 5DL, 3 UL Feedback delay5ms Inter cell interference modelingChannel is modeled as one tap wide band Antenna configuration4Tx, 2 Rx Codebook configurationBaseline 6 bits, Diff 4 bits or 3 bits Q matrix reset frequencyOnce every 4 frames PMI errorfree PMI calculationMaximize post SINR System bandwidth10MHz, 864 data subcarriers Permutation typeAMC, 48 LRU CQI feedback1Subband=4 LRU, ideal feedback

20 Codebook related parameters Samsung diff. codebook Intel diff. 4-bit codebook Intel diff. 3-bit codebook Codebook size4 bits i.e. 16 codewords 3 bits i.e. 8 codewords Feedback overhead 18 bits / 4 frames / Subband including 6-bit reset 15 bits / 3 frames / Subband including 6-bit reset CQI erasure rate10%

21 3-bit Scheme I vs. 4-bit Scheme II

22 4 Tx, 2 Rx, 1 stream 0.5λScheme I 5 o, Samsung 0.9 4λScheme I 20 o, Samsung 0.9 Uncorrelated, Scheme I 20 o, Samsung 0.9 SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 3- bit 11.6%36.3%3.7%21.9% 2.5%16.2% Scheme II: 4-bit 10.7%35.3%1.3%19% -1%7.7% Scheme I over Scheme II 0.8%0.7%2.7%2.4%3.5%7.9%

23 Remarks Scheme I's 3-bit scheme has higher throughput and reliability than Scheme II's 4-bit scheme. In addition, Scheme I's feedback overhead and complexity are lower than Scheme II's. Scheme II's codebook is optimized for highly correlated channels and scarifies uncorrelated/lowly correlated channels. Scheme II's codebook can not track channel variation in uncorrelated channel and performs even poorer than 16e codebook.

24 Scheme I's 4-bit vs. Scheme II's 4-bit

25 4 Tx (0.5λ), 2 Rx, 1 stream SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 4-bit, 5 o 11.7%37.7% Samsung: 4-bit, 0.95 ρ 10.6%35.4% Scheme I over Samsung 1.06%1.37%

26 4 Tx(4λ), 2Rx, 1 stream SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 4-bit, 20 o 3.9%21.5% Samsung: 4-bit, 0.9 ρ 1.36%19% Scheme I over Samsung 2.5%2.1%

27 4 Tx (uncorrelated), 2 Rx, 1 stream SE gain over 16e 5%-ile SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 4-bit, 20 o 0.2%17.4% Samsung: 4-bit, 0.9 ρ -2.9%13% Scheme I over Samsung 3.1%3.9%

28 Comparison on rank-2 codebooks

29 4 Tx (4λ), 2 Rx, 2 streams SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 4-bit, 20 o 10.29% Samsung: 4-bit, 0.9 ρ 10% Scheme I over Samsung 0.27%

30 4 Tx (uncorrelated), 2 Rx, 2 streams SE gain over 16e Scheme I: 4-bit, 20 o 9.45% Samsung: 4-bit, 0.9 ρ 9.28% Scheme I over Samsung 0.15%

31 Remarks Scheme I's 4-bit scheme has higher throughput and reliability than Scheme II's 4-bit scheme. Scheme I's complexity is lower than Scheme II's. Scheme I's 4-bit has 0.3% higher throughput than Scheme I's 3-bit. Scheme II's codebook is optimized for highly correlated channels and scarifies uncorrelated/lowly correlated channels.

32 Conclusions Scheme I's 3-bit outperforms Scheme II's 4-bit in all cases in terms of throughput and reliability. Scheme I's 3-bit scheme has feedback overhead and computational complexity lower than Scheme II's 4-bit by 17% and 60%, respectively. Scheme I's 4-bit has even higher throughput than Scheme I's 3-bit. Scheme II's new design solves vibration problem by adding identity matrix but it can not track channel variation in uncorrelated channels.