Large-Scale MIMO Versus Network MIMO for Multicell Interference Mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares two important downlink multicell interference mitigation techniques, namely, large-scale (LS) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) and network MIMO. We consider a cooperative wireless cellular system operating in time-division duplex (TDD) mode, wherein each cooperating cluster includes$B$base-stations (BSs), each equipped with multiple antennas and scheduling$K$single-antenna users. In an LS-MIMO system, each BS employs$BM$antennas not only to serve its scheduled users, but also to null out interference caused to the other users within the cooperating cluster using zero-forcing (ZF) beamforming. In a network MIMO system, each BS is equipped with only$M$antennas, but interference cancellation is realized by data and channel state information exchange over the backhaul links and joint downlink transmission using ZF beamforming. Both systems are able to completely eliminate intra-cluster interference and to provide the same number of spatial degrees of freedom per user. Assuming the uplink-downlink channel reciprocity provided by TDD, both systems are subject to identical channel acquisition overhead during the uplink pilot transmission stage. Further, the available sum power at each cluster is fixed and assumed to be equally distributed across the downlink beams in both systems. Building upon the channel distribution functions and using tools from stochastic ordering, this paper shows, however, that from a performance point of view, users experience better quality of service, averaged over small-scale fading, under an LS-MIMO system than a network MIMO system. Numerical simulations for a multicell network reveal that this conclusion also holds true with regularized ZF beamforming scheme. Hence, given the likely lower cost of adding excess number of antennas at each BS, LS-MIMO could be the preferred route toward interference mitigation in cellular networks .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".