Abstract

This letter shows that the TX and RX models commonly used in literature for downlink (distributed) massive MIMO are inaccurate, leading also to inaccurate conclusions. In particular, the Local Oscillator (LO) effect should be modeled as <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$+\varphi $ </tex-math></inline-formula> in the transmitter chain and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$-\varphi $ </tex-math></inline-formula> in the receiver chain, i.e., different signs. A common misconception in literature is to use the same sign for both chains. By correctly modeling TX and RX chain, one realizes that the LO phases are included in the reciprocity calibration and whenever the LO phases drift apart, a new reciprocity calibration becomes necessary (the same applies to time drifts). Thus, free-running LOs and the commonly made assumption of perfect reciprocity calibration (to enable blind DL channel estimation) are both not that useful, as they would require too much calibration overhead. Instead, the LOs at the base stations should be locked and relative reciprocity calibration in combination with downlink demodulation reference symbols should be employed.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.