On an HARQbased coordinated multipoint network using dynamic point selection
 Behrooz Makki^{1}Email author,
 Thomas Eriksson^{1} and
 Tommy Svensson^{1}
DOI: 10.1186/168714992013209
© Makki et al.; licensee Springer. 2013
Received: 25 February 2013
Accepted: 2 August 2013
Published: 16 August 2013
Abstract
This paper investigates the performance of coordinated multipoint (CoMP) networks in the presence of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback. With an information theoretic point of view, the throughput and the outage probability of different HARQ protocols are studied for slowfading channels. The results are compared with the ones obtained in the presence of repetition codes and basic HARQ, or when there is no channel state information available at the base stations. The analytical and numerical results demonstrate the efficiency of the CoMPHARQ techniques in different conditions.
1 Introduction
Coordinated multipoint (CoMP), also known as network multipleinput multipleoutput (MIMO), is one of the most promising techniques for improving the data transmission efficiency of wireless cellular networks [1–4]. The main idea of a CoMP network is to allow geographically separated base stations (BSs) to cooperate in serving the users. The cooperation is achieved through highspeed backhaul links such that the users’ data and channel state information (CSI) can be shared between the BSs. Theoretically, coordinated systems should outperform noncooperative schemes. In practice, however, the performance gain of the CoMP networks largely depends on (1) the amount of CSI available at the transmitters (CSIT) and receivers (CSIR) and (2) the limited capacity of the backhaul links. This is the main motivation for studying the CoMP systems under limited CSI and backhaul capacity conditions, which has become a hot topic recently.
Performance of CoMP networks has been studied, e.g., by [5–10] under a perfect CSI assumption and by [11–14] in finite backhaul capacity conditions. The papers dealing with imperfect CSI in CoMP networks can be divided into two categories. The first group is the ones in which both the CSIT and the CSIR are assumed to be partially known [14–17]. In these works, the focus is on investigating the effect of training signals, providing imperfect CSIR, on the network performance. The second group, on the other hand, is the papers in which, while the receivers are assumed to perfectly estimate the channels (perfect CSIR), the BSs have access to imperfect CSIT obtained by quantized CSI feedback [18–30]. Here, it is concentrated on the effects of the CSIT quantization and the quantized CSIT error is normally modeled as Gaussian noise. However, some other CSI quantization schemes have been summarized in [21–28] as well. Finally, to study the effect of BS synchronization, [27–30] have considered the cases where the BSs are provided with quantized CSI of the channel phase, while the amplitudes are perfectly fed back. Some of the most important conclusions drawn from these works are as follows:

Compared to noncooperative systems, the cooperationbased schemes suffer more from inaccurate CSIR. That is, the CoMP systems need larger number of pilot symbols than singlecell transmission to make use of its potential [14–17]. Therefore, the CoMP networks are more appropriate for lowmobility communication setups, where the channels change slowly and can be estimated accurately.

The presence of phase ambiguity and asynchronous data transmission can degrade the system performance severely and even make it worse than a nonCoMP model [28–30]. Particularly, an important phase ambiguity source, not considered by [28–30], is phasenoise and frequency offset [31, 32] which makes the synchronization very difficult.

For realistic results, simple cooperation schemes should be considered, where not only the amount of backhaul capacity and feedback resources is minimized but also the implementation complexity is as low as possible.
These points are the main motivations for our paper. Here, the goal is to develop a simple cooperation scheme for lowmobility CoMP networks which leads to minimum feedback requirement, acceptable backhauling resources, and affordable implementation complexity. Therefore, we propose that hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is selected and, at every moment, each user is served by a single BS, while the serving BSs are switched in the successive time slots. The reasons for our selection are

HARQ is a technique in the data link layer already provided in many wireless protocols, e.g., IEEE 802.11n [33], IEEE 802.16e [34], and 3GPP LTE [35]. Hence, it needs no new additional design which introduces it as a cost and complexityefficient approach.

From an information theory point of view, HARQ is a sequential feedback approach; in each (re)transmission round, only 1bit feedback is sent by the users which, compared to the quantized CSI schemes reporting all corresponding fading coefficients of the channel, reduces the feedback load substantially. Moreover, there is no quantized CSI feedback to be shared between the BSs, decreasing the backhauling requirements (Meanwhile, the HARQ feedback bits are shared between the BSs).

In the proposed scheme, each user is served by only one BS in each time slot. Therefore, there is no need to synchronize the BSs, which decreases the implementation complexity substantially.
In summary, the proposed scheme achieves some advantages related to coordinated data transmission but can still avoid many problems that may limit the practical implementation of CoMP networks.
The results are of particular interest when we remember that, although HARQ schemes have been widely studied in singleuser [36–41] and MIMO systems with asymptotically high signaltonoise ratios (SNRs) [42–47], there are very few results for CoMPHARQ [48]. Specifically, reviewing the third generation partnership project (3GPP) reports, e.g. [49], there are many aspects of the CoMPHARQ that have not been studied yet. Therefore, the final conclusions of the paper should be useful for the people involved in limited feedback issues in CoMP network standardization.
As described both theoretically and numerically, the proposed scheme leads to considerable performance improvement in terms of system throughput and the user outage probability. Particularly, the BS cooperation makes it possible to combine the advantages of fastfading channels, having a large diversity gain, with the potential for accurate channel estimation in slowfading channels. For sufficiently large number of users, the proposed CoMPHARQ scheme can be modeled as a collection of singleuser interferencefree networks experiencing a modified SNR. Moreover, to have a positive multiplexing gain, the number of retransmissions should be scaled with the transmission power. Finally, compared to codecombining HARQ protocols, the diversity combining schemes are preferable at low powers, because they lead to the same throughput and outage probability with less complexity at the encoders and decoders.
2 System model
Consider a CoMP communication setup consisting of N geographically distributed BSs and K users, with K≥N. The BSs are connected via delayfree backhaul links such that the users’ data can be shared between the BSs. The BSs are limited to a peak power constraint P. Let h_{j,i} be the channel coefficient between the jth BS and the ith user. Also, define the channel gains ${g}_{j,i}\doteq {h}_{j,i}{}^{2}$. We study the lowmobility, also called slowfading, scenario where the channel gains remain constant in a fading block, determined by the channel coherence time L_{c}, and then change independently to other values according to the probability density functions (pdfs) ${f}_{{g}_{j,i}}\left(.\right)$. The simulation results are given for both homogenous and heterogenous links. However, to be more tractable, the analytical results are presented for homogenous links where the channels experience the same fading pdfs. Note that considering the same pdfs does not mean that the channel realizations are the same in a time slot, as they have independent random values. However, for ergodic channels, the same pdf indicates that in the longrun, i.e., over infinitely many time slots, they experience the same behavior. Also, extension of the results for heterogenous networks is straightforward.
The length of the fading block, L_{c}, is assumed to be so long that many packets^{a} are transmitted in a single fading block. As a result, the channel gains can be assumed to be perfectly known by the receivers [18–30, 36–41]. On the other hand, there is no CSI available at the BSs (CSIT), except the HARQ feedback bits. The complex white Gaussian noises added at the receivers are supposed to have distributions $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Finally, the results are presented in natural logarithm basis, and the throughput is obtained in nats per channel use (npcu).
2.1 Data transmission model
A maximum of M HARQbased retransmission rounds are considered, i.e., each codeword is (re)transmitted a maximum of M+1 times. In each fading block, N users are selected randomly^{b}. From a specific user perspective, the user receives the data from one BS in each time slot. Then, in the next slot, the serving BSs are switched and the user is served by another BS. The BS switching is done independently of whether new codewords are going to be sent to the users or the previous messages should be retransmitted in an HARQbased fashion. By this technique, the HARQ protocol has a large diversity gain compared to the nonCoMP case.
Remark 1
Four different schemes have been considered for the CoMP networks in the 3GPP community during Release 11 [50, 51]: (1) joint transmission, (2) dynamic point selection (DPS), (3) dynamic point blanking, and (4) coordinated scheduling/beamforming. The proposed scheme belongs to the DPS approach of the CoMP networks where the transmission points are varied according to the considered cooperation rules.
 1)
Repetition time diversity (RTD). This scheme belongs to the diversity combining category of HARQ protocols [52] where the same data is repeated in the (re)transmission rounds and, in each round, the receiver performs maximum ratio combining (MRC) of all received signals.
 2)
Incremental redundancy (INR). The INR belongs to the category of code combining protocols [52]. Here, a codeword is sent with an aggressive rate in the first round. Then, if the user cannot decode the initial codeword, further parity bits are sent in the next retransmission rounds and in each round, the receiver decodes the data based on all received signals.
In harmony with, e.g., [36–41], we study the system performance for the complex Gaussian codes which have been proved to be optimal for powerlimited data transmission in fading AWGN channels with long codewords ([53], Chapter 9). The same approach as in, e.g., [54], can be used to extend the results to the case with, e.g., lowdensity paritycheck codes.
2.2 Figures of merit
3 Performance analysis for the RTD HARQ protocol
In this section, we derive the throughput and outage probability of the network in the presence of RTD HARQ protocol. The simulation results for the RTD are summarized in the figures presented in Section 6.
where (a) is found by integration on the gains pdfs and λ represents the fading parameter determined by the path loss and shadowing between the BSs and the terminals^{c}.
Using MRC at the receiver, the equivalent received SINR at the end of the mth (re)transmission round of the RTD is ${\gamma}^{\left(m\right)}=\sum _{n=1}^{m}{\gamma}^{n}$. Also, as the same data is repeated in the retransmission rounds of the RTD, the equivalent data rate at the end of the mth round is ${R}^{\left(m\right)}=\frac{Q}{\mathit{\text{mL}}}=\frac{R}{m}$ where Q is the number of information nats considered for the initial codeword, L denotes the codewords length, and $R=\frac{Q}{L}$ represents the initial codeword rate.
The optimal parameter R, in terms of, e.g., throughput, can be found numerically. Finally, bounds of the throughput and comparisons between the RTD and other schemes are presented in Section 5.
4 Performance analysis for the INR HARQ protocol
In Section 5, we use (10) to (12) to analyze the throughput at asymptotically low and high powers, and evaluate the effect of BS cooperation on the performance of the network.
5 On the performance of the proposed schemes
In this section, we derive performance bounds for various cases and compare the performance of different schemes operating in the CoMP scenario.
5.1 Performance bounds
This subsection presents performance bounds/approximations for the throughput and outage probability of the proposed CoMPARQ approach. Theorem 1 shows that the performance of the considered protocols becomes bounded if the number of retransmission rounds is finite.
Theorem 1
With a fixed number of retransmissions, the throughput achieved by the considered CoMPHARQ schemes is upper bounded even if the transmission power goes to infinity.
Proof
where (f) is obtained by variable transform log(1+x)=z and partial integration and (g) is based on (4) and ${e}^{\frac{\lambda}{P}x}\le 1$. Finally, (e) in (13) follows from $\sum _{m=0}^{M}\frac{1}{m+1}\le 1+log(M+1)$ which is obtained by Riemann integral and the fact that $\frac{1}{x}$ is a decreasing function^{d}. □
which indicates that for sufficiently high initial transmission rate, where $\mathbf{\text{E}}\left\{{C}^{\frac{1}{R}}\right\}\to 1$, the throughput scales with the initial rate R at most linearly. Note that (h) in (15) is obtained with the same procedure as in (b) of (13) and then implementation of the exponential Chebyshev’s inequality, Pr(X≥x)≤e^{−t x}E(e^{ t X }),∀t>0 [55]. Also, (i) follows from the fact that $\frac{1}{m}\sum _{n=1}^{m}log(1+{\gamma}^{n})\le C$, i.e., the maximum decodable rates is less than the channel instantaneous capacity C, and (j) comes from $\frac{{e}^{\frac{1}{M+1}}}{M+1}\le 1$ and $\sum _{m=1}^{M}\frac{\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{e}^{\frac{1}{m}}}{m(m+1)}\le \xi $ where ξ is the Euler’s number. Finally, the same qualitative conclusions are valid for the RTD protocol.
Theorem 2
For Rayleigh fading channels, the proposed CoMPHARQ network can be modeled/underestimated by N interferencefree singleuser networks having a modified transmission SNR.
Proof
Here, (k) in (19) and (20) is obtained by defining ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\omega}}^{n}:{F}_{{\stackrel{\u0304}{\omega}}^{n}}\left(x\right)=1{e}^{x}$ and the equivalent SNR $\stackrel{\u0304}{P}=\frac{P}{\lambda +(N1)P}$, i.e., by appropriate scaling of the fading pdf and the transmission SNR. Also, η^{RTD,SU} and η^{INR,SU} denote the throughput achieved by the RTD and INR protocols, respectively, in the equivalent channel model of (18). In words, (19) and (20) imply that the CoMPHARQ network performance can be underestimated by N interferencefree singleinput singleoutput (SISO) Rayleigh fading channels with fading coefficient $h\sim \mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1),\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\stackrel{\u0304}{\omega}}^{n}=h{}^{2},$ and transmission SNR $\stackrel{\u0304}{P}=\frac{P}{\lambda +(N1)P}$. Interestingly, the approximation F_{ γ }^{ n }≃F_{ ω }^{ n } becomes very tight for moderate/high values of N. Thus, the collection of SISO channels becomes an accurate model for the proposed CoMPHARQ network, as stated in the theorem. □
where V(x,y) is the normalized incomplete Gamma function (please see [57] for more details about (21)).
5.2 Comparisons
This subsection compares the performance of different schemes in terms of the throughput and the outage probability.
Remark 2
Let M<N. The spatial diversity gained in the proposed CoMPHARQ scheme with slowfading channel is the same as the time diversity achieved in the nonCoMPHARQ schemes when the channel is fastfading, i.e., when the channel gains change in each retransmission round independently.
respectively, which are the corresponding throughputs obtained for the ith user in the proposed CoMP model when the channel is slowfading (see (6) and (10)).
In other words, although each channel remains constant in all retransmission rounds of the slowfading model, by switching between the BSs, a different SINR realization is observed in each round, the same as in the fastfading channels. Thus, the CoMP model works well as (1) the slowfading behavior of the channel gives the opportunity to accurately estimate the channels at the receivers and (2) the same diversity as in the fastfading channels is gained by a simple cooperation approach. Finally, the spatial diversity exploited by the proposed CoMP scheme will be less than the time diversity achieved in the nonCoMP fastfading channel if M≥N. This is because it may occur that we return back to the same BSs when the number of retransmissions exceeds the number of BSs. However, this case is of less interest because the maximum number of possible HARQbased retransmissions is normally less than the number of cooperative BSs.
Remark 3
when P→0. That is, the same performance is achieved by the INR and RTD protocols at low transmission powers.
This is interesting when we remember that the superiority of the INR over the RTD is at the cost of complexity; in the INR, the codewords are changed in each retransmission which results in more complex encoders and decoders. Therefore, compared to the INR, the RTD is preferable at low transmission powers, because the same throughput and outage probability are achieved in both schemes while the RTD leads to less implementation complexity.
As demonstrated in [58], the gain of the INR scheme over the RTD increases with the initial transmission rate R. Also, [58] has previously shown that the difference between the performance of the RTD and INR protocols decreases with the SINR variation between the retransmissions. Thus, compared to the nonCoMP setup, the gain of the INR over RTD decreases in the CoMP scenario.
Then, as less information is exploited by the basic ARQ decoder, compared to the RTD, the throughput in the RTD model is obviously higher than the throughput in the basic ARQ (the superiority of the HARQ protocols over the basic ARQ has been previously shown in the literature, e.g., [36, 38]). Here, it is interesting to note that with a slowfading condition, e.g., [38] has shown that there are no performance gains with basic ARQ and the optimal throughput/outage probability achieved by the basic ARQ is the same as the one in the openloop communication setup if the channel does not change in the retransmissions. However, the proposed CoMPHARQ approach makes it possible to utilize the SINR variations and, depending on the channel pdf, increase the throughput by implementation of basic ARQ.
The same arguments can be used when comparing the outage probability of these schemes. Here, the only important difference is that the RTD HARQ and the repetition code schemes lead to the same outage probability. This is because in RTD, the outage occurs if and only if the data is not decodable in the last retransmission round, the same as in the repetition codes.
6 Simulation results
Considering N=4 BSs and a maximum of M=1 retransmission round, i.e., a maximum of two (re)transmissions, Figure 1 demonstrates the system throughput for different schemes. As seen in the figure, the difference between the INR and RTD protocols is negligible at low transmission powers. Also, the system throughput starts to become bounded at high powers, in harmony with Theorem 1. Therefore, implementation of HARQ in CoMP networks is more appropriate at low transmission powers. With even a single (re)transmission round, substantial performance improvement is achieved by the HARQ schemes, compared to the case with no CSI at the BSs. Also, the CoMP data transmission scheme results in considerable throughput increment, compared to the nonCoMP models. Interestingly, the cooperation gain, i.e., the difference between the throughput of the CoMP and nonCoMP schemes, is observed to be (almost) constant, at medium and high powers. Finally, the repetition codes are simple but perform poorly in terms of throughput, in comparison to the other schemes.
The effect of CoMP transmission on the user outage probability is studied in Figure 2 where, setting N=2, the user outage probability is obtained for different initial transmission rates. As shown in the figure, CoMP transmission leads to considerable outage probability reduction, particularly at low rates. Moreover, the difference between the performance of the RTD and INR protocols increases with the initial transmission rate.
The validity of Theorem 2 is verified in Figure 3. Here, the throughput difference Δ η=η^{INR}−η^{INR,SU} is plotted as a function of the transmission power where η^{INR} and η^{INR,SU} are obtained by (11) and (20), respectively. As demonstrated in the figure, the difference between the throughput of the two models considered in Theorem 2 becomes small as the number of users increases. Also, the throughput difference increases with the transmission power. However, using (4) and (18), it can be shown that the difference becomes bounded as the power increases.
Setting N=5, Figures 4 and 5 study the system throughput and outage probability as a function of the maximum number of retransmissions. As demonstrated, considerable performance improvement is achieved by increasing the number of retransmissions. Also, the difference between the performance of INR and RTD protocols and the difference between the CoMP and nonCoMP data transmission models increase with M substantially.
Figures 6 and 7 focus on heterogenous networks. With N=2 BSs and a maximum of M=1 retransmissions, Figure 6 shows a user outage probability for different transmission powers and initial transmission rates. Here, the fading parameters are set to λ_{i,i}=1,i=1,2, and λ_{j,i}=0.1,i≠j,i,j=1,2. Again, the results show that the INR protocol outperforms the RTD, particularly at high transmission rates. However, as stated before, the superiority of the INR over RTD is at the cost of complexity at the encoders and decoders. Moreover, it is worth noting that, with the same argument as in Theorem 2, the user outage probability becomes bounded at high powers, as the system becomes interferencelimited.
Finally, setting N=2 and M=1, Figure 7 investigates the system throughput in a heterogenous network. Here, while we set λ_{1,i}=1,i=1,2, the throughput is plotted as a function of the fading coefficients associated with the second BS, i.e., λ_{2,1}=λ_{2,2}. As it can be seen, the system throughput decreases when the distance between the second BS and the users, modeled by λ_{2,i},i=1,2, increases. At asymptotic condition λ_{2,i}→∞,i=1,2, the network is mapped to a 1×2 SIMO channel working in a TDMA fashion.
7 Conclusions
This paper studied the performance of a CoMPHARQ network. The proposed approach exploits the advantages of coordinated data transmission schemes and, meanwhile, solves some of the important problems that may limit the practical implementation of CoMP networks. As demonstrated both theoretically and numerically, considerable performance improvement can be achieved by implementation of CoMPHARQ systems. However, the system performance becomes bounded if the number of HARQbased retransmission rounds does not scale with the transmission power. The proposed CoMP network can be modeled by a collection of interferencefree singleuser channels experiencing a specific SNR. Finally, the diversity combining HARQ schemes outperform the codecombining HARQ protocols at low transmission powers. This is because the same outage probability and throughput are achieved by these protocols, while the diversity combining schemes lead to less implementation complexity.
Endnotes
^{a} A packet is defined as the transmission of a codeword along with all its possible retransmission rounds.
^{b} This is the best scheme for scheduling N users with no CSIT at the BSs [56] as well as when, due to scheduling delay and complexity, the users are selected for transmission based upon queue lengths instead of on channel conditions.
^{c} For heterogenous Rayleigh fading channels, ${f}_{{g}_{j,i}}\left(g\right)=$λ_{j,i}e^{−λ}_{j,i}g,g≥0, (4) is rephrased as ${F}_{{\gamma}_{{}_{k,i}}^{m}}\left(x\right)=1\frac{{e}^{\frac{{\lambda}_{k+m1,i}}{P}x}}{\prod _{j=1,j\ne m}^{N}(1+\frac{{\lambda}_{k+m1,i}}{{\lambda}_{k+j,i}}x)},x\ge 0.$
^{d} Straightforward modifications can be applied to (13) and (14) to prove the theorem for heterogenous networks.
^{e} The random variable X dominates the random variable Y if F_{ X }(x)≥F_{ Y }(x), ∀x[59].
^{f} For heterogenous channels, we can use ${F}_{{\gamma}_{k,i}^{m}}\left(x\right)\le $${F}_{{\omega}_{k,i}^{m}}\left(x\right),\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\forall x,$ where ${F}_{{\omega}_{k,i}^{m}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}1\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{e}^{(\frac{{\lambda}_{k+m1,i}}{P}+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{N}\frac{{\lambda}_{k+m1,i}}{{\lambda}_{k+j,i}})x}$.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Gesbert D, Hanly S, Huang H, Shamai S, Simeone O, Yu W: Multicell MIMO cooperative networks: a new look at interference. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2010, 28(9):13801408.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhang J: Networked MIMO with clustered linear precoding. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2009, 8(4):19101921.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chae CB, Kim S, Heath RW: Network coordinated beamforming for cellboundary users: linear and nonlinear approaches. IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process 2009, 3(6):10941105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shen C, Chang TH, Wang KY, Qiu Z, Chi CY: Distributed robust multicell coordinated beamforming with imperfect CSI: an ADMM approach. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2012, 60(6):29883003.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Marsch P, Fettweis G: A framework for optimizing the uplink performance of distributed antenna systems under a constrained backhaul. In ICC 2007. Glasgow; 24–28 June 2007:975979.Google Scholar
 Sanderovich A, Somekh O, Shamai S: Uplink macro diversity with limited backhaul capacity. In ISIT 2007. Nice; 24–29 June 2007:1115.Google Scholar
 Ng BL, Evans JS, Hanly SV, Aktas D: Distributed downlink beamforming with cooperative base stations. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2008, 54(12):54915499.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Levy N, Shamai S: Clustered local decoding for wynertype cellular models. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2009, 55(11):49674985.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Levy N, Shamai S: Information theoretic aspects of users’ activity in a wynerlike cellular model. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2010, 56(5):22412248.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Karakayali MK, Foschini GJ, Valenzuela RA: Network coordination for spectrally efficient communications in cellular systems. IEEE Wireless Commun 2006, 13(4):5661. 10.1109/MWC.2006.1678166View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shamai S, Simeone O, Somekh O, Sanderovich A, Zaidel BM, Poor HV: Informationtheoretic implications of constrained cooperation in simple cellular models. In PIMRC 2008. Cannes; 15–18 September 2008:15.Google Scholar
 Shamai S, Simeone O, Somekh O, Poor HV: Joint multicell processing for downlink channels with limitedcapacity backhaul. In ITAW 2008. Washington, D.C.; 2–4 June 2008:345349.Google Scholar
 Hoydis J, Kobayashi M, Debbah M: Optimal channel training in uplink network MIMO systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2011, 59(6):28242833.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Marsch P, Fettweis G: On downlink network MIMO under a constrained backhaul and imperfect channel knowledge. In GLOBECOM 2009. Honolulu; 30 November–4 December 2009:16.Google Scholar
 Wild T: Comparing downlink coordinated multipoint schemes with imperfect channel knowledge. In VTC 2011. Budapest; 15–18 May 2011:15.Google Scholar
 Sun H, Zhang X, Fang W: Dynamic cell clustering design for realistic coordinated multipoint downlink transmission. In PIMRC 2011. Toronto; 11–14 September 2011:13311335.Google Scholar
 Ghimire B, Auer G, Haas H: Busy burst enabled coordinated multipoint network with decentralized control. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2011, 10(10):33103320.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shi J, Zhang T, Zhou Y, Zeng Z, Huang Z: Rate loss caused by limited feedback and channel delay in coordinated multipoint system. In VTC 2011. Budapest; 15–18 May 2011:16.Google Scholar
 Hou X, Yang C: How much feedback overhead is required for base station cooperative transmission to outperform noncooperative transmission? In ICASSP 2011. Prague; 22–27 May 2011:34163419.Google Scholar
 Eslami M, Krzymien WA, AlShalash M: A hybrid mode userlocationaware network MIMO with limited feedback for cellular downlink. In MCSS 2011. Herrsching; 3–4 May 2011:14.Google Scholar
 Yuan F, Yang C: Bit allocation between percell codebook and phase ambiguity quantization for limited feedback coordinated multipoint transmission systems. IEEE Trans. Commun 2012, 60(9):25462559.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Li Y, Ge J, Shen C, Li J, Miao W: Coordinated multipoint transmission with limited feedback for LTEadvanced. In ISCIT 2011. Hangzhou; 12–14 October 2011:6872.Google Scholar
 3GPP TS 36.211 v9.1.0: Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (EUTRA); physical channels and modulation. March 2010
 Jin J, Wang Q, Lin C, Yang H, Wang Y: Coordinated multipoint transmission with limited feedback. In GLOBECOM 2010. Miami; 6–10 December 2010:850854.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lakshmana TR, Papadogiannis A, Li J, Svensson T: On the potential of broadcast CSI for opportunistic coordinated multipoint transmission. In PIMRC 2012. Sydney; 9–12 September 2012:12621267.Google Scholar
 Li J, Papadogiannis A, Apelfrojd R, Svensson T, Sternad M: Performance evaluation of coordinated multipoint transmission schemes with predicted CSI. In PIMRC 2012. Sydney; 9–12 September 2012:10551060.Google Scholar
 Kim D, Shin OS, Sohn I, Lee KB: Channel feedback optimization for network MIMO systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol 2012, 61(7):33153321.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kim D, Shin OS, Lee KB: Efficient limited feedback schemes for network MIMO systems. In GLOBECOM 2011. Houston, TX; 5–9 December 2011:16.Google Scholar
 Zhou S, Gong J, Niu Z: Distributed adaptation of quantized feedback for downlink network MIMO systems. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2011, 10(1):6167.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yuan F, Yang C: Phase ambiguity quantization for percell codebook based limited feedback coordinated multipoint transmission systems. In VTC 2011. San Francisco; 5–8 September 2011:15.Google Scholar
 Khanzadi MR, Mehrpouyan H, Alpman E, Svensson T, Kuylenstierna D, Eriksson T: On models, bounds, and estimation algorithms for timevarying phase noise. In ICSPCS 2011. Honolulu; 12–14 December 2011:18.Google Scholar
 Munier F, Eriksson T, Svensson A: An ICI reduction scheme for OFDM system with phase noise over fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun 2008, 56(7):11191126.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Peng F, Zhang J, Ryan WE: Adaptive modulation and coding for IEEE 802.11n. In WCNC 2007. Hong Kong; 11–15 March 2007:656661.Google Scholar
 WiMAX Forum: Mobile WiMAX  part II: a comparative analysis. Solana Beach: WiMAX; 2006.Google Scholar
 3GGP: LTE. http://www.3gpp.org/LTE
 Caire G, Tuninetti D: The throughput of hybridARQ protocols for the Gaussian collision channel. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2001, 47(5):19711988. 10.1109/18.930931MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Makki B, Eriksson T: On hybrid ARQ and quantized CSI feedback schemes in quasistatic fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun 2012, 60(4):986997.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shen C, Liu T, Fitz MP: On the average rate performance of hybridARQ in quasistatic fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun 2009, 57(11):33393352.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Makki B, Eriksson T: On the average rate of HARQbased quasistatic spectrum sharing networks. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2012, 11(1):6577.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Makki B, Graell i Amat A, Eriksson T: Power allocation in repetition time diversity hybrid automatic repeat request feedback. In WCNC 2012. Paris; 1–4 April 2012:23292334.Google Scholar
 Makki B, Graell i Amat A, Eriksson T: HARQ feedback in spectrum sharing networks. IEEE Commun. Lett 2012, 16(9):13371340.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gamal HE, Caire G, Damen MO: The MIMO ARQ channel: diversitymultiplexingdelay tradeoff. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006, 52(8):36013621.View ArticleMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Holliday T, Goldsmith AJ, Poor HV: Joint source and channel coding for MIMO systems: Is it better to be robust or quick? IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2008, 54(4):13931405.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chuang A, Guillen A, Fabregas i, Rasmussen LK, Collings IB: Optimal throughputdiversitydelay tradeoff in MIMO ARQ blockfading channels. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2008, 54(9):39683986.View ArticleMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Nguyen KD, Rasmussen LK, Fabregas A, Letzepis N: Ratediversitydelay tradeoff for ARQ systems over MIMO blockfading channels. In AusCTW 2009. Sydney; 4–7 February 2009:116121.Google Scholar
 Liu H, Razoumov L, Mandayam N, Spasojevic P: An optimal power allocation scheme for the STC hybridARQ over energy limited networks. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2009, 8(12):57185722.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nguyen KD, Rasmussen LK, Guillen A, Fabregas i, Letzepis N: MIMO ARQ with multibit feedback: outage analysis. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2012, 58(2):765779.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Gao Y, Li Y, Yu H, Gao S, Wang X: Modeling and analysis of SUCoMP HARQ in 3GPP LTE system level simulation. In CHINACOM 2011. Harbin; 17–19 August 2011:295298.Google Scholar
 3GPP: Report on Hybrid ARQ Type II/III[s]. http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/htmlinfo/25835.htm
 Määttänen HL, Hämäläinen K, Venäläinen J, Schober K, Enescu M, Valkama M: Systemlevel performance of lteadvanced with joint transmission and dynamic point selection schemes. Eurasip J. Adv. Signal Process 2012.Google Scholar
 3rd Generation PartnershipProject: TSG RAN: (EUTRA); 3GPP TS 36.213 version 11.0.0 Physical layer procedures (Release 11) (2012). http://www.3gpp.org/
 Wicker S: Error Control Systems for Digital Communication and Storage. Upper Saddle River: PrenticeHall; 1995.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Cover TM, Thomas JA: Elements of Information Theory. New Jersey: Wiley; 2006.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Sesia S, Caire G, Vivier G: Incremental redundancy hybrid ARQ schemes based on lowdensity paritycheck codes. IEEE Trans. Commun 2004, 52(8):13111321. 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.833022View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bronshtein IN, van den Brand M: Handbook of Mathematics, 5th ed. Berlin Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag; 2007.Google Scholar
 Jindal N: MIMO broadcast channels with finiterate feedback. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006, 52(11):50455060.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Telatar E: Capacity of multiantenna gaussian channels. Eur Trans. Telecommun 1999, 10: 585595. 10.1002/ett.4460100604View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cheng JF: Coding performance of hybrid ARQ schemes. IEEE Trans. Commun 2006, 54(6):10171029. 10.1109/TCOMM.2006.876846View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bawa VS: Optimal rules for ordering uncertain prospects. J. Financ. Econ 1975, 2(1):95121. 10.1016/0304405X(75)900252MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.