LOVE et al.: AN OVERVIEW OF LIMITED FEEDBACK IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 1345
Here Q is the covariance of the transmitted signal for each
individual instantaneous channel realization. The covariance
of the transmitted signal could incorporate both the spatial
power allocation as well as unitary precoding. Note that spatial
power allocation is important especially for cases when the
number of transmit antennas is greater than the number of
receive antennas. From an encoding point of view, x[k]=
√
ρ(Q[k])
1/2
s[k],k=0,...,K
bl
−1 , where Q[k] solves the
optimization (based on channel feedback)
Q[k] = argmax
Q:tr(Q)≤1,Q
∗
=Q,Q0
log
2
det (I + ρH[k]QH
∗
[k])
and s[k] is the kth channel use of an open-loop codeword.
This codeword set is chosen according to some spatial power
constraint criteria such that E
s
s[k](s[k])
∗
= I and such that
the encoding rate per channel block approaches the achievable
rate of the instantaneous channel. For fast-fading, a fixed rate
codeword set can be used satisfying similar conditions to those
above but with a fixed encoding rate.
One of the first looks at trying to design the covariance
matrix using imperfect channel information was the covariance
design for multiple-input single-output (MISO) systems using
statistical information published in [331]. For a limited rate
feedback approach, the general idea is to use the fact that
the receiver knows H [k] through procedures such as training.
Using this channel knowledge, the receiver can quantize some
function of H [k] using vector quantization (VQ) techniques.
Naturally, the aspects of the channel that the transmitter
cares about are those that allow the design of the covariance
for the tth channel block [294]. Using this line of reasoning,
the receiver can determine a rate maximizing covariance and
feed this back to the transmitter. Employing a codebook of
possible covariance matrices Q = {Q
1
,...,Q
2
B } that is
known to both the transmitter and receiver, the receiver can
search for the codebook index that solves
n
opt
[k] = argmax
1≤n≤2
B
log
2
det (I + ρH [k] Q
n
H
∗
[k])
and send the B bit binary label corresponding to covariance
Q
n
opt
[k]
to the transmitter. This gives a maximum achievable
rate in bits per channel use of
R
Q
= E
H
max
Q∈Q
log
2
det (I + ρHQH
∗
)
(8)
using a codebook Q known to both the transmitter and
receiver.
The covariance codebook can be either fixed or randomly
generated (using a seed known to both the transmitter and
receiver). Designing a fixed covariance codebook to maximize
the average rate is a challenging problem that depends on
the stationary distribution of the channel [40], [168]. Vector
quantization approaches using the Lloyd algorithm have been
shown to efficiently generate codebooks that achieve a large
rate [168]. Random approaches for covariance design have
also been proposed [69] using ideas pioneered in [278]. In
fact, it was shown in [69] that the rate loss with B bits of
feedback decreases exponentially with the number of feedback
bits.
While the codebook approach is optimal for a block-
to-block independently fading channel, temporal correlation
between channel realizations can improve quantization. Feed-
back approaches based on tracking the channel using gradient
analysis are studied in [31], [32]. Alternative approaches to
subspace tracking are discussed in [346], [352]. The use
of switched codebooks, where the codebook is changed or
adapted over time is proposed in [216]. Beamforming code-
books with adaptive localized codebook caps, the orientation
and radius of the cap changing over time, were considered
in [268]. Markov models to analyze the effects of feedback
delay and channel time evolution were proposed in [121]–
[123]. These models can be used to implement feedback
compression by using Markov chain compression. Statistical
characterizations of the feedback side information can be
further leveraged [356].
As a final remark, many of the above works considered
block-fading channels and optimize the ergodic capacity in
the covariance optimization problem under limited feedback.
However, ergodic capacity may not be an appropriate perfor-
mance measure in non-ergodic channels (such as the slow-
fading case). In slow-fading channels, there are systematic
packet errors due to channel outages despite the use of
powerful channel coding. This happens because given limited
CSIT there is still uncertainty about the actual CSI, and the
transmitted packet will be corrupted whenever the data rate
exceeds the instantaneous mutual information. In addition to
limited CSIT feedback, there might be feedback error due to
noisy feedback links. This will also contribute to packet errors
due to channel outage. When there is a noisy feedback link,
the index mapping is also an important design parameter that
will affect the robustness of the CSIT feedback. As a result,
joint adaptation between the data rate, covariance matrix, and
feedback index mapping is important to control the packet
errors to a reasonable target. In order to account for the
potential penalty of packet errors, it is important to consider
system goodput (b/s/Hz successfully delivered to the receiver)
instead of ergodic capacity as the system performance measure
in the optimization framework. The design of robust limited
feedback schemes and the joint rate, covariance, and feedback
index mapping optimization for system goodput is a relatively
unexplored topic. In [342], the authors extend the VQ op-
timization framework to consider joint rate and covariance
adaptation using Lloyd’s algorithm for slow-fading MIMO
channels.
1b) Beamforming
While optimal covariance quantization is of interest to
analyze how close to perfect transmitter channel knowledge
a limited feedback system can perform, limited feedback
can have immediate impact enhancing existing closed-loop
signaling approaches. Beamforming is characterized by the
use of a rank one covariance matrix. Note that using a rank
one Q matrix is optimal whenever the single-user channel is
itself rank one. This notably occurs when the user terminal is
equipped with a single antenna. In this situation the availability
of CSIT is critical.
In beamforming, the single-user MIMO expression in (6) is
restricted so that x[k]=
√
ρf[k]s[k] where f[k] is a channel
dependent vector referred to as a beamforming vector and s[k]
is a single-dimensional complex symbol chosen independently
of the instantaneous channel conditions. For power constraint