This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Secure Communication for Spatially Correlated Massive MIMO with Low-Resolution DACs

Dan Yang, Jindan Xu, Wei Xu,
Ning Wang, Bin Sheng, and A. Lee Swindlehurst
D. Yang, J. Xu, W. Xu, and B. Sheng are with the National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China (email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).N. Wang is with the School of Information Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China.A. Lee Swindlehurst is with the Center for Pervasive Communications and Computing, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
Abstract

In this paper, the performance of a secure massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system adopting low-resolution digital-to-analog converters (DACs) is analyzed over spatially correlated wireless channels. A tight lower bound for the achievable secrecy rate is derived with artificial noise (AN) transmitted in the null space of the user channels. Using the analytical results, the impact of spatial correlation on the secrecy rate is explicitly evaluated in the presence of low-resolution DACs. The analytical observations reveal that using low-resolution DACs can be beneficial to the secrecy performance compared with ideal DACs, when the channels are strongly correlated and optimal power allocation is not employed.

Index Terms:
Physical layer security, massive MIMO, spatial correlation, digital-to-analog converters (DACs)

I Introduction

Physical layer security (PLS) has become an emerging technology for securing wireless communication without relying upon traditional cryptographic mechanisms. Compared to conventional upper-layer cryptographic schemes, PLS has the advantages of low computational complexity and low resource consumption [1]. Massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems provide another disruptive technology for fifth generation (5G) cellular communications, and have shown great potential in improving spectral and energy efficiency. The use of large-scale antenna arrays in massive MIMO provides a large excess of redundant spatial degrees of freedom (DoF), which can be exploited to achieve secure physical layer transmission. This idea has been attracting increasing research interest in the past few years [2], [3].

Massive MIMO transmission requires a very high power consumption if high-resolution digital-to-analog converters (DACs) are employed in the RF chains for each antenna. At the transmitter, power expenditure is dominated by power amplifiers (PAs), which are usually required to operate within a high linearity regime to avoid distortion. A practical solution to the above challenge is to use low-resolution DACs, which relaxes the requirement of linearity and allows the amplifiers to operate closer to saturation, thus increasing the efficiency of PAs [4], [5]. In [6], both finite-bit DACs at base station (BS) and finite-bit analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) at user side were analyzed in the massive MIMO downlink. The work was then extended in [7] by considering spatially correlated channels. Further in [8], a constant envelope precoding technique was devised for the multiuser MIMO with one-bit DACs.

The effect of hardware impairments (HWIs) on spectral efficiency of massive MIMO systems has been studied in [9]. Regarding the secrecy performance, the authors in [10] analyzed the effects of HWIs on secrecy rate, where ideal converters with infinite resolution were considered. Secure communication in a massive MIMO system with low-resolution DACs was investigated in [11], which revealed that low-resolution DACs can achieve superior secrecy rate under certain conditions, e.g., at low SNR or with a large power allocation factor.

Most of the existing works on low-resolution DACs transmissions have focused on the assumption of independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) channels for massive MIMO. However, in practice, the limited space between the BS antennas as well as the rich scattering propagation environment can result in spatial correlation. The impact of correlated Rayleigh fading channels on optimal multiuser loading was analyzed in [6] by applying asymptotic random matrix theory. How spatial correlation impacts secure massive MIMO communication with low-resolution DACs is still an open problem.

In this paper, we focus on secure transmission in the massive MIMO downlink when low-resolution DACs are employed. A tight lower bound for the ergodic secrecy rate is derived that explicitly characterizes the impact of channel correlation on the secrecy rate for typical correlated channels. An optimal power allocation strategy is proposed, which suggests that more power should be allocated to AN when strong channel correlation is present. It is revealed that using low-resolution DACs can improve the secrecy performance for a fixed power allocation factor under strong spatially correlated channels.

Notation: π—βˆ—\bf{X}^{*}, 𝐗T\bf{X}^{\mit T}, 𝐗H\bf{X}^{\mit H} and tr​(𝐗)\rm tr(\bf{X}) represent the conjugate, transpose, conjugate transpose and trace of matrix 𝐗\bf{X}, respectively. 𝔼​{β‹…}\mathbb{E}\{\cdot\} is the expectation operator. diag​(β‹…)\rm diag(\cdot) denotes a diagonal matrix that retains only the diagonal elements of the input matrix, and diag~​(β‹…)\widetilde{\rm diag}(\cdot) represents a diagonal matrix with the input vector as its diagonal entries.

II System Model

The secure massive MIMO system under investigation comprises one NN-antenna BS, KK single-antenna legitimate users, and one MM-antenna passive eavesdropper. The channel matrices are modeled based on the Kronecker channel model as shown in [12]. To make the problem more tractable, we consider the system with a common correlation matrix at the BS. Specifically, the channel between the BS and the users is modeled as 𝐇=𝐃12​𝐇~​𝐑12\bf{H}=\bf{D}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{\bf{H}}\bf{R}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}, where the elements of 𝐇~βˆˆβ„‚KΓ—N\widetilde{\bf{H}}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times N} are i.i.d. Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance, the diagonal matrix πƒβˆˆβ„‚KΓ—K\bf{D}\in\mathbb{C}^{\mit K\times K} characterizes the large-scale fading with its kkth diagonal element given by Ξ²k\beta_{k}, and π‘βˆˆβ„‚NΓ—N\bf{R}\in\mathbb{C}^{\mit N\times N} is the transmit covariance matrix satisfying tr​(𝐑)=N\rm tr(\bf{R})=\mit N. Similarly, the channel matrix between the BS and the eavesdropper is 𝐇e=𝐃e12​𝐇~e​𝐑12\bf{H}\rm_{e}=\bf{D}^{\rm\frac{1}{2}}\rm_{e}\widetilde{\bf{H}}_{e}\bf{R}^{\rm\frac{1}{2}}, where 𝐇~eβˆˆβ„‚MΓ—N\widetilde{\bf{H}}\rm_{e}\in\mathbb{C}\mit^{M\times N} contains i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channel coefficients following π’žβ€‹π’©β€‹(0,1)\mathcal{CN}(0,1). The diagonal matrix 𝐃e\bf{D}\rm_{e} represents the large-scale fading at the eavesdropper with identical diagonal entries Ξ²e\beta\rm^{e}.

The BS desires to transmit the symbols 𝐬=[s1,s2,…,sK]βˆˆβ„‚KΓ—1\bf{s}=[\mit s\rm_{1},\mit s\rm_{2},...,\mit s\mit_{K}]\in\mathbb{C}^{\mit K\times\rm 1} to the legitimate users with 𝔼​{𝐬𝐬H}=𝐈K\mathbb{E}\{\bf{s}\bf{s}\mit^{H}\}=\bf{I}\mit_{K} using a linear precoding matrix π–βˆˆβ„‚NΓ—K\bf{W}\in\mathbb{C}^{\mit N\times K}. The eavesdropper’s channel state information (CSI) is assumed unknown to the BS, and AN is injected to ensure confidential communication. The AN vector π­βˆΌπ’žβ€‹π’©β€‹(𝟎,𝐈Nβˆ’K)\bf{t}\sim\mathcal{CN}(\bf 0,\bf I\mit_{N-K}) is precoded by an AN shaping matrix π•βˆˆβ„‚NΓ—(Nβˆ’K)\bf{V}\in\mathbb{C}^{\mit N\times(N-K)}. Denote by PP the total transmit power. The power allocation factor ξ∈(0,1]\xi\in(0,1] aims to strike a balance between the transmit signal and the AN. The unquantized downlink transmit signal vector 𝐱\bf{x} is then expressed as

𝐱=μ​𝐖𝐬+ν​𝐕𝐭,\bf{x}=\sqrt{\mu}\bf{Ws}+\sqrt{\nu}\bf{Vt}, (1)

where ΞΌβ‰œΞΎβ€‹PK\mu\triangleq\frac{\xi P}{K} and Ξ½β‰œ(1βˆ’ΞΎ)​PNβˆ’K\nu\triangleq\frac{(1-\xi)P}{N-K}.

The precoded signal is transmitted after DAC quantization, which is denoted by 𝒬​(𝐱)\mathcal{Q}(\bf{x}). Establishing the non-linear quantization model of a finite-bit DAC is challenging. We follow a popular way of charactering the quantizer by a linear function applying the simple additive quantization noise model. The quantized signal vector can accordingly be decomposed as

𝐳=𝒬​(𝐱)=1βˆ’Οβ€‹π±+πͺ,\bf{z}=\mathcal{Q}(\bf{x})=\mit\sqrt{\rm 1-\rho}\bf{x}+\bf{q}, (2)

where the quantization noise πͺ\bf{q} is assumed to be uncorrelated with the input signal 𝐱\bf{x}, and

𝐂πͺ=𝔼​{πͺπͺH}=ρ​𝔼​{diag​(𝐱𝐱H)}.\bf C_{q}=\mathbb{E}\{\bf{q}\bf{q}\mit^{H}\}=\rho\mathbb{E}\big{\{}\rm diag(\bf{x}\bf{x}\mit^{H})\big{\}}. (3)

The value of the distortion factor ρ\rho depends on the DAC resolution; for example, it can be chosen as in [5] for DAC resolutions of less than 5 bits, or as ρ=3​π2β‹…2βˆ’2​b\rho=\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi}{2}\cdot 2^{-2b} for scenarios with higher precision, where bb represents the number of quantization bits. From (1) and (3), the covariance matrix of the quantization noise equals

𝐂πͺ=ρ​[μ​diag​(𝐖𝐖H)+ν​diag​(𝐕𝐕H)].\bf{C_{q}}=\rho\big{[}\mu\rm diag(\bf{W}\bf{W}\mit^{H})+\nu\rm diag(\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H})\big{]}. (4)

Given the CSI of the legitimate channels, the matrix 𝐕\bf{V} is designed to lie in the null space of the channel matrix 𝐇\bf{H}, i.e., 𝐇𝐕=𝟎\bf{H}\bf{V}=\bf{0}, which (ideally) makes the AN β€œinvisible” to the legitimate users [13]. Using (1) and (2), the signals received at the users and the eavesdropper are expressed as

𝐲=πŸβˆ’Οβ€‹(μ​𝐇𝐖𝐬+ν​𝐇𝐕𝐭)+𝐇πͺ+𝐧\bf{y}=\sqrt{1-\rho}(\sqrt{\mu}\bf{HWs}+\sqrt{\nu}\bf{HVt})+\bf{Hq}+\bf{n} (5)
𝐲e=1βˆ’Οβ€‹(μ​𝐇e​𝐖𝐬+ν​𝐇e​𝐕𝐭)+𝐇e​πͺ+𝐧e,\bf{y}\rm_{e}=\sqrt{1-\rho}(\sqrt{\mu}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{Ws}+\sqrt{\nu}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{Vt})+\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{q}+\bf{n}\rm_{e}, (6)

where π§βˆΌπ’žβ€‹π’©β€‹(𝟎,Οƒn2β€‹πˆK)\bf{n}\sim\mathcal{CN}(\bf{0},\mit\sigma_{n}\rm^{2}\bf{I}\mit_{K}) and 𝐧eβˆΌπ’žβ€‹π’©β€‹(𝟎,Οƒe2β€‹πˆM)\bf{n}\rm_{e}\sim\mathcal{CN}(\bf{0},\mit\sigma\rm_{e}\rm^{2}\bf{I}\mit_{M}) respectively represent the additive noise terms at the users and at the eavesdropper.

III Achievable Ergodic Secrecy Rate Analysis

In this section, we derive a tight lower bound for the ergodic secrecy rate of the secure multiuser massive MIMO downlink and analyze the impact of spatial correlation on the secrecy rate in the presence of low-resolution DACs.

III-A Lower Bound on the Achievable Ergodic Secrecy Rate

We adopt linear matched filter (MF) precoding for data transmission, i.e., 𝐖=𝐇/‖𝐇‖\bf{W}=\bf{H}/{\parallel\bf{H}\parallel}. The received signal at the kkth user according to (5) is expressed as

yk=1βˆ’Οβ€‹(μ​𝐑kT​𝐖𝐬+ν​𝐑kT​𝐕𝐭)+𝐑kT​πͺ+nk.y_{k}=\sqrt{1-\rho}\big{(}\sqrt{\mu}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{Ws}+\sqrt{\nu}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{Vt}\big{)}+\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{q}+\mit n_{k}. (7)

Then, under the assumption of Gaussian distributed interference, a lower bound on the ergodic rate for the kkth user can be calculated as

Rk=𝔼​{log2​(1+Ξ³k)},R_{k}=\mathbb{E}\big{\{}\rm log_{2}(1+\mit\gamma_{k})\big{\}}, (8)
Ξ³k=(1βˆ’Ο)​μ​|𝐑kT​𝐰k|2Ο±+𝐑kT​𝐂πͺ​𝐑kβˆ—+(1βˆ’Ο)​ν​𝐑kT​𝐕𝐕H​𝐑kβˆ—+Οƒn2,\gamma_{k}=\frac{(1-\rho)\mu\big{|}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{w}\mit_{k}\big{|}\rm^{2}}{\varrho+\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{C_{q}}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{*}+\rm(1-\rho)\nu\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{*}+\sigma\mit_{n}\rm^{2}}, (9)

where Ο±=(1βˆ’Ο)β€‹ΞΌβ€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ k|𝐑kT​𝐰j|2\varrho=(1-\rho)\mu\sum\limits_{j\neq k}\big{|}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{w}\mit_{j}\big{|}\rm^{2}, 𝐑kT\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T} denotes the kkth row of 𝐇\bf{H}, and 𝐰k\bf{w}\mit_{k} is the kkth column of 𝐖\bf{W}. Note that the numerator of Ξ³k\gamma_{k} is the power of the desired signal component for the kkth user, and the denominator represents the power from inter-user interference, quantization noise from the low-resolution DACs, AN leakage, and thermal noise.

Lemma 1

A lower bound on the achievable rate (8) of user kk is given by

RΒ―k=log2​(1+(1βˆ’Ο)​βk2​γ0​ξ​N/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iΟ±β€²+ρ​βk​γ0+1),\underline{R}_{k}=\rm log_{2}\bigg{(}1+\frac{(1-\rho)\beta^{2}\mit_{k}\gamma\rm_{0}\xi\mit N/\sum_{i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}{\varrho^{\prime}+\rho\mit\beta_{k}\gamma\rm_{0}+1}\bigg{)}, (10)

where Ο±β€²=(1βˆ’Ο)​ξ​γ0​βk​tr​(𝐑2)β€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j/(Nβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i)\varrho^{\prime}=(1-\rho)\xi\gamma_{0}\beta\mit_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit\sum\limits_{j\neq k}\beta_{j}/(N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}), and Ξ³0=PΟƒn2\gamma_{0}=\frac{P}{\sigma_{n}^{2}} is the average SNR.

Proof:

Please refer to Appendix A. ∎

To guarantee secure communication in the worst case, we assume that the eavesdropper has perfect CSI of all legitimate users and can remove all the interference from the legitimate users [2], [3], [10], [11]. According to (6), the ergodic rate of the eavesdropper is expressed as

C=𝔼​{log2​(1+(1βˆ’Ο)​μ​𝐰kH​𝐇eHβ€‹π—βˆ’1​𝐇e​𝐰k)},C=\mathbb{E}\rm\bigg{\{}log_{2}\big{(}1+(1-\mit\rho)\mu\bf{w}\mit_{k}^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}\bf{X}\rm^{-1}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{w}\mit_{k}\big{)}\bigg{\}}, (11)

where 𝐗\bf{X} is defined as

𝐗=(1βˆ’Ο)​ν​𝐇e​𝐕𝐕H​𝐇eH+𝐇e​𝐂πͺ​𝐇eH.\bf{X}=\rm(1-\rho)\nu\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}+\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{C_{q}}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}. (12)

Furthermore, we assume that Οƒe2\sigma\rm_{e}\rm^{2} is negligibly small corresponding to the worst case, and consequently, CC is independent of the path-loss of the eavesdropper Ξ²e\beta\rm^{e} [2], [3], [10], [11]. A tight upper bound for CC is derived in the following lemma.

Lemma 2

For Nβ†’βˆžN\rightarrow\infty, an upper bound on the eavesdropping rate is given by

CΒ―=log2​(1+ϕ​M​ξ​κ​βk/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iϕ​κ2​(Ntr​(𝐑2)βˆ’a)βˆ’Ο–),\overline{C}=\rm log_{2}\bigg{(}1+\mit\frac{\phi M\xi\kappa\beta_{k}/\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}{\phi\kappa\rm^{2}\big{(}\frac{\mit N}{\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})}-\mit a\big{)}-\varpi}\bigg{)}, (13)

where a=MNa=\frac{M}{N}, b=KNb=\frac{K}{N}, ρ′=ρ1βˆ’Ο\rho^{\prime}=\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}, Ο•=1βˆ’b\phi=1-b, ΞΊ=1βˆ’ΞΎ+ρ′\kappa=1-\xi+\rho^{\prime}, and Ο–=a​b​(1βˆ’ΞΎ)2\varpi=ab(1-\xi)^{2}.

Proof:

Please refer to Appendix B. ∎

Applying Lemma 1 and Lemma 2, a lower bound on the ergodic secrecy rate of the kkth user is obtained in Theorem 1.

Theorem 1

For Nβ†’βˆžN\rightarrow\infty, the achievable ergodic secrecy rate for the kkth user is lower bounded by

RΒ―secβ‰œ[RΒ―kβˆ’CΒ―]+,\underline{R}_{\rm sec}\triangleq{[}\underline{R}_{k}-\overline{C}{]}^{+}, (14)

where [x]+=max​{0,x}[x]^{+}=\rm max\{0,\mit x\}, and RΒ―k\underline{R}_{k} and CΒ―\overline{C} are given in (10) and (13), respectively.

If no spatial correlation is present, i.e., 𝐑=𝐈\bf R=I, then (14) reduces to

RΒ―sec=[log2(1+(1βˆ’Ο)​βk2​γ0​ξ​N/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i(1βˆ’Ο)​γ0​βkβ€‹ΞΎβ€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i+ρ​βk​γ0+1)βˆ’log2(1+ϕ​M​ξ​κ​βk/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iϕ​κ2​(1βˆ’a)βˆ’Ο–)]+.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\underline{R}_{\rm sec}=\bigg{[}\rm log_{2}\bigg{(}1+\frac{(1-\mit\rho)\beta_{k}\rm^{2}\rm\gamma_{0}\mit\xi N/\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}{(1-\rho)\gamma_{0}\beta\mit_{k}\mit\xi\sum\limits_{j\neq k}\beta_{j}/\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}+\rho\beta\mit_{k}\rm\gamma_{0}+1}\bigg{)}\\ &-\rm log_{2}\bigg{(}1+\mit\frac{\phi M\xi\kappa\beta_{k}/\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}{\phi\kappa\rm^{2}(1-\mit a)-\varpi}\bigg{)}\bigg{]}^{+}.\end{split} (15)

As expected, RΒ―sec\underline{R}_{\rm sec} increases with NN and Ξ³0\gamma_{0}.

III-B Optimal Power Allocation Strategy for AN

Here we investigate the impact of the power allocation factor on the ergodic secrecy rate in (14) under spatially correlated channels. Assume a​bβ‰ͺ1\mit ab\ll\rm 1 in (13), which is reasonable in massive MIMO equipped with a large number of antennas. The derivative of RΒ―sec\underline{R}_{\rm sec} w.r.t. ΞΎ\xi is calculated as

βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚ΞΎ=L1​L2ln2​(L3​ξ+L2)​[L2+ξ​(L1+L3)]βˆ’M​tr​(𝐑2)​(1+ρ′)​βkln2​[βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​(Nβˆ’tr​(𝐑2)​a)​κ2+M​ξ​βk​tr​(𝐑2)​κ],\displaystyle\begin{split}&\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\xi}=\frac{L_{1}L_{2}}{\rm{ln2}\mit(L\rm_{3}\xi+\mit L\rm_{2})[\mit L\rm_{2}+\xi(\mit L\rm_{1}+\mit L\rm_{3})]}\\ &-\frac{M\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\rm(1+\rho^{\prime})\mit\beta_{k}}{\rm ln2\big{[}\sum_{\mit i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\mit\beta_{i}\big{(}N-\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit a\big{)}\kappa\rm^{2}+\mit M\xi\beta_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit\kappa\big{]}},\end{split} (16)

where L1=(1βˆ’Ο)​βk2​γ0​N/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iL_{1}=(1-\rho)\beta_{k}\rm^{2}\gamma_{0}\mit N/\sum_{i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}, L2=ρ​βk​γ0+1L_{2}=\rho\beta_{k}\gamma_{0}+1, and L3=(1βˆ’Ο)​γ0​βk​tr​(𝐑2)β€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j/(Nβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i)L_{3}=(1-\rho)\gamma_{0}\beta_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit\sum\limits_{j\neq k}\beta_{j}/(N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}). Since βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚ΞΎ>0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\xi}>0 for small ΞΎ\xi and βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚ΞΎ<0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\xi}<0 for large ΞΎ\xi, the optimal power allocation factor ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} that achieves the highest secrecy rate is obtained by setting βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚ΞΎ=0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\xi}=0. A closed-form expression for ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} can be founded as follows:

ΞΎβˆ—=βˆ’Bβˆ’B2βˆ’4​A​C2​A,\xi^{*}=\frac{-B-\sqrt{B^{2}-4AC}}{2A}, (17)

where the parameters AA, BB, and CC are given by

A=L1​L2​G2βˆ’L1​L2​G3βˆ’G1​L3​(L1+L3),A=L_{1}L_{2}G_{2}-L_{1}L_{2}G_{3}-G_{1}L_{3}(L_{1}+L_{3}), (18)
B=(1+ρ′)​L1​L2​(G3βˆ’2​G2)βˆ’G1​L2​(L1+2​L3),B=(1+\rho^{\prime})L_{1}L_{2}(G_{3}-2G_{2})-G_{1}L_{2}(L_{1}+2L_{3}), (19)
C=G2​L1​L2​(1+ρ′)2βˆ’G1​L22,C=G_{2}L_{1}L_{2}(1+\rho^{\prime})^{2}-G_{1}L_{2}^{2}, (20)

and G1=M​tr​(𝐑2)​(1+ρ′)​βkG_{1}=M\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})(1+\mit\rho^{\prime})\beta_{k}, G2=βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​(Nβˆ’tr​(𝐑2)​a)G_{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}\big{(}N-\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit a\big{)}, and G3=M​βk​tr​(𝐑2)G_{3}=M\beta_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2}).

Assuming Ξ²k=1,1≀k≀K\beta_{k}=1,1\leq k\leq K, we can simplify the above expressions to evaluate the impact of spatial correlation on ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} for different DAC resolutions. Comparing the value of ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} for the special case of an i.i.d. channel, i.e.,tr​(𝐑2)=N\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})=\mit N with a fully correlated channel, i.e., tr​(𝐑2)=N2\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})=\mit N\rm^{2} for a Hermitian Toeplitz correlation matrix, we can easily observe that ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} decreases when tr​(𝐑2)\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2}) increases from NN to N2N^{2}. The relationship between ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} and the design parameters, including the DAC resolution and channel correlation coefficient, is verified in Section IV through numerical results.

III-C Impact of Spatial Correlation

We first analyze the impact of the antenna ratio aa under the correlated channel condition when AN is injected. In (14), RΒ―sec\underline{R}_{\rm sec} decreases with respect to aa. Considering the special case of Ξ²k=Ξ²,1≀k≀K\beta_{k}=\beta,1\leq k\leq K, and ΞΎβ†’0\xi\rightarrow 0, by setting Rsec=0R\rm_{sec}=0, the maximum number of eavesdropper antennas that still allows for a positive secrecy rate can be obtained from the following proposition.

Proposition 1

If a positive secrecy rate can be achieved, then the maximum antenna ratio aa is obtained as

asec=(1βˆ’b)​N​γ0tr​(𝐑2)​[Ξ³0​ρ​b​(Οβˆ’Ξ²βˆ’2)+Ξ³0​(1+β​ρ)+1βˆ’b].a\rm_{sec}=\frac{(1-\mit b)N\gamma\rm_{0}}{tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\big{[}\gamma_{0}\rho\mit b(\rho-\beta-\rm 2)+\gamma_{0}(1+\beta\rho)+1-\mit b\big{]}}. (21)
Remark 1

By direct inspection of (21), the maximum number of eavesdropper antennas that can be tolerated for secure transmission decreases with ρ\rho and the spatial correlation level because Eve can wiretap more information under strongly correlated channels. For the special case of ρ→0\rho\rightarrow 0 and tr​(𝐑2)=N2\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})=\mit N\rm^{2}, we have asec=(1βˆ’b)​γ0N​(1βˆ’b+Ξ³0)a\rm_{sec}=\frac{(1-\mit b)\gamma\rm_{0}}{\mit N(\rm 1-\mit b+\gamma\rm_{0})}, which indicates that aseca\rm_{sec} is independent of the large-scale fading factor with infinite-resolution DACs.

To extract clear insights, we further consider a representative exponential correlation model [14]

𝐑i​j=ΞΆ|iβˆ’j|,\bf{R}\mit_{ij}=\mit\zeta^{|i-j|}, (22)

where ΞΆ\zeta denotes the correlation coefficient. The exponential model is widely adopted in literature and is applicable to analysis for a massive MIMO system with uniform planar array (UPA) scenarios [15].

Proposition 2

The secrecy rate gap for different DAC resolutions decreases with the correlation coefficient ΞΆ\zeta.

Proof:

limNβ†’βˆžtr​(𝐑2)N=1+ΞΆ21βˆ’ΞΆ2\lim\limits\mit_{N\to\infty}\frac{\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})}{\mit N}=\rm\frac{1+\zeta^{2}}{1-\zeta^{2}} exists under the exponential correlation model in (22). From (14), we have βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚Ο=βˆ‚RΒ―kβˆ‚Οβˆ’βˆ‚CΒ―βˆ‚Ο\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\rho}=\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{k}}{\partial\rho}-\frac{\partial\overline{C}}{\partial\rho}. The first term βˆ‚RΒ―kβˆ‚Ο\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{k}}{\partial\rho} is given by

βˆ‚RΒ―kβˆ‚Ο=βˆ’Ξ²k2​γ0​ξ​N​(1+Ξ²k​γ0)β€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iln2​(Ξ₯​βk​γ0+βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i)​(Ψ​βk​γ0+βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i),\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{k}}{\partial\rho}=-\frac{\beta^{2}_{k}\gamma_{0}\xi N(1+\beta_{k}\gamma_{0})\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}}{\rm ln2(\Upsilon\mit\beta_{k}\gamma\rm_{0}+\sum_{\mit i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i})(\rm\Psi\beta\mit_{k}\gamma\rm_{0}+\sum_{\mit i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i})}, (23)

where Ξ₯=(1βˆ’Ο)​(N​βk+ΞΆ~β€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j)​ξ+Οβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i\Upsilon=(1-\rho)(N\beta_{k}+\widetilde{\zeta}\sum_{j\neq k}\beta_{j})\xi+\rho\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}, Ξ¨=Οβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i+(1βˆ’Ο)​ξ​΢~β€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j\Psi=\rho\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}+(1-\rho)\xi\widetilde{\zeta}\sum_{j\neq k}\beta_{j}, and ΞΆ~=1+ΞΆ21βˆ’ΞΆ2\widetilde{\zeta}=\frac{1+\zeta^{2}}{1-\zeta^{2}}. The expression of βˆ‚CΒ―βˆ‚Ο\frac{\partial\overline{C}}{\partial\rho} is shown in (24), on the top of the next page.

βˆ‚CΒ―βˆ‚Ο=βˆ’M​ξ​ϕ​βk​΢~​[(1βˆ’a​΢~)​ϕ​κ2+ϖ​΢~]/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iln2​(1βˆ’Ο)2​[(a​΢~βˆ’1)​ϕ​κ2+ϖ​΢~]​{[(a​κ2βˆ’M​ξ​κ​βk/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i)​΢~βˆ’ΞΊ2]​ϕ+ϖ​΢~}\frac{\partial\overline{C}}{\partial\rho}=-\frac{M\xi\phi\beta_{k}\widetilde{\zeta}[(1-a\widetilde{\zeta})\phi\kappa^{2}+\varpi\widetilde{\zeta}]/\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}}{\rm ln2(1-\rho)^{2}\mit\big{[}(a\widetilde{\zeta}-1)\phi\kappa\rm^{2}+\varpi\widetilde{\zeta}\big{]}\big{\{}\big{[}(\mit a\kappa\rm^{2}-\mit M\xi\kappa\beta_{k}/\sum_{i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i})\widetilde{\zeta}-\kappa\rm^{2}\big{]}\phi+\varpi\widetilde{\zeta}\big{\}}} (24)

Assuming a​bβ‰ͺ1ab\ll 1 for typical massive MIMO systems, (24) can be simplified as

βˆ‚CΒ―βˆ‚Ο=βˆ’M​ξ​ϕ​βk​΢~/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iln2​(1βˆ’Ο)2​{[ΞΊβˆ’(M​ξ​βk/βˆ‘i=1KΞ²iβˆ’a​κ)​΢~]​κ​ϕ}.\frac{\partial\overline{C}}{\partial\rho}=-\frac{M\xi\phi\beta_{k}\widetilde{\zeta}/\sum_{i=1}^{K}\beta_{i}}{\rm ln2(1-\rho)^{2}\big{\{}\big{[}\kappa-(\mit M\xi\beta_{k}/\sum_{i\rm=1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}-a\kappa)\widetilde{\zeta}\big{]}\kappa\phi\big{\}}}. (25)

Focusing on the impact of ΞΆ\zeta, we observe that βˆ‚CΒ―βˆ‚Ο<0\frac{\partial\overline{C}}{\partial\rho}<0 and decreases with ΞΆ\zeta, while βˆ‚RΒ―kβˆ‚Ο<0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{k}}{\partial\rho}<0 and increases with ΞΆ\zeta. Therefore, βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚Ο\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\rho} is an increasing function of ΞΆ\zeta, which completes the proof. ∎

Remark 2

From (23) and (25), it shows that βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚Ο<0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\rho}<0 and βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚Ο\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\rho} is a monotonically increasing function in terms of the level of spatial correlation ΞΆ\zeta. It implies that the eavesdropper’s capacity CΒ―\overline{C} degrades faster than RΒ―k\underline{R}_{k} does at large ΞΆ\zeta. Thus, we conclude that there exists a threshold of correlation coefficient, i.e., ΞΆΒ―\overline{\zeta}, where lower-resolution DACs achieve a higher secrecy rate for ΢∈(ΞΆΒ―,1)\zeta\in(\overline{\zeta},1). The value of ΞΆΒ―\overline{\zeta} is obtained from the solution of βˆ‚RΒ―secβˆ‚Ο=0\frac{\partial\underline{R}_{\rm sec}}{\partial\rho}=0 by focusing on the impact of spatial correlation. Note that the higher the correlation the lower the effective dimension (d.o.f.), in the extreme case of ΞΆ=1\zeta=1, the users and Eve are separated only in the angle of arrival domain, which only has dimension 1 instead of NN. Therefore, quantization noise from lower-resolution DACs could compensate for AN to improve secrecy rate under spatially correlated channel.

IV Numerical Results

In this section, the analytical results are validated through Monte-Carlo simulation. We consider a system with N=256N=256, K=16K=16, and M=4M=4 in all simulations. The large-scale fading is modeled as Ξ²k=(dref/dk)Ξ·\beta_{k}=(d\rm_{ref}/\mit d_{k})^{\eta}, where Ξ·=3.8\eta=3.8 denotes the path loss exponent, dref=300d\rm_{ref}=300 (m) and dk≀500d_{k}\leq 500 (m) are, respectively, the reference distance and the distance between the BS and the kkth user. The expected values in (14) were evaluated by averaging over 1000 random channel realizations.

Refer to caption

Figure 1: Ergodic secrecy rate and analytical lower bound versus SNR for different spatial correlation coefficient ΞΆ\zeta (ΞΎ=0.7\xi=0.7)

Fig. 1 shows the ergodic secrecy rate versus the average SNR Ξ³0\gamma_{0} under different DAC resolutions and spatial correlations. The derived lower bound on the secrecy rate is fairly accurate and tight for the entire range of SNR. In addition, it is observed that the secrecy rate is decreasing as ΞΆ\zeta increases.

Fig. 2 plots the ergodic secrecy rate as a function of the power allocation factor ΞΎ\xi. The optimal power allocation factor ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} largely depends on ΞΆ\zeta. Specifically, It is observed that ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} decreases with ΞΆ\zeta. The information signal leakage grows when the spatial correlation is strong. Thus, more power should be allocated for AN to ensure secure communication.

In Fig. 3 (a) we show the ergodic secrecy rate versus ΞΆ\zeta with different DAC resolutions for Ξ³0\gamma_{0} = 10 dB. We choose a fixed power allocation factor ΞΎ\xi due to the difficulties in optimizing ΞΎ\xi theoretically. The secrecy rate loss due to low-resolution DACs decreases with ΞΆ\zeta as predicted in Remark 2. Interestingly, although the channel correlation has a detrimental effect on the secrecy rate, the use of 1-bit DACs can improve the secrecy rate when the spatial correlation coefficient is large. This is because the additional quantization noise serves to increase the level of AN, which is beneficial for spatially colored channels if the AN level has not already been optimized. Finally, Fig. 3 (b) presents the secrecy rate versus ΞΆ\zeta assuming the optimal power allocation ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} in (17) is chosen. The secrecy rate gaps are Δ​Rsec=0.697\Delta R_{\rm sec}=0.697 bit/s/Hz at ΞΆ=0\zeta=0 and Δ​Rsec=0.434\Delta R_{\rm sec}=0.434 bit/s/Hz at ΞΆ=0.8\zeta=0.8, respectively. If optimal power allocation is adopted, then using infinite-resolution DACs can always achieve a higher secrecy rate. In this case, quantization noise from lower-resolution DACs does not compensate for the AN anymore. However, we observe that the secrecy rate loss due to low-resolution DACs decreases with channel correlation coefficient, regardless of the value of ΞΎ\xi.

For comparison, Fig. 4 plots the Monte-Carlo simulation by using the spatial correlation model in [9], denoted by [𝐑]s,m=Ξ²Lβ€‹βˆ‘l=1Lej​π​(sβˆ’m)​sin⁑(Ο†l)​eβˆ’Ξ”22​(π​(sβˆ’m)​cos⁑(Ο†l))2[{\bf R}]_{s,m}=\frac{\beta}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L}e^{j\pi(s-m)\sin(\varphi_{l})}e^{-\frac{\Delta^{2}}{2}\big{(}\pi(s-m)\cos(\varphi_{l})\big{)}^{2}}, where Ξ²\beta is the large scale fading coefficient, Ο†\varphi is the actual angle-of-arrival and Ξ”\Delta is the azimuth angular spread. We consider L=10L=10 scattering clusters and Ο†βˆΌ[βˆ’Ξ”2\varphi\sim[\frac{-\Delta}{2}, Ξ”2]\frac{\Delta}{2}]. It is observed that transitioning from larger to smaller angular spread (Ξ”=50o\Delta={\rm 50^{o}} to Ξ”=12o\Delta={\rm 12^{o}}) significantly reduces the secrecy rate of the kkth user for different DAC resolutions. However, the lower resolution DAC is always beneficial for secrecy rate with a fixed ΞΎ\xi under highly correlated channels as expected.

Refer to caption

Figure 2: Achievable ergodic secrecy rate versus the power allocation factor ΞΎ\xi for different DAC resolutions (Ξ³0=10\gamma_{0}=10 dB)
Refer to caption
(a) with fixed ΞΎ\xi=0.7
Refer to caption
(b) with optimal ΞΎβˆ—\xi^{*} in (17)
Figure 3: Achievable ergodic secrecy rate versus ΞΆ\zeta for different DAC resolutions

Refer to caption

Figure 4: Ergodic secrecy rate versus SNR (ΞΎ=0.7\xi=0.7)

V Conclusion

This paper has characterized the performance of AN-based secure transmission in a massive MIMO downlink system with low-resolution DACs under spatially correlated channels. In particular, it is shown that optimal secrecy performance can be obtained by increasing the amount of power dedicated to artificial noise when the channel correlation increases. Furthermore, the use of low-resolution DACs has been shown to be beneficial to the secrecy performance for a fixed power allocation factor when the channels possess strong spatial correlation. Interesting future extension of this paper includes studying the impact of different spatial correlation matrices at both transmitter and the eavesdropper.

Appendix A

Consider MF precoding satisfying tr​(𝐖𝐖H)=K\rm tr(\bf{W}\bf{W}\mit^{H})=K, which leads to 𝐖=KNβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​𝐇\bf{W}=\mit\sqrt{\frac{K}{N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}}\bf{H}. First, we directly obtain

|𝐑kT​𝐰k|2=KNβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​|𝐑kT​𝐑k|2=K​βk2Nβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​[tr​(𝐑)]2β†’a.s.K​N​βk2βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i,\displaystyle\begin{split}\big{|}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{w}\mit_{k}\big{|}\rm^{2}&=\mit\frac{K}{N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}\big{|}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{h}\mit_{k}\big{|}\rm^{2}\\ &=\mit\frac{K\beta\rm^{2}\mit_{k}}{N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}\big{[}\rm tr(\bf{R})\big{]}\rm^{2}\xrightarrow{a.s.}\mit\frac{KN\beta\rm^{2}\mit_{k}}{\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}},\end{split} (26)

where we have used 1N​𝐑~kT​𝐑​1N​𝐑~kβˆ—βˆ’1N​tr​(𝐑)β†’a.s.0\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\widetilde{\bf{h}}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{R}\rm\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mit N}}\widetilde{\bf{h}}\mit_{k}^{*}-\frac{\rm 1}{\mit N}\rm tr(\bf{R})\rm\xrightarrow{a.s.}0 in [16, Lemma 4]. Then, the inter-user interference is calculated as

Ο±=(1βˆ’Ο)β€‹ΞΌβ€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kKNβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​|𝐑kT​𝐑j|2β†’a.s.(1βˆ’Ο)​μ​K​βk​tr​(𝐑2)β€‹βˆ‘jβ‰ kΞ²j/(Nβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i).\displaystyle\begin{split}\varrho&=(1-\rho)\mu\sum\limits_{j\neq k}\mit\frac{K}{N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}\big{|}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{h}\mit_{j}\big{|}\rm^{2}\\ &\xrightarrow{a.s.}(1-\rho)\mu K\beta_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})\mit\sum_{j\neq k}\beta_{j}\bigg{/}\bigg{(}N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}\bigg{)}.\end{split} (27)

For large NN and KK, 𝐂πͺ\bf{C}_{q} converges to

𝐂πͺβ†’a.s.ρ​PNβ€‹πˆN,\bf{C}_{q}\mit\xrightarrow{a.s.}\rho\frac{P}{N}\bf{I}\mit_{N}, (28)

where we use the definition of ΞΌ\mu and Ξ½\nu, and the fact that diag​(𝐖𝐖H)β†’a.s.KNβ€‹πˆN\rm diag(\bf{W}\bf{W}\mit^{H})\xrightarrow{a.s.}\frac{K}{N}\bf{I}\mit_{N} and diag​(𝐕𝐕H)β†’a.s.Nβˆ’KNβ€‹πˆN\rm diag(\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H})\xrightarrow{a.s.}\frac{N-K}{N}\bf{I}\mit_{N} due to the strong law of large numbers. Further, we obtain the component of the quantization noise as

𝐑kT​𝐂πͺ​𝐑kβˆ—β†’a.s.ρ​PN​βk​tr​(𝐑)=ρ​P​βk.\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{C_{q}}\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{*}\xrightarrow{a.s.}\rho\frac{P}{N}\beta_{k}\rm tr(\bf{R})=\mit\rho P\beta_{k}. (29)

Regarding the AN power, it follows that

𝐑kT​𝐕𝐕H​𝐑kβˆ—=0,\bf{h}\mit_{k}^{T}\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H}\bf{h}\mit^{*}_{k}=\rm 0, (30)

since 𝐇𝐕=𝟎\bf{H}\bf{V}=0. Finally, by substituting (26), (27), (29), (30) and the definition of ΞΌ\mu and Ξ½\nu into (8), and according to the Continuous Mapping Theorem, we complete the proof.

Appendix B

By applying Jensen’s inequality, the capacity of the eavesdropper can be upper bounded as

C≀log2​[1+(1βˆ’Ο)​μ​𝔼​{𝐰kH​𝐇eHβ€‹π—βˆ’1​𝐇e​𝐰k}].C\leq\rm log_{2}\big{[}1+(1-\rho)\mu\mathbb{E}\big{\{}\bf{w}\mit_{k}^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}\bf{X}\rm^{-1}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{w}\mit_{k}\big{\}}\big{]}. (31)

Let us first focus on the term 𝐗\bf{X} and by substituting (28) into (12) yields

𝐗→a.s.[(1βˆ’Ο)​ν+ρ​PN]​𝐗1+ρ​PN​𝐗2,\bf{X}\mit\xrightarrow{a.s.}\bigg{[}(\rm 1-\mit\rho)\nu+\rho\frac{P}{N}\bigg{]}\bf{X}\rm_{1}+\mit\rho\frac{P}{N}\bf{X}\rm_{2}, (32)

where 𝐗1=𝐇e​𝐕𝐕H​𝐇eH\bf{X}\rm_{1}=\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{V}\bf{V}\mit^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H} and 𝐗2=𝐇e​𝐕0​𝐕0H​𝐇eH\bf{X}\rm_{2}=\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{V}\rm_{0}\bf{V}\rm_{0}\mit^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}. It is obvious that [𝐕​𝐕0]​[𝐕​𝐕0]H=𝐈M[\bf{V}\ \bf{V}\rm_{0}][\bf{V}\ \bf{V}\rm_{0}]\mit^{H}=\bf{I}\mit_{M}, because [𝐕​𝐕0][\bf{V}\ \bf{V}\rm_{0}] forms a complete orthogonal basis. Eigendecompose 𝐑\bf{R} such that 𝐑=π”β€‹πš²β€‹π”H\bf{R}=\bf{U}\bf{\Lambda}\bf{U}\mit^{H} to decorrelate matrix 𝐇e\bf{H}\rm_{e} as 𝐙=𝐇eβ€‹πš²βˆ’12​𝐔H\bf{Z}=\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{\Lambda}\rm^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bf{U}\mit^{H}, where 𝚲=diag~​(Ξ»1,…,Ξ»N)\bf{\Lambda}=\rm\widetilde{diag}(\lambda\rm_{1}\mit,...,\lambda_{N}) is the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues of 𝐑\bf{R} and the columns of 𝐔\bf{U} consist of the corresponding eigenvectors. Since 𝐔\bf{U} is unitary, the statistics of 𝐙𝐔\bf{Z}\bf{U} are identical to those of 𝐙\bf{Z}. Thereby, the distributions of 𝐗1\bf{X}\rm_{1} and 𝐗2\bf{X}\rm_{2} are the same as

βˆ‘i=1Nβˆ‘j=1NΞ»i12​λj12​𝐳i​𝐯i​𝐯jH​𝐳jH\mit\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\mit\sum_{j=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{i}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda\mit_{j}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}\bf{z}\mit_{i}\bf{v}\mit_{i}\bf{v}\mit_{j}^{H}\bf{z}\mit_{j}^{H} (33)

and

βˆ‘i=1Nβˆ‘j=1NΞ»i12​λj12​𝐳i​𝐯0,i​𝐯0,jH​𝐳jH,\mit\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\mit\sum_{j=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{i}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda\mit_{j}\rm^{\frac{1}{2}}\bf{z}\mit_{i}\bf{v}\rm_{0,\mit i}\bf{v}\rm_{0,\mit j}\mit^{H}\bf{z}\mit_{j}^{H}, (34)

where 𝐳i\bf{z}\mit_{i} is the iith row of 𝐙\bf{Z}, 𝐯i\bf{v}\mit_{i} and 𝐯0,i\bf{v}\rm_{0,\mit i} are iith column of 𝐕\bf{V} and 𝐕0\bf{V}\rm_{0}, respectively. Following the same approach in [17], 𝐘=[(1βˆ’Ο)​ν+ρ​PN]β€‹π˜1+ρ​PNβ€‹π˜2\bf{Y}=\rm\big{[}(1-\mit\rho)\nu+\rho\frac{P}{N}\big{]}\bf{Y}\rm_{1}+\mit\rho\frac{P}{N}\bf{Y}\rm_{2} may be accurately approximated as a single scaled Wishart matrix π˜βˆΌπ’²M​(Ξ·,Ο†β€‹πˆM)\bf{Y}\mit\sim\mathcal{W}_{M}(\eta,\varphi\bf{I}\mit_{M}), where we define 𝐘1=βˆ‘m=1NΞ»m​𝐳m​𝐯m​𝐯mH​𝐳mH{\small\bf{Y}\rm_{1}}=\mit\sum_{m=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{m}\bf{z}\mit_{m}\bf{v}\mit_{m}\bf{v}\mit_{m}^{H}\bf{z}\mit_{m}^{H} and 𝐘2=βˆ‘n=1NΞ»n​𝐳n​𝐯0,n​𝐯0,nH​𝐳nH{\small\bf{Y}\rm_{2}}=\mit\sum_{n=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{n}\bf{z}\mit_{n}\bf{v}\rm_{0,\mit n}\bf{v}\rm_{0,\mit n}\mit^{H}\bf{z}\mit_{n}^{H}. Equating the first two moments of those matrices with 𝐘1βˆΌβˆ‘m=1NΞ»m​𝒲M​(Nβˆ’K,1Nβ€‹πˆM)\bf{Y}\rm_{1}\sim\mit\sum_{m=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{m}\mathcal{W}_{M}(N-K,\rm\frac{1}{\mit N}\bf{I}\mit_{M}) and 𝐘2βˆΌβˆ‘n=1NΞ»n​𝒲M​(K,1Nβ€‹πˆM)\bf{Y}\rm_{2}\sim\mit\sum_{n=\rm 1}\mit^{N}\lambda_{n}\mathcal{W}_{M}(K,\rm\frac{1}{\mit N}\bf{I}\mit_{M}) leads to

η​φ=[(1βˆ’Ο)​ν+ρ​PN]​(Nβˆ’K)+ρ​PN​K\mit\eta\varphi=\bigg{[}\rm(1-\mit\rho)\nu+\rho\frac{P}{N}\bigg{]}(N-K)+\rho\frac{P}{N}K (35)

and

η​φ2=tr​(𝐑2)N​{[(1βˆ’Ο)​ν+ρ​PN]2​(Nβˆ’K)+(ρ​PN)2​K},\mit\eta\varphi\rm^{2}=\frac{\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2})}{\mit N}\bigg{\{}\bigg{[}(\rm 1-\mit\rho)\nu+\rho\frac{P}{N}\bigg{]}\rm^{2}\mit(N-K)+\bigg{(}\rho\frac{P}{N}\bigg{)}\rm^{2}\mit K\bigg{\}}, (36)

where we use βˆ‘i=1NΞ»i=tr​(𝐑)\sum_{i=1}^{N}\lambda_{i}=\rm tr(\bf{R}) and βˆ‘i=1NΞ»i2=tr​(𝐑2)\sum_{i=1}^{N}\lambda_{i}^{2}=\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2}). By exploiting the independence of the elements in 𝐇~e\widetilde{\bf{H}}\rm_{e}, we can further obtain π—βˆ’1β†’a.s.1/(φ​(Ξ·βˆ’M))β€‹πˆM\bf{X}\rm^{-1}\xrightarrow{a.s.}1/(\varphi(\mit\eta-M))\bf{I}\mit_{M} with Ξ·>M\eta>M, where we use the property π€βˆ’1β†’a.s.1/(nβˆ’m)β€‹πˆm\bf{A}\rm^{-1}\xrightarrow{a.s.}1/\mit(n-m)\bf{I}\mit_{m} for a Wishart matrix π€βˆΌπ’²m​(n,𝐈m)\bf{A}\sim\mathcal{W}\mit_{m}(n,\bf{I}\mit_{m}) with n>mn>m [4]. Substituting this result and 𝔼​[𝐰kH​𝐇eH​𝐇e​𝐰k]=M​K​βkNβ€‹βˆ‘i=1KΞ²i​tr​(𝐑2)\mathbb{E}\big{[}\bf{w}\mit_{k}^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\mit^{H}\bf{H}\rm_{e}\bf{w}\mit_{k}\big{]}=\frac{MK\beta_{k}}{N\sum_{i=\rm 1}\mit^{K}\beta_{i}}\rm tr(\bf{R}\rm^{2}) into (31) completes the proof.

References

  • [1] F. Oggier and B. Hassibi, β€œThe secrecy capacity of the MIMO wiretap channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 4961–4972, Jul. 2011.
  • [2] J. Zhu, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, β€œSecure transmission in multicell massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4766–4781, Sep. 2014.
  • [3] J. Zhu, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, β€œLinear precoding of data and artificial noise in secure massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 2245–2261, Mar. 2016.
  • [4] A. K. Saxena, I. Fijalkow, and A. L. Swindlehurst, β€œAnalysis of one-bit quantized precoding for the multiuser massive MIMO downlink,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 17, pp. 4624–4634, Sep. 2017.
  • [5] Y. Li, C. Tao, A. Lee Swindlehurst, A. Mezghani, and L. Liu, β€œDownlink achievable rate analysis in massive MIMO systems with one-bit DACs,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1669–1672, Jul. 2017.
  • [6] J. Xu, W. Xu, and F. Gong, β€œOn performance of quantized transceiver in multiuser massive MIMO downlinks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 562–565, Jun. 2017.
  • [7] J. Xu, W. Xu, F. Gong, H. Zhang, and X. You, β€œOptimal multiuser loading in quantized massive MIMO under spatially correlated channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1459–1471, Feb. 2019.
  • [8] H. Jedda, A. Mezghani, A. L. Swindlehurst, and J. A. Nossek, β€œQuantized constant envelope precoding with PSK and QAM signaling,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 8022–8034, Dec. 2018.
  • [9] E. BjΓΆrnson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, β€œMassive MIMO networks: Spectral, energy, and hardware efficiency,” Found. Trends Signal Process., vol. 11, nos. 3–4, pp. 154–655, 2017.
  • [10] J. Zhu, D. W. K. Ng, N. Wang, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, β€œAnalysis and design of secure massive MIMO systems in the presence of hardware impairments,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 2001–2016, Mar. 2017.
  • [11] J. Xu, W. Xu, J. Zhu, D. W. K. Ng, and A. Lee Swindlehurst, β€œSecure massive MIMO communication with low-resolution DACs,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 3265–3278, May 2019.
  • [12] D.-S. Shiu, G. J. Foschini, M. J. Gans, and J. M. Kahn, β€œFading correlation and its effect on the capacity of multielement antenna systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 502–513, Mar. 2000.
  • [13] S. Goel and R. Negi, β€œGuaranteeing secrecy using artificial noise,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2180–2189, Jun. 2008.
  • [14] S. L. Loyka, β€œChannel capacity of MIMO architecture using the exponential correlation matrix,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 369–371, Sep. 2001.
  • [15] H. Lim, Y. Jang, and D. Yoon, β€œBounds for eigenvalues of spatial correlation matrices with the exponential model in MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1196–1204, Feb. 2017.
  • [16] J. Hoydis, S. ten Brink, and M. Debbah, β€œMassive MIMO in the UL/DL of cellular networks: How many antennas do we need?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–171, Feb. 2013.
  • [17] Q. T. Zhang and D. P. Liu, β€œA simple capacity formula for correlated diversity Rician channels,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 481–483, Nov. 2002.