IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO.

10, OCTOBER 2014

5699

Null Space Learning With Interference Feedback for

Spatial Division Multiple Access
Yair Noam, Alexandros Manolakos, and Andrea J. Goldsmith, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractWe propose a learning technique for MIMO communication systems to perform spatial division multiple access with
minimal cooperation between users. In the proposed technique,
each user (in a two-user receivertransmitter pair) learns the null
space of the interference channel to the other user by transmitting
a learning signal and observing an affine function of the other
users interference plus noise power. The only requirement is that
each system broadcasts, through a low-rate control channel, a
periodic beacon that is a function of its noise plus interference
power, which in practice is typically known by each systems receiver and transmitter. Thus, the learning can be made by the two
users transmitters without affecting the communication protocol
between each users receiver and transmitter. The proposed learning scheme is particularly attractive for underlay cognitive radio,
where only the secondary user (SU), which must not interfere with
the primary user (PU), has to learn the null space. In this case, the
PU can broadcast the schemes beacon without being aware of the
SU. Furthermore, if the PU uses a power control mechanism which
maintains a constant signal to interference plus noise ratio, the SU
can learn the null space even without a beacon, i.e., without any
cooperation with the PU.
Index TermsMIMO, interference mitigation, null space, precoding, spectrum sharing, cognitive radio.

I. I NTRODUCTION

HE emergence of Multiple Input Multiple Output

(MIMO) communications opens new directions and possibilities for sharing the spatial dimensions in wireless channels
[1][3]. Consider a scenario of two independent MIMO communication systems that share the same flat fading channel,
as depicted in Fig. 1, where each equal-priority user is only
interested in sending information between its own receiver and
transmitter. We refer to this problem as the Equal-Priority Multiple Access (EP MAC) problem. Another important problem is
the case where one user, referred to as the Primary User (PU),
has priority of using the channel while the other user, referred to

Manuscript received October 9, 2013; revised March 19, 2014; accepted

June 18, 2014. Date of publication July 8, 2014; date of current version
October 8, 2014. This work was supported in part by the Center for Science of Information (CSoI), an NSF Science and Technology Center under
Grant CCF-0939370, by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) under Grant
N000140910072P00006, by an Alcatel-Lucent Stanford Graduate Fellowship
(SGF) and by an A.G. Leventis Foundation Scholarship. The associate editor
coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was
W. Su.
Y. Noam is with the Faculty of Engineering, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan
5290002, Israel (e-mail: yair.noam@biu.ac.il).
A. Manolakos and A. J. Goldsmith are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 940305 USA (e-mail:
amanolak@stanford.edu; andrea@wsl.stanford.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2014.2336233

Fig. 1. Two MIMO users with equal priority that share the same channel. The
matrix Hi,j , i = j {1, 2} are unknown to both user 1 and 2. The objective
of user i {1, 2} is to learn the null space of Hij , i = j {1, 2}.

as the Secondary User (SU), is allowed to transmit only as long

as the interference it inflicts on the PU is below some maximum level. This problem is commonly referred to as underlay
Cognitive Radio (CR) [4]. In both problems, the channel can be
shared if both users coordinate their transmission and reception
schemes by using, for example, interference cancellation or
interference alignment. However, such sophisticated schemes
require a high level of cooperation between the users, which
increases system overhead. In this paper, we are interested in
realizing simple schemes which require minimal coordination,
thus, we assume that the interference channels are unknown
and that each user treats the other users signal as noise. This
makes interference cancellation or alignment impossible, and
gives rise to simpler orthogonal multiple access schemes.
The simplest multiple access scheme is Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) which, unlike Time Division Duplexing (TDD), does not require time synchronization. Another
possibility is Spatial Division Duplexing (SDD) in which the
users can share the channel without interfering with each other
by using orthogonal spatial dimensions. Furthermore, unlike
FDD/TDD where both users lose half of their degrees of freedom, SDD can be much more efficient [1] in this aspect, e.g., if
there is a difference between the number of receive and transmit
antennas in one of the systems. Such spatial sharing is even
more appealing for MIMO CR networks [5][8] since it enables
the MIMO SU to transmit a significant amount of power
simultaneously with the PU without interfering with it; this is
done by utilizing spatial dimensions that are not used by the PU.
Despite its advantages, SDD has one major disadvantage;
it requires, in both CR and EP MAC, that the interference
channel be known as follows: In the EP MAC, H21 and H12

1536-1276 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

5700

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

must be known to user 1 and 2 respectively, while in CR, it

is sufficient that the SU, say user 2, knows H12 . The most
common MIMO channel estimation techniques require that the
SU transmits a training signal which is known to the PU. The
latter then estimates the channel using matched filters and feeds
the estimate back to the SU. Other techniques that are not
based on a known deterministic training signal are blind MIMO
channel estimation techniques (e.g., [9][11]) in which the
received signal statistics, i.e., covariance matrices and higherorder cumulant tensors, are used to estimate the channel. These
approaches require an extensive set of measurements and processing at the PUs receiver. In the EP MAC scenario, this
estimation process needs to be repeated where the two users
change roles. Such coordination between independent systems
is undesirable due to its increased complexity and overhead,
and is an even greater problem in CR since requiring the PU
to suspend its transmission and perform channel estimation for
the SU is unrealistic.
While in the CR case the SU cannot interfere with the PU,
mutual interference is permitted in the EP MAC. Thus, EP
MAC users can adopt distributed power allocation where each
user selfishly optimizes its rate or QoS given the interference
from the other users in an iterative manner [12][16]. Such
schemes are well modeled as a competitive game where each
user is a selfish player who is only interested in maximizing
its own utility. This competitive game has the advantage that
it does not require knowledge of the interference channels
between different users. However, if the users know the interference channels, or even the null space of these channels, they
can mitigate interference to each other which may drastically
improve the overall spectrum utilization [16]. An appealing
solution would be for MIMO users, both in the CR and the EP
MAC scenarios, to mitigate interference to each other blindly
without a handshake and without using conventional channel
estimation techniques [17][23]. The analysis and results of
the paper are applicable to both EP MAC and CR. We will
thus refer generically to a two-user setting below with U1 and
U2, but in the CR case, without loss of generality, U2 can be
considered the cognitive user (or SU) and U1 can be considered
the PU. For MIMO CR, Zhang et al. [23], Chen et al. [19]
and Yi [20], proposed solutions for the case where there is
channel reciprocity between the PUs transmitter and receiver,
in which the SU listens to the PU signal and estimates H12 s
null space, henceforth denoted as N (H12 ), from its secondorder statistics. Both works require channel reciprocity and,
therefore, are restricted to a PU that uses TDD.
Important related lines of research address the problems
of interference avoidance and interference nulling in wireless networks in general, and in CR in particular. In [24],
[25] joint precoding designs and cooperative beamforming
schemes have been proposed with perfect and limited feedback.
These methods assume cooperation between the SU-Tx and the
PU-Rx, in which the latter estimates the interference channel
H12 and feeds this channel back (perfectly or quantized) to the
SU-Tx. While these schemes do not require channel reciprocity,
they do require that the PU estimates the interference channel
and feeds this estimate back to the SU. Such cooperation
increases system overhead.

Fig. 2. The addressed cognitive radio scheme. The matrix H12 is unknown
to the secondary transmitter and v1 (k) is a stationary noise (which may
include stationary interference). The SU transmits a beacon {q(k)}T
k=1 , which
indicates the total interference plus noise power at the PU-Rx. Note that if the
latter is known at the PU-Tx, the beacon can be transmitted by the PU-Tx,
leaving the PU-Rx communication protocol unaffected.

To reduce the level of cooperation between the PU and

the SU, Zhang [26] first introduced the hidden primary radio
feedback scheme for the single antenna case; i.e., the channel
between the PU-Rx and the SU-Tx is Single Input Single Output (SISO). In the hidden feedback scheme, the SU transmits a
probing signal and observes the PU transmit adaptations, from
which it extracts the power of the interference this probing
signal inflicts on the PU. Based on this feedback the SU
determines the magnitude of the interference channel, which
enables it (being an underlay CR) to maintain the interference
to the PU below some predefined threshold. A similar idea for
reducing interference in the SISO case, which relies on the SU
observing the PUs control channel, was proposed in [27]. In the
SISO case, since there are no spatial degrees of freedom, the
only way for the SU to meet the interference constraint is by
maintaining its transmit power low enough. Such a constraint
may lead to low throughput for the SU. We have recently
proposed an iterative algorithm [21], based on a simpler form of
hidden feedback, for the MIMO underlay CR to learn N (H12 ).
By utilizing that null space, the SU can transmit with high
power without interfering with the PU (see Section V-B in this
paper for further discussion). In the feedback used in [21], the
SU only observes some monotone function (whose exact shape
may be unknown) of the interference power inflicted on the PU.
The fact that the SU does not observe precisely the interference
level extends the applicability of the hidden feedback scheme
in [21] to a wider range of scenarios. In [22] we extended
the algorithm in [21] to the more practical case where the SU
observes only one bit of feedback, which indicates whether the
interference that it inflicts on the PU has increased or decreased.
In this paper, unlike [21] and [22], we assume that the PU
partially assists the SU in learning N (H12 ) by broadcasting
a one-dimensional low-rate beacon which indicates the overall
interference plus noise at the PU-Rx. This problem is depicted
in Fig. 2. By transmitting a probing signal, and measuring the
beacon, the SU can learn N (H12 ) in closed form. Thus, while
the proposed algorithm requires a higher level of cooperation
from the PU than the algorithms in [21] and [22], the SU
learns N (H12 ) faster. Note that while the PU transmits the
beacon, it does not have to stop its data flow or make extra
measurements other than those required for its usual operation;
assuming that the PU usually measures the total noise plus
interference power. In addition, no handshakes between the PU
and the SU is required; the PU does not even have to be aware

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

of the SU and does not have to be synchronized to the SU pulse

time. Furthermore, if the PU uses power control to maintain
a constant SINR, the SU can learn N (H12 ) by analyzing the
PU-Txs signal for the intended receiver, without a beacon. In
the EP MAC problem, the proposed technique (with or without
the beacon) has the advantage that U2s Tx can learn H12 s null
spaces without affecting the communication protocol between
U1s Tx and U1s Rx; i.e., the entire learning process is carried
out between the transmitters. This is possible in cases where U1
uses a communication protocol in which U1s Rx estimates the
total interference plus noise power and feeds back this value to
U1s Tx. Then, if U1s Tx shares this information with U2s Tx,
the latter learns H12 s null space. We would like to emphasize
that this paper (like [21], [22]) focuses on the problem of
how to learn N (H12 ) with minimum cooperation between
the interfering systems without channel reciprocity. We also
provide bounds on the worst case interference the proposed
learning scheme imposes on the SU. Once U2 learns N (H12 ), it
can optimize its signal, whatever the optimization criterion is,
under the constraint that its transmitted signal lies in N (H12 ),
thus zeroing the interference to U1. MIMO signal optimization
with the constraint of lying within (or approximately within)
N (H12 ), which is an important problem in MIMO [17][20],
[23][25], [28], is beyond the scope of this paper.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:
Section II describes the system model, Section III formulates
the Energy Null Space Learning (ENSL) problem. Section IV
presents different feedback schemes that the U1 system could
employ and Section V-A presents the ENSL algorithm and
analyses its performance. Section VI presents a faster algorithm
in the case where U2s Tx has many more antennas than U1s
Rx. Simulation results are presented in Section VII.
Notation: In this paper all vectors are column vectors. Let
A be an l v complex matrix, then, its null space is defined
as N (A) = {y Cv : Ay = 0} where 0 = [0, . . . , 0]T , and
its column space is defined as C(A) = span(a1 , . . . , av ) Cl .
A , A , the complex conjugate, the complex
We denote by A,
conjugate transpose and the pseudo inverse of A, respectively.
Also, C (A) denotes the orthogonal complement of the column
space of A. CN (, C) denotes a circular symmetric Gaussian
random vector with expectation and covariance matrix C.
  denotes the Euclidean norm if the argument is a vector and
the spectral norm if the argument is a matrix and  F denotes
the Frobenius norm of a matrix. denotes the Kronecker
product, 1t and It denote a length t column vector composed
of ones and the square identity matrix of size t, respectively.

ntj nri null space. In this paper, we consider channel sharing

via Spatial Division Duplexing (SDD) in two communication
scenarios.
1) SDD for Equal Priority Multiple Access (EP MAC): In
the EP MAC scenario, two communication systems choose
to spatially share a MIMO channel. This problem occurs, for
example, in the wireless unlicensed bands where each user is
allowed to access the channel under a mask constraint. We
consider the communication scenario depicted in Fig. 1, where
users 1 and 2 are zero forcing the interference to each other by
restricting their signal as follows:
xj (t) N (Hij ),

i = j {1, 2}.

(2)

This can be done by using a precoding Tj such that C(T) =

N (Hij ); i.e., user j transmits Tj xj (t), which results in zero
interference to user i and an equivalent channel Hjj Tj for
user j. This scheme, referred to as SDD, requires that user
j knows N (Hij ), i = j {1, 2}. Our objective is to derive
simple algorithms for obtaining N (Hij ), i = j {1, 2} with
minimal cooperation between the two users. In particular, we
would like to avoid standard channel estimation schemes in
which each user is Rx must estimate Hij and feed it back to
user js Tx.
2) Spatial Channel Sharing in Underlay CR: The underlay
CR scenario is different than the EP MAC in that the SU is
restricted in accessing the channel, and can do so only if it does
not interfere with the PU, while the latter is not restricted at all.
Note that in the CR scenario, performing SDD (or any other
duplexing) is the responsibility of the SU which is restricted to
use channel resources that are not used by the PU. Therefore,
only the SU must satisfy the restriction in (2). Our objective is
to derive simple algorithms for the SU to learn the null space,
which can be implemented with minimum cooperation on the
side of the PU.
In the remainder of the paper, we consider, without loss of
generality, the problem where U2s Tx wishes to learn N (H12 ).
In the CR case, our restriction implies that U1s Tx is the PU
and U2s Tx is the SU. In the EP MAC case, our restriction
can be seen as half of the problem; i.e., the case were U2
learns N (H12 ) which is followed by U1 learning N (H21 ). To
simplify the notation, we denote H12 , T2 , nr1 , nt1 as H, T, nr ,
nt , respectively. Once U2s Tx learns N (H), it can optimize its
transmitted signal, whatever the optimization criterion is, under
the constraint that it lies inside N (H).
III. T HE E NERGY N ULL S PACE L EARNING
(ENSL) P ROBLEM

II. S YSTEM M ODEL

Consider a flat fading two-user MIMO interference channel
with no interference cancellation between the users. User is,
i {1, 2}, received signal is given by
yi (t) = Hii xi (t) + Hij xj (t) + vi (t),

5701

t N,

(1)

where i = j {1, 2}, Hij Cnri ntj , and vi (k) is an i.i.d.

zero mean circular Gaussian process with E{vi (t)vi (t) } =
v2 Inri . We assume ntj > nri , thus, Hij has a rank mj =

In the ENSL problem, U2s TX objective is to learn Hs

null space by transmitting a sequence of learning signals and
receiving feedback which indicates the level of interference
at U1s Rx. We divide the timeline into Ts -length intervals,
referred to as Transmission Cycles (TCs) and indexed by n,
(n)
where at each TC, U2s Tx transmits a learning signal x
Cnt , as follows
x(t) = s(t)
x(n)

(3)

5702

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

Fig. 3. The time indexing used in this paper. At the first TF B time slots of
(n). Then, U2 Tx measures the
each TC, U2 Tx transmits its learning signal x
feedback q(n). The exact time t {(n 1)Ts + TF B , . . . , nTs } in which
q(n) becomes available to U2 Tx depends on the feedback scheme as we
discuss in Section IV.

for t = (n 1)Ts + 1, . . . , (n 1)Ts + TF B , where s(t)

C. The indexing is depicted in Fig. 3. By the end of the TC,
U2s Tx observes the following feedback

(n)) = ( + A(n)) H
x(n)2 + c + C(n), (4)
q(n) = b (n, x
where , c, are constants which may be unknown, and A(n)
and C(n) are zero mean random variables that represent the
measurement error. The term s(t) is not directly involved in the
learning process. However, as will be shown in Section IV, s(t)
is important in enabling U2 to extract q(n). U2s Tx objective
is to estimate N (H) from {
x(n), q(n)}N
n=1 . In the ideal case,
U2s Tx observes q(n) with A(n) = C(n) = 0. The problem of
designing the learning signals {
x(n)}N
n=1 for estimating N (H)
N
from {
x(n), q(n)}n=1 , is called the ENSL problem.
Before discussing how these measurements may be available
to U2 (Section IV), we describe the advantages of the proposed
scheme. First, the feedback relies on measurements that already
take place in many communications systems; e.g., the noise
plus interference at the receiver (Section IV-A), since such
information is necessary for power, modulation, and/or rate
adaptation. In such cases, U1s Rx has to forward existing information to U2s Tx without taking additional measurements. In
addition, U1 does not even have to be aware of the U2 system.
The former only broadcasts its total interference plus noise
levels to all the users in its vicinity; i.e., U1s Rx can broadcast
a one-dimensional beacon q(n) which indicates its interference
level and the time slots that it is measured. This beacon not only
indicates U1 Rxs total interference, but also the time instances
in which U2s Tx should send a new learning signal. Note that
such a scheme, which puts most of the learning burden on U2s
Tx, is especially useful in underlay CR, where U1 is the PU
and U2 is the SU. Furthermore, the proposed scheme requires
a much simpler synchronization between U1 and U2 than the
symbol-by-symbol synchronization required in standard channel estimation techniques. Specifically, if a beacon feedback
method is used, U2s Tx must synchronize to the symbol rate
of the beacon, which can be transmitted by a low rate channel
separated from the U1 channel. Actually, it can even be an
analog signal, where the information is encoded in the signals
amplitude. In this case, U2s Tx could detect variations in the
beacon and measure the levels of these variations. Then, the PU
is not required to have any handshake and/or synchronization
with the SU, and the latter does not interrupt the formers
data flow. Note that U1s Rx need not necessarily transmit the
beacon q(n) all the time. Rather, it can start transmitting it only
when it senses that the received interference increases above
some threshold or upon receiving a request from U2s Tx. In

Section IV we show that under some conditions, it is possible

for U2 to obtain q(n) as follows: U1 does not transmit any
beacon and U2 autonomously collects q(n). This is possible
if U1 uses a power control which maintains constant SINR at
U1s Rx and if H, H11 , H21 are stationary during the learning
process. Note that in this case, U2s Tx must synchronize just
to U1s power control mechanism, which asks for a frame-byframe rather than a symbol-by-symbol synchronization.
Another advantage of the proposed beacon scheme is that it
can be implemented based only on cooperation between U1s
Tx and U2s Tx, without any modification to the transmission
protocol between U1s Tx and U1s Rx. Consider a scenario
where U1s Tx employs a communication protocol in which
U1s Rx constantly measures its interference levels and feeds
this information back to U1s Tx. Then, U2s Tx can learn
N (H) by inflicting interference on U1s Rx and receiving the
feedback through U1s Tx. This property is very appealing
in communication systems where the receivers are end-user
equipment, which is difficult to upgrade, or in cases where it
is desirable to reduce the computation burden on the receivers.
The disadvantage of the proposed learning scheme with respect
to standard channel estimation is the time it takes U2 to learn
N (H); i.e., in the case where U2s Tx transmits a known
training signal, U1s Rx can estimate the channel based on the
training data and feed the estimation back to U2s Tx, in which
case the null space can be estimated faster.
It is important to emphasize that although U2s Tx reduces
the interference to U1s Rx after it learns N (H), it interferes
with U1s Rx during the learning process. Furthermore, this
interference is an important ingredient of the learning process
since it provides U2s Tx with the means to learn N (H),
i.e., q(n). Nevertheless, U2s Tx must protect U1s Rx during
the learning process and not interrupt its data flow. In other
words, U1s Rx needs a sufficient SNR operating margin; i.e.,
it must be able to maintain its QoS even with the additional
interference inflicted by U2s Tx. This enables U2s Tx, for
a short period of time, to inflict some level of interference
on U1s Rx, which is above the noise floor, without a significant impact on U1s Rx performance. This can be done by
transmitting a very low power signal at the first TC. If q(n)
(n) can be gradually increased
is not affected, the power of x
until q(n) is affected by a given amount, which is sufficient
for the null space learning procedure. This, however, requires
U2 to have additional information to be able to stop its power
increase before the interference to U1 becomes harmful. For
example, some communication systems (e.g., LTE-A systems)
have a high-interference indicator which is broadcasted when
the interference exceeds some threshold. In [21, Section II-C]
we give other examples of how the SU can maintain the PUs
interference at acceptable levels during the learning process.
IV. E XAMPLES OF F EEDBACK S CHEMES
In this section, we provide examples of different feedback
schemes, which fit into the model (4). In the first two feedback
schemes, U1s Rx estimates different functions of the inflicted
interference and broadcasts this estimate. In the last feedback
scheme, U2s Tx obtains q(n) just by listening to U1s Tx
signal without any cooperation with either U1s Tx or U1s Rx.

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

This feedback scheme, when applicable, is especially appealing

for CR because the SU system is completely autonomous and
requires no beacon.
A. Noise Plus Interference Scheme (NPI)
We now give an example of a simple scheme in which U1
extracts q(n) during the estimation of its own channel H11 . One
of the most common approaches in MIMO communications for
estimating the channel between the transmitter and its intended
receiver (in this case U1s Tx and U1s Rx) is to employ pilot
signals (see, e.g., [29]). In this case, a natural choice for the
beacon q(n) is the total interference power inflicted on U1s Rx,
a quantity that is regularly measured by many communication
systems to control the power, modulation, and coding. This
information is a byproduct of the estimation procedure of the
channel H11 (i.e., the link between U1s Tx and U1s Rx)
if the training sequence length is larger than nt , as we now
discuss. In order to estimate H11 , U1s Tx transmits TF B nt
training signals p1 , . . . , pTF B known to U1s Rx, which satisfy
pi  = 1, 1 i TF B . Denote as

5703

From Proposition 1, beacon (5) fits the model in (4) for

A(n) = 0,

= sT P s,

and C(n) a zero mean random variable with variance given

in Proposition 1. For simplicity, we assume that qN I (n) is
perfectly observed by U2 since it is broadcasted through a lowrate control channel; i.e., we assume that the low-rate control
channel is perfect.
It is important to stress that qN I (n) does not carry information on H if P s = 0. Thus, U2 must choose s such that the
latter equality is not satisfied. This happens with probability
one if U2 chooses s randomly from a continuous distribution
over Cnt . In the sequel, whenever U1 uses a training sequence
to estimate H11 , we assume, with no loss of generality, that
s = 1TF B and that P is chosen such that P1TF B = 1TF B .
B. Total Received Power Scheme (TRP)
Another choice for the beacon qT RP (n) may be the average
norm of y1 (t), i.e.,

Y(n) = [y1 ((n 1)Ts + 1) , . . . , y1 ((n 1)Ts + TF B )]

the received signal at the n-th TC and PL the transmit power of
U2s Tx during the learning process. Also denote

Y(n) = H11 Pn + V(n),

where

V(n)
= z sT + V(n),

z = H
x(n) =

PL Hr(n),

such that r(n)2 = 1, s =

[s((n 1)Ts + 1), . . . , s((n
where P
= [p1 , . . . ,
1)Ts + TF B )]T , and Pn = P (n)P;
pTF B ], P (n) is U1 Txs transmit power and
V(n) = [v1 ((n 1)Ts + 1) , . . . , v1 ((n 1)Ts + TF B )] .
In this example, we assume that U1s Rx uses the Least Squares
(LS) estimator to estimate H11 which is given by
11 = Y(n)P ,
H
n
where Pn = Pn (Pn Pn )1 . Also denote as P = I Pn Pn
the projection matrix into the orthogonal complement of the

rows of Pn , which satisfies P P = P and P = (P ) .

Note that P is independent of P (n). The beacon can be

chosen as the energy of the noise plus interference,


(n1)Ts +TF B

qN I (n) =


2


11 pk 
y1 (t) P (n)H
 .

t=(n1)Ts +1

(5)

Proposition 1: The expectation and variance of the beacon

qN I (n) are
E {qN I (n)} = sT P s H
x(n)2 + v2 nr (TF B nt ),
Var {qN I (n)} = 2sT P s H
x(n)2 v2 + v4 (TF B nt )nr .
Proof: See Appendix A.

c = v2 nr (TF B nt ),

qT RP (n) =

1
T s PL

nTs


y1 (t)22 .

(6)

t=(n1)Ts +1

This is a simple beacon which can be employed when U1s Tx

is not using pilot signals to acquire channel state information at
the receiver. In this case, we assume that TF B = Ts , and that
the beacon is transmitted with zero delay.
Proposition 2: Assume that U1s Tx uses a Gaussian codebook, i.e., x1 (t) are i.i.d. such that [x1 (t)]i  CN (0, P ) and
that H, H11 remain constant during the learning process.
Then
E {qT RP (n)} = Hr(n)2 +

2
P H11 2F
+ nr v ,
PL
PL

Var {qT RP (n)}

1  2
2v PL Hr(n)2 + 2P H11 Hr(n)2 PL
= 2
PL T s

+ P 2 H11 H11 2F + 2P v2 H11 2F + v4 nr .
(7)
Proof: See Appendix B.
Thus qT RP (n) fits the model (4) with
A(n) = 0,

= 1,

c=

nr v2
P 2 H11 2F
+
,
PL
PL

and Var{C(n)} = Var{qT RP (n)}. The total received power

beacon, while very simple, has two major limitations. The
first is that it is very noisy, since Var{qT RP (n)} has the term
P 2 H11 H11 2F , which must be much larger than the power
of U2s Tx learning signal. This requires a relatively large
TF B to reduce the variance of C(n), which implies that both
H and H11 must have long coherence times. The second
limitation is that it requires no power control in the U1 system,

5704

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

otherwise P H11 2F in (7) is not constant and depends on n.

In general, the NPI feedback scheme should be preferred
whenever pilot training for channel estimation is used in the U1
system.
We conclude with a discussion about the case where U1s
Rx uses a precoding matrix; i.e., U1s Rx multiplies its received signal x1 (t) with a matrix B. For example, B can be
a beamforming matrix which suppresses undesired signals. In
this case, the actual interference channel between U2s Tx and
U1s Rx is BH and1 any algorithm which learns N (H) from
(4) will now learn N (BH). U2 may gain additional degrees of
freedom since the constraint x2 (t) N (BH) is less restrictive
than x2 (t) N (H).
C. No Beacon Feedback Scheme (NB)
Consider a scenario where U1 is using a power control mechanism which maintains a constant SINR, and that H11 , H21
are stationary during the learning process, as well as the noise
power at U1s Tx. Thus, if the interference from U2 increases,
it will be reflected in U1s power control by an increase in
U1s Tx power. In this section we give an example where
U1s Tx power is an affine function of the interference power
from U2s Tx, and the latter obtains the beacon in (4) through
sensing the power of the signal transmitted from U1s Tx
to U1s Rx. Because it is the power of U1s Tx that U2 is
interested in, the measurement could be carried out either at
U2s Tx or U2s Rx. Recall that U2s Tx is transmitting the
(n) at the same frequency as U1s Tx. Thus,
learning signal x
if the sensing of U1s Tx signal is carried out by U2s Tx, the
latter must halt its transmission over the last Ts TF B time
slots (see Fig. 4), where the sensing is carried out. Otherwise,
U2s Tx must be capable of operating in full duplex; i.e.,
transmitting and receiving simultaneously at the same time and
the same frequency (we further discuss these issues in [22,
Section II-B].2
In the case where the sensing is done at U2s Rx, it needs
to send the information to U2s Tx. Without loss of generality,
assume that U2s Rx is sensing the power of the transmitted
signal of U1s Tx and then it forwards it to U2s Tx. As
discussed in Section I, a similar form of feedback was first
proposed in [26] for the case of single antenna users; i.e., the
channel between the PU and the SU is SISO. The difference
between [26] and this paper is that here we address a MIMO
case in which U2 wishes to learn N (H12 ). Another difference
is that for null space learning, it is sufficient to observe the
interference to U1s Rx up to some unknown factor , as we
require in (4) (see Section V for further details). Such information is easier to extract than the exact value of the interference
required in [26].

1 The channel BH is a special case of the effective interference channel

which is defined in [23] for the case of a MIMO TDD PU, where the SU
interferes with both the PU-Rx and the PU-Tx; i.e., uplink and downlink. Note
that in this work, we do not require channel reciprocity.
2 Note that U2s Tx senses U1s Tx signal which propagates through the
channel between the two transmitters, which is different than H21 of Fig. 1.

Fig. 4. Upper bound on the interference reduction for all feedback schemes.
(a) Ts = 1 ms, TF B = (nt + 1)/Tsym  ms, T /v2 = 5 dB. (b) Ts =
5 ms, TF B = (nt + 1)/Tsym  ms, T /v2 = 5 dB. (c) Ts = 5 ms, TF B =
(nt + 7)/Tsym  ms, T /v2 = 5 dB. (d) Ts = 5 ms, TF B = (nt +
7)/Tsym  ms, T /v2 = 10 dB.

We now give a concrete example of how q(n) can be obtained

without an explicit feedback from U1. Specifically, assume that
U1s Tx uses a power control mechanism which maintains a
constant SINR where P (n) is U1s power at the n-th TC. In

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

the beginning
of the n-TC, U1s Tx transmits the pilot signals

P
= [p1 , . . . , pT ] during TF B slots,
Pn = P (n 1)P,
FB
and U1s Rx estimates its SINR as
(n1)T
s +TF B


(n) =

(n1)T
s +TF B



2

11 pk 
y1 (t) H


where

=
2 ,

11 Pn 
Y(n) H


(8)

11 is the LS estimate of H11 as described in

where H
Section IV-A. Let T be a constant target SINR of the U1
system, then, at the end of the estimation slots, U1s Tx updates
P (n) as follows
P (n) = P (n 1)

T
,
(n)

(9)

and during the communication slots U1s Tx transmits


x1 (t) = P (n)s1 (t),
t [(n 1)Ts + TF B + 1, nTs ] .
(10)
Recall that U2s Rx does not directly observe (n), but only

y2 (t) = P (n)H21 s1 (t) + v2 (t),
t [(n 1)Ts + TF B + 1, nTs ] ,

(11)

where3 v2 (t) CN (0, v22 Inr ). Then, U2s Rx calculates

qN B (n), autonomously, as
1
(Ts TF B )PL

nTs


(16)

2
with a = 2H
x(n)2 1T
TF B P 1TF B /v .
Proof: See Appendix C.
For large T , E{P (n)} can be approximated as

T 1T
2 T nr (TF B nt )
TF B P 1TF B
H
x(n)2 + v
,
2

2
H11 P
H11 P
F

i.e., the described feedback scheme follows approximately the

proposed model in (4).
Note that, unlike the NPI scheme where we assumed that
the low-rate control channel in which qN I (n) is broadcasted
is perfect, in the NB scheme, we take into account the noise
introduced while U2 senses qNB (n). The latter is not neglected
since Var{qN B (n)} is affected by the power of U1s signal x1 ,
which must be high in order to guarantee U1s QoS. Thus, the
beacon in the NB scheme is more noisy than the beacon in the
NPI scheme. Yet, for slow time-varying channels this approach
has similar performance as the NPI scheme (Section VII).

V. T HE ENSL A LGORITHM AND I TS P ERFORMANCE

t=(n1)Ts +TF B +1

2
E {P (n)}
E {qN B (n)} =
H21 2F + nr2 v2 ,
PL
PL

(13)

where
2

PL T 1T
TF B P 1TF B Hr(n)
2
H11 P
F


2 2 + 2a (na + 2) + na (na + 2)
E P (n)2 = T a
n2b 6nb + 8


(nb /2 1)(nb /2 2)v4
5/2
,

+
O

T
4
H11 P

y2 (t)2 . (12)

Proposition 3: Let T be U1s target SINR and let na =

2nr (TF B nt ), nb = 2nt nr . Then, if E{s1 (t)} = 0, nb > 4
and E{s1 (t)s1 (t)} = Int ,

v2 T nr (TF B nt )
3/2
+ O(T ).
2
H11 P

(14)

3 In


1
2v22 E {P (n)} H21 2F
PL2 (Ts TF B )



+ E P (n)2 + H21 H21 2F + v42 nr2 , (15)

Var {qN B (n)} =


y1 (t)22

11 Pn 2
H
F

E {P (n)} =

Furthermore, if s1 (t)  CN (0, Int ),

t=(n1)Ts +1

t=(n1)Ts +1

qN B (n) =

5705

practice y2 (t), the signal

 at U2s Rx, contains also the learning signal
(t) + v2 (t). To
from U2s Tx; i.e., y2 (t) =
P (n)H21 s1 (t) + s(t)H22 x
avoid this, we assume that U2s Tx halts its transmission at the last Ts TF B
time slots (see Fig. 4), where the sensing is carried out. Another way to remove
s(t)
x(n) from y2 (t), in the case where s(t) is a constant is to subtract y2 (t)
its average, which takes of constant signals (see [21, Section II-B] for further
discussion).

.
(n) to learn G =
In the ENSL algorithm, U2s Tx chooses x
H H Cnt nt . From G it is sufficient to obtain N (H) since
x N (H) x N (G).
G is a Hermitian semi-positive definite matrix with an eigenvalue decomposition G = WW where W is a unitary matrix, i.e., W W = I and is a diagonal matrix whose elements
are non-negative. The columns of W are the orthonormal
eigenvectors of G. We assume in this stage that q(n) has no
noise, i.e.,
q(n) = Hr(n)22 + c = r(n) H Hr(n) + c

= r(n)Gr(n)
+ c,
= G. Note that in each TC, U2s Tx obtains a linear
where, G
and that n2 + 1 TCs are sufficient
equation of the elements of G
t
since there are nt real diagonal, nt (nt 1)/2
to learn G,
complex upper diagonal elements and the unknown c. It is not
= N (G).
necessary to learn since N (G)

5706

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

A. The ENSL Algorithm

Denote as rl,m (, ) for l = m an nt -dimensional column
vector whose entries are all equal to zero except for the
l-th and m-th entry, which are equal to cos() and ei sin(),
respectively. We start with the following proposition.
t
+ c and {
gl,q }nlq
be the
Proposition 4: Let S(x) = x Gx

entries of G. Then,
gl,l = S (rl,m (0, 0)) S(0),
(
gl,m ) = cl,m (/4, 0),
(
gl,m ) = cl,m (/4, /2),

1 l = m nt ,

1 l < m nt ,
1 l < m nt ,

(17)

where
cl,m (, ) =S(rl,m (, ))S(0)
gl,l cos2 ()
gm,m sin2 ().
Proof: See Appendix D.

in which
Proposition 4 implies an algorithm to estimate G
(n)), given in (4).
S(x) is replaced by its noisy version b(n, x
(n))
In the case where the number of the samples of b(n, x
is equal to the number of equations, this is the least squares
The estimate of G,
denoted as G,
is obtained
estimate of G.
(n) represents a difvia |R| = n2t + 1 TCs, where for each n, x
ferent element of R. A pseudo-code description of the proposed

algorithm appears in Algorithm 1. After U2s Tx estimates G,

the null space of the latter is estimated using the eigenvalue
= VV
. U2s Tx pre-coding matrix T is
decomposition G
G
that correspond to the
chosen as the nt nr eigenvectors of G
smallest nt nr eigenvalues; i.e.,


TG
= vi1 , . . . , vint nr ,

(18)

where vi is Vs ith column and i1 , i2 , . . . , int is an indexing

such that
i
viq Gv
q

i ,
viv Gv
v

q v.

(19)

Thus, the interference power that U2s Tx inflicts on U1s Rx is

2
bounded by HTG
 . Note that the ENSL algorithm requires
that nr be known to U2. Such information may be available if,
for example, U2 knows U1s communication capabilities and in
particular its number of antennas. Alternatively, U1 can share
this information with U2, for example by embedding it into the
beacon. Moreover, if U2 does not know nr , it can estimate it
This problem, which is
by calculating the rank of G from G.
beyond the scope of this paper, appears in different forms in
many signal processing applications [30][32]. In this paper we
assume that U2 knows nr .
The ENSL algorithm applies to both CR and a spatial MAC
scenario. In CR, once the SU (U2) learns N (H), it can transmit
its information to its intended receiver without interfering with
the PU as long as x(t) N (H). In the spatial MAC scenario
the algorithm is executed twice, where in the first run U2 learns
N (H12 ) and in the second run U1 learns N (H21 ). Then both
users can coexist without interfering with each other.

= ENSL(b, nt )
Algorithm 1 G
Let b(n, x) be defined in (4)
c b(0, 0); n 1;
for l = 1, . . . , nt do
gl,l b(n, rl,1 (0, 0)) c; n + +;
end for
for l = 1, . . . , nt 1 do
for m = l + 1, . . . , nt do
gl,l +
gm,m )/2)b(n, rl,m (/4, 0))+
c;
l,m ((
n + +;
gl,l +
gm,m )/2)b(n, rl,m (/4, /2))+
c;
l,m ((
n + +;
gl,m l,m + il,m ;

;
gm,l gl,m
end for
end for

B. Performance Analysis of the ENSL Algorithm

there
Because the ENSL algorithm estimates N (G) from G,
is a null space mismatch which leads to interference from U2s
Tx to U1s Rx. In this section, we study the performance of
the ENSL algorithm under the feedback schemes presented in
Section IV. As a performance measure, we choose the worstcase interference which U2s Tx inflicts on U1s Rx; i.e.,
2
2
HTG
 . We begin with relating HTG
 to the estimation
error
G.

E=G
Denote as n0 , nl,l , nl,m , and nl,m + 1 the indices of the TCs in
gl,m ), and (
gl,m ) are estimated, respectively,
which c, gll , (
and as
0 = Var {q(n0 )} , l,l = Var {q(nl,l )} ,

l,

and as
l,m = rl,m + il,m ,

with

rl,m = Var {q(nl,m )} , il,m = Var {q(nl,m + 1)} ,

for l = m. With this notation, we derive the following bound

on the interference due to the noisy estimate of G.

be the estimate of G
obtained via the
Proposition 5: Let G
ENSL algorithm. Then


2
E HTG
 |H E {2E|H}



2
=
(3n2t 2nt )0 + nt
l,l + 2
l,m ,

(20)

l<m

where TG
is defined in (18).
Proof: See Appendix E.

In what follows, we calculate this bound for each of the
feedback schemes of Section IV.

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

5707

1) Noise Plus Interference Feedback (NPI): For the analysis

we use = 1. In this case, qN I (n) satisfies
Var {qN I (n)} = c1 Hr(n)2 + c2
with
v2
2
,
c1 = T
1TF B P 1TF B PL

(TF B nt )nr
c2 =
2

1T
TF B P 1TF B

2
Then, assuming [H]i,j CN (0, H
) and
Proposition 4 in Proposition 5 it follows that

v2
PL

2
.

substituting

quadratic function of H
x(n)2 . Assuming for simplicity that
2
2
v = v2 , it holds from (15) that
 2 2


1
T v
Var {qN B (n)} =
c1 O T2 + c2 O
Ts TF B
PL
 2 4

T v
+ c3 O
+ O(T ) , (23)
PL2
where
c1 =

H21 H21 2F Hr(n)4

,
4
H11 P
F

2
E HTG
 |H



c2 =

2E {H2F }
+ (6n2t 4nt ) c2
2 c1 (2nt + 1)
2

.
2 n n (2n + 1) + (6n2 4n ) c ,
= BN I = 2 c1 H
t r
t
t 2
t

H21 H21 2F

(21)
where (a) follows from Jensens inequality. In the case where
2
is greater than the noise floor, the first term under the
PL H
square root is dominant and therefore

2
8nt nr (2nt + 1)v2 H
BN I 
.
(22)

PL 1T
TF B P 1TF B

T
Note that maxP 1T
TF B P 1TF B = 1TF B 1TF B = TF B . Thus,
1/2
the bound in (22) decreases as TF B
. Furthermore, U2s Tx
learning-signals power reduces the bound as PL 1/2 .
2) Total Received Power Feedback (TRP): We now analyze
the behavior of the upper bound in (20) for Var{qT RP (n)}
(7). To simplify the exposition, we use the fact that
P 2 H11 H11 2F /PL2 is the dominant term in Var{qT RP (n)}
since U1 Txs power P must be large enough such that
P H11 2 is much greater than PL Hr(n) and v2 , as discussed in Section III. Thus, since


2
E HTG
 |H


2
.
4n2t nt P 2 H11 H11 2F
BT RP =
T s PL




+ O P v2 H11 2F + O v2 PL Hr(n)2



1/2
+ O P H11 Hr(n)2 PL + O v2
it follows that


(4n2t nt ) H11 H11 F /( Ts PL ).

Note that the term P H11 H11 F makes BT RP much greater

than BN I , unless Ts is increased. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.
3) No Beacon Feedback (NB): As in the TRP scheme, a
closed form expression for the upper bound is long and cumbersome. Yet, from (40) and (16) it follows that E{P (n)2 } is a

H21 H21 2F

,
2
H11 P
F

Hr(n)
.
4

H11 PF

(a)

BT RP 2P

c3 =

(24)

Because PL must be significantly higher than v2 , and T  1,

the dominant term in (23) is c1 O(T2 ). Therefore, it follows that


2
E HTG
 |H


.
2
Hr(nl )4
BN B = H21 H21 F
l

+2

1/2
Hr(nl,m )

O(T )+O

l<m

T v
1/2

PL


+

1/2
T

(25)
Observe that this bound does not depend on PL as long as
PL  v2 , which indicates the existence of an upper floor on the
achieved interference. The numerical results in Fig. 4 corroborate this observation. In particular, Fig. 4 plots the average value
of the normalized upper bounds presented above as a function
of the interference to noise ratio
.
IN R = PL /v2 ;
i.e., it uses Monte Carlo simulations to estimate
 

E 2 E|H

PU B = E
,
G

(26)

where r(n) is uniformly distributed over the complex sphere of

radius one, and nt = 3, nr = 2, Tsym = 66.7 sec. The channel matrices are independent with i.i.d. entries distributed as
CN (0, 1). The figure demonstrates the behavior of the bounds
for different values of Ts , T /v2 , TF B . In particular, increasing
Ts [Fig. 4(a), (b)] significantly improves the performance of
the TRP and NB schemes, since in both cases U1s Rx and/or
U2s Tx, respectively, average out the measurement noise over
a longer interval. This increase, however, might not be practical
in time varying scenarios. Fig. 4(b) and (c) imply that the
performance of the NPI scheme depends more on TF B than on
Ts , since the measurements are taken only during the training
slots of each TC. Lastly, increasing the target SINR of the U1
system T loosens significantly the bound of the TRP scheme
since U1 Txs signal strength deteriorates the accuracy of the
energy measurements.

5708

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

VI. R EDUCED ENSL A LGORITHM (R-ENSL)

The ENSL algorithm learns N (H) from the estimation of the
nt nt matrix G. We now show that the number of TCs can be
reduced when nr is much smaller than nt by solving nt nr
problems of learning the null space of a (nr + 1) (nr + 1)
matrix each time. The new algorithm, which learns N (H) with


(nt nr ) (nr + 1) + 1
2

TCs, is based on the following proposition:

Proposition 6: Let H Cnr nt be an nr -rank (nt > nr )
matrix and let U = [u1 , . . . , unr +1 ] Cnt (nr +1) be an or = HU. If u
then U
N (H)
thonormal matrix and let H
u
N (H).
N (HU).
Proof: This is due to HU
u = 0 since u
R-ENSL is carried out as follows: U2s Tx begins with an
initial pre-coding matrix U(0) Cnt (nr +1) which is composed of the last nr + 1 columns of some unitary matrix
(1)
(1)
W Cnt nt . Let Heq = HU(0) Cnr (nr +1) , then Heq
has at least a one dimensional null space. U2s Tx applies
(1)
(1) (1)
the ENSL algorithm to Heq and learns G(1) = Heq Heq .
(1) (1) U
(1) , where
Then, it calculates the EVD of G(1) = U
(1)
(1) ] C(nr +1)(nr +1) . Note that we denote as
(1) = [
u1 , U
U
(1)
(1)
1 the column eigenvector that spans N (Heq ) (assuming
u
without loss of generality that it is the first column vector), and
(1) C(nr +1)nr the matrix that contains the remaining
as U
(1)
1 , it follows from
nr column eigenvectors. For v(1) = U(0) u
Proposition 6 that


(1)
(1)
1 N (H) v(1) N (H).
1 N H(1)
U(0) u
u
eq
After obtaining one dimension of N (H), the remaining nt
nr 1 eigenvectors that span the null space are obtained as
follows. U2s Tx applies the ENSL algorithm on the nt
(2)
(nr + 1)-channel Heq = HU(1) , where U(1) Cnr (nr +1)
is obtained by concatenating Ws (nt nr 1)-th column
(1) ; i.e., U(1) = [wn n 1 , U(0) U
(1) ].
with the matrix U(0) U
t
r
(2)
Then, as before, U2s Tx obtains the unitary matrix U
(2) (2)
(2)
of the EVD decomposition of G = Heq Heq , and uses
(2)
(2)
(2)
1 .
1 N (Heq ) to obtain v(2) = U(1) u
the first column u
From Proposition 6 it follows that v(2) N (H). It remains
to show that v(2) provides an additional degree of freedom
inside N (H); i.e., it is orthogonal to the previously computed
vector v(1) .
Proposition 7: v(2) is orthogonal to v(1) .
Proof: Note that

(2)

1
v(2) v(1) = u

(1)

(1)

(2) U(1) U(0) u

1 = u
1
U(1) U(0) u


wnt nr 1

(1)
1
= u(2)
U(0) u
(1) U(0)
U


0

(1)
1 = 0,
= u(2) (1) u
(27)
U

where we used the fact that wn t nr 1 is orthogonal to U(0) ,

U(0) U(0) = Inr +1 .



The process is repeated until v(nt nr ) is obtained and Hs

null space is given by [v(1) , . . . , v(nt nr ) ]. The algorithm is
summarized in Algorithm 2.
Algorithm 2 [v1 vnt nr ] = R ENSL(H)
Let W Cnt nt be a unitary matrix.
U(0) = [wnt nr , . . . , wnt ].
(0)
Heq = H
for m = 1, . . . , nt nr do
(m)
(m1) (m1)
Heq = Heq
U
(m)

= ENSL(Hm
U
eq , nr + 1);
(m)

1 ;
vm = U(m1) u
(m)
(m)
m = [
nr +1 ];
u2 , . . . , u
U
(m)

(m) ]
U(m) = [wnt nr m , U(m1) U
end for

VII. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES

To study the performance of the proposed algorithms we
simulate different scenarios in which U2 learns N (H12 ) where
Hij , i, j {1, 2} are constant or time varyings matrices.
In all thesimulation scenarios, we consider time varying
Hij (t) = Lij Fij (t), i, j {1, 2}, where Lij represents
time-invariant shadowing and path-loss, and Fij (t) represents
independent Rician fading with K-factor K (Rayleigh fading
for K = 0) and maximum Doppler frequency Fd (simulated according to Jakes model). Fd = 0 Hz corresponds to a constant
channel. We choose L11 (dB) = L22 (dB) = 110 dBm and
L12 (dB) = 110 dBm and L21 (dB) = 120 dBm and v2 =
120 dBm is the additive white Gaussian noise power. The
training time is TF B = (nt + 1)/Tsym  msec where Tsym =
66.7 sec is the symbol time. Furthermore, Ts = 1 msec for
the NPI and NB schemes, whereas Ts = 10 msec for the TRP
scheme. Fig. 5(a)(c) plot the averaged worst case interference
reduction (normalized with respect the spectral norm of G), i.e.,


E{HT2 |H}

PIR = E
,
(28)
G
where T is the resulting precoding matrix after one run of the
.
ENSL algorithm, as a function of IN R = PL /L12 v2 , which
represents the interference to noise ratio of U1s Rx averaged over the fast fading, for each feedback scheme for static
channels; i.e., Fd = 0 Hz. The figures also plot the respective
normalized analytical upper bound (26). For comparison, we
plot the worst case interference reduction when T is a random
unitary matrix. We used nt = 3, nr = 2, and t = 10 dB. In
Fig. 5(c), we use a larger interval, Ts = 10 msec, than Fig. 5(a)
and (b), because it takes more time for U1s Rx to estimate the
TRP beacon (see Section V-B2). The results show that the TRP
scheme has a similar performance as the NPI scheme with a
sensing interval Ts larger by an order of magnitude. Also, the
NB scheme has similar performance as the NPI scheme when
IN R is small, even though U1 and U2 do not cooperate in

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

5709

the former. On the other hand, in high interference scenarios,

the NB scheme has a smaller interference reduction than the
NPI scheme. Fig. 5(d) compares the performances of the ENSL
and the R-ENSL algorithms for the NPI scheme as a function
of the maximum Doppler frequency Fd for IN R = 5 dB with
nt = 8, nr = 1. The R-ENSL algorithm is significantly more
robust to channel variations than the ENSL algorithm, mostly
because it needs less TCs. In this specific example, the ENSL
algorithm needs 65 TCs, whereas the R-ENSL needs only 35
TCs. However, when the channel has very slow variations, then
the ENSL algorithm learns more accurately the null space than
the R-ENSL algorithm. Fig. 6(a)(c) plot the same PIR for
time-varying Rayleigh Fading channels as a function of Fd for
three values of IN R, IN R = 0 dB, 5 dB, 10 dB for the NPI,
NB and TRP scheme respectively. U2s Tx runs the ENSL algorithm whenever the PIR has increased back to 4 dB. As in the
constant wireless scenarios, the best performance is achieved by
the NPI scheme, whereas the NB scheme demonstrates similar
interference reductions when IN R is small. Fig. 6(d) plots the
interference reduction of the ENSL algorithm in the case where
H is Rician fading with Fd = 5 Hz, IN R = 5 dB for different
values of K, where higher K represents stronger line-of-sight
interference from U2s Tx to U1s Rx. It is shown that the
performance of the ENSL improves as K increases.
Lastly, in Fig. 7(a) and (b) we present simulation results for
the performance of all the proposed feedback mechanisms as a
function of the number of transmit antennas nt . We observe
that the NPI scheme significantly outperforms the other two
feedback schemes, as expected. Furthermore, we observe that
the R-ENSL algorithm outperforms the ENSL algorithm as nt
grows as was the case in Fig. 5(d).
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORK

Fig. 5. Simulation result of (a) NPI, (b) NB, (c) TRP schemes, for TF B =
1 ms. (d) Presents a comparison between the ENSL and R-ENSL algorithms
for nt = 8, nr = 1 for the NPI beacon. The results were averaged over 103
Monte Carlo trials.

We have proposed interference mitigation techniques for

MIMO wireless communication systems, whereby the interfering system restricts its signal to lie in the null space of
the interference channel to the other system. The null space
is estimated with minimal cooperation, which does not require any additional measurements by the interfered system
other than measurements already available in many of todays
wireless systems. The only information required is that the
interfering transmitter observes an affine function of the power
of the interference it inflicts on the other systems receiver.
We provided concrete examples of how this information could
be acquired, either through autonomous sensing or a beacon
broadcast by the interfered system. The former method is less
robust to noise, whereas the latter demands some additional
cooperation from the interfered system.
The proposed algorithms have several advantages. In the case
of underlay CR, the SU operates autonomously and independently of the PU. Furthermore, the PU does not have to stop
his data flow during the SUs learning process. In addition,
the entire learning process is based on energy measurements,
independent of the transmission schemes of both the PU and
SU, i.e. of their modulation and coding. This flexibility is
very important in CR and in EP MAC. Finally, in the latter
problem, the learning process can be carried out by the two

5710

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

Fig. 7. Simulation results of NPI, NB, and TPR schemes as a function of the
number of transmit antennas nt for Rayleigh fading (K = 0) and Fd = 3 Hz.
(a) NPI performance as a function of nt . Ts = 1 ms, INR = 10 dB, Fd =
3 Hz, K = 0. (b) NB (Ts = 1 ms) and TPR (Ts = 10 ms) performance as a
function of nt . INR = 10 dB, Fd = 3 Hz, K = 0.

users transmitters without affecting the communication protocol between each users receiver and transmitter. This property
is very appealing in cases were the receivers are end user equipment, which is difficult to upgrade, or if one wishes to avoid
performing computations related to interference mitigation at
the receivers to save energy consumption.
An important future research direction is to extend this
framework to more than two interfering systems. Specifically,
note that the proposed algorithms work without modifications
in cases where only one of the interfering systems performs
null space learning, while the remaining interferers keep the
statistics of their inflicted interference unchanged; i.e., keep
their precoding matrices and power levels constant. However,
if two or more systems try to learn their null space towards
a specific user concurrently, the feedback they are going to
receive will not be an affine function of the inflicted interference
that originated from both of them, and thus the proposed
schemes will not work.
A PPENDIX A
2

Fig. 6. Simulation results of (a) NPI (b) NB schemes for TF B = 1 ms and

of (c) TRP scheme for TF B = 10 ms, and of the NPI scheme (d) for Rician
fading with Fd = 5 Hz as a function of K.

11 Pn  , and that
Note that qN I (n) = Y(n) H
F



11 Pn = H11 Pn + V(n)
H11 Pn + V(n)
Pn Pn
Y(n) H

= V(n)P

(29)

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

5711

then,
To simplify notation, we omit index n from Y, V,


V
11 Pn 2 = Tr (P ) V
VP
= Tr{VP
}
Y H
F

It remains to calculate E{bb}. Note that the entries of the

V Cnr TF B are i.i.d where each is CN (0, v2 ). Thus, the en Cnr (TF B nt ) are i.i.d. where each
tries of Q = (1/v )VU
2
is CN (0, v ), and QQ  Wnr (TF B nt , Inr ), that is, a central Wishart matrix with (TF B nt ) degrees of freedom [33].
Therefore E{bb} = E{Tr2 {VP V }} =v4 E{Tr2 {QQ }} =
v4 (TF B nt )nr ((TF B nt )nr + 1), where the last equality
is due to [33, Lemma 2.9]. Thus,

= Tr{z sT P z s} + v,

(30)

where z = H
x(n) and v = 2(Tr{z sT P V }) +

Tr{VP V } is a non zero-mean noise. Because P is a
projection matrix it can be decomposed as
U
,
P = U

(31)

CTF B (TF B nt ) satisfies U

U
= IT n . Thus,
where U
FB
t




E{V V}U
E Tr{VP V } = Tr U
U}
= nr 2 (TF B nt ),
= nr v2 Tr{U
v

v }2 = 2E{a
a} + E{bb} E{
v }2
Var{
v } = E{
v v } E{
= 2v2 (sT P s)H
x(n)2
+ v4 (TF B nt )nr ((TF B nt )nr + 1)
2

nr v2 (TF B nt )
v } the result follows.
Then, since Var{qN I (n)} = Var{

(35)


(32)
A PPENDIX B

and

Because y1 (t) = H11 x1 (n) + H

x(n) + v1 (t) t [(n
1)Ts + 1, nTs ], it follows that

Tr{z sT P P z s}


= Tr (z sT )(1 P )(1 P )(z s)


= Tr z (sT P )z (P s)


= Tr (zz ) (sT P P s)

qT RP (n) =

(33)

Thus, E{
v }=nr v2(TF Bnt) since E{2(Tr{zsT P V })}=
0. Therefore, the E{qN I (n)} follows. Also, from (33) we see
that A(n) = 0, n.
It remains to derive the variance of qN I (n). To this
end, we calculate the variance of v = 2(a) + b, where a =
Tr{z sT P V } and b = Tr{VP V }. Because the entries of V are i.i.d. circular Gaussian random variables,
the random variables a, b are also circular Gaussian and
+ b)(a + a
+ b)} = 2E{a
a} +
therefore E{
v v } = E{(a + a

E{bb}, where the terms E{ab} = E{

ab} = 0 since they involve
third order moments of circular Gaussian random variables. We
begin with


E{a
a} = E Tr{z sT P V }Tr{VP z s}


= E vecT (zT s)vec(P V )vecT (P VT )vec(z s)

= E vecT (zT s)(I P )vec(V )vecT (VT )

(I P )vec(z s)


= vecT (zT s)(I P )E vec(V )vecT (VT )
(I P )vec(z s)
= v2 vecT (zT s)(I P )(I P )vec(z s)


= v2 Tr z sT P z s


= Tr zz 1TTF B P s
= v2 (sT P s) H
x(n)2 .

T F B PL

y1 (t)22

t=(n1)Ts +1

= Hr(n) + c + C(n),

= Tr{zz }Tr{sT P s}
= (sT P s)H
x2 .

nTs


(34)

where C(n) is a zero mean random variable and c is a constant.

To find c,

1 
E {qT RP (n)} = E y1 (t)22
PL
1
= E {y1 (t) y1 (t)}
PL
1
= Tr(E {y1 (t)y1 (t) })
PL


1
x(n)
x (n)H
= Tr P H11 H11 +v2 Inr+H
PL
= Hr(n)2 +nr

v2 P H11 2F
+
.
PL
PL

(n) is constant and independently generated from

Also, since x
x1 (t) and v1 (t), it follows that


y1 (t) CN H
x(n), P H11 H11 + v2 Inr .
Before continuing we need the following lemma:
Lemma 8: Let y CN (, C), then E{y2 } = Tr(C +
) and Var(y2 ) = Tr(C2 ) + 2 C.
Proof: Let x CN (0, C), then, E{y2 } = E{y y} =
Tr{E{yy }} = Tr{E{yy } + } = Tr{C + }.
Also, from [34, Lemma 2.2], E{x xx x} = Tr2 (C) +
Tr(C2 ). By substituting x = y , one obtains that Tr2 (C) +
Tr(C2 ) = E{(y) (y)(y) (y)} = E{y (y )
(y) (y)}. Thus,
E{y yy y} = Tr2 (C) + Tr(C2 ) d1 + d2 d3 ,

(36)

5712

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

where d1 = E{y (y )(y ) }, d2 = E{y y y}, d3 =

E{y (y) y}. Using E{(y) (y)(y) } = 0,
one obtains that 0 = E{y (y )(y ) } E{ (y
)(y ) } = d1 C, and therefore, d1 = C.
Furthermore, because E{(y ) (y ) (y )} = 0,
it holds that 0 = E{y (y ) y} E{ (y ) (y
)} E{y (y ) }, and because y is a circularly
Gaussian random vector, E{y (y ) } = 0. Thus, d3 =
2 Tr{C} = C and 2 Tr(C) = d3 = E{y y y}
E{y y} = d2 (C+ ). The latter equation implies
that d2 is real, thus d2 = 2 C + 4 . Substituting d1 , d2 ,
d3 into (36) we obtain E{y yy y}, and from Var(y2 ) =

E{y yy y} E2 {y y}, the lemma follows.
By substituting = H
x(n) and C = P H11 H11 + v2 Inr
the result follows.


A PPENDIX C
At each TC, U1s Tx chooses the next P (n) based on P (n
1), T and the energy measurements U1s RX performs at the
first TF B slots. To simplify the notation, we omit the index n
from Y(n) and V(n). We begin by analyzing the following
quantity:
P (n)
1
=
(n) P (n 1)T



2
H
x(n) 1T
a
TF B P +VP
F
=
2 = ,


b

x(n) 1T
H11 Pn +H
TF B Pn Pn +VPn Pn 
F

(37)
where



2
11 Pn 2 = H
x(n) 1T
a = Y H
TF B P + VP
F
F
and
2

11 Pn 
b = H
F

2


= H11 Pn + H
x(n) 1T
TF B Pn Pn + VPn Pn F .
We now derive the conditional distribution of 1/
(n) given
P (n 1). To this end, we first derive the distribution of a

and b. Since P is a projection matrix, there exists U
TF B (TF B nt )

that satisfies U U = ITF B nt . Thus, for every

C
A such that AP is defined,

j u
l v
k ]} = Tr [E {
i} u
l ]
j u
vi u
vk v
E {Qij Qkl } = E {Tr [


j u
l = v2 ki Tr {
l }
= Tr v2 ki ITF B u
uj u


j = v2 ki lj .
lu
= v2 ki Tr u
(39)
2

+
In the same manner, b = Pn Pn + VPn Pn F = U
T
is a ma 2 , where = H11 Pn + H
x
(n)

1
and
U
VU
F
TF B
to an orthonortrix whose columns complete the columns of U
TF B

mal basis of C
; i.e., [U, U] [U, U] = ITF B . Note that the
are circular Gaussian i.i.d. and that VU
and
entries of VU

VU are independent circular Gaussian random matrices. Thus,

a/(v2 /2) and b/(v2 /2) are non-central chi squared independent random variables with non-centrality parameters


2
H
x(n) 1T
1T P 1TF B
TF B P
F
a =
= TF B 2
H
x(n)2
2
v /2
v /2
(40)
and

2


x(n) 1T
2 H11 Pn + H
TF B Pn Pn F
b =
2
v
respectively, where the latter equality follows from (33).
The degrees of freedom are given by na = 2nr (TF B nt )
and nb = 2nr nt , respectively. Therefore, given P (n 1),
(1/
(n))(nb /na ) is a doubly non-central F-distributed random
variable [35], with expectation




1 nb
|P (n1) = E F(na ,nb ,la ) 1 F1 (1, nb /2, b /2)
E
(n) na
(41)
funcwhere 1 F1 (a, b, c) is the confluent hypergeometric

j
tion, defined as 1 F1 (a, b; z) = ((b)/(a))
j=0 (z (a +
j)/j!(b + j)) and F(na ,nb ,a ) is a non-central (single)
F random variable with na degrees of freedom in the numerator, non-centrality parameter a and nb degrees of freedom in the denominator. Because, E{F(na ,nb ,a ) } = nb (na +
a )/na (nb 2) for nb > 2, (41) it follows that
E{P (n)|P (n1)}= P (n1)T

na +a
1 F1 (1, nb /2,b /2).
nb 2
(42)

The series expansion of the confluent hypergeometric function [36, p. 466] is given by
1 F1 (a, b; z)

= (z)a (b)/(b a) + O(z a1 )

which means that

AP F = Tr{AP P A } = Tr{AP A }

U
A } = AU
2.
= Tr{AU
F

jth column and v

j )(
k ), where u
j is Us
k is Vs kth
ul v
(
vi u
row. Then,

(38)

Let = H
x(n) 1T
TF B + V, then a = U + QF , where
nr (TF B nt )

Q = VU C
is a circular Gaussian random matrix with i.i.d. entries. To see that, consider E{Qij Qkl } =


= 1 F1 1, nb /2; (y + x)2


= (nr nt 1)(y + ax)2 + O (x y)3 ,

1 F1 (1, nb /2; b /2)

(43)

where 0 1 and y = H11 Pn F /v , x = H

x(n)

P
P

/
.
In
(43)
we
used
the
triangle
inequality
1T
v
TF B n n F

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

H
x(n) 1T
x(n)1T
TF B Pn Pn + H11 Pn F H
TF B Pn Pn
F + H11 Pn F . We now derive expressions that enable us to
use the assumption x  y. We begin with
1 F1 (1, nb /2; b /2)

5713

where
E

F(na ,nb ,la )



 


x
= (nr nt 1) y 2 1 + O
+ O (x + y)3
y
 


x
= (nr nt 1)y 2 + O
+ O (x + y)3
3
y


= (nr nt 1)y 2 + O (x + 1)y 3 + xy 4 ,
where in the last equality we used the fact that




1
1
3
=O
O (x + y)
= O(y 3 + xy 4 ).
y 3 (1 + x/y)3


Substituting the latter into (42), and using Pn = P (n 1)P

we obtain

+ a )
3
+ xy
2 + O (x + 1)y

2H11 PF


4

T 1T
2 T nr (TF B nt )
TF B P 1TF B
H
x(n)2 + v
2

2
H11 P
H11 P
F
F


3
.
+ O (x + 1)y

It remains to take expectation with respect to P (n 1). Note

that only terms which involve y are affected. We now make
the assumption that P (n 1) t v2 . The latter inequality is
based on the fact that the channel cannot amplify U1 Txs signal
and since P (n 1) must be at least greater than T times the
noise floor,4 in order to have a SINR of T . It follows that
3 3/2 H11 P
3
y 3 = v3 P (n 1)3/2 H11 P
F
F
T


3/2
= O T
,
3/2
almost surely. Thus, E{y 3 } O(T ) which establishes (13).

It remains to show (15) and (16). Based on (12), Lemma 8

and the fact that s1 (t) CN (0, I), y2 (t) CN (0, P (n)
H21 H21 + v22 I) we obtain (15) where we used Tr(AA ) =
Tr(A2 ) = A2F for Hermitian A. Note that, from [35, p. 226]
it follows that for nb > 4


2
1 nb
|P (n 1)
E
(n) na

2 
(44)
= E F(na ,nb ,la )
1 F1 (2, nb /2, b /2),
4 The noise floor is the expected power of the noise at the receiver. This
quantity is usually known in communication systems.

nb
na

2

(nb /2 2)(na /2 + 2)
(nb /2)(na /2)

2a /2(na /2 + 1) (a /2)2 (na /2 + 2)

+
1+
(na /2)
(na /2)


,

(45)
and, with the same reasoning as in (43),
1 F1 (2, nb /2; b /2)



= (nb /21)(nb /22) (y(1+x/y))4 +O (x+y)5


= (nb /2 1)(nb /2 2)y 4 + O (x + 1)y 5 + xy 6 .
(46)

Using (44) and (9) it holds that E{P (n)2 |P (n 1)} = (na /nb )2
P (n1)2 E{(F(na ,nb ,la ) )2 }1 F1(2,nb /2,b /2). Thus, after substituting (45), (46), and using the inequality P (n 1)

t v2 , (16) follows.

E {P (n)|P (n 1)}
= T



= (nr nt 1) (y(1 + x/y))2 + O (x y)3

v2 (na

2 

A PPENDIX D
(n) = rl,m (, ) the idealUsing the specific input signals x
istic feedback signal can be written
.
(n) G
x(n) + c
q(n) = x
= gl,l cos2 (n ) + gm,m sin2 (n )
+ |gl,m | sin(2n ) cos(gl,m n ) + c.

(47)

= 0 then
Obviously, if U2s Tx does not send any signal, i.e., x
(n) =
the feedback will only observe c, i.e., c = H02 . If x
rl,m (0, 0), for any m = l, then
q(n) = gl,l + c gl,l = b (nl,l , rl,1 (0, 0)) c.
(n) = rl,m (/4, 0) then
If x
q(n) = gl,l /2 + gm,m /2 + |gl,m | cos(gl,m ) + c
(gl,m ) = cl,m (/4, 0).

(48)

(n) = rl,m (/4, /2) then

If x
q(n) = gl,l /2 + gm,m /2 |gl,m | sin(gl,m ) + c
(gl,m ) = cl,m (/4, /2).

(49)


A PPENDIX E
We have that

 

2
 GT  = T (G E + E)T 
HTG
 = TG
G
G
G

 




(50)
TG
 + TG
.
GTG
ETG

5714

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 13, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2014

and
 = n +1 (G),
By (19), TG
r
GTG




T ET  = max xT ET x
G
G
G
G

R EFERENCES

x=1

max

y=1,yC(TG
)

|yEy| max |yEy| = E.

y=1

(51)
Thus,
2

HTG
 E + nr +1 (G).

(52)

By [37, Corollary 6.3.4] and the extension of this corollary to

n +1 (G)|
Hermitian matrices, it follows that |nr +1 (G)
r
2
E. Because nr +1 (G) = 0, (52) becomes HTG

2E. Then, we bound the expected worst case interference as
follows
(a) 2


2
2
E {E|H} E {EF |H}
E HTG
 |H



(b) 2

E {|
glm glm |2 }

lm

where (a) follows because E2 E2F and (b) by Jensens

inequality. Since E{
gl,m |H} = gl,m , l, m, we get




2 
2

|H

Var{
gl,l } + 2
Var{
gl,m }.
E HTG

l<m

(53)
The estimation error in G occurs due to measurements errors in the feedback (4). As it is presented in Algorithm 1,
c is estimated at n = 0 as c = q(0) = b(0, 0) = C(0).
Then, from Proposition 4 we see that gll = q(nl,l )
gl,l + gm,m ) c and (
gl,m ) =
c, (
gl,m ) = q(nl,m ) 0.5(
c} = 0 ,
0.5(
gl,l + gm,m ) q(nl,m + 1) + c. Therefore, Var{
Var{
gll } = l,l + 0 , and
1
Var {(
gl,m )} = (l,l + m,m ) + rl,m +
4
1
Var {(
gl,m )} = (l,l + m,m ) + il,m +
4

3
0 ,
2
3
0 .
2

Thus, since l,m = rl,m + il,m we get that

Var{
gl,m } =

1
(l,l + m,m ) + l,m + 30 .
2

Then, equation (53) can be expressed as a function of the

variances {l,m } as


2
E HTG
 |H



2
(3n2t 2nt ) 0 + nt
l,l + 2
l,m .

l<m

It should be noted that from HTG

 = TG
 and (51)
GTG
2
it follows that E{HTG

|H}

G.
The
latter
bound is

tighter than (53) only when E is large.

[1] S. Jafar and M. Fakhereddin, Degrees of freedom for the MIMO interference channel, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 26372642,
Jul. 2007.
[2] Q. Spencer, A. Swindlehurst, and M. Haardt, Zero-forcing methods for
downlink spatial multiplexing in multiuser MIMO channels, IEEE Trans.
Signal Proces., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 461471, Feb. 2004.
[3] L. Ruan and V. Lau, Dynamic interference mitigation for generalized partially connected quasi-static MIMO interference channel, IEEE Trans.
Signal Proces., vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 37883798, Aug. 2011.
[4] A. Goldsmith, S. Jafar, I. Maric, and S. Srinivasa, Breaking spectrum
gridlock with cognitive radios: An information theoretic perspective,
Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 894914, May 2009.
[5] R. Zhang and Y.-C. Liang, Exploiting multi-antennas for opportunistic
spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal
Process., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88102, Feb. 2008.
[6] G. Scutari, D. Palomar, and S. Barbarossa, Cognitive MIMO radio,
IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 4659, Nov. 2008.
[7] G. Scutari and D. Palomar, MIMO cognitive radio: A game theoretical
approach, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 761780,
Feb. 2010.
[8] K. Hamdi, W. Zhang, and K. Letaief, Opportunistic spectrum sharing
in cognitive MIMO wireless networks, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 40984109, Aug. 2009.
[9] S. Zhou, B. Muquet, and G. Giannakis, Subspace-based (semi-) blind
channel estimation for block precoded space-time OFDM, IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 12151228, May 2002.
[10] Z. Ding and L. Qiu, Blind MIMO channel identification from second
order statistics using rank deficient channel convolution matrix, IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 535544, Feb. 2003.
[11] C. Shin, R. Heath, and E. Powers, Blind channel estimation for MIMOOFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 670685,
Mar. 2007.
[12] G. Scutari, D. Palomar, and S. Barbarossa, Competitive design of multiuser MIMO systems based on game theory: A unified view, IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 10891103, Sep. 2008.
[13] G. Scutari, D. Palomar, and S. Barbarossa, The MIMO iterative
waterfilling algorithm, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 5,
pp. 19171935, May 2009.
[14] F. Chen, W. Su, S. Batalama, and J. Matyjas, On transceiver beamformer
design for multi-source multi-destination wireless networks, in Proc.
IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2011, pp. 16.
[15] R. Zhang, Y.-C. Liang, and S. Cui, Dynamic resource allocation in
cognitive radio networks, IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 5,
pp. 102114, May 2010.
[16] E. Larsson and E. Jorswieck, Competition versus cooperation on the
MISO interference channel, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 7,
pp. 10591069, Sep. 2008.
[17] L. Zhang, Y.-C. Liang, Y. Xin, and H. V. Poor, Robust cognitive beamforming with partial channel state information, IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 41434153, Aug. 2009.
[18] Y. J. Zhang and A. M.-C. So, Optimal spectrum sharing in MIMO cognitive radio networks via semidefnite programming, IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 362373, Feb. 2011.
[19] Z. Chen et al., Interference mitigation for cognitive radio MIMO systems
based on practical precoding, Physical Communication, 2012.
[20] H. Yi, Nullspace-based secondary joint transceiver scheme for cognitive
radio MIMO networks using second-order statistics, in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Commun., May 2010, pp. 15.
[21] Y. Noam and A. Goldsmith, Blind null-space learning for MIMO underlay cognitive radio with primary user interference adaptation, IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 17221734, Apr. 2013.
[22] Y. Noam and A. J. Goldsmith, The one-bit null space learning algorithm and its convergence, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 21, no. 24,
pp. 61356149, Dec. 2013.
[23] R. Zhang, F. Gao, and Y.-C. Liang, Cognitive beamforming made practical: Effective interference channel and learning-throughput tradeoff,
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 706718, Feb. 2010.
[24] K. Huang and R. Zhang, Cooperative feedback for multiantenna
cognitive radio networks, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 2,
pp. 747758, Feb. 2011.
[25] H. Wang, Y. Huang, K.-K. Wong, and L. Yang, Asymptotic performance
of two-user interference channels using coordinated zero-forcing, IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 608611, May 2012.
[26] R. Zhang, On active learning and supervised transmission of spectrum sharing based cognitive radios by exploiting hidden primary

NOAM et al.: NULL SPACE LEARNING WITH INTERFERENCE FEEDBACK

[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]

[36]
[37]

radio feedback, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 29602970,
Oct. 2010.
S. Huang, X. Liu, and Z. Ding, Decentralized cognitive radio control
based on inference from primary link control information, IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 394406, Feb. 2011.
J. Wang, G. Scutari, and D. P. Palomar, Robust MIMO cognitive radio via
game theory, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 11831201,
Mar. 2011.
M. Biguesh and A. Gershman, Training-based MIMO channel estimation: A study of estimator tradeoffs and optimal training signals, IEEE
Trans. Signal Proces., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 884893, Mar. 2006.
M. Wax and T. Kailath, Detection of signals by information theoretic
criteria, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 33, no. 2,
pp. 387392, Apr. 1985.
A. P. Liavas, P. A. Regalia, and J.-P. Delmas, Blind channel approximation: Effective channel order determination, IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 33363344, Dec. 1999.
N. S. Zuckerman, Y. Noam, A. J. Goldsmith, and P. P. Lee, A self-directed
method for cell-type identification and separation of gene expression
microarrays, PLoS Comput. Biol., vol. 9, no. 8, p. e1003189, 2013.
A. Tulino and S. Verd, Random Matrix Theory and Wireless Communications. Delft, The Netherlands: Now Publishers Inc., 2004.
K. S. Miller, Complex Stochastic Processes: An Introduction to
Theory and Application, Advanced Book Program. Reading, MA,
USA: Addison-Wesley, 1974.
M. Bock, G. G. Judge, and T. Yancey, A simple form for the inverse
moments of non-central 2 and f random variables and certain confluent
hypergeometric functions, J. Econometrics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 217234,
1984.
W. J. Thompson, Atlas for Computing Mathematical Functions: An Illustrated Guide for Practitioners, With Programs in C and Mathematica.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 1997.
R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.

Yair Noam received the B.Sc. (cum laude) and

M.Sc. (summa cum laude) degrees in electrical and
computer engineering from Ben-Gurion University
of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel, in 2003 and 2006,
respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv,
Israel, in 2011. Between 2010 and 2013, he was a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the Wireless System Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA. He is currently a
Senior Lecturer with the Faculty of Engineering,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. His research interests include estimation and communication theory, interference mitigation in wireless communications networks, and cognitive radio.

5715

Alexandros Manolakos received the Diploma (with

honors) in electrical and computer engineering from
the National Technical University of Athens, Athens,
Greece, in 2010 and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University, Stanford,
CA, USA, in 2012. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,
USA. His research interests include massive MIMO
wireless systems, cooperative multipoint cellular
networks, and interference mitigation in wireless
communications. Mr. Manolakos received the Alcatel-Lucent Stanford Graduate Fellowship and the Roberto Padovani Scholarship from Corporate R&D,
Qualcomm, San Diego, CA, USA, in 2012.

Andrea J. Goldsmith (S90M93SM99F05)

received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from
the University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA, USA, all in electrical engineering. She was
with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. She has
previously held industry positions at Maxim Technologies, Memorylink Corporation, and AT&T Bell
Laboratories. She is currently the Stephen Harris
professor with the School of Engineering and a Professor of electrical engineering with Stanford University, Stanford, CA. She is a Cofounder and currently the Chief Technology
Officer of Accelera, Inc., which develops software-defined wireless network
technology. She also previously co-founded and served as Chief Technology
Officer of Quantenna Communications Inc., which develops high-performance
WiFi chipsets. She is author of the book Wireless Communications (2005,
Cambridge Press) and the coauthor of MIMO Wireless Communications (2010,
Cambridge Press) and Principles of Cognitive Radio (2012, Cambridge Press).
Dr. Goldsmith is currently on the Steering Committee for the IEEE T RANS ACTIONS ON W IRELESS C OMMUNICATIONS , and has previously served as
an Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NFORMATION T HEORY, the
Journal on Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information
Theory and in Networks, the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C OMMUNICATIONS,
and the IEEE W IRELESS C OMMUNICATIONS M AGAZINE. Dr. Goldsmith
participates actively in committees and conference organization for the IEEE
Information Theory and Communications Societies and has served on the Board
of Governors for both societies. She has been a Distinguished Lecturer for both
societies, served as the President of the IEEE Information Theory Society in
2009, founded and chaired the student committee of the IEEE Information
Theory society, and currently chairs the Emerging Technology Committee and
is a member of the Strategic Planning Committee in the IEEE Communications
Society. She is a Fellow of the IEEE and Stanford University. She has received
several awards for her work, including the IEEE Communications and Information Theory Societies Joint Paper Award, the IEEE Communications Society
Best Tutorial Paper Award, the National Academy of Engineering Gilbreth
Lecture Award, the IEEE Wireless Communications Technical Committee
Recognition Award, the Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, and the Silicon Valley/
San Jose Business Journals Women of Influence Award. At Stanford University, she received the inaugural University Postdoc Mentoring Award, served as
Chair of its Faculty Senate, and currently serves on its Faculty Senate and on
its Budget Group.