This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2016.2594776, IEEE
Communications Letters
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MONTH 2016
Machine Learning-based Antenna Selection in Wireless Communications
Jingon Joung
Abstract—This study is the first attempt to conflate a ma-
chine learning technique with wireless communications. Through
interpreting the antenna selection (AS) in wireless communica-
tions (i.e. an optimization-driven decision (ODD)) to multiclass-
classification learning (i.e. data-driven prediction (DDP)), and
through comparing the learning-based AS using k-nearest neigh-
bors (k-NN) and support vector machine (SVM) algorithms
with conventional optimization-driven AS methods in terms of
communications performance, computational complexity, and
feedback overhead, we provide insight into the potential of fusion
of machine learning and wireless communications.
Index Terms—Machine learning, multiclass classification, k-
NN, SVM, data-driven prediction (DDP), optimization-driven
decision (ODD), antenna selection, MIMO.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Over the past few decades, advanced analytics techniques,
such as data analytics, data mining, and machine learning, have
attracted the attention of analysts, data scientists, researchers,
and engineers in various fields in order to exploit very large
and diverse data sets. For example, recently in information
communications, a network utilizing big data was demon-
strated [1], and networks and wireless communications that
embrace big data have been studied [2], [3].
This study focuses particularly on the potential of machine
learning techniques in wireless communications. Specifically,
we apply multiclass classification, which is a primary task
in machine learning, into a multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) system with transmit antenna selection (AS) [4].
We employ multiclass classification algorithms, i.e. multiclass
k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) and a support vector machine
(SVM) [5], to classify the training channel state information
(CSI) into one of the classes that represent the antenna set that
provides the best communication performance. From training
with sufficient channels (data), we obtain a classification
model and use it to classify a new channel and to accordingly
obtain the best antenna set, i.e. data-driven prediction (DDP).
We compare the learning-based antenna selection (AS)
systems with a conventional AS system that maximizes the
minimum of either the eigenvalue or the norm of channels; i.e.
an optimization-driven decision (ODD). From the comparison,
we discuss the systems’ advantages and disadvantages in terms
of bit-error-rate (BER), selection complexity, and feedback
overhead. This study provides insight into the fusion of
machine learning and wireless communications.
II. ODD: O PTIMIZATION -D RIVEN A NTENNA S ELECTION
We consider a simple point-to-point communication with
a transmitter (Tx) and a receiver (Rx) employing nt and nr
Manuscript received April 0, 2016. The associate editor coordinating the
review of this letter and approving it for publication was D. B. da Costa.
The author is with the School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea (e-mail: jgjoung@cau.ac.kr).
Digital Object Identifier S 00.0000/LCOMM.2016.00.000000
1089-7798/10$25.00 © 2016 IEEE
1089-7798 (c) 2016 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.
1
antennas, respectively. The Tx transfers nd independent data
streams, x ∈ Cnd ×1 , through ns selected antenna(s) to the Rx,
where nd ≤ min{nr , ns } for reliable performance with linear
processing. Then, the Rx estimates x̃ ∈ Cnd ×1 as follows1 :
x̃ = Wr HWt x + Wr n, where Wr ∈ Cnd ×nr and Wt ∈
Cns ×nd are pre- and post-coding matrices, respectively; H ∈
Cnr ×ns is a partial MIMO channel matrix whose ns columns
are selected (i.e. AS) from the nt columns of an original full
MIMO channel matrix Hfull ∈ Cnr ×nt ; and n is the additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the Rx.
Next, a set of a selected antenna index vector, sn ∈ Rns ×1 ,
is defined as S = {s1 , . . . , sS }, where the elements of sn
represent the indices of the selected antennas and S is the
number of selection candidates. The optimal AS son in terms
of BER is obtained through solving the optimization problem
below [4]:
son = max svnd [Hfull ]sn , (1)
sn ∈S
where svnd (A) gives the nd th largest singular value of matrix
A; and [A]sn gives a partial matrix that consists of the selected
columns from A according to the selection indices in sn .
Then, the pre- and post-precoder matrices are obtained as
Wr = U H and Wt = V , respectively, where U ∈ Cnr ×nd
and V H ∈ Cnd ×ns are the left and right singular matrices
corresponding to the largest nd singular values of H.
Because son in (1) with the corresponding pre- and post-
coding maximizes the minimum of the effective channel gains,
it yields the optimal BER and is included as a performance
bound in the BER comparison.
III. DDP: DATA -D RIVEN A NTENNA S ELECTION
In order to select the optimal antenna indices among |S|,
where |A| is the cardinality of set A, instead of solving the
combinatorial optimization problem in (1), we consider super-
vised machine-learning algorithms. In particular, we employ
a multiclass classification algorithm in order to classify CSI
into |S| classes, each of which represents the antenna set
that provides the best communication performance. With a
sufficient number of CSI samples, i.e. training data, we can
obtain a classification model and predict a class of new CSI,
i.e. the best antenna set for a new channel. Here, we interpret
a communications system as a learning system, as follows: (i)
CSI as training sample (i.e. an instance or observation); (ii)
index n of sn ∈ S as a class label ℓ (i.e. membership); and
(iii) the set of index n as a set of classes, L (i.e. categories or
groups).
We address this method as a DDP method, and henceforth
use the terms in communications and machine learning inter-
changeably and introduce two popular multiclass classification
1 In this study, for the feasibility test, we assumed that the Tx and Rx know
the CSI. Note that the CSI is not typically required for a practical AS system
because the selection can be performed at the Rx.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2016.2594776, IEEE
Communications Letters

IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MONTH 2016 2

algorithms k-NN and SVM to select the antennas in the TABLE I

communications. E XAMPLE OF A M APPING TABLE BETWEEN L ABEL ℓ ∈ L AND A NTENNA
I NDICES sn ∈ S WHEN nt = 6, nr = 2, AND ns = 2.
ℓ = 1: s1 =[1,2] ℓ = 6: s6 =[2,3] ℓ = 11: s11 =[3,5]
A. Training Set Manipulation from Channels ℓ = 2: s2 =[1,3] ℓ = 7: s7 =[2,4] ℓ = 12: s12 =[3,6]
ℓ = 3: s3 =[1,4] ℓ = 8: s8 =[2,5] ℓ = 13: s13 =[4,5]
We perform three procedures (not necessarily in sequence): ℓ = 4: s4 =[1,5] ℓ = 9: s9 =[2,6] ℓ = 14: s14 =[4,6]
(i) design the training samples from the channels, (ii) design ℓ = 5: s5 =[1,6] ℓ = 10: s10 =[3,4] ℓ = 15: s15 =[5,6]

the key performance indicator (KPI), and (iii) declare the

S.6 Generate a class label vector c ∈ RM×1 by setting the
corresponding labels based on the KPI, i.e. labeling.
mth element cm of c by ℓ∗ , which gives the best KPI.
1) Training Set Generation: The training samples are the
S.7 Repeat S.5 and S.6 for CSI samples Hm , for all m.
input of a learning system and are known as input variables,
features, predictors, or attributes. In communications, M nr -
by-nt complex channel matrices, Hm , (or vectors) are used B. Build a Learning System
for the training. Because the training samples are a real-value We now have a manipulated, real-value matrix T ∈ RM×N
vector, the channels must be manipulated for N real-value and a corresponding class-label vector c = [c1 · · · cM ]T .
features, such as angle, magnitude, real and imaginary parts of Using the labeled training data set, i.e. T and c, we build
hij , where hij is the (i, j)th complex-value element of Hm . a learning system, i.e. a trained multiclass classifier, whose
Also, the training samples must be normalized, i.e. feature input is CSI and output is the index of the selected antenna
normalization, in order to avoid significant bias in the training. set. As |L| > 2 in AS systems, we employ |L|-class (i.e.
For example, the procedures used in this study are as follows: multiclass) classification algorithms, i.e. the k-NN and SVM
S.1 Generate the 1-by-N real-value feature vector dm from algorithms. For a simple description of the multiclass classi-
the training CSI matrix Hm . fication algorithms, we denote the mth row vector of T by
S.2 Repeat S.1 for all training CSI sets m ∈ {1, . . . , M }. tr [m].
S.3 Generate a training data matrix D ∈ RM×N by stacking 1) Multiclass k-NN Classification: Among M training
dm ’s as D = [dT1 · · · dTM ]T . samples, a k-NN classifier finds the k-nearest training samples
S.4 Normalize/scale D and generate a normalized feature {tr [m]} from a new observation tr , which is a query sample.
matrix T , such that the (i, j)th element of T is a nor- Then, the k-NN classifier declares the class/label ℓ∗ of tr
malized value of the (i, j)th element of D as tij = based on a majority (the highest representation or a weighted
(dij − Ei dij )/(maxi {dij } − mini {dij }). average) label among the labels, ℓm s, which belong to the
2) KPI Design: A KPI is designed to label the training k-nearest training samples from tr . Here, the ‘nearest’ is
samples. In general, a KPI can be defined as any metric used in defined based on the distance (or dissimilarity measure) among
communications, such as spectral efficiency, energy efficiency, the samples. In this study, we confine ourselves to the most
BER, the norm of an effective channel, the effective received popular measure of distance, i.e. the Euclidian distance defined
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), received signal power, the max- as d(tr [m], tr ) = ktr [m]−tr k2 . We restrict k to an odd number
imum of the minimum eigenvalue of the effective channel, in order to avoid an ambiguous majority and to determine it
communications latency, and any combination thereof. In this in order to minimize misclassification error through exhaustive
work, we use BER as the KPI. searching from 1 to approximately M/3.
3) Labeling: From the interpretation of the AS and multi- 2) Multiclass SVM Classification: In order to classify mul-
class classification, it is clear that designing L is equivalent to tiple classes using an SVM, we employ |L| binary classifiers,
designing S. Suppose that there are ns combinations from a each of which identifies one category versus the other cat-
nt
set with nt antennas, i.e. |S| = ( ns ). From the communication- egories, i.e. a one-vs.-rest (or one-vs.-all) binary classifying
domain knowledge stating that less correlated antennas are approach. The detailed procedure is as follows.
more likely to be selected for better communication perfor- S.8 Define a sub-training data set {Tℓ }, such that tr [m] is
mance, we design S with the sets of less correlated antennas. located at a row of Tℓ if cm = ℓ, for all m ∈ {1, . . . , M }.
By doing this, the training samples are devoted as equally Similarly, we define {Tℓ } for all ℓ ∈ L. Then, we perform
as possible to each class label, which results in better training an SVM to classify the two training groups Tℓ and Tℓ
performance. Without this knowledge (or if it is known that the where Tℓ is a shrunk matrix, through eliminating the row
channels are uncorrelated), we design S with full combinations vectors of Tℓ from T .
T
of an antenna set. A mapping example between the labels ℓ ∈ L S.9 Generate a binary label vector bℓ = [bℓ [1] · · · bℓ [M ]] for
and sn ∈ S is presented in Table I, when nt = 6, nr = 2, and the ℓth binary classification, such that bℓ [m] = 1 if cm =
ns = 2. Here, we demonstrate the full sn set and highlight the ℓ, otherwise bℓ [m] = 0.
less correlated antennas in bold typeface when the correlation S.10 One(ℓ)-vs.-rest(ℓ) method: Solve an alternative logistic
factors ρt = 0.3 and ρr = 0.1 at Tx and Rx, respectively (refer regression problem with two training groups {Tℓ , Tℓ } and
to the precise correlation model in [6]). Then, we identify a the corresponding binary labels bℓ , as follows:
label of the training samples from the L. This procedure is XM
bℓ [m]g1 θℓT f (tr [m]) + (1 − bℓ [m])


called labeling and is summarized as follows: θℓ =min C
θℓ
S.5 Evaluate a KPI for the mth training CSI Hm with a m=1
× g0 θℓT f (tr [m]) + kθℓ k22 /2.


particular antenna set sn corresponding to label ℓ ∈ L. (2)

1089-7798 (c) 2016 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2016.2594776, IEEE
Communications Letters
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MONTH 2016
In (2), C is a penalty (or cost) parameter that balances the
bias and over fitting (similar to a regularization factor in
regression); the cost function gk (·) is defined as gk (z) =
(−1)k z + 1 if (−1)k z ≥ −1, otherwise 0; θℓ ∈ RM×1
is a learning parameter vector; and f (tr [m]) ∈ RM×1
is a Gaussian radial-based kernel function vector that im-
proves the choice of features, and its qth element function
fq (tr [m]) gives a similarity score between tr [q] and tr [m]
as fq (tr [m]) = exp(−ktr [q] − tr [m]k2 /(2σ 2 )). Here, the
penalty parameter C and the variance σ of the Gaussian
radial-based kernel function are design parameters. The
Gaussian kernel is a commonly used kernel function in
SVMs when the number of features N is small and the
number of training sets M is intermediate [5]. Note that
the case is typical of the AS system considered.
S.11 Repeat S.10 for all ℓ ∈ {1, . . . , |L|}.
C. Antenna Selection based on a Multiclass Classifier
Once all θℓ values are obtained, we can build an AS system
using the learning function in (2). Upon a new input into a
channel matrix, we manipulate it to be an input of the learning
machine, i.e. tr , and provide it to a classifier built with {θℓ } in
order to predict the label of the class, i.e. the selected antenna
index. Here, as the SVM is implemented using an |L|-binary
classifier, the SVM might predict multiple labels. In this case,
we determine the optimal label ℓ∗ that provides the lowest
cost, and an antenna pair corresponding to ℓ∗ will be selected
for communications.
D. Parameter Optimization
The classification performance depends on the design of the
parameters. For example, the performance of k-NN depends
on the number of neighbors k, the distance function d(·), and
the weight of the distance, and the performance of the SVM
primarily depends on the kernel functions. Furthermore, in
communications, a learning system is built offline, and it is
difficult to directly include the numerous practical parameters
in the communication environment in the design. Moreover,
the parameters also depend on the system configuration, such
as nt , nr , ns , SNR, channel uncertainty level, and the spatial
correlation factors. Hence, the design of the optimal parame-
ters remains a subject for future study. In this study, we follow
a heuristic approach, which is typically used to identify better
parameters: for k-NN, we perform an exhaustive search for a
better k; for SVM, we check with the multiple random initial
parameters of σ 2 and C using iterative cross-validation with
M/10 (10%) training samples.
IV. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION WITH T EST C HANNELS
In this section, we evaluate the BER performance of
the AS systems invoking machine learning-based AS and
optimization-based AS, and their performance is compared
(Table II). Here, for comparison, we consider three bench-
marking systems. The AS criteria/methods compared in the
simulation are listed and denoted as follows:
• ODD: MaxMinEV. Maximize the minimum eigenvalue
of the selected channels, (1).
1089-7798 (c) 2016 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.
3
• ODD: MaxMinNorm. Maximize the minimum norm of
the channels such that si = max mink [Hfull ]si k2 .
si ∈S
•DDP: SVM. Multiclass SVM-based selection.
• DDP: k-NN. Multiclass k-NN-based selection.
• Random selection: Random.
We generated 2 × 103 training CSI samples (i.e. M = 2 × 103)
that have the Rayleigh distribution and considered the spatial
correlation factors ρt and ρr for the transmit and receive
antennas, respectively. For each channel realization, 200 16-
quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) symbols were trans-
mitted. We set the spatial correlation factors of the channels
as ρt = 0.3 and ρr = 0.1. For uncertain CSI, the uncertain
channel power was set to 2% of the average channel power.
In S.1, |hij |2 was used to construct di because it is effective
in learning the cost in (1) from our observations. The other
communications and training-and-learning parameters tested
in the evaluation are as follows:
• Fig. 1(a): {nt , nr , ns , nd } = {8, 1, 1, 1}; N = 8; |L| = 8
with si ∈ {1, . . . , 8}; and 15 dB SNR per an Rx antenna.
• Fig. 1(b): {nt , nr , ns , nd } = {6, 2, 2, 2}; N = 12; |L| =
6 with highlighted ℓ in Table I; and 20 dB SNR per Rx
antenna.
• Note: Other configurations with possible ns for
{8(6), 1(2), ns, 1} and {6, 2, ns, 2} have the same trends
as the results in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. Thus,
the results are omitted in this letter.
A. Classification Performance
In this study, in order to visualize the multiclass classifica-
tion performance, we illustrate the misclassification rate (error
rate) using a web representation [7] in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). Each
point of a regular polygon represents the misclassification
denoted by ℓ → ℓ̄, where ∀ℓ̄ ∈ L and ℓ̄ 6= ℓ, and the
corresponding misclassification rate is noted on the spoke.
When a Tx selects one antenna and transmits a single
stream, the multiclass classification performs better compared
with the two-antenna selection for two streams. This is because
the dimensions of the feature, N , increase from 8 to 12 with
the limited training set. Furthermore, the magnitude of the
elements in a vector channel, i.e. di , is sufficient information
to capture the KPI, yet it is not sufficient for a matrix channel.
B. Communications Performance
In Fig. 1, we illustrate the empirical cumulative density
function (CDF) of the BER. Because we have finite training
samples of channels in a large dimension, which is propor-
tional to N , and the samples of random channels would be
outliers with high probability, the k-NN classifier often suffers
from high variations of classification at the decision boundary
as reported in [5], while an SVM performs well with the
outliers and can be used in a linear or non-linear manner
with the use of a kernel. As seen in the results, therefore, an
SVM classifier is more preferable for communications than
a k-NN classifier. Moreover, better classification yields better
communications performance.
When a Tx selects one antenna to send a single stream, all
methods, with the exception of Random, achieve near-optimal
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2016.2594776, IEEE
Communications Letters

IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 0, NO. 0, MONTH 2016 4

MaxMinEV MaxMinEV
0.9 0.9
SVM SVM
0.8 k-NN 0.8 k-NN
MaxMinNorm MaxMinNorm
0.7 0.7 Random
Random
estimated CDF

estimated CDF
0.6 1 → 1̄ 0.6 1 → 1̄
0.8 0.8
0.5 8 → 8̄ 2 → 2̄ 0.5 0.6
0.6 6 → 6̄ 2 → 2̄
0.4 0.4
0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2
7 → 7̄ 0 3 → 3̄ 0
0.3 0.3
SVM 5 → 5̄ 3 → 3̄
0.2 k-NN 0.2 SVM
6 → 6̄ 4 → 4̄ k-NN
4 → 4̄
0.1 5 → 5̄ 0.1

0 0
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 −4 −3 −2 −1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
BER BER
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Empirical CDF of BER. (a) Single-antenna selection for single-stream transmission: {nt , nr , ns , nd } = {8, 1, 1, 1}, N = 8, ρt = 0.3, ρr = 0.1, and
SNR is 15 dB. (b) Two-antenna selection for double-stream transmission: {nt , nr , ns , nd } = {6, 2, 2, 2}, N = 12, ρt = 0.3, ρr = 0.1, and SNR is 20 dB.

TABLE II
nt

C OMPARISON OF AS M ETHODS . |L| ≤ ns
= nt !/(nr !(nt − nr )!)

Optimization-driven decision (ODD) Data-driven prediction (DDP)

Selection method MaxMinEV MaxMinNorm Random SVM k-NN
BER performance Best Good Worst Second best Moderate
Feedback AS at Tx H: nr nt complex values H: nr nt complex values t: N (= nr nt ) real values
None
amount AS at Rx log2 |L| bits log2 |L| bits log2 |L| bits log2 |L| bits
Selection complexity O(|L|nr n2s + |L| log |L|) O(nr nt + |L|(ns − 1)nr + |L| log |L|) O(1) O(N 2 ) = O(n2r n2t ) O(N ) = O(nr nt )

performance as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). In contrast, there is
performance loss when multiple antennas are selected for a
multi-stream transmission. Here, we note that the learning-
based AS, i.e. the SVM, outperforms the others.
C. Feedback Amount and Computational Complexity
Depending on whether the AS decision is made at a Tx or an
Rx, the required feedback amount varies. If an Rx determines
the selection, all schemes except Random require log2 |L|-bit
feedback to inform the label of si to a Tx. In contrast, if a
Tx determines the selection, H, i.e. nr nt complex values, is
required to be fed back for MaxMinEV and MaxMinNorm;
however, the SVM and k-NN schemes only need t, which is
an N -real value. By designing di in S.2, the learning-based
methods can reduce the feedback amount.
The selection complexity is compared in Table II. The selec-
tion complexity is defined as prediction complexity excluding
the training complexity as the training is performed before
the communications offline. Here, it can be seen that the
selection complexity of the learning-based AS (i.e. DDP) is
polynomial, which is clearly lower than that of MaxMinEV
and MaxMinNorm
(i.e. ODD) using a combinatorial search
across |L| ≤ nnst .
V. C ONCLUSION
In this letter, we applied a multiclass classification to an
antenna selection system. The results from a communications
perspective, leaving the training cost aside, verify the feasible
complexity and performance of learning-based antenna selec-
tion. This study provides a reference for the use of various
machine-learning algorithms for wireless communications (i.e.
DDP for ODD), and it will accelerate their implementation in
real-life communications. Interesting areas for further study
include the validation of a learning system with realistic
channels and an online learning algorithm to track channels
with time-varying statistics.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Do and H. Son, “SK Telecom’s fast data platform: T-PANI and
APOLLO,” Korea Communication Review, vol. Q2, pp. 38–42, Apr. 2015.
[2] T. T. T. Nguyen and G. Armitage, “A survey of techniques for internet
traffic classification using machine learning,” IEEE Commun., Surveys &
Tutorials, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 56–76, 4th Quarter 2008.
[3] S. Bi, R. Zhang, Z. Ding, and S. Cui, “Wireless communications in the
era of big data,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, pp. 190–199, Oct. 2015.
[4] R. W. Heath, S. Sandhu, and A. Paulraj, “Antenna selection for spatial
multiplexing systems with linear receivers,” IEEE Communications Let-
ters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 142–144, April 2001.
[5] H. Zhang, A. C. Berg, M. Maire, and J. Malik, “SVM-KNN: Discrimi-
native nearest neighbor classification for visual category recognition,” in
Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR), New York, USA, Jun. 2006, pp. 2126 – 2136.
[6] J. P. Kermoal, L. Schumacher, K. I. Pedersen, P. E. Mogensen, and
F. Frederiksen, “A stochastic MIMO radio channel model with experi-
mental validation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 20, pp. 1211–1226,
Aug. 2002.
[7] B. Diri and S. Albayrak, “Visualization and analysis of classifiers perfor-
mance in multi-class medical data,” Elsevier Science, vol. 34, no. 1, pp.
628–634, Jan. 2008.

1089-7798 (c) 2016 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.