1

Robust Beamforming for Physical Layer
Security in BDMA Massive MIMO
arXiv:1711.08606v2 [cs.IT] 29 Nov 2017

Fengchao Zhu, Feifei Gao, Hai Lin, Shi Jin, and Junhui Zhao

Abstract
In this paper, we design robust beamforming to guarantee the physical layer security for a multiuser
beam division multiple access (BDMA) massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system, when
the channel estimation errors are taken into consideration. With the aid of artificial noise (AN), the proposed design are formulated as minimizing the transmit power of the base station (BS), while providing
legal users and the eavesdropper (Eve) with different signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). It
is strictly proved that, under BDMA massive MIMO scheme, the initial non-convex optimization can be
equivalently converted to a convex semi-definite programming (SDP) problem and the optimal rank-one
beamforming solutions can be guaranteed. In stead of directly resorting to the convex tool, we make
one step further by deriving the optimal beamforming direction and the optimal beamforming power
allocation in closed-form, which greatly reduces the computational complexity and makes the proposed
design practical for real world applications. Simulation results are then provided to verify the efficiency
of the proposed algorithm.
Index Terms
Robust beamforming, massive MIMO, physical layer security, beam division multiple access (BDMA),
closed-form.

F. Zhu is with High-Tech Institute of Xi’an, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710025, China (e-mail: fengchao zhu@126.com). F. Gao is
with the State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science
and Technology, Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China (e-mail: feifeigao@ieee.org). H.
Lin is with the Department of Electrical and Information Systems, Osaka Prefecture University, Sakai, Osaka, Japan (e-mail:
hai.lin@ieee.org). S. Jin is with the National Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, P. R.
China (email: jinshi@seu.edu.cn). J. Zhao is with School of Information Engineering, East China Jiaotong University, Nanchang,
330013, China, and is also with School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044,
China (email: eeejhzhao@163.com).

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) [1] is one of the key technologies for 5G
wireless communications [2], which utilizes a very large number of antennas at the base station
(BS) to provide low power consumption, high spectral efficiency, security, and reliable linkage. It
was shown in [3] that the propagation channel vectors of different users become asymptotically
orthogonal, where the effects of uncorrelated noise and intra-cell interference will be eliminated
when the number of antennas at the BS grows to infinity. As a result, simple linear signal
processing approaches, i.e., matched filter (MF) and zero-forcing beamforming can be used in
massive MIMO systems [4]. However, a prerequisite of enjoying above benefits is the availability
of channel state information (CSI). There are three main approaches of low-complex channel
estimation algorithms that referred to different expansion basis to represent the sparsity inside
channels [5]–[11]. For example, the authors in [5], [6] applied a low-rank approximation of the
channel covariance matrix to reduce the effective channel parameters of massive MIMO. The
authors in [7]–[9] proposed an angle division multiple access (ADMA) model and the massive
MIMO channels could be represented by a few channel gain and angular parameters. Moreover,
[10], [11] designed a beam division multiple access (BDMA) scheme and a few orthogonal basis
from discrete Fourier transform (DFT) are used to approximate the channel vectors. Nevertheless,
perfect CSI are not available in practice due to: (i) all [5]–[11] are based on approximately-sparse
model and there must be residue errors; (ii) additive noise always exist at the receiver. Therefore,
the channel estimation errors should be taken into consideration in the subsequent transmission
design.
On the other side, secrecy and privacy are also critical concerns for 5G communication
systems, where the physical layer security has drawn considerable interest since it can prevent eavesdropping without upper layer data encryption. The information-theoretic approach to
guarantee secrecy was initiated by Wyner [12], where it was shown that confidential messages
transmission could be achieved by exploiting the physical characteristics of the wireless channel.
Then the results of [12] was generalized to different channel models, i.e., the broadcast channels
[13], the single-input single-output (SISO) fading channels [14], the multiple access channels
(MAC) [15], and the multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channels [16]. The authors of [17]

3

first investigated the limiting physical layer security performance when the number of antennas
approaches infinity in massive MIMO systems, and then [18], [19] studied the physical layer
security in massive MIMO relay channel and massive MIMO Rician Channel, respectively.
The authors of [20]–[22] considered the asymptotic achievable secrecy rate in massive MIMO
systems, where it was shown that under certain orthogonality conditions, the secrecy rate loss
introduced by the eavesdropper could be completely mitigated. However, all [17]–[22] do not take
channel estimation errors into consideration. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the optimal
solution of robust beamforming for the physical layer security of massive MIMO systems has
not been reported yet.
In this paper, we consider robust beamforming for the physical layer security of multiuser massive MIMO systems following BMDA scheme [10], [11], where the estimated channels are lied
orthogonally to each other and the channel estimation errors are bounded by ball constants. The
proposed design utilizes simultaneous robust information and artificial noise (AN) beamforming
to provide the legal users and Eve with different signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR),
meanwhile minimizing the transmit power of BS. The resulted problem is a well-known NPhard [23] optimization, where the computational complexity [24] increases exponentially with
the number of antennas. Consequently, existing robust beamforming algorithms for conventional
communication systems [25]–[28] cannot be applied in massive MIMO systems due to their
forbiddingly huge computational complexity. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that under the BDMA
massive MIMO scheme, the proposed design can be globally solved. More importantly, the
optimal robust beamforming vectors can be derived in closed-form, which will greatly reduce
the computational complexity and is suitable for practical applications. Interestingly, it is shown
that the AN beamforming is not necessary for the proposed robust optimization.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the BDMA massive MIMO
channel model and formulates the proposed robust design; Section III converts the initial nonconvex optimization into a convex semi-definite programming (SDP) and proves the optimality
of semi-definite relaxation (SDR); Closed-form solutions for the power allocation problem are
derived in Section IV; Simulation results are provided in Section V and conclusions are drawn
in Section VI.

4

Notation: Vectors and matrices are boldface small and capital letters, respectively; The Hermitian, inverse and Moore-Penrose inverse of A are denoted by AH , A−1 and A† respectively;
Tr(A) defines the trace; I and 0 represent an identity matrix and an all-zero matrix, respectively,
with appropriate dimensions; A  0 and A ≻ 0 mean that A is positive semi-definite and
positive definite, respectively; The distribution of a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian
(CSCG) random variable with zero mean and variance σ 2 is defined as CN (0, σ 2), and ∼ means
“distributed as”; Ra×b and Ca×b denote the spaces of a×b matrices with real- and complex-valued
entries, respectively; kxk is the Euclidean norm of a vector x.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL

AND

P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

A. System Model
Let us consider physical layer security for a multiuser massive MIMO system shown in Fig. 1.
It is assumed that the BS is equipped with N ≫ 1 antennas in the form of uniform linear array
(ULA), where the antenna spacing is less than or equal to half wavelength. There are K legal
users and one Eve randomly distributed in the coverage area, where all the legal users and the
Eve are quipped with single antenna. The channel from the kth user to BS can be expressed as
R
[5], [9] hk = θ∈Θk αk (θ)a(θ)dθ, where Θk is the incoming angular spread of user-k and αk (θ)

is the corresponding spatial power spectrum. Moreover, a(θ) ∈ CN ×1 is the steering vector that
iH
h
2πd
2πd
can be expressed as a(θ) = 1, ej λ sin θ , . . . , ej λ (N −1) sin θ , where d is the antenna spacing
and λ denotes the signal wavelength. Similarly, the channel from the Eve to BS can be expressed
R
as he = θ∈Θe αe (θ)a(θ)dθ, where Θe is the incoming angular spread of Eve and αe (θ) is the
corresponding spatial power spectrum.

In this paper, we adopt the recently popular low complexity BDMA channel estimation scheme
[10], [11] such that pilots of different users are transmitted through orthogonal spatial directions1,
and the estimated channels for different users must be orthogonal, i.e.,
H
h̃H
i h̃j = 0, h̃i h̃e = 0, ∀i 6= j,
1

(1)

In particular, the columns of discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix with non-overlap indices are assigned to different users

as the training directions. Such a scheme is not optimal in terms of training design but could be implemented with much higher
efficiency. Moreover, as long as N is large, which is the case of massive MIMO, the performance loss of BDMA channel
estimation is small compared to the optimal one.

5

: N: :
k

¢k
6FDWWHUV

Dk

Rk
%6

8VHUM

8VHUN
(YH

8VHUL

Fig. 1.

Multiuser massive MIMO channel model in the form of ULA.

Please refer to [10], [11] for detailed discussion of BDMA. We then assume that the real channel
vectors hk and he lie around the estimated channel vectors h̃k and h̃e , respectively, i.e.,
n
o
n
o
hk ∈ Uk = h̃k + δk | kδk k ≤ ǫk , he ∈ Ue = h̃e + δe | kδe k ≤ ǫe

(2)

where δk ∈ CN ×1 and δe ∈ CN ×1 are the channel estimation errors whose norms are assumed
to be bounded by ǫk and ǫe respectively.2

B. Problem Formulation
Let us apply AN at BS during the downlink data transmission to provide the strongest distortion
to Eve, i.e., the baseband signal from BS can be expressed as
xb =

K
X

sk vk + wvw ,

(3)

k=1

where vk ∼ CN (0, 1) denotes the data symbol for the kth user; vw ∼ CN (0, 1) is the AN
signal for the Eve; sk ∈ CN ×1 and w ∈ CN ×1 are information beamforming vector and AN
beamforming vector, respectively.
The downlink signal at the kth user can be expressed as
yk = hH
k sk vk +

X

H
hH
k si vi + hk we ve + nk ,

i6=k,i∈K
2

Note that as long as N is not infinity, the real channel hk and he cannot be perfectly orthogonal.

(4)

6

where nk ∼ CN (0, σk2) represents the antenna noise of the kth user. The downlink signal at the
Eve can be expressed as
ye =

K
X

H
hH
e sk vk + he we ve + ne ,

(5)

k=1

where nk ∼ CN (0, σk2 ) represents the antenna noise of the Eve. Then the secret rate for the kth
user are expressed as



Rk = log2 
1+ X

2
khH
k sk k







 −log2 1+ X

2

2
H
2
khH
k si k +khk we k +σk

i6=k

2
khH
e sk k

≥ log2 (1 + γk ) − log2 (1 + γe,k ) ,



2

2
H
2
khH
e si k +khe we k +σe

i6=k



(6)

where γk is the receive SINR for the kth user, and γe,k is the receive SINR for Eve when Eve
aims to eavesdrop the kth user. Note that when γk > γe,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}, we could
always obtain non-zero secret rate for each users, which implies that the physical layer security
could be strictly guaranteed.
Our target is to design simultaneous information beamforming vectors {sk } and AN beamforming vector we to provide legal users and the Eve with different SINRs, meanwhile minimizing the transmit power of BS. Taking the channel estimation errors into consideration, the
robust transmit beamforming design can be formulated as
P1 :

min

{sk },we

s.t.

2

kwe k +

K
X

ksk k2

(7)

k=1

2
khH
e sk k

X

2
H
2
2
khH
e si k + khe we k + σe

X

2
H
2
2
khH
k si k + khk we k + σk

≤ γe,k , he ∈ Ue ,

(8)

≥ γk , ∀hk ∈ Uk ,

(9)

i6=k

2
khH
k sk k

i6=k

k = 1, 2, . . . , K,

(10)

where γe,k > 0 is the maximum allowable SINR for Eve, and γk > 0 is the desired SINR for the
kth user. Note that the optimal solutions of P1 are very hard to obtain in conventional MIMO

7

systems3. Nevertheless, we will next show that P1 could be globally solved utilizing property
(1) of BDMA massive MIMO systems.
III. O PTIMAL ROBUST B EAMFORMING
A. Problem Reformulation
The main difficulty of solving P1 lies in the constraints (8) and (9). Substituting (2) into (8),
we can equivalently rewrite (8) as
!


H X



1

H
H
 h̃e +δe
si sH
+
w
w
−
s
s
h̃
+δ
+σe2 ≥ 0,
e
k
e
e
i
e
k
γe,k
i6=k


 −δ H Iδ + ǫ2 ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
e
e
e

(11)

Substituting (2) into (9), we can equivalently rewrite (9) as
!




H 1
X


H
H
2
 h̃k +δk
sk sH
−
s
s
−
w
w
h̃
+δ
i i
e e
k
k −σk ≥ 0,
k
γk
i6=k


 −δ H Iδ + ǫ2 ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
k
k
k

(12)

if and only if there exists µe,k ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K such that


Xe,k + µe,k I
Xe,k h̃e

  0,
H
2
2
H
H
h̃e Xe,k h̃e + σe − µe,k ǫe
h̃e Xe,k

(13)

According to the Lemma of S-Procedure [29], we know that the constraints in (11) hold true

where for simplicity, we define Xe,k as
Xe,k =

X

H
si sH
i + we we −

i6=k

1
sk sH
k.
γe,k

(14)

Meanwhile, the constraints in (12) hold true if and only if there exists µs,k ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K
such that



Xs,k + µs,k I
H
h̃H
k Xs,k

h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k

where for simplicity, we define Xs,k as
Xs,k =
3

Xs,k h̃k
−

σk2

−

µs,k ǫ2k



  0,

X
1
H
si sH
sk sH
i − we we .
k−
γk
i6=k

(15)

(16)

The proposed design P1 has been proven to be NP hard in conventional communication systems [27], where it is very

difficult to obtain the optimal beamforming vectors.

8

It is then clear that P1 can be equivalently re-expressed as
P1−EQV :

min

{µe,k },{µs,k },we ,{sk }

s.t.






Tr(We ) +

K
X

Tr(Sk )

k=1

Xe,k + µe,k I

Xe,k h̃e

H
h̃H
e Xe,k

2
2
h̃H
e Xe,k h̃e + σe − µe,k ǫe

Xs,k + µs,k I



Xe,k
Xs,k

(17)

Xs,k h̃k

H
2
2
h̃H
h̃H
k Xs,k
k Xs,k h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk
X
1
Si + W e −
=
Sk ,
γe,k
i6=k
X
1
Si − W e ,
= Sk −
γk



  0,

(18)



  0,

(19)
(20)
(21)

i6=k

µe,k ≥ 0,

µs,k ≥ 0,

We = we weH ,

(22)

Sk = s k s H
k,

k = 1, 2, . . . , K,

(23)

where {µe,k } and {µs,k } are the auxiliary variables generated by the S-Procedure. Note that the
nonlinear constraints in (23) are equivalent to:
We  0,

Sk  0,

Rank(We ) = 1,

Rank(Sk ) = 1.

(24)

However, P1−EQV is still very hard to solve since the rank constraint in (23) is non-convex.
Dropping the the rank constraints Rank(We ) = 1 and Rank(Sk ) = 1 (the SDR technique [30]),
we can obtain the following relaxed convex optimization:
P1−SDR :

min

{µe,k },{µs,k },We ,{Sk }

Tr(We ) +

K
X

Tr(Sk )

s.t. (18) ∼ (22),
We  0,

Sk  0,

(25)

k=1

(26)
k = 1, 2, . . . , K,

(27)

which is a semi-definite programming (SDP) problem that can be efficiently solved by the
standard convex optimization tools [23]. However, the SDR technique does not guarantee rankone solutions for the relaxed optimization. Nevertheless, we will next show that P1−SDR
indeed guarantees rank-one solutions for BDMA massive MIMO systems, i.e., P1−SDR is
equivalent to P1−EQV.

9

B. Optimal Rank-one Solutions
The following propositions will be useful throughout the rest of the paper.
Proposition 1: Suppose {µ⋆e,k } and {µ⋆s,k } are the optimal auxiliary variables of P1−SDR.
There must be
(a) µ⋆e,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}; (b) µ⋆s,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
Proof: See Appendix A.
Proposition 2: Suppose We⋆ and {Sk⋆ } are the optimal transmit covariances of P1−SDR.
There must be


⋆
⋆
(a) Rank Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}; (b) Rank Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
Proof: See Appendix B.

Remark 1: Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 indicate that the optimal AN and information
transmit covariance could not be full-rank, i.e., Rank (We⋆ ) < N and Rank (Sk⋆ ) < N, ∀k ∈
{1, . . . , K}. Moreover, from (B.8) in Appendix B, we know that Rank (We⋆ ) and Rank (Sk⋆ )
can be further constrained as Rank (We⋆ ) ≤ K + 1 and Rank (Sk⋆ ) ≤ K + 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
From Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, we can reformulate P1−SDR to gain more insightful
H
solutions. Let the eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of Xe,k be Xe,k = Ue,k Λe,k Ue,k
with the
H
eigenvalues qe,k,1 ≥ . . . ≥ qe,k,N , and the EVD of Xs,k be Xs,k = Us,k Λs,k Us,k
with the
H
eigenvalues qs,k,1 ≥ . . . ≥ qs,k,N . Due to the fact that µe,k I = Ue,k (µe,k I) Ue,k
and µs,k I =
H
Us,k (µs,k I) Us,k
, the EVDs of Xe,k + µe,k I and Xs,k + µs,k I can be represented as
H
Xe,k + µe,k I = Ue,k (Λe,k + µe,k I) Ue,k
,

H
Xs,k + µs,k I = Us,k (Λs,k + µs,k I) Us,k
,

(28)

respectively, where Λe,k +µe,k I is diagonal with the eigenvalues qe,k,1 +µe,k ≥ . . . ≥ qe,k,N +µe,k
and Λs,k + µs,k I is diagonal with the eigenvalues qs,k,1 + µs,k ≥ . . . ≥ qs,k,N + µs,k . Using
Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, it is easily known that qe,k,1 + µe,k > 0 and qs,k,1 + µs,k > 0
hold. Then assuming Rank (Xe,k + µe,k I) = le,k ≥ 1 and Rank (Xs,k + µs,k I) = ls,k ≥ 1, there
are
qe,k,i + µe,k = 0, ∀i ∈ {le,k + 1, . . . , N}, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K},

(29)

qs,k,i + µs,k = 0, ∀i ∈ {ls,k + 1, . . . , N}, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.

(30)

10

Define Σe,k,+ and Σs,k,+ as

q
+ µe,k 0
0
 e,k,1

..
Σe,k,+ = 
.
0
0

0
0 qe,k,le,k + µe,k









 , Σs,k,+ = 



qs,k,1 + µs,k

0

0

0
..
.

0

0

0

qs,k,le,k + µs,k





,


respectively. The Moore-Penrose inverses [31] of Xe,k + µe,k I and Xs,k + µs,k I can be derived
as4


(Xe,k + µe,k I)† = Ue,k 

Σ−1
e,k,+ 0
0

0





H
 Ue,k
, (Xs,k + µs,k I)† = Us,k 

Σ−1
s,k,+ 0
0

0

respectively. Then we provide the following lemma.



H
 Us,k
, (31)



Lemma 2 (Generalized Schur’s Complement [32]): Let M = A, B; B H , C be a Hermitian

matrix. Then, M  0 if and only if C − B H A† B  0 and I − AA† B = 0 (assuming

A  0), or A − BC † B H  0 and I − CC † B H = 0 (assuming C  0), where A† and C †
are the generalized inverses of A and C, respectively.

Using Lemma 2, we know that P1−SDR could be equivalently rewritten as
P1−SDR−EQV :
min

{µe,k },{µs,k },We ,{Sk }

Tr(We ) +

K
X

Tr(Sk )

(32)

k=1

s.t. Xe,k + µe,k I  0, Xs,k + µs,k I  0,
i
h
I − (Xe,k + µe,k I) (Xe,k + µe,k I)† Xe,k h̃e = 0,

(33)
(34)

†
2
2
H
H
h̃H
e Xe,k h̃e + σe − µe,k ǫe − h̃e Xe,k (Xe,k + µe,k I) Xe,k h̃e ≥ 0,
i
h
I − (Xs,k + µs,k I) (Xs,k + µs,k I)† Xs,k h̃k = 0,

(35)

µe,k ≥ 0,

(40)

(36)

†
2
2
H
H
h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk − h̃k Xs,k (Xs,k + µs,k I) Xs,k h̃k ≥ 0, (37)
X
1
Xe,k =
Si + W e −
Sk ,
(38)
γ
e,k
i6=k
X
1
Xs,k = Sk −
Si − W e ,
(39)
γk
i6=k

4

µs,k ≥ 0,

We  0,

Sk  0,

k = 1, 2, . . . , K,

Note that if Rank (Xe,k + µe,k I) = N and Rank (Xs,k + µs,k I) = N , then there are (Xe,k + µe,k I)† =

(Xe,k + µe,k I)−1 and (Xs,k + µs,k I)† = (Xs,k + µs,k I)−1 .

11

where the constraints in (33)∼(37) are derived from (18) and (19).
Next, we will investigate the constraints (33)∼(37) to obtain more insightful solutions. Due
to the fact that


(Xe,k + µe,k I) (Xe,k + µe,k I)† = Ue,k 

I le,k ×le,k

0

0

0(N −le,k )×(N −le,k )



H
 Ue,k
,

Eq. (34) can be expressed as
h
i
†
I − (Xe,k + µe,k I) (Xe,k + µe,k I) Xe,k h̃e




le,k ×le,k
0le,k ×le,k
0
0
Λ
e,k
H
H
 Ue,k
 Ue,k
=Ue,k 
Ue,k 
h̃e
(N
−l
)×(N
−l
)
e,k
e,k
0
I (N −le,k )×(N −le,k )
0
Λe,k


0
0
H
 Ue,k
=Ue,k 
h̃e = 0,
(41)
(N −le,k )×(N −le,k )
0 Λe,k
which says that

(N −l )×(N −le,k )
Λe,k e,k

h
i
H
H
ue,k,le,k +1 , . . . , ue,k,N h̃e = 0 holds true, where ue,k,i is the

ith column of Ue,k . Similarly, Eq. (36) can be expressed as

i
h
†
I − (Xs,k + µs,k I) (Xs,k + µs,k I) Xs,k h̃k




ls,k ×ls,k
0ls,k ×ls,k
0
0
Λ
s,k
H
H
 Us,k
 Us,k
=Us,k 
Us,k 
h̃k
(N
−l
)×(N
−l
)
s,k
s,k
0
I (N −ls,k )×(N −ls,k )
0
Λs,k


0
0
H
 Us,k
=Us,k 
h̃k = 0,
(42)
(N −ls,k )×(N −ls,k )
0 Λs,k
which implies that

(N −l )×(N −ls,k )
Λs,k s,k

the ith column of Us,k .

h
i
H
H
us,k,ls,k +1 , . . . , us,k,N h̃k = 0 holds true, where us,k,i is

H
Due to Xe,k = Xe,k
, Eq. (35) can be expressed as

†
2
2
H
H
h̃H
e Xe,k h̃e + σe − µe,k ǫe − h̃e Xe,k (Xe,k + µe,k I) Xe,k h̃e


h
i
H
=Tr H̃e Xe,k + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e − Tr H̃e Xe,k
(Xe,k + µe,k I)† Xe,k
n
h
io
†
=Tr H̃e Xe,k I − (Xe,k + µe,k I) Xe,k + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e ≥ 0,

(43)

12

where H̃e = h̃e h̃H
e . Similarly, Eq. (37) can be expressed as
†
2
2
H
H
h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk − h̃k Xs,k (Xs,k + µs,k I) Xs,k h̃k


h
i
H
=Tr H̃k Xs,k − σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k − Tr H̃k Xs,k
(Xs,k + µs,k I)† Xs,k
n
h
io
†
=Tr H̃k Xs,k I − (Xs,k + µs,k I) Xs,k − σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k ≥ 0,

(44)

where H̃k = h̃k h̃H
k.

Theorem 1: When Eq. (1) holds, the optimal solutions of P1−SDR−EQV must satisfy
2
(a) Rank (We⋆ ) ≤ 1, where We⋆ = we⋆ we⋆H = Pe⋆ h̃e h̃H
e /kh̃e k is the optimal AN transmit

covariance that can be derived through the closed-form AN beamforming vector, and Pe⋆
is the power allocated for the AN beamforming;
⋆
H
2
(b) Rank (Sk⋆ ) ≤ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}, where Sk⋆ = s⋆k s⋆H
k = Pk h̃k h̃k /kh̃k k is the optimal

information transmit covariance that can be derived through the closed-form information
beamforming vectors, and Pk⋆ is the power allocated for the kth information beamforming.
Proof: See Appendix C.
Remark 2: Theorem 1 indicates that simultaneous AN- and information-beamforming is the
optimal transmit strategy for P1−SDR−EQV rather than the joint precoding scheme. Thus,
the SDR solutions are indeed optimal for P1.
IV. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION
In Section III, it is shown that the optimal solutions of P1 could be derived by solving P1−SDR−EQV, where the optimal beamforming vectors are derived in closed-form.
However, the optimal power allocations Pe⋆ and {Pk⋆ } remain unknown. Since the optimal
p
AN-beamforming and information-beamforming vectors are we⋆ =
Pe⋆ h̃e /kh̃e k and s⋆k =
p ⋆
Pk h̃k /kh̃k k, P1 can be simplified to
P2 :

min

{µe,k },{µs,k },Pe ,{Pk }

s.t.

Pe +

K
X

Pk

(45)

k=1

µe,k Pe kh̃e k2
+ σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e ≥ 0,
µe,k + Pe

(46)

µs,k Pk kh̃k k2
− σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k ≥ 0,
µs,k γk + Pk

(47)

µe,k > 0, µs,k > 0, Pe ≥ 0, Pk ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K.

(48)

13

Define
µe,k Pe kh̃e k2
fe,k (µe,k , Pe ) ,
,
µe,k + Pe

µs,k Pk kh̃k k2
fs,k (µs,k , Pk ) ,
,
µs,k γk + pk

(49)

whose Hessian matrixes are given by




Pe2

−µe,k Pe
−2kh̃e k 
  0,
3
(µe,k + Pe )
2
−µe,k Pe
µe,k


2
2
Pk
−µs,k Pk
−2γk kh̃k k 
  0,
∇2 fs,k (µs,k , Pk ) =
3
(µs,k γk + Pk )
2
−µ P
µ
2

∇2 fe,k (µe,k , Pe ) =

s,k

k

(50)

(51)

s,k

respectively, which implies that fe,k (µe,k , Pe ) and fs,k (µs,k , Pk ) are concave functions. Thus, P2
is a convex optimization.

A. Optimal AN Power Allocation
The optimal AN power allocation Pe⋆ can be summarized in the following theorem.
Theorem 2: At the optimal point, the AN power allocation Pe⋆ of P2 must satisfy
Pe⋆ = 0,

(52)

where the corresponding auxiliary variables {µe,k } satisfy µe,k = σe2 /ǫ2e > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
Proof: Let us show that Pe⋆ = 0 from contradiction. Assume {µ⋆e,k }, {µ⋆s,k }, Pe⋆ and {Pk⋆}
are the optimal solutions of P2, where Pe⋆ > 0 is satisfied. Then we can provide a group of
new solutions:
µ∗e,k =

σe2
,
ǫ2e

µ∗s,k = µ⋆s,k ,

Pe∗ = 0,

Pk∗ = Pk⋆ ,

∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.

(53)

Substituting {µ∗e,k }, {µ∗s,k }, Pe∗ and {Pk∗ } into P2, we obtain
Pe∗

+

K
X

Pk∗

k=1
∗
∗
µe,k Pe kh̃e k2
µ∗e,k + Pe∗

=0+

K
X

Pk⋆

<

Pe⋆

k=1

+

K
X

Pk⋆

(54)

k=1

+ σe2 − µ∗e,k ǫ2e = 0,

µ∗s,k Pk∗ kh̃k k2
− σk2 − µ∗s,k ǫ2k ≥ 0,
µ∗s,k γk + Pk∗
σ2
µ∗e,k = 2e > 0, µ∗s,k = µ⋆s,k > 0, Pe∗ = 0, Pk∗ = Pk⋆ ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
ǫe

(55)
(56)
(57)

14

From (55)∼(57), we conclude that {µ∗e,k }, {µ∗s,k }, Pe∗ and {Pk∗ } satisfy all the constraints of
P2. While we know from (55) that {µ∗e,k }, {µ∗s,k }, Pe∗ and {Pk∗ } will always provide smaller
object value, which contradicts the assumption that {µ⋆e,k }, {µ⋆s,k }, Pe⋆ and {Pk⋆ } are the optimal
solutions. Thus, at the optimal point there must be Pe⋆ = 0.
Theorem 2 says that in order to optimally guarantee the the physical layer security for BDMA
massive MIMO system, one should not adopt the AN beamforming, which is much different
from the conventional MIMO case.

B. Optimal Information Power Allocation
The Lagrange of P2 is defined as
L ({µe,k }, {µs,k }, Pe , {Pk }, {̟k }, {ξk }) = Pe +
−

K
X
k=1

"

2

̟k

µe,k Pe kh̃e k
+ σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e
µe,k + Pe

!#

−

K
X

Pk

k=1
"
K
X

ξk

k=1

2

µs,k Pk kh̃k k
− σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k
µs,k γk + Pk

!#

, (58)

where {̟k ≥ 0} and {ξk ≥ 0} are the dual variables associated with the constraints (46) and
(47), respectively. The Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions related to {µe,k } {µs,k }, Pe and
{Pk } can be formulated as ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}
̟k⋆ Pe⋆2 kh̃e k2
∂L
⋆ 2
= 0,
=
̟
ǫ
−
k e
∂µ⋆e,k
(µ⋆e,k + Pe⋆)2

(59)

ξk⋆ Pk⋆2 kh̃k k2
∂L
⋆ 2
= 0,
=
ξ
ǫ
−
k k
∂µ⋆s,k
(µ⋆s,k γk + Pk⋆ )2

(60)

K
2
X
̟k⋆ µ⋆2
∂L
e,k kh̃e k
=1−
= 0,
∂Pe⋆
(µ⋆e,k + Pe⋆ )2
k=1
2
ξk⋆ µ⋆2
∂L
s,k γk kh̃k k
= 0,
=
1
−
∂Pk⋆
(µ⋆s,k γk + Pk⋆)2

̟k⋆
ξk⋆

!
µ⋆e,k Pe⋆kh̃e k2
2
⋆ 2
+ σe − µe,k ǫe = 0,
µ⋆e,k + Pe⋆
!
µ⋆s,k Pk⋆ kh̃k k2
− σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k = 0,
⋆
⋆
µs,k γk + Pk

(61)
(62)
(63)
(64)

where {µ⋆e,k > 0}, {µ⋆s,k > 0}, Pe⋆ ≥ 0 and {Pk⋆ ≥ 0} are the optimal primal variables, {̟k⋆ ≥ 0}
and {ξk⋆ ≥ 0} are the optimal dual variables.

15

Due to {µ⋆s,k > 0} and {Pk⋆ ≥ 0}, it follows from (62) that {ξk⋆ > 0} must be satisfied. Then
we know from (64) that
µ⋆s,k Pk⋆ kh̃k k2
− σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k = 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K},
µ⋆s,k γk + Pk⋆

(65)

and from (60) that
Pk⋆ kh̃k k − Pk⋆ ǫk
, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
γk ǫk
Next, substituting (66) into (62), there holds
µ⋆s,k =

γk
, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
(kh̃k k − ǫk )2
Lastly, substituting (66) and (67) into (65), we have
ξk⋆ =

(66)

(67)

γk σk2
=
, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
(68)
(kh̃k k − ǫk )2
From the above discussions, we know that the optimal solutions of the proposed design P1
Pk⋆

could be derived in closed-form, which will significantly reduce the computational complexity
for massive MIMO systems where the number of antennas is huge.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, computer simulations are presented to evaluate the performance of the proposed
SINR-based robust beamforming algorithm for the physical layer security of BDMA massive
MIMO systems. It is assumed that all the legal users and the Eve are equipped with single
antenna, where the received noises per antenna for all users are generated as independent CSCG
random variables distributed with CN (0, 1). For simplicity, the required SINR for all users are
assumed to be the same, i.e., γ = γ1 , . . . , = γK and γe = γe,1, . . . , = γe,K . Define g = ǫk /kh̃k k =
ǫe /kh̃e k with g ∈ [0, 1). The simulation results are averaged over 10000 Monte Carlo runs.
In the first example, we plot the average SINR of Eve versus the parameter g with K = 30,
N = 128 and γ = 10 dB for the proposed method, the AN 6= 0 method5 and the non-robust
method6 in Fig. 2. Note that the theoretical results in Section IV say that the optimal power
5

In this method we assume that the AN beamforming power is set as 0.3

PK

k=1

Pk⋆ and the information beamforming power

is set as 0.7Pk⋆ for each legal user. Thus, the power consumption of the AN 6= 0 method is exactly the same as that of the
proposed method.
6
Note that for the non-robust method, the estimated channels will be directly assumed as perfect and are used for beamforming.
Thus, the optimal beamforming solutions of P1 for the non-robust method can be easily derived as we = 0 and sk =
γk σk2 /kh̃k k. The details are omitted here for brevity.

16

2
0

Average SINR of Eve (dB)

−2
−4
−6
−8

Proposed Method
AN ≠ 0 Method
Non−robust Method

−10
−12
−14
−16
−18
0.1

Fig. 2.

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Parameter g

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Average SINR of Eve versus the parameter g with K = 30 and N = 128.

allocation for AN beamforming should be zero, which implies that the received SINR of Eve is
smaller than γe (please cf. Eq. (8) for details) without using AN. These theoretical results can
be reflected in Fig. 2 where it is clear that the average SINRs of Eve obtained by the proposed
method, the AN 6= 0 method and the non-robust method are smaller than 0 dB when g ≤ 0.7.
This phenomenon implies that the constraint in (8) will be strictly satisfied when we set γe > 0
dB. Based on the results of Fig. 2, we could always choose a small γe , i.e., 0 < γe < 1 to
guarantee that (8) is strictly satisfied for the proposed robust design. Moreover, it is obvious in
Fig. 2 that the average SINRs of Eve derived by the three methods will increase with the increase
of g. This is mainly due to the fact that when g becomes large, i.e., the channel estimation errors
grow large, more power will be received at Eve. Nevertheless, we can assume that g is a small
constant which is reasonable since large channel estimate errors usually lead to unacceptable
degradation in performance. It is seen from Fig. 2 that the average SINR of Eve derived by the
proposed method is always bigger than that of the AN 6= 0 method and the non-robust method.
This phenomenon can be explained by the following simulation results, i.e., the proposed method
will obtain a higher secret sum-rate.
In the second example, we plot the secret sum-rate versus parameter g, N and K, in Fig. 3,
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. Note that the secret sum-rate derived by the proposed method
is always bigger than that of the AN 6= 0 method. Thus, in order to optimally guarantee the

17

120

Sum Secret Rate (b/s/Hz)

110

100

90

Proposed Method
AN ≠ 0 Method
Non−robust Method

80

70

60

Fig. 3.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.5
Parameter g

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Secret sum-rate versus the parameter g with K = 30, N = 128 and γ = 10 dB.

150
Proposed Method
AN ≠ 0 Method
Non−robust Method

140

Sum Secret Rate (b/s/Hz)

130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
2^5

Fig. 4.

2^6

2^7
2^8
Number of Transmit Antennas

2^9

2^10

Secret sum-rate versus number of transmit antennas N with K = 30, g = 0.5 and γ = 10 dB.

the physical layer security for BDMA massive MIMO system, one should not adopt the AN
beamforming. Moreover, it is clear in Fig. 3 that the secret sum-rate for the non-robust method
will decrease with parameter g increasing. This is mainly due to the fact that the non-robust
method does not take the channel estimation errors into consideration. Thus, with g increasing,
more power will be received at Eve and the secret sum-rate performance will be deteriorated.
Interestingly, the secret sum-rate for the proposed method will increase with the increase of
g when g ≤ 0.3. The reason lies in that when g increases, BS will allocate more power for
information beamforming (please cf. Eq. (68) for details). While the secret sum-rate for the

18

70
Proposed Method
AN ≠ 0 Method
Non−robust Method

Sum Secret Rate (b/s/Hz)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Fig. 5.

2

4

6

8

10
12
Number of Users

14

16

18

20

Secret sum-rate with different number of uses K for N = 128, g = 0.5 and γ = 10 dB.

25

Proposed Method
Non−robust Method

Average Transmit Power (dBw)

20

15

10

5

0

Fig. 6.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.5
Parameter g

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Average minimum transmit power versus g with K = 30, N = 128 and γ = 10 dB.

proposed method will decrease with the increase of g when g > 0.3. This phenomenon can
be explained by Fig. 2 where it says that the average SINR of Eve will also increase with
the increase of g. Thus, the secret sum-rate for the proposed method will decrease when the
increase of SINR of legal users is smaller than that of the Eve. Similarly, it is seen from Fig. 4
and Fig. 5 that the secret sum-rates for the proposed method, the AN 6= 0 method and the
non-robust method will increase with the increase of N and K.
In the last example, we plot the average minimum transmit power versus the parameter g, N
and K in Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. Note that the power consumption of the AN

19

12

Average Transmit Power (dBw)

10
8
6
4
2
0
Proposed Method
Non−robust Method

−2
−4
−6

Fig. 7.

2

4

6

8

10
12
Number of Users

14

16

18

20

Average minimum transmit power versus N with K = 30, g = 0.5 and γ = 10 dB.

20

Proposed Method
Non−robust Method

Average Transmit Power (dBw)

15

10

5

0

−5

−10
2^5

Fig. 8.

2^6

2^7
2^8
Number of Antennas

2^9

2^10

Average minimum transmit power versus K with N = 128, g = 0.5 and γ = 10 dB.

6= 0 method is exactly the same as that of the proposed method. Thus, the simulation results
of the AN 6= 0 method are not contained in the last example. It is seen from Fig. 6 that the
transmit power for the non-robust method will not change with parameter g. While the transmit
power for the proposed method will increase when g becomes large. This is because when the
channel estimation errors becomes large, the BS will allocate more power to eliminate the CSI
uncertainty. As a result, the proposed method can obtain a higher secret sum-rate than the nonrobust method as in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Moreover, it is clear in Fig. 7 that the transmit
power for both the proposed method and the non-robust method will increase with K increasing,

20

and in Fig. 8 that the transmit power for both the proposed method and the non-robust method
will decrease with the increase of N.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we design simultaneous information and AN beamforming to guarantee the
physical layer security for multiuser BDMA massive MIMO systems. Taking the the channel
estimation errors into consideration, our target is to minimize the transmit power of BS meanwhile
provide the legal users and the Eve with different SINRs. The original problem is NP-hard and optimal solutions are generally unavailable in conventional communication systems. Nevertheless, it
is strictly proved that the initial non-convex optimization can be equivalently reformulated as an
SDP, where rank-one solutions are guaranteed in BDMA multiuser massive MIMO systems. More
importantly, the overall global optimal solutions for the original problem are derived in closedform, which will greatly reduce the computational complexity. An interesting phenomenon is
that the AN is not useful for multi-user BDMA massive scenario. Simulation results are provided
to corroborate the proposed studies.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF

OF

P ROPOSITION 1

A. Proof of Part (a)
Let us first show that {µ⋆e,k > 0} must hold from contradiction. Assuming µ⋆e,k = 0 for some
k that k ∈ {1, . . . , K}, it follows from (20) that


Xe,k
Xe,k h̃e
0
Υe,k = 
H
H
2
h̃H
X
h̃
X
h̃
+
σ
e,k e
e
e
e
e,k

(A.1)

must be satisfied. Then it is obvious in (A.1) that
Xe,k =

X

Si + W e −

i6=k

1
Sk  0,
γe,k

(A.2)

must be satisfied. Moreover, from (20) and (21) , we can obtain
Xs,k = −Xe,k − (

1
1
− )Sk  0,
γe,k γk

where the last “” holds true due to the fact that Xe,k  0, Sk  0 and γe,k < γk .

(A.3)

21

Next, we know from (19) that
2
2
h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk ≥ 0,

(A.4)

should be strictly satisfied. However, substituting (A.3) into (A.4), we will obtain
2
2
2
2
2
0 ≤ h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk ≤ −σk − µs,k ǫk ≤ −σk ,

(A.5)

where the last “≤” is satisfied since µs,k ≥ 0 and ǫ2k > 0. Due to the fact that σk2 > 0, we know
from (A.5) can not be true. Thus, at the optimal point, µ⋆e,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} must be
satisfied in P1−SDR.
B. Proof of Part (b)
Then, let us show that {µ⋆s,k > 0} must hold from contradiction. Assuming µ⋆s,k = 0 for some
k that k ∈ {1, . . . , K}, it follows from (21) that


Xs,k
Xs,k h̃k
  0,
Υs,k = 
H
H
2
h̃H
X
h̃
X
h̃
−
σ
s,k k
k
s,k
k
k

(A.6)

H
H
must be satisfied. Left and right multiplying both sides of Υs,k by [−h̃H
k 1] and [−h̃k 1] ,

respectively, yields
H
H
2
[−h̃H
k 1]Υs,k [−h̃k 1] = −σk ≥ 0,

(A.7)

which cannot be true due to σk2 > 0. Thus, at the optimal point, µ⋆s,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}
must be satisfied in P1−SDR.
The proof is thus completed.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF

OF

P ROPOSITION 2

A. Proof of Part (a)

⋆
Let us show that Rank Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} from contradiction. Assume

⋆
⋆
Rank Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I = 0 or Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I = 0 at the optimal point, for some k that ∀k ∈
⋆
{1, . . . , K}. It is known from (21) that Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I can be re-expressed as
X
1 ⋆
⋆
Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I = µ⋆e,k I +
Si⋆ + We⋆ −
Sk = 0.
γ
e,k
i6=k

(B.1)

22

From Proposition 1, we know that µ⋆e,k > 0 is strictly satisfied at the optimal point. Moreover,
due to the fact that {Sk⋆  0} and We⋆  0, there must be
!
X
Rank µ⋆e,k I +
Si⋆ + We⋆ = N,

(B.2)

i6=k

which says that µ⋆e,k I +

X

Si⋆ + We⋆ ≻ 0. Then from (B.1) and (B.2) we know that when

i6=k

⋆
Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I = 0, there must be Sk⋆ ≻ 0 or Rank (Sk⋆ ) = N.

Define N × N matrix Q as
"

#
h̃1
h̃K
h̃e
Q=
,
,...,
, τ1 , . . . , τN −K−1 ,
kh̃e k kh̃1 k
kh̃K k

(B.3)

where τiN ×1 , ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , N − K − 1} is a unit vector, i.e., kτi k = 1 which is constrained to
satisfy the following properties:
(a) τi ⊥ τj , ∀i 6= j;
(b) τi ⊥ h̃e , ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , N − K − 1};
(c) τi ⊥ h̃k , ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , N − K − 1}, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
Thanks to (1) under BDMA massive MIMO scheme, we know that the defined matrix Q is
consisted of N orthogonal bases. Thus, Q is invertible, i.e., Q−1 exists. Consequently, there
must be
Rank (QWe⋆) = Rank (We⋆ ) ,

(B.4)

Rank (QSk⋆ ) = Rank (Sk⋆ ) , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.

(B.5)

From (B.3), (B.4) and (B.5), we know that We⋆ and Sk⋆ , ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} can be further expressed
as
We⋆
Sk⋆

=

Pw⋆e ,he

=

Ps⋆k ,he

K
N −K−1
X
X
h̃e h̃H
h̃i h̃H
e
i
⋆
+
Pwe ,hi
+
Pw⋆e ,τi τi τiH ,
kh̃e k2 i=1
kh̃i k2
i=1

K
N −K−1
X
X
h̃i h̃H
h̃e h̃H
i
e
⋆
+
Psk ,hi
+
Ps⋆k ,τi τi τiH ,
kh̃e k2 i=1
kh̃i k2
i=1

(B.6)
(B.7)

where Pw⋆e ,he ≥ 0, {Pw⋆e ,hi ≥ 0}, {Pw⋆e ,τi ≥ 0}, Ps⋆k ,he ≥ 0, {Ps⋆k ,hi ≥ 0} and {Ps⋆k ,τi ≥ 0}. Note
that if Rank (Sk⋆ ) = N, then there must be Ps⋆k ,he > 0, {Ps⋆k ,hi > 0} and {Ps⋆k ,τi > 0}. Under the
previous assumption, there is at least one Sk⋆ that satisfies Rank (Sk⋆ ) = N, where Ps⋆k ,he > 0,
{Ps⋆k ,hi > 0} and {Ps⋆k ,τi > 0} must hold.

23

Then, letting {Pw⋆e ,τi = 0}, {Ps⋆k ,τi = 0}, ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , N − K − 1}, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}, we can
construct the following new solutions

K
X

h̃e h̃H
h̃i h̃H

e
i
⋆
⋆
∗

W
=
P
+
P
,

e
we ,he
we ,hi

kh̃ k2
kh̃ k2
e

i

i=1

K
X

h̃i h̃H
h̃e h̃H

i
e
⋆
⋆
∗


S
=
P
+
P
.
sk ,he
sk ,hi
 k
2
2
kh̃e k
k
h̃
k
i
i=1

(B.8)

Substituting (B.8) into P1−SDR and using the properties of (B.3), we obtain
Tr(We⋆ )

+

K
X

Tr(Sk⋆ )

>

Tr(We∗ )

+

k=1






∗H
h̃H
k Xs,k

∗
Xe,k
=

X

∗
h̃H
e Xe,k h̃e



+

σe2

  0,

−

(B.10)



  0,

(B.11)

µ⋆e,k ǫ2e

∗
Xs,k
h̃k
∗
h̃H
k Xs,k h̃k

Si∗ + We∗ −

i6=k

∗
Xs,k
=

(B.9)

∗
Xe,k
h̃e

∗
Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I



Tr(Sk∗ )

k=1

∗
Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I
∗H
h̃H
e Xe,k

K
X

−

σk2

−

µ⋆s,k ǫ2k

1 ∗
S ,
γe,k k

1 ∗ X ∗
S − We∗ ,
S −
γk k i6=k i

µ⋆e,k ≥ 0,

µ⋆s,k ≥ 0,

We∗  0,

(B.12)
(B.13)

Sk∗  0,

k = 1, 2, . . . , K.

(B.14)

From (B.10)∼(B.14) we know that We∗ and {Sk∗ } satisfy all constraints of P1−SDR. From
(B.9) we know that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will always provide smaller objective value. Consequently,
We∗ and {Sk∗ } are better solutions than We⋆ and {Sk⋆ }, which contradicts with our first place as
⋆
sumption. Thus, there must be Rank (Sk⋆ ) < N and Rank Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
B. Proof of Part (b)

⋆
Let us show that Rank Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} from contradiction. Assume

⋆
⋆
Rank Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I = 0 or Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I = 0 at the optimal point, for some k that ∀k ∈
{1, . . . , K}. Due to the fact that µ⋆s,k > 0, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} (please cf. Proposition 1 for details),
there must be
Xk⋆ = −µ⋆s,k I  0.

(B.15)

24

Then substituting (B.15) into (19), it is easily known that


⋆
h̃k
0
Xs,k

  0,
H
⋆
2
⋆ 2
H
⋆H
h̃k Xs,k h̃k (−µs,k I)h̃k − σk − µs,k ǫk

(B.16)

⋆
2
⋆ 2
must be strictly satisfied. which cannot be true due to the fact that h̃H
k (−µs,k I)h̃k −σk −µs,k ǫk <

⋆
0. Thus there must be Rank Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I ≥ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.

The proof of Proposition 2 is completed.

A PPENDIX C
P ROOF

OF

T HEOREM 1

The following lemma is useful in the proof of Theorem 1.
Lemma 3 (Theory of Majorization [33]): Let A and B be two N × N positive semi-definite
matrices with eigenvalues α1 ≥ . . . ≥ αN and β1 ≥ . . . ≥ βN , respectively. Then there holds
N
X
i=1

αi βN −i+1 ≤ Tr(AB) ≤

N
X

αi βi .

(C.1)

i=1

Firstly, it follows from (B.8) that at the optimal point, We⋆ and {Sk⋆ } can be expressed as

K
X

h̃i h̃H
h̃e h̃H

i
e
⋆
⋆
⋆

+
P
,
W
=
P

we ,hi
e
we ,he

2
2
kh̃e k
k
h̃
k
i
i=1
(C.2)
K
H
H
X

h̃
h̃
h̃
h̃

i
e
i
e
⋆
⋆
⋆


+
Ps ,h
,
 Sk = Psk ,he
kh̃e k2 i=1 k i kh̃i k2

where Pw⋆e ,he ≥ 0 and {Pw⋆e,hi ≥ 0} are the coefficients of We⋆ , while Ps⋆k ,he ≥ 0 and {Ps⋆k ,hi ≥ 0}
⋆
⋆
are the coefficients of Sk⋆ . Then using (C.2), Xe,k
and Xs,k
can be expressed as
X
1 ⋆
⋆
=
Si⋆ + We⋆ −
Xe,k
Sk
(C.3)
γ
e,k
i6=k
!
!
K
X
X
X
h̃j h̃H
1 ⋆
h̃e h̃H
1 ⋆
j
e
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
+
Psi ,hj + Pwe ,hj −
,
Psk ,he
Psk ,hj
=
Psi ,he + Pwe ,he −
2
γe,k
γe,k
kh̃e k
kh̃j k2
j=1
i6=k
i6=k
X
1
⋆
Xs,k
= Sk⋆ −
Si⋆ − We⋆
(C.4)
γk
i6=k
!
!
K
H
X
X
X
h̃j h̃H
1
h̃
h̃
1 ⋆
e e
j
+
.
Ps⋆i ,he − Pw⋆e ,he
Psk ,he −
Ps⋆k ,hj −
Ps⋆i ,hj − Pw⋆e ,hj
=
2
2
γk
γ
k
h̃
k
k
h̃
k
k
e
j
j=1
i6=k
i6=k

With the BDMA massive MIMO regime, the estimated channel vectors satisfy h̃i ⊥ h̃k ⊥
h̃e , ∀i 6= k. Thus, we know from (C.2)∼(C.4) that h̃e /kh̃e k, h̃1/kh̃1 k, . . . , h̃K /kh̃K k ∈ {ue,k,i}

25

and h̃e /kh̃e k, h̃1/kh̃1 k, . . . , h̃K /kh̃K k ∈ {us,k,i}, where ue,k,i and us,k,i are the ith column of
Ue,k and Us,k respectively. Based on the above discussions, we know from (41) that:
⋆
(a) If h̃e /kh̃e k lies in the null space of Xe,k
+µ⋆e,k I, i.e., h̃e /kh̃e k = ue,k,i and le,k +1 ≤ i ≤ N,

there holds
X

Ps⋆i ,he + Pw⋆e ,he −

X

Ps⋆i ,he + Pw⋆e ,he −

i6=k

1 ⋆
+ µ⋆e,k = 0;
P
γe,k sk ,he

(C.5)

⋆
(b) If h̃e /kh̃e k lies in the range space of Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I, i.e., h̃e /kh̃e k = ue,k,i and 1 ≤ i ≤ le,k ,

there holds

i6=k

1 ⋆
Psk ,he + µ⋆e,k > 0.
γe,k

(C.6)

Similarly, we know from (42) that
⋆
(a) If h̃k /kh̃k k lies in the null space of Xs,k
+µ⋆s,k I i.e., h̃k /kh̃k k = us,k,i and ls,k +1 ≤ i ≤ N,

there holds
X
1 ⋆
Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk + µ⋆s,k = 0;
Psk ,hk −
γk
i6=k

(C.7)

⋆
(b) If h̃k /kh̃k k lies in the range space of Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I, i.e., h̃k /kh̃k k = us,k,i and 1 ≤ i ≤ ls,k ,

there holds
X
1 ⋆
Psk ,hk −
Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk + µ⋆s,k > 0.
γk
i6=k

(C.8)

H
Next, let the EVD of H̃e be H̃e = Uh̃,e Λh̃,e Uh̃,e
, where Λh̃,e is diagonal with the eigenvalues

λe,1 ≥ . . . ≥ λe,N . Since H̃e = h̃e h̃H
e has only one nonzero eigenvalue, there must be λe,1 > 0,
λe,2 = . . . = λe,N = 0 and uh̃,e,1 = h̃e /kh̃e k, where uh̃,e,1 is the first column of Uh̃,e . Then
according to (41) and Lemma 3, we know that (43) can be further reformulated as
n
h
io
0 ≤ Tr H̃e Xe,k I − (Xe,k + µe,k I)† Xe,k + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e
n
h
io
=Tr H̃e,k Xe,k I − (Xe,k + µe,k I)† (Xe,k + µe,k I − µe,k I) + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e
h
i
†
=µe,k Tr H̃e Xe,k (Xe,k + µe,k I) + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e




Σ−1
0
e,k,+
H
H
 Ue,k
=µe,k Tr Λe,k 
Ue,k  + σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e
Uh̃,e Λh̃,e Uh̃,e
0
0
=

µe,k qe,k,1λe,1
µe,k qe,k,i λe,1
+ σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e ≤
+ σe2 − µe,k ǫ2e ,
µe,k + qe,k,i
µe,k + qe,k,1

(C.9)

26

where qe,k,i is the ith eigenvalue of Xe,k whose corresponding eigenvector is ue,k,i = uh̃,e,1 =
h̃e /kh̃e k, and qe,k,1 is the maximum eigenvalue of Xe,k . Note that in (C.9), the last “≤” holds
with “=” when ue,k,1 = uh̃,e,1 = h̃e /kh̃e k.
H
Similarly, let the EVD of H̃k be H̃k = Uh̃,k Λh̃,k Uh̃,k
where Λh̃,k is diagonal with the single

non-zero eigenvalue λk,1 > 0 and the first column of Uh̃,k is uh̃,k,1 = h̃k /kh̃k k. According to
(42) and Lemma A, we know that (44) can be reformulated as (the details are omitted here for
brevity)
Tr
=

n

h
io
†
H̃k Xs,k I − (Xs,k + µs,k I) Xs,k − σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k

µs,k qs,k,i λk,1
µs,k qs,k,1λk,1
− σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k ≤
− σk2 − µs,k ǫ2k ,
µs,k + qs,k,i
µs,k + qs,k,1

(C.10)

where qs,k,i is the ith eigenvalue of Xs,k whose corresponding eigenvector is us,k,i = uh̃,k,1 =
h̃k /kh̃k k, and qs,k,1 is the maximum eigenvalue of Xs,k . Note that in (C.10), the last “≤” holds
with “=” when us,k,1 = uh̃,k,1 = h̃k /kh̃k k, where us,k,1, uh̃,k,1 are the first columns of Us,k and
Uh̃,k respectively.
Lastly, let us show that Rank (We⋆ ) ≤ 1 and Rank (Sk⋆ ) ≤ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K} from contradiction. Assume {µ⋆e,k }, {µ⋆s,k }, We⋆ and {Sk⋆ } are the optimal solutions of P1−SDR−EQV,
where Rank (We⋆ ) = Ce > 1 or Rank (Sk⋆ ) = Ck > 1. Then we provide the following new
solutions
We∗ =

Pw⋆e ,he +

K
X

Ps⋆i ,he

i=1

which satisfies

Rank (We∗ )

!

h̃e h̃H
e
,
kh̃e k2

≤ 1 and

Sk∗ =

Rank (Sk∗ )

Ps⋆k ,hk −

X
i6=k

Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk

!

h̃k h̃H
k
, (C.11)
kh̃k k2

≤ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}. Then it is obvious that

∗
∗
Xe,k
and Xs,k
can be expressed as

!
X
X
h̃i h̃H
1
i
∗
Ps⋆i ,hi −
Ps⋆j ,hi − Pw⋆e ,hi
Xe,k
=
Si∗ + We∗ −
Sk∗ =
2
γ
k
h̃
k
e,k
i
j6=i
i6=k
i6=k
!
!
K
X
X
h̃e h̃H
h̃k h̃H
1
e
k
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
+ Pwe ,he +
Psi ,he
Psk ,hk −
Psi ,hk − Pwe ,hk
−
,
2
γe,k
kh̃e k
kh̃k k2
i=1
i6=k
!
X
X
1
h̃k h̃H
1
k
∗
Si∗ − We∗ =
Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk
Ps⋆k ,hk −
Xs,k
= Sk∗ −
2
γk
γ
k
h̃
k
k
k
i6=k
i6=k
!
!
K
H
X
X
X
h̃e h̃H
h̃
h̃
i i
e
− Pw⋆e ,he +
,
Ps⋆i ,he
Ps⋆i,hi −
Ps⋆j ,hi − Pw⋆e ,hi
−
2
2
k
h̃
k
k
h̃
k
i
e
i=1
j6=i
i6=k
X

(C.12)

(C.13)

27

respectively. From (C.3) and (C.12), we know
K
X
X
1 ⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
Ps⋆i ,he ,
Psk ,he ≤ Pwe ,he +
Psi ,he + Pwe ,he −
γ
e,k
i=1
i6=k

(C.14)

(please cf. Eq. (C.5) and Eq. (C.6) for details). From (C.4) and (C.13), we obtain
!
X
X
1
1 ⋆
Ps⋆k ,hk −
Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk ,
P
−
P ⋆ − Pw⋆e ,hk ≤
γk sk ,hk i6=k si ,hk
γk
i6=k

(C.15)

which implies that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will not violate the constraints in (34) of P1−SDR−EQV

which implies that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will not violate the constraints in (36) of P1−SDR−EQV
(please cf. Eq. (C.7) and Eq. (C.8) for details). Moreover, it is easily known from (C.3), (C.4),


P
∗
⋆
⋆
P
(C.12) and (C.13) that if µ⋆s,k − Pw⋆e ,he + K
i=1 si ,he ≥ 0, there must hold Xe,k + µe,k I  0

∗
and Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I  0. Interestingly, it is observed from (C.9) that we can always let qe,k,1 =
P
2 2
⋆
Pw⋆e ,he + K
i=1 Psi ,he = 0 and µe,k = σe /ǫe , which will not violate (C.9). A more rigorous proof

can be found in Theorem 2.

As a result, substituting We∗ and {Sk∗ } into P1−SDR−EQV, we obtain from (32) that
!
K
K
K
X
X
X
X
Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk
Ps⋆k ,hk −
Ps⋆i ,he +
Tr(Sk∗ ) = Pw⋆e ,he +
Tr(We∗ )+
i=1

k=1

≤Pw⋆e ,he

+

K
X

Ps⋆i,he

i=1

+

K
X
k=1

from (33) and (34) that

Ps⋆k ,hk

+

K X
K
X
j=1 i=1

k=1

Ps⋆i ,hj

= Tr(We⋆ )+

i6=k

K
X

Tr(Sk⋆ );

∗
∗
Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I  0, Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I  0;
h

† i ∗
∗
∗
Xe,k h̃e = 0;
I − Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I

from (35) that

(C.16)

k=1

n
h
† ∗ io
∗
∗
H̃e Xe,k
I − Xe,k
+ µ⋆e,k I Xe,k
+ σe2 − µ⋆e,k ǫ2e


PK
⋆
⋆
µe,k Pwe ,he + i=1 Psi ,he λe,1
=
+ σe2 − µ⋆e,k ǫ2e
P
⋆
P
µe,k + Pw⋆e ,he + K
i=1 si ,he
!
X
1 ⋆
λe,1
P
µe,k
Ps⋆i ,he + Pw⋆e ,he −
γe,k sk ,he
i6=k
+ σe2 − µ⋆e,k ǫ2e
≥
X
1 ⋆
⋆
⋆
P
µe,k +
Psi ,he + Pwe ,he −
γe,k sk ,he
i6=k
n
h
† ⋆ io
⋆
⋆
=Tr H̃e Xe,k I − Xe,k + µe,k I Xe,k + σe2 − µ⋆e,k ǫ2e > 0;

(C.17)
(C.18)

Tr

(C.19)

28

from (36) that
h

† i ∗
∗
∗
Xs,k h̃k = 0;
I − Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I Xs,k
+ µ⋆s,k I

from (37) that

n
h
† ∗ io
∗
∗
− σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k
+ µ⋆s,k I Xs,k
I − Xs,k
H̃k Xs,k


P
µ⋆s,k Ps⋆k ,hk − i6=k Ps⋆i ,hk − Pw⋆e ,hk /γk λk,1


=
− σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k
P
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
µs,k + Psk ,hk − i6=k Psi ,hk − Pwe ,hk /γk


P
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
µs,k Psk ,hk /γk − i6=k Psi ,hk − Pwe ,hk λk,1
P
≥
− σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k
⋆
⋆
⋆
⋆
µs,k + Psk ,hk /γk − i6=k Psi,hk − Pwe ,hk
n
h
† ⋆ io
⋆
⋆
⋆
=Tr H̃k Xs,k I − Xs,k + µs,k I Xs,k − σk2 − µ⋆s,k ǫ2k > 0;

(C.20)

Tr

from (38), (39) and (40) that
X
X
1
1 ∗
∗
∗
Sk , Xs,k
= Sk∗ −
Si∗ − We∗ ;
=
Si∗ + We∗ −
Xe,k
γe,k
γk
i6=k
i6=k
µ⋆e,k ≥ 0,

µ⋆s,k ≥ 0,

We∗  0,

Sk∗  0,

k = 1, 2, . . . , K.

(C.21)

(C.22)
(C.23)

Then it can be inferred from (C.16)∼(C.23) that
(a) If Rank (We⋆ ) = Ce > 1, we know from (C.2) that there exists at least one Pw⋆e ,hi >
0, i ∈ {1, . . . , K}. Thus, from (C.16)∼(C.20), (C.22) and (C.23) we know that We∗ and
{Sk∗ } will not change the object value (32) and always satisfy constraints (33)∼(36) and
(38)∼(40). While from (C.21) we know that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will always provide more
freedoms. Thus, We∗ and {Sk∗ } are better solutions than We⋆ and {Sk⋆ }.
(b) If Rank (Sk⋆ ) = Ck > 1, we know from (C.2) that there exists at least one Ps⋆k ,hi6=k >
0, i ∈ {1, . . . , K} or Ps⋆k ,he > 0. Then, if Ps⋆k ,hi6=k > 0, i ∈ {1, . . . , K}, we know from
(C.16) that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will always provide smaller objective value than We⋆ and {Sk⋆ }.
While from (C.17)∼(C.23), we know that We∗ and {Sk∗ } satisfy all the constraints of
P1−SDR−EQV. Thus, We∗ and {Sk∗ } are better solutions. If Ps⋆k ,he > 0, we know
from (C.16)∼(C.18) and (C.20)∼(C.23) that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will not change the object
value (32) and always satisfy constraints (33), (34) and (36)∼(40). While from (C.19) we
conclude that We∗ and {Sk∗ } will always provide more freedoms. Thus, We∗ and {Sk∗ } are
better solutions than We⋆ and {Sk⋆ }.

29

Based on the above discussions, we know that We∗ and {Sk∗ } are always better solutions,
which contradicts the assumption that We⋆ and {Sk⋆ } are optimal solutions. Thus there must
be Rank (We⋆ ) ≤ 1 and Rank (Sk⋆ ) ≤ 1, ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}. From (C.11), we know We⋆ and
{Sk⋆ } can be further expressed as
We∗ = Pw⋆e

h̃e h̃H
e
,
kh̃e k2

Sk∗ = Ps⋆k

h̃k h̃H
k
,
kh̃k k2

(C.24)

where Pw⋆e and Ps⋆k are the optimal power allocation for AN beamforming and information
beamforming, respectively. The proof of Theorem 1 is thus completed.

R EFERENCES
[1] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited nnumbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[2] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[3] E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014.
[4] L. Lu, G. Y. Li, A. L. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin and R. Zhang, “An overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,”
IEEE J. Sel Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, Oct. 2014.
[5] H. Yin, D. Gesbert, M. Filippou, and Y. Liu, “A coordinated approach to channel estimation in large-scale multiple-antenna
systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 264–273, Feb. 2013.
[6] A. Adhikary, J. Nam, J.-Y. Ahn, and G. Caire, “Joint spatial division and multiplexing the large scale array regime,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6441–6463, Oct. 2013.
[7] H. Xie, B. Wang, F. Gao, S. Jin, “A full-space spectrum-sharing strategy for massive MIMO cognitive radio systems,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2537-2549, Oct. 2016.
[8] H. Xie, F. Gao, S. Jin, “An overview of low-rank channel estimation for massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 4,
pp. 7313–7321, Nov. 2
[9] H. Xie, F. Gao, S. Zhang, S. Jin, “A unified transmission strategy for TDD/FDD massive MIMO systems with spatial basis
expansion model,” to appear in IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., early access available online, 2016.
[10] W. Choi, A. Forenza, J. G. Andrews, and J. R. W. Heath, “Opportunistic space-division multiple access with beam selection,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 2371–2380, Dec. 2007.
[11] C. Sun, X. Gao, S. Jin, M. Matthaiou, Z. Ding and C. Xiao, “Beam division multiple access transmission for massive
MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 2170-2184, June 2015.
[12] A. D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 54, pp. 1355–1387, Oct. 1975.
[13] I. Csiszar and J. Korner, “Broadcast channels with confidential messages,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 339–
348, May 1978.

30

[14] Y. Liang, H. V. Poor, and S. Shamai, “Secure communication over fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54,
no. 6, pp. 2470–2492, June 2008.
[15] Y. Liang and H. V. Poor, “Generalized multiple access channels with confidential messages,” in Proc. IEEE ISIT, Seattle,
WA, USA, July 2006, pp. 952–956.
[16] F. Oggier and B. Hassibi, “The secrecy capacity of the MIMO wiretap channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 8,
pp. 4961–4972, Aug. 2011.
[17] J. Zhu, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, “Secure transmission in multicell massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4766–4781, Sep. 2014.
[18] X. Chen, L. Lei, H. Zhang, and C. Yuen, “Large-scale MIMO relaying techniques for physical layer security: AF or DF?”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 5135C5146, Sep. 2015.
[19] J. Wang, J. Lee, F. Wang and T. Q. S. Quek, “Jamming-aided secure communication in massive MIMO rician channels,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 6854–6868, Dec. 2015.
[20] H. M. Wang, T. X. Zheng, J. Yuan, D. Towsley, and M. H. Lee, “Physical layer security in heterogeneous cellular networks,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1204–1219, Mar. 2016.
[21] J. Zhu, R. Schober, and V. K. Bhargava, “Linear precoding of data and artificial noise in secure massive MIMO systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 2245–2261, Mar. 2016.
[22] Y. Wu, R. Schober, D. W. K. Ng, C. Xiao and G. Caire, “Secure massive MIMO transmission with an active eavesdropper,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3880–3900, July 2016.
[23] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[24] X. Li, T. Jiang, S. Cui, J. An, and Q. Zhang, “Cooperative communications based on rateless network coding in distributed
MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 60–67, June 2010.
[25] Y. Rong, S. A. Vorobyov and A. B. Gershman, “Robust linear receivers for multiaccess space-time block-coded MIMO
systems: A probabilistically constrained approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1560–1570, Aug.
2006.
[26] J. Wang and D. P. Palomar, “Worst-Case Robust MIMO Transmission With Imperfect Channel Knowledge,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 3086–3100, Aug. 2009.
[27] N. Vucic and H. Boche, “Robust QoS-Constrained Optimization of Downlink Multiuser MISO Systems,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 714–725, Feb. 2009.
[28] A. Mostafa and L. Lampe, “Optimal and robust beamforming for secure transmission in MISO visible-light communication
links,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 24, pp. 6501–6516, Dec. 2016.
[29] S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory.
Philadelphia, PA: SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics, 1994.
[30] Z. Q. Luo, W. K. Ma, A. M. C. So, Y. Ye, and S. Zhang, “Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,”
IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, May 2010.
[31] R. Penrose, “A generalized inverse for matrices,” in Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 1955, vol. 51, pp. 406–413.
[32] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[33] A. W. Marshall and I. Olkin, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications. New York: Academic, 1979.

