1

Secrecy Energy Efficiency of MIMOME Wiretap
Channels with Full-Duplex Jamming

arXiv:1708.05402v2 [cs.IT] 5 Sep 2017

Omid Taghizadeh, Student Member, IEEE, Peter Neuhaus, Student
Member, IEEE, and Rudolf Mathar, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this work we study the secrecy energy efficiency (SEE) of a multiple-input-multiple-output multipleantenna eavesdropper (MIMOME) wiretap channel, in terms of
the securely communicated bits-per-Joule, where the legitimate
receiver is enabled with full-duplex (FD) capability. Hence, the
transmitter and the legitimate receiver are capable of transmitting
artificial noise (AN) to the eavesdropper, while exchanging information. In particular, we seek answer to the question: if and how
the application of an FD jammer can enhance the system SEE,
considering the additional power consumption used for jamming
and self-interference cancellation, as well as the degrading effect
of residual self-interference. In this regard, an SEE maximization
problem is formulated assuming the availability of the exact, or
statistical channel state information (CSI). Due to the intractable
problem structure, an iterative solution is provided in each case
with a guaranteed convergence to a local optimum. Numerical
simulations indicate a marginal SEE gain, via the utilization of
FD jamming, for a wide range of system conditions. However, a
significant gain is observed for the scenarios with a small distance
between the FD node and the eavesdropper, a high signal-to-noise
(SNR) condition or for a bidirectional FD communication setup,
under the condition that the self-interference can be effectively
and efficiently mitigated.

under perfect secrecy condition. It is shown that a positive
secrecy capacity is achievable when the physical channel to the
eavesdropper has a weaker condition compared to the channel
to the legitimate receiver. The arguments of [3] have since
been extended in the directions of secrecy rate region analysis
for various wiretap channel models [4]–[6], construction of
capacity achieving channel codes [7]–[9], as well as signal
processing techniques for enhancing the secrecy capacity of
wireless communication systems, see [10]–[14] and references
therein.

The information security of wireless communication systems is currently addressed via cryptographic approaches,
at the upper layers of the protocol stack. However, these
approaches are prone to attack due to the ever-increasing
computational capability of the digital processors, and suffer
due to the issues regarding management and distribution of
secret keys [1], [2]. Alternatively, physical layer security takes
advantage of physical characteristics of the communication
medium in order to provide a secure data exchange between
the information transmitter (Alice) and the legitimate receiver
(Bob). In the seminal work by Wyner [3] the concept of secrecy
capacity is introduced for a three-node degraded wiretap channel, as the maximum information rate that can be exchanged

As a promising method to enhance the secrecy capacity of
wireless systems, Goel and Negi [10] have introduced the idea
of friendly jamming, i.e., the transmission of artificial noise
(AN) with the intention of degrading the decoding capability
of the Eavesdropper. This can be implemented via i) the joint
transmission of information and AN from Alice, however,
requiring an effective beamforming capability at Alice and
sharing the communication and jamming resources [10], [11],
ii) utilization of external (cooperative) jammers, however,
resulting in the issues of jammer mobility, synchronization,
and trustworthiness [5], [12]–[14], and iii) via the application
of full-duplex (FD) nodes [2]. An FD transceiver is capable
of transmission and reception at the same time and frequency,
however, suffering from the strong self-interference from its
own transmitter. The recently developed methods for selfinterference cancellation (SIC) [15]–[18], have demonstrated
functioning realizations of FD transceivers in the last few years
and motivated a wide range of related studies, see [19], [20]
and the references therein. In this regard, an FD Bob can act as
a friendly jammer, while simultaneously receiving information
from Alice. Note that an FD jammer does not occupy the
communication resources from Alice, nor does it rely on
the external helpers, resolving the related drawbacks. The
problems regarding secrecy rate region analysis and resource
optimization has hence been addressed in [2], [21]–[24]. It is
observed that a significant gain is achievable, in terms of the
resulting secrecy capacity, via the utilization of an FD jamming
strategy under the condition that the self-interference signal
can be attenuated effectively.

O. Taghizadeh and R. Mathar are with the Institute for Theoretical Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 52074, Germany (e-mail:
taghizadeh, mathar@ti.rwth-aachen.de).
P. Neuhaus is with the Vodafone Chair Mobile Communications Systems, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden 01062, Germany (e-mail:
peter.neuhaus@ifn.et.tu-dresden.de).
Part of this work has been submitted for presentation at the 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference 15-18 April, Barcelona,
Spain.

Although the available literature introduces a gainful utilization of FD transceivers for enhancing the system secrecy
capacity, the aforementioned gain comes at the expense of a
higher power consumption due to i) the degrading impact of
residual self-interference on the desired communication link ii)
the implementation of an SIC scheme at the FD transceiver,
incurring additional digital processing and analog circuitry,
as well as iii) the power consumed for the transmission of

Keywords—Full-duplex, friendly jamming, secrecy capacity, wiretap channel, energy efficiency, MIMO.

I.

I NTRODUCTION

2

AN. As a result, it is not clear how the FD jamming-enabled
systems perform in terms of the secrecy energy efficiency
(SEE). Note that the issue of energy efficiency is recently
raised as a key criteria in the design of wireless communication
systems. This is justified due to the exponential increase of
the information and communication technology (ICT) services,
currently generating around 5% of global CO2 emissions and
with 75% expected share of wireless systems in 2020, which
calls for novel energy efficient ICT solutions [25], [26]. Hence,
it is the main purpose of this paper to investigate if and how
the application of FD jammers can enhance the system’s SEE,
in terms of the securely communicated bits per Joule (SBPJ).
A. Related works on SEE maximization
The SEE of a downlink cellular network with single antenna
users is studied in [27], [28], where SBPJ is introduced as
the evaluation metric. These studies have then been extended
with the consideration of a general multiple-input-multipleoutput multiple-antenna eavesdropper (MIMOME) setup [29],
[30], and availability of partial channel state information
(CSI) regarding the channels to eavesdropper [31]–[33]. The
impact of utilizing AN on SEE is studied as a potentially
beneficial factor, where Alice is transmitting AN together with
the information containing signal [29], [32], [33], with later
extension to multi-hop relaying setups [34], [35]. The work
in [33] jointly considers the transmission of AN by Alice and
the availability of statistical CSI, however, assuming a single
antenna eavesdropper and restricting the setup to a fast-fading
scenario. Moreover, an investigation on SEE performance of
an FD-enabled system is not available in the literature.
B. Contribution and paper organization
In this work we study a set of SEE maximization problems
for a MIMOME wiretap channel, assuming the availability of
perfect or statistical CSI, where Alice and an FD Bob are
jointly capable of transmitting AN. Our main contributions
are as following:
• In contrast to the available designs [21]–[24], utilizing
FD transceivers for secrecy capacity enhancement, in
Section III, an SEE [SBPJ] maximization problem is
formulated. Due to the intractable structure, a successive general inner approximation algorithm (SUIAP) is
proposed, with a guaranteed convergence to a point
satisfying Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of optimality.
• The joint utilization of FD capability, both on Alice
and Bob for jamming and bi-directional information
exchange, shows additional potentials for the improvement of SEE. This is grounded on the fact that i) the
FD jamming power is reused for both communication
directions, resulting in a power-efficient jamming, and ii)
the coexistence of two communication directions on the
same channel may degrade Eve’s decoding capability.
Motivated by this, the proposed SUIAP algorithm is
extended in Section IV for an FD bidirectional setup.
• In order to account for the channel uncertainties, the
consideration of statistical CSI regarding the channels to

Eve has been introduced in [36] for maximizing system
secrecy and in [33] for enhancing the system SEE,
considering HD nodes. However, the aforementioned
works limit the studied setups to a single antenna Eve,
where CSI statistics follow a fast-fading nature. In this
work an SEE maximization problem is studied for an
FD-enabled MIMOME setup, where the channels to
Eve follow an arbitrary statistical distribution. Note that
unlike the fast-fading conditions, which assumes the
CSI is not available due to mobility, the consideration
of an arbitrary statistical distribution also accounts for
the scenarios where Eve’s condition is stationary, but
the CSI can not be obtained due to the lack of collaboration from Eve. Hence, in Section V, a successive selection and statistical lower bound maximization
(SSSLM) algorithm is proposed, utilizing a combination
of ensemble average approximation [37], together with
the successive lower bound approximation method [38],
with the goal of maximizing the statistical average of
SEE. The algorithm is proven to converge to a point
satisfying KKT conditions. It is worth mentioning that
the studied problem also subsumes the problem for
the maximization of secrecy capacity under the same
assumption set.
The numerical results show that the utilization of FD
transceivers is able to provide a significant SEE gain for
a system with a small distance between the FD node and
the eavesdropper, a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or for
a bidirectional FD communication setup, under the condition
that the self-interference can be effectively and efficiently
mitigated.
C. Mathematical notation
Throughout this paper, column vectors and matrices are
denoted as lower-case and upper-case bold letters, respectively.
Mathematical expectation, trace, determinant, and Hermitian
transpose are denoted by E(·), tr(·), | · |, and (·)H , respectively. The Kronecker product is denoted by ⊗. The identity
matrix with dimension K is denoted as IK and vec(·) operator
stacks the elements of a matrix into a vector. Moreover, (·)−1
represents the inverse of a matrix and || · ||2 , || · ||F respectively
represent the Euclidean and Frobenius norms. diag(·) returns
a diagonal matrix by putting the off-diagonal elements to zero.
⊥ denotes statistical independence. The set FK is defined as
{1, 2, . . . , K}, and |X| denotes the size of the set X. The set of
positive real numbers, the set of complex numbers, and the set
of all positive semi-definite matrices with Hermitian symmetry
are denoted by R+ , C and H, respectively. a? indicates the
value of a for which optimality holds. The value of {x}+
is equal to x, if positive, and zero otherwise. Furthermore,
CN (x, X) denotes the complex normal distribution with mean
x and covariance X.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a MIMOME wiretap channel consists of a
legitimate transmitter, i.e., Alice, a legitimate receiver, i.e.,
Bob, and an eavesdropper, i.e., Eve, see Fig. 1. Alice and

3

Eve are equipped with NA transmit and ME receive antennas, respectively. Bob is respectively equipped with NB and
MB transmit and receive antennas, and is capable of FD
operation. Channels are assumed to follow a quasi-stationary1
and flat-fading model. In this regard, channel from Alice to
Bob, Alice to Eve, and Bob to Eve (jamming channel) are
respectively denoted as Hab ∈ CMB ×NA , Hae ∈ CME ×NA ,
Hbe ∈ CME ×NB . The channel from Bob to Bob, i.e., selfinterference channel, is denoted as Hbb ∈ CMB ×NB .
A. Signal model
The transmission from Alice includes the informationcontaining signal, intended for Bob, and a AN, intended to
degrade the reception by Eve. This is expressed as
xa = qa + wa +etx,a ,
(1)
| {z }
ua

NA

where ua ∈ C
is the intended transmit signal, qa ∼
CN (0NA , Qa ) and wa ∼ CN (0NA , Wa ) respectively represent the information-containing and AN signal, and xa ∈ CNA
is the combined transmitted signal from Alice. The transmit
distortion, denoted as etx,a ∈ CNA models collective impacts
of transmit chain inaccuracies, e.g., analog-to-digital converters (ADC) noise, power amplifier (PA) noise, oscillator phase
noise, see Subsection II-B for more details. Note that the
role of hardware inaccuracies becomes important in a system
with FD transceivers, due to the impact of a strong selfinterference channel. Similar to the transmission from Alice,
the transmission of AN by Bob is expressed as
xb = wb + etx,b ,
(2)
where wb ∼ CN (0NB , Wb ) is the transmitted artificial noise
and etx,b ∈ CNB represents the transmit distortions from Bob.
Via the application of (1) and (2) the received signal at Eve is
expressed as
ye = Hae xa + Hbe xb + ne ,
= Hae qa + ce
(3)

2
where ne ∼ CN 0ME , σn,e IME is the additive thermal noise
and
ce := Hae wa + Hbe wb + Hae etx,a + Hbe etx,b + ne (4)
is the collective interference-plus-noise at Eve.
Similarly, the received signal at Bob is formulated as
(5)
yb = Hab xa + Hbb xb + nb +erx,b ,
{z
}
|
=:ub


2
where nb ∼ CN 0MB , σn,b
IMB is the additive thermal
noise, and ub is the received signal, assuming perfect hardware
operation. Similar to the transmit side, the receiver distortion,
denoted as erx,b ∈ CMB , models the collective impact of
receiver chain inaccuracies, e.g., digital-to-analog converter
(DAC) noise, oscillator phase noise, and automatic gain control
error, see Subsection II-B. Note that yb includes the received
self-interference signal at Bob, originating from the same
1 It means that the channel remains constant within a frame, but may change
from one frame to another.

transceiver. Hence, the known, i.e., distortion-free, part of the
self-interference can be subtracted applying a SIC method [15],
[17]. The received signal at Bob, after the application of SIC
is hence written as
ỹb = yb − Hbb wb
= Hab xa + Hbb etx,b + erx,b + nb
= Hab qa + cb ,
(6)
where
cb := Hab wa + Hab etx,a + Hbb etx,b + erx,b + nb , (7)
is the collective interference-plus-noise at Bob.
B. Distortion signal statistics
Similar to [39], we model the impact of transmit (receive)
chain inaccuracies by injecting Gaussian-distributed and independent distortion terms at each antenna. Moreover, the
variance of the distortion signals are proportional to the power
of the intended transmit (receive) signal at the corresponding
chain. This model is elaborated in [39, Subsections C], [40],
[41] regarding the characterization of hardware impairments
in transmit chains, and in [39, Subsections D], [42] for the
receiver chains. This is expressed in our system as

 

etx,a ∼ CN 0NA , κa diag E ua uH
, etx,a ⊥ua , (8)
a

 

etx,b ∼ CN 0NB , κb diag E wb wbH
, etx,b ⊥wb , (9)

 

erx,b ∼ CN 0MB , βb diag E ub uH
, erx,b ⊥ub , (10)
b
where κa , κb , βb ∈ R+ are distortion coefficients, relating the
variance of the distortion terms to the intended signal power,
and ua and ub are defined in (1) and (5), respectively. For
further elaborations on the used distortion model please see
[39], [43]–[45], and the references therein.
C. Power consumption model
The consumed power of a wireless transceiver can be
segmented into three parts. First, the power consumed at the
PA, which is related to the effective transmit power via PA
efficiency, see [46, Eq. (2)]. Secondly, the zero-state power,
i.e., the power consumed by other circuit blocks, independent
from transmission status2 , see [46, Eq. (3)]. And finally, the
power consumed for the implementation of a SIC scheme, for
enabling FD operation. The aforementioned power varies for
different SIC methods, and by definition, is not relevant for
HD transceivers.
The consumed power for Alice and Bob can hence be
expressed as
1 
E kxa k22 + PA,0 , PA ≤ PA,max
(11)
PA =
µA
and
1 
PB =
E kxb k22 + PB,0 + PFD , PB ≤ PB,max . (14)
µB
2 This includes, e.g., the power consumed at receiver chain, and for base
band processing.

4

H
H
H
Σb = E{cb cH
b } = Hab Wa Hab + κa Hab diag (Qa + Wa ) Hab + κb Hbb diag (Wb ) Hbb


H
2
2
+ βb diag Hab (Qa + Wa ) HH
ab + Hbb Wb Hbb + σn,b IMB + σn,b IMB ,

Σe =

E{ce cH
e }

=

Hae Wa HH
ae

+

Hbe Wb HH
be

+ κa Hae diag (Qa +

Bob

Alice

Eve

desired sig.
leackage
AN
self-interf.

Figure 1. The studied wiretap channel. Alice, and the FD-Bob are jointly
enabled with jamming capability.

Wa ) HH
ae

+

κb Hbe diag (Wb ) HH
be

+

2
σn,e
IME .

(12)
(13)

sequence which is not known to the receivers, see [10,
Section III]. This is to prevent Eve from decoding the
AN.
III.

S ECRECY E NERGY E FFICIENCY M AXIMIZATION

In this part we intend to enhance the system SEE, assuming
the availability of CSI for all channels. The corresponding
optimization problem is defined as
max
SEE (Qa , Wa , Wb )
(16a)
Qa ,Wa ,Wb

In the above arguments, PX , PX ,0 , µX , PX ,max , where X ∈
{A, B}, respectively represent the consumed power, the zerostate power, PA efficiency, and the maximum allowed power
consumption for each node. The additional required power for
the implementation of an SIC scheme is denoted by PFD . From
(11), (14), the total system power consumption is obtained as
Ptot = PA + PB .
(15)
D. Secrecy energy efficiency
Following [2], [6], [10], the achievable secrecy nrate3ofor
+
Alice-Bob communication is expressed as Cab = C̃ab
,
such that
−1
−1
C̃ab = log I + Hab Qa HH
− log I + Hae Qa HH
,
ab Σb
ae Σe
(16)
where Σb , Σe are given in (12), (13), and represent the
covariance of the interference-plus-noise terms at Bob and
Eve, respectively. The secrecy energy efficiency (SEE), as a
measure of securely communicated information per energy
unit, is consequently expressed as
Cab
.
(17)
SEE =
Ptot
It is the intention of the remaining parts of this paper to
improve the efficiency of the defined wiretap channel, in terms
of the SEE, and provide comparison to the usual HD strategies.

1 + κa
tr (Qa + Wa ) + PA,0 ≤ PA,max , (16b)
µa
1 + κb
tr (Wb ) + PB,0 + PFD ≤ PB,max , (16c)
µb
Qa , Wa , Wb ∈ H,
(16d)
where (16b) and (16c) represent the power constraints at Alice
and Bob, see (11), (14). The defined problem in (16) is not
tractable in the current form, due to the non-convex and nonsmooth objective. In order to obtain a tractable structure,
without loss of optimality, we remove the non-linear operator
{}+ from the definition of SEE4 . The modified SEE, named
SEEp hereinafter, can hence be formulated as
SEEp (Qa , Wa , Wb ) =

ΣX ∈{b,e} αX log ΣX + HaX Qa HH
aX − log |ΣX |
, (17)
Ptot (Qa , Wa , Wb )
where αb = 1 and αe = −1. It is observed that SEEp is
a difference of concave (DC) over affine fractional function
which is intractable in the current form. In the following we
propose a successive general inner approximation algorithm
(SUIAP) to obtain an optimal solution to (16).
s.t.

E. Remarks
• In this part we have assumed the availability of the perfect CSI for all channels. However, it may be difficult to
estimate the channels associated to Eve, due to mobility,
or the lack of collaboration from Eve. The scenario with
the availability of partial CSI is discussed in Section V.
• Unlike the data symbols, which follow a known constellation, the AN is generated from a psedu-random

A. SUIAP
The proposed SUIAP algorithm consists of two nested loops.
In each outer iteration, an effective lower bound to SEEp
is constructed following the successive inner approximation
(SIA) method [47], applying the inequality

−log |X| ≥ −log |Y| + tr Y−1 (Y − X)
(19)
as the first-order Taylor approximation of the convex terms
−log |·| in (17) at the point Y. Please note that via the
elimination of the convex terms from the nominator, the
proposed lower bound holds a concave over affine fractional
structure, which is a psedu-concave function [48]. Hence, in
the inner loop, the well-known Dinkelbach’s algorithm [49]

3 The system secrecy capacity is lower bounded by all achievable secrecy
rates resulting from different choices of transmit covariance matrices, see [6,
Theorem 1], [10, Equation (6)].

4 Note that at the optimality of (16), the resulting C , and consequently the
s
SEE is non-negative. This is since a non-negative SEE is immediately obtained
by setting Qa = 0, see [2], [33] for similar arguments.

5


−1 



[0,l]
[0,l]
[k,l]
[0,l]
H
˜ p Q[k,l] ; Q[0,l] ; λ[k,l] = log Σ[k,l] + Hab Q[k,l]
+
tr
Σ
Σ
−
Σ
Σ
−
log
H
SEE
a
ab
b
b
b
b
b

−1 



[0,l]
[0,l] H
[0,l]
[0,l] H
[0,l]
[k,l]
[0,l]
[k,l]
H
[k,l]
Σe − Σe + Hae Qa − Qa
Hae
− log Σe + Hae Qa Hae + tr Σe + Hae Qa Hae
+ log Σe


 1+κ 

1 + κa  [k,l]
b
[k,l]
− λ[k−1,l]
tr Qa + Wa[k,l] +
tr Wb
+ PA,0 + PB,0 + PFD
(18)
µa
µb

can be applied to iteratively maximize the obtained lower
bound. The proposed SUIAP algorithm, for the lth outer
iteration and kth inner iteration
is hence formulated
as


˜ p Q[k,l] ; Q[0,l] ; λ[k−1,l]
max SEE
(20a)
Q[k,l]

s.t. (16b), (16c), (16d),
(20b)
˜ p is defined in (18), λ is an
where Q := {Qa , Wa , Wb }, SEE
[k,l]
[k,l]
auxiliary variable, and Σb , Σe are calculated from (12),
(13) at the iteration instance represented by k, l.
˜ p is a jointly concave function over
It is observed that SEE
[k,l]
[k,l]
[k,l]
Qa , Wa , Wb for a fixed λ[k,l] . In particular, the maximization over Q[k,l] is efficiently implemented via the MAXDET algorithm in each inner iteration, see [50]. Afterwards,
in each inner algorithm iteration the value of λ[k,l] is uniquely
updated by solving the identity


˜ p Q[k,l] ; Q[0,l] ; λ[k,l] = 0,
SEE
(21)
see [51, Subsection 3.2], [49] for more elaboration regarding
the Dinkelbach’s algorithm. The defined algorithm steps, both
outer and inner loop iterations, are continued until a jointly
stable point is obtained, see Algorithm 1 for more details.
B. Convergence
It is observed that the proposed steps in the inner loop lead to
a necessary convergence, due to the monotonically increasing
update of λ and the fact that a feasible value of λ is bounded
from above. Moreover, it is proven in [51, Proposition 3.2]
that for the studied concave-over-affine fractional structure, the
converging point of the Dinkelbach’s algorithm is indeed the
global optimum point. The global optimality result of the inner
loop iterations also results in a necessary convergence in the
outer loop, by ensuring a monotonic improvement. Please note
that the obtained lower bound via the utilization of (19) is a
tight and global lower bound to SEEp . Moreover, it shares the
same slope as the SEEp function at the point of approximation.
The aforementioned properties, and the fact that inner iterations are solved to the optimality, results in the convergence
of the outer loop iterations to a point satisfying the KarushKuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of the original problem, see
[47, Theorem 1]. However, the converging KKT point of the
original problem is not necessarily the global optimum. This
optimality gap is numerically analyzed in Subsection VI-A by
examining multiple initializations.
C. Initialization
In this section we briefly discuss the initialization of Algorithm 1. We separate the choice of spatial beams and power

allocation for different transmissions, in order to obtain a fast
solution.
1) Spatial adjustment: The role of the transmit spatial adjustment is to direct the transmit signal to the desired receiver,
while preventing leakage to the undesired directions. This is
written as the following maximization

tr FQFH + νf
, s.t. tr (Q) = 1,
(22)
max
Q
tr (GQGH ) + νg
where Q represents the normalized covariance matrix, F and
G are the desired and undesired channels, and νf , νg are
the noise variances at the desired and undesired receivers,
respectively. An optimal solution to (22) can be obtained as

 1
−1

vec Q? 2 = Pmax I ⊗ GH G + νg I
I ⊗ FH F + ν f I .
(23)
where Pmax (·) calculates the dominant eigenvector. Note that
the above approach is applied separately for the spatial adjustment of Qa , Wa and Wb . The corresponding desired and
undesired channels are defined in Appendix A-A.
2) Power allocation: The transmit power adjustment for
Qa , Wa and Wb is obtained by applying the normalized
covariance in the previous part as the basis. Afterwards, the
power for each transmission is optimized to maximize SEEp ,
see Appendix A-B.
D. Computational complexity
[0,l]

Each outer iteration consists of the calculation of Σb and
[0,l]
[0,l]
Σe + Hae Qa HH
ae via (12), (13), and the inverse terms via
Cholesky decomposition incurring in total
 
O γout ME3 + MB3 + NA MB (4MB + NA ) + 5NA ME (NA

+ ME ) + NB MB (2NB + 4MB ) + 4NB ME (ME + NB )
arithmetic operations [52], where γin (γout ) is the total number
of the required inner (outer) iterations until convergence.
However, the computational complexity of the algorithm is
dominated by the steps of the determinant maximization in
the inner loop, see Algorithm 1, Step 10. A general form of a
MAX-DET problem is defined as
min pT z + log Y(z)

−1

, s.t. Y(z)  0, F(z)  0, (24)
Pn
where z ∈ Rn , and Y(z) ∈PRnY ×nY := Y0 + i=1 zi Yi and
n
nF ×nF
F(z) ∈ R
:= F0 + i=1 zi Fi . An upper bound to the
computational complexity of the above problem is given as
 √
 
O γin n n2 + n2Y n2F ,
(25)
z

6

see [50, Section 10]. In our problem n = 2NA2 − 2NA + NB2 −
NB representing the dimension of real valued scalar variable
space, and nY = MB + ME and nF = NB + 2NA + 2,
representing the dimension of the determinant operation and
the constraints space, respectively.
1) Remark: The above analysis intends to show how the
bounds on computational complexity are related to different
problem dimensions. Nevertheless, the computational load may
vary in practice, depending on the implementation and the
used numerical solver. Furthermore, the overall algorithm complexity also depends on the number of optimization iterations
required to obtain convergence. Please see Subsection VI-A
for a numerical analysis on the convergence behavior, as well
as the algorithm computational complexity.
Algorithm 1

Successive inner approximation algorithm (SUIAP) for SEE maximization. Cmin (λmin ) represents the convergence threshold for the outer (inner) iterations.

1: l, k ← 0;
2: λ[0,0] ← 0, Q[0,0] ← Subsection III-C;
3: repeat
4:
l ← l + 1,
5:
λ[0,l] ← λ[k,l−1] ;
6:
Q[0,l] ← Q[k,l−1] ;
7:
k ← 0,
8:
repeat
9:
k ← k + 1;
10:
Q[k,l] ← MAX-DET
[50], see (20);


˜ p Q[k,l] ; Q[0,l] ; λ[k,l] ;
11:
C ← SEE
12:
λ[k,l] ← (21);
13:
until C ≤ Cmin
[0,l]
14: until λ[k,l]
≤oλmin
n −λ
15: return Q[k,l] , λ[k,l]

IV.

. initialization
. outer loop

. inner loop (Dinkelbach alg.)

S ECURE B IDIRECTIONAL C OMMUNICATION : J OINT
F ULL -D UPLEX O PERATION AT A LICE AND B OB

In this part we study the case that a bidirectional communication is established between Alice and Bob, where
both Alice and Bob are enabled with FD capability. An FD
bidirectional setup is interesting as it enables the usage of the
same channel for both communication directions, and leads to
a higher spectral efficiency [39]. Moreover, the jamming power
at both Alice and Bob can be reused to improve security at
both directions5 , and potentially improve the resulting SEE.
However, the coexistence of all signal transmissions on a single
channel results in a higher number of interference paths, which
calls for a smart design regarding the signal and jamming
transmit strategies at Alice and Bob.
In order to update the defined setup to a bidirectional
one, we denote the number of receive antennas, and the
self-interference channel at Alice as MA , Haa , respectively.
Moreover, we denote that the data transmission from Bob as
qb ∼ CN (0NB , Qb ). Following the same signal model for the
transmission of data and jamming signals as in (1) - (10), the
received interference-plus-noise covariance matrix at Bob and
5 This is since the jamming sent to Eve from each single node degrades
Eves reception quality from both communication directions.

Eve are updated respectively as

H
H
ΣBD
b = Σb + κb Hbb diag (Qb ) Hbb + βb diag Hbb Qb Hbb ,
(26)
BD
H
Σe = Σe + κb Hbe diag (Qb ) Hbe ,
(27)
where βa ∈ R+ is the distortion coefficient for the reception at
Alice. Please note that in the formulation of (27) we consider
a worst-case scenario where the interference on Eve, due
to the transmission of data signals, i.e., qa and qb , can be
decoded [53]. Similarly, the received interference-plus-noise
signal covariance at Alice is written as
H
2
H
ΣBD
a = Hba Wb Hba + σn,a IMA + κb Hba diag (Qb + Wb ) Hba

H
+ κa Haa diag (Wa + Qa ) HH
aa + βa diag Hba (Qb + Wb ) Hba

2
+ Haa (Wa + Qa ) HH
(28)
aa + σn,a IMA ,
2
where σn,a
represents the thermal noise variance at Alice. The
SEE for the defined BD system is then obtained as
n
o+ n
o+
C̃ab
+ C̃ba
SEEBD =
,
(29)
Ptot
where C̃ab is obtained by applying (26), (27) into (17), and

BD −1
C̃ba = log I + Hba Qb HH
ba Σa

BD −1
− log I + Hbe Qb HH
,
(30)
be Σe

is defined similar to (16) but for the opposite direction.
Lemma IV.1. The values C̃ab and C̃ba in the nominator of
(29) are non-negative for an optimal choice of Qa , Qb , under
some mild practical assumptions.
Proof: The proof is obtained via contradiction, assuming that an optimal choice of Qa results in a negative C̃ab 6 . A feasible, non-negative value of C̃ab can
be obtained by setting Qa = 0. Note that this
choice reduces the residual self-interference
terms, i.e.,

H
κa Haa diag (Qa ) HH
aa +βa diag Haa Qa Haa , which impacts
C̃ba positively. Conversely, it eliminates the received distortion
terms at Eve, i.e., κa Hae diag (Qa ) HH
ae , hence impacting C̃ba
in the degrading direction. However, this degradation is negligible considering κa  1, and kHae kF  kHaa kF which
are common assumptions for any practical implementation of
an FD transceiver7 . This concludes that a non-negative value
of C̃ba holds at the optimality, under some mild practical
assumptions.
A. Extended SUIAP for bidirectional-SEE maximization
In the first step we remove the nonlinear operator {}+ from
the nominator of (29), following the result of Lemma IV.1,
6 The proof for Q , C̃
b
ba for the opposite direction can be obtained similarly
and is eliminated due to space limitations.
7 This is since the self-interference channel is much stronger than the
communication channels, up to 100 dB, due to the proximity of the transmit
and receiver chains on the same device [39]. Moreover, the power of the
transmit noise is much smaller than the actually transmitted signal, in the
margin of 40 − 60 dB, see [17].

7

hence turning the BD-SEE objective into a DC over affine
fraction. Moreover, it is observed that the SEEBD maximization holds a similar mathematical structure in relation to the
transmit covariance matrices, i.e., QX , WX , X ∈ {a, b} as
addressed for (16). Hence, a similar procedure as in the SUIAP
algorithm is employed to obtain an optimal solution, with a
guaranteed convergence to a point satisfying KKT conditions.
The computational complexity of each Dinkelbach step is
obtained similar to (25), where n = 2NA2 −2NA +2NB2 −2NB ,
nY = MB + MA + ME and nF = 2NB + 2NA + 2.
V.

S ECRECY E NERGY E FFICIENCY M AXIMIZATION WITH
S TATISTICAL CSI
It is usually challenging to obtain an accurate estimate of
Hae and Hbe , due to the lack of collaboration from Eve. In
this part, we consider the case where the channel matrices
are known only partially, i.e., only a statistical knowledge of
Hae , Hbe is available. An optimization problem for maximizing the statistical expectation of SEE is written as
max EHae ,Hbe {SEE}
(31a)
Q

s.t. (16b), (16c), (16d).
(31b)
It is worth mentioning that the consideration of statistical CSI
on secrecy capacity with single antenna receivers is studied
in [36], considering a fast-fading channel case and extended
for SEE maximization in [33], assuming HD operation of the
nodes. In this work, we consider a more general case, where
the channel to Eve may be stationary, however not known
accurately due to the lack of collaboration from Eve. In order
to turn (31) into a tractable form we write
n
o+ 
EHae ,Hbe
C̃s (Q)
EHae ,Hbe {SEE} =
Ptot (Q)
n
o+
P
1
i∈FC C̃s,i (Q)
|FC |
≈
=: SAA (Q) ,
(32)
Ptot (Q)
where the latter is obtained via sample average approximation
(SAA) [37], such that the equality holds for |FC | → ∞,
FC being the index set of the sampled channel realizations.
Moreover, C̃s,i (Q) := C̃s (Q, Hae,i , Hbe,i ) where Hae,i , Hbe,i
represent the i-th realization of the channel matrices drawn
from the given distributions. The approximated problem is
hence expressed as
max SAA (Q) s.t. (16b), (16c), (16d).
(33)
Q

Note that the above formulation is still challenging due to
three reasons. Firstly, while the application of SAA turns
the statistical expectation into a linear sum for any arbitrary
channel distribution, it results in a high computational complexity as |FC | increases. This calls for a smart choice of |FC |,
compromising accuracy with algorithm complexity. Secondly,
unlike the scenario with perfect CSI and also the case presented
in [33], [36] considering a fast fading channel situation, the
{}+ operation may not be ignored. This is since some of the
channel realizations may result in a negative C̃s , while the
statistical expectation remains effectively positive. And third,

similar to the studied problem in (16), the above objective
presents a non-concave over affine fractional program which
is not tractable in general.
A. Successive selection and statistical lower bound maximization (SSSLM)
In order to address the aforementioned challenges, we
propose a successive selection and statistical lower bound
maximization (SSSLM) algorithm, which converges to a stationary point of (33). Please note that in contrast to Subsection III-A, the operating objective in this part is not a
differentiable one, hence invalidating the arguments given by
SIA [47]. In this regard we follow a variation of SIA, i.e.,
the successive upper-bound minimization (SUM) method [38],
generalizing the convergence arguments in SIA-based methods
for non-smooth problems. The proposed SSSLM algorithm is
composed of three nested loops; separation of the SAA into
smooth and non-smooth parts at the outer loop, construction
of an effective lower bound to SAA as the intermediate loop,
and maximization of the constructed bound in the inner loop.
A detailed description of the algorithm steps is given in the
following.
1) Initialization: The algorithm starts by generating the
channel instances Hae,i , Hbe,i , ∀i ∈ FC , drawn from the
known statistical distribution of the channels. The number of
channel realizations, i.e., |FC |, should be chosen large enough
to capture the channel statistics in SAA with adequate accuracy, however, should be kept small to reduce computational
complexity. The analytical expression for the choice of |FC |
is given in [54, Theorem 5.18], depending on the required
statistical accuracy and the given probability distribution. For
the initialization of Q, we follow the approximation
EHae ,Hbe {SEE (Q, Hae , Hbe )} ≈ SEE (Q, E {Hae } , E {Hbe }) ,
(34)
where the expectations E {Hae } , E {Hbe } are obtained from
the statistical distribution of the channels. Note that the
right side of the approximation corresponds to the objective
addressed in Subsection III-A, where SUAIP algorithm is
applied to obtain an optimal solution. The obtained solution
from SUAIP is then used as an initialization to the SSSLM
algorithm.
2) Outer loop: In each outer iteration, the objective is
decomposed as
n
o+ P
n
o+
P
+ i∈FC C̃s,i (Q)
i∈FC1 C̃s,i (Q)
2
SAA (Q) =
|FC |Ptot (Q)
(35)
by separating the set of channel realizations into the disjoint
sets FC1 and FC2 , such that FC = FC1 ∪ FC2 . In particular,
the set FC1 is updated in each outer iteration as
n
o
(new)
FC1 ← ∀i | i ∈ FC1 or C̃s,i (Q) = 0 ,
(36)
where Q is given from the last intermediate loop, and results in
the separation of smooth and non-smooth parts of the objective
in (35). The algorithm converges when the constructed set FC1
does not change. As it will be elaborated, the set members in

8

FC1 incur a high computational complexity, but are capable
of resolving the non-smooth points by maintaining the same
directional derivative as to SAA. On the other hand, the
set members in FC2 are resolved with lower computational
complexity, however, they are not capable of handling nonsmooth situations.

3) Intermediate loop: In each intermediate iteration a lower
bound is constructed from the original objective SAA, namely
SAALB , using the value of Q from the last inner loop, i.e.,
Q0 . In order to construct SAALB we undertake three steps.
Firstly, the operator {}+ is removed from SAA for i ∈ FC2 ,
which results in a global lower bound. Secondly, concave and
tight lower bounds of the functions C̃s,i are constructed at the
point Q0 , denoted as Ĉs,i (Q, Q0 ), by applying the inequality
(19) on the convex parts. Please note that the value of C̃s,i
functions may be negative at Q0 for some i ∈ FC2 , resulting
in a bias to the original objective. In order to obtain a tight
lower bound, we define
the set
n
o
FC + := ∀i | i ∈ FC2 , C̃s,i (Q0 ) ≥ 0 ,
2

(37)

representing the subset of channel realizations resulting in
a non-negative C̃s,i at Q0 . The corresponding lower bound
function is then obtained as
SAALB (Q, Q0 ) :=
n
o+ P
P
Ĉ
(Q,
Q
)
+ i∈F + Ĉs,i (Q, Q0 )
s,i
0
i∈FC1
C2
. (38)
|FC |Ptot (Q)
It can be verified that the constructed lower bound is tight at the
point of approximation, i.e., SAA (Q0 ) = SAALB (Q0 , Q0 ),
see Appendix B. The obtained lower bound is then optimally
maximized in the inner loop. The iterations of the intermediate
loop converge when Q0 , and hence SAALB , (almost) does not
change in subsequent intermediate iterations.

4) Inner loop: The inner loop is dedicated to optimally
maximize SAALB , under the original problem constrains (33).
Note that the SAALB is not tractable in the current form, due
to the {}+ operation. In order to obtain the optimum solution
we equivalently write the maximization problem in the inner
loop as
max
max SAALB , s.t. (16b), (16c), (16d),
ai ∈{0,1},i∈FC1

where SAALB

Q

(39)
n
o+
is obtained by replacing the terms Ĉs,i
in

(38) by ai Ĉs,i . Please note that for fixed values of ai , i ∈ FC1 ,
the function SAALB is a concave over affine fraction, and can
be maximized to optimality via the application of the Dinkelbach algorithm. Hence (39) can be solved by repeating the
Dinkelbach algorithm for all 2|FC1 | possible combinations of
ai , i ∈ FC1 , however, requiring a large number of Dinkelbach
iterations. The optimization problem corresponding to the k-th
inner iteration is expressed as





max max SAALB Q[k] , Q[0] , a[k] − λ[k−1] Ptot Q[k]

a[k] ∈A[k] Q[k]

s.t. (16b), (16c), (16d).

(40a)
(40b)

where SAALB is the nominator in SAALB , and Q[0] is the
point for the construction of SAALB , given from the intermediate loop. Moreover, the vector a ∈ {0, 1}|FC1 | stacks the values
of ai , ∀i ∈ FC1 , and A[k] ⊂ {0, 1}|FC1 | . It is observed that
for a given a[k] , λ[k−1] , (40) is a jointly convex optimization
problem, and is solved to optimality via MAX-DET algorithm
[50]. Hence, the optimum a[k] , Q[k] are obtained by repeating
the MAX-DET algorithm for all combinations a[k] ∈ A[k] . The
value of λ is then updated by applying the obtained Q[k] , a[k]
as




(41)
λ[k] = SAALB Q[k] , Q[0] , a[k] /Ptot Q[k] .
Please note that the set A[k] , is initialized as {0, 1}|FC1 | but is
reduced in each iteration. The following lemma clarifies this
reduction.
Lemma V.1. Let gk (a0 ) be the optimal value of the objective
(40) at inner iteration k, for the given combination a[k] = a0 .
Then, if gk (a0 ) is negative, then the combination a0 will not
be an optimum combination.
Proof: Due to the monotonic improvement of λ in every
iteration, and the fact that Ptot ≥ 0, the value of gk (a0 ) will
never improve after further iterations. This also results in a
negative value of gk (a0 ) at the optimality. Since at least one
of the combinations a ∈ {0, 1}|FC1 | equalizes the objective
to zero at the optimality, the combination a0 will never be
optimal.
As a result of Lemma V.1, once a combination a0 results
in a negative value of the objective, then it is safely removed
from A for the next iteration, see Algorithm 2. Note that the
above process reduces the required computational complexity,
compared to the separately applying the Dinkelbach method
on all combinations, in two ways. Firstly, the parameter λ is
only updated jointly, for all combinations a ∈ A. Secondly,
the monotonic reduction in |A| in each iteration, results in a
smaller computational demand in finding the solution to (40).
5) Convergence: The proposed SSSLM algorithm converges
to a stationary point of the original optimization problem (33).
In order to observe this, we first verify the convergence of the
algorithm. Afterwards, we show that the converging point is
also a stationary point of (33).
It is observed that the constructed lower bound in each step
of the intermediate loop is maximized to the optimality via
the application of the modified Dinkelbach algorithm. On the
other hand, the value of SAALB (Q) after the construction of
the new lower bound in each intermediate iteration experiences
an improvement. This is grounded on the re-calculation of
Ĉs,i at the point of approximation, and elimination of the
channel instances from FC2 which result in a negative C̃s,i .
Since the both aforementioned updates result in a monotonic
improvement of SAALB (Q) and as the SAA is bounded
from above, the iterations of inner and intermediate loop

9

will result in a necessary convergence. The convergence of
the intermediate loop subsequently results in the necessary
convergence of the outer loop, due to the monotonic increase of
|FC1 | after each outer iteration, and the fact that |FC1 | ≤ |FC |.
In order to argue the properties of the converging point
on the original objective, we observe that neither the SAA
nor SAALB (Q) are necessarily differentiable at the point of
convergence, hence invalidating the convergence arguments
used for SUAIP algorithm from [47]. In this regard, we follow
the guidelines given by SUM method [38], generalizing the
convergence arguments in SIA-based methods for non-smooth
problems.
Lemma V.2. Let Q? be a solution of SSSLM. Then the function
SAA, i.e., original problem objective, and SAALB , i.e., the
constructed lower bound at the last intermediate iteration, are
tight and share the same directional derivatives at Q? .
Proof: See Appendix B.
The results of Lemma V.2, together with the fact that
SAALB (Q) ≤ SAA(Q) for any feasible Q, jointly satisfy the
required assumption set [38, Assumption 1], and guarantee that
the obtained converging point is indeed a stationary point of
the original problem.
6) Computational complexity: The computational complexity of the algorithm is dominated by the maximization defined
in (40), solved via the MAX-DET algorithm in each inner
iteration. The associated arithmetic complexity is hence upperbounded similar to (25), where γin ∝ 2|FC1 | , n = 2NA2 −2NA +
NB2 − NB , nY = |FC |(MB + ME ), nF = 2NA + NB + 2.
The performance of the proposed SSSLM algorithm, in terms
of the computational complexity and convergence behavior is
further studied in Subsection VI-A via numerical simulations.
Algorithm 2

SEE maximization using statistical CSI, via successive selection and
statistical lower bound maximization (SSSLM). Cmin (λmin ) represents the convergence
threshold for the intermediate (inner) iterations.
[0,0,0]
1: k, l, m, λ[0,0,0] ← 0; F[0]
← Subsection V-A1; . initialize
C1 ← ∅; FC , Q
2: repeat
. outer loop
3:
m ← m + 1;
4:
λ[0,0,m] ← λ[k,l,m−1] , Q[0,0,m] ← Q[k,l,m−1] ;
[m]
5:
FC ← (36);
1
6:
l ← 0;
7:
repeat
. intermediate loop
8:
l ← l + 1;
9:
FC + ← (37);
2
10:
SAALB ← (38);
11:
repeat
. inner loop
12:
k ← k + 1;
n
o
[k,l,m]
[k,l,m]
13:
Q
,λ
← Dinkelbach’s alg. (40)-(41)
14:
until (40a) ≤ Cmin
15:
until λ[k,l,m] − λ[0,l,m] ≤ λmin
[m−1]
16: until F[m]
= FC
C
1
o
n1
[k,l,m]
17: return Q
, λ[k,l,m]

compared to the case where all nodes operate in HD mode.
Moreover, the evaluation of the proposed SEE-specific designs
is of interest, in comparison to the available designs which
target the maximization of the system’s secrecy capacity. We
assume that all communication channels follow an uncorrelated Rayleigh flat-fading model with variance ρX = ρ̄/d2X ,
where dX is the link distance and depends on the simulated
geometry, X ∈ {ab, ba, ae, be}. Moreover, in case that only
a statistical CSI is available
for the channels
to Eve, we

√ 
assume that HX = ρX DX H̄X + H̃X , X ∈ {ae, be},
√
where ρX H̃X is the known channel estimate following
√
similar statistics as for the exact CSI case, and ρX DX H̄X
is the estimation error where D enforces the receive-side
spatial correlation, and H̄X includes i.i.d Gaussian elements
with unit variance. For the self-interference channels we
follow the characterization
reported in [55]. In this respect
q
ρsi KR
ρsi
we have Hbb ∼ CN
1+KR H0 , 1+KR IMB ⊗ INB , where
ρsi represents the self-interference channel strength, H0 is a
deterministic term8 , and KR is the Rician coefficient. The
statistics of the self-interference channel on Alice, i.e., Haa ,
is defined similarly. The resulting system SEE is evaluated by
employing different design strategies, and averaged over 100
channel realizations. Unless otherwise is stated, the default
simulated setup is defined as follows: Pmax := PX ,max = 0dB,
P0 := PX ,0 = −20dB, µ := µX = 0.9, κ := κX = βX =
−40dB, N := NX = MX = 4, X , ∈ {A, B}. Moreover we set
2
=
PFD = 0, ρsi = 0dB, KR = 10, ρ̄ = −20dB, and σn2 := σna
2
2
σnb = σne = −40dB. Three nodes are equidistantly positioned,
with the distance equal to one9 .
A. Algorithm analysis
Due to the iterative structure of the proposed algorithms
and the possibility of local optimum points, the convergence
behavior of the algorithms are of high interest, both as a
verification for algorithm operation as well as an indication of
the required computational effort. In this part, the performance
of the SUAIP and SSSLM algorithms are studied in terms
of the average convergence behavior and computational complexity. Moreover, the impact of the choice of the algorithm
initialization is evaluated.
In Fig. 2 (a) the average convergence behavior of the SUAIP
algorithm is depicted. As expected, a monotonic objective
improvement is observed, with convergence in 5-20 total outer
iterations.
In Fig. 2 (b) and (c) the average required CPU time is
depicted10 . It is observed that a higher power budget or
antenna array size results in a higher required computational
complexity, associated with slower convergence and larger
8 For

VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section the performance of the studied MIMOME
system is evaluated in terms of the resulting SEE, via numerical simulations. In particular, we are interested in a
comparison between the performance of an FD-enabled setup,

simplicity, we choose H0 as a matrix of all-1 elements.
consider unit-less parameters to preserve a general framework. However, the obtained SEE values can be interpreted as the number of securely
communicated bits per-Hz per-Joule, assuming the power values are in Watt.
10 The reported CPU time is obtained using an Intel Core i5 3320M
processor with the clock rate of 2.6 GHz and 8 GB of random-access
memory (RAM). As software platform we have used CVX [56], together
with MATLAB 2013a on a 64-bit operating system.
9 We

10

45
40

5

10

Algorithm iteration
(a) Convergence
Figure 2.

15

SEE-HD

20
10
0

−40

−20

Pmax [dB]
(b) CPU time

0

30

40

SEE-FD
(Bench.)
SEE-FD

SEE

30

CPU Time [s]

SEE-FD
SEE-HD

CPU Time [s]

SEE

50

1
SEE-FD

20

20
10

SEE-FD

SEE-HD
(Bench.)
SEE-HD

Probability

40

55

SEE-HD

0

2

4

6

8

Antennas at Alice and Bob
(c) CPU time

0
−50

−30

−10

0.8

SEE-FD
SEE-HD

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
66

Pmax [dB]
(d) Init. (SUAIP)

68

70

72

SEE
(e) Init. (SSSLM)

Numerical algorithm analysis in terms of the average convergence behavior, initialization, and computational complexity.

problem dimensions. Moreover, a design with an FD-enabled
jamming results in a higher CPU time, due to the additional
problem complexity associated with the choice of jamming
strategy and residual self-interference.
In Figs. 2 (d)-(e), the impact of the proposed initializations for the SUAIP and SSSLM algorithms are depicted.
In Fig. 2 (d) it is observed that for the SUIAP algorithm,
the proposed initialization in Subsection III-C reaches close
to the benchmark performance11 . For the SSSLM algorithm,
the situation is prone to more randomness. This is since,
in addition to the choice of the algorithm initialization, the
solution is dependent on the used channel realizations used in
the construction of SAA, see (32). In this regard, the resulting
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the resulting SEE
values is depicted in Fig. 2 (e), by examining 100 instances of
the SSSLM algorithm. It is observed that the resulting average
SEE differs for different solution instances, however, within
2 − 3% of the relative difference. This value is smaller for a
system with HD nodes, due to the absence of FD jamming
and the impact of residual self-interference which result in a
simpler problem structure.
B. Performance comparison
In this part the SEE performance of the FD-enabled system
is evaluated via the application of the proposed SUAIP and
SSSLM algorithms, and under different system conditions.
In particular, we are interested in a comparison between the
performance of an FD-enabled setup, compared to the case
where all nodes operate in HD mode. Moreover, the evaluation
of the proposed SEE-specific designs is of interest, in comparison to the available designs which target the maximization of
the system’s secrecy capacity. The following benchmarks are
hence implemented to provide a meaningful comparison.
• SEE-FD: The proposed SUAIP (SSSLM) algorithm is
implemented using the exact (statistical) CSI, where Bob
is capable of FD operation.
• SEE-HD: Similar to SEE-FD, but with restricting the
operation of the nodes to the HD mode.
• CS-FD: The design with the intention of maximizing
secrecy capacity. Bob is capable of FD operation.
11 The benchmark performance is obtained by repeating the algorithm with
several random initializations, and choosing the highest obtained SEE.

•

CS-HD: Similar to CS-FD, but with restricting the
operation of the nodes to the HD mode.
1) FD-enabled jamming with exact CSI: In Figs. 3 (a)-(h)
the average SEE performance of the defined benchmarks are
evaluated, assuming availability of perfect CSI and FD operation at Bob. Hence, both Alice and Bob are simultaneously
capable of transmitting AN, see Fig. 1.
In Fig. 3 (a) the impact of thermal noise variance is depicted.
It is observed that a higher σn2 results in a smaller SEE both for
FD and HD setups. Moreover, a marginal gain for FD setup
is obtained compared to the HD setup, if the noise variance is
low. This is expected, since FD jamming becomes less effective
when Eve is already distorted with high thermal noise power.
In Fig. 3 (b) the impact of the available transmit power budget (Pmax ) for each transceiver is depicted. It is observed that
for small values of Pmax , the resulting SEE is monotonically
increasing with an increase in Pmax . Moreover, the performance
of the benchmark algorithms essentially converge for small
values of Pmax . This is grounded in the fact that for a system
with low SNR condition, the positive impact of FD jamming
disappears as observed from Fig. 3 (a). Conversely, for large
values of Pmax , the traditional designs result in a rapid decrease
of SEE, where the proposed SUAIP method converges to a
constant value. This is expected, since the designs with the
target of maximizing the secrecy rate utilize the maximum
available power budget, resulting in a sever degradation of
SEE. Moreover, a visible gain is observed with the application
of an FD jammer for a high Pmax region. Due to a high Pmax ,
the link from Alice to Eve also enjoys a better SNR condition,
which justifies the application of an FD jammer.
In Fig. 3 (c) the impact of transceiver accuracy is depicted.
As expected, a higher value of κ results in a smaller achievable
SEE, both in HD and FD setups. Moreover, it is observed
that FD jamming can be beneficial only for a system with
an accurate hardware operation, due to the impact of residual
self-interference. However, results show that targeting SEE as
the design objective results in a significant energy efficiency
gain, compared to the traditional designs which target the
maximization of secrecy rate.
In Fig. 3 (d) the impact of Eve’s distance to Alice (dE ) is
depicted. It is assumed that three nodes are positioned in a line
with a total Alice-Bob distance of 100, where Eve is positioned
in between. It is observed that the system SEE increases as dE
increase, and Eve gets closer to Bob. Moreover, the application

11

200
SEE

60

CS-HD

60

CS-HD

SEE-HD

3

CS-FD

SEE-FD

CS-HD

SEE-HD

100

−30

SEE-FD

CS-FD

CS-FD

−40

80

SEE-HD

SEE-HD

0
−50

4

SEE-FD

80

SEE-FD

40

40

20

20

0
−10 −50

−20

σn2 [dB]
(a) Impact of thermal noise

−30

−10

CS-HD

1

0
−60

10

2

CS-FD

−40

−20

0

0

0

40

60

80

CS-FD

60

CS-HD

50

SEE-HD

CS-FD

CS-FD

60

CS-HD

2

4

6

ME
(e) Num. of antennas at Eve
Figure 3.

8

0

σn2 = −40 dB

200

σn2 = −40 dB

CS-HD

40

40

100

20

20
0

σn2 = −50 dB

SEE-FD

SEE-HD

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0
−20

µ
(f) PA efficiency

−15

−10

−5

P0 [dB]
(g) Zero-state pow. consump.

0

0
−40

−30

−20

−10

0

PFD [dB]
(h) FD mode power consumption

SEE performance of the secure communication system with exact CSI, via the utilization of SUAIP algorithm.

of FD jamming becomes beneficial only when Eve is located
in a close distance to Bob, and hence the channel between Bob
and Eve, i.e., the jamming channel, is strong.
In Figs. 3 (e) the impact of the number of antenna elements
at Eve (ME ) on SEE is depicted. As expected, a larger ME
results in a reduced SEE as it results in a stronger Alice-Eve
channel. Moreover, the application of an FD jammer becomes
gainful for a higher values of ME , in order to counteract the
improved Eve reception capability.
In Figs. 3 (f)-(h) the impact of the transceiver’s power
efficiency is evaluated on the resulting system SEE. In particular, the impact of the zero-state power consumption (P0 ),
PA efficiency (µ) and the additional power consumption for
SIC (PFD ) are depicted respectively in Fig. 3 (f), (g) and (h).
It is observed that higher (lower) values of µ (P0 , PFD ) result
in a smaller SEE. Moreover, it is observed that a marginal gain
with the application of an FD jammer is obtained for a high
µ, and a small PFD conditions. This is expected, since a small
(large) value of µ (PFD ) results in a bigger waste of power
when using an FD jamming strategy.
2) Secure bidirectional communication: In Fig. 4 a system
with a bidirectional secure communication between Alice and
Bob is studied. In particular, a joint FD operation at Alice
and Bob is considered which enables jamming and communication simultaneously at both directions. Two scenarios are
considered regarding the decoding capability at Eve: i) Eve
treats interference from the non-intended information path as
noise, and ii) Eve is capable of decoding, and hence reducing,

SEE-FD (i)
SEE-FD (ii)

100

SEE-HD (FDD)
SEE-HD (TDD)
CS-FD (i)
CS-FD (ii)
CS-HD (FDD)

SEE

SEE

80

SEE-FD

SEE-FD
SEE-HD

100

σn2 = −50 dB

100
100

80

dE
(d) Impact of Eve’s position

κ [dB]
(c) Impact of hardware accuracy

Pmax [dB]
(b) Max. Tx. power

20

CS-HD (TDD)

50

0
−50

−40

−30

−20

−10

0

10

Maximum transmit power per node (Pmax [dB])
Figure 4. SEE performance of FD, FDD and TDD for secure bidirectional
communications.

the received signal from the non-intended information link.
Moreover, a setup with HD Bob and HD Alice is also
evaluated, where time-division-duplexing (TDD) or frequencydivision-duplexing (FDD) is employed in order to facilitate a
bidirectional communication.
It is observed that the resulting SEE increases with Pmax ,
however, saturates for high values of maximum transmit power.
Moreover, it is observed that a joint FD operation is capable of
enhancing the system SEE, with a considerable margin, in the

12

studied bidirectional setup. This is since, due to the coexistence
of both communication directions on the same channel the
jamming power is re-used for both communication directions,
leading to a higher SEE compared to the HD setup. Moreover,
the Eve’s decoding capability is further decreased in the FD
setup considering the scenario (i), due to the existence of two
information links at the same channel.
3) FD-enabled jamming with statistical CSI: In Fig. 5 the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the resulting SEE
is evaluated via the application of SSSLM algorithm on 100
problem instances12 , where only a statistical CSI is available
for the channels to Eve. We choose |FC | = 75 in the
construction of SAA, see Section V, in order to limit the
required computational effort. The CDF of the resulting SEE is
then evaluated via the utilization of 10000 channel realizations
for each problem instance, following the statistical distribution
defined in the beginning of the current section and choosing
DX as a matrix of all-1 elements.
In Fig. 5 (a) the performance of the SSSLM algorithm with
the consideration of the statistical CSI, is compared to the case
where the SUIAP algorithm is applied directly on the channel
estimate matrices H̃X . It is observed that a significant gain
is obtained by taking into account the full channel statistics,
however, at the expense of a higher computational complexity.
Moreover, the superior SEE performance of the SEE specific
design, compared to the secrecy rate maximizing designs is
observable.
In Figs. 5 (b)-(d) the CDF of the resulting SEE is evaluated
for different levels of thermal noise (σn2 ), hardware inaccuracy
(κ), and the PA efficiency (µ). Similar to the observed trends
for the scenario where exact CSI is available, a marginal gain
is observed in the resulting SEE with the application of an
optimized FD jamming strategy. In particular, the gain of the
FD-enabled system is improved for a system with a high SNR,
i.e., a high transmit power budget or a low noise level, and as
hardware accuracy increases.

12 Each

problem instance includes a realization of Hab , Hbb .

13

1

1

1

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

Probability

1

SEE-FD (SUAIP)

0.6

SEE-HD (SUAIP)

0.6

dB
dB
σn2 = −40 dB
σn2 = −40 dB
σn2 = −30 dB
σn2 = −30 dB
σn2 = −50
σn2 = −50

CS-FD (SUAIP)

0.4

CS-HD (SUAIP)

0.4

SEE-FD (SSSLM)
SEE-HD (SSSLM)

0.2

0.2

CS-FD (SSSLM)

0

CS-HD (SSSLM)

0

50

SEE

100

(a) perf. comp. SSSLM vs. SUIAP

0

0

100

SEE

200

(b) Impact of thermal noise

300

µ = 0.94
µ = 0.94
µ = 0.87
µ = 0.87
µ = 0.81
µ = 0.81

0.4

0.2

0

0

20

40

60

SEE

80

dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB

100

(c) Impact of PA efficiency

κ = −60
κ = −60
κ = −40
κ = −40
κ = −20
κ = −20

0.4

0.2

0

0

20

40

60

SEE

80

dB
dB
dB
dB
dB
dB

100

(d) Impact of hardware accuracy

Figure 5. CDF of the resulting SEE under various system conditions utilizing the SSSLM algorithm. The solid (dashed) lines represent the performance of the
FD (HD) setups in (a)-(d).

VII.

C ONCLUSION

The utilization of FD jamming transceivers is known to
significantly enhance the secrecy capacity of wireless communication systems, by transmitting AN while exchanging
information. However, this results in a higher power consumption in the system due to i) the degrading impact of residual
self-interference on the desired communication channel, ii)
the implementation of an SIC scheme at the FD transceiver,
as well as iii) the power consumed for the transmission of
AN. In this work, we have observed that the application
of FD transceivers result only in a marginal gain in terms
of secrecy energy efficiency, for a wide range of system
conditions. However, the aforementioned SEE gain becomes
significant for a system with a small distance between the FD
node to the eavesdropper, or a system operating in high SNR
regimes, under the condition that the self-interference can be
effectively and efficiently mitigated. Moreover, a promising
SEE gain is observed for an FD bidirectional communication,
where jamming power can be reused for both directions. It is
observed that for almost all system conditions, the application
of an SEE-aware design is essential, compared to the available
designs which target the maximization of secrecy capacity.

A PPENDIX A
SUIAP INITIALIZATION
A. The choice of F and G
As mentioned, the role of F (G) is to direct (suppress) the
transmission into the desired (undesired) direction. Hence, for
the design of Qa , i.e., data transmission from Alice, we choose
F ← Hab , and G ← Hae . Conversely, for the design of Wa
we choose F ← Hae , and G ← Hab . For the design of Wb
we set F ← Hbe . However, the choice of G should include
the impact of distortion terms on Bob, reflecting the effect of
residual self-interference. The distortion power at Bob can be

written as



H
tr κHbb diag (Wb ) HH
bb + tr βdiag Hbb Wb Hbb




H
H
= tr κdiag Hbb Hbb + βHbb Hbb Wb ,
{z
}
|
H̃bb


 12
which consequently results in the choice of G ← H̃bb .

B. Power adjustment
Via the utilization of the obtained spatial beams, i.e., normalized covariance matrices, the optimal power adjustment on
each transmission is seeked to maximize the resulting SEE. In
each case, by fixing the power of the other transmission, the
resulting SEEp is written as
 X 2 X

α p +α pX +αX
13
log αX11 pX2 +α12
X p +αX
21 X
22 X
23
,
(42)
SEEp (pX ) =
γ1X pX + γ2X
where pX , X ∈ {Qa , Wa , Wb }, represent the power associated with different transmissions. It is observed from (42) that
SEEp → 0 for pX → ∞ and SEEp (0) is a finite and nonnegative value. Moreover, SEEp (pX ) is a continuous and differentiable function in the region pX ∈ [0, ∞). This concludes
the location of the optimal pX at the problem boundaries, or
at the points equalizing the derivative if SEEp (pX ) to zero,
see section A-C for an efficient numerical solution.
C. Efficient implementation
For ease of notation, the objective (42) is denoted as f (pX )
and its numerator is defined as g(pX ):
g(pX )
f (pX ) = X
(43)
γ1 pX + γ2X
 X 2

X
X
pX + α13
α11 pX + α12
g(pX ) = log
.
(44)
X p2 + αX p + αX
α21
22 X
23
X
The goal is to find the maximum feasible value λ∗ of the
objective function f (pX ) as well as p∗X for which λ∗ is

14

achieved. λ∗ is defined as follows:
g(pX )
.
(45)
λ∗ = max X
0≤pX ≤c γ1 pX + γ2X
It can be seen that the objective f (pX ) is continuous and
differentiable. Because pX is bounded on the closed interval
[0, c], it follows from the extreme value theorem that the
objective has a maximum λ∗ on this interval. The optimum
pX , i.e. p∗X , is located either on the boundaries of the closed
interval or on a point satisfying
∂
g(p∗X )
= 0.
(46)
∗
X
∂pX γ1 p∗X + γ2X
Using the quotient rule, (46) can be rewritten as

g 0 (p∗X ) γ1X p∗X + γ2X − g(p∗X ) γ1X
⇔
=0
(47)
2
γ1X p∗X + γ2X

⇔ g 0 (p∗X ) γ1X p∗X + γ2X − g(p∗X ) γ1X = 0
(48)
g 0 (p∗X )
g(p∗X )
= λ,
(49)
⇔
= X ∗
γ1X
γ1 pX + γ2X
where g 0 (pX ) denotes the derivative of g(pX ) with respect to
pX , given by
X
2 αX pX + α12
2 α10 pX + α20
g 0 (pX ) = X 2 11 X
−
.
X
X p2 + αX p + αX
α11 pX + α12 pX + α13
α21
22 X
23
X
(50)
Our goal is to convert the maximization problem into a simpler
feasibility problem: For a given value of the objective function,
denoted as λ, check if a feasible pX exists. Therefore, equation
(49) is rewritten to:
X
2 αX pX + α12
2 α0 pX + α20
λ γ1X − X 2 11 X
+ X 2 1 X
= 0.
X
X
α11 pX + α12 pX + α13 α21 pX + α22 pX + α23
(51)
Equation (51) is a fourth-order polynomial and hence, it can
be written as
c4 p4X + c3 p3X + c2 p2X + c1 pX + c0 = 0,
(52)
with
X
c4 = α11
α10 γ1X λ

X
X
c3 = α12
α10 + α11
α20 γ1X λ

X
X
X
X
X
c2 = α13
α10 + α12
α20 + α11
α30 γ1X λ − α11
α20 + α12
α10

X
X
X
X
c1 = α13
α20 + α12
α30 γ1X λ + 2 α13
α10 − 2 α11
α30
X
α13

α30

γ1X λ

X
α12

α30

α20 .
piX , i

The algorithm finds λ∗ up to some tolerance  > 0. In the
min
first iteration it is verified if λ1 = λmax −λ
is feasible.
2
Therefore, the roots piX , i ∈ {1, . . . , 4} of (52) are calculated
for λ = λ1 . If any piX is real, lies in the interval [0, c] and
f (piX ) ≥ λ1 holds, then λ1 is feasible and the procedure is
1
repeated for λ2 = λmax2−λ . Otherwise λ1 is infeasible and
1
min
the procedure is repeated for λ2 = λ −λ
. By construction
2
this algorithm numerically approximates the maximum feasible
objective value λ∗ to arbitrary precision . This algorithm is
formally given by algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3 Bi-Section Power Allocation
1: Input: λmin , λmax , c;
2:  > 0, ` = 0, a = λmin , b = λmax ;
3: repeat
4:
` = ` + 1;
5:
isFeasible = false;
6:
λ` = a+b
2 ;
`
7:
Calculate roots pi,`
X , i ∈ {1, . . . , 4} of (52) for λ .
8:
for all i ∈n{1, . o
. . , 4} do


i,`
9:
if Im pi,`
= 0 and pi,`
≥ λ` then
X
X ∈ [0, c] and f pX
10:
isFeasible = true;
11:
pX = pi,`
X ;
12:
break;
13:
end if
14:
end for
15:
if isFeasible then
16:
a = λ` ;
17:
else
18:
b = λ` ;
19:
end if
<
20: until isFeasible and b−a
2
21: return p∗X = pX , λ∗ = λ` ;

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF TO L EMMA V.2
A. Proof of tightness:
Tightness is obtained by observing the equivalence
X
{C̃s,i (Q? )}+
|FC |Ptot (Q? ) SAA (Q? ) =
i∈FC

=

X
α13

c0 =
−
+
Let the roots of (52) be denoted as
∈ {1, . . . , 4}. If there
is any real piX ∈ [0, c] for which
f (piX ) ≥ λ
(53)
holds, then λ is feasible. As a result, it is possible to construct
the following bi-section algorithm to find the maximum λ,
denoted as λ∗ .
Firstly, a closed interval for λ∗ is defined, i.e. λ∗ ∈
[λmin , λmax ], where λmin can usually be defined as
λmin = min {f (0), f (c)} .
(54)
Moreover, λmax can be chosen as an upper bound on λ:
 X X X X X X 
/α21 , α12 /α22 , α13 /α23
log max α11
. (55)
λmax =
γ2X

X

?

{C̃s,i (Q )} +

i∈FC1

=

X

X

+

C̃s,i (Q? )

(56a)

i∈FC +
2

?

?

+

{Ĉs,i (Q , Q )} +

i∈FC1

X

Ĉs,i (Q? , Q? )

(56b)

i∈FC +
2

= |FC |Ptot (Q? ) SAALB (Q? , Q? ) ,
where (56a) is obtained by applying the definition (37), and
(56b) from C̃s,i (Q? ) = Ĉs,i (Q? , Q? ), see (19).

B. Proof of equal directional derivative:
0

Let Cs,i := {C̃s,i }+ , and f (x; d) represents the directional
derivative of a function f at point x and for the direction d.

15

The directional derivative of SAA at Q? is then expressed as

[8]

0

Ptot (Q? ) SAA (Q? ; d)


X
X
0
0


Cs,i (Q? ; d) +
C̃s,i (Q? ; d) /|FC |
=

[9]

i∈FC +

i∈FC1

[10]

2

0

− Ptot (Q? ; d) SAA (Q? )


(57a)


[11]

X 0
0
 X

Ĉs,i (Q? , Q? ; d) +
=
Ĉs,i (Q? , Q? ; d) /|FC |
i∈F

i∈FC +

(d)
C1

− Ptot (Q? ; d) SAALB (Q? , Q? )
?

[12]

2

0

0

?

?

= Ptot (Q ) SAALB (Q , Q ; d) ,
where the set FC (d) is defined as
n 1
o
0
FC (d) := ∀i | i ∈ FC1 and Cs,i (Q? ; d) 6= 0 .

(57b)
(57c)

[13]

Z. Ding, M. Peng, and H. H. Chen, “A general relaying transmission
protocol for MIMO secrecy communications,” IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3461–3471, Nov. 2012.

[14]

J. Huang and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Cooperative jamming for secure
communications in MIMO relay networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 4871–4884, Oct. 2011.
D. Bharadia and S. Katti, “Full duplex MIMO radios,” in Proceedings
of the 11th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and
Implementation, ser. NSDI’14, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2014, pp. 359–372.
Y. Hua, P. Liang, Y. Ma, A. Cirik, and G. Qian, “A method for
broadband full-duplex MIMO radio,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters,
vol. 19, Dec. 2011.
D. Bharadia, E. McMilin, and S. Katti, “Full duplex radios,” in
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2013.
A. K. Khandani, “Two-way (true full-duplex) wireless,” in 13th Canadian Workshop on Information Theory (CWIT, 2013).
S. Hong, J. Brand, J. Choi, M. Jain, J. Mehlman, S. Katti, and P. Levis,
“Applications of self-interference cancellation in 5G and beyond,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, Feb. 2014.
A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and
R. Wichman, “In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32,
no. 9, pp. 1637–1652, Sep. 2014.

(58)

1

In the above arguments, (57a) is obtained by recalling (32),
and the fact that Cs,i (Q? ) is positive and differentiable for
any i ∈ FC + . The identity (57b) is obtained by considering
2
0
the possible situations for Cs,i (Q? ; d):
• Cs,i (Q? ) < 0. Then, Cs,i is differentiable and
0
Cs,i (Q? ; d) = 0 for any direction d.
• Cs,i (Q? ) > 0. Then, Cs,i is differentiable and
0
0
Cs,i (Q? ; d) = Ĉs,i (Q? ; d) for any direction d.
0
• Cs,i (Q? ) = 0 and C̃s,i (Q? ; d) > 0. Then, Cs,i is not
0
0
differentiable and Cs,i (Q? ; d) = Ĉs,i (Q? , Q? ; d).
0
• Cs,i (Q? ) = 0 and C̃s,i (Q? ; d) ≤ 0. Then, Cs,i is not
0
differentiable and Cs,i (Q? ; d) = 0.
Finally, the identity (57c) is obtained by recalling (38), and
the tightness property from (56).
R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

A. Mukherjee, S. A. A. Fakoorian, J. Huang, and A. L. Swindlehurst,
“Principles of physical layer security in multiuser wireless networks:
A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
1550–1573, Feb. 2014.
G. Zheng, I. Krikidis, J. Li, A. Petropulu, and B. Ottersten, “Improving
physical layer secrecy using full-duplex jamming receivers,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, no. 20, pp. 4962-4974, Oct. 2013.
A. D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel,” The Bell System Technical
Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1355–1387, Oct. 1975.
Y. Liang, H. V. Poor, and S. Shamai, “Secure communication over
fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 54,
no. 6, pp. 2470–2492, June 2008.
E. Ekrem and S. Ulukus, “The secrecy capacity region of the Gaussian
MIMO multi-receiver wiretap channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2083–2114, April 2011.
F. Oggier and B. Hassibi, “The secrecy capacity of the MIMO wiretap
channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no. 8, pp.
4961–4972, Aug. 2011.
C. Ling, L. Luzzi, and J. C. Belfiore, “Lattice codes achieving strong
secrecy over the mod-λ Gaussian channel,” in 2012 IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings, July 2012, pp. 2306–
2310.

H. Mahdavifar and A. Vardy, “Achieving the secrecy capacity of wiretap
channels using polar codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 6428–6443, Oct. 2011.
M. Andersson, V. Rathi, R. Thobaben, J. Kliewer, and M. Skoglund,
“Nested polar codes for wiretap and relay channels,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 752–754, Aug. 2010.
S. Goel and R. Negi, “Guaranteeing secrecy using artificial noise,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2180–2189,
June 2008.
A. L. Swindlehurst, “Fixed SINR solutions for the MIMO wiretap
channel,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech
and Signal Processing, April 2009, pp. 2437–2440.
I. Krikidis, J. S. Thompson, and S. Mclaughlin, “Relay selection for
secure cooperative networks with jamming,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 5003–5011, Oct. 2009.

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]

L. Li, Z. Chen, D. Zhang, and J. Fang, “A full-duplex Bob in the
MIMO Gaussian wiretap channel: Scheme and performance,” IEEE
Signal Processing Letters, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 107–111, Jan. 2016.
[22] F. Zhu, F. Gao, M. Yao, and H. Zou, “Joint information- and jammingbeamforming for physical layer security with full duplex base station,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62, Dec. 2014.
[23] Y. Zhou, Z. Z. Xiang, Y. Zhu, and Z. Xue, “Application of full-duplex
wireless technique into secure MIMO communication: Achievable secrecy rate based optimization,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 21,
no. 7, pp. 804–808, July 2014.
[24]

B. Akgun, O. O. Koyluoglu, and M. Krunz, “Exploiting full-duplex
receivers for achieving secret communications in multiuser MISO
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 2, pp.
956–968, Feb. 2017.
[25] S. Buzzi, C. L. I, T. E. Klein, H. V. Poor, C. Yang, and A. Zappone, “A
survey of energy-efficient techniques for 5G networks and challenges
ahead,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34,
no. 4, pp. 697–709, April 2016.
[26] A. Fehske, G. Fettweis, J. Malmodin, and G. Biczok, “The global
footprint of mobile communications: The ecological and economic
perspective,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 55–
62, Aug. 2011.
[27]

X. Chen and L. Lei, “Energy-efficient optimization for physical layer
security in multi-antenna downlink networks with QoS guarantee,”
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 637–640, April 2013.
[28] D. W. K. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Energy-efficient resource al-

16

location for secure OFDMA systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2572–2585, July 2012.
[29]

B. Fang, Z. Qian, W. Zhong, and W. Shao, “Energy-efficient secrecy
precoding for general MIMOME wiretap channels,” in 2015 International Conference on Wireless Communications Signal Processing
(WCSP), Oct. 2015, pp. 1–5.

[30]

A. Zappone, P. H. Lin, and E. A. Jorswieck, “Secrecy and energy
efficiency in MIMO-ME systems,” in 2015 IEEE 16th International
Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications
(SPAWC), June 2015, pp. 380–384.

[31]

——, “Energy-efficient secure communications in MISO-SE systems,”
in 2014 48th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers,
Nov. 2014, pp. 1001–1005.

[32]

Y. Sun, D. W. K. Ng, J. Zhu, and R. Schober, “Multi-objective
optimization for robust power efficient and secure full-duplex wireless
communication systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 5511–5526, Aug. 2016.

[33]

[34]

A. Zappone, P.-H. Lin, and E. Jorswieck, “Energy efficiency of confidential multi-antenna systems with artificial noise and statistical CSI,”
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 10, no. 8,
pp. 1462–1477, Sep. 2016.
J. Ouyang, W. P. Zhu, D. Massicotte, and M. Lin, “Energy efficient
optimization for physical layer security in cognitive relay networks,” in
2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), May
2016, pp. 1–6.

[35]

D. Wang, B. Bai, W. Chen, and Z. Han, “Secure green communication
via untrusted two-way relaying: A physical layer approach,” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1861–1874, May
2016.

[36]

P.-H. Lin, S.-H. Lai, S.-C. Lin, and H.-J. Su, “On secrecy rate of
the generalized artificial-noise assisted secure beamforming for wiretap
channels,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 31,
no. 9, pp. 1728–1740, 2013.

[37]

S. Kim, R. Pasupathy, and S. G. Henderson, “A guide to sample average
approximation,” in Handbook of Simulation Optimization. Springer,
2015, pp. 207–243.

[38]

M. Razaviyayn, M. Hong, and Z.-Q. Luo, “A unified convergence
analysis of block successive minimization methods for nonsmooth
optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1126–
1153, 2013.

[39]

B. P. Day, A. R. Margetts, D. W. Bliss, and P. Schniter, “Full-duplex
bidirectional MIMO: Achievable rates under limited dynamic range,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 3702–3713,
July 2012.

[40]

G. Santella and F. Mazzenga, “A hybrid analytical-simulation procedure
for performance evaluation in M-QAM-OFDM schemes in presence
of nonlinear distortions,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
vol. 47, pp. 142–151, 1998.

[41]

H. Suzuki, T. V. A. Tran, I. B. Collings, G. Daniels, and M. Hedley,
“Transmitter noise effect on the performance of a MIMO-OFDM
hardware implementation achieving improved coverage,” IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communication, vol. 26, pp. 867–876, Aug. 2008.

[42]

W. Namgoong, “Modeling and analysis of nonlinearities and mismatches in AC-coupled direct-conversion receiver,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communication, vol. 47, pp. 163–173, Jan. 2005.

[43]

B. Day, A. Margetts, D. Bliss, and P. Schniter, “Full-duplex MIMO
relaying: Achievable rates under limited dynamic range,” IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications, Sep. 2012.

[44]

E. Antonio-Rodriguez, R. Lopez-Valcarce, T. Riihonen, S. Werner,
and R. Wichman, “SINR optimization in wideband full-duplex MIMO
relays under limited dynamic range,” in IEEE 8th Sensor Array and
Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM), June 2014.

[45]

X. Xia, D. Zhang, K. Xu, W. Ma, and Y. Xu, “Hardware impairments
aware transceiver for full-duplex massive MIMO relaying,” Signal

[46]

[47]

[48]
[49]
[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]
[55]

[56]

Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6565–6580,
Dec. 2015.
C. Shuguang, A. Goldsmith, and A. Bahai, “Energy-efficiency of MIMO
and cooperative MIMO techniques in sensor networks,” IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications, Aug. 2004.
B. R. Marks and G. P. Wright, “Technical note: a general inner approximation algorithm for nonconvex mathematical programs,” Operations
Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 681–683, 1978.
E. Beckenbach et al., “Generalized convex functions,” Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 363–371, 1937.
W. Dinkelbach, “On nonlinear fractional programming,” Management
science, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 492–498, 1967.
L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, and S.-P. Wu, “Determinant maximization
with linear matrix inequality constraints,” SIAM Journal on matrix
analysis and applications, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 499–533, 1998.
A. Zappone, E. Jorswieck et al., “Energy efficiency in wireless networks
via fractional programming theory,” Foundations and Trends R in
Communications and Information Theory, vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 185–
396, 2015.
R. Hunger, Floating point operations in matrix-vector calculus. Munich University of Technology, Inst. for Circuit Theory and Signal
Processing Munich, 2005.
D. W. K. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Robust beamforming for
secure communication in systems with wireless information and power
transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13,
no. 8, pp. 4599–4615, Aug. 2014.
A. P. Ruszczynski and A. Shapiro, Stochastic programming. Elsevier
Amsterdam, 2003, vol. 10.
M. Duarte, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Experiment-driven characterization of full-duplex wireless systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, Dec. 2012.
Y. Ye, M. Grant, and S. Boyd, CVX users’ guide. stanford.edu, 2008.

