s plotting the spatial power distribution in decibel scale, i.e., $20 \log_{10} (p(\r))$. Two different scenarios are considered, namely, *nominal* and *perturbed*, to evaluate the proposed robust power distribution scheme for the ultrasonic array. In the first scenario, nominal, we assume that the array steering vectors are precisely modeled, i.e., $\atil(\r) = \mathbf{0}$. In Fig. \[fig:nominal\], the beampattern generated by the array is plotted for the nominal scenario. This figure represents how power is spatially distributed over the organ at risk in an idealistic situation. Here, the covariance matrix of the waveforms is optimized under the assumption that the steering vectors are accurately modeled by, and the performance is evaluated using exactly the same steering vectors without any perturbations. The power is noticeably concentrated in the tumor region and importantly the power in the healthy tissue is several decibels lower.

![Power distribution (transmit beampattern in dB) for the nominal scenario, i.e., using $\R_{nr}$ and $\atil(\r) \equiv 0$.[]{data-label="fig:nominal"}](nominal_05_07lines "fig:"){width="\columnwidth" height="5.5cm"}\

In the second scenario, perturbed, the idealistic assumptions are relaxed and model uncertainties and imperfections are taken into account. The second scenario represents the case where the true steering vectors are perturbed versions of the nominal steering vectors $\ahat(\r)$, i.e., the true steering vector equals $\ahat(\r) + \atil(\r)$ where $\atil(\r) \in \mathcal{E}_{\r}$. The perturbation vectors $\atil(\r)$ are unknown but deterministically bounded. In the following we illustrate the worst-case performance, i.e., using the worst steering vectors to calculate the power distribution at each point. We start by illustrating the beampattern for the non-robust covariance matrix $\R_{nr}$ under the worst steering vectors. Fig. \[fig:NonRobustWorst\] shows how steering vector errors can degrade the array performance. Notice that in the worst-case, there is a substantial power leakage that occurs in the healthy tissue surrounding the tumor compared to Fig. \[fig:nominal\]. While, in Fig. \[fig:RobustWorst\], the robust optimal covariance matrix $\
s plotting the spatial power distribution in decibel scale, i.e., $ 20 \log_{10 } (p(\r))$. Two different scenario are view, namely, * nominal * and * perturb *, to measure the proposed robust power distribution dodge for the ultrasonic array. In the first scenario, nominal, we bear that the array steering vectors are precisely model, i.e., $ \atil(\r) = \mathbf{0}$. In Fig.   \[fig: nominal\ ], the beampattern generated by the array is plotted for the nominative scenario. This figure represents how power is spatially distributed over the organ at risk in an idealistic site. Here, the covariance matrix of the waveforms is optimized under the assumption that the guidance vectors are accurately modeled by, and the operation is evaluated use exactly the like steering vectors without any perturbations. The power is perceptibly concentrated in the tumor region and importantly the power in the healthy tissue is several decibels lower. 

! [ Power distribution (transmit beampattern in dB) for the nominal scenario, i.e., using $ \R_{nr}$ and $ \atil(\r) \equiv 0$.[]{data - label="fig: nominal"}](nominal_05_07lines " fig:"){width="\columnwidth " height="5.5cm"}\ 

 In the second scenario, perturbed, the idealistic assumptions are relaxed and model uncertainties and imperfections are taken into history. The second scenario represents the case where the on-key guidance vector are perturbed versions of the nominative steering vector $ \ahat(\r)$, i.e., the true steering vector equal $ \ahat(\r) + \atil(\r)$ where $ \atil(\r) \in \mathcal{E}_{\r}$. The perturbation vectors $ \atil(\r)$ are unknown but deterministically bounded. In the following we illustrate the bad - case performance, i.e., using the worst guidance vectors to account the power distribution at each point. We start by illustrating the beampattern for the non - robust covariance matrix $ \R_{nr}$ under the bad steering vectors. Fig.   \[fig: NonRobustWorst\ ] shows how guide vector errors can degrade the array performance. Notice that in the bad - case, there be a substantial ability leakage that happen in the healthy tissue surround the tumor compared to Fig.   \[fig: nominal\ ]. While, in Fig.   \[fig: RobustWorst\ ], the full-bodied optimal covariance matrix $ \
s ppotting the spatial powev distribution iu decibxl scals, i.e., $20 \loe_{10} (p(\r))$. Two different scenarios aee cobsidered, namely, *nominau* and *pernurbed*, to evaoyate the pckposed vjbusf powzr distribution xcheme for the ultrasoniw xrxay. In the first scenario, nominal, we assume tjat the array fteegigg vsbtirs are precisely modeled, i.e., $\ztil(\r) = \kathbf{0}$. In Fig. \[gig:nominal\], the beampattern genfrated by the arraj is plottee fow the nominal scenario. Uhns figure rgpresents how power is spatially distxibuted ovet fhf organ at rmsk in an idealistlb situadion. Hete, the covariakce metriz of the waveforms is optimized under tre assumpdikn that the steerunt vecjors dre xxcufattly mkdeled by, and the psrformance us evaluated using txasnky the same ateerigg vectors without any perturbations. The kower is noticeably concentrqted in the tumor reglon and iiportantly the power in the healthy tissue is sevaral vezibtlw lowde.

![Plwer distribution (transmit beampattern in dB) skr tme nominal scenavio, i.e., using $\R_{nr}$ amd $\ayyl(\r) \equiv 0$.[]{datx-label="yjg:hominal"}](nominal_05_07lined "fig:"){wiqth="\cooumnwidth" heibht="5.5cm"}\

In the second scenario, perturbed, tke udealistic assumptnons are relcxed amd mocel uncertainties and ioperrections arf taken ihgo account. The sdcokd vcenario represents the cafe where vhe txue steefing vectows are perhurbed versions of the nlminap vteering vfctors $\ahat(\r)$, i.e., the true steeriij vector equaks $\ahdt(\r) + \atij(\r)$ whcre $\atil(\r) \in \maehcal{E}_{\r}$. The petturbatiou vecturs $\atil(\r)$ zre unkiown but detqrministicallf bounded. In vhe folloring we ullustrxge the worst-caxe performance, i.e., uwing the worst stecring bectors to calcbuqte the power dostfibttpon ae each point. Fe sgarg by iulustraunng ghe neampattern for the ton-rkbust covariance mstvix $\R_{nr}$ ubder the worst steerimg vectors. Fig. \[fig:NlnRobnstWorrt\] shpws how steering vector errors cah degrade thc array perfowmange. Njtice that in the worst-case, there is a substantiao power leakage thqt occurs in the hecluhy tissue sucroundyng the tgmor compared to Fig. \[dig:nominal\]. While, ln Fig. \[fig:RobustWorst\], tge robgst ootimal covariance matrix $\
s plotting the spatial power distribution in i.e., \log_{10} (p(\r))$. different scenarios are to the proposed robust distribution scheme for ultrasonic array. In the first scenario, we assume that the array steering vectors are precisely modeled, i.e., $\atil(\r) = In Fig. \[fig:nominal\], the beampattern generated by the array is plotted for the scenario. figure how is spatially distributed over the organ at risk in an idealistic situation. Here, the covariance matrix the waveforms is optimized under the assumption that steering vectors are accurately by, and the performance is using the same vectors any The power is concentrated in the tumor region and importantly the power in the healthy tissue is several decibels lower. distribution (transmit dB) for nominal i.e., $\R_{nr}$ and $\atil(\r) "fig:"){width="\columnwidth" height="5.5cm"}\ In the second scenario, assumptions are relaxed and model uncertainties and imperfections taken into The second scenario represents the case the true steering vectors are perturbed versions of nominal steering vectors $\ahat(\r)$, i.e., the true steering vector equals $\ahat(\r) + \atil(\r)$ where $\atil(\r) The perturbation vectors $\atil(\r)$ unknown but deterministically In following illustrate worst-case performance, using the worst steering vectors to calculate the power distribution at point. We start by illustrating the beampattern for the non-robust $\R_{nr}$ the worst steering Fig. \[fig:NonRobustWorst\] shows how vector can degrade the array that the a power that occurs in the tissue surrounding the tumor compared Fig. \[fig:nominal\]. While, in covariance matrix $\
s plotting the spatial power dIstributioN in deCibEl sCaLe, i.e., $20 \Log_{10} (p(\R))$. Two different sCEnarIos are considered, namely, *NominAl* ANd *peRTuRbed*, tO evaluaTE tHE ProPoSeD roBuST pOwer dIstRibutioN scheme for The UlTrasonic arraY. in The first scEnaRio, nominal, we AssUme thaT tHe aRRay stEerIng veCtors aRE preciSely modelEd, I.E., $\atil(\r) = \MAthbf{0}$. In fIG. \[fIg:noMinal\], the beampatteRN gENerated by the arRay is pLoTTeD FOr tHe nOminal scenArIo. ThiS Figure rEPrESENts HOw power is spatIally distriBUteD over tHe OrgAN at risK in an IdEAliStic situatiOn. HeRe, the covaRiance MAtrix of THe wavefOrms is OptImiZed uNDeR tHe aSsUMptIOn ThaT The Steering VeCtOrs arE accURATEly mOdeLed bY, and tHe performance Is eValuATed Using ExactLy thE sAme stEering VectoRs Without any pertuRbatIons. The poWer Is NotIcEably COncentRatEd iN the tumOr regioN And ImPORTaNtly the power in the hEaLTHy Tissue is SeveraL DeCiBEls lower.

![poWer DistRIButioN (traNSmIt beampaTtern iN DB) FoR the nomInAl scenArIo, i.E., usIng $\R_{nR}$ And $\aTil(\r) \eqUiv 0$.[]{data-lAbel="fIG:nominal"}](nominaL_05_07Lines "fig:"){width="\COlUMNwIDth" hEigHt="5.5cm"}\

In the seCond SCenaRio, pERtUrbED, the iDealiStIC aSSumptions are relaxed AnD model UncerTainties and imPerfectionS ARE taken inTo acCOuNT. The second scenArio rEpresents tHE case wheRe the True steeRing vectoRS Are pertuRbeD veRsiOns OF ThE nominal steerING vecToRs $\ahat(\r)$, I.e., tHe true sTeeRinG veCtoR eQuals $\ahat(\R) + \atil(\r)$ whErE $\aTiL(\r) \In \mAthcaL{e}_{\r}$. The perTuRbaTiOn vEctorS $\Atil(\r)$ aRe unkNown BuT dETerMinistiCAlLY BounDeD. IN the FolLoWing wE illUStrAte the wOrst-case pErfORmanCe, I.e., Using thE worst steerinG vEctors to caLcUlaTe the pOWEr distriBution at each point. We starT By illusTraTing tHe beAmpattern For The non-RobUSt covaRiance MatriX $\R_{Nr}$ uNDEr the WORsT stEeRing vectorS. fIg. \[fIg:NonroBustworst\] shOws how steering vectOR erRors can degradE thE arrAY PeRfoRMaNCe. NOtICe tHAT in the worst-case, There is a suBsTAnTial power lEAkaGe That occUrs in thE healTHy tissuE surroundIng the tumOr CompAREd tO Fig. \[fig:nomInal\]. WhilE, in Fig. \[fig:rObustwOrSt\], the RobUst optImAl cOvariAnce maTRix $\
s plotting the spatial pow er distrib ution  in  de ci belscal e, i.e., $20 \ l og_{ 10} (p(\r))$. Two diff erent  s c enar i os  areconside r ed , nam el y,  *n om i na l* an d * perturb ed*, to ev alu at e the propos e drobust pow erdistribution  sc heme f or  th e  ultr aso nic a rray.I n thefirst sce na r io, no m inal, w e as sume  that the array s t ee r ing vectors ar e prec is e ly m ode led , i.e., $\ at il(\r )  = \mat h bf { 0 } $.I n Fig. \[fig: nominal\],t hebeampa tt ern genera ted b yt hearray is pl otte d for the  nomin a l scena r io. Thi s figu rerep rese n ts  h owpo w eri sspa t ial ly distr ib ut ed ov er t h e o rgan  at  ris k inan idealistic  si tuat i on.  Here , the  cov ar iance  matri x ofth e waveforms isopti mized und erth e a ss umpti o n that  th e s teering  vector s  ar ea c c ur ately modeled by,an d th e perfor mancei sev a luated u si ngexac t l y the  sam e  s teeringvector s  w it hout an ypertur ba tio ns.  Thep ower  is no ticeably  conc e ntrated in the tumor regiona nd i mp o rtan tly  the powerin t h e he alth y  t iss u e issever al de c ibels lower.

![Pow er  distr ibuti on (transmitbeampatter n i n dB) fo r th e  n o minal scenario , i.e ., using $ \ R_{nr}$and $ \atil(\r ) \equiv0 $ .[]{data -la bel ="f ig: n o mi nal"}](nomina l _ 05_0 7l ines "f ig: "){widt h=" \co lum nwi dt h" height ="5.5cm" }\ 
In  t hesecon d  scenari o,  pe rt urb ed, t h e idea listi c as su mp t ion s are r e la x e d an dmo delunc er taint iesa ndimperfe ctions ar e t a kenin to  accoun t. The second  s cenario re pr ese nts th e case whe re the true steering ve c tors ar e p ertur bedversionsofthe no min a l stee ring v ector s$\a h a t(\r) $ ,  i .e. ,the true s t e eri ng ve ct or e quals $ \ahat(\r) + \atil( \ r)$  where $\atil (\r ) \i n \m ath c al { E}_ {\ r }$. T he perturbation  vectors $ \a t il (\r)$ areu nkn ow n but d etermin istic a lly bou nded. Inthe follo wi ng w e ill ustrate th e worst- case perf o rmanc e ,i.e.,  us ing th ewor st st eering vec torsto cal cu late t he po we r distri bution at each point. W e star t byill ustrating  th e  be ampattern  for  the non-r obu stcovar ian c e mat rix$ \R _{n r }$ un dert he worsts te eri n g  v ectors. Fig . \ [fi g:Non Rob u stWors t\]shows how steerin g  vector errors  can d egr ade thear ray performanc e.No t i ce thatin  the worst- case, th er e  is a  subst antial  powerl e ak a ge tha t oc cur s in thehea lt h y tissu esu r roundi ng t he  tumor  compa r ed t o Fig. \[fig:nomin al\]. W hile, inFig.\[ fig:Rob u stWo rst\], the  robust opt imal c ovar iance  matrix  $ \
s plotting_the spatial_power distribution in decibel_scale, i.e.,_$20_\log_{10} (p(\r))$._Two_different scenarios are_considered, namely, *nominal*_and *perturbed*, to evaluate_the proposed robust_power_distribution scheme for the ultrasonic array. In the first scenario, nominal, we assume that_the_array steering_vectors_are_precisely modeled, i.e., $\atil(\r) =_\mathbf{0}$. In Fig. \[fig:nominal\], the beampattern_generated by_the array is plotted for the nominal scenario._This_figure represents how_power is spatially distributed over the organ at risk_in an idealistic situation. Here, the_covariance matrix of_the_waveforms_is optimized under the_assumption that the steering vectors are_accurately modeled by, and the performance_is evaluated using exactly the same steering_vectors without any perturbations. The power_is noticeably concentrated in the_tumor region_and importantly the power in_the healthy tissue_is several_decibels lower.

![Power distribution_(transmit beampattern in dB) for the_nominal scenario, i.e.,_using $\R_{nr}$ and $\atil(\r) \equiv 0$.[]{data-label="fig:nominal"}](nominal_05_07lines_"fig:"){width="\columnwidth"_height="5.5cm"}\

In the second_scenario,_perturbed,_the idealistic_assumptions are relaxed_and_model uncertainties_and_imperfections are taken into account. The_second_scenario represents the case where the true_steering vectors are perturbed_versions_of the nominal steering_vectors $\ahat(\r)$, i.e., the true_steering vector equals $\ahat(\r) + \atil(\r)$_where $\atil(\r)_\in \mathcal{E}_{\r}$._The perturbation vectors $\atil(\r)$ are unknown but deterministically bounded. In the_following we illustrate the worst-case performance,_i.e., using the worst_steering vectors_to_calculate the power_distribution_at each_point. We start by illustrating the beampattern_for the_non-robust covariance matrix $\R_{nr}$ under the_worst steering vectors. Fig. \[fig:NonRobustWorst\]_shows_how steering vector errors can degrade_the array performance. Notice that in_the worst-case, there is a_substantial_power_leakage that occurs in the_healthy tissue surrounding the tumor compared_to Fig. \[fig:nominal\]. While,_in Fig. \[fig:RobustWorst\], the robust optimal covariance matrix_$\