IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO.

2, JANUARY 15, 2014

295

Multi-Cell Beamforming With Decentralized Coordination in Cognitive and Cellular Networks
Harri Pennanen, Student Member, IEEE, Antti Tölli, Member, IEEE, and Matti Latva-aho, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper considers a downlink beamforming problem in a cognitive radio network where multiple primary and secondary cells coexist. Each multiantenna primary and secondary transmitter serves its own set of single antenna users. The optimization objective is to minimize the sum transmission power over secondary transmitters while guaranteeing the minimum SINR for each secondary user and satisfying the maximum aggregate interference power constraint for each primary user. We propose a decentralized beamforming algorithm where the original centralized problem is decomposed via primal decomposition method into two levels, i.e., transmitter-level subproblems managed by a network-level master problem. The master problem is solved independently at each secondary transmitter using a projected subgradient method requiring limited backhaul signaling among secondary transmitters. To solve the independent transmitter-level subproblems, we propose three alternative approaches which are based on second order cone programming, semidefinite programming and uplink–downlink duality. Special emphasis is put on the last approach, which is also considered in a multi-cell MISO cellular network. Numerical results show that the proposed algorithm achieves close to optimal solution even after a few iterations in quasi-static channel conditions. Moreover, near centralized performance is demonstrated in time-correlated channels. Index Terms—Decentralized coordinated beamforming, power minimization, primal decomposition, uplink-downlink duality.

I. INTRODUCTION OGNITIVE RADIO (CR) is a promising approach to effectively utilize the radio spectrum by allowing cognitive secondary users (SUs) to access the bandwidth of the licensed primary users (PUs) [1], [2]. Many of the traditional CR approaches are designed to exploit the spectrum holes of the licensed band [3]. However, higher spectrum utilization
Manuscript received March 29, 2013; revised August 27, 2013; accepted October 04, 2013. Date of publication October 31, 2013; date of current version December 24, 2013. The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Prof. Xiqi Gao. This work has been supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES). During this work the first author was supported in part by the Graduate School in Electronics, Telecommunications and Automation (GETA), the Riitta and Jorma J. Takanen foundation, the Tauno Tönning foundation and the Walter Ahlström foundation. Parts of this paper have been presented at the Twenty-Second Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, Toronto, ON, Canada, September 2011, and at the Forty-Fifth Annual Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, California, USA, November 2011. The authors are with the Centre for Wireless Communications, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland (e-mail: harri.pennanen@ee.oulu.fi; antti.tolli@ee. oulu.fi, matti.latva-aho@ee.oulu.fi). Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSP.2013.2287681

C

is achieved in underlay spectrum sharing systems where the primary and secondary networks are allowed to share the same radio resources, requiring that the caused interference on each PU is kept below a tolerable level [4], [5]. In this respect, multiantenna beamforming is seen as a promising approach to provide efficient spectrum usage while satisfying the PU specific interference power constraints since the generated interference can be spatially controlled [6]. Beamforming has been widely studied for traditional wireless communication systems [7], [8], such as cellular networks. Recent achievements in cellular beamforming, especially in coordinated beamforming, have evoked the interest to extend these solutions to spectrum sharing CR networks. Coordinated beamforming has been recognized as a powerful approach for improving the performance of cellular systems, especially at the cell-edge area, by controlling inter-cell interference [8]. Inter-cell interference occurs when the same radio resources are re-used in neighboring cells without proper coordination. Inter-cell interference is a major limiting factor in modern and future cellular systems, such as LTE [9] and LTE-Advanced [10]. In coordinated beamforming, each data stream is transmitted from a single base station (BS) and the transmissions are dynamically coordinated between multiple BSs to control the generated inter-cell interference. Coordinated beamforming is more practical than joint transmission [10] (also known as network MIMO [8]), which is another form of coordinated multipoint transmission [8], [10], since backhaul signaling load is reduced and carrier phase synchronism is not required. Coordinated beamforming can either be centralized or decentralized. In the centralized case, coordination is performed via a central controlling unit which requires access to global channel state information (CSI). In the decentralized case, each BS acquires only local CSI and the coordination is performed directly between BSs via backhaul links and/or over-the-air signaling. In general, decentralized approaches are more practical due to their potentially reduced backhaul signaling loads, lower computational requirements and simpler network architectures. Coordinated beamforming approaches with various optimization objectives and quality of service (QoS) constraints have gained a lot of attention in the wireless communication research community; see for example [8], and the references therein. The most common optimization criteria are weighted sum rate maximization [11]–[13], SINR/rate balancing [14]–[17] and transmission power minimization with per user QoS constraints [18]–[24]. The first approach is always feasible and some fairness is included via priority weights. On the other hand, the weighted SINR/rate balancing approach is fair between users. However, in general, either one of them

1053-587X © 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

296

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

cannot guarantee the per user QoS targets. In this respect, we focus on the third optimization criterion which satisfies the predefined QoS constraints. Furthermore, the overall interference in the network is decreased since the transmission power is minimized. Optimal centralized solutions were proposed in [18], [19] and [20] based on uplink-downlink duality, semidefinite programming (SDP) and second order cone programming (SOCP), respectively. Optimal decentralized solutions were obtained via uplink-downlink duality, dual decomposition, primal decomposition and alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) methods in [21]–[23] and [24], respectively. Extending cellular beamforming approaches to CR networks requires introducing additional constraints on the maximum allowed interference levels experienced by the PUs [6]. Recently, cognitive beamforming approaches have been widely studied with different secondary network optimization objectives, e.g., sum rate maximization [25], SINR/rate balancing [26]–[28] and power minimization with QoS constraints [29]–[37]. Cognitive multicast and robust MISO beamforming strategies were studied in [31], [36] and [34], [35], respectively. In [37], non-robust and robust MIMO beamforming strategies were proposed for CR networks. In this paper, our particular interest is in cognitive (non-robust) MISO beamforming for power minimization. In this respect, convex optimization and uplink-downlink duality based beamforming solutions were proposed for a CR network with a single secondary and primary transmitter in [30], [32] and [29], [30], [32], respectively. In [33], [32] was extended to the cognitive MISO interference channel (IC), i.e., a CR network with multiple secondary/primary transmitter-receiver pairs. The aforementioned cognitive beamforming approaches are inherently centralized. Hence, they would require a central controlling unit with global CSI for the secondary network coordination in a general multi-cell multiuser CR network setting. In [27], minimum power beamformers were solved as an intermediate result of the original rate balancing problem in the cognitive MISO IC. It was shown that the centralized problem can be cast as an SOCP and solved efficiently. In addition, the problem was solved in a decentralized manner via a two-level algorithm, where the outer and inner optimizations were solved using a subgradient method and an uplink-downlink duality based approach, similar to that in [21], respectively. The outer optimization requires limited backhaul signaling between secondary transmitters, whereas the inner optimization requires real physical transmissions and receptions along with some over-the-air signaling. In general, decentralized uplink-downlink duality based approaches, such as [21] and [27], usually need to converge before they can satisfy the user specific SINR constraints. This may cause long delays and high signaling/computational load to the system. It is challenging to apply this kind of decentralized algorithms to realistic time varying channel conditions, where the channel changes faster than the algorithm converges. Moreover, the algorithm in [27] is designed for the cognitive IC instead of a general cognitive interference broadcast channel (IBC), where each transmitter can serve multiple simultaneous users. Thus, there is seemingly a lack of (practical) decentralized beamforming algorithms, especially ones that are designed for the cognitive IBC. In this paper, we address this challenge and propose a novel decentralized beamforming algorithm for the spectrum sharing

multi-cell multiuser MISO CR networks (i.e., the cognitive IBC). We aim to minimize the total transmission power of secondary transmitters while providing the minimum SINR for each SU and keeping the maximum aggregate interference power at each PU below a predefined level. The optimization problem is coupled between secondary transmitters, and thus, it is inherently centralized. In order to obtain a decentralized implementation, we first equivalently reformulate the problem by introducing two sets of new auxiliary variables, i.e., SU and PU specific inter-cell interference terms. Now, we propose a primal decomposition method to turn the reformulated optimization problem into two-levels: a network-level master problem which controls transmitter-level subproblems. The network-level optimization of the SU and PU specific interference terms can be solved independently and in parallel at each secondary transmitter via a projected subgradient method with the aid of limited backhaul signaling. Herein, we refer the backhaul signaling to exchanging a small amount of information, i.e., transmitter-level subgradients, between the coupled secondary transmitters via backhaul links. We propose SOCP, SDP and uplink-downlink duality based approaches to solve the independent and signaling-free transmitter-level subproblems for the beamformers and subgradients. The first two approaches can be solved optimally using standard convex optimization software packages. Special emphasis is put on the last approach which obtains an optimal solution without the need of explicit convex optimization tools. The last approach is also considered briefly in a conventional multi-cell multiuser MISO cellular system. The proposed decentralized algorithm converges to the optimal solution in static channel conditions. Unlike the previous decentralized approach in [27], the proposed algorithm can provide feasible beamformers, which satisfy the per SU SINR targets and per PU interference constraints, at intermediate iterations. Therefore, increased delay and signaling/computational load can be avoided in practice by stopping the algorithm after a limited number of iterations. This comes at a possible cost of sub-optimal performance. However, simulation results demonstrate close to optimal performance even after a few iterations in quasi-static channels. Furthermore, the proposed algorithm obtains near to centralized performance in time-correlated channel conditions, where the backhaul signaling is outdated due to channel variations. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we introduce the generic multi-cell multiuser MISO system model for both CR and cellular networks. The optimization problems are formulated in Section III. In Section IV, we propose a cognitive decentralized beamforming algorithm and provide a detailed derivation of it. In Section V, decentralized beamforming is briefly considered in cellular networks and a novel approach is introduced. The performance of the proposed algorithms are evaluated through numerical examples in Section VI. Finally, conclusion is drawn in Section VII. Throughout the paper we use the following notations. We denote matrices by bold face upper-case letters and vectors by bold and denote face lower-case letters. Notations real, non-negative real, positive real and complex spaces, re. The transpose, Hermispectively. Statistical expectation is tian transpose and inverse of a matrix are denoted by and , respectively. The identity matrix is denoted by . No-

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

297

tation indicates matrix inequality with respect to the cone of semidefinite matrices. The cardinality of the set is denoted by . Selecting th element of a vector and an element of a matrix and , respectively. on row and column is denoted by II. SYSTEM MODEL Consider a spectrum sharing-based CR network consisting of primary and secondary transmitters with and transmit antennas, respectively. For notational convenience, we . There are PUs and SUs in the denote system. Each of them is equipped with a single receive antenna. The total number of cells and users in the system are denoted and , respectively. Each by user is served by a single transmitter. The serving transmitter for the user is denoted by . User association is assumed to be predefined and fixed. We denote the sets of all the primary and secondary transmitters and all the PUs and SUs by and , respectively. The received signal at the user can be expressed as (1) and denote the where transmit beamforming vector, the data symbol with and the additive white Gaussian noise sample for the user . The channel vector from the th transmitter to the th user is . denoted by The total transmission powers across primary and secondary transmitters are expressed as and , respectively. The subsets and with sizes and include all the PUs and SUs served by their respective transmitters and , respectively. The received SINR of the SU can be written as (2)

specific minimum SINR targets and the PU specific . maximum aggregate interference power constraints Mathematically, the optimization problem can be written as

(4) For completeness of the paper, we show in the following proposition that (4) can be reformulated and solved optimally using standard convex optimization packages, assuming that there exists a central controlling unit with access to global CSI. Proposition 1: Problem (4) can be cast as an SOCP. Proof: See Appendix I. In (4), the sum power and the SINR constraints are always tight at the optimal solution. However, there may be occasions when the PU specific aggregate interference constraints are inactive, i.e., the interference is below a predefined maximum level at the optimal solution. In that case, removing the constraints would not have any impact for solving the problem. Herein, we assume that the aggregate interference constraints are always active at the optimal solution. The problem (4) can be infeasible in some channel conditions and network scenarios, e.g., the number of users or the SINR targets are too high. Since (4) can be solved as an SOCP, infeasibility can be recognized. In this case, admission control needs to adjust the number of users or the SINR constraints accordingly. For the rest of this paper, we assume that (4) is strictly feasible, and an optimal solution exists. For strict feasibility, we , since interference power cannot need to have be negative. A thorough study of the feasibility conditions was provided in [27] for a MISO CR system with multiple primary and secondary transmitter-receiver pairs. As an example, a suf, ficient condition for (4) to be always feasible is when , provided that the user channels are even if i.i.d. We also assume that each secondary transmitter has only local CSI, i.e., the knowledge of its own channels to each SU and PU in the CR system. Local CSI can be acquired, e.g., by utilizing reciprocity between uplink and downlink channels in time division duplexing-based systems. In a cellular system, minimum power beamforming problem reduces to the following:

Interference from the primary transmissions to the SU is de. We assume that is known noted by at the serving secondary transmitter in order to guarantee the SU specific SINR constraints. Hence, we obtain performance upper bounds for more practical cases where only partial or average interference knowledge is available at the secondary transmitters. The SINR for the th PU is given by (3)

Note that a conventional one-tier cellular network can be seen as a special case of a two-tier CR network. Hence, the received signal model in (1) is also valid for a multi-cell multiuser MISO cellular system with BSs and single antenna users. III. PROBLEM STATEMENT The optimization target is to minimize the sum transmission power of secondary transmitters while satisfying the SU

(5)

where is the sum power. We denote the sets of all the BSs, users and users served by the BS by and , respectively. The problem (5) can be efficiently solved using the algorithms

298

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

proposed in [18]–[24]. In Section V, we propose a novel decentralized beamforming approach which combines the ideas introduced in [23] and [38]. IV. DECENTRALIZED BEAMFORMING IN CR NETWORKS In this section, we propose a novel decentralized cognitive beamforming approach which is based on primal decomposition. In general, primal decomposition method turns the original one-level optimization problem into two optimization levels: a higher level master problem which is in charge of lower level sub-problems [39]. This problem structure can be exploited to solve the original problem in a decentralized way. In the following subsections, we will show how the primal decomposition method is utilized in our cognitive beamforming problem leading to an optimal decentralized algorithm. In particular, we propose a projected subgradient method to solve the master problem. Moreover, three alternative approaches are proposed to solve the subproblems: SOCP, SDP and uplink-downlink duality-based methods. A. Equivalent Problem Reformulation Primal decomposition method is applicable for the problems which include coupling variables such that by fixing them the problem decouples [39]. In this respect, we introduce two sets of auxiliary variables which are coupled between the secondary transmitters. The auxiliary variables are inter-cell interference power from the secondary transmitter to the SU and to the and PU , and they are denoted by respectively. The resulting problem is expressed as (6a) (6b) (6c)

If a centralized implementation is assumed, the last set of constraints in (6f) can be replaced by . For a decentralized case, however, the redundant is needed. The rationale behind this is term given in Section IV.C. The optimal solution of (4) is equivalent to that of (6) since all the inequality constraints in (6) hold with equality at the optimal point. For strict feasibility assumption, and we need to have . The following proposition shows that (6) can be reformulated as a convex problem. Proposition 2: Problem (6) can be cast as an SOCP. Proof: See Appendix II. A key aspect of designing our decentralized beamforming approach is that (6) can be solved via its Lagrange dual problem. This is addressed in the following. Proposition 3: Strong duality holds for problem (6). Proof: See Appendix III. B. Two-Level Problem Formulation via Primal Decomposition The problem (6) is coupled between the secondary transmitters by the variables and . Precisely, each element of couples two secondary transmitters, whereas each element of couples all the secondary transmitters. The objective of (6) is inherently separable between secondary transmit. If and are fixed, (6) decouters, i.e., ples between secondary transmitters. Hence, primal decomposition is an adequate method to decompose (6) into a higher level lower level subproblems, one for each master problem and secondary transmitter. Let us now introduce secondary transand , mitter-specific interference vectors and that couple the transmitter which consist of all with the other transmitters. Precisely, the elements of are taken from the sets and . The vector is defined by since the transmitter is cou. pled with all the other transmitters by all and , the lower level subproblem at the For the fixed can be written as secondary transmitter

(6d) (6e)

(8a) (8b) (8c)

(6f) where the vectors and are composed of the elements of the and , respectively. We sets denote the sets of all the SUs except for those served by the and all the transmitters except transmitter by by . The reformulated SINR for the SU is given by (7)

(8d) (8e) (8f) In the rest of the paper, we assume that (8) is strictly feasible, and there exists an optimal solution. Propositions 2 and 3 hold true for (8) since it is a reduced case of (6), i.e., (8) can be cast as an SOCP and strong duality holds for it.

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

299

The network-level master problem controls the subproblems by updating and . The master problem is expressed as

(9) where of (8) for a given by denotes the optimal objective value and . Sets and are denoted and . The problem (9) is convex since its objective and constraint functions are convex. C. Network-Level Optimization The problem (9) can be solved via a projected subgradient method with the following updates:

. In this case, the constraint vanishes in the corresponding subproblem leading to a subat the point . The subgradient gradient of depends only on the subproblem resulting in an always (before the projection ) at each subgradient increasing . By iteration, i.e., in (6f), always increasing having the term can be avoided. Instead, the subgradient in (13) depends on all the subproblems leading to a proper update process of . is projected such that , the Since each constraints (8e) and (8f) must be the same, and thus, their Lagrange multipliers are also the same, i.e., . Hence, the term in (13) can be equivalently rewritten as . Since the subgradient update is now obtained by solving only , the constraint (8f) can be removed. Thus, (8) can be reformulated accordingly. In the rest of the paper, all the related problems will be formulated accordingly. If the exchange of the subgradients is allowed between the and can coupled secondary transmitters via backhaul, be solved independently at the secondary transmitter , for all in parallel. The proposed network-level optimization is summarized in Algorithm 1. Algorithm 1: Network-level optimization 1: Set . Initialize and . 2: repeat 3: Compute and . Communicate and to the coupled secondary transeach . mitters via backhaul. Optional: compute using (10). 4: Update using (11). 5: Update . 6: Set 7: until Network-level stopping criterion is satisfied . 8: Compute

(10) (11) and are the projections onto the sets and , where respectively. The step-sizes at iteration are denoted by and . The scalars and are any (network-level) and , subgradients of (9) evaluated at the points respectively. In the literature, there are many results on convergence of the (projected) subgradient method with different step-size rules, see [40], [41]. For example, the projected subgradient method converges to the optimal value for a convex problem when the is nonsummable and diminishing non-negative step-size and . In this with , i.e., , where gets a fixed and respect, a valid step-size is positive value. Monotonic convergence is not guaranteed for the subgradient method, and thus, one must keep track of the best solution among the previous iterations. Next, we introduce valid subgradients for (9). and Proposition 4: Valid subgradients for (9) at points are given by (12) (13)

D. Transmitter-Level Optimization There are several alternative methods to compute the Lagrange multipliers (and beamformers) at step 3 in Algorithm 1. In the following subsections, we propose three approaches which are based on SOCP, SDP and uplink-downlink duality. The first two approaches can be solved optimally using standard convex optimization packages. The last approach finds an optimal solution via a projected subgradient method and a simple fixed-point iteration, and thus, any external convex optimization package is not required. In general, fixed-point iteration has lower computational complexity compared to SOCP and SDP. For simplicity of notation, we drop the iteration index from the and in the following subsections. vectors 1) SOCP Approach: In general, by solving a convex optimization problem using any standard convex optimization software package, e.g., cvx [42], the optimal Lagrange multipliers are provided as a certificate for optimality. In this respect, (8) can be cast as a convex SOCP by following the principles in

where and are the optimal Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the SU specific SINR and inter-cell interference constraints (8c) and (8d) in th and th subproblems, respectively. Similarly, and are the optimal Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the PU specific interference constraints (8e) and (8f) in th and th subproblems, respectively. Proof: See Appendix IV. It is worth mentioning that the update process of would be different in a decentralized case if the constraint (6f) was equivalently replaced by

300

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

Appendix I. The resulting SOCP problem is expressed as

. We can use a projected subgradient method to optimally and . The projected subgradient updates solve (16) for are given by (17)

(18) (14) where . The optimal Lagrange multipliers where and are the projections onto the sets and , respectively. At iteration , the step-sizes are denoted by and . Based on Proposition 4, the subgradients and at the points and can be expressed as (19) (20) In order to solve (19) and (20), the optimal beamformers need to be found at each iteration . For ease of presentation, we omit the iteration index with respect to and in the rest of this subsection. Let us write the inner optimization problem on as

and can now be obtained as a side information by solving (14) for and using any standard SOCP solver. 2) SDP Approach: Since strong duality holds for (8), the opand can be timal Lagrange multipliers solved via the Lagrange dual problem of (8), which is expressed as

(15) where and . Since the objective function is linear and the inequality constraints are linear matrix inequalities, (15) can be cast as a standard form SDP by turning the maximization into minimization and changing the sign of the objective function. Thus, it can be efficiently solved via standard SDP optimization , packages. In order to find the optimal beamformers we can utilize the uplink-downlink duality results proposed in the next section. Precisely, (44) and (25) need to be solved. 3) Uplink-Downlink Duality Based Approach: We start by equivalently splitting the dual problem (15) into and and an inner an outer maximization of maximization of . The vectors and consist of the Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the SU specific inter-cell interference and SINR constraints, and respectively, i.e., . Since (15) is concave, both the outer and inner problems are also concave. The outer maximization can be expressed as

(21) is Note that the term omitted from the objective since it is fixed, and thus, does not . Inspired by [20], have any impact on finding the optimal and [21], [38], we will next show how to find the optimal with the aid of uplink-downlink duality. Theorem 1: The problem (21) is equivalent to the following problem:

(16) where maximization on denoted by is the optimal objective value of the inner for given and . Sets and are and (22) where is interpreted as a virtual uplink beamformer for the SU . The problem (22) can be interpreted as a virtual

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

301

dual uplink problem for a CR system where the SU specific SINR constraints remain the same as in the downlink. Proof: See Appendix V. Next, we show how to optimally solve (22) for . Proposition 5: The problem (22) is solved optimally for via the following fixed point iteration:

TABLE I TOTAL SIGNALING LOAD PER NETWORK-LEVEL ITERATION

Algorithm 2: Transmitter-level optimization 1: Set . and . Initialize and

(23) where

2: repeat 3: repeat using (23). 4: Compute . 5: Set 6: until stopping criterion is satisfied 7: Compute uplink beamformers 8: Compute downlink beamformers

using (44). using (25).

(24) Proof: See Appendix VI. For the fixed (optimal) , the optimal virtual uplink beamcan be computed using the linear MMSE reformers ceiver, which is presented in (44) in Appendix V. The following proposition shows how the optimal downlink beamformers can be acquired with the aid of the optimal uplink beamformers. Proposition 6: The optimal downlink beamformers are solved via the optimal virtual uplink beamby scaling, i.e., formers (25) The scaling factors are solved via the matrix equation: (26) -th and th elements of the matrix where the vector are given by and the

9: Update using (17). using (18). 10: Update . 11: Set 12: until transmitter-level stopping criterion is satisfied E. Backhaul Signaling and Practical Considerations Table I presents the amount of the required backhaul signaling at each network-level iteration in Algorithm 1. In order to achieve optimal performance, Algorithm 1 needs to be run until convergence. However, aiming to the optimal solution is somewhat impractical since the more iterations are run, the higher the signaling/computational load and the longer the caused delay. In this respect, unlike the existing decentralized algorithm in [27], Algorithm 1 naturally lends itself to a more practical case, where a fixed number of iterations can be used as a stopping criterion. This is due to an inherent property of the primal decomposition method that feasible beamformers can be provided at intermediate iterations, i.e., beamformers which satisfy all the SINR and interference constraints. Hence, Algorithm 1 can be stopped at any feasible iteration leading to a reduced delay and signaling/computational load. This comes at a possible cost of sub-optimal performance. If the secondary transmitters do not have any prior information on the “optimal” interference levels, it is fair to use equal elements in the initialization of and at step 1 in Algorithm 1, i.e., and . In practice, there can be a mechanism that stops after a fixed number of initialization tries if feasible initialization is not found, and declares the problem “infeasible”. Then, it is up to admission control to loosen the system requirements, e.g., to lower the SINR targets or to drop some users. F. Alternative Beamforming Approaches The problem (9) can be also solved using a hierarchical twolevel primal-primal decomposition approach where one set of coupling variables, e.g., , is decomposed at a higher level and the other set, i.e., , at a lower level. Primal-primal decomposition approach converges if the lower level master problem is solved in a faster timescale than the higher level master problem. See [39] for more details on solving problems with variables optimized in different timescales. There are also other options to reformulate (4) and achieve a decentralized beamforming design, i.e., using dual decomposition [39] or alternating direction

(27) , respectively. Proof: See Appendix VII. Following from the previous findings and Proposition 3, the optimal value of the downlink problem (8) is the same as the optimal value obtained from solving the outer maximization (16) via the projected subgradient method (17)–(18) and the inner minimization via the virtual uplink problem (22). These optimization steps can be solved independently at each secondary in parallel. The proposed transtransmitter , for all mitter-level optimization is summarized in Algorithm 2. Algorithm 2 is guaranteed to converge to the globally optimal solution due to the convergence of the projected subgradient method and fixed-point iteration, and the uplink-downlink duality results obtained in this subsection. and

302

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

method of multipliers (ADMM) [43]. Both approaches lead to the optimal solution. Thorough study of these approaches is not in the scope of this paper, and thus, we omit the derivation of the algorithms. Note that (4) can also be solved in a decentralized way via its dual problem and with the aid of the uplink-downlink duality using the similar principles as in [27]. However, the resulting approach might be somewhat impractical as already discussed in Section I. G. Special Beamforming Cases Algorithm 1 allows some special cases where the number of optimization variables are reduced leading to lower computational and backhaul signaling loads. This comes at the cost of somewhat decreased performance. Some possible special cases are presented below: • Group-dependent SU specific interference constraints: , where the set consists of any arbitrary group of SUs, i.e., the cardinality of the set can range from 1 to . • Fixed SU specific interference constraints: , where is a predefined constant. An interference nulling approach is also possible, i.e., . • Fixed PU specific per BS interference constraints: where is a predefined constant and the following must hold: . One such case is when all are equal for a given PU , i.e., . The last case can be combined with both of the former ones, and thus, leading to even further reduced signaling load and complexity. V. DECENTRALIZED BEAMFORMING IN CELLULAR NETWORKS In this section, we propose a decentralized beamforming algorithm for a one-tier multi-cell multiuser MISO cellular system which is a special case of a two-tier CR system. At a high level, the proposed approach combines the ideas in [23] and [38], i.e., primal decomposition and uplink-downlink duality. More precisely, primal decomposition method is first used to decompose the original problem into network-level and BS-level optimizations. The network-level optimization is solved via a projected subgradient method. In the BS-level optimization, uplink-downlink duality is utilized. As a result, the main benefits of [38] and [23] are achieved, i.e., explicit convex optimization solvers are not required to find an optimal solution and feasible beamformers that satisfy the SINR targets can be obtained at intermediate iterations of the algorithm, respectively. In the practical point of view, the resulting approach is more appealing than the convex optimization based algorithm in [23]. Moreover, unlike in [21], long delays and high signaling/computational load can be avoided by stopping the algorithm after a limited number of iterations. The proposed approach is similar to that introduced in Section IV.D.3 with the difference that now the optimization on is omitted. Mathematical analysis in Section IV is valid herein. Hence, most of the details are omitted to avoid redundancy. The cellular beamforming design is summarized in Algorithm 3 and Algorithm 4. Both algorithms are performed independently and in parallel at each BS.

Algorithm 3: Network-level optimization 1: Set . Initialize . 2: repeat to the 3: Solve Algorithm 4 and communicate each coupled BSs via backhaul. using projected subgradient method: 4: Update

(28) . 5: Set 6: until Network-level stopping criterion is satisfied

Algorithm 4: BS-level optimization 1: Set and 2: repeat 3: repeat 4: Compute . Initialize .

using fixed point algorithm:

(29) where

(30) 5: 6: 7: Set . until Stopping criterion is satisfied Compute uplink beamformers

(31) 8: Compute downlink beamformers (32) 9: Update using projected subgradient method:

(33) . 10: Set 11: until BS-level stopping criterion is satisfied

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

303

Fig. 1. Average normalized sub-optimality of Algorithm 1 versus network-level iteration .

Fig. 2. Average sum power versus SINR target for Algorithm 1 and interference nulling beamforming.

VI. NUMERICAL RESULTS Let us consider a two tier cognitive radio network with primary transmitter and multiple secondary transmitters. Each transmitter serves a predefined set of two single antenna users, . The pathloss bei.e., tween a transmitter and each user is 0 dB, i.e., the path gain to noise ratio is 1. This can be interpreted as a worst case scenario, where all the PUs and SUs are at the same cell-edge area. We assume that the primary transmitter employs the optimal minimum power beamforming for serving its PUs without being concerned on the caused interference to the SUs. For ease of and presentation, we set . In the simulations, we use the following initialization and of the interference terms: , where is chosen empirically. A. Quasi-Static Fading Scenario We consider a quasi-static flat Rayleigh fading scenario with uncorrelated channels between antennas, i.e., each element of each channel realization matrix is i.i.d. complex Gaussian random variable with zero mean and unit variance. In all the quasi-static simulations, we have used nonsummable and diminishing step , for the projected subgradient methods. sizes, i.e., First, we examine the average convergence behavior of Algorithm 1 with different simulation parameters. Fig. 1 presents the averaged normalized sub-optimality of Algorithm 1 as a function of the network-level iteration number . The normalized , where sub-optimality is given by is the sum power at iteration and is the optimal sum power. In Fig. 1, each point is obtained by averaging over quasi-static channel realizations. Simulation results imply that or increasing convergence speed becomes decreasing slower. Notice that the convergence can be non-monotonic, which is an inherent feature of the projected subgradient method [41]. Fig. 2 shows the average converged sum power versus the SINR target. We compare Algorithm 1 and an interference . Simulanulling beamforming strategy, where tion results are achieved by averaging over channel for Fig. 3. Results realizations. We have also set
Fig. 3. Average sum powers of secondary and primary networks versus PU specific aggregate interference constraint.

demonstrate that Algorithm 1 significantly outperforms the interference nulling, especially at low and medium SINRs. However, the performance gain decreases when the SINR target increases. Fig. 3 illustrates the average converged transmit powers of both the secondary and primary networks as a function of the maximum aggregate interference power level . Results show that the secondary network’s sum power decreases about 1 dB dB to dB. The transmit power when increases from of primary network is increased the same amount within the same change of . Clearly, there is a trade-off between the primary and secondary network performance. It is worth noting that this trade-off is an interesting techno-economical research topic on itself. One can see that the performance of both netdB. The reason for works degrades rapidly when this behavior is that being large, the secondary transmissions cause severe interference to the PUs, which leads the primary transmitter to increase its power to satisfy the PUs’ SINR targets. This again causes severe interference to the SUs, and thus, the secondary transmitters have to raise their powers to satisfy the SINR targets of the SUs.

304

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

Fig. 4. Sum power comparison of Algorithm 1, interference nulling and centralized beamforming strategies in quasi-static fading scenario.

Fig. 5. Sum power comparison of Algorithm 1, interference nulling and centralized beamforming strategies in time-correlated fading scenario.

In Fig. 4, the sum power is presented for 20 quasi-static channel realizations. We compare Algorithm 1 with different number of iterations to the interference nulling and centralized beamforming strategies. As can be observed, Algorithm 1 obtains near optimal performance even after a few iterations. Moreover, the interference nulling beamforming scheme is outperformed significantly. B. Time-Correlated Fading Scenario We consider a time-correlated flat fading channel with Jakes’ Doppler spectrum. The parameter that determines how fast the , where and denote the backhaul channel changes is signaling period and the maximum Doppler shift, respectively. We compare the proposed decentralized algorithm to the interference nulling and centralized beamforming strategies. A fixed step size is used in the projected subgradient method for all the time-correlated fading simulations. In Fig. 5, we present the sum power for 100 time-correlated , which can be interchannel realizations. We set preted, for example, as 2 ms reporting rate and 2.7 km/h user velocity at 2 GHz carrier frequency. One can see that near (optimal) centralized performance is achieved using Algorithm 1. Furthermore, Algorithm 1 has significantly better performance than that of the interference nulling. Let us now consider a cellular network with two BSs each serving two single antenna users. Each BS is equipped with four antennas. Fig. 6 illustrates the performance of Algorithm 3 in cellular time-correlated fading scenario. Now, we set , which can be interpreted as 2 ms reporting rate and 27 km/h user speed with 2 GHz carrier frequency. One can observe that Algorithm 3 has close to the centralized performance and it significantly outperforms the interference nulling strategy.

Fig. 6. Sum power comparison of Algorithm 3, interference nulling and centralized beamforming strategies in cellular time-correlated fading scenario.

VII. CONCLUSION This paper proposed a decentralized MISO beamforming algorithm for multi-cell CR networks. The system optimization objective is to minimize the sum power among secondary

transmitters while guaranteeing the minimum SINRs for the SUs and satisfying the maximum aggregate interference constraints for the PUs. Decentralized implementation is achieved through a primal decomposition method which decomposes the problem into a network-level and transmitter-level optimizations. The network-level optimization is solved via projected subgradient method relying on the limited backhaul signaling between secondary transmitters. The transmitter-level optimizations can be solved using three alternative approaches: SOCP, SDP or uplink-downlink duality. The last method is also considered in multi-cell multiuser MISO cellular systems. The proposed algorithm converges to the globally optimal solution in static channel conditions. Numerical results showed significant gains over the interference nulling strategy and close to optimal performance even after a few iterations in quasi-static channel conditions. In addition, near centralized performance is demonstrated in time-correlated channel conditions, where the backhaul signaling is outdated due to time varying channel. An interesting future work is to extend the proposed algorithm to solve a robust cognitive beamforming problem where only imperfect local CSI is available at each transmitter.

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

305

APPENDIX I PROOF OF PROPOSITION 1 In this Appendix, we show that (4) can be expressed as a standard form SOCP. The proof is an extension of a result described in [20]. We begin with an observation that an arbitrary phase rotation of beamforming vectors does not affect the values of the objective and constraint functions in (4). In other words, if beamformers are optimal, so are , is an arbitrary phase. Hence, we can consider such where which results in being real. This allows us to turn the constraints of (4) into SOC constraints by rearranging them and taking the square roots of the both sides of the resulting inequalities. After denoting , we can recast (4) as

primal problem and its Lagrangian dual problem is zero, i.e., both problems have the same solution [44]. Therefore, primal problem can be solved via its dual problem. Strong duality holds for convex problems which are strictly feasible, i.e., Slater’s conditions hold [44]. Since we assume strict feasibility for (6), strong duality holds for the reformulated convex SOCP problem (35). Given the fact that equivalent optimization problems, such as (6) and (35), may have different Lagrange dual problems [44], we need to show that the Lagrangians of (6) and (35) are the same. Therefore, the dual problems also must be the same. This implies that strong duality holds for (6). First, we formulate the Lagrangians of (6) and (35) as

(34) where and . The problem (34) is a standard form SOCP [44] since the objective function is linear and the constraints are SOC constraints.

APPENDIX II PROOF OF PROPOSITION 2 Following from the previous Appendix, (6) can be reformuand . lated as an SOCP. First, we denote The resulting SOCP is obtained

(36)

(37) (35) where and . Next, we use a similar procedure as in [38] to reformulate (37). Let us write

APPENDIX III PROOF OF PROPOSITION 3 It will be proved in this Appendix that strong duality holds for (6). Strong duality implies that the duality gap between a

(38) (39)

306

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

and so forth for the rest of the terms in (37). By substituting these terms into (37), we get

Since the dual problem (41) is concave, we can define a subgradient of at the point to be any vector , which satisfies , for all . We can the following [41]: express using the objective of the dual problem (41). First, let us assume that and are the optimal Lagrange multiplier vectors at the points and , respectively. Replacing with in the dual objective expression of , we can write the following:

(42) Based on the subgradient definition, one can see that and are the subgradients of at the points and , respectively.

(40) and are all strictly positive, we can perSince form a change of the optimization variables for (40), i.e., and . Now, the Lagrangians of the original problem and the SOCP problem, i.e., (36) and (40), are exactly the same, leading to the same dual problem. APPENDIX IV PROOF OF PROPOSITION 4 It is shown in this Appendix that (12) and (13) are valid subgradients of (9) at the points and , respectively. The proof is inspired by a result in [38]. Let us start by equivalently rewriting the objective value of (9) by , where is the . optimal objective value of (6) at the point , and Since strong duality holds for (6), can be achieved by solving the Lagrange dual problem of (6) at the point . This can be expressed as

APPENDIX V PROOF OF THEOREM 1 The proof is a modification of the uplink-downlink duality results proposed in [38]. Let us begin by formulating a virtual dual uplink problem in CR system, where the SU specific SINR constraints are the same as in the downlink case. This is expressed as

(43) where and denote the virtual uplink power and its (constant) scaler for the SU , respectively. One can observe that (43) is exactly the same as (22) if we denote and . The vectors and can be interpreted as the virtual dual uplink powers for the SUs at the serving cell, SUs at the other cells and PUs, respectively. Moreover, the virtual uplink power of the SU is scaled in the objective by the constant that is a sum of the noise and fixed interference powers experienced by the SU in downlink. When is fixed, an explicit optimal solution to (22) is found by using the MMSE receiver which maximizes the SINR. The MMSE receiver is given by

(41) where the vectors sets respectively. and consist of the elements of the and , (44)

PENNANEN et al.: MULTI-CELL BEAMFORMING WITH DECENTRALIZED COORDINATION IN COGNITIVE AND CELLULAR NETWORKS

307

By substituting into (22) and using Lemma 1 from [38], the SINR constraints in (22) can be expressed as

achieve the following expression for

(45) These constraints are the same as in (21) except they are reversed. If we change the minimization into the maximization and reverse the SINR constraints in (22), the resulting problem is exactly (21). This reversing does not change the optimal value of the problem since the SINR constraints are met with equality at the optimal solution. Thus, (21) and (22) are equivalent problems having identical solutions. APPENDIX VI PROOF OF PROPOSITION 5 is optimally solved using (23). This We will prove that proof is inspired by the previous works in [20], [21], [45]. First, we set the gradient of the Lagrangian of (8) with respect to to zero. This is expressed as

(47) in (44), If this is compared to the MMSE expression of it can be observed that is a scaled version of , i.e., , where . still depends on , we need to find an expression Since are expressed only via . In this where respect, we can use the fact that the SINR constraints (8c) are satisfied with equality at the optimal point of (8). By substiinto the SINR constraints (8c), we can tuting write

(48) Now, (48) can be solved for REFERENCES
[1] J. Mitola and G. Q. Maguire, “Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal,” IEEE Pers. Commun., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 13–18, Aug. 1999. [2] S. Haykin, “Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201–220, Feb. 2005. [3] E. Tragos, S. Zeadally, A. Fragkiadakis, and V. Siris, “Spectrum assignment in cognitive radio networks: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tuts., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1108–1135, July 2013. [4] Q. Zhao and M. Sadler, “A survey of dynamic spectrum access,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 79–89, May 2007. [5] N. Devroye, M. Vu, and V. Tarokh, “Cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 12–23, Nov. 2008. [6] R. Zhang and Y. C. Liang, “Exploiting multi-antennas for opportunistic spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88–102, Feb. 2008. [7] D. Gesbert, M. Kountouris, R. W. Heath, C.-B. Chae, and T. Salzer, “Shifting the MIMO paradigm,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 36–46, Sep. 2007. [8] D. Gesbert, S. Hanly, H. Huang, S. Shamai, O. Simeone, and W. Yu, “Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: A new look at interference,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1–29, Dec. 2010. [9] 3GPP TS 36.300 Overall Description v11.5.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP); Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Mar. 2013. [10] 3GPP TR 36.814 Further Advancements for E-UTRA Physical Layer Aspects v9.0.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP); Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Mar. 2010. [11] L. Venturino, N. Prasad, and X. Wang, “Coordinated liner beamforming in downlink multi-cell wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1451–1461, Apr. 2010. [12] Q. Shi, M. Razaviyayn, Z. Luo, and C. He, “An iteratively weighted MMSE approach to distributed sum-utility maximization for a MIMO interfering broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4331–4340, Sep. 2011. [13] P. Komulainen, A. Tölli, and M. Juntti, “Effective CSI signaling and decentralized beam coordination in TDD multi-cell MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 2204–2218, May 2013. [14] M. Schubert and H. Boche, “Solution of the multiuser downlink beamforming problem with individual sinr constraints,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 18–28, Jan. 2004.

via (26).

(46) After rearranging, similar to that in [21], the function (23) is obtained. We can rewrite (23) as follows: . The function is a standard function if it satisfies the properties of 1) positivity, 2) monotonicity and 3) scalability, i.e., , then . 1) If 2) If . 3) For . We omit the proof which shows that these properties are satisfied by (23) since it follows the principles in [20]. Since standard function always converges to a unique fixed point for any initial value [45], the obtained is optimal. APPENDIX VII PROOF OF PROPOSITION 6 In this Appendix, we show that the optimal downlink beamformers can be solved via the optimal uplink beamformers by scaling. The proof is a modification of the results presented in [38]. After manipulation of (46), similar to that in [38], we can , then

308

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 62, NO. 2, JANUARY 15, 2014

[15] A. Tajer, N. Prasad, and X. Wang, “Robust linear precoder design for multi-cell downlink transmission,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 235–251, Jan. 2011. [16] D. Cai, T. Quek, C. Tan, and S. Low, “Max-min SINR coordinated multipoint downlink transmission—Duality and algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 5384–5395, Oct. 2012. [17] Y. Huang, G. Zheng, M. Bengtsson, K.-K. Wong, L. Yang, and B. Ottersten, “Distributed multicell beamforming with limited intercell coordination,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 728–738, Feb. 2011. [18] F. Rashid-Farrokhi, K. Liu, and L. Tassiulas, “Transmit beamforming and power control for cellular wireless systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1437–1450, Oct. 1998. [19] M. Bengtsson and B. Ottersten, “Optimal downlink beamforming using semidefinite optimization,” in Proc. Annu. Allerton Conf. Commun., Control, Comput., Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, Mar. 22–24, 1999, pp. 987–996. [20] A. Wiesel, C. Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 161–176, Jan. 2006. [21] H. Dahrouj and W. Yu, “Coordinated beamforming for the multicell multi-antenna wireless system,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1748–1759, May 2010. [22] A. Tölli, H. Pennanen, and P. Komulainen, “Decentralized minimum power multi-cell beamforming with limited backhaul signaling,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 570–580, Feb. 2011. [23] H. Pennanen, A. Tölli, and M. Latva-aho, “Decentralized coordinated downlink beamforming via primal decomposition,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 647–650, Nov. 2011. [24] C. Shen, T. H. Chang, K. Y. Wang, Z. Qiu, and C. Y. Chi, “Distributed robust multi-cell coordinated beamforming with imperfect CSI: An ADMM approach,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2988–3003, Jun. 2012. [25] R. Zhang, Y. C. Liang, Y. Xin, and H. V. Poor, “Robust cognitive beamforming with partial channel state information,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4143–4153, Aug. 2009. [26] G. Zheng, K.-K. Wong, and B. Ottersten, “Robust cognitive beamforming with bounded channel uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 4871–4881, Dec. 2009. [27] A. Tajer, N. Prasad, and X. Wang, “Beamforming and rate allocation in MISO cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 362–377, Jan. 2010. [28] K. Cumanan, L. Musavian, S. Lambotharan, and A. B. Gersham, “SINR balancing technique for downlink beamforming in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 133–136, Feb. 2010. [29] M. H. Islam, Y.-C. Liang, and A. T. Hoang, “Joint beamforming and power control in the downlink of cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf., Hong Kong, Mar. 15–18, 2007, pp. 21–26. [30] F. Xiao, J. Wang, and S. Li, “Joint power management and beamforming for base stations in cognitive radio systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Wireless Commun. Syst., Tuscany, Italy, Sept. 7–10, 2009, pp. 403–407. [31] K. T. Phan, S. A. Vorobyov, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and C. Tellambura, “Spectrum sharing in wireless networks via QoS-aware secondary multicast beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 2323–2335, June 2009. [32] M. Pesavento, D. Ciochina, and A. B. Gershman, “Iterative dual downlink beamforming for cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. Cognit. Radio Oriented Wireless Netw. Comm., Cannes, France, Jun. 9–11, 2010, pp. 1–5. [33] F. Negro, I. Ghauri, and D. T. M. Slock, “Beamforming for the underlay cognitive MISO interference channel via UL-DL duality,” in Proc. Cognit. Radio Oriented Wireless Netw. Commun., Cannes, France, Jun. 9–11, 2010, pp. 1–5. [34] E. A. Gharavol, Y.-C. Liang, and K. Mouthaan, “Robust downlink beamforming in multiuser MISO cognitive radio networks with imperfect channel-state information,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2852–2860, Jul. 2010. [35] I. Wajid, M. Pesavento, Y. C. Eldar, and A. Gershman, “Robust downlink beamforming for cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., Miami, FL, USA, Dec. 6–10, 2010, pp. 1–5. [36] Y. Huang, W. K. Li, Q. Ma, and S. Zhang, “Robust multicast beamforming for spectrum sharing-based cognitive radios,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 527–533, Jan. 2012. [37] H. Du, T. Ratnarajah, M. Pesavento, and C. Papadias, “Joint transceiver beamforming in MIMO cognitive radio network via secondorder cone programming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 781–792, Feb. 2012.

[38] W. Yu and T. Lan, “Transmitter optimization for the multi-antenna downlink with per-antenna power constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2646–2660, Jun. 2007. [39] D. P. Palomar and M. Chiang, “A tutorial on decomposition methods for network utility maximization,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1439–1451, Aug. 2006. [40] D. P. Bertsekas, A. Nedic, and A. E. Ozdaglar, Convex Analysis and Optimization. Belmont, MA, USA: Athena Scientific, 2003. [41] S. Boyd, L. Xiao, A. Mutapic, and J. Mattingley, Notes for EE364b, Subgradient methods Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, USA, Jan. 2007 [Online]. Available: http://ww.stanford.edu/class/ee364b/ [42] CVX: Matlab Software for Disciplined Convex Programming. ver. 2.0 Beta, CVX Research, Sep. 2012 [Online]. Available: http://cvxr.com/cvx [43] N. Boyd, S. Parikh, E. Chu, P. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Found. Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, Jan. 2011. [44] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. [45] R. Yates, “A framework for uplink power control in cellular radio systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1341–1347, Sep. 1995. Harri Pennanen (S’07) received his M.Sc. (Tech.) degree in electrical engineering from the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland in December 2007. He is currently working towards the D.Sc. (Tech.) degree at the Centre for Wireless Communications (CWC) at the University of Oulu. His research interests are in radio resource management for wireless communications systems with special focus on interference coordination and decentralized algorithms in cellular and cognitive networks. He has authored or coauthored 20 international journal and conference papers on the topics in wireless communications. Antti Tölli (M’08) received his D.Sc. (Tech.) degree in electrical engineering from the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland in June 2008. Before joining the Department of Communication Engineering and Centre for Wireless Communications (CWC) at the University of Oulu, he worked five years for Nokia Networks, IP Mobility Networks division as a Research Engineer and Project Manager both in Finland and Spain. Currently he works as a Senior Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor at the DCE of the University of Oulu. He served as a General co-chair of IEEE WDN in 2010 and 2011, as well as Finance chair in IEEE CTW 2011. His main research interests are in radio resource management and transceiver design for broadband wireless communications with special emphasis on distributed interference management in heterogeneous wireless networks. A. Tölli has published about 90 papers in peer-reviewed international journals and conferences, as well as, several patents all in the area of signal processing and wireless communications. Matti Latva-aho (SM’06) was born in Kuivaniemi, Finland in 1968. He received the M.Sc. (Tech.), Lic.Sc. (Tech.) and D.Sc. (Tech.) degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland in 1992, 1996 and 1998, respectively. From 1992 to 1993, he was a Research Engineer at Nokia Mobile Phones, Oulu, Finland. During the years 1994–1998 he was a Research Scientist at Telecommunication Laboratory and Centre for Wireless Communications (CWC) at the University of Oulu. Currently he is the Department Chair Professor of Digital Transmission Techniques and Head of Department at the University of Oulu, Department for Communications Engineering. Prof. Latva-aho was Director of Centre for Wireless Communications at the University of Oulu during the years 1998-2006. His research interests are related to mobile broadband wireless communication systems. Prof. Latva-aho has published over 200 conference or journal papers in the field of wireless communications. He has been TPC Chairman for PIMRC’06, TPC Co-Chairman for ChinaCom’07 and General Chairman for WPMC’08. He acted as the Chairman and vice-chairman of IEEE Communications Finland Chapter in 2000–2003.