This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024256, IEEE
Communications Letters
Worst-Case Robust MIMO Transmission based on Subgradient
Projection
Wen Zhou, Chunguo Li, and Min Hua
Abstract—This letter studies robust multi-input multi-ouput
(MIMO) transmission strategies, where the transmitter only has
imperfect channel state information (CSI) and the transmission
covariance matrix is designed to maximize the worst system
capacity. We first extend Danskin’s Theorem to complex spaces
by the aid of Wirtinger’s subgradients. Then, with the extended
theorem, we propose a subgradient projection (SP) based
algorithm to solve the covariance matrix, in which finding
the worst channel error is key and can be formulated as
a nonconvex minimization problem. We deploy the successive
convex approximation (SCA) technique and create a sequence
of convex problems to solve this problem. Simulation results
demonstrate the robustness of the proposed algorithm.
Index Terms—MIMO, robust, subgradient, projection, succes-
sive convex approximation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Channel state information (CSI) significantly affects the
performance of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) communi-
cation systems since it is indispensable for many parts such
as precoding at the transmitter. However, due to the noise,
time variety of the channel, and other factors, it is difficult
to acquire perfect CSI. To overcome the detrimental effect of
imperfect CSI, the subject on how to enhance the robustness
of MIMO systems has been always concerned by researchers
[1]–[11].
Some researches focused on robust beamformer [3], [4],
precoder [5], or power allocation [6] at the transmitter. In [3],
the authors designed robust beamformers for MIMO systems
with multiple energy harvesting devices, in which several
matrix transformation skills are exploited to transform the
design problem to a standard semidefinite programming. In
[4], the authors studied robust secure beamformers in MIMO
wiretap channels, aiming at maximizing the worst-case secrecy
rate. The log det term in the optimization problem is linearized
and the alternating optimization technique is employed to
solve the beamformer. In [5], the authors designed robust
linear precoders for the downlink massive MIMO system
with imperfect CSI, where the design is mainly based on the
minorize-maximize (MM) algorithm.
Some researches considered robust receiver [7] or data de-
tector [9] at the receiver. By exploiting forward error correction
(FEC) code diversity, a joint quadratic-programming receiver
was developed for massive MIMO multiuser systems, which
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grants 61601275, 61671144, 61801225, and 61941115.
W. Zhou and M. Hua are with the College of Information Science and
Technology, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210018, China. (email:
wenzhou@ustc.edu; min hua@njfu.edu.cn).
C. Li is with the School of Information Science and Engineering, Southeast
University, Nanjing 210096, China. (email: chunguoli@seu.edu.cn).
1089-7798 (c) 2020 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 03:49:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
was shown to be able to recover signals from interfering
users efficiently. Others took into consideration both the
transmitter and receiver and designed robust transceivers [8],
[10]. The authors in [10] designed robust transmit and receiver
beamformers jointly to maximize the minimum signal-to-
interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) for MIMO interference
channels.
This letter focuses on the traditional point-to-point MIMO
system. Though various aspects including the robust subject
[1], [2] in such systems have been well investigated, the
study on this subject with new methods or perspectives is
still meaningful. Specifically, we study the worst-case robust
transmission for the point-to-point MIMO system, in which the
transmit covariance matrix is designed to maximize the worst-
case MIMO mutual information. First, we extend Danskin’s
Theorem [12, Proposition 4.5.1] to complex Euclidean spaces
and provide a formal proof. Then, based on this, we propose
a subgradient projection (SP) based method to solve the
maxmin problem, where finding the worst channel error is
crucial. Unlike [1] in which the authors used a low-SNR
approximation of mutual information to make the problem
convexification, we adopt the successive convex approximation
(SCA) technique and create a sequence of convex problems
to solve it. Computer simulation evaluates the performance
of the proposed method and demonstrates its superiority by
comparing a few other schemes.
Notations: Vectors are denoted by boldface lowercase
letters and matrices are denoted by boldface uppercase letters.
Rn and Cm×n represent the set of n × 1 real vectors and
the set of m × n complex matrices, respectively. For a
matrix X, the notations X∗ , XH , tr(X), and vec(X) denote
the conjugate, Hermitian transpose, trace, and vectorization
operation, respectively; Re(X) and Im(X) take the real and
imaginary part of X, respectively; λmax (X) denotes the
maximum eigenvalue of X; X ≽ 0 means that X is positive
semidefinite. We write CN(µ, R) to represent a complex
Gaussian distribution with mean µ and covariance matrix R.
Besides, ∥·∥F denotes the Frobenius norm, E(·) denotes the
statistical expectation, and I is an identity matrix.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Consider a point-to-point MIMO system, in which the
transmitter and receiver are equipped with NT and NR
antennas, respectively. The input-output relationship of the
system is given by
y = Hx + n, (1)
where x ∈ CNT ×1 and y ∈ CNR ×1 are the transmitted signal
and received signal vectors, respectively; H ∈ CNR ×NT is the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024256, IEEE
Communications Letters

channel matrix; n ∈ CNR ×1 is the( additive ) white Gaussian complex fields, it is necessary to generalize this theorem.
noise (AWGN) vector and n ∼ CN 0, σn2 I . The transmission Though Ref. [2] provided a generalized version of Danskin’s
∆ Theorem, the theoretical proof is not given. Here, we present
covariance matrix Q = E(xxH ) satisfies the transmission
power constraint tr(Q) ≤ PT . Besides, we define the MIMO a more specific version defined in complex fields and prove it
system signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by SNR = PT /σn2 . in detail.
While assuming perfect CSI at the receiver, CSI acquired To begin with, we present the definition of Wirtinger’s
by the transmitter may not be perfect, due to the channel subgradients for real-valued convex functions defined on
estimation error or other factors. Denote the acquired channel complex Hilbert spaces.
matrix at the transmitter as Ĥ. The error between Ĥ and the Definition 1 [13] Let T : H → R be a convex function
actual H is therefore expressed by defined on a complex Hilbert space. A complex vector d ∈ H
is called a Wirtinger’s subgradient of T at the point x0 if and
∆ = H − Ĥ. (2)
only if (iff )
We assume that the channel error ∆ is confined in an ellipsoid
T (x + x0 ) ≥ T (x0 ) + 2Re (⟨x, d∗ ⟩H ) , ∀x ∈ H, (5)
Φ, defined by
∆ { } { ( ) } where ⟨·, ·⟩H is the inner product of H.
Φ = ∆ : ||∆||W F ≤ ε = ∆ : tr ∆W∆
H
≤ ε2 , (3)
For the complex Euclidean space V1 defined on Cn×1 ,
where ε reflects the channel uncertainty and || · ||W
F is the
∆
the inner product is usually defined by ⟨x1 , x2 ⟩V1 = x1 xH2 .
weighted Frobenius norm with a positive definite matrix W. Consequently, the inner product for the complex Euclidean
If the transmitted signal x is Gaussian coded, the mutual ∆ ( )
space V2 over Cm×n is defined by ⟨X1 , X2 ⟩V2 = tr X1 XH 2 .
information or capacity of the MIMO system is given by Clearly, a Euclidean space is also a Hilbert space. For H = V2 ,
( )
C (Q, ∆) = log det I + σ12 HQHH D ∈ V2 is called a Wirtinger’s subgradient of T at X0 iff
[ n
( ) ( )H ] ( ( ))
1 T (X + X0 ) ≥ T (X0 ) + 2Re tr XDH , ∀X ∈ V2 .
= log det I + σ2 Ĥ + ∆ Q Ĥ + ∆ .
n

(4) Then, we present the extension of Danskin’s Theorem.

Assuming that Ĥ, ε, σn2 ,
and W are known by the Proposition 1: (Extension of Danskin’s Theorem) Let Z be
transmitter, the aim of this article is to design Q to maximize a compact subset of Cm1 ×n1 , and let ϕ : Cm2 ×n2 × Z →
the worst system capacity, namely, the minimum capacity R be continuous and such that ϕ(·, Z) : Cm2 ×n2 → R be
achieved by some channel error ∆ within the ellipsoid Φ. convex for each Z ∈ Z. If ϕ (·, Z) is differentiable for all
Subsequently, the problem is formulated as follows. Z ∈ Z and( ∇X∗)ϕ (X, ·) is continuous on Z for each X,
then ∇X∗ ϕ X, Z̄ is a conjugate Wirtinger’s
{ subgradient
} of
P1 : max min C (Q, ∆)
Q ∆
the convex function f , where Z̄ ∈ arg max ϕ (X, Z) and
( ≤ PT )
s.t. tr (Q) Z∈Z
tr ∆W∆H ≤ ε2 f (X) = max ϕ (X, Z).
Z∈Z
[ ]
Remark 1: Since it is assumed that the receiver has perfect vec (Re (X))
CSI, the optimal linear receivers are minimum mean square Proof: Let x = , x0 =
[ ] [vec (Im (X)) ]
error (MMSE) typed receivers, such as the MMSE receiver vec (Re (X0 )) vec (Re (Z))
and MMSE successive interference cancellation (MMSE-SIC) , and z = . We have
vec (Im (X0 )) vec (Im (Z))
receiver. The MMSE-typed receivers are information lossless. the function ϕ (x, z) = ϕ (X, Z) and ϕ (·, z) is still convex
At this time, only transmit design is enough. On the other for each z since the reshape of X and Z does not affect
front, robust transceiver design is suitable for the scenario its convexity. According to Danskin’s Theorem, the Fréchet
where both the transmitter and receiver have no accurate CSI. [ ∇(x ϕ (x
gradient , z̄) ]is a subgradient
( 0)) { of f at }x0 , where
In this scenario, it is superior to transmit design. However, vec (Re (Z̄))
z̄ = and z̄ ∈ arg max ϕ (x, z) . Hence,
compared with transmit design only, transceiver design is more vec Im Z̄ z
complicated, requiring more overheads.
f (x + x0 ) ≥ f (x0 ) + xT ∇x ϕ (x0 , z̄) , ∀x ∈ R2m1 n1 . (6)
III. T HE P ROPOSED S UBGRADIENT P ROJECTION BASED Since
M ETHOD ( ) [ ( )]∗
∇X∗ ϕ X0 , Z̄ = ∇X ϕ X0 , Z̄
In this section, we first extend Danskin’s Theorem [12, ∆ [ ( ) ( )]
= 21 ∇XU ϕ X0 , Z̄ + j∇XV ϕ X0 , Z̄
Proposition 4.5.1] to complex Euclidean spaces by the aid [ [ ( ( ))] ]
of Wirtinger’s subgradients. Then, we propose a SP-based vec [Re (∇X∗ ϕ (X0 , Z̄))]
and ∇x ϕ (x0 , z̄) = 2 , where
method to solve P1 . vec Im ∇X∗ ϕ X0 , Z̄
X = Re (X) + jIm (X) = XU + jXV , Eq. (6) can be
equivalently written as
A. Extension of Danskin’s Theorem { [ ( ( ))H ]}
The SP-based method is supported by Danskin’s Theorem. f (X + X0 ) ≥ f (X0 ) + 2Re tr X ∇X ϕ X0 , Z̄ ,
Since the theorem is defined in real fields and P1 involves ∀X ∈ Cm1 ×n1 .

1089-7798 (c) 2020 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 03:49:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024256, IEEE
Communications Letters

( )
Therefore,
( ∇X) ϕ X0 , Z̄ is a Wirtinger’s subgradient and where ∇∆∗ C (Q, ∆0 ) is the conjugate gradient of C (Q, ∆)
∇X∗ ϕ X0 , Z̄ is a conjugate Wirtinger’s subgradient of f at at ∆0 and it is given by
X0 . [ ( ) ( ) ]−1
∇∆∗ C (Q, ∆0 ) = σ12 I+ σ12 Ĥ + ∆0 Q Ĥ + ∆0 H
(
n n )
B. The Framework of the Proposed Method × Ĥ + ∆0 Q.
The reason that the extended Danskin’s Theorem is suitable With (10), construct a new objective function
for P1 includes two points. First, max min C (Q, ∆) is ( ) {( )[ ( )]H }
equivalent to min max −C (Q, ∆) and −C (Q, ∆) is convex ˜
C̃ Q, ∆; ∆ = tr ∆ − ∆ ∇∆∗ C Q, ∆
˜ ˜
given ∆. Second, note that there is an implicit requirement {( )∗ [ ( )]H } 2
in Danskin’s Theorem (original/extended version) that all ˜
+tr ∆− ∆ ˜ ∇∆ C Q, ∆ ˜ +τ ∆− ∆
elements of X should be independent. Though Q is Hermitian { [( )[ ( )]H ]}
F
2
and hence patterned, it can be treated as an unpatterned one in ˜ ∇∆∗ C Q, ∆ ˜
˜ .
= 2Re tr ∆− ∆ +τ ∆− ∆
which all elements are independent [14]. Based on these, P1 F
satisfies the prerequisite of the extended Danskin’s Theorem. ( ) (11)
Consequently, a conjugate Wirtinger’s subgradient is given ˜ is strongly convex with respect
It is clear that C̃ Q, ∆; ∆
( ) ( )
by to ∆; ∇∆∗x C Q, ∆ ˜ = ∇∆∗ C̃ Q, ∆; ˜ ∆˜ . The function
( ) ( ) x

∇Q∗ C Q, ∆ ¯ ˜ satisfies the requirement [15, Assumption 2].

[ ( )H( ) ]−1( ) ( ) C̃ Q, ∆; ∆
1 1
= σ2 I + σ2 Ĥ+ ∆ ¯ ¯
Ĥ+ ∆ Q ¯ H Ĥ+ ∆
Ĥ+ ∆ ¯ , With (11), we construct the following convex problem P4
(k)
n n
that is parameterized by ∆ ˜ (k) , where k is the iteration index.
(7)
¯ is obtained by solving the following problem. ( )
where ∆ (k) ˜ (k)
P4 : min C̃ Q, ∆; ∆
P2 : min C (Q, ∆) (∆ )
(
∆ ) s.t. tr ∆W∆H ≤ ε2
s.t. tr ∆W∆H ≤ ε2
{
The SCA-based } algorithm solves a sequence of convex
(k)
For the subgradient projection based method, at the k-th problems P4 so as to solve the original problem P2 .
iteration, we update Q by
[ ( )] Second, we present the analytical solution to P4 . Intro-
(k)
Qk+1 = P Qk + αk ∇Q∗ C Qk , ∆¯ , (8) (k)
ducing u ≥ 0, the lagrangian of P4 is given by
where αk is the step size and P(·) denotes the projection ( ) ( ) [ ( ) ]
L ∆, u; ∆˜ (k) = C̃ Q, ∆; ∆ ˜ (k) +u tr ∆W∆H − ε2 .
operation. Define
( ) ( ) ( )
Yk = Qk + αk ∇Q∗ C Qk , ∆¯ . (9) ∂L
Let ∂∆ ∗ = ∇∆∗ C
˜ (k) + τ ∆ − ∆
Q, ∆ ˜ (k) + u∆W =
−1
The projection of Yk , Qk+1 , can be obtained by solving the 0. It follows
( that) ∆ = (τ I + uW) B, where B =
following problem. −∇∆∗ C Q, ∆ ˜ (k) +τ ∆ ˜ (k) . Using the complementary slack
[ ( ) ]
P3 : min ∥Yk − Qk+1 ∥F condition u tr ∆W∆ − ε2 = 0, we derive the optimal
H
Qk+1
solution
s.t. Qk+1 ≽ 0, tr (Qk+1 ) ≤ PT . { ( )
(k) B/τ, if tr BWBH < τ 2 ε2 ;
The analytical solution to P3 can be referred to [2] and we ∆OPT = −1 (12)
(τ I + uW) B, otherwise,
do not go into more details. Besides, the step size αk can
where u can be obtained by solve the equation
∑∞e.g., αk = α0 /(k + 1), which
be chosen as a diminish type,
[
satisfies lim αk = 0 and k=0 αk = ∞. In this way, the −2 ]
k→∞ tr (τ I + uW) BWBH = ε2 . (13)
convergence is guaranteed [12].
[ ]
−2
Note that tr (τ I + uW) BWBH is an increasing func-
IV. S OLUTION TO THE N ONCONVEX M INIMIZATION tion of u and hence the solution of (13) can be easily found
P ROBLEM P2 by one-dimension linear search.
The minimization problem P2 is nonconvex because the Third, we discuss the parameter τ in (11) and the step size.
objective function is nonconvex with respect to ∆. In this ˜ (k) is updated by
At the k-th iteration, ∆
section, we propose an algorithm to solve P2 by use of SCA. ( )
First, we convexify the objective function C (Q, ∆) and ˜ (k+1) = ∆
∆ ˜ (k) + β (k) ∆(k) − ∆˜ (k) , (14)
OPT
create a sequence of convex problems. The Taylor expansion
of C (Q, ∆) at ∆0 is given by where β (k) is the step size. For simplicity, choose β (k) = 1.
{ } From the Lagrange mean-value theorem, we have
H
C(Q, ∆) = C (Q, ∆0 )+tr (∆−∆0 )[∇∆∗ C (Q, ∆0 )] { }
{ } C(Q, ∆1 )−C(Q, ∆2 ) = tr (∆1−∆2 ) [∇∆∗ C(Q, ∆1,2 )]
H
∗ H
+tr (∆−∆0 ) [∇∆ C(Q, ∆0 )] +o (∥∆−∆0 ∥F) , { }
∗ H
(10) +tr (∆1 − ∆2 ) [∇∆ C (Q, ∆1,2 )] .

1089-7798 (c) 2020 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 03:49:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024256, IEEE
Communications Letters

( )
Algorithm 1: SCA-based algorithm for P2 . which is O NR3 +NR2 NT +NR NT2 +NT3 . For ( Algorithm 2,)
1: ˜ (0) ∈ Φ and set
Initialization: let τ = L∇C /4, find ∆ the complexities
( ) of Steps 3 and 4 are O N R N 2
T + N 3
T
k = 0. and O NT3 , respectively. Note that the one-dimension linear
2: Solve P4
(k) (k)
and obtain the optimal solution ∆OPT search is omitted since its complexity is usually trivial.
according to (12). To sum (up, the complexity of the proposed
)] algorithm is
3: Update ∆ ˜ (k+1) := ∆(k) and k := k + 1. O [T1 T2 NR3 + NR2 NT +NR NT2 + NT3 , where T1 and T2
OPT
4: Repeat steps 2-4 until convergence. are the iteration numbers for Algorithms 1 and 2, respectively.
Table I lists computation complexities of a few typical
methods. The approach in [16] is adopted to analyze the
Algorithm 2: SP-based algorithm for P1 . complexity of the WMMSE-based method, for which n =
( )
1: Initialization: find a feasible Q0 and set k = 0. O NT2 , l = NT2 + 2NT NR + 1, T0 is the iteration
2: Given Qk , solve P2 by Algorithm 1 and obtain the optimal number, and ϵ is a predetermined accuracy. Observe that, the
solution, denoted(by ∆ ¯k . WMMSE-based method has highest complexity, followed by
)
3: Compute ∇Q∗ C Qk , ∆ ¯ k by (7) and Yk by (9). the proposed method, finally the other two methods.
4: Solve P3 and obtain Qk+1 .
5: Increase k := k+1 and repeat steps 2-5 until convergence. TABLE I: Computation complexities of several methods
Method Complexity
Proposed ( )]
O [T1 T2 + NR 2 3
NT +NR NT2 + NT3
NR
It follows that method
( )
|C (Q, ∆(1 ) − C (Q, ∆2 )| Scheme in [1] O NT3 + NT2 NR
) ( 3 )
≤ 2 max ∥∇∆∗ C (Q, ∆1,2 )∥F · ∥∆1 − ∆2 ∥F , BF O NT + NT2 NR
WMMSE-based [ √ ( ) ]
where ∆1,2 = θ∆1 + (1 − θ) ∆2 with 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. Since O T0 l + 2·n· l3 + nl2 + NT4 + n2 log(1/ϵ)
method [4], [11]
∥∇∆∗ C( (Q, ∆1,2
) )∥
F ( )
1
< σ2 Ĥ + ∆ Q ≤ σ12 Ĥ + ∆ · ∥Q∥F
n ( ) F (
n F ) V. S IMULATION R ESULTS

≤ PσT2 Ĥ + ∆ ≤ PσT2 Ĥ + ∥∆∥F , Computer simulation is deployed to investigate the per-
n F n F
formance of proposed SP-based algorithm. We assume the
we consider the following problem on ∥∆∥F . ′
nominal channel Ĥ ∼ CN(0, I) and generate 100 Ĥ s
2 ( )
P5 : max ∥∆∥F = tr ∆∆H randomly. The parameter ε is further modeled as ε = εr Ĥ ,
(
∆ ) F
s.t. tr ∆W∆H ≤ ε2 where 0 ≤ εr < 1 denotes the relative uncertainty. For
simplicity, the weighted matrix W = I. A few methods are
Letting X∆ = ∆H ∆ and Y∆ = WX∆ , P5 is transformed incorporated for comparison: the equal-power transmission,
into an equivalent problem. beamforming (BF) scheme, the scheme in [1], and the
( )
P5′ : max tr W−1 Y∆ WMMSE-based method [4], [11]. Given Ĥ and transmission
Y∆
covariance matrix, their worst channel errors can be found via
s.t. tr (Y∆ ) ≤ ε2 , Y∆ ≽ 0.
Algorithm 1.
√
Solving P5′ , one obtains max∥∆∥F = ε λmax (W−1 ). Fig. 1a shows the average worst-case capacities of different
Hence, schemes, where NT = NR = 4 and εr = 0.3. Observe
[ √ ] that, at low SNR, the proposed method has nearly the same
PT ∆
∥∇∆∗ C(Q, ∆1,2 )∥F < 2 Ĥ +ε λmax (W−1 ) = cST performance with the scheme in [1]. At moderate-to-high
σn F
SNR, it outperforms the scheme [1]. What is more, the
and the Lipschitz constant of C (Q, ∆) can be set to L∇C = performance gap between them increases with increasing SNR.
2cST . With [15, Assumption 2(B2)], and [15, Theorem 2], it This is because the optimal solution, derived with low-SNR
is derived that τ ≥ L∇C /4 = cST /2. approximation of MIMO capacity [1], only holds at low SNR,
To sum up, for the step size β (k) = 1 and τ ≥ cST /2, and it is no longer optimal at moderate-to-high SNR. Besides,
the condition in [15, Theorem 2] is satisfied and the SCA- among all schemes listed for comparison, the WWMSE-
based algorithm will converge to some stationary point, which based method has the best performance and it is closest to
is usually local optimal. The proposed algorithm of solving the proposed method; however, its complexity is the highest
P2 is summarized in Algorithm 1. The whole process of the among all schemes. Fig. 1b is another example where we set
proposed SP-based method is summarized in Algorithm 2. NT = NR = 6 and εr = 0.5. Again, the proposed method is
Remark 2 (Complexity analysis): We briefly analyze the superior to the other four schemes.
complexity of the proposed algorithm. For X ∈ Cn×n , both Fig. 2 presents the average worst capacities of different
its eigen-decomposition
( ) and inversion have the complexity methods versus the complexity order, where SNR = 5 dB,
of O n3 ; the product of two matrices X1 ∈ Cm1 ×n and εr = 0.3, and NT = NR varies from 2 to 6. Note that
X2 ∈ Cn×m2 has a complex of O (m1 nm2 ). The computation if an algorithm has a complexity of O (f (n)),√ f (n) is the
of Algorithm 1 mainly lies in Step 2, the complexity of complexity order. Typically, the accuracy ϵ is 2.22 × 10−8

1089-7798 (c) 2020 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 03:49:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3024256, IEEE
Communications Letters

VI. C ONCLUSION
Average worst capacity (bit)
Proposed method
10 This letter studied the problem on robust MIMO trans-
Scheme in [1]
Equal-power mission in the presence of imperfect CSI. The problem was
8 BF formulated as a maxmin problem, in which the transmission
WMMSE covariance matrix was optimized to maximize the worst-case
6 capacity. With the aid of Wirtinger’s subgradients, we extended
Danskin’s Theorem from real spaces to complex spaces and
4 proved it theoretically. With this theorem and SCA technique,
we proposed a SP-based algorithm to solve the maxmin
2
problem. Simulation results demonstrated the robustness of the
proposed algorithm and showed its superiority by comparing
-10 -5 0 5 10 a few other schemes.
SNR (dB)
(a) NT = NR = 4 and εr = 0.3 R EFERENCES
[1] J. Wang and D. P. Palomar, “Worst-case robust MIMO transmission with
12 imperfect channel knowledge,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
Average worst capacity (bit)

Proposed method vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 3086–3100, 2009.

Scheme in [1] [2] N. Shariati, J. Wang, and M. Bengtsson, “Robust training sequence
10
Equal-power design for correlated MIMO channel estimation,” IEEE Transactions
BF on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 107–120, 2014.
8 WMMSE [3] C. Xing, N. Wang, J. Ni, Z. Fei, and J. Kuang, “MIMO beamforming
designs with partial CSI under energy harvesting constraints,” IEEE
6 Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 363–366, 2013.
[4] M. Jiang, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, Q. Li, and J. Qin, “Robust secure
4 beamforming in MIMO wiretap channels with deterministically bounded
channel errors,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67,
no. 10, pp. 9775–9784, 2018.
2 [5] A. Lu, X. Gao, W. Zhong, C. Xiao, and X. Meng, “Robust transmission
for massive MIMO downlink with imperfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions
on Communications, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 5362–5376, 2019.
-10 -5 0 5 10 [6] M. F. Hanif and Z. Ding, “Robust power allocation in MIMO-NOMA
SNR (dB) systems,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp.
1541–1545, 2019.
(b) NT = NR = 6 and εr = 0.5 [7] K. Wang and Z. Ding, “FEC code anchored robust design of massive
Fig. 1: Average worst-case capacity v.s. SNR. MIMO receivers,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 8223–8235, 2016.
[8] A. C. Cirik, S. Biswas, O. Taghizadeh, and T. Ratnarajah, “Robust
transceiver design in full-duplex MIMO cognitive radios,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1313–1330,
Average worst capacity (bit)

7 WMMSE
BF
6 Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1663–
5 [10] C. Li, C. He, L. Jiang, and F. Liu, “Robust beamforming design for
4 [11] Q. Li and L. Yang, “Robust optimization for energy efficiency in MIMO
3 Proposed method
Scheme in [1]
10 2 10 6 10 10
Complexity order
Fig. 2: Average worst-case capacity v.s. complexity order.
[17]. Besides, when setting T0 = 5, T1 = 10, and T2 = 100,
the proposed method and WMMSE-based method converge
well. Observe that, the average worst capacity increases with
the complexity order; given an average worst capacity, the
WMMSE-based method has highest complexity, followed by
the proposed method, BF, and the scheme in [1].
2018.
[9] Y. Jeon, N. Lee, and H. V. Poor, “Robust data detection for MIMO
systems with one-bit ADCs: A reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE
1676, 2020.
MaxMin SINR in MIMO interference channels,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 724–727, 2016.
two-way relay networks with SWIPT,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14,
no. 1, pp. 196–207, 2020.
[12] D. P. Bertsekas, A. Nedić, and A. E. Ozdaglar, Convex Analysis and
Optimization. Belmont, MA, USA: Athena Scientific, 2003.
[13] P. Bouboulis and S. Theodoridis, “Extension of Wirtinger’s calculus to
reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces and the complex kernel LMS,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 964–978, 2011.
[14] A. Hjørungnes, Complex-Valued Matrix Derivations with Applications
in Signal Processing and Communications. Cambridge Uniersity Press,
2011.
[15] G. Scutari, F. Facchinei, and L. Lampariello, “Parallel and distributed
methods for constrained nonconvex optimization–Part I: Theory,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1929–1944, 2017.
[16] K. Wang, A. M. So, T. Chang, W. Ma, and C. Chi, “Outage constrained
robust transmit optimization for multiuser MISO downlinks: Tractable
approximations by conic optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 62, no. 21, pp. 5690–5705, 2014.
[17] M. Grant and S. Boyd. CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex
programming, version 2.2. Available: http://cvxr.com/cvx.

1089-7798 (c) 2020 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cornell University Library. Downloaded on September 17,2020 at 03:49:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.