 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Worstcasebased robust beamforming for wireless cooperative networks
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing volume 2014, Article number: 96 (2014)
Abstract
It is known that distributed beamforming techniques can improve the performance of relay networks by using channel state information (CSI). In practical applications, there exist unavoidably estimation errors of the CSI, which results in outage of quality of service (QoS) or overconsumption of transmit power. In this paper, we propose two worstcasebased distributed beamforming techniques that are robust to the channel estimation errors. In the worstcasebased approaches, the worst case in a set that includes the actual case is optimized. Therefore, the performance of the actual case can be guaranteed. In our first approach, the maximal total relay transmit power in the set is minimized subject to the QoS constraint. This distributed beamforming problem can be approximately solved using secondorder cone programming (SOCP). In our second method, the worst QoS in the set is maximized subject to the constraints of individual relay transmit powers. It is shown that the resultant problem can be approximately formulated as a quasiconvex problem and can be solved by using a bisection search method. Simulation results show that the proposed beamforming techniques are robust to the CSI errors and there is no outage of QoS or power in the proposed methods.
1 Introduction
Relay networks have recently attracted much interest in the literature as they can not only exploit cooperative diversity of different users in the network but also extend the coverage of wireless communication systems[1–11]. In such networks, users share their communication resources, including bandwidth and transmit power, to help each other in transmitting messages. Different relaying strategies have been proposed to achieve cooperative diversity. Amplifyandforward (AF), decodeandforward (DF), and compressandforward (CF) relaying protocols have been widely discussed in the literature[3, 4, 11]. Due to its simplicity and low implementation complexity, the AF protocol has become one of the most popular relaying protocols.
To improve the performance of the receiver, one can exploit distributed beamforming techniques by using channel state information (CSI). Distributed beamforming approaches that assume perfectly known CSI have been well studied in[12–16]. In[12] and[13], relay networks that consist of one source and one destination together with multiple relays are considered and the optimal power allocation at the relays is addressed by using the knowledge of instantaneous CSI. While in[14], the optimal power allocation at the relays is obtained by making use of the secondorder statistics of the CSI. The distributed beamforming problems for the relay networks that are comprised of multiple relays and multiple pairs of source and destination are proposed in[15] and[16]. The nearoptimal solutions to those beamforming problems are obtained by using secondorder cone programming (SOCP)[15] and semidefinite programming (SDP)[16], respectively.
The perfect knowledge of CSI is, however, difficult to obtain due to various reasons such as the error of channel estimation. Without the perfect knowledge of CSI, the conventional distributed beamformers will suffer from severe performance outage in practical applications. Many robust distributed beamforming techniques for relay networks have been proposed in the literature[17–24]. Several Bayesianbased beamforming approaches for multipleinput multipleoutput (MIMO) relay networks are developed in[17, 19] and[20], which consider optimizing an average objective function over channel uncertainties. When the requirement of quality of service (QoS) is considered, worstcasebased beamforming techniques are proposed in[18, 21–24]. Relay networks consisting of one source, one relay, and one destination with multiple antennas are considered in[18], while robust beamforming techniques that consider the relay networks consisting of one source, one destination, and multiple relays equipped with single antenna are proposed to relieve the performance degradation[21, 23]. In[21], the estimated CSI from the relays to the destination is assumed to have errors, while the CSI from the source to the relays is assumed to be perfectly known. However, both the sourcetorelay and relaytodestination channels are assumed to have estimation errors in[23]. The beamforming approaches in[22] and[24] are proposed for the relay networks consisting of multiple sources, relays and destinations, which consider the case that the channel uncertainty is imposed on the correlation matrices of the channel vectors. It is also assumed that the uncertainties of the correlation matrices are independent to each other. Since the matrices are functions of the same channel vectors, such assumptions may deviate from the practical situations. In addition, the resultant beamforming problems of[22–24] are formulated as SDP problems. Compared with SOCP, SDP has much higher computational complexity.
In this paper, we propose two worstcasebased robust distributed beamforming approaches for AFbased relay networks with one source, one destination, and multiple relays. We assume that both the channel vectors of the sourcetorelays and the relaystodestination have estimation errors with known norm bounds. In both of our beamforming approaches, the worst case of the total/individual relay transmit power and the worst case of the receive QoS in the normbounddetermined set are found by solving several subproblems, which are shown to have closedform solutions. It is shown that the solutions to these subproblems are consistent to each other, and the common case is referred to the worst case. We then optimize the performance of the worst case to improve the performance of the network. In our first approach, the maximal total relay transmit power in the set is minimized subject to the constraint of the receive QoS. In our second approach, we maximize the worstcase receive QoS under the constraints of individual relay transmit powers. Such a case is of particular interest in mobile communications or ad hoc networks when the relays are restricted by their own battery lifetimes.
It is shown in this paper that the first worstcasebased beamforming problem can be approximately solved using SOCP and the second beamforming problem can be approximately formulated as a quasiconvex problem, which can be solved by using a bisection search procedure. The problem of each step in the bisection search procedure is also shown to be an SOCP feasibility problem. Compared to the robust beamforming methods in[22–24] that use SDP, the computational complexity of the proposed method is much lower since the computational complexity of SOCP is$\mathcal{O}({N}^{3.5})$ while that of SDP is$\mathcal{O}({N}^{6.5})$[25]. Here, N denotes the number of variables. Numerical simulations show that the proposed beamforming techniques are robust to the CSI estimation errors and can guarantee no outage of either receive QoS or relay transmit power.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The signal model is presented in Section 2. The proposed worstcasebased distributed beamforming approaches are developed in Section 3. In Section 4, some simulation results are shown to illustrate the performance of the proposed methods, and the conclusions are given in Section 5.
Notations Throughout this paper, the bold upper and lowercase letters denote matrices and vectors, respectively. (·)_{ ij } denotes the (i,j)th element of a matrix. The i th element of a vector x is denoted by the corresponding lowercase letter with a subscript, i.e., x_{ i }. · and ∥·∥ denote the norm of a complex number and the Euclidean norm of a vector, respectively. (·)^{∗}, (·)^{T} and (·)^{H} stand for the conjugate, transpose, and Hermitian transpose, respectively. E{·} is the statistical expectation. Re{·} and Im{·} denote the real and imaginary parts of a complex value, respectively.
2 Signal model
As shown in Figure1, a halfduplex relay network in flat fading channels with one transmitting source, one destination, and R relays is considered. Each of the node is equipped with one antenna. We assume in this paper that there is no direct link between the source and the destination due to the poor quality of the channel state. In practical applications, the coefficients of the sourcetorelay and relaytodestination channels are obtained by certain channel estimation methods[26, 27]. Therefore, there exist unavoidably some estimation errors. Let${\stackrel{~}{f}}_{i}$ and${\stackrel{~}{g}}_{i}$, i = 1,⋯,R, denote the actual channel coefficients of the sourcetorelay and relaytodestination channels, respectively, and${e}_{{f}_{i}}$ and${e}_{{g}_{i}}$ denote the estimation errors of the channel coefficients${\stackrel{~}{f}}_{i}$ and${\stackrel{~}{g}}_{i}$, respectively. Assuming that the errors of the channel coefficients are bounded by some known constants ε > 0 and β > 0[28]:
Then, the actual channel coefficients belong to the following sets
where${\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}$ and${\stackrel{\u02c6}{g}}_{i}$ denote the estimates of the channel coefficients${\stackrel{~}{f}}_{i}$ and${\stackrel{~}{g}}_{i}$, respectively. If${\delta}_{{f}_{i}}={e}_{{f}_{i}}$ and${\delta}_{{g}_{i}}={e}_{{g}_{i}}$, then${f}_{i}={\stackrel{~}{f}}_{i}$ and${g}_{i}={\stackrel{~}{g}}_{i}$. Since the actual channel coefficient can be any element of the set, we can optimize the performance of the worst case in the sets to guarantee the performance of the actual case.
Let us consider a twostage AF relay transmission scheme. In the first stage of each transmission from the source to the destination, the source broadcasts information to the relays. In the second stage, the signal received by each relay is scaled by a complex coefficient and is then retransmitted to the destination. The signal received by the i th relay in the first stage can be written as
where n is the time index, s(n) is the signal transmitted by the source, and η_{ i }(n) is the receive noise at the i th relay. In the second stage, the relay transmits a scaled version of its received signal to the destination, which can be written as
where w_{ i } is the complex weight coefficient of the i th relay. We assume in this paper that the weight coefficients are determined by the destination and are then sent back to the relays via low rate feedback channels. Note that such network beamforming is commonly referred to as ‘distributed’ because it is assumed that no relay can share its received signals with any other relay. The signal received at the destination is given by
where υ(n) denotes the receive noise at the destination. Using (3) and (4), we can rewrite (5) as
Let${y}_{s}(n)\triangleq {\sum}_{i=1}^{R}{g}_{i}{w}_{i}^{\ast}{f}_{i}s(n)$ and${y}_{n}(n)\triangleq {\sum}_{i=1}^{R}{g}_{i}{w}_{i}^{\ast}{\eta}_{i}(n)+\upsilon (n)$ denote the signal and noise components of the received signal at the destination, respectively. To make the following derivation more concise, we rewrite y_{ s }(n) and y_{ n }(n) as
where$\mathbf{w}\triangleq {[{w}_{1},\cdots ,{w}_{R}]}^{T}$,$\mathbf{f}\triangleq {[{f}_{1},\cdots ,{f}_{R}]}^{T}$,$\mathbf{g}\triangleq {[{g}_{1},\cdots ,{g}_{R}]}^{T}$,$\mathbf{h}\triangleq \mathbf{f}\odot \mathbf{g}$ can be viewed as the vector of the equivalent channel coefficients between the source and the destination,$\mathit{\eta}(n)\triangleq {[{\eta}_{1}(n),\cdots ,{\eta}_{R}(n)]}^{T}$, ⊙ denotes the elementwise SchurHamadard product, and G is a diagonal matrix with g_{ i }, i = 1,⋯,R, on the diagonal, i.e.${\mathbf{G}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}\triangleq {g}_{i}$.
3 Robust distributed beamforming
In this section, we propose two worstcase based distributed beamforming approaches that are robust to the channel estimation errors. In our first approach, the maximal total relay transmit power in the predefined set of the channel coefficients is minimized while the condition of the worstcase QoS is satisfied. In our second method, the lowest QoS in the predefined set of the channel coefficients is maximized while the individual relay transmit powers are constrained.
3.1 Minimize the total relay transmit power
In this subsection, let us consider the beamforming problem that minimizes the worstcase total relay transmit power subject to the constraint that the lowest receive signaltonoiseratio (SNR) at the destination is satisfied. We use SNR as the measure of QoS in this paper. This worstcasebased beamforming problem can be written as
where P_{ T } is the total relay transmit power and γ > 0 is the minimal required receive SNR. It should be noticed that the value of γ should not be too large to result in the infeasibility of problem (9). According to (1) and (2), we can rewrite (9) as
Using (3) and (4), we can write the transmit power of the i th relay as
Assuming that the source signal and the relay noises are statistically independent, we can rewrite (11) as
where P_{0} denotes the power of the source signal s(n) and${\sigma}_{\eta}^{2}$ is the variance of the relay noise. According to (1), we can rewrite (12) as
Using (13), the total relay transmit power can be written as
Letting the elements on the diagonal matrix R be${\mathbf{R}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}\triangleq {P}_{0}{{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}+{\delta}_{{f}_{i}}}^{2}+{\sigma}_{\eta}^{2}$, we can rewrite (14) as
The receive SNR at the destination is given by
Using (7), we have
Using (1) and (2) and introducing$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\mathbf{f}}\triangleq {[{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{1},\cdots ,{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{R}]}^{T}$,$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\mathbf{g}}\triangleq {[{\u011d}_{1},\cdots ,{\u011d}_{R}]}^{T}$,${\mathit{\delta}}_{f}\triangleq {[{\delta}_{{f}_{1}},\cdots ,{\delta}_{{f}_{R}}]}^{T}$,${\mathit{\delta}}_{g}\triangleq {[{\delta}_{{g}_{1}},\cdots ,{\delta}_{{g}_{R}}]}^{T}$, we can rewrite the equivalent channel vector h as
where
Using (18), we can rewrite (17) as
According to (1) and (2), we have
As a result, the norm of the error vector δ_{ h } can be written as
Making use of (8), we can write the power of the noise component at the destination as
Assuming that the relay and the destination noises are statistically independent, we can rewrite (22) as
where${\sigma}_{\upsilon}^{2}$ denotes the variance of the noise at the destination and$\mathbf{D}\triangleq \mathbf{G}{\mathbf{G}}^{H}$ is a diagonal matrix with D_{ ii } = g_{ i }^{2}. Using (2), the diagonal elements of matrix D can be rewritten as${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}={{\u011d}_{i}+{\delta}_{{g}_{i}}}^{2}$.
Using (15), (20), and (23), the problem in (10) can be rewritten as
As the problem in (24) is difficult to solve, we solve the following problem instead
The optimal value of problem (25) gives the upper bound for the problem in (24) since the feasibility set of the inner problem in the constraint of (24) is enlarged by replacing${\delta}_{{f}_{i}}\le \epsilon $, i = 1,⋯,R, with ∥δ_{ h }∥ ≤ ζ. To simplify the problem in (25), we find first the optimal objective values of the following three subproblems:
where w is fixed in these subproblems. Although we solve the three subproblems in (26) to (28) independently, we find later that the solutions to these subproblems are consistent to each other in the worst case.
Using the definition that${\mathbf{R}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}={P}_{0}{{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}+{\delta}_{{f}_{i}}}^{2}+{\sigma}_{\eta}^{2}$ and the triangle inequality, we have
According to the constraints in (26), we can write the maximum of (29) as
where$\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{R}}$ is a diagonal matrix with${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{R}}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}\triangleq {P}_{0}({{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}}^{2}+2\epsilon {\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}+{\epsilon}^{2})+{\sigma}_{\eta}^{2}$. It can be shown that the equalities in (29) and (30) hold true when
Making use of (30) and (31), the optimal objective value of subproblem (26) can be written as
Using the triangle and CauchySchwarz inequalities, we have
Considering the constraint in subproblem (27), the minimum of (33) can be written as
Note that we require the values of ε and β to satisfy$\zeta \parallel \mathbf{w}\parallel <{\mathbf{w}}^{H}\stackrel{\u02c6}{\mathbf{h}}$. Otherwise, the receive SNR may be too low to satisfy the SNR requirement in (25).
It can be verified that the equalities in (33) and (34) hold true when
where$\varphi \triangleq \text{angle}({\mathbf{w}}^{H}\stackrel{\u02c6}{\mathbf{h}})$.
Combining (34) and (35), we can obtain the minimum of the objective function in subproblem (27)
Using the definition that${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}={{\u011d}_{i}+{\delta}_{{g}_{i}}}^{2}$ and the triangle equality, we have
Using the constraints in (28), the upper bound of${\mathbf{w}}^{H}\mathbf{D}({\delta}_{{g}_{i}})\mathbf{w}$ can be written as
where$\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{D}}$ is a diagonal matrix with${\stackrel{~}{\mathbf{D}}}_{\mathit{\text{ii}}}\triangleq {{\u011d}_{i}}^{2}+2\beta {\u011d}_{i}+{\beta}^{2}$. The equalities in (37) and (38) hold true when
Using (38) and (39), we can write the optimal value of the objective function in subproblem (28) as
We can see from (35) and (39) that the subproblems (27) and (28) achieve their optimal values at the same case if
In such case, the optimal value of the inner problem in the constraint of problem (25) can be written as
We can also see from (30) and (31) that the inner problem in the objective function of problem (25) achieves its optimum if (31) holds true. Therefore, the inner problems in the objective function and the constraint of problem (25) achieves their optima in the case if (31) and (41) hold true at the same time. In such worst case, the channel estimates satisfy the equality
Therefore, we can rewrite problem (25) as following by making use of (32) and (42)
Noticing that taking the square root of the objective function and both sides of the constraint does not change the solution set, we can rewrite problem (44) as
where we have used the property that w can be rotated with arbitrary phase without affecting the objective function value. Introducing auxiliary variables τ, τ_{1}, and τ_{2}, we can rewrite problem (45) in the form of SOCP as
which can be solved in polynomial time using interior point algorithm[29, 30]. Compared with the methods of[22–24] that use SDP, the robust beamforming approach (46) has much lower computational complexity. Specifically speaking, the computational complexity of (46) is$\mathcal{O}({R}^{3.5})$ and those of the methods in[22–24] are$\mathcal{O}({R}^{6.5})$.
3.2 Maximize the receive SNR
In this subsection, we propose another beamforming approach that maximizes the lowest receive SNR in the predefined set subject to the constraints of individual relay transmit powers. This worstcasebased beamforming problem can be formulated as
where P_{ i }^{max} denotes the maximal allowed individual relay transmit power. Different from the problem in (9), problem (47) considers the constraints of individual relay transmit powers. Such constraints correspond to the applications that the power of the relay is limited. According to (1) and (2), problem (47) can be rewritten as
Using (13), (16) to (18), and (23), the problem in (48) can be rewritten as
Instead of solving the problem in (49), we solve the following problem
It can be seen that the optimal value of (50) is a lower bound of that of problem (49) since the error set of the inner problem of the objective function is enlarged by using ∥δ_{ h }∥ ≤ ζ instead of${\delta}_{{f}_{i}}\le \epsilon $, i = 1,⋯,R. We consider solving the subproblem in the constraint of (50) first:
Applying the triangle inequality to the objective function in (51), we have
According to the constraint in (51), we can get
where${\alpha}_{i}\triangleq {({P}_{0}({{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}}^{2}+2\epsilon \phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\stackrel{\u02c6}{f}}_{i}+{\epsilon}^{2})+{\sigma}_{\eta}^{2})}^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The equalities in (52) and (53) hold true when
Making use of (53) and (54), the maximum of the objective function in (51) can be written as
Similar to the case in Section 3.1, the inner problems in the objective function and the constraints of problem (50) achieve their optima in the same case if (43) holds true, which can be obtained by using (35), (39), and (54). Using (36), (40), and (55), problem (50) can be rewritten as
Considering that taking square root of the objective function does not change the solution set and introducing an auxiliary variable τ > 0, we can rewrite (56) as
where we have used the fact that the weight vector w can be rotated with arbitrary phase without affecting the objective value.
The problem in (57) is a quasiconvex problem[30], which can be solved by using a bisection search method. In particular, for any given value of τ, we check the feasibility of the following convex problem
Let τ_{max} denote the optimal objective value of (57). If the feasibility problem in (58) is feasible, then we have τ ≤ τ_{max}. It can be proven by the contradict method. Assuming that τ > τ_{max} and problem (58) is feasible, we can see that it contradicts the assumption that τ_{max} is the optimal value of problem (57). On the contrary, if the feasibility problem (58) is infeasible, then, we can conclude that τ > τ_{max}.
As a result, we can apply a bisection search technique by checking the feasibility of the convex problem (58) in each step, which can be summarized as following:

1.
τ := (τ _{ l } + τ _{ u })/2.

2.
Solve the convex feasibility problem (58). If (58) is feasible, then τ _{ l } := τ, otherwise τ _{ u } := τ.

3.
If (τ _{ u }τ _{ l }) < ε _{0} then stop. Otherwise, go to Step 1.
Here, [τ_{ l },τ_{ u }] determines the interval that contains the optimal value of τ_{max} and ε_{0} is the tolerance of the error in finding τ_{max}.
4 Simulation results
In our simulations, we consider a relay network with R=20 relays. For each scenario, 300 simulation runs are used to obtain each simulation point. In all examples, we assume that the channels are of Rayleigh flatfading with unit variance. In all simulations, the variances of the relay and the destination noises are assumed to be equal to each other and the transmit power of the source is assumed to be 10 dB higher than the noise powers. Except that specified, the norm bounds of the channel estimation errors are assumed to be equal to each other, i.e., ε = β. The proposed beamformers are compared with the nonrobust distributed beamforming method proposed in[14]. In our simulations, the estimated instant CSI is used in the method of[14] instead of the secondorder statistics of the CSI.
4.1 Minimize the total relay transmit power
Figure2 shows the outage probability of the receive SNR at the destination. An SNR outage occurs when the receive SNR is lower than the minimal required SNR. We assume in this example that ε = β = 0.1. We can see from Figure2 that there is no SNR outage in the proposed robust method. While in the method of[14], there is an outage probability that is larger than 0.55 for all the tested points. In addition, this probability goes higher when the minimal required SNR increases. Figure3 compares the total relay transmit power versus the minimal required SNR for the case that ε = β = 0.05. The performance of the robust method of[23] is also plotted in Figure3. From the figure, we can see that the minimal relay transmit power of the proposed method is 4 dB lower than that of the method of[23]. We can also see that the relay transmit power of the proposed method is 2 dB higher than the case that the perfect CSI is used, which can be viewed as the price for the robustness.
Figure4 shows the total relay transmit power versus the minimal required SNR for several different values of ε and β. Figure5 displays the total relay transmit power versus ε and β for several different values of the minimal required SNR. It can be seen from Figures4 and5 that the total relay transmit power increases as the minimal required SNR becomes higher. The beamforming problem is infeasible when the minimal required SNR is higher than certain value. For example, we can see from Figure4 that the problem is infeasible when γ ≥ 18 dB for the case of ε = β = 0.1. In our simulations, it is viewed as infeasible when more than half of the simulation runs are infeasible. It can also be seen from the figures that the relay transmit power increases as the values of ε and β are getting higher. It is reasonable since the values of ε and β determine the sizes of the sets in (1) and (2).
In practical applications, the estimates of the norm bounds of the channel estimation errors may have errors. Let$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}$ and$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}$ denote the estimates of the norm bounds of the channel estimation errors ε and β, respectively. We simulate the case that$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}\ne \epsilon $ and$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}\ne \beta $. In this example, the channel coefficients are generated according to the values of ε and β, while the problem in (46) is solved using$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}$ and$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}$. Figure6 shows the outage probability of the receive SNR versus$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}$ for the case that$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}=\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}$ and ε = 0.1. We can see from Figure6 that the proposed method is robust to the estimation errors of ε and β since the outage probability of the receive SNR is close to 0 when$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}\ge 0.05$. There is no SNR outage when$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}\ge \epsilon $ since the actual case is included in the sets of (1) and (2).
4.2 Maximize the receive SNR
Figure7 shows the outage probability of the individual relay transmit power. It is assumed in this example that ε = β = 0.05. A power outage occurs when any of the relay transmit power P_{ i }, i = 1,⋯,R, is larger than the maximal allowed relay transmit power P_{ i }^{max}. In the examples of this subsection, it is assumed that all the relays have the same maximal allowed transmit power. We can see from Figure7 that the proposed robust method guarantees no power outage while the method of[14] with the estimated CSI has power outage in all the simulation points. Figure8 compares the receive SNR versus individual relay transmit power for both methods. We can see that the maximal SNR of the proposed method is 2 dB lower than the method of[14]. Although the robustness of the proposed method is at the cost of performance degradation, it is necessary in the case that the relays have strict power limitation.
Figure9 displays the maximal receive SNR versus the individual relay transmit power for several different values of ε and β. Figure10 shows the maximal receive SNR versus the values of ε and β for several different individual relay transmit power limitations. As can be seen from these figures, the maximal receive SNR increases as the transmit power increases. In addition, the maximal receive SNR decreases as the value of ε or β increases. Figure11 shows the outage probability of the individual relay transmit power versus the estimate of the norm of the channel estimation error ε. In this example, the channel coefficients are generated according to the values of ε and β while problem (57) is solved using$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}$ and$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}$. It is assumed that$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}=\stackrel{\u02c6}{\beta}$ and ε = β = 0.05. We can see from this figure that the outage probability of the transmit power is close to 0 when$\stackrel{\u02c6}{\epsilon}$ deviates from ε.
5 Conclusions
We have developed two worstcasebased robust distributed beamforming approaches for networks that consist of one source, one destination, and multiple relays. The worst performance in the set that is determined by the norm bounds of the sourcetorelay and relaytodestination channel estimation errors is optimized to guarantee the actual case. In the first distributed beamforming approach, we minimize the maximal total relay transmit power in the set subject to the constraint of receive QoS. In the second distributed beamforming method, the lowest receive QoS in the set is maximized subject to individual relay transmit power constraints. These two distributed beamforming problems are shown to be convex and quasiconvex problems, respectively, which can be efficiently solved by using interior point method. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed methods are robust to the estimation errors of the sourcetorelay and relaytodestination channels.
Author’s information
Haihua Chen is the corresponding author and coworks with the National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University.
References
 1.
Sedonaris A, Erkip E, Aazhang B: User cooperation diversity — Part I. System description. IEEE Trans. Commun 2003, 51: 19271938. 10.1109/TCOMM.2003.818096
 2.
Sedonaris A, Erkip E, Aazhang B: User cooperation diversity — Part II. Implementation aspects and performance analysis. IEEE Trans. Commun 2003, 51: 19391948. 10.1109/TCOMM.2003.819238
 3.
Laneman JN, Tse DNC, Wornell GW: Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: efficient protocols and outage behavior. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2004, 50: 30623080. 10.1109/TIT.2004.838089
 4.
Kramer G, Gastpar M, Gupta P: Cooperative strategies and capacity theorems for relay networks. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2005, 51: 30373063. 10.1109/TIT.2005.853304
 5.
Larsson P: Largescale cooperative relaying network with optimal coherent combining under aggregate relay power constraint. Proc. Future Telecomm. Conf. (FTC’03), Beijing, China, pp.166170.
 6.
Nabar RU, Boelcskei H, Kneubuhler FW: Fading relay channels: performance limits and spacetime signal design. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun 2004, 22: 10991109. 10.1109/JSAC.2004.830922
 7.
Boelcskei H, Nabar RU, Oyman O, Paulraj AJ: Capacity scaling laws in MIMO relay networks. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2006, 5: 14331444.
 8.
Janani M, Hedayat A, Hunter TE, Nosratinia A: Coded cooperation in wireless communications: spacetime transmission and iterative decoding. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2004, 52: 362371. 10.1109/TSP.2003.821100
 9.
Nosratinia A, Hunter TE, Hedayat A: Cooperative communication in wireless networks. IEEE Commun. Mag 2004, 42: 6873.
 10.
Laneman JN, Wornell GW: Distributed spacetimecoded protocols for exploiting cooperative diversity in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2003, 49: 24152425. 10.1109/TIT.2003.817829
 11.
Luo J, Blum RS, Cimini LJ, Greenstein LJ, Haimovich AM: Decodeandforward cooperative diversity with power allocation in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2007, 6: 793799.
 12.
Jing Y, Jafarkhani H: Network beamforming using relays with perfect channel information. Proc. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’07). IEEE, Piscataway, USA; 2007:473476,.
 13.
Zheng G, Wong KK, Paulraj A, Ottersten B: Collaborativerelay beamforming with perfect CSI: optimum and distributed implementation. IEEE Signal Process. Lett 2009, 16: 257260.
 14.
HavaryNassab V, Shahbazpanahi S, Grami A, Luo ZQ: Distributed beamforming for relay networks based on secondorder statistics of the channel state information. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2008, 56: 43064316.
 15.
Chen H, Gershman AB, Shahbazpanahi S: Distributed peertopeer beamforming for multiuser relay networks. Proc. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’09). IEEE, Piscataway, USA; 2009:22652268,.
 16.
FazeliDehkordy S, Shahbazpanahi S, Gazor S: Multiple peertopeer communications using a network of relays. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2009, 57(8):30533062.
 17.
Xing C, Ma S, Wu Y: Robust joint design of linear relay precoder and destination equalizer for dualhop amplifyandforward MIMO relay systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2010, 58(4):22732283.
 18.
Chalise BK, Vandendorpe L: MIMO relay design for multipointtomultipoint communications with imperfect channel state information. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2009, 57(7):27852796.
 19.
Xing C, Ma S, Fei Z, Wu Y, Vincent Poor H: A general robust linear transceiver design for multihop amplifyandforward MIMO relaying systems. IEEE Trans. on Signal Process 2013, 61(5):11961209.
 20.
Xing C, Ma S, Wu Y, Ng T: Transceiver design for dualhop nonregenerative MIMOOFDM relay systems under channel uncertainties. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2010, 58(12):63256339.
 21.
Zheng G, Wong KK, Paulraj A, Ottersten B: Robust collaborativerelay beamforming. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2009, 57: 31303143.
 22.
Krishna R, Cumanan K, Sharma V, Lambotharan S: A robust cooperative relaying strategy for wireless networks using semidefinite constraints and worstcase performance optimization. Proc. International Symposium on Information Theory and Its Applications (ISITA 2008). IEEE, Piscataway, USA; 2008:15.
 23.
Ubaidulla P, Chockalingam A: Robust distributed beamforming for wireless relay networks. Proc. International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’09). IEEE, Piscataway, USA; 23452349,.
 24.
Mahboobi B, Ardebilipour M, Kalantari A, SoleimaniNasab E: Robust cooperative relay beamforming. IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett 2013, 2(4):399402.
 25.
Vandenberghe L, Boyd S: Semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev 1996, 38(1):4995. 10.1137/1038003
 26.
Patel CS, Stüber GL: Channel estimation for amplify and forward relay based cooperation diversity systems. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun 2007, 6(6):23482356.
 27.
Jing Y, Yu X: MLbased channel estimations for nonregenerative relay networks with multiple transmit and receive antennas. IEEE J. Sel. Areas commun 2012, 30(8):14281439.
 28.
Cui S, Luo ZQ, Ding Z: Robust blind multiuser detection against CDMA signature mismatch. Proc. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’01). IEEE, Piscataway, USA; 2001:22972300,.
 29.
Sturm JF: Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones. Optim. Meth. Software 1999, 11–12: 625653.
 30.
Boyd S, Vandenberghe L: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York; 2004.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and by the open research fund of National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory, Southeast University (No. 2011D06). The results of this paper have been presented in part at the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Vancouver, Canada, May 2013, and the 8th International Conference on Communications and Networking in China (Chinacom), Guilin, China, August 2013.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, L., Chen, H. & He, M. Worstcasebased robust beamforming for wireless cooperative networks. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2014, 96 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/16876180201496
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Distributed beamforming
 Worst case
 Relay networks
 Robust