Real-Time and Security-Aware Precoding in RIS-Empowered Multi-User Wireless Networks

Abstract

In this letter, we propose a deep-unfolding-based framework (DUNet) to maximize the secrecy rate in reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) empowered multi-user wireless networks. To tailor DUNet, first we relax the problem, decouple it into beamforming and phase shift subproblems, and propose an alternative optimization (AO) based solution for the relaxed problem. Second, we apply Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions to obtain a closed-form solutions for the beamforming and the phase shift. Using deep-unfolding mechanism, we transform the closed-form solutions into a deep learning model (i.e., DUNet) that achieves a comparable performance to that of AO in terms of accuracy and about 25.6 times faster.

I Introduction

To provide coverage to the inaccessible spots and enhancing the connectivity in the sixth generation (6G) networks, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) can be used to establish line-of-sight (LoS) links[1, 2, 3]. Due to its passive nature, RIS are energy-efficient and flexible for installation [4]. However, RIS-assisted communications entail security issues due to the passive eavesdroppers which require secrecy-aware designs as well as difficulties in acquiring channel state information (CSI) [5]. Besides, RIS-assisted communications are complex and often associated with highly nonconvex problems [5]. Different studies investigated some of these problems [6, 7]. However, the proposed solutions in these studies are iterative, slow, and may not meet the targets of the six generation (6G) networks in terms of real-time inference.

Recently, deep learning approaches have been widely used to handle different problems in wireless systems [8, 9, 10]. Some studies considered deep learning to design solutions for RIS-assisted networks [11, 13]. Most of the studies in the literature have considered data-driven deep learning models which require large data set for training. Hence, to decrease the required amount of data while achieving near optimal performance, deep-unfolding mechanism can be used to design highly efficient models.

In this work, we propose a deep-unfolding based framework (DUNet) to optimize the secrecy rate in multiuser RIS-assisted communication. We formulate the optimization problem as a secrecy rate maximization and propose a solution for the relaxed version of the problem. Next, we apply the optimality conditions to design DUNet based on the closed-form expression of the beamforming and the phase shift. The proposed deep learning model achieves performance comparable to that of the numerical solution and about 25.6 times faster.

II System Model And Problem Formulation

Figure 1: RIS-empowered multiuser network.

We consider a downlink multiuser RIS network as shown in Fig. 1, where we have a base station (BS) and communicates with $K$ legitimate users while $E$ ground eavesdroppers are attempting to wiretap $K$ communications. The BS, legitimate users, and eavesdroppers are equipped multiple antennas denoted as $N_{B},N_{K},$ and $N_{E}$ formulating uniform linear arrays (ULA). The RIS is equipped with $J$ elements. The coordinates of UAV, legitimate user $k$, eavesdropper $e$, and the RIS are respectively given as $C_{B}=\left(x_{B},y_{B},H_{B}\right)^{T}$, $C_{k}=\left(x_{k},y_{k}\right)^{T}$, $C_{e}=\left(x_{e},y_{e}\right)^{T}$, and $C_{R}=\left(x_{R},y_{R},z_{R}\right)^{T}$.

Assuming that the LoS link is blocked and the received signals at the users are scattering components. Hence, using Rayleigh fading model, the channel modelling between the BS and $k$ and $e$ is given as

$${{\bf{h}}_{B,k}}=\sqrt{\rho d_{B,k}^{-\alpha}}\left({\sqrt{\frac{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,k}}}}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,k}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,k}^{LoS}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,k}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,k}^{NLoS}}\right)\in{\mathbb{C}^{{N_{B}}\times{N_{K}}}},$$ (1)

$${{\bf{h}}_{B,e}}=\sqrt{\rho d_{B,e}^{-\alpha}}\left({\sqrt{\frac{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,k}}}}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,k}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,e}^{LoS}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,e}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,e}^{NLoS}}\right)\in{\mathbb{C}^{{N_{B}}\times{N_{E}}}},$$ (2)

$${{\bf{h}}_{B,R}}=\sqrt{\rho d_{B,R}^{-\kappa}}\left({\sqrt{\frac{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,R}}}}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,R}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,R}^{LoS}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{{{{\rm{R}}_{B,R}}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,R}^{NLoS}}\right)\in{\mathbb{C}^{{J}\times{N_{B}}}},$$ (3)

where $\rho$ is the channel power gain at the reference distance $d_{0}=1$ m, ${d_{B,i}}=\sqrt{\left\|{{C_{B}}-{C_{i}}}\right\|},i\in\left\{{k,e,R}\right\}$ is the distance between the BS and the users, and $\alpha$ and $\kappa$ are the pathloss exponents. $\rm R_{B,i}$ is the Rician factor between the BS and users. ${{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,i}^{NLoS}},i\in\left\{{k,e,R}\right\}$ are assumed to be independent and identically distributed variables following circularly symmetric complex Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance. ${{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,k}^{LoS}}$ and ${{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,e}^{LoS}}$ are given as follows

$${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,k}^{LoS}={\bf{a}}_{{N_{B}}}^{T}{{\bf{a}}_{{N_{k}}}},$$ (4)

$${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,e}^{LoS}={\bf{a}}_{{N_{B}}}^{T}{{\bf{a}}_{{N_{e}}}},$$ (5)

where

$$\begin{array}[]{*{20}{l}}{{{\bf{a}}_{{N_{B}}}}=\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{l}}{1,\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{B}}}}{\lambda}\left({\cos{\varpi_{B,i}}\sin{\zeta_{B,i}}}\right)}\right),...,}\\ {\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{B}}}}{\lambda}\left({{N_{B}}-1}\right)\left({\cos{\varpi_{B,i}}\sin{\zeta_{B,i}}}\right)}\right)}\end{array}}\right],i\left\{{k,e}\right\},}\\ \begin{array}[]{l}{{\bf{a}}_{{N_{k}}}}=\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{l}}{1,\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{k}}}}{\lambda}\left({\cos{\phi_{B,k}}\sin{\vartheta_{B,k}}}\right)}\right),...,}\\ {\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{k}}}}{\lambda}\left({{N_{K}}-1}\right)\left({\cos{\phi_{B,k}}\sin{\vartheta_{B,k}}}\right)}\right)}\end{array}}\right],\\ {{\bf{a}}_{{N_{e}}}}=\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{l}}{1,\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{e}}}}{\lambda}\left({\cos{\phi_{B,e}}\sin{\vartheta_{B,e}}}\right)}\right),...,}\\ {\exp\left({j\frac{{2\pi{d_{e}}}}{\lambda}\left({{N_{E}}-1}\right)\left({\cos{\phi_{B,e}}\sin{\vartheta_{B,e}}}\right)}\right)}\end{array}}\right]\end{array}\end{array}$$

where $d_{B},d_{k},$ and $d_{e}$ are the antenna elements separation distance for the case of BS, legitimate user $k$ , and eavesdropper $e$, respectively. ${\zeta_{B,i}}$ and ${\varpi_{B,i}}$ are the azimuth and elevation angles of departure. ${\vartheta_{B,i}}$ and ${\phi_{B,i}}$ represent are the azimuth and elevation angles of arrival. The LoS channel between the ${{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,R}^{LoS}}$ is given as follows

$${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{B,R}^{LoS}={\bf a}_{J}^{T}{{\bf a}_{{N_{B}}}},$$ (6)

The array responses ${\bf a}_{J}$ and ${{\bf a}_{{N_{B}}}}$ are defined as

$${{\bf a}_{J}} =\left[{1,...,\exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{x}}\left({{J_{x}}-1}\right)\sin\phi\cos\varphi}\right)}\right]$$ (7)

$$\otimes\left[{1,...,\exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{z}}\left({{J_{z}}-1}\right)\cos\phi}\right)}\right]$$

$${{\bf{a}}_{{N_{B}}}}=\left[\begin{array}[]{l}1,\exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{{B}}}\cos\theta}\right),...,\\ \exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{{B}}}\left({{N_{B}}-1}\right)\cos\theta}\right)\end{array}\right],$$ (8)

where $d_{x}$ and $d_{z}$ represent RIS elements separation distance along x-axis and z-axis, respectively. $J_{x}$ and $J_{z}$ are the RIS elements along the x-axis and z-axis, respectively. $\sin\phi\cos\varphi=\frac{{{x_{R}}-{x_{B}}}}{{{d_{B,R}}}}$ and $\cos\phi=\frac{{{H_{B}}-{z_{R}}}}{{{d_{B,R}}}}$ with $\varphi$ and $\phi$ respectively represent the azimuth angle of arrival and the elevation angle of arrival. $\lambda$ is the wavelength. $\theta$ is the angle of departure. The channels between the users and the RIS contain both LoS and NLoS. Using Rician channel modeling, these channels are given as

$${{\bf{h}}_{R,i}}=\sqrt{\rho d_{R,i}^{-\kappa}}\left({\sqrt{\frac{{\rm{R}}_{R,i}}{{{\rm{R}}_{R,i}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,i}^{LoS}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{{{\rm{R}}_{R,i}+1}}}{\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,i}^{NLoS}}\right),i\in\left\{{k,e}\right\}$$ (9)

where $d_{R,i}$ is the distance between the RIS and the user $i$ and $\kappa$ is the pathloss exponent. ${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,k}^{NLoS}\in{\mathbb{C}^{J\times{N_{K}}}}$ and ${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,e}^{NLoS}\in{\mathbb{C}^{J\times{N_{E}}}}$ respectively denote the NLoS link between the RIS and the user, RIS and the eavesdropper, which are modeled as complex Gaussian distributed with zero mean and unit variance. ${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,i}^{LoS}$ is the LoS link between the user and the RIS can be expressed as

$${\bf{\tilde{h}}}_{R,i}^{LoS} =\left[{1,...,\exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{x}}\left({{J_{x}}-1}\right)\sin{\phi_{i}}\cos{\varphi_{i}}}\right)}\right]$$ (10)

$$\otimes\left[{1,...,\exp\left({-j\frac{{2\pi}}{\lambda}{d_{z}}\left({{J_{z}}-1}\right)\cos{\phi_{i}}}\right)}\right]$$

where $\varphi_{i}$ and $\phi_{i}$ respectively represent the azimuth angle of arrival and the elevation angle of arrival of the RIS and the user link. The transmit signal at the BS can be expressed as

$${\rm{x}}={\bf{Ws}}+{\bf{v}}{\rm{,}}$$ (11)

where ${\bf{W}}=\left[{{{\bf{w}}_{1}}{\rm{,}}{{\bf{w}}_{2}},...,{{\bf{w}}_{K}}}\right]$ with ${{\bf{w}}_{k}}\in{\mathbb{C}^{{N_{B}}\times{N_{K}}}}$ is the precoding matrix, ${\bf{s}}$ is the information signal with $\mathbb{E}\left({{{\bf{s}}_{k}}{\bf{s}}_{k}^{H}}\right)={\bf{I}}_{N_{K}}$, and ${\mathbf{v}}$ is the artificial noise vector due to the hardware imperfections where ${\bf{v}}\sim{\cal C}{\cal N}\left({0,\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left\{{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}{{{\bf{w}}_{i}}{\bf{w}}_{i}^{H}}}\right\}}\right)$ and $\upsilon\in\left[{0,1}\right]$ is the proportionality coefficient to characterize the hardware impairments. Let ${\mathbf{\Theta}}={\rm{diag}}\left({\exp\left({j{\omega_{1}}}\right),..,\exp\left({j{\omega_{m}}}\right),...,\exp\left({j{\omega_{J}}}\right)}\right)$ with ${\omega_{m}}$ represents the phase shift of the element $m$. The received signal can be given as

$${{{{\bf{d}}_{k}}}} {{=\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{h}}_{R,k}^{H}}\Theta{{\bf{h}}_{B,R}}}\right)\left({{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{s_{k}}+{\bf{v}}}\right)}}$$ (12)

$${{+\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{h}}_{R,k}^{H}}\Theta{{\bf{h}}_{B,R}}}\right)\sum\limits_{j\in K/k}{{{\bf{w}}_{j}}{s_{j}}}{\rm{+}}{{\bf{z}}_{k}}}}$$

where ${z_{k}}\sim{\cal C}{\cal N}\left({0,\sigma_{k}^{2}{{\bf{I}}_{N_{K}}}}\right)$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Similarly, the signal of the eavesdropper $e$ can be expressed as ${{\bf{d}}_{e}}=\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{\bf{h}}_{R,e}^{H}}\Theta{{\bf{h}}_{B,R}}}\right)\left({{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{s_{k}}+{\bf{v}}}\right)+\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{\bf{h}}_{R,e}^{H}}\Theta{{\bf{h}}_{B,R}}}\right)\sum\limits_{j\in K/k}{{{\bf{w}}_{j}}{s_{j}}}{\rm{+}}{{\bf{z}}_{e}}$ with ${z_{e}}\sim{\cal C}{\cal N}\left({0,\sigma_{e}^{2}{{\bf{I}}_{N_{E}}}}\right)$. Let the estimated cascaded channel matrix for the user $k$ be denoted as ${{\bf{G}}_{k}}={\left[{{{\bf{g}}_{1}},...,{{\bf{g}}_{{N_{K}}}}}\right]^{T}}\in{\mathbb{C}^{{N_{K}}\times{N_{B}}J}},$ with ${{\bf{g}}_{{N_{K}}}}={\left[{{\bf{g}}_{1,{N_{K}}}^{T},...,{\bf{g}}_{{N_{B}},{N_{K}}}^{T}}\right]^{T}}$ denotes the estimated cascaded channel vector at the receiving antenna ${N_{K}}$. The received signal in (12) can be rewritten for the case of the user $k$ as follows

$$\begin{array}[]{l}{{\bf{d}}_{k}}=\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right)\left({{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{s_{k}}+{\bf{v}}}\right)\\ +\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right)\sum\limits_{j\in K/k}{{{\bf{w}}_{j}}{s_{j}}}{\rm{+}}{{\bf{z}}_{k}},\end{array}$$ (13)

where ${{\bf{1}}_{F}}={\left[{{\bf{1}}_{1}^{T},...,{\bf{1}}_{{N_{B}}}^{T}}\right]^{T}}$ with where the elements of the column $N_{B}$ are ones and all other columns are zeros. Thus, ${{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}\in{{}^{{N_{K}}\times{N_{B}}}}$. The signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) ${\gamma_{k}}$ is given as below

$${{{\gamma_{k}}=\frac{{{{\left|{\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right){{\bf{w}}_{k}}}\right|}^{2}}}}{{\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{l}}{\underbrace{\sum\limits_{j\in K/k}{{{\left|{\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right){{\bf{w}}_{j}}}\right|}^{2}}\left({\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{w}}_{j}}{\bf{w}}_{j}^{H}}\right)}\right)}}_{{\rm{interfernece}}}}\\ {+\underbrace{{\mho_{k}}}_{{\rm{distortion}}}+\underbrace{\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\sigma_{k}^{2}}_{{\rm{noise}}}}\end{array}}\right]}}}}$$ (14)

where ${\mho_{k}}$ is the signal distortion due to the hardware imperfections and given as

$${{\mho_{k}}} {{=\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,k}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right)\left({\upsilon{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{\bf{w}}_{k}^{H}+\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{\bf{w}}_{k}^{H}}\right)}\right)}}$$

$${{\times\left({{{{\left({{{\bf{G}}_{k}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right)}^{H}}}+{{\bf{h}}_{B,k}}}\right)}}$$

The hardware imperfections have impact on the interference and the noise levels as it can be seen in the first and third terms in the denominator of $\gamma_{k}$.

Similarly, we can define the SINR for the eavesdropper $e$

$${{{\gamma_{e}}=\frac{{{{\left|{\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{e}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right){{\bf{w}}_{k}}}\right|}^{2}}}}{{\left[\begin{array}[]{l}\sum\limits_{j\in K/k}{{{\left|{\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{e}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right){{\bf{w}}_{j}}}\right|}^{2}}\left({\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{w}}_{j}}{\bf{w}}_{j}^{H}}\right)}\right)}\\ +{\mho_{e}}+\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\sigma_{e}^{2}\end{array}\right]}},}}$$ (15)

where $\mho_{e}$ is the signal distortion due to the hardware imperfections and given as

$${{{\mho_{e}}}} {{=\left({{\bf{h}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{\bf{G}}_{e}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}}\right)\left({\upsilon{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{\bf{w}}_{k}^{H}+\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{w}}_{k}}{\bf{w}}_{k}^{H}}\right)}\right)}}$$

$${{\times\left({\left({{\bf{G}}_{e}}\Theta{{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)^{H}+{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}}}\right)}}$$

Channel state information (CSI) of the eavesdropper cannot be obtained. Therefore, using estimated channel error, we can define the channel coefficients of the eavesdropper as

$$\begin{array}[]{l}{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}}={{{\bf{\hat{h}}}}_{B,e}}+\Delta{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}},\\ {{\bf{G}}_{e}}={{{\bf{\hat{G}}}}_{e}}+\Delta{{\bf{G}}_{e}},\end{array}$$ (16)

where $\Delta{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}}={{\iota}_{e,1}}{\mathfrak{g}_{e,1}}\sim{\cal C}{\cal N}\left({0,{\iota_{e,1}}{{\bf{I}}_{{N_{B}}\times{N_{E}}}}}\right)$ and $\Delta{{\bf{G}}_{e}}={\iota_{e,2}}{\mathfrak{g}_{e,2}}\sim{\cal C}{\cal N}\left({0,{\iota_{e,2}}{{\bf{I}}_{{N_{B}}\times{N_{E}}}}}\right)$. ${\iota_{e,1}}$ and ${\iota_{e,2}}$ are constants measuring the level of channel uncertainties. The achievable rates is defined as follows

$${r_{k}}={\log_{2}}\left({1+{\gamma_{k}}}\right)$$ (17)

and

$${r_{e}}={\log_{2}}\left({1+{\gamma_{e}}}\right)$$ (18)

The secrecy rate is defined as

$$R_{k}^{\sec}={r_{k}}-{r_{e}}$$ (19)

We aim at maximizing the secrecy rate through optimizing the beamforming and the phase shift. The optimization problem is formulated as follows

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bf{w}},\Theta} \sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}{R_{k}^{\sec}}$$ (II)

s.t. $${{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}{\|{{\bf{w}}_{k}}\|^{2}}\preceq{P_{B}},}}$$ (20a)

$${{\|{{\bf{w}}_{k}}\|^{2}\succeq 0,}}$$ (20b)

$${r_{k}}\geq\varepsilon_{k},$$ (20c)

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{\Delta{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}},\Delta{{\bf{G}}_{e}}}{r_{e}}\leq\varepsilon_{e},$$ (20d)

$$\left|{\exp\left({j{\omega_{m}}}\right)}\right|=1.$$ (20e)

Constraint (20a) is the power budget constraint with $P_{B}$ represents the total transmit power. Constraints (20c) and (20d) are the secrecy constraints which ensures that the rate of the legitimate user is above the limit $\varepsilon_{k}$ and the rate of the eavesdropper is below the limit $\varepsilon_{e}$; where $0<{\varepsilon_{e}}<{\varepsilon_{k}}$. Since constraints (20c) and (20d) represent lower and upper bounds, problem (II) is nonconvex. In the following sections, we provide a traditional solution for problem (II) and based on this solution, we design a deep learning framework using deep unfolding techniques.

III Alternative Optimization (AO) Method

To facilitate derivation, we follow the semi-definite relaxation (SDR) procedure in [15] to reformulate the problem in (II) as

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bf{Q}},\Theta} \sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}{R_{k}^{\sec}}$$ (III)

s.t. $$\sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}{{\rm{Tr}}\left({{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}}\right)}\preceq{P_{B}},$$ (21a)

$${{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}}\succeq 0,$$ (21b)

$${r_{k}}\succeq\varepsilon_{k},$$ (21c)

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{\Delta{{\bf{h}}_{B,e}},\Delta{{\bf{G}}_{e}}}{r_{e}}\preceq\varepsilon_{e},$$ (21d)

$$\left|{\exp\left({j{\omega_{m}}}\right)}\right|=1,$$ (21e)

$${\rm{Rank}}\left({{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}}\right)=1.$$ (21f)

Constraint (21d) still intractable, we apply Bernstein-Type inequality [14] to transform (21d). Towards this, we define the slack variables $\mathfrak{n}$, $\mathfrak{a}$, and $\mathfrak{b}$. Thus, constraint(21d) can rewritten as

$$\mathfrak{g}_{e}^{H}{{\bf{\Phi}}_{e}}{\mathfrak{g}_{e}}+2{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}\left\{{{{\bf{B}}^{H}}\mathfrak{g}{{}_{e}}}\right\}+\hat{c}\leq 0$$ (22)

where

$${\mathfrak{g}_{e}}={\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{\mathfrak{g}_{e,1}^{H}}&{\mathfrak{g}_{e,2}^{T}}\end{array}}\right]^{H}},$$

$${{\bf{\Phi}}_{e}}=\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{\iota_{e,1}^{2}\Omega}\\ {{\iota_{e,2}}{\iota_{e,2}}\left({\Omega\otimes{\left({\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)^{*}}}\right)}\end{array}}&{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\iota_{e,2}}{\iota_{e,2}}\left({\Omega\otimes{\left({\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)^{T}}}\right)}\\ {\iota_{e,2}^{2}\left({\Omega\otimes{{\bf{A}}^{T}}}\right)}\end{array}}\end{array}}\right],$$

$$\Omega={\rm{Tr}}\left(\begin{array}[]{l}{\eta_{e}}{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}-\sum\limits_{j\in{\cal K}/k}{{{\bf{Q}}_{j}}\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{Q}}_{j}}}\right)}\\ -\upsilon{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\upsilon{\rm{diag}}\left({{{\bf{Q}}_{k}}}\right)\end{array}\right),$$

$$\hat{c}=\left({{\bf{\hat{h}}}_{B,e}^{H}+{{{\bf{\hat{G}}}}_{e}{\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}}}\right)\Omega\left({{{{\bf{\hat{h}}}}_{B,e}}+{\left({\bf{\hat{G}}}_{e}{\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)}^{H}}\right)+\left({1+\upsilon}\right)\sigma_{e}^{2},$$

with ${\bf{A}}=\left({\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)\left({\Theta{\bf{1}}_{F}}\right)^{H}$. Then, using Bernstein-Type inequality, we can express (21d) as in the following

$$\left\{{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{Tr}}\left({{{\bf{\Phi}}_{e}}}\right)-\sqrt{2\ln\left({{1\mathord{\left/\mathfrak{n}{\vphantom{1}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}}}\right)}-\ln\left({{1\mathord{\left/\mathfrak{n}{\vphantom{1}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}}}\right)\mathfrak{b}+\hat{c}\leq 0,}\\ {{{\left\|{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{vec}}\left({{{\bf{\Phi}}_{e}}}\right)}\\ {\sqrt{2}{\bf{B}}}\end{array}}\right\|}_{2}}\leq\mathfrak{a},}\\ {\mathfrak{b}{\bf{I}}+{{\bf{\Phi}}_{e}}\geq 0,\mathfrak{b}\geq 0,}\end{array}}\right.$$ (23)

Based on the above procedure, the optimization problem in (III) can be approximated as

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bf{Q}},\Theta,\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{b}} \sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}{R_{k}^{\sec}}$$ (III)

s.t. $$\eqref{eqn18:b},\eqref{eqn18:c},\eqref{eqn18:d},\eqref{eqn18:f},\eqref{eqn18:g},\eqref{eqn21},$$

$$\mathfrak{b}\geq 0,$$ (24a)

The optimization problem can be divided into beamforming subproblem and phase shift subproblem. The two subproblems can be jointly solved. The beamforming subproblem is given as below

$$\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bf{Q}}} \sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}{R_{k}^{\sec}}$$ (III)

s.t. $$\eqref{eqn18:b},\eqref{eqn18:c},\eqref{eqn18:d},\eqref{eqn18:g},\eqref{eqn22:a},$$

$$\begin{aligned} \left({\iota_{e,1}^{2}+\iota_{e,2}^{2}J}\right){\rm{Tr}}\left(\Omega\right)&-\sqrt{2\ln\left({{1\mathord{\left/\mathfrak{n}{\vphantom{1}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}}}\right)}\\ &-\ln\left({{1\mathord{\left/\mathfrak{n}{\vphantom{1}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}}}\right)\mathfrak{b}+\hat{c}\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ (25a)