Constant Modulus Waveform Design with Interference Exploitation for DFRC Systems:
A Block-Level Optimization Approach

Constant Modulus Waveform Design: In DFRC systems, high-power transmissions are often employed to enable precise and robust radar sensing. Under high-power conditions, a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) may cause distorted signal outputs at high-power amplifiers (HPAs) [11, 12]. Therefore, it is crucial to design constant modulus waveforms to maintain the efficiency of HPAs and prevent such distortion. Some past DFRC works have investigated the problem of designing constant modulus waveforms [6, 13, 14, 15]. The work in [6] minimized multi-user interference under constant modulus and radar waveform similarity constraints. In [13], radar signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was maximized under constant modulus and per-user interference constraints. As an alternative approach, [16, 15] considered a PAPR constraint to circumvent the problem of nonlinearity in HPAs.

Interference Exploitation: In the DFRC context, the design of constant modulus waveforms requires incorporating explicit data symbol information, which is closely related to symbol-level precoding (SLP) [17, 18]. Unlike traditional precoding schemes that only use channel information, SLP leverages both channel and data symbol information to exploit constructive interference (CI), which enhances communication signal power. Despite extensive research on CI-based SLP (CI-SLP), the use of CI-SLP for DFRC systems has been relatively limited. In [14], a beam pattern design problem was tackled under per-user CI and constant modulus constraints. This work focused on symbol-by-symbol optimization, which requires solving an optimization problem at every symbol time. To mitigate the computational burden, [19] studied block-level interference exploitation, also referred to as CI-based block-level precoding (CI-BLP), which synthesizes a transmission block directly or a precoder that is constant within a frame/block. The block-level waveform optimization for DFRC systems was initially investigated in [15], which employed space-time adaptive processing (STAP) that incorporates known target and clutter information into the waveform design. However, target and clutter information may not always be available, which motivates an alternative approach that does not rely on such information.

Correlation Property Optimization: From a radar viewpoint, block-level waveform design incorporates the temporal aspects of the waveform. Addressing waveform correlation properties is pivotal for high-resolution radar sensing, as it directly impacts the quality of range estimation. In previous works, imposing a similarity constraint has been a prevalent approach to address this challenge [6, 16, 20, 21, 15]. This ensures that the designed waveform retains the space-time correlation properties of a reference waveform, such as linear frequency modulated (LFM) waveforms. Nonetheless, this approach offers an indirect solution to space-time sidelobes and thus lacks direct control over them. To overcome the limitations of imposing the similarity constraint, alternative approaches have optimized explicit sidelobe cost functions such as integrated sidelobe level (ISL) and peak sidelobe level (PSL) [22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Most works have focused on suppressing spatial and temporal sidelobes individually. Yet, space-time correlation properties need to be addressed collectively to separate targets at different points in space and time [27, 28].

In this paper, we address the problem of designing constant modulus waveforms for DFRC systems. Our approach directly designs the transmit space-time matrix rather than designing a linear precoding matrix. We employ CI-BLP to take advantage of CI on a block level without the need for symbol-by-symbol optimization. Unlike prior works on CI-BLP that aim to reduce complexity [19] or signaling overhead [29], we focus on the joint design of the spatial and temporal properties of the waveform to achieve high-resolution radar sensing. To this end, we formulate the problem as a joint optimization of beam pattern and space-time correlations subject to the CI constraints. To tackle the formulated optimization problem, we propose two algorithms based on the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) and majorization-minimization (MM) techniques.

Our contributions can be summarized as follows.

• •

  We formulate a constant modulus waveform design problem for DFRC systems. In particular, we consider joint optimization of the spatial beam pattern and space-time sidelobes for high sensing resolution. For communication, we employ CI-BLP to lower the symbol error rate by leveraging CI in the presence of multiuser and radar transmission. We prove that the formulated problem is a non-convex NP-hard problem.

• •

  Next, we propose an ADMM-based algorithm, where using the variable splitting technique, we break down the formulated problem into multiple tractable subproblems. We derive a closed-form solution to each of the subproblems, which enables alternating updates of variables.

• •

  We develop an additional solution based on the MM method and the method of Lagrange multipliers, which offers a parallelization capability. We propose a novel diagonal matrix structure that enables tight majorization for quadratic functions to accelerate convergence.

• •

  We analyze the computational complexity of the proposed algorithms and demonstrate that the proposed ADMM algorithm is more efficient for small block sizes while the MM algorithm is suitable for large block sizes.

• •

  Finally, we conduct a series of numerical simulations to evaluate the proposed algorithms, and verify their effectiveness in comparison to the existing method [14].

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we provide the system model including the radar and communication models, and formalize our waveform design problem. Then, in Sec. III and Sec. IV, we develop our MM-based and ADMM-based solutions, respectively. Next, in Sec. V, we provide the complexity analyses of the proposed solutions. In Sec. VI, we evaluate the performances of our proposed algorithms in comparison with the baseline algorithm, and finally, we conclude the paper in Sec. VII.

Notation: Vectors and matrices are denoted by boldface lowercase and uppercase letters, respectively. $(\cdot)^{T}$, $(\cdot)^{*}$, $(\cdot)^{H}$, and $(\cdot)^{-1}$ are the transpose, conjugate, conjugate transpose, and inverse operators, respectively. $|\cdot|$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the absolute and 2-norm operators, respectively. $\text{diag}(\cdot)$ is the diagonal matrix, with diagonal entries consisting of the input vector. $\text{vec}(\cdot)$ is the vectorization of a matrix, while $\text{mat}(\cdot)$ reshapes a vector into a matrix. $\text{Tr}(\cdot)$ is the trace of a matrix. $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ is the expectation operator. ${Q}_{i,j}$ denotes the $(i,j)$th entry of a matrix Q. 0, 1, and I represent the all-zeros, all-ones, and identity matrices, respectively. $\angle$ is the phase of a complex number. $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. $\nabla$ denotes the gradient operation. $[\bm{x},\bm{y}]^{(i)}$ denotes $[\bm{x}^{(i)},\bm{y}^{(i)}]$.

Consider a downlink narrowband DFRC system where a base station (BS) operates as a multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) transmitter and collocated MIMO radar simultaneously, as depicted in Fig. 1. The BS is equipped with transmit and receive arrays of $N_{T}$ and $N_{R}$ antennas, respectively. Without loss of generality, we consider the uniform linear array (ULA) for both the transmit and receive arrays. The primary function of the considered system is radar sensing, while the secondary function is communication. To accomplish the dual functions of radar and communication, this paper focuses on downlink transmission, where the BS transmits a discrete-time waveform matrix $\textbf{X}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}\times L}$ in each transmission block. The waveform matrix X can be seen as a train of subpulses containing communication information. The $(n,\ell)$th entry $X_{n,\ell}$ of X represents the $\ell$th radar subpulse and $\ell$th discrete-time transmit symbol of $L$ total for the $n$th transmit antenna.

Consider $Q$ far-field point targets at azimuth angles $\theta_{1},\dots,\theta_{Q}$ and range bins $\tau_{1},\dots,\tau_{Q}$. To detect the targets, the BS collects reflected signals using the receive antennas. The received echo signal at the BS is given by [30, 31]

$$\textbf{Z}=\displaystyle\sum_{q=1}^{Q}\kappa_{q}{\textbf{b}(\theta_{q})\textbf{a}^{H}(\theta_{q})}{\textbf{X}}\textbf{J}_{\tau_{q}-\tau_{1}}+\textbf{W},$$

(1)

where $\kappa_{q}\in\mathbb{C}$ is the complex amplitude proportional to the radar cross-section (RCS) of target $q$, $\textbf{a}(\cdot)\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}}$ is the steering vector of the transmit array, $\textbf{b}(\cdot)\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}}$ is the steering vector of the receive arrays, $\textbf{J}_{\tau_{q}-\tau_{1}}\in\mathbb{R}^{L\times L}$ is the shift matrix for target $q$, and $\textbf{W}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{R}\times L}$ is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) noise drawn from $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_{r}^{2})$. The shift matrix accounts for the round-trip delay between the BS and a target, which is given by [32]

$$[\textbf{J}_{\tau}]_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1,&\text{if }j-i=\tau\\ 0,&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$

(2)

where $\tau$ is the time shift.

Consider MU-MIMO transmission where the BS serves $K$ single antenna users simultaneously, i.e., $N_{T}\geq K$. We adopt a block-fading channel model where the communication channels remain the same within a transmission block. The $\ell$th received symbol at user $k$ can be written as

$$\vspace{-2mm}{y}_{\ell,k}=\textbf{h}_{k}^{H}\bm{x}_{\ell}+{n}_{\ell,k},$$

(7)

where $\bm{x}_{\ell}$ is the $\ell$th column of X containing the $\ell$th communication symbol and $\ell$th radar subpulse, $\textbf{h}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}}$ is the channel from the BS to user $k$, and ${n}_{\ell,k}\in\mathbb{C}$ is Gaussian noise with ${n}_{\ell,k}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^{2})$. We assume the BS has perfect knowledge of the user channels $\textbf{h}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{T}}$ for $k=1,\dots,K$. The codeword for user $k$ is given by $\textbf{s}_{k}=[s_{1,k},\dots,s_{L,k}]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{L}$ where each symbol $s_{\ell,k}$ is drawn from a constellation $\mathcal{S}$. As discussed earlier, the CI-based approaches utilize both channel and symbol information for designing waveforms. In what follows, we detail the relationship between the desired codeword $\textbf{s}_{k}$ and the transmit signal X.

In order to maximize the efficiency of HPAs, it is essential to design a constant envelope waveform of the BS. Hence, we impose a constant modulus constraint to ensure the entries of the waveform have a constant amplitude, which can be expressed as $|{x}_{n}|=\sqrt{{P}_{T}/{N_{T}}},\ \forall n$, where ${P}_{T}$ is the transmit power and $x_{n}$ is the $n$th entry of $\bm{x}$. The feasible set of the constant modulus constraint is a complex circle manifold [38], which can be expressed as $\mathcal{M}=\{\bm{x}\in\mathbb{C}^{LN_{T}}:|x_{n}|=\sqrt{P_{T}/N_{T}}\ \forall n\}$.

Our objective is to design a dual-functional waveform that detects the targets of interest while serving the communication users simultaneously. To this end, we minimize the beam pattern sha** cost, to maximize the mainlobe power aimed toward targets $\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\dots,\theta_{Q}$ while minimizing spatial sidelobes. Furthermore, we minimize the space-time ISL to reduce the autocorrelations of each target and the cross-correlations among the targets. For communication, we impose the CI constraint to ensure that the communication symbols exist within the CI region, thereby meeting the QoS requirement. By taking these design goals into account, the waveform design problem is formulated as

		$\displaystyle\underset{\bm{x}}{\min}$		$\displaystyle\omega_{bp}\tilde{g}_{bp}(\bm{x})+\omega_{ac}g_{ac}(\bm{x})+\omega_{cc}g_{cc}(\bm{x})$		(9)
		s.t.		$\displaystyle\textbf{C1}:\Re\{\tilde{\textbf{h}}^{H}_{\ell,m}\bm{x}\}\geq\Gamma_{m},\forall\ell,m$
		$\displaystyle\textbf{C2}:|{x}_{n}|=\sqrt{\frac{P_{T}}{N_{T}}},\ \forall n=1,2,\dots,LN_{T}$

where $\omega_{bp},\omega_{ac},\omega_{cc}\geq 0$ are the weights for the beam pattern sha** cost (4), autocorrelation ISL (5) and cross-correlation ISL (6), respectively. C1 is the communication QoS constraint, and C2 is the constant modulus constraint. By normalizing the constant modulus constraint, we can reformulate the above problem as

		$\displaystyle\underset{\bm{x}}{\min}$		$\displaystyle\omega_{bp}\tilde{g}_{bp}(\bm{x})+\omega_{ac}g_{ac}(\bm{x})+\omega_{cc}g_{cc}(\bm{x})$		(10)
		s.t.		$\displaystyle\textbf{C1}:\Re\{\tilde{\textbf{h}}^{H}_{\ell,m}\bm{x}\}\geq\tilde{\Gamma}_{m},\forall\ell,m$
		$\displaystyle\textbf{C2}:|{x}_{n}|=1,\ \forall n=1,2,\dots,LN_{T}$

where $\tilde{\Gamma}_{m}=\sqrt{\frac{N_{T}}{P}_{T}}{\Gamma_{m}}$. We have the following theorem:

See Appendix A for detailed proof.

The formulated problem is intractable due to the nonconvex fourth-order objective and constant modulus constraint. To tackle this, we develop solutions based on ADMM and MM techniques. Briefly speaking, the ADMM algorithm reduces the order of the objective and decomposes the constraints using the variable splitting technique. The MM algorithm approximates the objective with a lower-order function and applies the method of Lagrange multipliers to manage the constant modulus constraint. The ADMM-based approach is particularly efficient for low $L$ due to its iterations with closed-form solutions, while the MM-based approach is preferable for high $L$ owing to its parallelization capability. We detail the proposed algorithms in the subsequent sections.

First, we reformulate the problem in (10) by introducing auxiliary variables $\bm{u}\in\mathbb{C}^{LN_{T}}$, $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{C}^{LN_{T}}$, and ${z}_{\ell,m}\in\mathbb{C}$ for $\ell=1,2,\dots,L$ and $m=1,2,\dots,2K$ as

	$\displaystyle\underset{\bm{x},\bm{u},\bm{v},\{\bm{z}_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{L}}{\min}\omega_{bp}\tilde{g}_{bp}(\bm{x},\bm{v})$	$\displaystyle+\omega_{ac}g_{ac}(\bm{x},\bm{v})+\omega_{cc}g_{cc}(\bm{x},\bm{v})$		(11)
	$\displaystyle\quad\text{s.t.}\quad\Re\{{z}_{\ell,m}\}$	$\displaystyle\geq\tilde{\Gamma}_{m},\,\forall\ell,m$
	$\displaystyle\bm{x}$	$\displaystyle=\bm{v},\;\;\bm{u}=\bm{v},$
	$\displaystyle{z}_{\ell,m}$	$\displaystyle=\tilde{\textbf{h}}_{\ell,m}^{H}\bm{x},\,\forall\ell,m$

where $\bm{z}_{\ell}=[z_{\ell,1},z_{\ell,2},\dots,z_{\ell,2K}],$

	$\displaystyle\tilde{g}_{bp}(\bm{x},\bm{v})$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\sum_{u=1}^{U}|\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{B}_{u}\bm{v}|^{2},$		(12)
	$\displaystyle g_{ac}(\bm{x},\bm{v})$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\sum_{q=1}^{Q}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau=-P+1,\\ \tau\neq 0\end{subarray}}^{P-1}\left|\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q}\bm{v}\right|^{2},\text{ and }$
	$\displaystyle g_{cc}(\bm{x},\bm{v})$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\sum_{q=1}^{Q-1}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}=1,\\ q^{\prime}\neq q\end{subarray}}^{Q}\sum_{\tau=-P+1}^{P-1}\left|\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q^{\prime}}\bm{v}\right|^{2}.\vspace{-1.5mm}$

By substituting one $\bm{x}$ with an auxiliary variable $\bm{v}$, the objective is bi-convex, i.e, convex in $\bm{x}$ with $\bm{v}$ fixed and in $\bm{v}$ with $\bm{x}$ fixed [41]. Moreover, the constant modulus and QoS constraints are decoupled through the introduced auxiliary variables $\bm{u}$ and $\{\bm{z}_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{L}$. In consequence, the reformulated problem becomes an unconstrained problem with respect to variables $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{v}$. With fixed $\bm{v}$, the objective function can be rewritten in quadratic form with respect to $\bm{x}$ as

$\displaystyle g(\bm{x})=\omega_{bp}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{G}_{1}\bm{x}+\omega_{ac}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{G}_{2}\bm{x}+\omega_{cc}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{G}_{3}\bm{x},$

(13)

where

	$\displaystyle\textbf{G}_{1}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{u=1}^{U}\textbf{B}_{u}\bm{v}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{B}^{H}_{u},\;\;\;\textbf{G}_{2}\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{q=1}^{Q}\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau=-P+1,\\ \tau\neq 0\end{subarray}}^{P-1}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q}\bm{v}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{D}^{H}_{\tau,q,q},$
	$\displaystyle\textbf{G}_{3}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{q=1}^{Q-1}\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}=1,\\ q^{\prime}\neq q\end{subarray}}^{Q}\displaystyle\sum_{\tau=-P+1}^{P-1}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q^{\prime}}\bm{v}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{D}^{H}_{\tau,q,q^{\prime}}.$

Similarly, the objective function can be rewritten in quadratic form with respect to $\bm{v}$ as

$\displaystyle\tilde{g}(\bm{v})=\omega_{bp}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{T}_{1}\bm{v}+\omega_{ac}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{T}_{2}\bm{v}+\omega_{cc}\bm{v}^{H}\textbf{T}_{3}\bm{v},\vspace{-3mm}$

(14)

where

	$\displaystyle\vspace{-1.5mm}\textbf{T}_{1}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{u=1}^{U}\textbf{B}^{H}_{u}\bm{x}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{B}_{u},\;\;\textbf{T}_{2}\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{q=1}^{Q}\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau=-P+1,\\ \tau\neq 0\end{subarray}}^{P-1}\textbf{D}^{H}_{\tau,q,q}\bm{x}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q},$
	$\displaystyle\textbf{T}_{3}$	$\displaystyle\triangleq\displaystyle\sum_{q=1}^{Q-1}\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}=1,\\ q^{\prime}\neq q\end{subarray}}^{Q}\displaystyle\sum_{\tau=-P+1}^{P-1}\textbf{D}^{H}_{\tau,q,q^{\prime}}\bm{x}\bm{x}^{H}\textbf{D}_{\tau,q,q^{\prime}}.$

Using these objective representations, the problem (11) can be rewritten as

		$\displaystyle\underset{\bm{x},\bm{u},\bm{v},\{\textbf{z}_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{L}}{\min}$		$\displaystyle g(\bm{x})=\tilde{g}(\bm{v})$		(15)
		s.t.		$\displaystyle\Re\{{z}_{\ell,m}\}\geq\tilde{\Gamma}_{m},\ \forall m,\ell$
		$\displaystyle|u_{n}|=1,\ \forall n=1,2,\dots,LN_{T}$
		$\displaystyle\bm{x}=\bm{v},\bm{u}=\bm{v}$
		$\displaystyle{z}_{\ell,m}=\tilde{\textbf{h}}_{\ell,m}^{H}\bm{x},\ \forall m,\ell$

The scaled augmented Lagrangian function for (15) can be rewritten as

		$\displaystyle\mathcal{L}(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{u},\bm{z},\bm{\rho},{\bm{\eta}}_{1},{\bm{\eta}}_{2})=g(\bm{x})$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{\mu_{1}}{2}(\left\|\bm{x}-\bm{v}+{{\bm{\eta}}}_{1}\right\|^{2}-\left\|{{\bm{\eta}}}_{1}\right\|^{2})$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{\mu_{2}}{2}(\left\|\bm{u}-\bm{v}+{\bm{\eta}}_{2}\right\|^{2}-\left\|{\bm{\eta}}_{2}\right\|^{2})$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{\mu_{3}}{2}\sum_{\ell=1}^{L}\sum_{m=1}^{2K}\left(\left|{z}_{\ell,m}-\tilde{\textbf{h}}_{\ell,m}^{H}\bm{x}+{{\rho}}_{\ell,m}\right|^{2}-\left|{{\rho}}_{\ell,m}\right|^{2}\right),\vspace{-3mm}$

where $\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ are the scalar penalty parameters, $\bm{\eta}_{1},\bm{\eta}_{2}\in\mathbb{C}^{LN_{T}\times 1}$ are the Lagrange multipliers for the equality constraints $\bm{x}=\bm{v}$ and $\bm{u}=\bm{v}$, respectively, $\bm{z}=[\bm{z}^{H}_{1},\bm{z}^{H}_{2},\dots,\bm{z}^{H}_{L}]^{H}$, $\rho_{\ell,m}\in\mathbb{C}$ is the Lagrange multiplier for the equality constraint ${z}_{\ell,m}=\tilde{\textbf{h}}_{\ell,m}^{H}\bm{x}$ for all $\ell,m$, and $\bm{\rho}=[\bm{\rho}_{1}^{H},\bm{\rho}^{H}_{2},\dots,\bm{\rho}^{H}_{L}]^{H}$ is the Lagrange multiplier vector for the equality constraints with $\bm{\rho}_{\ell}=[\rho_{\ell,1},\rho_{\ell,2},\dots,\rho_{\ell,2K}]^{H}$. Accordingly, the problem (15) can be decomposed into multiple subproblems and written in iterative form as

	$\displaystyle\vspace{-1.5mm}\bm{x}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:=\underset{\bm{x}}{\arg\min}\ \mathcal{L}\left(\bm{x},[\bm{v},\bm{u},\bm{z},\bm{\rho},{\bm{\eta}}_{1},{\bm{\eta}}_{2}]^{(i)}\right),$		(16)
	$\displaystyle\bm{v}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:=\underset{\bm{v}}{\arg\min}\ \mathcal{L}\left(\bm{x}^{(i+1)},\bm{v},[\bm{u},\bm{z},\bm{\rho},{\bm{\eta}}_{1},{\bm{\eta}}_{2}]^{(i)}\right),$		(17)
	$\displaystyle\bm{u}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:=\underset{\bm{u}\in\mathcal{R}_{u}}{\arg\min}\mathcal{L}\left([\bm{x},\bm{v}]^{(i+1)},\bm{u},[\bm{z},\bm{\rho},{\bm{\eta}}_{1},{\bm{\eta}}_{2}]^{(i)}\right),$		(18)
	$\displaystyle z_{\ell,m}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:=\underset{z_{\ell,m}\in\mathcal{R}_{m}}{\arg\min}\mathcal{L}\left([\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{u}]^{(i+1)},\bm{z},[\bm{\rho},{\bm{\eta}}_{1},{\bm{\eta}}_{2}]^{(i)}\right),$		(19)
	$\displaystyle{\bm{\eta}}_{1}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:={\bm{\eta}}_{1}^{(i)}+\bm{x}^{(i+1)}-\bm{v}^{(i+1)},$		(20)
	$\displaystyle{\bm{\eta}}_{2}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:={\bm{\eta}}_{2}^{(i)}+\bm{u}^{(i+1)}-\bm{v}^{(i+1)},$		(21)
	$\displaystyle\rho_{\ell,m}^{(i+1)}$	$\displaystyle:=\rho_{\ell,m}^{(i)}+z_{\ell,m}^{(i+1)}-\tilde{\textbf{h}}_{\ell,m}^{H}\bm{x}^{(i+1)},\vspace{-2mm}$		(22)

where $i$ is the ADMM iteration index, $\mathcal{R}_{u}=\{\bm{u}:|\bm{u}_{n}|=1,\ \forall n=1,2,\dots,LN_{T}\}$, and $\mathcal{R}_{m}=\{{z}:\Re\{{z}\}\geq\tilde{\Gamma}_{m}\}$.