Hi I want to solve the formula-9 in CVX, so I write the code like the following.

```
cvx_begin
cvx_precision best
variable u_bar(2*K,T);
variable d_bar(2*K,1);
reform_power = (d_bar(:,1).*bs(:,1)+ u_bar(:,t))' * bR * (d_bar(:,1).*bs(:,1)+ u_bar(:,t));
minimize reform_power;
subject to
%------------
%u_bar(i,t) >= -d_bar(i,t) + a_bar;
%u_bar(i,t) <= d_bar(i,t) - c_bar;
%--------------
for i=1:2*K
if bs(i,t) == 1 || bs(i,t) == -1
abs(u_bar(i,t)) <= d_bar(i,1) - c1;
elseif bs(i,t) == 3
u_bar(i,t) >= -d_bar(i,1) + c2;
elseif bs(i,t) == -3
u_bar(i,t) <= d_bar(i,1) - c2;
end
d_bar(i,1) >= 0;
end
cvx_end
if peak_power_pre <= reform_power
peak_power_pre = reform_power;
else
break;
end
```

I wonder is that part actually do the work shown in formula-9,since there is a gap between cvx results and the answer offered in the original paper.

I don’t see a correspondence between your code and the paper’s solution method.

At high level, the paper’s method is to solve the 2nd optimization problem, and then post-process the optimal `u_t (for t from 1 to T) and d`

to produce the optimal `x_t`

per the 3rd line of Proposition 1.

You don’t seem to have max over t in the objective function. Then you need to minimize that. I.e., `minimize(max(...))`

, where `...`

is the collection of convex quadratic objective terms for `t`

from ` to T.

I have no idea what you’re doing with the constraints with all the separate logic depending on the value of t.

I think you might want to declare `u`

as an n by T variable, where n is the number of elements of `d`

. You can index in to the correct `t`

value each time you use it.

Perhaps you need to use a for loop to build up the argument of the `max`

in the objective, using `quad_form`

to form each quadratic term within the `max`

. The constraints should be easily vectorizable using `repmat`

, which would save CVX processing time.

There might be more you need to do, but start with this, and reexamine everything you did.

I don’t understand the purpose of the method seemingly implied by Proposition 1. That is because the original problem appears to be a convex optimization problem (SOCP) which may be as easy or easier to solve than the 2nd problem, and doesn’t require the post-processing.

I cannot agree more. However, it is a custom designed precoding provided by the paper. It is a SEP-constrained symbol power problem. In a MIMO system, the received signal is

y_i,t = H_i * x + v_i,t

where s is drawn from a QAM constellation

S_i = {s_R + js_I}

The goal is to achieve formula 2, which ensures Information can still be identified even in the presence of interference from multiple users. Under SEP constrained, the formula becomes formla-4

And I suppose it only need to fine a t for the peak power after a minimization by cvx. However, the result is not what I want.

You can start by correctly implementing the method in the paper. As I pointed out in my first post, you clearly did not do so in your first post.

Thank you. Actually, I do not know how to achieve the minmax expression in the cvx, this has been troubling me for many days.

This is an example minimizing the maximum of quadratic form terms.

```
cvx_begin
variable x(3)
max_argument = 0;
for k=1:10
max_argument = [max_argument;quad_form(x,A(:,:,k))];
end
minimize(max(max_argument))
% add constraints
cvx_end
```

The nasic idea id the objective needs to be `minimize(max(...))`

where .`...`

is the collection of terms over which the (inner) max takes place.