This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

UAV Trajectory and Beamforming Optimization for Integrated Periodic Sensing and Communication

Kaitao Meng Qingqing Wu Shaodan Ma Wen Chen and Tony Q. S. Quek Fellow, IEEE K. Meng, Q. Wu, and S. Ma are with the State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City, University of Macau, Macau, 999078, China (e-mails: {kaitaomeng, qingqingwu, shaodanma}@um.edu.mo). W. Chen is with the Department of Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 201210, China (e-mail: wenchen@sjtu.edu.cn). T. Quek (e-mail: tonyquek@sutd.edu.sg) is with Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore 487372.This work was supported by the FDCT (under Grant 0119/2020/A3) and the GDST under Grant (2020B1212030003).
Abstract

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is expected to bring transformative improvement to the integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system. However, due to shared spectrum resources, it is challenging to achieve a critical trade-off between these two integrated functionalities. To address this issue, we propose in this paper a new integrated periodic sensing and communication mechanism for the UAV-enable ISAC system. Specifically, the user achievable rate is maximized via jointly optimizing UAV trajectory, transmit precoder, and sensing start instant, subject to the sensing frequency and beam pattern gain constraints. Despite that this problem is highly non-convex and involves an infinite number of variables, we obtain the optimal transmit precoder and derive the optimal achievable rate in closed-form for any given UAV location to facilitate the UAV trajectory design. Furthermore, we first prove the structural symmetry between optimal solutions in different ISAC frames without location constraints and then propose a high-quality UAV trajectory and sensing optimization algorithm for the general location-constrained case. Simulation results corroborate the effectiveness of the proposed design and also unveil a more flexible trade-off in ISAC systems over benchmark schemes.

Index Terms:
Integrated sensing and communication, UAV, periodic sensing, beamforming, trajectory optimization.

I Introduction

Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) has emerged as a key technology in future wireless networks[1]. However, due to shared spectrum resources and complicated surrounding scatters, it is very challenging to strike a good balance between two potentially conflicting design objectives: high-quality communication service and high-timeliness sensing requirement. Recently, there are some research efforts devoted to unifying sensing and communication to mutually assist each other [2]. For example, appropriate radar beam pattern design with the communication requirement guaranteed and Pareto optimization framework of the radar-communication system were presented in [3] and [4], respectively.

Driven by on-demand deployment and strong line-of-sight (LoS) links promised by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [5, 6], UAV is expected to be a promising aerial ISAC platform to provide more controllable and balanced integrated service based on the requirements of sensing frequency and communication quality [7]. In [8], a joint beamforming and UAV trajectory optimization algorithm was proposed to improve communication quality while guaranteeing sensing requirement. However, the prior works on ISAC (e.g., [3], [4], [8]) mainly focus on improving the performance when both functionalities working simultaneously during the entire considered period, i.e., sensing is always executed along with the communication. This however, may ignore the practical asymmetric sensing and communication requirements. Specifically, the sensing frequency as another important aspect of ISAC systems is practically determined by the timeliness requirement of specific tasks and has not been taken into account in the literature, e.g., a relatively low/high sensing frequency is preferred for low-speed/high-speed target tracking. As such, always forcing both sensing and communication simultaneously may cause excessive sensing, thereby introducing stronger interference and higher energy consumption. Hence, it is crucial to improve sensing efficiency, especially for power limited UAVs. To address this issue, a more general trade-off between sensing and communication needs to be investigated by taking into account the sensing frequency besides the commonly used sensing power, which thus motivates this work.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The illustration of integrated periodic sensing and communication.

In this paper, we study a UAV-enabled ISAC system aimed at sensing targets near the ground while providing multi-cast downlink communication for single-antenna users. In particular, to reflect the practically different sensing frequency and sensing power requirements, we propose a periodic ISAC framework where the sensing is periodically executed along with communication. As an initial study, we consider a system model with one target and one cluster of users only, to draw the fundamental insights of UAV-enabled ISAC systems for the considered periodic sensing scenarios, as shown in Fig. 1 (e.g., pipeline inspection or traffic monitoring). In this work, the UAV trajectory, transmit beamforming, and sensing instant are jointly optimized to maximize the communication performance while guaranteeing the sensing requirement. Unlike traditional ISAC considered in [8], which forces data transmitting and radar sensing simultaneously all the time, the proposed scheme offers another opportunity to balance between practical sensing and communication over time. As a result, both standalone communication and always-sensing are special cases of our considered periodic sensing and communication scenarios. The main contribution in this paper is summarized as follows:

  • To cater for different sensing requirements and avoid excessive energy consumption in practice, we propose an integrated periodic sensing and communication (IPSAC) mechanism to provide a more flexible trade-off between sensing and communication over time. We first prove the structural symmetry between optimal solutions in different ISAC frames without location constraints, thereby reducing the algorithm complexity.

  • We solve the optimal transmit precoder according to the rank-one characteristic and derive the optimal achievable rate in closed-form. Accordingly, an optimal UAV trajectory without location constraints is presented, and a high-quality location-constrained solution is also provided.

II System Model and Problem Formulation

As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a UAV-enabled ISAC system where a UAV equipped with a uniform linear array (ULA) of MM antennas is deployed to sense one target near the ground while providing communication service for a cluster of single-antenna users (viewed as one user for ease of analysis, or viewed as an access point for sensory data upload). For convenience, a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system is adopted where the linear distance of user and target is referred to as the xx-axis with two points 𝒖=[0,0]T{\bm{u}}=[0,0]^{T} and 𝒗=[D,0]T{\bm{v}}=[{D},0]^{T}, respectively. The value of 𝒗{\bm{v}} is determined based on the specific sensing tasks, which can be set as a sampled position in the region of interest for target detection, or set as a roughly priori-position for target tracking. The UAV is assumed to fly at a constant altitude of HH m with a flight duration of TT s, and the UAV location is denoted by x(t)x(t), where t𝒯=Δ[0,T]t\in{\cal{T}}\buildrel\Delta\over{=}[0,T].

In our proposed IPSAC mechanism, as shown in Fig. 1, the sensing task should be performed at least once in each ISAC frame, and its length is denoted by TfT_{f}, which is set according to the requirement of task execution frequency. The total frame number LL is set as an integer for ease of analysis (LTf=TL\cdot T_{f}=T), and the index of ISAC frame is denoted by l={1,,L}l\in{\cal{L}}=\{1,\cdots,L\}. The sensing time in the llth ISAC frame is given by 𝒯l=Δ[tl,tl+τ0]{\cal{T}}_{l}\buildrel\Delta\over{=}[t_{l},t_{l}+\tau_{0}], where τ0\tau_{0} is the sensing period. The minimum sensing period is practically determined by radar bandwidth, waveform, and so on [2]. It is assumed that the UAV is hovering during detecting or tracking the target, since the sensing period is generally small and the fixed UAV location can avoid the introduction of complex Doppler shift due to the movement of the UAV.

The communication links between the UAV and the user are assumed to be dominated by the line-of-sight (LoS) component [5]. Hence, it is assumed that the aerial-ground channel follows the free-space path loss model, and the channel power gain from the UAV to the user can be given by

βc(x(t))=β0d(x(t))2=β0H2+x(t)2,\beta_{c}(x(t))=\beta_{0}d(x(t))^{-2}=\frac{{{\beta_{0}}}}{{{H^{2}}+x{(t)}^{2}}},\vspace{-1mm} (1)

where β0\beta_{0} represents the channel power at the reference distance 1 m. The transmit array response vector of the UAV toward the user’s location 𝒖{\bm{u}} is expressed as

𝒂H(x(t),𝒖)=[1,,ej2πdλ(M1)sin(θ1(x(t),𝒖))],{{\bm{a}}^{H}}\left(x(t),\bm{u}\right)=[1,\cdots,e^{-j2\pi\frac{d}{\lambda}(M-1)\sin(\theta_{1}(x(t),\bm{u}))}], (2)

where dd is the half-wavelength antenna spacing, λ\lambda is the carrier wavelength, θ1\theta_{1} denotes the elevation angle of the geographical path connecting the UAV to the user, and sin(θ1(x(t),𝒖))=H/x(t)2+H2\sin(\theta_{1}(x(t),\bm{u}))=H/\sqrt{x(t)^{2}+H^{2}}. Therefore, the baseband equivalent channel from the UAV to the user can be given by

𝒉cH(x(t))=βc(x(t))ej2πd(x(t))λ𝒂H(x(t),𝒖).{\bm{h}}^{H}_{c}(x(t))=\sqrt{\beta_{{c}}(x(t))}e^{-j\frac{2\pi d{(x(t))}}{\lambda}}{\bm{a}}^{H}\left(x(t),\bm{u}\right).\vspace{-1mm} (3)

For practical implementation, the linear precoding is adopted at the UAV-enabled ISAC system. The transmitted signal from the UAV is given by 𝒛(t)=𝒘c(t)sc(t){\bm{z}}(t)={{\bm{w}}_{c}}(t){s_{c}}(t), where sc{s}_{c} and 𝒘c(t)M×1{\bm{w}}_{c}(t)\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times 1} are the information-bearing signal to the user and its corresponding transmit precoder, sc𝒞𝒩(0,1){s}_{c}\sim\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}(0,1), and 𝔼(|sc|2)=1\mathbb{E}(|s_{c}|^{2})=1. Then, the received signal at user is

y(t)=𝒉cH(x(t))𝒛(t)+nc(t),t𝒯,{y}(t)={\bm{h}}^{H}_{c}(x(t)){\bm{z}}(t)+{n_{c}}(t),\forall t\in{\cal{T}}, (4)

where nc(t)𝒞𝒩(0,σ2)n_{c}(t)\sim{\cal{CN}}(0,\sigma^{2}) denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the user’s receiver. Accordingly, the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) of the user is given by γ(t)=|𝒉c(x(t))𝒘c(t)|2/σ2,t𝒯{\gamma}(t)=|{{\bm{h}}_{c}(x(t)){{\bm{w}}_{c}}(t)}|^{2}/\sigma^{2},\forall t\in{\cal{T}}. As a result, the achievable rate of the user at time tt is R(t)=log2(1+γ(t)){R}(t)={\log_{2}(1+{\gamma}(t))}. In our designed ISAC system, the reflected communication signals from the objects of interest can also be analyzed for radar sensing [2], and thus, the communication signals sc(t)s_{c}(t) is also exploited for sensing performance. The transmit beam pattern gain from the UAV to the target’s location 𝒗{\bm{v}} can be expressed as

Γ(x(t),𝒗)=E[|𝒂H(x(t),𝒗)𝒛(t)|2]\displaystyle\Gamma\left(x(t),\bm{v}\right)=E\left[{{{\left|{\bm{a}}^{H}(x(t),\bm{v}){\bm{z}}(t)\right|}^{2}}}\right] (5)
=\displaystyle= 𝒂H(x(t),𝒗)(𝒘c(t)𝒘cH(t))𝒂(x(t),𝒗).\displaystyle{\bm{a}}^{H}(x(t),\bm{v}){\left({\bm{w}}_{c}(t){\bm{w}}^{H}_{c}(t)\right)}{\bm{a}}(x(t),\bm{v}).

Our objective is to maximize the achievable rate, subject to the beam pattern gain constraint and the maximum transmit power constraint. The corresponding optimization problem can be formulated as

(P1):\displaystyle\vspace{-1mm}(\rm{P1}):\quad max{𝒘c(t)},{x(t)},{tl}missingmissing1T0TR(t)dt,\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}\mathop{\max}\limits_{\{{\bm{w}}_{c}(t)\},\{x(t)\},\{t_{l}\}}\mathop{\frac{missing}{missing}}{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}R(t){\rm{d}}t,\end{array} (7)
s.t. Γ(x(tl),𝒗)d(x(tl),𝒗)2Γ~,tl𝒯l,l,\displaystyle\Gamma\left(x(t_{l}),\bm{v}\right)\geq d(x(t_{l}),{\bm{v}})^{2}{\tilde{\Gamma}},\forall t_{l}\in{\cal{T}}_{l},l\in{\cal{L}}, (7a)
𝒘c(t)2Pmax,t𝒯,\displaystyle\left\|{{\bm{w}}_{c}}(t)\right\|^{2}\leq P_{\max},\forall t\in{\cal{T}}, (7b)
|x˙(t)|Vmax,t𝒯,\displaystyle\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|\leq V_{\max},\forall t\in{\cal{T}}, (7c)
x(0)=xI,x(T)=xF.\displaystyle{{x}}(0)={{x}}_{I},{{x}}({T})={{x}}_{F}. (7d)

In (P1), (7a) represents the beam pattern gain should be no less than the threshold Γ~{\tilde{\Gamma}} under the given sensing frequency and the total power constraint is given in (7b). The UAV speed constraint, the initial and final location constraints are given in (7c) and (7d), respectively. Problem (P1) is difficult to solve optimally, since it involves an infinite number of variables {x(t)}\{x(t)\}, and the constraints in (7a) and objective function are non-convex due to the non-concavity of Γ(x(tl),𝒗)\Gamma\left(x(t_{l}),\bm{v}\right) and R(t)R(t).

III Proposed Solution to (P1)

In this section, we obtain the optimal transmit precoder by SDR technique together with eigenvalue decomposition, and provide a closed-form user SNR for trajectory optimizing.

III-A Optimal Transmit Precoder to (P1)

Intuitively, for t[tl,tl+τ0]t\notin[t_{l},t_{l}+\tau_{0}], ll\in{\cal{L}}, it is known that the maximum ratio transmission (MRT) is the optimal transmit precoder, i.e., 𝒘c(t)=Pmax𝒉c𝒉c{\bm{w}}^{*}_{c}(t)={\frac{\sqrt{P_{\max}}{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\|{\bm{h}}_{c}\|}}. In the following, we will focus on analyzing the optimal transmit precoder 𝒘c(t){\bm{w}}_{c}(t) for t[tl,tl+τ0]t\in[t_{l},t_{l}+\tau_{0}], ll\in{\cal{L}}. Since the maximization of R(t)R(t) is equivalent to maximizing the corresponding received signal strength, the log\log function is dropped in the objective function for simplicity. Then, for any given UAV location x(t)x(t), problem (P1) is reduced to (by dropping the time index (t)(t))

(P2):\displaystyle(\rm{P2}):\quad max𝒘c𝒘cH𝒉c𝒉cH𝒘c,\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bm{w}}_{c}}\mathop{{\bm{w}}_{c}^{H}}{\bm{h}}_{c}{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{w}}_{c},\end{array} (9)
s.t. 𝒘cH𝒉r𝒉rH𝒘cΓ~,𝒘c2Pmax,\displaystyle{{\bm{w}}_{c}^{H}}{\bm{h}}_{r}{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{\bm{w}}_{c}\geq{\tilde{\Gamma}},\left\|{{\bm{w}}_{c}}\right\|^{2}\leq P_{\max}, (9a)

where 𝒉cH=𝒉cH(x,𝒖){\bm{h}}^{H}_{c}={\bm{h}}^{H}_{c}(x,{\bm{u}}), 𝒉rH=𝒂H(x,𝒗)d(x,𝒗){\bm{h}}^{H}_{r}=\frac{{\bm{a}}^{H}(x,{\bm{v}})}{d(x,{\bm{v}})}. Notice that problem (P2) is non-convex and thus is difficult to be optimally solved in general. Hence, we propose to utilize semidefinite relaxation (SDR) technique to solve problem (P2), and then, obtain the optimal transmit precoders based on the rank-one characteristic of optimal solution. Towards this end, we introduce new auxiliary variables 𝑾=𝒘𝒘H{\bm{W}}={\bm{w}}{\bm{w}}^{H}, where 𝑾0{\bm{W}}\succeq 0 and rank(𝑾)=1\operatorname{rank}\left(\bm{W}\right)=1. Thus, problem (P2) is equivalent to

(P2.1):\displaystyle(\rm{P2.1}):\quad max𝑾tr(𝑯c𝑾),\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\bm{W}}}\mathop{\rm{tr}}\left({{{\bm{H}}_{c}}{\bm{W}}}\right),\end{array} (11)
s.t. tr(𝑯r𝑾)Γ~,tr(𝑾)Pmax,\displaystyle{\rm{tr}}\left({{{\bm{H}}_{r}}{\bm{W}}}\right)\geq{\tilde{\Gamma}},{\rm{tr}}\left({\bm{W}}\right)\leq P_{\max}, (11a)
rank(𝑾)=1,\displaystyle{\rm{rank}}\left({\bm{W}}\right)=1, (11b)

where 𝑯c=𝒉c𝒉cH{{\bm{H}}_{c}}={{\bm{h}}_{c}}{{\bm{h}}^{H}_{c}} and 𝑯r=𝒉r𝒉rH{{\bm{H}}_{r}}={{\bm{h}}_{r}}{{\bm{h}}^{H}_{r}}. By ignoring the above rank constraint on 𝑾{\bm{W}} similarly as in [9], the semidefinite relaxation (SDR) of problem (P2.1), denoted by (SDR2.1), can be optimally solved via convex optimization solvers.

Remark 1

For arbitrary user channel and target location, according to Theorem 3.2 in [10], problem (SDR2.1) always has an optimal solution 𝐖~\tilde{\bm{W}} satisfying rank2(𝐖~)2\operatorname{rank}^{2}(\tilde{\bm{W}})\leq 2. Hence, there always exists an optimal solution 𝐖~\tilde{\bm{W}} satisfying rank(𝐖~)=1\operatorname{rank}(\tilde{\bm{W}})=1.

Remark 1 shows that the optimal transmit precoder 𝒘c{\bm{w}}_{c} can be recovered by performing eigenvalue decomposition over the obtained rank-one 𝑾{\bm{W}}. However, it is still challenging to obtain the optimal trajectory due to lack of closed-form transmit precoder. To tackle this problem, we provide a closed-form user SNR for trajectory analysis, even if there is no closed-form transmit precoder.

Proposition 1

For any given UAV location, during sensing time, the optimal user SNR can be given by

γ={β0PmaxMx2+H2,MPmaxρ2(Dx)2+H2Γ~g(x),Otherwise,\gamma^{*}=\left\{{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{\frac{\beta_{0}{P_{\max}}M}{{{x^{2}}+{H^{2}}}},}&{\frac{{{M{P_{\max}}\rho^{2}}}}{{{({D-x})}^{2}}+{H^{2}}}\geq{\tilde{\Gamma}}}\\ {g(x),}&{\rm{Otherwise}}\end{array}}\right.,\vspace{-2mm} (12)

where g(x)=γ0((Dx)2+H2)(ρΓ~+1ρ2MPmax(Dx)2+H2Γ~)2x2+H2g(x)=\frac{\gamma_{0}{({{({D-x})}^{2}}+{H^{2}}){\left({\rho{\sqrt{{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}}}{\rm{+}}\sqrt{{1-{\rho^{2}}}}{\sqrt{\frac{{M{P_{\max}}}}{{{{({D-x})}^{2}}+{H^{2}}}}-{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}}}}\right)^{2}}}}{{{{x^{2}}+{H^{2}}}}}, γ0=β0σ2\gamma_{0}=\frac{{\beta_{0}}}{\sigma^{2}}, and ρ=|𝐚H(x,𝐮)𝐚(x,𝐯)|𝐚H(x,𝐮)𝐚(x,𝐯)\rho=\frac{|{\bm{a}}^{H}(x,{\bm{u}}){\bm{a}}(x,{\bm{v}})|}{\|{\bm{a}}^{H}(x,{\bm{u}})\|\|{\bm{a}}(x,{\bm{v}})\|}.

Proof:

Please refer to Appendix A. ∎

Proposition 1 explicitly shows that the achievable rate is determined by the correlation between the user’s and the target’s transmit response vectors. Accordingly, the optimal achievable rate can be directly obtained for any given UAV location x(t)x(t), thereby dramatically reducing the complexity of trajectory design. The details are given as follows.

III-B Optimal Solution Without Location Constraints

To draw important insights into the optimal trajectory design, we first study a special case of (P1) where the initial and final location constraints are ignored, denoted by (SP1). By plugging the optimal SNR in (12) into the user achievable rate R(t)R(t), (SP1) can be simplified as

(SP2):\displaystyle(\rm{SP2}):\quad\quad max{x(t)},{tl}missingmissing1Tt=0TR~(t)dt,\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}\mathop{\max}\limits_{\{x(t)\},\{t_{l}\}}\quad\mathop{\frac{missing}{missing}}{1}{T}\int_{t=0}^{T}\tilde{R}(t){\rm{d}}t,\end{array} s.t.(7c),\displaystyle\mbox{s.t.}\quad(\ref{P1}c),\vspace{-2mm} (14)

where R~(t)\tilde{R}(t) represents the achievable rate with optimal transmit precoder 𝒘c{\bm{w}}_{c}^{*}. However, it is still non-trivial to solve the optimal UAV trajectory because there is no closed-form integral of the achievable rate. To address this challenge, the following conclusions are given to significantly reduce the complexity of finding the optimal UAV trajectory.

Remark 2

According to Lemma 3 in [5], there always exists an optimal UAV trajectory x(t){x^{*}(t)} for problem (SP2) that is unidirectional in the llth ISAC frame, i.e., x(t1)x(t2)x^{*}(t_{1})\leq x^{*}(t_{2}), if t1<t2t_{1}<t_{2}, or x(t1)x(t2)x^{*}(t_{1})\geq x^{*}(t_{2}), if t1<t2t_{1}<t_{2}, t1,t2𝒯l\forall t_{1},t_{2}\in{\cal{T}}_{l}. Hence, we only need to consider the unidirectional UAV trajectory between [0,D][0,D] for problem (SP2).

Lemma 1

There always exists an optimal UAV trajectory satisfying x(t1)=x(t2)x(t_{1})=x(t_{2}) if t1+t2=nTft_{1}+t_{2}=nT_{f}, where nn is even.

Proof:

Without loss generality, we assume that the total transmission rate of the llth ISAC frame is the largest, and its corresponding optimal UAV trajectory is denoted by {x(t)}t=(l1)TflTf\{x^{*}(t)\}_{t=(l-1)T_{f}}^{lT_{f}}. We can always construct an optimal UAV trajectory of the l+1l+1th ISAC frame by reversing x(t)x^{*}(t) from the timeline, i.e., {x(t)}t=lTf(l1)Tf\{x^{*}(t)\}_{t=lT_{f}}^{(l-1)T_{f}}, and its corresponding sensing time and transmit precoder at the same location are set to be the same as that of the llth ISAC frame. Obviously, the total transmission rate of the constructed solution is no less than that of the original solution, and the constraints in (7c) are also satisfied. Thus, the proof is completed. ∎

According to Lemma 1, the potential symmetric structure characteristics of the optimal UAV trajectories among adjacent frames are proved. For example, the UAV location at time t1=αTft_{1}=\alpha T_{f} during the first ISAC frame equals to that at time t2=Tf+(1α)Tft_{2}=T_{f}+(1-\alpha)T_{f} during the second ISAC frame, i.e. t1t_{1} and t2t_{2} are symmetric with respect to t=Tft=T_{f}. Therefore, we can fist optimally solve the UAV trajectory in the first ISAC frame, and then, the optimal UAV trajectory in the second ISAC frame can be constructed by reversing the sequence of that within the first frame. Then, the optimal UAV trajectory of other frames can be obtained similarly.

Based on the above discussion, we can construct an optimal UAV trajectory flying from xrx_{r} to xrx^{\prime}_{r} for the first ISAC frame, where xrxrx_{r}\geq x^{\prime}_{r}. Specifically, the UAV first hovers for a duration of τ0\tau_{0} s at the sensing location xrx_{r} and then flies toward user’s direction at its maximum speed for t(τ0,Tf]t\in(\tau_{0},T_{f}]. Then, the sum-rate based on this trajectory is

C=\displaystyle{C}= τ0g(xr)+1Vmaxxrxrf(x)dx+xrVmaxf(0),\displaystyle{\tau_{0}}g\left({{x_{r}}}\right)+\frac{1}{V_{\max}}\int_{{x_{r}}}^{x^{\prime}_{r}}{f\left(x\right)}{\rm{d}}x+\frac{x^{\prime}_{r}}{V_{\max}}f(0), (15)

where xr=max(xr(Tfτ0)Vmax,0){x^{\prime}_{r}}=\max({x_{r}}-({T_{f}}-{\tau_{0}}){V_{\max}},0), g(x)g\left(x\right) represents the achievable rate during sensing at location xx (c.f. (12)), and f(x)=log2(1+γ0x2+H2)f\left(x\right)={\log_{2}}\left({1+\frac{{\gamma_{0}}}{{{{x^{2}}+{H^{2}}}}}}\right) is the achievable rate when only transmitting data to user.

Lemma 2

There always exists an optimal trajectory in the first ISAC frame satisfying the following structure to problem (SP2), i.e.,

x(t)={xr,t[0,τ0]max(xrVmax(tτ0),0),t(τ0,Tf],x(t)=\left\{{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{{x^{*}_{r}}},}&{t\in[0,\tau_{0}]}\\ {\max({x^{*}_{r}-V_{\max}(t-\tau_{0}),0}),}&{t\in(\tau_{0},T_{f}]}\end{array}}\right.,\vspace{-1mm} (16)

where xr{x^{*}_{r}} satisfies the following condition:

τ0Vmaxg(xr)=f(max(xrVmax(Tfτ0),0))f(xr).{\tau_{0}}V_{\max}g^{\prime}\left({{x^{*}_{r}}}\right)=f\left({\max({x^{*}_{r}-V_{\max}(T_{f}-\tau_{0}),0})}\right)-f\left({{x^{*}_{r}}}\right).\vspace{-1mm} (17)
Proof:

For any given two UAV trajectories with different sensing locations x1x_{1} and x2x_{2}, the sum-rate difference between these two trajectories can be written as

ΔC\displaystyle\Delta{C} =τ0g(x2)τ0g(x1)+1Vmaxx1x2f(x)dx\displaystyle={\tau_{0}}g({{x_{2}}})-{\tau_{0}}g({{x_{1}}})+\frac{1}{V_{\max}}\int_{{x_{1}}}^{x_{2}}{f(x)}{\rm{d}}x (18)
1Vmaxx1x2f(x)dx+(x2Vmaxx1Vmax)f(0),\displaystyle-\frac{1}{{{V_{\max}}}}\int_{{x^{\prime}_{1}}}^{{x^{\prime}_{2}}}{f(x)}{\rm{d}}x+\left({\frac{{{x^{\prime}_{2}}}}{{{V_{\max}}}}-\frac{{{x^{\prime}_{1}}}}{{{V_{\max}}}}}\right)f(0),

where x2=max(x2(Tfτ0)Vmax,0){x^{\prime}_{2}}=\max({x_{2}}-({T_{f}}-{\tau_{0}}){V_{\max}},0) and x1=max(x1(Tfτ0)Vmax,0){x^{\prime}_{1}}=\max({x_{1}}-({T_{f}}-{\tau_{0}}){V_{\max}},0). Define Δx=x2x1\Delta x=x_{2}-x_{1}, if the optimal sensing location is x1x_{1} or x2x_{2}, it follows that

limΔx0ΔCΔx=τ0g(x1)1Vmax(f(x1)f(x1))=0.\mathop{\lim}\limits_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\Delta{C}}{\Delta x}={\tau_{0}}g^{\prime}({{x_{1}}})-\frac{1}{V_{\max}}({f(x^{\prime}_{1})-f({{x_{1}}})})\\ =0.\vspace{-1.5mm} (19)

Then, the optimal sensing location should satisfy the condition: τ0Vmaxg(xr)=f(max(xr,0))f(xr){\tau_{0}}V_{\max}g^{\prime}\left({{x_{r}}}\right)=f\left({\max\left({x^{\prime*}_{r},0}\right)}\right)-f\left({{x^{*}_{r}}}\right), where xr=xrVmax(Tlτ0)x^{\prime*}_{r}\!=\!{x^{*}_{r}}\!-\!{V_{\max}}\left({{T_{l}}\!-\!\tau_{0}}\right), and thus, completes the proof. ∎

Based on Lemma 2, the optimal UAV trajectory can be obtained by 1-D search within [0,D][0,D] together with checking whether the equation in (17) holds. Particularly, if Tf=τ0T_{f}=\tau_{0}, the optimal trajectory is hovering at the location where g(xr)=0g^{\prime}\left({{x_{r}}}\right)=0. As a result, the achievable rate of the optimal UAV trajectory obtained by Lemma 2 is the upper bound of that for (P1).

III-C Location Constrained Trajectory and Sensing Optimization

Mathematically, with initial and final location constraints, the UAV trajectory and sensing start instant optimization sub-problem of (P1) is reduced to

(P3):\displaystyle(\rm{P3}):\quad max{x(t)},{tl}missingmissing1Tt=0TR~(t)dt,\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}\mathop{\max}\limits_{{\{{{x}(t)}\},\{t_{l}\}}}\quad\mathop{\frac{missing}{missing}}{1}{T}\int_{t=0}^{T}\tilde{R}(t){\rm{d}t},\end{array} s.t.(7c)(7d).\displaystyle\mbox{s.t.}\quad(\ref{P1}c)-(\ref{P1}d). (21)

The optimal sensing locations and sensing durations of all ISAC frames are denoted by {xl}l=1L\{x^{*}_{l}\}_{l=1}^{L} and {[tl,tl+τ0]}l=1L\{[t^{*}_{l},t^{*}_{l}+\tau_{0}]\}_{l=1}^{L}. We observe that if two consecutive sensing locations on the same side of user, i.e., xlxl+1>0x_{l}^{*}x_{l+1}^{*}>0, the UAV must fly at its maximum speed from xl{x_{l}^{*}} to xl+1{x_{l+1}^{*}}. Otherwise, the UAV will hover at the above of user except flying from xlx_{l}^{*} to xl+1x_{l+1}^{*} at its maximum speed.

Lemma 3

The optimal sensing location xlx^{*}_{l} and sensing durations [tl,tl+τ0][t^{*}_{l},t^{*}_{l}+\tau_{0}] of the llth ISAC frame must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:

  • g(xl)=0g^{\prime}(x^{*}_{l})=0 (c.f. the definition of g(x)g(x) in (12));

  • tl=(l1)Tft^{*}_{l}=(l-1)T_{f} or tl=lTft^{*}_{l}=lT_{f}.

Proof:

For any given two sensing locations in the llth ISAC frame, the sum-rate difference between these two trajectories is τ0g(xl)\tau_{0}g(x_{l}). Hence, if g(xl)0g^{\prime}(x^{*}_{l})\neq 0, the sum-rate can be improved by moving the xlx^{*}_{l} toward the direction where g(xl)>0g^{\prime}(x^{*}_{l})>0. Due to the maximum speed constraints, there may not exist feasible solution satisfying g(xl)=0g^{\prime}(x^{*}_{l})=0 within each ISAC frame. In this case, the optimal sensing start instant must be at the start or the end of this ISAC frame, i.e., tl=(l1)Tft^{*}_{l}=(l-1)T_{f} or tl=lTft^{*}_{l}=lT_{f}. Thus, the proof is completed. ∎

Based on above conclusions, a high-quality solution can be constructed based on the optimal sensing conditions of Lemma 3. Specifically, the UAV will tend to fly at its maximum speed toward location xrx_{r}^{*} in Lemma 2, during which, the sensing locations {xl}l=1L\{x_{l}\}_{l=1}^{L} can be obtained by 1-D search together with checking the conditions in Lemma 3. After arriving at the location xrx_{r}^{*} , the trajectory is composed of several sub-trajectories with a similar hover-fly-hover structure expressed in (16). Then, the trajectory back to final location can be obtained in a similar way as leaving from initial location. If |xIxr|+|xFxr|<L(Tfτ0)Vmax|x_{I}-x^{*}_{r}|+|x_{F}-x^{*}_{r}|<L({T_{f}-\tau_{0}})V_{\max}, the UAV will fly at its maximum speed from xIx_{I} toward location xrx_{r}^{*} and back to xFx_{F} at the time T/2{T\mathord{\left/{\vphantom{T2}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}2}.

IV Numerical Results

In this section, numerical results are provided for characterizing the performance of the proposed IPSAC mechanism. The required parameters are set as follows unless specified otherwise: Pmax=0.1P_{\max}=0.1 W, β0=30\beta_{0}=-30 dB, σ2=100\sigma^{2}=-100 dB, Γ~=6×e5\tilde{\Gamma}=6\times e^{-5}, T=500T=500 s, Tf=5T_{f}=5 s, τ0=0.1\tau_{0}=0.1 s, M=10M=10, d=λ/2d={\lambda\mathord{\left/{\vphantom{\lambda 2}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}2}, Vmax=30V_{\max}=30 m/s, H=50H=50 m, D=400D=400 m, and xI=xF=Dx_{I}=x_{F}=D. Our proposed schemes for problem (SP2) and (P3) denoted as 1): "Upper bound" and 2): "Proposed" in Fig. 2, respectively, are compared to two benchmarks. 3): "Time division": The transmit precoder is set as the MRT to the user and target in a time-division manner; 4): "Optimal precoder only": The transmit precoder is obtained by our proposed method. Both benchmarks assume that the UAV performs sensing tasks at the beginning of each ISAC frame, and flies from the initial location to the user during the first-half ISAC frame and then flies to the target during the second half-frame, respectively.

Figs. 2(a)-2(b) illustrate the fundamental trade-off among sensing power requirement, sensing frequency, and achievable rate for the considered system. It is observed from Fig. 2(a) that the achievable rate gain achieved by our proposed scheme over the "optimal precoder only" scheme increases as the sensing frequency decreases, as the UAV has more non-sensing time to adjust its trajectory for communication performance improvement. Moreover, the achievable rate of our proposed scheme under high sensing frequency achieves significant improvement as compared to that of the "Time division" scheme, since more sensing time can be fully utilized for data transmission. In particular, the performance of our proposed method is very close to the upper bound of (P1), which is obtained by solving (SP2) based on Lemma 2, thereby illustrating the near-optimality of the proposed solution. Besides, when the sensing frequency increases, the achievable rate with a higher beam pattern gain threshold Γ~{\tilde{\Gamma}} degrades faster as compared to that with a lower threshold. The main reason is that a higher beam pattern gain threshold forces the UAV to perform sensing tasks at a location closer to the target, thereby resulting in increasing path loss within pure communication duration. Similarly, it can be seen from Fig. 2(b) that as the beam pattern gain threshold Γ~{\tilde{\Gamma}} increases, the achievable rate under higher sensing frequency degrades faster as compared to that with a higher one. In Fig. 2(c), it is shown that for our proposed scheme, the achievable rates under different Γ~{\tilde{\Gamma}} are almost equal when the distance DD is less than 100 m, i.e., a better communication performance can be achieved when sensing the target closer to the user (receiver). In Fig. 3, the achievable rate gain achieved by our proposed scheme over the "optimal precoder only" scheme increases as the maximum flight speed VmaxV_{\max} increases, since the UAV could obtain better channel gain within a shorter flying time.

Refer to caption
(a) Achievable rate versus sensing frequency.
Refer to caption
(b) Achievable rate versus beam pattern gain.
Refer to caption
(c) Achievable rate versus distance.
Figure 2: Performance comparison among sensing power requirement, sensing frequency, and achievable rate (sensing frequency is defined as 1/Tf{1\mathord{\left/{\vphantom{1{{T_{f}}}}}\right.\kern-1.2pt}{{T_{f}}}}).
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Achievable rate versus maximum flight speed.

V Conclusion and Future Works

This letter studied the achievable rate maximization problem in a UAV-enabled ISAC system. In particular, it was shown that there exists a novel structure-symmetry characteristic between optimal solutions in different ISAC frames without location constraints. Furthermore, a near-optimal location-constrained solution was achieved based on the derived closed-form achievable rate. Numerical results verified that the proposed scheme is able to drastically enlarge sensing and communication performance trade-off of UAV-enable ISAC systems. The more general 3D UAV trajectory optimization problems for multi-UAV ISAC scenarios are worthwhile future works.

Appendix A: Proof of Proposition 1

First, it can be easily shown that constraint (11b) is met with equality for the optimal solution since otherwise 𝒘c\|{\bm{w}}_{c}\| can be always increased to improve the objective value until (11b) becomes active. Hence, constraint (11b) can be rewritten as tr(𝑾)=Pmax{\rm{tr}}\left({\bm{W}}\right)=P_{\max}. For MPmaxρ2(Dx)2+H2Γ~\frac{{{M{P_{\max}}\rho^{2}}}}{{{\left({D-x}\right)}^{2}}+{H^{2}}}\geq{\tilde{\Gamma}}, We can readily derive that the beam pattern gain at target will be no less than the threshold Γ~{\tilde{\Gamma}} if the optimal transmit precoder is Pmax𝒉c𝒉c\sqrt{P_{\max}}\frac{{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\left\|{\bm{h}}_{c}\right\|}, and its corresponding user SINR is β0PmaxMx2+H2\frac{\beta_{0}{P_{\max}}M}{{{{x^{2}}+{H^{2}}}}}. For MPmaxρ2(Dx)2+H2<Γ~\frac{{{M{P_{\max}}\rho^{2}}}}{{{\left({D-x}\right)}^{2}}+{H^{2}}}<{\tilde{\Gamma}}, the Lagrangian function of (SDR2.1) is

L(𝑾,λ1,λ2)=\displaystyle L({\bm{W}},{\lambda_{1}},{\lambda_{2}})= tr(𝑯c𝑾)+λ1(tr(𝑾)Pmax)\displaystyle-{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{c}}{\bm{W}}})+{\lambda_{1}}({{\rm{tr}}({\bm{W}})-{P_{\max}}}) (22)
+λ2(Γ~tr(𝑯r𝑾)).\displaystyle+{\lambda_{2}}({{\tilde{\Gamma}}}-{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{r}}{\bm{W}}})).

According to the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions, the optimal solution should satisfy

(𝑯cλ1𝑰+λ2𝑯r)𝑾=0,\left({\bm{H}}_{c}-{\lambda_{1}}{\bm{I}}+{\lambda_{2}}{\bm{H}}_{r}\right){\bm{W}}=0,\vspace{-1mm} (23)

which can be rewritten as

[𝒉c𝒉r][𝒉cH𝑾λ2𝒉rH𝑾]=λ1𝑾.\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\bm{h}}_{c}}&{{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}}\\ {{\lambda_{2}}{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{\bm{W}}}\end{array}}\right]={\lambda_{1}}{\bm{W}}.\vspace{-2mm} (24)

λ2\lambda_{2} is nonzero only when tr(𝑯r𝑾)<Γ~{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{r}}{\bm{W}}})<\tilde{\Gamma}. In this case, MRT is the optimal solution to (P2). Define 𝑯=[𝒉c,𝒉r]{\bm{H}}=[{\bm{h}}_{c},{\bm{h}}_{r}]. By multiplying both sides of equation (24) with [𝒉c𝟎M×1𝟎M×1𝒉r](𝑯H𝑯)1𝑯H\left[{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{{\bm{h}}_{c}}}&{\bm{0}}^{M\times 1}\\ {\bm{0}}^{M\times 1}&{{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}\end{array}}\right]({{\bm{H}}^{H}{\bm{H}}})^{-1}{\bm{H}}^{H} and taking the trace of both sides, it follows that

tr(𝑯cH𝑾)=λ1|𝒉rH|2tr(𝑯c𝑾)𝒉cH𝒉rtr(𝒉c𝒉rH𝑾)|𝒉c|2|𝒉r|2|𝒉cH𝒉r|2λ2tr(𝑯rH𝑾)=λ1|𝒉cH|2tr(𝑯r𝑾)𝒉rH𝒉ctr(𝒉r𝒉cH𝑾)|𝒉c|2|𝒉r|2|𝒉cH𝒉r|2.{\begin{array}[]{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{tr}}({{\bm{H}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}})\!=\!{\lambda_{1}}\frac{{{{|{{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}}|}^{2}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{c}}{\bm{W}}})-{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{\bm{W}}})}}{{{{|{{{\bm{h}}_{c}}}|}^{2}}{{|{{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|}^{2}}-{{|{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|}^{2}}}}}\\ {{\lambda_{2}}{\rm{tr}}({{\bm{H}}_{r}^{H}{\bm{W}}})\!=\!{\lambda_{1}}\frac{{{{|{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}}|}^{2}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{r}}{\bm{W}}})-{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{h}}_{r}}{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}})}}{{{{|{{{\bm{h}}_{c}}}|}^{2}}{{|{{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|}^{2}}-{{|{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|}^{2}}}}}\end{array}}.\vspace{-1mm} (25)

Since λ1\lambda_{1} and λ2\lambda_{2} are real-valued, 𝒉cH𝒉rtr(𝒉c𝒉rH𝑾){\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{\bm{W}}}) and 𝒉rH𝒉ctr(𝒉r𝒉cH𝑾){\bm{h}}_{r}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{c}}{\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{h}}_{r}}{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}}) equal to |𝒉cH𝒉r|tr(𝑯cH𝑾)tr(𝑯rH𝑾){|{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|\sqrt{{\rm{tr}}({{\bm{H}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}}){\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{r}^{H}}{\bm{W}}})}} or |𝒉cH𝒉r|tr(𝑯cH𝑾)tr(𝑯rH𝑾)-{|{{\bm{h}}_{c}^{H}{{\bm{h}}_{r}}}|\sqrt{{\rm{tr}}({{\bm{H}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}}){\rm{tr}}({{{\bm{H}}_{r}^{H}}{\bm{W}}})}}. Accordingly, by plugging equations in (25) into (23), it is readily derived that for any given nonzero λ1\lambda_{1} and λ2\lambda_{2}, the optimal SNR at user tr(𝑯cH𝑾)=γ0((Dx)2+H2)(ρΓ~+1ρ2MPmax(Dx)2+H2Γ~)2x2+H2{\rm{tr}}\left({{\bm{H}}_{c}^{H}{\bm{W}}^{*}}\right)=\frac{\gamma_{0}{({{({D\!-\!x})}^{2}}\!+\!{H^{2}}){\left({\rho{\sqrt{{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}}}{{\!+\!}}\sqrt{{1\!-\!{\rho^{2}}}}{\sqrt{\frac{{M{P_{\max}}}}{{{{({D\!-\!x})}^{2}}\!+\!{H^{2}}}}\!-\!{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}}}}\right)^{2}}}}{{{x^{2}}+{H^{2}}}}, where ρ=|𝒂H(x,𝒖)𝒂(x,𝒗)|𝒂H(x,𝒖)𝒂(x,𝒗)\rho=\frac{|{\bm{a}}^{H}(x,{\bm{u}}){\bm{a}}(x,{\bm{v}})|}{\|{\bm{a}}^{H}(x,{\bm{u}})\|\|{\bm{a}}(x,{\bm{v}})\|}. Combining the above results yields the proof.

References

  • [1] J. A. Zhang et al., “Enabling joint communication and radar sensing in mobile networks - a survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., 2021.
  • [2] Y. Cui, F. Liu, X. Jing, and J. Mu, “Integrating sensing and communications for ubiquitous IoT: Applications, trends, and challenges,” IEEE Netw., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 158–167, 2021.
  • [3] F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, H. Sun, and L. Hanzo, “MU-MIMO communications with MIMO radar: From co-existence to joint transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2755–2770, 2018.
  • [4] L. Chen, F. Liu, W. Wang, and C. Masouros, “Joint radar-communication transmission: A generalized Pareto optimization framework,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 2752–2765, 2021.
  • [5] Q. Wu, J. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Capacity characterization of UAV-enabled two-user broadcast channel,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1955–1971, 2018.
  • [6] K. Meng, D. Li, X. He, and M. Liu, “Space pruning based time minimization in delay constrained multi-task UAV-based sensing,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 2836–2849, 2021.
  • [7] Z. Wei, F. Liu, D. W. K. Ng, and R. Schober, “Safeguarding UAV networks through integrated sensing, jamming, and communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04733, 2021.
  • [8] Z. Lyu, G. Zhu, and J. Xu, “Joint maneuver and beamforming design for UAV-enabled integrated sensing and communication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02857, 2021.
  • [9] J. Xu, L. Liu, and R. Zhang, “Multiuser MISO beamforming for simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 18, pp. 4798–4810, 2014.
  • [10] Y. Huang and D. P. Palomar, “Rank-constrained separable semidefinite programming with applications to optimal beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 664–678, 2010.