I Introduction
Intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) is an emerging 6G technology that uses a large array of lowcost electromagnetic “mirrors”, i.e., reflective elements, to orient the impinging radio waves toward the intended receiver, thereby boosting the spectral efficiency, energy efficiency, and reliability of wireless transmission [1, 2]. From a practical standpoint, the choice for the phase shift induced by each reflective element is normally restricted to a set of discrete values because of hardware constraints. Although IRS has been studied extensively in the literature to date, it remains a challenging task to optimally coordinate discrete phase shifts across reflective elements.
This work proposes efficient strategies for discrete beamforming for IRS in order to maximize the received signaltonoise ratio (SNR) boost, the computational complexity of which is only linear in the number of reflective elements. For the binary phase beamforming with each phase shift confined to the set , we show that the global optimal solution can be computed in linear time; for the general ary phase beamforming case with each phase shift confined to the set where , we propose a linear time approximation algorithm that guarantees an SNR boost within a constant fraction of the global optimum, e.g., it can attain over of the optimal SNR boost for the quadrature beamforming with .
Unlike the existing multiantenna devices, IRS is a passive device that does not perform active signal transmitting. This passive trait of IRS has spurred considerable research interests over the past few years in adapting the traditional methods of active beamforming, covering a variety of system models ranging from pointtopoint communication [3, 4, 5, 6] to downlink cellular network [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19], uplink cellular network [20, 21], interference channel [22], and wiretap channel [23]. While the prior studies in this area mostly assume that the phase shift can be chosen arbitrarily for every reflective element, there is a growing trend toward practical beamforming that restricts the choice for phase shift to a set of discrete values [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Two common objectives of IRS beamforing as adopted in the literature are to maximize the throughput [8, 3, 11, 10, 20, 18, 19, 15, 13, 23] and to minimize the power consumption under the qualityofservice (QoS) constraints [7, 12, 21, 17, 16]
, other works accounting for the generalized degreeoffreedom (GDoF)
[22], energy efficiency [9], and outage probability
[34].Optimization is a key aspect of the IRS beamforming. In the realm of continuous IRS beamforming, two standard optimization tools—semidefinite relaxation (SDR) [35] and fractional programming (FP) [36, 37]—have been brought to the fore to address the nonvexity of the IRS beamforming problem. For instance, [7, 38, 14, 12, 20, 15, 19] suggest using SDR because of the quadratic programming form of the IRS beamforming problem, while [11, 23, 17, 34, 21, 5, 18, 23, 13] invoke FP to deal with the fractional function of the signaltointerferenceplusnoise ratio (SINR). Moreover, [22] develops a unified Riemannian conjugate gradient algorithm to enable interference alignment in an IRSassisted system, [10, 16] cope with the nonconvex beamforming problem via successive convex approximation, [6] relies on the minorizationmaximization (MM) to address the hardware impairments in the IRS beamforming problem, and [3, 19] suggest a decentralized beamforming scheme based on alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM).
In comparison to the above continuous beamforming algorithms for IRS, the existing discrete beamforming algorithms lag somewhat in sophistication. Few attempts have been made for the discrete case to date. To achieve the global optimum, [32] uses the exhaustive search and [33] uses the branchandbound algorithm, neither of which is computationally scalable. The remaining works [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]
typically relax the discrete constraint and then round the relaxed continuous solution to the closest point in the discrete constraint set, namely the closest point projection algorithm. However, this heuristic method can lead to arbitrarily bad performance as shown in this paper. We shall give a linear time beamforming algorithm with provable performance guarantees. The main contributions of the paper are twofold:
I1 Binary phase beamforming
We consider maximizing the SNR boost when each phase shift is selected from . Although the corresponding problem appears intractable, we show that the global optimum can be achieved in linear time. In addition, we show that the common heuristic of projecting the relaxed continuous solution to the closest point in the discrete constraint set [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31] can result in arbitrarily bad performance.
I2 General ary phase beamforming
We then assume that each phase shift is selected from a fixed set of discrete values. The proposed linear time algorithm has provable performance of reaching the global optimum to within a constant fraction , thus guaranteeing a tighter approximation ratio than the closest point projection algorithm [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31] and the SDR algorithm [7, 38, 14, 12, 20, 15, 19].
The above results are of theoretical significance because they shatter the common beliefs that the discrete IRS beamforming problem must be NPhard and that the closest point projection is the best strategy for coordinating phase shifts in practice. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the proposed algorithm in this work can be extended to blind beamforming
without channel estimation. This topic is pursued in the companion paper
[39] to the present.Throughout the paper, we use the boldface lowercase letter to denote a vector, the bold uppercase letter a matrix, and the calligraphy uppercase letter a set. For a matrix
, refers to the transpose, the conjugate transpose, and the inverse. For a vector , refers to the Euclidean norm, the transpose, and the conjugate transpose. The cardinality of a set is denoted as . The set of real numbers is denoted as . The set of complex numbers is denoted as . For a complex number , , , and refer to the real part, the imaginary part, and the principal argument of , respectively. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model and problem formulation. Section III discusses binary phase beamforming. Section IV discusses ary phase beamforming. Section V presents the numerical results. Section VI concludes the paper.Ii System Model
Consider a pair of transmitter and receiver, along with an IRS that facilitates the data transmission between them. The IRS consists of passive reflective elements. Let , , be the cascaded channel from the transmitter to the receiver that is induced by the th reflective element; let be the superposition of all those channels from the transmitter to the receiver that are not related to the IRS, namely the background channel. Each channel can be rewritten in an exponential form as
(1) 
with the magnitude and the phase .
Denote the IRS beamformer as , where each refers to the phase shift of the th reflective element. The choice of each is restricted to the discrete set
(2) 
with the distance parameter
(3) 
Let be the transmit signal with the mean power , i.e., . The received signal is given by
(4) 
where an i.i.d. random variable
models the additive thermal noise. The received SNR can be computed as(5a)  
(5b) 
The baseline SNR without IRS is
(6) 
The SNR boost is defined as
(7a)  
(7b) 
We seek the optimal to maximize the SNR boost:
(8a)  
subject to  (8b) 
The above problem is difficult to tackle directly because of the discrete constraint on .
Iii Binary Phase Beamforming with
As , the discrete beamforming problem in (8) reduces to the continuous, in which case the SNR boost is maximized when every is perfectly aligned with , so the optimal relaxed solution equals the phase difference between and :
(9) 
It is then tempting to believe that the problem becomes harder when decreases. But it turns out that the problem can be efficiently solved when , as stated below.
Theorem 1
The binary phase beamforming problem in (8) with can be optimally solved in time.
Before proceeding to the proof of the above theorem, we first cast (8) to a quadratic programming form. By letting
(10) 
we rewrite the problem in (8) as
(11a)  
subject to  (11b) 
where the matrix is given by
(12) 
It can be shown that . We deal with the rankone case and the ranktwo case separately in the following.
Iii1
In this case, each is a multiple of , i.e., the quotient
(13) 
When , by substituting (13) back into (11), we obtain
(14a)  
subject to  (14b) 
It can be readily seen that the optimal would let every term be positive, i.e.,
(15) 
where equals if and equals otherwise. We then recover the optimal phase shift as . The above method runs in time.
Iii2
Rewrite each as a vector :
(16) 
and write
(17) 
With an auxiliary variable , we transform the objective function in (11) as follows:
(18a)  
(18b)  
(18c)  
(18d) 
where (18c) follows by the CauchySchwarz inequality. Inspection of the new objective function in (18d) shows that the optimal choice of given is to let have the same sign as , i.e.,
(19) 
so the joint optimization of hinges on how to optimize .
We treat each , , as a normal vector and consider its tangent line as shown in Fig. 1. Since multiple ’s may be associated with a common tangent line, the total number of tangent lines . Denote an arbitrary tangent line as . Starting from , denote the remaining tangent lines as in counterclockwise order. Let be the set of ’s associated with , . As illustrated in Fig. 1, these tangent lines partition the unit circle into a total of circular segments. Choose a circular segment that first intercepts then intercepts counterclockwise; denote it as . The remaining circular segments are denoted as in counterclockwise order.
Notice that on each circular segment in (19) is fixed, so is a piecewise linear function of . When is restricted to a particular segment , the optimization problem of in (18d) can be rewritten as
(20) 
with the coefficient vector
(21) 
where is an arbitrary vector located in the interior of . A naive idea is to compute every by using (21), requiring time; this would result in time in total for all . But we show that the time can be reduced to via iterative updating. When updating from one circular segment to the next circular segment , we just need to change the values of those variables related to the tangent line that separates the two circular segments, i.e., , so can be computed iteratively based on as
(22) 
with an arbitrary located in the interior of . Thus, while is still computed as in (21) in time, the other coefficient vectors can be obtained sequentially according to (22) in time in total.
Moreover, the optimal in problem (20) for each can be obtained in time as
(23) 
i.e., if ; otherwise is located at one of the endpoints of the circular segment . As a result, it requires time overall to solve a sequence of problems in (20) for .
Finally, the actual optimal is given by
(24) 
We then compute the corresponding as in (19) and recover the optimal phase shift by . The entire procedure requires time in total. The proof of Theorem 1 is then completed. We summarize the above steps in Algorithm 1.
We remark that the binary phase beamforming case is fairly special in that the variable in (10), either or , is realvalued. When , is complexvalued in general and thus the above linear time algorithm no longer applies.
In the existing literature [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30], a common way of discrete beamforming is to round the relaxed continuous solution in (9) to the closest point in the discrete set , i.e.,
(25) 
referred to as the Closest Point Projection (CPP) algorithm. The following example however shows that the above algorithm can result in arbitrarily bad performance when .
Example 1
Consider the binary phase beamforming with . Assume that all the reflected channels have equal magnitudes, and that half of the reflected channels have the phase while the other half have the phase . As , the closest point projection algorithm leads to , i.e., IRS does not bring any improvements.
Iv General Ary Phase Beamforming
This section considers the general ary phase beamforming in (8). We begin with a sectorization scheme in order to reduce the search space of the optimal beamformer. This new idea then yields a linear time approximation algorithm that guarantees performance within a constant fraction of the global optimum. It is further shown that the proposed algorithm has a tighter approximation ratio than the existing algorithms.
Iva Optimal Ary Phase Beamforming
The following sectorization scheme is the building block of our approach to the ary phase beamforming. Consider four sectors around on the complex plane as illustrated in Fig. 2:
(26) 
The overall channel superposition under the optimal beamformer is denoted as
(27) 
We remark that must satisfy
(28) 
otherwise we could find an integer such that
(29) 
and thus further increase the SNR boost. The bound in (28) implies that , so the possible values of are limited, as stated in the following proposition.
Proposition 1
For the ary phase beamforming problem in (8), the optimal solution is contained in either or , where the function is given by
(30) 
with the subset .
Proof:
If is already known, then it is optimal to rotate every to the closest possible position to . As a result, every must be in if , and in if .
In light of the above proposition, it suffices to search for in , i.e.,
(31) 
where
(32) 
Note that the search space size is much smaller than the full solution space size for large . But the running time is still exponential. We aim at a more efficient algorithm in the next subsection.
IvB Proposed Approximation Algorithm
The premise behind the algorithm in (31) and (32) is that the optimally phaseshifted channels can spread up to three consecutive sectors, i.e., or . It guarantees the global optimality but results in the search space in (32) being exponentially large.
To achieve a tradeoff between complexity and performance, we propose letting the phaseshifted channels spread at most two consecutive sectors, i.e., or or . We now decide the IRS beamformer as
(33) 
with a new search space
(34) 
Algorithm 2 summarizes the details.
Notice that , so the search in (33) requires time. Moreover, the new search space can be obtained in time. Thus, the total running time is . Most importantly, the resulting SNR boost is within a constant fraction of the highest possible boost.
Theorem 2
Proof:
Without loss of generality, assume that the optimal channel superposition in (27) is located in . We partition into three components:
(36) 
where represents the superposition of those channels in that are located in . Defining an auxiliary variable (see Fig. 2 for illustration)
(37) 
we can bound the value of from above as
(38) 
where the last inequality follows since the rotation of in (37) reduces the angle between and .
Because is located in either or when , we can lower bound the value of as
(39) 
where the last equality follows by fact that is the solution to the above minmax problem. With , we establish the following upper bound by combining (IVB) and (IVB):
(40) 
with equality in if and only if . Finally, plugging in (40) completes the proof.
IvC Other Ary Phase Beamforming Algorithms
The proposed approximation algorithm is now compared with the existing methods for the ary phase beamforming. We begin with the closest point projection algorithm.
Proposition 2
Proof:
Clearly, we can upper bound the optimal SNR boost as by assuming that all the channels can be aligned exactly. We also have
(42a)  
(42b)  
(42c)  
(42d)  
(42e)  
(42f) 
where (42d) follows since by the closest point projection. The proof is then completed.
While the previous works [7, 38, 14, 12, 20, 15, 19] have used SDR for continuous beamforming, we show that SDR works for discrete beamforming as well. Toward this end, we first rewrite the problem as a complex ary quadratic problem in (11), and then the standard SDR method applies. The next proposition is a direct result from the existing studies on SDR [40, 35].
Proposition 3
We conclude this section by comparing the approximation ratios of the various algorithms in Fig. 4. It shows that the guaranteed performance of the proposed approximation algorithm is much closer to the global optimum.
V Simulation Results
In this section we validate the performance of the proposed algorithms in simulations. The channel model follows the previous works [7, 29, 41]. The background channel is given by
(44) 
where the transmittertoreceiver pathloss (in dB) is computed as , with in meters denoting the distance between the transmitter and the receiver, while the Rayleigh fading component
is drawn from the Gaussian distribution
. The reflected channel is given by(45) 
where and are both based on the pathloss model , with in meters respectively denoting the transmittertoIRS distance and the IRStoreceiver distance, while the Rayleigh fading component is drawn from the Gaussian distribution independently across . We use the following parameters unless otherwise stated. The transmit power level equals dBm. The background noise power level equals dBm. The locations of the transmitter, IRS, and receiver are denoted by the 3dimensional coordinate vectors , , and in meters, respectively. The number of reflective elements equals . The channels are estimated via an ONOFF strategy in [42].
Fig. 5 shows the cumulative distribution of the SNR boost for the binary phase beamforming case with . When , it can be seen that the proposed approximation algorithm “APX” outperforms the closest point projection algorithm “CPP”, especially in the low SNR boost regime. For instance, the 5th percentile SNR boost by APX is more than 2 dB higher than that by CPP. This performance gap remains when the number of reflective elements raises to 200. Moreover, we consider the quadrature beamforming case with in Fig. 6. Observe that APX and CPP now have similar performance. Thus, APX is more suited for the binary phase beamforming for IRS.
We further look into the low SNR boost regime by comparing the 1st percentile SNR boosts (i.e., the 1% lowest SNR boost across the random channel realizations) in Fig. 7. Different values of are considered here. The figure shows that APX outperforms CPP significantly in the low SNR boost regime when . For instance, when , APX improves upon CPP by about 5 dB. Observe that the gap between APX and CPP decreases with . When is increased to , the advantage of APX over CPP becomes marginal.
Fig. 8 shows how the reflected channel strength impacts the SNR boost. We put the IRS sequentially at the following 6 positions: , , , , , , so the reflected channel magnitude varies among these IRS locations, while the background channel magnitude is fixed. We evaluate the channel ratio for each IRS location. As shown in Fig. 8, the gap between APX and CPP in terms of the average SNR boost increases with , in both the binary phase beamforming case and the quadrature beamforming case. Furthermore, Fig. 9 shows the low SNR boost performance with respect to the different values of . The figure also suggests that the gap between APX and CPP becomes larger when is increased. Summarizing the above observations, we conclude that APX is more suited for the scenario where the reflected channels are relatively weak in comparison to the background channel.
The noise power is fixed at dBm in all the above simulations. We now raise to dBm and plot the resulting cumulative distributions of SNR boosts in Fig. 10. Due to more severe noise, the channel estimation becomes less accurate, and thus can spoil the IRS beamforming algorithms. Observe from Fig. 10 that APX is less affected by the increased noise as compared to CPP. Actually, APX is far superior to CPP when dBm, whereas the two algorithms are close when dBm. The tolerance to channel estimation error enables APX to perform much better than CPP in the presence of strong interference and background noise.
Vi Conclusion
Despite the practical discrete phase value constraints for the IRS beamforming, this work shows that the optimal SNR boost can be reached by the proposed algorithm with a linear time complexity in the number of reflective elements, if the phase value is binary. For the general ary phase beamforming, we propose a linear time algorithm with a provable approximation accuracy, whereas the existing closest point projection algorithm can result in arbitrarily bad performance. Simulation results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed approximation algorithm over the existing closest point projection algorithm in enhancing the received SNR, especially when channel estimation is errorprone because of interference and noise.
References
 [1] Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Towards smart and reconfigurable environment: Intelligent reflecting surface aided wireless network,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 106–112, Jan. 2020.
 [2] C. Huang, A. Zappone, G. C. Alexandropoulos, M. Debbah, and C. Yuen, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface for energy efficiency in wireless communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4157–4170, Aug. 2019.
 [3] B. Ning, Z. Chen, W. Chen, and J. Fang, “Beamforming optimization for intelligent reflecting surface assisted MIMO: A sumpathgain maximization approach,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1105–1109, Jul. 2020.
 [4] Y. Han, S. Zhang, L. Duan, and R. Zhang, “Cooperative doubleRIS aided communication: Beamforming design and power scaling,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1206–1210, Aug. 2020.
 [5] Z. Zhang, L. Dai, X. Chen, C. Liu, F. Yang, R. Schober, and H. V. Poor, “Active RIS vs. passive RIS: Which will prevail in 6G?” 2021, [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.15154.
 [6] H. Shen, W. Xu, S. Gong, C. Zhao, and D. W. K. Ng, “Beamforming optimization for IRSaided communications with transceiver hardware impairments,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 1214–1227, Feb. 2021.
 [7] Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless network via joint active and passive beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 5394–5409, Nov. 2019.
 [8] H. Guo, Y.C. Liang, J. Chen, and E. G. Larsson, “Weighted sumrate maximization for intelligent reflecting surface enhanced wireless networks,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2019.
 [9] F. Fang, Y. Xu, Q.V. Pham, and Z. Ding, “Energyefficient design of IRSNOMA networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 14 088–14 092, Nov. 2020.
 [10] X. Mu, Y. Liu, L. Guo, J. Lin, and N. AlDhahir, “Exploiting intelligent reflecting surfaces in NOMA networks: Joint beamforming optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 6884–2020, Oct. 2020.
 [11] Y. Cao, T. Lv, and W. Ni, “Intelligent reflecting surface aided multiuser mmWave communications for coverage enhancement,” in IEEE Ann. Int. Symp. Personal Indoor Mobile Radio Commun., Aug. 2021.
 [12] G. Zhou, C. Pan, H. Ren, K. Wang, M. D. Renzo, and A. Nallanathan, “Robust beamforming design for intelligent reflecting surface aided MISO communication systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1658–1662, Oct. 2020.
 [13] J. Hu, Y.C. Liang, and Y. Pei, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface enhanced multiuser MISO symbiotic radio system,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2359–2371, Apr. 2021.
 [14] B. Zheng, C. You, and R. Zhang, “DoubleIRS assisted multiuser MIMO: Cooperative passive beamforming design,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4513–4526, Jul. 2021.
 [15] H. Xie, J. Xu, and Y.F. Liu, “Maxmin fairness in IRSaided multicell MISO systems with joint transmit and reflective beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1379–1393, Feb. 2021.
 [16] M.M. Zhao, A. Liu, Y. Wan, and R. Zhang, “Twotimescale beamforming optimization for intelligent reflecting surface aided multiuser communication with QoS constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2021.
 [17] J. Zhu, Y. Huang, J. Wang, K. Navaie, and Z. Ding, “Power efficient IRSassisted NOMA,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 900–913, Feb. 2021.
 [18] Z. Zhang and L. Dai, “A joint precoding framework for wideband reconfigurable intelligent surfaceaided cellfree network,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 4085–4101, Jun. 2021.
 [19] S. Huang, Y. Ye, M. Xiao, H. V. Poor, and M. Skoglund, “Decentralized beamforming design for intelligent reflecting surfaceenhanced cellfree networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 673–677, Mar. 2021.
 [20] M. Zeng, X. Li, G. Li, W. Hao, and O. A. Dobre, “Sum rate maximization for IRSassisted uplink NOMA,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 234–238, Jan. 2021.
 [21] Y. Cao, T. Lv, Z. Lin, and W. Ni, “Delayconstrained joint power control, user detection and passive beamforming in intelligent reflecting surfaceassisted uplink mmWave system,” IEEE Trans. Cognitive Commun. Netw., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 482–495, Jun. 2021.
 [22] M. Fu, Y. Zhou, and Y. Shi, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface for interference alignment in MIMO devicetodevice networks,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) Workshops, Jun. 2021.
 [23] K. Feng, X. Li, Y. Han, S. Jin, and Y. Chen, “Physical layer security enhancement exploiting intelligent reflecting surface,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 734–738, Mar. 2021.
 [24] L. You, J. Xiong, D. W. K. Ng, C. Yuen, W. Wang, and X. Gao, “Energy efficiency and spectral efficiency tradeoff in RISaided multiuser MIMO uplink transmission,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 1407–1421, Mar. 2021.
 [25] W. Zhang, J. Xu, W. Xu, D. W. K. Ng, and H. Sun, “Cascaded channel estimation for IRSassisted mmWave multiantenna with quantized beamforming,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 593–597, Feb. 2021.
 [26] C. You, B. Zheng, and R. Zhang, “Channel estimation and passive beamforming for intelligent reflecting surface: Discrete phase shift and progressive refinement,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2604–2620, Nov. 2020.
 [27] X. Yu, D. Xu, and R. Schober, “Optimal beamforming for MISO communications via intelligent reflecting surfaces,” in IEEE Int. Workshop Sig. Process. Advances Wireless Commun. (SPAWC), May 2020.
 [28] H. Wang, N. Shlezinger, Y. C. Eldar, S. Jin, M. F. Imani, I. Yoo, and D. R. Smith, “Dynamic metasurface antennas for MIMOOFDM receivers with bitlimited ADCs,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2643–2659, Apr. 2021.
 [29] S. Abeywickrama, R. Zhang, Q. Wu, and C. Yuen, “Intelligent reflecting surface: Practical phase shift model and beamforming optimization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5849–5863, Sep. 2020.
 [30] Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Beamforming optimization for wireless networks aided by intelligent reflecting surface with discrete phase shifts,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1838–1851, Mar. 2020.
 [31] V. Arun and H. Balakrishnan, “RFocus: Beamforming using thousands of passive antennas,” in USENIX Symp. Netw. Sys. Design Implementation (NSDI), Feb. 2020, pp. 1047–1061.
 [32] W. Cai, M. Li, and Q. Liu, “Practical modeling and beamforming for intelligent reflecting surface aided wideband systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1568–1571, Jul. 2020.
 [33] B. Di, H. Zhang, L. Song, Y. Li, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, “Hybrid beamforming for reconfigurable intelligent surface based multiuser communications: Achievable rates with limited discrete phase shifts,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1809–1822, Aug. 2020.
 [34] T. Shafique, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “Optimization of wireless relaying with flexible UAVborne reflecting surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 309–325, Jan. 2021.
 [35] Z.Q. Luo, W.K. Ma, A. M. So, Y. Ye, and S. Zhang, “Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, May 2010.
 [36] K. Shen and W. Yu, “Fractional programming for communication systems—Part I: Power control and beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2616–2630, May 2018.
 [37] ——, “Fractional programming for communication systems—Part II: Uplink scheduling via matching,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2631–2644, May 2018.
 [38] D. Mishra and H. Johansson, “Channel estimation and lowcomplexity beamforming design for passive intelligent surface assisted MISO wireless energy transfer,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP), May 2019.
 [39] S. Ren, K. Shen, Y. Zhang, X. Li, X. Chen, and Z.Q. Luo, “Configuring intelligent reflecting surface with performance guarantees: Blind beamforming,” 2021, [Online]. Available https://kaimingshen.github.io/doc/BlindIRS.pdf.
 [40] A. M.C. So, J. Zhang, and Y. Ye, “On approximating complex quadratic optimization problems via semidefinite programming relaxations,” Math. Program., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 93–110, 2007.
 [41] T. Jiang, H. V. Cheng, and W. Yu, “Learning to reflect and to beamform for intelligent reflecting surface with implicit channel estimation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1913–1945, Jul. 2021.

[42]
T. L. Jensen and E. de Carvalho, “An optimal channel estimation scheme for intelligent reflecting surfaces based on a minimum variance unbiased estimator,” in
IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP), May 2020.
Comments
There are no comments yet.