Improving Wireless Physical Layer Security via D2D Communication

Consider an uplink communication system which consists of a BS, an eavesdropper, $M$ CUs and $N$ underlaid D2D pairs. The BS and eavesdropper are respectively equipped with $B$ and $E$ antennas, and each mobile user has one antenna. Denote the sets of CUs and D2D pairs by ${\cal{M}}$ and ${\cal{N}}$, respectively. To support multiple access for cellular communication, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is adopted [14], and there is a set ${\cal{K}}$ of $K$ orthogonal RBs. For brevity, a fully loaded cellular network scenario is assumed, i.e., $K=M$. As in [10, 11, 12], assume that each CU cooperates with at most one D2D pair and each D2D pair reuses the RB of no more than one CU. Moreover, it is also assumed that global channel state information (CSI) is available at the BS.

Define $\alpha_{m}^{k}$ to indicate whether CU $m$ uses RB $k$ or not, i.e., if CU $m$ uses RB $k$, $\alpha_{m}^{k}=1$, otherwise, $\alpha_{m}^{k}=0$. Introduce variable $\theta_{m}^{n}$ to indicate whether CU $m$ cooperates with D2D pair $n$ or not, i.e., if CU $m$ shares its RB with D2D pair $n$, $\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, otherwise, $\theta_{m}^{n}=0$. For signal detection, the BS is assumed to adopt minimum mean-square error (MMSE) receiver $\bm{w}_{m}\in{\mathbb{C}}^{B\times 1}$ to detect the data symbol of CU $m$. Then, if CU $m$ cooperates with D2D pair $n$ on RB $k$, i.e., $\alpha_{m}^{k}=\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, the post-processing signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) from CU $m$ to the BS is given by

where $p_{m}$ denotes the transmit power of CU $m$, and ${\bm{g}}_{mb}^{k}\in{\mathbb{C}}^{B\times 1}$ represents the channel vector from CU $m$ to the BS on RB $k$. $q_{n}$ and ${\bm{h}}_{nb}^{k}$ are similarly defined for D2D transmitter (D2D-Tx) $n$, and $N_{0}$ is the noise power.

Since calculating MMSE receivers requires conducting the inversion of matrices, which usually involves high computational complexity, the eavesdropper is assumed to simply employ maximal-ratio combining (MRC) for signal detection. Then, if $\alpha_{m}^{k}=\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, the post-processing SINR from CU $m$ to the eavesdropper on RB $k$ is

where $\bm{g}_{me}^{k},\bm{h}_{ne}^{k}\in{\mathbb{C}}^{E\times 1}$ denote the channel vectors from CU $m$ and D2D-Tx $n$ to the eavesdropper on RB $k$, respectively.

Thus, if $\alpha_{m}^{k}=\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, the SR of CU $m$ on RB $k$ can be calculated as [15]

where $V$ is the total bandwidth and $[\cdot]^{+}\triangleq\max(\cdot,0)$.

This paper aims to maximize the sum SR of all CUs with the help of D2D communication. The problem can be mathematically formulated as

​​​​​where ${\bm{A}}=[\alpha_{m}^{k}]_{M\times K}$, $\bm{\Theta}=[\theta_{m}^{n}]_{M\times N}$, ${\bm{p}}=(p_{1},\cdots,p_{M})^{T}$, ${\bm{q}}=(q_{1},\cdots,q_{N})^{T}$ and ${\bm{W}}=[\bm{w}_{1},\cdots,\bm{w}_{M}]$. $P_{m}$ and $Q_{n}$ are the maximum transmit powers of CU $m$ and D2D-Tx $n$. (4e) and (4f) indicate that a CU should be allocated an RB and an RB can be used by only one CU. (4h) and (4i) correspond to the RB reuse strategy which has been stated above.

When $N=0$, problem (4) can be simplified as

​​where $C_{m}^{k}$ is a simplified version of $C_{m,n}^{k}$ and is given by

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the power and access control problem (6) has not been studied. From Lemma 5, it is known that when $\alpha_{m}^{k}=1$, CU $m$ either keeps inactive or transmits in the maximum power on RB $k$. If $p_{m}=P_{m}$, the MMSE receiver at the BS on RB $k$ for detecting the signal of CU $m$ can be directly obtained as

Then, the SR of CU $m$ on RB $k$ is formulated as

​​​The optimal channel allocation matrix $\bm{A}$ is thus determined by the following problem

​​​which aims to maximize the sum SR of CUs by finding the optimal ${\bm{A}}$ with no more than two 1’s in the same row or column, and is thus an assignment problem. Obviously, problem (10) is equivalent to (6) in terms of sum SR of CUs, and can be optimally solved by using the Hungarian algorithm [13]. Once the optimal $\bm{A}$ is obtained, we have $\bm{w}_{m}=\sum\limits_{k\in{\cal K}}\alpha_{m}^{k}{\tilde{\bm{w}}}_{m}^{k}$ and the optimal $\bm{p}$ from Lemma 5.

Thus, the power and access control algorithm for the case without D2D communication (referred to ‘PAC-NoD2D’) can be summarized in Algorithm 1. For brevity, please refer to [13] for detailed description of the Hungarian algorithm.

According to Lemma 5, an active CU always transmits its signal using the maximum power. Hence, in the following corollary, the effect of the maximum transmit power of a CU on its corresponding SR is investigated.

Proof: See Appendix B. $\Box$

When D2D communication is adopted to improve the system security, we need to solve problem (4). Since each element of matrices ${\bm{A}}$ and $\bm{\Theta}$ is binary valued, problem (4) is a mixed integer programming, which is usually intractable. To make it tractable, assume that ${\bm{A}}$ is first obtained based on Algorithm 1 by ignoring D2D communication. Then, it is necessary to solve the CU-DU matching and power control problem as follows

​​From Lemma 5, it is known that in the optimal case, each CU either keeps inactive or transmits its signal with the maximum power. Denoting

​​​then, if $\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, the maximum SR of CU $m$ can be obtained by solving the following problem

When the BS and the eavesdropper both have one antenna, i.e., $B=1$ and $E=1$, the optimal $q_{n}$ can be obtained as shown in [12]. When $B>1$, problem (13) becomes more complex since $q_{n}$ and ${\bm{w}}_{m}$ are coupled, and the fractional expression of SINRs as well as the $\log_{2}(\cdot)$ operation makes problem (13) nonconvex. To deal with the SINR in fractional form, the relationship between the MMSE and the pre-processing SINR is usually applied in a downlink cellular system [16], [17]. As for the considered D2D underlaid uplink cellular system, a similar relationship as presented in Lemma 3 also holds. Since Lemma 3 can be analogously verified as that in [17], we omit the proof process for brevity.

When $\theta_{m}^{n}=1$, the MMSE of CU $m$ is given by

Since $\bm{w}_{m}$ is an MMSE receiver, according to Lemma 3, $\chi_{m,n}^{k_{m}}$ is equivalent to

​​​Then, problem (13) can be transformed to

​​​​Obviously, problem (17) is equivalent to problem (13) and can be effectively solved by iteratively optimizing ${\bm{w}}_{m}$ and $q_{n}$. For fixed $q_{n}$, the optimal MMSE receive filter for detecting the signal of CU $m$ can be directly written as

When ${\bm{w}}_{m}$ is determined, the optimal $q_{n}$ can be obtained based on the following theorem.

Proof: See Appendix C. $\Box$

By iteratively updating ${\bm{w}}_{m}$ and $q_{n}$ based on (18) and Theorem 1, a suboptimal ${\tilde{\chi}}_{m,n}^{k_{m}}$ can be obtained. Then, denote $\psi_{m,n}^{k_{m}}=\frac{V}{K}[{\tilde{\chi}}_{m,n}^{k_{m}}]^{+}$, the CU-DU matching problem becomes

​​Obviously, problems (11) and (20) are equivalent in terms of sum SR of CUs. Denote $\Psi=\left[-\psi_{m,n}^{k_{m}}\right]_{M\times N}$. When $M=N$, $\Psi$ is a square matrix and constraints (4h), (4i) will hold with equality. In this case, problem (20) is an assignment problem and can be optimally solved by employing the Hungarian algorithm. Once $\bm{\Theta}$ is determined, ${\bm{q}}$ and ${\bm{W}}$ can be directly optimized from previously obtained solution of problem (13), and ${\bm{p}}$ can then be obtained based on Lemma 5.

When $M<N$, (20) can be cast to an assignment problem by first calculating $\Psi$ based on the above analysis and then adding an $(N-M)\times N$ zero matrix to the bottom of $\Psi$ to obtain a new $N\times N$ dimensional matrix $\tilde{\Psi}$. Similarly, an $M\times(M-N)$ zero matrix can be added to the right side of $\Psi$ to obtain a new $M\times M$ dimensional matrix $\tilde{\Psi}$ to solve problem (20) when $M>N$. Note that in this case, since the number of D2D pairs is smaller than that of CUs, only $N$ CUs can get help from DUs to improve their secrecy performance, and the rest $M-N$ CUs have to transmit in the conventional cellular communication mode.

Based on the above analysis, the power and access control algorithm for the case with D2D communication (referred to ‘PAC-D2D’) can be summarized in Algorithm 2.

To verify the convergence of the proposed PAC-D2D algorithm, we only need to prove that the iteration of updating $\bm{w}_{m}$ and $q_{n}$ converges for any $m\in{\cal M}$ and $n\in{\cal N}$. In each iteration, the optimal $\bm{w}_{m}$ is first obtained based on (18) with fixed $q_{n}$. Then, for determined $\bm{w}_{m}$, the PAC-D2D algorithm outputs an optimal $q_{n}$ based on Theorem 1. As a result, ${\tilde{\chi}}_{m,n}^{k_{m}}$ always increases after each iteration. Since ${\tilde{\chi}}_{m,n}^{k_{m}}$ is upper bounded, the iterative updating of $\bm{w}_{m}$ and $q_{n}$ converges, which guarantees the convergence of the PAC-D2D algorithm.

In this subsection, the computational complexity of Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 is analyzed with order notation.

The complexity of the PAC-NoD2D algorithm mainly lies in solving problem (10) by using the Hungarian algorithm, which has a complexity of ${\cal O}(M^{4})$. As for the PAC-D2D algorithm, the complexity mainly lies in calculating $\bm{w}_{m}$, whose complexity is dominated by the inversion process in (18). According to [18], inversion of an $B\times B$ Hermite matrix requires $\frac{4}{3}B^{3}$ floating point operations. Therefore, calculating (18) involves a complexity of ${\cal O}\left(\frac{4}{3}B^{3}\right)$. Denote the number of iterations for updating $\bm{w}_{m}$ and $q_{n}$ by $I$. Since the iteration is carried out $MN$ times, the total complexity of the PAC-D2D algorithm is ${\cal O}\left(\frac{4}{3}B^{3}MNI\right)$. Simulation results show that the PAC-D2D algorithm converges rapidly, so the complexity is low and acceptable.