1

Spatial- and Range- ISLR Trade-off in MIMORadar via Waveform Correlation Optimization

Ehsan Raei, Student Member, IEEE, Mohammad Alaee-Kerahroodi, Member, IEEE,and M.R. Bhavani Shankar, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper aims to design a set of transmit wave-forms in cognitive colocated Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO)radar systems considering the simultaneous minimization ofspatial- and the range- Integrated Sidelobe Level Ratio (ISLR).The design problem is formulated as a bi-objective Paretooptimization under practical constraints on the waveforms,namely total transmit power, peak-to-average-power ratio (PAR),constant modulus, and discrete phase alphabet. A CoordinateDescent (CD) based approach is proposed, in which at everysingle variable update of the algorithm we obtain the solutionof the uni-variable optimization problems. The novelty of thepaper comes from deriving a flexible waveform design problemapplicable for 4D imaging MIMO radars which is optimizeddirectly over the different constraint sets. The simultaneousoptimization leads to a trade-off between the two ISLRs andthe simulation results illustrate significantly improved trade-offoffered by the proposed methodologies.

Index Terms—Beampattern Design, Coordinate Descent,MIMO radar, Waveform Design.

I. INTRODUCTION

Transmit beampattern shaping and orthogonality have beenthe key waveform design aspects influencing the performanceof colocated Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) radarsystems [1]. Beampattern shaping involves steering the ra-diation power in a spatial region of desired angles whilereducing interference from sidelobe returns to improve targetdetection [2]. There exists a rich literature on waveform designfor beampattern shaping following different approaches withregards to the choice of the variables, the objective functionand the constraints; kindly refer to [3]–[8] for details. Aninteresting approach to enhance detection of weak targets inthe vicinity of strong ones is the design of waveforms with asmall Integrated Sidelobe Level Ratio (ISLR) [3], [4] in thebeam domain or spatial-ISLR. This can be achieved by impart-ing appropriate correlation among the waveforms transmittedfrom the different antennas [9]. Waveform orthogonality, onthe other hand, aims to enhance spatial resolution through theconcept of virtual array. Similar to the beampattern design,there is a rich literature on orthogonal waveform design;kindly refer to [10]–[13] for details. Waveforms with lowISLR in time domain, also known as range-ISLR, are typicallysought [14], [15], to enable an effective virtual array. Thisis achieved by designing a set of waveforms that are uncor-related with each other (within and across antennas). Thus,a contradiction arises in achieving small spatial- and range-ISLR simultaneously, leading to a waveform design trade-offbetween spatial- and range-ISLR. This trade-off necessitates a

dedicated waveform design approach [15], a subject pursuedin this paper.

Spatial-ISLR minimization: In the spatial-ISLR the ap-proach is to maximize/ minimize the response of beampatternon desired/ undesired angles respectively. In [4], a waveformcovariance design based on Semi-definite Relaxation (SDR)under a constraint on the 3 dB main-beam is proposed tominimize the spatial-ISLR. In [3], robust waveform covari-ance matrix designs through the worst case transmit beam-pattern optimization are considered to minimize the spatial-ISLR and -Peak Sidelobe Level Ratio (PSLR). Unlike theaforementioned methods, [5] proposes a direct design of thewaveform entries based on Alternating Direction Method ofMultipliers (ADMM) to minimize the spatial-PSLR underconstant modulus constraint. In [16] Majorized Iterative Algo-rithm (MIA) approach was proposed based on Majorization-Minimization (MM) for joint waveform and filter design undersimilarity, constant modulus and Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR)constraints. In [17] a Coordinate Descent (CD) based method(Space-Time Transmitting Code (STTC)) was proposed todesign space-time codes under similarity, uncertain steeringmatrices, continuous or discrete phase constraints. The authorspropose a Dinkelbach based method and exhaustive search forcontinuous and discrete phase constraints, respectively. In [16],[17], steering the beampattern to several desired angles is notconsidered in the problem formulation.

Range-ISLR minimization: Unlike aforementioned spatiallycorrelated designs, set of waveforms having low cross-correlation for all lags have been investigated in [1], [15],[18]–[20] to exploit the virtual array in MIMO radar systems.Further, low auto-correlation sidelobes is a requirement [16],[19], [21]–[25], to avoid masking of the weak targets by therange sidelobes of a strong target [26], [27], and to mitigatethe harmful effects of distributed clutter returns close to thetarget of interest [28]. These two requirements naturally leadto the use of ISLR/ PSLR minimization as the metric whichis pursued through several approaches including, Cyclic Algo-rithm New (CAN), MM, ADMM and CD. The authors in [15],[19] proposed the CAN algorithm to optimize sequence withgood Integrated Sidelobe Level (ISL) using the alternatingminimization technique. However, instead of directly solvingthe ISL minimization, they solved its approximation. To solvethe ISL minimization problem the authors in [29] proposed theMM-Corr algorithm and the authors in [22] proposed the ISL-NEW algorithm, both using the majorization-minimizationtechnique. The authors in [30] used the ADMM techniqueto solve an approximation of the ISL minimization problem.

arX

iv:2

103.

0485

1v1

[ee

ss.S

P] 8

Mar

202

1

2

The authors in [14] used the CD technique, and not only solvethe ISL minimization, but also solved the Peak Sidelobe Level(PSL) minimization problem under discrete phase constraint.They have reported superior performance comparing with thestate-of-the art by using the CD approach.

Simultaneous range and spatial-ISLR designs: It is clearlyevident that simultaneous minimization of range- and spatial-ISLR would be essential to achieve high performance in bothrange and spatial domains while minimizing the interferingradiation or clutter reflections. In addition, simultaneous min-imization provides a new design perspective offering novelwaveforms. In this context, there are a few works even on thegeneral topic of waveform design considering simultaneouswaveform orthogonality and beampattern shaping. The sameholds for the case of ISLR minimization. The authors in [9]bring out the contradictory nature of the two ISLR designs andpropose a method for beampattern matching under particularconstraints on the waveform cross-correlation matrix. In [31],the authors present an algorithm which, at first, minimizesthe difference between desired and designed beampatternresponses for one sub-pulse. Subsequently, other sub-pulsesare obtained through random permutation. The waveformsobtained exhibit quasi-Dirac auto-correlation and the differentwaveforms are quasi-orthogonal. Since the spatial-ISLR isthe ratio of beampattern response on undesired and desiredangles, the approach in [31] is not equivalent to minimizingthe spatial-ISLR. In [32], the authors introduce a beampatternmatching by including orthogonality requirement as a penaltyin the objective function. and using the Projection, Descent,and Retraction (PDR) approach for the solution. In [33],the authors propose a method based on ADMM to designa beampattern with good cross-correlation property but theydo not consider the need for a good auto-correlation in theirformulation. The aforementioned papers design constant mod-ulus waveforms with continuous phase alphabets. However,they do not consider simultaneous minimization of range- andspatial-ISLR metrics in designing the waveform set; nor dothey consider discrete-phase designs.

Another approach considering both orthogonality and beam-pattern shaping is the phased-MIMO technique where thetransmit array is divided into a number of sub-arrays and eachsub-array coherently transmits a waveform which is orthogonalto those transmitted by the other sub-arrays. For instance,[34] considers designing a weight vector for each sub-arrayto form a beam in a desired direction. In order to obtainthe orthogonality, [34] allocates non-overlapping bandwidthto each sub-array, where the bandwidth is greater than thePulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) of the system (similar toDoppler-Division Multiple Access (DDMA) technique). In thiscase, the radar system may occupy large bandwidth leading toinefficient spectrum allocation. On the other hand, the authorsin [35] first, generate correlated waveform to achieve arbitrarybeampattern subsequently the matrix waveform is permutedto achieve a pseudo noise like quasi-orthogonal waveform.However, phased-MIMO radars tend to be effective for largeantenna systems and may not be suitable for applications withfew transmit antennas.

1

2

3MRR

LRR

SRR

(a) Current automotive MIMO radar systems.

4D imaging Radar

1

2

3

(b) 4D imaging automotive MIMO radar systems.

Fig. 1: A comparison between the conventional and 4Dimaging MIMO radar system.

A. Contributions

In the emerging 4D-imaging automotive MIMO radarsystems, the Short-Range Radar (SRR), Mid-Range Radar(MRR), and Long-Range Radar (LRR) applications areplanned to be merged, to provide unique and high angular res-olution in the entire radar detection range, as depicted in Fig. 1.In this application, both long range property and fine angularresolution are required. To achieve the long range property, theMIMO radar system should have the capability of beampatternshaping to enhance the received Signal to Interference plusNoise Ratio (SINR) and the detection performance while, theorthogonality is required to build the MIMO radar virtual arrayin the receiver and obtaining fine angular resolution.

The novel problem in this paper is aimed to address theabove practical requirements, by considering an CD frame-work subsuming the key objectives and constraints whileoffering an elegant design methodology.

This motivation drives the following contributions of thepaper:• Use of both range- and spatial-ISLR: Since these two

aspects are important in MIMO radar systems, we exploitthe well-known weighting to propose a flexible frame-work enabling a trade-off between spatial- and range-ISLR in a cognitive MIMO radar paradigm. This isconsidered by resorting to a scalarization of the multi-objective problem through its weighted sum. The weightoffers a trade-off between spatial- and range- ISLR. Thisproperty is very useful for cognitive radars where thesystem can set the operation levels for the two ISLRsbased on the scenario. The proposed optimization prob-lem is then augmented with different sets of practicalconstraints, i.e., limited energy, PAR, constant modulusand discrete phase. This novel exercise of consolidationeases design and achieves higher design efficiency.

• Optimization framework: The problem formulation leadsto an objective function comprising a weighted sum of

3

fractional quadratic (spatial-ISLR) and quartic (range-ISLR) functions; together with the constraints, the for-mulation leads to a non-convex, multi-variable, and NP-hard optimization problem. The paper proposes a unifiedframework based on the CD approach to solve the opti-mization problem under the different sets of constraints.An effective iterative algorithm based on CD, whichminimizes the objective function monotonically, in eachiteration is devised. While the CD approach is well-known [14], [21], [36]–[45] challenges lie in deriving anefficient solution to each of the single variable optimiza-tion problems. A key analytical contribution of this paperis to specialize the single variable objective functionsand obtain closed-form or numerically efficient designmethodologies based on the constraints. Particularly, thepaper considers the following approaches to derive theglobal optimum at each single variable update (i) gradientbased approach for limited power and PAR constraintswherein the minimization problems are reformulatedto enable derivation of gradients efficiently using realcomputations, (ii) a traditional calculus approach forcontinuous phase followed by simplification, (iii) solvingthe problem to yield an efficient Fast Fourier Transform(FFT) based solution for discrete phase problems.

• Discrete Phase Design: A systematic approach to the de-sign of discrete phase sequences, generally not addressedin the literature, is considered in this paper. The designof discrete phase sequences is important since its allowsfor the efficient utilization of the limited transmitterpower. Further, the phases of these sequences are chosenfrom a limited alphabet, lending it attractive for radarengineers/designers from the point of view of hardwareimplementation. A FFT based methodology is consideredto handle CD for such sequences.

• Trade-off and Flexibility: Extensive simulations compar-ing the proposed method with literature are provided toillustrate the superior trade-off obtained by the proposedsolutions in minimizing the spatial- and range- ISLR. Theflexibility of the framework is also illustrated by reportingsuperior performance when minimizing only the spatial-ISLR or the range-ISLR.

B. Organization and NotationsThe rest of this research is organized as follows. In Section

II, the system model and the design problem is formulated. Wedevelop the CD framework to solve the problem in Section IIIand provide numerical experiments to verify the effectivenessof proposed algorithm in Section IV.

Notations: This paper uses lower-case and upper-caseboldface for vectors (a) and matrices (A) respectively. Theconjugate, transpose and the conjugate transpose operatorsare denoted by the (.)∗, (.)T and (.)H symbols respectively.Besides the Frobenius norm, l2 norm and absolute value aredenoted by ‖.‖F , ‖.‖2 and |.| respectively. For any complexnumber a, <(a) and =(a) denotes the real and imaginary partrespectively. The letter j represents the imaginary unit (i.e.,j =√−1), while the letter (i) is use as step of a procedure.

Finally � denotes the Hadamard product.

II. SYSTEM MODEL AND PROBLEM FORMULATION

We consider a colocated narrow-band MIMO radar system,with Mt transmit antennas, each transmitting a sequenceof length N in the fast-time domain. Let the matrix S ∈CMt×N denotes the transmitted set of sequences in baseband.Let us assume that S , [s̄1, . . . , s̄N ] , [s̃T1 , . . . , s̃

TN ]T ,

where the vector s̄n , [s1,n, s2,n, . . . , sMt,n]T ∈ CMt

(n = {1, . . . , N}) indicates the nth time-sample across theMt transmitters (the nth column of matrix S) while thes̃m , [sm,1, sm,2, . . . , sm,N ]T ∈ CN (m = {1, . . . ,M})indicates the N samples of mth transmitter (the mth row ofmatrix S). In this paper, we deal with the spatial- and range-related ISLR. To this end, in the following, we introduce theISLR model in these domains.

A. System Model in Spatial Domain

We assume a Uniform Linear Array (ULA) structure for thetransmit array and the transmit steering vector takes the from[1],

a(θ) = [1, ej2πdtλ sin(θ), . . . , ej

2πdt(Mt−1)λ sin(θ)]T ∈ CMt . (1)

In (1), dt is the distance between the transmitter antennas andλ is the signal wavelength. The power of transmitted signal(beampattern) in the direction θ can be written as [1], [3], [8],

P (S, θ) = 1N

∑Nn=1

∣∣aH(θ)s̄n∣∣2 = 1

N

∑Nn=1 s̄

Hn A(θ)s̄n

where, A(θ) = a(θ)aH(θ). Let Θd = {θd,1, θd,2, . . . , θd,Md}

and Θu = {θu,1, θu,2, . . . , θu,Mu} denote the sets of Md

desired and Mu undesired angles in the spatial domain,respectively. This information can be obtained from a cognitiveparadigm. We define the spatial-ISLR, f̄(S), as the ratio ofbeampattern response on the undesired directions (sidelobes)to those on the desired angles (mainlobes) by the followingequation,

f̄(S) ,1Mu

∑Mu

r=1 P (S, θu,r)

1Md

∑Md

r=1 P (S, θd,r)=

∑Nn=1 s̄

Hn Aus̄n∑N

n=1 s̄Hn Ads̄n

, (2)

where Au ,∑Mur=1A(θu,r)NMu

and Ad ,∑Mdr=1A(θd,r)NMd

. Note thatf̄(S) is a fractional quadratic function.

B. System Model in Fast-Time Domain

The aperiodic cross-correlation of s̃m and s̃l is defined as,

rm,l(k) =∑N−kn=1 sm,ns

∗l,n+k, (3)

where m, l ∈ {1, . . . ,Mt} are the transmit antennas indicesand k ∈ {−N + 1, . . . , N − 1} denotes the lag of cross-correlation. If m = l, (3) represents the aperiodic auto-correlation of signal s̃m. The zero lag of auto-correlationrepresents the mainlobe of the matched filter output andcontains the energy of sequence, while the other lags (k 6= 0)are referred to the sidelobes. The range-ISL can therefore beexpressed by [14], [22],∑Mt

m,l=1l 6=m

∑N−1k=−N+1 |rm,l(k)|2+

∑Mt

m=1

∑N−1k=−N+1k 6=0

|rm,m(k)|2,

(4)

4

where the first and second terms represent the cross- andauto-correlation sidelobes, respectively. For the sake of con-venience, (4) can be written as,

ISL =∑Mt

m,l=1

∑N−1k=−N+1 |rm,l(k)|2 −

∑Mt

m=1 |rm,m(0)|2.(5)

The range-ISLR (time-ISLR) is the ratio of range-ISL overthe mainlobe energy, i.e.,

f̃(S) =

Mt∑m,l=1

N−1∑k=−N+1

∥∥∥s̃HmJks̃l∥∥∥22−Mt∑m=1

∥∥∥s̃Hms̃m∥∥∥22

Mt∑m=1

∥∥∥s̃Hms̃m∥∥∥22

, (6)

where Jk = JT−k donates the N × N shift matrix [46].Note that, when the transmit set of sequences are unimodular,∑Mt

m=1

∥∥∥s̃Hms̃m

∥∥∥22

= MtN2, and f̃(S) is a scaled version of

the range-ISLR defined in [14]. As can be seen f̃(S) is afractional quartic function.

C. Problem Formulation

We aim to design sets of sequences that simultaneouslypossess good properties in terms of both spatial- and range-ISLR, under limited transmit power, bounded PAR, constantmodulus and discrete phase constraints. The optimizationproblem can be represented as,min

Sf̄(S), f̃(S)

s.t C(7)

where C ∈ {C1, C2, C3, C4}, with

C1 :0 <‖S‖2F 6MtN

C2 :0 <‖S‖2F 6MtN,max |sm,n|2

1MtN‖S‖2F

6 γp

C3 :sm,n = ejφm,n ; φ ∈ Φ∞

C4 :sm,n = ejφm,n ; φ ∈ ΦL

(8)

where m = {1, . . . ,Mt}, and n = {1, . . . , N}. In (8),• C1 represents the limited transmit power constraint.• C2 is the PAR constraint with limited power, and γp

indicates the maximum admissible PAR.• C3 is the constant modulus constraint with Φ∞ =

[−π, π).• C4 is the discrete phase constraint with ΦL =

{φ0, φ1, . . . , φL−1} ∈{

0, 2πL , . . . ,2π(L−1)

L

}, and L is

the alphabet size.The first constraint (C1) is convex while the second constraint(C2) is non-convex due to the fractional inequality. Besides,the equality constraints C3 and C4 (sm,n = ejφ 1 or |sm,n| =1) are not affine. The aforementioned constraints can be sortedfrom the smallest to the largest feasible set as,

C4 ⊂ C3 ⊂ C2 ⊂ C1. (9)

Problem (7) is a bi-objective optimization problem in whicha feasible solution that minimizes the both the objective

1For the convenience we use φ instead of φm,n in the rest of the paper.

functions may not exist [14], [47]. Scalarization, a well knowntechnique converts the bi-objective optimization problem to asingle objective problem, by replacing a weighted sum of theobjective functions. Using this technique, the following Pareto-optimization problem will be obtained,

P

minS

fo(S) , ηf̄(S) + (1− η)f̃(S)

s.t C,(10)

The coefficient η ∈ [0, 1] is a weight factor that effectstrade-off between spatial- and range-ISLR. In (10), f̄(S) isa fractional quadratic function of s̄n, and f̃(S) is fractionalquartic function of s̃m. Hence, the objective is a non-convexand multi-variable function. Therefore, we encounter a non-convex, multi-variable and NP-hard optimization problem[14], [21].

III. PROPOSED WAVEFORM DESIGN

To tackle the fractional optimization problems, severalapproaches including expanded SDR [4], [48], Dinkelbach[49], [50], polynomial optimization [51], [52] and Grab-n-Pull[53], [54] can be used. In this paper, to solve (10) directly,we propose CD framework, which is applicable for bothfractional quadratic and quartic problems under four differentconstraints, i.e., C1, C2, C3, and C4. Under this framework,the multi variable problem is solved as a sequence of singlevariable problems. Further this single variable problems admita global solution.

A. CD based framework

The methodologies based on CD, generally start with afeasible matrix S = S(0) as the initial waveform set. Then,in each iteration, the waveform set is updated entry by entryseveral times [14], [21], [36]–[44]. In particular, an entry of Sis considered as the only variable while others are held fixedand then the objective function is optimized with respect to thisidentified variable. Let us assume that st,d (t ∈ {1, . . . ,Mt andd ∈ {1, . . . , N}) is the only variable. There are several rulesto update the matrix S: (a) randomized i.e., the entry (st,d)is chosen uniformly randomly at each single variable update,(b) cyclic i.e., iterate over all different st,d entries and (c)Maximum Block Improvement (MBI) (greedy) i.e., optimizingthe problem for each entry separately and choosing the bestone. Note that in case of large number of variables, the use ofMBI rule naturally increases the convergence time drastically.In this paper, we consider cyclic rule to update the waveform.In this case, the fixed are stored in the matrix S

(i)−(t,d) as the

following,

S(i)−(t,d) ,

s(i)1,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s

(i)1,N

......

......

......

...s(i)t,1 . . . s

(i)t,d−1 0 s

(i−1)t,d+1 . . . s

(i−1)t,N

......

......

......

...s(i−1)Mt,1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s(i−1)Mt,N

,

where, the superscripts (i) and (i− 1) show the updated andnon-updated entries at iteration i. This methodology is efficient

5

when the problem in (10) is written in a simplified formwith respect to that variable. In this regards, the optimizationproblem with respect to variable st,d can be written as follows(see Appendix A for details),

Pst,d

minst,d

fo(st,d,S(i)−(t,d))

s.t C(11)

where, fo(st,d,S(i)−(t,d)) and the constraints are given by,

fo(st,d,S(i)−(t,d)) , ηf̄(st,d,S

(i)−(t,d))+(1−η)f̃(st,d,S

(i)−(t,d)),

f̄(st,d,S(i)−(t,d)) ,

a0st,d + a1 + a2s∗t,d + a3|st,d|2

b0st,d + b1 + b2s∗t,d + b3|st,d|2, (12)

f̃(st,d,S(i)−(t,d)) ,

c0s2t,d + c1st,d + c2 + c3s

∗t,d + c4s

∗t,d

2 + c5|st,d|2

|st,d|4 + d1|st,d|2 + d2,

(13)

C1 :|st,d|2 6 γe,

C2 :|st,d|2 6 γe, γl 6 |st,d|2 6 γu,

C3 :st,d = ejφ; φ ∈ Φ∞,

C4 :st,d = ejφ; φ ∈ ΦL,

(14)

Note that, in (12), (13) and (14) the coefficients av , bv , (v ∈{0, . . . , 3}), cw (w ∈ {0, . . . , 5}) and boundaries γl, γu andγe, depend on S

(i)−(t,d) all of which are defined in Appendix

A.At ith iteration, for t = 1, . . . ,Mt, and d = 1, . . . , N ,

the (t, d)th entry of S will be updated by solving (11).After updating all the entries, a new iteration will be started,provided that the stopping criteria is not met. This procedurewill continue until the objective function converges to anoptimal value. A summary of the proposed method is reported(like a pseudo-code) in Algorithm 1.

To optimize the code entries, notice that the optimizationvariable is a complex number and can be expressed as st,d =rejφ, where r > 0 and φ ∈ [−π, π) are the amplitude andphase of st,d, respectively. By substituting st,d with rejφ andperforming standard mathematical manipulations, the problemPst,d can be rewritten with respect to r and φ as follows,

Pr,φ

minr,φ

fo (r, φ)

s.t C(15)

with fo (r, φ) , ηf̄ (r, φ) + (1− η)f̃ (r, φ), where,

f̄ (r, φ) ,a0re

jφ + a1 + a2re−jφ + a3r

2

b0rejφ + b1 + b2re−jφ + b3r2, (16)

f̃ (r, φ) ,

c0r2ej2φ + c1re

jφ + c2 + c3re−jφ + c4r

2e−j2φ + c5r2

r4 + d1r2 + d2.

(17)C1 :0 6 r 6

√γe,

C2 :0 6 r 6√γe,√γl 6 r 6

√γu,

C3 :r = 1; φ ∈ Φ∞,

C4 :r = 1; φ ∈ ΦL.

(18)

Algorithm 1 : Pseudo-code for transmit waveform design

Input: Initial set of feasible sequences, S(0).Initialization: i := 0.Optimization:

1) while (fo(S(i−1))− fo(S(i))) > ζ do

2) i := i+ 1;3) for t = 1, . . . ,Mt do4) for d = 1, . . . , N do5) Optimize s(i−1)t,d and obtain s?t,d;6) Update s(i)t,d = s?t,d;7) S(i) = S

(i)−(t,d)|st,d=s(i)t,d ;

8) end for9) end for

10) end whileOutput: S? = S(i).

Let s?t,d = r?ejφ?

be the optimized solution of Problem Pr,φ.Towards obtaining this solution, Algorithm 1 considers afeasible set of sequences as the initial waveforms. Then, ateach single variable update, it selects s(i−1)t,d as the variableand updates it with the optimized s(i)t,d, denoted by s?t,d. Thisprocedure is repeated for other entries and is undertaken untilall the entries are optimized at least once. After optimizing theMtN

th entry, the algorithm examines the convergence metricfor the objective function. If the stopping criteria is not metthe algorithm repeats the aforementioned steps. We consider(fo(S

(i)) − fo(S(i−1)) ≤ ζ, (ζ is the stopping threshold,

ζ > 0) as the stopping criterion of the proposed method. Withthe defined methodology, it now remains to solve Pr,φ for thedifferent constraints. This is considered next.

B. Solution for limited power constraint

Problem Pr,φ under C1 constraint can be written as follows(see Appendix B for details),

Pe

minr,φ

fo (r, φ)

s.t C1 : 0 6 r 6√γe.

(19)

where fo (r, φ) = ηf̄ (r, φ) + (1− η)f̃ (r, φ) and,

f̄ (r, φ) =a3r

2 + 2(a0r cosφ− a0i sinφ)r + a1b3r2 + 2(b0r cosφ− b0i sinφ)r + b1

, (20)

f̃ (r, φ) = [(2c0r cos 2φ− 2c0i sin 2φ+ c5)r2

+ 2(c1r cosφ− c1i sinφ)r + c2]1

r4 + d1r2 + d2.

(21)

The solution to Pe will be obtained by finding the criti-cal points of the objective function and selecting the onethat minimizes the objective. As fo(r, φ) is a differentiablefunction, the critical points of Pe contain the solutions to∇fo(r, φ) = 0 and the boundaries (0,

√γe), which satisfy

the constraint (0 6 r 6√γe). To solve this problem, we use

alternating optimization, where we first optimize for r keepingφ fixed and vice-versa.

6

1) Optimization with respect to r: Let us assume that the

phase of the code entry s(i−1)t,d is φ0 = tan−1(=(s(i−1)

t,d )

<(s(i−1)t,d )

). By

substituting φ0 in ∂fo(r,φ)∂r , it can be shown that the solution

to the condition ∂fo(r,φ0)∂r = 0 can be obtained by finding

the roots of the following degree 10 real polynomial (seeAppendix C for details),∑10

k=0 pkrk = 0. (22)

Further, since r is real, we seek only the real extrema points.Let us assume that the roots are rv , v = {1, . . . , 10}; thereforethe critical points of problem Pe with respect to r can beexpressed as,

Re ={r ∈ {0,√γe, r1, . . . , r10}|=(r) = 0, 0 6 r 6

√γe}.

(23)Thus, the optimum solution for r will be obtained by,

r?e = arg minr

{fo(r, φ0)|r ∈ Re

}. (24)

2) Optimization with respect to φ: Let us keep r fixedand optimize the problem with respect to φ. Consider-ing cos(φ) = (1− tan2(φ2 ))/(1 + tan2(φ2 )), sin(φ) =

2 tan(φ2 )/(1 + tan2(φ2 )) and using the change of variablez , tan(φ2 ), it can be shown that finding the roots of ∂fo(r

?e ,φ)

∂φis equivalent finding the roots of the following 8 degree realpolynomial (see Appendix D for details),∑8

k=0 qkzk. (25)

Similar to (22), we only admit real roots. Let us assume thatzv , v = {1, . . . , 8} are the roots of (25). Hence, the criticalpoints of Pe with respect to φ can be expressed as,

Φ ={

2 arctan (zv)|=(zv) = 0}. (26)

Therefore, the optimum solution for φ is,

φ?e = arg minφ

{fo(r

?e , φ)|φ ∈ Φ

}. (27)

Subsequently the optimum solution for st,d is, s(i)t,d = r?eejφ?e .

Remark 1: Since, 0 and√γe are members of Re, two

critical points always exist, and Re is never a null set. Onthe other hand, as fo(r0, φ) is function of cosφ and sinφ, itis periodic, real and differentiable. Therefore, it has at leasttwo extrema and hence its derivative has at least two real roots;thus Φe never becomes a null set. As a result in each singlevariable update, the problem has a solution and never becomesinfeasible.

C. Solution for PAR constraint

Problem Pr,φ under C2 constraint is a special case of C1

and the procedures in subsection III-B are valid for limitedpower and PAR constraint. The only difference lies in theboundaries and critical points with respect to r. Consideringthe C2 constraint, the critical points can be expressed as thefollowing,

Rp ={r ∈ {max{0,√γl},min{√γu,√γe}, r1, . . . , r10}|

=(r) = 0,max{0,√γl} 6 r 6 min{√γu,√γe}}.

(28)

Therefore, the optimum solution for r and φ is,

r?p = arg minr

{fo(r, φ0)|r ∈ Rp

},

φ?p = arg minφ

{fo(r

?p, φ)|φ ∈ Φ

},

(29)

and, the optimum entry can be obtained by, s(i)t,d = r?pejφ?p .

D. Solution for Continuous Phase

The continuous phase constraint (C3) is a special case oflimited power (C1) constraint. In this case r = 1, and theoptimum solution for φ is,

φ?c = arg minφ

{fo(r, φ)|φ ∈ Φ, r = 1

}. (30)

The optimum entry can be obtained by s(i)t,d = ejφ?c .

E. Solution for discrete phase

We consider the design of a set of M -ary Phase Shift Keying(MPSK) sequences for the discrete phase problem. In this case,Pr,φ can be written as follows (see Appendix E for details),

Pd

minφ

fd(φ) =ej3φ

∑6k=0 gke

−jkφ

ejφ∑2k=0 h

−jkφk

s.t C4 : φ ∈ ΦL.

(31)

As the problem under C4 constraint is discrete, the optimiza-tion procedure is different compared with other constraints.In this case all the discrete points lie on the boundary of theoptimization problem; hence, all of them are critical pointsfor the problem. Therefore, one approach for solving thisproblem is to obtain all the possibilities of the objectivefunction fo(φ) over the set ΦL = {φ0, φ1, . . . , φL−1} ∈{

0, 2πL , . . . ,2π(L−1)

L

}and choose the phase which minimizes

the objective function. It immediately occurs that such an eval-uation could be cumbersome; however, for MPSK alphabet, anelegant solution can be obtained as detailed below.

The objective function can be formulated with respect tothe indices of ΦL as follows,

fd(φl) = fd(l) =ej3

2πlL

∑6k=0 gke

−jk 2πlL

ej2πlL

∑2k=0 hke

−jk 2πlL

, (32)

where l = {0, . . . , L−1}, and the summation terms on numer-ator and denominator exactly follow the definition of L-pointsDiscrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of sequences {g0, . . . , g6}and {h0, h1, h2} respectively. Therefore, the problem Pd canbe written as,

Pl{

minl

fd(φl) =wL,3 �FL{g0, g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6}

wL,1 �FL{h0, h1, h2},

(33)where, wL,ν = [1, e−jν

2πL , . . . , e−jν

2π(L−1)L ]T ∈ CL and FL

is L point DFT operator. Due to aliasing phenomena, whenL < 7, the objective function would be changed. Let Nfd and

7

Dfd be the summation terms in nominator and denominatorof fd(φl) respectively, it can be shown that,

L = 6⇒ Nfd = FL{g0 + g6, g1, g2, g3, g4, g5}L = 5⇒ Nfd = FL{g0 + g5, g1 + g6, g2, g3, g4}L = 4⇒ Nfd = FL{g0 + g4, g1 + g5, g2 + g6, g3}L = 3⇒ Nfd = FL{g0 + g3 + g6, g1 + g4, g2 + g5},

and for L = 2, Nfd = FL{g0 + g2 + g4 + g6, g1 + g3 + g5}and Dfd = FL{h0 + h2, h1}.

According to aforementioned discussion the optimum solu-tion of (33) is,

l? = arg minl=1,...,L

{fd(φl)

}. (34)

Hence, φ?d = 2π(l?−1)L and the optimum entry is s(i)t,d = ejφ

?d .

F. Convergence

The convergence of proposed method can be discussed intwo aspects, the convergence of objective function and theconvergence of the waveform set S. With regard to objectivefunction, as f̄(S) > 0 and f̃(S) > 0, therefore, fo(S) > 0,∀S 6= 0, and this expression is also valid for the optimumsolution of Algorithm 1 (fo(S?) > 0).

On the other hand, the Algorithm 1 minimizes the objectivefunction in each step leading to a monotonic decrease of thefunction value. Since the function value is lower bounded, itcan be argued that the algorithm converges to a specific value.Particularly, if the algorithm starts with feasible S(0) we have,

fo(S(0)) > · · · > fo(S

(i)) > · · · > fo(S?) > 0.

Finally, the MBI updating rule (greedy), which evaluatesthe new objective value by updating each entry separately andchoosing the best one, ensures the convergence of argument[55]–[57] to stationary point. However, the MBI selection rulecould be costly with large number of variables. In cyclic rulewhich is considered in this paper, there are three key assump-tions in convergence of the argument: (a) separable constraints,(b) differentiable objective, and (c) unique minimizer at eachstep [58].

In this paper we consider the convergence of objectivefunction and numerically observed that the problem convergesunder limited energy, PAR, continuous and discrete phaseconstraints.

G. Computational Complexity

In each single variable update, Algorithm 1 needs toperform the following steps:• Calculate the coefficient av , bv and cw in (15): Cal-

culating av and bv needs M2t N operation, while cw

need M2t N log2(N) due to using fast convolution (see

Appendix A for details). Using a recursive relation, thecomputational complexity of the coefficients av and bvcan be reduced to M2

t and for cw can be reducedto MtN log2(N). Typically, in many practical MIMOradar systems, N >> Mt. Hence, considering the factthat av and bv can be obtained in parallel, the overall

computational complexity of calculating the coefficientsis O(MtN log2(N)).

• Solve the optimization problem (15): Under C1 and C2

constraints, Algorithm 1 needs finding the roots of 10and 8 degree polynomials2 in (22) and (25), which take anorder of 103 and 83 operations respectively, while underC3 the algorithm needs finding roots (25) and takes anorder of 83 operations. In case of C4 constraint we obtain(32) using two L-points FFT which each has L log2(L)operations.

• Optimizing all the entries of matrix S: To this end weneed to repeat the two aforementioned steps MtN times.

Let us assume that K iterations are required for convergence ofthe algorithm. Therefore, the overall computational complexityof Algorithm 1 is O(KMtN(103+83+MtN log2(N))) underC1 and C2 constraints, while under C3 is O(KMtN(83 +MtN log2(N))). In case of C4 the computational complexityis O(KMtN(L log2(L) +MtN log2(N))).

IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section, we provide some representative numericalexamples to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed algo-rithm. Towards this end, unless otherwise explicitly stated, weconsider the following assumptions. For transmit parameterswe consider ULA configuration with Mt = 8 transmitters andthe antenna distance is set as dt = λ

2 . We also consider aULA configuration at the receive side with Mr = 8 antennas.We select the desired and undesired angular regions to beΘd = [−55o,−35o] and Θu = [−90o,−60o] ∪ [−30o, 90o]respectively. For purpose of simulation, we consider an uni-form sampling of these regions with a grid size of 5o. Thestopping condition for Algorithm 1 is set at ζ = 10−6.

A. ConvergenceFig. 2 depicts the convergence behavior of the proposed

algorithm under C1, C2, C3, and C4 constraints under dif-ferent scalarization coefficients η. Since MPSK sequences arefeasible for the all constraints, we consider a set of randomMPSK sequences (S0 ∈ CMt×N ) with alphabet size L = 8as an initial waveform. Here, every code entry is given by,

s(0)m,n = ej2π(l−1)

L , (35)

where l is the random integer variable uniformly distributedin [1, L]. According to Fig. 2, the objective function decreasesmonotonically for all values of η and for all the constraints.Furthermore, for any η, the performance ordering of limitedpower, PAR, continuous and discrete phase can be predictedfrom the relation C4 ⊂ C3 ⊂ C2 ⊂ C1.

B. Trade-off between spatial- and range-ISLRIn this part we first assess the contradiction in waveform de-

sign for beampattern shaping and orthogonality; subsequently,we show the importance of making a trade-off between spatial-and range-ISLR to obtain a better performance.

2For finding the roots of polynomial we use “roots” function in MATLAB.This function is based on computing the eigenvalues of the companion matrix.Thus the computational complexity of this method is O(k3), where k is thedegree of the polynomial [59], [60]

8

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Iterations

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0N

orm

ali

zed

Co

st F

un

cti

on

(d

B)

= 1

= 0.75

= 0

(a) C1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Iterations

-15

-10

-5

0

No

rmali

zed

Co

st F

un

cti

on

(d

B)

= 1

= 0.75

= 0

(b) C2, γp = 1.5dB.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Iterations

-15

-10

-5

0

No

rmali

zed

Co

st F

un

cti

on

(d

B)

= 1

= 0.75

= 0

(c) C3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Iterations

-15

-10

-5

0

No

rmali

zed

Co

st F

un

cti

on

(d

B)

= 1

= 0.75

= 0

(d) C4, L = 8.

Fig. 2: Convergence behavior of the proposed algorithm for different constraint and values of η(Mt = 8, N = 64).

1) Relation between Beampattern Shaping and Orthogonal-ity: Fig. 3 shows the beampattern of the proposed algorithmunder C1, . . . , C4 constraints with different values of η. Settingη = 0 results in an almost omni directional beam. Byincreasing η, radiation pattern takes the shape of a beam withη = 1 offering the optimized pattern.

On the other hand, TABLE I shows a three-dimensionalrepresentation of the amplitude of correlation of a particularsequence with the other waveforms in the optimized set S?3.The 4th sequence shows the auto-correlation of that particularwaveform. With η = 1 (first row in TABLE I), yieldsan optimized beampattern, the cross-correlation with othersequences is rather large in all cases.

This shows the transmission of scaled waveforms (phase-shifted) from all antennas, similar to traditional phased ar-ray. In this case, it would not be possible to separate thetransmit signals at the receiver (by matched filter) and theMIMO virtual array will not be formed, thereby losing in theangular resolution. When η = 0 (last row in TABLE I), anorthogonal set of sequences is obtained as their cross-terms(auto- and cross-correlation lags) are small under differentdesign constraints. The resulting omnidirectional beampattern(see Fig. 3), however, prevents steering of the transmit powertowards the desired angles, while a strong signal from theundesired directions may saturate the radar receiver. Themiddle row in TABLE I, depicts η = 0.5, a case when partiallyorthogonal waveforms are adopted, while some degree oftransmit beampattern shaping can still be obtained (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 and TABLE I show that, having simultaneous beam-pattern shaping and orthogonality are contradictory, and thechoice of η effects a trade-off between the two and enhancethe performance of radar system. This is explored next.

2) Beampattern nulling and target discrimination: To illus-trate the effectiveness of choosing 0 < η < 1, we consider ascenario where two desired targets (T1 and T2) with similarreflectivity, speed, and range are located in θT1

= −40o andθT2

= −50o. The reason for selecting similar speed and rangeis to consider a worse case scenario where targets cannotbe extracted from the range and Doppler processing. Also,we assume that three more strong targets denoted as B1, B2

and B3 (potentially can be clutter), are located in identicalspeed and range, but with different angles, θB1

= −9.5o,

3In order to plot the auto- and cross-correlation, we first sort the optimizedwaveforms based on their energy, then we move the waveform which hasthe maximum energy to the middle of the waveform set (at [Mt

2]). By this

rearrangement, the peak of auto-correlation will always be located at themiddle.

θB2= 18.5o and θB3

= 37o, We aim to design a setof transmit sequences to be able to discriminate the twodesired targets, but avoiding interference from the undesireddirections.

Fig. 4 shows the range-angle profile of the above scenariounder the representative C4 constraint with L = 8. Whenη = 1, we consider the conventional phased array receiverprocessing for Fig. 4a and use one matched filter to extractthe range-angle profile. To this end we assume λ/2 spacingfor transmit and receive antenna elements, i.e., dt = dr = λ

2 .Observe that, despite the mitigation of undesired targets, thetwo targets are not discriminated and are merged into a singletarget. The same scenario has been repeated in Fig. 4b whenη = 0. Since the optimized waveforms are orthogonal in thiscase, we consider MIMO processing to exploit the virtualarray and improve the discrimination/identifiability. In thiscase, we use Mt matched filters in every receive chain, eachcorresponding to one of the Mt transmit sequences. Thereceive antennas have a sparse configuration with dr = Mt

λ2

but the transmit antennas are a filled ULA with dt = λ2 ;

this forms a MIMO virtual array with a maximum length.In this case, the optimized set of transmit sequences is ableto discriminate the two targets, but it is contaminated by thestrong reflections of the undesired targets. Also, some falsetargets (F1, F2 and F3) have appeared due to the high side-lobe levels of the strong reflectors. By choosing η = 0.5, weare able to discriminate the two targets and mitigate the signalof the undesired reflections in a same time. This fact is shownin Fig. 4c.

TABLE II shows the amplitude of the desired targets andundesired reflections in the scene (after the detection chain) atdifferent Pareto-weights (η). As can be seen from TABLE II,the performance of target enhancement and interference mit-igation reduces from η = 1 to η = 0. Nevertheless bychoosing η = 0.5 the waveform achieves a trade-off betweenspatial- and range-ISLR, it can discriminate the two targetsand mitigate the interference from the undesired locations.

3) Pareto-front: Pareto-front or non-dominated solutions,is a curve which gives a set of optimal solutions and helpsthe radar designers to choose the best solution for the radarsystem according to the environment conditions, prioritiesand risks. Based of our best knowledge there is no tech-nique in literature trading off the two spatial- and range-ISLR functions considered in the paper. In this regards, weconsider to compare the performance of the proposed methodwith Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA)-II,a multi objective evolutionary algorithm [61]. We assume

9

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0N

orm

aliz

ed B

eam

pat

tern

(d

B)

= 1 = 0.75 = 0.5 = 0.25 = 0

(a) C1.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

= 1 = 0.75 = 0.5 = 0.25 = 0

(b) C2, γp = 1.5dB.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

= 1 = 0.75 = 0.5 = 0.25 = 0

(c) C3.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

= 1 = 0.75 = 0.5 = 0.25 = 0

(d) C4, L = 8.

Fig. 3: Transmit beampattern under different constraint and value of η (Mt = 8, N = 64, Θd = [−55o,−35o] and Θu =[−90o,−60o] ∪ [−30o, 90o]).

TABLE I: Three-dimensional representation of the auto- and cross-correlation of proposed method (Mt = 8, N = 1024).

η C1 C2, γp = 1.5dB C3 C4 (L = 8)

1500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

0.5500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

0500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

500 2

Lags

1000

Sequences

41500 62000 8

T1 & T

2

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Range (m)

-50

0

50

Ang

le (

deg

)

(a) Phased array processing η = 1.

T1

T2

B1

B2

B3

F1

F2

F3

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Range (m)

-50

0

50

Ang

le (

deg

)

(b) MIMO processing η = 0.

T1

T2

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Range (m)

-50

0

50A

ng

le (

deg

)

(c) MIMO processing η = 0.5.

Fig. 4: Illustration of the centrality of η (C4 constraint, Mt = Mr = 8, N = 64, L = 8, θT1= −50o, θT2

= −40o,θB1 = −9.5o, θB2 = 18.5o and θB3 = 37o).

TABLE II: Amplitude of the desired and undesired targets

η T1 T2 B1 B2 B3

1 9.54 dB 9.79 dB -13.24 dB -19.93 dB -9.4 dB0.5 8.78 dB 9.71 dB -3.5 dB -3.51 dB -0.6 dB0 -2.39 dB -2.44 dB 3.68 dB 2.95 dB 2.87 dB

the following setup for NSGA-II, the number of populationnp = 50, crossover percentage cr = 70%, mutation percentagemp = 40% and mutation rate mr = 0.05.

Fig. 5 shows the non-dominated (optimal) solutions of theproposed method under C1, . . . , C4 constraints and NSGA-II method under discrete phase. As can be seen the solutionobtained by NSGA-II cannot dominate the Pareto front ofproposed method. Besides the proposed methods offers morediversity in compare with NSGA-II. In addition Fig. 5 alsodepicts the performance of the solution corresponding toη = 0.5; this solution is used to generate Fig. 4c. It can be

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50

5

10

15

= 0.5C

1

C2,

p = 3dB

C3

C4, L = 8

Solution of Fig. 3c

NSGA-II

0.1 0.2 0.3

7

7.5

8C

4, L = 8

NSGA-II

Fig. 5: Solution for Pareto front obtained from NSGA-II andthe proposed method (N = 64, Mt = 8).

observed that the solution lies on the Pareto front.The correct choice of η is essential to achieve the objectives

and that, such a choice of η depends on the scenario. In the

10

following, we provide an plausible method for selecting anappropriate η.• Training Step: This is an offline procedure which con-

tains the following steps,1) We consider different scenarios and obtain the op-

timized waveform set and its η value by usingthe Pareto front. Then, we store the correspondingresults for every scenario in a database.

2) We design an artificial neural networks and trainit with the different scenarios and optimized wave-forms corresponding to the best η value that arestored on the database, to offer the optimum solutionbased on the scenario.

• Functional Step: After training successfully the artificialneural network we can consider the following procedure,

1) In order to form the virtual array at the receiver,at the first the MIMO radar system transmits anorthogonal set of sequences (η = 0). In this case, theMIMO radar system is able to estimate the anglesof targets and interference with high discrimination(other parameters such as range and Doppler can beestimated as well).

2) Based on the estimated parameters, the artificialneural network offers the optimized set of sequencesby using the database.

3) Using the chosen set of sequences, the environmentparameters are estimated.

4) We go to step 2.As mentioned earlier, the training step is performed offline;

similar sensor training is also typically undertaken in manycommercial offerings. Further, the functional step does notinvolve optimization procedures but executing a neural net-work which is typically fast, thereby rendering the schemepractically is applicable. We consider a detailed study on thisscheme for our future research.

C. Minimizing spatial-ISLR (η = 1)

By choosing η = 1, we focus on minimizing the spatial-ISLR. In this subsection, we compare the performance ofproposed method under different constraints. In this regards,we compare with SDR based method [4] for C1, MajorizedIterative Algorithm - PAR Constraint (MIA-PC) for C2, Ma-jorized Iterative Algorithm - Constant Modulus Constraint(MIA-CMC) [16] for C3 and MIA-CMC [17] C4 as a bench-mark respectively

To compare with the SDR method [4], we assume thatthe desired and undesired angular regions to be Θd =[−55o,−35o] and Θu = [−90o,−60o] ∪ [−30o, 90o] re-spectively. In Fig. 6a, we illustrate the beampattern of theoptimized waveforms through different constraints and SDRmethod. In case of designing discrete phase sequences, wemap the results of SDR to the nearest MPSK sequence andcall it Quantized-SDR (Q-SDR). Interestingly, the optimizedwaveforms through the proposed method mimics the beam-pattern obtained via SDR, indicating the attractiveness of thisapproach in designing set of sequences with practical con-straints. Notice that, there is a significant difference between

the solution obtained via the proposed method under thediscrete phase constraint and Q-SDR for identical alphabetsizes. This can be justified from the fact that we consider theconstraint directly in the design problem, while quantizing thewaveform to the nearest MPSK sequence does not guaranteean optimal solution.

In order to compare under PAR continuous and discretephase, we assume that the target and the three interferers arelocated at 10o, −5o, 25o and −60o respectively. We set noisepower −10 dB, and similar values of 30dB for target andclutter Radar Cross Section (RCS). For a fairness, we comparewith MIA-PC and MIA-CMC in [4], where the similarityconstraint is not considered. Also, in [17], we set the similaritythreshold equal to 2, the maximum admissible similarity valuein STTC. Fig. 6(b),(c),(d) shows the normalized beampatternresponse of MIA-PC, MIA-CMC, STTC and the proposedmethod. Observe that the proposed method outperforms MIA-PC and MIA-CMC in terms of null steering. Besides theperformance of the proposed method and STTC under discretephase are similar.

D. Minimizing range-ISLR (η = 0)

We set η = 0 and evaluate the performance of the proposedmethod. Kindly refer to the last row of TABLE I, which showsthe three-dimensional representation of the auto- and cross-correlation (following the methodology in footnote 3 of sectionIV-B), under C1, . . . , C4 constraints. In this case, the proposedmethod designs a waveform with good orthogonality under C2,C3 and C4 constraints, and interestingly achieves a perfect or-thogonality under the C1 constraint. Fig. 7 shows the absolutevalue of optimum sequence under C1 constraint. As can beseen all the power is concentrated on one transmitter withno waveform from others. This is similar to Time DivisionMultiplexing (TDM) approach for orthogonality [62]–[65].

We choose Multi-CAN [19] and MM-Corr [29] as thebenchmark and assess the range-ISLR under C3 and C4

(unimodular sequences) for a fair comparison. In this case,a lower bound on the scaled range-ISLR is 10 log(Mt − 1)dB [29]. TABLE III compares the average scaled range-ISLRof the proposed method with Multi-CAN, MM-Corr and thelower bound for different number of transmitters. Similar tothe Multi-CAN and MM-Corr, the proposed method meets thelower bound under continuous phase constraint. Interestingly,even with discrete phase constraint where L = 8 and L = 2(binary), the obtained set of sequences exhibits the scaledrange-ISLR values quite close to the lower bound.

TABLE IV shows the optimized scaled range-ISLR valuesunder C4, for L = 8 and L = 2 with different sequencelengths when Mt = 8. As can be seen the proposed method iscapable to design large sequence length without degradation.Recalling the last row of TABLE IV, we observe that theoptimized sequences have range-ISLR values quite close tothe lower bound (less than 0.02 dB difference when Mt = 8).

E. Beampattern shaping with binary sequences

Due to the simplicity of implementing of binary sequences,these kind of waveforms are attractive for radar designers.

11

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0N

orm

aliz

ed B

eam

pat

tern

(d

B)

C1

C2,

p = 1.5 dB

C3

C4, L=8

Q-SDR

SDR

(a) Comparison of C1 and SDR.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Angle (dego)

-60

-40

-20

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

C2,

p = 3 dB

MIA-PC

MIA-PC-AC

(b) Comparison of C2 and MIA-PC.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Angle (dego)

-60

-40

-20

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

C3

MIA-CMC

MIA-CMC-AC

(c) Comparison of C3 and MIA-CMC.

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Angle (dego)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

C4, L = 8

STTC, L=8

(d) Comparison of C4 and STTC).

Fig. 6: The comparison of beampattern shaping of proposed method with (a) SDR, (b) MIA-PC, (c) MIA-CMC and (d) STTC(M = 8 and N = 64).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sequences

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Sam

ple

s

Fig. 7: Optimized waveform of proposed method under C1

constraints (η = 0, Mt = 8, N = 1024).

TABLE III: Comparison between the average scaled range-ISLR (dB) of the proposed method under C3 and C4, Multi-CAN [19], MM-corr [29] and lower bound with differentnumber of transmitters (η = 0, N = 64).

Mt

Lowerbound

Multi-CAN

MM-Corr C3

C4

(L = 8)C4

(L = 2)2 0 0 0.0003 0 0.2583 0.52663 3.0103 3.0103 3.0104 3.0103 3.1045 3.21334 4.7712 4.7712 4.7712 4.7712 4.8080 4.85875 6.0206 6.0206 6.0206 6.0206 6.0411 6.09506 6.9897 6.9897 6.9897 6.9897 7.0024 7.02837 7.7815 7.7815 7.7815 7.7815 7.7891 7.80718 8.4510 8.4510 8.4510 8.4510 8.4581 8.4684

TABLE IV: The range-ISLR obtained by proposed methodunder the C4 constraint with different sequence lengths (η = 0,Mt = 8).

N 32 64 128 256 512 1024L = 2 8.4678 8.4688 8.4687 8.4684 8.4676 8.4675L = 8 8.4569 8.458 8.4578 8.457 8.4568 8.4567

Here we assess the beampattern performance of proposedbinary waveform design. Fig. 8 shows the beampattern re-sponse of the proposed method in binary case with differentvalue of η, where we assume that Θd = [−55o,−35o] andΘu = [−90o,−60o]∪ [−30o, 90o]. As can be seen with η = 1we obtain the optimum beampattern response and by decreas-ing the η the beampattern worsens. Besides, the beampatternresponse in binary case is symmetric about 0o. Indeed, ina case when the waveforms are real (binary sequences), thebeampattern will be symmetric.

In 4D-imaging application of automotive radar systems, thedesired region for beampattern shaping can be limited to theangles around zero, where binary codes can be used. Fig. 9shows the beampattern response at Θd = [−10o, 10o] andΘu = [−90o,−15o] ∪ [15o, 90o] for different η.

F. The impact of alphabet size and PAR

Fig. 10a,b and Fig. 10c,d shows the impact of alphabet sizeand PAR in several aspects respectively. As is evident, thesolution of C4 approaches that of C3 for large alphabet sizes.This behavior is expected since the feasible set of C4 will be

12

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Angle (degree)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0N

orm

aliz

ed B

eam

pat

tern

(d

B)

Desired Beampatern

= 1

= 0.5

= 0

Fig. 8: The beampattern response in binary case (L = 2, M =8, N = 1024, Θd = [−55o,−35o] and Θu = [−90o,−60o] ∪[−30o, 90o]).

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Angle (degree)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Norm

aliz

ed B

eam

pat

tern

(d

B)

Desired Beampatern

= 1

= 0.5

=0

Fig. 9: The beampattern response in binary case (L = 2, M =8, N = 1024, Θd = [−10o, 10o] and Θu = [−90o,−15o] ∪[15o, 90o]).

close to that of C3, and the optimized solutions will behavethe same. On the other hand, by increasing PAR threshold,the feasible set under C2 constraint converges to C1. Bydecreasing PAR threshold to 1, the feasible set will be limitedto that specified in C3.

V. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we aimed to effect a trade-off betweenbeampattern response and orthogonality using spatial- andrange-ISLR as representative figures of merit. Accordingly, weintroduced a bi-objective Pareto framework to minimize thetwo metrics simultaneously for MIMO radar systems, underpower budget, PAR, continuous and discrete phase constraints.The problem formulation led to a non-convex, multi-variableand NP-hard optimization problem. To tackle the problem,we proposed an iterative method based on CD; in each of itssteps we utilized an effective method to minimize the objectivefunction. Specifically, we used a gradient based method underenergy budget, PAR and continuous phase constraints; a FFT-based method was used under the discrete phase constraint.

Simulation results have illustrated the monotonicity of theproposed method in minimizing the objective function aswell as the contradiction in minimizing the two ISLRs. Inthis context, the proposed method is capable of effecting anoptimal trade-off between the two. The paper also provideda Pareto curve aided cognitive radar system to decide on

the operating levels of the two ISLRs. Besides, the proposedframework also shows good performance in comparison tocounterparts when used for minimizing the spatial- and range-ISLR individually; this indicates the flexibility offered by theframework.

Possible future research directions includes the considera-tion of Doppler filter bank and spectrum shaping for enhancedcognition in MIMO radar systems.

APPENDIX A

Writing (10) with respect to st,d has the following parts.a) Spatial-ISLR coefficients: Beampattern of undesired

angles can be written as,∑Nn=1 s̄

Hn Aus̄n =

∑Nn=1n 6=d

s̄Hn Aus̄n + s̄Hd Aus̄d,

where the second term can be expanded as,∑Mt

m=1

∑Mt

l=1 s∗m,daum,lsl,d =

∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

s∗m,daum,lsl,d

st,d∑Mtm=1m6=t

s∗m,daum,t + s∗t,d∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

aut,lsl,d + s∗t,daut,tst,d,

with aum,l indicating {m, l} entries of matrix Au. Defining,

a0 ,∑Mtm=1m6=t

s∗m,daum,t , a3 , aut,t , a2 , a∗0,

a1 ,∑N

n=1n 6=d

s̄Hn Aus̄n +∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

s∗m,daum,lsl,d,

the beampattern response on undesired angles is equivalent to,∑Nn=1 s̄

Hn Aus̄n = a0st,d + a1 + a2s

∗t,d + a3s

∗t,dst,d. (36)

Like wise the beampattern at desired angles is:∑Nn=1 s̄

Hn Ads̄n = b0st,d + b1 + b2s

∗t,d + b3s

∗t,dst,d, (37)

b0 ,∑Mtm=1m6=t

s∗m,dadm,t , b3 , adt,t , b2 , b∗0,

b1 ,∑N

n=1n 6=d

s̄Hn Ads̄n +∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

s∗m,dadm,lsl,d,

where adm,l are the {m, l} entries of Ad. (12).b) Range-ISLR coefficients: (5) can be written as,

ISL = γt +∑N−1k=−N+1 |rt,t(k)|2 + |rt,t(0)|2

+∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |rt,l(k)|2 +

∑Mtm=1m6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |rm,t(k)|2.

where,

γt ,∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |rm,l(k)|2 −

∑Mtm=1m6=t|rm,m(0)|2

Also,

rm,t(k) =∑N−k

n=1n 6=d−k

sm,ns∗t,n+k + sm,d−ks

∗t,dIA(d− k)

rt,l(k) =∑N−k

n=1n 6=d

st,ns∗l,n+k + st,ds

∗l,d+kIA(d+ k)

rt,t(k) =∑N−k

n=1n 6=d,n6=d−k

st,ns∗t,n+k + st,ds

∗t,d+kIA(d+ k)

+ s∗t,dst,d−kIA(d− k)

13

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Iterations

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0N

orm

aliz

ed C

ost

Funct

ion (

dB

)C

4, L = 2

C4, L = 4

C4, L = 32

C3

C2,

p = 0dB

C2,

p = 5dB

C2,

p = 20dB

C1

(a) Convergence (η = 0.95).

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

degree

-30

-20

-10

0

No

rmal

ized

Bea

mp

atte

rn (

dB

)

C2, L = 4

C2, L = 8

C2, L = 32

C3

C2,

p = 0dB

C2,

p = 1.5dB

C2,

p = 3dB

C1

(b) Beampattern (η = 1, Θd = [−55o,−35o] and Θu =[−90o,−60o] ∪ [−30o, 90o]).

20 40 60 80 100 120

Lags

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Norm

aliz

ed A

uto

-Corr

elat

ion (

dB

)

C1

C2,

p = 20dB

C2,

p = 15dB

C2,

p = 0dB

C3

(c) Auto-correlation (η = 0).

-2 0 2

Real

-2

0

2

Imag

inar

y

C1

C2,

p = 20dB

C2,

p = 10dB

C2,

p = 0dB

C3

(d) Constellation (η = 1).

Fig. 10: The impact of alphabet size ((a) and (b)) and PAR ((c) and (d)) (M = 8 and N = 64).

where, IA(p) is the indicator function of set A = {1, . . . , N},

i.e, IA(p) ,

{1, p ∈ A0, p /∈ A

. Let us define 4,

γmtdk ,∑N−k

n=1n 6=d−k

sm,ns∗t,n+k, βmtdk , sm,d−kIA(d− k)

γtldk ,∑N−k

n=1n 6=d

st,ns∗l,n+k, αtldk , s∗l,d+kIA(d+ k)

γttdk ,∑N−k

n=1n 6=d,n6=d−k

st,ns∗t,n+k, αttdk , s∗t,d+kIA(d+ k)

βttdk , st,d−kIA(d− k)

Thus, we obtain,

ISL = c0s2t,d + c1st,d + c2 + c3s

∗t,d + c4s

∗t,d

2 + c5|st,d|2 (38)

with,

c0 ,∑N−1k=−N+1k 6=0

αttdkβ∗ttdk, c4 , c∗0,

c3 , c∗1, c1 ,∑N−1k=−N+1k 6=0

(γ∗ttdkαttdk + γttdkβ∗ttdk)+∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 γ

∗tldkαtldk +

∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 γmtdkβ

∗mtdk,

c2 ,∑N−1k=−N+1k 6=0

|γttdk|2 +∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |γtldk|2

+∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |γmtdk|2 + γt,

4By defining, s̃{t,m,l}−d , s̃m|s{t,m,l},d=0, it can be shown that,γmtdk , γtldk and γttdk can be considered as correlation of s̃m−d and s̃t−d ,s̃t−d and s̃l−d , s̃t−d and s̃t−d respectively.

c5 ,∑N−1k=−N+1k 6=0

(|αttdk|2 + |βttdk|2)

+∑Mt

l=1l 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |αtldk|2 +

∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑N−1k=−N+1 |βmtdk|2.

Since c0 = c∗4, c1 = c∗3 and c1, c5 are real coefficient, (38)is a real and non-negative function. Also for the mainlobe,

∑Mt

m=1 |rm,m(0)|2 =∑Mtm=1m 6=t

(∑Nn=1 |sm,n|2

)2+(∑N

n=1n 6=d|st,n|2

)2

+ 2|st,d|2∑N

n=1n 6=d|st,n|2 + |st,d|4.

Defining, d2 ,∑Mtm=1m 6=t

(∑Nn=1 |sm,n|2

)2+

(∑Nn=1n 6=d|st,n|2

)2

and d1 , 2∑N

n=1n 6=d|st,n|2, we have,

∑Mt

m=1 |rm,m(0)|2 = |st,d|4 + d1|st,d|2 + d2. (39)

c) C1 Constraint: It is straight-forward to show that,

γe ,MtN −∑Mtm=1m6=t

∑Nn=1 |sm,n|2 −

∑Nn=1n 6=d|st,n|2. (40)

Note: ‖S‖2F =∑Mtm=1m 6=t

∑Nn=1 |sm,n|2 +

∑Nn=1n6=d|st,n|2 + |st,d|2.

d) C2 Constraint: The PAR constraint can be writ-ten as, MtN max |sm,n|2 6 γp‖S‖2F . Defining P−(t,d) ,max{|sm,n|2; (m,n) 6= (t, d)}, we obtain

MtN max{|st,d|2, P−(t,d)} 6 γp

(|st,d|2 +

∥∥∥S−(t,d)∥∥∥2F

)

14

Defining,

γl ,MtNP−(t,d) − γp

∥∥∥S−(t,d)∥∥∥2F

γp, γu ,

γp

∥∥∥S−(t,d)∥∥∥2F

MtN − γp,

Hence, |st,d|2 > γl when |st,d|2 6 P−(t,d), and |st,d|2 6 γuwhen |st,d|2 > P−(t,d).

APPENDIX BConsidering a2 = a∗0, b2 = b∗0, c4 = c∗0 and c3 = c∗1, the

(16) and (17) can be written as 5,

f̄ (r, φ) =2<{a0rejφ}+ a1 + a3r

3

2<{b0rejφ}+ b1 + b3r3

=a3r

2 + 2(a0r cosφ− a0i sinφ)r + a1b3r2 + 2(b0r cosφ− b0i sinφ)r + b1

(41)

f̃ (r, φ) =2<{c0r2ej2φ}+ 2<{c1rejφ}+ c2 + c5r

2

r4 + d1r2 + d2= [(2c0r cos 2φ− 2c0i sin 2φ+ c5)r2

+ 2(c1r cosφ− c1i sinφ)r + c2]1

r4 + d1r2 + d2,

(42)

where, a0r = <(a0), a0i = =(a0), b0r = <(b0), b0i = =(b0),c0r = <(c0), c0i = =(c0), c1r = <(c1) and c1i = =(c1).

APPENDIX CAs fo(r, φ0) is a fractional function, ∂fo(r,φ0)

∂r is also afractional function. Hence to find the roots of ∂fo(r,φ0)

∂r = 0it is sufficient to find the roots of the numerator. By somemathematical manipulation it can be shown that the numeratorcan be written as (22), and the coefficients are,

p0 , 2η<{ρ0ejφ0}, p1 , 2(ηρ1 + (η − 1)b23ρ2),

p2 , 2(η<{(ρ3 + 2d1ρ0)ejφ0}+ (η − 1)(3b23ρ4 + 4b3ρ5ρ2)),

p3 , 4(ηd1ρ1 + (η − 1)((2ρ25 + b1b3)ρ2 + c2b23 + 6b3ρ5ρ4)),

p4 , 2(η<{(ρ6ρ0 + 2d1ρ3)ejφ0}+(η − 1)(ρ4(12ρ25 + 6b1b3 + b23d1) + 4ρ5(b1ρ2 + 2b3c2))),

p5 , 2(ηρ6ρ1 + (η − 1)(ρ2(b21 − d2b23) + b23c2d1+

4c2(2ρ25 + b1b3) + 4ρ5ρ4(3b1 + b3d1))),

p6 , 2(η<{(ρ6ρ3 + 2d1d2ρ0)ejφ0}+ (η − 1)(ρ4(3b21 − b23d2+ 2d1(2ρ25 + b1b3)) + 4ρ5(2b1c2 − b3(d2ρ2 − c2d1)))),

p7 , 4(ηd1d2ρ1 + (η − 1)(b21c2 + 2(b1d1 − b3d2)ρ5ρ4

− (d2ρ2 − c2d1)(2ρ25 + b1b3))),

p8 , 2(η<{(d22ρ0 + 2d1d2ρ3)ejφ0}+ (η − 1)(ρ4(b21d1

− 2d2(2ρ25 + b1b3))− 4b1ρ5(d2ρ2 − c2d1))),

p9 ,2(ηd22ρ1 − (η − 1)(b21(d2ρ2 − c2d1) + 4b1d2ρ5ρ4)),

p10 ,2(ηd22<{ρ3ejφ0} − (η − 1)b21d2ρ4),

where, ρ0 , a3b0 − b3a0, ρ1 , a3b1 − a1b3, ρ2 ,c5 + 2<{c0ej2φ0}, ρ3 , b1a0 − a1b0, ρ4 , <{c1ejφ0},ρ5 , <{b0ejφ0} and ρ6 , d21 + 2d2.

5It is possible to consider ejφ as the variable and solve the problem. How-ever, we reformulate the problem in the real variable to enable computationsin real domain to be closer to practical implementation.

APPENDIX D

After substituting cos(φ) = (1− tan2(φ2 ))/(1 + tan2(φ2 )),sin(φ) = 2 tan(φ2 )/(1 + tan2(φ2 )) in ∂fo(r

?e ,φ)

∂φ and consider-ing z , tan(φ2 ), we encounter with a fractional function. Inthis case it is sufficient to find the roots of nominator. It canbe shown that the nominator can be written as, (25), where,

q0 , 2r?e(ηξ0(2ξ3 − ξ2)

+ (1− η)(c1i − 2ξ9)(ξ24 − 4ξ6(ξ4 − ξ6))),

q1 , 4r?e(ηξ0ξ1 + (1− η)(4ξ7(2ξ9 − c1i)(ξ4 − 2ξ6)

+ (4ξ8 − c1r)(ξ24 − 4ξ6(ξ4 − ξ6)))),

q2 , 4r?e(ηξ0(4ξ3 − ξ2) + (1− η)(−8ξ7(4ξ8 − c1r)(ξ4 − 2ξ6)

+ ξ24(4ξ9 + c1i) + 4(r?e2ξ5(2ξ9 − c1i)− 6ξ6ξ9(ξ4 − ξ6)))),

q3 , 4r?e(3ηξ0ξ1 + (1− η)(ξ24(4ξ8 − 3c1r) + 8ξ10 + 4ξ11+

4(ξ5r?e2(c1r − 8ξ8)− 2ξ27c1r − 2ξ6(2ξ6ξ8 − ξ7(14ξ9 − c1i))))),

q4 , 8r?e(3ηξ0ξ3 + (1− η)(ξ9(5ξ24 − 24r?e2ξ5)

+ 2ξ4(4ξ7c1r + ξ6c1i)− 4ξ6(16ξ7ξ8 + ξ9ξ6))),

q5 , 4r?e(3ηξ0ξ1 + (1− η)(−ξ24(4ξ8 + 3c1r) + 8ξ10 − 4ξ11+

4(ξ5r?e2(c1r + 8ξ8)− 2ξ27c1r + 2ξ6(2ξ6ξ8 − ξ7(14ξ9 + c1i))))),

q6 , 4r?e(ηξ0(4ξ3 + ξ2) + (1− η)(8ξ7(4ξ8 + c1r)(ξ4 + 2ξ6)

+ ξ24(4ξ9 − c1i) + 4(r?e2ξ5(2ξ9 + c1i) + 6ξ6ξ9(ξ4 + ξ6)))),

q7 , 4r?e(ηξ0ξ1 + (1− η)(4ξ7(2ξ9 + c1i)(ξ4 + 2ξ6)

− (4ξ8 + c1r)(ξ24 + 4ξ6(ξ4 + ξ6)))),

q8 , 2r?e(ηξ0(2ξ3 + ξ2)

− (1− η)(c1i + 2ξ9)(ξ24 + 4ξ6(ξ4 + ξ6))),

where, ξ0 , r?e4 + r?e

2d1 + d2, ξ1 , r?e2(a3b0r − a0rb3) +

(a1b0r − a0rb1), ξ2 , r?e2(a3b0i − a0ib3) + (a1b0i − a0ib1),

ξ3 , r?e(a0rb0i − a0ib0r), ξ4 , r?e2b3 + b1, ξ5 , b20r − 2b20i,

ξ6 , r?eb0r, ξ7 , r?eb0i, ξ8 , r?ec0r, ξ9 , r?er0i, ξ10 ,ξ4(2ξ6ξ8 − 5ξ7ξ9) and ξ11 , ξ4(ξ6c1r − ξ7c1i).

APPENDIX E

By substituting r = 1 in (20) and (21), the objectivefunction under C4 constraint can be written as, (31), where,

h0 , b0, h1 , b1 + b3, h2 , b2, g0 , c0b01− ηMtN2

, g6 , g∗0

g1 , (c0b1 + c1b0)1− ηMtN2

, g5 , g∗1

g2 , (c0b2 + c1b1 + c2b0)1− ηMtN2

+ a0η, g4 , g∗2 ,

g3 , (c1b2 + c2b1 + c3b0)1− ηMtN2

+ a1η.

(43)

15

REFERENCES

[1] J. Li and P. Stoica, MIMO Radar Signal Processing. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009.

[2] M. Skolnik, Radar Handbook, Third Edition, ser. Electronics electricalengineering. McGraw-Hill Education, 2008. [Online]. Available:http://books.google.com/books?id=76uF2Xebm-gC

[3] A. Aubry, A. De Maio, and Y. Huang, “MIMO radar beampattern designvia PSL/ISL optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,vol. 64, no. 15, pp. 3955–3967, Aug 2016.

[4] H. Xu, R. S. Blum, J. Wang, and J. Yuan, “Colocated MIMO radar wave-form design for transmit beampattern formation,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1558–1568, April2015.

[5] W. Fan, J. Liang, and J. Li, “Constant modulus MIMO radar wave-form design with minimum peak sidelobe transmit beampattern,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 16, pp. 4207–4222, Aug2018.

[6] Z. Cheng, Z. He, S. Zhang, and J. Li, “Constant modulus waveformdesign for MIMO radar transmit beampattern,” IEEE Transactions onSignal Processing, vol. 65, no. 18, pp. 4912–4923, Sep. 2017.

[7] X. Yu, G. Cui, J. Yang, L. Kong, and J. Li, “Wideband MIMO radarwaveform design,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67,no. 13, pp. 3487–3501, July 2019.

[8] P. Stoica, J. Li, and Y. Xie, “On probing signal design for MIMO radar,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 4151–4161,Aug 2007.

[9] D. R. Fuhrmann and G. S. Antonio, “Transmit beamforming for MIMOradar systems using signal cross-correlation,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 171–186, January2008.

[10] H. Sun, F. Brigui, and M. Lesturgie, “Analysis and comparison of MIMOradar waveforms,” in 2014 International Radar Conference, Oct 2014,pp. 1–6.

[11] D. J. Rabideau, “Doppler-offset waveforms for MIMO radar,” in 2011IEEE RadarCon (RADAR), May 2011, pp. 965–970.

[12] D. J. Rabideau, “MIMO radar waveforms and cancellation ratio,” IEEETransactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 48, no. 2, pp.1167–1178, 2012.

[13] B. Shtarkalev and B. Mulgrew, “Effects of FDMA/TDMA orthogonalityon the gaussian pulse train MIMO ambiguity function,” IEEE SignalProcessing Letters, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 153–157, Feb 2015.

[14] M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, M. Modarres-Hashemi, and M. M. Naghsh,“Designing sets of binary sequences for MIMO radar systems,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, pp. 1–1, 2019.

[15] H. He, J. Li, and P. Stoica, Waveform design for active sensing systems:a computational approach. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

[16] L. Wu, P. Babu, and D. P. Palomar, “Transmit waveform/receive filterdesign for MIMO radar with multiple waveform constraints,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1526–1540, March2018.

[17] X. Yu, G. Cui, L. Kong, J. Li, and G. Gui, “Constrained waveformdesign for colocated mimo radar with uncertain steering matrices,” IEEETransactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 55, no. 1, pp.356–370, 2019.

[18] B. Friedlander, “Waveform design for MIMO radars,” IEEE Transactionson Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1227–1238,Jul 2007.

[19] H. He, P. Stoica, and J. Li, “Designing unimodular sequence sets withgood correlations; including an application to MIMO radar,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 4391–4405, Nov2009.

[20] C. Y. Chen and P. P. Vaidyanathan, “MIMO radar ambiguity propertiesand optimization using frequency-hopping waveforms,” IEEE Transac-tions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 5926–5936, Dec 2008.

[21] M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, A. Aubry, A. De Maio, M. M. Naghsh, andM. Modarres-Hashemi, “A coordinate-descent framework to design lowPSL/ISL sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65,no. 22, pp. 5942–5956, Nov 2017.

[22] Y. Li and S. A. Vorobyov, “Fast algorithms for designing unimodularwaveform(s) with good correlation properties,” IEEE Transactions onSignal Processing, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1197–1212, March 2018.

[23] H. Esmaeili-Najafabadi, M. Ataei, and M. F. Sabahi, “Designing se-quence with minimum PSL using chebyshev distance and its applicationfor chaotic MIMO radar waveform design,” IEEE Transactions on SignalProcessing, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 690–704, Feb 2017.

[24] S. Imani, M. M. Nayebi, and S. A. Ghorashi, “Colocated MIMOradar SINR maximization under ISL and PSL constraints,” IEEE SignalProcessing Letters, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 422–426, March 2018.

[25] M. Soltanalian, M. M. Naghsh, and P. Stoica, “A fast algorithmfor designing complementary sets of sequences,” Signal Processing,vol. 93, no. 7, pp. 2096 – 2102, Feb 2013. [Online]. Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165168413000613

[26] R. Barker, “Group synchronizing of binary digital systems,” Communi-cation theory, pp. 273–287, 1953.

[27] J. Kretschmer, F.F. and K. Gerlach, “Low sidelobe radar waveformsderived from orthogonal matrices,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospaceand Electronic Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 92–102, Jan 1991.

[28] C. Nunn and G. Coxson, “Best-known autocorrelation peak sidelobelevels for binary codes of length 71 to 105,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 392–395, Jan2008.

[29] J. Song, P. Babu, and D. P. Palomar, “Sequence set design with good cor-relation properties via majorization-minimization,” IEEE Transactionson Signal Processing, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 2866–2879, June 2016.

[30] J. Liang, H. C. So, J. Li, and A. Farina, “Unimodular sequence designbased on alternating direction method of multipliers,” IEEE Transactionson Signal Processing, vol. 64, no. 20, pp. 5367–5381, 2016.

[31] H. Deng, Z. Geng, and B. Himed, “MIMO radar waveform designfor transmit beamforming and orthogonality,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1421–1433, June2016.

[32] K. Alhujaili, V. Monga, and M. Rangaswamy, “MIMO radar beampatterndesign under joint constant modulus and orthogonality constraints,” in2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers,Oct 2018, pp. 1899–1904.

[33] M. Deng, Z. Cheng, Y. Lu, Z. He, and G. Ren, “Waveform designfor MIMO radar transmit beampattern formation with good rangesidelobes,” in 2019 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf), April 2019,pp. 1–5.

[34] A. Hassanien and S. A. Vorobyov, “Phased-MIMO radar: A tradeoffbetween phased-array and MIMO radars,” IEEE Transactions on SignalProcessing, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3137–3151, June 2010.

[35] D. R. Fuhrmann, J. P. Browning, and M. Rangaswamy, “Signalingstrategies for the hybrid MIMO phased-array radar,” IEEE Journal ofSelected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 66–78, 2010.

[36] E. Raei, M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, B. S. M. R., and B. Ottersten, “Transmitbeampattern shaping via waveform design in cognitive MIMO radar,”in ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2020, pp. 4582–4586.

[37] E. Raei, M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, B. S. M. R, and B. Ottersten, “DesigningMPSK sequences and doppler filter bank in cognitive radar systems,” in2019 International Radar Conference (RADAR), 2019, pp. 1–6.

[38] A. Aubry, A. De Maio, M. Govoni, and L. Martino, “On the designof multi-spectrally constrained constant modulus radar signals,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, pp. 1–1, 2020.

[39] J. Yang, A. Aubry, A. De Maio, X. Yu, and G. Cui, “Design ofconstant modulus discrete phase radar waveforms subject to multi-spectral constraints,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, pp. 1–1, 2020.

[40] W. Huang, M. M. Naghsh, R. Lin, and J. Li, “Doppler sensitive discrete-phase sequence set design for MIMOs radar,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, pp. 1–1, 2020.

[41] X. Yu, G. Cui, J. Yang, J. Li, and L. Kong, “Quadratic optimization forunimodular sequence design via an adpm framework,” IEEE Transac-tions on Signal Processing, pp. 1–1, 2020.

[42] M. Razaviyayn, M. Hong, and Z.-Q. Luo, “A unified convergenceanalysis of block successive minimization methods for nonsmoothoptimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1126–1153, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/120891009

[43] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridgeuniversity press, 2004.

[44] S. J. Wright, “Coordinate descent algorithms,” Mathematical Program-ming, vol. 151, no. 1, pp. 3–34, 2015.

[45] X. Yu, G. Cui, J. Yang, and L. Kong, “MIMO radar transmit–receivedesign for moving target detection in signal-dependent clutter,” IEEETransactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 522–536, 2020.

[46] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. USA:Cambridge University Press, 2012.

[47] K. Deb, Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms.John Wiley & Sons, 2001, vol. 16.

[48] A. De Maio and Y. Huang, “New results on fractional QCQP with appli-cations to radar steering direction estimation,” IEEE Signal ProcessingLetters, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 895–898, 2014.

16

[49] W. Dinkelbach, “On nonlinear fractional programming,” ManagementScience, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 492–498, 1967. [Online]. Available: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:13:y:1967:i:7:p:492-498

[50] J.-P. Crouzeix and J. A. Ferland, “Algorithms for generalized fractionalprogramming,” Math. Program., vol. 52, pp. 191–207, 05 1991.

[51] S. Sedighi, K. V. Mishra, M. R. B. Shankar, and B. Ottersten, “Localiza-tion with one-bit passive radars in narrowband internet-of-things usingmultivariate polynomial optimization,” 2020.

[52] J. B. Lasserre, “Global optimization with polynomials and theproblem of moments,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 11,no. 3, pp. 796–817, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623400366802

[53] A. Gharanjik, M. Soltanalian, M. R. B. Shankar, and B. Ottersten,“Grab-n-pull: A max-min fractional quadratic programming frameworkwith applications in signal and information processing,” SignalProcessing, vol. 160, pp. 1 – 12, 2019. [Online]. Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165168419300556

[54] M. Soltanalian, A. Gharanjik, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, and B. Ofter-sten, “Grab-n-pull: An optimization framework for fairness-achievingnetworks,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speechand Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2016, pp. 3301–3305.

[55] A. Aubry, A. De Maio, B. Jiang, and S. Zhang, “Ambiguity functionshaping for cognitive radar via complex quartic optimization,” IEEETransactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 22, pp. 5603–5619, Nov2013.

[56] A. Aubry, A. De Maio, A. Zappone, M. Razaviyayn, and Z. Luo, “A newsequential optimization procedure and its applications to resource allo-cation for wireless systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,vol. 66, no. 24, pp. 6518–6533, 2018.

[57] B. Chen, S. He, Z. Li, and S. Zhang, “Maximum block improvementand polynomial optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 22,no. 1, pp. 87–107, Jan 2012.

[58] D. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, 1999.[59] M. R. B. Shankar and K. V. S. Hari, “Reduced complexity equalization

schemes for zero padded ofdm systems,” IEEE Signal ProcessingLetters, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 752–755, 2004.

[60] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 3rd ed. TheJohns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

[61] C. A. C. Coello, G. B. Lamont, and D. A. V. Veldhuizen, EvolutionaryAlgorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems (Genetic and Evolu-tionary Computation). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006.

[62] F. C. Robey, S. Coutts, D. Weikle, J. C. McHarg, and K. Cuomo, “MIMOradar theory and experimental results,” in Conference Record of theThirty-Eighth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers,2004., vol. 1, Nov 2004, pp. 300–304 Vol.1.

[63] A. Zwanetski and H. Rohling, “Continuous wave MIMO radar based ontime division multiplexing,” in 2012 13th International Radar Sympo-sium, May 2012, pp. 119–121.

[64] C. Hammes, M. R. B. Shankar, Y. Nijsure, T. Spielmann, and B. Ot-tersten, “Random phase center motion technique for enhanced angle-doppler discrimination using MIMO radars,” in 2017 25th EuropeanSignal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Aug 2017, pp. 2221–2225.

[65] Y. Tang and Y. Lu, “Single transceiver-based time division multiplexingmultiple-input-multiple-output digital beamforming radar system: con-cepts and experiments,” IET Radar, Sonar Navigation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp.368–375, April 2014.