This section formulates the UAV‑CRN rate maximization problem and proposes a BCD‑SCA algorithm, decomposing it into convex subproblems with proven convergence.This section formulates the UAV‑CRN rate maximization problem and proposes a BCD‑SCA algorithm, decomposing it into convex subproblems with proven convergence.

BCD‑SCA Based Optimization for UAV‑CRN: Joint Trajectory, Power, and Scheduling Design

2025/08/25 03:36

Abstract and I. Introduction

II. System Model

III. Problem Formulation

IV. Proposed Algorithm for Problem P0

V. Numerical Results

VI. Conclusion

APPENDIX A: PROOF OF LEMMA 1 and References

II. SYSTEM MODEL

\ The channel coefficient between B and X in the nth time slot is expressed a

\

\

\ The horizontal energy consumption of B is expressed as [14]

\

\ The energy consumption of B in the vertical direction is as expressed as [24], [39]

\

\ Fig. 2: The comparison among different schemes.

\ The average rate of the considered system is expressed as

\

\

III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

In this work, the average rate of the system is optimized, which is related to user scheduling, the transmission power and 3D trajectory, the horizontal and vertical velocities of B. Then the following optimization problem is formulated

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\

IV. PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR PROBLEM P0

To solve P0, we utilize the BCD technology to decompose the original problem into multiple subproblems. Specifically, for the given other variables, A, P, H, and Q are optimized in each subproblem respectively. In addition, the SCA technology is utilized to transform the non-convex constraints into convex constraints.

\ A. Subproblem 1: Optimizing User Scheduling Variable

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ B. Subproblem 2: Optimizing Transmit Power of B

\ \

\ \ C. Subproblem 3: Optimizing Horizontal Trajectory and Velocity of B

\ In this subsection, the horizontal trajectory and velocity of B is optimized for provided {A,P,H}. The original optimization problem is rewritten as

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ To address the non-convexity in (19a), Lemma 1 is introduced.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ D. Subproblem 4: Optimizing Horizontal Trajectory and Velocity of B

\ In this subsection, for given {A,P,Q}, the vertical trajectory H of B is optimized. The optimization problem is expressed as

\ \

\ \ With the same method as (13b), (23b) is reformulated as (19a)-(19d) and (1a) and (1b) are reformulated as (16c), (16e), and (19c). With the same method in Subproblem 3, (9) in this subsection is reformulated as (16a)-(16f) wherein (16b) and (16d) are reformulated as (18a) and (18b), respectively.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ P4.2 is a convex optimization problem that can be solved using existing optimization tools such as CVX.

\ E. Convergence Analysis of Algorithm 1

\ \

\ \ The obtained suboptimal solution of the transformed subproblem is also the suboptimal solution of the original nonconvex subproblem, and each subproblem is solved using SCA convex transformation iteration. Finally, all suboptimal solutions of the subproblems that satisfy the threshold ε constitute the suboptimal solution of the original problem. Therefore, our algorithm is to alternately solve the subproblem P1.1, P2.1, P3.2 and P4.2 to obtain the suboptimal solution of the original problem until a solution that satisfies the threshold ε is obtained.

\ It is worth noting that in the classic BCD, to ensure the convergence of the algorithm, it is necessary to accurately solve and update the subproblems of each variable block with optimality in each iteration. But when we solve P3.1 and P4.1 , we can only optimally solve their approximation problem P3.2 and P4.2. Therefore, we cannot directly apply the convergence analysis of the classical BCD, and further proof of the convergence of Algorithm 1 is needed, as shown below.

\ \

\ \ \

\ \ (30) This is similar to the representation in (29), and from (27) to (30), we obtain

\ 1 . (31) The above analysis indicates that the target value of P0 does not decrease after each iteration of Algorithm 1. Due to the objective value of P0 is a finite upper bound, therefore the proposed Algorithm 1 ensures convergence. The simulation results in the next section indicate that the proposed BCDbased method converges rapidly for the setting we are considering. In addition, since only convex optimization problems need to be solved in each iteration of Algorithm 1, which have polynomial complexity, Algorithm 1 can actually converge

\ \ Fig. 3: The average rate and user scheduling.

\ \ \ Fig. 4: 3D trajectories of B under different schemes and scenarios.

\ \ quickly for wireless networks with a moderate number of users.

\ \

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Hongjiang Lei, School of Communications and Information Engineering, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing 400065, China (leihj@cqupt.edu.cn);

(2) Xiaqiu Wu, School of Communications and Information Engineering, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing 400065, China (cquptwxq@163.com);

(3) Ki-Hong Park, CEMSE Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia (kihong.park@kaust.edu.sa);

(4) Gaofeng Pan, School of Cyberspace Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China (gaofeng.pan.cn@ieee.org).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Zcash (ZEC) Rips While Bitcoin Dips — Can This Privacy Coin Run 49% Higher

Zcash (ZEC) Rips While Bitcoin Dips — Can This Privacy Coin Run 49% Higher

Zcash has seen a strong surge in recent weeks as demand for privacy coins grows across the market. ZEC’s rise stands out due to its limited correlation with Bitcoin, allowing it to perform independently during periods of volatility.  This unique behavior has fueled renewed interest and helped strengthen ZEC’s upward momentum. Zcash Is Independent Zcash’s correlation with Bitcoin currently sits at -0.78, signaling a strong negative relationship. This means ZEC is moving in the opposite direction of BTC, which is highly beneficial at a time when Bitcoin is trading near $90,000 after several days of decline. ZEC’s ability to decouple from BTC enables it to avoid broader market pullbacks. This negative correlation has remained intact since early November, reinforcing ZEC’s resilience. As long as the correlation stays below zero, Zcash will be less vulnerable to Bitcoin-driven sell-offs.  Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here. ZEC Correlation With Bitcoin. Source: TradingView Macro indicators also suggest favorable conditions. Zcash’s liquidation map reveals that short sellers should approach the market with caution. If ZEC climbs to $788, roughly $51 million worth of short positions could be liquidated. This creates an additional incentive for traders to avoid bearish strategies. Large liquidation clusters often discourage short positions and can fuel further upside as forced liquidations amplify price movement. For ZEC, reaching these levels would disrupt bearish sentiment and provide additional support for continued appreciation. Zcash Liquidation Map. Source: Coinglass ZEC Price Has A Lot Of Room To Grow Zcash trades at $671, sitting just below the $700 resistance level. The altcoin has gained 65.5% since the start of the month. This reflects strong market participation and growing interest from both retail and institutional traders. If momentum continues, ZEC could rise toward $1,000, which sits 49% above current levels. Achieving this target within 10 days is possible if investor support remains consistent. To reach $1,000, ZEC must first break through and convert the $700, $800, and $900 levels into support. ZEC Price Analysis. Source: TradingView However, if selling pressure increases, ZEC could lose momentum and fall to $600. A deeper correction may push the price toward $520, invalidating the current bullish thesis, leaving the altcoin vulnerable to a crash.
Share
Coinstats2025/11/21 08:00
ETH's "Zhou Tianzi" Dilemma and SOL's "Entrepreneurship Blog" Rise

ETH's "Zhou Tianzi" Dilemma and SOL's "Entrepreneurship Blog" Rise

First, it should be clarified that both I and my organization hold both ETH and SOL, so holding SOL doesn't give me the right to criticize ETH. ETH's problems are long-standing and won't be ignored by the market simply because of previous hype. Ethereum resembles a feudal, international NGO—bureaucratic, decentralized, and focused on procedural justice. Vitalik Buterin is like the Zhou emperor, prematurely losing centralized power, turning L2 into feudal lords, with very limited proportions of their finances being remitted to the central government. It's even somewhat similar to the Commonwealth of Independent States after the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the Commonwealth of Nations after the fall of the British Empire, though even that connection is barely tenuous. Furthermore, will ETH become like IBM? Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia are all worth trillions, while IBM is still sitting there: it's a very branded company, exporting technology and empowering others everywhere, but ultimately its business isn't about taking the entire market (the tax model is the strongest business, like Amazon taxing merchant transactions, and Google taxing global merchants' advertising spending), but rather becoming an organization that licenses tech licenses (and ETH licenses are free, so everyone can use EVM). Another recurring issue is the developer culture where those who are close to the foundation and can flaunt their relationship with it are considered to have "legitimacy" and can enjoy more favor from investors and the community. This centripetal, sycophantic culture runs counter to Ethereum's original mission. Furthermore, I overheard some private conversations among major Wall Street institutions that Wall Street players are coming to ETH for two reasons. Firstly, it's the oldest, most reliable, and reputable public blockchain. Secondly, many of them want to launch permission chains, and ETH's technology in this area has been proven over many years. This approach is essentially using ETH like IBM; it seems that the thinking of Wall Street institutions is remarkably similar to that of Chinese financial institutions. In contrast, Solana exhibits a typical startup team culture—focused, efficient, and with strong execution. Its business model is a unified, integrated system, with a single coin supporting the entire system. Its developer culture resembles Burning Man: young, passionate, and highly experimental, closer to campus hacker culture. From a team and culture perspective, I still feel Solana is more like a multinational tech startup team. Regardless, in the end, everyone is working together to put global assets on the blockchain. Competition is a good thing for all of us.
Share
PANews2025/11/21 09:00