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.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

PEPE ($PEPE) Leads Top MEME Projects by Social Activity

PEPE ($PEPE) Leads Top MEME Projects by Social Activity

The post PEPE ($PEPE) Leads Top MEME Projects by Social Activity appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. LunarCrush, a known platform for real-time metrics for crypto and Web3 projects, has released the list of rankings of the Top 10 meme projects based on their social activity over the last 24 hours. PEPE ($PEPE) leads to other top memecoins based on social activity. Fundamentally, social activity consists of engaging with posts and interactions with posts. TOP #MEME PROJECTS BY SOCIAL ACTIVITY$PEPE $DOGE $TRUMP $PUMP $APE $SHIB $PENGU #FARTCOIN $GIGA $BONK pic.twitter.com/wgJ4S30fxi — PHOENIX – Crypto News & Analytics (@pnxgrp) October 5, 2025 PEPE ($PEPE) is leading with 35.6K Engaged Posts and 5.8M Interaction-based posts, according to the last 24-hour record on LunarCrush. It can be seen that $PEPE is leading with a minor difference of 0.1K in Engaged Posts to its contemporary project Dogecoin ($DOGE) with 35.5K and 4.3M by Engaged posts and Interactions, respectively.  Phoenix has released this news through its official X account. $TRUMP, $PUMP, and $APE Battle for Attention OFFICIAL TRUMP ($TRUMP) and PUMP. fun ($PUMP) are closely fighting each other with 26.9K and 20.2K Engaged posts and 4.3M and 6.6M with Interactions. This closeness shows a strong competition between these two AI projects based on social activity on different platforms. Furthermore, ApeCoin ($APE) shows 15.0K Engaged posts with 977.5K Interactions, while Shiba Inu ($SHIB) is surviving with 12.1K Engaged posts and 1.3M Interactions. In addition, Pudgy Penguins ($PENGU) is also struggling with 8.1K and 1.8M, as well as engaged posts and interactions through social activity. FARTCOIN Slightly Outpaces GIGA in Engagement Race FARTCOIN ($FARTCOIN) shows 7.0K Engaged posts with 22.9M in Interactions. In the same way, Gigachad ($GIGA) also shows 6.6K Engaged posts and 7.5M Interactions. This negligible difference shows that they are very close to each other, with only a 0.4K difference in Engaged posts. According to the ranking by Top MEME Projects,…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/10/06 07:00
Share
How Solana Intends to Become an Even Stronger Competitor in the Blockchain Space

How Solana Intends to Become an Even Stronger Competitor in the Blockchain Space

The post How Solana Intends to Become an Even Stronger Competitor in the Blockchain Space appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Solana is preparing for a major overhaul that could make its famously fast blockchain even faster — and a lot easier to run. In its “Crypto Monthly Recap for September 2025” research report published Oct. 3, global asset manager VanEck says Solana’s upcoming Alpenglow upgrade marks the biggest change to the network’s core software since launch. The firm calls it “the largest upgrade to Solana’s consensus in its history,” pointing to six key changes that together promise faster performance, lower costs, and greater reliability. For readers less familiar with Solana’s design, Alpenglow essentially changes how the network’s thousands of validators agree on which transactions are valid. That process, known as consensus, is being streamlined so data moves through the system more efficiently and validators can operate with less friction. What VanEck highlighted Faster finality. Today, Solana takes around 12 seconds to finalize a transaction, meaning to confirm it permanently. Alpenglow cuts that to about 150 milliseconds — roughly the time it takes to blink. Faster finality makes trades, payments and app interactions feel instantaneous, bringing Solana closer to web-level responsiveness. Off-chain voting. Validators currently vote on every new block by submitting thousands of small transactions on-chain. That keeps the network secure but clogs bandwidth. Alpenglow moves voting off-chain, letting validators exchange votes privately and later post a single proof. This clears space for regular user transactions and helps keep network fees low. Simpler validator costs. Instead of paying transaction fees for every vote, validators will submit a single Validator Admission Ticket each cycle. This reduces costs and makes it easier for smaller operators to run validators, which strengthens decentralization and network security. Streamlined communication. Solana’s nodes constantly share messages to stay in sync, a process known as “gossip.” Alpenglow reduces this background traffic so validators spend less time and bandwidth…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/10/06 07:39
Share