晋江市市长张文贤在晋江企业创新发展大会上的讲话

Fig. 1 shows a RDARS-aided MIMO system with a BS and $K$ single-antenna users. The BS is equipped with $N_{\rm{t}}$ antennas, and the RDARS has $N$ elements. Each element of RDARS can work in two modes: connection mode and reflection mode. The working mode of each element is determined by a diagonal mode switching matrix ${\bf{A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ with $\mathbf{A}_{[i,i]}\in\{0,1\}$. To be specific, when $\mathbf{A}_{[i,i]}=1$, the $i$-th element works in the connection mode and can be regarded as a distributed antenna with the capabilities of transmitting and receiving signal. Otherwise, $\mathbf{A}_{[i,i]}=0$ represents that the $i$-th element operates in the reflection mode which functions as a passive element to reflect the incident signals. Let $a$ denote the number of elements working in the connection mode, while the remaining $N-a$ elements operate in the reflection mode. In other words, $a$ RDARS elements are programmed as the distributed antennas like transmit elements, so as to serve multiple users cooperatively with BS antennas. Let $\mathcal{N_{\rm{t}}}=\{1,2,\dots,N_{\rm{t}}\}$, $\mathcal{N}=\{1,2,\dots,N\}$, $\mathcal{A}=\{1,2,\dots,a\}$ and $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\dots,K\}$ denote the sets of indices of BS antennas, RDARS elements, connected elements, and users, respectively.

By denoting the transmit symbol vector as $\mathbf{s}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times 1}$ with ${\mathbb{E}\{\mathbf{s}\mathbf{s}^{H}\}}={\bf{I}}_{K}$, the combined transmit signal from the BS and RDARS elements in the connection mode is

where ${\mathbf{W}}_{\rm{b}}=\left[\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{b}},1},\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{b}},2},\cdots,\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{b}},K}\right]\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{\rm{t}}\times K}$ and $\mathbf{W}_{\rm{r}}=\left[\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{r}},1},\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{r}},2},\cdots,\mathbf{w}_{{\rm{r}},K}\right]\in\mathbb{C}^{a\times K}$ denote the BS and RDARS beamforming matrices, respectively. $\mathbf{F}=\left[\mathbf{f}_{1},\mathbf{f}_{2},\cdots,\mathbf{f}_{K}\right]\in\mathbb{C}^{(N_{\rm{t}}+a)\times K}$ represents the equivalent transmit beamforming matrix with ${\bf{f}}_{k}\in\mathcal{C}^{(N_{\rm{t}}+a)\times 1}$.

The direct links between the BS and user equipments (UEs) are assumed to be severely blocked by obstacles, due to the high directivity of mmWave signals. The channels from the BS to RDARS and that from RDARS to the $k$-th UE are denoted by ${{\bf{G}}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N_{\rm{t}}}$ and ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$, respectively. By considering the general Rician channel model, the channels ${{\bf{G}}}$ and ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}$ are given by

where $\xi$ denotes the Rician factor, and $\kappa_{{\rm{b}}}$ and $\kappa_{\rm{r},k}$ denote the complex-valued channel coefficients of BS-RDARS and RDARS-UE $k$ channels, respectively. Let $\chi$ and $\psi$ represent the vertical and horizontal angle-of-arrivals (AoAs) from the BS to RDARS, respectively, $\theta$ represent the angle-of-departure (AoD) from the BS to RDARS. The vertical and horizontal AoAs from the RDARS to the $k$-th UE are denoted by $\phi_{k}$ and $\upsilon_{k}$, respectively. The elements within the non-line-of-sight (NLoS) components and $\widetilde{\bf{h}}_{r,k}$ are characterized by a standard complex Gaussian distribution. Moreover, the steering vector is

where the inter-antenna spacing is half wavelength. Then, we have $\tilde{\bf{b}}(N,\chi,\psi)={\bf{b}}(N_{\rm{z}},\chi)\otimes{{\bf{b}}}(N_{\rm{y}},\psi)$, where $N_{\rm{z}}$ and $N_{\rm{y}}$ denote the numbers of elements along with the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively.

The received signal for the $k$-th UE is given by

where ${\bf{\Phi}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ denotes the RDARS’s phase shift matrix, mode switching matrix ${\bf{\tilde{A}}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times a}$ consists of non-zero columns of the sparse mode switching matrix $\bf{A}$, and $n_{k}$ denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with power $\sigma^{2}_{k}$. Let $\bm{\varphi}={[{\varphi_{1}},...,{\varphi_{N}}]^{H}}=\operatorname{diag}(\bf{\Phi})$ and ${{\bf{H}}_{\mathrm{r},k}}=\operatorname{diag}({\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}^{H}){\bf{G}}$, the received signal can be equivalently expressed as

where ${{\bf{h}}_{k}}$ denotes the effective channel between the BS and the $k$-th UE, given by ${{\bf{h}}_{k}}=[{{\bm{\varphi}}^{H}}{\bf{(}}{{\bf{I}}_{N}}{\bf{-A)}}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{r}},k}},{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}^{H}{\bf{\tilde{A}}}]$. The signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) for the $k$-th UE is

The achievable rate of UE k is ${R_{k}}={\log_{2}}(1+{\gamma_{k}})$.

Our objective is to maximize the WSR, by jointly optimizing the BS beamforming, RDARS beamforming, and mode switching matrix. The optimization problem can be formulated as

where $\alpha_{k}$ denotes the weighted factor of the $k$-th UE, and $P_{\rm{tot}}$ denotes the maximum total transit power. It is observed from (8) that it is a mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem, which is a non-convex problem due to highly coupled variables and unit-modulus constraints. Moreover, the binary mode switching constraints exacerbate the challenge. To solve this problem, we propose an efficient penalty term-based WMMSE (PWM) algorithm in the following section.

With fixed $\bf{\Phi}$, ${\bf{A}}$ and $\tilde{{\bf{A}}}$, problem (9) is reduced to

The solutions to problem (11) can be derived in closed-form as

By substituting (13) into (III), we obtain the minimum MSE (MMSE) as $e_{k}^{\mathrm{mmse}}=1-{\bf{f}}_{k}^{H}{\bf{h}}_{k}^{H}{J_{k}^{-1}}{{\bf{h}}_{k}}{{\bf{f}}_{k}}$ , with ${J_{k}}={{\bf{h}}_{k}}\sum\nolimits_{m=1}^{K}{{{\bf{f}}_{m}}{\bf{f}}_{m}^{H}}{\bf{h}}_{k}^{H}+\frac{\sigma_{k}^{2}}{P_{\rm{tot}}}\sum\nolimits_{m=1}^{K}{{\bf{f}}_{m}^{H}}{{\bf{f}}_{m}}$.

Given fixed $u_{k}$, $\lambda_{k}$, ${\bf{f}}_{k}$, ${\bf{A}}$ and $\tilde{{\bf{A}}}$, problem (9) is reduced to

where ${\bf{C}}=\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}u_{k}^{H}{u_{k}}({\bf{I}}_{N}-{\bf{A}}){{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{r}},k}}\sum\nolimits_{m=1}^{K}{{\bf{w}}_{\mathrm{b},m}}{\bf{w}}_{\mathrm{b},m}^{H}{{\bf{H}}^{H}_{{\rm{r}},k}}({\bf{I}}_{N}-{\bf{A}})$ and ${\bm{\beta}}=\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}{{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}u_{k}^{H}{u_{k}}({\bf{I}}_{N}-{\bf{A}}){{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{r}},k}}\sum\nolimits_{m=1}^{K}{{{\bf{w}}_{\mathrm{b},m}}{{\bf{w}}^{H}_{\mathrm{r},m}}{{{\bf{\tilde{A}}}}^{H}}}}{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}-{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}u_{k}^{H}({\bf{I}}_{N}-{\bf{A}}){{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{r}},k}}{{\bf{w}}_{\mathrm{b},k}}$. Let $\mathbf{p}=[\bm{\varphi},q]^{T}$ where $p_{n}$ is the $n$-th element of ${\bf{p}}$, and $q$ is an auxiliary variable. Therefore, problem (15) is equivalent to

where ${\bf{D}}=\left[{-{\bf{C}}},{-{\bm{\beta}}};{-{{\bm{\beta}}^{H}}},0\right]$.

It is observed that the optimization problem (16) is a unimodular quadratic program and can be solved by the power iteration algorithm. Specifically, the value of $p$ in the $q$-th iteration is [35]

where $\varepsilon{\bf{I}}_{N+1}$ is introduced to ensure that ${\bf{D}}+\varepsilon{\bf{I}}_{N+1}$ is positive definite. After the iteration converges, the passive beamforming vector can be derived as $\bm{\varphi}=e^{j\arg(\frac{\mathbf{p}{[1:N]}}{p_{N+1}})}$, thus solving problem (15). This guarantees the convergence of the iterative algorithm, as shown in Lemma 2.

To create a unified framework, we employ the penalty technique to consolidate constraint (8f) into penalty terms. With fixed $\bf{F}$,$\bf{u}$, $\bm{\lambda}$, $\bf{\Phi}$, and $\tilde{\bf{A}}$, problem (8) can be reformulated as

where $1/(2\rho)$ is the penalty factor.

Let $\bf{a}=\operatorname{diag}(\bf{A})$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}=[\mathbf{\tilde{A}}[:,1]^{T},\cdots,\mathbf{\tilde{A}}[:,a]^{T}]^{T}=[\bar{\mathbf{a}}_{1}^{T},\cdots,\bar{\mathbf{a}}_{a}^{T}]^{T}\in\mathbb{C}^{Na\times 1}$, where $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}[:,l]$ denotes the $l$-th non-zero column of $\bf{\tilde{A}}$. As such, the objective function of problem (19) can be rewritten as

where the auxiliary parameters are given by

The derivations of auxiliary parameters are shown in Appendix C.

In the following, we first apply the MM technique to find a tractable surrogate function of (19). Based on the second-order Taylor expansion, an upper bound of the term ${{\bf{a}}^{T}}{{\bf{R}}_{1}}{\bf{a}}$ can be derived as ${{\bf{a}}^{T}}{{\bf{R}}_{1}}{\bf{a}}\leq{{\bf{a}}^{T}}{{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}{\bf{a}}+2\Re\left\{{{{\bf{a}}^{T}}({{\bf{R}}_{1}}-{{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}){{\bf{a}}_{t}}}\right\}+{{\bf{a}}_{t}}^{T}({{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}-{{\bf{R}}_{1}}){{\bf{a}}_{t}}$, where ${{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}={{\bar{\lambda}}_{\max}}({{\bf{R}}_{1}}){{\bf{I}}_{N}}$, with ${{\bar{\lambda}}_{\max}}({{\bf{R}}_{1}})$ denoting the maximum eigenvalue of ${{\bf{R}}_{1}}$. Then, the surrogate function with respect to (w.r.t.) $\bf{A}$ is given by ${{\bar{f}}_{3}}({\bf{A}})=2\Re\left\{{{\bf{r}}_{1}^{H}{\bf{a}}}\right\}+2\Re\left\{{{\bf{r}}_{2}^{H}{\bf{a}}}\right\}+2\Re\left\{{{\bf{r}}_{3}^{H}{\bf{a}}}\right\}+2\Re\left\{{{{\bf{a}}^{T}}({{\bf{R}}_{1}}-{{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}){{\bf{a}}_{t}}}\right\}+\frac{1}{{2\rho}}{\bf{r}}_{4}^{T}{\bf{a}}$. Thus, problem (19) is rewritten as

with ${{\bf{r}}_{6}}=2{{\bf{r}}_{1}}+2{{\bf{r}}_{2}}+2{{\bf{r}}_{3}}+2({{\bf{R}}_{1}}-{{\bf{\Lambda}}_{1}}){{\bf{a}}_{t}}+\frac{1}{{2\rho}}{{\bf{r}}_{4}}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ denote the set of first $a$ minimum elements of $\Re\left\{{{\bf{r}}_{6}}\right\}$. Accordingly, the optimal solution to problem (19) can be derived as

It is observed from (23) that we need to find the first $a$ minimum elements from $\Re\left\{{\bf{r}}_{6}\right\}$, i.e., ${a}_{i}=1$, where the corresponding indexes are the locations of elements working in the connection mode.

By employing the penalty term and for fixed $\bf{F}$,$\bf{u}$, $\bm{\lambda}$, $\bf{\Phi}$ and ${\bf{A}}$, problem (8) can be reformulated as

where $1/(2\rho)$ is the penalty factor. With fixed ${\mathbf{a}}$, the objective function can be expressed in terms of $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}$ is

where ${{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}}_{1}}\!\!=\!\!\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}{{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{K}{(({{\bf{w}}_{{\rm{r}},m}}{{\bf{w}}^{H}_{{\rm{b}},m}}{{\bf{H}}^{H}_{{\rm{r}},k}}{\bf{(}}{{\bf{I}}_{N}}-{\bf{A){\bm{\varphi}}}})}^{*}\!\!\otimes\!\!{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}})$, ${{\bf{R}}_{2}}\!\!=\!\!\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}{{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}}\!\!\sum\limits_{m=1}^{K}{({{\bf{w}}^{*}_{{\rm{r}},m}}}\!\otimes\!{u_{k}}{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}})({{\bf{w}}^{T}_{{\rm{r}},m}}\!\otimes\!{{\bf{h}}^{H}_{{\rm{r}},k}}{u}_{k}^{H})\!-\!\frac{1}{\rho}({{\bf{I}}_{a}}\!\otimes\!{\bf{A}})$ and ${{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}}_{2}}=-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}{{\alpha_{k}}{\lambda_{k}}}u_{k}^{H}({{\bf{w}}^{*}_{{\rm{r}},k}}\otimes{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},k}})$. Based on the second-order Taylor expansion, a convex surrogate function of ${{{\bf{\tilde{a}}}}^{T}}{{\bf{R}}_{2}}{\bf{\tilde{a}}}$ can be obtained as

where ${{\bf{\Lambda}}_{2}}={{\tilde{\lambda}}_{\max}}({{\bf{R}}_{2}}){{\bf{I}}_{N}}$, with ${{\tilde{\lambda}}_{\max}}({{\bf{R}}_{2}})$ denoting the maximum eigenvalue of ${{\bf{R}}_{2}}$. Then, the objective function is expressed in terms of $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}$ as ${{\bar{f}}_{4}}({\bf{\tilde{A}}})=\Re\left\{{{{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}}_{3}}^{H}{\bf{\tilde{a}}}}\right\}$, where ${{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}}_{3}}=2{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}_{1}}+2{{\bf{\tilde{r}}}_{2}}+2({{\bf{R}}_{2}}-{{\bf{\Lambda}}_{2}})\mathbf{\tilde{a}}_{t^{{}^{\prime}}}$. Thus, the sub-problem w.r.t. $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}$ is formulated as

where $\bar{{a}}_{l,i}$ denotes the $i$-th entry of the $l$-th segment in $\tilde{\bf{a}}$. Note that each segment of $\tilde{\bf{a}}$ consists of $N$ elements, which come from the corresponding column of $\tilde{\bf{A}}$. For problem (27), constraint (27b) is the constraint of the total number of selected elements in each column of $\tilde{\bf{A}}$. Constraint (27c) guarantees that $a$ different elements should be selected to operate in connection mode.

By temporarily relaxing constraint (27c), the solution to problem (27) is given by

where ${\bf c}=\Re\left\{{\bf{\tilde{r}}_{3}}\right\}$, $l\in\{1,\cdots,a\}$, $i,m\in\{1,\cdots,N\}$, and $\mathop{\arg\min}\limits_{m}\{{\bf c}[(l-1)N+1:lN]_{m}\}$ returns the index corresponding to the minimum value of ${\bf c}[(l-1)N+1:lN]$. It is observed from (28) that ${\bar{a}}^{\rm{\mathrm{opt}}}_{l,i}=1$ holds when the $i$-th entry of ${\bf c}[(l-1)N+1:lN]$ is the minimum value among the $N$ elements of the l-th block of ${\bf c}$. By considering the constraint (27c), the mode switching matrix optimization should be further discussed in the following.

Let $\mathcal{T}=\{i|\bar{a}^{\rm{opt}}_{l,i}=1,l=1,\cdots,a\}$ denote the set of selected indices and $M$ represent the number of distinct index types in $\mathcal{T}$. If $M=a$, the solution to problem (27) is given in (28). If $M<a$, the number of selected connection elements is insufficient, in other words, constraint (27c) is not satisfied. In this case, we need to reselect the index for the segments with repeated indexes. Specifically, We assign the repeated index to the segment that minimizes the objective function of problem (27) and then select the index corresponding to the sub-minimum value in the remaining segments until $M=a$.

The above repeated reselection steps ensure that both constraint (27c) holds and the objective function of problem (27) is minimized. Moreover, in the $(t+1)$-th round, the penalty term $\rho$ in the objective function is updated in a moderate step size $\eta\in(0,1)$, which is given by

The proposed PWM algorithm for solving problem (8) is summarized in Algorithm 1. The passive beamforming and index matrices are randomly initialized in Step 1. The equivalent active beamforming matrix is initialized via the adaptive maximum ratio transmission (MRT) and zero-forcing (ZF) methods in Step 1. Specifically, we apply the MRT method to enhance the strength of the transmit signal in the low-SNR regime. While for the high-SNR regime, the ZF method is utilized to suppress the inter-user interference (IUI). With the auxiliary variables calculated in Step 1, we update the active begriming matrices in Step 1. Finally, the mode switching matrix is updated based on other variables according to the MM method from Steps 1 to 1.

The sub-problem for updating ${\bm{\varphi}}$ is optimally solved and thus the objective function of problem (16) is maximized, which is equivalent to problem (9). Moreover, the objective value of problem (III-C) is non-increasing via the MM method, which guarantees the convergence of Algorithm 1. Moreover, the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm is analyzed as follows. Specifically, for the active beamforming optimization, the computational complexity depends on the number of UEs $K$ and the numbers of BS antennas and RDARS transmit elements, given by $\mathcal{O}(K(N_{\rm{t}}+a)^{3})$. For the passive beamforming optimization, the calculation of $\bf{C}$ dominates the complexity, which is given by $\mathcal{O}(K^{2}N^{2})$. In addition, problem (16) is solved by power iteration, and the complexity is $\mathcal{O}(I_{p}N^{2})$ where $I_{p}$ denotes the inner iteration steps required for convergence. For the mode switching matrix, the complexities of optimizing $\bf{A}$ and $\tilde{\bf{A}}$ mainly arise from eigenvalue decomposition (EVD), which are given by $\mathcal{O}((2N)^{3})$ and $\mathcal{O}(N^{3})$, respectively. Therefore, the total complexity of Algorithm 1 is $\mathcal{O}(I(K(N_{\rm{t}}+a)^{3}+K^{2}N^{2}+I_{p}(N)^{2}+3N^{2}))$, where $I$ denotes the number of iterations.

Though the convergence of the proposed PWM algorithm can be guaranteed, its convergence speed depends on the penalty term $\rho$ and regularization term $\varepsilon$.

Generally, it is preferable to set $\rho$ to moderate values during initialization, ensuring that the penalized objective function is primarily dominated by the original objective function rather than the penalty terms [18, 36]. Specifically, it is observed from problems (III-C), (25) and Algorithm 1 that $\rho$ should be sufficiently large in the initial steps, thus ensuring that the first terms for the objective function of problem (III-C) and (25) dominate these function values. Meanwhile, the aims of problem (III-C) and (25) are to minimize the corresponding first terms. When the beamforming matrices render the values of the first terms tending to be stable, a suitable $\rho$ guarantees that the associated terms dominate these function values, and the iteration processes aim to decrease the corresponding terms. Therefore, when the penalty term of each iterative step is not suitable, the convergence speed of problem (III-C) and (25) is greatly limited to by considerable degree, thus influencing the performance of the proposed algorithms. To mitigate the impact of the penalty term on the outer iteration, a model-driven DL is designed by selecting $\rho$ as a trainable variable.

In addition, another inner iteration related to $\varepsilon$ in (17) impacts the convergence speed of the proposed algorithm. Specifically, when $\varepsilon\rightarrow+\infty$, ${\bf{p}}^{(q+1)}=e^{j\mathrm{arg}(({\bf{D}}+\varepsilon{\bf{I}}_{N+1}){\bf{p}}^{(q)})}\rightarrow e^{j\mathrm{arg}(\varepsilon{\bf{p}}^{(q)})}={\bf{p}}^{(q)}$, thus causing the iteration meaningless. On the other hand, when $\varepsilon$ is too small, the positive definiteness of ${\bf{D}}+{\bf{I}}_{N+1}$ cannot be guaranteed, which may compromise the convergence speed. It is observed from Algorithm 1 that the passive beamforming is updated by ensuring that the objective function of problem (15) converges in step 1, and the complexity of this step is linear with the number of inner iterations. Therefore, we introduce a model-driven DL to train $\varepsilon$, and set the number of inner iterations as 1, so as to reduce the complexity of updating passive beamforming and accelerate the convergence speed of the proposed algorithm.

Moreover, the common data-driven method depends on the suitable neural network to train beam indices or complex beamforming matrices, where a high-quality dataset is needed. Besides, the large number of hidden layers in training network leads to a large amount of trainable parameters, which increases the training complexity and memory requirements. Therefore, by integrating the expert model knowledge, we propose a model-driven DL to train a small number of parameters. To be specific, the optimal active beamforming vector in (14) can be represented by a simple solution structure as follows[37],

with

To achieve a faster convergence speed, the active beamforming vector $\mathbf{f}_{k}$ can be initialized based on the simple structure in (30), and the parameters $p_{k}$ and $\delta_{k}$ are trainable parameters in the deep unfolding network. It is observed from the constraint (31) that the total value for $p_{k}$ and $\delta_{k}$ should be achieved. Therefore, the trainable parameters $p_{k}$ and $\delta_{k}$ are scaled by the total power constraint through a softmax layer as follows.

where $p^{{}^{\prime}}_{m}$ and $\delta^{{}^{\prime}}_{m}$ are set as the input of the softmax layer.

For the network training, the unsupervised learning is adopted to train the PWM-BFNet. Since the goal of problem (8) is to maximize WSR, the loss function is formulated as:

where $N_{\rm{s}}$ is the number of channel realizations in the training dataset, $f(\cdot)$ denotes the objective function of problem (8), and $\textrm{PWM-BFNet}(\mathbf{G}^{(n)},\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{(n)}_{\rm{r}})$ is the beamformer obtained by PWM-BFNet taking the $n$-th channel realization $\{\mathbf{G}^{(n)},\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{(n)}_{\rm{r}}\}$ as input. Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\rm{r}}=[{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},1},{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},2},\cdots,{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{r}},K}]$. The proposed model-driven PWM-BFNet algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 2.

Next, we compare the complexity of the proposed algorithm with other joint beamforming algorithms, including the PWM, PWM-BFNet, RCB-BF [16], and DLRCB-PWM algorithms, which are listed in Table I. For the RCB-BF algorithm, the computational complexity of active beamforming optimization arises from the codeword selection, i.e., $\mathcal{O}(K(N^{2}_{\rm{t}}+a^{2}))$. For the passive beamforming optimization, the water-filling iteration algorithm dominates the complexity, which is $\mathcal{O}(I_{\rm{o}}(KN^{3}+K^{2}N(N+a)))$, where $I_{\rm{o}}$ denotes the number of outer iterations. Thus, the total complexity of the RCB-BF algorithm is $\mathcal{O}(I_{\rm{o}}(KN^{3}+K^{2}N(N+a))+K(N^{2}_{\rm{t}}+a^{2}))$. For the proposed DLRCB-PWM algorithm, the complexity of each iteration is the same as the PWM algorithm, where the initializations of beamforming matrices are obtained according to the RCB-based beamforming design. Due to the DLRCB initialization, the number of inner and outer iterations can be reduced, which leads to a lower complexity. Therefore, the total complexity of the DLRCB-PWM algorithm is $\mathcal{O}(I_{\rm{d}}(K(N_{\rm{t}}+a)^{3}+K^{2}N^{2}+I_{\rm{pd}}N^{2}+3N^{2}))$, where $I_{\rm{d}}$ denotes the number of outer iterations and $I_{\rm{pd}}$ denotes the number of inner iterations. For the PWM-BFNet algorithm, the number of inner iteration steps is reduced to 1, which significantly decreases the complexity. Furthermore, the computational complexity of active beamforming is only caused by the initial step that reconstructs the beamforming vectors according to (30), i.e., $\mathcal{O}(K(N_{\rm{t}}+a)^{2})$. Thus, the total complexity of the PWM-BFNet algorithm is $\mathcal{O}(I^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm{d}}(K(N_{\rm{t}}+a)^{2}+K^{2}N^{2}+5N^{3}))$ , where $I^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm{d}}$ denotes the number of outer iterations. It is observed that the active beamforming vectors initialized by the PWM-BFNet algorithm are closer to the optimal solution, which indicates $I^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm{d}}<I_{\rm{d}}\ll I$, thus leading to a lower complexity and faster convergence speed.