\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

Future wireless networks are envisaged to support emerging applications such as auto-driving, virtual/augmented reality (AR/VR), smart home, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and factory automation \cite{rahman2020enabling}, which require ultra reliable and low latency sensing,  communication, and computation. This thus calls for a paradigm shift in wireless networks, from the conventional communications only design, to a new design with sensing-communication-computation integration. Towards this end, integrated sensing and communication (ISAC)\footnote{In the literature, the ISAC is also referred to as joint radar communications (JRC) \cite{liu2020joint}, joint communication and radar (JCR) \cite{kumari2019adaptive}, dual-functional radar communications (DFRC) \cite{hassanien2016signaling,liu2018toward}, radar-communications (RadCom) \cite{sturm2011waveform}, and joint communication and radar/radio sensing (JCAS) \cite{rahman2020enabling}.}  \cite{liu2021integrated, liu2020joint,kumari2019adaptive,sturm2009ofdm,hassanien2016signaling,sturm2011waveform,donnet2006combining,dokhanchi2019mmwave,liu2018toward,liu2018mu,Eldar2020joint,mccormick2017simultaneous_I,mccormick2017simultaneous_II,dokhanchi2021multicasting,xu2021rate,liyanaarachchi2021joint} has recently attracted growing research
interests in both academia and industry, in which the radar sensing capabilities are integrated into wireless networks (e.g., 6G cellular \cite{wild2021joint} and WiFi 7 \cite{noauthor_undated-pr,tan2020wi}) for a joint communications and sensing design.
On one hand, with such integration, ISAC can significantly enhance the spectrum utilization efficiency and cost efficiency by exploiting the dual use of radio signals and infrastructures for both radar sensing and wireless communication \cite{wild2021joint}.
On the other hand, due to the advancements of millimeter wave (mmWave)/terahertz (THz), wideband transmission (on the order of 1 GHz), and massive antennas in wireless communications, ISAC can reuse the communication signals to provide high sensing resolution (in both range and angular) and sensing accuracy (in detection and estimation) to meet the stringent sensing requirements of emerging applications. In the industry, Huawei and Nokia envisioned ISAC as one of the key technologies for 6G \cite{wild2021joint,tan2021integrated}, and IEEE 802.11 formed the WLAN Sensing Task Group IEEE 802.11bf in September 2020, with the objective of incorporating wireless sensing as a new feature for next-generation WiFi systems (e.g., Wi-Fi 7) \cite{noauthor_undated-pr,tan2020wi}.

While ISAC is a relatively new research topic that emerged recently in communications society,  the interplay between wireless communications and radar sensing has been extensively investigated in the literature, some examples of which include the communication and radar spectrum sharing (CRSS) \cite{zheng2019radar,labib2017coexistence,sodagari2012projection, mahal2017spectral, saruthirathanaworakun2012opportunistic,  rihan2018optimum,liu2018mimo,qian2018joint,li2016optimum, liu2018mu,liu2017robust, chiriyath2017radar} and the radar-centric communication integration \cite{li2019integrated,sahin2017filter,zhang2017modified,zheng2019radar,hassanien2016signaling,huang2020majorcom,wu2020waveform,wang2018dual,ma2018novel,hassanien2016dual,hassanien2016phase}. In particular, CRSS features the spectrum sharing between separate radar sensing and communication systems, for which a large amount of research efforts have been put on managing the inter-system interference via, e.g.,  interference null-space projection \cite{sodagari2012projection, mahal2017spectral}, opportunistic spectrum sharing \cite{saruthirathanaworakun2012opportunistic}, and transmit beamforming optimization \cite{rihan2018optimum,liu2018mimo,qian2018joint,li2016optimum,liu2018mu,liu2017robust}. However, CRSS generally has limited performance in sensing and communication due to the limited coordination and information exchange between them \cite{rahman2020enabling}.
In another line of research called radar-centric communication integration, the radar signals are revised to convey information, thus incorporating communication capabilities in conventional radar systems. For instance, the authors in \cite{li2019integrated,sahin2017filter,zhang2017modified} incorporated continuous phase modulation (CPM) into the conventional linear frequency modulation (LFM) radar waveform to
convey information, \cite{hassanien2016phase,hassanien2016dual} embedded the information bits via controlling the amplitude and phase of radar side-lobes and waveforms, and \cite{huang2020majorcom,wu2020waveform,wang2018dual,ma2018novel} modified the radar waveforms via index modulation to represent information by the indexes of antennas, frequencies, or codes instead of directly modifying the radar waveforms.
However, the radar-centric communication integration has limited achievable data rates as the radar signaling is highly suboptimal for data transmission in general.

Different from the CRSS and radar-centric communication integration, the ISAC shares the same wireless infrastructures for radar sensing and communication, and optimizes the transceivers design for both objectives, thus further enhancing both sensing and communication performance. For example, the authors in \cite{sturm2009ofdm,sturm2011waveform,donnet2006combining,dokhanchi2019mmwave} exploited the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveform for probing and sensing. In particular,
thanks to its great success in wireless communications \cite{goldsmith2005wireless, heath2018foundations} and radar sensing \cite{fishler2004mimo, li2007mimo}, the multi-antenna or multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technique has played a key role in ISAC by exploiting the spatial degrees of freedom (DoF) via transmit beamforming to perform multi-target sensing and multi-user communication simultaneously (see, e.g., \cite{mccormick2017simultaneous_I,mccormick2017simultaneous_II,liu2018toward,liu2018mu,Eldar2020joint,dokhanchi2021multicasting,xu2021rate,liyanaarachchi2021joint}). The benefit of MIMO may become even more considerable in 5G and 6G, due to the employment of massive MIMO \cite{larsson2014massive} and mmWave/THz \cite{heath2016overview}. For instance, the authors in \cite{mccormick2017simultaneous_I,mccormick2017simultaneous_II} considered that one transmitter needs to simultaneously communicate with one receiver and sense one target, in which two transmit beamformers are designed towards the communication receiver and sensing target, respectively. Then, \cite{liu2018toward,liu2018mu,Eldar2020joint,dokhanchi2021multicasting,xu2021rate,liyanaarachchi2021joint} considered the case with multiple receivers and multiple sensing targets. To be more specific, \cite{liu2018toward} optimized the beamformers to minimize the cross interference between radar sensing and communication at the base station (BS), while matching the desired transmit beampattern for sensing. \cite{liu2018mu,Eldar2020joint} further addressed the beampattern matching problem subject to the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) constraints at communication receivers and the per-antenna transmit power constraints at the BS. Most recently, \cite{dokhanchi2021multicasting} studied the joint information multicasting and radar sensing, \cite{xu2021rate} considered the ISAC beamforming design under a rate-splitting setup, and \cite{liyanaarachchi2021joint} investigated the full-duplex hybrid beamforming for ISAC.

 How to design the transmit signals/waveforms and optimize the associated transmit beamforming is an essential issue to be dealt with in ISAC with multiple antennas. In \cite{liu2018mu}, the authors considered a conventional design by directly reusing the communication waveforms for sensing and solved the SINR-constrained beampattern matching problems sub-optimally by the techniques of semidefinite relaxation (SDR). Such conventional designs, however, may only have limited DoF in transmitted signals especially when the number of users is smaller than that of transmit antennas. To fully exploit the full DoF of the ISAC system, \cite{Eldar2020joint} proposed to enhance the sensing capability by sending dedicated radar signals combined with communication signals.
 Although the radar signals are assumed to result in harmful co-channel interference towards the communication receivers, it was shown counterintuitively in \cite{Eldar2020joint} that the adding of dedicated radar signal is beneficial for SINR-constrained beampattern matching. Despite the progress in \cite{Eldar2020joint}, however, there still lacks an in-depth investigation on under what conditions or setups the dedicated radar signal is needed for optimizing the ISAC performance, by considering the co-channel interference from sensing signals. Moreover, since the radar signal is typically known prior to the transmission, it is possible that the communication receiver can apply successive interference cancellation (SIC) to first cancel the interference caused by the radar signal, thus facilitating the communication signals' decoding to further enhance the ISAC performance. By considering this new type of communication receivers with SIC capabilities, how to optimize the joint information and radar beamforming has not been investigated in the literature yet. Besides that, the optimal beamforming design in \cite{Eldar2020joint} has great computational complexity and although the proposed zero-forcing technique in \cite{Eldar2020joint} relieves the computational burden of the optimal design, it inevitably results in sub-optimal solution. It is still unknown whether there exist other better design approaches which enjoy lower computational complexity without necessarily incurring performance loss. The aforementioned points thus motivate the current work.

This paper studies the transmit beamforming design in a downlink ISAC system, in which a single BS equipped with an uniform linear array (ULA) sends combined information-bearing and dedicated radar signals to perform downlink multiuser communication and radar targets sensing simultaneously.
Our main contributions are listed as follows.
\begin{itemize}
	\item First, to measure the sensing performance, we consider both the beampattern matching criterion and a novel reduced-complexity design criterion which maximizes the minimum beampattern gain at the sensing angles of interest specified by the desired beampattern. This minimum beampattern maximization design is shown to achieve desired sensing beampattern with lower computational complexity.
	\item Second, different from \cite{Eldar2020joint} assuming that the communication receivers suffer from unavoidable interference from radar signals,   we consider two types of communication receivers, without and with the capability of canceling the interference from the \textit{a-priori} known dedicated radar signals, which are referred to as Type-I and Type-II receivers, respectively.
	\item Third, the formulated beampattern matching and minimum beampattern gain maximization problems according to two different design criteria with both Type-I and Type-II receivers are non-convex and thus difficult to be optimally solved in general. Fortunately, by applying the SDR technique \cite{luo2010semidefinite}, we extend the result in \cite{Eldar2020joint} and rigorously prove that the SDR is not only always tight for Type-I receivers, but also for Type-II receivers under beampattern matching criterion. For the newly proposed minimum beampattern gain maximization criterion, we also rigorously prove that the SDRs are tight for both Type-I and Type-II receivers and thus globally optimal solutions can be obtained. Under two design criteria, we additionally prove that the problem formulated without dedicated radar signal in the relaxed domain yields the same optimal objective function value as that with dedicated radar signal and Type-I receivers.
	\item Fourth, under both design criteria, we rigorously prove that with Type-I receivers, there is no need to add dedicated radar signals when the wireless communication channels are line-of-sight (LOS); while with Type-II receivers, the addition of dedicated radar signals could always yield better performance in terms of beampattern matching error or minimum beampattern gain at the interested angles.
	Combining all the aforementioned points, we reveal fundamental relationships on the optimal beampattern matching errors or the optimal minimum beampattern gains under different scenarios with Type-I receivers, with Type-II receivers, and without dedicated radar signals.
	\item Numerical results demonstrate that the newly proposed design criterion not only yields enhanced worst-case radar sensing performance at the interested angles, but also enjoys significantly lower computational complexity in terms of execution time than its beampattern matching counterpart. Moreover, it is shown that under both design criteria, the case with Type-II receivers leads to significantly enhanced radar sensing performance as compared to that with Type-I receivers. With the fundamental relationships addressed above, we can thus conclude that with Type-II receivers, dedicated radar signal is beneficial in enhancing the sensing and communication performance under all the considered setups thanks to the radar interference cancellation capabilities at the receivers. Furthermore, it is observed that under Type-I receivers with high SINR requirements, dedicated radar signal is not needed even when the wireless channels follow Rayleigh fading.
\end{itemize}

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:system1} presents the system model. Section \ref{Section-joint} and \ref{S-maxmin} study the transmit beamforming designs for SINR-constrained beampattern matching and minimum beampattern gain maximization problems, respectively. Section \ref{Section_results} provides numerical results to validate the performance of our proposed designs. Section \ref{Section_conclusion} concludes this paper.

{\it Notations:} Boldface letters refer to vectors (lower  case) or matrices (upper case). For a square matrix $\mv{S}$, ${\text{tr}}(\mv{S})$ and $\mv{S}^{-1}$ denote  its trace  and inverse, respectively, while $\mv{S}\succeq \mv{0}$, $\mv{S}\preceq \mv{0}$, $\mv{S}\prec \mv{0}$ and $\mv{S}\nsucceq \mv{0}$ mean that $\mv{S}$ is positive semidefinite, negative semidefinite, negative definite, and non-positive semidefinite, respectively. For an arbitrary-size matrix $\mv{M}$, ${\text{rank}}(\mv{M})$, $\mv{M}^\dagger$, $\mv{M}^H$, and $\mv{M}^T$ denote its rank, pseudoinverse, conjugate transpose, and transpose, respectively, and $\mv{M}_{ik}$ denotes the element in the $i$th row and $k$th column of $\mv{M}$. $\mv{I}$ and $\mv{0}$ denote an identity
matrix and an all-zero matrix, respectively, with appropriate
dimensions. The distribution of a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian (CSCG) random vector with mean vector $\mv{x}$ and covariance matrix $\mv{\Sigma}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{CN}(\mv{x,\Sigma})$; and $\sim$ stands for ``distributed as''. $\mathbb{C}^{x\times y}$ denotes the space of $x\times y$ complex matrices. $\mathbb{R}$ denotes the set of real numbers. ${\mathbb{E}}(\cdot)$ denotes the statistical expectation. $\|\mv{x}\|$ denotes the Euclidean norm of a complex vector $\mv{x}$. $|z|$ and $z^*$ denote the magnitude of a complex number $z$ and its complex conjugate, respectively.
For two real vectors $\mv{x}$ and $\mv{y}$, $\mv{x}\ge \mv{y}$ means that $\mv{x}$ is greater than or equal to $\mv{y}$ in a component-wise manner.

\section{System Model}\label{sec:system1}

We consider a downlink ISAC system as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:system_model}, in which a BS sends wireless signals to perform radar sensing towards potential targets and downlink communication with $K$ users simultaneously. The BS is equipped with a ULA with $N>1$ antennas, and each user is equipped with a single antenna.

\begin{figure}
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figures/Shared_deployment.png}
	\caption{Illustration of the considered downlink ISAC system. } \label{fig:system_model}
\end{figure}

In order to perform sensing and communication at the same time, we suppose that the BS uses transmit beamforming to send information-bearing signals $s_k$'s for the $K$ users, together with a dedicated radar signal $\mv{s}_0 \in \mathbb{C}^{N \times 1}$. Let $\mathcal{K} \triangleq \{1,...,K\}$ denote the set of communication users. The transmitted information signals $\{s_k\}_{k=1}^K$ are assumed to be independent random variables, with zero mean and unit variance, while the radar signal $\mv{s}_0$ has zero mean and covariance matrix $\mv{R}_d = \mathbb{E}[\mv{s}_0\mv{s}_0^H] \succeq \mv{0}$ and is independent from $\{s_k\}_{k=1}^K$.
Let $\mv{t}_k \in \mathbb{C}^{N \times 1}$ denote the transmit beamforming vector for user $k \in \mathcal{K}$. By combining $s_k$'s and $\mv{s}_0$, the transmit signal $\mv{x} \in \mathbb{C}^{N \times 1}$ by the BS is expressed as
\begin{equation}
	\bm{x} = \sum_{k=1}^K \bm{t}_k s_k + \bm{s}_0.
\end{equation}
Notice that different from the single-beam transmission for information-bearing signals, we consider the general multi-beam transmission for the dedicated radar signal $\mv{s}_0$ (i.e., $\mv{R}_d$ is with general rank). In particular, suppose that  $\text{rank}(\mv{R}_d) = N_s$. This then corresponds to a set of $N_s$ radar signal beams, which can be obtained via the eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of $\mv{R}_d$.
In this case, the sum transmit power at the BS is given as $\mathbb{E}\left[\| \sum_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k s_k + \mv{s}_0 \|^2\right]   = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \|\mv{t}_k\|^2 + \text{tr}(\mv{R}_d)$. Suppose that the maximum sum transmit power budget at the BS is $P_0$. Then we have the following power constraint
\begin{align}\label{equ:sum_power_constr}
	\sum_{k=1}^{K} \|\mv{t}_k\|^2 + \text{tr}(\mv{R}_d) \leq P_0.
\end{align}

First, we consider the radar target sensing, where the transmit beampattern\footnote{We focus on the transmit beampattern design, as the proper design can result in enhanced performance in echo wave processing \cite{stoica2007probing}.} is the key performance metric that has been widely adopted in the literature for MIMO radar signal design \cite{stoica2007probing}. The transmit beampattern generally depicts the transmit signal power distribution with respect to the sensing angle $\theta$ ranging from $[-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}]$. In our considered ISAC system with both radar and information signals, the resultant transmit beampattern gain is expressed as
\begin{align}
	\mathcal{P}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}\left[ |\mv{a}^H(\theta)(\sum_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k s_k + \mv{s}_0)|^2 \right] = \mv{a}^H(\theta) \left(\sum_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k \mv{t}^H_k + \mv{R}_d \right)\mv{a}(\theta),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \label{equ:steering}
	\mv{a}(\theta) = [1,e^{j 2\pi \frac{d}{\lambda} \sin \theta},...,e^{j 2\pi \frac{d}{\lambda} (N-1) \sin\theta}]^T
\end{align}
denotes the steering vector at angle $\theta$, with $\lambda$ and $d$ denoting the carrier wavelength and the spacing between two adjacent antennas, respectively. In practice, the transmit beampattern is designed based on the radar target sensing requirements. For instance, if we need to perform the detection task without knowing the direction of potential targets, a uniformly distributed beampattern is desired. By contrast, if we roughly know the directions of the targets, e.g., for target tracking, we only need to maximize the beampattern gains towards these interested potential directions \cite{stoica2007probing}.

Next, we consider the information reception at communication users. By letting $\mv{h}_i$ denote the channel vector from the BS to each user $i \in \mathcal{K}$, the received signal at user $i$ is then given as
\begin{equation} \label{equ:Rx_signal}
y_i = \mv{h}_i^H \mv{x} + n_i = \mv{h}_i^H (\sum_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k s_k + \mv{s}_0) + n_i,
\end{equation}
where $n_i \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_i^2)$ denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the receiver of user $i$. It is observed in (\ref{equ:Rx_signal}) that each user $i$ suffers from the interference induced by both the information signals $\{s_k\}_{k \neq i}$, as well as the dedicated radar signal $\mv{s}_0$. Notice that $\mv{s}_0$ is pre-determined sequences that can be {\it a priori} known by both the BS and the users. Therefore, we consider the following two different types of  communication users, namely Type-I and Type-II receivers, which do not have and do have the capability of cancelling the resultant interference by the radar signals $\mv{s}_0$, respectively.

\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Type-I receivers} (e.g., legacy users) do not have the capability of canceling the interference of the radar signals before decoding its desirable information signal. In this case, the SINR at receiver $i \in \mathcal{K}$ is
\begin{align}
\gamma_{i}^{\text{(I)}} (\{\mv{t}_i\}, \mv{R}_d) =\frac{\left|\mv{h}_i^{H} \mv{t}_i\right|^{2}}{\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal K, k\neq i}\left|\mv{h}_i^{H} \mv{t}_{k}\right|^{2} + \mv{h}_i^H \mv{R}_d \mv{h}_i +\sigma_i^2}, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{align}
\item \emph{Type-II receivers} are dedicatedly designed for
the ISAC system to have the capability of perfectly canceling the interference caused by the dedicated sensing signal $\mv{s}_0$. In this case, the SINR at receiver $i \in \mathcal{K}$ is
\begin{align}
\gamma_{i}^{\text{(II)}} (\{\mv{t}_i\})=\frac{\left|\mv{h}_i^{H} \mv{t}_i\right|^{2}}{\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal K, k\neq i}\left|\mv{h}_i^{H} \mv{t}_{k}\right|^{2} +\sigma_i^2}, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}

For the purpose of illustration, Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) show the ISAC system designs with Type-I and Type-II receivers, respectively. For comparison, Fig. 2(c) shows the conventional design without $\mv{s}_0$ \cite{liu2018mu}. Note that our consideration with both Type-I and Type-II receivers is new as compared to \cite{Eldar2020joint}, in which only Type-I receivers are considered.

\begin{figure}
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{figures/System_Setup.png}
	\caption{Illustration of different ISAC transceivers designs: (a) Type-I receivers with dedicated radar signals at the BS \cite{Eldar2020joint}; (b) Type-II receivers with dedicated radar signals at the BS; (c) the conventional design without dedicated radar signal at the BS \cite{liu2018mu}.} \label{fig:system_setup}

\end{figure}

 It is assumed that the BS perfectly knows all the channel vectors $\mv{h}_i$'s and the desirable beampattern or interested sensing
 directions, while each user perfectly knows its own channel vector. This assumption is made to characterize the fundamental performance upper bounds and gain essential design insights for practical scenarios when such information is not perfectly known. Under this setup, our objective is to design the joint sensing and communication beamforming to maximize the radar sensing performance while ensuring the communication quality of service (QoS) requirements at each user, as will be illustrated in the next two sections in more detail.

\section{SINR-Constrained Beampattern Matching}\label{Section-joint}

In this section, we jointly optimize the information beamforming vectors $\mv{t}_k, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}$,
and the dedicated radar signal covariance matrix $\mv{R}_d$, to minimize the matching error between the overall transmit beampattern and a given desired beampattern, subject to the sum power constraint at the BS and a set of minimum SINR constraints at communication users.

\subsection{Problem Formulation}

Let $\{\tilde{\mathcal{P}}\left(\theta_{m}\right)\}_{m=1}^M$ denote a pre-designed beampattern, which specifies the desired transmit power distribution at the $M$ angles $\{\theta_m\}_{m=1}^M$ in the space. For target detection tasks, $\{\tilde{\mathcal{P}}\left(\theta_{m}\right)\}_{m=1}^M$ can be uniformly distributed \cite{stoica2007probing}, while for target tracking, it can be non-zero \textit{constant} at interested angles with potential targets and zero elsewhere \cite{liu2018mu}. Let $\Gamma_{i} \ge 0$ denote the minimum SINR requirement at each receiver $i \in \mathcal{K}$ and define
\begin{align}
f_0(\{\mv{t}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha) \triangleq \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M}\left|\alpha \tilde{\mathcal{P}}\left(\theta_{m}\right) - \mv{a}^H(\theta_m) (\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k \mv{t}^H_k + \mv{R}_d) \mv{a}(\theta_m) \right|^{2}.
\end{align}
Our objective is to minimize the beampattern matching error, for which the problem is formulated as follows with Type-I and Type-II receivers, respectively.

\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
	(\text{P}1): &\min\limits_{\{\bm{t}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha} f_0(\{\mv{t}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha) \\
	&\text { s.t. } \gamma_{i}^{\text{(I)}}(\{\mv{t}_i\}, \mv{R}_d) \geq \Gamma_{i}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\
	\label{equ:SINR-I}
	&\quad \quad \sum_{k=1}^{K} ||\mv{t}_k||^2  + \text{tr}(\mv{R}_d) = P_0\\
	\label{equ:sum-P1}
	&\quad \quad \mv{R}_d \succeq 0.
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
	(\text{P}2): &\min\limits_{\{\bm{t}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha} f_0(\{\mv{t}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha) \\
	&\text { s.t. } \gamma_{i}^{\text{(II)}}(\{\mv{t}_i\}) \geq \Gamma_{i}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\
	\nonumber
	&\quad \quad (\text{\ref{equ:SINR-I}}) \text{ and } (\text{\ref{equ:sum-P1}}).

	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $\alpha$ denotes a scaling factor and $\mv{a}\left(\theta_{m}\right)$ denotes the steering vector at direction $\theta_{m}$ as in (\ref{equ:steering}).
In problems (P1)\footnote{(P1) is different from that in \cite{Eldar2020joint} in the following two aspects. First, we consider the beampattern matching error as the sole objective function so that a fair analysis and comparison could be conducted involving \cite{liu2018mu}, \cite{Eldar2020joint} and our design. Second, this paper considers the sum-power constraint at the BS versus the per-antenna power constraints in \cite{Eldar2020joint} since it has been widely adopted in wireless communication networks.} and (P2), we consider the equality power constraints in (\ref{equ:SINR-I}) in order for the BS to use up all the transmit power to maximize the radar performance for target tracking or detection \cite{li2007mimo}.
Notice that both problems (P1) and (P2) are non-convex and thus are difficult to be optimally solved in general. Fortunately, we will use the SDR technique \cite{luo2010semidefinite} to obtain the optimal solutions, as will be shown next.

\subsection{Proposed Solution via SDR}

In this subsection, we propose to use the SDR technique to solve problems (P1) and (P2). Towards this end, we introduce new auxilary varaibles  $\mv{T}_k = \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}$, where  $\mv{T}_k \succeq 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) = 1$. In this case, define
\begin{align} \label{equ:f1}
f_1(\{\bm{T}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha) \triangleq \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M}\left|\alpha \tilde{\mathcal{P}}\left(\theta_{m}\right) - \mv{a}^H(\theta_m) (\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k + \mv{R}_d) \mv{a}(\theta_m) \right|^{2}.
\end{align}
Problems (P1) and (P2) are equivalently reformulated as (P1.1) and (P2.1) in the following, respectively.
\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
	(\text{P}1.1): & \min\limits_{\{\bm{T}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha} f_1(\{\bm{T}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha)\\
	\text { s.t. } &\frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \in \mathcal{K} \atop k \neq i} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)-\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{R}_{d}\right)-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\
	\label{equ:T_power}
	\quad \quad & \sum_{k=1}^{K} \text{tr}(\mv{T}_k)  + \text{tr}(\mv{R}_d) = P_0\\
	\label{equ:rank}
	\quad \quad &\mv{R}_d \succeq 0, \mv{T}_k \succeq 0, \text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
	(\text{P}2.1): &\min\limits_{\{\bm{T}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha} f_1(\{\bm{T}_k\}, \bm{R}_d, \alpha) \\
	\text { s.t. } &\frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \in \mathcal{K} \atop k \neq i} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)
	-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K} \\ \nonumber
	\quad \quad & \text{(\ref{equ:T_power})} \text{ and } \text{(\ref{equ:rank})}.
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}

However, problems (P1.1) and (P2.1) are still non-convex due to the rank-one constraints on $\mv{T}_k$'s. To deal with this issue, we relax the rank-one constraints and accordingly get the SDRs of problems (P1.1) and (P2.1), denoted as (SDR1) and (SDR2), respectively. Notice that both (SDR1) and (SDR2) are convex and thus can be solved optimally by convex optimization solvers such as CVX \cite{grant2014cvx}.
Suppose that the ranks of the obtained communication covariance matrices $\mv{T}_k$'s in the optimal solutions to (SDR1) and (SDR2) are all equal to 1, then they are also optimal for (P1.1) and (P2.1), respectively. Otherwise, we should further perform the Gaussian randomization \cite{luo2010semidefinite} to construct rank-one solutions that are generally sub-optimal. Fortunately, the following propositions show that there always exists optimal rank-one solutions to (SDR1) and (SDR2), and thus the Gaussian randomization is not needed in general.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_1} \emph{
		There always exists a globally optimal solution to problem (SDR1), denoted as $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$, such that
	\begin{align}
		\nonumber
		\text{rank}(\tilde{\mv{T}}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
	\end{align}}

	\begin{proof}
		Notice that problem (P1.1) has a similar structure as the joint information and radar beamforming problem in \cite{Eldar2020joint}, (30) and can be similarly proved as in \cite[Theorem 1]{Eldar2020joint},
		for which the details are omitted for brevity.
	\end{proof}
\end{proposition}

Besides the tightness of (SDR1), we extend the result to (SDR2) and rigorously prove the tightness of (SDR2) also holds, as shown in the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_2} \emph{
		There always exists a globally optimal solution to problem (SDR2), denoted as $\{\{\bar{\mv{T}}_k\},\bar{\mv{R}}_d,\bar{\alpha}\}$, such that
		\begin{align}
			\nonumber
			\text{rank}(\bar{\mv{T}}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
	\end{align}}

	\begin{proof}
		See Appendix \ref{Proof_theorem P2}.
	\end{proof}
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark} \label{remark:Joint} \emph{
		By comparing problems (P1.1) and (P2.1), it is observed that every feasible solution to problem (P1.1) is also feasible to problem (P2.1) but not vice versa. Therefore, it is evident that problem (P2.1) always yields an equal or smaller beampattern matching error than (P1.1) due to the enlarged feasible region.}
\end{remark}

\subsection{Relationship with the Case without Radar Signal}

Up to now, when solving the corresponding problems optimally, we have the following relationship in terms of objective function value:
\begin{align}
	f_1^*|_{(P1.1)} = f_1^*|_{(SDR1)} \geq f_1^*|_{(SDR2)} = f_1^*|_{(P2.1)},
\end{align}
where $f_1$ is the objective function defined in (\ref{equ:f1}) and $*$ denotes the optimality. However, it is still not clear whether the addition of dedicated radar signal will enhance the sensing performance under either Type-I or Type-II receivers given the same power budget and SINR requirements. To facilitate the analysis of this question, we introduce problem (P3) as the beampattern matching problem in the case without dedicated radar signals, which can be expressed similarly as for (P1) and (P2) by setting $\mv{R}_d = 0$. In this case, by introducing $\mv{T}_k = \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H$, with $ \mv{T}_k \succeq \mv 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) \le 1$, $ \forall k \in \mathcal{K}$, we can equivalently re-express problem (P3) as
\begin{align}
(\text{P}3.1): &\min\limits_{\{\bm{T}_k\}, \alpha} f_3(\{\bm{T}_k\}, \alpha) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M}\left|\alpha \tilde{\mathcal{P}}\left(\theta_{m}\right) - \mv{a}^H(\theta_m) (\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k) \mv{a}(\theta_m) \right|^{2} \\
\nonumber
&\text { s.t. } \frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \neq i, k \in \mathcal{K}} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)
-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K} \\
\nonumber
& \quad \quad \sum_{k=1}^{K} \text{tr}(\mv{T}_k) = P_0\\
\nonumber
& \quad \quad \mv{T}_k \succeq 0, \text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{align}
By removing the rank-one constraints on $\mv{T}_k$'s, we have the SDR of (P3.1) as (SDR3). Then we have the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_30} \emph{
		Suppose that $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$ is an optimal solution to problem (SDR1). Then there always exist an optimal solution to (SDR3), denoted by $\{\{\hat{\mv{T}}_k\},\hat{\alpha}\}$ with
		\begin{align}
		&\hat{\bm{T}}_{k} = \tilde{\bm{T}}_{k} + \beta_k \tilde{\mv{R}}_d, \sum_{k=1}^K \beta_k = 1, \beta_k \geq 0,\\
		&\hat{\alpha} = \tilde{\alpha},
		\end{align}
		where
		\begin{align}
			\sum\limits_{k=1}^K \tilde{\bm{T}}_{k} + \tilde{\mv{R}}_d = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \hat{\bm{T}}_{k}.
		\end{align}
		As a result, $\{\{\hat{\mv{T}}_k\}, \hat{\alpha}\}$ in (SDR3) achieves the same optimal beampatterns (and the same optimal value) as that achieved by $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\}, \tilde{\mv{R}}_d, \tilde {\alpha}\}$ in (SDR1). i.e., $f_3^*|_{(SDR3)} = f_1^*|_{(SDR1)}$.}
	\begin{proof}
	See Appendix \ref{Proof_theorem P3}.
	\end{proof}
\end{proposition}

Based on proposition 3 together with the relationship shown in (14), we reveal the following fundamental relationship in general,
\begin{align} \label{equ:Fund_1}
	f_3^*|_{(P3.1)} \geq f_3^*|_{(SDR3)} = f_1^*|_{(P1.1)} = f_1^*|_{(SDR1)} \geq f_1^*|_{(SDR2)} = f_1^*|_{(P2.1)},
\end{align}
where the first inequality follows from the reduced feasible region due to the addition of rank-1 constraints.
Therefore, problem (P1) with dedicated radar signals and Type-I receivers (or equivalently (SDR1)) can generally achieve better performance than (P3) without dedicated radar signals, in terms of lower beampattern matching errors and the performance achieved by Type-II receivers is even better than that with Type-I receivers. Nevertheless, under specific conditions (see Proposition \ref{T_LOS}), the SDR of (P3.1) is indeed tight, i.e., $f_3^*|_{(P3.1)} = f_3^*|_{(SDR3)}$. And thus (P1) and (P3) achieve the same optimal matching error. In other words, the dedicated radar signals are not needed in this special case with Type-I receivers.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_LOS} \emph{
	When the wireless channels from the BS to the communication users are LOS (i.e., $\mv{h}_i$ is given in the form of $\mv{h}_i = [1,e^{j \phi_i},...,e^{j (N-1)\phi_i}]^T$ with $\phi_i = 2 \pi \frac{d}{\lambda} \sin(\theta_i)$, where $\lambda$ and $d$ denotes the carrier wavelength and the spacing between two adjacent antennas, respectively), the SDR of problem (P3.1) (or equivalent (P3)) is tight.}

	\begin{proof}
		See Appendix \ref{Proof_theorem_LOS}.
	\end{proof}
\end{proposition}

According to (\ref{equ:Fund_1}), it is clear that if better performance is indeed observed with Type-I or Type-II receivers (as the case shown in Section \ref{Subsection-A}), we can conclude that dedicated radar signals are beneficial in enhancing the joint radar sensing and communication performance under Type-I or Type-II receivers since if $\bm{R}_d = 0$ at the optimal solution to (P1.1) or (P2.1), then the solution is also a feasible solution to (P3.1), which incurs a contradiction.

\section{SINR-Constrained Minimum Beampattern Gain Maximization}\label{S-maxmin}

In this section, we propose an alternative radar sensing design criterion termed minimum beampattern gain maximization, based on which our objective is to maximize the minimum beampattern gain illuminated at desirable directions of potential sensing targets, subject to SINR constraints for individual communication users. We will show that this design leads to a better sensing beampattern at lower computation complexity than the beampattern matching design in Section \ref{Section-joint}.

\subsection{Problem Formulation}

In this design, our objective is to maximize the minimum beampattern gain at a given set of interested angles $\Theta \triangleq \{\theta_1,\theta_2,...,\theta_Q\}$, where $Q$ denotes the number of quantized angles of interest. For instance, for target detection tasks without knowing any prior information about targets' potential locations, $\{\theta_q\}_{q=1}^Q$ may correspond to the uniformly quantized angles ranging from $-\frac{\pi}{2}$ to $\frac{\pi}{2}$. For target tracking tasks, the interested angles are specified based on the targets' potential locations (similarly as the angles with non-zero entries in the pre-designed beampattern $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}(\theta_m)$ in Section \ref{Section-joint}). In this case, the SINR-constrained minimum beampattern gain maximization problems are formulated as (P4) and (P5) in the following, by considering Type-I and Type-II communication receivers, respectively.
\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
		(\text{P}4): &\max \limits_{t,\bm{R}_d,\{\bm{t}_k\}}  t \\
		& \text { s.t. } \mv{a}^{H}\left(\theta\right) \left(\mv{R}_d + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H \right) \mv{a} \left(\theta\right) \geq t, \forall \theta \in \Theta\\
		&\quad \quad \gamma_{i}^{\text{(I)}}(\{\mv{t}_i\}, \mv{R}_d) \geq \Gamma_{i}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\
			\label{equ:sum-P5}
		&\quad \quad \sum_{k=1}^{K} ||\mv{t}_k||^2  + \text{tr}(\mv{R}_d) \leq P_0\\
		\label{equ:psd-P5}
		&\quad \quad \mv{R}_d \succeq 0.
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
	\begin{align}
		(\text{P}5): &\max \limits_{t,\bm{R}_d,\{\bm{t}_k\}}  t \\
		&\text { s.t. } \mv{a}^{H}\left(\theta\right) \left(\mv{R}_d + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H \right) \mv{a} \left(\theta\right) \geq t, \forall \theta \in \Theta \\
		&\quad \quad \gamma_{i}^{\text{(II)}}(\{\mv{t}_i\}) \geq \Gamma_{i}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\

		\nonumber
		&\quad \quad \text{(\ref{equ:sum-P5})} \text{ and } \text{(\ref{equ:psd-P5})}.
	\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In (\ref{equ:sum-P5}), we consider the inequality power constraints, and it can be easily shown that the optimality of problems (P4) and (P5) is attained when the constraints are met with equality. Notice that problems (P4) and (P5) are both non-convex. In the following, we will adopt the SDR technique to obtain their optimal solutions.

\subsection{Proposed Solution via SDR}

Similarly as in Section \ref{Section-joint}, we define $\mv{T}_k = \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H$ with $ \mv{T}_k \succeq \mv 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) \le 1$, $ \forall k \in \mathcal{K}$. Accordingly, problems (P4) and (P5) can be reformulated as (P4.1) and (P5.1) as follows, respectively.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
(\text{P}4.1): &\max \limits_{t,\bm{R}_d,\{\bm{T}_k\}} t  \\
&\text { s.t. } \mv{a}^{H}\left(\theta\right) \left(\mv{R}_d + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k\right) \mv{a} \left(\theta\right) \geq t, \forall \theta \in \Theta \\
&\quad \quad \frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \neq i, k \in \mathcal{K}} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)
-\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{R}_{d}\right)-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K} \\
\label{equ:sum-P41}
&\quad \quad	\operatorname{tr}\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k + \mv{R}_d\right) \leq P_{0} \\
\label{equ:psd-P41}
&\quad \quad	\mv{R}_d \succeq 0, \mv{T}_k \succeq 0, \text {rank}\left(\mv{T}_k\right) = 1, \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
(\text{P}5.1): &\max \limits_{t,\bm{R}_d,\{\bm{T}_k\}} t  \\
&\text { s.t. } \mv{a}^{H}\left(\theta\right) \left(\mv{R}_d + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k\right) \mv{a} \left(\theta\right) \geq t, \forall \theta \in \Theta\\
&\quad \quad	\frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \neq i, k \in \mathcal{K}} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)
-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\
&\quad \quad	\text{(\ref{equ:sum-P41})} \text{ and } \text{(\ref{equ:psd-P41})}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{remark} \label{remark_3} \emph{
		Similar as Remark \ref{remark:Joint}, it is evident that (P5)/(P5.1) with Type-II communication receivers always yields an equal or  greater minimum beampattern gains at interested angles than (P4)/(P4.1) with Type-I receivers, due to the enlarged feasible region.}
\end{remark}

By removing the rank-one constraints, we have the SDRs of (P4.1) and (P5.1) as (SDR4) and (SDR5), respectively, which are both separable semidefinite programming (SSDP) problems that can be solved efficiently by CVX. Then we can show that the two SDRs are indeed tight in the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_56} \emph{
		There always exists globally optimal solutions to problems (SDR4) and (SDR5), which are denoted as $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$and $\{\{\bar{\mv{T}}_k\},\bar{\mv{R}}_d,\bar{\alpha}\}$, respectively, such that
		\begin{align}
		\nonumber
		\text{rank}(\tilde{\mv{T}}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\\
		\nonumber
		\text{rank}(\bar{\mv{T}}_k) = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
		\end{align}}
	\begin{proof}
		Similar as the proof for Propositions \ref{T_1} and \ref{T_2}, suppose that $\{\{{\mv{T}}_k^*\},\mv{R}_d^*,\alpha^*\}$($\{\{\hat{\mv{T}}_k\},\hat{\mv{R}}_d,\hat{\alpha}\}$)  is one optimal solution to SDR4 (SDR5), which does not necessarily meet the rank-one constraints. As shown in Appendix \ref{Proof_theorem P2}, we can always construct an alternative optimal solution $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$ ($\{\{\bar{\mv{T}}_k\},\bar{\mv{R}}_d,\bar{\alpha}\}$)  meeting the rank-one constraints, such that the same minimum beampattern gains can be achieved by $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$ ($\{\{\bar{\mv{T}}_k\},\bar{\mv{R}}_d,\bar{\alpha}\}$). As the detailed proof procedure is similar as that in Appendix \ref{Proof_theorem P2}, the details are skipped for brevity.
	\end{proof}
\end{proposition}

Following Proposition \ref{T_56}, it is evident that we can always obtain rank-one optimal solutions to (P4.1) and (P5.1) by solving (SDR4) and (SDR5). As a result, the optimal solutions to (P4) and (P5) can be obtained accordingly.

Besides the SDR tightness shown in Proposition \ref{T_56}, we can also show the interesting relationship between (SDR4) and the case without dedicated radar signal. To facilitate the illustration, we introduce the minimum beampattern gain maximization problem without radar signals, denoted by (P6), which corresponds to problem (P4)/(P5) by setting $\mv{R}_d= 0$. Furthermore, we can reformulate (P6) as (P6.1) by introducing $\mv{T}_k = \mv{t}_k \mv{t}_k^H$ with $ \mv{T}_k \succeq \mv 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_k) \le 1$, $ \forall k \in \mathcal{K}$ as follows.
\begin{align}
(\text{P}6.1): &\max \limits_{t,\{\bm{T}_k\}} t  \\ \nonumber
&\text { s.t. } \mv{a}^{H}\left(\theta\right) \left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k\right) \mv{a} \left(\theta\right) \geq t, \forall \theta \in \Theta \\ \nonumber
&\quad \quad	\frac{\operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{i}\right)}{\Gamma_{i}}-\sum\limits_{k \neq i, k \in \mathcal{K}} \operatorname{tr}\left(\bm{h}_{i} \bm{h}_{i}^H \bm{T}_{k}\right)
-\sigma_{i}^{2} \geq 0, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}\\\nonumber
&\quad \quad	\operatorname{tr}\left(\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \mv{T}_k\right) \leq P_{0} \\\nonumber
&\quad \quad	\mv{T}_k \succeq 0, \text {rank}\left(\mv{T}_k\right) = 1, \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}.
\end{align}

By removing the rank-one constraints, the SDR of (P6.1)/(P6) is denoted as (SDR6). Then we have the following two propositions, for which the detailed proofs are similar to those for Propositions \ref{T_30} and \ref{T_LOS}, and thus are omitted for brevity.

\begin{proposition}\label{T_60} \emph{
		Suppose that $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\},\tilde{\mv{R}}_d,\tilde{\alpha}\}$ is an optimal solution to problem (SDR4). Then there always exist an optimal solution to (SDR6), denoted by $\{\{\hat{\mv{T}}_k\},\hat{\alpha}\}$ with
		\begin{align}
			&\hat{\bm{T}}_{k} = \tilde{\bm{T}}_{k} + \beta_k \tilde{\mv{R}}_d, \sum_{k=1}^K \beta_k = 1, \beta_k \geq 0,\\
			&\hat{\alpha} = \tilde{\alpha},
		\end{align}
		where
		\begin{align}
			\sum\limits_{k=1}^K \tilde{\bm{T}}_{k} + \tilde{\mv{R}}_d = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K} \hat{\bm{T}}_{k}.
		\end{align}
		As a result, $\{\{\hat{\mv{T}}_k\}, \hat{\alpha}\}$ in (SDR6) achieves the same optimal beampatterns (and the same optimal value) as that achieved by $\{\{\tilde{\mv{T}}_k\}, \tilde{\mv{R}}_d, \tilde {\alpha}\}$ in (SDR4), i.e., $t^*|_{(SDR6)} = t^*|_{(SDR4)}$.}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{T_LOS2} \emph{
		When the wireless channels from the BS to the communication users are LOS (i.e., $\mv{h}_i$ is given in the form of $\mv{h}_i = [1,e^{j \phi_i},...,e^{j (N-1)\phi_i}]^T$ with $\phi_i = 2 \pi \frac{d}{\lambda} \sin(\theta_i)$), the SDR of problem (P6.1) (or equivalent (P6)) is tight.}
\end{proposition}
Similar to that in Section \ref{Section-joint}, in general, we have the following relationship between problems formulated under different setups in terms of objective function value $t$, the minimum beampattern gain at $\Theta$,
\begin{align}
	t^*|_{(SDR5)} = t^*|_{(P5.1)} \geq t^*|_{(P4.1)} = t^*|_{(SDR4)} = t^*|_{(SDR6)} \geq t^*|_{(P6)}.
\end{align}
Specially, when the wireless channels are LOS, we have $t^*|_{(SDR6)} = t^*|_{(P6)}$ according to Proposition \ref{T_LOS2}.

\subsection{Complexity Analysis} \label{Section_complexity}

In this subsection, we analyze the computational complexity for solving problem (SDR1) /(SDR2) versus that for (SDR4)/(SDR5) in order to show the benefit of the newly proposed minimum beampattern gain maximization design. Notice that problems (SDR1) and (SDR2) are both quadratic semidefinite programs (QSDPs). Given a solution accuracy $\epsilon$, the worst-case complexity to solve the QSDP with the primal-dual interior-point method is $\mathcal{O}(K^{6.5}N^{6.5}\log(1/\epsilon))$ \cite{Eldar2020joint}. By contrast, problems (SDR4) and (SDR5) are SSDPs. It follows from \cite{luo2010semidefinite} that given a solution accuracy $\epsilon$, the worst-case complexity to solve the SSDP with the primal-dual interior-point method is $\mathcal{O}( \max \{KN+N+1,Q+K+1\}^4 (KN+N+1)^{1/2} \log(1/\epsilon)) \approx \mathcal{O}( K^{4.5} N^{4.5} \log(1/\epsilon)) $, which is significantly less than that for solving (SDR1) and (SDR2). This shows the benefit of the proposed minimum beampattern gain maximization criterion over its beampattern matching counterpart, in terms of the computational complexity.

\section{Numerical Results} \label{Section_results}

In this section, we provide numerical results to validate the performance of our proposed transmit beamforming designs under beampattern matching and minimum beampattern gain maximization criteria together with both Type-I and Type-II receivers. We begin the analysis by first focusing on the first design criterion in Section \ref{Subsection-A}, comparing our design with the two-stage design approach in \cite{liu2018mu}. In Section \ref{Subsection-B}, we compare the performance of two types of receivers in the second design criterion. Finally, the overall comparison between the performance with both type of receivers under two design criteria is given in Section \ref{Subsection-C}. The impact of number of users on the performance and the computational complexity reduction brought by the second design criteria are also studied in Section \ref{Subsection-C}.

Throughout the whole section, we will adopt the following settings: half-wavelength spacing is assumed at the uniform linear array. The power constraints  of all the approaches considered in simulation are sum-power constraints with power budget $P_0 = 0.1$ Watt (W) or 20 dBm. The received signal at each communication user is corrupted with an additive white Gaussian noise of equal variance $\sigma^2 = -70$ dBm. Without loss of generality, we set $\Gamma_i = \Gamma, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}$. A pathloss of 80 dB is assumed between the BS and each communication receiver. The desired beampattern is composed of five main beams, whose direction set $\Theta_d=\{-\frac{\pi}{3}, -\frac{\pi}{6}, 0, \frac{\pi}{6} ,\frac{\pi}{3}\}$. The width of each main beam $\delta = \frac{\pi}{18}$ and the grids are obtained by specifying $M=101$ discrete sensing angles ranging from $[-\frac{\pi}{2}:\frac{\pi}{100}:-\frac{\pi}{2}]$. In conclusion, the normalized $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}(\theta)$ is defined as

\begin{align}
	\tilde{\mathcal{P}}(\theta)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
		1, \theta_d-\frac{\delta}{2} \leq \theta \leq \theta_d+\frac{\delta}{2}, \theta_d \in \Theta_d \\
		0, \text { otherwise }
	\end{array}\right.
\end{align}

\subsection{SINR-Constrained Beampattern Matching} \label{Subsection-A}

This subsection considers the beampattern matching design. Figs. \ref{fig:A-I-Rich-a} and \ref{fig:A-I-Rich-b} show the beampattern matching error versus the SINR threshold $\Gamma$ in the case with Rayleigh fading channels and LOS channels, respectively, in which we set $N = 8$ and $K = 5$ and the results are obtained by averaging over 50 random channel realizations. Besides the proposed joint beamforming design with Type-I and Type-II receivers via solving problems (P1)/(SDR1), and (P2)/(SDR2), we also consider the performance upper bound with radar sensing only (i.e., beampattern matching in (P1)/(P2) with the SINR constraints omitted) and the benchmark design without radar signal via solving (SDR3) (with $\mv{R}_d = 0$). In addition, we further consider the two-stage design approach without radar signals in \cite{liu2018mu} for comparison, where in the first stage, the optimal radar transmit beamforming without SINR constraints is obtained to minimize the beampattern matching error, while in the second stage, the information beamforming vectors are optimized via SDR to minimize its difference with the obtained optimal radar transmit beamforming subject to SINR constraints\footnote{Notice that in \cite{liu2018mu}, Gaussian randomization is employed to obtain a feasible but sub-optimal rank-one information beamforming solution. Here, we directly adopt the high-rank solution before the Gaussian randomization for the purpose of comparison only, which generally achieves better performance or a lower average matching error than that in \cite{liu2018mu}.}.

\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{+3pt}
	\subfigure[The case with Rayleigh fading channels]{ \label{fig:A-I-Rich-a}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Joint_SINR_avg_error_Rich_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\subfigure[The case with LOS channels]{ \label{fig:A-I-Rich-b}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Joint_SINR_avg_error_LOS_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Average beampattern matching error versus the SINR threshold $\Gamma$. }
	\label{fig:A-I-Rich}
\end{figure}

 In Fig. \ref{fig:A-I-Rich}, it is observed that the proposed joint design with Type-II receivers achieves much lower matching error than the other designs under both channel conditions, especially when the SINR threshold $\Gamma$ becomes high. As mentioned at the end of Section \ref{Section-joint}, this validates the necessity of adding dedicated radar signals under Type-II receivers. It is also observed that the performance achieved by the proposed design with Type-I receiver (via solving (P1)/(SDR1)) is exactly same as that by (SDR3), which is consistent with Proposition \ref{T_30}. Besides, under Rayleigh fading channels, it is observed in the simulations that the solution to (SDR1) satisfies that $\mv{R}_d = 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_i) = 1, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}$ when $\Gamma \geq 6 $dB and thus there is no need to add dedicated radar signal in this scenario.
 This is similar to the scenario with LOS channels, where it follows from Propositions \ref{T_30} and \ref{T_LOS} that there is no need to add dedicated radar signal over the whole SINR range with Type-I receivers. Furthermore, it is observed that our proposed joint designs with both Type-I and Type-II receivers achieve much smaller average beampattern matching error than the two-stage design without radar signals over the whole SINR range.

\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{figures/Tx_beampattern_joint_Rich-eps-converted-to.pdf}
	\caption{Obtained transmit beampattern via the beampattern matching under Rayleigh fading channels with $\Gamma$ = 20dB. The black dotted line specifies the desired transmit beampattern $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}(\theta)$.}
	 \label{fig:A-II-Tx-Beam}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:A-II-Tx-Beam} shows the obtained transmit sensing beampattern under $\Gamma$ = 20 dB by considering Rayleigh fading channels. It is observed that our proposed designs with both Type-I and Type-II receivers allocate more transmit power into desired directions specified by the desired transmit beampattern, while the two-stage separate design leads to more undesired power leakage into uninterested anlges. Furthermore, the proposed joint design with Type-II receivers is observed to outperform that with Type-I receiver, with higher power in interested regions and lower leakage in uninterested angles. The benchmark scheme without $\mv{R}_d$ (via solving SDR3) is observed to have exactly the same beampattern as the joint design with Type-I receivers, which is consistent with Proposition \ref{T_30}.

\subsection{SINR-Constrained Minimum Beampattern Gain Maximization} \label{Subsection-B}

In this subsection, we consider the designs with minimum beampattern gain maximization. Instead of considering the specified $M$ point angles in Section \ref{Subsection-A},  here we only need to choose a subset of them (with positive desired beampattern gains) as the angles of interest $\Theta = \{ \theta_1, \theta_2, ..., \theta_Q\}$. In particular, in the simulation, $\Theta$ is composed of the angles with non-zero desired beampattern gains in Fig. \ref{fig:A-II-Tx-Beam}.

\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{figures/Tx_beampattern_max_min_Rich-eps-converted-to.pdf}
	\caption{Obtained transmit beampattern via the minimum beampattern gain maximization by considering Rayleigh fading channels with $\Gamma$ = 20dB. The angles of interest $\Theta$ are equivalently specified by the black dotted line.} \label{fig:B-II-Rich-Beam}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:B-II-Rich-Beam} shows the obtained transmit beampattern via the minimum beampattern gain maximization. It is observed that compared with Type-I receivers, the transmit beampattern with Type-II receivers has higher beampattern gains at all angles of interest and lower undesired power leakage at those uninterested angles, thus showing the benefit of dedicated radar signal when the radar interference cancellation is implemented. Furthermore, the transmit beampattern achieved by (SDR6) without $\mv{R}_d$ is observed to be the same as that with Type-I receivers (via (P4)/(SDR4)). This is consistent with Proposition \ref{T_60}.

\subsection{Joint Comparision} \label{Subsection-C}

In this section, we will compare the performance of all the proposed design with both types of receivers under two design criteria.

\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering
	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{+3pt}
	\subfigure[The case with Rayleigh fading channels]{ \label{fig:B-I-Rich-a}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Beampattern_gain_SINR_all_Rich_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\subfigure[The case with LOS channels]{ \label{fig:B-I-Rich-b}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Beampattern_gain_SINR_all_LOS-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{The minimum beampattern gain versus SINR threshold $\Gamma$. }

	\label{fig:B-I-Rich}
\end{figure}

Figs. \ref{fig:B-I-Rich-a} and \ref{fig:B-I-Rich-b} show the obtained minimum beampattern gain in $\Theta$ versus the SINR threshold $\Gamma$ by considering the Rayleigh fading and LOS channels, respectively, where  $N = 8$ and $K = 5$. The results are obtained by averaging over 50 random channel realizations. It is observed that the minimum beampattern gain maximization designs achieve much higher worst-case beampattern gains at angles of interest than the beampattern matching designs. In particular, under both design criteria, the case with Type-II receivers is observed to have much better performance than other schemes, especially when the SINR threshold becomes high (e.g., $\Gamma \geq 10 $dB), thanks to its capability of cancelling the interference caused by radar signals.
Furthermore, in Fig. \ref{fig:B-I-Rich-a} and Fig. \ref{fig:B-I-Rich-b}, it is observed that similar as the case under SINR-constrained beampattern matching criterion, the performance achieved via solving (P4)/(SDR4) is exactly same as that by (SDR6), which is consistent with Proposition \ref{T_60}. Besides, under Rayleigh fading channels, it is observed in the simulations that the solution to (SDR4) always satisfies that $\mv{R}_d = 0$ and $\text{rank}(\mv{T}_i) = 1, \forall i \in \mathcal{K}$ when $\Gamma \geq 3$ dB and thus there is no need to add dedicated radar signals in this case. This is similar to the scenario with Type-I receivers under LOS channels, where it follows from Propositions \ref{T_60} and \ref{T_LOS2} that there is no need to add dedicated radar signal over the whole SINR range.

\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=3.8in]{figures/Tx_beampattern_all_Rich-eps-converted-to.pdf}
	\caption{Obtained transmit beampattern by the two different design criteria, by considering the Rayleigh fading channels with $\Gamma$ = 20dB. The black dotted line specifies the desired transmit beampattern $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}(\theta)$.} \label{fig:B-III-Rich}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:B-III-Rich} shows the obtained transmit beampattern by the beampattern matching and minimum beampattern gain maximization designs under Type-II receivers. It is observed that both designs allocate more power at angles of interest while reducing the leakage to other angles, as compared with the two-stage separate design approach. Furthermore, it is observed that the minimum beampattern gain maximization achieves more balanced beampattern gains over the angles of interest than the beampattern matching design.
\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{+3pt}
	\subfigure[The case with Rayleigh fading channels]{ \label{fig:B-IV-Rich-a}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Beampattern_gain_Users_all_Rich-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\subfigure[The case with LOS channels]{ \label{fig:B-IV-Rich-b}
		\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{figures/Beampattern_gain_Users_all_LOS-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
	\caption{Minimum beampattern gain at angles of interest $\Theta$ obtained by five different methods with $\Gamma$ = 20dB.} \label{fig:B-IV-Rich}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:B-IV-Rich} shows the minimum beampattern gain at $\Theta$ versus the number of communication users $K$, where we set the SINR threshold as $\Gamma = 20$ dB and the number of antennas as $N=8$. The results in Figs. \ref{fig:B-IV-Rich-a} and \ref{fig:B-IV-Rich-b} are obtained by averaging over 50 Rayleigh and LOS channel realizations, respectively. As number of users increases, the minimum beampattern gain at $\Theta$ are observed to decrease. The proposed minimum beampattern gain maximization design with Type-II receivers is observed to outperform all other approaches under both Rayleigh fading and LOS channels.

Finally, Fig. \ref{fig:C-III-Rich} compares the computational complexity in terms of execution time between the minimum beampattern gain maximization (by solving (SDR4)) versus the beampattern matching (by solving (SDR1)), which is obtained by averaging over 50 random realizations. It is observed that as the number of antennas $N$ increases, the execution time of solving (SDR1) grows much faster than that of solving (SDR4), indicating the benefit of the minimum beampattern gain maximization in terms of the implementation complexity. This is consistent with the analysis in Section \ref{Section_complexity}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
	\centering

	\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-4mm}
	\includegraphics[width=3.6in]{figures/Complexity_two_criteria-eps-converted-to.pdf}
	\caption{The execution time versus the number of antennas $N$ at the BS.} \label{fig:C-III-Rich}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion} \label{Section_conclusion}

This paper considered a downlink ISAC system, in which one BS equipped with ULA jointly designs the information and radar transmit beamforming to perform downlink multiuser communication and target sensing simultaneously. We studied two design criteria - the beampattern matching and the newly proposed low complexity one aiming to maximize the minimum beampattern gain. By considering the addition of dedicated radar signals, we introduced two types of communication receivers (Type-I and Type-II) without and with the capability of radar interference cancellation. Though non-convex in general, we optimally solved the two design problems under both types of receivers, by applying the technique of SDR.  Under both design criteria, it is revealed that equipping the ISAC system with dedicated radar signal in general enhances the performance under both types of receivers, and Type-II receivers yield better performance compared with Type-I receivers. Furthermore, when the wireless channels are LOS, dedicated radar signal is not needed with Type-I receivers. It was shown that the minimum beampattern gain maximization with Type-II receivers achieves the best joint sensing and communication performance with significantly lower computational complexity.


\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}

The regulation of star formation and building-up of stellar mass are hot topics and major unresolved issues in the research of galaxy formation and evolution \citep{2020ARAA..58...99S}. Galactic-scale outflows together with gas accretion play critical role in modulating the star formation activity and interacting with the interstellar medium (ISM) in galaxies \citep{2005ARAA..43..769V}.

More than half a century ago, \cite{1963ApJ...137.1005L} demonstrated the existance of explosion in the galactic center of M82. Many physical mechanisms can invoke the powerful explosion, e.g., stellar winds and supernovae \citep{1990ApJS...74..833H, 2021MNRAS.500.3802H}, as well as active galactic nuclei \citep{2012ARAA..50..455F, 2014AA...562A..21C, 2019MNRAS.490.3830B}. The radiation pressure from photoionization or shock excitation blows gas out along the polar axes \citep{2010ApJ...721..505R, 2014AA...567A.125G, 2017ApJ...834...30F}. More and more studies indicate the ubiquity of the multi-phase galactic-scale outflows at all cosmic epochs \citep{2019ApJ...871...37H, 2019ApJ...873..122D, 2020AA...633A..90G, 2020ApJ...901..151S, 2020ApJ...905..166L, 2021MNRAS.500.3802H}.

However, agreement still didn't reach on the effect of galactic-scale outflows on star formation acticities. On the one hand, the energy injection from the outflows could prevent gas from collapse, which thus restrains star formation and is called negative feedback \citep{2010AA...518L..41F, 2011ApJ...733L..16S, 2012MNRAS.425L..66M}. On the other hand, the outward winds extrude the gas clouds on the path and improve the volume density of molecular gas \citep{2012AA...537A..44A, 2015AA...574A..85A, 2009ApJ...700L.104S}. Such a procedure could accelerate the formation of stars and is called positive feedback. As a matter of fact, these two schemes could coexist in one case, but correspond to different local environment \citep{2019ApJ...881..147S, 2021AA...645A..21G}.

There exist abundant observational evidences of the positive feedback on star formation in host galaxies, while few proofs demonstrate the enhanced star formation in the galactic-scale outflows. \cite{2017Natur.544..202M} reported spectroscopic observations that reveal star formation occurring in a galactic outflow at a redshift of 0.0448. \cite{2019MNRAS.485.3409G} pointed out that star formation occurs inside at least 30 percent of the galactic-scale outflows sample in the MaNGA survey. However, statistically spatial resolved evidence of the star formation enhancement in the galactic-scale outflows is still missing.

In this work, we construct a sample of star forming galaxies (SFGs) from the MaNGA survey and further select galactic-scale outflows therein. By comparison with the galaxies that don't show outflow features, we summarize the global features of the outflows host galaxies. The common structure of the galactic-scale outflows can be modelled as the famous M82 \citep{1988Natur.334...43B}, where the outward gas looks like bipolar winds and is projected to the minor axis along the line-of-sight. By comparing the stellar population properties in galactic-scale outflows (minor axis) and along stellar disk (major axis), we find robust evidence on positive feedback and metal entrainment in the galactic-scale outflows.

This paper is organized as follows. The sample selection and methodology of data processing are presented in Section \ref{sec: sample}. We describe the influence of the outflows on the host galaxies in Section \ref{sec: influence of outflows on hosts}, which includes both global properties and properties along the axes. Our understandings on these results are discussed in Section \ref{sec: discussion}. Finally, a summary is given in Section \ref{sec: summary}. Throughout this paper, we adopt a set of cosmological parameters as follows: $H_0=70\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.30$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.70$.

\section{The Sample}
\label{sec: sample}

\subsection{Data and Methodology}
\subsubsection{The Data}
MaNGA is one of three core programs in the fourth-generation Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-IV) \citep{2015ApJ...798....7B, 2016AJ....152...83L}, it employs the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) spectrographs \citep{2013AJ....146...32S} on the 2.5m Sloan Foundation Telescope \citep{2006AJ....131.2332G}. This survey aims to conduct IFU observation for $\sim$ 10,000 nearby galaxies with a flat stellar mass distribution in 10$^{9}-$10$^{11}\rm M_{\odot}$ and redshift $0.01 < z < 0.15$ \citep{2017AJ....154...28B}. Two dual-channel BOSS spectrographs \citep{2013AJ....146...32S} provide simultaneous wavelength coverage from 3600 to 10000\rm\AA. The spectral resolution is $\sim$2000, allowing measurements of all strong emission line species from {\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$\lambda$3727 to {\hbox{[S\,{\sc ii}]}}$\lambda$6731. The MaNGA sample and data products used here are drawn from the SDSS Data Release 15 (DR15) \citep{2019ApJS..240...23A}, which includes $\sim$4621 galaxies observed in the first three years of the survey.

The global stellar mass ($M_{\star}$) and star formation rate (SFR) in this work are extracted from the GALEX-SDSS-WISE Legacy Catalog (GSWLC) and derived through UV/optical SED fitting \citep{2007ApJS..173..267S}. We stack the spectra inside the MaNGA bundle and measure the strength of the 4000\r{A} break ($Dn4000$) to get an idea of the global stellar population age. $Dn4000$ is defined as the ratio of flux density between two narrow continuum bands 3850-3950\r{A} and 4000-4100\r{A}. The bulge-to-total light ratio (fracDeV) is obtained by Sersic+Exponential fits to the $r$-band 2D surface brightness profiles from the MaNGA PyMorph DR15 photometric catalog \footnote{https://www.sdss.org/dr15/data\_access/value-added-catalogs}. The other intrinsic properties, e.g., redshift($z$), effective radius ($Re$), axis ratio ($q=b/a$) and photometric position angle ($\phi$) are adopted from NASA-Sloan Atlas (NAS, \cite{2011AJ....142...31B}).

The spatially resolved spectral properties are obtained from the MaNGA data analysis pipeline (DAP, \cite{2019AJ....158..231W}), e.g., emission line flux, stellar/gas velocity and velocity dispersion, as well as $Dn4000$.  We limit the signal-to-noise ratios of the related emission lines to be higher than 2 for further calculations. The asymmetric feature is the indicator of gas disk stability and we cite the kinematic asymmetry from \cite{2020ApJ...892L..20F}, which use the KINEMETRY package \citep{2006MNRAS.366..787K} to fit the velocity field of the ionized gas. Similarly, we use KINEMETRY package to fit the kinematic position angle of the circular gas disk. The kinematic properties of gas are traced by ionized Hydrogen (i.e., H$\alpha$), while all the emission line centers are tied together in MaNGA DAP. Besides, we extract the mass/luminosity weighted stellar population age and stellar mass in each spaxel from the data cube of P\scriptsize IPE\normalsize 3D \citep{2016RMxAA..52...21S}, which is a fitting tool for the analysis of the spectroscopic properties of the stellar population.

\subsubsection{The Methodology}
Using {\hbox{H$\alpha$}}/{\hbox{H$\beta$}} ratio, we estimate extinction corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity under the Case B \citep{2001PASP..113.1449C}:
\begin{equation}
F_{\lambda}=F_{\lambda,0}\times10^{-0.4k(\lambda)E(B-V)},
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $k(\lambda)$ is the Galactic dust attenuation curve, and color excess $E(B-V)=0.934\times \ln[(F_{H\alpha}/F_{H\beta})/2.86]$.

The SFR in the star forming region is estimated from the {\hbox{H$\alpha$}} luminosity as suggested by \cite{1998ARAA..36..189K} with a Salpeter IMF \citep{1955ApJ...121..161S}:
\begin{equation}
SFR(M_{\odot}yr^{-1}) = 7.9\times10^{-42}L_{H\alpha}.
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
The spatially resolved star formation rate surface density ($\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$) is estimated by further dividing the physically spaxel area. While the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1kpc}$ is defined as the SFR surface density within the central 1kpc radius.

The gas-phase metallicity is an important indicator for constraining the past star formation history (SFH) of galaxies. Several calibrations, either empirical, theoretical or hybrid, have been proposed to derive gas metallicity from emission line fluxes. We apply the analytical fit from \cite{2004ApJ...613..898T} and estimate gas-phase metallicity using $R_{\rm 23}$ as:
\begin{equation}
12+\log(O/H) = 9.185-0.313x-0.264x^{2}-0.321x^{3},
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
where $x \equiv \log({\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}\lambda \lambda3726,3729+{\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}\lambda \lambda4959,5007)/{\hbox{H$\beta$}}$. The metallicity within the central 1kpc is denfined as the median of all the spaxels within central 1kpc radius. Other metallicity tracers are also adopted to check the reliability of the metallicity measurements, e.g., ({\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}$\lambda$5007/{\hbox{H$\beta$}})$\times$({\hbox{H$\alpha$}}/{\hbox{[N\,{\sc ii}]}}$\lambda$6583), {\hbox{[N\,{\sc ii}]}}$\lambda$6583/{\hbox{H$\alpha$}} \citep{2013AA...559A.114M}. Those measurements are 0.4$dex$ lower than the metallicity that calculated as equation \ref{eq3}, but the overall trends are consistent. The discrepancy is reasonable considering that equation \ref{eq3} is derived by the modeled calibrators, while \cite{2013AA...559A.114M} calibrated the metallicity with direct method. In general, the former is higher than the later \citep{2017MNRAS.469.2121S, 2017ApJ...844...80B}.

\subsection{Sample Selection}
In this work, we focus on the star formation driven galactic-scale outflows, and the parent sample is selected as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] It locates in star forming main sequence (grey hollow circles in Figure \ref{fig1}a). The black solid line, which expressed as $\log$(SFR) = 0.86$\log$($M_{\star}$) - 9.29, is adopted to seperate the star forming main sequence from the other galaxies.
\item[2.] $\log$({\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}/{\hbox{H$\beta$}}) $<$ 0.61/($\log$({\hbox{[N\,{\sc ii}]}}/{\hbox{H$\alpha$}}) - 0.05) + 1.3. The central spaxel of each galaxy is limited to locate in the star-forming region based on the demarcation proposed by \cite{2003MNRAS.346.1055K}.
\item[3.] $r$-band fracDeV $<$ 0.8. We follow \cite{2008MNRAS.388.1321P} to distinguish disk galaxies (fracDeV $<$ 0.8) from the early-type galaxies (fracDeV $>$ 0.8), so that the estimation of the galaxy inclination angle ($i$) will be feasible.
\item[4.] $i > 45^{\degree}$. The relation between inclination angle and axial ratio is given by $\cos^{2}i = (q^{2} - q_{\rm 0}^{2})/(1 - q_{\rm 0}^{2})$, where $q$ is the axial ratio and $q_{\rm 0}$ = 0.2 \citep{1926ApJ....64..321H}.
\item[5.] The median {\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}$\lambda$5007 equivalent width ({\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}} EQW) of spaxels along the minor axis is higher than that along the major axis.
\end{itemize}
Finally, we select 386 SFGs as the parent sample. We inspect the EQW maps of {\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}} and {\hbox{H$\alpha$}}, and find 36 of them (red stars in Figure \ref{fig1}a) having galactic-scale outflow features in both maps.

Figure \ref{fig2} shows an example of the star-forming galaxies with galactic-scale outflows. Figure \ref{fig2}a is the $g, r, i$ color image from the SDSS survey. Figure \ref{fig2}b and \ref{fig2}c show the BPT diagram and resolved BPT map. In Figure \ref{fig2}b, the black solid curve shows the demarcation between starburst galaxies and AGNs defined by \citet{2003MNRAS.346.1055K} and the black dashed curve shows the demarcation proposed by \citet{2001ApJ...556..121K}. In both Figrue \ref{fig2}b and \ref{fig2}c, the blue pixels mark the star forming region, the green pixels mark the composite region with contributions from both AGN/shock and star formation, the red pixels mark the AGN/shock region. The color scheme is quantified by the distance of each pixel to the dashed curve \citep{2003MNRAS.346.1055K} in Figure \ref{fig2}b. It is clear that this galaxy is star forming dominated. The bipolar structure of outflows is obvious in the {\hbox{H$\alpha$}} EQW and {\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}} EQW maps in Figure \ref{fig2}d and \ref{fig2}e.

The stellar velocity map in Figure \ref{fig2}f shows two counter-rotating stellar disks. The gas velocity map traced by {\hbox{H$\alpha$}} in Figure \ref{fig2}g follows a regularly rotated gas disk with multiple velocity components in the bipolar region. Figure \ref{fig2}h shows the best fit of the observed velocity field, which follows the method of \cite{2006MNRAS.366..787K} and assumes circular orbits in a thin disk. We refer the reader to \cite{2008MNRAS.390...93K, 2011MNRAS.414.2923K} for more details. The model is expressed as $V(R,\psi)=V_{\rm C}(R)\ \sin(i)\ \cos(\psi)$, where $R$ is the radius of a circular orbit in the galactic plane, $V_{\rm C}$ is the {\hbox{H$\alpha$}} circular velocity at radius $R$ and is defined as the velocity along the major axis in each 0.5arcsec bin, $i$ is the inclination angle and $\psi$ is the azimuthal angle measured from the major axis in the galactic plane with a coverage of [0, 2$\pi$]. We subtract the disk model from {\hbox{H$\alpha$}} velocity field and the residual is shown in Figure \ref{fig2}i. The bipolar galactic-scale outflows in Figure \ref{fig2}i is quite obvious. The outward ionized gas moves toward the Earth in the northwest, while moves away in the southeast. The maximum projected velocity of galactic outflows equals 109{{km~s$^{-1}$}}. After inclination angle ($i_{\rm disk}=55^{\degree}$) correction, the actual velocity is larger than 150{{km~s$^{-1}$}}, which means the star formation driven outflows are quite powerful in this case.

\subsection{Control Sample}
In order to quantify the influence of outflows on the evolution of host galaxies, we build a control sample of galaxies without outflow features. For each star-forming galaxy with galactic-scale outflows (SFO), we select 5 control galaxies (CGs, blue stars in Figure \ref{fig1}a) which are closely matchd in three dimensional space of stellar mass ($|\Delta \log M_{\star}| < 0.1$), star formation rate ($|\Delta \log \rm SFR| < 0.2$) and inclination angle ($|\Delta i| < 5 \degree$). The distributions of those properties of SFOs and CGs are displayed in Figure \ref{fig1}c, \ref{fig1}d and \ref{fig1}e. Moreover, the redshift distributions of SFOs and CGs (see Figure \ref{fig1}b) are consistent.

The motivation for choosing these three matching parameters is the following: (i) stellar mass is the most fundamental parameter and many other physical properties are known to vary strongly with stellar mass; (ii) matched SFR implies similar activity in SFOs and CGs to probe the driven mechanism of outflows; (iii) the inclination angle constraint ensures similar projection effects on SFOs and CGs.

\section{INFLUENCE OF OUTFLOWS ON HOSTS}
\label{sec: influence of outflows on hosts}

\subsection{Global Properties}
The comparison in the global properties between SFOs and CGs can help explore the origin of galactic-scale outflows. The parameters concerned in this section include: galaxy size traced by effective radius, kinematic stability traced by asymmetry of gas velocity map and stellar population properties traced by star formation rate surface density or stellar population age.

In Figure \ref{fig3}, the red/blue histogram represents the distribution of physical properties of SFOs/CGs, while the red/blue bar on the top of each panel shows the median of each parameter of SFOs/CGs. Figure \ref{fig3}a shows that the effective radius of SFOs is smaller than the CGs. We obtain both $R_{\rm 50}$ (Petrosian 50\% light radius) and $R_{\rm 90}$ (Petrosian 90\% light radius) from the NYU value-added catalog \citep{2005AJ....129.2562B} and calculate the concentration ($C = R_{\rm 90}/R_{\rm 50}$). The distributions of $C_{\rm SFO}$ and $C_{\rm CG}$ match each other, thus SFOs tend to be smaller in physical sizes compared to the CGs.

The asymmetry of gas velocity field can indicate the turbulance in gas disk. Previous studies have reported that properties of ionized gas at the effective radius are representative of the average properties of galaxies \citep{2015AA...581A.103G, 2016RMxAA..52..171S}, thus we choose the asymmetry at effective radius ($v_{\rm asym,Re}$) for comparison. The distributions in figure \ref{fig3}b show higher asymmetric gas kinemtics in the SFOs, which could be contributed by gas accretion or galaxy interaction.

Observationally, galactic-scale outflows are a general consequence of high SFR surface density \citep{2002ApJ...577..691H, 2010AJ....140..445C}. In Figure \ref{fig3}c, we compare the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1kpc}$ between SFOs and CGs and find that the central regions of SFOs are more active than the CGs. The active star formation implies the birth of young stellar population. However, the global 4000\rm\AA\ break in SFOs turns out to be higher than CGs (Figure \ref{fig3}d), which indicates older global stellar population.

In terms of the galactic-scale outflows host galaxies, the higher global $Dn4000$ implies the generally older stellar population, while the higher $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1kpc}$ invokes ongoing star formation in the galactic center. Considering that SFOs have similar SFR but smaller physical size than CGs, they could go through strong star formation recently. The centrally concentrated star formation in SFOs can be triggered by gas accretion or galaxy interaction, which is shown as asymmetric gas disk. Besides, the radiation pressure from the star formation further drives the powerful galactic-scale outflows.

\subsection{Enhanced Star Formation and Metallicity in Outflows}
\label{sec: enhanced star formation and metallicity in outflows}

In this section, we focus on comparing gas-phase metallicity, star formation activity, as well as stellar population age in galactic-scale outflows (minor axis) and along stellar disk (major axis). Through this kind of comparisons, we would have an idea about how the star formation driven galactic-scale outflows influnce the evolution of host galaxies.

From top to bottom, Figure \ref{fig4} shows the gradients of gas-phase metallicity, star formation rate surface density and indicator of light weighted stellar population age ($Dn4000$). The galactocentric distance is normalized to the effective radius and binned in units of 0.4$Re$. In the left column of Figure \ref{fig4}, the red/blue square marks the median in each radial bin along the major axis of SFOs/CGs. The red/blue dashed profile represents the radial gradient along the major axis of SFOs/CGs. In the middle column of Figure \ref{fig4}, the red/blue circle marks the median in each radial bin along the minor axis of SFOs/CGs. The red/blue solid profile represents the radial gradient along the minor axis of SFOs/CGs. The pink/sky-blue shadow in those two columns covers 40\%-60\% error bar range around the gradient of SFOs/CGs. Besides, the profiles of each property are collected in the corresponding panel in the right column of Figure \ref{fig4}.

The gas-phase metallicity along major axis of SFOs is higher than CGs in Figure \ref{fig4}a, and the gradients are similar. The metallicity along minor axis of SFOs is also higher than CGs in Figure \ref{fig4}b, while the gradient in SFOs is shallower. In Figure \ref{fig4}c, the slopes of the gradients along major and minor axes of CGs, as well as gradient along major axis of SFOs approximately equal 0.1$dex/Re$, which is coincident with the typical metallicity gradient of star forming galaxies \citep{2020ApJ...890L...3S}. The metallicity in the central 0.4$Re$ of both SFOs and CGs are approximative. The gradients along major and minor axes of CGs are consistent in each radial bin. However, in the outer 0.4$Re$ of SFOs, the metallicity along minor axis is 0.15$dex$ higher than major axis. Those enriched metals along minor axis of SFOs could be entrained by the galactic-scale outflows.

Star formation rate describes the activity of ongoing star formation which happens in the recent $10^{6-7}yr$. The star formation rate surface density along major axis of SFOs is higher than CGs (Figure \ref{fig4}d). Considering the similar SFR in SFOs and CGs (Figure \ref{fig1}b), the smaller physical size of SFOs (Figure \ref{fig3}a) causes denser star formation activities. Besides, the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ in central 0.4$Re$ of SFOs is obviously higher than the outer 0.4$Re$, while such difference is small in CGs. This tendency further proves that the active star formation in the center of SFOs could be the trigger mechanism for the powerful outflows. Similar gradients along minor axes are shown in Figure \ref{fig4}e. In Figure \ref{fig4}f, the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ gradients along major and minor axes of CGs are consistent. While the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ along minor axes of SFOs is entirely higher than major axis, which is a direct evidence for the star formation enhancement in the galactic-scale outflows.

Light weighted stellar population age, which can be indicated by $Dn4000$, traces the generation of young stellar population in galaxies. Such a parameter implies the average intensity of star formation in $10^{9}yr$ time scale. In Figure \ref{fig4}g and \ref{fig4}h, $Dn4000$ along both major and minor axes of SFOs are higher than CGs, which means that the global stellar population in SFOs is older. On this basis, the similar global SFR in SFOs and CGs implies a recent star formation in SFOs that may be triggered by gas accretion or galaxy interaction. Comparing the $Dn4000$ gradients in Figure \ref{fig4}i, we find that the stellar population along the minor axis of SFOs is younger than the major axis. The existance of younger stellar population along the minor axis of SFOs further supports the enhanced ongoing star formation in the galactic-scale outflows.

\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec: discussion}

A plenty of physical processes impact the star formation activities in the galaxy evolution, e.g., gas inflows, gas outflows and galaxy interaction. To better understand this complex system, one of the key clues is to study the stellar population content at the current stage \citep{2010AJ....140..445C, 2019ApJ...882..145B}.

IFU data have been wildly used to analyse the radial gradients of the stellar population parameters in the spatially resolved manners \citep{2015AA...581A.103G, 2019MNRAS.484.5009E, 2020ApJ...896...75S}. In this work, we collect SFGs that host galactic-scale outflows from the MaNGA survey. The active star formation but older stellar population along axes of SFOs suggest that the formation of stars in SFOs can be classified into two branches. One branch lodges in stellar disk and steadily forms following an inside-out process. The other dominates over the galactic center and could be triggered by gas accretion or galaxy interaction recently.

\subsection{Inside-out Formation}
\label{sec: inside-out formation}

The scenario that pristine gas is accreted from cosmic web or satellites \citep{2006ApJ...645..986R, 2007MNRAS.374.1479G} and primarily collapses in the galactic center, is so called inside-out formation. In such a process, stars in the galactic center are formed prior to that in the outer disk \citep{2020AJ....159..195D}, thus the stellar population in the central region is expected to be older \citep{2020MNRAS.495.3387P}.

The negative $Dn4000$ gradients along axes of CGs (blue profiles in Figure \ref{fig4}i) follow the inside-out formation, while such gradients reverse in SFOs (red profiles in Figure \ref{fig4}i). Some studies suggested evidence for an outside-in formation process, but only in low-mass dwarf galaxies \citep{2015ApJ...804L..42P, 2018ApJ...857...63S}. As shown in Figure \ref{fig5}a, the negative $\Sigma_{\star}$ gradients imply that stars formed earlier or more efficient in the central region of both SFOs and CGs. Bisides, the negative metallicity gradients in SFOs and CGs (Figure \ref{fig4}c) could be explained as the metal-rich stars assembling in the galactic center and metals being released to ISM by stellar winds or supernovae. Those stellar population property gradients are consistent with the inside-out formation scenario.

Figure \ref{fig5}b and \ref{fig5}c show the light and mass weighted stellar population age gradients, which trace the young and old stellar populations, respectively. Both the light and mass weighted stellar population ages in SFOs (red profiles in Figure \ref{fig5}b and \ref{fig5}c) are older than CGs (blue profiles in Figure \ref{fig5}b and \ref{fig5}c), while the difference in mass weighted stellar population age is more prominent. Therefore, the old stellar population dominates the stellar components in SFOs.

In Figure \ref{fig4}f, the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ along axes of SFOs (red profiles) is overall higher than CGs (blue profiles), which implies denser star formation in the outflows host galaxies recently. Besides, the steeply negative $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ gradients in SFOs suggest that the strong star formation is focus on the galactic center. As shown in Figure \ref{fig4}i, it is the newborn stars that pull down the light weighted stellar population age in the center of SFOs.

\subsection{Recent Star Formation}
\label{sec: recent star formation}

Figure \ref{fig6}a shows the similar stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{\star}$) along minor axis of SFOs and CGs, while Figure \ref{fig6}b shows higher gas velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{\rm gas}$), traced by ionized Hydrogen (H$_{\alpha}$), along the minor axis of SFOs. The enhanced turbulance in the ionized gas of SFOs, could be a conbined result of gas accretion, gas outflows and galaxy interaction. Such turbulance, which also behaves as more asymmetric gas kinematics in SFOs in Figure \ref{fig3}b, is a key factor in triggering the recent star formation.

We calculate the fraction of kinematically misaligned galaxies in SFOs and CGs, which are 22\% and 7\%. The fraction in CGs is consistent with the typical fraction in MaNGA survey \citep{2016MNRAS.463..913J}, while the fraction in SFOs is three times higher. Simulations show that continuous gas accretion \citep{1998ApJ...506...93T} or galaxy interaction \citep{2014MNRAS.444.3357N} can inject kinematically decoupled gas. In Figure \ref{fig6}c, the gas velocity to velocity dispersion ratio $(v/\sigma)_{\rm gas}$, traced by ionized Hydrogen (H$\alpha$), in SFOs (red profile) is lower than CGs (blue profile). This implies the consumption of gas angular momentum in SFOs, which is the result of the collision between the pre-existing and accreted gas. Under gravitation, the slow-rotating gas in SFOs would be accreted into the central region and trigger star formation.

The star formation in the center of SFOs produces strong radiation pressure and further drives powerful outflows. In Figure \ref{fig4}f, the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ along the minor axis (red solid profile) of SFOs is higher than the major axis (red dashed profile), which demonstrates star formation enhancement in the galactic-scale outflows. This enhancement, known as positive feedback, orgins from the compression of molecular gas clouds along the path of galactic-scale outflows \citep{2017Natur.544..202M, 2019MNRAS.485.3409G}. In Figure \ref{fig4}i, the younger stellar population along the minor axis (red solid profile) of SFOs, compared to the major axis (red dashed line), also proves the birth of young stars in the galactic-scale outflows.

\section{SUMMARY}
\label{sec: summary}

In this paper, we study the physical properties of the star forming galaxies which host galactic-scale outflows (SFOs). The control galaxies (CGs) are matched in the three dimensional parameter space of stellar mass, star formation rate and inclination angle.

$\bullet$ We firstly compare the global properties between the SFOs and CGs. The SFOs are smaller in size and host older stellar population. However, the SFR surface density in the center of SFOs is higher than the CGs. Combining the asymmetry of gas kinematics, these SFOs could undergo gas accretion or galaxy interaction recently which triggers star formation in the center.

$\bullet$ The difference in the stellar population properties along axes between SFOs and CGs describes more detailed star formation progress. The negative slope of $\Sigma_{\star}$ and metallicity gradients in SFOs and CGs, as well as the $Dn4000$ gradient in CGs support the inside-out formation scenario. While the positive $Dn4000$ gradient and higher $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ in SFOs imply the recent star formation in the galactic center. Combining the kinematic property gradients of stars and gas, we suggest that the accreted gas triggers star formation in the center of SFOs and further drives galactic-scale outflows.

$\bullet$ By comparing the stellar population properties in galactic-scale outflows (minor axis) and along stellar disk (major axis), we find enhanced star formation and metallicity in the galactic-scale outflows. Those are robust evidences for the positive feedback and metal entrainment in the galactic-scale outflows.
\\ \hspace*{\fill} \\
{\noindent \bf Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China (No. 2017YFA0402700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grants 11733002, 11922302, 11873032, U2038103) and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (No. 20133207110006). DB is partly supported by RSCF grant 19-12-00145.

Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS- IV acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org. SDSS-IV is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de Astrof\'{i}sica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University of Tokyo, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut  f\"{u}r Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut  f\"{u}r   Astronomie  (MPIA  Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut   f\"{u}r   Astrophysik  (MPA   Garching), Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomical Observatory of China, New Mexico State University, New York University, University of Notre Dame, Observat\'{o}rio Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional  Aut\'{o}noma de M\'{e}xico,  University of Arizona, University of Colorado  Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University  of Washington,  University of  Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
\\ \hspace*{\fill} \\
{\noindent \bf Data Availability}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.