Global Detection

As illustrated in Fig. 3-1, we transmit the local test statistic {u } to the fusion _i center via a channel and the zero-mean additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN),and then are multiplied by weights in a linear combination manner. Now, we consider the channel with two conditions. First, for simplification, we assume that the channel can be treated as constant AWGN channels which channel gains are constant one

(i.e.g_i =1). Second, we further consider that the channels are fading channels which channel gains are generated according to a normal distribution and assumed to be fixed during a detection interval.

I. Constant AWGN Cannel between Secondary User and Fusion Center

From (3.3) or (3.4), we assume that the channel gains are constant one (i.e.g_i =1), then we can express as follows:

i i

i u n

r = + i=1,2,...,M (3.15)

According to (3.11), since u_i ~ N(E[u_i],Var(u_i)), )n_i ~ N(0,σ_n² , so the received statistics {r } are normally distributed with mean _i

and variance

Once the fusion center receives {r }, a global test statistic _i r is calculated _c linearly as follows:

where the weight vector w=(w₁,w₂,...,w_M)^T satisfies ² 1

2 =

w and

⋅ 2 is the Euclidean norm. The weight vector is used to control the global spectrum detector.

The combining weight for the signal from a particular user represents its contribution to the global decision. For example, if a CR generates a high-SNR signal that may lead to correct detection on its own, it should be assigned a larger weight coefficient.

For the secondary users passing deep fading or shadowing, their weights are decreased in order to reduce their effect to the decision fusion. r =(r₁,r₂,...,r_M)^T is

the received vector. Since the received statistics {r } are Gaussian random variables, _i so their linear combination is also Gaussian. Then, r is normally distributed with _c mean

where

1

is a column vector that are all ones, and η =(η₁,η₂,...,η_M)^T is the SNR vector ,and variance

Therefore, the variances for different hypothesis are given by

where I denotes the identity matrix, and diag(.) is square diagonal matrix with the elements of a given vector on the diagonal. Therefore, we can express simply as follows:

Finally, to make decision on the presence of the primary signal, the global test statistics r is compared with a threshold _c T . _c

And then, the probabilities of detection and false alarm at the fusion center can be expressed as

generated according to a normal distribution and assumed to be fixed during a detection interval.

II. Fading Cannel between Secondary User and Fusion Center

From (3.3) or (3.4), the channel gain {g } between secondary users and fusion _i center are additive white Gaussian noise with zero-mean and variance σ_g², and they are assumed to be fixed during a detection interval, and the channel noise {n } are _i also additive white Gaussian noise with zero-mean and variance σ_n² ,

i.e. g_i ~ N(0,σ_g²),n_i ~ N(0,σ_n²) . And u_i ~N(E[u_i],Var(u_i)) . Without loss of generality, we assume that {g }, {_i n }, and {_i u } are independent of each other. _i Therefore, at the fusion center receives {r }, a global test statistic _i r is calculated _c linearly as follows:

Once again, according to CLT (central limit theorem), if the number of secondary users ( M ) is large enough, the global test statisticsr , can be asymptotically normally _c distributed with mean

∑

∑

= =

+

=

=

= ^M

i

i i i i M

i

T i i

c wr w r w gu n

r

1 1

)

( (3.27)

where {g } are assumed to be fixed during detection interval, and _i n_i ~ N(0,σ_n²) , u can be asymptotically normally distributed _i

So we can derive the mean as follows:

where g=(g₁,g₂,...,g_M)^T, _{M M} ^T

g (η₁g₁,η₂g₂,...,η g )

η = .

And variance

where K =E[(r−E[r])(r−E[r])^T] is covariance matrix.

Therefore, we can find the element of the covariance matrix for different hypothesis as follows:

w

and

However, we can observe that the covariance matrix is diagonal matrix which non-diagonal element are all zeros. Then, we can derive the variance

whereg² =(g₁²,g₂²,...,g_M² )^T,g²(n+η)=[g₁²(n+η₁),g₂²(n+η₂),...,g_M² (n+η_M)]^T. Finally, we can express that the global test statistics r are asymptotically normally _c distributed when M is large enough.

Then, to make decision on the presence of the primary signal, the global test statistics r is compared with a threshold _c T . _c

The probabilities of detection and false alarm at the fusion center can be expressed as

and

We see that the sensing performance of the linear detector depends largely on the weighting coefficient and the decision threshold. We next show how to design the optimal weight vector w in order to maximize the modified deflection coefficient.

0

3.3 Performance Optimization

For cognitive radio networks, the probabilities of detection and false alarm have unique relationship. Specifically, 1-P represents the probability of interference _d^(c) from secondary users on the primary users. On the other hand, P_f^(c) determines the

upper bound on the spectrum efficiency, where a large P_f^(c) usually results in low spectrum utilization. This is based on a typical assumption that if primary signals are detected, the secondary users do not use the licensed band, and if no primary signals are detected, the secondary users use the licensed band. In this section, we maximize the modified deflection coefficient in order to improve the detection performance.

From the mean and variance of r , we observe that the weight vector _c w plays an important role in controlling the PDF of the global test statistics r . To measure the _c effect of the PDF on the detection performance, we define a modified deflection coefficient as follows:

Now, we would like to maximize d under the unit norm constraint to find the _m² optimization of weight vector, i.e.

1 0 1

), (

) ], [ ], [

( ²

2

H c

H c H c

m Var r

r E r

d E −

=

(3.41)

1

subject to

) ( maximize

2 2 2

w = w d_m

(3.42)

Where ⋅₂ denotes the Euclidean norm. And then we consider two cases to find the weight coefficient. First, we consider that the channels are the constant AWGN channel, and we can obtain the follows from (3.41):

We solve the problem as follows. Since we have 4σ_v⁴[nI+diag(η)]+σ_n²I f0, so we can know its square root can be expressed as

Where is a diagonal matrix, Applying the linear transformation q=Dw gives

Where )λ_max(⋅ denotes the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix. Note that (a) follows the Rayleigh Ritz inequality and the equality is achieved if q=q^o, which is the eigenvector of the positive definite matrix D⁻¹ηη^TD⁻¹ corresponding to the

maximum eigenvalue. Therefore, we find the optimal solution of (3.42) is

which maximizes the modified deflection coefficient.

Now, we further consider that the channel are fading channel which channel gains are generated according to a normal distribution and assumed to be fixed during a detection interval. With the same step, we would like to maximize d under the unit _m² norm constraint to find the optimization of weight vector, and then we can obtain the follows from (3.41)

We solve the problem as the same, since we have 4σ_v⁴[diag(g²(n+η))]+σ_n²I f0, so we can also know its square root can be expressed as

2

Applying the linear transformation q=Dw gives

Where λ_max(⋅) denotes the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix. Note that (a) follows the Rayleigh Ritz inequality and the equality is achieved if q=q^o, which is the eigenvector of the positive definite matrix D^{−1 T}D⁻¹

g gη

η corresponding to the

maximum eigenvalue. Therefore, we find the optimal solution of (3.42) as the same step is

which maximizes the modified deflection coefficient. we can prove by the simulation results below, a larger value of d leads to a larger probability of _m² detection.

)

3.4 Simulation Result

In this section, the proposed approach is simulated numerically and compare with some other existing approaches. Firstly, we consider three or ten secondary users (M=3 or M=10) in the cognitive radio networks, and the secondary users sense the frequency spectrum independently. The channel gain between each secondary user and the target primary user is generated by a complex normal distribution (i.e.,h_i ~ CN(0,1)) and the channel noise between each secondary user and the target primary user are AWGN with zero mean and varianceσ_v² =1. For simplicity, we assume the channel gain {g } between secondary users and fusion center are constant _i AWGN (g_i =1), and the channel noise {n } between secondary users and fusion _i center are AWGN with zero mean and varianceσ_n² =1. The transmitted primary

signal has unit power s(k)² =1 and the detection interval is 2n samples. The proposed cooperation schemes are compared with selection combining method (SC i.e., selecting the user with maximum SNR), equal gain combination method (EGC

i.e., i M

w_i = 1M , =1,2,..., ) and single cognitive radio.

Secondly, we further consider the channel gain {g } between secondary users and _i fusion center are generated by a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance, and they are assumed to be fixed during the detection interval. We assume that the channel noise between each secondary user to the target primary user and secondary users to fusion center are, respectively, AWGN with zero mean and varianceσ_v² =2

and 2σ_n² = . Under the condition, we observe the effect of different number of secondary user ( M ) and different variance of channel noise between each secondary user to the target primary user or secondary users to fusion center.

Fig. 3-2 The probability distribution function of the test statistics (u) under different hypotheses, with constant AWGN channel (g_i =1) ,M=3, n=50,σ_v² =1, and σ_n² =1. The result is the average of 100 simulations.

Fig. 3-3 The probability distribution function of the test statistics (u) under different hypotheses, with constant AWGN channel (g_i =1) ,M=10, n=50,σ_v² =1, and σ_n² =1. The result is the average of 100 simulations.

From figure 3-2 and figure 3-3, we show that the probability distribution functions of the test statistics under different hypotheses. We compare the distribution of optimization of modified reflection coefficient with the distribution of single cognitive radio SC. We can observe that the distance between uopt.PDF,H₀ and

, 1

.PDF H

uopt is larger than the distance between usc,H₀ and usc,H₁. Also, we can find that the spread of

, 1

.PDFH

uopt is narrower than that of

,H1

usc . On the other word, the variance of

, 1

.PDFH

uopt is smaller than the variance of

,H1

usc . Further, when the numbers of secondary user are increased, we can observe that the distance between

, 0

.PDFH

uopt and uopt.PDF,H1 become large.

According to above-mentioned, we obviously understand that the distribution of optimization of modified reflection coefficient and increased the numbers of secondary user would result in more accurate inference. These observations imply that the PDF optimization cooperation scheme outperforms any local spectrum sensing by individual secondary users.

Fig. 3-4 The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) vs. the probability of false alarm (P_f ), with constant AWGN channel (g_i =1) ,M=3, n=50,σ_v² =1, and σ_n² =1. The result is the average of 1000 simulations.

Fig. 3-5 The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) vs. the probability of false alarm (P_f ), with constant AWGN channel (g_i =1) ,M=10, n=50,σ_v² =1, and σ_n² =1. The result is the average of 1000 simulations.

From figure 3-4 and figure 3-5, we plot the probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) versus the probability of false alarm ( P ) under various approaches, such as _f optimized modified reflection coefficient method, equal gain combination method (EGC, the corresponding weight coefficient is expressed as i M

w_i 1M , 1,2,...,

=

= ),

selection combining method (SC, selecting the user with maximum SNR), and single cognitive radio. The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) versus the probability of false alarm (P ) directly measures the interference level to the primary users for a _f

given P . The simulation shows that the proposed optimized modified reflection _f coefficient method (denoted as opt PDF) lead to much less interference (much higher probability of detection) to the primary user than single cognitive radio, selection combining method, and equal gain combination method. Also, we can find that the cooperation schemes (opt PDF, EGC) outperform single cognitive radio schemes (SC, single CR). The cooperation gain is due to control the combining weight coefficient which sharp the probability distribution function. Further, we can observe that when the numbers of secondary user are increased, the cooperation gain become large.

Fig. 3-6 The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) vs. the probability of false alarm (P_f) under various M, with fading channel (g_iare generated according to a normal distribution and assumed to be fixed during a detection interval) , n=50,σ_v² =2, and σ_n² =2. The result is the average of 1000 simulations.

Fig. 3-7 The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) vs. the probability of false alarm (P_f) under various (σ_v²,σ_n²), with fading channel (g_iare generated according to a normal distribution ) ,M=5, n=50. The result is the average of 1000 simulations.

From figure 3-6, we plot the probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) versus the probability of false alarm (P ) under different numbers of secondary user. We further _f consider the channel gain {g } between secondary users and fusion center are _i generated by a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance, and they are assumed to be fixed during the detection interval. And, we observe that when the numbers of secondary user are increased, the performance become batter. In other words, under the same condition, the sensing reliability improves as the number of secondary users increase.

From figure 3-7, we plot the probability of miss-detection (1−P_d ) versus the probability of false alarm (P ) under different noise condition. And we consider the _f channel gain {g } between secondary users and fusion center are generated by a _i normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance, and they are assumed to be fixed during the detection interval. As we can observe, the detection performance degrades as the noise conditions become bad. We can also find that the channel noise between each secondary user to the target primary user is more sensitive to the detection performance than that of secondary users to fusion center.

From figure 3-8, we plot the probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) versus the probability of false alarm (P ) under different cooperation schemes (opt PDF and _f EGC) and various M with fading channel (g are generated according to a normal _i distribution). We can obviously see that the EGC method has a severe detection performance in the fading channel between secondary user and fusion center, even if we increase the number of secondary user. In other words, the EGC cooperation scheme doesn’t work due to the fading channel in that environment. However, we proposed cooperation scheme works well, and the sensing reliability improves as the

Fig. 3-8 The probability of miss-detection (1−P_d) vs. the probability of false alarm (P_f) under different cooperation schemes (opt PDF and EGC) and various M, with fading channel (g_iare generated according to a normal distribution), n=50,σ_v² =2, and σ_n² =2. The result is the average of 1000 simulations.

Chapter 4 Conclusion

Cognitive radio network enables much higher spectrum efficiency by dynamic spectrum access. Therefore, it will be a popular technique for future wireless communications to mitigate the spectrum scarcity issue. Spectrum sensing is a main and tough task in cognitive radio networks. However, due to the effect of shadowing, fading, and time-varying nature of wireless channels, the individual cognitive radios may not be able to reliably and quickly detect the existence of a primary signal. In this thesis, we propose a simple but efficient cooperation spectrum sensing based on energy detection and consider the channel between the secondary user and fusion center with two cases. One is considered only the channel noise between the secondary user and fusion center (i.e., constant AWGN channel), and the other is considered both of the channel noise and channel fading between the secondary user and fusion center (i.e., fading channel). Our objective is to improve the detection performance and to combat the channel fading effects. Finally, we optimize a modified deflection coefficient to find the optimal linear combining weights.

From the simulations, we obviously understand that the distribution of optimization of modified reflection coefficient and increased the numbers of secondary user would result in more accurate inference. Also, we can observe that the proposed cooperation method have the better detection performance then other methods (i.e., single CR, SC, and EGC). We can also find that the channel noise between each secondary user to the target primary user is more sensitive to the detection performance than that of secondary users to fusion center. Finally, the sensing reliability improves as the number of secondary users increase.

References

[1] J. Mitola, III and G. Q. Maguire,“Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal,” IEEE Pers. Commun, vol. 6, pp.13-18, 1999.

[2] Fed. commun, Comm. 2003, Et docket-322.

[3] S. Haykin, “Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications,” IEEE Journal Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201-220, Feb. 2005.

[4] D. Cabric, S. M. Mishra, D. Willkomm, R. W. Brodersen, and A. Wolisz,“A cognitive radio approach for usage of virtual unlicensed spectrum,” in Proc. 14^th IST Mobile and Wireless Commun., Summit, June 2005.

[5] A. Sahai, N. Hoven, and R. Tandra, “Some fundamental limits on cognitive radio,”

in Proc. Allerton Conf. Communication, Control, and Computing, Oct.2004, pp.

131-136.

[6] D. Cabric, S. M. Mishra, and R. Brodersen, “Implementation issues in spectrum sensing for cognitive radios,” in Proc. 38^th Asilomar Conf. Signal, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 2004, pp. 772-776.

[7] P. K. Varshney, Distributed Detection and Data Fusion. New York: Springer Verlag, 1997.

[8] R. S. Blum, S. A. Kassam, and H. V. Poor,” Distributed detection with multiple sensors: Part II- Advanced topics,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, pp. 64-79, Jan. 1997.

[9] V. Aalo and R. Viswanathan,“ Asymptotic performance of a distributed detection system in correlated Gaussian noise,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 40, pp.

211-213, Feb. 1992.

[10] A. Ghasemi and E. Sousa,“ Collaborative spectrum sensing for opportunistic access in fading environments,” in Proc. IEEE Symp. New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, Baltimore, MD, Nov. 2005, pp. 131-136.

[11] E. Vistotsky, S. Kuffner, and R. Peterson, “ On collaborative detection of TV transmissions in support of dynamic spectrum sharing,” in Proc. IEEE Symp. New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, Baltimore, MD, Nov. 2005, pp.

338-345.

[12] G. Ghurumuruhan and Y. Li, “ Agility improvement through cooperative diversity in cognitive radio,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, St. Louis, MO, Nov. 2005, pp.

2505-2509.

[13] Z Quan, S. Cui, and A. H. Sayed, “ An optimal strategy for cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, 2007.

[14] S. M. Kay, “Fundamentals of statistical signal processing,” Prentice Hall.

[15] F. F. Digham, M. -S. Alouini, and M. K. Simon, “On the energy detection of unknown signals over fading channels”, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., May 2003, vol. 5, pp.3575-3579.

[16] H. Urkowitz, ”Energy detection of unknown deterministic signals ”, in Proc.

IEEE, vol. 55, pp. 523-531, April 1967.

[17] J. Ma, and Y. Li, ”Soft combination and detection for cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks”, in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, 2007.

[18] J. Mitola, “Cognitive radio: An integrated agent architecture for software defined radio,” Doctor of Technology, Royal Inst. Technol. (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.

[19] Federal Communications Commission, “Spectrum Policy Task Force,” Rep. ET Docket no. 02-135, Nov. 2002.

[20] FCC, Cognitive Radio Workshop, May 19, 2003, [online]. Available:

http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html.

[21]Proc. Conf. Cogn. Radios, Las Vegas, NV, Mar. 15-16, 2004.

[22] C.E. Shannon, “communication in the presence of noise,” Proc. IRE, vol. 37, pp.

10-21, Jan. 1949.

[23] R. Tandra and A. Sahai, “Fundamental limits on detection in low SNR under noise uncertainty,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on wireless Networks, Commun., and Mobile Computing, June 2005, vol. 1, pp. 464-469.

[24]G. L. Stuber, Principles of Mobile Communication, 2^nd ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.

自 傳

游衛川, 西元 1983 年生於宜蘭縣。 西元 2006 年畢業於台灣台北淡 江大學電機工程學系，之後進入交通大學電子研究所攻讀碩士學位，

於 2008 年取得碩士學位。研究方向為無線通訊、感知無線電。

在文檔中 在感知無線電網路中支分散式合作頻譜偵測 (頁 41-0)