Abstract
In this paper, a novel cooperative spectrum sensing (CSS) strategy is proposed for cognitive radio networks (CRN) with imperfect reporting channels. This CSS strategy uses simultaneously four techniques to overcome undesirable effects of reporting channels, which are errors and overhead traffic. First, it uses an energy efficient clustering algorithm to maximize the CRN lifetime. Second, in each cluster, an incremental weighing fusion rule is used to improve the accuracy of local sensing performed by secondary users. Third, it selects more reliable improved decisions for sending to the fusion center, to decrease overhead traffic. Fourth, it employs a space–time block code to reduce the probability of errors in reporting channels. We determine the optimal settings of the proposed strategy, such as number of clusters, and their corresponding members by maximizing the achievable throughput of the CRN. Numerical and simulation results will prove the proposed CSS strategy yields the highest throughput for the CRN, while it guarantees the maximum lifetime of CRN, and maximum protection of primary users.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akylidiz, I., Lo, B., & Balakrishan, R. (2011). Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks: A survey. Physical Communication Journal, 4(1), 40–62.
Lee, J. W. (2013). Cooperative spectrum sensing scheme over imperfect feedback channels. IEEE Communications Letters, 17(6), 1192–1195.
Chaudhari, S., Lund´en, J., Koivunen, V., & Poor, H. V. (2012). Cooperative sensing with imperfect reporting channels: Hard decisions or soft decisions? IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 60(1), 18–28.
Zhang, W., & Letaief, K. (2008). Cooperative spectrum sensing with transmit and relay diversity in cognitive radio networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 7(12), 4761–4766.
Mashreghi, M., & Abolhassani, B. (2010). Optimum number of secondary users and optimum fusion rule in cooperative spectrum sensing to maximize channel throughput. In Proceedings of international symposium on telecommunications, Tehran, Iran, pp. 1–6.
Ghasemi, A., & Sousa, E. (2007). Opportunistic spectrum access in fading channels through collaborative sensing. Journal of Communications, 2(2), 71–82.
Khalid, L., & Anpalagan, A. (2014). Reliability-based decision fusion scheme for cooperative spectrum sensing. IET Communications, 8(14), 2423–2432.
Ebrahimzadeh, A., & Najimi, M. (2015). Throughput improvement in energy-efficient cooperative spectrum sensing based on sensor selection. Wireless Personal Communication, 85(4), 2099–2114.
Zhang, T., & Tsang, D. H. K. (2015). Cooperative sensing scheduling for energy-efficient cognitive radio networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 64(6), 2648–2662.
Reisi, N., Ahmadian, M., Jamali, V., & Salari, S. (2012). Cluster-based cooperative spectrum sensing over correlated log-normal channels with noise uncertainty in cognitive radio networks. IET Communication, 6(16), 2725–2733.
Wang, Y., Nie, G., Li, G., & Shi, C. (2013). Sensing-throughput tradeoff in cluster-based cooperative cognitive radio networks with a TDMA reporting frame structure. Wireless Personal Communication, 71(3), 1795–1818.
Mashreghi, M., & Abolhassani, B. (2015). Number of cooperative wireless nodes to achieve a desired BER. Wireless Personal Communication, 82(2), 1059–1083.
Peh, E. C., Liang, Y., Guan, Y. L., & Zeng, Y. (2010). Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks with weighted decision fusion schemes. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 9(12), 3838–3847.
Niu, R., Chen, B., & Varshney, P. (2006). Fusion of decision transmitted over Rayleigh fading channels in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54(3), 1018–1027.
Zhang, W., Yang, Y., & Yeo, C. K. (2015). Cluster-based cooperative spectrum sensing assignment strategy for heterogeneous cognitive radio network. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 64(6), 2637–2647.
Bilim, M., Kapucu, N., & Develi, I. (2016). A closed-form approximate BEP expression for cooperative IDMA systems over multipath Nakagami-m fading channels. IEEE Communications Letters, 20(8), 1599–1602.
Anees, S., & Bhatnagar, M. R. (2015). Performance of an amplify-and-forward dual-hop asymmetric RF-FSO communication system. Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, 7(2), 124–135.
Kapucu, N., Bilim, M., & Develi, I. (2013). Outage probability analysis of dual-hop decode-and-forward relaying over mixed rayleigh and generalized gamma fading channels. Wireless Personal Communications, 71(3), 1117–1127.
Anees, S., & Bhatnagar, M. R. (2015). Performance evaluation of decode-and-forward dual-hop asymmetric radio frequency-free space optical communication system. IET Optoelectronics, 9(5), 232–240.
Kapucu, N., Bilim, M., & Develi, I. (2013). SER performance of amplify-and-forward cooperative diversity over asymmetric fading channels. Wireless Personal Communications, 73(2), 947–954.
Ma, S., Yang, Y. L., & Sharif, H. (2011). Distributed MIMO technologies in cooperative wireless networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(5), 78–82.
Lu, K., Fu, S., & Xia, X. G. (2005). Closed-form designs of complex orthogonal space-time block codes of rates (k + 1)/(2k) for 2k − 1 or 2k transmit antennas. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(12), 4340–4347.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
This appendix provides the proof of (7). Toward this, we solve the optimization problem in (1) for cluster m, \(1 \le m \le M\), then we extend it to other clusters.
Consider an arbitrary cluster, m, whose number of members has the following relationship with numbers of other clusters’ members,
In this case, MSDE in (1) can be rewritten in the following form
where \(X = \mathop \sum \nolimits_{{\begin{array}{*{20}c} {i = 1} \\ {i \ne m,q} \\ \end{array} }}^{M - 1} \mathop \sum \nolimits_{{\begin{array}{*{20}c} {j = i + 1} \\ {j \ne m,q} \\ \end{array} }}^{M} \left[ {E_{i} \left( {n_{i} } \right) - E_{j} \left( {n_{j} } \right)} \right]^{2}\). Substituting (45) into (46), the constraint of (1) is satisfied (i.e. \(\mathop \sum \nolimits_{j = 1}^{M} n_{j} = N\)). Therefore, (1) converts to the following unconstrained case:
In (47), \(MSDE\left( {n_{q} } \right)\) is a function with discrete variable \(n_{q}\). Hence, we define
Substituting \(MSDE\left( {n_{q} } \right)\) into (48), and using (45), we obtain
where
According to (2)–(6), we know that \(E_{q} \left( {n_{q} } \right)\) increases by increasing \(n_{q}\). So, we can define the following two cases:
Case 1
If \(E_{q} \left( {n_{q} + 1} \right) \le E_{m} \left( {n_{m} - 1} \right)\) for \(\forall q,\forall m,\) \(q \ne m\), then \(H_{1} \left( {n_{q} + 1} \right) \le 0\) and \(H_{2} \left( {n_{q} + 1} \right) \ge 0\). Furthermore, from (50) and (51), we have \(H_{1} \left( {n_{q} } \right) < H_{1} \left( {n_{q} + 1} \right)\) and \(H_{2} \left( {n_{q} + 1} \right) < H_{2} \left( {n_{q} } \right)\). Hence, in this case, by looking at (49), we have \(D\left( {n_{q} } \right) < 0\).
Case 2
If \(E_{q} \left( {n_{q} - 1} \right) \ge E_{m} \left( {n_{m} + 1} \right)\) for \(\forall q,\forall m,\) \(q \ne m\), then \(H_{1} \left( {n_{q} - 1} \right) \ge 0\) and \(H_{2} \left( {n_{q} - 1} \right) \le 0\). Furthermore, from (50) and (51), \(H_{1} \left( {n_{q} - 1} \right) < H_{1} \left( {n_{q} } \right)\) and \(H_{2} \left( {n_{q} } \right) < H_{2} \left( {n_{q} - 1} \right)\). Hence, in this case, by looking at (49), we have \(D\left( {n_{q} - 1} \right) > 0\).
Furthermore, by using the properties of discrete-variable functions, solution of (47), \(\hat{n}_{q} , q = 1, \ldots ,m - 1,m + 1, \ldots ,M,\) must satisfy the following inequalities
Therefore, \(E_{q} \left( {\hat{n}_{q} + 1} \right) > E_{m} \left( {\hat{n}_{m} - 1} \right)\) and \(E_{q} \left( {\hat{n}_{q} - 1} \right) < E_{m} \left( {\hat{n}_{m} + 1} \right)\) for \(\forall q,\forall m,\) \(q \ne m\) are the necessary conditions for solution of (47), which can rewrite as
where \(\hat{n}_{m} = N - \mathop \sum \nolimits_{{\begin{array}{*{20}c} {i = 1} \\ {i \ne m,q} \\ \end{array} }}^{M} \hat{n}_{i} - \hat{n}_{q}\). To obtain the exact value of \(\hat{n}_{m}\), we add M-1 inequalities (54) together as follows
Hence, we get (7) that we wanted.
Appendix 2
In this appendix, we derive (23) and (24). By using \(\vec{\varvec{X}}_{k}^{m} ,\) \(\vec{\varvec{A}}_{k}^{a} ,\) \(\vec{\varvec{B}}_{k}^{b}\) and \(\vec{\varvec{C}}_{k}^{c}\) defined in Theorem 1, the probability of \(x_{k}^{m} = 1\) for \(y \in \left\{ {0,1} \right\}\) is given as
where \(F_{k} \left( {\left. {\vec{\varvec{A}}_{k}^{a} } \right|H_{y} } \right)\) is the CDF of random variable \(d_{j}^{m} ,\) which is defined in (27).
Now, we evaluate the pmf of \(\vec{\varvec{X}}_{k}^{m} ,\) \({ \Pr }\left\{ {\vec{\varvec{X}}_{k}^{m} = \left. {\vec{\varvec{A}}_{k}^{a} } \right|H_{y} } \right\},\) as
where \(\vec{\varvec{Z}}_{k}^{m} = \left\{ {x_{1}^{m} ,x_{2}^{m} , \ldots ,x_{k - 1}^{m} } \right\}\) is the vector of decisions that transmitted from \(k - 1\) SUs. The elements of \(\vec{\varvec{X}}_{k}^{m}\) are conditionally independent for a given \(\vec{\varvec{Z}}_{k}^{m}\). So,
where \(P_{e1} = { \Pr }\left\{ {\left. {A_{j}^{a} \ne B_{j}^{b} } \right|x_{j}^{m} = B_{j}^{b} ,\hat{x}_{j,k}^{m} = A_{j}^{a} } \right\} = P_{e}^{in} \left( {SNR_{in}^{m} } \right).\) Furthermore, \(x_{j}^{m}\) depends on \(j - 1\) previous SUs’ decisions, \(\vec{\varvec{Z}}_{j}^{m}\). So, we have
Now,
and
Using \(p_{j} \left( {\left. {\vec{\varvec{B}}_{k}^{b} } \right|H_{y} } \right)\) defined in (26), and (60) and (61), we can rewrite (59) as
Substituting (62) into (56), then we get the same formula for \(y = 0\) and \(y = 1\) as (23) and (24) that we wanted.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mashreghi, M., Abolhassani, B. A Cluster-Based Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Strategy to Maximize Achievable Throughput. Wireless Pers Commun 96, 4557–4584 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-4403-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-4403-0