Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
School
of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5A 1S6.
{oalhusse, jiel}@sfu.ca
Khalifa University of Science Technology and Research, PO. BOX 127788, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
{100037703@kustar.ac.ae, muhaidat@ieee.org, mqutayri@kustar.ac.ae}
Department of Electronics and Communications Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, 33101 Tampere, Finland.
{p.sofotasios@ieee.org}
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
{geokarag@ieee.org}
I. I NTRODUCTION
The need for efficient utilization of spectrum resources
has become a fundamental requirement in modern wireless
networks, mainly due to the aforementioned spectrum scarcity
and the ever-increasing demand for higher data rate applications and Internet services [1]. In this context, cognitive radio
(CR) communications is a particularly interesting wireless
technology that has been proposed as an effective method that
is capable of mitigating the spectrum scarcity by adapting their
transmission parameters according to the respective environment [2]. To this end, cognitive radios have been shown to
be highly efficient in maximizing spectrum utilization due to
their inherent spectrum sensing capability. In a CR network
environment, users are categorized in either primary users
(PUs) or secondary users (SUs). Based on this, the former are
the ones who have been typically assigned licensed spectrum
slots, and hence, have higher priority, whereas the latter are
accessing vacant frequency bands opportunistically.
Based on the above, numerous spectrum sensing techniques
have been proposed over the past decade and can be clas-
(1)
H1
Zj = |yj | ,
(2)
H0
where the time index t has been omitted for the sake of
notational simplicity.
For the conventional case of AWGN channels, the conditional detection and false-alarm probabilities are determined
with the aid of [31], namely
p
p
(3)
Pd = Qu ( 2j , n ),
Pf =
(u, 2n )
,
(u)
(4)
where u is time-bandwidth product, Qu (, ) is the generalized Marcum-Q function [32], (, ) is the upper incomplete
gamma function [33, eq. (8.35)], () is the standard gamma
function [33, eq. (8.31)], n = /n 2 is the normalized
|hj |2 Es
is the instantaneous SNR of the
threshold, and j = 2
2
n
j th PU-SU link.
As the probability of false-alarm is based on the null
hypothesis, it remains the same regardless of the involved
fading conditions. Thus, in the subsequent sections, we focus
on the derivation of the average detection probability for both
the conventional single-channel communication and for multichannel communications with diversity reception.
where the scale and shape parameters of the k th component are denoted by k and k , respectively. Furthermore,
the mixing coefficient of the k th component is denoted by
k , having the constraints, 0 k (k )/kk 1 and
PC
k
k=1 k (k )/k = 1. To this effect, the average probability of detection for the MG distribution can be written as
P d,MG =
C
X
k
k=1
p
x k 1 k x
Qu ( 2x, n ).( )
e 0 dx .
0
(6)
Here, an exact closed-form expression is derived under the
assumption that k is a positive integer, i.e. k N. This
is realized with the aid of Theorem 1 in [34, eq. (3)] and
by carrying out some long but basic algebraic simplifications
yielding
P d,MG
C
X
k (k )(u, n )
2
C X
k 1
X
k (k )
k=1 l=0
n u
( 2 ) 1 F1 (l + 1, u + 1, n /2
)
1+1 k
0
,
k l
l+1
(1 + k0 ) exp( 2n )
u!( k0 )
k=1
(u)kk
0k
(7)
f(2)
L
X
l=1
l .
(8)
f1 (x)f ( x)dx =
xi 1 e
i x
0
C X
C
X
i j
i +j
i=1 j=1 0
( x)j 1 e
j (x)
0
dx. (9)
C X
C
X
i j j
e 0
i 0 j
i=1 j=1 0
xi 1 ( x)j 1 dx .
(10)
|
=
f(2)
(i =j )
|
f(2)
(i 6=j )
j 1
C X
C X
X
i j
j 1
(1)l i +j
=
l
0
i=1 j=1 l=0
j l1
x
xi +l1 e 0 (i j ) dx.(12)
j
0
e 0
B. Diversity Reception
1) Square-Law Combining: Under SLC, the received signals from each branch are integrated, squared, and then
summed up. It is also recalled that SLC is similar to the
maximal-ratio combining scheme in the sense that the total
instantaneous SNR at the output of the combiner is equivalent
to that in MRC, i.e.
|
f(2)
(i 6=j )
j 1
C X
C X
X
j 1
(1)l i j
l
j
0
(i j )i +l
l
i=1 j=1 l=0
(i j )
j
j l1 e 0 i + l,
, (13)
0
x
where (a, x) , 0 ta1 et dt denotes the lower incomplete
gamma function. Thus, by expressing the (a, x) function
according to [33, eq. (9.352.6)], one obtains the following
closed-form expression,
|
f(2)
(i 6=j )
j 1
C X
C X
X
j 1 (1)l i j
=
0 j l
l
i=1 j=1
l=0
j
0
(i j )i l j l1 e
(i + l)
t
(
i
j)
iX
+l1
(i j )
0
(1 e
),(14)
t!
t=0
|
.
|
+ f(2)
= f(2)
f(2)
(i 6=j )
(i =j )
(15)
p
(L)
( ) d .
(18)
P d, =
QLu ( 2 , ) f(L)
P d, |(i =j )
C X
C
X
i j (i )(j )
i +j (i + j )
i=1 j=1 0
Qu ( 2 , )e 0
d, (19)
(i +j 1)
and
(2)
P d, |(i 6=j )
j 1
C X
C X
X
j 1 (1)l i j (i + l)
0 j l (i j )i +l
l
i=1 j=1
(25)
(26)
(27)
Pf,SLS = 1 [1 Pf ] .
(28)
L h
i
Y
p
p
1 Qu ( 2j , n ) .
=1
(29)
j=1
Hence, averaging (29) over (6) yields the unconditional probability of detection under the SLS scheme, P d,SLS , which is
given by
L
Y
[1 Pd,MG ] .
(30)
Pd,SLS = 1
j=1
alarm probability for different fading conditions with no
j l1
Qu ( 2 , )
d ,
(21) diversity. It is clearly shown that the analytical and simulated
I1 (0 ) =
j
0
curves are in tight agreement thanks to the arbitrarily accurate
e 0
representation of the MG distribution. It is also shown that
and
the presented scenario exhibits the best ROC, which is
Qu ( 2 , ) j +tl1
I2 (0 ) =
d
.
(22)
expected
since it represents a rather light fading scenario with
i
0
e 0
= 3.5 and = 15.
Fig. 2 depicts the analytical and simulated ROC curves
Notably, the involved integrals in (19), (21), and (22)
have the same algebraic representation as (6). Therefore, by over several scenarios of the composite NL fading channel
utilizing Theorem 1 in [34, eq. (3)] and after some algebraic with SLC diversity scheme with L = 2. As expected,
manipulations yields the closed-form expressions in (23) and changing the multipath severity parameter, m, has more
prominent influence on the detection performance than
(24), at the top of the next page.
In the same context, by following a similar methodology changing the shadowing parameter, . For example, at
one can obtain the average detection probability for higher Pf = 0.48, increasing m from 3 to 4 resulted in the ratio,
l=0
|
=
f(3)
(i =j =k )
|
f(3)
(i 6=j 6=k )
C X
C
X
i=1 j=1
i j k
0
i +j +k
(i )(j )(k ) k i +j +k 1
e 0
,
(i + j + k )
(16)
j 1 k 1
C X
C X
C X
X i j k j 1k 1
X
0 k r
l
r
r=0
i=1 j=1
k=1 l=0
j
k r1
(k +j )
(i
bj + r l, k0
e
j 1 i +l1 k 1
C X
C X
C X
X X
X
i j k j 1 k 1
(1)l+r r
0 k
l
r
r=0
t=0
i=0 j=0 k=0 l=0
(l + i )(i j )tli k r1 (k +j )
(i j k )
0
b
+
r
+
t
l,
.
e
j
t!(i j k )r+t+j l
0
(1) (l + i )
r+ l
j )l+i k j
(17)
(2)
P d, |(i =j )
n u
( 2 ) 1 F1 (n + 1, u + 1, 2j )
i +j 1 0
X
1+
(u, 2 )
0
i j (i )(j ) i +j
=
,
+
j n+1
+
n
i
j
)
exp(
u!(
)
(1
+
(u)
j
n=0
i=1 j=1
j
0
2)
(2)
P d, |(i 6=j )
C
C X
X
(23)
j 1
C X
C X
X
j 1 (1)l i j (i + l)
l
0 j l (i j )i +l
i=1 j=1
l=0
2
X ( )u (j l) 1 F1 (n + 1, u + 1, 1+ j ) i
0
2
j l1
u! ( j0 )j ln (1 + j0 )n+1 exp( 2 )
j 1 i +l1
C X
C X
X
X
j 1
(1)l i j (i + l)
l
t!0 j l+t (i j )i +lt
t=0
i=1 j=1
( j0 )j l (u)
n=0
l=0
h ( + t l)(u, )
j
2
( 0i )j +tl (u)
j +tl1
( 2 )u (j + t l) 1 F1 (n + 1, u + 1,
u! ( i0 )j +tln (1 +
n=0
i n+1
0 )
1+ i
0
exp( 2 )
)i
(24)
10
1P |
=1 dB
the ROC curve by only 1Pdd |=4
= 1.40. Fig. 3 depicts
dB
the analytical and simulated ROC curves over one scenario
of the composite NL fading channel with SLS scheme with
varying L. Comparing Figs. 2 and 3 exhibits that SLC
performs better than SLS for L = 2; yet, the improvement
is not significant for this particular case. For instance, at
Pf,SLS = Pf, = 0.48, the corresponding improvement
1Pd,
= 1.80. Also, one can observe how
ratio was 1P d,SLS
effective is the spatial diversity in combating the severity of
the multipath fading and shadowing effects.
10
Average missdetection probability
1Pd |m=4
1Pd |m=3
h ( l)(u, )
j
2
10
10
10
() =3.5, =15
() =1.0, =3.0
(Hoyt) q=0.5
(K ) k=1.0, m=2.0
10
V. C ONCLUSIONS
We proposed a unified framework for the performance
analysis of an energy detector in generalized and composite
MG-based fading channels. Novel analytical expressions for
the average detection probability have been derived for both
Simulation
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
Falsealarm probability
0.8
10
10
10
10
10
(NL) m=4, =1 dB
(NL) m=3, =1 dB
(NL) m=1, =1 dB
(NL) m=1, =4 dB
Simulation
10
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
Falsealarm probability
0.8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
14
10
16
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
Falsealarm probability
0.8
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]