A non-cooperative spectrum sharing protocol for multicarrier cognitive sensor networks

In this paper, we consider a broadband cognitive radio network, where both primary and secondary systems employ an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation scheme. The proposed scheme is reminiscent of additive superposition
of 17
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  A non-cooperative spectrum sharing protocolfor multicarrier cognitive sensor networks Donatella Darsena, Giacinto Gelli, and Francesco Verde Abstract In this paper, we consider a broadband cognitive radio network, where both primary and sec-ondary systems employ an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation scheme.The proposed scheme is reminiscent of additive superposition coding: specifically, the secondarytransmitter acts as an amplify-and-forward relay that sends a linear weighted combination of thereceived multicarrier primary signal and its own block of multiple symbols. Such a superpositionis performed by the secondary transmitter on the fly, in a single OFDM symbol of the primarysystem. Moreover, the proposed scheme is non-cooperative in the sense that no cooperation isrequired between the primary and secondary systems. An information-theoretic analysis of theproposed scheme is developed, whose results are corroborated by means of numerical Monte Carlosimulations. I. I NTRODUCTION Due to the continuing adoption of tablets, laptops with cellular connections, and smartphones along with their data-hungry applications, the actual problem facing telecommunica-tions operators is the so-called “capacity crunch”, i.e., there are too many users demandingtoo much data. A viable way for increasing capacity consists of bringing the access network closer and closer to end users, i.e., in a range of few meters around them. To pursue sucha basic scope, networks have been rapidly turned into heterogeneous mixtures of small basestations (pico and especially femto), remote radio units, low-power nodes, and relays [1],[2], [3]. This unprecedented escalation has aroused considerable interest in  spectrum sharing among wireless systems [4]. Cognitive radio  (CR) approaches [5] allow secondary users (SUs) to share a portion of thespectrum with licensed or unlicensed primary users (PUs). The stringent requirement is thattransmissions of SUs should not degrade the quality of service that operators have agreedwith their PUs. CR techniques can be categorized according to the coexistence strategy of theprimary and secondary systems. On the basis of the  overlay  paradigm [6], the SUs transmitby resorting to standard methods of orthogonalization (in space, time, or frequency) with July 16, 2016 DRAFT  1 respect to the primary transmissions [5]. The temporary space-time-frequency voids in thetransmission of the PUs are collectively referred to as a  white spaces  (or  spectrum holes ).Implementation of overlay CR schemes requires the accurate and timely knowledge of thewhite-space locations to identify the existence of the primary transmissions.Subsequently, there have emerged CR paradigms that are potentially more efficient than theoverlay one. In the  underlay  paradigm [6], the SU transmissions overlap the signal transmittedby the PUs in space, time, and frequency, provided that the interference level they cause tothe PUs is below a given threshold. In this case, the interfering effect of the secondarytransmissions on the primary receivers should be determined  a priori . Existing underlay CRapproaches can be distinguished from each other through the degree of   cooperation  that isrequired between primary and secondary systems.The mutual interference between primary and secondary transmissions can be optimally(in the information-theoretic sense) removed by allowing SUs and PUs to cooperate in a non-causal manner [7], [8], [9], [10]. Such a family of underlay CR techniques rely on encodingtechniques like dirty paper coding [11], which require  a priori  knowledge of the primaryuser’s transmitted data and/or its codebook.A causal cooperation between primary and secondary systems can be obtained by resortingto the concept of   additive superposition coding (SPC)  [12], [13], [14]. In its simplest guise,a SPC scheme can be seen as a specific modulation technique, which consists of linearcombining multiple coded symbols. The SPC philosophy has been recently used to developcooperative primary-secondary spectrum sharing schemes for flat-fading channels [15], [16].According to such papers, the secondary transmitter acts as a decode-and-forward (DF) relay,which demodulates the symbols transmitted by the PU on a symbol-by-symbol basis and, ineach symbol period of the PU, it re-modulate a linear weighted combination of the srcinalprimary symbol and its own secondary symbol, such that the outage performance of theprimary system is not affected. However, besides requiring a strict coordination betweenthe primary and secondary system, which may be difficult to achieve in many cases, theemployment of such a spectrum sharing strategy leads to a  two-phase  protocol spanning twotime slots.An underlay spectrum sharing paradigm has been recently proposed in [17], [18] for flat-fading channels, whereby cooperation between the PU and SU is  not   required. In this scheme,the arithmetic operation of   multiplication  is used to superimpose a single SU symbol on aframe of multiple PU symbols, through an amplify-and-forward (AF) protocol. As a result, July 16, 2016 DRAFT  2 under reasonable conditions [17], [18], the SU can transmit without a power constraint, whilekeeping the desirable property of not degrading (but even improving) the PU performance.However, the main limitation of the approach in [17], [18] is that only low-data rates canbe achieved by the secondary system, due to the fact that the SU transmits only one symbolper PU frame. The extension of the scheme proposed in [17], [18] to the case in which theSU transmits multiple symbols within a symbol interval of a primary multicarrier system isconsidered in [19], where the SU convolves its block-precoded symbols with the receivedPU signal in the time-domain. To improve the achievable data rate of the secondary systemwith AF spectrum sharing, another strategy is to use SPC, as an alternative to  convolutive superposition. This is pursued in [20], where SPC is employed to perform a symbol-by-symbol additive superposition of the SU information on the PU received signal in a flat-fading channel scenario. Similarly to [15], [16], besides introducing a substantial amount of cooperation between the primary and secondary systems, the price to pay is to spread thetransmission of one primary symbol over two time slots.Contrary to [17], [18], [15], [16], [20], we consider a broadband CR system where modu-lation is based on  orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM)  [21], due to its advan-tages in multipath resistance, performance, spectral efficiency, flexibility, and computationalcomplexity. We propose a  non-cooperative  spectrum sharing scheme where the secondarytransmitter acts as an AF relay 1 : specifically, the secondary transmitter forwards a linearweighted combination of the received PU signal and its own block of multiple symbols.This scheme offers the following advantages: compared to [17], [18], it allows the SU totransmit multiple symbols within a single OFDM symbol interval of the primary system,by jointly exploiting both white spaces (i.e., unused subcarriers of the PU signal) and dirtyspaces (i.e., subcarriers used by the PU), thereby attaining larger transmission rates; withrespect to [15], [16], [20], no cooperation is required between the primary and secondarysystems and, moreover, only a single slot is required to superimpose the SU data on the PUsignal on the fly, thus doubling the network throughput. The theoretical performance analysisof the proposed scheme is based on input-output mutual information and ergodic capacityof both the primary and secondary systems. Numerical results are also reported, aimed atcorroborating our theoretical findings. 1 This work has been partially presented in July 16, 2016 DRAFT  3 OFDM RX sqrt _a sqrt _b OFDM TX u_2(t) OFDM TX OFDM RX Theta s1 u_1( t ) r_2( t ) h_12/ t) h_13/ t) h_14/ t) h_23/ t) h_24/ t) z_2( t ) r_3( t ) r_4( t ) node 1 node 2 PTx STx PRx node 3 node 4 SRx Figure 1. The wireless network model: in blue, the PU transmitting/receiving nodes, in red the SU transmitting/receivingnodes. II. T HE SYSTEM MODEL We consider the wireless cognitive sensor network depicted in Fig. 1, composed by aprimary user (PU) system (in red) and a secondary user (SU) system (in blue). The PUsystem, comprising a primary transmitter-receiver pair (nodes PTx and PRx), is authorizedto operate in a certain portion of the spectrum; the SU system, comprising a secondarytransmitter-receiver pair (nodes STx and SRx), can operate on the same spectrum, providedthat its operation does not degrade the PU performance. In the sequel, the PTx, STx, PRx,and SRx will be also referred to as nodes  1 ,  2 ,  3 , and  4 , respectively.Both PTx and STx employ OFDM modulation, with  M   subcarriers and a cyclic prefix(CP) of length  L cp , and experiment independent and quasi-static frequency-selective Rayleighfading. In particular, for each  i ∈{ 1 , 2 } and  j  ∈{ 2 , 3 , 4 } , with  i  =  j , we model the discrete-time channel corresponding to the  i  →  j  link as a finite-impulse response system, whoseimpulse response  h ij (  )  has order  L ij . The channel coefficients  h ij (  ) , for   ∈{ 0 , 1 ,...,L ij } ,are supposed to be constant over one OFDM symbol, but can independently change from onesymbol to another. We denote with  θ ij  ≥ 0  the integer time offset on the  i →  j  link, whichencompasses both the propagation delay of the wireless link and the processing time at node i 2 . In the sequel, we assume that the condition  L ij  + θ ij  ≤ P   − 1  holds, such that the block received at each node in the network is contaminated only by the interblock interference(IBI) of the previous transmitted block. We also assume that channel state information (CSI) 2 The fractional time offset is incorporated as part of   { h ij (  ) } L ij  =0 . July 16, 2016 DRAFT  4 is not available at both the PTx and STx; therefore, both the PU and SU systems uniformlyallocate the available transmit power across all the data subcarriers. Finally, perfect frequencysynchronization at each node is assumed.In the  n th symbol period ( n ∈ Z ), the PTx (node  1 ) transmits its baseband block   u 1 ( n ) = T cp W IDFT  s 1 ( n )  ∈  C P  , with  P     M   +  L cp  and   s 1 ( n )    Θ 1 s 1 ( n )  ∈  C M  , where  s 1 ( n )   [ s 1 , 0 ( n ) ,s 1 , 1 ( n ) ,...,s 1 ,M  1 − 1 ( n )] T ∈  C M  1 is the information-bearing symbol vector, whoseentries are modeled as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) zero-mean circularlysymmetric complex random variables (RVs), with variance  E [ | s 1 ,m ( n ) | 2 ] =  σ 2 PU  for any  m ∈{ 0 , 1 ,...,M  1 − 1 } , the matrix  Θ 1  ∈  R M  × M  1 models subcarrier mapping,  W IDFT  ∈  C M  × M  denotes the unitary symmetric IDFT matrix [22], and  T cp   [ I cpT , I M  ] T ∈ R P  × M  , with  I cp  ∈ R L cp × M  obtained from  I M   by picking its last  L cp  rows, represents the CP insertion matrix.The entries of   u 1 ( n )  are, finally, subject to digital-to-analog (D/A) plus radio-frequency (RF)conversion for transmission over the wireless channel.The RF signal transmitted by the PTx is received both by STx and PRx. After analog-to-digital (A/D) conversion, the baseband signal received by the STx (node  2 ) is given by  r 2 ( n ) =   H (0)12 u 1 ( n ) +   H (1)12 u 1 ( n − 1) +   w 2 ( n )  (1)where   w 2 ( n )  ∈  C P  is thermal noise,   H (0)12  ∈  C P  × P  is a Toeplitz lower-triangular channelmatrix with first column  [ h 12 ( − θ 12 ) ,...,h 12 ( − θ 12  +  L 12 ) , 0 ,..., 0] T and   H (1)12  ∈  C P  × P  is aToeplitz upper-triangular matrix with first row  [0 ,..., 0 ,h 12 ( − θ 12 + L 12 ) ,...,h 12 ( − θ 12 +1)] .The STx wants to transmit towards the SRx its baseband signal block given by  u 2 ( n ) = T cp W IDFT  s 2 ( n ) , with   s 2 ( n )    Θ 2 s 2 ( n )  ∈  C M  , where the entries of the vector  s 2 ( n )   [ s 2 , 0 ( n ) ,s 2 , 1 ( n ) ,...,s 2 ,M  2 − 1 ( n )] T ∈ C M  2 are modeled as i.i.d. zero-mean circularly symmetriccomplex RVs, with variance  E [ | s 2 ,m ( n ) | 2 ] =  σ 2 SU , for any  m  ∈ { 0 , 1 ,...,M  2 − 1 } , whereas Θ 2  ∈  R M  × M  2 is the subcarrier mapping matrix of the secondary system. To this aim,it superimposes its transmission over the received signal   r 2 ( n )  by transmitting a linearcombination of the received signal and its own signal z 2 ( n ) = √  α  r 2 ( n ) + √  1 − α u 2 ( n )  (2)where  0 ≤ α ≤ 1  represents the power allocation factor.It is worth noting that the STx actually performs the operations of SPC and relaying  directly on the RF version of (1), without requiring its down conversion or ADC (see Fig. 1); weconsider the discrete-time model (2), and not its continous-time counterpart, only for clarity July 16, 2016 DRAFT
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks