Abstract

Spectrum sensing is one of the key technologies to realize spectrum reuse and increase the spectrum efficiency in
cognitive radio networks (CRNs). We study cooperative multi-channel spectrum sensing in CRNs. The SUs
cooperatively sense the licensed channels of the primary users (PUs) in the sensing slot. If a channel is determined
to be idle, the SUs which have sensed that channel will have a chance to transmit packets in the data transmission
slot. We then formulate this multi-channel spectrum sensing problem as a coalition formation game, where a
coalition corresponds to the SUs that have chosen to sense and access a particular channel. The utility function of
each coalition takes into account both the sensing accuracy and energy efficiency. A Decision Node for each
channel is being selected based on the SNR value of the Primary users.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Wireless communication involves the transmission of information over a distance without the
help of wires, cables or by an electrical conductor. Almost all wireless communication signals
need to travel through the air via radio frequency or spectrum band. With the advancement in
modern technology, the use of wireless radio networks has increased drastically, which resulted
in the increase in allocation of fixed wireless frequency bands or fixed spectrum to the primary
users that led to spectrum scarcity, it is a severe problem in wireless communications. With the
continuous spectrum allocation, it has been observed that most of the usable frequencies are
already allocated to the licensed users and there is very little room for future innovations.
On the other hand, with this shortage of spectrum problem, a report has been released by
FCC (federal communications commission) that the use of fixed spectrum allocation results in
spectrum holes. Spectrum holes are the frequency bands that are idle for a period of time. A large
portion of the assigned spectrum is used sporadically as illustrated in Fig.1, where the signal
strength distribution over a large portion of the wireless spectrum is shown. The spectrum usage
is concentrated on certain portions of the spectrum while a significant amount of the spectrum
remains unutilized.

Fig 1: Spectrum Utilization

According to Federal Communications, variations in the utilization of the assigned spectrum
range from 15% to 85%. Although the fixed spectrum assignment policy generally served well in
the past, there is a dramatic increase in the access to the limited spectrum for mobile services in
the recent years. This increase is straining the effectiveness of the traditional spectrum policies.
The limited available spectrum and the inefficiency in the spectrum usage necessitate a new
communication paradigm to exploit the existing wireless spectrum opportunistically. This
problem has motivated the idea of opportunistic spectrum access, which means that unlicensed
(secondary) users can utilize the spectrum when and where the licensed (primary) users are not
using it. As an emerging technique to realize this idea, cognitive radio has received much
attention recently, in which the secondary users are able to sense the spectrum, analyze the
spectrum statistics, and adjust their transmissions according to the time varying environment.

1.1 Cognitive Radio Networks

The term ‘Cognitive Radio’ was first introduced by Joseph Mitola in an article published in
1999. There he described how a cognitive radio could increase the adaptability of personal
wireless radio services. Cognitive Radio (CR) is formally defined by the FCC as a radio that can
change its transmitter parameters based on interaction with its environment. The ultimate
objective of the CR system is to obtain the best available spectrum through cognitive capability
and re-configurability. The tasks required for adaptive operation are:
i) Spectrum sensing
ii) Spectrum analysis, and
iii) Spectrum decision.

CR system is defined as an intelligent wireless communication system that is aware of its

surrounding environment in real-time with two primary objectives in mind: highly reliable
communication whenever and wherever needed, and efficient utilization of the radio spectrum. A
CR system can sense the communication environment and adapt its operating parameters. A
wireless device which has cognitive radio capabilities, on the other hand, can sense the current
network environment for available resources and best service offerings according to
application’s requirements and adapt its performance parameters according to policies and
regulations. For example, when a CR wireless device senses the presence of Wi-Fi and GSM
systems in the surrounding along with spectrum holes in the frequency band of digital TV, it
would download files from the Wi-Fi access point, perform a voice call through GSM network
and communicate with other CR users using those spectrum holes.
Two important components of CR network are the primary network and the secondary
network. The primary network includes PU’s (Primary Users) and primary base station. PU’s can
be defined as the legal owners of certain spectrum bands and primary base station controls the
access of PU’s to the spectrum. The secondary network includes SUs (Secondary Users),
secondary base station. SUs are the unlicensed users of spectrum bands. Secondary base station
is a fixed infrastructure component with CR capabilities and provides single hop connection to
SUs. Dynamic spectrum access is the key technology in CR. It enables high utilization of the
unused spectrum thereby accommodating the forthcoming wireless technologies in the radio
spectrum band.

1.1.1 Operations of Cognitive Radio Networks

i) Spectrum sensing: A cognitive radio monitors the available spectrum bands, captures
their information, and then detects the spectrum holes. As Cognitive Radio
technology is being used to provide a method of using the spectrum more efficiently,
spectrum sensing is key to this application.

The ability of Cognitive Radio systems to access spare sections of the radio spectrum,
and to keep monitoring the spectrum to ensure that the Cognitive Radio system does
not cause any undue interference relies totally on the spectrum sensing elements of
the system.

For the overall system to operate effectively and to provide the required improvement
in spectrum efficiency, the Cognitive Radio spectrum sensing system must be able to
effectively detect any other transmissions, identify what they are and inform the
central processing unit within the Cognitive Radio so that the required action can be
taken.
 ii) Spectrum analysis: The characteristics of the spectrum holes that are detected through
spectrum sensing are estimated.

iii) Spectrum decision: A cognitive radio determines the data rate, the transmission mode,
and the bandwidth of the transmission. Then, the appropriate spectrum band is chosen
according to the spectrum characteristics and user requirements.

1.2 Motivation
In CSS, one essential trade-off lies between sensing accuracy and spectrum opportunity
exploration. If many well performed SUs are assigned to sense one PU channel, then the sensing
accuracy of that channel is increased, but other channels are not properly explored. On the other
hand, if the SUs are assigned in a scattered manner, the number of channels sensed will be more
at the cost of reduced sensing performance in the channels. Therefore, we need to find a proper
assignment of the SUs so that a good balance between spectrum opportunity exploration and
sensing accuracy are obtained.
Game theory is a mathematical tool that analyzes various interactions between rational players. It
is a collection of modeling tools that aid in the understanding of interactive decision problems.
Game theory can be used to analyze and model the interactions among secondary users and
allocation of resources to users can be done.

1.3 Problem Definition

Coalition formation for cooperative spectrum sensing scheduling of the secondary users in
multichannel network using game theory.
Chapter 2
Spectrum Sensing

An important requirement of the CR network is to sense the spectrum holes. Spectrum sensing is
one of the major tasks CR users need to execute continuously in CR network. In order to avoid
interference the spectrum holes need to be sensed by the SUs. There are a number of ways in
which cognitive radios are able to perform spectrum sensing. The ways in which cognitive radio
spectrum sensing can be performed falls into one of two categories:

 Non-cooperative spectrum sensing: This form of spectrum sensing occurs when a

cognitive radio acts on its own. The cognitive radio will configure itself according to the
signals it can detect and the information with which it is pre-loaded.
 Cooperative spectrum sensing: Within a cooperative cognitive radio spectrum sensing
system, sensing undertaken by a number of different radios within a cognitive radio
network.

There are limitations that come to play while sensing using non-cooperative spectrum sensing. In
non-cooperative spectrum sensing, SU’s take decision on the spectrum, about the presence of the
primary user in the spectrum based on their own sensing results, but this sensing result can

Fig 2.1 Transmitter detection problem: (a) Receiver uncertainty and (b) Shadowing uncertainty.
In the case of non-cooperative detection, the users detect the primary transmitter signal
independently through their local observations. Non-Cooperative sensing may lead to transmitter
detection problem as shown in fig 2.1. Transmitter detection problem like receiver uncertainty
problem and shadowing uncertainty. To counter the problem cooperative spectrum sensing has
been introduced. Cooperative detection refers to spectrum sensing methods where information
from multiple users are incorporated for primary user detection. Cooperative detection can be
implemented either in a centralized or in a distributed manner. It has been described in a broader
manner in the next section.

2.1 Cooperative spectrum sensing

Cognitive radio cooperative spectrum sensing occurs when a group or network of cognitive
radios share the sense information they gain. This provides a better picture of the spectrum usage
over the area where the cognitive radios are located.

There are broadly two approaches to cooperative spectrum sensing:

 Centralised approach: In this approach to cognitive radio cooperative spectrum sensing,

there is a master node within the network that collects the sensing information from all
the sense nodes or radios within the network. It then analyses the information and
determines the frequencies that can and cannot be used.

The cognitive radio central node or controller can also organise the various sensor nodes
to undertake different measurements at different times. In this way it is possible to
undertake a number of different sense actions at the same time. For example, some nodes
may be instructed to detect on channel signal levels, while others may be instructed to
measure levels on adjacent channels to determine suitable alternatives in case a channel
change is required.

 Distributed approach: Using the distributed approach for cognitive radio cooperative
spectrum sensing, no one node takes control. Instead communication exists between the
different nodes and they are able to share sense information. However, this approach
 requires for the individual radios to have a much higher level of autonomy, and possibly
setting themselves up as an ad-hoc network. Distributed solutions require exchange of
observations among CR users. Cooperative detection among unlicensed users is
theoretically more accurate since the uncertainty in a single user’s detection can be
minimized.

2.1.1 Advantages of cooperative spectrum sensing

While cognitive radio cooperative spectrum sensing is obviously more complicated than a single
non-cooperative system, it has many advantages that outweigh the added complexity. Naturally
cooperative spectrum sensing is not applicable in all applications, but where it is applicable,
considerable improvements in system performance can be gained.

 Hidden node problem is significantly reduced: One of the chief problems with non-
cooperative spectrum sensing is that even though the cognitive radio may not be able to
detect a primary user transmitter, it may still interfere with receivers who may be able to
detect both the primary user and also the cognitive radio system transmissions. By using
a cooperative sensing system, it is possible to reduce the possibility of this happening
because a greater number of receivers will be able to build up a might more accurate
picture of the transmissions in the area.

 Increase in agility: An increase in the number of spectrum sensing nodes by cooperation

enables the sensing to be more accurate and better options for channel moves to be
processed, thereby providing an increase in agility.

 Reduced false alarms: By having multiple nodes performing the spectrum sensing,
channel signal detection is more accurate and this reduces the number of false alarms.

 More accurate signal detection: Cooperative spectrum sensing provides for more
accurate signal detection and a greater reliability of the overall system.
Chapter 3

System Model and Assumptions

3.1 Homogeneous Channel Bands

The channel bands considered here are assumed to be similar in nature in terms of bandwidth,
data rate, operating frequency rate etc. The typical behavior of the network, when the bands are
homogeneous it will be free to work on any instance of the frequency as it is same.

3.2 Primary and Secondary users

We consider a CRN with M number of PUs or primary users, and N number of secondary
transmitter-receiver pairs or SU’s.
We assume,
M= {1, . . . , M}, be the set of PUs and
N = {1, . . . , N}, be the set of SU,s.
For simplicity, we assume that each PU has its own licensed channel with bandwidth B.
So, there are M non overlapped licensed frequency bands in total. The M PUs are sending
primary data through the bands. The N SUs are located in the same area as the PUs.
where SUj , for all j that belongs to the set of secondary users N seeks to exploit
possible transmission opportunities in the M licensed frequency bands of the PUs.
We assume that each SUj always has data to send and no traffic requirement is imposed on the
SUj. In other words, SUj transmits data in a best-effort manner. We consider the frame structure
designed for periodic spectrum sensing, where each frame consists of one sensing slot and one
data transmission slot as shown below. We use T to denote the frame duration. We assume that
all SUs have the same spectrum sensing duration, and we use δ (0 < δ ≤ T) to denote the
spectrum sensing time of the SUs. Therefore, the data transmission duration is T −δ.
An example of our system model with M = 2 and N = 4, where the blue and red colours denote
the operations in channels 1 and 2, respectively.

(a) Each SU’s senses one licensed channel during the sensing slot.

Fig. 3.1 Sensing Slot

(b) When the sensing time δ expires, each SU’s sends its sensing result to one of the SU’s in that
channel that acts as a Decision Node (DN).

Fig. 3.2 Sensing decision

(c) If the channel is determined to be idle by the DN, one of the SU’s in that channel can transmit
data to the corresponding secondary receiver in the data transmission slot.

Fig. 3.3 Data transmission slot

We assume that the received signal of the PUs is sampled at sampling frequency f s at SUj.
In addition, δ is a multiple of 1/fs. Thus, the number of samples is δ fs, which is an integer. We
also assume that T is a multiple of 1/fs. Let H1,i and H0,i be the hypothesis that PUi, i ∈ M is
active and inactive, respectively. For j ∈ N, SUj can perform spectrum sensing by itself in the
licensed frequency band of PUi, ∀ i ∈ M and determines the probabilities of detection and false
alarm.
The probability of detection is the probability of correctly detecting the appearance of PUi under
hypothesis H1,i (i.e., a busy channel is determined to be busy correctly). Whereas, the
probability of false alarm is the probability of falsely declaring the appearance of the primary
signal under hypothesis H0,i (i.e., an idle channel is determined to be busy).
We assume, the noise is a Gaussian, independent and identically distributed random process with
mean zero and variance σ2n . The primary signal of PUi, i ∈ M received by SUj , ∀ j ∈ N is an
iid random process with the same mean zero and variance σ2 s,i,j. The primary signal is
independent of the other primary signals and the noise.
We denote γi,j = σ2 s,i,j/σ2n as the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of PUi, i∈M measured at
SUj.
We then formulate this multi-channel spectrum sensing problem as a coalition formation game,
where a coalition corresponds to the SUs that have chosen to sense and access a particular
channel.
The utility function of each coalition takes into account both the sensing accuracy and energy
efficiency. We propose distributed algorithms to find the optimal partition that maximizes the
aggregate utility of all the coalitions in the system.

Game theory is a mathematical tool that analyzes various interactions between rational players. It
is a collection of modeling tools that aid in the understanding of interactive decision problems.
Game theory can be used to analyze and model the interactions among secondary users and
allocation of resources to users can be done.
Coalition formation game has been played between the SUj players for scheduling the sensing of
different available channels, efficiently in a cooperative manner.

We refer to theories in which one or more groups of agents or SU’s (“coalitions”) deliberately
get together to jointly determine their sensing results. The defining idea of a coalition, in our, is
that of a group which can enforce agreements among its members for sensing results, while it
interacts non-cooperatively with other nonmember individuals and the outside world in general.

It is hard to overstate the importance of coalition formation in economic, political, and social
analysis. This area of Coalition formation research, the first feature that attracts attention is the
fragmented nature of the literature.

The theories that bear on our questions range from collusive behavior in repeated games, to
models of bargaining, to cooperative game-theoretic notions of the core, or notions of coalition
proof in non-cooperative games.
Chapter 4

Proposed Model

Using the terminology of coalitional game theory, we refer to set Si as coalition i. Since there are
M licensed channels in the CRN, there are M coalitions in the system, and each SU joins one of
those M coalitions. All SUj, j ∈Si would perform cooperative spectrum sensing in channel i ∈ M
in order to seek the possible transmission opportunities.

We propose distributed algorithms in order to make sure that the SUs can self-organize in the
CRN as time evolves. In each iteration, Algorithm 1 is executed by STj , ∀ j ∈ Si in order to
select DNi. Since STj determines which licensed channel i ∈ M to sense and access in each
frame, therefore STj knows the value of i.

We formulate the problem of multi-channel energy-efficient cooperative spectrum sensing as a

coalition formation game. We propose distributed algorithms to obtain a stable coalition
structure that maximizes the aggregate utility of all the coalitions in the system

Algorithm 1:
Distributed algorithm to select decision node Dn for channel i ∈ M. the algorithm is executed by
i,

the Su , ∀j∈S
j i

Step 1: for iteration r=1 to max do

S
t Step 3: SU receives the SNR information from other
j
e
SU , ∀ k ∈ {j}
k
p
Step 4: q = arg (max of all the SU SNR value)
(r)
2 Step 5:DN := ST
i q
: Step 6: end for

S
U
j
The DNi will combine the sensing results of the SUs which choose to sense channel i and
determine the status (i.e., busy or idle) of channel i.

We assume that the DN decides on the channel status based on a decision fusion rule to combine
the sensing results of the SUs. For simplicity, we assume that OR rule is used. That is, if one of
the SUs reports that there is an active PU, then the final decision declares that the channel is
busy. We assume that the decisions made by each SU in the same channel are independent.
Chapter 5

Conclusion

We studied energy-efficient spectrum sensing in a CRN with multiple licensed channels and
multiple SUs. We have seen the effectiveness of cooperative spectrum sensing over non-
cooperative spectrum sensing. We have studied different aspects of the spectrum sensing and
have studied the usefulness of coalition formation game theory to model the problem and worked
on the coalition formation. We have worked on the algorithm to select the decision node for
every coalition for every dedicated frequency band.

Future Work

• Formulation of the utility function, considering the gain, cost of sensing for the coalitions
that would work in multi-channel scenario.
• Algorithm for partition update that will be performed by DN.
• Evaluation of the system, finding the overall utility of the system for different number of
users.
Reference

[1] “Spectrum policy task force,” Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep., 2002.
[2] I. F. Akyildiz, B. F. Lo, and R. Balakrishnan, “Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive
radio networks: A survey,” Elsevier Physical Communication, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 40–62, March
2011.
[3] H. Su and X. Zhang, “Energy-efficient spectrum sensing for cognitive radio networks,” in
Proc. of IEEE ICC, Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010.
[4] C. Song and Q. Zhang, “Cooperative spectrum sensing with multichannel coordination in
cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. of IEEE ICC, Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010. [5] Q.
Zhao, S. Geirhofer, L. Tong, and B. M. Sadler, “Opportunistic spectrum access via periodic
channel sensing,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 785–796, Feb. 2008.
[5] W.-Y. Lee and I. F. Akyildiz, “Optimal spectrum sensing framework for cognitive radio
networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 3845–3857, Oct. 2008.
[6]G. Ganesan, Y.G. Li, Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks, in: Proc.
IEEE DySPAN 2005,
November 2005, pp. 137–143.
[7]W. Wang, B. Kasiri, J. Cai, and A. S. Alfa, “Distributed cooperative multi-channel spectrum
sensing based on dynamic coalitional game,” in Proc. of IEEE Globecom, Miami, FL, Dec.
2010.
[8] I. Akyildiz, W. Lee, M. Vuran, and S. Mohanty, “Next generation/dynamic spectrum
access/cognitive radio wireless networks: a survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 50, no. 13, pp.
2127–2159, 2006.
[9] M. Felegyhazi and J. Hubaux, “Game theory in wireless networks: A tutorial,” Technical
Report LCA-REPORT-2006-002, EPFL, Tech. Rep., 2006.
[10] B. Wang, Y. Wu, and K. Liu, “Game theory for cognitive radio networks: An overview,”
Computer Networks, vol. 54, no. 14, pp. 2537–2561, 2010.
[11] W. Saad, Z. Han, M. Debbah, A. Hjorungnes, and T. Basar, “Coalitional game theory for
communication networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 77–97, Sept.
2009.