Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio

Sushobhan Nayak Y7027460

Deekshith Rao Juvvadi Y7027128
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
AbstractAfter its introduction in 1999, cognitive radio is
being touted as the next Big Bang in wireless communication.
A large part of the usability of cognitive radio rests upon its
ability to detect white spaces in the spectrum, i.e. to detect the
presence of the primary or licensed user. As such, spectrum
sensing occupies most of the research potential as far as cognitive
radio is concerned, and in this paper, a few of the spectrum
sensing techniques will be looked upon. After looking at how
the Neyman-Pearson optimal detector for spectrum sensing can
be reduced to other well-known detectors, a detailed discussion
of three signal processing techniques, viz. matched-lter, energy
detection and cyclostationarity detection, is provided. Of special
interest is the topic of cooperative sensing, where a number of
cognitive nodes can interact with each other or a master node to
efciently carry out the spectrum sensing, often more effectively.
We look at a few of such techniques, varying from narrowband
to wideband detection, with special emphasis on optimal data
and decision fusion. Finally, we also consider one blind detection
technique, which can be applied even when no information about
the channel or the primary signal is available.
I. INTRODUCTION
After initially being proposed in [1], cognitive radio is
being tauted as the next Big Bang in wireless communications.
As [2] asserts, conventional xed spectrum allocation results
in a large part of frequency band remaining underutilized.
Channels dedicated to licensed(primary) users are out of
reach of unlicensed users, while the licensed users hardly
occupy the channel completely, at all times. Cognitive radio
revolution hopes to tap into this inconsistency and attempts
to utilize the channel in its full capacity. In this paradigm,
either a network or a wireless node changes its transmission
or reception parameters to communicate efciently avoiding
interference with licensed or unlicensed users. This alteration
of parameters is based on the active monitoring of several
factors in the external and internal radio environment, such
as radio frequency spectrum, user behaviour and network
state.[3]. While the above description is essentially that of
full cognitive radio, the present work will be primarily focused
on spectrum sensing cognitive radio. In this paradigm, the
secondary unlicensed users keep sensing the spectrum to
determine if a primary user is transmitting or not; and then
they occupy the idle band and leave it as soon as the primary
user kicks in. So it is extremely important that we employ
efcient and robust spectrum sensing techniques to determine
the presense of the signal from the primary user, and a review
of those techniques is the basis of this term paper.
In the description that follows, the following system model
has been used. Assuming there are M > 1 antennas at the
receiver, there are two hypotheses based on whether signal
from primary user is present or absent H
0
and H
1
. Let the
received signal, transmitted signal and noise vector for the M
antennas be
x(k) = [x
1
(k) . . . x
M
(k)]
T
,
s(k) = [s
1
(k) . . . s
M
(k)]
T
,
n(k) = [n
1
(k) . . . n
M
(k)]
T
.
respectively. The hypothesis problem on N such samples can
then be formulated as
H
0
: x(k) = n(k),
H
1
: x(k) = s(k) +n(k), k = 0, . . . , N 1.
For a given probability of false alarm P
fa
, i.e. the proba-
bility of mistaking the presence of the primary signal when it
actually isnt, we need to choose the hypothesis that maximizes
the probability of detection P
d
, i.e. the probability of correctly
determining the presence of the primary signal, for a given
number of samples. In the description that follows, following
[4] it would be shown that the optimal receiver derived from
Neyman-Pearson theorem reduces to many known estimators.
Special emphasis will be given to a few latest techniques in
cooperative sensing, and one blind sensing algorithm will also
be evaluated.
II. NEYMAN-PEARSON MODEL
For a given P
fa
, the Neyman-Pearson theorem asserts that
P
d
will be maximized for the following decision statistic,
which is essentially the likelihood ratio test (LRT):
T
LRT
(x) =
p(x|H
1
)
p(x|H
0
)
,
where x is the aggregation of x(k), k = 0, . . . , N1 [4]. The
model assumes that the distributions of signal and noise are
known, which is hardly the case. Under the assumption that
we are dealing with a at fading channel, and the s
i
(k)s are
independent over k, we have the following PDFs
p(x|H
i
) =
N1

k=0
p(x(k)|H
i
).
Fig. 1. Energy Detector (Source: [5])
Assuming Gaussian distributions for noise and signal samples,
i.e., n(k) N(0,
2
n
I) and s(k) N(0, R
s
), the LRT
reduces to estimator-correlator(EC) detector
T
EC
(x) =
N1

k=0
x
T
(k)R
s
(R
s
+
2
n
I)
1
x(k).
It can further be noticed that R
s
(R
s
+
2
n
I)
1
x(k) is the
MMSE estimation of s(k), so that T
EC
is actually the cor-
relation of the observed signal x(k) with MMSE estimation
of s(k). The assumption that R
s
=
2
s
I reduces T
EC
to the
energy-detector (ED) given by
T
ED
(x) =
N1

k=0
x
T
(k)x(k).
Furthermore, under the assumption that s(k) is deterministic
and known to the receiver, LRT reduces to the matched-lter
detector given by
T
MF
(x) =
N1

k=0
s
T
(k)x(k).
So, we notice that the LRT reduces to different known detec-
tors under given constraints.
III. SIGNAL PROCESSING TECHNIQUES FOR
TRANSMITTER DETECTION
Mainly three techniques are in vogue for transmitter detec-
tion, which are described below.
A. Matched-Filter
Matched lter optimizes detection by maximizing received
SNR. Given that it has a priori knowledge of the primary
signal, coherency makes sure that only O(1/SNR) samples
are needed for effective detection, thereby making detection
faster so that an idle channel can be quickly occupied without
delay. On the bleak side, knowledge of the primary signal
might not be available. Furthermore, in case there are a lot
of primary users, the radio receiver would have to have a
dedicated matched lter for each different one of them.
B. Energy Detector
To counter the above problem, non-coherent detection can
be done through energy-detectors ([5]). Consider Figure 1.
The basic idea is to compare the enrgy of the received signal
to a threshold to determine the presence of the primary signal.
It can also be implemented by averaging the FFT of the
signal over frequency bins and comparing with a threshold.
Mathemetically, if the test statistic be (in case of a single
receive antenna)
T(x) =
1
N
N1

k=0
|x(k)|
2
,
under H
0
, T(x) is Chi-square distributed with 2N degrees
of freedom, the PDF of which can be approximated by CLT
as a Gaussian with mean
0
=
2
n
and variance
2
0
=
1
N
[E|n(k)|
4

4
n
]. For n(k) CN(0,
2
n
), E|n(k)|
4
= 2
4
n
,
and
2
0
=
1
N

4
n
. Therefore, for a given threshold , false alarm
probability is
P
fa
() = Pr(T(x) > |H
0
)
=
1
_
2
2
0
_

e
(T(x)0)
2
/2
2
0
= Q
__

2
n
1
_

N
_
.
Similarly, for H
1
, T(x) has a Gaussian distribution with
1
=

2
s
+
2
n
and
2
1
=
1
N
[E|s(k)|
4
+ E|n(k)|
4
(
2
s

2
n
)
2
].
Assuming s(k) to be a complex PSK modulated signal with
E|s(k)|
4
=
4
s
, we have
2
1
=
1
N
(2 + 1)
4
n
, where =

2
s
/
2
n
. Then, for threshold , probability of detection is
P
d
() = Pr(T(x) > |H
1
)
= Q
_
_

2
n
1
_

N
2 + 1
_
.
Hence, for a target false alarm of

P
fa
, probability of detection
P
d
= Q
_
1

2 + 1
_
Q
1
(

P
fa
)

N
_
_
.
Non-coherent detection requires more number of samples
(O(1/SNR
2
)) to give the same performance as the coher-
ent detector. [6] presents many more disadvantages of this
technique. The threshold is ambiguous as it is susceptible to
varying noise levels. In-band interference can give erroneous
results even if adaptive thresholding is followed. Also, the
detectors failure to recognize interference rules out the use of
any adaptive signal processing for interference cancellation.
C. Cyclostationary Detection
Digital modulated signals usually exhibit cyclostationar-
ity, i.e. their statistical parameters vary periodically in time.
Since different types of signals have diffrent non-zero cyclic
frequencies, they can be identied from their signature. [7]
elaborates a few statistical tests to detect cyclostationarity.
One of the useful techniques is determination on the basis of
spectral-correlation density(SCD). For a source signal x(t),
the received signal after wireless transmission can be written
as
y(t) = x(t) h(t)
where h(t) is the channel response. The SCD of y(t) is
S
y
(f) = H(f +

2
)H

(f

2
)S
x
(f)
with being the cyclic frequency of x(t), and other symbols
have their usual meaning. While a signal takes nonzero val-
ues at a few nonzero cyclic frquencies, noise is devoid of
cyclostationarity, so that noise SCD is zero at all nonzero
cyclic frequencies, there by making analysis of SCD a valid
and effective technique. The advantages of the process include
robustness against noise and channel uctuations. On the ip
side, it requires a high sampling rate, many samples for com-
plex SCD computation and the possibility that sampling time
error and frequency offset could affect the cyclic frequencies.
IV. COOPERATIVE SENSING
Given a master node, many cognitive nodes can interact
amongst each other to detect the presence of primary signal,
leading to increased sensitivity due to their dispersed nature.
They can either send their collected data to the master, letting
the master do data fusion to decide on the presence of
the primary signal; or they could each send their individual
decisions and the master conducts decision fusion to take a
decision.
A. Data Fusion
Let each user employ energy detection and compute re-
ceived source signal as
T
i
(x) =
1
N
N1

k=0
|x
i
(k)|
2
,
which is sent to the master who linearly combines them to get
decision statistic
T(x) =
M

i=1
g
i
T
i
,
with g
i
0 and

M
i=1
g
i
= 1 (As one might notice, the
notations of the previous section have been modied a bit
for simplicity the M antennas are now being treated as M
cognitive nodes, without any implication on the validity of the
discussion). g
i
s are decided using a priori knowledge, if it is
available. [8] asserts that for low-SNR, optimal g
i
s are given
by
g
i
=

2
i

M
k=1

2
k
, i = 1, . . . , M,
with
2
i
being the received source signal power of user i. The
decision statistic is then compared to a threshold to decide on
the presence of the primary user, just as in a general energy
detector case.
B. Decision Fusion
While [9] asserts that the Chair-Varshney rule based on a
log likelihood ratio test is the optimal decision fusion rule,
it also describes two other simplistic rules. OR fusion rule
predicts the presence of the primary signal if at least one of
the received decision from the users is 1 (indicating presence).
The probabilities in this case are
P
d
= 1
M

i=1
(1 P
d,i
),
P
fa
= 1
M

i=1
(1 P
fa,i
),
where P
d,i
and P
fa,i
are individual probabilities of the ith
user. AND rule, as the name suggests, outputs 1 only if all
the individual decisions are 1, the probabilities in this case
being
P
d
=
M

i=1
P
d,i
,
P
fa
=
M

i=1
P
fa,i
.
The majority rule asserts that if more than half of the received
decisions are 1s, then the master rules in favor of the presence
of the primary signal. In general, if the master decides 1 when
K out of the M decisions are 1, then the probabilities become
P
d
=
MK

i=0
_
M
K +i
_
(1 P
d,i
)
MKi
(1 P
d,i
)
K+i
,
P
fa
=
MK

i=0
_
M
K +i
_
(1 P
fa,i
)
MKi
(1 P
fa,i
)
K+i
.
The fusion decisions described above are known as counting
rules, as the master essentially counts the number of decisions
in favor of primary. [10] however propose a linear quadratic
detector that can provide better results. Let the decision taken
at the ith node be U
i
. Then the paper suggests a sub-optimal
solution to the fusion problem that uses partial statistical
knowledge. It makes use of up to the second order statistics of
the local decisions {U
i
}
M
1
under H
1
and up to the fourth order
statistics under H
0
, in the form of moments. Independent
observations under H
0
lead to easy calculation of moments
under H
0
. The pairwise statistics under H
1
lead to determi-
nation of second order moments under H
1
. This is usually
much easier than obtaining entire statistics of all the signals
when a large number of cooperating nodes are concerned.
The detectors are the linear-quadratic (LQ) detectors, i.e. they
compare a linear-quadratic function of {U
i
}
M
1
with a threshold
to make their decision. The inclusion of quadratic terms
motivates the improvement over the linear counting rule. The
use of moments only helps adapt the method for all classes of
distribution. The deection criterion is used to optimize over a
class of LQ detectors. The deection or the generalised signal-
to-noise ratio of a detection rule that compares a function T(x)
of observation x is given by:
D
T
=
[E
0
(T(X)) E
1
(T(X))]
2
Var
0
(T(X))
.
Higher deection is an indication of better error-probability
performance. It is to be noted that the decisions {U
i
}
M
1
contribute to the decision fusion hypothesis only through
their probabilities under the two hypotheses. So, an intelligent
decision variable will be the log-likelihood ratios of the bits
themselves. The metric is:
T(X) = h
T
X+X
T
AX
with Xbeing the vector of log-likelihood ratios of the received
bits with means under H
0
subtracted:
X
i
= log
_
p
1
(U
i
)
p
0
(U
i
)
_
E
0
_
log
_
p
1
(U
i
)
p
0
(U
i
)
__
where h is a vector of length M and A is an M M square
matrix. We need to nd a LQ detector of the above form while
minimizing the deection. This requires the knowledge of up
to the second order statistics of the bits under H
1
and up to
the fourth order statistics of the bits under H
0
since these
terms explicitly appear in the expression for the deection.
Lets dene the matrix C = E
0
[XX
T
]. Adding a constant
doesnt change the decision metric, so that we might as well
look upon
S(Z) = p
T
Z
where p and Z are (M
2
+M) 1 vectors, and
Z =
_

_
X
1
. . . X
M
X
2
1
C
11
. . . X
1
X
M
C
1M
X
2
X
1
C
21
. . . X
2
X
M
C
2M
. . .
X
M
X
1
C
M1
. . . X
2
M
C
MM
_

_
So, Z is formed by appending X with raster scanned form of
XX
T
C. Thus the rst M elements of Z are the elements
of X, the next M are the rst row of XX
T
C etc. p is the
vector formed by appending h with A in raster scanned form.
So, we essentially have to solve for optimal p that maximizes
deection.
Now Z has zero mean under H
0
. So, the deection of S(Z)
is given by
D
S
=
p
T

2
p
T
K
p
with = E
1
(Z) and K = E
0
(XX
T
). The problem now
essentially is to optimize over ps that are not in the singular
space of K.
C. 2-Node Cooperation
In the previous subsection, the basic paradigm was commu-
nication of data or decision to a master node which has the
authority to take the nal decision. [11] describes a 2-node
cognitive user model, where decision is taken by cooperation
between the nodes without the involvement of the master. For
notational convenience, lets dene the system model for this
section as follows:
y = fx +w
where x is the sent signal, y is the received signal, f and w are
fading coefcient and noise respectively, modelled as complex
Fig. 2. Cooperation between U
1
and U
2
(Source: [11])
Fig. 3. Timeslot distribution (Source: [11])
Gaussian random variables. Now consider, for simplicity, a 2-
user netwrok. Let the radios be U
1
and U
2
. The two need to
vacate the band dedicated to a primary user as soon as the
primary signal is transmitted. However, if a user is situated at
the decodability boundary (U
1
in Figure 2), the time to detect
the primary signal is too large (more samples needed as SNR
is too low) for comfort. But intuitively, we notice that U
2
can
get a better detection time and can relay that to U
1
, thereby
reducing the total time of detection by U
1
.
Assuming that both the users communicate with a single
base station, we can assign U
2
the role of relaying U
1
s signal.
By the use of slotted transmission, U
1
and U
2
can transmit
in successive slots. From Figure 3, U
1
transmits in time
slot T
1
, while U
2
listens. In T
2
, U
2
relays the previous slot
information. Incorporating the possibility that the primary user
is transmitting, we have the following expression for the signal
received by U
2
from U
1
in slot T
1
,
y = h
p2
+ah
12
+ w,
where h
pi
denotes the instantaneous channel gain between the
primary user and U
i
, h
12
denotes the instantaneous channel
gain between U
1
and U
2
, and w is the additive Gaussian noise.
It is also assumed that h
p2
, h
12
, w are zero-mean complex
Gaussian distributed, and are pairwise independent. Reciprocal
channels assure that h
12
= h
21
. is the variable that represents
the presence or absence of the primary signal, i.e., = 1
implies primary is transmitting. = 0 otherwise. a is the
signal from U
1
such that Ea = 0. By putting the transmit
power constraint of U
1
as P, we have
E[|ah
12
|
2
] = PG
12
,
with G
12
= E[|h
12
|
2
] refering to the channel gain between
U
1
and U
2
. The pairwise independence between h
p2
, h
12
, w
assures that
E[| y|
2
] =
2
P
2
+PG
12
+ 1
where P
2
= E[|h
p2
|
2
] is the received power at U
2
due to the
primary signal. When timeslot T
2
comes, U
2
starts relaying
signal received from U
1
. Assuming U
2
has maximum power
constraint

P, U
2
appropriately scales down the received signal
to meet this power constraint. The new relayed signal (that was
originally sent by U
1
) is received by U
1
, which is given by
y =
_
yh
12
+h
p1
+w
=
_
h
12
(h
p2
+ah
12
+ w) +h
p1
+w,
where h
p1
is the instantaneous channel gain between primary
user and U
1
, w is additive Gaussian noise, and is the scaling
factor employed by U
2
to match the power constraint,
=

P
E[| y|
2
]
=

2
P
2
+PG
12
+ 1
.
Cancelling the message signal, U
1
now has
Y = H +W
with H = h
p1
+

h
12
h
p2
and W = w +

h
12
w.
The detection problem now simply reduces to the hypothesis
testing problem that given the observation
Y = H +W
which of the following holds
H
1
: = 1
H
0
: = 0.
Now, a simple energy detector can be used to detect the
presence of the primary signal. The model can be further
extended for more than 2 nodes a detailed discussion of
which can be found in [11].
D. Wideband Detection
The methods discussed above usually pertain to detection
of primary user in a narrow xed band. Wideband spectrum
sensing would require much more resourses, and as such
using only one cognitive node for sensing the whole band is
counter-intuitive. [12] propose a cooperative shared spectrum
sensing model for wideband detection in a noisy channel. The
idea is essentially to form a number of groups of cognitive
radios, each group dedicated towards detecting a particular
band in the whole of frequency spectrum. The nodes in a
single group cooperate amongst themselves, taking decisions
together, thereby effectively allocating system resourses.
First, the wide bandwidth of f = [f
1
, f
M+1
) to be scanned
is divided into M subbands, viz.
f
m
= [f
m
, f
m+1
), f =
M
_
m=1
f
m
.
A group of cognitive nodes is assigned for each f
m
, which
are denoted by C
m
C = {1, 2, . . . , N} such that
C
m
C
n
= , C =
M
_
m=1
C
m
.
So, the set of {d
m
: m = 1, 2, . . . , M} many nodes are sensing
frequency band f
m
. Considering a network with d
m
= |C
m
|
radios in each cluster, the binary hypothesis test at time t
essentially reduces to (for each cluster):
H
m
0
: x
m
j
(t) = v
m
j
(t)
H
m
1
: x
m
j
(t) = s(t) +v
m
j
(t)
with j = 1, 2, . . . , d
m
, m = 1, 2, . . . , M, t =
1, 2, . . . , T
i
. s(t), x
m
j
(t), v
m
j
(t) are the primary signal and
received signal and the noise at jth node in ith cluster,
respectively. T
i
is determined from time-bandwidth product.
It is assumed that s(t) and {v
m
j
(t)} are independent of each
other for all m, j, t. Again, noise is assumed to be zero-mean
white, may be non-Gaussian. The spectrum sensing SNR is
dened as

=
1

2
v
1
T
0
_
T0
0
|s(t)|
2
where T
0
,
2
v
are signal duration and power of sensing noise.
Using the local decision function : C
T0+11
{0, 1}, every
node makes a decision. The decision function can be any thing,
ranging from energy detector, coherent detector, wavelet-based
detector or cyclostationary detector. The local decision of each
radio is denoted by b
m
j
such that
({x
m
j
(t)}
T0
t=0
) = H
i
: b
m
j
= i
where i{0, 1}. A generic probabilistic model given by
P
ij
= Pr{b
m
j
= H
i
|H
j
}, i, j{0, 1}
is used to characterize the performance.
The decisions b
m
j
are sent to a cognitive base station(CBS),
and the received signal at the CBS is
y
m
j
= Ah
m
j
+w
m
j
, h
m
j
= {1, 1} = b
m
j
= {0, 1}
where A, w
m
j
are attenuation factor and noise respectively (0 is
mapped to -1 and 1 is self-mapped). The CBS, based on this,
decides whether the primary signal is present or not. While
the optimal detector
L(y
m
) =
f(y
m
|H
0
)
f(y
m
|H
1
)
is hard to implement as it requires the local performance
parameter, P
ij
, the authors propose a suboptimal detector that
works in two stages: 1)detect the transmitted{b
m
j
}
dm
j=1
using a
MAP detector, and 2) fuse the detected {

b
m
j
}
dm
j=1
to predict the
presence of the primary signal. The fused decision is nally
relayed to all the nodes.
V. BLIND SPECTRUM SENSING
Blind spectrum detection assumes no information on source
signal or noise power.[13] proposes one such method. It uses
the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to detect vacant sub-
bands. The basic idea is the following: if we are approximating
an unknown pdf f by g

, then the Kullback-Leibler discrep-

ancy
E

__
f
X
(x) log g

(x)dx
_
is an indication of how different they are from each other. The
above expectation can be estimated through Akaike model.
The AIC is an approximate unbiased estimator of this expec-
tation and is given by
AIC = 2
N1

n=0
log g

(x
n
) + 2U
The paper proposes that ambient noise be modelled using
Gaussian distribution, and its norm as Rayleigh. So, the
frequency band of the spectrum is scanned using sliding
windows and Akaine weights are computed for the Gaussian
distribution. The rst step involves choosing the size of the
observed window for an estimate of the parameters

over this
window. The Akaike values are estimated there after, and the
window is slid by a symbol. The maximum value of the Akaike
weights corresponds to the vacant sub-bands (as the estimated
model is Gaussian, it will have the highest Akaike weights
for the frequencies which are spanned by pure Gaussian noise
signal), and similar subbands are found based on the reference
sub-band. Finally, a threshold is set for the weights, based on
which the prediction of the presence of primary signal is done.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this term paper, various issues in spectrum sensing for
cognitive radio and available techniques to handle those issues
have been described. While traditional methods like matched-
ltering, energy detection and cyclostationary detection were
touched upon, special emphasis was given to cooperative
decision methods, and a few of them were described in detail,
each having their different strengths and weaknesses. This
paper, however, is in no way a comprehensive discussion of
all the pertinent techniques, as due to lack of space, new
techniques like the multi-taper method of cyclostationarity [14]
and the wavelet based wideband spectrum sensing [15] have
been left out. Nonetheless, it is expected that the discussed
issues and techniques are adequate enough for a rst exposure
to the eld.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Mitola and G. Q. Maguire. Cognitive radio: making software radios
more personal. IEEE Personal Communications, 6(4):1318, August
1999.
[2] FCC. Spectrum policy task force report. In Proceedings of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC 02), Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
[3] Wikipedia. Cognitive Radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive radio.
[4] Yonghong Zeng, Ying-Chang Liang, Anh Tuan Hoang, and Rui Zhang.
A review on spectrum sensing for cognitive radio: Challenges and
solutions. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2010:15,
2010.
[5] H. Urkowitz. Energy detection of unknown deterministic signals.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 55(4):523 531, 1967.
[6] D. Cabric, S.M. Mishra, and R.W. Brodersen. Implementation issues
in spectrum sensing for cognitive radios. In Signals, Systems and
Computers, 2004. Conference Record of the Thirty-Eighth Asilomar
Conference on, volume 1, pages 772 776 Vol.1, 2004.
[7] A.V. Dandawate and G.B. Giannakis. Statistical tests for presence of
cyclostationarity. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 42(9):2355
2369, September 1994.
[8] Ying-Chang Liang, Yonghong Zeng, E. Peh, and Anh Tuan Hoang.
Sensing-throughput tradeoff for cognitive radio networks. In Communi-
cations, 2007. ICC 07. IEEE International Conference on, pages 5330
5335, 2007.
[9] E. Peh and Ying-Chang Liang. Optimization for cooperative sensing in
cognitive radio networks. In Wireless Communications and Networking
Conference, 2007.WCNC 2007. IEEE, pages 27 32, 2007.
[10] J. Unnikrishnan and V.V. Veeravalli. Cooperative spectrum sensing and
detection for cognitive radio. In Global Telecommunications Conference,
2007. GLOBECOM 07. IEEE, pages 2972 2976, nov. 2007.
[11] G. Ganesan and Y. Li. Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio
networks. In New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks,
2005. DySPAN 2005. 2005 First IEEE International Symposium on,
pages 137 143, nov. 2005.
[12] A. Rahim Biswas, Tuncer Can Aysal, Sithamparanathan Kandeepan,
Dzmitry Kliazovich, and Radoslaw Piesiewicz. Cooperative shared
spectrum sensing for dynamic cognitive radio networks. In Proceedings
of the 2009 IEEE international conference on Communications, ICC09,
pages 28252829, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009. IEEE Press.
[13] B. Zayen, A.M. Hayar, and D. Nussbaum. Blind spectrum sensing for
cognitive radio based on model selection. In Cognitive Radio Oriented
Wireless Networks and Communications, 2008. CrownCom 2008. 3rd
International Conference on, pages 1 4, May 2008.
[14] S. Haykin, D.J. Thomson, and J.H. Reed. Spectrum sensing for cognitive
radio. Proceedings of the IEEE, 97(5):849 877, may 2009.
[15] Zhi Tian and Georgios B. Giannakis. A wavelet approach to wideband
spectrum sensing for cognitive radios. In Cognitive Radio Oriented Wire-
less Networks and Communications, 2006. 1st International Conference
on, pages 1 5, 2006.