Quickest Detection in Cognitive Radio: A

Sequential Change Detection Framework

Lifeng Lai, Yijia Fan and H. Vincent Poor
Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544
{llai,yijiafan,poor}@princeton.edu

Abstract—In this work, the agility of detection algorithms in the agility of cognitive radio. In addition to the detection
cognitive radio is studied. A sequential change detection frame- probability, we argue that the detection delay is also an
work is developed to investigate the delay of detection algorithms. important performance metric in cognitive radio detection.
Three scenarios with different information about primary users’
parameters available at cognitive users are considered. Optimal If a primary user stops transmission, then a secondary user
detection schemes that minimize the detection delay under certain should detect this event quickly, in order to be able to start its
false alarm constraints are developed. Minimal detection delay own transmission quickly. A small detection delay will allow
is characterized as a function of the false alarm probability and secondary users to take short transmission opportunities. On
the Kullback-Leibler distance between signal plus noise and noise the other hand, if the primary user starts transmission, the
only models.
cognitive user should detect this event as quickly as possible,
I. I NTRODUCTION in order to vacate the band for the primary user. A small
detection delay will allow the design of a spectrum reuse
Recently, the opportunistic spectrum access problem has
scheme that has minimal impact on the licensed users. Of
attracted considerable attention. The basic idea is to allow
course, the desire to reduce the detection delay should be
unlicensed users (cognitive users) to use the spectrum made
balanced with a certain false alarm constraint. Our goal is
available when licensed users are not transmitting. To make
to establish a statistical framework to analyze detection delay
this idea viable, one should develop techniques that allow
subject to certain false alarm constraints, and more importantly
the cognitive users to know whether the primary users are
to design a scheme that can minimize the delay.
transmitting or not. One possible approach to this problem
We adopt a sequential change-point detection approach. A
is to design centralized schemes in which central controllers
comprehensive treatment on this topic can be found in [3], [4].
track the spectral usage and properly assign the spectrum
In the sequential change-point detection problem, one observes
to cognitive users. Another possible approach is to require
samples sequentially. Initially, the samples are drawn from
unlicensed users to detect for themselves whether there are
a certain distribution. At an unknown time, the distribution
primary users present in the network or not. We adopt this
changes. Once this occurs, one needs to raise an alarm as
latter detection based approach in this paper.
quickly as possible, hence to minimize the delay (rigorous
Depending on the amount of information about a primary
definitions will be given in the sequel) between the time when
user’s parameters available at a cognitive user, various de-
the change occurs and the time when the alarm is raised.
tection schemes have been developed for this application.
The sequential change point detection problem is different
Energy detection, matched filtering and feature detection [1],
from but has a close relationship with the classic sequential
[2] are representative ones. These approaches adopted a classic
testing problem. In the classic sequential testing problem
detection framework, in which the goal is to minimize the miss
developed by Wald [5], the objective is to distinguish between
probability subject to constraints on the false alarm probability.
two hypotheses from a sequence of statistically homogeneous
A common feature of these schemes is that the detection
random samples. All the samples are drawn from the same
is block-based. That is the cognitive radio takes a block of
distribution, it is only the identity of this distribution that is in
samples, computes a statistic and compares it with a threshold.
question. In the scenario considered in change point detection,
A key challenge of these block-based approaches is that, if
the random observations are not homogenous, and one should
there are modelling uncertainties, such as uncertainty about
raise an alarm as soon as an inhomogeneity occurs. On the
the noise variance, then there is a signal to noise ratio (SNR)
other hand, the sequential change-point detection problem can
wall phenomenon [1]. This phenomenon refers to the situation
be modelled and solved as sequences of classical open-ended
in which if the SNR of the received signal is smaller than a
sequential testing problems [3]. In the cognitive radio setup,
threshold, these detection algorithms will not work, no matter
the onset of activity of a primary user at an unknown time
how many samples are in each block.
will change the distribution of the received signal of cognitive
In this paper, we take an alternative view of the detec-
users. Hence, the change detection framework is well suited
tion problem in cognitive radio. More specifically, we study
for this problem. After the submission of this work, we got to
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation know [6], which also considers the application of change point
under Grants ANI-03-38807 and CNS-06-25637. detection in cognitive radio. The model considered in [6] is

978-1-4244-2324-8/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE. 1

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2008 proceedings.
 different from ours, and the nonparametric schemes are also H1 : ∃τ ∈ [1, t], such that

different. W [i], n = 1, · · · , τ − 1,
Y [i] =
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, X[i] + W [i], n = τ, · · · , t.
we introduce the model. In Section III, we discuss quickest
Let ta denote the time when the strategy Γ raises an alarm.
detection when the signal and noise powers are known. We
If ta ≥ τ , then γ = ta − τ is the detection delay. On the
then analyze the detection delay when the signal power is
other hand, the event {ta < τ } is a false alarm event, and
unknown in Section IV. We further study the case in which
T̄0 = Ef0 {ta } is the mean time to false alarms. The value of
neither the signal nor the noise power is known in Section V.
T̄0 depends on the detection strategy and f0 .
In Section VI, we provide some simulation results. Finally, in
Conditioning on the event that the primary user starts
Section VII, we offer some conclusions.
transmitting at time τ and the observed sequence Y1τ =
II. M ODEL {Y [1], · · · , Y [τ ]} before time τ , the detection delay γ = ta −τ
is a random variable, whose value depends on the behavior of
We assume that a cognitive user tunes to a frequency
the samples after τ . We define the conditional mean delay
band and begins taking samples Y [i]. If the primary user
as T̄1,c = Ef1 {γ = ta − τ |ta ≥ τ, Y1τ }. T̄1,c is a random
is not transmitting, then Y [i] = W [i], in which W [i] is
variable, since τ and Y1τ are random. One could assign a prior
white Gaussian noise with variance σ 2 . If the primary user is
distribution to τ , and then define average delay by averaging
transmitting, then Y [i] = X[i] + W [i], in which X[i] = gS[i]
the distribution on τ and Y1τ . However, in real applications, it
is the product of the channel gain g and primary user’s signal
may be difficult to assign a suitable prior distribution. In the
S[i]. We also assume that X[i] is white and Gaussian with
following, we follow the approach in [8], [9] and consider the
mean 0 and variance P . The value of P depends on the channel
worst case scenario. In particular, we consider the worst case
gain g and transmitter’s transmission power. In the wireless
delay
channel, the primary user’s signal may experience fading or
channel attenuation, and hence the variance P may not be T̄1 = sup ess sup Ef1 {γ = ta − τ |ta ≥ τ, Y1τ }. (1)
precisely known at the cognitive user. Thus, in this paper, we τ ≥1

consider the following three different scenarios. In the first We are seeking a strategy that can minimize T̄1 , while main-
scenario, both σ 2 and P are known. In the second scenario, taining T̄0 to be larger than a conveniently set threshold Tth .
we assume that P is not known exactly. In the third scenario, That is, we formulate the cognitive radio detection problem as
we assume that neither σ 2 nor P is known. the following optimization problem:
Instead of modelling this problem as a classical hypothesis
min T̄1 = sup ess sup Ef1 {γ = ta − τ |ta ≥ τ, Y1τ },
testing problem [7], we formulate this problem using a sequen- Γ τ ≥1
tial change detection framework [3]. We first use the scenario subject to T̄0 ≥ Tth . (2)
in which both σ 2 and P are known as an example to precisely
present our formulation. The cognitive radio observes the se- As noted above, in cognitive radio applications, the small-
quence Y [1], Y [2], · · · sequentially. Initially, the observations ness of detection delay is important. In the case of detecting a
follow a distribution F0 with corresponding density function transmission opportunity, a small delay will allow the cognitive
f0 . At an unknown time τ , due to the activity of the primary radio to start transmitting as soon as the opportunity occurs.
user, the distribution changes to F1 with corresponding density In the case of detecting of a primary user, a small delay will
function f1 . For example, in the detection of the entrance to allow the cognitive user to vacate the band quickly when the
the channel of a primary user, f0 is the N (0, σ 2 ) density and primary user returns.
f1 is the N (0, σ 2 + P ) density. If τ = 1, the primary user III. K NOWN P AND σ 2 CASE : CUSUM ALGORITHM
is already present when the cognitive user switches to the
When both P and σ 2 are known, the densities before and
band. On the other hand, if we want to detect transmission
after the change, f0 and f1 , are fully specified. Hence, for
opportunities, i.e., the exit of the primary user, then f0 is the
observation y[i], the log likelihood ratio
N (0, σ 2 + P ) density and f1 is the N (0, σ 2 ) density. In this  
case, if τ = 1, then there is already a transmission opportunity f1 (y[i])
l(y[i]) = ln (3)
when the cognitive user switches to the band. In this paper, f0 (y[i])
 
we discuss only the detection of the entrance of the primary P y 2 [i] 1 σ2
user to the band, the detection of transmission opportunities = + ln
2(P + σ 2 )σ 2 2 P + σ2
can be solved similarly.
is also fully defined.
Let Γ denote the detection strategy employed by the cogni-
Before the primary user starts transmission
tive user. After taking each sample, the strategy Γ will decide   
whether the primary user is present or not, and output an alarm f1 (y)
Ef0 {l(Y [i])} = f0 (y) ln dy = −D(f0 ||f1 ) ≤ 0,
if it decides so. More specifically, at each time t, the cognitive f0 (y)
radio tries to distinguish the following two hypotheses based while after the primary user starts its transmission
on Y1t = {Y [1], · · · , Y [t]} :   
f1 (y)
Ef1 {l(Y [i])} = f1 (y) ln dy = D(f1 ||f0 ) ≥ 0,
H0 : Y [i] = W [i], n = 1, · · · , t, f0 (y)

978-1-4244-2324-8/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE. 2

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2008 proceedings.
 in which Asymptomatically, when h is large, we have
 2

P 1 σ T̄1 ∼ h/D(f1 ||f0 ). (8)
D(f0 ||f1 ) = − − ln
2(P + σ 2 ) 2 P + σ2
Hence for any pre-specified requirement on the average
is the Kullback-Leibler divergance of f0 from f1 . D(f1 ||f0 ) delay to false alarm T̄0 , we can compute the corresponding
is defined similarly. Thus, before the unknown time τ , l(y) threshold h approximately by using (6). The worst case delay
has a negative drift, while after the change point, l(y) has a is thus bounded by (5).
positive drift. Hence, an intuitive algorithm for detecting the
IV. K NOWN σ 2 , UNKNOWN P CASE : GLR ALGORITHM
existence of a primary user is to compare
 t  In fading channels, it would be difficult to know the exact
 k
 t
value of P . It is more reasonable to assume that P belongs to
gt = max l(y[i]) − l(y[i]) = max l(y[i]), a range, that is P ∈ [Pmin , Pmax ]. In this case, we adopt the
k≤t k≤t
i=1 i=1 i=k+1
generalized likelihood ratio change detection algorithm [9].
with a threshold h. If gt is larger than h, an alarm is raised, Notice that
 t 
since l(y) has consistently shown a positive drift after the k th  t  f1,P (y[i])
sample. l(y[i]) = ln ,
f0 (y[i])
We can write i=k+1 i=k+1
 t+1  here f1,P is the probability density function of the received

gt+1 = max l(y[i]) signal when the true variance of the signal part is P . One can
k≤t+1
i=k+1 then define the generalized likelihood ratio statistic
  t+1
   t 
  f1,P (y[i])
= max max l(y[i]) , 0 (4) gt = max sup ln (9)
k≤t k≤t P f0 (y[i])
i=k+1 i=k+1
  t  
 t   
= max max l(y[i]) + l(y[t + 1]), 0 P y 2 [i] 1 σ2
= max sup + ln ,
k≤t
i=k+1 k≤t P 2(P + σ 2 )σ 2 2 P + σ2
i=k+1
+
= {gt + l(y[t + 1])} . and use the following activity detection scheme: ta = min{t :
Hence, we can compute gt recursively, by setting g0 = 0. gt ≥ h}.
In summary, the algorithm works as follows: the cognitive It is well known [7] that the Gaussian distributions pa-
user computes l(y) using (3) after each sample, computes rameterized by the variance forms an exponential family of
the statistic gt using (4), and compares this statistic with a distributions. That is, we can write
 
threshold h. If gt is larger than h, the algorithm declares that 1 y2
√ exp − 2 = h(y) exp{θT (y) − d(θ)},
the primary user is present. 2πσ 2σ
The algorithm discussed above is an application of Page’s √
cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm, which was first pro- with h(y) = 1/ 2π, θ = −1/σ 2 , T (y) = y 2 /2, and d(θ) =
posed in [8]. From a result in [10], it is known that the − ln(−θ)
2 .
CUSUM algorithm minimizes T̄1 among all detection algo- Following [9] and [12], we have the following relationship
rithms that satisfy T̄0 ≥ T̄th , for any T̄th . among the threshold h, the mean time to false alarm and the
In the following, we use results from sequential analysis to upper-bound of the detection delay.
characterize the relationships among the threshold h, the mean If we set the threshold h = − ln{a/b}, in which a is a
time between false alarm T̄0 , and the worst case detection design parameter, and

2 
delay T̄1 . Following [11], one can derive some simple bounds 1
−1
on T̄1 and T̄0 : b = 3 ln a 1+ ,
D(f1,Pmin ||f0 )
h+ζ
T̄1 ≤ , and (5) then we have
D(f1 ||f0 )
T̄0 ≥ eh , (6) T̄0 ≥ 1/a, (10)
and
in which √  
∞  −c1 ln 3 1+ 1
2
l (y)f (y)dy + 2
l (y)f (y)dy ln T̄0 + ln ln T̄0 D(f1,Pmin ||f0 )
ζ= c1 −∞
, T̄1 ≤ +2
D(f1 ||f0 ) D(f1,P ||f0 ) D(f1,P ||f0 )
P 2 (P + σ 2 )2
with − 2 + 1.
D (f1,P ||f0 )


(P + σ 2 )σ 2 P Unlike the case of the CUSUM algorithm, we cannot
c1 = log 1 + 2 . (7)
P σ compute the statistic (9) in a recursive manner. On the other

978-1-4244-2324-8/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE. 3

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2008 proceedings.
 hand, the sup in (9) can be computed explicitly. For a given the samples are i.i.d. On the other hand, if t ≥ τ , the samples
k and t, let taken after τ tend to have larger rank due to the stochastic
  ordering between G1 and G0 . Let ψ(i, t) be the inverse per-
P 1 σ2
f (P ) = ŷ + (t − k) ln , mutation of the ranking of the samples; that is ψ(ρ(i, t), t) = i.
2(P + σ 2 )σ 2 2 P + σ2
Before the onset of the activity of the primary user, the

t probability of a particular ranking ρ = {ρ(1, t), · · · , ρ(t, t)}
with ŷ = y 2 [i], and P ∗ be the power that maximizes
i=k+1
does not depend on the value of σ 2 .
f (P ) over the region Pmin ≤ P ≤ Pmax . The likelihood ratio of τ = k and observing a particular ρ
It can be shown that is
⎧
⎪ (t − k) ≤ Pmax 2ŷ Pτ =k {y(ψ(1, t)) < · · · < y(ψ(t, t))}
⎨ Pmax , +σ 2 , Γtk (ρ) = .
∗ 2ŷ 2 2ŷ 2ŷ Pf0 {y(ψ(1, t)) < · · · < y(ψ(t, t))}
P =
⎪ t−k − σ , Pmax +σ 2 ≤ (t − k) ≤ Pmin +σ 2 , (11)
⎩ P (t − k) ≥ Pmin 2ŷ
min , +σ 2 . The rank based likelihood ratio is not too sensitive to the
true underlying distributions. One can compute this likelihood
Thus, the cognitive user can choose a proper threshold h
ratio by choosing a representative pre and post-change dis-
based on (10). At each time, it can compute gt in (9) with
tribution and design a corresponding algorithm based on this
the aid of (11), and compare gt with the threshold h. Once
likelihood ratio. This is the basic idea of the nonparametric
gt exceeds the threshold, the cognitive user declares that the
scheme developed in [14], which we adopt. In particular, as-
primary user is present.
sume the distributions of pre and post change have probability
V. N EITHER P NOR σ 2 IS KNOWN : NONPARAMETRIC densities
ALGORITHM g0∗ (y) = exp{−|y|}/2,
The CUSUM algorithm is sensitive to uncertainty in param- and
eters, as discussed in several papers, e.g., [13]. If the values
of P and σ 2 are unknown, we would like to design robust g1∗ (y) = pα exp{−αy}I(y ≥ 0) + qβ exp(βy)I(y < 0),
nonparametric activity detection algorithms.
in which p, q, α and β are tuning parameters satisfying pα ≥
Let G0 and G1 denote the distributions of the absolute value
qβ. Then the above likelihood ratio can be computed as [14]
of the samples before and after the onset of the primary user’s
transmission, respectively. Hence, t

 x   Γtk (ρ) = λtk,m (ρ),
2 u2
G0 (x) = √ exp − 2 du, m=0
0 2πσ 2σ
in which
and

t
Uk (t,m)
   t 1 pα
x
2 u2 λtk,m (ρ) = (2qβ)t+1−k
G1 (x) =  exp − du. m 2 qβ
0 2π(σ 2 + P) 2(σ 2 + P ) m
−1
Vk (i, t)
We first show that G1 is stochastically larger than G0 . × 1+ (β − 1)
i=1
i
Define E(x) = G0 (x) − G1 (x). We have
−1
t
Uk (i − 1, t)
E(0) = E(∞) = 0 × 1+ (α − 1) .
i=m+1
n+1−i
and t
  Here, Uk (t, m) = j=k I(ρ(j, t) > m) and Vk (t, m) = n +
 2 x2
E (x) = √ exp − 2 1 − k − Uk (t, m).
2πσ 2σ
  The procedure to detect the primary user is to compute Rt =
2 x2 t t
− exp − . k=1 Γk , and compare it with a threshold h. The cognitive
2π(σ 2 + P ) 2(σ 2 + P ) user raises an alarm the first time when Rt ≥ h.
Thus E  (x) > 0, x < c1 , and E  (x) ≤ 0, x ≥ c1 with c1 The mean time between false alarms of this test can be
defined in (7). Hence, E(x) is monotonically increasing for shown [14] to satisfy
x < c1 , and is monotonically decreasing for x ≥ c1 . Since T̄0 ≥ h.
E is continuous, we have E(x) ≥ 0, ∀x ≥ 0, and so G1 is When h is large, and there are sufficiently many samples
stochastically larger than G0 . before the change occurs, the detection delay can be bounded
Based on this ordering, one can use ideas from rank statistic as
tdesign nonparametric detection schemes. Let ρ(i, t) =
to
j=1 I(|y(j)| ≤ |y(i)|), in which I(.) is the indicator
lim sup sup Eτ {ta − τ |ta ≥ τ } ≤ c2 log h,
h→∞ τ ≥τ (h)
function. So ρ(i, t) is the rank of the ith sample among the
first t observations. Before the primary user’s transmission, in which c2 is a constant whose value depends on the true
ρ(1, t), · · · , ρ(t, t) is a random permutation of 1, · · · , t, since distribution G0 , G1 and the chosen representative densities g0∗

978-1-4244-2324-8/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE. 4

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2008 proceedings.
 and g1∗ . Unfortunately, a delay bound when either the value 0.35
CUSUM
of h is not sufficiently large or there are insufficiently many 0.3
GLR
Non−para
samples before the change, is difficult to derive. 0.25

Thus, to use the nonparametric change detection scheme, 0.2

Percent
one can first choose an appropriate value of h using the bound 0.15
for T̄0 . The cognitive user can then compute the statistic at
0.1
each time instant and compare it to h. The delay incurred by
this scheme is bounded by c1 log h when h is sufficiently large.
0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
τ

VI. S IMULATIONS
In this section, we provide some numerical results. In the
simulations, we set σ 2 = 1 and P = 3. In generating the
simulations, the thresholds are set using the bounds for T̄0
derived in the paper. For the GLR algorithm, we set Pmin =
P/2 and Pmax = 2P . For the nonparametric algorithm, we
set p = 0.9, q = 0.1, α = 0.9 and β = 3. Figure 1 shows a
typical realization of the CUSUM and GLR statistics, when the
primary user starts transmission at τ = 100. Figure 2 shows
the corresponding result for the non-parametric approach. We
can see that before the primary user begins transmission, the
statistics remain relatively small. After t = τ and some delays,
the statistic in each scheme reacts aggressively.
100
90
80
Fig. 3. Histogram of the detection delay in the CUSUM, GLR and non-
parametric algorithms when τ = 100.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
We have established a sequential change detection frame-
work for studying the agility of detection algorithms in cogni-
tive radio. We have considered three scenarios with different
prior information available at the cognitive users. We have
characterized the minimal detection delay that any detection
scheme will suffer, and have further provided schemes that
incur only this minimal delay.
The schemes described in this paper have high implementa-
tion complexity, and thus the development of low complexity
CUSUM
and order-optimal schemes is of practical importance. Exploit-
GLR
ing the presence of multiple cognitive users in the network to

70
the quick detection of the primary users’ activities is also of
60 interest.
gt

50

40 R EFERENCES
30
[1] R. Tandra and A. Sahai, “SNR walls for signal detection,” IEEE Journal
20
on Special Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 2, pp. 4–17, Feb. 2008.
10
[2] J. Lunden, A. Huttunen, V. Koivunen, and H. V. Poor, “Multiple
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 sensing in cognitive radios based on multiple cyclic frequencies,” in
t
Proc. Intl. Conf. on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and
Communications, (Orlando, FL), pp. 1583–1590, Aug. 1-3, 2007.
Fig. 1. A typical realization of the CUSUM and GLR statistic when τ = 100. [3] H. V. Poor and O. Hadjiliadis, Quickest Detection. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2009. Forthcoming.
[4] M. Basseville and I. V. Nikiforov, Detection of Abrupt Changes - Theory
and Application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
5000
[5] A. Wald, Sequential Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1947.
4500 Non−Parametric [6] H. Li, C. Li, and H. Dai, “Quickest spectrum sensing in cognitive radio,”
4000
in Proc. Conf. on Information Science and Systems, (Princeton, NJ), Mar.
2008.
3500
[7] H. V. Poor, An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation. New
3000 York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
[8] E. Page, “Continuous inspection schemes,” Biometrika, vol. 41, pp. 100–
gt

2500
115, 1954.
2000
[9] G. Lorden, “Procedures for reacting to a change in distribution,” Annals
1500 of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1897–1908, 1971.
1000 [10] G. Moustakides, “Optimal procedures for detecting changes in distribu-
tions,” Annals of Statistics, vol. 14, no. 1379-1387, 1986.
500
[11] G. Lorden, “On excess over the boundary,” Annals of Mathematical
0
60 80 100 120 140
Statistics, vol. 41, pp. 520–527, Apr. 1970.
t [12] G. Lorden, “Open-ended tests for Koopman-Darmois families,” Annals
of Statistics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 633–643, 1973.
[13] J. M. Lucas and R. B. Crosier, “Robust CUSUM: A robustness study
Fig. 2. A typical realization of the nonparametric statistic when τ = 100.
for CUSUM quality control schemes,” Comm. Statist. Theory Methods,
vol. 1, pp. 2669–2687, 1982.
Figure 3 shows the histograms of the detection delay of the [14] L. Gordon and M. Pollak, “A robust surveillance scheme for stochasti-
various algorithms when we set T̄0 = 1000. We can see that cally ordered alternatives,” Annals of Statistics, vol. 23, pp. 1350–1375,
Aug. 1995.
the histogram of the GLR and non-parametric schemes spread
out more than that of the CUSUM algorithm. This is the price
we pay for not knowing the channel parameters.

978-1-4244-2324-8/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE. 5

This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2008 proceedings.