IET Communications

Research Article

ISSN 1751-8628
Optimal resource allocation for cooperative Received on 18th January 2014
Accepted on 23rd October 2014
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing- doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2014.0605
www.ietdl.org
based cognitive radio networks with
imperfect spectrum sensing
Wanming Hao 1 ✉, Showyi Yang 1, Bing Ning 1, Wanliang Hao 2
1
School of Information Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People’s Republic of China
2
College of Navigation and Aerospace Engineering, Information Engineering University, Zhengzhou, People’s Republic of China
✉ E-mail: wmhao@hotmail.com

Abstract: This study investigates sensing-based spectrum sharing access (SSSA) and sensing-based spectrum
opportunistic access (SSOA) schemes in cooperative orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)-based
cognitive radio networks with imperfect spectrum sensing. The optimal resource allocation strategy, including sensing
time and transmit power, is designed to maximise the ergodic throughput of the secondary system. For a two-hop
cooperative communication in the secondary system, the authors adopt the amplify-and-forward relay protocol and
enable the source and relay to sense the state of the primary user jointly. To protect the PU effectively from harmful
interference, they consider the average interference power constraint in each hop. The total average transmit power
constraint of the source and relay is considered. Two simplified versions for the SSSA and SSOA schemes are
employed because of the complexity of the problem. They then propose two algorithms that acquire the optimal
sensing time and power allocation for both schemes. Finally, simulation results are presented to compare the
performance of the two schemes.

1 Introduction subcarrier-pair-based resource allocation algorithm was presented

Radio spectrum is an important but limited resource for wireless
communication systems. With the explosive growth in the demand
for wireless applications, the spectrum is becoming increasingly
crowded. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission
reported that most of the allocated spectrum is under-utilised, with
the spectrum utilisation only ranging from 15 to 85% [1]. To solve
the current inflexible spectrum allocation policy, a cognitive radio
that can provide adaptability for wireless transmission on a
licensed spectrum through sensing and dynamic spectrum access
has been proposed [2].
In a cognitive radio (CR) system, a secondary user (SU) can
access licensed bands under the condition that the primary user
(PU) is protected from harmful interference [3]. Two different
approaches can be used for a dynamic spectrum access
mechanism; these approaches are sensing-based spectrum sharing
access (SSSA) and sensing-based spectrum opportunistic access
(SSOA) [4, 5]. In SSSA, SUs coexist with the PU while ensuring
the quality of service (QoS) of the latter. In the SSOA, the SU can
only transmit data when a licensed frequency is detected to be
idle. In [6], a subcarrier-and-power allocation problem in an
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDMA)-based CR
system as studied for both schemes.
In wireless communication, the QoS of users, especially those at
the cell edge, should be ensured; thus, cooperative communication
has proposed an effective means over this problem and has been
studied in the literature [7–9]. A point-to-point OFDM system with
a decode-and-forward relay, with consideration of the weighed
sum rate, was studied in [7]. In [8, 9], system transmission rates
were maximised by allocating power, subcarriers and relay nodes
in a multi-relay assisted dual-hop cooperative OFDM system. In
particular, a multi-user system was considered in [8]. Cooperative
communication in CR networks has also been proposed in some
studies [10–13]. To improve the efficiency and fairness of
cooperative multi-user OFDM CR systems, a joint
in [10]. An opportunistic spectrum sharing protocol was proposed
in [11]. In this protocol, the secondary system serves as a relay for
the primary system by allocating a fraction of its subcarriers to
forward the primary signal. Meanwhile, the SU employs the
remaining subcarriers to transmit its own signal to achieve a
win-win solution for primary and secondary systems. In [12], a
novel flexible channel cooperation scheme between the primary
and secondary networks was examined. In this scheme, SUs can
freely and optimally use the channels to transmit primary data
along with their own. An efficient subchannel assignment scheme
for the OFDM-based CR networks with cooperative relays was
proposed in [13], in which the authors jointly considered the
signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of OFDM subchannels and the
interferences introduced to the PUs.
Any frame structure in CR consists of a sensing time slot and a
data transmission slot. A longer sensing time in a frame will result
in a higher detection probability and a lower false alarm
probability. However, less time will remain to transmit data, and a
tradeoff will be made in the sensing time setting. To maximise the
ergodic throughput, Stotas and Nallanathan [14] studied the
optimal sensing time and power allocation in multiband CR
networks. Sensing-based spectrum sharing model was proposed
for CR networks in [15], and the perfect and imperfect sensing
cases were studied. Meanwhile, to improve the probabilities of
false alarm and miss detection, the cooperative spectrum sensing
approach was proposed in some studies [16–19]. In [16], a novel
cooperation spectrum sensing technique called sensing with equal
gain combining (SEGC) was proposed for CR networks. The
performance of SEGC is superior to that of time division multiple
access (TDMA). Centralised cooperative spectrum sensing under
correlated shadowing was considered in [17]. Formulating the
spectrum sensing problem as a Gauss-Gauss hypothesis test, and
the authors used a linear quadratic rule and shown that it was
shown to be the optimal detector under Bayesian criterion. In [18,
19], two new cooperative spectrum sensing schemes subject to

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

548 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
energy detection were proposed. In [18], considering some improved
data-fusion implementation techniques based on the simple
energy-detection algorithm, which was prone to failure in many
scenarios, an adaptive cooperation spectrum-sensing method was
proposed. The superiority of this new approach was demonstrated
in both stationary and time-varying environments. In [19], a
simplified soft combing method was proposed with the use of the
dominant component of the mixture of gamma distribution over
fast-fading channels. Thus, this approach exhibited improved
performance over some other conventional approaches.
In this study, a sensing-based cooperative OFDM CR model is
first proposed. This model adopts the joint sensing of the source Fig. 1 System model
and relay for the frequency band allocated to the PU and the soft
combination. In this way, the accurate sensing energies from the
source and the relay are combined to achieve a better detection network. This spectrum is divided into N orthogonal sub-channels.
result. Two transmission schemes, SSSA and SSOA, are studied. The primary link includes the transmitter (PT) and receiver (PR),
In the SSSA scheme, the source and relay transmit power whereas the secondary link includes the source (SS), the relay
regardless of whether the PU is active. However, the source and (SR) and the destination (SD). Fig. 2 depicts a frame structure for
relay transmit higher or lower power when the sub-channels are cooperative spectrum sensing, which includes the spectrum
detected to be idle or active, respectively. For the SSOA scheme, sensing and data transmission phases. In the spectrum sensing
the source and relay only transmit power when the sub-channels phase, the SS and SR sense the N sub-channels allocated to the
are detected to be idle. PU, and the soft combination [20] is adopted to obtain a better
Furthermore, the PU is effectively protected from harmful detection result. The data transmission phase includes two hops. In
interference. Unlike the case of direct communication, two hops the first hop, the SS transmits signals to the SD. Such signals are
for data transmission exist in a frame for relay communication. overheard by the SR. In the second hop, the SR forwards the
The data are transmitted from the source to the relay and the received signals to the SD by using the AF cooperation protocol.
destination in the first hop, and then the data are forwarded from In each frame, the PU in a sub-channel is either active or idle. We
the relay to the destination in the second hop. The PU can suffer assume that the sensing time for every sub-channel is t/N. The
from harmful interference in each hop. To protect the PU sampling rate of the received signal in every sub-channel is f.
effectively, we consider an average interference power constraint Thus, within duration t/N, the SS and SR have ft/N samples for
in the first and second hops. To maintain the long-term power sub-channel n. These samples follow a binary hypothesis
budget of the source and relay, a total average transmit power
constraint for the source and relay is considered. The key
contributions of this study are as follows: H0n : ynss (i) = wn (i), i = 1, 2, . . . , f t/N
(1)
H1n : ynss (i) = xnss (i) + wn (i), i = 1, 2, . . . , f t/N
(1) New problem formulation: We formulate an optimal resource
allocation problem for cooperative OFDM-based CR system with
the amplify-and-forward (AF) protocol. Unlike previous works where H0n and H1n indicate that the PU is idle and active in
[14, 15], which only considered direct communication in the sub-channel n, respectively; i is the sample index; wn(·) is the
secondary system, this work considers cooperative communication noise in the nth sub-channel, which is assumed to be additive
under imperfect spectrum sensing, including the allocation of white Gaussian noise with a mean of zero and a variance of δ 2 =
sensing time and data transmission time in a frame, the allocation 1; xnss (·) is the signal of the PU in sub-channel n received at the
of the transmit power of the resource and relay, and the SS; and ynss (·) is the received signal of sub-channel n at the SS. We
achievement of the maximum ergodic throughput of the secondary only discuss the case of SS, which is highly similar to the case of SR.
system. Although the resource allocation in cooperative relays is According to [21], the test statistic of the SS received signal
studied in [13], this work only considered perfect spectrum sensing. energy in sub-channel n is calculated as
(2) Effectively protect the PU: Unlike direct communication,
cooperative communication needs two hops to transmit data in a
N
n 2
frame, and the PU can suffer from harmful interference in the two f t/N
hops. Thus, we consider the average interference power constraint Tssn (y) = |y (i)| (2)
f t i=1 ss
in each hop to protect the PU effectively. For the source and relay,
we consider the total average transmit power constraints.
(3) Optimal resource allocation algorithm: Considering the
complexity of solving the problem, we propose two simplified The coordinator collects the value from the SS and the SR, after
versions for the two schemes according to the practical situation. which the overall test statistic for the sub-channel n is calculated at
We present two resource allocation algorithms that acquire the the coordinator as
optimal sensing time and power allocation for the source and relay
under imperfect spectrum sensing.
(f t/N ) · Tssn (y) + (f t/N ) · Tsrn (y) Tssn (y) + Tsrn (y)
T n (y) = = (3)
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 2 · (f t/N ) 2
presents the system model. Section 3 discusses the problem of
designing the optimal sensing time and the power allocation
strategy for SSSA. Section 4 focuses on the SSOA. Section 5 Thus, the detection probability and false alarm for sub-channel n
presents the analysis of the complexity of the two schemes.
Section 6 discusses the simulation results, and Section 7 concludes.

2 System model

As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a cooperative OFDM-based CR

system that can access a wideband spectrum licensed to a primary Fig. 2 Frame structure

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 549
under the energy detection scheme is given by [21] where

 
1n |hnss,sd |2 |hnss,sr |2
Pdn (t, 1n ) = Q − g − 1 2f t/N (gn + 1)2 (4) an,3 = , an,1 = ,
s2 n
|hnpt,sd |2 Pp,n + d2 |hnpt,sr |2 Pp,n + d2

 1   |hnsr,sd |2
Pfn (t, 1n ) = Q n
− 1 2f t/N (5) an,2 =
s 2 |hnpt,sd |2 Pp,n + d2

|hnss,sd |2 |hnss,sr |2 |hnsr,sd |2

where εn denotes the decision threshold of the energy detector in
sub-channel n, and γn is the received SNR from the PU at the
secondary detector in sub-channel n.
The primary and secondary systems considered are experiencing
independence and frequency selective Rayleigh fading,
respectively. With OFDM modulation, we assumed that the
channel seen at each sub-carrier is modelled as frequency-flat
Rayleigh fading, as in [11, 23, 24]. The channel coefficients of
PT → PR, PT → SR, PT → SD, SS → PR, SS → SD, SS → SR,
SR → PR and SR → SD links over sub-carrier n (1 ≤ n ≤ N ) are
denoted as hnpt,pr , hnpt,sr , hnpt,sd , hnss,pr , hnss,sd , hnss,sr , hnsr,pr and hnsr,sd ,
respectively.
3 Sensing-based spectrum sharing access
bn,3 = , bn,1 = , bn,2 =
d2 d2 d2
where Pp,n denotes the transmit power of the PU in the nth
sub-channel, and the factor 1/2 accounts for the two time hops in
each transmission frame.
We take the approximation of the rates and omit the item ‘1’ in the
denominator of functions (6)–(9) for convenient calculation. This
approximation has been commonly used in the literature [8, 25,
26]. The approximation is essentially based on the assumption that
the signal amplified and forwarded by the relay is in the high SNR
regime. However, even in the low SNR regime, the resource
allocation by approximation rate can reach the true optimal
capacity very close [26].
Thus, we can obtain the average throughput of the secondary
system in the nth sub-channel for the SSSA scheme as

In the SSSA scheme, the source and relay adapt their transmit power RnSSSA = P(H1n )Pdn r11,n + P(H1n )(1 − Pdn )r10,n
on the basis of the detection outcome. If the nth sub-channel is
detected to be idle (H0n ), then the source and relay transmit with + P(H0n )Pfn r01,n + P(H0n )(1 − Pfn )r00,n (10)
(0) (0)
high power Ps,n and Pr,n , respectively. However, if the nth
sub-channel is detected to be active (H1n ), the source and relay where P(H1n ) and P(H0n ) denote the probability that the nth
(1) (1)
transmit with low power Ps,n and Pr,n , respectively, to ensure the sub-channel is active and idle, respectively.
QoS of the PU. To maintain keep the long-term budget of the secondary system,
In fact, the result of spectrum detection is not always correct we consider the total average transmit power constraint for the
because of the limitations of the spectrum sensing techniques and source and relay. This constraint can be found in several studies
the nature of the wireless communication. Moreover, a [8, 9] and can be written as
miss-detection or a false alarm can occur in the nth sub-channel.
Miss-detection occurs when the nth sub-channel is detected to be
T −t
N 
idle but is used by the PU, whereas false alarm indicates that the E P(H1n )Pdn (Ps,n
(1)
+ Pr,n
(1)
) + P(H1n )(1 − Pdn )(Ps,n
(0)
+ Pr,n
(0)
)
nth sub-channel is sensed to be busy but is actually idle. As a T n=1
(0) 
result, four possible scenarios can be distinguished on the basis of
the sensing decision and the actual status of the PU on each + P(H0n )Pfn (Ps,n
(1)
+ Pr,n
(1)
) + P(H0n )(1 − Pfn )(Ps,n
(0)
+ Pr,n ) ≤ Pav
sub-channel. These scenarios are listed in Table 1. (11)
We rewrite the rate of the second system as
where Pav is the maximum average transmit power for the source and

(1) (1)
 relay.
1 an,1 Ps,n an,2 Pr,n
r11,n = log2 1 + an,3 Ps,n
(1)
+ (1) (1)
(6) In a CR, the PU is prioritised; thus, its QoS should be ensured at
2 an,1 Ps,n + an,2 Pr,n all times. Methods that protect the PU from harmful interference
include the average interference power constraint [14, 27, 28] and

 the peak interference power constraint [29, 30]. In fact, the
(0) (0)
1 an,1 Ps,n an,2 Pr,n advantage of the average interference power constraint, as shown
r10,n = log2 1 + an,3 Ps,n +
(0)
(0) (0)
(7)
2 an,1 Ps,n + an,2 Pr,n in [27], is that it provides not only higher ergodic throughput for
the secondary system but also better protection for the primary

(1) (1)
 system. Thus, we apply an average interference power constraint in
1 bn,1 Ps,n bn,2 Pr,n this work.
r01,n = log2 1 + bn,3 Ps,n +
(1)
(1) (1)
(8) In sensing-based cooperative communication, the data
2 bn,1 Ps,n + bn,2 Pr,n
transmission phase includes two hops in a frame, and the PU can

 suffer from harmful interference in each hop. Therefore the
1 b P(0) b P(0) average interference power constraint should be considered in each
r00,n = log2 1 + bn,3 Ps,n
(0)
+ n,1 (0)s,n n,2 r,n(0) (9) hop. Under the SSSA scheme, interference on the nth sub-channel
2 bn,1 Ps,n + bn,2 Pr,n affects the PU in two cases, missed detection and correct
detection. Consequently, the average interference power constraint
in each hop can be written as
Table 1 Four possible scenarios for SSSA
PU’s state Sensing results Related probability Power Rate
T −t
The first hop
T
Active (H1n ) H1n Pdn (1)
Ps,n (1)
Pr,n r11,n  
× E |hss,pr | Ps,n P(H1n )(1 − Pdn ) + |hnss,pr |2 Ps,n
n 2 (0) (1)
P(H1n )Pdn ≤ Qnav
Active (H1n ) H0n 1 − Pdn (0)
Ps,n (0)
Pr,n r10,n
Idle (H0n ) H1n Pfn (1)
Ps,n (1)
Pr,n r01,n n = 1, . . . , N
Idle (H0n ) H0n 1 − Pfn (0)
Ps,n (0)
Pr,n r00,n
(12)

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

550 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
 T −t A similar assumption can also be found in [15]. However, we only
The second hop
T simplify (10), while (11)–(13) are not simplified to restrict the
  transmit power of the secondary system and protect the PU from
× E |hsr,pr | Pr,n P(H1n )(1 − Pdn ) + |hnsr,pr |2 Pr,n
n 2 (0) (1)
P(H1n )Pdn ≤ Qnav harmful interference.
The optimisation problem (16) is evidently convex with respect
n = 1, . . . , N
s,n , P s,n , P r,n , P r,n . However, determining whether (16) is a
to P (0) (1) (0) (1)

(13) convex optimisation problem with respect to t is difficult.

Considering that the sensing time lies with the interval (0, T ),
where Qnav is the maximum average interference power in the nth we can find the optimal sensing time through a one-dimensional
sub-channel that the PU can tolerate at its receiver. (1D) exhaustive search. Next, for a given sensing time t, we
Therefore the ergodic throughput of the secondary system under focus on finding the optimal power allocation strategy for the
the SSSA scheme can be formulated as source and relay.
 From (16), we can find that the primal optimisation problem with
T −t
N
n respect to the transmit power P (0) s,n , P s,n , P r,n and P r,n is convex with
(1) (0) (1)
max E RSSSA (14) affine inequality constraints and that Slater’s condition holds [30].
{t,P s,n ,P s,n ,P r,n ,P r,n } T
(1) (0) (1) (0)
n=1
Therefore the difference between the optimal value of the primal
(11) − (13), 0 ≤ t ≤ T and dual problems is zero. Thus, we first solve the dual
s.t. (15)
(0)
Ps,n ≥ 0, Ps,n
(1)
≥ 0, Pr,n
(0)
≥ 0, (1)
Pr,n ≥0 optimisation problem.
We define P W [P (1) s,n , P s,n , P r,n , P r,n ], and the Lagrange dual
(0) (1) (0)

In fact, problem (14) is complicated to solve. We will thus simplify function of problem (16) can be written as
this problem according to a practical situation. In practice, the
detection probability Pdn is usually high. The value is set to be g(l, m, n) W max L(P, l, m, n) (22)
(1) (0) (1) (0)
larger than 0.9 in the IEEE 802.22 wireless regional area network. {P s,n ,P s,n ,P r,n ,P r,n }
Meanwhile, the false alarm probability Pfn is very low, that is,
usually <0.1. Thus, the item including 1 − Pdn and Pnf in (10) is where the Lagrangian is
relatively small. Moreover, the active probability of the PU is small
at <0.4. This assumption is reasonable because a recent report [1] 
revealed that most of the licensed spectrum is underutilised. T − t
N
Under the aforementioned assumptions, the optimal problem was L(P, l, m, n) = E (a r + a00,n r00,n )
T n=1 11,n 11,n
approximated by

 T −t
N 
T −t
N
+ l Pav − E (a01,n + a11,n )(Ps,n
(1)
max E (a11,n r11,n + a00,n r00,n ) (16) T n=1
(1) (0) (1) (0)
{t,P s,n ,P s,n ,P r,n ,P r,n } T n=1 
T −t 
s.t. + Pr,n ) + (a10,n + a00,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(1) (0) (0)

T


N  
 
×E (a01,n +a11,n )(Ps,n +Pr,n )+(a10,n +a00,n )(Ps,n +Pr,n ) ≤Pav
(1) (1) (0) (0)
N
T −t  
+ mn Qnav − (1)
E s11,n Ps,n + s10,n Ps,n
(0)
n=1 n=1
T
(17)
 
N
T −t  
T −t  (0) 
+ vn Qnav − (1)
E w11,n Pr,n + w10,n Pr,n
(0)
(1)
E s11,n Ps,n + s10,n Ps,n ≤ Qnav n = 1, . . . , N (18) n=1
T
T
(23)
T −t  
(1)
E w11,n Pr,n + w10,n Pr,n
(0)
≤ Qnav n = 1, . . . , N (19)
T
The dual optimisation problem is given by
(0)
Ps,n ≥ 0, (1)
Ps,n ≥ 0, (0)
Pr,n ≥ 0, (1)
Pr,n ≥ 0, 0≤t≤T (20)
min g(l, m, n)
where the parameters a11,n, a10,n, a01,n, a00,n s11,n, s10,n, w11,n and l,m,n (24)
w10,n are given by s.t. l ≥ 0, m ≥ 0, n ≥ 0
⎧
⎪
⎪ a11,n = P(H1n )Pdn According to [31], a dual function is always convex, such that we
⎪
⎪ 10,n = P(H1 )(1 − Pd )
n n
⎪
⎪ a can use the gradient or sub-gradient-based method to minimise g
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ a01,n = P(H0 )Pf
n n
(l, μ, n). Dual variables l, μ and n are updated in parallel as
⎪
⎪
⎪ a00,n = P(H0n )(1 − Pfn )
⎨ follows (see (25))
s11,n = |hnss,pt |2 P(H1n )Pdn (21)
⎪
⎪ where ο(t), ζ(t) and j(t) are diminishing stepsizes, and t is the
⎪
⎪ s10,n = |hss,pt | P(H1 )(1 − Pd )
n 2 n n
⎪
⎪ iteration index. The stepsizes are chosen on the basis of the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 11,n = |hsr,pt | P(H1 )Pd
n 2 n n diminishing stepsize policy [31] to guarantee convergence.
⎪
⎪
w
⎪
⎩ However, computing for the dual function (25) involves
w10,n = |hnsr,pt |2 P(H1n )(1 − Pdn ) determining the optimal P at the given dual point l, μ and n. We

⎧ 
+
⎪
⎪ T −t
N  
⎪
⎪ l(m + 1) = l(m) + o(t) Pav − (a01,n + a11,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n ) + (a10,n + a00,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(1) (1) (0) (0)
⎪
⎪ E
⎪
⎪ T
⎪
⎨  
n=1

T −t   + (25)
m
⎪ n (m + 1) = m (m) + 6 (t) Q n
− E s P (1)
+ s P (0)
⎪
⎪
n av
T 11,n s,n 10,n s,n
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪ T −t   +
⎪
⎪
⎩ nn (m + 1) = nn (m) + j(t) Qav − E w11,n Pr,n + w10,n Pr,n
n (1) (0)
T

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 551
then present the detailed derivation of the optimal P (see (26)) conditions. When the PU is sensed to be idle on the nth
s,n , P r,n can be obtained as
sub-channel, the optimal power P (0) (0)

We can decompose (26) into two optimisation subproblems: the one

for P (0) ⎧
s,n , P r,n and the other one for P s,n , P r,n .
(0) (1) (1)
⎪
⎪ m p(0) , r,n . 0
if p(0)
Subproblem 1 (SP1) ⎨
n r,n +
s,n =
p(0) a00,n 1
 ⎪
T − t
N ⎩ 2(l(a + a ) + m s ) ln 2 − a
⎪ r,n = 0
if p(0)
00,n 10,n n 10,n 3,n
max E a r
(0) (0)
{P s,n ,P r,n } T n=1 00,n 00,n (29)

T −t
N
−l E (a00,n + a10,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(0) (0)
(27) where (x)+ denotes max(x, 0), and p(0)
r,n is given in the following
T n=1 equation (see (30 and 31))
T −t
N   T − t

N   A detailed derivation is given in the Appendix.
− (0)
mn E s10,n Ps,n − (0)
v E w10,n Pr,n
T n=1 T n=1 n When the PU is sensed to be active in the nth sub-channel, the
s,n , P r,n can be obtained as
optimal power P (1) (1)

Subproblem 2 (SP2) ⎧ ∗ (1)

⎪
⎪ m p , r,n . 0
if p(1)
 ⎨
n r,n +
T − t
N
s,n =
p(1) a11,n 1
⎪
⎩ 2(l(a + a ) + m s ) ln 2 − a r,n = 0
if p(1)
max E a11,n r11,n ⎪
(1) (1)
{P s,n ,P r,n } T n=1 01,n 11,n n 11,n 3,n

T −t
N (32)
−l E (a01,n + a11,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(1) (1)
(28)
T n=1
(see (33) and (34))
T −t
N   T − t

N  
− (1)
mn E s11,n Ps,n − (1)
vn E w11,n Pr,n The derivation is similar to that shown in the Appendix.
T n=1 T n=1
We can derive the optimal primal transmit power P for given dual
variables. By updating the dual variables as shown in (25), the
SP1 and SP2 are convex optimal problems, and we can find the optimisation problem in (16) can finally be solved. Based on the
optimal value by applying the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) above discussion, a detailed algorithm is given in Fig. 3.

 
T − t
N
T −t
N
g(l, m, n) W max E a r −l E (a00,n + a10,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(0) (0)
(1) (0) (1) (0)
{P s,n ,P s,n ,P r,n ,P r,n } T n=1 00,n 00,n T n=1

T −t
N  (0)  T − t
N  (0)  T − t
N
− mn E s10,n Ps,n − vn E w10,n Pr,n +E a11,n r11,n
T n=1 T n=1 T n=1
 (26)
T −t
N
T − t
N  
−l E (a01,n + a11,n )(Ps,n
(1)
+ Pr,n
(1)
) − (1)
mn E s11,n Ps,n
T n=1
T n=1

T −t
N  
N
N
− (1)
vn E w11,n Pr,n + lPav + mn Qnav + vn Qnav
T n=1 n=1 n=1

⎧
 +
⎪
⎪ 1 a00,n a1,n a22,n + (a3,n − 2(l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n ) ln 2/a00,n )(a1,n mn + a2,n )2
⎪
⎪
⎨ 2 ln 2 · m (l(a + a ) + m s )(a m + a )(a a m + a a + a a )
r,n =
p(0) n 00,n 10,n n 10,n 1,n n 2,n 3,n 1,n n 2,n 3,n 1,n 2,n
(30)
⎪
⎪ if (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n . a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n )
⎪
⎪
⎩
0 if (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n ≤ a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n )


a2,n ( ((l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a1,n a2,n − (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n )a1,n a3,n + (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n a3,n )
+a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + yn w10,n ))
mn = (31)
a1,n ((l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n − (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + yn w10,n )a3,n )

⎧
 +
⎪
⎪ 1 a11,n a1,n a22,n + (a3,n − 2(l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n ) ln 2/a11,n )(a1,n m∗n + a2,n )2
⎪
⎪
⎨ 2 ln 2 · m∗ (l(a + a ) + m s )(a m∗ + a )(a a m∗ + a a + a a )
r,n =
p(1) n 01,n 11,n n 11,n 1,n n 2,n 3,n 1,n n 2,n 3,n 1,n 2,n
(33)
⎪
⎪ if (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n )a2,n . a3,n (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn w11,n )
⎪
⎪
⎩
0 if (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n )a2,n ≤ a3,n (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn w11,n )


a2,n ( ((l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n )a1,n a2,n − (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + nn w11,n )a1,n a3,n + (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n )a2,n a3,n )
+a3,n (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + nn w11,n ))
m∗n = (34)
a1,n ((l(a01,n + a11,n ) + mn s11,n )a2,n − (l(a01,n + a11,n ) + nn w11,n )a3,n )

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

552 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
 networks. Therefore, the optimal problem can be approximated by


T −t
N
max E a00,n r00,n (41)
{t,P s,n ,P r,n } T
(0) (0)
n=1


T −t
N
s.t. E (a00,n + a10,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n ) ≤ Pav
(0) (0)
(42)
T n=1

T −t  (0) 
E s10,n Ps,n ≤ Qnav n = 1, . . . , N (43)
T
Fig. 3 Optimal sensing time and power allocation algorithm for the SSSA
scheme
T −t  
(0)
E w10,n Pr,n ≤ Qnav n = 1, . . . , N (44)
T
4 Sensing-based spectrum opportunistic access

In Section 3, we discussed the optimal sensing time and power (0)

Ps,n ≥ 0, (0)
Pr,n ≥ 0, 0≤t≤T (45)
allocation under the SSSA scheme. In this section, we will study
the optimal resource allocation, including sensing time and
transmit power, under the SSOA scheme. In the SSOA scheme, where the parameters a00,n, a10,n, s10,n, and r10,n are the same as those
the secondary system accesses only sub-channels that are detected in (21).
to be idle. The limitation of spectrum sensing techniques and the Optimisation problem (41) is convex with respect to P (0) s,n , P r,n .
(0)

nature of the wireless communication make missed detection However, for sensing time t, we can obtain the optimal value by
inevitable. Thus, the secondary system accesses a sub-channel in using a 1D exhaustive search. Therefore we focus on finding the
two cases. One is a correct detection (the sub-channel is idle), and optimal power allocation that maximises the ergodic throughput
the other is missed detection (the sub-channel was active). The for a given sensing time under the SSOA scheme.
average throughput of the nth sub-channel for the SSOA scheme is The Lagrange dual function of problem (41) can be written as
given by
g(l, m, n) W max L(P (0)
s,n , P r,n , l, m, n)
(0)
(46)
(0) (0)
RnSSOA = P(H1n )(1 − Pdn )r10,n + P(H0n )(1 − Pfn )r00,n (35) {P s,n ,P r,n }

Similar to the case in Section 3, we can derive the average transmit where the Lagrangian is
power constraint and average interference power constraint as
follows (see (36)) 
T − t

N
s,n , P r,n , l, m, n) = E
L(P (0) (0)
(a00,n r00,n )
T − t  n 2 (0)  T n=1
The first hop E |hss,pr | Ps,n P(H1n )(1 − Pdn ) ≤ Qnav  
T T −t
N  
n = 1, . . . , N (37) + l Pav − E (a10,n + a00,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(0) (0)
T n=1

 
N
T −t  (0) 
T − t  n 2 (0)  + mn Qav −
n
E s10,n Ps,n
The second hop E |hsr,pr | Pr,n P(H1n )(1 − Pdn ) ≤ Qnav n=1
T
T

 
n = 1, . . . , N
N
T −t  
+ vn Qnav − (0)
E w10,n Pr,n (47)
(38) n=1
T

Finally, we formulate the optimisation problem that maximises the The dual optimisation problem is given by
ergodic throughput under the SSOA scheme as
 min g(l, m, n)
l,m,n
T −t
N (48)
max E n
RSSOA (39) s.t. l ≥ 0, m ≥ 0, n≥0
{t,P s,n ,P r,n } T
(0) (0)
n=1

To find the optimal values l, μ and n that minimise the dual function
g(l, μ, n), the gradient or subgradient-based method can be used
(36) − −(38), 0 ≤ t ≤ T [30]. Dual variables l, μ and n are updated in parallel as (see (49)
s.t. (40)
(0)
Ps,n ≥ 0, Pr,n
(0)
≥0 at the bottom of the next page)

where ο(t), ζ(t) and j(t) are diminishing stepsizes and t is the
Problem (39) is actually difficult to solve. The above analysis shows iteration index. The stepsizes are chosen following the diminishing
that the item 1–Pdn is very small in practice for sensing-based CR step sizepolicy [30] to guarantee convergence.

T −t
N  
E P(H1n )(1 − Pdn )(Ps,n
(0)
+ Pr,n
(0)
) + P(H0n )(1 − Pfn )(Ps,n
(0)
+ Pr,n
(0)
) ≤ Pav . (36)
T n=1

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 553
Fig. 4 Optimal sensing time and power allocation algorithm for the SSOA
scheme

s,n , P r,n , l, m, n) and applying the

By writing the Lagrangian L(P (0) (0) Fig. 5 Ergodic throughput against sensing time for different P(H0) under
KKT conditions, the optimal power can be derived as Pav = 15 dB and Qav = −10 dB

⎧
⎪
⎪ m p(0) , r,n . 0
if p(0) 6 Simulation results
⎨
n r,n +
s,n =
p(0) a00,n 1
⎪
⎩ 2(l(a + a ) + m s ) ln 2 − a
⎪ r,n = 0
if p(0) In this section, we present the simulation results for the two access
00,n 10,n n 10,n 3,n schemes: SSSA and SSOA. We consider quasi-static
(50) frequency-selective Rayleigh fading channels with a 6-tap
equal-gain equal-spaced delay profile. The delay interval between
adjacent taps is equal to the inverse of the OFDM system
(see (51 and 52))
bandwidth. For simplicity, we consider N = 4 subcarriers. The
channel variances of PT → SR, PT → SD, SS → PR, SS → SD and
The derivation is shown in the Appendix.
SR → PR links are all set to be −10 dB, whereas the channel
By updating the dual variables shown in (49), the optimisation
variances of PT → PR, SS → SR and SR → SD links are all set to
problem in (41) can finally be solved. Based on the above
be 0 dB. The target detection probability Pdn for every sub-channel
discussion, a detailed algorithm is given in Fig. 4.
is set to be 0.9, with γn = −15 dB. The transmit power of the PU
in every sub-channel is assumed to be 10 dB.

5 Complexity analysis
The computational complexity of the proposed two schemes is
determined by the complexity of solving the dual problem. The
complexity of the subgradient method is polynomial in the number
of dual variables. Given the total power constraint for the source
and relay, 2N + 1 dual variables are derived, and the complexity is
O(|2N + 1|2). However, we need to find the optimal value between
(0 T ) by using 1D exhaustive search. Assuming the search interval
is t, we need (T/t + 1) times search, with the complexity of each
search being O(|2N + 1|2).
6.1 Imperfect sensing scenario
Fig. 5 shows the ergodic throughput against the sensing time under
the SSSA and SSOA schemes. We assume that the P(H0n ) is the same
for every sub-channel and is replaced with P(H0). The total transmit
power of the source and relay is set to be 15 dB, whereas the
interference power constraint is set to be −10 dB for every
sub-channel. From Fig. 5, we find an optimal sensing time for the
SSSA and SSOA schemes to achieve the maximum ergodic
throughput of the secondary system. In addition, the ergodic

⎧ 
+
⎪
⎪ T −t
N  
⎪
⎪ l(m + 1) = l(m) + o(t) Pav − (a10,n + a00,n )(Ps,n + Pr,n )
(0) (0)
⎪
⎪ E
⎪
⎪ T
⎪
⎨  
n=1

T −t   + (49)
⎪ mn (m + 1) = mn (m) + 6(t) Qnav − (0)
E s10,n Ps,n
⎪
⎪ T
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪ T −t   +
⎪
⎪
⎩ nn (m + 1) = nn (m) + j(t) Qav −
n (0)
E w10,n Pr,n
T

⎧
+
⎪
⎪ 1 a00,n [a1,n a22,n + (a3,n − 2(l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n ) ln 2/a00,n )(a1,n mn + a2,n )2 ]
⎪
⎨ ·
2 ln 2 mn (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )(a1,n mn + a2,n )(a3,n a1,n mn + a2,n a3,n + a1,n a2,n )
p(0) = (51)
r,n
⎪
⎪ if (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n . a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn w10,n )
⎪
⎩
0 if (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n ≤ a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn w10,n )


a2,n ( ((l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a1,n a2,n − (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n )a1,n a3,n + (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n a3,n )
+a3,n (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n ))
m∗n = (52)
a1,n ((l(a00,n + a10,n ) + mn s10,n )a2,n − (l(a00,n + a10,n ) + nn w10,n )a3,n )

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

554 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Fig. 6 Ergodic throughput against Qav for different Pav under P(H0) = 0.6
throughput is clearly a convex function of sensing time.
Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5, the optimal sensing time for the
two schemes is ∼4 ms, which is less than that presented in [14].
This decrease may be attributed to the use of cooperative sensing
to make the optimal sensing time shorter. For the SSSA or the
SSOA scheme, as the probability that the sub-channels are idle
increases, the ergodic throughput increases. That is, a larger P(H0)
provides greater opportunity for the secondary system to access the
sub-channels, thus improving the ergodic throughput. Moreover,
the ergodic throughput under the SSSA scheme is higher than that
under the SSOA scheme for a given P(H0), which can be
attributed to the fact that the SSSA scheme enables data
transmission even when the PU is detected to be active. However,
as the P(H0) increases, the gap of the ergodic throughput between
the SSSA and SSOA schemes decreases because a larger P(H0)
results in a smaller probability that that the sub-channels are
active, such that the secondary system has more time to access the
sub-channels.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the ergodic throughput against the average
interference power constraint. We assume that the Qnav is the same
for every sub-channel and is replaced with Qav. The probabilities
that the sub-channels are idle are P(H0) = 0.6 and P(H0) = 0.8 in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. In Fig. 6, for a given average transmit
power, for example, 15 dB, the ergodic throughput first increases
and then plateaus as the average interference power constraint
increases. We find that the performances of the two access
schemes are almost the same when the average interference power
Fig. 7 Ergodic throughput against Qav for different Pav under P(H0) = 0.8
IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
Fig. 8 Ergodic throughput against Qav for different Pav under P(H0) = 0.6
for the perfect-sensing scenario
constraint is low, and the performance of the SSSA scheme is
significant when the average interference power constraint is large,
for example, larger than −5 dB. In fact, from another perspective,
the average interference power constraints stand for the distance
between the PU and the SU, and as distance increases, more
transmit power is allocated for the SSSA scheme to achieve a
higher ergodic throughput than the SSOA scheme. The relation
between the ergodic throughput and the average interference
power constraint in Fig. 7 is almost the same as that in Fig. 6.
However, we note some differences. For a given Qav and Pav, the
ergodic throughput in Fig. 7 is larger than that in Fig. 6. This
result can be attributed to the fact that with the increase in P(H0),
the probabilities that the sub-channels are idle increase, thus giving
the SU more opportunity to access the sub-channels. The
performance gap of the SSSA and SSOA schemes is also found to
be smaller in Fig. 7 than that in Fig. 6. This phenomenon has been
explained in Fig. 5.
6.2 Perfect sensing scenario
Finally, we assume that the SU can achieve 100% detection of the
PU without triggering false alarms within a very short sensing
duration, that is, Pd = 1 and Pf = 0. This case can be considered as
a perfect sensing problem. Fig. 8 shows the ergodic throughputs
under a joint transmit and interference power constraint for P(H0)
= 0.6 as a perfect-sensing scenario. From Fig. 8, we can find that
the throughputs for sharing access increase with both the transmit
and interference power constraints. However, the throughputs for
opportunistic access increase only with the increase in the transmit
power constraint. This finding can be attributed to the fact that the
opportunistic access model only enables transmission when the PU
is absent, such that the throughputs are unrelated to interference
power constraints. For the imperfect sensing scenario, the
throughputs for opportunistic access increase with transmit power
and interference power constraint because of (18), (19) and (43),
(44), as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. In addition, the throughputs for
perfect sensing scenario are larger than those for the imperfect
sensing scenario under some conditions.
Fig. 9 shows the throughput for different P(H0) values under the
same transmit power constraint Pav = 20 dB. We find that
throughput increases with increasing P(H0). A larger P(H0)
indicates a higher probability that the PU is idle, such that the SU
has a greater chance to transmit higher power. The throughputs for
the sharing access model are always larger than those for the
opportunistic access model, but the throughput gains decrease with
increasing P(H0) because the throughput gain obtained from
spectrum sharing decreases with the increase in P(H0).
555

Fig. 9 Ergodic throughput against Qav for different P(H0) under Pav = 20
dB for perfect-sensing scenario
7 Conclusions
This study studied the optimal resource allocation, including sensing
time and transmit power, in a cooperative OFDM-based CR with
imperfect spectrum sensing. We discussed two spectrum access
schemes, namely, SSSA and SSOA. By simplifying the
optimisation problem according to actual situations, we proposed
two algorithms to determine the optimal sensing time and power
allocation strategy for the source and relay. Simulation results
showed that the SSSA scheme exhibits better higher performance
on ergodic throughput than the SSOA scheme as the average
interference power constraint. We found that the ergodic
throughput of the secondary system increases as the probability
that the PU is idle increases under the two schemes. In future
work, separate power constraints for the source and relay should
be investigated. In addition, more complex relay selection and
sub-channel pairing should be studied to improve transmission
efficiency further.
8 Acknowledgments
This study is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant no. 61271421).
9 References
1 Federal Communications Commission.: ‘Spectrum policy task force report, FCC
02-155’, 2002.
2 Hossain, E., Niyato, D., Han, Z.: ‘Dynamic spectrum access and management in
cognitive radio networks’ (Cambridge University Press, 2009)
3 Haykin, S.: ‘Cognitive radio: brain-empowered wireless communications’, IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2005, 23, (2), pp. 201–220
4 Zhao, Q., Swami, A.: ‘A decision-theoretic framework for opportunistic spectrum
access’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2007, 14, (4), pp. 14–20
5 Ghasemi, A., Sousa, E.S.: ‘Fundamental limits of spectrum-sharing in fading
environments’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2007, 6, (2), pp. 649–658
6 Bansal, G., Hossain, M.J., Bhargava, V.K., Tho, L.N.: ‘Subcarrier and power
allocation for OFDMA-based cognitive radio systems with joint overlay and
underlay spectrum access mechanism’, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2013, 62,
(3), pp. 1111–1122
7 Hsu, C.-N., Su, H.-J., Lin, P.-H.: ‘Joint subcarrier pairing and power allocation for
OFDM transmission with decode-and-forward relaying’, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., 2011, 59, (1), pp. 399–414
8 Dang, W.B., Tao, M.X., Mu, H., Huang, J.W.: ‘Subcarrier-pair based resource
allocation for cooperative multi-relay OFDM systems’, IEEE Trans. Wirel.
Commun., 2010, 9, (5), pp. 1640–1649
556
9 Alam, M.S., Mark, J.W., Shen, X.M.: ‘Relay selection and resource allocation for
multi-user cooperative OFDMA networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2013,
12, (5), pp. 2193–2205
10 Ma, Y., Zhou, L., Liu, K.: ‘A subcarrier-pair based resource allocation scheme
using proportional fairness for cooperative OFDM-based cognitive radio
networks’, Sensors, 2013, 13, (8), pp. 10306–10332
11 Lu, W.D., Gong, Y., Ting, S.H., Wu, X.L., Zhang, N.T.: ‘Cooperative OFDM
relaying for opportunistic spectrum sharing: protocol design and resource
allocation’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2012, 11, (6), pp. 2126–2135
12 Xu, H., Li, B.C.: ‘Resource allocation with flexible channel cooperation in
cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., 2013, 12, (5), pp. 957–970
13 Wang, S.W., Ge, M.Y., Wang, C.G.: ‘Efficient resource allocation for cognitive
radio networks with cooperative relays’, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2013, 31,
(11), pp. 2432–2441
14 Stotas, S., Nallanathan, A.: ‘Optimal sensing time and power allocation in
multiband cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Commun., 2011, 59, (1),
pp. 226–235
15 Kang, X., Liang, Y.C., Garg, H.K., Zhang, L.: ‘Sensing-based spectrum sharing in
cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2009, 58, (8),
pp. 4649–4654
16 Hamza, D., Aissa, S., Aniba, G.: ‘Equal gain combining for cooperative spectrum
sensing in cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2014, 50, (8),
pp. 4334–4345
17 Janatian, N., Modarres Hashemi, M., Sun, S., Yong, L.G.: ‘Centralised cooperative
spectrum sensing under correlated shadowing’, IET Commun., 2014, 8, (11),
pp. 1996–2007
18 Zhang, H.T., Wu, H.C., Lu, L.: ‘Analysis and algorithm for robust adaptive
cooperative spectrum-sensing’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2014, 13, (2),
pp. 618–629
19 Choi, W., Song, M.G., Ahn, J., Im, G.H.: ‘Soft combining for cooperative spectrum
sensing over fast-fading channels’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2014, 18, (2),
pp. 193–196
20 Ma, J., Zhao, G.D., Li, Y.: ‘Soft combination and detection for cooperative
spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun.,
2008, 7, (11), pp. 4502–4507
21 Fan, R.F., Jiang, H.: ‘Optimal multi-channel cooperative sensing in cognitive radio
networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2010, 9, (3), pp. 1128–1138
22 Liang, Y.C., Zeng, Y.H., Peh, E.C.Y., Hoang, A.T.: ‘Sensing-throughput tradeoff
for cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2008, 7, (4),
pp. 1326–1337
23 Kang, X., Liang, Y.C., Nallanathan, A., Garg, H.K., Zhang, R.: ‘Optimal power
allocation for fading channels in cognitive radio networks: ergodic capacity and
outage capacity’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2009, 8, (2), pp. 940–950
24 Zhang, R.: ‘On peak versus average interference power constraints for protecting
primary users in cognitive radio networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2009,
8, (4), pp. 2112–2120
25 Li, Y., Wang, W., Kong, J., Hong, W., Zhang, X., Peng, M.: ‘Power allocation and
subcarrier pairing in OFDM-based relaying networks’. IEEE Int. Conf. on
Communications, 2008, ICC’08, 2008, pp. 2602–2606
26 Tang, J., Zhang, X.: ‘Cross-layer resource allocation over wireless relay networks
for quality of service provisioning’, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2007, 25, (4),
pp. 645–656
27 Zhang, R., Kang, X., Liang, Y.-C.: ‘Protecting primary users in cognitive radio
networks: peak or average interference power constraint?’. IEEE Int. Conf. on
Communications, 2009, ICC’09, 2009, pp. 1–5
28 Dashti, M., Azmi, P., Navaie, K.: ‘Radio resource allocation for orthogonal
frequency division multiple access-based underlay cognitive radio networks
utilising weighted ergodic rates’, IET Commun., 2012, 6, (16), pp. 2543–2552
29 Wang, S.W., Zhou, Z.H., Ge, M.Y., Wang, C.G.: ‘Resource allocation for
heterogeneous cognitive radio networks with imperfect spectrum sensing’, IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2013, 31, (3), pp. 464–475
30 Zhang, R., Cui, S.G., Liang, Y.C.: ‘On ergodic sum capacity of fading cognitive
multiple-access and broadcast channels’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2009, 55,
(11), pp. 5161–5178
31 Boyd, S.P., Vandenberghe, L.: ‘Onvex optimization’ (Cambridge University Press,
2004)
10 Appendix
The derivative of SP1 with respect variable P (0)
s,n and P r,n replaced by
(0)
P1 and P2 for simplicity is given by
∂L a a (P a + P2 a2 )2 + P22 a1 a22 1
= 00 · 3 1 1 · − l(a00 + a10 ) − ms10
∂P1 2 ln 2 P1 a1 + P2 a2 c
(53)
∂L a P12 a21 a2 1
= 00 · · − l(a00 + a10 ) − nr10 (54)
∂P2 2 ln 2 P1 a1 + P2 a2 c
where c = P1α1 + P2α2 + P1(P1α1α3 + P2α2α3 + P2α1α2).
IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015
 When P1 and P2 are positive, we make (53) and (54) equal to zero The factor m should be greater than zero, such that we have α2βs >
to derive α3βr. Substituting (56) into (53), we derive
   
br a3 (P1 a1 + P2 a2 )2 + P22 a1 a22 = bs P12 a21 a2 (55) 1 a a a2 + (a3 − 2bs ln 2/a00 )(a1 m + a2 )2
p2 = · 00 1 2 (57)
2 ln 2 mbs (a1 m + a2 )(a3 a1 m + a2 a3 + a1 a2 )
where βs = l(a00 + a10) + μs10, βr = l(a00 + a10) + ns10 (55) can be
simplified as follows If P2 < 0, then P2 should be set to zero.
When α2βs ≤ α3βr, P2 = 0 can also be proven. For these cases, the
P1 = mP2 (56) optimal power allocation in the first phase can be expressed as

where  +
a00 1
p1 = − (58)
 2 ln 2bs a3
a ( br (a1 a2 bs − a1 a3 br + a2 a3 bs ) + a3 br )
m= 2
a1 (a2 bs − a3 br ) Thus, (29) and (30) are proven.

IET Commun., 2015, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 548–557

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015 557