P. 1
Comparing Particle Swarm Optimization Variants for a Cognitive Radio Network

Comparing Particle Swarm Optimization Variants for a Cognitive Radio Network

|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Swapna Patil

More info:

Published by: Swapna Patil on Sep 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/25/2014

pdf

text

original

Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Comparing particle swarm optimization variants for a cognitive radio network
Anabel Martínez-Vargas ∗ , Ángel G. Andrade
School of Engineering, MyDCI, Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), Mexicali, Mexico

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
It is recognized that Static Spectrum Allocation Policy currently used in most countries has led to an inefficient use of spectrum. It means that available spectrum is underutilized over certain bands while in others remain scarce. In this context, Cognitive Radio technology is proposed to recycle bands in order to solve the problem of spectrum scarcity and use the limited spectrum resource as effectively as possible. This work presents the application and performance comparison of three variants of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) namely Binary Particle Swarm Optimization (BPSO), Socio Cognitive Particle Swarm Optimization (SCPSO) and Derivation 0 in a Cognitive Radio Network. We aim at maximizing the sum throughput for the number of secondary links that can be admitted in the Cognitive Radio Network in the presence of primary links under interference constraints. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 25 November 2011 Received in revised form 20 July 2012 Accepted 19 October 2012 Available online 23 November 2012 Keywords: Cognitive radio Particle swarm optimization Spectrum underlay Dynamic spectrum access

1. Introduction The continued growth of wireless networks and services depends on the availability of spectrum resource since it is limited. Accessing to wireless spectrum has been regulated with Static Spectrum Allocation Policy, where each wireless service is assigned a fixed block of spectrum for exclusive usage in order to avoid harmful interference among wireless technologies [1]. Under this umbrella, spectrum allocations fall into one of two categories: a licensed allocation gives exclusive use to the licensee (primary users), whereas an unlicensed allocation corresponds to the commons model in which 2.4-GHz or 5.8-Ghz portion of the radio spectrum can be used by anybody without a license in most countries (referred as secondary users). But, the Static Spectrum Allocation Policy has led to an inefficient use of spectrum as several studies have pointed out in different parts of the world [2,3], showing that certain bands are used sporadically while in others the spectrum resource is scarce. Cognitive Radio technology is proposed to enhance current spectrum management, a more flexible and efficient way to access to the spectrum [4,5]. It recycles spectrum, allowing secondary users to access to regulated bands provided that they satisfy some criteria to peacefully coexist with primary users i.e. to guarantee that secondary users will not generate harmful interference to primary users. Cognitive Radio technology is supported by Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) techniques. Mainly, DSA in Cognitive Radio

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: martinez.anabel@uabc.edu.mx (A. Martínez-Vargas), aandrade@uabc.edu.mx (Á.G. Andrade). 1568-4946/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.10.016

Networks is based on the access technology overlay and underlay approaches [6,7]. The first strategy enables secondary users exploit primary channels unused by nearby primary users. This approach requires secondary transmitter to continuously detect and track transmission opportunities by spectrum sensing, and decide on transmission based on sensing results. These operations are vulnerable to sensing errors, and require complicated computation at the secondary transmitters. On the other hand, Spectrum Underlay technique enables primary users to share, at the same time, their occupied channels with secondary users. Basically consists on limiting the interference perceived by primary users from secondary users and consequently the interference present on the channel. In this work, we consider the problem of admission in a spectrum underlay network where cognitive or secondary users share the same spectrum band concurrently with the licensed or primary users provided that the interference caused by the secondary transmitters on the primary network has to be kept below a maximum allowable limit. Also, the interference perceived by a secondary receiver caused by the primary and secondary transmitters must be considered. The objective of our work is to find the maximum sum throughput in the system for the maximum number of secondary links that can be admitted to the network under the aforementioned constraints. A lot of work addresses admission control for cognitive radios in underlay and overlay networks under similar constraints. For example, in [8], the authors consider the model presented in [9] combining Spectrum Overlay and Underlay strategies to improve the goodput performance in the system through Monte Carlo simulation. They consider interference temperature for primary links and Signal to Interference-Noise Ratio (SINR) limit for secondary links. With

if the fitness function is not defined properly. Moreover. it is necessary perform a theoretical study about its run-time and convergence properties. Firstly. the worse solutions are discarded and only the good ones are saved. Colony Size and Maximum Cycle Number control parameters [15]. therefore. then.G. since all the particles use the information related to the most successful particle in order to improve them. they study the problem when all secondary links can be supported. It is inspired by the behavior of ants in finding paths from the colony to the food. but unlike GA. it has some disadvantages associated with. therefore. in GA the population evolves around a subset of the best individuals. even for difficult search spaces. ant colony optimization (ACO). The idea of the ant colony algorithm is to mimic this behavior with “simulated ants” walking around the graph representing the problem to solve. Moreover.A. a swarm of virtual bees are generated and they are allowed to move randomly in the search space. since secondary transmitter requires the amount of interference power received at the location of the primary receiver in order to exploit a primary channel [10]. they address when not all the secondary links can be supported due to their SINR having priority classes and they solve it using game theory. it is effectively applied to solve combinatorial and multi-objective optimization problems in communication and signal processing [20. simpler optimization algorithms may find better solutions than GAs. other ants find such a path and they are not to keep traveling at random to find food. Swarm Intelligence is defined as the collective behavior of decentralized and self-organized swarms [15]. like bird flocks or fish schools do [17. The position of a food source represents a possible solution to the optimization problem and the nectar amount of a food source corresponds to the quality (fitness) of the associated solution. therefore reducing its attractive strength. the paths chosen by the first ants would tend to be excessively attractive to the following ones. the complexity of the Dynamic Spectrum Access problem is challenging when we deal with a large number of variables. The major motivation for using PSO for solving spectrum underlay problem in cognitive radio networks is because it has some advantages over other similar optimization techniques [22]. It considers a group of spread spectrum users with constraints on the total interference temperature and SINR. achieving Interference Temperature constraint is technically challenging. The number of the employed bees is equal to the number of solutions (food source) in the population. ABC algorithm mimics the foraging behavior of honeybees. ABC or PSO algorithms. in [12] primary users share a common receiver and a set of secondary users can exploit an occupied primary channel only if they satisfy a minimum quality of service (QoS) and their accumulated interference in the primary receiver is below a predefined threshold. time to convergence is uncertain and coding is not easy to understand. The pheromone trail starts to evaporate over time. unlike ACO. GA represents a particular class of evolutionary algorithms that uses techniques inspired by evolutionary biology such as inheritance. can be implemented for obtaining approximately solutions to optimization problems in a reasonable amount of computation time [13]. ACO algorithms have been successfully employed in telecommunication networks for the performance improvement of routing protocols [17]. and its implementation is. the theoretical analysis is difficult due to sequences of random decisions (not independent) and probability distribution changes by iteration. the proposed solution converges to a local optimum solution instead of a global optimum solution. GA is a search technique used in computer science and engineering to find the approximate solutions to optimization problems [14]. for that. is necessary a fine-tuned processing. ACO [16] is a probabilistic technique for solving computational problems. mainly on the limit. PSO is also generally classified as an EA but follows an approach that is different from other EAs: Instead of emphasizing competitiveness of the population members by using the “survival of the fittest” principle. However.21] due to it can converge to the optimal solution where most analytical methods fail to converge. in PSO every particle remembers its own previous best value as well as the best performer in the swarm. Details about the function and implementation of this technique are explained in detail in section 4. Even though. Some works establish that PSO algorithm performs better than ABC algorithm while in others ABC and PSO algorithms show equal performance for different optimized objective functions [15]. straightforward for solving optimization problems in real time at a low computational cost. Also. pheromone evaporation has the advantage of avoiding the convergence to a locally optimal solution. In fact. They divided the problem in two optimization objectives: maximize the number of admitted secondary links and maximize the sum throughput of the admitted secondary links. whereas in GA. but rather follow the trail and they can return to their colony. however Monte Carlo simulation is too costly computationally. Á. For this algorithm. First problem is addressed by means of a distributed online algorithm. and in most applications and problem formulations. it is possible figure out the number of secondary links that can coexist peacefully with primary links. Second problem is solved using an iterative algorithm based on geometric programming. Then. For example. fish schools and the colony of social insects such as termites. ants and bees. some dynamically channel selection problems have been formally proven NP-hard. there is not much theoretical work on ABC in general. Therefore. natural selection. This solution seems require simpler computations between iterations. which can be reduced to find good paths through graphs. ACO guarantees convergence to an optimum solution. PSO is not largely affected by the size and nonlinearity of the problem. it has a more effective memory capability than the GA and ABC algorithms. However. as it is in ABC. Evolutionary algorithms (EA) like genetic algorithms (GA). interact when they find some target nectar of food source. PSO is easier to implement and there are fewer parameters to adjust. The survival and progress of the bee colony are dependent upon the rapid discovery and efficient utilization of the best food resources. A numerical solution can be considered to solve this. distributed online algorithm needs to perform a great number of operations to handle the occurrence of diverse events to select the set of secondary links that can coexist with primary users. however. therefore. it requires overwhelming computational effort. and crossover. to implement it. These results conclude that ABC approach is more successful and the most robust on multimodal functions (which has more than one local . It is a known fact that these control parameters affect the performance of algorithms significantly. If there were no evaporation at all. Martínez-Vargas. For specific optimization problems. with this. or swarm intelligence-based. and it is based on the exchange of information among bees to obtain collective knowledge [18]. which increases exponentially as the size of the problem increases. This technique considers the “pheromone trails” emulation. The ABC algorithm is relatively simple and flexible as PSO technique. such as number of users and channels. mutation. they use a geometric programming method in order to maximize the total transmitting rate of the secondary users. PSO is more efficient in maintaining the diversity of the swarm. however. The well-known examples for these swarms are bird flocks. such as. Due to the combinatorial nature. Another interesting approach is presented in [11]. optimization is achieved by cooperative behavior of individuals. a polynomial-time algorithm that achieves the exact optimal selection is not known [23–28]. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1223 that. For that reason. GA might converge towards local optima rather than the global optimum.19]. and given the same amount of computation time. also it is difficult operate on dynamic data sets. While it can rapidly locate good solutions. artificial bee colony (ABC) and particle swarm optimization (PSO). For example. However. therefore.

Section 5 is devoted to the experimental results and Section 6 concludes the paper. The proposed procedure based on particle swarm optimization to solve spectrum underlay problem is provided in Section 4. Since its inception in 1995. Therefore. our proposed framework can be extended to other wireless technologies.24]. in a Dynamic Spectrum Access technique as Spectrum underlay. a secondary user or a set of secondary users are allowed to transmit using a channel in the licensed spectrum band when primary users are also transmitting. To solve our optimization problem. Therefore. as [25]. The system scenario is depicted in Fig. secondary users are devices operating in a ISM band. 2. Socio Cognitive Particle Swarm Optimization (SCPSO) [31] and Derivation 0 [32] in order to find the best solution and compare their performance. A link (either primary or secondary) symbolizes a transmitter-receiver pair. an occupied primary channel can be exploited by more users. Bio-inspired algorithms have been applied successfully in a spectrum overlay context. In case 2. 3. As we mentioned in . the variant of PSO that accomplishes the aforementioned criteria will be the one that we keep to solve our problem efficiently. since each wireless service is assigned a band for exclusive usage. all at the same channel. In Fig. it means that secondary devices can perform an internet service and the primary device performs a cell phone call. An interference threshold is imposed on secondary users so that the interference at a primary user’s receiver is controlled and primary users can deliver their packet to the receiver successfully. In Section 3. numerous applications and services use the 2. works in [27] and [28] are based on the adaptive task allocation model in insect colonies [29] to enable secondary users select the appropriate unused primary channels to transmit hence interference to the primary users is avoided. Therefore. For simplicity. In this way. For instance. Fig. the numbers beside the secondary and primary links identify the number of link. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Since we model primary links considering a cellular band like LTE-Release 8 and beyond. 2. since ABC does not use an operator like crossover as employed in GA or velocity in PSO. in the second work to assign Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) carriers to secondary users to maximize sum rate capacity of the cognitive radio network under interference and power constraints. We focus on communication in the uplink direction. The first is the current way as spectrum is accessed however it has led to an inefficient usage of spectrum. Á. PSO applications have been found on spectrum sensing and resource allocation in the Cognitive Radio network [23. spectrum management becomes a critical issue [4]. the problem formulation is shown. On the other hand. Scientific and Medical) band. the spectrum-sharing underlay problem is taken as basis for an analysis of “inertia weight” control parameter. the primary links perform a transmission using their primary channels and the secondary links exploit primary channels provided that the interference produced by the secondary transmitters to the primary receiver is below a predefined threshold. It is also assumed that all the links always transmits i. Each band is divided in small blocks called channels. where PC = Pl. we apply three variants of PSO algorithm namely Binary Particle Swarm Optimization (BPSO) [30]. secondary uses will not generate harmful interference to primary users for sharing the channel. We consider secondary links as un-regulated wireless devices. There are a set of primary channels PC to share. In contrast. the wireless spectrum is divided in portions called bands which can be licensed or unlicensed. Problem description Due to diverse wireless technologies compete for accessing to a limited and expensive resource called spectrum.e. For purpose of this work. this is the first proposed solution based on a bio-inspired algorithm to address the spectrum underlay problem. For example. Recently. On the other hand. the distribution of good information between solutions is not at a required level. in Static Spectrum Allocation Policy.1224 A. To the best of our knowledge. High total system throughput. Under such approach has been observed that available spectrum is underutilized over certain bands while in others remain scarce e. there are works based on ACO technique. The focus of this work is not only on showing that PSO is also able to optimize the underlay spectrum sharing optimization problem. This causes the convergence performance of ABC for local minimum to be slow. Section 2 provides a description of the two management approaches to access the spectrum: Static Spectrum Allocation Policy and Dynamic Spectrum Access. denote a primary channel which was chosen randomly from a set of primary channels PC to share. However. It means that if a user makes a cell phone call. Additionally. there are two management approaches to access the spectrum: Static Spectrum Allocation Policy and Cognitive Radio through Dynamic Spectrum Access techniques. In contrast. However. big number of selected secondary links.G. Since ISM band can be used by anybody without a license in most countries. while primary users are devices transmitting on a cellular band. Two criteria are considered to evaluate the performances of BPSO. Problem formulation Consider a set of secondary links Sl and primary links Pl distributed randomly in an area (see Fig. 1 shows the main differences between Static Spectrum Allocation Policy and a Dynamic Spectrum Access technique as spectrum underlay. research in PSO has resulted in a large number of new PSO algorithms that improves the performance of the original PSO and enables application of PSO to different optimization problem types. user’s device will access to the spectrum band in which cellular services are allocated and take an idle channel. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 optimum) and multivariate problems than the others algorithms mentioned before. introduction section. the bandwidths of the primary channels are assumed to be 20 MHz. we assume that primary and secondary links use the same transmission power. the second is proposed as a flexible and effective way to exploit limited spectrum resources. SCPSO and Derivation 0: total system throughput (fitness) and number of selected secondary links. the numbers in brackets and braces respectively. overcrowding this band. recycling the limited spectrum resource and use it more effectively. Also. ISM (Industrial. A user can access to a spectrum band and exploit an idle channel depending on the wireless service that he demands. in the first work to address a multi-objective problem (maximize the total capacity and minimize the power consumption) of a cognitive ad-hoc network.4GHz portion of the radio spectrum. to maximize the sum rate in the cognitive network and [26] to minimize spectrum cost of the primary service meanwhile available primary channels are assigned to a set of secondary users. but also mainly on the question for which parameter settings of PSO the problem can be reliably solved. PSO has been a topic of interest for researchers in recent years but the problem of how to choose the settings of control parameters when applying PSO still remains. running times are also measured for the comparison among the three variants. g. 2). like Long Term Evolution Release 8 and beyond (LTE-Release 8) or a Fourth Generation (4G) system. and low running time are needed to obtain an excellent performance. Binary Particle Swarm Optimization is used in [23] and [24]. Martínez-Vargas. Again from the example of the cell phone call.

i) is the distance from the kth secondary Fig. The SINR from [8] at the jth secondary receiver is given by: where P is the transmission power. of primary links. Fig. . 2.5 and 4 because of scattering and absorption). lds(j) is the link distance of jth secondary device-pair. which use the same channel. Similarly. j) . Static Spectrum Allocation Policy vs. 2 illustrates the above-mentioned (the black dashed arrows). j) + P/dps(i. ldp(i) is the link distance of ith primary device-pair. 1 ≤ j ≤ Sl (1) where P is the transmission power. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1225 Fig. Dynamic Spectrum Access using a Spectrum Underlay scheme. is the set of all secondary users using the same primary channel and n is the attenuation factor (a value between 2. the allocated channels are unique. we compute the SINR value for each primary link due the interference caused by secondary transmitters as follows. dps(k. i) SINRj = k∈˚ P/lds(j) n n n P/dss(k. It is expressed in dB. In this work we consider a Spectrum Underlay approach in order to maximize the overall data rate in the system for the number of secondary users who can coexist peacefully with primary users as follows: The SINR parameter is a measure that expresses how much interference is perceived by a receiver device (primary or secondary) on a current link from the set of active transmitters. Martínez-Vargas. System scenario. 1.j) is the distance from ith primary transmitter to the jth secondary receiver. Á.A. However.j) is the distance from the kth secondary transmitter to jth secondary receiver. dss(k.G. dps(i. SINRi = P/ldp(i) k∈˚ n n 1 ≤ i ≤ Pl (2) P/dps(k. the allocated primary channels to secondary links can be repeated.

Particle swarm optimization algorithm Swarm intelligence looks at nature as a source of inspiration. 1 ≤ j ≤ Sl (8) (9) (10) (11) The objective function in (7) is the sum throughput for the set of admitted secondary links which can peacefully coexist with primary links. Each particle evolves taking into account the best solution found in its path and the leader.e. therefore SINRL ≥ 3 dB [33]. Constraint in (8) represents that SINRi level in primary link i must achieve the SINRL threshold. we consider three binary versions of PSO to compare their performance: Binary Particle Swarm Optimization (BPSO) [30]. 1 ≤ i ≤ Pl (4) SINRi manages the total allowable interference in a primary receiver from the intended secondary links that wish to share a primary channel. we can control the number of secondary links coexisting with primary links. which must achieve the SINRL threshold. Increase SINRL represents to increase QoS but the number of selected secondary links is decreased in the cognitive network and as a consequence there will be and inefficient spectrum usage. since these are expected to dominate future network deployments. 1 . considering information from the leader. The SINR constraint on a wireless link is an important basis for consideration of outage. We formulate our optimization Spectrum Underlay problem as follows: Sl Pl Max j=1 cj xj + i =1 ci (7) s. Therefore with the change of SINRL . 4.1226 A. Constraint in (9) is the received SINRj on secondary link j. They mainly differ in velocity and position update equations. SINR level indicates the signal quality. pid = xid pid = xid Next d End do STEP 15 g = i//g is the index of best performer in the swarm STEP 16 For j = 1 to N STEP 17 Compute SINR at secondary links using P’j and Spectrum Status STEP 18 Compute SINR at primary links using P’j and Spectrum Status STEP 19 Compute fitness f (P’j ) STEP 20 Compute fitness f(P’g ) STEP 21 If f(P’j ) > f(P’g ) then g = j . and SINRj controls the interference level among secondary links. The solution procedure based on particle swarm optimization algorithm to solve the spectrum underlay approach is shown below: STEP 1 Locate randomly Sl and Pl in the area STEP 2 Initialize randomly matrix X. In any wireless network. Socio-Cognitive Particle Swarm Optimization (SCPSO) [31] and Derivation 0 [32]. wireless applications must meet minimum signal quality levels (SINRL thresholds). self-organized. i. capacity. (11) is a binary variable that indicates xj = 1 if secondary link j is included in the solution and xj = 0 if it remains out. a primary link can share its primary channel with a set of secondary users only if the perceived interference at the primary receiver achieves the next constraint: SINRi = SINRL . the particles change their velocity towards the best solution for their environment. the transmitted data is disturbed by multiuser interference. The data rate for a primary link i and a secondary link j. The aforementioned systems are organized in small societies (swarms) [34]. the SINR limit SINRL : SINRj = SINRL . At each function evaluation. For example. 1 ≤ j ≤ Sl (3) Expression in (10) just ensures that primary and secondary data rates are positive values. the solutions (called particles) “fly” in the search space. by larger SINRL the harder for secondary links to meet constraint. It is therefore important to understand the influence of the SINR within cognitive radio networks. A secondary link can exploit a primary channel simultaneously with a primary link in a Spectrum Underlay manner only if its SINRj achieves a predefined threshold. studying the collective behavior and properties of complex. voice for multimedia requires SINR values between 3 to 10 dB to guarantee a good service. and throughput in a wireless network. The aforementioned is known in wireless communications as Quality of Service (QoS).G. Finally. Á. In PSO. ci > 0 xj ∈ 0. bird flocks. decentralized systems with social structure as fish schools. guided by the particle that best solution found so far and that makes the leader of the flock. Otherwise. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 transmitter to ith primary receiver (in Fig. 2. Set P’ = X’ STEP 4 Initialize randomly vector Spectrum Status STEP 5 Loop STEP 6 For i = 1 to number of particles STEP 7 Compute SINR at secondary links using X’i and Spectrum Status STEP 8 Compute SINR at secondary links using P’i and Spectrum Status STEP 9 Compute SINR at primary links using X’i and Spectrum Status STEP 10 Compute SINR at primary links using P’i and Spectrum Status STEP 11 Compute fitness f (X’i ) STEP 12 Compute fitness f (P’i ) STEP 13 If f (X’i ) > f (P’i ) then do STEP 14 For d= 1 to D In the same way. Set P = X STEP 3 Initialize randomly matrix X’. where cj is the data rate on secondary link j in Mbps and ci is the data rate on primary link i in Mbps. the green dashed arrows). V.t SINRi ≥ SINRL SINRj ≥ SINRL cj > 0. In order to solve our optimization spectrum underlay problem. To work properly. when SINRL is decreased more secondary users can be selected but with poor QoS which means more information retransmission or reduced coverage. and they also have a memory of their personal best position (the position with the best performance). ant colonies and animal herds. Because in the uplink of a wireless system multiple users try to send data simultaneously in the same frequency band. The PSO individuals are characterized by their current position and current velocity. are ci and cj respectively: ci = B log2 (1 + SINRi ) cj = B log2 (1 + SINRj ) (5) (6) where B is the primary channel bandwidth. Martínez-Vargas.

Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1227 Fig. 3.A. Definition of particles. Martínez-Vargas. 4. Approach for computing total particle’s fitness (CASE 1). . Fig. Á.G.

3 resumes the above steps and shows the representation (definition of particles) from the original problem context to PSO. Each dimension in Xi symbolizes if the jth secondary link is chosen (xid = 1) or if it is not (xid = 0). matrices in the framework of PSO versions as velocity matrix V. particle Xi specifies that secondary links 3. which is optimized in a time instant. 3. Vmax ] where Vmax is the maximum velocity and finally best position component pid in {0. For purpose of our work. therefore X’i contains the channel allocation given randomly to the selected secondary links from a set of 5 primary channels PC to share indicated by Spectrum Status vector. P’i stores the best channels allocations find so far for a particle. particle matrix X and best positions matrix P are initialized: particle component xid in {0. so secondary link 3 can exploit primary channel 5 in a spectrum underlay way as long as (8) and (9) are . Prior to application (From STEP 2 to STEP 4).1228 A. 4 and 5 are chosen as a part of the solution. X and P are considered to coincide. A scenario is considered like a network snapshot.1}. Next j STEP 22 For d = 1 to D STEP 23 Compute velocity update vid equation STEP 24 Compute position update xid equation STEP 25 if xid = 1 then Allocate randomly a new channel to x’id from the set PC Next d Next i STEP 26 Until stopping criterion met STEP 27 Return (Pg . velocity component vid in [-Vmax . From example illustrated in Fig. as suggested in [34]. Á. 5. Approach for computing total particle’s fitness (CASE 2). we add two new N x D matrices: P’ and X’. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 Fig. Martínez-Vargas. Such matrices are N x D where N is the size of the swarm and D is the number of secondary links Sl. We also create an additional vector namely Spectrum Status (STEP 4) which indexes indicate the number of primary channel and an element of the vector refers to the number of primary link that exploits the primary channel.1}. Each dimension in Pi symbolizes if the jth secondary link is chosen (pid = 1) or if it is not (pid = 0). Note that in initialization stage. secondary link 3 is assigned to exploit primary channel 5. verifying Spectrum Status vector it can be observed that channel 5 is occupied by primary link 5.G. Fig. For each pid = 1 in Pi there is another p’id in P’i where in an initialization stage P’i = X’i . The mapping of X’i and Spectrum Status provide the possible allocations for secondary and primary links to share a primary channel. f (Pg )) In STEP 1 a scenario is deployed in order to maximize the total data rate in the system. For example. They store the allocated primary channel for a secondary link as follows: For each xid = 1 in Xi there is another x’id in X’i initialized randomly with the set of primary channels to share PC.

e. Since we maximize total data rate in the system. SINR in primary link 4 is evaluated: 1 (TRUE) if it achieves SINRL or 0 (FALSE) otherwise. The maximum distance from a receiver to a transmitter in a link is 1000 m and the attenuation factor n = 4. 6. if restrictions in (8) and (9) are achieved for secondary and primary links. After that. constraints (8) and (9) are satisfied since both evaluations vectors are rated as 1 (values in red squares) therefore particle’s fitness stage is performed. 4 depicts. data rates for secondary and primary links are not computed. Since constraints (8) and (9) must be satisfied to consider a candidate solution in X’i (or P’i ) as a valid solution. Martínez-Vargas. We consider 6 primary links Pl. 4 shows. the complete evaluation vector for primary links is rated as 1 (TRUE) if all the primary links achieves SINRL (they were set to 1) or 0 (FALSE) if one or more primary links do not satisfy (8).G. In order to determinate particle’s fitness. The process described above is also applied to Pi and P’i using the same vector Spectrum Status for a given scenario. Finally. then those SINR’s are valued in evaluation vector for secondary links i. In contrast. X’i (or P’i ) is mapped to Spectrum Status as is shown in Fig. from Fig.STEP 10 and STEP 17–STEP 18). checking at the same time. Simulation results For simulation. it is being used by primary link 3 so. or evaluation vector for primary links can be rated as 0 (FALSE) due to one or more primary links cannot satisfied SINRL . Invalid solutions are avoided in the swarm using a penalty function which is the most common constrainthandling technique. 4 example uses a SINRL = 10. If all the secondary links are evaluated as 1. the total particle’s fitness is set to zero. secondary links 4 and 5 are assigned to use primary channel 4. they can exploit primary channel 4 in a Spectrum Underlay way only if they satisfy constrains in (8) and (9). • CASE 2 (When SINRL is not achieved for secondary and/or primary links): It occurs when one or more secondary links cannot achieve SINRL . Finally. Secondary and primary links are deployed in a 5000 m x 5000 m area. the maximum number of secondary links Sl is set to 20. causing that evaluation vector for secondary links is rated as 0 (FALSE).0 dB. For example. After that stage. It is assumed that both primary and secondary links have the same transmission power. 4. this deployment is called a scenario. particle’s fitness steps (STEP 11-12 and STEP 19-20) are performed. Checking Spectrum Status. 4 is observed that secondary link 1 is allocated with primary channel 5. we penalize invalid solutions setting total particle’s fitness to zero. if a given secondary link achieves SINRL it is evaluated as 1 (TRUE) or 0 (FALSE) otherwise. and then they are stored in fitness vector for secondary links and fitness vector for primary links respectively. satisfied. CASE 2 represents the situation when a candidate solution in X’i (or P’i ) is an invalid solution. Fig. The process of simulation. The evaluation process is performed until all channel assignments in X’i are analyzed. as Fig. . In case of Fig. therefore there are 6 primary channels PC to share with the secondary links. After that. Locations for primary and secondary links are fixed to compare performance among the algorithms considered in the present investigation. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1229 Fig. Data rates for secondary and primary links are calculated using equations (5) and (6). The primary links that are not part of the candidate solution are set to −1. 4. so they are not chosen in the selection process. 4 the red square). 5.e. this is also applied for fitness vector for primary links. it indicates that the complete set of secondary links achieve constraint (9) therefore the evaluation vector for secondary links is rated as 1 (TRUE) or 0 (FALSE) otherwise (in Fig. Á. Then. Penalty functions punish infeasible solutions by decreasing their fitness. The above is depicted in Fig. The following two cases for performing particle’s fitness are implemented: • CASE 1 (When SINRL is achieved for secondary and primary links): SINR vector for secondary links stores their SINR. primary channel 5 is occupied by primary link 4. being the total particle’s fitness as Fig. constraint (8) for primary links is verified. data rates in fitness vector for secondary links are added and its result is stored. if a candidate solution in X’i (or P’i ) represents a valid solution i.A. both results are added. SINR for secondary links and primary links are computed (STEP 7 . they are added gradually in the system. Unlike CASE 1. 5.

05 7.1 and wup = 1. The swarm size is fixed to 100 particles. c1 = c2 = 2 and c3 = 12 [31].09 4.0741 2369.6273 2316. there is a set of simulations performed using a fixed inertia weight w = 0.G. in this case is of 4000.613 2330.7007 2315. Gray rows represent the best run for a version of PSO.81 6.8715 2326.85 6. Since up to our knowledge.0822 2345.108 2345. Algorithm The best runs with maximum fitness Number of secondary links Fitness (Mbps) Selected secondary links Run time (min) Number of algorithm iterations to achieve the goal 3337 2016 2025 918 1408 2601 948 2979 261 3472 1097 988 967 358 324 BPSO 6 dB BPSO 8 dB *BPSO 10 dB BPSO 12 dB BPSO 14 dB *SCPSO 6 dB SCPSO 8 dB SCPSO 10 dB SCPSO 12 dB SCPSO 14 dB Derivation 6 dB Derivation 8 dB *Derivation 10 dB Derivation 12 dB Derivation 14 dB 16 16 19 16 20 17 16 19 16 18 12 16 18 17 15 2341. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 Table 1 Maximum fitness using a fixed inertia weight w.0039 2348.85 7.279 2330. BPSO has the best fitness for a run and also can select a larger number of secondary links however it is the most costly computationally. Since the inertia weight w has an impact on the convergence of the algorithm and balance between global and local search throughout the course of a run [35].6406 2344. After a run is complete. the last has a slight difference in fitness and it is computationally less expensive.62 6. Considering maximum fitness and admitted secondary links in the cognitive network. The velocity limit Vmax is set to 6 except for Derivation 0 version. Again comparing gray rows. the stopping criteria for a run is the maximum number of function evaluations. 6 shows simulation methodology. is varied from 1 to 20 (in increments of 1) in presence of six primary users at various SINRL thresholds.8284 2364. On the other hand.21 5.03 6. Table 2 Maximum fitness using a decreased inertia weight w.91 5.8834 2342.1084 2347.54 5.5843 2370.33 8.2 are the lower and upper bounds of w [34]. Fig. Table 2 shows the best runs with maximum fitness for an experiment but decreasing the inertia weight w with iterations.36 7. Á.5652 2363. SCPSO can accommodate the same number of secondary links but in the noisiest environment than BPSO.38 7.9257 2367.0574 2316.51 8.26 6. c) allocate channels to primary links and the set of selected secondary links and finally d) evaluate the SINR level at primary and secondary links.98 4.5075 2356.58 7. Both versions can accommodate the same number of secondary links but SCPSO can do it faster than BPSO.9004 2328.721 and others using a decreasing value of w with iterations where wlow = 0.39 6. Martínez-Vargas.94 Regarding to parameters for the variants of PSO algorithms.3203 2347.58 5. Results in Table 1 and Table 2 are superior than reported in [8] with 8 secondary links coexisting with 6 primary links.96 7.8778 2312.849 2317. Then 30 independent runs are taken at each experiment. Table 1 resumes the best runs at each experiment using the three variants of PSO. The number of secondary links Sl.34 7.1230 A. this is called an experiment. In contrast.0742 10 11 12 10 10 11 10 10 10 11 9 9 10 9 9 7.06 8. Contrasting gray rows. Derivation 0 version can converge faster but it has two disadvantages: it is the most costly computationally and its fitness is low compared to the other versions of PSO.14 6. keeping fixed inertia weight w through iterations.0614 2312. our approach is able to: a) figure out the maximum data rate in the system. Another fact from Table 1 is that BPSO can select more secondary links in a noisy environment than SCPSO.6554 2350.04 7.7205 2313.8011 2327.40 .9692 2352.80 6. BPSO has the maximum fitness at SINRL = 10 dB and also can accommodate a larger number of secondary links but it is costly computationally.59 8. b) select the set of secondary links which can coexist peacefully with primary links.55 5.64 5.4679 11 11 11 10 9 9 11 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 9 7. Contrasting BPSO and SCPSO gray rows. there is not work that formulates and solves the Spectrum Underlay Problem as we do. Algorithm The best runs with maximum fitness Number of secondary links Fitness (Mbps) Selected secondary links Run time (min) Number of algorithm iterations to achieve the goal 2846 1837 3535 1737 1865 3305 3793 3072 296 181 2005 3673 2257 2570 3873 *BPSO 6 dB BPSO 8 dB BPSO 10 dB BPSO 12 dB BPSO 14 dB SCPSO 6 dB SCPSO 8 dB SCPSO 10 dB SCPSO 12 dB *SCPSO 14 dB Derivation 6 dB Derivation 8 dB *Derivation 10 dB Derivation 12 dB Derivation 14 dB 17 16 18 12 16 18 18 18 16 18 18 18 16 17 17 2385. it is observed that there is no significant difference between SCPSO and BPSO solutions.7979 2341.

Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1231 Fig. Average fitness shows that BPSO seems to perform better in terms of fitness criterion. 7.G. The average computational time for a run when the size of secondary links is varied in the system using a fixed inertia weight w and a SINRL = 6 dB is shown in Fig. considering average fitness. From Fig. 8. Fig. Again. 9 shows that computational time increases almost linearly with the number of secondary links for the variants of PSO.A. Similarly. It is clear from Fig. 8. Convergence of best and average fitness values as a function of iterations for the best runs with maximum fitness presented in Table 1 in gray rows is shown in Fig. it is clear that BPSO and Derivation 0 perform better compared to SCPSO. 9. Fig. Convergence of best and average fitness for the variants of PSO using a decreased inertia weight w. Martínez-Vargas. Á. In a similar way. Also. 9 that the average computational time for a run using SCPSO is low compared to the other versions of PSO. Fig. 10 shows average computational time for a run using a decreased inertia weight w. 7. Convergence of best and average fitness for the variants of PSO using a fixed inertia weight w. . Fig. 8 depicts convergence of best and average fitness for maximum fitness shown in Table 2 in gray rows.

Á. . Variation of computational time for the variants of PSO using a decreased inertia weight w. however.1232 A. one disadvantage of this method is that once the inertia weight is decreased. SCPSO has the lower computational time than the other versions of PSO. Commonly. inertia weight parameter w. In our results. 9.G. [37]) has produced good results in many applications. keeping a fixed inertia weight is less costly computationally than Fig. contrasting Fig. controls the exploration of the search space. Martínez-Vargas. the swarm loses its ability to search new areas because it is not able to recover its exploration mode. therefore an initially higher value allows the particles to move freely in order to find the global optimum neighborhood fast. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 Fig. 9 and Fig. Variation of computational time for the variants of PSO using a fixed inertia weight w. Essentially. a linearly decreasing inertia weight (first introduced in [36]. The lower computational time for SCPSO is due to velocity and position update equations which processes are less complex than BPSO and Derivation 0. 10. 10.

T. H. M. Computational time increases linearly with the number of secondary links in the system for the versions of PSO. 2010.J. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13 (2009) 128–150. Power Control for Spectrum Sharing Cognitive Radio Networks. NY. Karaboga. USA. B.and co-tier interference constraints.S. Velocity. Á. however we achieve better results when we considered linearly decreasing inertia weight than keeping fixed. Atakan. References [1] M. Essentials of Modern Spectrum Management. D. Tadrous. MA. and Mixed. Evolutionary algorithms for radio resource management in cognitive radio network. like GA-PSO or the adaptation of PSO parameters (adaptive PSO). Laur. IEEE.S.G. Hong Ji. X. Dorigo. There are some issues to be addressed in our future work. U. Yang. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2012 (2012) 28. R. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 8 (2004) 256–279. The computational time for SCPSO is the lowest compared to other variants of PSO. Cave. in: 1st IEEE Workshop on Networking Technologies for Software Defined Radio Networks. IEEE. Genetic Algorithms in Search. IEEE Transactions On 6 (2007) 423–433. 2010. Waheed. Mohagheghi. Networking and Mobile Computing. [8] Y. Kennedy. Chetan N. From the numerical results. 6. Khoshkholgh. [15] D.T. Ant Colony Optimization. in: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Technology and Policy for Accessing Spectrum. Lechuga. Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. SDR’06. New York. P.S. Navaie. Kwok Hung Li. Comparative Analysis of Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization Techniques. 1989. Tenhula. 2009 IEEE 28th International. Proceedings. Signal Processing Magazine. 1995. However. Coello. P. to compare our presented results or outperform the conventional PSO in both the final solution and the simulation runtime. closer to BPSO. computational time for SCPSO increases. A modified Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm for constrained optimization problems. USA. J. 2008.L. Kah Chan Teh. in this context. [11] Yiping Xing. Spectral Occupancy and Interference Studies in support of Cognitive Radio Technology Deployment.G. G. [23] Li Yu. 1st ed. SCPSO has the best found solutions taking into account fitness and number of selected secondary links. 2007. Sultan.M. we also show the influence of inertia weight w in the particle’s fitness.-D. K. Hernandez. it is desirable to study in more detail the parameters fine-tuning required by the algorithm applied on other related optimization problems. IEEE. Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 3021–3031. G. G. Optimization of Power Allocation for Interference Cancellation With Particle Swarm Optimization.. pp. Subbalakshmi. pp.A. M. 2006: pp. [6] Qing Zhao. IEEE 24 (2007) 79–89.P.g. IEEE Transactions On 7 (2008) 4010–4018.. [2] M. [5] P. When w is decreased with iterations. Harley. it is worth modeling our current problem as a multi-objective optimization problem (MOPSO: Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization) in order to achieve simultaneously several objectives and analyze this trade-off. Akay. Hood. B. Wireless Communications. 1995: pp.4. Dynamic Spectrum Access with QoS and Interference Temperature Constraints. M. When w is decreased with iterations. C. Akan. 2010 International Conference on Green Circuits and Systems (ICGCS). Cong Liu. 767–771. Anni Cai. ACM. A Survey of Dynamic Spectrum Access. Liu.J. since it is observed from simulation that obtain the maximum sum throughput in the system does not mean to have the maximum number of admitted secondary links to the network. Yanikomeroglu. 2006. Wu.. Admission. International Journal of Computer Applications 5 (2010) 1–6. in: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems (ICCS). Zhou. Coexistence of primary users and secondary users under interference temperature and SINR limit. Li. hybrid versions of PSO incorporate capabilities of other evolutionary computation techniques. Jafar. position update and inertia weight w affect the performance of algorithm significantly. 1–4. Spectrum allocation algorithm in cognitive ad-hoc networks with high energy efficiency. D. Also. [17] F. A survey on bio-inspired networking. C. MacDonald. A.. [19] J. W. Ser Wah Oh.. Chandramouli. Particle swarm optimization: basic concepts.g. pp. Umarani. We have developed a solution procedure based on binary particle swarm optimization algorithm that has been numerically evaluated and shown to produce closerto-optimal results previously known ones and with less complexity. Pulido. [7] L.-C. Inc. K. Webb. [25] Wei Fei. Selvi. Boston. Advances in cognitive radio networks: A survey.F. Massachusetts. IEEE International Conference On. Applied Mathematics and Computation 214 (2009) 108–132. Sadler. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 5 (2011) 5–23. Enhanced BIOlogicallyinspired Spectrum Sharing for cognitive radio networks. [18] D. and thereby wireless commercial operators quantify its effects on the system capacity in terms of sum throughput and the number of admitted secondary links to share spectrum with primary users. [21] K. Doyle. R. B. Cambridge University Press. Weitkemper. Conclusions and future work Our aim in this paper is to compare the performance of three variants of PSO to maximize the sum throughput for the number of secondary links. 9 and Fig. On the other hand. Marshall. it is possible implementing some variants of the PSO algorithm. [10] M. WiCOM’08. Journal of Electron 26 (2009) 303–311 (China). 10. 1–4. Cambridge. Yang Zhen. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 12 (2008) 171–195.WCNC 2007. Nafie. [14] D. [20] C. Zielinski. O. O. 2007.K. The main purpose of our proposed solution is to provide a helpful tool for analyzing heterogeneous networks planning with cross. Roberson. 2010 IEEE Symposium On. IEEE.. [9] S. Akan. Onunkwo. Firstly. BPSO can accommodate a larger number of secondary links coexisting peacefully with primary links and it has also the maximum throughput in the system but it is the most costly considering computational time.T.. For example. MIT press. Lu. [16] M. Hood.B. R. 2006. Kolodzy. These results can serve as design guidelines for successful deployment of secondary/cognitive networks (e. Underlay. D. Z. e.R. Karaboga. 2004. [27] B. 1942–1948 vol. LoCicero. J. K. variants and applications in power systems. derivation 0 performance is low compared to other variants of PSO. Wenyu Hu. K. pp. A comparative study of Artificial Bee Colony algorithm.A. in: New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum. S. pp.C. Derivation 0 has a high computational time. 2007. keeping a fixed value w and decreasing it with iterations. A Potential Alliance for World-Wide Dynamic Spectrum Access. [24] M. Additionally. An ACO Algorithm for Sum-Rate Maximization Problem in Opportunistic Spectrum Allocation. in: Wireless Communications and Networking Conference. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 1233 using a decreased inertia weight in all variants of PSO. Ten years of research in spectrum sensing and sharing in cognitive radio. 431–436. 26–35. 2010. Srinivasa. Stützle. Optimization and Machine Learning. SCPSO presents the lower computational time for both cases. it is observed that. Mobile Computing. Mobile Computing. Venayagamoorthy. Access Strategies for Spectrum Sharing in Fading Environment: Overlay. Chicago spectrum occupancy measurements & analysis and a long-term studies proposal. Biologically-Inspired Distributed Spectrum Access for Cognitive Radio Network. J. IEEE. [4] Beibei Wang. 43–48. Martínez-Vargas. del Valle. P. Particle swarm optimization. C. LTE-advanced femtocells) overlaid on primary or macrocells networks with multiple users. BPSO increases computational time. Roberson. [26] Xu Mao. we found that our approach was highly sensitive to the values of such inertia weights). IEEE. in: 2010 6th International Conference on Wireless Communications Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM). S.A. [3] D. it can be observed in Fig. Finally. Akay. McHenry.B. For that we perform a fine-tuning on the inertia weights used by the expression adopted to compute the velocity of each particle (in our experiments. pp. Haleem. 1–4. [28] Guangfu Li. in: 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications. IEEE (2010) 349–354. Mathur.A. [13] V. There is no a significant difference between solutions obtained by BPSO and SCPSO. which can peacefully coexist with primary links in a cognitive network under interference constraints. In general. . How much spectrum sharing is optimal in cognitive radio networks?. Dressler. Computer Networks 54 (2010) 881–900. in: Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC).E. Goldberg. considering its best solutions.. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 10 (2011) 1945–1955. 2008. size of the swarm population. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. [22] Y. IEEE Transactions On 9 (2010) 1780–1793. BIOlogically-Inspired Spectrum Sharing in Cognitive Radio Networks. the computation time is not a critical issue. Kammeyer. After BPSO. [12] J. 2009. in: Neural Networks. Eberhart.A. 1st ed.G.Y.A.. McCloskey. R.A.

Kennedy. Á. Dorigo. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation. Telecommunications Policy 33 (2009) 407–421. M. Parsopoulos. 1997 IEEE International Conference On. Andrade / Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 1222–1234 [33] J. 1999. CEC 99. [31] K. 1st ed. 5. M.. Nickabadi. H. Swarm Intelligence From Natural to Artificial Systems.1234 A. 2008. 2010. in: Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology.C. Yoon. [35] A. p.C. and Cybernetics. R. . J.G. IGI Global. Oxford University Press. and mathematical insights. pp. Martínez-Vargas. 1999. Particle Swarm Optimization and Intelligence: Advances and Applications. Binary Particle Swarm Optimisers: toolbox. Eberhart. derivations.C. A novel particle swarm optimization algorithm with adaptive inertia weight. Shi. Eberhart. R. [37] Y. 1st ed. R. vol. pp. [34] K. Theraulaz. ICETET’08. 1997.C. 2008.. 1997.. Safabakhsh. Shi. A mixed spectrum management framework for the future wireless service based on techno-economic analysis: The Korean spectrum policy study. 3. Eberhart. 1999.. Bonabeau. in: Systems.E. Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 3658–3670. [29] E.M. Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. R. Hwang. 2005. Bansal. 355–360. (xxxvii + 2348). in: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Clerc. A Socio-Cognitive Particle Swarm Optimization for MultiDimensional Knapsack Problem. 4104–4108. [30] J. [32] M. A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm.. USA. Deep. G. [36] Y. Man. Ebadzadeh. First International Conference On. vol. Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization 160 (1998) 591–600.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->