IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO.
7, JULY 2013
Randomized Masking in Cognitive Radio Networks
Kamyar Moshksar, Member, IEEE, and Amir K. Khandani, Member, IEEE
Abstract—A decentralized network of one Primary User (PU)
and several Secondary Users (SU) is studied. PU is licensed to
exploit the resources, while the party of SUs intend to share the
resources with PU. Each SU must guarantee to not disturb the
performance of PU beyond a certain level, while maintaining
a satisfactory quality of service for itself. It is proposed that
each secondary transmitter adopts a Randomized Masking (RM)
strategy with full average transmission power where it remains
silent or transmits a symbol in its codeword independently from
transmission slot to transmission slot. We consider a setup where
the primary transmitter is unaware of channel coefficients, code-
books of secondary users and the number of secondary users.
SUs are anonymous to each other, i.e, they are unaware of each
others’ code-books, however, each SU is smart in the sense that
it is aware of the code-book of PU, channel coefficients and
the number of active SUs. Invoking the concept of ε-outage
capacity, we define the (ε, ν)-admissible region as the set of
masking probabilities for each SU such that the probability of
outage for PU is maintained under a threshold ε in a case where
PU sets its transmission rate at a fraction ν of its ε-outage
capacity as if there were no SUs in the network. The masking
probability of SUs is designed through maximizing the average
(with respect to channel coefficients) achievable rate per SU over
the (ε, ν)-admissible region. In our analysis, the primary receiver
treats interference as noise, however, each secondary receiver
has the option to decode and cancel the interference caused by
PU, while treating the signals of other SUs as noise. In another
approach, referred to as Continuous Transmission with Power
Control (CTPC), each SU transmits continuously (no masking is
applied), however, it adjusts its transmission power in order to
yield the largest value for average achievable rate per SU. The
schemes RM and CTPC are compared for different values of
transmission power for each SU and PU and distance between
different users. It is observed that neither of RM or CTPC
always outperforms the other in various scenarios in terms of the
underlying system parameters. A combination of RM and CTPC
referred to as Randomized Masking with Power Control (RMPC)
is also investigated where each SU controls both its probability
of masking and average transmission power. It is demonstrated
through simulations that RMPC can outperform both RM and
CTPC.
Index Terms—Cognitive radio, decentralized resource alloca-
tion, outage capacity, power control, randomized masking.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Related Work
I NCREASING demand for wireless applications on one
hand, and the limited available resources on the other hand,
provoke more efficient usage of such resources. Due to its
Manuscript received June 30, 2012; revised February 18, 2013. The editor
coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was E.
Larsson.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada (e-mail:
kmoshksa@uwaterloo.ca, khandani@shannon2.uwaterloo.ca).
A preliminary version of this paper was presented in Asilomar Conference
on Signals, Systems and Computers, Asilomar 2011. See [28].
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCOMM.2013.050813.120450
0090-6778/13$31.00 
c 2013 IEEE
2635
significance, many researchers have addressed the problem of
resource allocation in wireless networks. One major challenge
in wireless networks is the destructive effect of multiuser
interference, which degrades the performance when multiple
users share the spectrum. As such, an efficient and low com-
plexity resource allocation scheme that maximizes the quality
of service and mitigates the impact of multiuser interference
is desirable. Due to the complexity of adapting to the network
structure (e.g. number of active users), centralized resource
allocation schemes are usually designed for a fixed network
structure. This makes inefficient usage of resources because,
in most cases, the number of active users may be considerably
less than the value assumed in the design process. Therefore,
it is of interest to devise an efficient and low-complexity
decentralized resource allocation scheme. In decentralized
schemes, decisions concerning network resources are made
by individual nodes based on their local information. Most of
decentralized schemes reported in the literature rely on either
game-theoretic approaches or cognitive radios.
Distributed strategies based on game-theoretic arguments
have already attracted a great deal of attention [1]–[4]. In
[1], the authors introduce a non-cooperative game-theoretic
framework to investigate the spectral efficiency issue when
several users compete over an unlicensed band with no central
controller. Reference [2] offers a brief overview of game-
theoretic dynamic spectrum sharing. Repeated non-cooperstive
market game methods are adopted in [3] for resource alloca-
tion in a decentralized network. In [4] the interaction between
multiple random access networks has been considered from
a game-theoretic point of view. Another scenario is sharing
the spectrum by a certain number of users competing over
a certain open bandwidth [5]–[8]. In [7], through an asyn-
chronous distributed pricing scheme, users exchange signals
that indicate the negative effect of interference at the receivers.
In [8], users affected by the mobility event, self-organize into
bargaining groups and adapt their spectrum assignment to
approximate a new optimal assignment.
Cognitive radios [9] are flexible devices that have the ability
to sense the unoccupied portion of the available spectrum
and use this information in resource allocation. In its prime
definition, a cognitive transmitter (also known as SU) was
assumed to only transmit over the white-spaces, i.e., the
cognitive transmitter remains inactive until the so-called PUs
become silent. The model suggested in [10] is a landmark
in the literature on cognitive radios where it is proposed
that in order to start its transmission, a cognitive transmitter
does not need to wait for PU to become idle. In fact, the
cognitive transmitter can transmit simultaneously with PU as
long as it adopts an elegant transmission scheme and designs
its code-book properly. In [10] the network of one PU and one
2636
cognitive user is modelled by a two-user Interference Channel
(IC) such that the cognitive user is aware of the message of
PU. Two scenarios are considered, referred to as non-causal
and causal cognitive networks.
In the non-causal case, the cognitive transmitter is aware
of PU’s message non-causally through the aid of a “genie”.
In this case, a combined signaling strategy is proposed by
invoking Gel’fand-Pinker Coding [11] (or its counterpart in
the Gaussian IC called Dirty Paper Coding (DPC) [12]) and
the Han-Kobayashi scheme [13] that is commonly used in
ICs. In fact, the cognitive transmitter utilizes its knowledge of
PU’s message to mitigate the interference on its receiver, while
relaying a replica of PU’s message to the primary receiver.
In the causal case, users go through two different phases.
In phase I, the cognitive transmitter is in the “listening mode”
where it discovers the message of PU as PU broadcasts its
message to its receiver and the cognitive transmitter. In phase
II, the cognitive transmitter proceeds as in the non-causal case.
Following the model proposed in [10], the authors in [14]
find the largest achievable rate for the cognitive user under the
following conditions:
• The primary transmitter must achieve a transmission rate
as large as the capacity of its direct link as if the cognitive
user was inactive.
• PU does not perform multiuser decoding, i.e., PU is
unaware of SU’s code-book.
This is an interesting setup in the sense that it is in agreement
with more realistic scenarios, because one may not expect any
cooperation between the primary and cognitive users. How-
ever, the assumption that the cognitive user is aware of PU’s
message non-causally still demands some sort of cooperation
between the two users. In some scenarios if one can justify
that the message sent by PU is delayed along its direct link,
then it is reasonable to assume that the cognitive transmitter
can discover PU’s message before it is received at the primary
receiver. Note that the observation made in [14] is a capacity
result only in the weak interference regime where the cognitive
transmitter is closer to its affiliated receiver than the primary
receiver. In fact, it is shown that multiuser decoding at the
primary receiver does not improve the set of achievable rates
attained by the users. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that
interference decoding at the primary receiver can improve the
set of achievable rates in the strong interference regime.
The result in [14] is also observed in a more general setup
in a concurrent paper [15] where the authors look at the
cognitive IC as a special case of an IC with Degraded Message
Sets (IC-DMS). The capacity region of IC-DMS in the strong
interference regime is studied in [16], [17].
Motivated by the fact that SUs must attempt to not disturb
the performance of PUs, a novel approach is taken in [18]
where the capacity region of wireless networks is studied
under constraints on the received Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
rather than constraints on the power at the transmitters. The
results in [18] are applied to fading environments in [19].
Cognitive ICs with more than one cognitive user have rarely
been studies. Reference [20] considers a cognitive IC with
several cognitive users. Adopting a coding technique based
on nested lattices [21], it is established that in the strong
interference regime, it is possible for all users to achieve rates
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013
as if the other users were absent. Some restrictive assump-
tions are made to simplify the presentation, e.g., the channel
coefficients are symmetric and the cognitive users do not
interfere with each other. Also, [22] studies the SNR scaling
of sum rate in an IC with multiple users where each cognitive
transmitter only knows the messages of other surrounding
cognitive transmitters that are located in its vicinity. The so-
called clustered local processing is allowed at the receivers
where each receiver has access to the signals received by the
nearby users.
B. Contributions
Before proceeding to this section, let us provide a list of
notations used throughout the paper:
Notations- The set of real numbers is shown by R. Random
quantities are shown in bold such as x with realization x.
Vectors are shown by an arrow on top such as x. The transpose
of a vector x is denoted by x t . The probability of an event
E is shown by P(E). The Probability Density Function (PDF)
and the expectation of a random variable x are shown by px (·)
and E[x], respectively. The differential entropy of a continuous
random variable x is denoted by h(x). The mutual information
between two random variables x and y is shown by I(x; y).
The binary entropy function is shown by hb (x)  −x log x −
(1 − x) log(1 − x) for x ∈ [0, 1]. A Bernoulli random variable
x taking values in {0, 1} such that P(x = 1) = a is shown
by Ber(a). A uniform random variable x taking values in the
interval [a, b] for a, b ∈ R is shown by Unif(a, b). A circularly
symmetric Gaussian random variable x with zero mean and
variance σ 2 is shown by CN(0, σ 2 ). The PDF of this Gaussian
|x|2
random variable is denoted by ϕ(x; σ 2 )  πσ1 2 e− σ2 . A real
Gaussian random variable x with zero mean and variance σ 2 is
shown by N(0, σ 2 ). Throughout the paper, C(x)  log(1 + x).
We consider a network of one PU and several SUs modelled
by a Gaussian IC. We assume the number of SUs is fixed along
the communication period of interest once it is set first. PU is
ignorant in the sense that
• The primary transmitter is unaware of channel coeffi-
cients .
• The primary transmitter is unaware of the number of SUs.
• PU is unaware of the code-book of each SU.
Each SU is smart in the sense that
• It is aware of the code-book of PU.
• It is aware of the number of SUs.
• It is aware of its direct channel coefficient and the coeffi-
cient of channels connecting other secondary transmitters
and the primary transmitter to its receiver.
Note that we only assume each SU is aware of PU’s
code-book and not its message. This is in contrast to the
assumption made in some literature on non-causal cognitive
radios where the secondary transmitter is aware of PU’s
message. Therefore, in the setup considered in this paper, the
secondary transmitters are unable to perform DPC, however,
the secondary receivers are capable of multiuser decoding.
This paper studies a decentralized cognitive IC where SUs
sneak into the network and have to make sure that PU’s
performance is always maintained at a satisfactory level,
while the quality of service per SU is convincing as well.
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS
It is proposed that each secondary transmitter follows the
Randomized Masking (RM) scheme [26] with full average
transmission power where it transmits a Gaussian symbol in
its codeword with a probability of θ or remains silent with
a probability of 1 − θ independently from transmission slot
to transmission slot. The parameter θ is called the activity
factor for each SU. This is to provide PU with a partially
interference-free reception. It is worth mentioning that the RM
scheme in [26] is proposed as a means of coexistence in a
decentralized network of several users with no hierarchy. In
fact, users are all similar and they are not grouped as primary
and secondary users. In this work the design of θ is not solely
based on improving the performance of SUs. Controlling the
level of quality of service for PU is also an important factor
in designing θ.
Throughout the paper, PU is labeled as user 1 and its actual
transmission rate is denoted by R1 . The primary receiver treats
interference as noise, because it is unaware of the code-book of
SUs. However, each secondary receiver has two options, i.e.,
it can treat the whole interference as noise or it can perform
multiuser decoding by jointly decoding its message and the
message of PU while treating other SUs as additive noise.
Assume there are K secondary users labeled as user 2 to
user K + 1. We refer to the SUs by SU1 , · · · , SUK with
actual transmission rates R2 , · · · , RK+1 , respectively. The
static and non frequency-selective channel coefficient from
f
each transmitter to each receiver is given by 1+d α . Here, f is a
realization of a CN(0, 1) random variable f , the parameter 2α
is called the path loss exponent and d is the distance between
the transmitter and receiver which is a realization of a uniform
random variable d to be specified in section II. We emphasize
that the distances between any transmitter and any receiver
are not necessarily the same. Note that the proposed model
1
for channel coefficients depends on distance as 1+d α and is
known as the bounded path loss model [27]. This is in contrast
to d1α which is the model often adopted in literature.
The primary transmitter continuously transmits the Gaus-
sian symbols in its codewords. Since the primary transmitter
is unaware of the channel coefficients and the number of SUs,
outage probability is an appropriate measure to assess quality
of service for this user. Let cε be the largest transmission rate
for PU such that its probability of outage in the absence of
SUs is ε. We require the activity factor θ per SU be such
that the probability of outage for PU is less than the same
threshold ε if PU sets its actual transmission rate at R1 = νcε
for some ν ∈ (0, 1) in the presence of SUs. In practice, ν
must be selected close to 1 to guarantee that the quality of
service for PU is only slightly degraded. Let us define the
(RM)
(ε, ν)-admissible region Aε,ν by
 
A(RM)
ε,ν  θ : P(R 1 < R1 ) < ε ,
where R 1 is an achievable rate for PU. Note that R  1 is a
function of the number of SUs and the channel coefficients
and hence, it is a random variable as long as the primary
transmitter is concerned. The inequality P(R  1 < R1 ) < ε
ensures that the probability of PU being in outage is less than
2637
ε. In fact, if I 1 is the largest achievable rate1 of PU, the outage
event for PU happens if the actual transmission rate R1 of PU
is larger that I 1 , i.e., I 1 < R1 . Since R  1 ≤ I 1 , we have

P(I 1 < R1 ) ≤ P(R1 < R1 ) < ε. Therefore, P(I 1 < R1 ) is
guaranteed to be less than ε.
For any 2 ≤ k ≤ K + 1, let Rk be the set of all tuples
(R1 , Rk ) such that at least one of the following happens:
• The rate tuple (R1 , Rk ) is in the capacity region of
the Multiple Access Channel (MAC) consisting of the
primary transmitter, the transmitter of SUk−1 and the
receiver of SUk−1 .
• The transmission rate Rk is achievable for SUk−1 if
SUk−1 treats the whole interference as noise regardless
of the value of R1 .
We define Rk by
Rk  sup{Rk : (R1 , Rk ) ∈ Rk }.
As channel coefficients are realizations of independent
random variables with known distributions and noting that
each Rk is a function of the number of SUs and the channel
coefficients, Rk can be thought as a realization of a random
variable Rk . Thereafter, the activity factor θ is selected based
on the rule  
θ = arg max E Rk ,
(RM)
θ∈Aε,ν
where the expectation is with respect to the channel coeffi-
cients. This design procedure is known as maximizing average
achievable rate per SU over the admissible region and is
completely distributed, i.e., the resulting θ is computable by
all SUs. Finally, SUk−1 sets its actual transmission rate at
Rk = Rk θ=θ.
We also examine an alternative to the RM scheme called
Continuous Transmission with Power Control (CTPC). In this
approach, each secondary transmitter continuously transmits
(no masking is applied), however, the average transmission
power for SU is adjusted such that the average (with respect
to channel coefficients) transmission rate per SU is maximized,
while keeping the probability of outage for PU below the
threshold ε. It is demonstrated through extended simulations
in section V that none of the RM and CTPC schemes offers a
better performance than the other universally for all different
values of the underlying system parameters. The possibility
of combining RM and CTPC into one single scheme is also
considered where the average transmission power and the
masking probability per SU are both optimized in the design
process. This is referred to as Randomized Masking with
Power control (RMPC). It is demonstrated that RMPC can
offer an improvement over the performances of both RM and
CTPC.
It is remarkable that CTPC is already studied in a number
of valuable papers including [23], [24] and the references
therein. The authors in [23] consider optimal power allocation
in a network of one PU and one SU where SU is aware of
all channel coefficients from the two transmitters to the two
receivers. The so-called ergodic and outage capacities for SU
are maximized under a constraint on the probability of outage
1 I is the largest transmission rate for PU such that reliable decoding
1
at PU’s receiver is guaranteed under maximum likelihood decoding and
sufficiently large code block length.
2638 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013

for PU and average or peak power constraints at the secondary

transmitter. Invoking convex optimization techniques, it is
shown how SU regulates its transmission power depending on
the channel state information. In contrast to [23], the current
paper studies a scenario with an arbitrary number of SUs Dps
where each SU has only partial knowledge over channel coef-
Tx1
ficients. Moreover, SUs can perform interference cancellation,
Rx2
while in [23] all receivers treat interference as noise. The
Rx3
idea of multiuser decoding and interference cancellation also
appears in [24] where the authors consider the performance of
Tx3 Tx2
iterative water-filling algorithm [25] in a multi-carrier based PU
two-user interference channel. Rx1

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND A SSUMPTIONS Dss

We consider a wireless communication network consisting (a) Dss < Dps

of one primary and a number K of secondary transmitter-
receiver pairs. We label PU as user 1 and the SUs as user 2 to
user K + 1. The SUs are referred to by SU1 , · · · , SUK . The
static and non-frequency selective channel coefficient from the Tx1

transmitter of user k to the receiver of user l is denoted by Tx2

hk,l given by Rx2

fk,l PU
hk,l  , d1,1 = 0, (1) Rx1
1 + dαk,l Rx3

for any 1 ≤ k, l ≤ K + 1 where fk,l is a realization of

Tx3
a random variable f k,l ∼ CN(0, 1) representing the fading
coefficient2 and dk,l is a realization of a random variable dk,l
representing the distance between the transmitter of user k
and the receiver of user l. The parameter α can be set as any
Dps
nonnegative real number. The quantity 2α is referred to as the
path loss exponent. The collection of fading random variables (b) Dss = Dps
is independent of the collection of distance random variables.
Fig. 1. Two snapshots of a network with one PU and K = 3 SUs. The two
Note that PU’s receiver is assumed to be close enough to ends of PU are assumed to be sufficiently close so that the effect of path loss
PU’s transmitter such that the path loss effect is neglected, from primary transmitter to primary receiver is negligible.
i.e., fading is the only important factor in modelling the direct
link of PU3 . From PU’s point of view, the random variables
dk,1 are independent Unif(0, Dps ) random variables for any and
k > 1 and from SUk−1 ’s point of view, d1,k ∼ Unif(0, Dps ) (K)

K+1

and dl,k are independent Unif(0, Dss ) random variables for gk\1  |hl,k |2 , k ≥ 2. (4)
any k, l > 1. Fig. 1 depicts two snapshots of a network for l=2,l=k

Dps > Dss and Dps = Dss . The code-book of user k consists
Denoting the transmitted signal of user k in a typical
of 2T Rk  random Gaussian codewords. User k transmits a
transmission slot by xk , the signal received at the receiver
codeword in T consecutive transmission slots, referred to as a
of user k is given by
block. Hence, the transmission rate of user k becomes Rk as
T tends to infinity. Each SU is capable of synchronizing itself
K+1
with PU at the symbol and block level. As such, the K + 1 y k = hk,k xk + hl,k xl + z k . (5)
transmitter-receiver pairs represent a slotted and synchronous l=1,l=k
Gaussian IC. Throughout the paper, hk is a vector that contains
the channel coefficients related to user k, i.e., The random variable z k ∼ CN(0, 1) is the ambient noise at
  the receiver side of user k. We show the average transmission
hk  h1,k · · · hK+1,k t . (2) powers for PU and each SU by Qp and Qs , respectively. The
signal xk must satisfy the power constraint
We also define
   

K+1 E |x1 |2 = Qp ≤ Pp , E |xk |2 = Qs ≤ Ps , 2 ≤ k ≤ K+1.
(K)
gk  |hl,k |2 , k ≥ 1 (3) (6)
l=1,l=k PU is ignorant in the sense that
2 Note that |f k,l | is a Rayleigh random variable.
• It is not aware of the code-book of each SU.
3 This assumption is adopted merely to simplify the calculations related to • The primary transmitter is unaware of the presence of
probability of outage in section V and can be easily relaxed. SUs, i.e., K is unknown to PU.
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS 2639

• The primary transmitter is unaware of hk,1 for 1 ≤ k ≤ Any rate R1 in the range
K+1. However, the primary receiver is aware of the value
of K and the channel coefficients hk,1 for 1 ≤ k ≤ K +1. R1 < I(x1 ; y 1 ) (9)
PU transmits with full power Qp = Pp , i.e., x1 is a CN(0, Pp )
is achievable for PU in the conventional sense [29]. Let us
random variable that represents a symbol in a codeword of PU.
denote the noise plus interference at the primary receiver by
This is an optimal scheme for PU in the absence of SUs.
w 1 , i.e.,
Moreover, each SU is smart in the sense that
• It is aware of PU’s code-book. However, it does not know

K+1
w1  hk,1 ak sk + z 1 . (10)
the codeword transmitted by the primary transmitter in k=2
the current block. Also, SUs are anonymous to each other,
i.e., they are unaware of each others’ code-books. Since w1 is a circularly symmetric complex mixed Gaussian
• It is aware of the number K of active SUs in the network. random variable, the quantity I(x1 ; y 1 ) has no closed ex-
• For any 2 ≤ k ≤ K + 1, SUk−1 is only aware of hl,k pression. However, we are able to develop a lower bound on
for all 1 ≤ l ≤ K + 1. I(x1 ; y 1 ). The following Lemma is essential to this purpose:
In appendix C, we describe how each receiver in the
network can estimate the number of SUs and the channel Lemma 1 Let u and v be independent random variables
gains. where u is a CN(0, σ 2 ) random variable and v is a zero-
Next, we describe the RM scheme that enables SUs to mean circularly symmetric complex mixed Gaussian random

L
coexist and control the amount of interference imposed on variable such
 that p v (v) = p
l=1 l ϕ(v; σl2 ) andσ1 < · · · <
PU. 2
σL . Then C 
L 2
σ
2p1 2(1−p1 ) L −p
 is a lower
min l=1 pl σl ,σ1 σL Πl=1 pl l
III. R ANDOMIZED M ASKING AT THE S ECONDARY bound on I(u; u + v).
T RANSMITTERS
A. Randomized Masking Proof: See appendix A.

2
Motivated by randomized resource allocation schemes in- In the context of Lemma 1, let pw1 (w) = L l=1 pl ϕ(w; σl )
troduced in [26], SUs follow a Randomized Masking (RM) where σ1 < · · · < σL . Note that the coefficients hk,1 in
scheme with average transmission power Qs ≤ Ps where the expression of w1 are realizations of independent and
each SU transmits a Gaussian symbol of power Qθs in its continuous random variables. Hence, the number of Gaussian
codeword with a probability of θ ∈ (0, 1) and remains silent components in the PDF of w1 is L = 2K almost surely.
with a probability of 1 − θ independently from transmission These different Gaussian components correspond to different
slot to transmission slot. As such, only a fraction θ of T realizations of the Bernoulli random variables ak for 2 ≤ k ≤
Gaussian symbols in a randomly generated codeword are K +1. Therefore, the probabilities p1 , · · · , p2K are exactly the
 − θ)
numbers θi (1 for 0 ≤ i ≤ K where θi (1 − θ)K−i is
K−i
transmitted in a block of T consecutive transmission slots.
The parameter θ is called the activity factor of SUs. Hence, repeated i times among the numbers p1 , · · · , p2K for each
K

for any 2 ≤ k ≤ K + 1, i. This yields

xk = ak sk (7) 2

K
K

where ak and sk are Ber(θ) and CN(0, Qθs ) random variables, log Π2l=1 p−p
l
l
=− pl log pl
l=1
respectively. We assume the receiver of SUk−1 is aware of ak ,
K  

i.e., the masking pattern applied by its associated transmitter is K
= − θi (1 − θ)K−i log(θi (1 − θ)K−i )
already revealed to the receiver of SUk−1 . Each SU is unaware i
i=0
of the masking pattern of other SUs. In appendix C, it is shown K  
that if a secondary receiver is not aware of the masking pattern K i
= − log θ i θ (1 − θ)K−i
of its affiliated transmitter, it still can decode its message, i=0
i
however, this lack of knowledge is at the cost of a loss of at
K  
most 1 bits/sec/hz in its achievable rate. K i
− log(1 − θ) (K − i) θ (1 − θ)K−i
i=0
i
B. An Achievable Rate Region (a)
= −Kθ log θ − K(1 − θ) log(1 − θ)
Since PU is unaware of the code-books of SUs, multiuser
(b)
decoding is not performed at the primary receiver, i.e., the = Khb (θ), (11)
primary receiver treats the signals transmitted by the secondary K  i

K
transmitters as additive noise. However, each secondary trans- where (a) follows by the fact that i=0 i i θ (1 − θ)K−i =
mitter has the choice to perform multiuser decoding (decoding Kθ and (b) is by definition of the binary entropy function hb (·)
its own message and the message of PU), while treating other presented in Notations in section I. The smallest and largest
SUs as additive noise. variances of the Gaussian components in the PDF of w1 are
(K)
The received signal at PU can be written as σ12 = 1 and σL2
= 1 + 1θ g1 Qs which are obtained for a2 =
· · · = aK+1 = 0 and a2 = · · · = aK+1 = 1, respectively.

K+1
y 1 = h1,1 x1 + hk,1 ak sk + z 1 . (8) Moreover, the corresponding probabilities of these Gaussian
k=2 components are p1 = (1 − θ)K and pL = θK . Note that the
2640 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013

2 2 R1
term L l=1 pl σl appearing in Lemma 1 is exactly E[|w 1 | ].
We can write

K+1
E[|w 1 |2 ] = E[|z 1 |2 ] + |hk,1 |2 E[|xk |2 ]
k=2

K+1
= 1+ |hk,1 |2 E[a2k ]E[|sk |2 ] κ−ξ
k=2

K+1
Qs
= 1+ |hk,1 |2 θ ×
θ
k=2
(K)
= 1+ g1 Qs . (12) κ−ω

Using these observations in Lemma 1, we get (13). By

definition of (h1 ; θ, Qs ) in (13), it is easy to see that
ξ ω Rk
R1 ≤ (h1 ; θ, Qs ) (14)
(a)
is an inner bound to the region in (9). For 2 ≤ k ≤ K + 1,
the received signal at the receiver of SUk−1 is given by Fig. 2. Sketch of the region Rk (hk ; θ, Qs ) described in (25).

K+1
y k = hk,k ak sk + h1,k x1 + hl,k al sl + z k .
l=2,l=k
The knowledge about the code-book of PU enables the sec-
ondary receiver to perform interference decoding. Using the
achievable rate region for a memoryless MAC [29], SUk−1 is
able to jointly decode its message and the message of PU if
⎧
⎨ R1 < I(x1 ; y k |ak , sk )
Rk < I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 ) . (16)
⎩ (24)
R1 + Rk < I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak )
The first constraint in (16) is irrelevant. In fact, it is a constraint
that guarantees there is no error in decoding PU’s message,
while the message sent by the transmitter of SUk−1 is already
decoded successfully. Dropping the first constraint in (16), we
get 
Rk < I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 )
. (17)
R1 + Rk < I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak )
Another approach for the receiver of SUk−1 is to treat the
whole interference as noise. In this case, any rate in the range
Rk < I(sk ; y k |ak )
is achievable by SU. Considering the two criteria in (17) and
(18), the achievable region for the rate tuple (R1 , Rk ) can be
written as
 system design. First, we assume all SUs adopt RM with
Rk < I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 )
or Rk < I(sk ; y k |ak ).
R1 + Rk < I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak )
(19)
Due to the fact that the noise plus interference at the receiver
of SUk−1 is mixed Gaussian, there is no closed formula for the
terms I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 ), I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak ) and I(sk ; y k |ak ).
However, one can apply Lemma 1 to obtain lower bounds on
these quantities. As for I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 ), we have the thread
in (20) where (a) is by the fact that x1 is independent of the
tuple (sk , y k − h1,k x1 , ak ), (b) is due to independence of sk
and y k −h1,k x1 under the assumption ak = 0 and (c) follows
by Lemma 1 and the same lines of reasoning that led us to
(13). As for I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak ), one can write
I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak ) = I(sk ; y k |ak ) + I(x1 ; y k |sk , ak ).
(15)
Deriving a lower bound on I(sk ; y k |ak ), the first term on
the right side of (21), is very similar to that developed in
(13). For completeness, the details are brought in appendix B
where we derive (22). Similarly, one can find a lower bound
on I(x1 ; y k |sk , ak ), the second term on the right side of (21)
as shown in (23). By (21), (22) and (23),
I(sk , x1 ; y k |ak ) ≥ κ(hk ; θ, Qs )  ξ(hk ; θ, Qs )+ζ(hk ; θ, Qs ).
By (20), (22), (23) and (24), we obtain an achievable region
for the rate tuple (R1 , Rk ) as

Rk ≤ ω(hk ; θ, Qs )
or Rk ≤ ξ(hk ; θ, Qs ). (25)
R1 + Rk ≤ κ(hk ; θ, Qs )
We denote this region by Rk (hk ; θ, Qs ). Note that
Rk (hk ; θ, Qs ) is included in the achievable region given in
(19). Moreover, the inequalities in (13), (20), (22) and (23)
turn into equalities for θ = 1. This is due to the fact that the
noise plus interference at each receiver is Gaussian for θ = 1.
(18)
IV. S YSTEM D ESIGN
In this section, we present two different approaches to
full average transmission power Ps , simply referred to as
RM. Next, we consider the CTPC scenario where all SUs
continuously transmit (no masking is performed), however,
the average transmission power Qs can be set at any value
less than or equal to Ps .
A. Randomized masking under full power transmission
The primary transmitter has no knowledge about channel
coefficients and the number of active users in the network. An
appropriate measure to assess the performance of this user is
the so-called outage probability. We define the outage event
for PU by
(21) O(R1 )  {I(x1 ; y1 ) < R1 } , (26)
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS 2641

⎛ ⎞
⎜ |h1,1 | Pp 2 ⎟
I(x1 ; y 1 ) ≥ (h1 ; θ, Qs )  C ⎜
⎝   1−(1−θ)K  ⎟
⎠. (13)
(K) (K)
min 1 + g1 Qs , 2Khb (θ) 1 + 1θ g1 Qs

I(sk ; y k |ak , x1 ) = I(sk ; y k − h1,k x1 |x1 , ak )

(a)
= I(sk ; y k − h1,k x1 |ak )
= I(sk ; y k − h1,k x1 |ak = 0)P(ak = 0) + I(sk ; y k − h1,k x1 |ak = 1)P(ak = 1)
(b)
= θI(sk ; y k − h1,k x1 |ak = 1)

K+1  

= θI sk ; hk,k sk + hl,k al sl + z k ak = 1
l=2,l=k
⎛ ⎞
(c) ⎜ |hk,k | Qs 2 ⎟
≥ ω(hk ; θ, Qs )  θC ⎜
⎝   1−(1−θ)K−1  ⎟
⎠. (20)
(K) (K)
θ min 1 + gk\1 Qs , 2(K−1)hb (θ) 1 + 1θ gk\1 Qs

I(sk ; y k |ak ) ≥ ξ(hk ; θ, Qs )

⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ |hk,k |2 Qs ⎟
 θC ⎜
⎜   1−(1−θ)K−1 ⎟
 ⎟.
⎝ (K)
1 (K)
θ gk\1 Qs ⎠
θ min 1 + |h1,k |2 Pp + gk\1 Qs , 2(K−1)hb (θ) (1 + |h1,k |2 Pp ) 1+ 1+|h1,k |2 Pp

(22)


K+1 
I(x1 ; y k |sk , ak ) = I x1 ; h1,k x1 + hl,k al sl + z k
l=2,l=k
⎛ ⎞
⎜ |h1,k |2 Pp ⎟
≥ ζ(hk ; θ, Qs )  C ⎜
⎝   1−(1−θ)K−1  ⎟
⎠. (23)
(K) (K−1)h (θ) 1 (K)
min 1 + gk\1 Qs , 2 b 1 + θ gk\1 Qs

where R1 is the actual transmission rate of PU. Note that
I(x1 ; y 1 ) is a random variable with realization I(x1 ; y 1 ) as
it depends on the channel coefficients 
h1 . It is required that the
probability of outage for PU be less than a certain threshold
ε, i.e., P (O(R1 )) < ε. It is assumed that R1 = νcε where
ν ∈ (0, 1) and cε is the ε-outage capacity of PU in the absence
of SUs. This implies that the resulting drop in the transmission
rate for PU is only a fraction 1 − ν of its transmission rate as
if there were no SUs in the network. We have
2
cε = sup{r : P(log(1 + |f 1,1 | Pp ) < r) < ε}
where (a) is due to the fact that |f 1,1 |2 is an exponential
random variable with parameter 1. We can develop an upper
bound on P (O(νcε )) as shown in (28) where (a) holds
as the event {I(x1 ; y 1 ) < νcε } is a subset of the event
{ (h 1 ; θ, Ps ) < νcε } by (13), (b) is due to the tower property
of conditional expectations [30] and (c) is due to the fact that
|f 1,1 |2 is an exponential random variable with parameter 1. If
the right side of (28) is less than ε, then P (O(νcε )) is also
guaranteed to be less than ε. Let us define the (ε, ν)-admissible
region by
A(RM)
ε,ν  {θ : the right side of (28) < ε}. (29)
(RM)
    One can express Aε,ν as
2r − 1  
= sup r : P |f 1,1 |2 < <ε
Pp A(RM)
ε,ν = 0, θ∗ , (30)
 
(a) 2r −1 ∗
− where θ is the solution for θ in the nonlinear equation given
= sup r : 1 − e Pp < ε
in (31). For 2 ≤ k ≤ K + 1, the transmitter of SUk−1 has
= log(1 − Pp ln(1 − ε)), (27) complete knowledge of K and the realization of  hk . Hence,
2642 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013

(a)  
P (O(νcε )) ≤ P (h 1 ; θ, Ps ) < νcε
   
(b)
= E P (h  1 ; θ, Ps ) < νcε g (K)
1
!   1−(1−θ)K   "#
2 1 (K) Khb (θ) 1 (K)  (K)
= E P |f 1,1 | ≤ (2 − 1) min 1 + g 1 Ps , 2
νcε
1 + g 1 Ps g 1
Pp θ 
!   1−(1−θ)K "#
(c) 1 (K) 1 (K)
= 1 − E exp − (2νcε − 1) min 1 + g 1 Ps , 2Khb (θ) 1 + g 1 Ps . (28)
Pp θ

!   1−(1−θ)K "#
1 νcε (K) Khb (θ) 1 (K)
1 − E exp − (2 − 1) min 1 + g 1 Ps , 2 1 + g 1 Ps = ε. (31)
Pp θ

SUk−1 can adjust its transmission rate as the largest Rk such Denoting the actual transmission power of SUs by Q  s , we
that (R1 , Rk ) = (νcε , Rk ) ∈ R(h  k ; θ, Ps ). We denote this have  
value of Rk by R(h  k ; θ, Ps ), i.e.,  s = arg
Q sup E R(h k ; 1, Qs ) , (39)
(CTPC)
  Qs ∈Aε,ν
R(h k ; θ, Ps )  sup Rk : (νcε , Rk ) ∈ Rk (h  k ; θ, Ps ) .
where R(h  k ; 1, Qs ) is given in (33). Recall from section III
(32)
According to (25), R(h  k ; θ, Ps ) can be written explicitly as that for θ = 1 all the lower  bounds on the achievable rates
are tight. Therefore, E R(h  s ) is the exact value of
 k ; 1, Q
in (33). It is proposed that all SUs fix their activity factor at
θ where  
average achievable rate per SU that can be attained under  the
 
CTPC scheme. This is in contrast to E R(hk ; θ, Ps ) which
θ = arg sup E R(h  k ; θ, Ps ) . (34)
(RM)
θ∈Aε,ν is only a lower bound to the exact value of average achievable
rate per SU under the RM strategy.
After θ is obtained, SUk−1 uses its knowledge of K and hk One may consider the possibility of controlling the trans-
to adjust its transmission rate at mission power Qs as well as θ at each SU. If the full transmis-
sion power of each SU is extremely large, the admissible range
 Ps ).
Rk = R(hk ; θ, (35) [0, θ∗ ] will be very small. This is due to the fact that under a
large average transmission power by SU, the only way to keep
the probability of outage for PU under the desired threshold
B. Power control at secondary transmitters
is to strictly limit the range of θ. This costs each SU with
An alternative to RM is that each SU transmits the Gaussian a negligible achievable transmission rate. Fig. 3(a) presents
symbols in its codeword continuously, however, the actual probability of outage for PU under the RM scheme in terms
transmission power of SUs is designed such that the average of θ for different values of Ps in a network with K = 3, α = 1,
achievable rate per SU is maximized under the constraint that ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8, Dps = 100, Dss = 1 and Pp = 20 dB. It is
probability of outage for PU is kept under a certain threshold seen that for Ps = 30 dB, θ∗ is as small as 0.08. As for CTPC,
ε. We refer to this scheme as Continuous Transmission with the solution Q∗s for Qs in (38) might be much smaller than Ps ,
Power Control (CTPC). The design approach is along the lines and hence, each SU only transmits at a negligible transmission
as it was presented for RM with the difference that the quan- power. For instance, Fig. 3(b) offers the plot of probability of
tities (h  k ; θ, Ps ), κ(h
 1 ; θ, Ps ), ω(h  k ; θ, Ps ) and ξ(h
 k ; θ, Ps ) outage for PU under the CTPC scheme in terms of Qs in the
  
are replaced by (h1 ; 1, Qs ), ω(hk ; 1, Qs ), κ(hk ; 1, Qs ) and same setup as Fig. 3(a). It is seen that Q∗s = Ps if Ps ≤ 14 dB
ξ(h k ; 1, Qs ), respectively. The new (ε, ν)-admissible region is and Q∗s = 14 dB for any Ps > 14 dB. Designing both Qs and
given by θ simultaneously can highly improve the performance per SU.
    We look into this alternative in example 2 at the end of section
A(CTPC)
ε,ν  Qs ≤ Ps : P (h  1 ; 1, Qs ) < νcε < ε . (36) V.
 
The quantity P (h  1 ; 1, Qs ) < νcε is given by (28) if we V. D ESIGN E XAMPLES AND S IMULATION R ESULTS
substitute Ps and θ by Qs and 1, respectively. In fact, In this section we present two examples in order to address
  the design methods presented in section IV. In the first
A(CTPC)
ε,ν = 0, min{Ps , Q∗s } , (37)
example, we compare the two signalling schemes RM and
where Q∗s is the solution for Qs in CTPC. The measure of performance is the average achievable
$  % rate per SU under the required constraint on the probably
1 νcε (K) of outage for PU. We emphasize that the recorded data for
1 − E exp − (2 − 1)(1 + g 1 Qs ) = ε. (38)
Pp RM is only a lower bound to the exact performance of this
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS 2643

⎧
⎪
⎨
ω(h  k ; θ, Ps ) νcε ≤ κ(h  k ; θ, Ps ) − ω(h
 k ; θ, Ps )
 k ; θ, Ps ) =
R(h  k ; θ, Ps ) − νcε
κ(h  k ; θ, Ps ) ≤ κ(h
ξ(h  k ; θ, Ps ) − νcε ≤ ω(h  k ; θ, Ps ) . (33)
⎪
⎩  k ; θ, Ps )  
ξ(h νcε ≥ κ(hk ; θ, Ps ) − ξ(hk ; θ, Ps )

0.2 0.3

Average Achievable Rate per SU (bits/sec/hz)

Ps=20 dB RM
CTPC
0.18 Ps=30 dB
0.28
Ps=40 dB
0.16 Ps=50 dB
0.26
ε=0.05
Probability of Outage

0.14
0.24
0.12

0.22
0.1

0.08 0.2

0.06
0.18

0.04
0.16
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 10 20 30 40 50
θ Ps (dB)

(a) (a) Dps = 1

0.09 0.75

Average Achievable Rate per SU (bits/sec/hz)

RM
Probability of Outage
0.7 CTPC
ε=0.05
0.08
0.65
Probability of Outage

0.07 0.6

0.55
0.06
0.5

0.05 0.45

0.4
0.04
0.35

0.03
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Qs (dB) Ps (dB)

(b) (b) Dps = 100

Fig. 3. Plots of probability of outage in terms of θ (Fig. (a)) and in terms of Fig. 4. Plots of average achievable rate per SU in terms of Ps for different
Qs (Fig. (b)) under RM and CTPC schemes, respectively. The parameters in values of Dps . It is assumed that K = 3, α = 1, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8,
the network are given by K = 3, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8, Dps = 100, Dss = 1 Dss = 1 and Pp = 20dB.
and Pp = 20 dB.

at the end of section IV, since Q∗s does not depend on

scheme, while the recorded data for CTPC represent the exact Ps , the performance of CTPC saturates by increasing Ps .
value of performance. In the second example, we consider Also, according to Fig. 3, θ∗ considerably decreases as
the possibility of designing both Qs and θ in a scheme that Ps increases. This translates to a drop in the performance
is referred to as Randomized Masking with Power Control of RM as observed in Fig. 4.
(RMPC). • Effect of primary-secondary distance Dps together with
Example 1- Let us consider a scenario with K = 3 SUs in the transmission power Pp :
the network. We fix α = 1, ν = 0.8 and Dss = 1 throughout Let ε = 0.05 and Ps = 30 dB. Fig. 5 offers plots of
this example. average achievable rate per SU in terms of Pp in the
• Effect of primary-secondary distance Dps together with range 0 dB to 50 dB for different values of Dps = 1, 100.
the transmission power Ps : As Pp increases, both θs∗ and Q∗s increase. On one hand,
Let ε = 0.05 and Pp = 20 dB. Fig. 4 presents plots this implies an increase in performance per SU under
of average achievable rate per SU in terms of Ps in the both RM and CTPC strategies. On the other hand, one
range 0 dB to 50 dB for different values of Dps = 1, 100. expects that the increase in PU’s power Pp would lead
If Dps = 1, RM outperforms CTPC for all value of to a drop in performance per SU, but, this is only true
Ps . However, as Dps increases, there are values of Ps if each SU treats PU’s signal as noise. More precisely,
such that CTPC outperforms RM. One may justify the according to Fig. 2, as long as νcε < ζ = κ − ξ, SU can
observations in Fig. 4 as follows. As explained earlier jointly decode its own and PU’s message and achieve
2644 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013

0.8 0.17

Average Achievable Rate per SU (bits/sec/hz)

RM

Probability of Treating PU as Noise by SU

CTPC 0.16
0.7
0.15
0.6
0.14

0.5 RM
0.13
CTPC

0.4 0.12

0.11
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.09

0.1 0.08
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Pp (dB) Pp (dB)

(a) Dps = 1 (a) Dps = 1

0.9 1.002
Average Achievable Rate per SU (bits/sec/hz)

RM RM

Probability of Treating PU as Noise by SU

0.85 CTPC 1 CTPC

0.8 0.998

0.75 0.996

0.7 0.994

0.65 0.992

0.6 0.99

0.55 0.988

0.5 0.986

0.45 0.984
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Pp (dB) Pp (dB)

(b) Dps = 100 (b) Dps = 100

Fig. 5. Plots of average achievable rate per SU in terms of Pp for different Fig. 6. Plots of p(RM) and p(CTPC) in terms of Pp for different values of
values of Dps . It is assumed that K = 3, α = 1, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8, Dps . It is assumed that K = 3, α = 1, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8, Dss = 1 and
Dss = 1 and Ps = 30dB. Ps = 30dB.

higher data rates. However, if νcε > ζ, PU’s signal is
treated as noise by each SU and this drops the rate per
SU. To gain more insight on this point, let us define
 
p(RM)  P νcε > ζ(h  Ps )
 k ; θ, (40)
and
p(CTPC)  P νcε > ζ(h
Note that p(RM) and p(CTPC) are the probabilities that
any SU treats PU’s signal as noise under the RM and
CTPC schemes, respectively. Fig. 6 demonstrates plots of
p(RM) and p(CTPC) corresponding to each plot in Fig. 5.
For Dps = 100, the probabilities p(RM) and p(CTPC) are
close to 1 implying that for most realizations of channel
coefficients, SU treats PU’s signal as noise. Therefore,
increasing Pp results in a drop in average achievable rate
per SU as observed Fig. 5.
Example 2- In this example, we consider the possibility
of optimizing the average rate per SU over both Qs and θ.
As mentioned earlier, this is referred to as the RMPC scheme.
The (ε, ν)-admissible region in this case is the set of all tuples
(θ, Qs ) such that probability of outage for PU is less than ε.
(RMPC)
Denoting this region by Aε,ν , we have
A(RMPC)
ε,ν
where Ψ(θ, Qs ) is the expression on the right side of (28)
with Ps replaced by Qs as shown in (43). Let us set the
system parameters at K = 3, α = 1, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8,
Dss = 1, Dps = 10 and Pp = 20 dB. Fig. 7(a) demonstrates
(RMPC)
Aε,ν for Ps = 30 dM. Fig. 7(b) presents plots of average
  achievable rate per SU in terms of Ps for RMPC, RM and
s) .
 k ; 1, Q (41) CTPC strategies. It is seen that if Ps > 15 dB, RMPC
outperforms both RM and CTPC.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We addressed a decentralized network of one PU and
several SUs. It was proposed that each secondary transmitter
adopts the RM strategy with full average transmission power
where it remained silent or transmitted a symbol in its code-
word independently from transmission slot to transmission
slot. Invoking the concept of ε-outage capacity, we defined
the (ε, ν)-admissible region as the set of masking probabilities
for each SU such that the probability of outage for PU was
maintained under a threshold ε in a case where PU set its
transmission rate at a fraction ν of its ε-outage capacity as if
there were no SUs in the network. The masking probability of
SUs was designed through maximizing the average achievable
rate per SU over the (ε, ν)-admissible region. The primary
= {(θ, Qs ) : Ψ(θ, Qs ) ≤ ε} , (42) receiver treated interference as noise, however, each secondary
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS 2645

!
  1−(1−θ)K "#
1 νcε (K) nhb (θ) 1 (K)
Ψ(θ, Qs )  1 − E exp − (2 − 1) min 1 + g 1 Qs , 2 1 + g 1 Qs . (43)
Pp θ

1
Admissible Region A PPENDIX A
0.9
By entropy power inequality4 [29],
0.8  
0.7 I(u; u + v) ≥ C 2h(u)−h(v) . (44)
0.6
As u ∼ CN(0, σ 2 ), then h(u) = log(πeσ 2 ). By maximum
0.5
entropy Lemma [29] and noting that E[v] = 0,
θ

0.4

L
0.3
h(v) ≤ log(πeE[|v|2 ]) = log(πe) + log pl σl2 . (45)
0.2 l=1
0.1 By the proof of Lemma 1 in [26],
0
0 5 10 15
Q (dB)
20 25 30
L
s h(v) ≤ pl log(πeσl2 ) − pl log pl
(a) l=1 l=1
(a)
p1 log(πeσ12 ) + (p2 + · · · + pL ) log(πeσL
2
0.36
≤ )
Average Achievable Rate per SU (bits/sec/hz)

0.34 L
− pl log pl
0.32 l=1

L
0.3
RMPC = p1 log(πeσ12 ) + (1 − p1 ) log(πeσL
2
)− pl log pl
RM l=1
0.28
CTPC

L

0.26 = log(πe) + p1 log σ12 + (1 − p1 ) log σL

2
− pl log pl .
l=1
0.24 (46)
0.22 where (a) is due to σ1 < σ2 < · · · < σL . By (45) and (46),
0 10 20 30 40 50
P (dB)
s Therefore, we arrive at (47) which together with (44) yield
(b)
the desired bound on I(u; u + v).

Fig. 7. The system parameters are set at K = 3, α = 1, ε = 0.05, ν = 0.8, A PPENDIX B

(RMPC)
Dss = 1, Dps = 10 and Pp = 20 dB. The left plot demonstrates Aε,ν
for Ps = 30 dM. The right plot compares average achievable rate per SU in Note that
terms of Ps for RMPC, RM and CTPC strategies.
I(sk ; y k |ak )
= (1 − θ)I(sk ; y k |ak = 0) + θI(sk ; y k |ak = 1)
receiver had the option to decode and cancel the interference (a)
caused by PU, while treating the signals of other SUs as noise. = θI(sk ; y k |ak = 1)
In another approach, referred to as CTPC, each SU transmitted = θI(sk ; y k |ak = 1)
continuously, however, it adjusted its transmission power in 
K+1 
order to yield the largest value for average achievable rate per = θI sk ; hk,k sk + h1,k x1 + hl,k al sl + z k ,
SU. The schemes RM and CTPC were compared for different l=2,l=k
values of transmission power for each SU and PU and distance (48)
between different users. It was observed that neither of RM
where (a) is by the fact that under ak = 0, sk and y k are
or CTPC always outperformed the other in various scenarios
independent. Since the channel coefficients are realizations of
in terms of the underlying system parameters. A combination
independent and continuous random variables, the PDF of the

K+1
of RM and CTPC referred to as RMPC was also investigated
mixed Gaussian random variable h1,k x1 + l=2,l=k hl,k al sl
where each SU adjusted both its probability of masking and
average transmission power. It was demonstrated that RMPC has almost surely 2K−1 Gaussian components with vari-
can outperform both RM and CTPC. ances σ12 < · · · < σ22K−1 and corresponding probabilities
p1 , · · · , p2K−1 , respectively. Similar to (11),
K−1
Π2l=1 p−p
l
l
= 2(K−1)hb (θ) . (49)
4 Note that the signals are complex, i.e., they can be considered as real
vectors in R2 .
2646 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 61, NO. 7, JULY 2013

 

L
L
2
h(u) − h(v) ≥ log σ − min log pl σl2 , p1 log σ12 + (1 − 2
p1 ) log σL − pl log pl . (47)
l=1 l=1

Moreover, for any arbitrary integer N . However, SUK is not aware of K.

By setting K = K  , SUK assumes there are already K  − 1
p1 = (1 − θ)K−1
active SUs in the network and the masking parameter is set
  − 1). Using the multinomial identity, SUK calculates
on θ(K
σ12 = 1 + |h1,k |2 Pp (50) E[|y K+1 [0]|2n ] as shown in (54) where6
(K) E[xn1 1 ] = (n1 − 1)!!Ppn1
σ22K−1 = 1 + |h1,k |2 Pp + 1θ gk\1 Qs (55)

and and
⎡ 2 ⎤
K−1   E[anl l xnl l ] = E[al ]E[xnl l ]
2
⎢
K+1
 ⎥ ! "nl
pl σl2 = E ⎣h1,k x1 + hl,k al sl + z k  ⎦ Ps
  = θK  −1 × (nl − 1)!!
l=1 l=2,l=k
θK  −1
(K) (nl − 1)!!Psnl
= 1 + |h1,k |2 Pp + gk\1 Qs . (51) = . (56)
θ nl −1
K −1
Using Lemma 1, we are led to (22).
By (53) and (54) and by setting N = K  − 1, SUK obtains
K  − 1 equations for K  − 1 variables h2,K  +1 , · · · , hK  ,K  +1 .
A PPENDIX C
After finding these parameters, several other equations in (53),
A. Estimating the number K of active SUs say for n = K  , K  + 1, · · · , are checked to see if there exists
In practice SUs do not become active at the same time. a consistency. In this case, the candidate K  for K is correct.
Assume there are already K −1 active SUs in the network. We In practice, the new SU starts by setting K  = 0 and increases
refer to these users as SU1 , · · · , SUK−1 . A new SU shown by K  until a consistency is found in the underlying system of
SUK plans to enter the network. In the following, we describe equations in (53). The first value of K  that guarantees such
how SUK estimates K (phase 1) and how the K − 1 already consistency is considered to be the true value of K.
active SUs learn that there is a new active SU that plans to 2) Phase 2: After SUK finds K, it starts transmitting a
join the network (phase 2). Throughout this section, we show sequence of spikes (a training sequence of pulses) by which
θ by θK  in a network with K  active SUs5 . This quantity can the already active SUs learn that a new SU is about to become
be calculated by SUK for any value of K  . This is due to the active. Finally, all K SUs update their activity factors to θK .
fact that θK  does not depend on the realizations of channel
coefficients. Moreover, for simplicity of presentation, we as- B. Knowledge of the masking sequence at the receiver side of
sume all codeword symbols and the background noise samples each SU
are real Gaussian random variables and channel coefficients Assume both ends of each secondary user have access
are realizations of real random variables. Extending the result to two synchronized pseudorandom noise generators such as
to the complex case is straightforward. linear feedback shift registers. Then each 0 is interpreted as
1) Phase 1: At this phase, SUK does not transmit and only “mask” and each 1 is interpreted as “no mask”. However,
examines the signal received at it receiver side. Let us show this assumption can be relaxed, i.e., one can assume each
this signal in the tth transmission slot by y K+1 [t]. We have secondary receiver is unaware of the masking pattern of
its corresponding transmitter and is only aware the mask-

K
y K+1 [t] = h1,K+1 x1 [t] + hk,K+1 al [t]xl [t] + z K+1 [t], ing parameter θ. This lack of knowledge at the receiver
l=2
side costs each secondary user with a loss of at most 1
(52) bits/sec/hz in its achievable rate. To see this, note that the
for t = 0, 1, · · · where x1 [t] ∼ N(0, Pp ), xl [t] ∼ mutual information between the input and output of SUk−1
N(0,  Ps ) for 2 ≤ l ≤ K and z K+1 [t] ∼ N(0, 1). is given by I(xk ; y k |ak ) and I(xk ; y k ) in the presence and
θK−1
By the strong law of large numbers [30], as T  grows in the absence of knowledge about ak at the receiver of

 SUk−1 , respectively. Clearly, I(xk ; y k |ak ) − I(xk ; y k ) ≥ 0.
to infinity, T1 Tt=0−1 |y K+1 [t]|2n converges almost surely
to E[|y K+1 [0]|2n ] for any positive integer n. For suffi- Moreover, by independence of xk and ak ,
ciently  large T  , let us denote the recorded value for I(xk ; y k |ak ) = I(xk , ak ; y k ). (57)
1

T −1 2n
T t=0 |y K+1 [t]| by τn . As such, SUK can obtain a set
of equations One can expand I(xk , ak ; y k ) as
I(xk , ak ; y k ) = I(xk ; y k ) + I(ak ; y k |xk ). (58)
E[|y K+1 [0]|2n ] = τn , n = 1, · · · , N, (53)
6 For any odd number n, the double factorial notation is defined by n!! 
5 See 
(34) for the definition of θ. 1 × 3 × 5 × · · · n.
MOSHKSAR and KHANDANI: RANDOMIZED MASKING IN COGNITIVE RADIO NETWORKS
E[|y K+1 [0]|2n ]
= hn1  hn2  · · · hKK ,K  +1
n1 , · · · , nK  +1 nonnegative even numbers
n1 +···+nK  +1 =2n
However, I(ak ; y k |xk ) is never larger than the entropy of ak
which is hb (θ), i.e.,
I(ak ; y k |xk ) ≤ hb (θ) ≤ 1. (59)
By (57), (58) and (59),
0 ≤ I(xk ; y k |ak ) − I(xk ; y k ) ≤ 1. (60)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the associate editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that led to
improvements in the final presentation of the paper.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Etkin, A. P. Parekh, and D. Tse, “Spectrum sharing for unlicensed
bands,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 517–528, Apr.
2007.
[2] Z. Ji and K. J. R. Liu, “Dynamic spectrum sharing: a game-theoretical
overview,” IEEE Commun. Mag., pp. 88–94, May 2007.
[3] R. T. Maheswaran and T. Baser, “Decentralized network resource allo-
cation as a repeated noncooperative market game,” in Proc. 2001 IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control.
[4] L. Grokop and D. N. C. Tse, “Spectrum sharing between wireless
networks,” 2008 IEEE Infocom Conference.
[5] S. Hayashi and Z. Q. Luo, “Dynamic spectrum management: when is
FDMA sum-rate optimal?” in Proc. 2007 IEEE International Conf. on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 3, pp. 609–612.
[6] A. P. Hulbert, “Spectrum sharing through beacons,” in Proc. 2005 IEEE
International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Comm.,
vol. 2, pp. 989–993.
[7] J. Huang, R. A. Berry, and M. L. Honig, “Spectrum sharing with
distributed interference compensation,” in Proc. 2005 IEEE International
Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, pp.
88–93.
[8] L. Cao and H. Zheng, “Distributed spectrum allocation via local bargain-
ing,” in Proc. 2005 IEEE Conf. on Sensor and Ad-Hoc Networking, pp.
475–486.
[9] J. Mitola, “Cognitive radio: an integrated agent architecture for software
defined radio,” Ph.D. dissertation, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, Dec. 2000.
[10] N. Devroye, P. Mitran, and V. Tarokh, “Achievable rates in cognitive
radio channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1813–1827,
May 2006.
[11] S. Gel’fand and M. Pinsker, “Coding for channels with random param-
eters,” Problems Contr. and Inf. Theory, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–31, Jan.
1980.
[12] M. Costa, “Writing on a dirty paper,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 29,
no. 3, pp. 439–441, May 1983.
[13] T. S. Han and K. Kobayashi, “A new achievable rate region for the
interference channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 49–60,
Jan. 1981.
[14] A. Jovicic and P. Viswanath, “Cognitive radio: an information theoretic
perspective,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 3945–3958, Apr.
2006.
[15] W. Wu, S. Vishwanath, and A. Arapostathis, “Capacity of a class of
cognitive radio channels: interference channels with degraded message
sets,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4391–4399, Nov.
2007.
[16] I. Maric, R. D. Yates, and G. Kramer, “Capacity of interference channels
with partial transmitter cooperation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53,
no. 10, pp. 3536–3548, Oct. 2007.
[17] J. Jiang and Y. Xin, “On the achievable rate regions for interference
channels with degraded message sets,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54,
no. 10, pp. 4707–4712, Oct. 2008.
2647
(2n)! 
n 
n1 ! · · · nK  +1 ! 1,K +1 2,K +1

n n
E[xn1 1 ]E[an2 2 xn2 2 ] · · · E[aKK  xKK  ] . (54)
[18] M. Gastpar, “On capacity under receive and spatial spectrum-sharing
constraints,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 471–487, Feb.
2007.
[19] A. Ghasemi and E. S. Sousa, “Fundamental limits of spectrum sharing
in fading environments,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 2,
pp. 649–658, Feb. 2007.
[20] A. Jafarian and S. Vishwanath, “On the capacity of multiuser cognitive
radio networks,” 2009 IEEE International Symp. on Inf. Theory.
[21] U. Erez, S. Shamai (Shitz), and R. Zamir, “Capacity and lattice strategies
for cancelling known interference,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no.
11, pp. 3820–3833, Nov. 2005.
[22] A. Lapidoth, N. Levy, S. Shamai (Shitz), and M. A. Wigger, “A cognitive
network with clustered decoding,” 2009 IEEE International Symp. on Inf.
Theory.
[23] X. Kang, R. Zhang, Y. C. Liang, and H. K. Garg, “Optimal power
allocation strategies for fading cognitive radio channels with primary user
outage constraint,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 374–
383, Feb. 2011.
[24] R. Zhang and J. M. Ciofi, “Iterative spectrum sharing with opportunistic
multiuser detection,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1680–
1691, June 2012.
[25] W. Yu, G. Ginis, and J. Cioffi, “Distributed multiuser power control for
digital subscriber lines,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 20, no. 5, pp.
1105–1115, June 2002.
[26] K. Moshksar, A. Bayesteh, and A. K. Khandani, “A model for random-
ized recourse allocation in decentralized wireless networks,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2115–2142, Apr. 2011.
[27] H. Inaltekin, M. Chiang, H. V. Poor, and S. B. Wicker, “On unbounded
path-loss models: effects of singularity on wireless network performance,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1078–1092, Sept. 2009.
[28] K. Moshksar and A. K. Khandani, “Decentralized cognition via random-
ized masking,” in Proc. 2011 Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems
and Computers, pp. 1742–1746.
[29] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1991.
[30] R. M. Dudley, Real Analysis and Probability. Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
Kamyar Moshksar was born in Shiraz, Iran. He
received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees, both in
electrical engineering, from Shiraz University and
Sharif University of Technology, respectively, and
the Ph.D. degree in 2011 from the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. He is currently a
postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the University
of Waterloo. His interests lie in the broad area of
applied probability.
Amir K. Khandani received the M.A.Sc. degree
from the Uni- versity of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in
1985, and the Ph.D. degree from McGill Uni- ver-
sity, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1992. He was a
Research Associate with INRS Telecommunications,
Quebec Uni- versity, Montreal, for one year. Since
1993, he has been with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON, Canada, where he is currently a
Professor. He currently holds an NSERC In- dus-
trial Research Chair (funded by NSERC and Nortel
Networks) on Advanced Telecommunications Technologies and a Canada
Research Chair (Tier I) on Wireless Systems. Dr. Khandani is serving as
an Associate Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C OMMUNICATION in
the area of coding and communication theory.