2368 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO.
5, JUNE 2012
recursively updated Cholesky decomposition-based detector performs
as well as [1] with a much reduced computational complexity. The
novel algorithm can easily be extended to uplink CDMA system,
where the channel paths between the base station and the different
users are different.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank E. Manuel of the College of
Engineering, Trivandrum, for help with part of computer simulations.
The author would also like to thank the Associate Editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Sartenaer and L. Vandendorpe, “Linear and DF joint detectors for
DS-CDMA communication using periodic long codes,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 2080–2091, Jul. 2004.
[2] A. Klein, G. K. Kaleh, and P. W. Baier, “Zero forcing and minimum mean
square error equalization for multiuser detection in code division multiple
access channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 276–287,
May 1996.
[3] S. Buzzi and M. Massaro, “Parameter estimation and multiuser detection
for bandlimited long-code CDMA systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Com-
mun., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2307–2317, Jun. 2008.
[4] S. Buzzi and H. V. Poor, “On parameter estimation in long-code
DS/CDMA systems: Cramer Rao bounds and least squares algorithms,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 545–549, Feb. 2003.
[5] D. Guo, L. R. Rasmussen, and T. J. Lim, “Linear parallel interference
cancellation in long code CDMA multiuser detection,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 2074–2081, Dec. 1999.
[6] S. Bhashyam and B. Aazhang, “Multiuser channel estimation and tracking
for long-code CDMA systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 7,
pp. 1081–1090, Jul. 2002.
[7] Y-H. Lee and S-J. Kim, “Sequence acquisition of DS-CDMA systems
employing Gold sequences,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 49, no. 6,
pp. 2397–2404, Nov. 2000.
[8] A. Mirbagheri and Y. C. Yoon, “A linear MMSE receiver for multipath
asynchronous random-CDMA with chip-pulse shaping,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1072–1086, Sep. 2002.
[9] A. Weiss and B. Friendlander, “Channel estimation for DS-CDMA down-
link with aperiodic spreading codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47,
no. 10, pp. 1561–1569, Oct. 1999.
[10] T. Li, W. Liang, Z. Ding, and J. Tugnait, “Blind multiuser detection for
long-code CDMA systems with transmission-induced cyclostationarity,”
EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., vol. 2005, no. 2, pp. 206–215,
Apr. 2005.
[11] T. Fusco, L. Izzo, A. Napolitano, and M. Tanda, “On the second-order
cyclostationarity properties of long-code DS-SS signals,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1741–1746, Oct. 2006.
[12] Z. Xu, P. Liu, and M. D. Zoltowski, “Diversity-assisted channel estimation
and multiuser detection for downlink CDMA with long spreading codes,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 190–201, Jan. 2004.
[13] Z. Yang and X. Wang, “Blind turbo multiuser detection for long-code
multipath CDMA,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 112–125,
Jan. 2002.
[14] L. Tong, A.-J. Veen, P. Dewilde, and Y. Sung, “Blind de-correlating RAKE
receivers for long-code WCDMA,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51,
no. 6, pp. 1642–1655, Jun. 2003.
[15] P. De and E. Manuel, “A novel fast algorithm for multiuser detection in
long code CDMA system,” in Proc. IEEE Radio Wireless Symp., Long
Beach, CA, Jan. 2007, pp. 399–402.
[16] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice–Hall, 1991.
[17] C. Rialan and L. L. Scharf, “Fast algorithms for computing QR and
Cholesky factors of Toeplitz operators,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech,
Signal Process., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1740–1748, Nov. 1988.
[18] P. De, “A delta least squares lattice algorithm for fast sampling,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 2396–2407, Sep. 1999.
[19] N. Al-Dhahir and A. H. Sayed, “The finite-length multi-input multi-output
MMSE-DFE,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 2921–
2936, Oct. 2000.
0018-9545/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Cognitive Amplify-and-Forward Relay Networks
Over Nakagami-m Fading
Trung Q. Duong, Student Member, IEEE,
Daniel Benevides da Costa, Member, IEEE,
Maged Elkashlan, Member, IEEE, and
Vo Nguyen Quoc Bao, Member, IEEE
Abstract—In this paper, the outage probability (OP) of
dual-hop cognitive amplify-and-forward (AF) relay networks subject to
independent non-identically distributed (i.n.i.d.) Nakagami-m fading
is examined. We assume a spectrum-sharing environment, where two
different strategies are proposed to determine the transmit powers of the
secondary network. Specifically, the transmit power conditions of the
proposed spectrum-sharing network are governed by either the combined
power constraint of the interference on the primary network and the
maximum transmission power at the secondary network or the single
power constraint of the interference on the primary network. Closed-form
lower bounds and asymptotic expressions for the OP are derived.
Regardless of the transmit power constraint, we reveal that the
diversity order is strictly defined by the minimum fading severity
between the two hops of the secondary network. This aligns with
the well-known result for conventional dual-hop AF relaying without
spectrum sharing. Furthermore, the impact of the primary network on
the diversity–multiplexing tradeoff is investigated. We confirm that the
diversity–multiplexing tradeoff is independent of the primary network.
Index Terms—Amplify-and-forward (AF), dual-hop cognitive relay net-
work (CRN), Nakagami-m fading, spectrum sharing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Over the past few years, cooperative diversity [1], [2] has rekindled
enormous interest from the wireless communications community due
to many perceived benefits acquired without the need for multiple
antennas implemented at the terminals. In particular, by allowing
several mobile terminal relay signals for each other, an antenna array
is emulated, and therefore, spatial diversity can be explored. Most
recently, in spectrum-sharing environments [3], the concept of coop-
erative diversity has been applied in cognitive networks with decode-
and-forward (DF) relays [4]–[9] and amplify-and-forward (AF) relays
[10]–[12]. The basics of these are outlined next.
For DF relaying, Guo et al. [4] investigated the outage performance
of cognitive relay networks (CRNs) within the constraint imposed on
the interference suffered by the primary user (PU) receiver.1 In [5],
Manuscript received November 23, 2011; revised February 8, 2012;
accepted March 19, 2012. Date of publication March 28, 2012; date of current
version June 12, 2012. This work was supported by the FUNCAP under Grant
BPI-0031-00090.01.00/10. This work was supported by the Vietnam National
Foundation for Science and Technology Development under Grant 102.99-
2010.10. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. E. K. S Au.
T. Q. Duong is with Blekinge Institute of Technology, 371 79 Karlskrona,
Sweden (e-mail: quang.trung.duong@bth.se).
D. Benevides da Costa is with the Federal University of Ceará, 62042-280
Sobral, Brazil (e-mail: danielbcosta@ieee.org).
M. Elkashlan is with Queen Mary, University of London, E1 4NS London,
U.K. (e-mail: maged.elkashlan@eecs.qmul.ac.uk).
V. N. Q. Bao is with Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology,
Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam (e-mail: baovnq@ptithcm.edu.vn).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2012.2192509
1 Hereafter, this constraint is referred to interference power constraint.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012 2369

the outage probability (OP) of CRNs with a suitable relay selection

was examined. Adopting both interference and maximum allowable
transmit power constraints, it was shown that full diversity order can
be achieved. In [6], the capacity of reactive DF schemes in CRNs
subject to an interference power constraint was evaluated. In [7],
assuming the presence of a direct link in the secondary network, a tight
lower bound expression for the OP of CRNs was derived. Recently,
Si et al. [8] proposed to employ the PU’s outage constraints (instead
of interference power constraints) to reduce the need for channel state Fig. 1. Network model for cognitive spectrum sharing with AF relaying.
information of interference links from the PU receiver. Common to
the works in [4]–[8] is that Rayleigh fading was considered. More II. N ETWORK AND C HANNEL M ODELS
recently [9], an outage analysis of CRNs over Nakagami-m fading
was performed, assuming both interference and maximum allowable Consider a dual-hop cooperative spectrum-sharing network where
transmit power constraints. PUs and SUs share the same spectrum band in a given propagation
Some other works in the literature have considered CRNs with environment. Our network is composed of one SU source S, one
AF relaying. In [10], three low-complexity relay selection strate- AF SU relay R, one SU destination D, and one PU receiver P, as
gies were proposed, in which closed-form asymptotic expressions shown in Fig. 1. All nodes are equipped with a single antenna and
for the OP were derived, assuming that the transmit power of the operate in half-duplex mode. A time-division multiple-access scheme
secondary network is controlled by both the primary network and is employed for the SU communication, which is performed into two
the secondary transmitters. In [11], an exact closed-form expression time slots. In the first time slot, S sends its signal to R with transmit
for the OP was derived within an interference power constraint. power PS . In the second time slot, R amplifies the received signal
This was later extended in [12] by considering a direct link in from S and forwards the resulting signal to D with transmit power
the secondary network. In that case, a selection-combining receiver PR . The transmit powers at S and R are constrained, so that the
at the secondary destination was employed. Once again, common interference impinged on the PU receiver remains below the maximum
to the works in [10]–[12] is that they considered Rayleigh fading tolerable interference power Q. In addition, if the SUs are power-
channels. limited terminals, S and R may transmit up to the maximum allowable
While all of the aforementioned works substantially provide a power P. Therefore, the transmit powers at S and R can be mathemati-
good understanding of CRNs, most of them assumed Rayleigh fading cally written as PS = min(Q/|h1 |2 , P) and PR = min(Q/|h2 |2 , P),
channels. This may not be useful in a wide range of fading scenarios where h1 and h2 are the channel coefficients of the interference links
that are typical in realistic wireless relay applications. Owing to this S → P and R → P, respectively.
fact, the aim of this paper is to investigate the outage performance Taking these two transmit power constraints into account, the end-
of dual-hop CRNs with AF relays and subject to independent non- to-end instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at D can be writ-
identically distributed (i.n.i.d.) Nakagami-m fading channels. From a ten as
realistic viewpoint, the choice of Nakagami-m fading is to characterize PS |g1 |2 PR |g2 |2 γ1 γ2
more versatile fading scenarios that are more or less severe than γdA = = (1)
N0 (PS |g1 |2 + PR |g2 |2 ) γ1 + γ2
Rayleigh fading via the m fading parameter, which includes the
Rayleigh fading (m = 1) as a special case. The Nakagami-m fading where γ1 and γ2 are given by
also approximates the Hoyt fading, for m < 1, and the Rice fading,  
for m > 1. Furthermore, PUs and secondary users (SUs) are often γQ
γ1 = min ,γ |g1 |2
far from each other; as such, i.n.i.d. fading is assumed with distinct |h1 |2 P
fading parameters in the respective links. To determine the transmit  
γQ
powers of the secondary network, two strategies are employed. More γ2 = min ,γ |g2 |2 (2)
specifically, the transmit power conditions of the proposed spectrum- |h2 |2 P
sharing network are governed by either the combined power constraint
with γ̄Q = Q/N0 , γ̄P = P/N0 , and N0 representing the noise vari-
of the interference on the primary network and maximum transmission
ance. By its turn, when S and R are not power-limited terminals,
power at the secondary network or the single power constraint of
i.e., when they have full freedom to exploit their respective
the interference on the primary network. Closed-form lower bounds
powers, the transmit power constraint only depends on the interference
and easy-to-evaluate asymptotic solutions for the OP are derived. Our
level arriving at the PU. In this case, PS = Q/|h1 |2 , and PR =
solutions reveal important design insights and the impact of some key
Q/|h2 |2 , so that the end-to-end instantaneous SNR at D can now be
network parameters on the network behavior, such as fading severity,
written as
power constraints, and PU position. Our outcomes are outlined as
follows: First, we show that the diversity order is strictly defined by the γ3 γ4
γdB = (3)
minimum fading severity between two hops of the secondary network. γ3 + γ4
This result is in line with those obtained for dual-hop AF relaying
without spectrum sharing. Second, the secondary network achieves full where
diversity order of min(mg1 , mg2 ), regardless of the transmit power γ Q |g1 |2 γ Q |g2 |2
constraint, where mg1 and mg2 are the fading severity parameters of γ3 = γ4 = . (4)
|h1 |2 |h2 |2
the first and second hops, respectively. Third, by relaxing the transmit
power constraint at the SUs, we show that the outage performance Herein, we assume that all channel coefficients undergo i.n.i.d.
is much improved by locating the PU away from the secondary Nakagami-m fading. As a result, |g1 |2 , |g2 |2 , |h1 |2 , and |h2 |2 are
network. Fourth, we confirm that the diversity–multiplexing tradeoff Gamma distributed with fading severity parameters mg1 , mg2 , mh1 ,
is independent of the primary network. This result is independent of and mh2 and channel powers Ωg1 , Ωg2 , Ωh1 , and Ωh2 , respectively.
the transmit power constraint. Thus, the probability density function and cumulative distribution

Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2370 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012

function (cdf) of X, for X ∈ {|g1 |2 , |g2 |2 , |h1 |2 , |h2 |2 }, can be for- Applying the power series expansion of the lower incomplete
mulated in compact form as Gamma function, (9) can be rewritten as
αm m−1 m
 mg1 +i
h αg1 γ
fX (x) =
Γ(m)
x exp(−αx) (5) 
∞ αh1 1 γQ
I2 =
Γ(mh1 )Γ(mg1 + i + 1)
1 Γ(m, αx) i=0
FX (x) = Υ(m, αx) = 1 − (6)
∞    
Γ(m) Γ(m) αg1 γ
× y mg1 +mh1 +i−1 exp − αh1 + y dy. (10)
respectively, where Γ(·) and Γ(·, ·) denote the Gamma function γQ
γQ
[13, Eq. (8.310.1)] and the upper incomplete Gamma function γP

[13, Eq. (8.350.2)], respectively; Υ(·, ·) indicates the lower

incomplete Gamma function [13, Eq. (8.350.1)]; α ∈ {αg1 = From [13, Eq. (3.351.2)], the integral in (10) can be easily solved.
mg1 /Ωg1 , αg2 = mg2 /Ωg2 , αh1 = mh1 /Ωh1 , αh2 = mh2 /Ωh2 }; Using this result and substituting (8) into (7), the cdf of γ1 can be
and m ∈ {mg1 , mg2 , mh1 , mh2 }. derived as2

αg1 γ
 1 Υ m g1 , γP 
∞ mh
αh1 1 (αg1 γ/γ Q )mg1 +i
III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS AND D ISCUSSIONS Fγ1 (γ) = +
Γ(mg1 ) Γ(mh1 )Γ(mg1 + i + 1)
A. Combined Power Constraints: Interference at the PU and
 i=0

γQ αg1 γ
Γ mg1 + mh1 + i, αh1 +
Maximum Transmit Power at the SUS γP γQ
×  mg1 +mh1 +i (11)
1) Tight Lower Bound Expression for OP: The OP is defined as the αg1 γ
αh1 +
probability that the instantaneous SNR at D is below a certain thresh-
γQ

old γth , i.e., Pout = Pr(γdA ≤ γth ). In [14], it has been proven that γdA where 1 = Υ(mh1 , (αh1 γ̄Q /γ̄P ))/Γ(mh1 ). Assuming integer val-
in (1) can be tightly upper bounded by γup = min(γ1 , γ2 ). Therefore, ues for the fading parameters m, with the help of [13, Eq. (8.352.2)]
it follows that the OP can be lower bounded by Pout ≥ Fγup (γth ) = and following the same steps previously described, (11) can be rewrit-
1 − (1 − Fγ1 (γth ))(1 − Fγ2 (γth )). In addition, it is easy to see that ten as
the cdfs of γ1 and γ2 are similar, so that one cdf can be easily attained 
from the other. Then, focusing on the derivation of the cdf of γ1 , αg1 γ mg1 −1
 1 Υ m g1 , γP  αgi αhmh1 γ i
we have Fγ1 (γ) = + ¯1 − 1 1

    Γ(mg1 ) Γ(mh1 )i!γ iQ

Fγ1 (γ) = Pr min
γQ
,γ |g1 |2 ≤ γ
 i=0

αg1 γ
|h1 |2 P
γQ
Γ mh1 + i, γP
αh1 + γQ
×  mh1 +i (12)
  αg1 γ
γ γ αh1 +
= Pr |g1 |2 ≤ , Q ≥ γP γQ
γ P |h1 |2
  where ¯1 = Γ(mh1 , (αh1 γ̄Q /γ̄P ))/Γ(mh1 ). The cdf of γ2 can
I1
be directly derived from the cdf of γ1 after substituting the
  respective parameters by their counterparts (i.e., mh1 → mh2 ,
|g1 |2 γ γ
+ Pr ≤ , Q ≤ γP . (7) mg1 → mg2 , Ωg1 → Ωg2 , Ωh1 → Ωh2 ). Finally, knowing that
|h1 |2 γ Q |h1 |2 Pout ≥ 1 − (1 − Fγ1 (γth ))(1 − Fγ2 (γth )), the OP can be lower
 
I2 bounded by
⎡ 
αg1 γ mg1 −1
Due to the independence between g1 and h1 , the first term of (7),  1 Υ m g1 , γP  αgi αhmh1 γ i
i.e., I1 , can be rewritten as Pout ≥ 1− ⎣1− − ¯1 + 1 1

    Γ(mg1 )
i=0
Γ(mh1 )i!γ iQ
γ
I1 = Pr |h1 |2 ≤ Q Pr |g1 |2 ≤
γ
  ⎤
γP γP Γ mh1 + i,
γQ
αh1 +
αg1 γ
γP γQ ⎥
    ×  mh1 +i ⎦
γQ γ αg1 γ
= F|h1 |2 F|g1 |2 (8) αh1 + γQ
γP γP ⎡ 
αg2 γ mg2 −1
 2 Υ m g2 , γP  αgi αhmh2 γ i
where F|h1 |2 (·) and F|g1 |2 (·) are obtained from (6) by making the × ⎣1 − − ¯2 + 2 2

appropriate substitutions. By its turn, to evaluate I2 in (7), we invoke Γ(mg2 ) Γ(mh2 )i!γ iQ
i=0
the concepts of probability theory [15] so that   ⎤
γQ αg2 γ
γ Γ mh2 + i, αh2 +

∞

γQ
y γP γQ ⎥
×  mh2 +i ⎦. (13)
αg2 γ
I2 = f|h1 |2 (y) f|g1 |2 (x) dx dy αh2 + γQ

γQ 0
γP

∞   2 Although (11) is expressed in terms of an infinite sum, it converges very
γy fast to the exact result. For example, only five terms are required in the
= f|h1 |2 (y)F|g1 |2 dy. (9) summation to achieve a high accuracy of 10−15 for a representative scenario
γQ
γQ
with the following parameters: γ̄ = 30 dB, γth = 3 dB, {mg1 = mg2 = 3.5,
γP mh1 = 2, mh2 = 3}, {Ωg1 = Ωg2 = 1, and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 7.3}.

Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012 2371

2) Asymptotic Analysis for OP: To provide insights about how the B. Single Power Constraint: Interference at the PU
fading parameters affect the network performance, we now derive the 1) Tight Lower Bound and Exact Closed-Form Expression for OP:
OP in the high-SNR regime, from which the diversity and coding gains From (3), it can be seen that the cdfs of γ3 and γ4 are required for
are obtained.3 Without loss of generality, we assume that γ̄Q = μγ̄P , the OP analysis. Once again, these cdfs are very similar, and herein,
where μ is a positive constant, and define the average SNR as γ̄ = γ̄P . we focus on the derivation of the cdf of γ3 = γ̄Q |g1 |2 /|h1 |2 . Then,
Utilizing the series representation of the incomplete Gamma func- we have
tion [13, Eq. (8.354.1)], we have that

∞  

∞
(−1)n (αx)n x→0(αx)m Fγ3 (γ) = F|g1 |2
γ
y f|h1 |2 (y) dy. (20)
Υ(m, αx) = (αx)m = . (14) γQ
n!(m + n) m 0
n=0

By substituting (14) into (6), we get By expanding F|g1 |2 ((γ/γ̄Q )y) in the power series, (20) can be
solved as
x→0 (αx)m  mg1+k
FX (x) = . (15) mh αg1 γ
Γ(m + 1) 
∞ αh1 1 Γ(mg1 +mh1 +k) γQ

Then, by plugging (15) into (8) and (9), an asymptotic expression

Fγ3 (γ) =  mg1+mh1 +k .
αg1 γ
for Fγ1 (γ) can be derived as
k=0 Γ(mh1 )Γ(mg1 +k+1) αh1 + γQ

 mg
(21)
γ̄→∞ Υ(mh1 , μαh1 )αg1 1
Fγ1 (γ) = Again, as claimed in footnote 2, (21) converges very fast, and
Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 )
therefore, few terms are required to achieve high accuracy. However,
 mg1   mg1
Γ(mg1 + mh1 , μαh1 ) αg1 γ assuming integer values for the fading parameters m, by utilizing [13,
+ . (16) Eq. (8.352.4)], we can express (21) as
Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 ) μαh1 γ̄
mh
 k
mg1 −1 αg1 γ
Similarly, an asymptotic expression for the cdf of Fγ2 (γ) can be  αh1 1 Γ(mh1 + k) γQ
attained as Fγ3 (γ) = 1 −  mh1 +k . (22)
αg1 γ
 mg
k=0 k!Γ(mh1 ) αh1 + γQ
γ̄→∞ Υ(mh2 , μαh2 )αg2 2
Fγ2 (γ) =
Γ(mg2 + 1)Γ(mh2 ) As before, the cdf of γ4 can be directly derived from the cdf of γ3
 mg2   mg2
Γ(mg2 + mh2 , μαh2 ) αg2 γ after substituting the respective parameters by their counterparts (i.e.,
+ . (17) mh1 → mh2 , mg1 → mg2 , Ωg1 → Ωg2 , and Ωh1 → Ωh2 ). Thus,
Γ(mg2 + 1)Γ(mh2 ) μαh2 γ̄
making use of these results, the OP can be lower bounded by
Then, an asymptotic expression for the OP can be achieved using ⎡  k ⎤
mg1 −1 mh αg1 γth
the fact that Pout = Fγ1 (γth ) + Fγ2 (γth ) − Fγ1 (γth )Fγ2 (γth ) and
⎢ 
αh1 1 Γ(mh1 + k) γQ ⎥
γ̄→∞ Pout ≥ 1 − ⎣  mh1 +k ⎦
knowing that Fγ1 (γth )Fγ2 (γth )  Fγ1 (γth ) + Fγ2 (γth ), where αg1 γth
this latter can be easily attested from (16) and (17). Thus, after some k=0 k!Γ(mh1 ) αh1 + γQ
rearrangements and omitting the small terms, it follows that ⎡ ⎤
 k
 min(mg1 ,mg2 ) mg1 −1 mh αg2 γth
⎢ 
αh2 2 Γ(mh2 + k)
γ̄→∞ γth γQ ⎥
Pout = βA (18) ×⎣  mh2 +k ⎦ . (23)
γ̄ αg2 γth
k=0 k!Γ(mh2 ) αh2 + γQ
where βA is given by
 In addition to (23), an exact closed-form expression for the OP can
β1 , if mg1 < mg2 be derived by rewriting the SNR γdB given in (3) as
βA = β1 + β2 , if mg1 = mg2 (19)
γ Q |g1 |2 |g2 |2
β2 , if mg1 > mg2 γdB = . (24)
|g1 |2 |h2 |2 + |g2 |2 |h1 |2
and β1 and β2 are expressed as
mg
From (24) and invoking the concepts of probability theorem [15],
Υ (mh1 , μαh1 ) αg1 1 the OP can be expressed4 as
β1 =
Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 )   
 mg1 γth
Γ(mg1 + mh1 , μαh1 ) αg1 Pout = E|h2 |2 F|g2 |2 |h2 |2 + E|h1 |2 ,|h2 |2
+ γQ
Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 ) μαh1 ⎧
Υ(mh2 , μαh2 )αg2 2
mg ⎪
⎨
∞
β2 =  
Γ(mg2 + 1)Γ(mh2 ) f|g2 |2 |g2 |2 F|g1 |2
 mg2 ⎪
⎩
Γ(mg2 + mh2 , μαh2 ) αg2 γth |h2 |2
+
Γ(mg2 + 1)Γ(mh2 ) μαh2 ⎛  ⎞ ⎫
γth |g2 |2 + γth
γQ
|h2 |2 |h1 |2 ⎬
respectively. ×⎝ ⎠ d|g2 |2 (25)
γ Q |g2 |2 ⎭

3 It is important to note that, in this section, the asymptotic analysis for OP

relaxes the assumption of integer m. In other words, herein, the diversity and 4 Due to the space limitation, the detailed derivations are mostly omitted, and
coding gains hold for any value of the fading parameters. only the key steps are shown.

Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2372 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012

where E{·} denotes expectation. By applying the binomial theorem where βB is given by
[13, Eq. (1.111)] and with the help of [13, Eq. (3.471.9)], [13, Eq. 
(6.643.3)], and [13, Eq. (7.621.3)], an exact closed-form expression β3 , if mg1 < mg2
can be derived as βB = β3 + β4 , if mg1 = mg2 (30)
β4 , if mg1 > mg2
mg1 −1
  
u mg2
and β3 and β4 are given by
Pout = 1 −
 mg1
u=0 v=0 w=0 Γ(mg1 + mh1 ) αg1
β3 =
mg mh mh Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 ) αh1
αgu+
1
w−v+1
αg2 2 αh1 1 αh2 2 Γ(p1)Γ(p2)Γ(p3)Γ(p4)  mg2
u!Γ(mg2)Γ(mh1)Γ(mh2)Γ(p2 + p3 ) Γ(mg2 + mh2 ) αg2
β4 =
Γ(mg2 + 1)Γ(mh2 ) αh2
   −p1
u m g2 − 1 αg1 γth
× + αh1 respectively.
v w γQ
 −p3  p 5
αg2 γth γth C. Comparison Between the Two Transmit Power Strategies
× + αh2
γQ γQ 1) SNR Gap in Coding Gain: As can be explicitly observed from
(18) and (29), the diversity order of the secondary network does not
× 2 F1 (p3 , p1 , p2 + p3 ; Ξ) (26) depend on the fading parameters pertaining to the interference links,
i.e., mh1 and mh2 . Indeed, the diversity order is limited by the more
where p1 = mh1 + u + w − v + 1, p2 = mh1 + u, p3 = mg2 + mh2 , severe fading channel between the two secondary hops (data links),
p4 = p3 + v − w − 1, p5 = mg2 + u + w − v + 1, Ξ = ((αg2 αh1 + regardless of the transmit power strategy employed. However, the same
αg1 αh2 )(γth /γ̄Q )+αh1 αh2 )/(αh1 +(αg1 γth /γ̄Q ))(αh2 +(αg2 γth / is not true when it comes to coding gains, in which an SNR gap (in
γ̄Q )), and 2 F1 (·, ·, ·; ·) is the Gauss hypergeometric function [13, decibels) between the two strategies is observed. This coding gap is
Eq. (9.111)]. For the case of arbitrary fading parameter, the OP can be defined by the ratio
given by   min(m 1 ,m
βA g1 g2 )

∞ mg +k mh G = 10 log10 . (31)
αg2 2 αh2 2 Γ(q3 + k) βB
Pout =
Γ(mh2 )Γ(mg2 + k + 1)
k=0 2) Diversity–Multiplexing Tradeoff: Making use of the asymptotic
 mg2 +k  −q3 −k expressions previously derived for the OP, the diversity–multiplexing
γth αg2 γth tradeoff will now be evaluated. As well known, the outage threshold
× + αh2
γQ γQ γth can be written in terms of the spectral efficiency R (in bits per
second per hertz) as γth = 22R − 1. In addition, from the definition
q   q1 −mh1 mg2 mh1

∞ 
q αg1 αg2 αh in [1], the spectral efficiency R can be expressed in the form of the
1
+ normalized spectral efficiency r with respect to the channel capac-
l Γ(q6 )Γ(mg2 )
k=0 =0 ity as R = r log2 (1 + γ̄). Consequently, we have that γth = (1 +
mh  −q1 γ̄)2r − 1 so that the diversity–multiplexing tradeoff can be formulated
αh2 2 Γ(q1 )Γ(q2 )Γ(q3 )Γ(q4 ) αg1 γth as [1]
× + αh1
Γ(mh1 )Γ(mh2 )Γ(q2 + q3 ) γQ
Δ − log Pout (γ̄, r)
d(r) = lim . (32)
 −q3  q5 γ̄→∞ log γ̄
αg2 γth γth
× + αh2
γQ γQ Now, plugging γth = (1 + γ̄)2r − 1 into (18) and (29), and replac-
ing the respective resulting expressions into (32), we get
× 2 F1 (q3 , q1 , q2 + q3 ; Ξ) (27)  
log [(1 + γ̄)2r − 1]
d(r) = − min(mg1 , mg2 ) lim − 1 . (33)
where q = mg1 +mg2 +k−1, q1 = mg1 +mg2 +mh1 +k−, q2 = γ̄→∞ log γ̄
mg1 + mh1 + k, q3 = mg2 + mh2 , q4 = mh2 + , q5 = mg1 +
Finally, by applying the l’Hospital rule to (33), the diversity–
2mg2 + k − , and q6 = mg1 + k + 1.
multiplexing tradeoff can be expressed as
2) Asymptotic OP Analysis: For high values of γ̄, Fγ3 · can be
approximated by d(r) = min(mg1 , mg2 )(1 − 2r). (34)
 mg1  mg1
γ̄→∞ Γ(mg1 + mh1 ) αg1 γ From (34), we conclude the following: 1) The maximum diversity
Fγ3 (γ) = . (28)
Γ(mg1 + 1)Γ(mh1 ) αh1 γ̄ order of min(mg1 , mg2 ) is achieved as r → 0, and 2) the maximum
normalized spectral efficiency of 1/2 is achieved as d → 0 due to the
The preceding equation can also be used for approximating the cdf half-duplex communication modes.
of γ4 . For such, we just need to perform the appropriate substitutions.
Then, using the same approach as adopted in the previous section, the
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND S IMULATIONS
OP can be asymptotically approximated by
 min(mg1 ,mg2 ) In this section, representative numerical results are provided to
γ̄→∞ γth validate the proposed analysis and illustrate the effects of the channel
Pout = βB (29)
γ̄ parameters, e.g., mg1 , mg2 , mh1 , mh2 and Ωg1 , Ωg2 , Ωh1 , Ωh2 , on

Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012
Fig. 2. OP for spectrum-sharing AF relay networks with combined power
constraints at the PU and SU transmitters over Nakagami-m fading.
Fig. 3. OP for spectrum-sharing AF relay networks with the power constraint
at the PU only over Nakagami-m fading.
the network performance. Without loss of generality, the outage thresh-
old γth is set to 3 dB, and the channel mean powers of the secondary
network are given by Ωg1 = Ωg2 = 1. A good agreement between
analysis (both exact and lower bound) and simulations is observed.
In addition, it can be seen that the asymptotic curves tightly converge
to the simulations in the high-SNR regime, which corroborates our
analysis. For the plots, we define Network A as the CRN that employs
the combined power constraints (see Section III-A) and Network B as
the CRN that employs the single power constraint (see Section III-B).
Figs. 2 and 3 show the OP versus the average SNR γ̄ for Networks A
and B, respectively. The parameters of the primary network, i.e., those
pertaining to the interference links, are fixed to mh1 = 2, mh2 = 3,
and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 7.3. With the aim to highlight the impact of the
fading parameters mg1 and mg2 on the diversity gain, three different
representative examples are considered:
1) Network A: {mg1 = 2, mg2 = 3}, {mg1 = 4, mg2 = 3}, and
{mg1 = 4, mg2 = 4}.
Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2373
Fig. 4. Performance comparison for different transmission strategies with
combined power constraints at the PU and SU transmitters over Nakagami-m
fading.
Fig. 5. Performance comparison for different transmission strategies with the
power constraint at the PU only over Nakagami-m fading.
2) Network B: {mg1 = 2.5, mg2 = 3.1}, {mg1 = 3.4, mg2 =
1.8}, and {mg1 = 3.5, mg2 = 3.5}.
For Network A, the “Analysis” curves represent the lower bound
of the OP, given in (13), and for Network B, the “Analysis” curves
represent the exact OP, given in (27). To avoid entanglement, the lower
bound of the OP for Network B is not shown in Fig. 3. However, tests
were performed by the authors and reveal that the lower bound for
Network B is indeed very tight to the exact result. As the diversity
order is governed by the minimum of the fading severity parameters
between the two hops, the higher the value of min(mg1 , mg2 ), the
better the outage performance.
Figs. 4 and 5 evaluate the impact of the primary network on the
outage performance of Networks A and B, respectively. By keeping
mg1 and mg2 fixed, three different schemes are examined for each
kind of network. More specifically, for Network A, the parameters
are selected as Scheme 1: mh1 = mh2 = 2 and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 7.3,
2374
Fig. 6. SNR gap of the two power constraints versus the PU’s position over
Nakagami-m fading.
Scheme 2: mh1 = mh2 = 3 and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 3.3, and Scheme
3: mh1 = mh2 = 4 and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 1. For Network B, the pa-
rameters are chosen as Scheme 4: mh1 = mh2 = 2.2 and Ωh1 =
Ωh2 = 7.3, Scheme 5: mh1 = mh2 = 3.3 and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 3.3, and
Scheme 6: mh1 = mh2 = 4.4 and Ωh1 = Ωh2 = 1. It can be seen
that the curves are not affected by varying the fading parameters of
the primary network. Indeed, only a coding gain is observed once
the curves remain parallel to each other. This validates our proposed
analysis.
To illustrate the effect of the two transmit power strategies on
the network performance, Fig. 6 plots the SNR gain of Network B
over Network A, given in (31), for three different scenarios with
distinct fading severity parameters. A 2-D topology is assumed for
all nodes, in which the coordinate of each terminal is defined as
(x, y). Thus, the channel mean power for the fading channel from
node M with coordinate (xM , yM ) to node N with coordinate (xN , yN )
−η
$ denoted as  , where η is the path-loss exponent and  =
is
(xM − xN )2 + (yM − yN )2 is the distance between M and N. In
this figure, S, R, and D are located at the coordinates (0,0), (1/2, 0), and
(1, 0), respectively, and the curves are plotted in terms of the position
of the PU, with coordinate (d, d), and by setting the average SNR γ̄ to
30 dB. Note that the gain is remarkable when the PU is located close
to the secondary network. This phenomenon is explained as follows:
When the PU is near S and R, i.e., h1 and h2 are high, the interference
at the PU is high. In this case, the transmit powers of Networks A and
B are strictly governed by the constraint Q/|h1 |2 , which leads to a
similar performance for both networks. By contrast, when PU moves
away from S and R, i.e., h1 and h2 are low, the interference on the PU
is low. In this case, the power constraint on the PU can be neglected,
and as such, Network B outperforms Network A since the latter is
still controlled by the transmit power constraint of the secondary
network.
V. C ONCLUSION
Assuming i.n.i.d. Nakagami-m fading, we have derived closed-form
lower bounds and asymptotic expressions for the OP of cooperative
spectrum-sharing networks with AF relaying. In doing so, two transmit
power constraints have been proposed: 1) combined power constraint
Authorized licensed use limited to: STAATS U UNIBIBL BREMEN. Downloaded on February 14,2020 at 22:12:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 5, JUNE 2012
of the interference on the primary network and maximum transmission
power at the secondary network and 2) single power constraint of
the interference on the primary network. Our conclusions are at least
threefold: First, the diversity order is strictly defined by the minimum
fading severity between the two hops of the secondary network.
Second, the secondary network achieves the full diversity order of
min(mg1 , mg2 ), regardless of the transmit power constraint. Third,
the diversity–multiplexing tradeoff is independent of the primary
network.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity in
wireless networks: Efficient protocols and outage behavior,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, Dec. 2004.
[2] B. Maham and A. Hjorungnes, “Asymptotic performance analysis of
amplify-and-forward cooperative networks in a Nakagami-m fading
environment,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 300–302,
May 2009.
[3] B. Maham, R. Popovski, X. Zhou, and A. Hjorungnes, “Cognitive mul-
tiple access network with outage margin in the primary system,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 3343–3353, Oct. 2011.
[4] Y. Guo, G. Kang, N. Zhang, W. Zhou, and P. Zhang, “Outage
performance of relay-assisted cognitive-radio system under spectrum-
sharing constraints,” IET Electron. Lett., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 182–184,
Jan. 2010.
[5] J. Lee, H. Wang, J. G. Andrews, and D. Hong, “Outage probability of cog-
nitive relay networks with interference constraints,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 390–395, Feb. 2011.
[6] S. Sagong, J. Lee, and D. Hong, “Capacity of reactive DF scheme in
cognitive relay networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 10,
pp. 3133–3138, Oct. 2011.
[7] L. Luo, P. Zhang, G. Zhang, and J. Qin, “Outage performance for cog-
nitive relay networks with underlay spectrum sharing,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 710–712, Jul. 2011.
[8] J. Si, Z. Li, X. Chen, B. Hao, and Z. Liu, “On the performance of cognitive
relay networks under primary user’s outage constraint,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 422–424, Apr. 2011.
[9] C. Zhong, T. Ratnarajah, and K.-K. Wong, “Outage analysis of decode-
and-forward cognitive dual-hop systems with the interference constraint
in Nakagami-m fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60,
no. 6, pp. 2875–2879, Jul. 2011.
[10] H. Ding, J. Ge, B. da Costa, and Z. Jiang, “Asymptotic analysis of
cooperative diversity systems with relay selection in a spectrum shar-
ing scenario,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 457–472,
Feb. 2011.
[11] T. Q. Duong, V. N. Q. Bao, and H.-J. Zepernick, “Exact outage probability
of cognitive AF relaying with underlay spectrum sharing,” IET Electron.
Lett., vol. 47, no. 17, pp. 1001–1002, Aug. 2011.
[12] T. Q. Duong, V. N. Q. Bao, G. C. Alexandropoulos, and
H.-J. Zepernick, “Cooperative spectrum sharing networks with AF
relay and selection diversity,” IET Electron. Lett., vol. 47, no. 20,
pp. 1149–1151, Sep. 2011.
[13] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and
Products, 7th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2007.
[14] S. Ikki and M. H. Ahmed, “Performance analysis of cooperative diversity
wireless networks over Nakagami-m fading channel,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 334–336, Apr. 2007.
[15] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes,
4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.