This fUll-text paper was peer-reviewed and accepted to be presented at the IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference.
Performance Analysis of Cooperative Spectrum
Sensing in Cognitive Radio using Game Theory
Fenila Janet M
Electronics and Communication Electronics and Communication
Engineering
College of Engineering,Guindy College of Engineering,Guindy
Chennai, India
fenilajnt@gmail.com lavanyashanmugavel@gmail.com
Abstract- Cognitive Radio (CR) aims to provide efficient
utilization of the scarcely available radio spectrum. Spectrum
sensing is indispensable to identify spectrum holes. Inaccurate
sensing results in interference to PU. Therefore, sensing accuracy
is an important parameter. Cooperative Spectrum Sensing (CSS)
is an efficient technique to improve the sensing accuracy. It
makes use of cooperation between Secondary Users (SUs) to
detect the presence of Primary User (PU). Game theoretical
models help in understanding and modeling interaction among
users. In this paper, a CR network with multiple PUs and SUs is
considered. CSS is modeled as hedonic coalition formation game
where SUs sensing the same channel form coalitions.
coalitions are formed on the basis of probability of detection. For
each PU, the SUs which have maximum probability of detection
form coalition and cooperatively make the final sensing decision
by making use of OR rule. Channel estimation for ST -SR link is
done using WARP testbed. The sensing accuracy and energy
consumption for the coalitions when link is modeled using free
space pathloss model and using WARP testbed are found out.
Simulation results show that CSS modeled using hedonic
coalition formation has better sensing accuracy than
cooperative sensing.
Keywords-Cognitive Radio, Cooperative Spectrum Sensing,
hedonic, utility, WARP.
INTRODUCTION
The ever-increasing pace of development in wireless
services has led to a substantial rise in the demand for radio
spectrum. However, the radio spectrum is limited and a large
amount of it has already been licensed to existing operators.
According to studies conducted by Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), fixed spectrum allocation is not always
efficient as a large amount of the licensed spectrum remains
unoccupied (spectrum holes) for significant periods of time [ 1].
Cognitive Radio (CR) systems have been proposed [2] to
efficiently exploit this under-utilized spectrum whereby the
unlicensed users (secondary users) dynamically and
opportunistically access the bands allocated to the licensed
users (primary users) when the spectrum remains unused.
Spectrum sensing is vital [3] because misdetection leads to
interference to the Primary Users (PU) whereas false alarm
causes the Secondary Users (SU) to lose an opportunity to use
978-1-4673-9338-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Lavanya S Bhagyaveni M.A
Electronics and Communication
Engineering Engineering
College of Engineering,Guindy
Chennai,India Chennai,India
bhagya@annauniv.edu
the unoccupied channel. Cooperative Spectrum Sensing (CSS)
exploits spatial diversity thereby improving the sensing
performance. A comprehensive survey on the various CSS
techniques is elaborated [4]. Game theory is a mathematical
tool that analyzes the strategic relations among numerous
decision makers. In recent years, game theory has been found
to be very useful in various applications including cognitive
radio [5]. In [6], Saad el al has given a detailed overview on
coalitional game theory, which also deals with the major
challenges in applying coalition games to modem
The communication systems. A more focused study on modeling
CSS as coalition formation game is presented in [7]. In [8],
Hao et at formulated multichannel spectrum sensing and
channel access as a hedonic coalition formation game which
yielded improvement in performance than non-cooperative
sensing in terms of average utility of su.
In this paper, an algorithm for coalition formation is
presented. After coalitions are formed, Decision Node (DN) is
non­ elected which gives the final sensing decision. The link
between Secondary Transmitter (ST) and Secondary Receiver
(SR) is modeled using free space path loss model and in real
time using Wireless Open-Access Research Platform (WARP).
The novelty of this paper lies in the fact that, for channel
access, two constraints are defined. If inactive PU is detected,
SUs in the coalition access the sensed channel. If PU is active,
SUs in a distant coalition access the channel so that the
interference provided by SU to the active PU is minimum as in
the case of underlay network.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section
II describes the algorithm for coalition formation. Section III
deals with channel estimation using WARP. Section IV
explains the calculation of energy consumption and sensing
accuracy. Section V presents the results and future work.
ALGORITHM FOR COALITION FORMATION
The procedure involved in coalition formation :
i. Energy detection based sensing is performed by all ST
and the probability of detection of all PUs with respect
to all STs is found out.
2061
 This fUll-text paper was peer-reviewed and accepted to be presented at the IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference.

ii. SUs which have maximum probability of detection for
each PU join to form coalition and perform CSS to
find out whether the PU is active or inactive.
iii. Number of coalitions formed will be equal to the
number of PUs in the network. Only non-overlapping
coalitions are formed. Each ST can be a part of one
coalition only.
IV. After coalitions are formed for all PU, Decision Node
(DN) has to be selected. In each coalition, ST with
greatest probability of detection is chosen as DN.
v. DN uses OR rule as decision fusion rule to combine
the sensing results of the members in the coalition.
The primary reason for the choice of OR decision
fusion rule is that it helps to minimize the problem of
misdetection which would otherwise lead to adverse
effects due to interference to PU.
VI. The probability of detection of each coalition is found
out.
vii. Game theory is used to model the sensing accuracy
and energy consumption of the coalitions. The link
between ST and SR is modeled using
1. Free Space model
2. WARP testbed
Vlli. After step (vii), channel access has to be performed.
• If the sensing result concludes PU is inactive, SUs
which have sensed the PU can access the channel.
• If the sensing result concludes PU is active, SUs
which have sensed the PU cannot access the sensed
channel but can access the channel of other PUs for
which it would provide lower interference.
CHANNEL ESTIMATION USING WARP
The WARP platform shown in Fig 1, was designed at Rice
University and is used by number of academic and industrial
research lab for clean state protocol implementation of the
MAC and PHY.
In order to account for 20 SU, the nodes (RF C, RF D) are
placed at random locations and channel estimation is done. The
average channel gain is found out.
CALCULATION OF SENSING ACCURACY AND ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
In game theory, payoff is used to capture the tradeoff
between reward and penalty. In this work, reward refers to the
amount of data transmitted by ST (in case of correct detection
of inactive PU). Penalty is the loss due to interference to PU (in
case of misdetection). Sensing accuracy is given by A.
A =
P . L,jESiRj.; C T -
0) -
PCW,ODo (T -
0)
(0 1 O" )--I is -I-
where P01o,i is the probability that correct decision occurs,
R j,i is the transmission rate of STj, (T-8) is the data transmission
duration, ISil is the number of members in the coalition, Do is
the penalty for misdetection, 8 is the sensing duration, POII,i is
the probability that misdetection occurs.
Energy consumption is given by
Here, the time period T is divided into two time slots:
Sensing duration (8), data transmission duration (T-8). Data
transmission takes place during correct detection (inactive PU
is detected correctly) denoted by POIO,i and during misdetection
(Active PU is not detected) denoted by polI,i. For misdetection
POII,i penalty Do is given as it has led to interference to PU.
Sensing power is given by Ps1Si18. The power required for data
transmission is given by (POIO,i + POII,i)Pt(T-8) .
In the calculation of transmission rate,
R··"
1 z Pt
B·logz(l + h· ·I -
=

],
'
,]
(J�,i
the average channel gain of ST-SR link Ihi is modeled
using free space pathloss model as Ihi=l/d and also using
2
WARP testbed .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Cogniti\e radio network

100
,------�--�.�6--�

80r-�����_+· "����"�-r- -----i

.1
+ 17
Fig 1. Experimental Setup ofWARP 60 r-----+_----____
,7
A WARPV3 node usually contains two RF node (RF A, RF 40 �----+_----_+--��F�----�----__4
B) which is suitable for SISO transmission, each RF node can
be configured as either transmitter or receiver. Two more RF 20r----=+-- -�-+- -----+-.�-�. 9 -r- ---�
8
node (RF C, RF D) can be added via FMC (FPGA Mezzanine
0 �____�____�__ · 1_�
� 4 ______ ����
Connector) for MIMO transmission. Multiple WARP nodes o 20 40 60 80 100

can be connected to same computer via Ethernet switch. One

pair of nodes (RF A, RF B) can be considered as pu. The other
pair of nodes (RF C, RF D) can be considered as ST-SR pair. Fig 2. CR Network Scenario

2062
 This fUll-text paper was peer-reviewed and accepted to be presented at the IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference.

The CR network scenario under consideration consists of 5
PU, 20 Su. SUs are identified as ST-SR pair. Bandwidth of
each primary channel is assumed to be 10 MHz. Fig. 1 shows
the CR network scenario considered. The dark circles represent
pu. The dark colored diamonds represent ST. The light colored
diamonds represent SR. Transmit power is taken as 50mW.
Sensing power is taken as 10mW. The detection threshold E is
chosen as 0.2mW. Noise power is assumed to be O.lmW.
Energy detection is used as the sensing mechanism. The ST
perform local sensing initially and sense all pu. For each PU,
STs satisfying the threshold criterion combine to form
coalitions. The nodes (STs) in each coalition is given in Table
I.
In Fig 4, the variation of sensing accuracy with respect to
sensing time is plotted. From the plot, it is observed that as
sensing time increases, sensing accuracy increases till sensing
duration of 5 ms, after which it decreases. If the sensing
duration is 1ms, the nodes do not have enough time to sense,
hence sensing accuracy is less. As the sensing duration
increases, time for data transmission is less. Therefore sensing
accuracy decreases for larger sensing time. The optimal sensing
time of 5 ms is considered for the simulations performed in this
work.

NODES IN COALITION

Coalition for PU SUs in the coalition

I 14

2 5,17

3 2,8, 10,12, 13, 15, 18,20

4 1,4,9,19
Fig 4. Plot ofSensing Accuracy vs Sensing Time (WARP)
5 3,6,7, 1 1, 16
. . . .
In each coalItIOn, node WIth hIghest probabIlIty of detectIOn
(DN) combines the sensing results using OR rule. The
probability of detection and probability of false alarm for the
coalitions are tabulated in Table II.

TAB LE II. PF AND PD FOR THE COALITIONS

Coalition Probability of false Probability of

alarm (Pc) detection (Pd)
I 0.0 127 0. 1288

2 0.0253 0.87 19
Fig 5. Plot ofSensing accuracy vs Sensing time (Free Space model)
3 0. 1 1.0000

4 0.0507 1.0000

5 0.0634 1.0000

Fig 6.Plot ofSensing accuracy Vs Probability ofPU being inactive (WARP)

Fig 3. Comparison of Cooperative and Non-cooperative sensing

Fig 3 depicts a comparison of cooperative and non­

cooperative sensing in terms of probability of detection. From
the plot, it is observed that cooperative sensing always
outperforms non-cooperative sensing.
Fig 7.Plot ofSensing accuracy Vs Probability ofPU being inactive (Free Space
pathloss model)

2063
 This fUll-text paper was peer-reviewed and accepted to be presented at the IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference.
Fig S.Plot ofSensing accuracy Vs Number ofPU (WARP)
Fig 9.Plot ofSensing accuracy Vs Number ofPU (Free
Space pathloss model)
Fig 10. Plot ofEnergy consumption vs Sensing time
Fig II. Plot ofEnergy consumption Vs Probability ofPU being inactive
2064
Fig 12. Plot ofEnergy Consumption Vs Number ofPU
The plot of sensing accuracy vs probability of PU being
inactive is shown in Fig.6. For a range of probabilities from O.l
to 1, sensing accuracy increases from a lower value to
maximum. This is mainly due to the fact that, greater
probability of PU being inactive increases the opportunity for
SU to utilize the spectrum and hence greater sensing accuracy.
Fig 8 shows plot of sensing accuracy with respect to the
number of PU. As the number of PU increases, SUs have more
channels to sense and sensing accuracy improves . From Fig
10, it is evident that as sensing time increases, energy
consumption increases. As energy consumption is based on
both sensing and data transmission, energy consumed
increases. Fig 11 shows plot of energy consumption with
respect to probability of PU being inactive. When PU is
inactive, data transmission takes place and hence energy
consumption is high. As the number of PU increases, sensing
becomes uncomplicated and hence energy consumption
decreases as shown in Fig 12.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Coalitional game theory has been used to model CSS. It is
evident from results that CSS modeled using game theory
produces better sensing performance than non-cooperative
sensing techniques. Moreover, ST-SR link has been modeled
using free space model and it has also been implemented in real
time using WARP. This work could be further extended to
include spectrum management.
REFERENCES
[I]. Federal Communications Commission, "Spectrum Policy
Task Force Report," Report ET Docket no. 02-135, Nov.
2002.
[2]. S. Haykin, "Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless
communications," IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 23,
pp. 201-220, Feb. 2005.
[3]. Yucek T, Arslan H. "A survey of spectrum sensing
algorithms for cognitive radio applications," IEEE Commun
Surv Tut, pp.116-130, 2009.
[4]. I. F. Akyildiz, B. F. Lo, and R. Balakrishnan, "Cooperative
spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks: a survey,"
Elsevier Physical Commun.,vol. 4, no. I, pp. 40-62, Mar.
201!.
 This fUll-text paper was peer-reviewed and accepted to be presented at the IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference.

[5]. Bebei Wang, Yongle Wu, K. J. Ray Liu,"Game theory for sensing," IEEE Trans. Veh.Technol., vol. 60, no. 1, pp.
cognitive radio networks: An overview," Elsevier journal 276-297, Jan. 2011.
on Computer networks, 2010. [8]. Xiaolei Hao, Man Hon Cheung, Vincent W. S. , "Hedonic
[6]. W. Saad, Z. Han, M. Debbah, A. Hjorungnes, and T. Basar, Coalition Formation Game for Cooperative Spectrum
"Coalitional game theory for communication networks," Sensing and Channel Access in Cognitive Radio
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 77- Networks", IEEE Transactions On Wireless
97, Sep. 2009. Communications, Vol. II, No. 11, 2012.

[7]. W. Saad, Z. Han, T. Basar, M. Debbah, and A. Hjorungnes,

"Coalition formation games for collaborative spectrum

2065