D86 J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW./VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017
Sequential Detection for Optical Wireless
Scattering Communication
Xiaona Liu, Chen Gong, and Zhengyuan Xu
Abstract—In an optical wireless scattering communica-
tion network, the receiver needs to periodically listen to
the channel to detect whether the channel is occupied by
other transceiver pairs. It falls into the spectrum sensing
category of the cognitive radio. In this work, we adopt
sequential detection for the spectrum sensing, for both
a photon-counting receiver and a photomultiplier tube
(PMT) receiver. For the PMT receiver, to reduce the compu-
tational complexity, we propose a one-term approximation
for the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) computation. We also ex-
tend the sequential detection to cooperative sensing with
multiple photon-counting and PMT receivers. From the
simulations, it is seen that the one-term approximation
can show a comparable number of samples as that for
the exact LLR computation to achieve certain miss detec-
tion and false alarm probabilities, significantly fewer than
those required by the Gaussian approximation for a low
PMT amplification factor. The numbers of samples for both
the Gaussian and one-term approximations are close to
those for the exact LLR computation for a large PMT
amplification factor.
Index Terms—Optical wireless scattering communica-
tion; Sequential detection; Spectrum sensing.
I. INTRODUCTION
O ptical wireless communication (OWC) serves as a
good candidate for future wireless communications
due to its potentially large transmission bandwidth and
lack of electromagnetic radiation. It can be deployed for ap-
plications where a radio frequency (RF) is prohibited, for
example, on the battlefield, where radio silence is required.
On some occasions, the line-of-sight (LOS) link between the
transmitter and the receiver may be blocked by an obstacle.
One example is a high building between the transmitter
and the receiver that blocks the LOS optical communica-
tion. The solution is to utilize non-line-of-sight (NLOS)
optical scattering communication [1–3], where the trans-
mitting direction and the receiving direction are not re-
quired to be perfectly aligned. NLOS optical communication
channels and systems have been extensively studied from
both an experimental perspective [2–6] and an analytical
Manuscript received January 18, 2017; revised June 22, 2017; accepted
June 24, 2017; published August 18, 2017 (Doc. ID 284902).
All the authors are with the Key Laboratory of Wireless-Optical
Communications, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Science
and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230027, China (e-mail:
cgong821@ustc.edu.cn).
Z. Xu is also with the Shenzhen Graduate School, Tsinghua University,
Shenzhen 518055, China.
https://doi.org/10.1364/JOCN.9.000D86
1943-0620/17/090D86-10 Journal © 2017 Optical Society of America
d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
Liu et al.
perspective [7–14]. Recently, the channel characterization
of optical wireless scattering communication has typically
been studied based on a Monte Carlo evaluation of the link
gain and impulse response [15], LED array experiments [5],
and theoretical analysis [11].
Note that for optical wireless scattering communication,
the number of detected photoelectrons satisfies a Poisson
distribution, which forms a Poisson channel. Existing
works for Poisson channels focus on channel capacity
[16–19], as well as the baseband digital signal processing
[20,21] and coded modulation [22]. Recently, communi-
cation signal processing has been investigated from the
aspects of inter-symbol interference modeling [23], the
relay protocol for the photon-counting receiver [24,25],
and single-input multiple-output communication with the
Poisson and shot noises [26].
On the other hand, in an OWC ad hoc network, the op-
tical receiver needs to search the available transmission
wavelengths by sensing the optical spectrum in the local
neighborhood in an unsupervised manner. If the receiver
detects the signals falling into its receiving angle, it sends
feedback to the transmitter using another wavelength, let-
ting the transmitter increase the transmission power or de-
lay the transmission in order to guarantee a certain quality
of service. It falls into the category of spectrum sensing
[27,28]. The spectrum sensing for optical wireless scatter-
ing communication has been investigated in [29], where the
generalized likelihood ratio test was adopted for fixed-
sample-size detection. Note that the sequential detection,
which adapts the sample size to the current channel reali-
zation, can significantly reduce the number of samples
needed to satisfy certain sensing requirements [30].
The contribution of this work is to introduce sequential
detection-based spectrum sensing to optical wireless scat-
tering communication, which involves first applying se-
quential detection to optical scattering communication
and is different from the RF, especially considering the
receivers. We consider two types of receivers: the ideal
photon-counting receiver that counts the number of de-
tected photoelectrons, and the photomultiplier tube (PMT)
receiver that converts the photon-level signal into a series
of electrons and forms a continuous-time electrical signal.
We specify sequential detection for the spectrum sensing
for both the photon-counting receiver and the PMT
receiver. For the latter, as the exact log-likelihood compu-
tation involves the summation of infinite terms, we propose
a one-term approximation on the log-likelihood ratio (LLR)
computation to reduce the computational complexity. The
 Liu et al.
Fig. 1. Scattering communication system diagram.
one-term approximation can show virtually the same num-
ber of samples as that for the exact LLR computation to
achieve certain miss detection (MD) and false alarm
(FA) requirements, substantially fewer than those required
by the Gaussian approximation for a low PMT amplifica-
tion factor. The numbers of samples for both the Gaussian
and the one-term approximation are close to those for the
exact LLR computation for a large PMT amplification
factor. The sequential detection for a single receiver has
been investigated in our previous work [31].
Beyond the single-receiver scenario we considered in
[31], in this paper we also consider cooperative sensing
using multiple receivers. Such a cooperative sensing ap-
proach can be applied to both photon-counting and PMT
receivers. The LLR messages from multiple receivers can
be combined for sequential detection. We provide the exact
LLR-based detection for the photon-counting receiver and
the approximated LLR-based detection for the PMT
receiver. The system block diagram for sensing with multi-
ple receivers is shown in Fig. 1.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we provide the problem statement and an over-
view of the sequential detection for a single receiver. In
Sections III and IV, we adopt sequential detection to the
spectrum sensing for the photon-counting receiver and
PMT receiver, respectively. In Section V, we extend the se-
quential detection to cooperative sensing with multiple
receivers. The numerical results are given in Section VI.
Finally, Section VII concludes this paper.
II. SYSTEM MODEL FOR A SINGLE RECEIVER
A. Sensing for a Scattering Communication
Network
Consider a transceiver pair in an optical wireless scat-
tering communication network. The receiver listens to
the channel to detect whether other transceiver pairs
are interfering with its potential transmission. Assume
that periodically, each transmitter sends a long pulse to no-
tify other pairs of the channel it is occupying. In the follow-
ing, we formulate such a signal detection problem based on
the Neyman–Pearson (NP) detection framework.
We employ the binary hypothesis to model the events on
whether the channel is occupied. More specially, we define
the following two events:
d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017/J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW. D87
H0 : the channel is vacant;
H1 : the channel is occupied:
We follow the conventional definitions of the MD proba-
bility and FA probability. The MD probability is the prob-
ability that the channel vacancy is detected when it is
occupied, and the FA probability is the probability that
the channel occupancy is detected when it is vacant. The
two probabilities are defined as PMD and PFA , respectively.
The NP criterion is adopted for the signal detection based
on the LLR, where the number of samples can either be
fixed or adapted. The framework of LLR-based detection
is given as follows:
accept H1 if LLR > η; accept H0 if LLR ≤ η:
Let zk , k ≥ 1, denote the received signal samples. Then,
the accumulated LLR up to sample N can be obtained as
follows:
QN
Pzk jH1 
LLRN  ln Qk1
N
; (1)
k1 Pzk jH0 
X
N
Pzk jH1 
 ln : (2)
Pzk jH0 
k1
For detection with a fixed sample size, the detection
threshold η can be obtained according to the NP detection
rule, i.e., to minimize the MD probability, given that the FA
probability does not exceed a certain threshold. However,
the fixed-sample-size detection may significantly increase
the number of samples needed to satisfy the NP detection
requirements. Another option is to adopt sequential detec-
tion [30], where the receiver keeps detecting between
events H0 and H1 upon receiving each sample. The number
of samples required to achieve the same detection perfor-
mance can be substantially reduced.
B. Sequential NP Detection
We provide an overview of the sequential detection. The
receiver keeps updating the LLR upon receiving each sam-
ple until the LLR reaches certain preset thresholds. The
detection terminates if the accumulated LLR over the pre-
vious slots reaches the upper threshold or lower threshold.
Let A and B be the upper and lower thresholds, respec-
tively. The criterion is that, for some N,
accept H1 if LLRN ≥ A; accept H0 if LLRN ≤ B:
If B < LLRN < A for some N, then the receiver extracts
one more sample to update the LLR. It is shown in [32] that
to guarantee that the FA probability does not exceed a cer-
tain level α and that the MD probability does not exceed a
certain level β, the thresholds A and B need to satisfy
 D88 J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW./VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017 Liu et al.

A ≈ − ln α; B ≈ ln β: 3 is the photon-counting receiver that counts the number

of detected photoelectrons, and the other type is the
It can be proven that such an approximation strengthens PMT that amplifies each detected photoelectron to a series
the conditions PFA ≤ α and PMD ≤ β. In other words, if the of electrons. We adopt the sequential detection for both the
thresholds A  − ln α and B  ln β, we have that the FA photon-counting receiver and the PMT receiver and ana-
probability PFA < α and the MD probability PMD < β. The lyze the average number of samples to achieve the required
above sequential detection procedure is elaborated in PFA and PMD .
Algorithm 1 as follows.
III. SEQUENTIAL DETECTION FOR A SINGLE
Algorithm 1: Sequential Detection for Binary Hypotheses PHOTON-COUNTING RECEIVER
0: Initialize N  0, and LLR0  0.
1: Update: N  N  1;
We specify the sequential detection for the photon-
2: Acquire sample zN and compute the LLR as
PzN jH1  counting receiver based on the Poisson distribution of
follows: LLR  ln Pz N jH0 
; the detected photoelectrons. Then, we analyze the perfor-
3: Update the accumulated LLR as follows: mance of the sequential detection. The average number of
LLRN  LLRN−1  LLR; received symbols for the fixed-sample-size detection is also
4: If LLRN > A or LLRN ≤ B, then go to step 5; otherwise, provided for comparison.
return to step 1;
5: If LLRN ≥ A, claim H1 : the channel is occupied; if
LLRN ≤ B, claim H0 : the channel is vacant. A. Received Signal and Sequential Detection for the
Photon-Counting Receiver
The average number of samples required for the sequen-
tial detection can be calculated based on the Kullback– Consider the sequential detection for the photon-
Leibler (KL) distance between the two distributions.
counting receiver. For weak received signals, the detected sig-
More specifically, for the two distributions px and qx,
nals are characterized by discrete photoelectrons, whose
the KL distance is given by
number satisfies the Poisson distribution. Let λs and λb de-
Z
px note the average number of detected photoelectrons of the
Dpx∥qx  px ln dx; (4)
qx signal component and the background radiation component,
respectively. For hypotheses H0 and H1 , the numbers of de-
for continuous distributions and tected photoelectrons obey a Poisson distribution, with means
X λb and λs  λb , respectively. More specifically, for each sample
px
Dpx∥qx  px ln ; (5) k, we have the following from the received signal zk :
qx
x λz k
H0 : Pzk jH0   b e−λb ; (10)
zk !
for discrete distributions. It can be proven that
Dpx∥qx ≥ 0, and equality is achieved if and only if
px  qx for all x. The expectations of the LLR under λs  λb zk −λs λb 
H1 : Pzk jH1   e : (11)
the two hypotheses can be expressed by the KL distance zk !
as follows:
The sequential detection can be performed via following
  the standard procedure shown in Algorithm 1. According to
PzjH1 
EH0 ln  −DPzjH0 ∥PzjH1 ; (6) Eqs. (10) and (11), the accumulated LLR up to sample N is
PzjH0  given by
  X N  
PzjH1 
N
Pzk jH1  X λ  λb
EH1 ln  DPzjH1 ∥PzjH0 : (7) LLRN  ln  zk ln s − λs : (12)
PzjH0  k1
Pzk jH0  k1 λb
Δ
We define Y k  zk ln1  λλbs  − λs as the LLR of sample zk .
P up to symbol N can be expressed
According to Wald’s equation [30,32], the average The accumulated LLR
number of samples required to reach a decision can be as the summation N k1 Y k . The sequential detection rule
expressed as follows: is to detect whether such an accumulated LLR is larger
than threshold A, smaller than threshold B, or between
−A − B − AeB  BeA  thresholds A and B.
EH0 N stop  ≈ ; (8)
e − eB DPzjH0 ∥PzjH1 
A

B. Performance Analysis
A − B − Ae−B  Be−A
EH1 N stop  ≈ −A : (9)
e − e−B DPzjH1 ∥PzjH0  For the photon-counting receiver, the average number of
samples needed to guarantee the MD and FA probability
Note that there are basically two types of receivers for requirements can be obtained based on Eqs. (8) and (9).
the optical wireless scattering communication. One type Note that the KL distance is given as follows:

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Liu et al. VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017/J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW. D89

0   1
λb
DPzjH0 ∥PzjH1   λs  λb ln ; (13) Bη − N λ ln 1  λs
− λ s C
λs  λb B
fix b λb
C
PFA  PrZ0 > η ≅ QB r
   C; (19)
@ λ A
λs  λ b N fix λb ln2 1  λbs
DPzjH1 ∥PzjH0   λs  λb  ln − λs : (14)
λb
0 1
   
λs
Next, we analyze the average number of samples for the BN fix λs  λb  ln 1  − λs − ηC
B λb C
fixed-sample-size detection to satisfy the MD and FA prob- PMD  PrZ1 ≤ η ≅ QB r
  C:
ability requirements. According to Eq. (12), the accumu- @ λ A
PN N fix λs  λb ln2 1  λbs
lated
PN LLR k1 LLR k is related to the summation
k1 zk of the detected photoelectrons from slot 1 to slot (20)
N, which satisfies a Poisson distribution with mean Nλs 
λb  for hypothesis H1 and mean Nλb for hypothesis H0. For the preset FA probability PFA  α and MD probabil-
Although the detection threshold and the number of sam- ity PMD  β, we have the following detection threshold:
ples required can be derived based on the Poisson distribu-
   
tion, the calculation involves the summation of the Poisson λ
λb n n η  N fix λb ln 1  s − λs
distribution probability in the form of Nλsn! and Nλn!b  , λb
which may suffer from high computational complexity s
 
λ
and not be amenable to the threshold analysis. Thus, we  Q−1 α N fix λb ln2 1  s ; (21)
approximate these Poisson distributions using Gaussian λb
distributions with the same mean and variance.
   
Note that the LLRs fY k gk≥1 are independent and identi- λ
η  N fix λs  λb  ln 1  s − λs
cally distributed random variables. For a large N, this sum- λb
mation can s
 
P be approximated by a Gaussian distribution.
λ
Let Z0  N i1 i denote the sum LLR for N fix samples.
fix
Y − Q−1 β N fix λs  λb ln2 1  s
: (22)
According to the central limit theorem, for a large sample λb
size N fix , Z0 can be approximated by a Gaussian distribu-
tion. The average number of samples can be calculated Then, the average number of required samples can be
based on a Gaussian approximation. expressed as
Note that the mean and variance of Y i under hypothesis  −1 p p
H0 can be expressed as follows: Q α λb  Q−1 β λs  λb 2
N fix  : (23)
λs
 
λs
EH0 Y i   λb ln 1  − λs ; (15)
λb

 
IV. SEQUENTIAL DETECTION FOR A SINGLE PMT RECEIVER
λ
VarH0 Y i   λb ln2 1  s : (16)
λb We adopt the sequential detection for the PMT receiver.
Note that the received signal satisfies the mixed Gaussian
Thus, the LLR Z0 can be approximated using the follow- distribution, where the density function involves an infin-
ing Gaussian distributions: ite number of terms. Thus, the exact LLR computation may
     suffer from high computational complexity. To tackle this
λ
Z0 ∼ N N fix λb ln 1  s − λs ; issue, we propose a one-term approximation of the LLR
λb computation, which significantly reduces the computa-
 
λ tional complexity.
N fix λb ln2 1  s : (17)
λb

Δ P fix A. Received Signal Model for the PMT

Let Z1  N i1 Y i denote the sum of the LLR under hy-
pothesis H1 . Similarly, the Gaussian approximation of Z1
can be expressed as follows: The PMT receiver converts discrete photons into analog
     electric signals. Each photon is amplified to a series of
λ electrons, where the analog signal satisfies a Gaussian
Z1 ∼ N N fix λs  λb  ln 1  s − λs ;
λb distribution. The mean is the amplified version of the
  signal electron, and the variance is contributed by both
λ
N fix λs  λb ln2 1  s : (18) shot noise and thermal noise. More specifically, given
λb
the number of received photons n, the electric signal is
Given the LLR threshold η, the FA and MD probabilities given by
can be calculated according to the above Gaussian
approximation, given as follows: z  nAf el  v; (24)

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 D90 J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW./VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017 Liu et al.

where Af is the amplification factor, el is the single electron interesting that the one-term approximation significantly
charge, and v is the zero-mean additive Gaussian noise outperforms the Gaussian approximation, as shown in
stimulated by receiving n photons. Such additive noise is the simulations.
characterized by the following Gaussian distribution,
1) One-Term Approximation Detection: Computing the
v ∼ N 0; nσ 2  σ 20 ; (25) LLR of the MGD by MATLAB on a personal computer
takes more than one day or even longer, while computing
where σ 2 denotes the shot noise variance stimulated by a the LLR of the approximated Gaussian takes several
single photon, and σ 20 denotes the thermal noise variance. hours. To decrease the complexity of LLR computation,
Let ke denote the Boltzmann constant, T 0 denote the we keep only one mean term of the MGD out of the whole
receiver temperature, T P denote the symbol duration, summation of MGDs to detect signals at the receiver. The
RL denote the receiver load resistance, and ξ denote the one mean-term LLR is as follows:
PMT spreading factor. The shot and thermal noise λs λb λs λb  −λs λb 
λs λb ! e Gzk ; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 
variances can be expressed as [26] LLRk ≈ λ : (32)
λbb −λb
λb ! e Gzk ; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 
2ke T 0
σ 20  TP; σ 2  ξAf el 2 : (26) To prove the feasibility of one mean-term estimation
RL
detection, we also simulated at different levels of the
SNR. The figures are shown in Section VI.
Assume that the number of received photons satisfies a
Poisson distribution with mean λ. Based on the signal char- 2) Gaussian Approximation Detection: Note that the
acterization [Eq. (24)], the output analog signal satisfies mixed Gaussian distribution can be approximated by a
the following mixed Gaussian distribution (MGD): Gaussian distribution with the same mean and variance.
X
∞ n
λ More specifically, consider the following mixed Gaussian
pz; λ  e−λ Gz; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 ; (27) distribution, given as follows:
n!
n0 X∞ n
λ −λ
where Gz; μ; σ 2  denotes the probability density function of f zjλ  e Gz; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 : (33)
a Gaussian distribution with mean μ and variance σ 2 : n0
n!
It can be approximated by the Gaussian distribution
1 −z−μ
2
with mean λAf el and variance λA2f e2l  σ 2   σ 20 . Such an
Gz; μ; σ 2   p e 2σ2 : (28)
2πσ 2 approximation can also be justified by the characteristic
function of a probabilistic density function.
B. Sequential Detection for the PMT Receiver Note that for a Gaussian distribution, Gx; μ; σ 2 , the
characteristic function is given as follows:
Z ∞
Recall that the average number of samples for the signal
ΦMG s  eisz Gz; μ; σ 2 dz (34)
component and the noise component are given by λs and λb , −∞
respectively. Then, under hypotheses H0 and H1 , the
1 2 2
electric signals satisfy the following distributions:  esμ2s σ : 35
X
∞ n For the mixed Gaussian distribution based on the
λ b −λb
PzjH0   e Gz; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 ; (29) Poisson distribution, the characteristic function can be
n0
n! expressed as follows:
Z ∞ X
∞ n
X
∞
λs  λb n λ −λ
PzjH1   e−λs λb  Gz; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 : (30) ΦMG s  esz e Gz; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20 dz
n! −∞ n0
n!
n0
X
∞ n
λ 1 2
nσ 2 σ 20 
 e−λ eisnAf el −2s
Given the signal zk of symbol k, the LLR can be n0
n!
expressed as 2 2
sAf el s σ
2 −λ1s2 σ 2
 eλe 2 0
P∞ λs λb n −λs λb 
e Gzk ; nAf el ; nσ 2  σ 20  1 2
A2f e2l σ 2 σ 20 
LLRk  n0 n!
P∞ λnb −λ : (31) ≈ esλAf el 2s : (36)
b Gz ; nA e ; nσ 2  σ 2 
n0 n! e k f l 0
Note that the above approximation follows the Taylor
1 2 2
expansion of the term esAf el 2s σ to the order of s2. In other
Note that the exact LLR computation based on the words, based on Eq. (34), such a mixed Gaussian distribu-
mixed Gaussian distribution may suffer from high compu- tion can be approximated by the Gaussian distribution
tational complexity, since it involves the summation of an with mean λAf el and variance λA2f e2l  λσ 2  σ 20 .
infinite number of terms. To reduce the computational com-
plexity, we adopt an approximation where only one term is Based on the following approximated Gaussian distribu-
computed for both the numerator and the denominator. For tion on the mixed Gaussian distribution,
comparison, the Gaussian approximation for both the
numerator and the denominator is also outlined. It is Gzk ; λAf el ; Af el 2  σ 2 λ  σ 20 ; (37)

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Liu et al. VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017/J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW. D91

the LLR can be approximated as follows: B. LLR Messages for Photon-Counting and PMT
Receivers
Gzk ; λs  λb Af el ; Af el 2  σ 2 λs  λb   σ 20 
LLR  : (38)
Gzk ; λb Af el ; Af el 2  σ 2 λb  σ 20  The LLR messages for photon-counting and PMT receiv-
ers can be derived based on those for a single receiver. For
V. SEQUENTIAL DETECTION FOR MULTIPLE RECEIVERS a photon-counting receiver, the sum LLR up to symbol N is
given as follows:
Recall that in Section II, we have considered the sequen-
N  
tial detection for a single receiver. In this section, we extend
X
K X
λs;k  λb;k
the sequential detection to cooperative sensing with multi- LLRS
N  zn k ln − λs;k ; (41)
ple receivers. Assume that the LLR messages for the multi- k1 n1
λb;k
ple receivers can be aggregated for cooperative spectrum
sensing. We also specify the LLR for the photon-counting
receiver and the PMT receiver. where λs;k and λb;k are the signal and background radiation
intensities for receiver k, respectively.
For the PMT receiver, we employ one-term approxima-
A. Cooperative Sensing With Multiple Receivers tion for the LLR approximation for each receiver. Such
approximation for each receiver can be derived according
For the sequential detection with multiple receivers, we to Eq. (32). Similar to Eq. (41), for receiver k, the signal in-
combine the updated LLR from each receiver until the sum tensity and background radiation are given by λs;k and λb;k ,
LLR reaches certain preset thresholds. The same as those respectively.
for single-receiver sequential detection, we let A and B be
S
the upper and lower thresholds, respectively. Let LLRN be
the sum LLR up to symbol duration N. For multiple VI. SIMULATION RESULTS
receivers, the sensing criteria are given as follows:

S
accept H1 if LLRN ≥ A; We showed the performances of the sequential detection
for the photon-counting receiver and the PMT receiver. For
S
accept H0 if LLRN ≤ B: the photon-counting receiver, we compared the average
number of samples required for sequential detection with
Assume K cooperative receivers, and each receiver that for the fixed-sample-size detection in Figs. 2 and 3. It
updates its LLR. Let zN k denote the detected signal for is seen that sequential detection requires fewer samples
symbol N at receiver k for N ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ k ≤ K. Let than fixed-sample-size detection. Besides the photon-
LLRN k denote the sum LLR of receiver k up to symbol counting receiver, we also simulated sequential detection
N. The sum LLRs up to symbol N for each receiver k for the PMT receivers. We compared the numbers of sam-
and all receivers are given as follows: ples required for the exact LLR computation, the one-term
approximation, and the Gaussian approximation in
PzN kjH1 
LLRN k  LLRN−1 k  ln ; (39) Figs. 4–6 for the single PMT receiver, and in Figs. 8–10
PzN kjH0  for multiple PMT receivers. For the single PMT receiver,
X
K we have tested the number of samples for different PMT
LLRS
N  LLRN k: (40) amplification factors of 100 and 106 .
k1

25
Fixed sample size − H0 and H1 (by theory)
The sequential detection with multiple receivers is given Sequential − H0 (by theory)

as follows.
Average Number of Samples

Sequential − H1 (by theory)

20 Sequential − H (by simulation)
0
Sequential − H1 (by simulation)

Algorithm 2: Sequential Detection for K Receivers

15
0: Initialize N  0, and LLR0 k  0; k  1; …; K.
1: Update: N  N  1;
2: Acquire sample zN k and compute the LLR via 10

LLRk  ln pz N kjH1 

pzN kjH0  ;
3: Update the accumulated LLR as follows 5
LLRN k  LLRN−1 k  LLRk;
4: Obtain the PK sum LLR from each receiver via 0 −3
LLRS
N  k1 LLRN k;
−2 −1
10 10 10
α=β
5: If LLRN > A or LLRS
S
N ≤ B, then go to step 6; other-
wise, return to step 1;
6: If LLRSN ≥ A, claim H1 : the channel is occupied; if
Fig. 2. Average number of samples for the photon-counting
receiver with background radiation component λb  100 and sig-
LLRS
N ≤ B, claim H0 : the channel is vacant. nal component λs  10.

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 D92 J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW./VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017 Liu et al.

1.4 180
PFA of One−term Approximation
160 P of One−term Approximation

Average Number of Samples

MD
1.2
Average Number of Samples

P of Exact LLR Computation

FA
140 PMD of Exact LLR Computation
PFA of Gaussian Approximation
1 120 P of Gaussian Approximation
MD

100
0.8
80
0.6
60

0.4 Fixed sample size − H0 and H1 (by theory) 40

Sequential − H0 (by theory)
Sequential − H (by theory)
20
0.2 1
Sequential − H0 (by simulation)
0 −4 −3 −2 −1 0
Sequential − H1 (by simulation) 10 10 10 10 10
0 −3
10 10
−2 −1
10 Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection
α=β
Fig. 4. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob-
Fig. 3. Average number of samples for the photon-counting abilities for the exact LLR computation, the one-term approxima-
receiver with background radiation component λb  100 and sig- tion, and the Gaussian approximation for λb  100 and λs  10.
nal component λs  50. The PMT gain is 100.

A. Spectrum Sensing With a Single Receiver
We first showed the average number of samples required
for the photon-counting receiver. Consider two scenarios:
the average number of photoelectrons for the background
radiation λb  100 and the signal component λs  10, and
the average number of photoelectrons for background radi-
ation λb  100 and the signal component λs  50. These re-
present very weak signal cases as compared with the noise
counts. Figures 2 and 3 show the average numbers of sam-
ples required for the fixed-sample-size detection and the
sequential detection for the two scenarios, from both the
theoretical analysis and the simulations. In both Figs. 2
and 3, the curves of sequential detection for both hypoth-
eses H0 and H1 based on the theoretical results overlap
with each other. It is seen that for the photon-counting
receiver, the sequential detection requires fewer samples
to achieve the same FA and MD probability requirements
compared with the fixed-sample-size detection. The
average number of samples decreases linearly with the
logarithm of the required MD and FA probabilities. For
weaker signal components, larger numbers of samples are
needed to meet the detection requirements. Moreover, the
theoretical analysis based on the theoretical results
for the simulation. The number of samples required for
Af  100 are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and that for Af 
106 is shown in Fig. 6. The shot noise variance σ 2 and ther-
mal noise variance σ 20 can be computed according to
Eq. (26). Again, assuming that the background noise radi-
ation intensity λb  100, we consider two scenarios for the
signal intensity, λs  10 and λs  50. We compared the
average number of samples required based on the exact
LLR computation, the LLR computation based on the
Gaussian approximation, and the LLR computation based
on the one-term approximation in both the numerator and
the denominator.
We showed the average number of samples for the FA
and MD probability requirements. Note that for the one-
term and Gaussian approximations, the exact FA and
MD probabilities for certain upper and lower thresholds
are difficult to compute. Thus, we resorted to simulations
for the numerical evaluation. We varied the upper and
lower thresholds A  −B and obtained the relationship be-
tween the real FA/MD probability and the average number
of samples required, which are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, for
9
PFA of One Term Approximation
PMD of One Term Approximation
8
Average Number of samples

can better predict the simulation results for weaker signal P

FA
of exact LLR Computation
PMD of exact LLR Computation
components. Also note that the mean number of required 7 PFA of Gaussian Approximation

samples from theoretical results is smaller than one, as 6

PMD of Gaussian Approximation

shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the theoretical analysis

5
is close to the simulation results in Fig. 2, while there is
a gap between the theoretical analysis and the simulation 4
results in Fig. 3. This is due to the larger number of 3
samples, which increases the accuracy, aligned with the
results in [30]. 2

Next, we considered the PMT receiver, where the out- 1 −4 −3 −2 −1

10 10 10 10
put analog signal obeys a mixed Gaussian distribution. Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection
We assume that the amplification factor Af  100, the
Boltzmann constant ke  1.38 × 10−23 , the receiver temper- Fig. 5. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob-
ature T 0  300 K, the load resistance RL  1 MΩ, and the abilities for the exact LLR computation, the one-term approxima-
PMT spreading factor ξ  0.1 [26]. Typically, the PMT gain tion, and the Gaussian approximation for λb  100 and λs  50.
is from 102 to 109 . Here, we choose Af  100 and Af  106 The PMT gain is 100.

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Liu et al. VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017/J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW. D93

4.5 1.3
P of One−term Approximation Sequential − H0−1 Receiver
FA
P of One−term Approximation Sequential − H −1 Receiver
MD 1

Average Number of Samples

Average Number of Samples

4 PFA of Exact LLR Computation 1.25 Sequential − H0−2 Receivers

PMD of Exact LLR Computation Sequential − H1−2 Receivers
P of Gaussian Approximation Sequential − H0−3 Receivers
FA
3.5 PMD of Gaussian Approximation 1.2 Sequential − H −3 Receivers
1

3 1.15

2.5 1.1

2 1.05

1.5 1 −3
−4 −3 −2 −1 −2 −1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection α=β

Fig. 6. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob- Fig. 7. Average number of samples for multi-photon-counting
abilities for the exact LLR computation, the one-term approxima- receivers with background radiation component λb  100 and
tion, and the Gaussian approximation for λb  100 and λs  50. signal component λs  50.
The PMT gain is 106 .

the exact LLR computation, the one-term approximation,

and the Gaussian approximation. More specifically, the re- 4.5
lationship for λb  100 and λs  10 is shown in Fig. 4, and MGD False alarm−1 Receiver
MGD Miss Detection −1 Receiver

the relationship for λb  100 and λs  50 is shown in Fig. 5. Average Number of Samples 4
MGD False Alarm−2 Receiver
MGD Miss Detection −2 Receiver
MGD False Alarm−3 Receiver
It is seen that in both scenarios, given a certain FA or MGD Miss Detection −3 Receiver
3.5
MD probability, the one-term approximation requires sub-
stantially fewer samples compared with the Gaussian 3
approximation. For λb  100 and λs  50, the one-term
approximation requires virtually the same number of sam- 2.5
ples as that required by the exact LLR computation, with
2
significantly reduced computational complexity. For λb 
100 and λs  10, it is seen that the one-term approximation 1.5
requires fewer samples for a certain FA probability com-
pared with the exact LLR computation but more samples 1 −4 −3 −2 −1
10 10 10 10
for a certain MD probability. This is due to the threshold
Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection
selection rule of A  −B. Other FA/MD probability curves
can be obtained for other threshold selection rules. For the
Fig. 8. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob-
amplification factor Af  106, it is seen from Fig. 6 that the
abilities at PMT receivers for exact LLR of MGD with background
numbers of samples for the three approaches are close to radiation component λb  100 and signal component λs  50. The
each other. PMT gain is 106 .

B. Cooperative Spectrum Sensing With Multiple

Receivers 2.8
One−term False Alarm−1 Receiver
One−term Miss Detection−1 Receiver
2.6
Average Number of Samples

One−term False Alarm−2 Receiver

We show the average number of samples required for co- 2.4
One−term Miss Detection−2 Receiver
One−term False Alarm−3 Receiver
operative spectrum sensing using multiple receivers. We One−term Miss Detection−3 Receiver
2.2
assume equal signal and background radiation intensities
for all the receivers. We consider both photon-counting and 2

PMT receivers and the same parameters for all the PMT 1.8
receivers. From Fig. 7, it is seen that for photon-counting 1.6
receivers, the average number of samples required for
1.4
given MD and FA probabilities can be reduced if we are
1.2
using multiple receivers.
1 −4
For the PMT receiver, we consider three LLR computa- 10 10
−3
10
−2
10
−1

tion approaches: the exact LLR based on the mixed Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection
Gaussian distribution, the LLR based on one-term approxi-
mation, and the LLR based on the Gaussian approxima- Fig. 9. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob-
tion. The numbers of samples for the above three LLR abilities at PMT receivers for the one-term approximation with
forms are plotted against the required FA and MD proba- background radiation component λb  100 and signal component
bilities. From Figs. 8–10, it can be seen that fewer samples λs  50. The PMT gain is 106 .

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 D94 J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW./VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017 Liu et al.

3.5
Approximated Gaussian False Alarm−1 Receiver
Approximated Gaussian Miss Detection−1 Receiver
Science and Technology of Guangdong Province (grant
Approximated Gaussian False Alarm−2 Receiver
Approximated Gaussian Miss Detection−2 Receiver
no. 2014B010119001), the Shenzhen Peacock Plan
Average Number of Samples

3
Approximated Gaussian False Alarm−2 Receiver
Approximated Gaussian Miss Detection−3 Receiver
(no. 1108170036003286), and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities.
2.5
REFERENCES
2
[1] Z. Xu and B. M. Sadler, “Ultraviolet communications:
1.5 Potential and state-of-the-art,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 46,
no. 5, pp. 67–73, May 2008.
[2] H. Ding, G. Chen, A. K. Majumdar, B. M. Sadler, and Z. Xu,
1 −3
10 10
−2
10
−1
“Modeling of non-line-of-sight ultraviolet scattering channels
Probability of False Alarm and Miss Detection for communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 27,
no. 9, pp. 1535–1544, Dec. 2009.
Fig. 10. Average number of samples versus the FA and MD prob- [3] H. Ding, Z. Xu, and A. K. Majumdar, “A path loss model for
abilities at PMT receivers for the Gaussian approximation with non-line-of-sight ultraviolet multiple scattering channels,”
background radiation component λb  100 and signal component EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., vol. 2010, no. 5,
λs  50. The PMT gain is 106 . pp. 1–12, June 2010.
[4] G. Chen, L. Liao, Z. Li, R. J. Drost, and B. M. Sadler,
“Experimental and simulated evaluation of long distance
NLOS UV communication,” in 9th Int. Symp. on
are needed with multiple receivers. Moreover, for amplifi-
Communication Systems, Networks Digital Signal
cation factor Af  106, the numbers of samples for the three Processing (CSNDSP), Manchester, UK, July 2014,
approaches are close to each other, which coincide with the pp. 904–909.
results shown in Fig. 6. However, the one-term approxima-
[5] L. Liao, Z. Li, T. Lang, and G. Chen, “UV LED array based
tion and Gaussian approximation require significantly NLOS UV turbulence channel modeling and experimental
lower computational complexity compared with the exact verification,” Opt. Express, vol. 23, no. 17, pp. 21825–21835,
LLR computation. Aug. 2015.
[6] H. Xiao, Y. Zuo, J. Wu, H. Guo, and J. Lin, “Non-line-of-sight
VII. CONCLUSION ultraviolet single-scatter propagation model,” Opt. Express,
vol. 19, no. 18, pp. 17864–17875, Aug. 2011.
[7] L. Wang, Z. Xu, and B. M. Sadler, “Non-line-of-sight
We have adopted the sequential detection to the spec-
ultraviolet link loss in non-coplanar geometry,” Opt. Lett.,
trum sensing for optical wireless scattering communication vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1263–1265, Apr. 2010.
for both a photon-counting receiver and a PMT receiver. For
[8] H. Zhang, H. Yin, H. Jia, S. Chang, and J. Yang,
the PMT receiver, we have proposed the one-term approxi- “Characteristics of non-line-of-sight polarization ultraviolet
mation, which substantially reduces the computational communication channels,” Appl. Opt., vol. 51, no. 35,
complexity. It is seen that sequential detection requires pp. 8366–8372, Dec. 2012.
fewer samples to achieve certain MD and FA probabilities [9] A. Gupta, M. Noshad, and M. Brandt-Pearce, “NLOS UV
compared with the fixed-sample-size detection. Moreover, channel modeling using numerical integration and an
the one-term approximation can show a comparable num- approximate closed-form path loss model,” Proc. SPIE,
ber of samples to achieve certain MD and FA probabilities, vol. 8517, 851709, Aug. 2012.
which is significantly fewer than that required by the [10] Y. Zuo, H. Xiao, J. Wu, Y. Li, and J. Lin, “Closed-form path
Gaussian approximation for a low PMT amplification loss model of non-line-of-sight ultraviolet single-scatter propa-
factor. The numbers of samples for both the Gaussian gation,” Opt. Lett., vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2116–2118, June 2013.
and one-term approximations are close to those for the ex- [11] Y. Sun and Y. Zhan, “Closed-form impulse response model of
act LLR computation for a large PMT amplification factor. non-line-of-sight single-scatter propagation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.
Moreover, increasing the number of receivers can signifi- A, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 752–757, Apr. 2016.
cantly reduce the number of samples required for [12] R. Drost, T. Moore, and B. Sadler, “Ultraviolet scattering
sequential detection. propagation modeling: Analysis of path loss versus range,”
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2259–2265, Nov. 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [13] Q. He, Z. Xu, and B. M. Sadler, “Performance of non-line-
of-sight LED based ultraviolet communication receivers,”
Portions of this work were presented at the IEEE Opt. Express, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 12226–12238, May 2010.
International Conference on Communications in 2016, [14] Q. He, B. M. Sadler, and Z. Xu, “On the achievable perfor-
titled “Sequential detection for optical wireless scattering mance of non-line-of-sight ultraviolet communications,” in
communication.” This work was supported by the National Proc. of OSA Topical Meeting on Applications of Lasers for
Key Basic Research Program of China (grant no. Sensing and Free Space Communications (LSC), San Diego,
2013CB329201), the Key Program of the National Natural Jan. 2010.
Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61631018), the [15] C. Xu, H. Zhang, and J. Cheng, “Effects of haze particles and
Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of the CAS fog droplets on NLOS ultraviolet communication channels,”
(grant no. QYZDY-SSW-JSC003), the Key Project in Opt. Express, vol. 23, no. 18, pp. 23259–23269, Sept. 2015.

d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Liu et al.
[16] A. D. Wyner, “Capacity and error component for the direct
detection photon channel—Part I,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1449–1461, Nov. 1988.
[17] A. D. Wyner, “Capacity and error component for the direct
detection photon channel—Part II,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1462–1471, Nov. 1988.
[18] M. R. Frey, “Information capacity of the Poisson channel,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 244–256, Mar. 1991.
[19] A. Lapidoth and S. M. Moser, “On the capacity of the discrete-
time Poisson channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 1,
pp. 303–322, Jan. 2009.
[20] A. R. Calderbank and C. N. Georghiades, “Synchronizable
codes for the optical OPPM channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1097–1107, July 1994.
[21] N. Chatzidiamantis, G. K. Karagiannidis, and M. Uysal,
“Generailized maximum-likelihood sequence detection for
photon counting free space optical systems,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 3381–3385, Dec. 2010.
[22] T. T. Nguyen and L. Lampe, “Coded multipulse pulse-position
modulation for free-space optical communications,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1036–1041, Apr. 2010.
[23] C. Gong and Z. Xu, “Channel estimation and signal detection
for optical wireless scattering communication with inter-
symbol interference,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14,
no. 10, pp. 5326–5337, Oct. 2015.
[24] Q. He, Z. Xu, and B. M. Sadler, “Non-line-of-sight serial
relayed link for optical wireless communications,” in
d licensed use limited to: SVKM's NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering. Downloaded on October 12,2020 at 09:39:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
VOL. 9, NO. 9/SEPTEMBER 2017/J. OPT. COMMUN. NETW. D95
Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conf., San Jose,
Oct. 31–Nov. 3, 2010.
[25] C. Gong and Z. Xu, “Non-line-of-sight optical wireless relay
with photon counting receiver: A count-and-forward protocol,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 376–388,
Jan. 2015.
[26] C. Gong and Z. Xu, “LMMSE SIMO receiver for short-range
non-line-of-sight scattering communication,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5338–5349, Oct. 2015.
[27] S. Haykin, D. J. Thomson, and J. H. Reed, “Spectrum sensing
for cognitive radio,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 849–877,
May 2009.
[28] Q. Zou, S. Zheng, and A. H. Sayed, “Joint spatial-temporal
spectrum sensing for cognitive radio networks,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 6266–6283,
Dec. 2010.
[29] C. Gong and Z. Xu, “Temporal spectrum sensing for non-
line-of-sight optical wireless communications,” J. Lightwave
Technol., vol. 33, no. 18, pp. 3890–3900, Sept. 2015.
[30] Q. Zou, S. Zheng, and A. H. Sayed, “Cooperative sensing via
sequential detection,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process, vol. 58,
no. 12, pp. 6266–6283, Dec. 2010.
[31] X. Liu, C. Gong, and Z. Xu, “Sequential detection for optical
wireless scattering communication,” IEEE Int. Conf. Commu-
nications, Workshop on Optical Wireless Communications,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 23, 2016.
[32] A. Wald, Sequential Analysis. Courier Corporation, 1973.