| Literature DB >> 35408234 |
Yuqing Feng1, Wenjun Xu2, Zhi Zhang1, Fengyu Wang3.
Abstract
In this paper, to enhance the spectrum utilization in cognitive unmanned aerial vehicle networks (CUAVNs), we propose a cooperative spectrum sensing scheme based on a continuous hidden Markov model (CHMM) with a novel signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) estimation method. First, to exploit the Markov property in the spectrum state, we model the spectrum states and the corresponding fusion values as a hidden Markov model. A spectrum prediction is obtained by combining the parameters of CHMM and a preliminary sensing result (obtained from a clustered heterogeneous two-stage-fusion scheme), and this prediction can further guide the sensing detection procedure. Then, we analyze the detection performance of the proposed scheme by deriving its closed-formed expressions. Furthermore, considering imperfect SNR estimation in practical applications, we design a novel SNR estimation scheme which is inspired by the reconstruction of the signal on graphs to enhance the proposed CHMM-based sensing scheme with practical SNR estimation. Simulation results demonstrate the proposed CHMM-based cooperative spectrum sensing scheme outperforms the ones without CHMM, and the CHMM-based sensing scheme with the proposed SNR estimator can outperform the existing algorithm considerably.Entities:
Keywords: SNR estimation; clustered two-stage-fusion cooperative spectrum sensing; cognitive UAV networks; continuous hidden Markov model
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408234 PMCID: PMC9003457 DOI: 10.3390/s22072620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The unified framework of the CHMM-based spectrum sensing scheme with the SS-M2M4 estimator.
Figure 2Heterogeneous Two-Stage-Fusion.
Notations.
| Notation | Description | Notatiom | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| the amplitude of the transmitted signal |
| the likelihood ratio test statistic of the |
|
| the carrier frequency of the transmitted signal |
| the cyclostationary detection statistics or energy detection statistics |
|
| the carrier phase offset of the transmitted signal |
| weight of |
|
| the number of sampling point |
| weight of |
|
| the cyclic frequency of the received signal |
| the SNR of the |
|
| the test statistic for the first-order cyclostationary detection |
| the SNR of the |
|
| the test statistic for energy detector |
| the Laplacian matrix of the cluster heads topology |
|
| the statistics of the |
| step size |
|
| the cyclostationary detection statistics of the |
| maximum node degree of the cluster graph |
|
| the energy detection statistics of the |
| the weight of the |
|
| the number of CUAVs in the |
| the final consensus |
|
| the number of cluster members in the |
| the consensus weight matrix |
Figure 3CHMM-based Spectrum Sensing.
Figure 4Continuous hidden Markov model.
The characteristics of the existing methods.
| Methods | Characteristics | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| DHMM-based spectrum sensing | Errors caused by quantization degrade detection performance | Suguna et al. [ |
| CHMM-based spectrum sensing | Centralized spectrum sensing and lack of dynamicity, not suitable for CUAVNs | Halaseh et al. [ |
| Deep learning-based spectrum sensing | Poor interpretability and missing of the sensing term caused by the large delay | Xie et al. [ |
| SNR estimator with pre-knowledge | Hard to get pre-knowledge of channel in UAVs applications | Raza et al. [ |
| SNR estimator designed for specific signals | Not generalized for UAVs applications | He et al. [ |
| Deep learning-based SNR estimator | Missing of the sensing term caused by the long estimation time | Ngo et al. [ |
Figure 5Approximation of folded distribution.
Figure 6ROC of CHMM soft–soft scheme (the proposed CHMM-based heterogeneous two-stage fusion sensing scheme), DHMM soft–soft scheme and non-CHMM soft–soft scheme.
Figure 7ROC of soft–or, or–or scheme and CHMM soft–or, or–or scheme.
Figure 8MSE of SS-M2M4 estimator and M2M4 estimator.
Figure 9Detection probability versus false alarm probability.
Figure 10Detection probability versus false alarm probability under the Rice channel.