2128 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO.

5, JUNE 2011
Theoretical Performance and Thresholds of the
Multitaper Method for Spectrum Sensing
Q. T. Zhang, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThe use of multitaper spectrum (MTS) for spectrum
sensing in cognitive radio (CR) has been investigated by a number
of researchers. Meanwhile, its superior detection performance has
been numerically demonstrated. Regardless of their importance,
the theoretic performance and thresholds for MTS detectors re-
main unavailable in the literature. In this paper, we tackle such an
issue, ending up with various closed-form analytic formulas for the
probabilities of detection and false alarm with different settings in-
cluding single-sensor and multisensor MTS detectors with perfect
or inaccurate noise variance. The validity of theoretical formulas
is intensively examined through numerical results and computer
simulations.
Index TermsMultitaper spectrum in Hilbert space, multi-
sensor spectrum sensing, multitaper method of spectrum sensing,
theoretic spectrum-sensing performance.
I. INTRODUCTION
G
IVEN the ever-increasing demand for high-data-rate
transmission, efcient use of the precious electromag-
netic spectrum poses a challenge to the wireless communica-
tions community. In its report published in November 2002 [1],
the Federal Communications Commission asserted that spec-
trum access, in many bands, is a more signicant problem than
physical scarcity of spectrum itself, indicating a serious situa-
tion of underutilization of the current spectrum allocation. One
possible solution is the use of cognitive radio (CR), which is
the concept created by Mitola [2], [3] in 1999. Since then, it has
shortly become a frontier research focus. CR networks offer im-
proved service quality, allowing a secondary user to operate in
a certain allocated frequency band without interfering with the
primary user. With increased understanding of various aspects
of CR, several regulation bodies and standardization groups
start to take actions for policies and standardization, which, in
turn, further stimulate academic research. Meanwhile, the IEEE
has established a new working group on the spectrum-agile
wireless regional area networks, aiming to develop a standard,
i.e., IEEE 802.22, for unlicensed access to very high frequency/
ultrahigh frequency bands that are currently allocated for tele-
vision (TV) broadcasting services, including analog and digital,
as well as other services such as wireless microphones [4].
Manuscript received October 5, 2010; revised January 27, 2011; accepted
March 4, 2011. Date of publication April 5, 2011; date of current version
June 20, 2011. This work was supported by a grant from the Research Grants
Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, under Project
CityU 124509. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. Y.-C. Liang.
The author is with the Department of Electronic Engineering, City University
of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (e-mail: eekzhang@cityu.edu.hk).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TVT.2011.2136365
Spectrum sensing, which is a key enabling function of CR
networks, requires reliable detection of primary user signals
possibly with unknown waveform and in relatively low signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR). Spectrum sensing is expected to con-
tinuously operate to monitor the target frequency band and
activities of primary user, so that the CR can vacate its occu-
pancy as soon as the primary user is turned on again. Therefore,
reliability and rapid reaction are two of the basic requirements
for a sensing algorithm to be used in CR networks.
Various spectrum-sensing algorithms have been proposed
in the literature for CR networks. In practical systems where
pilots are periodically transmitted for channel estimation and
synchronization, coherent detection can be implemented to
achieve the maximal SNR at the detectors output [4], [5].
The requirement is that the received signal waveform must
be perfectly known at the receiver. In many applications, one
may prefer constructing a much less demanding spectrum-
sensing scheme by exploiting, for example, the second-order
statistical information of the received signals. The presence
of correlated signals causes the spreading of the eigenvalues.
Testing an identical covariance structure against its general
correlated alternative can, heuristically, lead to a maximum-to-
minimum eigenvalue ratio test for spectrum sensing [6]. The
same test, when formulated in the likelihood framework, leads
to a decision variable that is solely dependent on the geometric-
mean/arithmetic-mean ratio; it possesses the same performance
as the max/min eigenratio test but has an easier way of threshold
setting [7]. The eigenvalues are, in essence, the projections
of signal power on the orthonormal set of eigenvectors and
thus, in a general sense, represent the operator spectrum of
the covariance matrix. In fact, eigenvectors are not the unique
choice for basis functions to span a space. If we choose the com-
plex exponential functions instead, the resulting spectrum is
the well-known Fourier-transform-based periodogram. Among
all unitary transforms, the eigendecomposition causes the most
spread out of its signal energy, thereby providing the best
way for signal indication. Given a nite number of samples,
however, the sample eigenvalues can severely uctuate, forcing
the required decision threshold level to increase. The peri-
odogram, on the other hand, implicitly employs a large-size
sample covariance matrix with a triangle window, resulting in
a very poor estimation accuracy. Many man-generated signals
in wireless communications exhibit periodicity in their statistics
such as correlation structure, which, when exploited, can further
enhance the spectrum-sensing performance [8][13].
If we ignore all the ne structures of the spectrum and simply
employ its arithmetic mean, the resulting test is energy detec-
tion. Although simple, energy detection achieves a reasonable
0018-9545/$26.00 2011 IEEE
ZHANG: THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE AND THRESHOLDS OF THE MULTITAPER METHOD FOR SPECTRUM SENSING 2129
detection performance at a low computational complexity
[14][20]. However, unlike the spectrum- or eigenbased tech-
niques, a priori information of noise variance must be known
at the receiver.
The multitaper spectrum (MTS) distinguishes itself from
the periodogram in philosophy. The latter projects the re-
ceived signal onto a point-frequency vector, whereas the former
projects the signal onto a frequency subspace, as revealed in
Section III. It turns out [21], [22] that the MTS achieves the
performance close to the maximum-likelihood power spectrum
density estimator while retaining relatively low computational
complexity. A possible application of MTS to CR detection is
recently advocated by Haykin in his seminal overview paper
[23]. In the same year, the application of the MTS to spectrally
sensing the TV band signals is reported in [24], demonstrating
a much superior performance over the periodogram. A more
detailed description on MTS algorithms is then addressed in
[25], whereas an approximate performance analysis of MTS
detectors, in the form of integrals, is briey given in [26]. The
authors of [27] investigate the use of the sum of MTS spectral
samples for spectrum sensing and its detection performance.
This scheme is essentially a variation of the energy detector
due to the Parsevals theorem. Although important, the theoretic
performance and threshold analysis of the MTS is not available
in the literature and is, thus, the focus of this paper.
The contributions of this paper are to provide solutions to
the theoretical performance and thresholds, all in closed form
except one, for the multitaper method of spectrum sensing
with two different settings: 1) single-sensor MTS with perfect/
inaccurate noise variance and 2) multisensor MTS with perfect
noise variance. The rest of this paper is organized as follows:
The problem is described in Section II, where two decision
variables are formulated. Sections IIIV are dedicated to the
single-sensor MTS with perfect noise variance, addressing
various techniques for the determination of its theoretic thresh-
old and detection performance. Section VI is dedicated to the
performance analysis of the single-sensor MTS with inaccurate
noise variance. Numerical results for single-sensor MTS are
presented in Section VII to examine the theory. We then tackle
the issue of multisensor MTS with perfect noise variance in
Section VIII, followed by concluding remarks in Section IX.
II. FORMULATION
To begin with, let us dene symbols for use throughout this
paper. Specically, we will use to denote the Hadamard
product, diag() to denote a diagonal matrix, I
k
to denote the
K-by-K identity matrix, and superscripts T and to denote
transposition and conjugate transposition, respectively. We use
symbol to mean distributed as and use i.i.d. to mean
independent and identically distributed.
Consider a CR network in which a secondary user attempts
to detect the presence of a licensed user. Given an N-sample
received vector x = [x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
N
]
T
, the detection problem
is essentially to choose between the two hypotheses
H
0
: x =n
H
1
: x =s +n (1)
where s = [s
1
, s
2
, . . . , s
N
]
T
denotes a possible correlated
signal-vector component arriving at the receiver, and n
CN
N
(0,
2
n
I
N
) is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)
vector, which is independent of s. We will use the MTS estimate
obtained from x to form a decision variable for spectrum
sensing.
A. Multitaper Estimates of Spectra
The multitaper method employs a set of orthonormal
data tapers w
k
= [w
k1
, . . . , w
kN
]
T
, k = 1, . . . , K (also called
Slepian windows [28]), to weigh the received vector producing
a spectral estimator given by [23], [25]
S(f) =
K

k=1

k
[Y
k
(f)[
2
(2)
where Y
k
(f) is the Fourier transform of the Slepian weighted
sequence x
n
w
kn
, i.e.,
Y
k
(f) =
N

n=1
w
kn
x
n
e
j2fn
. (3)
In the preceding MTS expression, we have dropped the
power normalization factor since it has no inuence on the
detection problem. The Slepian window functions and the
number of windows to be used depend on the sample size N
and the expected resolution bin width 2B Hz. Let M denote
the N-by-N sinc-matrix, with its (m, n)th entry dened by
M
m,n
= sin[2B(n m)]/[(n m)]. Then, w
k
are given
by [28]
Mw
i
=
i
w
i
, i = 1, . . . , N (4)
where
1

N
denote the eigenvalues of M in the
descending order, and w
1
, . . . , w
N
are their corresponding
eigenvectors. Physically,
i
represents the energy of vector w
i
that falls within the frequency band (f B, f +B). Clearly,
w
1
has the largest energy concentration and, thus, the best
window function. To determine the value K, recall that the
aperture of Fourier transform is 1/N; thus, there are a total
of K = (2B/N
1
) 1 = 2BN 1 eigenvectors with signi-
cant energy over the frequency band (f B, f +B).
B. Insight From Hilbert Space
The term MTS is derived from the way the spectrum is
dened but not from its nature. Thoroughly understanding its
nature is important to the construction of decision variables
and to the analysis of their performance. To nd a particular
frequency component in the received signal x, the conventional
Fourier technique projects the signal vector onto the Fourier
vector at that particular frequency or, equivalently, onto the
space spanned by a single vector. To improve the resolution, the
MTS uses a sliding rectangular frequency window (called bin)
of certain resolution width to scan the received signal. Such a
2130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 5, JUNE 2011
Fig. 1. Projection x onto the resolution bin subspace dened over a sliding
frequency window.
sliding window needs to be supported by the frequency-shifted
version of w
k
, taking the form
b
k
(f) = [w
k
(1) exp(j2f), . . . , w
k
(N) exp(2Nf)]
T
. (5)
Since the baseband w
k
has a resolution of B, its frequency-
shifted version b
k
has a double resolution bin width. In what
follows, the frequency index f in b
k
(f) will be dropped
wherever no ambiguity is introduced.
Property 1: Vectors b
1
, . . . , b
K
are orthonormal and
thus constitute a set of orthogonal base functions for the
K-dimensional resolution bin subspace B = [b
1
, . . . , b
K
]
such that B

B = I.
This assertion can be easily proved by direct calculation and
is thus neglected here. Dene vector z and matrix such that
z = B

x, = diag
1
, . . . ,
K
(6)
which, alongside the bin subspace B, allow us to rewrite the
MTS dened in (2) and (3) as
S(f) = z

z. (7)
Equations (6) and (7) provide a clear geometric insight, as
shown in Fig. 1. As the bin window moves along the frequency
axis to scan the received vector x, the received vector x is pro-
jected onto the corresponding bin subspace. These projections,
when weighted with their relative importance
k
, form the
MTS estimator. The multidimensional projection improves the
estimation accuracy. The wider the frequency resolution bin,
the more the dimensions that are available and, thus, the smaller
the bias at the cost of a lower frequency resolution.
C. Decision Variables
For ease of analysis, denote
B
i
= B(f
i
), Q
i
= B
i
B

i
(8)
and combine (7) and (6) to rewrite the spectrum at a possible
frequency peak location, e.g., f
i
, as
S(f
i
) = x

Q
i
x. (9)
The following property is obvious from the denition of Q
i
.
Property 2: Matrix Q
i
is of rank K with its eigenvalues
and eigenvectors dened by
1
, . . . ,
K
and b
1
, . . . , b
K
,
respectively.
Very often, the primary signal has multiple frequency peaks
(mp) located at, e.g., f
i
, i = 1, . . . , . It is convenient to com-
bine all these frequency components to form a single decision
variable
S
mp
=

i=1
S(f
i
) =

i=1
x

B
i
B

i
. .
Q
i
x (10)
which, by dening
B =[B
1
, . . . , B

]
NK
=diag(, . . . , )
KK
Q =

i=1
B
i
B

i
= BB

(11)
can be more compactly written as
S
mp
= x

Qx. (12)
Clearly, when = 1, S
mp
reduces to S(f
1
). Hence, we will
focus on S
mp
.
To make a decision, we need the noise variance
2
n
or its
estimate
2
n
as a reference for comparison. Thus, depending on
the a priori information on noise variance, we can construct two
different decision variables, as shown by

1
=S
mp
(f)/
2
n

2
=S
mp
(f)/
2
n
(13)
whereby a decision can be made according to

i
=
_
> , H
1
< , H
0
(14)
where i = 1, 2, and is an appropriate threshold to maintain
a constant false-alarm rate (CFAR), e.g., P
fa
= . At this
point, it is appropriate to add a few words. Some authors
absorb the variance estimate into the threshold and attribute
the detection performance drop to the inaccuracy in threshold
setting. The problem with this kind of treatment is to compare a
random decision variable with a random threshold for decision
making, leading to poorer performance. A better strategy is
incorporating the variance uncertainty to form a single decision
variable, as adopted on the second line of (13). It is also worth
noting that, although frequency locations are assumed in the
aforementioned formulation, such knowledge is not necessary.
If this is the case, one simply needs to scan the entire frequency
range to nd peak locations before signal detection.
III. THRESHOLD FOR
1
: EXACT METHOD
In this and the subsequent sections, two methods are derived
for threshold determination. Let us begin with the decision
variable
1
, and the treatment of
2
will be postponed to
Section VII. Specically, we want to nd a threshold to meet
a preset false-alarm rate, e.g., P
fa
= , that is
P
fa
= Pr
1
> [H
0
= . (15)
ZHANG: THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE AND THRESHOLDS OF THE MULTITAPER METHOD FOR SPECTRUM SENSING 2131
The calculation requires the probability density function
(pdf) of
1
or, equivalently, its characteristic function (CHF),
which is dened by

1
(z) = E[e
j
1
z
]. We begin with the case
of single frequency peak and then extend the results to the case
with multifrequency peaks.
A. Single Peak
Under H
0
, the received signal x in (12) consists of noise
alone. Noting that noise projections onto orthogonal base func-
tions are independent, we can thus assert x CN
N
(0,
2
n
I).
Combining this pdf with the quadratic form of
1
given in (13)
and (10) with = 1, and invoking Property 2 enable us to obtain
the CHF of
1
as

(z[H
0
) = det(I zQ)
1
=
q

u=1
(1 z
u
)
K
u
. (16)
The sum of multiplicities K
u
> 0 is equal to K
1
+ +
K
q
= K. In fraction form, it is given by

(z[H
0
) =
q

u=1
K
u

v=1

uv
(1
u
z)
v
(17)
where coefcients
uv
can be evaluated through

uv
=
1
(K
u
v)!(
u
)
K
u
v
d
d z
K
u
v
q

i=1,i,=u
(1 z
i
)
K
i
(18)
at z =
1
u
. The pdf of
1
is obtainable if we recognize that each
term in (17), up to a scaling factor, corresponds to a central
2
variable. Thus, the use of (17) enables us to directly link the
false-alarm rate to a given threshold , yielding
P
fa
=
q

u=1
K
u

v=1

uv
1
(v)

_
/
u
z
v1
e
z
d z
=
q

u=1
K
u

v=1

uv
(v)
e
/
u
v

i=1
_

u
_
vi
(v 1)!
(v i)!
. (19)
Given a false-alarm rate P
fa
= , we can calculate the re-
quired threshold by using, e.g., the NewtonRaphson iterative
method.
B. Multiple Peaks
For the case with multifrequency peaks, the CHF of
1
under
H
0
can be determined in a similar manner. We only need to
replace Q
1
in (16) with matrix Q dened in (11) and use the
property B

B = I, resulting in

1
(z[H
0
) = det(I z)
1
= det(I z)

(20)
which, when using the results for the case of single peak,
leads to

1
(z[H
0
) =
q

u=1
(1 z
u
)
K
u
. (21)
The only difference is the multiplicity of poles, changing
from K
u
to K
u
. In fraction form, we can write the CHF as

(z[H
0
) =
q

u=1
K
u

v=1

uv
(1
u
z)
v
(22)
with coefcient
uv
given by

uv
=
1
(K
u
v)!(
u
)
K
u
v
d
d z
K
u
v

i=1,i,=u
(1 z
i
)
K
i
[
z=
1
u
. (23)
Clearly, the CHF for the multipeak case has the same form
as that for the case of single peak, and thus, the same technique
can be used for its P
fa
calculation. Illustration of the use of
(17)(19) and (22) and (23) for threshold determination is given
in Section IV-C.
IV. THRESHOLD FOR
1
: APPROXIMATION METHOD
The method previously described is exact but requires rela-
tively complex calculation. In this section, we introduce a much
simpler approximation technique, which is applicable to both
1
and
2
in their threshold setting and performance evaluation.
A. Preliminary Results
Suppose that is a quadratic-form decision variable, with its
CHF given by

(z) = det(I zA)

1
. In the original domain,
is probabilistically equivalent to a linear combination of chi-
square variables, as shown in the preceding section. Then,
according to common practice in statistics [31], [32], we can
accurately approximate by a single chi-square variable to
simplify the relevant analysis. To this end, we derive two
lemmas for the subsequent use.
Lemma 1: Denote the CHF of the random variable by

(z) = det(I zA)

1
, where A is a nonnegative denite
matrix. Suppose that we adopt the approximation c
2
().
Then, we have
=
2 [tr(A)]
2
tr(AA

)
, c =
tr(AA

)
2tr(A)
. (24)
Proof: Parameters and c are determined by equating the
rst two moments of and c
2
(). The mean and variance of
the latter are c and 2c
2
, respectively. The rst two moments
of are obtainable from its CHF. Using the differentiation rules
for determinant and trace of a matrix, we obtain, after some
manipulation, that
E[] =

(z)
z
[
z=0
= tr(A)
E
_
[[
2

=

2

(z)
z
2
[
z=0
= tr(A)tr(A

) + tr(AA

) (25)
2132 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 5, JUNE 2011
implying that the mean and variance of are equal to tr(A)
and tr(AA

). Equating the mean and variance of and c

2
()
completes the proof.
Lemma 2: Given the use of approximation c
2
(), then
the probability of > is expressible as
Pr > = 1
_

2c
,

2
_
(26)
where incomplete gamma function is dened by (x, a) =
_
x
0
(1/(a))t
a1
e
t
dt.
Proof: The proof is straightforward by explicitly repre-
senting the pdf of in terms of the chi-square distribution. The
resulting incomplete gamma function can be easily computed
by invoking the MATLAB function gammainc.
B. Approximate Threshold
Employing (20), alongside Lemmas 1 and 2 and Property 2,
we can nd an approximate CFAR expression for
1
as follows:
P
fa
= 1
_

2c
0
,

0
2
_
= (27)
where

0
=
2 [tr(Q)]
2
tr(QQ

)
=
2
_

K
i=1

i
_
2

K
i=1

2
i
c
0
=
tr(QQ

)
2tr(Q)
=

K
i=1

2
i
2

K
i=1

i
. (28)
Clearly, it agrees with our intuition that the degrees of
freedom
0
in the chi-square approximation proportionally in-
creases with the number of peaks used in the signal detection.
When using this approximation method for numerical threshold
calculation, we suggest a two-step procedure. In step 1, nd
a rough threshold for c
2
(m) > from a chi-square lookup
table, which is used as an initial value in step 2. In the second
step, the MATLAB function gammainc is used to rene the
threshold estimation.
C. Approximation Accuracy: Illustration
To see the accuracy of the approximation technique, let us
consider the use of an MTS-based detector with 1024 sam-
ples (i.e., N = 1024) and resolution bin width 2B = 0.004
to sense a primary signal with a frequency peak at f
1
=
0.15. It is easy to employ the MATLAB function dpss to
nd the rst four most signicant eigenvalues, yielding =
[1.0000, 0.9981, 0.9672, 0.7576]. This parameter setting will
be used throughout this paper unless otherwise specied. We
used the rst K = 2BN 1 = 3 principal Slepian windows in
constructing an MTS-based test variable.
We need exact theoretical thresholds as a benchmark for
comparison. To this end, we treat the rst two eigenvalues as
identical since they are very close to unity. Thus, we can use
(16)(18) to represent the CHF as

1
(z[H
0
) = (1 z)
2
(1 0.9672)
1
TABLE I
THRESHOLDS FOR
1
. PARAMETER SETTING: N = 1024, B = 0.002,
f
1
= 0.15, K = 3, AND 10
5
INDEPENDENT RUNS
which can be further written in fraction form to give

1
(z[H
0
) =

11
1 z
+

12
(1 z)
2
+

21
1 z
with each term corresponding to a chi-square variable. The
exact false-alarm rate turns out to be
P
fa
=
11
e

+
21
e
/
+
12
(1 + )e

(29)
where = 0.9672,
11
= 899.0184,
12
= 30.4878, and

21
= 869.5306. Using this formula, we obtain the thresholds
for 10
1
, 10
2
, and 10
3
; they are 5.2640, 8.3150, and 11.0825,
as shown on line 3 of Table I.
We next employ the chi-square approximation method to
determine the thresholds. With Lemmas 1 and 2, it is easy to
approximate
1
under H
0
as (0.9887/2)
2
(5.9986), whereby
approximate thresholds can be determined. The resulting
thresholds are tabulated on the last line of Table I.
To obtain simulated thresholds, we ran 10
5
independent
trials, ending up with results shown on line 2 of the table.
From the table, theoretical thresholds based on both exact
and approximation methods are very close to their simulation
counterparts, with the maximum relative error equal to 0.6%,
indicating that both methods are very accurate.
V. DETECTION PROBABILITY
We address the issue of detection probability for two opera-
tional environments.
A. Deterministic Signal in AWGN
In this case, signal s is a deterministic component, and thus,
it follows from (1) that the received vector x CN
N
(s,
2
n
I).
As indicated in (13), the decision variable
1
is now a quadratic
form of nonzero-mean vector. Its CHF is thus determined as

1
(z[H
1
) = det(I z)

exp
_
z
2
n
Bs

(
1
zI)B

s
_
(30)
which can be directly related to the detection probability
through Gil-Pelaezs lemma [29]. Following the approach used
in [30], we can obtain the detection probability
P
d
=
1
2
+
1
2j

(jt[H
1
) exp(jt)
t
dt (31)
with (u) denoting the imaginary part of complex variable u.
ZHANG: THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE AND THRESHOLDS OF THE MULTITAPER METHOD FOR SPECTRUM SENSING 2133
B. Gaussian Signal
The signal component is now assumed to follow zero-mean
complex Gaussian distribution s CN
N
(0,
2
s
C
s
), with
2
s
denoting the signal variance and C
s
denoting its correlation
matrix. With this distribution, it is easy to nd that the CHF
of
1
is given by

1
(z[H
1
) = det(I zA)
1
(32)
where A = (I +C
s
)Q, and =
2
s
/
2
n
denotes the signal
to noise ratio (SNR). Clearly, Lemma 1 is applicable. We
thus insert A into (24) to obtain and c. The calculation of
tr(A) and tr(AA

) is very time consuming due to a large

matrix dimension N. However, we note that Q is of rank
K N. Thus, by denoting D = B

(I +C
s
) and invoking
the property of trace operator to reorganize the two traces
such that
tr(A) = (DB), tr(AA

) = (DD

2
) (33)
we can signicantly reduce computational time. Inserting (33)
into Lemma 1, we can obtain c and for chi-square approxima-
tion
1
c
2
() under H
1
. Then, from Lemma 2, the detection
probability can be determined to give
P
d
= Pr
1
> [H
1
= 1
_

2c
,

2
_
. (34)
where, again, the incomplete gamma function is evalu-
ated by using the MATLAB built-in incomplete function
gammainc(0.5/c, 0.5). For a single-peak detector, we sim-
ply set = 1 and reduce to in (33).
VI. DETECTION WITH INACCURATE NOISE INFORMATION
Let us turn to spectrum sensing based on decision variable

2
. We focus on the case of random signals since the methodol-
ogy can be easily extended to other cases. Suppose now the
reference noise variance is estimated from L previous noise
observations, as given by

2
n
=
1
L
L

i=1
[n
i
[
2
. (35)
Rewrite
2
in (13) as

2
=
x

Qx

2
n
=
x

Qx/
2
n

2
n
/
2
n
. (36)
Without loss of the generality, assume that s CN(0,
2
s
C
s
),
where
2
s
and C
s
were dened at the beginning of Sub-
section V-B. Directly determining the pdf of
2
is difcult.
However, the numerator can be approximated by c
2
(), for
which an efcient method of calculating c and is described in
Section V-B. Following [33], the denominator is distributed as
another chi-square variable, i.e.,

2
n

2
n

1
2L

2
(2L). (37)
Since the decision variable
2
takes the form of the ra-
tio of two independent chi-square variables, it follows the
TABLE II
THRESHOLDS FOR
2
. PARAMETER SETTING: L = 60, N = 1024,
B = 0.002, f
1
= 0.15, K = 3,AND 100 000 INDEPENDENT RUNS
F-distribution. Specically, we have

2
= c

2
()/

2
(2L)/(2L)
cF(, 2L) (38)
where F(, 2L) signies the F-distribution with and 2L
degrees of freedom. Note that both c and , as dened in
Lemma 1, depend on SNR and signal correlation matrix
C
s
through A = Q(I +C
s
). Under H
0
, the SNR becomes
zero, and correspondingly, c and reduce to c
0
and
0
, which
are given in (28). Hence, for CFAR P
fa
= , if we denote the
upper -point of F(
0
, 2L) by
F
, then the threshold for
2
can
be determined as

F
= c
0

F
=
F
K

i=1

i
(39)
where
i
, as dened in Section II, denote the eigenvalues of the
sinc-matrix operator.
To illustrate the use of (38) for threshold determination,
assume the use of L = 60 samples for noise variance estima-
tion, and the other settings are the same as before. Based on
the three principal eigenvalues = [1.0000, 0.9981, 0.9672],
we can nd
0
= 5.9986, c
0
= 0.4843, and c
0

0
= 2.9653.
Hence, under H
0
, we have
2
2.9653F(5.9306, 120). The
theoretic thresholds so obtained are tabulated in Table II, where
simulation results are obtained by running 10
5
independent
computer trials.
To determine the detection probability probability, let
f
F
(x; v
1
, v
2
) denote the pdf of F(v
1
, v
2
), with v
1
= and
v
2
= 2L. Then, we can write the detection probability as
P
d
= Pr
2
>
F
[H
1
=

F
/(c)
f
F
(x; , 2L)d x. (40)
Since 2L is an even number, we can employ [36] to work
out the integral to obtain a closed-form expression. The result
is given by
P
d
= 1 (1 x)
v
1
/2
_
1 +
v
1
2
x +
v
1
(v
1
+ 2)
2 4
x
2
+
+
v
1
(v
1
+ 2) (v
2
+v
1
4)
2 4 (v
2
2)
x
v
2
2
2
_
(41)
where
1
= ,
2
= 2L, and x = 2L/(2L +
F
/c).
VII. NUMERICAL RESULTS WITH A SINGLE SENSOR
In this section, we examine the correctness of the theoretic
detection performance derived for
1
and
2
. The parameter
2134 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 5, JUNE 2011
Fig. 2. Theoretical versus simulated performance of
1
in comparison with
the energy detector: a single AR(1) peak.
setting to be used is the same as that described at the begin-
ning of Section IV-C. Again, we use K = 3 principal Slepian
windows for detection.
We rst study the performance of
1
in the detection of
Gaussian primary signals with one or multiple peaks. An easy
way to generate such a signal is the use of an order-1 autoregres-
sive (AR) model in the form of s
k
= as
k1
+e
k
. In particular,
we choose the model coefcient to be a = 0.99 exp(j2
0.15), so that the signal has a narrow band with its peak at f
1
=
0.15. The detection performance, based on theoretic formula
(34) and simulations, is shown in Fig. 2, where the curves are
shown for CFAR P
fa
= 10
1
, 10
2
, and 10
3
, respectively.
The performance of the energy-based detector is also included
for comparison, whose thresholds can be determined from the
chi-square distribution
2
(2048) or, numerically, from P
fa
=
1 gammainc(0.5, N). The resulting thresholds for
CFAR = 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 are 2130.435, 2199.82, and
2251.50, respectively. Detection probabilities obtained from
simulation in this and subsequent gures, for each SNR point,
are averaged over 3000 independent computer runs. It is
observed that the theoretic performance is nearly identical
to its simulation counterpart, conrming the validity of the
theory. It is also observed that, by exploiting the information
of frequency peak location, the MTS-
1
detector clearly
outperforms the conventional energy-based scheme, providing
7-dB improvement.
The improvement is even higher, reaching 10 dB, if MTS-

1
is used for detection of a sinusoidal signal. The results are
plotted in Fig. 3, where the eigenratio test [6] is also included
for comparison. A sine wave has a more narrow bandwidth
and, thus, a higher power concentration at the frequency peak.
Here, the parameter setting was the same as Fig. 2, except that
the signal was generated by s(t) = exp(2f
1
t). The thresholds
used for the eigenratio test were obtained from 10
5
independent
computer runs to ensure a sufcient accuracy.
We next consider the case where the primary signal has more
than one peak in its spectrum. The result for a signal consisting
of two sine waves, taking the form
s(t) = 0.99 exp(j2 0.1t) + 0.98 exp(j2 0.3t)
Fig. 3. Comparison of MTS
1
, the eigenratio, and energy tests: one single
sinusoidal peak.
Fig. 4. MTS
1
versus energy detector: two sinusoidal peaks.
is shown in Fig. 4. For a random signal of two peaks gener-
ated by two AR(1) models, which are dened by coefcient
a
1
= 0.99 exp(j2 0.1) and a
2
= 0.98 exp(j2 0.3), re-
spectively, is shown in Fig. 5. When compared to the case with
one peak, the detection performance with two peaks is similar.
This is understandable. It is true that, with two peaks, we have
more information for detection. However, on the other hand,
the decision variable for two peaks consists of two quadratic
forms, thereby requiring a higher threshold level for decision.
The performance results from the tradeoff between these two
conicting effects. With this in mind, the following strategy
can be used: When only one peak is dominated and known to
the receiver, we just use it for detection. If, on the other hand,
no peak is predominant or no prior information about the peak
magnitudes is available at the receiver, we use multiple peaks
for detection since it can make the performance more robust
and stable.
Finally, turn to MTS-
2
detectors. Suppose that the noise
variance is estimated from L samples of noise-alone data and
used for both
2
and energy detectors. Figs. 6 and 7 show
the inuence of noise-variance inaccuracy on the detection
ZHANG: THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE AND THRESHOLDS OF THE MULTITAPER METHOD FOR SPECTRUM SENSING 2135
Fig. 5. MTS
1
versus energy detector: two AR(1) peaks.
Fig. 6. MTS
2
versus energy detector for one-peak sinusoidal signal;
2
n
is
estimated from L samples.
Fig. 7. MTS
2
versus energy detector for one-peak AR(1) signal;
2
n
is
estimated from L samples.
performance of
2
. The former gure is shown for a sinusoidal
signal, whereas the latter is shown for an AR signal. Both
signals have a single peak at f
1
= 0.15. It is observed that
the MTS-
2
detector is very robust to the inaccuracy of noise
variance and just slightly drops in detection performance as
L reduces from 200 to 60. The energy-based detector, on the
contrary, signicantly drops by more than 3 dB. Again, we see
that the MTS-
2
is much superior to the energy-based scheme.
VIII. MULTISENSOR DETECTION
Suppose that M cooperating sensors are employed in a CR.
Each cooperating sensor acquires a temporal vector x
m
of size
N comprising noise plus a possible primary user component.
Each vector, when projected onto the bin subspace, produces
a coordinate vector z
m
in much the same way as z, which we
obtained in Section II.
All sensors pass their bin subspace vectors z
m
to the fusion
center. Given that the size K of z
m
is often very small,
e.g., K = 3, the overhead is limited and acceptable. Since the
sensors are located in the same area but usually well separated
relative to the carrier wavelength, it is reasonable to assume
that the received data vectors x
m
at different sensors are
independent, each having the distribution x
m
CN
N
(0, R
x
).
Then, projecting x
m
onto the resolution subspace produces a
K-by-1 vector z
m
=
1/2
B

x, which is distributed as
z
m
CN
M
(0, R
z
), where R
z
=
1
2
B

R
x
B
1
2
. (42)
When no signal is present, z
m
consists of white noise only
and, thus, no correlation among its entries. When a signal is
present, z
m
becomes highly correlated with most of its energy
concentrated at the maximum eigenvalue of its covariance ma-
trix. This observation motivates the use of the maximum sample
eigenvalue to accumulate useful information in received vectors
for spectrum sensing. For the purpose of signal detection, we
normalize the received signal with the noise variance
2
n
to
construct sample correlation matrix Z such that
Z =

M
m=1
z
m
z

2
n
. (43)
The i.i.d. samples x
m
, when projected onto the bin space,
produce i.i.d. bin vectors z
m
, enabling the assertion that Z
follows the complex Wishart distribution [34], as shown by
Z CW
K
_
M,
2
n
R
z
_
. (44)
Let
1
denote the maximum eigenvalue of Z, which will be
used as a decision variable for signal detection.
A. Performance Analysis
The threshold setting and relevant performance evaluation
require the distribution function of the largest sample eigen-
value, which, in the classical statistical multivariate analysis,
is given in asymptotic form, lending it difcult to be used in
practice. Fortunately, recent efforts made by wireless engineers
on random matrix theory provide many simple and elegant
solutions. One such solution is to be used in this paper, as
restated here.
2136 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 5, JUNE 2011
Lemma 3: Suppose that an n n matrix Z follows the
complex-Wishart distribution Z CW
n
(m, ), with m > n.
The eigenvalues of , in descending order, is denoted by
1
>
>
n
> 0. Then, the cumulative distribution function (cdf)
of the largest eigenvalue (denoted here by
1
) of Z is given
by [35]
F

1
(x) =
n

i=1
1

m
i
(mi)!
n

i<j

j

i
[Y(x)[ (45)
where the n n matrix Y is dened as
[Y(x)]
u,v
=
mn+v
u

(x/
u
, mn +v), u, v =1, . . . , n
(46)
in terms of the lower incomplete gamma function dened by

(, a) =

_
0
e
t
t
a1
dt. (47)
which is related to the standard incomplete gamma function by

(, a) = (a)(, a).
The use of this lemma enables the following assertion:
Lemma 4: In Lemma 3, if Z is distributed as Z
CW
n
(m, I) instead, the CDF of the largest eigenvalue of Z
reduces to
F

1
(x) = [Y(x)[
n

i=1
1
(mi)!(n i)!
(48)
with the entry of Y dened by
[Y(x)]
u,v
=

(x, mn +u +v 1), u, v = 1, . . . , n.
(49)
The decision rule is that a signal is claimed to be present if

1
> T (50)
or the signal is absent otherwise. Let us show how to use
Lemma 4 to determine the threshold for a specied CFAR.
When a signal is absent, we have R
x
=
2
n
I, which, when
inserted into (42), enables the simplication of R
z
to give
R
z
= = diag(
1
, . . . ,
K
). In other words, under H
0
, the
eigenvalues of R
z
are equal to
k
. For convenience, we
assume that
i
are also arranged in descending order. Then,
by replacing
i
by
i
, m by M, and n by K in Lemma 1, we
obtain an explicit expression for false-alarm rate, as follows:
P
fa
= 1
K

i=1
1

M
i
(M i)!
K

i<j

j

i
[Y(T)[ (51)
where the K K matrix Y is dened as
[Y(T)]
u,v
=
MK+v
u
(T/
u
, M K +v), u, v = 1, . . . , K.
(52)
We can use the NewtonRaphsons iteration to determine the
required threshold for a specied CFAR. Alternatively, we may
TABLE III
THRESHOLDS FOR THE MTS-EIGEN DETECTOR. PARAMETER SETTING:
N = 1024, B = 0.002, f
i
= 0.15, M = 10, AND K = 3. SIMULATION
RESULTS ARE BASED ON 50 000 INDEPENDENT RUNS
TABLE IV
THRESHOLDS FOR THE MTS-EIGEN DETECTOR WITH ANOTHER
PARAMETER SETTING: N = 1024, B = 0.004, f
i
= 0.15, M = 10,
AND K = 6. SIMULATION THRESHOLDS WERE AVERAGED
OVER 50 000 INDEPENDENT RUNS
numerically establish a P
fa
-versus-T table whereby a threshold
is determined.
When a random signal is present, the detection performance
P
d
has exactly the same form as (51), except replacing
i
by
i
,
i = 1, . . . , K, where
i
are the eigenvalues of the normalized
received signal covariance matrix I +C
s
, which is given by

i
= 1 +
i
(C
s
). (53)
In this expression, denotes the SNR, C
s
denotes the
signal correlation matrix, and
i
(C
s
) denotes its eigenvalues
in descending order.
B. Numerical Results With Multiple Sensors
To examine the theory we derived for the M-sensor MTS
systems, the same parameter setting as Section IV-C was used,
and the primary signal was assumed to have a frequency peak
at f
1
= 0.15. Inserting = [0.9999, 0.9981, 0.9672] into (51)
and (52), we obtain the theoretic thresholds, as tabulated in
Table III.
Thresholds are independent of f
i
. In fact, when f
i
varies
from 0.15 to 0.35, the simulation thresholds are basically the
same, as given by 20.6965, 25.5048, and 29.7311 for three
different CFARs.
For further verication, we consider a different setting
with N = 1024, B = 0.004, M = 10, and K = 6. Using
the MATLAB function dpss again, we found that =
[1, 1, 1, 1, 0.9994, 0.9925], whereby the thresholds can be de-
termined and are tabulated in Table IV.
We study the detection performance of the MTS eigende-
tector by focusing on a AR(1) signal with a single peak at
f
1
= 0.15. Results for a = 0.99 exp(j2 0.15) are plotted
in Fig. 8 for CFAR = 10
2
and 10
3
, respectively. Clearly,
simulation results coincide with their theoretic prediction. Fur-
thermore, the new scheme is superior to the conventional
energy-based detector of 7 dB. The improvement reduces as
[a[ reduces, as shown in Fig. 9. This observation agrees with
our intuition. As [a[ is reduced, the signal bandwidth becomes
wider. In the extreme case as [a[ 0, the signal becomes white
noise, and the performance of the MTS detector will approach
the energy detector. We are next interested in the inuence
ZHANG: THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE AND THRESHOLDS OF THE MULTITAPER METHOD FOR SPECTRUM SENSING 2137
Fig. 8. Performance comparison. Multisensor eigendetector (50) versus
energy detector for one-peak AR signal with |a| = 0.99; M = 10.
Fig. 9. Performance comparison: Multi-sensor eigendetector (50) versus
energy detector for one-peak AR signal with |a| = 0.95; M = 10.
Fig. 10. Performance versus M for the multisensor eigendetector (50):
one-peak AR signal with |a| = 0.99.
of the number of cooperating sensors on the performance.
Typical results are shown in Fig. 10. As expected, the detection
performance improves with increased M.
IX. CONCLUSION
The MTS-based detectors provide a powerful and exible
means to incorporate prior information of frequency-peak loca-
tions into decision variables to enhance detection performance.
They are, in particular, suitable for use in sensing primary sig-
nals with narrowfrequency peaks. It has been demonstrated that
the performance improvement reached 10 dB for the detection
of sinusoidal signals and reached 7 dB for narrow-band AR
Gaussian signals. Performance improvement has been achieved
at the cost of increased computational complexity, as compared
with energy-based detection schemes. The computational com-
plexity can be further increased if the primary signal frequency-
peak location is unknown to the secondary user. In this case, the
CR needs to scan over the entire frequency band to nd the peak
locations before conducting signal detection.
The MTS-based detectors are very robust to the inaccuracy
of noise variance assumed at the receiver. On the contrary, the
energy-based detector is much more sensitive to the inaccuracy
in noise variance. Two methods, i.e., exact and approximate,
have been developed for the derivation of false-alarm proba-
bility, both leading to simple closed-form formulas that can
be used for accurate threshold calculation. Analytic detection
probabilities have been derived for the three MTS-based de-
tection schemes, which assume a single sensor with perfect or
inaccurate noise variance, and the use of multiple sensors at the
receiver, respectively. The theory developed in this paper and
the superior performance of the MTS-based detection schemes
have been extensively conrmed by computer simulations.
REFERENCES
[1] Fed. Commun. Comm., Spectrum-policy task force, Nov. 2002.
[2] J. Mitola and G. Q. Maguire, Jr., Cognitive radio: Making software
radios more personal, IEEE Pers. Commun., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1318,
Aug. 1999.
[3] J. Mitola, Cognitive radio: An integrated agent architecture for soft-
ware dened radio, Royal Inst. Technol. (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden,
2000.
[4] IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area NetworksPart 16,
IEEE Std. 802.16E-2005, 2005.
[5] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Detection
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998.
[6] Y. H. Zeng and Y.-C. Liang, Eigenvalue-based spectrum sensing al-
gorithms for cognitive radio, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 57, no. 6,
pp. 17841793, Jun. 2009.
[7] Q. T. Zhang, Advanced detection techniques for cognitive radio, in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., Dresden, Germany, Jun. 1418, 2009, pp. 15.
[8] Z. Ye, J. Grosspietsch, and G. Memik, Spectrum sensing using cyclo-
stationary spectrum density for cognitive radios, in Proc. SiPS, 2007,
pp. 16.
[9] N. Han, S. Shon, J. H. Chung, and J. M. Kim, Spectral correlation based
signal detection method for spectrum sensing in IEEE 802.22 WRAN
systems, in Proc. ICACT, 2006, pp. 17651770.
[10] V. H. Pham and J. Y. Chouinard, A study on the channel and signal cross
correlation of UHF DTV channels, in Proc. ISSSE, 2007, pp. 181184.
[11] H. S. Chen, W. Gao, and D. G. Daut, Spectrum sensing using cyclo-
stationary properties and application to IEEE 802.22 WRAN, in Proc.
GLOBECOM, Nov. 2007, pp. 31333138.
[12] M. Gandetto and C. Regazzoni, Spectrum sensing: A distributed ap-
proach for cognitive terminals, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25,
no. 3, pp. 546557, Apr. 2007.
[13] Y. H. Zeng, C. L. Koh, and Y.-C. Liang, Maximum eigenvalue detection:
Theory and application, in Proc. ICC, 2008, pp. 41604164.
[14] D. Cabric, S. M. Mishra, and R. W. Brodersen, Implementation issues in
spectrum sensing for cognitive radios, in Proc. Asilomar Conf. Signals,
Syst., Comput., Nov. 2004, vol. 1, pp. 772776.
2138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 60, NO. 5, JUNE 2011
[15] G. Ganesan and Y. Li, Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive
radioPart I: Two user networks, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6,
no. 6, pp. 22042213, Jun. 2007.
[16] Z. Quan, S. Cui, and A. H. Sayed, Optimal linear cooperation for spec-
trum sensing in cognitive radio networks, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal
Process., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2840, Feb. 2008.
[17] J. Unnikrishnan and V. V. Veeravalli, Cooperative sensing for primary
detection in cognitive radio, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 2,
no. 1, pp. 1827, Feb. 2008.
[18] G. Ganesan, Y. Li, B. Bing, and S. Li, Spatiotemporal sensing in cogni-
tive radio networks, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 512,
Jan. 2008.
[19] Z. Tian and G. B. Giannakis, Compressed sensing for wideband cognitive
radios, in Proc. ICASSP, 2007, pp. 13571360.
[20] T. Yucek and H. Arslan, Spectrum characterization for opportunistic
cognitive radio systems, in Proc. MILCOM, 2006, pp. 16.
[21] D. J. Thomson, Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis, Proc.
IEEE, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 10551096, Sep. 1982.
[22] D. J. Thomson, Jackkning multitaper spectrum estimates, IEEE Signal
Process. Mag., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2030, Jul. 2007.
[23] S. Haykin, Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communica-
tions, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201220,
Feb. 2005.
[24] T. Erpek, A. Leu, and B. L. Mark, Spectrum sensing performance in
TV bands using the multitaper method, in Proc. IEEE Signal Process.
Commun. Appl., Jun. 2007, pp. 14.
[25] S. Haykin, The multitaper method for accurate spectrum sensing in
cognitive radio environments, in Conf. Rec. 51st ACSSC, Nov. 2007,
pp. 436439.
[26] J. Wang and Q. T. Zhang, A multitaper spectrum based detector for
cognitive radio, in Proc. IEEE WCNC, Apr. 58, 2009, pp. 15.
[27] T.-W. Chaing, J.-M. Lin, and H.-P. Ma, Optimal detector for multitaper
spectrum estimator in cognitive radios, in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM,
Nov. 30Dec. 4, 2009, pp. 16.
[28] D. Slepian, Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis, and
uncertainty-V: The discrete case, Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 57, pp. 1371
1430, May/Jun. 1978.
[29] J. Gil-Pelaez, Notes on the inversion theorem, Biometrika, vol. 38,
pp. 481482, 1951.
[30] Q. T. Zhang, Exact analysis of post-detection combining for DPSK
and NFSK systems over arbitrary correlated Nakagami channels, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 14591467, Nov. 1998.
[31] M. Kendall and A. Stuart, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, 4th ed.
London, U.K.: Grifn, 1979.
[32] M. D. Springer, The Algebra of Random Variables. New York: Wiley,
1976.
[33] N. Giri, On the complex analysis of T
2
- and R
2
-tests, Ann. Math.
Statist., vol. 36, pp. 665670, 1965.
[34] A. T. James, Distributions of matrix variates and latent roots derived
from normal samples, Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 475501,
Jun. 1964.
[35] L. G. Ordonez, D. P. Palomar, and J. R. Fonollosa, Ordered eignevalues
of a general class of Hermitian random matrices with application to the
performance analysis of MIMO systems, IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 672689, Feb. 2009.
[36] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions.
New York: Dover, 1970, p. 946.
Q. T. Zhang (S84M85SM95F09) received
the B.Eng. degree from Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China, and the M.Eng. degree from South
China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China,
both in wireless communications, and the Ph.D. de-
gree in electrical engineering from McMaster Uni-
versity, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
After graduation from McMaster University in
1986, he held a research position and adjunct assis-
tant professorship at McMaster. In January 1992, he
joined the Spar Aerospace Ltd. Satellite and Com-
munication Systems Division, Montreal, QC, Canada, as Senior Member of
Technical Staff. At Spar Aerospace, he participated in the development and
manufacturing of the Radar Satellite (Radarsat). He joined Ryerson University,
Toronto, ON, in 1993 and became a Professor in 1999. In 1999, he took a
one-year sabbatical leave with the National University of Singapore and is
currently a Chair Professor of Information Engineering with the City University
of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. He served as an Associate Editor for the
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS from 2000 to 2007. His research interests
include wireless communications, with his current focus on wireless multiple-
input multiple-output, cooperative systems, and cognitive radio.