You are on page 1of 8

Detection and Estimation of multiple far-field

primary users using sensor array in Cognitive


Radio Networks
Kiran Sultan, Ijaz Mansoor Qureshi, Muhammad Zubair
Abstract The field of spectrum sensing faces a lot of challenges in terms of reliability and accuracy in gathering information for detecti on
and estimation of primary transmissions in Cognitive Radio Networks (CRNs). We propose an efficient, reliable and low-complexity spectrum
sensing scheme for CRNs which not only detects the number of sources but also estimates their parameters such as frequency, Direction-of-
Arrival (DOA) and power strength. It is based on Genetic Algorithm (GA) as global optimizer hybridized with Pattern Search (PS) as local
optimizer. Fitness function is derived from Maximum Likelihood (ML) principle and defines the MSE between actual and estimated signals. Its
effectiveness under low SNR conditions is proved. Our proposed system model constitutes a uniform linear array (ULA) of sensors. Best
estimates of the parameters of the active primary users are obtained by minimizing the fitness function. We detect signals in the frequency
band of 80MHz-108MHz and assume far-field approximation and the snapshots are available to us after 10-15 seconds.
Index Terms Cognitive Radio Network, Direction-of-Arrival, Spectrum Sensing



1 INTRODUCTION
Spectrum sensing [1] is a process conducted to become
aware of the status of the spectrum usage which involves
detection of active signals then estimation of the signal
parameters, followed by decision but it has revamped as a
very active area of research with the advent of cognitive
radio technology [2]. In Cognitive Radio (CR), spectrum
sensing is a decision making technique in which secondary
users (SUs) are required to dynamically detect spectrum
holes to become aware of the presence of the primary users
(PUs) which have high priority being the licensed users. Being
the core component of Cognitive Radio Network (CRN),
spectrum sensing faces many challenges [3] in terms of
hardware requirements, hidden terminal problem, detection
of spread spectrum primary users, data/decision fusion in
scenarios of cooperative sensing, multipath fading, noise
power uncertainty, implementation complexity, security etc.
In order to meet these challenges efficiently, spectrum
sensing requires innovative techniques for not only
detecting the number of PUs but also estimating their

amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies to avoid interference
between primary and secondary transmissions. A number of
spectrum sensing methods to detect spectrum holes in CRs
have been proposed in literature which have been broadly
categorized into three main classes: Non-cooperative
spectrum sensing [4], cooperative spectrum sensing [5]-[6]
and interference based spectrum sensing [7].
Non-cooperative spectrum sensing also known as
transmitter detection is further classified into Energy
Detection (ED), Matched Filter Detection (MFD) and
Cyclostationary based Detection (CBD). Energy Detector [8]
is the most widely studied spectrum sensing technique
because of its less complexity and no requirement of prior
knowledge of PU signal, but it is accompanied by a number
of shortcomings which include noise power uncertainty,
poor performance under low SNR and inefficient to detect
spread spectrum signals. MFD [9] is considered as the
optimum method of signal detection when perfect
knowledge of PU is available otherwise it performs poorly.
Implementation complexity of MF is impractically large
because it demands CR to have dedicated receivers for all
signal types. CBD [10] relies on the prior knowledge of PU
signals and exploits cyclostationary features of the received
signals, hence it is capable of differentiating PU signals and
noise. Its implementation complexity lies between energy
detector and matched filter.

- Kiran Sultan, Department of Electrical Engineering, Air University,
Islamabad, Pakistan, 46000.
- Ijaz Mansoor Qureshi, Department of Electrical Engineering, Air
University, Islamabad, Pakistan, 46000.
- Muhammad Zubair, Department of Electronics Engineering, International
Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan, 46000.


JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 7
The focus of interference-based spectrum sensing is to
design the CRNs to operate in underlay spectrum sharing
environment. In this method, SUs do not perform spectrum
sensing to find spectrum opportunities rather they identify
spectrum occupancy status of PUs and an interference
power threshold is set up for SUs towards PUs for a
particular frequency band and location. In cooperative
spectrum sensing, SUs collaborate and share sensing
information to solve problems like hidden terminal problem,
receiver uncertainty and multipath fading at the cost of
increased detection delay and high implementation
complexity due to requirement of control channels efficient
information sharing algorithms.
With new challenges and dimensions in CRNs, sensing
frequency only may not be enough. Thus it requires
exploration of new dimensions of direction of arrival (DOA),
frequency, strength of signal, range and a critical parameter
which is number of active PUs. All these parameters
formulate a hyperspace which may be called as transmission
hyperspace [11] or radio spectrum space. Knowledge of this
hyperspace will provide more comprehensive view of the
radio environment which has to be shared by multiple users.
In order to ensure secure, reliable and efficient
communication keeping in view the privilege of PUs,
advanced spectrum sensing algorithms capable of
identifying occupancy in all of the above dimensions of
spectrum space to locate spectrum holes need to be
developed which have not been considered simultaneously
in CRNs yet according to the best of our knowledge.
Source localization by means of sensor arrays has been one
of the fundamental and effective ways to estimate
amplitude, frequency, DOA and range estimation of both far
and near field sources upto high accuracy in many systems
including radar, navigation and wireless communication
systems. In order to achieve optimum performance of a
sensor array [12], array geometry, the number of sensors and
the physical separation between the sensors are critical
design parameters in addition to the number of other factors
including signal-to-noise ratio. Many algorithms have
already been proposed in array signal processing for source
localization which can be categorized into far-field source
localization and near-field source localization on the basis of
range between the radiating source and the array of sensors.
Far-field source localization algorithms make assumption
that sources are located in the far-field region of the array.
Thus each signal arriving at the array has planar wavefront.
ESPRIT algorithm [13] and MUSIC algorithm [14] are among
the widely studied far-field source localization algorithms.
However, the far-field assumption is no longer valid when
the sources are located close to the array and are described
by spherical wavefront assumption, thus range parameter is
also included in addition to amplitude, DOA and frequency
to characterize the sources. A number of techniques have
been proposed in this area such as 2-D MUSIC [15], Linear
Prediction method [16], higher order ESPRIT-method [17]
etc but most of these algorithms are computationally
complex.
This paper addresses the problem of detecting the number of
active PU signals and then estimating their signal
parameters to ensure interference free communication in
CRNs. Most of the existing techniques to determine the
number of sources are based on the Singular Value
Decomposition SVD of the covariance matrix of the
snapshots which yields M distinct eigenvalues, where M is
the number of signals present and the remaining
eigenvalues are either zero or non-zero repeated eigenvalues
[18] or non-zero eigenvalues less than threshold. However,
SVD has high uncertainty in terms of decisions about setting
of the threshold and so different schemes [19] have been
proposed for threshold setting to detect the presence of
signals. These include Maximum Eigenvalue Detection
(MED), Maximum Minimum Eigenvalue (MME), Maximum
Eigenvalue to Trace (MET) etc. Unfortunately, most of the
existing methods are either problem specific or
computationally complex due to exhaustive comparisons of
test hypothesis involved to achieve high accuracy. In [20], a
technique is proposed to detect number of signals in order to
solve problem of DOA.
In this paper, we propose a generalized method to first
detect the number of possibly active primary users located in
the far field region of the array and then estimate their
amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies. Our proposed spectrum
sensing scheme is not application specific. It can be used for
cooperative as well as non-cooperative spectrum sensing.
We use Mean Square Error (MSE) as fitness function which
defines an error between actual and estimated signals at
different sensors of the uniform linear array ULA and is
derived from Maximum Likelihood (ML) Principle. MSE is
one of the easy and optimum fitness functions to be
minimized using array of sensors and fairly good results are
obtained even in the scenario of low signal to noise ratio
(SNR). We employed heuristic optimization techniques to
minimize the error in which Genetic Algorithm (GA) [21]
being one of the most popular evolutionary algorithm
because of its reliability, efficiency and robustness is used as
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 8
global optimizer hybridized with Pattern Search (PS) as local
optimizer. This simple and elegant technique simply
demands a passive sensor array whose snapshots should be
readily available to us for calculation after every 10-20
seconds.
2 SYSTEM MODEL AND PROBLEM FORMULATION

We have an array of sensors that is sensing the signals from
different base stations of primary users. If the array is almost
at the same height as that of the base station transmitters, we
do not have to detect the elevation angle u . So, consider a
uniform linear array as shown in fig.1 consisting of L
omnidirectional sensors observing M far-field primary
signals radiating with different unknown carrier frequencies.
The distance d between two consecutive elements is kept
one-quarter of the minimum wavelength of received signals
i.e.
4
min

.

Fig.1. The System Model

The composite signal
i
x received by the
th
i sensor is
expressed as,
i
M
m
i d jk
m i
z e a x
m m
+ =

=

1
sin ) 1 ( |
L i s s 1 ) 1 (
where
m
a and
m
| represent the amplitude and DOA of the
th
m source impinging on the array,
m
k is the propagation
constant and c f k
m m m
/ 2 / 2 t t = = with
m
f
representing the frequency of the
th
m signal incident on the
array and
i
z is the AWGN added to the output of
th
i
sensor. Thus the parameters to be estimated for M incident
sources are expresses in a vector u

as,



where M is the number of active PUs and is also unknown
and has to be detected first.

The received signal vector X at the L-element ULA is
expressed as,

T
L L i
x x x x x X ] , ., ,......... ........., , [
1 2 1
=

where superscript T denotes the transpose.

Thus the problem in hand is to develop a novel technique for
two purposes, first detecting the number of active PU signals
impinging on ULA and second, performing joint estimation
of amplitude, DOA and frequency of the detected sources
considering the sensor array as reference. We also consider
the effect of variation in SNR on the detection and estimation
results. The fitness function can be expressed mathematically
as,
2
, , ,

min X X
f a M
g

|


) 2 (
where X

defines the estimated signal vector at the sensor


array and is given as,
T
L L i
x x x x x X ] , ., ,......... ........., , [

1 2 1
=


i
x is the estimated output at the i
th
sensor and is expressed
as,

=

=
g
m m
M
m
i d k j
m
i
e a x
1

sin ) 1 (

'
' '
'

|

L i s s 1

) 3 (

where
g
M is the number of sources randomly selected to
detect the possibly active PUs.
Thus the elements of the estimated vector ' u

obtained
through optimization algorithm are given by,



3 Proposed Algorithm for Detection

In this section, we give an overview of the procedural steps
carried out in GA optimization, parameter settings for GA
and hybrid scheme PS, and pseudo code for the proposed
algorithm. We solve the problem of detection first. To
achieve this purpose, we randomly select
g
M number of
sources in the estimated signal vector u'

and calculate mean
square error MSE given in eq. (2). The value of
g
M

is then
increased or decreased aiming to decrease the MSE in each
selection. This process is repeated until minimum mean
] ,......, , ,......, , ,......, [
1 1 1 M M M
f f a a | | u =
]

,......,

,......,

, ,......, [ '
1 1 1
g g g
M M M
f f a a | | u =
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 9
square error MMSE is obtained with
g
M corresponding to
MMSE indicating the number of active PUs. After detection
of the number of sources is done, we perform joint
estimation of amplitude, DOA and frequency of the detected
signals by further refining the MMSE. We solve our
optimization problem given in eq. (2) through Genetic
Algorithm (GA) hybridized with Pattern Search (PS). GA has
been widely used to solve optimization problems in
communication and array signal processing because of being
simple in concept, reliable, ease in implementation and with
less probability of getting stuck in local minima [22].
Efficiency, accuracy and reliability of GA can be
considerably improved by hybridization with any other
competent computational technique such as Interior Point
Algorithm (IPA), Pattern Search (PS) etc. In [23],
performance of GA, PS and Simulated Annealing (SA) is
compared with GA-PS and SA-PS in the joint estimation of
amplitude and DOA of multiple far-field sources incident on
L-type array considering Mean Square Error (MSE) as fitness
function.
The steps followed in GA-PS optimization are summarized
below.
______________________________________________________
Algorithm: GA hybridized with PS
______________________________________________________

Step (i): Initialization
Randomly generate P number of chromosomes
(potential solutions). Lower and upper bounds are
specified for the genes.

Step (ii): Fitness Function Evaluation
Fitness of each chromosome in the population is
computed using mean square error MSE derived
from Maximum Likelihood (ML) Principle as fitness
function and is given in eq (2). The chromosomes
are sorted on the basis of their fitness values.

Step (iii): Termination Criteria
The algorithm terminates if any of the following
two criteria are met, i.e. reaching the maximum
number of cycles or achieving the predefined fitness
value.

Step (iv): Create New Generations
Select the best chromosome depending on the value
of its fitness and create next generation by
employing mutation and crossover.

Step (v): Fine-Tuning via Local Search
The PS algorithm takes the best chromosome
obtained from GA as a starting point for further
improvement and refinement of results.

Step (vi): Storage:
Store the global best and to achieve better results
repeat the steps 2 to 5 for sufficient numbers of
iterations for better statistical analysis.
______________________________________________________

MATLAB optimization toolbox is used for this purpose and
parameter settings for GA and PS are shown in table 1.
Pseudo code of the proposed algorithm to solve the
detection and estimation problem is provided in table 2.

Table1. PARAMETER SETTINGS FOR GA-PS

GA PS
Parameters Settings Parameters Settings
Population
size
300 Start point Optimal values
from GA
No. of
generations
2000 Poll method GPS positive
basis 2N
Selection Stochastic
uniform
Polling order consecutive
Mutation
function
Adaptive
feasible
Maximum
iterations
1000
Crossover
function
Heuristic Maximum
function
evaluation
10000
Crossover
Fraction
0.2 Function
Tolerance
1e-18
Hybridization PS
No. of
generations
3000 Expansion
Factor
2.0
Function
Tolerance
1e-15 Contraction
Factor
2.5
Migration
Direction
Both Way Penalty Factor 100
Scaling
Function
Rank
Elite Count 8














JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 10
Table 2: PSEUDO CODE OF THE PROPOSED
ALGORITHM FOR DETECTION OF NUMBER OF
SOURCES

. 1 , , , : M m where f a d Inputs
m m m
s s |

M for guess a as M Choose
g

. 1

=

=
M
m
i d jk
m i
m m
e a x
1
sin ) 1 ( |

L i s s 1

. 2

=

=
g
m m
M
m
i d k j
m
i
e a x
1

sin ) 1 (

'
' '
'

|

L i s s 1

. 3 compute
2
0

g
M M
X X E =

Error Square Mean //

. 4 let
1 + =
g
new
g
M M

//
source one add

. 5 compute

=

=
new
g
m m
M
m
i d k j
m
i
e a x
1

sin ) 1 (

'
' '
'

|

L i s s 1

. 6 compute
2
'
0

new
g
M
M
X X E =

. 7 if ) (
0
'
0
E E <
. i
M of value possible a as M save and E E
new
g
'
0 0
=

. ii
new
g
M update

update last porting M M
new
g
new
g
sup 1 // =

. iii
new
g
M last of record keeping while to steps repeat 7 5
g increa starts MSE until acquired sin

else

. i 1 =
g
new
g
M M

. ii 7 5 to steps repeat

if end

min
0 0
. 8 E around E of values three atleast Observe

( ) 0 s/
g
M that g considerin directions both in

or increases M as E in increase ensure to
new
g 0

min
0
E to correspond which M around decreases
new
g

min
0
. . Re : E e i MMSE to correspond that M turn Output
new
g


4 SIMULATION RESUTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this section, we evaluate the performance of our proposed
technique in terms of accuracy for two purposes, first, to
detect of number of far-field sources impinging on ULA, and
second, for joint estimation of amplitude, DOA and
frequency of the detected signals. Inter-element spacing in
the array is kept
4
min

. We perform spectrum sensing in the


frequency band of 81MHz 108MHz. The signals received at
the array were polluted by AWGN. Different cases are
discussed on the basis of different number of sources M
impinging on ULA, different number of sensors L, and for
different SNR levels, with SNR to be as high as 35dB and as
low as 15dB. All the values of DOA and signal to noise ratio
(SNR) are taken in degrees and dB respectively.
Fig. (2) illustrates the performance of GA for two incoming
sources i.e. M = 2 under different SNR conditions. A ULA
with L = 20 sensors is employed for this purpose. The
amplitude A , DOA | and frequency f of the incoming
signals are taken as , 5 . 4 , 0 . 3
2 1
= = A A
, 145 , 75
2 1
o o
= = | | MHz f MHz f 100 , 85
2 1
= = where
1 1 1
, , f A | correspond to the first PU and
2 2 2
, , f A |
correspond to the second PU. The obtained results are
averaged over 20 snapshots. Fig. 2(a) illustrates the detection
of sources with
g
M ranging from 1 to 7. Minimum Mean
square error (MMSE) is plotted against the number of
sources
g
M in the estimated signal vector which clearly
gives the minimum value when
g
M coincides with M. The
figure also indicates that increase in error is less significant
in the case when
g
M > M as compared to the case when
g
M < M which represents an under-determined system i.e.
number of solutions are less than the number of unknowns.
After the detection of active sources, table 3 provides the
estimates of amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies of both PUs
for different values of SNR. Fig. 2(b) and fig. 2(c) plot error
in DOA and frequency of the incident signals versus SNR
respectively and it is obvious from the figures that
estimation accuracy increases to 99.87% in DOA and 99.77%
in frequency as the SNR increases from 15dB to 35dB.

TABLE 3
Amplitude, DOA and frequency estimation for different SNR
levels with M = 2, L = 20


SNR 1
A
2
A

o
1
|
o
2
|
) (
1
MHz f

) (
2
MHz f

35dB 3.00 4.50 75.04 144.97 84.89 100.10
30dB 3.00 4.50 74.95 144.96 85.13 100.12
25dB 2.99 4.51 75.07 145.06 84.84 99.85
20dB 2.98 4.52 74.91 145.08 84.82 100.19
15dB 3.02 4.48 74.90 144.89 85.19 100.21
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 11
Fig 2. (a). Detection of M = 2 PUs
Fig. 2(b). Error in DOA vs SNR for M = 2, L = 20


Fig. 2(c). Error in frequency vs SNR for M = 2, L = 20

In fig. (3) illustrates the performance of GA-PS with M = 4
primary users. ULA with L = 25 sensors is used for this
purpose. The values of amplitude, DOA and frequency of
the sources are taken as }, 81 , 60 , 2 { MHz
o
}, 88 , 90 , 5 . 2 { MHz
o
}, 95 , 135 , 3 { MHz
o

and
}. 105 , 160 , 5 . 3 { MHz
o
Fig 3(a) plots MMSE versus
g
M to
detect the number of active sources by setting
g
M in the
range of 1 to 7 and it is obvious from the figure that error is
minimum when M M
g
= giving a clear indication of 4
active PUs. Fig 3(b) and (c) plot error in DOA and frequency
estimates of the detected users versus different SNR levels
with SNR raised from 15dB to 35dB. The values estimated by
GA are tabulated in table 4. The results are averaged over 20
snapshots. Table 4 provides the amplitude, DOA and
frequency estimates obtained. Fig.3 proves the validity of the
proposed technique when the number of signals incident on
the array increases and it can still simultaneously estimate
amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies with high estimation
accuracy.

Fig 3. (a). Detection of M = 4 PUs

Fig. 3(b). Error in DOA vs SNR for M = 4, L = 25


Fig. 3(c). Error in frequency vs SNR for M = 4, L = 25




15 20 25 30 35
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

i
n

D
O
A

(
D
e
g
r
e
e
s
)


delta fi1
delta fi2
15 20 25 30 35
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

i
n

f
(

M
H
z
)


delta f
1
delta f
2
1 2 3 4 5 6
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
Mg
M
e
a
n

S
q
u
a
r
e

E
r
r
o
r


SNR = 30dB
SNR = 25dB
SNR = 20dB
15 20 25 30 35
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

in

f
i
(
D
e
g
r
e
e
s
)


delta fi
1
delta fi
2
delta fi
3
delta fi
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
M'
M
e
a
n

S
q
u
a
r
e

E
r
r
o
r


SNR = 30dB
SNR = 25dB
SNR = 20dB
15 20 25 30 35
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

i
n

D
O
A

(
D
e
g
r
e
e
s
)


delta fi1
delta fi2
15 20 25 30 35
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

i
n

f
(

M
H
z
)


delta f
1
delta f
2
15 20 25 30 35
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
SNR (dB)
E
r
r
o
r

i
n

f

(
M
H
z
)


delta f
1
delta f
2
delta f
3
delta f
4
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 12
In fig. (4) we evaluate the performance of our proposed
scheme with different number of sensors L in the array as
the SNR is raised from 15dB to 35dB. Number of PUs and
the values of amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies of the PUs
are kept the same as in the case of fig. (2). The values
estimated by GA-PS are tabulated in table 5. The results are
averaged over 20 snapshots. It is obvious from figures 4(a)
and 4(b) that the greater the number of sensors in the array,
the higher is the accuracy in the estimated values with
further improvement achieved at high SNR levels.

Fig. 4(a). Error in DOA estimation for different SNR levels and different
number of sensors in the array considering M = 2

Fig. 4(b). Error in frequency estimation for different SNR levels and
different number of sensors in the array considering M = 2

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we present a novel idea based on Genetic
Algorithm (GA) hybridized with Pattern Search (PS) for
detecting the number of active primary users and estimation
of joint amplitudes, DOAs and frequencies of the detected
users for cognitive radio networks. Our proposed method is
not application specific and the signal parameters are paired
automatically and estimated with high accuracy. Moreover,
the proposed algorithm has less computation burden and
offers satisfactory results even when number of users
increases. The simulation results verify the validity and
effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in AWGN
environment.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Haykin, "Cognitive radio: brain-empowered wireless
communications", IEEE J. Sel. Areas Comm., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201-220,
2005.
[2] J. Mitola, Cognitive Radio Architecture Evolution, Proceedings of
the IEEE, pp. 626641, 2009.
[3] A. Ghasemi, E. S. Sousa, Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio
Networks: Requirements, Challenges and Design Trade-offs, IEEE
Comm. Magazine, Vol. 46, pp. 32-39, 2008.
[4] S. Kapoor, G. Singh, Cooperative Spectrum Sensing: A Hybrid
Model Approach, ICDECom IEEE, pp. 1-5, 2011.
[5] S. Hussain, X. Fernando, Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio
Networks: up-to-date techniques and future challenges, TIC-STH IEEE,
pp. 736-741, 2009.
[6] N. Pratas, N. R. Prasad, A. Rodrigues and R. Prasad, Cooperative
Spectrum Sensing: State of the Art Review, Wireless VITAE IEEE, pp.1-
6, 2011.
[7] M. Subhedar and G. Birajdar, Spectrum Sensing Techniques in
Cognitive Radio Networks: A Survey, IJNGN, Vol.3, 2011.
[8] A. Chandran, A. Karthik, A. Kumar, R. Naidu, S. Siva, U. S. Iyer, R.
Ramanathan, Evaluation of Energy Detector based Spectrum Sensing
for OFDM Based Cognitive Radio, INCOCCI, IEEE, pp. 163-167, 2010.
[9] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Detection
Theory, vol. 2, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998.
[10] W. A. Gardner, Exploitation of spectral redundancy in
cyclostationary signals, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 8, pp.
1436, 1991.
[11] T. Yucek and H. Arslan, A Survey of Spectrum Sensing
Algorithms for Cognitive Radio Applications, Comm. Surveys and
Tutorials, IEEE Vol. 11, pp. 116-130, 2009.
[12] L. Gupta, R. P. Singh, Array Signal Processing: DOA Estimation
for Missing Sensors, ICPCES IEEE, pp. 1-4, 2010.
[13] ESPRIT-estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance
techniques, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 37, no. 7,
pp. 984995, 1989.
[14] R. Schmidt, Multiple emitter location and signal parameter
estimation, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 276
280, 1986.
[15] Y. D. Huang and M. Barkat, Near-field multiple source localization
by passive sensor array. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol 39, pp.
968975, 1991.
[16] K. A. Meraim, Y. Hua and A. Belouchrani, Second-order near-field
source localization: method and performance analysis, Conference
Record of the Thirtieth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers, Vol. 1, pp. 723727, 1996.
[17] N. Yuen and B. Friedlander, Performance analysis of higher order
ESPRIT for localization of near-field sources, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 46, no. 3, 1998, pp. 709719. [18] N. Pillay, H. J. Xu, Blind
eigenvalue-based spectrum sensing for cognitive radio networks, IET
Commun., Vol 6, pp. 1388-1396, 2012.
[18] Q.T. Zhang and K.M. Wong, A new information-theoretic criterion
for detection of the number of signals in spatially correlated noise with
covariance matrix, ICASSP IEEE, Vol. 5, pp. 381-384, 1992.
[19] U. Konda, Y. Cheng, T. Singh, P. D. Scott, Source Identification of
Puff-Based Dispersion Models Using Convex Optimization, IEEE 13
th

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
L
E
r
r
o
r

in

f
i(
D
e
g
r
e
e
s
)


SNR = 30dB
SNR = 25dB
SNR = 20dB
SNR = 15dB
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
L
E
r
r
o
r

in

f
1
(
M
H
z
)


SNR = 30dB
SNR = 25dB
SNR = 20dB
SNR = 15dB
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 13
conference on Computing & Processing
(Hardware/Software) ;Engineered Materials, Dielectrics &
Plasmas ; Nuclear Engineering, pp. 1-6, 2010.
[20] C. Candan and S. Koc, Beamspace Approach for Detection of the
Number of Coherent Sources, Radar Conference IEEE, pp. 913-918,
2012.
[21] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and
machine learning", Addison Wesley, Jan. 1989.
[22] J. Zhang, H. S. Chung, and W. L. Lo, Clustering-based adaptive
crossover and mutation probabilities for genetic algorithms," IEEE
Trans. on Evol. Comput. Vol. 11, pp. 326-335, 2007.
[23] F. Zaman, I. M. Qureshi, A. Naveed, J. A. Khan, and M. A. Z. Raja,
Amplitude and Direction of Arrival Estimation: Comparison between
different Techniques, Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 39,
pp. 319-335, 2012.



TABLE 4
Amplitude, DOA and frequency estimation for different SNR levels with M = 4, L = 25









TABLE 5
Amplitude, DOA and frequency estimation for different SNR levels and different number of sensors in the array with M = 2


SNR
1
A
2
A
3
A
4
A
o
1
|
o
2
|
o
3
|
o
4
|
) (
1
MHz f

) (
2
MHz f

) (
3
MHz f

) (
4
MHz f

35dB 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 60.20 90.18 135.19 159.84 81.23 88.24 94.79 104.77
30dB 1.99 2.51 3.00 3.48 59.78 90.24 134.75 159.79 80.71 88.28 94.74 104.72
25dB 1.98 2.41 3.01 3.47 59.72 90.31 134.73 160.28 80.68 87.67 95.33 104.69
20dB 2.02 2.52 2.99 3.53 59.62 89.66 135.37 160.34 80.63 88.35 95.39 105.38
15dB 2.03 2.47 2.98 3.54 60.40 90.34 134.59 159.63 81.45 87.39 95.43 105.42
SNR L
1
A
2
A
o
1
|
o
2
|
) (
1
MHz f ) (
2
MHz f


30dB
6 3.04 4.54 75.12 144.88 85.22 100.23
10 3.03 4.53 75.11 144.90 85.21 100.22
14 3.02 4.53 74.91 144.93 84.83 100.19
18 2.98 4.49 75.07 145.05 85.16 99.82
22 3.00 4.50 74.94 144.96 85.15 100.16


25dB
6 2.96 4.55 75.13 145.12 85.23 99.77
10 2.95 4.46 75.12 145.11 85.22 100.22
14 2.95 4.48 74.91 145.09 84.81 100.18
18 3.02 4.48 74.91 145.07 84.82 100.17
22 2.99 4.51 74.92 144.93 85.17 99.83


20dB
6 3.06 4.57 75.15 144.84 85.25 99.76
10 3.05 4.56 75.13 145.15 84.77 99.75
14 3.03 4.53 75.12 145.12 84.80 100.23
18 2.98 4.51 74.90 145.09 84.82 99.80
22 2.99 4.49 74.91 144.92 85.17 100.18


15dB
6 3.07 4.42 75.17 144.82 85.27 100.26
10 2.96 4.57 74.83 144.84 84.78 99.75
14 3.03 4.45 74.86 145.12 85.79 100.23
18 2.98 4.46 74.88 145.08 85.81 99.79
22 2.98 4.47 75.10 145.09 84.82 99.80
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617
https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 14