IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium
Generalized Selection Combining in Cognitive
MIMO Relay Networks
Yansha Deng∗ , Maged Elkashlan∗ , Phee Lep Yeoh† , Trung Q. Duong‡ , and Ranjan K. Mallik§
∗ School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
† Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
‡ Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
§ Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology - Delhi, New Delhi, India
Abstract—We propose transmit antenna selection with receive
generalized selection combining (TAS/GSC) in dual-hop cog-
nitive decode-and-forward (DF) relay networks for reliability
enhancement and interference relaxation. In this paradigm, a
single antenna which maximizes the receive signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) is selected at the secondary transmitter and a subset
of receive antennas with the highest SNRs are combined at
the secondary receiver. To demonstrate the impact of multiple
primary users on the cognitive relay network, we derive new
closed-form expressions for the exact and asymptotic outage
probability with TAS/GSC in the secondary network. Several
important design insights are reached. We corroborate that the
full diversity gain is achieved, which is entirely determined by the
total number of antennas in the secondary network. The negative
impact of the primary network on the secondary network is
reflected in the SNR gain.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A common approach to cognitive spectrum sharing is the
underlay model in which the secondary users (SUs) are
permitted to utilize the same spectrum allocated to the primary
users (PUs) as long as the interference inflicted by SUs on PUs
is maintained below a predetermined threshold, commonly
defined as the interference temperature [1–3]. The constraint
on the transmit power of the SU typically results in unreliable
transmission and restricted coverage — driving the demand
for more robust cognitive transmission techniques. Herein,
the use of cognitive relaying and multiple-input multiple-
output (MIMO) transmission are promoted as compelling
candidates for coverage expansion, performance enhancement,
and interference reduction.
In this paper, we examine cognitive networks from the
viewpoint of multiple antennas in the secondary network. The
findings in this direction are instructional due to the promi-
nence of multiple antennas in future cognitive networks [4–6].
Particularly, in [7], it was shown that the capacity loss due
channel estimation errors can be compensated by using MRC
in the secondary network. Recently, in [8], the capacity of
cognitive networks with GSC was evaluated, where a subset
of receive antennas with the highest SNRs are activated in the
secondary network.
Different from the aforementioned works, we introduce
transmit antenna selection with receive generalized selection
combining (TAS/GSC) in cognitive relay networks with mul-
tiple PUs. With this in mind, TAS has been acknowledged as
978-1-4799-2003-7/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 1472
a core component for the uplink of 4G long term evolution
(LTE) and LTE Advanced due to its low feedback demand
in contrast to other closed-loop transmit diversity [9]. Also,
GSC with merits of lower power demand and RF electronics
cost, is regarded as a promising compromise between the more
complex MRC and the less complex selection combining (SC)
in terms of complexity and performance [10, 11]. We consider
a symmetrical dual-hop network, where TAS/GSC is applied
in the source-to-relay link and relay-to-destination link of the
secondary network. A decode-and-forward (DF) relay is used
to facilitate the transmission. By doing so, a single transmit
antenna that maximizes the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at
the SU source and the SU relay is selected, while a subset
of available antennas are combined at the SU relay and the
SU destination. Our aim is to answer fundamental questions
surrounding the joint impact of two key power constraints,
namely, 1) maximum transmit power at the SUs, P , and
2) peak interference power at the PUs, Q. Our answers are
given by deriving new exact closed-form expressions for the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the instantaneous
received end-to-end SNR. As such, the relationship between
the peak interference power and the maximum transmit power
constraints is quantified. Based on this, we derive new closed-
form expressions for the exact and asymptotic outage proba-
bility with arbitrary number of users in the primary network
and arbitrary number of antennas in the secondary network
under Rayleigh fading. Drawing from our new closed-form
expressions, we prove that TAS/GSC achieves the full diversity
gain as transmit antenna selection with receive maximal ratio
combining (TAS/MRC) and transmit antenna selection with
receive selection combining (TAS/SC). This diversity gain
is entirely determined by the total number of antennas in
the secondary network. The negative impact of the primary
network on the secondary network is reflected in the SNR
gain.
II. S YSTEM AND C HANNEL D ESCRIPTION
We consider a spectrum sharing dual-hop relay model where
the secondary network is allowed to utilize the same spectrum
which is allocated to the primary network. As shown in
Fig. 1, the primary network consists of L PUs, each with a
single antenna. The secondary network consists of a secondary
source (S) with NS antennas, a secondary relay (R) with NR
 IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium

38 |h2j ∗ | = maxl {|h2j ∗ l |} as the largest channel coefficient from

38 38/
38 the transmit antenna at R to the L PUs.
The instantaneous end-to-end SNR of the cognitive relay
network with TAS/GSC and DF relaying is defined as γ =
3ULPDU\1HWZRUN min(γ1 , γ2 ), where
6HFRQGDU\1HWZRUN  
2
 16  15  1' 2 g1i∗ θi∗  γ̄Q
7$6*6& 7$6*6& γ1 = min g1i∗ θi∗  γ̄P , 2 (3)
|h1i∗ |

is the instantaneous SNR in the S → R link and

6 5 '
   
 2 g2j ∗ θ ∗ 2 γ̄Q
Fig. 1. Cognitive spectrum sharing with TAS/GSC and DF relaying. γ2 = min g2j ∗ θj∗  γ̄P , j
2 (4)
|h2j ∗ |

antennas, and a secondary destination (D) with ND antennas. is the instantaneous SNR in the R → D link. In (3) and (4),
The secondary networks and the primary network are subject we define γ P = NP0 and γ Q = NQ0 , where N0 is the spectral
to independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) Rayleigh fading. density of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN).
The channel coefficients of the links S → R, R → D, S
→ PUs, and R → PUs, are denoted as g1ij , g2jk , h1iq , and III. S TATISTICAL P ROPERTIES
h2jq , respectively, where i ∈ {1, . . . , NS }, j ∈ {1, . . . , NR }, OF THE E ND -T O -E ND SNR
k ∈ {1, . . . , ND }, and q ∈ {1, . . . , L}. We consider that the
channel state information of SU to PU link is known at S and In this section, we derive a new exact expression for
R. In the following,  ·  is the Euclidean norm, | · | is the the CDF of the end-to-end SNR of the secondary network.
absolute value, and E[·] is the expectation. The CDF will lay the foundation for deriving the exact and
In the S → R link, a single transmit antenna is selected asymptotic outage probability. In [11], the statistics of GSC
at S and the receive antennas at R are combined using GSC. in non-spectrum sharing networks without relays was derived
NR under Rayleigh fading. Based on [11], we derive the CDF
Based on GSC,
  first sort {g
we  1ij }j=1 in descending
 order
to obtain g1i(1)  ≥ g1i(2)  ≥ · · · ≥ g1i(NR )  ≥ 0 at of the SNR in cognitive relay networks with TAS/GSC. We
2 2
proceed by presenting the CDFs of g1i∗ θi∗  and |h1i∗ | as
R. We then combine the LR L(1R ≤  LR ≤ NR ) strongest
  at R. Based on follows.
antenna(s) to obtain θi = j=1 g1i(j) 2
TAS, we select the best transmit antenna i∗ to achieve The CDF of g1i∗ θi∗  in the S → R link is obtained using
θi∗ = arg max1≤i≤NS {θi }, and R feeds back the index of the [11, eq. (4)] and multinomial expansion [12] as
selected transmit antenna to S. As such, the largest channel 
 Fg ∗ 2 (x) = αk xβk e−δk x , (5)
vector is denoted as g1i∗ θi∗ . 1i θi∗
ND Sk ∈SK
In the R → D link, we arrange {g2jk }k=1 in de-
N 
scending order and combining the LD(1 ≤ LD ≤  ND )
LD   at D. where SK = Sk | lRR=0 mk,lR = NS with
strongest antenna(s), we obtain θj = k=1 g 1j(k) +
∗
Then, the best transmit antenna j at the R, which achieves {mk,lR } ∈ Z . The set SK refers to all possible
arg max1≤j≤N {θj } is selected. Thus, the largest channel combinations of {mk,lR , lR = 0, 1, . . . , NR } which satisfy
  NR
lR =0 mk,lR = NS . The parameters in (5) are defined as
R
vector is g2j ∗ θj∗ .
In the proposed underlay spectrum sharing network, the LR  mk,lR
interference power at the PUs originating from the SUs must NS !
ε lR

NR
αk = N R εlR mk,lR ,
not exceed a predetermined threshold level. As such, the lR =0 mk,lR ! lR =1
Γ (lR )
lR =LR +1
transmit powers at S and R are constrained according to (6)
 
Q
PS = min P, 2 (1)
|h1i∗ | 
LR
βk = (lR − 1)mk,lR , (7)
and
  lR =1
Q
PR = min P, 2 , (2) and
|h2j ∗ |
respectively, where P is the maximum transmission power 
LR 
NR
lR
δk = mk,lR + mk,lR , (8)
and Q is the maximum permissible interference power. We LR
lR =1 lR =LR +1
denote |h1i∗ | = maxl {|h1i∗ l |} as the largest channel coef-
ficient from the transmit antenna at S to the L PUs, and where εlR in (6) is given by

1473
 IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium

εlR ε lD
⎧ ⎧
1 lR = 0 ⎪
⎪ 1 lD = 0
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ R ⎪
⎪ D
N
⎪
⎪
N
k −l ⎪
⎪ −1 +
k −l
(−1) D
⎪
⎪ −1 + (−1) R ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ k D =L D +1
⎪
⎨
k R =L R +1 ⎨ ( ND D )(kDk−L
D −1
−1)
( NR R )(kRk−L
R −1
−1)
= × NDk−k L −l D+1 1 ≤ lD < L D
= × NRk−k L −l R+1 1 ≤ lR < L R ⎪ D −1 D D
⎪
⎪
R −1 R R
⎪
⎪  D  LD
⎪
⎪  R  LR
⎪
⎪ − NDN−L lD = L D
⎪
⎪ − NRN−L lR = L R ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ R ⎪
⎪
D
(−1)lD (N −l
ND
)( lD −1 )
⎪
⎪ (−1)lR (N −l
NR
)( lR −1 ) ⎪
⎪ D  lD −LD −1
L D < lD ≤ N D .
⎪
⎩  R R  lR −LR −1
LR < lR ≤ NR . ⎩  D
lD LD
lR LR −1
LR −1 LD

(9) (15)
Note that mt,lD refers to the quantity of the
Applying the multinomial expansion [12, p. 166], the CDF term with lD , and ST refers to all possible
2
of |h1i∗ | in the S → lth PU link is written as combinations of {mt,lD , lD = 0, 1, . . . , ND } which satisfy
 ND
 L lD =0 mt,lD = NR .
F|h1i∗ |2 (x) = 1 − e−x . (10)
IV. O UTAGE P ROBABILITY
2 2
Based on the CDFs of g  and |h | , we present
1i∗ θi∗ 1i∗ A. Exact Analysis
the exact CDF of γ1 in the following theorem. In this section, we address the joint impact of the maximum
Theorem 1: The CDF of γ1 is derived with the help of [13, transmit power P and the peak interference power Q on
eq. (3.354.1)] and is shown in (11). Note that (11) is comprised the outage probability. In DF relaying, the end-to-end outage
of simple finite summations of the incomplete gamma function probability is determined by the worst link between the S →
Γ (·, ·) [13, eq.8.350.2]. R and R → D links, such that [14]
  βk  L
 δ
− k x 1 γ
− Q
Pout (γth ) = Pr (min(γ1 , γ2 ) ≤ γth )
Fγ1 (x) = αk x βk
e γP 1 − e γP
γP = Fγ1 (γth ) + (1 − Fγ1 (γth )) × Fγ2 (γth ) , (16)
Sk ∈SK
L   where Pr {·} denotes the probability.
L l+1 γQl
+ (−1)  β +1 Based on the CDFs of γ1 and γ2 , we present a new closed-
l γ Q + δk x k
l=1 form expression for the end-to-end outage probability of the
   
δk x γ Q proposed TAS/GSC as
×Γ βk + 1, l + . (11)  
γQ γP

Pout (γth ) =1 − 1 − αk γth Ξ (βk , δk )
βk
Proof: See Appendix A. Sk ∈SK
The CDF of γ2 follows from (11) by interchanging the  

parameters αk → αt , βk → βt , δk → δt , and Sk  ∈ × 1− αt γth Ξ (βt , δt ) ,
βt
(17)
N
SK → St ∈ ST , where ST = St | lDD=0 mt,lD = NR St ∈ST

with {mt,lD } ∈ Z + . Here, we define where


β  L  L  
LD 

mt,lD

ND − γδ γth 1 γ
− Q L
NR ! ε lD Ξ (β, δ) =e P 1 − e γP + (−1)
l+1
αt = N D εlD mt,lD , γP l
lD =0 mt,lD ! lD =1
Γ (lD )   l=1  
lD =LD +1
(12) γQl δγth γ Q
× β+1 Γ β + 1, l + .
γ Q + δγth γQ γP
(18)

LD
βt = (lD − 1)mt,lD , (13) Note that our result in (17) is in exact closed-form, which
lD =1 involves easy-to-evaluate finite summations and the standard
incomplete gamma function [13, eq. (8.350.2)].
and
B. Asymptotic Analysis

LD 
ND
lD
δt = mt,lD + mt,lD , (14) In this section, we focus on the effect of power scaling
LD on the outage probability. The main purpose behind our
lD =1 lD =LD +1
asymptotic analysis is to extract two important parameters:
where εlD in (12) is given by 1) diversity gain, and 2) SNR gain. Similar to [15, 16], we

1474
 IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium

0 0
10 10
Simulation Simulation
−1 −1
10 Exact from (17) 10 Exact from (17)
Asymptotic from (19) Asymptotic from (19)
−2 −2
L R = LD = 1
Outage Probability

Outage Probability
10 10
2
−3 −3
3
10 10

−4 −4
10
L=3 L=3 NS = 1
10 NS = 1
L R = LD = 1
2 2
2
−5 1 1 −5
10 10 3
NS = 2 NS = 2
−6 −6
10 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
γP (dB) γP (dB)
Fig. 2. Cognitive spectrum sharing with TAS/GSC and DF relaying: NR = Fig. 3. Cognitive spectrum sharing with TAS/GSC and DF relaying: NR =
ND = 3 and LR = LD = 2. ND = 3 and L = 3.

and
consider the realistic scenario where the peak interference  ND −LD  1 L  
power Q is proportional to the maximum transmit power P , LD LD ! ND   
−μ L
 L l+1
such that γ̄Q = μγ̄P . Here, μ is positive constant. By applying Δ2 = 1−e + (−1)
x l
l=1
[13, eq. (1.211.1)] and [13, eq. (3.354.1)], we now present the − N 1N
 NR ND
asymptotic outage probability in the following theorem. 1 R D

× Γ (NR ND + 1, μl) .
Theorem 2: The asymptotic outage probability of dual-hop μl
cognitive relay networks with TAS/GSC in (17) as γ̄P → ∞ (23)
is derived as
Proof: See Appendix B.
  The result in Theorem 2 is valid for the practical cognitive
−Gd
∞
Pout (γth ) = (Gc γ P ) + o γ̄P−Gd , (19) scenario where the SU transmit power is designed according
to the PU interference temperature such that γ P = μγ Q . The
where the diversity gain is diversity gain is independent of the parameters in primary
network. However, the diversity order is entirely determined by
the total number of antennas NS , NR , and ND , rather than the
Gd = NR min {NS , ND } (20) number of selected antennas LR and LD . More importantly, it
is evident that the SNR gain increases as the number of PUs
and the SNR gain is decreases.
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
⎧ We present numerical results to examine the impact of
⎨ Δ1 N S < ND
TAS/GSC on the outage probability of cognitive relay net-
Gc = Δ2 N S > ND (21)
⎩ works, under Rayleigh fading. We consider the realistic model
Δ1 + Δ 2 NS = ND ,
of large scale networks with multiple PUs. We assume that the
ratio of the peak interference power to the maximum transmit
with power is μ = 2. We also assume that the threshold SNR
is γth = 1 dB. In the figures, Monte Carlo simulations are
 NR −LR  1 L  
LR LR ! NR   L  L marked with ‘◦’. We see from the figures that our exact curves
1 − e−μ +
l+1
Δ1 = (−1) precisely agree with the simulation points. We further see that
x l
l=1 our asymptotic curves accurately predict the behavior of the
 NR NS − N 1N
1 R S outage probability in the high SNR regime. More importantly,
× Γ (NS NR + 1, μl) . (22) we can easily observe that TAS/GSC (NS = 2) outperforms
μl
GSC (NS = 1), which proves the prominence of TAS/GSC.

1475
 IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium

Fig. 2 plots the exact and asymptotic outage probability The second term I2 can be written in terms of the CDF of
2 2
from (17) and (19), respectively, for varying L and NS . As g1i∗ θi∗  and the PDF of |h1i∗ | as
expected, the outage probability decreases with decreasing L.  ∞  
xy
This can be explained by the fact that the SNR gain increases I2 = γ f|h |2 (y) Fg ∗ 2 dy. (26)
Q 1i ∗ 1i θi ∗ γQ
with decreasing L, as indicated by (21). We also observe that γ P

the diversity gain remains the same under different L which 2

Based on (10), the PDF of |h1i∗ | is derived as
is reflected by the parallel slopes of the asymptotes.
L  
Fig. 3 plots the exact and asymptotic outage probability L
(−1) le−lx .
l+1
from (17) and (19), respectively, for varying LR , LD , and f|h |2 (x) = (27)
1i ∗ l
l=1
NS . By doing so, we examine the influence of TAS/GSC in
each hop on the outage probability. We see that the diversity By substituting (5) and (27) into (26), the integral in I2
gain is independent of LR and LD , as shown by the parallel can be solved using [13, eq. (3.351.2)]. The second term I2
slopes of the asymptotes. The special cases of TAS/MRC and is represented as
TAS/SC in the S → R and the R → D links are characterized L     βk  −(βk +1)
L x δk x
by setting LR = LD = 3 and LR = LD = 1, respectively. I2 =
l+1
(−1) l αk l+
As expected, TAS/GSC outperforms TAS/SC and TAS/MRC l γQ γQ
l=1 S ∈S
k K   
outperforms TAS/GSC. This is due to increasing SNR gain δk x γ Q
with increasing LR and LD , as indicated by (21). × Γ βk + 1, l + . (28)
γQ γP
VI. C ONCLUSIONS Substituting (25) and (28) into (24), the CDF of the SNR
in the first hop is finally derived as (11).
We proposed TAS/GSC with dual-hop DF relaying in
underlay spectrum sharing networks with multiple primary A PPENDIX B
users. This setup is well suited to extend the coverage of the P ROOF OF T HEOREMS 2
secondary network and reduce the interference at the primary We derive the first non-zero order expansion of the CDF
network. With this in mind, we derived new closed-form 2
of g1i∗ θi∗  by applying [13, eq. (1.211.1)] and [13, eq.
expressions for the exact and asymptotic outage probability (3.354.1)]
of the secondary network. Our results are valid for arbitrary  NS
L primary users and arbitrary number of antennas in the ∞ xN R
F g ∗ 2 (x) = . (29)
secondary network. It is proved that a better performance can  1i θi∗  LR NR −LR LR !
be achieved by applying TAS/GSC in such interference con- Substituting (29) into (24), the first non-zero order expan-
straint network. Furthermore, our new closed-form expressions sion of the CDF of γ1 and γ2 is attained and substituted into
indicate that the diversity gain is entirely determined by the (16) to yield the asymptotic outage probability as (19).
total number of antennas in the secondary network and is equal
to NR min {NS , ND }. R EFERENCES
[1] M. Gastpar, “On capacity under receive and spatial spectrum-sharing
A PPENDIX A constraints,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 471–487, Feb.
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1 2007.
[2] J. Mietzner, L. Lampe, and R. Schober, “Distributed transmit power
According to (3), the CDF of γ1 can be written as allocation for multihop cognitive-radio systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 5187–5201, Oct. 2009.
  [3] A. Goldsmith, S. A. Jafar, I. Maric, and S. Srinivasa, “Breaking spectrum
2
PS g1i∗ θi∗  gridlock with cognitive radios: An information theoretic perspective,”
Fγ1 (x) = Pr ≤x Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 894–914, May 2009.
N0
  [4] K. Hamdi, W. Zhang, and K. Ben Letaief, “Opportunistic spectrum
2 x 2 γQ sharing in cognitive MIMO wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
= Pr g1i∗ θi∗  ≤ , |h1i∗ | ≤ Commun., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4098–4109, Aug. 2009.
γP γP
  [5] K. Lee, C.-B. Chae, R. W. Heath, Jr., and J. Kang, “MIMO transceiver
2 designs for spatial sensing in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans.
g1i∗ θi∗  x 2 γQ
+ Pr 2 ≤ , |h ∗ | ≥ Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 3570–3576, Nov. 2011.
|h1i∗ | γ Q 1i γP [6] Y. Deng, L. Wang, M. Elkashlan, K. J. Kim, and T. Duong, “Ergodic
capacity of cognitive tas/gsc relaying in Nakagami-m fading channels,”
=I1 + I2 . (24) in Proc. IEEE Int. Communications Conf. (ICC), Sydney, Australia, Jun.
2014, pp. 1–5.
By substituting (5) and (10) into (24), the first term I1 is [7] R. Duan, R. Jandtti, M. Elmusrati, and R. Virrankoski, “Capacity for
spectrum sharing cognitive radios with MRC diversity and imperfect
obtained as channel information from primary user,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun.
    Conf. (GLOBECOM), Miami, USA, 2010.
x γQ
I1 = Fg ∗ 2 F |h | 2 [8] Q. Wu, Y. Huang, J. Wang, and Y. Cheng, “Effective capacity of
1i θi∗ γP 1i∗ γP cognitive radio systems with GSC diversity under imperfect channel
   β k
 L knowledge,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1792–1795, 2012.
x δ
− γk x
γ
− γQ [9] N. B. Mehta, S. Kashyap, and A. F. Molisch, “Antenna selection in LTE:
= αk e P 1−e P . (25)
γP from motivation to specification,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 10,
Sk ∈SK pp. 144–150, Oct. 2012.

1476
 IEEE ICC 2014 - Cognitive Radio and Networks Symposium
[10] A. Annamalai and C. Tellambura, “A new approach to performance eval-
uation of generalized selection diversity receivers in wireless channels,”
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Fall 2001, pp. 2309–2313.
[11] X. Cai and G. B. Giannakis, “Performance analysis of combined
transmit selection diversity and receive generalized selection combining
in Rayleigh fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 3,
no. 6, pp. 1980–1983, Nov. 2004.
[12] R. L. Graham, D. E. Knuth, and O. Patashnik, Concrete Mathematics.
New York: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[13] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series and
1477
Products, 6th ed. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press, 2000.
[14] K. J. R. Liu, A. K. Sadek, and W. Su, et al., Cooperative Communica-
tions and Networking. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[15] T. Q. Duong, P. L. Yeoh, V. N. Q. Bao, M. Elkashlan, and N. Yang,
“Cognitive relay networks with multiple primary transceivers under
spectrum-sharing,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 741–
744, Nov. 2012.
[16] J. Lee, H. Wang, J. G. Andrews, and D. Hong, “Outage probability
of cognitive relay networks with interference constraints,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 390–395, 2011.