Outage Performance of MIMO Cognitive Relay

Networks with Antenna Selection

Hao Zhang 1,2 Xinjie Wang 1,3 T. Aaron Gulliver2 Wei Shi1 Hongjiao Zhang1
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada
3
College of Communication and Electronics, Qingdao Technological University, China
Email: zhanghao@ouc.edu.cn wangxinjie@qtech.edu.cn agullive@ece.uvic.ca
shiwei6670595@126.com zhjouc@126.com

Abstract—In this paper, a novel antenna selection strategy is
proposed and analyzed for dual hop MIMO cognitive amplify-
and-forward (AF) relay networks over independent non-
identically distributed (i.n.i.d.) Nakagami-m fading channels.
Spectrum sharing is employed with secondary users
constrained by a limit on the interference to the primary
receivers. All secondary users are equipped with multiple
antennas and have a maximum power constraint. The best
antenna pairs are selected for secondary user communications.
The outage probability is derived and used to evaluate the
impact of antenna selection on the outage performance. The
analytic results are validated by Monte Carlo simulation.
Keywords-MIMO, Congnitve relay network, Amplify-and-
forward, Antenna selection
I. INTRODUCTION
Cognitive radio is a promising technique to improve
spectrum utilization [1]. Several cognitive radio techniques
have been proposed, in particular spectrum sharing. In this
case, secondary users are allowed to use the licensed
spectrum of a primary user under interference power
constraints.
Cooperative relays are an efficient means of mitigating
the effects of fading in wireless networks [2]. They are well
suited to a cognitive spectrum sharing radio network
because the power of the secondary users is limited. There
are several possible cooperative protocols such as Amplify-
and-Forward (AF) and Decode-and-Forward (DF) [2].
These protocols can be used in a Cognitive Relay Network
(CRN) to enhance the performance of secondary users. CRN
performance with various protocols has been investigated in
the literature. The outage performance of a cognitive AF
relay network has been derived for Rayleigh fading
channels with an interference constraint from the primary
user [3],[4]. For a cognitive DF relay network, the outage
performance with multiple relays over Rayleigh fading
channels has been derived [5]-[7]. The outage performance
for a cognitive AF relay network with Nakagami-m fading
channels was analyzed in [8],[9]. The statistical dependence
among the Random Variables (RVs) associated with the
end-to-end Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) was considered.
This is the key difference between cognitive relay networks
and conventional relay networks.
Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technology is an
effective means of providing multiplexing and diversity
gains in radio systems [10]. It has been considered in
cognitive radio networks for interference control at the
primary receiver [11]. MIMO techniques have typically
been employed in cognitive networks with only multiple
antennas at the transmitter [12],[13]. Consequently, along
with the performance gains comes hardware complexity at
the radio front end. Antenna selection can be used to reduce
this complexity while retaining much of the benefit of
multiple antennas [14],[15]. To the best of our knowledge,
the performance of antenna selection in MIMO cognitive
relay networks has not yet been investigated.
In this paper, a MIMO cognitive AF cooperative relay
network is considered with antenna selection. The statistical
dependence among the RVs associated with the SNR is
examined, and an accurate closed form expression for the
outage probability (OP) is derived for the best antenna
selection over independent and non-identically distributed
(i.n.i.d.) Nakagami-m fading channels. Rayleigh fading is a
special case of Nakagami-m fading, so the corresponding
OP can easily be obtained using the results presented here.
The analytic expressions obtained are validated through
Monte Carlo simulation, and the impact of several key
system parameters on the performance, such as the number
of Secondary User (SU) antennas and the fading parameters,
is evaluated.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, the system model is presented. The outage performance of
the MIMO cognitive AF relay network is derived in Section
III. Some performance results are presented in Section IV to
verify the analysis and determine the impact of the system
parameters. Finally, Section V gives some concluding
remarks.

10 978-1-4799-1501-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

 II. SYSTEM MODEL 2
hSt Rn ~ (m1 , ω1 ) , t = 1, 2,! , N S , n = n = 1, 2,! , N R ,
The MIMO cognitive AF relay network model is shown in
Fig. 1. The primary transmitter (PUT) u sends messages to 2

the primary receiver (PUD) v. The primary receiver has one

antenna. The secondary source S sends messages to the
secondary destination D via a single relay R. There are NS
antennas at the source S, NR antennas at the relay R, and ND
antennas at the destination D. It is assumed that a direct
communication link between the secondary source and
secondary destination is not available, as is reasonable with
fading channels and limited transmit power.
hRk Dl ~ (m2 , ω 2 ) , k = 1, 2,! , N R , l = 1, 2,! , N D ,
2
hSt v ~ (m3 , ω 3 ) , t = 1, 2,! , N S , and
2
hRk v ~ (m4 , ω 4 ) , k = 1, 2,! , N R .
As is typical, time division multiplexing is assumed. In
the first time slot, based on (1), the received signal at
antenna n of the relay R from antenna t of the source S can
be written as
ySt Rn = PSt hSt Rn x + nRn (4)

where x denotes the signal sent by the source, hSt Rn is the

channel coefficient between antenna n of the relay and
antenna t of the source, and nRn ~ CN (0, N 0 ) . The “best”
transmitter-relay antenna pair is selected between the source
and relay. This selection should consider the channel
between S and R and the interference power constraint at the
PUD. Thus the best antenna pair (a,b) between S and R is
given by
­ ­ ½ ½
Fig. 1. The MIMO cognitive relay network model.
hSa Rb
2
= arg max ® min ® P,
° ° I ° 2 ° (5)
h
2 ¾ St Rn ¾
hSt Rn t =1,2.... N S
n =1,2.... N R °
¯ °¯ hSt v °¿ °¿
The interference generated by the secondary users at the
In the second time slot, the received signal at antenna l of
PUD should remain below the interference threshold I. The
the destination D from antenna k of the relay R can be
transmit power at antenna t of source S, denoted St
written as
t=1,2,..,NS, and antenna k of relay R, denoted Rk k=1,2,..,NR,
must satisfy yRk Dl = PRk hRk Dl xR + nDl , (6)
­ ½
)
­ ½
°
PSt = min ® P,
I °,
2 ¾
°¯ hSt v °¿
°
PRk = min ® P,
I °,
° hRk v °
2¾
(1) where x R = Gy S R , G = 1/ PS hS R
a b a a b ( 2
+ N 0 , and nDl ~
¯ ¿ CN (0, N 0 ) . Note that antenna c of the best relay-destination
where P is the maximum secondary user transmit power, pair may be different from antenna b of the best transmitter-
hSt v is the channel coefficient between St and v, and hR v is
k
relay pair. The “best” transmitter-receiver antenna pair (c,d)
the channel coefficient between Rk and v. The instantaneous is selected between the relay R and destination D. Similar to
channel gains between antenna pairs are assumed to be above, this pair is given by
Nakagami-m random variables. If X is a Nakagami-m ­ ­ ½ ½
random variable with parameters (m,Ȧ), the probability hRc Dd
2
= arg max ® min ® P,
° ° I ° 2 ° (7)
h
2 ¾ Rk Dl ¾
k =1,2.... N
density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function hRk Dl R
° °¯ hRkν °¿ °
(CDF) can be written as
l =1,2.... N D ¯ ¿
m
§m· The received SNR at the destination can be expressed as
¨ ¸
ω § m ·
f X ( x ) = © ¹ x m −1 exp ¨ − x ¸ (2) γ 1γ 2
γD = ≈ γ = min {γ 1 , γ 2 } (8)
Γ ( m) © ω ¹ γ 1 + γ 2 + 1 up
§ m · PS PR
Γ¨ m, x ¸ 2 2
ω ¹ where γ 1 = a hSa Rb and γ 2 = c hRc Dd .
FX ( x ) = 1 − © (3)
N0 N0
Γ(m )
To simplify the notation, let

11
 III. OUTAGE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS K! M

¦ ∏( x )
nj
( x0 + x1 " + xM ) =
K
M j
The Outage Probability (OP) is defined as the probability
that the instantaneous SNR at D falls below a predefined
n0 , n1 ,!, nM
n0 + n1 +"+ nM = K ∏ ( n )!
j =0
j
j =0

threshold γ th (12)
P2 can be expressed as
Pout = Pr (γ D ≤ γ th )
C Nk R ( ( m1 − 1) !) § m3 ·
k m3
NR

( ) P2 = ¦ ( −1)
k
= Pr min {γ 1 , γ 2 } ≤ γ th ¨ ¸
( Γ ( m1 ) ) Γ ( m3 ) © ω3 ¹
k
k =0

( 1
)(
= 1 − 1 − Fγ ( γ th ) 1 − Fγ ( γ th )
2
) (9) m −1
1
¦ jl j
Thus Fγ ( γ th ) and Fγ ( γ th ) are required. Since the k! § N 0 m1 · j =0
1 2 × ¦ ¨ z¸
© I ω1
m1 −1
derivations are similar, we focus on Fγ ( z ) , which ¹
1
is l0 ,l1 ,!,lm1 −1
l0 + l1 +"+ lm1−1 = k ∏ ª
¬( )
l j ! ( j !)
lj
º
¼
j=0
given by
§ ­ ­ ½ 2
½ · § m1 −1 §N m m ·I ·
¨ ° ° I ° hst Rn ° ¸ × Γ ¨¨ ¦ jl j + m3 , ¨ 0 1 zk + 3 ¸ ¸¸
Fγ 1 ( z ) = Pr max ®min ® P, 2¾ ¾< z¸ © j =0 © I ω1 ω3 ¹ P ¹
¨ t =1,2.... NS
¨ ° °¯ hst v °¿ N 0 ° ¸ 1
© n =1,2.... NR ¯ ¿ ¹ × m −1
(13)
1
ª
{ }
I/P ¦ jl j + m3
§ 2 N · § N 0 m1 m · j =0
= « ³ F ¨ max hS R < z 0 ¸ f 2 ( y ) dy ¨ zk + 3 ¸
¬ 0 © n =1,2.... NR
t n
P ¹ hStν © I ω1 ω3 ¹
Substituting (11) and (13) into (10), Fγ ( z ) is obtained as
NS

{ } º
∞
§ 2 N ·
+ ³ F ¨ max hSt Rn < zy 0 ¸ f 2 ( y ) dy »
1

I /P © n =1,2.... N R I ¹ hStν ¼ Fγ 1 ( z , m1 , ω1, m3 , ω3, N R , N S , I , P ) (14)

ª and Fγ ( z ) can be obtained similarly as
« § § m N ··
NR 2

« I / P ¨ Γ ¨ m1 , 1 0 z ¸ ¸ Fγ 2 ( z , m2 , ω2, m4 , ω4, N D , N R , I , P ) (15)

= « ¨1 − ©
ω1 P ¹ ¸
«³¨ f 2 ( y ) dy
Γ ( m1 ) ¸ hStν Then substituting (14) and (15) into (9) gives Pout.
« ¨ 0
¸¸
« © ¨
¹
«   

IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS

¬ P1

NS In this section, numerical results are presented to

º
NR
» validate the above analysis and evaluate the system
§ § mN ·· performance. Figure 2 shows the Outage Probability (OP) of
∞ ¨
Γ ¨ m1 , 1 0 yz ¸ ¸ »
¨ © ω1 I ¹ ¸ » (10) the proposed antenna selection strategy for a MIMO
+ ³ 1− f 2 ( y ) dy » cognitive AF relay network with different numbers of
¨ Γ ( 1)
m ¸ h
»
Stν
I /P
¨¨ ¸¸ antennas. The analytic results are shown as solid lines, and
© ¹ » the Monte Carlo simulation results are shown as points. We
 
»
P2 ¼ assume P is infinite, m1=m2=2, m3=m4=1, γ th = 3 dB,
so P1 can be expressed as Ȧ1=Ȧ2=Ȧ3=Ȧ4=1, and N0=1. The OP corresponding to
NR
§ single antenna transmitters and receivers is also given for
§ § m1 N 0 · · § m3 I · ·
¨ Γ ¨ m1 , z¸¸ ¨ Γ ¨ m3 , ¸¸ comparison in order to show the performance gains with
¨ © ω1P ¹ ¸ ¨1 − © ω3 P ¹ ¸ (11) antenna selection. From this figure, we can conclude that
P1 = 1 −
¨ Γ ( m1 ) ¸ ¨ Γ ( m3 ) ¸ increasing the number of antennas at the relay provides a
¨¨ ¸¸ ¨¨ ¸¸ greater performance improvement than increasing the
© ¹ © ¹ number of antennas at the source or destination. The reason
is that relay antennas can improve the performance for both
After some mathematical manipulation, and using (8.352.4) hops. Further, the agreement between the Monte Carlo
and (8.350.2) in [16] and the following well known simulation and analytic curves verifies the accuracy of the
expression above derivation.

12

Fig. 2. Outage performance with different numbers of
antennas.
Fig. 3 Outage performance with different maximum power
values P (in dB).
Figure 3 shows the outage probability of the proposed
antenna selection strategy for a MIMO cognitive AF relay
network with different values of P and numbers of antennas.
The analytic results are shown as solid lines, and the Monte
Carlo simulation results are shown as points. The channel
fading parameters are the same as for Fig. 2. This figure
shows that the maximum power limit P can cause outage
saturation. However, increasing the number of antennas can
overcome this problem. The agreement between the Monte
Carlo simulation and analytic curves also verifies the
accuracy of the preceding analysis.
Figure 4 shows the effect of the fading parameters on
the outage probability with NS=NR=ND=2. In this figure,
only analytic results are given, and P is again assumed to be
infinite. Note that m=1 corresponds to Rayleigh fading. This
13
figure shows that a change in the fading parameter for one
of the two hops affects the outage probability equally, i.e.,
m1=1 and m3=3 or m1=3 and m3=1. Also, an increase in m
or Ȧ for one hop improves the performance.
Fig. 4. Outage performance with different fading parameters.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a MIMO cognitive radio network with
amplify-and-forward cooperative relaying was considered.
To reduce the complexity, antenna selection was used at the
transmitters and receivers. A closed form expression for the
outage probability was derived for independent and non-
identically distributed Nakagami-m fading channels and
validated by Monte Carlo simulation. The impact of key
parameters on the system performance was examined. The
results presented show the advantage of antenna selection in
terms of reducing the outage probability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported in part by the International
S&T Cooperation Program of Qingdao, China, under Grant
No. 12-1-4-137-hz.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Goldsmith, S. A. Jafar, I. Maric, and S. Srinivasa, “Breaking
spectrum gridlock with cognitive radios: An information theoretic
perspective,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 894-914, May 2009.
[2] J. N. Laneman, D. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity in
wireless networks: Effcient protocols and outage behavior,” IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062-3080, Dec. 2004.
[3] T.Q. Duong, V. N. Q. Bao, H. Tran, and H.-J. Zepernick, “Exact
outage probability of cognitive AF relaying with underlay spectrum
sharing,” Electron. Lett., vol. 47, no. 17, pp. 1001-1002, Aug. 2011.
[4] J. Chen, Z. Li, J. Si, H. Huang, and R. Gao, “Outage probability
analysis of partial AF relay selection in spectrum-sharing scenario
with multiple primary users,” Electron. Lett., vol. 48, no. 19, pp.
1211-1212, Sep. 2012.
[5] Y. Guo, G. Kang, N. Zhang, W. Zhou, and P. Zhang, “Outage
performance of relay-assisted cognitive-radio system under spectrum-
sharing constraints,” Electron. Lett., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 182-183, Jan.
2010.
[6] L. Luo, P. Zhang, G. Zhang, and J. Qin, “Outage performance for
cognitive relay networks with underlay spectrum sharing,” IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 710-712, July 2011.
[7] Z. Yan, X. Zhang, and W. Wang, “Exact outage performance of
cognitive relay networks with maximum transmit power limits,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1317-1319, Dec. 2011.
[8] V. Asghari and S. Aissa, “Performance of cooperative spectrum-
sharing systems with amplify-and-forward relaying,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1295-1300, Apr. 2012.
[9] T. Q. Duong, D. B. da Costa, M. Elkashlan, and V. N. Q. Bao,
“Cognitive amplify-and-forward relay networks over Nakagami-m
fading,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2368-2374, June
2012.
[10] I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels,” Eur.
Trans. Telecommun., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 585–595, Nov.-Dec. 1999.
14
[11] R. Zhang and Y.-C. Liang, “Exploiting multi-antennas for
opportunistic spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE J.
Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88-102, Feb. 2008.
[12] J. Zhou and J. Thompson, “Linear precoding for the downlink of
multiple input single output coexisting wireless systems,” IET
Commun., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 742-752, July 2008.
[13] E. G. Larsson and E. A. Jorswieck, “Competition versus collaboration
on the MISO interference channel,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol.
26, no. 7, pp. 1059-1069, Sept. 2008.
[14] K. Hamdi, W. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Low-complexity antenna
selection and user scheduling in cognitive MIMO broadcast systems,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., Beijing, China, pp. 4038-4042,
May 2008.
[15] J. Zhou, Y. Li, and B. Evans, “Antenna selection for multiple-input
and single-output cognitive radio systems,” IET Commun., vol. 6, no.
8, pp. 917–930, May 2012.
[16] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series, and
Products, 7th ed., Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2007.