Advanced
Robust Power Control for Cognitive Radio Networks with Proportional Rate Fairness
Robust Power Control for Cognitive Radio Networks with Proportional Rate Fairness
ICT Express. 2014. Jan, 1(1): 22-25
Copyright © 2014, The Korea Institute of Communications and Information Sciences
This is an Open Access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
  • Received : August 25, 2014
  • Accepted : September 20, 2014
  • Published : January 30, 2014
Download
PDF
e-PUB
PubReader
PPT
Export by style
Share
Article
Author
Metrics
Cited by
TagCloud
About the Authors
Yanyan Shen
Kyung Sup Kwak
kskwak@inha.ac.kr

Abstract
This paper studies the power control problem in cognitive radio networks where a primary user and multiple secondary users (SUs) coexist. Imperfect channel state information is considered. The objective is to maximize the SUs' sum rate while guaranteeing the proportional rate fairness among SUs. The problem under consideration is non-convex. By doing a transformation, it is equivalently changed to a second-order cone programming problem, which can be effi ciently solved by existing standard methods. Simulations have been done to verify the network performance under different channel uncertainty conditions.
Keywords
1. Introduction
As the rapid development of advanced technologies on wireless communications, a lot of high transmission rate services and applications have emerged, which increases the demand for spectrum. On the other hand, experimental results have shown that traditional fi xed spectrum allocation schemes yield inefficient spectrum utilization [1] . To improve the spectrum utilization and provide high quality of services (QoS), cognitive radio networks (CRNs) that allow the unlicensed secondary users (SUs) share the licensed spectrum with the licensed primary users (PUs) have been proposed.
Spectrum allocation problem in CRNs has drawn large attention in recent years [2 - 7] . In most of these works, it is assumed that perfect channel state information (CSI) is known [2 - 4] . However, in practice perfect CSI, especially the channel gain from the SUs to PUs, cannot be obtained due to the lack of cooperation among PUs and SUs. Therefore, this motivates the research on resource allocation problem in CRNs with imperfect CSI [4 - 6] . Mitliagkas et al. investigated the joint power control and admission control problem in [5] . Kim et al. in [6] studied the sum rate maximization problem under the total power and interference power constraints. Parsaeefard et al. in [7] worked on the social utility of SUs while satisfying each SU's signal to noise ratio requirement and interference power constraint. However, all those works do not explicitly consider SUs' different transmission rate requirements and fairness issue, thus they are not suitable for a situation where different SUs have different transmission rate requirements. To fl exibly allocate transmission rates to each SU and guarantee fairness among SUs, we will investigate the resource allocation problem with proportional rate fairness requirements in CRNs under imperfect CSI.
In this paper, we will investigate the power control problem in CRNs, where imperfect CSI from secondary BS to the primary user is considered. The objective is to maximize the SUs' sum rate subject to the proportional rate fairness constraint among SUs, the total power constraint at secondary BS, and the interference power constraint to the PU. The problem is formulated as a non-convex optimization problem. By doing a transformation, the problem is changed to an equivalent second-order cone programming (SOCP) problem, which can be efficiently solved by existing standard methods. Simulations have been done to demonstrate the network performance under different channel uncertainty conditions.
2. System Model and Problem Formulation
Consider a network setting where a PU and K SUs coexist. Downlink transmission from the secondary base station (BS) to SUs is considered. The SUs can adopt the available channels that are licensed to the PU for its own data transmission. It is assumed that the total available bandwidth is divided into multiple non-overlapping channels. And each SU is allocated one such channel for its own data transmission.
The channel gain from the secondary BS to SU k , ∀ k ∈ {1,2,⋯, K } is denoted by hk . σk is the variance of the additive white Gaussian noise in that channel. For notational brevity, let Hk = hk / σk . The data rate for SU k isdenoted by
PPT Slide
Lager Image
where Pk is the transmission power for SU k at BS.
To protect the PU’s QoS, the interference to the PU should not be greater than the given threshold Tth , which can be expressed by
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Where dk is the channel gain for SU k from the secondary BS to the primary user. In practice, imperfect channel information cannot be obtained, especially the channel gain from the secondary users to the primary users. Because generally there is a lack of cooperation between primary user and SUs, and thus the primary user will not feedback the CSI to the SUs. Ellipsoidal uncertainty will be adopted to model the uncertainty of channel gain dk . Let us define vector d = [ d 1 d 2 dK ] T . Adopting the ellipsoidal uncertainty [5] , the uncertainty region of d can be expressed by
PPT Slide
Lager Image
where
PPT Slide
Lager Image
is the nominal value of d , D is a K × K matrix, and u is a K dimensional vector. To facilitate the following analysis, let us define a vector P s = [ P 1 P 2 PK ] T , and then (2) can be rewritten as
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Since d satisfies (3), to guarantee (4) hold, it is equivalent to make sure the following inequality (5) holds,
PPT Slide
Lager Image
From (5), by invoking the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one gets that
PPT Slide
Lager Image
We desire to study the power control problem to maximize the sum rate of SUs under several constraints. The problem under consideration can be formulated as follows,
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Where C 1 represents the BS total power constraint, and Pth is the power threshold at the BS. C 2 indicates that the consumed power for each SU at the BS should be non-negative. C 3 is the interference power constraint to the primary user. C 4 is the proportional rate fairness constraint; γ 1 , γ 2 ,⋯, γK are given constants, and they indicate the proportional rate requirements of SUs. C 5 represents the SU’s transmission rate constraint.
3. Optimal Solution
Problem (7) is a non-convex optimization problem since the nonlinear equality constraint C 5. To make the problem easy to solve, we will transform problem (7) into its equivalent form.
By replacing the equality constraint in C 5 by an inequality constraint
PPT Slide
Lager Image
problem (7) becomes
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Problem (9) is an SOCP problem, since its objective function is a linear function, its constraint set is a convex set, and C 3 is a second-order cone constraint. A proposition will be given in the following to show that the optimal solution of problem (9) satisfies Rk = 0.5log 2 (1 + HkPk ), and thus problem (9) is equivalent to problem (7). Hence, we can solve Problem (9) instead of Problem (7).
Proposition 1. The rates that optimize problem (9) satisfy that Rk = 0.5log 2 (1 + HkPk ), ∀ k ∈ {1,2,⋯, K }.
Proof. Because the objective function of problem (9) is an increasing function with respect to Rk , and Rk satisfies constraint C 5’. It is easy to see that when problem (9) admits its optimal solution Rk satisfies that Rk = 0.5log 2 (1 + HkPk ), ∀ k ∈ {1,2,⋯, K }.
Problem (9) is an SOCP problem, existing standard methods such as interior-point methods can solve it efficiently. In Section 3, CVX toolbox [8] will be used to find the optimal solution of problem (9).
4. Numerical Results
In this Section, simulation results are presented to illustrate the network performance under different channel uncertainty conditions.
Consider a simulation model shown in Fig.1 , where the secondary BS is located at (0, 0) and the primary user is located at (294meter, 500meter). There are eight SUs, which are randomly generated around the BS. The channel gain in any transmission pair contains a large-scale Rayleigh fading component and a large scale path loss component with path loss factor four. The uncertainty of channel gain in (6) is given by [3]
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Simulation model
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Where D ( i, j ) indicates the element on the i th row and j th column of D , and α , θi ∈ (0,1].
Fig. 2 shows the sum rate of the SUs versus the interference power threshold. The parameters are Pth = 4 W and γ 1 : γ 2 : ⋯ : γ 8 = 1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4. The curves can be parted into two parts. In the first part, i.e., Tth < 0.4 , the SU’s sum rate increases as the interference power threshold Tth increases, that is because during this period the interference power constraint is the dominating constraint. As the increase of Tth , more transmission power can be used for SUs' data transmission, and thus the sum rate increases. During this period, the sum rate obtained with a smaller α is always much higher than that achieved with a greater α . That is because the uncertainty region of the channel gain with a greater α is much larger than that with a smaller α . The algorithm needs to sacrifice much more sum rate to guarantee all the constraints are satisfied when the uncertainty region of the channel gain is much larger. In the second part, as the increase of Tth , the total power constraint gradually becomes the dominating constraint at some different points of Tth for the three cases with different values of α . After these points they will keep at their highest sum rate no matter how large Tth becomes. Although the three cases achieve their highest sum rates at different values of Tth , the final sum rates are the same.
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Sum rate versus Tth
Fig. 3 shows each SU’s transmission rate distribution with different values of α when Tth = 0.25 . The other simulation parameters are the same as those in Fig. 2 . It is evident from Fig. 3 that the SU’s transmission rate satisfies the proportional fairness constraint. And each SU’s transmission rate with a smaller value of α is much higher than that with a greater value of α .
PPT Slide
Lager Image
SU′s transmission rate distribution
Fig. 4 shows the sum rate changes with total power Pth . The parameters are γ 1 : γ 2 : ⋯ : γ 8 = 1:1:2:2:3:3:4:4 and Tth = 0.3 W . When Pth ≤ 2.6 , the figure shows that the problems with different values of α obtain the same sum rate, that is because when Pth ≤ 2.6 , the total power constraint is the dominating constraint for the three cases, thus all the curves achieve the same sum rate. As the increase of Pth , the interference power constraint gradually becomes the dominating constraint. The greater the value of α , the earlier the interference constraint becomes a dominating constraint. When the interference constraint becomes a dominating constraint, the sum rate will keep constant even if Pth changes.
PPT Slide
Lager Image
Sum rate versus total power
5. Conclusion
In this work, we have considered the power control problem in CRNs with channel uncertainty. Our objective is to maximize the sum rate of SUs while guaranteeing the proportional rate fairness among SUs. The problem is formulated as a non-convex optimization problem. By doing a problem transformation, it becomes an SOCP problem. And it can be efficiently solved by existing methods. In the future, we will propose distributed algorithms to solve this problem.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the MSIP (Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (NIPA-2014-H0301-14-1042) supervised by the NIPA (National IT Industry Promotion Agency).
View Fulltext  
Chen D. , Yin S. , Zhang Q. , Liu M. , Li S. 2009 “Mining spectrum usage data: a large-scale spectrum measurement study,” Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking Beijing, China 13 - 24
Guo J. , Gu S. , Wang X. , Yu H. , M. G. 2010 “Subchannel and power allocation in OFDMAbased cognitive radio networks,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications Shanghai, China 1 - 5
Wang Z. , Jiang L. , He C. 2013 “A novel pricebased power control algorithm in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Communications Letters 17 (1) 43 - 46
Bansal G. , Hossain M. , Bhargava V. 2008 “Optimal and suboptimal power allocation schemes for OFDM-based cognitive radio systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 7 (11) 4710 - 4718
Mitliagkas I. , Sidiropoulos N. , Swami A. 2011 “Joint power and admission control for adhoc and cognitive underlay networks: Convexapproximation and distributed implementation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Communications 10 (12) 4110 - 4121
Kim S. , Soltani N. , Giannakis G. 2013 “Resource Allocation for OFDMA cognitive radios under channel uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Communications 12 (7) 3578 - 3587
Parsaeefard S. , Sharafat A. 2013 “Robust distributed power control in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 12 (4) 609 - 620
2012 “CVX: Matlab software fordisciplined convex programming, version 2.0,” http://cvxr.com/cvx