English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper considers spectrum sharing for wireless communication between acognitive radio (CR) link and a primary radio (PR) link. It is assumed that theCR protects the PR transmission by applying the so-calledinterference-temperature constraint, whereby the CR is allowed to transmitregardless of the PR's on/off status provided that the resultant interferencepower level at the PR receiver is kept below some predefined threshold. For thefading PR and CR channels, the interference-power constraint at the PR receiveris usually one of the following two types: One is to regulate the averageinterference power (AIP) over all the fading states, while the other is tolimit the peak interference power (PIP) at each fading state. From the CR'sperspective, given the same average and peak power threshold, the AIPconstraint is more favorable than the PIP counterpart because of its moreflexibility for dynamically allocating transmit powers over the fading states.On the contrary, from the perspective of protecting the PR, the morerestrictive PIP constraint appears at a first glance to be a better option thanthe AIP. Some surprisingly, this paper shows that in terms of various forms ofcapacity limits achievable for the PR fading channel, e.g., the ergodic andoutage capacities, the AIP constraint is also superior over the PIP. Thisresult is based upon an interesting interference diversity phenomenon, i.e.,randomized interference powers over the fading states in the AIP case are moreadvantageous over deterministic ones in the PIP case for minimizing theresultant PR capacity losses. Therefore, the AIP constraint results in largerfading channel capacities than the PIP for both the CR and PR transmissions.

On Peak versus Average Interference Power Constraints for Protecting Primary Users in Cognitive Radio Networks