Spectrum Availability Model of Secondary Users in

Cognitive Radio Networks

Nariman Rahimian

, Costas N. Georghiades

, Hasari Celebi

and Khalid A. Qaraqe

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA 77840
Email: {narimanrahimian,georghiades}@tamu.edu

Computer Engineering Dept., Gebze Institute of Technology

Istanbul Cad. No: 101 Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey 41400
Email: hcelebi@gyte.edu.tr

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
Email: khalid.qaraqe@qatar.tamu.edu
AbstractCognitive Radio systems are a promising solution to
the spectrum scarcity problem, but precise modeling of spectrum
utilization is vital to the analysis and design of such systems.
In this paper, we mathematically derive the Probability Mass
Function (PMF) of the fraction of available subcarriers for the
secondary users in an OFDMA based cognitive radio system for
different requesting distributions. The PMF of the total number of
requested subcarriers from all primary users is derived and the
effect of the requesting distribution on the asymptotic spectrum
availability for secondary users is studied. It is shown that if a
requesting distribution is undesired, providing more subcarriers
will not increase the spectrum availability for the secondary
network.
Keywords: Cognitive radio; dynamic spectrum access;
OFDMA; spectrum availability
I. INTRODUCTION
Dynamic spectrum access has been suggested as a solution
to the problem of high demand for additional spectrum. The
evaluation of important scenarios and other technologies in
Cognitive Radio (CR) networks requires good models for the
spectrum use and quantitative understanding of the spectrum
usage. Accurate models that capture the random behavior
of the spectrum are essential to provide deeper insight of
important concepts of CR systems.
Many spectrum occupancy measurement campaigns have
been conducted so far [1][9]. These studies can be catego-
rized as single band monitoring, time - frequency analysis, and
indoor vs. outdoor measurements. For instance, in [3] and [4],
the spectrum occupancy over time and frequency is studied
while [2] studies the spectrum occupancy for indoor vs. out-
door considering time and frequency domains. In [10] a novel
spectrum occupancy model designed to generate accurate tem-
poral and frequency behavior of various wireless transmissions
is proposed. In [11] a spectrum use model has been introduced
which is basically an amplitude distribution model. In [12] the
spectrum usage is characterized by evaluating the PMF of the
number of occupied channels at four geographically different
locations based on an extensive measurement conducted in the
State of Qatar. These measurements are important since the
secondary users in CR networks are constantly sensing the
spectrum for availability. Hence, having a valid mathematical
distribution of the mentioned random variables provides a
signicant insight to the secondary users about the dynamic
nature of the spectrum so they can adjust their sensing and
transmitting specications accordingly. Therefore, a rigorous
model that can be applied for most practical scenarios and
also captures the random uctuations of the spectrum is
essential. This randomness is mostly covered by the mentioned
random variables. In this paper we target the random variable
which accounts for the fraction of available subcarriers for
the secondary users in an OFDMA based CR system. The
time and location dependency of the trafc is taken into
account by a non-homogenous Poisson Point Process (PPP).
We derive the PMF of the fraction of available subcarriers
under a few assumptions on the network topology and the
distribution of the number of requested subcarriers from each
primary user (requesting distribution). Based on two assumed
conditions, any arbitrary requesting distribution is categorized
into either desired or undesired distribution. It is shown that
the knowledge of the mean (rst moment) of the distribution
sufces to categorize it into desired or undesired. These
conditions are critical in the system design when it is preferred
that for a xed trafc of primary users, the increase in the total
number of subcarriers guarantees the increase in the spectrum
availability.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
It is assumed that an ideal spectrum sensor is used to
sense the activity of a spectrum band. Note that there is an
analogy between the spectrum sensor and the secondary user
since they both constantly sense the spectrum for available
holes. Excluding the effect of fading and shadowing and
only considering the power attenuation, the radius of sensing
978-1-4577-1379-8/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE 360
66
V
U 5

6
9

6
W O
Fig. 1. Illustration of the spectrum sensor location, radius of non-fading
sensing, rs, and the entire area, V , that the process takes place in.
of the spectrum sensor is a function of path loss exponent
(), transmit power of the primary users assuming all users
transmit at the same constant power level, (P
T
), and the noise
level of the device (). Therefore, the corresponding radius of
sensing of the spectrum sensor is:
r
s
= f(, P
T
, ). (1)
The number of users is denoted by k. We assume k is produced
by a non-homogeneous PPP with intensity of (x, t) where
x V R
2
and V is the entire area that the process takes
place in. The rate is a function of both time and space. At
any given time instant (t
0
), for any set S
1
V (e.g. a spatial
region), the number of users inside this region can be modeled
as a Poisson random variable with the associated rate function
of [13]:

S1
(t
0
) =
_
S1
(x, t
0
)dx. (2)
We assume that the whole region under study, V , is a large
circular area with radius R and the spectrum sensor is located
at the center with the coordinates of (0, 0) in the plane.
The rate is a function of time and space since in practice
the number of users varies by time like day/night or rush
hour/regular hours (non-homogeneous in time) and location
like downtown/rural areas (non-homogeneous in space). Fig.
1 depicts the spectrum sensor location, radius of non-fading
sensing r
s
, and the entire area V that the process takes place
in.
We assume primary users sharing the spectrum band use
OFDMA as the multiple access method and the system oper-
ating in the spectrum band under study provides N subcarriers
where N is usually a power of two. It is also assumed that the
primary users are operating under a centralized system such
that they send their requests to access the spectrum to a central
system. Since not all the primary users may transmit, we
assume a user sends its request to transmit with the probability
p
tr
. In this case, requesting users are distributed in the
area of study based on a non-homogenous PPP of intensity

tr
(x, t) = p
tr
(x, t). It is also assumed that each requesting
user may require several subcarriers to communicate. The
number of required subcarriers is determined such that it
satises the user minimum requirements for communication.
These requirements are based on different user needs such as
minimum quality of service, data rate, bit error rate and etc.
Since the intensity of the PPP of the requesting users
is also a function of location, the Poisson random variable
showing the number of requesting users inside two regions
with the same area but different locations may have different
parameters. Therefore, we label a region with its area and
the corresponding coordinates of its center from the spectrum
sensor. We study the system at any time instant but we
may apply the results to obtain the average performance
of the network with dynamically changing topology over a
time interval. For any given time instant t
0
, the number of
requesting users inside a region of area S
1
with the coordinates
of (a, b) from the spectrum sensor, U
S1,(a,b)
(t
0
), has a Poisson
distribution with the rate of:

S1,(a,b)
(t
0
) =
_
xS1

tr
(x, t
0
)dx. (3)
From now, we assume S
1
as the region of non-fading sensing
of the spectrum sensor and (a, b) = (0, 0). Note that the results
hold for any arbitrary region and coordinates but we drop the
notations regarding the area and coordinates for the sake of
brevity. Moreover, since the results are derived at any given
time instant, we eliminate the notation t
0
.
III. DISTRIBUTION OF THE FRACTION OF AVAILABLE
SUBCARRIERS
When the number of requesting users in an area is less than
N, there will be available subcarriers. We introduce random
variable M as the number of subcarriers that a requesting user
requires. M has PMF of P
M
(m), m = 1, 2, ..., N, where
P
M
(m) is the requesting distribution. We also dene the
random variable W as:
W =
U

k=0
M
k
, (4)
where U is the number of requesting users inside the area of
perfect sensing of the spectrum sensor, M
0
= 0, and M
k
, k =
1, 2, ..., U are independent and identically distributed. W rep-
resents the total number of requested subcarriers. Since U
is a Poisson random variable, W has a compound Poisson
distribution and can take values in {0, 1, 2, ..., }. We also
dene the random variable Z which represents the fraction of
available subcarriers in the region of sensing of the spectrum
sensor:
Z =
_
1
W
N
W < N
0 W N.
(5)
361
Z takes (N+1) values in
_
0, 1
N1
N
, ..., 1
2
N
, 1
1
N
, 1
_
.
To evaluate E [Z] we have:
E[Z] =
N1

w=0
(1
w
N
)Pr (W = w) . (6)
This is a nite sum and can be upper and lower bounded as
follows: Since 1
W
N
1 for W = 0, 1, 2, ..., , we have:
E [Z]
N1

w=0
Pr (W = w) = Pr(W N 1). (7)
Applying the Chernoff bound [14], we nd an upper bound
for the above left tail probability:
Pr(W N 1) min
u0
e
u(N1)
M
W
(u), (8)
where M
W
(u) = E
_
e
uW

is the moment generating function

of the random variable W. Since W has compound Poisson
distribution, its moment generating function is:
M
W
(u) = exp((M
M
(u) 1)). (9)
The minimizing u which results to the tightest upper bound is
the negative solution of:
M

M
(u)
N 1

= 0. (10)
If we call this desired solution as u

, the tightest upper bound

is:
E [Z] Pr (W N 1)
e
u

(N1)
exp((M
M
(u

) 1)).
(11)
In the case that there exists no negative u, the upper bound
1 is trivial.
It is shown in the numerical results that the Chernoff bound
is not tight enough for some values of . Therefore, another
upper bound can be derived by bounding the function 1
W
N
by an exponential function e
W
such that:
1
W
N
e
W
; W 0. (12)
We choose such that the above constraint is satised for all
W 0. For this purpose, we should have
1
N
. =
1
N
results to the tightest upper bound:
E [Z]

w=0
e

w
N
Pr(W = w) = E
_
e

w
N

= M
W
(u)

u=
1
N
= exp((M
M
(
1
N
) 1)).
(13)
Note that, for = 0 we have 1
W
N
e
0
= 1 and the upper
bound is the same as the Chernoff bound. The proposed upper
bound can be used as a replacement for the Chernoff bound
for values of that Chernoff bound is loose. Moreover, it is
always non-trivial (not equal to 1) and easy to evaluate since
the upper bound is simply the realization of the moment gen-
erating function of W at u =
1
N
. It is also useful in studying
the asymptotic spectrum availability for secondary network as
the total number of subcarriers, N, goes to innity. Another
advantage of this proposed upper bound is the simplicity of
comparing the asymptotic spectrum availability for secondary
users for different requesting distributions.
For the lower bound we have:
E
_
1
W
N
_
=
E[Z]
..
N1

w=0
(1
w
N
)Pr(W = w)
+

w=N
(1
w
N
)Pr(W = w)
. .
Non-Positive terms
E
_
1
W
N
_
= 1
E[M]
N
< E [Z] .
(14)
Therefore, in the worst case scenario the mean of the fraction
of available subcarriers for the secondary users is 1
E[M]
N
.
For the case of N < E[M], this lower bound turns out to
be negative, therefore the lower bound 0 is trivial. Having
upper and lower bounds provides information about the best
and the worst spectrum availability for secondary network.
For the requesting PMF of uniform distribution:
P
M
(m) =
1
N
; m = 1, 2, ..., N. (15)
we have E[M] =
N+1
2
. For the uniform distribution, each
requesting user may request a number of subcarriers between
1 and N with equal probability. Therefore the lower bound is
as follows:
E [Z] > 1
(N + 1)
2N
. (16)
If the lower bound turns out to be negative then the lower
bound 0 is trivial.
In order to nd the distribution and exact mean of Z it is
enough to nd the distribution of W due to the relationship
between Z and W in Eq.(5). For this purpose, we use the
characteristic function method. We know that for the random
variable M with PMF of P
M
(m) and the characteristic
function of
M
() = E
_
e
jM

we will have:
P
M
(m)
F

M
(), (17)
where F notes for the Fourier transform of a discrete time
aperiodic signal. Since W has compound Poisson distribution
its characteristic function is:

W
() = exp((
M
() 1)). (18)
For the uniform distribution in Eq.(15) we have:

M
() =
e
j
e
j(N+1)
N(1 e
j
)
, (19)
Finally we take the inverse Fourier transform of
W
() to
nd P
W
(w):
P
W
(k) =
1
2
_

W
()e
jk
d; k = 0, 1, 2, ..., . (20)
362
In cases that it is complicated to nd the exact closed
form distribution of W, the distribution can be approximated
by the use of its cumulants. In [15], [16] the cumulants
are used to approximate the distribution of the interference
caused by the secondary users on a licensed user as a shifted
log normal distribution and truncated stable distribution [17]
respectively. However, in this paper we use numerical analysis
using Eq.(20) to nd the PMF of W.
IV. EXISTENCE CONDITIONS OF THE NON-TRIVIAL
BOUNDS
A non-trivial upper bound (lower bound) is a bound which
is not equal to 1(0). Note that the upper bound derived
from the Chernoff bound technique can be sometimes trivial.
A. Non-Trivial Upper Bounds
In order to nd the condition on the existence of a non-
trivial upper bound, we rst study the behavior of the moment
generating function of a positive random variable. For the
strictly positive random variable M (taking values greater
than zero) with the moment generating function M
M
(u) =
E
_
e
uM

, the moment generating function and all its deriva-

tives are strictly positive for all u. Since M only takes positive
values and the function e
uM
is always positive, we have:
u, M
M
(u) = E
_
e
uM

m
e
um
Pr(M = m) > 0. (21)
u, M
(n)
M
(u) =
d
n
M
M
(u)
du
n
= E
_
M
n
e
uM

m
m
n
e
um
Pr(M = m) > 0.
(22)
lim
u
M
M
(u) = lim
u
M
(n)
M
(u) =
lim
u
M
M
(u) = lim
u
M
(n)
M
(u) = 0.
(23)
In the previous section it was shown that in order to nd
the u that leads to the tightest upper bound we have to solve
(10). If we have:
G(u) = M

M
(u) =
dM
M
(u)
du
= E
_
Me
uM

,
(24)
then (10) changes to:
G(u)
N 1

= 0. (25)
Therefore, based on the behavior of the moment generating
function of strictly positive random variables, we have:
u, G(u) > 0, G

(u) > 0, G

(u) > 0
lim
u
G(u) = 0 , lim
u
G(u) = .
(26)
So G(u) is a positive, monotonically increasing convex func-
tion. Note that G(0) = M

M
(0) = E [M].
The negative solution of Eq.(25) (u

) result in the non-trivial

tightest upper bound. In order to have a negative solution we
should have:
N 1

< E [M] . (27)

B. Non-Trivial Lower Bounds
In order to nd the condition on the existence of a non-
trivial lower bound, we use Eq.(14). It can be seen that in
order to have a non-trivial lower bound the left hand of the
inequality in this equation should be positive. Therefore the
condition is:
N

> E [M] . (28)

To summarize the conditions for both bounds:
_

_
N1

< E [M] Non-trivial upper bound

N1

E [M] Upper bound 1

N

> E [M] Non-trivial lower bound

N

E [M] Lower bound 0.

(29)
V. THE EFFECT OF THE REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION ON
THE ASYMPTOTIC SPECTRUM AVAILABILITY FOR
SECONDARY USERS
In this section, the asymptotic behavior of the mean of the
fraction of available subcarriers and its corresponding upper
and lower bounds are studied considering the total number of
system subcarriers and the primary network trafc. we prove
that for an arbitrary requesting distribution, the condition of
the existence of limit points for the mentioned bounds to a
value other than 1 is:
lim
N
E[M]
N 1
> 1. (30)
Since the Chernoff bound is the upper bound, if the Chernoff
bound of a requesting distribution converges to a limit point
less than 1 as N goes to innity, then all the other bounds
will go to a limit point less than 1 as well. Note that
the opposite is not necessary true i.e. if the Chernoff bound
converges to 1 as N goes to innity then all the other bounds
may still converge to a limit point less than 1. To prove
the condition (30), recall the rst condition of the Eq.(29).
In order to have a non trivial Chernoff bound, the solution of
(10) must be negative and this is satised by the rst condition
of (29). So (30) is actually the limit of the rst condition of
(29) as N goes to innity. The uniform distribution belongs
to the class of distributions with the mean of aN + b where
a, b R a > 0 , b 0. In this case, for the values of >
1
a
,
the curves get saturated as the total number of subcarriers
increase.
On the other hand, if the lower bound converges to 1
as N goes to innity, then all the other bounds will go to
1 as well. Therefore, based on the Eq.(14), for an arbitrary
requesting distribution if the following condition is satised
then all the other bounds will go to 1 as N goes to innity:
lim
N
E[M]
N
= 0. (31)
Distributions with the mean such as E[M] = N
0
where N
0
is a
xed number or E[M] = log N satisfy the above condition so
they provide hope for spectrum availability improvement for
the secondary users as the total number of subcarriers increase.
Based on the above arguments and two mentioned conditions
363
on (30) and (31), in order to determine whether for a specic
requesting distribution the spectrum availability improves as
N increases, the knowledge of the mean (rst moment) of the
distribution sufces. Therefore, any arbitrary distribution can
be categorized into desired or undesired requesting distribution
once designing the system and it is preferred that for a xed
trafc of primary users, the increase in the total number of
subcarriers guarantees the increase in the spectrum availability.
For a desired requesting distribution, the bounds and E[Z]
converge to 1 as N goes to innity.
VI. NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Using Eqs.(18), (19), and (20) the PMF of W is evaluated
for N = 32 and = 3 for the uniform distribution and is
shown in Fig.2. Since is small, it is observed that Pr(W =
0) is signicant but with increase in the distribution tends
to Normal distribution with the mean of E [W] =
_
N+1
2
_

due to the Central Limit Theorem.

Since we have the PMF of W, we can obtain the PMF of
Z for uniform distribution. The PMF of Z for N = 32 and
= 1.5 is shown in Fig.3. It is seen that for small values
of the probability of having none or all of the subcarriers
available is signicantly larger compared to the probability
of having a fraction of subcarriers available. However, with
increase in , the PMF tends to the dirac delta function at 0
which indicates the transition from random to deterministic
behavior.
Fig.4 show the behavior of the bounds as N increases up
to 512 for a xed rate of = 5 for uniform distribution.
Since uniform distribution is undesired, with increase in N
the curves get saturated and they no longer increase.
Fig. 5 shows the bounds as increases up to 15 for a xed
number of subcarriers (N = 32) for the uniform distribution.
It can be seen that with increase in which represents the
trafc of the requesting users, all the curves decrease. We see
that the Chernoff bound is loose for small whereas it rapidly
gets tighter as increases but the proposed upper bound is
more accurate for 9.56. It is seen in Fig.5 that for small
values of the proposed upper bound is the most accurate.
However, as increases, the lower bound tends to be the
most accurate bound. Hence for the case of heavy trafc of
requesting users, the lower bound can be used instead of E[Z]
with good approximation.
Therefore, it is seen that for uniform distribution, increase
in N does not result to the increase of E [Z] due to the
saturation of the curves whereas with increase in , E[Z] and
all other bounds decrease. Hence, the spectrum availability for
the secondary network is very sensitive to trafc. On the other
hand, the spectrum availability is not responsive to the increase
of N as it was shown by the saturated curves.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
We mathematically derived the PMF of the fraction of
available subcarriers for the secondary users in an OFDMA
based CR radio system. The derivation was based on a few
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
PMF of W, Uniform Distribution, N=32,
S1,(a,b)
=3
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Fig. 2. PMF of W for uniform distribution, N = 32, = 3.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
PMF of Z, Uniform Distribution, N=32,
S1,(a,b)
=1.5
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Fraction of Available Subcarriers
Fig. 3. PMF of Z for uniform distribution, N = 32, = 1.5.
0 1632 64 128 256 512
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
N (Total Number of Subcarriers)
E
[
Z
]
Uniform Distribution,
S1,(a,b)
=5


Chernoff Bound
Proposed Upper Bound
Lower Bound
E[Z]
Pr (w<N)
Fig. 4. Effect of large N on the bounds for uniform distribution, = 5.
assumptions on the network topology and the requesting distri-
bution. Uniform distribution was considered as the requesting
distribution and the asymptotic mean of the fraction of avail-
able subcarriers and its corresponding upper and lower bounds
were numerically derived as the total number of subcarriers
provided by the system and the primary network trafc go to
364
1.5 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Uniform Distribution, N=32

S1,(a,b)
(Rate)
E
[
Z
]


Chernoff Bound
Proposed Upper Bound
Lower Bound
E[Z]
Pr (w<N)
Fig. 5. Effect of on the bounds for uniform distribution, N = 32.
innity. The drawback of using the uniform distribution as the
requesting distribution was shown which resulted to the limited
spectrum availability. Next, two conditions were proposed to
determine whether a distribution is desired or undesired. It
was shown that if a distribution was undesired, providing more
subcarriers will not increase the spectrum availability. It was
also shown that the knowledge of the mean (rst moment) of
the requesting distribution sufces to categorize it into desired
or undesired.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication was made possible by NPRP grant #08
101 2 025 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a
member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein
are solely the responsibility of the authors.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Islam, G. L. Tan, F. Chin, B. E. Toh, Y.-C. Liang, C. Wang, Y. Y.
Lai, X. Qing, S. W. Oh, C. L. Koh, and W. Toh, Spectrum survey in
singapore: Occupancy measurements and analyses, in Proc. of Interna-
tional Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks and
Communications (CROWNCOM), Singapore, May 2008.
[2] M. Wellens, J. Wu, and P. Mahonen, Evaluation of spectrum occupancy
in indoor and outdoor scenario in the context of cognitive radio, in
Proc. of International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless
Networks and Communications (CROWNCOM), Orlando, FL, USA,
Aug. 2007.
[3] T. Erpek, M. Lofquist, and K. Patton, Spectrum occupancy measure-
ments: Loring commerce centre, limestone, maine, sep. 18-20, 2007,
Shared Spectrum Company, Tech. Rep., 2007.
[4] M. A. McHenry, P. A. Tenhula, D. McCloskey, D. A. Roberson, and
C. S. Hood, Chicago spectrum occupancy measurements & analysis
and a long-term studies proposal, in Proc. of Workshop on Technology
and Policy for Accessing Spectrum (TAPAS), Boston, USA, Aug. 2006.
[5] R. I. C. Chiang, G. B. Rowe, and K. W. Sowerby, A quantitative
analysis of spectral occupancy measurements for cognitive radio, in
Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Dublin, Ireland, Apr.
2007.
[6] S. W. Ellingson, Spectral occupancy at vhf: Implications for frequency-
agile cognitive radios, in Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Confer-
ence (VTC), Dallas, USA, Sept. 2005, pp. 13791382.
[7] A. Petrin and P. G. Steffes, Analysis and comparison of spectrum
measurements performed in urban and rural areas to determine the total
amount of spectrum usages, in Proc. of International Symposium on
Advanced Radio Technologies, Boulder, USA, March 2005, pp. 912.
[8] J. Do, D. Akos, and P. Enge, L and S bands spectrum survey in the
San Francisco bay area, in Proc. Position Location and Navigation
Symposium (PLANS 2004), 2004.
[9] F. H. Sanders, Broadband spectrum surveys in denver, co, san diego,
ca, and los angeles, ca: Methodology, analysis, and comparative results,
in Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1998.
[10] C. Ghosh, S. Pagadarai, D. Agrawal, and A. Wyglinski, A framework
for statistical wireless spectrum occupancy modeling, Wireless Com-
munications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3844, 2010.
[11] M. Wellens, J. Riihijarvi, and P. Mahonen, Empirical time and fre-
quency domain models of spectrum use, Physical Communication,
vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 1032, 2009.
[12] K. A. Qaraqe, N. Rahimian, H. Celebi, and C. N. Gheorghiades, Spatio
temporal measurement and model for number of occupied channels, in
Proc. 18th IEEE International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT
2011), Cyprus, May 2011.
[13] J. Kingman, Poisson processes. Oxford University Press, 1993.
[14] M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal, Probability and computing: Randomized
algorithms and probabilistic analysis. Cambridge Univ Pr, 2005.
[15] A. Ghasemi, Statistical characterization of interference in cognitive
radio networks, in Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications,
2008. PIMRC 2008. IEEE 19th International Symposium on, 2008, pp.
1 6.
[16] A. Rabbachin, T. Quek, and M. Win, Statistical modeling of cogni-
tive network interference, in GLOBECOM 2010, 2010 IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference, 2010, pp. 1 6.
[17] G. Samorodnitsky and M. S. Taqqu, Stable Non-Gaussian Random
Processes. Chapman & Hall, 1994.
365