Energy Efficient Collaborative Spectrum Sensing Based on Trust Management in Cognitive Radio Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An energy efficient collaborative spectrum sensing (EE-CSS) protocol, based on trust management, is proposed. The protocol achieves energy efficiency by reducing the total number of sensing reports exchanged between the honest secondary users (HSUs) and the secondary user base station (SUBS) in a traditional collaborative spectrum sensing (T-CSS) protocol. It is shown that the minimum total number of sensing reports required to satisfy a target global false alarm (FA) and missed detection (MD) probabilities in T-CSS is higher than that in EE-CSS. Expressions for the steady-state average SU trust value τ̅ and total number N̅ of SU sensing reports transmitted are derived, as is an expression for the energy consumption, in EE-CSS and T-CSS. The global FA and detection probabilities Q <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">f</sub> and Q <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> are obtained for a commonly used decision fusion technique. The impact of link outages on τ̅, N̅, Q <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">f</sub> , and Q <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> is also analyzed. The results show that the energy consumption in EE-CSS can be much lower compared to that in T-CSS for long range communications where the transmit energy is dominant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".