2016
DOI: 10.1109/tnet.2015.2453403
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tight Lower Bounds for Channel Hopping Schemes in Cognitive Radio Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many CH-based rendezvous schemes have been proposed in the literature. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] These schemes can be categorized in different ways, according to the adopted assumptions and mathematical construction tools. A detailed survey of the rendezvous issue in cognitive radio ad hoc networks (CRAHNs) and the different categories of the CH-based rendezvous schemes is well studied in the work of Joshi et al 24 However, most of the existing CH rendezvous designs were not tailored for fast PU dynamics, where channel availabilities can vary during the rendezvous operation itself.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Many CH-based rendezvous schemes have been proposed in the literature. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] These schemes can be categorized in different ways, according to the adopted assumptions and mathematical construction tools. A detailed survey of the rendezvous issue in cognitive radio ad hoc networks (CRAHNs) and the different categories of the CH-based rendezvous schemes is well studied in the work of Joshi et al 24 However, most of the existing CH rendezvous designs were not tailored for fast PU dynamics, where channel availabilities can vary during the rendezvous operation itself.…”
Section: Motivationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rendezvous occurs between a pair of communicating SUs when they hop during the same time slot over a channel that is commonly available for both of them. Many CH‐based rendezvous schemes have been proposed in the literature . These schemes can be categorized in different ways, according to the adopted assumptions and mathematical construction tools.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Asymmetric approaches require each SU to have a preassigned role as either a sender or a receiver, and allow the sender and the receiver to use different approaches to generate their respective CH sequences, while symmetric approaches do not. As summarized in [9], [12], previously known asymmetric ones such as A-MOCH [4], ACH [5], ARCH [6], D-QCH [10], and WFM [11] all produce smaller MCTTR than previously known symmetric ones, such as CRSEQ [1], JS [2], EJS [3], Sym-ACH [5], DRDS [7], HH [8], T-CH [9] and S-QCH [10]. However, to the authors' best knowledge, the following two fundamental problems have not been settled until now.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(i) What is the minimum MCTTR and MTTR of asynchronous CH sequences with the maximal rendezvous diversity? We note there are some recent papers [4], [11], [13] that made attempts to investigate this issue, but all are under additional constraints of sequence design. Bian et al in [4] provided a lower bound on MCTTR, however, the proof therein requires the assumption that the sequence period is equal to the MCTTR.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation