Fig 1.
Conventional CSS mechanism.
Fig 2.
PDF of the energy distribution reported from the CR users under the absence or presence hypothesis of the PU signal: (a) nomal user, (b) opposite MU, (c) always Yes MU, (d) always No MU, (e) random opposite MU.
Fig 3.
Proposed CSS mechanism.
Fig 4.
Flowchart diagram of the proposed CSS mechanism.
Fig 5.
Probability of detection vs probability of false alarm (ROC) curve for (1) 16 total SUs with 4 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 4 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 4 MUs.
Fig 6.
Probability of detection vs probability of false alarm (ROC) for (1) 16 total SUs with 8 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 8 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 8 MUs.
Fig 7.
Probability of detection vs probability of false alarm (ROC) for (1) 16 total SUs with 10 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 10 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 10 MUs.
Fig 8.
Probability of error vs probability of detection for (1) 16 total SUs with 4 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 4 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 4 MUs.
Fig 9.
Probability of error vs probability of detection for (1) 16 total SUs with 8 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 8 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 8 MUs.
Fig 10.
Probability of error vs probability of detection for (1) 16 total SUs with 10 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 10 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 10 MUs.
Fig 11.
Probability of error vs signal to noise ratio for (1) 16 total SUs with 4 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 4 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 4 MUs.
Fig 12.
Probability of error vs signal to noise ratio for (1) 16 total SUs with 8 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 8 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 8 MUs.
Fig 13.
Probability of error vs signal to noise ratio for (1) 16 total SUs with 10 MUs (2) 20 total SUs with 10 MUs (3) 24 total SUs with 10 MUs.
Fig 14.
Energy trasmitted vs number of MUs for (1) total 20 SUs (2) total 25 SUs (3) total 30 SUs.