”This work has been submitted to IEEE PIMRC 2017 conference for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without prior notice, after which
this version may no longer be accessible”

arXiv:1705.09098v1 [cs.IT] 25 May 2017

Performance Optimization of Co-Existing Underlay
Secondary Networks
Pratik Chakraborty

Shankar Prakriya

Bharti School of Telecom. Technology and Management
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
New Delhi-110016, India
Email: bsz128380@dbst.iitd.ac.in

Department of Electrical Engineering and
Bharti School of Telecom. Technology and Management
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
New Delhi-110016, India
Email: shankar@ee.iitd.ac.in

Abstract—In this paper, we analyze the throughput performance of two co-existing downlink multiuser underlay secondary
networks that use fixed-rate transmissions. We assume that
the interference temperature limit (ITL) is apportioned to accommodate two concurrent transmissions using an interference
temperature apportioning parameter so as to ensure that the
overall interference to the primary receiver does not exceed the
ITL. Using the derived analytical expressions for throughput,
when there is only one secondary user in each network, or
when the secondary networks do not employ opportunistic user
selection (use round robin scheduling for example), there exists a
critical fixed-rate below which sum throughput with co-existing
secondary networks is higher than the throughput with a single
secondary network. We derive an expression for this critical fixedrate. Below this critical rate, we show that careful apportioning
of the ITL is critical to maximizing sum throughput of the coexisting networks. We derive an expression for this apportioning
parameter. Throughput is seen to increase with increase in
number of users in each of the secondary networks. Computer
simulations demonstrate accuracy of the derived expressions.

I. I NTRODUCTION
A rapid increase in wireless devices and services in the past
decade or so has led to a demand for very high data rates over
the wireless medium. With such prolific increase in data traffic,
mitigating spectrum scarcity and more efficient utilization of
under-utilized spectrum has drawn attention of researchers
both in academia and in the industry. Cognitive radios (CR) are
devices that have shown promise in alleviating these problems
of spectrum scarcity and low spectrum utilization efficiencies.
In underlay mode of operation of cognitive radios, both
secondary (unlicensed) and primary (licensed) users co-exist
and transmit in parallel such that the total secondary interference caused to the primary user is below a predetermined
threshold [1] referred to as the interference temperature limit
(ITL). This ensures that primary performance in terms of
throughput or outage is maintained at a desired level. Most
of the analysis to date in underlay CR literature is confined to
one secondary node transmitting with full permissible power
and catering to its own set of receivers, while maintaining
service quality of the primary network. For such secondary
networks, performance improvement is achieved by exploiting
diversity techniques [2], [3], resource allocation [4], increasing
the number of hops [5], etc. Cognitive radios have attracted

research interest due to the possibility of great increase in
spectrum utilization efficiency.
Researchers have proposed the idea of concurrent secondary
transmissions to further increase throughput (and therefore
spectrum utilization efficiency), where two or more cognitive
femtocells reuse the spectrum of a macrocell either in a
overlay, interweave or underlay manner [6]. By deploying
femtocells, operators can reduce the traffic on macro base
stations and also improve data quality among femtocell mobile
stations due to short range communication. To implement such
an underlay scheme, the major hindrance is mitigation of
interferences among inter-femtocell users and careful handling
of interferences from femtocell transmitters to the users of the
macro cell [7]. A comprehensive survey of such heterogeneous
networks, their implementation and future goals can be found
in [8] (and references therein).
In this paper, we consider two co-existing downlink multiuser underlay networks. We show that throughput with two
co-existing secondary networks is larger than with one secondary network in some situations. Since throughput performance is ensured, this implies the possibility of increase in
spectrum utilization efficiency. The main contributions of our
paper are as follows:
1) Unlike other works on co-existing secondary networks
that focus on optimization [9] and game theoretic approaches [10], we present an analytical closed form sum
throughput expression for two co-existing secondary
multiuser downlink networks using fixed-rate transmissions by the secondary nodes.
2) We evaluate analytically the maximum secondary fixed
rate by sources that yields higher throughput with concurrent transmissions in two co-existing secondary networks. Beyond this rate, switching to a single secondary
transmission is better.
3) We propose an optimal ITL apportioning parameter to
further improve the sum throughput performance when
two secondary sources transmit at the same time.
4) We show that sum throughput improves with user selection in individual secondary networks.
The derived expressions and insights are a useful aid to system
designers.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
We consider two cognitive underlay downlink networks1,
where two secondary transmitters S1 and S2 transmit symbols
concurrently in the range of a primary network by selecting
their best receivers R1i∗ (among R1i receivers, i ∈ [1, L]) and
R2i∗ (among R2i receivers, i ∈ [1, M ]) respectively, from their
cluster of users (Fig. 1). We assume that the two secondary
networks are located relatively far apart so that the same
frequency can be reused by S1 and S2 concurrently. We ensure
that the total secondary interference caused to the primary
receiver RP is below ITL by careful apportioning of power
between S1 and S2 . All channels are assumed to be indepenWƌŝŵĂƌǇZĞĐĞŝǀĞƌZ
^ŝŐŶĂůůŝŶŬƐ
/ŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞŶĐĞůŝŶŬƐ

>^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇZĞĐĞŝǀĞƌƐ
ŐϭW

ŐϮW
D ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇZĞĐĞŝǀĞƌƐ

^ϭ
Ś ϭi

Ő ϭi

Zi
ůƵƐƚĞƌϭ

Z
ŚϮi

ŐϮi
^Ϯ

ůƵƐƚĞƌϮ

Fig. 1: System model of co-existing underlay cognitive radio network

dent, and of quasi-static Rayleigh fading type. The channels
between S1 and R1i are denoted by h1i ∼ CN (0, 1/λ11 ),
i ∈ [1, L]. The channels between S2 and R2i are denoted by
h2i ∼ CN (0, 1/λ22 ), i ∈ [1, M ]. Due to concurrent secondary
transmissions, each transmitter interferes with the receivers
of the other cluster. The interference channels between S1
and R2i are denoted by g1i ∼ CN (0, 1/µ12 ), i ∈ [1, M ],
with g1i∗ being the channel to the intended receiver R2i∗ .
The interference channels between S2 and R1i are denoted by
g2i ∼ CN (0, 1/µ21), i ∈ [1, L], with g2i∗ being the channel
to the intended receiver R1i∗ . The channels to RP from S1
and S2 are denoted by g1P ∼ CN (0, 1/µ1P ) and g2P ∼
CN (0, 1/µ2P ) respectively. We neglect primary interference
at the secondary nodes assuming the primary transmitter to
be located far away from the secondary receivers, which is
a common assumption in CR literature, and well justified on
information theoretic grounds [11], [12]. Zero-mean additive
white Gaussian noise of variance σn2 is assumed at all terminals. As in all underlay networks, it is assumed that S1 and S2
1 Although

primary and secondary networks are often assumed to be
licensed and unlicensed users respectively, this need not always be the case.
They can indeed be users of the same network transmitting concurrently to
increase spectrum utilization efficiency. The same logic extends to two coexisting secondary networks. This eliminates most of the difficulties associated
with interference channel estimation, security, etc.

can estimate |g1P |2 and |g2P |2 respectively by observing the
primary reverse channel, or using pilots transmitted by RP .
In every signaling interval, S1 transmits unit energy
symbols x with power PS1 = αIP /|g1P |2 and S2 transmits
unit energy symbols z with power PS2 = (1 − α)IP /|g2P |2 ,
where IP denotes the ITL, and 0 < α < 1 denotes the power
allocation parameter which apportions IP between S1 and S2
respectively. We use peak interference type of power control
at S1 and S2 instead of limiting the transmit powers with a
peak power due to the following reasons:
1) It is well known that the performance of CR networks
exhibits an outage floor after a certain peak power and
does not improve beyond a point when transmit powers
are limited by interference constraints.
2) Since sufficient peak power is typically available, this
assumption is quite reasonable. It is in this regime
where cognitive radios are expected to operate. Such
an assumption is also common in prior underlay CR
literature [13], [14], [15].
3) It keeps the analysis tractable, leading to precise performance expressions that offer useful insights. It also
allows us to derive expressions for important parameters
of practical interest in the normal range of operation of
secondary networks, and can yield insights of interest to
system designers.
The received signals (yR1i and yR2i ) at R1i and R2i can be
written as follows:
s
s
αIP
(1 − α)IP
h1i x +
g2i z + nR1i , i ∈ [1, L]
yR1i =
2
|g1P |
|g2P |2
s
s
(1 − α)IP
αIP
yR2i =
h2i z +
g1i x + nR2i , i ∈ [1, M ],
|g2P |2
|g1P |2
(1)
where nR1i , nR2i ∼ CN (0, σn2 ) are additive white Gaussian
noise samples at R1i and R2i respectively. When transmitters
S1 and S2 select the receivers R1i∗ and R2i∗ with strongest
link to them in their individual cluster, the instantaneous
signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios (SINRs) Γ1 and Γ2 at
R1i∗ and R2i∗ can be written as follows:

Γ1 =

max [|h1i |2 ]
i∈[1,L]
αIP
|g1P |2
|g2i∗ |2
(1 − α)IP |g2P |2 + σn2
max [|h2i |2 ]

Γ2 =

(1

i∈[1,M]
− α)IP
|g2P |2
|g1i∗ |2
αIP |g1P |2 + σn2

.

(2)

We note that the random variables |hij |2 and |gij |2 in (2)
follow the exponential distribution with mean values 1/λii
and 1/µij respectively.
In the following section, we derive sum throughput expression for this co-existing secondary network. It gives a

measure of spectrum utilization with or without concurrent
transmissions by sources in co-existing secondary networks.
III. S UM T HROUGHPUT OF THE S ECONDARY N ETWORK
FOR F IXED R ATE T RANSMISSION S CHEME
When secondary nodes transmit with a fixed rate R, the
sum throughput τsum is given by:
τsum = (1 − pout1 )R + (1 − pout2 )R,

(3)

where pout1 and pout2 are outage probabilities of the two
secondary user pairs S1 -R1i∗ and S2 -R2i∗ respectively.

Due to the identical nature of SINR-s of Γ1 and Γ2 , pout2 in
(6) can be derived in the same manner as pout1 , whose final
closed form expression is shown as follows:


M 
X
1
M
k+1
pout2 = 1 −
(−1)
2
λ
kγth σn
22
k
1 + µ2P (1−α)I
k=1
P
 

2
λ22 kγth σn
1+ µ (1−α)I
µ1P λ22
α
2P
P
ln
)γ
k(
µ1P λ22
α
µ2P µ12
1−α th
µ2P µ12 k( 1−α )γth
−
2
λ kγth σn
α
1P λ22
2
− µµ2P
[1 + µ2P22(1−α)I
µ12 k( 1−α )γth ]
P
 µ1P λ22


α
µ2P µ12 k( 1−α )γth
+
−1 .
(7)
2
λ kγth σn
1 + µ2P22(1−α)I
P
IV. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION AND C RITICAL
TARGET R ATE

A. Derivation of pout1 :
The outage probability pout1 is defined as follows:
pout1 = Pr{Γ1 < γth },
where γth = 2R − 1. For notational convenience, we define
random variable X = max [|h1i |2 ]. Clearly, it has cumulative
i∈[1,L]

distribution function (CDF) FX (x) = (1 − eλ11 x )L . Thus,
pout1 can be rewritten and evaluated as under:




1−α
|g1P |2
γth σn2
2
2
pout1 = Pr X<
γth
|g2i∗ | +
|g1P |
α
|g2P |2
αIP
L 

2
γth σn
|g1P |2
|g2i∗ |2 + αI
|g1P |2 }
−λ11 {( 1−α
α )γth |g
|2
P
2P
=E 1−e

L  
X
L
(−1)j+1
=E 1−
j
j=1
e

Our objective is to find the optimum α (denoted by
α∗ ) that maximizes τsum . From (3), it is clear that α∗ =
arg max(τsum ). In normal mode of operation, the interference
α
channel variances are small (µ1P and µ2P are large) so that
λ11 << µ1P IP and λ22 << µ2P IP . Hence, the terms
2
2
λ11 jγth σn
λ kγth σn
and µ2P22(1−α)I
in (5) and (7) respectively are
µ1P αIP
P
small quantities for practical values of target rates and can be
ignored. (Computing α∗ for high target rates is not required, as
would become apparent in subsequent discussions.) Thus pout1
2P λ11 1−α
and pout2 reduce to the following form with x = µµ1P
µ21 ( α )
µ1P λ22
α
and y = µ2P µ12 ( 1−α ):
L  
X
(γth xj − ln(γth xj) − 1)
L
(−1)j+1 γth xj
,
j
(1 − γth xj)2
j=1

M 
X
(γth yk − ln(γth yk) − 1)
M
.
≈
(−1)k+1 γth yk
(1 − γth yk)2
k

pout1 ≈
|g

|2

1P
−λ11 j{( 1−α
|g2i∗ |2 +
α )γth |g
|2
2P

2
γth σn
αIP

|g1P |2 }



, (4)

pout2

k=1

where E[.] denotes the expectation over random variables
|g1P |2 , |g2P |2 and |g2i∗ |2 . We evaluate pout1 by successive
averaging over random variables |g2i∗ |2 , |g2P |2 and |g1P |2 using standard integrals [16, eq.(3.353.5)] and [17, eq.(4.2.17)].
A final closed form expression for pout1 can be derived as
follows (details omitted due to space limitations):

L  
X
1
L
(−1)j+1
pout1 = 1 −
2
λ
jγth σn
11
j
1 + µ1P αI
j=1
P
 

2
λ11 jγth σn
1+ µ
µ2P λ11
1−α
1P αIP
µ2P λ11
1−α
µ1P µ21 j( α )γth ln
µ1P µ21 j( α )γth
−
2
λ jγth σn
1−α
2P λ11
2
− µµ1P
[1 + µ111P αI
µ21 j( α )γth ]
P
 µ2P λ11 1−α


µ µ j( α )γth
+ 1P 21λ jγ σ2
−1 .
(5)
th n
1 + µ111P αI
P
B. Derivation of pout2 :

(8)

Using the first order rational approximation for logarithm [18]
ln(z) ≈ 2(z−1)
(z+1) in (8), which is close to (or follows) the
logarithm function for a large range of z (and also used
z
. Hence,
≈ z+1
in underlay literature [15]), z (z−ln(z)−1)
(1−z)2
pouti , i ∈ {1, 2} in (8) can further be approximated as:
L  
X
1
L
(−1)j+1
pout1 ≈ 1 −
,
j
γ
xj
+1
th
j=1

M 
X
1
M
.
(9)
pout2 ≈ 1 −
(−1)k+1
γth yk + 1
k
k=1

Obtaining α∗ for general L and M is mathematically tedious,
and can be evaluated offline by numerical search2 . However,
we present a closed form α∗ for the special case when L =
M = 1. By taking the first derivative of τsum with respect
to α using pout1 and pout2 in (9), and equating it to zero, a

The outage probability pout2 is defined as follows:
pout2 = Pr{Γ2 < γth }.

(6)

2 We

note that there is no dependence on instantaneous channel estimates.

closed form α∗ can be obtained3 with the root in [0,1] being:
1+

µ1P
µ2P

λ22 µ21
λ11 µ12

.

When R < Rc , τsum is concave with respect to α and concurrent transmission offers higher throughput. When R > Rc ,
switching to single secondary transmission is optimal, as τsum
is convex with respect to α. For a generalized L and M users,
Rc and α∗ can be evaluated by an offline numerical search2 .
For larger L and M (multiple secondary users in each
network), when a round robin scheduling scheme is used,
the channel characteristics are exponential (same as when
L = M = 1), and (10) and (11) are valid for α∗ and Rc .
We emphasize that Rc and α∗ both depend only on statistical
channel parameters and do not require real-time computation.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, we present simulation results to validate the
derived expressions and bring out useful insights. We assume
E[|hij |2 ] ∝ d−φ
ii , dii being the normalized distance between
the transmitter and intended receiver in cluster i, where i ∈
−φ
{1, 2} and j ∈ {L, M }. Again, E[|gij |2 ] ∝ rij
is assumed,
where rij is the normalized distance between the transmitter
of cluster i to the receiver of cluster j, where, i ∈ {1, 2}
and j ∈ {L, M, P }. The pass-loss exponent is denoted by φ
(assumed to be 3 in this paper).
In Fig. 2 we plot τsum vs α for different target rates.
The system parameters chosen are as follows: d11 = 2 units,
d22 = 1 unit, r1P = r2P = 3 units, r12 = 4 units, r21 = 3
units. L = M = 1 and IP = 20dB is assumed. When target
rates are below Rc = 3.9724 (as calculated from (11)), there
is an improvement in sum throughput of the order of 1 bpcu
when optimum α is chosen using concurrent transmission.
If R exceeds Rc , switching to single secondary network is
best. This happens because with high target rates, both user
pairs suffer link outages, and mutual interferences further
degrades performance. Switching to a single network not only
improves transmit power, but also nullifies the interference
from the other network, which cumulatively improve outage
and throughput performance.
In Fig. 3 we plot τsum vs α assuming L = M = 1 for
varying channel parameters, target rates and ITL to show that
α∗ as evaluated in (10) gives a fairly accurate and robust
measure of optimal ITL apportioning between S1 and S2 , and
will present a detailed proof in the extended version of this paper.

simulations
analysis

R=5

(10)

By taking the second derivative of τsum with respect to α,
and upon substitution of α∗ from (10), an expression is obtained, which can either be positive or negative depending on
the value of γth (details are omitted due to space constraints).
By equating the expression to zero and solving for γth (or
equivalently for R), a closed form expression of critical target
rate R = Rc (for L = M = 1) can be obtained3 as:


r
µ12 µ21
.
(11)
Rc ≈ log2 1 +
λ11 λ22

3 We

5
4
R = Rc = 3.9724
3

τsum

α ≈

1
q

R=2
2
R=1
1
α∗ = 0.8132
0
0

0.2

0.4

α

0.6

0.8

1

Fig. 2: τsum vs α for R = 1, 2, Rc , 5.

3
simulations
analysis

2.5
2

τsum

∗

1.5
1
α∗ = 0.9117

α∗ = 0.1058
0.5
0

0.2

0.4

α

0.6

0.8

1

Fig. 3: τsum vs α with optimum power allocation for different
channel parameters, target rates and ITL

improves sum throughput performance. The system parameters
chosen for the first plot are as follows: d11 = 1 unit, d22 = 2
units, r1P = 4 units, r2P = 3 units, r12 = 3 units, r21 = 3.5
units and IP is chosen as 10dB. R = 1 is assumed to ensure
that R < Rc = 3.7037 (so that concurrent transmission is
advantageous). α∗ = 0.1058 is obtained from (10). In the
second plot, we assume the following parameters: d11 = 2
unit, d22 = 1 units, r1P = 3 units, r2P = 4 units, r12 = 4
units, r21 = 3 units and IP is chosen as 25dB. R = 2 is
assumed to ensure that R < Rc = 3.9724 (so that concurrent
transmission is advantageous). α∗ = 0.9117 is obtained
from (10). We note, for symmetric channel conditions, ie
λ11 = λ22 , µ12 = µ21 and µ1P = µ2P , α∗ = 0.5, implying
equal resource allocation between S1 and S2 . In addition we
have the following observations: 1) α decreases when the ratio
µ1P
µ2P increases, or when S2 is closer to the primary than S1 .
This implies throughput can be maximized if more power is
allocated to S2 (thereby improving its outage), as S1 has a

8

interference temperature apportioning, can increase throughput
performance.

7

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

6

This work was supported by Information Technology
Research
Academy
through
sponsored
project
ITRA/15(63)/Mobile/MBSSCRN/01. The authors thank
Dr. Chinmoy Kundu for his inputs on this work.

τsum

5
4

R EFERENCES

L = M = 1, 3, 5, 7, 10

3
2

simulations
analysis

1
0
0

2

4

R

6

8

10

Fig. 4: τsum vs R with L = M = 1, 3, 5, 7, 10.

weaker channel to primary (has more available power) and
can meet its outage requirement with less transmit power. 2)
. In other words, when S1 α decreases with increase in λλ22
11
R1i∗ channel is better than S2 -R2i∗ , S1 is able to meet its
outage requirement with less power, and more power needs
to be allocated to S2 to improve performance. 3) α decreases
21
with the ratio µµ12
, or when the channel between S1 to R2i∗ is
better than the channel between S2 to R1i∗ . Thus, allocating
more power to S2 causes less interference to users of S1 ,
which improves the overall throughput.
In Fig. 4, we plot τsum in (3) vs R and show the effect
of number of users in the two networks on sum throughput
performance with concurrent transmissions. We choose parameters as follows: d11 = d22 = 1 unit, r1P = r2P = 3
units and r12 = r21 = 3 units. α = 0.5 and IP = 20dB is
chosen. Clearly, τsum increases with L and M . From (11),
it is also clear that Rc increases with user selection (this Rc
refers to a network having generalized L and M users, which
is not derived in this paper. However, intuitively it is clear that
user selection statistically improves the main channels, thereby
increasing Rc as in (11)), which causes a rightward shift of the
peaks of τsum . As also evident from earlier discussions, τsum
first increases and then decreases after a certain critical rate as
both S1 -R1i∗ and S2 -R2i∗ links start to suffer from outages,
thereby decreasing the overall throughput performance with
concurrent transmissions.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper we analyze the sum throughput performance
of two co-existing underlay multiuser secondary downlink
networks utilizing fixed-rate transmissions. In the single user
scenario, or in a multiuser scenario without opportunistic
user selection, we establish that there exists a fixed critical
rate beyond which co-existing secondary networks results
in lower throughput. During concurrent secondary transmissions, we establish that user selection as well as judicious

[1] L. B. Le and E. Hossain, “Resource allocation for spectrum underlay
in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7,
no. 12, pp. 5306–5315, Dec. 2008.
[2] J. Lee, H. Wang, J. G. Andrews, and D. Hong, “Outage probability
of cognitive relay networks with interference constraints,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 390–395, Feb 2011.
[3] P. L. Yeoh, M. Elkashlan, K. J. Kim, T. Q. Duong, and G. K.
Karagiannidis, “Transmit antenna selection in cognitive MIMO relaying
with multiple primary transceivers,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65,
no. 1, pp. 483–489, Jan 2016.
[4] J. V. Hecke, P. D. Fiorentino, V. Lottici, F. Giannetti, L. Vandendorpe,
and M. Moeneclaey, “Distributed dynamic resource allocation for cooperative cognitive radio networks with multi-antenna relay selection,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1236–1249, Feb
2017.
[5] H. K. Boddapati, M. R. Bhatnagar, and S. Prakriya, “Ad-hoc relay
selection protocols for multi-hop underlay cognitive radio networks,”
in 2016 IEEE GC Wkshps, Dec 2016, pp. 1–6.
[6] S. M. Cheng, W. C. Ao, F. M. Tseng, and K. C. Chen, “Design
and analysis of downlink spectrum sharing in two-tier cognitive femto
networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2194–2207, Jun
2012.
[7] S. M. Cheng, S. Y. Lien, F. S. Chu, and K. C. Chen, “On exploiting
cognitive radio to mitigate interference in macro/femto heterogeneous
networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 40–47, Jun 2011.
[8] M. Peng, C. Wang, J. Li, H. Xiang, and V. Lau, “Recent advances in
underlay heterogeneous networks: Interference control, resource allocation, and self-organization,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 700–729, Secondquarter 2015.
[9] Y. Xing, C. N. Mathur, M. A. Haleem, R. Chandramouli, and K. P.
Subbalakshmi, “Dynamic spectrum access with QoS and interference
temperature constraints,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 6, no. 4,
pp. 423–433, Apr 2007.
[10] X. Kang, R. Zhang, and M. Motani, “Price-based resource allocation for
spectrum-sharing femtocell networks: A stackelberg game approach,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 538–549, Apr 2012.
[11] A. Jovicic and P. Viswanath, “Cognitive radio: An information-theoretic
perspective,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 3945–3958,
Sep. 2009.
[12] M. Vu, N. Devroye, and V. Tarokh, “On the primary exclusive region
of cognitive networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 7,
pp. 3380–3385, Jul. 2009.
[13] T. Q. Duong, D. B. da Costa, M. Elkashlan, and V. N. Q. Bao, “Cognitive
amplify-and-forward relay networks over Nakagami-m fading,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2368–2374, Jun 2012.
[14] K. Tourki, K. Qaraqe, and M.-S. Alouini, “Outage analysis for underlay cognitive networks using incremental regenerative relaying,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 721–734, Feb. 2013.
[15] P. Chakraborty and S. Prakriya, “Secrecy outage performance of a
cooperative cognitive relay network,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21,
no. 2, pp. 326–329, Feb 2017.
[16] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and
products, 7th ed. Academic, 2007.
[17] M. Geller and E. W. Ng, “A table of integrals of the exponential integral,”
J. Res. Nat. Bureau Std., vol. 73B, no. 3, pp. 191–210, Sep. 1969.
[18] F. Topsøe, “Some bounds for the logarithmic function,” RGMIA Res.
Rep. Collection, vol. 7, no. 2, 2004.

