1

On M-ary Distributed Detection for Power
Constraint Wireless Sensor Networks

arXiv:1706.05101v2 [cs.IT] 21 Aug 2017

Zahra Hajibabaei, Jalil Modares, Student Member, IEEE, Azadeh Vosoughi, Senior Member, IEEE,

Abstract—We consider a wireless sensor network (WSN),
consisting of several sensors and a fusion center (FC), which is
tasked with solving an M-ary hypothesis testing problem. Sensors
make M-ary decisions and transmit their digitally modulated
decisions over orthogonal channels, which are subject to Rayleigh
fading and noise, to the FC. Adopting Bayesian optimality
criterion, we consider training and non-training based distributed
detection systems and investigate the effect of imperfect channel
state information (CSI) on the optimal maximum a posteriori
probability (MAP) fusion rules and optimal power allocation
between sensors, when the sum of training and data symbol
transmit powers is fixed. We consider J-divergence criteria to do
power allocation between sensors. The theoretical results show
that J-divergence for coherent reception will be maximized if total
training power be half of total power, however for non coherent
reception, optimal training power which maximize J-divergence
is zero. The simulated results also show that probability of error
will be minimized if training power be half of total power for
coherent reception and zero for non coherent reception.
Index Terms—M-ary distributed detection, Wireless sensor
networks, Power allocation, Channel estimation, Coherent and
non coherent reception.

I. I NTRODUCTION
We consider a wireless sensor network (WSN), consisting
a set of spatially distributed sensors and a fusion center (FC),
that is tasked with solving an M -ary distributed detection
problem. In particular, we consider the problem of distributed
classification of M independent Gaussian sources with identical variances and different means. Sensors make local decisions individually and transmit their digitally modulated
decisions to the FC, over orthogonal fading channels. The FC
is tasked with fusing all the received signals from the sensors
directly, via applying the optimal fusion rule, and making the
final decision.
Channel-aware binary distributed detection for fusion of binary
decisions transmitted over fading channels was first discussed
in [1], where the FC fuses the received signals from the
sensors directly (without demodulating the transmitted symbols). They considered different schemes to improve detection
performance in distributed detction systems. In [2], massive
MIMO has been investigated in WSN’s for coherent channel.
In [3], They consider a censoring sensor network scheme
and show that by adding artificial noise, the system performs
very closely to the exact copula-based GLRT. In [4], they
showed that using only one transmission, the detection error
Z. Hajibabaei and J. Modares are with the EE Department, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, e-mail: zahrahaj@buffalo.edu, jmod@buffalo.edu.
A. Vosoughi is with the EECS Department, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL, e-mail:azadeh@ucf.edu.

can be made as small as desired. In [5], they considered the
problem of designing binary sensor quantizers that maximize
the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence at the fusion center
(FC) The works on channel-aware binary distributed detection
are mainly built on the assumption that perfect knowledge
of phase or amplitude of the fading channel coefficients are
available at the FC [6], [7]. Today’s wireless communication
systems with coherent reception rely upon training in order to
facilitate channel estimation at the receiver. In fact, quantifying
the effect of imperfect channel state information (CSI) and
channel estimation error on the design and performance of
wireless communication systems is a challenging problem, that
has attracted the attention of researchers over the past decade
[8]. Recently, channel-aware binary distributed detection with
imperfect CSI was studied in [9]–[11].In [11], when sensors amplify and forward their observation, the performance
of system under different knowledge of channel has been
investigated. Sensors can send their information to the FC
over Multiaccess channels or parallel access channels. In [12],
the performance of system MAC Vs PAC for Non coherent
reception has been studied. in [13], the performance of system
when channel is non coherent has been investigated and it has
been shown on-off keying scheme is the most energy efficient
modulation scheme when the channel is subject to Rayleigh
fading. In [14], the optimality of the received energy test in
scenarios with correlated sensor decisions and non identical
sensors has been verified. In [15], they proposed cooperative
fusion architecture which enhance detection performance. All
of these works are for the case that we have just two
hypotheses and the FC should make decision between two
hypotheses. channel-aware M -ary distributed detection when
the communication channels are modeled as additive white
Gaussian noise (AWGN) [16] and Rayleigh fading with perfect
CSI available at the FC has been studied in [16]–[18]. In [17]
the impact of imperfect CSI on the design and performance of
channel-aware M -ary distributed detection systems has been
investigated.
Due to limitation of power in WSN’s, it has been attempted to
improve the performance of system by optimal power allocation between sensors. In [19], Sensors share the quantized data
of their observation and it has been shown power consumption
is 50 percent less than unquantized conventional methods. In
[20], sensors transmit different linear combinations of their
measurements through a multiple access channel (MAC) to FC
and show their scheme save energy in the low signal-to-noise
ratio regime. In [21], Sensors are selected based on satisfying
the average global probability of detection and minimizing
the energy consumption. In [6], the power allocation between

2

sensors for binary hypotheses and known channel fading
coefficients based on cost function J divergence has been
done. In [22], power allocation based on maximization of
deflection coefficient for partial coherent and channel statistic
has been done. In [23], local power control strategy for
multi-hypotheses has been introduced.The works on power
allocation in distributed detection are mainly built on the
assumption that perfect knowledge of the fading channel
coefficients are available at the FC and power allocation for
channel estimation has not been considered.In [25] power
allocation for data and training of distributed estimation has
been studied. In [25] power allocation of data and training
of distributed estimation of a source when sensors amplify
and forward their observation over MAC. In [26], power
allocation between sensors when sensors amplify and forward
their spatially corrolated date to FC when we have perfect
channel or estimation of channel gain. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no work in distributed detection for power
allocation of data and training between sensors. In order to do
power allocation between sensors, we need a cost function.
Deriving probability of error at the FC is hard even for the case
when we know complete information about the amplitude and
phase of channel. We choose J divergence as our optimality
criterion. [23] established a lower bound on pairwise sum
of the individual error probabilities between two hypotheses,
where the lower bound is a constant (determined by the a
priori probabilities of the hypotheses) minus Jtot . Hence, by
maximizing Jtot we minimize the lower bound on the error
probability.”
In this work, we address the following questions: how
should the power allocated between sensors to improve
performance? how can we mitigate the negative impact
of channel estimation error via optimizing transmit power
allocation between data and training symbols? how do the
answers to the above questions change as the reception
mode at the FC and modulation scheme at the sensors vary?
For non coherent reception, how does the power allocation
differ for training and non-training based systems, where
the sensors do not transmit training symbols (for estimating
channel amplitudes) and the FC only relies on the knowledge
of the channel statistics? To answer these questions we
consider the following three cases, assuming Rayleigh block
fading channel model: (i) the FC is equipped with a coherent
receiver and a training based channel estimator, sensors
employ M -PSK modulation for transmitting their data and
training symbols, (ii) the FC is equipped with a non coherent
receiver and a training based channel amplitude estimator,
the sensors employ M -FSK modulation for transmitting
their data and training symbols, (iii) the FC is equipped
with a non coherent receiver without a channel estimator
(the FC only has the channel statistics), the sensors employ
M -FSK modulation for transmitting their data symbols. The
organization of the paper follows: Section II introduces the
system model. Sections III and IV derive the optimal power
allocation for cases (i),(ii),(iii) explained above. Section V
includes our numerical results. Section VI concludes the paper.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
We consider the problem of testing which of the M ≥ 2
M
hypotheses {Hm }m=1 has been occurred, assuming πm is
the a priori probability that hypothesis Hm occurs. Our
system model consists of a FC and N spatially distributed
sensors, which is tasked with solving this M -ary hypothesis testing problem. Let xk denote the local observation at
sensor k during an observation period. We assume that xk ’s
are independent across sensors, conditionedQon a particular
N
hypothesis, i.e., f (x1 , x2 , ..., xN |Hm ) =
k=1 f (xk |Hm )
for m = 1, ..., M , where f (.) denotes the probability density
function (pdf). Suppose xk at sensor k under hypothesis Hm
is:
Hm : xk = z km + ν k ,

m = 1, ..., M, k = 1, ..., N,

(1)

where z km ’s are Gaussian signal sources with different means
k
and equal variances, i.e., z km ∼ N (ηm
, σz2 ), ν k ’s are Gaussian
2
measurement noises ν k ∼ N (0, σν ), and z km , ν k are all
mutually uncorrelated. Each sensor applies a local rule to
decide which of the M hypotheses has occurred, such that
the error probability at the sensor is minimized, i.e., the local
k
| and decides
detector of sensor k finds lk = arg minm |xk −ηm
k
hypothesis Hk . Let pim denote the probability that sensor k
decides on Hi , given that the true hypothesis is Hm . For the
sensing model in (1), one can verify that pkim is:
 ηk +ηk −2ηk
k
k
ηik +ηi+1
−2ηm
i
i−1
m


Q( 2(σ2 +σ2 ) ) − Q( 2(σ2 +σ2 ) ) i 6= 1, M
ν

pkim =

z

k
η1k +η2k −2ηm
2 +σ 2 ) )
2(σ
ν
z

k
k

 ηM
+η k −1 −2ηm
Q( 2(σM2 +σ
)
2)
ν
z

1 − Q(

ν

z

i=1

(2)

i=M
R
2
∞
where the Q-function is defined as Q(x) = √12π x e−t /2 dt.
Sensor k employs an M -ary digital modulator to map its
M -ary decision to a symbol and transmits this symbol with
power Pdk . We consider M -PSK and M -FSK modulation at
the sensors. Let uk and uk denote the modulated symbol at
sensor k corresponding to M -PSK and M -FSK modulation,
i−1
respectively, where scalar uk ∈ {ej2π M , i = 1, ..., M },
M × 1 vector uk ∈ {ei , i = 1, ..., M } and ei is an
M × 1 canonical vector whose all elements except the ith one are zeros. We refer to the modulated symbols uk ,
uk as data symbols and Pdk as data symbol transmit power
corresponding to sensor k. Assuming the data symbols are
sent over orthogonal channels between sensors and the FC, we
represent the channel output at the FC upon the reception of
data symbols as a N ×1 vector y d = [y d1
h ; ...; y dk ; ...; y dN ] fori

M -PSK modulation and M N ×1 y d = y d1 ; ...; y dk ; ...; y dN
for M -FSK modulation. In particular, the channel output
corresponding to sensor k is:
p
y dk = Pdk hk uk + ndk ,
k = 1, ..., N M -PSK,
p
y dk = Pdk hk uk + ndk ,
k = 1, ..., N M -FSK. (3)

The communication channel noises, denoted as scalar ndk and
M × 1 vector ndk , are identically distributed zero mean complex Gaussian ndk ∼ CN (0, σn2 ), ndk ∼ CN (0, σn2 I), where
I is an M × M identity matrix. We assume that the channel
outputs conditioned on the channel inputs, are independent

3

across the sensors. The complex channel coefficient hk in (3)
is modeled as hk ∼ CN (0, σh2 k ) where hk = αk ejφk , the
amplitude αk and the phase φk , have Rayleigh and uniform
distributions, respectively. To enable training based channel
estimation, we assume that the channel coefficients are fixed
for two consecutive symbol intervals, and each sensor sends
a training symbol with power Ptk along with its data symbol.
We refer to the symbols ut , ut as training symbols and Ptk
as training symbol transmit power corresponding to sensor k.
Without loss of generality, we assume ut = 1 and ut = e1 ,
respectively, when the sensors employ M -PSK and M -FSK
modulation schemes. Training symbols are also sent over
orthogonal channels between sensors and the FC, prior to
sending data symbols. The channel output corresponding to
sensor k at the FC upon the reception of training symbol is:
p
k = 1, ..., N M -PSK,
y tk = Ptk hk ut + ntk ,
p
k = 1, ..., N M -FSK, (4)
y tk = Ptk hk ut + ntk ,

III. O PTIMAL FUSION RULES
In this section, we adopt the Bayesian criterion to find the
optimal fusion rule at the FC, in order to make a global
decision u0 ∈ {H1 , H2 , .., HM }. The optimal fusion rule is
u0 = arg maxm πm Θm where Θm varies, depending on the
receiver structure and the modulation scheme. Note that the
channel outputs are independent across sensors. When sensors
employ M -PSK and the receiver is coherent we find:
Θm =

N
Y

N X
M
Y

f (y dk |Hm ) =

pkim f (y dk |uk (i), Ĝ(k)). (5)

k=1 i=1

k=1

When sensors employ M -FSK and the receiver is noncoherent we obtain:
Θm =

N X
M
Y

pkim f (y dk |uk (i), Ĝ(k)),

(6)

k=1 i=1

where Ĝ(k) is the k-th diagonal entry of Ĝ, uk (i), uk (i)
in (5), (6) are the transmitted data symbols of sensor k
corresponding to the decision of Hi and pkim is obtained from
(2).

where the identically distributed zero mean complex Gaussian
noises ntk ∼ CN (0, σn2 ), ntk ∼ CN (0, σn2 I) are independent
from ndk and ndk in (3). We consider both coherent and
non-coherent receivers. The unknown channel parameters to A. Coherent Reception with Imperfect CSI
be estimated depend on the receiver structure. For a coherent
For the linear signal model in (4), the minimum mean
receiver with a training based channel estimator and a non- square error (MMSE) of channel estimation hk given y
tk
√
coherent receiver with a training based channel amplitude esσ2
Ptk
is ĥk = E {hk |y tk } = σ2 hkPtk +σ2 y tk . Considering (4),
timator, the unknown parameters are hk and αk , respectively.
n
hk
We model these as hk = ĥk + h̃k and αk = α̂k + α̃k , where we observe that y tk ∼ CN (0, Ptk σh2 k + σn2 ). Let γtk =
ĥk and α̂k are the estimates based on y tk and v tk = |y 1tk |2 Ptk /σn2 . Since ĥk is a linear function of y tk , we have
4
2
in (4) respectively, and h̃k and α̃k are the estimation errors1 . ĥ ∼ CN (0, σhk2γtk ) and h̃ ∼ CN (0, σ2hk ) [9].
k
k
1+σh γtk
1+σh γtk
k
k
Suppose
PN there is a constraint on the network transmit power, To find f (y |u (i), ĥ ) in (5), we realize that given u (i)
k
k
k
dk
i.e., k=1 Pk ≤ Ptot , where Pk = Pdk + Ptk is total transmit
√
2
P
ĥ
u
(i),
σ
)
where
and
ĥ
,
we
have
y
∼
CN
(
dk
k
k
k
dk
wk
power for sending data and training symbols at sensor k. This
2
σw
= Pdk σh̃2 + σn2 . Therefore, one can write the conditional
modeling allows us to consider the energy cost of
channel
k
k
PN
estimation in network power allocation. Let Pd = k=1 Pdk pdf f (y dk |uk (i), ĥk ) and find Θm . After eliminating the
be the totalP
power devoted for sending all data symbols to FC terms that are independent of m, the fusion rule reduces to
N
and, Pt = k=1 Ptk be the total power devoted for sending u0 = arg maxm πm Θm where Θm is:
√
all training symbols to the FC. With this notation, we find
−j2π(i−1)
∗ !
N X
M
Y
M
2
P
Re(e
y
ĥ
dk
dk
k)
k
Pd + Pt ≤ Ptot . We define r = Pd /Ptot as the fraction of Θm =
pim exp
. (7)
2
σwk
the power assigned to all data symbols and rk = Pdk /Pk for
k=1 i=1
k = 1, ..., N as the fraction of the power assigned to the data Note that the optimal fusion rule depends on P , r (through
k k
symbol at sensor k where r, rk ∈ [0, 1].
2
Pdk , σw
),
channel
outputs
y
,
channel
estimates
ĥk , and
dk
k
Our goal is to derive J-divergence in closed form expression. local sensor
performance indices pkim . For the special case of
For M -ary hypothesis testing, [23] defined J-divergence as M = 2, the optimal fusion rule reduces to:
weighted pairwise J-divergence
hypothesis Hi and
√


PM between
PM
4 P
∗
− σ2 dk Re(y dk ĥk )
 
Hj , that is Jtot|Ĝ = (1/2) i=1 j=1 πi πj Jij where Jij = X
N
H1
k
k
wk
π0
 p22 + (1 − p22 )e

√
.
log 
 T log
J(f (y d |Hi , Ĝ), f (y d |Hj , Ĝ)), where Ĝ = diag{ĥ1 , ..., ĥN }
4 Pdk
∗
π1
Re(y dk ĥk )
− σ2
H0
k=1
k
k
w
for coherent receiver, Ĝ = diag {α̂1 , ..., α̂N } for non-coherent
k
p21 + (1 − p21 )e
receiver with a training based channel amplitude estimator,
and Ĝ is null for non-coherent receiver without a channel B. Non-coherent Reception with Imperfect Channel Amplitude
estimator, in order to incorporate the knowledge of the FC
The MMSE estimate of the channel amplitude αk given
about the channel parameters, and the average J-divergence v = |y 1 |2 is α̂ = E {α |v } = R α f (α |v )dα ,
tk
k
k tk
k
k tk
k
tk
Javg = EĜ {Jtot|Ĝ }.
where the conditional pdf f (αk |v tk ) is [9]:
γtk v tk
f (αk |v tk ) =2αk (1 + γtk ) exp(
− (1 + γtk α2k ))
1 As we mentioned in Section I, the sensors employ M -FSK modulation
(1 + γtk )σn2
when the FC is equipped with a non-coherent receiver and a training based
r
v tk
channel amplitude estimator. Since ut = e1 , the estimator only employs the
×
I
(2α
γtk 2 ),
1
0
k
first entry of vector y tk , denoted as y tk , for channel amplitude estimation.
σn

4

and I0 (.) is the modified Bessel functin of the first kind with
order q
zero. Given v tk , we have αk ∼ Rice(ν, s2 ) where ν =
1
1
2
γtk vσtk
2 and s = γ +1 . Therefore, α̂k is [9]:
γtk +1
tk
n

√
α̂k =

πs2
−1
−ν 2
F1 (
, 1; 2 ),
2
2
s

where F1 (., .; .) is the Kummer confluent hyper-geometric
x
x
x
2
function and F1 ( −1
2 , 1; x) = e (xI1 ( 2 )−(x−1)I0 ( 2 )), I1 (.)
is the modified Bessel function of the first kind with order one.
Furthermore, the variance of estimation error can be computed
as below [9]:


1
−1
−ν 2
π
E F1 (
, 1; 2 )2 .
(8)
σα̃2 k = 1 −
4 γtk + 1
2
s

For the special case of M = 2 the optimal fusion rule reduces
to:

 

N
X
π0
(1 − pk22 )F (y 1dk ) + pk22 F (y 2dk ) H1
R log
.
log
2
1
k
k
π1
(1 − p21 )F (y dk ) + p21 F (y dk ) H0
k=1
(11)
C. Non-coherent Reception with Channel Statistics

In the absence of training, we have Pdk = Pk and Ptk = 0.
To find f (y dk |uk (i)) in (6), we realize that given uk (i), we
have y dk ∼ CN (0, C uk (i) ) where C uk (i) is a diagonal matrix
whose entries are C uk (i) (j, j) = σn2 for j 6= i and C uk (i) (j, j) =
Pdk σh2 k +σn2 for j = i. We can verify that f (y dk |uk (i)) equals
to:
! M
!
j 2
2
i 2
Y
P
σ
|y
|
|y
|
dk
h
dk
k
Substituting α̂k in (3), we have:

exp − dk2
.
β exp
σn
σn2 σn2 + Pdk σh2 k
p
p
j=1
jφk
jφk
y dk = Pdk α̂k e uk +wk , where wk = Pdk α̃k e uk +ndk .
After substituting f (y dk |uk (i)) in (6) and eliminating
QM
|y jdk |2
|u
(i),
α̂
)
we
write
f
(y
|u
(i),
α̂
)
=
To
find
f
(y
k
k
k
k
R
dk
dk
) due to its irrelevance to m, the optimal
2
j=1 exp(− σn
f (y dk |uk (i), α̂k , φk )f (φk )dφk . However, to express
fusion rule reduces to u0 = arg maxm πm Θm where Θm is:
f (y dk |uk (i), α̂k , φk ) we need the conditional pdf
!
N X
M
2
i 2
Y
f (wk |uk (i), α̂k , φk ). Unfortunately, this conditional pdf
P
σ
|y
|
dk
h
dk
k
 .
Θm =
pkim exp
(12)
depends on the pdf f (α̂k ) and finding its closed form
2 σ2 + P σ2
σ
dk hk
n
n
k=1 i=1
expression is mathematically intractable. However, our
|
{z
}
=H(|y idk |)
simulation results suggest that, conditional wk can be
approximated as a zero-mean complex Gaussian vector with Different from (10), (12) does not depend on channel amplia covariance matrix C wk whose entries are C wk (j, j) = σn2 tude estimates and only depends on the channel statistics. For
2
for j 6= i and C wk (j, j) = σw
= Pdk σα̃2 k + σn2 for the special case of M = 2, the optimal fusion rule is similar
k
j = i. Consequently, √
given uk (i), α̂k and φk , we can to (11) with the difference that F (y i ) needs to be replaced
dk
approximate y dk ∼ CN ( Pdk α̂k ejφk uk (i), C wk ). With this with H(|y i |) defined in (12).
dk
approximation, we proceed with finding f (y dk |uk (i), α̂k ).
One can verify the following:
IV. O PTIMAL P OWER ALLOCATIONS
f (y dk |uk (i), α̂k )
In this section, we drive J-divergence for different receivers.
!
√
Z 2π
Then,
we optimize power allocation between sensors based on
−jφk
i
i
2 Pdk Re y dk α̂k e
c1 c2 (|y dk |)
J-divergence.
=
exp
dφ
k
2
2π
σw
0
k
√


Z
2π
i
i
2 Pdk α̂k |y dk | cos(φk − θ)
a c1 c2 (|y dk |)
exp
=
dφk A. Coherent Reception with Imperfect CSI
2
2π
σ
0
wk
In order to compute conditional J-divergence for coher
 √

P
α̂
2
ent
reception, we need the distribution of f (y d |Ĝ, Hi ) and
dk
k
|y idk | ,
= c1 c2 |y idk | I0
2
σw
f (y d |Ĝ, Hj ). The pdf of the received signals y d at the FC
k
(9) given
the transmitted signals u = [u1 ; ...; uN ] from the
2
−Pdk |α̂k |
exp (
)
2
PN |yjdk |2
σw
sensors is:
k
in which c1 = √(π)M (σ2 )M −1 σ2 exp(− j=1 σ2 ), 



T

n
n
wk
1
1
−1
2
i
2
Pdk σ |y |
y d − ĜAu ,
f y d |u, Ĝ =
y d − ĜAu R
1 exp −
c2 (|y idk |) = exp( σ2α̃σk 2 dk ). To obtain (a), we let y idk =
2
|2πR| 2
n wk
(13)
√
√
|y idk |ejθ . After substituting f (y dk |uk (i), α̂k ) in (6) and elimP
,
...,
P
and
R
=
where
A
=
diag
d1
dN
 2
inating c1 due to its irrelevance to m, the optimal fusion rule
2
diag
σ
,
...,
σ
are
diagonal
matrices.
The
conditional
w1
wN
reduces to u0 = arg maxm πm Θm where Θm is:
pdf of y d given the two hypotheses are:
 √

N X
M
 X



Y

2 Pdk α̂k i
k
i
Θm =
pim c2 |y dk | I0
.
(10)
|y
|
f
y
|
Ĝ,
H
=
f
(u|H
)
f
y
|
Ĝ,
u
.
(14)
i
i
dk
2
d
d
σw
k
u
k=1 i=1
|
{z
}
=F (|y idk |)

Note that the optimal fusion rule depends on Pk , rk (through
2
Pdk , σw
), magnitude of channel outputs |y idk |, channel amplik
tude estimates α̂k , and local sensor performance indices pkim .

As we can see, Both distributions f (y d |Ĝ, Hi ) and
f (y d |Ĝ, Hj ) have Gaussian mixture distributions. Unfortunately, the J-divergence between two Gaussian mixture densities does not have a general closed-form expression [6].

5

n 
o
T
We observe that when E T r AT Ĝ R−1 ĜA
→ 0 and
 
2 
T
E T r AT Ĝ R−1 ĜA
→ 0 , f (y d |Ĝ, Hi ) can be
approximated by a Gaussian distribution with mean vector µi
and covariance matrix Σi . We find µi and Σi using moment
matching Markov properties.
Z
y d f (y d |Ĝ, Hi )dy d
(15)
µi =
y

d

Z


X 
yd
f y d |Ĝ, u f (u|Hi ) dy d

=
y

X

=

(16)

u

d

Z



y d f y d |u dy d

f (u|Hi )
y

u

(17)

d

Recall that f (y d |u, Ĝ) is a Gaussian density with mean ĜAu,
as shown in (35), hence:
X
(18)
ĜAuf (u|Hi ) = ĜAβ i
µi =
u

Where β i is a 1 × N vector and equals to:
βi =

X

uf (u|Hi )

Using µi and Σi in (18) and (20), and after some algebra,
Jtot|Ĝ divergence will become:
Jtot|Ĝ =

+

β i (k) =

σ 2 Pk

Javg

k = 1, ..., N

l=1

C=

k=1

d

ih
iT X 

= y d − µi y d − µi
f y d |Ĝ, u f (u|Hi )

(P 1 ) :

u

=

Z

h

f (u|Hi )
y

u

y d − ĜAu + ĜAu − µi

i
s.t.

d

h
iT
× y d − ĜAu + ĜAu − µi f (y d |u)dy d
h
ih
iT
X
=R+
f (u|Hi ) ĜAu − µi ĜAu − µi .

(20)

The last step follows because f (y d |Ĝ, u) is a Gaussian density
with mean ĜAu and covariance matrix R. Applying (18), and
after some algebra, we obtain:
T

(21)

where the diagonal matrix Bi is the covariance
matrix of f (u|Hi ) and equals Bi = cov(u|Hi ) =
diag{cov(u1 |Hi ), ..., cov(uN |Hi )} and cov(uk |Hi )
=
1 − β i (k). Next, based on J-divergence between two Guassian
distribution, Jij|Ĝ becomes:
1 
−1
T r Σi Σ−1
j + Σj Σi
2
i

T
−1
Σ−1
(µi − µj ) (µi − µj ) − N.
i + Σj

Jij|Ĝ =

N
X
k=1

u

Σi = R + ĜABi AT Ĝ ,

M M N
k
k
γij
1 X X X γji
+
− N.
2 i=1 j=1
Bi (k) Bj (k)

Optimal power allocation based on Jtot|Ĝ : The formulation
of optimization problem will be as below:

h

X

! 

k
γji
xk
1−
D
= C+
Bi (k)
Bi (k)
k=1 i=1 j=1
! 

k
γij
xk
D
+ 1−
Bj (k)
Bj (k)
M
M X
N X
X

Where C is:

Similarly, we can compute Σi as below:
Z h
ih
iT 

y d − µi y d − µi f y d |Ĝ, Hi
Σi =
y

2
σw
k
− N,
2
ĝ k Pdk Bj (k) + σw
k

sk = hσk2 as the recieved SNR of sensor k at the FC, We
n
can see that xk is a function of recieved SNR’s of sensors
at the fusion center. Let D(x) = xex E1 (x), then average
J-divergence will reduce to:

(19)
l−1
ej2π M pkli ,

k=1
k
ĝ k Pdk γij
+

k
k
= Bj (k) +
= Bi (k) + |µi (k) − µj (k)|2 and γji
where γij
2
2
|µi (k) − µj (k)| and ĝ k = |ĥk | . The average J-divergence
for coherent reception has been calculated in (22). In (22) xk
is:
1
1
1
xk =
(
+ ( 2 2 )2 )
rk (1 − rk ) σk2 /σn2 Pk
σk /σn Pk
R ∞ −t
E1 (x) = x e t dt is the exponential integral. Defining

u
M
X

M M N
k
2
+ σw
1 X X X ĝ k Pdk γji
k
2
2 i=1 j=1
ĝ k Pdk Bi (k) + σw
k

max
(Pd1 ,Pt1 ),...,(PdN ,PtN )

Pdk ≤ Pd ,

N
X

Jtot|Ĝ (Pd1 , ..., PdN )

(23)

Ptk ≤ Pt , Pdk , Ptk ≥ 0, Pd + Pt ≤ Ptot

k=1

As we can see from our cost function,The objective function
is fully decoupled, a direct result of the orthogonal channels
between the sensors and the FC.
Lemma 1: The first order derivative of the objective function
Jtot|Ĝ (P1 , , PdN ) with respect to Pdj and Ptj is always
nonnegative at any valid power allocation point Pdk ≥ 0. That
is
∂
J
(Pd1 , , PdN )|Pdk ≥0 ≥ 0
∂Pdj tot|Ĝ
(24)
∂
Jtot|Ĝ (Pt1 , , PtN )|Pdk ≥0 ≥ 0.
∂Ptj
This lemma has been proved in Appendix A.
Lemma 1 tells us that the objective function in (23) is
nondecreasing with increasing power budget Ptot . Since we
are maximizing a nondecreasing function,
PN the optimal point is
always at the constraint boundary, i.e., k=1 Pdk +Ptk = Ptot .
This result is intuitively plausible since it makes full use of the
power budget. However, its not obvious what portion of total
power should be devoted to Pd and the remaining to Pt . In
this case, we assume we know r. Therefore, the optimization

6





Z

Javg = E Jtot|Ĝ =

M M N
k
2
k
2
ĝ k Pdk γij
+ σw
+ σw
1 X X X ĝ k Pdk γji
k
k
+
f (ĝ k ) dĝ k − N
2
2
ĝ k Pdk Bi (k) + σw
ĝ k Pdk Bj (k) + σw
2 i=1 j=1
k
k
k=1

=

M X
M X
N
X
i=1 j=1 k=1

=

k
k
γji
γij
+
+
Bi (k) Bj (k)

Z

k
γji
Bi (k)
k
ĝ k Pdk γji
+
2
σw

1−

1−

f (ĝ k )dĝ k − N
(22)
+1
k
! k
!




k
k
k
x
γji
γij
γij
k
xk B (k)
xk Bxj k(k)
xk
xk
1−
e i E1
+
+ 1−
e
E1
−N
Bi (k) Bi (k)
Bi (k)
Bj (k)
Bj (k) Bj (k)
Bj (k)

M X
M X
N
k
X
γji
+
Bi (k)
i=1 j=1
k=1

+

1

k
ĝ k Pdk γij
2
σw

will be broken to two different parts: one for determining Pdj
and the other part for determining Ptj .
For Data power allocation, the optimization problem reduces
to the solution to the following optimization problem,
max Jtot|Ĝ (Pd1 , ..., PdN )
Pd1 ,...,PdN

s.t

N
X

(25)

L(Pd1 , ..., PdN ) =
M M N
k
2
k
2
+ σw
ĝ k Pdk γij
+ σw
1 X X X ĝ k Pdk γji
k
k
+
2
2
2 i=1 j=1
ĝ k Pdk Bi (k) + σw
ĝ
P
B
(k)
+
σ
dk
j
k
wk
k
k=1

Pdk − Pd ) +

N
X

νdk Pdk

k=1

k=1

There is no closed form solution for Pdk ’s and the optimal
values can be obtained through general convex optimization
∗
techniques. However, its obvious that Pdj
is a function of
performance of sensors, channel estimation coefficients and
channel estimation errors.
For training power allocation, the optimization problem reduces to the solution to the following optimization problem,
max J
(Pt1 , ..., PtN )
Pt1 ,...,PtN tot|Ĝ
s.t

N
X

P1 ,...,Pk ,r1 ,...,rk

s.t

Similar to lemma 1, we can prove the second order derivative
of the objective function Jtot|Ĝ (P1 , , PdN ) with respect to Pdk
is always non positive at any valid power allocation point
Pdk ≥ 0. That is
∂2
(26)
2 Jtot|Ĝ |Pdj ≥0 ≤ 0.
∂Pdj
The Lagrangian associated with the constrained optimization
problem in (25) is

− λ(

Ĝ. So, we need a cost function to determine how distribute
data and training power between sensors. Therefore, we choose
Javg for power allocation. The power allocation for coherent
reception based on average J-divergence reduces to the solution to the following optimization problem,
max
Javg (P1 , ..., Pk , r1 , ..., rk ), given in (22)

Pdk ≤ Pd , Pdk ≥ 0

k=1

N
X

k
γij
Bj (k)

(27)

N
X

(28)
Pk ≤ Ptot , Pk ≥ 0, 0 ≤ rk 6 1

k=1

In order to solve this optimization problem, at first we assume
we know each Pk and obtain optimal rk .
Lemma 2: If we allocate each sensor power Pk for sending
training and data symbol, The optimal power for training
and data based on maximizing Javg is Ptk = Pdk = Pk /2.
Subsequently, we can conclude r = rk = 12 .
This lemma has been proved in Appendix B.This lemma tell
us if we want to maximize Javg , each sensor should equally
distribute the power between training and data or r = rk = 12 .
In lemma 2, we determined optimal rk . In the next step, we
determine optimal Pk .
Lemma 3: The first order derivative of the objective function
Javg (P1 , ..., PN , 21 , ..., 12 ) with respect to Pk is always nonnegative at any valid power allocation point Pk ≥ 0. That is
∂
Javg (P1 , ..., PN )|Pi ≥0 ≥ 0.
∂Pk

(29)

This lemma has been provedPin Appendix C. From this
N
lemma, we can conclude that k=1 Pk = Ptot . The second
order derivative of Javg is not always negative. Therefore,
Javg is not a concave function. So, We only obtain the local
maximum for these function through general constrained
optimization techniques such as interior point method.

Ptk ≤ Pt , Ptk ≥ 0

k=1
∗
∗
This cost function is a function of Pdk
. Therefore , Ptk
is
∗
∗
a function of Pdk
. As a result, we can not determine Ptk
from conditional J-divergence and we distribute training power
uniformly between sensors.
Power allocation based on J avg : In the previous section, we
optimized data power between sensors based on Jtot|Ĝ . We
could not derive theoretically r based on Jtot|Ĝ cost function
and training power allocation since Jtot|Ĝ is a function of

B. Non Coherent Reception with Imperfect Channel Amplitude
For the non coherent reception, if we want to compute
Jtot|Ĝ , we need to derive J-divergence between two distributions f (y d |Ĝ, Hi ) and f (y d |Ĝ, Hj ). Unfortunately there
is not a closed form solution for the distance between
these distributions. Thus, we will derive Jtot|Ĝ,Φ where
Φ = diag {φ1 , ..., φN }. In order to compute conditional Jdivergence for non coherent reception, we need to compute distance between the distribution of f (y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hi )

7

and f (y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hj ). The conditional density function of the
received signals y d at the FC given the transmitted signals u
from the sensors and Ĝ, Φ is


1
f y d |u, Ĝ, Φ =
1
|2πC w | 2


T


−1
1
exp − 2 y d − ΦĜAu C w
y d − ΦĜAu
(30)
where C w = diag {Cw1 , ..., CwN }. The conditional density
functions of the received signals given the two hypotheses are

 X 

f y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hi =
f y d |Ĝ, Φ, u f (u|Hi )

(31)

u

As we can see similar to coherent reception, Both
f (y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hi ) and f (y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hj ) are Gaussian mixture distributions. Unfortunately, the J-divergence between
two Gaussian mixture densities does not have a general closed-form expression
[6]. Similaroto coherent ren 
T T
ception, when E T r A Ĝ C w −1 ĜA
→ 0 and
 
2 
T
→ 0, the conditional distribuE T r AT Ĝ C w −1 ĜA
tion function f (y d |Ĝ, Hi ) can be approximated by a Gaussian
distribution with mean vector µi and covariance matrix Σi . We
find µi and Σi using moment matching Markov properties.
Z
µi =
y d f (y d |Ĝ, Φ, Hi )dy d
y

d

Z
=
y

yd

(32)

u

d

X

=


X 
f y d |Ĝ, Φ, u f (u|Hi ) dy d
Z



y d f y d |Ĝ, Φ, u dy d

f (u|Hi )
y

u

d



Recall that f y d |Ĝ, Φ, u is a Gaussian density with mean
ĜΦAu, as shown in (30), so
X
µi =
ΦĜAuf (u|Hi ) = ΦĜAβ i
h

i

Where β i = u uf (u|Hi ) = β i (1), ..., β i (N ) is a 1×M N
and β i (k) equals
X
β i (k) =
uk f (uk |Hi )
uk
(33)


= pk1i , ..., pkM i , k = 1, ..., N
Similarly, we can compute Σi
Z h
ih
iT 

Σi =
y d − µi y d − µi f y d |Hi dy d
y

=

h

d

ih
iT X 

y d − µi y d − µi
f y d |u f (u|Hi ) dy d
u

=

X

Z

h
i
y d − ΦĜAu + ΦĜAu − µi

f (u|Hi )
y

u

Using µi and Σi in (33) and (34), and after some algebra,
Jtot|Ĝ,Φ will become:
Jtot|Ĝ =

M M N
k
2
+ σw
1 X X X ĝ k Pdk γji
k
2
2 i=1 j=1
ĝ k Pdk Bi (k) + σw
k
k=1

k
2
ĝ k Pdk γij
+ σw
k
− N,
+
2
ĝ k Pdk Bj (k) + σw
k

Where ĝ k = α̂2k . As we can see, the conditional J-divergence
for non coherent receiver is the same as coherent reception
and it does not depend on phase of channel coefficients.
Optimal power allocation based on conditional Jdivergence: As we can see, conditional J-divergence for
non coherent reception with amplitude estimation is similar
to coherent reception. Thus, data power allocation of non
coherent reception is similar to coherent reception. Similarly,
for training power allocation between sensors we allocate
training power uniformly between sensors.

In order to compute total J-divergence for non coherent reception without training, we need the distribution of f (y d |Hi )
and f (y d |Hj ). The pdf of the received signals y d at the
FC given the transmitted signals u = [u1 , ..., uN ] from the
sensors is


1
1 T −1
f (y d |u) =
(35)
1 exp − y d C u y d ,
2
|2πC u | 2
where C u = diag{C u1 , ..., C uN }. The conditional pdf of y d
given the hypothesise is:
X
f (y d |Hi ) =
f (u|Hi ) f (y d |u).
(36)
u

As we can see, distribution f (y d |Hi ) has Gaussian mixture
distribution.Approximating this Gaussian mixture with a Gaussian distribution, f (y d |Hi ) ∼ CN (0, Σi ) where Σi is:
Z



(34)

where Bi= cov(u|Hi ) = diag{cov(u1 |Hi ), ..., cov(uN |Hi )}
is a N M ×N M diagonal matrix and cov(uk |Hi ) is an M ×M
diagonal matrix and its lth diagonal element is pkli (1 − pkli ),
k = 1, .., N, l = 0, ..., M − 1.
Next, based on J-divergence between two Guassian distribution, Jij|Ĝ,Φ will become:
1 
−1
Jij|Ĝ,Φ = T r Σi Σ−1
j + Σj Σi
2
i

T
−1
+
Σ
(µ
−
µ
)
(µ
−
µ
)
− N.
Σ−1
i
j
i
j
j
i

d

iT

h

Σi = C w + ĜABi AT DT ,

C. Non-Coherent Reception with Channel Statistics

u

P

The last step follows because f (y d |Ĝ, u) is a Gaussian density
with mean ΦĜAu and covariance matrix C w . Applying (33),
and after some algebra, we obtain:



. y d − ΦĜAu + ΦĜAu − µi f y d |u dy d ,
h
ih
iT
X
f (u|Hi ) ΦĜAu − µi ΦĜAu − µi .
= Cw +

Σi



y d y Td f y d |Hi dy d

=
y

d

=

X

=

X

u

u

u

Z



y d y Td f y d |u dy d

f (u|Hi )
y

d

f (u|Hi ) C u

8

= diag{

X
u1

f (u1 |Hi ) C u1 , ...,

X
uN

f (uN |Hi ) C uN }

observation is: Pes (k):

PM

m=1

P

i6=m
1≤i≤M

πm pkim . If N = 5,

we consider Pes = [0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.1]. If N = 10, M = 2
P
where u f (u|Hi ) C u is a M × M diagonal matrix and its P s
=
[0.5, 0.5, 0.48, 0.46, 0.4, 0.35, 0.3, 0.2, 0.15, 0.1]
e
lth element is σn2 + pkli Pdk σh2 k .After replacing the distance and For M
=
4, N
=
10, Pes
=
between two Gaussian distribution in total J-divergence, the [0.75, 0.74, 0.7, 0.68, 0.6, 0.55, 0.45, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1].
Fig.
1
total J-divergence will become:
represents
probability
of
error
vs
SNR
when
sensors
closer
#
"
M
X
to fusion center have less probability of error. As we can
σn2 + pkli Pdk σh2 k
σn2 + pkli Pdk σh2 k
Jtot =
+ 2
. (37)see, in coherent reception, we can reduce total power 2dB
πi πj
k
2
k
2
2
σn + plj Pdk σhk
σn + plj Pdk σhk
i,j,k,l=1
to have the same probability of error with power allocation
Power allocation based on total J-divergence: The first based on total J divergence or based on average J divergence.
order derivative
of Jtot respect to Pdk is positive which Also, we can see probability of error for two systems: power
PN
means
P
= Pd . The second order derivative of allocation based on average J divergence and power allocation
dk
k=1
these cost functions respect to Pdk is positive. Thus, we are based on conditional J divergence are approximately the
maximizing a convex function. We use the following theorem same which means even though we get feedback from FC to
for computation of optimal power allocation based on our cost sensors to become aware of channel coefficients for power
function.
allocation, the performance will not be changed. So, we
Theorem: Let S be a non empty compact polyhedral set on can do power allocation without feedback. In non coherent
Rn and let f : S → R be convex on S. An optimal solution reception with channel estimation, with our power allocation,
x∗ to the problem maxx∈S f (x) exists where x∗ is an extreme the amount of power will be reduced around 5dB and 7dB
point of S [24].
for non coherent reception with amplitude estimation and non
∗
∗
Based on above theorem, The optimal power (Pd1
, ..., PdN
) is coherent reception statistic, respectively. As we can see in the
an extreme point. So, we obtain all extreme points and choose figure, in non coherent statistic receiver, for SNR’s greater
the one that maximize our cost functions as the optimal point. than 8dB, the probability of error is less for uniform power
allocation. Regarding comparing which receiver perform
V. N UMERICAL RESULTS
better, The result in this case shows that non coherent statistic
In this section, numerical results are provided to illustrate perform better for N=5. For N=10, in SNR’s less than 8dB
the power allocation scheme developed in this paper. In the non coherent statistic receiver with power allocation based on
simulations, we consider the following settings. There are total J divergence perform better. In higher SNR’s, coherent
N sensors scattered around a FC and the distances from receiver and non coherent statistic receiver with uniform
N
the sensors to the FC are {dk }k=1 which we consider to be power allocation have the best performance. Fig. 2 and
dk = 2 + 2(k − 1) for N = 5 and dk = k for N = 10. Fig. 3 represents probability of error vs SNR for the cases
The path loss of signal power at the FC from sensor k when sensors farther from FC perform better and the case
follows the Motley-Keenan path loss model (expressed in when sensors are situated in equal distance from FC(2m).
dB) without the wall and floor attenuation factor [27]: In these case, we can see similar results to the case when
P Lk = P L0 + 10nlog10(dk /d0) where P L0 is a constant sensors closer to FC perform better. One difference is that
set to 55dB, and d0 is also a constant set to 1m in the in this case the probability of error for coherent reception
simulations. Here, n is the path loss exponent, which is set and power allocation based on average J divergence is worth
to 2 for free space propagation. The variance of channel than power allocation based on conditional J divergence.
from sensor k to FC is σh2 k = −P Lk. The noise variance Fig 4. Represents probability of error vs SNR for the
from sensors to FC is σn2 = 30dBm
dBm. We define the case when sensors have equal performance but they are
P
2
Ptot × k σh
in different distance from FC. As we can see, our scheme
k
. The FC make the
SNR as SN R = 10log10
2
N 2 σn
for power allocation, its performance is close to uniform
final decision rule based on Bayesian criterion rule which
power allocation which indicates the dependency of power
depends on the performance of sensors and their quality of
allocation to performance of sensors. Fig.5 through Fig.8
channels. The performance of sensors may vary according
represent probability of error vs rt for four different cases.
to their local observation qualities. We will consider three
The results show that the optimal rt for coherent reception is
receivers: 1) Coherent reception with channel estimation . 2)
0.5 and 1 for non coherent reception which means in coherent
Non coherent reception with amplitude estimation. 3) Non
reception, we should divide power equally between data and
coherent reception with channel statistic. In general, We will
training and in non coherent reception, we should devote all
investigate 4 different cases:
power to data.
Case V-A1: Sensors closer to FC have less probability of
error.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Case V-A2: Sensors farther from FC have less probability of
error.
In summary, we considered a distributed detection wireless
Case V-A3: All Sensors have the same distance from FC.
system that is tasked with solving an M-ary hypothesis testing
Case V-A4: All Sensors have the same probability of error problem. We studied the effect of wireless channel uncertainty,
but in different distance from FC.
due to channel estimation error, on the design and performance
The probability of error for decision of sensor k after its of this system, assuming the sum of transmit powers of

9

0.4

0.45
sJ

0.4

sJ

us non-coherent

0.35

us non-coherent

0.35

J

J

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

0.3

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.3

Pe

Pe

0.25
0.25

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1

0.1
0.05
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.05
-10

20

-5

0

5

SNR(dB)

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

(i)

(ii)
0.7

0.7

sJ

sJ
usJ non-coherent

0.6

usJ non-coherent

0.6

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

0.5

uu coherent

0.5

uu coherent

Pe

Pe

0.4

0.4

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1

0
-10

0.1
-10
-5

0

5

10

15

-5

0

5

20

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

SNR(dB)

(iv)

(iii)

Fig. 1: Probability of error vs SNR when sensors closer to FC have less probability of error (i) M=2, N=5, (ii) M=2, N=10,
iii) M=4, N=5, iv) M=4, N=10.

training and data symbols is fixed. In particular, we provided
the optimal MAP fusion rules for training and non-training
based systems. Then, we have developed a power allocation
scheme to distribute the total training and data power budget
among the sensors so that the probability of error at the FC
is minimized in terms of the conditional J-divergence and
average divergence for different receivers. Our analytic results
show that average divergence for coherent reception will be
maximized when the transmit power is equally distributed
between training and data symbols. The simulation results also
show that the error probability of this system is minimized
when the transmit power is equally distributed between training and data symbols.However, when the sensors employ PSK
modulation along with coherent reception at the FC the error
probability is minimized when the transmit power is equally
distributed between training and data symbols.
A PPENDIX A
The proof of lemma 1 is as below:
2
k
PM PM
∂
ĝ k σn
−Bk (j))
(γij
2
Jtot|Ĝ = i=1 j=1 
2
∂Pdk
2
σn +σ Pdk +ĝPdk Bi (k)
h̃k

+

2
k
ĝ k σn
−Bk (i))
(γji

2
2 +σ 2 P
σn
dk +ĝ k Pdk Bj (k)
h̃k

After some calculation, the
term inside the sum will become:


2
2
2
σn
ĝ k (Bk (j)−Bk (i))2 2σn
+2σh̃
Pdk +ĝ k Pdk (Bj (j)+Bk (i))

2 k
2
2 +σ 2 P
2 +σ 2 P
σn
σn
dk +ĝ k Pdk Bj (k)
dk +ĝ k Pdk Bi (k)
h̃k

+

h̃k

|Bi (k)−Bj (k)|2
2

2 +σ 2 P
σn
dk +ĝ k Pdk Bi (k)
h̃k

+

|Bi (k)−Bj (k)|2


2
2 +σ 2 P
σn
dk +ĝ k Pdk Bj (k)

≥0

h̃k

Therefore ∂P∂dj Jtot|Ĝ (Pd1 , , PdN )|Pdk ≥0 ≥ 0.
The first order derivative of objective function respect to Ptj
is

∂Jtot|Ĝ
∂Ptj

prove that
2
∂σw
k

∂Ptj

=

2
∂Jtot|Ĝ ∂σw
k
2
∂σw
∂Ptj . Similarly, we
k
∂J
∂ ĝ k
Ĝ
≥ 0 and ∂σtot|
≤ 0. Since ∂P
≥0
2
tj
wk
∂Jtot|Ĝ
conclude ∂P
≥ 0.
tj

∂Jtot|Ĝ ∂ ĝ
k
∂ ĝ k ∂Ptj

∂Jtot|Ĝ
∂ ĝ k

≤ 0, we can

+

A PPENDIX B
The proof of lemma 2 is as below:
The first order derivative of Javg respect to rk is:


!
xk
M X
M
k
∂D
X
γji
Bi (k)
∂Javg
∂xk
=
1−
∂rk
B
(k)
∂r
∂x
i
k
k
i=1 j=1


!
xk
k
γij
∂xk ∂D Bi (k)
+ 1−
Bj (k) ∂rk
∂xk

can
and

10

0.5

0.45
sJ

0.45

sJ

0.4

us non-coherent
J

us non-coherent
J

ssJavg coherent

0.4

ssJavg coherent

0.35

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

uu coherent

0.35

uu coherent

0.3

Pe

Pe

0.3
0.25

0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1
0.05
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.05
-10

20

-5

0

SNR(dB)

5

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

(i)

(ii)
0.8

0.8

sJ

sJ

0.7

usJ non-coherent

0.7

usJ non-coherent

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent
usJ coherent

0.6

usJ coherent

0.6

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.5

Pe

Pe

0.5

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
-10

0.1
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-5

0

5

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

SNR(dB)

(iv)

(iii)

Fig. 2: Probability of error vs SNR when sensors farther from FC have less probability of error (i) M=2, N=5, (ii) M=2, N=10,
iii) M=4, N=5, iv) M=4, N=10.

Now, We prove that D(x) is an increasing function of x. We
show that D(x2 ) ≥ D(x1 ) if x2 ≥ x1 .
Z ∞ −t
Z ∞ −t
e
e
D(x2 ) − D(x1 ) = x2 ex2
dt − x1 ex1
dt
t
t
x2
x1


Z ∞
x2
x1
−
e−t
dt
t + x2
t + x2
0


Z ∞
tx2 − tx1
e−t
dt ≥ 0
(t + x2 ) (t + x1 )
0
Therefore,

∂D(x)
∂x

≥ 0.


k
γji
Bi (k)



 ∂J
avg

 ∂rk > 0, if rk <
∂Javg
∂rk = 0, if rk =

 ∂Javg
∂rk < 0, if rk >

1
2
1
2
1
2

Based on the assumption of

1−

< 0 and

∂xk
∂rk ,

we

will have:

Based on above relationship, when rk < 21 , Javg is an
increasing function of rk and for rk > 12 , Javg is a decreasing function of rk . Therefore, we can conclude the optimal
rk∗ = 0.5.

A PPENDIX C

The proof of lemma 3 is as below:
The first derivative of Javg respect to Pk is

M X
M
M X
M 
X
X
∂fk ∂xk
∂fk1
∂f 2 ∂xk
=
+ k
∂xk ∂Pk
∂xk
∂xk ∂Pk
i=1 j=1
i=1 j=1

(38)

Where fk is:
"
!
#
M X
M
k
k
X
γji
γji
xk
fk =
+ 1−
D(
)
Bi (k)
Bi (k)
Bi (k)
i=1 j=1


!
M X
M
k
k
X
γij
γij
xk 

+
+ 1−
D(
)
B
(k)
B
(k)
B
j
j
j (k)
i=1 j=1
The derivative of first bracket respect to Pk become:
!
M X
M
k
X
γji
∂D ∂xk
1−
B
(k)
∂x
i
k ∂Pk
i=1 j=1
γk

(39)

Since ∂D(x)/∂(x) ≥ 0, 1 − Biji
(k) < 0, ∂xk /∂Pk ≤ 0, we
conclude that The derivative of first bracket is non negative.
Similarly, We can see that derivative of second bracket in (39)
is non negative. Therefore, We conclude that ∂Javg /∂Pk ≥ 0.

11

0.45

0.45

sJ

sJ

0.4

0.4

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent

0.35

0.35

uu coherent

0.3

Pe

0.3

Pe

usJ coherent

usJ coherent
uu coherent

0.25

0.25
0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1
0.05
-10

usJ non-coherent

usJ non-coherent

-5

0

5

10

15

0.05
-10

20

-5

0

5

10

SNR(dB)

0.7

0.7

sJ

sJ
usJ non-coherent

0.6

usJ non-coherent

0.6

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.5

Pe

0.5

Pe

20

(ii)

(i)

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
-10

15

SNR(dB)

-5

0

5

(iii)
SNR(dB)

10

15

20

0.1
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

(iv)
Fig. 3: Probability of error vs SNR when sensors are situated in equal distance from FC with different performance, (i) M=2,
N=5, (ii) M=2, N=10 iii) M=4, N=5, iv) M=4, N=10.

R EFERENCES
[1] Ruixin Niu, Biao Chen, and P.K. Varshney. Fusion of decisions transmitted over rayleigh fading channels in wireless sensor networks. Signal
Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 54(3):1018–1027, March 2006.
[2] F. Jiang, J. Chen, A. L. Swindlehurst, and J. A. Lpez-Salcedo. Massive
mimo for wireless sensing with a coherent multiple access channel. IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 63(12):3005–3017, June 2015.
[3] H. He and P. K. Varshney. Fusing censored dependent data for distributed
detection. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 63(16):4385–4395,
Aug 2015.
[4] P. Braca, S. Marano, and V. Matta. Single-transmission distributed
detection via order statistics. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
60(4):2042–2048, April 2012.
[5] V. S. S. Nadendla and P. K. Varshney. Design of binary quantizers for
distributed detection under secrecy constraints. IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, 64(10):2636–2648, May 2016.
[6] Xin Zhang, H.V. Poor, and Mung Chiang. Optimal power allocation for
distributed detection over mimo channels in wireless sensor networks.
Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 56(9):4124–4140, Sept 2008.
[7] M.K. Banavar, A.D. Smith, C. Tepedelenlioglu, and A. Spanias. On the
effectiveness of multiple antennas in distributed detection over fading
macs. Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 11(5):1744–
1752, May 2012.
[8] A. Vosoughi and Yupeng Jia. How does channel estimation error
affect average sum-rate in two-way amplify-and-forward relay networks?

[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 11(5):1676–1687,
May 2012.
H.R. Ahmadi and A. Vosoughi. Impact of wireless channel uncertainty
upon distributed detection systems. Wireless Communications, IEEE
Transactions on, 12(6):2566–2577, June 2013.
H.R. Ahmadi and A. Vosoughi. Impact of channel estimation error
on decentralized detection in bandwidth constrained wireless sensor
networks. In Military Communications Conference, 2008. MILCOM
2008. IEEE, pages 1–7, Nov 2008.
I. Nevat, G.W. Peters, and I.B. Collings. Distributed detection in sensor
networks over fading channels with multiple antennas at the fusion
center. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 62(3):671–683, Feb
2014.
C. R. Berger, M. Guerriero, S. Zhou, and P. Willett. Pac vs. mac for decentralized detection using noncoherent modulation. IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing, 57(9):3562–3575, Sept 2009.
F. Li, J. S. Evans, and S. Dey. Decision fusion over noncoherent
fading multiaccess channels. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
59(9):4367–4380, Sept 2011.
D. Ciuonzo, G. Romano, and P. Salvo Rossi. Optimality of received
energy in decision fusion over rayleigh fading diversity mac with nonidentical sensors. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 61(1):22–27,
Jan 2013.
N. Maleki, A. Vosoughi, and N. Rahnavard. Distributed binary detection
over fading channels: Cooperative and parallel architectures. IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 65(9):7090–7109, Sept 2016.
Jayesh H. Kotecha, V. Ramachandran, and A.M. Sayeed. Distributed

12

0.45

0.45
sJ

0.4

sJ

0.4

usJ non-coherent

usJ non-coherent
usJ coherent

usJ coherent
uu coherent

0.3

uu coherent

0.3

ssJavg coherent

0.35

ssJavg coherent

0.35

0.25

Pe

Pe

0.25

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05
0
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0
-10

20

-5

0

5

10

15

SNR(dB)

(ii)

(i)
0.7

0.7
sJ

sJ

usJ non-coherent

0.6

usJ non-coherent

0.6

ssJavg coherent

ssJavg coherent

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.5

Pe

0.5

Pe

20

SNR(dB)

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.1
-10

20

-5

0

5

SNR(dB)

10

15

20

SNR(dB)

(iii)

(iv)

Fig. 4: Probability of error vs SNR when sensors have equal probability of error but in different distance from sensors (i)
M=2, N=5 (ii) M=2, N=10 iii) M=4, N=5, iv) M=4, N=10.
0.45

0.4

usJ non-coherent

us non-coherent
J

ss

0.35

Javg

ssJavg coherent

0.4

coherent

us coherent

usJ coherent

J

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.35

0.3

Pe

Pe

0.3

0.25

0.25
0.2

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1

0.05
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(i)

1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

(iii)

Fig. 5: Probability of error vs rd for M = 2 when sensors closer to FC have less probability of error, (i) N=5 (ii) N=10.

multitarget classification in wireless sensor networks. Selected Areas in
Communications, IEEE Journal on, 23(4):703–713, April 2005.
[17] N. Maleki and A. Vosoughi. Channel-aware m-ary distributed detection:
Optimal and suboptimal fusion rules. In Statistical Signal Processing

Workshop (SSP), 2012 IEEE, pages 644–647, Aug 2012.
[18] A. Jeremic, Kon Max Wong, and Bin Liu. Optimal distributed detection
of multiple hypotheses using blind algorithm. In Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing, 2009. ICASSP 2009. IEEE International Conference

13

0.5

0.45
us non-coherent

us non-coherent

J

J

ssJavg coherent

0.45

ssJavg coherent

0.4

us coherent

us coherent

J

J

uu coherent

uu coherent

0.35

0.4

Pe

Pe

0.3
0.35

0.25
0.2

0.3
0.15
0.25
0.1
0.2

0.05
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

(i)

0.4

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

(iii)

Fig. 6: Probability of error vs rd for M = 2 and different receptions when sensors farther from FC have less probability of
error, (i) N=5 (ii N=10.
0.45
0.45

usJ non-coherent

usJ non-coherent

0.4

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

uu coherent

0.35

uu coherent

0.35

0.3

Pe

Pe

ssJavg coherent

0.4

ssJavg coherent

0.25

0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
0.2

0.1
0.05

0.15

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

(ii)

(i)

Fig. 7: Probability of error vs rd for M = 2 and different receptions when sensors are situated in equal distance from FC with
different performance, (i) N=5, (ii) N=10.
0.45
0.5

usJ non-coherent

usJ non-coherent
ss

0.45

Javg

Javg

coherent

coherent

usJ coherent

usJ coherent

uu coherent

0.35

uu coherent

0.4

ss

0.4

0.3

Pe

Pe

0.35
0.25

0.3
0.2
0.25
0.15
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.05
0.1

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
rd

(i)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1

0.5
rd

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

(ii)

Fig. 8: Probability of error vs rd for M = 2 when sensors have equal probability of error but in different distance from FC
(i) N=5 (ii) N=10.

14

on, pages 2241–2244, April 2009.
[19] E. Nurellari, D. McLernon, and M. Ghogho. Distributed two-step quantized fusion rules via consensus algorithm for distributed detection in
wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information
Processing over Networks, 2(3):321–335, Sept 2016.
[20] J. A. Maya, L. Rey Vega, and C. G. Galarza. Optimal resource
allocation for detection of a gaussian process using a mac in wsns.
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 63(8):2057–2069, April 2015.
[21] M. Najimi, A. Ebrahimzadeh, S. M. H. Andargoli, and A. Fallahi.
Energy-efficient sensor selection for cooperative spectrum sensing in
the lack or partial information. IEEE Sensors Journal, 15(7):3807–3818,
July 2015.
[22] Z. Xu, J. Huang, and Q. Zhang. Power constrained partially coherent
distributed detection over fading multiaccess channels. IEEE Sensors
Journal, 13(7):2729–2736, July 2013.
[23] Hyoung-Soo Kim and N.A. Goodman. Power control strategy for
distributed multiple-hypothesis detection. Signal Processing, IEEE
Transactions on, 58(7):3751–3764, July 2010.
[24] Mokhtar S. Bazaraa. Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms.
Wiley Publishing, 3rd edition, 2013.
[25] H. Senol and C. Tepedelenlioglu. Performance of distributed estimation
over unknown parallel fading channels. IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, 56(12):6057–6068, Dec 2008.
[26] Muhammad Hafeez Chaudhary and Luc Vandendorpe. Adaptive power
allocation in wireless sensor networks with spatially correlated data
and analog modulation: Perfect and imperfect csi. EURASIP J. Wirel.
Commun. Netw., 2010:12:1–12:14, January 2010.
[27] A. J. Motley and J. M. P. Keenan. Personal communication radio
coverage in buildings at 900 MHz and 1700 MHz. Electronics Letters.,
vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 763-764, 9 June 1988.

