x always places first on the list. However, when B < 4 and 0 = (n) + 1)-th. Thus, averaging over O we obtain qe(n, = (2.34) Worst case tone jamming with no jammer state information results for 4 V M < 32 are given in Figures 2.18 through 2.21 by solid curves. Dashed lines correspond to worst case partial-band noise jamming. Here the code rate is set at the cutoff rate, R = R0. For EJN, 4 dB, worst case performance results when the jammer places slightly more power in his tones than the communicator's tone (i.e., B = 1-) SO that x places (nj + 1)-th when Tx = 0. For EJN, < 4 dB, B is small and A near T1/2 SO that when Tx = 1, X places first or (n) + 1)-th with about equal probability. In this situa- tion, if the jammer were to jam all slots, then x always places either first or Spread-Spectrum Multiple Access with FH/MFSK Waveforms NOISE L* = 4 Figure 2.19. Minimum E/N1 for list detection (8 FSK). NOISE L* = 16 Figure 2.20. Minimum Eb/N1 for list detection (16 FSK). Multiple Access NOISE L*=32 Figure 2.21. Minimum EIN, for list detection (32 FSK). last with about equal probability and ro = 1 - 1/logM, which approaches 1 for large M. Consequently, at low EJN, the best strategy for the tone jammer is in general not full band (p = 1) jamming, as it was for the noise jammer. The worst case tone jamming results for list metrics specifies the required bit energy-to-noise ratio for coded systems. Here we can find Y and use this in Figure 2.9 to obtain a lower bound on the maximum number of simulta- neous equal energy radio transmitters that can be tolerated in a radio net- work. In a radio network environment list detectors can be quite effective, especially for large alphabet size M, while begin robust against jamming. The metrics used here, however, do depend on some knowledge of the channel statistics in the form of probabilities qk;k = 1, 2, L*. In a network such channel statistics may be available at each radio along with the connectiv- ity of the radios in the network. Figure 2.22 illustrates the effectiveness of t