226 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 14, NO.

3, MARCH 2010

Reputation-Based Cooperative Spectrum Sensing with

Trusted Nodes Assistance
Kun Zeng, Przemys aw Pawe czak, and Danijela Čabrić

Abstract—Existing cooperative spectrum sensing (CSS) the trusted threshold are reliable, and their sensing results are
schemes are typically vulnerable to attacks where misbehaved then incorporated in CSS. Simulation results further verify
cognitive radios (CRs) falsify sensing data. To ensure the the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. That is, the scheme
robustness of spectrum sensing, this letter presents a secure
CSS scheme by introducing a reputation-based mechanism to works well even when there is a large number of misbehaviors,
identify misbehaviors and mitigate their harmful effect on sensing while the existing schemes [4], [5], [6] do not perform
performance. Encouraged by the fact that such secure CSS is satisfactorily under such circumstances.
sensitive to the correctness of reputations, we further present a The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
trusted node assistance scheme. This scheme starts with reliable tion II presents the system model, while Section III intro-
CRs. Sensing information from other CRs are incorporated into
cooperative sensing only when their reputation is verified, which duces the proposed reputation-based CSS schemes without and
increases robustness of cooperative sensing. Simulations verify with the trusted nodes assistance (TNA). Section IV presents
the effectiveness of the proposed schemes. simulation results for our proposed schemes, and Section V
Index Terms—Cognitive radio, cooperative spectrum sensing, concludes the letter.
distributed decision-making, security, trusted nodes assistance.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
I. I NTRODUCTION Consider a network of � CRs detecting cooperatively
OGNITIVE radio (CR) has recently emerged as a primary user signal of complex value of given spectrum band
C promising candidate to efficiently reuse the underutilized
spectrum resources [1]. CR network allows for exploiting the
based on energy detection. Let �� (�) for � = 1, 2, . . . , �
represent the observations over the �th sensing interval at
unused spectrum in dynamically changing environment with various CRs. Then the binary hypothesis test for primary
minimal interference to licensed (primary) communications. spectrum band user detection is formulated as
Therefore, reliable and swift spectrum sensing is a crucial {∑
�� +�−1 2
∣�� (�)∣ , ℋ0 ,
technical challenge for CR realization. �� (�) = ∑��=� �
� +�−1 2 (1)
Cooperative spectrum sensing (CSS) has been shown to �=�� ∣ℎ � (�)�(�) + �� (�)∣ , ℋ1 ,
increase sensing performances by exploiting diversities among where � is the number of samples over a sensing interval
multiple CRs [2], [3]. On the other hand, the presence of few and �� the time slot at which the �th sensing interval starts.
misbehaved CRs may significantly degrade the performance The signal �(�) transmitted by the primary user is distorted
of CSS [2]. In [4], [5], [6] the authors proposed methods to by the channel gain ℎ� (�), which is assumed constant during
account for such misbehaviors. However, the performance is at least one sensing interval, and is further corrupted by
highly dependent on the initial CSS state. That is, when there white Gaussian noise �� (�) ∼ �� (0, ��2 ). Without loss of
is already several misbehaved CRs in the initial phase, sensing generality �(�) and �� (�) are assumed to be independent.
performance can not be guaranteed. Since �� (�) in (1) is the sum of squares of � Gaussian
In this letter, we propose a reputation-based CSS through random variables, according to the central limit theorem, it
the assistance of trusted nodes in the network, to account asymptotically follows normal distribution [7, Eq. 7 and 8] if
for the fact that sensing performance of existing secure CSS � is large, e.g., � ≥ 10 in practice. Then we have
algorithms is sensitive to the correctness of the global decision. { (
� � ��2 , 2� ��4 ,
)
We categorize the reputation of each cooperating CR into ℋ0 ,
three states: discarded, pending and reliable. Initially, only �� (�) ∼ ( 2 4
) (2)
� (�� (�) + � )�� , 2(� + 2�� (�))�� , ℋ1 ,
the sensing information from trusted nodes is considered
2
reliable. Reputations of other CRs are in pending state, and where �� (�) = ∣ℎ� (�)∣ /��2 is the local signal-to-noise ratio
they are accumulated through a consistency check between (SNR) of the observed signal from primary users.
global and local sensing decisions. Only the ones exceeding By maximizing the probability of detection �� for a given
probability of false alarm �� , the optimal cooperative scheme
Manuscript received November 14, 2009. The associate editor coordinating
the review of this letter and approving it for publication was F. Jondral. is
�
K. Zeng is with the National Key Laboratory of Communications, Univer- ∑ ℋ1
sity of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610054, China Γ� (�) ≷ �� , (3)
(e-mail: zengkun@uestc.edu.cn). ℋ0
�=1
P. Pawe czak and D. Čabrić are with the Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA (e-mail: where
{przemek, danijela}@ee.ucla.edu). Pr (�� (�)∣ℋ1 )
Γ� (�) = ln , (4)
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LCOMM.2010.03.092240 Pr (�� (�)∣ℋ0 )
c 2010 IEEE
1089-7798/10$25.00 ⃝

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:547 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZENG et al.: REPUTATION-BASED COOPERATIVE SPECTRUM SENSING WITH TRUSTED NODES ASSISTANCE 227

∑�
denotes the log-likelihood ratio (LLR), �� = �=1 �� is where
the detection criterion threshold which satisfies required �� ,
�(�) = {�∣�� (�) ≥ �, � ∈ {1, 2, . . . , � }} (8)
and �� the local detection threshold of CR �. Finally we
assume that Gaussian noise at each CR is independently represents the set of reliable CRs at time � and reputation
and identically distributed while the average channel gains, weight is �� (�) = � (�� (� − 1)), which should satisfy for any
2
�[∣ℎ� (�)∣ ], are identical [6]. As a consequence, we have �� (� − 1), �� (�) ∈ (0, 1], and � (⋅) should be a discrete and
��2 = ��2 and �� = � for all �. Thus the detection criterion non-decreasing function of �� (� − 1). Obviously, there are
threshold in (3) becomes �� = � �. many functions in accordance with the above requirements.
For simplicity, we adopt the weighted function used in [4,
III. P ROPOSED R EPUTATION - BASED C OOPERATIVE Sec. IV-B] as
S PECTRUM S ENSING ��′ (�)
�� (�) = ∑ ′ , (9)
In this section we present two new secure CSS schemes. �� (�)
�
First, we present a general framework of our algorithm, and
later we expand it with trusted nodes selection process. where
�� (� − 1)
��′ (�) = . (10)
max(�� (� − 1))
A. Reputation-based CSS without Trusted Nodes Assistance
The principle of our proposed secure CSS scheme is to B. Reputation based CSS with Trusted Nodes Assistance
identify misbehaving CRs and null their falsified reporting In the scheme proposed above, we find that the sensing
data. In this way, our scheme is conducted in two successive performance is sensitive to the correctness of global decision,
stages: identification and measurement combining stage. as indicated in (5), since all CRs are assumed to be reliable
1) Identification Stage: In this stage, each CR is allocated initially. However, this is not a practical case in a hostile
a reputation value, which is related to the credibility of CR environment. On the other hand, in a CR network, it is
reporting data. When decision of one CR is consistent with the reasonable to assume that there are some trusted nodes, e.g.,
global network decision, its reputation value will be increased, access point, base station, cluster head, etc.
otherwise it will be decreased. Here, the reputation value for Intuitively, a more robust performance can be achieved
the �th CR at time � is updated as if, initially, those known reliable CRs are incorporated into
�� (�) = �� (� − 1) + (−1)�� (�)+�(�) , (5) cooperative sensing, and the global decision is made solely
from their reports. The remaining CRs are in pending state
where � (�) is the value representing the global decision, such that their reputations are accumulated but not taken into
which will be given in Section III-A2, and local decision �� (�) cooperation until their reputations exceed a predetermined
is calculated as trusted threshold. On the other hand, if their reputations are
{ lower than a predetermined discarded threshold, they will be
1, if Γ� (�) ≥ �,
�� (�) = (6) estimated as misbehaved CRs and discarded. Based on the
0, otherwise. above heuristic, we categorize the reputations of all CRs into
We also define a discarded threshold � to determine mis- three states:
behaved CR. When the reputation value is lower than �, a 1) reliable state, when �� (�) ≥ �� . The CRs in this state
misbehaved CR is identified. Initially, all CRs are treated are permitted to participate in cooperative sensing;
as reliable ones. The value of �� (0) = � + Δ, where Δ 2) discarded state, when �� (�) < �� . The CRs in this
is set in the following way. Primarily, it is likely that even state are treated as misbehaved CRs and forbidden from
a normal CR sends wrong sensing reports with a nonzero cooperation; and,
probability, due to the uncertainty of the sensing environment. 3) pending state, when �� ≤ �� (�) < �� . The sensing
This may cause the normal CR’s reputation value less than � results of CRs in this state are not taken into account in
initially, thus being mistaken as a misbehaved CR. To avoid cooperative sensing, but their reputation values are still
this Δ should not be very small. On the other hand, to keep being accumulated.
the scheme being sensitive to indeed incorrect reports from Consequently, the set of CRs who are permitted to partici-
misbehaved CRs, which means Δ is also not very large. pate in cooperative sensing is then defined as in (8) replacing
Here, we set Δ = 4, so that the probability of misjudgment, � with �� . Alike the initialization of the previous proposed
Pr (�� (Δ) ≤ �) < 2−Δ = 0.0625, is lower than 0.1, and the scheme without TNA in Section III-A, to avoid the events
related sensitivity for misbehaved CRs is satisfactory. of reputation state misjudgment while remain sensitive to
2) Measurement Combining Stage: Once identification detection of misbehaviors, we set Δ = �� −� 2 . Then the initial
�

is performed, measurement combining is then carried out, reputation value for the trusted node is ��∈�(�) (0) = �� + Δ,
whereby all the reliable CRs are included in cooperative and ��∈�(�)
¯ (0) = �� + Δ.
sensing. For such reliable CR, based on its corresponding
reputation, a weighted cooperative sensing is used. We have IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
⎧
We consider a centralized CR network with � = 50 CRs,
∑
⎨1, if �� (�)Γ� (�) ≥ �,
�(�) = �(�) (7) whereby there are �0 misbehaved CRs. QPSK signal with
⎩0, otherwise,
Pr(ℋ1 ) = 0.2 primary user is assumed. The number of

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:547 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
228 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 14, NO. 3, MARCH 2010

0.5 0.4 1 1
N trusted CRs N trusted CRs N N trusted CRs
0
N N trusted CRs N N0 trusted CRs Always Busy
0
0.4 Always Busy Always Free 0.8 CSS without TNA 0.8
CSS without TNA 0.3 CSS without TNA CSS with TNA
CSS with TNA CSS with TNA
0.3 0.6 0.6

d
Pf
Pf

f
0.2

P
P
0.2 0.4 0.4

N N trusted CRs
0.1 0
0.1 0.2 0.2 Always Free
CSS without TNA
CSS with TNA
0 0 0 0
0.05 0.025 0 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.025 0 0.025 0.05 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
λ λ N0/N (%) N0/N (%)

(a) (b) (a) (b)

Fig. 1. Probability of false alarm �� for CSS schemes in the network Fig. 3. Performance of the proposed robust detection schemes versus
containing 10% misbehaved CRs: (a) AB users, (b) AF users. percentage of misbehaved CRs: (a) AB users, (b) AF users.

1 1

0.95 0.95
all the CR except the trusted nodes are misbehaviors in the
network. Finally, the system’s �� versus the percentage of
AF users is presented in Fig. 3(b). The threshold � is fixed
Pd

0.9 0.9
P

N trusted CRs N trusted CRs

such that �� = 0.99 when no misbehaved CR are present.
N N0 trusted CRs N N0 trusted CRs
0.85
Always Busy
0.85
Always Free
We conclude that the CSS with TNA is more robust than CSS
CSS without TNA
CSS with TNA
CSS without TNA
CSS with TNA without TNA.
0.8 0.8
0.05 0.025 0 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.025 0 0.025 0.05
λ λ

(a) (b) V. C ONCLUSION

Fig. 2. Probability of detection �� for CSS schemes in the network
We have presented a secure CSS scheme based on repu-
containing 10% misbehaved CRs: (a) AB users, (b) AF users. tation accumulation to combat the adverse effects of misbe-
haved CRs. Considering the fact that the performance of this
reputation-based scheme is sensitive to the correctness of the
samples over a sensing interval is � = 30. The received global decision, we propose a new CSS scheme to alleviate
SNRs for each CR are all set identical, i.e. �� (�) = −16 dB. the effects of misbehaved CRs in the initial phase. Simulation
Two typical misbehaviors are considered: Always Busy (AB) results show the effectiveness of our proposed scheme.
and Always Free (AF) [2]. In our simulation, the LLR value
of AB user is set to 0.025 higher than the threshold, while the R EFERENCES
LLR value of AF user is 0.025 lower than the threshold. The [1] J. Mitola, “Cognitive radio architecture evolution,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97,
remaining parameters are � = 1, Δ = 4, �� = 1, and �� = 9. no. 4, pp. 626–641, Apr. 2009.
The number of trusted nodes in the CR network is �� = 5. [2] S. M. Mishra, A. Sahai, and R. W. Brodersen, “Cooperative sensing
among cognitive radios,” in Proc. IEEE ICC, Istanbul, Turkey, June 2006.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show the system’s �� and �� , respectively, [3] W. Zhang and K. B. Letaief, “Cooperative communications for cognitive
with the network in which 10% of the CRs, i.e., �0 = 5, radio networks,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 878–893, May 2009.
are AF or AB users. The performances with � and � − �0 [4] R. L. Chen, J. M. Park, and K. Bian, “Robust distributed spectrum sensing
in cognitive radio networks,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Phoenix, AZ,
trusted CRs are shown as a reference. Compared to the CR USA, Apr. 2008.
network without misbehaviors, the probability of false alarm [5] P. Kaligineedi, M. Khabbazian, and V. K. Bhargava, “Secure cooperative
and probability of detection becomes higher for AB user’s sensing techniques for cognitive radio systems,” in Proc. IEEE ICC,
Beijing, China, May 2008.
presence while the influence of AF users are opposite. Two [6] T. Zhao and Y. Zhao, “A new cooperative detection technique with
proposed schemes both demonstrate significant performance malicious user suppression,” in Proc. IEEE ICC, Dresden, Germany, EU,
gain and bring the sensing performance back to that of coop- June 2009.
[7] Z. Quan, S. Cui, and A. H. Sayed, “Optimal linear cooperation for
erative scheme removing the misbehaved CRs. This implies spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal
to us that they successfully identify the misbehaved CRs and Process., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 28–40, Feb. 2008.
nullify their negative influences.
Fig. 3 illustrates the sensing performance as the percentage
of different kinds of users in the sensing network. Fig. 3(a)
shows the system’s probability of false alarm versus the
percentage of AB users. The threshold � is fixed such that
�� = 0.01 when no misbehaved CR is present. Again
the performance with � − �0 trusted CRs is shown as a
reference. From the figure we can see that the schemes work
quiet well when the number of misbehaved CRs is small.
However, once the percentage approximately exceeds 20%,
the performance of the CSS without TNA severely degrades
due to the reason discussed in Section III-B, whereas the CSS
with TNA remains highly robust even at 90% of �0 /� , i.e.

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:547 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.