DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improving Physical-Layer Security for Full-duplex Radio aided Two-Way Relay Networks

  • Zhai, Shenghua (School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology) ;
  • An, Jianping (School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology)
  • Received : 2019.04.25
  • Accepted : 2019.07.08
  • Published : 2020.02.29

Abstract

The power allocation optimization problem is investigated for improving the physical-layer security in two-way relaying networks, where a full-duplex relay based half-jamming protocol (HJP-FDR) is considered. Specially, by introducing a power splitter factor, HJP-FDR divides the relay's power into two parts: one for forwarding the sources' signals, the other for jamming. An optimization problem for power split factor is first developed, which is proved to be concave and closed-form solution is achieved. Moreover, we formulate a power allocation problem to determine the sources' power subject to the total power constraint. Applying the achieved closed-form solutions to the above-mentioned problems, a two-stage strategy is proposed to implement the overall power allocation. Simulation results highlight the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm and indicate the necessity of optimal power allocation.

Keywords

1. Introduction 

Cooperative relays have recently been the subject of great interests among the research community owing to their abilities to achieve a broader coverage of wireless networks and obtain the diversity gain [1][2]. Depending on whether the relay broadcasts the two sources' overlapped signals, there are two types of cooperative relaying, i.e., one-way relay (OWR) [3] and two-way relay (TWR) [4]. Due to the half-duplex (HD) [5] mode, one bi-directional communication process costs four time slots for OWR. Fortunately, TWR is able to reduce the process cost to two time slots by allowing the two-way communication be performed in the same channel, simutaneously. Therefore, TWR can greatly improve the spectral efficiency [6]. Particularly, TWR based on amplify-and-forward (TWR-AF) protocol has attracted prominent attentions in many aspects due to its low-complexity in many ascepts, such as relay selection [7], performance evaluation [2] [8], and resource allocation [9].

However, wireless communication systems are also open to potential eavesdroppers because of the broadcasting characteristics of wireless channels. Therefore, physical-layer security (PLS) has become one of key issues for wireless communicatons and attracted great attentions [10][11]. Compared with traditional higher layers' cryptographic methods, PLS technologies protect the communications against eavesdroppers through the untilization of the physical characteristics of wireless channels. In [12], a joint relay and jammer selection in TWR-AF was investigated, where two or three intermediate nodes were selected to enhance PLS. It has been shown that cooperative jamming is able to achieve considerable performance gains compared with the non-jamming schemes. Following the study, [13] proposed a Stackelberg-game-based power allocation scheme to deal with the tradeoff between the friendly jammers and the source nodes. However, the jamming process may also degrade the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of legitimate nodes. To overcome this problem, the authors in [14][15] have indicated that: the information leakage mainly happened in phase one and the jamming process in phase two was not necessary. Particularly, to improve the system secrecy performance, [15] adopted a jammer to interfere with the eavesdroppers in the first time slot. In this way, the impact of jamming process on legitimate links is reduced.

To further reduce the negative impact of jamming process, full-duplex radio (FDR) has recently been introduced. FD allows the node to transmit and receive signals asynchronously over the same frequency band [17]-[21]. In [16], a half-jamming protocol based on FDR (HJP-FDR) was developed. Specially, instead of adopting additional jammer, the relay was responsible for the duties of both receiving and jamming by operating in FD mode in the first time slot. The relay can perfectly remove its own jamming signal by using the methods in [18], [22] during the second time slot. Therefore, the negative impact of jamming process can be eliminated. However, only equal power allocation was presented in [16], thus its performance improvement was heavily limited. Therefore, in this paper, we develop the optimization problem to choose properly the power splitter factor and source power allocation for HJP-FDR in TWR-AF. The contributions of our work can be summarized as follows:

• Power split factor: An optimization problem is developed to choose properly the power splitter factor for jamming. By simplifying the objective function, we have proved the problem is concave and derived its closed-form solution.

• Source power allocation: We formulate a power allocation problem to determine the sources' power subject to total power constraint. By replacing the exact capacity expressions with their upper bounds, the simplification of the objective function is given. Closed-form solution is then obtained.

• Two-stage strategy: It has been shown that the solution to the power splitter factor is independent with that of the source power allocation. Therefore, a two-stage strategy is finally presented to implement the joint optimization of source power and power splitter factor.

We organize the rest of our paper as follows. System model is firstly introduced in Section II. The optimal power allocation is developed in Section III. Simulation results and conclusion are given in Section IV and Section V respectively.

2. System Model 

This paper considers a wireless two-way relay network with four nodes: two sources A and B, one relay R and one eavesdropper E, as shown in Fig. 1. R helps the communications of A and B, while E attempts to intercept the private information. The relay can switch between HD mode and FD mode, while both source nodes operate in HD mode. Particularly, by introducing a power splitter factor p (), we divide the relay’s power, PR, into two parts: (1-p)PR is for forwarding the sources' signals, and pPR is for jamming. The detailed protocol, i.e., HJP-FDR [16], is illustrated by Fig. 1.

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. System model and illustration for HJP-FDR protocol.

Obviously, HJP-FDR does not employ the jamming process in the relay’s broadcasting time slot. This is because the information leakage mainly happened in phase one and the jamming process in phase two was not necessary [14] [15]. Particularly, the jamming process in HJP-FDR has no impact on the two sources, since R is able to eliminate its self-interference following the schemes in [18] [23]. Moreover, HJP-FDR does not require additional jamming node, which has greatly reduced the complexity of the whole system. 

Below, we first directly present the performance of the legitimate links and then derive in detail the performance of the wiretapped links. 

The instantaneous SNRs for links B→A and A→B can be given by [14

\(\Upsilon_{A}^{D}=\frac{(1-p) P_{R} P_{B} g_{A R} g_{B R}}{\left((1-p) P_{R}+P_{A}\right) g_{A R}+P_{B} g_{B R}}\)       (1)

\(\Upsilon_{B}^{D}=\frac{(1-p) P_{R} P_{A} g_{A R} g_{B R}}{\left((1-p) P_{R}+P_{B}\right) g_{B R}+P_{A} g_{A R}}\)      (2)

where PA, PB denote respectively the transmit power of A, B. gAR = |hAR|2/Nand gBR = |hBR|2/N0, in which hAR and hBR denote the channel gain of links A-R and B-R respectively, and N0 is the power spectral density of the noise. Then, the capacities of the desired channels are given by

\(C_{A}^{D}=\frac{1}{2} \log _{2}\left(1+\Upsilon_{A}^{D}\right),\)       (3)

\(C_{B}^{D}=\frac{1}{2} \log _{2}\left(1+\Upsilon_{B}^{D}\right).\)       (4)


For the wirtapped links, in phase one, R operates in FD mode and receives the sources' signals with power (1-p)PR, while it simultaneously broadcasts the jamming noise to E. The received signal at E in phase one can be written as

\(y_{E R}^{(1)}(t)=\sqrt{P_{A}} h_{A E} s_{A}(t)+\sqrt{P_{B}} h_{B E} s_{B}(t)+\sqrt{p P_{R}} h_{E R} s_{J}(t)+n_{1}(t)\)       (5)

where sA(t) and sB(t) denote respectively the signals transmitted by A and B with unit power. n1(t)∊CN(0, N0) is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at E, and sJ (t) is the jamming noise from R. The wiretapped SNRs from A and B in phase one are given by

\(\Upsilon_{A}^{E(1)}=\frac{P_{B} g_{B E}}{P_{A} g_{A E}+p P_{R} g_{E R}+1},\)       (6)

\(\Upsilon_{B}^{E(1)}=\frac{P_{A} g_{A E}}{P_{B} g_{B E}+p P_{R} g_{R E}+1}.\)       (7)

where gAE = |hAE|2/N0, gBE = |hBE|2/N0, hAEand hBE denote respectively the channel gain of links A-E and B-E.

In phase two, R first rebuilds and perfectly eliminates its self-interference, then forwards the signal with a variable gain by operating in HD mode. For the sake of mathematical tractability, we use a widely adopted approximation amplifying gain \(G=\sqrt{(1-p) P_{R} /\left(P_{A}\left|h_{A R}\right|^{2}+P_{B}\left|h_{B R}\right|^{2}\right)}\)[14], [24] by ignoring the noise statistic at the relay. It has been demonstrated that the relative error of this approximation is low even when SNR = 0 dB [25]. Thus, the received signal at E is given by

\(y_{R E}^{(2)}(t)=h_{R E} G\left(\sqrt{P_{A}} h_{A R} S_{A}(t)+\sqrt{P_{B}} h_{B R} S_{B}(t)+n_{2}(t)\right)+n_{3}(t)\)       (8)

where n2(t)∊CN(0,N0) and n3(t)∊CN(0,N0) denote respectively the AWGN at R and E. Then the wiretapped SNRs from A and B in the phase two can be written as

\(\Upsilon_{A}^{E(2)}=\frac{(1-p) P_{R} P_{B} g_{B R} g_{E R}}{(1-p) P_{R} P_{A} g_{E R} g_{A R}+E_{E R}}\)       (9)

\(\Upsilon_{B}^{E(2)}=\frac{(1-p) P_{R} P_{A} g_{A R} g_{E R}}{(1-p) P_{R} P_{B} g_{E R} g_{B R}+E_{E R}}\)       (10)

where EER = (1 - p)PRgER + PAgAR + PBgBR. Thus, the wiretapped rate from B and A to E can be written as 

\(C_{A}^{E}=\frac{1}{2} \log _{2}\left(1+\Upsilon_{A}^{E}\right),\)       (11)

\(C_{B}^{E}=\frac{1}{2} \log _{2}\left(1+\Upsilon_{B}^{E}\right),\)       (12)

where  \(\Upsilon_{i}^{E}=\Upsilon_{i}^{E(1)}+\Upsilon_{i}^{E(2)} \text { with } i \in\{A, B\}.\)

In summary, the secrecy rates for links B→A and A→B can be presented as 

\(C_{A}^{S}=C_{A}^{D}-C_{A}^{E},\)       (13)

\(C_{B}^{S}=C_{B}^{D}-C_{B}^{E}.\)       (14)

Then, the sum secrecy rate (SSR) can be presented as 

\(C^{S-s u m}=C_{A}^{S}+C_{B}^{S}.\)       (15)

3. Power Allocation 

3.1 Power Splitter Factor p 

The objective of this subsection is to choose properly the power splitter factor p. Specifically, we consider the following problem: 

P1: Optimal problem for p

\(\begin{array}{l} \max _{p} C^{S-s u m} \\ \text { s.t. } \quad 0 \leq p \leq 1 \end{array}\)       (16)

Since it is difficult to solve the problem in (16) straightforwardly, we suggest a suboptimal approach by approximating \(\Upsilon_{A}^{E}\) and \(\Upsilon_{B}^{E}\) as:

\(\Upsilon_{A}^{E} \approx \frac{P_{B} g_{B E}}{P_{A} g_{A E}+p P_{R} g_{E R}}+\frac{P_{B} g_{B R}}{P_{A} g_{A R}}\)       (17)

\(\Upsilon_{B}^{E} \approx \frac{P_{A} g_{A E}}{P_{B} g_{B E}+p P_{R} g_{E R}}+\frac{P_{A} g_{A R}}{P_{B} g_{B R}}\)      (18)

Then the problem can be represented as P2: 

P2: Suboptimal problem for p 

\(\max _{p} \frac{\frac{(1-p) P_{R} g_{A R} g_{B R}}{\left((1-p) P_{R}+P_{A}\right) g_{A R}+P_{B} g_{B R}}}{\frac{g_{B E}}{P_{A} g_{A E}+p P_{R} g_{E R}}+\frac{g_{B R}}{P_{A} g_{A R}}} \frac{(1-p) P_{R} g_{A R} g_{B R}}{P_{B} g_{B E}+p P_{R} g_{E R}}+\frac{g_{A R}}{P_{B} g_{B R}}\\ \text { s.t. } \quad 0 \leq p \leq 1\)       (19) 

The objective function of (19) is concave when . Therefore, there exists a unique global optimal solution for (19). The brief proof is given as follows.

Proof: For simplicity, we use some general symbols, such as a1-a5, b1-b5, to represent the unrelated component data in (19). Thus, the objective function of (19) can be simply denoted as 

\(\varphi_{1}(p) \times \varphi_{2}(p)=\frac{\frac{a_{1}}{1+a_{2}(1-p)}}{\frac{1}{a_{3}+a_{4} p}+a_{5}} \times \frac{\frac{b_{1}}{1+b_{2}(1-p)}}{\frac{1}{b_{3}+b_{4} p}+b_{5}}\)       (20)

We then can get what we wanted by analyzing Equ. (20). The second derivative of  ϕ1(p) can be given as

\(\begin{aligned} \varphi_{1}^{*}(p) &=-\frac{2 a_{1}}{\left(1+a_{5}\left(a_{4} p+a_{3}\right)\right)^{3}\left(1-p+a_{2}\right)^{3}} \times\left(a_{2}\left(a_{4} p+a_{3}\right)^{3} a_{5}^{2}+\left(a_{2}\left(a_{2}+1\right) a_{4}+a_{3}\right)\right.\\ &+\left(3 a_{2}\left(a_{2} / 3+p+1 / 3\right) a_{3} a_{4}+2 a_{2} a_{3}^{2}+\left(a_{2}^{2}+\xi(p) a_{2}+(1-p)^{3}\right) a_{4}^{2} a_{5}\right) \end{aligned}\)       (21)

where ξ(P)=3P2-3p+2 is a quadratic polynomial with one variable and it can be easily proved that . Therefore, ϕ1(p)<0 when 0≤p≤1. Similarly, we have ϕ2(p)<0 when. As a result, the objective function of (19) is a concave function. ■

By setting the derivative of the objective function to be zero, we can obtain the optimal solution as follows: 

\(\frac{1}{g_{E R} P_{R}} \operatorname{Root}\left(\omega_{1} p^{4}+\omega_{2} p^{3}+\omega_{3} p^{2}+\omega_{4} p+\omega_{5}\right)\)       (22)

where ω1, ω2, ..., ω5 are given in (23). Obviously, (22) is a 4th-order polynomial which has only one root within [0,1]. The roots of general polynomials of up to the 4th-order have closed-form expressions, e.g., Ferrari's solution and Euler's solution [26].

\(\left\{\begin{aligned} \omega_{1} &=2 g_{A R} g_{B R} \\ \omega_{2} &=3 P_{A} g_{A R}^{2} g_{B E}+4 g_{B R}\left(P_{A} g_{A E}+P_{B} g_{B E}\right) g_{A R}+3 P_{B} g_{B R}^{2} g_{A E} \\ \omega_{3} &=\left(2 P_{A}^{2} g_{A R} g_{B R}+6 P_{A} P_{B} g_{B R}^{2}\right) g_{A E}^{2}+\left(6 P_{A} P_{B} g_{B E}^{2}-P_{A} P_{R} g_{B E} g_{E R}\right) g_{A R}^{2}+2 P_{B}^{2} g_{A R} g_{B E}^{2} g_{B R} \\ &+\left(2 P_{A}^{2} g_{A R}^{2} g_{B E}+12 P_{A} P_{B} g_{A R} g_{B E} g_{B R}+2 P_{B}^{2} g_{B E} g_{B R}^{2}-P_{B} P_{R} g_{B R}^{2} g_{E R}\right) g_{A E} \\ \omega_{4}=& P_{B} P_{A}\left(3 P_{B} g_{A R}^{2} g_{B E}^{2}+\left(\left(4 P_{A} g_{A R}^{2}+7 P_{B} g_{A R} g_{B R}\right) g_{A E}-2 P_{R} g_{A R}^{2} g_{E R}\right) g_{B E}^{2}\right.\\ &\left.+\left(\left(7 P_{A} g_{A R}+4 P_{B} g_{B R}\right) g_{A E}-2 P_{R} g_{A R} g_{E R}\right) g_{A E} g_{B R} g_{B E}+g_{A E}^{2} g_{B R}^{2}\left(3 P_{A} g_{A E}-2 P_{R} g_{E R}\right)\right) \\ \omega_{5} &=2 P_{B}\left(P_{A} g_{B E}\left(P_{B} g_{B E}-P_{R} g_{E R} / 2\right) g_{A E}^{2}+P_{A} P_{B} g_{A R} g_{A E} g_{B E}^{2}-P_{B} P_{R} g_{A R} g_{E R} g_{B E}^{2} / 2\right) \\ & \cdot\left(g_{A R} g_{B E}+g_{B R} g_{A E}\right) P_{A} \end{aligned}\right.\)       (23)

3.2 Source Power Allocation

In this subsection, a power allocation optimization problem is developed for maximizing SSR subject to total power constraint PT. Specifically, we consider the following problem: P3: Optimal problem for source power 

P3: Optimal problem for source power

\(\begin{array}{ll} \max _{P_{A}, P_{B}, P_{R}} & C^{S-\text { sum }} \\ \text { s.t. } & P_{A}, P_{B}, P_{R} \geq 0 \\ & P_{A}+P_{B}+P_{R} \leq P_{T} \end{array}\)       (24)

Similarly, it is hard to achieve the optimal solution to the problem in (24), directly. We consider the simplification of the objective function by replacing the exact capacity expressions with their upper bounds as: 

\(\Upsilon_{A R}^{D}<(1-p) P_{R} g_{A R},\)       (25)

\(\Upsilon_{B R}^{D}<(1-p) P_{R} g_{B R},\)       (26)

\(\Upsilon_{A R}^{E}<\frac{P_{B} g_{B R}}{P_{A} g_{A R}},\)       (27)

\(\Upsilon_{B R}^{E}<\frac{P_{A} g_{A R}}{P_{B} g_{B R}}.\)       (28)

Through large amounts of numerical simulations, we have found that the value of PR is around Pr/2 when the problem (24) approach its optimal value. Therefore, to further simplify the problem, we set PR = Pr/2. Then, P3 can be written as P4. 

P4: Suboptimal problem for source power 

\(\begin{array}{l} \max _{P_{A}, P_{B}, P_{R}} \frac{1+(1-p) P_{T} g_{A R} / 2}{1+P_{B} g_{B R} / P_{A} g_{A R}} \cdot \frac{1+(1-p) P_{T} g_{B R} / 2}{1+P_{A} g_{A R} / P_{B} g_{B R}} \\ \text { s.t. } \quad P_{A}, P_{B}, P_{R} \geq 0 \\ \quad P_{A}+P_{B}+P_{R} \leq P_{T} \end{array}\)       (29)

The above problem is non-convex due to the non-convex objective function. However, we still will be able to find the solution to this problem by resorting to the KKT conditions. The Lagrangian function of P4 is presented as follows: 

\(\begin{array}{l} \zeta\left(P_{A}, P_{B}, \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{3}\right) \\ =\frac{1+(1-p) P_{T} g_{A R} / 2}{1+P_{B} g_{B R} / P_{A} g_{A R}} \cdot \frac{1+(1-p) P_{T} g_{B R} / 2}{1+P_{A} g_{A R} / P_{B} g_{B R}}-\lambda_{1} P_{A}-\lambda_{2} P_{B}+\lambda_{3}\left(P_{A}+P_{B}-P_{T} / 2\right) \end{array}.\)       (30)

\(\left\{\begin{array}{l} \frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial P_{A}}=\frac{g_{B R} g_{A R}\left(2+P_{T}(1-p) g_{B R}\right)\left(2-P_{T}(1-p) g_{A R}\right)\left(P_{A} g_{A R}-P_{B} g_{B R}\right) P_{B}}{4\left(P_{A} g_{A R}+P_{B} g_{B R}\right)^{3}}-\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{3}=0 \\ \frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial P_{B}}=\frac{g_{B R} g_{A R}\left(2+P_{T}(1-p) g_{B R}\right)\left(2+P_{T}(1-p) g_{A R}\right)\left(P_{A} g_{A R}-P_{B} g_{B R}\right) P_{A}}{4\left(P_{A} g_{A R}+P_{B} g_{B R}\right)^{3}}-\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{3}=0 \\ P_{A}+P_{B} \leq P_{T} / 2, \lambda_{3}\left(P_{A}+P_{B}-P_{T} / 2\right)=0 \\ \lambda_{1} P_{A}=0, \lambda_{2} P_{B}=0, P_{A}, P_{B}, \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{3} \geq 0 \end{array}\right..\)       (31)

Then, a unique optimal solution to P4 is achieved by solving the KKT conditions in (31): 

\(P_{A}^{*}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{g_{B R}}{g_{A R}+g_{B R}} P_{T},\)       (32)

\(P_{B}^{*}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{g_{A R}}{g_{A R}+g_{B R}} P_{T}.\)       (33)

From (33), we can find that the source power allocation is independent from p. Therefore, the overall power allocation can be simply implemented by the following two-stage strategy. 

• Step I: Allocate the power of the sources and relay according to (33). 

• Step II: Based on the power levels of each nodes, figure out the power splitter factor p according to (22). 

It is worth noting that our suboptimal design is very close to the optimal counterpart as later shown in simulations, although some approximations are adopted.

3.3 Power Allocation without Eavesdropper’s CSI 

In this subsection, we consider a more realistic case where the CSI of the eavesdropper is not available. From (32) and (33), we can observe that the source power allocation is independent from CSI of E. Therefore, the proposed source power allocation can be adopted directly. However, the power splitter factor, p, determined by the CSI of E, as shown in (22), which is invalid in this case. Thus, for simplicity, we set p=0.25 (as later shown in Fig. 7, p<=0.25 in most cases.). Finally, the power allocation for the case without eavesdropper’s CSI can be given by: 

\(\left\{\begin{array}{l} P_{A}^{*}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{g_{B R}}{g_{A R}+g_{B R}} P_{T} \\ P_{B}^{*}=\frac{1}{2} \frac{g_{A R}}{g_{A R}+g_{B R}} P_{T} \\ P_{R}^{*}=P_{T} / 2 \\ \rho=0.25 \end{array}\right.\)       (34)

4. Numerical Results

Computer simulations are performed to examine the performance of the proposed power allocation based on the simulation model as shown in Fig. 2. Specifically, the coordinate of node i is denoted by (xi, yi), where xi denotes horizontal coordinate and yi denotes vertical coordinate. Set yR=0.5, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0) and (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0). We consider Rician fading with parameter K = 3. Let the path loss coefficient. For the equal power allocation, PA =PB=PR=PT/3, p=0.5.

SSR is presented in Fig. 3 against xE under the equal power allocation (EPA) [16] and the proposed power allocation with PT=20dBm, (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-0.5~0.5, 0). Moreover, to further examine the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, the optimal SSR under numerical calculation is also presented. The optimal (Numerical) result here is obtained by using the computer to search the optimal set of {p, PR, PA, PB} from the entire feasible region. From Fig. 3, we can observe that the proposed power allocation has similar performance to the optimal counterpart and outperforms EPA. In this scenario, we can observe that SSR falls obviously when E is close to the sources.

Moreover, by setting PT=20dBm, (xR, yR) = (-0.5~0.5, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (0, 0), we compare SSR of the proposed power allocation with EPA against xR in Fig. 4. Similarly, the optimal SSR under numerical calculation is also presented. As shown in Fig. 4, similar to Fig. 3, the proposed power allocation has similar performance as the optimal counterpart and is well ahead of EPA. For EPA, SSR decreases rapidly when R locates closely to the sources. While for the proposed power allocation, SSR is still showing a high level, indicating the necessity of optimal power allocation.

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Simulation model.

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. SSR against dAE with PT=20dBm, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0) (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5), (xE, yE) = (-0.5~0.5, 0). 

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. SSR against dAR with PT=20dBm, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0), (xR, yR) = (-0.5~0.5, 0.5), (xE, yE) = (0, 0). 

Set (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-1~1, 0~2), that is, E traverses the two-dimensional area. SSRs of EPA and the proposed power allocation are plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 against the location of E, where the colors stand for different values of SSR. As can be seen from the two figures, the proposed power allocation has brought considerable performance gain compared with EPA for any locations E, highlighting the effectiveness of our design. 

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. SSR of EPA [16] against the location of E with PT=20dBm, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0), (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-1~1, 0~2) (different colors stand for different values of SSR). 

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0006.png 이미지

Fig. 6. SSR of the proposed power allocation against the location of E with PT=20dBm, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0), (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-1~1, 0~2). 

To present the impact of the location of E on the power of jamming, Fig. 7 plots the power splitter factor under the proposed power allocation against the location of E by using the same simulation parameter settings as Fig. 5. In Fig. 7, the colors stand for different values of p. As can be observed from Fig. 7, p increases, i.e., more power is allocated for jamming, when E locates closely to the sources. And the jamming power decreases when E locates in the middle between A and B, or close to the relay. 

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0007.png 이미지

Fig. 7. Power splitter factor under the proposed power allocation against the location of E with PT=20dBm, (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0), (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-1~1, 0~2).

To present the impact of PT on SSR, Fig. 8 plots SSR against PT with (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0) (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5), (xE, yE) = (0, 0). As shown in Fig. 8, the proposed power allocation is able to achieve non-negative when PT > 7.5dBm, while EPA requires PT > 9.5dBm. Secrecy performance is improved by 2dB with the increase of PT

E1KOBZ_2020_v14n2_562_f0008.png 이미지

Fig. 8. SSR against Pwith (xA, yA) = (-0.5, 0), (xB, yB) = (0.5, 0) (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5), (xE, yE) = (0, 0). 

Finally, we consider the case where CSI of E is not available. The SSR is presented in Fig. 9 against xE under EPA and the proposed power allocation in (34) with PT=20dBm, (xR, yR) = (0, 0.5) and (xE, yE) = (-0.5~0.5, 0). From Fig. 9, we can observe that the proposed power allocation still brings considerable performance gain compared with EPA in [16], even though CSI of E is not available. 

Fig. 9. SSR of EPA and the proposed power allocation in (34) without CSI of E. 

5. Conclusion

A two-stage power allocation strategy for HJP-FDR in TWR-AF is proposed to implement the joint optimization of source power and power splitter factor by using the fact that the solution to the power splitter factor is independent with that to source power allocation, which is derived by developing and solving the optimization problems for power split factor and source power allocation. Moreover, the case without CSI of E has also been taken into consideration. From simulations, we have shown that our proposed algorithm is very close to the optimal counterpart and outperforms equal power allocation, highlighting the necessity of optimal power allocation. It is important to note that the proposed scheme in this paper can also be applied to some specified networks, such as satellite communications where the satellite acts as the relay, multiple relay networks [28], cognitive radio networks [29], and 5G networks [30] [31]. The specific issue of signal synchronization should be addressed when using this method for satellite communications applications.

References

  1. Y. Shin, and S. J. Baek, "Cooperative buffer-aided relaying using full-duplex relays with flow control," IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1824-1838, Feb. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2018.2886753
  2. Y. Li, Y. Z. Li, X. Chu, Y. Ye, and H. Zhang, "Performance analysis of relay selection in cooperative NOMA networks," IEEE Commun. Letters, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 760-763, Apr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/lcomm.2019.2898409
  3. G. Kramer, M. Gastpar, and P. Gupta, "Cooperative strategies and capacity theorems for relay networks," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 3037-3063, Sep. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2005.853304
  4. C. S. Zhang, J. H. Ge, J. Li, Y. Rui, and M. Guizani, "A unified approach for calculating outage performance of two-way AF relaying over fading channels," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1218-1229, Mar. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2014.2329853
  5. B. Rankov and A. Wittneben, "Spectral efficiency protocols for half-duplex fading relay channels," IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 379-389, Feb. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2007.070213
  6. S. L. Zhang, C. S. Liew and P. P. Lam, "Hot topic: physical-layer network coding," in Proc. of ACM Mobicom, pp.358-365, 2006.
  7. K. Singh, M. Lin Ku and J. C. Lin, "Power allocation and relay selection in relay networks: A perturbation-based approach," IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1328-1332, Jul. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2017.2723928
  8. C. S. Zhang, J. H. Ge, J. Li, Y. Rui, and M. Guizani, "A unified approach for calculating outage performance of two-way AF relaying over fading channels," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1218-1229, Mar. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2014.2329853
  9. L. Lu, D. W. He, Q. Q. Xie, G. Y. Li, and X. X. Yu, "Graph-based path selection and power allocation for DF relay-aided transmission," IEEE Wireless Commun. Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 138-141, Feb. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/lwc.2017.2760878
  10. J. Zhu, Y. Zou, and B. Zheng, "Physical-layer security and reliability challenges for industrial wireless sensor networks," IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 5313-5320, Apr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2691003
  11. Y. Zou, "Physical-layer security for spectrum sharing systems," IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, pp. 1319-1329, Feb. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2016.2645200
  12. J. Chen, R. Zhang, L. Song, Z. Han, and B. Jiao, "Joint relay and jammer selection for secure two-way relay networks," IEEE Trans. on Inf. Forensics and Security, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 310-320, Feb. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2011.2166386
  13. F. Jiang, C. Zhu, J. Peng, W. Liu, Z. Zhu, and Y. He, "Joint relay and jammer selection and power control for physical layer security in two-way relay networks with imperfect CSI," Wireless Pers. Commun., vol. 85, no. 3, pp.841-862, Jun. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-2813-4
  14. C. S. Zhang, J. H. Ge, J. Li, F. K. Gong, and H. Y. Ding, "Complexity-aware relay selection for 5G large-scale secure two-way relay systems," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 5461-5465, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2016.2621126
  15. C. S. Zhang, and J. H. Ge, "Partial jamming for secure two-way relay systems without wiretap information: one >two," Wireless Pers. Commun., vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 4013-4024, Aug. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-4037-2
  16. C. Zhang, J. Ge, Z. Xia, and H. Wang, "A novel half-jamming protocol for secure two-way relay systems using a full-duplex jamming relay," in Proc. of 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), IEEE, pp. 786-790, 2017.
  17. Y. Hua, P. Liang, Y. Ma, A. C. Cirik, and Q. Gao, "A method for broadband full-duplex MIMO radio," IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 793-796, Dec. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2012.2221710
  18. W. Li, M. Ghogho, B. Chen, and C. Xiong, "Secure communication via sending artificial noise by the receiver: Outage secrecy capacity/region analysis," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1628-1631, Oct. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2012.081612.121344
  19. L. Chen, Q. P. Zhu, W. X. Meng, and Y. B. Hua, "Fast power allocation for secure communication with full-duplex radio," IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 14, pp. 3846-3861, Jul. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2017.2701318
  20. G. J. Chen, Y. Gong, P. Xiao, and J. A. Chambers, "Physical layer network security in the full-duplex relay system," IEEE Trans. on Info. Forensics and Security, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 574-583, Jan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2015.2390136
  21. B. Zheng, M. Wen, C.-X. Wang, X. Wang, F. Chen, J. Tang, F. Ji., "Secure NOMA based two-way relay networks using artificial noise and full duplex, " IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1426-1440, Jul. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsac.2018.2824624
  22. E. Shafie, A. Sultan, I. Krikidis, N. Al-Dhahir, and R. Hamila, "Achievable rates of buffer-aided full-duplex Gaussian relay channels," IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 23776-23791, Oct. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2764079
  23. C. S. Zhang, F. Jia, J. Ge, and F. Gong, "Security-reliability tradeoff for secure relaying systems with full-duplex radio, " IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 60862-60868, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2876446
  24. P. K. Upadhyay, and S. Prakriya, "Performance of analog network coding with asymmetric traffic requirements," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 647-649, Jun. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2011.041411.110388
  25. P. A. Anghel, and M. Kaveh, "Exact symbol error probability of a cooperative network in a Rayleigh-fading environment," IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 3, pp. 1416-1421, Sep. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2004.833431
  26. V. D. Waerden, and B. Leendert, The Galois theory: Equations of the second, third, and fourth degrees, Algebra, 1 (7th ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1991.
  27. S. Boyd, and L. Vandenberghe, "Convex optimization," Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
  28. F. Gong, G. Li , J. Ge ; J. Yuan, "Distributed concatenated recursive Alamouti-circulant STBC for two-way multi-relay networks," IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 64, no.8, pp.3262-3274, Aug. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOMM.2016.2589269
  29. X. Gao, P. Wang, D. Niyato, K. Yang, and J. An, "Auction-based time scheduling for backscatter-aided RF-powered cognitive radio networks," IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1684-1697, Mar. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/twc.2019.2895340
  30. K. Yang, N. Yang, N. Ye, M. Jia, Z. Gao, and R. Fan, "Non-orthogonal multiple access: achieving sustainable future radio access," IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 116-121, Feb. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2018.1800179
  31. J. An, K. Yang, J. Wu, N. Ye, S. Guo, and Z. Liao, "Achieving sustainable ultra-dense heterogeneous networks for 5G," IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 84-90, Dec. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2017.1700410