# Sidelobe Reduction in NC-OFDM-Based CRNs Using Differential Evolution-Assisted Generalized Sidelobe Canceller

Authors: Rashid Ahmed; Noor Gul; Saeed Ahmed; Muhammad Sajjad Khan; Su Min Kim; Junsu Kim
Journal: Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Noncontiguous orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (NC-OFDM) is considered a suitable candidate for the cognitive radio network (CRN) to accomplish efficient data transmission. The NC-OFDM allows secondary users (SUs) to access the primary user (PU) spectrum while being detected idle. However, interference may occur in the adjacent frequency bands of the PU due to sidelobes of the SU transmission. The use of cancellation carriers (CCs) and generalized sidelobe canceller (GSC) is a widely adopted technique to tackle the sidelobes. To this end, this paper presents a differential evolution- (DE-) based GSC (DE-GSC) scheme to suppress unwanted sidelobes. At first, in the DE-GSC1 scheme, the adaptive weight vector is calculated using the DE algorithm while considering the complete samples of the sidelobes for optimization. The optimized weights are then added with the original weights to reduce the sidelobe issue. Next, in the DE-GSC2 scheme, selected elements for the adaptive weight vector near the main NC-OFDM signal are computed using the DE to reduce the search space. The performance of the proposed methods in terms of power spectral density (PSD) is compared with some of the recent techniques employing five different scenarios. Simulation results in the presence of single and multiple spectral hole scenarios validate that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 methods result in enhanced suppression performance compared with the: original signal, simple CC, simple GSC, DE-based CC (DE-CC), and genetic algorithm- (GA-) based CC (GA-CC) schemes.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The radio spectrum demand is rising with the increase in the number of wireless devices and services. The spectrum estimation surveys show that most spectrum bands are underutilized most of the time [1]. A progressively adaptable spectrum managing approach is required to solve the spectrum underutilization problems. Several ideas regarding adaptive spectrum management exist such as dynamic sharing of the spectrum. Therefore, the administrative bodies have started reconsidering the static spectrum access to shift towards dynamic spectrum access.The cognitive radio network (CRN) allows secondary users (SUs) to opportunistically access spectrum resources using its detection, learning, and intelligence features [2]. The major problem in CRN occurs when a SU accesses a licensed band but fails to notice the existence of the primary user (PU), causing interference [3]. Hence, the responsibility of the interference management mostly depends on the SUs.In the interweave mode of CRN, SUs are allowed to opportunistically access the spectrum based on noninterference to the PUs [3–6]. To detect the occupancy of the PU spectrum, commonly used detection schemes adopted by the SUs are the generalized likelihood ratio test detector (GLRT), matched filter detector (MFD), feature detector, and energy detectors [7, 8]. Subsequent measures are required at the transmitter side to control the shape of the transmitted signal; therefore, both the SU and PU can have similar spectrum assets with low interference [6, 9].Noncontiguous orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (NC-OFDM) is considered the best candidate for CRN [10, 11]. The NC-OFDM transmits signals on narrowband channels reducing the effect of intercarrier interference (ICI) and intersymbol interference (ISI) [12]. It is a multicarrier system that splits the existing overall bandwidth into numerous narrow orthogonal channels/subcarriers. In parallel, NC-OFDM has some downsides due to the existence of the sidelobes that generate high out-of-band (OOB) radiations.To handle the OOB radiations issue, different strategies are suggested in the time and frequency domains. The time-domain techniques include adaptive symbol transmission [13], filtering [14], and windowing [15, 16], while the frequency-domain incorporates cancellation carrier (CC) insertion [17] and generalized sidelobe canceller (GSC). To reduce the sidelobe issues in the PU regions, the CC scheme employs extra subcarriers, known as CCs at the edges of the OFDM symbol. These CCs do not contribute to the data transmission; however, they consume the extra bandwidth. Therefore, the CCs are considered detrimental. On the contrary, extra subcarriers are not used in the GSC; rather the given NC-OFDM signal is passed through the upper and lower branches of the GSC to suppress the OOB radiations. The GSC is the simplest version of linearly constrained minimum variance (LCMV), where the constrained optimization problem is converted into an unconditional problem.Some of the schemes to reduce sidelobes power are the subcarrier weighting [18], advanced subcarrier weighting [19], efficient subcarrier weighting [20], insertion of modified CCs using heuristic techniques [9], peak to the average method of suppression constellation adjustment [21], and GSC [22]. The other methods in use are the additive signal method [23], extended active interference cancellation [24], efficient sidelobe suppression technique [25], minimization of sidelobe using modify GSC [26], a mongrel technique to reduce sidelobes [27], multiple generalized sidelobe technique for suppression of sidelobes [28], joint peak to average power ratio (PAPR) reduction technique [29], filter-based sidelobe reduction scheme [30], and hybrid PAPR method [31].Conventionally, GSC adjusts the weights of the adaptive weight vector using the numerical solution to suppress high OOB radiations. On the other hand, the CC techniques reduce available bandwidth opportunity for the SUs with the insertion of extra CCs. Contrary to the above-mentioned schemes, we employed the differential evolution (DE) to optimize the adaptive weight vector of the GSC as an alternative to the numerical solution to attain improved sidelobe suppression. Major contributions of this paper are listed below:(i)
The DE-based GSC (DE-GSC) scheme is suggested in the paper. We proposed two schemes: DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2. Both the proposed schemes, DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2, are modified versions of the simple GSC scheme, where the adaptive portion of the simple GSC is tuned using the DE to get maximum OOB suppression results(ii)
To reduce the sidelobe weights using the DE-GSC1, a considerably large set of values in the adaptive weight vector are optimized through the DE algorithm. Similarly, the DE-GSC2 reduces sidelobe issues in the NC-OFDM by optimizing some of the adaptive weight vector values near the main NC-OFDM signal(iii)
The effectiveness and reliability of the proposed schemes are compared with widely adopted existing schemes, like simple GSC, simple CCs, Brandes-based CCs (Brandes-CC), genetic algorithm- (GA-) based CCs (GA-CCs), and DE-based CCs (DE-CCs). Simulation results for the single and multiple white spaces in five different cases show improved sidelobe concealment performance by the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 as compared with the other schemesThe remaining paper is organized as follows. In Section2, the system model is discussed. Section 3 gives a detailed description of the proposed scheme. Simulation results are discussed in Section 4. The paper is concluded in Section 5.


## 2. System Model and Background

### 2.1. System Model

Consider thatK number of SUs is trying to access the PU spectrum in the interweaved mode. We assume that both the PU and the SUs are based on the NC-OFDM. Consider the spectrum band is divided into S subcarriers out of which Sd subcarriers are allocated to the dth SU, such that Sd≤S. These subcarriers are modulated with binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK). The baseband NC-OFDM signal for the dth SU in one symbol time-domain duration is
(1)xdt=∑n=rSd−1pn,dej2πfntIt,where xdt is the NC-OFDM signal of the dth SU, pn,d are the data modulated symbol of the dth SU on the nth subcarrier, r is any arbitrary subcarrier, fn define the subcarrier frequencies, and It is a rectangular function [32] that can be defined as
(2)It=1,Tgu≤t≤Ts,0,otherwise,where Tgu and Ts are the guard interval length and symbol duration, respectively. The Fourier transform of (1) is given as
(3)Xdf=∑n=rSd−1pn,ssincπf−fnT′,where sincx=sinπx/πx is the sinc function with symbol duration T′=Ts+Tgu. The sidelobe power in the frequency domain decays as a function 1/f2Sd in Figure 1 that results in extreme interference to the PU transmission.Figure 1
OFDM symbol with high sidelobes.


### 2.2. Generalized Sidelobe Canceler (GSC)

The input NC-OFDM signal passes through both the upper and the lower portions of the GSC in Figure2. The upper portion comprises of quiescent weight vector wq constructed by several constraints, to maintain the desired segment of the signal, termed fixed beamformer (FBF), while the lower portion comprises a blocking matrix B and an adaptive weight vector wa. The blocking matrix blocks desired segment of the signal and preserves the undesired segment of the signal as in Figure 1.Figure 2
Generalized sidelobe canceller (GSC): (a) block diagram of GSC; (b) equivalent block diagram of GSC.
(a)(b)The adaptive weight vectorwa then adjusts the weights of the undesired segments that result in the sidelobe reduction when the signals from the upper and the lower portions are subtracted.To evaluate the expression forwa, B, and wq, the NC-OFDM in (3) and Figure 1 is first one sampled into equally spaced C values and collected in vector v=v1v2⋯vCT, where each sample element represents NC-OFDM signal magnitude. This is made with an assumption that all NC-OFDM samples are uncorrelated, which are next passed through the GSC to get the output as
(4)Y=wHv,where w=w1w2⋯wCT is a vector with the size C×1, where H denotes Hermitian. The weight vector wH is determined using LCMV [33] that minimizes the output power using multiple linear constraints. The optimization problem of the LCMV is formulated as
(5)minwwHRvws.twHJ=gH,where Rv=EvvH=σ2I represents a correlation matrix, with C×C dimension, and g=11⋯1T is a gain vector with dimension N×1 consisting of desired gain associated with each steering vector. Similarly, I represents an identity matrix with C×C dimension, σ2 denotes the variance, and J shows the constraint matrix with the size C×N.After solving (5) using Lagrange’s multipliers, we get
(6)l=wHRvw+wHJ−gHλ+λHJHw−g,(7)∂∂wHwHRvw+wHJλ−gHλ+λHJHw−λHg=0,(8)w=−Rv−1Jλ,where λ is the Lagrange multiplier, ∂/∂wHw=0 and ∂/∂wHwH=1. Put (8) into the constraint equation wHJ=gH, we get
(9)−λHJHRv−1J=gH.For solvingλ, substitute (9) into (8)
(10)wH=gHJHRv−1J−1JHRv−1.TheN steering vectors of J matrix are specified as
(11)J=s1s2⋯sN,where N is the overall frequency in the desired portion of the signal, as in Figure 1. Similarly, si=s1s2⋯sCT is the ith steering vector that consists of C samples in the ith spectrum bearing C×1 dimensions.The employment of LCMV is to split a field withC×C dimension into the constraint subfield well-defined by the columns of JC×N the matrix and an orthogonal subfield denoted as B having dimension C×C−N(12)JHB=O,where O represents a null matrix with dimension N×C−N and B symbolizes a blocking matrix that blocks the desired portion of the NC-OFDM signal.TheB can be determined through singular value decomposition or QR factorization [34]. It is constructed, by first finding Po=I−Pc with Pc and Po representing matrix projection onto the constraint and orthogonal subfields with C×C dimension, formerly orthonormalizingPoand choosing the firstC−Ncolumns of the orthonormalized matrix to construct a blocking matrixB, having the property [33].
(13)BHB=I.The quiescent weight vectorwqH of the GSC is determined as
(14)wqH=gHJHJ−1JH.Similarly, the optimal value of the adaptive weight vector is achieved as(15)waoptH=wqHRvBBHRvB−1.Hence, the GSC outcomes in (4) yield
(16)Y=wq−BwaHv.Similarly, the output power of GSC is as(17)P=wq−BwaHRvwq−Bwa.The block diagram of GSC with its components is shown in Figure2.


## 2.1. System Model

Consider thatK number of SUs is trying to access the PU spectrum in the interweaved mode. We assume that both the PU and the SUs are based on the NC-OFDM. Consider the spectrum band is divided into S subcarriers out of which Sd subcarriers are allocated to the dth SU, such that Sd≤S. These subcarriers are modulated with binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK). The baseband NC-OFDM signal for the dth SU in one symbol time-domain duration is
(1)xdt=∑n=rSd−1pn,dej2πfntIt,where xdt is the NC-OFDM signal of the dth SU, pn,d are the data modulated symbol of the dth SU on the nth subcarrier, r is any arbitrary subcarrier, fn define the subcarrier frequencies, and It is a rectangular function [32] that can be defined as
(2)It=1,Tgu≤t≤Ts,0,otherwise,where Tgu and Ts are the guard interval length and symbol duration, respectively. The Fourier transform of (1) is given as
(3)Xdf=∑n=rSd−1pn,ssincπf−fnT′,where sincx=sinπx/πx is the sinc function with symbol duration T′=Ts+Tgu. The sidelobe power in the frequency domain decays as a function 1/f2Sd in Figure 1 that results in extreme interference to the PU transmission.Figure 1
OFDM symbol with high sidelobes.


## 2.2. Generalized Sidelobe Canceler (GSC)

The input NC-OFDM signal passes through both the upper and the lower portions of the GSC in Figure2. The upper portion comprises of quiescent weight vector wq constructed by several constraints, to maintain the desired segment of the signal, termed fixed beamformer (FBF), while the lower portion comprises a blocking matrix B and an adaptive weight vector wa. The blocking matrix blocks desired segment of the signal and preserves the undesired segment of the signal as in Figure 1.Figure 2
Generalized sidelobe canceller (GSC): (a) block diagram of GSC; (b) equivalent block diagram of GSC.
(a)(b)The adaptive weight vectorwa then adjusts the weights of the undesired segments that result in the sidelobe reduction when the signals from the upper and the lower portions are subtracted.To evaluate the expression forwa, B, and wq, the NC-OFDM in (3) and Figure 1 is first one sampled into equally spaced C values and collected in vector v=v1v2⋯vCT, where each sample element represents NC-OFDM signal magnitude. This is made with an assumption that all NC-OFDM samples are uncorrelated, which are next passed through the GSC to get the output as
(4)Y=wHv,where w=w1w2⋯wCT is a vector with the size C×1, where H denotes Hermitian. The weight vector wH is determined using LCMV [33] that minimizes the output power using multiple linear constraints. The optimization problem of the LCMV is formulated as
(5)minwwHRvws.twHJ=gH,where Rv=EvvH=σ2I represents a correlation matrix, with C×C dimension, and g=11⋯1T is a gain vector with dimension N×1 consisting of desired gain associated with each steering vector. Similarly, I represents an identity matrix with C×C dimension, σ2 denotes the variance, and J shows the constraint matrix with the size C×N.After solving (5) using Lagrange’s multipliers, we get
(6)l=wHRvw+wHJ−gHλ+λHJHw−g,(7)∂∂wHwHRvw+wHJλ−gHλ+λHJHw−λHg=0,(8)w=−Rv−1Jλ,where λ is the Lagrange multiplier, ∂/∂wHw=0 and ∂/∂wHwH=1. Put (8) into the constraint equation wHJ=gH, we get
(9)−λHJHRv−1J=gH.For solvingλ, substitute (9) into (8)
(10)wH=gHJHRv−1J−1JHRv−1.TheN steering vectors of J matrix are specified as
(11)J=s1s2⋯sN,where N is the overall frequency in the desired portion of the signal, as in Figure 1. Similarly, si=s1s2⋯sCT is the ith steering vector that consists of C samples in the ith spectrum bearing C×1 dimensions.The employment of LCMV is to split a field withC×C dimension into the constraint subfield well-defined by the columns of JC×N the matrix and an orthogonal subfield denoted as B having dimension C×C−N(12)JHB=O,where O represents a null matrix with dimension N×C−N and B symbolizes a blocking matrix that blocks the desired portion of the NC-OFDM signal.TheB can be determined through singular value decomposition or QR factorization [34]. It is constructed, by first finding Po=I−Pc with Pc and Po representing matrix projection onto the constraint and orthogonal subfields with C×C dimension, formerly orthonormalizingPoand choosing the firstC−Ncolumns of the orthonormalized matrix to construct a blocking matrixB, having the property [33].
(13)BHB=I.The quiescent weight vectorwqH of the GSC is determined as
(14)wqH=gHJHJ−1JH.Similarly, the optimal value of the adaptive weight vector is achieved as(15)waoptH=wqHRvBBHRvB−1.Hence, the GSC outcomes in (4) yield
(16)Y=wq−BwaHv.Similarly, the output power of GSC is as(17)P=wq−BwaHRvwq−Bwa.The block diagram of GSC with its components is shown in Figure2.


## 3. Proposed Sidelobe Cancelation Method

In this section, we present DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 as the proposed schemes for sidelobe reduction. The proposed schemes are the modified versions of the conventional GSC that will result in the reduction of sidelobes. In this paper, the optimization portion of GSC, i.e., the adaptive weight vector, is carried out using the DE algorithm.


### 3.1. Differential Evolution Based Weighting Method

In the proposed DE-GSC1 scheme, all elements of the adaptive weight vectorwa are optimized using DE. The elements of the adaptive weight vector are selected from both ends of the OFDM sidelobe. To optimize the performance of the proposed DE-GSC 1, the entire vector element from each sidelobe is considered for the reduction of OOB radiation, while in the DE-GSC2 some of the adaptive weight vector elements with high OOB radiation magnitudes near the main OFDM symbol in Figure 1 are determined using the DE algorithm. A total of eight sample elements from each sidelobe are collected for optimization in the DE-GSC2. These weights are the maximum and minimum weights from the sidelobes. The other elements of the adaptive weight vector in the DE-GSC2 are determined using the sidelobe decaying formula. The main steps involved in the DE algorithm to solve the given problem are discussed as follows.


#### 3.1.1. Step 1: Initialize Population

In the first step, the weight vectors to suppress the OOB radiations of the NC-OFDM symbol are initialized randomly withNp population members (candidate solutions) consisting of D total dimensions.
(18)ui,jG=h+randjhj−lj,i=1,2,⋯,Np,j=1,2,⋯,D.The vectorui,jG in (18) is the target vector, randj is a uniformly distributed random number between (0,1), hj and lj are the upper and lower bound limits of the jth decision parameter, respectively. Here, the dimension D is identical to the total number of elements in the adaptive weight vector. The fitness of each of these target vectors is determined in the form of sidelobe suppression, and the vector with minimum OOB radiations is selected.


#### 3.1.2. Step 2: Mutation

For each weight vector in the given population, three dissimilar random numbersb1, b2, and b3 are generated such that they are different from the running index as well. Now, the initial population in (18) and the random numbers b1, b2, and b3 are used to form a new population. The mutation results in the mutant or the donor vector as
(19)miG+1=ub1G+Fub2G−ub3G,i=1,2,3⋯,Np,b1≠b2≠b3≠i.Here,miG+1 is the mutant or mutation vector. The scaling factor F is the tuning parameter and is problem-dependent. It is carefully selected keeping the value of the decision parameter between lj and hj to finalize optimum weight vector with minimum sidelobe power. The scaling factor F is selected as 0.2 in the proposed schemes for better sidelobe suppression results. The difference employed in the mutation process in (19) forms the given algorithm as DE.


#### 3.1.3. Step 3: Crossover

The crossover is performed between donor and target vectors. The resultant crossover is formed as follows:(20)zi,jG+1=mi,jG+1,randj≤ξorj=randni,ui,jG,randj>ξorj≠randni,where randj∈0,1 is the uniformly distributed random number, while j is the element number of the candidate solution; i.e., j∈1,2,⋯,D and -randni is an integer, randomly selected from 1 to D. Similarly, zi,jG+1 is the trial vector, and ξ is the cross-over rate selected (0.9).


#### 3.1.4. Step 4: Selection

In this step, a comparison is made between the trial vectorzi,jG+1 and target vector uiG in terms of its fitness. The weight vector with an improved fitness function that shows better sidelobe reduction is selected for the next generation as
(21)uiG+1=ziG+1,fziG+1<fuiGuiG,fziG+1≥fuiG.The vectoruiG+1 is an offspring for the next generation. As the objective of the proposed work is to reduce sidelobe power, hence, it is considered a minimization problem. The sidelobe weights are optimized with DE after several iterations and subtracted from the original weight resulting in the sidelobes suppression as follows:
(22)f=us−u.In (22), us is the sidelobe original weights and u consists of the optimized weight vector using the DE algorithm. The block diagram of the DE-GSC is shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
Proposed DE-GSC.A pseudocode of the proposed algorithm that determines the adaptive weight vector of the GSC for reducing sidelobe power due to the SUs transmission is as follows:Pseudocode 1
(1)  Start Differential Evolution(2)t=1(3)  Initialize-populationut=uit,i=1,2,3⋯,N;(4)  While conditions are not satisfied(5)   Fori=1 to N do(6)    Randomly selectb1,b2,b3∈1,2,⋯N;(7)    Randomly selectδi∈1,⋯,n;.(8)   Forj=1 to n(9)mi,jt+1=ub1t+Fub2t−ub3t(10)b1≠b2≠b3≠i(11)  Ifrandj>ξorj≠randni(12)   zi,jt+1=mi,jt+1(13)  Else(14)zi,jt+1=ui,jt(15)  End if(16)  End For(17)  Iffzit+1<fuit(18)uit+1=zit+1(19)  Else(20)uit+1=uit(21)  End if(22)  End For(23)t=t+1(24) End While(25) End Differential Evolution


## 3.1. Differential Evolution Based Weighting Method

In the proposed DE-GSC1 scheme, all elements of the adaptive weight vectorwa are optimized using DE. The elements of the adaptive weight vector are selected from both ends of the OFDM sidelobe. To optimize the performance of the proposed DE-GSC 1, the entire vector element from each sidelobe is considered for the reduction of OOB radiation, while in the DE-GSC2 some of the adaptive weight vector elements with high OOB radiation magnitudes near the main OFDM symbol in Figure 1 are determined using the DE algorithm. A total of eight sample elements from each sidelobe are collected for optimization in the DE-GSC2. These weights are the maximum and minimum weights from the sidelobes. The other elements of the adaptive weight vector in the DE-GSC2 are determined using the sidelobe decaying formula. The main steps involved in the DE algorithm to solve the given problem are discussed as follows.


### 3.1.1. Step 1: Initialize Population

In the first step, the weight vectors to suppress the OOB radiations of the NC-OFDM symbol are initialized randomly withNp population members (candidate solutions) consisting of D total dimensions.
(18)ui,jG=h+randjhj−lj,i=1,2,⋯,Np,j=1,2,⋯,D.The vectorui,jG in (18) is the target vector, randj is a uniformly distributed random number between (0,1), hj and lj are the upper and lower bound limits of the jth decision parameter, respectively. Here, the dimension D is identical to the total number of elements in the adaptive weight vector. The fitness of each of these target vectors is determined in the form of sidelobe suppression, and the vector with minimum OOB radiations is selected.


### 3.1.2. Step 2: Mutation

For each weight vector in the given population, three dissimilar random numbersb1, b2, and b3 are generated such that they are different from the running index as well. Now, the initial population in (18) and the random numbers b1, b2, and b3 are used to form a new population. The mutation results in the mutant or the donor vector as
(19)miG+1=ub1G+Fub2G−ub3G,i=1,2,3⋯,Np,b1≠b2≠b3≠i.Here,miG+1 is the mutant or mutation vector. The scaling factor F is the tuning parameter and is problem-dependent. It is carefully selected keeping the value of the decision parameter between lj and hj to finalize optimum weight vector with minimum sidelobe power. The scaling factor F is selected as 0.2 in the proposed schemes for better sidelobe suppression results. The difference employed in the mutation process in (19) forms the given algorithm as DE.


### 3.1.3. Step 3: Crossover

The crossover is performed between donor and target vectors. The resultant crossover is formed as follows:(20)zi,jG+1=mi,jG+1,randj≤ξorj=randni,ui,jG,randj>ξorj≠randni,where randj∈0,1 is the uniformly distributed random number, while j is the element number of the candidate solution; i.e., j∈1,2,⋯,D and -randni is an integer, randomly selected from 1 to D. Similarly, zi,jG+1 is the trial vector, and ξ is the cross-over rate selected (0.9).


### 3.1.4. Step 4: Selection

In this step, a comparison is made between the trial vectorzi,jG+1 and target vector uiG in terms of its fitness. The weight vector with an improved fitness function that shows better sidelobe reduction is selected for the next generation as
(21)uiG+1=ziG+1,fziG+1<fuiGuiG,fziG+1≥fuiG.The vectoruiG+1 is an offspring for the next generation. As the objective of the proposed work is to reduce sidelobe power, hence, it is considered a minimization problem. The sidelobe weights are optimized with DE after several iterations and subtracted from the original weight resulting in the sidelobes suppression as follows:
(22)f=us−u.In (22), us is the sidelobe original weights and u consists of the optimized weight vector using the DE algorithm. The block diagram of the DE-GSC is shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
Proposed DE-GSC.A pseudocode of the proposed algorithm that determines the adaptive weight vector of the GSC for reducing sidelobe power due to the SUs transmission is as follows:Pseudocode 1
(1)  Start Differential Evolution(2)t=1(3)  Initialize-populationut=uit,i=1,2,3⋯,N;(4)  While conditions are not satisfied(5)   Fori=1 to N do(6)    Randomly selectb1,b2,b3∈1,2,⋯N;(7)    Randomly selectδi∈1,⋯,n;.(8)   Forj=1 to n(9)mi,jt+1=ub1t+Fub2t−ub3t(10)b1≠b2≠b3≠i(11)  Ifrandj>ξorj≠randni(12)   zi,jt+1=mi,jt+1(13)  Else(14)zi,jt+1=ui,jt(15)  End if(16)  End For(17)  Iffzit+1<fuit(18)uit+1=zit+1(19)  Else(20)uit+1=uit(21)  End if(22)  End For(23)t=t+1(24) End While(25) End Differential Evolution


## 3.1.1. Step 1: Initialize Population

In the first step, the weight vectors to suppress the OOB radiations of the NC-OFDM symbol are initialized randomly withNp population members (candidate solutions) consisting of D total dimensions.
(18)ui,jG=h+randjhj−lj,i=1,2,⋯,Np,j=1,2,⋯,D.The vectorui,jG in (18) is the target vector, randj is a uniformly distributed random number between (0,1), hj and lj are the upper and lower bound limits of the jth decision parameter, respectively. Here, the dimension D is identical to the total number of elements in the adaptive weight vector. The fitness of each of these target vectors is determined in the form of sidelobe suppression, and the vector with minimum OOB radiations is selected.


## 3.1.2. Step 2: Mutation

For each weight vector in the given population, three dissimilar random numbersb1, b2, and b3 are generated such that they are different from the running index as well. Now, the initial population in (18) and the random numbers b1, b2, and b3 are used to form a new population. The mutation results in the mutant or the donor vector as
(19)miG+1=ub1G+Fub2G−ub3G,i=1,2,3⋯,Np,b1≠b2≠b3≠i.Here,miG+1 is the mutant or mutation vector. The scaling factor F is the tuning parameter and is problem-dependent. It is carefully selected keeping the value of the decision parameter between lj and hj to finalize optimum weight vector with minimum sidelobe power. The scaling factor F is selected as 0.2 in the proposed schemes for better sidelobe suppression results. The difference employed in the mutation process in (19) forms the given algorithm as DE.


## 3.1.3. Step 3: Crossover

The crossover is performed between donor and target vectors. The resultant crossover is formed as follows:(20)zi,jG+1=mi,jG+1,randj≤ξorj=randni,ui,jG,randj>ξorj≠randni,where randj∈0,1 is the uniformly distributed random number, while j is the element number of the candidate solution; i.e., j∈1,2,⋯,D and -randni is an integer, randomly selected from 1 to D. Similarly, zi,jG+1 is the trial vector, and ξ is the cross-over rate selected (0.9).


## 3.1.4. Step 4: Selection

In this step, a comparison is made between the trial vectorzi,jG+1 and target vector uiG in terms of its fitness. The weight vector with an improved fitness function that shows better sidelobe reduction is selected for the next generation as
(21)uiG+1=ziG+1,fziG+1<fuiGuiG,fziG+1≥fuiG.The vectoruiG+1 is an offspring for the next generation. As the objective of the proposed work is to reduce sidelobe power, hence, it is considered a minimization problem. The sidelobe weights are optimized with DE after several iterations and subtracted from the original weight resulting in the sidelobes suppression as follows:
(22)f=us−u.In (22), us is the sidelobe original weights and u consists of the optimized weight vector using the DE algorithm. The block diagram of the DE-GSC is shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
Proposed DE-GSC.A pseudocode of the proposed algorithm that determines the adaptive weight vector of the GSC for reducing sidelobe power due to the SUs transmission is as follows:Pseudocode 1
(1)  Start Differential Evolution(2)t=1(3)  Initialize-populationut=uit,i=1,2,3⋯,N;(4)  While conditions are not satisfied(5)   Fori=1 to N do(6)    Randomly selectb1,b2,b3∈1,2,⋯N;(7)    Randomly selectδi∈1,⋯,n;.(8)   Forj=1 to n(9)mi,jt+1=ub1t+Fub2t−ub3t(10)b1≠b2≠b3≠i(11)  Ifrandj>ξorj≠randni(12)   zi,jt+1=mi,jt+1(13)  Else(14)zi,jt+1=ui,jt(15)  End if(16)  End For(17)  Iffzit+1<fuit(18)uit+1=zit+1(19)  Else(20)uit+1=uit(21)  End if(22)  End For(23)t=t+1(24) End While(25) End Differential Evolution


## 4. Numerical Results and Discussions

The simulation results are drawn to compare the performance of the proposed and existing schemes in sidelobe concealments of the NC-OFDM symbol. This section discusses five different cases, i.e., one spectral hole, multiple spectral holes, SUs with equal bandwidth distribution, PUs with equal bandwidth distribution, and PUs and SUs with unequal bandwidth distribution as in Table1. The DE algorithm performance is analyzed with a population size of 100 with a total of 800 iterations and random selection of the base vector. The scaling factor is tuned at 0.2 for local minimum. The crossover rate is binomial and fixed as 0.9. The total number of cancellation carriers in the CC technique is 2. Simulation results of the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 along with simple GSC, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs are shown in the form of normalized power spectral density (PSD) in Figures 4–8.Table 1
Simulation parameters.
ParameterCase 1Case 2Case 3Case 4Case 5Hole availabilityOneFour holes with equal SU and PU regionsFour holes with equal SUs regionsFour holes with equal PU regionsFour holes with unequal PUs and SUs regionsPopulation size100100100100100Iterations800800800800800Scaling factor0.20.20.20.20.2Subcarriers in each hole16161635, 15, 40, 2045, 20, 25, 30Extra subcarriers in the CC technique22222Figure 4
PSD of the original signal, simple GSC, DE-GSC2, DE-GSC1, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in case 1.Figure 5
PSD of the original signal, simple GSC, DE-GSC2, DE-GSC1, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in case 2.Figure 6
PSD of the original signal, simple GSC, DE-GSC2, DE-GSC1, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in case 3.Figure 7
PSD of the original signal, simple GSC, DE-GSC2, DE-GSC1, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in case 4.Figure 8
PSD of the original signal, simple GSC, DE-GSC2, DE-GSC1, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in case 5.


### 4.1. Case 1: Single White Space and Two Equal PU Bands

In the first case, three subbands are considered with single whitespace available for the SUs. In Figure4, regions (i) and (iii) are available for the PU, whereas region (ii) is occupied by the SUs dynamically. A total of 16 subcarriers is considered in this case that is further modulated with the BPSK modulation. The PSD of the NC-OFDM signal on all its subcarriers is normalized to 1. The results are compared with some existing techniques such as (1) CCs on NC-OFDM signal for clampdown of sidelobes [17], (2) optimized CCs using DE algorithm with GA [9], and (3) sidelobe suppression using simple GSC in [22]. Figure 4 shows that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 can effectively reduce unwanted sidelobes in PU regions (i) and (iii) as compared with the original signal, simple GSC, Brandes-CC, DE-CC, and GA-CC techniques.A comparison of the proposed and other schemes is further elaborated in Table2, which reveals the sidelobes’ power in the PU regions. The results in Figure 4 and Table 2 show that the original signal has a sidelobe power of -28 dB and -27 dB in regions (i) and (iii). It is clear from Table 2 that the GSC scheme reduces sidelobes’ power in both regions to -131 dB and -132 dB. Similarly, the Brandes-CC results show a reduction in the sidelobes’ power in regions (i) and (iii) to -48 dB each. Sidelobe power in the GA-CCs is lowered to -56 dB in region (i) and -55 dB in region (iii), while the DE-CCs further reduce that to -64 dB in region (i) and -66 dB in region (iii). The sidelobe power minimization ability is almost similar to the traditional Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in regions (i) and (iii). A significant reduction in the sidelobes’ power is observable when the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes are practiced in the given scenario. The results obtained by the proposed DE-GSC1 are -175 dB in region (i) and -173 dB in region (iii). Similarly, the proposed DE-GSC2 reduces sidelobes’ power to -153 dB in region (i) and -155 dB in the region (iii). Hence, the proposed schemes can reduce sidelobes’ powers significantly as compared with simple GSC, DE-CC, GA-CC, and Brandes-CC techniques.Table 2
Sidelobe power in case 1.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiiOriginal signal-28 dB-27 dBSimple GSC-132 dB-131 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-48 dBGA-CCs-56 dB-55 dBDE-CCs-64 dB-66 dBDE-GSC1-175 dB-173 dBDE-GSC2-153 dB-155 dB


### 4.2. Case 2: Four Equal White Spaces and Five Equal PU Bands

In this case, the spectrum is divided into multiple subbands with four white spaces for the SUs and five PU bands. The available bandwidth is distributed between PUs and SUs, as follows: spaces (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are available for the PU, whereas regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are occupied by SUs. The total number of subcarriers used by the SUs in case 2 is 16 which are modulated using the BPSK modulation. Figure5 shows that the DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 considerably reduce the sidelobe power in PU regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) as compared with the simple GSC, DE-CC, GA-CC, and Brandes-CC techniques.Table3 shows the numerical values of the resultant sidelobes power in five PU regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix). These results show that the original signal has an average sidelobe power of -24.8 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -48.8 dB. The average sidelobe results of the GA-CCs and DE-CCs are -64.8db and -52.2 dB, while the simple GSC average power is -134.6 dB. Similarly, the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes can reduce sidelobe power to an average of -165.4 dB and -159.8 dB in these regions.Table 3
Sidelobe power in case 2.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-26 dB-23 dB-23 dB-26 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-130 dB-135 dB-136 dB-136 dB-136 dBCC-Brandes-48 dB-49 dB-49 dB-49 dB-49 dBCC-GA-56 dB-54 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBCC-DE-64 dB-65 dB-65 dB-65 dB-65 dBDE-GSC1-170 dB-168 dB-164 dB-162 dB-163 dBDE-GSC2-155 dB-165 dB-162 dB-155 dB-162 dB


### 4.3. Case 3: Four Equal White Spaces and Five Unequal PU Bands

In the third case, the spectrum is divided into multiple subbands. The bandgap of PUs in this case is unequal, i.e., regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix), whereas SU regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are of equal bandwidth. The total subcarriers utilized at the SUs, in this case, are 16. BPSK modulation is followed to modulate these subcarriers. In Figure6 and Table 4, the comparison between the proposed and existing schemes is shown. The results obtained for the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 have the lowest sidelobe power among all the other schemes in the case of unequal spectrum regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix).Table 4
Sidelobe power in case 3.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-32 dB-29 dB-28 dB-27 dB-28 dBSimple GSC-130 dB-132 dB-134 dB-135 dB-136 dBBrandes-CCs-40 dB-42 dB-43 dB-44 dB-45 dBGA-CCs-50 dB-52 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBDE-CCs-51 dB-53 dB-52 dB-53 dB-54 dBDE-GSC1-180 dB-175 dB-178 dB-179 dB-177 dBDE-GSC2-160 dB-158 dB-161 dB-160 dB-157 dBTable4 shows numerical results of the sidelobe powers in case 3 for the proposed and other schemes. It is noticeable that the proposed DE-GSC1 while reducing sidelobe power is the most suitable scheme under unequal band gaps occupied by the PU. It is clear from Table 4 that the original signal has an average sidelobe power of -28.8 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -42.8 dB. The DE-CC and GA-CC average suppression results are -52.6 dB and -50.6 dB, while the simple GSC average suppression results are -133.4 dB. The DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 average suppression results in the PU regions are -177.8 dB and -159.2 dB.


### 4.4. Case 4: Four Unequal White Spaces and Five Equal PU Bands

In this case, the SUs have unequal band gap distribution, while the PUs have an equal band gap distribution. Here, regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are occupied by SU as illustrated in Figure7, and regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are occupied by PUs. The total subcarriers used at the SU’s regions are 35, 15, 40, and 20, respectively. The results in Figure 7 show that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 efficiently reduce sidelobes’ powers in the PU equal regions, i.e., (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix).The original signal in Table5 has the average sidelobe power of -25.2 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -47.4 dB. The GA-CCs and DE-CCs can suppress more and reduce sidelobe power to an average result of -53.8 dB and -64.2 dB. Similarly, the simple GSC suppression results are -136.2 dB, while the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes have -164.6 dB and -176.4 dB on average.Table 5
Sidelobe power in case 4.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-26 dB-25 dB-24 dB-25 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-136 dB-137 dB-138 dB-133 dB-137 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-48 dB-47 dB-46 dB-48 dBGA-CCs-56 dB-54 dB-53B-53 dB-53 dBDE-CCs-64 dB-65 dB-62 dB-64 dB-66 dBDE-GSC1-178 dB-177 dB-176 dB-175 dB-176 dBDE-GSC2-165 dB-163 dB-165 dB-166 dB-164 dB


### 4.5. Case 5: Four Unequal White Spaces and Five Unequal PU Bands

A multiple subband with unequal SUs and PUs bandgap allocation is discussed in case 5. Unequal bandgap regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are allotted to the SUs. However, regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are occupied by the PUs. The total numbers of subcarriers at the SUs are 45, 20, 25, and 30, respectively.Figure8 shows that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 have better sidelobe reduction as compared with the simple GSC, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs. The numerical results of the sidelobe power are shown in Table 6. It is clear from the results that the original signal average sidelobe power is -25 dB which is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -47.2 dB. The GA-CC and DE-CC average suppression results are -50.6 dB and -65.6 dB. The simple GSC results in better performance than the CC techniques while achieving an average of -134 dB. Both the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 dominate the schemes with better average suppression results of -175.6 dB and -160.8 dB.Table 6
Sidelobe power in case 5.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-24 dB-26 dB-23 dB-26 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-136 dB-135 dB-136 dB-130 dB-133 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-47 dB-45 dB-47 dB-49 dBGA-CCs-52 dB-50 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBDE-CCs-66 dB-65 dB-67 dB-66 dB-64 dBDE-GSC1-179 dB-178 dB-176 dB-172 dB-173 dBDE-GSC2-160 dB-161 dB-162 dB-159 dB-162 dBHence, it can be concluded from the above comparison that both the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes performed better than the simple GSC, GA-CCs, DE-CCs, and Brandes-CCs in various scenarios and produce high accuracy to reduce sidelobe power in the PU locations.


## 4.1. Case 1: Single White Space and Two Equal PU Bands

In the first case, three subbands are considered with single whitespace available for the SUs. In Figure4, regions (i) and (iii) are available for the PU, whereas region (ii) is occupied by the SUs dynamically. A total of 16 subcarriers is considered in this case that is further modulated with the BPSK modulation. The PSD of the NC-OFDM signal on all its subcarriers is normalized to 1. The results are compared with some existing techniques such as (1) CCs on NC-OFDM signal for clampdown of sidelobes [17], (2) optimized CCs using DE algorithm with GA [9], and (3) sidelobe suppression using simple GSC in [22]. Figure 4 shows that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 can effectively reduce unwanted sidelobes in PU regions (i) and (iii) as compared with the original signal, simple GSC, Brandes-CC, DE-CC, and GA-CC techniques.A comparison of the proposed and other schemes is further elaborated in Table2, which reveals the sidelobes’ power in the PU regions. The results in Figure 4 and Table 2 show that the original signal has a sidelobe power of -28 dB and -27 dB in regions (i) and (iii). It is clear from Table 2 that the GSC scheme reduces sidelobes’ power in both regions to -131 dB and -132 dB. Similarly, the Brandes-CC results show a reduction in the sidelobes’ power in regions (i) and (iii) to -48 dB each. Sidelobe power in the GA-CCs is lowered to -56 dB in region (i) and -55 dB in region (iii), while the DE-CCs further reduce that to -64 dB in region (i) and -66 dB in region (iii). The sidelobe power minimization ability is almost similar to the traditional Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs in regions (i) and (iii). A significant reduction in the sidelobes’ power is observable when the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes are practiced in the given scenario. The results obtained by the proposed DE-GSC1 are -175 dB in region (i) and -173 dB in region (iii). Similarly, the proposed DE-GSC2 reduces sidelobes’ power to -153 dB in region (i) and -155 dB in the region (iii). Hence, the proposed schemes can reduce sidelobes’ powers significantly as compared with simple GSC, DE-CC, GA-CC, and Brandes-CC techniques.Table 2
Sidelobe power in case 1.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiiOriginal signal-28 dB-27 dBSimple GSC-132 dB-131 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-48 dBGA-CCs-56 dB-55 dBDE-CCs-64 dB-66 dBDE-GSC1-175 dB-173 dBDE-GSC2-153 dB-155 dB


## 4.2. Case 2: Four Equal White Spaces and Five Equal PU Bands

In this case, the spectrum is divided into multiple subbands with four white spaces for the SUs and five PU bands. The available bandwidth is distributed between PUs and SUs, as follows: spaces (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are available for the PU, whereas regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are occupied by SUs. The total number of subcarriers used by the SUs in case 2 is 16 which are modulated using the BPSK modulation. Figure5 shows that the DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 considerably reduce the sidelobe power in PU regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) as compared with the simple GSC, DE-CC, GA-CC, and Brandes-CC techniques.Table3 shows the numerical values of the resultant sidelobes power in five PU regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix). These results show that the original signal has an average sidelobe power of -24.8 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -48.8 dB. The average sidelobe results of the GA-CCs and DE-CCs are -64.8db and -52.2 dB, while the simple GSC average power is -134.6 dB. Similarly, the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes can reduce sidelobe power to an average of -165.4 dB and -159.8 dB in these regions.Table 3
Sidelobe power in case 2.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-26 dB-23 dB-23 dB-26 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-130 dB-135 dB-136 dB-136 dB-136 dBCC-Brandes-48 dB-49 dB-49 dB-49 dB-49 dBCC-GA-56 dB-54 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBCC-DE-64 dB-65 dB-65 dB-65 dB-65 dBDE-GSC1-170 dB-168 dB-164 dB-162 dB-163 dBDE-GSC2-155 dB-165 dB-162 dB-155 dB-162 dB


## 4.3. Case 3: Four Equal White Spaces and Five Unequal PU Bands

In the third case, the spectrum is divided into multiple subbands. The bandgap of PUs in this case is unequal, i.e., regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix), whereas SU regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are of equal bandwidth. The total subcarriers utilized at the SUs, in this case, are 16. BPSK modulation is followed to modulate these subcarriers. In Figure6 and Table 4, the comparison between the proposed and existing schemes is shown. The results obtained for the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 have the lowest sidelobe power among all the other schemes in the case of unequal spectrum regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix).Table 4
Sidelobe power in case 3.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-32 dB-29 dB-28 dB-27 dB-28 dBSimple GSC-130 dB-132 dB-134 dB-135 dB-136 dBBrandes-CCs-40 dB-42 dB-43 dB-44 dB-45 dBGA-CCs-50 dB-52 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBDE-CCs-51 dB-53 dB-52 dB-53 dB-54 dBDE-GSC1-180 dB-175 dB-178 dB-179 dB-177 dBDE-GSC2-160 dB-158 dB-161 dB-160 dB-157 dBTable4 shows numerical results of the sidelobe powers in case 3 for the proposed and other schemes. It is noticeable that the proposed DE-GSC1 while reducing sidelobe power is the most suitable scheme under unequal band gaps occupied by the PU. It is clear from Table 4 that the original signal has an average sidelobe power of -28.8 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -42.8 dB. The DE-CC and GA-CC average suppression results are -52.6 dB and -50.6 dB, while the simple GSC average suppression results are -133.4 dB. The DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 average suppression results in the PU regions are -177.8 dB and -159.2 dB.


## 4.4. Case 4: Four Unequal White Spaces and Five Equal PU Bands

In this case, the SUs have unequal band gap distribution, while the PUs have an equal band gap distribution. Here, regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are occupied by SU as illustrated in Figure7, and regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are occupied by PUs. The total subcarriers used at the SU’s regions are 35, 15, 40, and 20, respectively. The results in Figure 7 show that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 efficiently reduce sidelobes’ powers in the PU equal regions, i.e., (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix).The original signal in Table5 has the average sidelobe power of -25.2 dB that is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -47.4 dB. The GA-CCs and DE-CCs can suppress more and reduce sidelobe power to an average result of -53.8 dB and -64.2 dB. Similarly, the simple GSC suppression results are -136.2 dB, while the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes have -164.6 dB and -176.4 dB on average.Table 5
Sidelobe power in case 4.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-26 dB-25 dB-24 dB-25 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-136 dB-137 dB-138 dB-133 dB-137 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-48 dB-47 dB-46 dB-48 dBGA-CCs-56 dB-54 dB-53B-53 dB-53 dBDE-CCs-64 dB-65 dB-62 dB-64 dB-66 dBDE-GSC1-178 dB-177 dB-176 dB-175 dB-176 dBDE-GSC2-165 dB-163 dB-165 dB-166 dB-164 dB


## 4.5. Case 5: Four Unequal White Spaces and Five Unequal PU Bands

A multiple subband with unequal SUs and PUs bandgap allocation is discussed in case 5. Unequal bandgap regions (ii), (iv), (vi), and (viii) are allotted to the SUs. However, regions (i), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) are occupied by the PUs. The total numbers of subcarriers at the SUs are 45, 20, 25, and 30, respectively.Figure8 shows that the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 have better sidelobe reduction as compared with the simple GSC, Brandes-CCs, GA-CCs, and DE-CCs. The numerical results of the sidelobe power are shown in Table 6. It is clear from the results that the original signal average sidelobe power is -25 dB which is reduced by the Brandes-CCs to an average of -47.2 dB. The GA-CC and DE-CC average suppression results are -50.6 dB and -65.6 dB. The simple GSC results in better performance than the CC techniques while achieving an average of -134 dB. Both the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 dominate the schemes with better average suppression results of -175.6 dB and -160.8 dB.Table 6
Sidelobe power in case 5.
TechniquesSidelobe power in PU locationsiiiivviiixOriginal signal-24 dB-26 dB-23 dB-26 dB-26 dBSimple GSC-136 dB-135 dB-136 dB-130 dB-133 dBBrandes-CCs-48 dB-47 dB-45 dB-47 dB-49 dBGA-CCs-52 dB-50 dB-51 dB-50 dB-50 dBDE-CCs-66 dB-65 dB-67 dB-66 dB-64 dBDE-GSC1-179 dB-178 dB-176 dB-172 dB-173 dBDE-GSC2-160 dB-161 dB-162 dB-159 dB-162 dBHence, it can be concluded from the above comparison that both the proposed DE-GSC1 and DE-GSC2 schemes performed better than the simple GSC, GA-CCs, DE-CCs, and Brandes-CCs in various scenarios and produce high accuracy to reduce sidelobe power in the PU locations.


## 5. Conclusion

The use of the NC-OFDM scheme in the free spectral hole has a sidelobe issue that results in interference in the legitimate PU regions. In this paper, a sufficiently large number of sidelobe sample points are taken into consideration for optimization using the DE algorithm in the DE-GSC1. The DE algorithm determines a suitable adaptive weight vector for the GSC that results in efficient reduction of the sidelobes issues in the PU region. However, the DE-GSC2 takes the initial sample points in the sidelobe region near the main NC-OFDM signal and determines the remaining points utilizing the sidelobes decay function. The different cases discussed in the paper show superiority of the proposed schemes to efficiently access the available spectrum holes without hindering the PU transmission. The results confirmed a significant reduction in the sidelobe interference by following the proposed scheme as compared with the existing techniques.As the GSC has been examined widely in radar and communication systems where the desired signal needs to be measured either in time or at the amplitude level, it is suggested that a dual function radar and communication system can be designed by controlling the main lobe for radar and sidelobes for the communication systems employing the DE-based GSC approach, presented in this paper.In a future work, we intend to reconfigure the adaptive vector of the GSC while utilizing machine learning techniques aiming to improve interference suppression. Furthermore, time and computational complexity analysis will be carried out to compare with existing interference minimization schemes such as optimization-based CCs and GSC.



---

*Source: 9449400-2022-04-04.xml*