Random Linear Coding Based Anti-Jamming
Coding Techniques for Cognitive Radio Systems
Swanand Kadhe, M. Girish Chandra, and Balaji Janakiram
Innovation Labs, TATA Consultancy Services, Bangalore, INDIA.
Email: {swanand.kadhe, m.gchandra, balaji.janakiram}@tcs.com
Abstract—Cognitive radio is an emerging technology that
allows secondary communication in a frequency band originally
allocated to one or more primary users (PUs). Secondary user
(SU) usually operates in a low power profile to avoid interference
with the PU and sudden appearance of a PU causes loss of data
of the SU. Appropriate erasure correction coding (also called as
anti-jamming coding) is, thus, required to maintain the reliability
of the link. In this paper, we propose the random linear coding
(RLC), which is commonly used in network coding, to be used
as an anti-jamming scheme. We also propose a variant of RLC
anti-jamming scheme that requires reduced complexity decoding.
The throughput of both the proposed schemes is analyzed and
it is shown that high throughput can be obtained at the expense
of very small redundancy by carefully selecting the Galois field
size.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The concept of cognitive radio is based on the notion of
secondary spectrum access to improve spectrum utilization.
This allows a non-primary or unlicensed user, called as a
secondary user (SU), to dynamically access the unused parts
of the spectrum owned by the primary license holder, called a
primary user (PU), temporarily [1]. Unused licensed spectrum
can be detected and allocated to SUs in an opportunistic way
[2]. Though SU can sense the presence of a PU, the PU is
not equipped with the sensing capability and is not aware of
the existence of the SUs. Thus, if a PU suddenly becomes
active in a particular band currently used by SU, it will cause
collision with the SU and the packets transmitted by the SU
through this primary band may get corrupted due to strong
interference from the PU. Such a collision is referred to as
jamming. Since SU usually operates in a lower power profile
in order to avoid interfering with the PU, the entire packet
could get corrupted. The channel coding may not be able to
recover the data associated with this packet and the packet
is considered to be lost. Therefore, anti-jamming coding is
required to recover such a corrupted packet.
The packet affected by jamming is either received correctly
or completely lost. Thus, jamming can be considered to
be equivalent to the erasure event. This makes conventional
erasure codes like Reed-Solomon (RS) codes and Low-Density
Parity-Check (LDPC) codes to be natural candidates as anti-
jamming codes. However, these codes have highly structured
construction and hence are less flexible on the number of
redundant packets and the number of encoded packets. This
makes their direct application unsuitable in cognitive radio [3].
Fountain codes, which are from the class of rateless codes,
978-1-4244-6826-3/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
are also very strong candidates for anti-jamming codes [4],
[5]. The comparison of various erasure correcting schemes
in the context of cognitive radio has been discussed in [3].
It shows that, among different erasure correcting schemes,
rateless coding and piecewise linear coding are the two high
performing anti-jamming coding schemes in cognitive radio
systems. Piecewise linear coding, proposed in [5], involves
arranging the packets as columns of a matrix and applying
the linear block code on each row to generate parity packets
(encoded columns).
In the emerging area of network coding, the random linear
coding (RLC) is becoming increasingly popular tool to achieve
multicast capacity [6], [7]. We propose to use RLC as an anti-
jamming technique motivated by the following observations:
• Cognitive radio system with spectrum pooling model
[8] used for secondary usage behaves similar to the
distributed storage system; and jamming behaves similar
to the storage device failure [3].
• RLC based schemes perform well in case of uncoordi-
nated distributed storage systems [9], [10].
Since decoding in case of RLC requires inversion of a dense
matrix over a finite field, which is computationally complex;
hence we propose reduced complexity RLC (RC-RLC) scheme
for which computationally efficient decoding is possible. The
throughput performance of the RLC scheme is analyzed for
the cognitive radio set up. Also, performance lower bounds are
developed for both RLC and RC-RLC schemes by utilizing the
mathematical tools presented in [9] and [10].
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion II gives system model along with RLC based anti-
jamming coding schemes. Performance analysis is carried out
in Sections III and IV, and numerical results are presented in
Section V. Finally, Section VI concludes the paper.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
First, the concept of spectrum pooling is introduced, which
forms the basis for secondary usage model. Then, RLC and
RC-RLC based anti-jamming schemes are explained.
A. Spectrum Pooling
As discussed in [8], the spectrum pool is formed by dividing
the whole spectrum where secondary use is permitted, into
number of subchannels. The SU is assigned a set of subchan-
nels on which PUs are not active. The subchannel selection
is made in such a way that the collision due to PU affects
minimum number of subchannels.
We consider the interweave model (similar to [3]) for
secondary usage adopting the opportunistic approach to utilize
the white space of the spectrum. This is more practical than the
overlay approach, in which concurrent PU and SU transmis-
sions are allowed. In interweave approach, the SU must vacate
the subchannel as soon as the corresponding PU becomes
active on that subchannel, to avoid interference with the PU.
Also, SU usually operates at low power profile and this forces
the SU to lose the packet on that subchannel. To compensate
for the loss caused by the PU appearance, anti-jamming coding
is incorporated. It is assumed that the SU message consists
of k packets. Anti-jamming coding, then, introduces some
redundancy (say h), which depends on PU arrival probability.
Assuming that one data packet is transmitted per subchannel
as in [5], total n = k + h subchannels are assigned to the SU.
Since other channel impairments like deep fading can also
cause the loss of a packet, we include these effects in jamming.
Thus, jamming probability can be given as
p = pI + pL , (1)
where pI is the jamming probability due to PU interference
and pL is the probability of packet loss due to other channel
impairments. For simplicity, jamming probability on each
subchannel is assumed to be the same.
B. Random Linear Coding
It is well known that the idea of RLC is to form the linear
combinations of the data packets to generate the coded packets,
the weights used for which are chosen randomly from a finite
field. Mathematically, for an RLC over Galois Field of size q,
i.e. GF (q), data packets are considered as vectors containing
the elements in GF (q). If mi , i = 1, 2, . . . , k, denote the k
data packets and ci , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, denote n coded packets
(n = k + h), then we have

k
ci = gi,j mj , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, (2)
j=1
where gi,j are the coefficients selected uniformly and inde-
pendently over GF (q). In matrix form, we have C = GM,
where matrices M and C consist of the data and coded
packets respectively as rows. The matrix G contains the weight
coefficients for all the coded packets and is referred to as
generator matrix. The generator matrix characterizes the code.
Note that such an encoding process essentially constructs
a system of linear equations for coded packets, where the
unknown variables are the data packets, given that the coding
coefficients gi,j and the coded packets ci are known.
After any r of the n coded packets are received, the
decoding process of RLC consists of solving the r linear
equations constructed by the encoding process, where r ≥ k.
This involves inversion of relevant submatrix of the generator
matrix. The decoding process demands that for each coded
packet i, the weights gi,1 , gi,2 , . . . , gi,k need to be conveyed
to the receiver and are stored in the packet header. Although
it requires additional space of k log2 (q) per packet to store the
code weights, percentage overhead for large packet lengths is
very small.
The generator matrix in case of RLC is usually dense and
its inversion over a finite field is computationally complex.
This is the main disadvantage of the RLC scheme. Decoding
complexity can be reduced if the generator matrix can be
made sparse. But the sparsity is limited by the requirement
that the square submatrices of the generator matrix should
be invertible in order to recover the data. Reference [10]
presents RLC based construction of decentralized erasure
codes having sparse generator matrices for distributed storage.
The matrices are made as sparse as possible keeping the
probability of decoding success very high. The same concepts
can be extended to obtain reduced complexity anti-jamming
codes with sparse generator matrices as discussed in the next
subsection.
C. Reduced Complexity Random Linear Coding
In this scheme, a sparse generator matrix is constructed
to reduce the complexity associated with decoding. The pro-
cedure to construct the sparse generator matrix is given as
follows:
For each column j = {1, 2, . . . , k},
1) Choose a row i = {1, 2, . . . , n} uniformly and indepen-
dently with replacement.
2) For the location (i, j), select a random coefficient gi,j
uniformly and independently from GF (q).
Repeat the two steps for c ln k times, where c > 5n/k.1 It
can be found out that, with above mentioned construction,
the average number of non-zero entries in each row are
O(log k) [10] and decoding can be performed with complexity
O(k 2 log k) by exploiting the sparsity [11].
III. T HROUGHPUT A NALYSIS
When SU has a message of k packets to transmit, it is
encoded to produce n = k + h packets out of which some are
lost due to jamming. The set of n encoded packets is referred
to as a transmit frame. If the receiving SU can not decode
original k data packets from the received encoded packets, the
frame is said to be in error and the probability of the same is
called as frame error probability. Since the n coded packets
contain the information worth k packets only, the throughput
can be obtained by
k
η= (1 − Pf e ) , (3)
n
where Pf e is the overall frame error probability.
The frame error probability depends on the probability of
decoding failure given that some l packets are lost. It can
be noted that the decoding fails certainly when less than k
packets are received, since in this case, the receiving SU can
form less than k linear equations which can not be solved for
1 The choice of c is lower bounded so that probability of decoding failure
is limited to k/q + o(1) [10].
k unknowns, i.e., original data packets. When more than k To characterize the reduced complexity RLC scheme, it is
packets are received, decoding failure probability is less than possible to find the lower bound on throughput based on the
unity and it depends on the number of received packets as approach taken in [10]. Similar attempt is also made for RLC
well as the adopted anti-jamming scheme. scheme which might help to gain some additional insight.
Now, let us analytically characterize the frame error proba-
bility for general anti-jamming scenario. For jamming rate p, IV. P ERFORMANCE L OWER B OUNDS
the probability of losing l packets, Pl , is given by In this section, we consider the throughput performance
  lower bound for both the proposed schemes and further
n l
Pl = p (1 − p)n−l , l = 1, 2, . . . , n. (4) characterize the RLC scheme by finding the lower bounds on
l
the overhead factor and give the decoding success probability.
Let E denote the event of decoding failure. If the conditional
probability of this event is denoted by Pr{E|l} given that A. Throughput Lower Bounds
l packets are lost, then, with the help of total probability The following theorems lower bound the throughput for
theorem, the frame error probability can be expressed as both RLC and reduced complexity RLC schemes.
Pf e = Pr {E|(l ≤ h)} Pr {l ≤ h} Theorem 2: In a cognitive radio system having jamming
probability of p, the throughput of an (n, k) RLC over GF (q)
+ Pr {E|(l > h)} Pr {l > h} used as an anti-jamming code is lower bounded by
h n
n−k n−l    
= Pl Pr{E|l} + Pl , (5) k  n l n−l j
l=0 l=h+1 η RLC > p (1 − p)n−l p̃ (1 − p̃)n−l−j ,
n l j
l=0 j=k
where the second equality is due to the fact that, for l > h = (7)
n − k, the decoding failure probability is 1. where p̃ = 1 − 1/q.
Note that even for a given jamming rate, the performance Proof: See Appendix B.
of the different anti-jamming schemes will vary, since the Theorem 3: The throughput of an (n, k) RC-RLC anti-
conditional decoding failure probability varies from scheme to jamming scheme is lower bounded by
scheme. Also, unlike the deterministic coding cases like RS
n−k  

 n−l−k+1 
codes in which receiving any k coded packets assures decoding k  n l k
η RC−RLC
> p (1 − p) n−l
1− ,
success, for random coding schemes like RLC and RC-RLC, n l q
l=0
receiving more than k coded packets does not guarantee the (8)
successful decoding due to randomness involved in the code where p and q denote the jamming rate and the Galois field
construction. size, respectively.
In the following theorem, the throughput of the RLC anti- Proof: See Appendix C.
jamming scheme is found out. From (8), one can easily verify that the lower bound for RC-
Theorem 1: For a cognitive radio system having jamming RLC increases with q. To prove the same
n−l
in case of RLC, we
rate p and using RLC over GF (q) as an anti-jamming tech- can see that RHS of (7) contains j=k n−l p̃ j
(1 − p̃)n−l−j ,
nique that produces n coded packets from k data packets, the     j

throughput is given as i.e., Pr Binom n − l, 1 − 1q ≥ k , which increases with

k−1 n−l q. Also, it is to be be noted that as q increases, throughput
n−k  
k  n l i=0 (q − qi ) lower bound converges to the ideal value of k/n times the
η RLC
= p (1 − p)n−l
. (6) probability of loosing less than h packets.
n l q k(n−l)
l=0
     
II B. Overhead Factor and Success Probability
I

Proof: See Appendix A.
Theorem 1 helps us to see the effect of field size on
the throughput. It is easy to observe that the throughput
is an increasing function of q. Also, for asymptotic field
size (q → ∞), term II tends to unity and the throughput
is code rate times the term I, which is nothing but the
probability of loosing ≤ (h = n − k) packets. In other
words, we can say that for very large field sizes, RLC has
a perfect decoding threshold on number of lost packets, i.e.,
the decoding failure probability behaves as a step function:
P r {E|(l > h)} = 0 and P r {E|(l ≤ h)} = 1. Note that this
is the ideal performance that can be achieved using any coding
scheme; for example, RS codes, which have the optimum
erasure correction capability.
This subsection further characterizes the RLC scheme by
finding the lower bounds on the important parameters: over-
head factor and decoding success probability.
The overhead factor is a commonly used parameter in
erasure coding to indicate the quality of the code. It is ratio
of overhead by number of data packets where the overhead is
the average number packets that must be received to recover
all the data packets [12].
Let rmin denote the minimum number of packets that
should be received for successful decoding. Then, the overhead
can be obtained as E {rmin }; the expectation enters into
the scenario as the coding framework is probabilistic. For
decoding to be successful, the rank of the r×k matrix obtained
by stacking the weight vectors associated with the r received
 1 1
RLC
0.9 RLC (LB) 0.9
RC−RLC (LB)
0.8 No Coding
0.8

0.7 0.7

Throughput (η)
Throughput (η)

0.6 h = {1, 3, 5}
0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
RLC, p = 0.01
0.3 0.3 RC−RLC, p = 0.01
RLC, p = 0.05
0.2 0.2 RC−RLC, p = 0.05
RLC, p = 0.1
0.1 0.1
RC−RLC, p = 0.1
0 −3 −2 −1 0
0
10 10 10 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Jaming Rate (p) Redundancy (h)

Fig. 1. Analytical results for throughput η versus jamming rate p for k = 40 Fig. 2. Analytical results for throughput η versus redundancy h = n − k
and q = 27 . for k = 40 and q = 27 .

0.7
packets should be k. Then, using proposition 5.1 in [9], it is
straightforward to obtain 0.6
h=5

E {rmin } q 0.5

Throughput (η)
. (9)
k q−1 0.4

Also, probabilistic guarantee on the decoding success can 0.3

h=3

be obtained as 0.2
RLC
1 RLC (LB)
(1 − Pr {E|r}) ≥ 1 − ,
0.1
(10) RC−RLC (LB)
Ideal
k 0
1 2 3
10 10 10
provided Field Size (q)

r 2 logq (k)
≥1+ , (11)
k k
by using proposition 5.2 in [9].
From the above results it is possible to make following
remarks.
• By choosing a field size large enough, overhead ratio can
be made arbitrarily close to one, which is the optimum
case.
• It is sufficient to receive just over k coded packets to
recover all the data packets almost certainly (assuming k
to be sufficiently large).
At this juncture, it is important to highlight the trade-
off between field size and complexity: a large field size
achieves minimally additional overhead at the expense of large
complexity associated with the inversion of a matrix over a
larger field size.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, we evaluate the performance of both the
proposed schemes numerically. It is assumed that the message
to be transmitted consists of 40 packets which are encoded
into n = k + h packets using RLC or RC-RLC anti-jamming
scheme. We consider the binary extension field GF (2l ), where
l is an integer.
Figure 1 shows the throughput of the RLC scheme and lower
bound (LB) on the throughput for both RLC and RC-RLC
schemes as a function of jamming rate p for a field size of
q = 27 and various redundancy (h) values. The throughput
of the simple transmission scheme without any anti-jamming
is also plotted for comparison. We can see that both schemes
Fig. 3. Analytical results for η versus field size q for k = 40, p = 0.1, and
various h.
clearly outperform the no coding case except when jamming
rate is very small. Also, one can observe that larger amount
of redundancy must be introduced if the jamming rate is high
to obtain better performance.
To better understand the effect of redundancy h on the
throughput, Figure 2 is presented for different jamming rates.
It shows that, for a given p, an optimal value of h exists
giving the highest throughput and the optimal h increases with
the jamming rate. Also, it can be seen that both the schemes
require just the marginal amount of redundancy.
In Figure 3, we analyze the effect of the field size q on the
throughput. The binary extension field GF (2l ) is considered
for l = {1, 2, . . . , 10}. We also present the performance of the
ideal scheme which can recover the original data packets from
any k received packets with certainty. It can be seen that the
performance of both the schemes approaches the ideal case
as field size increases. The gap between the lower bound and
the actual throughput for RLC reduces with the field size.
It is interesting to note that the effect of q follows the law
of diminishing returns; saying that beyond certain value of q
the gain in throughput will not be significant. Also, it can be
observed that the throughput is close to the ideal for reasonably
small field sizes, making the proposed schemes elegant from
the implementation perspective.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the simulation results. We have
chosen c = 5n/k + 1 to implement RC-RLC scheme. All the
 1 0.8

0.9 RLC
RC−RLC 0.7
0.8
h=5
0.7 0.6

Throughput (η)
Througput (η)

0.6
0.5
0.5
h=1,3,5
0.4
0.4

0.3 0.3 h=3

0.2
0.2 RLC
0.1
RC−RLC
0 0.1
−3 −2 −1 0 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Jamming Rate (p) Field Size (q)

Fig. 4. Simulation results for throughput η versus jamming rate p for k = 40 Fig. 6. Simulation results for throughput η versus field size q for k = 40,
and q = 27 . p = 0.1, and various h.

gives η = 0.338 and RC-RLC gives η ≥ 0.274 at q = 27

1

as opposed to η = 0.16 and η = 0.29 given by rateless and

0.9

0.8
piecewise linear coding, respectively.
0.7
Throughput (η)

0.6
VI. C ONCLUSION
0.5

0.4 The proposed random linear coding based schemes provide

RLC, p = 0.01
0.3
RC−RLC, p = 0.01
RLC, p = 0.05
0.2
RC−RLC, p = 0.05
RLC, p = 0.1
0.1
RC−RLC, p = 0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Redundancy (h)
Fig. 5. Simulation results for throughput η versus redundancy h = n − k
for k = 40 and q = 27 .
other parameters are same as in case of analytical results. It
is observable that the simulation performances for both RLC
and RC-RLC are the same except for some minute deviation
when q is small. This is expected because, even though RC-
RLC uses sparse generator matrix, the way it is constructed
assures very high probability of decoding success.
The close agreement between the analytical and simulation
results is explicitly brought out in figures 7 and 8, with
simulation results depicted for some candidate values of p
and h. In fact, it can be noted that the points corresponding
to analytical and simulation results are almost overlapping.
Furthermore, even for the moderate field sizes (like 27 ), it can
be seen that the lower bound derived for RC-RLC scheme
is very close to the throughput obtained through simulations.
Hence, the lower bound of (8) can be used to characterize the
RC-RLC scheme for all practical purposes.
The performance curves clearly suggest that designing an
intelligent system that adaptively chooses the amount of
redundancy and field size taking into account the jamming
statistics and complexity issues is an interesting problem. Also,
it is noteworthy that both the RLC and RC-RLC schemes
outperform the rateless and piecewise linear coding schemes
proposed in [5]. For example, for p = 0.1 and h = 3, RLC
very powerful and configurable anti-jamming capability in the
cognitive radio set up. The paper presented rigorous analysis
of the throughput and other parameters like overhead factor
14 and decoding success probability.
We would like to mention that the performance analysis of
RLC not only demonstrates its superiority as an anti-jamming
scheme, but also makes us believe that RLC provides an
elegant framework to design generalized graph based erasure
codes which may find diverse applications. By assuring certain
required throughput, it would help to reduce the search space
while finding the optimum or near optimum graph for an
erasure code. However, further exploration is required in this
direction.
In a nutshell, as far as cognitive radio systems are con-
cerned, the capability of random linear coding to provide high
throughput for very small redundancy along with the flexibility
in terms of the number of data packets and the amount of
redundancy makes it very strong candidate as an anti-jamming
scheme.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
The important step in finding the throughput is to find the
frame error probability (Pf e ) which, in turn, requires finding
the decoding failure probability conditioned on the number of
lost packets l, i.e., Pr{E|l}. To find Pr{E|l}, let ρ(n−l) denote
the rank of the (n − l) × k matrix containing weight vectors of
the received code packets as rows. Then, if ρ(n−l) < k, it is
not possible to find any k × k submatrix from received weight
vectors and decoding can not be successful. Thus,
   
Pr{E|l} = Pr ρ(n−l) < k = 1 − Pr ρ(n−l) = k . (12)
 1 1

0.9
p = 0.01
0.8 0.8
h=5
0.7

Throughput (η)
p = 0.1
Throughput (η)

h=3 0.6
0.6

0.5
0.4
0.4

0.3 RLC (Simulation)

RLC (Simulation) 0.2 RC−RLC (Simulation)
0.2 RC−RLC (Simulation) RLC (Analytical)
RLC (Analytical) RC−RLC LB (Analytical)
0.1 RC−RLC LB (Analytical)
0
0 −3 0 5 10 15
10 10
−2 −1
10 10
0 Redndancy (h)
Jamming Rate (p)

Fig. 8. Simulation and analytical results for throughput η versus redundancy

Fig. 7. Simulation and analytical results for throughput η versus jamming h = n − k for k = 40 and q = 27 .
rate p for k = 40 and q = 27 .

Now, if l packets are lost, (n − l) × k matrix consisting

Now, for a random matrix over finite field of size q, it is of received weight vectors as rows contains (n − l − k + 1)
possible to show that [9] number of k × k submatrices. As the decoding fails when all
  1 
d−1
(q n−l − q j )(q k − q j ) these matrices have the rank less than k, we have
Pr ρ(n−l) = d = . (13)  n−l−k+1
q k(n−l) (q d − q j ) k
j=0 Pr{E|l} ≤ , (17)
q
Then, by substituting (13) in (12) and, then, substituting the
result in (5), Pf e can be computed. The throughput can then where we neglect the order constant in (16) assuming that the
be obtained using (3). field size is not very large2 . Equation (17) gives upper bound
on Pf e using which the lower bound can be easily obtained.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2 R EFERENCES
To prove the theorem, we find the upper bound on the [1] S. Haykin, “Cognitive Radio: Brain-empowered Wireless Communica-
frame error probability for both schemes. For RLC, it has tions,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201–220, Feb.
2005.
been proved that [9] [2] H. Zheng and C. Peng, “Collaboration and Fairness in Opportunistic
  Spectrum Access,” in Proc. of Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), May 2005,
Pr ρ(n−l) > d > pp. 3132–3136.
    
1 [3] G. Yoo, “Anti-Jamming Coding Techniques,” IEEE Signal Process.
Pr min k, Binom n − l, 1 − > d , (14) Mag., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 35–45, Nov. 2008.
q [4] H. Kushwaha, Y. Xing, and R. C. H. Heffes, “Reliable Multimedia
Transmission Over Cognitive Radio Networks Using Fountain Codes,”
where ρ(n−l) is the rank of the (n − l) × k matrix containing Proc. IEEE, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 155–165, Jan. 2008.
the received weight vectors. Thus, we can write [5] G. Yue., X. Wang, and M. Madihian, “Design of Anti-Jamming Coding
  for Cognitive Radio,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOMM, Nov. 2007, pp.
Pr ρ(n−l) < k 4190–4194.
     [6] T. Ho, M. Medard, M. Effros, and D. Karger, “The Benefits of Coding
1 Over Routing in A Randomized Setting,” in Proc. IEEE Symposium on
< Pr min k, Binom n − l, 1 − <k Information Theory, July 2003.
q
    [7] ——, “On Randomized Network Coding,” in Proc. 41st Allerton Annual
1 Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, Oct. 2003.
= Pr Binom n − l, 1 − <k . (15) [8] J. Mitola, “Cognitive Radio for Flexible Mobile Multimedia Communi-
q
cations,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Mobile Multimedia Communica-
Since the decoding fails when ρn−l < k, (15) gives upper tions (MoMuC), Nov. 1999, pp. 3–10.
bound on Pr {E|l}. Substituting this upper bound and (4) in [9] S. Acedanski, S. Deb, M. Medard, and R. Koetter, “How Good is
Random Linear Coding Based Distributed Networked Storage?” in
(5), and using (3), the theorem can be easily proved. NetCod, Apr. 2005.
[10] A. Dimakis, V. Prabhakaran, and K. Ramchandran, “Ubiquitous Acess
A PPENDIX C to Distributed Data in Large-Scale Sensor Networks through Decen-
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 3 tralized Erasure Codes,” in IEEE/ACM Int. Symposium on Information
Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN), Apr. 2005.
To prove the theorem, we exploit the construction of the [11] D. H. Wiedemann, “Solving Sparse Linear Equations over Finite Fields,”
generator matrix G used in RC-RRC case. On the similar IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 54–64, Jan. 1986.
lines of the proof of Theorem 1 in [10], it is possible to show [12] J. S. Plank, A. L. Buchsbaum, R. L. Collins, and M. G. Thomason,
“Small Parity-Check Erasure Codes - Exploration and Observations,”
that when G is constructed as stated in Subsection II-C, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Dependable Syst. and Networks (DSN), June
k 2005, pp. 326–335.
Pr {rank(G ) < k} ≤ + o(1), (16)
q 2 Simulations show that throughput is high for reasonably small q, support-
where G is a random k × k submatrix of G. ing the assumption