Survey of Cognitive Radio Architectures

Ashwin Amanna, Jeffrey H. Reed

Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
aamanna@vt.edu, reedjh@vt.edu
Abstract Cognitive Radio and Cognitive Networking are
emerging fields of research that has the potential for
transformative changes to the current status quo. Cognitive
systems utilize environmental observations such as spectrum or
network conditions to change operational configurations in order
to optimize performance at individual node or over end-to-end
goals. This paper surveys some of these origin cognitive
frameworks and correlates these frameworks to cognitive radio
implementations of today. Several definitive implementations and
cognitive radio architectures are reviewed and compared. This
paper also identifies area of need and suggests directions forward
for novel research in this area through interdisciplinary
collaboration with the cognitive sciences, integrating prediction
and proactive operation into cognitive radio/network
architectures and identifying less researched artificial intelligence
algorithms that show promise towards cognitive radio
architecture.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The reconfigurable nature of Software Defined Radios

(SDR) is ushering in a new mindset towards wireless
communications. In his ground breaking dissertation, Joe
Mitolla introduced the concept of a Cognitive Radio (CR) [1]
capable of reacting to new situations and learning from its
actions. While there is no one definition of a CR, the
fundamental concept includes the capability to observe the
wireless environment, orient to the situation, decide on a
course of action, and apply this course of action. A Cognitive
Engine (CE) is tasked with the function of performing two
prime processes required to achieve adaptability desired in
cognitive radios. These processes are learning (including
optimization) and decision making.
The networking community has also embraced the concept
of a cognitive radio. Recent papers have outlined the
application of the fundamental concepts of environmental
observation, decision making and learning towards a
networking context [2-4]. Key elements within cognitive radio
and cognitive networks include the foundational cognitive
framework and the basic algorithms for decision making and
long term learning. This paper surveys the literature in these
areas and presents a breakdown of classification, comparison
between methods, and identifies open research issues. Specific
applications such as dynamic spectrum access or self
organizing networks build upon the foundations of the
cognitive framework and the artificial intelligence algorithms.
This paper provides a broad introduction to some of the
foundational concepts defining cognitive radio and cognitive
networks.

The structure of this paper is as follows, in Section II we

overview the fundamental operation of a cognitive radio. In
Section III, we introduce the primary cognitive architectures
beginning by defining basic classifications. A review of the
currently used cognitive architectures is presented followed by
a comparison between them. Finally open research issues and
ideas for novel research are presented.
II.

OVERVIEW OF THE COGNITIVE RADIO PROCESS

A Cognitive Radio observes the environment through a

combination of inputs from the PHY, MAC layers as well as
user needs. These observable parameters, commonly referred
to as meters, provide the CR with an information base upon
which to make decisions. Through the cognitive process, a
course of action is determined in which the CR manipulates
available reconfigurable parameters of the SDR platform.
These writeable parameters, commonly referred to as knobs,
allow the CR to change its PHY and MAC settings to adapt to
the new situation [5].
Cognitive networks will utilize a similar process of utilizing
environmental observations to feed into decision making and
learning algorithms. Cognitive networks however, will
primarily be driven by end-to-end goals for data flow rather
than an individual characteristics such as link throughput,
signal strength, or channel conditions [4].
III.

COGNITIVE FRAMEWORKS

There exist great bodies of work related to the development

of models for cognitive function. Simple models describe
cognition in terms of major sequences of events which occur
when decisions are made. A concept known as the Unified
Theory of Cognition (UTC) makes the case for a general set of
assumptions that account for all cognition that remain constant
across varied domains and knowledge spaces [6]. Many of the
complex cognitive architectures are based on this concept of
UTC where the architecture shows how intelligent entities react
to inputs from the environment with goal driven behavior. In
order to accomplish this, some method for representing
knowledge as well as the ability to learn from past actions is
required.
A. Classification of Cognitive Frameworks
Cognitive frameworks are classified as either falling within
the Unified Theory of Cognition or of a more basic nature as
shown in Figure 1 Classification of Cognitive Frameworks.
Those that fall within the UTC are classified as either simple
models or complex models. Prior to the development of the
UTC model, cognitive architectures were classified as either

OODA
Simple
CECA
Unified
Theory of
Cognition
Cognitive
Frameworks

Basic

SOAR
Higher
Complexity

Storm

Symbolic

ACT-R

connectionist
hybrid

Figure 1 Classification of Cognitive Frameworks

symbolic, connectionist, or hybrid. Most of the

implementations of cognitive radio are based on models
classified under the UTC; therefore this paper will focus on
those frameworks.
1) Simple Models
a) OODA
United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd is credited with
developing a concept of decision making very applicable to the
desired behavior of a cognitive radio. The feedback loop
dubbed OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) was originally
developed to describe the methodology which fighter pilots
utilize in a constant cycle during aerial combat [7].
The orientation is arguably the most difficult phase in a CR
context.
The CR must integrate the environmental
observations with radio policies, user goals, limitations on
configurations and past experiences in order to synthesize a
complete image of the situation. The decision phase in a CR
involves identifying the SDR configuration changes that are
available and identifying the best option to meet the new
situation.
Finally the CR acts upon this choice by
implementing the reconfiguration changes to the SDR. The
entire process is a continuous feedback repeating loop
2) CECA
Much of the cognitive radio paradigm is founded upon the
OODA loop chain of events which describes the decision
making process in a general fashion. As such, the OODA loop
requires individualization when applied to specific reactive
situations such as fighter pilot combat or cognitive radio where
system nodes react based on observed conditions in the
environment. The Critique-Explore-Compare-Adapt (CECA)
loop expands on the OODA loop in order to study the broader
context of Command and Control [8]. The CECA philosophy
claims that the OODA loop does not adequately describe the
proactive goal-oriented command decision making process.
Cognitive applications will continue to grow and expand
beyond single radios into radio networks and large scale
networks involving multi-system components [3]. In this
paradigm a strictly reactive process may prove limiting and

proactive decision frameworks, such as CECA, may provide a

stepping stone to more optimized performance
In contrast to OODA, CECA intends to apply social
cognition that incorporates multiple users working on complex
problems. Rather than reactively operate based on external
observations, the CECA model engages a proactive goaloriented operation. The CECA loop begins with a creation of a
conceptual model of the initial plan of action.
3) High Complexity
Higher complexity architectures are based on the Unified
Theory of Cognition (UTC) philosophy [9]. This section
provides a list of many of the cognitive architectures in
development today. This section focuses on several of the
more prominent architectures, some of which have been
applied to CR.
a) SOAR Cognitive Engine
Soar is a popular general cognitive architecture developed in
1983 that has been used in a variety of fields. The architecture
is used to develop systems that exhibit intelligent behavior.
The goals of the Soar project are to enable the architecture to
support capabilities of a general intelligent agent such as: work
on the full range of tasks expected of an intelligent agent, from
highly routine to extremely difficult, open-ended problems;
represent and use appropriate forms of knowledge, such as
procedural, declarative, episodic, and possibly iconic; employ
the full range of problem solving methods; interact with the
outside world, and; learn about all aspects of the tasks and its
performance on them [10].
The basic structure of Soar is based on states and operators
[11]. Using this as the fundamental building block, the Soar
architecture incorporates working memory, long term memory,
development of a perception/motor interface, a decision cycle,
identifies lack of sufficient knowledge, and provides four
separate learning mechanisms.
The Soar architecture presents a powerful software suite
designed to approximate rational behavior.
Due to its
complexity it is difficult to implement onto a standalone
Cognitive Radio with limited processing and memory storage.
This open source general cognitive architecture is available for
download at the University of Michigan [10].
b) Storm Cognitive Framework
The Storm Cognitive framework was developed as an
extension to the Soar Cognitive Architecture.
Using
knowledge gained from the fields of psychology and brainbased science, the researchers at Michigan University adapted
memory, learning and emotion to the original Soar architecture
[12]. Storm is an overarching framework designed to develop
biologically inspired cognitive architectures (BICA).
c) ACT-R
ACT-R, developed at Carnegie Mellon University, is a
cognitive architecture theorizing how human cognition
functions [13]. The architecture is modeled in a programming
language that enables representation of tasks. Similarly to
Soar, ACT-R could be used to model the tasks of a cognitive
radio.

Models are developed in the ACT-R programming language

that allows the writer to add in their own assumptions of a
specific task as well as incorporating in the ACT-R perspective
of cognition. The models are tested against real people
performing the same tasks and compared using traditional
metrics of cognitive psychology. These metrics include time to
perform a task and accuracy of a task. While other metrics also
include neurological data that wouldnt apply to cognitive
radios, the first two metrics are pertinent to measuring the
performance of a cognitive radio. The open source software is
available for download at Carnegie Mellon [14].
B. Examples of Cognitive Radio Architectures from the
Literature
1) The Mitola Cognitive Radio Architecture
Joe Mitola is credited with introducing the groundbreaking
concept of cognitive radios in his PhD dissertation in May
2000 [1]. In this treatise he proposed that the reconfigurability
enabled by software defined radio created an incredible
potential for improving radio operation. He went on to
introduce a simplified cognition architecture that is founded
upon the concepts of the OODA loop introduced earlier in
Section III. Mitolas adaptation of the basic OODA loop
within a radio framework provided the seed for an new
evolution in wireless communications. The observation step
incorporates spectrum and network sensing while the
orientation step prioritizes the incoming observations. Much of
the ensuing work within cognitive radio has centered on the
decision making and learning stages within this cognitive
architecture as discussed in the next sections.
2) Case Based Reasoning Cognitive Engine
Virginia Tech is developing a CBR engine for 802.22
applications [15]. In 802.22, secondary users must vacate the
spectrum for a primary incumbent user. The process includes a
methodology for representing the situation as well as the
procedures for making a decision and learning from a decision.
The cognitive engine follows a modular architecture with
interfaces between each module to provide the flexibility to
change specific components without affecting the entire
engine. The primary modules include a Spectrum Manager
(SM), Constraint and Policy Engine (CnPE), Case-based
Reasoner (CBR), Multi-objective optimizer, and databases
such as a Radio Environment Map [15].
3) Public Safety Cognitive Radio
Cognitive radio technology has been applied to the
interoperability needs of public safety [16]. The technical
requirements included interoperability among a variety of
public safety waveforms, radio environment sensing, and
flexible radio node configuration leading to rapid field
deployment. The architecture developed through this project
follows a modular approach that divides the functionality of the
cognitive radio node into three major components, the policy
domain, the radio domain and the user domain.
The modules include environment modeling that collects
information and recognition of the three domains which is then
forwarded on to the learning core. Solutions are generated then
further optimized with an adaptive genetic algorithm. The
cognition cycle utilizes a two feedback loops that separates the

general machine-learning core from the radio platform specific

operations. The outer loop consists of information recognition
and behavior adaptation which are both defined by radio
domain knowledge. The inner loop applies long term learning
by tracking successes and failures in a historical database.
4) Open Source Cognitive Radio Using Soar
The Open Source Cognitive Radio (OSCR) project designed
a framework to enable integration of cognitive engines with
multiple Software Communications Architecture (SCA) based
radios as shown in [17-18]. The OSCR links multiple radios
application programming interface (API) with a single
cognitive engine. This allows one cognitive engine to operate
multiple radios which may have differing capabilities.
The Soar cognitive engine was integrated with an SCA
compliant SDR. The CE was programmed with a goal of
maximizing the capacity of a noisy channel within a fluctuating
noisy environment. Available knobs under the control of the
Soar Cognitive engine included modulation type, signal
constellation size, and coding configurations of the transmitter
radio.
5) DARPA xG Program
The Defense Advanced Research Program Agencys
(DARPA) Next Generation (xG) radio program is an example
of the use of ontological reasoning on an SDR based platform
to create a policy driven radio. The goal of the xG radio is to
operate on locally unused spectrum without causing
interference to existing non-cooperative users The system
utilizes dynamic spectrum access (DSA) technology to
determine available channels while not creating interference
among incumbent users. The system was field tested in
August, 2006 showing the capability to form and maintain
connected networks, efficiently use spectrum and cause no
harm to incumbent users. Using two separate ontological
reasoning engines, one for policy and one for waveforms, the
system directs an SDR platform.
The xG Radio architecture utilizes a Spectrum Policy analyst
to create and modify polices using the Web Ontology
Language (OWL). OWL is a web based family of languages
that creates a formal knowledge representation. These policies
are based on prior coordination and goals of the force
commanders. A spectrum manager downloads policies to all
XG enabled radios. The DSA capability of the radios provides
a measure of spectrum occupancy that is updated to the fusion
nodes that provide spectrum white space probability tables to
all XG nodes.
6) Cognitive Networking Engines
While cognitive radio has focused on improving the
performance of a radio node; cognitive networking has added
the need for global end-to-end improvement [19-20]. End-toend implies all the network elements involved in the transmit
network. This global perspective requires that decisions made
at each node take into account the good of the overall system
and not just the selfish needs of each individual element.
An example of why this mindset differs from the current
cognitive radio paradigm is illustrated by a simple multi-hop
network. A cognitive radio mindset focuses on optimization of
specific layers such as the PHY layer or the link layer. This

D. Open Research Issues

With respect to cognitive frameworks and architectures, we
see several directions that may provide novel results. These
areas include fostering more interdisciplinary teaming with
true cognition research being performed in the field of
psychology and the paradigm of cognitive radio; adding more
prediction based algorithms into the existing artificial
intelligence (AI) toolbox; evolving upon the original OODA
loop architecture; and investigating more novel AI techniques
such as Grey Systems Theory [21-22] and those based on
biological models [23] such as ant colony optimization and
particle swarm optimization.
1) Tighter Coupling with True Cognitive Research
One of the criticisms that cognitive radio has seen is that the
use of cognition within existing frameworks and

Cognitive Architecture

C. Comparison/Analysis of Implementations
The cognitive architecture in use today are all built upon a
basic premise of using observations from the environment as a
catalyst for reconfiguring system parameters to achieve more
optimal performance. Long term learning is also incorporated
as part of initial decision making. Their primary differences lie
in the implementations of this general goal. Table 1
summarizes the described implementations.
Architectures like the xG Radio utilize a policy based engine
that uses spectrum rules based on how and when radios can
operate in spectrum bands. By combining simple ontological
rules with spectrum observations, the xG radio makes decisions
on how to change configurations.
Other architectures, such as case-based reasoning (CBR)
architecture build upon this foundation of a policy driven
decisions by adding on more advanced artificial intelligence
algorithms for decision making and long term learning. CBR
combines a historical record of past situations and solutions
with environmental observations in order to combine both
decision making and long term learning.
The open source OSCR implementation of cognitive radio is
notably different than other AI based systems due to its use of
the SOAR cognitive engine. The SOAR engine is a generic
engine built upon the foundation of the unified theory of
cognition. The integration of this generic engine into a
cognitive radio application suggests that there is good potential
to implement more traditional cognitive science with cognitive
radio. However, from a practical perspective, the SOAR type
of engine is so complex that it could never be integrated onto a
chip for collocation with a cognitive radio. The simpler
architectures seen in other implementations of cognitive radio
illustrates this long term vision of incorporating decision
making and learning at the board level rather than within a
separate computer.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES AND IMPLEMENTATIONS

Implementation

selfish emphasis ensures that packets might make it to a relay

node with minimal loss but does nothing to optimize the
overall end-to-end network of source and destination. While a
cognitive radio architecture intakes measurement of the
environment from the node it is operating on, a cognitive
network inputs observations from the entire network as a whole
[19].

Name

Type

Description

OODA

Simple

Feedback loop developed

for modeling situations
requiring adaptation to
changing conditions

CECA

Simple

Expansion on OODA
Loop to model situation in
broader context

SOAR

Complex

General cognitive
architecture for modeling
systems of complex
behavior

Storm

Complex

Extension on SOAR

ACT-R

Complex

Similar to SOAR a
programming language
enables representation of
tasks

Mitola
Architecture

OODA based

First cognitive architecture

developed based on
OODA feedback loop

Virginia
Tech 802.22

OODA using
Case Based
Reasoning
(CBR)

Virginia
Tech Public
Safety Radio

OODA with
CBR and
Genetic
Algorithms

Two loop cycle that first

makes a decision on radio
action then optimizes
actions using genetic
algorithms

OSCR

SOAR based

Utilizes the SOAR

Cognitive software to
model and operate
software defined radios

xG Radio

Ontology based

Utilizes policy rules to

govern radio behavior
driven by spectrum
observations

Incorporates long term

learning through the use of
historical database

implementation is rudimentary and extremely simple when

viewed from the perspective of cognitive science research.
Cognitive science is its own field with a significant body of
research contributed to by areas such as psychology, biology,
philosophy, computer science, linguistics, and sociology [24].
There is great opportunity to advance the field of cognitive
radio by creating a tighter coupling between traditional
cognitive science and radio engineering.
2) Developing a more proactive architecture that
incorporates prediction into the cognitive loop
Much of cognitive radio is based on the OODA loop which
was designed as a primarily reactive system. As such,
cognitive radio architectures are primarily designed to wait
until an event happens before making a change to their
configuration. Similarly to the cognitive networking mindset
that seeks to obtain a global viewpoint, cognitive architectures
would benefit from a more proactive mindset that seeks to
make changes before they are needed. To some extent, the
original Mitola architecture [1] includes prediction as part of

the planning stage. The planning stage iss based upon an

historical archive of past decisions and sittuations that can
provide the basis for predictive based decissions. However,
there has been little work in this area especiallly in adapting the
use of prediction algorithms used in other areeas of research to
cognitive radio applications.
An architecture that incorporates a prroactive mindset
capable of predicting when and where communications
pathways exist and more importantly, will exiist, is required. It
must be capable of devising multiple continggency plans based
on available networks, radio environmental cconditions as well
as user quality of service goals along with pprediction of user
mobility. In a military paradigm, the communnications network
must be able to predict where and when jamm
ming attacks might
occur and have contingency plans for mitigating these
circumstances. This architecture requires a gglobal mindset as
opposed to strictly an individualistic ooperation.
The
architecture cannot be limited by just a sinngle hop within a
communications network or one vertical handover to a
heterogeneous network. It must be capaable of enabling
multiple hops across disparate systems in oorder to maintain
connectivity at all costs.
Core research issues include developiing fundamental
definitions and metrics for proactive communications,
correlating these metrics against user needs and applications,
identifying the observable elements requireed for acceptable
prediction and decision making, and even iddentifying on the
basic level what constitutes an acceptable pprediction. Other
areas include mathematical algorithms for prediction, decision
making and optimization, and latency requirrements for SDR
platforms used in this type of proactive contexxt.
An incorrect prediction has the potential too initiate changes
within the radio or network parameters thhat will lead to
degraded performance than before the chaanges. An error
recovery mechanism is important that provides timely
correction in order to at least return radioo parameters and
operation to the previous best position..
A proposed
architecture, shown in Error! Reference source not found.,
incorporates a predictive element into the cognnition engine.
Areas of research which have utilized prediction based
algorithms include the field of Always-Besst-Connected that
utilizes prediction to aid in optimizing handooff between same
and heterogeneous systems [25-26]. Mathemaatical models that
support prediction might include hidden markov models,
branch prediction from computer science, and grey system
theory prediction algorithms.
3) Evolving on the OODA Loop
The basic OODA loop chain of events desccribes the decision
making process in a general fashion. As suchh, the OODA loop
requires individualization when applied to specific reactive
situations such as fighter pilot combat or cognnitive radio where
system nodes react based on observed cconditions in the
environment. The Critique-Explore-Comparre-Adapt (CECA)
loop, introduced in military intelligence reseearch, expands on
the OODA loop in order to study the brooader context of
Command and Control [8, 27]. The CECA pphilosophy claims
that the OODA loop does not adequately descrribe the proactive

Figure 2 Predictive Cognitiive Architecture

goal-oriented command decision making

m
process. Cognitive
applications will continue to grow and expand beyond single
radios into networks involving multi-system components
requiring a more proactive paradigm
m [3].
A novel research direction explo
ores the application of the
CECA model to cognitive radio co
ontrasted with the existing
modeling of the OODA loop based CR.
C Missing from both the
CECA model and the OODA modeel is a proactive block that
provides the intention of how to chaange the system parameters
in preparation for one or morre future predictions of
environmental conditions.
ms into architectures
4) Incorporating novel algorithm
An opportunity for novel research
h includes investigating less
researched algorithms to solve the require
r
functions within the
cognitive engine [23]. Suggested diirections include looking to
the bio-inspired algorithms such ass Ant Colony Optimization
(ACO) [28] and Particle Swarm Opttimization (PSO) [29].
In particular, PSO might have significant implications to
cognitive radios. It attempts to creeate a mathematical model
for the behavior of birds, fish and in
nsects that travel in groups.
These groups can create tightly coup
pled movements amongst
their populations even though each
e
individual only has
knowledge of their nearest neighbo
or and not the group as a
whole. This compares to the probab
ble deployment of cognitive
radios into the field. Each radio willl only have power to sense
the spectrum nearby themselves and
d will have connectivity to
only a few neighbors. They may on
nly have shared knowledge
of their neighbors and might not bee able to gain and level of
collective knowledge.
Another algorithmic field thaat has potential towards
cognitive radio is Grey Systems Theory which include Grey
Modeling and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA).
Grey
Relational Analysis presents a metho
od for identifying similarity
between observed data and a referen
nce dataset which makes it
ideally suited for use within a case--based cognitive radio [30].
GRA provides a quantification of distance
d
between a set of
data and a reference set [21]. Thiss distance provides a direct
correlation to similarity which may
y provide improvements to
searching large case based histories.

Similarly, Grey Prediction theory, provides a time-series

based prediction model that may supplement existing
algorithms such as Hidden Markov Models to enable a more
proactive cognitive performance by utilizing observed
conditions to predict future parameters [31-32]. The Grey
Model (GM) theory provides a potentially strong tool for
modeling discrete series with only a few data points, as little as
four in some cases.
5) Developing tools for fast prototyping of cognitive radio
architectures
To date, cognitive radio architectures have required
completely customized software frameworks. A new effort is
underway to create more user friendly base layer frameworks
to enable faster development of cognitive radio
implementations. The Cognitive Radio Open Source System
(CROSS) incorporates socket based APIs constructed as a
flexible shell that will allow users to easily incorporate
customized AI modules and cognitive engine control schemes
[33].
6) Adapt radio selfishness based on application
Certain situations such as battle conditions and safety-of-life
events may require a node to take priority over others in the
network. Applying learning and decision making to these
situations is another open area of research.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we outlined the major cognitive architectures

that make up the foundation for cognitive radio and proposed
novel research ideas. Specific recommendations include
incorporating more formalized prediction algorithms into the
cognitive engine loop in order to create more proactive
operations; develop interdisciplinary architectures with
cognitive scientists; look to advancements in military
intelligence cognition to evolve on the OODA loop, and
investigate lesser known AI algorithms.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

J. Mitolla, "Cognitive Radio - An Integrated Agent Architecture for

Software Defined Radio," Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
2000
N. Baldo and M. Zorzi, "Cognitive Network Access using Fuzzy
Decision Making," in ICC 2007 proceedings, 2007.
Q. Mahmoud, "Cognitive Networks: Towards Self-Aware
Networks," New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2007.
R. W. Thomas, D. H. Friend, L. A. Dasilva, and A. B. Mackenzie,
"Cognitive networks: adaptation and learning to achieve end-to-end
performance objectives," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol.
44, pp. 51-57, 2006.
J. Reed and C. Bostian, "Understanding the Issues in Software
Defined Cognitive Radio" " in Dyspan, Dublin, Ireland, 2006.
A. Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University
Press, 1994.
J. Boyd, "John Boyd Compendium," [Online]. Available:
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/john-r-boyd/.
J. Bryant, "Modernizing Our Cognitive Model," in 9th International
Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium,
2004.
P. Langley and D. Choi, "A Unified Cognitive Architecture for
Physical Agents," in Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, Boston, 2007.
"Soar," 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/soar/home.

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]

[31]
[32]

[33]

J. Lehman, J. Laird, and P. Rosenbloom, "A gentle introduction to

Soar, an architecture for human cognition ", 2006.
J. Laird, "Extending the Soar Cognitive Architecture " in Artificial
General Intelligence Conference, 2008.
"ACT-R," 2008. [Online]. Available: http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/.
"Welcome to ACT-R," 2009. [Online]. Available: http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/.
A. He, J. Gaeddert, K. K. Bae, J. H. Reed, and C.-H. Park,
"Development of a Case-Based Reasoning Cognitive Engine for
IEEE 802.22 WRAN Applications," 2007.
B. Le, F. A. G. Rodriguez, Q. Chen, B. P. Li, F. Ge, M. ElNainay,
T. W. Rondeau, and C. W. Bostian, "A Public Safety Cognitive
Radio Node," in 2007 SDR Forum Technical Conference Denver,
CO, 2007.
E. Stuntebeck, T. O'Shea, J. Hecker, and T. Clancy, "Architecture
for an Open-Source Cognitive Radio," in SDR Forum Technical
Conference 2006, 2006.
"Open Source Cognitive Radio (OSCR)," 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ltsnet.net/oscr/.
W. T. Ryan, H. F. Daniel, A. D. Luiz, and B. M. Allen, "Cognitive
networks: adaptation and learning to achieve end-to-end
performance objectives," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol.
44, pp. 51-57, 2006.
P. Sutton, L. E. Doyle, and K. E. Nolan, "A Reconfigurable
Platform for Cognitive Networks," in Cognitive Radio Oriented
Wireless Networks and Communications, 2006. 1st International
Conference on, 2006, pp. 1-5.
M. Lu and K. Wevers, "Grey Systems Theory and Applications: A
Way Forward," Journal of Grey Systems, vol. 10, pp. 47-54, 2007.
Y. Lin and S. Liu, "A Historical Introduction to Grey Systems
Theory," in 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, 2004.
B. Atakan and O. B. Akan, "BIOlogically-Inspired Spectrum
Sharing in Cognitive Radio Networks," in Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2007.WCNC 2007.
IEEE, 2007, pp. 43-48.
G. Luger, Cognitive Science: The Science of Intelligent Systems.
San Diego. Academic Press, 1994.
"Handover/Mobility Prediction comparing several filters," 2006.
[Online]. Available:
http://lia.deis.unibo.it/Research/SOMA/MobilityPrediction/.
S. Venkatachalaiah, R. Harris, and J. Murphy, "Improving Handoff
in Wireless Networks using Grey and Particle Swarm
Optimisation," CCCT, vol. 5, pp. 368-373, 2004.
D. J. Bryant, "Modernizing Our Cognitive Model," in Command
and Control Research and Technology Symposium CCRTS 2004
San Diego, 2004.
V. Maniezzo, L. M. Gambardella, and F. D. Luigi, "Ant Colony
Optimization," in Optimization Techniques in Engineering,
Springer-Verlag, Ed., 2004.
K. E. Parsopoulos and M. N. Vrahatis, "Particle Swarm
Optimization Method for Constrained Optimization Problems,"
Intelligent Technologies - Theory and Applications: New Trends in
Intelligent Technologies, vol. 76, pp. 214-220, 2002.
S.-J. Huang, N.-H. Chiu, and L.-W. Chen, "Integration of the grey
relational analysis with genetic algorithm for software effort
estimation," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 188,
pp. 898-909, 2008.
S. Saeed, C. Rezaei, and B. H. Khalaj, "Grey Prediction Based
Handoff Algorithm," World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, vol. 2, 2005.
S. Shiann-Tsong and W. Chih-Chiang, "Using grey prediction
theory to reduce handoff overhead in cellular communication
systems," in Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications,
2000. PIMRC 2000. The 11th IEEE International Symposium on,
2000, pp. 782-786 vol.2.
"Cognitive Radio Open Source System," 2009. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cornet.wireless.vt.edu/trac/wiki/Cross.