| Literature DB >> 35161766 |
Anand Kumar1, Sudhan Majhi2, Guan Gui3, Hsiao-Chun Wu4, Chau Yuen5.
Abstract
Blind modulation classification (MC) is an integral part of designing an adaptive or intelligent transceiver for future wireless communications. Blind MC has several applications in the adaptive and automated systems of sixth generation (6G) communications to improve spectral efficiency and power efficiency, and reduce latency. It will become a integral part of intelligent software-defined radios (SDR) for future communication. In this paper, we provide various MC techniques for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signals in a systematic way. We focus on the most widely used statistical and machine learning (ML) models and emphasize their advantages and limitations. The statistical-based blind MC includes likelihood-based (LB), maximum a posteriori (MAP) and feature-based methods (FB). The ML-based automated MC includes k-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision trees (DTs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and long short-term memory (LSTM) based MC methods. This survey will help the reader to understand the main characteristics of each technique, their advantages and disadvantages. We have also simulated some primary methods, i.e., statistical- and ML-based algorithms, under various constraints, which allows a fair comparison among different methodologies. The overall system performance in terms bit error rate (BER) in the presence of MC is also provided. We also provide a survey of some practical experiment works carried out through National Instrument hardware over an indoor propagation environment. In the end, open problems and possible directions for blind MC research are briefly discussed.Entities:
Keywords: blind modulation classification; convolutional neural networks; deep learning; higher-order cumulant and cyclic cumulant; maximum a posteriori; maximum-likelihood; orthogonal frequency division multiplexing; probability of correct classification; testbed implementation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161766 PMCID: PMC8840120 DOI: 10.3390/s22031020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The organization of the paper.
List of abbreviations in alphabetical order.
| Acronym | Explanation |
|---|---|
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| ALRT | Average Probability Ratio Test |
| AMAP | Approximated Maximum a Posteriori |
| ASB | Amplitude Spectrum of Bispectrum |
| AWGN | Additive White Gaussian Noise |
| BAT | Bit Allocation Table |
| BFSF | Bi-Fold Signal Fortification |
| BICM-ID | Bit-Interleaved Coded Modulation Iterative Decoding |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| CSI | Channel State Information |
| DBN | Deep Belief network |
| DVB | Digital Video Broadcasting |
| FB | Feature Based |
| FCP | False Classification Probability |
| FFT | Fast Fourier Transform |
| FNSF | Frequency Non-Selective Fading Channel |
| FPGA | Field Programmable Gate Array |
| FSF | Frequency Selective Fading Channel |
| FSST | Fourier Synchrosqueezing Transformation |
| GLRT | Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test |
| HGWO | Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimization |
| HLRT | Hybrid Likelihood Ratio Test |
| HOC | Higher Order Cumulant |
| HOS | Higher Order Statistics |
| ICI | Inter-carrier Interference |
| IQ | In-phase and Quadrature |
| IQL | Improved Q-learning |
| KNN | K-Nearest Neighbors |
| KS | Kolmogorov–Smirnov |
| LLR | Log-likelihood ratio |
| MAP | Maximum a Posteriori |
| MC | Modulation Classification |
| MFCC | Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficient |
| MDNCC | Multi-Distance-Based Nearest Centroid Classifier |
| NOMA | Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access |
| OFDM-IM | Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing with Index Modulation |
| PCC | Percentage of Correct Classification |
| Probability Density Function | |
| PER | Packet Error Ratio |
| PSO | Particle Swarm Optimization |
| SC | Single Carrier |
| SDR | Software-defined Radio |
| STFT | Short-Time Fourier Transform |
| TDD | Time Division Duplex |
| TF-HMS | Twin-Functioned Human Mental Search |
| UMP | Uniformly Most Powerful |
| VLC | Visible Light Communication |
| WOA | Whale Optimization Algorithm |
| WPS | Wavelet Packet Signals |
| WT | Wavelet Transform |
Figure 2Block diagram of blind modulation classification for OFDM system.
Summary of LB approaches for OFDM signals.
| Author(s) | Classifier(s) | Modulation(s) | Parameter(s) | Channel | Average PCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. Yucek [ | Sub-optimum algorithm | BPSK, QPSK, | Imperfect noise variance | AWGN | 99.9% |
| J. Leinonen [ | Quasi-log-likelihood Ratio | BPSK, QPSK, | Known channel correlation | AWGN | 98.50% |
| J. Zheng [ | ALRT, HLRT and | BPSK, QPSK, | Known CSI, Known noise | Rayleigh | 97.40% |
| T. Fang [ | Expectation maximization | BPSK, QPSK, | Unknown CSI and unknown | Acoustic | 100% |
| M. Marey [ | Iterative EM-based MC | QPSK, 64-QAM, | Presence of synchronization | Rayleigh | 99% |
Summary of maximum a posteriori (MAP) based classifiers for OFDM signals.
| Author(s) | Classifier(s) | Modulation(s) | Parameter(s) | Channel | Average PCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L. Häring [ | MAP Algorithm, | BPSK, 4-QAM, | Perfect knowledge | Rayleigh | 99% |
| L. Häring [ | ML and MAP Algorithm | no modulation, BPSK, | Perfect synchronization | Rayleigh | 99% |
| L. Häring [ | Simplified MAP algorithm | no modulation, BPSK, | Perfect knowledge | AWGN | 100% |
| L. Häring [ | Improved Approximated | QPSK, 16-QAM | Perfect synchronization | - | 79.5% |
| L. Häring [ | Signalling-assisted | M-QAM | Known CSI, knowledge | AWGN | 98.5% |
| L. Häring [ | Jointly optimizes the bit | M-QAM | Perfect synchronization and | AWGN | 99% |
| L. Häring [ | Influence of imperfect | IEEE 802.11a/n | Unknown CSI and knowledge | Rayleigh | 100% |
| C. Husmann [ | MAP Algorithm | BPSK, QPSK, | Perfect time and frequency | AWGN | 97.5% |
| S. Bahrani [ | Improved Approximated | BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM | Perfect synchronization and | AWGN | 98% |
| M. Karabacak [ | Adaptive Pilot Based | BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM | Perfect synchronization | AWGN | 99.8% |
| S. bahrani [ | Rate adaptive (RA) | BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM | Perfect synchronization | Rayleigh | 100% |
Summary of FB approaches for OFDM signals.
| Author(s) | Feature(s) | Modulation(s) | Parameter(s) | Channel | Decision-Making | Average PCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. D. Pambudi [ | Mean, Variance, | QPSK,16-QAM | - | Rayleigh | Threshold based | 91% |
| D. Shimbo [ | Amplitude, Moments | 16-QAM and 64-QAM | Prior knowledge | AWGN | Threshold based | 89% |
| R. Gupta [ | Using discrete Fourier | BPSK, QPSK, MSK, | Unknown Signal | Rayleigh | Likelihood ratio test | 97.5% |
| J. Zhang [ | Wavelet transform (WT), | 4-FSK, QPSK, | Unknown Signal Parameters | Rayleigh | - | 100% |
| Y. Zhu [ | Kurtosis coefficient, | 2-ASK, 4-ASK, 2-FSK, | Unknown symbol rate and | AWGN, FNSF, | Threshold based | 97% |
| Y. Ma [ | Constellation cluster, | QPSK, 8-QAM, 16-QAM, | Rotation plane and angle | AWGN | Peak-density | 87.5% |
| Tomoya [ | Identification estimation | OFDM, CDMA, a block | - | AWGN | - | 92.5% |
| J. Chen [ | Inter-class identification, | OFDM, 2-FSK, 4-FSK, | Perfect CSI | Rayleigh | Threshold based | 100% |
| H. Li [ | Empirical Distribution | M-QAM | Unknown symbol duration, | AWGN | - | 95% |
| Y. Liu [ | Latent Dirichlet | QPSK, 8-PSK and 16-QAM | Imperfect CSI and unknown SNR | Flat fading | - | 97.5% |
| Y. Liu [ | Optimal Bayesian Method, | QPSK, 8-PSK, | Imperfect CSI and unknown SNR | Flat fading | - | 97% |
| A.K. Pathy [ | Using DFT and normalized | BPSK, QPSK, MSK, | Unknown Signal Parameters, | Rayleigh | Likelihood ratio test | 97% |
Figure 3Schematic diagram of blind modulation classification studied in [63].
Figure 4Histogram of for BPSK, QPSK, OQPSK, MSK, and 16-QAM. Adapted with permission from Ref. [63]. Copyright 2021 IEEE.
Figure 5Histogram of for BPSK and QPSK. Adapted with permission from Ref. [63]. Copyright 2021 IEEE.
Summary of ML-based classifiers for OFDM signals.
| Author(s) | Classifier(s) | Modulation(s) | Parameter(s) | Channel(s) | Average PCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M.L.D. Wong [ | Optimize Shannon’s | BPSK, QPSK, | Perfect | AWGN | 96.8% |
| S. E. El-Khamy [ | Higher order moments | BPSK, QPSK, | - | Rayleigh | 100% |
| X. Yuan [ | Higher-order cumulants, | QPSK, 16-QAM | Imperfect time | Frequency- | 100% |
| W. Machid [ | Least squares (LS) | BPSK, QPSK, | Unknown noise | Flat fading | 97.5% |
| Y. Zhang [ | High order cumulants, | BPSK, QPSK, | Presence of | Flat fading | 99.5% |
| B. Dehri [ | Higher order statistics, | QPSK and 16-QAM | Presence of CFO | Rayleigh | 100% |
| Y. Gu [ | Peaks in the distribution of | BPSK, QPSK, | Unknown CFO | AWGN | 100% |
| J. He [ | Clustering and | QPSK, | - | AWGN | 100% |
| L. Gaohui [ | High order cumulants and | M-QAM, MFSK and MPSK | Perfect | Rayleigh | 100% |
Summary of DL-based classifiers for OFDM signals.
| Author(s) | Classifier(s) | Modulation(s) | Parameter(s) | Channel(s) | Average PCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. M. Al-Makhlasawy [ | Mel Frequency Cepstral | QPSK, 8-QAM, | Perfect | AWGN | 100% |
| Y. Li [ | Bispectrum and | BPSK, 2-ASK, | - | AWGN | 97.5% |
| S. Hong [ | CNN with dropout layer | BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, | Perfect | Rician fading | 99% |
| J. Shi [ | CNN, ReLU and | BPSK, QPSK, | Presence of phase offset | AWGN | 100% |
| S. Hong [ | CNN | BPSK, QPSK, 4-PAM, | Perfect synchronization | Rician fading | 97.5% |
| F. Meng [ | CNN with two step training, | BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, | Unknown CFO | Time invariant and | 100% |
| D. H. AlNuaimi [ | GaFP-Net, TF-HMS, | QPSK, BPSK, DPSK, | Unknown CFO | AWGN | 86% |
| Z. Zhang [ | CNN-LSTM | BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, | Presence of CFO and STO | Rayleigh | 91% |
| M.C. Park [ | IQ and FFT window bank (FWB), | QPSK, 16-QAM, | - | Rayleigh | 98.5% |
| Y. Zhang [ | Mixed order moment, | QPSK, 16-QAM, | Presence of CFO and STO | Rayleigh | 100% |
| Z. Zhao [ | AlexNet/GoogLeNet- | BPSK, QPSK, 8-QAM, | - | AWGN | 100% |
| J. Yin [ | Lightweight CNN (LCNN)-based | BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, 16-QAM | - | Rician fading | 100% |
| G. Kong [ | Fourier synchrosqueezing | 16-QAM, 64-QAM, | Perfect Synchronization | Rayleigh | 90% |
| Q. Zheng [ | Spectrum interference-based | BPSK, QPSK, 8-PSK, 16-QAM, | - | Rayleigh | 89.3% |
| T. Huynh-The [ | CNN with integrated attention | BPSK, QPSK, | Presence of CFO | Rayleigh | 88% |
Figure 6Framework of the proposed CNN-based MC system [85].
Figure 7CNN structure design in the proposed CNN-based MC method [85].