| Literature DB >> 36080996 |
Xinliang Zhang1, Tianyun Li1, Pei Gong1, Renwei Liu1, Xiong Zha1.
Abstract
Modulation recognition is the indispensable part of signal interception analysis, which has always been the research hotspot in the field of radio communication. With the increasing complexity of the electromagnetic spectrum environment, interference in signal propagation becomes more and more serious. This paper proposes a modulation recognition scheme based on multimodal feature fusion, which attempts to improve the performance of modulation recognition under different channels. Firstly, different time- and frequency-domain features are extracted as the network input in the signal preprocessing stage. The residual shrinkage building unit with channel-wise thresholds (RSBU-CW) was used to construct deep convolutional neural networks to extract spatial features, which interact with time features extracted by LSTM in pairs to increase the diversity of the features. Finally, the PNN model was adapted to make the features extracted from the network cross-fused to enhance the complementarity between features. The simulation results indicated that the proposed scheme has better recognition performance than the existing feature fusion schemes, and it can also achieve good recognition performance in multipath fading channels. The test results of the public dataset, RadioML2018.01A, showed that recognition accuracy exceeds 95% when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) reaches 8dB.Entities:
Keywords: PNN; RSBU-CW; feature fusion; modulation recognition; multipath fading channels
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080996 PMCID: PMC9460658 DOI: 10.3390/s22176539
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Principle framework of the proposed scheme.
Figure 2Deep residual shrinkage network model. (a) RSBU-CW Block; (b) RSBU-CW12.
Figure 3Time-frequency domain feature inputs. (a) I/Q waveform; (b) modulus and phase; (c) welch spectrum; (d) square spectrum; (e) fourth power spectrum.
Figure 4PNN model.
Figure 5Different feature inputs (QPSK as example). (a) I/Q waveform; (b) vector diagram; (c) time-frequency diagram; (d) eye diagram.
Figure 6Residual network model. (a) RBU; (b) RBU1; (c) RBU12; and (d) RBU24.
Overall recognition accuracy of different feature inputs.
| I/Q Waveform | Vector Diagram | Time-Frequency Diagram | Eye Diagram | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBU1 | 0.6526 | 0.6491 | 0.5625 | 0.3333 |
| RBU12 | 0.7738 | 0.6781 | 0.7248 | 0.3488 |
| RBU24 | 0.7836 | 0.6950 | 0.7426 | 0.3505 |
Complexity comparison of different network models.
| RBU1 | RBU12 | RBU24 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters(M) | 4.3652 | 2.3646 | 2.8997 |
| FLOPs(M) | 4.4943 | 9.6636 | 16.7901 |
Performance of modulation recognition network models.
| Overall Recognition Accuracy | |
|---|---|
| LSTM (two-layer) | 0.7303 |
| Bi-LSTM | 0.7357 |
| RSBU12 | 0.7738 |
| CLDNN(LSTM) | 0.7931 |
| CLDNN(Bi-LSTM) | 0.7945 |
| RSBU-CW12 | 0.8307 |
Notes: LSTM (two-layer) represents a two-layer LSTM; CLDNN (LSTM) is a network composed of CNN, LSTM, and DNN [21]; CLDNN(Bi-LSTM) is to replace LSTM with Bi-LSTM.
Figure 7Recognition accuracy curve of different network models with change of SNR.
Comparison of feature fusion schemes.
| Feature Input | Network | Feature Fusion Method | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSN [ | I/Q waveform | MPN | Multi-scale feature maps merging |
| WSMF [ | I/Q waveform, | Resnet | Multimodal information from multiple transformation domain concatenation |
| CNN-LSTM [ | I/Q waveform, | CNN-LSTM based dual-stream structure | The spatial-temporal feature interaction |
| ours | I/Q waveform, | Multimodal information from multiple transformation domain concatenation, |
Figure 8Recognition accuracy curve of different schemes with change of SNR.
Figure 9Recognition performance of the proposed scheme. (a) Recognition accuracy curve of each modulation type; (b) overall confusion matrix. The darker the color, the higher the value.
Specific simulation channel parameters.
| Channel | Rayleigh Fading | Rician Fading |
|---|---|---|
| Path Delays (s) | [0.0, 2 × 10−5] | [0.0, 5 × 10−7] |
| Average PathGains (dB) | [0.0, −2.0] | [0.0, −2.0] |
| Maximum DopplerShift (Hz) | 30.0 | 50.0 |
| DopplerSpectrum | doppler (‘Gaussian’, 0.6) | doppler (‘Gaussian’, 0.6) |
| K-Factor | -- | 2.8 |
| DirectPath DopplerShift | -- | 5.0 |
| DirectPath InitialPhase | -- | 0.5 |
Figure 10Multipath fading channel. (a) Rayleigh fading channel; (b) Rician fading channel.
Figure 11Comparison of different channel recognition performance.
Dataset parameter settings.
| Dataset | RadioML2018.01A |
|---|---|
| Modulation Type | OOK, 4ASK, 8ASK, BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK, 16PSK, 32PSK, 16APSK, 32APSK, 64APSK, 128APSK, 16QAM, 32QAM, 64QAM, 128QAM, 256QAM, AM-SSB-WC, AM-SSB-SC, AM-DSB-WC, AM-DSB-SC, FM, GMSK, OQPSK |
| −20:2:30 dB | |
| Data Format | 2 × 1024 |
| Propagation Channel | Gaussian white noise, multipath fading, carrier frequency offset, delay spread, etc. |
Figure 12Recognition performance curve of public dataset, RadioML2018.01A. (a) ASK+QAM; (b) PSK+APSK; (c) low Order+Analog; (d) comparison of different schemes recognition performance.