Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Robustness of digitally modulated signal features against variation in HF noise model

  • Alharbi Hazza1Email author,
  • Mobien Shoaib2,
  • Alshebeili Saleh1, 2 and
  • Alturki Fahd1
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking20112011:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1499-2011-24

Received: 21 October 2010

Accepted: 29 June 2011

Published: 29 June 2011

Abstract

High frequency (HF) band has both military and civilian uses. It can be used either as a primary or backup communication link. Automatic modulation classification (AMC) is of an utmost importance in this band for the purpose of communications monitoring; e.g., signal intelligence and spectrum management. A widely used method for AMC is based on pattern recognition (PR). Such a method has two main steps: feature extraction and classification. The first step is generally performed in the presence of channel noise. Recent studies show that HF noise could be modeled by Gaussian or bi-kappa distributions, depending on day-time. Therefore, it is anticipated that change in noise model will have impact on features extraction stage. In this article, we investigate the robustness of well known digitally modulated signal features against variation in HF noise. Specifically, we consider temporal time domain (TTD) features, higher order cumulants (HOC), and wavelet based features. In addition, we propose new features extracted from the constellation diagram and evaluate their robustness against the change in noise model. This study is targeting 2PSK, 4PSK, 8PSK, 16QAM, 32QAM, and 64QAM modulations, as they are commonly used in HF communications.

Keywords

Digital modulation featurestemporal time domain featureshigher order cumulantswavelet decompositionconstellation diagrambi-kappa noiseHF band

Introduction

Automatic modulation classification (AMC) is the process of identifying modulation type of a detected signal without prior information. This technique has both military and civilian applications, and is currently an important research subject in the design of cognitive radios [13]. AMC is a complex task especially in a non co-operative environment as in high frequency (HF) communications, where transmission is affected by atmospheric conditions and other transmission interferences [4].

AMC methods are grouped into two categories: likelihood based (LB) and feature based (FB) methods. LB methods have two steps: calculating the likelihood function of the received signal for all candidate modulations, and then using maximum likelihood ratio test (MLRT) for decision-making. In FB methods, features are first extracted from the received signal and then applied to a classifier in order to recognize the modulation type. Most of the recent literatures use the FB methods due to their low processing complexity and high performance [5]. For more details about AMC methods with a comprehensive literature review, the reader is referred to [6].

Figure 1 shows the classification task in a smart radio. The task of the signal detection block is to identify signal transmission, while the AMC contains a feature extractor followed by a classifier. The classifier can be based on fixed threshold as in decision tree methods, or based on pattern recognition (PR) methods as in artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector machines (SVM) [7, 8]. Most of the features used in literature are based on wavelet [9, 10], temporal time domain (TTD) analysis [1113], and higher order cumulants (HOC) [1416]. These features are generally extracted under the assumption that the modulated signals are corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Although this assumption is valid in many communication environments, recent studies show that HF noise changes between AWG and bi-kappa distributions [17, 18]. The effect of these two noise distributions has been taken into account during the design of the AMC algorithms proposed in [19]. The work shows that the change in noise model affects the classification performance, especially at low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Therefore, the robustness of commonly used features against variation in noise models needs to be investigated so that more reliable AMC algorithms can be designed for HF signals.
Figure 1
Figure 1

AMC based receiver architecture using feature based methods.

In this paper, we first examine the effect of Gaussian and bi-kappa noise models on wavelet, HOC, and TTD features, when these features are considered for the classification of single carrier modulations commonly used in HF band: 2PSK, 4PSK, 8PSK, 16QAM, 32QAM, and 64QAM [20]. Second, we propose new features based on maximum dissimilarity measures (MDM) in constellation diagram and evaluate their robustness against the change in noise model. Note that the contribution of this article is pertaining to the features extraction stage; hence the results obtained are independent of the classifier being used. However, these results will greatly serve the classifier design stage, as this stage can be based on features that are robust with respect to noise models.

The organization of the article is as follows. 'Signal model' and 'Noise model' sections present signal and channel noise models, respectively. 'Commonly used signal features' section introduces the TTD, HOC, and wavelet based features. 'Proposed features' section presents the proposed features. 'Simulation results' section presents results showing the robustness of the different features against the variation in noise model. 'Conclusion' section presents concluding remarks.

Signal model

The general form of received signal encompassing all modulation schemes under consideration is given by [21]:
(1)
where C(t)is the complex envelope of modulated signal, n(t) is band limited noise, f c is the carrier frequency, and Re{} denotes the real part. The complex envelope is characterized by the constellation points C k , signal power E, and pulse shaping functionp(t). For N symbols with periodicity T, the general form of complex envelope can be expressed as:
(2)

For MPSK modulation, C k {e-j 2πm/M}, where m = 0, 1, ..., m-1. For MQAM modulations, C k a k + jb k , m = 0, 1, ..., (M)1/2/2, and

Noise model

Noise model assumed in most of the research related to AMC is AWGN. This research focuses on AMC in HF band, where the AWGN assumption no longer remains valid for all transmission times [17, 18]. Instead, the noise varies between AWGN and bi-kappa distributions. The bi-Kappa distribution is characterized by the following probability distribution function:
(3)
where σ and k are the shaping parameter and tuning factor, respectively. Practical values of these parameters are σ = 46, k = 1.1, and σ = 20, k = 1 [17]. Figure 2 shows the probability distribution function, p(x, k), for different values of σ and k. The figure shows that decreasing the shaping parameter produces a shaper peak and that the bi-kappa distribution approaches the AWG distribution when the tuning parameter is increased. In this work, the parameters of bi-kappa distribution are set to σ = 20, k = 1.
Figure 2
Figure 2

Probability distribution function of bi-kappa noise for different values of parameters.

A more realistic noise model can be constructed by passing the bi-kappa noise through a band-limiting filter. The bandwidth of this filter is set to 8γs where γs is the symbol rate. This filter is practically used to minimize the transmission bandwidth. Figure 3 shows the constellation diagram of an intercepted 2PSK signal down converted to baseband for different SNR. This figure shows clearly the spiky nature of bi-kappa noise as compared to AWGN, especially at low SNR.
Figure 3
Figure 3

Effect of HF noise models on the intercepted signals.

Commonly used signal features

This section gives the general formulas and description of commonly used signal features. Specifically, we consider the TTD, HOS, and wavelet based features.

TTD features

The variations in modulated waveforms can be described by three instantaneous values: frequency, phase, and amplitude [11, 12]. All values related to these variations are defined as the TTD features. Two features will be investigated in our study. The first feature is the standard deviation of the absolute value of the centered non-linear component of the instantaneous phase defined as
(4)

where ϕ NL is the centered non-linear component of the instantaneous phase, tth is the threshold value of the non weak signal, L is the number of samples in ϕ NL .

The second feature is the standard deviation of the absolute value of the normalized-centered instantaneous amplitude; that is,
(5)

where N s is the number of samples, a cn = a/m a -1,a is the absolute value of the analytic form of the received signal, and m a is its sample mean value.

HOC features

The HOC are used to extract hidden information from non-Gaussian signals. In presence of AWGN, all the HOC are zero for orders greater than two. This makes these features attractive to classify modulated signals corrupted by AWGN. Fourth and sixth HOC considered in this study are defined as follows [1416]:
(6)
(7)
where C21 is the average power and M pq is the joint moment. The later can be calculated for any values of p and q using the following equation:
(8)
where x* denotes complex conjugate and E{} is the expectation operation. Table 1 shows the theoretical cumulants for the considered modulation schemes.
Table 1

Theoretical values of HOC for digital modulations

Signal

C 42

C 63

2PSK

-2

13

4PSK

-1

4

8PSK

-1

4

16QAM

-0.68

2.08

32QAM

-0.69

2.11

64QAM

-0.62

1.8

Wavelet features

Wavelet transform preserves the time information while providing the frequency information of an analyzed signal. This makes it a good candidate for AMC. As shown in Figure 4, features extraction using wavelet transform passes through three steps: wavelet decomposition using Haar mother waveform, median filtering, and finally calculation of standard deviation [22]. Robustness of wavelet features against noise model has been tested at level three and four.
Figure 4
Figure 4

Steps for wavelet features extraction.

Proposed features

The PSK and QAM modulations are represented by a constellation diagram in which the modulation symbols are depicted in terms of phase and amplitude variations. This diagram is extracted from the analytic form of the IF signal by multiplication with the complex conjugate of the carrier frequency. Many AMC algorithms are designed using features based on constellation diagram. These algorithms use different classification techniques that include maximum likelihood [23], genetic algorithms [24, 25], modified Chi-squared test [26], and subtractive clustering [27]. In this article, we propose a different use of constellation diagram by extracting features based on maximum dissimilarity measures (MDM), firstly to distinguish between different modulation types, such as QAM and PSK signals, and secondly to find the order of a particular modulation. MDM features depend on calculating the dissimilarity between different constellation diagrams after signals normalization. That is, features are extracted from the distance (or dissimilarity measures) between the complex envelope of the received signal and set of reference constellation points for a particular modulation scheme. These reference constellation points are defined by their amplitudes and phases [21]. MDM are computed after normalizing both the received and reference constellation points to their mean values. The dissimilarity function is defined as [28]:
(9)

where d is the Euclidian distance between the complex envelope of intercepted signal × and reference constellation points p. For feature extraction, the signal × is randomly generated at a particular SNR. A dissimilarity vector d, whose entries are the distance between a randomly generated constellation point of x and M reference constellation points p, can be obtained. The element of maximum value of vector d is averaged over several independent runs, and then selected as the desired feature. In practice, the mean and/or standard deviation of d max (x, p) will have values based on the noise level.

Table 2 shows five proposed features related to the MDM, each of which is responsible for discriminating a specific modulation type or modulation order. As shown in Table 1, the first feature d1 is used to discriminate between QAM and PSK signals, while d2 is used to discriminate between 2PSK and other PSK signals of higher orders. For further details see Table 2.
Table 2

Proposed features

Feature

p

x

Suggested use

d1 = std(d max (x, p))

8PSK

2PSK

4PSK

8PSK

16QAM

32QAM

64QAM

Discrimination between MPSK and MQAM

d2 = meand max (x, p))

2PSK

2PSK

4PSK

8PSK

Discrimination between 2PSK and (4PSK, 8PSK)

d3 = mean(d max (x, p))

4PSK

4PSK

8PSK

Discrimination between 4PSK and 8PSK

d4 = mean(d max (x, p))

16QAM

16QAM

32QAM

64QAM

Discrimination between 16QAM and (32QAM, 64QAM)

d5 = std(d max (x, p))

64QAM

32QAM

64QAM

Discrimination between 64QAM and 32MQAM

Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 show relevant variations of proposed features as a function of SNR. The results are averaged over 100 independent realizations and displayed for AWGN. Clearly, these figures show that the proposed features have potential applications in AMC, as they can be used in conjunction with decision tree or machine learning techniques for signal classification.
Figure 5
Figure 5

d 1 for the discrimination between MPSK and MQAM signals.

Figure 6
Figure 6

d 2 for the discrimination between 2PSK and higher PSK signals.

Figure 7
Figure 7

d 3 for the discrimination between 4PSK and 8PSK signals.

Figure 8
Figure 8

d 4 for the discrimination between 16QAM and higher QAM signals.

Figure 9
Figure 9

d 5 for the discrimination between 32QAM and 64QAM.

Effect of noise model on the proposed features will be discussed in the next section.

Simulation results

To evaluate the robustness of presented features, all the modulations schemes under test were generated in presence of band-limited AWGN and bi-kappa noise, where the bandwidth of the band-limiting filter is 8γs; this process is practically used to avoid high bandwidth transmission [13]. SNR is adjusted by multiplying the output noise by the following factor:
(10)
where E, N0, SNR are the signal power, noise power, and desired SNR, respectively. All constellation points are normalized to zero mean and unity variance. The simulation parameters are given in Table 3.
Table 3

Simulation parameters

Parameter

Value

Carrier frequency

f c = 24 kHz

Symbol rate

r s = 2400 Hz

Sampling rate

f s = 153.6 kHz

No. of symbols for testing

512

Total number of samples

32768

For evaluation purposes, we measure the absolute value of the percentage deviation of each feature when noise model is changed from AWGN to bi-kappa. This percentage is evaluated using SNR ranging between 0 and 30 dB, and is defined as follows
(11)
where FAWGN and FBi-kappa are the values of feature under consideration computed in the presence of AWGN and bi-kappa noise, respectively, at a particular SNR. Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 show the results, averaged over 100 independent realizations, for the following set of modulations: 2PSK, 4PSK, 8PSK, 16QAM, 32QAM, and 64QAM.
Figure 10
Figure 10

Features deviations computed from 2PSK signal.

Figure 11
Figure 11

Features deviations computed from 4PSK signals.

Figure 12
Figure 12

Features deviations computed from 8PSK signals.

Figure 13
Figure 13

Features deviations computed from 16QAM signals.

Figure 14
Figure 14

Features deviations computed from 32QAM signal.

Figure 15
Figure 15

Features deviations computed from 64QAM modulation.

The above figures show that at SNR <10 dB, TTD and MDM are more robust than HOC against the change in HF noise model. It is true in general that η decreases as SNR increases. However, for MPSK signals, the instantaneous amplitude feature has lower deviation for SNR <30 dB. This is intuitively not surprising because the difference between FAWGN and Fbi-kappa relative to FAWGN in this SNR range is smaller than that of higher SNR values. Another observation is that the wavelet based features have maintained almost the same values of η for all considered modulations. In addition, the proposed MDM have shown excellent performance in the sense that they have the lowest deviation as compared to other features.

Conclusions

In this article, we have investigated the robustness of four features categories for the classification of digitally modulated signals in the presence of HF noise models; AWGN and bi-kappa noise. Specifically, the TTD, HOC, wavelets, and MDM features are considered, where the last feature is proposed in this work. It has been shown through computer simulations that HOC are sensitive to the change in noise model especially at low SNR (<10 dB), while TTD, wavelets, and MDM show good robustness (η < 25%) in the investigated range of SNR. Note that the proposed MDM features have the lowest values of η, i.e., highest robustness against variation in noise model, as compared to other features. The results of this article have potential values for the design of a classifier, as they identify the features that of higher robustness with respect to HF noise models. Note that the performance of an AMC designed under the assumption of AWGN noise model cannot be ensured when considering HF communications. Classifiers employing features sensitive to variation in noise model should take this variation into consideration. For example, SVM or ANNs based classifiers need to be designed by training with signals corrupted by both HF noise models.

List of Abbreviations

AMC: 

Automatic modulation classification

ANNs: 

artificial neural networks

AWGN: 

additive white Gaussian noise

FB: 

feature based

HF: 

high frequency

HOC: 

higher order cumulants

LB: 

likelihood based

MDM: 

maximum dissimilarity measures

MLRT: 

maximum likelihood ratio test

PR: 

pattern recognition

SNR: 

signal-to-noise ratio

SVM: 

support vector machines

TTD: 

temporal time domain.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant (No. 08-ELE 263-2) from the unit of science and Technology at King Saud University.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
(2)
Prince Sultan Advanced Technologies Research Institute/STC-Chair, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

References

  1. Jain P, Buehrer RM: Implementation of adaptive modulation on the Sunrise software radio. The Proceedings of the 45th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems 2002, 3: III-405-III-408.Google Scholar
  2. Le B, Rondeau T, Maldonado D: Modulation identification using neural networks for cognitive radios. In Proceedings of SDR05 Technical Conference. Phoenix, AZ; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. Kim K, Akbar IA, Bae KK, Um J, Spooner CM, Reed JH: Cyclostationary approaches to signal detection and classification in cognitive radio. Proceedings of IEEE Dynamic Spectrum Access Nets 2007, 212-215.Google Scholar
  4. Maslim N: HF Communications: A Systems Approach. CRC Press, London; 1987.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Le Martret C, Boitea D: Ageneral maximum likelihood classifier for modulation classification. Proceedings of ICASSP 1998, 4: 2165-2168.Google Scholar
  6. Dobre OA, Abdi A, Bar-Ness Y, Su W: Survey of automatic modulation classification techniques: classical approaches and new trends. IET Commun 2007, 1: 137-156. 10.1049/iet-com:20050176View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Wong MLD, Nandi AK: Automatic digital modulation recognition using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Signal Process 2004, 351-365.Google Scholar
  8. Cheol-Sun P, Won J, Sun-Phil N: Automatic modulation recognition using support vector machine in software radio applications. In Proceedings of ICACT 2007. Volume 1. Gangwon-Do; 2007:9-12.Google Scholar
  9. Maliatsos K, Vassaki S, Ph Constantinou: Interclass and intraclass modulation recognition using the wavelet transformation. In Proc PIMRC 2007. Athens; 2007:1-5.Google Scholar
  10. Ling-Ling M, Xiu-jie S: An improved algorithm of modulation classification for digital communication signals based on wavelet transform. In Proceedings of ICWAPR 07. Volume 3. Beijing; 2007:1226-1231.Google Scholar
  11. Ye Z, Memik G, Grosspietsch J: Digital modulation classification using temporal waveform features for cognitive radios. In Proceedings of PIMRC 2007. Athens; 2007:1-5.Google Scholar
  12. Nandi AK, Azzouz EE: Algorithms for automatic modulation recognition of communication signals. IEEE Trans Commun 1998, 46: 431-436. 10.1109/26.664294View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Azzouz EE, Nandi AK: Automatic Modulation Recognition of Communication Signals. Kluwer Academic, Norwell; 1996.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. He T, Jing XR: Modulation classification using ARBF networks. In Proceedings of ICSP. Beijing, China; 2004:1809-18120.Google Scholar
  15. Peng L, Fuping W, Zanji W: Algorithm for modulation recognition based on high-order cumulants and subspace decomposition. In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Signal Processing. Volume 3. Beijing; 2006:16-20.Google Scholar
  16. Dobre OA, Abdi A, Bar-Ness Y, Su W: Selection combining for modulation recognition in fading channels. In Proceedings of IEEE MILCOM. Atlantic City, US; 2005:2499-2505.Google Scholar
  17. Giesbrecht J, Clarke R, Abbott D: An imperical study of the probability density function of HF noise. Fluct Noise Lett 2006, 6(2):L117-L123. 10.1142/S0219477506003203View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Giesbrecht J: An empirical study of HF noise near Adelaide Australia. In IET 11th International Conference on Ionospheric Radio Systems and Techniques. Edinburgh, UK; 2009:310-314.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Alharbi H, Mobien S, Alshebeili S, Alturki F: Classification of digitally modulated signals in presence of non-Gaussian HF noise. In Proceedings of 7th ISWCS. Yourk, UK; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. Prosch R: Technical Handbook For Radio Monitoring I. Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Proakis JG: Digital Communications. McGraw-Hill, New York; 2001.Google Scholar
  22. Cheol-Sun P, Jun-Ho C, Sun-Phil N, Won J: Automatic modulation recognition of digital signals using wavelet features and SVM. In Proceedings of 10th ICACT. Volume 1. Gangwon-Do; 2008:387-390.Google Scholar
  23. Mobaseri B: Constellation shape as a robust signature for digital modulation recognition. Military Communications Conference Proceedings, MILCOM IEEE 1999, 1: 442-446.Google Scholar
  24. Ahmadi N, Reza B: Modulation classification of QAM and PSK from their constellation using Genetic Algorithm and hierarchical clustering. In 3d IEEE International Conference on Information & Communication Technologies: from Theory to Applications, ICTTA'08. Umayyad Palace, Damascus, Syria; 2008.Google Scholar
  25. Ahmadi N, Reza B: A template matching approach to classification of QAM modulation using genetic algorithm. Signal Process Int J 2009, 3(5):95-109.Google Scholar
  26. Kam-Tim W, Chi-Wah K: Clustering based distribution fitting algorithm for automatic modulation recognition. ISCC'2007 13-18.Google Scholar
  27. Changyi Y, Bingbing L, Yanling L: Modulation classification of MQAM signals from their constellation using clustering. 2010 Second International Conference on Communication Software and Networks 303-306.Google Scholar
  28. Theodoridis S, Koutroumbas K: Pattern Recognition. 4th edition. Elsevier Inc., Canada; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Hazza et al; licensee Springer. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement