A Deep learning approach for the Estimation of

Middleton Class-A Impulsive Noise Parameters

Bassant Selim∗ , Md Sahabul Alam∗ , Georges Kaddoum∗ , Mohammad T. AlKhodary∗ , and Basile L. Agba∗,§

∗ Departmentof Electrical Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Canada,

(emails: bassant.selim.1@ens.etsmtl.ca; md-sahabul.alam.1@ens.etsmtl.ca; georges.kaddoum@etsmtl.ca;
mohammad.alkhodary.1@ens.etsmtl.ca)
§ Hydro-Quebec Research Institute (IREQ), Montreal, Canada,

(email: agba.basilel@ireq.ca)

Abstract—Impulsive noise is a common impediment in
many wireless, power line communication (PLC), and
smart grid communication systems that prevents the system
from achieving error-free transmission. To overcome the
detrimental effects of such impulsive interference, knowl-
edge of impulsive noise parameters is generally required
by the available mitigation techniques. This work considers
a machine learning perspective for the estimation of the
impulsive noise parameters in communication systems un-
der the influence of Middleton class-A noise. Precisely, we
consider a deep learning approach and design a deep neural
network (DNN) that classifies a set of received symbols
according to the parameters of the impulsive noise affecting
them. It is sown that the classification accuracy greatly
depends on the number of symbols fed into the neural
network as well as the number of considered states in the
classification, where the proposed approach can reach a
testing accuracy of more than 99%.
Index Terms—Impulsive noise mitigation, Middleton
class-A noise, Parameter estimation, Deep neural networks,
Smart grid communication.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Interference and noise with non-Gaussian impulsive
behaviors are widespread phenomena encountered in
communication systems that can severely degrade the
system’s performance. Indeed, several studies show suf-
ficient evidences that impulse man-made noise is en-
countered in various metropolitan, high voltage, manu-
facturing plants, and indoor environments [1], [2]. It was
shown in [3]–[7] that communication systems designed
under the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) as-
sumption typically experience severe performance degra-
dation when subjected to impulsive noise. This elevates
the need for the performance analysis of communication
systems, which are not only disturbed by background
Gaussian noise, but also by impulsive (non-Gaussian)
noise, in order to provide pragmatic information for
the system designer. Consequently, over the last few
decades, several statistical models and their canonical
parameters were suggested to model different impulsive
behaviour [1], [8]–[10]. Out of them, the Middleton
class-A model [1] is very popular and widely accepted
due to its canonical property, tractable probability dis-
tribution function (PDF), and capability of capturing
the statistical behaviour of a wide variety of impulsive
interference.
Numerous methods have been investigated to im-
prove the performance of wireless communications in
the presence of impulsive noise. A simple and efficient
approach is to precede the receiver with a non-linear
preprocessor such as clipping, blanking, or combined
clipping/blanking. Ndo et al. [11] have considered an
adaptive clipping-based impulsive noise mitigation tech-
nique to overcome the noxious effect of impulsive noise
in orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)-
based PLC channels. Since it was clearly shown that
the value of the clipping/blanking threshold selected is
of paramount importance in the mitigation performance,
they have determined an optimized clipping threshold
based on the well-known false alarm and good detection
trade-off. The authors in [12] have derived a closed-
form optimal blanking threshold for OFDM receivers
employing blanking non-linearity to cancel the effect
of impulsive noise. The obtained results show that the
optimized threshold maximizes the SNR at the output of
the blanking nonlinearity. A comprehensive study of the
performance of clipping and blanking methods for the
mitigation of the performance degradation in impulsive
noise environments was considered in [13]. Recently,
advanced algorithms have been proposed to determine
the optimal threshold to maximize the impulsive noise
reduction after clipping/blanking, see [14], [15] and the
references therein. Meanwhile, for single carrier commu-
nication systems, an effective impulsive noise mitigation
technique is to calculate the exact log-likelihood ratio
(LLR) of each symbol by taking into account the exact
impulsive noise statistics [4], [6], [16]–[18] where it
was demonstrated that significant bit error rate (BER)
performance gain can be achieved through this scheme.

978-1-7281-5089-5/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 However, these works rely on the impractical assump- with
tion of perfect knowledge of the impulsive noise statistics exp−A Am
pm = (2)
at the receiver in order to evaluate the clipping/blanking m!
threshold or the LLR. To estimate these parameters, for
and
Middleton class-A noise, the works in [19], [20] resorted
2 m/A + T
to Markov Chain Monte Carlo which requires a large σm = σ2 . (3)
1+T
number of iterations in order to converge. More recently,
2
Sacuto et al. [21] used fuzzy C-means clustering to where pm and σm are the steady state probability and
estimate the partitioned Markov chain impulse noise the variance of the mth impulsive source, respectively.
parameters in PLC. This work only considers three For m = 0, the model generates the traditional AWGN
possible impulsive noise states. component.
On the other hand, machine learning approaches, in- The parameters A, T , and σ 2 are called global pa-
cluding deep learning, are becoming increasingly popu- rameters [1] as they characterize the PDF. The physical
lar in numerous applications such as signal detection and significance of these parameters are [1]:
resource allocation in wireless communication systems.
• A is the impulsive index which is defined as the
Their position in the spotlight can be attributed to their
average number of impulses per unit time (λ)
capacity to seamlessly perform complicated tasks, which
impinging on the receiver times the impulse mean
are generally impossible to achieve or would require
duration (T̄ )
substantial efforts if traditional algorithm were used.
In the context of impulsive noise mitigation, recently, A = λT̄ . (4)
Barazideh et al. [22] proposed to use a deep neural
A smaller A implies a lower number of impulsive
network (DNN) to detect the instances of impulsive
events and/or their duration. In such cases, the
noise before a blanking nonlinearity. Although instruc-
impulses are not dominant compared to the AWGN
tive, the proposed work is limited to OFDM systems
[1]. Higher values of A imply that the impulsive
with clipping/blanking nonlinearity. Thus, in this work,
noise is more dominant compared to the AWGN
we seek to estimate the impulsive noise parameters on
and by increasing A, the impulsive noise becomes
Middleton class-A noise, which can thereafter be used
closer to the Gaussian noise.
in the implementation of various mitigation techniques.
• T is the Gaussian to impulsive noise power ratio. It
To do so, inspired by the exceptional ability of neural
provides information on how strong the impulsive
networks to classify images based on their content, see
noise is compared to the independent AWGN noise
[23] and the references therein, this work makes use
and is defined as
of DNNs to determine the parameters of the impulsive
noise in communication systems. The proposed DNN 2
T = σG /σI2 . (5)
can accurately classify the impulsive noise parameters
in real time and with a very small number of samples The lower T is, the stronger the impulsive noise is,
required. It is shown that the proposed approach can compared to the background AWGN noise.
be used with classical mitigation techniques in order to • σ 2 represents the total power of the noise nk and
accurately eliminate the effect of impulsive noise on the is given by
communication system.
σ 2 = σG
2
+ σI2 . (6)
The remainder of this paper is organized as follow.
Section II presents an overview of the Middleton class-A The class-A model can be simplified and made more
noise model while Section III introduces the considered manageable by considering its truncated version with the
DNN design. Moreover, simulation results are provided first M terms as
in Section IV. Finally, Section V concludes this work.
M
 −1  
ṕ n2
II. M IDDLETON C LASS -A N OISE M ODEL f˜(nk ) = √ m exp − k2 , (7)
m=0
2πσm 2σm
The Middleton class-A model can be seen as a su-
perposition of statistically independent impulsive source with
emissions where the sources are Poisson distributed pm
ṕm = M −1 . (8)
and the amplitude of the sources follow a Gaussian m=0 pm
distribution. The PDF of a real-valued Middleton class-
A noise sample nk , where k represents the discrete-time It was shown in [24] that such a truncation with the
index, is given by [1] first four terms (M = 4) approximates the theoretical
∞   PDF with sufficient accuracy. Therefore, in this paper, we
 pm n2k consider this accurate approximation in order to simplify
f (nk ) = √ exp − 2 , (1)
m=0
2πσm 2σm the simulation of the Middleton class-A impulsive noise.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 III. I MPULSIVE N OISE PARAMETER E STIMATION
Without loss of generality, let us consider an informa-
tion source transmitting M -ary phase shift keying (PSK)
modulated data to a destination over a flat fading channel
in the presence of impulsive noise. The received signal
at each time epoch k is therefore given by
rk = x k + n k ,
where xk is the transmitted symbol from the source and
nk = nw I in the training phase, the input vector is mapped. Here,
k + bnk denotes the total noise which is the
Middleton class-A model. Let r = {r1 , r2 , ..., rK }, be
a sequence of received symbols impeded by impulsive
Middleton class-A noise with parameters A and T ,
which we seek to estimate.
A. Deep Neural Network Design
Deep learning is a supervised learning method, which
learns to map the input to an output based on training
performed on labeled input-output pairs. For classifiers,
where the aim is to determine to which of the k out-
puts the input belongs, deep neural networks seek to
approximate some function f , which maps the input y
to the output θ. To do so, these networks use the labeled
training data to determine the most suitable mathematical
manipulation to map the input to the output. We consider
a DNN, depicted in Fig. 1, with N input neurons and
2 dense layers with Q neurons each. Here, it is well
known that there is no rule of thumb to follow n order
to determine the optimal number of layers and neurons;
hence, the characteristics of DNNs are usually defined
based on trial and error.
Hidden Hidden
Layer 1 Layer 2
Output
Input ReLU ReLU
Layer 1 1
y 1
ReLU
ReLU
2 2
y 2
y N
ReLU ReLU
Q Q
Fig. 1: Considered DNN block diagram
It is recalled that impulsive noise, is characterized
by random occurrences in time. Thus, out of the N
input symbols of the DNN, only a fraction of them are
affected by impulsive noise. Moreover, these symbols are
randomly distributed in the input sequence. Intuitively,
this randomness would negatively affect the performance
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of the network. Therefore, we propose to sort the input
vector in an ascending, or descending, order such that
the affected symbols are always fed to specific neurons.
Let y = [y1 , y2 , ..., yN ] be the input vector consisting of
N received symbols. Here, yn represents the magnitude
of the k largest magnitude of the N symbols considered.
Thus, the DNN input layer consists of N nodes. Mean-
(9) while, the soft outputs of the network θ = [θ1 , θ2 , ...., θI ]
indicate to which state θi , from the I states considered
the term state represents the set of parameters of the
impulsive noise θi = {Ai , Ti }. Here, the relationship
between the layers of the network are given by
 
H[1] = φ[1] W[1] y + b[1] , (10)
 
H[2] = φ[2] W[2] H[1] + b[2] , (11)
and  
θ = φ[3] W[3] H[2] + b[3] (12)
where φ[l] , b[l] , and W[l] denote the lth layer’s vec-
tors of activation functions and biases, and matrices,
respectively. Here the output of a layer is also the input
of the subsequent one. We use the rectified linear unit
(ReLU) function for the hidden layers and a sigmoid for
the output layer. The considered DNN uses backward
propagation and the Adam algorithm for its training [25].
The Adam optimizer has been recently proposed as an
extension to the classical stochastic gradient descent. The
main feature of this optimizer is its ability to adapt the
learning rate.
IV. S IMULATION RESULTS
In this section, we assess the performance of the pro-
Layer posed approach for the estimation of the impulsive noise
parameters in a point-to-point communication system
1 under the influence of Middleton class-A noise. Do to
so, we start by evaluating the accuracy of the machine
learning approach proposed for the parameter estimation.
2
In addition, we evaluate the performance of the LLR
mitigation technique, when the estimated impulsive noise
3 parameters are considered.
A. Impulsive noise parameter estimation
Without loss of generality, in this section, we consider
I a single carrier system with low-density parity-check
(LDPC) coded transmission under the effect of Middle-
ton class-A noise. It is worth mentioning that the con-
sidered modulation is binary phase shift keying (BPSK);
however. the DNN was tested with different modulation
orders where it was shown that this parameter does not
affect the classification performance of the network. The
number of neurons considered in the hidden layers of
the DNN is N + 70, where N denotes the number of
input neurons, i.e., the number of symbols considered.
Moreover, unless mentioned otherwise, the number of
outputs of the DNN is 25, from which 24 correspond
to the different impulsive noise states obtained form all
possible combinations of A = [0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01] and
T = [0.1 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001], while the last
state corresponds to the AWGN case. The training and
testing set included 9 × 105 split between training and
testing with a 2 : 1 ratio.
90
Sorted Inputs
Unsorted Inputs
85
80
DNN Test Accuracy (%)
75
70
65
60
55
100 200 300 400
Number of input samples (N)
Fig. 2: DNN test accuracy versus number of input symbols (N) the
considered DNN with 2 layers where Q = N + 70 neurons in each
layer and I = 25 distinct impulsive noise states.
Here, we consider a practical communication system
where we seek to determine the impulsive noise pa-
rameters from the received signal, on the fly. Since the
activation function of each neuron is the ReLU function
for all hidden layers, the computational complexity of
the neural network during the prediction, as a forward
feeding, is linear of an order of O(Q) [26].
By definition, impulsive noise is characterized by a
high power and random occurrence where the impul-
sive index determines the average number of impulses
per unit time. To train the network, we generate data
according to (9), where nk come from the Middleton
class-A distribution in (1). For each state considered, we
generate a sequence of 5×104 labeled vectors of N input
samples. Here, 70% of the data is used for the training
while the remainder 30% of the datasets are considered
in the testing phase.
As detailed in Section III-A, we ordered the input
vector in the training and testing datasets in order to
increase the learning efficiency. Fig. 2 shows the neural
network testing accuracy versus the considered number
of input samples N for both ordered and non ordered
input vectors. Interestingly, it is observed that ordering
the data is associated with an increased accuracy and
consequently a better classification performance. More-
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
over, it is observed that increasing the size of the input
vector y positively affects the classification accuracy.
This result is expected since, as the number of input
symbols increases, the number of samples affected by
impulsive noise in the input is increased, which increases
the classification performance.
Moreover, Table I shows the test accuracy of the
considered DNN when the number of impulsive states
considered is varied. Here, we consider a DNN with
N = 200 input samples and Q = 270 neurons in
each hidden layer. As expected, the test accuracy of the
network is greatly improved when the considered states
are more easily distinguishable. This is the case when I
is decreased and when the considered parameters greatly
differ from each other. Precisely, for the considered
states, the DNN achieves an exceptional performance
when the number of states considered is I ≤ 10.
B. Impulsive Noise Mitigation
100
10-1
500
10-2
10-3
BER
10-4
10-5
10-6 LLR (Genie)
LLR (DNN)
No Mitigation
10-7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
SNR (dB)
Fig. 3: BER performance of LLR-based mitigation assuming the Genie
case with perfect knowledge of the impulsive noise parameters, the
estimated parameters using DNN, and the no mitigation case for A =
0.0083 and T = 0.02.
Here, we evaluate the performance of the LLR based
mitigation with the estimated parameters. To do so,
we consider the case where the actual impulsive noise
parameters that we seek to estimate, i.e., A = 0.0083
and T = 0.02, do not correspond to any of the consid-
ered states. In this context, the DNN network estimates
A = 0.02 and T = 0.01. Thus, we assume that a
sequence of equally likely information bits of length
32, 400 is encoded using LDPC channel coding based on
the DVB-S2 standard [27] with a code rate of 1/2. The
coded sequence is then mapped into a BPSK modulation
sequence. The number of iterations is set to 50.
 TABLE I: Test Accuracy versus Number of States (I)

Number of Test Accuracy States

States (I) (%)

5 99.62 θ5 = [(A = 0.5, T = 0.001) (A = 0.01, T = 0.1) (A = 0.5, T = 0.1) (A = 0.01, T = 0.001)

(A = 0, T = 1)]

7 95.54 θ7 = [θ5 (A = 0.5, T = 0.01) (A = 0.01, T = 0.01)]

10 96.77 θ10 = [(θ7 (A = 0.1, T = 0.1) (A = 0.1, T = 0.01) (A = 0.1, T = 0.001)]

13 82.32 θ13 = [θ10 (A = 0.1, T = 0.005) (A = 0.01, T = 0.005) (A = 0.5, T = 0.005)]

17 80.20 θ17 = [θ13 (A = 0.05, T = 0.005) (A = 0.05, T = 0.001) (A = 0.05, T = 0.01) (A = 0.05, T = 0.1)]

21 95.54 θ21 = [θ17 (A = 0.5, T = 0.002) (A = 0.1, T = 0.002) (A = 0.01, T = 0.002) (A = 0.05, T = 0.002)]

25 73.84 θ25 = [θ21 (A = 0.5, T = 0.05) (A = 0.1, T = 0.05) (A = 0.01, T = 0.05) (A = 0.05, T = 0.05)]

Fig. 3 figure presents the BER of the LLR based
mitigation assuming the Genie case where perfect knowl-
edge of the impulsive noise parameters are available at
the receiver as well as the case where the parameters
are estimated by the proposed DNN. As a benchmark,
we also include the performance of the system without
any mitigation at the receiver side. Interestingly, it is
observed that, assuming the worse case where the actual
impulsive noise parameters are not in the set of con-
sidered states, the performance of the Genie based LLR
detection is similar to the of the proposed estimation.
This is because the DNN selects the parameters that most
accurately mimic the exact parameters of the system.
V. C ONCLUSION
This work proposed a Deep learning approach for
the estimation of the impulsive noise parameters in
communication systems under the effect of Middleton
class-A impulsive interference. Precisely, we designed
a DNN consisting of two hidden layers to classify the
impulsive noise parameters of an input vector of N sam-
ples between I states. It was shown that the considered
approach maintains a high classification accuracy, even
when the number of inputs is decreased. Thus, it can
be applied in realistic communication systems in order
to estimate the impulsive noise parameters from the
received signal. In this context, it was shown that the
classification accuracy obtained greatly depends on the
number of considered states and the length of the input
vector where a higher accuracy can always be obtained
by increasing the length of the input vector used for the
classification.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Middleton, “Statistical-physical models of electromagnetic
interference,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-19,
no. 3, pp. 106–127, 1977.
[2] K. L. Blackard, T. S. Rappaport, and C. W. Bostian, “Measure-
ments and models of radio frequency impulsive noise for indoor
wireless communications,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Comm.,
vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 991–1001, Sept 1993.
[3] A. Spaulding and D. Middleton, “Optimum reception in an
impulsive interference environment-part i: Coherent detection,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 910–923, 1977.
[4] M. S. Alam, F. Labeau, and G. Kaddoum, “Performance analysis
of DF cooperative relaying over bursty impulsive noise channel,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2848–2859, 2016.
[5] M. S. Alam, G. Kaddoum, and B. Agba, “Performance analysis
of distributed wireless sensor networks for Gaussian source
estimation in the presence of impulsive noise,” IEEE Sig. Proc.
Letters, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 803–807, 2018.
[6] M. S. Alam, G. Kaddoum, and B. L. Agba, “Bayesian MMSE es-
timation of a Gaussian source in the presence of bursty impulsive
noise,” IEEE Commun. Letters, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1846–1849,
2018.
[7] ——, “A novel relay selection strategy of cooperative network
impaired by bursty impulsive noise,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 6622–6635, 2019.
[8] M. Ghosh, “Analysis of the effect of impulse noise on multicarrier
and single carrier QAM systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 44,
no. 2, pp. 145–147, 1996.
[9] D. Fertonani and G. Colavolpe, “On reliable communications
over channels impaired by bursty impulse noise,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2024–2030, 2009.
[10] G. Ndo, F. Labeau, and M. Kassouf, “A Markov-Middleton model
for bursty impulsive noise: modeling and receiver design,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 2317–2325, 2013.
[11] G. Ndo, P. Siohan, and M.-H. Hamon, “Adaptive noise mitigation
in impulsive environment: Application to power-line communica-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 647–656,
2010.
[12] S. V. Zhidkov, “Performance analysis and optimization of OFDM
receiver with blanking nonlinearity in impulsive noise environ-
ment,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 234–242,
2006.
[13] H. Oh and H. Nam, “Design and performance analysis of
nonlinearity preprocessors in an impulsive noise environment,”
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 364–376, 2017.
[14] B. Adebisi, K. Anoh, K. M. Rabie, A. Ikpehai, M. Fernando,
and A. Wells, “A new approach to peak threshold estimation for
impulsive noise reduction over power line fading channels,” IEEE
Systems J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1682–1693, 2018.
[15] N. Rožić, P. Banelli, D. Begušić, and J. Radić, “Multiple-
threshold estimators for impulsive noise suppression in multicar-

Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 rier communications,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Process., vol. 66, no. 6,
pp. 1619–1633, 2018.
[16] M. S. Alam, B. Selim, and G. Kaddoum, “Analysis and com-
parison of several mitigation techniques for middleton Class-A
noise,” in Proc. Latin-American Conf. Commun. (LATINCOM).
IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6.
[17] H. Nakagawa, D. Umehara, S. Denno, and Y. Morihiro, “A
decoding for low density parity check codes over impulsive noise
channels,” in Proc. Int. Symposium Power Line Communications
and Its Applications. IEEE, 2005, pp. 85–89.
[18] D. Umehara, H. Yamaguchi, and Y. Morihiro, “Turbo decoding
in impulsive noise environment,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecom.
Conf., vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 194–198.
[19] Y.-Z. Jiang, X.-l. Hu, W.-L. Li, and S.-X. Zhang, “Estimation
of two-dimensional class A noise model parameters by markov
chain monte carlo,” in 2nd IEEE International Workshop on
Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing.
IEEE, 2007, pp. 249–252.
[20] Y.-Z. Jiang, X.-l. Hu, X. Kai, and Z. Qi, “Bayesian estimation
of class A noise parameters with hidden channel states,” in 2007
IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications
and Its Applications. IEEE, 2007, pp. 2–4.
[21] F. Sacuto, F. Labeau, and B. L. Agba, “Fuzzy C-means algorithm
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 09:01:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
for parameter estimation of partitioned markov chain impulsive
noise model,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Smart Grid Commun. IEEE,
2013, pp. 348–353.
[22] R. Barazideh, S. Niknam, and B. Natarajan, “Impulsive noise
detection in OFDM-based systems: A deep learning perspective,”
in IEEE 9th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop
and Conference (CCWC), Jan 2019, pp. 0937–0942.
[23] V. Sze, Y. Chen, T. Yang, and J. S. Emer, “Efficient processing
of deep neural networks: A tutorial and survey,” Proceedings of
the IEEE, vol. 105, no. 12, pp. 2295–2329, Dec 2017.
[24] K. Vastola, “Threshold detection in narrow-band non-gaussian
noise,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 134–139, 1984.
[25] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic
optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
[26] “Complexity analysis of multilayer perceptron neural network
embedded into a wireless sensor network,” Procedia Computer
Science, vol. 36, pp. 192 – 197, 2014, complex Adaptive Systems
Philadelphia, PA November 3-5, 2014.
[27] D. J. C. Mackay, “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB), Second
generation framing structure, channel coding and modulation
systems for Broadcasting, Interactive Services, News Gathering
and other broadband satellite applications (DVB-S2),” ETSI Std.
EN, vol. 302, no. 307, p. V1.2.1, 2009.