Joint cumulant estimate correction and

decision for cooperative modulation

classification by using multiple sensors

Goran B. Markovic & Miroslav L. Dukic

annals of telecommunications -
annales des télécommunications

ISSN 0003-4347

Ann. Telecommun.
DOI 10.1007/s12243-014-0437-4

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Institut Mines-
Télécom and Springer-Verlag France. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.
DOI 10.1007/s12243-014-0437-4
Joint cumulant estimate correction and decision for cooperative
modulation classification by using multiple sensors
Goran B. Markovic & Miroslav L. Dukic
Received: 9 August 2013 / Accepted: 17 April 2014
# Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer-Verlag France 2014
Abstract In this paper, several data fusion and soft decision
fusion methods are proposed for cooperative automatic mod-
ulation classification (AMC) by using multiple sensors. A
well-known AMC using fourth-order cumulant is considered.
Also, a novel joint cumulant estimate correction is proposed.
The AMC performance of proposed fusion methods with and
without joint estimate correction is evaluated through the
extensive Monte Carlo trials for different multipath fading
channels, sensor spatial distributions, and application scenar-
ios, and compared to those of the existing methods. Numerical
results have confirmed huge performance improvement
achievable with here proposed methods, especially in the
non-idealized application scenarios.
Keywords Modulation classification . Cognitive radio (CR) .
Higher-order cumulants . Wireless sensor networks (WSN)
1 Introduction
Emerging cognitive radio networks (CRN) and wireless sen-
sor networks (WSN), besides their primary goals and func-
tions, generate new significant application field for the auto-
matic modulation classification (AMC) [1]. The dynamic
radio reconfiguration and the usage of adaptive modulation
require detailed environment sensing, including signal identi-
fication, and development of new framework for autonomous
[2], hierarchical or distributed [3, 4], decision making and
radio equipment management. Moreover, inherent spatially
scattered multiple sensors in CRN and WSN provide a solid
G. B. Markovic (*) : M. L. Dukic
School of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bul. Kralja
Aleksandra 73, Belgrade 11 000, Serbia
e-mail: gmarkovic@etf.rs
URL: http://www.etf.bg.ac.rs
base for cooperative spectrum sensing [5] and AMC. In recent
studies [6–13], huge AMC performance improvement is con-
firmed by using multiple sensors in multipath fading channels.
AMC is used to identify modulation type of an unknown
intercepted radio signal. As processing the signal of an anon-
ymous transmitter AMC is always applied in the non-
cooperative environment, with all signal parameters estimated
“blindly” from the received samples corrupted by noise and
multipath fading. So far, different classes of AMC algorithms
are proposed [14]. Although, the likelihood-based algorithms
achieve optimal performance in ideal conditions [14, 15],
significant performance degradation occurs due to the param-
eter estimation errors. When flat fading channels are consid-
ered, various complex solutions are proposed to minimize
performance losses, e.g., in [16], while in frequency-
selective channels, further rise of complexity is needed to
properly address channel influence. Alternatively, the AMC
using cumulants is characterized with low complexity, robust-
ness to parameter estimation errors, and inherent multipath
fading suppression [17–20] through blind channel estimation
and cumulant estimate correction.
A signal reception by multiple sensors via uncorrelated
multipath channels increases the probability that some sensors
receive signal of suitable quality for AMC [1, 6]. Cumulant
estimation performed as distributed data fusion in WSN is
proposed in [7] to enable AMC performance improvement
through better quality of cumulant estimate. Centralized deci-
sion fusion (DF) is proposed in [8–12], as another natural
solution in CRN and WSN. The joint spectrum sensing and
AMC for CRN based on cyclic spectrum analysis with DF is
proposed in [8], but with a high computational complexity.
The optimal hard decision fusion (OHDF) is proposed in [9,
10], with the separate decisions made in all sensors combined
in fusion center (FC) by using a priori probabilities of correct/
incorrect classification. In [11], we considered soft decision
fusion (SDF), with the local cumulant estimates gathered in
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

FC and used in a soft decision manner. Also, a data fusion with a zero mean and variance σg,i 2
. The signal-to-noise ratio
2 2
(DaF) method is proposed [11], in which the final decision is (SNR) is defined as E{xi (n)}/σg,i [17]. We considered the
made by solely combining local cumulant estimates from all AMC using normalized fourth-order cumulant of the emitted
sensors, based on a priori knowledge of cumulant estimate symbol sequence, as defined in [17], with the impact of
means and variances. Another data fusion scheme is proposed, channel on the cumulant estimate given by the factor β de-
based on maximum ratio combined (MRC) or equal gain fined by fading coefficients [17, 18]. The cumulant estimate at
combined (EGC) likelihood functions (LF) from all sensors i-th sensor is calculated from the received baseband symbol
[12]. Finally, signal fusion is considered [6, 13] but with the sequence yi(n) as follows:
high transmission bandwidth demands and mandatory syn-
XN S XN 2  X N 2
chronization across the network.  
jyi ðnÞj4 −  n¼1 y2i ðnÞ −2 jy ðnÞj2
S S

All so far proposed cooperative AMC solutions, except 1 NS n¼1 n¼1 i

C 42;i ¼ XN 2 ;
βi 2
j ð Þ j − σ
S
signal fusion, depend on certain predefined reference values n¼1
y i n N S
2
g
used in fusion process as a measure of AMC results reliability,
ð2Þ
e.g., pre-calculated α-profiles [8], confusion matrices in
XL−1 .hXL−1 i2
OHDF and SDF [9–11], cumulant estimate means and vari- βi ¼ jhi ðk Þj4 jhi ðk Þj2 ; ð3Þ
ances [11], or assumed mathematical expressions for LF [12]. k¼0 k¼0

These solutions are confirmed to achieve high AMC perfor-

mance for idealized application scenarios, when these refer-
ences are obtained under the exact channel conditions under
which the fusion is performed. In practice, due to non-
cooperative nature of AMC and short observation period,
the statistical properties of fading channel cannot be fully
determined, and mismatched references must be used. Thus,
in more realistic application scenarios, the performance deg-
radation is expected, and robustness to references uncertainty
becomes an important characteristic.
In this paper, we propose novel modified versions of DaF
and SDF methods given in [11], intended to suppress the
negative effects which exist for the non-idealized conditions.
A channel estimation method given in [20] is considered for
better cumulant estimate correction. Furthermore, joint
cumulant estimation correction (JCEC) is proposed in order
to further improve cumulant estimate quality. Performance of
here proposed and existing fusion methods in frequency-
selective fading channels are evaluated through the exhaustive
Monte Carlo trials. As sensors spatial distribution strongly
affects application conditions, two spatial deployment models
are observed.
2 AMC algorithm
where βi is the actual factor β at i-th sensor, and Ns is the
sequence length. In practice, the fading coefficients in Eq. (3)
are estimated from the received baseband sequence [17–20].
The impact of channel estimation quality is analyzed by using
three channel estimation models (CEM):
& The perfect channel estimation (PCE) model, in
which fading coefficients and channel length are
assumed a priori known. Model is not viable in practice
and defines the best case scenario, i.e., ideal channel
estimation;
& The first realistic channel estimation (RCE-I) model, in
which channel estimation method given in [18] is used.
Method is reported as inherently instable [19, 20], espe-
cially for line-of-sight channels, and is unrealistic as it
requires channel length to be a priori known [18, 20].
When coupled with the observed AMC algorithm, it
achieves different AMC performance for different fading
channels [19];
& The second realistic channel estimation (RCE-II) model,
in which channel estimation method given in [20] is used.
Method is shown to be superior to the one given in [18] for
multipath channels with a dominant path and does not
require channel length to be a priori known, thus being
more realistic.

The received baseband sequence at i-th of Nsen sensors de-
graded by the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and
multipath fading can be represented [17] as follows:
LX
i −1
A decision rule given in [17] is used, with decision thresh-
olds set as arithmetic mean of expected cumulant values for
possible modulation types. In Table 1, the theoretic means of
fourth-order cumulant for some phase-shift keying (PSK) and

y i ð nÞ ¼ hi ðk Þ  xi ðn− k Þ þ g i ðnÞ;
k¼0
where hi(k),k=0,⋯,Li −1 are fading coefficients of an un-
known multipath channel of length Li, xi(n) is the n-th symbol
of the received signal, and gi(n) is the n-th sample of AWGN
ð1Þ quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) signals are given
[17]. These values are suitable for signal reception in AWGN
channels and for the PCE model [17–20]. As the factor β is
underestimated for the most multipath channels, when RCE-I
or RCE-II are used [19, 20], the actual cumulant means are
shifted toward the larger absolute values.
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

Table 1 Theoretic means of

fourth-order cumulant (C mi Signal BPSK QPSK 16QAM 64QAM
42 ) for
PSK and QAM signals
Label m1 m2 m3 m4
Cm
42
i
−2.00 −1.00 −0.68 −0.6191

3 Cooperative AMC scheme modulation type is mn. In order to use OHDF method,
a priori knowledge of reference confusion matrices
We observe a set of Nsen sensors that receive a signal of an (CMs) for local SNR is required, i.e., the set of probabilities:
unidentified modulation type m∈Mmod ={m1,⋯,mM} that p(mi|(mn,snri)),∀(mi,mn)∈Mmod. The reference means are also
contains emitted symbol sequences of length NS through the needed to set local decision thresholds [10, 17].
uncorrelated multipath channels and with sensor-specific local In [11], we observed DaF under the assumption that
SNR. At each sensor, the same AMC algorithm with one of cumulant estimation is successfully performed, i.e., fad-
CEM is used, with the local SNR, snri,i=1,⋯,Nsen, assumed ing is suppressed by the correct factor β. Under this
known. A local cumulant estimate, C42,i, or a local hard assumption, cumulant estimate at the i-th sensor, C42,i,
decision, di, is made from the baseband signal sequence represents a normally distributed random variable [17,
yi(n),n=1,⋯,NS, received at the i-th sensor. AMC results 19], with probability density function (pdf) defined with
actual mean Cm 42(snri) and actual variance σm(snri) for
2
and local SNR from all sensors are collected in FC. In
OHDF, the final decision is made by using local decisions, given snri, multipath channel, and actual modulation type
di, and local SNR, snri [7–10]. In SDF and DaF [11], the final m. As the signal propagates through the independent multi-
decision is made by using local cumulant estimates, C42,i, and path channels, local cumulant estimates at different sensors
local SNR, snri. are uncorrelated random variables. By applying the logarith-
A described cooperative AMC scheme with the centralized mic likelihood ratio test on derived joint conditional pdf, a
fusion (HDF, SDF, or DaF) is displayed in Fig. 1. A single- decision rule for the joint decision fusion (JDF) method is
hop error-free communication is assumed, in order to assess obtained [11] as follows:
the best possible performance of cooperative AMC.
* N !2 +
Xsen  
C 42;i −C m
42 ðsnri Þ
n
1
MF ¼ argmax ln − pffiffiffi :
3.1 Fusion methods |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} i¼1 σmn ðsnri Þ 2σmn ðsnri Þ
mn ∈M mod

The OHDF method is given in [10], with the final decision MF ð5Þ
representing modulation type that is the most likely cause of
The JDF method requires a priori knowledge of reference
the obtained local decisions under the given SNR conditions,
means and variances for all modulation types and local SNR
with the decision rule,
values under the given multipath channel defined with the
* +
N sen
pðd i jðmn ; snri ÞÞ channel length Li and pdf of fading coefficients. In practice,
M F ¼ argmax ∏ XM ; ð4Þ theoretic means from Table 1 or the actual means estimated
|fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} i¼1 pðd jðm ; snr ÞÞ
mn ∈M mod k¼1 i k i under the given conditions can be used. The reference vari-
ances should be estimated under the given conditions accord-
where p(di|(mn,snri)) is a probability that decision di is made at ing to the adopted reference means. The JDF method should
the i-th sensor when SNR equals snr i , and the actual function properly when initial assumption about successful

Fig. 1 System model for

cooperative AMC with
centralized fusion
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

cumulant estimate correction holds. In practice, the large 3.2 References estimation
deviation of actual cumulant means from the theoretic means
occurs due to poor channel estimation [17–20], especially for All previously described fusion methods require certain refer-
the lower SNR. In order to reduce the impact of sensors with ences, i.e., means, variances, and CMs, for all of considered
the lower SNR, we here propose the heuristic weighted JDF parameters (L, NS, SNR), modulation types, and CEM (PCE,
(w-JDF) method, with decision rule as follows: RCE-I, or RCE-II). We estimated these references through
Monte Carlo trials by using the following settings:
M F ¼ argmax
|fflfflffl{zfflfflffl}
mn ∈M mod & The set of modulation signals, Mmod ={BPSK,QPSK,
* N 2 !2 3+ 16QAM,64QAM}, is observed, generated as normalized
Xsen  
1 C −C mn
ð snr Þ zero-mean random processes with different SNR and unit
wi  4ln 5 ;
42;i i
− pffiffiffi 42
i¼1
σ m n
ð snr i Þ 2 σ m n
ðsnr i Þ average energy, i.e., as in [10, 11, 17–20], with the emitted
symbol sequences x(n), consisting of NS ∈{500,1000,
ð6Þ 2000,4000} randomly generated symbols;
defined by using MRC weighting coefficients wi =snri/snrmax, & AMC algorithm described in Section 2 is used, as given in
i=1,⋯,Nsen, where snrmax is the maximum local SNR. In case [17], for all CEM;
of successful channel estimation with the correct reference & Multipath channels are modeled with different lengths,
means and variances used, the better AMC performance is L∈{2,⋯,10}, while the fading coefficients, h(k),k=0,
expected for JDF than for w-JDF method. Otherwise, due to ⋯,L−1, are generated as the independent zero-mean com-
suppressed influence of sensors with the lower SNR, the better plex Gaussian random variables with variance σ2h =0.05
performance is expected for w-JDF method. and with h(0) set to 1, as in [10, 11, 17–20].
We here generalize the OHDF method by replacing local
decision in the i-th sensor with the soft decision vector (SDV), To avoid a problem of defining sufficient sample size needed
si =[si,1,⋯,si,M], defined in [11]. SDV contains the measure of to properly estimate reference values, a basic block is defined
conditional probabilities that cumulant estimate C42,i at i-th with 2,000 trials for each modulation type, L, NS, and local
sensor is made when the actual modulation type is mj,j=1,⋯, snr∈[−5dB,15dB]. In each trial, fading coefficients and symbol
M, under SNR conditions defined by snri. It should be noticed sequences are randomly generated, while cumulant estimate is
that SDV in [11] represent only a coarse approximation of calculated for all CEM. The actual cumulant mean in one basic
these conditional probabilities. We here define novel heuristic block for each modulation type, CEM, L, NS , and SNR, is found
soft decision vector decision fusion (SDVDF) method as by averaging over 2,000 associated trials. Subsequent blocks are
follows: generated, and the aggregate actual means are computed. The
procedure is terminated when the aggregated values of all actual
means in two successive steps reached absolute difference lower
M F ¼ argmax than 10−4. The same procedure is used to estimate the actual
|fflfflffl{zfflfflffl}
mn ∈M mod variances and CMs in accordance to the theoretic means (in
* 2 0
13 + Table 1) or estimated actual means. The local decisions needed
N sen XM
p m j jðmn ; snri Þ to estimate CMs are made with the decision thresholds set
∏ 4 @si; j  X
M
A5 ; according to the theoretic or actual means for each modulation
i¼1 j¼1
k¼1
p m j jðmk ; snri Þ
type. In total, about 60,000,000 trials were executed, and some
ð7Þ results are shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 4.
In Figs. 2 and 3, estimated actual means for quadrature
1 .XM
1 PSK (QPSK) signal are presented for different SNR, CEM,
si; j ¼  4  4 ; j ¼ 1; ⋯; M :
m NS, and L (or averaged over L). The actual means for the RCE-
C 42;i − C 42;ij k¼1 C 42;i − C m k
42;i
II model are shown to be in better agreement with the theoretic
ð8Þ means and actual means obtained for the PCE model, than
those for the RCE-I model. Due to inherent RCE-I model
We combine OHDF method with the DaF, as all possible instability, as reported in [20], actual means almost exclusive-
decisions are considered, not just the most probable one as in ly depend on channel length, i.e., SNR and NS have negligible
OHDF, weighted according to their conditional probabilities influence. For the RCE-II model, deviation of the actual
given with SDV. Thus, the full information contained in the means from the theoretic means is relatively small until SNR
actual cumulant estimate in each sensor, which is lost by drops under a certain level, increases with L, and declines as
making local decision, is exploited to improve performance NS raises. A similar behavior is found for all modulation types.
in DaF manner. Hence, AMC performance for the RCE-II model should
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

Theorethic and averaged actual mean values

−0.5
−1
PCE −0.75
−1.25 RCE−II
Theoretic and actual mean values

RCE−I −1
−1.5
−1.25
−1.75
−1.5
−2
−1.75
−2.25
−2
−2.5
−2.25
−2.75
theoretic −2.5
−3 actual averaged
actual L = 2 −2.75
BPSK
−3.25 actual L = 4 −3 QPSK
−3.5 actual L = 10 16QAM
−3.25
64QAM
−5 −3 −1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 −3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
SNR [dB]
SNR [dB]
Fig. 2 Theoretic and actual means for QPSK signal as function of SNR,
for PCE, RCE-I, and RCE-II models, NS =2000, for L equal to 2, 4, and Fig. 4 Theoretic means (line) and averaged actual means for RCE-I
10, and averaged over L∈{2,⋯,10} model (shaded square for L∈{2,⋯,5} and outlined square for L∈{2,
⋯,10}) and RCE-II model (shaded circle for L∈{2,⋯,5} and outlined
circle for L∈{2,⋯,10}) for all modulation types as function of SNR
when NS =2000
improve when channel length declines or with the increase of
NS and SNR, while for the RCE-I model, only the channel
length has a major influence. For the PCE model, almost the derivation are met and when the correct references are used.
perfect agreement with the theoretic means is found. Hence, for an idealized application scenario (IAS), we assume
In Fig. 4, an overview of the actual means for all modula- the usage of ideal references (actual means, variances, and
tion types averaged over L∈{2,⋯,5} and L∈{2,⋯,10} is CMs), i.e., values that are estimated according to the specific
shown for RCE-I and RCE-II. Obviously, a large deviation estimation model (NS and CEM) and given channel conditions
from the theoretic means occurs when SNR decreases for both (SNR, fading coefficients pdf, and channel length).
models. Also, much better results are expected if channel is However, these ideal references are unavailable in practice
characterized with the lower channel length. since the properties of the actual multipath channels, i.e.,
statistical properties (fading coefficients pdf) and channel
3.3 Idealized and non-idealized application scenarios length, are not a priori known and cannot be confidently
determined from short observations in the non-cooperative
The optimal AMC performance of the considered fusion AMC environment. Also, even for the same CEM different
methods is feasible only when the assumptions used in their reference, values are expected for different fading channels
(with different pdf and L) [19]. Therefore, we considered the
−1
non-idealized application scenario (NIAS) with the theoretic
means (in Table 1) used as reference means, while averaged
Theoretic and actual mean values

−1.2
(over L) reference CMs and variances obtained according to
−1.4 these theoretic means for the PCE model (independent of
Theoretic (−1.00)
channel properties) are used. As mismatched references are
−1.6 RCE−I, Ns = 500
RCE−I, Ns = 1000 used, certain performance decrease is expected in comparison
−1.8 RCE−I, Ns = 2000 to the idealized scenario.
RCE−I, Ns = 4000
−2
RCE−II, Ns = 500
3.4 Joint cumulant estimate correction
−2.2 RCE−II, Ns = 1000
RCE−II, Ns = 2000
−2.4 RCE−II, Ns = 4000 For previously defined NIAS, certain deviation occurs be-
tween the actual means and theoretic means used as refer-
−2.6
ences, and thus, a severe AMC performance degradation is
−2.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
expected. We here argue that this deviation can be roughly
SNR [dB] estimated since FC already has, at its disposal, multiple inde-
Fig. 3 Theoretic and actual means for QPSK signal as function of SNR,
pendently obtained cumulant estimates. Since these estimates
averaged over L∈{2,⋯,10} for RCE-I and RCE-II models and different are acquired with different quality depending on local SNR,
baseband sequence lengths we here observe the joint cumulant estimate, C42,MRC,
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

obtained through maximum ratio combining of local estimates modulation type is chosen as a maximum value needed to
by using the same MRC weighting factors as in w-JDF translate the theoretic mean (used in NIAS) for a given mod-
method, ulation type to the nearest decision threshold in direction of
 XN .XN  lower absolute values. Described procedure defines joint
C 42;MRC ¼ w  C 42;i : ð9Þ cumulant estimate correction (JCEC). Since M different
sen sen

i¼1 i
w
i¼1 i
cumulant estimates are made in each sensor, JCEC is not
applicable in OHDF method that relies on unique local
As the actual modulation type is unknown, we here define decisions.
correction factor, K m
corr , for each possible modulation type
n Due to different SNR and channel lengths for different
mn ∈Mmod as follows: sensors, the local cumulant estimates used in JCEC are not
of the equal quality. Thus, much poorer JCEC correction is
8 . expected for sensors with large L and low SNR due to limited
>
> 1; C Cm42 < 1
n
>
<
42;MRC
. .
value of the correction factor. Also, JCEC is expected to be
  less effective for the SDVDF method, as imbalance is intro-
Km n
¼ C 42;MRC C m 42 ; C 42;MRC C 42 ∈ 1; K max ;
n mn mn
ð10Þ
corr
>
> . duced in SDV for sensors with low SNR and large L, or those
> mn
: K max ; C 42;MRC C m 42 > K max
n mn
with high SNR and small L, resulting with numerical distur-
bance in SDVDF decision rule.

where C m n
42 is the theoretic mean for modulation type mn. The
corrected cumulant estimates for possible modulation types in 4 Numerical results
each sensor are given as follows:
The AMC performance of cooperative AMC with considered
. fusion methods is evaluated through the Monte Carlo trials
Cm n
42corr;i ¼ C 42;i corr ; i
Km n
¼ 1; …; N sen ; n ¼ 1; …; M : ð11Þ
performed in a similar manner and with the same basic set-
tings as reference evaluation given in Section 3. The average
Thus, specific cumulant estimate values are obtained for probability of correct classification (PCC,avg), defined as an
each modulation type at each sensor, and these are used in averaged value over the equiprobable modulated types under
decision rules instead of the local estimate C42,i for the specific the given experiment conditions [7–20], is used as a measure
modulation types. The lower and upper bound for K m corr in
n
of AMC performance. The JDF method without JCEC and
Eq. (10) are set to prevent complete translation of cumulant OHDF methods is observed as the referent (existing) methods,
estimate C42,i to the theoretic means of the all-observed mod- while all other methods are proposed in this paper.
ulation types. Lower bound is chosen as equal to 1, since A basic block with 5,000 trials for each input sequence
translation due to poor channel estimation occurs toward the length and modulation type is defined. A network with up to
larger absolute value, Figs. 2 and 4. The upper bound for each 20 sensors is observed with randomly generated fading
Average probability of correct classification

Fig. 5 PCC,avg achieved with 1

different CEM in IAS for different
0.95
methods without JCEC and
spatially dispersed sensors, when 0.9
Lmax =10 and NS =2000 PCE
0.85

0.8

0.75 RCE−II
0.7

0.65

0.6
OHDF
0.55
SDVDF
0.5 JDF
RCE−I w−JDF
0.45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of sensors, Nsen
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

Table 2 PCC,avg achieved with/without JCEC in NIAS for NS =2000 and sensors are expected. Thus, for each trial, same channel
spatially dispersed sensors
lengths Li ∈{2,⋯,Lmax} are set for all sensors, while local
Method type Lmax Nsen ≤5 (%) 5<Nsen ≤10 (%) 10<Nsen ≤20 (%) SNR, snri ∈ [snr − 2dB, snr + 2dB], are chosen indepen-
dently for each (i-th) sensor, with constant snr for all
Referent 5 JDF (90) JDF (91.5) JDF (93) sensors, with both parameters generated as uniformly
Without JCEC SDVDF (92) SDVDF (93.5) SDVDF (96) distributed random variables.
With JCEC JDF (93.5) JDF (96) JDF (99) Different values of Lmax are used to model dispersive
Referent 10 JDF (79) JDF (78) JDF (77.5) fading environment with different delay (time) spreads. In
Without JCEC SDVDF (86) SDVDF (87) SDVDF (88) almost all previous studies, only scenarios with the same local
With JCEC w-JDF (86) w-JDF (88) w-JDF (92) SNR and channel lengths for all sensors are considered. Thus,
results obtained here are in better agreement with those ex-
pected in practice.
channels, local SNR, input sequences xi(n), and AWGN. The PCC,avg achieved for IAS and all fusion methods in
The basic blocks are processed for both application case of spatially dispersed sensors and Lmax =10 are shown in
scenarios (IAS and NIAS), and fusion methods are Fig. 5.
applied for the different number of sensors. For each In general, obtained numerical results are in a good agree-
basic block, PCC,avg is calculated for all observed cases, and ment with theoretical arguments given in previous sections.
procedure is halted when maximal absolute differences for all Thereby, conclusions drawn for the IAS and spatially dis-
aggregated PCC,avg curves in successive blocks were lower persed sensors are as follows:
than 2×10−3.
We observed two typical spatial distributions of sen- & The highest PCC,avg is achieved with the PCE model,
sors. Under assumed non-cooperative AMC usage, for when all fusion methods achieve near-ideal classifi-
spatially dispersed sensors (around the transmitter), local cation, indicating that cooperative AMC strive to be
SNR at each sensor depends on distance to the trans- a near-optimal solution as channel estimation quality
mitter, antenna gains, and propagation conditions, while improves;
the fading channels may have different channel lengths & All methods have much lower PCC,avg for RCE-I in com-
for different sensors and are mutually independent. parison with RCE-II and PCE models due to the poorer
Thus, for each (i-th) sensor in each trial channel length, channel estimation;
Li ∈{2,⋯,Lmax} and local SNR snri ∈[0dB,15dB] are gener- & Referent JDF method presents superior solution for all
ated independently as uniformly distributed discrete random CEM.
variables. In case of spatially grouped sensors located at the
distance away from the transmitter, with the mutual distances The comparison of PCC,avg achieved for the referent and
assumed to be large enough to ensure mutually uncorrelated here proposed fusion methods, without and with JCEC, in
fading channels, similar SNR and channel length for all case of NIAS and spatially dispersed sensors, is given in

Fig. 6 PCC,avg achieved with 1

Average probability of correct classification

RCE-II in NIAS for different

methods with (dotted line) and 0.975
without (solid line) JCEC and
spatially dispersed sensors, when 0.95
Lmax =5 and NS =2000
0.925

0.9

0.875
OHDF
0.85 SDVDF
JDF
0.825 w−JDF

0.8

0.775
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of sensors, Nsen
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

Fig. 7 PCC,avg achieved with 0.95

Average probability of correct classification

RCE-II in NIAS for different
methods with (dotted line) and 0.9
without (solid line) JCEC and
spatially dispersed sensors, when 0.85
Lmax =10 and NS =2000
0.8

0.75

0.7
OHDF
0.65 SDVDF
JDF
0.6 w−JDF

0.55

0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of sensors, Nsen

Table 2 and in Figs. 6 and 7 for Lmax =5 and Lmax =10, comparison to the referent JDF method without JCEC,
respectively. The obtained results are in good agreement with maximum gains of around 6 % are achieved for JDF
theoretical arguments, and the following conclusions are method with JCEC for Lmax =5, and around 14.5 % for
valid: w-JDF method with JCEC for Lmax =10 when this method
presents a superior solution due to suppression of sensors
& Referent OHDF method is inferior to the other methods with low SNR.
due to a large mismatch of used and ideal reference CMs;
& Lower PCC,avg values are achieved for Lmax =10 than for The comparison of achieved PCC,avg for the referent and
Lmax =5 due to poorer channel estimation; here proposed fusion methods, without and with JCEC, in
& When JCEC is not used, SDVDF method presents a case of NIAS and spatially grouped sensors, is given in
superior solution with maximum achieved gains com- Table 3 and Fig. 8 for Lmax =5 and Fig. 9 for Lmax =10. The
pared to the referent JDF method without JCEC of around main conclusions based on presented data are as follows:
4 and 11 % for Lmax =5 and Lmax =10, respectively;
& The usage of JCEC enables huge performance improve- & As expected, all methods achieve fairly better perfor-
ment for all DaF methods, while without JCEC, all mance for higher SNR, while referent OHDF method
methods show limited PCC,avg values for Lmax =10. In presents inferior solution;

Table 3 PCC,avg achieved

with/without JCEC in NIAS for Method type Lmax Nsen ≤5 (%) 5<Nsen ≤10 (%) 10<Nsen ≤20 (%)
NS =2000 and spatially grouped
sensors with lower SNR (7 dB) or Lower SNR (7 dB)
higher SNR (13 dB) Referent 5 JDF (88) JDF (88.5) JDF (89)
Without JCEC w-JDF (89) w-JDF (89) w-JDF (90.5)
With JCEC JDF (92.5) w-JDF (96) w-JDF (98)
Referent 10 JDF (78.5) JDF (77.5) JDF (76.5)
Without JCEC w-JDF (79) w-JDF (78.5) w-JDF (77.5)
With JCEC w-JDF (82) w-JDF (83.5) w-JDF (84.5)
Higher SNR (13 dB)
Referent 5 JDF (94) JDF (95.5) JDF (96)
Without JCEC SDVDF (94.5) w-JDF (95) w-JDF (96)
With JCEC JDF (96) JDF (98.5) w-JDF (99.5)
Referent 10 JDF (84.5) JDF (83.5) JDF (82)
Without JCEC w-JDF (84.5) w-JDF (84) w-JDF (83)
With JCEC JDF (91.5) JDF (94) w-JDF (97)
 Author's personal copy
Ann. Telecommun.

Fig. 8 PCC,avg achieved with 1

Average probability of correct classification

RCE-II in NIAS for different
methods with (dotted line) and 0.975
without (solid line) JCEC and
spatially grouped sensors with 0.95 SNR
SNR=13dB or SNR=7dB, when 13dB
NS =2000 and Lmax =5 0.925

0.9

0.875
OHDF
0.85 SDVDF
JDF
0.825 SNR w−JDF
7dB

0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of sensors, Nsen

& The usage of JCEC results with better cumulant estimates, higher SNR (13 dB) depending on channel length and
compared to spatially dispersed sensors, as all sensors number of sensor. For high SNR and Lmax =5, JDF, w-JDF,
have the same channel length and similar SNR; and SDVDF methods achieve almost ideal classification
& When JCEC is not used and Lmax =5, as a result of fine of 100 % when 20 sensors are used.
distinction between sensors with similar SNR, w-JDF
method presents a superior solution. For Lmax =10, all Also, numerical results confirmed that for PCE and RCE-II
methods fail to deliver any gains compared to the single models, higher PCC,avg is obtained for larger input sequence
sensor usage due poor channel estimate and significant length, while only minor enhancements are found for the
reference mismatch, while for Lmax =5, these gains are RCE-I model, as expected, considering Fig. 3.
relatively small and range from 3 to 5 %;
& When JCEC is used, the huge performance improvement
is achieved, except for SDVDF method for low SNR and 5 Conclusions
Lmax =10 due to the aforementioned imbalance introduced
in SDV. JDF and w-JDF methods achieve similar PCC,avg In previous studies [7–13], cooperative AMC with centralized
and outperform referent JDF method without JCEC for 7 fusion based on AMC using cumulants is reported to offer
to 10 % in case of lower SNR (7 dB) and for 2 to 13 % for huge performance improvement, compared to the single
Average probability of correct classification

Fig. 9 PCC,avg achieved with 1

RCE-II in NIAS for different OHDF
methods with (dotted line) and 0.975 SDVDF
without (solid line) JCEC and JDF
0.95
spatially grouped sensors with w−JDF
SNR=13dB or SNR=7dB, when 0.925
NS =2000 and Lmax =10
0.9
SNR
0.875 13dB

0.85

0.825

0.8

0.775

0.75 SNR
7dB
0.725
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of sensors, Nsen
 Author's personal copy
sensor classifiers. However, these performance improvements
are realized under some idealized conditions and are later
shown to be unavailable when more realistic conditions are
considered [11].
Therefore, in this paper, we have proposed several data and
soft decision fusion methods for cooperative AMC, which are
better suited for non-idealized application conditions. Also,
channel estimation method given in [20] is considered and
shown that this is essential for successful application under the
non-idealized conditions. The different multipath fading en-
vironments and sensor spatial deployments are observed,
which was not considered in previous studies, and it is shown
that these conditions have a huge impact on cooperative AMC
performance. Finally, we have proposed a novel joint
cumulant estimation correction for DaF and SDF methods,
and reported the huge performance improvement available as
a result of its usage.
The presented numerical results, acquired through exten-
sive Monte Carlo trials, are shown to be in good agreement
with given theoretical arguments. The apparent performance
improvement is achieved for all non-idealized application
scenarios by using here proposed methods, with and without
JCEC, in comparison to the referent OHDF and JDF (without
JCEC) methods, as shown in Table 2 and 3. It should be
noticed that for both spatial deployment models and low delay
spread (Lmax =5), some methods with JCEC achieve almost
ideal classification, i.e., near-optimal PCC,avg, similar to that
reported for idealistic PCE model.
Acknowledgments This work was partially supported by the Serbian
Ministry of Education and Science under technology development project
TR32028.
References
1. MacKenzie AB, Athanas P, Buehrer RM, Ellingson SW, Hsiao M,
Patterson C, da Silva CRCM (2009) Cognitive radio and networking
research at Virginia Tech. Proc IEEE 97(4):660–688
2. Colson N, Kountouris AA, Wautier A, Husson L (2009) A generic
cognitive framework for supervising the radio dynamic reconfigura-
tion. Ann Telecommun 64(7–8):443–462
3. Godard L, Moy C, Palicot J (2009) An executable meta-model of a
hierarchical and distributed architecture management for cognitive
radio equipments. Ann Telecommun 64(7–8):463–482
4. Palicot J (2012) Cross-layer sensors for green cognitive radio. Ann
Telecommun 67(3–4):171–180
5. Saeedzarandi M, Azmi P (2013) Cooperative multiband joint detec-
tion in cognitive radio networks using artificial immune system. Ann
Telecommun 68(3–4):239–246
Ann. Telecommun.
6. Su W, Kosinski J (2010) Framework of network centric signal
sensing for automatic modulation classification, International
Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC).
Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 534–539. doi:10.1109/ICNSC.2010.
5461601
7. Forero PA, Cano A, Giannakis GB (2008) Distributed feature-
based modulation classification using wireless sensor networks,
Military Communications Conference, 2008. MILCOM 2008.
IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 1–7. doi:10.1109/MILCOM.
2008.4753252
8. da Silva CRMC, Headley WC, Reed JD, Zhao Y (2008) Distributed
cyclic spectrum feature-based modulation classification, Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2008. WCNC 2008.
IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, pp. 1200–1204. doi:10.1109/WCNC.
2008.216
9. Xu JL, Su W, Zou MC (2010) Distributed automatic modulation
classification with multiple sensors. IEEE Sensors J 10(11):1779–
1785
10. Zhang Y, Ansari N, Su W (2011) Optimal decision fusion based
automatic modulation classification by using wireless sensor networks
in multipath fading channel, Global Telecommunications Conference
(GLOBECOM 2011), Houston, TX, USA, pp. 1–5. doi:10.1109/
GLOCOM.2011.6133564
11. Markovic GB, Dukic ML (2013) Decision fusion methods for automatic
modulation classification with multiple sensors in multipath fading
channels, EUROCON, 2013 IEEE, Zagreb, Croatia, pp. 105–112. doi:
10.1109/EUROCON.2013.6624973
12. Xu JL, Su W, Zhou MC (2011) Asynchronous and high-accuracy
digital modulated signal detection by sensor networks, Military
Communications Conference, 2011. MILCOM 2011, IEEE,
Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 589–594. doi:10.1109/MILCOM.2011.
6127737
13. Zhang Y, Ansari N, Su W (2011) Multi-sensor signal fusion based
modulation classification by using wireless sensor networks, IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), Kyoto, Japan,
pp. 1–5. doi:10.1109/icc.2011.5963083
14. Dobre OA, Abdi A, Bar-Ness Y, Su W (2007) Survey of automatic
modulation classification techniques: classical approaches and new
trends. IET Commun 1(2):137–156
15. Hameed F, Dobre OA, Popescu DC (2009) On the likelihood-based
approach to modulation classification. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun
8(12):5884–5892
16. Chavali VG, da Silva CRCM (2011) Maximum-likelihood
classification of digital amplitude-phase modulated signals in
flat fading non-Gaussian channels. IEEE Trans Commun 59(8):
2051–2056
17. Swami A, Sadler BM (2000) Hierarchical digital modulation
classification using cumulants. IEEE Trans Commun 48(3):
416–429
18. Wu HC, Saquib M, Yun Z (2008) Novel automatic modula-
tion classification using cumulant features for communications
via multipath channel. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 7(8):3098–
3105
19. Orlic VD, Dukic ML (2009) Automatic modulation classification
algorithm using higher-order cumulants under real-world channel
conditions. IEEE Commun Lett 13(12):917–919
20. Orlic VD, Dukic ML (2010) Multipath channel estimation algorithm
for automatic modulation classification using sixth-order cumulants.
Electron Lett 46(19):1348–1349