Cooperative modulation classification with fading channels, cumulant estimates at different sensors are uncorrelated

data fusion for multipath fading channels random variables, with a joint conditional probability density function
(PDF)
G.B. Markovic and M.L. Dukic   
p C42,1 , . . . , C42, Nsen (m, snri )
√
Data fusion methods are proposed for cooperative modulation classifi- Nsen −(((C42, i −C m (snri ))/( 2 sm (snri ))))2
 (2)
e 42
cation by using multiple sensors in multipath fading channels. = √ 
Performances of these methods are evaluated, and compared with i=1 2psm (snri )
those of the existing optimal decision fusion method, through Monte
Carlo simulations for a realistic application scenario, and evident By applying the logarithmic likelihood ratio test on the PDFs from (2)
gains are confirmed. for all possible modulation types, we define the decision rule for the
ODaF method as
⎡ 2 ⎤

 
k l
Introduction: Automatic modulation classification (AMC) is applied to

Nsen
⎣ln 1 C 42, i − C mn
( snri ) ⎦
identify the modulation type of an intercepted unknown radio signal, by MF = arg max − √ 42
(3)

  smn (snri ) 2smn (snri )
observing received data samples usually corrupted by the noise and
multipath fading. AMC using cumulants is one of the most considered
solutions for multipath fading channels, despite the decline in
performances due to issues related to channel estimation [1–3].
Recently, signal reception by using multiple sensors was proposed for
AMC in multipath fading channels [4] with huge potential performances
enhancement compared to use of a single sensor. Such cooperative
AMC is naturally applicable in cognitive radio and wireless sensor
networks, with inherent multiple sensors. Thus far, a decision fusion
concept has been proposed for cooperative AMC with multiple
sensors [4, 5] with the final decision obtained by combining decisions
made at the sensors. Optimal decision fusion (ODF) methods aimed at
classifying two [4], or more [5], modulation types are given. In the
decision fusion concept, when local decisions are made the actual
data on decision statistics are lost. Hence, in this Letter, we claim that
by utilising this lost data, superior fusion methods, compared with
existing ODF, are feasible, and propose a new data fusion concept,
implemented through three novel data fusion methods.
AMC algorithm and channel estimation: The received baseband signal
sequence, at one sensor, corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) and multipath fading can be represented [1–3, 5] as


L−1
y(n) = h(k)x(n − k) + g(n)
k=0
where x(n) is the nth modulated symbol, h(k), k = 0, …, L − 1 are the
fading coefficients of an unknown multipath channel of length L and
g(n) is AWGN with a zero mean and variance s2g . We considered an
AMC algorithm using the fourth-order cumulant of a transmitted
symbol sequence, C42, given in [1], with the impact of a fading
channel on the cumulant value given by the factor β defined by the
mn [Mmod i=1
The ODaF method application requires a priori knowledge of the
reference mean and variance values for all possible modulation types
and SNR values for the given channel model, described with channel
length L and the channel coefficients PDF. In practice, we can use
theoretic means [1, 5], or actual (estimated) mean values under the
given conditions, while the variances are estimated under the given
conditions in accordance with the adopted reference mean values. If
the reference values required in ODaF are unavailable or inappropriate,
we here consider two other data fusion methods, designed to reduce the
impact of sensors with lower SNR, i.e. that attain a lower quality
cumulant estimate. We obtain the joint cumulant estimate, C42,av, as
the weighted average of the local cumulant estimates
   


Nsen

Nsen
C42, av = wi C42, i / wi (4)
i=1 i=1
where wi = snri/snrmax, i = 1, …, Nsen, are the weighting coefficients, and
m
snrmax is the maximum local SNR. The joint reference mean, C42, av , for
modulation type m is obtained similarly as the joint cumulant estimate in
(4), only in (4) the reference means, C42 m
(snri ), instead of the estimated
cumulant values, C42, i , are used. By applying the same decision prin-
ciples as in [1], with the joint reference means, C42, m
av , and the joint
(1) cumulant estimate, C42,av, we here obtain weighted average data
fusion (w-ADaF) method. Finally, we here define the weighted
optimal data fusion (w-ODaF) method, as a suboptimal version of the
ODaF, using the weighting coefficients, wi , defined in the w-ADaF,
as factors that multiply the expression given in square brackets in the
sum operator in (3).
A decision rule of the ODF method based on a maximum-likelihood
criterion, given in [5], is defined as

k
 p(dp|((dm|(,msnr, snr)) ))l

fading coefficients [1–3]. In practice, cumulant and fading coefficients Nsen
i n i
are estimated by using received sequence y(n) [1–3]. Two channel MF = arg max (5)
estimation methods for AMC using cumulants are proposed [2, 3] 
  M
with the one in [3] being superior for line-of-sight channels. By applying
the AMC algorithm given in [1], with the channel estimation methods
given in [2], and in [3], we define estimated channel information
(ECI) models ECI-I and ECI-II, respectively, and a perfect channel
information (PCI) model when channel state is a priori known.
Cooperative AMC: We here consider Nsen sensors that receive a signal
with unknown modulation type m, from a set Mmod = {m1, …, mM},
through mutually independent multipath fading channels and with a
sensor specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The same AMC algorithm
with estimation model (PCI, ECI-I or ECI-II) is used at all the sensors
with SNR values snri, assumed known, generating local cumulant esti-
mate, C42,i, or a local decision, di, for i = 1, …, Nsen. AMC results and
local SNR of all the sensors are collected in a fusion centre to make a
final decision. In data fusion methods, the final decision, MF is made
based on local cumulant estimates C42,i, and local SNR values, snri.
In decision fusion methods local decisions, di, and local SNR values
are used.
We obtain the optimal data fusion (ODaF) method with the assump-
tion that cumulant estimation is successfully performed, i.e. fading is
suppressed by the correct factor β. If the assumption holds, cumulant
estimate C42,i at the ith sensoris a random variable with normal distri-
bution N C42 m
(snri ), s2m (snri ) [1], where C42
m
(snri ) and s2m (snri ) are
the mean and variance for a given channel model, modulation type m
and snri. Since the signal propagates through mutually independent
Techset CompositionLtd, Salisbury
i k i
mn [Mmod i=1 k=1
where p(di|(mn, snri)) is the probability that a decision di is made at the
ith sensor when the SNR value is snri and the actual modulation type is
mn. Using the ODF method requires a priori knowledge of the reference
confusion matrices (CMs) for SNR values, snri, i = 1, …, Nsen, i.e. the
set of probabilities: p(mi|(mn, snri)), ∀(mi, mn) ∈ Mmod, and also the refer-
ence mean values for all considered modulation types [5].
Ideal and realistic scenarios: All the observed fusion methods require
certain reference values (means, variances or CM). In an ideal scenario,
actual (estimated) reference means, as well as reference CMs or variance
values estimated by using these means for the specific SNR values,
fading channel conditions and estimation model (PCI, ECI-I or
ECI-II) under which a fusion method is used, are assumed available.
In practice, ideal references are unavailable. Multipath channel length
L, and its statistical properties are not a priori known, whereas
channel estimation methods [3] attain drastically different AMC per-
formances in different channels. Thus, in a realistic application scenario
instead of actual (ideal) reference values, we have to use theoretic
means, and averaged (over L) reference variances and the CM data
obtained by using the theoretic means under the PCI model (that is
independent of fading coefficients PDF).
Simulations: Modulation set Mmod = {BPSK, QPSK, 16QAM,
64QAM} is observed, with the signals normalised as zero-mean
Doc: {IEE}El/ISSUE/49-23/Pagination/EL20131028.3d
Wireless communications
processes with a unit average energy, and SNR defined as in [1–3].
Multipath fading channels are modelled with the channel length being
L = 2, …, 10, and with all the fading coefficients, as in [2, 3, 5], gener-
ated as a zero-mean independent complex Gaussian random variables
with a variance s2h = 0.05, except h(0) = 1. For the uncooperative trans-
mitter, the SNR of spatially dispersed sensors depends on distance,
antenna gains and propagation conditions, and is unequal, opposite to
previous studies [4, 5]. Thus, the SNR at each sensor is modelled as a
uniformly distributed discrete random variable ranging from − 5 to
15 dB with 1 dB steps. For a network with up to 20 sensors
8 000 000 Monte Carlo trials were executed with randomly generated
fading channels, SNR, input sequences x(n) of 2000 symbols, AWGN
and equiprobable modulation types and L in each trial. Half of all the
trials are used to estimate the reference values (means, variances and
CMs) for the PCI, ECI-I and ECI-II models. The rest of the trials are
used to evaluate the average probability of correct classification for all
the fusion methods in the ideal and realistic application scenarios, as
defined in the preceding Section, with the results shown in Figs. 1
and 2, respectively.
1.00
average probability of correct classification
Conclusion: The simulations confirmed the expected performance
gains when using the data fusion methods instead of the referent ODF
method, particularly when the assumptions used in the derivation are
satisfied, e.g. in the ideal scenario with the PCI model with only a
minor deviation from the expected Gaussian PDF. All the methods
achieved significantly poorer performances when using the ECI-I
model (compared with ECI-II or PCI) in the ideal scenario, whereas
in a realistic application scenario the ECI-I model instability, addressed
in [3], causes complete deterioration and disables the use of all the
methods. In the realistic application scenario with the ECI-II model,
the data fusion methods proved much better behaviour than the existing
ODF method, with moderately reduced performances compared to the
ideal scenario, due to used and actual references mismatch. In fact, in
this case the w-ODaF method proved to be superior to the ODaF
method, as an effect of sensors with low SNR and more inadequate
PCI references is efficiently suppressed through weighting. The
w-ADaF method that requires only theoretic means in a realistic scen-
ario, thus always applicable, achieves relatively good performances. In
the ideal scenario with the PCI model, all the observed methods
achieved near-ideal classification, indicating that cooperative AMC
strives to be a near-optimal AMC solution as the channel estimation

0.95 improves.
0.90
PCI
0.85 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
0.80 26 March 2013
0.75 ECI–II
doi: 10.1049/el.2013.1028
0.70
0.65
G.B. Markovic and M.L. Dukic (School of Electrical Engineering,
0.60 ODF University of Belgrade, Blvd. Kralja Aleksandra 73, Belgrade, Serbia)
w-ADaF E-mail: gmarkovic@etf.rs
0.55
ODaF
0.50 w-ODaF
ECI–I
0.45 References
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
number of sensors, Nsen 1 Swami, A., and Sadler, B.M.: ‘Hierarchical digital modulation classifi-
cation using cumulants’, IEEE Trans. Commun., 2000, 48, (3),
pp. 416–429
Fig. 1 AMC performances for defined ideal application scenario 2 Wu, H.C., Saquib, M., and Yun, Z.: ‘Novel automatic modulation classi-
fication using cumulant features for communications via multipath
channel’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2008, 7, (8), pp. 3098–3105
average probability of correct classification

0.85 3 Orlic, V.D., and Dukic, M.L.: ‘Multipath channel estimation algorithm
0.80
for automatic modulation classification using sixth-order cumulants’,
0.75
Electron. Lett., 2010, 46, (19), pp. 1348–1349
0.70
0.65
ECI–II 4 Xu, J.L., Su, W., and Zou, M.C.: ‘Distributed automatic modulation
0.60 classification with multiple sensors’, IEEE Sens. J., 2010, 10, (11),
0.55 pp. 1779–1785
ODF
0.50 5 Zhang, Y., Ansari, N., and Su, W.: ‘Optimal decision fusion based auto-
w-ADaF
0.45 ODaF
matic modulation classification by using wireless sensor networks in
0.40 w-ODaF multipath fading channel’. Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM 2011, Houston,
0.35 ECI–I TX, USA, December 2011, pp. 1–5
0.30
0.25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
number of sensors, Nsen

Fig. 2 AMC performances for defined realistic application scenario