sensors

Article
A Joint Automatic Modulation Classification Scheme in Spatial
Cognitive Communication
Mengtao Wang 1,† , Youchen Fan 1,† , Shengliang Fang 1, *, Tianshu Cui 2 and Donghang Cheng 1

1 School of Space Information, Space Engineering University, Beijing 101416, China

2 School of National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101416, China
* Correspondence: bit1120162039@126.com; Tel.: +86-1861-165-1115
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Automatic modulation discrimination (AMC) is one of the critical technologies in spatial
cognitive communication systems. Building a high-performance AMC model in intelligent receivers
can help to realize adaptive signal synchronization and demodulation. However, tackling the intra-
class diversity problem is challenging to AMC based on deep learning (DL), as 16QAM and 64QAM
are not easily distinguished by DL networks. In order to overcome the problem, this paper proposes
a joint AMC model that combines DL and expert features. In this model, the former builds a neural
network that can extract the time series and phase features of in-phase and quadrature component
(IQ) samples, which improves the feature extraction capability of the network in similar models; the
latter achieves accurate classification of QAM signals by constructing effective feature parameters.
Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed joint AMC model performs better than the
benchmark networks. The classification accuracy is increased by 11.5% at a 10 dB signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR). At the same time, it also improves the discrimination of QAM signals.

Keywords: automatic modulation classification; convolutional neural networks; spatial cognitive

communication; deep learning; expert feature methods

Citation: Wang, M.; Fan, Y.; Fang, S.;

Cui, T.; Cheng, D. A Joint Automatic
Modulation Classification Scheme in
Spatial Cognitive Communication.
1. Introduction
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500. https:// As NASA enters a new era of space exploration, communication links shift from
doi.org/10.3390/s22176500 point-to-point communications to network topologies. There are more diverse types of
wireless links in space communications, such as planetary earth to earth, planetary earth to
Academic Editor: Davy P. Gaillot
spacecraft, and space to earth, etc. [1]. To improve situational awareness, we seek to develop
Received: 29 July 2022 an ACM algorithm based on DL that is capable of identifying common signals in satellite
Accepted: 27 August 2022 communications and thus can efficiently identify users and distinguish interference sources.
Published: 29 August 2022 Traditional AMC methods are mainly divided into two categories: the likelihood-based
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
(LB) AMC [2,3] and the feature-based (FB) AMC [4–6]. The LB-AMC approach is based
with regard to jurisdictional claims in on the Bayesian theory in order to obtain the best estimate of modulation by minimizing
published maps and institutional affil- the probability of misclassification, but it has the disadvantages of high computational
iations. complexity and narrow applicability. The purpose of FB-AMC is to find features that
can distinguish different modulated signals, such as wavelet domain features [4], cyclic
spectrum [5], and high-order statistics [6]. Furthermore, the performance of the FB classifier
is significantly influenced by the quality of the features.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. DL is a data-driven artificial intelligence approach that uses multilayer neural net-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. works to extract data features automatically. O’Shea et al. [7] first proposed using a convolu-
This article is an open access article tional neural network (CNN) to process the IQ signals directly, and the average recognition
distributed under the terms and rate was 75% at 10 dB in the RadioML 2016.10a dataset which includes 11 modulation
conditions of the Creative Commons
classes. However, this CNN network only has two layers, so its classification performance is
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
limited. Subsequently, O’Shea et al. [8] proposed an improved ResNet network to improve
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
recognition performance. In addition, multiple deep CNNs were applied to boost the
4.0/).

Sensors 2022, 22, 6500. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176500 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 2 of 11

performance of AMC in [9–11]. However, these CNNs mostly used convolutional kernels
with 3 × 1 dimensions, which cannot capture the long-term temporal features of IQ signals.
Meanwhile, West [12] et al. first proposed a CLDNN network combining a CNN network
and a long short-term memory (LSTM) network, which can extract long-term temporal
features. This network got an average recognition accuracy of 85% at 0 dB in the RadioML
2016.10a dataset.
More and more neural networks are being used to improve AMC’s performance.
However, these networks are not very good at identifying intra-class diversity signals. Yu
Wang et al. [13] proposed a data-driven fusion model which combines two CNN networks,
one trained on the IQ signal dataset, and the other trained on the constellation map dataset.
Inspired by face recognition, Hao Zhang et al. [14] proposed a two-stage training network
that improves the model’s ability to capture small intra-class scattering. The central loss
function supervises the first stage, and the cross-entropy loss function supervises the second
stage. Kumar Yashashwi et al. [15] used an attention model to synchronize and normalize
signals, which improves the model’s recognition of intra-class diversity signals. However,
these works all face the problem of poor generalization ability. If we substitute another
dataset, these methods may not be applicable.
Summarizing the previous work, we can find that the improvement of neural networks
in AMC is achieved by improving the ability to extract signal timing features. However, IQ
signals contain not only timing features but also phase features. Therefore, when building
a neural network, we consider extracting both the timing and phase features of the signal.
In addition, the neural network is weak in extracting intra-class features. Thus, cascading a
network trained on different datasets [13] or cascading a network supervised by other loss
functions [14] still results in limited generalizability. Therefore, we choose to group 16QAM
and 64QAM signals with similar intra-class features into the same class and identify them
through use of the expert feature method so as to solve the problem in disguise.

2. System Model
2.1. AMC-Driven Intelligent Receiver Architecure
Figure 1 shows a satellite intelligent receiver system based on a zero-IF architecture.
The AMC-driven intelligent receiver can identify the modulation type of the original signal
without any prior information. Moreover, it can help subsequent modules, such as symbol
synchronization, channel equalization, and signal demodulation [16]. The workflow of
this intelligent receiver is as follows: the RF signal first passes through the mid-pass filter
BPF and low-noise amplifier LNA for frequency selection and amplification. Then, the
signal is sent to the mixer and the local oscillator frequency for mixing to generate the
in-phase component I and the quadrature component Q. Next, the I and Q signals are
amplified, filtered, sampled and extracted to create the digital IQ baseband signal. Finally,
the acquired IQ baseband signal is input into the AMC model to complete the identification
of signal modulation type.

Figure 1. Quadrature sampling zero-IF intelligent receiver.

Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 3 of 11

2.2. The Joint AMC Model

This paper proposes a joint automatic identification model that combines the IQCLNet
network and expert feature methods. As shown in Figure 2, the model is used to identify
11 modulated signals widely used in modern communication systems. When the receiver
acquires the unknown signals, the first stage will be made by IQCLNet to identify them.
In addition, QAM16 and QAM64 are considered the same class and named QAMS in
this stage. Then, the second stage uses the expert feature method to construct parametric
features in order to identify QAMS.

Figure 2. The Joint AMC model.

3. Method of Proposing Models

3.1. IQCLNet Network
In electromagnetic signal recognition, most DL network structures are borrowed from
the network design in image identification. In image processing, the input pixel data format
is M × N, which has an isotropic nature in the spatial relationship. Thus, the shape of
the convolution kernel is generally square to perform the symmetric operation between
two dimensions. However, in signal processing, the input IQ data format is N×. N is the
time sampling point, reflecting the time series characteristics. Two corresponds to I and Q,
reflecting the phase characteristics [17]. IQ data do not have the same nature between the
two dimensions, so they cannot be operated symmetrically as image processing.
At present, the processing of IQ signals by DL networks mostly uses one-dimensional
convolution kernels to extract the time-series features of the signals [7,18–20] while ignoring
the phase characteristics, so we must design a network which can extract the different
features in two dimensions of the IQ signals. In this paper, we create the network structure
as shown in Figure 3. Within each channel, the first convolutional layer uses a 1 × 2 convo-
lutional kernel to extract the phase features of the signal, and the output data dimension
is changed from N × 2 to N × 1; then, a 3 × 1 convolutional kernel is used to extract the
short-time sequence features of the signal, followed by a cascaded layer of LSTM to extract
the long-time sequence features of the signal [21]. Finally, the fully connected layer maps
the output data to a more discrete space for classification.
In the classification stage, adoption of the adaptive average pooling layer occurs first,
and the mean value of each channel eigenvalue is used as a new eigenvalue that not only
can reduce the parameters of the fully connected layer, but also improve the generalization
performance of the network. Next, using only one fully connected layer for classification
in order to reduce the number of parameters and the amount of computation, the specific
implementation is: first set the output value of the adaptive average pooling to be consistent
with the number of channels C, and then form a fully connected layer with the input C and
the output L with the number of categories L. This operation makes the network compatible
with different input lengths’ IQ signal. Between the output of the convolutional layer and
the activation function, a Batch Normalization (BN) operation is added to increase the
robustness and convergence speed of the model; the feature extraction layer uses ReLU as
the activation function and Softmax as the output function of the classification layer.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 4 of 11

Figure 3. IQCLNet network model.

The specific parameters of the IQCLNet network are shown in the following Table 1:

Table 1. The structure of the IQCLNet network.

Layer Type Input Size Output Size Details

Input 1 × 2 × 128 - -
Kernel Size: 1 × 2
Convolution 1 × 2 × 128 24 × 1 × 128
Activation: Relu
Lambda 24 × 1 × 128 24 × 128 Squeeze (x, axis = 2)
Kernel Size: 3 × 1
Convolution 24 × 128 24 × 128
Activation: Relu
MaxPool 24 × 128 24 × 64 Pool Size: 2 Strides = 2
Kernel Size: 3 × 1
Convolution 24 × 64 24 64
Activation: Relu
MaxPool 24 × 64 24 × 32 Pool Size: 2 Strides = 2
LSTM 24 × 32 64 Units: 64
Dense + Softmax 64 10 One-Hot Output

3.2. Expert Feature Method

The amplitude-phase modulated signal model of the QAM signal at the receiver side
is expressed as:
N
r (t) = ej2π f c t ejθc ∑ αi g(t − iT0 − εT0 ) + ω (t) (1)
i =1

Si ejϕi
p
αi = (2)
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 5 of 11

q
Si = α2i,I + α2i,Q (3)
αi,Q
ϕi = arctan (4)
αi,I
where r(t) is the received signal; g(t) is the shock response of the shaping filter; T0 is the
codeword period; fc is the carrier frequency; θ c is the carrier phase; ε is the timing offset;
N is the number of observation symbols; αi is √ the zero-mean smooth complex random
sequence, i.e., the transmit codeword sequence; s and ϕi are the amplitude and phase of
αi , respectively; and ω(t) is a stationary additive Gaussian noise with a zero mean and a
one-sided power spectral density N0 [22].
QAM signal modulation information is not only reflected in the phase variation but
also in the amplitude variation. However, QAM signals have many types of phase change,
which should not be suitable for intra-class identification. Under ideal conditions, the
number of 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM signal amplitude takes 3, 9, and 32, which
have significant differences. The authors in [23] mention that the zero-center normalized
instantaneous amplitude tightness characteristic parameter (µ42 ) reflects the denseness
of the instantaneous amplitude distribution. Therefore, we can use µ42 to distinguish
each order of QAM signals. µ42 is defined in Equation (8), where acn is the zero-center
normalized instantaneous amplitude.

1 N
NS i∑
ma = a (i ) (5)
=1

a (i )
a n (i ) = (6)
ma
acn (i ) = an (i ) − 1 (7)
E α4cn (i )
 
α
µ42 = 2
(8)
{ E[α2cn (i )]}

4. Experimental Results
4.1. IQCLNet Network Experiments
4.1.1. Dataset
In this paper, we use a popular open-source dataset Radio ML2016.10a [24]. This
dataset has 11 classes of modulated signals with SNR ranging from −20 dB to 18 dB, and
the length of a single sample is 128. The details are shown in Table 2. All experiments are
conducted on this dataset.

Table 2. RML2016.10a dataset.

Dataset RadioML2016.10a
8 Digital Modulations: BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK,
Modilations 16QAM,64QAM, BFSK, CPFSK, and PAM4
3 Analog Modulations: WBFM, AM-SSB, and AM-DSB
Length per sample 128
Signal format In-phase and quadrature (IQ)
Sampling frequency 1 MHz
SNR Range [−20 dB, −18 dB, . . . , 18 dB]
Total number of samples 220,000 vectors
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 6 of 11

4.1.2. The Superiority of IQCLNet Network

Figure 4 demonstrates three feature extraction methods for IQ signals processed by
convolutional neural networks. Among them, (a) is the method adopted in this paper, (b) is
the method adopted in [18,19], and (c) is the method adopted in [7,20]. The experimental
results of the three different convolution methods on the dataset are shown in Figure 5. The
average recognition rates of (a), (b), and (c) are 62.8%, 58.2%, and 59.4%, respectively. (a) As
the structure proposed in this paper, phase feature extraction is performed on the signal
first, and then timing feature extraction is performed, so that it has the highest recognition
rate. (b) first convolves with a 1D filter and then flattens the data, but this method can
only extract time-domain features and cannot use phase features; (c) is the same as the first
step in (b). After extracting temporal features, (c) performs dimensionality reduction in
the IQ direction using MaxPooling. However, this method loses the amplitude and phase
information of the signal. Furthermore, the convolution method (a) used in this paper
shows better recognition results in both low SNR and high SNR conditions. Thus, the
superiority of IQCLNet in this paper is verified.

Figure 4. Three convolution methods.

Figure 5. Results of different convolution methods.

Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 7 of 11

4.1.3. The Effectiveness of IQCLNet Network

The joint AMC model we designed requires that the IQCLNet network can identify
the QAMS effectively, so that the subsequent expert feature method can identify 16QAM
and 64QAM accurately. Therefore, we provide the confusion matrices of IQCLNet under
four different SNR conditions. The confusion matrix is a method of accuracy evaluation.
The column represents the predicted category, the row represents the real category, and the
darker the color of the square where the row and column intersect, the higher the accuracy
is. As shown in Figure 6, the network cannot identify any signal under the extremely low
SNR of −20 dB. When the SNR is −12 dB, the QAMS signal can already be distinguished
from other signals. With the SNR improvement, the QAMS signal recognition can reach
100%. These experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the IQCLNet network.

Figure 6. Confusion matrixes of IQCLNet at different SNR ratios.

4.2. Expert Feature Method Experiments

After solving the experimental verification of the IQCLNet network, we need to
construct a classifier to distinguish the QAM signal. First, we should calculate the µ42 of
16QAM and 64QAM signals at different SNRs. The two signals’ feature parameter curves
are shown in Figure 7a. We can distinguish the two signals clearly through the µ42 feature
parameter. Thus, taking the average of the µ42 of the two signals as the threshold, according
to the size relationship between µ42 and the threshold line, we can distinguish 16QAM
and 64QAM. Moreover, the two curves intersect at 0 dB, which may make the two signals
difficult to distinguish around this SNR.
Now we have constructed a classifier that can distinguish QAM signals. Next, we use
it to identify the QAMS signal output by IQCLNet. At the same time, we use IQCLNet to
identify the QAMS signal directly for comparison. The experimental results are shown in
Figure 7b.
The IQCLNet method’s recognition accuracy steadily improves with the increase of
SNR, and it tends to be stable under high SNR conditions. Moreover, the overall average
recognition rate is 60.4%. Compared with the IQCLNet network, the recognition effect of
the expert feature method is significantly improved under low SNR conditions. However,
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 8 of 11

since the characteristic curves of 16QAM and 64QAM intersect around 0 dB, the recognition
rate will drop. Moreover, the overall average recognition rate is 77.9%, an increase of 17.5%
compared to exclusive use of the IQCLNet method. This proves that the expert feature
method has obvious advantages in identifying QAM signals.

Figure 7. Experimental results of the expert feature method. (a) Characteristic parameter µ42 ;
(b) results of IQCLNet and expert feature methods in identifying QAM, respectively.

4.3. The Joint AMC Model Results

We can easily derive the total recognition rate of the joint AMC model after getting
the recognition rate of QAMs. We select three models in Table 3 as comparison networks.
CNN2 [7] is the first classical structure that uses a convolutional neural network to rec-
ognize modulation; CLDNN [12] is a classical structure in speech recognition tasks that
has been successfully transplanted into the field of electromagnetic signal recognition.
CNN_LSTM [25] is a well-designed network structure based on CLDNN which uses fewer
parameters and obtains higher recognition accuracy. All three networks have been validated
on the RML2016.10a dataset.

Table 3. Structural parameters of different networks.

MODEL CNN2 CLDNN CNN_LSTM

Convolution Layers 2 3 2
Kernel Size 1 × 2, 2 × 3 1×8 1 × 3, 2 × 3
Convolution
256, 80 50 × 3 128, 32
Channels
LSTM Layers 0 1 1
LSTM Units 0 50 × 1 128 × 1

The classification accuracies of all models are shown in Figure 8, taking 0 dB as

the dividing line between high and low SNR. Under low SNR conditions, the average
recognition rates of the three baseline networks are 30.8%, 29.1%, and 31.1%, respectively.
The IQCLNet network and Joint AMC model are 34.1% and 41.7%. Under high SNR
conditions, the average recognition rates of the three baseline networks are 74.1%, 79.6%,
and 83.4%, respectively. The IQCLNet network and Joint AMC model are 89.2% and 90.9%.
Experimental results show that, compared with the three baseline networks that only
extract the timing features of the IQ signal, the IQCLNet, with its additional phase feature
extraction, is more effective. Moreover, since the recognition rate of 16QAM and 64QAM is
improved. The joint AMC model that adds an expert feature method after the IQCLNet
network is further improved, especially at low SNR.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 9 of 11

Figure 8. Classification accuracy of different networks.

In addition, we provide the confusion matrixes of IQCLnet and the Joint AMC model at
10dB SNR in Figure 9a,b. It can be seen that the joint AMC model improves the recognition
ability of 16QAM and 64QAM.

Figure 9. Confusion matrixes of the two methods: (a) IQCLNet network; (b) the joint AMC model.

Due to the limitations of volume, mass, and power consumption, and the influence of
environmental factors such as space radiation and extreme temperature, the computing
power and storage space of space-borne computers are very different from those of ground-
based computers. Although deep neural networks have the advantages of strong feature
extraction ability and high recognition accuracy, they also have the disadvantages of many
network parameters and a large amount of calculation. Therefore, we compare the number
of parameters and training time of all networks, and the experimental results are shown
in Table 4. Compared with other networks, our proposed IQCLNet network has fewer
parameters and higher computational efficiency, which is more conducive to deployment
to satellite in-orbit applications.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 10 of 11

Table 4. Parameters and computer time of different networks.

MODEL Network Parameters Training Time (s)

CNN2 5,145,936 1037
CLDNN 69,253 2430
CNN_LSTM 113,082 1523
IQCLNet 30,471 301

5. Conclusions
In this paper, we propose an innovative joint AMC model to identify different modu-
lated signals. The model is based on the high performance of the forward deep learning
network IQCLNet, which can separate the QAMs accurately. Then, expert feature methods
are used to construct feature parameters in order to identify 16QAM and 64QAM. It is
concluded that the joint AMC model exhibits better recognition performance and intra-
class diversity discrimination ability than the baseline network. In future research, we
can consider communication as an end-to-end reconstruction optimization task, and use
autoencoders to learn channel models, encoding and decoding implementations without
prior knowledge.

Author Contributions: Software, M.W.; data curation, D.C.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.F.; project administration, T.C.; funding acquisition, S.F. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Key Basic Research Projects of the Basic Strengthening
Program, grant number 2020-JCJQ-ZD-071.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jagannath, A.; Jagannath, J.; Drozd, A. Artificial Intelligence-based Cognitive Cross-layer Decision Engine for Next-Generation
Space Mission. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Cognitive Communications for Aerospace Applications Workshop (CCAAW),
Cleveland, OH, USA, 25–26 June 2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
2. Shi, Q.; Karasawa, Y. Improved maximum likelihood classification for QAMs. In Proceedings of the 2008 11th IEEE Singapore
International Conference on Communication Systems, Guangzhou, China, 19–21 November 2008; pp. 509–513. [CrossRef]
3. Wei, W.; Mendel, J.M. Maximum-likelihood classification for digital amplitude-phase modulations. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2000, 48,
189–193. [CrossRef]
4. Hassan, K.; Dayoub, I.; Hamouda, W.; Berbineau, M. Automatic modulation recognition using wavelet transform and neural
network. In Proceedings of the 2009 9th International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems Telecommunications, (ITST),
Lille, France, 20–22 October 2009; pp. 234–238. [CrossRef]
5. Shuli, D.; Zhipeng, L.; Linfeng, Z. A Modulation Recognition Algorithm based on Cyclic Spectrum and SVM Classification. In
Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 4th Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC),
Chongqing, China, 12–14 June 2020; pp. 2123–2127. [CrossRef]
6. Flohberger, M.; Gappmair, W.; Koudelka, O. Modulation classifier for signals used in satellite communications. In Proceedings
of the 2010 5th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and the 11th Signal Processing for Space Communications
Workshop, Cagliari, Italy, 13–15 September 2010; pp. 198–202. [CrossRef]
7. O’Shea, T.J.; Corgan, J.; Clancy, T.C. Convolutional radio modulation recognition networks. In International Conference on
Engineering Applications of Neural Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [CrossRef]
8. O’Shea, T.J.; Roy, T.; Clancy, T.C. Over-the-Air Deep Learning Based Radio Signal Classification. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.
2018, 12, 168–179. [CrossRef]
9. Meng, F.; Chen, P.; Wu, L.; Wang, X. Automatic Modulation Classification: A Deep Learning Enabled Approach. IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol. 2018, 67, 10760–10772. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Yang, J.; Gui, G. Deep Learning-Based Cooperative Automatic Modulation Classification Method
for MIMO Systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 4575–4579. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 6500 11 of 11

11. Liao, K.; Zhao, Y.; Gu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, Y. Sequential Convolutional Recurrent Neural Networks for Fast Automatic
Modulation Classification. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 27182–27188. [CrossRef]
12. West, N.E.; O’shea, T. Deep architectures for modulation recognition. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium
on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Baltimore, MD, USA, 6–9 March 2017; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, Y.; Liu, M.; Yang, J.; Gui, G. Data-Driven Deep Learning for Automatic Modulation Recognition in Cognitive Radios. IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol. 2019, 68, 4074–4077. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, H.; Zhou, F.; Wu, Q.; Wu, W.; Hu, R.Q. A Novel Automatic Modulation Classification Scheme Based on Multi-Scale
Networks. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 2021, 8, 97–110. [CrossRef]
15. O’Shea, T.J.; Pemula, L.; Batra, D.; Clancy, T.C. Radio transformer networks: Attention models for learning to synchronize in
wireless systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 50th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA,
USA, 6–9 November 2016; pp. 662–666. [CrossRef]
16. Yao, T.; Chai, Y.; Wang, S.; Miao, X.; Bu, X. Radio Signal Automatic Modulation Classification based on Deep Learning and
Expert Features. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 4th Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control
Conference (ITNEC), Chongqing, China, 12–14 June 2020; pp. 1225–1230. [CrossRef]
17. Cui, T.S. A Deep Learning Method for Space-Based Electromagnetic Signal Recognition. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chinese
Academy of Sciences, BeiJing, China, 2021. [CrossRef]
18. Merchant, K.; Revay, S.; Stantchev, G.; Nousain, B. Deep Learning for RF Device Fingerprinting in Cognitive Communication
Networks. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 2018, 12, 160–167. [CrossRef]
19. Restuccia, F.; D’Oro, S.; Al-Shawabka, A.; Belgiovine, M.; Angioloni, L.; Ioannidis, S.; Melodia, T.; Chowdhury, K. Deep Radio
ID: Real-Time Channel-Resilient Optimization of Deep Learning-based Radio Fingerprinting Algorithms. In Proceedings of the
Twentieth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, Catania, Italy, 2–5 July 2019.
20. Al-Shawabka, A.; Restuccia, F.; D’Oro, S.; Jian, T.; Rendon, B.C.; Soltani, N.; Dy, J.; Ioannidis, S.; Chowdhury, K.; Melodia, T.
Exposing the Fingerprint: Dissecting the Impact of the Wireless Channel on Radio Fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the IEEE
INFOCOM 2020—IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 6–9 July 2020; pp. 646–655. [CrossRef]
21. Cui, T.S.; Cui, K.; Huang, Y.H.; Junshe, A. Convolutional Neural Network Satellite Signal Automatic Modulation Recognition
Algorithm. J. Beijing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. 2022, 48, 986–994. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, H.D.; Lou, H.X. Automatic identification method of MQAM signal modulation mode. J. Commun. 2019, 40, 200–211.
23. Zhao, X.W.; Guo, C.X.; Li, J.C. A hybrid identification algorithm for signal modulation based on high-order cumulant and cyclic
spectrum. J. Electron. Inf. 2016, 38, 674–680.
24. O’Shea, T.J.; West, N. Radio machine learning dataset generation with gnu radio. In Proceedings of the GNU Radio Conference,
Charlotte, NC, USA, 20–24 September 2016.
25. Wu, Y.; Li, X.; Fang, J. A Deep Learning Approach for Modulation Recognition via Exploiting Temporal Correlations. In
Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 19th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC),
Kalamata, Greece, 25–28 June 2018; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]