Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

An identification technique for the co-frequency mixed communication signals based on cumulants

EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing20182018:50

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634-018-0573-5

  • Received: 8 April 2018
  • Accepted: 20 July 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Identification of the co-frequency interference is a common problem in wireless digital communication systems. The high-order statistics (HOS) feature based on cumulants is a widely adopted solution. However, prior knowledge of the timings and the symbol period is required to extract the cumulants, which is quite difficult in a blind environment. In order to solve this problem, this paper proposed a more general calculation for the cumulants based on the over-sampled data with consideration of the inter-symbol interference (ISI). The generalized theoretical value of the cumulants is deduced in this paper. Besides, the HOS feature based on the generalized cumulants for identification is found to be robust with different roll-off factor and sampling number per symbol. Computer simulations are performed to prove the validity of the proposed method.

Keywords

  • High-order statistics
  • Cumulants
  • Co-frequency mixed signal
  • Signal identification

1 Introduction

With the frequency spectrum becoming more and more intense in wireless communication, the receivers suffer from the intentional or unintentional co-frequency interference more and more frequently [13]. Specifically, paired carrier multiple access (PCMA) is a new technique adopted in satellite communication system, and the earth stations receive a mixed signal of two intentional co-frequency signals [4, 5]. The conventional demodulation performance is severely degraded by the co-frequency interference, which leads emerging need for the receivers to identify the type of the received signal, a single signal or a mixed signal, before adopting corresponding procedure.

The problem of the mixed signal identification has been explored in current literatures [614]. The commonly adopted methods can be divided into two types. One is the information theoretic based method [6, 7]; the other is feature-based method [813]. The former method adopts the correlation matrix of the received signal to estimate the number of the transmit signals. In [6], the classic Akaike information criterion (AIC) algorithm and minimum description length (MDL) are reviewed. However, these algorithms require complex computation for eigen decomposition of the correlation matrix. Moreover, the information theoretic methods require the number of the receive antennas larger than the number of the transmit signals, which is not always satisfied.

On the other hand, the feature-based methods extract features from the received signal, which means a priori knowledge of the received signals is required. In [8, 9], the features of second-order cyclostationary and the spectral coherence function are adopted to detect the mixed signal. However, this method requires high computation complexity and performs poorly when the signals’ carrier frequencies are nearly the same. In [10, 11], the cyclic stationary characteristics of digital communication signals are adopted to detect the number of the co-frequency signals. However, it fails when the cyclic frequencies are overlapped. In [12], a novel single-channel signals’ number detection algorithm based on wavelet transform is investigated. The signals’ symbol characteristics in Haar wavelet transform are extracted to achieve the blind estimation of the signals’ number. However, the symbol rates of the signals are required to be different. In [13], the high-order moments of the received signal are employed to detect the number of the co-frequency signals. However, this method requires a priori information of the noise variance. Inspired by the tolerance of white Gaussian noise, the cumulants are adopted to distinguish OFDM signals from single carrier signals in [14]. However, the cumulants are extracted from a timing synchronization sampled sequence which removes the inter-symbol interference (ISI) from the over-sampled data of the received signal. That means the signal bandwidth and the timing information should be estimated if prior knowledge is not available. However, the accurate estimation of these parameters is quite difficult under low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) condition [1518].

In this paper, a more generalized theoretical value of the cumulants of the over-sampled data with consideration of ISI is deduced. Instead of only using the optimal sample per symbol for cumulant calculation, all the samples per symbol are used. A high-order statistics (HOS) feature based on cumulants is adopted to identify the received signal’s type with prior knowledge of the modulation type of the two co-frequency signals. Moreover, the HOS feature based on the cumulants is found to be stable for arbitrary symbol period and roll-off factor of the transmitter pulse-shaping filter. Thus, it releases the need for timing synchronization and estimation of the symbol rate of the two co-frequency signals when this HOS feature is adopted to identify the received signal’s type.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces the research background. Section 2 presents the signal model and the definition of HOS. Section 3 derives the more generalized theoretical value of the cumulants of the over-sampled data with consideration of inter-symbol interference and introduces the HOS feature for signal identification. Section 4 introduces the proposed identification algorithm based on the HOS feature, and the algorithm’s performance simulations are also presented. The summation is concluded in the last section.

2 Signal model and the HOS

2.1 Signal model

In this paper, the received signal is supposed to be composed of two co-frequency signals with the same modulation type; its model can be expressed as
$$ r(t)={h}_1{e}^{j\left({\omega}_1t+{\theta}_1\right)}{x}_1(t)+{h}_2{e}^{j\left({\omega}_2t+{\theta}_2\right)}{x}_2(t)+v(t) $$
(1)
where h1 and h2 are the amplitude of the two signals, and the power ratio of these two signals is \( {P}_r={h}_1^2/{h}_2^2 \) (for simplicity, Pr is assumed to be larger than 1); ω1 and ω2 are the carrier frequency of the two signals and |ω1 − ω2|  |π/T1 + π/T2|; T1 and T2 are the symbol period of the two signals, respectively; θ1 and θ2 are the initial phase and are supposed to be uniform random variables on [0, 2π]; v(t) is an additive white Gaussian noise; x1(t) and x2(t) are the baseband modulation signals which can be described as
$$ {x}_i(t)={a}_i(t)\ast {g}_i(t),i=1,2 $$
(2)

where ai(t) represents the modulated symbol of the ith transmitted signal at time t and is uniform distributed on the constellation of the modulation type; gi(t) represents the pulse response of the equivalent filter including forming filter, channel filter, and matched filter and is usually substituted by the finite transmitter pulse-shaping filter lasts from − L1Ti to L2Ti [19]; represents convolution operation.

Assuming the receiver is sampled at the sampling rate 1/Ts,. the over-sampled data can be written as
$$ {r}_k={h}_1{e}^{j\left({\omega}_1{kT}_s+{\theta}_1\right)}{x}_{1,k}+{h}_2{e}^{j\left({\omega}_2{kT}_s+{\theta}_2\right)}{x}_{2,k}+{v}_k $$
(3)

where rk, xi,k, and vk are the sampling value of r(kTs), xi(kTs), and v(kTs), respectively.

2.2 High-order statistics

The HOS of rk can be described by the moments and the cumulants, which characterize the shape of the distribution of the signal constellation. The moments Mpq can be obtained by calculating the expectation of \( \left\{{\left({r}_k\right)}^{p-q}{\left({r}_k^{\ast}\right)}^q\right\} \) [20, 21]
$$ {M}_{pq}=E\left\{{\left({r}_k\right)}^{p-q}{\left({r}_k^{\ast}\right)}^q\right\} $$
(4)

where (∙)* represents taking the conjugate; E{∙} represents the expectation operation (in the following derivation, the expectation is replaced by ergodic average).

The cumulants can be obtained by the moments using the following formulas [20, 21]
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{C}_{20}={M}_{20}=E\left\{{\left({r}_k\right)}^2\right\}\\ {}{C}_{21}={M}_{21}=E\left\{{r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}{C}_{42}={M}_{42}-{\left|{M}_{20}\right|}^2-2{M}_{21}^2\\ {}\kern1.6em =E\left\{{\left({r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}-{E}^2\left\{{\left({r}_k\right)}^2\right\}-2{E}^2\left\{{r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}{C}_{63}={M}_{63}-9{C}_{42}{C}_{21}-6{C}_{21}^3\\ {}\kern1.6em =E\left\{{\left({r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right)}^3\right\}-9E\left\{{\left({r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}E\left\{{r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}\kern2.5em +9{E}^2\left\{{\left({r}_k\right)}^2\right\}E\left\{{r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right\}+12{E}^3\left\{{r}_k{r}_k^{\ast}\right\}\end{array}} $$
(5)

3 Theoretical value of the cumulants and the HOS feature

The studies in [2024] have derived the theoretical value of the cumulants of the phase-shift keying (PSK) signal and the quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) signal. However, the derivation is based on the sequence where the timing synchronization is completed and ISI is removed. This is not easy in practice. In this paper, we derive a more generalized theoretical value of the cumulants of the over-sampled data with ISI.

For simplicity, the additive noise vk is omitted during the derivation of the theoretical value. The moments Mpq of the over-sampled data of the received signal r(t) can be obtained as follows. The detail deduction is shown in Appendix 1. The deduction of the special case that the two signals are BPSK modulated and ω1 = ω2 is given in Appendix 2.
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{M}_{20}=0\\ {}{M}_{21}={h}_1^2E\left\{{x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right\}+{h}_2^2E\left\{{x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right\}\kern0.1em \\ {}\kern0.1em {M}_{42}=\sum \limits_{i=1}^2{h}_i^4E\left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}+\\ {}\ 4\left({h}_1^2{h}_2^2\right)E\left\{{x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right\}E\left\{{x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}{M}_{63}={h}_1^6E\left\{{\left({x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right)}^3\right\}+{h}_2^6E\left\{{\left({x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right)}^3\right\}+\\ {}\ 9{h}_1^4{h}_2^2E\left\{{\left({x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}E\left\{{x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right\}+\\ {}\ 9{h}_1^2{h}_2^4E\left\{{x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right\}E\left\{{\left({x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}\end{array}} $$
(6)
Substitute (6) into (5), the theoretical value of the cumulants Cpq can be obtained.
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{C}_{20}=0\\ {}{C}_{21}={h}_1^2E\left\{{x}_{1,k}{x}_{1,k}^{\ast}\right\}+{h}_2^2E\left\{{x}_{2,k}{x}_{2,k}^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}{C}_{42}=\sum \limits_{i=1}^2{h}_i^4E\left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}-2{h}_i^4{E}^2\left\{{x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right\}\\ {}{C}_{63}=\sum \limits_{i=1}^2{h}_i^6E\left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^3\right\}-9{h}_i^6E\left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^2\right\}E\left\{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)\right\}\\ {}\kern2.4em +12{h}_i^6{E}^3\left\{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)\right\}\end{array}} $$
(7)

where the expectation of \( \left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^q\right\} \) can be referred to Appendix 1.

Seen from [21], in order to remove the influence of the signal power, a HOS feature F1 constructed by the cumulants of the received signal is introduced for signal identification, which can be regarded as a statistics feature characterizes the shape of the distribution of the mixed signal constellation with normalized signal power.
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{F}_1=\left|\frac{C_{63}^2}{C_{42}^3}\right|\\ {}=\left|\frac{{\left[{P}_r^3{E}_{1,3}-9{P}_r^3{E}_{1,2}{E}_{1,1}+12{P}_r^3{E}_{1,1}^3+{E}_{2,3}-9{E}_{2,2}{E}_{2,1}+12{E}_{2,1}^3\right]}^2}{{\left[{P}_r^2{E}_{1,2}-2{P}_r^2{E}_{1,1}^2+{E}_{2,2}-2{E}_{2,1}^2\right]}^3}\right|\end{array}} $$
(8)
where \( {E}_{i,q}=E\left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^q\right\} \). The HOS feature F1 for a single signal, i.e., Pr approaching infinity can be obtained as follows.
$$ {F}_1=\left|\frac{{\left[{E}_{1,3}-9{E}_{1,2}{E}_{1,1}+12{E}_{1,1}^3\right]}^2}{{\left[{E}_{1,2}-2{E}_{1,1}^2\right]}^3}\right| $$
(9)
In order to verify the above theoretical derivation, Monte-Carlo method is adopted to obtain the simulation value of F1. During the simulation, the pulse-shaping filter gi(t) is set to be square root raised cosine filter with L1, L2 to be 2 (for the values of gi(t) are quite small when |t| is larger than 2Ti, so we can neglect them). Figure 1 shows the theoretical value and simulation value of F1 of the mixed signal r(t) of two co-frequency signals with the same modulation type, symbol period, and roll-off factor. The theoretical values are obtained by the following process: first, calculate the expectations of \( \left\{{\left({x}_{i,k}{x}_{i,k}^{\ast}\right)}^q\right\} \), using (12), (13), or (14), and then substitute them into (8) to obtain F1. The simulation values are obtained by calculating the moments and cumulants of a generated mixed signal with different power ratio using (4) and (5), and then substitute the cumulants into (8). Seen from Fig. 1, F1increases with the increasing power ratio Pr. Moreover, it can be seen that the value of F1 when Pr → ∞ (that means the type of the received signal is a single signal) is nearly twice the value when Pr = 1 (in this case, the separation of the two co-frequency signals is quite difficult). Owing to the distinctive difference of F1 between single signal and mixed signal, F1 can be adopted to identify the type of received signals.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

The HOS feature F1 as a function of the power ratio Pr

Moreover, Monte-Carlo method is adopted to show the relationship between the value of F1 and the roll-off factor αi and the symbol period Ti (which can be equivalent to the sampling number per symbol Ni). The maximum and minimum value of F1 under different αi and Ni are obtained. The roll-off factor αi is varied among 0~1 and the sampling number per symbol Ni is varied among 10~100. It is shown in Table 1 that the difference between the maximum and minimum value of the HOS feature F1 is quite small, which means the roll-off factor αi and the symbol period Ti have little impact on the value of F1. That releases the demand for estimation of the two signals’ bandwidths, the roll-off factors, and the timing information when adopting F1 to identify the received signal’s type. Thus, it makes the HOS feature F1 more robust in a blind environment (the special case that the two signals are BPSK modulated and ω1 = ω2 is not taken into consideration).
Table 1

The HOS feature F1 under different αi and Ni

Modulation type

Roll-off Factor αi

Sampling number per symbol Ni

Maximum value of F1

Minimum value of F1

BPSK, Pr = 20

0~1

10~100

8.9145

7.6102

BPSK, Pr = 5

0~1

10~100

8.4591

7.0491

BPSK, Pr = 1

0~1

10~100

4.6905

3.9025

MPSK(M ≥ 4), Pr = 20

0~1

10~100

14.7272

13.9162

MPSK(M ≥ 4), Pr = 5

0~1

10~100

14.1956

12.0912

MPSK(M ≥ 4), Pr = 1

0~1

10~100

8.2207

7.3646

16QAM, Pr = 20

0~1

10~100

12.6301

11.8496

16QAM, Pr = 5

0~1

10~100

12.1749

10.2950

16QAM, Pr = 1

0~1

10~100

7.0415

6.2780

4 Results

4.1 A more generalized identification method based on the HOS feature

In this section, a variety of simulation experiments are presented to illustrate the performance of the proposed identification method. The total block diagram of the identification method is shown in Fig. 2. First, the HOS feature F1 is extracted from the over-sampled data of received signal r(t) and then compared with a threshold η. If F1 ≥ η, the type of the received signal is identified as a single signal; else if F1 < η, the type of the received signal is identified as a mixed signal. For the value of F1 only vary with the power ratio Pr, the threshold’s value can be substituted by the theoretical value of F1 with the given modulation type of the two co-frequency signals and the power ratio Pr0. The mixed signal can be regarded as a single signal when the two signals’ power ratio Pr is larger than Pr0 (in this paper, Pr0 is set as 10 for the bit-error rate (BER) performance degradation in the presence of a co-frequency interference is quite small when the power ratio Pr is larger than 10 [25]). This proposed identification method is also available for the cases that the mixed signal is composed of more than two co-frequency signals.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The block diagram of the proposed identification method

The SNR of the mixed signal is defined as.
$$ \mathrm{SNR}={E}_{s1}/{N}_0 $$
(10)

where Esi is the energy per symbol of the ith signal. N0 is the noise power spectral density.

In experiment 1, we consider the identification performance under different SNR condition. To evaluate the performance, the probability of correct identification PCI is counted by 500 times Monte-Carlo simulations. The simulation parameters are set as follows: the carrier frequencies (ω1/2π, ω2/2π) are set as (100e6 + 8e3 Hz, 100e6 − 6e3 Hz); the baud rates (1/T1, 1/T2) are set as (10e6 bps, 10e6 bps) and (10e6 bps, 7e6 bps) for the two signals with same symbol period case and with different symbol period case, respectively; the sampling rate is set as 1400e6 Hz; the total symbol number used for simulation is set as 5e4. Figure 3 shows the identification performance when the received signal is a mixed signal with the power ratio Pr to be 5, and Fig. 4 shows the identification performance when the received signal is a single signal. Obviously, the PCI increases with the increasing SNR and the identification method is robust for the two signals with different symbol period case. Seen from these figures, it is obvious that the proposed identification method performs better under a higher SNR condition.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

The PCI as a function of the SNR for the identification of a mixed signal

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

The PCI as a function of the SNR for the identification of a single signal

In experiment 2, we consider the identification performance under different power ratio Pr of the two signals. The simulation parameters are set as experiment 1. The identification performance for the SNR = 0 dB is shown in Fig. 5. It is shown that the identification performance decreases with the increasing Pr for the value of the extracted HOS feature F1 gets closer to the threshold η.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

The PCI as a function of the power ratio Pr

In experiment 3, we consider the identification performance under different total symbol number used for simulation. Figure 6 shows the identification performance for the SNR = 6 dB and the received signal is a single signal; it is clear to see that the identification performance increases with the increasing total symbol number used for simulation.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

The PCI as a function of the total symbol number for simulation

In experiment 4, the identification performance comparison between the proposed HOS feature-based method and the cyclostationary spectrum coherence function (SOF)-based method [8, 9] is made. For the two co-frequency, signals’ carrier frequencies are set to be too close in experiment 1~experiment 3 and the SOF-based method fails under that condition, the carrier frequencies (ω1/2π, ω2/2π) are reset as (100e6 + 8e3 Hz, 102e6-6e3 Hz) in this experiment. Moreover, for the SOF-based method that requires prior knowledge of the carrier frequencies, symbol period, we suppose those knowledge are known during our simulation for simplicity. The result is shown in Fig. 7. Seen from Fig. 7, it is obvious that our proposed method performs much better than the SOF-based method under low SNR condition and our proposed method is more robust in a blind environment.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7

The performance comparison between the proposed HOS feature-based method and the SOF-based method

5 Discussion

This paper derives the theoretical value of the cumulants of the whole sampled data with consideration of the inter-symbol interference. The HOS feature is adopted to identify the co-frequency mixed signal. Since it releases the need for timing synchronization of the received signal, it makes the HOS feature more fitful in blind environment. However, this proposed method requires prior knowledge of the modulation type of the two co-frequency signals.

6 Conclusions

In this paper, a more generalized theoretical value of the cumulants and a HOS feature are derived based on the over-sampled data. It is effective for the release of the demand for prior knowledge of timing information and symbol periods in current literatures [14, 2024]. Based on the derived HOS feature, a novel identification technique for the co-frequency mixed signals with the same modulation type is proposed. This approach is robust for arbitrary cases of the co-frequency signals with different roll-off factor, sampling number per symbol, and power ratio.

Furthermore, the derived cumulants in this paper can be applied in blind modulation classification of a single signal for the needless of prior knowledge and estimation of the power ratio of the mixed signal for the power control in cellular systems [2628]. Further discussions could be made in the future.

7 Methods

This paper studies the general theoretical value of the cumulants of the over-sampled received data and adopts the HOS feature to identify the co-frequency mixed signal. The proposed identification method’s performance is obtained by Monte-Carlo simulations using MATLAB software.

Abbreviations

AIC: 

Akaike information criterion

BER: 

Bit-error rate

HOS: 

High-order statistics

ISI: 

Inter-symbol interference

MDL: 

Minimum description length

PCMA: 

Paired carrier multiple access

PSK: 

Phase-shift keying

QAM: 

Quadrature amplitude modulation

SNR: 

Signal-to-noise ratio

SOF: 

Cyclostationary spectrum coherence function

Declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61271265 and 61671263) and Tsinghua University Independent Scientific Research Project (20161080057).

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the author for data requests.

Authors’ contributions

CWD and YFZ proposed the original idea and designed the experiments. CWD and HL performed the experiments and analyzed the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Space Center, Tsinghua University, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China

References

  1. M Aksoy et al., L-band radio-frequency interference observations during the SMAP validation experiment 2012. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 54(3), 1323–1335 (2016)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. F Wei et al., When mmWave communications meet network densification: a scalable interference coordination perspective. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 35(7), 1459–1471 (2017)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. F Wei et al., Virtual MIMO in multi-cell distributed antenna systems: coordinated transmissions with large-scale CSIT. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 31(10), 2067–2081 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. D Mark, Paired Carrier Multiple Access (PCMA) for Satellite Communications (Proc. Pacific Telecommunications Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1998), pp. 787–791Google Scholar
  5. HI Jeon, JG Ryu, DG Oh, Interference cancellation scheme for common-band satellite VSAT network considering HPA nonlinear memory effects (satellite telecommunications). IEICE Tech Rep 115(241), 115–122 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. B Nadler, Nonparametric detection of signals by information theoretic criteria: performance analysis and an improved estimator. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 58(5), 2746–2756 (2010)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. W Chen, KM Wong, JP Reilly, Detection of the number of signals: a predicted eigen-threshold approach. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 39(5), 1088–1098 (2002)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. L Dong et al., Mixed Signal Detection Based on Second-Order Cyclostationary Features (Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), Baltimore, MD, 2014), pp. 682–687Google Scholar
  9. L Dong et al., Mixed Signal Detection and Carrier Frequency Estimation Based on Spectral Coherent Features (Proc. IEEE International Conference on Military Communications, Tampa, Florida, 2015), pp. 263–268Google Scholar
  10. H Luan et al., Source Number Estimation in Single Channel Blind Source Separation (Proc. IEEE Image and Signal Processing Conference (CISP), Yantai, China, 2010), pp. 4445–4449Google Scholar
  11. G Fan, H Quan, H Zhang, Improved Signal Detection Scheme for Co-Channel Interference Based on Fourth-order Cyclic Cumulants (Proc. International Conference on Mechatronics Engineering and Information Technology, Dalian, China, 2017), pp. 529–533Google Scholar
  12. L Wu, et al, Source number estimation algorithm in wavelet domain for single-channel mixed-signal (Proc. IEEE Communication Technology Conference (ICCT), Chengdu, 2012), pp. 1048–1051Google Scholar
  13. M Mohammadkarimi, E Karami, O Dobre, M Win, Number of transmit antennas detection using time-diversity of the fading channel. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 65(15), 4031–4046 (2017)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. S Miao et al., Fourth Order Cumulants in Distinguishing Single Carrier from OFDM Signals (Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conference, San Diego, CA, 2008), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  15. C Duan, Y Zhan, The response of a linear monostable system and its application in parameters estimation for PSK signals. Phys. Lett. A 380(14), 1358–1362 (2016)MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. JB Destro-Filho, On the blind estimation of baud-rate equalizer performance. Eurasip J. Adv. Signal Process. 12(2003), 1448–1459 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. H Meyr, M Moeneclaey, S Fechtel, Digital communication receivers: synchronization, channel estimation, and signal processing (John Wiley & Sons Press, New York, 1997)Google Scholar
  18. I Nasr et al., Performance study of a near maximum likelihood code-aided timing recovery technique. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 64(3), 799–811 (2016)MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. J Proakis, M Salehi, Digital Communications, 5th edn. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2007)Google Scholar
  20. S Ananthram, BM Sadler, Hierarchical digital modulation classification using cumulants. IEEE Trans. Commun. 48(3), 416–429 (2000)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. X Xinli, J Feng, L Jiang, Automatic Digital Modulation Classification for ORS Satellite Relay Communication (Proc. IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications & Signal Processing, Nanjing, China, 2015), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  22. D Dibyajyoti, PK Bora, R Bhattacharjee, Cumulant Based Automatic Modulation Classification of QPSK, OQPSK, 8-PSK and 16-PSK (Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks, Bangalore, 2016), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  23. DC Chang, PK Shih, Cumulants-based modulation classification technique in multipath fading channels. IET Commun. 9(6), 828–835 (2015)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. M Zaerin, B Seyfe, Multiuser modulation classification based on cumulants in additive white Gaussian noise channel. IET Signal Proc. 6(6), 815–823 (2012)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. L Zheng et al., Analysis and its application of performance degradation in BPSK communication systems under monofrequency interference (in Chinese). J. Astronaut. 32(1), 136–141 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. M Marey, OA Dobre, Blind modulation classification algorithm for single and multiple-antenna systems over frequency-selective channels. IEEE Signal Process Lett. 21(9), 1098–1102 (2014)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. E Soltanmohammadi, M Naraghi-Pour, Blind modulation classification over fading channels using expectation-maximization. IEEE Commun. Lett. 17(9), 1692–1695 (2013)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Z Guopeng et al., Optimal power control for delay-constraint machine type communications over cellular uplinks. IEEE Commun. Lett. 20(6), 1168–1171 (2016)View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement