2011 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control (ICECC) 2011
DOI: 10.1109/icecc.2011.6066722
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of low probability of interception communication signal modulations based on time-frequency analysis and artificial neural network

Abstract: Classification of modulation types faces a problem of low SNR in conditions where Low Probability of Interception signals are used. A novel feature vector extraction algorithm fit for LPI communication signals is presented, in which feature vector is generated by autonomously cropping the modulation energy from Time-Frequency images. Multi-Layered Perceptron is adopted as classification decision parts. Probabilities of correct classification are obtained via computer simulation. The results show that the class… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This detector may fail when the ambient noise consists of correlated components (e.g., background tonal shipping noise) or when the noise power fluctuates. Feature extraction is also offered in [69], where the communication modulation type is determined from analyzing time-frequency images.…”
Section: ) Cyclostationary-feature Detectormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This detector may fail when the ambient noise consists of correlated components (e.g., background tonal shipping noise) or when the noise power fluctuates. Feature extraction is also offered in [69], where the communication modulation type is determined from analyzing time-frequency images.…”
Section: ) Cyclostationary-feature Detectormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, multiband energy detectors can detect signals spread in frequency by some pseudo-random sequence or via frequency hopping [24], but would not suffice for differentiating between biological signals and artificial ones. Other interception approaches that use feature analysis to, e.g., discover fluctuations in time [25] or detect a signal's pattern [26] may also fail because the signal is made to be very similar to real bio-vocalization. Further, since both the biomimicked signal and the real biological signal stem from a single source, interception by tracking or localization to separate a single source from an isometric noise will not assist in the signal's discrimination.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blind identification is a difficult task and recognition process is even more challenging especially in low SNR because the blind interceptor have a limited facilities in receiving a signal compared to the ground station. Many efforts have been made, and several classifiers have been proposed in literature, some use neural network methods which need high computational work [1], [2] ,or time-frequency representations [3], [4] ,or using Maximum likelihood approach that may be achieving better results but requiring more complexity [15] ,or by using higher order cumulants [9], [12]- [14] . Most of the proposed methods in literature deals with modulation types which are not used in satellite signals like FSK and ASK.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%