5884 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO.

12, DECEMBER 2009

On the Likelihood-Based Approach to
Modulation Classication
Fahed Hameed, Octavia A. Dobre, Senior Member, IEEE, and Dimitrie C. Popescu, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractIn this paper, likelihood-based algorithms are ex-
plored for linear digital modulation classication. Hybrid Likeli-
hood Ratio Test (HLRT)- and Quasi HLRT (QHLRT)- based
algorithms are examined, with signal amplitude, phase, and
noise power as unknown parameters. The algorithm complexity
is rst investigated, and ndings show that the HLRT suffers
from very high complexity, whereas the QHLRT provides a
reasonable solution. An upper bound on the performance of
QHLRT-based algorithms, which employ unbiased and normally-
distributed non-data aided estimates of the unknown parameters,
is proposed. This is referred to as the QHLRT-Upper Bound
(QHLRT-UB). Classication of binary phase shift keying (BPSK)
and quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) signals is presented
as a case study. The Cramer-Rao Lower Bounds (CRBs) of
non-data aided joint estimates of signal amplitude and phase,
and noise power are derived for BPSK and QPSK signals, and
further employed to obtain the QHLRT-UB. An upper bound
on classication performance of any likelihood-based algorithms
is also introduced. Method-of-moments (MoM) estimates of
the unknown parameters are investigated and used to develop
the QHLRT-based algorithm. Classication performance of this
algorithm is compared with the upper bounds, as well as with the
quasi Log-Likelihood Ratio (qLLR) and fourth-order cumulant
based algorithms.
Index TermsCramer-Rao lower bounds, joint parameter
estimation, likelihood ratio test, modulation classication.
I. INTRODUCTION
I
N a world of rapid growth of commercial wireless services,
accommodating the explosive demand for spectrum access,
efciency and reliability becomes increasingly technically
challenging. Furthermore, implementation of advanced infor-
mation services for military applications in a crowded elec-
tromagnetic spectrum is a challenging task for communication
engineers. A solution is provided by exible intelligent radios,
capable of sensing and adapting to the environment. In such
radios, modulation classication (MC) is an important task.
A modulation classier essentially involves two steps: signal
preprocessing and application of a classication algorithm.
Signal preprocessing tasks may include estimation of signal
Manuscript received July 2, 2008; revised January 4, 2009 and June 17,
2009; accepted July 28, 2009. The associate editor coordinating the review
of this paper and approving it for publication was L. Yang.
F. Hameed and O. A. Dobre are with the Faculty of Engineering
and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 300 Prince
Phillip Dr., St. Johns, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada (e-mail: fahed@engr.mun.ca,
odobre@mun.ca).
D. C. Popescu is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering, Old Dominion University, 231 Kaufman Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529
(e-mail: dpopescu@odu.edu).
This work has been supported in part by the National Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada and was presented in part at the
2006 IEEE CCECE [1] and the 2007 IEEE Sarnoff Symposium [2].
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TWC.2009.12.080883
TABLE I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ALRT Average Likelihood Ratio Test
ALRT-UB ALRT-Upper Bound
ASK Amplitude-Shift-Keying
BPSK Binary Phase-Shift-Keying
CRB Cramer-Rao Lower Bound
GLRT Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test
HLRT Hybrid Likelihood Ratio Test
LB Likelihood-based
LRT Likelihood Ratio Test
MC Modulation Classication
ML Maximum Likelihood
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimates
MoM Methods of Moments
NDA Non Data Aided
PDF Probability Density Function
PR Pattern Recognition
PSK Phase-Shift-Keying
QAM Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
QHLRT Quasi HLRT
QHLRT-UB QHLRT-Upper Bound
qLLR quasi Log-Likelihood Ratio
QPSK Quadrature Phase-Shift-Keying
SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio
w.r.t With respect to
amplitude and phase, and noise power, symbol timing and
waveform recovery, etc.
Generally, likelihood-based (LB) and statistical pattern
recognition (PR) approaches are used to tackle the MC
problem. A likelihood ratio test (LRT) is used for decision-
making with the former [1][11], whereas features extracted
from the received signal with the latter [3], [12][15]. The LB
method formulates the MC problem as a multiple composite
hypothesis testing problem, whose solution depends on the
modeling of the unknown quantities
1
. The number of hypothe-
ses equals the number of modulations to classify. Under the
hypothesis

, that modulation is received, the probability

density function (PDF) of the received signal can be computed
either by averaging over the unknown quantities or using
their estimates. This can lead to the Average Likelihood Ratio
Test (ALRT) [3][10], Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test
(GLRT) [3], [10], or Hybrid Likelihood Ratio Test (HLRT)
[1][3], [10], [11]. The ALRT treats the unknown quantities
as random variables, and the PDF of the received signal
under each hypothesis is computed by averaging over them.
A distribution has to be a priori assigned to each unknown.
1
The unknown quantities refer to the unknown signal constellation points
and parameters, such as signal amplitude, phase, and noise power.
1536-1276/09$25.00 c 2009 IEEE
HAMEED et al.: ON THE LIKELIHOOD-BASED APPROACH TO MODULATION CLASSIFICATION 5885
If the assumed and actual distributions of the unknowns
coincide, then the method provides maximum probability of
classication. However, with an increased number of unknown
parameters, ALRT suffers from high computational complex-
ity and even mathematical intractability [4][6]. With phase as
the unknown parameter, an approximation of the PDF of the
received signal is employed in [4], [5], yielding a feature-based
algorithm. With the GLRT, the PDF of the received signal
is computed by employing maximum likelihood estimates
(MLE) of the unknown quantities. The disadvantage of GLRT
is its failure to identify nested signal constellations, such
as Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with 16 and
64 points in the signal constellation [10]. This is overcome
with the HLRT (hybrid of ALRT and GLRT), by averaging
over the signal constellation points in calculating the PDF
of the received signal [10]. In [10], classication of linear
digital modulations is investigated, with signal amplitude and
phase as the unknown parameters. MLE of the unknown
parameters are obtained by performing an exhaustive search
over a likelihood function. Non-MLE of the signal amplitude
and phase are employed in [6], leading to the so called Quasi-
HLRT (QHLRT)-based algorithm.
In this paper, we consider classication of linear digital
modulations under the assumption of unknown signal am-
plitude, phase, and noise power. The analytical closed form
expressions for the ML estimators of the unknown parameters
are derived, and used to develop the HLRT. Findings show that
the HLRT suffers from very high complexity, whereas QHLRT
provides a reasonable solution, and, hence, the QHLRT is
further explored. An upper bound on the classication per-
formance of the QHLRT-based algorithm is proposed for the
case when unbiased and normally distributed non-data aided
(NDA) estimates of unknown parameters are available. We
refer to it as to the QHLRT-Upper Bound (QHLRT-UB). A
case study is presented for binary phase-shift-keying (BPSK)
and quadrature phase-shift-keying (QPSK) classication, with
the signal amplitude, phase, and noise power as unknown
parameters. The Cramer-Rao lower bounds (CRBs) of NDA
joint estimates of these unknown parameters are derived for
BPSK and QPSK signals, and further used to obtain the
QHLRT-UB. Furthermore, an upper bound on the classi-
cation performance of any LB algorithm is derived, which
is referred to as the ALRT-Upper Bound (ALRT-UB). The
QHLRT which employs method of moments (MoM) estimates
of the unknown parameters (QHLRT-MoM) is investigated,
and its classication performance compared to QHLRT-UB,
ALRT-UB, quasi Log-Likelihood Ratio (qLLR) [4], [5] and
fourth-order cumulant based algorithms [12], [13].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The signal
model is presented in Section II. The HLRT- and QHLRT-
based algorithms and the ALRT-UB are introduced in Sec-
tion III. The QHLRT-UB is proposed in Section IV. Fur-
thermore, theoretical developments for the CRBs of NDA
joint estimates of unknown signal amplitude, phase, and noise
power for BPSK and QPSK signals are reported, and used to
develop the QHLRT-UB for the BPSK and QPSK case study.
Numerical results for the CRBs and QHLRT-UB are shown
in Section V. In addition, MoM estimates of signal ampli-
tude, phase, and noise power are studied, and classication
performance of the QHLRT-MoM compared to QHLRT-UB,
ALRT-UB, qLLR and fourth-order cumulant based algoithms.
Conclusions are nally drawn in Section VI. Key steps in the
derivation of the CRBs are presented in the Appendix.
II. SIGNAL MODEL
Let the received baseband signal sequence at the output of
the matched lter be
r =

s
()
+ n, (1)
where r = [
1

is the vector of samples at the output of

receive matched lter, taken at the symbol rate, with as the
number of processed symbols at the receive-side and as the
transpose, s
()
= [
()
1

()

is the sequence of transmitted

symbols corresponding to a modulation , n = [
1

is the noise vector, is the signal amplitude, is the signal

phase, and =

1. The noise components {

=1
are
independent circular complex zero-mean Gaussian random
variables, with real and imaginary parts of variance /2. The
sequence {
()

=1
is independent and identically distributed,
with values drawn from an alphabet specic to the modula-
tion . Without loss of generality, we consider unit variance
constellations and dene the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as
=
2
/.
III. LB MODULATION CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHMS
A. The LB Approach to Modulation Classication
Under the assumption of statistically independent received
symbols, the likelihood function is given by
(r{
()

=1
, ) =
=

=1
()
1
exp
{

()

2
}
= ()

exp
{

1
r

s
()

2
}
,
(2)
where = [ ]

is the vector of the unkown parameters

and is the vector norm. Under the ALRT approach, the
PDF of r under

is obtained by averaging (2) over the nui-

sance parameters, i.e., the unknown symbols and the parameter
vector [3], [6], [8], [9]. Under the HLRT and QHLRT
approaches, the averaging is over the unknown symbols only,
and the dependence with is dealt with by replacing it with
suitable estimate

[6], [10], [11]. Thus, with the former, the
PDF of r under

can be expressed as

()
ALRT
(r) =
{
()

=1

[(r{
()

=1
, )], (3)
while with the latter as

()
(Q)HLRT
(r) =
{
()

=1
[(r,

()
{
()

=1
)], (4)
where
{
()

=1
[] and

[] are the expectations with respect

to (w.r.t) the unknown signal constellation points (averaging
is performed over all possible sequences of symbols corre-
sponding to modulation ) and vector of unknown parameters,
respectively, and

()
is the vector of the unknown parameter
estimates under hypothesis

. With the PDFs calculated

under all hypotheses, the decision is made by applying an
LRT [16, Ch. 2].
5886 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009
B. The ALRT-UB
The ALRT with perfect knowledge of the parameter vector
is of interest, as it provides an upper bound on the
performance of any MC algorithm, including LB algorithms
discussed in this paper [8]. We refer to it as to the ALRT-UB.
In such case, it is straightforward to express the PDF of r
under

as [8], [9]
2

()
ALRT-UB
(r) =

=1

=1
[
()
1
exp
{

()
,

2
}]
,
(5)
where

is the number of points in the signal constellation

corresponding to modulation , and
()
,
, = 1, ,

,
represents the symbol over the -th period, drawn from this
signal constellation. The criterion used to make a decision on
the modulation is [8], [9]

= arg max

ln{
()
ALRT-UB
(r)}, (6)
where

is the estimate of the modulation, and ln{} is the
natural logarithm. For the BPSK and QPSK case study, one
can easily nd the analytical closed-form expressions for the
PDFs
(BPSK)
ALRT-UB
(r) and
(QPSK)
ALRT-UB
(r) respectively as

(BPSK)
ALRT-UB
(r) =

=1
()
1
exp
{

1
(

2
+
2
)
}

cosh(2
1
Re{

}),
(7)
and

(QPSK)
ALRT-UB
(r) =

=1
()
1
exp
{

1
(

2
+
2
)
}

cosh(

2
1
Re{

})
cosh(

2
1
Im{

}),
(8)
where cosh denotes the hyperbolic cosine function, and Re{}
and Im{} are the real and imaginary parts, respectively.
Furthermore, under the assumption of equally likely hypothe-
ses and by following [8], one can show that the average
probability of correct classication, dened as
BPSK,QPSK

=
2
1

=BPSK,QPSK

()

, with
()

the probability of deciding

modulation conditioned on the event that modulation is
actually received, is approximately given by

BPSK,QPSK

1
2

(BPSK)

(BPSK)

(QPSK)

(QPSK)

,
where () represents the Q-function, and
()

and
()

are
the mean and variance of the variable
2
In this case, the average over all possible sequences of symbols reduces
to the average over all possible values of each symbol.
(

) = ln
{
1
2
2

=1
[
1

exp
{

(BPSK)
,

2

}]}
ln
{
1
4
4

=1
[
1

exp
{

(QPSK)
,

2

}]}
given the hypothesis

is true, = BPSK,QPSK.
C. The HLRT-based MC Algorithm with Signal Amplitude,
Phase, and Noise Power as Unknown Parameters
With the HLRT approach, MLE of the unknown parameters
are used to calculate the PDF of r in (4). By using the
joint parameter estimation method [17, Ch. 7], one can nd
the analytical closed form expressions for the ML estimators
of the unknown signal amplitude, noise power, and phase
respectively as

()
= Re
{

(s
()
r)(r

s
()
)
}
/s
()

2
, (9)

()
=
1
(r
2
r

s
()

2
)/s
()

2
), (10)

()
=

2
ln
(
s
()
r
r

s
()
)
, (11)
where the superscript denotes Hermitian transpose. It is
noteworthy that the ML estimators depend on the symbol
sequence s
()
. As such, these cannot be directly estimated in
an MC problem, in which the symbols are unknown. However,
by using (2), (4) and (9)-(11), one can obtain the expression
for the PDF of r under

as

()
HLRT
(r) =
(

r
2
)

=1
1
(1
()2

, (12)
where
()

= r

s
()

/(r s
()

), = 1,

, is
the correlation coefcient between r and s
()

, with s
()

as
a sequence of symbols drawn from the signal constellation
of modulation . With (12) calculated under all hypotheses,
the modulation is identied by correspondingly using (6). As
one can easily notice, the complexity to compute the PDF
of r under

is of the order of (

), and increases
with the number of symbols, (exponential increment) and
modulation order,

.
D. QHLRT-based MC Algorithm with Signal Amplitude,
Phase, and Noise Power as Unknown Parameters
With the QHLRT, NDA non-MLE of the unknown para-
meters are used to calculate the PDF of r in (4). NDA
estimators of the unknown parameters are of particular interest
for MC, as they do not rely on the presence of pilot symbols.
As the likelihood function is multimodal [18], [19], this cannot
provide a unique solution, and one resorts to statistic-based
estimators. When MoM estimates are employed, we refer to
the QHLRT-based algorithm as to QHLRT-MoM. The MoM
estimators of signal amplitude, , and noise power, for PSK
signals are respectively given by [6], [20]

()
=
(
2

2
,21

,42
)
1/4
, (13)
HAMEED et al.: ON THE LIKELIHOOD-BASED APPROACH TO MODULATION CLASSIFICATION 5887
and

()
=

,21

(
2

2
,21

,42
)
1/2
, (14)
where

,21
and

,42
are the estimates of the second-order/
one-conjugate and fourth-order/ two-conjugate moments of
the PSK received signal, given respectively by

,21
=

=1

2
and

,42
=
1

=1

4
. Note that
(13)-(14) hold regardless the PSK modulation order, and
the signal amplitude and noise power MoM estimators do
not actually depend on the hypothesis

when recognizing
PSK signals of different modulation orders. The MoM phase
estimator for PSK signals is given by [18, Ch. 5]

()
=
1

arg
(

=1

)
, (15)
and depends on the hypothesis

(through the modulation

order,

). By using (2) and (4) with the MoM estimates, the

PDF of r under

can be easily expressed as

()
QHLRT-MoM
(r) =

=1

=1
(

()
)
1

exp
{
(

()
)
1

()

()
,

2
}
.
(16)
With (16) calculated under all hypotheses, the modulation is
identied by correspondingly using (6). One can easily notice
that the complexity to compute (16) is of order of (

),
and, apparently, much lower when compared to HLRT. Note
that NDA estimators of the unknown parameters for QAM
signals (including MoM estimators) can be used with the
QHLRT algorithm. For such estimators one can see, e.g., [6],
[18, Ch. 5], [20], [21].
IV. AN UPPER BOUND ON THE PERFORMANCE OF
QHLRT-BASED MC ALGORITHMS
A. Proposed Upper Bound on the Performance of QHLRT-
based MC Algorithms
Results in [3] and [7] show that an improved classication
performance is attained with more accurate parameter esti-
mates. For unbiased estimates, minimum variance estimates
which reach the CRB provide the best accuracy, and, accord-
ingly, lead to the best classication performance. An upper
bound on the performance of QHLRT-based algorithms which
employ unbiased NDA joint estimates of the unknown param-
eters is thus achieved for variances equal to the CRBs, and
calculation of the CRBs is crucial for the performance bound.
When considering estimates which are also normally dis-
tributed, we refer to this bound as the QHLRT-UB. With signal
amplitude, phase, and noise power as unknown parameters,
the QHLRT-UB is obtained by using
()
(, CRB

( )),

()
(, CRB

(

)), and,
()
(, CRB

( )) in (16),
with (,
2
) denoting a normal distribution with mean
and variance
2
, and CRB

( ), CRB

(

), and CRB

( ) as
the CRB of
()
,

()
,
()
, respectively. The modulation is
identied by correspondingly applying (6).
30 20 10 0 10 20 30
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
SNR, (dB)
g
1
(

)
,

g
2
(

)


g
2
()
g
1
()
Fig. 1. Numerical evaluation of the functions
1
() and
2
() in (18)
and (19), respectively, versus SNR.
B. The QHLRT-UB for BPSK and QPSK Modulation Classi-
cation
As already mentioned, the QHLRT-UB requires calculation
of the CRBs of NDA joint estimates of the unknown param-
eters. This is presented below for the case study of BPSK
and QPSK modulations ( =BPSK,QPSK), with unknown
signal amplitude, phase, and noise power. We refer interested
readers to [17, Ch. 3] for complete procedure details. The
Fisher information matrix for BPSK signals is given by (see
Appendix for derivations)
J
BPSK
=
2

1
()

1
()
0

1
() 0
1
2


2

1
() 0
0
2

2

2
()

,
(17)
where

1
() =
exp{}

2
exp{
2
/2}
cosh(

2)
, (18)
and

2
() =
exp{}

exp{
2
/2}
cosh(

2)
. (19)
The functions
1
() and
2
() are calculated through
numerical integration and plotted versus the SNR, , in Fig. 1.
They both decrease monotonically from one towards zero as
the SNR increases. By taking the inverse of the FIM matrix
in (17), one obtains the expressions for the CRBs of joint
estimates of , , and , respectively as
CRB
BPSK
( ) =

2
2
1 2
1
()
1 (2 + 1)
1
()
, (20)
3
CRB
BPSK
(

) =

2

1
1
()
1 (2 + 1)
1
()
, (21)
3
It can be shown that the CRB for the estimate of the noise power equals

4
/4 times the CRB for the fourth-order/ two-conjugate normalized cumulant
used for MC in [13] (which assumes perfect knowledge of ), taking into
account that the noise is complex-valued.
5888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009
and
CRB
BPSK
( ) =
1
2
1
1
2
()
. (22)
As one can easily notice, the CRBs depends on and .
Furthermore, the CRBs of the estimates of and also
depend on the actual value of the parameter, whereas the CRB
of the estimate of does not. It should be noted that the phase
CRB is actually decoupled from those of amplitude and noise
power. For QPSK signals, one can similarly show that
J
QPSK
() =
2

1
(/2)

1
(/2)
0

1
(/2) 0
1
2


2

1
(/2) 0
0
2

2
(1 + )
2
(/2)

.
(23)
By taking the inverse of the FIM matrix in (23), the
expressions for the CRBs of joint estimates of , , and
are respectively obtained as
CRB
QPSK
( ) =

2
2
1 2
1
(/2)
1 (2 + 1)
1
(/2)
, (24)
CRB
QPSK
(

) =

2

1
1
(/2)
1 (2 + 1)
1
(/2)
, (25)
and
CRB
QPSK
( ) =
1
2
1
1 ( + 1)
2
(/2)
. (26)
The above remarks on the CRBs in case of BPSK hold for
QPSK, as well.
V. NUMERICAL RESULTS
Numerical results for the CRBs of NDA joint estimates of
signal amplitude, phase, and noise power are subsequently
reported, along with simulation results for MoM estimates
of these parameters. Classication results for QHLRT-MoM,
QHLRT-UB, and ALRT-UB are presented, and a link between
QHLRT-MoM and QHLRT-UB is explained. A comparison of
the classication performance of the QHLRT-MoM, qLLR [4],
[5] and fourth-order cumulant based algorithms [12], [13] is
performed. The applicability of the QHLRT-MoM to MC in
Ricean block fading channel is additionally shown.
A. Simulation Setup
Unless otherwise mentioned, the signal amplitude, , is
set to 1, and the phase, , is uniformly distributed over the
[/4, /4) range and xed over the duration of the data
sequence. The number of symbols processed at the receive-
side is set to = 100. The number of Monte Carlo trials used
to compute the variance of MoM estimates of the unknown
parameters and the probability to correctly decide on the
modulation ,
()

, = BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, V.29,

equals 10
4
. The average probability of correct classication
is employed as performance measure, being calculated as the
arithmetic mean of the probabilities of correct classication
for corresponding modulations.
10 5 0 5 10
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
SNR, (dB)
K
C
R
B
i
(

)
/

2


i =QPSK
i =BPSK
Fig. 2. CRB

( )/
2
versus SNR, for =BPSK,QPSK.
10 5 0 5 10
10
0
10
1
10
2
SNR, (dB)
K
C
R
B
i
(

N
)
/
N
2


i =QPSK
i =BPSK
Fig. 3. CRB

(

)/
2
versus SNR, for =BPSK,QPSK.
B. CRBs of Non-Data Aided Joint Estimates of the Unknown
Parameters
By using (20)-(22) and (24)-(26), results for
CRB

( )/
2
, CRB

(

)/
2
, and CRB

( ),
= BPSK, QPSK, are plotted versus SNR in Figs. 2,
3, and 4, respectively. As expected, all curves decrease as
the SNR increases, and results for BPSK are below or close
to those for QPSK. In addition, the gap between BPSK and
QPSK increases with a decrease in SNR.
C. MoM Estimates of the Unknown Parameters
The variance of MoM estimates of and for the QPSK
signal, along with corresponding CRBs, is plotted versus
SNR in Fig. 5. The variance is lower bounded by the CRB
above a certain SNR, when MoM estimates are unbiased;
such a range is shown in Fig. 5. As expected, the variance
decreases as the SNR, , increases; this is relatively close to
corresponding CRB, especially for signal amplitude. Although
results for MoM estimates are presented here only for and
for the QPSK signal, we should mention that a similar
behavior has been observed for . Moreover, this remains
valid for BPSK, with the remark that the SNR above which
the estimates are unbiased is much lower when compared with
HAMEED et al.: ON THE LIKELIHOOD-BASED APPROACH TO MODULATION CLASSIFICATION 5889
10 5 0 5 10
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
SNR, (dB)
K
C
R
B
i
(

)


i =QPSK
i =BPSK
Fig. 4. CRB

( ) versus SNR, for =BPSK,QPSK.

0 2 4 6 8 10
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
SNR, (dB)
V
a
r
Q
P
S
K
a
n
d
C
R
B
Q
P
S
K
f
o
r

a
n
d

N


Var
QPSK
(

N)
CRB
QPSK
(

N)
Var
QPSK
( )
CRB
QPSK
( )
Var and CRB for

N
Var and CRB for
Fig. 5. Variance of MoM estimates of the signal amplitude and noise power,
and the corresponding CRBs versus SNR, for QPSK and = 100.
QPSK. Simulations have been also carried out to study the
distribution of MoM estimates of the unknown parameters
for BPSK and QPSK signals. A normal distribution occurs at
higher SNR, whereas this distribution does not hold at lower
SNR. For example, MoM estimates of the phase approach
a uniform distribution as the SNR decreases. This is in
agreement with results obtained for the variance of MoM
estimates of the phase, which approaches
2
/48 as the SNR
decrease. This represents the variance of a uniform distributed
random variable, with values in the [/4, /4) range.
D. QHLRT-MoM, QHLRT-UB, and ALRT-UB
Simulation results for the QHLRT-MoM algorithm, as well
as for the QHLRT-UB and ALRT-UB are presented in Fig. 6,
when recognizing BPSK and QPSK signals. The average prob-
ability of correct classication,
BPSK,QPSK

, is plotted versus
SNR, for a range of values of practical interest (above 0.8).
Note that classication results for the QHLRT-MoM reect
the behavior of MoM estimates of all unknown parameters
for both BPSK and QPSK signals. For the
BPSK,QPSK

range
shown in Fig. 6, both QHLRT-UB and ALRT-UB provide
upper bounds on the classication performance of QHLRT-
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
SNR, (dB)

P
c
c

B
P
S
K
,
Q
P
S
K


ALRTUB
QHLRTUB
QHLRTMoM
Fig. 6. Performance of QHLRT-MoM, and QHLRT-UB and ALRT-UB, when
recognizing BPSK and QPSK with = 100.
TABLE II
VARIANCE AND CRB OF THE PARAMETER ESTIMATES AT 3.5 DB AND
2 DB SNR, RESPECTIVELY, FOR QPSK AND = 100.

Var
QPSK
0.0041 0.0111 0.009
CRB
QPSK
0.0044 0.01442 0.009
MoM. As expected, QHLRT-UB yields a tighter bound than
ALRT-UB. Although the latter is a very optimistic upper
bound, it is still of interest, as providing the best performance
that can be achieved with any MC algorithm, including LB
algorithms.
A link between the performance of the QHLRT-MoM and
QHLRT-UB is shown, as follows. According to Fig. 6, an
average probability of correct classication of almost one,

BPSK,QPSK

1, is achieved with QHLRT-MoM at 3.5

dB SNR. QHLRT-UB provides such a
BPSK,QPSK

value at
around 2 dB SNR. Apparently, achieving a probability of cor-
rect classication for QPSK of almost 1,
(QPSKQPSK)

1,
requires higher SNR when compared to correctly identifying
BPSK with the same accuracy and number of symbols. The
performance is limited for QPSK, in which case 3.5 dB SNR
is required to attain
(QPSKQPSK)

1 with QHLRT-MoM,
whereas only 2 dB is needed with QHLRT-UB. The variances
and CRBs corresponding to the MoM estimates of the signal
amplitude, , phase, , and noise power,

, for which this
performance is achieved, are given in the rst and second row
of Table II. One can easily notice the similarity of the values
of the variance and CRB for each parameter, which explains
similar results for the QHLRT-MoM and QHLRT-UB at the
aforementioned SNRs.
E. Comparison of the Performance of QHLRT-MoM, qLLR,
and Fourth-order Cumulant Based Algorithms
Classication results achieved with the QHLRT-MoM are
compared with those for the qLLR and fourth-order cu-
mulant based algorithms proposed in [4], [5] and [12],
[13], respectively. Classication of BPSK versus QPSK and
16-QAM versus V.29 is considered. The qLLR is derived as
5890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
SNR, (dB)
P

B
P
S
K
,
Q
P
S
K
c
c
No residual
channel
effect
QHLRTMoM
qLLR
cr,42
| cr,40|
Residual
channel effect,

h
2
=0.2
Residual
channel effect,

h
2
=0.1

Fig. 7. Performance comparison between QHLRT-MoM, qLLR, and fourth-

order cumulant based algorithms when recognizing BPSK and QPSK, with
= 100 and no residual channel effect (solid line), residual channel effect
with
2

= 0.1 (dashed-dot line), and

2

= 0.2 (dashed line).

a low-SNR large-sample approximation of the ALRT-based
algorithm, with phase as the unknown parameter [4], [5].
Test signal statistics are obtained based on this approxima-
tion, and a near-optimal decision threshold is set by using
approximate expressions for the PDFs of the statistic under
hypotheses corresponding to different modulations [4], [5].
For -ary PSK modulation classication, the algorithm is a
binary decision tree, where the statistic

=1

4
is compared against a threshold to make a decision whether
the modulation is

-PSK or

-PSK (

>

) at each
node [4]. For QAM classication, the qLLR is used for binary
hypothesis testing problems, and applied to distinguishing 16-
QAM and V.29 with = 100 symbols [5]. Proposed statistics
are
4
=

=1

4

,
4
=

=1

(see footnote
4
), and

4
= 0.0135
4
0.0246
4
. Thresholds for decision making
are set similarly to the PSK case. In [12], [13], fourth-order
cumulant based features are proposed to classify linear digital
modulations. In [12], a hierarchical classier is developed to
identify a large pool of modulations, such as -ary PSK,
QAM, and ASK, V.29, V.32, and V.29c. The magnitude of
the fourth-order/ zero-conjugate normalized cumulant,
,40
,
is employed for the classication of 16-QAM versus V.29,
as well as BPSK versus QPSK. In [13], the fourth-order/
two-conjugate normalized cumulant,
,42
, is used to classify
a reduced pool of modulations when compared to [12]; the
algorithm is not applicable to -ary PSK, with > 4
5
.
In [12], [13], normalization of the fourth-order cumulants
is performed to the second power of the second-order/ one-
conjugate cumulant of the signal component. The test statistics
are estimated and compared against thresholds for decision
making. The thresholds are set as the arithmetic average of
the test statistic means under hypotheses considered in the
ascending order of these means.
Results for BPSK versus QPSK achieved with the QHLRT-
MoM and algorithms proposed in [4] and [12], [13] are
4
One can easily notice that these statistics represent magnitudes of signal
moments multiplied by the number of symbols, .
5
An extension to the time dispersive channel is performed in [13], while
only the additive white Gaussian noise channel is considered in [4], [5],
[12], and this work. Nevertheless, the effect of a residual channel on the
classication performance of the investigated algorithms is shown here.
presented here, with signal amplitude, phase, and noise power
as unknown parameters. Neither qLLR nor fourth-order cumu-
lant based algorithms require phase estimation; both require
estimation of signal amplitude. In addition to the aforemen-
tioned unknown parameters, the effect of a residual channel
is investigated. A three-tap channel [1
1

2
] is considered,
with
1
and
2
as zero-mean independent Gaussian random
variables, each with variance
2

. This variance is set to

0.1 and 0.2, respectively. The average probability of correct
classication,
BPSK,QPSK

, achieved with each of the four

previously mentioned algorithms is plotted versus SNR in
Fig. 7, when no residual channel effect is considered (solid
line),
2

= 0.1 (dashed-dot line), and

2

= 0.2 (dashed line).

With no residual channel effect, QHLRT-MoM and qLLR
perform similarly, slightly better than the fourth-order/ two-
conjugate cumulant based algorithm, and much better than
the fourth-order/ zero-conjugate cumulant based algorithm.
On the other hand, the fourth-order/ two-conjugate cumulant
based algorithm is the most robust to residual channel effects,
followed by the QHLRT-MoM and qLLR. The fourth-order/
zero-conjugate cumulant based algorithm is outperformed by
the three other algorithms under considered scenarios.
Classication results achieved by using the same algorithms
are also reported for 16-QAM versus V.29, with the phase
as unknown parameter. The average probability of correct
classication,
16-QAM,V.29

, is plotted versus SNR in Fig. 8.

Note that results obtained with the qLLR
4
,
4
, and
4
,
and normalized fourth-order/ zero- and two-conjugate based
algorithms are reproduced from [5] and [12], respectively. One
can notice that the average probability of correct classication
saturates for qLLR
4
,
4
and
4
, and normalized fourth-order/
zero- and two-conjugate cumulant based algorithms, whereas
it does not for the QHLRT-MoM. The saturation values are
as follows: 0.675 and 0.71 for qLLR
4
and
4
, respectively,
around 0.78 for the normalized fourth-order/ zero- and two-
conjugate cumulant based algorithms, and 0.875 for the qLLR

4
. With the QHLRT-MoM, the average probability of correct
classication approaches 1 as the SNR exceeds 20 dB. In
addition to not exhibiting saturation, QHLRT-MoM outper-
forms both qLLR and fourth-order cumulant based algorithms
for average probabilities of correct classication of interest
(above 0.8).
F. QHLRT-MoM Under Fading Conditions
Performance of the QHLRT-MoM under fading conditions
is presented in Fig. 9. The average probability of correctly
classing BPSK and QPSK,
BPSK,QPSK

, is plotted versus
the Rice factor, . The values = 0 and = correspond
to the cases of Rayleigh fading and no fading, respectively.
Simulation results show that QHLRT-MoM yields a reasonable
performance for the entire range of values.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper we investigate likelihood-based algorithms for
linear digital modulation classication. Our results indicate
that the HLRT is very computationally demanding, while
the QHLRT algorithm offers a reasonable alternative. An
upper bound on classication performance of QHLRT-based
HAMEED et al.: ON THE LIKELIHOOD-BASED APPROACH TO MODULATION CLASSIFICATION 5891
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
SNR, (dB)
P

1
6

Q
A
M
,
V
.
2
9
c
c


QHLRT-MoM
qLLR, t4
cr,42
| cr,40|
qLLR, p4
qLLR, q4
Fig. 8. Performance comparison between QHLRT-MoM, qLLR, and
fourth-order cumulant based algorithms when recognizing 16-QAM and
V.29, with K=100.
infinity 0 5 10 15 20
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
R (dB)
P

B
P
S
K
,
Q
P
S
K
c
c


K=100, SNR=5 dB
K=100, SNR=3 dB
Fig. 9. Performance of QHLRT-MoM when discriminating BPSK and QPSK
in Ricean fading, with = 100.
algorithms is proposed (QHLRT-UB), for the case when unbi-
ased and normally distributed non-data aided estimates of the
unknown parameters are available. This requires calculation
of the CRBs of non-data aided parameter estimates. As a
case study we investigate classication of BPSK and QPSK
modulations with signal amplitude, phase, and noise power
as unknown parameters. The CRBs of joint non-data aided
parameter estimates are derived for this case, and further
employed to develop the QHLRT-UB. MoM estimates of the
unknown parameters are explored and used with the QHLRT,
leading to the QHLRT-MoM. According to simulation results,
when the MoM estimates are unbiased, their variance is
relatively close to corresponding CRBs, and the QHLRT-MoM
provides a reasonable performance. A comparison between
the QHLRT-MoM and qLLR algorithms reveals that although
both provide a similar performance when discriminating PSK
signals with no residual channel effects, the QHLRT-MoM
is more robust to this model mismatch. On the other hand,
the fourth-order/ two-conjugate cumulant based algorithm is
the most robust under such conditions. When compared with
qLLR and fourth-order cumulant based algorithms, QHLRT
can be successfully applied to distinguish QAM modulations.
In addition, QHLRT provides an acceptable performance un-
der fading conditions. We note that QHLRT displays good
performance with reasonable complexity, and appears to be
a promising candidate algorithm. Hence, we intend to further
explore the QHLRT algorithm in future work, by extending
the case study presented here to a larger pool of modulations,
more unknown parameters, and more complex propagation
environments.
APPENDIX
DERIVATION OF (17)
The derivation of the rst element of the Fisher In-
formation Matrix for the BPSK case, [J
BPSK
()]
1,1
=
[
2
ln
BPSK
(r)/
2
], is presented here. Other ele-
ments of the matrix can be similarly derived. The like-
lihood function
BPSK
(r) is computed by averaging
(r{
(BPSK)

=1
, ) over the constellation points correpond-
ing to the BPSK modulation; this is given by (7). By using (7),
one can easily show that

2
ln
BPSK
(r)

2
= 2
1
+4
2

=1
(
,
cos +
,
sin)
2

sech
2
(2
1
(
,
cos +
,
sin)),
(27)
where
,
and
,
are the in-phase and quadrature compo-
nents of the signal samples

, = 1, , , respectively.
Futher, by applying expectation w.r.t
BPSK
(r) to (27), one
can write
[J
BPSK
()]
1,1
=

2
ln
BPSK
(r)

2

BPSK
(r)r
=
1
+
2
, (28)
where

1
= [2
1
] = 2
1
and
2
= [

=1
(

)]
with
(

) = 4
2
(
,
cos +
,
sin )
2

sech
2
(2
1
(
,
cos +
,
sin)).
By using that {

=1
are independent and identically dis-
tributed random variables, and the expectation is linear, one
can drop the dependency on , and write
2
as

2
= [()]. (29)
The expectation in (29) is w.r.t
BPSK
(), in which = 1
and the dependency on is dropped. By using that

()

+
,
+
,
, with
,
and
,
as the in-phase
and quadrature components of

, respectively, and by
dropping the dependency on and changing variables, one
can show that (29) can be written as

2
= 4
1

3
exp{
1

2
}

exp{
1
(

)
2
}

(
()
, , ), (30)
where (
()
, , ) =
=

(
()
+

)
2
exp{
1
(
()
+

)
2
}
cosh(2
1
(
()
+

))

.
5892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009
By using that the integrand in the expression of (
()
, , )
is an even function of
()
+

, one can easily show that

(
()
, , ) is invariant under
()
= 1 and
()
= 1. As
such, the result for
2
does not change if one averages (30)
w.r.t the points in the BPSK signal constellation. By applying
this average, and after some manipulations, one can show that

2
=
2

exp{}

2
exp{
2
/2}
cosh(

2)
. (31)
Finally, by replacing results for
1
and
2
in (28), it is
straightforward to obtain the expression for [J
BPSK
()]
1,1
as in (17). Derivation of the FIM matrix for QPSK can
be similarly carried out. Note that results obtained here for
[J

]
,
, , = 1, 2 are consistent with those reported in [22],
where the CRB of NDA estimates of SNR is derived. In
addition, numerical results achieved for [J

]
3,3
by using the
analytical expression derived here are consistent with those
reported in [23].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their constructive comments on the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] O. A. Dobre and F. Hameed, Likelihood-based algorithms for linear
digital modulation classication in fading channels," in Proc. 19
th
IEEE Canadian Conf. Electrical Computer Engineering CCECE 2006,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, May 2006, pp. 1347-1350.
[2] , On performance bounds for parameter estimation and modulation
classication," in Proc. IEEE Sarnoff Symposium, 2007, pp. 1-5.
[3] O. A. Dobre, A. Abdi, Y. Bar-Ness, and W. Su, A survey of automatic
modulation classication techniques: classical approaches and new
trends," IET Commun., vol. 1, pp. 137-156, 2007.
[4] C. Y. Huang and A. Polydoros, Likelihood methods for MPSK mod-
ulation classication," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43, pp. 1493-1504,
1995.
[5] C. Long, K. Chugg, and A. Polydoros, Further results in likelihood
classication of QAM signals," in Proc. IEEE MILCOM, 1994, pp. 57-
61.
[6] A. Abdi, O. A. Dobre, R. Choudhry, Y. Bar-Ness, and W. Su, Modu-
lation classication in fading channels using antenna arrays," in Proc.
IEEE MILCOM, 2004, pp. 211-217.
[7] O. A. Dobre, A. Abdi, Y. Bar-Ness, and W. Su, Blind modulation
classication: a concept whose time has come," in Proc. IEEE Sarnoff
Symposium, 2005, pp. 223-228.
[8] W. Wei and J. Mendel, Maximum-likelihood classication for digital
amplitude-phase modulations," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, pp. 189-
193, 2000.
[9] J. A. Sills, Maximum-likelihood modulation classication for
PSK/QAM," in Proc. IEEE MILCOM, 1999, pp. 217-220.
[10] P. Panagiotou, A. Anastasopoulos, and A. Polydoros, Likelihood ratio
tests for modulation classication," in Proc. IEEE MILCOM, 2000, pp.
670-674.
[11] O. A. Dobre, J. Zarzoso, Y. Bar-Ness, and W. Su, On the classication
of linearly modulated signals in fading channels," in CD, Conf. Inform.
Sciences Systems (CISS), Princeton University, 2004.
[12] A. Swami and B. M. Sadler, Hierarchical digital modulation classi-
cation using cumulants," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, pp. 416-429,
2000.
[13] H.-C. Wu, M. Saquib, and Z. Yun, Novel automatic modulation
classication using cumulant features for communications via multipath
channels," IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, pp. 3098-3105, Aug.
2008.
[14] C. M. Spooner, On the utility of sixth-order cyclic cumulants for RF
signal classication," in Proc. IEEE ASILOMAR, 2001, pp. 890-897.
[15] D. Boudreau, C. Dubuc, F. Patenaude, M. Dufour, J. Lodge, and
R. Inkol, A fast automatic modulation recognition algorithm and its
implementation in a spectrum monitoring application," in Proc. IEEE
MILCOM, 2000, pp. 732-736.
[16] H. L. Van Trees, Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory. New
York: Wiley, 2001.
[17] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Estimation
Theory, Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[18] U. Mengali and A. N. DAndrea, Synchornization Techniques for Digital
Receivers. New York: Plenum, 1997.
[19] T. R. Benedict, The joint estimation of signal and noise from sum
envelope," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-13, pp. 447-454, 1967.
[20] D. R. Pauluzzi and N. C. Beaulieu, A comparison of SNR estimation
techniques for the AWGN channel," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, pp.
1681-1691, 2000.
[21] H. Xu, Z. Li, and H. Zheng, A non-data aided SNR estimation
algorithm for QAM signals," in Proc. ICASSP, 2004, pp. 999-1003.
[22] N. S. Alagha, Cramer-Rao bounds of SNR estimates for BPSK and
QPSK modulated signals," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 5, pp. 10-12, 2001.
[23] W. G. Cowley, Phase and frequency estimation for PSK packets:
bounds and algorithms," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 44, pp. 26-28,
1996.
Fahed Hameed received his Bachelors Degree in
Electrical Engineering from National University of
Sciences and Technology, Pakistan in 2003 and Mas-
ters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Memo-
rial University of Newfoundland, Canada, in 2006.
Currently, he is working in the Telecoms O&M de-
partment of Qatar Electric Supply Company (Kahra-
maa). His research interests include blind parameter
estimation, modulation classication, and multihop
cellular networks.
Octavia A. Dobre received the Engineering
Diploma and Ph. D. degrees in Electrical Engi-
neering from Politehnica University of Bucharest
(formerly the Polytechnic Institute of Bucharest),
Romania, in 1991 and 2000, respectively. In 2001
she joined the Wireless Information Systems Engi-
neering Laboratory at Stevens Institute of Technol-
ogy in Hoboken, NJ, as a Fulbright fellow. Between
2002 and 2005, she was with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) in Newark, NJ, as
a Research Associate. Since 2005 she has been an Assistant Professor with
the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Canada. Her current research interests include blind modula-
tion classication and parameter estimation, cognitive radio, multiple antenna
systems, multicarrier modulation techniques, cyclostationarity applications in
communications and signal processing, and resource allocation in emerging
wireless networks. Dr. Dobre is an Associate Editor for the IEEE COMMUNI-
CATIONS LETTERS, and has served as the Chair of the Signal Processing and
Multimedia Symposium of the 2009 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical
and Computer Engineering (CCECE).
Dimitrie C. Popescu received the Engineering
Diploma and M.S. degrees in 1991 from the Poly-
technic Institute of Bucharest, Romania, and the
Ph.D. degree from Rutgers University in 2002, all
in Electrical Engineering. His research interests are
in the areas of wireless communications, digital
signal processing, and control theory. He is cur-
rently an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion
University. Between 2002 and 2006 he was with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
the University of Texas at San Antonio. He has also worked for AT&T Labs
in Florham Park, New Jersey, on signal processing algorithms for speech
enhancement, and for Telcordia Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, on
wideband CDMA systems. He has served as technical program chair for the
vehicular communications track of the IEEE VTC 2009 Fall, nance chair for
the IEEE MSC 2008, and technical program committee member for the IEEE
GLOBECOM, WCNC 2006, and VTC conferences. His work on interference
avoidance and dispersive channels was awarded second prize in the AT&T
Student Research Symposium in 1999. He is the co-author of a monograph
book on interference avoidance methods for wireless systems published in
2004 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.