Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649

www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Comparison of clustering algorithms for analog modulation classification

Hanifi Guldemır*, Abdulkadir Sengur
Department of Electronic and Computer Science, Technical Education Faculty, Firat University, 23119 Elazig, Turkey

Abstract

This study introduces a comparative study of implementation of clustering algorithms on classification of the analog modulated
communication signals. A number of key features are used for characterizing the analog modulation types. Four different clustering algorithms
are used for classifying the analog signals. These most representative clustering techniques are K-means clustering, fuzzy C-means clustering,
mountain clustering and subtractive clustering. Performance comparison of these clustering algorithms and the advantages and disadvantages
of the methods are examined. The validity analysis is performed. The study is supported with computer simulations.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Modulation recognition; Modulation classification; Clustering

1. Introduction In this paper, a statistical pattern recognition based

Recognition of the modulation type of an unknown
signal provides valuable insight into its structure, origin and
properties and is also crucial in order to retrieve the
information stored in the signal. In the past, modulation
recognition relied mostly on operators scanning the radio
frequency spectrum and checking it on the display. This
method is limited by the operators’ skills and abilities. This
limitation has led to the development of automatic
modulation recognition systems. Modulation classification
algorithms have generally followed two main approaches;
the decision theoretic and statistical pattern recognition.
Examples of the former are decisions based on signal
envelope characteristics, zero crossing, statistical moments
and phase-based classifiers (Aisbett, 1987; Dominiguez,
Borallo, & Garcia, 1991; Jondral, 1985). Pattern recognition
approach attempts to extract a feature vector for later use in
a statistical classifier (Polydoros & Kim, 1990; Soliman &
Hsue, 1992). In early 1990 s, researchers became interested
in the use of artificial neural networks for automatic
modulation classification (Azzouz & Nandi, 1996; Ghani
& Lamontagne, 1993).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C90 424 2370000x6542; fax: C90 424
2367064.
E-mail addresses: hguldemir@firat.edu.tr (H. Guldemır), ksengur@
firat.edu.tr (A. Sengur).
0957-4174/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2005.07.014
modulation classification which uses clustering algorithms
is presented.
The main aim of most clustering techniques is to obtain
useful information by grouping data in clusters; within each
cluster the data exhibits similarity. Clustering is a popular
unsupervised pattern classification technique which par-
titions the input space into K regions based on some
similarity or dissimilarity metric (Jain & Dubes, 1988). The
number of clusters may or may not be known as a priori.
Achieving such a partitioning requires a similarity measures
that takes two input vectors and returns a value reflecting
their similarity. Since most similarity metrics are sensitive
to the range of patterns in the input vectors, each of the input
variables must be normalized to within; say the unit interval
[0,1]. On the other hand, clustering algorithms are used
extensively not only to organize and categorize data, but are
also useful for data compression and model construction.
Several algorithms for clustering data when the number of
clusters is known priori are available in the literature
(Kothari & Pitts, 1999; Maulik & Bandyopadhyay, 2000).
Signal Processing systems for communications will
operate in open environments, where it is required that
signals of different sources be processed, which come from
different emitters, hence with different characteristics and
for different user requirements (Sebastiano, Serpico, &
Gianni, 1994). Communication signals traveling in space
with different modulation types and different frequencies
fall in very wide band. These signals use a variety of
modulation techniques in order to send information from
 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649
one location to another. Usually, it is required to identify
and monitor these signals for many applications, both
defense and civilian. Civilian applications may include
monitoring the non-licensed transmitters, while defense
applications may be electronic surveillance (Azzouz &
Nandi, 1996) or warfare purposes like threat detection
analysis and warning. Modulation recognition is extremely
important in communication intelligence applications for
several reasons. Firstly, applying the signal to an improper
demodulator may partially or completely damage the signal
information content. Secondly, knowing the correct modu-
lation type help recognize the threat and to determine
suitable jamming wave-form. At the moment, the most
attractive applications area is radio and other re-configur-
able communication systems.
In this paper, it has been investigated that how the
conventional clustering techniques work on modulation
classification. For comparison, K-means clustering, fuzzy
C-means clustering, mountain clustering and subtractive
clustering techniques were selected and evaluated on a data
set obtained from analog modulated communication signals.
These modulations are amplitude modulated signals (AM),
double side band modulated signals (DSB), upper side band
signals (USB), lower side band signals (LSB) and frequency
modulated signals (FM). Two key features, the standard
deviation of the direct phase component of the intercepted
signal and the signal spectrum symmetry around the carrier,
are employed for forming the data points. A comparative
study is achieved based on the computer simulations. The
analysis of modulation classification requires appropriate
definitions of similarity measures to characterize differences
between modulation types. However, there has not been
discussed such a comparative study which incorporates
characteristics of modulation types. The advantages and
disadvantages of the examined unsupervised clustering
techniques, which are K-means clustering, fuzzy C-means
clustering, mountain clustering and subtractive clustering,
are investigated and simulation results are given.
2. Clustering
Clustering in N-dimensional Euclidean space RN is the
process of partitioning a given set of n points into a number,
say K, of groups or clusters in such a way that patterns in the
same cluster are similar in some sense and patterns in
different clusters are dissimilar in the same sense. Let the set
of n points {X1,X2,X3,.,Xn} be represented by the set S and
the K clusters be represented by C1,C2,.,CK. Then CisØ
for iZ1,2,.,K and CihCjZØ for iZ1,2,.,K, jZ1,2,.,K
and isj and gKiZ1 Ci Z S. In this study, we examine four of
the most representative clustering techniques which are
frequently used in radial basis function networks and fuzzy
modeling (Jang & Sun, 1997). These are K-means
clustering, fuzzy C-means clustering, mountain clustering
643
method and subtractive clustering. More detailed discus-
sions of clustering techniques are presented in (Duda &
Hart, 1973; chürman, 1996).
2.1. K-means clustering
K-means clustering also known as C-means clustering
has been applied to a variety of areas, including image
segmentation, speech data compression, data mining and so
on. The steps of K-means algorithm, are therefore, first
described in brief.
Step 1 Choose K initial cluster centers z1, z2,.,zK
randomly from the n points{X1, X2, X3,.,Xn}.
Step 2 Assign point Xi, iZ1,2,.,n to the cluster Cj, j2{1,
2,.,K} if kXiKzjk!kXiKzpk, pZ1, 2,.,K and
jsp
Step 3 Compute new cluster centers as follows
1 X
znew
i Z X i Z 1; 2; .; K (1)
ni X 2C j
j i
where ni is the number of elements belonging to the cluster
Ci.
Step 4 If jjznew Kzi jj! 3, iZ1,2,.,K, then terminate.
i
Otherwise continue from step 2.
Note that in case the process does not terminate at step 4
normally, then it is executed for a maximum number of
iterations.
2.2. Fuzzy C-means clustering
Fuzzy C-means clustering is a data clustering algorithm
in which each data point belongs to a cluster to a degree
specified by a membership grade. Bezdek proposed this
algorithm in 1973 (Bezdek, 1973) as an improvement over
earlier K-means clustering described in the previous title.
FCM partitions a collection of n vector Xi, iZ1,2,.,n into c
fuzzy groups, and finds a cluster center in each group such
that a cost function of dissimilarity measure is minimized.
The steps of FCM algorithm, are therefore, first described in
brief.
Step 1 Chose the cluster centers ci, iZ1,2,.,c randomly
from the n points{X1, X2, X3,.,Xn}.
Step 2 Compute the membership matrix U using the
following equation
1
mij Z P
c  2=ðmK1Þ (2)
dij
dkj
kZ1
where dijZkciKxjk is the Euclidean distance between ith
cluster center and jth data point, and m is the fuzziness
index.
644 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649

Step 3 Compute the cost function according to the after subtraction the second cluster center is again selected
following equation. Stop the process if it is below as the point in C that has the largest value for the new
a certain threshold mountain function. This process of revising the mountain
function and finding the next cluster centers continues until
X
c c X
X n a sufficient number of cluster centers are attained.
JðU; c1 ; .; cc Þ Z Ji Z mm 2
ij dij (3)
iZ1 iZ1 jZ1 2.4. Subtractive clustering
Step 4 Compute new c fuzzy cluster centers ci, iZ1,2,.,c
The mountain clustering method is simple and effective.
using the following equation
However, its computation grows exponentially with the
P
n dimension of the problem. An alternative approach is
mm
ij Xj subtractive clustering proposed by Chiu (Chiu, 1994) in
jZ1
ci Z P
n (4) which data points are considered as the candidates for center
mm
ij
of clusters. The algorithm continues as follow
jZ1
Step 1 Consider a collection of n data points {X1,X2,X3,.,
go to step 2. Xn} in an M-dimensional space. Since each data
point is a candidate for cluster center, a density
measure at data point Xi is defined as
2.3. Mountain clustering
!
Xn
jjXi KXj jj2
The mountain clustering method as proposed by Yager Di Z exp K (7)
jZ1
ðra =2Þ2
and Filev (Yager & Filev, 1994) is a relatively simple and
effective approach to approximate estimation of cluster where ra is a positive constant. Hence, a data point will have
centers on the basis of a density measure called mountain a high density value if it has many neighboring data point.
function. The following is a brief description of the The radius ra defines a neighborhood; data points outside
mountain clustering algorithm. this radius contribute only slightly to the density measure.
Step 1 Initialize the cluster centers forming a grid on the Step 2 After the density measure of each data point has
data space, where the intersection of the grid lines been calculated, the data point with the highest
constitute the candidates for cluster centers, density measure is selected as the first cluster
denoted as a set C. A finer gridding increases the center. Let Xc1 be the point selected and Dc1 its
number of potential cluster centers, but it also density measure. Next, the density measure for
increases the computation required. each data point Xi is revised as follows
Step 2 Construct a mountain function that represents a
density measure of a data set. The height of the !
mountain function at a point c2C can compute as jjXi KXj jj2
Di Z Di KDc1 exp K (8)
  ðrb =2Þ2
X
N
jjcKxi jj2
mðcÞ Z exp K (5) where rb is a positive constant.
iZ1
2s2
Step 3 After the density calculation for each data point is
where xi is the ith data point and s is a design constant. revised, the next cluster center Xc2 is selected and
all of the density calculations for data points are
Step 3 Select the cluster centers by sequentially destruct- revised again. This process is repeated until a
ing the mountain function. First find the point in the sufficient number of cluster centers are generated.
candidate centers C that has the greatest value for
the mountain function; this becomes the first cluster
center c1. Obtaining next cluster center requires 3. Feature clustering and classification
eliminating the effect of the just-identified center,
which is typically surrounded by a number of grid The first step in any classification system is to identify
points that also have high density scores. This is the features that will be used to classify the data. Feature
realized by revising the mountain function as extraction is a form of data reduction, and the choice of
follows feature set can affect the performance of the classification
system. Some classifications can be determined from a
  single feature, however, most are confirmed by examining
jjcKc1 jj2 several features at once (Sengur & Guldemir, 2003, 2005).
mnew ðcÞ Z mðcÞKmðc1 Þexp K (6)
2b2 Algorithms that do this statistically, known as clustering
 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649
Fig. 1. (a) Theoretically produced first order autoregressive signal; (b) real voice signal.
algorithms (Gerhard, 2000). Each piece of data, called a
case, corresponds to an observation of a modulated signal
and the features extracted from that observation are called
parameters. Clustering algorithms work by examining a
large number of cases and finding groups of cases with
similar parameters. These groups are called clusters, and are
considered to belong to the same category in the
classification.
4. Signal generation and implementation
In the modulation schemes, two types of signals are used.
These signals are a real voice signal and a simulated voice
signals both band-limited to 4 kHz. The simulated voice
signal is produced by a first order autoregressive process of
the form (Dubuc, Boudreau, Patenaude, & Inkol, 1999)
y½k Z 0:95y½kK1 C n½k
where n[k] is a white Gaussian noise.
A modulated signal s(t) can be expressed by a function of
the form
sðtÞ Z ac aðtÞcosð2pfc t C 4ðtÞ C q0 Þ
where a(t) is the signal envelope, fc is the carrier frequency,
f(t) is the phase, q0 is the initial phase and ac controls the
carrier power. Particular modulation types are obtained by
encoding the base band message into a(t) and f(t). The
modulation types were restricted to the types commonly
used in analog communication. AM, DSB, SSB and FM
signals are expressed as follows, respectively
sðtÞ Z ½1 C mxðtÞcosð2pfc tÞ
sðtÞ Z xðtÞcosð2pfc tÞ
sðtÞ Z xðtÞcosð2pfc tÞHyðtÞsinð2pfc tÞ
2 3
ðt
sðtÞ Z cos42pfc t C Kf xðtÞdt5
KN
645
where m is the modulation index, x(t) is the modulating
signal and fc is the carrier frequency, y(t) is the Hilbert
transform. Kf is the frequency deviation coefficient of FM
signal. In the expression given for SSB, the negative sign is
used for upper side-band (USB) signal generation and the
positive sign is used for lower side-band (LSB) signal
generation.
In order to increase the accuracy of the classification,
a number of simulations have been done with theoreti-
cally produced different modulated signals with different
parameters such as various signal-to-noise ratios and
modulation index. Sixty simulated signals of each of the
modulation types of DSB, LSB and USB have been
generated. One hundred and twenty signals for AM with
modulation indices of 0.3 and 1, and 180 signals for FM
with frequency modulation indices of 1, 5, and 10 are
generated. Totally 480 modulated signals are used for the
classification. These signals are generated and processed
(9) using Matlab functions in Communication Toolbox. An
additive white Gaussian noise with SNR of between 0
and 60 dB is used in the modeling of theoretically
produced analog modulated signals.
In the simulations, a first degree autoregressive 4 kHz
(10) band-limited voice signal with sampling rate of 10 kHz and
resampled with 44 kHz and modulated by a 15 kHz
sinusoidal carrier is used. Fig. 1a shows the theoretically
produced signal. In order to incorporate the classification
system in real application, the system is also tested with the
real voice signal shown in Fig. 1b.
The experimental results comparing the examined
clustering algorithms are provided for data set which
is generated from the five analog modulated signals.
(11) This is a non-overlapping two dimensional data set,
where the number of cluster is five. The data set
(12) is generated as follows: The source signal is modulated
using the analog modulation schemas. An Additive
(13) White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) is introduced to the
modulated signal such that the signal has the signal-to-
noise ratio randomly distributed between 0 and 60 dB
(14) range and the features are extracted from these
modulated signals.
646 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649

Fig. 2. P versus sdp (a) for first order autoregressive voice signal, (b) for real voice signal.

Two key features are used in this study for generating the carrier frequency, fc and fcn is defined as
data set. The first feature is the standard deviation of the fc Ns
direct phase component of the intercepted signal and it is fcn Z K1 (19)
fs
calculated as follow (Azzouz & Nandi, 1996)
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi here, it is assumed that the carrier frequency is known.
u ! !2 The P versus sdp features for the data set from
u1 X 1 X
sdp Z t 2
f ðiÞ K f ðiÞ (15) autoregressive voice signal and real voice signal are shown
C A ðiÞOt NL C A ðiÞOt NL in Fig. 2.
n a n a

where C is the number of samples and An is the

instantaneous amplitude of the intercepted signal and ta is
a threshold for the instantaneous amplitude below which the 5. Cluster validity analysis
instantaneous phase is very sensitive to noise. The second
key feature is the signal spectrum symmetry around the Clustering is a tool that attempt to assign the patterns to the
carrier which is given by groups, where such that patterns within a group are more
similar to each other than are patterns belonging to different
PL KPU clusters. An intimately related important issue is the cluster
PZ (16) validity which deals with the significance of the structure
PU C PL
imposed by a clustering method (Kothari & Pitts, 1999). In this
where section, a cluster validity index which can provide a measure
of goodness of clustering on different partitions of a data set is
X
fcn
performed. Three well known cluster validity indices, Davies–
PL Z jXc ðiÞj2 (17) Bouldin (DB) index (Davies & Bouldin, 1979), Xie–Beni
iZ1
(XB) index (Xie & Beni, 1991), and maximum value PBM
index (Pakhira, Bandyopadhyay, & Maulic, 2004) are used for
X
fcn the cluster validity. In the below, only the brief description of
PU Z jXc ði C fcn C 1Þj2 (18) these indices is given. The detailed theory about these indices
iZ1 can be found in the related references.
The Davies–Bouldin index is a function of ratio of the
where Xc(i) is the Fourier transform of the intercepted signal
sum of within cluster scatter to between clusters scatter. The
Xc(i), (fcC1) is the sample number corresponding to the
objective is to minimize the DB index for constituting the
Table 1 optimum clusters. The Xie–Beni index is a ratio of the fuzzy
Values of DB index, XB index and PBM index in the range [2–8] within cluster sum of squared distances to the product of the
Number of DB XB PBM
number of elements and the minimum between cluster
clusters separations. The minimum value of this index indicates the
optimum number of clusters in the data set. The objective of
8 0.4383 1.2710 246.6341
7 0.3703 0.0502 313.6147 PBM index is to maximize this index in order to obtain the
6 0.2909 0.0560 334.1331 actual number of clusters. PBM index can be used to
5 0.2216 0.0220 360.3448 associate a measure with different partitions of a data set;
4 0.2934 0.0313 102.5180 the maximum value of which indicates the appropriate
3 0.3448 0.0823 30.2861
partitioning. Hence, it is used for determining the
2 0.2985 0.1484 23.5128
appropriate number of cluster in a data set. Table 1 presents
 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649
Fig. 3. K-means clustering.
the variation of the DB index, XB index and PBM index
with the number of clusters in the range 2–8, when the
fuzzy-c means algorithm is used for clustering. The
optimum values of the indices are presented in boldface in
the table.
6. Results and discussion
In this study, four most popular clustering algorithms
are examined and a comparative study on the analog
modulated communication signal is performed. The
performances of the clustering algorithms are tested
with MATLAB based computer simulations. The results
are shown in Figs. 3–7 for real voice signal. K-means
algorithm is widely used at pattern recognition appli-
cations but it may converge to values that are
not optimal. Also global solutions of the large problems
Fig. 4. FCM clustering.
647
Fig. 5. Mountain clustering.
cannot be found with a reasonable amount of
computation. In this study, K-means algorithm converge
different values due to the initial cluster centers. On the
other hand, the number of the clusters in the data sets
must be specified before the process. Fuzzy C-means
algorithm is executed the best results even the initial
cluster centers has changed, but no guarantee ensures that
FCM always converge to an optimal solution. Mountain
clustering which is based on what human does in
visually forming cluster of a data set. Here, s parameter
affects the height as well as the smoothness of the
mountain function. The surface plot of the mountain
function with sZ0.05 is shown in Fig. 4. The mountain
clustering application results are satisfactory. However,
its computation grows exponentially with the dimension
of the problem because the method must evaluate the
mountain function over all grid points. Subtractive
clustering method aims to overcome this problem by
Fig. 6. Subtractive clustering with raZ0.5.
648 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649

Table 4
Mountain K-means

Actual modu- Estimated modulation types

lation types and AM DSB FM LSB USB
feature numbers (120) (60) (182) (59) (59)
AM (120) 120 0 0 0 0
DSB (60) 0 59 1 0 0
FM (180) 0 0 180 0 0
LSB (60) 0 0 1 59 0
USB (60) 0 1 0 0 59

Table 5
Mountain fuzzy c-means

Actual modu- Estimated modulation types

lation types and AM DSB FM LSB USB
feature numbers (120) (61) (180) (60) (59)

Fig. 7. Subtractive clustering with raZ0.25. AM (120) 120 0 0 0 0

DSB (60) 0 60 0 0 0
FM (180) 0 0 180 0 0
considering the data points as the candidate cluster LSB (60) 0 0 0 60 0
centers. Mountain and subtractive methods do not require USB (60) 0 1 0 0 59

the number of the clusters in the data set to be specified

before the process. During the implementation of the In the k-means algorithm only 64 of the 180 FM signals
subtractive clustering the r a parameters plays an are correctly classified. The remaining 116 is estimated
important role for forming the clusters. This situation is as DSB and the other six is deduced as LSB as shown
shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. in Table 3.
For the FCM clustering technique the fuzziness index If the peaks of the mountains in the mountain
is taken as 1.5 and the number of iterations and the clustering algorithm are given as initial cluster centers
desired error are 500 and 1!10K10, respectively. Table 2 to the fuzzy c-means (mountain fcm) and k-means
shows the performance of the fuzzy c-means algorithm. clustering (mountain k-means) algorithms as proposed in
As it is clear from the table, three of the 60 DSB signals (Yager & Filev, 1994), the performances of these
are deduced as FM, 1 of the 60 LSB signal is deduced as techniques are become much better as shown in Tables
FM and 1 of the 60 USB signal is estimated as DSB. 4 and 5. In this case, in the mountain fcm algorithm all of
the modulated signals except 1 of the USB are correctly
Table 2
Performance of the fuzzy c-means algorithm
classified. Figs. 8 and 9 show the mountain fcm and
mountain k-means results.
Actual modu- Estimated modulation types
lation types and AM DSB FM LSB USB
feature numbers (120) (58) (184) (59) (59)
AM (120) 120 0 0 0 0
DSB (60) 0 57 3 0 0
FM (180) 0 0 180 0 0
LSB (60) 0 0 1 59 0
USB (60) 0 1 0 0 59

Table 3
Performance of the k-means algorithm

Actual modu- Estimated modulation types

lation types and AM DSB FM LSB USB
feature numbers (120) (177) (70) (54) (59)
AM (120) 120 0 0 0 0
DSB (60) 0 60 0 0 0
FM (180) 0 116 64 6 0
LSB (60) 0 0 6 54 0
USB (60) 0 1 0 0 59 Fig. 8. Mountain fuzzy c-means.
 H. Guldemır, A. Sengur / Expert Systems with Applications 30 (2006) 642–649
Fig. 9. Mountain k-means.
7. Conclusion
In this study, pattern recognition based modulation
classification using clustering techniques is presented. A
comparative study is given which uses four different
clustering algorithms. A basic introduction of automatic
modulation recognition was given followed by a brief
description of the most representative clustering algor-
ithms used in this paper. Two key features are used in
the classification. The presented classification is not
limited to any specific class of modulations. A real voice
signal and a first order autoregressive voice signal is
modulated using the analog modulation schemes, AM,
FM, USB, LSB, DSB. An additive white Gaussian noise
is added to the modulated signal in order to test the
performance of the classification in the presence of noise.
The validity analysis is performed and simulation results
are given.
References
Aisbett, J. (1987). Automatic modulation recognition using time-domain
parameters. Signal Processing, 13, 323–329.
Azzouz, E.E., Nandi, A.K. (1996). Automatic modulation recognition of
communication signals. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bezdek, J.C. (1973). Fuzzy mathematics in pattern classification. PhD
thesis, Applied Math. Center, Cornell University Ithaca.
649
Chiu, S. L. (1994). Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estimation.
Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems , 2.
Davies, D. L., & Bouldin, D. W. (1979). A cluster separation measure,
IEEE Transaction on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1,
224–227.
Dominiguez, L., Borallo, J., & Garcia, J. (1991). A general approach to
automatic classification of radio communication signals. Signal
Processing, 22, 239–250.
Dubuc, C., Boudreau, D., Patenaude, F., Inkol, R. (1999). An automatic
modulation recognition algorithm for spectrum monitoring appli-
cations. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’99).
Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E. (1973). Pattern recognition and scene analysis. John
Willey and Sons.
Gerhard, D. (2000). Audio signal classification: An overview. Canadian
Artificial Intelligence , 4–6.
Ghani, N., & Lamontagne, R. (1993). Neural networks applied to the
classification of spectral features for automatic modulation recognition.
Military Communication Conference (MILCOM’, 93, 111–115.
Jain, A.K., Dubes, R.C. (1988). Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jang, J. S.R., Sun, C.T. (1997). Mizutani, E.: Neuro-fuzzy and soft
computing. Prentice Hall.
Jondral, F. (1985). Automatic classification of high frequency signals.
Signal Processing, 9, 177-190.
Kothari, R., & Pitts, D. (1999). On finding the number of clusters. Pattern
Recognition Letters, 20, 405–416.
Maulik, U., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2000). Genetic Algorithm based
clustering technique. Pattern Recognition, 33, 1455–1465.
Pakhira, M. K., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Maulic, U. (2004). Validity index
for crisp and fuzzy clusters. Pattern Recognition, 37, 487–501.
Polydoros, A., & Kim, K. (1990). On the detection and classification of
quadrature digital modulations in broad-band noise. IEEE Transactions
on Communications, 38, 1199–1211.
Sebastiano, B., Serpico, F. R., & Gianni, V. (1994). Intelligent control of
signal processing algorithms in communications. IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications , 1553–1565.
Sengur, A., & Guldemir, H. (2003). Performance comparison of automatic
analog modulation classifiers. 3rd International Advanced Technol-
ogies Symposium , 461–464.
Sengur, A., & Guldemir, H. (2005). An educational interface for automatic
recognition of analog modulated signals. Journal of Applied Sciences,
5, 513–516.
Soliman, S. S., & Hsue, S. (1992). Signal classification using statistical
moments. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 40, 908–915.
Xie, X. L., & Beni, G. A. (1991). Validity measure for fuzzy clustering,
IEEE Transaction on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 3,
841–846.
Yager, R. R., & Filev, D. P. (1994). Generation of fuzzy rules by mountain
clustering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 24,
209–219.
Yager, R. R., & Filev, D. P. (1994). Approximate clustering via the
mountain method. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cyber-
netics, 24, 1279–1284.
Chürman, J. (1996). Pattern classification. John Willey and Sons,.