Cross-Validated Cross-Channel Self-Attention and Denoising for Automatic Modulation Classification
Organizations: Computer Science, Engineering, and Technology, Colorado Technical University, 1575 Garden of the Gods Road, Colorado Springs, 80907, CO, USA.
Abstract
This study addresses a key limitation in deep learning Automatic Modulation Classification (AMC) models, which perform well at high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) but degrade under noisy conditions due to conventional feature extraction suppressing both discriminative structure and interference. The goal was to develop a feature-preserving denoising method that mitigates the loss of modulation class separation. A deep learning AMC model was proposed, incorporating a cross-channel self-attention block to capture dependencies between in-phase and quadrature components, along with dual-path deep residual shrinkage denoising blocks to suppress noise. Experiments using the RML2018.01a dataset employed stratified sampling across 24 modulation types and 26 SNR levels. Results showed that denoising depth strongly influences robustness at low and moderate SNRs. Compared to benchmark models PET-CGDNN, MCLDNN, and DAE, the proposed model achieved notable accuracy improvements across -8 dB to +2 dB SNR, with increases of 3%, 2.3%, and 14%, respectively. Cross-validation confirmed the model's robustness, yielding a mean accuracy of 62.6%, macro precision of 65.8%, macro-recall of 62.6%, and macro-F1 score of 62.9%. The architecture advances interference-aware AMC by formalizing baseband modeling as orthogonal subproblems and introducing cross-channel attention as a generalized complex interaction operator, with ablations confirming the critical role of feature-preserving denoising for robustness at low-to-medium SNR.
Figures & tables
| Fold | Overall Accuracy (%) | Macro-Precision (%) | Macro-Recall (%) | Macro-F1 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 63.21 | 67.13 | 63.73 | 63.73 |
| 1 | 62.61 | 64.38 | 62.65 | 62.65 |
| 2 | 62.38 | 65.48 | 62.67 | 62.67 |
| 3 | 62.88 | 66.70 | 63.32 | 63.32 |
| 4 | 61.88 | 65.15 | 62.26 | 62.26 |
| Mean Std |
| Model | LSTM | Heads | CCSA | Den. | Den. | Thres. | Params | FLOPs | Avg. Acc. | Max Acc. | Inference time/ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Units | Blocks | Block A | Block B | (M) | (%) | (%) | sample (ms) | ||||
| 1 | 16 | 32 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Garrote | 165,580 | 234 | 62.79 | 97.88 | 0.53 |
| 2 | 16 | 32 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Garrote | 178,284 | 270 | 63.51 | 98.00 | 0.68 |
| 3 | 16 | 32 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Garrote | 190,988 | 306 | 63.47 | 98.13 | 0.79 |
| 4 | 16 | 32 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Garrote | 85,354 | 232 | 62.77 | 97.64 | 0.63 |
| 5 | 16 | 32 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Garrote | 40,878 | 161 | 57.96 | 92.74 | 0.58 |
| AMC | Automatic Modulation Classification |
| SNR | Signal-to-Noise Ratio |
| I/Q | In-phase / Quadrature |
| LSTM | Long Short-Term Memory |
| DP-DRSN | Dual-Path Deep Residual Shrinkage Network |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| RNN | Recurrent Neural Network |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Author | Model Name | Input Signal/Pre-processing | Den. | DL Architecture | Trainable Parameters | Dataset | Avg Accuracy | Max Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN Models | ||||||||
| Shaik and Kirthiga Shaik and Kirthiga (2021) | DenseNet | – | – | CNN | 19k | C | 55% | – |
| Shen et al. Shen et al. (2023) | MSSA | I/Q | – | CNN | 36k–218k | C | 55.25%–60.90% | – |
| Li et al. Li et al. (2023) | LightMFFS | I/Q, A/P | – | CNN | 95k | A | 63.44% | – |
| 95k | B | 65.44% | – | |||||
| Shi et al. Shi et al. (2022) | – | I/Q | – | CNN, SE block | 113k | C | – | 98.70% |
Automatic Modulation Classification
Automatic modulation classification identifies radio signal modulation schemes from received waveforms, often under noise, fading, and limited labeled data.
See all 17 papers