Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

AI/ML-Based Automatic Modulation Recognition: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Replicating nine AMR models on one benchmark shows MCLDNN leads and that trimming very noisy training samples raises its accuracy.

desk verdict A useful but under-powered AMR replication benchmark; the headline SNR-window result is post hoc and likely within training noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05315 v2 pith:NJL5QW3E submitted 2025-02-07 cs.LG

Elaheh Jafarigol , Behnoud Alaghband , Azadeh Gilanpour , Saeid Hosseinipoor , Mirhamed Mirmozafari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords automaticmodulationrecognitiondeeplearningRadioML-2016Asignal-to-noiseratioMCLDNNclassificationreplicationbenchmarkrecurrentneuralnetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the maze of published automatic modulation recognition (AMR) results can be made comparable by re-running nine high-performing models under one controlled protocol and reporting a single uniform test-accuracy metric. Using the RadioML-2016A dataset with the same 60/20/20 split, the same hardware, and the same early-stopping rule, it finds that MCLDNN achieves the highest average test accuracy at 0.5982, with IC-AMCNet close behind. The paper then shows that a deliberately chosen training SNR window improves MCLDNN's accuracy to 0.63, and that adding BiLSTM and GRU layers pushes it to 0.6580. A reader should care because this is a concrete, reproducible baseline against which future AMR models can be measured, plus two simple recipes that appear to raise accuracy without changing the dataset.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a controlled replication protocol: the same RadioML-2016A dataset of synthetic IQ samples (11 modulation types, SNR from -20 to 18 dB), the same 60/20/20 train/validation/test split, the same test-accuracy definition averaged over all modulations and all SNR levels, and hyperparameters taken from each original paper. The paper's two interventions then probe that protocol: an SNR-windowed training schedule for MCLDNN that drops the most noise-dominated samples, and architectural augmentation that inserts BiLSTM and GRU layers into each replicated model. These interventions, not a single mathematical identity, carry the comparative claims.

What would settle it

Train MCLDNN on both the full -20 to 18 dB and the -18 to 18 dB SNR ranges with several random seeds and the same early-stopping budget; if the -18 to 18 dB advantage over the full range does not consistently reproduce, the paper's headline enhancement claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a single controlled protocol, MCLDNN (a convolutional-LSTM hybrid) gives the highest average test accuracy at 0.5982 on RadioML-2016A, ahead of IC-AMCNet at 0.5870, while CGDNet trails at 0.4700. All nine models share the same qualitative behavior: test accuracy is below 0.3 for very low SNR (below -12 dB), rises gradually through the middle range, and plateaus around 0.9 even on clean signals, so none reaches perfect recognition. Restricting MCLDNN's training data to the SNR window from -18 to 18 dB rather than the full -20 to 18 dB range raises its average test accuracy to 0.63, and adding BiLSTM and GRU layers to the architecture raises it further to 0.6580. The paper also reports per-modulation accuracies showing that QPSK is easy (most models above 0.9) and GFSK is hard (best model, LSTM, reaches only 0.42).

Load-bearing premise

The rankings and enhancement results stand or fall on whether the nine replications truly match the architectures, preprocessing, and hyperparameters of the original papers; no independent check against originally reported accuracies is provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New AMR studies can benchmark against these nine accuracy numbers on RadioML-2016A under the same split and test-accuracy definition.
  • Training on a slightly narrowed SNR window (-18 to 18 dB) instead of the full -20 to 18 dB range is a zero-cost accuracy improvement for MCLDNN, raising average test accuracy to 0.63.
  • Adding BiLSTM and GRU layers to CLDNN, IC-AMCNet, and MCLDNN improves their test accuracy, with MCLDNN reaching 0.6580.
  • Recurrent and hybrid convolutional-recurrent architectures reach strong accuracy with far fewer parameters than larger CNNs, favoring them in resource-constrained settings.
  • Low-SNR performance remains the shared weakness: all models fall below 0.3 accuracy below -12 dB and plateau near 0.9 even on clean signals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the SNR-window gain generalizes, every AMR study should report the SNR range used for training, because that choice alone can shift accuracy rankings.
  • Beyond the paper: adding BiLSTM and GRU layers increases parameter count, so a capacity-matched control experiment would separate gains from long-range memory from gains from simply having more parameters.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper does not compare its replicated accuracies with the numbers in the original papers, so the fairness claim is only as strong as the replication fidelity; publishing code and per-SNR raw numbers would let others verify it.
  • Beyond the paper: an immediate testable extension would be applying the -18 to 18 dB SNR window to the other eight models to see whether the improvement is specific to MCLDNN or a general property of noisy training data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper replicates nine deep-learning automatic modulation recognition (AMR) models on the RadioML-2016A dataset, reports test accuracies under supposedly uniform training and evaluation conditions, compares accuracy against parameter count, and analyzes per-modulation and per-SNR performance. It then proposes two enhancements: training MCLDNN on a restricted SNR window (claimed optimum, -18 to 18 dB, yielding 0.63 average accuracy) and adding BiLSTM/GRU layers to existing architectures, reporting modified accuracies in Table 3. The final sections discuss future directions including synthetic data, transformers, federated learning, and ensembles.

Significance. If the benchmark is reproducible and the SNR-window and architecture-modification results are statistically sound, the paper would provide a useful reference point for AMR model comparison, especially because it uses a single dataset, a uniform accuracy metric, and parameter counts. The promise of publicly accessible replicated models is a concrete asset, though no link is provided. The SNR-window training result is an interesting and potentially actionable observation, and the architecture modifications are straightforward to test. However, the current lack of code, the absence of variance estimates, and the post hoc selection of the SNR window mean that the central quantitative claims are not yet established. The future-directions discussion is broad but does not add new technical content.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A, Figure 3] The central claim that training MCLDNN on the -18 to 18 dB SNR window gives the highest accuracy (0.63) is based on post hoc selection: the text says low-SNR data were gradually added from -2 to -20 dB, and only the best-performing window is reported. No standard deviation, number of seeds, or significance test is given, and the top models in Table 1 span roughly 0.53-0.60, so the 0.63 versus full-range gap may be within run-to-run variation for 100-epoch training with early stopping. Please report multi-seed means with errors and either pre-register the tested windows or confirm the optimum on a held-out set of SNR values.
  2. [II, Table 1, Abstract] The abstract and Section II state that the replicated models are publicly accessible, but the manuscript contains no repository link or code. Without the code and without a comparison of reproduced accuracies with the originally reported values in the cited papers, readers cannot verify that each replicated model matches its source implementation, preprocessing, and training budget. This is load-bearing for the benchmark claim; please provide a code link and a per-model fidelity table.
  3. [III.B, Table 3] The architecture-modification results are reported as single accuracies per model. Differences such as 0.5423 to 0.5523 for CNN1, 0.5526 to 0.5753 for GRU, and the small decrease for MCNet are comparable to expected training noise, and the text itself attributes some differences to randomness. In addition, the insertion point, size, and number of added BiLSTM/GRU layers are not described, so the modifications are not reproducible. Please provide detailed modified-architecture descriptions and multi-seed statistics before claiming that particular models are enhanced.
  4. [II] The claim of "same hardware" is not ensured by training on Google Colab, since GPU instances vary across sessions and over time. Also, early stopping means that models were trained for different numbers of epochs (39-100 in Table 1), so accuracy differences may reflect training budget rather than architecture alone. Please clarify how hardware variability was controlled, whether the early-stopping criterion and data split were identical for all runs, and how the resulting accuracy comparison is intended to be interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III] The opening sentence of Section III says "Building on discoveries found in Section I," but the relevant discoveries are in Section II; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Figure 3] The horizontal axis of Figure 3 labels training scenarios only as SNR ranges, and the three bars per scenario are explained only in the text; adding a legend and clear axis labels would make the figure self-contained.
  3. [References] Reference [28] contains "None" placeholders in the author list; this formatting error should be fixed.
  4. [II, Table 2] The per-modulation table reports values such as 0.00 for CLDNN on GFSK and 0.03 for MCLDNN on GFSK; the accompanying text says "close to 0.00," which is accurate, but it would be helpful to note explicitly that these are not missing entries.
  5. [I] The introduction lists execution time as a challenge, but the benchmark reports only accuracy and parameter count; adding a sentence explaining that runtime is outside the scope would avoid misleading expectations.
  6. [Index Terms] The index term "signal-to-noise" appears incomplete; it should read "signal-to-noise ratio."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports empirical benchmark measurements and training-window experiments on an external fixed dataset, with no load-bearing self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental replication benchmark rather than a theoretical derivation. It selects hyperparameters from the original model papers, trains nine models on the external RadioML-2016A dataset, and reports measured test accuracies. No quantity is defined in terms of another fitted result, and no equation is used to derive a prediction from its own inputs. The central SNR-window claim, that MCLDNN training on -18 to 18 dB achieves the highest accuracy (0.63), is reported as a direct measurement from a fixed test set; it is not statistically forced by construction and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The fitted red line in Figure 1 is illustrative only and is not used to derive any benchmark conclusion. The references are to external original model papers and standard datasets; there are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. Reproducibility concerns, such as post hoc window selection, absence of multiple seeds, and the missing code link, are real validity risks but are not circularity under the specified criteria. The derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained empirical evaluation against an external dataset. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the benchmark depends on the fidelity of the replications and the representativeness of the RadioML-2016A dataset. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Figure 1 trend line slope and intercept = not given numerically
    A linear fit to the accuracy-versus-parameter-count scatter plot, used to illustrate the expected trend. It is a fitted curve, not a theoretical prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RadioML-2016A is a valid and sufficient benchmark for AMR model comparison
    The paper uses this dataset as the sole evaluation basis (Section II). If the dataset does not represent real-world transmission effects, the benchmark's external validity is limited.
  • domain assumption Replicated models faithfully match the original architectures and hyperparameters
    The paper states hyperparameters were selected based on authors' suggestions (Section II, Table 1), but provides no code or verification against original results.
  • domain assumption Average test accuracy across all modulations and SNRs is a meaningful uniform metric
    The paper defines this as the comparison criterion (Section II). Different metrics could change model rankings.
  • domain assumption Models trained on Google Colab for up to 100 epochs with early stopping converge sufficiently
    Training duration is capped at 100 epochs; some models stop early (e.g., MCLDNN at 39 epochs), which may not match original training budgets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI/ML-Based Automatic Modulation Recognition: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJL5QW3E

@misc{pith2026250205315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI/ML-Based Automatic Modulation Recognition: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJL5QW3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05315}
}
read the original abstract

We present a review of high-performance automatic modulation recognition (AMR) models proposed in the literature to classify various Radio Frequency (RF) modulation schemes. We replicated these models and compared their performance in terms of accuracy across a range of signal-to-noise ratios. To ensure a fair comparison, we used the same dataset (RadioML-2016A), the same hardware, and a consistent definition of test accuracy as the evaluation metric, thereby providing a benchmark for future AMR studies. The hyperparameters were selected based on the authors' suggestions in the associated references to achieve results as close as possible to the originals. The replicated models are publicly accessible for further analysis of AMR models. We also present the test accuracies of the selected models versus their number of parameters, indicating their complexities. Building on this comparative analysis, we identify strategies to enhance these models' performance. Finally, we present potential opportunities for improvement, whether through novel architectures, data processing techniques, or training strategies, to further advance the capabilities of AMR models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3: MCLDNN is trained and tested under high, low, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Uncertainty-Driven Hybrid Deep Learning Approach for Broad-Coverage RF Modulation Recognition

    eess.SP 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A hybrid CNN+MC-Dropout+BiLSTM system recognizes 14 RF modulation types with 92.6% accuracy by routing high-uncertainty samples to a temporal model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Rfnet: Fast and efficient neural network for modulation classification of radio frequency signals

    None Mohammad Chegini, None Pouya Shiri, and None Amirali Baniasadi. Rfnet: Fast and efficient neural network for modulation classification of radio frequency signals. ITU Journal on Future and Evolving Technologies, 3(2):261–272, September 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    A lightweight automatic modulation recognition algorithm based on deep learning

    Dong Yi, Di Wu, and Tao Hu. A lightweight automatic modulation recognition algorithm based on deep learning. IEICE Transactions on Communications, E106.B(4):367–373, April 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Deep learning based automatic modulation recognition: Models, datasets, and challenges

    Fuxin Zhang, Chunbo Luo, Jialang Xu, Yang Luo, and Fu-Chun Zheng. Deep learning based automatic modulation recognition: Models, datasets, and challenges. Digital Signal Processing, 129:103650, September 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Automatic modulation recognition of radar signals based on histogram of oriented gradient via improved principal component analysis

    Kuiyu Chen, Si Chen, Shuning Zhang, and Huichang Zhao. Automatic modulation recognition of radar signals based on histogram of oriented gradient via improved principal component analysis. Signal Image and Video Processing, 17(6):3053–3061, April 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Smart sensing and context -cognitive networking in and beyond mmwave band: Efficiency, reliability, and security

    Xueyang Hu et al. Smart sensing and context -cognitive networking in and beyond mmwave band: Efficiency, reliability, and security. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Lightweight deep learning model for automatic modulation classification in cognitive radio networks

    Seung-Hwan Kim, Jae -Woo Kim, Van -Sang Doan, and Dong -Seong Kim. Lightweight deep learning model for automatic modulation classification in cognitive radio networks. IEEE Access, 8:197532–197541, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Evelyn Ezhilarasi, J

    I. Evelyn Ezhilarasi, J. Christopher Clement, and Joseph M. Arul. A survey on cognitive radio network attack mitigation using machine learning and blockchain. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2023(1), September 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Learning the speech front -end with raw waveform cldnns

    Tara N Sainath, Ron J Weiss, Andrew W Senior, Kevin W Wilson, and Oriol Vinyals. Learning the speech front -end with raw waveform cldnns. In Interspeech, pages 1–5. Dresden, Germany, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Enhancing automatic modulation recognition through robust global feature extraction

    Yunpeng Qu, Zhilin Lu, Rui Zeng, Jintao Wang, and Jian Wang. Enhancing automatic modulation recognition through robust global feature extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01056, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A deep learning based algorithm with multi- level feature extraction for automatic modulation recognition

    Hang Zhang, Ruihua Nie, Minghui Lin, Ruijuan Wu, Guo Xian, Xiaofeng Gong, Qin Yu, and Ruisen Luo. A deep learning based algorithm with multi- level feature extraction for automatic modulation recognition. Wireless Networks, 27(7):4665–4676, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Deep learning radio frequency signal classification with hybrid images

    Hilal Elyousseph and Majid L Altamimi. Deep learning radio frequency signal classification with hybrid images. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing Applications (ICSIPA), pages 7–

    2021

  4. [11]

    Amc -net: An effective network for automatic modulation classification

    Jiawei Zhang, Tiantian Wang, Zhixi Feng, and Shuyuan Yang. Amc -net: An effective network for automatic modulation classification. In ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023. 8

    2023

  5. [12]

    Deep learning based automatic modulation recognition: Models, datasets, and challenges

    Fuxin Zhang, Chunbo Luo, Jialang Xu, Yang Luo, and Fu -Chun Zheng. Deep learning based automatic modulation recognition: Models, datasets, and challenges. Digital Signal Processing, 129:103650, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Gravelle

    Ruolin Zhou, Fugang Liu, and Christopher W. Gravelle. Deep learning for modulation recognition: A survey with a demonstration. IEEE Access, 8:67366–67376, January 2020

    2020

  7. [14]

    Over-the-air deep learning based radio signal classification

    Timothy James O’Shea, Tamoghna Roy, and T Charles Clancy. Over-the-air deep learning based radio signal classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 12(1):168–179, 2018

    2018

  8. [15]

    Introduction to algogens, 2024

    Amir Shachar. Introduction to algogens, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Convolutional radio modulation recognition networks

    Timothy J O’Shea, Johnathan Corgan, and T Charles Clancy. Convolutional radio modulation recognition networks. In Engineering Applications of Neural Networks: 17th International Conference, EANN 2016, Aberdeen, UK, September 2 -5, 2016, Proceedings 17, pages 213 –

    2016

  10. [17]

    Robust and fast automatic modulation classification with cnn under multipath fading channels

    Kürs¸at Tekbıyık, Ali Rıza Ekti, Ali Görçin, Günes¸ Karabulut Kurt, and Cihat Keçeci. Robust and fast automatic modulation classification with cnn under multipath fading channels. In 2020 IEEE 91st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Spring), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    Deep architectures for modulation recognition

    Nathan E West and Tim O’shea. Deep architectures for modulation recognition. In 2017 IEEE international symposium on dynamic spectrum access networks (DySPAN), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Cnn -based automatic modulation classification for beyond 5g communications

    Ade Pitra Hermawan, Rizki Rivai Ginanjar, Dong -Seong Kim, and Jae -Min Lee. Cnn -based automatic modulation classification for beyond 5g communications. IEEE Communications Letters, 24(5):1038–1041, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Mcnet: An efficient cnn architecture for robust automatic modulation classification

    Thien Huynh-The, Cam-Hao Hua, Quoc -Viet Pham, and Dong -Seong Kim. Mcnet: An efficient cnn architecture for robust automatic modulation classification. IEEE Communications Letters, 24(4):811–815, 2020

    2020

  14. [21]

    Deep learning models for wireless signal classification with distributed low -cost spectrum sensors

    Sreeraj Rajendran, Wannes Meert, Domenico Giustiniano, Vincent Lenders, and Sofie Pollin. Deep learning models for wireless signal classification with distributed low -cost spectrum sensors. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 4(3):433–445, 2018

    2018

  15. [22]

    Automatic modulation classification using recurrent neural networks

    Dehua Hong, Zilong Zhang, and Xiaodong Xu. Automatic modulation classification using recurrent neural networks. In 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pages 695–700. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    A spatiotemporal multi- channel learning framework for automatic modulation recognition

    Jialang Xu, Chunbo Luo, Gerard Parr, and Yang Luo. A spatiotemporal multi- channel learning framework for automatic modulation recognition. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 9(10):1629–1632, 2020

    2020

  17. [24]

    Cgdnet: Efficient hybrid deep learning model for robust automatic modulation recognition

    Judith Nkechinyere Njoku, Manuel Eugenio Morocho -Cayamcela, and Wansu Lim. Cgdnet: Efficient hybrid deep learning model for robust automatic modulation recognition. IEEE Networking Letters, 3(2):47 –51, 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Modulation recognition of underwater acoustic communication signals based on neural architecture search

    Zhe Jiang, Jingbo Zhang, Tianxing Wang, and Haiyan Wang. Modulation recognition of underwater acoustic communication signals based on neural architecture search. Applied Acoustics, 225:110155, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    An efficient deep learning model for automatic modulation recognition based on parameter estimation and transformation

    Fuxin Zhang, Chunbo Luo, Jialang Xu, and Yang Luo. An efficient deep learning model for automatic modulation recognition based on parameter estimation and transformation. IEEE Communications Letters, 25(10):3287–3290, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Data - transform multi-channel hybrid deep learning for automatic modulation recognition

    Meng Qi, Nianfeng Shi, Guoqiang Wang, and Hongxiang Shao. Data - transform multi-channel hybrid deep learning for automatic modulation recognition. IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lightweight deep learning model for automatic modulation classification in cognitive radio networks

    Seung-Hwan Kim, Jae -Woo Kim, Van -Sang Doan, and Dong -Seong Kim. Lightweight deep learning model for automatic modulation classification in cognitive radio networks. IEEE Access, 8:197532–197541, January 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A comparative study between cnn, lstm, and cldnn models in the context of radio modulation classification

    Ayman Emam, M Shalaby, Mohamed Atta Aboelazm, Hossam E Abou Bakr, and Hany AA Mansour. A comparative study between cnn, lstm, and cldnn models in the context of radio modulation classification. In 2020 12th International Conference on Electrical Engineerin g (ICEENG), pages 190 –

    2020

  23. [31]

    Radio modulation classification using deep residual neural networks

    Adeeb Abbas, Vasil Pano, Geoffrey Mainland, and Kapil Dandekar. Radio modulation classification using deep residual neural networks. In MILCOM 2022-2022 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 311–317. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Deep convolutional neural networks for double compressed amr audio detection

    Aykut Büker and Cemal Hanilçi. Deep convolutional neural networks for double compressed amr audio detection. IET Signal Processing, 15(4):265– 280, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A novel bigrubilstm model for multilevel sentiment analysis using deep neural network with bigru-bilstm

    Md Shofiqul Islam and Ngahzaifa Ab Ghani. A novel bigrubilstm model for multilevel sentiment analysis using deep neural network with bigru-bilstm. In Recent Trends in Mechatronics Towards Industry 4.0: Selected Articles from iM3F 2020, Malaysia, pages 403–414. Springer, 2021

    2020

  26. [34]

    Mec: Memory-efficient convolution for deep neural network

    Minsik Cho and Daniel Brand. Mec: Memory-efficient convolution for deep neural network. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 815–824. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder -decoder for statistical machine translation, 2014

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder -decoder for statistical machine translation, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Network intrusion detection model based on cnn and gru

    Bo Cao, Chenghai Li, Yafei Song, Yueyi Qin, and Chen Chen. Network intrusion detection model based on cnn and gru. Applied Sciences, 12(9):4184, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Cnn -bilstm-dnn-based modulation recognition algorithm at low snr

    Xueqin Zhang, Zhongqiang Luo, and Wenshi Xiao. Cnn -bilstm-dnn-based modulation recognition algorithm at low snr. Applied Sciences, 14(13):5879, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Github - thienhuynhthe/mcnet: Mcnet: An efficient cnn architecture for robust automatic modulation classification

    ThienHuynhThe. Github - thienhuynhthe/mcnet: Mcnet: An efficient cnn architecture for robust automatic modulation classification

  31. [39]

    Intrusion detection systems using long short-term memory (lstm)

    FatimaEzzahra Laghrissi, Samira Douzi, Khadija Douzi, and Badr Hssina. Intrusion detection systems using long short-term memory (lstm). Journal of Big Data, 8(1):65, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Getting the most out of amr parsing

    Chuan Wang and Nianwen Xue. Getting the most out of amr parsing. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1257–1268, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Artificial neural network based epileptic detection using time -domain and frequency - domain features

    Vairavan Srinivasan, Chikkannan Eswaran, Sriraam, and N. Artificial neural network based epileptic detection using time -domain and frequency - domain features. Journal of Medical Systems, 29:647–660, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    On optimal frequency - domain multichannel linear filtering for noise reduction

    Mehrez Souden, Jacob Benesty, and Sofiene Affes. On optimal frequency - domain multichannel linear filtering for noise reduction. IEEE Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing, 18(2):260–276, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    Synthetic data generation: A comparative study

    Markus Endres, Asha Mannarapotta Venugopal, and Tung Son Tran. Synthetic data generation: A comparative study. In Proceedings of the 26th International Database Engineered Applications Symposium, pages 94 – 102, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Survey on synthetic data generation, evaluation methods and gans

    Alvaro Figueira and Bruno Vaz. Survey on synthetic data generation, evaluation methods and gans. Mathematics, 10(15):2733, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Recent progress on generative adversarial networks (gans): A survey

    Zhaoqing Pan, Weijie Yu, Xiaokai Yi, Asifullah Khan, Feng Yuan, and Yuhui Zheng. Recent progress on generative adversarial networks (gans): A survey. IEEE access, 7:36322–36333, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Tutorial on variational autoencoders

    Carl Doersch. Tutorial on variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Analysis of classifier training on synthetic data for cross - domain datasets

    Andoni Cortés, Clemente Rodríguez, Gorka Vélez, Javier Barandiarán, and Marcos Nieto. Analysis of classifier training on synthetic data for cross - domain datasets. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(1):190–199, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    IEEE Access, 8:196197–196211, 2020

    Grega Vrbanciˇ c and Vili Podgorelec.ˇ Transfer learning with adaptive fine- tuning. IEEE Access, 8:196197–196211, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Codetf: One -stop transformer library for state -of-the-art code llm

    Nghi DQ Bui, Hung Le, Yue Wang, Junnan Li, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, and Steven CH Hoi. Codetf: One -stop transformer library for state -of-the-art code llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00029, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Deep hybrid transformer network for robust modulation classification in wireless communications

    Bingjie Liu, Qiancheng Zheng, Heng Wei, Jinxian Zhao, Haoyuan Yu, Yiyi Zhou, Fei Chao, and Rongrong Ji. Deep hybrid transformer network for robust modulation classification in wireless communications. Knowledge - Based Systems, 300:112191, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Long short -term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short -term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  44. [52]

    Fully decentralized federated learning

    Anusha Lalitha, Shubhanshu Shekhar, Tara Javidi, and Farinaz Koushanfar . Fully decentralized federated learning. In Third workshop on bayesian deep learning (NeurIPS), volume 2, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Federated learning for automatic modulation classification under class imbalance and varying noise condition

    Yu Wang, Guan Gui, Haris Gacanin, Bamidele Adebisi, Hikmet Sari, and Fumiyuki Adachi. Federated learning for automatic modulation classification under class imbalance and varying noise condition. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , 8(1):86 –96, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.