Anomalous signal recognition algorithm for electronic communication equipment based on improved gradient projection method
, e
21 mar 2025
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Pubblicato online: 21 mar 2025
Ricevuto: 26 ott 2024
Accettato: 04 feb 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0605
Parole chiave
© 2025 Weibing Li et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Comparison of signal anomaly recognition accuracy
| Signal-to-noise ratio | Method of this paper | Comparison method 1 | Comparison method 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| -12 | 95.50% | 84.20% | 91.92% |
| -6 | 98.28% | 89.25% | 92.97% |
| 0 | 99.02% | 91.02% | 92.42% |
| 6 | 99.95% | 92.82% | 95.77% |
| 12 | 100.00% | 93.65% | 96.89% |
Abnormal signal identification
| Number of experiments | The identification quantity of the method in this article | The identification quantity of the traditional method |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 440 | 255 |
| 20 | 378 | 271 |
| 30 | 419 | 286 |
| 40 | 433 | 324 |
| 50 | 408 | 244 |
| 60 | 462 | 248 |
| 70 | 481 | 236 |
| 80 | 492 | 260 |
| 90 | 488 | 429 |
| 100 | 469 | 305 |
Comparison of experimental results of two recognition methods
| Identification partition | The number of actual abnormal signals | The number of correct recognitions of this method | The number of correct recognitions of the traditional method |
|---|---|---|---|
| First partition | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| Second partition | 12 | 12 | 5 |
| Third partition | 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Fourth partition | 16 | 16 | 3 |
| Fifth partition | 14 | 14 | 5 |
Signal anomaly recognition accuracy of electronic communication equipment
| Signal type | Recognition accuracy |
|---|---|
| Deterministic signal | 99.04% |
| Random signal | 98.12% |
| Analog signal | 99.26% |
| Digital signal | 99.75% |
| Energy signal | 99.89% |
| Power signal | 99.13% |
| Time domain signal | 99.21% |
| Frequency domain signal | 97.52% |
| Time limit signal | 98.27% |
| Frequency limited signal | 99.09% |
| Real signal | 97.08% |
| Complex signal | 98.54% |