Exploring Advanced Approaches: A Comprehensive Analysis of Machine Learning and Deep Neural Networks in Spectrum Sensing Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for wireless communication resources has intensified the need for effective spectrum sensing techniques to alleviate the scarcity of available spectral bands. This survey paper presents an indepth exploration and comparative analysis of various spectrum sensing methodologies, focusing on Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Neural Network (DNN) approaches. The study delineates the landscape of traditional spectrum sensing techniques, encompassing energy detection, matched filtering, cyclo-stationary feature detection, and cooperative spectrum sensing. This paper explains sensing using machine learning-based such as Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forest, Neural Networks, and Hidden Markov Models (HMM) are systematically elucidated. Moreover, the paper meticulously scrutinizes the advancements in deep learning-based spectrum sensing, encapsulating the utilization of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) methodologies. The discussion encompasses their applications, advantages, and limitations in the context of spectrum sensing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".