PMM Amplitude Estimation for SDR Baseband Under Non-Gaussian Radio-Frequency Noise
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64915/RADAP.2026.105.%25pKeywords:
PMM, PATP, amplitude estimation, SDR, non-Gaussian noise, heavy-tailed noise, fractional moments, cumulants, HAC standard errors, RadioML2018Abstract
Amplitude estimation from Software-Defined Radio (SDR) baseband recordings becomes unreliable when the additive Radio-Frequency (RF) noise departs from the Gaussian model assumed by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). Rather than comparing estimators one by one, this paper treats OLS, the Polynomial Maximization Method of orders two and three (PMM2, PMM3) and the fractional branch of the Parametrically Adaptive Transition Polynomial (PATP) as members of a single continuously parameterised family, and states the problem as the synthesis of a decision rule that selects a member from the cumulants of one finite block, minimising the regret with respect to an oracle choice. The protocol combines synthetic polygaussian noise, real RF residuals from RadioML2018 over-the-air recordings, controlled heavy-tailed and platykurtic regimes, and leptokurtic blocks from two drone recordings. Per-block PMM2 is unstable at N=1024 because the skewness estimate has a low signal-to-noise ratio; pooling the cumulants over calibration blocks returns it to the OLS baseline. On real platykurtic RF noise PMM3 lowers the mean squared error from 3.28 × 10-3 to 2.76 × 10-3, and Newey–West HAC standard errors raise the empirical 95% coverage of all three point estimators from about 0.72 to 0.920–0.924 — PMM3 included (0.922) — which is still about three percentage points below nominal. In the heavy-tailed regime relative efficiency is reported as a ratio of medians of squared errors with paired bootstrap intervals, because the mean-based figure does not converge under infinite variance: at αs = 1.2 the oracle bound PATP* reaches 38.8 [33.8; 44.5] while the practically achievable adaptive rule AUTO_EXT reaches 6.41 [4.96; 8.26]. The family is two-sided — it gains on both non-Gaussian edges and returns exactly OLS on the Gaussian controls — unlike the one-sided Huber M-estimator, which loses 2–12% on platykurtic noise. Finally, we quantify what the dispatch rule costs: against a per-block oracle it selects a suboptimal member in 65.0% of the synthetic and 69.9% of the real-noise blocks, with regret 16.19 and 1.220 respectively, and on the synthetic set it is 10.7х worse than plain OLS. The resulting operational recommendation is therefore conditional, not unconditional dispatch: PMM3 for nearly symmetric platykurtic RF residuals, pooled calibration for PMM2, the fractional branch for heavy tails, and OLS whenever the block cumulants do not clearly indicate otherwise.
References
1.Middleton D. (1999). Non-Gaussian noise models in signal processing for telecommunications: new methods and results for Class A and Class B noise models. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 1129–1149. DOI: 10.1109/18.761256.
2. Clavier, L., Peters, G.W., Septier, F. et al. (2021). Impulsive noise modeling and robust receiver design. J Wireless Com Network, Vol. 2021, Article 13. DOI: 10.1186/s13638-020-01868-1.
3. Nikias C. L., Shao M. (1995). Signal Processing with Alpha-Stable Distributions and Applications. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 168 p. ISBN 0-471-10647-X.
4. Clavier L., Pedersen T., Rodriguez I., Lauridsen M., Egan M. (2021). Experimental evidence for heavy tailed interference in the IoT. IEEE Communications Letters, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 692–695. DOI: 10.1109/LCOMM.2020.3034430.
5. Huber P. J. (1964). Robust estimation of a location parameter. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 73–101. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177703732.
6. Huber P. J., Ronchetti E. M. (2009). Robust Statistics. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 380 p. ISBN 978-0-470-12990-6.
7. Zoubir A. M., Koivunen V., Chakhchoukh Y., Muma M. (2012). Robust estimation in signal processing: a tutorial-style treatment of fundamental concepts. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 61–80. DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2012.2183773.
8. Hosking J. R. M. (1990). L-moments: analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 105–124. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1990.tb01775.x.
9. Kunchenko Yu. P. (2002). Polynomial Parameter Estimations of Close to Gaussian Random Variables. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 396 p. ISBN 3-8322-0032-0.
10. Zabolotnii, S., Warsza, Z. L., Tkachenko, O. (2018). Polynomial Estimation of Linear Regression Parameters for the Asymmetric PDF of Errors. In: Szewczyk, R., Zieliński, C., Kaliczyńska, M. (eds) Automation 2018. AUTOMATION 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol 743, pp. 101–110. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77179-3_75.
11. Zabolotnii, S. W., Warsza, Z. L., Tkachenko, O. (2020). Estimation of Linear Regression Parameters of Symmetric Non-Gaussian Errors by Polynomial Maximization Method. In: Szewczyk, R., Zieliński, C., Kaliczyńska, M. (eds) Automation 2019. AUTOMATION 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol 920. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13273-6_59.
12. Zabolotnii S. (2026). Parametrically Adaptive Transition Polynomial: a Signed-Parity Continuous-alpha Extension of Kunchenko Stochastic Polynomials. arXiv:2605.14610. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.14610.
13. Shao M., Nikias C. L. (1993). Signal processing with fractional lower order moments: stable processes and their applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 7, pp. 986–1010. DOI: 10.1109/5.231338.
14. Rousseeuw P. J., Croux C. (1993). Alternatives to the median absolute deviation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 88, No. 424, pp. 1273–1283. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408.
15. Newey W. K., West K. D. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 703–708. DOI: 10.2307/1913610.
16. Zeileis A. (2004). Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 11, No. 10, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v011.i10.
17. Newey W. K., West K. D. (1994). Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 631–653. DOI: 10.2307/2297912.
18. Andrews D. W. K. (1991). Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 817–858. DOI: 10.2307/2938229.
19. Kiefer N. M., Vogelsang T. J. (2005). A new asymptotic theory for heteroskedasticity-autocorrelation robust tests. Econometric Theory, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1130–1164. DOI: 10.1017/S0266466605050565.
20. O'Shea T. J., Roy T., Clancy T. C. (2018). Over-the-air deep learning based radio signal classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 168–179. DOI: 10.1109/JSTSP.2018.2797022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 С. В. Заболотній, В. В. Коваль, А. В. Чепинога

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).