 Original Article
 Open access
 Published:
An efficient approach for antijamming in IRNSS receivers using improved PSO based parametric wavelet packet thresholding
Satellite Navigation volume 3, Article number: 21 (2022)
Abstract
The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System provides accurate positioning service to the users within and around India, extending up to 1500 km. However, when a receiver encounters a Continuous Wave Interference, its positioning accuracy degrades, or sometimes it even fails to work. Wavelet Packet Transform (WPT) is the most widely used technique for antijamming in Global Navigation Satellite System receivers. But the conventional method suffers from threshold drifting and employs inflexible thresholding functions. So, to address these issues, an efficient approach using Improved Particle Swarm Optimization based Parametric Wavelet Packet Thresholding (IPSOPWPT) is proposed. Firstly, a new parameter adaptive thresholding function is constructed. Then, a new form of inertia weight is presented to enhance the performance of PSO. Later, IPSO is used to optimize the key parameters of WPT. Finally, the implementation of the IPSOPWPT antijamming algorithm is discussed. The performance of the proposed technique is evaluated for various performance metrics in four jamming environments. The evaluation results manifest the proposed method’s efficacy compared to the conventional WPT in terms of antijamming capability. Also, the results show the ability of the new thresholding function to process various signals effectively. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the improved PSO outperforms the variants of PSO.
Introduction
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) provide the users with position, velocity, and timing services anytime and anywhere. The utilization of GNSS in diverse applications is growing rapidly due to the increasing demand for locationbased services. At present, the United States’ Global Positioning System (GPS), Russia’s GlObal NAvigation Satellite System (GLONASS), European Galileo, and China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) are the fully operational GNSS. In contrast, Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS) and Japan’s QuasiZenith Satellite System (QZSS) are independent and autonomous regional navigation systems. As GNSS uses spread spectrum technology, it possesses inherent antijamming capability. However, as the GNSS satellites are placed at an altitude of nearly 20,000 km to more than 30,000 km, the signal’s strength will be very weak when it reaches a receiver. Hence, the GNSS signals are easily prone to intentional (jamming) and unintentional interferences.
IRNSS, developed by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), is a regional navigation satellite system. It utilizes the L5 band (1176.45MHz) and Sband (2492.028 MHz) frequencies for navigation solutions. However, the Sband of IRNSS is usually congested by the signals from various unintentional sources such as Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Bluetooth, and Industrial Scientific Medical (ISM) band (Jagiwala & Shah, 2019). Unintentional interference to the L5 band includes the pulsed signals from Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), and Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) (Pena et al., 2020). In contrast, civilian jammers like Personal Privacy Devices (PPD) act as intentional ones. These sources of interference will degrade the accuracy of the IRNSS system or disrupt the operation completely. Therefore, to enhance the performance, effective countermeasures must be developed.
The literature reports several detection and mitigation techniques for the suppression of interference in GNSS receivers (Borio, 2021; Fadaei, 2016; Moralesferre et al., 2019; Silva Lorraine & Ramarakula, 2021a). In addition, many works were done to deal with the interference of IRNSS signals (Dey et al., 2019, 2021; Jagiwala & Shah, 2019, 2021; Lineswala & Shah, 2019; Lineswala et al., 2019; Silva Lorraine & Ramarakula, 2021b, 2021c). Recently, a new framework for detecting GNSS jamming in moving platforms with a low computational burden was proposed (Sharifitehrani et al., 2020). On the other hand, jamming mitigation techniques are commonly categorized into spatial domain (Li et al., 2011; Jiaqi Zhang et al., 2019), frequency domain (Borio et al., 2008; Capozza et al., 2000; Varshney & Jain, 2013), timedomain (Anyaegbu et al., 2008; Mao, 2008), and TimeFrequency (TF) domain methods (Musumeci & Dovis, 2013; Ouyang & Amin, 2001; Wang et al., 2019). Spatial domain methods that use antenna arrays effectively mitigate narrowband and wideband interferences. However, they suffer from high cost, additional hardware required in the GNSS receiver, and computational complexity. In adaptive filteringbased methods, the jamming is estimated in frequency or time domain. These methods are suitable for the mitigation of narrowband jamming in lowpower and lowcost applications. However, they require the prior knowledge about the jamming signal to have an acceptable antijamming performance. Also, single domain techniques like time or frequency domain are less effective in recovering the navigation signal, as the signal will be buried mostly in noise and interference when a receiver is operating in a severe interference environment. This could be resolved by TF domain techniques as the interfered signal could be represented in both domains. Wavelet Transform (WT) is the most prominent TF domain technique that has gained much attention in various applications like image processing (Nisha & Mohideen, 2016), signal processing (ElDahshan, 2011; X. Zhang et al., 2017), multipath mitigation in GPS receivers (Satirapod & Rizos, 2005), as well as to mitigate various types of interference in GNSS receivers (Chien, 2018; Chien et al., 2017; Mosavi et al., 2015; Musumeci & Dovis, 2013; Silva Lorraine & Ramarakula, 2021b, 2021c).
WT is a wellknown time scale transform. The signal received by WT is analyzed at various scales, and then its characteristics are extracted in both the time and frequency domains simultaneously. As a result, it works well against various types of jammers. Wavelet Packet Transform (WPT) is a generalization of the WT. It decomposes both the lowfrequency and highfrequency components, thereby providing a uniform frequency band division. Hence, WPT is preferable to WT and it is the widely used technique as the information about both frequency components is vital in antijamming applications. However, the performance of waveletbased methods is determined by the level of decomposition, wavelet function, threshold selection rule, and the thresholding function chosen. Among these parameters, the threshold selection rule and thresholding function are the most significant ones, which determine how well the interference can be suppressed while preserving the desired signal. The literature shows that the threshold obtained by the universal thresholding method drifts under different jamming scenarios (Chien, 2018). Furthermore, a higher threshold can compromise the desired components, while a lower threshold can retain the undesired components. Hence, estimating a reliable threshold under all the jamming scenarios is needed as threshold estimation significantly influences the antijamming effects of GNSS signals. Also, the works in the literature (Chien, 2018; Mosavi et al., 2015; Pashaian et al., 2016) use the traditional nonparametric thresholding functions (like soft and hard), which shrink the signal coefficients based on a fixed structure and reduce the flexibility to process various contaminated signals. So, this has motivated the authors to propose an efficient approach to improve the adaptive performance of WPT for antijamming. Given the above concerns, the following are the main contributions of this paper

(a)
To overcome the limitations of the traditional thresholding functions, a new parameter adaptive thresholding function is designed to induce the flexibility in processing various signals.

(b)
To determine an optimum threshold that can modify the wavelet coefficients in a way that results in noise and interference cancellation, an Improved Particle Swarm Optimization (IPSO) algorithm is proposed.

(c)
To enhance the performance of conventional PSO by providing a better tradeoff between exploration and exploitation, a new inertia weight adjustment strategy is introduced in the proposed IPSO algorithm.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, the implementation of IPSObased WPT with a parameter adaptive thresholding function to mitigate jamming in IRNSS receivers has not been done. The remaining sections are arranged in the following order. In “Signal modeling” section , modeling of the received and jamming signals is discussed. “Theoretical background” section focuses on the basic concept of WPT. Section “Proposed antijamming methodology” introduces the construction of the adaptive thresholding function, the adjustment strategy of inertia weight to modify standard PSO, the proposed antijamming scheme, and the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm. The findings are presented and discussed in “Results and discussions” section, and the conclusions are summarized in “Conclusion” section.
Signal modeling
Received signal model
The signal acquired at the receiver’s front end can be modeled as
where r(t), i(t), and n(t) represent the received signal, jamming signal, and the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) with variance \(\sigma^{2}\), respectively, and s(t) is the broadcasted navigation signal, written as
where P_{0} denotes the GNSS signal power, D(t) represents the navigation data (± 1), and C(t) is the PseudoRandom Noise (PRN) sequence. For IRNSS, the PRN codes for Standard Positioning Service (SPS) are similar to GPS Code Acquisition (C/A) codes, with a chip rate of 1.023 MHz, f_{0}, and \(\theta\) represent the carrier center frequency and phase delay, respectively.
The signal is then processed by a bandpass filter, amplifier, and mixer. The mixer downconverts the signal to an Intermediate Frequency (IF). Later, the analog IF signal is converted into digital by the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) at a sampling rate \(f_{s} = {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {T_{s} }}} \right. \kern\nulldelimiterspace} {T_{s} }}\), where T_{s} is the sampling time. The digital IF signal can be represented as
where r[k], s[k], i[k], and n[k] represent the digital versions of r(t), s(t), i(t), and n(t) respectively. k is the discretetime index.
The output of the ADC is then passed through the jamming suppression unit, acquisition, tracking, and navigation units to process the signal further. Figure 1 shows the system architecture of an antijamming GNSS receiver. Jammer canceller uses signal processing techniques, like the proposed IPSObased parametric WPT technique, and predicts the jamming signal \(\tilde{i}[k]\). Thereafter, the jamming signal is subtracted from the received signal to obtain the interferencefree GNSS signal \(\tilde{s}[k]\).
Jamming signal model
To observe the robustness of the proposed antijamming algorithm, both stationary and nonstationary Continuous Wave Interferences (CWI), which are commonly used against the GNSS receivers, have been considered. They are singletone CWI (SCWI), multitone CWI (MCWI), and chirp CWI (CCWI).
SCWI is one of the most impactful stationary interferences because of its easy design and implementation. Its spectral bandwidth tends to zero. Hence, in the case of a constant jamming power, most of the power of SCWI will be centralized at a single frequency. Therefore, it affects the GNSS signal to the most extent.
MCWI is a type of interference in which more than one interferer disrupts the GNSS signal. As most of the existing techniques work less effectively in the case of a multitone jammer, MCWI has been considered.
The nonstationary interference is usually characterized by linear CCWI. The frequency of the chirp signal increases (upchirp) or decreases (downchirp) with time. However, if the chirp frequency varies rapidly, sometimes, it can even make the jamming mitigation methods fail (Gao et al., 2016). Hence, CCWI with two different sweep bandwidths has been considered to observe the effectiveness of the proposed technique against various frequency sweeps.
The jamming signals can be modeled as follows

(a)
SCWI
$$i_{scwi} [k] = \sqrt {2P_{i} } \cos \left( {2\pi f_{i} k + \theta_{i} } \right)$$(4)where \(P_{i}\) represents the power of SCWI, f_{i} denotes the jamming signal frequency, and \(\theta_{i}\) is the jamming signal’s phase.

(b)
MCWI
$$i_{mcwi} [k] = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N} {\sqrt {2P_{{i_{n} }} } \cos \left( {2\pi f_{{i_{n} }} k + \theta_{{i_{n} }} } \right)}$$(5)where \(P_{{i_{n} }}\),\(f_{{i_{n} }}\), and \(\theta_{{i_{n} }}\) represents the power, frequency, and phase of the nth jammer, respectively, and N denotes the number of jammers.

(c)
CCWI
$$i_{chirp} [k] = \sqrt {2P_{i} } \cos \left[ {2\pi \left( {f_{i} \pm \frac{c}{2}k} \right)k + \theta_{i} } \right]$$(6)where \(P_{i}\) represents the chirp jammer’s power, \(f_{i}\) indicates the starting frequency (at time t = 0), \(\theta_{i}\) is the chirp signal’s phase, and c denotes the chip rate. ‘ + ’ is considered for an upchirp, while ‘–’ is considered for a downchirp.
Theoretical background
Transform Domain (TD) techniques are advanced signal processing techniques that represent the received signal in a different domain. Therefore, they can easily identify, isolate, process, and remove the interference in a better way while preserving the desired signal. TD techniques are usually implemented after the ADC stage in a GNSS receiver. A wellknown transformation is a timefrequency representation in which the signal can be represented over time and frequency simultaneously.
Some of the most used time–frequency antijamming methods in GNSS receivers are ShortTime Fourier Transform (STFT) (Abedi et al., 2018; Ouyang & Amin, 2001), Matched Signal Transform (MST) (Shen & Papandreousuppappola, 2005), Wigner Ville Distribution (WVD) (Fadaei, 2016), and WT (Chien, 2018; Mosavi et al., 2015, 2017; Musumeci & Dovis, 2013). In recent years, waveletbased methods have also been used to mitigate CW jamming (Jagiwala & Shah, 2021; Silva Lorraine & Ramarakula, 2021b, 2021c) and outofband WiFi interference on IRNSS Sband signals (Jagiwala & Shah, 2019). STFT is a windowedFourier transform that uses a fixed window; hence, the time–frequency resolution of STFT remains constant. Therefore, it is not suitable for nonstationary signals. MST works well only when the interference characteristics are known a priori. Moreover, the computational complexity of MST is higher than STFT. The WVD has a good time–frequency resolution, but suffers from crossterm interference in the case of multicomponent signals. So, to reduce the crossterm interference, pseudoWVD has been introduced; however, it suffers from energy leakage at the beginning and end of the TF plane (Lv & Qin, 2019). In wavelet transform, a scalable window is used, i.e., a wider window for lowfrequency analysis and a narrower window for highfrequency analysis. Hence, WT is an excellent tool to deal with different kinds of interference as it provides a good tradeoff between time and frequency resolution. WT is a linear, squareintegrable transform that has a kernel (mother transform). All the other wavelets \(\psi_{s,\tau } (t)\) can be obtained by shifting and scaling (compressing and expanding) the mother wavelet as
where \(\psi (t)\) represents the mother wavelet, s is the scaling parameter, and τ is the shifting parameter.
Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) is computed by continuously shifting the scaled analyzing function over a signal for each scale. As a result, it suffers from redundancy issues and is therefore unsuitable for practical applications. So, to overcome this, Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT), which uses discrete scales and translations, has been introduced. Discrete wavelets are obtained by shifting and scaling the mother wavelet as
where \(s_{o}\) is the dilation or scaling parameter, \(\tau_{o}\) is the translation or shifting parameter that depends on the dilation parameter, i and j are both integers, and \(\frac{1}{{\sqrt {s_{0}^{i} } }}\) normalizes the energy across various scales.
DWT is implemented using a recursive filter scheme. First, the signal is sent through a High Pass Filter (HPF) and Low Pass Filter (LPF). The output of the HPF is known as the detail coefficient, while the output of the LPF is known as the approximation coefficient. The approximation coefficient is then further decomposed iteratively, whereas the detail coefficient is retained. Therefore, due to the nonuniform spectral decomposition, frequency localization at higher frequency levels is lost for time localization.
Wavelet packets were first introduced by Coifman and Meyer (Kaiser, 1994). In WPT, both the approximation and detail components are further decomposed at each level. Hence, the reconstruction of the signal is obtained by summing the approximation parts and detail parts as shown below
where \(\tilde{r}[k]\) indicates the reconstructed signal, L represents decomposition depth,\(a_{l} [k]\) and \(d_{l} [k]\) are the approximation and detail components at the level \(l\).
WPT offers uniform spectral coverage, better frequency resolution, and signal analysis. As the signal details of both the low and highfrequency components are desirable for interference suppression, WPT, which has a higher frequency resolution than DWT, is considered in this work. Fig. 2 shows the decomposition and reconstruction of the received signal using WPT at decomposition level 2. HP and LP stand for high pass and low pass. While g[k], h[k] symbolize LP and HP filters at the decomposition side, g^{1}[k], h^{1}[k] are LP and HP filters at the reconstruction side.
Proposed antijamming methodology
Construction of parametric wavelet thresholding function
The thresholding function defines the various estimation approaches for the wavelet coefficients. The main idea behind the thresholding function is to remove the smaller wavelet coefficients and retain the larger ones. The two most prominent thresholding functions are hard and soft thresholding. However, hard thresholding gets limited because of the discontinuity at the threshold value \(( \pm T)\). As a result, it causes fluctuation while reconstructing the signal. On the other hand, soft thresholding is better in continuity, but it gets limited by the deviation between the estimated and actual wavelet coefficients during the reconstruction (He et al., 2015). Therefore, to obtain a tradeoff between the two thresholding functions, a new parameter adaptive wavelet thresholding function based on the Softsign function has been constructed to have a better antijamming effect. The graph of the Softsign function looks very similar to the hyperbolic tangent function (tanh). However, the Softsign converges in a polynomial form, while the tanh function converges exponentially. Soft sign is expressed as
The properties of Softsign are defined as follows.

1.
The range of the function is ( − 1, 1), and its domain is \(\left( {  \infty , + \infty } \right)\).

2.
It obeys monotonicity.

3.
It possesses two horizontal asymptotes at \(f(x) = 1\) and \(f(x) =  1\).

4.
It is differentiable in its domain.
Based on Eq. (10), the expression for the new Softsign Thresholding Function (SSTF) is constructed as
where \(\tilde{C}\) is the thresholded coefficient, C is the wavelet coefficient on a particular band, and sgn represents the signum function whose value is 1 for C > 0, 0 for C = 0, and 1 for C < 0. T is the threshold, and β is the shape tuning parameter that characterizes the function f(C). The value of β lies in the range of (0, + \(\infty\)). The shape parameter offers more adjustability to the function. When β approaches 0, this new function acts as a soft thresholding function; when β approaches \(\infty\), it acts as a hard thresholding function.
The properties and proof of the new thresholding function are presented below.
Theorem 1
The SSTF function is continuous in its domain \(\left( {  \infty , + \infty } \right)\).
Proof
From the definition of continuity, the new function should be continuous in the ranges of \(\left( {  \infty ,  T} \right)\),\(\left( {  T, + T} \right)\) and \(\left( { + T, + \infty } \right)\). Therefore, the continuity of SSTF at − T and + T points can be proved as follows.
When \(C > T\) the SSTF function can be rewritten as
So,
So, from Eq. (13) and Eq. (15), we obtain that \(\mathop {\lim }\limits_{{C \to T^{  } }} f(C) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{{C \to T^{ + } }} f(C) = f(T)\).
Hence at C = T, the function is continuous. Likewise, at C = T, the function’s continuity can be verified. As a result, \(f(C)\) is defined as a continuous function in the domain \(\left( {  \infty , + \infty } \right)\).
Comment: It can be observed that the limitation of the hard thresholding function, i.e., discontinuity at the threshold \(\pm T\), can be overcome by the SSTF function.
Theorem 2
The asymptote of the SSTF function is \(f(C) = C\).
Proof
As per the definition, \(y = L\) is a horizontal asymptote of the function \(y = f(x)\) if \(\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to + \infty } f(x) = L\) or \(\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to  \infty } f(x) = L\)
Therefore, when \(C \to + \infty\)
Similarly, when \(C \to  \infty\)
So that
Hence, \(f(C) = C\) is an asymptote of SSTF. Similarly, it can be proved for the other case as well.
Comment: From theorem 2, it can be observed that as C increases, \(f(C)\) gradually approaches C. Hence, it overcomes the limitation of the soft thresholding function as it reduces the difference between the actual and estimated coefficients.
Theorem 3
SSTF is a higherorder differentiable function in the domain \(\left( {  \infty ,  T} \right]\) and \(\left[ { + T, + \infty } \right)\).
Proof
Any function obtained by the mathematical operations of the elementary functions is an elementary function. So, as per the elementary function property, SSTF is a highorder differentiable function.
Comment: As SSTF satisfies theorem 3, it helps to reconstruct the signal smoothly.
Figure 3 shows the comparative analysis of hard, soft, and SSTF thresholding functions at a threshold value of 20. To observe the behavior of SSTF, the adjustable parameter β is varied. It can be perceived from Fig. 3 that the new function offers a tradeoff strategy between the two traditional thresholding functions.
Improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO)
The determination of the threshold plays a major role in jamming signal estimation. If the threshold value is very small, it can retain the undesired components, and if the threshold is very large, it can filter out the desired components. The universal threshold rule is the most used one among all the threshold rules. However, it suffers from threshold drifting (Chien, 2018). Similarly, the choice of the new thresholding function’s shape tuning parameter affects the reconstruction of the signal. Generally, the tuning parameter is selected iteratively. But as it adjusts the thresholding function, it is of utmost importance to find the shape tuning parameter. So, to address these issues, optimization algorithms have been employed. PSO has been chosen due to its simplicity, easy implementation, high accuracy, faster convergence, lesser control parameters, and computational efficiency (Zang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2014). Hence, owing to its numerous advantages, PSO has gained a lot of attention in many areas like signal denoising (Zhang et al., 2017), load forecasting (Kumar & Veerakumari, 2012), filter design (Sharma et al., 2016), image processing (Satish & Kumar, 2020), fault diagnosis (Zhang & Wang, 2020), etc. However, PSO suffers from the local optimum problem. Therefore, the strategy of adaptive inertia weight has been implemented to enhance the efficacy of conventional PSO.
Standard PSO algorithm
PSO is the most extensively used swarm intelligence technique developed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995 (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995). The swarm behavior of birds flocking has been the inspiration for PSO. The bird is considered as a particle in PSO. Through its efforts and with the cooperation of the neighboring particles, the particle will search for its optimal solution. The process of the PSO is described as follows. First, the population size, velocity, position, and the number of iterations are initialized. The particles move through the dimensional solution space with randomly assigned velocities. Each particle’s performance is evaluated using a fitness function. Then, as per the local best (\(Lbest\)) and global best (\(Gbest\)) fitness values, the particle’s velocity and position are updated as
where the pth particle’s velocity and position factor in the dth dimension is indicated by V_{pd} and X_{pd} , the current iteration number is denoted by j, Lbest represents the particle’s best position, and Gbest is the swarm’s best position. c_{1} is the cognitive acceleration factor that pushes the particles towards Lbest, c_{2} is the social acceleration factor that pushes the particle towards Gbest, r_{1}, r_{2} denotes the random numbers between 0 and 1, and w represents the inertia weight.
The PSO process is iterated until it reaches the maximum number of iterations or the termination criteria are met.
Modified inertia weight formulation
The inertia weight is an important parameter of PSO that governs the effect of the previous particle’s velocity on the current particle’s velocity. A larger inertia weight produces a better global search, whereas a smaller inertia weight produces a better local search. A good global search prevents the particle from being stuck at the local optimum easily, and a good local search ensures faster convergence speed and better accuracy. So, to provide a better tradeoff between exploration (global search) and exploitation (local search), inertia weight (w) must be chosen properly. In 1998, Shi and Eberhart (1998) first introduced a constant inertia weight into the original PSO to provide a balance between the global and local search. Many adaptive inertia weight strategies were later reported in the literature for enhancing PSO performance. Some classical strategies include random inertia weight (Eberhart & Shi, 2001), linear timevarying inertia weight (Shi & Eberhart, 1999), and nonlinear timevarying inertia weight (Chatterjee & Siarry, 2006). In a random inertia weight, w changes randomly and can be adapted to dynamic systems (Eberhart & Shi, 2001).
Whereas in the timevarying inertia weight strategy, w varies linearly or nonlinearly with time in a decreasing or increasing manner. These strategies are useful in most applications for improving the performance of PSO. However, to have a better PSO performance, it was ascertained that inertia weight should be higher initially and decreased later (Shi & Eberhart, 1998). This facilitates a finer global exploration at the initial stages and local exploration at the latter stages. But, linearly decreasing inertia weight strategies were found to be ineffective for dynamic systems (Eberhart & Shi, 2001). So, nonlinear decreasing inertia weight strategies have gained much attraction. Therefore, a new nonlinear decreasing inertia weight strategy based on the Softsign function is developed in this work. As the Softsign function is simple and easy to implement, the Softsign Inertia Weight (SSIW) is considered in this paper and formulated as
where w_{max} denotes the maximum value of inertia weight, w_{min} is the minimum value of inertia weight, j is the current iteration number, and iter_{max} represents the maximum iteration number.
Figure 4 shows the variation of the proposed inertia weight with respect to the number of iterations. It can be observed that the SSIW strategy meets the demand of the global search at the initial stages and faster convergence at the latter stages.
Proposed improved PSObased parametric WPT antijamming algorithm
Steps for the implementation of the proposed antijamming algorithm

Step 1: Wavelet packet decomposition
Initially, the wavelet function and decomposition level must be chosen. Then, WPT is used to decompose the received signal \(r[k]\). The optimal tree structure of WPT is selected based on the Shannon entropy criterion.
The coefficients obtained after the decomposition process are represented as
$$C_{l} [k] = wp\left( {r[k]} \right)$$(22)where \(C_{l} [k]\) is the wavelet coefficient on a particular band, and \(wp\) is the wavelet packet operator.

Step 2: Determine the optimal threshold (T) and shape tuning parameter \((\beta )\) using IPSO.

1.
Set the population size, maximum iteration number, search space dimension, particle velocity, and position. The problem’s dimension is taken as the particle’s position.

2.
Fitness function formulation: The particle’s fitness value is evaluated using the fitness function. In this work, the fitness function is formulated based on performance metrics. The following performance indices are considered.
Mean Square Error (MSE): MSE defines the accuracy of the antijamming algorithm. The lower the MSE value, the lesser the variation between the two signals is. If \(s[k]\) is the original signal,\(\tilde{s}[k]\) represents the reconstructed signal, k and M denote the sample number and signal length, then MSE is represented as
$$MSE = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M} {\left( {\tilde{s}[k]  s[k]} \right)^{2} }$$(23)Mean Absolute Error (MAE): It is similar to MSE. The lower the value of MAE, the better the accuracy of the proposed technique is. It is represented as
$$MAE = \frac{1}{M}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M} {\left {\tilde{s}[k]  s[k]} \right}$$(24)Correlation Coefficient (CC): It measures the similarity between the reconstructed and original signals. The closer to 1 the value of CC is, the more similar the reconstructed signal and the original signal will be.
$$CC_{X,Y} = \frac{1}{M  1}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M} {\left( {\frac{{x[k]  \overline{x} }}{{\sigma_{x} }}} \right)} \left( {\frac{{y[k]  \overline{y} }}{{\sigma_{y} }}} \right)$$(25)where \(x[k]\) and \(y[k]\) are the two discrete sequences, \(\overline{x}\) is the mean of x, \(\overline{y}\) is the mean of y, and \(\sigma_{x}\), \(\sigma_{y}\) denote the standard deviation of x and y, respectively.
Signal to Noise Ratio Improvement (SNR_{imp}): It measures the variation between the output and input SNR. The higher the value of SNR improvement is, the more accurate the antijamming algorithm will be. It is expressed as
$$SNR_{imp} (dB) = 10\log \frac{{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M} {\left( {r[k]  s[k]} \right)^{2} } }}{{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{M} {\left( {\tilde{s}[k]  s[k]} \right)^{2} } }}$$(26)Accordingly, the MSE based fitness function is formulated as
$$ {\text{fitness}} = {\text{min (MSE)}}$$(27)A similar formulation has been adopted for MAE, while for CC and SNR_{imp}, PSO is used to find the maximum value.
3. Update the velocity and position using Eq. (19) and Eq. (20).
The inertia weight is calculated using the SSIW expressed in Eq. (21).
4. Update the swarm: The new position’s fitness value is computed. If the present value is better than the previous Lbest then it is taken as Lbest; otherwise, the previous value is retained. Similarly, Gbest is updated accordingly.
5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated until the maximum number of iterations is reached.

1.

Step 3: Thresholding using SSTF
The resulting coefficients \(C_{l} [k]\) are then thresholded using the new SSTF with the obtained optimal values \((T,\beta )\) of the thresholding function as follows
$$\tilde{C}_{l} [k] = TF(C_{l} [k],T)$$(28)where \(\tilde{C}\) represents the thresholded coefficient, T stands for the threshold, and TF denotes the thresholding operator.

Step 4: Signal reconstruction
Using inverse WPT, the signal is reconstructed from the thresholded coefficients as follows
$$\tilde{i}[k] = wp^{  1} (\tilde{C}_{l} [k])$$(29)
Due to its low signal strength, the navigation signal will be buried in noise and interference when it reaches the receiver. Therefore, the jamming signal is estimated from the WPT process. Later, the jamming signal is subtracted from the received signal to get the desired IRNSS signal \(\tilde{s}[k]\).
The flowchart of the proposed antijamming approach is depicted in Fig. 5.
Computational complexity
The computational load of the proposed algorithm is induced mostly due to WPT (decomposition and reconstruction), thresholding operation, and IPSO.
The computational complexity of the wavelet packet analysis is specified by the decomposition level L, signal length M, and the wavelet filter length l_{w}. Signal reconstruction also takes the same number of filtering operations. Therefore, the total number of the operations performed for decomposition and reconstruction can be expressed as (Musumeci & Dovis, 2014):
For the thresholding operation, assuming that the coefficients to be thresholded are n digit numbers, Eq. (11) gives a computational complexity of O(n^{2}).
The computational cost of IPSO is obtained as follows. The computational cost of the original PSO algorithm is specified by initialization, evaluation, velocity, and position update (Song & Hua, 2020). Additionally, IPSO requires an inertia weight update. Therefore, their complexities are O(Pd), O(Pd), and O(3Pd), where P and d represent the swarm size and the dimension of the solution space, respectively. Therefore, the total computational complexity of the IPSO algorithm is O(Pd).
Results and discussions
To analyze the performance of the proposed IPSObased Parametric Wavelet Packet Thresholding (IPSOPWPT), four types of jamming signals with different levels of Jamming to Signal power Ratio (JSR) were taken into account. For SCWI, the jamming offset frequency was set close to the center frequency of the IRNSS signal to observe the jammer effect. MCWI was generated by combining four sinusoidal signals. For the generation of nonstationary signals, two types of CCWI were considered. In the first case, a linear CCWI with a sweep bandwidth of 10.72 MHz was taken, and the sweep period was set to 5000 samples long. In the second case, the sweep bandwidth was set to 10KHz with the same sweep period. For the generation of the IRNSS Sband signal, D[k] was binomially distributed with values of ±1, and PRN1 was used to generate C[k]. Table 1 presents the design parameters of IRNSS signal and jamming signals. The IPSO parameters considered for the simulation are furnished in Table 2. All the simulation experiments were carried out on the same computer, which had a 3.6GHz CPU frequency, 8GB of RAM, and MATLAB version of 2017b.
Selection of threshold
Traditional threshold selection rules like the universal threshold (Mosavi et al., 2015), Rigrsure, Minimax, Sqtwolog, and other threshold selection methods mentioned in the literature for antijamming (Chien, 2018), (Pashaian et al., 2016) were considered to evaluate the performance of the optimizationbased threshold approach. The thresholding function was chosen as soft thresholding for all the threshold rule comparisons. Also, simulations were run for all the wavelet families when JSR varied from 30 to 60 dB, and Discrete Meyer (Dmey) wavelet was chosen based on the performance indices as it appears to perform well under all the jamming scenarios. The decomposition level was set to 4 as per the reference (Silva Lorraine & Ramarakula, 2021c). The four metrics mentioned in Eqs. (23) to (26) were selected as the comparative indices. The range of threshold values obtained by each method under JSR of 30 to 60 dB are listed in Table 3 for comparative purposes. Table 3 shows that the resulting value of universal, minimax, sqtwolog, and Pashaian threshold methods are very high, making the jammer parts to be compromised (Chien et al., 2017). Hence, the jamming signal cannot be estimated properly. Also, there seems to be threshold drifting for universal and Pashaian methods under various jamming scenarios. Minimax and sqtwolog are fixed form thresholds that do not depend on the signal characteristics but instead only on the signal length. As a result, the threshold is nonadaptive to the incoming signals. For rigrsure and Chien methods, the undesired components might be retained as the threshold is very low. Hence, they are ineffective in suppressing the jamming signal when only WPT technique is used. However, cascading WPT with other techniques might improve the performance (Chien, 2018). Therefore, in this paper, the feasibility of using optimizationbased threshold selection is explored.
For the optimizationbased threshold method, the threshold range was set to [0,2] as per the reference (Chien et al., 2017), and standard PSO (SPSO) was selected as an optimization technique for the comparison of threshold selection methods. Table 3 shows that the threshold values obtained by the proposed method provide a tradeoff between high and low threshold values under all jamming scenarios. In addition, it addresses the issues of fixed threshold and threshold drifting. Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9 displays the performance of various threshold selection rules. It can be observed that the proposed optimizationbased threshold (SPSO based) performs significantly better under SCWI, MCWI, CCWI case 1 (CCWI1), and CCWI case 2 (CCWI2) environments.
SCWI environment
Under the SCWI scenario, it is observed that the optimizationbased threshold approach has an average improvement of 47% over universal, 70% over rigrsure, 16% over minimax, 30% over sqtwolog, 70% over Chein, and 54% over Pashaian threshold methods in terms of MSE. Similarly, an average improvement of 15%, 53%, 5%, 9%, 53%, and 19% in terms of MAE and 23%, 32%, 4%, 9%, 35%, and 40% in terms of CC over the respective threshold rule methods are noticed. In terms of SNR improvement, a gain of 2.9 dB, 5.4 dB, 0.8 dB, 1.6 dB, 5.4 dB, and 3.4 dB over universal, rigrsure, minimax, sqtwolog, Chein, and Pashaian methods, respectively, is observed when the optimizationbased threshold is used.
MCWI environment
Under multitone jamming environment, an average improvement of 30%, 69%, 11%, 18%, 69%, and 36% in terms of MSE, similarly, an average improvement of 10%, 51%, 5%, 6%, 51% and 11% in terms of MAE and 12%, 39%, 3%, 5%, 41% and 16% in terms of CC over universal, rigrsure, minimax, sqtwolog, Chein and Pashaian methods are noticed. In terms of SNR improvement, a gain of 1.7 dB, 5.1 dB, 0.5 dB, 0.9 dB, 5.1 dB, and 2.1 dB over the respective threshold rule methods is observed.
CCWI environment
An average improvement of 50%, 66%, 14%, 33%, 66%, and 55% under CCWI1, and 45%, 68%, 17%, 31%, 69%, and 44% under CCWI2 in terms of MSE is observed. Similarly, an average improvement of 22%, 50%, 3%, 8%, 50%, 25% under CCWI1 and 10%, 52%, 5%, 8%, 52%, 14% under CCWI2, in terms of MAE and 31%, 23%, 3%, 8%, 23%, 43% under CCWI1 and 14%, 30%, 3%, 7%, 30%, 16% under CCWI2 in terms of CC over universal, rigrsure, minimax, sqtwolog, Chein and Pashaian methods are noticed. In terms of SNR improvement, a gain of 3.1 dB, 4.8 dB, 0.6 dB, 1.7 dB, 4.9 dB, 3.6 dB under CCWI1 and 2.6 dB, 5.2 dB, 0.8 dB, 1.6 dB, 5.3 dB, 2.5 dB under CCWI2 over the respective threshold rule methods are observed.
Selection of thresholding function
The Softsign thresholding function constructed in this paper was compared with the wellknown nonparametric thresholding functions such as soft (Chien, 2018; Mosavi et al., 2015; Pashaian et al., 2016), hard (Mosavi et al., 2015; Pashaian et al., 2016), and parametric thresholding functions such as trimmed (Sumithra & Thanushkodi, 2009), Sigmoid (Yi et al., 2012) and hyperbolic (He et al., 2015) to validate the reliability of the proposed function. For all the previous thresholding functions, the threshold was obtained using the minimax threshold rule as it displays better performance than the other conventional thresholding rules as depicted in Fig. 6, 7, 8, 9. However, for the parametric SSTF, the optimal threshold and shape tuning parameter were obtained by the SPSO. Figures 10 and 11 show the comparative analysis of all the thresholding functions in terms of MSE and MAE. While Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the results obtained in terms of SNR improvement and CC. It can be seen from the results that the MSE and MAE values obtained by the SPSObased SSTF are smaller, while the SNR improvement and CC values obtained are greater when compared with the other thresholding functions. This demonstrates that the proposed SSTF works well to modify the wavelet coefficients in a way that reduces noise and SCW, MCW, CCW1, and CCW2 jammers. That is, the optimizationbased parametric wavelet packet thresholding works better than the wavelet packet thresholding approaches by Chien (2018); Mosavi et al. (2015); and Pashaian et al. (2016) under all jamming scenarios, as it induces the flexibility to process various signals.
The proposed SSTF shows an average improvement of 23% over soft, 19% over hard, 6% over trimmed, 46% over sigmoid, and 39% over hyperbolic thresholding functions in terms of MSE. Similarly, an average improvement of 10%, 12%, 4%, 24%, and 20% in terms of MAE is observed. Significant improvement is also observed in terms of SNR_{imp} and CC.
Selection of optimization algorithm
Six optimization algorithms were taken to validate the performance of the proposed Improved PSO algorithm. They are Firefly Algorithm (FA) (Jones & Boizanté, 2011), Differential Evolution (DE) (Jones & Boizanté, 2011), hybrid PSO and Gravitational Search algorithm (PSOGSA) (Mirjalili & Hashim, 2010), SPSO (Bansal et al., 2011), Random PSO (RPSO) (Bansal et al., 2011) in which a random inertia weight is considered, and Linear decreasing inertia weight PSO (LPSO) (Bansal et al., 2011). The thresholding function for all the comparisons was taken as SSTF, and the simulation parameters were taken as that of IPSO, as presented in Table 2. The comparative analysis of IPSO with the wellknown optimization algorithms and variants of PSO is summarized in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9. The optimal values obtained have been bolded. In terms of MSE, the IPSO algorithm shows an average improvement of 2.7% over FA, 2.2% over DE, 2.4% over PSOGSA, 1.9% over SPSO, 2.7% over RPSO, and 2.6% over LPSO. In terms of MAE, it shows 1.9%, 1.6%, 1.6%, 0.5%, 1.5%, and 1.7% average improvement over the respective optimization algorithms. The summarized results show that the proposed IPSObased PWPT outperforms the other optimizationbased PWPT algorithms under all jamming environments in terms of all the performance metrics.
Conclusions
CWI is the most indigenous threat to the GNSS system. In this paper, a novel parametric wavelet packet thresholding based on IPSO is proposed to mitigate CWI in IRNSS receivers. A simple parametric wavelet thresholding function based on the Softsign function is constructed, and its properties are also proven mathematically. Also, a new nonlinear decreasing inertia weight modifying strategy is employed to overcome the local optimum problem of conventional PSO. Then, the improved PSO is used to determine the optimal threshold and shape tuning parameter of SSTF. The results indicate that the optimizationbased threshold estimation overcomes the thresholding drifting issue encountered with the universal threshold proposed in the Mosavi method. Besides, the newly designed parameter adaptive thresholding function, i.e., SSTF, overcomes the limitations of hard and soft thresholding functions. Therefore, a smooth signal can be reconstructed without discontinuity at the threshold value and reduced deviation between the estimated and original wavelet coefficients. Also, SSTF outperforms the wellknown parametric thresholding functions like trimmed, sigmoid, and hyperbolic. In addition, the previous WPTbased jamming mitigation techniques require 7–10 decomposition levels to have acceptable interference mitigation, whereas the proposed method seems to work well at a lower decomposition level of 4 under all the jamming scenarios. The results show that the proposed IPSObased PWPT approach has better capability to combat both stationary and nonstationary jammers than the conventional WPT.
Availability of data and materials
The IRNSS and jamming signal data were generated by simulation. However, if required, the datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
 ADC:

Analog to digital converter
 AWGN:

Additive white Gaussian noise
 BDS:

BeiDou Navigation Satellite System
 CA:

Code acquisition
 CC:

Correlation coefficient
 CPU:

Central processing unit
 CWI:

Continuous wave interference
 CCWI:

Chirp CWI
 CWT:

Continuous wavelet transform
 DE:

Differential evolution
 DME:

Distance measuring equipment
 DWT:

Discrete wavelet transform
 FA:

Firefly algorithm
 GLONASS:

Global navigation satellite system (Russian:Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema)
 GNSS:

Global navigation satellite systems
 GPS:

Global Positioning System
 GSA:

Gravitational search algorithm
 HPF:

High pass filter
 IF:

Intermediate frequency
 IPSO:

Improved particle swarm optimization
 IRNSS:

Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System
 ISRO:

Indian Space Research Organization
 ISM:

Industrial scientific medical
 JSR:

Jamming to signal power ratio
 JTIDS:

Joint Tactical Information Distribution System
 LPF:

Low pass filter
 MAE:

Mean absolute error
 MCWI:

Multitone CWI
 MIDS:

Multifunctional Information Distribution System
 MSE:

Mean square error
 MST:

Matched signal transform
 PPD:

Personal privacy devices
 PRN:

Pseudorandom noise
 PSO:

Particle swarm optimization
 QZSS:

QuasiZenith Satellite System
 RAM:

Random access memory
 RPSO:

Random PSO
 SCWI:

Singletone CWI
 SPS:

Standard Positioning Service
 SPSO:

Standard PSO
 SSIW:

Softsign inertia weight
 SSTF:

Softsign thresholding function
 STFT:

Shorttime Fourier transform
 TACAN:

Tactical air navigation
 TD:

Transform domain
 TF:

Time–frequency
 WPT:

Wavelet packet transform
 WT:

Wavelet transform
 WVD:

Wigner ville distribution
 WiFi:

Wireless fidelity
References
Abedi, M., Rezaei, M. J., & Mosavi, M. R. (2018). Accurate interference mitigation in Global Positioning System receivers based on doublestep ShortTime Fourier Transform. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 37(6), 2450–2470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000340170670y
Anyaegbu, E., Brodin, G., Cooper, J., Aguado, E., & Boussakta, S. (2008). An integrated pulsed interference mitigation for GNSS receivers. The Journal of Navigation, 61(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463307004572
Bansal, J. C., Singh, P. K., Saraswat, M., Verma, A., Jadon, S. S., & Abraham, A. (2011). Inertia weight strategies in Particle Swarm Optimization. In: Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing, Salamanca, Spain, 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1109/NaBIC.2011.6089659
Borio, D. (2021). GNSS interference mitigation: A measurement and position domain assessment. Navigation, 68(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/navi.391
Borio, D., Camoriano, L., & Lo Presti, L. (2008). Twopole and multipole notch filters: A computationally effective solution for GNSS interference detection and mitigation. IEEE Systems Journal, 2(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITST.2007.4295837
Capozza, P. T., Holland, B. J., Hopkinson, T. M., & Landrau, R. L. (2000). A singlechip narrowband frequencydomain excisor for a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. IEEE Journal of SolidState Circuits, 35(3), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1109/4.826823
Chatterjee, A., & Siarry, P. (2006). Nonlinear inertia weight variation for dynamic adaptation in particle swarm optimization. Computers and Operations Research, 33(3), 859–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.08.012
Chien, Y. R. (2018). Wavelet packet transformbased antijamming scheme with new threshold selection algorithm for GPS receivers. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 41(3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2018.1454857
Chien, Y. R., Chen, P. Y., & Fang, S. H. (2017). Novel antijamming algorithm for GNSS receivers using waveletpackettransformbased adaptive predictors. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, E100(A(2)), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1587/transfun.E100.A.602
Dey, A., Singh, P., & Sharma, N. (2019) Performance evaluation of tracking loop under RF interference using NavIC softwarereceiver. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE AsiaPacific Microwave Conference (APMC), Singapore, 1050–1052. https://doi.org/10.1109/APMC46564.2019.9038472
Dey, A., Iyer, K., & Sharma, N. (2021) Sband interference detection and mitigation using a vector trackingbased NavIC software receiver. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, ION GNSS+ 2021. St. Louis, Missouri, 3464–3476
Eberhart, R. C., & Shi, Y. (2001). Tracking and optimizing dynamic systems with particle swarms. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546). Seoul, Korea (South), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2001.934376
ElDahshan, E.S.A. (2011). Genetic algorithm and wavelet hybrid scheme for ECG signal denoising. Telecommunication Systems, 46(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1123501092862
Fadaei, N. (2016). Detection, Characterization and Mitigation of GNSS Jamming Interference Using PreCorrelation Methods (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/2894/ucalgary_2016_fadaei_nahal.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
Gao, G. X., Sgammini, M., Lu, M., & Kubo, N. (2016). Protecting GNSS receivers from jamming and interference. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(6), 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2016.2525938
He, C., Xing, J., Li, J., Yang, Q., & Wang, R. (2015). A new wavelet thresholding function based on Hyperbolic tangent function. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/528656
Jagiwala, D. D., & Shah, S. N. (2021). Waveletbased interference perception and reduction approach for NB and CW RFI on NavIC Sband Signals. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT). Bangalore, India, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CONECCT52877.2021.9622729
Jagiwala, D. D., & Shah, S. N. (2019). Perception and reduction of WiFi interference on NavIC signals. IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 13(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1049/ietrsn.2018.5291
Jones, K. O., & Boizanté, G. (2011). Comparison of firefly algorithm optimisation, particle swarm optimisation and differential evolution. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and TechnologiesCompSysTech’2011, 578, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1145/2023607.2023640
Kaiser, G. (1994). A Friendly guide to wavelets (1st ed.). Birkhäuser Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/9780817681111.
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle Swarm Optimisation. In: Proceedings of ICNN’95  International Conference on Neural Networks. Perth, WA, Australia, 1942–1948. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783030611118_2
Kumar, C. H. J., & Veerakumari, M. (2012). Load forecasting of Andhra Pradesh grid using PSO, DE algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering and Technology, 1(9), 179–184.
Li, M., Dempster, A. G., Balaei, A. T., Rizos, C., & Wang, F. (2011). Switchable beam steering/null steering algorithm for CW interference mitigation in GPS C/A code receivers. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 47(3), 1564–1579. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2011.5937250
Lineswala, P. L., Jagiwala, D. D., & Shah, S. N. (2019). Hypothesis testbased detection of WiFi interference on NavIC/IRNSS Sband signal. Journal of Navigation, 72(4), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037346331900002X
Lineswala, P. L., & Shah, S. N. (2019). Performance analysis of different interference detection techniques for navigation with Indian constellation. IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 13(8), 1207–1213. https://doi.org/10.1049/ietrsn.2019.0091
Lv, Q., & Qin, H. (2019). An improved method based on TimeFrequency distribution to detect timevarying interference for GNSS receivers with single antenna. IEEE Access, 7, 38608–38617. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906262
Mao, W. L. (2008). Novel SREKFbased recurrent neural predictor for narrowband/FM interference rejection in GPS. AEU International Journal of Electronics and Communications, 62(3), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeue.2007.04.002
Mirjalili, S., & Hashim, S. Z. M. (2010). A new hybrid PSOGSA algorithm for function optimization. In: 2010 International Conference on Computer and Information Application.Tianjin, China, 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIA.2010.6141614
Moralesferre, R., Richter, P., Falletti, E., De la Fuente, A., & Lohan, E. S. (2019). A survey on coping with intentional interference in satellite navigation for manned and unmanned aircraft. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 22(1), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2949178
Mosavi, M. R., Pashaian, M., Rezaei, M. J., & Mohammadi, K. (2015). Jamming mitigation in global positioning system receivers using wavelet packet coefficients thresholding. IET Signal Processing, 9(5), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1049/ietspr.2014.0280
Mosavi, M. R., Rezaei, M. J., Pashaian, M., & Moghaddasi, M. S. (2017). A fast and accurate antijamming system based on wavelet packet transform for GPS receivers. GPS Solutions, 21(2), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s102910160535z
Musumeci, L., & Dovis, F. (2013). Performance assessment of wavelet based techniques in mitigating narrowband interference. In: 2013 International Conference on Localization and GNSS, ICLGNSS. Turin, Italy, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICLGNSS.2013.6577264
Musumeci, L., & Dovis, F. (2014). Use of the wavelet transform for interference detection and mitigation in global navigation satellite systems. International Journal of Navigation and Observation, 2014, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/262186
Nisha, S. S., & Mohideen, S. K. (2016). Wavelet coefficients thresholding techniques for denoising MRI images. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(28), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i28/93872
Ouyang, X., & Amin, M. G. (2001). Shorttime Fourier transform receiver for nonstationary interference excision in direct sequence spread spectrum communications. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 49(4), 851–863. https://doi.org/10.1109/78.912929
Pashaian, M., Mosavi, M. R., Moghaddasi, M. S., & Rezaei, M. J. (2016). A novel interference rejection method for GPS receivers. Iranian Journal of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 12(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.22068/IJEEE.12.1.9
Pena, A. G., Macabiau, C., Julien, O., Mabilleau, M., & Durel, P. (2020). Impact of DME/TACAN on GNSS L5/E5a receiver. In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Technical Meeting ION ITM,. San Diego, California, 207–221.
Satirapod, C., & Rizos, C. (2005). Multipath mitigation by wavelet analysis for GPS base station applications. Survey Review, 38(295), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1179/003962605791521699
Satish, R., & Kumar, P. R. (2020). Efficient method for segmentation of noisy and noncircular iris images using improved particle swarm optimisationbased MRFCM. IET Biometrics, 9(2), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1049/ietbmt.2019.0026
Sharifitehrani, O., Farzan Sabahi, M., & Raees Danaee, M. (2020). Lowcomplexity framework for GNSS jamming and spoofing detection on moving platforms. IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, 14(12), 2027–2038. https://doi.org/10.1049/ietrsn.2020.0285
Sharma, I., Kuldeep, B., Kumar, A., & Singh, V. K. (2016). Performance of swarm based optimization techniques for designing digital FIR filter: A comparative study. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 19(3), 1564–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.05.013
Shen, H., & Papandreousuppappola, A. (2005). Wideband timevarying interference suppression using Matched Signal Transforms. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 53(7), 2607–2612. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2005.849218
Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360), Anchorage, AK, USA, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEC.1998.699146
Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. C. (1999). Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary ComputationCEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406). Washington, DC, USA, 19451950. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.1999.785511
Silva Lorraine, K. J., & Ramarakula, M. (2021a). A comprehensive survey on GNSS interferences and the application of neural networks for anti jamming. IETE Journal of Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/03772063.2021.1953407
Silva Lorraine, K. J., & Ramarakula, M. (2021b). An efficient interference mitigation approach for NavIC receivers using improved variational mode decomposition and wavelet packet decomposition. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 32(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.4242
Silva Lorraine, K. J., & Ramarakula, M. (2021c). Hybrid antijamming algorithm for Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System receivers using variational mode decomposition and wavelet packet transform. International Journal of Communication Systems, 34(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4734
Song, W. E. I., & Hua, Z. (2020). Multiexemplar particle swarm optimization. IEEE Access, 8, 176363–176374. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3026620
Sumithra, A. M. G., & Thanushkodi, B. K. (2009). Performance evaluation of different thresholding methods in time adaptive wavelet based speech enhancement. IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 1(5), 439–447.
Varshney, N., & Jain, R. . (2013). An adaptive notch filter for narrow band interference removal. In: 2013 National Conference on Communications (NCC). New Delhi, India, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/NCC.2013.6487917
Wang, P., Wang, Y., Cetin, E., Dempster, A. G., & Wu, S. (2019). TimeFrequency jammer mitigation based on Kalman Filter for GNSS receivers. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 55(3), 1561–1567. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2018.2869507
Yi, T.H., Li, H.N., & Zhao, X.Y. (2012). Noise smoothing for structural vibration test signals using an improved wavelet thresholding technique. Sensors, 12(8), 11205–11220. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120811205
Zhang, J., Cui, X., Xu, H., & Lu, M. (2019). A twostage interference suppression scheme based on antenna array for GNSS jamming and spoofing. Sensors (basel, Switzerland), 19(18), 3870. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19183870
Zhang, J., Sheng, J., Lu, J., & Shen, L. (2021). UCPSOa uniform initialized particle swarm optimization algorithm with cosine inertia weight. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2021, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8819333
Zhang, X., Li, J., Xing, J., Wang, P., Yang, Q., & He, C. (2017). A Particle Swarm Optimization techniquebased parametric wavelet thresholding function for signal denoising. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 36(1), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000340160303x
Zhang, X., Li, J., Xing, J., Wang, P., Yang, Q., Wang, R., & He, C. (2014). Optimal sensor placement for latticed shell structure based on an improved particle swarm optimization algorithm. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/743904
Zhang, Y., & Wang, A. (2020). Research on the fault diagnosis method for rolling bearings based on improved VMD and automatic IMF acquisition. Shock and Vibration, 2020, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6216903
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JSLK proposed the general idea of this contribution and completed the algorithm design, evaluation, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. MR is the supervisor who modified this paper. Both the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kambham, J.S.L., Ramarakula, M. An efficient approach for antijamming in IRNSS receivers using improved PSO based parametric wavelet packet thresholding. Satell Navig 3, 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43020022000822
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43020022000822