ArticlePloS one2025
A hybrid ensembling and autoencoder scheme for improving sensing reliability in cognitive radio networks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper proposes a hybrid ensemble classifier with denoising autoencoder (ECDAE) framework to address reliability and robustness challenges in cooperative spectrum sensing (CSS) for cognitive radio networks (CRNs). The proposed framework first employs an ensemble classifier (EC) to dynamically reconfigure the sensing time, optimizing performance while minimizing cost. The EC accurately estimates the sensing samples based on target detection probabilities, false alarm rates, and channel conditions. Subsequently, a denoising autoencoder (DAE) eliminates soft-combined energies from false-sensing users (FSUs) before soft fusion. The results show that EC surpasses other methods, including random forest (RFC), neural networks (NN), decision trees (DT), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), Gaussian naive Bayes (GNB), RUSBoost and XGBoost, achieving an F1 score of 99.23%, an accuracy of 99.78%, and a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 99.6%. Furthermore, optimized sensing time through EC is combined with DAE reconstruction delivers superior sensing performance at the fusion center (FC) producing low error probabilities compared to traditional schemes such as identical gain combination (IGS), highest gain combination (HGS), particle swarm optimization (PSO), differential evolution-based machine learning (DE-ML) and convolutional neural networks (CNN). On average, the ECDAE framework achieves a 99.4% and 98.1% reduction in error probability compared to traditional schemes (IGS, HGS) and a 92.7% to 97.2% reduction compared to advanced methods (PSO, DE-ML, CNN), across all tested SNR conditions and false-sensing attack scenarios. The framework maintains robustness across four distinct false-sensing scenarios: (1) no false sensing (NFS) reporting an low-energy signals, (2) yes false sensing (YFS) reporting consistently an always high-energy signals, (3) opposite false sensing (OFS) reporting an always invert decisions to the true energy states, and (4) yes/no false sensing (YNFS) where FSU randomly alternates between YFS and NFS - ensuring minimal error probabilities in global decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.