MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1714170311 · doi:10.1121/1.4921034

Effects of failed elements on sidelobes of array beampatterns

2015· article· en· W1714170311 on OpenAlexaff
Henry Cox, Hung Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUncorrelatedAmplitudePhase (matter)Standard deviationVariance (accounting)MathematicsUpper and lower boundsAcousticsRandom errorPower (physics)StatisticsPhysicsMathematical analysisOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is common for arrays to degrade as elements fail, resulting in high sidelobes. The sensitivity of sidelobe levels to element failures is examined for an arbitrarily shaded array. Using the difference of complex beampatterns, it is found that the beampattern, which can be associated with just the failed elements, controls the degraded array response in the deep sidelobe region. Using results for addition of weighted random phasers, expressions are presented for an upper bound, the mean and standard deviation of the power sidelobes of the degraded array in terms of the number and shading weights of the failed elements. The upper bound depends on the percent of elements that fail and is independent of array size. The average sidelobe level depends on both the failed-to-good ratio and the number of remaining good elements, making large arrays more robust for the same percentage of failed elements. The standard deviation of sidelobe levels is approximately equal to the mean. The ratio of failed to remaining good elements is analogous to the combined amplitude and phase variance for uncorrelated tolerance errors. Combined effects of element failures and random amplitude and phase errors are then presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207