MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966718424 · doi:10.1109/taes.2013.6621809

Widely Separated MIMO versus Multistatic Radars for Target Localization and Tracking

2013· article· en· W1966718424 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMORadar trackerComputer scienceMultistatic radarTracking (education)Particle filterTransmitterRadarSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Passive radarMatched filterAlgorithmBistatic radarFilter (signal processing)Electronic engineeringRadar imagingEngineeringComputer visionTelecommunicationsBeamformingChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection, localization, and tracking performance of multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) radars with widely separated antennas is investigated and compared with that of multistatic radar systems. A multiple-hypothesis (MH)-based algorithm is proposed for multitarget localization for the case where extended targets with multiple spatial reflections become unobservable in certain transmitter-receiver pairs. A particle filter (PF)-based algorithm is then proposed to handle dynamic multitarget tracking. Finally, simulation results are provided to demonstrate the relative capability of MIMO radars in localizing and tracking extended targets under various signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions compared with multistatic radars.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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