Joint detection and tracking of unresolved targets with a joint-bin processing monopulse radar
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detection and estimation of multiple unresolved targets with a monopulse radar is limited by the availability of information in monopulse signals. The maximum possible number of targets that can be extracted from the monopulse signals of a single bin is two. Recently two approaches have been proposed in the literature to overcome this limitation. The first is joint-bin processing that exploits target spill-over among adjacent cells by modeling the target returns in the adjacent cells. In addition to making use of the additional information available in target spill-over, it handles a more practical problem where the usual assumption of ideal sampling is relaxed. The second approach is to make use of tracking information in detection through joint detection and tracking with the help of Monte Carlo integration of a particle filter. It was shown that the extraction of even more targets is possible with tracking information. In this paper, a new approach is proposed to combine make the best of these two approaches - a new joint detection and tracking algorithm with multibin processing. The proposed method increases the detection ability as well as tracking accuracy. Simulation studies are carried out with amplitude comparison monopulse radar for an unresolved target scenario. The relative performances of various methods are also provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it