Comparison of signal coherence for continuous active and pulsed active sonar measurements in littoral waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Military sonars must detect, localize, classify, and track submarine threats from distances safely outside their circle of attack. However, conventional pulsed active sonars (PAS) have duty cycles on the order of 1% which means that 99% of the time, the track is out of date. In contrast, continuous active sonars (CAS) have a 100% duty cycle, which enables continuous updates to the track. This should significantly improve tracking performance. However, one would typically want to maintain the same bandwidth for a CAS system as for the PAS system it might replace. This will provide a significant increase in the time-bandwidth product, but may not produce the increase in gain anticipated if there are coherence limitations associated with the acoustic channel. To examine the impact of the acoustic channel on the gain for the two pulse types, an experiment was conducted as part of the Target and Reverberation Experiment (TREX) in May 2013 using a moored active sonar and three passive acoustic targets, moored at ranges from 2 to 6 km away from the sonar. In this paper, preliminary results from the experiment will be presented. [Work supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research.]
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".