Comparison of two detection combination algorithms for phased array radars
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
Phased array radars have been widely studied. One issue observed is that adjacent radar beams detect the same target. This multiplicity is resulted from a few factors such as the radar beam spacing, radar power, target size and trajectory etc. It degrades the radar performance greatly by asking for redundant confirmation beams and therefore increasing the false track rate. No public solutions to detection combination have been reported. This paper provides a comparison of two straight forward detection combination algorithms: cross-line combination and in-line combination. The raw multiple detection data were generated by a simulator of multi-function radar (MFR) and the combination algorithms are evaluated with the recorded simulation data. With the given radar setup, the cross-line combination algorithm needs to buffer 2-3 scanned lines of data and the delay is about 2-3 seconds. The in-line combination algorithm reduces the buffer to one scanned line of data and its delay is about 1 second. However, the first algorithm is able to remove about 2/3 of raw detections and achieve a better performance of noise suppression. The later can reduce about 1/3 of the raw detection, with less noise suppression.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it