Tracking Performance of MIMO Radar for Accelerating Targets
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
Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar utilizes orthogonal waveforms on each transmit element to achieve virtual aperture extension. Compared to a directed beam radar, MIMO radar has increased Doppler resolution due to the longer integration times required to maintain the same energy on target. However, the requirement for longer integration times can also cause target returns to be spread over multiple range-Doppler bins, which decreases probability of detection. This paper derives an analytical expression for probability of detection that explicitly accounts for range-Doppler migration. The effect of target velocity, target acceleration and integration time on range-Doppler migration is analyzed. A framework for velocity and acceleration compensation and step sizes for full and partial compensation are proposed. Single-target track completeness and track accuracy are compared for directed beam radar, MIMO radar with full compensation, MIMO radar with partial compensation, and uncompensated MIMO radar. Results indicate that compensation is required to prevent degraded probability of detection and track completeness as target velocity and acceleration increase. Full compensation mitigates the effects of range-Doppler migration but requires additional computational complexity. The use of partial compensation reduces computational complexity requirements but has diminished tracking performance due to coasting over missed measurements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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