MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154965389 · doi:10.1109/aero.2004.1368016

Ground moving target detection for along-track interferometric SAR data

2004· article· en· W2154965389 on OpenAlexaff
Ishuwa Sikaneta, C. Giertill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSynthetic aperture radarMoving target indicationMatched filterFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionFalse alarmRemote sensingRadarPulse-Doppler radarRadar imagingGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates different metrics for ground moving target indication (GMTI) with a multichannel synthetic aperture radar (SAR). These metrics are especially sensitive to targets that have an across-track component of velocity, v/sub y/, although they can also detect targets with an along track velocity component, v/sub x/. Not only are the metrics suitable for fully SAR compressed data, they are also meaningful when computed for range (pulse) compressed but Doppler uncompressed data (raw data). The use of both data domains allows for target detection over a larger v/sub y/ range than either used individually. For large v/sub y/, side-lobe suppression in fully SAR compressed data simultaneously suppresses the targets, giving an advantage to the raw data domain. For low v/sub y/, and especially with low RCS targets, the SAR compression gain facilitates detection, giving an advantage to the SAR compressed domain. By viewing the SAR compression as the application of a linear filter, the metrics are shown to be suitable for target detection after any linear filtering of the raw data, such as a linear time-frequency filter, or a simple transformation into the Doppler domain using an FFT filter. The metrics have in common that they are all based on the eigenvector decomposition of the sample covariance matrix. Their statistical properties are analytically compared and their detection capabilities are demonstrated on measured two-channel airborne SAR data in a variety of data domains. Some metrics are shown to allow target detection with low false alarm rates even in heterogeneous terrain, such as in urban areas, without compromising the probability of detection.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207