Human Breathing Rate Estimation from Radar Returns Using Harmonically Related Filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radar-based noncontact sensing of life sign signals is often used in safety and rescue missions during disasters such as earthquakes and avalanches and for home care applications. The radar returns obtained from a human target contain the breathing frequency along with its strong higher harmonics depending on the target’s posture. As a consequence, well understood, computationally efficient, and the most popular traditional FFT-based estimators that rely only on the strongest peak for estimates of breathing rates may be inaccurate. The paper proposes a solution for correcting the estimation errors of such single peak-based algorithms. The proposed method is based on using harmonically related comb filters over a set of all possible breathing frequencies. The method is tested on three subjects for different postures, for different distances between the radar and the subject, and for two different radar platforms: PN-UWB and phase modulated-CW (PM-CW) radars. Simplified algorithms more suitable for real-time implementation have also been proposed and compared using accuracy and computational complexity. The proposed breathing rate estimation algorithms provide a reduction of about 81% and 80% in the mean absolute error of breathing rates in comparison to the traditional FFT-based methods using strongest peak detection, for PN-UWB and PM-CW radars, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".