MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320527016 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2016.2529600

Overview of Spatial Processing Approaches for GNSS Structural Interference Detection and Mitigation

2016· article· en· W2320527016 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Broumandan, Ali Jafarnia-Jahromi, Saeed Daneshmand, Gérard Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpoofing attackGNSS applicationsComputer scienceInterference (communication)Real-time computingSignal processingAuthentication (law)Synchronization (alternating current)Global Positioning SystemComputer securityTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GNSS-dependent positioning, navigation, and timing synchronization procedures have a significant impact on everyday life. Thus, such an extensively used system progressively become an attractive target for illegal exploitation and attacks. Position and timing solutions provided by GNSS receivers can be threatened by structural interference such as spoofing threats. This paper provides an overview of recent research work on GNSS signal authentication utilizing spatial processing methods. Different spatial processing approaches for spoofing detection, classification and mitigation are characterized and compared. Three different processing methods, namely antenna array processing, moving receiver and cloud based spoofing countermeasure are analyzed in details. The benefits and disadvantages of each are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations116
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the IEEESame topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207