MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2421965999 · doi:10.1109/radar.2016.7485243

Reduced time-on-target in pulse Doppler radar: Slow time domain compressed sensing

2016· article· en· W2421965999 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Déborah Cohen, Yonina C. Eldar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceNyquist rateDoppler effectPulse-Doppler radarTime domainRadarBandwidth (computing)Nyquist–Shannon sampling theoremDoppler radarContinuous-wave radarSIGNAL (programming language)Compressed sensingElectronic engineeringSampling (signal processing)Pulse repetition frequencyReal-time computingRadar imagingAlgorithmTelecommunicationsPhysicsFilter (signal processing)Computer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulse Doppler radars measure both the targets distance to the transceiver and their radial velocity, through estimation of time delays and Doppler frequencies, respectively. This digital processing is traditionally performed on samples of the received signal at its Nyquist rate, which can be prohibitively high. Overcoming the rate bottleneck, sub-Nyquist sampling methods have been proposed that break the link between radar signal bandwidth and sampling rate. In this work, we extend this concept to the slow time domain. We choose to transmit non-uniformly spaced pulses in one direction, thus allowing to reduce the average time-on-target by exploiting the complementary set of transmitted pulses in another direction. Both software and hardware simulations demonstrate reduced time-on-target and recovery of several delay-Doppler maps within the same coherent processing interval.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207