On opportunistic spectrum access in radar bands: Lessons learned from measurement of weather radar signals
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
The need for extra spectrum and the fact that a large amount of spectrum below 6 GHz is allocated to radar systems has motivated regulatory bodies and researchers to investigate the feasibility of dynamic spectrum access in radar bands. To design efficient wireless communication schemes that coexist with radar systems, it is essential that the wireless community thoroughly understand the operations of these systems in different bands. This article studies incumbent operations and usage patterns in the 5 GHz band, where weather radar systems dominate, dynamic frequency selection is employed as a sharing mechanism, and recent works have explored the possibility to temporally share the spectrum with such radar systems. We present a measurement-based study of spectrum usage by a weather radar in Finland. Our measurement results show that the weather radar's scan patterns are quasi-periodic, and that use of sensing may not reliably detect radar signals due to its quasi-periodic scanning patterns and different vertical scanning angles. Finally, we present a framework for a database-assisted temporal sharing coexistence mechanism that takes into account the real occupancy behavior of the radar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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