MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896897885 · doi:10.1121/1.5067506

Validity of the frozen-surface approximation for large time-bandwidth signals

2018· article· en· W2896897885 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Hines, Douglas A. Abraham, Stefan M. Murphy, Martin Siderius

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBandwidth (computing)Born approximationDuty cycleWidebandSonarSignal processingUnderwaterDuration (music)Computer sciencePulse durationSIGNAL (programming language)AcousticsScatteringPulse (music)OpticsPhysicsTelecommunicationsGeologyRadarPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical modeling of underwater acoustic propagation, scattering, and reflection, and the signal processing associated with these processes, usually rely on the frozen-surface approximation. This longstanding approximation, which dates back to Carl Eckart’s seminal paper (The Scattering of Sound from the Sea Surface, 1953) assumes that the ocean surface can be modeled as being frozen in time throughout the entire pulse duration. The approximation is valid for short-duration pulses typically used by sonars in the decades following that paper; however, its applicability to present-day high duty cycle sonars is questionable. Although the assumption is based on the physics of the problem, it can have a profound effect on the signal processing, especially for large time-bandwidth signals. In this paper some experimental results will be presented to provide examples of how the approximation fails for a long duration, wideband pulse. Using this as motivation, the authors will explore some areas where incorrectly employing the approximation can introduce errors in the expected signal processing gain. While no attempt will be made to correct shortcomings in the approximation, it is hoped that the discussion may motivate renewed interest in this issue. Funding from ONR and ONR Global is gratefully acknowledged.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207