Robust Weighted l1,2 Norm Filtering in Passive Radar Systems
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
Conventional methods such as matched filtering, fractional lower order statistics cross ambiguity function, and recent methods such as compressed sensing and track-before-detect are used for target detection by passive radars. Target detection using these algorithms usually assumes that the background noise is Gaussian. However, non-Gaussian impulsive noise is inherent in real world radar problems. In this paper, a new optimization based algorithm that uses weighted l 1 and l 2 norms is proposed as an alternative to the existing algorithms whose performance degrades in the presence of impulsive noise. To determine the weights of these norms, the parameter that quantifies the impulsiveness level of the noise is estimated. In the proposed algorithm, the aim is to increase the target detection performance of a universal mobile telecommunication system (UMTS) based passive radars by facilitating higher resolution with better suppression of the sidelobes in both range and Doppler. The results obtained from both simulated data with α stable distribution, and real data recorded by a UMTS based passive radar platform are presented to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm. The results show that the proposed algorithm provides more robust and accurate detection performance for noise models with different impulsiveness levels compared to the conventional methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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