MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fundamental Frequency Estimation of HERM Lines of Drones

2020· article· en· W3035066585 on OpenAlexaff
Andi Huang, Pascale Sévigny, Bhashyam Balaji, Sreeraman Rajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepstrumShort-time Fourier transformFourier transformRadarRotation (mathematics)HarmonicComputer scienceDoppler effectAcousticsTime–frequency analysisNoise (video)Artificial intelligencePhysicsTelecommunicationsFourier analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most research on drone detection and classification focus on using features from micro-Doppler signatures with blade flashes. However, these methods are limited in range and require radars with high pulse repetition frequency (PRF)–at least twice the maximum tip velocity. A different method to detect and classify drones at longer ranges using a low PRF radar is desired. In the literature, the cepstrum method was shown to be able to estimate the rotation rate when the PRF is insufficient. An alternative way of analyzing micro-Doppler is by using a long windowed Short-time Fourier transform (STFT) to generate HElicopter Rotation Modulation (HERM) lines. HERM lines exhibit similar behavior to a cepstrogram, with spectral lines separated in frequency by a value related to the rotation rate. In this paper, the separation frequency of HERM lines was estimated using a log harmonic summation algorithm. The proposed algorithm was tested on a simple HERM line model and also on real data obtained from two blade single rotor micro-helicopter drone. The algorithm was shown to be more resilient than cepstrum under Gaussian noise.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207