Fundamental Frequency Estimation of HERM Lines of Drones
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
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.
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