1-Bit Radar Imaging Based on Adversarial Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radar imaging with 1-bit data is attractive thanks to its low storage and transmission burden. Existing 1-bit radar imaging methods cannot satisfactorily suppress the artifacts in the imaging result induced by 1-bit quantization error and noise. In this article, we propose a new 1-bit compressive sensing (CS) based algorithm, i.e., the adversarial-sample-based binary iterative hard thresholding (AS-BIHT) algorithm, to improve the 1-bit radar imaging performance. First, we formulate a parametric model for 1-bit radar imaging with a new adjustable quantization level parameter. The parametric 1-bit radar imaging model updates the imaging scene and the quantization level parameter in an iterative fashion based on adversarial samples. Then, we design a mechanism to generate adversarial samples by attacking the 1-bit radar imaging model to resist the quantization consistency condition, such that forcing quantization consistent reconstruction on adversarial samples mitigates the quantization error and noise. The quantization level parameter is then tuned based on the adversarial samples. In this way, the ability of the model to adapt to echo data contaminated by noise and quantization error is enhanced, and the artifacts are well suppressed. Simulation and experimental results on real radar data demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed AS-BIHT algorithm in 1-bit radar imaging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".