Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Matched Filter for Sidelobe Reduction of Pulsed Linear Frequency Modulation Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse compression techniques are commonly used in linear frequency modulated (LFM) waveforms to improve the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and range resolutions of pulsed radars, whose detection capabilities are affected by the sidelobes. In this study, a sidelobe reduction filter (SRF) was designed and implemented using software defined radio (SDR). An enhanced matched filter (EMF) that combines a matched filter (MF) and an SRF is proposed and was implemented. In contrast to the current commonly used approaches, the mathematical model of the SRF frequency response is extracted without depending on any iteration methods or adaptive techniques, which results in increased efficiency and computational speed for the developed model. The performance of the proposed EMF was verified through the measurement of four metrics, including the peak sidelobe ratio (PSLR), the impulse response width (IRW), the mainlobe loss ratio (MLR), and the receiver operational characteristics (ROCs) at different SNRs. The ambiguity function was then used to characterize the Doppler effect on the designed EMF. In addition, the detection of single and multiple targets using the proposed EMF was performed, and the results showed that it overcame the masking problem due to its effective reduction of the sidelobes. Hence, the practical application of the EMF matches the performance analysis. Moreover, when implementing the EMF proposed in this paper, it outperformed the common MF, especially when detecting targets moving at low speeds and having small radar cross-sections (RCS), even under severe masking conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".