MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186702231 · doi:10.52547/jgit.9.1.21

Evaluating the deformation monitoring capability of a ground based SAR system with MIMO antenna

2021· article· en· W3186702231 on OpenAlexaff
Benyamin Hosseiny, Jalal Amini, Safieddin Safavi‐Naeini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geospatial Information Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzimuthMIMOComputer scienceBeamformingAntenna (radio)Remote sensingSynthetic aperture radarRadarElectronic engineeringAcousticsPhysicsOpticsGeologyTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By increasing the applicability of ground-based SAR (GBSAR) systems in geoscience and remote sensing, the development and evaluation of new systems have gained attention. GBSAR systems can be utilized for monitoring areas that are hard to or cannot be seen by the airborne or spaceborne systems. Furthermore, they have better spatial and temporal resolutions and are cost-effective and easy to implement. This paper develops and evaluates a GBSAR system by combining a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar and mechanical linear rail as a synthetic aperture in azimuth direction (MIMO GBSAR) in a simulated environment. The considered radar sensor consists of two transmitters and four receiver antennas, operating at the W band frequency between 76-81 GHz. Azimuth compression consists of two main steps: MIMO beamforming and then compressing all gathered signals in the azimuth direction. According to the simulated results, the proposed MIMO GBSAR is able to improve the azimuth angular resolution to 4.9 mrad, compared to the 400 mrad angular resolution of the simple MIMO radar. A monostatic radar sensor requires 920 steps to complete a 0.9 m linear synthetic aperture, while the proposed MIMO GBSAR requires 115 steps, which implies a faster data acquisition rate. A simulated experiment was conducted in order to evaluate the interferometric capability of the considered sensor. The target's displacement rate was considered 0.1 millimeters per epoch. According to the results, the errors' amplitude was smaller than 1.5 micrometer, and the average displacement error was 0.32 micrometer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geospatial Information TechnologySame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207