MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200589011 · doi:10.3390/drones5040149

Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Drones Using Radars

2021· article· en· W4200589011 on OpenAlexaff
Divy Raval, Emily Hunter, Sinclair Hudson, Anthony Damini, Bhashyam Balaji

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanada Research ChairsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrogramRadarShort-time Fourier transformComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkDroneArtificial intelligencePulse repetition frequencyNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Time–frequency analysisAutoregressive modelArtificial neural networkSpeech recognitionFourier transformTelecommunicationsMathematicsFourier analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to classify drones using radar signals is a problem of great interest. In this paper, we apply convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to the Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) spectrograms of the simulated radar signals reflected from the drones. The drones vary in many ways that impact the STFT spectrograms, including blade length and blade rotation rates. Some of these physical parameters are captured in the Martin and Mulgrew model which was used to produce the datasets. We examine the data under X-band and W-band radar simulation scenarios and show that a CNN approach leads to an F1 score of 0.816±0.011 when trained on data with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 10 dB. The neural network which was trained on data from an X-band radar with 2 kHz pulse repetition frequency was shown to perform better than the CNN trained on the aforementioned W-band radar. It remained robust to the drone blade pitch and its performance varied directly in a linear fashion with the SNR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDronesSame topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207