MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226411477 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3159623

Tracking of Radar Targets With In-Band Wireless Communication Interference in RadComm Spectrum Sharing

2022· article· en· W4226411477 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Technology Karnataka, SurathkalMinistry of Electronics and Information technologyUniversity Grants CommissionMcMaster University
KeywordsComputer scienceRadar trackerRadarKalman filterBistatic radarLow probability of intercept radarTracking (education)Extended Kalman filterRadar engineering detailsFire-control radarSecondary surveillance radarWirelessRemote sensingRadar imagingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radar and communication system (RadComm) spectrum sharing has received considerable attention from the research community in recent years. This paper considers the distributed radars present in the surveillance region with multiple in-band wireless communication transmitters (IWCTs). A new measurement model is proposed by considering both radar returns and returns due to IWCTs. The tracking performance is evaluated using the global nearest neighbor (GNN) tracker with an extended Kalman filter (EKF) for the received measurement set. A single radar case is considered, where near geometry scenario (IWCTs are placed near the radar and target) and far-geometry scenario (IWCTs are placed far from the radar and target) are considered to evaluate the tracking performance. It is observed that a large number of tracks are resulted due to IWCTs, and identifying the actual target track is ambiguous in a single radar case. Therefore, in the second case, multiple radars are placed to investigate the problem comprehensively. The track-to-track association (T2TA) is performed to identify the true target track on multiple tracks produced owing to the presence of IWCTs and the resulting tracks from all radars pertaining to the true targets. Once the true target tracks from each radar are identified, using the T2TA, the track-to-track fusion (T2TF) is carried out to improve the estimates of the true target. The simulation results are quantified with position root mean square error (PRMSE). The posterior Cramer–Rao lower bounds (PCRLBs) quantifying the achievable estimation accuracies are also presented. The simulation results reveal that the association and fusion of tracks from multiple radars identify the true target track with good accuracy and overcome the inability to determine the true track, as in the case of a single radar. Further, the results disclose that, as the number of radars increases, the T2TA and fusion improved the PRMSE.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.244 · 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