MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289792774 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2022.3196407

Geometric Clutter Analysis for Airborne Passive Coherent Location Radar

2022· article· en· W4289792774 on OpenAlexaff
Mateusz Malanowski, Rafał Rytel-Andrianik, Krzysztof Kulpa, Krzysztof Stasiak, Marek Ciesielski, Jarosław Kulpa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsInternational Game Technology (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBistatic radarClutterRadar horizonComputer scienceRemote sensingMoving target indicationCartesian coordinate systemSynthetic aperture radarPassive radarRadarContinuous-wave radarRadar imagingComputer visionGeologyMathematicsGeometryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents detailed geometric analyses of ground clutter in bistatic passive airborne radars. Analytic closed-form solutions are derived for finding the intersection of iso-ranges and iso-velocities. This allows clutter bistatic coordinates to be easily converted to its Cartesian coordinates. Based on those solutions, a theoretical clutter map in the bistatic coordinates can be calculated assuming uniform clutter distribution on the Earth’s surface. This is done by first converting a resolution cell in the bistatic coordinates into a corresponding cell in the Cartesian coordinates. Next, the power distribution in the bistatic coordinates is calculated taking into account range dependency, incident angles, and the radiation patterns of the transmitter and the receiver. The aim of this analysis is to characterize clutter in terms of expected mean power map rather than in terms of statistical distribution. The obtained results provide insight into the expected characteristics of clutter, which can be helpful in designing signal processing algorithms for ground moving target indication (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar (SAR). The theoretical clutter distribution on the range-velocity map is compared with real-life data acquired with a DVB-T-based passive radar, and good agreement between theory and measurement is presented.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207