Artificial intelligence meets radar resource management: A comprehensive background and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A multi‐function radar is designed to perform disparate functions, such as surveillance, tracking, fire control, amongst others, within a limited resource (time, frequency, and energy) budget. A radar resource management (RRM) module within a radar system makes decisions on prioritisation, parameter selection, and scheduling of associated tasks. However, optimal RRM algorithms are generally computationally complex and operational radars resort to heuristics. On the other hand, algorithms based on artificial intelligence (AI) have been shown to yield near‐optimal radar resource allocation results at manageable computational complexity. This survey study aims at enabling researchers and practitioners better understand the application of AI in RRM‐related problems by providing a thorough literature review of AI‐based RRM techniques. We first provide background concepts in RRM followed by a brief review of Symbolic‐AI techniques for RRM. We mainly focus on the applications of state‐of‐the‐art machine learning techniques to RRM. We emphasise on the recent findings and their potential within practical RRM scenarios for real‐time resource allocation optimisation. The study concludes with a discussion of open research problems and future research directions in the light of the presented survey.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".