MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MIMO Radar Systems

2023· book-chapter· en· W4317759451 on OpenAlex
Mostafa Hefnawi, Zakaria Benyahia, Mohamed Aboulfatah, Elhassane Abdelmounim, Taoufiq Gadi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in mechatronics and mechanical engineering (AMME) book series · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOComputer scienceRadarPhased arrayElectronic engineeringFast Fourier transformBistatic radarRadar engineering detailsRadar systemsAntenna arrayContinuous-wave radarWaveformRadar imagingRemote sensingAntenna (radio)EngineeringAlgorithmTelecommunicationsGeographyBeamforming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike traditional phased-array radars that need successive scans to cover the entire field of view, MIMO radar transmits orthogonal waveforms from each antenna element simultaneously, allowing the illumination of all targets at once. Also, better detection performance and a high spatial resolution can be obtained using all the components extracted by the matched filters. MIMO radar systems can detect the range, angle, and doppler of the targets, using traditional techniques such as the fast fourier transform (FFT), the multiple signal classifier (MUSIC), and the minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR). On the other hand, deep learning (DL) techniques have been proposed for MIMO radar systems as an alternative to traditional techniques that are computationally expensive and very sensitive to clutters and interferences. This chapter presents the performance of MIMO radar systems in a cluttered environment using both conventional and DL techniques.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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