MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382395359 · doi:10.18280/ts.400345

Enhanced Single-Snapshot 1-D and 2-D DOA Estimation Using Particle Swarm Optimization

2023· article· en· W4382395359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L Nagaraju, Puli Kishore Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Particle swarm optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmEstimationMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In radar applications, target range, velocity (Doppler), and angle are the three primary measurements employed.Estimating the number of targets and their directions of arrival (DOAs) on the antenna array can be achieved through various methods.Conventional techniques such as the correlation and Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithms offer a straightforward approach for DOA estimation.However, these methods necessitate an exhaustive search of the entire spectrum and require numerous temporal snapshots to accurately identify the spatial spectrum peaks.To address this challenge, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)-correlation and PSO-MUSIC methods have been proposed.These PSO-based techniques provide a systematic approach to locate the spatial spectrum peak in both one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) scenarios.In order to determine the exact target position, the global best particle location is iteratively updated by these methods.The statistical performance of the 1-D and 2-D PSO-correlation and PSO-MUSIC algorithms demonstrates that these techniques exhibit higher accuracy in comparison to existing single-snapshot DOA estimation methods.The estimation performance of the proposed algorithms is analyzed and justified by employing the Cramé r-Rao bound (CRB).

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 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 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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207