MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408324743 · doi:10.1109/tim.2025.3550239

Enhanced Radar False Alarm Mitigation in Low-RCS Target Detection Using Time-Varying Trajectories on Range–Doppler Diagrams With DCNN

2025· article· en· W4408324743 on OpenAlexaff
Young‐Hoon Chun, Seongeun Eom, Deuk-Ja Oh, Youngwook Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation, United Arab Emirates
KeywordsDoppler effectRadarFalse alarmComputer scienceConstant false alarm rateDoppler radarRange (aeronautics)Pulse-Doppler radarContinuous-wave radarEarly-warning radarRadar trackerRemote sensingRadar imagingArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringTelecommunicationsGeologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose detecting low-radar cross section (RCS) targets using the time-varying characteristics in the range-Doppler diagram with 3-D deep convolutional neural networks (3D-DCNNs), which significantly suppresses false alarms (FAs). When low-RCS targets are in cluttered environments, it is not easy to detect them because of the tradeoff between the probability of detection (PD) and FA rate depending on the detection threshold. In this article, we employ a 3D-DCNN to observe the trajectory of an object over a certain time and determine whether the detected object is a target or not. We use a constant FA rate (CFAR) to detect low-RCS targets using low thresholds in highly cluttered environments. This approach results in the detection of a significant amount of unwanted clutter and noise. The proposed algorithm effectively suppresses the FA rate and enhances overall detection accuracy. A comparison of the performance through simulation revealed that the probability of FA (<inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$P_{\text {fa}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>) from <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$3 \times 10^{-3}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> with CFAR and density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) was reduced to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$1\text {.}2 \times 10^{-5}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> with the proposed algorithm. For validation, we measured a drone, an example of a low-RCS target, at 10 m using a 77-GHz frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar manufactured by TI. <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$P_{\text {fa}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> was <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$3 \times 10^{-3}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> when the CFAR and DBSCAN were applied with one and two drones, respectively. However, the proposed algorithm reduced this to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$9\text {.}3 \times 10^{-6}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$2\text {.}1 \times 10^{-5}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>, respectively. In addition, a drone was measured and verified using FMCW radar manufactured by TORIS at 7 km. The proposed algorithm reduces <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$P_{\text {fa}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$2\text {.}5 \times 10^{-4}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$7\text {.}4 \times 10^{-7}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207