MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flight Test Performance of an RFSoC Based Direct RF FMCW Radio Altimeter

2025· article· en· W4410117156 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdessamad Amrhar, Victor Bursucianu, Jean-Marc Gagné, René Landry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadio frequencyAltimeterRemote sensingRadar altimeterComputer scienceTelecommunicationsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The radar altimeter (RA) is one of the most important sensors in avionics systems. It is the only sensor that reliably indicates altitude above the ground. With the roll-out of the 5G network, many concerns have been raised about the interference between the 5G network and radar altimeters. This issue highlights the importance of future-proofing avionics systems. One way to do this is by leveraging software-defined radio (SDR) technology. Advances in high-speed analogue-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analogue converters (DACs) have made it possible to directly digitise the radio frequency (RF) signal and get rid of the RF mixing stage. This is called Direct RF Sampling (DRFS). This work aims to demonstrate the feasibility, capability, and performance of a DRFS radar altimeter based on the Xilinx RFSoC technology. The radar altimeter was tested in a laboratory environment and in a flight test. The laboratory test results show that the radar altimeter meets the MOPS tolerances. The flight test results show that the prototype is accurate at altitudes above <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{5 0 0} \mathbf{f t}$</tex> but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. The results show that DRFS is a viable solution for high bandwidth systems like the radar altimeter.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207