2016
DOI: 10.1109/maes.2016.150215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experiments with cognitive radar

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…increasing pulse rate vs. intensity) can serve as an inspiration for developing these systems. At present, only research-based radar systems are beginning to emerge that have the ability to independently adjust parameters such as pulse repetition rates, pulse lengths and intensity (Smith et al 2016). Working with humans in this context has the advantage that talking to them facilitates instruction and measurements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…increasing pulse rate vs. intensity) can serve as an inspiration for developing these systems. At present, only research-based radar systems are beginning to emerge that have the ability to independently adjust parameters such as pulse repetition rates, pulse lengths and intensity (Smith et al 2016). Working with humans in this context has the advantage that talking to them facilitates instruction and measurements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CREW is a waveform agile, mm‐wavelength radar system with four transmit and four receive channels. It was created with the express intent of testing cognitive and fully adaptive radar principles in an experimental setting [45]. For the simulated experiments, the artificial radar returns were calibrated to closely match the measurements received by the CREW.…”
Section: Cost Function Design Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also shows the sensor hardware as a separate block that interacts directly with the environment. This structure is organised differently but has the same functionality as previous implementations of the FAR framework [5, 6, 29], which emulated the cognitive PAC using three components, a sensor, a processor, and a controller. The current dual‐processor construction was chosen because it better aligns with Fuster's neuropsychological cognitive structure [13], the JDL fusion levels [16], and the cognitive radar architectures in [1, 20–22, 24].…”
Section: Far Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%