Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRomero, Ric
dc.contributor.authorMourtzakis, Emmanouil
dc.dateJune 26, 2015
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-09T20:51:51Z
dc.date.available2016-05-09T20:51:51Z
dc.date.issued2015-06-26
dc.identifier.citationAerospace, Volume 2 (2015), p. 376-391en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10945/48648
dc.descriptionThe article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/aerospace2030376en_US
dc.description.abstractCognitive radar (CRr) is a recent radar paradigm that can potentially help drive aerospace innovation forward. Two specific platforms of cognitive radar used for target identification are discussed. One uses sequential hypothesis testing (SHT) in the receiver processing and is referred to as SHT-CRr and the other one uses maximum a posteriori (MAP) and is referred to as MAP-CRr. Our main goal in this article is to make a practical comparison between SHT-CRr and MAP-CRr platforms in terms of transmission energy efficiency. Since the performance metric for the SHT-CRr is the average number of illuminations (ANI) and the performance metric for MAP-CRr is the percentage of correct decisions (Pcd), a direct comparison between the platforms is difficult to perform. In this work, we introduce a useful procedure that involves a metric called total transmit energy (TTE) given a fixed Pcd as a metric to measure the transmit energy efficiency of both platforms. Lower TTE means that the platform is more efficient in achieving a desired Pcd. To facilitate a robust comparison, a transmit-adaptive waveform that consistently outperforms the pulsed waveform in terms of both Pcd and ANI is needed. We show that a certain adaptive waveform called the probability weighted energy signal-to-noise ratio-based (PWE-SNR) waveform outperforms the pulsed wideband waveform (i.e., flat frequency response) in terms of ANI and Pcd for all ranges of transmit waveform energy. We also note that the Pcd performance of SHT-CRr can be drastically different from the probability threshold (i.e., the probability value that is used to stop radar illumination for the purposes of classification), which is critically important for CRr system designers to realize. Indeed, this fact turns out to be key in accomplishing our goal to compare SHT-CRr and MAP-CRr in terms of transmit energy efficiency.en_US
dc.format.extent16 p.en_US
dc.rightsThis publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.en_US
dc.titleTransmit Energy Efficiency of Two Cognitive Radar Platforms for Target Identificationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.corporateNaval Postgraduate School (U.S.)en_US
dc.contributor.departmentElectrical and Computer Engineeringen_US
dc.subject.authorcognitive radaren_US
dc.subject.authortarget identificationen_US
dc.subject.authorprobability of correct decisionen_US
dc.subject.authoraverage number of illuminationsen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record