pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.15821 · v1 · pith:UDZROWERnew · submitted 2026-01-22 · 📡 eess.SP

Separable Delay And Doppler Estimation In Passive Radar

Mats Viberg , Daniele Gerosa , Tomas McKelvey , Patrik Dammert , Thomas Eriksson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords passive radartime-delay estimationDoppler estimationseparable estimationbatch processingilluminators of opportunitydistributed sensors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Separating time-delay and Doppler estimation in passive radar yields superior Doppler accuracy while maintaining similar delay accuracy for slowly moving targets.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that splitting the estimation of time delay and Doppler in passive radar into separate steps can match the delay accuracy of a full joint method while providing better Doppler estimates. Data is split into batches, the delay is estimated first to avoid a costly two-dimensional search, and then the batches are made coherent using that delay information for the Doppler calculation. This works when targets move slowly so the delay does not change much between batches. The approach cuts computational work and the amount of data that needs to be transmitted in a network of sensors. Readers would care because passive radar relies on existing signals and this makes it more efficient for practical use.

Core claim

By estimating the time-delay separately first and then restoring coherency between batches for Doppler estimation, the separable method achieves similar time-delay accuracy to the full 2-D batch-wise method but superior Doppler estimates over a wide parameter range for slowly moving targets, while also lowering computational complexity and communication overhead.

What carries the argument

The separable estimation approach that determines time-delay independently before using it to enable coherent Doppler processing across data batches.

If this is right

  • Time-delay accuracy remains comparable to the joint 2-D method.
  • Doppler estimates improve over a wide range of operating parameters.
  • Computational complexity drops by skipping the full 2-D search.
  • Communication overhead falls in distributed sensor networks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could support real-time operation on lower-power hardware.
  • It may transfer to active radar or integrated sensing-communication systems that use batch processing.
  • Faster targets would require changes to handle delay variation inside each batch.

Load-bearing premise

Targets move slowly enough that their time delay stays roughly constant over the duration of multiple data batches.

What would settle it

A measurement showing sharp degradation in Doppler accuracy for targets whose speed causes noticeable delay change within one batch would disprove the performance claims.

read the original abstract

In passive radar, a network of distributed sensors exploit signals from so-called Illuminators-of-Opportunity to detect and localize targets. We consider the case where the IO signal is available at each receiver node through a reference channel, whereas target returns corrupted by interference are collected in a separate surveillance channel. The problem formulation is similar to an active radar that uses a noise-like waveform, or an integrated sensing and communication application. The available data is first split into batches of manageable size. In the direct approach, the target's time-delay and Doppler parameters are estimated jointly by incoherently combining the batch-wise data. We propose a new method to estimate the time-delay separately, thus avoiding a costly 2-D search. Our approach is designed for slowly moving targets, and the accuracy of the time-delay estimate is similar to that of the full batch-wise 2-D method. Given the time-delay, the coherency between batches can be restored when estimating the Doppler parameter. Thereby, the separable approach is found to yield superior Doppler estimates over a wide parameter range. In addition to reducing computational complexity, the proposed separable estimation technique also significantly reduces the communication overhead in a distributed radar setting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a separable estimation technique for time-delay and Doppler parameters in passive radar using illuminators of opportunity. Data is divided into batches; delay is estimated separately to avoid 2D search, and then inter-batch coherency is restored for Doppler estimation. Designed for slowly moving targets with approximately constant delay across batches, the method claims similar delay accuracy to joint 2D batch-wise estimation but superior Doppler estimates over a wide parameter range, along with reduced computational complexity and communication overhead in distributed settings.

Significance. If the performance claims hold under the stated assumptions, the separable approach offers a practical complexity reduction for passive radar processing by avoiding full 2-D searches and lowering communication overhead in distributed networks. The explicit design for the slow-target regime and the reported Doppler improvement represent a targeted algorithmic contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Method): The superiority of Doppler estimates is asserted over a wide parameter range, yet the construction requires the assumption that time-delay remains approximately constant across batches. No quantitative bound on target velocity or intra-batch delay drift is derived to delimit this regime, making the headline comparison conditional rather than general.
  2. [§4 and error analysis] §4 (Simulations) and error analysis: The abstract states performance benefits but the manuscript provides no derivation details, error analysis, or validation data for the incoherency restoration step after separate delay estimation. This leaves the central accuracy claims without supporting analysis.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§2] Clarify the exact batch size selection criterion and its impact on the constant-delay assumption.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to strengthen the presentation of assumptions and supporting analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Method): The superiority of Doppler estimates is asserted over a wide parameter range, yet the construction requires the assumption that time-delay remains approximately constant across batches. No quantitative bound on target velocity or intra-batch delay drift is derived to delimit this regime, making the headline comparison conditional rather than general.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative bound would better delimit the regime of validity. In the revised manuscript we will derive an explicit bound on target velocity (equivalently, on intra-batch delay drift) such that the constant-delay approximation induces negligible phase error for the subsequent Doppler estimator. This derivation will be placed in §3 and will make the performance claims conditional on the stated slow-target regime while preserving the reported Doppler improvement within that regime. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 and error analysis] §4 (Simulations) and error analysis: The abstract states performance benefits but the manuscript provides no derivation details, error analysis, or validation data for the incoherency restoration step after separate delay estimation. This leaves the central accuracy claims without supporting analysis.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original submission lacked a detailed derivation and error analysis for the coherency-restoration step. In the revision we will add an analytical section deriving the reduction in Doppler variance achieved by restoring inter-batch phase coherence after the separate delay estimate. The derivation will be supported by additional Monte-Carlo results that isolate the contribution of the restoration step, thereby substantiating the central accuracy claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: separable estimation derives directly from batch signal model without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper formulates the passive radar problem from first principles using reference and surveillance channels, splits data into batches, and derives the separable estimator by first solving a 1-D delay problem under the explicit slow-target assumption that delay is constant across batches, then restoring inter-batch phase for Doppler. This construction is algorithmic and does not invoke fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations for uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work. The accuracy claims follow from the method's explicit steps rather than tautological redefinition of inputs. The derivation remains self-contained against the stated signal model and does not collapse to its own assumptions by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from radar signal processing about noise-like waveforms and reference channels, plus the paper-specific assumption of slowly moving targets.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Target returns are corrupted by interference in the surveillance channel while the IO signal is available via reference channel.
    Stated in the abstract as the problem setup.
  • ad hoc to paper Targets move slowly enough that delay is constant across batches.
    Explicitly stated as the design condition for the separable method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1200 out tokens · 35368 ms · 2026-05-21T15:42:18.754354+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Separable Delay And Doppler Estimation In Passive Radar

    INTRODUCTION A network of passive radar sensors takes advantage of exist- ing electromagnetic signals to detect and locate targets. The so-called Illuminators of Opportunity (IO) can be TV or ra- dio transmitters, or even satellites [1]. Such systems have re- ceived much attention in the signal processing and radar sys- tem community, due to advantages in...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    For simplicity, we assume a single IO and a single target

    PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND DA TA MODEL We consider a passive radar scenario whereKRNs collect data emanating from reflections of an unknown IO signal. For simplicity, we assume a single IO and a single target. We also focus primarily on the processing required at each RN rather than at the CN. The target of interest is moving at constant non-zero speed, and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    power functions

    TARGET PARAMETER ESTIMA TION The proposed estimation methods have the following steps, similar to [10]. First, each RN uses the RC output to cancel the DPI and CI in the SC, and subsequently the target’s time- delay and Doppler parameters are estimated. These are fed to the CN, which performs the matching to the target position and velocity parameters. 3....

    work page

  4. [4]

    bistatic pair

    NUMERICAL EXAMPLES In this section, we present some numerical performance stud- ies of the proposed method in the form of Monte Carlo sim- ulations. Only a single “bistatic pair” (one IO and one RN) is considered, as well as a single target at random location (then kept fixed) within the clutter range. Figure 1 displays the impact of the number of data ba...

    work page

  5. [5]

    1: RMS error for a) time-delay and b) Doppler frequency estimates versus the number of batches

    CONCLUSIONS In this work we propose a method for time-delay and Doppler- frequency estimation of slowly moving targets using an (a) (b) Fig. 1: RMS error for a) time-delay and b) Doppler frequency estimates versus the number of batches. The size of each batch is fixed, soNincreases withM. (a) (b) Fig. 2: RMS error for a) time-delay and b) Doppler frequenc...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Passive radar tutorial,

    Heiner Kuschel, Diego Cristallini, and Karl Erik Olsen, “Passive radar tutorial,”IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 2–19, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Passive Radar: A Challenge Where Resourcefulness Is the Key to Suc- cess,

    Francesca Filippini and Fabiola Colone, “Passive Radar: A Challenge Where Resourcefulness Is the Key to Suc- cess,” inWomen in Telecommunications, Maria Sabrina Greco, Dajana Cassioli, Silvia Liberata Ullo, and Mar- garet J. Lyons, Eds., pp. 223–247. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023, Series Title: Women in Engi- neering and Science

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Cram´er–rao lower bound analysis for stochastic model based target parameter estimation in multistatic passive radar with direct-path interference,

    Jing Tong, Huang Gaoming, Tian Wei, and Peng Huafu, “Cram´er–rao lower bound analysis for stochastic model based target parameter estimation in multistatic passive radar with direct-path interference,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 106761–106772, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    A Sparsity-Based Passive Multistatic Detector,

    Xin Zhang, Johan Sward, Hongbin Li, Andreas Jakob- sson, and Braham Himed, “A Sparsity-Based Passive Multistatic Detector,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3658–3666, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Maximum likelihood and IRLS based moving source localization with distributed sensors,

    Xudong Zhang, Fangzhou Wang, Hongbin Li, and Bra- ham Himed, “Maximum likelihood and IRLS based moving source localization with distributed sensors,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 448–461, 2020

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Bistatic noise radar: Demonstration of correlation noise suppression,

    Martin Ankel, Robert Jonsson, Tomas Bryllert, Lars M. H. Ulander, and Per Delsing, “Bistatic noise radar: Demonstration of correlation noise suppression,”IET Radar , Sonar & Navigation, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 351–361, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Target localization in cooperative isac systems: A scheme based on 5g nr ofdm signals,

    Zhenkun Zhang, Hong Ren, Cunhua Pan, Sheng Hong, Dongming Wang, Jiangzhou Wang, and Xiaohu You, “Target localization in cooperative isac systems: A scheme based on 5g nr ofdm signals,”IEEE Transac- tions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 3562–3578, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Passive radar de- tection with noisy reference channel using principal sub- space similarity,

    Sandeep Gogineni, Pawan Setlur, Muralidhar Ran- gaswamy, and Raj Rao Nadakuditi, “Passive radar de- tection with noisy reference channel using principal sub- space similarity,” vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 18–36, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Max- imum Likelihood Delay and Doppler Estimation for Passive Sensing,

    Xudong Zhang, Hongbin Li, and Braham Himed, “Max- imum Likelihood Delay and Doppler Estimation for Passive Sensing,”IEEE Sensors J., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 180–188, Jan. 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Distur- bance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,

    F. Colone, D. W. O’Hagan, P. Lombardo, and C. J. Baker, “A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Distur- bance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 698–722, 2009

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Statistical analysis of target parameter estimation us- ing passive radar,

    M. Viberg, D. Gerosa, T. McKelvey, and T. Eriksson, “Statistical analysis of target parameter estimation us- ing passive radar,” inProc. 10th Int’l Conf. Computa- tional Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing, Dominican Republic, 2025, IEEE, To Appear

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Di- rect Target Localization for Distributed Passive Radars With Direct-Path Interference Suppression,

    Qiyu Zhou, Ye Yuan, Luca Venturino, and Wei Yi, “Di- rect Target Localization for Distributed Passive Radars With Direct-Path Interference Suppression,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 3611–3625, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Maximum likelihood methods in radar array signal processing,

    A.L. Swindlehurst and P. Stoica, “Maximum likelihood methods in radar array signal processing,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 421–441, Feb. 1998

    work page 1998

  19. [19]

    Synchronisation of bistatic radar systems,

    M. Weiss, “Synchronisation of bistatic radar systems,” inIEEE International IEEE International IEEE Inter- national Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium,

    work page

  20. [20]

    Proceedings

    IGARSS ’04. Proceedings. 2004, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2004, vol. 3, pp. 1750–1753, IEEE

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Mul- titarget Detection Strategy for Distributed MIMO Radar With Widely Separated Antennas,

    Shixing Yang, Wei Yi, and Andreas Jakobsson, “Mul- titarget Detection Strategy for Distributed MIMO Radar With Widely Separated Antennas,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Estimating the frequency of a noisy sinusoid by linear regression (corresp.),

    S. Tretter, “Estimating the frequency of a noisy sinusoid by linear regression (corresp.),”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 832–835, Nov. 1985

    work page 1985