Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Differentiable Radar Ambiguity Functions: Mathematical Formulation and Computational Implementation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The discrete radar ambiguity function can be computed as a differentiable matrix pipeline, enabling gradient-based waveform design.

desk verdict A clean, reproducible AD layer for the discrete ambiguity function—useful engineering, but the novelty is oversold and the cyclic-shift definition needs prominent qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22935 v1 pith:K5O6E7KY submitted 2025-06-28 eess.SP cs.LGcs.NAmath.NA

Marc Bara Iniesta This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.LGcs.NAmath.NA
keywords ambiguityfunctionradarwaveformdesignautomaticdifferentiationWirtingercalculusgradient-basedoptimizationcognitivelowprobabilityofinterceptFFT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the radar ambiguity function, traditionally treated as a non-differentiable black-box metric, can be reformulated as a fully differentiable computation without changing its discrete definition. The proposed approach, called GRAF, computes the ambiguity function through a circulant shift matrix, an element-wise product, a column-wise FFT, and a magnitude-squared step, so that gradients flow backward through every operation. If correct, this would let radar waveform design use the same automatic-differentiation machinery as deep learning, replacing genetic algorithms and finite-difference approximations with direct gradient descent. The paper claims to provide the first complete framework of this kind, with a working implementation and experimental evidence on multi-objective waveform optimization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the compute graph of four differentiable steps: circular shift of the signal into a matrix $S$, element-wise product of the signal with the conjugate-shifted matrix $R = s \odot S^*$, a column-wise FFT $X = \operatorname{FFT}_{\mathrm{col}}(R)$, and the squared-magnitude operation $\chi = X \cdot X^*$. The squared-magnitude step, which is non-holomorphic, is made differentiable using the Wirtinger derivatives $\partial |z|^2 / \partial z = z^*$ and $\partial |z|^2 / \partial z^* = z$, and the linear FFT step passes gradients as an inverse FFT. The paper's implementation uses this graph to let existing automatic-differentiation engines propagate gradients from an arbitrary loss function back to the waveform samples.

What would settle it

Compute the loss gradient through GRAF for a short non-periodic waveform (e.g., a linear FM chirp with zero padding) and compare it against the finite-difference gradient of the same loss evaluated with a direct, aperiodic summation for the ambiguity function; a mismatch beyond numerical tolerance would falsify the claim that the differentiable circular formulation matches the standard ambiguity function for such pulses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the discrete ambiguity function $\chi[k,m] = \left|\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} s[n] s^*[(n-k) \bmod N] e^{j2\pi mn/N}\right|^2$ can be evaluated by a small sequence of matrix operations that are all differentiable: build a circulant shift matrix $S$ with $S[k,n] = s[(n-k) \bmod N]$, form $R = s \odot S^*$, apply an FFT along the time dimension to get $X = \operatorname{FFT}_{\mathrm{col}}(R)$, then compute $\chi = |X|^2$. The paper argues this computes exactly the same discrete ambiguity function as the classical definition while allowing gradients to flow through the magnitude operation via Wirtinger calculus, and that this yields a general-purpose component compatible with any modern automatic-differentiation framework, at $O(N^2 \log N)$ complexity.

Load-bearing premise

The discrete ambiguity function and its gradients use circular shifts, so the computation matches the continuous ambiguity function only for periodic waveforms; for finite-duration radar pulses without wrap-around, the circular version does not match the standard aperiodic ambiguity function, and the paper's own Section 8.6 acknowledges this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Waveform design objectives such as peak sidelobe level, integrated sidelobe level, and spectral flatness can be optimized directly by gradient descent, as the paper demonstrates by jointly minimizing PSL and spectral variance for low probability of intercept.
  • Neural network waveform generators can include the ambiguity function as a differentiable layer, enabling end-to-end training where the loss is computed on the ambiguity surface itself.
  • The same differentiable ambiguity function can serve as a building block for multi-objective and multi-scenario optimization, where several weighted loss terms are summed and differentiated jointly.
  • The $O(N^2 \log N)$ computational cost with $O(N^2)$ memory makes the approach practical on laptop hardware and amenable to GPU acceleration for longer waveforms, with a stated practical limit around $N \approx 4096$ samples.
  • The paper positions GRAF as a bridge between classical radar theory and automatic differentiation, opening the door to cross-ambiguity functions, MIMO radar extensions, and joint radar-communication waveform design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to replace the circular-shift formulation with a linear convolution (e.g., zero-padded shifts), producing a genuinely aperiodic ambiguity function; comparing optimizations on both versions would reveal how much the periodicity assumption affects the resulting waveforms.
  • The claimed equivalence to the continuous ambiguity function is exact only for periodic waveforms, so an important stress test is to measure sidelobe levels of a finite-duration chirp under the circular versus aperiodic definitions and check whether gradient-optimized solutions transfer to the aperiodic metric.
  • The paper asserts, but does not verify with a gradient check, that automatic-differentiation frameworks' complex-gradient convention matches the Wirtinger formulas; a standalone numerical gradient comparison would settle this and could be published as a short addendum.
  • The memory footprint of constructing the full $N \times N$ circulant matrix could be reduced by exploiting the FFT-based structure without materializing $S$, which would extend GRAF to waveforms longer than the stated $N \approx 4096$ limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents GRAF, a differentiable discrete ambiguity function (AF) layer for radar waveform optimization. Section 4 factorizes the discrete AF of Eq. (7) into a circulant-shift matrix construction, element-wise multiplication, a column FFT, and a squared-magnitude operation, and derives backward-pass gradients with Wirtinger calculus. The authors claim O(N^2 log N) complexity, compatibility with PyTorch/TensorFlow/JAX, and mathematical equivalence to the traditional AF. Section 7 compares gradient-based optimization with a genetic algorithm on a joint peak-sidelobe and spectral-variance objective and reports speedups and PSL improvements, with code and a DOI provided.

Significance. The forward computation in Section 4 is a clean, exact matrix factorization of the discrete cyclic AF, and the Wirtinger formulas (13)-(14) are standard; the main contribution is the compositional AD implementation and its public release. The O(N^2 log N) scaling, GPU-friendly structure, and open-source code are real strengths. However, the paper's central claims of mathematical equivalence and correct gradient flow rest on three unverified or under-specified points: the periodic-waveform assumption, the FFT sign convention, and the absence of a gradient check. The significance is therefore conditional on those points being resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (7); §8.6] The discrete AF is defined with circular shifts (n-k) mod N, which coincides with the continuous AF of Eq. (1) only for periodic waveforms. The paper's own Section 8.6 concedes that the circular formulation 'assumes periodic waveforms, which may not be appropriate for all applications.' This is load-bearing: for finite-duration radar pulses the cyclic AF and the aperiodic AF differ at delays near N/2, and the gradients and optimized PSL surfaces in Section 7 therefore describe the periodic model unless additional boundary handling is provided. Please qualify the abstract's mathematical-equivalence claim, or extend Algorithm 1 to aperiodic boundary conditions.
  2. [§4.3, Algorithm 1 step 3; Eq. (11)] The definition in Eq. (7) uses e^{+j2πmn/N}, whereas standard FFT routines (numpy.fft.fft, torch.fft.fft) sum with e^{-j2πmn/N}. The manuscript does not state that the implementation uses an inverse FFT, a conjugate input, or a relabeling of the Doppler axis. As written, the reported X[k,m] equals χ[k,-m], not χ[k,m], unless a sign-correction step exists in the code. Please specify the convention and include a line-by-line numerical check of the forward pass against Eq. (7).
  3. [§4.2-4.3; §7] No gradient check is reported. The paper asserts that modern AD frameworks handle complex gradients natively, but it never verifies that the backward pass through Algorithm 1 matches Eqs. (13)-(14) or the chain rule (15). A numerical comparison of AD gradients against finite differences, or against a closed-form Jacobian for a small N, is a minimal and easily provided validation. Without it, the reported optimized PSL and spectral-variance results cannot be attributed to the Wirtinger gradients claimed.
  4. [§7.2] The experimental comparison reports point values (e.g., '3.1x speedup with 3.2 dB PSL improvement') without stating the number of independent GA runs or any variance measure. Because GA is stochastic, the claims that GA solutions 'lie strictly dominated' and that GRAF provides 'consistent performance' are not supported by a single trajectory. Please report the number of seeds, mean±std or distributions, and a significance test for the headline speedup and PSL numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) sums R[k] over n but R[k] has no n index; this traditional-computation formula is dimensionally inconsistent and should be corrected or replaced by the delay-row DFT.
  2. [§3.3 and §4.2] The text repeatedly calls the squared-magnitude operation 'non-differentiable'; |z|^2 is differentiable everywhere. It is the magnitude |z| that is non-differentiable at zero. Please adjust the wording to avoid a technical error in the motivation.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (17)] The normalization χ ← χ/max χ described in the implementation notes changes the output relative to the exact definition Eq. (7), but Algorithm 1 does not include it. Please state explicitly whether the public implementation and the experiments use the normalized or unnormalized AF; this affects absolute loss values and gradient magnitudes, even if ratio metrics like PSL are unaffected.
  4. [Figures 2-4] The manuscript refers to Figures 2-4 for convergence, Pareto frontier, speedups, and spectral adaptation, but no figure images are present in the version I reviewed. Please include the figures; the Section 7 claims cannot be fully assessed from captions alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GRAF computation exactly evaluates the paper's own discrete ambiguity function definition, and the gradient formulas follow by the chain rule without fitted parameters or self-citation load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Equation (2) defines the discrete ambiguity function with circular shifts, and Equation (7) restates the same definition. The compute graph in Section 4.3 (shift matrix, element-wise product, column FFT, magnitude squared) evaluates exactly that sum, so the forward pass is exact by construction rather than by fitting. The backward pass uses Wirtinger calculus and the ordinary chain rule (Eqs. 13-15); no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The experimental comparison against genetic algorithms is a benchmark, not a prediction derived from GRAF, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The acknowledged limitation in Section 8.6 that circular convolution assumes periodic waveforms is a correctness/scope caveat, not a circularity: it concerns whether the discrete object matches a continuous aperiodic ambiguity function, not whether the derivation reduces to its input. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; the provisional patent note is not used to justify any mathematical claim. The 'first complete framework' assertion is a novelty claim that is not verified, but overclaiming is not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation is a standard FFT-based ambiguity function with textbook Wirtinger gradients. The reader pays for the periodic-waveform assumption, the framework-convention assumption, and the experiment-design choices. No new physical entities are introduced; GRAF is a software component, not a new degree of freedom.

free parameters (5)
  • Adam learning rate = 0.01
    Section 7.1.2: chosen through preliminary experiments to balance convergence speed and stability. The comparison results depend on this choice, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Spectral variance scaling alpha = 2000
    Section 7.1.1: chosen so that PSL and spectral variance contribute equally when lambda equals 1. This scaling directly shapes the reported Pareto frontier.
  • Trade-off weight lambda = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0
    Section 7.1.1: designer-chosen weights. The claimed speedups and PSL improvements are reported per lambda and are not averaged over runs or bounded by error bars.
  • GA population size and generations = 50 individuals, 300 generations
    Section 7.1.2: described as a standard choice. The relative performance of GA is sensitive to these hyperparameters, and no variation is reported.
  • Sigmoid sharpness gamma for mainlobe width = not reported
    Section 5.1 introduces gamma for a differentiable mainlobe width approximation. It is not used in the experiments but is presented as a tunable parameter in the framework.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The circular-shift discrete ambiguity function of Eq (2) is the correct discretization of the continuous ambiguity function Eq (1).
    Section 3.1 defines the discrete AF with (n-k) mod N periodic shifts. Section 8.6 concedes this assumes periodic waveforms, which may not hold for aperiodic radar pulses.
  • domain assumption The magnitude-squared operation |z|^2 is differentiable in the Wirtinger sense, and automatic differentiation frameworks implement the same convention.
    Section 4.2 derives gradients using Wirtinger calculus and asserts that PyTorch, TensorFlow, and JAX handle complex gradients natively. No gradient check against numerical differentiation is provided.
  • standard math The FFT computes the DFT exactly, and an FFT over the time dimension yields the Doppler spectrum for every delay.
    Section 4.1 relies on FFT_col(R) in Eq (11) to produce X[k,m]. This is exact for the stated discrete definition.
  • domain assumption Genetic algorithms are the de facto standard for multi-objective radar waveform design, making GA the appropriate baseline.
    Section 7.1 argues that GA is the state of the art for multi-objective problems, but this is asserted rather than benchmarked against other metaheuristics or the cited gradient-based methods.
  • ad hoc to paper The Adam learning rate, alpha scaling, and lambda values are adequate for the comparison.
    Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 set these values by hand or preliminary experiments. The sensitivity of the conclusions to these choices is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiable Radar Ambiguity Functions: Mathematical Formulation and Computational Implementation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5O6E7KY

@misc{pith2026250622935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiable Radar Ambiguity Functions: Mathematical Formulation and Computational Implementation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5O6E7KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22935}
}
read the original abstract

The ambiguity function is fundamental to radar waveform design, characterizing range and Doppler resolution capabilities. However, its traditional formulation involves non-differentiable operations, preventing integration with gradient-based optimization methods and modern machine learning frameworks. This paper presents the first complete mathematical framework and computational implementation for differentiable radar ambiguity functions. Our approach addresses the fundamental technical challenges that have prevented the radar community from leveraging automatic differentiation: proper handling of complex-valued gradients using Wirtinger calculus, efficient computation through parallelized FFT operations, numerical stability throughout cascaded operations, and composability with arbitrary differentiable operations. We term this approach GRAF (Gradient-based Radar Ambiguity Functions), which reformulates the ambiguity function computation to maintain mathematical equivalence while enabling gradient flow through the entire pipeline. The resulting implementation provides a general-purpose differentiable ambiguity function compatible with modern automatic differentiation frameworks, enabling new research directions including neural network-based waveform generation with ambiguity constraints, end-to-end optimization of radar systems, and integration of classical radar theory with modern deep learning. We provide complete implementation details and demonstrate computational efficiency suitable for practical applications. This work establishes the mathematical and computational foundation for applying modern machine learning techniques to radar waveform design, bridging classical radar signal processing with automatic differentiation frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22935 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. End-to-end waveform generation pipeline with GRAF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence comparison and Pareto frontier analysis. Left: Convergence behavior for GRAF vs GA at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computational performance comparison between GRAF and GA. Left: Time to convergence showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral adaptation for LPI capability. GRAF-optimized waveforms show progressive spectral flattening as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unexplored Opportunities for Automatic Differentiation in Astrophysics

    astro-ph.IM 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A position paper proposing automatic differentiation for nine astrophysical domains under the GRASP framework, with no working code or benchmark results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Non-Convex Optimization Techniques for Radar Waveform Design under Practical Con- straints

    Khaled Alhujaili. Non-Convex Optimization Techniques for Radar Waveform Design under Practical Con- straints. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Quartic gradient descent for tractable radar slow- time ambiguity function shaping

    Khaled Alhujaili, Vishal Monga, and Muralidhar Rangaswamy. Quartic gradient descent for tractable radar slow- time ambiguity function shaping. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , 56(4):2447–2464, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A two forty-phase code design with good correlation property

    A Bala Raju, SP Singh, and D Sunehra. A two forty-phase code design with good correlation property. InLecture Notes in Electrical Engineering . Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Overview of radar waveform diversity

    Shannon D Blunt and Karl Gerlach. Overview of radar waveform diversity. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 31(11):2–42, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Fast algorithm for intelligent optimization of the cross ambiguity function of passive radar

    J Che, C Wang, Y Jia, Z Ren, C Liu, and F Zhou. Fast algorithm for intelligent optimization of the cross ambiguity function of passive radar. Xi’an Dianzi Keji Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Xidian University , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Ambiguity function analysis and optimization of frequency-hopping mimo radar with movable antennas

    X Chen, M-M Zhao, M Li, L Li, M-J Zhao, and J Wang. Ambiguity function analysis and optimization of frequency-hopping mimo radar with movable antennas. IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Decentralised intelligent passive radar detection based on clutter modelling

    N Del-Rey-Maestre, MP Jarabo-Amores, D Mata-Moya, and J Rosado-Sanz. Decentralised intelligent passive radar detection based on clutter modelling. In 2024 21st European Radar Conference, EuRAD 2024 , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Optimization of a new golay sequences shaping for low sidelobe radar ambiguity function

    K Farnane and K Minaoui. Optimization of a new golay sequences shaping for low sidelobe radar ambiguity function. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Cognitive radar: a way of the future

    Simon Haykin. Cognitive radar: a way of the future. IEEE signal processing magazine, 23(1):30–40, 2006

    2006

  2. [10]

    A doppler tolerant waveform and filter joint design method with anti- interrupted sampling repeater jamming

    Y Hua, X Du, G Cui, and Y Rong. A doppler tolerant waveform and filter joint design method with anti- interrupted sampling repeater jamming. Dianbo Kexue Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Radio Science , 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Deep learning for radar waveform design: Retrospectives and the road ahead

    B Kang, J Kweon, M Rangaswamy, and V Monga. Deep learning for radar waveform design: Retrospectives and the road ahead. In Proceedings of the IEEE Radar Conference , 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Modified price nonlinear frequency modulated waveform for improved performance.IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2025

    GU Kim and JP Kim. Modified price nonlinear frequency modulated waveform for improved performance.IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Design of a fixed aperture 2d sparse radar array

    C Kurtscheid and MA Gonzalez-Huici. Design of a fixed aperture 2d sparse radar array. In 2024 21st European Radar Conference, EuRAD 2024, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Radar signals

    Nadav Levanon and Eli Mozeson. Radar signals. John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Balanced random walk for binary phase noise waveform design

    B Li. Balanced random walk for binary phase noise waveform design. InProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering , 2020. 15 GRAF: Differentiable Ambiguity Functions

    2020

  8. [16]

    Genetic algorithms for distributed mimo radar antenna position optimization

    S Maresca, A Malacarne, MMH Amir, F Ahmad, G Pandey, A Bogoni, and M Scaffardi. Genetic algorithms for distributed mimo radar antenna position optimization. FUSION 2024 - 27th International Conference on Information Fusion, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gradient- based optimization of pcfm radar waveforms

    Charles A Mohr, Patrick M McCormick, Charles A Topliff, Shannon D Blunt, and J Michael Baden. Gradient- based optimization of pcfm radar waveforms. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , 57(4):2049–2064, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Sequence optimisation for com- pressed sensing cdma mimo radar via mutual coherence minimisation

    S Nagesh, MA Gonz ´alez-Huici, A Bathelt, M Heredia Conde, and J Ender. Sequence optimisation for com- pressed sensing cdma mimo radar via mutual coherence minimisation. IET Radar , Sonar and Navigation, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    A novel energy-focused slow-time mimo radar and signal processing scheme

    B Niu, Y Zhao, M Zhang, D Tang, T Zhang, S Zhang, and D Gao. A novel energy-focused slow-time mimo radar and signal processing scheme. Signal Processing, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    An introduction to deep learning for the physical layer

    Timothy O’Shea and Jakob Hoydis. An introduction to deep learning for the physical layer. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , 3(4):563–575, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Constrained riemannian manifold optimization for the simultaneous shaping of ambiguity function and transmit beampattern

    X Qiu, W Jiang, Y Liu, S Chatzinotas, F Gini, and MS Greco. Constrained riemannian manifold optimization for the simultaneous shaping of ambiguity function and transmit beampattern. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Human movement detection and classification capabilities using passive wi-fi based radar.International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , 2024

    H Razali, NEA Rashid, MNF Nasarudin, NN Ismail, ZI Khan, SAEA Rahim, MSAM Ali, and NAZ Zakaria. Human movement detection and classification capabilities using passive wi-fi based radar.International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Optimizing fecaf in mtsfm waveforms using conjugate gradient descent with efficient line search for radar and sonar applications

    G Reddy, J Pandu, and C Babu. Optimizing fecaf in mtsfm waveforms using conjugate gradient descent with efficient line search for radar and sonar applications. International Journal of Communication Systems , 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Joint sequence optimization-based ofdm waveform design for integrated radar and communication systems

    Y Wang, Y Cao, T-S Yeo, J Han, and Z Peng. Joint sequence optimization-based ofdm waveform design for integrated radar and communication systems. IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Joint design of transmission sequences and receiver filters based on the generalized cross ambiguity function

    C Wen, S Wen, X Zhang, H Xiao, and Z Li. Joint design of transmission sequences and receiver filters based on the generalized cross ambiguity function. Dianzi Yu Xinxi Xuebao/Journal of Electronics and Information Technology, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Unimodular waveform design for ambiguity function shaping with spectral constraint via a manifold-based exact penalty method

    X Xiao, H Wang, J Hu, X Tai, Y Zuo, H Li, K Zhong, and D An. Unimodular waveform design for ambiguity function shaping with spectral constraint via a manifold-based exact penalty method. Signal Processing, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Configuration design of bistatic forward-looking sar driven by spatial resolution metrics

    J Yang, X Gu, W Li, Y Qiu, Z Sun, and J Wu. Configuration design of bistatic forward-looking sar driven by spatial resolution metrics. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Automatic recognition method of multi-radar signals based on multi-domain fea- tures

    J Yang, X Hao, and Q Chen. Automatic recognition method of multi-radar signals based on multi-domain fea- tures. Beijing Hangkong Hangtian Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Adaptive lpd radar waveform design with generative adversarial neural networks

    MR Ziemann and CA Metzler. Adaptive lpd radar waveform design with generative adversarial neural networks. In Conference Record - Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , 2023. 16

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.