Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Monopulse Parameter Estimation based on MIMO-STCA Radar in the Presence of Multiple Mainlobe Jammings

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that mainlobe jamming can be cancelled without distorting the monopulse ratio by nulling along one spatial axis, and that MIMO-STCA radar extends the same undistorted ratio to range estimation.

desk verdict Worth refereeing for the four-channel MLJ suppression and MIMO-STCA range monopulse; the row-column ABF proof has an internal inconsistency in Eq. (44) that must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06495 v1 pith:JPD2OMN7 submitted 2025-05-10 eess.SP

Huake Wang , Dongchang Zhang , Guisheng Liao , Yinghui Quan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords monopulseradarmainlobejammingsuppressionadaptivebeamformingMIMO-STCAjointangle-rangeestimationspace-timecodingarrayfour-channelrow-column
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

The paper sets out to show that a monopulse radar can suppress mainlobe and sidelobe jammers without corrupting its angle estimates, and that the same monopulse framework can also estimate target range. Its two algorithms null jammers along one spatial direction only, leaving the sum and difference beams along the orthogonal direction untouched, so the ratio that carries angle information stays equal to the quiescent monopulse ratio. The range capability comes from MIMO-STCA radar, whose row-to-row transmit time shifts create a range-dependent steering vector that a conventional array lacks. A sympathetic reader would care because jamming suppression and unbiased angle estimation have usually pulled against each other in mainlobe scenarios, and range estimation has been outside the monopulse technique altogether.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product structure of the rectangular-array sum beampattern, $g_{\Sigma}(u,v)=g_{\Sigma a}(u)\,g_{\Sigma e}(v)$, and the analogous factorization of all four channels. The four-channel algorithm adds a delta-delta channel $f_{\Delta\Delta}$ and forms adaptive outputs such as $\hat{f}_{\Sigma A}=f_{\Sigma}-w_a f_{\Delta E}$ and $\hat{f}_{\Delta A}=f_{\Delta A}-w_a f_{\Delta\Delta}$; because the adaptive weight $w_a$ equals the ratio of the jammer's sum to difference responses, the jammer cancels while the target-dependent monopulse ratio reduces to the quiescent ratio $g_{\Delta a}/g_{\Sigma a}$. The row-column algorithm replaces element-level adaptation with MVDR nulling per row and per column at subarray level, then forms sum and difference beams along the orthogonal axes; the same factorization is invoked to make the adaptive monopulse ratios in elevation, azimuth, and range equal to the quiescent tangent curves. The MIMO-STCA radar supplies the range axis: row-to-row time shift $\Delta t$ makes the vertical steering vector $a_z(\theta,R)$ depend on range as well as elevation, and after elevation compensation it becomes $a_{zr}(R)$, so sum and difference beams and a monopulse ratio $m_R=p_{\Delta r}/p_{\Sigma r}$ can be defined in range.

What would settle it

A direct way to settle the central claim is to run the row-column algorithm with the paper's array and jammer parameters, compute the adaptive elevation monopulse ratio curve across target elevations near boresight, and overlay it on the quiescent curve; the paper predicts exact overlap, while any slope change or target-dependent bend would show that the pattern-factorization premise has failed. The test is sharpest with jammers at different elevations near the row or column DOF limit, where equal adaptive weights across rows cannot be maintained. One can also check directly whether the adaptive row weights are identical across rows; if successive weights differ by a phase ramp, the inter-row target phase progression is destroyed and the undistorted monopulse ratio cannot follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that in a rectangular planar array, the adaptive monopulse ratio in azimuth remains the quiescent ratio while a mainlobe jammer is cancelled along elevation, and vice versa, because the two-dimensional beam pattern factors into independent row and column patterns and the adaptive weight equals the ratio of the jammer's sum to difference responses. The four-channel algorithm adds a delta-delta channel to the conventional sum-difference-difference channels and uses it as the auxiliary channel, so a single mainlobe jammer is suppressed without a target-direction constraint that would bend the monopulse curve. The row-column algorithm repeats MVDR cancellation in every row and every column at subarray level, using the available M-1 or N-1 degrees of freedom per row or column to place nulls on multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jammers before forming sum and difference beams along the orthogonal axes. With MIMO-STCA radar, the vertical steering vector depends on both elevation and range through the transmit time shift; after elevation compensation it becomes range-only, so sum and difference beams in range yield an adaptive range monopulse ratio equal to the quiescent one. Simulation results show nulls at the jammer coordinates, monopulse ratio curves coinciding with the quiescent curves, angle errors near a few thousandths of a degree, a range error of several meters, and angle RMSE that improves with SNR and beats phased-array monopulse in the tested jammer scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after per-row and per-column MVDR cancellation the adaptive two-dimensional beam pattern still factors into an independent row pattern times a column pattern, so the adaptive monopulse ratio collapses to the quiescent ratio; the paper asserts this factorization rather than deriving it, and its expression for how adaptive row-weight vectors change from row to row is in tension with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single mainlobe jammer can be suppressed while the azimuth and elevation monopulse curves remain identical to the quiescent curves, so angle estimates stay unbiased.
  • With the row-column algorithm, multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jammers can be nulled simultaneously as long as their number stays below the row or column degrees of freedom, and the orthogonal monopulse curves are preserved.
  • MIMO-STCA radar supplies a range monopulse ratio, so a tracker obtains joint angle-range estimates from one monopulse processing chain instead of needing a separate range measurement.
  • In the tested configurations the angle estimation RMSE of MIMO and MIMO-STCA monopulse is lower than phased-array monopulse under mainlobe jamming, and the advantage persists as the target approaches the jammer angle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not explore how close to the row or column DOF limit the factorization must break; a natural extension is to quantify how the adaptive monopulse ratio bends as the number of jammers approaches M-1 or N-1, where the adaptive row weights can no longer be identical across rows.
  • Because the range monopulse curve is $\tan(\pi\mu M\Delta t \Delta R/c)$, the transmit time shift $\Delta t$ is a free design parameter that sets the range window and slope; optimizing $\Delta t$ for unambiguous range without creating grating nulls is left implicit in the paper.
  • The same four-channel construction could be applied in the elevation-range plane after azimuth nulling, giving a third independent estimation axis with no hardware change; the paper demonstrates elevation-azimuth and azimuth-range processing but not elevation-range processing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes two adaptive beamforming schemes for monopulse parameter estimation on a MIMO space-time coding array (MIMO-STCA). The four-channel algorithm adds a delta-delta channel to the conventional sum/difference channels, and cancels a single mainlobe jammer by placing a null along one angular coordinate while keeping sum and difference beampatterns undistorted along the orthogonal coordinate, thereby preserving the monopulse ratio. The row-column algorithm performs MVDR adaptive beamforming on each row and column at subarray level to suppress multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jammers, then forms sum and difference beams for angle and range estimation. The paper also exploits the range-dependent vertical steering vector of MIMO-STCA to create a range monopulse. Simulations with a 16x16 array, one target, two mainlobe jammers and one sidelobe jammer show deep nulls at the jammer locations and low RMSE for the estimated angles and range.

Significance. If the claims hold, the four-channel algorithm is a clean and useful contribution: under the stated Pj >> Ps, Pn assumption, the adaptive weights reduce to ratios of quiescent beampatterns, and the preservation of the monopulse ratio follows algebraically from the separable rectangular-array factorization. The idea of using the STCA range-dependent degrees of freedom to form a range monopulse is also interesting and is supported by Monte Carlo simulations. However, two load-bearing points in the current manuscript need repair: the row-column weight derivation in Section IV and the elevation-compensation vector in Section III-B. Neither flaw appears to undermine the four-channel azimuth/elevation result, but both are central to the multi-jammer and range-estimation claims as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-A, Eqs. (42)-(44) and Eqs. (60)-(62)] The claimed inter-row weight relation in Eq. (44) is unsupported and inconsistent with the covariance model. For the m-th row data vector in Eq. (38a), each source contributes P_i a_y(theta_i, phi_i) a_y^H(theta_i, phi_i) to the covariance because the row-dependent phase e^{j4 pi d/lambda (m-1) sin(theta_i)} cancels in the outer product. Hence R_{X_{Rm}} is independent of m, and the MVDR solution in Eq. (42) gives identical weights for all rows. The correct relation is W_{m+1} = W_m, not the phase-shifted relation in Eq. (44). If Eq. (44) were taken literally, the row outputs would acquire an extra inter-row phase that doubles the target's elevation phase progression, so the factorization in Eq. (61) and the collapse of the adaptive monopulse ratio to the quiescent ratio in Eq. (62) would not follow. The derivation of Eq. (62) must be redone with equal row weights and should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (27)] The compensation vector c(theta) in Eq. (27) has entries e^{-j 2 pi d/lambda sin(theta)}, but the vertical steering vector az(theta, R) in Eq. (15) has entries e^{j 4 pi d/lambda sin(theta)} e^{j 4 pi mu R/c Delta t}. Removing the angle-dependent term therefore requires e^{-j 4 pi d/lambda sin(theta)}. As written, azr(R) in Eq. (27) retains a residual angle-dependent phase e^{j 2 pi d/lambda sin(theta)}, so the range-only factorization in Eq. (29) and the range monopulse ratio in Eq. (36) are not established. This is a load-bearing error for the claimed range-estimation capability and must be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The vertical steering vector is written inconsistently: the second element is shown both as e^{j 2 alpha_z} e^{j 4 pi mu R/c Delta t} and as e^{j 4 pi (d/lambda sin(theta) + mu R/c Delta t)}. Use one uniform expression.
  2. [Eqs. (21a) and (25a)] The adaptive azimuth-sum beam is denoted hat{f}_{Sigma A} in Eq. (21a) but hat{f}_P^A in Eq. (25a); the notation should be unified.
  3. [Eq. (59)] The definition of w_Sigma E appears to duplicate aze(theta_0) twice; w_Sigma E should simply be aze(theta_0) or the vector should be written without the redundant leading factor.
  4. [Eq. (63b)] The expression for g_Delta e(theta_s) contains what looks like an extra duplicated factor in the numerator; it should be checked against the half-split difference weight definition in Eq. (59b).
  5. [Section V] There are numerous typos, including 'Simlar', 'MIOM-STCA', 'showm', 'signa', and 'traditonal'; a careful language pass is needed.
  6. [Fig. 15] The caption says the RMSEs 'vary with the target position', while the text says the target angle changes; the caption should be made consistent with the experiment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity; the row-column ABF section contains a repairable proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained: Section II re-derives the MIMO-STCA signal model in Eqs. (6)-(15) instead of importing it from the authors' prior STCA papers, and the four-channel ABF ratio preservation in Eq. (26) follows algebraically from the rectangular-array factorization and the P_j >> P_s approximation in Eqs. (23)-(24), without fitting any parameter to the estimated angle or range. The simulations are performance evaluations of the derived beamformers, not predictions fitted to themselves, and the self-citations [28], [31], [33] are background references, not load-bearing. The main caveat is a correctness gap, not circularity: Section IV-C asserts the adaptive elevation beampattern factorization in Eq. (61) without proof, and Eq. (44) is inconsistent with the MVDR solution in Eq. (42), since the row-dependent phase cancels in R_{X_{Rm}}, so the row weights should be equal rather than phase-progressed. In addition, Eq. (27) appears to use the wrong compensation phase (e^{-j2πd/λ sinθ} instead of e^{-j4πd/λ sinθ}). These are repairable technical errors; because no conclusion is obtained by assuming itself, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard narrowband radar modeling assumptions, waveform orthogonality, the dominance of jammer power over target and noise in the weight computation, and, for the row-column algorithm, an unproven product factorization of the adaptive beampattern. The factorization premise is the most fragile; it is asserted in Eqs. (60)-(62) and is contradicted by the phase-shift relationship in Eq. (44). No entities are invented and no free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The transmitted signals φ_m(t) = c_m g(t) are strictly orthogonal: ∫ φ_m(t) φ*_m'(t) dt = 0 for m ≠ m'.
    Eq. (3); used to remove all cross-row terms in the matched-filter output (Eqs. 11-12).
  • domain assumption Narrowband approximation: the row time delay Δt only adds a linear frequency phase in the envelope, g(t-(m-1)Δt) ≈ g(t) e^{-j2πμ(m-1)tΔt}, with no envelope shift or quadratic phase.
    Eq. (7); converts time-shifted LFM transmission into a range- and angle-dependent phase.
  • domain assumption Jammer power dominates: Pj >> Ps and Pj >> Pn, so target and noise terms are dropped in the adaptive weight expressions (Eqs. 24, 34).
    Stated near Eq. (24); without this, the weight equality w_a1 = w_a2 and the undistorted monopulse ratio only hold approximately.
  • domain assumption Target, jammers and noise are zero-mean, mutually uncorrelated random processes, with white Gaussian noise.
    Eq. (17) and correlation expressions (23); needed for the E[·] weight formulas and for covariance matrices to be identical across rows.
  • ad hoc to paper The adaptive row/column beampatterns factor as a product of independent row and column beampatterns (Eqs. 60-61), making the adaptive monopulse ratio equal to the quiescent ratio (Eq. 62).
    Asserted in Section IV-C without derivation; it is the premise that makes the row-column algorithm preserve the monopulse ratio, and it is contradicted by the phase-shift relation in Eq. (44).
  • domain assumption The azimuth-range processing requires the elevation compensation vector c(θ) to cancel exactly the elevation phase in az(θ,R), yielding azr(R) that depends only on range.
    Eq. (27); the c(θ) written in the text has e^{-j2π d/λ sinθ}, which does not cancel the e^{+j4π d/λ sinθ} elevation phase, so the compensation as printed is inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monopulse Parameter Estimation based on MIMO-STCA Radar in the Presence of Multiple Mainlobe Jammings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPD2OMN7

@misc{pith2026250506495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monopulse Parameter Estimation based on MIMO-STCA Radar in the Presence of Multiple Mainlobe Jammings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPD2OMN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06495}
}
read the original abstract

The monopulse technique is characterized by its high accuracy in angle estimation and simplicity in engineering implementation. However, in the complex electromagnetic environment, the presence of the mainlobe jamming (MLJ) greatly degrades the accuracy of angle estimation. Conventional methods of jamming suppression often lead to significant deviations in monopulse ratio while suppressing MLJ. Additionally, the monopulse technique based on traditional radar cannot jointly estimate the target's range. In this paper, the four-channel adaptive beamforming (ABF) algorithm is proposed, which adds a delta-delta channel based on conventional sum-difference-difference three-channel to suppress a single MLJ. Moreover, considering the suppression of multiple MLJs and sidelobe jammings (SLJs), the row-column ABF algorithm is proposed. This algorithm utilizes more spatial degrees of freedom (DOFs) to suppress multiple jammings by the row-column adaptive beamforming at the subarray level. The key ideal of both algorithms is to suppress MLJ with null along one spatial direction while keeping the sum and difference beampatterns undistorted along another spatial direction. Therefore, the monopulse ratio remains undistorted while suppressing the MLJ, ensuring the accuracy of monopulse parameter estimation. Furthermore, by utilizing the additional degrees of freedom (DOFs) in the range domain provided by the multiple-input multiple-output space-time coding array (MIMO-STCA) radar, joint angle-range estimation can be achieved through the monopulse technique. Simulation results highlight the effectiveness of the proposed methods in suppressing multiple MLJs and enhancing the accuracy of monopulse parameter estimation, as verified by the low root mean square error (RMSE) in the parameter estimation results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MIMO-STCA planar array signal model Specifically, each row or column is utilized as a subarray for ABF, thus more DOFs are exploited to suppress multiple jammings. Then, monopulse beamforming is performed along column or row to jointly estimate angle and range. The innovations proposed in this paper are summarized as follows: 1)A new joint angle-range estimation method for MIMO￾STCA radar is proposed. Utilizing the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The two-dimensional coordinate system for MIMO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Azimuth-elevation four-channel beamforming diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Process of row-column adaptive beamforming algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Adaptive elevation-sum beampattern (a) 3-D view (b) 2-D view (c) beampattern in azimuth di￾mension (d) beampattern in elevation di￾mension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adaptive azimuth-sum beampattern (a) 3-D view (b) 2-D view (c) beampattern in azimuth di￾mension (d) beampattern in range dimen￾sion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Adaptive range-sum beampattern an azimuth angle of 3 ◦ , with a depth approaching −30dB, providing a more intuitive demonstration that the MLJ1 has been effectively suppressed along the azimuth direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Adaptive elevation-sum beampattern (a) 3-D view (b) 2-D view (c) beampattern in azimuth di￾mension (d) beampattern in elevation di￾mension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Adaptive azimuth-sum beampattern dimension of the adaptive elevation-sum beam has been well maintained. To sum up, in the adaptive elevation-sum beam, the multiple jammings have been effectively canceled along azimuth direction while keeping the beampattern undistorte…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Adaptive range-sum beampattern (a) elevation angle (b) azimuth angle (c) range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Monopulse ratio curve and parameters estimation result using four-channel ABF algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Monopulse ratio curve and parameters estimation result using row-column ABF algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: RMSEs of parameter estimation versus SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: RMSEs of parameter estimation vary with the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. M. Sherman and D. K. Barton, Monopulse principles and techniques . Artech House, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Overview of generalized monopulse estimation,

    U. Nickel, “Overview of generalized monopulse estimation,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 27– 56, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Hybrid continuous- wave and self-injection-locking monopulse radar for posture and fall detection,

    W.-C. Su, X.-X. Wu, T.-S. Horng, and M.-C. Tang, “Hybrid continuous- wave and self-injection-locking monopulse radar for posture and fall detection,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques , vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1686–1695, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Performance analysis of mainlobe canceller for monopulse at subarray level in the presence of amplitude-phase error,

    H. Wu, R. Liu, Y . Guo, J. Zhang, F. He, and J. Meng, “Performance analysis of mainlobe canceller for monopulse at subarray level in the presence of amplitude-phase error,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Angle estimation for two unresolved targets with monopulse radar,

    Z. Wang, A. Sinha, P. Willett, and Y . Bar-Shalom, “Angle estimation for two unresolved targets with monopulse radar,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 998–1019, 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Probabilistic analysis of the amplitude-phase error tolerance for cross-eye jamming,

    Y . Liu, L. Zhou, F. He, D. Li, and J. Meng, “Probabilistic analysis of the amplitude-phase error tolerance for cross-eye jamming,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 678–684, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Angular glint analysis based on parametric model of target,

    X. Hong, Z. Liang, Y . Song, and S. Hu, “Angular glint analysis based on parametric model of target,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Signal, Information and Data Processing (ICSIDP) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Intelligence and electronic warfare: challenges and future trends,

    A. Al-Khawaja and S. B. Sadkhan, “Intelligence and electronic warfare: challenges and future trends,” in 2021 7th International Conference on Contemporary Information Technology and Mathematics (ICCITM) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 118–123

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Enhanced adbf architecture for monopulse angle estimation in multiple jammings,

    X. Chen, T. Shu, K.-B. Yu, and W. Yu, “Enhanced adbf architecture for monopulse angle estimation in multiple jammings,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters , vol. 16, pp. 2684–2687, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    A novel realistic approach of adaptive beamforming based on deep neural networks,

    I. Mallioras, Z. D. Zaharis, P. I. Lazaridis, and S. Pantelopoulos, “A novel realistic approach of adaptive beamforming based on deep neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 8833–8848, 2022. 13

    2022

  3. [11]

    A fast blocking matrix generating algorithm for generalized sidelobe canceller beamformer in high speed rail like scenario,

    S. Dai, M. Li, Q. H. Abbasi, and M. A. Imran, “A fast blocking matrix generating algorithm for generalized sidelobe canceller beamformer in high speed rail like scenario,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 21, no. 14, pp. 15 775–15 783, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Performance analysis and improvement of constrained adaptive monopulse approach,

    Q. He, Z. Cheng, Z. Wang, and Z. He, “Performance analysis and improvement of constrained adaptive monopulse approach,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mainlobe jamming suppression method based on beamspace orthogonal cancellation for distributed array radar,

    B. Han, X. Yang, T. Lan, and W. Pu, “Mainlobe jamming suppression method based on beamspace orthogonal cancellation for distributed array radar,” IET Conference Proceedings , vol. 2020, pp. 844–847, 2021

    2020

  6. [14]

    Adaptive polarization-constrained monopulse approach for dual-polarization array,

    Y . Lu, J. Ma, J. Zhou, and L. Shi, “Adaptive polarization-constrained monopulse approach for dual-polarization array,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 289–292, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Adaptive digital beamforming for pre- serving monopulse target angle estimation accuracy in jamming,

    K.-B. Yu and D. J. Murrow, “Adaptive digital beamforming for pre- serving monopulse target angle estimation accuracy in jamming,” in Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop. SAM 2000 (Cat. No. 00EX410) . IEEE, 2000, pp. 454–458

    2000

  8. [16]

    Main-lobe jamming suppression method of using spatial polarization characteristics of anten- nas,

    H. Dai, X. Wang, Y . Li, Y . Liu, and S. Xiao, “Main-lobe jamming suppression method of using spatial polarization characteristics of anten- nas,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 2167–2179, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Main lobe jamming suppression via blind source separation sparse signal recovery with subarray config- uration,

    M. Ge, G. Cui, X. Yu, and L. Kong, “Main lobe jamming suppression via blind source separation sparse signal recovery with subarray config- uration,” IET radar , sonar & navigation , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 431–438, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    A bss-based space–time multi-channel algorithm for complex-jamming suppression,

    B. Zhou, R. Li, W. Liu, Y . Wang, L. Dai, and Y . Shao, “A bss-based space–time multi-channel algorithm for complex-jamming suppression,” Digital Signal Processing , vol. 87, pp. 86–103, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Applying auxiliary array to suppress mainlobe interference for ground-based radar,

    X. Yang, P. Yin, T. Zeng, and T. K. Sarkar, “Applying auxiliary array to suppress mainlobe interference for ground-based radar,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters , vol. 12, pp. 433–436, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Mainlobe inter- ference suppression for radar network via rpca-based covariance matrix reconstruction,

    L. Zhang, L. Su, D. Wang, Y . Luo, and Q. Zhang, “Mainlobe inter- ference suppression for radar network via rpca-based covariance matrix reconstruction,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 5094–5108, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Adaptive monopulse approach with joint linear constraints for planar array at subarray level,

    Z. Cheng, Z. He, X. Duan, X. Zhang, and B. Liao, “Adaptive monopulse approach with joint linear constraints for planar array at subarray level,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1432–1441, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Stoica, MIMO radar signal processing . John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Joint trajectory planning and transmit resource optimization for multi-target tracking in multi-uav-enabled mimo radar system,

    J. Yang, B. Wang, Z. Chang, Y . Zhao, Z. Feng, and F. Hu, “Joint trajectory planning and transmit resource optimization for multi-target tracking in multi-uav-enabled mimo radar system,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Unimodular complete complementary sequence with optimal trade-off between auto-and cross-ambiguity functions for mimo radars,

    Y . Li, Y . Zhou, X. Li, J. Wang, Y . Wang, L. Fan, and F.-Y . Wang, “Unimodular complete complementary sequence with optimal trade-off between auto-and cross-ambiguity functions for mimo radars,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Mimo radar with colocated antennas,

    J. Li and P. Stoica, “Mimo radar with colocated antennas,” IEEE signal processing magazine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 106–114, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Antenna placement in a compressive sensing-based colocated mimo radar,

    A. Ajorloo, A. Amini, E. Tohidi, M. H. Bastani, and G. Leus, “Antenna placement in a compressive sensing-based colocated mimo radar,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 4606–4614, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sparse antenna and pulse placement for colocated mimo radar,

    E. Tohidi, M. Coutino, S. P. Chepuri, H. Behroozi, M. M. Nayebi, and G. Leus, “Sparse antenna and pulse placement for colocated mimo radar,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 579– 593, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Space- time coding technique for coherent frequency diverse array,

    H. Wang, Y . Quan, G. Liao, S. Zhu, J. Xu, and L. Huang, “Space- time coding technique for coherent frequency diverse array,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 69, pp. 5994–6008, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    A signal model based on the space–time coding array and a novel imaging method based on the hybrid correlation algorithm for f-scan sar,

    Y . Liu, P. Wang, Z. Men, Y . Guo, T. He, R. Bao, and L. Cui, “A signal model based on the space–time coding array and a novel imaging method based on the hybrid correlation algorithm for f-scan sar,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 17, p. 4276, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Space-time-coding digital metasurfaces,

    L. Zhang, X. Q. Chen, S. Liu, Q. Zhang, J. Zhao, J. Y . Dai, G. D. Bai, X. Wan, Q. Cheng, G. Castaldi et al. , “Space-time-coding digital metasurfaces,” Nature communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4334, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Transmit beampattern synthesis for chirp space-time coding array by time delay design,

    H. Wang, G. Liao, Y . Zhang, J. Xu, S. Zhu, and L. Huang, “Transmit beampattern synthesis for chirp space-time coding array by time delay design,” Digital Signal Processing , vol. 110, p. 102901, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Space-time radar waveforms: circulating codes,

    G. Babur, P. Aubry, and F. Le Chevalier, “Space-time radar waveforms: circulating codes,” Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , vol. 2013, no. 1, p. 809691, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Direction-of-arrival estimation for circulating space-time coding arrays: From beamspace music to spatial smoothing in the transform domain,

    H. Wang, G. Liao, J. Xu, S. Zhu, and C. Zeng, “Direction-of-arrival estimation for circulating space-time coding arrays: From beamspace music to spatial smoothing in the transform domain,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 11, p. 3689, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Transmit beampattern synthesis for mimo radar using extended circulating code,

    S. Li, N. Liu, L. Zhang, J. Zhang, S. Tang, and X. Huang, “Transmit beampattern synthesis for mimo radar using extended circulating code,” IET Radar , Sonar & Navigation , vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 610–616, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Mimo radar theory and experimental results,

    F. C. Robey, S. Coutts, D. Weikle, J. C. McHarg, and K. Cuomo, “Mimo radar theory and experimental results,” in Conference Record of the Thirty-Eighth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2004., vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 300–304

    2004

  28. [36]

    Mimo radar ambi- guity functions,

    G. San Antonio, D. R. Fuhrmann, and F. C. Robey, “Mimo radar ambi- guity functions,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 167–177, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Adaptive techniques for mimo radar,

    L. Xu, J. Li, and P. Stoica, “Adaptive techniques for mimo radar,” in F ourth IEEE Workshop on Sensor Array and Multichannel Processing,

  30. [38]

    Repeat radar jammer suppression for a colocated mimo radar,

    L. Xu, S. Zhou, H. Liu, and J. Liu, “Repeat radar jammer suppression for a colocated mimo radar,” IET Radar , Sonar & Navigation , vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1448–1457, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Generalized waveform design for sidelobe reduction in mimo radar systems,

    E. Raei, M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, P. Babu, and M. B. Shankar, “Generalized waveform design for sidelobe reduction in mimo radar systems,” Signal Processing, vol. 206, p. 108914, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Enhanced automotive sensing assisted by joint communication and cognitive sparse mimo radar,

    X. Wang, W. Zhai, X. Zhang, X. Wang, and M. G. Amin, “Enhanced automotive sensing assisted by joint communication and cognitive sparse mimo radar,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 4782–4799, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    A bandwidth efficient dual-function radar communication system based on a mimo radar using ofdm waveforms,

    Z. Xu and A. Petropulu, “A bandwidth efficient dual-function radar communication system based on a mimo radar using ofdm waveforms,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 71, pp. 401–416, 2023. Huake Wang received the B.S. degree in electronics engineering, and the Ph....

    2023

  34. [2000]

    His research interests include array signal processing, space-time adaptive processing, radar waveform design, and airborne/space surveillance and warning radar systems

    He won the National Science Fund for Dis- tinguished Young Scholars in 2008. His research interests include array signal processing, space-time adaptive processing, radar waveform design, and airborne/space surveillance and warning radar systems. Yinghui Quan (Senior Member, I...

    2008

  35. [2006]

    IEEE, 2006, pp. 258–262

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.