Demonstration of 3D ISAR Security Imaging at 24GHz with a Sparse MIMO Array

Feng Xu; Zhanyu Zhu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Demonstration of 3D ISAR Security Imaging at 24GHz with a Sparse MIMO Array

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single line of antennas plus the subject's own motion produces 3D security images at 24 GHz.

desk verdict A real 24GHz system that fuses 1D MIMO, ISAR from human motion, Kinect tracking, and CNN ATR—clever as a package, but the Kinect-to-phase-error link is not made, so the recognition numbers rest on unproven focusing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06619 v1 pith:YTWOSFVB submitted 2019-08-19 eess.SP

Zhanyu Zhu , Feng Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords 3DISARimagingsparseMIMOarray24GHzFMCWradarmillimeter-wavesecuritybackprojectionalgorithmGPUaccelerationdepth-cameramotiontrackingconcealedobjectrecognition

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 argues that a full 3D body-scanning radar does not need a big two-dimensional antenna array. By letting the person move through the checkpoint on a cart, the horizontal dimension of the aperture can be synthesized from motion, leaving only a single line of antennas to do real-aperture imaging in the vertical direction. The authors demonstrate this at 24 GHz with an 8-transmit, 16-receive sparse array, a depth camera to track the moving body, and a GPU backprojection algorithm, producing focused 3D images of a person with concealed objects. If the approach holds, security screening hardware could shrink from thousands of antenna channels to 128 virtual channels while still detecting concealed items automatically.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the inverse synthetic aperture formed along the horizontal dimension: the person's forward motion on the cart makes a moving scatterer's phase history across time equivalent to what a long horizontal real aperture would record. This reduces the hardware to a 1D sparse MIMO array (8 Tx, 16 Rx, 128 virtual channels) that images only in the vertical direction, with range providing the third dimension. The argument is carried by three supporting mechanisms: the active calibration of amplitude, phase, delay, and phase-center errors across the array; the GPU-parallelized backprojection that coherently accumulates echoes using the depth-camera motion track; and the depth-camera/Kalman tracking that supplies the motion parameters needed for ISAR focusing.

What would settle it

Take the same cart setup and mount a single corner reflector on the person; compute the image's peak sidelobe ratio or integrated sidelobe level while adding known offsets (0, 1, 5, 10 mm) to the depth-camera motion track used for backprojection. If the sharpness degrades noticeably at or below the reported Kalman residuals, the claimed focusing accuracy is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a 3D body-scanning radar can be built from a single line of antennas rather than a full 2D array. At 24 GHz with 4 GHz bandwidth, the authors use an 8-transmit/16-receive sparse linear MIMO array for real-aperture imaging in the vertical dimension, while the horizontal dimension is synthesized from the linear motion of a person standing on a moving cart (inverse synthetic aperture radar, ISAR). A depth camera supplies the person's position to correct the motion for coherent focusing, with Kalman-filtered residual tracking errors of 1.15 mm in x, 1.17 mm in y, and 2.26 mm in z. After a channel-imbalance calibration using a precision 2D stage, a GPU-implemented backprojection algorithm forms focused 3D images in about one second, and a convolutional neural network recognizes concealed objects with roughly 96% accuracy in repeated trials.

Load-bearing premise

The whole imaging chain depends on the depth camera tracking the moving body accurately enough for coherent focusing; the paper reports residual tracking errors in millimeters but does not show how those errors translate into image defocus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A checkpoint scanner could image a person in 3D while the person moves, without requiring them to stand still for a mechanical scan.
Hardware cost and complexity drop dramatically: 128 virtual channels replace the thousands used in earlier 2D sparse-array systems.
Quasi-real-time operation is within reach: GPU backprojection is reported to be over 400 times faster than CPU, imaging one person in about one second.
Automatic privacy-preserving screening becomes feasible: a convolutional network trained on the radar images reports roughly 96% recognition accuracy, an 8% false-alarm rate, and a 0.3% missing-alarm rate in 20 repeated tests per condition.

Reading between the lines

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

The real load-bearing constraint is motion knowledge: the depth-camera tracking residuals are reported in millimeters, but whether those residuals limit image sharpness is not quantified; a test sweeping known motion-error amplitudes would isolate the tolerance.
Because the synthetic aperture is formed by the person's motion, non-uniform or jerky motion (e.g., a person walking without a cart) would require the tracker to supply much tighter instantaneous-velocity estimates; the current cart experiment sidesteps this.
The reported recognition numbers come from repeated tests in one scene; a natural next evaluation is multi-pose, multi-person, and multi-clutter data to see whether the 96% accuracy holds beyond the training distribution.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know: this is a system demonstration, not a rigorous imaging-science paper. The authors build a 24GHz FMCW radar with an 8Tx/16Rx sparse MIMO array, use the human's linear motion on a cart to synthesize a horizontal aperture, and fuse Kinect tracking to focus the ISAR image. The complete chain—1D MIMO plus ISAR plus optical tracking plus GPU BP plus CNN ATR—is new as a package, and the real-human experiments are a useful proof of concept.

What is genuinely good: the calibration procedure for channel imbalance using a precision 2D linear stage is sensible; the GPU BP acceleration factor (>400x) is concrete; and the fact that they show images formed with both a laser rangefinder and Kinect suggests honesty about the tracker. The resolution numbers after calibration (~1.8cm x 4cm point target) are plausible for a 4GHz bandwidth and 1m aperture.

The soft spots are real and concentrated in Section III.C. The entire ISAR concept depends on knowing the target trajectory to a small fraction of a wavelength along the bistatic range. Residual Kinect errors of 1.15/1.17/2.26 mm in x/y/z are reported, but at 24GHz (λ≈12.5mm), a 2.26mm line-of-sight error is ~2.3 rad of round-trip phase. If that error is uncorrelated from burst to burst (burst cycle 5.12ms), it would decorrelate the coherent accumulation. The paper gives no temporal correlation of the residuals, no error budget from trajectory error to defocus or PSLR, and no quantitative comparison of Kinect-focused images against laser-rangefinder images—Fig. 12 is qualitative only. That is a correctness risk, not a missing baseline, because the reported 96% recognition accuracy is downstream of focusing.

Minor softness: 20 trials per scenario, no confidence intervals; DNN architecture and training are sketched; no data/code release. These are fixable with reporting, not redesign.

The central architecture is still clever and worth engaging, but the paper currently does not prove that Kinect-grade tracking is sufficient for coherent human-body ISAR at 24GHz. That claim needs a phase-error analysis and either a controlled experiment with a cooperative target or a quantitative tracker comparison.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but with the explicit expectation of a major revision. The system work deserves referee time; the imaging-accuracy claim needs much stronger support before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 24 GHz FMCW radar security-imaging system combining a vertical 1D sparse MIMO array (8 Tx, 16 Rx, 128 virtual channels) with horizontal inverse synthetic aperture formed by a person moving on a cart. A depth camera (Kinect) is used to track human motion for ISAR focusing, a GPU implementation of back-projection provides near-real-time 3D imaging, and a convolutional neural network is trained on the system's images for concealed-object recognition. The authors describe system hardware, a MIMO calibration procedure based on a precision 2D linear stage, human-body imaging experiments with different concealed objects, and quantitative claims of 8% false alarm rate, 0.3% missing alarm rate, and about 96% recognition accuracy.

Significance. If fully validated, the system would be a meaningful step toward reducing the hardware complexity of millimeter-wave security screening by replacing a full 2D MIMO array with a 1D array plus target-motion synthetic aperture. The paper has several genuine strengths: the radar and ISAR equations are standard, the active calibration uses a controlled measurement setup with 0.02 mm positioning precision, real human experiments are conducted with concealed objects, the GPU implementation reports a speedup of over 400 times, and the automatic recognition component addresses an important privacy concern. However, the key claim that Kinect tracking is accurate enough for coherent human-body ISAR focusing is not supported by a quantitative error-propagation analysis, the CNN evaluation rests on 20 trials per scenario without confidence intervals, and the point-target resolution claim is not quantitatively demonstrated. These issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central assertions.

major comments (4)

[III.C and IV.A, Fig. 12] The central claim that Kinect-aided tracking provides sufficient accuracy for coherent ISAR focusing is not quantitatively supported. The paper reports residual tracking errors of 1.15 mm, 1.17 mm, and 2.26 mm after MRA fitting and Kalman filtering, but at the 24 GHz carrier (wavelength about 12.5 mm), a 2.26 mm line-of-sight error corresponds to a two-way phase error of about 4*pi*2.26/12.5 = 2.27 rad. If these residuals are uncorrelated from burst to burst, this is more than enough to decorrelate coherent accumulation. The manuscript does not state the number of bursts forming the synthetic aperture, the cart velocity, the temporal correlation of the residual errors, or how the 20-joint human motion model is converted into a single reference trajectory for ISAR focusing. The comparison with laser-rangefinder imagery in Fig. 12 is only qualitative. The authors should provide an error-propagation analysis linking trajectory residuals to image defocus, resolution, and sidelobe level, and ideally compare quantitative image-quality metrics for the Kinect and laser-rangefinder cases.
[IV.B, Fig. 14 (DNN)] The automatic object recognition performance is not adequately established. The claims of 8% false alarm rate, 0.3% missing alarm rate, and 96% recognition accuracy are based on 20 repeated tests per scenario, but no confidence intervals, standard deviations, or per-class breakdowns are reported. The DNN architecture is only shown as a diagram; the text does not specify the number of layers, filter sizes, activation functions, input image size, training set size, or the split between subjects used for training and testing. It is also unclear whether the 20 tests use the same person and same object orientation, which would make the reported accuracy a measure of system repeatability rather than generalization. The authors should specify the architecture, training protocol, data augmentation, train/test split, and report exact binomial confidence intervals or equivalent statistical measures for FAR, MAR, and accuracy.
[III.A, Fig. 7, and Table I] The imaging-quality claim after calibration is not quantitatively demonstrated. The text states that after calibration 'the imaging resolution is close to the theoretical value ~1.8 cm x 4 cm and the peak side lobe is about -10 dB', but no measured point-spread-function widths, sidelobe levels, or comparisons with theoretical values are provided. There is also an apparent inconsistency: Table I lists horizontal resolution ~1.2 cm and vertical resolution ~1.8 cm, while the text reports 1.8 cm x 4 cm; the axes corresponding to these numbers are not identified. Please report measured 3-dB widths in range, vertical, and horizontal dimensions for a point target, together with the expected values, and clarify which resolution value corresponds to which dimension.
[III.B, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The imaging model as written does not explicitly show how the target motion or the synthetic aperture enters the back-projection formulation. Equations (3) and (4) are written for a 2D planar MIMO array with fixed Tx and Rx positions, but in the proposed ISAR system the horizontal aperture is formed by the moving human, and the effective aperture positions depend on the Kinect-derived trajectory. The relationship between burst index, the tracked target position, and the coordinates (x_t, y_t, z_a) and (x_r, y_r, z_a) is not stated. Making this mapping explicit is necessary for reproducibility and for assessing whether the tracking residual errors discussed in Section III.C are correctly propagated through the image formation.

minor comments (5)

[II.D] The word 'bust cycle' should be 'burst cycle' in the timing description.
[Figures] There are figure numbering errors: Fig. 13 is used twice (for human-body imaging results and for the DNN diagram), and Fig. 4 appears to be missing between Fig. 3 and Fig. 5. Please renumber the figures consistently.
[IV.A] It is unclear how the laser rangefinder was used for motion tracking in the comparison shown in Fig. 12, since the rangefinder does not provide 3D joint positions. A sentence describing the laser-rangefinder measurement geometry and how its data were converted into an ISAR reference trajectory would help the reader interpret the comparison.
[IV.B] The sentence 'The human body conceals and carries three different objects close to the body and passes through the inspection area for repeated testing' is vague. The reader should be told which three objects were used, how they were positioned on the body, and how the 20 repetitions were organized (same person, same orientation, etc.).
[III.C] The Kinect joint-tracking model is described as using '20 key components', but the paper does not explain which joints are tracked or how a non-rigid human body is represented for ISAR focusing. A brief description of the skeletal model and which joint trajectory is used for the reference motion would make the procedure reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the imaging chain is a standard experimental demonstration with independent calibration, standard BP imaging equations, measured tracking residuals, and empirical CNN evaluation.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental demonstration, not a derivation chain engineered from fitted inputs. The calibration procedure (Section III.A) estimates channel amplitude/phase/delay and phase-center errors from controlled 2D-stage measurements, then compensates raw signals; this is a standard calibration step, and the resulting point-target image is shown before/after calibration, so the improvement is empirically demonstrated rather than assumed. The 3D BP imaging formulation (Eqs. 3-4) is the standard time-domain integral for MIMO radar, and is not derived from the system's own outputs. The motion-tracking step (Section III.C) reports measured Kinect raw error and Kalman-filtered residuals, and the comparison image with a laser rangefinder (Fig. 12) is a direct experimental check, not a fitted prediction. The CNN section trains and evaluates on images from the same system, but the FAR/MAR/accuracy numbers are empirical measurements, not quantities predicted from their own training inputs; this limits generalizability but is not circularity in the derivation sense. The only self-citation is reference [16] (Chen, Wang, Xu), used as a general pointer for deep CNN SAR classification; it is not load-bearing for the ISAR imaging claim. The Kinect-accuracy concern raised by the skeptic is a correctness/validation risk (no error-propagation budget or quantitative cross-sensor comparison), not a circularity defect: nothing in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own definition or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard radar and ISAR theory plus an accuracy assumption about the auxiliary depth camera. No new physical entities are introduced. The calibration parameters are measured inputs, not free parameters in the physics, but are listed here for completeness.

free parameters (1)

MIMO channel calibration parameters = Not reported numerically; estimated via optimization from 2D linear stage measurements
Amplitude, phase, delay, and phase-center corrections for each of the 128 virtual channels are estimated from calibration data. They are required for coherent imaging but are standard calibration estimates, not ad hoc.

assumptions (4)

standard math FMCW ranging model with direct downconversion gives a beat frequency proportional to range
Used throughout Sections II and III for signal modeling.
domain assumption The target can be represented as a distribution of point scatterers with reflectivity O(x,y,z)
Equation (4) assumes a linear superposition of scatterers, standard for radar imaging but an idealization for the human body.
domain assumption The human moves with a linear trajectory that forms a synthetic aperture in the horizontal dimension
The ISAR concept in Sections I and III relies on this; any non-linear or vibrating motion would degrade focus.
domain assumption Kinect-derived 20-joint motion parameters are accurate enough for ISAR focusing
Section III.C reports residual errors but no error-propagation analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstration of 3D ISAR Security Imaging at 24GHz with a Sparse MIMO Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTWOSFVB

@misc{pith2026190806619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstration of 3D ISAR Security Imaging at 24GHz with a Sparse MIMO Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTWOSFVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06619}
}

read the original abstract

A 3D ISAR security imaging experiment at 24GHz is demonstrated with a sparse MIMO array. The MIMO array is an 8Tx/16Rx linear array to achieve real-aperture imaging along the vertical dimension. It is time-switching multiplexed with a low-cost FMCW transceiver working at 22GHz-26GHz. A calibration procedure is proposed to calibrate the channel imbalance across the MIMO array. The experiment is conducted on human moving on a cart, where we take advantage of the linear motion of human to form inverse synthetic aperture along the horizontal dimension. To track the motion of human, a 3D depth camera is used as an auxiliary sensor to capture the rough position of target to aid ISAR imaging. The back projection imaging algorithm is implemented on GPU for quasi-real-time operation. Finally, experiments are conducted with real human with concealed objects and a preliminary automatic object recognition algorithm based on convolutional neural networks are developed and evaluated on real data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

The utility of a handheld metal detector in detection and localization of pediatric me tallic foreign body ingestion,

J. Nation, W. Jiang, “The utility of a handheld metal detector in detection and localization of pediatric me tallic foreign body ingestion,” International journal of pediatric otorhi nolaryngology, vol. 92, pp. 1 -6, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

A novel method for 3-D millimeter-wave holographic reconstruction based on frequency interfe rometry techniques,

J. Gao, Y. Qin, B. Deng, et al., “A novel method for 3-D millimeter-wave holographic reconstruction based on frequency interfe rometry techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 66, no. 3, pp: 1579-1596, 2017. < 6 6

work page 2017
[3]

An Efficient Algorithm for MIMO Cylindrical Millimeter -Wave Holographic 3 -D Imaging,

J. Gao, B. Deng, Y. Qin, et al. , “An Efficient Algorithm for MIMO Cylindrical Millimeter -Wave Holographic 3 -D Imaging,” IEEE Transactions o n Microwave Theory and Techniques, no. 99, pp: 1 -10, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Acceleration of iterative image reconstruction for x -ray imagin g for security applications,

S. Degirmenci, D. G. Politte, C. Bosch, et al., “Acceleration of iterative image reconstruction for x -ray imagin g for security applications,” Computational Imaging XIII. International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol. 9401, pp: 94010C, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

A preliminary approach to intelligent x -ray imaging for baggage inspection at airports,

I. Uroukov, R. Speller, “A preliminary approach to intelligent x -ray imaging for baggage inspection at airports,” Signal Processing Research, vol. 4, pp: 1-11, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

provision2 factsheet,

L3 Security & Detection S ystems Inc., “provision2 factsheet,” L3 SDS, Woburn, MA, USA. [Online]. Available : https://storage.pardot.com/16582/113781/PROVISION2_FACTSHEET _23MAR17_PF.pdf

work page
[7]

Hardware realization of a 2 m × 1 m fully electronic real-time mm-wave imaging system,

A. Schiessl, A. Genghammer, S. S. Ahmed, and L. P. Schmidt, "Hardware realization of a 2 m × 1 m fully electronic real-time mm-wave imaging system," in Proc. European Conferenc e on Synthetic Aperture Radar, pp. 40-43, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Advanced Microwave Imaging,

S. S. Ahmed, A. Schiessl, F. Gumbmann, and M. Tiebout, "Advanced Microwave Imaging," IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 1 3, no. 6, pp. 26-43, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 18 references

[9]

Electronic microwave imaging with planar multistatic arrays,

S. S. Ahmed, "Electronic microwave imaging with planar multistatic arrays," Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH, 2014

2014
[10]

Array errors active calibration algorithm based on instrumental sensors,

D. Wang, Y. Wu, “Array errors active calibration algorithm based on instrumental sensors,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 54, no. 7, pp: 1500-1511, 2011

2011
[11]

GPU Parallel Pr ogram Devel opment Using CUDA,

T. Soyata, “GPU Parallel Pr ogram Devel opment Using CUDA,” Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

2018
[12]

Key parameter estimation for radar rotating object imaging with multi -aspect observations ,

C. M. Ye, J. Xu, Y. N. Peng, et al., “Key parameter estimation for radar rotating object imaging with multi -aspect observations ,” Science China Information Sciences, vol 53, no. 8, pp: 1641 -1652, 2010

2010
[13]

Time-frequency characteristics based motion estimation and imaging for high speed spinning targets via narrowband waveforms ,

L. Zhang, Y. C. Li, Y. Liu, et al., “Time-frequency characteristics based motion estimation and imaging for high speed spinning targets via narrowband waveforms ,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 53, no. 8, pp: 1628-1640, 2010

2010
[14]

Spatial-variant contrast maximization autofocus algorithm for ISAR imaging of maneuvering targets,

S. Shao, L. Zhang, H. Liu, et al., “Spatial-variant contrast maximization autofocus algorithm for ISAR imaging of maneuvering targets,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 62, no. 4, pp: 40303, 2019

2019
[15]

Automatic target recognition in synthetic aperture radar image ry: A state -of-the-art review,

K. El-Darymli, E. W. Gill, P. Mcguire, et al. , “Automatic target recognition in synthetic aperture radar image ry: A state -of-the-art review,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp: 6014-6058, 2016

2016
[16]

Target classification using the deep convolutional networks for SAR images,

S. Chen , H. Wang, F. Xu, et al. , “Target classification using the deep convolutional networks for SAR images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 54, no. 8, pp: 4806-4817, 2016

2016
[17]

Transfer learning with deep convolutional neural network for SAR target classificat ion with limited labeled data,

Z. Huang , Z. Pan , B. Lei, “Transfer learning with deep convolutional neural network for SAR target classificat ion with limited labeled data,” Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 9, pp: 907, 2017

2017
[18]

A coupled convolutional neural network for small and densely clustered ship detection in SAR images ,

J. Zhao, W. Guo, Z. Zhang, et al. , “A coupled convolutional neural network for small and densely clustered ship detection in SAR images ,” Science China Information Sciences, vol. 62, no. 4, pp: 42301 , 2019

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The utility of a handheld metal detector in detection and localization of pediatric me tallic foreign body ingestion,

J. Nation, W. Jiang, “The utility of a handheld metal detector in detection and localization of pediatric me tallic foreign body ingestion,” International journal of pediatric otorhi nolaryngology, vol. 92, pp. 1 -6, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

A novel method for 3-D millimeter-wave holographic reconstruction based on frequency interfe rometry techniques,

J. Gao, Y. Qin, B. Deng, et al., “A novel method for 3-D millimeter-wave holographic reconstruction based on frequency interfe rometry techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 66, no. 3, pp: 1579-1596, 2017. < 6 6

work page 2017

[3] [3]

An Efficient Algorithm for MIMO Cylindrical Millimeter -Wave Holographic 3 -D Imaging,

J. Gao, B. Deng, Y. Qin, et al. , “An Efficient Algorithm for MIMO Cylindrical Millimeter -Wave Holographic 3 -D Imaging,” IEEE Transactions o n Microwave Theory and Techniques, no. 99, pp: 1 -10, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Acceleration of iterative image reconstruction for x -ray imagin g for security applications,

S. Degirmenci, D. G. Politte, C. Bosch, et al., “Acceleration of iterative image reconstruction for x -ray imagin g for security applications,” Computational Imaging XIII. International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol. 9401, pp: 94010C, 2015

work page 2015

[5] [5]

A preliminary approach to intelligent x -ray imaging for baggage inspection at airports,

I. Uroukov, R. Speller, “A preliminary approach to intelligent x -ray imaging for baggage inspection at airports,” Signal Processing Research, vol. 4, pp: 1-11, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

provision2 factsheet,

L3 Security & Detection S ystems Inc., “provision2 factsheet,” L3 SDS, Woburn, MA, USA. [Online]. Available : https://storage.pardot.com/16582/113781/PROVISION2_FACTSHEET _23MAR17_PF.pdf

work page

[7] [7]

Hardware realization of a 2 m × 1 m fully electronic real-time mm-wave imaging system,

A. Schiessl, A. Genghammer, S. S. Ahmed, and L. P. Schmidt, "Hardware realization of a 2 m × 1 m fully electronic real-time mm-wave imaging system," in Proc. European Conferenc e on Synthetic Aperture Radar, pp. 40-43, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Advanced Microwave Imaging,

S. S. Ahmed, A. Schiessl, F. Gumbmann, and M. Tiebout, "Advanced Microwave Imaging," IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 1 3, no. 6, pp. 26-43, 2012

work page 2012