Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 66 references

UAV-Borne Digital Radar System for Coherent Multistatic SAR Imaging

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By using a direct sidelink copy of the transmit signal as the demodulation reference, a UAV-borne OFDM radar network achieves coherent multistatic SAR imaging without synchronized node clocks, reaching a coherence factor of 0.986 and 0.11…

desk verdict A solid hardware demonstration of sidelink-referenced coherent multistatic UAV SAR; the open question is how robust the sidelink reference is to multipath, which the paper doesn't characterize. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20792 v1 pith:RFUJRRLP submitted 2025-07-28 eess.SY cs.SYeess.SP

Julian Kanz , Christian Gesell , Christina Bonfert , David Werbunat , Alexander Grathwohl , Julian Aguilar , Martin Vossiek , Christian Waldschmidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYeess.SP
keywords multistaticSARcoherentradarnetworkOFDMUAV-bornesidelinksynchronizationdigitalbistatic
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

Multistatic synthetic aperture radar normally requires every node to share time, frequency, and phase references. This paper presents a UAV-borne L-band radar that replaces that hardware synchronization with a software step: each passive secondary node records the scene echo and, at the same time, a direct sidelink copy of the transmit signal, then uses the sidelink as the demodulation reference. Since both signals are digitized by the same local receiver, common timing, carrier, and phase errors cancel in one element-wise division, leaving only the geometric bistatic time of flight. The work validates the idea with a coherence factor of 0.986 after correction versus 0.0034 without it, and with focused monostatic, bistatic, and combined images from a two-UAV flight. The payoff is that multistatic receive nodes stay passive and scalable, and the required timing precision drops from the picosecond range to the millisecond range because centimeter-level localization already provides the sidelink delay.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the element-wise (Hadamard) division in Eq. (24), $D_{bi,n,q}=D_{n,q}\oslash D_{n,sl}$, applied to the OFDM-demodulated subcarrier samples: the radar echo coefficients are divided by the sidelink coefficients recorded at the same node. The sidelink is a delayed copy of the transmit signal, so it supplies the phase reference that a synchronized local oscillator would otherwise provide, and any common-mode error in the receiver cancels in the quotient. The hardware that makes this practical is a dual-channel digital backend, based on a radio-frequency system-on-chip, that samples both paths with one ADC clock and stores only the radar-relevant frame portion using a pseudo-noise trigger, keeping the average data rate at roughly 45 Mbit/s.

What would settle it

Obstruct or reflect the sidelink path between two UAVs while leaving the radar echo path clear, then compute the coherence factor after applying Eq. (24): a substantial drop from the reported 0.986 would show that the common-mode cancellation relies on an unobstructed line-of-sight sidelink.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that coherency across independently operated radar nodes can be manufactured digitally rather than enforced with shared references. At a secondary node, the same ADC samples the reflected radar path and the direct sidelink path. After OFDM demodulation, the subcarrier coefficients of the radar echo are divided element-wise by the subcarrier coefficients of the sidelink reference (Eq. (24)). Any sampling-frequency offset, carrier-frequency offset, carrier phase error, phase noise, or timing offset that is common to the two receive channels enters both factors and cancels, so the corrected data depend only on $(R_{Tx,q}+R_{Rx,q}-R_{sl})/c_0$, with the sidelink delay $R_{sl}/c_0$ known from centimeter-level localization. The paper supports the claim with a cable-based bistatic experiment, an anechoic-chamber two-target static measurement, and a UAV bistatic SAR flight that produces focused monostatic, bistatic, and combined images with a measured cross-range resolution of 0.11 m in the coherently combined case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sidelink reference is a clean, direct line-of-sight copy of the transmit signal whose time of flight is known from centimeter-level localization, and that the radar echo and sidelink suffer identical system errors; the paper does not analyze failures such as sidelink multipath, shadowing, or differing radar-versus-sidelink receive-chain responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coherent bistatic and multistatic SAR images can be formed from UAV nodes that share no clock or RF reference; the fast-time synchronization burden moves from roughly 133 ps in this geometry to millisecond-level slow-time alignment.
  • Multistatic receivers can remain passive and receive-only, so a single transmitting node plus many receivers is a direct route to larger synthetic apertures and greater angular diversity.
  • Phase stability over the synthetic aperture is restored per measurement by the sidelink division, cutting the measured coherence factor from 0.0034 to 0.986.
  • Monostatic and bistatic data from the same flight can be combined coherently, improving cross-range resolution from 0.30 m monostatic to 0.11 m combined in the demonstration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the same sidelink-division idea should extend to non-OFDM digital waveforms, although the paper demonstrates it only with OFDM.
  • Editorial: the scheme depends on the sidelink being a clean line-of-sight copy; multipath, shadowing, or a frequency-dependent mismatch between radar and sidelink receive channels would degrade the cancellation and are not analyzed.
  • Editorial: scaling beyond one transmitter will need a transmit schedule or orthogonal reference waveforms so each passive receiver can identify its reference sidelink; the paper leaves that scheduling problem open.
  • Editorial: if differential receive-chain mismatch turns out to be a practical limit, a calibration tone or measured antenna transfer function inserted before the division could equalize the two channels.
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. This paper presents a UAV-borne digital radar system for coherent multistatic synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging at L-band using OFDM waveforms, without hardware synchronization between nodes. The hardware is an RFSoC-based backend that directly synthesizes and samples RF signals, with a PN-sequence trigger that reduces the recorded data to the active radar portion. The central concept is that a passive secondary node records the radar echo and a direct 'sidelink' copy of the transmit signal, and the Hadamard division of the demodulated radar spectrum by the demodulated sidelink spectrum (Eq. 24) cancels common-mode timing, carrier, and phase errors between the uncoupled nodes; the sidelink time-of-flight is obtained from the centimeter-level localization already required for SAR. The paper derives the signal model and the processing chain (demodulation, range calibration, range compression, backprojection), analyzes the effects of sampling-frequency, carrier-frequency, carrier-phase, timing, and localization errors through simulations, and validates the approach in three experiments: a cable-based coherency test (coherence factor 0.986 corrected vs. 0.0034 uncorrected), a two-target anechoic-chamber test (0.9999 and 0.9995), and a UAV-based bistatic SAR flight producing focused monostatic, bistatic, and coherently combined images with a measured cross-range resolution of 0.11 m.

Significance. The paper addresses a central bottleneck of distributed UAV radar, namely phase coherency across moving, uncoupled nodes, and proposes an elegant mechanism: use the direct sidelink as the demodulation reference. If the claims hold, the approach replaces a sub-nanosecond timing-synchronization requirement with a millisecond-level slow-time association requirement plus the localization accuracy already needed for monostatic SAR, and the passive receive nodes make the architecture scalable. The work is credible because the correction in Eq. (24) is derived from the signal model rather than fitted; the measured coherence factors directly validate the common-mode cancellation in controlled conditions; the end-to-end UAV demonstration with quantified 3-dB resolutions is a substantial systems contribution; and the processing chain is described in enough detail to be reproduced. The experimental design is thoughtful: the cable test isolates the coherency mechanism, the chamber test exercises the real antennas, and the field test demonstrates the full operating mode.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV-E, Eq. (24); VI-C] The correction (24) implicitly models the sidelink as the single direct-path phasor e^{-j2π(nΔf+fc)Δt_sl}. If the sidelink channel contains additional paths, the measured reference is D_n,sl = e^{-j2π(nΔf+fc)Δt_sl}(1 + Σ_i α_i e^{-j2π(nΔf+fc)τ_i}), and the Hadamard division multiplies the radar spectrum by (1 + Σ_i α_i e^{-j2π(nΔf+fc)τ_i})^{-1}. This frequency-dependent ripple is not removed by the common-mode cancellation: after the IDFT in Eq. (26) it broadens the range response and adds sidelobes, it biases the phase feeding the backprojection hypothesis (31) by arg(1 + Σ_i α_i e^{-j2πfcτ_i}), and it enhances noise at frequencies where the sidelink channel has small gain. Sections VI-A and VI-B validate the concept with a coaxial-cable path and an anechoic-chamber path, i.e., deliberately clean direct-path sidelinks. In the field experiment (Section VI-C), the sidelink propagates over the air over 4.7 m at low altitude with the sidelink antennas inclined at 45 degrees, yet no sidelink channel impulse response, direct-to-multipath ratio, or sidelink SNR is reported, and Section V contains no analysis of a multipath-contaminated sidelink. The claim that uncoupled nodes maintain coherency under realistic UAV sidelink conditions therefore requires (i) an analysis or simulation of Eq. (24) under a frequency-selective or multipath sidelink channel, and (ii) a measured characterization of the sidelink channel in the UAV experiment, for example an estimated channel response and direct-to-multipath ratio obtained from the recorded reference signal.
  2. [III-B, Eqs. (19)-(25); VI] The common-mode cancellation in Eq. (24) applies to errors that are identical in the radar and sidelink channels of a node. The two channels are, however, physically distinct: different antennas (TEM horn versus Vivaldi, Fig. 4), separate analog frontends, and different ADC inputs. A differential group delay is a constant range offset and can be absorbed by the scalar calibration (19)-(23), but a differential phase ripple or group-delay dispersion across the 409.6 MHz band survives the division in (24), degrades the compressed range profile, and corrupts the phase used in Eq. (30). The paper does not measure or bound this differential response, nor does it report the residual after the scalar range calibration in the field experiment. The anechoic-chamber result (Section VI-B) with the actual antennas is reassuring evidence that the differential response is benign under those conditions, but it is not a substitute for a differential calibration or a statement of its stability. Please add a loop-back or reference-target calibration that quantifies the radar-to-sidelink differential phase versus frequency, and show that its residual contribution after scalar calibration is within the image-formation error budget.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References [58], [64]] References [58] and [64] have their URLs swapped: [58] (Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC Data Sheet) points to the Connor-Winfield oscillator page, while [64] (DOCSC01 oscillator) points to the AMD RFSoC document. Please correct the links.
  2. [II-C, Eqs. (4)-(5), Table II] The symbol T is used both for the OFDM symbol duration in Eq. (7) and for the stored signal duration in the duty-cycle definition (5). The tabulated duty cycles (gamma = 0.156% and 0.031%) are consistent with a stored window of T + T_cp = 15.625 microseconds, and the mean data rates (44.8 and 9.0 Mbit/s) are a factor of two above f_s times nu times gamma, presumably because the secondary node records both the radar and the sidelink channels; please define these quantities explicitly.
  3. [Throughout] The cross-reference formatting 'Section II-II-A', 'Section IV-IV-C', 'Section V-V-B', and 'Section VI-VI-A' recurs throughout the manuscript; these appear to be rendering artifacts and should read 'Section II-A', 'Section IV-C', 'Section V-B', and 'Section VI-A', respectively.
  4. [VI-A] The expected maximum CFO is quoted as f_CFO = 41 Hz from a 10 ppb reference at f_c = 1.2 GHz; a direct calculation gives roughly 12 to 24 Hz depending on whether one or both oscillators are assumed to contribute, so please state the additional margins (temperature, aging) used to arrive at 41 Hz.
  5. [IV-A, Fig. 4, Fig. 21] Several typos and unclear symbols should be fixed: 'corresponsing' in Section IV-A, 'illsutrated' in the Fig. 21 caption, the split author name 'V ossiek' in the header, and the gain symbols g_Tx/G_Tx and g_Rx/G_Rx in Fig. 4, whose distinction is not defined in the caption.
  6. [V-B, V-C, VII] The conclusion states that SFO and CFO errors are 'inherently mitigated' by the proposed processing, but the experimental validation covers only the regime of the 10 ppb oscillators (f_SFO about 12 Hz, f_CFO about 41 Hz, far below the thresholds of Eqs. (33) and (35)), and the simulations in Figs. 9-10 show only data before applying Eq. (24). A sentence clarifying the validated regime, or a single simulation with the correction applied, would close this gap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sidelink-based correction (24) follows from the stated OFDM signal model and is validated by independent phase-stability measurements, not by fitting the claimed result.

full rationale

The central correction in Eq. (24) is derived from the OFDM signal model in Eqs. (7)-(18): after demodulation and Hadamard division by the measured sidelink symbol D_n,sl, the residual phase is e^{-j2π(nΔf+fc)(Δt_q - Δt_sl)}. No parameter is fitted to the measured coherence factor or to the final SAR image quality. The sidelink distance R_sl is obtained from RTK localization, an external input, and the monostatic calibration offset R_cal comes from a separate calibration measurement; neither is extracted from the quantity being predicted. The coherency validation in Sec. VI-A uses an independent cable experiment and reports a coherence factor of 0.9861 after correction versus 0.0034 uncorrected, with no fitted phase parameter. The paper's self-citations, such as the backprojection reference [50] and the SFO/CFO tolerance criteria in [63], are supporting citations for standard signal-processing results that are also stated in the paper's own equations (30), (31), and (32)-(35); they do not supply the central conclusion by authority alone. Therefore, no step in the derivation reduces by construction, by fitted-input renaming, or by a load-bearing self-citation chain to its own inputs. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of routine self-citations, which are not load-bearing for the coherence claim.

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

The central claim rests on the OFDM radar signal model, the common-mode error assumption between radar and sidelink paths, the neglect of Doppler, and the availability of centimeter-level localization. No invented entities or phenomenological fitting constants are introduced; the only calibration parameter is the range offset R_cal.

free parameters (1)
  • range calibration offset R_cal = Estimated via calibration measurement; not tabulated in paper.
    Used in Eq. (22) to correct internal system delay for monostatic absolute range; it is a measured system property, not a parameter fitted to the target result.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math OFDM subcarriers remain orthogonal after sampling and demodulation, justifying the DFT-based extraction of range-dependent phase terms.
    Used in Section IV-C through IV-F for range compression.
  • domain assumption The radar echo and sidelink signal experience identical synchronization errors at the secondary node because they share the receiver clock and downconversion chain.
    Central to the correction in Eq. (24); validated experimentally but not proven for arbitrary hardware or channel conditions.
  • domain assumption Doppler shifts due to platform motion are negligible over a single OFDM symbol.
    Stated in Section IV-A; only one OFDM symbol per measurement is used and velocity estimation is out of scope.
  • domain assumption Sidelink path is line-of-sight and its time-of-flight is known from centimeter-level localization.
    Required to convert relative bistatic range to absolute range in Eq. (25); assumed from RTK-GNSS/IMU described in Section III-C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UAV-Borne Digital Radar System for Coherent Multistatic SAR Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFUJRRLP

@misc{pith2026250720792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UAV-Borne Digital Radar System for Coherent Multistatic SAR Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFUJRRLP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20792}
}
read the original abstract

Advancements in analog-to-digital converter (ADC) technology have enabled higher sampling rates, making it feasible to adopt digital radar architectures that directly sample the radio-frequency (RF) signal, eliminating the need for analog downconversion. This digital approach supports greater flexibility in waveform design and signal processing, particularly through digital modulation schemes like orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). This paper presents a digital radar system mounted on an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV), which employs OFDM waveforms for coherent multistatic synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging in the L-band. The radar setup features a primary UAV node responsible for signal transmission and monostatic data acquisition, alongside secondary nodes that operate in a receive-only mode. These secondary nodes capture the radar signal reflected from the scene as well as a direct sidelink signal. RF signals from both the radar and sidelink paths are sampled and processed offline. To manage data storage efficiently, a trigger mechanism is employed to record only the relevant portions of the radar signal. The system maintains coherency in both fast-time and slow-time domains, which is essential for multistatic SAR imaging. Because the secondary nodes are passive, the system can be easily scaled to accommodate a larger swarm of UAVs. The paper details the full signal processing workflow for both monostatic and multistatic SAR image formation, including an analysis and correction of synchronization errors that arise from the uncoupled operation of the nodes. The proposed coherent processing method is validated through static radar measurements, demonstrating coherency achieved by the concept. Additionally, a UAV-based bistatic SAR experiment demonstrates the system's performance by producing high-resolution monostatic, bistatic, and combined multistatic SAR images.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual llustration of the proposed multistatic SAR approach with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrated signal frame as part of a measurement sequence including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photograph of the RFSoC-based backend as employed in the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photograph of the UAV-borne digital radar system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Signal processing workflow for the proposed coherent multistatic SAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the simulation setup containing five point-like targets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results of the scene in Fig. 7 including range compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation results of the scene in Fig. 7 including range compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation results of the scene in Fig. 7 including range compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Simulation results of the scene in Fig. 7 including range compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Phase distribution at the target peak in Fig. 14 before and after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Photograph of the static measurement setup in the anechoic chamber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Range-compressed measured data of a cable-based measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Range-compressed measured data of the monostatic and bistatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Photograph of the UAVs and the measured setup during the bistatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: SAR imaging is performed over a region measuring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Visualization of the measurement geometry for the monostatic ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of SAR images of the measured scene in Fig. 19 based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Cross-range and ground-range cuts through the SAR images shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An OFDM System Concept for Joint Radar and Communications Operations,

    C. Sturm, T. Zwick, and W. Wiesbeck, “An OFDM System Concept for Joint Radar and Communications Operations,” in IEEE 69th V ehicular Technology Conference. IEEE, Apr. 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    High-Performance Automotive Radar: A Review of Signal Processing Algorithms and Modulation Schemes,

    G. Hakobyan and B. Yang, “High-Performance Automotive Radar: A Review of Signal Processing Algorithms and Modulation Schemes,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 32–44, Sep. 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Radar Sensors for Autonomous Driving: Modulation Schemes and Interference Mitigation,

    F. Roos, J. Bechter, C. Knill, B. Schweizer, and C. Waldschmidt, “Radar Sensors for Autonomous Driving: Modulation Schemes and Interference Mitigation,” IEEE Microw. Mag. , vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 58–72, Sep. 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    The Fairy Tale of Simple All-Digital Radars: How to Deal With 100 Gbit/s of a Digital Millimeter-Wave MIMO Radar on an FPGA [Application Notes],

    B. Schweizer, A. Grathwohl, G. Rossi, P. Hinz, C. Knill, S. Stephany, H. J. Ng, and C. Waldschmidt, “The Fairy Tale of Simple All-Digital Radars: How to Deal With 100 Gbit/s of a Digital Millimeter-Wave MIMO Radar on an FPGA [Application Notes],” IEEE Microw. Mag. , vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 66–76, Jul. 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Joint Radar-Communication Systems: Modulation Schemes and System Design,

    L. Giroto de Oliveira, B. Nuss, M. B. Alabd, A. Diewald, M. Pauli, and T. Zwick, “Joint Radar-Communication Systems: Modulation Schemes and System Design,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1521–1551, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Potentiality of UA V-based ISAC SAR Imaging,

    S. Moro, M. Manzoni, F. Linsalata, M. G. Polisano, L. Mantuano, A. V . Monti-Guarnieri, and S. Tebaldini, “Potentiality of UA V-based ISAC SAR Imaging,” in European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (EUSAR), 2024, pp. 1249–1254

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Full-Duplex OFDM Radar With LTE and 5G NR Waveforms: Challenges, Solutions, and Measurements,

    C. Baquero Barneto, T. Riihonen, M. Turunen, L. Anttila, M. Fleis- cher, K. Stadius, J. Ryynanen, and M. Valkama, “Full-Duplex OFDM Radar With LTE and 5G NR Waveforms: Challenges, Solutions, and Measurements,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. , vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 4042–4054, Oct. 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Performance of Joint Sensing-Communication Cooperative Sensing UA V Network,

    X. Chen, Z. Feng, Z. Wei, F. Gao, and X. Yuan, “Performance of Joint Sensing-Communication Cooperative Sensing UA V Network,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 15 545–15 556, Dec. 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    OFDM-Based Radar Network Providing Phase Coherent DOA Estima- tion,

    D. Werbunat, B. Meinecke, B. Schweizer, J. Hasch, and C. Waldschmidt, “OFDM-Based Radar Network Providing Phase Coherent DOA Estima- tion,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. , vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 325–336, Jan. 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Multichannel Repeater for Coherent Radar Networks Enabling High-Resolution Radar Imaging,

    D. Werbunat, B. Woischneck, J. Lerch, B. Schweizer, R. Michev, C. Bonfert, J. Hasch, and C. Waldschmidt, “Multichannel Repeater for Coherent Radar Networks Enabling High-Resolution Radar Imaging,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. , vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 3247–3259, May 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A New Multistatic FMCW Radar Architecture by Over-the-Air Deramping,

    M. Ash, M. Ritchie, K. Chetty, and P. V . Brennan, “A New Multistatic FMCW Radar Architecture by Over-the-Air Deramping,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 7045–7053, Dec. 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    A Distributed FMCW Radar System Based on Fiber-Optic Links for Small Drone Detection,

    D.-H. Shin, D.-H. Jung, D.-C. Kim, J.-W. Ham, and S.-O. Park, “A Distributed FMCW Radar System Based on Fiber-Optic Links for Small Drone Detection,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 340– 347, Feb. 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Coherent Measurements of a Multistatic MIMO Radar Net- work With Phase Noise Optimized Non-Coherent Signal Synthesis,

    A. D ¨urr, D. B ¨ohm, D. Schwarz, S. Hafner, R. Thoma, and C. Wald- schmidt, “Coherent Measurements of a Multistatic MIMO Radar Net- work With Phase Noise Optimized Non-Coherent Signal Synthesis,” IEEE Journal of Microwaves , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 239–252, Apr. 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Calibration and Operation of a Bistatic Real-Aperture Polarimetric-Interferometric Ku- Band Radar,

    M. Stefko, O. Frey, C. Werner, and I. Hajnsek, “Calibration and Operation of a Bistatic Real-Aperture Polarimetric-Interferometric Ku- Band Radar,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 60, pp. 1–19, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Fully Wireless Coherent Distributed Phased Array System for Networked Radar Ap- plications,

    J. M. Merlo, S. Wagner, J. Lancaster, and J. A. Nanzer, “Fully Wireless Coherent Distributed Phased Array System for Networked Radar Ap- plications,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Technology Letters , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 837–840, Jun. 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Signal Model for Coherent Processing of Uncoupled and Low Frequency Coupled MIMO Radar Networks,

    V . Janoudi, P. Schoeder, T. Grebner, N. Appenrodt, J. Dickmann, and C. Waldschmidt, “Signal Model for Coherent Processing of Uncoupled and Low Frequency Coupled MIMO Radar Networks,” IEEE Journal of Microwaves, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 69–85, Jan. 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Coherent Signal Processing for Loosely Coupled Bistatic Radar,

    M. Gottinger, P. Gulden, and M. V ossiek, “Coherent Signal Processing for Loosely Coupled Bistatic Radar,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1855–1871, Jun. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Constellation Estimation, Coherent Signal Processing, and Multiperspective Imaging in an Uncoupled Bistatic Cooperative Radar Network,

    P. Fenske, T. Koegel, R. Ghasemi, and M. V ossiek, “Constellation Estimation, Coherent Signal Processing, and Multiperspective Imaging in an Uncoupled Bistatic Cooperative Radar Network,” IEEE Journal of Microwaves, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 486–500, Jul. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    A Cooperative MIMO Radar Network Using Highly Integrated FMCW Radar Sensors,

    A. Frischen, J. Hasch, and C. Waldschmidt, “A Cooperative MIMO Radar Network Using Highly Integrated FMCW Radar Sensors,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1355–1366, Apr. 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Coherent Measure- ments With MIMO Radar Networks of Incoherent FMCW Sensor 16 Nodes,

    A. Frischen, G. Hakobyan, and C. Waldschmidt, “Coherent Measure- ments With MIMO Radar Networks of Incoherent FMCW Sensor 16 Nodes,” IEEE Microw. Wireless Compon. Lett. , vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 721– 724, Jul. 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    On the Synchronization of Uncoupled Multistatic PMCW Radars,

    D. Werbunat, J. Aguilar, M. Almarashly, V . Janoudi, S. Stephany, D. G. Gaviria, A. C. Ulusoy, and C. Waldschmidt, “On the Synchronization of Uncoupled Multistatic PMCW Radars,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    The concept of airborne passive radar,

    K. Kulpa, M. Malanowski, P. Samczynski, and B. Dawidowicz, “The concept of airborne passive radar,” in Microwaves, Radar and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, Aug. 2011, pp. 267–270

    2011

  15. [23]

    Experimental Results of Passive SAR Imaging Using DVB-T Illuminators of Opportunity,

    D. Gromek, K. Kulpa, and P. Samczynski, “Experimental Results of Passive SAR Imaging Using DVB-T Illuminators of Opportunity,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. , vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1124–1128, Aug. 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Airborne Passive SAR Imaging Based on DVB-T Sig- nals,

    L. M. H. Ulander, P.-O. Frolind, A. Gustavsson, R. Ragnarsson, and G. Stenstrom, “Airborne Passive SAR Imaging Based on DVB-T Sig- nals,” in IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). IEEE, Jul. 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Signal Processing for Passive Radar Using OFDM Waveforms,

    C. R. Berger, B. Demissie, J. Heckenbach, P. Willett, and S. Zhou, “Signal Processing for Passive Radar Using OFDM Waveforms,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 226–238, Feb. 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Coherent Multistatic MIMO Radar Networks Based on Re- peater Tags,

    B. Meinecke, M. Steiner, J. Schlichenmaier, J. Hasch, and C. Wald- schmidt, “Coherent Multistatic MIMO Radar Networks Based on Re- peater Tags,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. , vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 3908–3916, Sep. 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Feasibility Study of Time Synchronization Solution for the Bistatic Synthetic Aperture Radar Using Mobile Platforms,

    L. Podbregar, A. Blatnik, S. Toma ˇziˇc, and B. Batagelj, “Feasibility Study of Time Synchronization Solution for the Bistatic Synthetic Aperture Radar Using Mobile Platforms,” in International Conference on Broadband Communications for Next Generation Networks and Multimedia ...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Towards Detecting Climate Change Effects With UA V- Borne Imaging Radars,

    I. Ullmann, C. Bonfert, A. Grathwohl, M. A. Lahmeri, V . Mustieles- P´erez, J. Kanz, E. Sterk, F. Bormuth, R. Ghasemi, P. Fenske, M. Villano, R. Schober, R. F. H. Fischer, G. Krieger, C. Damm, C. Waldschmidt, and M. V ossiek, “Towards Detecting Climate Change Effects With UA V...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Experimental Demonstration of UA V-Based Ultra-Wideband Multi-Baseline SAR Interferometry,

    V . Mustieles-Perez, J. Kanz, C. Bonfert, A. Grathwohl, L. L. Lamberti, S. Kim, G. Krieger, and M. Villano, “Experimental Demonstration of UA V-Based Ultra-Wideband Multi-Baseline SAR Interferometry,” in European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (EUSAR) , 2024, pp. 1156–1161

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ku-Band SAR-Drone System and Methodology for Repeat-Pass Interferometry,

    G. Ruiz-Carregal, M. Lort Cuenca, L. Yam, G. Masalias, E. Makhoul, R. Iglesias, A. Heredia, A. Gonz ´alez, G. Centolanza, A. Gili-Zaragoza, A. Faridi, D. Monells, and J. Duro, “Ku-Band SAR-Drone System and Methodology for Repeat-Pass Interferometry,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, n...

    2024

  23. [31]

    UA V-Based Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,

    M. Schartel, R. Burr, W. Mayer, N. Docci, and C. Waldschmidt, “UA V-Based Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,” in IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwaves for Intelligent Mobility (ICMIM). IEEE, Apr. 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Experimental Study on the Detection of Avalanche Victims using an Airborne Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,

    A. Grathwohl, P. Hinz, R. Burr, M. Steiner, and C. Waldschmidt, “Experimental Study on the Detection of Avalanche Victims using an Airborne Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,” in IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf). IEEE, May 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Synthetic Aper- ture Radar Aboard an Unmanned Aerial System for Detecting Foreign Object Debris on Airport Runways,

    L. Miccinesi, A. Beni, L. Bigazzi, and M. Pieraccini, “Synthetic Aper- ture Radar Aboard an Unmanned Aerial System for Detecting Foreign Object Debris on Airport Runways,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 106 735– 106 743, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Car-borne and UA V-borne Mobile Mapping of Surface Displacements with a Compact Repeat- pass Interferometric SAR System at L-band,

    O. Frey, C. L. Werner, and R. Coscione, “Car-borne and UA V-borne Mobile Mapping of Surface Displacements with a Compact Repeat- pass Interferometric SAR System at L-band,” in IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) . IEEE, Jul. 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Small UA V-based SAR system using low-cost radar, position, and attitude sensors with onboard imaging capability,

    J. Svedin, A. Bernland, A. Gustafsson, E. Claar, and J. Luong, “Small UA V-based SAR system using low-cost radar, position, and attitude sensors with onboard imaging capability,” Int. J. Microwave Wireless Technolog., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 602–613, Mar. 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Taking a Look Beneath the Surface: Multicopter UA V-Based Ground-Penetrating Imaging Radars,

    A. Grathwohl, M. Stelzig, J. Kanz, P. Fenske, A. Benedikter, C. Knill, I. Ullmann, I. Hajnsek, A. Moreira, G. Krieger, M. V ossiek, and C. Waldschmidt, “Taking a Look Beneath the Surface: Multicopter UA V-Based Ground-Penetrating Imaging Radars,” IEEE Microw. Mag. , vol. 23, n...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Based Ground-Penetrating Radar Systems: A review,

    Y . A. L ´opez, M. Garc ´ıa-Fern´andez, G. ´Alvarez-Narciandi, and F. L.- H. Andr´es, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Based Ground-Penetrating Radar Systems: A review,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 66–86, Jun. 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Low-Cost, High-Resolution, Drone-Borne SAR Imaging,

    A. Bekar, M. Antoniou, and C. J. Baker, “Low-Cost, High-Resolution, Drone-Borne SAR Imaging,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Robust UA V-Borne Fully Digital MIMO OFDM Radar for the Generation of a Digital Elevation Model,

    F. Koderer, B. Schweizer, A. Grathwohl, and C. Waldschmidt, “Robust UA V-Borne Fully Digital MIMO OFDM Radar for the Generation of a Digital Elevation Model,” in European Radar Conference (EuRAD) . IEEE, Sep. 2022, pp. 21–24

    2022

  32. [40]

    Development of Ultra-Wideband Software Defined Radar Testbed to Support SAR Tomographic Mission Formulation,

    S. Prager, B. Hawkins, M. Anderson, S.-J. Chung, and M. Lavalle, “Development of Ultra-Wideband Software Defined Radar Testbed to Support SAR Tomographic Mission Formulation,” in IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) . IEEE, Jul. 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UA V,

    V . Wasik, L. Casadebaig, B. Gabard, B. Gigleux, L. Castanet, Y . Paichard, and H. Jeuland, “Prototyping a Radar Sensor based on a Xilinx RFSoC Device for Detect-And-Avoid onboard Small UA V,” in European Radar Conference (EuRAD) . IEEE, Sep. 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Impact of Oscillator Noise in Bistatic and Multistatic SAR,

    G. Krieger and M. Younis, “Impact of Oscillator Noise in Bistatic and Multistatic SAR,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 424–428, Jul. 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Tandem-L: A Highly Innovative Bistatic SAR Mission for Global Observation of Dynamic Processes on the Earth’s Surface,

    A. Moreira, G. Krieger, I. Hajnsek, K. Papathanassiou, M. Younis, P. Lopez-Dekker, S. Huber, M. Villano, M. Pardini, M. Eineder, F. D. Zan, and A. Parizzi, “Tandem-L: A Highly Innovative Bistatic SAR Mission for Global Observation of Dynamic Processes on the Earth’s Surface,” ...

    2015

  36. [44]

    Wind Speed Measurement Using Forward Scattered GPS Signals,

    J. Garrison, A. Komjathy, V . Zavorotny, and S. Katzberg, “Wind Speed Measurement Using Forward Scattered GPS Signals,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 50–65, Jan. 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    Radar Bistatic Configurations for Soil Moisture Retrieval: A Simulation Study,

    N. Pierdicca, L. Pulvirenti, F. Ticconi, and M. Brogioni, “Radar Bistatic Configurations for Soil Moisture Retrieval: A Simulation Study,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 3252–3264, Oct. 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Bistatic ArcSAR,

    M. Pieraccini and L. Miccinesi, “Bistatic ArcSAR,” in URSI Atlantic Radio Science Meeting (AT-RASC) . IEEE, may 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Polarimetric Analysis of Biseasonal Monostatic and Bistatic Radar Observations of a Glacier Accumulation Zone at Ku-Band,

    M. Stefko, P. Bernhard, O. Frey, and I. Hajnsek, “Polarimetric Analysis of Biseasonal Monostatic and Bistatic Radar Observations of a Glacier Accumulation Zone at Ku-Band,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Appl. Earth Observ. Remote Sens. , vol. 17, pp. 9706–9727, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    First Demonstration of Single-Pass Distributed SAR Tomographic Imaging with a P-Band UA V SAR Prototype,

    Y . Wang, Z. Ding, L. Li, M. Liu, X. Ma, Y . Sun, T. Zeng, and T. Long, “First Demonstration of Single-Pass Distributed SAR Tomographic Imaging with a P-Band UA V SAR Prototype,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , pp. 1–1, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Experimental Demonstra- tion of Bistatic UA V-Borne SAR and InSAR,

    S.-Y . Jeon, B. Hawkins, S. Prager, M. Anderson, S. Moro, E. Loria, R. Beauchamp, S.-J. Chung, and M. Lavelle, “Experimental Demonstra- tion of Bistatic UA V-Borne SAR and InSAR,” in European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (EUSAR) , 2024, pp. 1150–1155

    2024

  42. [50]

    UA V-Based Bistatic SAR-Imaging Using a Stationary Repeater,

    A. Grathwohl, B. Meinecke, M. Widmann, J. Kanz, and C. Waldschmidt, “UA V-Based Bistatic SAR-Imaging Using a Stationary Repeater,”IEEE Journal of Microwaves , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 625–634, Apr. 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Bistatic UA V-Based Repeater SAR for 3D Object Localization,

    J. Kanz, C. Bonfert, R. Riekenbrauck, and C. Waldschmidt, “Bistatic UA V-Based Repeater SAR for 3D Object Localization,” in European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (EUSAR) , Apr. 2024, pp. 1144– 1149

    2024

  44. [52]

    Airborne Targets Detection by UA V-Embedded Passive Radar,

    B. Gabard, V . Wasik, O. Rabaste, T. Deloues, D. Poullin, and H. Jeuland, “Airborne Targets Detection by UA V-Embedded Passive Radar,” in European Radar Conference (EuRAD) . IEEE, Jan. 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Ultra-Wideband Bistatic Radar Measurements of Snow,

    O. Reyhanigalangashi, S.-P. Gogineni, D. Taylor, S. Kolpuke, F. Abushakra, J. D. Larson, and A. Bhandari, “Ultra-Wideband Bistatic Radar Measurements of Snow,” IEEE Journal of Microwaves , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 894–905, Oct. 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    An All-Programmable 16-nm RFSoC for Digital-RF Communications,

    B. Farley, J. McGrath, and C. Erdmann, “An All-Programmable 16-nm RFSoC for Digital-RF Communications,” IEEE Micro , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 61–71, Mar. 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC,

    N. Peters, C. Horne, and M. A. Ritchie, “ARESTOR: A Multi-role RF Sensor based on the Xilinx RFSoC,” in European Radar Conference (EuRAD). IEEE, Apr. 2022, pp. 102–105

    2022

  48. [56]

    Universal RFSoC-based Signal Recorder for Radar Applications,

    F. Michalak, W. Zabolotny, L. Podkalicki, M. Malanowski, M. Piasecki, and K. Kulpa, “Universal RFSoC-based Signal Recorder for Radar Applications,” in International Radar Symposium (IRS) . IEEE, Sep. 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Comparison of OFDM radar and chirp sequence radar,

    J. Fink and F. K. Jondral, “Comparison of OFDM radar and chirp sequence radar,” in International Radar Symposium (IRS) . IEEE, Jun. 2015, pp. 315–320

    2015

  50. [58]

    [Online]

    Zynq UltraScale+ RFSoC Data Sheet: Overview , AMD, 2023, v1.14. [Online]. Available: http://www.conwin.com/datasheets/cx/cx270.pdf

    2023

  51. [59]

    Lightweight Broadband Antennas for UA V based GPR Sensors,

    R. Burr, M. Schartel, W. Mayer, T. Walter, and C. Waldschmidt, “Lightweight Broadband Antennas for UA V based GPR Sensors,” in European Radar Conference (EuRAD) . IEEE, Sep. 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    Under the Sand: Navigation and Localization of a Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 17 for Landmine Detection with Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,

    R. B ¨ahnemann, N. Lawrance, L. Streichenberg, J. J. Chung, M. Pantic, A. Grathwohl, C. Waldschmidt, and R. Siegwart, “Under the Sand: Navigation and Localization of a Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 17 for Landmine Detection with Ground Penetrating Synthetic Aperture Radar,” Fi...

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A novel approach to OFDM radar processing,

    C. Sturm, E. Pancera, T. Zwick, and W. Wiesbeck, “A novel approach to OFDM radar processing,” in IEEE Radar Conference . IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–4

    2009

  54. [62]

    Generalized Frequency Scaling and Backprojection for LFM-CW SAR Processing,

    E. C. Zaugg and D. G. Long, “Generalized Frequency Scaling and Backprojection for LFM-CW SAR Processing,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 3600–3614, Jul. 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    Uncoupled Digital Radars Creating a Coherent Sensor Network,

    J. Aguilar, D. Werbunat, V . Janoudi, C. Bonfert, and C. Waldschmidt, “Uncoupled Digital Radars Creating a Coherent Sensor Network,” IEEE Journal of Microwaves , pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    [Online]

    Surface Mount Oven Stabilized Oscillator DOCSC01-Series , Connor Winfield, 2024, cx270. [Online]. Available: https://docs.amd.com/v/u/ en-US/ds889-zynq-usp-rfsoc-overview

    2024

  57. [65]

    Generalized coherence factor estimated from real signals in ultrasound beamforming,

    M. Hisatsu, S. Mori, M. Arakawa, and H. Kanai, “Generalized coherence factor estimated from real signals in ultrasound beamforming,” J Med Ultrason, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 179–192, Jan. 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Resolution and synthetic aperture charac- terization of sparse radar arrays,

    N. Goodman and J. Stiles, “Resolution and synthetic aperture charac- terization of sparse radar arrays,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 921–935, Jul. 2003

    2003

Pith tools

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