pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27768 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 📡 eess.SP

On the Fractional Fourier Transform for FMCW Radar Interference Mitigation

Christian Oswald , Josef Kulmer , Franz Pernkopf This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords FMCW radarinterference mitigationfractional Fourier transformsparse signalsreal-valued receiversradar signal processingchirp interference
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reformulating the fractional Fourier transform with sparse updates allows simultaneous mitigation of multiple interferences in FMCW radar using real-valued receivers at lower computational cost.

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

The paper extends an earlier discrete fractional Fourier transform approach to interference mitigation so that it fits inside the processing chain of real-valued FMCW radar receivers. By expressing the mitigation step in terms of sparse update signals, the authors show that several interfering chirps can be removed at once without a separate stage for each one. Experiments on synthetic data place the method against reference algorithms, while a case study on recorded radar measurements confirms that the same pipeline works when the receiver is constrained to real-valued samples. The central object carrying the argument is the sparse-update reformulation of the DFrFT step, which simultaneously reduces the number of transform operations and preserves the separability of interference from target echoes.

Core claim

We adapt our prior DFrFT-based interference mitigation to real-valued receiver chains and recast the core step as the subtraction of sparse update signals. This reformulation supports simultaneous removal of multiple interferences, lowers the computational burden relative to repeated full transforms, and maintains target detection performance. Synthetic-data comparisons and a measurement-data case study establish that the pipeline remains effective under the constraints of practical radar hardware.

What carries the argument

Sparse update signals in the discrete fractional Fourier domain that isolate and subtract interference while leaving target returns intact.

If this is right

  • Multiple interfering signals can be handled in a single processing pass rather than sequentially.
  • The receiver hardware can remain real-valued, removing the need for complex-valued sampling or I/Q balancing.
  • Computational load drops because only sparse corrections are computed instead of repeated full-domain transforms.
  • The same chain continues to support standard range-Doppler processing after interference removal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The sparse-update idea could be ported to other unitary transforms used for radar interference, such as the short-time Fourier transform, provided sparsity holds in the new domain.
  • Real-time embedded implementations become more feasible once the transform count is reduced, which may allow the method to run on existing automotive radar chips without added hardware.
  • If interference density increases beyond the sparsity assumption, a hybrid scheme that first detects the number of interferers could be added as a lightweight pre-step.

Load-bearing premise

Interference remains sparse and separable from targets in the fractional Fourier domain after the real-valued receiver chain, and the sparse updates capture the interference without creating new artifacts that hurt detection.

What would settle it

If the method applied to the measurement data produces a measurable drop in detected targets or a rise in false alarms relative to an unmitigated baseline, the claim of practical compatibility would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27768 by Christian Oswald, Franz Pernkopf, Josef Kulmer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FMCW radar signal processing chain for real-valued receivers without view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) STFT of an interfered digital I/Q signal s and (b) STFT of Wαˆs with αˆ ≈ −50◦ rotating the time-frequency representation of s. Wαˆs compresses one of the LFM chirps into a pulse, which is also visible at the corresponding location in (c), the EMDFrFT magnitudes |S| of s. If we now zero that compressed chirp and recompute the EMDFrFT, we get (d); notice how the peak corresponding to the other chirp has… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Empirical cumulative density functions (ECDFs) of all evaluated metrics per range-Doppler map. The oracle methods are drawn with dashed lines. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case study on interfered measurement data from [23]. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we extend our method [1] for FMCW radar mutual interference mitigation (IM) based on the discrete fractional Fourier transform (DFrFT). Firstly, we propose a radar signal processing chain including our DFrFT-based IM for real-valued receivers, which we compare to reference algorithms on a synthetic data set. We then reduce computational complexity by reformulating DFrFT-based IM in terms of sparse update signals, which enables mitigation of multiple interferences simultaneously. Finally, we conduct a case study on measurement data and show that our method is compatible with real-world environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the authors' prior DFrFT-based interference mitigation method for FMCW radar to real-valued receivers. It introduces a full signal processing chain, performs comparisons against reference algorithms on synthetic data, reformulates the core mitigation step via sparse update signals to support simultaneous handling of multiple interferences at reduced complexity, and presents a measurement case study to demonstrate real-world compatibility.

Significance. If the performance and artifact-free claims hold, the sparse reformulation offers a practical route to multi-interferer mitigation in dense FMCW environments while lowering computational cost, which would be relevant for automotive and surveillance radar. The real-valued receiver chain and measurement validation add engineering value. However, the heavy dependence on the unelaborated prior result [1] and the absence of quantitative detection metrics limit the immediate strength of the contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Synthetic data comparison section] Synthetic data comparison section: The manuscript states that the proposed chain is compared to reference algorithms on a synthetic data set, yet no quantitative metrics (detection probability, false-alarm rate, ROC curves, or error bars) are reported. Without these, the claimed superiority and the assertion of compatibility with real-world environments cannot be verified.
  2. [Sparse update signals reformulation section] Sparse update signals reformulation section: The central claim that multiple interferences can be mitigated simultaneously with reduced complexity rests on the reformulation as sparse update signals. This requires that interference remains sufficiently sparse and separable in the DFrFT domain after the real-valued receiver chain and that the updates capture only interference without modifying target echoes. No analysis, ablation, or metrics are provided to confirm that analytic-signal conversion or similar steps do not reduce sparsity or introduce artifacts when interferers share similar chirp rates.
  3. [Measurement case study section] Measurement case study section: The case study is invoked to show real-world compatibility, but the manuscript supplies neither quantitative before/after metrics on target detection performance nor details on how the reference baselines were implemented. This leaves the weakest assumption—that the sparse reformulation introduces no detection degradation—unsupported by falsifiable evidence.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction repeatedly cite 'reduced computational complexity' without providing flop counts, timing benchmarks, or a direct comparison to the original method in [1].
  2. [Introduction] A brief, self-contained recap of the key equations and assumptions from reference [1] should be added so that the extensions can be evaluated without requiring the reader to consult the prior work.
  3. [Figures and Results] Figure captions and axis labels in the synthetic and measurement results should explicitly state the performance metric being plotted and the exact parameter settings used for each baseline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the opportunity to improve the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the specific revisions that will be made to strengthen the quantitative support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Synthetic data comparison section] Synthetic data comparison section: The manuscript states that the proposed chain is compared to reference algorithms on a synthetic data set, yet no quantitative metrics (detection probability, false-alarm rate, ROC curves, or error bars) are reported. Without these, the claimed superiority and the assertion of compatibility with real-world environments cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation relies primarily on visual comparisons of range-Doppler maps. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative metrics computed over multiple Monte Carlo realizations of the synthetic data, specifically detection probability and false-alarm rate at several SNR levels, together with ROC curves. Error bars derived from the standard deviation across trials will also be included to demonstrate statistical reliability of the reported performance gains. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sparse update signals reformulation section] Sparse update signals reformulation section: The central claim that multiple interferences can be mitigated simultaneously with reduced complexity rests on the reformulation as sparse update signals. This requires that interference remains sufficiently sparse and separable in the DFrFT domain after the real-valued receiver chain and that the updates capture only interference without modifying target echoes. No analysis, ablation, or metrics are provided to confirm that analytic-signal conversion or similar steps do not reduce sparsity or introduce artifacts when interferers share similar chirp rates.

    Authors: The reformulation isolates interference by constructing sparse update signals from the DFrFT-domain support of the interferers while leaving the distributed target energy unchanged. To substantiate this, the revised manuscript will contain a new analysis subsection that reports sparsity measures (support cardinality and approximate l0-norm) before and after analytic-signal conversion. An ablation study will be added that examines performance when two or more interferers have closely matched chirp rates, confirming that separability is retained and target echoes remain unmodified within the parameter regimes considered. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Measurement case study section] Measurement case study section: The case study is invoked to show real-world compatibility, but the manuscript supplies neither quantitative before/after metrics on target detection performance nor details on how the reference baselines were implemented. This leaves the weakest assumption—that the sparse reformulation introduces no detection degradation—unsupported by falsifiable evidence.

    Authors: We will augment the measurement case study with quantitative before-and-after metrics, including the number of detected targets, peak-to-sidelobe ratio, and estimated signal-to-interference ratio on the real data. In addition, we will supply explicit implementation details for all reference baselines (parameter settings, any adaptations required for real-valued inputs, and processing flow) so that the absence of detection degradation can be verified by the reader. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central multi-interference mitigation claims reduce to reformulation of self-cited DFrFT method [1]

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "In this paper, we extend our method [1] for FMCW radar mutual interference mitigation (IM) based on the discrete fractional Fourier transform (DFrFT). Firstly, we propose a radar signal processing chain including our DFrFT-based IM for real-valued receivers, which we compare to reference algorithms on a synthetic data set. We then reduce computational complexity by reformulating DFrFT-based IM in terms of sparse update signals, which enables mitigation of multiple interferences simultaneously. Finally, we conduct a case study on measurement data and show that our method is compatible with real"

    The central claims of simultaneous multi-interference mitigation with reduced complexity and real-world compatibility are presented as direct extensions and reformulations of the DFrFT-based IM method from the authors' own prior work [1]. The new processing chain and sparse-update reformulation inherit the core assumptions (interference sparsity and separability in the fractional Fourier domain) from [1] without re-deriving or independently verifying them here; thus the performance assertions reduce to the unexamined validity of the self-cited reference rather than constituting an independent derivation chain.

full rationale

The paper explicitly frames its contributions as extensions of the authors' prior DFrFT-based IM technique from [1]. The load-bearing steps for simultaneous mitigation, reduced complexity, and real-world compatibility are the proposed real-valued processing chain and the reformulation into sparse update signals. These build directly on the core method from [1] without an independent first-principles derivation of the underlying interference sparsity or separability assumptions in the fractional Fourier domain. Synthetic comparisons and the measurement case study provide external checks, but the assumption that sparse updates capture interference without target artifacts or phase-induced sparsity loss remains tied to the validity of [1]. This creates moderate circularity (score 6) as the new claims are statistically and conceptually forced by the self-cited foundation rather than standing alone. No self-definitional equations or fitted-input predictions were identifiable from the abstract and structure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach inherits the assumption that FMCW interference is well-separated in the fractional Fourier domain from reference [1]. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract; the sparse-update reformulation is presented as a computational rewrite rather than a new model.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Interference signals remain distinguishable from target echoes in the discrete fractional Fourier domain after real-valued sampling and standard preprocessing.
    This separation property is the load-bearing premise carried over from the authors' prior work and is invoked to justify both the processing chain and the sparse mitigation step.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5387 in / 1470 out tokens · 67257 ms · 2026-05-07T05:15:07.642257+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    FMCW radar interference mitigation based on the fractional Fourier transform,

    C. Oswald and F. Pernkopf, “FMCW radar interference mitigation based on the fractional Fourier transform,”IEEE Transactions on Radar Systems, vol. 4, pp. 549–563, 2026

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Analytical investiga- tion of non-coherent mutual FMCW radar interference,

    M. Toth, P. Meissner, A. Melzer, and K. Witrisal, “Analytical investiga- tion of non-coherent mutual FMCW radar interference,” in2018 15th European Radar Conference (EuRAD). IEEE, 2018, pp. 71–74

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    M. A. Richardset al.,Fundamentals of radar signal processing. Mcgraw-hill New York, 2005, vol. 1

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Bats-inspired frequency hopping for mitigation of interference between automotive radars,

    J. Bechter, C. Sippel, and C. Waldschmidt, “Bats-inspired frequency hopping for mitigation of interference between automotive radars,” in2016 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwaves for Intelligent Mobility (ICMIM). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–4

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Fischer,Untersuchungen zum Interferenzverhalten automobiler Radarsensorik

    C. Fischer,Untersuchungen zum Interferenzverhalten automobiler Radarsensorik. Cuvillier Verlag, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Threshold-free interference cancellation method for automotive FMCW radar systems,

    M. Wagner, F. Sulejmani, A. Melzer, P. Meissner, and M. Huemer, “Threshold-free interference cancellation method for automotive FMCW radar systems,” in2018 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–4

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Variational signal separation for automotive radar interference mitigation,

    M. Toth, E. Leitinger, and K. Witrisal, “Variational signal separation for automotive radar interference mitigation,”IEEE Transactions on Radar Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1007–1026, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Automotive radar interference mitigation using adaptive noise canceller,

    F. Jin and S. Cao, “Automotive radar interference mitigation using adaptive noise canceller,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 3747–3754, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Fully convolutional neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,

    N.-C. Ristea, A. Anghel, and R. T. Ionescu, “Fully convolutional neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,” in2020 IEEE 92nd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Fall). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Angle-equivariant convolutional neural networks for interference mitigation in automotive radar,

    C. Oswald, M. Toth, P. Meissner, and F. Pernkopf, “Angle-equivariant convolutional neural networks for interference mitigation in automotive radar,” in2023 20th European Radar Conference (EuRAD). EuMA, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    End-to-end training of neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,

    ——, “End-to-end training of neural networks for automotive radar interference mitigation,” in2023 IEEE International Radar Conference (RADAR). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Performance com- parison of mutual automotive radar interference mitigation algorithms,

    M. Toth, P. Meissner, A. Melzer, and K. Witrisal, “Performance com- parison of mutual automotive radar interference mitigation algorithms,” in2019 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Analysis and comparison of discrete fractional Fourier transforms,

    X. Su, R. Tao, and X. Kang, “Analysis and comparison of discrete fractional Fourier transforms,”Signal Processing, vol. 160, pp. 284– 298, 2019. 10 4 10 2 100 102 104 106 108 x (a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0(MSE < x) 10 20 30 40 50 x (b) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0(SINR < x) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 x (c) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0(EVM < x) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x ...

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    The fractional Fourier transform as a biomedical signal and image processing tool: A review,

    A. G ´omez-Echavarr´ıa, J. P. Ugarte, and C. Tob ´on, “The fractional Fourier transform as a biomedical signal and image processing tool: A review,”Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1081–1093, 2020

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    On the multiangle centered discrete fractional Fourier transform,

    J. G. Vargas-Rubio and B. Santhanam, “On the multiangle centered discrete fractional Fourier transform,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 273–276, 2005

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    On multiangle discrete fractional periodic transforms,

    C. Oswald and F. Pernkopf, “On multiangle discrete fractional periodic transforms,” inICASSP 2026 - 2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2026, pp. 581–585

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    Error analysis of a quadrature coherent detector processor,

    A. I. Sinsky and P. C. Wang, “Error analysis of a quadrature coherent detector processor,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, no. 6, pp. 880–883, 1974

    work page 1974

  18. [18]

    A simple method for sampling in-phase and quadrature components,

    C. M. Rader, “A simple method for sampling in-phase and quadrature components,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, no. 6, pp. 821–824, 1984

    work page 1984

  19. [19]

    I/Q baseband demodulation in the RASSP SAR benchmark,

    G. A. Shaw and S. Pohlig, “I/Q baseband demodulation in the RASSP SAR benchmark,” 1995

    work page 1995

  20. [20]

    Computation of an eigendecomposition-based discrete frac- tional Fourier transform with reduced arithmetic complexity,

    J. R. de Oliveira Neto, J. B. Lima, G. J. da Silva Jr, and R. M. C. de Souza, “Computation of an eigendecomposition-based discrete frac- tional Fourier transform with reduced arithmetic complexity,”Signal Processing, vol. 165, pp. 72–82, 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    An orthonormal class of exact and simple DFT eigenvectors with a high degree of symmetry,

    T. Erseghe and G. Cariolaro, “An orthonormal class of exact and simple DFT eigenvectors with a high degree of symmetry,”IEEE transactions on signal processing, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 2527–2539, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Efficient DFT architectures based upon symmetries,

    ——, “Efficient DFT architectures based upon symmetries,”IEEE transactions on signal processing, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3829–3838, 2006

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Raw ADC data from FMCW radar at 77 GHz with interference,

    L. A. L ´opez-Valc´arcel, M. Garc ´ıa S ´anchez, F. Fioranelli, and O. A. Krasnov, “Raw ADC data from FMCW radar at 77 GHz with interference,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/e47t-p857

    work page doi:10.21227/e47t-p857 2023