Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Split-Aperture Phased Array Radar Resource Management for Tracking Tasks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A radar that divides its array into sub-arrays, each running a different tracking task at the same time, can keep more target tracks alive for the same radar time budget than a radar that schedules the same tasks sequentially on the full…

desk verdict Real contribution to radar resource management, but the headline track-count gain hinges on an admittedly arbitrary cross-talk loss model. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17873 v1 pith:6PKDMV5Z submitted 2025-01-16 eess.SP

Pepijn B. Cox , Wim L. van Rossum This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords CognitiveradarresourcemanagementtrackingSplit-aperturephasedarraysTaskdependenciesQ-RAMAdaptivefasttraversalalgorithmThree-dimensionalstrippacking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a phased-array radar whose aperture can be split into sub-arrays, each executing a different tracking task at the same time, can keep significantly more active target tracks alive for the same radar time budget than a radar that schedules those tasks one after another on the full aperture. The authors formulate split-aperture resource management as a quality-of-service optimization, pairing an empirically calibrated tracking model that sets track quality as angular estimation error with a three-dimensional strip packing of tasks into the array's element-and-time volume. Because packed tasks share the array, the resource function becomes coupled and the utility-versus-resource curve develops discrete jumps, so the paper introduces an adaptive fast traversal algorithm to solve the allocation despite those jumps. A Monte Carlo simulation with 60 targets shows the constrained split-aperture solution keeping more tracks active at every tested time budget than the full-aperture baseline, with its performance between the unconstrained split-aperture ideal and the sequential baseline. If the result survives contact with hardware, future multifunction radars could serve more simultaneous missions without increasing transmit power or total radar time.

What carries the argument

The mechanism has three parts that work together. First, the quality-of-service based resource allocation model (Q-RAM) formulates the problem as maximizing weighted task utility under a total radar time budget, with each task's utility derived from the empirically calibrated tracking strategy (KBS) that sets quality equal to the angular estimation error of the track. Second, each task is a box with dimensions (horizontal elements $N_{h,k}$, vertical elements $N_{v,k}$, expected radar time $g_k$) that must be packed without overlap into the array's fixed element area, making the coupled resource function $g(S^\star) = \max_{k \in K} (z_k + g_k)$, i.e., the highest top of any box in the stack; packing is done by the deepest-bottom-left-fill heuristic with a shaking procedure. Third, because packing couples tasks, the utility-versus-resource curve has discrete jumps that the standard fast traversal method cannot handle, so the paper introduces the adaptive fast traversal algorithm, which searches tree branches around first-order candidate points for equal-resource, higher-utility alternatives and prunes that search adaptively via the parameters $\alpha_1, n_1, n_2, n_3$.

What would settle it

Replace the arbitrary cross-talk model in equation (5) with a measured or electromagnetically simulated inter-subarray coupling loss and re-run the 70 km Monte Carlo scenario; if the constrained split-aperture active-track curve falls to or below the full-aperture curve anywhere in the 0\textendash20% radar time budget range, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own conclusion, is that the split-aperture phased array concept can significantly increase the number of active tracks of a multifunction radar system compared to scheduling tasks sequentially. The demonstration is a 100-run Monte Carlo simulation of 60 tracking tasks in two scenes (targets out to 70 km and 250 km), comparing three allocation problems: split-aperture without packing constraints, split-aperture with the three-dimensional strip packing constraints, and full-aperture sequential allocation. On the paper's own terms, the constrained split-aperture solution keeps more tracks alive at every radar time budget tested, with total utility and mean angular estimation error ordered the same way, and the authors further state this is the first treatment of constrained scheduling over the array for split-aperture resource management. The claim is that the extra flexibility of dividing the array into sub-arrays, giving short-range or low-maneuver targets only the elements they need, translates directly into more simultaneous tracks for the same time budget.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated benefit of splitting the aperture rests on equation (5), the cross-talk loss model $\xi = 0.8 + 0.2 (N_{h,k}/N_{hT})(N_{v,k}/N_{vT})$, which the paper's own footnote admits was chosen arbitrarily because modeling front-end cross-talk for the split-aperture concept is an open problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A multifunction radar with aperture-splitting capability can trade track quality inside its permitted band ($1$\textendash$3$ mrad angular estimation error) to keep more simultaneous tracks alive, and the simulation shows the mean error stays below the $3$ mrad limit in every configuration.
  • In the 70 km scene the constrained split-aperture curve nearly reaches the unconstrained ideal, showing that packing losses are small when many tasks need only a small part of the aperture.
  • The full-aperture allocation is an upper bound on required resource and the unconstrained split-aperture allocation a lower bound, so any physically realizable split-aperture scheduler's track count will lie between these two curves.
  • Short-range, large-RCS, or slow-maneuvering targets, which need few array elements, are exactly the tasks that free aperture space for other tracks, which is where the track-count gain comes from.
  • As presented, the constrained split-aperture allocation is not fast enough for real-time operation; the paper lists a faster implementation, a more efficient packing variant, and hot-started CDAPS search as the routes to closing that gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the arbitrary cross-talk model in equation (5) is replaced by a physically computed inter-subarray coupling, the reported gain will change; the current simulation conflates real cross-talk losses with the packing-induced losses that the strip packing algorithm is meant to measure.
  • The large gap in computation time between the unconstrained and constrained solvers suggests an anytime design: serve the unconstrained allocation immediately and refine it with packing constraints within the revisit interval, which the paper does not explicitly propose.
  • The box-packing view of tasks extends beyond tracking to mixed-function radars, treating search, track, and communication as boxes with different quality functions, so this machinery is a candidate framework for holistic multifunction resource management.
  • The adaptive fast traversal solver has four user-set parameters ($\alpha_1, n_1, n_2, n_3$) whose effect on solution quality is left to future work; a sensitivity study would show whether the track-count advantage is robust or tuning-dependent.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a radar resource management formulation for split-aperture phased array (SAPA) systems. Tracking task quality is modeled with the Van Keuk and Blackman strategy, task resource consumption includes coherent integration time, update rate, and aperture size, and concurrent tasks are scheduled over the array by solving a three-dimensional strip packing problem. The resulting quality-of-service allocation problem is solved with a new adaptive fast traversal algorithm combined with a 3SP heuristic. A Monte Carlo simulation with 60 targets and two range configurations compares unconstrained split-aperture, constrained split-aperture, and full-aperture sequential scheduling, and the authors conclude that the SAPA concept can significantly increase the number of active tracks for the same radar time budget.

Significance. If the demonstrated benefit is robust, the paper makes a useful contribution: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first work to include constrained array scheduling in SAPA resource management, and it connects the problem to the Q-RAM framework and the 3SP literature. The simulation study is transparent about its settings, uses external models (KBS and Q-RAM) rather than constants fitted to the reported outcome, and shows consistent trends across Monte Carlo runs. The main weakness is that the central quantitative claim rests on an admittedly arbitrary cross-talk loss model and on two heuristic solution components whose approximation quality is not characterized in the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5) and footnote 1] The cross-talk loss function ξ = 0.8 + 0.2 (Nh,k/NhT)(Nv,k/NvT) is explicitly declared 'chosen arbitrarily' in footnote 1. This function enters β in Eq. (4b), and through PD and nl in Eqs. (9b)-(9c) it affects both the quality qk and the resource gk of every split-aperture task. The assumed model penalizes the smallest subarrays by only about 1 dB relative to the full aperture, and this penalty directly controls the size of the split-aperture advantage reported in Figures 5-7. A larger or physically different cross-talk penalty would increase the resources required by small-aperture tasks and could reduce or eliminate the active-track benefit over the full-aperture baseline. The paper needs either a physical or measured justification for this loss model or a sensitivity analysis over its parameters before the central claim can be considered supported.
  2. [Algorithm 3 and Section VI.A] The adaptive fast traversal algorithm has four user-chosen parameters α1, n1, n2, and n3, which are set to 0.7, 2, 3, and 3 in Section VI.A without any sensitivity analysis; Section VII lists studying the impact of these parameters as future work. Because Algorithm 3 only approximates the concave majorant and the marginal-utility ordering determines which tasks receive resources, the reported active-track, utility, and computation-time results are conditional on an uncharacterized approximation accuracy. A parameter-sensitivity study, or a comparison against full enumeration for a reduced control space, is needed to show that the reported benefits are not artifacts of this particular choice of AFT hyperparameters.
  3. [Section IV.A and Eq. (11)] The split-aperture resource function g(S*) is the height produced by the DBLF-plus-shaking heuristic of [24], and no optimality bound is provided for this heuristic on the task sets used in the simulation. Since this resource value enters the marginal utility computation in Algorithm 3, suboptimal packings can affect not only the final resource consumption but also which allocations are selected by the resource management algorithm. The paper should quantify the heuristic's quality on small instances against an exact 3SP solver or on standard strip-packing benchmarks, so the constrained curves in Figures 5-7 can be interpreted with known confidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VI.A and Table I] The parameters for targets T1 and T2 appear inconsistent with Table I: the text assigns Σk = 35 m/s2 and Θk = 10 s for T1, but Table I lists Θ as the standard deviation in m/s2 and Σ as the time correlation in s. Please check the notation and the numeric assignments.
  2. [Section VI.A, footnote 4] Footnote 4 is truncated and the surrounding sentence is garbled ('target T1 only exists for short ranges as a target cannot be .'), which makes the intended explanation unclear.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The use of uk and gk in Eq. (14) is confusing because S is a set of index points for all tasks; the marginal utility should be defined using the total utility u and the coupled resource function G, or the notation should be clarified explicitly.
  4. [Section VI.A] In the paragraph describing the unconstrained case, 'without contains' should read 'without constraints'.
  5. [Section VI.B] The algorithm named 'CPADS' in the final paragraph is elsewhere called CDAPS (reference [28]); please make the acronym consistent.
  6. [Throughout] There are several minor language issues, including 'an 3 dimensional strip packing', 'the concave-majorant', and 'the resource allocation problem in (1) is solved using the following steps'; a careful copyedit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation benefit follows from the stated radar model, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing baseline choice.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward simulation model, not a fit. The Q-RAM optimization (Section II), the KBS-based quality/resource model (Section III), and the external 3SP heuristic of [24] are all stated independently; the new AFT algorithm (Algorithm 3) is specified in full and is not a re-labeling of a known result. The central constrained-split versus full-aperture comparison uses the shared gk = nl Td ft model and the 3SP resource function g(S*) = max zk + gk; no outcome variable is used to set a parameter in that chain. The single self-citation, [30], supplies only the unconstrained split-aperture resource function gu,k = nl Td,k ft,k Nh,k Nv,k/(NhT NvT) used as a lower-bound baseline, so it is not load-bearing for the main claim. Equation (5)'s cross-talk loss xi is explicitly admitted as 'chosen arbitrarily' and is an untested physics assumption; while it influences the simulated magnitude of the benefit, it is not fitted to the target result and is not presented as a prediction, so it is a robustness/correctness concern rather than circularity. Likewise, absence of an exact-solver benchmark is a validation gap, not a circular reduction. No circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central result rests on standard Q-RAM and KBS assumptions, an explicitly arbitrary cross-talk loss model, and heuristic 3SP and AFT behavior. No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The hand-chosen AFT hyperparameters, utility thresholds, and SNR clamps further shape the demonstrated benefit, and these are listed as free parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • AFT hyperparameters alpha1, n1, n2, n3 = alpha1=0.7, n1=2, n2=n3=3
    Hand-selected in Section VI-A. They control how many tree branches are searched and therefore affect the quality of the concave-majorant approximation. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Cross-talk loss coefficients = 0.8 and 0.2 in equation (5)
    The authors state the cross-talk loss function is chosen arbitrarily because front-end cross-talk modeling is an open problem. This directly scales SNR in equation (4b) and hence quality and resource estimates.
  • Utility thresholds qk,min and qk,max = 3 mrad and 1 mrad
    Design parameters defining the linear utility function in equation (10). They set the quality operating window and therefore shape the trade-off between track accuracy and number of tracks.
  • SN0 clamp values = 40 dB upper, 10 dB lower
    Introduced as practical limits on measurement accuracy and detection. The 10 dB lower bound also defines the minimal starting point sinit for the adaptive traversal.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quality and resource functions are monotonically increasing in the discrete control space, and the concave-majorant can be approximated by marginal-utility traversal.
    Used in Section V to justify the fast traversal and Q-RAM solution steps. The split-aperture coupling introduces discrete jumps that violate smooth concavity, and the AFT is only a heuristic response to that issue.
  • domain assumption The Van Keuk-Blackman strategy is a valid empirical model for angular track accuracy and expected resource use.
    Equations (2) through (9) rely on KBS assumptions: Swerling I fluctuations, well-separated targets, Singer motion dynamics, and a complete tracking loop. These are standard but empirical and not revalidated here.
  • domain assumption The 3D strip packing heuristic (DBLF with shaking, from reference [24]) produces a sufficiently accurate packing height for resource allocation.
    3SP is NP-hard in the strong sense. The paper uses a heuristic without optimality bounds, and the packing height g(S*) in equation (11) is a core part of the coupled resource function.
  • ad hoc to paper The cross-talk loss function in equation (5) represents real front-end isolation.
    The authors explicitly state the loss function is chosen arbitrarily because modeling split-aperture front-end cross-talk is an open problem. The simulated SAPA benefit is computed on the basis of this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Split-Aperture Phased Array Radar Resource Management for Tracking Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PKDMV5Z

@misc{pith2026250117873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Split-Aperture Phased Array Radar Resource Management for Tracking Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PKDMV5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17873}
}
read the original abstract

The next generation of radar systems will include advanced digital front-end technology in the apertures allowing for spatially subdividing radar tasks over the array, the so-called split-aperture phased array (SAPA) concept. The goal of this paper is to introduce radar resource management for the SAPA concept and to demonstrate the added benefit of the SAPA concept for active tracking tasks. To do so, the radar resource management problem is formulated and solved by employing the quality of service based resource allocation model (Q-RAM) framework. As active tracking tasks may be scheduled simultaneously, the resource allocation of tasks becomes dependent on the other tasks. The solution to the resource allocation problem is obtained by introducing the adaptive fast traversal algorithm combined with a three dimensional strip packing algorithm to handle task dependencies. It will be demonstrated by a simulation example that the SAPA concept can significantly increase the number of active tracks of a multifunction radar system compared to scheduling tasks sequentially.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the split-aperture phased array concept for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustrative example of distributing 15 tracking tasks over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Adaptive fast traversal concept of updating the approximate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The quality function of the active track task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The number of active tracks given a radar time budget for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The mean angular estimation error given a radar time budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The computation time for the split-aperture without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Wauters, J

    T. Wauters, J. Verstichel, and G. Vanden Berghe An effective shaking procedure for 2D and 3D strip packing problems Computers & Operations Research , vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 2662– 2669, 2013. 10.1016/j.cor.2013.05.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cor.2013.05.017 2013

  2. [1]

    M. L. G. Heras et al. CROWN project, towards a European multifunction AESA system In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Systems and Technology , Waltham, MA, USA, Dec. 2022, pp. 1–8. 10.1109/PAST49659.2022.9975025

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    J. C. M. Fernandez et al. CROWN - final results on a European multifunction AESA system demonstrator In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Sym. on Phased Array Systems and Technology, Boston, MA, USA, Oct. 2024, p. 8

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bergin and J

    J. Bergin and J. H. Guerci MIMO Radar: theory and application . Artech House, 2018. 10.3390/books978-3-7258-0236-4

    work page doi:10.3390/books978-3-7258-0236-4 2018

  5. [5]

    J. Yan, H. Liu, B. Jiu, B. Chen, Z. Liu, and Z. Bao COX ET AL.: Split-Aperture Phased Array Radar Resource Management 11 Simultaneous multibeam resource allocation scheme for multiple target tracking IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 3110–3122,

    work page

  6. [6]

    J. Yan, B. Jiu, H. Liu, B. Chen, and Z. Bao Prior knowledge-based simultaneous multibeam power allocation algorithm for cognitive multiple targets tracking in clutter IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing , vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 512–527,

    work page

  7. [7]

    S. L. C. Miranda, C. J. Baker, K. Woodbridge, and H. D. Griffiths Knowledge-based resource management for multifunction radar: a look at scheduling and task prioritization IEEE Signal Processing Mag. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 66–76, 2006. 10.1109/MSP.2006.1593338

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    10.1109/TSP.2014.2371774

    work page arXiv 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    P. W. Moo and Z. Ding Adaptive radar resource management . Elsevier, 2015. 10.1016/C2014-0-02505-1

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    S. L. C. Miranda, C. J. Baker, K. Woodbridge, and H. D. Griffiths Comparison of scheduling algorithms for multifunction radar IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation , vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 414–424,

  3. [11]

    Charlish and F

    A. Charlish and F. Hoffmann Cognitive radar management In Novel radar techniques and applications: Volume 2: Waveform diversity and cognitive radar, and target tracking and data fusion . Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2017, ch. 3, pp. 157–

    2017

  4. [12]

    Charlish, F

    A. Charlish, F. Hoffmann, C. Degen, and I. Schlangen The development from adaptive to cognitive radar resource man- agement IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Mag. , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 8–19, 2020. 10.1109/MAES.2019.2957847

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. S. Greco, F. Gini, P. Stinco, and K. Bell Cognitive radars: On the road to reality: Progress thus far and possibilities for the future IEEE Signal Processing Mag. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 112–125, 2018. 10.1109/MSP.2018.2822847

    2018

  6. [14]

    Rajkumar, C

    R. Rajkumar, C. Lee, J. Lehoczky, and D. Siewiorek Resource allocation model for QoS management In Proc. of the Real-Time Systems Symp., San Francisco, CA, USA, Dec. 1997, pp. 298–307. 10.1109/REAL.1997.641291

    1997

  7. [15]

    Van Keuk and S

    G. Van Keuk and S. S. Blackman On phased-array radar tracking and parameter control IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 186–194, 1993. 10.1109/7.249124

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    J. Yan, H. Jiao, W. Pu, C. Shi, J. Dai, and H. Liu Radar sensor network resource allocation for fused target tracking: A brief review Information Fusion , vol. 86-87, no. June, pp. 104–115, 2022. 10.1016/j.inffus.2022.06.009

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    A. Irci, A. Saranli, and B. Baykal Study on Q-RAM and feasible directions based methods for resource management in phased array radar systems IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1848–1864, 2010. 10.1109/TAES.2010.5595599

    2010

  10. [18]

    Nadjiasngar and A

    R. Nadjiasngar and A. Charlish Quality of service resource management for a radar network In Proc. of the IEEE Radar Conf. , Johannesburg, South Africa, Oct. 2015, pp. 344–349. 10.1109/RadarConf.2015.7411905

    2015

  11. [19]

    N. Yang, Y . Feng, and J. Yu Quality of service based resource management for rotating phased array radar In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Electronic Engineering and Informatics , Wuhan, China, Jun. 2023, pp. 385–390. 10.1109/EEI59236.2023.10212593

    2023

  12. [20]

    Marquardt, S

    P. Marquardt, S. Durst, K. Barth, and T. M ¨uller A resource management approach for concurrent operation of RF functionalities In Proc. of the Int. Radar Conf. , Rennes, France, Oct. 2024, p. 6. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.07981

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    W ¨ascher, H

    G. W ¨ascher, H. Haußner, and H. Schumann An improved typology of cutting and packing problems European J. of Operational Research , vol. 183, no. 3, pp. 1109– 1130, 2007. 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.047

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Charlish and R

    A. Charlish and R. Nadjiasngar Quality of service management for a multi-mission radar network In Proc. of the IEEE 6th Int. Workshop on Computational Ad- vances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing , Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 2015, pp. 289–292. 10.1109/CAMSAP.2015.7383793

    2015

  15. [23]

    M. Hifi, I. Kacem, S. N `egre, and L. Wu A linear programming approach for the three-dimensional bin- packing problem Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics , vol. 36, pp. 993–1000,

  16. [25]

    S. P. Fekete, J. Schepers, and J. C. van der Veen An exact algorithm for higher-dimensional orthogonal packing Operations Research , vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 569–587, 2007. 10.1287/opre.1060.0369

    2007

  17. [26]

    J. P. Hansen, S. Ghosh, R. Rajkumar, and J. Lehoczky Resource management of highly configurable tasks In Proc. of the Int. Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp., Santa Fe, NM, USA, Apr. 2004, pp. 1615–1622. 10.1109/IPDPS.2004.1303070

    2004 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Ghosh, R

    S. Ghosh, R. Rajkumar, J. Hansen, and J. Lehoczky Integrated QoS-aware resource management and scheduling with multi-resource constraints Real-Time Systems, vol. 33, pp. 7–46, 2006. 10.1007/s11241-006- 6881-0

    2006 doi

  19. [28]

    Charlish, K

    A. Charlish, K. Woodbridge, and H. Griffiths Phased array radar resource management using continuous double auction IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 2212–2224, 2015. 10.1109/TAES.2015.130558

    2015

  20. [29]

    H. I. Christensen, A. Khan, S. Pokutta, and P. Tetali Approximation and online algorithms for multidimensional bin packing: A survey Computer Science Review , vol. 24, pp. 63–79, 2017. 10.1016/j.cosrev.2016.12.001

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    P. B. Cox and W. L. van Rossum Radar resource management for active tracking using split-aperture phased arrays In Proc. of the IEEE Radar Conf. , Denver, CO, USA, May 2024, p. 6

    2024

  22. [31]

    M. A. Richards, J. A. Scheer, and W. A. Holm Principles of modern radar: basic principles . Institution of Engi- neering and Technology, 2010. 10.1049/SBRA020E

    2010 doi

  23. [32]

    T. G. Crainic, G. Perboli, and R. Tadei Extreme point-based heuristics for three-dimensional bin packing INFORMS Journal on Computing , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 368–384,

  24. [33]

    Durst and S

    S. Durst and S. Br ¨uggenwirth Quality of service based radar resource management using deep reinforcement learning In Proc. of the IEEE Radar Conf. , Atlanta, GA, USA, May 2021. 10.1109/RadarConf2147009.2021.9455234

    2021

  25. [34]

    Chazelle The bottomn-left bin-packing heuristic: an efficient implementa- tion 12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL

    B. Chazelle The bottomn-left bin-packing heuristic: an efficient implementa- tion 12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. XX, No. XX XXXXX 2022 IEEE Trans. on Computers , vol. C–32, no. 8, pp. 697–707, 1983. 10.1109/tc.1983.1676307 COX ET AL.: Split-Apert...

    2022

  26. [38]

    R. L. Graham An efficient algorith for determining the convex hull of a finite planar set Information Processing Letters , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 132–133, 1972. 10.1016/0020-0190(72)90045-2

    1972 doi

  27. [2007]

    10.1049/iet-rsn:20070003

    doi

  28. [2008]

    10.1287/ijoc.1070.0250

  29. [2010]

    10.1016/j.endm.2010.05.126

    2010 doi

  30. [2015]

    10.1109/TSP.2015.2417504

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.