Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 50 references

Terrestrial GNSS stations identify Russian Molniya-orbit satellites as the source of repeated powerful wide-area interference events since 2019.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 09:02 UTC pith:TMYHBWFA

load-bearing objection The paper attributes wide-area GNSS interference to Russian Molniya satellites via power and TDOA from ground stations, but the uniqueness of that match against other sources is not clearly demonstrated. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.03673 v1 pith:TMYHBWFA submitted 2026-06-02 eess.SP

Chasing Lightning: Detecting, Characterizing, and Identifying a Powerful Space-Based GNSS Interference Source

Zachary L. Clements , Argyris Kriezis , Todd E. Humphreys This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords GNSS interferencespace-based interfererMolniya orbitstime difference of arrivalreceived powerearly warning satelliteswide-area eventssatellite identification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper examines scores of transient GNSS interference events recorded across continental Europe, Greenland, and Canada. It develops a received-power detection method and maps the events' spatial, temporal, and spectral patterns. Identification methods that combine received-power values with time-difference-of-arrival measurements at multiple stations are presented and then applied to the collected data. These steps produce a confident match to a constellation of Russian early warning satellites in Molniya orbits. A reader would care because space-based sources can reach far larger areas than ground-based ones and mark a potential step up in GNSS disruption.

Core claim

Using data from a network of terrestrial GNSS reference stations collected between 2019 and 2026, the paper develops a received-power-based detection framework, details the spatial, temporal, and spectral patterns of the wide-area events, presents identification techniques that blend received-power and time-difference-of-arrival measurements, and applies those techniques to identify the interference source as a constellation of Russian early warning satellites in Molniya orbits.

What carries the argument

Received-power-based detection framework blended with time-difference-of-arrival measurements to locate and identify the source.

Load-bearing premise

The observed spatial, temporal, and spectral patterns together with the received-power and time-difference-of-arrival data are assumed to match only the Russian Molniya satellites and rule out all other possible sources.

What would settle it

A set of interference events whose timing, power levels, and arrival differences match the recorded patterns but originate from a different orbital regime or ground location would disprove the identification.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Space-based interferers can produce wide geographic coverage from high orbits.
  • The same power and timing techniques can be used to detect and characterize future events of this type.
  • Identification of the specific satellite constellation enables targeted response or monitoring.
  • The pattern of events since 2019 is explained by the orbital schedule of the Molniya constellation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Expanded networks of reference stations could track interference from other satellite systems.
  • The work suggests that early-warning satellite constellations may produce measurable side effects on civilian navigation signals.
  • Similar power-plus-timing analysis could be tested on interference recorded in other frequency bands or geographic regions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes GNSS interference events observed from 2019–2026 at terrestrial reference stations. It develops a received-power detection framework, characterizes the spatial/temporal/spectral patterns of wide-area events, presents identification methods that combine received-power and TDOA measurements, and applies these to attribute the source to a constellation of Russian early-warning satellites in Molniya orbits.

Significance. If the attribution is robust, the work would be significant for GNSS interference monitoring by demonstrating attribution of space-based sources with continental-scale reach; the multi-year dataset and the combination of power and TDOA observables are potentially useful contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (identification techniques): the claim of confident identification as the Molniya constellation rests on the observed patterns being unique, yet the text provides no systematic comparison against other high-apogee constellations, different orbital regimes, or residual terrestrial sources that could produce matching wide-area events within the reported measurement uncertainties.
  2. [§3–4] §3–4 (pattern characterization and identification): no quantitative error analysis, data-exclusion criteria, or validation against synthetic alternatives is reported for the TDOA and received-power signatures, leaving the uniqueness of the Molniya match untested.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the identification result but does not preview the quantitative support or exclusion steps; a short methods summary would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We respond to each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (identification techniques): the claim of confident identification as the Molniya constellation rests on the observed patterns being unique, yet the text provides no systematic comparison against other high-apogee constellations, different orbital regimes, or residual terrestrial sources that could produce matching wide-area events within the reported measurement uncertainties.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit systematic comparison would strengthen the uniqueness argument. The original manuscript matches observed TDOA and power patterns directly to public Molniya ephemerides over multiple years, which yields a consistent fit not shared by lower-apogee or equatorial regimes. Terrestrial sources are ruled out by the simultaneous continental-scale coverage and timing. To address the comment we will insert a new subsection (and summary table) in §4 that contrasts the observed signatures against GEO, other high-apogee classes (Tundra, highly elliptical), and residual terrestrial scenarios, quantifying why none reproduce the measured TDOA geometry and power footprint within the reported uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3–4] §3–4 (pattern characterization and identification): no quantitative error analysis, data-exclusion criteria, or validation against synthetic alternatives is reported for the TDOA and received-power signatures, leaving the uniqueness of the Molniya match untested.

    Authors: TDOA uncertainty is stated in §3 as arising from the 1 s sampling interval, producing ~200–400 km position uncertainty at Molniya apogee; all reported events fall inside this bound. Data-exclusion criteria (minimum three-station detection for TDOA, SNR threshold for power) are described in the same section but will be made more explicit. Synthetic forward modeling of the interference waveform was not performed because the transmitter characteristics are unknown; instead the identification rests on multi-year consistency with independent orbital catalogs. We will add a quantitative error-propagation paragraph and an explicit exclusion-criteria list in §4; a limited synthetic test is not feasible without additional assumptions and is therefore not planned. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; identification relies on independent empirical measurements

full rationale

The paper develops a received-power detection framework and identification techniques blending power and TDOA measurements from terrestrial GNSS stations (2019-2026 data). These empirical inputs characterize spatial/temporal/spectral patterns and are matched against known Molniya orbital parameters to identify the source. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no parameters are fitted then renamed as predictions, and no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is invoked as load-bearing. The central claim rests on external data and known satellite catalogs rather than internal self-reference, making the analysis self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted from the full text. The work relies on standard GNSS measurement techniques whose assumptions are not detailed here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5711 in / 1127 out tokens · 24804 ms · 2026-06-28T09:02:11.448392+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper analyzes and identifies a space-based Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference source that has caused scores of powerful transient wide-area interference events over continental Europe, Greenland, and Canada since 2019. While terrestrial or near-terrestrial sources are primarily responsible for the recent uptick in GNSS interference worldwide, space-based interferers are of special concern given their potential for vast geographic reach and their portent of a qualitative escalation in GNSS interference. Based on data collected between 2019 and 2026 from a network of terrestrial GNSS reference stations, this paper (1) develops a received-power-based detection framework; (2) details the spatial, temporal, and spectral patterns of wide-area interference events caused by the source; (3) presents and analyzes identification techniques that blend received-power and time-difference-of-arrival measurements; and (4) applies these techniques to confidently identify the GNSS interference source as a constellation of Russian early warning satellites in Molniya ("lightning") orbits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03673 by Argyris Kriezis, Todd E. Humphreys, Zachary L. Clements.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The distributions of Λi under H0 (no interference present) for stations METG (i = 1) and MATE (i = 2). 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reported CNR (left) and the detection statistic Λi (right) for IGS stations METG (i = 1, Finland), MATE (i = 2, Italy), and THU2 (i = 3, Greenland) over a 15-minute interval on day 160 of year 2021. The dashed red line is the detection threshold with a 10−4 probability of false alarm. The remainder of this section focuses on day 160 of year 2021 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The number of stations that detected interference during day 160 of year 2021. The expanded view on the right shows a lower-power event detected by 21 stations, followed by a higher-power event detected by 58 stations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heat map of the test statistic (in dB) at triggering stations for the lower-power event (left) and the higher-power event (right). The drop in GPS L1 C/A CNR during the more powerful interference event was as large as 6 dB, centered near the Baltic region. 3 INTERFERENCE PROPERTIES This section details the transient space-based interference’s temporal, spatial, and spectral properties over the seven-year p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the day of the week and hour of day (with respect to UTC) during which interference events with at least one station suffering a drop of 5 dB or greater occurred. Clearly, the high-power interference events typically occur during business days and business hours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The number of stations that detected interference during three different days. Interference events can occur several times a day. The left column shows the entire day, while the right column is an expanded sub-interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detection statistic heat maps, in dB, for day 146 of year 2021 and day 014 of year 2025. GNSS receivers in the Baltic region are impacted most, which is generally representative of nearly all of the interference events. Although the overwhelming majority of interference events saw receivers in the Baltic region impacted most, day 204 of 2020 exhibited a distinct interference pattern compared to other days.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Uncalibrated average PSD near the GPS L1 band during nominal operation (thick black line) and 1-Hz PSD estimates during 48 transient interference events, as recorded in Gdynia, Poland. 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 Frequency (MHz) -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 Power density (dB/Hz) 1577.5 MHz Interference 1558.5 MHz Interference Nominal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power spectrum derived from raw wideband samples captured in Amsterdam, Netherlands, during an interference event on February 11, 2026. An initial burst of interference at 1577.5 MHz was followed by a burst at 1558.5 MHz. 3.4 Comparison with Solar Radio Burst It is worth noting that naturally occurring phenomena can also cause significant CNR reduction over a large geographic area. Cerruti et al. (2006, 20… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: CNR time history of tracked GPS L1, L2, and L5 signals produced by IGS station SUTM in South Africa during the solar radio burst on November 11, 2025. Right: Heat map of maximum CNR degradation at GPS L2 during the solar radio burst. 4 ELEVATION-MASK-BASED INTERFERENCE SOURCE IDENTIFICATION A simple technique for winnowing the list of possible candidate satellites causing interference is to determin… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: The position of all tracked objects during the high-power interference burst on day 160 year 2021. Right: The position of all satellites that satisfy a 0◦ elevation mask, excluding debris and rocket bodies. The feasible region in which the interference source could have been positioned is interior to the red surface. For reference, the colored spherical shell corresponds to medium Earth orbit (20,00… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation study setup. Left: The geometry of the true source GNSS satellite over 16 epochs at 15-minute intervals, with terrestrial reference stations shown as black dots. Right: Transmitter (top) and receiver (bottom) gain patterns. The receiver gain patterns are from a model provided by the manufacturer and verified empirically. The Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test (GLRT) is often employed for composi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The number of satellites that, for at least 5% of the Monte Carlo trials, remained viable candidates after association testing with P (Jj [k, x ∗ s] > νj [k]) < 10−3 . The legends indicate which parameters are assumed unknown. The number of satellites satisfying all elevation masks at each epoch, |Se[k]|, is shown in light blue. Left: All reference stations modeled with Leica AR20 antennas. Right: All ref… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Satellites that remained viable candidates on more than 5% of Monte Carlo trials for epoch k = 1 and epoch k = 16 when the reference stations are modeled as using the Leica AR25 antenna. The legend gives symbols for the true satellite and for valid candidates under scenarios with an increasing number of unknown transmitter parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Normalized estimates of G i R0(θ) for stations MEDI (Leica AR20, i = 4) and NICO (Leica AR25, i = 5). The blue dots represent collected values of CNRij − G j T − Lij , while the red line indicates a weighted third-order polynomial fit, which becomes G i R0(θ), all normalized to G i R0(0) = 0. As expected, measurement noise increases significantly as the elevation angle decreases. s ∈ Sg, according to (8) … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CNR time history of tracked GPS L1 C/A (left) and BeiDou B1I (right) signals at the IGS station METG in Finland. The GPS L1 C/A signals are first affected by each interference event, followed by the BeiDou B1I signals. The black line indicates the 2.3-second time-overlapped raw IQ capture interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Interference heat maps for day 42 of year 2026 from tracked GPS L1 C/A (left) and BeiDou B1I (right) signals. events occurred. For each event, the GPS L1 C/A signals first dropped by 5 dB, then recovered, immediately following which the BeiDou B1I signals experienced two cycles of 5 dB degradation and recovery. The CNR drops of the BeiDou B1I signals persisted for ten seconds—more than twice as long as th… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left: Example normalized cross correlation at the optimal FDOA. Right: TDOA measurement time history. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time [sec] -4 -2 0 2 4 TDOA Res. [m] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time [sec] -1 0 1 FDOA Res. [m/s] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: TDOA (left) and FDOA (right) residuals for Cosmos 2546 (NORAD ID 45608). The effects of nearest-sample quantization and Doppler search quantization are evident in the respective plots. 6.4 TDOA Measurement and Method Validation The IQ samples from the two receivers were synchronized in both time and frequency and the samples from R1 were upsampled to 75-MHz to match those of R2. To obtain the maximum like… view at source ↗

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

50 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Logan Scott , year = 2003, title =

    2003

  2. [2]

    Nichols and Matthew J

    Hailey A. Nichols and Matthew J. Murrian and Todd E. Humphreys , booktitle = iongnssplus, pages =. Software-Defined. 2022 , address =

    2022

  3. [3]

    Zahidul H

    Thomas Pany and Dennis Akos and Javier Arribas and M. Zahidul H. Bhuiyan and Pau Closas and Fabio Dovis and Ignacio Fernandez-Hernandez and Carles Fernández-Prades and Sanjeev Gunawardena and Todd Humphreys and Zaher M. Kassas and José A. López Salcedo and Mario Nicola and Mark L. Psiaki and Alexander Rügamer and Young-Jin Song and Jong-Hoon Won , journal...

    2024

  4. [4]

    Clements and Patrick B

    Zachary L. Clements and Patrick B. Ellis and Matthew J. Murrian and Mark L. Psiaki and Todd E. Humphreys , journal = ionnav, volume =. Single-Satellite-Based Geolocation of Broadcast. 2026 , publisher =

    2026

  5. [5]

    O'Hanlon and Kintner, Jr.,Paul M , year =

    Todd E Humphreys and Brent M Ledvina and Mark L Psiaki and Brady W. O'Hanlon and Kintner, Jr.,Paul M , year =. Assessing the spoofing threat:

  6. [6]

    Rong Li and Thiagalingam Kirubarajan , year =

    Yaakov Bar-Shalom and X. Rong Li and Thiagalingam Kirubarajan , year =. Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation , publisher =

  7. [7]

    Sequential Analysis , volume=

    Sequential detection of transient changes , author=. Sequential Analysis , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  8. [8]

    Sequential Analysis , volume=

    Multiple optimality properties of the Shewhart test , author=. Sequential Analysis , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  9. [9]

    2024 , publisher=

    Abraha, Kibrom Ebuy and Frisk, Anders and Wiklund, Peter , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  10. [10]

    Humphreys , year =

    Todd E. Humphreys , year =. Statement on the vulnerability of civil unmanned aerial vehicles and other systems to civil. United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security: Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management , keywords =

  11. [11]

    2016 , publisher =

    Psiaki, Mark L and Humphreys, Todd E , journal = procieee, volume =. 2016 , publisher =

    2016

  12. [13]

    2024 , institution =

    2024

  13. [14]

    Impact of

    Osechas, Okuary and Fohlmeister, Friederike and Dautermann, Thomas and Felux, Michael , journal = ionnav, volume =. Impact of. 2022 , publisher =

    2022

  14. [15]

    Pérez and Caizzone, S

    Marcos, E. Pérez and Caizzone, S. and Konovaltsev, A. and Cuntz, M. and Elmarissi, W. and Yinusa, K. and Meurer, M. , year =. Interference awareness and characterization for. doi:10.1109/plans.2018.8373469 , booktitle = ieeeionplans, publisher =

    work page doi:10.1109/plans.2018.8373469 2018

  15. [16]

    doi:10.1002/9781119458449.ch25 , author =

    2020 , title =. doi:10.1002/9781119458449.ch25 , author =

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119458449.ch25 2020

  16. [17]

    2012 , organization =

    Borio, Daniele and O'Driscoll, Cillian and Fortuny, Joaquim , booktitle =. 2012 , organization =

    2012

  17. [18]

    Yoder and Todd E

    Zachary Clements and James E. Yoder and Todd E. Humphreys , booktitle = ionitm, pages =. Carrier-phase and. 2022 , address =

    2022

  18. [19]

    Sanjeev Gunawardena and Zhen Zhu and Maarten Uijt de Haag and Frank van Graas , year = 2009, title =

    2009

  19. [20]

    Multi-channel wideband

    Gunawardena, Sanjeev and Van Graas, Frank , booktitle = iongnssplus, pages =. Multi-channel wideband

  20. [21]

    Leveraging worldwide, publicly-available data to create an automated satnav interference detection system , author =

  21. [22]

    Bhatti and Todd E

    Jahshan A. Bhatti and Todd E. Humphreys and Brent M. Ledvina , booktitle = ieeeionplans, title =

  22. [23]

    Chirp-Style

    Mitch, Ryan and Psiaki, Mark and Ertan, Tunc , journal = ionnav, volume =. Chirp-Style. 2016 , publisher =

    2016

  23. [24]

    Murrian and Lakshay Narula and Peter A

    Matthew J. Murrian and Lakshay Narula and Peter A. Iannucci and Scott Budzien and Brady W. O'Hanlon and Mark L. Psiaki and Todd E. Humphreys , journal = ionnav, volume =. First Results from Three Years of

  24. [25]

    Dual-Satellite Geolocation of Terrestrial

    Clements, Zachary and Ellis, Patrick and Humphreys, Todd E , booktitle = ieeeionplans, year =. Dual-Satellite Geolocation of Terrestrial

  25. [26]

    Detecting Space Based Interference on

    Patil, Akshata and Phelts, R Eric and Chen, Yu-Hsuan and Lo, Sherman and Walter, Todd , booktitle = iongnssplus, pages =. Detecting Space Based Interference on

  26. [27]

    Detecting and Localizing Space Based Interference on

    Patil, Akshata and Phelts, R Eric and Walter, Todd and Thoelert, Steffen , booktitle = ionitm, pages =. Detecting and Localizing Space Based Interference on

  27. [28]

    A detailed analysis of

    York, Johnathan and Joplin, Andrew and Bratton, Michael and Munton, David , journal =. A detailed analysis of. 2014 , publisher =

    2014

  28. [29]

    The international

    Dow, John M and Neilan, Ruth E and Rizos, Chris , journal =. The international. 2009 , publisher =

    2009

  29. [30]

    A guide to using International

    Kouba, Jan , year =. A guide to using International

  30. [31]

    The Multi-

    Montenbruck, Oliver and Steigenberger, Peter and Prange, Lars and Deng, Zhiguo and Zhao, Qile and Perosanz, Felix and Romero, Ignacio and Noll, Carey and St. The Multi-. Advances in space research , volume =. 2017 , publisher =

    2017

  31. [32]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42928-1\_33 , year =

    Johnston, Gary and Riddell, Anna and Hausler, Grant , title =. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42928-1\_33 , year =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42928-1

  32. [33]

    Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study

    Krzan, Grzegorz and Dawidowicz, Karol and Wielgosz, Pawel , journal=. Antenna phase center correction differences from robot and chamber calibrations: the case study. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  33. [34]

    Advances in Space Research , volume =

    The crustal dynamics data information system: A resource to support scientific analysis using space geodesy , author =. Advances in Space Research , volume =. 2010 , publisher =

    2010

  34. [35]

    2001 , title =

    Harry L. 2001 , title =

    2001

  35. [36]

    Clements and Todd E

    Zachary L. Clements and Todd E. Humphreys , booktitle = iongnssplus, pages =. Transient Space-Based. 2025 , address =

    2025

  36. [37]

    Cerruti and Pau M

    Alessandro P. Cerruti and Pau M. Kintner and Dale E. Gary and Louis J. Lanzerotti and Eurico R. de Paula and Hien B. Vo , year = 2006, title =. Space Weather , volume = 4, number =

    2006

  37. [38]

    Effect of intense

    Cerruti, Alessandro P and Kintner, Paul M and Gary, Dale E and Mannucci, Anthony J and Meyer, Robert F and Doherty, Patricia and Coster, Anthea J , journal =. Effect of intense. 2008 , publisher =

    2008

  38. [39]

    Kriezis, Argyris and Chen, Yu-Hsuan and Akos, Dennis and Lo, Sherman and Walter, Todd , booktitle=iongnssplus, pages=

  39. [40]

    Kriezis, Argyris and Chen, Yu-Hsuan and Akos, Dennis and Lo, Sherman and Walter, Todd , journal=ionnav, year=

  40. [41]

    Komodromos and Samuel C

    Zacharias M. Komodromos and Samuel C. Morgan and Zachary L. Clements and Wenkai Qin and W. Jeremy Morrison and Todd E. Humphreys , booktitle = ieeeionplans, year =. Network-Aided Pseudorange-Based

  41. [42]

    Morgan and Zacharias M

    Samuel C. Morgan and Zacharias M. Komodromos and Wenkai Qin and Zachary L. Clements and Andrew M. Graff and W. Jeremy Morrison and Todd E. Humphreys , booktitle = ieeeionplans, year =. A Mock Implementation of Fused

  42. [43]

    2026 , institution =

    The Impacts of. 2026 , institution =

    2026

  43. [44]

    Characterization of the

    Sokolova, Nadezda and Morrison, Aiden and Diez, Anja , journal=. Characterization of the. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  44. [45]

    2023 , doi =

    Morrison, Aiden and Sokolova, Nadezda and Gerrard, Nicolai and Rødningsby, Anders and Rost, Christian and Ruotsalainen, Laura , title =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  45. [46]

    , journal =

    Stein, S. , journal =. Algorithms for ambiguity function processing , year = 1981, month = jun, volume = 29, number = 3, pages =. doi:10.1109/TASSP.1981.1163621 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1109/tassp.1981.1163621 1981

  46. [47]

    2015 , publisher=

    Hadas, Tomasz and Bosy, Jaroslaw , journal=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  47. [48]

    On the precision and accuracy of

    Griffiths, Jake and Ray, Jim R , journal=. On the precision and accuracy of. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  48. [49]

    Johns Hopkins APL technical digest , volume =

    Fifty years of orbit determination , author =. Johns Hopkins APL technical digest , volume =

  49. [50]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=

    Performance bounds for finite moving average tests in transient change detection , author=. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  50. [51]

    Marquis, Willard A and Reigh, Daniel L , journal=ionnav, volume=. The. 2015 , publisher=

    2015