2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeue.2017.12.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel hybrid model for inversion problem of atmospheric refractivity estimation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Over the last couple decades, inversion methods of estimating refractivity from radar measurements have become increasingly prominent (Karimian et al., 2011). Inversion methods using measured sea clutter data (referred to as RFC approaches) have been examined extensively (Compaleo et al., 2018; Gerstoft et al., 2003; Karimian et al., 2013; Rogers et al., 2000, 2005; Tepecik & Navruz, 2018; Yardim et al., 2009; Zhao & Huang, 2012; Zhao et al., 2017), but few studies demonstrate inversion methods using point‐to‐point (PTP) radar wave propagation data. Of those studies, most have demonstrated the validity of inverse approaches using synthetic propagation loss (PL) data (Fountoulakis & Earls, 2016; Gersoft et al., 2000; Gingras et al., 1997; Matsko & Hackett, 2019; Penton & Hackett, 2018; Tabrikian & Krolik, 1999; Wagner et al., 2016; Zhang & Yang, 2018; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao, 2012; Zhao et al., 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the last couple decades, inversion methods of estimating refractivity from radar measurements have become increasingly prominent (Karimian et al., 2011). Inversion methods using measured sea clutter data (referred to as RFC approaches) have been examined extensively (Compaleo et al., 2018; Gerstoft et al., 2003; Karimian et al., 2013; Rogers et al., 2000, 2005; Tepecik & Navruz, 2018; Yardim et al., 2009; Zhao & Huang, 2012; Zhao et al., 2017), but few studies demonstrate inversion methods using point‐to‐point (PTP) radar wave propagation data. Of those studies, most have demonstrated the validity of inverse approaches using synthetic propagation loss (PL) data (Fountoulakis & Earls, 2016; Gersoft et al., 2000; Gingras et al., 1997; Matsko & Hackett, 2019; Penton & Hackett, 2018; Tabrikian & Krolik, 1999; Wagner et al., 2016; Zhang & Yang, 2018; Zhang et al., 2016; Zhao, 2012; Zhao et al., 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the development of artificial intelligence, deep learning networks have been applied to atmospheric duct parameter inversion. Tepecik [4] proposed an atmospheric duct inversion method using a genetic algorithm and deep learning. Artificial Neural Networks make a pre-estimation and Genetic Algorithm solution that uses the result as a starting population for post-estimation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This recursive process continues until the field exits the computational domain or a certain threshold is reached. The 2W-SSPE method was implemented in an open-source software, called PETOOL [15,16], which was then used in various studies [17][18][19][20]. Although terrain modeling with a staircase approximation provides reliable results in most situations, the accuracy of the 2W-SSPE method might degrade if there are curved/slanted surfaces over the terrain profile.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%