This invention relates generally to radar systems, and more particularly radar imaging using distributed arrays and compressive sensing.
In order to locate targets in an area of interest, radar system transmits pulses and process received echoes reflected by the targets. The echoes can be characterized as a weighted combination of delayed pulses, where complex weights depend on specific target reflectivities. Given the pulses and echoes, radar images can be generated in a range-azimuth plane according to corresponding weights and delays. The azimuth resolution of the radar images depends on a size of an array aperture, and a range resolution depends on a bandwidth of the pulses.
It can be difficult or expensive to construct a large enough aperture to achieve a desired azimuth resolution. Therefore, multiple distributed sensing platforms, each equipped with a relative small aperture array, can be used to collaboratively receive echoes. Benefits of distributed sensing include flexibility of platform placement, low operation and maintenance cost, and a large effective aperture. However, distributed sensing requires more sophisticated signal processing compared to that of a single uniform linear array. Conventional radar imaging methods typically process the echoes received by each sensor platform individually using matched filter. Then, the estimates are combined in a subsequent stage. Generally, the platforms are not uniformly distributed so that the radar images can exhibit annoying artifacts, such as aliancing, ambiguity or ghost, making it difficult to distinguish the targets.
As shown in
The performance of the imaging system can be improved using distributed sensing and jointly processing all measurements using methods based on compressive sensing (CS). CS enables accurate reconstruction of signals using a significantly smaller sampling rate compared to the Nyquist rate. The reduction in the sampling rate is achieved by using randomized measurements, improved signal models, and non-linear reconstruction methods, see Candes et al., “Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52(2), February 2006. In radar applications, CS can achieve super-resolution images by assuming that the received signal can be modeled as a linear combination of waveforms corresponding to the targets and the underlying vector of target reflectivity is sparse, see Baraniuk et al., “Compressive radar imaging,” IEEE Radar Conference, MA, April 2007, Herman et al., “High-resolution radar via compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, June 2009, and Potter et al., “Sparsity and compressed sensing in radar imaging,” Proceeding of the IEEE, vol. 98, pp. 1006-1020, June 2010.
The embodiments of the invention provide a method and system for generating an radar image of an area of interest using a single static transmitter and multiple spatially distributed static linear antenna arrays, and compressive sensing (CS). The poses, e.g., locations and orientations, of the antenna arrays are known, and all measurements are synchronized. The method improves the image quality by imposing sparsity on complex coefficients of targets within the area of interest.
Specifically, the single transmitter emits radar pulses, and the multiple small aperture distributed arrays receive echoes reflected by the targets. The multiple arrays are uniform linear arrays randomly distributed with different locations and orientations at a same side of the area of interest. Although the image resolution of each array is low, due to the small aperture size, a high resolution is achieved by combining signals received by all distributed arrays using a sparsity-driven imaging method.
Compared to a conventional delay-and-sum imaging method, which typically exhibits annoying artifacts, such as aliasing, ambiguity or ghost, the distributed small-aperture arrays and the sparsity-driven methods increases the resolution of the images without artifacts.
The embodiments of our invention provide a radar imaging method and system for generating a radar image of an area of interest using a single transmit antenna and multiple spatially distributed static linear antenna arrays, and compressive sensing (CS).
Distributed Sensing System
As shown in
The transmit antenna is connected to a radar transmitter 120 that generates the radar pulses. The received arrays are connected to a radar receiver 130 to acquire echoes of pulses reflected by targets in the area of interest. The transmitter and receiver are connected to a processor 140 that performs the radar imaging method to produce a high resolution two-dimensional (2D) radar image 370 as described in detail below. The processor can also determine delays between the transmitted pulse and the received echoes.
Compressive Sensing Based Distributed Array Imaging Method
As shown in
Details of the method are described below.
As shown in
where P(ω) is the frequency spectrum of the emitted pulse. which can be represented as
P(ω)=∫p(t)e−jωtdt, where (2)
X(IT) is the reflectivity of the point target at the location IT, where the exponential term is Green's function from the location at IS to the receive antenna at Im,n via the location IT.
Without loss of generality, there are K targets 102 in the area of interest 110, where each target is composed of multiple stationary scattering centers. The size of the array aperture is relatively small, such that the same scattering centers are observed at all elements of the array.
We also discretize the area of interest, using a two-dimensional grid, where index i denotes each gridpoint, with corresponding location Ii Consequently, the received signal can be modeled as the superposition of radar echoes of all K objects in the area of interest as follows
The relationship (3) can be compactly denoted in a matrix-vector form
ym=Φmxm+em, (4)
where ym, Φm, and xm represent the samples of the received signals, the forward acquisition process, and the reflectivity corresponding to the mth array, respectively. Note that the vector em in the discretized model in Eq. (4) represents the noise.
Assuming that the targets' complex coefficients are identical as observed by all the receivers, we can coherently combine all of the received data as
y=Φx+e, (5)
where
y=[y1, . . . , yM]T, Φ=[Φ1, . . . , ΦM]T, and x=x1=x2= . . . =xM.
Again, the vector e in Eq. (5) represents the measurement noise.
The goal of the image formation process is to determine the signal of interest x from the array echoes y given the acquisition matrix Φ. In other words, the objective is to solve a linear inverse problem. If the acquisition matrix Φ is invertible, then a straightforward choice is to use the inverse or the pseudoinverse of Φ to determine x, i.e.,
{circumflex over (x)}=Φ†y. (6)
However, due to the size of the acquisition matrix Φ, the pseudo-inverse Φ\ is impossible to compute directly. The conventional delay-and-sum imaging method uses the adjoint to estimate x
{circumflex over (x)}=ΦHy. (7)
In distributed sensing, the antenna arrays are generally non-uniformly distributed in the spatial domain. Therefore, the sidelobes of the beamforming imaging results are generally large, making it difficult to discriminate targets.
Compressive Sensing Imaging
In order to improve the imaging resolution of distributed sensing, we describe two CS-based imaging methods. Our first method is based on enforcing image sparsity directly in the spatial domain. However, since spatial-domain sparsity is not strictly true for radar images, we also describe a post-processing step to further boost the performance of conventional CS-based radar imaging in the presence of noise. The second method circumvents the post-processing by imposing sparsity in the gradient domain, which is a more realistic assumption for the radar imaging, where images are often piecewise smooth.
Image-Domain Sparsity
A non-uniform array generally generates larger sidelobes than a uniform array of the same size. Accordingly, in the first approach, we interpret the distributed measurements as the downsampled versions of the data from larger distributed uniform arrays, where each large array has about the same aperture size (see yellow dotted lines in
Here, E and Ē represent complementary down-sampling operators, respectively, and Ψ denotes the measurement matrix for large uniform aperture arrays.
In conventional CS, the vector x is modeled as a sparse signal, which is generally not true in radar imaging. Instead of simply treating x as a sparse signal, we decompose x into sparse part xs and dense residual xr as
x=xs+xr (9)
Substituting this expression into Eq. (8), noisy measured data can be expressed as
y=EΨxs+EΨxr+e. (10)
Treating EΨxr as an additional noise component, the estimate of the sparse component xs is given by
The above problem can be solved by various compressive sensing solvers. We rely on an iterative method based on Stagewide Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (STOMP), see Donoho et al., “Sparse solution of underdetermined systems of linear equations by stagewise orthogonal matching pursuit,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, February 2012, and Liu et al., “Random steerable arrays for synthetic aperture imaging,” in IEEE International conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2013.
Given the estimate {circumflex over (x)}s, we can estimate its contribution to the measured data as EΨ{circumflex over (x)}s. Assuming the residual data yr=y−EΨ{circumflex over (x)}s is due to the dense part xr, we use the adjoint process with line search to estimate it as follows
We obtain the high resolution image by combining Eqs. (11) and (12) as follows
{circumflex over (x)}={circumflex over (x)}s+{circumflex over (x)}r. (13)
Alternatively, we can estimate the missing data on the large uniform arrays using the sparse estimate {circumflex over (x)}s as
Combining Eqn. (14) with the measured data, we obtain an estimate of a full data set for the large aperture arrays as
ŷfull=E†y+Ē†ĒΨ{circumflex over (x)}s. (15)
Note that E is a selection operator, and its pseudoinverse E† fills missing data with zeros.
Based on the estimated data, we can perform the imaging using a conventional align-and-sum imaging method
The final images in Eq. (13) and (16) are not strictly sparse. The result in Eq. (13) is generally sharper than that in (16), because the term ΨHΨ works as a low pass filter, with filtering characteristics related to the large aperture measurement matrix Ψ. In practice, because radar echoes are noisy, the final imaging result is visually better when using Eq. (16).
Image Gradient-Domain Sparsity
We formulate the gradient-domain method as a minimization problem
where TV denotes an isotropic total variation regularizer
Here, λ>0 is the regularization parameter and [Dx]i=([Dxx]i, [Dyx]i) denotes the ith component of the image gradient. Because the TV-term in Eq. (17) is non-differentiable, we formulate the problem as the following equivalent constrained optimization problem
We solve the constrained optimization problem by designing an augmented Lagrangian (AL) scheme, see Tao and J. Yang, “Alternating direction algorithms for total variation deconvolution in image reconstruction,” TR 0918, Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, 2009. Specifically, by seeking the critical points of the following cost
where s is the dual variable that imposes the constraint d=Dx, and ρ>0 is the quadratic penalty parameter. Conventionally, an AL scheme solves the Eq. (20) by alternating between a joint minimization step and a Lagrangian update step as
However, the joint minimization step (21) can be computationally intensive. To circumvent this problem, we separate (21) into a succession of simpler steps. This form of separation is commonly known as the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), see Boyd et al, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-22, 2011.
ADMM and can be described as follows
The step in Eq. 23 admits a closed-form solution
[dk+1]i←([Dxk−skρ]i;λ/ρ),
where i is the pixel number and is the component-wise shrinkage function
The step in Eq. (23) reduces to a linear solution
xk+1=(ΦHΦ+ρDHD)−1(ΦHy+ρDH(dk+1+sk/ρ)).
Although the invention has been described by way of examples of preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that various other adaptations and modifications may be made within the spirit and scope of the invention. Therefore, it is the object of the appended claims to cover all such variations and modifications as come within the true spirit and scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7173560 | Li et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
20100302086 | Dudgeon | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20120250748 | Nguyen | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20140077989 | Healy, Jr. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140240163 | Boufounos | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140266869 | Liu | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150276917 | Dawber | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150309097 | Baskaran | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160116620 | Sassen | Apr 2016 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Candes et al., “Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52(2), Feb. 2006. |
Baraniuk et al., “Compressive radar imaging,” in IEEE Radar Conference, MA, Apr. 2007. |
M. A. Herman and T. Strohmer, “High-resolution radar via compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, Jun. 2009. |
Potter et al., “Sparsity and compressed sensing in radar imaging,” Proceeding of the IEEE, vol. 98, pp. 1006-1020, Jun. 2010. |
P.T. Boufounos, D. Liu, H. Mansour, and S. Sahinoglu, “Sparse MIMO architectures for through-the-wall imaging,” in IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop(SAM), Jun. 2014, pp. 513-516. |
D.L. Donoho, Y. Tsaig, I. Drori, and J.-L. Starck, “Sparse solution of underdetermined systems of linear equations by stagewide orthogonal matching pursuit,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, Feb. 2012. |
Liu et al., “Random steerable arrays for synthetic aperture imaging,” ICASSP, 2013. |
A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “Fast gradient-based algorithm for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 18, No. 11, pp. 2419-2434, Nov. 2009. |
M. Tao and J. Yang, “Alternating direction algorithms for total variation deconvolution in image reconstruction,” TR 0918, Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, 2009. |
Boyd et al, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-22, 2011. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170010352 A1 | Jan 2017 | US |