Knowledge-Based

Space-Time
Adaptive Processing
for
Airborne Early Warning Radar

William Melvin, Michael Wicks

Air Force Research Laboratory,

Paul Antonik, Yassir Salama

Kaman Sciences Corporation,

and

Ping Li, Harvey Schuman

Syracwe Research Corporation

ABSTRACT filtering, and to carefully select STAP algorithms,

This paper describes an innovative concept for
knowledge-based control of space-time adaptive
processing (STAP) for airborne early warning radar. The
knowledge-based approach holds potential for significant
performance improvements over classical STAP
processing in nonhomogeneous environments by taking
advantage of a priori knowledge. Under this approach,
knowledge-based control is used to direct pre-adaptive
Authors' Current Addresses
W Melvin and M Wicks, Air Force ]Research Laboratory, USA, P. Antonik and
y. Sdama. Kaman Sf.ence. Corporat;on, USA, and P L; and U Schuman,
Syracuse Research Corporation, USA.
Based on a presentation at RADARICON '97.
0885/8985/98/ $10.00 0 1998 IEEE
parameters, and secondary data cells.
INTRODUCTION
In space-time adaptive processing (STAP) for
airborne early warning radar, secondary data cells are
selected from neighboring range cells for adaptive weight
computation [l].The secondary data cells should
statistically represent the cell under test, and the
performance of the STAP processor is limited by how well
the estimated clutter covariance matrix represents the
actual interference in this cell. In nonhomogeneous
environments, such as that observed from a moving
platform surveillance radar, clutter in neighboring cells
may vary significantly from the cell under test. The
available secondary data set may then not adequately
represent the actual interference, leading to degraded
STAP performance [2,3].

IEEE AES Systems Magazine, April 1998 37


"ah
Fig. 1. Scenario of Ground Traffic Competing with Target
-I
-\'",c Sin Oc,
Itunge Rule
Fig. 2. Mapping of Potential Ground Traffic
to Angle-Doppler Space
KNOWLEDGE-BASED SPACE-TIME
ADAPTWE PROCESSOR (KBSTAP) OVERVIEW
In a knowledge-based space-time adaptive
processing (KBSTAP) system, various information sources
are utilized to control processing to improve STAP
performance This information m a y be derived from the
traditional radar data, or the information may come from
external information sources such as mapping data,
communication links, tracker feedback, or other inputs.
Knowledge-based control is first used to direct
pre-adaptive processing. Various knowledge sources such
as mapping data may indicate the presence of known
discretes or ground traffic. Knowledge-based control can
then direct deterministic nulling of the interference in
either the spatial or temporal domains prior to adaptivity.
38
Figure 1illustrates the concept for vehicle traffic
competing with an airborne target. Three highways cross
the test range cell, while a fourth highway crosses a
foldover cell. The geometry is mapped into angleDoppler
space in Figure 2. Notice that interference from highways
1 , 3 and 4 can potentially fall within the mainlobe of the
Doppler cell under test, or its ambiguity. These highways
*aretherefore candidates for spatial notching prior to
ptivity. Specification of the notching includes null
ation, depth, and width. Since highway 2 does not fall
within a Doppler mainlobe, it does not need to be
addressed in the pre-adaptive stage.
After pre-adaptive processing, knowledge sources
are used to macroscopically select appropriate secondary
data cells for adaptive processing. Range cells nearest the
cell under test are given the highest priority, but are
checked for known interference sources against mapping
data. For example, we wish to excise range cells
corresponding to highways to remove the potential for
grossly non-homogeneous training data. After cells are
initially selected based on proximity and mapping data, the
cells are tested with a statistical non-homogeneity
detection method [2,4]. Scalar non-homogeneity detection
algorithms, such as the inner product, are well known.
However, [4]discusses a complex-valued non-homogeneity
detector as a test of secondary data covariance structure.
The non-homogeneity detector recursively selects subsets
of the available secondary data until the training data set
meets a predefined level of homogeneity, in the
second-order statistical sense.
Once suitable training data have been selected, an
appropriate STAP configuration is selected as well,
including a generic architecture, and a specific STAP
algorithm and its parameters. Configuration selection is
based upon the dimensionality of the secondary data cells
determined in the previous step. That is, the generic
architecture (Element-space vs. Beam-space, pre-Doppler
vs. post-Doppler) and particular algorithms selected
(Factored Time-Space, Joint Domain Localized, Adaptive
Displaced Phase Center Antenna, etc.) will depend upon
which training data most represent the cell under test. The
available degrees of freedom (DOF) are determined by
system parameters, such as radar center frequency and
antenna configuration. The necessary DOF are driven by
the environment. In benign environments, large DOF
STAP techniques may be most appropriate, where all
DOF are applied to the homogeneous clutter. On the
other hand, in a complex environment, a small DOF
approach used in conjunction with spatial notching and
carleful selection of secondary data cells may provide
improved STAP performance. In extremely
non-homogeneous environments, it may not be possible to
pralvide adequate sample support. In those cases,
non-adaptive filtering algorithms are executed. In an
actual system, parameters and the hardware configuration
myy limit the processing architecture options. These
limitations can be reflected in the knowledge rule base.
IEEE AES Systems Magazine, April 1998
 Fliglit
Mapping Data Profiles Comiii/Nav/l:SM
Highway
Range=IMkm

KBSTAP I v,
/-
= loo ds

Clutter Map 3I P 520

Tracker
Du. of Gnd Dir of Gnd Clutter
Threshold
Fig. 3. Conceptual Diagram of the KBSTAP Processor
Du.of Gnd Clului Amb.

The selection of the specific filtering algorithms then leads C/N=60dB

to the selection of the alg~orithms'parameters. J/N = 40 d0
UN = 5 d B Altitude = IO km
A conceptual block diagram of KBSTAP is shown in T/N= O d B
Referred to Middle: S u b m y
Figure 3, on next page. Radar data enters KBSTAP in the
same manner as in a conventional signal processor. Fig. 4. Scenario demonstrate Pro-Adaptive Filtering
However, KBSTAP also accepts inputs from other
knowledge sources including mapping data, flight profiles,
and communication, navigation, and Electronic Support
Measure (ESM) systems.
Mapping data is derived from Defense
Mapping Agency databases, and is used to locate
known interference sources such as roads, large
discretes, and major clutter interfaces. Flight
profile information is provided by on-board
Global Positioning Systerns or external surveillance Iffi
or instrumentation systems. Combined with mapping
Siii 0 I1
data and attitude and beaim pointing information,
flight profiles provide in instantaneous ground
truth reference. Communication, navigation, and
ESM data provide additional information on the / I
I
I
I
target and target dynamics, and perhaps route
nd destination informatbn as well. In analyzing
actual measured data, an analyst typically needs
to correlate radar observations with known ground
truth information or other sources as described 0 10 20
above. A major objective of KBSTAP is to building
Range Rate (mls)
this intelligence so that the radar data can be filtered
and analyzed automaticallly.
After KBSTAP processing, it is anticipated that the Fig. 5. Pre-Adaptive Filtering Example
input to the detection stage will be fairly homogeneous, in Angle-DopplerSpace
although this depends heavily on the environment.
Multi-pass processing can be employed to further whiten
the filtering output. Cell-averaging Constant False Alarm the tracker for sorting. Feedback is also maintained from
Rate (CFAR) processing may therefore be adequate for a the detector to the filter to alert the STAP stage of
wide variety of environments. However, to maintain processing to excessive false alarms. This feedback
essential flexibility, a screening level of non-homogeneity becomes another information source, and excessive false
detection is applied to thle filter output. If required, CFAR alarms may suggest alternative filter-stage processing.
algorithms and parameters are selected based on the The track processor maintains tracks on all
environment, using data-derived and external information detections. The tracker is tightly coupled to the detection
sources in a manner similar to that for the filtering stage processor through the detection threshold. A lower
[5]. A higher-than-typicallfalse alarm rate is specified, threshold results in a greater number of false alarms.
however, to increase the probability of detection of small However, the tracker may direct a lower threshold if it
targets. Detections, including false alarms, are passed to loses a priority target with an established track. The

IEEE AES Systems Magazine, April 1998 39

 Table 1. Radar Parameters for PRE-ADAPTIVEFILTERING EXAMPLE
Pre-Adaptive Filtering Example
Figure 4 illustrates a scenario to demonstrate the
pre-adaptive filtering concept. In the example, a highway
'
intersects the radar mainbeam at the target range. The
example radar parameters are shown in Table 1, on next
page. As illustrated in Figure 5, ground traffic may appear
at the same Doppler as the target. Despite ground traffic
appearing in the antenna sidelobes, the high Doppler filter
gain causes ground traffic break through, as shown in
Figure 6. The average signal-to-interference-plus noise
(SINR) ratio is approximately 3.7 dB, and false targets are
clearly visible. However, when pre-adaptive spatial nulling
is applied to angles corresponding to the ground traffic
Dopplers, the results are significantly improved, as shown
in Figure 7. The average SINR increases to approximately
13.2 dB in this figure.
30

SlNR E 3.7 dB v, = 20 2 mia I REFERENCE CELL SELECTION EXAMPLE

To demonstrate the application of knowledge-based

control to secondary data set selection, measured data was
x

m 10 utilized from the Multi-Channel Airborne Radar

n
v
Measurement (MCARM) program [6,7]. MCARM is an
z4 L-band phased array radar arranged in a 22 channel, 11
0 0
over 11 configuration. Data was processed with a Factored
Time-Space algorithm, employing a 128 pulse,
-1 0
Hanning-weighted Doppler processor, corresponding to a
4.15 mph resolution. The FTS algorithm was configured to
-20 use 10 DOF in azimuth and 1DOF in elevation.
92 5 97.5 102.5 107.5 1 1 2.5 11 7.5 122 5
Data was analyzed from MCARM Flight #5,
TARGET RANGE (KM)
Acquisition #575. This data set was collected east of
Fig. 6. Classical STAP Processing, Baltimore, with the surveillance platform looking easterly
Target is Masked by Competing Returns toward the Delaware River. A target was injected into the
data at a range of 16.43 miles and at a Doppler

1
30
t corresponding to a velocity of 41.5 mph. Figure 8, on next
20
SINR E 13.2 dB v, = 20.2 mis
i
I
page, illustrates the geometry for this collection
experiment.
Notice that the test target is located in the vicinity
of multiple highways, including Rt. 9, Rt. 13, and Rt. 15.
Each of these roadways can be expected to provide moving
ground traffic to compete with the injected target. In the
sidelobe region, one section of Rt. 9 is aligned radially
along the radar beam direction. This section may present
relatively high velocity ground targets.
Three cases were examined for secondary data set
-204, " , 1 selection: 1)a fixed, symmetric window; 2) samples
92.5 97 5 102.5 107.5 112.5 117.5 122.5
selected using a non-homogeneity detector; and 3)
samples selected intuitively based on coarse mapping data.
tive Filtering SignificantlyImproved SINR
Fixed, Symmetric Window
In the first case, an FTS algorithm is applied to the
tracker also provides feedback to other parts of the data and a Modified Sampled Matrix Inversion (MSMI)
knowledge-based processor by updating flight profile test statistic [8] is computed at a given Doppler using:
information, and also by providing an observed clutter
compared to the predicted clutter map
obtained through mapping and other information.

40 IEEE AES Systems Magazine, April 1998


- applied. The NHD is based upon the Generalized Inner
-5
Fig. 9. Symmetric Window Reference Cell Selection
Where:
hi is the estimated covariance matrix,
S is the steering vector, and
Xi is the data vector.
Notice that the MSfi4I test statistic contains
a filter function in the numerator of Equation 1,
and it also contains a CFAlR characteristic in
the denominator. A fixed tlllreshold is then
applied over range for a fixed probability of
false alarm. The estimated covariance matrix,
ki is computed using a symmetric window about
the ith cell. The window size, Ks is selected as twice
the number of spatial channels, or 44. Two guard
cells are employed on each side of the test cell.
Figure 9 shows the results of the symmetric
window case. The target is not readily visible at a range
of 16.43 miles.
IEEE AES Systems Magazine, Apnll998
In the second case, an FTS algorithm is used as
before, but the non-homogeneity detector (NHD) of [4] is
In this approach, the 2Ks most homogeneous
secondary data cells are selected, then the adaptive weight
vector is computed and applied to all test cells. Essentially,
the same single weight vector representing homogeneous
interference is applied to all test cells in a region. The
weight vector is modified only if the test cell or its guard
cells are included in the training data set.
The results of the NHD case are shown in Figure
10, on next page. Notice that the injected target is clearly
visible above the interference. A large discrete is also
located at 20.4 miles, which is consistent with the location
of targets on Rt. 9. Since reference cell selection attempts
to identify a training data set consisting of relatively
homogeneous cells for cancellation of the underlying
clutter distribution, the detection of non-homogeneities
such as Rt. 9 is expected. These detections are then
reconciled in the tracking stage.
A Priori Window Selection
In the third case, the secondary data set is
selected a priori based on coarse mapping data. Cells
are selected or excluded based on the perceived
homogeneity of the interference environment.
41
 Fig. 10. Reference Cell Selection
by Non-Homogeneity Detector
ble 2. Cells Excluded from Secondary D
for MCARM Example, Case 2
Table 2 shows the cells excluded from the training
data set for the MCARM example, along with the
rationale for their exclusion.
A single set of weights was then computed
between 13.08 miles and 23.43 miles, excluding the
cells in Table 2. As before, the secondary data cells
were modified only if the test cell or its guard cells
were located within the training set. The secondary
data set consisted of an average of 78 cells.
The results for this case are presented in Figure
11. Notice that the target is clearly visible, along with
other discretes.
CONCLUSIONS
The knowledge-based approach to space-time
adaptive processing presented shows considerable
potential for significant radar signal processing
nt Examples were
entia1for using map
tive filtering, and of
algorithms to improve
Work is continuing on implementation of KBSTAP,
and in developing a more comprehensive knowledge
rule base.
42
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
11 L.E. Brennan and I.S. Reed, March 1973,
Theory of adaptive radar,
IEEE Trans. AES, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 211-252.
[2] W.L. Melvin, M.C. Wicks and R.D. Brown, May 13-16,1996,
Assessment of Multichannel Arborne Radar Measurements
for Analysis and Design of Space-Time Adaptive Processing
Architectures and Algorithms,
Proc. 1996 IEEE Narl. Radar Conference,
Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 130-135.
[3] H. Wang and L. Cai, July 1994,
On Adaptive Spatial-Temporal Processing for
PIlrborne Surveillance Systems,
IEEE Trans.AES, Vol. 3
pp. 660-670.
[4] W.L. Melvin and M.C. Wicks, May 13
Improving Practical Space-Time Adaptive Radar,
Proc. 1997 IEEE Natl. Radar Conference,
Syracuse, NY.
[5] W. Baldygo, M. Wicks, R. Brown, P. Antoni
L. Hennington, April 1993,
Artificial Intelligence Applications to Constant F
Maim Rate (CFAR) Processing,
Proceedings of the IEEE 1993 National
Boston, MA.
[6] D. Sloper, April 1996,
MCARM Final Report,
Rome Laboratory Tech. Report,
RL TR 96 49.
[7l M.O. Little and W.P. Berry, May 1997,
Real-Time Multichannel krhorne Radar Measurements,
Proceedings of the IEEE 1997 National Radar Conference,
Syracuse, NY,
pp. 138-142.
[SI W.S. Chen and I.S. Reed, 1991,
A new CFAR detection test for radar,
Digital Signal Processing Vol. 1,
Academic Press,
pp. 198-214.
IEEE AES Systems Magazine, April 1998