106 CHAPTER 3 Radar Search and Overview of Detection in Interference

which, when multiplied by the average reflectivity of the clutter in the cell, produces a
large effective RCS. The target may be quite small and, for stealth targets, smaller yet. In
this case, the target signal must be separated from the clutter signal in the spectral domain,
usually employing pulse-Doppler FFT processing. Since it is impractical to completely
confine the clutter signal to only a few Doppler bins, there will still be some residual
clutter signal persisting in the vicinity of the target signal. Thus, the question is what is
the shape of the residual clutter distribution curve after the processing? The central limit
theorem would suggest that since 20 or 30 samples are integrated, the new distribution
might be Gaussian. This requires that the individual interference samples are statistically
independent. Are the samples independent? This depends on the PRF, the decorrelation
time of the clutter, and the dwell time. For most cases, the samples are not independent,
suggesting that the residual clutter signal after the processor is the same shape as the
original distribution (e.g., Weibull).

3.3.8 Some Closed-Form Solutions

Exact calculation of the probability of detection requires solving the integral in equation
(3.16) or, equivalently, evaluation of the Marcums Q function. While this is relatively
easy using modern analysis tools such as MATLAB, it is valuable to have a simple,
closed-form solution for the mathematical procedures previously described that can be
solved using a spreadsheet or even a calculator. Fortunately, excellent approximations
using simple formulae are available. These approximations are applicable for estimates of
SNR with precision on the order of 0.5 dB and if extreme values of PD and PFA are not
desired. In this chapter, Albersheims approximation for the detection performance in the
nonfluctuating target RCS case is presented. Also given are the exact results for a Swerling
1 target model when only a single sample is used for detection. The cases summarized here
provide examples of detection performance and demonstrate the advantage of multiple-
dwell detection techniques.

3.3.8.1 Approximate Detection Results for a Nonfluctuating Target

Albersheims equation [14,15] is an empirically derived equation relating PD , PFA , the
number of pulses noncoherently integrated, N, and the single-pulse SNR. It applies to
Swerling 0 (nonfluctuating) targets and a linear detector, though it also provides good

FIGURE 3-10
SNR versus PD for a 0.9 From Meyer and Mayer [11]
Swerling 0 target Albersheims Equation
0.8
Probability of Detection

using Albersheims
equation, plotted 0.7
PFA = 104 PFA = 106
with tabulated 0.6
results from Mayer 0.5
and Meyer [10].
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
SNR (dB)
 3.3 Overview of Detection Fundamentals 107

estimates for a square law detector. This is a very good approximation for values of PD
between 0.1 and 0.9 and of PFA between 107 and 103 . Figure 3-10 shows ROCs computed
using Albersheims equation for PFA values of 104 and 106 . The figure also shows the
exact results from [10]. Note the excellent agreement between the approximated and exact
results for these cases.
Albersheims estimate of the required SNR (in dB) to achieve a given PD and PFA
when N independent samples are noncoherently integrated is

4.54
SNR (dB) = 5 log10 N + 6.2 + log10 (A + 0.12AB + 1.7B) (3.17)
N + 0.44
where

A = ln(0.62/PFA ) (3.18)

and

PD
B = ln (3.19)
1 PD
It is also possible to rearrange Albersheims equation to solve for PD given PFA , N, and
the single-pulse SNR. Details are given in Chapter 15 and [17].
Though Albersheims equation provides simple, closed-form method for calculation,
it applies only to a nonfluctuating target, which is seldom a good model in practice. In
Chapter 15, an approximation similar in spirit to Albersheims equation, but applicable to
all of the Swerling models, is presented [16].

3.3.8.2 Swerling 1 Target Model

The Swerling models for describing the statistics of target fluctuations were described in
Section 3.3.6. For the purpose of providing an example of an ROC for fluctuating targets, a
Swerling 1 target model with a single-echo sample (no noncoherent integration of multiple
samples) will be considered here. Chapter 7 presents the analysis showing that a Swerling
1 target is appropriate for targets composed of multiple scatterers of roughly the same
RCS. The resulting voltage PDF for this target is a Rayleigh distribution. In fact, this is the
same distribution used to describe receiver noise. When combined with the Rayleigh noise
distribution, the target-plus-noise PDF is still a Rayleigh distribution [19]. Specifically,
the target-plus-noise PDF is of the form
 
v v 2
ps+i (v) = exp (3.20)
S + n2 2(S + n2 )

where S is the mean target echo power, and n2 is the mean noise power. The probability
of detection integral is
   
v v2
PD = ps+i (v) dv = exp dv (3.21)
S + n2 2(S + n2 )
Vt Vt

Computing this integral gives the probability of detection as

 
Vt
PD = exp (3.22)
1 + SNR
108 CHAPTER 3 Radar Search and Overview of Detection in Interference

where SNR = S n2 . In (3.22), Vt and SNR are linear (not dB) values. Using (3.13) it can
be shown that the relationship between PD and PFA for this case is the simple relationship

PD = (PFA )1/(1+SNR) (3.23)

Equation (3.23) applies only to the case of a Swerling 1 target in white noise, with detection
based on only a single sample. This single sample may be developed by coherently
integrating multiple pulses or the results of multiple CPIs. However, it can not include any
noncoherent integration.

3.3.9 Multiple-Dwell Detection Principles: Cumulative P D

To determine the dwell time required at each beam position, it is necessary to determine the
signal-to-noise ratio required to achieve the desired PD and PFA for a target at maximum
range. As an example, for a PD of 90%, a PFA of 106 , and a Swerling 2 target, the SNR
required is 21 dB. Given the available average power, antenna gain, wavelength, minimum
target RCS, receiver noise figure, system losses, and maximum range, equation (2.30) can
be used to determine the dwell time to achieve the required SNR of 21 dB.
At first, it might seem that a PD of 90% is not sufficient to detect a threat with adequate
certainty. In fact, radar systems often combine the results from multiple opportunities to
detect a target, improving the detection probability. The probability of detecting the target
at least once in n dwells, PD (n), is higher than the probability of detection for a single
dwell, PD (1). For example, if the probability of detection on a single dwell is PD (1), the
probability of detecting the target at least once in n tries is

PD (n) = 1 [1 PD (1)]n (3.24)

provided that the detection results on each individual dwell are statistically independent.
If PD (1) = 90%, then the cumulative probability for two tries will be PD (2) = 99% and
for three tries will be PD (3) = 99.9%.
The use of multiple dwells to improve detection probability presents an opportunity
for a trade-off of radar detection performance for time. For example, if a 99% PD was
required on a single dwell for the previous Swerling 2 example, the SNR would have
to be about 30 dB, about 9 dB higher than that required for 90% PD . Using a second
dwell with the 90% PD doubles the time required to detect the target but saves about 9 dB
of radar SNR requirements. This translates into some combination of reduced transmit
power, reduced antenna gain, or reduced signal processing gain requirements.
Of course, the false alarm probability is also affected by the use of multiple dwells. It
is normally not desirable to have PFA increase due to the multiple dwells, as PD did. The
equation for cumulative PFA is the same as equation (3.24), with PFA substituted for PD .
Because the single-dwell false alarm probability is usually a very small number, the result
is well approximated by the simpler equation

PFA (n) n PFA (1) (3.25)

Thus, for a three-look cumulative PFA (3) of 106 , PFA (1) for a single dwell would have to
be 0.333 106 . This modest reduction in the allowable single-dwell PFA will increase the
required SNR but will be only a small amount compared with the additional SNR required
to achieve a PD of 99.9% in a single look.
 3.3 Overview of Detection Fundamentals 109

3.3.10 m-of-n Detection Criterion

Instead of detecting a target on the basis of at least one detection in n tries, system designers
often require that some number m or more detections be required in n tries before a target
detection is accepted. If m and n are properly chosen, this rule has the effect of both
significantly reducing the PFA and increasing the PD compared with the single-dwell case.
The probability of a threshold crossing on at least m-of-n tries is found from the binomial
theorem [1,18,19]:
n
n!
P(m, n) = P k (1 P)nk (3.26)
k=m
k!(n k)!
Here, P is the probability of a threshold crossing on a single trial. Equation (3.26) applies
both to false alarms as well as detections. If P = PFA (1), then it gives the cumulative false
alarm probability for an m-of-n test; if P = PD (1), then it gives the cumulative detection
probability for an m-of-n test. For a commonly used 2 of 3 rule (m = 2, n = 3), (3.26)
reduces to
P(2, 3) = 3P 2 2P 3 (3.27)
and for 2 of 4 it becomes
P(2, 4) = 6P 2 8P 3 + 3P 4 (3.28)
Figure 3-11 is a plot of the probability of detection or false alarm versus single-dwell
PD or PFA . Note that for typical single-dwell probabilities of detection (i.e., >50%) the
cumulative PD improves (increases), and for low probabilities of false alarm (i.e., <0.2)
the cumulative PFA also improves (is decreased). The only cost of this improvement is
an extended antenna dwell time for each beam position to collect the required data and to
conduct n detection tests instead of just one.
To get a better idea of the specific value of the effect of m-of-n detection rules,
Table 3-3 presents some specific examples of the effect on PD , and Table 3-4 presents
examples of the effect on PFA . A single-dwell PD of 0.9 and PFA of 103 provides 0.996 PD
and 5.92 104 PFA for 2 of 4 scans.
It is sometimes the case that the multiple dwells are not collected on a single scan
but rather on successive scans. While this adds significant delay to the data collection

1 FIGURE 3-11
2-of-3 and 2-of-4
0.9
probability of
0.8 threshold crossing
Single-dwell
0.7 versus single-dwell
m of n Probability

2 of 4 probability.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
2 of 3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Single-dwell Probability
110 CHAPTER 3 Radar Search and Overview of Detection in Interference

TABLE 3-3 m-of-n Probability of Detection Compared

with Single-Dwell Probability of Detection

PD (1) PD (2, 3) PD (2, 4)

1 1 1
0.95 0.993 0.999
0.90 0.972 0.996
0.85 0.939 0.988
0.80 0.896 0.973
0.75 0.844 0.949
0.70 0.784 0.916

TABLE 3-4 m-of-n Probability of False Alarm Compared with

Single-Dwell Probability of False Alarm

PFA (1) PFA (2, 3) PFA (2, 4)

1 1 1
0.1 2.8 102 5.23 102
0.01 2.98 104 5.92 104
0.001 2.998 106 5.992 106
0.0001 2.9998 108 5.9992 108
0.00001 3.000 1010 5.9999 1010

protocol and therefore the time to make a detection decision, for many applications this
extra latency in the detection process is acceptable.
Some system applications require even larger numbers of dwells at a given beam posi-
tion. For example, an airborne pulse Doppler radar typically performs the search function
in a high PRF mode to separate moving targets from wide clutter spectral characteristics.
Consequently, the radar is highly ambiguous in range, and there is a high likelihood of
range eclipsing.6 Even in the medium PRF mode, there is likely to be range and Doppler
aliasing and eclipsing.7 To improve the PD and PFA statistics in these conditions, often six
or eight dwells are used. Figure 3-12 shows the results of using equation (3.26) to compute
the resulting PD and PFA for 3-of-6 and 3-of-8 detection rules. A single-dwell PD of 90%
results in a processed PD of very close to 100% for these conditions. In this application,
the m-of-n rule is often combined with the use of staggered PRFs, discussed in Chapter 17.
The question arises as to whether it is more efficient to use a relatively large number
of dwells, which costs significant time, or to increase the single-dwell time. To examine
this, consider the following example. Assume a PD of 95% and a PFA of 106 is required
for each complete scan. For a Swerling 1 target, the single-dwell SNR must be 24.3 dB.
Using Figure 3-12, it is seen that, using 3-of-6 processing, a cumulative PD = 95% and
PFA of 106 can be achieved if the single-dwell PD is about 73% and the single dwell PFA

6 In a pulsed radar, any target that has a range delay exactly equivalent to a multiple of the interpulse period

will not be detected because the target echo arrives during a subsequent transmit time. This condition is
called eclipsing. It can be overcome by changing the pulse interval.
7 In a coherent radar, the target can be eclipsed in the frequency (Doppler) domain, much like the time

domain case already described.

 3.5 References 111

1.2 FIGURE 3-12

3-of-6 and 3-of-8
1 probability of
threshold crossing
Cumulative PD, PFA

versus single-dwell
0.8
3 of 8 probability.
Single-dwell
0.6

0.4

0.2
3 of 6
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Single-dwell PD, PFA

is about 0.001. Using equation (3.23), it is seen that this performance can be obtained with
a single-dwell SNR of only 13.2 dB.
This reduction of the required SNR by 11.1 dB (a factor of about 10.4) means that
the radar can be smaller in some sense by a factor of 10.4. This could take the form
of a reduction in average power, antenna gain, single dwell time, or relaxed restrictions
on losses. For instance, although six dwells are now required, each one could be shorter
by a factor of 10.4, reducing the overall time required to meet the detection specification.
Taken a step further, 99% PD can be achieved with eight dwells and is equivalent to nearly
20 dB of additional radar sensitivity. Extending the time line by a factor of 8 can thus
reduce the radar size by a factor of 100.

3.4 FURTHER READING

More rigorous mathematical developments of the expressions for PD and PFA , as well as the
general approach of threshold detection, are found in several radar texts [e.g., 3,6,10,20].
These references also extend the results discussed here to the effect of noncoherent inte-
gration of multiple samples prior to threshold testing.
Within this volume, target fluctuation models are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
The application of the detection concepts discussed here to fluctuating target models is
discussed in Chapter 15, which also provides both the corresponding exact expressions for
PD and PFA for all of the Swerling models as well as an Albersheim-like approximation.

3.5 REFERENCES
[1] Barton, D.K., Radar System Analysis, Artech House, Dedham MA, 1976, Section 1.2.
[2] Rice, S.O., Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise, Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 23,
no. 3, July 1944, pp. 282332; vol. 24, no. 1, January 1945, pp. 46156.
[3] DiFranco, J.V., and Rubin, W.L., Radar Detection, Artech House, Dedham, MA, 1980,
pp. 306309.