Characterizing the Impact of IQ Imbalance and DC
Bias on Pulse-Agile Radar Processing
Justin G. Metcalf and Shane Flandermeyer
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Advanced Radar Research Center
University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma
Abstract—The advent of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
software-defined radars (SDRs) has enabled low-cost, flexible
experimentation with emerging pulse-agile waveform designs to
mitigate spectral congestion, improve radar performance, embed
communications, and other applications. We examine the impact
of direct digital downconversion sampling imperfections in the
form of IQ imbalance and DC bias on pulse-agile waveforms. A
general framework is developed and examples given for a par-
ticular radar-embedded communication waveform. It is shown
that the clutter response due to IQ imbalance is significantly
increased in a pulse agile framework.
I. I NTRODUCTION
There are three standard radar receiver architectures: di-
rect sampling, digital intermediate frequency (IF), and direct
digital downconversion (also known as a complex baseband
or quadrature receiver, among other names) [1]. A direct
sampling receiver samples the real-valued received signal
directly at RF, while a digital IF receiver heterodynes down the
real signal to an IF. In either of those two cases, the sampled
signal is then digitally downconverted to complex baseband
values [1]. In contrast a quadrature receiver uses two channels
90 degrees out of phase, called an in-phase and a quadrature
channel, to directly downconvert to complex baseband and
then sample both the real and imaginary components.
The imbalance of in-phase and quadrature channels was
a well-known problem for radar signal processing in early
quadrature architectures [1]–[3]. DC bias due to local oscillator
(LO) leakage is a drawback common to both quadrature and
digital IF receivers. The emergence of high speed analog-
to-digital converters (ADCs) resulted in digital IF sampling
becoming the dominant receiver architecture, as it naturally
mitigated the issue of IQ imbalance [1].
However, budgetary and power constraints in the space
of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software defined radios
(SDRs) and digital arrays [4] have led to the re-emergence of
quadrature architectures. We note that COTs SDRs have pro-
vided a new low-cost testing capability for an emerging group
of pulse-agile radar waveforms, which we generalize into three
categories. The first category of pulse agile waveforms are
those which utilize pulse-agility to provide diversity to the
range Doppler response and/or reduce interference between
the radar and communications users. These typically take the
978-1-7281-6813-5/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Charles A. Mohr ∗† , Andrew Kordik∗‡
Patrick McCormick∗† and Cenk Sahin∗
∗ AFRL Sensors Directorate, Dayton, Ohio
† University of Kansas, Radar Systems Lab, Lawrence, KS
‡ Defense Engineering Corporation, Dayton, OH
form of noise and/or complementary waveforms (e.g. [5]–
[7]). The second form of pulse agile waveforms are those
that introduce dynamic spectral ”gaps” in the transmitted
waveform to reduce interference with primary communications
users of the spectrum [8]–[11]. The third class of pulse
agile waveforms are so-called radar-embedded communication
waveforms, where a single waveform may be used to both
perform radar detection and simultaneously transmit data [12]–
[15]. The structure of the pulse-to-pulse variation then defines
the mapping that encodes the information within each pulse.
A key drawback common across these classes of pulse-
agile waveforms is the impact to the clutter Doppler response.
Specifically, by changing the waveform from pulse-to-pulse,
the clutter range sidelobe response likewise changes. As such,
the clutter experiences a range-sidelobe modulation (RSM)
that causes it to spread across Doppler. Considerable work
has been done in compensating for RSM [16]–[19].
While the impact of IQ imbalance has long been fully under-
stood in the context of a non-pulse agile radar [2], the authors
are not aware of a first-principles sensitivity analysis for the
pulse-agile case. An abnormally high noise floor was noticed
in previous work that set in motion the present examination
[20]. As will be shown, the impact of IQ imbalance on clutter
in particular must be considered carefully when setting IQ
imbalance requirements. We will show that the IQ imbalance
causes the clutter to spread in Doppler in a manner similar to
RSM.
II. C OMPLEX BASEBAND R ECEIVER
In a traditional direct digital downconversion, a real input
signal A(t) sin[Ωt + θ(t)] at center or intermediate frequency
Ω is passed to a pair of mixers (denoted in-phase (I) and
quadrature (Q), respectively) are driven by an LO at Ω. The I
and Q mixers are driven 90◦ out of phase and their output is
low-pass filtered (LPF) to remove the upper sideband before
ADCs sample the signal. Finally, the quadrature component is
digitally multiplied by the square root of -1, j, and the sampled
components are summed together. The structure of the direct
digital downconversion is shown in Figure 1, with the ideal
components shown in black. Note that the signals from the LO
are multiplied by 2 in Figure 1 for mathematical convenience.
129
 Unfortunately, an ideal receiver only exists in theory. There receiver, including non-ideal components, is then [1]
are three primary sources of error within a quadrature receiver. y(t) = A(t) [cos[θ(t)] + γ + j [(1 + ) sin[θ(t) − φ] + κ]]
First, DC bias is typically present where a constant bias is
added to the output of the mixers due to leakage from the = A(t) {α cos[θ(t)] + jβ sin[θ(t)]} + (γ + jκ) (3)
local oscillators. Second, there may be an amplitude mismatch where
between the input paths to the mixers and/or the mixers α = 1 − j(1 + )sinφ (4)
themselves. Third, the mixers may be driven slightly out-
and
of-phase. The amplitude and phase mismatches between the
β = (1 + ) cos φ. (5)
mixer products are collectively termed IQ imbalance. For the
present work the impact of other receiver components, such as It can be shown that (3) can be simplified to [1]
 
anti-aliasing filters, are ignored. A more sophisticated receiver α+β α−β
model will be developed in future work. In addition, it is y(t) = A(t) exp[jθ(t)] + exp[−jθ(t)]
2 2
assumed that the IQ imbalance and DC bias are stable across
+ (γ + jκ). (6)
a coherent processing interval (CPI).
Due to the drawback of IQ imbalance, digital IF sampling is Therefore the IQ imbalance induces two separate compo-
the preferred downconversion technique. However, as the com- nents: the scaled desired component α+β 2 exp[jθ(t)] and an
α−β
plex baseband signal is asymmetric in the frequency domain, image component 2 exp[−jθ(t)]. The image component
the quadrature architecture permits the Nyquist sampling of the is therefore the complex conjugate of the desired signal and
complex baseband signal using two ADCs running at B sam- is scaled by a factor of α−β 2 . By superposition the desired
ples/second, where B is the bandwidth of the baseband signal component, image component, and DC bias may be examined
[1]. In contrast, a digital IF receiver requires a single ADC but separately. Consequently traditional analyses typically center
at a much higher sampling rate (e.g. a factor of 2-4 times B on the ratio of the power of the image component to the desired
[1]). Direct digital-downconverters have enjoyed a resurgence component:
2
in COTs systems due to their lower sampling requirements. Pi |(α − β) /2|
As such, ”what was old is new again”, and we must again Pr = = 2 (7)
Pd |(α + β) /2|
consider the impact of direct digital downconversion on radar
For a pulse agile radar the ratio of the image to the desired
signal processing.
signal component is unchanged. However, as will be shown
Without loss of generality all imbalance errors are defined
the structure of image component will induce a response that
relative to the in-phase channel. Therefore, the output of non-
will impact Doppler processing.
ideal quadrature channel is
III. I DEAL R ECEIVED R ADAR S IGNAL
Q(t) = A(t)(1 + ) sin[θ(t) − φ] + κ. (1) Next, consider the structure of the signal incident at the
radar receiver. In a pulse agile pulse-Doppler radar system,
a series of m = 1, 2, . . . , M pulse compression waveforms
while the output of the ideal in-phase channel is
sm (t) are transmitted at a constant pulse repetition interval
(PRI) TP RI to form a coherent processing interval (CPI). If a
I(t) = A(t) cos[θ(t)] + γ. (2) non-pulse agile waveform is used, then s1 (t) = s2 (t) = · · · =
sm (t). For a ground looking radar waveform there are three
These receiver non-idealities are shown in red components components of the received signal: the target component x(t),
in Figure 1. The output signal from the complex baseband the clutter component c(t), and the noise component u(t).

Fig. 1. Complex Baseband Receiver with IQ Imbalance and DC Bias

130

Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
A. Ideal Received Signal
The received signal is simply the superposition of these
three signals, sampled at intervals of TP RI for pulses m =
1, .., M .
y(t − mTP RI ) = x(t − mTP RI ) + c(t − mTP RI ) + u(t). (8)
The noise component is assumed to be white additive complex
Gaussian distributed thermal noise, and is therefore indepen-
dent from sample to sample. However, the target and clutter
components are not independent from pulse-to-pulse, hence
the dependence on pulse number.
The target signal x(t) is the superposition of the delayed
echoes from K targets (assumed range and Doppler unam-
biguous), where the target signal on the mth transmitted pulse
sm (t) is defined as
 
(i.e. embedded on) a
K
vr,i
x(t − mTP RI ) = ξi sm (t − τi )exp −j4π t . (9)
i=1
λc
The two-way time delay to the ith target is τi , the target
reflection coefficient is ξi and the imparted Doppler shift
is dependent on the relative radial velocity vr,i and the
wavelength of the center frequency λc .
The clutter signal c(t) is composed of the convolution of
pulse-to-pulse.
the transmitted waveform s(t) and the clutter process z(t),
assumed to be a zero-mean, stationary white complex Gaussian
process with variance σz2 . For the present examination it
is assumed that the clutter has no internal clutter motion,
meaning the samples of z(t) are unchanged from pulse-to-
pulse. Therefore, the clutter component for each pulse is given
as
c(t − mTP RI ) = sm (t) ∗ z(t − mTP RI ), (10)
where ∗ denotes convolution.
After reception the sampled signal of (8) from each pulse
is matched filtered (i.e. convolved with hm (t) = s†m (−t),
where (•)† denotes the complex conjugation operation) to
pulse compress the range response and maximize the signal-
to-noise ratio. To match to the target Doppler shifts of (9) a
discrete Fourier transform (almost always implemented as a
fast Fourier transform with a Doppler oversampling factor) is
applied across the M pulses to match filter the range response
to sampled Doppler frequency shifts [1].
Doppler filtering is critical to the performance of ground
moving target indication (GMTI) radars, as the clutter response
is much stronger (e.g. 20-35 dB [1]) than the target responses,
but the clutter is confined to the zero-Doppler bin (or within
several low-Doppler bins if there is internal clutter motion).
Suppression of the Doppler sidelobes of the clutter response
is commonly achieved via a Doppler window (or taper) [1].
B. Radar Waveform Definition
For the simulations presented two waveform types are used
to provide context. For the non-pulse agile case, a linear fre-
quency modulated (LFM) upchirp is used, where the complex
baseband waveform is defined as
  
sLFM (t) = exp jπ kt2 − Bt (11)
131
Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
for 0 ≤ t ≤ Tp , where Tp is the pulse length and k is the
chirp rate.
There are numerous emerging pulse-agile radar waveform
designs. Expressions are derived for a general pulse agile
waveform, but for simulation results we examine one particular
waveform, the continuous phase modulation-polyphase coded
frequency modulated (CPM-PCFM) implementation of the
phase-attached radar-communications (PARC) framework. The
CPM-PCFM waveform is given as [13], [21]
 
sPARC (t; β̄, α, h, Ts ) = exp j ψ(t; β̄) + ξ(t; α, h, Ts )
= exp j(ψ(t; β̄) exp {ξ(t; α, h, Ts )}
(12)
where a pulse-to-pulse varying communication waveform
exp {ξ(t; α, h, Ts )} is phase-attached
base radar waveform exp j(ψ(t; β̄) . In order to maintain
similarity across pulses, the base radar waveform is unchanged
from pulse-to-pulse. For the CPM-PCFM implementation of
PARC, the communication waveform is a CPM waveform
with parameters α the communication sequence (in itself
dependent on a modulation order Mc ), h the modulation
index, and Ts the symbol time. The modulation index h in
particular controls the degree of variation
from
Further, the radar waveform exp j(ψ(t; β̄) is a continuous
FM waveform generated from phase code β̄. As with the LFM
pulse defined in (11), the PARC waveform of (12) is non-
zero for 0 ≤ t ≤ Tp . For further details of the CPM-PCFM
waveform implementation, see [13], [21].
For the purposes of simulation, all CPM-PCFM PARC
waveforms generated have a time-bandwidth product of 224
(i.e. sampling the 3 dB bandwidth B of the radar waveform
with sample time Tr requires Tr B = 224 complex baseband
samples). These baseband waveforms are oversampled by a
factor of NOS = 4, have a modulation index of h = 2 and
a modulation order of Mc = 2 bits/symbol. The LFM wave-
forms are generated using a PCFM modulator with identical
values of Tr B = 224 and NOS = 4. Unless otherwise noted,
all range Doppler simulations hereafter use a CPI of length
64 pulses and a Doppler oversampling factor of 4. A Taylor
Doppler window is applied with 8 equal magnitude sidelobes
and a maximum sidelobe level of -55 dB.
IV. I MPACT OF DC B IAS
While the primary drawback of direct digital receivers is
the IQ imbalance, it is instructive to examine the impact of
DC bias. This analysis will help frame the characterization of
the IQ imbalance. Note that the DC bias is a constant value
at all samples and is unaffected by the waveform transmitted.
Therefore, the DC bias is the vector (γ + jκ)1, where 1 is
the column vector of all ones with length NRB equal to the
number of samples in the unambiguous range. However, the
match filtered (i.e. pulse compressed) response of the DC bias
is dependent on the waveform transmitted. Therefore, for any
non-eclipsed range bin the pulse compressed response of the
DC bias is simply the convolution of the matched filter with 
the constant DC bias, which reduces to


Tr BN OS −1

0DJQLWXGH5HVSRQVHG%
dDC,m = (γ + jκ) s†m (i), m = 1, . . . , M. (13)
i=0


It is important to note that while the magnitude of each sample


of a constant-modulus waveform is equal (e.g. for  a unit-
2
normed matched fitter each sample has magnitude s† (i) = 
1
Tr BNOS ), the complex sample is different. Therefore, the
summation of all complex samples of each unique waveform  /)0
will likewise be unique. Subsequently, the range-slow-time /)0:LQGRZHG
response of the DC bias for the NRB non-eclipsed range bins 3$5&
 3$5&:LQGRZHG
is the (NRB × M ) matrix 0HDQ3$5&

DDC = 1dDC T . (14)   

1RUPDOL]HG'RSSOHU6KLIW
where (•)T is the transpose operation and dDC =
T
[dDC,1 , dDC,1 , . . . , dDC,M ] . If the matched filter does not Fig. 2. Doppler Response of DC Bias
change from pulse-to-pulse, the DC bias results in all entries
of D having a constant value dDC,m = dDC , ∀m. However,
if the waveform does change from pulse to pulse, then each ξt is

column is unique.
Assuming the DC bias does not change from pulse-to-pulse,
the net effect of the filtered DC bias is to add a constant
increase to the clutter response. Consequently the Doppler
response of the DC bias in this case is a sinc function centered
at zero Doppler. In practice, even non-pulse agile systems the
DC bias must be estimated and subtracted from the received
signal. Provided the residue from DC bias removal is no
greater than the mean clutter power, the sidelobes of the
DC bias Doppler response will be below the average clutter
sidelobes. Further, as the energy of the DC bias response is
contained within the zero Doppler bin, a Doppler window will
further suppress the sidelobes of the DC bias response.
In contrast, for a pulse-agile radar the vector d will not be
constant values. Therefore, the DFT of d will contain arbitrary
spectral content across the Doppler spectrum. Further, as the
spectral content is largely outside of the zero Doppler bin
windowing will not reduce the spectral response in the high
Doppler regions.
An example of the spectral response of the DC bias for
LFM and PARC waveforms is shown in Figure 2 where the
waveform parameters were given in Section III-B. The sinc
sidelobes of the LFM are clearly seen in the blue trace, and
the red trace demonstrates the reduction in sidelobe response
due to the application of the Taylor window. However, the
PARC waveform is spread across the Doppler space. Note
that in the higher Doppler regions > 10 dB of increased DC
bias suppression is required relative to the non-pulse agile
case to maintain a similar level of DC bias distortion. This
requirement increases to a > 35 dB reduction in residue if the
windowed response is used as the baseline.
V. TARGET R ESPONSE TO IQ I MBALANCE
From (6) the image response due to IQ imbalance of a single
target located at sample nt with complex reflection coefficient
132
Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
x(nm ) = 
Pi ξt rm (nm − nt )exp (jπfd n) , (15)
where the power of the image Pi was given in (7), the
v
normalized Doppler frequency is defined as fd = 4 λr,i
c
and
the smeared cross-correlation between the matched filter for
the mth pulse and the image of the waveform transmitted on
the same pulse is

Tr BN OS −1

rm (k) = hm [k − i]s†m [i]. (16)
i=−Tr BNOS +1
The range-domain response of the target is then the
2Tr BNOS − 1 × M matrix
R = [r1 , exp (jπfd ) r2 , . . . , exp (jπfd (M − 1)TP RI ) rM ]
(17)
where r m is the length (2Tr BNOS − 1) vector denoting the
full cross-correlation response of (16). The DFT of (17) is the
range-Doppler response of the image of the target response.
If the transmitted pulse is constant, then r1 = r2 = · · · = rM
and the image response for a target manifests as a scaled copy
of r with a progressive phase shift equal to samples of the
true target’s Doppler frequency mirrored across zero Doppler.
However, if the cross-correlation response rm varies from
pulse-to-pulse, then the response to the target will likewise
vary across both range and Doppler. Figure 3 demonstrates
the nature of the Doppler response of the image as compared
to the true target response, where  = 1.0116 and φ = 0.25◦ ,
for a real-to-image power ratio of Pr = −44 dB. While the
pulse-agile PARC image response is spread in Doppler, it is
∼ 20 dB below the LFM image response, which itself is 70
dB below the target response. Therefore, the target image due
to IQ imbalance is likely to be well below the noise floor
of typical range-Doppler processing. The full range-Doppler
spread nature of the PARC image response is shown in Figure
4. It is important to note that the Doppler shift due to the
  random variable does not change its distribution. However, the
7UXH7DUJHW variance of the random variable qm (k) is
/)0,PDJH
 3$5&,PDJH 2Tr BN
OS −2
σz2 2
V ar [qm (k)] = Pi |rm (i)|
0DJQLWXGH5HVSRQVHG%

(19)
Nr i=0

where σz2 is the variance of the original clutter random process
 (scaled by the waveform oversampling factor Nr ). Therefore,
it can be seen that for pulse agile waveforms there will be

a Doppler-varying response dictated by the smeared, pulse-
varying cross-correlation function rm . This response is similar
to the RSM commonly encountered by pulse-agile ground-

looking radars, but the underlying response characteristics are
unique and will not be mitigated by traditional techniques.
 As an example, a clutter process with 30 dB sample variance
   (to simulate a 30 dB clutter-to-noise ratio, but for clarity
1RUPDOL]HG'RSSOHU is shown without the impact of noise) was generated and
convolved with LFM and PARC waveforms using the IQ
Fig. 3. Doppler Response of Target and Target Image
imbalance parameters given in Section V. A comparison of the
clutter image responses is shown in Figure 5. Note that as with
target velocity has no meaningful impact on the range-Doppler RSM the clutter image response sets a dynamic range floor
response of the PARC image. that is coherent with the transmitted waveform. Therefore, the
floor will not reduce as more pulses are averaged together. The
 


 



0DJQLWXGH5HVSRQVHG%


/DJVDPSOHV


 

 

 

 

 

  /)0LPDJH:LQGRZHG
 3$5&LPDJH:LQGRZHG
   
1RUPDOL]HG'RSSOHU   
1RUPDOL]HG'RSSOHU6KLIW
Fig. 4. range-Doppler Response of Target and Target Image for PARC
Waveforms Fig. 5. Doppler response of clutter for LFM and PARC waveforms

full range-Doppler response for the CPI of PARC waveforms is

VI. C LUTTER R ESPONSE TO IQ I MBALANCE
In contrast to the target response analyzed in Section V the
clutter response is not modeled as a simple point target. Rather,
in the non-eclipsed region of the range profile the clutter
response is the convolution of the smeared autocorrelation
rm and the image of the clutter process z(t). The collective
response of the clutter image at range bin k is then
OS −2
shown in Figure 6. Note that the peaks of the Doppler response
of the pulse-to-pulse varying cross-correlation rm causes faint
constant-Doppler ”streaks” across the entire range response.
Limited work has been done in the literature to characterize the
expected value of RSM [22]. This characterization is highly
dependent on waveform design, and is an important topic of
future work.
Due to page constraints the derivation of the noise image
 2Tr BN response is not shown here. However, following a similar
†
qm (k) = Pi rm (i)zm (k − i), m = 1, . . . , M.
i=0
derivation of (18) and (19) the distribution of each noise
(18) sample may be shown
Trto be zero mean, complex Gaussian
BNOS −1 2
The distribution of the clutter image is still complex Gaussian, with variance Pi σu2 i=0 |sm (i)| . As Pi << Pr the
as the complex scaling of the complex conjugate of a circular noise image will be well below the noise floor and incoherent.

133

Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.



5DQJH%LQ





  
1RUPDOL]HG'RSSOHU6KLIW
Fig. 6. Range-Doppler response of clutter image for PARC waveforms
Therefore there is no significant difference in noise response
to IQ imbalance for pulse agile systems as compared to non-
pulse agile systems.
Note that all results have been for non-eclipsed regions of
the range response. However, this region is quite large for the
smeared cross-correlation function. For space, the derivation
of the eclipsed regions is omitted, but is straightforward to
derive from the expressions given here.
VII. C ONCLUSION
The impact of IQ imbalance and DC bias on pulse agile
waveforms was compared to non-pulse agile waveforms. It was
shown that DC bias caused an increase in Doppler sidelobes
for pulse-agile systems that was not mitigated by windowing.
Further, it was shown that IQ imbalance can significantly
reduce the dynamic range of a ground-looking system due
to an increased clutter response caused by changing the
waveform from pulse-to-pulse.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Mr. Charles Mott and Dr.
Braham Himed of the AFRL Sensors Directorate, as well
as Dr. Carl Rossler of Matrix Research Inc. for their many
insightful discussions on this topic.
This work was supported by a subcontract with Matrix Re-
search, Inc. for research sponsored by the Air Force Research
Laboratory under Prime Contract #FA86 50-14-D-1722. This
work was performed while Mr. Mohr and Dr. McCormick were
at the University of Kansas, Radar Systems Laboratory, and
Mr. Kordik was at Defense Engineering Corporation.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. A. Richards, Fundamentals of radar signal processing. Tata
McGraw-Hill Education, 2005.
[2] A. I. Sinsky and P. C. p. Wang, “Error analysis of a quadrature coherent
detector processor,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, vol. AES-10, no. 6, pp. 880–883, Nov. 1974.
Authorized licensed use limited to: AMITY University. Downloaded on November 30,2022 at 04:58:04 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [3] K. Gerlach, “The effect of i,q mismatch errors on adaptive cancellation,”
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 729–740, Jul. 1992.

[4] J. E. Hodkin, O. F. Somerlock, M. D. Sharp, C. L. Farthing, S. H. Talisa,
and K. W. O’Haver, “IQ imbalance decorrelation in digital array radars,”
 in Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf, Mar. 2016, pp. 1–8.
[5] J. Jakabosky, S. D. Blunt, and B. Himed, “Spectral-shape optimized FM
 noise radar for pulse agility,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf),
May 2016, pp. 1–6.
 [6] C. A. Mohr, P. M. McCormick, and S. D. Blunt, “Optimized comple-
mentary waveform subsets within an FM noise radar cpi,” in Proc. IEEE
Radar Conf. (RadarConf18), Apr. 2018, pp. 0687–0692.

[7] C. A. Mohr and S. D. Blunt, “FM noise waveforms optimized according
to a temporal template error (tte) metric,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.
 (RadarConf), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[8] B. Ravenscroft, J. W. Owen, J. Jakabosky, S. D. Blunt, A. F. Martone,
 and K. D. Sherbondy, “Experimental demonstration and analysis of
cognitive spectrum sensing and notching for radar,” Sonar Navigation
IET Radar, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1466–1475, 2018.

[9] J. W. Owen, B. Ravenscroft, B. H. Kirk, S. D. Blunt, C. T. Allen,
A. F. Martone, K. D. Sherbondy, and R. M. Narayanan, “Experimental
demonstration of cognitive spectrum sensing notching for radar,” in Proc.
IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf18), Apr. 2018, pp. 0957–0962.
[10] B. H. Kirk, K. A. Gallagher, J. W. Owen, R. M. Narayanan, A. F.
Martone, and K. D. Sherbondy, “Cognitive software defined radar:
A reactive approach to rfi avoidance,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.
(RadarConf18), Apr. 2018, pp. 0630–0635.
[11] B. H. Kirk, R. M. Narayanan, K. A. Gallagher, A. F. Martone, and K. D.
Sherbondy, “Avoidance of time-varying radio frequency interference
with software-defined cognitive radar,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1090–1107, Jun. 2019.
[12] S. D. Blunt, M. R. Cook, and J. Stiles, “Embedding information into
radar emissions via waveform implementation,” in Proc. Int. Waveform
Diversity and Design Conf, Aug. 2010, pp. 000 195–000 199.
[13] C. Sahin, J. Jakabosky, P. M. McCormick, J. G. Metcalf, and S. D. Blunt,
“A novel approach for embedding communication symbols into physical
radar waveforms,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), May 2017,
pp. 1498–1503.
[14] B. Ravenscroft, P. M. McCormick, S. D. Blunt, J. Jakabosky, and J. G.
Metcalf, “Tandem-hopped OFDM communications in spectral gaps of
FM noise radar,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), May 2017,
pp. 1262–1267.
[15] B. Ravenscroft, P. M. McCormick, S. D. Blunt, E. Perrins, and J. G.
Metcalf, “A power-efficient formulation of tandem-hopped radar amp;
communications,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf18), Apr. 2018,
pp. 1061–1066.
[16] M. R. Cook, S. D. Blunt, and J. Jakabosky, “Optimization of wave-
form diversity and performance for pulse-agile radar,” in Proc. IEEE
RadarCon (RADAR), May 2011, pp. 812–817.
[17] C. Sahin, J. G. Metcalf, and S. D. Blunt, “Filter design to address range
sidelobe modulation in transmit-encoded radar-embedded communica-
tions,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), May 2017, pp. 1509–
1514.
[18] B. Ravenscroft, J. W. Owen, S. D. Blunt, A. F. Martone, and K. D.
Sherbondy, “Optimal mismatched filtering to address clutter spread from
intra-cpi variation of spectral notches,” in Proc. IEEE Radar Conf.
(RadarConf), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[19] K. D. S. Benjamin H. Kirk, Anthony F. Martone and R. M. Narayanan,
“Mitigation of target distortion in pulse-agile sensors via richardson-lucy
deconvolution,” IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation Letters, 2019.
[20] C. Sahin, J. G. Metcalf, A. Kordik, T. Kendo, and T. Corigliano,
“Experimental validation of phase-attached radar/communication (parc)
waveforms: Radar performance,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Radar (RADAR),
Aug. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[21] C. Sahin, P. M. McCormick, J. G. Metcalf, and S. D. Blunt, “Power-
efficient multi-beam phase-attached radar/communications,” in Proc.
IEEE Radar Conf. (RadarConf), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–6.
[22] C. Sahin, J. G. Metcalf, and S. D. Blunt, “Characterization of range
sidelobe modulation arising from radar-embedded communications,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Radar Systems (Radar 2017), Oct. 2017, pp. 1–6.
134