{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018703241895261846, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.922413793103448, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sidelobe reduction for matched filter range processing

Linear frequency modulation (LFM) matched filtering results in range sidelobes. These sidelobes are often objectionable because they may mask small targets or may be mistaken for targets themselves. Various methods of sidelobe control are investigated and their performance is measured. The methods of sidelobe reduction include dual apodization, spatially variant apodization, and leakage energy minimization. Nonlinear frequency modulation (NLFM) matched filtering is also investigated. A simulation was run to compare LFM with sidelobe control and NLFM, all using moderately low pulse compression ratios. Results suggest that generally, NLFM matched filtering has better detection and estimation characteristics than LFM with sidelobe control.