Está en la página 1de 13

1 Introduction In range resolution radar and seismic exploration we seek a coded waveform or a sequence having aperiodic autocorrelation N-l-k

r(k) = ***+* fc = 0, 1, . . . , AT - 1 (2) i=0 which is peaky. In other words, we require r(0) to be large and r(k # 0) to be ideally zero. How well this ideal is met by an actual sequence is judged by the merit factor F [1] and the discrimination D [2], which are defined as r2(0) N-l 2 v -2 (3) r2U) and D= max | r(k) \ (4) For sequences approaching the ideal, F and D should beas large as possible. However, in radar, as the targets may be moving, the effect of Doppler must also be included in the analysis. This leads to the definition of ambiguity surfaces. It is well known that sequences which are good for range resolution are not necessarily good for the simultaneous estimation of range rate. However, the latter problem is left out of consideration (except for brief comments in Section 7) for the proposals in this paper, for two reasons. First, at least in seismic exploration, this problem is irrelevant, and secondly, the proposals here are exploratory even for the problem of range resolution, and hence their extension to fully fledged real problems including Doppler must wait. The autocorrelation in eqn. 2 is r(k) x oxk (5) when written in the full form. Every subsequent summand in eqn. 5 is obtained by incrementing the subscripts of all the terms in the previous summand by unity. Thus, if the leading summand is known, all the subsequent summands can easily be written. Therefore, the leading summand is called the 'gene' and such functions are called 'monogenic' functions. To offer a formal definition a function f(x0, xu x2, ..., XN-I) is called a finite monogenic function if it is expressible as y(x0 , xl 5 x2 , . . . , xN_ j) where l(xO> X2 X2 (6) = 0 , l , 2 , . . . (7) where xN+i, i = 0, 1, 2 , . . . , as well as x,, i = 1, 2 , . . . ,

are assumed to be identically zero. The function go(xo, xlf..., XJV-J is called the gene. For the function in eqn. 5 the gene is xoxk, which is a function of only two elements, x0 and xk. It is easy to devise many such functions and to replace the autocorrelation r(k) by the monogenic signature M(k), k = 0, 1, 2 , . . . , which can find application in range resolution radar and seismic exploration. Specifically, we can choose genes of the form i/v-^O > Afc/ "' "5 x A> where g(.,.) is called a genie form. Then N-l -k M{k)= X 0(x,-,xI+k) k = 0, 1 i=0 (8) (9) The notion above can be profitably extended, and we can choose genie forms such as ,(fc) _ 9 > xk+l) (10) or g(k) = g(x_u x0, xx; xk_l5 xk, xk + 1) (11) etc., so that g(k) is a function not only of x0 and xk but of some elements around x0 and/or some elements around xk. For this reason such genie forms are said to be 'side-looking'. Note that even if x_x is identically equal to zero, it is explicitly used as an argument of the gene in eqn. 11 because when subsequent summands are to be obtained, the x_x term will be replaced by x0, x1} ..., etc., which are not identically equal to zero. A sequence is said to have an ideal monogenic signature if M{k) has a large positive value for k = 0 and is zero for k # 0. Instead, if M(k) = a large positive value k = 0 0, 1 k # 0 (12) with the elements of the sequence chosen from alphabets such as [1, 1] or [1, 0, 1], the sequence is said to have Barker monogenic signatures. The monogenic discrimination Dm and monogenic merit factor Fm are defined as M(0) and max |M(fc)| M2(0) JV-1 2 X M2(/c) fc = i (13) (14) on lines similar to the definitions of D and F for the autocorrelation. In this paper we will initially show that sequences with Barker monogenic signatures and good monogenic discrimination and merit factor exist. We will then investigate

whether these sequences can be used instead of or in conjunction with sequences having good autocorrelation in range resolution radar, and in a similar problem of detecting reflections in seismic exploration. 2 Some genie forms Some of the genie forms we have specifically studied as possible alternatives are 9P(k) = x0 xk + x0 xk _ txk + i (15) 9q\k) xoxk xoxk_1xk + 1 (16) (17) (18) (19) which are called p-, q-, s-, u- and u-genic forms, respectively. The corresponding monogenic signatures are = X0Xfc + X0Xli_1XkXk+1 x_1xox1xfc Mq(k)= N N N -1-fc ,?o -1-fc i=0 -1-fc i=0 N-l-k Mu{k)= (20) (21) (22) (23) i=O N-l-k Mv(k) = which are called p-, q-, s-, u- and u-signatures, respectively. Autocorrelation is a summand in all these signatures. Just as the notion of autocorrelation of a single sequence is extended to the notion of crosscorrelation between a pair of sequences, the notion of monogenic signatures has to be generalised to that of monogenic crosssignatures. For a pair of sequences x and y these are Mxyp{k) = Mxyq(k) = Mxys{k) = xiyi+k_lyi+kyi+k + 1 Mxyu(k) = and Mxyv{k) = (25)

(26) (27) (28) (29) which are called p-, q-, s-, u- and u-cross-signatures, respectively. The above proposal about genie forms, monogenic signatures and cross-signatures is exploratory in nature. The signatures and cross-signatures do not necessarily mimic properties of auto- and crosscorrelation other than monogenicity. Therefore these monogenic crosssignatures cannot necessarily replace the crosscorrelation in range resolution radar and seismic exploration, without further investigation. This aspect is dealt with in Section 6. The discussion, therefore, could also be treated as a device for focusing on the properties of crosscorrelation which make it useful for range resolution and seismic exploration. These may not have been adequately appreciated without having other alternatives lacking in these properties for comparison to crosscorrelation. 3 Design of sequences with good monogenic signatures Consider a p-genic form and a p-signature as an example. Then from eqn. 20 we have Mp(iV-l) = xoxJV_1 (30) Mp(N - 2) = xox^_2 + xoxN_3xw_x + xxx^_t (31) M p(N 3) = XoXjy-3 + X0XAf_4XAf_2 + X1Xiy_2 - 3 XNN-l- 2*N-I (32) and so on. Thus the specification on Mp(N 1) can be satisfied by choosing x0 and x ^ . j in appropriate or permissible ways for a given alphabet. The other elements of the sequence are irrelevant as far as the specification on Mp(N 1) alone is considered. Having chosen x0 and Xjy-i in a variety of ways to satisfy eqn. 30, the specification on Mp(N 2) can be satisfied by choosing" xl5 xN_2 and xN_3 in compatible ways. Then the specification on Mp(N 3) can be satisfied by choosing x2 and XJV_4 in compatible ways, and so on. Meeting all the specifications on Mp(k), k = 0,1,..., N I simultaneously is an /V-dimensional problem, as N elements x0, xl s ..., xN_i have to be chosen. However, meeting the specification on Mp(N 1) is only a two-dimensional problem, as only the elements x0 and x ^ . i are involved. Then, in (24) addition, to satisfy the specification on Mp(N 2) is merely a three-dimensional problem, because x0 and XJV_I are already chosen and now only xl5 xN-3 and x^_2 are to be chosen. Similarly, to satisfy the specification on M (TV 3) is again a twodimensional problem, and so on. Similar situations arise when mono- genie signatures other than a p-signature are considered instead. This is an extension of the terminal admissibility technique developed for designing sequences with prescribed autocorrelation [2, 3]. The technique is called terminal admissibility because the terminal specifications M(N 1), M(N 2), M(N 3), ... on monogenic signatures are satisfied sequentially, and the satisfaction or otherwise of inner specifications M(l), M(2),... are subsequently to be checked by exhaustive calculation. The name is also justified by the fact that the prefixes and suffixes, i.e. the terminals of the sequence, are progressively determined. This is an example of the so-called 'hill-climbing' method of developing heuristic algorithms [4], in which the criteria are arranged according to the ease with which they are satisfied. The criterion that M(k)

be good for all k is arranged as a hierarchy that M(N - 1) be good, M(N 2) must also be good, M(N 3) must also be good etc. What is achieved by setting up a hierarchy of objectives in this way is what is called 'dimension-splitting', whereby a problem of large dimensionality is solved by methods characteristic of problems of lower dimensionality. In solving multidimensionalpartial differential equations, techniques such as alternating direction, locally one-dimensional schemes or selective explicit substitution achieve such advantages [5]. The terminal admissibility technique may be compared with these in some sense, as it is the dimensionsplitting which has made the hill-climbing approach successful for the problem of designing sequences with good monogenic signatures [6-11]. 4 Co-operation The sequences are said to be co-operative if the sum of their autocorrelations, which is called the co-operative autocorrelation, is ideal [2, 12-14]. The concept of cooperation is extended to the monogenic signatures in many ways. If M(I)(fc) is the monogenic signature of the ith sequence with a certain genie form and MU)(k) is the monogenic signature of the jth sequence with the same genie form, these two sequences can be said to be cooperative with respect to the chosen genie form if M(I)(/c) + MU)(k) = 0 k # 0 (33) and Barker co-operative if M{i\k) + Mu\k) = 0, 1 k # 0 (34) This is called the co-operation of the sequences. Alternatively, we can consider a sequence x and genie forms gm including the sidelooking ones, m = 1, 2, ..., m0. Let the monogenic signatures with these genie forms be denoted by MJJ). The genie forms can be said to be co-operative for the sequence x if Z MJk) = 0 k= 1,2,...,N 1 and Barker co-operative if = 0, 1 k= 1,2,...,N 1 m = l and Huffman co-operative if I Mm(k) = 0 k = 1, 2,..., N-2 b k = N- 1 where \b\< lMm ( 0 ) (38) This is called the co-operation of the genie forms The notions of the cooperation of genes and sequences can be combined in variety of ways. For example, if the monogenic signature for the ith sequence with the mth genie form is denoted by M^(/c), we may require that or be 0 or (0, 1) for all k ^ 0. Any co-operation which involves more than one genie form can be said to be polygenic.The co-operation of genie forms for a single sequence is preferable to co-operation of sequences for a single genie form because, for the latter to be utilised, two or more sequences have to be transmitted, whereas for the former only one sequence need be transmitted. When two or more sequences have to be used they would have to be transmitted either at different times or using different carrier frequencies, but, as the phase distortion introduced by the channel is a function of frequency (and in the case of radar, although not in the case of seismic exploration, is time-varying), the results obtained would be inferior. The co-operation of genie forms for a single sequence does not pose this problem.A Barker sequence, having Barker segments in it, is called a Barker 'tower', and leads to a coincidence detection scheme for the backscatter from the target in the case of radar and from the interfaces across which the acoustic impedance has a discontinuity in the case of seismic xploration [15]. The notion of Barker towers is also a co-operative notion in a sense, and can be extended to the sequences with good monogenic signatures.This leads to the notion of mixed towers, in which different segments ('floors') in the tower may be Barker for different monogenic signatures, including autocorrelation. In particular, one may look for sequences which have Barker autocorrelation with segments having Barker monogenic signatures in them, or sequences which have Barker monogenic signature with segments having Barker autocorrelation in them.5 Exploratory review of ossibilities

Ternary sequences with alphabet ( = 1, 0, + = +1) having Barker monogenic signatures were searched, and are listed in Tables 1-5; fuller lists are available elsewhere [16]. Perusal of such lists brings out many interesting points. (a) For some sequences the monogenic signature can be Huffman, i.e. only M(0) and M(N 1) are nonzero. For example, the ^-signature of the sequence ( , 0 , , , +) is (3, 0, 0, 0, 1). There are hardly any ternary sequences with Huffman autocorrelation. (b) For some sequences, monogenic signatures are twolevel, i.e. M(0) = a and M(k # 0) = b. For example, the ^-signature of the sequence ( , , , + , ) is (6, 1, 1, 1, 1). There are no nontrivial binary sequences with twolevel aperiodic autocorrelation. (c) Binary sequences (alphabet ) which have Barker monogenic signatures and which have ideal co-operative signatures exist. For example, the ^-signatures of the sequences ( , , , + ) and ( , , + , ) are (4, 1, 1 1) and (4, 1, 1, 1), respectively, so that the cooperative signature is (8, 0, 0, 0). Also, the monogenic ^signatures of the sequences ( , ,,,4-,,,+) and ( , , + , + , +, , + , ) are (8, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) and (8, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), respectively, so that the co-operative signature is (16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0).If autocorrelation were to be the monogenic signature used, co-operative Barker sequences or even Barker cooperative Barker sequences are not known to exist for JV>4.O) N exists. For

(d) There exist binary sequences with M(0) > N. On the other hand, for binary sequences we are bound to have r(0) = N strictly. Thus, by the choice of a different monogenic signature, an advantage has accrued. For example, the sequence ( , , , + , , + , , , +) has a ^-signature (10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1), even though its length is nine, and the p-signature of the sequence ( - , + , - , - , +, + , +) is (10, 1, - 1 , - 4 ^ 1 , 1, 1), although its length is only seven. Such binarysequences with Barker signatures then achieve larger monogenic discrimination than the discriminaton achievable by the autocorrelation of binary sequences of the same length. (e) We must have r(0) < N for ternary sequences; however, ternary sequences with M(0) ^ N exists. For example, the monogenic ^-signature of the ternary sequence ( - , +,0, - , - , + , - , +, + , +) of length 10 is (10, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1), and the monogenic s-signature of the ternary sequence ( , , , , + , 0 , - , - , +, - , +) of length 11 is (14, 0, 1,0, 1,0, 1,0, - 1 , 0, 1). Such ternary sequences with Barker signatures, therefore, attain larger monogenic discrimination than the discrimination attainable by the autocorrelation of ternary sequences of the same length. (/) There are binary sequences with Barker monogenic signatures at lengths for which Barker sequences do not exist, e.g. a sequence ( - , +, - , - , + , - , - , - , + , +,

+ , +) of length 12 has a Barker monogenic g-signature (12, 1, - 1 , 1, - 1 , - 1 , - 1 , 1, - 1 , 1, 1, - 1 ) , although a binary Barker sequence of length 12 does not exist. (g) There are examples of Huffman co-operation of genie forms; for example, , +, +,0, - , + , - ) p-signature: (8, - 1 , 0, 0, 0, 1, - 1 ) u-signature: (8, 1, 0, 0, 0, - 1 , - 1 ) co-operative signature: (16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - 2 ) p-signature: (8, 1, 0, 0, 0, - 1 , - 1 ) u-signature: (8, - 1 , 0, 0, 0, 1, - 1 ) co-operative signature: (16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - 2 ) (h) The sequences in Tables 1-5 can be viewed as sequences with Barker co-operative monogenic signature with co-operating genic forms (i) xoxk and (ii) xOxk-lXk + l> -^O^ fc-l^fc + l' xOXk-lXkxk+l + X-lXOxlXk> X-iX^fc or x-jXojqXfc, respectively, depending on whether p-, q-, s-, u- or v-genic form has been used. (i) The sequences ( , , +, + , ) and ( , + , , + , + ) have the p- and ^-signatures (4, 1, 1, 1, 1) and (6, 1, 1, 1, 1), respectively, which are co-operative. There are such examples of joint co-operation of the sequences and genic forms. (/) Sequences having Barker autocorrelation with segments having Barker signatures are listed in Table 6. Sequences having Barker signatures with segments having Barker autocorrelations are listed in Table 7. There are some interesting examples in this Table, such as ( - , - , 0, + , - , +), ( + , + , 0, - , +, - ) , ( + , + , - , + , 0, +) and ( - , + , - , 0, + , - , - , - ) , which have Barker signatures (q, u, v and q, respectively) and also Barker autocorrelations. There are also sequences which are Barker according to many different genic forms. This could lead to coincidence detection schemes which are superior to other mixed Barker towers [15]. In such cases we will say that the ground floor has a multiplicity greater than 1. Similarly, other floors in a mixed tower could also have a multiplicity greater than 1. (k) There can be sequences with monogenic merit factors which cannot be achieved with autocorrelation as the monogenic signature. For example, ( , , , + , , + , , , +) is a binary sequence of length nine giving Fm = 5.56 with <j-genic form. For this length the best merit factor for a binary sequence is only 3.38 [1]. The sequences ( - , - , - , - , +,0, - , - , + , - , + ) of length 11 gives a monogenic merit factor of 19.60 with s-genicform. No binary sequence of any length can yield such a merit factor with autocorrelation [17]. Even with known ternary sequences, to achieve such a merit factor with autocorrelation one has to go to lengths such as 23 or 33 [6]. Thus, in this regard at least, the superiority of monogenic signatures over autocorrelation is firmly established. The alphabetical pointers (a-k) are indicated in a separate column in the Tables to mark sequences having the above advantages. It must, of course, be clearly understood that the above discussion, based on Tables 1-7, only indicates that the processing based on monogenic signatures can be advantageous as compared with correlative processing for the same length of the

sequences, and not that it is, even for the longer sequences currently used in correlative processing. The latter statement could be proved if it was possible to analytically answer the question of the existence of sequence swith good monogenic signatures for arbitrary lengths. Unfortunately, however, this does not seem to be easy. Even for the sequences with good aperiodic autocorrelation there are no direct construction procedures, and the only analytical results available are of negative nature. These prove that binary Barker sequences of lengths greater than 13 do not exist [18], or that for binary sequences merit factors greater than 12.32 are unlikely for long (N > 13) sequences [17].

Therefore, the best one could hope to do is to avoid an exhaustive search which leads to exponential or combinatorial algorithms [5], and seek 'sieves' [1] or heuristic search algorithms [4] such as terminal admissibility [2, 3, 5, 6]. It seems likely that sieves based on skew symmetry [1] and the restriction of the search to good periodic sequences [19] could be developed for some genie forms at least. These ideas are being developed. Meanwhile, as there is no a priori reason to rule out the superior performance of monogenic signatures over autocorrelation at longer lengths also, and as achievement is a lower bound on possibility, computer searches for sequences with good monogenic signatures must be encouraged. 6 Monogenic function range resolution radar From Section 5 it is clear that monogenic signatures can have many properties superior to autocorrelation. It would be relevant to ask whether these properties are merely of mathematical interest, or whether they can be advantageously exploited in range resolution radar and seismic exploration. This question is relevant because the autocorrelation has other properties beyond monogenicity which are not necessarily shared by other monogenic signatures; hence the discussion in this Section. The ideas discussed here are exploratory and possibly unfinished, but the potential of monogenic signatures in leading to monogenic function range resolution radar should be tapped, and other relevant ideas in this regard could possibly be forthcoming from others. The purpose of this Section is to initiate such a discussion and quest. The procedure to use monogenic signatures in range resolution radar and seismic exploration would be to transmit a signal x(t) based on the coding of the sequence x of length N. Let y(t) be the received signal. Then let us assume that we calculate [x(t - r)y(t) - x)y{t - T)y(t T)] dt (39) or f T + Nx [x(t - x)y(t) =t + x2(t - x)y(t - T)y(t + T)] dt (40) or CS(T) = T + NT

[x{t - z)y(t) + x(t - T) x y(t - T)y(t)y(t + T) + x(t - x - T) x x(t - z)x(t - x + T)y(ty\ dt (41) depending on whether the genie form of eqns. 15, 16 or 17, respectively, has been used, for various values of T, T being the duration of one element in the transmitted signal. Eqns. 39-41 are analogue counterparts of eqns. 25-27, respectively, which are monogenic crosssignatures.The delay suffered by the return signal is given by the shift of'the sequence x for which the crosssignature is maximum (i.e. exceeds a threshold in practice). That is, if the delayed version of the transmitted signal x(t) is y(t) = x(t fi), then only when x equals n would C(x) be maximum. In some applications the return signal would have suffered a polarity reversal. In such cases the property that the monogenic cross-signature changes sign when all the elements of sequence y change sign will be necessary. The s-genic form of eqn. 17, i.e. the cross-signature of eqn. 27, would yield such a property,whereas those of eqns. 15 and 16, i.e. the p- and gcrosssignatures of eqns. 25 and 26, respectively, will not. When the monogenic signature of eqn. 16 is to be used, in addition to Cq(x) of eqn. 40, and (47) i + NT l-x(t-r)y(t) (-x(t-x))2y(t-T)y(t+T)-]dt (42) should also be calculated, and when Cq(x) exceeds a threshold the corresponding value of x should be taken to be fj. and the signal assumed to have undergone a polarity reversal. This is based on the fact that the monogenic g-signature is unaltered when every element in the sequence changes sign. The monogenic s-signature also has this property, but one need not exploit that, as it also has the desirable property discussed before eqn. 42. The p-genic form is deficient on both these counts, as it lacks both the properties discussed above. However, the p-, q- and s-genic forms still pose a problem, owing to the fact that Mxy(k) for them cannot be obtained by processing the y sequence by a discrete linear system. Therefore, if the return signal is (3x(t fi), 1 < ft < 1, rather than x(t n), i.e. if the signal has undergone attenuation in addition to possibly a polarity reversal, the resultant cross-signatures obtained will be Mxyp{k) = (fixt xi+k + j32x,Xi+k _ i x,-+k +!) (43) Mxyq(k) = X Wxtxi+k + P2xfxi+k.1xi+k + 1) (44) or PXi- 1 Xi Xi+lXi + k) (45) which do not equal the corresponding signatures any more as the summands now have unequal multipliers. When the return signal is YJ Pj x(t ~ Af/) there would also be a problem due to the lack of linearity of processing referred to above. Thus mere replacement of auto- and crosscorrelation by monogenic signatures and crosssignatures cannot be the basis of the concept of monogenic range resolution radar, because, apart from the properties of auto- and crosscorrelation which have been successfully mimicked by the monogenic signatures and cross-signatures, the linearity of processing the return waveform is also essential. Two possibilities can be suggested. One is based on the use of u- and u-genic forms. Then, from eqns. 28 and 29, we obtain Mxyu(k) = Y W/J'i+fc (46) and

l;1. = xI. + x1_1xI.x1.+ 1 (49) Thus the cross-signatures of the sequences x and y become crosscorrelations of the sequences u or v and y. Thus Mxy(k) can be now obtained by linear processing, i.e. by passing the return signal y(t) through the filter matched not to x(t) but to u(t) or v(t), where u(t) = x(t) + x(t - T)x(t + T) and v(t) = x(t) + x(t - T)x(t)x(t + T) (50) (51) The u- and u-genic forms thus have the property that if y(t) is Px(t n), 1 < P < 1 (i.e. if the return signal is the shifted and attenuated form of the transmitted signal with possible polarity change), then the cross-signature obtained is also identically shifted, attenuated and polarity-reversed. Sequences with good u- and vsignatures have already been listed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. To generalise this notion we must define the monogenic cross-signature as xywW = L^i^i+fc (52) i where w, is a function of the elements of x alone. The monogenic signature would then be A/ (k) = V wx- u (53) i The second possibility is based on the conjunctive use of monogenic function processing and linear correlative processing. As it is desirable to have to transmit only one sequence, it should be a mixed tower with the sequence having Barker autocorrelation with segments having Barker signatures, or the sequence having Barker signature with at least one segment having Barker autocorrelation. The first step is to perform correlative processing with the help of the available Barker floor to estimate the local value of p. The return signal can then be locally multiplied by 1//? to remove the effects of attenuation and polarity reversal (indicated by negative values of P). The difficulties associated with the monogenic signature processing are then overcome, and the same can now be used with advantages of larger discrimination for a given length. Moreover, as a tower has been used, the advantages of coincidence detection are also available. Hence the importance of the mixed towers listed in Tables 6 and 7. 7 Conclusion A notion of monogenic signatures, which is a generalization of the notion of autocorrelation, is defined. Not all monogenic signatures have all the relevant properties of autocorrelation, but some have. Such monogenic signatures can readily replace autocorrelation in range resolution radar; the advantages in so doing are discussed. Monogenic signatures not having all the properties of autocorrelation could also be used with some modification. One such scheme based on the conjunctive IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 134, Pt. F, No. 6, OCTOBER 1987 627 use of correlative and monogenic processing is discussed. The reasons for the success of correlative processing have been better focused by such a discussion. Yet much remains to be done. First, sequences with good monogenic signatures and long lengths must be systematically listed. Binary sequences cannot have very large merit factors based on autocorrelation as a monogenic signature, and other monogenic signatures can certainly do much better on this count. However, binary sequences with discriminations as high as 20.88, 23.62,

31.13, 35.06, 37.32, 41.45 and 42.46 are known [20], for lengths of 167, 307, 467, 631, 821, 829 and 1019, respectively. The discrimination, however, does not keep good pace with increasing length. Can some useful monogenic signatures do better on this count ? The elementary results presented in this paper kindle such a hope, but more work is needed for firmly establishing this. Secondly, an attempt must be made to develop direct construction procedures for designing sequences with good monogenic signatures including autocorrelation. As this seems to be difficult, effective sieves must be developed for this purpose to make good heuristic algorithms [4] available to reduce the search effort. Thirdly, even if direct constructions are not available, some analytical results about achievable discrimination, merit factor or some other suitable figure-of- erit should be obtained.These may be in the form of lower or pper bounds on these figures-of-merit, may be only asymptotic in nature, may apply only to subsets of sequences (such as binary or those included in certain sieves), or may even be in the nature of mpossibility theorems. It must be stressed that not many theoretical results of this sort are available, even for autocorrelation. Fourthly, questions regarding the practicability of the ideas presented in this paper, in the presence of noises of various statistical properties and consequent code errors, need a more comprehensive study than has been offered above. Fifthly, the ideas in this paper need to be extended to cover the Doppler considerations. For this purpose we can start with eqns. 52 and 53, of which eqns. 46-49 are particular cases. Eqn. 53 is the output of return signal applied to the filter matched to w(t) instead of x(t). In the case of correlative processing, the matched filter theory extended to include the Doppler effect due to a moving target leads to an ambiguity function which controls the accuracy achievable in simultaneous estimation of range and range rate [21, 22]. A similar extension can be worked out starting with eqn.53. We may quote Goethe [23] approvingly to express our view in these matters: 'It surely does not follow that the hunter who kills the game must also cook it', and add that in the present case the game has just been spotted and not even killed. We hope that others would succeed in solving many of the problems listed above 8 Acknowledgment The authors are thankful to the referees for their useful comments, because they have led to the sharpening of our arguments in many places. 9 References 1 GOLAY, M.J.E.: 'Sieves for low autocorrelation binary sequences', IEEE Trans., 1977, IT-23, pp. 43-51 2 MOHARIR, P.S.: 'Signal design', Int. J. Electron., 1976, 41, pp. 381-398 3 MOHARIR, P.S.: 'Terminal admissibility techniques for signal design'. CIP report no. 43, Department of Electrical Communication Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 1975 4 GOODMAN, S.E., and HEDETNIEMI, ST.: 'Introduction to the design and analysis of algorithms' (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977),

pp. 96-169 5 MOHARIR, P.S.: 'Signal design for system identification'. UGC 1985-86 national lectures. University of Roorkee, Roorkee, Oct. 1985, pp. 44-49 6 MOHARIR, P.S., VARMA, S.K., and VENKATA RAO, K.: 'Ternary pulse compression sequences', J. Inst. Electron. & Telecommun. Eng., 1985, 31, No. 2, pp. 1-8 7 DOUGLAS, J. JR.: 'Alternating direction methods for three space variables', Numer. Math., 1962, 4, pp. 41-63 8 D'YAKONOV, E.G.: 'Difference schemes with split operators for multidimensional unsteady problems', USSR Comput. Math. & Math. Phys., 1963, 4, pp. 92-110 9 GOURLAY, A.R., and MITCHELL, A.R.: 'The equivalence of certain alternating direction and locally one-dimensional difference methods', SI AM. J. Numer. Anal., 1969, 6, pp. 37-46 10 PEACEMAN, D.W., and RACHFORD, H.H. JR.: 'The numerical solution of parabolic and elliptical differential equations', J. SI AM, 1955,1, pp. 28-41 11 MOHARIR, P.S.: 'Selective explicit substitution in ground water modelling'. Proceedings of regional workshop on groundwater modelling, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, Dec. 1986, pp. 175-183 12 GOLAY, M.J.E.: 'Complementary series', IRE Trans., 1961, IT-7, pp. 82-87 13 WELTI, G.R.: 'Quaternary codes for pulsed radar', IEEE Trans., 1960, IT-6, pp. 400-408 14 TSENG, C.C., and LIU, C.L.: 'Complementary sets of sequences', ibid., 1972, IT-18, pp. 644-652 15 MOHARIR, P.S., VENKATA RAO, K, and VARMA, S.K.: 'Barker towers', Electron. Lett., 1984, 20, pp. 1027-1029 16 VENKATA RAO, K.: 'Coded waveform design for radar'. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 1984 17 GOLAY, M.J.E.: 'Merit factor of long low autocorrelation binary sequences', IEEE Trans., 1982, IT-28, pp. 543-549 18 RAO, B.V.: 'The Barker sequence', J. Inst. Electron. & Telecommun. Eng., to appear 19 BOEHMER, M.A.: 'Binary pulse compression codes', IEEE Trans., 1967, IT-13, pp. 156-167 20 REDDY, V.U., and RAO, K.V.: 'Biphase sequence generation with low sidelobe autocorrelation function', ibid., 1986, AES-22, pp. 128-133 21 COOK, C.E., and BERNFELD, M.: 'Radar signals an introduction to theory and application' (Academic Press, New York, 1967), pp. 1-15, 59-108, 226-295 22 VAKMAN, D.E.: 'Sophisticated signals and uncertainty principle in radar' (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968), pp. 1-224 23 GOETHE, J.W.: 'Maximen und reflexionen, nr. 1280'. Quoted as

'Feuilleton' in Am. Math. Month., Feb. 1985, 92, p. 130