mirror of
https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView
synced 2026-07-31 18:51:42 +00:00
307 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
307 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
# Coherent Wideband RF Tomography: Simulating and Reconstructing with `wifi-densepose-sar`
|
||
|
||
A walkthrough of the `wifi-densepose-sar` crate (ADR-287): simulating
|
||
synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) style measurements and reconstructing a 3D
|
||
reflectivity image from them via delay-and-sum backprojection.
|
||
|
||
**Estimated time:** 30 minutes.
|
||
|
||
**What you will build:** A small Rust program that simulates a handheld
|
||
stepped-frequency radar sweep past a couple of point targets, reconstructs
|
||
a 3D image from the resulting complex measurements, and extracts a sparse
|
||
point cloud from it — then verifies the reconstruction's resolution
|
||
against closed-form theory.
|
||
|
||
**Who this is for:** Rust developers comfortable with basic signal
|
||
processing terminology (frequency, bandwidth, phase) who want to
|
||
understand what a coherent RF imaging pipeline actually computes, or who
|
||
are evaluating whether this crate is a useful building block for their own
|
||
radar-imaging research.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. [What This Is (and Isn't)](#1-what-this-is-and-isnt)
|
||
2. [Prerequisites](#2-prerequisites)
|
||
3. [The Physics in Five Minutes](#3-the-physics-in-five-minutes)
|
||
4. [Your First Reconstruction](#4-your-first-reconstruction)
|
||
5. [Range Resolution: Why Bandwidth Matters](#5-range-resolution-why-bandwidth-matters)
|
||
6. [Cross-Range Resolution: Why You Need to Move the Antenna](#6-cross-range-resolution-why-you-need-to-move-the-antenna)
|
||
7. [The Antenna-Pose Coherence Budget](#7-the-antenna-pose-coherence-budget)
|
||
8. [Extracting a Point Cloud](#8-extracting-a-point-cloud)
|
||
9. [Benchmarking Your Own Scenario](#9-benchmarking-your-own-scenario)
|
||
10. [Where This Could Go Next](#10-where-this-could-go-next)
|
||
11. [Troubleshooting](#11-troubleshooting)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. What This Is (and Isn't)
|
||
|
||
This crate exists because of a real question: could this repo build
|
||
something like [Applied Electrodynamics' WaveSight](https://www.ae-dyn.com/)
|
||
— a handheld device that images through walls using radio waves? The
|
||
honest answer, worked out in ADR-287, is **no, not as a hardware product**
|
||
— that needs a custom coherent RF front end, a calibrated antenna array,
|
||
and real-time reconstruction hardware, which is an 18–36 month, high
|
||
six-to-seven-figure hardware engineering program, not a software change.
|
||
|
||
What *is* useful to build, and what this crate is, is the **reconstruction
|
||
algorithm** such a device needs: given coherent, phase-preserving,
|
||
stepped-frequency measurements recorded from several known antenna
|
||
positions, recover the 3D locations of the things that reflected the
|
||
signal. That's a well-understood problem (synthetic-aperture radar,
|
||
ground-penetrating radar imaging, and microwave tomography all solve
|
||
versions of it) with textbook closed-form math behind it.
|
||
|
||
Every number in this crate comes from its own **synthetic forward
|
||
simulator** — there is no real radio hardware anywhere in this crate, and
|
||
none of its tests, benchmarks, or accuracy numbers say anything about how
|
||
well a real device would perform through a real wall. That's evidence
|
||
level **L0 (Synthetic)** in this repo's [ADR-282](../adr/ADR-282-ruview-ecosystem-positioning.md)
|
||
evidence ladder, and it stays L0 until (if ever) real wideband RF hardware
|
||
feeds this pipeline real measurements.
|
||
|
||
## 2. Prerequisites
|
||
|
||
- Rust 1.75+ (workspace MSRV), already set up if you can build the rest of
|
||
this repo's `v2/` workspace.
|
||
- No special hardware. Everything in this tutorial runs from synthetic
|
||
data.
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
cd v2
|
||
cargo test -p wifi-densepose-sar --no-default-features
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
If that passes (24 tests, 0 failed), you're ready.
|
||
|
||
## 3. The Physics in Five Minutes
|
||
|
||
A stepped-frequency radar sweeps `K` frequencies `f_0..f_{K-1}` across a
|
||
band of total width `B` (the bandwidth). At each of `M` antenna positions
|
||
`p_0..p_{M-1}` along a handheld sweep, it records one complex number per
|
||
frequency — amplitude and phase, not just amplitude, which is what makes
|
||
this "coherent."
|
||
|
||
For a point scatterer at position `x` with reflectivity `σ`, range
|
||
`R = |p_m - x|` from antenna position `m`, the forward model this crate
|
||
simulates is:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
y_{m,k} = sigma / R^2 * exp(-i * 4*pi * f_k * R / c)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`4*pi*f*R/c` is the two-way (round-trip) propagation phase; `1/R^2` is the
|
||
two-way free-space spreading loss. With several targets, the measurement
|
||
is just the sum of each target's contribution (superposition — this crate
|
||
never models multipath/interaction between targets, only free-space direct
|
||
paths).
|
||
|
||
**Reconstruction (backprojection)** inverts this: for every candidate
|
||
voxel `x` in a 3D grid, it multiplies each measurement by the *complex
|
||
conjugate* of the phase the forward model would have applied for a target
|
||
at `x`, then sums:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
I(x) = | (1/MK) * sum_m sum_k y_{m,k} * R_{m,x}^2 * exp(+i * 4*pi * f_k * R_{m,x} / c) |
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
If `x` coincides with a real target, every term's phase correction exactly
|
||
cancels the phase the forward model applied — the sum adds up
|
||
constructively ("coherent gain"). At any other voxel, the phases are
|
||
essentially uncorrelated across the `(m, k)` grid and the sum averages
|
||
toward zero. That's the entire algorithm: matched filtering, done in 3D,
|
||
one voxel at a time.
|
||
|
||
## 4. Your First Reconstruction
|
||
|
||
Add `wifi-densepose-sar` to a scratch binary or run this in a workspace
|
||
example. It simulates two targets, reconstructs, and finds the brightest
|
||
voxel:
|
||
|
||
```rust
|
||
use wifi_densepose_sar::{
|
||
backproject, linear_aperture, simulate_measurement, FrequencySweep,
|
||
Point3, ScatteringTarget, VoxelGrid,
|
||
};
|
||
|
||
fn main() {
|
||
// A 1-meter handheld sweep, 21 antenna positions along it.
|
||
let poses = linear_aperture(
|
||
Point3::new(-0.5, 0.0, 0.0),
|
||
Point3::new(0.5, 0.0, 0.0),
|
||
21,
|
||
);
|
||
|
||
// Sweep 2-6 GHz (4 GHz of bandwidth) in 32 steps.
|
||
let sweep = FrequencySweep::new(2.0e9, 6.0e9, 32);
|
||
|
||
// One target, 2 meters downrange, reflectivity 1.0 (arbitrary units).
|
||
let target = ScatteringTarget::new(Point3::new(0.0, 2.0, 0.0), 1.0);
|
||
|
||
// Simulate the measurement with a touch of noise (seeded -- rerunning
|
||
// with the same seed gives byte-identical output).
|
||
let measurement = simulate_measurement(&poses, &sweep, &[target], 0.01, 42);
|
||
|
||
// Reconstruct a 21x21x21 voxel grid around where we expect the target.
|
||
let grid = VoxelGrid::new(Point3::new(-0.3, 1.7, -0.3), 0.03, 21, 21, 21);
|
||
let image = backproject(&measurement, &poses, &sweep, &grid);
|
||
|
||
let (peak_location, peak_magnitude) = image.peak();
|
||
println!("true target: {:?}", target.position);
|
||
println!("reconstructed peak: {peak_location:?} (magnitude {peak_magnitude:.4})");
|
||
}
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Run it and you should see the reconstructed peak within a couple of
|
||
centimeters of the true target position — well inside the voxel spacing
|
||
used here (3 cm). That's `tests/reconstruct.rs::single_point_target_reconstructs_at_its_true_location`
|
||
running live.
|
||
|
||
## 5. Range Resolution: Why Bandwidth Matters
|
||
|
||
How close together can two targets be *along the same bearing* (same
|
||
antenna, different distance) before they blur into one blob? The classic
|
||
radar answer: `ΔR = c / (2B)` — resolution improves with more swept
|
||
bandwidth, full stop. Carrier frequency, antenna count, and aperture
|
||
length don't enter into it at all.
|
||
|
||
```rust
|
||
use wifi_densepose_sar::resolution::range_resolution_m;
|
||
|
||
let dr = range_resolution_m(4.0e9); // 4 GHz swept bandwidth
|
||
println!("range resolution: {:.1} cm", dr * 100.0);
|
||
// -> range resolution: 3.7 cm
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`tests/physics_validation.rs::range_separated_targets_resolve_only_beyond_range_resolution`
|
||
proves this isn't just a formula sitting in a doc comment: it forward-simulates
|
||
two targets 4x `ΔR` apart (they resolve into two distinct peaks) and 0.25x
|
||
`ΔR` apart (they merge into one), using the *same* `range_resolution_m`
|
||
call to pick the separations.
|
||
|
||
## 6. Cross-Range Resolution: Why You Need to Move the Antenna
|
||
|
||
A single antenna position, no matter how much bandwidth it sweeps, cannot
|
||
tell two targets apart if they're at the same range but different bearing
|
||
— all it measures is round-trip distance, which is the same for both. This
|
||
is exactly why "handheld... sweep the antenna around" matters: moving the
|
||
antenna across a synthetic aperture of length `L` gives you angular
|
||
information, with cross-range resolution:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
delta_CR ~= lambda * R / (2 * L)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
— finer with a longer aperture, a shorter wavelength (higher carrier
|
||
frequency), or a closer target.
|
||
|
||
```rust
|
||
use wifi_densepose_sar::resolution::cross_range_resolution_m;
|
||
|
||
let short = cross_range_resolution_m(4.0e9, 0.05, 2.0); // 5cm sweep
|
||
let long = cross_range_resolution_m(4.0e9, 1.0, 2.0); // 1m sweep
|
||
println!("5cm aperture: {:.2} m cross-range resolution", short);
|
||
println!("1m aperture: {:.2} m cross-range resolution", long);
|
||
// -> a 20x longer aperture gives 20x finer cross-range resolution
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`tests/physics_validation.rs::cross_range_separated_targets_resolve_only_with_long_enough_aperture`
|
||
demonstrates this end-to-end: the same pair of cross-range-separated
|
||
targets resolves into two peaks with a 1m synthetic aperture and collapses
|
||
into one with a 5cm aperture, no other change.
|
||
|
||
## 7. The Antenna-Pose Coherence Budget
|
||
|
||
Backprojection assumes you know exactly where the antenna was at each
|
||
measurement. If your position tracking (in a real device: visual-inertial
|
||
odometry, encoders, whatever) is off by `Δp`, the phase correction applied
|
||
during reconstruction is wrong by an amount that grows with `Δp` and with
|
||
frequency. The classical rule of thumb for "still well focused": keep the
|
||
round-trip path error under a quarter wavelength, which works out to an
|
||
antenna-position tolerance of `λ/8`:
|
||
|
||
```rust
|
||
use wifi_densepose_sar::resolution::max_coherent_pose_error_m;
|
||
|
||
let budget = max_coherent_pose_error_m(8.0e9); // 8 GHz carrier
|
||
println!("position tolerance at 8 GHz: {:.1} mm", budget * 1000.0);
|
||
// -> position tolerance at 8 GHz: 4.7 mm
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`tests/physics_validation.rs::phase_error_from_pose_jitter_degrades_focus_beyond_pose_budget`
|
||
verifies this isn't just asserted: it perturbs the *true* antenna positions
|
||
away from the *assumed* ones used in reconstruction, and shows focus at the
|
||
true target location degrades as that perturbation grows — the concrete
|
||
mechanism behind why real SAR/GPR imaging systems need accurate pose
|
||
tracking, not just a good radio.
|
||
|
||
## 8. Extracting a Point Cloud
|
||
|
||
A dense voxel grid isn't a useful end product — you want a short list of
|
||
detected points:
|
||
|
||
Continuing the program from §4 (which already has `image` in scope):
|
||
|
||
```rust
|
||
use wifi_densepose_sar::extract_point_cloud;
|
||
|
||
let points = extract_point_cloud(&image, 0.5); // 50%-of-peak threshold
|
||
for p in &points {
|
||
println!("{:?} magnitude={:.3}", p.position, p.magnitude);
|
||
}
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`extract_point_cloud` does threshold + 6-connected local-maximum
|
||
extraction — a real blob will still yield one point, not one per voxel
|
||
inside it. There is deliberately no clustering, material classification,
|
||
or confidence calibration here (ADR-287 §5): that needs real data to
|
||
calibrate against, which this crate does not have.
|
||
|
||
## 9. Benchmarking Your Own Scenario
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
cargo bench -p wifi-densepose-sar
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The shipped benchmark (`benches/backprojection_bench.rs`) sweeps 512 /
|
||
4,096 / 32,768-voxel grids with 21 poses x 32 frequencies. Reconstruction
|
||
is embarrassingly parallel over voxels (each voxel's cost is independent),
|
||
so it's rayon-parallelized already — see the crate README for the last
|
||
recorded MEASURED numbers on the reference machine.
|
||
|
||
## 10. Where This Could Go Next
|
||
|
||
This crate deliberately stops short of several things (ADR-287 §5):
|
||
|
||
- It's monostatic (one antenna, both TX and RX) — real handheld SAR/MIMO
|
||
devices often use multiple simultaneous antenna elements.
|
||
- The forward model is free-space only — no multipath, no per-material
|
||
attenuation (contrast `ruview-unified`'s narrowband Fresnel material
|
||
model, which isn't yet extended to wideband).
|
||
- It isn't wired into `ruview-unified`'s `FmcwRadarCube` adapter or
|
||
`GaussianMap` — ADR-278 names that as the eventual integration point,
|
||
once (and if) a reconstruction system is ready for it.
|
||
|
||
If you're picking this up to extend it, start with ADR-287's "Follow-up"
|
||
section rather than guessing at scope.
|
||
|
||
## 11. Troubleshooting
|
||
|
||
**"My reconstructed peak isn't near my target."** Check your voxel grid
|
||
actually covers the target's true location — `backproject` happily
|
||
reconstructs whatever region you ask for; if the target is outside the
|
||
grid, you'll get whatever's brightest inside it instead (usually noise).
|
||
|
||
**"Two targets I expected to resolve didn't."** Compute
|
||
`range_resolution_m`/`cross_range_resolution_m` for your actual bandwidth
|
||
and aperture length and check your separation against them — resolution
|
||
is a hard physical limit here, not a tuning parameter.
|
||
|
||
**"Backprojection is slow for my grid size."** Cost is
|
||
`O(voxels x poses x freqs)` and already parallelized over voxels via
|
||
rayon; the only way to go faster is fewer voxels, fewer poses, or fewer
|
||
frequency steps (each is a hard tradeoff against resolution or aperture
|
||
coverage — see §5/§6).
|