A Comparative Study on Radio Frequency Interference Suppression and foF2 Scaling for Ionograms

In this paper, we compare the performances of radio frequency interference (RFI) suppression between radio frequency interference mitigation (RFIM) and frequency-domain adaptive clutter suppression (FACS) algorithms that apply to ionograms for foF2 scaling through true height analysis. We find that the use of RFIM and FACS can both effectively suppress RFIs in ionograms to improve the signal-to-clutter (SCR) of the original ionogram. Overall, the RFI clutter suppressed by FACS is about 5-7 dB better than that by RFIM. In addition, the SCR improvement made by FACS with neighboring range cells in a range of 10-40 is also better than that made by RFIM, which is about 5-10 dB for FACS and 4-8 dB for RFIM, respectively. However, the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the ionospheric echoes of the ionograms with FACS are about 3-5 dB (2-3 dB) smaller than those of RFIM during daytime (nighttime). Intercomparisons reveal that the correlations of the scaled foF2 values between the original and RFIM ionograms are slightly higher than those between the original and FACS ionograms, while the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) and mean bias of the former are slightly larger than the latter. These results indicate that the use of RFIM and FACS algorithms to suppress RFIs in ionograms can conditionally improve the quality of scaled foF2 using Ke et al.'s autoscaling algorithm. Statistical results reveal that the use of FACS algorithms can result in about a 5-12% improvement in uncertainty and a 9-80% improvement in accuracy, provided that 5-20 neighboring range cells are selected. As for the RFIM algorithm with a threshold of 2-2.5 times standard deviation, the improvements in uncertainty and accuracy are, respectively, about 0.9-10% and 11-90%.

Automated summary

This paper compares the performances of radio frequency interference (RFI) suppression algorithms, namely radio frequency interference mitigation (RFIM) and frequency-domain adaptive clutter suppression (FACS), in improving the ionogram signal-to-clutter ratio (SCR) for foF2 scaling through true height analysis. The results show that both RFIM and FACS effectively suppress RFIs in ionograms, with FACS outperforming RFIM in terms of RFI clutter suppression and SCR improvement. However, FACS has lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) compared to RFIM. While the correlations between the original and RFIM ionograms are slightly higher, the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) and mean bias are slightly larger for RFIM. Overall, RFIM and FACS algorithms conditionally improve the quality of scaled foF2 using Ke et al.'s autoscaling algorithm, with FACS providing a 5-12% improvement in uncertainty and a 9-80% improvement in accuracy when selecting 5-20 neighboring range cells.