Performances of human listeners and an automatic aural classifier in discriminating between sonar target echoes and clutter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human listening tests were conducted to investigate if participants could distinguish between samples of target echoes and clutter obtained from a broadband active sonar experiment. For each echo, the listeners assigned a rating based on how confident they were that it was a target echo or clutter. The measure of performance was the area under the binormal receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve, A(z). The mean performance was A(z)=0.95 ± 0.04 when signals were presented with their full available acoustic bandwidth of approximately 0-2 kHz. It was A(z)=0.77 ± 0.08 when the bandwidth was reduced to 0.5-2 kHz. The error bounds are stated as 95% confidence intervals. These results show that the listeners could definitely hear differences, but their performance was significantly degraded when the low-frequency signal information was removed. The performance of an automatic aural classifier was compared against this human-performance baseline. Results of statistical tests showed that it outperformed 2 of 13 listeners and 5 of 9 human listeners in the full-bandwidth and reduced-bandwidth tests, respectively, and performed similarly to the other listeners. Given its performance, the automatic aural classifier may prove beneficial to Navy sonar systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it