MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082724524 · doi:10.1121/1.4780491

Adaptive sonar detection performance prediction in an uncertain ocean

2003· article· en· W2082724524 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. Book, Jeffery Krolik, S. Kraut

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarSonar signal processingBeamformingComputer scienceNoise (video)Adaptive beamformerWavefrontRange (aeronautics)Gaussian noiseCovariance matrixGaussianAcousticsStatisticsAlgorithmMathematicsSignal processingArtificial intelligencePhysicsTelecommunicationsOpticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of predicting detection performance when the signal wavefront is uncertain and the noise field directionality is unknown. Passive sonar detection in this scenario typically involves robust adaptive beamforming with limited training data. The classical sonar equation, however, assumes the noise field and signal wavefront are known exactly. In this paper, we use the statistics of the generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) for the composite hypothesis of a multirank signal in Gaussian noise with unknown covariance matrix to evaluate the detection threshold (DT) as function of ocean uncertainty and number of noise training snapshots. Further, the trade-off between array gain (AG) and detection threshold (DT) is studied as a function of training sample size in a dynamic interference environment. Detection performance of the GLRT is characterized in terms of bounds on the middle 80th percentile of classical passive sonar figure of merit (FOM) and range-of-the-day (RD) over an ensemble of ocean environments. Different classes of environments including downward refracting and upward refracting scenarios are examined with particular attention to the Florida Straits region. Example performance prediction bounds are presented using real horizontal noise field and environmental data. [Work supported by ONR.]

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207