Fast Learning of Grammar Production Probabilities in Radar Electronic Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although stochastic context-free grammars (SCFG) appear promising for the recognition and threat assessment of complex radar emitters in radar electronic support (ES) systems, the computational requirements for learning their production rule probabilities can be onerous. The two most popular methods, the inside-outside (IO) algorithm and the Viterbi score (VS) algorithm, are both iterative. IO maximizes the likelihood of a training data set, whereas VS maximizes the likelihood of its best parse trees. Even though VS is known to have lower overall computational costs in practice, both algorithms can be impractical for complex grammatical models. Several techniques have been previously developed to accelerate learning. In this paper, two fast variants of the traditional IO algorithm, known as graphical expectation-maximization (gEM(IO)) and tree-scanning (TS(IO)), are reviewed, along with a third technique called HOLA. In addition, two novel algorithms are proposed that apply the gEM (gEM(VS)) and TS (TS(VS)) principles to the Viterbi technique. An experimental protocol is defined and implemented so that the performance of all five techniques (gEM(IO), TS(IO), gEM(VS), TS(VS), and HOLA) can be compared using simulated training sets of complex radar signals. These techniques are compared from several perspectives-perplexity (the likelihood of a test data set), error rate on estimated states, time and memory complexity per iteration, and convergence time. Estimation of the average case and worst case execution time and storage requirements allow for the assessment of complexity, while computer simulations, performed using radar data sets, allow for the assessment of the other performance measures. The impact on performance of the number of sequences in the training set is observed. Results indicate that gEM(IO) and TS(IO) provide the same level of accuracy, yet the resources requirements depend on the ambiguity of the grammars. As expected, the gEM(VS) and TS(VS) techniques provide significantly lower convergence times and time complexities in practice than gEM(IO) and TS(IO), for a comparable level of accuracy. All of these algorithms may provide a greater level of accuracy than HOLA, yet their computational complexities may be orders of magnitude higher.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".