Probability distribution of multiple-target data snapshots applied to large-aperture array processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider sonar array target detection and azimuth estimation in experimental scenarios consisting of large-aperture horizontal line arrays of hydrophones in the water column. In such scenarios, successful distinction of quiet targets from the background noise strongly depends on having sufficient independent data snapshots available for computation of adaptive beamforming weights. In this work, the discrete Fourier transform matrix is used for projecting the array data into a sparse domain, from which the theoretical probability density function of each (sparse-domain) datum can be obtained. It is shown that the sparse data exhibits a scaled chi-squared distributed magnitude, with a scale factor that depends on signal-to-background noise ratio and array size. Using this theoretical distribution and Monte Carlo simulations, minimum experimental requirements for target detection are quantified and highlight the tradeoff between data sample size, array aperture, and signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, a statistical test to reduce the number of false detections at the output of a beamformer is proposed and applied to simulated and experimental data from the Shallow Water Array Performance experiment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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 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".