MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254538408 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2015.2505685

Scaled Largest Eigenvalue Detection for Stationary Time-Series

2015· article· en· W2254538408 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Renard, Lutz Lampe, François Horlin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFalse alarmDetectorRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmTest statisticMathematicsCovariance matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectorsStatisticStatisticsNoise (video)Computer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the performance of the scaled largest eigenvalue (SLE) detector used for the detection of stationary time-series. We focus on a single-antenna setup and a blind detection scenario (neither the signal covariance, nor the noise variance are known). The SLE detector has received much attention in the context of cognitive radios (CR) due to its simplicity, good performance and robustness to noise level uncertainties. Specifically, our goal is to analyze the detector based on the statistic Γ = [(λ1)/(Σi=1 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">p</sup> λi)], where λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ ... ≥ λp represent the ordered eigenvalues of the sample covariance matrix. We derive a large-sample-size closed-form approximation for the test statistic which allows us to derive its statistical distribution and set up the detector to achieve the required probability of false-alarm (Pfa) and probability of detection (Pd). We also study the robustness of the detector in the presence of noise uncertainty and impulsive-noise and investigate the benefits of the spatial sign filter for such scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Signal ProcessingSame topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207