A Likelihood Ratio-Based Detector for QTMS Radar and Noise Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We derive a detector function for quantum two-mode squeezing (QTMS) radars and noise radars that is based on the use of a likelihood ratio (LR) test for distinguishing between the presence and absence of a target. In addition to an explicit expression for the LR detector, we derive a detector function which approximates the LR detector in the limit where the target is small, far away, or otherwise difficult to detect. When the number of integrated samples is large, we derive a theoretical expression for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the radar when the LR detector is used. When the number of samples is small, we use simulations to understand the ROC curve behavior of the detector. One interesting finding is there exists a parameter regime in which a previously-studied detector outperforms the LR detector, contrary to the intuition that LR tests are optimal. This is because neither the Neyman-Pearson lemma, nor the Karlin-Rubin theorem which generalizes the lemma, hold in this particular problem. However, the LR detector remains a good choice for target detection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".