MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210450135 · doi:10.1109/taes.2022.3145296

A Likelihood Ratio Detector for QTMS Radar and Noise Radar

2022· article· en· W4210450135 on OpenAlexafffund
David Luong, Bhashyam Balaji, Sreeraman Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDetectorRadarReceiver operating characteristicLemma (botany)AlgorithmMathematicsFunction (biology)PhysicsComputer scienceStatisticsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive a detector function for quantum two-mode squeezing (QTMS) radar and noise radar that is based on the use of a generalized likelihood ratio (GLR) test for distinguishing between the presence and absence of a target. In addition to an explicit expression for the GLR detector, we derive a detector function which approximates the GLR 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 GLR 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 that there exists a parameter regime in which a previously-studied detector outperforms the GLR detector, contrary to the intuition that LR-based tests are optimal or nearly so. This is because neither the Neyman–Pearson lemma, nor the Karlin–Rubin theorem which generalizes the lemma to composite hypotheses, hold in this particular problem. However, the GLR detector remains a good choice for target detection in certain regimes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207