MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233741533 · doi:10.1121/1.4799008

Classifying sonar signals with varying signal-to-noise ratio and bandwidth

2013· article· en· W4233741533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefan M. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarBandwidth (computing)BroadbandComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Marine mammals and sonarClutterAcousticsSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)RadarTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automatic aural classifier developed at Defence Research and Development Canada has demonstrated the ability to distinguish target echoes from clutter using perceptual-based features inspired by sonar operators. Initially, the classifier was tested with echoes from explosive sources, but more recent research involved transmitting broadband waveforms from transducer sources. In sonar transducer operation, there is a trade off between source level and bandwidth, and the goal of this paper is to study how these factors affect echo classification. Source level relates to signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which inherently affects classification since signals with low enough SNR cannot be distinguished from noise, let alone other signals. The dependence of classification performance on bandwidth is less obvious; however, the aural classification technique is based on a sub-band type of processing that mimics the basilar membrane in the human auditory system, and this model is not well adapted for narrow bands. Performance of the aural classifier is therefore expected to degrade as bandwidth is decreased. In this paper, the effect of SNR and signal bandwidth on echo classification is examined using echoes of varying SNR, and in various bands selected using band-pass filters.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207