Binary classification: error probability minimization

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
Typically in problems involving binary classification (i.e. radar detection, medical testing), one will try to find a binary classification scheme that minimizes the total probability of error.

For example, consider a radar detection system where a signal is corrupted with noise, so that if the signal is present and has value A, the radar detects Y = A + X where X is noise, and if the signal is not present, the radar detects Y = X.

Given the observation Y, one wishes to find a decision rule regarding whether or not the signal was present that will minimize the probability of error. Error occurs either as false positives (type I) or false negatives (type II).

If you know that the noise X is Gaussian with zero-mean and unit variance, one can (with some calculations) show that a good decision rule is to see whether Y<A/2 or Y>A/2 to decide whether or not the signal is present. I think most would agree that this minimizes the total probability of error. However, how would one prove this? There are, after all, an infinite set of possibilities for the decision rule. One could have some weird decision rule like:
A > |Y| > A/2 --> signal is present, otherwise signal is absent, but these would be suboptimal. How one would PROVE that the rule Y>A/2 is optimal in the sense that it minimizes error?

Thanks!

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bipolarity said:
I think most would agree that this minimizes the total probability of error.

How do you define the "total probability of error"?

Binary detectors are often analyzed by looking at their "receiver operating characteristic" (ROC) curve.
 
The total probability of error is the sum of probabilities of type 1 and type 2 errors respectively. I am aware of the ROC curves, but that does not answer my question.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top