Binary Detection in Gaussian Noise

weetabixharry
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
I have a vector signal, \underline{x}(t), which is afflicted with Gaussian noise \underline{n}(t). I take a finite number, L, of discrete observations and (based on those observations) want to determine whether:

(1) Only Gaussian noise is present, \left[\text{i.e. } \underline{x}(t) = \underline{n}(t)\right]
(2) Gaussian noise plus a "non-noise" term, \underline{a}m(t), are both present. \left[\text{i.e. } \underline{x}(t) = \underline{a}m(t) + \underline{n}(t)\right]

The scalar, m(t), is zero-mean and has unknown power (variance). The elements of \underline{x}(t) are independent of each other and also independent of m(t).

Given my observations, how can I estimate the probability that the signal is present?

Many thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey weetabixharry.

I'm not an expert, but I do recall the subject of Kalman filters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter

Basically you should check out these kind of things where you prefix a structure for your information that assumes some noise model (like White Gaussian) and then uses a filter to not only detect noise, but also the actual non-noisy information.

There are also non-linear variants of the filter.
 
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.
Back
Top