Circular Error Probability in polar error expression

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on expressing Circular Error Probability (CEP) in terms of polar coordinates, specifically using variables r and θ instead of σ_x and σ_y, to avoid correlation issues. The original equations for CEP assume constant variances and no correlation between x and y, which complicates the transition to polar coordinates. The user seeks to derive a new expression for CEP that incorporates σ_r and σ_θ, but faces challenges in doing so without introducing complexity. There is also a mention of expanding CEP into Spherical Error Probability (SEP) while grappling with the correlation of errors. The conversation highlights the difficulty of calculating variances in polar coordinates and suggests that uniform angular distribution and exponential distribution for r² may arise under certain conditions.
dbeeo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
After doing various searching through the google, most of the circular error probability I found are expressed interm of \sigma_x and \sigma_y, which the CEP(circular error probability) usually looks like (assume normal distribution):

P(r) = \int\int \exp^{-.5(\frac{x^2}{\sigma_x^2}+\frac{y^2}{\sigma_y^2})} dxdy

or if we integrate the equation in term of polar coordinate

P(r) = \int\int \exp^{-.5(\frac{x^2}{\sigma_x^2}+\frac{y^2}{\sigma_y^2})} rd\theta dr

However, these equations are based on no correlation between \sigma_x and \sigma_y. And also, both \sigma_x and \sigma_y remains constant disregarding the change of r and \theta. Although we usually can express both x and y in term of r and \theta,

x=r\cos(\theta) and y=r\sin(t\theta)

But right now, I would like to have the CEP to express in r and \theta only, since the error I will have are \sigma_\theta and \sigma_r, and I would like to avoid the correlation issue. So, I'm just not know that if this equation will make sense or not,

P(r) = \int\int \exp^{-.5(\frac{r^2}{\sigma_r^2}+\frac{\theta^2}{\sigma_\theta^2})} rd\theta dr

Anyone has any input/idea about this? One of the other problem is that I need to expand the CEP into spherical error probability (SEP), which is in the 3dimensional. Although I have a paper to show somewhat a close form solution for this problem, however they still consider \sigma_x and \sigma_y with correlation as their error instead of \sigma_\theta and \sigma_r. But the complexity just increases way too high if I'm following this method.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your y expression has a t in it - seems to have come from nowhere. Your final P(r) is just wrong. Plug in the expressions for x and y as functions of r and θ to get the correct integral in polar coordinates.
 
it was a typo for y expression, it should be,

y=r\sin(\theta)

For the final P(r), I'm trying to find the other way that involve both \sigma_r and \sigma_\theta. So it seems like it is impossible unless i substitute them into the following expression?

P(r) = \int\int \exp^{-.5(\frac{x^2}{\sigma_x^2}+\frac{y^2}{\sigma_y^2})} rd\theta dr
 
Have you tried calculating the r and θ variances in terms of the x and y variances? Off hand it looks messy.
 
If you consider the case where the x and y variances are the same, the resultant polar coordinates have a distribution where the angle is uniform over a circle and r2 has an exponential distribution.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K