2010
DOI: 10.21236/ada536158
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of Gauss-Markov Random Fields with Nearest-Neighbor Dependency

Abstract: Abstract-The problem of hypothesis testing against independence for a Gauss-Markov random field (GMRF) is analyzed. Assuming an acyclic dependency graph, an expression for the log-likelihood ratio of detection is derived. Assuming random placement of nodes over a large region according to the Poisson or uniform distribution and nearest-neighbor dependency graph, the error exponent of the Neyman-Pearson detector is derived using large-deviations theory. The error exponent is expressed as a dependency-graph func… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(115 reference statements)
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We adopt the Markov model proposed in [8], where the correlation between neighboring nodes i and j is expressed as a function c(r ij ) of the inter-node distance r ij .…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We adopt the Markov model proposed in [8], where the correlation between neighboring nodes i and j is expressed as a function c(r ij ) of the inter-node distance r ij .…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 is defined applying the elementwise mapping z(a ij ) : R → R + given in (8). We can notice that, although the second term in (9)…”
Section: Encouraging Sparsity By Preserving Total Transmit Powermentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The RHT problem is more general since the form of the classifier depends on the distribution of each hypothesis. References [10][11][12] study the use of graphical models in hypothesis testing, however, these works do not design robust tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%