Performance comparison between matched filter and locally optimal detector for composite hypothesis test with inaccurate noise

Performance comparison between matched filter and locally optimal detector for composite hypothesis test with inaccurate noise

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Signal Processing — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

This study considers the performance comparison between the matched filter (MF) and the locally optimal (LO) detector when the noise information is not accurate. For a given binary hypothesis testing problem, the authors derive the condition under which the LO detector performs worse than the MF with the assumptions of large number samples and low signal-to-noise ratio. The condition is an inequality, which involves the noise probability density function (pdf) used in the LO detector, the real noise pdf, and the noise variance. Simulations show that the condition is theoretically sound under both known and unknown noise pdf's.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Kay, S.M.: ‘Fundamentals of statistical signal processing volume II: detection theory’ (Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey, 2008).
    2. 2)
      • 2. Guo, G., Mandal, M., Jing, Y.: ‘A robust detector of known signal in non-Gaussian noise using threshold systems’, Signal Process., 2012, 92, (11), pp. 26762688.
    3. 3)
      • 3. Guo, G.: ‘Robust signal detection in non-Gaussian noise using threshold system and bistable system’. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 2012.
    4. 4)
      • 4. Kay, S.M., Sengupta, D.: ‘Detection in incompletely characterized colored non-Gaussian noise via parametric modeling’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 1993, 41, (10), pp. 30663070.
    5. 5)
      • 5. Saberali, S., Amindavar, H.: ‘Blind MEM pdf estimation for detection in the presence of unknown non-Gaussian noise’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 2009, 16, (12), pp. 10871090.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Moustakides, G.V., Jajamovich, G.H., Tajer, A., et al: ‘Joint detection and estimation: optimum tests and applications’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2012, 58, (7), pp. 42154229.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Kay, S.M., Sengupta, D.: ‘Recent advances in the theory and application of non-Gaussian autoregressive processes’, in Haykin, S. (Ed.): ‘Advances in spectrum analysis and array processing’ (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1991).
    8. 8)
      • 8. Saha, A.A., Anand, G.V.: ‘Design of detectors based on stochastic resonance’, Signal Process., 2003, 83, (6), pp. 11931212.
    9. 9)
      • 9. Apostol, T.M.: ‘Introduction to analytic number theory’ (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976).

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address