Neyman-Pearson Neural Detectors

  • Diego Andina
  • José L. Sanz-González
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2085)


This paper is devoted to the design of a neural alternative to binary detectors optimized in the Neyman-Pearson sense. These detectors present a configurable low probability of classifying binary symbol 1 when symbol 0 is the correct decision. This kind of error, referred in the scientific literature as salse-positive or false alarm probability has a high cost in many real applications as medical Computer Aided Diagnosis or Radar and Sonar Target Detection, and the possibility of controlling its maximum value is crucial. The novelty and interest of the detector is the application of a Multilayer Perceptron instead of a classical design. Under some conditions, the Neural Detector presents a performance competitive with classical designs adding the typical advantages of Neural Networks. So, the presented Neural Detectors may be considered as an alternative to classical ones.


Hide Layer Criterion Function Training Pattern False Alarm Probability Posteriori Probability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Velasco, R., Godin, Ch., Cheynet, Ph., Torres-Alegre, S., Andina, D., Gordon, M.B.: Study of two ANN Digital Implementations of a Radar Detector Candidate to an On-Board Satellite Experiment. In: Mira, J., Sánchez-André, V. (eds.).: Engineering Applications of Bio-Inspired Artificial Neural Network. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1607. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999) 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Root, W.L.: An Introduction to the Theory of the Detection of Signals in Noise. Proc. of the IEEE, Vol. 58. (1970) 610–622.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Decatur, S.E.: Application of Neural Networks to Terrain Classification. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks. (1989) 283–288.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hush, D.R., Horne, B.G.: Progress in Supervised Neural Networks. What’s new since Lippmann?. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine (1993) 8–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanz-González, J.L., Andina, D.: Performance Analysis of Neural Network Detectors by Importance Sampling Techniques. Neural Processing Letters. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands ISSN 1370-4621. 9, (1999) 257–269Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnard, E., Casasent, D.: A Comparison Between Criterion Functions for Linear Classifiers, with Application to Neural Nets. IEEE Trans. Systems, man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 19 5 (1989) 1030–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruck, D.W., Rogers, S.K., Kabrisky, M., Oxley, M.E., Suter, B.W.: The Multilayer Perceptron as an Approximation to a Bayes Optimal Discriminant Function. IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, Vol. 1 4(1990) 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Jaroudi, A., Makhoul J.: A New Error Criterion For Posterior Probability Estimation With Neural Nets. Proc. of Int. Joint. Conf. Neural Networks, IJCNN, Vol. I 5 (1990) 185–192.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Telfer, B.A., Szu, H.H., Energy Functions for Minimizing Misclassification Error With Minimum-Complexity Networks. Proc. of Int. Joint Conf. Neural Networks, IJCNN, Vol. iV. (1992) 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Andina
    • 1
  • José L. Sanz-González
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Señales, Sistemas y Radiocomunicaciones, E.T.S.I. TelecomunicaciónUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations