skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: False alarm probabilities for mixed events

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Teledyne Geotech, Alexandria, Va. (USA)
OSTI Identifier:
Report Number(s):
AD-775635/6; SDAC-TR-73-8
NSA Number:
DOE Contract Number:
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: Orig. Receipt Date: 31-DEC-74
Country of Publication:
United States

Citation Formats

Cohen, T.J., and Sweetser, E.I. False alarm probabilities for mixed events. United States: N. p., 1973. Web.
Cohen, T.J., & Sweetser, E.I. False alarm probabilities for mixed events. United States.
Cohen, T.J., and Sweetser, E.I. Thu . "False alarm probabilities for mixed events". United States. doi:.
title = {False alarm probabilities for mixed events},
author = {Cohen, T.J. and Sweetser, E.I.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Nov 01 00:00:00 EST 1973},
month = {Thu Nov 01 00:00:00 EST 1973}

Technical Report:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that may hold this item. Keep in mind that many technical reports are not cataloged in WorldCat.

Save / Share:
  • The rate at which a mine detection system falsely identifies man-made or natural clutter objects as mines is referred to as the system's false alarm rate (FAR). Generally expressed as a rate per unit area or time, the FAR is one of the primary metrics used to gauge system performance. In this report, an overview is given of statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of data relating to FAR. Techniques are presented for determining a suitable size for the clutter collection area, for summarizing the performance of a single sensor, and for comparing different sensors. For readers requiring more thoroughmore » coverage of the topics discussed, references to the statistical literature are provided. A companion report addresses statistical issues related to the estimation of mine detection probabilities.« less
  • The U.S. Department of Energy rule for Occupational Radiation Protection (10 CFR Part 835, December 1993) and the DOE Radiological Control Manual (the RCM) (DOE/EH-0256T, Rev. 1, April 1994) require the use of continuous air monitors (CAMs) in normally occupied areas where an individual is likely to be exposed to a concentration of airborne radioactivity exceeding the derived air concentration (DAC) or where there is a need to alert potentially exposed individuals to unexpected increases in airborne radioactivity levels. The DAC is the airborne concentration that equals the annual limit on intake divided by the volume of air breathed bymore » an average worker for a working year of 2000 h (assuming a breathing volume of 2400 m{sup 3}). It is equivalent to the airborne concentration to which a worker could be exposed for an entire working year (2000 h) without exceeding the allowable annual limit on intake. The rule and the RCM further require that real-time air monitors have an alarm capability and sufficient sensitivity to alert potentially exposed individuals that immediate action is necessary in order to minimize or terminate inhalation exposures. The RCM also recommends that real-time air monitors should be capable of measuring 1 DAC when averaged over 8 h (8 DAC-h) under laboratory conditions. In response to these recommendations, we are developing procedures for determining the basic sensitivity of alpha CAMs under laboratory conditions and for documenting practical alarm set points for routine use of CAMs under a range of radon and thoron concentrations.« less
  • In this project, the basic problem is to automatically separate test samples into one of two categories: clean or corrupt. This type of classification problem is known as a two-class classification problem or detection problem. In what follows, we refer to clean examples as negative examples and corrupt examples as positive examples. In a detection problem, a classifier decision on any one sample can be grouped into one of four decision categories: true negative, true positive, false negative and false positive. These four categories are illustrated by Table 1. True negatives and true positives are cases where the classifier hasmore » made the correct decision. False positives are cases where the classifier decides positive when the true nature of the sample was negative, and false negatives are cases where the classifier decides negative when the sample was actually positive. To evaluate the performance of a classifier, we run the classifier on all the samples of a data set and then count all the instances of true negatives, true positives, false negatives, and false positives. All of the performance metrics in this report are then formed from a combination of these four basic decision categories.« less
  • Median filtering reduces speckle in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery while preserving edges, at the expense of coarsening the resolution, by replacing the center pixel of a sliding window by the median value. For shadow detection, this approach helps distinguish shadows from clutter more easily, while preserving shadow shape delineations. However, the nonlinear operation alters the shadow and clutter distributions and statistics, which must be taken into consideration when computing probability of detection and false alarm metrics. Depending on system parameters, median filtering can improve probability of detection and false alarm by orders of magnitude. Herein, we examine shadow probabilitymore » of detection and false alarm in a homogeneous, ideal clutter background after median filter post-processing. Some comments on multi-look processing effects with and without median filtering are also made.« less
  • The Office of Self-Assessment (DP-9), Defense Programs (DP) began to monitor a Criticality Alarm system (CAS) failure occurrence at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) shortly after January 11, 1992, when a false trip of the CAS in building CPP-601/602 caused a plant evacuation. Building CPP-601/602 contains the uranium fuel reprocessing denitration system, which was not operating at the time of the CAS failure occurrence. At that time DP-9 and Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company (WINCO), the Department of Energy (DOE) operating contractor, believed that this event may represent a potential generic safety concern for other DOE facilities. This false criticalitymore » alarm activation did not pose a significant danger to the health and safety of the public or to ICPP employees. Once the CAS was activated, the ICPP was evacuated per procedures. However, false CAS actuations are undesirable. The CAS system should be extremely reliable because of the dangers associated with criticality events and the potential for accidents and injuries resulting from prompt process termination and building evacuation. The Office of Self-Assessment then formed an Augmented Evaluation Team (AET) for an on-site diagnostic assessment of the CAS at ICPP. The AET's on-site evaluation process included briefings by ICPP management, discussions with pertinent technical supervisors and managers, an examination of relevant CAS documentation, physical examination of failed equipment, and a walk-through of the ICPP CAS. The AET judged that the most probable direct causes of the CAS failure were the heat induced failure of a low voltage power supply combined with the concurrent and/or prior failure of its back-up nickel cadium (NiCad) battery located in the CAS. The battery was not adequately maintained. These judgments are consistent with WINCO's analyses.« less