Improving star tracker centroiding performance in dynamic imaging conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an assessment of various image thresholding and centroiding algorithms to improve star tracker centroiding accuracy at moderate slew rates (<;10°/s). Star trackers generally have arc-second accuracy in stationary conditions, however their accuracy degrades as slew rate increases. In dynamic conditions, blur effects add to the challenges of star detection. This work presents an image processing algorithm for star images that preserves star tracker detection accuracy and is able to detect dim stars up to slew rates less than 10°/s. Most of star detection algorithms in literature are designed to work in stationary conditions. We evaluate a number of algorithms from literature and measure their performance in motion. The performance of the algorithms are assessed using simulations. The primary performance metrics are false positive ratio, and false negative ratio of star pixels. We introduced a new algorithm for star acquisition in moderate slew rates that combines positive features of existing algorithms. This algorithm increases the star detection accuracy in moderate slew rates and it is robust to stray light.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it