MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564500635

Comparison of angle-only filtering algorithms in 3D using EKF, UKF, PF, PFF, and ensemble KF

2015· article· en· W1564500635 on OpenAlexaff
Syamantak Datta Gupta, Jun Ye Yu, Mahendra Mallick, Mark Coates, Mark R. Morelande

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Information Fusion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtended Kalman filterEnsemble Kalman filterParticle filterKalman filterInvariant extended Kalman filterCartesian coordinate systemMonte Carlo methodAlgorithmUnscented transformComputer scienceState vectorControl theory (sociology)Filter (signal processing)MathematicsComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatisticsGeometry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our previous work, we compared the performance of the extended Kalman filter (EKF), unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and particle filter (PF) for the angle-only filtering (AOF) problem in 3D using Cartesian coordinates and modified spherical coordinates (MSC) for the relative state vector. We found that the UKF-MSC and EKF-MSC had the best performance in accuracy, the UKF-MSC being slightly better than the EKF-MSC. The PF didn't perform well compared with the EKF and UKF and had a higher computational cost. In this work, we compare the performance of the particle flow filter (PFF) with the other filters for the AOF problem. In addition, we also analyze the performance of two versions of the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) in this comparative study. We present numerical results from Monte Carlo simulations to analyze the state estimation accuracy and computational cost of these filters.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Information FusionSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207