MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590550990

Comparison of filtering algorithms for ground target tracking using space-based GMTI radar

2015· article· en· W1590550990 on OpenAlexaff
Mahendra Mallick, B. La Scala, Branko Ristić, T. Kirubarajan, Jon Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoving target indicationParticle filterExtended Kalman filterKalman filterRadar trackerComputer scienceAzimuthRadarTracking (education)AlgorithmFilter (signal processing)Remote sensingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionContinuous-wave radarRadar imagingTelecommunicationsPhysicsGeographyOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space-based radar (SBR) systems have received a great deal of attention, since they can provide all-weather, daynight, and continuous world-wide surveillance and tracking of ground, air, and sea-surface targets. The ground moving target indicator (GMTI) mode is an important operating mode for such systems. GMTI radar measurements are the range, azimuth and range-rate, which are nonlinear functions of the target state. We consider the extended Kalman filter (EKF), unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and particle filter (PF) for the SBR GMTI nonlinear filtering problem and present a new track initiation algorithm. We compare the mean square errors (MSEs) and computational times using simulated data generated by Monte Carlo simulations. Although the cross-range errors are large, our results show that the MSEs of the filters are nearly the same. Our results show that the EKF performs the best for the scenario considered based on the MSE and computational time.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library)Same topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207