MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969129923 · doi:10.1137/s1052623499358586

Robust Filtering via Semidefinite Programming with Applications to Target Tracking

2002· article· en· W1969129923 on OpenAlexaff
Lingjie Li, Zhi‐Quan Luo, Timothy N. Davidson, KH Wong, Éloi Bossé

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Optimization · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingBounded functionInterior point methodMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsRobustness (evolution)MathematicsNorm (philosophy)Robust optimizationSemidefinite embeddingComputer scienceAlgorithmQuadratically constrained quadratic program

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we propose a novel finite-horizon, discrete-time, time-varying filtering method based on the robust semidefinite programming (SDP) technique. The proposed method provides robust performance in the presence of norm-bounded parameter uncertainties in the system model. The robust performance of the proposed method is achieved by minimizing an upper bound on the worst-case varianceof the estimation error for all admissible systems. Our method is recursive and computationally efficient. In our simulations, the new method provides superior performance to some of the existing robust filtering approaches. In particular, when applied to the problem of target tracking, the new method has led to a significant improvement in tracking performance. Our work shows that the robust SDP technique and the interior point algorithms can bring substantial benefits to practically important engineering problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207