MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970708737 · doi:10.1109/iccsp.2013.6577049

Multi target tracking algorithm based on Lagrangian Relaxation method

2013· article· en· W1970708737 on OpenAlex
Kanan Bala Sahoo, Arati M. Dixit, Srinivasa Murthy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadar trackerComputer scienceTracking (education)RadarSensor fusionTask (project management)Process (computing)Controller (irrigation)Set (abstract data type)Tracking systemData setLagrangian relaxationAlgorithmReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFilter (signal processing)EngineeringMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi Target Tracking (MTT) capability of radar increases the extent of control over land and sky. It is a challenging task to provide a coherent air picture to the radar controller in every scan. Multi Sensor Multi Target (MSMT) Data Association (DA) is an important task in an automated Command and Control (C2) system for any Air Defence system. In DA process multiple tracks received for multiple targets from a set of sensors are processed to correlate tracks to targets. The results of DA form a crucial functionality of multi sensor data fusion which is used in target engagement. Multiple Hypothesis Tracking (MHT) methods are very good DA techniques for conflicting scenarios but are complex in design and implementation. A solution methodology is proposed combining Lagrangian Relaxation, dynamic programming and multidimensional assignment approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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