Performance analysis of fuzzy logic particle filter compared to fuzzy IMM in tracking high-performance targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A high-performance target may accelerate at non-uniform rates, complete sharp turns within short time periods, thrust, roll, and pitch; which may not follow a linear model. Even though the interacting multiple model (IMM) can be considered as a multimodal approach, it still requires prior knowledge about the target model. To overcome this weakness, a fuzzy logic particle filter (FLPF) is used. It is comprised of single-input single-output; which is presented by fuzzy relational equations. A canonical-rule based form is used to express each of these fuzzy relational equations. The dynamics of the high-performance target are modeled by multiple switching (jump Markov) systems. The target may follow one-out of-seven dynamic behavior model at any time in the observation period under assumption of coordinate turn model. The FLPF has the advantage that it does not require any prior knowledge of statistical models of process as in IMM. Moreover, it does not need any maneuver detector even when tracking a high performance target; which results in less computational complexities. By using an appropriate fuzzy overlap set, only a subset of the total number of models need to be evaluated, and these will be conditioned on acceleration values close to the estimate. This reduces the computational load compared to the fuzzy IMM (FIMM) algorithm. To achieve the whole range of maneuver variables, more models can be added without increasing the computational load as the number of models evaluated is determined only by the overlap. An example is included for visualizing the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Simulation results showed that the FLPF has good tracking performance and less computational load compared to the FIMM when applied to systems characterized by large scan periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".