Integrated approach for automatic target recognition using a network of collaborative sensors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce what is believed to be a novel concept by which several sensors with automatic target recognition (ATR) capability collaborate to recognize objects. Such an approach would be suitable for netted systems in which the sensors and platforms can coordinate to optimize end-to-end performance. We use correlation filtering techniques to facilitate the development of the concept, although other ATR algorithms may be easily substituted. Essentially, a self-configuring geometry of netted platforms is proposed that positions the sensors optimally with respect to each other, and takes into account the interactions among the sensor, the recognition algorithms, and the classes of the objects to be recognized. We show how such a paradigm optimizes overall performance, and illustrate the collaborative ATR scheme for recognizing targets in synthetic aperture radar imagery by using viewing position as a sensor parameter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it