MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007928910 · doi:10.1117/12.2017889

Comparison of filtering and smoothing algorithms for airborne radar data

2013· article· en· W2007928910 on OpenAlex
Bhashyam Balaji, Kai Wang, Anthony Damini, M.M. Goulding, Kurt Hagen

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

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Defence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingClutterComputer scienceAlgorithmKalman filterRadarSpace-time adaptive processingEstimatorRadar trackerDoppler radarEnsemble Kalman filterMoving target indicationExtended Kalman filterArtificial intelligenceContinuous-wave radarComputer visionRadar imagingMathematicsTelecommunicationsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection of ground-moving targets requires clutter cancellation, which is typically performed using space-time adaptive processing (STAP). The detections from STAP provide the measurements of range, bearing, and Doppler. These measurements can then be fed to Bayesian state estimators. In this paper, results from an airborne radar data set are processed and the performance of filtering and smoothing algorithms are compared. The standard nonlinear filtering algorithms, namely the extended Kalman filter, are used. It is found that while the smoother performance is significantly better than that of the filter, the smoothing window need not be large to obtain the superior performance.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.242 · 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