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 OpenAlexaff
Bhashyam Balaji, Kai Wang, Anthony Damini, M.M. Goulding, Kurt Hagen

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207