MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021599742 · doi:10.1117/12.921043

Simulation of large-scale multitarget tracking scenarios using GPUs

2012· article· en· W2021599742 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuf Dinath, Ratnasingham Tharmarasa, Eric Meger, Pierre Valin, T. Kirubarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCentral processing unitThroughputConjunction (astronomy)Scale (ratio)Graphics processing unitParallel computingPath (computing)Computational scienceReal-time computingComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased availability of Graphical Processing Units (GPUs) in personal computers has made parallel pro- gramming worthwhile, but not necessarily easier. This paper will take advantage of the power of a GPU, in conjunction with the Central Processing Unit (CPU), in order to simulate target trajectories for large-scale scenarios, such as wide-area maritime or ground surveillance. The idea is to simulate the motion of tens of thousands of targets using a GPU by formulating an optimization problem that maximizes the throughput. To do this, the proposed algorithm is provided with input data that describes how the targets are expected to behave, path information (e.g., roadmaps, shipping lanes), and available computational resources. Then, it is possible to break down the algorithm into parts that are done in the CPU versus those sent to the GPU. The ultimate goal is to compare processing times of the algorithm with a GPU in conjunction with a CPU to those of the standard algorithms running on the CPU alone. In this paper, the optimization formulation for utilizing the GPU, simulation results on scenarios with a large number of targets and conclusions are provided.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207