MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022355299 · doi:10.1049/cp.2012.1695

Comparison of the unscented and cubature Kalman filters for radar tracking applications

2012· article· en· W2022355299 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKalman filterComputer scienceRadar trackerTracking (education)RadarExtended Kalman filterArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the proposed nonlinear filtering algorithms, the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) has been recommended as a better choice than other algorithms for many applications. Recently, the cubature Kalman filter (CKF) was proposed, which was claimed to be even better. This study compares the two algorithms for two radar tracking applications, namely, high frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR) and passive coherent location (PCL) radar. Monte Carlo simulations are used to fulfill the purpose. It is shown that the UKF outperforms the CKF in both radar applications, using performance measures of root mean square error (RMSE) and normalized estimation error squared (NEES). Results show that the PCL radar's higher nonlinearity provides a challenge for the design of nonlinear filters, and that the CKF is not as well suited as UKF to highly nonlinear systems such as PCL. Sensitivity of the filters becomes a critical design issue. (5 pages)

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.277 · 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