MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037286736 · doi:10.1117/12.489650

<title>Viterbi-based data association techniques for target tracking</title>

2003· article· en· W2037286736 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Shehata Gad, M. U. Farooq

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViterbi algorithmComputer scienceData associationClutterComputationSoft output Viterbi algorithmTracking (education)Sliding window protocolTrack (disk drive)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceWindow (computing)Hidden Markov modelDecoding methodsRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research in multitarget tracking has mainly focused on the development and implementation of efficient data association algorithms with acceptable performance. The Viterbi Data Association (VDA) algorithm has proven to have low computation cost and hence a good candidate for the extension to multiple target tracking case. In this paper, the VDA is implemented for tracking both the single and multiple maneuvering targets in clutter. The track initiator and the adaptive sliding window techniques are used so that the VDA can maintain a lock on the track. The performance of the algorithm is assessed via Mote-Carlo simulations. The computation complexity analysis reveals that the VDA is computationally more efficient over the known tracking techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.043

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207