Handling target obscuration through Markov chain observations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Target Obscuration, including foliage or building obscuration of ground targets and landscape or horizon obscuration of airborne targets, plagues many real world filtering problems. In particular, ground moving target identification Doppler radar, mounted on a surveillance aircraft or unattended airborne vehicle, is used to detect motion consistent with targets of interest. However, these targets try to obscure themselves (at least partially) by, for example, traveling along the edge of a forest or around buildings. This has the effect of creating random blockages in the Doppler radar image that move dynamically and somewhat randomly through this image. Herein, we address tracking problems with target obscuration by building memory into the observations, eschewing the usual corrupted, distorted partial measurement assumptions of filtering in favor of dynamic Markov chain assumptions. In particular, we assume the observations are a Markov chain whose transition probabilities depend upon the signal. The state of the observation Markov chain attempts to depict the current obscuration and the Markov chain dynamics are used to handle the evolution of the partially obscured radar image. Modifications of the classical filtering equations that allow observation memory (in the form of a Markov chain) are given. We use particle filters to estimate the position of the moving targets. Moreover, positive proof-of-concept simulations are included.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it