MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047993903 · doi:10.1117/12.391984

<title>Novel branching particle method for tracking</title>

2000· article· en· W2047993903 on OpenAlexaff
D. Ballantyne, Hubert Y. Chan, Michael A. Kouritzin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle filterMathematicsKalman filterTracking (education)Control theory (sociology)Markov chainDiscrete time and continuous timeAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle approximations are used to track a maneuvering signal given only a noisy, corrupted sequence of observations, as are encountered in target tracking and surveillance. The signal exhibits nonlinearities that preclude the optimal use of a Kalman filter. It obeys a stochastic differential equation (SDE) in a seven-dimensional state space, one dimension of which is a discrete maneuver type. The maneuver type switches as a Markov chain and each maneuver identifies a unique SDE for the propagation of the remaining six state parameters. Observations are constructed at discrete time intervals by projecting a polygon corresponding to the target state onto two dimensions and incorporating the noise. A new branching particle filter is introduced and compared with two existing particle filters. The filters simulate a large number of independent particles, each of which moves with the stochastic law of the target. Particles are weighted, redistributed, or branched, depending on the method of filtering, based on their accordance with the current observation from the sequence. Each filter provides an approximated probability distribution of the target state given all back observations. All three particle filters converge to the exact conditional distribution as the number of particles goes to infinity, but differ in how well they perform with a finite number of particles. Using the exactly known ground truth, the root-mean-squared (RMS) errors in target position of the estimated distributions from the three filters are compared. The relative tracking power of the filters is quantified for this target at varying sizes, particle counts, and levels of observation noise.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
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

Citations26
Published2000
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