<title>Comparison between smoothing and auxiliary particle filter in tracking a maneuverable target in a multiple sensor network</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking a maneuvering target weakens the performance of predictive-model-based Bayesian state estimators (Kalman Filter). Therefore, the particle is used to track maneuverable targets instead of Kalman filter and its extensions. The particle filter proved more efficiency compared to Kalman filter and its extensions, e.g. Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and Interacting Multiple Model (IMM). Unfortunately, due to the highly uncertainty and incompleteness of the information in a highly-maneuverable target-tracking problem, the advantage of the particle filter is weakened. Both auxiliary and smoothing particle filter were proposed to overcome this problem. In this paper, we compare the performance of both auxiliary and smoothing particle filter in tracking a highly maneuverable target. We applied both algorithms to track a maneuverable target in a multiple-sensors network. Monte Carlo simulation showed that the smoothing particle filter has a better performance when compared to auxiliary particle filter in tracking a maneuvering target.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".