A Multiple-Detection Probability Hypothesis Density Filter
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
Most conventional target tracking algorithms assume that one target can generate at most one detection per scan. However, in many practical target tracking applications, one target may generate multiple detections in one scan, because of multipath propagation, or high sensor resolution or some other reason. If the multiple detections from the same target can be effectively utilized, the performance of the multitarget tracking system can be improved. However, the challenge is that the uncertainty in the number of targets and the measurement set-to-target association will increase the complexity of tracking algorithms. To solve this problem, the random finite set (RFS) modeling and the random finite set statistics (FISST) are used in this paper. Without any extra approximation beyond those made in the standard probability hypothesis density (PHD) filter, a general multi-detection PHD (MD-PHD) update formulation is derived. It is also established in this paper that, with certain reasonable assumptions, the proposed MD-PHD recursion can function as a generalized extended target PHD or multisensor PHD filter. Furthermore, a Gaussian Mixture (GM) implementation of the proposed MD-PHD formulation, called the MD-GM-PHD filter, is presented. The proposed MD-GM-PHD filter is demonstrated on a simulated over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) scenario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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