A Multiple-Detection Probability Hypothesis Density Filter
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".