MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051257992 · doi:10.1109/sam.2012.6250552

Distributed posterior Cramér-Rao lower bound for nonlinear sequential Bayesian estimation

2012· article· en· W2051257992 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Mohammadi, Amir Asif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEstimatorFisher informationBayesian probabilityUpper and lower boundsAlgorithmWireless sensor networkSensor fusionMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In distributed sensor networks, the posterior Cramér-Rao lower bound (PCRLB) has recently been used [1] as a selection criteria for sensor management decisions, where new sensor nodes are deployed or existing ones reactivated to optimize the network's performance. Previous algorithms to compute the PCRLB are derived for the centralized [2] and hierarchical architectures [3] using a fusion centre that makes them inappropriate for distributed sensor management. Only recently a suboptimal expression [1] for the distributed architecture has been proposed, which can at times lead to large errors especially in systems with highly non-linear dynamics. The paper derives the optimal PCRLB for the distributed architecture. In other words, we derive a recursive procedure to determine the overall Fisher information matrix (FIM), i.e., the inverse of the PCRLB, from local FIMs of the distributed estimators. The proposed distributed PCRLB is independent of the filtering mechanism used and closely follows its centralized counterpart.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207