MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057500293 · doi:10.1364/ao.43.000403

Target detection and recognition improvements by use of spatiotemporal fusion

2004· article· en· W2057500293 on OpenAlexaff
Haiwen Chen, Surachai Sutha, Teresa L. P. Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterArtificial intelligenceThresholdingComputer sciencePixelNoise (video)Computer visionConstant false alarm rateGaussian noiseSensor fusionPattern recognition (psychology)Object detectionFalse alarmRadarImage (mathematics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed spatiotemporal fusion techniques for improving target detection and automatic target recognition. We also investigated real IR (infrared) sensor clutter noise. The sensor noise was collected by an IR (256 x 256) sensor looking at various scenes (trees, grass, roads, buildings, etc.). More than 95% of the sensor pixels showed near-stationary sensor clutter noise that was uncorrelated between pixels as well as across time frames. However, in a few pixels (covering the grass near the road) the sensor noise showed nonstationary properties (with increasing or decreasing mean across time frames). The natural noise extracted from the IR sensor, as well as the computer-generated noise with Gaussian and Rayleigh distributions, was used to test and compare different spatiotemporal fusion strategies. Finally, we proposed two advanced detection schemes: the double-thresholding the reverse-thresholding techniques. These techniques may be applied to complicated clutter situations (e.g., very-high clutter or nonstationary clutter situations) where the traditional constant-false-alarm-ratio technique may fail.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207