MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064968522 · doi:10.1117/12.542259

<title>Geolocation of multiple emitters in the presence of clutter</title>

2004· article· en· W2064968522 on OpenAlexaff
T. Sathyan, Thiagalingam Kirubarajan, Abhijit Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilaterationCommon emitterGeolocationClutterFDOAEstimatorComputer scienceAlgorithmNonlinear systemSet (abstract data type)AcousticsMathematicsElectronic engineeringPhysicsTelecommunicationsRadarEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In geolocating by time difference of arrival (TDOA), an array of sensors at known locations receive the signal from an emitter whose location is to be estimated. Signals received at two sensors are used to obtain the TDOA measurement. A number of algorithms are available to solve the set of nonlinear TDOA equations whose solution is the emitter location. An implicit assumption in these algorithms is that all the measurements obtained are from a single emitter. In practice, however, one has to deal with measurement origin uncertainty, which is a result of either multiple emitters being present in the region of interest, or clutter returns. In this paper, a method to determine the location of multiple emitters in a cluttered environment is presented. Several unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are assumed as receivers of the electromagnetic emission from the emitter. Emissions received by different UAVs are used to obtain the TDOAs. Using a constrained optimization procedure, measurement-to-emitter associations are determined. Then, the resulting nonlinear equations are solved to find the emitter locations. An Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) estimator is used to track the located sources and to obtain their motion parameters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207