MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068330147 · doi:10.1117/12.503715

<title>Multisensor bias estimation using local tracks without a priori association</title>

2003· article· en· W2068330147 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangdong Lin, Thiagalingam Kirubarajan, Yaakov Bar‐Shalom

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorSensor fusionStatisticsData associationAlgorithmComputer scienceCramér–Rao boundLikelihood functionAssociation (psychology)A priori and a posterioriMathematicsEstimation theoryProbabilistic logicArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a solution for sensor bias estimation based on local tracks at a single time without a priori association for a decentralized multiple sensor tracking system. Each local tracker generates its own local state estimates ignoring the bias. The fusion center then performs track-to-track fusion occasionally after estimating the sensor biases based on the common targets tracked by different sensors. The likelihood function of the bias in a multisensor-multitarget scenario is derived. Using this likelihood, it is shown that the difference of the local estimates is the sufficient statistic for estimating the biases. A least squares solution of the bias estimates and corresponding Cramer-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) are presented assuming uncorrelatedness as well as accounting for the crosscorrelation between the local estimation errors. Two approaches to estimate the sensor biases in the absence of known track-to-track association, namely, the Maximum Likelihood estimator combined with Probabilistic Data Association (ML-PDA) and an estimator based on soft data association, are proposed. These methods are compared with the baseline solution with known (perfect) track-to-track association by Monte Carlo simulations. The experimental results indicate that the bias estimator based on the soft data association provides nearly optimal performance and has less computational load than the one using ML-PDA.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations30
Published2003
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