MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077426519 · doi:10.1117/12.819234

Improved target tracking using kinematic measurements and target orientation information

2009· article· en· W2077426519 on OpenAlexaff
S. Sutharsan, Ratnasingham Tharmarasa, T. Kirubarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsOrientation (vector space)AccelerationComputer scienceTracking (education)EstimatorComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses a target tracking system that provides improved estimates of target states using target orientation information in addition to standard kinematic measurements. The objective is to improve state estimation of highly maneuverable targets with noisy kinematic measurements. One limiting factor in obtaining accurate state estimates of highly maneuvering targets is the high level of uncertainty in velocity and acceleration. The target orientation information is helpful in alleviating this problem to accurately determine the velocity and acceleration components. However, there is no sensor that explicitly measures target orientation. In this paper, the Observable Operator Model (OOM) is used together with multiple sensor information to estimate target orientation measurement. This is done by processing the sensor feature measurements from different aspect angles and the estimated target orientation measurement is used in conjunction with kinematic measurements to conclusively estimate target states. Simulation results show that the incorporation of target orientation can enhance the tracking performance in the presence of fast moving and/or maneuvering targets. In addition, the Posterior Cramer-Rao lower bound (PCRLB) that quantifies the achievable performance is derived. It is shown that the proposed estimator meets the PCRLB.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
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