Integrated clutter estimation and target tracking using JIPDA/MHT tracker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the problem of tracking multiple targets in unknown clutter background using the Joint Integrated Probabilistic Data Association (JIPDA) tracker and the Multiple Hypotheses Tracker (MHT) is studied. It is common in real tracking problems to have little or no prior information on clutter background. Furthermore, the clutter backgroundmay be dynamic and evolve with time. Thus, in order to get accurate tracking results, trackers need to estimate parameters of clutter background in each sampling instant and use the estimate to improve tracking. In this paper, incorporated with the JIPDA tracker or the MHT algorithm, a method based on Nonhomogeneous Poisson point processes is proposed to estimate the intensity function of non-homogeneous clutter background. In the proposed method, an approximated Bayesian estimate for the intensity of non-homogeneous clutter is updated iteratively through the Normal-Wishart Mixture Probability Hypothesis Density (PHD) filter technique. Then, the above clutter density estimate is used in the JIPDA algorithm and the MHT algorithm for multitarget tracking. It is demonstrated thorough simulations that the proposed clutter background estimation method improves the performance of the JIPDA tracker in unknown clutter background.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".