Multitarget-multisensor management for decentralized sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the problem of sensor resource management in decentralized tracking systems. Due to the availability of cheap sensors, it is possible to use a large number of sensors and a few fusion centers (FCs) to monitor a large surveillance region. Even though a large number of sensors are available, due to frequency, power and other physical limitations, only a few of them can be active at any one time. The problem is then to select sensor subsets that should be used by each FC at each sampling time in order to optimize the tracking performance subject to their operational constraints. In a recent paper, we proposed an algorithm to handle the above issues for joint detection and tracking, without using simplistic clustering techniques that are standard in the literature. However, in that paper, a hierarchical architecture with feedback at every sampling time was considered, and the sensor management was performed only at a central fusion center (CFC). However, in general, it is not possible to communicate with the CFC at every sampling time, and in many cases there may not even be a CFC. Sometimes, communication between CFC and local fusion centers might fail as well. Therefore performing sensor management only at the CFC is not viable in most networks. In this paper, we consider an architecture in which there is no CFC, each FC communicates only with the neighboring FCs, and communications are restricted. In this case, each FC has to decide which sensors are to be used by itself at each measurement time step. We propose an efficient algorithm to handle the above problem in real time. Simulation results illustrating the performance of the proposed algorithm are also presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".