MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122318899 · doi:10.1109/ssp.2005.1628561

PHD filtering for tracking an unknown number of sources using an array of sensors

2005· article· en· W2122318899 on OpenAlexaff
Balasingam Balakumar, Abhijit Sinha, T. Kirubarajan, J.P. Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/SP 13th Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationParticle filterComputer scienceAlgorithmTracking (education)Reversible-jump Markov chain Monte CarloPosterior probabilityFilter (signal processing)Markov chain Monte CarloArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direction of arrival (DOA) tracking of an unknown number of sources in a highly non-stationary environment is considered. Conventional DOA estimation techniques, such as MUSIC, fail when the stationary assumption is violated. Furthermore, the time-varying number of sources makes the problem even more challenging. Recently, a particle filtering approach, which propagates the approximate posterior of the target states and then adopts a reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (RJMCMC) diversity step to resolve the number of targets, was proposed. However, this algorithm is sensitive to incorrect model order initialization. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm for tracking an unknown number of sources based on the probability hypothesis density (PHD) filter, which propagates only the first moment of the joint posterior distribution of targets in terms of particles, as a computationally efficient alternative to the RJMCMC method. The PHD algorithm provides an automatic way to estimate the number of sources, eliminating the need for a separate model order initialization or update step, which is typically the source of problem in particle-filtering based methods. In addition to the fact that the PHD implementation is simple, simulation results show that, the PHD implementation yields superior performance over the other method.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/SP 13th Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, 2005Same topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207