Multitarget tracking performance analysis using the non-credibility index in the Nonlinear Estimation Framework (NEF) toolbox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Target tracking, nonlinear control, and fault detection are typically evaluated with only a Root Mean Square (RMS). RMS is an absolute measurement of the system performance and does not provide a statistic as to the tracker, controller, or fault detection algorithmic performance. For this paper, we investigate the non-credibility index (NCI) and average normalized estimation error square (ANEES) for nonlinear estimation for the Kalman Filter (KF), the Central Difference Filter (DD1), the unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and the particle filter (PF). Fault detection and target track performance is dependent on target maneuvers, sensor errors, model parameters, and state estimation which need to be understood relative to the filter performance versus the absolute performance (i.e. root mean square) of the system. Utilizing the developments of the Nonlinear Estimation Framework (NEF) toolbox, we develop methods of nonlinear relative comparison performance between nonlinear filters in a unified scenario.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".