MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137063334 · doi:10.1109/ssp.2005.1628769

Sensor network particle filters: motes as particles

2005· article· en· W2137063334 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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 institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle filterTransceiverTracking (education)Wireless sensor networkFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceVideo trackingCube (algebra)Object (grammar)Particle (ecology)Binary numberElectronic engineeringEngineeringComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer networkTelecommunicationsMathematicsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an algorithm for tracking an object using particle filtering in a sensor network comprised of smart dust-type motes. We investigate the situation where the motes are equipped with binary proximity sensors, low-power lasers and optical receivers for communication with nearby motes, and corner-cube arrays for communication with a central transceiver. The particle filter we describe is largely decentralized; a central transceiver performs no processing beyond a summation and weighted average. Individual motes act as the particles in that they represent candidate positions of the object. Propagation of the particle filter is performed through activation of appropriate neighbouring nodes with "weighted" messages. We provide simulation results of tracking a maneuvering object, comparing performance with a centralized particle filter

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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