MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147268430 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1993.332237

A parallel filtering technique for a surveillance radar

2002· article· en· W2147268430 on OpenAlex
Sylvain Bourassa, Sofiène Kamoun

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsSolmax (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExtended Kalman filterKalman filterComputer visionAccelerationRadar trackerFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligencePosition (finance)KinematicsSmoothingAlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tracking algorithms commonly use some practical models of target motion to estimate the present and the future target kinematics quantities such as the position, the velocity and in certain cases, the acceleration. When there is a maneuver, the tracking algorithm will detect the error created by the change in target motion and correct the situation to adapt itself to this new change or new tracking model. There are different approaches in the literature for handling maneuver detection such as parallel filtering techniques. These techniques are used mainly because of quick response in maneuver detection of moving objects and to enhance the position and the speed estimations with filtering stability. The purpose of the study is to show the benefit of using a parallel filtering technique over a single filter. The paper presents a parallel filter design using three extended Kalman filters (EKF) with a simple switching algorithm for maneuver detection. The state vector of the EKF is in cartesian coordinates and the measurement vector is in polar coordinates. This design is relatively simple compared to other parallel Kalman filter techniques and requires modest computer resources. The simulation results have shown improvement using parallel filtering, particularly in smoothing speed estimations and the rapidity of convergence to track the target after it has abruptly maneuvered.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.211 · 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