PCRLB-based multisensor array management for multitarget tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider the general problem of managing an array of sensors in order to track multiple targets in the presence of clutter. There are three complicating factors. The first is that because of physical limitations (e.g., communication bandwidth) only a small subset of the available sensors can be utilized at any one time. The second complication is that the associations of measurements to targets/clutter are unknown. The third complication is that the total number of targets in the surveillance region is unknown and possibly time varying. It are these second and third factors that extend previous work [ Tharmarasa, R., Kirubarajan, T., and Hernandez, M. L. Large-scale optimal sensor array management for multitarget tracking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, to be published.]. Hence sensors must be utilized in an efficient manner to alleviate association ambiguities and to allow accurate estimation of the states of a varying number of targets. We pose the problem as a bi-criterion optimization with the two objectives of (1) controlling the posterior Cramer-Rao lower bound ((PCRLB) which provides a measure of the optimal achievable accuracy of target state estimation), and (2) maximizing the probability of detecting new targets. Only recently have expressions for multitarget PCRLBs been determined [Hue, C, Le Cadre, J.-P., and Perez, P]. Performance analysis of two sequential Monte Carlo methods and posterior Cramer-Rao bounds for multitarget tracking. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Fusion, vol. 1, Annapolis, MD, July 2002, 464-473.], and the necessary simulation techniques are computationally expensive. However, in this paper we show the existence of a multitarget information reduction matrix (IRM) which can be calculated off-line in most cases. Additionally, we propose some approximations that further reduce the computational load. We present solution methodologies that, in simulations, are shown to determine efficient utilization strategies for the available sensor resources, with some sensors selected to track existing targets and others given the primary task of surveillance in order to identify new threats.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".