<title>Comparison of EKF, pseudomeasurement, and particle filters for a bearing-only target tracking problem</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider a nonlinear bearing-only target tracking problem using three different methods and compare their performances. The study is motivated by a ground surveillance problem where a target is tracked from an airborne sensor at an approximately known altitude using depression angle observations. Two nonlinear suboptimal estimators, namely, the extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and the pseudomeasurement tracking filter are applied in a 2-D bearing-only tracking scenario. The EKF is based on the linearization of the nonlinearities in the dynamic and/or the measurement equations. The pseudomeasurement tracking filter manipulates the original nonlinear measurement algebraically to obtain the linear-like structures measurement. Finally, the particle filter, which is a Monte Carlo integration based optimal nonlinear filter and has been presented in the literature as a better alternative to linearization via EKF, is used on the same problem. The performances of these three different techniques in terms of accuracy and computational load are presented in this paper. The results demonstrate the limitations of these algorithms on this deceptively simple tracking problem.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".