MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536189924 · doi:10.1109/radar.2014.7060239

Adaptive radar scheduling of track updates

2014· article· en· W2536189924 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRadarScheduling (production processes)Real-time computingMaximizationRadar trackerScheduleMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scheduling of tracking update looks for a phased array radar is considered. A method called the Two-Slope Benefit Function (TSBF) Scheduler is formulated and requires that each tracking look have a benefit function, which specifies benefit as a function of start time. This method accounts for both look priority and target dynamics in formulating a look schedule. If the radar is overloaded with tracking look requests, the TSBF Scheduler down-selects a set of looks which can be scheduled, using a method which favours higher priority looks. Looks are scheduled to maximize the total benefit, and it is shown that the resulting maximization is equivalent to a linear program which can be solved efficiently using the simplex method. This technique attempts to optimize target tracking performance while making the best use of radar resources. An example is presented which illustrates the properties of the TSBF Scheduler and compares performance to the state-of-the-art.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207