MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596774547 · doi:10.1109/lsp.2017.2682857

Track-to-Track Association by Coherent Point Drift

2017· article· en· W2596774547 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 Signal Processing Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Expectation–maximization algorithmProbabilistic logicComputer scienceCentroidPoint (geometry)GaussianAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMaximizationAssociation (psychology)Computer visionMaximum likelihoodMathematicsMathematical optimizationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter, we propose a probabilistic method, called the coherent point drift (CPD) algorithm, to address track-to-track association with sensor bias. In the CPD method for a pair of sensors, the local tracks of one sensor are represented by Gaussian mixture model centroids, and the local tracks of the other sensor are fitted to those of the first sensor by maximizing the likelihood. An expectation-maximization algorithm is proposed to find the correspondence matrix between the local tracks. Experiments illustrate the effectiveness of our method.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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