Algorithms for the multi-sensor assignment problem in the δ-generalized labeled multi-Bernoulli filter
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous adaptations of the δ-generalized labeled multi-Bernoulli (δ-GLMB) filter to the multi-sensor case involve the sequential application of the update step for each sensor or Gibbs sampling for multi-sensor data association. The practical usage of the sequential δ-GLMB filter is limited due to the number of hypotheses growing with each additional sensor. Similarly, the Gibbs method requires a large number of samples for each hypothesis. In this paper, in the aim of finding the optimal or near-optimal multi-sensor assignments, we propose two novel methods, the combination and the cross entropy methods. Numerical simulations are conducted to evaluate the proposed multi-assignment methods together with the standard sequential processing method and a stochastic optimization algorithm based on Gibbs sampling. The combination method is able to significantly reduce running time with respect to the sequential method while yielding competitive performance across a wide range of test scenarios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it