Validating models of target acquisition performance in the dismounted soldier context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of predicting real-world operator performance with digital imaging devices is of great interest within the military and commercial domains. There are several approaches to this problem, including: field trials with imaging devices, laboratory experiments using imagery captured from these devices, and models that predict human performance based on imaging device parameters. The modeling approach is desirable, as both field trials and laboratory experiments are costly and time-consuming. However, the data from these experiments is required for model validation. Here we considered this problem in the context of dismounted soldiering, for which detection and identification of human targets are essential tasks. Human performance data were obtained for two-alternative detection and identification decisions in a laboratory experiment in which photographs of human targets were presented on a computer monitor and the images were digitally magnified to simulate range-to-target. We then compared the predictions of different performance models within the NV-IPM software package: Targeting Task Performance (TTP) metric model and the Johnson model. We also introduced a modification to the TTP metric computation that incorporates an additional correction for target angular size. We examined model predictions using NV-IPM default values for a critical model constant, V50, and we also considered predictions when this value was optimized to fit the behavioral data. When using default values, certain model versions produced a reasonably close fit to the human performance data in the detection task, while for the identification task all models substantially overestimated performance. When using fitted V50 values the models produced improved predictions, though the slopes of the performance functions were still shallow compared to the behavioral data. These findings are discussed in relation to the models’ designs and parameters, and the characteristics of the behavioral paradigm.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".