<title>Computationally efficient assignment-based algorithms for data association for tracking with angle-only sensors</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we describe computationally efficient assignment-based algorithms to solve the data association problem in synchronous passive multisensor tracking systems. A traditional assignment-based solution to this problem is to solve the measurement-to-measurement association using multidimensional (S-dimensional or SD with S sensors) assignment formulation and the measurement-to-track association using two-dimensional assignment formulation. Even though this solution has been proven to be effective, it is computationally very expensive. One of the reasons is that in calculating the assignment cost of each possible candidate association one requires to find the maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of the unknown target state. The algorithms proposed in this paper use prior information of the targets that are being tracked to reduce the requirement for the costly ML estimation. The first algorithm is similar to the traditional two step technique except that it uses the predicted track information to avoid building the whole assignment tree in the measurement-to-measurement association. In particular, based on the predicted track information first validation gates are constructed for every target. Then, when forming the assignment tree, only the branches connecting measurements that satisfy the validation gate requirement are constructed. The second algorithm is a one-step algorithm in that it directly assigns the measurements to the tracks. We pose the data association problem as an (S + 1)-D assignment with the first dimension being the predicted state information of the tracks, and the rest of the S dimensions are the lists of measurements from the sensors. The costs of each possible (S + 1)-tuple are calculated based on the predicted track information, hence, the requirement for an ML estimate is eliminated. Further, we show that when the target maneuvers are not very high, and when the sensor measurements are uncorrelated the (S+1)-D assignment approximately decomposes into S individual 2-D assignments, resulting in huge computational savings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
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".