MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998978620 · doi:10.3390/rs12020272

Continuous Tracking of Targets for Stereoscopic HFSWR Based on IMM Filtering Combined with ELM

2020· article· en· W2998978620 on OpenAlexaff
Ling Zhang, Dongwei Mao, Jiong Niu, Q. M. Jonathan Wu, Yonggang Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceClutterTracking (education)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionKalman filterRadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR) plays an important role in marine surveillance on account of its ability to provide wide-range early warning detection. However, vessel target track breakages are common in large-scale marine monitoring, which limits the continuous tracking ability of HFSWR. The following are the possible reasons for track fracture: highly maneuverable vessels, dense channels, target occlusion, strong clutter/interference, long sampling intervals, and low detection probabilities. To solve this problem, we propose a long-term continuous tracking method for multiple targets with stereoscopic HFSWR based on an interacting multiple model extended Kalman filter (IMMEKF) combined with an extreme learning machine (ELM). When the trajectory obtained by IMMEKF breaks, a new section of the track will start on the basis of the observation data. For multiple-target tracking, a number of broken tracks can be obtained by IMMEKF tracking. Then the ELM classifies the segments from the same vessel by extracting different features including average velocity, average curvature, ratio of the arc length to the chord length, and wavelet coefficient. Both the simulation and the field experiment results validate the method presented here, showing that this method can achieve long-term continuous tracking for multiple vessels, with an average correct track segment association rate of over 91.2%, which is better than the tracking performance of conventional algorithms, especially when the vessels are in dense channels and strong clutter/interference area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207