MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009235338 · doi:10.3390/s20051412

Track-to-Track Association for Intelligent Vehicles by Preserving Local Track Geometry

2020· article· en· W3009235338 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Zou, Allan De Freitas, Yongfu Li, Hamid Esmaeili Najafabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Track geometryAssociation (psychology)Computer scienceMaximizationProbabilistic logicExpectation–maximization algorithmTracking (education)GaussianConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmGeometryMathematicsMathematical optimizationMaximum likelihoodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Track-to-track association (T2TA) is a challenging task in situational awareness in intelligent vehicles and surveillance systems. In this paper, the problem of track-to-track association with sensor bias (T2TASB) is considered. Traditional T2TASB algorithms only consider a statistical distance cost between local tracks from different sensors, without exploiting the geometric relationship between one track and its neighboring ones from each sensor. However, the relative geometry among neighboring local tracks is usually stable, at least for a while, and thus helpful in improving the T2TASB. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic method, called the local track geometry preservation (LTGP) algorithm, which takes advantage of the geometry of tracks. Assuming that the local tracks of one sensor are represented by Gaussian mixture model (GMM) centroids, the corresponding local tracks of the other sensor are fitted to those of the first sensor. In this regard, a geometrical descriptor connectivity matrix is constructed to exploit the relative geometry of these tracks. The track association problem is formulated as a maximum likelihood estimation problem with a local track geometry constraint, and an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm is developed to find the solution. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed methods offer better performance than the state-of-the-art methods.

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)0.006
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
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207