MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216769124 · doi:10.3390/s21237868

Simulation of RSO Images for Space Situation Awareness (SSA) Using Parallel Processing

2021· article· en· W3216769124 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Clark, Yanchun Fu, Siddharth Dave, Regina Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)SimulationReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increase in resident space objects (RSO), there is a growing demand for their identification and characterization to advance space simulation awareness (SSA) programs. Various AI-based technologies are proposed and demonstrated around the world to effectively and efficiently identify RSOs from ground and space-based observations; however, there remains a challenge in AI training due to the lack of labeled datasets for accurate RSO detection. In this paper, we present an overview of the starfield simulator to generate a realistic representation of images from space-borne imagers. In particular, we focus on low-resolution images such as those taken with a commercial-grade star tracker that contains various RSO in starfield images. The accuracy and computational efficiency of the simulator are compared to the commercial simulator, namely STK-EOIR to demonstrate the performance of the simulator. In comparing over 1000 images from the Fast Auroral Imager (FAI) onboard CASSIOPE satellite, the current simulator generates both stars and RSOs with approximately the same accuracy (compared to the real images) as STK-EOIR and, an order of magnitude faster in computational speed by leveraging parallel processing methodologies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207