Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key component in any image-based tracking system is the adaptive tracking algorithm used to segment the image into potential targets, rank-and-select the best candidate target, and the gating of the selected target to further improve tracker performance. This paper will describe a new adaptive tracker algorithm added to the naval threat countermeasure simulator (NTCS) of the NATO-standard ship signature model (ShipIR). The new adaptive tracking algorithm is an optional feature used with any of the existing internal NTCS or user-defined seeker algorithms (e.g., binary centroid, intensity centroid, and threshold intensity centroid). The algorithm segments the detected pixels into clusters, and the smallest set of clusters that meet the detection criterion is obtained by using a knapsack algorithm to identify the set of clusters that should not be used. The rectangular area containing the chosen clusters defines an inner boundary, from which a weighted centroid is calculated as the aim-point. A track-gate is then positioned around the clusters, taking into account the rate of change of the bounding area and compensating for any gimbal displacement. A sequence of scenarios is used to test the new tracking algorithm on a generic unclassified DDG ShipIR model, with and without flares, and demonstrate how some of the key seeker signals are impacted by both the ship and flare intrinsic signatures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".