A Bayesian Surprise Approach in Designing Cognitive Radar for Autonomous Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes the Bayesian surprise as the main methodology that drives the cognitive radar to estimate a target's future state (i.e., velocity, distance) from noisy measurements and execute a decision to minimize the estimation error over time. The research aims to demonstrate whether the cognitive radar as an autonomous system can modify its internal model (i.e., waveform parameters) to gain consecutive informative measurements based on the Bayesian surprise. By assuming that the radar measurements are constructed from linear Gaussian state-space models, the paper applies Kalman filtering to perform state estimation for a simple vehicle-following scenario. According to the filter's estimate, the sensor measures the contribution of prospective waveforms-which are available from the sensor profile library-to state estimation and selects the one that maximizes the expectation of Bayesian surprise. Numerous experiments examine the estimation performance of the proposed cognitive radar for single-target tracking in practical highway and urban driving environments. The robustness of the proposed method is compared to the state-of-the-art for various error measures. Results indicate that the Bayesian surprise outperforms its competitors with respect to the mean square relative error when one-step and multiple-step planning is considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".