Investigation of Sensor Bias and Signal Quality on Target Tracking with Multiple Radars
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tracking of airborne targets from low-cost Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, such as radars, is a problem of increasing interest due to the proliferation of drones. Such low-cost IoT sensors have problems with sensor bias and poor signal quality which may impact detection and tracking performance. In this paper, we investigate the impact of sensor imperfections on tracking performance. In particular, we consider the scenario of two ground-based sensors measuring the elevation/bearing/range of three airborne targets in clutter. The measurement uncertainty of the second sensor was altered between test cases to emulate sensor bias, then the results of the multi-target tracking algorithm were compared using the Generalized Optimal Sub-Pattern Assignment, Single Integrated Air Picture, and uncertainty metrics. Results indicate that bias in the range measurement tends to decrease the track’s robustness against clutter. A sensor with equally poor performance in the elevation/bearing/range measurements scored the lowest in all investigated metrics. The clutter density parameter of the investigated multi-target tracking problem, the Joint Probabilistic Data Association filter, was altered and found to have nearly negligible effect on the track quality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it