MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensor Fusion and Optimal Platform Trajectory Planning for Ground Target Localization with Terrain Uncertainty and Measurement Biases

2022· article· en· W4293094015 on OpenAlexaff
Dipayan Mitra, Ratnasingham Tharmarasa

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 25th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCramér–Rao boundSensor fusionTerrainComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)TrajectoryMeasurement uncertaintyConvergence (economics)Monte Carlo methodUpper and lower boundsAlgorithmGround truthComputer visionEstimation theoryMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ground target can be localized using an airborne angle-only sensor. However, possible measurement bias causes a delay in error convergence. Adding measurements from a range-only sensor can improve localization by attaining faster convergence. Estimation accuracy can be improved further by optimizing the trajectories of the platforms containing the angle-only and range-only sensors. To ensure observability in 3-D localization, in most of the recent works, the height of the ground target from the sea level is assumed to be known perfectly. However, in most practical applications, target height is obtained from a Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED), having multiple levels of resolution. As a result, in addition to the bias uncertainty, the terrain uncertainty is required to be handled. In this work, Cramer Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) is derived for the localization problem considering the terrain and measurement bias uncertainties. A CRLB based optimization algorithm is proposed for optimal platform trajectory planning. We propose two localization approaches to handle the biases. The first approach involves bias compensation using a prior whereas the target and bias states are estimated jointly in the second approach. In both approaches, range sensor fusion is proposed to improve localization accuracy. The effectiveness of our algorithms is verified using Monte Carlo simulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 25th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION)Same topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207