Comprehensive Track Unswappinng for Improved Tracker Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In practical surveillance systems, multiple-target tracking can suffer from undesirable effects such as track breakages and track swaps. Track stitching or track segment association (TSA) algorithms have been proposed in the literature to stitch broken tracks deemed to have originated from the same target across time and to improve track continuity. Measurements from multiple neighboring targets may fall within the validation gates of one another causing association errors that may eventually lead to not just track breaks but also track swaps. Therefore, TSA alone is insufficient to improve the overall tracker performance, as it considers only the broken tracks but not the continuous ones that might have swaps among themselves or with other broken tracks. To mitigate the effects of track swaps, this article proposes an algorithm that detects and resolves possible track swaps using kinematic and non-kinematic—classification and amplitude—information. Track swap detection involves identifying the most likely instant of track swap occurrence. Further, the proposed algorithm is extended to stitch broken track segments (as in the standard TSA) and those tracks that are algorithmically broken due to the detection of possible swaps. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in resolving track swaps and thereby improving track purity and the overall tracker performance.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".