On pooling‐based track fusion strategies: Harmonic mean density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a distributed sensor fusion architecture, using standard Kalman filter (naive fusion) can lead to degraded results as track correlations are ignored and conservative fusion strategies are employed as a sub‐optimal alternative to the problem. Since, Gaussian mixtures provide a flexible means of modelling any density, therefore fusion strategies suitable for use with Gaussian mixtures are needed. While the generalised covariance intersection (CI) provides a means to fuse Gaussian mixtures, the procedure is cumbersome and requires evaluating a non‐integer power of the mixture density. In this paper, the authors develop a pooling‐based fusion strategy using the harmonic mean density (HMD) interpolation of local densities and show that the proposed method can handle both Gaussian and mixture densities without much changes to the framework. Mathematical properties of the proposed fusion strategy are studied and simulated on two‐dimensional (2D) and three‐dimensional (3D) manoeuvering target tracking scenarios. The simulations suggest that the proposed HMD fusion performs better than other conservative strategies in terms of root‐mean‐squared error while being consistent.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".