MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reinforcement learning-based automated target motion analysis in underwater environments

2025· article· en· W4414774404 on OpenAlexaff
Su-Hyeong Jang, Jung-Chul Shin, Dasol Kim, Ju Hyun Lee, Hyunsuk Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersDefense Acquisition Program AdministrationKorea Research Institute for Defense Technology Planning and Advancement
KeywordsUnderwaterMotion analysisMotion (physics)ReinforcementMotion control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an automated target motion analysis (TMA) framework that leverages deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to enhance the accuracy and reliability of target state estimation from SONAR-derived bearing-only measurements in underwater environments. Traditional TMA methods-such as the manual 10-point divider and batch estimation-rely heavily on operator expertise and are susceptible to inaccuracies due to environmental noise and human error. To address these limitations, we employ a Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)-based agent to automatically and robustly estimate the target speed. A customized TMA simulator was developed to generate diverse underwater scenarios, incorporating variations in target motion and noise levels to ensure the model’s generalization capability. The PPO agent learns to infer target speed directly from sequential bearing data, achieving a strong balance between exploration and exploitation. Experimental results demonstrate that the trained agent provides highly accurate and robust speed estimates, even under realistic noise conditions. This work contributes to the advancement of autonomous maritime surveillance and defense systems by significantly reducing human dependency and improving operational reliability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean EngineeringSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207