MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416076837 · doi:10.1049/rsn2.70061

Extended Target Tracking Using ET‐PMHT for 3D Convex Polytope Shapes With Partial Visibility

2025· article· en· W4416076837 on OpenAlexaff
Prabhanjan Mannari, Ratnasingham Tharmarasa, Thiagalingam Kirubarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Radar Sonar & Navigation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvex hullTracking (education)PolytopeRegular polygonDelaunay triangulationFace (sociological concept)Point (geometry)Process (computing)Convex polytopeKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article discusses the problem of tracking a single 3D extended target (or widely separated targets) with convex polytope shape when the target may only be partially visible. An extended target (as opposed to a point target) may generate multiple measurements in a single frame. With the advent of high‐resolution sensors (such as LiDAR), the targets need to be considered as extended targets and their shape as well as kinematics need to be estimated. The extended target may only be partially visible (self‐occlusion) and the measurements occur only from the visible parts of the target. In this work, different parts of a single extended target are assumed to be different targets constrained by the rigid body motion of the whole target, and the multitarget tracking framework is used to handle the tracking. The target shape is described using a convex hull represented by its vertices and a Delaunay triangulation. The point target PMHT is modified to develop an extended target PMHT (ET‐PMHT) joint association and filtering by assuming that the face triangulations are separate targets. Face management is incorporated into the algorithm to delete erroneous faces and the algorithm is able to add new faces to refine the shape estimate. The framework can handle self‐occlusion (partial visibility) by associating measurements only to the visible parts of the target. The algorithm's performance is compared with the 3D Gaussian Process under various scenarios, and RMSE of the centre, velocity and IoU metrics are used to quantify the performance. The proposed algorithm is able to outperform the 3D Gaussian Process in the centre RMSE metric by about 40% while achieving an IoU of 0.6 (on average) even when the target is only partially visible.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Radar Sonar & NavigationSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207