Capability
Correlation
Correlate before you conclude.
Evidence levelE1Architecture Defined
The functional gap
Two observations that look alike are not yet one object. Joining them too early hides the doubt, and joining them never leaves the operator with two ghosts.
From inputs to outputs
Takes in
- Observations that carry their source and time
- The geometry each source can support
- A test for whether two observations may belong together
Does
Proposes relationships between observations and tests them against time and geometry. A proposed relationship is a candidate, never a conclusion.
Hands on
- Candidate relationships with their grounds
- Observations left unrelated, stated as such
- Input to fusion, with the doubt kept
A worked example
Three steps from a synthetic scenario, in relative terms.
| Step | What is seen | What is stated |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Two observations are close in time | A relationship is proposed |
| 2 | Their geometry cannot both be true | The proposal is withdrawn |
| 3 | A third observation fits one of them | That pair stays a candidate |
| Stage | Value |
|---|---|
| 1 | Observations |
| 2 | Alignment |
| 3 | Candidate link |
| 4 | Supported state |
| 5 | Evidence kept |
Confidence and uncertainty in this function
A relationship carries its own grounds, and those grounds are shown. A weak relationship is shown as weak and is not rounded up.
Evidence and maturity
This page claims nothing above the level of the projects it rests on.
- Airspace Intelligence Core PlatformEvidence level: E1 · Architecture Defined
- Multi-Sensor Fusion EngineEvidence level: E0 · Concept
What this does not claim
- A candidate relationship is not proof that two observations are one object.
- The tests describe the design and state no match rate.
- Correlation prepares fusion; it never replaces it.