Comparison of augmented state track fusion methods for non-full-rate communication

For linear-Gaussian non-deterministic dynamics, that is, systems with non-zero process noise, it is well known that tracklet fusion based on equivalent measurement is optimal only for full communication rate, i.e., if the local posterior probabilities or estimates are communicated and fused after each observation and update time. Despite this constraint, tracklet fusion has become very popular because it performs well in many real world problems even when communication is not at full rate. By including local state estimates at multiple times, augmented state (AS) tracklet fusion computes the optimal global estimate despite this communication constraint. A similar method with this property is distributed accumulated state density (DASD) fusion, which computes decorrelated local pseudo estimates by means of a relaxed evolution model. This paper compares these two methods by examining their underlying principles. Numerical results compare their performance and also with that of a centralized Kalman filter. The results show that they have many properties such as the estimation accuracy in common despite their different derivations.

[1]  Felix Govaers,et al.  Comparison of tracklet fusion and distributed Kalman filter for track fusion , 2014, 17th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION).

[2]  Chee-Yee Chong.  Graphical Models for Nonlinear Distributed Estimation , 2004 .

[3]  Chee-Yee Chong,et al.  Fundamentals of Distributed Estimation , 2017 .

[4]  Felix Govaers,et al.  On decorrelated track-to-track fusion based on Accumulated State Densities , 2014, 17th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION).

[5]  Oliver E. Drummond,et al.  Tracklets and a hybrid fusion with process noise , 1997, Optics & Photonics.

[6]  Yaakov Bar-Shalom,et al.  The Effect of the Common Process Noise on the Two-Sensor Fused-Track Covariance , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[7]  Kuo-Chu Chang,et al.  Architectures and algorithms for track association and fusion , 2000 .

[8]  Yunmin Zhu.  Best Linear Unbiased Estimation Fusion , 1999 .

[9]  Y. Bar-Shalom,et al.  On optimal track-to-track fusion , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[10]  Chee-Yee Chong,et al.  Track association and track fusion with nondeterministic target dynamics , 2002 .

[11]  Alexander Charlish,et al.  An exact solution to track-to-track fusion using accumulated state densities , 2013, 2013 Workshop on Sensor Data Fusion: Trends, Solutions, Applications (SDF).

[12]  Xin Tian,et al.  Exact algorithms for four track-to-track fusion configurations: All you wanted to know but were afraid to ask , 2009, 2009 12th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[13]  S. Mori,et al.  Performance evaluation for MAP state estimate fusion , 2004 .

[14]  Chee-Yee Chong,et al.  Track association using augmented state estimates , 2015, 2015 18th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion).

[15]  Chongzhao Han,et al.  Optimal Linear Estimation Fusion — Part I : Unified Fusion Rules , 2001 .

[16]  Kuo-Chu Chang,et al.  Fundamentals of distributed estimation and tracking , 2012, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[17]  Chongzhao Han,et al.  Optimal linear estimation fusion .I. Unified fusion rules , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[18]  Felix Govaers,et al.  On Accumulated State Densities with applications to out-of-sequence measurement processing , 2009, 2009 12th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[19]  Felix Govaers,et al.  An Exact Solution to Track-to-Track-Fusion at Arbitrary Communication Rates , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.