Comparison of track-to-track fusion algorithms using video sensors on multiple unmanned aerial vehicles

Surveillance and ground target tracking using multiple electro-optical and infrared video sensors onboard unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has drawn a great deal of interest in recent years. We compare a number of track-to-track fusion algorithms using a single target with the nearly constant velocity dynamic model and two UAVs. A local tracker is associated with each UAV and processes video measurements to produce local tracks. The video measurement is the centroid pixel location in the digital image corresponding to the target positions on the ground. In order to handle arbitrary height variations, we use the perspective transformation for the video measurement model. In addition, the video measurement model also includes radial and tangential lens distortions, scale, and offset. Since the video measurement model is a nonlinear function of the target position, the tracking filter uses a nonlinear filtering algorithm. A fusion center fuses track data received from two local trackers. The track-to-track fusion algorithms employed by the fusion center include the simple convex combination fusion, Bhattacharya fusion, Bar-Shalom-Campo fusion, and extended information filter based fusion algorithms. We compare the fusion accuracy, covariance consistency, bias in the fused estimate, communication load requirements, and scalability. Numerical results are presented using simulated data.

[1]  Hugh Durrant-Whyte,et al.  Data Fusion and Sensor Management: A Decentralized Information-Theoretic Approach , 1995 .

[2]  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.

[3]  David J. Miller,et al.  Feature-aided multiple target tracking in the image plane , 2006, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[4]  K. C. Chang Analytical performance evaluation for autonomous sensor fusion , 2008, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[5]  Y. Bar-Shalom On the track-to-track correlation problem , 1981 .

[6]  H. Opower Multiple view geometry in computer vision , 2002 .

[7]  K. C. Chang,et al.  Distributed fusion using video sensors on multiple unmanned aerial vehicles , 2007, SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications.

[8]  Arthur G. O. Mutambara,et al.  Decentralized Estimation and Control for Multisensor Systems , 2019 .

[9]  Mahendra Mallick,et al.  Differential geometry measures of nonlinearity for the video filtering problem , 2008, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[10]  Jeffrey K. Uhlmann,et al.  Scalable distributed data fusion , 2002, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Fusion. FUSION 2002. (IEEE Cat.No.02EX5997).

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

[12]  Samuel S. Blackman,et al.  Multiple-Target Tracking with Radar Applications , 1986 .

[13]  Yakov Bar-Shalom,et al.  Multitarget-Multisensor Tracking: Principles and Techniques , 1995 .

[14]  Thiagalingam Kirubarajan,et al.  Performance limits of track-to-track fusion versus centralized estimation: theory and application [sensor fusion] , 2003 .

[15]  T. Kirubarajan,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Multi-platform Distributed Data Fusion Methods for Multi-target Tracking , 2007, 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[16]  Pablo O. Arambel,et al.  Multiple-hypothesis tracking of multiple ground targets from aerial video with dynamic sensor control , 2004, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[17]  X. R. Li,et al.  ESTIMATOR'S CREDIBILITY AND ITS MEASURES , 2002 .

[18]  Huimin Chen,et al.  Track Fusion with Legacy Track Sources , 2006, 2006 9th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[19]  Thia Kirubarajan,et al.  Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation: Theory, Algorithms and Software , 2001 .

[20]  Supun Samarasekera,et al.  Aerial video surveillance and exploitation , 2001, Proc. IEEE.