| Literature DB >> 26193279 |
Panlong Wu1, Xingxiu Li2, Jianshou Kong3, Jiale Liu4.
Abstract
To solve the problem of tracking maneuvering airborne targets in the presence of clutter, an improved interacting multiple model probability data association algorithm (IMMPDA-MDCM) using radar/IR sensors fusion is proposed. Under the architecture of the proposed algorithm, the radar/IR centralized fusion tracking scheme of IMMPDA-MDCM is designed to guarantee the observability of the target state. The interacting multiple model (IMM) deals with the model switching. The modified debiased converted measurement (MDCM) filter accounts for non-linearity in the dynamic system models, and reduces the effect of measurement noise on the covariance effectively. The probability data association (PDA) handles data association and measurement uncertainties in clutter. The simulation results show that the proposed algorithm can improve the tracking precision for maneuvering target in clutters, and has higher tracking precision than the traditional IMMPDA based on EKF and IMMPDA based on DCM algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: centralized fusion; debiased converted measurement; interacting multiple model; probability data association; target tracking
Year: 2015 PMID: 26193279 PMCID: PMC4541938 DOI: 10.3390/s150717350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Geometry measuring relationship between target and radar/IR platform.
Figure 2Centralized fusion tracking architecture with radar and IR sensors.
Figure 3Trajectory of target.
Figure 4The comparison of azimuth.
Figure 5The comparison of elevation.
Standard deviation comparison.
| Before Time Alignment | After Time Alignment | Fusion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radar | IR | Radar | IR | ||
| Azimuth (rad) | 0.02 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.0026 | 0.0026 |
| Elevation (rad) | 0.02 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.0026 | 0.0026 |
The RMSE and runtime comparison of three different algorithms.
| IMMPDA-EKF | 13.368 | 24.379 | 25.476 | 4.735 |
| IMMPDA-DCM | 12.911 | 21.803 | 16.965 | 0.767 |
| IMMPDA-MDCM | 8.891 | 13.205 | 12.203 | 1.396 |
Figure 6The comparison of position error in x direction.
Figure 7The comparison of position error in y direction.
Figure 8The comparison of position error in z direction.