2007
DOI: 10.1109/taes.2007.4285353
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel data association schemes for the probability hypothesis density filter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
73
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 137 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this application which the clutter rate and detection probability are time-varying, we demonstrated that our bootstrap filter is able to better track the real targets and more reliably avoid false tracks compared to the other RFS filters such as the MM-PHD, MM-CPHD and MM-λ-p D -CPHD as well as other stateof-the-art particle tracking methods such as the IMM-JPDA, MHT, P-Tracker and U-Tracker in both synthetic and real sequences. However, in the applications where the motion of each individual targets is required, the tag propagation scheme may need to be changed to a track management algorithm, e.g., that proposed in [46,47] or more generally, the tracker in the bootstrap filter can be replaced by any multi-target tracker that requires knowledge of false alarm and detection rate and performs reliably in the label assignments. In the RFS concept, a principled solution to the track labeling problem using labeled RFS [39] has been recently proposed which can be also used for this purpose.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this application which the clutter rate and detection probability are time-varying, we demonstrated that our bootstrap filter is able to better track the real targets and more reliably avoid false tracks compared to the other RFS filters such as the MM-PHD, MM-CPHD and MM-λ-p D -CPHD as well as other stateof-the-art particle tracking methods such as the IMM-JPDA, MHT, P-Tracker and U-Tracker in both synthetic and real sequences. However, in the applications where the motion of each individual targets is required, the tag propagation scheme may need to be changed to a track management algorithm, e.g., that proposed in [46,47] or more generally, the tracker in the bootstrap filter can be replaced by any multi-target tracker that requires knowledge of false alarm and detection rate and performs reliably in the label assignments. In the RFS concept, a principled solution to the track labeling problem using labeled RFS [39] has been recently proposed which can be also used for this purpose.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the dynamics of an individual target cannot be evaluated. To deal with this, some authors combine the PHD filter with a track management technique to maintain the identity of tracks [46,47]. To avoid any computational burden due to a track management step, we simply use our tag propagation scheme [16], which only propagates the identity of the intensity distributions for all the PHD and CPHD filters.…”
Section: A Setup and Implementation Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then the peaks are association to target tracks by traditional data association methods, such as PHD/CPHD filtering with MHT [146,147], PHD/CPHD filtering with the connectivity graph and cross entropy (CE) technique [148], CPHD filtering with fuzzy logy [149], 2-D assignment for PHD filtering [150,151] and CPHD filtering [152,153], and PHD/CPHD filtering with graph matching [118,140].…”
Section: ) Target Birth and Spawning Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the PHD approach, methods performing these extra steps have been reported using particle PHD filters [26][27][28] or Gaussian mixture (GM)-PHD filters [29]. Target positions are typically identified by peak-picking the target intensity function being tracked, and the estimated target positions are treated as measurements for the ensuing data association and track recovery tasks.…”
Section: Position Estimation and Track Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%