A Hierarchical Multiple Target Tracking Algorithm for Sensor Networks Songhwai Oh and Shankar Sastry EECS, Berkeley Nest Retreat, Jan. 2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discussion for SAMSI Tracking session, 8 th September 2008 Simon Godsill Signal Processing and Communications Lab. University of Cambridge www-sigproc.eng.cam.ac.uk/~sjg.
Advertisements

IEEE CDC Nassau, Bahamas, December Integration of shape constraints in data association filters Integration of shape constraints in data.
Bayesian Belief Propagation
Motivating Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Multiple Target Tracking
1 University of Southern California Keep the Adversary Guessing: Agent Security by Policy Randomization Praveen Paruchuri University of Southern California.
CLUSTERING IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS B Y K ALYAN S ASIDHAR.
A Survey on Tracking Methods for a Wireless Sensor Network Taylor Flagg, Beau Hollis & Francisco J. Garcia-Ascanio.
Gossip Scheduling for Periodic Streams in Ad-hoc WSNs Ercan Ucan, Nathanael Thompson, Indranil Gupta Department of Computer Science University of Illinois.
Monday, June 01, 2015 ARRIVE: Algorithm for Robust Routing in Volatile Environments 1 NEST Retreat, Lake Tahoe, June
PHD Approach for Multi-target Tracking
System-level Calibration for Fusion- based Wireless Sensor Networks Rui Tan 1 Guoliang Xing 1 Zhaohui Yuan 2 Xue Liu 3 Jianguo Yao 4 1 Michigan State University,
Decentralized Data Fusion and Control in Active Sensor Networks Alexei Makarenko, Hugh Durrant-Whyte Christian Potthast.
1 Maximizing Lifetime of Sensor Surveillance Systems IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING Authors: Hai Liu, Xiaohua Jia, Peng-Jun Wan, Chih- Wei Yi, S.
A Beacon-Less Location Discovery Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks Lei Fang (Syracuse) Wenliang (Kevin) Du (Syracuse) Peng Ning (North Carolina State)
Particle Filters Pieter Abbeel UC Berkeley EECS Many slides adapted from Thrun, Burgard and Fox, Probabilistic Robotics TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read.
Adaptive Rao-Blackwellized Particle Filter and It’s Evaluation for Tracking in Surveillance Xinyu Xu and Baoxin Li, Senior Member, IEEE.
Chess Review May 11, 2005 Berkeley, CA Tracking Multiple Objects using Sensor Networks and Camera Networks Songhwai Oh EECS, UC Berkeley
Tracking Moving Objects in Anonymized Trajectories Nikolay Vyahhi 1, Spiridon Bakiras 2, Panos Kalnis 3, and Gabriel Ghinita 3 1 St. Petersburg State University.
LPT for Data Aggregation in Wireless Sensor networks Marc Lee and Vincent W.S Wong Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British.
Dr. Shankar Sastry, Chair Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences University of California, Berkeley.
May 11, 2005 Tracking on a Graph Songhwai Oh Shankar Sastry Target trajectoriesEstimated tracks Tracking in Sensor Networks Target tracking is a representative.
Tracking a maneuvering object in a noisy environment using IMMPDAF By: Igor Tolchinsky Alexander Levin Supervisor: Daniel Sigalov Spring 2006.
Jana van Greunen - 228a1 Analysis of Localization Algorithms for Sensor Networks Jana van Greunen.
Computer vision: models, learning and inference Chapter 10 Graphical Models.
Bayesian Filtering for Location Estimation D. Fox, J. Hightower, L. Liao, D. Schulz, and G. Borriello Presented by: Honggang Zhang.
Nov : Review MeetingACCLIMATE Instrumenting Wireless Sensor Networks for Real-Time Surveillance Songhwai Oh Advisor: Shankar Sastry EECS UC Berkeley.
Dynamic Clustering for Acoustic Target Tracking in Wireless Sensor Network Wei-Peng Chen, Jennifer C. Hou, Lui Sha Presented by Ray Lam Oct 23, 2004.
Yi Wang, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Qing Zhao, and Murali Annavaram 1 The Tradeoff between Energy Efficiency and User State Estimation Accuracy in Mobile.
Sensor Networks Storage Sanket Totala Sudarshan Jagannathan.
Optimal Placement and Selection of Camera Network Nodes for Target Localization A. O. Ercan, D. B. Yang, A. El Gamal and L. J. Guibas Stanford University.
Data Selection In Ad-Hoc Wireless Sensor Networks Olawoye Oyeyele 11/24/2003.
Decentralised Coordination of Mobile Sensors School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Ruben Stranders,
Information Quality Aware Routing in Event-Driven Sensor Networks Hwee-Xian TAN 1, Mun Choon CHAN 1, Wendong XIAO 2, Peng-Yong KONG 2 and Chen-Khong THAM.
Particle Filtering in Network Tomography
Distributed Asynchronous Bellman-Ford Algorithm
Sensor Positioning in Wireless Ad-hoc Sensor Networks Using Multidimensional Scaling Xiang Ji and Hongyuan Zha Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering,
1 Sequential Acoustic Energy Based Source Localization Using Particle Filter in a Distributed Sensor Network Xiaohong Sheng, Yu-Hen Hu University of Wisconsin.
Markov Localization & Bayes Filtering
Dynamic Clustering for Acoustic Target Tracking in Wireless Sensor Network Wei-Peng Chen, Jennifer C. Hou, Lui Sha.
Wei Gao1 and Qinghua Li2 1The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Course Project Intro IMM-JPDAF Multiple-Target Tracking Algorithm: Description and Performance Testing By Melita Tasic 3/5/2001.
From Bayesian Filtering to Particle Filters Dieter Fox University of Washington Joint work with W. Burgard, F. Dellaert, C. Kwok, S. Thrun.
Tracking with Unreliable Node Sequences Ziguo Zhong, Ting Zhu, Dan Wang and Tian He Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota Infocom 2009.
Young Ki Baik, Computer Vision Lab.
Forward-Scan Sonar Tomographic Reconstruction PHD Filter Multiple Target Tracking Bayesian Multiple Target Tracking in Forward Scan Sonar.
MURI: Integrated Fusion, Performance Prediction, and Sensor Management for Automatic Target Exploitation 1 Dynamic Sensor Resource Management for ATE MURI.
Energy-Efficient Signal Processing and Communication Algorithms for Scalable Distributed Fusion.
Detection, Classification and Tracking in a Distributed Wireless Sensor Network Presenter: Hui Cao.
Approximate Dynamic Programming Methods for Resource Constrained Sensor Management John W. Fisher III, Jason L. Williams and Alan S. Willsky MIT CSAIL.
Mobile Agent Migration Problem Yingyue Xu. Energy efficiency requirement of sensor networks Mobile agent computing paradigm Data fusion, distributed processing.
A Passive Approach to Sensor Network Localization Rahul Biswas and Sebastian Thrun International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 2004 Presented.
Stable Multi-Target Tracking in Real-Time Surveillance Video
Distributed Algorithms for Multi-Robot Observation of Multiple Moving Targets Lynne E. Parker Autonomous Robots, 2002 Yousuf Ahmad Distributed Information.
MMAC: A Mobility- Adaptive, Collision-Free MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks Muneeb Ali, Tashfeen Suleman, and Zartash Afzal Uzmi IEEE Performance,
University “Ss. Cyril and Methodus” SKOPJE Cluster-based MDS Algorithm for Nodes Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks Ass. Biljana Stojkoska.
Boosted Particle Filter: Multitarget Detection and Tracking Fayin Li.
Performance of Adaptive Beam Nulling in Multihop Ad Hoc Networks Under Jamming Suman Bhunia, Vahid Behzadan, Paulo Alexandre Regis, Shamik Sengupta.
Energy-Efficient Signal Processing and Communication Algorithms for Scalable Distributed Fusion.
Smart Sleeping Policies for Wireless Sensor Networks Venu Veeravalli ECE Department & Coordinated Science Lab University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Overview Objective Track an unknown number of targets using a wireless sensor network of binary sensors for real-time surveillance Issues Real-time operation.
An Energy-Efficient Approach for Real-Time Tracking of Moving Objects in Multi-Level Sensor Networks Vincent S. Tseng, Eric H. C. Lu, & Kawuu W. Lin Institute.
1 Travel Times from Mobile Sensors Ram Rajagopal, Raffi Sevlian and Pravin Varaiya University of California, Berkeley Singapore Road Traffic Control TexPoint.
On Mobile Sink Node for Target Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks Thanh Hai Trinh and Hee Yong Youn Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops(PerComW'07)
Bayesian Hierarchical Clustering Paper by K. Heller and Z. Ghahramani ICML 2005 Presented by David Williams Paper Discussion Group ( )
CMPS 142/242 Review Section Fall 2011 Adapted from Lecture Slides.
Wireless Sensor Network Architectures
estimated tracklet partition
Infer: A Bayesian Inference Approach towards Energy Efficient Data Collection in Dense Sensor Networks. G. Hartl and B.Li In Proc. of ICDCS Natalia.
Overview: Chapter 2 Localization and Tracking
Information Sciences and Systems Lab
Presentation transcript:

A Hierarchical Multiple Target Tracking Algorithm for Sensor Networks Songhwai Oh and Shankar Sastry EECS, Berkeley Nest Retreat, Jan. 2004

Outline  Survey of Multiple Target Tracking Algorithms  Tracking Multiple Objects in Sensor Networks  Sensor Network Model  Algorithm Overview  Some Simulation Results

Multiple Target Tracking (MTT)  Applications  Surveillance, computer vision, signal processing, etc.  General setup (Sittler, 1964)  A varying number of indistinguishable targets  Arise at random in space and time  Move with continuous motions  Persist for a random length of time and disappear  Positions of targets are sampled at random intervals  Measurements are noisy and  Detection probability < 1.0 (missing observations)  False alarms  Goal: For each target, find its track!!!

MTT Algorithms  Require solutions to  Data association: find a partition of observations such that each element of a partition is a collection of observations generated by a single target or clutter  State estimation: for each time, estimate the position of each target  “Chicken-and-Egg” problem  Existing Algorithms  MHT (Multiple Hypothesis Tracker)  JPDAF (Joint Probabilistic Data Association Filter)  MTMR, PMHT, etc.

MHT (Multiple Hypothesis Tracker) (1) t=1 t=2 t=3 … …… Search for a hypothesis with the highest likelihood

MHT (2)  Pros  Track unknown number of targets  Track initiation and termination  Optimal (?)  Cons  Exponential complexity  Heuristics:  Gating, Pruning, N-scan-back, clustering  Can deteriorate performance under dense environment or low detection probability  Running time and memory requirement not known in advance

JPDAF (Joint Probabilistic Data Association Filter)  A fixed number of targets  At each time, weight the latest observations (y1,y2) with all known tracks (t1,t2). E.g. P(y1|t1) = P(  2|Y)+P(  3|Y)  Track of a target is estimated by weighted sum of conditional expectations. E.g. E(x(t1)) =  E(x(t1)|yi) P(yi|t1)  More efficient than MHT  But JPDAF is suboptimal and  prone to make erroneous associations  number of targets are fixed  can’t initiate or terminate targets fa t1 t2 y1 y2 fa t1 t2 y1 y2 fa t1 t2 y1 y2 fa t1 t2 y1 y2 … P(  1|Y)P(  2|Y)P(  3|Y)P(  4|Y)

Hardness of Data Association  Combinatorial optimization approach (e.g. MHT)  NP-hard  Because the multidimensional assignment problem is NP-hard  Sequential Bayesian approach (e.g. JPDAF)  NP-hard (at each time)  Because finding permanent of 0-1 matrix is #P- complete  So we can’t expect to solve a data association problem only with local information

MTT in Sensor Networks (Requirements)  Autonomous  Unknown number of targets  Track initiation and termination  Can’t use JPDAF, MTMR, PMHT  Low computation and memory usages  Can ’ t use MHT  Robust against  transmission failures  communication delays  Scalable  Low communication load

MTT in Sensor Networks (Our Approach)  Autonomous  Low computation and memory usages  Robust against failures and delays  Scalable  Low communication load  MCMC data association  Hierarchy  Local data fusion  MCMC data association  Optimization algorithm (stochastic search)  Solution space: constrained partitions of observations  Search for a partition with maximum posterior

Sensor Network Model  (few) Supernodes (e.g. Stargate)  More computational power  Longer communication range  (many) Regular nodes  Form a tracking group around the nearest supernode  Region: 200x200  1600 nodes  4 supernodes  Rt=10, Rs=5

Transmission Failures  Assumption: A transmission failure between a pair of nodes is independent and identically distributed  Transmission failures are detection failures  Transmission failure vs. effective probability of detection  Probability of detection = 1 (at each sensor)

Algorithm Overview (1)

Algorithm Overview (2)  Fuse observations from sensing neighborhood  E.g. weighted sum

Algorithm Overview (3)  Forward fused observations to its supernode  shortest-path routing  Some observations get dropped or delayed

Algorithm Overview (4)  Supernode:  Attach new observations into its observation window Y  Run MCMC data association on Y  Exchange track information with neighboring supernodes

Simulation  Region: 200x200  1600 nodes  4 supernodes  Rt=10, Rs=5

Simulation

Simulation: Transmission Failures  Average Estimation Error  Average Log Posterior

Simulation: Communication Delays  Average Estimation Error  Average Log Posterior

Conclusions  Presented a hierarchical multiple target tracking algorithm for sensor networks, i.e.,  Autonomous  Low memory and computation requirement (predictable running time)  Robust against transmission failures and communication delays  Scalable  Future works:  Merge tracks hierarchically  Find methods to reduce transmission failure rates  Use a better sensor network model  Test on a real sensor network