Detection, Classification and Tracking - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Detection, Classification and Tracking

Description:

Detection, Classification and Tracking of Targets in Distributed Sensor Networks Dan Li, Kerry Wong, Yu. H. Hu, and Akbar M. Sayeed Presented by: Prabal Dutta – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:49
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: Prabal2
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Detection, Classification and Tracking


1
Detection, Classification and Tracking of Targets
in Distributed Sensor Networks
Dan Li, Kerry Wong, Yu. H. Hu, and Akbar M. Sayeed
Presented by Prabal Dutta prabal_at_eecs
2
Outline of the Talk
  • Introduction
  • Signal Processing Primitives
  • Tracking
  • Target Classification
  • Issues and Challenges
  • Future Research
  • Conclusions
  • Remarks
  • Discussion

3
Introduction
  • This paper
  • Outlines a framework for Collaborative Signal
    Processing (CSP) in WSN
  • Proposes detection and tracking algorithms
  • Implements and validates classification
    algorithms
  • Argues that CSP can address challenges with
    classification and tracking
  • Suggests CSP algorithms can benefit from
  • Distributive processing compute and transmit
    summary statistics
  • Goal-oriented, on-demand processing Only perform
    signal processing when a query is present
  • Information fusion The farther I am, the fewer
    details I need to know
  • Multi-resolution processing Different tasks
    require different rates of sampling in space-time

4
Signal Processing Primitives
  • Detection
  • Computes running average of signal power over
    some window
  • Assumes noise is Gaussian
  • Calculates a CFAR threshold based on mean and
    variance
  • Event occurs when signal gt CFAR threshold

5
Signal Processing Primitives (2)
  • Target Localization
  • Assumes isotropic, constant exponent signal
    attenuation model
  • Uses energy-based source localization techniques
  • Given 4 or more energy readings, uses non-linear
    least squares to find best fit (target location
    that minimizes error)
  • Observation Implicitly assumes calibrated and
    localized sensors

6
Tracking of a Single Target
  • Assumes a target enters through one of the
    corners
  • Active cells A, B, C, D
  • Uses energy to detect
  • Algorithm
  • Nodes in cell detect target and report to manager
  • Manager estimates current target location
  • Manager predicts future position of target
  • Manager creates and initializes new cells
  • Manager hands off once the target is detected in
    a new cell

7
Tracking of Multiple Targets
  • In the simple case
  • Targets occupy distinct space-time cells
  • Multiple instances of algorithm can be used in
    parallel
  • In general case
  • Multiple tracks may cross (simultaneously occupy
    the same space-time cell)
  • Data association (which track to associate data
    with?)
  • Classification is required to disentangle tracks
  • Observation Depending on what the tracks are
    used for, and whether it is permissible to
    discard old state, classification may not be
    required at all.

8
Target Classification
  • Focuses on classification at a single node
  • Uses acoustic and seismic spectra of wheeled and
    tracked targets as feature vectors
  • Extracts feature vectors from time series data
    using FFT
  • Elements of the feature vectors are the Fourier
    coefficients (corresponding to the signal power
    at that frequency)
  • Acoustic Down-sampled to fs 5kHz, 1000 point
    FFT, only used 0-1kHz BW, then compressed by 4x
    and 10x to obtain 50 and 20 element feature
    vectors
  • Seismic fs 256Hz, 256 point FFT using 64
    samples and zero padded data segments

9
Target Classification (2) Acoustic PSD
  • Power Spectral Density plots of different targets
    by the same sensor instances
  • Note the obvious differences in the prototype
    signatures, allowing clean separations

10
Target Classification (3) Seismic PSD
  • Power Spectral Density plots of the same target
    by different sensor instances
  • Note the signature differences in 5a and 5c
  • What explains these differences?

11
Target Classification (4) Algorithms and
Validation
  • Three classification algorithms were tested
  • k-Nearest Neighbor
  • Maximum Likelihood Classifier
  • Support Vector Machine
  • Details of the classifiers not discussed here
  • To cross-validate the performance of the
    classifiers
  • Available data divided into three sets F1, F2,
    F3
  • Take two sets at a time for training and one for
    testing
  • Experiment A Training F1F2 training Testing
    F3
  • Experiment B Training F2F3 training Testing
    F1
  • Experiment C Training F1F3 training Testing
    F2

12
Target Classification (5) Acoustic Performance
  • SVM demonstrates best performance
  • K-NN demonstrates next best performance
  • ML demonstrates poorest performance

13
Target Classification (6) Seismic Performance
  • SVM demonstrates best performance
  • K-NN demonstrates next best performance
  • ML demonstrates particularly poor performance for
    Wheeled Targets (77.6 correct classification
    rate)

14
Issues and Challenges
  • Collaborative Signal Processing faces many
    real-world hurdles
  • Uncertainty in temporal and spatial measurements
  • Depends on accuracy of time synchronization
  • Depends on accuracy of network node localization
  • Variability in experimental conditions
  • Classifications assumes that target signatures
    are relatively invariant
  • Node locations and orientations may results in
    signature variations
  • Environmental factors may alter signals
  • These nuisance parameters and be included in a
    higher dimension feature vectors at cost of
    increased processing

15
Issues and Challenges (2) - Doppler Effects
  • Perceived frequency is a function of radial
    velocity from source to sensor
  • Radial velocity changes as a target passes by
  • Observation higher frequencies show greater
    absolute changes in frequency

16
Future Research
  • Key directions
  • Move toward more collaborative algorithms
  • Extend feature space to higher dimensions
  • Intra-sensor collaboration modal fusion
  • Combine information from multiple sensors in
    single node
  • Inter-sensor collaboration centralized
    processing
  • Report raw time series data or statistics to a
    central node
  • Doppler-based composite hypothesis testing
  • Incorporate target velocity, CPA distance, and
    angle between secant and radius (vertex is
    targets position)

17
Conclusions
  • Outlined a framework for Collaborative Signal
    Processing in Wireless Sensor Networks
  • Proposed detection and tracking algorithms
  • Implemented and validated classification
    algorithms
  • Discovered that signal or sensor variation can
    cause problems with classification and tracking
  • Suggested that CSP can address some of these
    challenges

18
Remarks
  • No simulations or empirical evidence supporting
    single or multiple target tracking
  • Target models not provided and cell shape and
    creation strategy unclear
  • Target tracking algorithm is purely conceptual
  • Target tracking is simply the motivating scenario
    for studying classification
  • Since multi-target tracking with crossing tracks
    is the motivating scenario, classifier
    performance for superimposed signatures would be
    a good idea
  • Only tracking uses CSP
  • Max signal does not always occur at CPA
  • Interesting mix of position and results paper

19
Discussion
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com