 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
An efficient multiobjective optimization approach for sensor management via multiBernoulli filtering
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing volume 2022, Article number: 62 (2022)
Abstract
Intelligent sensor management is generally required for efficient and accurate data processing when the multisensor system is used for multitarget tracking (MTT). However, this is theoretically and computationally challenging. To deal with this problem, we propose a novel sensor management approach based on efficient multiobjective optimization for MTT under the framework of partially observed Markov decision process. The multiBernoulli filter is used in conjunction with two objective functions. To simplify the multiobjective optimization problem, we use the Euclidean distance (ED) between the feasible and utopian solution vectors as a measure of the objectives and then sequentially select sensors from the candidates. For the selected sensors, we rank them according to the obtained ED measure and implement the iteratedcorrector fusion scheme after the ranking. Numerical studies demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach in multisensor MTT scenarios.
Introduction
Multitarget tracking (MTT) is one of the most significant and lowlevel techniques in many fields [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], such as military, transportation, industry, agriculture, sports, and health monitoring. For conventional tracking algorithms [8,9,10], MTT is usually regarded as tracking of multiple single targets. Different from those methods, finite set statistics (FISST) [11, 12] develops an unified and statistically topdown framework of multitarget filtering and makes an extensive and profound influence. Within the FISST framework, the set of targets is described as the random finite set (RFS). So far, FISST has inspired a lot of multitarget filters. For example, the probability hypothesis density (PHD) [13] and cardinalized PHD (CPHD) [14] filters were proposed by propagating moment approximations of the multitarget posterior density. The multiBernoulli (MB) [15] filter was developed by modeling the multitarget posterior density as MB RFSs. Examples of FISSTbased algorithms also include generalized labeled MB (GLMB) [16], labeled MB (LMB) [17], and multiscan GLMB [18] filters. These methods have been widely used in different MTT applications and provided good performances.
With the development of science and technique, the tracking system with multiple sensors has attracted lots of attention in recent years. Compared with the singlesensor system, the multisensor system produces much more accurate estimation by using the spatial diversity. There are three major multisensor system architectures, namely centralized [19,20,21], distributed [22,23,24,25], and decentralized [26, 27]. However, the multisensor MTT problem is challenging. On one hand, multisensor fusion is difficult because of the data association uncertainty. On the other hand, sensor management is usually necessary to collect effective measurements generated by targets and meet the communication constraints. In practical multitarget systems, there are false and miss detections. In addition, states of targets are unknown and random. These factors further increase the difficulty of sensor management.
The multitarget sensor management problem mentioned above can be solved within the FISST framework which provides a systematic manner to describe the uncertainty using multitarget probability density functions. Sensor management can be modeled as a partially observed Markov decision process (POMDP) problem [12, 28,29,30]. Many objective functions have been proposed within the POMDPs, mainly including informationdriven and taskdriven measures. The informationdriven objective function quantifies the information gain obtained by the multitarget density after applying a candidate sensor management command. For example, Ristic et al. [31] proposed to use the Rényi divergence with the Bayesian multitarget filter for controlling a moving rangeonly sensor. Aiming at the sensor control problem, the Rényi divergence was also used with the PHD filter [32] and the MB filter [33]. In these methods, the Rényi divergence has no analytic closedform expression, resulting in heavy computing burden. In [34], Cai et al. presented an analytical solution for the Rényi divergence of LMB RFSs by expressing the target density as a single Gaussian component. The Cauchy–Schwarz (CS) divergence [35] provides another information divergence measure. Gostar et al. [36] proposed a closedform formula for the CS divergence of LMB RFSs and used it in solving the constrained sensor control problem. Beard et al. [37] proposed an analytical formula for the CS divergence of GLMB RFSs and demonstrated its performance in planning a sensor trajectory. Compared with the informationdriven objective function, the taskdriven objective function has a more direct physical meaning. In [33], Hoang et al. used the cardinality variance to define a cost function enabling an efficient sensor management. The cost function in [38] was designed as the quantitative measure of the multitarget estimation error metric. Gostar et al. [39] proposed to minimize the cardinality variance and the uncertainty within target state estimation though weight aggregation. Our recent work [40] developed the objective functions based on the different properties of tracks and demonstrated performances of the proposed objective functions using challenging MTT scenarios.
The main focus of these sensor management methods is the designing of the objective function. Whatever the objective function is, sensor management based on POMDP is in essence a global optimization problem. When it terms to the multisensor selection problem, the exhaustive search method is straightforward. This method first estimates the objective function for each sensor selection command and then searches for the optimal solution from all feasible solutions. When the number of candidate sensors is large, the exhaustive search method suffers from heavy computation burden (except only one sensor is selected). To reduce the computation burden, Ma et al. [41] proposed a spatial nonmaximum suppression method but needs a tuning parameter. Another approach was developed in [42] for multisensor control but cannot be applied to solve the sensor selection problem. Recently, we proposed a decomposed POMDP optimization approach based on the CS divergence for efficient multisensor selection [43]. The approach can effectively reduce the computation burden and achieved satisfactory performance. However, we only consider the optimization of a singleobjective function and it is unclear how to use it to solve the multiobjective optimization (MOO) problems.
This paper studies the MOObased multisensor selection problem for MTT within the POMDP framework. The major contribution of this paper is an efficient MOO approach for multisensor selection via MB filtering. To simplify the MOO problem, we use the Euclidean distance (ED) between the feasible solution vector and the utopian solution vector as a measure of the objectives. Instead of implementing the global combinatorial optimization, we reduce the computational complexity by sequentially selecting sensors from the candidates based on the ED measure. For the selected sensors, they send the collected measurements to the fusion center and the iteratedcorrector (IC) scheme is adopted for centralized fusion. The IC scheme has simple practical implementation and has been widely used. However, the different order of sensor updates affects the result of the IC fusion. If the detection ability of the last sensor is low, the overall performance of the filter degrades. To deal with this, we first rank the selected sensors based on the obtained ED since it can reflect the detection ability of the sensor. Then, the IC update is applied in order of the ranking. Simulation results obtained from challenging MTT scenarios demonstrate that the proposed method works significantly faster than the exhaustive search scheme and provides similar tracking accuracy in terms of the optimal subpattern assignment (OSPA) error.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we briefly introduce the POMDP framework, the multitarget Bayes filter, and the MB filter. In Sect. 3, the objective functions, the efficient MOO, and the detailed implementation of the proposed approach are presented. Section 4 presents numerical studies. In Sect. 5, we derive conclusions of the paper.
Background
Partially observable Markov decision process
For MTT in multisensor systems, sensor selection is generally required to collect effective measurements generated by targets and meet the communication constraints. This problem is challenging because the selection commands is made before the current multitarget state is observed. The POMDP framework [12] provides a statistically unified solution to such problems. At time k, the POMDP problem is modeled as
where \(X_{k}\) is the multitarget state, \({\mathbb {S}}\) denotes the set of sensor selection commands, \(f_{kk1}(X_{k}X_{k1})\) is the multitarget transition function from \(X_{k1}\) to \(X_{k}\), \(g_{k}(Z_{k}X_{k})\) is the multitarget likelihood, and \(\vartheta (A_{k})\) is the objective function measuring a cost or reward when the sensor selection command \(A_{k}\) is applied.
The objective function is an important criterion to determine the performance of sensor selection. Sensor selection can be regarded as a combinatorial optimization problem finding the optimal combination of sensors that minimizes of maximizes the objective function, as follows:
Note that the myopic policy with the multitarget state transiting from \(X_{k1}\) to \(X_{k}\) is considered, whereas the POMDP can solve pstep future decision problems.
Multitarget Bayes filter
An RFS is a finitesetvalued random variable that the set cardinality is random and each element in the set is also random. At time k, we assume that the target states are \(x_{k,1},x_{k,2},\ldots ,x_{k,N_{k}}\) and the measurements are \(z_{k,1},z_{k,2},\ldots ,z_{k,M_{k}}\), where \(N_{k}\) and \(M_{k}\) denote the number of targets and the number of measurements, respectively. In the RFS approach, the finite sets of targets and measurements are denoted as the multitarget state \(X_{k}\) and multitarget measurement \(Z_{k}\), respectively
where \({\mathcal {F}}({\mathcal {X}})\) and \({\mathcal {F}}({\mathcal {Z}})\) denote the multitarget state space and multitarget measurement space, respectively. Based on the RFS assumptions, recursion of the multitarget state is modeled as the following Bayes filtering problem.
At time k, \(\mathbf {\pi }_{k}(X_{k}Z_{1:k})\) is used to denote the multitarget density with \(Z_{1:k}=(Z_{1},\ldots ,Z_{k})\). The multitarget Bayes filter propagates \(\mathbf {\pi }_{k}(X_{k}Z_{1:k})\) using the following formulas
where the integrals in Eqs. (5), (6) are set integrals. The set integral for a multitarget density function f(Y) is defined as
The set integral has no analytic solution and the multitarget Bayes filter is computationally expensive. Therefore, several RFSbased filters have been proposed as its approximations.
MultiBernoulli filter
The MB filter is an approximation of the multitarget Bayes filter. For a Bernoulli RFS X on \({\mathcal {X}}\), it either contains a single element distributed with the probability density p or is an empty set. Assuming that the probability of being a singleton is r, the probability density of the Bernoulli RFS X is
The MB RFS containing M independent components is defined as \(X=\cup _{i=1}^{M}X^{(i)}\). If the probability of existence and the probability density for \(X^{(i)}\) are \(r^{(i)}\) and \(p^{(i)},\) respectively, the probability density \(\pi\) of the MB RFS is
where \(\pi (\emptyset )=\prod _{j=i}^{M}\left(1r^{(j)}\right)\) denotes the probability that all components are empty. For simplicity, the MB RFS is denoted as \(\pi = \left\{ {\left( {r^{{(i)}} ,p^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{M}\).
If the multitarget density at time \(k1\) is described as an MB RFS \(\pi _{{k  1}} = \left\{ {\left( {r_{{k  1}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{k  1}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{k  1}} }}\), the predicted multitarget density at time k obtained by the MB filter is also an MB RFS and is given as
where \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{{p,kk  1}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{p,kk  1}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{k  1}} }}\) and \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{{\Gamma ,k}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{\Gamma ,k}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{\Gamma ,k}} }}\) denote the MB RFS for the surviving and birth targets, respectively. Parameters of \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{{p,kk  1}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{p,kk  1}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{k  1}} }}\) are computed as follows
where \(f_{kk1}(x\cdot )\) is the singletarget transition density, \(p_{S,k}\) is the survival probability, and \(\left\langle f,g\right\rangle \triangleq \int f(x)g(x)dx\) is the standard inner product notation.
If the predicted density is an MB RFS \(\pi _{{kk  1}} = \left\{ {\left( {r_{{kk  1}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{kk  1}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{kk  1}} }}\), the posterior density at time k can also be described as an MB RFS
where \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{{L,k}}^{{(i)}} ,p_{{L,k}}^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{{M_{{kk  1}} }}\) and \(\{(r_{U,k}(z),p_{U,k}(\cdot ;z))\}\) are the MB RFSs for the legacy tracks and the measurementupdated tracks, respectively. Parameters of the posterior density \(\pi _{k}\) are computed as follows
where \(p_{D,k}(x)\) is the detection probability, \(g_{k}(\cdot x)\) is the singletarget likelihood function, and \(\kappa _{k}(\cdot )\) is the clutter intensity.
Methods
Objective functions
The posterior multitarget density (15) of the MB filter consists of legacy and measurementupdated tracks which have different theoretical and physical meanings. In our work [40], it is proved that considering these two kinds of tracks separately enables an effective sensor management strategy. Therefore, the objective functions used in the proposed POMDP model are as follows [40],
where \(Z_k(A_{k})\) denotes the set of measurements obtained from \(A_{k}\), and \(\sigma _{L,kk}^{2}(A_{k})\) and \(N_{U,kk}(A_{k})\) are the cardinality variance of legacy tracks and the mean cardinality of measurementupdated tracks, respectively. When \(\sigma _{L,kk}^{2}(A_{k})\) is used as the cost function, sensor management aims at reducing the uncertainty for the number of legacy tracks, whereas if we use \(N_{U,kk}(A_{k})\) as the reward function, sensor management aims to maximize the number of detected targets.
Efficient multiobjective optimization
Although the objective functions (21) and (22) are considered simultaneously in [40], only one sensor is selected at each time step, which makes the problem simple. In this paper, we consider a more general problem and study the selection of multiple sensors. At time k, the MOObased sensor management is described mathematically as
where \(\vartheta {}_{1}(A_{k})=N_{U,kk}(A_{k})\), \(\vartheta {}_{2}(A_{k})=\sigma _{L,kk}^{2}(A_{k})\), and \(F(A_{k})\) is the objective vector. Note that computation of the multitarget posterior density and the objective function depends on the future measurement set. However, this is unpractical because the true measurements kept unknown before applying the sensor management command. In theory, it is necessary to use all possible measurement sets to compute objective functions, requiring a large amount of computation. We use the predicted ideal measurement set (PIMS) approach proposed in [44] to reduce the computing load. In (23), we negate \(N_{U,kk}(A_{k})\) and translate its maximization into minimization to formulate a general optimization. Finding the global optimum of (23) is NPhard. To reduce the computation burden, we propose a novel efficient MOO approach for sensor management. At each time step, we assume that P sensors are selected from the complete set. Motivated by the decomposed POMDP approach proposed in [43], the MOO problem is decomposed into a set of simple MOO subproblems for individual sensors to avoid the global combinatorial optimization. Instead of searching for the global optimal solution, sensors are selected sequentially from candidates. The mathematical description of the decomposed MOO problem is described as follows:
and
where \(A_{k}^{(j)*}\) is the jth selected sensor, \(A_{k}^{*}\) is the resulting selection command, and \({{\mathbb {S}}}\) is the set of remaining sensors.
To solve (24), a conventional approach is to convert the MOO into the singleobjective optimization by weighting objective functions. This approach has major drawbacks. For example, it is required to estimate the importance of each objective function. We take a simple strategy and use the ED between the feasible solution vector and the utopian solution vector as a measure of the objectives. The utopia solution vector of the multiobjective problem is defined as
where \(\vartheta _{1}^{*}\) and \(\vartheta _{2}^{*}\) are the minima of objectives \(\vartheta _{1} \left( {A_{k}^{{(j)}} } \right)\) and \(\vartheta _{2} \left( {A_{k}^{{(j)}} } \right)\), respectively. The ED of a feasible solution vector \(F\left( {A_{k}^{{(j)}} } \right) = \left[ {\vartheta _{1} \left( {A_{k}^{{(j)}} } \right),\vartheta _{2} \left( {A_{k}^{{(j)}} } \right)} \right]^{{\text{T}}}\) from the utopia solution vector can be determined as follows
If the ED between a feasible solution vector and the utopia solution vector is smaller, then the solution is more preferable for a decision maker. Therefore, the solution for the MOO problem is given by
Assuming that there are ten candidate sensors in the multisensor system and three sensors are selected, an illustrative example of the proposed decomposed MOO approach is shown in Fig. 1, where \(F^{j}\) is the objective vector of the candidate sensor j and \(j=1,2,\ldots ,10\). In this illustration, it is straightforward that sensor 3, sensor 6, and sensor 9 will be selected using (28).
Implementation
The IC scheme is used for data fusion of the selected sensors. Although the IC approach has no rigorous mathematical derivation, it is easy to implement and has been widely used. Algorithms 1 shows the pseudocodes of the multisensor MB filter with the IC fusion scheme.
When the detection performances of the sensors are different, the result of the IC scheme is influenced by the order of the sensor updates. If the detection ability of the last sensor is low, the overall performance of the filter degrades. A solution to this problem is to rank the sensors according to their ability to detect the target and then implement the IC fusion based on the ranking result [43]. In this paper, sensors are ranked according to ED obtained in (27), as follows
where \(d_{\text {Euc}} [A_{k},F^{*}]=\left\{d_{\text {Euc}} \left[F\left(A_{k}^{(j)}\right),F^{*}\right],\ldots ,d_{\text {Euc}} \left[F\left(A_{k}^{(j)}\right),F^{*}\right]\right\}\) and the operator \(\text {sort}\{Y,\text {'descend'}\}\) indicates sorting the elements of vector Y from largest to smallest and obtaining the sort index. Using this method, the ranking of the selected sensors in Fig. 1 is: sensor 9, sensor 6, and sensor 3.
An overall schematic diagram of the proposed MB MTT with sensor management is illustrated in Fig. 2. To deal with the nonlinear target dynamics and measurement model, the MB filter is implemented using the sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) method. At time k, the probability density \(p_{k}^{i}\) for the ith Bernoulli component is approximated as follows
where \(L_{k}^{(i)}\) is the number of particles, \(\delta _{a}(x)\) is the Dirac delta function, and \(w^{(i,j)}\) is the normalized weight corresponding to the jth particle. To improve the computational efficiency, the Bernoulli components whose existence probabilities below the threshold T are pruned. Besides, the number of particles for the remaining component is limited to the maximum \(L_{\text {max}}\) and minimum \(L_{\text {min}}\). Refer to [15] for a detailed SMC implementation of the MB filter.
Results and discussion
In this section, the performance of the proposed efficient MOO with improved IC (EMOIIC) method is demonstrated using two challenging multisensor MTT scenarios. There is one transmitter and ten receivers located in the surveillance area, and the structure of the multisensor system is the same as that in [40, 43, 45]. The sampling interval is fixed to \(T_s=10\) s. The detection probability of a receiver j located at \(r^{j}\) for a target with position p is modeled as follows:
where \(\left\ r^{j}p\right\\) denotes the distance between receiver j and the target, \({\mathfrak {h}}=1e4\), and \(R_{0}=5000\) m. The detection probability decreases rapidly as \(\left\ r^{j}p\right\\) increases.
For targets being tracked, a nearly constant turn model is considered. The target state is \(x_{k}=[{\widetilde{x}}_{k}^{\text {T}},\omega _{k}]^{\text {T}}\) in which \({\widetilde{x}}_{k}=[p_{x,k},{\dot{p}}_{x,k},p_{y,k},{\dot{p}}_{y,k}]^{\text {T}}\) and \(\omega _{k}\) is the turn rate. The transition of the target state is modeled as
where
\(w_{k1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0;0,\sigma _{\omega }^{2}I_{2})\) with \(\sigma _{w}=0.01\) \(\text {m}/\text {s}^{2}\), and \(u_{k1}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0;0,\sigma _{u}^{2}I_{2})\) with \(\sigma _{u}=0.0001\) \(\text {rad}/\text {s}\). If a target is detected by a receiver at time k, then the receiver will report a bearing and bistatic range measurement vector as follows:
where \(\varvec{\varepsilon }_{k}^{j}\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(0;0,R_{k}^{j}\right)\) with \(R_{k}^{j}=\text {diag}([\sigma _{\varphi }^{2},\sigma _{\rho }^{2}])\), \(\sigma _{\varphi }=\pi /180\) rad, \(\sigma _{\rho }=5\) m, \(t=[t_{x},t_{y}]^{\text {T}}\) is the transmitter location, and \(p_{k}=[p_{x,k},p_{y,k}]^{\text {T}}\) denotes the target position. With the moving of targets, P receivers are adaptively selected at each time step. The OSPA error distance [46] is used to measure the tracking accuracy, which is widely used by the RFSbased methods. The average results are obtained over 50 independent Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.
Experiment 1
In the first scenario, a total of three targets appear in the surveillance area. The birth process of the MB filter is modeled as \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{\Gamma }^{{(i)}} ,p_{\Gamma }^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{3}\) where \(r_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=r_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=r_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=0.02\), \(p_{\varGamma }^{(i)}={\mathcal {N}}\left(x;m{}_{\varGamma }^{(i)},P_{\varGamma }^{(i)}\right)\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=[1500,0,8250,0,0]^{T}\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=[0,0,6000,0,0]^{T}\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=[1500,0,5000,0,0]^{T}\), and \(P_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=P_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=P_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=\text {diag}\left([10,2,10,2,(\pi /18000)]^{\text {T}}\right)^{2}\). The units are meters for x and y and meters per second for \({\dot{x}}\) and \({\dot{y}}\). For each hypothesized track, we use \(L_{\min }=300\) and \(L_{\max }=1000\) particles. The hypothesized tracks with the existence probabilities below \(T=1e3\) are pruned. The probability of survival is \(p_S=0.99\). When \(P=3\) receivers are selected at each time step, the position estimates of the proposed EMOIIC approach for a single MC run are shown in Fig. 3. It can be observed that the EMOIIC approach is able to detect the births of targets and can well estimate the target positions.
In order to analyze the performance EMOIIC approach, the heuristic random selection approach, the exhaustive search scheme, and the EMOIC approach are used as the comparative algorithms. In the heuristic random selection approach, the probability for each candidate sensor to be selected is equal. In the exhaustive search scheme, the ED in (27) is estimated for every possible combination of sensors and then search for the optimal solution. The EMOIC approach is the one that uses the proposed efficient MOO sensor management and uses the standard IC fusion scheme without ranking of sensors. The average OSPA distance errors (with \(p=1\), \(c=300\) m) for different sensor management approaches with \(P=3\) are given in Fig. 4. Compared with other approaches, the performance of the random selection approach is worse because it does not use any technical sensor management strategy. In the considered challenging scenario, the detection abilities of different receivers vary greatly with the moving of targets. In this case, different rankings of receivers result in different tracking results. As can be observed from Fig. 4, the performance of the EMOIIC approach is better than that of the EMOIC approach and even comparable with the exhaustive search scheme.
In terms of the computational efficiency, the average computing time for a complete MC run of the random selection approach, the EMOIIC approach, and the exhaustive search scheme is 2.05 s, 9.87 s, and 1932.92 s, respectively. Without using any technical sensor management strategy, the random selection approach costs less computation time than other approaches. The EMOIIC approach achieves a satisfactory computational efficiency and is about 195.84 times faster than the exhaustive search method.
Experiment 2
In this scenario, the number of targets being tracked is increased into five. The birth process of the MB filter is modeled as \(\left\{ {\left( {r_{\Gamma }^{{(i)}} ,p_{\Gamma }^{{(i)}} } \right)} \right\}_{{i = 1}}^{3}\) where \(r_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=r_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=r_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=0.02\), \(p_{\varGamma }^{(i)}={\mathcal {N}}\left(x;m{}_{\varGamma }^{(i)},P_{\varGamma }^{(i)}\right)\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=[1500,0,1000,0,0]^{T}\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=[0,0,7000,0,0]^{T}\), \(m_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=[1500,0,5000,0,0]^{T}\), and \(P_{\varGamma }^{(1)}=P_{\varGamma }^{(2)}=P_{\varGamma }^{(3)}=\text {diag}\left([10,2,10,2,(\pi /18000)]^{\text {T}}\right)^{2}\). The hypothesized tracks with the existence probabilities below \(T=1e5\) are pruned. Other parameters used in the MB filter are the same with those in Experiment 1. When \(P=3\) receivers are selected at each time step, the position estimates of the proposed EMOIIC approach for a single MC run are shown in Fig. 5. It can be observed that the position estimates of the EMOIIC approach are close to the true target trajectories.
The average OSPA distance errors (with \(p=1\), \(c=300\) m) are shown in Fig. 6. The exhaustive search scheme is not considered in this scenario since its computing burden is overload. It can be observed that the EMOIIC approach achieves the minimum tracking error in Fig. 6, indicating that the proposed improved IC method also works well in this scenario. The average computing time for a complete MC run of the random selection approach and the EMOIIC approach is 3.49 s and 20.830 s, respectively. The proposed method still has a satisfactory computational efficiency.
Conclusion
An MOObased sensor management approach for MTT in the multisensor system has been proposed in this paper. To avoid the global combinatorial optimization, the complex MOO problem is decomposed into a set of simple MOO subproblems for individual sensors. For the selected sensors, an improved IC scheme is used to improve performances of the multisensor fusion. Simulation results obtained from two challenging MTT with sensor management scenarios showed the superior tracking accuracy of the proposed approach. It is also demonstrated that the proposed approach works much more efficiently than the exhaustive search scheme. Future work will investigate the efficient sensor management solutions for distributed and decentralized fusion architectures.
Availability of data and materials
In this work, we have used the free RFS MATLAB code provided by Prof. BaNgu Vo and Prof. BaTuong Vo at http://batuong.voau.com/codes.html.
Abbreviations
 MTT:

Multitarget tracking
 FISST:

Finite set statistics
 RFS:

Random finite set
 PHD:

Probability hypothesis density
 CPHD:

Cardinalized probability hypothesis density
 MB:

MultiBernoulli
 GLMB:

Generalized labeled multiBernoulli
 POMDP:

Partially observed Markov decision process
 CS:

Cauchy–Schwarz
 OSPA:

Optimal subpattern assignment
 PIMS:

Predicted ideal measurement set
 MOO:

Multiobjective optimization
 IC:

Iteratedcorrector
 ED:

Euclidean distance
 SMC:

Sequential Monte Carlo
 EMOIIC:

Efficient multiobjective optimization with improved iteratedcorrector
 EMOIC:

Efficient multiobjective optimization with iteratedcorrector
 MC:

Monte Carlo
References
J. Yan, W. Pu, S. Zhou, H. Liu, Z. Bao, Collaborative detection and power allocation framework for target tracking in multiple radar system. Inf. Fusion 55, 173–183 (2020)
J. Yan, W. Pu, S. Zhou, H. Liu, M.S. Greco, Optimal resource allocation for asynchronous multiple targets tracking in heterogeneous radar networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 68, 4055–4068 (2020)
J. Yan, J. Dai, W. Pu, H. Liu, M. Greco, Target capacity based resource optimization for multiple target tracking in radar network. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 69, 2410–2421 (2021)
J. Zhou, T. Li, X. Wang, L. Zheng, Target tracking with equality/inequality constraints based on trajectory function of time. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 28, 1330–1334 (2021)
S. Liang, Y. Zhu, H. Li, Evolutionary optimization based set joint integrated probabilistic data association filter. Electronics 11(4), 1–15 (2022)
Y. Zhu, S. Liang, X. Wu, H. Yang, A random finite set based joint probabilistic data association filter with nonhomogeneous Markov chain. Front. Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. 22(8), 1114–1126 (2021)
Y. Zhu, H. Li, Y. Zhang, X. Wu, Receiver selection for multitarget tracking in multistatic Doppler radar systems. EURASIP J. Adv. Sig. Process. 118, 1–16 (2021)
D. Reid, An algorithm for tracking multiple targets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 24(6), 843–854 (1979)
T. Kurien, Issues in the design of practical multitarget tracking algorithms, in MultitargetMultisensor Tracking: Advanced Applications. ed. by Y. BarShalom (Artech House, Norwood, 1990), pp. 43–83
T. Fortmann, Y. BarShalom, M. Scheffe, Sonar tracking of multiple targets using joint probabilistic data association. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 8(3), 173–184 (1983)
R.P. Mahler, Statistical MultisourceMultitarget Information Fusion (Artech House, Norwood, 2007)
R.P. Mahler, Advances in Statistical MultisourceMultitarget Information Fusion (Artech House, Norwood, 2014)
R. Mahler, Multitarget Bayes filtering via firstorder multitarget moments. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 39(4), 1152–1178 (2003)
R. Mahler, PHD filters of higher order in target number. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 43(4), 1523–1543 (2007)
B.T. Vo, B.N. Vo, A. Cantoni, The cardinality balanced multitarget multiBernoulli filter and its implementations. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 57(2), 409–423 (2009)
B.N. Vo, B.T. Vo, D. Phung, Labeled random finite sets and the Bayes multitarget tracking filter. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 62(24), 6554–6567 (2014)
S. Reuter, B.T. Vo, B.N. Vo, K. Dietmayer, The labeled multibernoulli filter. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 62(12), 3246–3260 (2014)
B.N. Vo, B.T. Vo, A multiscan labeled random finite set model for multiobject state estimation. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 67(19), 4948–4963 (2019)
A.K. Gostar, T. Rathnayake, R. Tennakoon, A. BabHadiashar, G. Battistelli, L. Chisci, R. Hoseinnezhad, Cooperative sensor fusion in centralized sensor networks using CauchySchwarz divergence. Signal Process. 167, 107278 (2020)
A.K. Gostar, T. Rathnayake, R. Tennakoon, A. BabHadiashar, G. Battistelli, L. Chisci, R. Hoseinnezhad, Centralized cooperative sensor fusion for dynamic sensor network with limited fieldofview via labeled multiBernoulli filter. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 69, 878–891 (2021)
W. Yi, L. Chai, Heterogeneous multisensor fusion with random finite set multiobject densities. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 69, 3399–3414 (2021)
D. Ciuonzo, P.S. Rossi, P.K. Varshney, Distributed detection in wireless sensor networks under multiplicative fading via generalized score tests. IEEE Internet Things J. 8(11), 9059–9071 (2021)
T. Li, X. Wang, Y. Liang, Q. Pan, On arithmetic average fusion and its application for distributed multiBernoulli multitarget tracking. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 68, 2883–2896 (2020)
T. Li, M. Mallick, Q. Pan, A parallel filteringcommunicationbased cardinality consensus approach for realtime distributed PHD filtering. IEEE Sens. J. 20(22), 13824–13832 (2020)
M. Mallick, K.C. Chang, S. Arulampalam, Y. Yan, Heterogeneous tracktotrack fusion in 3d using IRST sensor and air MTI radar. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 55(6), 3062–3079 (2019)
X. Cheng, D. Ciuonzo, P.S. Rossi, Multibit decentralized detection through fusing smart and dumb sensors based on Rao test. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 56(2), 1391–1405 (2020)
D. Ciuonzo, S.H. Javadi, A. Mohammadi, P.S. Rossi, Bandwidthconstrained decentralized detection of an unknown vector signal via multisensor fusion. IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Over Netw. 6, 744–758 (2020)
D.A. Castanon, Approximate Dynamic Programming for Sensor Management. In: Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control 2, 1202–1207 (1997)
V. Krishnamurthy, B. Wahlberg, Finite Dimensional Algorithms for Optimal Scheduling of Hidden Markov Model Sensors. In: 2001 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37221) 6, 3973–3976 (2001)
J. Evans, V. Krishnamurthy, Optimal sensor scheduling for hidden Markov model state estimation. Int. J. Control 74(18), 1737–1742 (2001)
B. Ristic, B.N. Vo, Sensor control for multiobject statespace estimation using random finite sets. Automatica 46(11), 1812–1818 (2010)
B. Ristic, B.N. Vo, D. Clark, A note on the reward function for PHD filters with sensor control. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 47(2), 1521–1529 (2011)
H.G. Hoang, B.T. Vo, Sensor management for multitarget tracking via multiBernoulli filtering. Automatica 50, 1135–1142 (2014)
H. Cai, Y. Yang, R. Hoseinnezhad, R. Norman, K. Zhang, Multisensor tasking using analytical Rényi divergence in labeled multibernoulli filtering. J. Guidance Control Dyn. 42(9), 2078–2085 (2019)
H.G. Hoang, B.N. Vo, B.T. Vo, R. Mahler, The CauchySchwarz divergence for Poisson point processes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61(8), 4475–4485 (2015)
A.K. Gostar, R. Hoseinnezhad, T. Rathnayake, X. Wang, A. BabHadiashar, Constrained sensor control for labeled multiBernoulli filter using CauchySchwarz divergence. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 24(9), 1313–1317 (2017)
M. Beard, B.T. Vo, B.N. Vo, S. Arulampalam, Void probabilities and CauchySchwarz divergence for generalized labeled multiBernoulli models. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 65(19), 5047–5061 (2017)
A.K. Gostar, R. Hoseinnezhad, A. BabHadiashar, W. Liu, Sensormanagement for multitarget filters via minimization of posterior dispersion. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 53(6), 2877–2884 (2017)
A.K. Gostar, R. Hoseinnezhad, A. BabHadiashar, MultiBernoulli sensor control via minimization of expected estimation errors. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Sys. 51(3), 1762–1773 (2015)
Y. Zhu, J. Wang, S. Liang, Multiobjective optimization based multiBernoulli sensor selection for multitarget tracking. Sensors 19(4), 980 (2019)
L. Ma, K. Xue, P. Wang, Multitarget tracking with spatial nonmaximum suppressed sensor selection. Math. Probl. Eng. 4, 1–10 (2015)
L. Ma, K. Xue, P. Wang, Distributed multiagent control approach for multitarget tracking. Math. Probl. Eng. 1, 1–10 (2015)
Y. Zhu, S. Liang, M. Gong, J. Yan, Decomposed POMDP optimizationbased sensor management for multitarget tracking in passive multisensor systems. IEEE Sens. J 22(4), 3565–3578 (2022)
R. Mahler, Multitarget sensor management of dispersed mobile sensors, in Theory and Algorithms for Cooperative Systems. ed. by D. Grundel, R. Murphey, P.M. Pardalos (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004), pp. 239–310
B. Ristic, A. Farina, Target tracking via multistatic Doppler shifts. IET Radar Sonar Navig. 7(5), 508–516 (2013)
D. Schuhmacher, B.T. Vo, B.N. Vo, A consistent metric for performance evaluation of multiobject filters. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 56(8), 3447–3457 (2008)
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number 62007022, the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province under grant number 2021JQ209, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under grant number GK202103082 and XJS212210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Yun Zhu developed the algorithm, conducted the experiments, and participated in writing the paper. Shuang Liang contributed to the theoretical analysis of the algorithm. Guangran Xue and Rui Yang participated in writing the paper. Xiaojun Wu supervised the overall work and reviewed the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhu, Y., Liang, S., Xue, G. et al. An efficient multiobjective optimization approach for sensor management via multiBernoulli filtering. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2022, 62 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634022008814
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634022008814
Keywords
 Sensor management
 Multisensor system
 Multiobjective optimization
 Multitarget tracking
 MultiBernoulli
 Random finite set