Skip to main content
Log in

Modeling position error probability density functions for statistical inversions using a Goff–Jordan rough surface model

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Buried unexploded ordnance (UXO) continues to be a difficult remediation problem from both a sensing and a discrimination point of view. Modern approaches to both the sensing and discrimination problems utilize high bandwidth electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensors to collect geo-referenced data which is then inverted, or fit, using a forward model in order to obtain features that can be directly interpreted using the physics associated with electromagnetic induction-based sensing. These features are then used in a variety of classification architectures. One aspect of this process that has captured recent interest is that uncertainty in the positions at which data was collected can degrade the inversion performance and thus the subsequent classification. Several mechanisms to address this issue have been explored that range from filtering and prediction of actual positions to exploiting Bayesian approaches for uncertainty mitigation. In the Bayesian approach, a statistical model of the position errors is used as a prior for integrating over the uncertainty in the inversion process. In this study, we demonstrate that errors in the statistical priors used in this process can negatively impact subsequent classification performance, thus highlighting the need for an accurate statistical model for the position errors. Next, we propose a mechanism by which to obtain such models. Specifically, we utilize a Goff–Jordan rough surface model and simulate the sensor data collection system motion over the simulated ground or ocean surfaces to calculate errors and generate statistical models. Our results suggest that this approach can be used to develop the statistical models necessary for mitigating uncertain position information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell T (2005) Geo-location requirements for UXO discrimination. SERDP and ESTCP Geolocation Workshop

  • Bell T, Barrow B, Miller J (2001) Subsurface discrimination using electromagnetic induction sensors. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 39:1286–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings SD, Herrmann F (2003) Automatic detection of position and depth of potential UXO using continuous wavelet transforms. SPIE 5089:1012–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings S, Youmans C (2007) Experiences with unexploded ordnance discrimination using magnetometry at a live-site in Montana. J Appl Geophys 61(3–4):194–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler D, Pasion L, Billings S, Oldenburg D, Yule D (2003) Enhanced discrimination capability for UXO Geophysical Surveys. SPIE 5089:958–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capuzzo JP (2007) After ordnance scare, beachgoers told to dig with care. New York Times

  • Chilaka SV, Faircloth DL, Riggs LS, Nelson HH (2006) Enhanced discrimination among UXO-like targets using extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. IEEE Trans Geosc Remote Sens 44(1):10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins LM, Zhang Y, Li J, Wang H, Carin L, Hart S, Rose-Pehrsson S, Nelson H, McDonald J (2001) A comparison of the performance of statistical and fuzzy algorithms for unexploded ordnance detection, Special issue on Recognition Technology. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Systems 9(1):17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DSB Report to the U.S. Congress (1998) Unexploded ordnance clearance: a coordinated approach to requirements and technology development. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Washington, DC

  • Goff JA, Jordan TH (1988) Stochastic modeling of seafloor morphology: inversion of sea beam data for second-order statistics. J Geophys Res 93(B11):13589–13608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goff JA, Jordan TH (1989) Stochastic modeling of seafloor morphology: a parameterized Gaussian model. Geophys Res Lett 16(1):45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavely E, Grimm R, Weichman P (1998) Detection and discrimination of landmines and UXO, IGARSS, pp 514–516

  • Nelson HH, McDonald JR (2001) Multisensor towed array detection system for UXO detection. IEEE Trans Geosc Remote Sens 39(6):1139–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasion LR, Oldenburg DW (2001) A discrimination algorithm for UXO using time-domain electromagnetics. J Eng Environ Geophys 6:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasion LR, Billings SD, Oldenburg DW, Walker SE (2007) Application of a library based method to time domain electromagnetic data for the identification of unexploded ordnance. J Appl Geophys 61(3–4):279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premus V, Alexandrou D (1994) Bayesian estimation of Goff–Jordan seafloor microroughness statistics via simulated annealing. J Acoust Soc Am 96(5), Pt. 1, pp 2887–2896

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Pehrsson SL, Shaffer RE, McDonald JR, Nelson HH, Grimm RE, Sprott TA (1999) UXO target detection using magnetometry and EM survey data. SPIE 3534:496–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shamatava I, O’Neill K, Shubitidze F, Sun K, Paulsen KD (2004) Investigation of EMI sensor orientation and position effects on buried metallic target discrimination. In: Proceedings of mathematical methods in electromagnetic theory (MMET) conference, pp 452–454

  • Shubitidze F, O’Neill K, Shamatava I, Sun K, Paulsen K (2005) Analyzing multi-axis data versus scalar data for UXO discrimination. SPIE 5794.:336–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhurst D, Khadr N, Barrow B, Nelson H (2005) Moving platform orientation for an unexploded ordnance discrimination system. GPS World 16(5):28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun K, O’Neill K, Shubitidze F, Shamatava I, Paulsen KD (2005) A modified dipole model for target discrimination in EMI sensing. In: IEEE Ant and Prop Soc, AP-S international symposium (Digest), pp 173–176

  • Tantum S, Collins L (2001) A comparison of algorithms for subsurface object detection and identification using time domain electromagnetic induction data, special issue New advances in subsurface sensing: systems, modeling, and signal processing. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 39(6):1299–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantum SL, Collins LM, Khadr N, Barrow and Barrow BJ (2003) Correcting GPS measurement errors induced by system motion over uneven terrain. SPIE 5089:1105–1115

  • Tantum SL, Yu Y, Collins LM (2007) Bayesian mitigation of sensor position errors to improve unexploded ordnance detection. IEEE Trans Geosc Remote Sens Lett (in press)

  • Tarokh AB, Miller EL (2007) Subsurface sensing under sensor positional uncertainty. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45(3):675–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarokh AB, Miller E, Won IJ, Huang H (2004) Statistical classification of buried objects from spatially sampled time or frequency domain electromagnetic induction data. Radio Sci

  • Walker SE, Pasion LR, Oldenburg DW, Billings SD (2006) Investigating the effect of data quality on time domain electromagnetic discrimination. J Appl Geophys 61(3–4):254–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Collins LM, Yu H, Baum C, Carin L (2003a) Sensing of unexploded ordnance with magnetometer and induction data: theory and signal processing. IEEE Trans Geosc Remote Sens 41(5):1005–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Collins L, Carin L (2003b) Unexploded ordnance detection using Bayesian physics-based data fusion. Integr Comput Aided Eng 10:231–237

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported a grant (MM1442) from the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The authors would like to thank Dr. Chandra Throckmorton and Dr. Jeremiah Remus for their constructive comments on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leslie M. Collins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tantum, S.L., Zhu, Q., Torrione, P.A. et al. Modeling position error probability density functions for statistical inversions using a Goff–Jordan rough surface model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23, 155–167 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-007-0210-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-007-0210-6

Keywords

Navigation