Advertisement

Optimal Sensor Configuration for Three-Dimensional Range-Only Target Localization

  • Yueqian Liang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 528)

Abstract

Optimal sensor configuration for range-only target localization in three-dimensional (3D) space is investigated in this paper. Based on the fact that to achieve more accurate localization, larger amount of information should be gathered, the maximization of the determinant of Fisher information matrix (FIM) is chosen as the optimality criterion. And by regarding the determinants as continuous polynomial functions of multiple formal variables, the optimal geometric configuration is systematically discussed.

Keywords

Optimal sensor configuration Sensor network Target localization Fisher information Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) 

References

  1. 1.
    J.R. Lowell, Military applications of localization, tracking, and targeting. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 18(2), 60–65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Rantakokko, P. Händel, M. Fredholm, F. Marsten-Eklöf, User requirements for localization and tracking technology: a survey of mission-specific needs and constraints, in Proceedings of International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), Zürich, Switzerland, September 2010, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.N. Bishop, B. Fidan, B.D. Anderson, K. Doğançay, P.N. Pathirana, Optimality analysis of sensor-target localization geometries. Automatica 46(3), 479–492 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Marani, S.K. Choi, Underwater target localization: autonomous intervention with the DIDSON sonar in SAUVIM. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 17(1), 64–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Zhong, Z. Lin, Z. Chen, W. Xu, Cooperative localization using angle-of-arrival information, in Proceedings of 2014 11th IEEE International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA), Taichung, Taiwan, June 2014, pp. 19–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Xu, Z. Ding, S. Dasgupta, Source localization in wireless sensor networks from signal time-of-arrival measurements. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 59(6), 2887–2897 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    X. Li, Collaborative localization with received-signal strength in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 56(6), 3807–3817 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.N. Bishop, P. Jensfelt, An optimality analysis of sensor-target geometries for signal strength based localization, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks, and Information Processing, Melbourne, Australia, December 2009, pp. 127–132Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Oshman, P. Davidson, Optimization of observer trajectories for bearings-only target localization. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 35(3), 892–902 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.L. Hernandez, Optimal sensor trajectories in bearings-only tracking, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Fusion, Stockholm, Sweden, 28 June–1 July 2004, pp. 893–900Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Doğançay, Single- and multi-platform constrained sensor path optimization for angle-of-arrival target tracking, in Proceedings of the 18th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO-2010), Aalborg, Denmark, August 2010, pp. 835–839Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. Jia, Robust control with decoupling performance for steering and traction of 4WS vehicles under velocity-varying motion. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 8(3), 554–569 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Jia, Alternative proofs for improved LMI representations for the analysis and the design of continuous-time systems with polytopic type uncertainty: a predictive approach. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 48(8), 1413–1416 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.P. Aguiar, J.P. Hespanha, Trajectory-tracking and path-following of underactuated autonomous vehicles with parametric modeling uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 52(8), 1362–1379 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.B. Sujit, S. Saripalli, J.B. Sousa, Unmanned aerial vehicle path following: a survey and analysis of algorithms for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 42(1), 42–59 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.R. Sukumar, H. Bozdogan, D.L. Page, A.F. Koschan, M.A. Abidi, Uncertainty minimization in multi-sensor localization systems using model selection theory, in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Tampa, FL, USA, December 2008, pp. 1–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.R. Semper, J.L. Crassidis, Decentralized geolocation and optimal path planning using limited UAVs, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Fusion, Seattle, WA, USA, July 2009, pp. 355–362Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Doğançay, H. Hmam, S.P. Drake, A. Finn, Centralized path planning for unmanned aerial vehicles with a heterogeneous mix of sensors, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks, and Information Processing, Melbourne, Australia, December 2009, pp. 91–96Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Martínez, F. Bullo, Optimal sensor placement and motion coordination for target tracking. Automatica 42(4), 661–668 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.N. Bishop, B. Fidan, K. Doğançay, B.D. Anderson, P.N. Pathirana, Exploiting geometry for improved hybrid AOA/TDOA based localization. Signal Process. 88(4), 1775–1791 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Doğançay, UAV path planning for passive emitter localization. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 48(2), 1150–1166 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China Academy of Electronics and Information TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations