Advertisement

Multi Hypotheses Tracking with Nonholonomic Motion Models Using LIDAR Measurements

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 252)

Abstract

This paper presents an implementation of the Multiple Hypothesis Tracking (MHT) algorithm in the Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) context.The proposed algorithmuses laser data received from two front mounted sensors on a mobile vehicle. The algorithm was tested with simulated and real world data and shown to obtain a very good performance. Nonholonomic motion models were used to model the movement of road agents instead of the more traditional constant velocity/acceleration models. The use of the nonholonomic motion models allows to obtain not only the linear velocity, but also the steering angle of vehicles, improving this way the future prediction and handling of occlusions. The MHT algorithm possesses some well-known critical disadvantages due to its complexity and computational growth, in this work we circumvent these limitations in order to achieve real time performance in real work conditions.

Keywords

LIDAR MHT Nonholonomic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tinne, D.: Rigorously Bayesian Multitarget Tracking and Localization. PhD thesis, K. U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (May 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Santos, V., Almeida, J., vila, E., Gameiro, D., Oliveira, M., Pascoal, R., Sabino, R., Stein, P.: ATLASCAR - technologies for a computer assisted driving system on board a common automobile. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Funchal, Portugal, pp. 1421–1427 (September 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackman, S.: Multiple hypothesis tracking for multiple target tracking 19, 5–18 (January 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reid, D.: An algorithm for tracking multiple targets 24, 843–854 (December 1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koch, W.: On bayesian MHT for well-separated targets in densely cluttered environment. In: IEEE International Radar Conference, pp. 323–328 (May 1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackman, S., Dempster, R., Busch, M., Popoli, R.: IMM/MHT solution to radar benchmark tracking problem 35, 730–738 (April 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danchick, R., Newnam, G.: Reformulating reid’s MHT method with generalised murty k-best ranked linear assignment algorithm. In: IEE Proc. on Radar, Sonar and Navigation, pp. 13–22 (February 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Streller, D., Dietmayer, K., Sparbert, J.: Object tracking in traffic scenes with multi-hypothesis approach using laser range images. In: 8th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Streller, D., Dietmayer, K.: Object tracking and classification using a multiple hypothesis approach. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 808–812 (June 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arras, K., Grzonka, S., Luber, M., Burgard, W.: Efficient people tracking in laser range data using a multi-hypothesis leg-tracker with adaptive occlusion probabilities. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1710–1715 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsokas, N., Kyriakopoulos, K.: Multi-robot multiple hypothesis tracking for pedestrian tracking. Autonomous Robot 32, 63–79 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsokas, N.A., Kyriakopoulos, K.J.: A multiple hypothesis people tracker for teams of mobile robots. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 446–451 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murty, K.G.: An algorithm for ranking all the assignments in order of increasing cost. Operations Research 16, 682–687 (1968)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cox, I., Hingorani, S.: An efficient implementation of reid’s multiple hypothesis tracking algorithm and its evaluation for the purpose of visual tracking 18, 138–150 (February 1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cox, I., Hingorani, S.: On finding ranked assignments with application to multitarget tracking and motion correspondence 31, 486–489 (January 1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 2, 83–97 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Streller, D., Furstenberg, K., Dietmayer, K.: Vehicle and object models for robust tracking in traffic scenes using laser range images. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 118–123 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laumond, J.P.: Robot motion planning and control. Springer (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Almeida, J., Santos, V.M.: Real time egomotion of a nonholonomic vehicle using LIDAR measurements. Journal of Field Robotics 30, 129–141 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schubert, R., Richter, E., Wanielik, G.: Comparison and evaluation of advanced motion models for vehicle tracking. In: International Conference on Information Fusion, pp. 1–6 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.IEETAUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations