4.6 Article

Particle PHD Filter Based Multiple Human Tracking Using Online Group-Structured Dictionary Learning

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 14764-14778

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2816805

关键词

Multiple human tracking; SMC-PHD filter; adaptive gating; group-structured sparsity; birth intensity estimation; dictionary learning

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K014307]
  2. MOD University Defence Research Collaboration in Signal Processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An enhanced sequential Monte Carlo probability hypothesis density (PHD) filter-based multiple human tracking system is presented. The proposed system mainly exploits two concepts: a novel adaptive gating technique and an online group-structured dictionary learning strategy. Conventional PHD filtering methods preset the target birth intensity and the gating threshold for selecting real observations for the PHD update. This often yields inefficiency in false positives and missed detections in a cluttered environment. To address this issue, a measurement-driven mechanism based on a novel adaptive gating method is proposed to adaptively update the gating sizes. This yields an accurate approach to discriminate between survival and residual measurements by reducing the clutter inferences. In addition, online group-structured dictionary learning with a maximum voting method is used to robustly estimate the target birth intensity. It enables the new-born targets to be automatically detected from noisy sensor measurements. To improve the adaptability of our group-structured dictionary to appearance and illumination changes, we employ the simultaneous code word optimization algorithm for the dictionary update stage. Experimental results demonstrate our proposed method achieves the best performance amongst state-of-the-art random finite set-based methods, and the second best online tracker ranked on the leaderboard of latest MOT17 challenge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据