Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of LMITS and MHT Algorithms
Author(s): Darko Mušicki; Mahendra Mallick; Barbara La Scala; Shawn Strange; Rob Evans
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

The Multiple Hypotheses Tracking (MHT) algorithm has been shown to have the best tracking performance among existing multi-target tracking algorithms using real world sensors with probability of detection less than unity and in the presence of false alarms. The improved performance of the Multiple Hypotheses Tracking comes at the cost of signicantly higher computational complexity. Most Multiple Hypotheses Tracking implementations only form the best global hypothesis. This paper compares the Linear Multitarget Integrated Track Splitting (LMITS) tracking algorithm with the Multiple Hypotheses Tracking algorithm. LMITS has a simpler structure than Multiple Hypotheses Tracking as it decouples local hypotheses and avoids the measurement to multi-track allocation entirely. The number of LMITS hypotheses equals the sum of the number of local hypotheses added to the number of initiation hypotheses. Thus LMITS can retain a deeper hypotheses subtree which can result in better performance. We compare tracking performances of LMITS and MHT algorithms using simulated data for multiple maneuvering targets in heavy and non-uniform clutter.

Paper Details

Date Published: 15 September 2005
PDF: 11 pages
Proc. SPIE 5913, Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 2005, 59130V (15 September 2005); doi: 10.1117/12.624571
Show Author Affiliations
Darko Mušicki, Univ. of Melbourne (Australia)
Mahendra Mallick, Toyon Research Corp. (United States)
Barbara La Scala, Univ. of Melbourne (Australia)
Shawn Strange, Lockheed Martin ORINCON Defense (United States)
Rob Evans, Univ. of Melbourne (Australia)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5913:
Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 2005
Oliver E. Drummond, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top