PROCEEDINGS OF SPIE

SPIEDigitalLibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie

Target classification with data from

multiple sensors

Oliver Drummond

Oliver E. Drummond, "Target classification with data from multiple sensors,"

Proc. SPIE 4728, Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 2002, (7
August 2002); doi: 10.1117/12.478519

Event: AeroSense 2002, 2002, Orlando, FL, United States

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023 Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use

 Target Classification with Data from Multiple Sensorsg
Oliver E. Drummond, Ph. D., P.E.
CyberRnD, Inc, 10705 Cranks Road, Culver City, CA 90230 USA
Phone: 310-838-5300, E-mail: Drummond@ATT.Net

ABSTRACT
The methods used in the classification of multiple small targets can be very different from the methods commonly used
in traditional pattern recognition. First, there may be characteristics of the features for each target class that can permit
simpler computations than other features. In addition, in classifying targets, the target tracks are updated as new data
becomes available and hence there can be a sequence of feature measurements that are available for the target
classification process. In addition, with multiple targets, the a priori information may be in a form that make the
classification processing for one target dependent on the classification processing of other targets. These aspects of
target classification that make that processing different from traditional pattern recognition are the concern of this paper.
To limit the length of the paper, the scope is restricted to classification tasks that allow the linear-Gaussian assumption to
be used. Also, the data used in the classification process is restricted to features, i.e., no attributes, and the assumption is
the tracker does not employ feature-aided tracking. While these assumptions simplify the discussion, the methods used
could be modified to permit classification of a broad scope of classification tasks.
Keywords: Multiple target tracking, features, target typing, detection, classification, recognition, identification, and
discrimination, automatic target recognition (ATR), multiple models, Bayesian methods, and Kalman filter.

1. Introduction
Target tracking and classification problems can be broadly categorized into four generic classes [1], as follows:
1. Sensor tracking of a single (bright) target
2. Tracking of targets that are large
3. Tracking of targets that are medium sized
4. Small target tracking.
These four classes are described in more detail in [2]. Note that the size indicated in this list is in terms of the number of
resolution elements or pixels. The algorithms used in the signal, image, track and classification processing for each of
these problems differ. One of the concerns in tracking small targets is the data association function since
misassociations can corrupt the tracks.
Since each class of tracking and classification problem poses different algorithm development issues, this paper will
concentrate on only one class of tracking, namely, tracking of small targets using either single or multiple target tracking
and classification methods. Multiple target tracking is a relatively new field. The first book dedicated exclusively to
multiple target tracking was published in 1986 [3] and a number of recent books are available [4,5,6]. In addition there
are in the open literature in numerous reports and papers in journals and conference proceedings (too numerous to be
listed here). This paper freely extracts and paraphrases material from some of the author’s prior documents [1,7,8,9].
For this paper, a small target is characterized as one that does not provide enough data for traditional automatic (or
assisted) target recognition (ATR) using a single frame of data [7]. In contrast, a target large enough for ATR typically
extends beyond a diameter of about 15 resolution elements, for example, larger than 10 by 10 pixels. Note that it is not
uncommon to refer to all objects as targets whether they are of interest or not. Small targets of concern in this paper
include point source targets and small-extended targets, including unresolved closely spaced objects.

g This work was supported in part by ONR Contract No. N00014-00-C-0514

Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 2002, Oliver E. Drummond, Editor,
Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4728 (2002) © 2002 SPIE · 0277-786X/02/$15.00 377

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 For simplicity, the term target classification is used in this paper in the generic sense to represent small target typing,
detection, classification, recognition, identification, and discrimination, as well as, automatic (or assisted) target
recognition. Combat identification is considered sufficiently different and a separate processes that is more complex
than the term target classification encompasses. A number of different theories could be used for developing algorithms
for target classification processing. This paper uses Bayesian probability methods and addresses classification of only
established tracks in order to limit the paper length.

2. Background

2.1. Types of Data

Although tracking small targets is a relatively new field, processing methods developed for tracking a target's trajectory,
i.e., kinematic tracking, is fairly mature compared to the processing methods developed for using feature and attribute
data in small target tracking and classification. In practice, different definitions are used by the various organizations for
some of the terms related to tracking, features, and attributes. Consequently, it is appropriate to first define how some of
these terms are used in this paper.
The term measurement (return, report, observation, or signal processing threshold exceedance) refers to all the data
obtained for an apparent target at a specific time by a sensor and prepared for a tracker by the signal processor. A
measurement can also refer to the measurement vector and its error covariance matrix, depending on the context. Note
the term apparent target is used because what appears to be a target may actually be due to false signals, persistent
clutter, or sensor phenomena not directly and completely due to a single target.
A measurement can include various types of information or contain parameters that are used to compute data of various
types, such as, features and attributes. Features and attributes have been defined or classified in a variety of ways. In
this paper, the data types are classified based on how they might be processed since different types of data may need to
be processed differently, depending on their characteristics.
2.1.1. Kinematic measurements
In the discussion that follows, for emphasis and clarity, a measurement used for traditional target tracking is referred to
as a kinematic measurement. The elements of a kinematic measurement typically consist of the measurements of one or
more of the following: range, azimuth, elevation, and range rate plus their error covariance matrix. A tracker uses the
kinematic measurements in a filter to estimate for a target its kinematic state, which typically consists of the position of
the target and time-derivatives of position.
2.1.2. Features
As used here the term feature refers to characteristics of a target that are from continuous sample space and are obtained
from sensor data that are other than the simple variables of position and its derivatives that are used for kinematic
tracking. Examples of features include estimated target dimensions, radar cross section, and other target signature data.
Note that it may be that features are not measured directly but are computed based on a number of measured quantities.
Whether the features are measured directly from the data of a signal-processing threshold exceedance or computed based
on a number of measured quantities of a signal-processing threshold exceedance, in both cases the resulting feature
vector plus its error covariance matrix will be referred to as the measured feature or feature measurement. Note that for
some applications, some of the features might be computed using the estimated track information, such as, the sum
squared of the elements of the estimated target velocity. In a paper that addresses feature aided tracking [10], a
distinction is made between simple features and categorical features, but that distinction is not used here because another
distinction is made with respect to classification as explained in Section 3.2.
2.1.3. Attributes
The term attribute will be used here to refer to characteristics of a target based on sensor data that are from discrete
sample space, for example, literal, categorical, or integer parameters [9]. Examples of attributes include target type, type
of radar systems used by a target, and number of engines on an airplane. These particular definitions were chosen
because, as defined, feature data and attribute data are processed differently because their uncertainties are treated

378 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 differently. Using Bayesian probability methods, features can be processed based on their probability density function
while attributes can be processed based on their discrete probabilities or point masses.
Due to space limitations, this paper does not address the processing of attributes, however, they can be processed using
methods that are similar to those used for features [10].

2.2. Some Assumptions

For simplicity of discussion and space limitations, the assumptions of this paper are:
• Linear Gaussian approximation is adequate for classification
• Use Bayesian methods
• No feature, attribute, or classification aided tracking
• No attributes, only features
• A priori characteristics of most targets are known
• Term “classification” used in generic sense to represent ATR, small target typing, detection, discrimination,
classification, identification, and recognition
• Cross-correlation between tracks for different targets can be neglected
• Small target tracking provides a sequence of feature measurements
To facilitate the discussion that follows, the set of target classes will be assumed mutually exclusive and exhaustive. For
classification, the target classes will be represented by a single index, k, for the alternative classes. While classification
could be structured in a hierarchical taxonomy, for simplicity of notations, all classes will be represented by that one
index that takes into account all possible combinations of the features and target characteristics. The techniques that are
described can be readily adapted to the more specific cases.
The assumption for all random variables from continuous sample space is that any deviation of their probability density
function from Gaussian can be neglected. Furthermore unless otherwise indicated, the assumption is that usually
features are obtained in addition to kinematic measurements. To simplify the discussion it is assumed that the kinematic
measurement and the measured feature for a measurement are all from the same object or cause. If there is a feature
obtained with a kinematic measurement, the assumption is that they are statistically independent. Also, unless indicated
otherwise, the assumption is that the inherent (underlying true) features are static, i.e., for a target they do not change
over time except for changes due to the errors in measuring them, changes in range or aspect angle, or, if applicable, in
computing them from measurements. It is also assumed for simplicity of discussion that the kinematic track filter does
not employ multiple models. In addition, unless indicated otherwise, the term track refers to the only track for an
apparent target as in hard-decision single frame association. Many of these various assumptions can be relaxed and
these methods adapted to handle the less restricted cases.

3. Preliminaries
Different types of classification problems call for different types of processing. Those different types of classification
problems can be viewed in various ways. This section provides the background for how these different classification
problems are viewed in this paper.

3.1. Number of Targets

One distinction between the various types of classification is based on the number of targets in what will be called a
classification region. To be able to meaningfully distinguish between targets, some a priori information is usually used.
That information might include establishing the various classes of targets that will probably be (or are known to be) in a
region, their characteristics, and also the expected number and the distribution of the number of targets in each class at
any one time in the region. Also for a given time there may be some distribution of the actual number of targets in a
region. These characteristics are expected to be different for each region. The term classification region (or theater)
will be used to refer to the region in physical space (or on a surface) for which target characteristics and classes are

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 379

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 defined that are independent of any other region. The classification regions are further defined to not overlap in physical
space. For example, there may be no friendly aircraft of any class in one classification region and only commercial
aircraft of specific classes in another classification region.
More specifically, the number of targets from each class and the list of classes of targets are assumed independent from
one classification region to another. For example, one classification region might have at most three Boeing 767's and
one 727 while another might have at most two Boeing 727's and one 767. Accordingly, with multiple target tracks in
each region, there could not be more than one 727 in the first region even if there were none in the second. Thus for the
first region, the sum over all the tracks of the probability that each track is a 727 should not exceed one no matter what
the class probabilities are for the other region.
An important characteristic of a classification region is the number of estimated or actual targets in that region. The term
single member class is introduced to facilitate this discussion. A single member class is simply a target class for which
there can be one member only of that class in a classification region. If there are many targets in a region then there can
be competition for class membership. If there are some single member classes, for example, then no two-target tracks
could in actuality be in the same single member class. Similarly, if there is a target class for a classification region that
contains at most two members (targets) then clearly three target tracks could not be of that target class. Note that this is
not an issue if there is precisely one target in a classification region.
Thus, there can be a major difference in processing for a classification region with a single target present compared to a
region with many targets. It may be that there are a number of different classification regions of interest with exactly (or
apparently) one target present in each region and this will be referred to as isolated targets. Assuming that classification
regions are larger than track gates, then tracking and classification processing methods for single target tracking and for
isolated target tracking are the same. The term multiple target tracking and classification will be used in this paper to
refer to the condition that there are multiple targets in a classification region. Typically, multiple target tracking and
classification would benefit from the use of special processing methods not needed for single target or isolated targets
processing. Thus, the number of targets in a classification region is an important consideration in selecting processing
methods.

3.2. Feature Mathematical Model.

Small target tracking typically involves the processing of a sequence of kinematic measurement to estimate the trajectory
of each target. That processing is usually conducted recursively rather than to use batch processing. This track
processing usually will also produce a sequence of feature measurements for each target track to the classifier. The
amount of processing of the classifier might be greatly reduced if recursive processing is used rather than batch
processing. This differs compared to the ATR process of images of large targets for which target recognition processing
might employ a single image rather than a sequence of images.
The problem posed with a sequence of feature measurements is that the feature measurements might be cross-correlated.
One of the major causes of this cross-correlation is that the feature measurements for a target are all based on the
inherent characteristics, the inherent features (underlying true features), of the target plus some feature measurement
errors. That is, the initial feature state for a target from a specific target class is a sample draw from a Gaussian random
vector generator for that class. To deal with this time correlation, an estimation process might be used to estimate the
target features and then the estimated features are used in the classification process. This processing is addressed in
more detail in Section 4.
For feature estimation filter design, mathematical models are needed for the measured features, the inherent features, and
the a priori information of the inherent features for each class. The mathematical models need to include the mean and
covariance matrix for all random variables. The term feature state will be used to refer to the vector of elements of the
inherent features or true target features or characteristics. The term feature state will be used even if all the elements are
constants for a target rather than time variable. For a linear-Gaussian model, the a priori information of the feature state
includes the feature state mean and its covariance matrix for each class. That covariance matrix is sometimes referred to
as the within class covariance matrix. The a priori information needed includes the probabilities of a target being a
member of each of the target classes.

380 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 For feature state estimation, a distinction is made between the mathematical models of the feature state and feature
measurements on the one hand and the feature state a priori information for each class on the other. For simplicity,
mathematical models of the feature state and of the feature measurement will be referred to as simply the feature filter
mathematical model. The feature state a priori information for each class will be referred to as simply the a priori
feature information. The reason for this distinction is to evaluate whether their structure or the values of their elements
change from class to class.
Consider two substantially different classification problems. For one problem, the feature filter mathematical models are
the same for all classes for a classification region but the a priori feature information is not the same for any two classes.
For this classification problem, the filter design could be the same for each class. Furthermore, the filter processing
method would be identical for all classes if the a priori feature information is not used in the filter processing. For
example, the feature filter could be started using the first two or three feature measurements rather than use the a priori
feature information to start the filter.
Thus only one filter needs to be implemented and it can process the feature measurement and estimate the feature state
for all the target classes. While the same filter could be used for targets of all classes, the characteristics of the estimated
filter state are expected to be different for each class target. The characteristics of the true state depend on the target
class and hence the feature measurements will be different for each class (provided the a priori mean feature state is
different for each class). Note that for this classification problem, if the a priori feature information is the same for any
two classes then the classification processing of a target from either of these two classes could not (on average)
distinguish between targets from these two classes. Some examples of the feature filter mathematical models and a
priori feature information for this classification problem are as follows.
For time n, Sensor j, Target Track i, Class k, and Nuisance Variables y and u, three different filter models are:

z n = x k + vn ; E( vn vnT ) = R δ n,m (1)

z n = x k + vn ; E( vn vnT ) = R k δ n,m (2)

z n = Hn, j ( y n, j ) x k ,i + u j + v n, j ; E( v n,j vmT , j ) = R n, j δ n,m ; (3a)

E[( x k,i − xk )(x k,i − xk ) T ] = Pk (3b)

In Equations 1, 2 and 3, only the a priori feature information depends on the track target class, k. The (true) feature
states in Equations 1 and 2 are deterministic and the elements of that state are known for each class. The nuisance
variable, y, represents variables, such as, range and aspect angle on which the feature measurements might depend but
the feature state does not. Equation 3 is formulated so that the feature state mathematical models can depend on the
sensors and the (true) feature state can vary from target to target of the same class.
For the other problem, the feature filter mathematical models are not the same for any two classes and the a priori
feature information may or may not be the same for any two classes. The structure of the filter design or the values for
the filter parameters will not be the same for any two classes. Hence for this classification problem, a unique filter must
be implemented for each class. Using Bayesian probability methods, this feature estimation problem can be processed
using composite estimation methods that uses multiple models based on a hybrid estimation method that combines
probability densities functions and discrete probabilities. That is, this can be treated as a non-switching multiple model
filtering problem [11,12,13] .

z n = Hk ,n.j.i ( y k ,n, j,i ) x k ,n,i + uk , j + vk ,n, j ; E( vk ,n, j vkT,m, j ) = R k , j δ n,m

E[( x k , 0,i − xk ,0 )( x k , 0,i − xk ,0 ) T ] = Pk , 0 ; (4)
x k ,n,i = Φ k ,n x k ,n,i + Γk ,n w k ,n ; E( w k ,n w kT,m ) = Q k δ n,m

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 381

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Equation 4 is formulated so that the feature state mathematical models can depend on the sensors as well as on the target
class. Since the feature filter mathematical models are different for each class, then the a priori information for both the
feature state and class probabilities might as well be used in computing the estimated feature state and the target class
probabilities for each target track. The difference between the filter processing for these two different classification
problems is discussed further in subsequent sections.
There is a third hybrid classification problem for which the mathematical models are not the same for some pairs of
target classes and are the same for some other pairs of target classes. This problem will not be discussed in detail since it
should be obvious how to take advantage of this condition by appropriately mixing the classification processing methods
of the other two classification problems.

3.3. Four Types of Small Target Classification.

Considering both the number of targets and the characteristics of the feature filter mathematical model, the classification
problems of small targets can be categorized into four types as displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Four Types of Target Classification

Single Unique
Mathematical Mathematical
Model Models

Single Target
or Type 1 Type 2
Isolated Targets

Multiple Targets
in Classification Type 3 Type 4
Region

Processing methods of each type of classification problem is addressed in the following sections. Two aspects of the
classification processing are addressed for each type of classification problem. One aspect is how to compute the a
posteriori class probabilities and the other aspect is how to compute hard decisions. Where practical updated a
posteriori target class probabilities should be computed and provided to the user as the threat evolves. However, the
user may not be in a position to use all that information for some targets. Therefore, the classifier should normally
provide the user with one or more hard decisions. By hard decision is meant the selection of a single (best in some
sense) target class for a target track. More than one hard decision may be desired because different decision criteria
might lead to a different hard decision.

3.4. Target Classes for Corrupted Tracks, Missed Targets, and New Target Classes
The target classes should be augmented to account for a variety of target tracking problems. One problem is that
misassociations can degrade tracks to a minor or major extent. A few, occasional misassociations may not degrade a
track very much and might be reflected in the error covariance matrix, depending on the tracking methods used. On the
other hand, a number of misassociations during a short period of time could lead to a track being lost, i.e., no longer
following the original target. This and other conditions can lead to what will be called corrupted tracks for which the
measured features do not closely relate to the true feature state of the original target or, maybe, were never based on the
feature state of a single target. There are a number of approaches to augment the track classes to compute the probability
that a target track is corrupted. For the purpose of the following analysis, it is assumed that there is an added single
member target class for each target track to compute the probability that the track is corrupted. While this corrupted-
track target class is set aside for a target track, in practice it may be necessary to add a number of corrupted-track target
classes for a target track depending on how the corrupted-track class probabilities are computed.
Another problem is that there may be one or more targets in a region that are major modifications of known target
designs or are new targets for which there is no available intelligence information about their characteristics. There are a

382 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 number of ways to handle these types of concerns. For example, versions of the existing kinematic and feature
mathematical models can be used that permit adaptation to design variations through parameter estimation. Another
approach is to employ generalized (or a number of generic) kinematic and feature mathematical models of these new
targets and then estimate the parameters of those model. These approaches will be more complex than traditionally
models and it might take much longer for the estimates and class probabilities to converge. There are a number of other
approaches that might be useful too. An additional new target class could be included for each type of the approach used
for this purpose.
It may be necessary to include target classes for missed targets (sometimes also called missed tracks). The need for
missed-track target classes will depend on specifics of the classification problem that is being addressed and especially
on how the characteristics of the track classes and a priori information are defined and their parameters. In some cases,
it may not be possible to find a feasible classification solution if missed-tracks target classes are not included in the
classification system design.
In the discussion that follows, it is assumed that the number of target classes has be increased in accommodate corrupted
tracks, missed targets, and new target classes, as needed. Furthermore, to simplify the discussion, the processing for
these additional target classes is assumed to be like the processing for the other target classes.

4. Classification of Single and Isolated Targets

The algorithms appropriate for classification processing of a single target track or of each isolated target track depends
of the characteristics of the feature state and the feature measurements. The processing with multiple sensors is similar
to processing with a single sensor except that the measured feature from one sensor could be very different than the
measured feature from another sensor due to differences in range and aspect angle and possibly the difference in sensor
phenomenology of different kinds of sensors. Accordingly, the basic processing approaches that are discussed in the
following sections will be similar for single sensor and multiple sensor processing.

4.1. Type 1: Class Probabilities With Single Feature Filter Mathematics Model For All Classes
The classification tasks using the problems of Equation 1, 2, and 3 exhibit the property that for each problem, their
feature filter mathematical models and parameter values are the same for all target classes. First consider the
classification task for which the feature state vector is the same for all targets of a class but different from class to class,
such as displayed in Equations 1 and 2 and thus the processing is greatly simplified. With that condition, the processing
could proceed without a feature filter using the following:
Initially for apparent target track and each target class compute:

P(k| z1 ) = p( z1 |k ) P(k ) / p( z1 ) with p(z1) = ∑ p( z1 |k ) P(k ) (5a)

k
with
− χ 2k,n / 2
e
p( z n |k ) = with χ 2k,n = ( z n − x k ) T R k−1 ( z n − x k ) (5b)
2πR k

and the variables are as displayed by Equation 2. When a subsequent feature measurement is provided by the target
tracker for a target track at time n, then recursive processing can be invoked by replacing Equation 5a by:

P(k| Z n ) = p( z n |k ) P(k| Z n−1 ) / p( z n | Z n−1 ) with p(z n | Z n−1) = ∑ p( z n |k ) P(k| Z n−1 ) (6)
k

where

 zn 
Zn =   (7)
Z n−1 

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 383

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 and this process is continued recursively as additional feature measurements are provided. The computation of Equation
6 provide the target class probabilities, p(k|Zn), for a target track. The simplified processing of Equation 6 is made
possible because the measurements are not cross-correlated so that:

p( z n | Z n−1 , k ) = p( z n | k ) (8)

because the feature state is the same for all targets of a target class and xk is known for all k.
If, however, the feature state for each target of a class were not the same, but were random variables, then Equation 8
does not apply. A method of handling the condition for which Equation 8 does not apply, such as for Equation 3, is to
use a feature filter for each target class and each target track to estimate the feature state vectors. For generality, let the
(true) feature state be time variable according to a deterministic dynamic state equation and then use:

p( z n | Z n−1 , k ) = ∫ p( z n | x n , Z n−1 , k ) p( x n | Z n−1 , k )dxn (9)

[ ]
−1
χ 2k,n = ( z n − Hx k ,n|n−1 − u) T R k + HPk ,n|n−1HT ( z n − Hx k ,n|n−1 − u) (10)

− χ 2k,n / 2
e
p( z n | Z n−1 , k ) = (11)
[
2π R k + HPk ,n|n−1H T
]
p(z n | Z n−1) = ∑ p( z n | Z n−1 , k ) P(k| Z n−1 ) (12)
k

P(k| Z n ) = p( z n | Z n−1 , k ) P(k| Z n−1 ) / p( z n | Z n−1 ) (13)

where

[
Pk ,n|n−1 = E ( x k ,n − x k ,n|n−1 )( x k ,n − x k ,n|n−1 ) T | Z n−1 ] (14)
x k ,n|n−1 = Feature filter predictied feature state for class k

However, a bank of filters is needed for each target track, one for each target class. Hence full processing is needed for
each class and that could be processor intensive. Figure 1 illustrates the processing for the above classification methods.
For the simpler classification problems of Equation 1, 2, and 3, an alternative processing approach can be used to
reduce the processor load. The computations for this alternative approach take advantage of the property that
the feature filter mathematical model is the same for all target classes, hence, only one filter is needed for each
target track rather than a bank of filters for each target track. This alternative approach is illustrated in Figure
2. For simplicity, assume that the feature state for a target for these problems is a vector of time invariant constants but
not necessarily the same for all targets of the same class. To permit that processing simplification, the a priori feature
state information is not used to initiate the feature filter for a target track. Instead, the first two or three feature
measurements are used to start a feature filter and the resulting estimated feature state does not benefit from the known a
priori feature state information. For this processing, let:

x n = Current estimated feature state (without benefit of a priori information)

(15)
Pn = Feature filter computed error covariance matrix

Then every time the probabilities of the target classes are desired for a target track, the estimated feature state plus the a
priori feature state information is used to compute those probabilities as follows:

[ ]
−1
χ 2k,n = ( xk , 0 − x n ) T Pn + Pk , 0 ( xk ,0 − x n ) (16)

384 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 − χ 2k,n / 2
e
p( Z n | k ) = (17)
[
2π Pn + Pk ,0 ]
P(k| Z n ) = p( Z n | k ) P(k ) / p( Z n ) with p(Z n ) = ∑ p( Z n | k ) P(k ) (18)
k

and hence the processing load is decreased by reducing the bank of filters to a single filter. Note that for classification of
Equation 1 and 2 problems, then Pk , 0 = 0 and xk , 0 = x k since the features state is the same for all targets of the same
class. The P*(k|Zn) used in Figure 2 is simply the left hand side of Equation 18 without the normalization obtained by
dividing by p(Zn) and is used to facilitate displaying the functions conveniently in block diagram form of Figure 2. Note
that for feature state estimation, batch estimation or a sequential batch filter could be used rather than a recursive filter,
such as a Kalman filter or an information filter. Also, there is an additional savings if the user does not need the target
class probabilities after every feature measurement. That saving is because Equations 16, 17, and 18 only need to be
computed when the target class probabilities are desired for a target.
For most applications, it should be practical to further reduce the processor load by eliminating the processing of the low
probability target classes for a target track. As the processing evolves for a target track, the probability of some target
classes should decrease and others increase. A rule might be established to eliminate the processing (for a target track)
of all target classes whose target class probability is less that a threshold value. A reasonable threshold value might be
computed as a function of the number of target classes and the probability of the most probable class for the target track.

4.2. Type 2: Class Probabilities With A Unique Feature Filter Mathematical Model For Each Class
The classification tasks for the problems formulated using Equation 4 are more processor intensive. The additional
processing is because a bank of feature filters is needed and they are needed because the filter mathematical model is
different for each target class. That difference might be in the structure of the mathematical models or in the values of
the parameters of the models or both. For example, the length of the feature state vector might not be the same for all
models and hence the structure of at least some of the models would be different. Alternatively, the length of feature
state vector might be adjusted to be the same for all classes and equal to the longest vector needed, but then some of the
filter matrices would be larger than is needed and the values of their parameters would have to be adjusted accordingly.
As the estimates of the feature state is obtained from the bank of filters, then the target class probabilities would be
computed using Equations 9 through 14 with minor modifications. For these conditions, the processing scheme of
Figure 1 applies. In view of the complexity of this approach, it would be important to find methods for reducing
the processor load, especially if there are many target classes. For most applications, it should be practical to
reduce the processor load by eliminating the processing of the low probability target classes for a target track as
discussed at the end of Section 4.1.

4.3. Types 1 and 2: Hard Decisions

As mentioned in Section 3.3, the classifier should normally provide the user with one or more hard decisions in addition
to all the target class probabilities for a target track. More than one hard decision may be desired because different
decision criteria might lead to different decisions. The procedure for making hard decisions using the Bayesian
approach is to first establish a Bayes cost and then minimize the Bayes risk, which is the expected value of the Bayes
cost. Some examples of hard decision using a few different Bayes costs are presented in this section.
4.3.1 Maximum a posteriori probability criterion
It can be shown that the maximum a posteriori probability is a Bayes risk criterion. The criterion and optimal solution
is:
Criterion = Max

[
p(k = k | Z
k
] (19)

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 385

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 k = Arg Max
 { [
p(k = k | Z )
k
]} (20)

hence, the solution is to simply decide on the target class for a target track that is most probable. This criterion is
sometimes referred to as the DMAP criterion [11] because the criterion is the maximum a posteriori probability (MAP)
for a decision among discrete alternative (hypotheses), i.e., from discrete sample space, rather then for an estimate from
continuous sample space.
4.3.2. Decision based on the minimum Bayes risk
The traditional minimum Bayes risk approach for decisions is to establish the Bayesian cost matrix and minimize the
Bayes risk as follows.
Let
k= Index of (true) target classes
k = Decided class for a target track
Nk = Number of target classes
(21)
Z = All measurments to date for a target track
c k ,k = Bayes cost for deciding class is k given it is k in truth
C= Bayes cost matrix

(22)

Given the values of the elements of the cost matrix, C, the Bayes risk and the optimal solution are

(23a)

(23b)

(23c)

Thus, the solution depends on the values of the elements of the cost matrix, C.
4.3.3. Decision based on the Bayesian indifference cost matrix
Consider the special case of what is sometimes called the Bayesian indifference cost for which all errors are penalized
equally:

(24)

The solution using the indifference Bayes cost is the same as the DMAP solution because the minimum over k of
1-p(k|Z) is the same as the maximum over k of p(k|Z). Note, however, that by varying the element of the cost matrix,
C, in Equation 23, it is usually possible to obtain a number of different optimal decisions for the Bayes risk of Equation

386 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 23a but it is often a judgement call to select the cost elements and a committee might have difficulty reaching a
consensus. That is a weakness of hard decisions.

5. Classification with Multiple Targets in a Classification Region

With multiple targets in a classification region, the target class probabilities for each target track could be computed as
outlined in Section 4 but that might not produce the correct target class probabilities. The problem with the approaches
of Section 4 when there are multiple targets in a classification region was mentioned in Section 3.1, which includes
examples. As another example, suppose there are known to be three targets in the region, one Boeing 767, one 747, and
one 727. Furthermore, suppose there are three target tracks, each with a low probability of being corrupt. If the class
probabilities computed per Section 4 indicate that the most probable class for each track is a 727, then one would suspect
that the fact that there is only one 727 in the region is not being taken into account properly. This section will address
that problem.
First, additional assumptions are introduced in order to limit the complexity of the problem and hence simplify the
discussion. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that there is only at most one target in the region from any
target class. Accordingly, only single member classes will be addressed. Comments on this assumption will be made at
in Section 6. In addition, it is assumed that the number of tracks does not change and the true target class for each track
does not change during the track maintenance period of interest.
First, a method for computing the target class probabilities is addressed and then methods for computing hard decisions
is explored. Note that there is a variety of ways to compute the class probabilities depending on the structure of the a
priori feature information, which could be very simple or very complex. For this analysis, the a priori probabilities of
the target class is a single number that is greater than zero and less than one.

5.1. Computing Class Probabilities With Multiple Targets In a Classification Region

To compute the target class probabilities for multiple targets in a region, the single target class probabilities are first
computed using the methods outlined in Section 4. The feature filters are used to estimate the feature state (or states) for
each target track. The feature states estimation process and the single-target class probability computations for the Type
3 classification problems are identical to Type 1. Similarly, the feature state estimation process and the single-target
class probability computations for Type 4 are identical to Type 2. Note that the feature estimation problems might be
Type 1 or 2 or a mixture. The features states should be estimated for each class with as little processing as is practical.
Accordingly, the Type 1 processing should be invoked wherever it is appropriate and the Type 2 methods should be used
sparingly, i.e., only for the target classes that need it and are crucial to performance. The feature filter estimates and the
computed single-target class probabilities provide the bases for computing the multiple target class probabilities. The
single target class a posteriori probabilities are computed every time the tracker provides updated target tracks. At those
times that the target class a posteriori probabilities that take the multiple targets into account are needed, then the
computations of this section are made and the resulting multiple target a posteriori probabilities are provided to the user.
For the method envisioned, the computation of the multiple target class probabilities is a two step process much like the
JPDA multiple target tracking estimation process [3,5,6]. In the first step, the multiple target class hypotheses are
computed and in the second step, the multiple target class probabilities are computed for each target track. To compute
the hypothesis probabilities, let:

Pi (k ) = P(k| Z n ) for target track i based on single target computations

h = Index of the hypothesis
Ph = Probability of hypothesis h
(25)
MT = Number of target tracks
k h,i = Target class assigned to target track i in hypothesis h
ZM
n
T
= All measurments from all MT tracks up to and including time n

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 387

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Then
MT
Ph* = Π Pi (k h,i ) (26)
i

Ph = Ph* / ∑ Ph* (27)

h

and no target class is assigned to more than one target and in a hypothesis and each hypothesis includes all tracks. That
completes the first step.
The second step is to compute the probabilities of each target class for each target track taking the multiple targets into
account. Let

Ω(i, k i ) = {Ph Ph for which target track i is assigned target class k } (28)

then

n )=
Pi (k i | ZM T
∑ Ph (29)
h ⊂ Ω ( i,k i )

and the computation defined by Equation 29 is computed for each target class for each target track. Equation 29
provides the target class a posteriori probabilities taking all targets in a classification region into account. That
concludes the processing of the second step. This two step procedure could be very processor intensive if there are
many target tracks or many target classes. Processing of Type 1 target classification problems will be less
processor intensive than Type 2. Eliminating the low probability target classes as mentioned in Section 4.1 should
reduce the processing but there may be the need for additional methods to reduce the processing complexity.
This two step procedure is similar to an optimal first-frame multiple-target tracking method and to JPDA tracking and
will be referred to as the multiple target class a posteriori probability processing (MTCP) method. When making the
single target computations referred to in Equation 25, the target class a priori probabilities need to be adjusted to take the
multiple target tracks into account. That can be done by applying the MTCP method to the initial single-target class a
priori probabilities. Note that after the above analysis was undertaken, a reportedly related analysis of multiple target
classification by M. Tsai was pointed out that was published in a limited distribution proceedings [14] that this author
has not yet had an opportunity to obtain or read.

5.2. Type 3 and 4: Hard Decisions with Multiple Targets in a Classification Region
The procedure for making hard decisions with multiple targets in a classification region is basically the same for Type 3
and Type 4 classification problems after the feature states are estimated and the single-target class probabilities are
computed. There are a variety of criteria that can be used to make hard classification decisions with multiple targets.
Some approaches suggested here employ the target class a posteriori probabilities that take the multiple targets into
account that can be computed using the MTCP method outline in the prior section. Other approaches use the multiple-
target class hypotheses of Equation 26 or 27 to advantage.
5.2.1 Hard decision based on a simple multiple target Bayes risk using MTCP.
There are no doubt a number of methods for defining the Bayes cost for decisions involving multiple targets. One
approach is briefly defined as follows. Consider defining the following based on the definitions in Section 4.3.1. Let

d i (k i ) = d(k ) of Equaton 23 for target i

& & (30)
p i (k i | Z (ni ) ) = p(k| Z n ) of Equaton 23 for target i

388 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 &
 p1 (k 1 | Z (n1) )   d1 (k 1 )   k1 
&  &     
p MT ( κ| Z nMT ) =  p 2 (k 2 | Z n( 2 ) )  ; d M ( κ ) =  d2 (k 2 )  ; κ =  k2  (31)
p& MT (k M | Z (MT ) ) 
T
 dMT(k ) k M 
 T n   MT   T
and let the multiple target Bayes cost matrix, CMT, be of the dimensions of NkMT by NkMT.

Given the values of the elements of the cost matrix, CMT , the Bayes risk is

[ &
Optimal Bayes Risk = Min dMT ( κ ) T CMT pMT ( κ| Z nMT )
κ
] (32)

&
Let a( Z Mn T ) = CMT p MT( κ| Z nMT ) (33)

b i,α = a Nk ( i−1)+α ( Z Mn T ) an element of a( Z Mn T ) with 1 ≤ α ≤ N k (34)

and this leads to MT simultaneous and independent optimization problems of the form:

k i = Arg Min b i,α  (35)

 α 
that provides a hard decision for each of the tracks but based on the information from all tracks. This does require that
the multiple target a posteriori probabilities be computed using the MTCP method of Section 5.1. Note however that
this simple Bayes risk there is no assurance that there will not be the same target class decision for two or more tracks.
5.2.2 Hard decision based on multiple target Bayes risk with indifference cost.
Consider the Bayes risk approach described in the prior section and using the indifference cost matrix. The analysis of
Section 4.3.2 can be extended to include multiple targets as in the prior section. For this purpose, the elements of the
cost matrix, CMT , are all ones except that the elements along the diagonal are zero. Accordingly, let NC = Nk MT

then the cost matrix is an Nc by Nc matrix. This cost matrix leads to MT simultaneous and independent optimization
problems of the form


 ki
[ n )  = Arg Max Pi (k i | Z n )
k i = Arg Min MT − Pi (k i | Z MT 

] 
 ki
MT 

(36)

which is equivalent to finding the most probable target class for each target track. More specifically, find the largest
multiple target class a posteriori probability for each target track. As in the prior section, this does require that the a
posteriori probabilities be computed using the MTCP method of Section 5.1. Note, however, that this simple Bayes risk
there is no assurance that there will not be the same target class decision for two or more target tracks. That issue is
addressed in the next section.
5.2.3 Hard decision based on a constrained multiple target Bayes risk.
Consider a modification to the Bayes risk suggested in Equation 32 to insure unique hard decisions. Let the Bayes risk
of Equation 32 apply except that there is the constraint that at most one target track be assigned to each target class and
each target track be assigned to exactly one target class. Then the optimal Bayes risk solution can be obtained by using a
2-dimensional unique assignment algorithm for an assignment cost matrix with elements equal to b k i as defined in
i,

Equation 34. This assignment requires constraints of equal to one for each track and inequality constraints of less than
or equal to one for each target class. An assignment algorithm such as the JVC unique assignment algorithm [15] could
be used for this purpose. In this way, no two or more targets will be assigned to any one target class as was established
by the assumed a priori target class information.

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 389

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 If the Bayes cost is the indifference cost matrix then each element of the assignment cost matrix is simply:

b i,k i = MT − Pi (k i | Z M
n ) or simply − Pi (k i | Z n )
T MT
(37)

and the constraints are as described in the prior paragraph. Note that a solution is guaranteed because of the way that the
corrupted track classes are generated for the target tracks, i.e. one unique corrupted-target track class for each track, as
discussed in Section 3.4. The advantage is that the solution is feasible in that no more than one target track is assigned to
any target class as specified by the a priori target class information. The hard decisions of this section require that the
multiple target class a posteriori probabilities be computed using the MTCP method of Section 5.1 and that could be a
processor intensive process if there are many target tracks or many target classes. The hard decision approach of the
next two sections address that issue.
5.2.4 Bayes risk hard decision using multiple target hypotheses.
An appealing approach to hard decisions that take multiple targets into account is to use hypothesis probabilities in the
Bayes risk rather than multiple target class probabilities. With Nh the total number of hypotheses and Ch the Bayes cost
that is an Nh by Nh matrix, consider the following definitions:

 Ph=1   δ1, h 
&
 Ph= 2  δ 
Ph =  ; d(h ) =  2, h 

(38)
     
   
Ph=Nh  δ Nh ,h 

[ ]
&
Optimal Bayes Risk = Min

d(h ) T C h Ph (39)
h

&
Let f ( ZM
n ) = C h Ph
T
(40)

 =
Then h Arg Min f ( Z n T )
h M
(41)
 h 
thus, the solution depends on the values of the elements of the cost matrix, Ch. This is somewhat simpler than the hard
decisions of the prior decision because the solution does not depend on the multiple target class a posteriori probabilities
but do depend on the multiple target hypothesis probabilities, which are typically processor intensive to compute. This
issue is addressed in the next paragraph.
If the Bayes cost is the indifference cost matrix then each element of the optimal solution is simply of the form:

h = Arg Min (Nh − Ph ) = Arg Max Ph  (42)

 h   h 
and the solution is simply the most-probable multiple-target hypothesis and exhibits characteristics similar to the single
target indifference cost problem of Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.3. This solution is equivalent to finding the minimum of the
logarithm of the hypotheses probabilities. Hence, the optimal solution is of the form

 
h = Arg Min log(Ph* ) = Arg Min ∑ log Pi (k h,i ) 
 h   h
i 
[ ] (43)

where the quantities of Equations 25 and 26 are substituted into Equation 42 and the unnormalized probability of the
hypotheses can be used because there are all divided by the same quantity. This solution can be obtained using a unique
assignment algorithm such as the JVC [15]. The elements of the assignment cost matrix are the log of the single target a
posteriori class probabilities and the size of the cost matrix is MT by Nk . This assignment requires constraints of equal to
one for each target track and inequality constraints of less than or equal to one for each target classes in order to insure

390 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 that the solution is a feasible hypothesis. Thus, the solution that is provided is that no more than one track is assigned to
each target class and a decision is made for each target track. Note that a solution is guaranteed because of the way that
the corrupted track classes are generated for the target tracks, i.e. one unique corrupted-track target class for each target,
as discussed in Section 3.4. This is much simpler than all the prior hard decision because it uses the single target class a
posteriori probabilities instead of the multiple target class a posteriori probabilities. Thus if only hard decisions are
required and the multiple target class a posteriori probabilities are not required, then the processing is
substantially reduced because all the MTCP processing of Section 5.1 can be eliminated yet these hard decisions
take all the multiple targets into account. Eliminating the low probability target classes as mentioned in Section
4.1 should reduce the processing even further but there still may be the need for additional methods to reduce the
processing complexity.

6. Extensions
The multiple target classification problems addressed in Section 5 are restricted to problems with at most one true target
in each target class. The approaches of that section could be modified for use with the possibility of multiple targets
from some or all target classes. These modifications would require establishing the probability of the number of targets
in each target class plus special methods, such as, for hard decision there would be a need for a special assignment
method to accommodate multiple targets per class and their probabilities.
The classification methods discussed assumed that the target tracker used hard tracking decisions and single-frame data
association. Those classifications methods could be modified to handle multiple frame approaches that carry forward
more than one track per apparent target, such as in multiple hypotheses tracking and multiple frame assignment using a
moving window. The modification would depend on the type of multiple frame data association used.
The discussions of the prior sections have not addressed the important issue of what data to distribute in a distributed
sensor platforms system. Different types of data can be distributed depending on the type of classification problem. For
example, feature measurements, estimated feature states, likelihoods, or probabilities might be distributed. In some cases
the target classifications might not be needed after every feature measurement is obtained for a target track. In that case
the tracklet concept [16] might be applied to feature measurements, feature state estimates, feature likelihoods, or
probabilities depending on the specifics of the applications.
In Equations 3 and 4, the nuisance variables y and u were assumed to be know, such as the target aspect angle.
Typically some of the nuisance variables will not be know but are estimated. The classification methods discussed in
this paper need to be modified to take the estimation errors of the nuisance variables into account and this would
introduce random errors not discussed in the paper because of the complexity that would be added to the discussion.

7. Conclusions
This paper has addressed the classification of small targets for which a sequence of feature measurements would be
provided by one or more sensors. Both single target and multiple target classification methods are described. The
classification methods applicable to tracking a single target or isolated targets have been addressed that are less complex
than the methods needed to take multiple targets into account. Classification methods that reduce the processing load
because the filter mathematical models are the same for a number of target classes have been described and apply to both
single and multiple target classification.
Methods for making hard decisions have been described that supplement the a posteriori probabilities of each target
class for each target track that is provided to each user. Furthermore for multiple targets, if the a posteriori probabilities
of each target class are not needed for all targets, then methods or making hard decisions that are substantially less
processor intensive have been presented. The classification processing of multiple targets is similar to multiple target
tracking, which is also processor intensive. While optimal multiple target tracking is not practical, given certain
comditions, optimal or near optimal multiple target classification might be practical for a few target tracks and a few
target classes.

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 391

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Acknowledgements
The contributions of Dr. W. D. Blair, Dr. R. N. Madan, LtCol. J. Myers, A. Perrella, R. Rothrock, and many others too
numerous to list are gratefully acknowledged. Working with them has been a great pleasure and they have been major
contributors to understanding the critical issues related to small target classification.

References

1. Drummond, O. E., Multiple Target Tracking Lecture Notes, (a sequence of editions since 1985), Technical Book
Company, 2056 Westwood Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025, 2002.
2. Drummond, O. E., Target Tracking, Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 21, pp. 377-
391, 1999.
3. Blackman, S. S., Multiple Target Tracking With Radar Applications, Denham, MA: Artech House, 1986.
4. Bar-Shalom, Y. and X. R. Li, Estimation and Tracking: Principles, Techniques and Software, Boston: Artech House,
1993.
5. Bar-Shalom, Y. and X. R. Li, Multitarget-Multisensor Tracking: Principles and Techniques, Los Angeles: OPAMP
Tech. Books, 1995
6. Blackman, S. S. and R. F. Popoli, Design and Analysis of Modern Tracking Systems, Norwood, MA: Artech House,
1999.
7. Drummond, O. E., (ed.), "Introduction, Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 1997," Proc. SPIE, 3163, p. ix,
1997.
8. Drummond, O. E., "Target Tracking With Retrodicted Discrete Probabilities," Signal and Data Processing of Small
Targets 1997, Proc. SPIE Vol. 3163,pp. 249-268, 1997.
9. Drummond, O. E., "On Features and Attributes in Multisensor, Multitarget Tracking," Proceedings of The 2nd
International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION’99), July 1999, Sunnyvale, CA, pp. 1045-1053.
10. Drummond, O. E., "Feature, Attribute, and Classification Aided Target Tracking," Signal and Data Processing of
Small Targets 2001, Proc. SPIE Vol. 4473, pp. 542-558, 2001.
11. Drummond, O. E., X. Rong Li, Chen He, "Comparison of Various Static Multiple-Model Estimation Algorithms,"
Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 1998, SPIE Proc. Vol. 3373, 1998, pp. 510-527.
12. Magill, D. T., "Optimal adaptive estimation of sampled stochastic processes," IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-10
(4), pp. 434-439, 1965.
13. Sims, F. L. and D. G. Lainiotis, "Recursive algorithm for the calculation of the adaptive Kalman filter weighting
coefficients," IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-14 (2), pp. 215-217, 1969.
14 Tsai, M, and M. Zimmer, "An Architectural Approach to Achieving Robust Radar Classifier Performance," MSS MD-
SEA Conference, Monterey, CA, 2000.
15 Drummond, O. E., D. A. Castanon, and M. S. Bellovin, "Comparison of 2-D Assignment Algorithms for Sparse,
Rectangular, Floating Point, Cost Matrices," Journal of the SDI Panels on Tracking, Institute for Defense Analyses,
Alexandria, VA, Issue No. 4/1990, 15 Dec. 1990, pp. 4-81 to 4-97.
16 Drummond, O. E., "On Track and Tracklet Fusion Filtering," Signal and Data Processing of Small Targets 2002,
Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728, (to be published) 2002.

392 Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Feature Vector Compute
Kalman Filter Probability
for Class 1 of Class 1

Feature Vector Compute

Track Feature Decision Decision
Kalman Filter Probability
Measurements Processing Information
for Class 2 of Class 2

Feature Vector Compute

Kalman Filter Probability
for Class Nk of Class Nk

Figure 1. Classification Processing with Unique Feature Mathematical Model for Each Class

Compute p (k =1Z
*
| )
Probability
of Class 1

xˆ n , Pn Compute p*(k = 2| Z)
Track Feature Feature Vector Decision Decision
Probability
Measurements Kalman Filter Processing Information
of Class 2

Compute p*(k = Nk | Z)
Probability
of Class N k

Figure 2. Classification Processing with Single Feature Mathematical Model for All Classes

Proc. SPIE Vol. 4728 393

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 16 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use