ICRE’07 university of Bejaia
Modeling of Belief Functions for Multi-Target
Tracking
Abdelmalek MENNAD*, Ahmed DALLIL and Abdelaziz OULDALI
Communications Systems Laboratory
Polytechnic Military School
Algiers, Algeria
*
E-mail: MenadAbdelmalek@yahoo.fr
Abstract—In this paper, we propose a new model
for solving the problem of belief functions
modelling for data association in multi-target
tracking (MTT), given a set of environmental
measurements obtained by sensor in a surveillance
system. The proposed model (PM) exploits belief
theory, which is a powerful tool for handling
imperfect data. This model (PM) has been tested for
a nearly-constant-velocity target and compared to
fuzzy set model (FSM) and the Bayesian model
(BM) in different ambiguous cases and with
different sets of simulated data. The obtained
results are very satisfactory and show that this
model provides a useful mechanism for data
association.
I. INTRODUCTION
The belief theory first developed by Shafer [1]
based on Dempster's previous works [2], is a general
model of human reasoning under uncertainty. Unlike
Bayesian approach, which is a special case, it doesn't
need prior knowledge and it allows for explicit
representation of ignorance.
In this work we consider the classical problem of
multi-target tracking (MTT); each target is characterized
by its noisy observation. In such case the problem of
observation to track correlation (data association) is the
one difficulty of MTT, where incoming measurements
should be correctly assigned to theirs associated track
or identified as a new target or false alarm, to obtain
correct measure for state estimation. The result of data
association is crucial for the overall tracking process.
In the literature, many methods have been proposed to
deal with the data association problem [3], [4], [5]. In
recent publications a novel method based on the use of
belief theory was presented [6], [7], [8]. It allows us to
1
reason with uncertainty and suggests a way of
combining imperfect data and expressing ignorance.
Furthermore, the conflict between the sources to be
combined can be expressed in this theory.
In this paper we develop a method for MTT with belief
functions using a model based on a Gaussian function
with a special normalisation. The remainder of this
paper is organized as follows: section 2 discusses the
basic notions used in belief theory. In section 3, we
formulate the problem discussed in this paper, and give
an overview of the PM for solving the problem of data
association in MTT, also we present FS and BM
model. The simulation results of comparison between
PM, FS and BM are presented in section 4. Finally in
section 6, we conclude this paper.
II. BELIEF THEORY
In belief theory, the set of all possible solutions
(also called hypotheses) of a given problem is called
frame of discernment, usually denoted by Ω. All the
hypotheses must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
The subsets of Ω, called propositions, can also be
possible solutions to the problem. The set of
propositions is the power set of Ω, including Ω itself
and the empty set ∅. Let: Ω = {Hl,H2,…,Hn} and 2Ω
={∅,H1,H2,H1UH2,…,Ω}. We can define in the power
set 2Ω, a mass function, called also basic belief
assignment (bba) and denoted by “m”, that associates
with every proposition A of 2Ω, degree of belief in
[0,1], such that [6]:
⎧m ( ∅ ) = 0
⎪
m : 2Ω → [ 0.1] ⎨ m ( A) = 1 (1)
⎪ A∑
⎩ ⊆ Ω
The bba for a given set A, noted as m(A), represents
the belief exactly committed to A and makes no
additional claims about any subsets of A.
 The subset A is a focal element of Ω, if m(A) > 0,
the focal elements and their associated bba define a
body of evidence.
From the bba, we can define two other measures of
belief, the belief function and the plausibility function.
The belief function Bel: 2Ω → [0,1] is defined by [7]:
Bel ( A ) = ∑ m ( B) ∀A ⊆ 2Ω (2)
∅≠ B ⊆ A
It measures the total belief committed to A. It is equal
to the sum of all the masses of all subsets B of A. In
the same way, the plausibility function is defined as:
Pl ( A ) = ∑ m ( B) ∀A ⊆ 2Ω (3)
( A∩ B )≠∅
The plausibility of A indicates the extent to which
one fails to doubt A. It is equal to the sum of all the
masses given to sets B whose intersection with
proposition A is different from the empty set.
Belief theory provides a method for combining the
measure of evidence from different sources, using
Dempster's rule of combination. This rule combines
two independent bodies of evidence (if we have two
information sources) defined in the same frame of
discernment Ω, to a new body of evidence. For
example, let ml and m2 be two bbas defined in the same
frame of discernment Ω. The new body of evidence
noted m12, is given by [6]:
∑ m1 ( B ) m2 ( C )
m12 ( A ) = B ∩C = A
(4)
1− ∑ m1 ( B ) m2 ( C )
B ∩C =∅
The Dempster's rule of combination is commutative
and associative, which makes its use very attractive for
the combination of multiple sources since their beliefs
can be combined in any order. The basic belief mass
assigned to the empty set is considered as a measure of
conflict between the combined beliefs [6].
Now, having computed the mass, belief and
plausibility values for all propositions, the decision is
made among the different propositions according to
some decision rule. The three most popular decision
rules are: (i) maximum of plausibility, (ii) maximum
of belief, and (iii) maximum of pignistic probability.
The pignistic probability function, noted BetP, is
obtained via a transformation of m, called the
pignistic transformation [7]:
1 m( B)
BetP ( A ) = ∑ .
B 1 − m (∅ )
(5)
B ⊂ 2Ω ,A⊂ B
where |B| is the cardinal of B in 2Ω.
As it is used in Transferable Belief Model [9], this
transformation includes normalization when non-
normalized beliefs are supposed.
III. DATA ASSOCIATION BY BELIEF THEORY
A. Problem formulation
In this section, to solve the problem of data
association, we use the method developed in [7],
where the belief theory based data association method
is used to solve the problem of vehicle tracking in road
situations.
Let Ωp= {P1, P2, P3,…,PI} and Ωa={A1, A2, A3,…,AJ}
be respectively the predicted targets and the validated
measurements at time k.
To study the association relation between these two
sets Ωp and Ωa, a basic idea is to define for each target
Pi (i =1.., I) in the set Ωp, J virtual sources of
information as much as the number of objects in the set
Ωa. Then, each source Sj (j=1…,J) examines if the
observation Aj is originated from the target Pi or not.
So, we can define J local frames of discernment Ωij
for each target Pi, related to answering the question: is
the target Pi associated to the observation Aj?
Therefore, the local frame of discernment is composed
of two hypotheses: Ωij = {Pi is associated to Aj, Pi is
not associated to Aj}. Thus, a potential solution for the
problem of association between Pi and Aj can be a
proposition from the set:
2Ωij - ∅ ={Pi is associated to Aj, Pi is not associated to
Aj, I don't know}.
As we can see, a potential solution to the problem is
ignorance, where we cannot decide whether target Pi is
associated to observation Aj or not. The empty set is
not considered since it represents the impossible
solution. For simplicity of representation, we noted
respectively the local frame of discernment Ωij and the
power set 2Ωij by:
{ }
Ωij = Pi RA j ,Pi RA j and 2
Ωij
{
= ∅ ,Pi RA j ,Pi RA j , Ω a }
where: R is the abbreviation for association Relation,
{ } {
Pi RA j = A j , Pi RA j = A j ," , A j −1 , A j −1 ," , AJ }
Since we have J measurements, we obtain J initial
beliefs for each target Pi, which are defined over the
same frame of discernment. These initial beliefs are
considered as independent virtual sources of
information that must be combined to make a decision
about the return of the target Pi. This is doing using
Dempster’s rule of combination. This combination
produces a single bba over the power set of this frame
of discernment defined by the set of received
measurements.

2
 Table I. Belief matrix ⎧ mij { H1} = m ( i, j )
⎪
P1 P2 … PI
⎪⎪ mij { H 2 } = 1 − m ( i, j )
PM → ⎨ (8)
⎪ mij ( ign ) = 0
A1 m1,1 m2,1 … mI,1

A2 m1,2 m2,2 … mI,2 ⎪

⎪⎩ mij ( ∅ ) = 0
…. … … … …
where
AJ m1,J m2,J … mI,J
⎧ H 1 : target i is associated with measurement j
∅ m1,∅ M2,∅ … mI,∅ ⎪
⎪ H 2 : target i isn't associated with measurement j
⎨
⎪ign : ignorance of association between i and j
The results of masses combination for all ⎪⎩∅ : the impossible solution
measurements Aj and all targets Pi are summarized and
listed in the table (table I) representing the belief We compare the association performance of PM with
matrix; each element mi;j represent the mass value for FSM and BM.
the proposition: the measurement Aj is originate from
the target Pi. 2) Fuzzy set model “FSM”

Then for decision making, the maximum of belief We choose a fuzzy set model as follows [13]:
is taken as a decision rule i.e. the observation with the ƒ let M max = max ( G( i, j )) and M min = min ( G( i, j ))
j j
highest mass value is chosen as the solution. In the
particular case of the last row: the mass assigned to the M − M min
ƒ let step = max
empty set ∅ due to the fact the virtual sources see 3
(totally or partially) different observations and ƒ let α = Mmin + step and β = Mmin +2 step
representing a conflict between the virtual sources i.e.
ƒ make the following normalisation compared to Mmax:
it reflect partial or total ambiguity in correlation
between the considered target and the measurements. α β G ( i, j )
αnorm = , βnorm = , Gnorm ( i, j ) =
M max M max M max
B. Belief functions modelling ƒ finally the belief function model become:
1) Proposed model “PM”
⎧if Gnorm ( i,j ) ≥ βnorm or Gnorm ( i,j ) ≤ αnorm
The mass function distribution generation is a ⎪
crucial step in establishing the belief model. It is ⎪ ⎧m( H1 ) = Gnorm ( i,j )
⎪ ⎪⎪
closely related to data modelling and the considered ⎪ then ⎨m( H2 ) = 1− Gnorm ( i,j )
application. Numerous algorithms have been proposed ⎪ ⎪
for finding mass function distribution [7], [10], [11], ⎪ ⎪⎩m( ign) = 0
FSM → ⎨ (9)
⎪if αnorm<Gnorm ( i,j ) <βnorm
[12]. In this paper, we have considered the method
suggested in [14]. It takes into consideration data ⎪
inaccuracy and uncertainty. The mass functions are ⎪ ⎧m( H1 ) = 0.25Gnorm ( i,j )
⎪ then ⎪⎪m H = 0.25 1− G
generated as follows:
⎪ ⎨ ( 2) ( norm ( i,j))
ƒ Assuming the Gaussian distribution for the ⎪ ⎪
innovation, the likelihood function Gij is: ⎩ ⎪⎩m( ign) = 0.75
1 1
Gij = exp( − yijT ( Si )−1 yij ) (6) 3) Bayesian model “BM”
2 π Si 2
yij : the innovation vector from observation j to track i, In the Bayesian model, we use the value given in [14]
Si : the innovation covariance matrix for track i. for the development of belief functions model:
⎧ G ( i, j )
ƒ We get the normalisation [15] : ⎪m ( H 1 ) =
⎪ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
m̂ij =
Gij
→ m ( i, j ) = J
ˆ ij
m
(7) ⎪
⎪ ⎢⎣ j
∑ ∑
⎢ G ( i, j ) ⎥ + ⎢ G ( i, j ) ⎥ − G ( i, j )
⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ i ⎥⎦ (10)
max[ Gij ] BM → ⎨
j
∑
j =1
m̂ij ⎪ m ( H 2 ) = 1 − m ( i, j )
⎪
⎪
ƒ The belief function model is as follows: ⎪ m( ign ) = 0
⎩

3
 IV. SIMULATION RESULTS To analyse the performances of the PM, we consider
two situations:
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the
capability of the PM to perform an effective data - Situation 1: three closest parallel targets with initial
association in ambiguous situation, and evaluate its states: (500m,70m/s,500m,80m/s), (550m,70m/s,500m,
performances by comparison with that of FSM and 80m/s) and (600m,70m/s,500m,80m/s). “figure 1-a”.
BM, in term of percent of correct association and - Situation 2: three closest crossing targets at the
precision via RMSE. middle of interval observation; with initial positions
The simulations were done for three kinematics (500m,70m/s,500m,80m/s), (450m,75m/s,550m,75m/s)
targets moving in a two dimensional space with a and (400m,80m/s,598m, 70m/s). “figure 2-a”.
nearly-constant-velocity In this work the extended Kalman filter used to
generate independently for each target state predictions
X (k + 1) = Φ(k ) × X (k ) + Γ(k ) × W (k ) (11)
and estimation is initialized with 70% of the true value.
Where the state vector X(k) at time k consists in When new measurements are available, prediction are
position and velocity components in Cartesian associated with the incoming observations using the
coordinates algorithm explained in the previous section based on
the use of belief theory.
⎡ X 1 (k ) ⎤ ⎡ x(k ) ⎤
⎢ X (k )⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ The simulation results for 100 Monte Carlo run
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ x(k ) ⎥ (12)
X (k ) = = allow us to release the following remarks:
⎢ X 3 (k ) ⎥ ⎢ y (k ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢. ⎥ ƒ PM is able to discriminate between targets although
⎣ X 4 ( k ) ⎦ ⎢⎣ y ( k ) ⎥⎦ the two targets are closely spaced and gives good
And performance then FSM and BM, see “figure 1-a,
and figure 2-a”.
⎡1 T 0 0⎤ ƒ From percent of correct association, we show that
⎢ ⎥ the association is better when we use the PM, than
0 1 0 0⎥
Φ (k ) = ⎢⎢ ⎥ (13) if the FSM or BM is used in the two situations
⎢0 0 1 T⎥ (situation 1 and situation 2), see “figure 1-b, and
⎢⎣0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ figure 2-b”.
ƒ In term of RMSE we can see that PM has the better
And performances then FSM and BM in the two
situations, see “figure 1-c, and figure 2-c”.
⎡T 2 ⎤
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥ V. CONCLUSION
⎢T 0 ⎥
Γ (k ) = ⎢ ⎥ (14) In this paper, a data association method based on
⎢ 0 T2 ⎥ belief theory is introduced, which uses a new model to
⎢ 2 ⎥ determine the mass functions, combines the mass
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 T ⎦ functions by using the Dempster rule, finally makes the
decision according to the maximum of belief.
where T = 0.1s denotes the sampling period (the Simulation results have been provided to evaluate the
duration of observation is 200 samples ). W(k) is the association performance of the PM and proved that this
state noise assumed to be Gaussian and centered with model can reliably keep track of the multiple targets
covariance matrix Q = (0.1 m/s2)2 12 without confusion even if they are closely spaced and
Each target is characterized by its noisy position (range even if they are crossing and it shows that the tracking
and bearing) Z(k) given by performances after association by PM are better
compared to those of the FSM and BM. This
⎡ X 2 (k ) + X 2 (k ) ⎤ demonstrates that the PM is simple feasible, efficiency
⎢ 1 3
⎥ and it is well adapted to tracking targets in ambiguous
Z (k ) = ⎢ ⎛ X 3 (k ) ⎞ ⎥ + V (k ) (15)
arctan ⎜ ⎟ association situation.
⎢ ⎜ X (k ) ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎦
Where V(k) is an additive noise, independent from the
noise W(k), with covariance matrix R = diag{(150m)2
(1.5°)2}.

4
 (a) (a)
2500 2500

2000 2000

c oordinate (m )
coordinate (m )

1500 1500

track1 track1
1000 track2 1000 track2
track3 track3
observation track1 observation track1
observation track2 observation track2
observation track3 observation track3
500 estimated track1 500 estimated track1
estimated track2 estimated track2
estimated track3 estimated track3

Radar Radar
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
abscise (m) abscise (m)

(b) (b)
Target1 Target2 Target3 Target1 Target2 Target3
1 0.7 1 1 1 1
PM
PM PM PM
0.95 0.9 FSM 0.9
FSM FSM 0.95 FSM 0.9
0.6 BM
BM BM BM
0.9 0.8 0.8
0.9 0.8
0.85 0.5 0.7 0.7
percent of correct association

percent of correct association

percent of correct association

percent of correct association

percent of correct association

percent of correct association

0.85
0.7
0.8 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.8
0.75 0.6 0.5 0.5

0.3 0.75
0.7 0.4 0.4
0.5
0.7
0.65 0.3 0.3
0.2
0.4
0.65 0.2 0.2
0.6
PM PM
0.1 0.3
0.55 0.6 FSM 0.1 0.1 FSM
BM BM
0.5 0 0.55 0.2 0 0
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200
samples samples samples samples samples samples

(c) (c)
Target1 Target2 Target3 Target1 Target2 Target3
140 160 140 140 140 140
PM PM PM PM PM PM
FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM FSM
BM 140 BM BM BM BM BM
120 120 120 120 120

120
100 100 100 100 100
RMSE Position (m)

RMSE Position (m)

RMSE Position (m)

RMSE Position (m)

RMSE Position (m)

RMSE Position (m)

100
80 80 80 80 80
80

60 60 60 60 60
60

40 40 40 40 40
40

20 20 20 20 20 20
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200
samples samples samples samples samples samples

Figure 1. Tracking of three parallel targets, (a) estimated Figure 2. Tracking of tree crossing targets, (a) estimated
trajectories after data association with PM, (b) percent of trajectories after data association with PM, (b) percent of
correct association when the “PM”, “FSM” and “BM” are correct association when the “PM”, “FSM” and “BM” are
used for data association, (c) RMSE when the “PM”, “FSM” used for data association, (c) RMSE when the “PM”, “FSM”
and “BM” are used for data association. and “BM” are used for data association.

5
 REFERENCES [8] E.Blasch, J.Westerkamp, J.Hong, J.Layne, F Garber,
and A. Shaw. Identifying moving HRR signatures with
[1] G. Shafer. Mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton an ATR belief data association filter. In SPIE 2000.
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1976.
[9] Ph. Smets and R. Kennes. The transferable belief model.
[2] A. Dempster. A generalization of bayesian inference. In Intern. J. Intell. Systems, 66(2):191-234, 1994.
Journal of Royal Statistical Society, series B, 30, pages
205-247, 1968.
[10] A. Appriou. Probabilités et incertitude en fusion de
données multisenseurs. revue scientifique et technique
[3] T. E Fortmann, Y Bar-Shalom, and M. Scheffe. de la défense, (11):27-40, 1991.
Multitarget tracking of multiple targets using joint
probabilistic data association. In proceedings of
conference on decision and control, pages 807-812,
[11] T. Denoeux. A k-nearest neighbour classification rule
based on dempster shafer theory. IEEE Transactions
December 1980.
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 25(5):804-813,
January 1995.
[4] D. B. Reid. An algorithm for tracking multiple targets.
In proceedings of conference on decision and control,
[12] M. Rombaut and V. Berge Cherfaoui. Decision making
pages 1202-1211, December 1978.
in data fusion using dempster schafer's theory. In 3th
IFAC Symposium on Intelligent Components and
[5] Y. Bar-Shalom and E. Tse. Tracking in a cluttered Instrumentation for Control Applications, Annecy,
environment with probabilistic data association. In France, January 1997.
proceedings of Fourth Symposium on non-linear
estimation theory and its application, pages 13-22, San
Diego, September 1973.
[13] P. Fortemps. Fuzzy sets for modelling and handling
imprecision and flexibility. Polytechnic faculty of
Mons, Belgium, 1996-1997.
[6] N. Megherbi, S. Ambellouis, O. Colot, F. Cabestaing.
Multimodal data association based on the use of belief
functions for multiple target tracking. In 8th
[14] A. Dallil, M. Oussalah and A. Ouldali. Evidential data
association filter, “IPMU 2010”, Dortmund Germany.
International conference on Information Fusion.
Philadelphia 2005.
[15] L. Jang, J. Chao. An information fusion algorithm for
data association in multitarget tracking, IEEE Trans.
[7] A. Dallil, A. Ouldali and M. Oussalah. Data association
Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 1996.
in multi target tracking using belief functions, SETTIT
2009, Hammamet-Tunisia.