TMA

© All Rights Reserved

9 views

TMA

© All Rights Reserved

- F3 Maths Annual Scheme of Work_2011
- The Overlapping Data Problem
- Estimating AR-MA Models Susan Thomas
- True or False Questions Linear Algebra2
- KTET Syllabus for Category III
- A Primer on the Mechanics of Tensegrity Structures by W. O. Williams
- Advanced Math
- SSRN-id2625185
- SOFW F3
- copyofgeometryfinalreflection
- Quantum Algorithms for Compositional Natural Language Processing
- Maths Ext1 Hsc Sa 2010
- Untitled
- betrak
- So wghats ur name
- Point Estimation
- DM01 Portfolio Exported Spread
- Homework 4
- qf11_lecture12
- MAT223_Mid1_2012W

You are on page 1of 15

INTRODUCTION

The conventional problem of bearings-only target

motion analysis consists of estimating the trajectory of a

Leg-by-leg Bearings-Only target (or source) whose velocity is constant during the

period of measurement [13]. This requires an efficient

Target Motion Analysis maneuver of the observer to guarantee observability

[6][12] and to obtain an accurate estimate [11][15]. In

Without Observer Maneuver a recent paper [7], we proved that, conversely, if the

observer has a constant velocity and the source changes

its heading (so its trajectory is composed of two legs at

constant speed–see Fig. 5), then, subject to a condition

CLAUDE JAUFFRET on velocity vectors of the two mobiles, the source

is observable. For this problem, called bearings-only

DENIS PILLON

maneuvering target motion analysis (BOMTMA), we

ANNIE-CLAUDE PIGNOL

proposed the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) and

compared its performance with the Cramér-Rao lower

bound (CRLB), revealing that this estimate is relatively

efficient. The major criticisms are

In a previous paper [7], the problem of bearings-only tracking

of targets whose trajectory is composed of two legs from a non- 1) The operator must wait until the source has

maneuvering observer was addressed and the maximum likelihood changed its heading to run the computation of the esti-

estimate (MLE) proposed. We named it bearings-only maneuvering mate.

target motion analysis (BOMTMA). Recently in [9], we proposed 2) The computation by a numerical routine needs a

another estimate based on leg-by-leg tracking and compare its

“good guess” (to reduce the risk of converging toward

a local minimum).

performance to the MLE. We give here the extended version of [9],

3) The computation takes time.

together with some comparison between the conventional bearings-

only target motion analysis (BOTMA) and the BOMTMA. In this paper, we propose a new approach to this

problem which consists of estimating what is observable

during the first leg of the source, then during the second

one, and finally of fusing these two estimated state vec-

tors to obtain an estimate of the source trajectory. Note

that in the classic BOTMA, the leg-by-leg approach has

been employed for the same reasons [2][14][16]. We

will assume that the maneuver time is known, hence we

will not address the problem of detecting the maneuver

(see [5] and [17] for this topic).

The paper is composed of three main sections:

² In Section 2, we present the problem of target motion

analysis (TMA) when neither the source nor the

observer maneuvers.

² A new bearings-only maneuvering target motion anal-

ysis by a non-maneuvering observer is proposed in

Section 3.

² In Section 4, some examples are provided to compare

respective performances of BOTMA and BOMTMA,

Manuscript received November 12, 2009; revised October 27, 2010; in terms of estimated range accuracy.

released for publication February 08, 2011.

Refereeing of this contribution was handled by Huimin Chen. 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION WHEN NEITHER THE

SOURCE NOR THE OBSERVER MANEUVERS

Authors’ addresses: C. Jauffret, Université Sud Toulon-Var, CNRS,

IM2NP (UMR 6242), Bâtiment X, BP 132, 83957 La Garde Cedex, We consider in this section the case where the source

France, Email: (jauffret@univ-tln.fr); D. Pillon, Thales Underwater and the observer are moving in the same plane with their

Systems, 525 Route des Dolines, 06903 Sophia-Antipolis, France,

Email: (denis.pillon@fr.thalesgroup.com); A. C. Pignol, Université

own constant velocity vectors (see Fig. 1).

Sud Toulon-Var, CNRS, IM2NP (UMR 6242), Bâtiment X, BP 132,

83957 La Garde Cedex, France, Email: (pignol@univ-tln.fr). 2.1. Measurement Equation and Trajectory Model

Consider a source and a passive observer (also called

1557-6418/11/$17.00 °

c 2011 JAIF own ship). From here on, the subscript S is used to

Fig. 1. Example of observer and source trajectories.

represent source quantities and O to represent observer 2.2. The Set of Homothetic Trajectories

quantities.

The trajectory of a vehicle moving at a constant

At time t, the respective location vectors of the _ T is described by the following

velocity vector [x_ y]

source and of the observer are PS (t) = [xS (t) yS (t)]T classic equations:

and PO (t) = [xO (t) yO (t)]T relative to a Cartesian coor-

dinate system. Similarly, the vectors VS = [x_ S y_ S ]T and x(t) = x(t¤ ) + (t ¡ t¤ )x_

VO = [x_ O y_ O ]T denote the source and own ship velocity (2)

y(t) = y(t¤ ) + (t ¡ t¤ )y:

_

vectors, respectively. We define also the relative velocity

vector of the source w.r.t. the observer as VR = VS ¡ VO . Such a trajectory is hence defined by the vector X =

The corresponding speeds and headings (or courses) are [x(t¤ ) y(t¤ ) x_ y]

_ T.

denoted vS , vO , vR , cS , cO and cR . The equation of the noise-free bearings being μ(t) =

At time tk , the observer measures the azimuth of the atan[(xS (t) ¡ xO (t))=(yS (t) ¡ yO (t))], it is straightforward

line of sight in which it detects the source: to check that the set of trajectories producing the same

· ¸ noise-free-bearings from the observer is

x (t ) ¡ xO (tk )

¯k = atan S k + "k (1) ¤ = fX(¸) = ¸(XS ¡ XO ) + XO , for ¸ > 0g:

yS (tk ) ¡ yO (tk )

If μ(t) is not constant, there is no other trajectory

where "k is assumed to be a zero-mean Gaussian random

set that generates the same noise-free data when the

noise of variance ¾k2 .

source and observer are moving at constant velocity

The BOTMA aims to estimate

vectors [10]. From now on, we will assume that μ(t)

XS = [xS (t¤ ) yS (t¤ ) x_ S y_ S ]T is not constant.

Note that the vector

from the collected measurement set f¯1 , ¯2 , : : : , ¯N g pro-

X(¸) = [x1 (¸) x2 (¸) x3 (¸) x4 (¸)]T

vided observability is guaranteed (t¤ is an arbitrary ref-

erence time). The vector XO = [xO (t¤ ) yO (t¤ ) x_ O y_ O ]T defines a ¸-homothetic trajectory (in particular, X(1) =

is known. It is well known that if the observer does XS ).

not maneuver or if its maneuver is ambiguous (see [6] It follows that XS is not observable from the bearing

and [10]), then the vector XS is not observable. In the measured by the observer. In short, in this context,

coming paragraph, we explore the situations where the the BOTMA is impossible. We can however estimate

observer keeps its velocity vector during the scenario. a parameter (or a state vector) that characterizes ¤. We

call the estimation of this parameter (or any equivalent vector of ¤ as state vector is more convenient. A way to

parameter) partial bearing-only target motion analysis “stay” in ¤ is to fix one coordinate of a 4-dimensional

(see Subsection 2.4). vector X and “adjust” the remained coordinates to Y:

The previous set ¤ can be characterized by any of its For example, if we fix the first coordinate of an par-

elements X(¸). At any X(¸) of ¤, there is a correspond- ticular element of ¤ to the value xfix , the corresponding

ing unique three dimensional vector Y = [y1 y2 y3 ]T de- ¸ will be ¸ = (xfix ¡ xO (t¤ ))=(xS (t¤ ) ¡ xO (t¤ )); however,

fined by we must choose xfix such that ¸ be positive. This will

· ¸

x1 (¸) ¡ xO (t¤ ) help us in Subsection 2.4.

y1 = atan

x2 (¸) ¡ yO (t¤ )

p 2.3. Properties of v(½) and c(½)

(x3 (¸) ¡ x_ O )2 + (x4 (¸) ¡ y_ O )2

y2 = p (3) First of all, we note that v(0) and c(0) are equal

[x1 (¸) ¡ xO (t¤ )]2 + [x2 (¸) ¡ yO (t¤ )]2

· ¸ to the observer’s speed and heading, respectively. This

x3 (¸) ¡ x_ O corresponds to the degenerate case where the observer

y3 = atan :

x4 (¸) ¡ y_ O and the source are located at the same position.

Indeed, the coordinates of Y are independent of ¸: 2.3.1. Study of vS (½)

v Let us compute its derivative w.r.t. ½.

y1 = μ(t¤ ), y2 = R¤ and y3 = cR

½a (t )

d 1

where ½a (t¤ ) is the actual range between the source and v(½) = [(½y2 sin y3 + x_ O )y2 sin y3

d½ v(½)

the observer at time t¤ (see [6, 7]). Note that because

+ (½y2 cos y3 + y_ O )y2 cos y3 ]

μ(t) is not constant, we have VS 6= VO , hence y2 > 0.

We can plot the set of homothetic trajectories ¤ y

= 2 [½y2 + x_ O sin y3 + y_ O cos y3 ]

using the graphs of the two functions v(½)

q · ¸

y 1

½ 7! v(½) = (½y2 sin y3 + x_ O )2 + (½y2 cos y3 + y_ O )2 = 2 ½y2 + VOT (VS ¡ VO ) :

v(½) vR

(4a)

· ¸ The sign of this derivative is hence the sign of ½y2 +

½y2 sin y3 + x_ O x_ O sin y3 + y_ O cos y3 . It is equal to 0 when ½ = ¡(1=y2 vR )

½ 7! c(½) = atan (4b)

½y2 cos y3 + y_ O ¢ VOT (VS ¡ VO ).

where [v(½) c(½)]T are the polar coordinates of the If VOT (VS ¡ VO ) ¸ 0 or equivalently VOT VS ¸ vO2 , the

velocity vector of any source of ¤ at a distance ½ (¸ 0) at function vS (½) is injective, i.e. the mapping ½ 7! v(½)

time t¤ (the corresponding ¸ is equal to ½=½a (t¤ )). Note satisfies the one-to-one condition.

that v(½a (t¤ )) = vS and c(½a (t¤ )) = cS . We draw two other conclusions:

We insist on the fact that 1) The one-to-one condition holds if and only if

1) any element of ¤ allows us to construct the vector _xS sin cO + y_ S cos cO ¸ vO .

Y (see Eq. (3)); 2) The set of source’s velocity vectors VS satisfying

2) conversely, the vector Y allows us to construct the one-to-one condition of the speed is

any element of ¤, thank to the following equation ½ · ¸ · ¸

μ ¶ sin cO cos cO

½ ½ VS = ® ¡¯ ,

X = (X ¡ XO ) + XO cos cO sin cO

½a (t¤ ) ½a (t¤ ) S ¾

2 3

½a (t¤ ) sin y1 for any ® ¸ vO (no condition for ¯) and VS 6= VO

½ 6 ¤

6 ½a (t ) cos y1 7

7

= ¤ 6 7 + XO : Note that ® and ¯ that help define the above set are

½a (t ) 4 ½a (t¤ )y2 sin y3 5

dummy variables.

½a (t¤ )y2 cos y3

This equivalence between Y and ¤ is the fundamental 2.3.2. Study of c(½)

property of the partial bearings-only TMA which will First of all, note that c(½) goes to cR when ½ ! 1.

be developed in Section 3. As a consequence, we can A basic computation yields

choose the vector Y as well any vector in ¤. The choice

d y (y_ sin y3 ¡ x_ O cos y3 )

of a state vector must be guided by simplicity. c(½) = 2 O

d½ v2 (½)

Because it is expressed in polar coordinates, Y is

subject to a constraint: y2 > 0, whereas any vector of which has the same sign as

¤ (expressed in Cartesian coordinates) is not. So, from

the point of view of the estimation, choosing a particular vR (y_ O sin y3 ¡ x_ O cos y3 ) = ¡ det[VO , (VS ¡ VO )],

Fig. 2. (a) Some elements of ¤. (b) The corresponding speed and heading graphs.

which is independent of ½. Hence the mapping ½ 7! c(½) corresponding to (®, ¯) = (4, 2); the initial positions are

is monotonic while the mapping ½ 7! v(½) can be not. PS (t0 ) = [3:8 1:4]T (km) and PO (t0 ) = [2 0]T (km). Note

Fig. 2 gives an example of an increasing speed that the condition x_ S sin cO + y_ S cos cO ¸ vO is satisfied.

function for VO = [3 0]T (m/s) and VS = [4 2]T (m/s) In Fig. 2(a), letters O and S denote the initial position

Fig. 3. (a) Some elements of ¤. (b) The corresponding speed and the heading graphs.

of the observer and that of the actual source and several Fig. 3 illustrates the case of a non-monotonic speed

homothetic solutions. Fig. 2(b) depicts ½ 7! v(½) and function for VO = [3 0]T (m/s) and VS = [1 2]T (m/s)

½ 7! c(½); the small circles correspond to the actual corresponding to (®, ¯) = (1, 2). The initial positions are

speed and heading. PS (t0 ) = [6:2 6:7]T (km) and PO (t0 ) = [2 0]T (km). Here,

the condition x_ S sin cO + y_ S cos cO ¸ vO is violated. together with the 95% confidence bands (deduced from

In this case, due to the non-monotony of the map- the CRLB). Detail of the computation of these bands is

ping ½ 7! v(½), a speed v would yield two corresponding given in the Appendix.

estimated ranges and courses as shown in Fig. 3(b).

3. LEG-BY-LEG BOMTMA

2.4. Estimation of the Set of Homothetic Trajectories

(partial bearings-only TMA) 3.1. Problem Formulation

The available measured bearings (¯1 , ¯2 , : : : , ¯N ) are Suppose now that the trajectory of the source is com-

taken at times (t1 , t2 , : : : , tN ). Without loss of general- posed of two legs at constant speed (cf. Fig. 5): the first

ity, we choose t¤ = tN . Assuming the covariance ma- leg starts at t1 and finishes at time tM (assumed to be

trix of the random vector ("1 "2 ¢ ¢ ¢ "N )T to be diagonal, known). Similarly, the second leg starts at tM and fin-

the log-likelihood function to be maximized is propor- ishes at tK . This model of trajectory is simple, but it has

tional to the least squares criterion. The vector Y or been widely adopted in the past, especially in submarine

any vector in ¤ can be chosen as state vector. Because environment (see [1] pp. 175—176 and [4]). The time

of the simplicity of use of Cartesian coordinates, we of the maneuver is assumed to be known; in reality, it

propose to estimate a particular element of ¤ by fix- has to be estimated, for example by a sequential test;

ing its first coordinate x1 to ½¯ sin ¯N + xO (tN ) for con- this point, which is out of the scope of this paper, has

venience, ½¯ being arbitrarily chosen. We call it X. So been addressed in [8]. Such a trajectory is hence param-

we only have to compute the last three coordinates of eterized by the vector Z = [xS (tK ) yS (tK ) vS cS,1 cS,2 ]T

X = [½¯ sin ¯N + xO (tN ) y x_ y] _ T for which the criterion (coordinates of position at time tK , speed, courses of the

PN

C(X) = k=1 (1=¾k2 )[¯k ¡ μk (X)]2 is minimal. first and of second leg). Provided that VOT (VS,1 ¡ VS,2 ) 6= 0

The Gauss-Newton method [3] is used for the min- (observability condition-see its proof in [7]), the entire

imization, initialized at source trajectory is observable. For this problem, we

2 3 proposed the maximum likelihood estimate in [7].

½¯ sin ¯N + xO (tN )

6 7 We propose here another estimate denoted Z̃ the

6 ½¯ cos ¯N + yO (tN ) 7

6 7 principle of which is as follows: First, we compute, for

6 ½¯ sin ¯N + xO (tN ) ¡ ½¯ sin ¯1 ¡ xO (t1 ) 7 leg #1, the estimate

Xinit = 6 7:

6 tN ¡ t1 7

6 7

4 ½¯ cos ¯ + x (t ) ¡ ½¯ cos ¯ ¡ x (t ) 5 X̂1 = [½¯ sin ¯M + xO (tM ) ŷ1 xˆ_ 1 yˆ_ 1 ]T

N O N 1 O 1

tN ¡ t1 and for leg #2, the estimate

As pointed out previously, the maximum likelihood

estimate X̂ allows us to construct the set of estimated X̂2 = [½¯ sin ¯M + xO (tM ) ŷ2 xˆ_ 2 yˆ_ 2 ]T

homothetic trajectories presented as the graphs of the with the common reference time tM and after having

pair of functions fixed their respective first coordinates to a common

q

value, say ½¯ sin ¯M + xO (tM ). These estimates are com-

½ 7! v̂(½) = (½ŷ2 sin ŷ3 + x_ O )2 + (½ŷ2 cos ŷ3 + y_ O )2

puted following the partial BO-TMA principle as pre-

(5a) sented in Section 2.4. Second, we compute the two ho-

· ¸ mothetic estimates, ¹(X̂1 ¡ XO ) + XO for the first leg and

½ŷ2 sin ŷ3 + x_ O

½ 7! ĉ(½) = atan (5b) ¹(X̂2 ¡ XO ) + XO for the second, such that the estimated

½ŷ2 cos ŷ3 + y_ O

velocities on each leg are equal, i.e.

where Ŷ = [ŷ1 ŷ2 ŷ3 ]T is the vector corresponding to X̂

(with (3)). k¹(V̂1 ¡ VO ) + VO k = k¹(V̂2 ¡ VO ) + VO k (6)

The behavior of the estimator X̂ has been evaluated

for the following scenario: given a coordinate system, with V̂1 = [xˆ_ 1 yˆ_ 1 ]T and V̂2 = [xˆ_ 2 yˆ_ 2 ]T in order to satisfy

the initial location of the source is [1000 2300]T (m) the constraint (6) (which is the strong assumptions of

with a velocity vector of [1 1:5]T (m/s). The ob- the BOMTMA). The solution of (6), denoted ¹̃, and

server starts from [0 0]T (m) with a velocity vector equal to

[1 0]T (m/s). The number of measurements is N = 450, 2(V̂1 ¡ V̂2 )T VO

the time tk is equal to k £ ¢t, with ¢t = 4 s. The time ¹̃ = ¡

(kV̂1 k2 ¡ kV̂2 k2 ¡ 2(V̂1 ¡ V̂2 )T VO )

of reference is chosen to be tN . The standard deviation

of the measurements is 1± . The final range is 5,099 m. allows us to compute the corresponding homothetic

For the initialization of the Gauss-Newton method, we estimates on each leg

have chosen ½¯ = 20 km.

Fig. 4 depicts an example of a 500-run Monte-Carlo X̃1 = ¹̃(X̂1 ¡ XO ) + XO = [x̃1 ỹ1 x˜_ 1 y˜_ 1 ]T

simulation: the 500 graphs are plotted in grey, while

the graphs of the functions v(½) and c(½) are in black, X̃2 = ¹̃(X̂2 ¡ XO ) + XO = [x̃2 ỹ2 x˜_ 2 y˜_ 2 ]

Fig. 4. Results of 500 Monte-Carlo runs (on left v̂(½), and on right ĉ(½)).

Fig. 5. Example of observer and source trajectories composed by two legs.

and the corresponding leg-by-leg BOMTMA Z̃ = it suddenly changes its course and its new heading is

[x̃S (tK ) ỹS (tK ) ṽS c̃S,1 c̃S,2 ]T , with 240± . The total duration of the scenario is 30 min cor-

responding to 450 measurements (the sampling time is

[x̃S (tK ) ỹS (tK )]T = [x̃2 ỹ2 ]T ¢t = 4 s). The standard deviation of the measurement

r noise is 1± .

2 2 The average values of the coordinates of the two es-

Sṽ = x˜_ + y˜_

2 2 timates, their respective biases and their empirical stan-

Ã ! dard deviations are given in Table I. They are compared

x˜_ 1 to the true vector and the minimum standard deviations

c̃S,1 = atan

y˜_

1

deduced from the CRLB.

Ã ! We observe an increase in the bias and the standard

x˜_ 2 deviation, but the quality of the leg-by-leg BOMTMA

c̃S,2 = atan : estimator is only weakly degraded. Moreover, the com-

y˜_

2 putation time of the leg-by-leg BOMTMA estimator is

q 2.5 times less than the BOMTMA computation time. A

2 2

qEMARK by construction, x̃1 = x̃2

R and x˜_ 1 + y˜_ 1 = compromise can probably be found: the leg-by-leg es-

2 2

x˜_ 2 + y˜_ 2 , but there is no reason that ỹ1 = ỹ2 . So, an- timate can be used as an initial point for the BOMTMA

numerical routine. It will reduce the risk of stalling at

other solution must be [x̃S (tK ) ỹS (tK )]T = [x̃2 ỹ1 ]T .

a local minimum. Fig. 7 shows the 500 estimates to-

3.2. Problem Formulation gether with the 90% confidence ellipsoid deduced from

the CRLB.

A 500-run Monte Carlo simulation allows the be-

havior of this new estimator to be appreciated. To com- 4. COMPARISON OF THE RESPECTIVE

pare the MLE BOMTMA estimate Ẑ and the leg-by-leg PERFORMANCES OF THE BOMTMA AND THE

BOMTMA estimate Z̃, we use the scenario presented in CONVENTIONAL BOTMA

[7] which is illustrated in Fig. 6: let us recall that the One can ask a relevant question concerning tactical

observer starts from the origin with a speed of 5 m/s aspects: do situations exist in which the performance

and a heading of 90± . Meanwhile, the source, with a of the BOMTMA is superior to the performance of

speed of 4 m/s, starts its trajectory at [0 km, 10 km]T the BOTMA in terms of estimated range accuracy,

with an initial heading of 90± . At time tM = 20 min, assuming that the antennas are the same?

Fig. 6. 500 MLE BOMTMA estimates of the final position.

TABLE I

Comparison of Performances of the Two Estimators

yS (tK ) km 8.800 8.828 8.875 0.028 0.075 0.283 0.308 0.364

vS m/s 4 4.10 4.10 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.17

cS,1 degree 90 90.5 89.4 0.5 0.6 12 12 13

cS,2 degree 240 240 241 0 1 7.5 7 9

For the conventional BOTMA, the observer must “surrounding” trajectory (see Fig. 8(a)) and two “es-

correctly maneuver and it has to estimate a 4-dimen- caping” trajectories (see Figs. 9(a) and 10(a)). The total

sional state vector [13], whereas for the BOMTMA, the duration is 30 min. The maneuvering platform changes

observer does not maneuver but it has to estimate a 5- its course at 15 min. At this time, its location is aligned

dimensional vector. Because the number of unknown is with the course of the observer.

less in BOTMA than in BOMTMA, one can think that The bearings, collected at a sample time of 4 seconds

the BOMTMA returns a less accurate estimated range by each platform, are corrupted by an additive Gaussian

than the BOTMA. Surprisingly, for some scenarios, noise with the same standard deviation equal to 1 de-

this statement is wrong. We give three examples: the gree. We have computed the relative accuracy of the

first one contradicts the intuition; for the second, the estimated range (at the final time tK ) by the mean of the

performances are similar, and the last is an example of CRLB: In ¾½(tK ) =½(tK ), given in percentage, ¾½(tK ) is the

the superiority of the BOTMA to the BOMTMA. CRLB of the estimated final range.

We consider two mobiles: one maneuvers (denoted Typical scenarios are plotted in Figs. 8, 9 and 10,

hereafter by the letter “M”) and the second (denoted (“M” and “N” give the initial positions of the two plat-

“N”) does not. Each of them performs a TMA against forms) together with the corresponding ¾½(tK ) =½(tK ) vs.

the other. ½(tK ). In these figures, the lines joining circles are re-

For each example, the speeds of M and N are lated to the conventional BOTMA and the lines joining

4 m/s and 5 m/s, respectively. The heading of the non- the “+” are for the BOMTMA. We have changed the

maneuvering platform is equal to 90 degrees. The kinds final range by modifying the initial position of the non-

of maneuvering source trajectory have been chosen: a maneuvering platform along the x-axis.

Fig. 7. 500 leg-by-leg BOMTMA estimates of the final position.

EXAMPLE 1 In this scenario, the first and the second APPENDIX. COMPUTATION OF THE CONFIDENCE

headings of the maneuvering source are respectively BANDS

¡135± and 135± . To conduct properly the computation, we need to

EXAMPLE 2 The first and the second headings of the define the following vector X̃ = [y x_ y] _ T whose com-

maneuvering source are respectively 135± and ¡135± . ponents are the last there components of X (defined

in Subsection 2.4). We rename the components of X̃ as

EXAMPLE 3 The first and the second headings of the follows: X̃ = [x1 x2 x3 ]T for convenience and we define

maneuvering source are respectively ¡135± and 135± .

the function

· ¸

5. CONCLUSIONS ¯ ¯t¤ + (tk ¡ t¤ )(x2 ¡ x_ O )

½sin

μk (X̃) = atan

We have presented the problem of bearing-only tar- x1 ¡ yO (t¤ ) + (tk ¡ t¤ )(x3 ¡ y_ O )

get motion analysis when neither the source nor the which would be the noise-free bearing of a source at

observer maneuvers. This yields the so called partial time tk , whose trajectory would be defined by X.

BOTMA, since the observability is missing. Then, we Under classic Gaussian assumption about the addi-

have proposed another estimate for a two-leg source tra- tive noise, the Fisher information matrix is

jectory by bearings-only TMA from a non-maneuvering

observer, which is an alternative solution of the maxi- XK

1

mum likelihood estimate proposed in [7]. The compu- F(X̃) = r μ (X̃)rTX̃ μk (X̃)

2 X̃ k

¾k

tation time is reduced by a factor of approximately 2.5. k=1

and the CRLB of X̃ is B(X̃) = F(X̃)¡1 .

formance. We have also shown, by three examples, that

We go into detail about the expression of rX̃ μk (X̃)

the superiority of the BOTMA to the BOMTMA is not

by defining the following quantities

always guaranteed.

Further work will be carried out to extend this ¢t (tk ) = tk ¡ t¤

estimation principle (leg-by-leg estimates, then fusion

of them) to the case of several legs. Robustness to ¢x (tk ) = ½¯ sin ¯t¤ + ¢t (tk )(x2 ¡ x_ O ),

the assumption of constant speed and of the immediate

¢y (tk ) = x1 ¡ yO (t¤ ) + ¢t (tk )(x3 ¡ y_ O ),

change of heading will be the topic of another paper [8].

q

But the challenge remains to construct a powerful

r(tk ) = ¢2x (tk ) + ¢2y (tk ):

test to detect the maneuver of the source.

Fig. 8. (a) Typical surrounding maneuvering platform trajectory for Example 1. (b) The relative accuracies of the estimated ranges for the

first example (“o” for the conventional BOTMA, “+” for the BOMTMA).

Fig. 9. (a) Typical escaping maneuvering platform for the second example. (b) The relative accuracies of the estimated ranges for the

second example (“o” for the conventional BOTMA, “+” for the BOMTMA).

Fig. 10. (a) Typical escaping maneuvering platform trajectory for the third example. (b) The relative accuracies of the estimated ranges for

the third example (“o” for the conventional BOTMA, “+” for the BOMTMA).

We deduce that [5] J. Holst and A. Holtsberg

2 3 On target manoeuvres in bearings-only tracking.

¡¢x (tk ) In Proceedings of the 25th Asilomar Conference on Circuits

1 6 7

rX̃ μk (X̃) = 2 4 ¢t (tk )¢y (tk ) 5 : Systems, (Nov. 1991).

r (tk ) [6] C. Jauffret and D. Pillon

¡¢t (tk )¢x (tk ) Observability in passive target motion analysis.

IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

The computation of the confidence bands is based

AES-32, 4 (Oct. 1996), 1290—1300.

on the Jacobians of the two following mappings [7] C. Jauffret, D. Pillon, and A. C. Pignol

2 3 2 3 Bearings-only TMA without observer maneuver.

x1 y1 · ¸

6 7 6 7 v(½) In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Infor-

X̃ = 4 x2 5 7! Y = 4 y2 5 7! V(½) = , mation Fusion, Cologne, Germany, (July 2008), 501—508.

c(½) [8] C. Jauffret, D. Pillon, and A. C. Pignol

x3 y3 Bearings-only maneuvering target motion analysis from a

with non maneuvering platform.

2 · ¸ 3 IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

½¯ sin ¯t¤

atan AES-46, 4 (Oct. 2010), 1934—1949.

6 x2 ¡ yO (t¤ )7 [9] C. Jauffret, D. Pillon, and A. C. Pignol

6 p 7

6 (x3 ¡ x_ O ) + (x4 ¡ y_ O ) 7

2 2 Leg-by-leg bearings-only TMA without observer maneu-

6 7 ver.

Y=6p 7 and

6 (½¯ sin ¯t¤ )2 + [x2 ¡ yO (t¤ )]2 7 In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on In-

6 · ¸ 7

4 _ 5 formation Fusion, Seattle, (July 2009), 2036—2043.

x3 ¡ xO [10] J. P. Le Cadre and C. Jauffret

atan

x4 ¡ y_ O Discrete-time observability and estimability analysis for

2 p 3 bearings-only target motion analysis.

v(½) = (½y2 sin y3 + x_ O )2 + (½y2 cos y3 + y_ O )2 IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

V(½) = 4

· ¸ 5: AES-33, 1 (Jan. 1997), 178—201.

½y2 sin y3 + x_ O

c(½) = atan [11] J. P. Le Cadre and S. Laurent-Michel

½y2 cos y3 + y_ O Optimizing the receiver maneuvers for bearings-only track-

The CRLB of V(½) is then ing.

Automatica, 35 (1999), 591—606.

B(V(½)) = J2 J1 B(X̃)J1T J2T [12] S. C. Nardone and V. J. Aidala

Observability criteria for bearings-only target motion anal-

where J1 is the Jacobian of the mapping X̃ 7! Y and J2 ysis.

is the Jacobian of the mapping Y 7! V(½). We evaluate IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

AES-17, 2 (Mar. 1981), 162—166.

the confidence bands of each component of v(½) and of

[13] S. C. Nardone, A. G. Lindgren, and K. F. Gong

c(½) from the diagonal terms of B(V(½)). Fundamental properties and performance of conventional

bearings-only target motion analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-29, 9 (Sept.

1984), 775—787.

We are grateful to Caroline Turner for having up- [14] S. C. Nardone and M. L. Graham

graded the writing of this paper. A closed-form solution to bearings-only target motion anal-

ysis.

REFERENCES IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, OE-22, 1 (Jan. 1997),

168—178.

[1] Y. Bar-Shalom and X. R. Li [15] J. M. Passerieux and D. Van Cappel

Estimation and Tracking: Principles, Techniques, and Soft- Optimal observer maneuver for bearings-only tracking.

ware. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

Artech House (1993). AES-34, 3 (July 1998), 777—788.

[2] P. Blanc-Benon and J. M. Passerieux [16] D. T. Pham

Fusion of reduced-rank TMA estimates. Some quick and efficient methods for bearings-only target

IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, motion analysis.

AES-36, 3 (July 2000), 750—759. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, SP-41, 9 (Sept.

[3] J. E. Dennis 1993), 2737—2751.

A user’s guide to nonlinear optimization algorithms. [17] J. Ru, V. P. Jilkov, X. R. Li, and A. Bashi

In Proceedings of IEEE, 72, 12 (Dec. 1984). Detection of target maneuver onset.

[4] K. C. Ho and Y. T. Chan IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,

An asymptotically unbiased estimator for bearings-only and AES-45, 2 (Apr. 2009), 536—554.

Doppler-bearing target motion analysis.

IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54, 3 (Mar. 2006),

809—821.

Claude Jauffret born in France on March 29, 1957, received the diplôme d’Etudes

Appronfondies in applied mathematics from Saint Charles University, Marseille,

France, in 1981, the Diplôme d’Ingénieur from Ecole Nationale Supérieure

d’Informatique et de Mathématiques Appliqués de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, in

1983, the title of Docteur de l’Université in 1993 and the Habilitation à Diriger des

Recherches from the Université de Toulon et du Var, France.

From November 1983 to November 1988, he worked on passive sonar systems,

more precisely on target motion analysis at GERDSM, France. After a sabbatical

year at the University of Connecticut (from November 1988 to December 1989) dur-

ing which he worked of tracking problems in cluttered environment, he developed

researches in tracking, data fusion, and extraction in CERDSM. Since September

1996, he has been at the Université de Toulon et du Var where he teaches statistical

signal processing. His current researches are about observability, estimation in non

linear systems as they appear in tracking problems.

He is an associate editor for IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic

Systems.

Denis Pillon comes from a small French mountain called “Le Jura.” He received the

Diplôme d’Ingénieur from Ecole Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielle

(ESPCI-Paris) in 1977 and the Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies in probability

theory from the Jussieu University, Paris in 1977.

From 1978 to 1979 he worked in the area of operational research at the Centre

InterArmées de Recherche Opérationnelle (CIRO) agency of the ministère de la

Défense. Since 1980 he has been employed by Thomson Compagny (now Thales

Compagny), France. From 1980 to 1981 he worked on sonar array processing. From

1982 to 1986, he was consultant at the GERDSM for which he worked on sea trial

analysis and TMA. From 1987 to 1989, he worked on tracking and track clustering

and in 1990 he was appointed group leader of signal and data processing laboratory

at Thomson Sintra company, Sophia Antipolis, France. From 1992 to 1999, he

was consultant at the DCN sonar laboratory. He worked on new sonar arrays and

various submarine combat systems. Since 2000, he has been sonar expert at Thales

Underwater Systems (Sophia-Antipolis). His current researches are about passive

sonar performances estimation, submarine and torpedo array processing, and long

term prospective studies for submarine warfare.

Annie-Claude Pignol born in France on November 10, 1965, received the Diplôme

d’Etudes Appronfondies in optics and image processing from the Université de

Toulon et du Var, Toulon, France, in 1988 and the title of Docteur de l’Université

in 1991 from the Université de Toulon et du Var, France.

Since September 1994, she has been at the Université de Toulon et du Var

where she teaches electronic systems. Her researches were focused signal processing

applied to biomedical systems before turning them to Target Motion Analysis.

- F3 Maths Annual Scheme of Work_2011Uploaded byAzlin Congo
- The Overlapping Data ProblemUploaded byIntan Fitri Maharany
- Estimating AR-MA Models Susan ThomasUploaded byKrisztina Büti
- True or False Questions Linear Algebra2Uploaded byChet Gemaehlich
- KTET Syllabus for Category IIIUploaded byaglasem
- A Primer on the Mechanics of Tensegrity Structures by W. O. WilliamsUploaded byTensegrity Wiki
- Advanced MathUploaded bysrivastava1984rahul
- SSRN-id2625185Uploaded byhaginile
- SOFW F3Uploaded byFazila Fauzi
- copyofgeometryfinalreflectionUploaded byapi-359563798
- Quantum Algorithms for Compositional Natural Language ProcessingUploaded byJan Hula
- Maths Ext1 Hsc Sa 2010Uploaded byi_luvv_music
- UntitledUploaded byrhasler3
- betrakUploaded byIis Isnawati
- So wghats ur nameUploaded byRodney Chen
- Point EstimationUploaded bysophie
- DM01 Portfolio Exported SpreadUploaded byecorob
- Homework 4Uploaded byJung Yoon Song
- qf11_lecture12Uploaded byMichael Kong
- MAT223_Mid1_2012WUploaded byexamkiller
- MathematicsUploaded byMOHAN KUMAR
- 1-s2.0-S1470160X14005251-mainUploaded byYunita Ratih
- midterm 16-17Uploaded byapi-253679034
- engineerUploaded byJohn Laurence Pesante
- On Convolutional Codes and BehaviorsUploaded byMauro Luiz Brandao Junior
- daxpyUploaded bymaceli1234
- ch4 pptUploaded byapi-298420434
- Vectors.docxUploaded byThe Wizard's TOE
- why are big data matrices approximately low rank.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 4ZYsWlL
- 4037_w12_erUploaded bymstudy123456

- Necessary and Sufficient Observability Conditions for Bearings Only TmaUploaded byRishav Kanth
- A 105502Uploaded byRishav Kanth
- 02 Transient HarmonicUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Gen_Contact Localization and Motion Analysis in the OceanUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Active_PAssive_Sensor Data Fusion Using Kalman FilterUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Measures of Nonlinearity for EstimationUploaded byRishav Kanth
- PRediction of Airblast Overpressure Induced by Blasting Using a HybridUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Attenuation of Blast Waves when detonating explosives inside barriers.pdfUploaded byRishav Kanth
- A Combination of ICA-ANN Model to Predict Air-overpressure Resulting From BlastingUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Refed and Validated Noise Contour SystemUploaded byRishav Kanth
- An ANN-based approach to predict blast-induced ground vibration of Gol-E-Gohar iron ore mine, Iran.pdfUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Target Motion Analysis With Passive Data FusionUploaded byRishav Kanth
- sensors-13-01151Uploaded byThuyhoi Dinh
- Target Motion AnalysisUploaded byrodrigosilva1973
- Constrained Bearings OnlyUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 0ENTR08032Uploaded byRishav Kanth
- a119z6Ap12Uploaded byRishav Kanth
- Witte KindUploaded bySaeed Javdani
- Links to Linkages LS Dyna PapersUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Define LoadUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition paper.pdfUploaded byRishav Kanth
- Huang LstcUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 20ssgUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 17dscsdcUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 16aasasUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 15fdsdUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 14dsdsUploaded byRishav Kanth
- 11sxdUploaded byRishav Kanth

- (Advanced Texts in Physics) Philippe Réfrégier (Auth.)-Noise Theory and Application to Physics_ From Fluctuations to Information-Springer-Verlag New York (2004)Uploaded byJuan Diego Cutipa Loayza
- Independent TUploaded byAgus Setyo Utomo
- Standard DeviationUploaded byChandra Reddy
- chapter9.pdfUploaded bynmukherjee20
- Gauss Gun Lab Fall2017Uploaded byJess Shodipo
- Lesson 2-08 Properties of Normal Distributions.docxUploaded byJamiefel Pungtilan
- Anderson Darling TestUploaded byRMolina65
- Assignement DerivativesUploaded byetravo
- Size RelationUploaded byshachipareek
- HW6SolsUploaded byDon Nguyen
- Incorporating historical data into monte carlo simulationUploaded byAhmed Raafat
- education_and_religion.pdfUploaded byHera Hera
- Fragility BookUploaded byG. Gordon Liddy
- COERC SPSS Data Screening TutorialUploaded byUmar Nadeem
- [2009 Springer Bookchapter] Modeling Learning Impacts on Day-To-day Travel ChoiceUploaded byyayarety
- Carpal tunel syndrome.pdfUploaded byzloncar3
- Anybody Can Do Value at Risk- A Teaching Study Using Parametric C (1)Uploaded byNidhal Hermi
- p 1_k5Uploaded bysaccontala
- Brent 1974Uploaded bymbmbmbmbmb222
- darts.pdfUploaded byjuan perez arrikitaun
- Castro CorreaUploaded byanisdangas
- New BE_E&TC_Uploaded byVenkatesh Sarda
- Statistics Notes (Answers)Uploaded byImtiaz Khan
- docxUploaded byDeepika Padukone
- MANOVA and Sample ReportUploaded byIdhaniv
- 13Uploaded byRakesh Pogula
- adaptive shrink+sureUploaded byviniezhil2581
- 2- Disruptive Methods for Assessing Soil StructureUploaded byAlireza
- PRBABILITYUploaded byAnupam Das
- Stat Paper for 2 YearUploaded byfazalulbasit9796