remote sensing
Article
Tracking of Maneuvering Extended Target Using Modified
Variable Structure Multiple-Model Based on Adaptive Grid
Best Model Augmentation
Lifan Sun 1,2 , Jinjin Zhang 1 , Haofang Yu 3 , Zhumu Fu 1, * and Zishu He 2






Citation: Sun, L.; Zhang, J.; Yu, H.;
Fu, Z.; He, Z. Tracking of
Maneuvering Extended Target Using
Modified Variable Structure
Multiple-Model Based on Adaptive
Grid Best Model Augmentation.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613. https://
doi.org/10.3390/rs14071613
Academic Editors: Danilo Orlando,
Filippo Biondi, Domenico Ciuonzo
and Carmine Clemente
Received: 20 February 2022
Accepted: 23 March 2022
Published: 28 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14071613
1 School of Information Engineering, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471023, China;
lifan.sun@haust.edu.cn (L.S.); 200320050405@stu.haust.edu.cn (J.Z.)
2 School of Information and Communication Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of
China, Chengdu 611731, China; zshe@uestc.edu.cn
3 School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China;
yhfnlg@njust.edu.cn
* Correspondence: fuzhumu@haust.edu.cn
Abstract: Maneuvering extended target tracking, an important but challenging research field, has
attracted increasing attention in the field of radar signal processing. Variable structure multiple-
model (VSMM) estimation is the current mainstream tracking algorithm, it possesses high tracking
performance but depends largely on the model set used. However, the existing model set design
methods still cannot offer higher tracking performance due to the complex maneuverability of the
target. The current best model augmentation (BMA) algorithm is an efficient and universal model
set design method, but it cannot adapt well to complex maneuvering situations because of its fixed
basic and candidate model set. Hence, this paper proposes a modified BMA algorithm for VSMM
based on adaptive grid, it can make full use of the previous information to realize an adaptation and
time variation of the model set. Overall, two different scenarios were considered, wherein the digital
simulation shows that the proposed method can provide a more reliable estimation of the kinematic
state and shape of the extended target.
Keywords: extended target tracking; variable structure multiple-model; adaptive grid; best
model augmentation
1. Introduction
With the emergence of the new generation of aviation weapons, such as the fourth-
generation fighters and unmanned combat aircraft, modern warfare will involve targets
with stronger mobility, increasingly sophisticated escape methods, and low detection
capabilities [1]. To achieve accurate guidance and attack solutions for this type of strong
maneuvering target, it is essential to estimate its state quickly and accurately. Meanwhile,
modern radar sensors have shown the characteristics of high resolution and high detection
accuracy, multiple measurements can be captured on the target surface at each sampling
moment, thus the shape cannot be ignored anymore [2]. That is to say, the state that needs
to be estimated includes not only its kinematic state but also its extension state. In this
paper, a new model set design method for the variable structure multiple-model estimation
has been proposed to improve the tracking performance of the maneuvering extended
target in air combats.
Any target tracking algorithm is built on the basis of a dynamic model. Selecting the
appropriate dynamic models is an important entry point for target tracking, which can
effectively improve its estimation performance [3]. The development of a dynamic model is
a process from simple to complex. In order to accommodate the complex maneuverability
of the target, scholars have proposed models, such as the constant velocity (CV) model [4],
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 2 of 20

the constant acceleration (CA) model [4], the constant turn (CT) model [5], the semi-Markov
model [6], and the “current” statistics (CS) model [7]. However, in the field of modern
target tracking, a single mathematical model cannot be used for describing the kinematic
state due to its complexity and variability.
Blom and Bar-Shalom first proposed the interactive multiple-model (IMM)
algorithm [8]. IMM is a fixed structure multiple-model (FSMM) algorithm. At any time,
it uses several fixed models to perform parallel filtering, and the state estimation result
is the weighted value of each output. Clearly, it is difficult to make use of the real-time
information of the system. Only when the model set matches the true mode of the current
system, it can be considered as the optimal estimation. Once the true system mode deviates
from the current model structure, it might cause tracking failure. In order to obtain high
accuracy, a large number of fixed models are often required to implement coverage of the
true system mode. However, this inevitably will increase the amount of computation and
lead to competition between models, thus resulting in decreased tracking accuracy [9].
In order to overcome this dilemma, Professor Li and colleagues proposed the variable
structure multiple-model (VSMM) algorithm in the 1990s for the first time [10]. Compared
to the pre-existing FSMM algorithm, the VSMM algorithm inherits the estimation and fusion
steps of the multiple-model (MM) algorithm but involves an additional step of model set
design. That is to say, its recursive process involves two tasks: model set adaptation (MSA)
and MM sequence condition estimation, respectively. Among them, the purpose of MSA is
to realize the dual self-adaptation of the model structure and the model number. The latter
is responsible for estimating the target state by using multi-model estimation methods
under the conditions of a given model set. It is obvious that the performance of the MM
estimation algorithm depends largely on the model set used. Therefore, the research on
model set design methods is of great significance.
The existing model set design methods are mainly divided into two aspects: (i) to
design an over-complete model set and subsequently perform adaptive switching and
selection among the model sets [11], and (ii) to generate a new model set online in real-time
based on the target state estimation [12–14].
The adaptive strategies of the model group switching (MGS) algorithm and the likely-
model set (LMS) algorithm adopt the first design idea. MGS adopts a model activation and
termination approach, but its tracking performance is affected by the division and topology
of the model set. Once the target maneuvers too fast, its performance will become poor.
LMS can certainly reduce some computation while retaining the estimation accuracy, but it
cannot activate models outside the total model set. Therefore, when the target maneuvers,
there will be a high peak error. The expected-mode augmentation (EMA) algorithm is a
model activation method, which adopts the second design idea. It activates an expected
model, which is a probability-weighted sum of the basic models. The tracking performance
of EMA is obviously better than that of the IMM algorithm, but it is only suitable for
the model set with parameter change and cannot be directly used in the model set with
structural change. The adaptive grid (AG) algorithm is a model self-learning algorithm in
essence. It does not need to set the corresponding models in advance. The parameters of
each model at k − 1 are weighted to generate new model parameters at k to realize the time
variation of the model set. Such algorithms and designs have mainly been included in a
few previous studies [15–17].
Lan et al. [18] first proposed the best model augmentation (BMA) algorithm, and its
adaptive strategy was realized based on Kullback–Leibler (KL) information [19]. In this
algorithm, the set of basic models, as well as candidate models, have been assumed to be
known. The algorithm activates a “best” model from the candidate model set and adds it to
the basic model set. The “best” here refers to the minimum difference between the model
and the true system mode, which is measured by KL divergence. The smaller the value
of KL, the smaller is the difference. BMA overcomes the defects of EMA and is widely
used in situations with different model structures and parameters. However, there are
still several problems that can be improved: (i) The KL criterion need to be frequently
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 3 of 20

calculated each time the best model is activated from the candidate model set, resulting
in a large computational burden. (ii) The models in the basic model set and the candidate
model set are fixed, which means that the model parameters cannot be adjusted in real
time according to the maneuvering state. (iii) The prior known information of the model
set is introduced, that is, all dynamic models are known, thus the correction capability of
the best model to the basic model set is limited.
To deal with the problem, this paper proposes a new model set design method by
modifying the BMA algorithm. The main idea of the proposed method is as follows: Firstly,
the basic model set is represented by a coarse grid without any prior setting, and the
corresponding adaptive mechanism is applied to realize the time variation of the basic
model set. Secondly, a uniformly quantized mode space is generated, centered on the best
model at the above moment, and this is taken as the candidate model set at this moment.
Due to the time-varying model set, the uncertainty caused by the assumption of prior
knowledge in the traditional method can be effectively avoided, and the correction ability
of the best model to the basic model set can also be further improved. Finally, the complex
KL criterion in the traditional BMA algorithm is discarded, and a simpler mechanism based
on similarity distance is adopted to select the best model. In the simulation experiment
part, the single maneuvering extended target has been taken as the tracking target, and a
digital simulation has been carried out in two scenarios. The simulation results show that
this method can effectively avoid tracking failure and improve the estimation accuracy
under strong maneuvering conditions.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we mainly
complete the problem formulation and propose the modified BMA algorithm for VSMM
based on adaptive grid. Section 3 does the numerical simulation about the proposed
method, wherein its tracking performances are illustrated in comparison to some existing
approaches. Section 4 discusses the experimental results. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. VSMM Algorithm Based on AG-BMA

2.1. Problem Formulation
The task of maneuvering extended target tracking involves estimating the target state
based on the constructed mathematical model and the measured value obtained by the
sensor. In this paper, the establishment of the mathematical model and the generation
of the measurement points have been carried out in the two-dimensional Cartesian co-
ordinate system. In addition, this paper mainly focuses on designing the model set for
extended target tracking and proposes a modified best model augmentation algorithm
based on adaptive grid (AG-BMA), in which the clutter and missed detection problems are
not involved.
Assuming that the state vector, xk = xm e T
 
k , xk , of the target includes the motion
variable, xmk , and the shape variable, xek . The kinematic state of the target is represented by
T T T
a random variable xm
 
k = x, v x , y, vy , where [ x, y ] and v x , vy represent the position
and velocity of the target centroid, respectively.
For a linear jump Markov system, the transfer process between states can be formu-
lated as follows:
 m   m  m  " m(i) #
Γk wkm

x k +1 Fk 0 xk 0
= + , k ∈ N, i = 1, 2, · · · r (1)
xek+1 0 Fke xek 0 Γ
e (i ) wke
k

where Fkm and Fke represent the state transition matrix of the motion variable and the
m (i ) e (i )
morphological variable,Γk and Γk  represent the covariance matrices of the process
noise, wkm ∼ N w̄km , Qm
k and w e ∼ N w̄e , Qe are the independent process noise.
k k k
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 4 of 20

2.1.1. Star-Convex Extended Target

In many real applications, there is a pressing need for incorporating the target shape
information into target tracking to improve performance. In addition, knowledge of the
target shape is also beneficial for target classification and identification. For extended target
tracking, many approaches mainly differ in target shape models for the unknown true
shape. However, they usually consider using some basic shapes, such as ellipse, rectangle,
and so on. In recent years, there is a novel extended target model which describes the target
approximately using star-convex shape [20]. It has an advantage over the other shape
modeling methods, because more detailed shape information can be described and utilized,
e.g., the real shape of the aircraft can be approximated by the star-convex more accurately
than other shapes.
In this paper, the random hypersurface model (RHM) has been used to represent the
shape parameters of a star-convex extended target [21]. By changing these parameters,
the shape can be fitted arbitrarily [22]. The contour, S( xk ), of the star-convex extended
target can be described by a radial function, r (φ), the size of which represents the distance
between each contour point and the centroid xck [23]. The details of the model are shown
in Figure 1.

r (f )

Angle

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Representation of a star-convex shape using a radial function. (a) Star-convex extended
target. (b) Radial function.

Then, the target contour can be described as follows:

S̄( xk ) = {ŝk r (φ)e(φ) + xck |φ ∈ [ 0, 2π ) } (2)

where the scaling factor, ŝk , is uniformly distributed in the interval [0, 1], φ represents
the angle formed by the ray from the centroid, xck , to the contour point and the X-axis,
 T
e(φ) = cos(φ) sin(φ) .
The radial function is expanded as a Fourier series, resulting in the
following expressions:
 
r ( Bk , φ) = ak + ∑
(0) ( j) ( j)
ak cos( jφ) + bk sin( jφ) = R(φ) Bk (3)
j=1,··· ,N F

 F
T
(0) (1) (1) (N ) ( NF )
Bk = a k , a k , bk , . . . , a k , bk (4)
h    i
R(φ) = 1, cos(φ), sin(φ), . . . , cos N F φ , sin N F φ (5)

Therefore, the shape parameters of the target can be obtained after parameterization
by the relevant Fourier coefficients.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 5 of 20

 T
(0) (1) (1) ( NF ) ( NF )
xek = ak , ak , bk , . . . , ak , bk (6)

2.1.2. Measurement Model

The measurement sources drawn from the surface of the extended target are uniformly
distributed. Additionally, it is the location of the measurement source with noise. In this
paper, the measurement source has been modeled with RHM. It has been assumed that
each scan will result in random nk independent position measurements, which can be
defined as follows:
zk = Hk xk + υk , k ∈ N, i = 1, 2, · · · r (7)
 T
where Hk is the observation matrix, zk = z x , zy represents the position of measurement
points, and υk ∼N [ῡk , Rk ] is the independent measurement noise. Both υk and wk belong
to the unrelated zero-mean Gaussian white noise sequences.

2.1.3. Model Jump Sequences

The jump between models follows the first-order Markov process, and the Markov
chain is homogeneous. Assuming that the model matching mode, s(i) , at k − 1 is m(i) and
the model matching mode, s( j) , at k is m( j) , then the transition probability from the model
m(i) to the model m( j) is denoted as πij .
 
P mk = m( j) |mk−1 = m(i) = πij , k ∈ N, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , r (8)

The implementation steps of the VSMM algorithm, based on AG-BMA, proposed in

this work are shown in Figure 2. In this chapter, the tasks to be completed can be divided
into the following two parts:
h i
(1) MSA Mk = Mkb mbest . where Mkb is the basic model set, mbest
S
k k is the activated best
model, and Mk represents the valid model set used for MM estimation;
(2) MM estimation [ Mk , Mk−1 ]. It is responsible for a recursive calculation of the model
set Mk−1 and Mk at k − 1 and k, respectively.

Model Set Adaptation (MSA)

Determination of the
basic model set
Determination of the
candinate model set
Determination of the
valid model set used
for state estimation

Initialization

Multiple-Model (MM) Estimation

Reinitialization

Model matched filtering

Model probability calculation

Fusion estimation

Figure 2. Framework of the VSMM algorithm based on AG-BMA.

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 6 of 20

The former is responsible for determining a set of models for MM estimation, whereas
the latter is responsible for estimating the target state under the conditions of a given
model set. Next, the detailed process of MSA and MM estimation will be given in
Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively.

2.2. MSA
When the AG-BMA method is used for the model set design, its recursive flow can
be described, as shown in Figure 3. where Mkb−2 , Mkb−1 , and Mkb are the basic model set at
k − 2, k − 1, and k, respectively. Mkc −2 , Mkc −1 , and Mkc represent the candidate model set at
k − 2, k − 1, and k, respectively. mbest best
k −2 , mk −1 , and mk
best denote the best model activated from
c c c
Mk−2 , Mk−1 , and Mk , respectively. Mk−2 , Mk−1 , and Mk represent the valid model set.

zk zk zk

M kb- 2 M kb-1 M kb

M k -3 mkbest
-2 M k -2 mkbest
-1 M k -1 mkbest

M kc- 2 M kc-1 M kc

Figure 3. Recursive flow of model set changes in AG-BMA algorithm.

In this section, the adaptive methods of basic model set, candidate model set, and valid
model set are introduced in detail, respectively. Given space constraints, the following only
takes the CA model framework as an example to introduce the corresponding steps.

2.2.1. Basic MSA

(1) Initialize a rough grid.

T
Assuming that the acceleration (m/s2 ) is a x , ay , and it ranges from

T
T
− a x max , − ay max to a x max , ay max . In order to cover the mode space to the maxi-
mum extent, the maximum values of acceleration are taken as the initial value of the grid.
In addition, the model interval is set as λk , the threshold parameter of the impossible
model is t1 , and t2 is the threshold parameter of the model jump. In other words, if the
model probability is less than t1 , it is considered that the model does not match the current
maneuvering state. If the model probability is greater than t2 , it can be considered that the
model has a high degree of matching with the current maneuvering state.
T R T

L
 a(0) = [− a x max , 0] , a(0) = [ a x max , 0]


D0 = aC
(0)
= [0, 0] T (9)
 a T = 0, ay max T , a D = 0, − ay max  T

  
(0) (0)

where aC(0)
is the initial center model, a(L0) , a(R0) , a(T0) , and a(D0) represent the initial left, right,
upper, and lower edge models, respectively.
(2) The adaptive rules.
From k − 1 to k, the following will introduce the adaptive rules for the grid.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 7 of 20

n o center. Suppose that the model set parameters at k − 1 are

Part 1: Adaptation of the grid
akL−1 , akR−1 , aC T D L
k −1 , ak −1 , ak −1 and their corresponding model probabilities are µk −1 , µkR−1 ,
µC T D
k −1 , µk −1 and µk −1 , respectively. Then, the central value parameters of the grid are

aC L L R R C C T T D D
k = µ k −1 a k −1 + µ k −1 a k −1 + µ k −1 a k −1 + µ k −1 a k −1 + µ k −1 a k −1 (10)
n o
Part 2: Adaptation of the grid edge. If, µC
k −1 = max µ L , µ R , µC , µ T , µ D
k − 1 k − 1 k −1 k − 1 k − 1 , it
indicates that the central model is closest to the true system mode. At this point, if µkL−1 ,
µkR−1 , µkT−1 , and µkD−1 are all smaller than t1 , it indicates that the left, right, upper, and lower
edge models deviate from the current state of the system. Then, the model interval is
reduced to (λk−1 /2). Otherwise, the model interval remains unchanged. The jump rule is
formulated as follows:
 h iT
 aC − λ L /2, 0 , µ L < t1

x (k) k −1 k −1
akL = h iT

 C L
a x(k) − λk−1 , 0 , others
 h iT
 aC + λ R /2, 0 , µ R < t1

x (k) k − 1 k −1
aRk = h iT

 aCx(k) + λkR−1 , 0 , others
 h iT (11)
 0, aC + λ T /2 , µ T < t1

x (k) k −1 k −1
akT = h iT

 C T
0, ay(k) + λk−1 , others
 h iT
 0, aC − λ D /2 , µ D < t1

x (k) k − 1 k −1
akD = h iT

 0, aC y(k)
− λkD−1 , others
n o
If µkL−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T , µD
k −1 k −1 k −1 , it indicates that the left edge model is
, µ
closest to the true system mode, all the other three edge models keep the original model
interval. At this time, if µkL−1 is greater than t2 , it can be considered that the difference
between the left edge model and the system true mode is the smallest. In other words,
the velocity in the X direction is constantly decreasing and the left edge model jumps
2λkL−1 to the left. Otherwise, let the left edge model jump λkL−1 to the left. The jump rule is
formulated as follows:
 h iT
 aC − 2λ L , 0 , µ L > t2

x (k) k −1 k −1
akL = h iT

 C L
a x(k) − λk−1 , 0 , others
h iT
aRk = aCx(k) + λkR−1 , 0 (12)
nh iT
akT = 0, aC T
y ( k ) + λ k −1
h iT
akD = 0, aC D
y ( k ) − λ k −1

n o
If µkR−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k −1 , µk −1 , µk −1 , it indicates that the right edge model
is closest to the true system mode, the other three edge models keep the original model
interval. At this point, the jump rule of the right edge model is similar to that of the left
edge model, which can be formulated as follows:
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 8 of 20

nh iT
akL = aCx(k) − λkL−1 , 0
 h iT
 aC + 2λ R , 0 , µ R > t2

x (k) k −1 k −1
akR = h iT
 C R
a x(k) + λk−1 , 0 , others (13)

h iT
akT = 0, aC
y(k) + λ T
k −1
h iT
akD = 0, aCy(k) − λ D
k −1
n o
If µkT−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T , µD
k −1 k−1 k −1 , it indicates that the upper edge model
, µ
is closest to the true system mode, the other three edge models keep the original model
interval. At this time, if µkT−1 is greater than t2 , it can be considered that the upper edge
model has the highest matching degree with the true system mode. In other words,
the velocity in the Y direction is constantly increasing, and the upper edge model jumps
up 2λkT−1 . Otherwise, let the upper edge model jump up λkT−1 . The jump rule can be
formulated as follows:
h iT
L
ak = aCx(k) − λkL−1 , 0
nh iT
aRk = aCx(k) + λkR−1 , 0
 h iT
 0, aC + 2λ T T (14)
k −1 , µ k −1 > t 2

y(k)
akT = h iT

 0, aC
y(k)
+ λkT−1 , others
nh iT
akD = 0, aCx(k) − λkD−1
n o
If µkD−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T , µD
k −1 k −1 k −1 , it indicates that the lower edge model is
, µ
closest to the true system mode. Its adaptive rules are similar to those of the upper edge
model, which can be formulated as follows:
h iT
akL = aCx(k) − λkL−1 , 0
h iT
aRk = aCx(k) + λkR−1 , 0
h iT
akT = 0, aCx(k) + λkT−1 (15)
 h iT
 0, aC − 2λ D D
k −1 , µ k −1 > t 2

y(k)
akD = h iT

 0, aC
y(k)
− λkD−1 , others
n o n o
where λkL−1 = min aCx(k−1) − a xL(k−1) , ϑw , λkR−1 = min a xR(k−1) − aCx(k−1) , ϑw , λkT−1 =
n o n o
min ayT(k−1) − aCy ( k −1)
, ϑ w , λ D = min aC
k − 1 y ( k −1)
− a D
y ( k −1)
, ϑ w , ϑw refers to the minimum
distance between each model, which not only ensures the comprehensiveness of the mode
space but also maintains the independence between models.
The above describes how to use the grid to realize the adaptation of the basic model
set, and the inspiration of its adaptive strategy mainly  comes fromT literature [24]. Based
on the adaptive mechanism, a basic model set Mkb = akL , akR , aC k , a k , a D that adapt well
k
to the maneuvering state can be generated in real-time. On the one hand, the distribution
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 9 of 20

of these models is relatively concentrated. On the other hand, the number of models is
relatively small.

2.2.2. Candidate MSA

The determination of the candidate model set can also utilize the AG technology,
where the parameters of each model slide adaptively over a continuous region. Therefore,
only a small number of models related to the system mode are required at any one time.
In this paper, five CA models are selected to form the candidate model set, and each
model corresponds to different maneuvering levels. Assuming that the best model activated
at k − 1 is mbest c
k −1 , and the candidate model set at time k is Mk , then horizontal, as well as
vertical adaptation are required. The candidate model set at k is
 h iT

a best − θ , 0


 x ( k −1) w

 h iT


 best
a x ( k −1) + θ w , 0


 h iT
Mkc = abest , abest (16)
 x ( k − 1 ) y ( k − 1 )

 h iT
0, abest + θw


y ( k −1)



 h iT
0, abest

− θw


y ( k −1)

where θw is the distance between the models in the candidate model set, θw ≤ 0.5ϑw . In this
way, the candidate model set can be fine-tuned and closer to the true system mode, resulting
in the powerful modification of the best model to the basic model set.

2.2.3. Valid MSA

The valid model set used for MM estimation at k can be obtained by Mk = Mkb ∪ mbest k .
where, the best model, mbest
k , is activated from the candidate model set, M c . Addition-
k
ally, the “best” here refers to the minimum difference between the model and the true
system mode. In this paper, the complex KL criterion in the traditional BMA algorithm is
discarded, and a simpler mechanism based on similarity distance is adopted to quantify this
difference. The smaller the value of the Euclidean distance, the smaller is the difference [25].
The process can be formulated as follows:

j
mbest
k = arg min sk − mk (17)
j
mk ∈ Mkc

Among them, since the true mode, sk , of the system is often unavailable, it can only be
approximated with some prior information. In this paper, the expected model has been
used to approximate the true system mode [24]. Based on the idea of finding the expected
j
model in the EMA algorithm, it can be thought of as a weighted sum of probabilities, µk−1 .

∑
j j
sk = m k −1 µ k −1 , k ∈ N (18)
j
m k −1 ∈ Mk −1

j j
where µk−1 is the probability of the model mk−1 , and Mk−1 is the valid model set at k − 1.
In all, the complete pseudo codes for the above MSA algorithm can be summarized
in Algorithm 1.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 10 of 20

Algorithm 1: Pseudo codes for the proposed MSA algorithm.

1 Basic
 model set adaptionT
L R T
 a(0) = [− a x max , 0] , a(0) = [ a x max , 0]


D0 = aC
(0)
= [0, 0] T , where D0 represents the initial model set.
T T

 a T = 0, a
   D

, a = 0, − a
(0) y max (0) y max
Part 1: Adaptation of the grid center. n o
Suppose that the model set parameters at k − 1 are akL−1 , akR−1 , aC T D
k−1 , ak−1 , ak −1 and their
corresponding model probabilities are µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k−1 , µk −1 and µk−1 , respectively. Then,
C L L R R C C T T D
ak = µk−1 ak−1 + µk−1 ak−1 + µk−1 ak−1 +µk−1 ak−1 + µk−1 ak−1 . D

Part 2: Adaptation ofnthe grid edge. o

When µC L R C T D
k −1 = maxn µk −1 , µk−1 , µk−1 , µk −1 , µk −1 o, then execute Equation (11);
When µkL−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k−1 , µk −1 , µk −1 o, then execute Equation (12);
n
When µkR−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k−1 , µk −1 , µk −1 o, then execute Equation (13);
n
When µkT−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k−1 , µk −1 , µk −1 o, then execute Equation (14);
n
When µkD−1 = max µkL−1 , µkR−1 , µC T D
k−1 , µk −1 , µk −1 , then execute Equation (15).
2 Candidate model set adaption
h iT
The candidate mode set can be formulated as Equation (16), where abest , abest
x ( k −1) y ( k −1)
represents
the best model at the above moment.
3 Determination of the valid model set
j j
The approximate true system mode is sk = ∑ mk−1 µk−1 , k ∈ N;
j
m k − 1 ∈ Mk − 1
j
The activated best model can be obtained by mbest
k = arg min sk − mk ;
j
mk ∈ Mkc
The valid model set is Mk = Mkb ∪ mbest
k .

Then, k = k + 1, return to step 1 and proceed to the next iteration.

To visualize the whole model set design process, the topology of the AG-BMA algo-
rithm is shown in Figure 4. In the simulated well-known examples of [12,26,27], the max-
imum acceleration in any coordinate direction is assumed to be 4 g (g = 10 m/s2 ). Thus,
the mode space can be defined as follows:
n
q o
Ac = a x , ay : a2x + a2y 6 40 (19)

Moreover, a more intuitive explanation of the position is given. Here, we use the
circular areas (the center of the circle is (0, 0)
and the radius is 40 (m)) to represent the
entire mode space Ac . The coordinates a x , ay of any point in the region can represent a
kind of motion mode, where a x and ay represent the acceleration (m/s2 ) of the target in
the X-axis and Y-axis direction, respectively. For example, the coordinate point (−40, 0)
indicates a motion that the constant deceleration with an acceleration of 40 (m/s2 ) in the
X-axis direction and the constant velocity in the Y-axis direction. Figure 4a,b represent the
positions of the candidate model sets at k − 1 and k in the entire mode space, in which the
symbol ‘∗’ denotes the true system mode and these black circles form the candidate model
set. Figure 4c,d represent the positions of the basic model set at k − 1 and k, where these
white circles represent four edge models and one center model, respectively. Figure 4e,f
represent the valid model set, in which the black circle denotes the best model augmented
from the candidate model set. The models in the valid model set will be used to perform
the MM estimation in Section 2.3. It is not difficult to see that the candidate model set
and the basic model set have formed a double-layer coverage near the true system mode.
The valid model set at the current moment is only composed of the best model and the
basic model set, thus the true mode ‘∗’ of the system can be maximally approximated with
fewer models.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 11 of 20

( 0, 40 ) ( 0, 40 ) T
( 0, 40 )

* L C R

( -40, 0 ) ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0) ( -40, 0 ) ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0) ( -40, 0 ) ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0)

*

( 0, -40 ) ( 0, -40 ) ( 0, -40 )

((a)
a)) The position of candidate ((b)
b) The
Th position
iti off candidate
did t (c) The position of basic
model at k - 1 model set at k model set at k - 1
( 0, 40 ) T
( 0, 40 ) ( 0, 40 )

L C
* R

( -40, 0 ) T ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0) ( -40, 0 ) ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0) ( -40, 0 ) T ( 0, 0 ) ( 40,0)

*
L C R L C R

D D

( 0, -40 ) ( 0, -40 ) ( 0, -40 )

((d)
d) The position of basic ((e)
e) The position of valid ((f) The position
f) Th iti off validlid
model set at k model set at k - 1 model set at k

Figure 4. Topology of the model set based on the AG-BMA algorithm.

2.3. MM Estimation
Based on the valid model set at k, MM [ Mk , Mk−1 ] is run to obtain the filtering results,
j j j
x̂k , pk ,
of each model and calculate the model probability, µk . The multi-model estimator
uses the simplest reinitialization method. First of all, the last state estimation, x̂k−1|k−1 ,
and its covariance matrix, Pk−1|k−1 , are taken as the common initial inputs. Then, each
model performs its own state estimation using the basic filtering algorithm and calculates
the probability of each model. Finally, the state estimation result and its error covariance
matrix are obtained by weighted summation. Its algorithm structure is shown in Figure 5.

Reinitialization Output Fusion

zk
xˆˆ k( -)1|k -1 Pˆk(-)1|k -1 xˆ k(1)|k Pk(1)
1 1
|k
Filter matching model 1

Ù(k1) mk(1)

xˆ k -1|k -1 xˆˆ k(2)-1|k -1 Pˆk(2)

-1| k -1
xˆ k(2)|k Pk(2)
|k mk( 2) xˆ k |k
Filter matching model 2
Pk -1|k -1 Ù(k2) Pˆk |k
( 3)
mk
xˆˆ k(3)-1|k -1 Pˆk(3)
-1| k -1
xˆ k(3)|k Pk(3)
|k
Filter matching model 3
Ù(k3)

z -1

Figure 5. Structure of the MM algorithm.

For j = 1, 2, . . . , r, the loop is as follows:

2.3.1. Reinitialization of the Model Conditions

Since each model filter can be a valid system model filter, the initial conditions of
each filter are based on the synthesis of the filtering results of the previous model. Then,
the input of the jth model filter after reinitialization [28] is

de f  r
( j)

∑ x̂k−1|k−1 µk−1|k−1 , j = 1, 2, . . . r
( j) ( j) (i,j)
x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 = E xk−1 |mk , Z k−1 = (20)
i =1
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 12 of 20

r  T 
( j) ( j)
 
∑
( j) (i ) (i ) (i ) (i,j)
P̂k−1|k−1 = P̂k−1|k−1 + x̂k−1|k−1 − x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 x̂k−1|k−1 − x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 µ k −1| k −1
i =1 (21)
j = 1, 2, . . . r
(i,j)

(i ) ( j)
 1 (i )
µk−1|k−1 = P mk−1 |mk , Z k−1 = πij µk−1 , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , r (22)
c̄ j
(i )
Assuming that the matching model at k − 1 is mk−1 and the matching model at k is
( j)
mk , Equation (22) represents the mixed probability under the condition of Z k−1 . Where
r (i )
c̄ j = ∑ πij µik−1 , µk−1 is the matching probability of the model i and the true system
i =1
mode at k − 1.

2.3.2. Model Conditional Filtering

Given the initial state and the covariance matrix, the next step is to update the state
estimation according to the new measurements zk obtained at k. Assume that the model
(i ) ( j)
mk−1 is adopted at k − 1 and the model mk is adopted at the moment k. Further, taking
( j) ( j)
x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 from Equation (20) and P̂k−1|k−1 from Equation (21) as the initial values, the state
(i,j) (i,j)
estimation, x̂k|k , and its covariance matrix, Pk|k , are calculated by using the models
matching with the true system mode and their corresponding filtering equation.
(1) State prediction:
For j = 1, 2, . . . , r, calculate separately

( j) ( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
x̂k|k−1 = Fk−1 x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 +Γk−1 w̄k−1 (23)

( j) T ( j) T
   
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
Pk|k−1 = Fk−1 P̂k−1|k−1 Fk−1 +Γk−1 Qk−1 Γk−1 (24)
( j)
(2) Measurement prediction residual, z̃k , and its covariance calculation:
For j = 1, 2, . . . , r,
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
z̃k = zk − Hk x̂k|k−1 − ῡk (25)

( j) T
 
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
Sk = Hk Pk|k−1 Hk + Rk (26)
( j)
The likelihood function matching mk is calculated as follows:

( j) ( j)
  h i
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
∧k = p zk |mk , Z k−1 ≈ p zk |mk , x̂ˆ k−1|k−1 , Sk P̂k−1|k−1 (27)

Under the Gauss hypothesis, the likelihood function can be calculated as follows:

− 21

1  ( j )  T  ( j )  −1 ( j )
  Gauss 
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
∧k = p z̃k |mk , Z k−1 = 2πSk exp − z̃k Sk z̃k (28)
2

(3) Update of the filtering results:

For j = 1, 2, . . . r, the filter gain array, the updated status estimation result, and its
error covariance are calculated as follows:
 T
j j j j
Kk =Pk|k−1 Hk (Sk )−1 (29)

j j j j
x̂k|k = x̂k|k−1 +Kk z̃k (30)
 T
j j j j j
Pk|k =Pk|k−1 − Kk Sk Kk (31)
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 13 of 20

( j)
where Kk is the Kalman gain.
(4) Update of the model probabilities:
For j = 1, 2, . . . r, the model probability is calculated as follows:

( j)

( j)
 1 ( j)
µk = P mk | Z k = ∧k c̄ j , j = 1, 2, . . . r (32)
c
r (i ) r (i ) j
where c̄ j = ∑ πij µk−1 , c = ∑ ∧k c̄i , ∧k represents the likelihood function matching
i =1 i =1
j
model mk .
(5) Estimation of fusion:
While synthesizing the estimation results of each model, the updated model probability
is used as the weight coefficient. Then, the overall estimation and its error covariance matrix
at is formulated as follows:
n
∑ x̂k|k µk
j j
x̂k|k = (33)
j =1
r    T 
∑
j j j j
Pk|k = Pk|k + x̂k|k − x̂k|k x̂k|k − x̂k|k µk (34)
j =1

j
where x̂k|k is the updated state estimation result of the jth filter.
As for the moment at k, the VSMM algorithm based on AG-BMA method completes
an iteration process. Additionally, then, k = k + 1, return to step (1) and proceed to the
next iteration.

3. Simulation Results
In order to prove that the proposed method is effective in improving the estima-
tion performance of the kinematic state and the extension state, an extended target with
star-convex shape, as shown in Figure 6, was used in this paper. Assuming that the mea-
surement sources are all distributed on the target surface, and the radar sensor with high
resolution capability and detection accuracy obtains the information. The tracking object
of this paper is a single maneuvering extended target, which does not involve clutter and
missed detection.

Figure 6. Star-convex extended target and its measurements.

The performance of the proposed VSMM algorithm based on AG-BMA was investi-
gated over a deterministic maneuver scenario and a random scenario. The two scenarios
enable the evaluation of the kinematic state and the shape estimation performance of
the algorithm, which can be judged based on the root-mean-square error and Hausdorff
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 14 of 20

distance, respectively. In addition, the proposed algorithm has been compared with the
IMM algorithm and two other VSMM algorithms to illustrate its effectiveness.  
Here, we need to emphasize the formula of Hausdorff distance d H S̄C ( xk ), S̄Ĉ ( x̂k )
between the estimated shape S̄C ( xk ) and the real shape S̄Ĉ ( x̂k ), where C and Ĉ represent
the estimated target and the real target, respectively. The radial function that used to
describe star-convex is characterized by its extension parameter vector xek , i.e.,

r ( xek , φ) = R(φ) xek (35)

where φ is a continuous set and can be replaced by a discrete set with the idea of angular
uniform discretization.
 
e e 2π
ṙ ( xk , φ) = R(φ) xk , φ ∈ i , i = 1, 2, . . . , Ns (36)
Ns

where Ns is the number of samples. Accordingly, S̄C ( xk ) and S̄Ĉ ( x̂k ) can be expressed as
  
2π
ṠC ( xk ) = ŝk ṙ ( xek , φ)e(φ) + xck , φ ∈ i , i = 1, 2, . . . , Ns (37)
Ns
  
2π
ṠĈ ( x̂k ) = ŝk ṙ ( x̂ek , φ)e(φ) + x̂ck , φ ∈ i , i = 1, 2, . . . , Ns (38)
Ns
Then, the formula of Hausdorff distance is [29]
      
d H ṠC ( xk ), ṠĈ ( x̂k ) = max d ṠC ( xk ), ṠĈ ( x̂k ) , d ṠĈ ( x̂k ), ṠC ( xk ) (39)
    
d ṠC ( xk ), ṠĈ ( x̂k ) = max d E a, ṠĈ ( x̂k ) (40)
a∈ṠC ( xk )
    
d ṠĈ ( x̂k ), ṠC ( xk ) = max d E a, ṠC ( xk ) (41)
â∈ṠĈ ( x̂k )

where
 a and â represent a point of the estimated shape and the real shape, respectively.
d E  a, ṠĈ ( x̂k ) denotes the Euclidean distance between point a and each point in ṠĈ ( x̂k ),
d E a, ṠC ( xk ) denotes the Euclidean distance between point â and each point in ṠC ( xk ).

3.1. Deterministic Scenario

In order to demonstrate the general applicability and universality of the proposed
algorithm, a deterministic scenario (DS) was introduced. The simulation was carried out
under the framework of the CT and CV models, in which the structure and parameters
were all changed.
Table 1 lists the kinematic state of the target, namely the serpentine turning process.
The parameter settings of the CT models with different turning rates were as follows:
 T
X = x, v x , y, vy , w
X0 = [1000 m, 150 m/s, 1000 m, 100 m/s, 0 rad/s] T
 
j 1 0 0 0
Hk =
0 0 1 0
 sin w j T cos w j T 
1 wj 0 w 0
(42)
 
 0 cos w j T 0 − sin w j T 0 
1−cos w j T sin w j T
 
j 
0 1 0 

Fk = 
 w j w j 
 0 
 0 sin w j T 0 cos w j T 0 
 

0 0 0 0 1
h i
2
wk ∼N 0, 0.01 , υk ∼N [0, 5]
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 15 of 20

Table 1. Maneuverable process of the target in DS.

Step [0,10) [10,30) [30,50) [50,70) [70,80) [80,100) [100,110]

w (rad/s) 0 −8 0 8 0 −8 0

When using the proposed AG-BMA-based VSMM algorithm for state estimation,
the adaptive process of the model set was different from that of the CA model framework
introduced in Section 2.2. Suppose that the turning rate of the target is w and its range of
variation is {−wmax , wmax }, then the boundary values of the turning rate are taken as the
initial value of the grid, and only horizontal self-adaptation is required.
When the basic model set was used,nthe number of models was set to 3. The o model
L C R
set at the initial time was set to D0 = w(0) = −wmax , w(0) = 0, w(0) = wmax , where
wmax = 15 rad/s. The adaptive steps of the grid center and the grid distance were similar
to those of the constant acceleration scenarios, and, thus, a  detailed description has not
been given here. Eventually, an adaptive model set, Mkb = wkL , wkC , wkR , was obtained,
which was generated in real-time according to the maneuvering state of the target.
Similarly, three CT models were selected to form the candidate model set, and the
turning rate of each model corresponded to different maneuvering levels. If the best
model activated at k − 1 is mbest k −1 , then the set of candidate models at k can be defined as
n o
Mkc = wkbest best best
−1 − θw , wk−1 , wk−1 + θw . In this paper, θw was taken to be 5 rad/s in order to
achieve fine tuning.
Figure 7 depicts the comparative results between the three algorithms, namely, IMM,
BMA, and AG-BMA, over 100 Monte Carlo runs. Hausdorff distance and root-mean-square
error are used to evaluate the performance of the algorithm. The smaller their values,
the better is the tracking performance of the corresponding algorithm.
The root-mean-square error values (unit: m, m/s) and the computational load of the
three algorithms are given in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

Table 2. Average root-mean-square error corresponding to the three algorithms.

RMSE IMM BMA AG-BMA

Position (m) 6.145 5.032 4.294
Velocity (m/s) 0.402 0.536 0.133

Table 3. Computational time taken by the three algorithms in DS.

Algorithms IMM BMA AG-BMA

Time (s) 1.943 3.414 3.400

Figure 7a,b show the estimation performance of the extension state. From the results,
it can be inferred that BMA provides the poor shape estimation performance. Further-
more, the tracking performance of the three algorithms is largely consistent in the non-
maneuvering stage. However, in the maneuvering stage, the AG-BMA algorithm exhibits
superior performance in shape estimation. As shown in Figure 7a, the shape estimated by
the AG-BMA algorithm is closer to the true shape of the target.
Figure 7c,d show the root-mean-square error comparison of the centroid position
and velocity resulting from the application of the three algorithms. From the results,
it can be seen that the proposed AG-BMA algorithm can better improve the estimation
performance of the kinematic state. This is mainly because the AG-BMA algorithm can
automatically adjust the parameters of each model in the basic and candidate model set
depending on the maneuvering condition in order to efficiently match the true system
mode. However, the results show that even without activating a new model, the IMM
algorithm still has a smaller estimation error than BMA sometimes. The reasons for this
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 16 of 20

result can be summarized as follows: On the one hand, the BMA algorithm can achieve
optimal estimation only when the true system mode is in the whole mode space. On the
other hand, this could be because the model contained in the IMM algorithm happens to
be able to describe part of the true system mode.

(a)

600 12
IMM IMM
550 BMA BMA
AG-BMA 10 AG-BMA
500
Hausdorff distance (d /m)

Position RMSE (m)

H

450 8

400
6
350

300 4

250
2
200

150 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
k k

(b) (c)

2
IMM
1.8 BMA
AG-BMA
1.6
Velocity RMSE (m/s)

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
k

(d)

Figure 7. Performance comparison of the three algorithms. (a) Trajectory of the target. (b) Hausdorff
distance. (c) RMSE of position. (d) RMSE of velocity.

3.2. Random Scenario

To provide a performance comparison over an ensemble of maneuver trajectories
that is as fair as possible, the algorithms were tested on the random scenario (RS) that has
been developed in previous studies [26,30]. In the entire simulation process, the target
performed random acceleration motion, and thus it can be regarded as a continuous strong
maneuvering process. Here, the acceleration vector is a two-dimensional semi-Markov
process and it jumps from one state of acceleration of magnitude α and phase θ to another
after a random time interval. Obviously, such strong maneuvering scenarios put higher
demands on the performance of the MM estimators.
The specific model assumptions in this scenario were as follows: The program executed
90 simulation steps each time and the acceleration changed 10 times in the entire process.
Then, the residence time, τk , of the state a = ak was a random number up to 90 and satisfied
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 17 of 20

10
the condition ∑ τk = 90. The phase angle, θk , obeyed a Gaussian distribution with mean,
N =1
θ̄, and variance, σθ2 . In this simulation scenario, the parameters were set as follows:
 T
X = x, v x , a x , y, vy , ay
h iT
X0 = 1000 m, 100 m/s, 10 m/s2 , 1000 m, 100 m/s, 10 m/s2
 
j 1 0 0 0 0 0
Hk =
0 0 0 1 0 0
T2
 
1 T 2 0 0 0
(43)
 0
 1 T 0 0 0 

 0 0 1 0 0 0
 
j
Fk = 

T2

 0 0 0 1 T 
 2 
 0 0 0 0 1 T 
0 0 0 0 0 1
h i
wk ∼N 0, 0.012 , υk ∼N [0, 5]

Figure 8 depicts the comparative results of the four algorithms, IMM7, IMM13, BMA,
and AG-BMA, over 100 Monte Carlo runs for an random scenario. The Hausdorff distance
and the root-mean-square error were used as the evaluation metrics for accessing the
estimation results of the extension state and kinematic state, respectively. The smaller their
values, the better is the tracking performance of the corresponding algorithm.
The root-mean-square error and the computational load corresponding to the four
algorithms are given in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.

Table 4. Average root-mean-square error corresponding to the four algorithms.

RMSE IMM7 IMM13 BMA AG-BMA

Acceleration (m/s2 ) 14.506 13.442 14.665 7.404
Position (m) 40.181 35.944 48.940 20.226
Velocity (m/s) 23.710 23.696 36.367 16.576

Table 5. Computational time taken by the four algorithms in RS.

Algorithms IMM7 IMM13 BMA AG-BMA

Time (s) 3.017 5.544 4.159 3.998

Figure 8a,b show the performance of four algorithms for shape estimation. The smaller
the Hausdorff distance is, the better the shape estimation is. Obviously, the extension state
estimated by AG-BMA algorithm is closer to the true shape of the target.
From the results presented in Tables 4 and 5, it can be seen that the original BMA
algorithm exhibits the poor estimation accuracy and also has a large computational burden.
The reasons for this result can be summed up as follows: On one hand, the KL information
needs to be frequently calculated each time the best model is activated. On the other hand,
it is due to the uncertainty caused by its fixed and prior known model set. Although the
IMM7 algorithm requires the shortest computational time, its estimation error is bigger
than IMM13 and AG-BMA. IMM13 can cover the entire model space to a large extent due
to a large number of models, but it is still less effective than AG-BMA, and it also requires
the largest amount of calculation. Undoubtedly, the key to improving the tracking accuracy
is to ensure that the dynamic model used is as close as possible to the true system mode of
the target. Fortunately, the proposed AG-BMA algorithm can construct an adaptive model
set online based on the information of the previous moment. Thus, the AG-BMA algorithm
can obtain the best estimation performance of kinematic state among the four algorithms.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 18 of 20

(a)

1400 25
IMM7 IMM7
IMM13 IMM13
1200 BMA BMA
20
AG-BMA AG-BMA

Acceleration RMSE (m/s2)

Hausdorff distance (d /m)
H

1000
15

800

10
600

5
400

200 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
k k

(b) (c)

90 70
IMM7 IMM7
80 IMM13 IMM13
60
BMA BMA
70 AG-BMA AG-BMA
50
Velocity RMSE (m/s)
Position RMSE (m)

60

50 40

40 30

30
20
20
10
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
k k

(d) (e)

Figure 8. Performance comparison of the four algorithms. (a) Trajectory of the target (b) Hausdorff
distance. (c) RMSE of acceleration. (d) RMSE of position. (e) RMSE of velocity.

4. Discussion
From the performance comparison in Section 4, we can draw a conclusion that the
proposed AG-BMA algorithm can obtain a better estimation of kinematic state while requir-
ing a slightly longer calculation time. This is mainly because the proposed algorithm can
adjust the model parameters online according to the information of the previous moment,
which helps the dynamic model approximates the true system mode to a greater extent.
In addition, although we only try to obtain a more matched dynamic model, the pro-
posed method still shows better shape estimation performance. In reality, this can be
attributed to the inherent coupling relationship between shape and motion. For example,
the target might always be aligned with its motion direction. It is obvious that a more
detailed shape model improves the estimation quality for the kinematic state as it accu-
rately captures the target. Meanwhile, an accurate estimation of the target position will
also help to describe the shape of the target. In other words, the estimates for the extension
parameters, as well as the kinematic parameters can benefit from this coupling. This well
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 19 of 20

explains why a more suitable dynamic model can also describe the shape more accurately
instead of just improving the estimation accuracy of kinematic state.

5. Conclusions
To improve the tracking accuracy of the maneuvering extended target, a new model
set design method, namely, AG-BMA, has been proposed in this work. This method utilizes
an adaptive grid to achieve a dual adaptation of the basic and candidate model sets so
that it can approximate the true system mode to a large extent with a small number of
models. Furthermore, it can effectively overcome the model mismatch caused by strong
maneuvering. In this paper, the proposed algorithm was simulated in a deterministic sce-
nario and a random scenario to prove the effectiveness of the method. From the simulation
results, it can be concluded that the proposed AG-BMA algorithm can effectively improve
the estimation accuracy of the extended shape and centroid motion.
How to designing an effective model set for multiple maneuvering extended targets
tracking is still challenging. The proposed model set designing method (i.e., AG-BMA) has
room for further development and improvement. As our research directions to next step,
we will consider modifying AG-BMA and apply it to tracking of multiple maneuvering
extended targets. In this context, more work remains to be completed.

Author Contributions: L.S. and J.Z. conceived of the idea and developed the proposed approaches.
H.Y. advised the research and helped edit the paper. Z.F. and Z.H. improved the quality of the
manuscript and the completed revision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The research was funded by the National Thirteen-Five Equipment Pre-Research Founda-
tion of China (No. 61403120207), the Aeronautical Science Foundation of China (No. 20185142003),
Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province, China (No. 222300420433), the Science and Tech-
nology Innovative Talents in Universities of Henan Province (No. 21HASTIT030), Young Backbone
Teachers in Universities of Henan Province (No. 2020GGJS073).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, L.; Mao, D.; Niu, J.; Wu, Q.; Ji, Y. Continuous tracking of targets for stereoscopic HFSWR based on IMM filtering combined
with ELM. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 272. [CrossRef]
2. Sun, L.; Yu, H.; Lan, J.; Fu, Z.; He, Z.; Pu, J. Tracking of Multiple Maneuvering Random Hypersurface Extended Objects Using
High Resolution Sensors. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2963. [CrossRef]
3. Wei, H.; Huang, Y.; Hu, F.; Zhao, B.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, R. Motion Estimation Using Region-Level Segmentation and Extended
Kalman Filter for Autonomous Driving. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1828. [CrossRef]
4. Bensheng, Q.; Haiyi, L.; Youquan, C.; Diancheng, Z. An adaptive parameter model for maneuvering target tracking.
In Proceedings of the ICSP’98—1998 Fourth International Conference on Signal Processing (Cat. No. 98TH8344), Beijing, China,
12–16 October 1998; pp. 465–469.
5. Yadav, A.; Awasthi, P.; Naik, N.; Ananthasayanam, M. A constant gain Kalman filter approach to track maneuvering targets.
In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA), Hyderabad, India, 28–30 August 2013;
pp. 562–567.
6. Moose, R.L.; Vanlandingham, H.F.; McCabe, D. Modeling and estimation for tracking maneuvering targets. IEEE Trans. Aerosp.
Electron. Syst. 1979, AES-15, 448–456. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, L.N.; Yuan, Z.; Yan, B.D.; Xu, L. Application of IMM algorithm based on model CS in target tracking. Jisuanji Gongcheng
Yingyong 2010, 46, 230–232.
8. Blom, H.A.P. An efficient filter for abruptly changing systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–14 December 1984; pp. 656–658.
9. Li, X.R. Multiple-model estimation with variable structure. II. Model-set adaptation. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2000,
45, 2047–2060.
10. Li, X.R.; Bar-Shalom, Y. Multiple-model estimation with variable structure. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1996, 41, 478–493.
11. Dong, P.; Jing, Z.; Li, M.; Pan, H. The variable structure multiple model GM-PHD filter based on likely-model set algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 2016 19th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), Heidelberg, Germany, 5–8 July 2016;
pp. 2289–2295.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1613 20 of 20

12. Li, X.R.; Jilkov, V.P.; Ru, J. Multiple-model estimation with variable structure-part VI: expected-mode augmentation. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2005, 41, 853–867.
13. Lan, J.; Li, X.R. Equivalent-model augmentation for variable-structure multiple-model estimation. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 2013, 49, 2615–2630. [CrossRef]
14. Mao, Y.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, J. Passive radar tracking of a maneuvering target using variable structure multiple-model algorithm.
In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Vision (ICMV): Algorithms, Pattern Recognition, and Basic
Technologies, Wuhan, China, 20–21 October 2012.
15. Xu, L.; Li, X.R.; Duan, Z. Hybrid grid multiple-model estimation with application to maneuvering target tracking. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2016, 52, 122–136. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, Y.; Guo, C.; Hu, H.; Liu, S.; Chu, J. An algorithm of the adaptive grid and fuzzy interacting multiple model. J. Mar. Sci.
Appl. 2014, 13, 340–345. [CrossRef]
17. Wu, P.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Bo, Y. Tracking algorithm with radar and infrared sensors using a novel adaptive grid interacting
multiple model. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2014, 8, 270–276. [CrossRef]
18. Lan, J.; Li, X.R.; Mu, C. Best model augmentation for variable-structure multiple-model estimation. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 2011, 47, 2008–2025. [CrossRef]
19. Kullback, S.; Leibler, R.A. On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 1951, 22, 79–86. [CrossRef]
20. Baum, M.; Hanebeck, U.D. Shape tracking of extended objects and group targets with star-convex RHMs. In Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Information Fusion, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 July 2011; pp. 1–8.
21. Baum, M.; Hanebeck, U.D. Extended object tracking with random hypersurface models. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2014,
50, 149–159. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, H.; Du, J. An adaptive contour algorithm for irregular shape extended target. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), Takamatsu, Japan, 6–9 August 2017; pp. 734–739.
23. Sun, L.; Yu, H.; Fu, Z.; He, Z.; Zou, J. Modeling and Tracking of Maneuvering Extended Object With Random Hypersurface. IEEE
Sens. J. 2021, 21, 20552–20562. [CrossRef]
24. Yimao, L. Research on Variable Structure Multi-Model Maneuvering Target Tracking Algorithm. Ph.D. Thesis, Xi Dian University,
Xi’an, China, 2014.
25. Liu, M.; Chen, H.; Qiu, Z.; Ren, X. Moving Target Location Method Based on Euclidean Distance and Camshift Algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 2018 Eighth International Conference on Instrumentation & Measurement, Computer, Communication and
Control (IMCCC), Harbin, China, 19–21 July 2018; pp. 558–563.
26. Li, X.R.; Zhang, Y. Multiple-model estimation with variable structure. V. Likely-model set algorithm. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 2000, 36, 448–466.
27. Li, X.R.; Jilkov, V.P. Expected-mode augmentation for multiple-model estimation. In Proceedings of the 2001 International
Conference on Information Fusion, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–10 August 2001; pp. 7–10.
28. Seah, C.E.; Hwang, I. State estimation for stochastic linear hybrid systems with continuous-state-dependent transitions: An IMM
approach. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2009, 45, 376–392. [CrossRef]
29. Sun, L.; Zhang, S.; Ji, B.; Pu, J. Shape Estimation Evaluation of Extended Objects Based on Modified Hausdorff Distance. Acta
Opt. Sin. 2017, 37, 0728003.
30. Li, X.R.; Jilkov, V.P.; Ru, J.; Bashi, A. Expected-mode augmentation algorithms for variable-structure multiple-model estimation.
IFAC Proc. Vol. 2002, 35, 175–180. [CrossRef]