February 2009, 16(1): 915

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10058885 www.buptjournal.cn/xben
The Journal of China
Universities of Posts and
Telecommunications
Energy-efficient collaborative target tracking
algorithm using cost-reference particle filtering
in wireless acoustic sensor networks
YU Zhi-jun (), WEI Jian-ming, LIU Hai-tao
Wireless Sensor Network Research and Development Center, Shanghai Institute of Microsystem and Information Technology, Shanghai 200050, China
Abstract
Target tracking is one of the most important applications of wireless sensor networks. Optimized computation and energy
dissipation are critical requirements to save the limited resource of sensor nodes. A new robust and energy-efficient collaborative
target tracking framework is proposed in this article. After a target is detected, only one active cluster is responsible for the
tracking task at each time step. The tracking algorithm is distributed by passing the sensing and computation operations from one
cluster to another. An event-driven cluster reforming scheme is also proposed for balancing energy consumption among nodes.
Observations from three cluster members are chosen and a new class of particle filter termed cost-reference particle filter (CRPF)
is introduced to estimate the target motion at the cluster head. This CRPF method is quite robust for wireless sensor network
tracking applications because it drops the strong assumptions of knowing the probability distributions of the system process and
observation noises. In simulation experiments, the performance of the proposed collaborative target tracking algorithm is
evaluated by the metrics of tracking precision and network energy consumption.
Keywords target tracking, cost-reference particle filtering, energy-efficient, wireless sensor networks (WSNs)
1 Introduction

The emergence of miniature low-power devices that
integrate microsensing and actuation with on-broad processing
and wireless communication capabilities has stimulated great
interests in developing WSNs [1]. Recently, such wireless
networks have found applications in military, animal tracking,
environmental surveillance, etc. Target tracking is one of the
most essential functions for these applications.
Small and cheap passive sensors, such as acoustic, seismic
sensors are often used in WSNs. The sensor nodes are
typically battery powered, with limited computation capability,
memory resource, and wireless communication bandwidth;
thus, one sensor is not powerful enough to track a target. In
conventional information processing methods, there is a
processing center, which aggregates and processes information
from all nodes in the network [2]. The communication traffic
is very heavy and energy consuming. Considerable research

Received date: 26-01-2008
Corresponding author: YU Zhi-jun, E-mail: yzjnsj@163.com
DOI: 10.1016/S1005-8885(08)60170-3
has been devoted to collaborative signal and information
processing (CSIP) and distributed computation where the target
tracking or classification task is performed by multisensor
cooperation [35].
There are two important designing factors for efficiently
implementing the collaborative target tracking algorithm in
WSNs. The first one is how to obtain an acceptable tracking
precision in the unknown and unstable environment. Particle
filter (PF) is now a popular method for nonlinear and
non-Gaussian state estimation problems and is widely used
for passive target tracking problems [67]. This class of
method needs a mathematical representation of the system
evolution dynamics, together with complete assumptions of
system noise probabilistic models, which are often hard to
obtain accurately in practice. In Refs. [89], the authors
proposed a new class of particle filter called CRPF. CRPF
drops all the noise probabilistic assumptions, which consequently
leads to more robust algorithms and performs better for more
practical target tracking tasks. In this article, we improve the
CRPF in Ref. [8] to enhance its flexibility and use this
method to estimate the target state when the prior knowledge
10 The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications 2009
of the application environment is unavailable.
The second factor is how to effectively implement
multisensor collaboration to balance and reduce the total
energy consumption and communication burden, i.e., how to
dynamically determine who should sense the target, what
should be sensed, and who should be the next leader to whom
the information should be passed on to [10]. In this article, a
cluster-based collaborative algorithm is developed. The
wireless sensor network is organized as many clusters. At
each time step, only the cluster, which the target is currently
moving through, is responsible for the target tracking task and
is called the active cluster. Some selected cluster members
that lie close to the predicted position of the target will sense
acoustic signal continuously and send acoustic energy
measurements to the cluster head (CH). The CH of the active
cluster is in charge of altering the working state of the cluster
members, gathering sensor information, estimating and
predicting the target state, communicating with the base
station, and activating other appropriate clusters when the
target is about to leave the range of the current cluster. Also, a
new event-driven cluster reforming scheme is proposed to
balance the energy consumption of the whole network. When
target tracking task has been propagated to a new active
cluster, the CH rotating procedure will be performed in the
previous active cluster and a proper cluster member will be
chosen to become the new CH.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. The next
section will introduce the system models for target tracking
problem in acoustic WSNs. In Sect. 3, the flow of CRPF
algorithm is introduced and its improvement is also proposed.
Next, the energy-efficient multisensor collaboration scheme is
presented in Sect. 4. Sect. 5 describes the simulation experiment
to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm. Sect. 6
concludes this article.
2 System models
In this article, there are three foundational assumptions of
the application scenario:
1) The time between sensor nodes is synchronized.
2) Each sensor node knows its own position.
3) There is at most one target in the network coverage area
during the surveillance period.
In fact, since sensor nodes are organized in cluster structure
and the information used for target tracking is acoustic energy
measurement obtained over long sampling period like 0.51 s
typically, the first assumption described above can be eased.
Only the time between nodes in each cluster needs to be
locally and roughly synchronized. A global time stamp can be
given by the base station for any result reported from CHs to
it. The delay measurement time synchronization (DMTS) [11]
is a lightweight and energy-efficient sender-to-receiver time
synch protocol that meets our requirements. It is based on the
estimation of all delays involved in time synchronization
message transfer path. The frequency that a time master (i.e.,
the CH) broadcasts time synchronization message can be
fixed or event-driven: when a target event is first detected in
the cluster, the CH will activate all its members and send a
synchronization message once the wireless channel is clear.
On the other hand, if there is no target event, part of the
members will turn to sleeping state for energy saving. The CH
will start a timer and then a synchronization message will be
sent when the timer expires.
The DMTS can achieve time synchronization accuracy
under 1 clock tick typically, which is sufficient for this target
tracking application. Moreover, the acoustic energy
measurement is calculated in a moving average manner,
which can eliminate the time synchronization error to a
certain extent. The DMTS based synch approach is energy
efficient because only one time signal transfer is required to
synchronize all nodes within a single hop, and the frequency
of the DMTS event is adjusted by the frequency of target
event. It is also lightweight because no complex operations
are involved.
Target tracking problem can be stated in terms of
estimation of an unobserved discrete-time random signal in a
dynamic system of the form
1
( , )
t x t t
f

= x x u (1)
( , )
t y t t
f = y x v (2)
where
t
x is the hidden system state vector of interest at time
step t; ( )
x
f is the state transition function, and
t
u is the
process noise;
t
y is the observation vector collected at time
step t; ( )
y
f is the observation function, and
t
v is the
observation noise;
t
u and
t
v are assumed statistically
independent of each other.
In the acoustic sensor network target tracking application, a
moving target generates continuous acoustic signal when
passing through the sensor field. The ultimate aim is the
online estimation of the target positions and velocities
information from available acoustic observations.
t
x can be
denoted as
T
t t t t t
q q ( =

x (3)
where ,
t t
q denote the target positions and ,
t t
q

denote
the velocities in X and Y axes respectively. For nearly constant
velocity model, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
1 t x t t
= + x F x u (4)
where
Issue 1 YU Zhi-jun, et al. / Energy-efficient collaborative target tracking algorithm using 11
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
x
T
T
(
(
(
=
(
(

F ( 5 )
In Eq. (5), T is the sampling period. Energy based acoustic
feature is an appropriate choice for target detection as well as
tracking. The acoustic energy is calculated as the moving
average of the squared magnitude of the acoustic time series.
For the kth sensor, the observation at time step t in Eq. (2) can
be expressed as
, , t k k t k
t k
s
y g v
o
= +
r r
(6)
where s is the acoustic energy generated by the target during the
sampling period, which is assumed constant.
t
r is a vector
denoting the coordinates of the target at time step t.
k
r is the
coordinates of the kth sensor.
k
g is the energy gain factor of
the kth sensor, which can be measured during sensor calibration.
o is the energy decay factor. For each node, there is only one
energy observation after each sampling period, and it is not
sufficient to estimate the target state
t
x separately. Hence,
three sensor observations
, 1 t k
y ,
, 2 t k
y ,
, 3 t k
y are chosen and
integrated to form an augmented observation vector
t
= y
T
, 1 , 2 , 3
[ ]
t k t k t k
y y y at each time step.
3 Cost-reference particle filtering
Form Eq. (3), it can be seen that the observation function is
highly nonlinear with respect to the target state. Some
sequential Bayesian filtering methods like extended Kalman
filter (EKF), unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and particle
filter (PF) have been widely used in nonlinear state estimation
in target tracking problem, whereas they are all based on the
assumptions of knowing probability distributions of the
process noise and observation noise, which are often hard to
obtain in practical WSN applications. However, the CRPF
does not presuppose these probabilistic assumptions, thus it is
more appropriate in applications than conventional particle
filters because the characteristic of the sensor deployment
circumstance is very unpredictable and uncertain.
The key concepts of the CRPF are cost and risk functions,
particle propagation, and particle selection. A user-defined
cost function ( ) C is used to measure the quality of
estimations of the system state
0:t
x given the observation
sequence
1:t
y , which has a recursive additive structure, i. e.,
0: 1: 0: 1 1: 1
( | , ) ( | , ) ( | )
t t t t t t
C C C

= + A x y x y x y (7)
where ( | )
t t
C A x y is the cost increment with respect to the
state and observation vectors at time step t; (0 1) < < is a
predefined forgetting factor, which avoids attributing an
excessive weight to old observations. The CRPF also
introduces a one-step risk function
1
( | )
t t
x y to measure the
adequacy of the state at time step 1 t , given new observation
t
y . However, it is subjective to view the one-step risk function
as a prediction of the cost increment, ( | )
t t
C A x y . Assume that
the observation noise is a zero-mean process, and the risk
function can be
1 1
( | ) ( ( ) | )
t t x t t
C f

= A x y x y (8)
The CRPF method runs sequentially in a manner similar to
standard particle filter. Assume that M particles are used in the
algorithm, which are denoted by
{ }
( ) ( )
1
,
M
i i
t t
i
C
=
x . The flow of
generic CRPF algorithm is summarized as follows [8].
1) Initialization step
Time 0 t = : obtain initial particles
{ }
( ) ( )
0 0
1
, 0
M
i i
i
C
=
= x from
uniform probability density distribution (pdf)
( )
0 0
( )
i
x
x I .
2) Selection step
Time 1 t + : for particle
( ) i
t
x , calculate risk
( )
1
i
t +
and the
probability mass function (pmf) as
( ) ( )
1 1
( )
i i
t t
t
+ +

. Select the
most promising particles
{ }
( ) ( )
1
,
M
i i
t t
i
C
=

x from
{ }
( ) ( )
1
,
M
i i
t t
i
C
=
x .
( ) is a predefined monotonically decreasing function.
3) Propagation step
Time 1 t + : for 1, 2,..., i M = , draw new particles
( )
1
i
t +
x
from
( )
1 1
( | )
i
t t t
p
+ +

x x , which is a pdf chosen by the user, with
expected value
( )
( )
i
x t
f

x , then update the associated cost
( )
1
i
t
C
+
.
4) Estimation
Time 1 t + : for particle
( )
1
i
t +
x , calculate the pmf of
( )
1
i
t
C
+
as
( ) ( )
1 1
( )
i i
t t
C t
+ +
. The state estimation at 1 t + can be
obtained as
mean ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1 1
1 1
M M
i i i
t t t t
i i
t t
+ + + +
= =
=

x x .
As shown in Ref. [8], the choice of the pmf : [0, ) +
is very important for the CRPF since both particle selection
and state estimation depend on the ability of to assign
larger probability masses to the better particles. should be
selected to guarantee an adequate discrimination of low cost
particles from higher cost particles. In Ref. [8], the authors
propose two forms of this function:
( )
1
( ) ( ) ( )
1
( ) , \ {0}
i i i
t t t
C C C

= e (9)
( )
2 ( ) ( )
1
( )
( min{ } )
i
t i k
t t
k
C
C C
|

o
=
+
(10)
The simulation results show that
2
generally behaves
better than
1
.
12 The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications 2009
In
2
, 0 1 o < < and 1 | > are empirical parameters,
which are needed to redesign for different problems. o is
very important for algorithm feasibility. If the distribution scope
of current costs is much smaller than o ,
2
will yield nearly
uniform probability masses and will degrade the algorithm
performance. On the other hand, if the distribution scope of
current costs is much larger than 1 while 0 1 o < < ,
2
will
make the pmf at
( )
min { }
k
k t
C too much larger than other costs,
which will result in particle diversity degradation. Examples for
the above two cases when 2 | = are shown in Fig. 1. To
improve flexibility, o must be adjustable along with the
distribution of current costs. Here, we propose to use the
average cost discrepancy as a general choice of o :
( ) ( )
99
max{ } min{ }
1 10
k k
t t
k k
C C
M
o
-

= + (11)
where M is the number of particles. Fig. 1 also shows the
corresponding performance of
2
with o
-
. The results
indicate that
2
with o
-
generates adequate discrimination
of low cost from high cost in both cases. Moreover, it is easy to
implement and will result in stable algorithm for more general
applications.
(a) The cost distribution scope is smaller than o
(b) The cost distribution scope is larger than 1
Fig. 1 Examples of normalized
2
with 2 | =
4 Multisensor collaboration and event-driven clustering
This section will describe a new energy-efficient multisensor
collaborative information processing scheme for WSN target
tracking. The goal is to perform the target tracking task in
collaborative way, which can evenly distribute the energy load
among all the nodes and reduce the communication traffic. At
any time, only several sensor nodes need to collect the acoustic
signal and the others are in sleeping state under which a sensor
only receives information from its CH. The energy-efficient
collaboration algorithm involves event-driven cluster reforming,
detecting the presence of the target, estimating the target motion,
and altering active clusters. Before detailing the above contents,
the names and purposes of messages that will be used are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Messages used for multisensor collaboration
Message name Purpose
CHRotate CH initiates a cluster reforming process
CurState Cluster members reply their current state to CH
TargetInfo
Cluster members report their detection information
to CH
Suppression
The active CH suppresses other clusters to track the
target
Activation
The active CH hands over tracking task to another
cluster
4.1 Event-driven cluster reforming scheme
It is expectable that CHs, especially active CHs, will
consume much more energy than their members because they
bear more burdensome tasks. If the CHs are chosen as a priori
and are fixed all the time, they will die quickly, which will
result in communication break between the cluster members
and the base station. Apparently, balancing the energy
consumption requires each node to take its turn as CH by
certain scheduling algorithm. In Ref. [11], the authors rotate
the role of CH after a predefined number of rounds to balance
energy consumption. It is easy to see that when no target
enters the sensor field, there will be few message exchanges
between the CH and its cluster members, and the CH does not
need to do much more work than its cluster members. If the
CHs are rotated frequently during these time intervals, there
will be a mass of unnecessary energy waste because the
clustering phase needs plenty of information exchanges. On
the other hand, when a target moves into the sensor field and
passes by some clusters, these CHs will have to collect
information from their cluster members, execute complicated
target tracking algorithm, and communicate with the base
station. These operations will result in much more energy
consumed on the CHs. Therefore, a novel event-driven cluster
reforming mechanism is introduced.
We divide the clustering process into two phases: initial
clustering phase and CH rotating phase.
Issue 1 YU Zhi-jun, et al. / Energy-efficient collaborative target tracking algorithm using 13
1) Initial clustering phase
After deploying sensors in the surveillance area, clusters of
predefined number are formed according to sensor
geographical positions. The layout will be maintained steady
until a target enters the sensor field.
2) CH rotating phase
It will be seen in Sect. 4.4 that the active cluster will turn
back to target detection state when the target moves out of its
tracking range. The CH rotating procedure can be performed
in this cluster at this time. At first, the current CH broadcasts
a CHRotate message. If a cluster member receives this
message, it starts a timer
c
T and will send back a CurState
message to the CH after the timer expires. The length of
c
T
is
rem
c max ran
total
1 ( )
E
T T U T
E
| |
= +
|
\ .
(12)
where
rem
E ,
total
E are the remaining energy and initial total
energy of the sensor respectively.
max
T denotes the
maximum back-off timer value, and ( ) U is the uniform
distribution in
ran
[0, 1] T . Note that
c
T contains two parts.
The first part is the deterministic part that relates the remain
energy to the back-off delay value, and the other term
accounts for the random part that prevents potential collision
when two or more sensors have the same remain energy. The
random part is an order of magnitude smaller than the
deterministic part.
The CurState message contains the sensor ID and
remaining energy
rem
. E The CH collects the CurState
messages in a certain time window. Then, it will choose the
sensor with maximal
rem
E as the new CH, broadcast this
information, and change its own state to a cluster member.
Other members overhearing this information will learn that
the CH has changed and record this information.
4.2 Target detection
For the sake of surveillance, some or all nodes must
periodically turn their sensing modules on to detect the
presence of any target. Turning on the sensing modules of
more nodes will have smaller miss-detecting probability,
whereas it will also consume more energy and shorten the
entire network lifetime. Assume that a network with
s
N
sensors is deployed on a 2-D area A with node density , i.e.,
there are
s
N A = nodes per unit area on average. At every
time step, each node randomly generates a number in [0,1]. If
the number is smaller than a threshold , the node will turn
on its sensing module to collect information and execute
detecting algorithm. ( | 0, 1 e is a user-designed parameter,
and bigger means smaller miss-detecting probability, thus
there are about
s
N active nodes at detecting state at every
time step. When such an active sensor detects a target nearby,
it will inform the CH, and then the CH will activate all its
members to detect the target.
Acoustic energy can be used to detect the presence of the
target. An event is detected when the current calculated
energy of a node exceeds an energy threshold and a
TargetInfo message is transmitted to its CH. Each TargetInfo
message contains the following:
1) The current acoustic energy.
2) The associated time stamp.
3) The ID of the originating node.
4.3 Collaborative target tracking
The cluster in which the target exists becomes the active
cluster and is responsible for the target tracking task. The
active CH broadcasts a Suppression message to other CHs,
which will make the destination CHs turn their own members
to sleeping state. At each time step, when the CH of the active
cluster has received all the TargetInfo messages from its
members, which have detected the target during a fixed time
interval T A , three messages with the biggest acoustic energy
are chosen and the CRPF algorithm described in Sect. 2 is
performed at the CH to estimate the current state of the target
and predict the possible target state at the next time step.
According to the predicted state,
a
N
a
( 3) N members,
which are closest to the predicted target position, will be
announced to calculate the acoustic energy and send
TargetInfo messages to the CH at the next time step. Again,
the CH will choose three maximums from these messages and
do the work described above. The CH also takes charge of
sending the tracking results to the base station via multihop
routing among cluster heads.
The above process will be repeated until the target is on the
point of leaving the current active cluster, and then the target
tracking task should be handed over to another appropriate
cluster.
4.4 Target tracking task handover
When the target is about to leave this current active cluster
and enter another cluster in the vicinity, it is important to
transfer the target tracking task to the new cluster and shut
down the old cluster for energy saving in time. If the current
estimated target position is near the border of the active
cluster and the estimated target motion direction is outward,
the CH of the active cluster will send an Activation message
including the current estimated target state as well as some
necessary algorithm parameters to an appropriate CH as the
14 The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications 2009
tracking successor. The new active CH then turns all its
members on to target detection state and undertakes the target
tracking task. The old active cluster will suppress itself and
the CH rotating procedure will be performed in this cluster.
5 Simulation results and analyses
This section evaluates the performance of the proposed
collaborative target tracking approach using the CRPF. We
simulate a wireless sensor network with
s
150 N = randomly
deployed acoustic sensors to supervise an area of 1 000 m
800 m, and the detection range of each sensor is 150 m. The
simulation is divided into two parts: the first part is for
analyzing the performance of the new CRPF algorithm used
in WSNs and the other part is for evaluating the network
performance of the proposed collaborative information
processing scheme.
5.1 Performance of cost-reference particle filtering
Assume a moving target enters the sensor detecting field at
time 0 t = . The initial target state is
T
[50 0 5 5] . The
simulation tracking time is
sim
100 T = . The system noise
t
u
and observation noise
t
v are assumed as zero-mean
Gaussian distributions. The target will be tracked by both our
proposed CRPF algorithm and the generic PF algorithm
described in Ref. [6] to compare their tracking performance.
Furthermore, two implementations of the generic PF
algorithm denoted by PF-1 and PF-2 are considered: the noise
statistical parameters (the mean and covariance for Gaussian
noise) are modeled accurately in PF-1 but have large model
error in PF-2. The number of particles used in each algorithm
is 600 M = .
Fig. 2 illustrates a typical tracking scenario under different
Fig. 2 Tracking results under different filtering algorithms
filtering algorithms. Fig. 3 also shows the target position
estimation performance in the form of root mean square error
(RMSE) at each time step via 100 Monte-Carlo simulations.
From Figs. 2 and 3, it can be seen that the estimated
trajectories under the CRPF and PF-1 are both very close to
the true trajectory, although the former completely drops all
the probability assumptions used in the latter, whereas the
PF-2 where the noise statistical parameters are unknown
loses the target for most of the time. These results mean that
the generic PF algorithm greatly depends on the noise
probability prior, while the proposed CRPF algorithm is
more robust, hence more suitable for WSN target tracking
applications.
Fig. 3 Position RMSE of different filtering algorithms via
100 Monte-Carlo simulations
5.2 Performance of multisensor collaboration
In this subsection, we will evaluate the energy efficiency of
the proposed multisensor collaborative information processing
algorithm by simulation.
For convenience of comparison, a nave centralized
algorithm is chosen as the baseline. In the nave centralized
algorithm, there is no cluster structure, and all sensors are at
detection state all the time. They will send observations to the
base station directly once detecting a target. In the proposed
collaborative target tracking algorithm, the network is initially
divided into 5 clusters randomly. When an active cluster has
finished its tracking task, the role of CH will rotate in the
cluster to balance the total energy consumption immediately.
The base station is located within (1 000, 800).
The radio hardware energy consumption model is adopted
from Ref. [12]. The energy to transmit an n-bit message over
a distance d is
2
elec free 0
Tx
4
elec multi path 0
;
;
nE ne d d d
E
nE ne d d d

+ <

=

+

(13)
and the energy to receive an n-bit message is
Issue 1 YU Zhi-jun, et al. / Energy-efficient collaborative target tracking algorithm using 15
Rx elec
E nE = (14)
where
0
d is a threshold indicating that when the
transmitting distance d is smaller than
0
d , the free space
model is used; otherwise, the multipath model will be used.
From Eq. (13),
0
d can be expressed as
0 free multi path
d e e

= .
elec
E is the energy spent in activating the baseband circuit to
transmit or receive one bit.
free
e and
multi path
e

denote the
energy spent in running the radio frequency module to
transmit one bit in free space and in multipath space
respectively. In the simulation below, the above energy
parameters are set as:
elec
E =50 nJ/b,
free
e =10 pJ/
2
(b m ) ,
multi path
e

=0.001 3 pJ/
4
(b m ) .
Fig. 4 is the cluster distribution status at a certain time step
during the simulation of tracking the target in Fig. 2 using the
proposed collaborative algorithm. The pentagrams are the
current CHs and the solid triangles are the cluster members
currently in charge of tracking the target. At this time
snapshot, the target has gone across the cluster at the left
bottom area, thus the CH rotating procedure is performed in
this cluster. The sensor node with maximum remaining energy
becomes the new CH of this cluster and the old CH recedes to
a cluster member, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 Cluster distribution at a certain simulation time step
using proposed collaborative algorithm
Fig. 5 indicates the total energy consumption versus the
simulation time when tracking the target in Fig. 2 using the
proposed collaborative algorithm and the nave centralized
algorithm respectively. From Fig. 5, we can see that the
proposed algorithm has much less communication energy
consumption than the nave algorithm, thus the lifetime of the
network will be efficiently prolonged.
Fig. 5 Total communication energy consumption of the
proposed method and nave method versus simulation time
6 Conclusions
This article proposed a new collaborative target tracking
algorithm focused on the robustness and energy efficiency for
wireless acoustic sensor networks. The tracking algorithm is
distributed by passing sensing and computation operations
from one active cluster to another. An event-driven cluster
reforming scheme is also proposed for balancing the total
energy consumption. The cost-reference particle filter
algorithm is introduced and improved to estimate and predict
the target motion at each active cluster head. The simulation
results demonstrate that the robust CRPF method is conducive
to wireless sensor network tracking applications and the
proposed multisensor collaboration algorithm is quite
energy-efficient.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Hi-Tech Research and
Development Program of China (2006AA01Z216).
References
1. Sheng X H, Hu Y H. Maximum likelihood multiple-source localization
using acoustic energy measurements with wireless sensor networks. IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 2005, 53(1): 4453
2. Hu Y H, Li D. Energy based collaborative source localization using
acoustic micro-sensor array. Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Workshop on
Multimedia Signal Processing, Dec 911, 2002, St Thomas, Virgin
Islands, USA. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2002: 371375
3. Zhao F, Liu J, Liu J, et al. Collaborative signal and information
processing: an information-directed approach. Proceedings of IEEE, 2003,
91(8): 11991209
4. Liu J, Reich J, Zhao F. Collaborative in-network processing for target
tracking. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, 2003, 23(4):
378391
5. Ukita N, Matsuyama T. Real-time multi-target tracking by cooperative
distributed active vision agents. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2002, 90(7):
11361150
To p. 43
Issue 1 SUN Kai, et al. / Fairness based resource allocation for multiuser MISO-OFDMA systems with beamforming 43
References
1. Foschini G, Gans M. On limits of wireless communications in a fading
environment when using multiple antennas. IEEE Wireless Personal
Communications, 1998, 6(3): 311335
2. Tarokh V, Jafarhani H, Calderbank A R. Space-time block coding for
wireless communications: performance results. IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, 1999, 17(3): 451460
3. Spencer Q H, Swindlehurst A L, Haarrdt M. Zero-forcing methods for
downlink spatial multiplexing in multiuser MIMO channels. IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 2004, 52(2): 461471
4. Choi L U, Murch R D. A transmit preprocessing technique for multiuser
MIMO systems using a decomposition approach. IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, 2004, 3(1): 2024
5. Wong C Y, Cheng R S, Letaief K B, et al. Multiuser OFDM with
adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power allocation. IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, 1999, 21(2): 17471758
6. Kim K, Kim H, Han Y. Subcarrier and power allocation in OFDMA
systems. Proceedings of IEEE the 60th Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC2004-Fall): Vol 2, Sept. 2629, 2004, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2004: 10581062
7. Koutsopoulos I, Tassiulas L. Adaptive resource allocation in
SDMA-based wireless broadband networks with OFDM signaling.
Proceedings of 21st Annual Joint Conference of Computer and
Communications Societies (INFOCOM 02): Vol 3, Jun 2327, 2002,
New York, NY, USA. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2002: 13761385
8. Tsang Y M, Cheng R S. Optimal resource allocation in
SDMA/multi-input-single-output/OFDM systems under QoS and power
constraints. Proceedings of IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC2004): Vol 3, Mar 2125, 2004, Atlanta,
GA, USA. New York, NY, USA: IEEE, 2004: 15951600
9. Chan W C, Cheng R S. Capacity maximization for zero-forcing
MIMO-OFDMA downlink systems with multiuser diversity. IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2007, 6(5): 18801889
10. Jalali A, Padovani R, Pankaj R. Data throughput of CDMA-HDR a high
efficiency-high data rate personal communication wireless system.
Proceedings of IEEE the 51st Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC2000-Spring): Vol 3, May 15-18, 2000, Tokyo, Japan. Piscataway,
NJ, USA: IEEE, 2000: 18541858
11. Kim H, Han Y. A proportional fairness scheduling for multicarrier
transmission systems. IEEE Communications Letters, 2005, 9(3):
210212
12. Morris P, Althaudage C. Fairness based resource allocation for multi-user
mimo-ofdm systems. Proceedings of IEEE the 63rd Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC 2006 Spring): Vol 1, May 710, 2006,
Melbourne, Australia. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2006: 314318
13. Goldsmith A J, Chua S. Variable-rate variable-power MQAM for fading
channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 1997, 45(10):
12181230
14. Boyd S, Vandenberghe L. Convex Optimization. London, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2004: 241246
15. Ji T X, Zhou C, Zhou S D, et al. Low complex user selection strategies
for multi-user MIMO downlink scenario. Proceedings of IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC2007), Mar 1115,
2007, Hong Kong, China. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2007: 15341539
16. 3GPP TR 25.996 v 6.1.0. Spatial channel model for multiple input
multiple output (MIMO) simulations (release 6). 2003
(Editor: WANG Xu-ying)

From p. 15
6. Arulampalam M Sanjeev, Maskell S, Gordon N, et al. A tutorial on
particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 2002, 50(2): 174188
7. Sheng X H, Hu Y H. Distributed particle filters for wireless sensor
network target tracking. Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International
Conference on Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP05):
Vol 4, Mar 18-23, 2005, Philadelphia, PA, UAS. Piscataway, NJ, USA:
IEEE, 2005, 845848
8. Miguez J, Xu S S, Bugallo M, et al. Particle filtering for systems with
unknown noise probability distributions. Proceedings of 2003 IEEE
Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, Sep 28-Oct 1, 2003, St Louis,
MO, USA. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2003, 522525
9. Xu S S, Bugallo M, Djuric P. Maneuvering target tracking with simplified
cost-reference particle filters. Proceedings of 2006 IEEE International
Conference on Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP06):
Vol 4, May 1419, 2006, Toulouse, France. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE,
2006, 937940
10. Zhao F, Shin J, Reich J. Information-driven dynamic sensor collaboration
for tracking applications. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 2002, 19(2):
6172
11. Su P. Delay measurement time synchronization for wireless sensor
networks. Intel Research Berkeley Lab, IRB-TR-03-013, June, 2003
12. Heinzelman W, Chandrakasan A, Balakrishnan H. An application-
specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks. IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2002, 1(4): 660670
(Editor: WANG Xu-ying)