Compiler/IWR1642: for people counting when tracking an objective,why we need to unroll RadialVelocity?
Part Number: IWR1642
Tool/software: TI C/C++ Compiler
I am learning people counting's gtrack.I have the following questions:
1.In the prediction step of EKF,
Q is the process noise covariance matrix.And we consider piecewise white noise model for the noise.
We define maxAcceleration 5m/s according to your demo.What is the basis for setting the value?In gtrackUnitPredict function,obj.P_apriori(1:mSize,1:mSize) = obj.F(1:mSize,1:mSize) * obj.P(1:mSize,1:mSize) * obj.F(1:mSize,1:mSize)' + obj.Q(1:mSize,1:mSize)*obj.processVariance
processVariance = (0.5f*maxAcceleration)*(0.5f*maxAcceleration).Why is maxAcceleration multiplied by 0.5?
2.In gtrackUnitScore function,we compute the Mahalanobis distance between all measurements of cloud point and different tracks.
1)We build a gate using gtrack_gateCreateLim function.
gC_inv (EC) is the inverse of group covariance matrix(gC).Sometimes,the main diagonal of the matrix(gC_inv) is negative (gC's is positive).Is it right?Can the gate be negative?
We use gtrack_computeMahalanobis3 function to compute mahalanobis distance.Still,the main diagonal of the matrix(gC_inv) is sometimes negative.
Can the mahalanobis distance be negative?
In reply to Michael_Livshitz:
We are glad that we were able to resolve this issue, and will now proceed to close this thread.
If you have further questions related to this thread, you may click "Ask a related question" below. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.
In reply to XiaoHang Chen:
I suggest you focus on the frame where you have second target allocated, and understand the reasons. Your understanding of scoring function and numerical example is correct. M is number of measurement dimensions. Not sure why would you need it. In the end, whether we associate particular point to one or another target that are very close or even overlap is not that important. I.e. if one's hand overlaps another target's shoulder => no big deal if we associate reflection point one way or another.Errors will be made. Ideally, those errors should not lead to system errors.
I still feel a little confused.when the term ln(mod(Ci)) is closer to zero it's more likely to attract points.Then in my example, it should be reversed.track1's ln(mod(Ci)) is -3 and track2's is -2.The distance from one point to two targets is the same,such as 1.Because when the term ln(mod(Ci)) is closer to zero it's more likely to attract points.Then track2 should be more likely to 'attract' this point.That is, when the term ln(mod(Ci)) is a small negative number(far away from zero),it's more likely to attract points.Is it right?
Thank you for your reply.
All content and materials on this site are provided "as is". TI and its respective suppliers and providers of content make no representations about the suitability of these materials for any purpose and disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to these materials, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement of any third party intellectual property right. No license, either express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, is granted by TI. Use of the information on this site may require a license from a third party, or a license from TI.
TI is a global semiconductor design and manufacturing company. Innovate with 100,000+ analog ICs andembedded processors, along with software, tools and the industry’s largest sales/support staff.