Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 40 references

Design and Simulation of Vehicle Motion Tracking System using a Youla Controller Output Observation System

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A three-observer Youla output system can track a vehicle through every orientation, outperforming the four-gain nonlinear observer on noise and robustness.

desk verdict A legitimate new application of YCOO to vehicle trajectory estimation with solid simulation evidence, but the stability of the observer regions and the bump-less switching is asserted more than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11386 v1 pith:7JEA36RV submitted 2025-06-13 eess.SY cs.SY

Rongfei Li , Francis Assadian. Iman Soltani This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93B5293C1093C35
keywords YoulaparameterizationcontrolleroutputobservervehiclemotiontrackingbumplesstransferkinematicmodelLuenbergersensornoiserejectionwheelbaserobustness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that vehicle motion tracking—estimating a vehicle's position, heading, and speed from radar measurements of its location—can be done with just three linear observers that switch smoothly as the vehicle turns, instead of the four nonlinear gains used by an earlier design. The observers are built with Youla parameterization, a robust control technique that decouples a multi-input multi-output system into separate single-loop designs. Simulation results across straight driving, lane changes, cross traffic, and a left turn show the new system estimates all states within tolerance in most scenarios, rejects high-frequency sensor noise better, and tolerates wheelbase errors up to 20% where the nonlinear observer fails. If correct, this matters for real-time autonomous driving tasks, because linear observers are simpler and cheaper to run than nonlinear ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Youla Controller Output Observation (YCOO) system. After linearizing the kinematic model $\dot{X}=V\cos(\psi+\beta)$, $\dot{Y}=V\sin(\psi+\beta)$, $\dot{V}=a$, $\dot{\psi}=V\tan(\delta_f)/(l_f+l_r)$, Youla parameterization uses the Smith–McMillan form—a canonical decoupling of a MIMO transfer matrix into independent SISO blocks—so the designer can pick closed-loop transfers $M_{T1}$ and $M_{T2}$, subject to interpolation constraints at the double-integrator poles, with bandwidths near 500 rad/s and 30 rad/s plus a fast high-frequency filter $(0.001s+1)^{-1}$ for noise rejection. The controller output observer $G_c = Y S_y^{-1}$ is realized for each of the three heading operating points. A bump-less transfer algorithm weights the two active observers by $W_i = \mathrm{RMS}_j/(\mathrm{RMS}_i+\mathrm{RMS}_j)$ whenever the estimated heading lies in an overlap region, so the closed-loop output handed to the vehicle model changes continuously. This machinery converts a single kinematic model plus radar position measurements into stable estimates of heading and speed across the full $360^\circ$ range.

What would settle it

Reproduce the paper's five maneuvers with a heading sweep that passes through the 50°, 170°, and 290° overlap boundaries, using white sensor noise of power 0.01 m² and a wheelbase 20% above or below nominal; if any 30-run average shows the blended heading or speed estimate diverging, or the RMS orientation error rising above 0.05°, the claimed full-range stability is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Youla Controller Output Observation (YCOO) system—three linear observers linearized at $V_0 = 10$ m/s, $\delta_{f0} = 0^\circ$, and heading operating points $\psi_0 = 0^\circ$, $120^\circ$, $240^\circ$—covers the full vehicle orientation range, with each observer stable over $\psi_0 \pm 70^\circ$ and $20^\circ$ overlaps between adjacent ranges. In an overlap, the estimated heading $\hat{\psi}$ selects blending weights from the inverse RMS errors of the two observers, producing a bump-less transfer. Compared with the four-gain nonlinear Luenberger observer of [1], the YCOO system reduces RMS errors and error frequencies by factors of 2–3 or more in the tested maneuvers, passes the stated 0.05-unit tolerance in nearly all cases, rejects white sensor noise with $p < 0.05$ in most scenarios, and keeps orientation and speed estimates within tolerance when the wheelbase changes by $\pm 20\%$, where the nonlinear observer fails. The paper presents this as the first application of a Youla controller output observer to vehicle tracking estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that an observer tuned from the linearized equations at 10 m/s speed, zero steering, and one heading remains stabilizing for the real nonlinear vehicle across a 140-degree heading range, and that blending two such observers keeps the system stable during switches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full urban trajectory range can be covered by three linear observers rather than four nonlinear gains, cutting the computational cost of the estimation loop.
  • Because the closed-loop transfer functions roll off above their bandwidths, high-frequency sensor noise is attenuated far more than in the nonlinear observer; the reported error frequencies drop from tens of hertz to fractions of a hertz in several states.
  • The system stays within the stated tolerances for orientation and speed when the wheelbase is off by 20%, whereas the nonlinear observer's errors grow roughly 1000-fold, so the design is more forgiving of vehicle parameter uncertainty.
  • During discontinuous state changes, such as speed steps in the maneuvers, the YCOO system shows larger overshoot than the nonlinear observer, so the improvement is not uniform across all transient behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same Smith–McMillan decoupling machinery could be carried over to a dynamic bicycle model or other MIMO estimation problems, such as tire-force estimation, since the decoupling step is not specific to kinematics.
  • The stability of the switched observer is supported by simulation and by a cited result for switched linear systems, but the paper does not derive a Lyapunov or dwell-time condition for the nonlinear kinematics; a perturbation study near the overlap boundaries would test whether any hidden instability exists.
  • Because the observers are designed around one speed (10 m/s) and zero steering angle, the claimed full-range coverage is likely to degrade at speeds outside the 5–15 m/s band; a natural extension is to schedule additional operating points in speed as well as heading.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Youla Controller Output Observation (YCOO) system for vehicle motion tracking. The nonlinear kinematic vehicle model of equations (1)-(5) is linearized at three operating points (V0=10 m/s, δf0=0°, and ψ0∈{0°,120°,240°}), and a linear Youla observer is designed for each linearized plant. An RMS-weighted bumpless switching algorithm (equations (78)-(80)) combines observer outputs in overlapping orientation ranges. The system is compared via simulations against the four-gain nonlinear observer of [1] in five urban driving scenarios, with white sensor noise and with wheelbase variation. The paper claims that the three-observer YCOO system covers the full trajectory range, improves sensor noise rejection, and is more robust to wheelbase parameter variation than the nonlinear observer.

Significance. If the full-range and switching-stability claims were properly supported, this would be a useful engineering contribution: it is the first application of a Youla controller output observer to vehicle tracking, it reduces the observer count from four nonlinear gains to three linear observers, and the simulation protocol with 30 runs, statistical testing, and robustness checks is a strength. The design equations are presented in enough detail to be reproduced. However, the central full-envelope claim is supported mainly by simulation observation and a cited switched-linear-system result, not by an analysis appropriate to the nonlinear closed loop. As it stands, the paper is a promising empirical design study rather than a fully substantiated stability result, and the comparison claims should be restricted to the tested operating envelope unless additional verification is provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table I] The claim that observers cover the full orientation range with operating intervals ψ0±70° rests on the statement 'Simulation results indicate that the response becomes unstable...' rather than on a stability analysis. A Youla observer designed for a linearized plant at a single point is guaranteed to stabilize only the linearization locally, and the actual loop is nonlinear because estimated inputs are fed back into the kinematic model (10). The five reported scenarios exercise Observer 1 only for |ψ|≤20°, Observer 3 only at a fixed 270°, and the left-turn maneuver uses Observers 2 and 3 without testing the overlap boundaries 50°/70°, 170°/190°, and 290°/310° or the speed/steering envelope V∈[0,20] m/s and δf∈[-20°,20°]. Please provide either a nonlinear stability/region-of-attraction verification (for example, an LMI or dense-grid check over the declared envelope) or explicitly restrict the claims to the tested envelope.
  2. [§3.3, switching stability] The stability of the bumpless transfer is attributed to reference [43], which is a result for switched linear systems. The present system is nonlinear (equation (10)) with observer outputs feeding the vehicle model, and the weights in equations (78)-(80) are computed from measured RMS values in the overlap ranges. No check is given that the hypotheses of [43] — such as dwell time, a common Lyapunov function, or fixed-point stability of each subsystem over the overlap — are satisfied. Please state precisely how [43] applies to the switched nonlinear observer, or provide a direct stability analysis of the proposed switching scheme.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (66); §3.3, Table I] Several load-bearing design choices are empirically fitted to the evaluation. The parameters w1=500 rad/s and w2=30 rad/s are selected 'after numerous simulations'; the observer operating ranges in Table I are inferred from observed instability; and the RMS weights used in the switching law are measured from simulations. This makes the design dependent on the test scenarios in a way that is not quantified. Please add a sensitivity analysis with respect to w1, w2, and the high-frequency pole, state a selection rule, and test the observers at the overlap boundaries and at the envelope extremes (for example, V=0 and V=20 m/s with δf=±20°) to support the full-range claim.
  4. [§5, Conclusion vs. §2.1 operating ranges] The conclusion states that a kinematic model is insufficient for high-speed driving and suggests a bicycle model for future work, yet the declared operating envelope in inequalities (21)-(22) includes speeds up to 20 m/s, while the simulations only reach 15 m/s. This internal tension should be resolved by either reducing the claimed operating envelope or adding simulations at the upper speed boundary and discussing the validity of the kinematic model there.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (24)-(27)] The four gain matrices are all labeled L1; they should be labeled L1 through L4, and equations (26)-(27) appear to duplicate the L1 label in the text.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (62)-(63)] Equation (63) uses s in the numerator ('3w2^2 s + w2^3') while equation (62) uses V for the same Laplace variable; please use one consistent symbol.
  3. [§3.3, after Eq. (77)] The sentence describing the units is garbled ('The units of these values are rdderrddV'); it should read 'radians'.
  4. [§4, Table V] The first scenario is called 'Fixed lane' in Table V but 'straight-line driving' in the text and Figure 6(a); please use consistent scenario names.
  5. [§3.3, Tables II-IV] The tables reference a 'shaded area' to indicate which observer's RMS is shown, but the shading is not visible in the manuscript; please add visible shading or otherwise mark the relevant columns.
  6. [§4, Table VIII] The 'error frequency' metric is not defined in the text; please state how it is computed (for example, dominant frequency, zero-crossing rate, or spectral moment) before using it to compare noise rejection.
  7. [§6, References] Reference [39] contains an apparent formatting corruption ('...1101223Malloci, I., Hetel, L.,.1440-1446'), and reference [43] is missing its volume and page details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the YCOO derivation is self-contained, and tuning/empirical range choices are design inputs rather than disguised predictions.

full rationale

The Youla observer derivation is self-contained: the plant is linearized at stated operating points (eqs. 28-33), the Smith-McMillan form and interpolation conditions are given (eqs. 54-59), and the closed-loop Youla choices (62)-(63) are explicit design choices with stated bandwidth/noise trade-offs (Sec. 3.2). The switching weights (78)-(80) are computed from RMS tables that are measurement/design inputs, not predicted outputs; the final performance comparison in Tables V-IX is carried out against the independent four-gain nonlinear observer of [1] over five separate scenarios, none of which coincides with the constant-psi table used to set the weights. The observer validity ranges in Table I are admittedly inferred from simulation ("Simulation results indicate..."), so the 'full trajectory range' claim is an empirical extrapolation rather than a theorem; this is a rigor/correctness limitation, not a circularity, because the evaluation scenarios are distinct. The self-citations [38] and [42] are background or standard-textbook material (Youla parameterization and interpolation conditions) and are not load-bearing for the present comparison. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to another input; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design rests on standard linear control theory plus several assumptions that are empirically tuned or cited rather than proven: the validity of the small-angle kinematic approximations, the stability of a linear observer over a nonlinear operating region, and the stability of the switching rule. No code or raw data is shipped. The set of free parameters and uncertified assumptions is the main factor limiting confidence.

free parameters (5)
  • w1 = 500 rad/s
    Selected through trials and errors and after numerous simulations; it sets the closed-loop bandwidth for the steering-to-lateral-position channel and expands the single-observer operating range.
  • w2 = 30 rad/s
    Selected alongside w1 to balance speed of response and noise rejection; not derived from sensor or vehicle specifications.
  • high-frequency pole = s = -1000 rad/s (0.001 s time constant)
    Introduced ad hoc in the desired closed-loop transfer functions M_T1 and M_T2 to reduce high-frequency gain, chosen only by the rule that it be at least twice as large as w1 and w2.
  • observer operating ranges = psi0 +/- 70 degrees with 20 degree overlaps
    Determined empirically in Section 3.3, where simulation results indicate instability outside the stated ranges; these ranges are fitted to simulation behavior, not proven.
  • RMS weights for switching = RMS values in Tables II to IV
    The bump-less weights are computed from RMS errors measured over 10 second simulations, i.e., tuned to the same simulation scenarios used for later performance evaluation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Youla parameterization, Smith-McMillan form, and interpolation conditions provide necessary and sufficient internal stability for the linearized plant.
    Used in Section 3.2 through Eqs. (53) to (70); these are standard results from references [39], [41], and [42].
  • domain assumption Small-angle approximations hold: tan(delta_f) is approximately delta_f, beta is approximately lr/(lf+lr) times delta_f, cos(beta) is approximately 1, and sin(beta) is approximately beta over the operating ranges.
    Equations (36) to (47) in Section 3.1; valid only for modest steering and low speed, and the numerical B matrix in Eq. (52) implies a slip-angle coefficient larger than the assumed bound.
  • ad hoc to paper The linearized designs at V0 = 10 m/s, delta_f0 = 0 degrees, and psi0 in {0, 120, 240 degrees} stabilize the original nonlinear kinematic model over psi0 +/- 70 degrees.
    Section 3.3 asserts stability ranges based on simulation observation, not proof; this is the load-bearing design assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The RMS-weighted bump-less switching inherits stability from the result in reference [43].
    Section 3.3 ends with a citation only; the hypotheses of [43] are not checked against the nonlinear switched observer with RMS weighting.
  • ad hoc to paper The understeering assumption lr/(lf+lr) < 0.5 bounds the slip angle below 10 degrees.
    Equation (38) uses this inequality, but the numerical Jacobian in Eq. (52) implies lr/(lf+lr) = 0.5179, so the bound is inconsistent with the implemented model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Simulation of Vehicle Motion Tracking System using a Youla Controller Output Observation System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JEA36RV

@misc{pith2026250611386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Simulation of Vehicle Motion Tracking System using a Youla Controller Output Observation System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JEA36RV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11386}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel linear robust Youla controller output observation system for tracking vehicle motion trajectories using a simple nonlinear kinematic vehicle model, supplemented with positional data from a radar sensor. The proposed system operates across the full vehicle trajectory range with only three linear observers, improving upon previous methods that required four nonlinear observers. To ensure smooth transitions between Youla controllers and observers, a switching technique is introduced, preventing bumps during controller changes. The proposed observer system is evaluated through simulations, demonstrating accurate and robust estimation of longitudinal and lateral positions, vehicle orientation, and velocity from sensor measurements during various standard driving maneuvers. Results are provided for different driving scenarios, including lane changes and intersection crossings, where significant changes in vehicle orientation occur. The novelty of this work lies in the first application of a Youla controller output observer for vehicle tracking estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vehicle motion model [40]. A class of nonlinear systems be represented by the following equations: ̇ = 𝑓𝑓 ( , 𝑢𝑢) (6) 𝑦𝑦 = 𝐶𝐶 (7) where s is the state vector, u is the input vector and y is the output vector. The matrix C is the output matrix that relates the states to the output. The function 𝑓𝑓 ( , 𝑢𝑢) is the nonlinear differentiable function that maps states and inputs to the state derivatives. Associated with th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frequency response of 𝑇𝑇𝑦𝑦, 𝑆𝑆𝑦𝑦, 𝑌𝑌 and 𝐺𝐺𝐶𝐶 for output￾input pair (𝑌𝑌, δ𝑓𝑓) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Frequency response of 𝑇𝑇𝑦𝑦, 𝑆𝑆𝑦𝑦, 𝑌𝑌 and 𝐺𝐺𝐶𝐶 for output￾input pair (𝑋𝑋, 𝑎𝑎). 3.3 Algorithm for Bumpless Transfer of Observer Gains In section 3.2, ψ0 is assumed to be 0 °. However, an observer designed under this assumption cannot guarantee stability across all operating ranges of ψ. To ensure a stable response that encompasses the entire range of ψ, two additional observers are implemented, designed around two oth… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates a block diagram of the proposed bump￾less transfer algorithm. Here, ψ� denotes the estimated orientation angle of the vehicle and the vector � 𝑌𝑌 𝑋𝑋 � holds the estimation error for the states X and Y. When ψ� falls within a non-overlapping range, only one …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vehicle motions. (a) Straight line. (b) Lane change. (c) Double lane change. (d) Cross traffic. (e) Left turn. [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results: Lane change maneuver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation results: Double-lane change maneuver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation results: Cross traffic driving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulation results: Left turn maneuver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Longitudinal Tire Force Estimation Using Youla Controller Output Observer

    V elazquez Alcantar, J.; Assadian, F. “Longitudinal Tire Force Estimation Using Youla Controller Output Observer.” IEEE Control Systems Letters 2018, 2, 31–36. [39] Youla, D., Jabr, H., and Bongiorno, J., “Modern Wiener- Hopf Design of Optimal Controllers-Part II: The Multivariable Case,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 21(3): 319- 338, Jun. 1976, ...

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Jeon, W., Zemouche, A., & Rajamani, R. (2019). Tracking of Vehicle Motion on Highways and Urban Roads Using a Nonlinear Observer. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 1–1. doi:10.1109/tmech.2019.2892700

    work page arXiv 2019

  3. [43]

    Bumpless transfer for switched linear systems

    Daafouz, J., Iung, C. and Szczepanski, P., 2012. “Bumpless transfer for switched linear systems”. Automatica, 48(7), p

    work page 2012

  4. [2]

    Ψ ∈ [50°,70°]

    compare the perfo rmance and robustness of the YCOO system against the previously developed nonlinear observation system in [1]. The YCOO system designed in this study significantly reduces computational burden by using linear observers. Additionally, the results demonstrate improvements in sensor noise reduction and robustness against model parameter var...

    work page arXiv 1931

  5. [3]

    Vehicle Detection and Tracking Techniques: A Concise Review

    Hadi, R. A., Sulong, G., & George, L. E. (2014). “Vehicle Detection and Tracking Techniques: A Concise Review”. Signal & Image Processing: An International Journal, 5(1), 1–12. doi: 10.5121/sipij.2014.5101

    work page arXiv 2014

  6. [4]

    Image-based vehicle tracking and classification on the highway,

    L. Jin-Cyuan, et al., "Image-based vehicle tracking and classification on the highway," in Green Circuits and Systems (ICGCS), 2010 International Conference on, 2010, pp. 666-670

    work page 2010

  7. [5]

    Real time classification and tracking of multiple vehicles in highways,

    R. Rad and M. Jamzad, "Real time classification and tracking of multiple vehicles in highways," Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 26, pp. 1597-1607, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [6]

    Detection of vehicle occlusion using a generalized deformable model,

    N. H. C. Yung and A. H. S. Lai, "Detection of vehicle occlusion using a generalized deformable model," in Circuits and Systems , 1998. ISCAS '98. Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium on, 1998, pp. 154-157 vol.4

    work page 1998

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    A real-time and color- based computer vision for traffic monitoring system,

    H. Mao-Chi and Y. Shwu-Huey, "A real-time and color- based computer vision for traffic monitoring system," in Multimedia and Expo, 2004. ICME '04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on, 2004, pp. 2119-2122 Vol.3

    2004

  2. [8]

    Comparison of lidar-based and radar-based adaptive cruise control systems,

    G. R. Widmann et al., “Comparison of lidar-based and radar-based adaptive cruise control systems,” SAE, Warrendale, PA, USA, Tech. Paper 2000-01-0345, 2000

    2000

  3. [9]

    Vehicle detection techniques for collision avoidance systems: A review,

    A. Mukhtar, L. Xia, and T. B. Tang, “Vehicle detection techniques for collision avoidance systems: A review,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2318– 2338, Oct. 2015

    2015

  4. [10]

    The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with Markovian switching coefficients

    Blom, H. A. P., and Y. Bar-Shalom. "The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with Markovian switching coefficients." IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 33.8 (1988): 780–783. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.1299

    1988 doi

  5. [11]

    IMM object tracking for high dynamic driving maneuvers

    Kaempchen, N., Weiss, K., Schaefer, M., & Dietmayer, K. (n.d.). "IMM object tracking for high dynamic driving maneuvers". IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2004. doi: 10.1109/ivs.2004.1336491

    2004 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Bar-Shalom, X.-R

    Y. Bar-Shalom, X.-R. Li, and T. Kirubarajan, Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003

    2003

  7. [13]

    Survey of Maneuvering Target Tracking. Part V: Multiple-Model Methods,

    X. R. Li and V. P. Jilkov, “Survey of Maneuvering Target Tracking. Part V: Multiple-Model Methods,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1255–1321, 2005

    2005

  8. [14]

    An Adaptive PID Controller Based on Bayesian Theory,

    S. A. Gadsden, “An Adaptive PID Controller Based on Bayesian Theory,” in ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, 2017, p. V002T12A005

    2017

  9. [15]

    Nonlinear Estimation Techniques Applied on Target Tracking Problems,

    A. Gadsden, S. Habibi, D. Dunne, and T. Kirubarajan, “Nonlinear Estimation Techniques Applied on Target Tracking Problems,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 134, no. 5, p. 054501, 2012

    2012

  10. [16]

    Ship visual trajectory exploitation via an ensemble instance segmentation framework

    Zhang, Hao, Jing Guo, and Xiang Ma. "Ship visual trajectory exploitation via an ensemble instance segmentation framework." Applied Intelligence 52.11 (2022): 12345–12360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022- 03769-y

    2022 doi

  11. [17]

    Moaga, M., Chunling, T., Owolawi, P. (2024). Vision- Based Multi-detection and Tracking of Vehicles Using the Convolutional Neural Network Model YOLO. In: Arai, K. (eds) Intelligent Systems and Applications. IntelliSys 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 823. Spri...

    2024 doi

  12. [18]

    Vehicle Detection Systems for Intelligent Driving Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

    Abiyev, Rahib H., and Murat Arslan. "Vehicle Detection Systems for Intelligent Driving Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks." Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2023.1 (2023): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00062-8

    2023 doi

  13. [19]

    Multiple vehicle tracking and classification system with a convolutional neural network

    Kim, H. Multiple vehicle tracking and classification system with a convolutional neural network. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 13, 1603–1614 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01429-5

    2022 doi

  14. [20]

    Graph and Recurrent Neural Network-based Vehicle Trajectory Prediction for Highway Driving

    Mo, Xiaoyu, Yang Xing, and Chen Lv. "Graph and Recurrent Neural Network-based Vehicle Trajectory Prediction for Highway Driving." arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03663 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03663

    2021 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Predicting Future Lane Changes of Other Highway Vehicles Using RNN-Based Deep Models

    Patel, Sajan, Brent Griffin, Kristofer Kusano, and Jason J. Corso. "Predicting Future Lane Changes of Other Highway Vehicles Using RNN-Based Deep Models." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.04340 (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.04340

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Maritime traffic situation awareness analysis via high- fidelity ship imaging trajectory

    Chen, Xinqiang, Hao Chen, Dong Liu, and Wei Wang. "Maritime traffic situation awareness analysis via high- fidelity ship imaging trajectory." Multimedia Tools and Applications 82.3 (2023): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17456-6

    2023 doi

  17. [23]

    Graph Convolutional Network for Multi-Target Multi-Camera Vehicle Tracking

    Luna, Elena, Juan Carlos San Miguel, José María Martínez, and Marcos Escudero-Viñolo. "Graph Convolutional Network for Multi-Target Multi-Camera Vehicle Tracking." arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15538 (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15538 20

    2022 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Based on Dynamic Graph Neural Network,

    J. Cai et al., "Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Based on Dynamic Graph Neural Network," 2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Tianjin, China, 2024, pp. 67-72, doi: 10.1109/CSCWD61410.2024.10580507

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    L H, Anusha & bhupala, srihari. (2022). Extended Object Tracking with IMM Filter for Automotive Pre-Crash Safety Applications

    2022

  20. [26]

    IMM vehicle tracking for traffic jam situations on highways

    Kaempchen, Nico and Klaus C. J. Dietmayer. “IMM vehicle tracking for traffic jam situations on highways.” (2004)

    2004

  21. [27]

    Yeom, Seokwon. (2021). Long Distance Moving Vehicle Tracking with a Multirotor Based on IMM-Directional Track Association. Applied Sciences. 11. 11234. 10.3390/app112311234

    2021 doi

  22. [28]

    IMM-SLAMMOT: Tightly-Coupled SLAM and IMM-Based Multi-Object Tracking,

    Z. Ying and H. Li, "IMM-SLAMMOT: Tightly-Coupled SLAM and IMM-Based Multi-Object Tracking," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 3964- 3974, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIV.2023.3346040

    2024

  23. [29]

    Xu, Puhang & Xiong, Lu & Dequan, Zeng & Deng, Zhenwen & Zhuoren, Li. (2020). IMM-KF Algorithm for Multitarget Tracking of On-Road Vehicle. 10.4271/2020- 01-0117

    2020 doi

  24. [30]

    An Adaptive Interacting Multiple Model for Vehicle Target Tracking Method

    Du, Jinsong and Xin Bi. “An Adaptive Interacting Multiple Model for Vehicle Target Tracking Method.” Advanced Materials Research 718-720 (2013): 1286 - 1289

    2013

  25. [31]

    Interacting Multiple Model Filter-Based Sensor Fusion of GPS With In-Vehicle Sensors for Real-Time Vehicle Positioning,

    K. Jo, K. Chu and M. Sunwoo, "Interacting Multiple Model Filter-Based Sensor Fusion of GPS With In-Vehicle Sensors for Real-Time Vehicle Positioning," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 329-343, March 2012, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2011.21...

    2012

  26. [33]

    Toyota drivers’ ex periences with dynamic radar cruise control, pre-collision system, and lane-keeping assist

    E ichelberger, A.H.; McCartt, A.T. Toyota drivers’ ex periences with dynamic radar cruise control, pre-collision system, and lane-keeping assist. J. Saf. Res. 2016, 56, 67–73

    2016

  27. [34]

    Safety of Automatic Emergency Braking in Platooning

    S idorenko, G.; Thunberg, J.; Sjöberg, K.; Fedorov, A.; V inel, A. Safety of Automatic Emergency Braking in Platooning. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2022, 71, 2319–2332

    2022

  28. [35]

    Blind Spot Detection Radar System Design for Safe Driving of Smart Vehicles

    K im, W.; Yang, H.; Kim, J. Blind Spot Detection Radar System Design for Safe Driving of Smart Vehicles. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6147

    2023

  29. [36]

    Integral-Based Event Triggering Actuator Fault- Tolerant Control for an Active Suspension System Under a Networked Communication Scheme

    V iadero-Monasterio, F.; Boada, B.L.; Zhang, H.; Boada, M.J.L. Integral-Based Event Triggering Actuator Fault- Tolerant Control for an Active Suspension System Under a Networked Communication Scheme. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2023, 72, 13848–13860

    2023

  30. [37]

    Simultaneous Estimation of Vehicle Sideslip and Roll Angles Using an Event-Triggered-Based Io T A rchitecture

    V iadero-Monasterio, F.; García, J.; Meléndez-Useros, M.; Jiménez-Salas, M.; Boada, B.L.; López Boada, M.J. Simultaneous Estimation of Vehicle Sideslip and Roll Angles Using an Event-Triggered-Based Io T A rchitecture. Machines 2024, 12, 53

    2024

  31. [44]

    S tatistical Methods for Research Workers, 11th Ed. Rev. - APA PsycNet,

    “S tatistical Methods for Research Workers, 11th Ed. Rev. - APA PsycNet,” n.d. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1925- 15003-000

    1925

  32. [45]

    Smith Predictor Control and Internal Model Control — A Tutorial,

    D . E. Rivera, M. Morari, and S. Skogestad , "Smith Predictor Control and Internal Model Control — A Tutorial," Automatica, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 379-390, 1987. DOI: 10.1016/0005-1098(87)900

    1987 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.