# Hidden Markov Model based classification approach for multiple dynamic vehicles in wireless sensor networks

**Abstract**

It is challenging to classify multiple dynamic targets in wireless sensor networks based on the time-varying and continuous signals. In this paper, multiple ground vehicles passing through a region are observed by audio sensor arrays and efficiently classified. Hidden Markov Model (HMM) is utilized as a framework for classification based on multiple hypothesis testing with maximum likelihood approach. The states in the HMM represent various combinations of vehicles of different types. With a sequence of observations, Viterbi algorithm is used at each sensor node to estimate the most likely sequence of states. This enables efficient local estimation of the number of source targets (vehicles). Then, each sensor node sends the state sequence to a manager node, where a collaborative algorithm fuses the estimates and makes a hard decision on vehicle number and types. The HMM is employed to effectively model the multiple-vehicle classification problem, and simulation results show that the approach can decrease classification error rate.

Hidden Markov Model Based Classiﬁcation Approach for Multiple

Dynamic Vehicles in Wireless Sensor Networks

Ahmad Aljaafreh, Student Member, IEEE and Liang Dong, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract— It is challenging to classify multiple dynamic

targets in wireless sensor networks based on the time-varying

and continuous signals. In this paper, multiple ground vehicles

passing through a region are observed by audio sensor arrays

and efﬁciently classiﬁed. Hidden Markov Model (HMM) is

utilized as a framework for classiﬁcation based on multiple

hypothesis testing with maximum likelihood approach. The

states in the HMM represent various combinations of vehicles

of different types. With a sequence of observations, Viterbi

algorithm is used at each sensor node to estimate the most

likely sequence of states. This enables efﬁcient local estimation

of the number of source targets (vehicles). Then, each sensor

node sends the state sequence to a manager node, where a

collaborative algorithm fuses the estimates and makes a hard

decision on vehicle number and types. The HMM is employed

to effectively model the multiple-vehicle classiﬁcation problem,

and simulation results show that the approach can decrease

classiﬁcation error rate.

I. INTRODUCTION

WIRELESS Sensor Network (WSN) is, by deﬁnition,

a network of sensor nodes that are spread across a

geographical area, where each sensor node has a restricted

computation capability, memory, wireless communication,

and power supply. In general, the objective of WSNs is to

monitor, control, or track objects, processes, or events [1].

Fig 3 shows a one cluster of WSN. In WSNs, observed

data could be processed at the sensor node itself; distributed

over the network; or at the gateway node. Most often, nodes

are battery-powered which makes power the most signiﬁcant

constraint in WSNs . The power consumed as a result of

the typical data processing tasks executed at the sensor

nodes is less than the power consumed for inter-sensor com-

munication. This motivates researches and practitioners to

consider decentralized data processing algorithms more than

the centralized ones. Multiple-target classiﬁcation in Multiple

moving target classiﬁcation is a real challenge [2] because of

the dynamicity and mobility of targets. The dynamicity of the

targets refers to the evolution of the number of targets over

time. Furthermore, limited observations, power, computa-

tional and communication constraints within and between the

sensor nodes make it a more challenging problem. Multiple

target classiﬁcation can be modeled as a Blind Source Sepa-

ration (BSS) problem [3]. Independent Component Analysis

This work was supported in part by the DENSO North America Founda-

tion and by the Faculty Research and Creative Activities Award of Western

Michigan University.

A. Aljaafreh and L. Dong are with the Department of Electrical and

Computer Engineering, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008

USA (e-mail: ahmad.f.aljaafreh@wmich.edu, liang.dong@wmich.edu).

(ICA) can be utilized for such a problem. Most of the recent

literature assumes a given number of sources; thus, making

the aforementioned challenge easier to solve. Unfortunately,

this assumption is unrealistic in many applications of wireless

sensor networks. Some recent publications decouple the

problem into two sub-problems, namely: the model order

estimation problem and the blind source separation problem.

Ref.[4] discusses the problem of source estimation in sensor

network for multiple target detection. In the literature, many

researchers utilized ICA for source separation while others

utilized statistical methods as in [5] where the authors pre-

sented a particle ﬁltering based approach for multiple vehicle

acoustic signals separation in wireless sensor networks. The

previously mentioned techniques are based on data fusion.

In these techniques, each sensor node detects the targets,

extracts the features and sends the data to the manager

node. The manager node is responsible for source separation,

number estimation, and classiﬁcation of the sources. The

computation and communication overhead induced by such

a centralized approachs inadvertently limits the lifetime of

the sensor network.

Classiﬁcation of multiple targets without signals or sources

separation based on multiple hypothesis testing is an efﬁcient

way of classiﬁcation [6]. Ref. [7] proposed a distributed

classiﬁers based on modeling each target as a zero mean

stationary Gaussian random process and so the mixture sig-

nals. A multi hypothesis test based on maximum likelihood

is the base of the classiﬁer. In this paper, we are proposing

an algorithm to classify multiple dynamic targets based on

HMM. HMM decreases the number of hypothesis that is

needed to be tested at every classiﬁcation query. Which

decreases the computation overhead. On the other hand,

emerging hypothesis transition probability with hypothesis

likelihood increases the classiﬁcation precision. The remain-

der of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 formulate

the problem mathematically. Section 3 describes modeling

the problem as HMM. Simulation environment is described

in Section 4. Section 5 presents the results and discussions.

And ﬁnally conclusions are described in section 6.

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Multiple ground vehicles as multiple targets are to be

classiﬁed in a particular cluster region of a WSN. In this

paper, any vehicle that enters the cluster region is assumed

to be sensed by all the sensor nodes within this cluster.

Each sensor node estimates the number and types of vehicles

currently present in the region and the ﬁnal decision is made

540978-1-4244-6452-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE

collectively by all the sensor nodes within the region. We

assume that the maximum number of distinct vehicles that

may exist in one cluster region at the same time Mis known.

Then the number of hypotheses is N=2

M. The hypotheses

correspond to the various possibilities for the presence or

absence of different vehicles. Let hidenote hypothesis i,

i=0,...,N−1. Observation xkis a feature vector obtained

by a sensor node at time k. The feather vector can be related

to the spectrum of a mixture of maximum Mvehicle sounds.

According to Bayes theorem, hiis the maximum likelihood

hypothesis given xkif p(hi|xk)>p(hj|xk),∀i=j. So far, the

decision about the hypothesis at any given event is based on

the observation at that event without any relation with the

previous observations as in [7]. In fact, the class to which

the feature vector xibelongs to also depends on the previous

event class. The classiﬁcation decision at any instant of time

depends on the previous decision and the current observation.

Therefore, the classiﬁcation problem is a context dependent

problem and it can be modeled by HMM.

In context-dependant Bayesian classiﬁcation, a sequence

of decisions is needed instead of a single one, and the

decisions depend on each other. Let X:{x1,x

2, ..., xt}

be a sequence of feature vectors of observations. And let

Hi:{hi1,h

i2, ..., hit}be a sequence of classes. According

to Bayes theorem, X is classiﬁed to Hiif

p(Hi|X)>p(Hj|X),∀i=j. (1)

p(Hi|X)(><)p(Hj|X)≡p(X|Hi)p(Hi)(><)p(X|Hj)p(Hj)

(2)

where (><)denotes comparing and ≡denotes equivalent

to. According to the Markov chain model,

p(Hi)=p(hi1)

N

k=2

p(hik|hik−1)(3)

We assume that {xi}are mutually independent and so are

the probability distributions of the classes. Therefore,

p(X|Hi)=

N

k=1

p(xk|hi)(4)

Based on Equ. 2, 3, and 4, we have

p(X|Hi)p(Hi)=p(hi1)p(x1|hi1)

N

k=2

p(hik|hik−1)p(xk|hik)

(5)

It is computationally expensive to ﬁnd the maximum value

of equation (5) in brute-force task. Thus, Viterbi algorithm

is appropriate to solve such a problem of HMM. Given a

sequence of observation the most likelihood classes is corre-

sponded to the optimal path. We deﬁne the cost of transition

from hypothesis hikto hypothesis hik−1as d(hik,h

ik−1)

d(hik,h

ik−1)=p(hik|hik−1)p(xk|hik)(6)

d(hi1,h

i0)=p(hi1)p(xi|hi1)(7)

Feature vector of observation of each class iis modeled as a

multi variate normal distribution with mean and covariance

matrix known. The maximum cost corresponds to the optimal

path. The hypotheses along the optimal path result in the

observation sequence X. Based on Bellman’s principle the

cost in Equations (6) and (7) can be computed online.

III. HIDDEN MARKOV MODEL

HMM has a speciﬁc discrete number of unobserved states,

each state has a transition probability to any other state

and an initial probability. The last parameter of HMM is

the probability density function of the observation for each

state. The state parameters of the HMM are the numbers of

targets of each class. For instance, if we have two classes

and the maximum number of sources that can be sensed by

any sensor at any instant of time is three, then the number

of states are eight if the targets are distinct, and ten if not

distinct as in Fig. 1. T, W, and 0 represent class T, class

W, and no vehicle respectively. Each state represents the

number of targets for each class. For instance state TTW

means that there are two targets of class T and one target

of class W. We assume that the states are equiprobable. This

assumption is a reasonable one since it will be the worst

scenario compared to trained ones. This means that the state

transition probabilities will be equal for all possible states as

in Table I. Therefor the initial probabilities are as follows

Pi(00T)=Pi(00W)=Pi(000) = 1

3

Other states initial probabilities are zeros, since we assume

that there will one change at a time. Which means that the

vehicles enter and exit from the sensor range in a dynamic

manner. So the sensor observe one vehicle or nothing at

time zero then it goes to possible states as in Fig. 1. This

assumption is reasonable because it will approach to the

right hypothesis even two vehicles or more enter the sensor

range at the same time. It misclassiﬁes it in the ﬁrst step

as one of the initial sates, but it will classify it correctly in

the second step. Such cases have a very low probabilities.

All of the above contributes in decreasing the computation

overhead for multiple hypothesis testing, because the only

hypotheses that need to be tested depend on the transition

probabilities. So there is no need to test a hypothesis that has

zero transition probability. The important parameter of HMM

is the output probability density function of each state. This

distribution is assumed as a multi variate normal distribution

with mean and covariance matrix that are estimated based

on maximum likelihood. Mixture of different sources is

generated by simulation. The maximum of Equations (6)

for all hypothesis at every stage is the maximin likelihood

hypothesis. Simulation results show that the correct classiﬁ-

cation error based on our solution is less than classiﬁcation

with maximum likelihood without modeling the problem as

a context dependant classiﬁcation problem.

IV. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

We developed our simulation environment using Matlab

for one network cluster region (300 ×300) as in Fig. 2.

541

Fig. 1. HMM states ﬂow diagram for two classes. Class T and class W

for mixtures signals of three maximum targets number

TAB L E I

STATE TRANSITION PROBABILITY

States 000 00T 00W 0TW 0TT 0WW TTT TTW TWW WWW

000 0.33 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00T 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 0

00W 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0 0

0TW 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0

0TT 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0.33 0 0

0WW 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25

TTT 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0

TTW 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0 0.33 0 0

TWW 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0.33 0

WWW 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Where this cluster is consist of a grid of different numbers of

sensor nodes. Sensing range for all sensor nodes will be the

same. Sensing range is chosen to enable all sensor nodes in

one cluster region to observe the same targets with different

attenuation. The sensing range is represented by a radius

of a circle. When any target enter this circle, the simulator

will pick a random real life vehicle sound according to

the vehicle type. Where the vehicle type and number are

chosen randomly. Then this sound will be attenuated based

on the distance between the target and the sensor node. After

that, a mixture is linearly formed based on the number of

targets. Then each sensor node extracts the feature from the

acoustic signal based on discrete spectrum. This mixture

is classiﬁed by each sensor node. Classiﬁcation decision

is sent to the manger node where decision fusion will be

accomplished. Sensor nodes are deployed uniformity as in

Fig.2. Simulator is built such that multiple targets can enter

the region of simulation from one direction. Entry location

and entry angle are selected randomly. Targets speed and

directions are modeled according to Gauss-Markov mobility

model. Gauss-Markov mobility model parameters are chosen

such that to avoid sharp updates in speed and direction.

Each sensor node calculates the maximum likelihood state

based on HMM at every discrete time t. State transition cost

as in equation (6) is calculated only for states that have

nonzero transition probability as in Fig.1 then the maximum

of all cost is corresponded to the maximum likelihood state

050 100 150 200 250 300

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Sensor Node

Vehicle One Track

Vehicle Two Track

Fig. 2. Four sensors in one cluster simulation region

Fig. 3. One Cluster of Wireless Sensor Network

or hypothesis.

V. R ESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results, in this paper, are based on simulation

with real life vehicle sounds that is available at

http://www.ece.wisc.edu/sensit. Fig.4 displays the result of

running the simulator hundreds of times. Our experiment

is conducted for two distinct vehicles. Simulation results

that are shown in Fig.4 shows that the correct classiﬁcation

error rate is declining with the sensor density in both cases

with and without HMM. It is clear that this error is less

in the case of HMM framework. Results are based on

majority voting distributed algorithm for all the sensors

local decisions in the region of interest. All sensors observe

the same number at any instant of time with different

attenuation factors. Fig.4 shows how efﬁcient it is to model

such kind of problem using HMM and solve it by Viterbi

algorithm. HMM based classiﬁcation approach reduces

the computation overhead for multiple hypothesis testing.

because the only hypotheses that need to be tested are the

ones that have not zero state transition probability. For

542

00.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

x 10−4

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

0.34

0.36

0.38

0.4

0.42

0.44

0.46

Sensors Density

Correct classification Error Rate

Without HMM

With HMM

Fig. 4. Performance evaluation of Distributed Maximum Likelihood

classiﬁcation system with and without HMM framework in one cluster of

WSN.

distinct targets, the number of hypothesis are 2Mwhere M

is the maximum number of targets that can be exist within

the sensor range at the same time. In our approach only

M+1 hypothesis need to be tested at each time step.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we propose an idea of modeling a dis-

tributed multiple hypothesis classiﬁcation problem by HMM.

Classiﬁcation of multiple dynamic vehicles in WSNs can

be modeled as a context dependant classiﬁcation problem.

The number of moving vehicles of each class is considered

as the state, and each state depends on the previous state.

This makes it appropriate to model the system with HMM.

Given a sequence of observation, Viterbi algorithm is used to

ﬁnd the maximum likelihood sequence of states. Simulation

results based on real vehicle sounds show that using HMM

framework decreases the classiﬁcation error rate. The other

beneﬁt of HMM is the reduction of the computation overhead

for multiple hypothesis testing. The only hypotheses that

need to be tested depend on the state transition probabilities,

therefore the hypotheses that need to be tested are the ones

that have none zero transition probabilities.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Winkler, K.-D. Tuchs, K. Hughes, and G. Barclay, “Theoretical

and practical aspects of military wireless sensor networks,” Journal of

Telecommunications and Information Technology, pp. 37–45, 2008.

[2] M. N. Raghavendra, “Collaborative classiﬁcation applications in sensor

networks,” 2002.

[3] T.-Y. Sun, C.-C. Liu, S.-J. Tsai, and S.-T. Hsieh, “Blind source sepa-

ration with dynamic source number using adaptive neural algorithm,”

Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 8855–8861, 2009.

[4] F. Silva, J. Heidemann, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, Frontiers in

Distributed Sensor Networks. CRC Press, Inc., 2003.

[5] Y. Kaia, H. Qia, W. Jianminga, and L. Haitao, “Multiple vehicle

signals separation based on particle ﬁltering in wireless sensor network,”

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 440–

446, June 2008.

[6] E. Drakopoulos, J. J. Chao, , and C. C. Lee, “A two-level distributed

multiple hypothesis decision system,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,

vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 380–384, Mar. 1992.

[7] J. H. Kotecha, V. Ramachandranand, and A. M. Sayeed, “Distributed

multitarget classiﬁcation in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE J. Sel.

Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 703–824, Apr. 2005.

543

- CitationsCitations1
- ReferencesReferences7

- "Efficient and reliable decision making needs data fusion and collaborative signal processing. Distributed classification algorithms fuse signal or decisions from multiple sensor nodes, then classify the targets based on a priori statistical information [85],[86]. Collaboration could be across the sensor nodes, or within a sensor node only when it includes multiple modalities of data. Ref. [67] shows the improvement in classification error because of the collaboration. "

[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]**ABSTRACT:**Classification of ground vehicles based on acoustic signals using wireless sensor networks is a crucial task in many applications such as battlefield surveillance, border monitoring, and traffic control. Different signal processing algorithms and techniques that are used in classification of ground moving vehicles in wireless sensor networks are surveyed in this paper. Feature extraction techniques and classifiers are discussed for single and multiple vehicles based on acoustic signals. This paper divides the corresponding literature into three main areas: feature extraction, classification techniques, and collaboration and information fusion techniques. The open research issues in these areas are also pointed out in this paper. This paper evaluates five different classifiers using two different feature extraction methods. The first one is based on the spectrum analysis and the other one is based on wavelet packet transform.

## People who read this publication also read

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.

Learn more