Research Papers

Multi-Agent Autonomous Surveillance: A Framework Based on Stochastic Reachability and Hierarchical Task Allocation

[+] Author and Article Information
Nikolaos Kariotoglou

Automatic Control Laboratory,
Department of Electrical and
Information Engineering,
ETH Zurich,
Physikstrasse 3,
Zurich 8092, Switzerland
e-mail: karioto@control.ee.ethz.ch

Davide M. Raimondo

Identification and Control of
Dynamic Systems Laboratory,
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale
e dell'Informazione,
Università degli Studi di Pavia,
Via Ferrata 1,
Pavia 27100, Italy
e-mail: davide.raimondo@unipv.it

Sean J. Summers

Automatic Control Laboratory,
Department of Electrical and
Information Engineering,
ETH Zurich,
Physikstrasse 3,
Zurich 8092, Switzerland
e-mail: ssummers@control.ee.ethz.ch

John Lygeros

Automatic Control Laboratory,
Department of Electrical and
Information Engineering,
ETH Zurich,
Physikstrasse 3,
Zurich 8092, Switzerland
e-mail: jlygeros@control.ee.ethz.ch

Even though we model the evader dynamics in R3 (where the third dimension is orientation) in the reach-avoid formulation we only need the location of the center to calculate γe(y) (see Eq. (10)) and hence the covering functions.

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received January 29, 2014; final manuscript received September 15, 2014; published online October 21, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Dejan Milutinovic.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 137(3), 031008 (Oct 21, 2014) (14 pages) Paper No: DS-14-1037; doi: 10.1115/1.4028589 History: Received January 29, 2014; Revised September 15, 2014

We develop and implement a framework to address autonomous surveillance problems with a collection of pan-tilt (PT) cameras. Using tools from stochastic reachability with random sets, we formulate the problems of target acquisition, target tracking, and acquisition while tracking as reach-avoid dynamic programs for Markov decision processes (MDPs). It is well known that solution methods for MDP problems based on dynamic programming (DP), implemented by state space gridding, suffer from the curse of dimensionality. This becomes a major limitation when one considers a network of PT cameras. To deal with larger problems we propose a hierarchical task allocation mechanism that allows cameras to calculate reach-avoid objectives independently while achieving tasks collectively. We evaluate the proposed algorithms experimentally on a setup involving industrial PT cameras and mobile robots as targets.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Valera, M., and Velastin, S., 2005, “Intelligent Distributed Surveillance Systems: A Review,” Proc. IEEE Vision, Image Signal Process., 152(2), pp. 192–204. [CrossRef]
Wang, X., 2012, “Intelligent Multi-Camera Video Surveillance: A Review,” Pattern Recognit. Lett., 34(1), pp. 3–19. [CrossRef]
Yilmaz, A., Javed, O., and Shah, M., 2006, “Object Tracking: A Survey,” ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR), 38(4), pp. 1–45. [CrossRef]
Mazor, E., Averbuch, A., Bar-Shalom, Y., and Dayan, J., 1998, “Interacting Multiple Model Methods in Target Tracking: A Survey,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 34(1), pp. 103–123. [CrossRef]
Micheloni, C., Foresti, G., and Snidaro, L., 2005, “A Network of Co-Operative Cameras for Visual Surveillance,” Proc. IEEE Vision, Image Signal Process., 152(2), pp. 205–212. [CrossRef]
Krahnstoever, N., Yu, T., Lim, S.-N., Patwardhan, K., and Tu, P., 2008, “Collaborative Real-Time Control of Active Cameras in Large Scale Surveillance Systems,” ECCV Workshop on Multi-Camera and Multi-Modal Sensor Fusion, Marseille, France, Oct. 18, Paper No. M2SFA2.
Xu, Y., and Song, D., 2010, “Systems and Algorithms for Autonomous and Scalable Crowd Surveillance Using Robotic PTZ Cameras Assisted by a Wide-Angle Camera,” Autonom. Rob., 29(1), pp. 53–66. [CrossRef]
Park, J., Bhat, P. C., and Kak, A. C., 2006, “A Look-Up Table Based Approach for Solving the Camera Selection Problem in Large Camera Networks,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Distributed Smart Cameras (DCS'06), Boulder, CO, Oct. 31, pp. 72–76.
Bellotto, N., Benfold, B., Harland, H., Nagel, H.-H., Pirlo, N., Reid, I., Sommerlade, E., and Zhao, C., 2012, “Cognitive Visual Tracking and Camera Control,” Comput.Vision Image Understanding, 116(3), pp. 457–471. [CrossRef]
Soto, C., Song, B., and Roy-Chowdhury, A. K., 2009, “Distributed Multi-Target Tracking in a Self-Configuring Camera Network,” Proceedings of Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Miami, FL, June 20–25, pp. 1486–1493. [CrossRef]
Morye, A., Ding, C., Song, B., Roy-Chowdhury, A., and Farrell, J., 2011, “Optimized Imaging and Target Tracking Within a Distributed Camera Network,” Proceedings of American Control Conference (ACC), San Francisco, CA, June 29–July 1, pp. 474–480. [CrossRef]
Morye, A., Ding, C., Roy-Chowdhury, A., and Farrell, J., 2013, “Constrained Optimization for Opportunistic Distributed Visual Sensing,” Proceedings of American Control Conference (ACC), Washington, DC, June 17–19, pp. 6294–6301. [CrossRef]
Kirubarajan, T., Bar-Shalom, Y., Pattipati, K., and Kadar, I., 2000, “Ground Target Tracking With Variable Structure IMM Estimator,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 36(1), pp. 26–46. [CrossRef]
Avni, O., Borrelli, F., Katzir, G., Rivlin, E., and Rotstein, H., 2008, “Scanning and Tracking With Independent Cameras—A Biologically Motivated Approach Based on Model Predictive Control,” Autonom. Rob., 24(3), pp. 285–302. [CrossRef]
Raimondo, D. M., Gasparella, S., Sturzenegger, D., Lygeros, J., and Morari, M., 2010, “A Tracking Algorithm for PTZ Cameras,” Proceedings of Estimation and Control of Networked Systems, Annecy, France, Sept. 13–14, pp. 61–66. [CrossRef]
Wang, H., Kirubarajan, T., and Bar-Shalom, Y., 1999, “Precision Large Scale Air Traffic Surveillance Using IMM/Assignment Estimators,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 35(1), pp. 255–266. [CrossRef]
Chen, B., and Tugnait, J. K., 2001, “Tracking of Multiple Maneuvering Targets in Clutter Using IMM/JPDA Filtering and Fixed-Lag Smoothing,” Automatica, 37(2), pp. 239–249. [CrossRef]
Natarajan, P., Hoang, T. N., Low, K. H., and Kankanhalli, M., 2012, “Decision-Theoretic Approach to Maximizing Observation of Multiple Targets in Multi-Camera Surveillance,” Proceedings of International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Vol. 1, IFAAMAS, Valencia, Spain, June 4–8, pp. 155–162.
Ozay, N., Topcu, U., Murray, R. M., and Wongpiromsarn, T., 2011, “Distributed Synthesis of Control Protocols for Smart Camera Networks,” Proceedings of International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), IEEE/ACM, Chicago, IL, Apr. 12–14, pp. 45–54. [CrossRef]
Hespanha, J. P., Kim, H. J., and Sastry, S., 1999, “Multiple-Agent Probabilistic Pursuit-Evasion Games,” Proceedings of the Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 3, Phoenix, AZ, Dec. 7–10, pp. 2432–2437. [CrossRef]
Hespanha, J. P., Prandini, M., and Sastry, S., 2000, “Probabilistic Pursuit-Evasion Games: A One-Step NASH Approach,” Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 3, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Dec. 12–15, pp. 2272–2277. [CrossRef]
Spindler, M., Pasqualetti, F., and Bullo, F., 2012, “Distributed Multi-Camera Synchronization for Smart-Intruder Detection,” American Control Conference (ACC), Montreal, QC, Canada, June 27–29, pp. 5120–5125. [CrossRef]
Zanella, F., Pasqualetti, F., Carli, R., and Bullo, F., 2012, “Simultaneous Boundary Partitioning and Cameras Synchronization for Optimal Video Surveillance,” Proceedings of Workshop on Distributed Estimation and Control in Networked Systems, IFAC, Santa Barbara, CA, Sept. 14–15, pp. 1–6.
Raimondo, D. M., Kariotoglou, N., Summers, S., and Lygeros, J., 2011, “Probabilistic Certification of Pan-Tilt-Zoom Camera Surveillance Systems,” Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), Orlando, FL, Dec. 12–15, pp. 2064–2069. [CrossRef]
Cenedese, A., Cerruti, F., Fabbro, M., Masiero, C., and Schenato, L., 2010, “Decentralized Task Assignment in Camera Networks,” Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Atlanta, GA, Dec. 15–17, pp. 126–131. [CrossRef]
Alberton, R., Carli, R., Cenedese, A., and Schenato, L., 2012, “Multi-Agent Perimeter Patrolling Subject to Mobility Constraints,” Proceedings of American Control Conference (ACC), Montreal, QC, Canada, June 27–29, pp. 4498–4503. [CrossRef]
Park, M., Kalyanam, K., Darbha, S., Khargonekar, P., Pachter, M., and Chandler, P., 2012, “Sub-Optimal Stationary Policies for a Class of Stochastic Optimization Problems Arising in Robotic Surveillance Applications,” ASME Paper No. DSCC2012-MOVIC2012-8610. [CrossRef]
Schwager, M., Julian, B. J., Angermann, M., and Rus, D., 2011, “Eyes in the Sky: Decentralized Control for the Deployment of Robotic Camera Networks,” Proc. IEEE, 99(9), pp. 1541–1561. [CrossRef]
Abate, A., Prandini, M., Lygeros, J., and Sastry, S., 2008, “Probabilistic Reachability and Safety for Controlled Discrete Time Stochastic Hybrid Systems,” Automatica, 44(11), pp. 2724–2734. [CrossRef]
Summers, S., and Lygeros, J., 2010, “Verification of Discrete Time Stochastic Hybrid Systems: A Stochastic Reach-Avoid Decision Problem,” Automatica, 46(12), pp. 1951–1961. [CrossRef]
Summers, S., Kamgarpour, M., Tomlin, C., and Lygeros, J., 2013, “Stochastic System Controller Synthesis for Reachability Specifications Encoded by Random Sets,” Automatica, 49(9), pp. 2906–2910. [CrossRef]
Kariotoglou, N., Raimondo, D. M., Summers, S., and Lygeros, J., 2011, “A Stochastic Reachability Framework for Autonomous Surveillance With Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras,” Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), Orlando, FL, Dec. 12–15, pp. 1411–1416. [CrossRef]
Kariotoglou, N., Summers, S., and Raimondo, D. M., 2013, “Hierarchical Task Allocation for Multi-Agent Systems Encoded by Stochastic Reachability Specifications,” Proceedings of European Control Conference (ECC), EUCA, Zurich, Switzerland, July 17–19, pp. 2777–2782.
Kariotoglou, N., Summers, S., Summers, T., Kamgarpour, M., and Lygeros, J., 2013, “Approximate Dynamic Programming for Stochastic Reachability,” Proceedings of European Control Conference (ECC), Zurich, Switzerland, July 17–19, pp. 584–589.
Powell, W. B., 2007, Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the Curses of Dimensionality, Vol. 703, Wiley, New York.
Bertsekas, D. P., 2012, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. 2. Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA.
Papadimitriou, C. H., and Steiglitz, K., 1998, Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity, Courier Dover Publications, New York.
Ausiello, G., 1999, Complexity and Approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties, Springer, London, UK.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

An example of three system trajectories starting at x0. The reach-avoid probability is the expected value of a sum-multiplicative cost of indicator functions over the different trajectories.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Reach-avoid indicator function values for different state trajectories. (a) Indicator functions for the square trajectory in Fig. 1. (b) Indicator functions for the circle trajectory in Fig. 1, and (c) indicator functions for the diamond trajectory in Fig. 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Maps between spaces. (a) The FOV projection on the ground plane. (b) Visualization of the transformation maps between the different spaces. The dotted line on space Y corresponds to a realization of the evader process while the dotted circles on G are the mapping through γe.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Visualization of the multicamera network. The flat circles correspond to potential evaders

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Auxiliary state machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Block diagram of the task allocator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the total complexity. The y-axis is in logarithmic scale. The diamond line approaches the square one as m increases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

View of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Estimated distribution of the evader process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Camera kernel movement for u∧=up

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Tracking trajectories under different initial conditions and parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Camera configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

An example of reach-avoid probabilities reported by the two cameras at a specific time instance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of horizon length

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total percentage of time spent in each of the states {S00, S01, S10, S11} of P under different choices of hierarchies H. The subscript d denotes experiments where we decoupled the area of coverage of cameras. This is simple to implement by setting the columns of each camera's B matrix in Eq. (10) to 0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Objective allocation for the two cameras for different horizon lengths




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In