IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

1

Fusion of finite set distributions: Pointwise
consistency and global cardinality

arXiv:1802.06220v1 [eess.SP] 17 Feb 2018

Murat Üney, Member, IEEE, Jérémie Houssineau, Emmanuel Delande, Simon J. Julier, Daniel Clark

Abstract—A recent trend in distributed multi-sensor fusion
is to use random finite set filters at the sensor nodes and
fuse the filtered distributions algorithmically using their exponential mixture densities (EMDs). Fusion algorithms which
extend the celebrated covariance intersection and consensus
based approaches are such examples. In this article, we analyse
the variational principle underlying EMDs and show that the
EMDs of finite set distributions do not necessarily lead to
consistent fusion of cardinality distributions. Indeed, we demonstrate that these inconsistencies may occur with overwhelming
probability in practice, through examples with Bernoulli, Poisson
and independent identically distributed (IID) cluster processes.
We prove that pointwise consistency of EMDs does not imply
consistency in global cardinality and vice versa. Then, we redefine
the variational problems underlying fusion and provide iterative
solutions thereby establishing a framework that guarantees
cardinality consistent fusion.
Index Terms—random finite sets, multi-sensor fusion, exponential mixture density, covariance intersection, target tracking

I. I NTRODUCTION

I

N networked sensing, nodes perform local filtering and exchange filtered distributions as opposed to communicating
raw measurements [1]. The problem of fusion is to find an
estimate for the a posteriori distribution over some state space
conditioned on two or more (conditionally) independent sensor
data streams, given local posteriors computed by local filtering
of each data stream individually.
A large body of work utilises exponential mixtures of
distributions (EMDs) for fusion. These mixtures are found
by taking the weighted geometric mean of their components
followed by scaling to ensure integration to unity. They have
been widely used for fusion of single object (probability)
distribution [2]. A well-known algorithm that utilises EMDs
of Gaussian densities is covariance intersection [3]. In CI,
the weights of the components in the mixture are selected
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC) Grant number EP/K014277/1 and the MOD
University Defence Research Collaboration (UDRC) in Signal Processing.
Murat Üney is with the Institute for Digital Communications, School of
Engineering, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FB, Edinburgh, UK (e-mail:
m.uney@ed.ac.uk).
Jérémie Houssineau is with the National University of Singapore, Department of Statistics and Applied Probability, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 119077.
Emmanuel Delande is with the Institute for Computational Engineering and
Sciences, University of Texas at Austin (edelande@ices.utexas.edu).
Simon J. Julier is with the Computer Science Department, University
College London, London (e-mail: s.julier@ucl.ac.uk).
Daniel E. Clark is with Départment CITI, Telecom-SudParis, 9, rue
Charles Fourier 91011, EVRY Cedex, France (e-mail: daniel.clark@telecomsudparis.eu).

using various criteria [4]. The underlying variational problem
considers minimising a cost that equals to the weighted sum
of Kullback-Leibler divergence [5] of the fused density that is
seeked, with respect to the mixture components. The stationary
density and set of weights for this problem specifies an EMD
which is deemed as a middle-ground of the components in a
way analogous to logarithmic opinion pooling of experts [6].
The EMD form has been adopted for finite set densities in
order to address fusion in the case of multiple objects [7].
Following the introduction of tractable recursive filters [8]
such as the probability hypothesis density (PHD) filter [9],
and, explicit filtering algorithms using Gaussian mixture model
(GMM) representations [10] and sequential Monte Carlo
(SMC) techniques [11], numerical algorithms that extend CI
fusion to Bernoulli, PHD, and cardinalised PHD (C-PHD)
were proposed [12]–[14]. These methods have been proved
useful in improving localisation accuracy in multi-sensor problems including those involving heterogenous sensors [15].
Another utilisation of EMDs for fusion of finite set distributions has been within the network consensus framework [16]. Briefly, iterative message passing algorithms which
asymptotically compute the equally-weighted mixture, i.e., the
geometric mean of the components, at all nodes of a sensor
network are proposed for C-PHD [17], multi-Bernoulli [18],
generalised MB [19], [20], Bernoulli [21], and, labelled [22],
[23] finite set filters.
Finite set distributions factorise into a cardinality distribution on the number of objects and a localisation density conditioned on the cardinality [24]. The aforementioned variational
principle when used with finite set distributions results with
EMDs that satisfy point-wise consistency [25] with respect to
the components. In this article, we show that the cardinality
distributions of EMDs are not endowed with such consistency
guarantees, in general. Such inconsistencies might result with
smaller existence probabilities or estimates on the number
of objects when the fused results are used instead of either
of the inputs. This phenomena which might undermine the
benefits of using diversity in sensing has been empirically
observed by other researchers as well (see, e.g., [26]). Here, we
provide explicit mathematical formulae specifying conditions
under which the cardinality distributions of finite set EMDs
are inconsistent. We demonstrate in examples that these inconsistencies are encountered sometimes with overwhelming
probability under typical operating conditions and might lead
to large discrepancies in, for example, the estimated number
of objects.
Based on these results, we argue that the variational problem
needs to be decoupled for the cardinality and the localisation

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

2

distributions (i.e., scaled Janossy [24] distributions). Doing so
separates the fusion of cardinality distributions and localisation
terms. This approach results with the same localisation densities as the direct adoption of the variational problem, and,
avoids any inconsistencies in the cardinality distribution. We
show that pointwise consistency does not imply consistency in
cardinality and vice versa. Then, we derive iterative algorithms
for cardinality consistent fusion of finite set distributions.
The outline of the article is as follows: In Section II, we
discuss fusion rules that accommodate EMDs in the light of
the associated variational problems and pointwise consistency
of EMDs. We provide our results regarding the cardinality
inconsistencies of finite set EMDs in Section III, together with
examples. Then, we redefine the variational problem underpinning fusion and derive solutions for cardinality consistent
fusion in Section IV. Conclusions and future directions are
provided in Section V.

(see, for example, [28, Eq.(3)]), and, realising that the second
term on the right hand side does not depend on f (see
Appendix A for a direct proof). In fact, this term is the scaled
Rényi divergence [29] of order ω from fj to fi , i.e.,
Jω rf s “ Dpf ||fω q ´ pω ´ 1qRω pfj , fi q,
(6)
ż
1
p1´ωq
Rω pfj , fi q fi
pXqdX,
fjω pXqfi
log
ω´1
X
1
“
log Zω .
ω´1
Let us consider the weight parameter ω as a free variable,
and find the stationary point of Jω in (2) with respect to ω for
f “ fω . For the case, the KLD term in (6) vanishes and (2)
reduces to a cost function for finding the Chernoff information
of fi and fj [5] which is concave in ω 1 . In [31], it is explained
that there is a unique stationary point ω ˚ which satisfies
Dpfω ||fi q “ Dpfω ||fj q

II. F USION

.

(7)

w“ω ˚

AS A VARIATIONAL PROBLEM

A. EMDs as weighted KLD centroids
Given two probability density functions fi and fj on a state
space X , let us consider finding another density f in the space
of PDFs P such that f captures the information contained in
both of the input distributions. An intuitive approach which
is geometric in flavour would involve finding the centroid of
the input distributions based on a distance/divergence metric.
Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) is such a divergence metric which is used in information geometry in a way similar to
the squared Euclidean distance [27], and, has an established
relevance to estimation when X is a finite alphabet (which is
often referred to as hypothesis testing) [5].
The KLD of two distributions with densities f and g is
computed as
ż
f pXq
dX,
(1)
Dpf ||gq “
f pXq log
gpXq
X

where D is always nonnegative and vanishes for f “ g.
Let us denote the centroid of fi and fj with respect to a
weighted sum of KLD by fω . This distribution is a solution
to the associated variational problem given by
(P) min Jω rf s
f PP

Jω rf s fi p1 ´ ωqDpf ||fi q ` ωDpf ||fj q

(2)

where ω P r0, 1s is a design parameter selecting the weight
of the divergence of each point fi and fj in the space of
probability distributions P over X , with respect to f .
The solution to problem (P) with the cost (2) is unique and
found as
1 p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXq
(3)
fi
fω pXq “
Z
ω
ż
p1´ωq

Zω “

X

fi

pX 1 qfjω pX 1 q dX 1 ,

(4)

which can easily be seen after rearranging the cost in (2) as
ż
p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXq dX, (5)
fi
Jω rf s “ Dpf ||fω q ´ log
X

The density fω in (4) is obtained by normalising the
weighted geometric mean of fi and fj , and, thus referred to as
their geometric mean density (GMD), or, exponential mixture
density (EMD). In this article we adopt the latter.
B. Covariance intersection and generalisations
The above discussion outlines a fusion algorithm which
outputs the pair pω ˚ , fω˚ q using (7) and (3) for fusing fi
and fj . This can be rephrased as a max min mathematical
programme:
pP2q pω ˚ , fω˚ q fi arg max min Jω rf s.
ωPr0,1s f PP

(8)

The input densities here are a posteriori in nature as they
are propagated by local filters, i.e., they are conditioned on
the data-streams of sensors i and j, respectively. When X is
Rd and the distributions involved are Gaussians, this approach
reduces to a set of linear algebraic operations which are
known as the “covariance intersection” algorithm [3]. In this
setting, how well an approximation the EMD (3) is to the joint
posterior2 is studied in terms of bounds over the uncertainty
spread characterised by covariance matrices (see, e.g., [32],
[33]). For exponential family distributions including multivariate Gaussians, fω˚ is the unique intersection point of the
exponential geodesic curve joining fi and fj (obtained by
varying ω from 0 to 1 in (3)) and its dual hyperplane on the
induced statistical manifold [34].
For general distributions, (3), (4) and (7) are still valid as a
solution to the variational fusion problem in (8). The optimal
weight selected through (7) equates the cost in (2) to the
Chernoff information [5] between fi and fj [31]. Perhaps for
this reason, some authors refer to this fusion rule as Chernoff
fusion (see, for example [35] and the references therein).
1 To be specific, in [30], Chernoff introduces Cpf , f q fi ´ log min Z as
ω
j i
a “measure of divergence” between two distributions. This quantity can equivalently be found by max ´ log Zω in which the argument of maximisation
is nothing but Jω rf “ fω s.
2 Here, we refer to the posterior distribution conditioned on the data
streams of both sensors which is infeasible to compute given the limited
communication and computational resources of the networked setting.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

3

The uncertainty spread in EMDs of arbitrary distributions
is characterised in terms of pointwise bounds. In [25], the
authors show that the scale factor in (4) is less than or equal
to one, i.e., Zω ď 1, and, consequently EMDs (3) satisfy the
following consistency condition:
fω pXq ě mintfi pXq, fj pXqu.

(9)

for all points X P X and ω P r0, 1s. In other words, the fused
distribution does not overlook the probability mass assigned
by fi and fj onto the vicinity of any point in the state
space. In this sense, this condition corresponds to a notion
of consistency [25].
Other fusion methods that use EMDs include consensus
based approaches as overviewed in Section I. These methods
compute fω by iterative message passings between nodes.
However, instead of finding stationary weights of the variational problem in (2), this network averaging approach can
compute only an equally weighted EMD, and, when the
number of iterations tend to infinity. Some other methods
differ from the generalised CI approach described above in
their weight selection criteria: Some authors argue that it
might be more beneficial to select the value of ω in (2) that
would maximise the “peakiness” of fω [7], or, to minimise
the uncertainty captured by fω quantified by its Shannon
differential entropy [4].
In this article, our concern is the consistency properties
of EMDs of finite set distributions. These distributions have
been commonly used to represent multi-object scenes [8].
The following discussion is valid for any fusion scheme that
employs EMDs and random finite set (RFS) distributions in
order to quantify uncertainty in, for example, “the number
of objects,” (e.g., Poisson, i.i.d. cluster RFSs [8]), “existence
probabilities” (e.g., Bernoulli, multi-Bernoulli, generalised labelled MB RFSs [36] and MB mixtures [37]) irrespective of
their weight selection mechanism.
III. F INITE

SET

EMD S

µpdXq “

σPΣn

“ p pnq n!ρn pxσ1 p1q , ..., xσ1 pnq q

(10)

where n “ |X| and |.| denotes set cardinality. Here, Σn is
the set of all permutations of p1, . . . , nq, and, σ 1 P Σn in the
last line is an arbitrary permutation which is selected as the
identity permutation in the rest of this article.
Note that p in (10) sums to one and ρn s integrate to unity.
The finite set density f also integrates to one over X , i.e.,
ż
f pXqµpdXq “ 1

8
ÿ
λn pdX X Xn q
n!
n“0

where Xn is the space of n-tuple of points in Rd , and, λn is
the Lebesgue (volume) measure on Xn 3 . An alternative form
of this integral is referred to as the set integral [8], i.e.,
ż
ż
f pXqδX,
f pXqµpdXq “
Rd

X

where the right hand side is the set integral of f defined as 4
ż
ż
ż
8
ÿ
1
f pXqδX fi
. . . f ptx1 , ..., xn uqdx1 . . . dxn
n!
Rd
n“0
d
(11)
Rd
R
ż
ż
8
ÿ
. . . ppnqρn px1 , ..., xn qdx1 . . . dxn .
“
n“0

Rd

Rd

Let us consider the EMD of finite set distributions fi and fj .
For the case (3) is valid with the scale factor in (4) found using
the set integral in (11), i.e.,
ż
p1´ωq
pX 1 qfjω pX 1 qδX 1 .
(12)
fi
Zω “
Rd

This scale factor is also less than one and consequently the
finite set EMD satisfies the pointwise consistency condition
in (9) for every finite subset X Ă Rd .
In order to investigate the cardinality distribution of the
EMD, let us substitute fi and fj in the form given in (10)
into (12) and (3), and, obtain the finite set EMD as
fω pXq “ pω pnqn!ρω,n px1 , . . . , xn q
where the localisation density for cardinality n is
ρω,n px1 , . . . , xn q fi

AND CARDINALITY DISTRIBUTIONS

In the case of finite set valued random variables, X is
the space of finite subsets of Rd and the density f is a
set function characterised by a cardinality distribution with
probability mass function (pmf) ppnq over natural numbers
n “ 0, 1, . . . and localisation densities ρn px1 , ..., xn q for
n “ 1, 2, . . . which are symmetric in their arguments [24].
The corresponding density has a set valued argument X “
tx1 , . . . , xn u and is given by
ÿ
ρn pxσp1q , ..., xσpnq q
f pXq “ p pnq

X

where µ is an appropriate measure. Let us select µ as

zω pnq “

ż

Rd

1
p1´ωq
px1 , . . . , xn q
ρ
zω pnq i,n
ˆ ρω
j,n px1 , . . . , xn q,

¨¨¨

ż

p1´ωq

ρi,n

(13)

px11 , . . . , x1n q

Rd

1
1
1
1
ˆρω
j,n px1 , . . . , xn qdx1 , . . . , dxn ,

(14)

and, the cardinality pmf is
1 p1´ωq
pnqpω
p
j pnqzω pnq
Nω i
ÿ p1´ωq
1
1
Nω “
pn1 qpω
pi
j pn qzω pn q.

pω pnq “

(15)
(16)

n1 “0

where zω p0q “ 1 by convention, and for n ‰ 0, zω pnq ă 1
unless ρi,n and ρj,n are identical. The latter is a direct application of Hölder’s inequality (see, e.g., Theorem 188 in [39]).
It can be shown similarly that Nω ă 1.
3 Further details on the topic can be found in Section II.B and Appendix B
of [11], and, the references therein.
4 Note that the set integral in (11) is defined for an arbitrary (measurable)
function f , but, when f is a finite point process density, (11) is nothing but
the total probability theorem applied on (10) [38].

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

4

Let us focus on the fused cardinality pmf in (15). This
distribution is not an EMD of the cardinality distributions
of the components unlike the fused localisation distributions
in (13) that are EMDs of the input localisation densities.
In fact, the fused cardinality is the scaled product of the
cardinality EMD with the localisation density scale factors
zω pnq in (14). As a result, the consistency property of EMDs
does not apply to the fused cardinality. Below, we first relate
the consistency of the fused cardinality distribution to the
sequence of scale factors and give a condition under which
the fused cardinality is inconsistent. Then, in the rest of this
section, we demonstrate that inconsistent cardinalities occur
under some typical operating conditions.
Proposition 3.1 (Inconsistency in cardinality distribution):
Consider the fused cardinality pmf pω in (15), (16). Consider
the following inconsistency condition for pω pnq obtained by
negating the consistency condition:
pω pnq ă mint pi pnq, pj pnq u.
This condition holds true if
ř
p1´ωq 1 ω
pn qpj pn1 qzω pn1 q
n1 ‰n pi
,
zω pnq ă
p1´ωq
pi
pnqpω
p1´ωq
j pnq
ω pnq
pnqp
´
p
j
i
mint pi pnq, pj pnq u

where the parameter α is referred to as the existence probability of the object modelled.
There is also a single localisation density ρn for n “ 1
which we will denote by ρ. Therefore, given two Bernoullis
fi “ pαi , ρi q and fj “ pαj , ρj q, the sequence zω pnq reduces to
$
’
n “ 0,
&1,
ş
zω pnq “ zω fi Rd ρip1´ωq pxqρω
(20)
pxqdx,
n
“ 1,
j
’
%
0,
otherwise.

Corollary 3.2: The inconsistency condition given by Proposition 3.1 for Bernoulli finite set distributions reduces to that
the existence probability of the EMD given by [14]
αω “

where zω pnq is given in (14).
The proof is given in Appendix B. The above proposition
points out that the fused cardinality distribution opts to disagree with local results on the probability of number of objects
when the nth localisation scale zω pnq is comparably small.
This is in stark contrast with the fused localisation densities
in (13) which always satisfy the consistency condition
ρω,n px1 , . . . , xn q ě mintρi,n px1 , . . . , xn q, ρj,n px1 , . . . , xn qu
for all x1 , . . . , xn P Rd and n, as they are EMDs.
The scale factors modulating the cardinality pmf, i.e., zω pnq,
are found by taking the inner products of the input localisation
densities raised to fractional powers. As explained above, these
terms are upper bounded by one with zω pnq equaling unity
only when ρi,n and ρj,n are equal (see [25] for an alternative
proof). In fusion networks, however, one of the main goals is to
benefit from sensing diversity which means ρi,n and ρj,n will
have a comparably small overlap in their confidence regions.
As a result, much smaller zω pnq values should be expected in
typical operating conditions.
Now, let us consider some particular RFS families and
demonstrate the consequences of Proposition 3.1.
A. Bernoulli finite set EMDs and fused existence probabilities
Bernoulli finite set distributions select at most one object
from a population. Collections, and mixtures thereof are used
to represent multi-object models the fusion of which reduces
to EMD fusion of Bernoulli pairs (see, e.g., [19], [20]). For a
Bernoulli finite set, the cardinality pmf in (10) is given by
$
’
&1 ´ α, n “ 0,
(19)
ppnq “ α,
n “ 1,
’
%
0,
otherwise

(21)

p1´ωq ω
αj zω

p1 ´ αi qp1´ωq p1 ´ αj qω ` αi

is smaller than either of αi or αj if

(17)

(18)

p1´ωq ω
αj zω

αi

p1 ´ αi qp1´ωq p1 ´ αj qω

zω ă

p1´ωq ω
αj { mint αi

αi

p1´ωq ω
αj

, αj u ´ αi

.

The proof follows from substituting the sequence (20)
in Proposition 3.1, and, in particular in (17) and (18). This
condition is very often satisfied in sensing applications as
explained before. For example, if αi and αj are equal, then
this condition reduces to zω ă 1 which always holds for
all practical purposes as ρi and ρj should not be expected
to be identical. For αi ‰ αj , this inconsistency still occurs
with overwhelming probability in Bernoulli fusion which is
demonstrated in the following example.
Example 3.3 (Gauss-Bernoulli EMDs): Let us consider
Bernoulli distributions with Gaussian localisation densities
given by
ρi pxq “ N px; mi , Ci q, ρj pxq “ N px; mj , Cj q,

(22)

where m is the mean vector and C is the covariance matrix.
The fused localisation density ρω for the case is a Gaussian
with mean and covariance given by
´1
mω “ p1 ´ ωqC´1
i mi ` ωCj mj
`
˘
´1 ´1
Cω “ p1 ´ ωqC´1
.
i ` ωCj

(23)
(24)

The scale factor zω is found using integration rules for
Gaussians as
ˇ ´1 ˇp1´ωq{2 ˇ ´1 ˇω{2
ˆ
"
ˇC ˇ
ˇC ˇ
1
j
i
p1 ´ ωqmTi C´1
exp
´
zω “
i mi
1{2
2
|Cω |
˙*
T ´1
T ´1
` ωmj Cj mj ´ mω Cω mω
. (25)
4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

-4
-5

0

5

-4
-5

0

5

-4
-5

0

5

-4
-5

0

5

-4
-5

0

5

Fig. 1. Localisation densities of the Gauss-Bernoulli finite sets, i.e., ρi (solid
line) and ρj (dash-dotted line), in Example 3.3 for κ “ 1, 10, 20, 30, 40 (left
to right).

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

40

1.1

5

0.9

B. EMDs of Poisson finite set distributions

1
0.8

30

0.9
0.8

0.7

Poisson finite set densities are capable of representing many
objects and underpin popular multi-object filters such as the
PHD filter [9]. Their cardinality pmf in (10) is given by a
Poisson distribution, i.e.,

0.7

20

0.6

0.6
0.5

0.5

10

0.4
0.4

0.3

1

0.3

0.2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Fig. 2. The scale factor (left) and the fused existence probabilities in the
Gauss-Bernoulli Example 3.3. These quantities are calculated for varying
sensing diversity κ and (exponential) mixture weight ω values.

Let us consider two Bernoullis with existence probabilities
αi “ αj “ 0.8 with localisation densities of mean vectors
mi “ r0.25, 0.25sT and mj “ r´0.75, ´0.25sT , respectively,
where p.qT denotes vector transpose. We select the covariance
matrices as rotated versions of a diagonal covariance given by
Ci “ Rpπ{4qΣRT pπ{4q,
Cj “ Rp´π{4qΣRT p´π{4q,
„ 2

σ1 , 0
Σ“
,
0, σ22
„

cos φ, ´ sin φ
Rpφq “
.
sin φ,
cos φ
This covariance structure is typical with sensors placed at different positions and taking their measurements from different
aspect angles of the surveillance zone. The condition number
of Σ (i.e., κ “ σ12 {σ22 ) has higher values for sensors with
range/cross-range ambiguity such as cameras/radars which we
vary from 1 to 40. Fig. 1 depicts the uncertainty ellipses of
sample Gaussians by using three times the standard deviation
along the eigen vector directions.
The behaviours of the fused existence probability in (21) and
the scale factor in (25) are our concern. Fig. 2 presents both the
zω and αω values obtained by varying the condition number
κ with small steps from 1 to 40 hence increasing the sensing
diversity. The exponential mixture weights ω take values from
a dense grid over r0, 1s. As pointed out in this section, the
scale factor values are always smaller than unity, and, can
often take very small values. The scale factor monotonically
decreases with κ which controls the sensing diversity. It is
convex with respect to the mixture weight ω, as pointed out
in Section II.
The fused existence probabilities given in Fig. 2 demonstrate
the inconsistency in cardinality. In this example, this quantity
is always smaller than the input existence probabilities admitting inconsistency for all selections of κ and ω. Moreover, the
fused existence probability drops below 0.5 for large values of
the sensing diversity parameter κ. This threshold is often used
as the Bayesian decision boundary for detection and despite
that the input sources are fairly confident on the existence
of an object with existence probabilities of αi “ αj “ 0.8,
this decision might be rejected based on the fused result
undermining the benefits of sensing diversity. As a result,
the inconsistency in cardinality may lead to inconsistency in
decision making when EMDs of finite set distributions are
used.


eλ λn
(26)
n!
where λ is the expected number of objects. The localisation
densities factorise over the density for n “ 1 as
ppnq “

ρn px1 , . . . , xn q “

n
ź

ρ1 pxi q,

(27)

i“1

making it possible to parameterise the entire finite set distribution with a scalar and a single density5 .
For two Poissons fi “ pλi , ρi q and fj “ pλj , ρj q, the
sequence zω pnq is a geometric sequence found by subsituting
from (27) for both i and j into (14). This sequence is found as
zω pnq “ zωn

(28)

zω fi zω p1q “

ż

Rd

p1´ωq 1 ω 1
px qρj px qdx,
ρi

(29)

where zω ă 1 unless ρi and ρj are identical, as aforementioned.
The expected number of objects with respect to an EMD
with weight parameter ω is given by [14]
p1´ωq ω
λj zω .

λω “ λi

(30)

Proposition 3.4 (Poisson inconsistency in expectation): Let
us consider an inconsistency condition for Poisson cardinality
distributions in terms of their expectations:
λω ă mintλi , λj u.
This condition holds whenever
mintλi , λj u
zω ă
.
maxtλi , λj u

(31)

(32)

The proof follows easily from substituting (32)
in (30) and (31). It is instructive to contrast this result
with Proposition 3.1. The latter holds for any class of finite
set densities and considers their cardinality distributions for
different n. The above result is on the expected value of
n in Poisson finite set densities. The condition in (32) is
satisfied with overwhelming probability in practice leading
to inconsistencies as observed, for example, in [26]. For
example, for λi “ λj “ λ, this reduces to the common
ratio zω being less than one which should –as previously
discussed– always be expected to be the case in practice.
The inconsistency in decision making for the case is related
to the estimation of the number of objects. In Poisson finite
set models, the minimum mean squared error (MMSE) estimation principle is used which leads to the use of λ as the
5 We drop the subscript in ρ for the rest of this subsection and denote it
1
by ρ.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

6

ω= 0.4

1

0.9

pi
pj

0.6

0.6

pω

1
0.8

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.2
0

0.6

2

4

6

8

0

0

2

4

n

0.2

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

4

6

8

0

n

0.3

0.4

0.2

2

0.5

ω= 0.7

1

0.4

0

8

n

ω= 0.6

pω

C. EMDs of IID cluster finite set densities

6

pω

0.4

0

0.7

0.2

0

1

IID cluster finite set distributions relax the Poisson cardinality pmf in (26) and take arbitrary cardinality pmfs underpinning the CPHD filter [40]. The localisation densities still take
the factorised form in (27) leading to the identical geometric
series zω pnq in (28). For the case, Proposition 3.1 specialises
as follows:
Corollary 3.5 (IID cluster inconsistency): Given two IID
cluster finite set distributions fi “ ppi pnq, ρi q and fj “
ppj pnq, ρj q, the fused cardinality pω satisfies the inconsistency
condition in (17) in Proposition 3.1 for the number of objects
n and non-zero pi pnq, pj pnq if

ω= 0.5

1

0.8

pω

estimated number of objects6 . As a result, the EMD density
always underestimates the number of objects despite that the
source densities might be consistently suggesting otherwise,
in practice. The magnitude of the error stemming from this
bias depends on the value of zω .

0.2

0

2

4

6

8

0

0

2

n

4

6

0.1

8

n

(a)

(b)
0.9

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.1

zω ă Iω,n
holds, where the term on the right hand side is
¸1{n
˜
mintpi pnq, pj pnqu
,
Iω,n fi Nω p1´ωq
pnqpω
pi
j pnq

(c)

log pNω γω q
,
log zω
mintpi pn1 q, pj pn1 qu
γω fi min
p1´ωq 1 ω
1
n
pn qpj pn1 q
pi

(d)

1

(33)

pi
pj

0.8
0.6

zω is given in (29), and, Nω is obtained by substituting (28)
in (16).
The proof follows from substituting (28) in (18) and using (16)
after rearrangement of the terms. The inconsistency condition
in (33) depends both on n and ω, and, it is not straightforward
to relate the inconsistent bins to object number estimation
either in the MMSE or MAP rules. On the other hand, the
base of the exponent in (33) is smaller than one and hence I
approaches to one as n grows. Therefore, for some threshold
η, the fused object number probabilities will be lower than the
input cardinality reports for all n ą η. Such a threshold can
easily be found from (33) as
η“

0.1

0.4
0.2
0

0

10

20

30

40

n

(e)

(f)
0.9

0.7

0.5

0.3

(34)

As a result, one should expect estimation biases to become
more severe for higher object numbers. For a small number
of objects, these effects do not necessarily yield biases in
MAP estimations, which also explains the accurate estimates
obtained using EMD fusion of CPHD filters in simulated
scenarios, e.g., in [14]. Next, we demonstrate this point in
an example involving fusion of two binomial cardinality
distributions.
Example 3.6: Let us consider the EMD fusion of two
finite set distributions with binomial cardinalities given by
pi pnq “ Bpn; k “ 5, P “ 0.95q and pj pnq “ Bpn; k “
6 Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation is not used with Poisson cardinality distributions as (26) is not guaranteed to have a unique maximum.
Notice that, for example, (26) evaluates at the same value for both n “ 0 and
n “ 1 for λ “ 1.

0.1

(g)

(h)

Fig. 3. Illustrations of the results in Example 3.6: (a) Two cardinality
distributions peaking at n “ 5. (b) Fused cardinalities for some intermediate
values of ω and 0.1 ď zω ď 0.9. (c) The inconsistency upper bound in
(33). (d) The inconsistency threshold in (34). (e) MAP estimates using the
fused cardinalities for varying ω and zω . (f) Cardinality distributions peaking
at n “ 35. (g) Fused cardinalities for some intermediate values of ω and
0.1 ď zω ď 0.9. (h) MAP estimates using the fused cardinalities for varying
ω and zω .

5, P “ 0.92q where these distributions give the probability that
n objects exist simultaneously among k “ 5 possibilities each
with an existence probability of P (Fig. 3(a)). Of particular
interest is the characteristics of pω as zω and ω vary in
0.1 ď zω ď 0.9 and 0 ď ω ď 1, respectively. Fig. 3(b)
presents fused distributions obtained by varying zω and some
intermediate values of ω. Note that the cardinality n at which
the fused distributions peaks varies with zω as suggested in

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Corollary 3.5. In particular, the inconsistency bound in (3c)
is illustrated in Fig. 3(c) which monotonically increases with
n as discussed. The inconsistency threshold for n as given in
(34) is given in Fig. 3(d). Note that for a large ratio of zω
and ω values, this threshold is larger than five and the MAP
estimate for the cardinality given in Fig. 3(e) agrees with the
individual MAP estimates of n̂i “ n̂j “ 5. However, there are
also MAP estimates that indicate less than five objects caused
by the IID inconsistency.
These computations are repeated for cardinality distributions
peaking at a higher n value. Specifically, pi pnq “ Bpn; k “
35, P “ 0.98q and pj pnq “ Bpn; k “ 35, P “ 0.975q
are used (see Fig. 3(f)) which have individual map estimates
of n̂i “ n̂j “ 35. The fused cardinalities in Fig. 3(g)
illustrate that for a larger subset of pzω , ωq pairs the IID
inconsistency occurs, now, as discussed above. The resulting
errors in estimating the number of objects is given in Fig. 3(h)
which verifies our expectation: Based on that (33) approaches
to 1 with increasing n, as the peak cardinality increases, the
IID inconsistency detoriates decision making more.
As a summary, this section has shown that when EMDs
of finite set densities are used for their fusion, the resulting
cardinality distribution will bear inconsistencies depending on
zω pnq. Proposition 3.1 provides a general condition on the
fused distribution to be inconsistent with the input distributions
at a cardinality value n. This condition is specialised for
Bernoulli finite set densities in Corollary 3.2. Example 3.3
has demonstrated that this condition holds with overwhelming probability for Bernoulli EMDs. In Poisson cardinality
distributions, there is a single parameter λ that specifies the
distribution for all n. Proposition 3.4 provides a condition of
inconsistency in this parameter, similarly as an upper bound on
zω pnq. It is pointed out that because zω pnq is determined by
the sensing diversity as well as sensor measurement histories
in a sensor network, its value should be expected to be less
than one in these settings7 which in turn shows that Poisson
EMDs are very prone to inconsistencies, as well. IID cluster
processes have more general cardinality distributions. For the
case, Proposition 3.1 specialises to Corollary 3.5 which reveals
that inconsistencies should be expected in MAP estimates of
the cardinality, when the input densities indicate a high number
of objects. These points are demonstrated in Example 3.6.
IV. C ARDINALITY

7

as opposed to using P2 in (8) with finite set distributions as a
single entity.

A. Variational problem definitions
Let us first consider finite set distributions as parameterised
in (10) and remind that problem P2 is solved with distributions
in the form given in (13)–(16). Now, let us consider the
following family of variational problems given fi and fj :
(P3) For n “ 1, 2, . . .
pωn˚ , ρωn˚ ,n q fi arg max min Jω,n rρn s
ωPr0,1s ρn PPn

(35)

Jω,n rρn s fi p1 ´ ωqDpρn ||ρi,n q ` ωDpρn ||ρj,n q.
Here, Pn is the space of localisation densities with n
arguments which are symmetric in their arguments. Note that
P3 is a set of P2 that has the localisation distributions for each
cardinality n as the entries, separately. Equivalently, P3 asserts
the variational problem of fusion be treated as a conditional
problem to be solved given n.
Following our discussion in Section II, solutions of these uncoupled problems have an EMD form given by (13) and (14)8 .
One difference here compared to the solution of problem P2
is that for each n, a different optimal weight ωn˚ will be
output, in general, as opposed to a single one. In addition
–and, more importantly– problem P2 decouples fusion of
the cardinality distributions thus given pωn˚ , ρωn˚ ,n q, the fused
cardinality distribution becomes an extra degree of freedom in
the fused finite set distribution. In other words, the fusion of
cardinality distributions can now be carried out in an isolated
fashion in addition to problem P2 as a solution to
(P4) pωc˚ , p̃ωc˚ q fi arg max min Jω,c rps
ωPr0,1s pPPc

(36)

Jω,c rps fi p1 ´ ωqDpp||pi q ` ωDpp||pj q.
Following the discussion in Section II, the solution to
problem P4 is the EMD of the cardinality pmfs
1 p1´ωq
pnqpω
pi
j pnq
Ñω
ÿ p1´ωq
1
Ñω “
pn1 qpω
pi
j pn q.

p̃ω pnq “

(37)
(38)

n1 “0

CONSISTENT FUSION OF FINITE SET
DISTRIBUTIONS

In this section, we propose a new approach that accommodates EMD fusion while avoiding the cardinality inconsistencies detailed in Section III. These inconsistencies result
from the dependency of the fused cardinality on the scaling
factor series zω pnq. One way to remove this dependency is
to decouple the fusion problem for different cardinalities by
asserting a separate variational problem for each cardinality
7 The authors at this point would like to conjecture that z pnq ă 1 with
ω
probability one in a multi-sensor setting in which the finite set densities to be
fused are posteriors obtained from recursive Bayesian filtering of local sensor
i q and f pXq “ f pX|Z j q for realisations Z i
data, i.e., fi pXq “ f pX|Z1:t
j
1:t
1:t
j
and Z1:t of (independent) measurement processes associated with sensors i
and j, respectively.

evaluated at ω “ ωc˚ .
This distribution differs from the cardinality of the solution
to P2 (given in (15) and (16)) in that it does not involve zω pnq,
and, is an EMD of the input finite set cardinalities. Therefore,
the consistency condition (see (9))
p̃ω pnq ě mintpi pnq, pj pnqu
is satisfied for all n and for all ω regardless of zω pnq. This
avoids the decision errors stemming from the cardinality inconsistencies of the solutions to P2 as detailed in the previous
section.
8 It is easy to show that because ρ
i,n and ρj,n are symmetric in their
arguments, ρω,n also exhibits this symmetricity.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

8

As a result, P3 and P4 yield a fused finite set density
featuring cardinality consistency given by
f˜˚ pXq “ f˜Ω pXq

(39)
Ω“pωc “ωc˚ ,ω1 “ω1˚ ,ω2 “ω2˚ ,...q

f˜Ω pXq fi pωc pnq n!ρωn ,n px1 , ..., xn q

(40)

ωc˚

where
is found by solving the maximisation in (36) with
a cardinality distribution given by (37) and (38). Here, ωn˚
solves the maximisation in (35) with a localisation distribution
in (13) and (14). These localisation distributions – similar to
the cardinality distribution– are consistent individually, as they
are EMDs of the inputs.
The pointwise consistency of f˜ over the space of finite sets,
however, is not guaranteed. In order to clarify this point, we
provide the following proposition:

Algorithm 1 Newton iterations for solving the nth problem
in P3.
1: Input: ρi,n ,ρj,n
Ź Localisation densities
2: Input: ω p0q P r0, 1s, ǫ
Ź Initial value, termination
threshold
3: k Ð 1, ω p1q Ð 8
4: while |ω pkq ´ ω pk´1q | ą ǫ do
Ź termination condition
5:
zk Ð zω pnq|ω“ωpkq using (14)
6:
zk1 Ð zω1 pnq|ω“ωpkq using (47)
7:
zk2 Ð zω2 pnq|ω“ωpkq using
´ (48)
¯
2
8:
ω pk`1q Ð ω pkq ` zk1 zk { zk2 zk ´ pzk1 q
9:
k Ðk`1
10: end while
˚
11: Return ωn
Ð ω pkq
˚
12: Return ρωn
,n using (13)

Proposition 4.1 (Pointwise inconsistency): Let us consider
f˜ω pXq fi f˜Ω pXq

(41)

of the outer maximisation in P3 is therefore (see also (6))

Ω“pωc “ω,ω1 “ω,ω2 “ω,...q

Gn pωn q fi Jω,n rρn s

for some ω. f˜ω is pointwise inconsistent, i.e.,

if

f˜ω pXq ă mintfi pXq, fj pXqu

(42)

Ep̃ω tzω pnqu
mintfi pXq, fj pXqu
ă
ă“ 1
zω pnq
fω pXq

(43)

“ ´pω ´ 1qRω pρn,i , ρn,j q
“ ´ log zω pnq

where fω is the finite set EMD given in (13)–(16).
Proof. By comparing (13)–(16) and (37)–(40), it can be seen
that the two finite set densities of concern are related by
Ep̃ω tzω pnqu
fω pXq.
f˜ω pXq “
zω pnq

(45)
ρn “ρω,n

(44)

where the expectation is with respect to (37).
Substitution of (44) in (42) yields the first inequality in (43).
Note that, fω satistifies the pointwise consistency condition in
(9), hence, the right hand side of the inequality is smaller than
or equal to one.

This proposition points out that pointwise consistency of
f˜ω is guaranteed only for those X with cardinality n for
which the scaling factor of the localisation density zω pnq ď 1
equals to the expectation. If the latter is greater than the
expectation to the extent that (43) is satisfied, then f˜ω exhibits
pointwise inconsistency despite being consistent in the global
cardinality and localisation distributions. As a conclusion,
pointwise consistency does not imply consistency in global
cardinality in fusion of finite set densities and vice versa.

B. Solving the cardinality consistent fusion problems
The variational problems P3 and P4 are max min optimisation problems similar to (8). Hence, the minimisations given
ω are solved by the EMDs of their argument distributions (see
the discussion in Section II and Appendix A). The objective

which is a concave function of its one dimensional argument
that takes values from a bounded interval. Newton iterations
provide a solution with optimal convergence properties [41].
Starting from an initial value ω p0q P r0, 1s, recursive increments are made by the ratio of the first and second order
derivatives, i.e.,
G1n pωn q
G2n pωn q

“

zω1 pnqzω pnq

(46)
2
zω2 pnqzω pnq ´ pzω1 pnqq ω“ωpkq
ż
ρj,n pxq
1´ω
dx
(47)
zω1 pnq fi ρi,n
pxqρω
j,n pxq log
ρi,n pxq
ˆ
˙2
ż
ρj,n pxq
1´ω
2
ω
zω pnq fi ρi,n pxqρj,n pxq log
dx
ρi,n pxq
(48)

ωn “ω pkq

where ω pkq is the value found in the kth iteration. Here,
zω pnq is given in (14) and its derivatives in (47) and (48)
are found in Appendix C. Algorithm 1 explicitly specifies
this iterative solution which takes the localisation densities as
inputs together with an initial value and termination condition.
pkq
Upon convergence, the optimal value ωn˚ “ ωn is found for
which the corresponding EMD ρωpkq ,n is the fused density.
n
An analogous iterative algorithm for finding the consistently
fused cardinality as a solution to P4 is given in Algorithm 2.
Note that the computations involved here can be carried out
exactly for distributions with finite support, in practice.
Algorithm 1, on the other hand, should accommodate adequate computational schemes for exactly or approximately
evaluating the integrals involved. In the latter case, it admits
the interpretation of being a stochastic gradient approach [42].
Specification of such procedures is beyond the scope of this
work.
There are, nevertheless, structural simplifications in both
P3 and P4 for different families of finite set families. For

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

9

Algorithm 2 Newton iterations solving P4 for consistent
cardinality fusion.
1: Input: pi pnq,pj pnq
Ź Cardinality pmfs
2: Input: ω p0q P r0, 1s, ǫ
Ź Initial value, termination
threshold
3: k Ð 1, ω p1q Ð 8
4: while |ω pkq ´ ω pk´1q | ą ǫ do
Ź termination condition
5:
Nk Ð N
|
using
(16)
`
˘
řω ω“ωpkq
6:
Nk1 Ð pi1´ω pnqpω
j pnq log pj pnq{pi pnq
ˆ
˙
`
˘ 2
ř 1´ω
2
ω
7:
Nk Ð pi pnqpj pnq log pj pnq{pi pnq
´
¯2
2
8:
ω pk`1q Ð ω pkq ` Nk1 zk { Nk2 Nk ´ pNk1 q
9:
k Ðk`1
10: end while
11: Return ωc˚ Ð ω pkq
12: Return pωc˚ using (15)

Poisson and IID cluster finite set distributions, the localisation
densities are parameterised by a single density over a single
state variable –as given in (27)– which is the same for different
cardinalities. In addition, the solution to the inner minimisation
in P3 (equivalently P in (2)) is also a Poisson and IID cluster,
respectively, in the Poisson and IID cluster cases [14]. Thus,
Dpρn ||ρn,i q “ nDpρ||ρi q where ρ parameterises ρn , and, the
family of problems in P3 satisfy
Jω,n rρn s “ nJω,1 rρs.

(49)

Consequently, the optimal solution to P3 for cardinality n
is parameterised by the optimal solution to n “ 1 thereby
restricting it to the case for only n “ 1.
Bernoulli finite sets have nonzero cardinality pmf only for
n ď 1 naturally restricting P3 to n “ 1. If the parameterising
densities ρi and ρj are Gaussians, then P3 specifies a covariance intersection procedure [4]. For the case, P4 has a closed
form solution given by [43]
˙
ˆ
˙
ˆ
logp1´αi q{p1´αj q
αi
´
log
log
log αj {αi
1´αi
ωc˚ “
α
1´αi
` log αji
log 1´α
j
1´ω ˚ ω ˚
αi c αj c

˚

α “

˚

˚

˚

˚

c
c
1´ωc p1 ´ α qωc
α1´ω
αω
j
i
j ` p1 ´ αi q

For Poisson cardinality pmfs, similarly a closed form solution exists for P4 which is given by [43]
ωc˚ “

´ log log λj {λi ` logpλj {λi ´ 1q
log λj {λi
1´ωc˚

λ˚ “ λi

ωc˚

λj

V. C ONCLUSION
This work considered the recently growing literature on
the use of EMDs –or, weighted geometric means- of finite
set densities in multi-sensor fusion for multi-object tracking.
EMDs of distributions are pointwise consistent, however, we
have proved in this article that they are prone to inconsistency

in their cardinality distributions which can lead to serious
decision errors related to the number of objects sensed. We
have demonstrated that pointwise consistency does not imply
consistency in cardinality and vice versa. We remedy this
problem by redefining the variational optimisation problem
that underlies EMD fusion. Then, we specify iterative solutions
and establish a conceptual framework for cardinality consistent
fusion of finite set densities which also accommodates EMDs.
Following these results, possible future directions include
investigation of numerical computational schemes in order
to use within this variational framework. The extension of
this variational perspective to accommodate N sources is also
anticipated to be a worthwhile direction to pursue.
A PPENDIX
A. Solution of the Problem P in (2)
In this appendix, we provide a direct proof for the assertion
that the solution of Problem P in (2) for any ω is the EMD
given in (3),(4) when f is constrained to be a density, i.e.,
to integrate to unity. This constraint on the feasible set of
solutions together with the cost functional of the problem are
captured in the Lagrangian given by [44]
Lrf, λs fi Jω rf s ` λGrf s,
ˆ
˙
ż
Grf s fi 1 ´ f pXqdX .

(50)

δ pJω ` λGq rf ; δX s

(51)

Here, λ is a free variable referred to as a Lagrange multiplier
which –at its stationary point– imposes the constraint of
integration to unity on those f which are also stationary. This
point together with the convexity of Jω in f results with the
stationary point of (50) f ˚ being the solution to P in (2) [44].
The necessary (and sufficient) condition of stationarity that
f ˚ should satisfy is given by i) the functional derivative of
the Lagrangian, i.e.,
“0
f “f ˚

for all X, and, ii) the partial differential with respect to the
multiplier λ, i.e.,
B pJω rf s ` λGrf sq
Bλ

“ 0.

(52)

λ“λ˚

The functional derivative in (51) can be expressed in terms
of the partial derivative with respect to f pXq, i.e.,
δ pJω ` λGq rf ; δX s “

B pJω rf s ` λGrf sq
Bf pXq

for all X. By using the definition of KLD in (1), and rules of
differentiation, this expression leads to
B pJω rf s ` λGrf sq
f pXq
“ log f pXq `
Bf pXq
f pXq
´ p1 ´ ωq log fi pXq ´ ω log fj pXq ´ λ.
The equation above is zero when the multiplier λ takes the
value
f pXq
,
(53)
λ “ 1 ` log p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXq
fi

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

10

for which the corresponding f pXq is found as
f pXq “ exppλ ´

p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXq.
1qfi

(54)

We substitute from the equality above into the partial
differentiation in (52) and obtain
B pJω rf s ` λGrf sq
Bλˆ
˙
ż
B
p1´ωq
ω
pXqfj pXqdX
pλ ´ 1q exppλ ´ 1q fi
“
Bλ
˙
ˆ
ż
B
p1´ωq
ω
`
pXqfj pXqdX
λ ´ λ exppλ ´ 1q fi
Bλ
˙
ˆ
ż
B
p1´ωq
“
pXqfjω pXqdX
λ ´ exppλ ´ 1q fi
Bλ
ż
p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXqdX.
(55)
“ 1 ´ exppλ ´ 1q fi
After (55) is set to zero, λ˚ is found as
ż
p1´ωq
˚
pXqfjω pXqdX ` 1
λ “ ´ log fi

(56)

where zω pnq is given by (14). Newton iterations [41] use
recursive increments to the scalar argument of maximisation.
These increments are found by evaluating the ratio of (59)
and (60) which is found as
zω1 pnqzω pnq
G1n pωn q
“
,
(61)
2
2
Gn pωn q
zω2 pnqzω pnq ´ pzω1 pnqq ω“ωn
dzω pnq
(62)
zω1 pnq fi
dω
dz 1 pnq
zω2 pnq fi ω
(63)
dω
in terms of zω pnq and its first and second order derivatives.
Next, let us find the derivatives of zω pnq. The first order
derivative follows after substituting (14) in (62) as
ˆ
˙ω
ż
d ρj,n pxq
dzω pnq
“ ρi,n pxq
dx
dω
dω ρi,n pxq
ż
ρj,n pxq
1´ω
dx
“ ρi,n
pxqρω
j,n pxq log
ρi,n pxq

which is equivalent to (47). The second order derivative seeked
into (63) as
and, the solution f ˚ is found by subsituting from (56) into is found by substituting from the above equality
ˆ
˙ω
ż
(54) as
dzω1 pnq
ρj,n pxq d ρj,n pxq
“
ρ
pxq
log
dx
i,n
˙
ˆ
ż
dω
ρi,n pxq dω ρi,n pxq
p1´ωq
p1´ωq
ω
ω
˚
˙2
ˆ
ż
pXqfj pXq.
pXqfj pXqdX fi
f pXq “ exp ´log fi
ρj,n pxq
1´ω
ω
dx
“ ρi,n pxqρj,n pxq log
ρi,n pxq
Following a rearrangement of the terms, the expression above
takes the form given by
which is equivalently given in (48).
f ˚ pXq “ ş

1
p1´ωq
pXqfjω pXq,
fi
p1´ωq
ω
pXqfj pXqdX
fi

(57)
R EFERENCES

which can be identified as the EMD in (3),(4).
B. Proof of Proposition 3.1
The proof follows from decomposing pω pnq in (15) and (16)
as follows
pω pnq “
p1´ωq

pnqpω
j pnqzω pnq
,
ř
p1´ωq 1 ω
p1´ωq
ω
pn qpj pn1 qzω pn1 q
pnqpj pnqzω pnq ` n1 ‰n pi
pi
(58)
pi

and substituting on the left hand side of the inequality in (17).
The inequality can easily be solved for zω pnq leading to (18).
C. Derivation of Algorithm 2
We start by finding the first and second order derivatives of
Gn in (45):
dGn pωq
dω
ω“ωn
dzω pnq{dω
,
“´
zω pnq
ω“ωn

G1n pωn q fi

G2n pωn q fi

d2 Gn pωq
dω 2
2

“´

ω“ωn
2

(59)

2

d zω pnq{dω ˆ zω pnq ´ pdzω pnq{dωq
pzω pnqq2

(60)
.
ω“ωn

[1] D. Hall, C.-Y. Chong, J. Llinas, and M. L. II, Eds., Distributed Data
Fusion for Network-Centric Operations. CRC Press, 2013.
[2] S. Julier, T.Bailey, and J. Uhlmann, “Using exponential mixture models
for suboptimal distributed data fusion,” in Proc. of the 2006 IEEE
Nonlinear Stat. Signal Proc. Workshop (NSSPW’06).
NSSPW’06,
September 2006, pp. 160–163.
[3] S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “A Non-divergent Estimation Algorithm
in the Presence of Unknown Correlations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
American Control Conference, vol. 4, Albuquerque NM, USA, June
1997, pp. 2369–2373.
[4] M. Hurley, “An information-theoretic justification for covariance intersection and its generalization,” in Proceedings of the 2002 FUSION
Conference. FUSION 2002, July 2002.
[5] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Second,
Ed. John Wiley and Sons, 2006.
[6] T. Heskes, “Selecting weighting factors in logarithmic opinion pools,” in
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. The MIT Press,
1998, pp. 266–272.
[7] R. Mahler, “Optimal/robust distributed data fusion: a unified approach,”
in Proceedings of the SPIE Defense and Security Symposium 2000.
SPIE Defense and Security Symposium, 2000.
[8] R. P. S. Mahler, Statistical Multisource Multitarget Information Fusion.
Springer, 2007.
[9] R. Mahler, “Multi-target bayes filtering via first-order multi-target
moments,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sysmtes,
vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1152–1178, October 2003.
[10] B. Vo and W. K. Ma, “The gaussian mixture probability hypothesis
density filter,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 54, no. 11,
pp. 4091–4104, November 2006.
[11] B. Vo, S. Singh, and A. Doucet, “Sequential monte carlo methods
for multi-target filtering with random finite sets.” IEEE Transaction
Aerospace and Electronics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1224–1245, October 2005.
[12] M. Üney, S. Julier, D. Clark, and B. Ristić, “Monte carlo realisation of
a distributed multi–object fusion algorithm.” SSPD 2010, September
2010.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

[13] M. Üney, D. Clark, and S. Julier, “Information Measures in Distributed
Multitarget Tracking,” in Information Fusion (FUSION), 2011 Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on, july 2011, pp. 1 –8.
[14] M. Üney, D. E. Clark, and S. Julier, “Distributed Fusion of PHD
FIlters via Exponential Mixture Densities,” Selected Topics in Signal
Processing, IEEE Journal of, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 521 – 531, jun 2013.
[15] J. Barr, M. Uney, D. Clark, D. Miller, M. Porter, A. Gning, and S. Julier,
“A multi-sensor inference and data fusion method for tracking small,
manoeuvrable maritime craft in cluttered regions,” in Proceedings of
the 3rd IMA on Mathematics in Defence, 10 2013.
[16] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE,
vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, Jan 2007.
[17] G. Battistelli, L. Chisci, C. Fantacci, A. Farina, and A. Graziano, “Consensus cphd filter for distributed multitarget tracking,” IEEE Journal of
Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 508–520, June
2013.
[18] B. Wang, W. Yi, S. Li, L. Kong, and X. Yang, “Distributed fusion with
multi-bernoulli filter based on generalized covariance intersection,” in
2015 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarCon), May 2015, pp. 0958–0962.
[19] M. Jiang, W. Yi, R. Hoseinnezhad, and L. Kong, “Distributed multisensor fusion using generalized multi-bernoulli densities,” in 19th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), July 2016, pp.
1332–1339.
[20] W. Yi, M. Jiang, R. Hoseinnezhad, and B. Wang, “Distributed multisensor fusion using generalised multi-bernoulli densities,” IET Radar,
Sonar & Navigation, vol. 11, pp. 434–443(9), March 2017.
[21] M. B. Guldogan, “Consensus bernoulli filter for distributed detection
and tracking using multi-static doppler shifts,” IEEE Signal Processing
Letters, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 672–676, June 2014.
[22] G. Battistelli, L. Chisci, C. Fantacci, A. Farina, and B. N. Vo, “Average kullback-leibler divergence for random finite sets,” in 2015 18th
International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion), July 2015,
pp. 1359–1366.
[23] S. Li, W. Yi, R. Hoseinnezhad, G. Battistelli, B. Wang, and L. Kong,
“Robust distributed fusion with labeled random finite sets,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 278–293, Jan
2018.
[24] D. Daley and D. Vere-Jones, An introduction to the theory of point
processes. Springer, 1988.
[25] S. J. Julier, T. Bailey, and J. K. Uhlmann, “Using exponential mixture
models for suboptimal distributed data fusion,” in Proc. of the 2006 IEEE
Nonlinear Stat. Signal Proc. Workshop. Cambridge, UK: NSSPW’06,
September 2006, pp. 160–163.
[26] M. Gunay, U. Orguner, and M. Demirekler, “Chernoff fusion of gaussian
mixtures based on sigma-point approximation,” IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2732–2746,
December 2016.
[27] I. Csiszar and P. Shields, “Information theory and statistics: A
tutorial,” Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information
Theory, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 417–528, 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0100000004
[28] I. Csiszar and F. Matus, “Information projections revisited,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1474–1490,
June 2003.
[29] A. Rényi, “On Measures of Entropy and Information,” in Proceedings of
the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability,
vol. 1, 1960, pp. 547–561.
[30] H. Chernoff, “A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of
a hypothesis based on the sum of observations,” Ann. Math.
Statist., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 493–507, 12 1952. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729330
[31] S. J. Julier, “An empirical study into the use of chernoff information for
robust, distributed fusion of gaussian mixture models,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE ICIF, 2006.
[32] L. Chen, P. O. Arambel, and R. K. Mehra, “Fusion under unknown
correlation - covariance intersection as a special case,” in Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Information Fusion. FUSION
2002. (IEEE Cat.No.02EX5997), vol. 2, July 2002, pp. 905–912 vol.2.
[33] M. Reinhardt, B. Noack, P. O. Arambel, and U. D. Hanebeck, “Minimum
covariance bounds for the fusion under unknown correlations,” IEEE
Signal Processing Letters, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1210–1214, Sept 2015.
[34] F. Nielsen, “An information-geometric characterization of chernoff information,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 269–272,
March 2013.
[35] K. Chang, C. Y. Chong, and S. Mori, “Analytical and computational
evaluation of scalable distributed fusion algorithms,” IEEE Transactions

11

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]

on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 2022–2034,
Oct 2010.
B. T. Vo and B. N. Vo, “Labeled random finite sets and multi-object
conjugate priors,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61,
no. 13, pp. 3460–3475, July 2013.
J. L. Williams, “Marginal multi-bernoulli filters: Rfs derivation of mht,
jipda, and association-based member,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1664–1687, July 2015.
F. Baccelli and J. O. Woo, “On the entropy and mutual information of
point processes,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT), July 2016, pp. 695–699.
G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya, Inequalities. Cambridge
University Press, 1934.
R. Mahler, “PHD Filters of Higher Order in Target Number,” IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sysmtes, vol. 43, no. 4, pp.
1523–1543, October 2007.
H. D. S. M. S. Bazaraa and C. Shetty, Nonlinear Programming, 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
S. Bubeck, “Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity,”
Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 231–
357, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000050
F. Nielsen, “Chernoff information of exponential families,” CoRR, vol.
abs/1102.2684, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2684
M. S. Bazaraa, H. D. Sherali, and C. M. Shetty, Nonlinear programming:
Theory and algorithms, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

