| Literature DB >> 35214243 |
Tipo Cui1, Xiaohui Sun1, Chenglin Wen2.
Abstract
In order to improve the performance of the Kalman filter for nonlinear systems, this paper contains the advantages of UKF statistical sampling and EnKF random sampling, respectively, and establishes a new design method of sampling a driven Kalman filter in order to overcome the shortcomings of UKF and EnKF. Firstly, a new sampling mechanism is proposed. Based on sigma sampling with UKF statistical constraints, random sampling similar to EnKF is carried out around each sampling point, so as to obtain a large sample data ensemble that can better describe the characteristics of the system variables to be evaluated. Secondly, by analyzing the spatial distribution characteristics of the obtained large sample ensemble, a sample weight selection and assignment mechanism with the centroid of the data ensemble as the optimization goal are established. Thirdly, a new Kalman filter driven by large data sample ensemble is established. Finally, the effectiveness of the new filter is verified by computer numerical simulation experiments.Entities:
Keywords: EnKF; UKF; data ensemble centroid; large sample ensemble; novel Kalman filter
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35214243 PMCID: PMC8963019 DOI: 10.3390/s22041343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The error between the estimated value and the true value of the state.
State approximation error contrasts.
| Sampling | Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | |||||
| Equal weighting | 0.4588 | 0.4359 | 4.99% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.3861 | 0.3823 | 0.98% | ||
| Improvement | - | 15.85% | 16.43% |
| |
| Equal weighting | 0.3292 | 0.2596 | 21.14% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.2570 | 0.2561 | 0.35% | ||
| Improvement | - | 21.93% | 1.35% |
| |
| Equal weighting | 0.3445 | 0.2923 | 15.15% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.2824 | 0.2807 | 0.6% | ||
| Improvement | - | 18.02% | 3.97% |
| |
Mean square error contrasts.
| Sampling | Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | |||||
| Equal weighting | 0.2816 | 0.2608 | 7.4% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.2508 | 0.2142 | 14.59% | ||
| Improvement | - | 10.94% | 17.87% |
| |
| Equal weighting | 0.1881 | 0.0866 | 53.97% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.1217 | 0.0664 | 45.44% | ||
| Improvement | - | 35.30% | 23.32% |
| |
| Equal weighting | 0.2376 | 0.1854 | 21.97% | ||
| Confidence weights | 0.1309 | 0.1266 | 3.28% | ||
| Improvement | - | 44.9% | 31.71% |
| |
Figure 2The error between the estimated value and the true value of the state.
Approximating error contrasts of x1.
| Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α |
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.1064 | 0.1056 | 0.75% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.1055 | 0.1050 | 0.47% | |
| Improvement | - | 0.85% | 0.57% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0893 | 0.0861 | 3.58% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0858 | 0.0810 | 5.59% | |
| Improvement | - | 3.91% | 5.92% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.1054 | 0.1039 | 1.42% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.1039 | 0.1029 | 0.96% | |
| Improvement | - | 1.42% | 0.96% |
| |
Mean square error contrasts of x1.
| Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α |
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0108 | 0.0101 | 5.85% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0101 | 0.0059 | 41.96% | |
| Improvement | - | 6% | 29.67% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0074 | 0.0070 | 5.57% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0069 | 0.0028 | 59.06% | |
| Improvement | - | 7.57% | 59.93% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0129 | 0.0125 | 3.08% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0115 | 0.0050 | 56.52% | |
| Improvement | - | 10.85% | 60.3% |
| |
Approximating error contrasts of x2.
| Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α |
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.1850 | 0.1832 | 0.97% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.1616 | 0.1612 | 0.25% | |
| Improvement | - | 12.65% | 12% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.1649 | 0.1629 | 1.21% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.1634 | 0.1346 | 17.63% | |
| Improvement | - | 0.91% | 17.37% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.1983 | 0.1953 | 1.5% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.1963 | 0.1535 | 21.8% | |
| Improvement | - | 1% | 21.4% |
| |
Mean square error contrasts of x2.
| Parameter | Original Sampling | Expansion Sampling | Improve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| α |
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0095 | 0.0088 | 7.13% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0086 | 0.0062 | 35.41% | |
| Improvement | - | 9.68% | 7.13% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0122 | 0.0123 | −0.15% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0074 | 0.0073 | 1.94% | |
| Improvement | - | 39.25% | 40.51% |
| |
| Equal weighting | α = 0.5 | 0.0131 | 0.0093 | 29.09% | |
| Confidence weights | α = 0.5 | 0.0076 | 0.0067 | 11.18% | |
| Improvement | - | 42.21% | 27.61% |
| |