Robust and Constrained Estimation of State-Space Models: A Majorization-Minimization Approach

Daniel P. Palomar; Shengjie Xiu; Yifan Yu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Robust and Constrained Estimation of State-Space Models: A Majorization-Minimization Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quadratic surrogates turn Student-t state estimation with hard constraints into a fast, unified Kalman-style filter.

desk verdict Useful MM-based robust constrained filter, but Eq. (23) for the adaptive noise variance is underived and inconsistent with the paper's own surrogate, so the recursion needs a fix before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11320 v1 pith:2GTZDJCY submitted 2024-11-18 eess.SP

Yifan Yu , Shengjie Xiu , Daniel P. Palomar This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords majorization-minimizationStudent-tdistributionstate-spacemodelsrobustKalmanfilteringconstrainedstateestimationheavy-tailedmeasurementnoiseQCQPadaptivecovariance

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to fix two weaknesses of the standard Kalman filter: it degrades badly when measurement noise has heavy tails or outliers, and it has no natural way to enforce constraints on the hidden state. The proposed answer is to write constrained state estimation as a maximum-a-posteriori optimization problem and solve it with majorization-minimization, replacing the nonconvex Student-t log-likelihood and, when needed, nonconvex constraints by quadratic surrogates. Each update then becomes a convex quadratically constrained quadratic program inside a Kalman-like recursion. If the construction holds, practitioners get a single filter that is robust to outliers, respects physical or financial constraints, and remains cheap enough for online use.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the quadratic surrogate pair $(\tilde F, \tilde g)$ built at each iteration of the majorization-minimization scheme, an iterative method that replaces a difficult objective by easier upper-bound surrogates. For the nonconvex Student-t term, either the first-order Taylor expansion of the concave log (surrogate $\tilde F_{\mathrm{log}}$) or the Descent-Lemma $L$-smooth bound (surrogate $\tilde F_{\mathrm{smooth}}$) converts the log-sum into a quadratic; for a nonconvex constraint, the Lipschitz-gradient quadratic $g(x_t)+\nabla g(x_t)^\top(x-x_t)+\frac{G}{2}\|x-x_t\|^2$ majorizes $g$. The resulting subproblem is a strongly convex QCQP, so standard convex solvers can be called at every inner iteration. The recursive filter then reuses these solutions through an adaptive measurement-noise covariance $R_k=\operatorname{diag}(r_{k,1},\dots,r_{k,n_y})$ that maps the Student-t fit back into a Gaussian prior for the next step.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a scalar state-space model with one strong outlier and compare the reported posterior covariance $P_{k|k}$ against the covariance obtained by numerical integration of the true Student-t posterior at the same MAP estimate; a systematic mismatch would show that the adaptive covariance formula is miscalibrated. A cheaper check is to compare the fixed point of the MM iteration with the direct solution of Problem P by a global optimizer on a short horizon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the constrained Student-t MAP problem (P) can be solved by an MM recursion in which each step is a strongly convex QCQP. It offers two quadratic majorizers for the nonconvex log-Student-t objective—a tangent-line log bound and an L-smooth Descent-Lemma bound—and a Lipschitz-gradient quadratic majorizer for any smooth constraint g(x)≤0. The solution of each QCQP is fed back through a Kalman-style update with an adaptive measurement-noise covariance, which supplies the posterior mean and covariance for the next time step. This design is intended to replace the separate tools currently used for robust filtering and for equality, inequality, and nonconvex constraints with one algorithm.

Load-bearing premise

The recursive part of the filter depends on a stated but unproved equation that turns each Student-t measurement residual into an equivalent Gaussian noise variance; if that equation is off, the filter can be miscalibrated even when every single-step optimization is correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

One filter now covers heavy-tailed noise and constraints of varied structure, from linear portfolio constraints to nonconvex circular-road and quaternion constraints.
The filter remains a sequence of convex optimization problems, so per-step cost stays small enough for online use, unlike particle filters whose cost grows with sample count.
Treating the Student-t update as a Kalman update with adaptive measurement noise keeps prediction and covariance propagation closed-form, enabling straightforward extension to smoothing.
On the circular-road test, the constraint-aware solve improves both position and velocity, while projection-based constrained filtering only fixes position.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step is to derive the adaptive covariance formula from the MM surrogate itself; doing so would either confirm the recursive covariance or reveal a typo, and the same derivation would transfer to other heavy-tailed models.
The surrogate pair should extend to nonlinear measurement functions by linearizing the residual inside the log term, which would move the method beyond linear state-space models without changing the QCQP structure.
Because the constraint surrogate only requires a Lipschitz gradient, constraints like the spacecraft quaternion bound $x^\top D x \le 0$ with indefinite $D$, listed but untested in the paper, are a plausible direct application.
The adaptive-covariance view suggests a smoothing version could be obtained by solving the joint smoothing objective with the same quadratic surrogates, giving robust constrained smoothing at comparable cost.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read of arXiv:2411.11320.

The genuinely new thing here is the packaging: MM surrogates applied to a Student-t measurement likelihood plus general (non-convex) constraints in one state-space estimation framework. The two surrogates for the log term, (13) and (20), are valid upper bounds, and the Descent Lemma argument for L-smoothness checks out. That is real work and it gives a useful route to a strongly convex QCQP subproblem. The paper is correct that prior MM work on Laplace noise or unconstrained Student-t MAP doesn't cover this combination. If the details were solid, this would be a practical alternative to particle filters and projection methods.

The details are not all solid. The load-bearing problem is Eq. (23), the adaptive measurement-noise variance. From the surrogate in (13)-(14), the implied variance is (ν_iσ_i^2 + residual_i^2)/(1+ν_i). Eq. (23) is a different function: it has an extra log in the denominator, it's undefined when the residual is zero, and it behaves differently for large residuals. The paper says "we show" but gives no derivation. This matters because R_k enters the Kalman gain and covariance update, and P_{k|k} becomes the prior for the next step. If Eq. (23) is wrong, the whole recursion is miscalibrated even if each per-step MAP solve is correct. The stress-test note has this right.

There are also two mechanical typos in Algorithm 1: line 13 should use an inverse, not a transpose, and line 4 appears to use A^T P A where the standard prediction would be A P A^T plus Q. Easy to fix, but they don't help confidence.

Weaker but still legitimate concerns: no convergence proof for the MM scheme with non-convex constraints, no code, and the experiments have no error bars, one contamination pattern, and compare against only one constrained baseline. The RMSE figures are consistent with the claims, but they are not exhaustive.

On balance, the central surrogate construction is sound enough that the paper deserves a serious referee. I would not cite it in its current form, because the covariance recursion is unjustified, but a revision that derives or corrects Eq. (23) and fixes Algorithm 1 would make it a useful contribution for people working on robust constrained filtering.

I'd send it to peer review with a request for that revision, not desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Majorization-Minimization (MM) framework for recursive state estimation in linear state-space models with Student-t measurement noise and general (possibly nonconvex) state constraints. The nonconvex MAP objective is majorized by convex quadratic surrogates, and nonconvex constraints are replaced by a quadratic upper bound, turning each time step into a strongly convex QCQP. The resulting filter is presented as Algorithm 1, with an adaptive measurement-noise covariance used in the Kalman update. Experiments compare the method against a Kalman filter, a variational Bayes Student-t filter, a Laplace MM filter, a particle filter, and a projection-based constrained estimator, reporting improved RMSE and large computational gains.

Significance. If the technical gaps are fixed, the paper would be a useful contribution to robust constrained state estimation. The construction of the quadratic surrogates for the Student-t log-likelihood via Eq. (11) is valid, the L-smooth surrogate based on the Descent Lemma is a reasonable alternative, and the QCQP subproblem formulation is a clean way to accommodate nonconvex constraints. The experiments also give the method credibility, in particular the large speed advantage over the particle filter and the improved accuracy over the variational Bayes baseline. However, the paper's central covariance recursion depends on an unproved and surrogate-inconsistent formula for the adaptive measurement noise covariance, and the printed Kalman recursions contain typos. These issues must be resolved before the claims of an accurate and efficient robust constrained Kalman filter can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[III-C, Eq. (23)] Equation (23) is load-bearing but neither derived nor consistent with the MM surrogate used for the point estimate. The text says 'we show' but no derivation is given. From Eq. (13)-(14), the quadratic surrogate has coefficient m_i^t = (1+nu_i)/(nu_i sigma_i^2 + (C_i x_t - y_{k,i})^2), and the text itself identifies 1/m_i^t as the Gaussian noise variance; this yields r_{k,i} = (nu_i sigma_i^2 + (C_i \hat{x}_{k|k} - y_{k,i})^2)/(1+nu_i). Equation (23) instead defines r_{k,i} = residual^2 / ((1+nu_i) log(1 + residual^2/(sigma_i^2 nu_i))), which behaves differently for large residuals and is undefined at zero residual. Because R_k enters the Kalman gain and covariance update in Algorithm 1 (lines 13-14), and P_{k|k} becomes the prior covariance for every later step through line 4, an erroneous R_k biases all subsequent estimates even if every per-step MAP solve is exact. Please derive Eq. (23) from the MM surrogate, or replace it with the surrogate-consistent variance, and rerun the experiments.
[Algorithm 1, lines 4 and 13] The printed Kalman recursions are inconsistent with the state-space model in Eq. (1). Line 4 should be P_{k|k-1} = A P_{k-1|k-1} A^T + Q, not A^T P_{k-1|k-1} A + Q. Line 13 should use the inverse of the innovation covariance, K_k = P_{k|k-1} C^T (C P_{k|k-1} C^T + R_k)^{-1}, not the transpose as written. As printed, the covariance propagation does not implement the model (1) and the gain is not the Kalman gain, so the algorithm as stated cannot reproduce the reported results without further interpretation.
[III-A, III-B] No convergence or stationarity result is stated for the MM recursion when the constraint g is nonconvex. Equation (21) constructs an inner approximation of the feasible set because \tilde{g} >= g, so the iterates remain feasible but may converge to a point that is not stationary for Problem P. The manuscript only says 'we aim to solve' (Section III-A) and gives no conditions on the Lipschitz constant G, the initialization, or the stopping criterion under which convergence is guaranteed. Please provide a convergence analysis for the constrained algorithm, or explicitly state that the method is heuristic and support the claim with additional convergence diagnostics in the experiments.

minor comments (5)

[III-B, surrogate conditions] Condition 1) for the objective surrogate should read \tilde{F}(x_t; x_t) = F(x_t); the printed text has 'F(y)', which appears to be a typo.
[Eq. (20)] The summation in Eq. (20) runs from i=1 to n_x, but the summand is over measurement components and should run to n_y, consistent with Eq. (13).
[Eq. (19)] The denominator in Eq. (19) repeats (\nu_i \sigma_i^2 + w_1^2) twice; the second factor should involve w_2^2.
[Section II-A, after Eq. (1)] The dimension statement says C \in R^{n_x \times n_y}; for the model y_k = C x_k + v_k, C should be n_y \times n_x.
[Section IV, Figures 1-4 and Table I] The reported RMSE and CPU-time results are given as point estimates without error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests; since the experiments are repeated over multiple runs, please report the variability to support the accuracy and efficiency claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MM surrogate and QCQP solution are derived in-paper and benchmarked externally; Eq. (23) is an unexplained heuristic that creates a correctness risk but does not reduce the central claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The Student-t MAP objective in Eq. (6) is surrogated by explicit quadratic upper bounds: the log term is convexified by first-order Taylor expansion in Eqs. (11)-(14), yielding the coefficient m_i^t, and the constraint g is surrogated via the Lipschitz-gradient quadratic in Eq. (21). These constructions do not import fitted parameters or reuse the target estimates. Algorithm 1 computes the point estimate by solving convex QCQP subproblems; the adaptive measurement covariance R_k enters only the posterior covariance update (lines 12-14), so the point estimate is not a renamed fit. The self-citation to [20] (Sun, Babu, and Palomar) supplies standard MM surrogate conditions, not a contested or load-bearing uniqueness result, and the actual surrogate is derived rather than merely cited. The genuinely weak spot is Eq. (23): it is introduced with "we show" but no derivation is given, and it is inconsistent with the variance interpretation 1/m_i^t that follows from Eq. (13)-(14); this is a miscalibration risk for the recursive covariance, not a circular step, because R_k is an auxiliary heuristic rather than an input fitted to the benchmark data. All method comparisons are against external baselines (KF, TFVB, LFMM, PF and a projection-based constrained filter), so no evaluated "prediction" reduces to the paper's own fitted values. Typographical defects such as the inverse/transpose issue in line 13 and the A^T P A vs. A P A^T ordering in line 4 are implementation errors, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm rests on standard MM inequalities, a Gaussian prior approximation, a user-supplied constraint Lipschitz constant G, and the unexplained equivalent-variance formula Eq. (23).

free parameters (1)

G (Lipschitz constant of constraint gradient)
Used in Eq. (21) to build the quadratic constraint surrogate; the paper does not specify how to compute or set it, and a value too small breaks the upper-bound property.

assumptions (4)

standard math The log function is concave, so its first-order Taylor expansion is a global upper bound (Eq. 11).
Used to construct the TFMM-log surrogate (13).
standard math Descent Lemma: a function with Lipschitz continuous gradient is upper bounded by a linear term plus a quadratic term (Eq. 15, Eq. 21).
Used to construct TFMM-smooth and the constraint surrogate.
domain assumption The predictive prior P(x_k|y_{1:k-1}) is exactly Gaussian at every step (Section III-C).
The algorithm propagates a Gaussian prior and uses the Kalman update; in reality the posterior under Student-t likelihood and constraints is non-Gaussian, so this is an approximation with no error bound.
ad hoc to paper Eq. (23) gives the correct equivalent Gaussian measurement noise variance for the update.
No derivation is provided and its form differs from the MM surrogate coefficient, so it is an ad hoc assumption that carries the covariance recursion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust and Constrained Estimation of State-Space Models: A Majorization-Minimization Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GTZDJCY

@misc{pith2026241111320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust and Constrained Estimation of State-Space Models: A Majorization-Minimization Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GTZDJCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11320}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a novel optimization algorithm designed specifically for estimating state-space models to deal with heavy-tailed measurement noise and constraints. Our algorithm addresses two significant limitations found in existing approaches: susceptibility to measurement noise outliers and difficulties in incorporating constraints into state estimation. By formulating constrained state estimation as an optimization problem and employing the Majorization-Minimization (MM) approach, our framework provides a unified solution that enhances the robustness of the Kalman filter. Experimental results demonstrate high accuracy and computational efficiency achieved by our proposed approach, establishing it as a promising solution for robust and constrained state estimation in real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11320 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Path estimation for a specific road segment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Velocity estimation for a specific road segment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

A simple test for GARCH against a stochastic volatility model,

P. H. Franses, M. Van Der Leij, and R. Paap, “A simple test for GARCH against a stochastic volatility model,” Journal of Financial Econometrics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 291–306, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

A variational Bayesian approach to robust sensor fusion based on Student-t distribution,

H. Zhu, H. Leung, and Z. He, “A variational Bayesian approach to robust sensor fusion based on Student-t distribution,” Information Sciences, vol. 221, pp. 201–214, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

State estimation for linear and non-linear equality- constrained systems,

B. O. Teixeira, J. Chandrasekar, L. A. T ˆorres, L. A. Aguirre, and D. S. Bernstein, “State estimation for linear and non-linear equality- constrained systems,” International Journal of Control , vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 918–936, 2009

work page 2009
[4]

Multiple target tracking with constrained motion using particle filtering methods,

I. Kyriakides, D. Morrell, and A. Papandreou-Suppappola, “Multiple target tracking with constrained motion using particle filtering methods,” in 1st IEEE International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing , 2005, pp. 85–88

work page 2005
[5]

A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking,

M. S. Arulampalam, S. Maskell, N. Gordon, and T. Clapp, “A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking,” IEEE Transactions on signal processing , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 174–188, 2002

work page 2002
[6]

A t-distribution based particle filter for target tracking,

S. Li, H. Wang, and T. Chai, “A t-distribution based particle filter for target tracking,” in 2006 American Control Conference, 2006, pp. 2191– 2196

2006
[7]

A robust particle filtering algorithm with non-Gaussian measurement noise using Student-t distribution,

D. Xu, C. Shen, and F. Shen, “A robust particle filtering algorithm with non-Gaussian measurement noise using Student-t distribution,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 30–34, 2013

2013
[8]

C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York, USA: Springer, 2006

work page 2006

Show all 26 references

[9]

Laplace ℓ1 robust Kalman filter based on majorization minimization,

H. Wang, H. Li, W. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Laplace ℓ1 robust Kalman filter based on majorization minimization,” in 2017 20th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion) , 2017, pp. 1–5

2017
[10]

Model-based multi-sensor data fusion,

W. Wen and H. F. Durrant-Whyte, “Model-based multi-sensor data fusion,” in Proceedings 1992 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1992, pp. 1720–1726

1992
[11]

Optimal combination and constraints for geometrical sensor data,

J. Porrill, “Optimal combination and constraints for geometrical sensor data,” The International journal of robotics research , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 66–77, 1988

1988
[12]

Kalman filtering with state equality con- straints,

D. Simon and T. L. Chia, “Kalman filtering with state equality con- straints,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 128–136, 2002

2002
[13]

Constrained state estimation–a review,

N. Amor, G. Rasool, and N. C. Bouaynaya, “Constrained state estimation–a review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03463 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[14]

Truncation nonlinear filters for state estimation with nonlinear inequality constraints,

O. Straka, J. Dun ´ık, and M. ˇSimandl, “Truncation nonlinear filters for state estimation with nonlinear inequality constraints,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 273–286, 2012

2012
[15]

Optimization methods for financial index tracking: From theory to practice,

K. Benidis, Y . Feng, D. P. Palomar et al. , “Optimization methods for financial index tracking: From theory to practice,” Foundations and Trends® in Optimization, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 171–279, 2018

2018
[16]

New look at the Student’s t-based Kalman filter from maximum a posterior perspective,

F. Qin, L. Chang, and F. Zha, “New look at the Student’s t-based Kalman filter from maximum a posterior perspective,” IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 795–800, 2018

2018
[17]

State space models for dynamic style analysis of portfolios,

A. Pizzinga and C. Fernandes, “State space models for dynamic style analysis of portfolios,” Brazilian Review of Econometrics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 31–66, 2006

2006
[18]

Portfolio selection,

H. M. Markowitz, “Portfolio selection,” Journal of Finance, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 77–91, 1952

1952
[19]

RHC-based attitude control of spacecraft under geometric constraints,

C. Hutao, C. Xiaojun, X. Rui, and C. Pingyuan, “RHC-based attitude control of spacecraft under geometric constraints,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 296–305, 2011

2011
[20]

Majorization-minimization algo- rithms in signal processing, communications, and machine learning,

Y . Sun, P. Babu, and D. P. Palomar, “Majorization-minimization algo- rithms in signal processing, communications, and machine learning,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 794–816, 2016

2016
[21]

Nonlinear programming,

D. P. Bertsekas, “Nonlinear programming,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 334–334, 1997

1997
[22]

A general inner approximation algorithm for nonconvex mathematical programs,

B. R. Marks and G. P. Wright, “A general inner approximation algorithm for nonconvex mathematical programs,” Operations research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 681–683, 1978

1978
[23]

Approximate inference in state-space models with heavy-tailed noise,

G. Agamennoni, J. I. Nieto, and E. M. Nebot, “Approximate inference in state-space models with heavy-tailed noise,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 5024–5037, 2012

2012
[24]

A novel robust Student’s t-based Kalman filter,

Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, N. Li, Z. Wu, and J. A. Chambers, “A novel robust Student’s t-based Kalman filter,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1545–1554, 2017

2017
[25]

Skew- t filter and smoother with improved covariance matrix approximation,

H. Nurminen, T. Ardeshiri, R. Pich ´e, and F. Gustafsson, “Skew- t filter and smoother with improved covariance matrix approximation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 21, pp. 5618–5633, 2018

2018
[26]

Kalman filtering with nonlinear state con- straints,

C. Yang and E. Blasch, “Kalman filtering with nonlinear state con- straints,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 70–84, 2009

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A simple test for GARCH against a stochastic volatility model,

P. H. Franses, M. Van Der Leij, and R. Paap, “A simple test for GARCH against a stochastic volatility model,” Journal of Financial Econometrics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 291–306, 2008

work page 2008

[2] [2]

A variational Bayesian approach to robust sensor fusion based on Student-t distribution,

H. Zhu, H. Leung, and Z. He, “A variational Bayesian approach to robust sensor fusion based on Student-t distribution,” Information Sciences, vol. 221, pp. 201–214, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

State estimation for linear and non-linear equality- constrained systems,

B. O. Teixeira, J. Chandrasekar, L. A. T ˆorres, L. A. Aguirre, and D. S. Bernstein, “State estimation for linear and non-linear equality- constrained systems,” International Journal of Control , vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 918–936, 2009

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Multiple target tracking with constrained motion using particle filtering methods,

I. Kyriakides, D. Morrell, and A. Papandreou-Suppappola, “Multiple target tracking with constrained motion using particle filtering methods,” in 1st IEEE International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing , 2005, pp. 85–88

work page 2005

[5] [5]

A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking,

M. S. Arulampalam, S. Maskell, N. Gordon, and T. Clapp, “A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking,” IEEE Transactions on signal processing , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 174–188, 2002

work page 2002

[6] [6]

A t-distribution based particle filter for target tracking,

S. Li, H. Wang, and T. Chai, “A t-distribution based particle filter for target tracking,” in 2006 American Control Conference, 2006, pp. 2191– 2196

2006

[7] [7]

A robust particle filtering algorithm with non-Gaussian measurement noise using Student-t distribution,

D. Xu, C. Shen, and F. Shen, “A robust particle filtering algorithm with non-Gaussian measurement noise using Student-t distribution,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 30–34, 2013

2013

[8] [8]

C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York, USA: Springer, 2006

work page 2006