Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Enhancing Computational Efficiency in State-Space Models Using Rao-Blackwellization and 2-Step Approximation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A self-organizing state-space model that appends unknown parameters to the state can estimate both in a single filtering pass; with Rao-Blackwellization and a two-step approximation, it needs a hundredth of the particles and one tenth to…

desk verdict Honest empirical paper with a plausible new computational shortcut for seasonal adjustment; the 2-step approximation is not justified by the paper's own derivation, so the headline speedup claim is only partially established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16056 v1 pith:WDZZZXSL submitted 2024-11-25 stat.CO

Genshiro Kitagawa (Tokyo University of Marine Science , Technology , The Institute of Statistical Mathmatics) This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.CO MSC 62M1062F1565C05
keywords state-spacemodelsRao-Blackwellizationself-organizingmodelparticlefilterseasonaladjustmentKalmantwo-stepapproximationBayesiantimeseries
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 tackles a long-standing bottleneck in Bayesian time series analysis: when unknown parameters such as noise variances are appended to the state vector, the resulting self-organizing state-space model becomes nonlinear and must be processed by particle filters, which demand enormous particle counts for high-dimensional states like those in seasonal adjustment. The paper shows that exploiting the model's partial linearity—running a Kalman filter for the state given the parameters and a particle filter only for the low-dimensional parameter vector—achieves the same accuracy with about one hundredth of the particles. It then introduces a two-step approximation: estimate the parameter posterior first, take a small number of marginal percentile paths for the parameters, run Kalman smoothers on each path, and average the state estimates. Monte Carlo experiments on trend estimation and seasonal adjustment indicate that this preserves accuracy while cutting computation time by roughly one to two orders of magnitude, making self-organizing seasonal adjustment feasible with thousands rather than millions of particles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the partially linear state-space model, written as $x_n = F_n( heta_{n-1})x_n + G_n( heta_{n-1})v_n$, $\theta_n = J_n(\theta_{n-1}) + u_n$, $y_n = H_n(\theta_{n-1}) + w_n$, where the state update and observation are linear Gaussian in $x_n$ given the parameters $\theta_n$. Rao-Blackwellization—the technique of integrating out the conditionally linear-Gaussian state with a Kalman filter and sampling only the nonlinear parameter part—uses the factorization in equations (21)–(23) to show that the predictive, filtering, and smoothing densities of the augmented state $(x_n, \theta_n)$ can be written with $p(x_n|\theta_{n-1}, Y_{1:n-1})$ computed by the Kalman filter. The two-step method then uses the smoothed marginal distribution of $\theta_n$ to define $n_p$ percentile paths, runs a Kalman smoother for each path, and averages the resulting state estimates equally.

What would settle it

On a simulated series where a variance parameter drifts smoothly, compare the two-step approximation's state estimates with a full Rao-Blackwellized smoother using 100,000 particles; if squared errors exceed the levels reported in Table 5 or credible intervals lose nominal coverage, the independent-percentile approximation is failing to preserve parameter time dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a self-organizing state-space model—in which unknown parameters are appended to the state vector and estimated jointly with the state—can be made computationally practical through two refinements. Rao-Blackwellization recognizes that the original model is linear Gaussian conditional on the parameters, so the state can be integrated out with the Kalman filter while only the parameter vector is handled by a particle filter or non-Gaussian filter; this alone reduces the required particle count by about two orders of magnitude. The two-step approximation then replaces full smoothing of the parameter posterior with a small set of marginal percentile paths: after one Rao-Blackwellized particle filtering pass with fixed-lag smoothing on the parameters, the paper takes np percentile points of the smoothed parameter distribution at each time, runs a Kalman smoother for each such path, and averages the resulting state estimates with equal weights. On a seasonal adjustment model with a 13-dimensional state and three variance parameters, the paper reports near-identical estimation error with roughly 1/10 to 1/40 the computation time of a direct Rao-Blackwellized particle filter, and smoothing time that is essentially independent of the number of particles.

Load-bearing premise

The two-step approximation assumes that the smoothed posterior of the unknown parameters can be represented by a small set of independent marginal percentile paths, and that averaging Kalman smoothers run on those paths reproduces the joint state smoothing distribution; no proof is given that these independent paths preserve the temporal dependence of the parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Seasonal adjustment with unknown noise variances becomes routine on ordinary hardware, requiring thousands of particles rather than millions.
  • Smoothing time no longer scales with the number of particles, because the second step uses a fixed number of percentile paths.
  • The method extends to any linear-Gaussian state-space model with unknown parameters, including decompositions, missing-value interpolation, and long-term prediction.
  • The numerical-integration (non-Gaussian filter) version also benefits: even a coarse grid such as 25 nodes per parameter can match the accuracy of much finer grids.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would relax the independence assumption behind the percentile paths by drawing joint parameter trajectories from the smoothed posterior rather than independent marginals, testing whether the reported accuracy gains survive when temporal dependence in $\theta_n$ is preserved.
  • The two-step method is a form of pointwise conditioning: it averages state estimates from a small set of parameter paths instead of integrating over the full joint posterior, so a check of whether posterior credible intervals for the state retain nominal coverage would reveal the cost of the approximation.
  • The speed advantage should grow with the ratio of state dimension to parameter dimension; in models where the parameter vector is comparable in size to the state, the Kalman-filter-per-path cost will dominate and the 1/10 to 1/40 time reduction may not hold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses computational bottlenecks in Bayesian self-organizing state-space models, in which unknown parameters are appended to the state vector and estimated jointly with the states. The proposed strategy is to Rao-Blackwellize the augmented model: condition on the parameter path, run the Kalman filter and smoother for the linear part of the state, and use a particle filter or non-Gaussian filter only for the parameter part. For trend estimation this reduces the required number of particles by about two orders of magnitude. For a 16-dimensional seasonal adjustment model, the author observes that Rao-Blackwellization reduces the particle count but not necessarily the CPU time, and therefore introduces a '2-step approximation': first compute the marginal smoothed posterior of the parameters at each time with a Rao-Blackwellized particle filter using fixed-lag smoothing; then take np percentile points at each time, run a Kalman smoother for each of the resulting np parameter paths, and average the state estimates with equal weights. The paper reports, in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 12, that this approximation preserves estimation accuracy while reducing CPU time by roughly 1/10 to 1/40, with the smoothing time nearly independent of the number of particles. The manuscript also contains extensive Monte Carlo tables comparing non-Gaussian filters, particle filters, and their Rao-Blackwellized versions on trend and seasonal-adjustment examples.

Significance. If the 2-step approximation were valid, the paper would offer a practically important speedup for seasonal adjustment with unknown variance parameters: the method would make self-organizing state-space models with high-dimensional linear states feasible with moderate particle budgets, and the reported CPU gains are large enough to matter for routine use. The Rao-Blackwellization part is standard, and the trend-experiment evidence is comparatively strong because the deterministic non-Gaussian filter provides an independent benchmark. The paper is also honest in reporting that Rao-Blackwellization alone does not reduce CPU time for high-dimensional states, and it identifies the source of the bottleneck. However, the central new claim about the 2-step approximation is not yet supported: the only derivation offered is an invalid marginal-smoothing identity, the percentile-path construction is an ad hoc replacement of a joint distribution, and the seasonal-adjustment accuracy comparisons are evaluated against an internal particle-filter benchmark with hyperparameters selected on the same data. These issues are substantive rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (23); §4.4] The smoothing identity used to justify the 2-step method is not valid for the time-varying parameter model. In the displayed derivation, p(x_n,x_{n+1}|θ_n,θ_{n+1},Y_N) is replaced by p(x_n,x_{n+1}|θ_n,Y_{n+1:N}), dropping θ_{n+1} from the conditioning set even though future observations and the future state evolution depend on θ_{n+1} and later parameters. For the random-walk model θ_n=θ_{n-1}+u_n, p(x_n|Y_N) requires integrating the joint smoothing distribution p(θ_{1:N}|Y_N), not merely the marginal p(θ_n|Y_N). The 2-step method replaces that joint distribution by np equal-weight percentile paths built from the time marginals; the paper gives no argument that this rank-coupled construction approximates the joint smoothing distribution, and increasing np does not repair the bias because the limit is still not the target integral. This is the load-bearing step for the headline 1/10-1/40 speedup claim in Section 4.4 and Table 5. The authors should either supply a rigorous conditional-independence argument, or explicitly reframe the method as a heuristic and validate it on synthetic data with known parameter paths, including jumps or rapid drift, against the full Rao-Blackwellized smoother.
  2. [§3.3.2, Eq. (18); Tables 2 and 5] The seasonal-adjustment 'true' trend and seasonal components are averages of 10 runs of a particle filter with mp=4,000,000. All methods evaluated in Tables 2 and 5 are particle-filter variants, so the error metric is internal to the method family being tested; a common bias in the particle-filter benchmark would not be detected. The trend experiments are less vulnerable because the non-Gaussian filter serves as an independent deterministic benchmark, but the seasonal-adjustment case is exactly where the paper claims the 1/100-particle and 1/10-1/40 speedups. Please add synthetic experiments with known components, or an independent high-accuracy reference, for the seasonal adjustment model before drawing quantitative accuracy conclusions.
  3. [§4.4, Table 6] The values of np and Lag are selected by searching over the same seasonal-adjustment data that is then used for the headline accuracy and timing results in Table 5; the choice np=11 in Table 5 is motivated by Table 6. With a single dataset and no holdout or simulation, the reported accuracy of the 2-step method may reflect tuning to this dataset rather than a general property. Report the selection protocol explicitly and confirm the findings on other series or synthetic data.
  4. [§4.4, Eq. (20) and percentile definition] Two presentation errors affect reproducibility. The percentile formula p_i=(i+0.5)/np is undefined for np=1, since it yields 1.5, yet Table 6 includes an np=1 row described as the posterior mean. In Eq. (20), the linear part is written as x_n=F_n(θ_{n-1})x_n+G_n(θ_{n-1})v_n, which should almost certainly be x_n=F_n(θ_{n-1})x_{n-1}+G_n(θ_{n-1})v_n, and the observation equation is missing the state x_n; the stated dimensions of F_n, G_n, and H_n are also inconsistent with the dimensions given in Section 2. These issues need to be corrected because the exact parameter timing determines what the Kalman steps in the 2-step method compute.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5, Table 5] The conclusion that computation time is reduced to 'only a fraction of a second' is not supported for the filter runs: with mp=100,000, the 2-step filter still takes 161.7 seconds, and only the smoother is 0.047 seconds. Please qualify the claim.
  2. [Figures] Figure 5 and several other figures have corrupted x-axis labels (for example, '0 1 22 43 64 86 07 28 49 6 1 0 8 1 2 0 1 3 2 1 4 4 1 5 6'); the figures need to be regenerated with clearly labeled axes.
  3. [Figure 11 and Figure 12] The caption of Figure 11 contains 'Ra–Blackwellized', and Figure 12 uses both '2-path RB-PF' and '2-step RB-SOF' for the same method; please unify the terminology.
  4. [Tables 5 and 6] The tables report point estimates of squared errors without any measure of Monte Carlo variability; for a particle-filter comparison, several seeds or standard errors are needed to judge whether differences between methods are meaningful.
  5. [§4.4] The text says fixed-lag smoothing is performed with LAG=N, but Table 6 varies Lag and identifies it as influential; please clarify whether the fixed-lag smoothing in step 1 uses Lag=N or the chosen Lag, and state the Lag used in the 2-step rows of Table 5.
  6. [References] The reference list contains typos, for example 'Harison and Steevens (1976)' in the introduction and duplicated Doucet et al. entries; please copyedit the references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rao-Blackwellized and 2-step algorithms are defined from the model equations, and the reported accuracy is an empirical Monte Carlo comparison rather than a quantity forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The Rao-Blackwellized decomposition in Eqs. (21)-(23) is a standard conditional factorization of the filtering and smoothing distributions: given the parameter path, the linear-Gaussian state is handled by a Kalman filter, while the nonlinear parameter part is handled by particles or numerical integration. This factorization is derived from the stated model structure, not from the accuracy claims. The 2-step approximation of Section 4.4 is a heuristic replacement of the full joint parameter smoothing distribution by independent marginal percentile paths, followed by equally weighted Kalman smoothers. That is an approximation with an unproven joint-dependence assumption, and it is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circular: the reported errors in Table 5 are outputs of Monte Carlo runs, not identities that equal the approximation's inputs. The benchmark 'true' trend and seasonal components are obtained by averaging very high-particle particle-filter runs (10,000,000 particles for trend, 4,000,000 for seasonal adjustment). This is an internal convergence baseline rather than an external ground truth, which limits the strength of the validation, but it does not make the comparison equal by construction: the low-particle methods could disagree with the high-particle baseline, and in fact they do at small particle counts. Likewise, the hyperparameters np and Lag are selected using the same data and error metric in Table 6 before the final Table 5 row is reported; this introduces selection bias and weakens the out-of-sample interpretation of the reported accuracy, but the reported accuracy is still an empirical measurement rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Kitagawa (1998) and other prior work provide background and algorithmic ancestry, but the load-bearing RB and 2-step constructions are presented in the paper itself and do not reduce to an unsupported self-citation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained, and the main caveats are statistical validation weaknesses rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard state-space assumptions plus the new 2-step heuristic. The free parameters np, Lag, support bounds, and the parameter random-walk noise are user-chosen, and np and Lag are tuned on the evaluation benchmark. No new latent variables or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • np (number of percentile points) = 11
    Chosen from Table 6 as the value beyond which error improvement is marginal on the seasonal adjustment benchmark; used in Table 5 as the main configuration.
  • Lag (smoothing lag) = 156 for main results; 72 preferred for mp=1,000
    Selected from Table 6; the paper notes that Lag choice affects errors more than np.
  • Parameter support bounds for NGF grid = log10 tau^2 in [-2.5, 1.0], log10 sigma^2 in [0, 1]
    These bounds in Section 4.2.2 define the numerical integration grid and effectively set the prior support for the variance parameters.
  • Random-walk noise variance for parameters = not specified
    The parameter evolution model theta_n = theta_{n-1} + u_n requires a variance for u_n, but the paper never states its value, which prevents exact replication.
  • Number of NGF nodes k = varies, e.g., k=25, 101, 401
    Grid resolution is chosen manually for each experiment; accuracy and cpu-time depend on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conditional on the parameters theta_n, the original state-space model is linear and Gaussian, so the Kalman filter is exact for the state block.
    Rao-Blackwellization in Section 4.1 relies on this exactness for the trend and seasonal components.
  • domain assumption The parameter evolution follows a random walk theta_n = theta_{n-1} + u_n with Gaussian increments.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 and used in all examples; other priors would change the posterior and the results.
  • standard math Particle filter and smoother estimates converge to the exact posterior as the number of particles grows.
    Needed to justify using high-particle particle filter averages as 'true' values in Tables 1 and 2; standard SMC consistency is invoked implicitly.
  • standard math Fixed-lag smoothing with lag equal to the data length recovers the fixed-interval smoother.
    Used throughout, especially for the 2-step method in Section 4.4.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2-step approximation, using marginal percentile points at each time independently, yields a valid approximation to the joint smoothed posterior p(x_n | Y_N).
    This is the paper's new heuristic in Section 4.4; no proof or error bound is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The np percentile parameter paths can be averaged with equal weights to approximate the integrated state estimate.
    Step 3 of the 2-step method uses a simple average over the np Kalman smoother outputs, implicitly assuming equal weights.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Computational Efficiency in State-Space Models Using Rao-Blackwellization and 2-Step Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDZZZXSL

@misc{pith2026241116056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Computational Efficiency in State-Space Models Using Rao-Blackwellization and 2-Step Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDZZZXSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16056}
}
read the original abstract

This paper explores a Bayesian self-organization method for state-space models, enabling simultaneous state and parameter estimation without repeated likelihood calculations. While efficient for low-dimensional models, high-dimensional cases like seasonal adjustment require many particles. Using Rao-Blackwellization and a 2-step approximation, the method reduces particle use and computation time while maintaining accuracy, as shown in Monte Carlo evaluations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. IIP-plastic products data and estimated trend by Decomp. Left plot: data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trend estimation by self-organizing state-space model implemented by non-Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trend estimation by self-organizing state-space model implemented by particle filter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trend estimation by 3-dimensional self-organizing state-space model implemented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Seasonal adjustment of Blsallfood data by Decomp (left) and Self-organizing state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trend and parameter estimation by 1 parameter RB-SOF particle filter with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trend estimation by RB-SOF modeling with 1 parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trend estimation by RB-SOF modeling with 2 parameters, NP=10000. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trend estimation by RB-SOF modeling by non-Gaussian filter (left plots) and smoother [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cpu-time vs. estimation error of the trend. Left: 1D-parameter model, right: 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Seasonal adjusstment by RB-SOF modeling, Left: particle filter with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Number of particles or cpu-time vs. estimation errors of the trend and seasonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, B.D.O., and Moore, J.B. (1979). Optimal Filtering , New Jersey, Prentice-Hall

    1979

  2. [2]

    and Andrieu, C

    Doucet, A., Godsill, S. and Andrieu, C. (2000). On sequential Monte Carlo ampling methods for Bayesian filtering, Statistics and Computing , 10, 197–208

    2000

  3. [3]

    and Russel S., (2000)

    Doucet, A., de Freitas, N., Murphy, K. and Russel S., (2000). Rao-Blackwellised Particle Filtering for Dynamic Bayesian Networks, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Proceedings, 176–183

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice

    Doucet, A., de Freitas, N., and Gordon, N., (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice. Springer-Verlag, New York

    2001

  5. [5]

    J., (2012)

    Durbin, J., and Koopman, S. J., (2012). Time Series Analysis by State Space Methods , Vol.38. Oxford Statistical Science, Croydon, UK

    2012

  6. [6]

    J., Salmond, D

    Gordon, N. J., Salmond, D. J., and Smith, A. F. M., (1993). Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation, IEE Proceedings–F, 140, 107–113

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Grisetti, G., Stachniss, C., and Burgard, W. (2007). Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao-blackwellized particle filters. IEEE transactions on Robotics , 23(1), 34–46

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    D., Stachniss, C., Burgard, W., and Nardi, D

    Grisetti, G., Tipaldi, G. D., Stachniss, C., Burgard, W., and Nardi, D. (2007). Fast and accurate SLAM with Rao-Blackwellized particle filters. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 55(1), 30–38

    work page 2007

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    and Stevens, C.F

    Harrison, P.J. and Stevens, C.F. (1976), Bayesian Forecasting (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , Series B, Vol. 34, 1-41

    1976

  2. [10]

    and Gustafsson, F., (2010)

    Hendeby, G., Karlsson, R. and Gustafsson, F., (2010). The Rao-Blackwellized Particle filter: A Filter Bank Implementation. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing , 2010, Article ID 724087, 1–10

    2010

  3. [11]

    Khan, Z., Balch, T., and Dellaert, F. (2004). A rao-blackwellized particle filter for eigen- tracking. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2, II–II)

    2004

  4. [12]

    (1987), Non-Gaussian State Space Modeling of Nonstationary Time Series, Journal of American Statistical Association , Vol.76, No.400, 1032-1064

    Kitagawa, G. (1987), Non-Gaussian State Space Modeling of Nonstationary Time Series, Journal of American Statistical Association , Vol.76, No.400, 1032-1064

    1987

  5. [13]

    (1988), Numerical Approach to Non-Gaussian Smoothing and its Applica- tions, Computing Science and Statistics; Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Interface , eds

    Kitagawa, G. (1988), Numerical Approach to Non-Gaussian Smoothing and its Applica- tions, Computing Science and Statistics; Proceedings of the 20th Symposium on the Interface , eds. E.J. Wegman, D.T. Gantz and J.J. Miller, 379-388

    1988

  6. [14]

    Kitagawa, G., (1993). A Monte Carlo filtering and smoothing method for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space models, Proceedings of the 2nd U.S.-Japan Joint Seminar on Statistical Time Series Analysis , 110–131. 22

    1993

  7. [15]

    Monte Carlo filter and smoother for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space model, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 5, 1–25

    Kitagawa, G., (1996). Monte Carlo filter and smoother for non-Gaussian nonlinear state space model, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 5, 1–25

    1996

  8. [16]

    Introduction to Time Series Modeling , Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, New York

    Kitagawa, G., (2010). Introduction to Time Series Modeling , Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, New York

    2010

  9. [17]

    Computational aspects of sequential Monte Carlo filter and smoother

    Kitagawa, G., (2014). Computational aspects of sequential Monte Carlo filter and smoother. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 66, 443–471

    2014

  10. [18]

    and Gersch, W.(1984)

    Kitagawa, G. and Gersch, W.(1984). A Smoothness Priors-State Space Approach to the Modeling of Time Series with Trend and Seasonality, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, No.386, 378-389

    1984

  11. [19]

    Smoothness Priors Analysis of Time Series , Springer-Verlag, New York

    Kitagawa, G., and Gersch, W., (1996). Smoothness Priors Analysis of Time Series , Springer-Verlag, New York

    1996

  12. [20]

    and West, M

    Prado, R. and West, M. (2010). Time Series Modeling, Computation, and Inference , Chap- man & Hall, CRC Press, Florida

    2010

  13. [21]

    and Lampinen, J., (2007)

    S¨ arkk¨ a, S., Vehtari, A. and Lampinen, J., (2007). Rao-Blackwellized Particle filter for multicple target tracking, Information Fusion, 8(1) 2–15

    2007

  14. [22]

    Time Series Analysis and Its Applications , Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York

    Shumway, R.H., and Stoffer, D.S., (2000). Time Series Analysis and Its Applications , Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York

    2000

  15. [23]

    and Harrison, J

    West, M. and Harrison, J. (1989). Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models , Springer Series in statistics, Springer-Verlag, New York. 23

    1989

Pith tools

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