Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Interpretable Augmented Physics-Based Model for Estimation and Tracking

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A state-space projection constrained to keep the augmented transition function within an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the physics-based model gives an interpretable dial for how much neural augmentation a tracking filter is allowed to use.

desk verdict Useful state-space constraint idea for APBMs, but the 'every time step' guarantee is unsupported and the filter covariance consistency is badly off; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19953 v2 pith:NBSZLNG3 submitted 2025-05-26 eess.SY cs.SY

Ondřej Straka , Jindřich Duník , Pau Closas , Tales Imbiriba This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords augmentedphysics-basedmodelsstate-spaceconstraintsparameterprojectioncubatureKalmanfilterradartrackingmodelinterpretabilityonlinelearningneuralaugmentationcontrol
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

This paper tries to establish that a hybrid tracking model made of a known physics-based model plus a small neural network can be kept interpretable by constraining, at every time step, the augmented transition function to lie within an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the physics-based transition. The constraint is imposed directly in state space, through a weighted norm, rather than by regularizing the network parameters as earlier augmented physics-based model methods did. The proposed projection algorithm moves the network parameters toward a physics-only baseline just enough to satisfy the constraint for all cubature points, then runs the cubature Kalman filter time update on the constrained points. In a synthetic radar tracking scenario the method gives a tunable trade-off: smaller $\epsilon$ improves velocity estimates and larger $\epsilon$ improves position estimates, and the constraint can be applied to only part of the state. If the claim holds, it gives users a physically meaningful dial for how much neural augmentation to allow in online tracking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the augmentation control metric $\rho_{SS}$, defined in a relative form $\rho_{SSR}=\|f_k^{\mathrm{APBM}}-f_k^{\mathrm{PBM}}\|_{\Sigma}/\|f_k^{\mathrm{PBM}}\|_{\Sigma}$ and an absolute form $\rho_{SSA}=\|f_k^{\mathrm{APBM}}-f_k^{\mathrm{PBM}}\|_{\Sigma}$, with the weighted norm $\|x\|_{\Sigma}=x^{\top}\Sigma x$ and $\Sigma=(Q^{\mathrm{PBM}})^{-1}$. The projection in Algorithm 1 interpolates the neural parameters toward $\bar{\theta}$, the value that makes the APBM transition exactly equal to the PBM transition, and for each cubature point solves $\rho_{SS}=\epsilon$ for the interpolation weight $\kappa$; the minimum $\kappa$ over all cubature points is then used to construct constrained cubature points that are propagated through the APBM to form the constrained predicted estimate. Because the metric is evaluated on state predictions rather than on parameters, the constraint is quantified in physical units and can be restricted to chosen components of the state, such as velocity only.

What would settle it

Choose a one-hidden-layer network and a parameter chord where the output first moves away from the physics model and then returns, run Algorithm 1, and check whether every propagated cubature point satisfies $\rho_{SS} \le \epsilon$; a single violated point would show the projection does not deliver the claimed neighborhood guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that enforcing the state-space constraint $\rho_{SS}(f_k^{\mathrm{APBM}}, f_k^{\mathrm{PBM}}) \le \epsilon$ through the parameter projection of Algorithm 1 keeps the augmented physics-based transition function within an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the physics-based transition at every time step, and that this delivers better trade-offs between accuracy on measured and unmeasured state components than the earlier parameter-space regularization. The projection takes the current unconstrained neural parameters $\hat{\theta}_k$, interpolates along the chord $\theta_k(\kappa)=\kappa\hat{\theta}_k+(1-\kappa)\bar{\theta}$ toward the value $\bar{\theta}$ that makes the APBM exactly equal the PBM, solves $\rho_{SS}=\epsilon$ for each cubature point, and then uses the smallest $\kappa$ to rebuild the cubature points before the CKF time update. In the radar experiments, smaller $\epsilon$ moves the model closer to the PBM and improves velocity estimates while degrading position estimates, and larger $\epsilon$ approaches the unconstrained APBM; the same knob can be applied to only a subset of states such as velocities. The result is an interpretable constraint on neural augmentation, with $\epsilon$ expressed in physical units of the state.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee rests on the assumption that along the straight interpolation between the estimated parameters and the physics-only parameters, the distance between augmented and physics-based predictions changes continuously and monotonically, so the per-cubature-point root solves and the minimum $\kappa$ projection actually land the filter inside the allowed neighborhood.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The tolerance $\epsilon$ becomes an interpretable dial: it bounds the augmentation's contribution in physical units of the state or as a relative deviation from the physics-based prediction.
  • Applying the constraint to only a subset of states, such as velocities, is possible and improves those estimates while leaving position behavior close to the unconstrained augmented model.
  • Shrinking $\epsilon$ moves the hybrid model toward the physics-based model and improves estimates of less-directly-measured state components at the cost of more-directly-measured ones.
  • If the projection guarantee holds at every step, the augmented model cannot drift far from the physics-based model during long online operation, addressing the main interpretability concern of learned augmentations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not prove that $\rho_{SS}$ is monotone along the interpolation chord; a testable extension is to verify this numerically and add a fallback when the root solve fails, since non-monotonicity would break the neighborhood guarantee.
  • The constraint is enforced at the cubature points, not on the full predictive distribution; an extension would bound the expected value of $\rho_{SS}$ under the predicted Gaussian, which would also bear on the covariance credibility reported in the ANEES results.
  • The same chord-projection idea should carry over to particle filters and other sigma-point filters, where each sample can be moved independently to satisfy the same state-space neighborhood constraint.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a constrained estimation strategy for augmented physics-based models (APBMs) in state-space tracking. Instead of regularizing the neural-network parameters directly, the authors impose a state-space constraint on the APBM transition function, requiring it to lie within an epsilon-neighborhood of the physics-based model (PBM) in a metric weighted by the inverse PBM process-noise covariance. The constrained problem is solved recursively by projecting the parameter vector toward the value that makes the APBM coincide with the PBM, using a CKF with cubature points. The projection is applied to each cubature point, and the minimum projection parameter is used to build constrained cubature points for the time update. Experiments on a synthetic radar tracking scenario compare the proposed approach with the unconstrained APBM and the PBM for various epsilon values, including constraints applied only to the velocity components.

Significance. If the stated guarantee holds, the approach would be a meaningful step beyond prior parameter-space regularization: it provides a physically interpretable knob (epsilon) controlling how far the learned augmentation can deviate from the physics-based model, and it naturally supports constraints on only parts of the state. The experimental RMSE and CDF results illustrate the expected trade-off between position and velocity accuracy as epsilon varies, and the partial-state constraint is a useful addition. On the other hand, the central 'at every time step' guarantee is asserted but not proven, and the reported ANEES values indicate severe estimator inconsistency that the manuscript does not address. The paper's value therefore depends on whether the projection algorithm can be given a rigorous justification or its claims substantially weakened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Algorithm 1 Steps 3-6 and Eqs. (15)-(22)] The paper states that the constrained predicted estimate and covariance 'respect the constraint (10)', but the constraint is only enforced on the cubature points used in the time update. Step 6 performs a standard, unconstrained measurement update, and the resulting posterior estimate (xhat_{k+1}, theta_hat_{k+1}) is never shown to satisfy rho_SS <= epsilon. Consequently, the introduction's claim that the APBM dynamics lies within an epsilon-neighborhood of the PBM 'at every time step' is unsupported. The authors either need to prove a recursive invariance property or explicitly restate the guarantee as applying only to the propagated cubature points at each time update.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (13) and Algorithm 1 Step 3] The projection step assumes that along the line theta(kappa) = kappa*theta_hat + (1-kappa)*theta_bar, the constraint metric rho_SS is monotone enough that every kappa below the largest root of rho_SS = epsilon is feasible. With a ReLU neural network, rho_SS is generically piecewise-algebraic and can be non-monotone in kappa; the paper provides no monotonicity or feasibility proof. Moreover, if a cubature point already satisfies the inequality at kappa = 1, the equality rho_SS = epsilon may have no root in (0,1], leaving Step 3 undefined. This gap is load-bearing because the min-kappa construction in Eq. (16) does not guarantee that each constrained cubature point satisfies the constraint unless the stated monotonicity assumption holds.
  3. [Figures 3 and 5] The ANEES results shown in Figures 3 and 5 reach values on the order of thousands, while the expected value for the state dimension d=4 is 4. The text analyzes RMSE and CDF but does not discuss this massive inconsistency, which indicates that the reported covariances are far smaller than the actual estimation errors. Since the proposed algorithm explicitly modifies the cubature-point set, the ANEES inflation likely reflects a distortion of the sigma-point distribution by the min-kappa projection. The authors must either explain and correct this inconsistency or clearly report that the method does not provide reliable covariance information, which is essential for tracking and downstream decision-making.
  4. [Section IV, Step 5 and Eq. (18)] The statement that the predicted estimate and covariance 'respect the constraint (10)' conflates a pointwise property of the transition function with a property of the predicted distribution. The constraint is defined as rho_SS(f_APBM(xhat, theta_hat), f_PBM(xhat)) <= epsilon, evaluated at a specific argument; a weighted mean of propagated cubature points is not itself an evaluation of f_APBM at a feasible parameter pair. The authors should clarify the precise mathematical property that the constrained cubature points and the resulting predicted moments are claimed to satisfy, and they should state which properties (e.g., each propagated point lies within the epsilon-ball) are actually guaranteed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The abstract contains the typo 'vaccurate' instead of 'accurate', and Section I repeatedly uses 'gp!' where the intended term is Gaussian process (GP); these should be fixed.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (26) and surrounding text] The acronym is spelled both 'ANNES' and 'ANEES' in the same paragraph; please use 'ANEES' consistently. The equation also uses '(·)' in place of the explicit quadratic form, which is unclear; writing (x_k^(r) - xhat_k^(r))^T (P_k^(r))^{-1} (x_k^(r) - xhat_k^(r)) would be clearer.
  3. [Figure 4 legend] The legend lists both 'APBM_SSA_e=003' and 'APBM_SSA_e=0.03', which appears to be a labeling error that should be corrected to avoid confusion with the e=0.03 curve.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (13)] The paper does not specify how the equality-constrained maximization in (13) is solved numerically; a brief description of the root-finding procedure (e.g., bisection, safeguarded Newton) and its termination criteria would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: epsilon is user-specified and swept, the projection enforces the constraint by construction rather than fitting a prediction, and self-citations to prior APBM work are background, not load-bearing. The unproven per-time-step guarantee is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: (i) The metric rho_SS is defined from the PBM and APBM transition functions (Eqs. (7)-(8)), and epsilon is a user-supplied radius, not a fitted parameter; the paper explicitly says 'tuning the constraint parameter epsilon is still an open problem', and the experiments sweep epsilon over multiple values. (ii) Algorithm 1's projection (Eqs. (12)-(17)) solves rho_SS = epsilon along the interpolation toward theta_bar, so the resulting sigma points satisfy the constraint by construction; this is the algorithm's intended enforcement mechanism, not a prediction extracted from the data. (iii) The APBM framework and the parameter-regularization baseline are imported from the authors' prior works [26]-[28], but those citations provide background and a baseline, not the paper's central claim; the central constrained-estimation algorithm is new and is tested on synthetic data against TM/PBM baselines. (iv) The asserted per-time-step guarantee that the posterior estimate satisfies rho_SS <= epsilon is not proven: the constraint is applied to cubature points before the time update, the measurement update is unconstrained, and the min-kappa root-selection argument assumes monotonicity of rho_SS that is not established. These are correctness or rigor gaps, not circular reductions: none of the paper's equations makes the output equal to its input by definition. The extreme ANEES values in Figures 3 and 5 suggest possible covariance inconsistency, but that is an empirical validity concern, not circularity. No circular step can be quoted from the paper, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows a small number of user-chosen parameters (epsilon, Q_PBM) and standard filtering assumptions. The method introduces no new physical entities. The main burden is the unproved behavior of the projection heuristic and the adequacy of the Gaussian assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon (constraint radius) = tested at 0.03, 1, 5, 10, 20
    User-selected threshold defining the epsilon-neighborhood of the PBM. The paper explicitly states that tuning epsilon is an open problem.
  • Q_PBM (PBM process noise covariance) = not reported
    Used to define the weighted norm Sigma=(Q_PBM)^{-1} and the CKF; its value is not specified in the experiments, so it acts as an unstated hand-chosen parameter.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Continuity of rho_SS along the interpolation line theta(kappa)=kappa*theta_hat+(1-kappa)*theta_bar, so the equality rho_SS=epsilon has a solution in (0,1].
    Relied on in Section IV to solve (13)-(14) for each cubature point; if rho_SS is non-monotone, the min-kappa rule may not enforce the constraint for the propagated density.
  • domain assumption The PBM process noise covariance Q_PBM overbounds the true model discrepancy, making the weighted norm ||.||_Sigma a meaningful measure of deviation.
    Justified in Section III with reference [30]; if Q_PBM is underestimated, the constraint is too tight and distorts estimates.
  • domain assumption The joint state-parameter posterior is approximately Gaussian, justifying the use of the cubature Kalman filter and the cubature projection.
    Used throughout; no empirical validation of the Gaussianity is provided, and the ANEES results suggest the covariance is inaccurate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable Augmented Physics-Based Model for Estimation and Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBSZLNG3

@misc{pith2026250519953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable Augmented Physics-Based Model for Estimation and Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBSZLNG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19953}
}
read the original abstract

State-space estimation and tracking rely on accurate dynamical models to perform well. However, obtaining an vaccurate dynamical model for complex scenarios or adapting to changes in the system poses challenges to the estimation process. Recently, augmented physics-based models (APBMs) appear as an appealing strategy to cope with these challenges where the composition of a small and adaptive neural network with known physics-based models (PBM) is learned on the fly following an augmented state-space estimation approach. A major issue when introducing data-driven components in such a scenario is the danger of compromising the meaning (or interpretability) of estimated states. In this work, we propose a novel constrained estimation strategy that constrains the APBM dynamics close to the PBM. The novel state-space constrained approach leads to more flexible ways to impose constraints than the traditional APBM approach. Our experiments with a radar-tracking scenario demonstrate different aspects of the proposed approach and the trade-offs inherent in the imposed constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the constrained parameter estimation. Left: the situation in state space illustrating the constraint, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results under fully-constrained states. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results under fully-constrained states. ANEEs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results under constrained velocity. (top-left): RMSE for position estimates; (top-right): RMSE for velocity estimates; (bottom-left): CDF of the position error; (bottom-right): CDF of the velocity error. TM PBM APBM_ SSA_ e=003 APBM_ SSA_ e=0.03 APBM_ SSA_ e=1 APBM_ SS…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results under constrained velocity - ANEEs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Indoor tracking: Theory, methods, and technologies,

    D. Dardari, P. Closas, and P. Djuric, “Indoor tracking: Theory, methods, and technologies,” IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology , vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1263–1278, April 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    A survey on state estimation techniques and challenges in smart distribution systems,

    K. Dehghanpour, Z. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Yuan, and F. Bu, “A survey on state estimation techniques and challenges in smart distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2312–2322, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Haykin, Kalman filtering and neural networks

    S. Haykin, Kalman filtering and neural networks . John Wiley & Sons, 2004, vol. 47

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Are PLLs dead? A tutorial on Kalman filter-based techniques for digital carrier synchronization,

    J. Vil `a-Valls, P. Closas, M. Navarro, and C. Fern ´andez-Prades, “Are PLLs dead? A tutorial on Kalman filter-based techniques for digital carrier synchronization,” IEEE Aerospace & Electronic Systems Magazine, July 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    State estimation methods in navigation: overview and application,

    J. Dun ´ık, S. K. Biswas, A. G. Dempster, T. Pany, and P. Closas, “State estimation methods in navigation: overview and application,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 16–31, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bar-Shalom, X

    Y . Bar-Shalom, X. R. Li, and T. Kirubarajan, Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation: Theory Algorithms and Software. John Wiley & Sons, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    S ¨arkk¨a, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing

    S. S ¨arkk¨a, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing. New York, NY , USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Nonlinear system identifi- cation using neural state space models, applicable to robust control design,

    J. Suykens, B. Moor, and J. Vandewalle, “Nonlinear system identifi- cation using neural state space models, applicable to robust control design,” International Journal of Control, vol. 62, no. 1, p. 129–152, 1995

    work page 1995

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Learning nonlinear state–space models using autoencoders,

    D. Masti and A. Bemporad, “Learning nonlinear state–space models using autoencoders,” Automatica, vol. 129, pp. 0005–1098,, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Identification of nonlinear state space models using an MLP network trained by the EM algorithm,

    A. Gorji and M. Menhaj, “Identification of nonlinear state space models using an MLP network trained by the EM algorithm,” in 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks , 2008, p. 53–60

    2008

  3. [11]

    A new concept using LSTM neural networks for dynamic system identification,

    Y . Wang, “A new concept using LSTM neural networks for dynamic system identification,” in 2017 American Control Conference (ACC, 2017, pp. 5324–5329,

    2017

  4. [12]

    Deep state space models for nonlinear system identification,

    D. Gedon, N. Wahlstr ¨om, T. B. Sch ¨on, and L. Ljung, “Deep state space models for nonlinear system identification,” IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 7, p. 481–486, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Sequential neural models with stochastic layers,

    M. Fraccaro, S. Sønderby, U. Paquet, and O. Winther, “Sequential neural models with stochastic layers,” in Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems , 2016, p. 29

    2016

  6. [14]

    State–space modeling for control based on physics-informed neural networks,

    F. Arnold and R. King, “State–space modeling for control based on physics-informed neural networks,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 101, p. 104195,

  7. [15]

    Integrated gaussian processes for tracking,

    F. Lydeard, B. I. Ahmad, and S. Godsill, “Integrated gaussian processes for tracking,” IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing , 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Physics-informed variational state-space gaussian processes,

    O. Hamelijnck, A. Solin, and T. Damoulas, “Physics-informed variational state-space gaussian processes,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, Eds., vol. 37. Curran Associates, ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Use of gaussian processes in system identification,

    S. S ¨arkk¨a, “Use of gaussian processes in system identification,” in Encyclopedia of Systems and Control . Springer, 2021, pp. 2393– 2402

    2021

  10. [18]

    Neural network aided Kalman filtering for multitarget tracking applica- tions,

    V . Vaidehi, N. Chitra, C. Krishnan, and M. Chokkalingam, “Neural network aided Kalman filtering for multitarget tracking applica- tions,” in Proc. 1999 IEEE Radar Conf , 1999

    1999

  11. [19]

    Multi- sensor fusion for underwater vehicle localization by augmentation of RBF neural network and error-state Kalman filter,

    N. Shaukat, A. Ali, M. Iqbal, M. Moinuddin, and P. Otero, “Multi- sensor fusion for underwater vehicle localization by augmentation of RBF neural network and error-state Kalman filter,” Sensors, vol. 21, p. 1149, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    KalmanNet: Neural network aided Kalman fil- tering for partially known dynamics,

    G. Revach, N. Shlezinger, X. Ni, A. L. Escoriza, R. J. Van Sloun, and Y . C. Eldar, “KalmanNet: Neural network aided Kalman fil- tering for partially known dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 1532–1547, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Long short-term memory-based deep recurrent neural networks for target tracking,

    C. Gao, J. Yan, S. Zhou, P. Varshney, and H. Liu, “Long short-term memory-based deep recurrent neural networks for target tracking,” Inf. Sci, vol. 502, pp. 279–296,, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    A mnemonic Kalman filter for non-linear systems with extensive temporal dependencies,

    S. Jung, I. Schlangen, and A. Charlish, “A mnemonic Kalman filter for non-linear systems with extensive temporal dependencies,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    DANSE: Data-driven non-linear state estimation of model-free process in unsupervised learning setup,

    A. Ghosh, A. Honor ´e, and S. Chatterjee, “DANSE: Data-driven non-linear state estimation of model-free process in unsupervised learning setup,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 72, pp. 1824– 1838, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Recurrent kalman networks: Factorized inference in high-dimensional deep feature spaces,

    P. Becker, H. Pandya, G. Gebhardt, C. Zhao, C. J. Taylor, and G. Neumann, “Recurrent kalman networks: Factorized inference in high-dimensional deep feature spaces,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2019, pp. 544–552

    2019

  17. [25]

    Data-driven XGBoost- based filter for target tracking,

    B. Zhai, W. Yi, M. Li, H. Ju, and L. Kong, “Data-driven XGBoost- based filter for target tracking,” J. Eng, no. 20, p. 6683–6687, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Hybrid neural network augmented physics-based models for nonlinear filtering,

    T. Imbiriba, A. Demirkaya, J. Dun ´ık, O. Straka, D. Erdo ˘gmus ¸, and P. Closas, “Hybrid neural network augmented physics-based models for nonlinear filtering,” in 2022 25th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) , 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  19. [27]

    Augmented physics- based machine learning for navigation and tracking,

    T. Imbiriba, O. Straka, J. Dun ´ık, and P. Closas, “Augmented physics- based machine learning for navigation and tracking,” IEEE Transac- tions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 60, pp. 2692–2704, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Augmented physics-based models for high-order Markov filtering,

    S. Tang, T. Imbiriba, J. Dun ´ık, O. Straka, and P. Closas, “Augmented physics-based models for high-order Markov filtering,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/18/6132

    2024

  21. [29]

    AI-Aided Kalman Filters,

    N. Shlezinger, G. Revach, A. Ghosh, S. Chatterjee, S. Tang, T. Im- biriba, J. Dunik, O. Straka, P. Closas, and Y . C. Eldar, “AI-Aided Kalman Filters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12289 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Noise identification for data-augmented physics-based state-space models,

    J. Dunik, O. Straka, O. Kost, S. Tang, T. Imbiriba, and P. Closas, “Noise identification for data-augmented physics-based state-space models,” in IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS) , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Minimum operational performance standards for global positioning system / wide area augmentation system airborne equip- ment,

    RTCA, “Minimum operational performance standards for global positioning system / wide area augmentation system airborne equip- ment,” Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), Stan- dard, Dec. 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Particle filtering with adaptive number of particles,

    P. Closas and C. Fern ´andez-Prades, “Particle filtering with adaptive number of particles,” in 2011 Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–7

    2011

  25. [33]

    Cubature Kalman filters,

    I. Arasaratnam and S. Haykin, “Cubature Kalman filters,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1254–1269, June 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Evaluation of estimation algorithms part I: incomprehensive measures of performance,

    X. R. Li and Z. Zhao, “Evaluation of estimation algorithms part I: incomprehensive measures of performance,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1340–1358, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Measuring estimator’s credibility: Noncredibility index,

    ——, “Measuring estimator’s credibility: Noncredibility index,” in Proceedings of 2006 International Conference on Information Fusion, Florence, Italy, 2006

    2006

  28. [2021]

    Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0952197621000427

    [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0952197621000427

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.