The Discriminative Kalman Filter for Bayesian Filtering with Nonlinear and Nongaussian Observation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Kalman filter provides a simple and efficient algorithm to compute the posterior distribution for state-space models where both the latent state and measurement models are linear and gaussian. Extensions to the Kalman filter, including the extended and unscented Kalman filters, incorporate linearizations for models where the observation model p(observation|state) is nonlinear. We argue that in many cases, a model for p(state|observation) proves both easier to learn and more accurate for latent state estimation. Approximating p(state|observation) as gaussian leads to a new filtering algorithm, the discriminative Kalman filter (DKF), which can perform well even when p(observation|state) is highly nonlinear and/or nongaussian. The approximation, motivated by the Bernstein–von Mises theorem, improves as the dimensionality of the observations increases. The DKF has computational complexity similar to the Kalman filter, allowing it in some cases to perform much faster than particle filters with similar precision, while better accounting for nonlinear and nongaussian observation models than Kalman-based extensions. When the observation model must be learned from training data prior to filtering, off-the-shelf nonlinear and nonparametric regression techniques can provide a gaussian model for p(observation|state) that cleanly integrates with the DKF. As part of the BrainGate2 clinical trial, we successfully implemented gaussian process regression with the DKF framework in a brain-computer interface to provide real-time, closed-loop cursor control to a person with a complete spinal cord injury. In this letter, we explore the theory underlying the DKF, exhibit some illustrative examples, and outline potential extensions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".