Desensitized Cubature Kalman Filter with Uncertain Parameter
Taishan Lou


School of Electric and Information Engineering, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry,
Zhengzhou, 45002, China (e-mail: tayzan@sina.com)
Abstract: A robust desensitized cubature Kalman filtering (DCKF) for nonlinear systems with uncertain
parameter is proposed. Sensitivity matrices are defined as the integral form, and desensitized cost
function is designed by penalizing the posterior covariance trace by a sensitivity-weighting sum of the
posteriori sensitivities. The DCKF gain is obtained by minimizing the desensitized cost function to
amend the state estimation. Then, the sensitivity propagation of the state estimate errors is described, and
the sensitivity of the root square matrix is obtained by solving a special equation. The effectiveness of the
proposed DCKF was demonstrated by two numerical simulations with uncertain parameters.
Keywords: Uncertain Parameters; Desensitized Kalman filter; Cubature Kalman Filter; Sensitivity matrix;
nonlinear system.


1. INTRODUCTION
Nonlinear state estimation plays an important role in a wide
variety of applications, such as target tracking, navigation for
the aerospace vehicle, chemical plant control, multi-sensor
data fusion, etc. Many nonlinear filters based on the Bayesian
framework have been put forward in over four decades. One
inevasible difficulty of the application of the Bayesian
estimation to the practice problems is that the realistic
dynamic systems are often nonlinear [1, 2]. These nonlinear
filters can be roughly classified as three categories. The first
one is the filters based on the analytical approximation
approach (also called function approximation approach), such
as the extended Kalman filter (EKF) and the second-order
EKF [3]. The second one is the filters based on the
deterministic sampling approach (also called sigma point
Kalman filter), which contain the unscented Kalman filter
(UKF) [4], divided difference filter [4], and Gauss-Hermite
quadrature filter [6]. The third one is the filters based on the
Monte Carlo simulation, such as sequential Monte Carlo [7]
and particle filter [8]. For the first category, calculating
Jacobians or Hessians are often numerically unstable and
computationally intensive in the filters. The nonlinear filters
in the second category suffer from the curse of
dimensionality or divergence or both [2]. For the third
category, the filters may solve any non-Gaussian estimation
problems, but the computational load is often expensive [1].
Recently, a nonlinear filter based on the Bayesian framework,
which has been proposed for the nonlinear Gaussian systems,
is the cubature Kalman filter (CKF) [9, 10]. The core idea of
the CKF is using the cubature role to approximate the
multidimensional integrals with 2n deterministic cubature
points, where n is the state vector dimension. In the CKF
algorithm, the mean and covariance of the state and
measurement vectors are calculated by propagating the
cubature points through the nonlinear function. Comparison
of the EKF and the UKF, the CKF is usually applied in the
high-dimensional systems, and has more accuracy and

numerical stability [9]. Subsequently, the CKF is used in
many applications, such as navigation [11], sensor data
fusion [11], etc.
In these filters above, there is a fundamental assumption that
the dynamic models can be accurately modeled without any
unknown statistical properties of the noises, or uncertain
parameters [3]. When the assumption is satisfied, the
performance of these filters will be highly sensitive to the
dynamic model uncertainties, and deteriorate appreciably [3].
A desensitized optimal control methodology is extended by
Karlgaard and Shen [14] to the robust filter design problem
that the performance sensitivity of the filters respected to
model uncertain parameters can be reduced. The desensitized
Kalman filter is designed by penalizing the cost function
consisting of the posterior covariance trace using a weighted
norm of the state error sensitivities, and minimizing this cost
function to obtain the desensitized state estimates [14].
Subsequently, the desensitized divided difference filtering
[14] and the desensitized unscented Kalman filtering (DUKF)
[16] are presented. For the DUKF, there is no continuous
propagation for the sensitivities of the sigma points between
the iterations, because a new set of sigma points is always
resampled at the next iteration. Shen and Karlgaard [16]
skillfully designed a unique way to propagate the sensitivities
of the state estimate error and the a priori/posteriori
covariance matrices for the DUKF.
This paper proposes a robust cubature Kalman filter for
systems with uncertain parameter. A desensitized cost
function of the robust desensitized cubature Kalman filtering
(DCKF) is designed by penalizing the a posteriori covariance
trace by a sensitivity-weighting sum of the a posteriori
sensitivities. Then, a gain matrix of the DCKF is obtained by
minimizing the new cost function to amend the state
estimation. Section 2 briefly introduces the recursive
Bayesian framework and the CKF algorithm. Section 3
presents the propagation of the sensitivities and the DCKF is
proposed naturally. Two numerical simulations about a

vertically falling body model and a hovering helicopter
model (HHM) are analyzed in Section 4. The conclusions are
summarized in Section 5.

Consider the discrete nonlinear process and measurement
models with additive noises given by
x k  f ( x k 1 , c , uk 1 )  w k 1

(1)

zk  h( xk , c, uk )  vk

(2)

where xk is the n  1 state vector, and zk is the m  1
measurement vector. f is the dynamic vector-valued
function, h is the nonlinear measurement vector-valued
function. c is referred to as the uncertain parameter vector.
uk is the known control input vector. wk and v k are
independent zero-mean Gaussian noise processes, and their
covariance are respectively Qk and Rk . They satisfy
E[ w k w Tj ]  Qk  ij , E[v k v Tj ]  Rk  ij , E[ w k v Tj ]  0

(3)

where  kj is the Kronecker delta function, and Qk is positive
semi-definite ,and Rk is positive definite.
2.1 Recursive Bayesian filter under Gaussian domain

the filter likelihood density p ( z k Z k ) and the a posterior
density p ( x k Z k ) are both Gaussian. When the a posterior
and their

distributions respectively are
p ( xk Z k 1 )  N ( xˆ k , Pk )
p ( zk Z k 1 )  N ( zˆk , Pzz, k )

k

(4)


k

p ( xk Z k )  N ( xˆ , P )

where Z k  ui , zi i 1 is the history of input measurement pairs
k

up to time tk , N (, ) is the Gaussian density symbol, the
–

+


k

superscripts “ ” denote a priori and “ ”denote a posteriori. xˆ ,
xˆ k , zˆk are the state estimates and the measurement estimate,

k


k


zz , k

respectively; P , P , P

are the corresponding error

covariance matrices, respectively.
Then, the functional recursion of the Bayesian filter reduces
to an algebraic recursion. Only the means and covariances of
various conditional densities encountered in the time and
measurement updates are needed to calculate. The recursive
Bayesian filter under the Gaussian approximation is
summarized as follows [9]:
Time update
xˆ k  E[ xk Z k 1 ]  E[ f ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 )  wk 1 Z k 1 ]

R

  n f ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 ) N ( xˆ k1 , Pk1 )dxk 1
R

where x k  xˆ k  xk is the a priori estimation error, and c is
the reference value of the parameter vector c .
Measurement update
zˆk  E[ zk Z k 1 ]   n h( xk , c , uk ) N ( xˆ k , Pk )dxk

(7)

Pzz, k   n h( xk , c , uk ) hT ( x k , c , uk ) N ( xˆ k , Pk ) dx k 1

(8)

R

R

 zˆk zˆkT  Rk

Pxz , k   n xk hT ( xk , c, uk ) N ( xˆ k , Pk )dxk 1  xˆ k zˆkT (9)
R

xˆ k  xˆ k  K k [ z k  zˆk ]

(10)

Pk  E[ x k x kT ]  Pk  Pxz , k K kT  K k PxzT, k  K k Pzz, k K kT (11)
K k  Pxz , k ( Pzz, k ) 1

(12)

where x k  xˆ k  xk is the a posteriori estimation error.
The Kalman optimal gain K k is obtained by minimizing the
cost function J  Tr ( Pk ) , in which “Tr” denotes the trace of
the matrix, and the result is (12).

The cubature Kalman filter is a type of Bayesian filter under
Gaussian assumption. The CKF approximates the mean and
covariance of a random variable propagated under a
nonlinear function by the cubature rule. Under the Gaussian
assumption, the functional recursion of the Bayesian filter
reduces to an algebraic recursion, in which the
multidimensional integrals can be approximated by the
cubature rule [9, 17].
The cubature rule approximates the n-dimensional Gaussian
weighted integral by using the mean μ and covariance P .
The formulation is



R

n

f ( x ) N ( μ, P )dx 

1 2n
 f ( μ  Pξi )
2n i 1

(5)

(13)

where P is a square-root factor of the covariance P , which
satisfy P = P ( P )T ; ξ i is the ith element of 2n cubature
points, and its value comes from the following set
n e1 , e2 , , en , e1 , e2 , , en 

(14)

where ei (i  1,2,, n) is the unit vector, in which the ith
element is one and others are zeros, ei =[0,,0,1,0,,0]T .
Based on the state estimate xˆ k1 and covariance
the cubature points are generated as follows
χ +j , k 1  Pk1 ξ j  xˆ k1 , j  1, 2, , 2n

 E[ f ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 ) Z k 1 ]
  n f ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 ) p( xk 1 Z k 1 )dxk 1

R

2.2 Cubature Kalman filter algorithm

Under the Gaussian domain, the predictive density p ( xk Z k 1 ) ,

p ( xk 1 Z k 1 )  N ( xˆ k1 , Pk1 ) at time tk 1

  n f ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 ) f T ( xk 1 , c , uk 1 ) N ( xˆ k1 , Pk1 ) dxk 1 (6)
 xˆ k xˆ kT  Qk 1

2. CUBATURE KALMAN FILTER

density

Pk  E[ x k x kT z1:k 1 ]

at time tk 1 ,
(15)

Each of the propagated cubature points is computed through
the nonlinear function as
+
χ 
j , k  f ( χ j , k 1 , c , uk 1 ), j  1, 2, , 2 n

(16)

Then, the a priori state and the corresponding error
covariance in (5) and (6) are evaluated as

xˆ k 

1 2 n 
 χ j ,k
2n j 1

(17)

Pk 

1 2 n  T
 χ j , k χ j ,k  xˆ k xˆ kT  Qk 1
2n j 1

(18)

Redraw the cubature points by using xˆ k and Pk
χ j , k  Pk ξ j  xˆ k , j  1, 2,, 2n

(19)

Then, by using (7) to (9), the predicted measurement and its
corresponding covariances are
Ζ


j,k


j ,k

 h( χ , c , uk )

(28)

si, k 

x k xˆ k

ci
ci

(29)

where ci denotes the ith component of the parameter vector .
Note that the sensitivity of the true state is x ci  0 in (28)
and (29) because the true state doesn’t vary with the assumed
value of the parameter vector c .
The propagation equations of the recursive Bayesian filter are
defined as
si, k

(20)

1
zˆ 
 Ζ j , k
2n j 1
P

x k xˆ k

ci
ci

si, k  si, k  K k γ i , k

(22)

2n

1
 χ j ,k Ζ j ,Tk  xˆ k zˆkT
2n j 1


k


k


k


k


xz , k


xz , k


1
zz , k

xˆ  xˆ  K k ( zk  zˆ )
P P P
Kk  P

(P

T
xz , k

K  Kk P
T
k


zz , k

 Kk P

K

T
k

)

(24)
(25)
(26)

where the CKF gain K k is obtained by minimizing its cost
function J c  Tr ( Pk ) .
3. DESENSITIZED CUBATURE KALMAN FILTER
In this section, the robust DCKF is presented by using the
Sensitivity propagation equation and the CKF method in
section 2. The difficulty for the DCKF compared with the
DEKF is the propagation of the sensitivities, because the
cubature points are always redrawn time after time in the
filtering, and this makes that there is no continuity about the
cubature points from one iteration to the next. So, the
propagation of the sensitivities is introduced firstly as in the
literature [16], and the DCKF algorithm is summarized in
table 2.
3.1 Sensitivity propagation equation for the recursive
Bayesian filter

E[ x k ]  0, E[ x k ]  0

γi , k

E[

(27)

When the model parameter has uncertainty, the basic
assumptions of the recursive Bayesian filter cannot be
satisfied, and the state estimates may be biased and even
divergence. So, the state estimate error sensitivities of each
parameter, ci , could be defined as [14]

(31)

h( xk , c, uk )
h( xk , c, uk )
N ( xˆ k , Pk ) dxk (32)
]  n
R
ci
ci

Note that the sensitivity of gain matrix is assumed as
K ci  0 in (31), because any K ci  0 means that the
solution for the optimal gain is a function of the residual,
which violates the basis for the linear update equation given
in (11) [14].
3.2 Sensitivity propagation of cubature points

The propagation of the sensitivities bases on the sensitivity of
cubature points, which is obtained by taking partial derivative
of the cubature point generated equation, such as (15) and
(19). The propagation equations of the sensitivities can be
obtained by taking partial derivative of the propagation
equations of the CKF, such as (16)-(18) and (20)-(25). The
sensitivity propagation algorithm of the cubature points is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Sensitivity propagation algorithm of cubature
points
Time update
(1) Compute the sensitivities of step k  1 cubature
points (i  1, 2, , , j  1, 2, , 2n)
χ +j , k 1

Under the basic assumptions of the recursive Bayesian filter,
such as no model and parameter uncertainties, the state
estimate are unbiased. It means that the optimal estimation
errors satisfy

(30)

where the sensitivity of the nonlinear measurement function
is defined by

(23)

Finally, the a posterior estimate and the associated covariance
are given by

k

f ( xk 1 , c, uk 1 )
]
ci

f ( xk 1 , c, uk 1 )
N ( xˆ k1 , Pk1 )dxk 1
Rn
ci

(21)

1 2 n  T

 Ζ j ,k Ζ j ,k  zˆk zˆkT  Rk
2n j 1

Pxz , k 

E[


2n


k


zz , k

si, k 

ci



 Pk1
ci

ξ j  si, k 1

(33)

(2) Propagate the sensitivity cubature points
χ 
j ,k
ci



f ( χ +j , k 1 , c , uk 1 ) χ +j , k 1 f ( χ +j , k 1 , c , uk 1 )
+
(34)
χ +j , k 1
ci
ci

(3) Evaluate the sensitivities of the prior state estimate


si, k 

1 2 n χ j , k
xˆ k
 
ci 2n j 1 ci

(35)

(4) Evaluate the sensitivities of the prior covariance
matrix


 χ 
1 2 n  χ j , k T
Pk
j,k

χ j , k  χ 


j,k 
 c
ci
2n j 1  ci
 i


T
 T
 si , k xˆ k  xˆ k si , k






T





(36)

Measurement update
(5) Compute the sensitivities of the redrawn cubature
points
χ j , k



ci

 Pk
ci

ξ i  si, k

(37)

(6) Evaluate the sensitivity of
measurement cubature points
Ζ j , k

h( χ j , k , c , uk ) χ j , k



ci

χ j , k

(7) Evaluate the
measurement



ci

sensitivities

the

predicted

h( χ j , k , c , uk )

of

ci

the

(38)

predicted

where  is an arbitrary n  n skew symmetric matrix which
satisfies T   ,  and  are non-singular matrix such that
 P  I .
3.3 Desensitized cubature Kalman filter algorithm

Under the recursive Bayesian filter framework, the CKF is
introduced in the above section. The DCKF is naturally
obtained based on the CKF by using the sensitivity
propagation of cubature points.
With the sensitivities of the posterior state estimate in Table 1,
a desensitized cost function of the DCKF, which consists of
the posterior covariance and a weighted norm of the posterior
sensitivity, is penalized by a sensitivity-weighting sum of the
sensitivities si, k


J d  Tr ( Pk )   si, kTWi , k si, k



γi, k 

1 2 n Ζ j , k
zˆk
 
ci 2n j 1 ci

(8) Evaluate the sensitivities
covariance matrix
Pzz, k
ci

(39)

of

the

innovation


 Ζ j , k
1 2 n  Ζ j , k T


Ζ
Ζ


j ,k
j,k 
2n j 1  ci
 ci

γ i , k zˆkT  zˆk γ iT, k



T








(40)


(9) Evaluate the sensitivities of the cross-covariance
matrix

xz , k

P

ci


 Ζ 
1 2 n  χ j , k T

Ζ j , k  χ j , k  j , k


 c
2n j 1  ci
i


 T
 T
 si , k zˆk  xˆ k γ i , k

T








 (41)

(10) Evaluate the sensitivities of the posterior state
estimate
(42)
s i, k  s i, k  K k γ i , k
(11) Evaluate the sensitivities of the posterior covariance
matrix

P  T
Pk Pk Pxz , k T


K k  K k xz , k
ci
ci
ci
ci

Kk

Pzz, k
ci

(46)

i 1

where Wi , k is a n  n symmetric positive semi-definite
weighting matrix for the ith sensitivity.
Substituting (25) and the sensitivities of the posterior state
estimate in Table 1 into (46), taking partial derivative of J d
with respected to the gain matrix K k , and setting the partial
derivative J d K k  0 gives the solution




i 1

i 1

K k Pzz, k  Wi , k K k γ i , k γ iT, k  Pxz , k  Wi , k si, k γ iT, k (47)

Also, the gain K k is obtained by algebraically solving with
the linear equation in (47).
The DCKF algorithm is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. DCKF algorithm
Time update
(1) Initialize the state vector, x̂0 , the auxiliary matrix,
P0 , and the sensitivity parameters,

(43)

s0 and

P0 ci , i  1, 2, ,  .

(2) Factorize

K kT

Pk1 = Pk1 ( Pk1 )T

The sensitivity of the root square matrix P must be
computed when the sensitivities of the cubature points and
redrawn cubature points are calculated. By taking partial
derivative of equation P = P ( P )T , which is different from
the equation in Shen and Karlgaard [16], they satisfy
equation
P  P
 P T
=
( P )T  P (
)
ci ci
ci

(44)

The solution  P ci of (44) can be obtained as [18]
1

T
 P
 1  P  T

T
  1   
    
ci

2
c
i





(45)

(48)

(3) Evaluate the cubature points, χ
the sensitivities, χ

+
j , k 1

+
j , k 1

, using (15), and

ci , using (45) and (33).

(4) Evaluate the propagated cubature points, χ j , k , using
(16), and the sensitivities, χ 
j , k ci , using (34).
(5) Estimate the predicted state, xˆ k , using (17), and the
prior sensitivity, si, k , using (35).
(6) Estimate the predicted covariance matrix, Pk , using
(18), and the sensitivity, Pk ci , using (36).
Measurement update
(7) Factorize
Pk = Pk ( Pk )T
(49)
(8) Evaluate the redrawn cubature points, χ j , k , using
(19), and the sensitivities, χ +j , k 1 ci , using (45)

and (37).
(9) Evaluate the propagated cubature points of
measurement equation, Ζ j , k , using (20), and the
sensitivities, Ζ j , k ci , using (38).
(10) Estimate the predicted measurement, zˆk , using (21),
and the sensitivity, γ i , k , using (39).
(11) Estimate the innovation covariance matrix, Pzz, k ,

zz , k

using (22), and the sensitivity, P ci , using
(40).
(12) Estimate the cross-covariance matrix, Pxz , k , using

xz , k

(23), and the sensitivity, P

ci , using (41).

(13) Obtain the gain matrix, K k , by solving (47).
(14) Estimate the posterior state, xˆ k , using (24), and the
posterior sensitivity, si, k , using (42).
(15) Estimate the posterior covariance matrix, Pk , using
(25), and the sensitivity, Pk ci , using (43).

to be a zero-mean Gaussian noise with covariance
E[vk2 ]  R  104 ft 2 .
Here, we assumed that there is uncertainties in the constant
parameter c , and the true values of c subjects to a uniform
distribution, c U (3 4 c ,5 4 c ) . The true state and initial
estimates are given as
x1 (0)  3  105 ft; x2 (0)  2  104 ft/s; x3 (0)  1  103

and the initial covariance is given as

P0  diag 1  106 ft 2 , 4  106 ft 2 / s 2 ,1  104 

(54)

Total time of the simulation is assumed to be 60s, and the
fourth-order Runge-Kutta method is used to discretized the
continuous state equation with a sample frequency 10Hz. 200
Monte Carlos are run to evaluate the performance of the three
filters. In the imperfect CKF and the DCKF, the uncertain
parameter c is set as the corresponding reference value,
c  2  104 . For the DCKF, the sensitivity-weighting matrix is
set to
W  diag 3  104 ,6  103 ,1  105 

4. NUMERICAL SIMULATION

(52)

xˆ1 (0)  3  105 ft; xˆ2 (0)  2  104 ft/s; xˆ3 (0)  3  105 (53)

(55)

To verify the effectiveness of the proposed DCKF algorithm
in the previous section, the vertical falling body model with
one uncertain parameter [18] and the HHM with two
uncertain parameters are considered [21]. The perfect CKF
(perf. CKF) and the imperfect CKF (imp. CKF) are employed
to compare the performance of the proposed algorithm. The
“perfect” means that the true values of the parameters are all
known exactly in perfect CKF; The “imperfect” means that in
the imperfect CKF the true values of the uncertain parameters
are not known, and only the reference values, coming from
the previous experience, are known.
4.1 Falling body model with one uncertain parameter

In this example, we use the perf. CKF, the imp. CKF and the
proposed DCKF to estimate the altitude x1 (t ) , velocity x2 (t )
and constant ballistic coefficient x3 (t ) of a vertically falling
body with a high velocity [19, 20, 22]. A tracking radar
device is used to record the range measurements between the
radar and the falling body. The system equations are given by
x1 (t )  x2 (t )  w1 (t )
x1 (t )  x22 (t ) x3 (t ) exp{ x1 (t ) c}  g  w2 (t )
x3 (t )  w3 (t )

(50)

where c is a constant which is the relationship between the
air density and the altitude and it is reference value is
c  2  10 4 , g  32.2ft s 2 is the gravitational acceleration. wi (t )
is the process noise that affects the ith equation with
E[ wi2 (t )]  0 (i  1, 2,3) . The discrete-time range measurement
from the radar is given by
zk  M 2  ( x1, k  H ) 2  vk

(51)

where M  10 ft is the radar horizontal distance from the
body’s vertical line of fall, and H  105 ft is the radar altitude
above the ground level. vk is the measurement noise assumed
5

Fig.1. Sensitivities of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF for
state x1
The state sensitivities respected to the uncertain parameter c
with logarithmic scales are shown in Figs. 1 to 3. Compared
to the imperfect CKF, the proposed DCKF almost has smaller
sensitivities to the uncertain parameter. Figures 4 to 5 show
that the root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of the above three
filters. When the process model is disturbed by the uncertain
parameter, the RMSE for the DCKF is smaller than that of
the imperfect CKF. In a word, the proposed DCKF can
reduce the sensitivities of the state estimate errors respect to
the uncertain parameter compared with the imperfect CKF,
and has a better performance than the imperfect CKF when
the process model parameter is imperfect.

Fig.2. Sensitivities of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF for
state x2

Fig.5. x2 RMSE

Fig.6. x3 RMSE
Fig.3. Sensitivities of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF for
state x3

4.2 Hovering helicopter model with two uncertain
parameters

In this example, the hovering helicopter model is given by
[21]
c2
g
 c1
1.26 1.765 0
x  
 0
1
0

0
0
 1

0
 0.086 
 7.408
0 
 K x (56)
x
 0  lqr
0



0
 0 

z k  xk  v k

(57)

where the state vector is x  [ x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ] , in which x1 is the
horizontal velocity, x2 is the pitch angle of the fuselage and
its derivative x3 , and x4 is perturbation from a ground point
reference. g is the acceleration from gravity and its value is
g  0.322 , Klqr is a constant vector given by
T

Fig.4. x1 RMSE

K lqr  [1.989, 0.256, 0.7589,1] . v k is the measurement noise.

The two uncertain model parameters c1 and c2 are assumed
to be uniform distributions, which are respectively
c1 U (0.15, 0.05) and ... The initial true state of the HHM is
x0  [0.7929, 0.0466, 0.1871,0.5780]T

(58)
and the initial state of the filter is set as xˆ 0  x0 , with the
initial covariance Pˆ0  I .

In simulation, the total time interval is assumed to be 4s, and
the continuous state equation has been discretized using the
fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with a sample frequency
20Hz. For performance evaluation, 200 Monte Carlo runs are
performed for three filters. In the imperfect CKF and the
DCKF the two uncertain parameters are set as their reference
values, which are c1  0.1 and c2  0.1 . For the DCKF, the
sensitivity-weighting matrices are set to
W1  W2  diag 3  10 , 2  10 ,1  10 , 2  10
3

3

2

2

 (59)

The true state and its estimates of three filters, RMSE ，
sensitivities respect to the uncertain parameters, and mean
cost functions of the three filters are performed in the
following.

using (49). It can be seen that the mean cost function of the
perfect CKF is the smallest; the mean cost function of the
DCKF takes second place, and the mean cost function of the
imperfect CKF is the largest one. So, the DCKF reduces the
sensitivities of the state estimate errors respect to the
parameter uncertainties, and minimizes the corresponding
cost function compared with the imperfect CKF.
Figure 10 shows that the RMSEs of the three filter. The
RMSE for the DCKF is larger than the perfect CKF, and
smaller than the imperfect CKF, when the process model has
the uncertain parameters. These results demonstrate that the
DCKF can effectively reduce the estimation errors in the
presence of the uncertain parameters.

The true state of the HHM and its estimates of the imperfect
CKF and the DCKF in one Monte Carlo test are shown in Fig.
7. The true values of the two parameters in this simulation
case are c1  0.0729 and c2  0.1142 , respectively.
Figure 8 represents the state sensitivities respect to the
uncertain parameter, c1 , in the imperfect CKF and the DCKF
with logarithmic scales, because the state sensitivities to c2
are similar. From Fig. 8, it can be seen that the imperfect
CKF almost has a larger sensitivities to the parameter
uncertainties than the DCKF. The mean cost functions of
three filters with logarithmic scales are shown in Fig. 9. Here,
for the different cost functions of the three filters, the cost
function of the perfect CKF is J c  Tr ( Pk ) , and the cost
function of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF is computed

Fig.9. Mean cost function

Fig.7. True values of the HHM and estimates of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF

Fig.8. Sensitivities of the imperfect CKF and the DCKF

Fig.10.RMSE
A filter consistency test based on the normalized mean error the required threshold, and this shows that the DCKF
(NME) test described in reference is introduced to highlight covariance estimate accurately predicts the state estimate
the effectiveness of the covariance estimates in accounting errors. But, the results of the imperfect CKF indicate that it
for errors in the state estimates. The results of the NME has a poor consistency in describing the states. That is to say,
consistency test are shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that all the DCKF consistently provides excellent state estimates
the state test statistics of the proposed DCKF are well below when the process model parameter has uncertainties.

Fig.11. NME consistency test
Control, IEEE Transactions on, 2000, 45, (3), pp.
5. CONCLUSIONS
477-482
Norgaard, M., Poulsen, N.K., Ravn, O.: 'New
In this paper, the state estimation of nonlinear systems with 5
developments in state estimation for nonlinear
uncertain parameter is studied based on the desensitized
systems', Automatica, 2000, 36, (11), pp. 1627-1638
optimal control methodology. The definition of the state
Ito, K., Xiong, K.: 'Gaussian filters for nonlinear
estimate error sensitivity to the uncertain parameter is 6
filtering problems', Automatic Control, IEEE
introduced into the recursive Bayesian filter. The robust
Transactions on, 2000, 45, (5), pp. 910-927
desensitized cubature Kalman filtering (DCKF) for nonlinear
Doucet, A., Godsill, S., Andrieu, C.: 'On sequential
systems with uncertain parameter under Bayesian framework 7
Monte Carlo sampling methods for Bayesian
is proposed. The desensitized cost function of the DCKF is
filtering', Stat Comput, 2000, 10, (3), pp. 197-208
designed by penalizing the posterior covariance trace by a
Gordon, N.J., Salmond, D.J., Smith, A.F.M.: 'A
sensitivity-weighting sum of the a posteriori sensitivities, and 8
Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian
the gain of the DCKF is obtained by minimizing the
state estimation', IEE Proceedings F (Radar and
desensitized cost function to amend the state estimation. In
Signal Processing), 1993, 140, (2), pp. 107-113
the DCKF, the sensitivity propagation of the state estimate
Arasaratnam, I., Haykin, S.: 'Cubature Kalman
errors is described, and a special equation, which is different 9
filters', Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on,
from the equation of Shen and Karlgaard, is solved to obtain
2009, 54, (6), pp. 1254-1269
the sensitivity of the root square matrix. Two numerical
Jia, B., Xin, M., Cheng, Y.: 'High-degree cubature
simulations are computed to verify the effectiveness of the 10
Kalman filter', Automatica, 2013, 49, (2), pp. 510proposed DCKF.
518
REFERENCES
11
Sun, T., Xin, M.: 'Hypersonic entry vehicle state
estimation using high- degree cubature kalman filter'.
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,
1
Daum, F.: 'Nonlinear filters: Beyond the Kalman
Atlanta, GA, 2014
filter', Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine,
12
Ferná ndez-Prades, C., Vilà-Valls, J. Bayesian
IEEE, 2005, 20, (8), pp. 57-69
nonlinear filtering using quadrature and cubature
2
Arasaratnam, I., Haykin, S., Elliott, R.J.: 'Discreterules applied to sensor data fusion for positioning. in
time nonlinear filtering algorithms using GaussCommunications, 2010 IEEE International
Hermite quadrature', P Ieee, 2007, 95, (5), pp. 953Conference on. 2010: IEEE.
977
13
Gelb, A.:'Applied optimal estimation'( MIT press,
3
Jazwinski, A.H.:'Stochastic processes and filtering
1974 edn.1974)
theory'( Academic Press, 1970 edn.1970)
14
Karlgaard, C.D., Shen, H.J.: 'Desensitized Kalman
4
Julier, S., Uhlmann, J., Durrant-Whyte, H.F.: 'A new
filtering', IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 2013, 7,
method for the nonlinear transformation of means
(1), pp. 2-9
and covariances in filters and estimators', Automatic
15
Karlgaard, C.D., Shen, H.J.: 'Robust state estimation

References:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

using desensitized divided difference filter', Isa T,
2013, 52, (5), pp. 629-637
Shen, H., Karlgaard, C.D.: 'Sensitivity reduction of
unscented Kalman filter about parameter
uncertainties', IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 2015,
9, (4), pp. 374-383
Ho, Y., Lee, R.: 'A Bayesian approach to problems
in stochastic estimation and control', Automatic
Control, IEEE Transactions on, 1964, 9, (4), pp.
333-339
Hodges, J.H.: 'Some matrix equations over a finite
field', Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata,
Series 4, 1957, 44, (1), pp. 245-250
Crassidis, J.L., Junkins, J.L.:'Optimal estimation of
dynamic systems'( Chapman & Hall\CRC Press,
2012, 2nd ed. edn.2012)
Simon, D.:'Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H
infinity, and nonlinear approaches'( WileyInterscience, 2006 edn.2006)
Madankan, R., Singla, P., Singh, T., Scott, P.D.:
'Polynomial-Chaos-Based bayesian approach for
state and parameter estimations', Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2013, 34, (4), pp.
1-17
Athans, M., Wishner, R., Bertolini, A.: 'Suboptimal
state estimation for continuous-time nonlinear
systems from discrete noisy measurements',
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 1968, 13,
(5), pp. 504-514
Lou, T., Fu, H., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z.: 'Consider
unobservable uncertain parameters using radio
beacon navigation during Mars entry', Adv Space
Res, 2015, 55, (4), pp. 1038-1050

