1

Marginalized Bayesian filtering with Gaussian
priors and posteriors

arXiv:1603.06462v2 [math.ST] 11 Jul 2016

John-Olof Nilsson

Abstract—Marginalization techniques are presented for the
Bayesian filtering problem under the assumption of Gaussian
priors and posteriors and a set of sequentially more constraining
state space model assumptions. The techniques provide the capabilities to 1) reduce the filtering problem to essential marginal
moment integrals, 2) combine model and numerical approximations to the moment integrals, and 3) decouple modelling and
system composition. Closed-form expressions of the posterior
means and covariances are developed as functions of subspace
projection matrices, subsystem models, and the marginal moment
integrals. Finally, we review prior work and how the results relate
to Kalman and marginalized particle filtering techniques.

I. Introduction
The Bayesian filtering problem is in general intractable and
direct numerical approximations, such as particle filters, are
only applicable to low-dimensional systems. Beyond particle
filters, marginalization, combined with a (conditionally) static,
linear, and Gaussian state space subspace, can confine the intractable part to the complementary subspace making particle
filter techniques, so-called marginalized or Rao-Blackwellized
particle filters, applicable to higher dimensional systems.
Unfortunately, for commonly appearing dynamic subspace
structures, one is in general referred to filtering with the
assumptions of Gaussian priors and posteriors, e.g. Kalman
filtering. However, marginalization may still be highly valuable
and used to exploit structures in the models. In particular, in
this article I present general marginalization techniques which
give the following model structure exploiting capabilities:
1) Focusing numerical approximations: The Gaussian prior
and posterior assumptions reduce the Bayesian filtering to a
set of intractable moment integrals. Consequently, the related
filtering techniques are essentially defined by the different
ways they approximate the moment integrals. However, with
subspace structures, only subdimensions of the integrals are
intractable and marginalization can reduce the integrals to
those intractable dimensions, thereby focusing the numerical
approximation techniques.
2) Combining model and numerical approximations: Traditionally, nonlinear non-Gaussian models are handled by
linearization and Gaussian approximations, giving different
flavors of the Kalman filters. However, linearizing or making
a Gaussian approximation of a part of a model is just a way
of introducing related linear and Gaussian subspaces. Then,
marginalization can be used to eliminate such subspaces from
the moment integrals, hence enabling combination of model
and numerical approximations.
John-Olof Nilsson is with the Dept. of Signal Processing, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Osquldas v. 10, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. jnil02@kth.se

3) Decoupling modelling and system composition: Filtering
problems often include multiple information sources and hence
multiple models. The different output and state models are typically dependent on different system states, creating dynamic
subspace structures. However, the specific subspace structures
will be dependent on the system composition, creating an
implicit coupling between the modelling and the composition.
In this case, marginalization can be used to decouple the
subsystem modelling and the system composition such that
they can be performed separately.
The techniques give extended Bayesian filtering abilities.
The novelty is both within the capabilities themselves and the
fact that they are derived under different (weaker) assumptions
than comparative filtering techniques. In combination with
moment integral approximations, the results constitute a new
class of Bayesian filtering techniques. The core results of this
article are closed form expressions of the posterior means
and covariances in terms of subspace projection matrices,
subsystem models, and explicit marginal moment integrals, for
a set of sequentially more constraining state space model assumptions. In the following subsection, we pose the Bayesian
filtering problem and the state space model assumptions.
The expressions for the posterior means and covariances are
developed over Sections II-V. Following this, in Sections VIVIII we return to how they give capabilities 1-3. Finally, in
Section IX we review prior work and applications and how
the results connect to related filtering techniques. Due to the
wide range of analytical results and the more specific nature of
suitable moment integral approximations, we stay away from
specific approximation techniques and simulations.
Notation: Let A⊥⊤ = AA⊤ and A⊥+⊤ = A + A⊤ . 0 and
I are zero and identity matrices of appropriate dimensions.
[· ·] and [· ; ·] are row and column vectors, respectively. p(a|b)
is the probability density function (pdf) of a given (where
applicable) b. Na (c, P) is the Gaussian pdf of a with mean c
and covariance P. δ(·) is the Dirac delta function. Conditioning
on output up to instant k is denoted with â and k − 1 with ǎ.
A. Problem formulation
Consider the general discrete state space system
xk = fk (xk−1 , wk )
yk = hk (xk−1 , vk )

⇒

p(xk |xk−1 )
p(yk |xk )

where xk ∈ Rn and yk ∈ Rm and where wk ∼ p(wk ) and
vk ∼ p(vk ) are independent. In the latter implied (and sufficient) density representation, p(xk |xk−1 ) and p(yk |xk ) captures
both fk (·, ·) and hk (·, ·) and p(wk ) and p(vk ). For p(yk |xk )
we do not require quantified output but it may also encode

2

any side information yk , e.g. constraints. The problem is to
recursively calculate the conditional densities p(xk |Yk−1 ) and
p(xk |Yk ) given p(x0 |Y0 ), where Yk = {yk } is the set of all
output up to instant k. This is the Bayesian filtering problem
which in general cannot be solved analytically. However, the
intractability can be limited to specific subspaces with further
assumptions:
N) Gaussian priors and posteriors: While p(xk |xk−1 ) and
p(yk |xk ) are arbitrary densities, the conditional state densities,
p(xk |Yk−1 ) = Nxk (x̌k , P̌k ) and p(xk |Yk ) = Nxk (x̂k , P̂k )
i.e. the initial and estimated distributions, are Gaussian.
a) Dynamic active subspaces: There are matrices Ak ∈ Rαk ,n ,
Bk ∈ Rn−αk ,n , Ck ∈ Rβk ,n , and Dk ∈ Rn−βk ,n , and corresponding
functions fka (·, ·) and hak (·, ·), such that
h
i
Sk xk = fka (Ak xk−1 , wk ); Bk xk−1
yk = hak (Ck xk , vk )

where Sk = [Ak ; Bk ] and Tk = [Ck ; Dk ] are invertible.
The structure of assumption a frequently arises due to different
models being functions of different state space subspaces
Ak xk−1 and Ck xk . N and a are the basic assumptions here. Results for the filtering problem will be presented for this general
case. However, further structure is often available, structure
which can greatly simplify the filtering. Consequently, results
will also be presented for three further assumptions about the
active subspaces:
b) Conditionally additive noise: There are functions fkb (·) and
hbk (·), and matrices Gbk (Ak xk ) and Jbk (Ck xk ) such that
Ak xk = fkb (Ak xk−1 ) + Gbk (Ak xk−1 )wk
yk = hbk (Ck xk ) + Jbk (Cxk )vk
where p(wk ) has zero mean and covariance Pwk and Jbk (Cxk ) is
invertible. (The mean and covariance of vk may be undefined.)
c) Conditionally linear and Gaussian subspaces: There are
matrices Ak = [Ank ; Alk ], Ck = [Cnk ; Clk ], Fck (Ank xk ), Gck (Ank xk ),
Hck (Cnk xk ), and Jck (Cnk xk ) and functions fkc (·) and hck (·) such that
Ak xk = fkc (Ank xk−1 ) + Fck (Ank xk−1 )Alk xk−1 +Gck (Ank xk−1 )wk
yk = hck (Cnk xk ) + Hck (Cn xk )Clk xk + Jck (Cn xk )vk
where wk ∼ Nwk (0, Pwk ) and vk ∼ Nwv (0, Pvk ), i.e. there are
conditionally linear subspaces with additive Gaussian noise
within the active subspaces.
d) Dynamic active linear and Gaussian subspaces: There are
matrices Fdk , Gdk , Hdk and Jdk , and vectors fkd and hdk such that
Ak xk = fkd + Fdk Ak xk−1 + Gdk wk
yk = hdk + Hdk Ck xk + Jdk vk
where p(wk ) has zero mean and covariance Pwk and vk ∼
Nvk (0, Pvk ), i.e. the subspace state equation and the output
equation are linear and Gaussian.
Note that the assumptions about the state equation and the
output equation within the above assumptions are independent.

Consequently, they may be used separately. However, since
the analysis for the prediction and the update are similar,
they are treated jointly. Further, p(wk ) having a defined mean
and covariance Pwk is strictly not required for the results of
assumption a. However, it is in general required for assumption
N to make sense. Similarly, wk ∼ Nwk (0, Pwk ) is not strictly
required for the results for assumption d but it is implicit
from the linear state equation and assumption N. Hence, the
assumptions a-d are sequentially more constraining.
II. Inactive subspace marginalization
Assumption N implies that only the means, x̌k and x̂k , and
the covariances, P̌k and P̂k , need to be calculated, instead
of arbitrary densities p(xk |Yk−1 ) and p(xk |Yk ). If, additionally,
assumption a is made, the desired means and covariances
can be expressed as functions of marginal moments in the
nonlinear non-Gaussian subspaces, as will be shown in the
following subsections.
For brevity, hereinafter, indices of fk (·, ·), hk (·, ·), Sk and Tk
and related quantities are dropped, while retaining implicit
dependencies on k. Further, required indices of states, covariances, and outputs are indicated with diacritic dots, ak = ȧ
and ak−1 = ä.
A. Marginalization for prediction
Let U ∈ Rn,a and V ∈ Rn,n−a such that S−1 = [U V]. Further,
let M = BP̈ˇ A⊤ (AP̈ˇ A⊤ )−1 . Assumption a implies p(Sẋ|ẍ) =
p(Aẋ|Aẍ)δ(Bẋ − Bẍ). This, and assumptions N and a, imply
Z
p(Sẋ, Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Bẍ)d(Bẋ) = p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ)
Z
p(Sẋ, Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ) = δ(Bẋ − Bẍ)p(Bẍ|Ÿ)
Z
Bẍp(Sẍ|Ÿ)d(B ẍ) = (Bẍˇ + M(Aẍ − Aẍˇ ))p(Aẍ|Ÿ).
Finally, introduce the marginal moments
Z
ˇ
Aẋ =
Aẋp(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)
Z
P̌Aẋ = (Aẋ − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)
Z
P̌Aẋ,Aẍ = (Aẋ − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤ p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ).
Together, this gives the predicted mean
Z
ˇẋ =
ẋp(ẋ|ẍ)p(ẍ|Ÿ)dẍdẋ
Z
−1
Sẋp(Sẋ|ẍ)p(Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Sẍ)d(Sẋ)
=S
Z
= S−1 [Aẋ; Bẋ]p(Aẋ|Aẍ)δ(Bẋ − Bẍ)p(Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Sẋ)d(Sẍ)
Z
= U Aẋp(Aẋ|Aẍ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẋ)d(Aẍ) + VBẍˇ
= UAẋˇ + VBẍˇ .

3

Further, note that Bẋˇ = BUAẋˇ + BVBẍˇ = Bẍˇ . Together, this
gives the predicted covariance
Z
Ṗˇ = (ẋ − ẋˇ )⊥⊤ p(ẋ, ẍ|Ÿ)dẍdẋ
Z
=
S−1 S(ẋ − ẋˇ )⊥⊤ S⊤ S−⊤ p(Sẋ, Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Sẍ)d(Sẋ)
Z 
U(Aẋ − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ U⊤ + V(Bẋ − Bẋˇ )⊤⊥ V⊤
=

+ (UA(ẋ − ẋˇ )⊥⊤ B⊤ V⊤ )⊥+⊤ p(Sẋ, Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Sẍ)d(Sẋ)
Z
=
U(Aẋ − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ U⊤ p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)
Z
+ V(Bẋ − Bẋˇ )⊥⊤ V⊤ δ(Bẋ − Bẍ)p(Bẍ|Ÿ)d(Bẍ)d(Bẋ)
Z 
⊥+⊤
U(Aẋ − Aẋˇ )(Bẋ − Bẋˇ )⊤ V⊤
+
p(Aẋ|Aẍ)δ(Bẋ − Bẍ)p(Sẍ|Ÿ)d(Sẍ)d(Sẋ)
ˇ
= UP̌Aẋ U + VBP̈B⊤ V⊤
Z 
⊥+⊤
U(Aẋ − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤ M⊤ V⊤
+
⊤

p(Aẋ|Aẍ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)

= UP̌Aẋ U⊤ + VBP̈ˇ B⊤ V⊤ + (UP̌Aẋ,Aẍ M⊤ V⊤ )⊥+⊤ .
Consequently, with assumptions N and a, obtaining p(ẋ|Ÿ)
from p(ẍ|Ÿ), i.e. the prediction, boils down to calculating the
marginal moments Aẋˇ , P̌Aẋ , and P̌Aẋ,Aẍ .
The density p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ) is normally not known. However,
from the definition of conditional probability
p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ) = p(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ).
p(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ) can be obtained from the state equation via
Z
p(Aẋ|Aẍ) =
δ(Aẋ − f a (Aẍ, ẇ))p(ẇ)dẇ.
Inserting into the expressions for the marginal moments and
integrating out Aẋ give
Z
ˇ
Aẋ =
f a (Aẍ, ẇ)p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])
Z
⊥⊤
f a (Aẍ, ẇ) − Aẋˇ
p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])
P̌Aẋ =
Z

f a (Aẍ, ẇ) − Aẋˇ (Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤ p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])
P̌Aẋ,Aẍ =
where, for uniformity, we have written p(ẇ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ) =
p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ). Consequently, the integration over Aẋ is replaced
with the integration over ẇ and the density p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ) is
replaced with the known density p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ).

B. Marginalization for update
Let W ∈ Rn,b and Z ∈ Rn,n−b such that T−1 = [W Z].
Further, let N = DṖˇ C⊤ (CṖˇ C⊤ )−1 . Note that p(Tẋ|Ẏ) =
p(Dẋ|Cẋ,Ẏ)p(Cẋ|Ẏ). Assumptions a and N, respectively, imply
p(Dẋ|Cẋ, Ẏ) = p(Dẋ|Cẋ, Ÿ) = NDẋ Dẋˇ + N(Cẋ − Cẋˇ ), DṖˇ D⊤ −


NCṖˇ D⊤ . Finally, introduce the marginal moments
Z
ˆ
Cẋ =
Cẋp(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)
Z
P̂Cẋ = (Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ).
Together, this gives the updated mean
Z
ẋp(ẋ|Ẏ)dẋ
ẋˆ =
Z
−1
=T
Tẋp(Tẋ|Ẏ)d(Tẋ)
Z
Z
= W Cẋp(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ) + Z Dẋp(Dẋ|Cẋ)p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Tẋ)
Z 

Dẋˇ + N(Cẋ − Cẋˇ ) p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)
= WCẋˆ + Z

= WCẋˆ + Z Dẋˇ + N(Cẋˆ − Cẋˇ ) .

Further, note that Dẋˆ = DWCẋˆ + DZ Dẋˇ + N(Cẋˆ − Cẋˇ ) =
Dẋˇ + N(Cẋˆ − Cẋˇ ). Together, this gives the updated covariance
Z
Ṗˆ = (ẋ − ẋˆ )⊥⊤ p(ẋ|Ẏ)dẋ
Z
=
T−1 T(ẋ − ẋˆ )⊥⊤ T⊤ T−⊤ p(Tẋ|Ẏ)d(Tẋ)
Z 
W(Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ W⊤ + Z(Dẋ − Dẋˆ )⊤⊥ V⊤
=

+ (WC(ẋ − ẋˆ )⊥⊤ D⊤ Z⊤ )⊥+⊤ p(Tẋ|Ẏ)d(Tẋ)
Z
=
W(Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ W⊤ p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)
Z
 !

⊥⊤ ⊤
⊤ ⊤ ⊥+⊤
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
+
Z(Dẋ−Dẋ) Z + W(Cẋ−Cẋ)(Dẋ−Dẋ) Z


NDẋ Dẋˇ +N(Cẋ−Cẋˇ ), DṖˇ D⊤−NCṖˇ D⊤ p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)d(Dẋ)

= WP̂Cẋ W⊤
Z 

+ Z DṖˇ D⊤−NCṖˇ D⊤ + N(Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ N⊤ Z⊤p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)
Z 
⊥+⊤
+ W(Cẋ−Cẋˆ )(Cẋˇ +N(Cẋ−Cẋˇ )−Cẋˆ )⊤Z⊤ p(Cẋ|Ẏ)d(Cẋ)

= WP̂CẋW⊤+Z(DṖˇ D⊤−NCṖˇ D⊤+NP̂Cẋ N⊤ )Z⊤+(WP̂Cẋ N⊤Z⊤ )⊥+⊤.

Consequently, with assumptions N and a, obtaining p(ẋ|Ẏ)
from p(ẋ|Ÿ), i.e. the update, boils down to calculating the
marginal moments Cẋˆ and P̂Cẋ .
The density p(Cẋ|Ẏ) is not in general known. However, from
Bayes’ theorem and the Markovian assumption of the state
space model
p(Cẋ|Ẏ) = νp(ẏ|Cẋ)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)
where ν is a normalization constant. p(Cẋ|Ÿ) is the known
prior and p(ẏ|Cẋ) is the likelihood function. If the likelihood
function is known, up to scale, then the the marginal moments
can directly be expressed as
Z
ˆ
Cẋ = ν Cẋp(ẏ|Cẋ)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)
Z
P̂Cẋ = ν (Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ p(ẏ|Cẋ)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ).

4

If the likelihood function is not known, it can be obtained
from the output model ha (·, v̇) and the density p(v̇) via
Z
p(ẏ|Cẋ) =
δ(ẏ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))p(v̇)dv̇.
Inserting into the marginal moment integrals yields
Z
Cẋˆ = ν Cẋδ(ẏ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))p(v̇)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)dv̇
Z
P̂Cẋ = ν (Cẋ − Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ δ(ẏ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))p(v̇)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)dv̇.

IV. Linear and Gaussian subspace marginalization
If, in addition to the assumptions N and a, assumption c
is made, the calculation of the marginal moments Aẋˇ , P̌Aẋ,Aẍ ,
P̌Aẋ , Cẋˆ , and P̂Cẋ can be facilitated by further marginalizing
out the linear subspaces. For brevity, hereinafter let Fc =
Fc (An ẍ), Gc = Gc (An ẍ), Hc = Hc (Cn ẋ), and Jc = Jc (An ẍ),
while retaining implicit dependencies.
A. Marginalization for prediction

Unfortunately, this increases the dimensionality of the integrals
and adds the Dirac factor which complicates the evaluation.
However, as will be shown in Section VI, the moments are
still evaluable with standard statistical methods.

Let Fc = [Fn ; Fl ], Gc = [Gn ; Gl ], and f c (·) = [ f n (·); f l (·)]
such that the divisions are consistent with the dimensions of
A = [An ; Al ]. From the definition of conditional probability

III. Exploiting conditionally additive noise structure
If, in addition to the assumptions N and a, assumption b
is made, the calculation of the marginal moments Aẋˇ , P̌Aẋ,Aẍ ,
P̌Aẋ , Cẋˆ , and P̂Cẋ can be facilitated by marginalizing out Aẋ
(without introducing ẇ) and an explicit likelihood function.
For brevity, hereinafter let Gb = Gb (Aẍ) and Jb = Jb (Aẍ),
while retaining implicit dependencies.

= p(Al ẋ, Al ẍ|An ẋ, An ẍ, Ÿ)p(An ẋ|An ẍ, Ÿ)p(An ẍ|Ÿ).

A. Current state marginalization
From the definition of conditional probability p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ) =
p(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ). Now, given Aẍ, Aẋ is an affine transformation of ẇ and consequently
Z
Aẋˇ =
Aẋp(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)
Z
=
f b (Aẍ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)
Z
P̌Aẋ = (Aẋ − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ p(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)d(Aẋ)
Z

⊤
Gb Pẇ Gb + ( f b (Aẍ) − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ)
=
Z
P̌Aẋ,Aẍ = (Aẋ − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤ p(Aẋ|Aẍ, Ÿ)p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẋ)
Z
= ( f b (Aẍ) − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤ p(Aẍ|Ÿ)d(Aẍ).
In contrast to the general case, p(ẇ) can be integrated out and
therefore, the dimensionality of the integrals is reduced.
B. Explicit likelihood function
Again, from Bayes’ theorem and the Markovian assumption
of the state space model, p(Cẋ|Ẏ) = νp(ẏ|Cẋ)p(Cẋ|Ÿ) where
ν is a normalization constant. Given Cẋ, ẏ is an affine
transformation of v̇. Consequently, the likelihood function

p(ẏ|Cẋ) = |Jb |−1 pv̇ (Jb )−1 (ẏ − hb (Cẋ))

where the subscript pv̇ (·) has been used to indicate that this is
the pdf of v̇ and where | · | denotes the determinant. Therefore
Z

ˆ
Cẋ = ν Cẋ|Jb |−1 pv̇ (Jb )−1 (ẏ − hb (Cẋ)) p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)
Z

P̂Cẋ = ν (Cẋ−Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ |Jb |−1 pv̇ (Jb )−1 (ẏ−hb (Cẋ)) p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ).

In contrast to the general case, p(ẏ|Cẋ) is always known and
the noise v̇ does not add to the dimensionality of the integrals.

p(Aẋ, Aẍ|Ÿ) = p(Al ẋ, Al ẍ|An ẋ, An ẍ, Ÿ)p(An ẋ, An ẍ|Ÿ)

The two first distributions can be derived in closed form.
Assumption N implies that
p(Al ẍ|An ẍ, Ÿ) = NAl ẍ (φ(An ẍ), Φ)
where
φ(An ẍ) = Al ẍˇ + Al P̈ˇ An⊤ (An P̈ˇ An⊤ )−1 (An ẍ − An ẍˇ )
⊤
⊤
Φ = Al P̈ˇ Al − Al P̈ˇ An⊤ (An P̈ˇ An⊤ )−1 An P̈ˇ Al .
Together with assumptions N and c, this implies
p(An ẋ|An ẍ, Ÿ) = NAn ẋ (π(An ẍ), Π(An ẍ))
where
π(An ẍ) = f n (An ẍ) + Fn φ(An ẍ)
Π(An ẍ) = Fn ΦFn⊤ + Gn Pẇ Gn⊤ .
Further, the relations
expressed as follows
" l # " l
A ẋ
F
=
Al ẍ
I
h
An ẋ = 0

between Al ẋ, Al ẍ, An ẋ, and An ẍ can be
# " # " l n # " l#
0 Al ẍ
f (A ẍ)
G
+
ẇ
... +
0 Al x
0
0
"
#
i Al ẋ
Fn
+ f n (An ẍ) + Gn ẇ.
Al ẍ

Given An ẋ and An ẍ, the former relation can be interpreted
as a state equation and the latter as an output equation of
a linear Gaussian system. p(Al ẍ|An ẍ, Ÿ) provides a Gaussian
...
prior (note that Al x is merely a placeholder since it does not
effect the prediction) and therefore p(Al ẋ, Al ẍ|An ẋ, An ẍ, Ÿ) is
determined by the Kalman filter recursion, giving
p(Al ẋ, Al ẍ|An ẋ, An ẍ, Ÿ) =
NAl ẋ,Al ẍ

"

#
f l (An ẍ) + Fl φ(An ẍ) + Ξln (Ξn )−1 (An ẋ − π(An ẍ))
,
φ(An ẍ) + ΦFn⊤ (Ξn )−1 (An ẋ − π(An ẍ))
"
#!
⊤
Ξl − Ξln (Ξn )−1 Ξln
Fl Φ − Ξln (Ξn )−1 Fn Φ
(Fl Φ − Ξln (Ξn )−1 Fn Φ)⊤ Φ − ΦFn⊤ (Ξn )−1 Fn Φ

where
⊤

Ξl = Fl ΦFl + Gl Pẇ Gl

⊤

Ξln = Fl ΦFn⊤ + Gl Pẇ Gn⊤
Ξn = Fn ΦFn⊤ + Gn Pẇ Gn⊤ .

5

Consequently, Al ẋ and Al ẍ and then An ẋ can be marginalized
out of the marginal moments Aẋˇ , P̌Aẋ , and P̌Aẋ,Aẍ . Introduce

Z " ⊤
κκ
κκ⊤

#
κκ⊤
N (ς, Σ)p(Cn ẋ|Ÿ)d(Cn ẋ)
Ω + κκ⊤ ẏ

where, for brevity, explicit dependencies on Cn ẋ have been
dropped. Consequently, the dimensionality of the moment
integrals has been further reduced by that of Cl ẋ.

α(An ẍ) = f l (An ẍ) + Fl φ(An ẍ) − Al ẋˇ
β(An ẍ) = φ(An ẍ) − Al ẍˇ
γ(An ẋ) = π(An ẍ) − An ẋˇ
δ(An ẍ) = An ẍ − An ẍˇ
Pα (An ẍ) = Ξl − Ξln (Ξn )−1 Ξln

P̂Cẋ = ν

V. Closed form solutions for the linear case
If, in addition to N and a, assumption d is made, closed
form solutions for the marginal moments can be derived.
Substituting the formulas below back into the expressions for
the moments gives the Kalman filter predictions and updates.

⊤

Pα,β (An ẍ) = Fl Φ − Ξln (Ξn )−1 Fn Φ
ǫ(An ẍ) = f l (An ẍ) + Fl φ(An ẍ).
Then, finally, straightforward calculations give
Z " #
π
p(An ẍ|Ÿ)d(An ẍ)
Aẋˇ =
ǫ
#
Z "
Π + γγ⊤
γα⊤ + ΠΞ⊤
p(An ẍ|Ÿ)d(An ẍ)
P̌Aẋ =
αγ⊤ + ΞΠ Pα + αα⊤ + ΞΠΞ⊤
#
Z " ⊤
γδ
γβ⊤ + ΠΓ⊤
p(An ẍ|Ÿ)d(An ẍ)
P̌Aẋ,Aẍ =
αδ⊤ Pα,β + αβ⊤ + ΞΠΓ⊤

A. Closed form solutions for prediction
Substituting f d + Fd Aẍ + Gd ẇ for f a (Aẍ, ẇ) in the formulas
for the marginal moments given assumptions N and a, gives
Z
Aẋˇ = (f + Fd Aẍ + Gd ẇ)p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])

where Ξ = Ξln (Ξn )−1 and Γ = ΦFn⊤ (Ξn )−1 and where, for
brevity, explicit dependencies on An ẍ have been dropped.
Consequently, the dimensionality of the moment integrals has
been further reduced by the dimensionality of Al ẍ.

= Fd AP̈ˇ A⊤ Fd + Gd Pẇ Gd
Z
P̌Aẋ,Aẍ = (f+FdAẍ+Gd ẇ−Aẋˇ )(Aẍ−Aẍˇ )⊤p(ẇ,Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])

B. Marginalization for update

B. Closed form solutions for update
With linear and Gaussian output, the marginal moments are
given by the Kalman filter update formulas
⊤
⊤
⊤
Cẋˆ = Cẋˇ +CṖˇ C⊤Hd (Hd CṖˇ C⊤ Hd +Jd P Jd )−1(ẏ−hd−HdCẋˇ )

From the definition of conditional probability
p(Cẋ|Ẏ) = p(Cl ẋ|Cn ẋ, Ẏ)p(Cn ẋ|Ẏ).
Assumption c implies that, given Cn ẋ, ẏ is linear in Cl ẋ with
additive Gaussian noise. Let
ψ(Cn ẋ) = Cl ẋˇ + Cl Ṗˇ Cn⊤ (Cn Ṗˇ Cn⊤ )−1 (Cn ẋ − Cn ẋˇ )
Ψ = Cl Ṗˇ C

l⊤

l⊤

− Cl Ṗˇ Cn⊤ (Cn Ṗˇ Cn⊤ )−1 Cn Ṗˇ C .

Then assumption N implies p(Cl ẋ|Cn ẋ, Ÿ) = NCl ẋ (ψ(Cn ẋ), Ψ).
Therefore, the conditioning on ẏ = Ẏ \ Ÿ in p(Cl ẋ|Cn ẋ, Ẏ) is
given by a Kalman filter update. Introduce
ς(Cn ẋ) = hc (Cn ẋ) + Hc ψ(Cn ẋ)
Σ(Cn ẋ) = Hc ΨHc⊤ + Jc Pv̇ Jc⊤
ω(Cn ẋ) = ψ(Cn ẋ) + ΨHc⊤ Σ−1 (Cn ẋ) ẏ − ς(Cn ẋ)
κ(Cn ẋ) = ω(Cn ẋ) − Cl ẋˆ



κ(Cn ẋ) = Cn ẋ − Cn ẋˆ
Ω(Cn ẋ) = (I − ΨHc⊤ Σ−1 (Cn ẋ)Hc )Ψ.
This gives
p(Cl ẋ|Cn ẋ, Ẏ) = NCl ẋ (ω(Cn ẋ), Ω(Cn ẋ)) .
l

Consequently, C ẋ can be marginalized out of the marginal
moments Cẋˆ and P̂Cẋ . Again from Bayes’ theorem p(Cn ẋ|Ẏ) =
νp(ẏ|Cn ẋ, Ÿ)p(Cn ẋ|Ÿ), where ν is a normalization constant,
and the likelihood function p(ẏ|Cn ẋ, Ÿ) = Nẏ (ς(Cn ẋ), Σ(Cn ẋ)).
Together, this gives the marginal moments
Z " n #
C ẋ
ˆ
Nẏ (ς, Σ)p(Cn ẋ|Ÿ)d(Cn ẋ)
Cẋ = ν
ω

P̌Aẋ

= f d + Fd Aẍˇ
Z
= (f + Fd Aẍ + Gd ẇ − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤ p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ)d([Aẍ; ẇ])
⊤

⊤

= Fd AP̈ˇ A⊤ .

v̇

⊤
⊤
⊤
P̂Cẋ = (I − CṖˇ C⊤ Hd (Hd CṖˇ C⊤ Hd +Jd Pv̇ Jd )−1 Hd )CṖˇ C⊤ .

VI. Numerical moment integral approximations
With assumption N, the Bayesian filtering is reduced to
approximating the moments {ẋˇ , Ṗˇ , ẋˆ , Ṗˆ }. With assumption a,
ẋˇ = UAẋˇ + VBẍˇ
Ṗˇ = UP̌Aẋ U⊤ + VBP̈ˇ B⊤ V⊤ + (UP̌Aẋ,Aẍ M⊤ V⊤ )⊥+⊤

ẋˆ = WCẋˆ + Z Dẋˇ + N(Cẋˆ − Cẋˇ )
Ṗˆ = WP̂CẋW⊤+Z(DṖˇ D⊤−NCṖˇ D⊤+NP̂Cẋ N⊤ )Z⊤+(WP̂Cẋ N⊤Z⊤ )⊥+⊤
and the approximations can be focused to the marginal moments {Aẋˇ , P̌Aẋ , P̌Aẋ,Aẍ , Cẋˆ , P̂Cẋ }. Assumptions b and c enable
us to further narrow the focus, together giving capability 1.
All non-closed-form formulas derived for the marginal
moments are on the form
Z
m=
d(·)p(·|Ÿ)d(·)
where d(·) is a function of the subspace indicated by the
marginal density p(·|Ÿ) and d(·) is a differential of the corresponding subspace. Given assumptions N and a
p(·|Ÿ) = p(ẇ, Aẍ|Ÿ) = p(ẇ)N (Aẍˇ , AP̈ˇ A⊤) and
Ax

a

⇒ m = Aẋˇ

d(ẇ, Aẍ) = f (Aẍ, ẇ)
a

⊥⊤

d(ẇ, Aẍ) = ( f (Aẍ, ẇ) − Aẋˇ )
d(ẇ, Aẍ) = ( f a (Aẍ, ẇ) − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤

⇒ m = P̌Aẋ
⇒ m = P̌Aẋ,Aẍ .

6

and additionally given p(ẏ|Cẋ)
p(·|Ÿ) = NCẋ (Cẋˇ , CṖˇ C⊤ ) and
d(Cẋ) = νCẋp(ẏ|Cẋ)
d(Cẋ) = ν(Cẋ−Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ p(ẏ|Cẋ)

⇒ m = Cẋˆ
⇒ m = P̂Cẋ

otherwise (if p(ẏ|Cẋ) is not available)
R

d(Cẋ) = νCẋ δ(ẏ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))p(v̇)dv̇
⇒ m = Cẋˆ
R

d(Cẋ) = ν(Cẋ−Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ δ(ẏ−ha (Cẋ,v̇))p(v̇)dv̇ ⇒ m = P̂Cẋ .

Substituting this back into d(·) enables use of numerical
integration as described above. Again, the suitable v(i, j) and
KZ(·) (·) depends on ha (·, ·) and p(v̇) and the method of choice.
An alternative to the density estimation, for assumptions N
and a, is a parametric Kalman update. Extending assumption
N to a jointly Gaussian assumption
" # "
#!
ˇ
P̌Cẋ P̌Cẋ,ẏ
Cẋ
p(Cẋ, ẏ|Ÿ) = NCẋ,ẏ ˇ , ⊤
P̌Cẋ,ẏ
P̌ẏ
ẏ
implies

Given assumptions N, a, and b


Cẋˆ = Cẋˇ + P̌Cẋ,ẏ (P̌ẏ )−1 ẏ − ẏˇ
Ṗˆ = Ṗˇ − P̌ (P̌ )−1 P̌⊤

p(·|Ÿ) = NAx (Aẍˇ , AP̈ˇ A⊤ ) and
b

Cẋ

⇒ m = Aẋˇ

d(Aẍ) = f (Aẍ)
⊤
d(Aẍ) = Gb Pẇ Gb + ( f b (Aẍ) − Aẋˇ )⊥⊤
d(Aẍ) = ( f b (Aẍ) − Aẋˇ )(Aẍ − Aẍˇ )⊤

⇒ m = P̌Aẋ
⇒ m = P̌Aẋ,Aẍ

and
p(·|Ÿ) = NCẋ (Cẋˇ , CṖˇ C⊤ ) and

⇒ m = Cẋˆ
d(Cẋ) = νCẋ|Jb |−1 pv̇ (Jb )−1 (ẏ − hb (Cẋ))

d(Cẋ) = ν(Cẋ−Cẋˆ )⊥⊤ |Jb |−1 pv̇ (Jb )−1 (ẏ−hb (Cẋ)) ⇒ m = P̂Cẋ.

d(Aẍ) = [π; ǫ]
#
"
Π + γγ⊤
γα⊤ + ΠΞ⊤
d(Aẍ) =
αγ⊤ + ΞΠ Pα + αα⊤ + ΞΠΞ⊤
#
" ⊤
γδ
γβ⊤ + ΠΓ⊤
d(Aẍ) =
αδ⊤ Pα,β + αβ⊤ + ΞΠΓ⊤

⇒ m = P̌Aẋ,Aẍ

i

The suitable r depends on d(·) and the method of choice.
Given only assumptions N and a, the above formula cannot
be directly applied to the update since the integral within d(·)
cannot typically be evaluated analytically and in general we
have to resort to density estimation. With a kernel KZ(·) (·), a
bandwidth matrix Z(·), samples v(i, j) , and weights v(i, j) ,
Z
δ(ẏ − ha (r(i) , v̇))p(v̇)dv̇
X
−1 X

≈
v(i, j)
KZ(r(i) ) ẏ − ha (s(i) , v(i, j) ) v(i, j) .
j

which are the well-known Kalman filter update formulas.
Consequently, the problem is changed to that of approximating
Z
ẏˇ =
ha (Cẋ, v̇)p(v̇)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)dv̇
Z
P̌ẏ = (ẏˇ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))⊥⊤ p(v̇)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)dv̇
Z
P̌Cẋ,ẏ = (Cẋ − Cẋˇ )(ẏˇ − ha (Cẋ, v̇))p(v̇)p(Cẋ|Ÿ)d(Cẋ)dv̇,

VII. Introducing linearization and Gaussian approximations

Suitable numerical integration methods for m come in a
range of different flavors such as Gauss-Hermit quadrature,
importance sampling and Monte Carlo methods. All methods
may be viewed as a set of samples r(i) and weights w(i) giving
X
−1 X
m≈
w(i)
d(r(i) )w(i) .

j

Cẋ,ẏ

⇒ m = P̌Aẋ

p(·|Ÿ) = NCn ẋ (Cn ẋˇ , Cn Ṗˇ Cn⊤ ) and


d(Cẋ) = ν Cn ẋ; ω Nẏ (ς, Σ)
⇒ m = Cẋˆ
" ⊤
#
⊤
κκ
κκ
d(Cẋ) = ν
N (ς, Σ) ⇒ m = P̂Cẋ .
κκ⊤ Ω + κκ⊤ ẏ

(i)

ẏ

⇒ m = Aẋˇ

and

and

i

Cẋ,ẏ

which are amenable to numerical integration as described
above. Hence, the density estimation is avoided at the cost
of the extended Gaussian assumption, giving capability 1 to
nonlinear Kalman filters applied to the setup of assumption a.

Finally, given assumptions N, a, and c

p(·|Ÿ) = NAn x (An ẍˇ , An P̈ˇ An⊤ )

Cẋ

To focus the computational effort on the significantly nonlinear, non-additive, and non-Gaussian model parts one may
exploit linearization and Gaussian approximation of benign
parts of the models. For simplicity, assume zero mean noise
(and hence a zero noise linearization point) and restate assumptions b-c:
b’) Conditionally additive noise: Assumption b may alternatively be expressed as
∂fa
ẇ
∂ẇ (Aẍ,0)
∂ha
v̇,
ha (Cẋ, v̇) = ha (Cẋ, 0) +
∂v̇ (Cẋ,0)

f a (Aẍ, ẇ) = f a (Aẍ, 0) +

giving
f b (Aẍ) = f a (Aẍ, 0), hb (Cẋ) = ha (Cẋ, 0)
∂fa
∂ha
Gb =
and Jb =
.
∂ẇ (Aẍ,0)
∂v̇ (Cẋ,0)
c’) Conditionally linear and Gaussian subspaces: Assumption
c may alternatively be expressed as
h n i  ∂ f a
∂fa
′
 ẇ
f a (Aẍ,ẇ) =f a AAl ẍ¯ẍ ,0 + l  n  (Al ẍ−Al ẍ¯ )+

∂ẇ Anl ẍ¯ ,0
∂A ẍ A l ẍ¯ ,0
A ẍ
A ẍ
h i  ∂ha
∂ha
′
l
l¯
a
a Cn ẋ
 v̇ ,

h (Cẋ,v̇) = h Cl ẋ¯ ,0 + l  n  (C ẋ−C ẋ)+
∂v̇ Cnl ẋ¯ ,0
∂C ẋ C l ẋ¯ ,0
C ẋ

C ẋ

7

where v̇′ ∼ Nv̇′ (0, Pv̇ ) and ẇ′ ∼ Nẇ′ (0, Pẇ ) and Al ẍ¯ and Cl ẋ¯
are linearization points, giving
Fc =

∂fa
∂Al ẍ

Jc =

∂ha
∂v̇

 n  
A ẍ ,0
Al ẍ¯



 
Cn ẋ ,0
Cl ẋ¯

,

∂fa
∂ẇ

∂ha
 ,

∂Cl ẋ Cnl ¯ẋ ,0
h n i  C ẋ
f c (An ẍ) = f a AAl ẍẍ¯ ,0 − Fc Al ẍ¯
h n i 
and c n
h (C ẋ) = ha CCl ẋẋ¯ ,0 − Hc Cl ẋ¯ .

, Gc =

 n  
A ẍ ,0
Al ẍ¯

, Hc =

d’) Linear and Gaussian subspaces: Assumption c may alternatively be expressed as
∂fa
(Aẍ − Aẍ¯ ) +
∂Aẍ (Aẍ¯ ,0)
∂ha
ha (Cẋ, v̇) = ha (Cẋ¯ , 0) +
(Cẋ − Cẋ¯ ) +
∂Cẋ (Cẋ¯ ,0)

f a (Aẍ, ẇ) = f a (Aẍ¯ , 0) +

∂fa
ẇ
∂ẇ (Aẍ¯ ,0)
∂ha
v̇′ ,
∂v̇ (Cẋ¯ ,0)

where v̇′ ∼ Nv̇′ (0, Pv̇) and Aẍ¯ and Cẋ¯ are linearization points,
giving
∂fa
∂ha
∂ha
∂fa
, Gd =
, Hd =
, Jd =
∂Aẍ (Aẍ¯ ,0)
∂ẇ (Aẍ¯ ,0)
∂Cẋ (Cẋ¯ ,0)
∂v̇ (Cẋ¯ ,0)
d
a
d ¯
d
a
¯
¯
f = f (Aẍ, 0) − F Aẍ, and h = h (Cẋ, 0) − Hd Cẋ¯ .

Fd =

In principle, the assumptions b/b′ , c/c′ , and d/d′ are equivalent. In practice, the assumption versions b’, c’ and d’ can be
used to introduce model approximations by neglecting the first
pair of relations in each assumption. This trades model approximations for lower dimensional moment integrals, and gives
capability 2. Defining the above derivatives and covariances
for state space models also makes it possible to automatically
switch between different approximation modes.
The linearization points Al ẍ¯ , Cl ẋ¯ , Aẍ¯ , and Cẋ¯ are arbitrary
but in practice they will normally be the marginal prior means
Al ẍˇ , Cl ẋˇ , Aẍˇ , and Cẋˇ .
VIII. Decoupling modelling and system composition
A system model is composed of submodels. At least, as of
the state space description, it is composed of a state model
and an output model, but often there are multiple submodels
of different states and outputs. Assume submodels
ẋi = f i (ẍi , ẇi ),

ẏ j = h j (ẋ j , v̇ j ) :

i, j ∈ {1, 2, . . . }

where xi and x j are states of the properties determining the
subsystem dynamics and the subsystem outputs, respectively.
The system state x spans the properties of {xi , x j }. The
properties of {xi , x j } must overlap but individual model states
will often not coincide with x and different models may use
different ordering and units of the states.
The discrepancies between x and {xi , x j } mean that the
submodels cannot directly be compounded. Naively, this is
solved by modifying the models, or using wrapper models,
such that they are expressed in x. However, this creates an
unfortunate coupling between modelling and system composition, a maintenance nightmare, and prevents exploitation of
subsystem structure (capability 1 and 2) since potential structure is hidden. Instead, using assumption a, the composition
can be performed by constructing A:s and C:s such that
xi = Ax

and x j = Cx.

The A:s and C:s will include scaling (unit transformations)
and state selection but may also include further linear transformations [1]. This effectively decouples the modelling and
the system composition giving capability 3.
IX. Relations to other filtering techniques and prior work
In the following subsection we describe how the presented
results relate to the Kalman filters and the marginalized
particle filters, and a few other directly related techniques.
A. Kalman filters
The Kalman filters handle a setup with assumption N and
the additional jointly Gaussian assumption
" #  ˇ

 ẋˇ  Ṗ P̌ẋ,ẏ 
 .
p(ẋ, ẏ|Ÿ) = Nẋ,ẏ  ˇ ,  ⊤
ẏ P̌ẋ,ẏ P̌ẏ 

(Note that Kalman filters can be formulated without the
Gaussian assumption but the differences in practise are small.)
The (Kalman filter) update rules for this case, in the active
subspace, were presented in Section VI. Hence, the inactive
subspace marginalization is directly applicable to nonlinear
Kalman filters and they may be viewed as parametric methods
for filtering given assumption N, and in many cases additional
assumptions such as additive noise. See e.g. [2,3,4,5] in which
different numerical approximation techniques for the moment
integrals, together with additional model assumptions, are
presented, giving the so called UKF, QKF, CKF and S2 KF,
respectively.
In the special case of assumptions N and d, the jointly
Gaussian condition is implied. Therefore, the formulas for this
case give equivalent results to the Kalman filter. Further, a
complete model linearization and Gaussian approximation, by
using the latter part of assumption d’, gives equivalent results
to an explicitly linearized Kalman filter, e.g. the EKF.
Marginalization techniques for special cases of assumptions
b and c have been presented in conjuncture with Kalman
filters. In [6], a marginalized QKF is presented in which a
quadrature rule is used to compute predicted and updated mean
and covariance for a nonlinear subspace. Subsequently, the
mean, covariance and cross-covariance of the conditionally
linear and Gaussian subspace are predicted and updated. In
contrast, I present techniques for jointly calculating the means
and covariances of the corresponding subspaces. Further,
in [7,8] various marginalizations combined with a UKF are
presented. However, the marginalizations are tailored to the
jointly Gaussian Kalman filter setup. In [9], marginalization
of an inactive augmented noise state in the prediction is
presented. In [10] a combination of linear approximations and
numerical approximations for a UKF is presented. Finally,
marginalization-like techniques for linear and Gaussian update
subspaces in Kalman filters are found in the PUKF [11].
Essentially, all the previous marginalization work rely on the
jointly Gaussian assumption, and marginalization exploiting
probably the most important structure, active subspaces, in
the sense leading to the largest dimensionality reduction, is
missing.

8

B. Marginalized particle filters
Marginalized, a.k.a. Rao-Blackwellized, particle filters, see
e.g. [12], are different in nature since they do not make
assumption N. However, they can only handle special cases
of assumptions a-c. In general, marginalized particle filters
require a static conditional linear and Gaussian subspace,
Ank = Cnk = An = Cn
i.e. the marginalized particle filter handle a special case of
assumption c. (Throughout the results we have dropped indices
k of the subspace matrices but it has been implicit that they
may vary with k.) The static subspace implies that
p(Al ẋ|An ẋ, Ẏ) = NAl ẋ (Al ẋˆ , Ṗˆ )
p(Al ẋ|An ẍ, Ẏ) = N l (Al ẋˇ , Ṗˇ )
A ẋ

where {Al ẋˆ , Ṗˆ , Al ẋˇ , Ṗˇ } are given by a Kalman filter. Such a
Kalman filter is then run for each hypothesis (sample) of An ẋ
and An ẍ in a particle filter.
The marginalized particle filters also handle special cases
between assumption a and c. In case An = C, i.e. the output
is independent of the linear subspace of the state equation,
then the general output model of a can be combined with
the state equation of c. Vice versa, if A = Cn , i.e. the state
equation is independent of the linear subspace of the output
model, then the general state equation of a can be combined
with the output model of c.
C. Predecessors and applications
A two step variant of the inactive subspace update marginalization for a special case of C and assumptions N and a, in
terms of mean and quadratic mean, can be found in [13].
A variant for an arbitrary C can be found in [1]. A onedimensional variant, in terms of mean and covariance, can
be found in [14]. In [15], the presented techniques are used
for robust tightly-coupled GPS-aided dead reckoning.
X. Conclusion
In this article I have presented Bayesian filtering techniques which, given Gaussian priors and posteriors, enable
one to exploit a set of sequentially more constraining model
assumptions, condensing the filtering problem to essential
moment integrals and enabling introduction of model approximations in the same integrals. Combined with suitable
moment integral approximation techniques, e.g. quadrature or
importance sampling, these techniques provide a new class
of filtering techniques. In particular, in contrast to Kalman
filters, the techniques can handle non-Gaussian (e.g. heavytailed) likelihood functions and, in contrast to marginalized
particle filters, the techniques can handle dynamic subspace
structures (e.g. state equations and output being non-linear in
different subspaces). Further, the model assumptions enable
system composition (combination of different submodels) by
specifying subspace projection matrices, decoupling the (sub-)
system modelling and the system composition. Moreover,
the composition becomes transparent, enabling the Bayesian
filtering techniques to exploit the underlying structure.

In summary, I have shown how model structure and model
approximations, combined with marginalization, can reduce
the filtering problem to low-dimensional moment integrals
which enables us to handle a more general class of filtering
problems as compared to Kalman filters and which open up for
a large range of numerical approximation techniques. Further,
for specific models and distributions, analytical solutions to
the marginal moment integrals may be possible.
References
[1] J.-O. Nilsson, D. Zachariah, I. Skog, and P. Händel, “Cooperative localization by dual foot-mounted inertial sensors and inter-agent ranging,”
EURASIP J. Adv. Sig. Pr., vol. 164, 2013.
[2] S. Julier, J. Uhlmann, and H. Durrant-Whyte, “A new method for
the nonlinear transformation of means and covariances in filters and
estimators,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 477–482,
2000.
[3] K. Ito and K. Xiong, “Gaussian filters for nonlinear filtering problems,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 910–927, 2000.
[4] I. Arasaratnam and S. Haykin, “Cubature Kalman filters,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1254–1269, 2009.
[5] J. Steinbring, M. Pander, and U. Hanebeck, “The smart sampling Kalman
filter with symmetric samples,” J. Adv. Inf. Fusion, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 71–
90, 2016.
[6] P. Closas and C. Fernández-Prades, “The marginalized square-root
quadrature Kalman filter,” in SPAWC, pp. 1–5, June 2010.
[7] M. Briers, S. Maskell, and R. Wright, “A Rao-Blackwellised unscented
Kalman filter,” in FUSION, (Cairns, Australia), 8-11 Jul. 2003.
[8] G. Chang, “Marginal unscented Kalman filter for cross-correlated process and observation noise at the same epoch,” IET Radar, Sonar Nav.,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 54–64, 2014.
[9] Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, and L. Zhao, “Gaussian filter for
nonlinear systems with correlated noises at the same epoch,” Automatica,
vol. 60, pp. 122–126, 2015.
[10] C. Liu, P. Shui, and S. Li, “Unscented extended Kalman filter for target
tracking,” J. Syst. Eng. and Electron., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 188–192, 2011.
[11] M. Raitoharju, R. Piché, J. Ala-Luhtala, and S. Ali-Löytty, “Partitioned
update Kalman filter,” J. Adv. Inf. Fusion, vol. 11, pp. 3–14, 2016.
[12] T. Schön, F. Gustafsson, and P. J. Nordlund, “Marginalized particle filters
for mixed linear/nonlinear state-space models,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2279–2289, 2005.
[13] D. Zachariah, I. Skog, M. Jansson, and P. Händel, “Bayesian estimation
with distance bounds,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 19, no. 12,
pp. 880–883, 2012.
[14] J.-O. Nilsson and P. Händel, “Robust recursive network clock synchronization,” in CONECCT, (Bangalore, India), 6-7 Jan. 2014.
[15] J. Rantakokko, J. Nygårds, P. Strömbäck, P. Andersson, J.-O. Nilsson,
and P. Händel, “Integration of GNSS-receivers with dual foot-mounted
INS in urban and indoor environments,” in IEEE/ION PLANS, (Savannah, USA), 11-14 Apr. 2016.

