Non-Gaussian Bayesian Filtering by Density Parametrization Using Power Moments

Guangyu Wu; Anders Lindquist

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2207.08519

Non-Gaussian Bayesian Filtering by Density Parametrization Using Power Moments

Guangyu Wu·Anders Lindquist

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Non-Gaussian Bayesian filtering is a core problem in stochastic filtering. The difficulty of the problem lies in parameterizing the state estimates. However the existing methods are not able to treat it well. We propose to use power moments to obtain a parameterization. Unlike the existing parametric estimation methods, our proposed algorithm does not require prior knowledge about the state to be estimated, e.g. the number of modes and the feasible classes of function. Moreover, the proposed algorithm is not required to store massive parameters during filtering as the existing nonparametric Bayesian filters, e.g. the particle filter. The parameters of the proposed parametrization can also be determined by a convex optimization scheme with moments constraints, to which the solution is proved to exist and be unique. A necessary and sufficient condition for all the power moments of the density estimate to exist and be finite is provided. The errors of power moments are analyzed for the density estimate being either light-tailed or heavy-tailed. Error upper bounds of the density estimate for the one-step prediction are proposed. Simulation results on different types of density functions of the state are given, including the heavy-tailed densities, to validate the proposed algorithm.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME cs.IT math.IT math.OC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Guangyu Wu, Anders Lindquist. 2022-07-18. Non-Gaussian Bayesian Filtering by Density Parametrization Using Power Moments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08519

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗