I Noise Whiteness hypothesis in Kalman filtering

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the significance of the whiteness hypothesis in Kalman filtering, particularly regarding the mathematical derivation of the filter. The original poster questions the necessity of this hypothesis, suggesting that the probability density function could still be expressed as a Gaussian without assuming whiteness. They highlight that if the process noise is correlated, the Kalman filter may not provide the best estimates, as it treats deviations as random noise rather than systematic errors. The conversation emphasizes that while the Kalman filter can function under non-white noise conditions, the assumptions of whiteness lead to more accurate modeling and predictions. Ultimately, the poster seeks clarification on whether omitting the whiteness assumption constitutes a logical error in the mathematical formulation.
Unconscious
Messages
77
Reaction score
12
In Kalman filter mathematical treatment I have always read that a foundamental hypothesis is represented by the whiteness of the process noise. I have tried to do again the mathematical steps in the Kalman filter derivation but I can't see where such hypothesis is crucial.
Could you help me showing where the mathematical proof fails if I remove such hypothesis?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thank you for the link, but unfortunately I have not found an answer in that pages.
Anyway, I try to share with you my doubt more precisely.

Let's consider the formulas in Fig. 1 in this article:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01406.pdf

These two formulas have been obtained without assumptions on the process noise. Then, again without assumptions on the process noise, the author arrives at formula (5), in which appears the probability density ##p(x_k | x_{k-1})##. Taking into account the first equation of the system (1), now he says that if we suppose the gaussianity and the whiteness of the process noise, we can then write such probability density as ##\mathcal{N}(f(x_{k-1}),Q)##.
It is exactly in this point that my doubt arises: it seems to me that I could have written ##p(x_k | x_{k-1})=\mathcal{N}(f(x_{k-1}),Q)## even if I had only assumed gaussianity of the process noise, without whiteness, because ##x_k## is conditioned only by ##x_{k-1}## and not also by ##q_{k-1},q_{k-2},...##.
 
By definition, white noise is noise that is uncorrelated from sample to sample.

Suppose the actual noise of your sensor was totally correlated - on the first sample, you pick a gaussian, and that's the noise the entire time.

Let's say the first pick is a positive noise.

Then a better algorithm would be able to learn that the noise picked is positive (e.g. it notices that 2/3 of the measurements are higher than its estimate), and could adjust to start making lower estimates given the measurements.

On each step, in some sense you could say ok, I don't know anything about the noise, so since I'm ignorant about it it's a gaussian as far as I can tell, and this kind of works (you can use a Kalman filter in a variety of real world situations that don't fit the theoretical framework and it works pretty well still). But it's not the best estimate you can form if you *are* informed about the noise.This is just a modeling question. If you make 8 samples and all of them return higher measurements than you expect, do you chalk it up to bad luck, bad measuring, or a bad understanding of what the process is? The assumption of the noise being white means the Kalman filter says it's bad luck.
 
This is clear to me, thank you.
What is not clear to me is the pure math, in particular the step highlighted in my last post.
So, are you saying to me that if the noise is not white, then I can’t correctly write the equality ##p(x_k|x_{k-1})=\mathcal{N}(f(x_{k-1}),Q)##? In other words, this equality would be a logic error?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top