Filtering

If we think of our signal as a discrete time random process, then like a normal deterministic signal, we can try filtering our random process.

Figure 1: Filtering a Disrete Time Random Process with an LTI system with transfer function $H(z)$

Filtering can either be accomplished with an LTI system or some other non-linear/non-time-invariant system just like with deterministic signals.

LTI Filtering on WSS Processes

If we use an LTI filter on a WSS process, then we can easily compute how the filter impacts the spectrum of the signal.

Theorem 13

When $Y(n)$ is formed by passing a WSS process $X_n$ through a stable LTI system with impulse response $h[n]$ and transfer function $H(z)$, then $S_Y(z) = H(z)S_X(z)H^*(z^{-*})$ and $S_{YX}(z) = H(z)S_X(z)$. If we have a third process $Z_n$ that is jointly WSS with $(Y_n, X_n)$, then $S_{ZY}(z) = S_{ZX}(z)H^*(z^{-*})$.

This gives us an interesting interpretation of the spectral factorization (Definition 14) since it essentially passing a WSS process with auto-correlation $R_W(k) = r_e\delta[n]$ through a minimum-phase filter with transfer function $L(z)$.

Wiener Filter

Suppose we have a stochastic WSS process $Y_n$ that is jointly WSS with $X_n$ and that we want to find the best linear estimator of $X_n$ using $Y_n$. The best linear estimator of $X_n$ given the observations $Y_n$ can be written as

$\hat{X}_n = \sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}h(m)Y_{n-m} = h[n] * Y_n.$

This is identical to passing $Y_n$ through an LTI filter. If we restrict ourselves to using $\{Y_i\}_{i=-\infty}^{n}$ to estimate $X_n$, then the best linear estimator can be written as

$\hat{X}_n = \sum_{m=0}^\infty h(m)Y_{n-m} = h[n] * Y_n.$

It is identical to passing $Y_n$ through a causal LTI filter. Since we are trying to find a best linear estimator, it would be nice if each of the random variables we are using for estimating were uncorrelated with each other. In other words, instead of using $Y$ directly, we want to transform $Y$ into a new process $W$ where $R_W(k) = \delta[k]$. This transformation is known as whitening. From the spectral factorization of $Y$, we know if we use the filter $G(z) =\frac{1}{S_Y^+(z)}$ then

$S_W(z) = \frac{S_Y(z)}{S_Y^+(z)S_Y^{+*}(z^{-*})} = \frac{S_Y(z)}{S_Y^+(z)S_Y^-(z)} = 1.$

Now we want to find the best linear estimator of $X$ using our new process $W$ by designing an LTI filter $Q(z)$.

Figure 2: Finding the best linear estimator of $X$ using $W$ with a two-stage filter that first whitens the input.

Non-Causal Case

Starting with noncausal case, we can apply the orthogonality principle,

$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}\left[(X_n-\hat{X}_n)W_{n-k}^*\right] = 0 &\implies \mathbb{E}\left[X_nW^*_{n-k}\right] = \sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}q(m)\mathbb{E}\left[W_{n-m}W^*_{n-k}\right] \\ \therefore R_{XW}(k) = \sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}q(m)R_W(k-m) &\implies S_{XW}(z) = Q(z)S_W(z)\\ \therefore Q(z) = \frac{S_{XW}(z)}{S_W(z)} = S_{XW}(z) &= S_{XY}(z)(S_Y^+(z^{-*}))^{-*} = \frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y^-(z)}\end{aligned}$

When we cascade these filters,

$H(z) = Q(z)G(z) = \frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y^-(z)} \frac{1}{S_Y^+(z)}= \frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y(z)}.$

Definition 21

The best linear estimator of $X_n$ using $Y_n$ where $(X_n, Y_n)$ is jointly WSS is given by the non-causal Wiener filter.

$H(z) = \frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y(z)}$

If we interpret Definition 21 in the frequency domain, for a specific $\omega$, we can understand $H(e^{j\omega})$ as an optimal linear estimator for $F_X(\omega)$ where $F_X(\omega)$ is the the stochastic process given by the Cramer-Khinchin decomposition (Theorem 7). More specifically, we can use the Cramer-Khinchin decomposition of $Y_n$.

$\begin{aligned} \hat{X}_n &= \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}h[i]\int_{-\pi}^\pi e^{j\omega(n-i)}dF_Y(\omega)\\ &= \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\left(\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}h[i]e^{-j\omega i}\right)e^{j\omega n}dF_Y(\omega) \\ &= \int_{-\pi}^\pi H(e^{j\omega})e^{j\omega n}dF_Y(\omega)\\\end{aligned}$

Since $F_X$ and $F_Y$ have jointly orthogonal increments, this tells us that $H(e^{j\omega})$ is just the optimal linear estimator of $dF_X(\omega)$ using $dF_Y(\omega)$. $dF_X(\omega)$ and $dF_Y(\omega)$ exist on a Hilbert space, meaning we are essentially projecting each frequency component of $X_n$ onto the corresponding frequency component of $Y_n$.

Causal Case

First, note that in the causal case, whitening doesn’t break causality because $\frac{1}{S_Y^+(z)}$ is causal. When we apply the orthogonality principle,

$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}\left[(X_n-\hat{X}_n)W_{n-k}^*\right] = 0 &\implies \mathbb{E}\left[X_nW^*_{n-k}\right] = \sum_{m=0}^\infty q(m)\mathbb{E}\left[W_{n-m}W^*_{n-k}\right] \\ \therefore R_{XW}(k) &= \sum_{m = 0}^\infty q[m]R_W(k-m) \qquad k \geq 0\end{aligned}$

We can’t take the Z-transform of both sides because the equation is not necessarily true for $k < 0$. Instead, we can look at the function

$f(k) = R_{XW}(k) - \sum_{m=0}^\infty R_W(k-m)q[m] = \begin{cases} 0 & k\geq 0,\\ ? & \text{ else.}\end{cases}$

Taking the unilateral Z-transform of both sides,

$\begin{aligned} \left[F(z)\right]_+ &= \left[S_{XW}(z) - S_W(z)Q(z)\right]_+ = \left[S_{XW}(z)\right]_+ - Q(z) = 0\\ Q(z) &= \left[S_{XW}(z)\right]_+ = \left[\frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y^-(z)}\right]_+ \end{aligned}$

Thus the filter $H$ which gives the causal best linear estimator of $X$ using $Y$ is

$H(z) = Q(z) G(z)= \left[\frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y^-(z)}\right]_+ \frac{1}{S_Y^+(z)}.$

Definition 22

The best linear estimator of $X_n$ using $\{Y_i\}_{i=-\infty}^{n}$ is given by the causal Wiener filter.

$H(z) = Q(z)G(z) = \left[\frac{S_{XY}(z)}{S_Y^-(z)}\right]_+ \frac{1}{S_Y^+(z)}.$

Intuitively, this should make sense because we are using the same $W$ process as in the non-causal case, but only the ones which we are allowed to use, hence use the unilateral Z-transform of the non-causal Wiener filter, which amounts to truncated the noncausal filter to make it causal.

Theorem 14

If $\hat{X}_{NC}(n)$ is the non-causal Wiener filter of $X$, then the causal wiener filter of $X$ given $Y$ is the same as the causal wiener filter of $\hat{X}_{NC}$ given $Y$, and if $Y$ is white noise, then

$\hat{X}_C(n) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}h[i]Y_{n-i}$

Vector Case

Suppose that instead of a Wide-Sense Stationary process, we an $N$ length signal $\boldsymbol{X}$ which we want to estimate with another $N$ length signal $\boldsymbol{Y}$. We can represent both $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y}$ as vectors in $\mathbb{C}^N$. If we are allowed to use all entries of $\boldsymbol{Y}$ to estimate $\boldsymbol{X}$, this is identical to linear estimation.

Definition 23

The non-causal Wiener filter of a finite length $N$ signal $\boldsymbol{Y}$ is given by

$K_s = R_{\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{Y}}R_{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{-1}.$

Note that this requires $R_{\boldsymbol{Y}} \succ 0$. Suppose that we wanted to design a causal filter for the vector case, so $\hat{X}_i$ only depends on $\{Y_j\}_{j=1}^i$. By the orthogonality principle,

$\forall 1 \leq l \leq i,\ \mathbb{E}\left[X_i - \sum_{j=1}^iK_{f, ij}Y_jY_l^*\right] = 0 \implies R_{\boldsymbol{XY}}(i, l) = \sum_{j=1}^i K_{f, ij}R_{\boldsymbol{Y}}(j, l)$

In matrix form, this means

$R_{\boldsymbol{XY}} - K_fR_{\boldsymbol{Y}} = U^+$

where $U^+$ is strictly upper triangular.

Theorem 15

If matrix $H \succ 0$, then there exists a unique lower-diagonal upper triangular factorization of $H=LDL^*$ where $L$ is lower diagonal and invertible with unit diagonal entries and $D$is diagonal with positive entries.

Applying the LDL decomposition, we see that

$\begin{aligned} R_{\boldsymbol{XY}} - K_fLDL^* = U^+ \implies R_{\boldsymbol{XY}}L^{-*}D^{-1} -K_f L = U^+L^{-*}D^{-1}\\ \therefore [R_{\boldsymbol{XY}}L^{-*}D^{-1}]_L -K_f L = 0\end{aligned}$

where $[\cdot]_L$ represent the lower triangular part of a matrix.

Definition 24

The causal Wiener filter of a finite length $N$ signal $\boldsymbol{Y}$ is given by

$K_f = [R_{\boldsymbol{XY}}L^{-*}D^{-1}]_LL^{-1}$

Hidden Markov Model State Estimation

Suppose we have a Hidden Markov Process $\{Y_n\}_{n\geq1}$. We can think of determining the state $\{X_n\}_{n\geq1}$ as filtering $\{Y_n\}_{n\geq1}$.

Causal Distribution Estimation

Suppose we want to know the distribution of $X_t$ after we have observered $Y^t$.

$\begin{aligned} p(x_t|y^t) &= \frac{p(x_t,y^t)}{p(y^t)} = \frac{p(x_t)p(y_t, y^{t-1}|x_t)}{\sum_{x}p(y_t,y^{t-1}|x_t=x)p(x_t=x)}\\ &= \frac{p(x_t)p(y_t|x_t)p(y^{t-1}|x_t)}{\sum_xp(y_t|x_t=x)p(y^{t-1}|x_t=x)p(x_t=x)} = \frac{p(y_t|x_t)p(y^{t-1})p(x_t|y^{t-1})}{\sum_{x}p(y_t|x_t=x)p(y^{t-1})p(x_t=x|y^{t-1})}\\ &=\frac{p(y_t|x_t)p(x_t|y^{t-1})}{\sum_{x}p(y_t|x_t=x)p(x_t=x|y^{t-1})}\end{aligned}$

Now if we know $p(x_t|y^{t-1})$, then we are set.

$\begin{aligned} p(x_t|y^{t-1}) &= \sum_xp(x_t,x_{t-1}=x|y^{t-1}) = \sum_x p(x_{t-1}=x|y^{t-1})p(x_t|x_{t-1}=x,y^{t-1}) \\ &= \sum_x p(x_{t-1}=x|y^t)p(x_t|x_{t-1}=x)\end{aligned}$

Now we have a recursive algorithm for computing the distribution of $x_t$.

Non-Causal Distribution Estimation

Suppose we are allowed to non-causally filter our signal and we care about the distribution of $X_t$ after we have observed $Y^n$. In other words, for $t \geq n$, we want to find $\gamma_t(x_t) = p(x_t|y^n)$. When $t=n$, $\gamma_n(x_n) = \alpha_n(x_n)$. If we continue expanding backwards, then

$\begin{aligned} p(x_t|y^n) &= \sum_x p(x_t,x_{t+1}=x|y^n) = \sum_x p(x_{t+1}=x|y^n)p(x_t|x_{t+1}=x,y^t,y_{t+1}^n)\\ &= \sum_x p(x_{t+1}=x|y^n)p(x_t|x_{t+1},y^t) = \sum_x p(x_{t+1}=x|y^n)\frac{p(x_t|y^t)p(x_{t+1}=x|x_t,y^t)}{p(x_{t+1}=x|y^t)}\\ &= \sum_x \gamma_{t+1}(x)\frac{\alpha_t(x_t)p(x_{t+1}=x|x_t)}{\beta_{t+1}(x)}\end{aligned}$

This gives us a clear algorithm for non-causally computing the distribution of $x_t$.

State Sequence Estimation

Suppose we want to find the most likely sequence of states given our observations. This means we should compute

$\hat{X}^n = \text{argmax}_{X^n}p(x^n|y^n)$

$\begin{aligned} p(x^t, y^t) &= p(x^{t-1}, y^{t-1})p(x_t, y_t|x^{t-1},y^{t-1})\\ &= p(x^{t-1}, y^{t-1})p(x_t|x^{t-1},y^{t-1})p(y_t|x_t,x^{t-1},y^{t-1}) \\ &= p(x^{t-1},y^{t-1})p(x_t|x_{t-1})p(y_t|x_t)\end{aligned}$

We see that there is a recursion in the joint distribution, so if we let $V_t(x_t) = \max_{x^{t-1}}p(x^t,y^t)$, then

$\begin{aligned} V_t(x_t) &= \max_{x^{t-1}} p(x^t, y^t) = p(y_t|x_t)\max_{x^{t-1}}p(x^{t-1},y^{t-1})p(x_t|x_{t-1})\\ &= p(y_t|x_t)\max_{x^{t-1}}\left[p(x_t|x_{t-1}) \max_{x^{t-2}} p(x^{t-1},y^{t-1})\right]\\ &= p(y_t|x_t)\max_{x^{t-1}}p(x_t|x_{t-1}) V_{t-1}(x_{t-1})\end{aligned}$

The base case is that $V_1(x_1) = p(x_1)p(y_1|x_1)$. $V_t$ is useful because $\hat{x}_n = \text{argmax}_{x_n}V_n(x_n)$. This is because we can first maximize over $\hat{X}^{n-1}$ and $Y^n$, so the only thing left to maximize is $\hat{x}_n$. Once we have $\hat{x}_t$, then we can comptue $\hat{x}_{t-1}$ by

$\hat{x}_{t-1} = \text{argmax}_{x_{t-1}}p(\hat{x}_t|x_{t-1})V_{t-1}(x_{t-1}).$

Putting these equations gives us the Viterbi algorithm.

Kalman Filtering

In the Kalman Filter setup, we assume that the signal we would like to filter can be represented by a state-space model. We want to predict the state vectors $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_i$ using some linear combination of the observations $\boldsymbol{Y}_i$.

Kalman Prediction Filter

Suppose that we want to compute the one-step prediction. In other words, given $\boldsymbol{Y}^i$, we want to predict $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1}$. Our observations $\boldsymbol{Y}$ are the only thing which give us information about the state, so it would be nice if we could de-correlate all of the $\boldsymbol{Y}$. To do this, we can define the innovation process

$\boldsymbol{e}_i = \boldsymbol{Y}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{Y}_{i|i-1}} = \boldsymbol{Y}_i - H_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}$

The last equality follows from the state-space modela and that past observation noises are uncorrelated with the current one. Now, to compute the one-step prediction, we just need to project $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_i$ onto the innovations.

$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i} &= \sum_{j=0}^i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j \\ &= \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_{i} \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i + \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}\langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j\\ &= \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_{i} \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i + \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i-1} = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_{i} \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i + \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i}\\ &= \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_{i} \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i + F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}\end{aligned}$

The second to last equality follows from the Wide-Sense Markovity of state space models, and the last equality is due to the state evolution noises being uncorrelated. If we let $K_{p,i} = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}$ (called the prediction gain), then we have a recursive estimate of the optimal one-step predictor.

$\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i} = F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} + K_{p,i}\boldsymbol{e}_i.$

Now, we just need to find a recursive formulation for $K_{p,i}$ and $R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}$. Starting with $R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}$, notice that we can write $\boldsymbol{e}_i = \boldsymbol{Y}_i-H_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} = H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i-\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1})+\boldsymbol{V}_i$.

$\begin{aligned} R_{\boldsymbol{e},i} &= \langle H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1})+ \boldsymbol{V_i}, H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1})+\boldsymbol{V_i} \rangle \\ &= H_i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle H_i^* + R_i\end{aligned}$

To find $K_{p,i}$, we should first find $\langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle$.

$\begin{aligned} \langle \boldsymbol{X}_{i+1}, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle &= F_i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle + G_i\langle \boldsymbol{U}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle \\ &= F_i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1})+\boldsymbol{V}_i \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol{U}_i, H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1})+\boldsymbol{V}_i \rangle \\ &= F_i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle H_i^* + G_iS_i\\ &= F_i\langle (\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}) + \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle H_i^* + G_iS_i\\ &= F_i\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle H_i^* + G_iS_i\end{aligned}$

Notice that the matrix $P_i = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle$is the auto-correlation of the estimation error, and it shows up in both $K_{p,i}$ and $R_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}$. It would be useful to have a recursive solution for this matrix as well.

$\begin{aligned} P_{i+1} &= \Pi_{i+1}-\langle \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i}, \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i} \rangle \\ &= F_i\Pi_iF_i^* + G_iQ_iG_i^* - \langle F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}+K_{p,i}\boldsymbol{e}_i, F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}+K_{p,i}\boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle \\ &= F_i\Pi_iF_i^* + G_iQ_iG_i^* - F_i\langle \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle F^*+K_{p,i}R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}K_{p,i}^*\\ &= F_iP_iF_i^* + G_iQ_iG_i^* - K_{p,i}R_{\boldsymbol{e},j}K_{p,i}^*\end{aligned}$

Putting this into a concrete algorithm, we get the Kalman Prediction Filter.

Schmidt’s Modification of the Kalman Filter

The predictive Kalman filter goes directly from $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}$ to $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i}$ without ever determining $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i}$. The Schmidt Modification of the Kalman filter separates the predictive kalman filter into two steps, allowing us to estimate the current state.

1. Measurement Update: Find $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i}$ given the latest observation $\boldsymbol{Y}_{i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}$.
2. State Evolution (Time) Update: Find $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i}$ using what we know about the state evolution.

This mimics the approach of the forward algorithm for Hidden Markov Models, which separated updates to the distribution using a time update and a measurement update. Using our innovation process,

$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} &= \sum_{j=0}^i \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j \\ &= \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} + \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}^j\\ &= \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} + \langle (\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}) + \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}, H_i(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1}) + \boldsymbol{V}_i \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}^j\\ &= \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} + P_iH_i^*R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i\end{aligned}$

The gain on the coefficient of the innovation $K_{f,i}=P_iH_i^*R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}$ is called the Kalman Filter Gain. The error of our estimator $P_{i|i} = \langle \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i}, \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} \rangle$is given by

$P_{i|i} = P_i - P_iH_i^*R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}H_iP_i.$

For the time update,

$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i+1|i} &= F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} + G_i\boldsymbol{\hat{U}}_{i|i} \\ &= F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} + G_i\langle \boldsymbol{U}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i = F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} + G_i\langle \boldsymbol{U}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_i \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i\\ &= F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} + G_i\langle \boldsymbol{U}_i, H\boldsymbol{X}_i+\boldsymbol{V}_i - H_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i-1} \rangle R_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i\\ &= F_i\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}_{i|i} + G_iS_iR_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i\end{aligned}$

We can re-write the error if this estimator $P_{i+1}$ as

$P_{i+1} = F_iP_{i|i}F_i^* + G_i(Q_i - S_iR_{\boldsymbol{e},i}^{-1}S_i^*)G_i^* - F_iK_{f,i}S_i^*G_i^* - G_iS_iK_{f,i}^*F_i^*$

Writing this as an algorithm,

Kalman Smoother

The Kalman Prediction Filter and Schmidt’s modification of the Kalman filter are both causal filters. The Kalman Smoother provides a non-causal estimate in the same way that the Backward Recursion algorithm does for Hidden Markov Processes. In other words, the Kalman Smoother predicts $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|n}$, the best linear estimator of $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_i$ from $\{\boldsymbol{Y}_0, \cdots, \boldsymbol{Y}_N\}$. As before, we can start with the innovation process $\boldsymbol{e}_j = \boldsymbol{Y}_j - H_j\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1}$.

$\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|N} = \sum_{j=0}^N \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{e,j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j = \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1} + \sum_{j=i}^N \langle X_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{e,j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j.$

We can compute $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1}$ using the Predictive Kalman filter, so we just need to compute the $\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle R_{e,j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j$.

$\begin{aligned} \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle &= \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, H_j(\boldsymbol{X}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1}) + \boldsymbol{V}_j \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, H_j(\boldsymbol{X}_j - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1}) \rangle \\ &= \langle \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1} + (\boldsymbol{X}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1}), \boldsymbol{X}_j - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1} \rangle H_j^*\end{aligned}$

$\boldsymbol{X}_j - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1}$ is orthgonal to any linear function of $\{\boldsymbol{Y}_0, \cdots, \boldsymbol{Y}_{j-1}\}$, so when $j \geq i$, it must be orthgonal to $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1}$ since it is a function of $\{\boldsymbol{Y}_k\}^{i-1}_0$. Thus, for $j\geq i$,

$\langle \boldsymbol{X}_i, \boldsymbol{e}_j \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_j - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1} \rangle H_j^*$

If we denote $P_{ij} = \langle \boldsymbol{X}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1}, \boldsymbol{X}_j - \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{j|j-1} \rangle$, then

$P_{ij} = P_{i}\Phi_{p}^*(j, i) = P_{i} \begin{cases} I & \text{ if } j = i\\ \prod_{k=i}^{j-1} F_{p,k} & \text{ if } j > i \end{cases}$

where $F_{p,k} = (F_k - K_{p, k}H_k)$. This gives us the expression

$\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|N} = \hat{\boldsymbol{X}}_{i|i-1} + P_i \sum_{j=i}^N \Phi_p^*(j, i)H_i^*R_{e,j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j.$

If we let $\lambda_{i|N} = \sum_{j=i}^N \Phi_p^*(j, i)H_i^*R_{e,j}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_j$, then we get the recursion

$\lambda{i|N} = F_{p,i}^*\lambda_{i+1|N} + H_i^*R_{e, i}^{-1}\boldsymbol{e}_i.$

If we want to look at the error of this estimator, we see that

$P_{i|N} = P_i - P_i \Lambda_{i|N} P_i \text{ where } \Lambda_{i|N} = \langle \lambda_{i|N}, \lambda_{i|N} \rangle = F_{p,i}^*\Lambda_{i+1|N}F_{p,i}+H_i^*R_{e, i}^{-1}H_i.$

Writing all of this as an algorithm,