Transcript Lecture 31
ASEN 5070: Statistical Orbit Determination I
Fall 2015
Professor Brandon A. Jones
Lecture 31: State Noise Compensation
University of Colorado
Boulder
Homework 9 due Friday
Lecture Quiz due Friday at 5pm
◦ It will be posted tonight
Exam 2
◦ Returned to students and discussion on Friday
11/13
◦ Lecture 33 will not be posted to D2L until Monday
11/16
University of Colorado
Boulder
2
Last homework due 12/4 (in-class students)
I need to turn grades in on Friday December 18
Exam 3 will be take home
◦
◦
◦
◦
Will be posted on Friday Dec. 4
In-class: Due by 5pm, Friday Dec. 11
CAETE students: Due by 11:59pm (Mountain), Sunday Dec. 13
-10 pts for each 24 hours late (includes weekend days!)
Final Projects
“Freebies” not applicable for exam or project
We are happy to accept your exam and project earlier!
◦ In-class & CAETE students: Due by noon, Monday Dec. 14
◦ -10 pts for each 24 hours late
University of Colorado
Boulder
3
Process Noise
University of Colorado
Boulder
4
What happened to u (modeling error) ?
◦ This is true process noise…
Can we ignore it?
How do we account for it?
University of Colorado
Boulder
5
University of Colorado
Boulder
6
Random process u maps to the state through the
matrix B
◦ Consider it a random process for our purposes
Usually (for OD), we consider random accelerations:
University of Colorado
Boulder
7
For the sake of our discussion, assume:
University of Colorado
Boulder
8
For the sake of our discussion, assume:
In other words, Gaussian with zero mean and
uncorrelated in time
◦ Dubbed State Noise Compensation (SNC)
University of Colorado
Boulder
9
This is a non-homogenous differential equation
The derivation of the general (continuous) solution
to this equation is derived in the book (Section
4.9), and is:
University of Colorado
Boulder
10
If we want to instead map between two
discrete times:
University of Colorado
Boulder
11
For the case of a noise process with zero
mean:
The zero-mean noise process does not
change the mapping of the mean state
University of Colorado
Boulder
12
What about the covariance matrix?
The derivation of the general (continuous)
solution to this equation is derived in the book
(Section 4.9), and is:
University of Colorado
Boulder
13
University of Colorado
Boulder
14
The previous discussion considered the case
where the noise process is continuous, i.e,
Things may be simplified if we instead
consider a discrete process:
University of Colorado
Boulder
15
Using the discrete noise process, we instead
get (for zero mean process):
University of Colorado
Boulder
16
This defines, mathematically, how we can
select the minimum covariance to prevent
saturation
◦ Saturation is mostly a problem when we have
dynamic model error
◦ With a stochastic (probabilistic) description of the
modeling error, we have our minimum
University of Colorado
Boulder
17
University of Colorado
Boulder
18
The addition of a noise process is better suited
for a sequential filter
◦ Would include the process noise transition matrix in the
Batch formulation
◦ Changes the mapping of the state (deviation) back to the
epoch time, which requires alterations to the H matrix
definition
◦ Tapley, Schutz, and Born (p. 229) argue that this is
cumbersome and impractical for real-world application
Advantage: Kalman, EKF, Potter, and others
University of Colorado
Boulder
19
Let’s derive the process noise model for a simple
case
◦ Noise process defined in the acceleration
◦ Time between measurement small enough to treat
velocity as constant
What is the process noise transition matrix
(PNTM)?
University of Colorado
Boulder
20
Recall that:
University of Colorado
Boulder
21
University of Colorado
Boulder
22
Recall that we are assuming a small time
between observations, i.e., velocity is
constant
University of Colorado
Boulder
23
If velocity is constant, change in position is linear
in time:
University of Colorado
Boulder
24
University of Colorado
Boulder
25
Derived under the assumptions that:
◦ Noise process defined only in the acceleration
◦ Time between measurements small enough to treat
velocity as constant
University of Colorado
Boulder
26
University of Colorado
Boulder
27
This definition of Q is in the inertial Cartesian
frame
◦ Is that always a good idea?
◦ What are some of the things you should consider?
University of Colorado
Boulder
28
We can define Q in any frame, and rotate the
matrix:
University of Colorado
Boulder
29
The previous derivation assumed Q was known
◦ How do we select Q ?
◦ Ideally, Q describes the magnitude of the uncertainty of
the acceleration acting on the satellite
◦ What if we don’t know the magnitude? (after all, we are
trying to account for an unknown acceleration)
Often determined by trial and error
◦ You will do this in Homework 11
University of Colorado
Boulder
30
Can we estimate the Q matrix or other
parameters of the process noise?
◦ Gauss Markov Process (Dynamic Model
Compensation)
◦ Multiple Model Adaptive Estimation (MMAE) and
Heirarchical Mixture of Experts (HME)
◦ Others in the literature
University of Colorado
Boulder
31