The auxiliary particle filter is a particle filtering algorithm introduced by Pitt and Shephard in 1999 to improve some deficiencies of the sequential importance resampling (SIR) algorithm when dealing with tailed observation densities.
Particle filters approximate continuous random variable by
M
\pit
1/M
M → infin
The empirical prediction density is produced as the weighted summation of these particles:[1]
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt)=\sum
Mf(\alpha | |
t+1 |
j | |
|\alpha | |
t |
| ||||
\pi | ||||
t |
Combining the prior density
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt)
f(yt+1|\alphat+1)
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt+1)=
f(yt+1|\alphat+1)\widehat{f | |
(\alpha |
t+1|Yt)}{f(yt+1|Yt)}\proptof(yt+1|\alphat+1)
Mf(\alpha | |
\sum | |
t+1 |
j | |
|\alpha | |
t |
f(yt+1|Yt)=\intf(yt+1|\alphat+1)dF(\alphat+1|Yt)
On the other hand, the true filtering density which we want to estimate is
f(\alphat+1|Yt+1)=
f(yt+1|\alphat+1)f(\alphat+1|Yt) | |
f(yt+1|Yt) |
The prior density
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt)
f(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
R
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt)
\pi | ||||||||||
|
j) | |
,\omega | |
j=f(y|\alpha |
f(yt+1|\alphat+1)
R → infin
R
M
\pij
The weakness of the particle filters includes:
R
Therefore, the auxiliary particle filter is proposed to solve this problem.
Comparing with the empirical filtering density which has
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt+1)\proptof(yt+1|\alphat+1)
Mf(\alpha | |
\sum | |
t+1 |
j | |
|\alpha | |
t |
we now define
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)\proptof(yt+1|\alphat+1)f(\alphat+1
k)\pi | |
|\alpha | |
t |
k
k=1,...,M
Being aware that
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
M
k
k
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
\widehat{f}(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
f(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
Take the SIR method for example:
R
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
\pi | ||||||||||
|
,
\omega | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
yt+1
k | |
\alpha | |
t |
R
M
\pij
The original particle filters draw samples from the prior density, while the auxiliary filters draw from the joint distribution of the prior density and the likelihood. In other words, the auxiliary particle filters avoid the circumstance which the particles are generated in the regions with low likelihood. As a result, the samples can approximate
f(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
The selection of the auxiliary variable affects
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)\proptof(yt+1
k) | |
|\mu | |
t+1 |
f(\alphat+1
k)\pi | |
|\alpha | |
t |
k
k=1,...,M
k | |
\mu | |
t+1 |
We sample from
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
f(\alphat+1|Yt+1)
f(\alphat+1
k) | |
|\alpha | |
t |
λk
g(k|Yt+1)\propto
kf(y | |
\pi | |
t+1 |
k) | |
|\mu | |
t+1 |
R
f(\alphat+1
k) | |
|\alpha | |
t |
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
\pi | ||||||||||
|
R
\omega | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
k | |
\mu | |
t+1 |
R
M
\pij
Following the procedure, we draw the
R
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
g(\alphat+1,k|Yt+1)
k | |
\mu | |
t+1 |
R
Assume that the filtered posterior is described by the following M weighted samples:
p(xt|z1:t) ≈
M | |
\sum | |
i=1 |
(i) | |
\omega | |
t |
\delta\left(xt-
(i) | |
x | |
t |
\right).
Then, each step in the algorithm consists of first drawing a sample of the particle index
k
t-1
t
(i) | |
\mu | |
t |
xt|xt-1
k(i)\simP(i=k|zt)\propto
(i) | |
\omega | |
t |
p(zt|
(i) | |
\mu | |
t |
)
This is repeated for
i=1,2,...,M
(i) | |
x | |
t |
\simp(x|
k(i) | |
x | |
t-1 |
).
Finally, the weights are updated to account for the mismatch between the likelihood at the actual sample and the predicted point
k(i) | |
\mu | |
t |
(i) | |
\omega | |
t |
\propto
| |||||||||
|
.