1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to estimate the path of a random walk described by the following SSM $$ \begin{align} x_{t+1} &= x_{t} + q_{t+1} \newline y_{t+1} &= h(x_{t+1}) + r_{t+1} \end{align} $$ where

  • $h(x_{t+1}) = \sqrt{(x_{t+1}(1) - A(1))^2 + (x_{t+1}(2) - A(2))^2}$ and
  • $q_{t+1} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,Q)$ , $r_{t+1} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R)$ with $R$ and $Q$ both equal to $0.1 \mathcal{I}$ and
  • $A$ is a constant vector representing Anchor co-ordinates.

We generate data for $L$ steps through the above State-Space Model and then try to estimate $x_{t}$ at each time-step by minimizing the following $\ell_p$ norm cost function. We minimize this function through Gradient Descent. \begin{align} \lVert y_{t} - h(x_{t}) \rVert_{p} \end{align} But it seems that minimizing this $\ell_{p}$ does not lead to the latent $x_{t}$ we were hoping to obtain. In addition to this we tried several regularizers, like $\ell_2$ and $\ell_1$ Norm regularizers. The function is minimized (we have observed this) as our gradient descent goes through its iterations but the $x_t$ that we ultimately reach is not the correct one. We suspect that we get stuck in some local minima close to, at first, the initial guess and then close to each subsequent estimate for the gradient descent.
Is there some form of regularization or some alterations we could make to our objective function that could lead us to a unique solution, which could get us the correct $x_{t}$?
We tried this exact procedure with a more minimalistic, toy problem where our $h$ has the following form $$ h(x_{t+1}) = \sqrt{(x_{t+1} - A)^2} $$ with $p = 2$. Here we observed that we get the exact value for $x_{t}$ until $x_{t}$ gets very close to $A$ where we observed that the estimate for $x_{t}$ gets mirrored around $A$.
Is there a way that we can direct our optimization problem to be solved for the $x_{t}$ close to the one, for which the incoming measurements $y_{t}$ were generated through the above State Space Model?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure if I understand everything you are saying, but since $h$ is rotationally symmetric around the point $A$, it is inevitable that once you make an error in $x_t$, it propagates forward with any technique: your $y$'s just do not feel the rotations around $A$ and your Gaussians on the evolution of $x$ are rotation invariant too, so how can you possibly hope to recover this lost information from $y$'s alone? All you can possibly hope for is to estimate $h(x_t)$ more or less decently, but not $x_t$ itself. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented May 24, 2022 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Is there some sort of regularisation that I could employ to give some extra information regarding x so that I could direct this optimization in the right direction? $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2022 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ Unless you observe something besides just $y$'s, the answer is "no". $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 11:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The formal explanation is that if you add to the dynamics of $x_{t+1}$ the random rotation around the axis $Ax_t$ at every step, the corresponding processes will be equidistributed and $y$'s won't feel these extra rotations at all, so you just cannot obtain any preference for one of many possible $x$-trajectories from $y$ alone no matter what technique you use. The information is lost and cannot be recovered without extra observables. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 11:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Extra anchor points will definitely help, no question about that. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 20:13

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .