Kalman Filter

Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 118)


This chapter has briefly discussed the need of the DKF and introduced the literature work of the DKF. Most DKF methods proposed in the literature rely on consensus filters algorithm. The convergence rate of such distributed consensus algorithms typically depends on the network topology and the weights given to the edges between neighboring sensors. The next chapter proposes a low power DKF. The proposed DKF is based on a fast polynomial filter to accelerate distributed average consensus in static network topologies. The idea is to apply a polynomial filter on the network matrix that will shape its spectrum in order to increase the convergence rate by minimizing its second largest eigenvalue. Fast convergence can contribute to significant energy saving.


Sensor Network Wireless Sensor Network Hide Markov Model Kalman Filter Adjacency Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    R.E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,” Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 35–45, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Speyer, “Computation and transmission requirements for a decentralized linear-quadratic-Gaussian control problem,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 24, pp. 266–269, May 1979.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.S.Y. Rao, H.F. Durrant-Whyte, and J.A. Sheen, “A fully decentralized multi-sensor system for tracking and surveillance,” Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 3, pp. 20–44, November 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Dong, Q. Chen, and Z. Niu, “Random graph theory based connectivity analysis in wireless sensor networks with Rayleigh fading channels,” in Proceeding of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, Hong Kong, China, March 2007, pp. 123–126.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Bollabas, Random Graphs Second Edition: Cambride University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Olfati-Saber and R.M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, pp. 1520–1533, January 2004.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Olfati-Saber and R.M. Murray, “Consensus protocols for networks of dynamic agents,” in Proceeding of the American Control Conference, Denver, Colorado USA, June 2003, pp. 951–956.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Mesbahi, “On State-dependent dynamic graphs and their controllability properties,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, pp. 387–392, May 2005.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Ultrafast consensus in small-world networks,” in Proceeding of the American Control Conference, pp. 2371–2378, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Hatano and M. Mesbahi, “Agreement over random networks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, pp. 1867–1872, November 2005.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Moreau, “Stability of multiagent systems with time-dependent communication links,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, pp. 169–182, February 2005.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Wei and R. W. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multiagent systems under dynamically changing interaction topologies,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, pp. 655–661, November 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Xiao and S. Boyd, “Fast linear iterations for distributed averaging,” Systems and Control Letters, pp. 65–78, June 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Xiao, S. Boyd, and S. Lall, “A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus,” in the 4th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pp. 63–70, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, pp. 401–420, April 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Distributed Kalman Filter with Embedded Consensus Filters,” in the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 8179–8184, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Distributed tracking for mobile sensor networks with information-driven mobility,” in Proceeding of the American Control Conference, New York City, USA, July 2007, pp. 4606–4612.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Scutari, S. Barbarossa, and L. Pescosolido, “Distributed Decision Through Self-Synchronizing Sensor Networks in the Presence of Propagation Delays and Asymmetric Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, pp. 1667–1684, May 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Olfati-Saber and J. S. Shamma, “Consensus Filters for Sensor Networks and Distributed Sensor Fusion,” in Proceeding of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Seville, Spain, December 2005, pp. 6698–6703.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Spanos, R. Olfati-Saber, and R.M. Murray, “Dynamic Consensus on Mobile Networks,” in Proceeding of the 16th IFAC World Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, July 2005, pp. 139–145.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Distributed Kalman filtering for sensor networks,” in Decision and Control, 2007 46th IEEE Conference on, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, December 2007, pp. 5492–5498.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Carli, A. Chiuso, L. Schenato, and S. Zampieri, “Distributed Kalman filtering based on consensus strategies,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 26, pp. 622–633, November 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Xiao, S. Boyd, and S.J. Kim, “Distributed average consensus with least-mean-square deviation,” in Proceeding of the 17th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Kyoto, Japan, July 2006, pp. 2768–2776.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Xiao, S. Boyd, and S.-J. Kim, “Distributed average consensus with least–mean–square deviation,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 2, pp. 33–46, May 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. D. Schizas, A. Ribeiro, and G.B. Giannakis, “Consensus in Ad Hoc WSNs With Noisy Links Part I: Distributed Estimation of Deterministic Signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing vol. 56, pp. 350–364, June 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Kashyap, T. Basar, and R. Srikant, “Quantized Consensus,” in Proceeding of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 635–639, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Huimin and X.R. Li, “On track fusion with communication constraints,” in Proceeding of the 10th International Conference on Information Fusion, Seattle, Washington, USA, July 2007, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Ribeiro, G.B. Giannakis, and S.I. Roumeliotis, “SOI-KF: Distributed Kalman Filtering With Low-Cost Communications Using the Sign of Innovations,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 54, pp. 4782–4795, October 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Olfati-Saber and N.F. Sandell, “Distributed tracking in sensor networks with limited sensing range,” in Proceeding of the American Control Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 2008, pp. 3157–3162.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Olfati-Saber, “Kalman-Consensus Filter : Optimality, stability, and performance,” in Proceeding of the 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Chinghai, China, December 2009, pp. 7036–7042.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    N.T. John and A. Michael, “Convergence and asymptotic agreement in distributed decision problems,” in Proceeding of the 21st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando, Florida, USA, December 1982, pp. 692–701.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Essex JunctionUSA
  2. 2.University of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations