A Framework for Robust Assimilation of Potentially Malign Third-Party Data, and its Statistical Meaning
For practitioners in state estimation who rely on third-party data (e.g., GNSS), this provides a robust method to handle potentially faulty data without requiring an accurate fault model.
This paper extends the particle filter algorithm with statistical hypothesis tests (Fisherian and Neyman-Pearsonian) to reject faulty or malicious third-party data in real-time state estimation. In a synthetic freeway traffic example, the fault-model-free Fisher filter outperforms the Neyman-Pearson filter when the assumed fault model is incorrect.
This paper presents a model-based method for fusing data from multiple sensors with a hypothesis-test-based component for rejecting potentially faulty or otherwise malign data. Our framework is based on an extension of the classic particle filter algorithm for real-time state estimation of uncertain systems with nonlinear dynamics with partial and noisy observations. This extension, based on classical statistical theories, utilizes statistical tests against the system's observation model. We discuss the application of the two major statistical testing frameworks, Fisherian significance testing and Neyman-Pearsonian hypothesis testing, to the Monte Carlo and sensor fusion settings. The Monte Carlo Neyman-Pearson test we develop is useful when one has a reliable model of faulty data, while the Fisher one is applicable when one may not have a model of faults, which may occur when dealing with third-party data, like GNSS data of transportation system users. These statistical tests can be combined with a particle filter to obtain a Monte Carlo state estimation scheme that is robust to faulty or outlier data. We present a synthetic freeway traffic state estimation problem where the filters are able to reject simulated faulty GNSS measurements. The fault-model-free Fisher filter, while underperforming the Neyman-Pearson one when the latter has an accurate fault model, outperforms it when the assumed fault model is incorrect.