#
Conservative Quantization of Covariance Matrices with Applications to Decentralized Information Fusion^{ †}

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

**Covariance Quantization.**We propose two approaches to the conservative quantization of covariance matrices. The first scheme uses diagonal dominance [34]. As an alternative, we study a modified Cholesky decomposition and compare it to the first approach.**Fusion of Estimates.**We apply the quantization schemes to both an optimal fusion algorithm and covariance intersection in order to demonstrate that reliable estimates are attained.

## 2. Notation

## 3. Considered Problem

## 4. Conservative Quantization of Covariance Matrices

#### 4.1. Covariance Quantization Based on Diagonal Dominance

**Theorem**

**1.**

**Theorem**

**2.**

**Proof.**

**Theorem**

**3.**

**Proof.**

**Theorem**

**4.**

**Proof.**

#### 4.2. Covariance Quantization Based on Modified Cholesky Decomposition

**Theorem**

**5.**

**Theorem**

**6.**

**Proof.**

**Theorem**

**7.**

**Corollary**

**1.**

**Proof.**

**Corollary**

**2.**

**Proof.**

## 5. Applications to Information Fusion

#### 5.1. Optimal Fusion and Covariance Intersection

#### 5.2. Unbiased Conservative Quantization of Estimates

**Corollary**

**3.**

**Theorem**

**8.**

**Proof.**

#### 5.3. Quantized Optimal Fusion and Covariance Intersection

- Quantize the estimates ${\underline{\mathrm{x}}}_{a}$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{x}}}_{b}$ so that the quantization results remain unbiased. Account for the potential increase in uncertainty due to the quantization process. Both goals are achieved by employing the unbiased, conservative estimate quantizer introduced in the previous subsection.
- Quantize the error covariance matrices of the quantized estimates conservatively. This is done using either the quantizer from Section 4.1 or the one from Section 4.2.
- Apply the Bar-Shalom–Campo formulas or covariance intersection to the quantized estimates and quantized error covariance matrices. Since the quantized estimates are unbiased and the quantized error covariance matrices are conservative the fusion result will also be unbiased and conservative.

## 6. Results and Discussion

#### 6.1. Evaluation of the Covariance Quantizers

#### 6.2. Evaluation of Quantized Optimal Fusion and Quantized Covariance Intersection

#### 6.3. Evaluation of Quantized Covariance Intersection in 2D Tracking Scenario

## 7. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Tolle, G.; Polastre, J.; Szewczyk, R.; Culler, D.; Turner, N.; Tu, K.; Burgess, S.; Dawson, T.; Buonadonna, P.; Gay, D.; et al. A Macroscope in the Redwoods. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys ’05), San Diego, CA, USA, 2–4 November 2005; pp. 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner-Allen, G.; Lorincz, K.; Ruiz, M.; Marcillo, O.; Johnson, J.; Lees, J.; Welsh, M. Deploying a Wireless Sensor Network on an Active Volcano. IEEE Internet Comput.
**2006**, 10, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jamil, M.S.; Jamil, M.A.; Mazhar, A.; Ikram, A.; Ahmed, A.; Munawar, U. Smart Environment Monitoring System by Employing Wireless Sensor Networks on Vehicles for Pollution Free Smart Cities. Proc. Eng.
**2015**, 107, 480–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Osterlind, F.; Pramsten, E.; Roberthson, D.; Eriksson, J.; Finne, N.; Voigt, T. Integrating Building Automation Systems and Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (EFTA 2007), Patras, Greece, 25–28 September 2007; pp. 1376–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torfs, T.; Sterken, T.; Brebels, S.; Santana, J.; van den Hoven, R.; Spiering, V.; Bertsch, N.; Trapani, D.; Zonta, D. Low Power Wireless Sensor Network for Building Monitoring. IEEE Sens. J.
**2013**, 13, 909–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lin, C.Y.; Peng, W.C.; Tseng, Y.C. Efficient In-Network Moving Object Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput.
**2006**, 5, 1044–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tsai, H.W.; Chu, C.P.; Chen, T.S. Mobile Object Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks. Comput. Commun.
**2007**, 30, 1811–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rault, T.; Bouabdallah, A.; Challal, Y. Energy Efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Top-Down Survey. Comput. Netw.
**2014**, 67, 104–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Brink, K.; Sherrill, R.; Godwin, J.; Zhang, J.; Willis, A. Maplets: An Efficient Approach for Cooperative SLAM Map Building Under Communication and Computation Constraints. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS), Portland, OR, USA, 20–23 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ouimet, M.; Iglesias, D.; Ahmed, N.; Martínez, S. Cooperative Robot Localization Using Event-Triggered Estimation. J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst.
**2018**, 15, 427–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wu, M.; Ma, H.; Zhang, X. Decentralized Cooperative Localization with Fault Detection and Isolation in Robot Teams. Sensors
**2018**, 18, 3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Günay, M.; Orguner, U.; Demirekler, M. Chernoff Fusion of Gaussian Mixtures for Distributed Maneuvering Target Tracking. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2015), Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Srisooksai, T.; Keamarungsi, K.; Lamsrichan, P.; Araki, K. Practical Data Compression in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl.
**2012**, 35, 37–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiao, J.J.; Luo, Z.Q. Decentralized Estimation in an Inhomogeneous Sensing Environment. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory
**2005**, 51, 3564–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiao, J.J.; Cui, S.; Luo, Z.Q.; Goldsmith, A. Power Scheduling of Universal Decentralized Estimation in Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**2006**, 54, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, J.; AlRegib, G. Rate-Constrained Distributed Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**2007**, 55, 1634–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, J.; AlRegib, G. Distributed Estimation in Energy-Constrained Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**2009**, 57, 3746–3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ribeiro, A.; Giannakis, G.B.; Roumeliotis, S.I. SOI-KF: Distributed Kalman Filtering With Low-Cost Communications Using the Sign of Innovations. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**2006**, 54, 4782–4795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Msechu, E.J.; Roumeliotis, S.I.; Ribeiro, A.; Giannakis, G.B. Decentralized Quantized Kalman Filtering With Scalable Communication Cost. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
**2008**, 56, 3727–3741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Forsling, R.; Sjanic, Z.; Gustafsson, F.; Hendeby, G. Consistent Distributed Track Fusion Under Communication Constraints. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2019), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2–5 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Forsling, R.; Sjanic, Z.; Gustafsson, F.; Hendeby, G. Communication Efficient Decentralized Track Fusion Using Selective Information Extraction. In Proceedings of the IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2020), Rustenburg, South Africa, 6–9 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bar-Shalom, Y.; Campo, L. The Effect of the Common Process Noise on the Two-Sensor Fused-Track Covariance. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.
**1986**, 22, 803–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, S.L.; Deng, Z.L. Multi-Sensor Optimal Information Fusion Kalman Filter. Automatica
**2004**, 40, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Radtke, S.; Noack, B.; Hanebeck, U.D. Fully Decentralized Estimation Using Square-Root Decompositions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2020), Rustenburg, South Africa, 6–9 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Chong, C.Y. Hierarchical Estimation. In Proceedings of the MIT/ONR Workshop on C3, Monterey, CA, USA, 16–27 July 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Dormann, K.; Noack, B.; Hanebeck, U.D. Optimally Distributed Kalman Filtering with Data-Driven Communication. Sensors
**2018**, 18, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Julier, S.J.; Uhlmann, J.K. A Non-divergent Estimation Algorithm in the Presence of Unknown Correlations. In Proceedings of the IEEE American Control Conference (ACC 1997), Albuquerque, NM, USA, 6 June 1997; Volume 4, pp. 2369–2373. [Google Scholar]
- Niehsen, W. Information Fusion based on Fast Covariance Intersection Filtering. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2002), Annapolis, MD, USA, 8–11 July 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fränken, D.; Hüpper, A. Improved Fast Covariance Intersection for Distributed Data Fusion. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2005), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 25–28 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Noack, B.; Sijs, J.; Reinhardt, M.; Hanebeck, U.D. Decentralized Data Fusion with Inverse Covariance Intersection. Automatica
**2017**, 79, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Noack, B.; Sijs, J.; Hanebeck, U.D. Inverse Covariance Intersection: New Insights and Properties. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2017), Xi’an, China, 10–13 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sijs, J.; Lazar, M.; van den Bosch, P.P.J. State-fusion with Unknown Correlation: Ellipsoidal Intersection. In Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference (ACC 2010), Baltimore, MD, USA, 30 June–2 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Noack, B.; Sijs, J.; Hanebeck, U.D. Algebraic Analysis of Data Fusion with Ellipsoidal Intersection. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI 2016), Baden-Baden, Germany, 19–21 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Funk, C.; Noack, B.; Hanebeck, U.D. Conservative Quantization of Fast Covariance Intersection. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI 2020), Karlsruhe, Germany, 14–16 September 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hopkins, M.; Mikaitis, M.; Lester, D.R.; Furber, S. Stochastic Rounding and Reduced-Precision Fixed-Point Arithmetic for Solving Neural Ordinary Differential Equations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
**2020**, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Horn, R.A.; Johnson, C.R. Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Schnabel, R.B.; Eskow, E. A New Modified Cholesky Factorization. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput.
**1990**, 11, 1136–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gill, P.E.; Murray, W. Newton-Type Methods for Unconstrained and Linearly Constrained Optimization. Math. Program.
**1974**, 7, 311–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schnabel, R.B.; Eskow, E. A Revised Modified Cholesky Factorization Algorithm. SIAM J. Optim.
**1999**, 9, 1135–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Golub, G.H.; Van Loan, C.F. Matrix Computations; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- Radtke, S.; Noack, B.; Hanebeck, U.D.; Straka, O. Reconstruction of Cross-Correlations with Constant Number of Deterministic Samples. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2018), Cambridge, UK, 10–13 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Arambel, P.; Mehra, R. Estimation under Unknown Correlation: Covariance Intersection Revisited. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**2002**, 47, 1879–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gupta, S.; Agrawal, A.; Gopalakrishnan, K.; Narayanan, P. Deep Learning with Limited Numerical Precision. arXiv
**2015**, arXiv:1502.02551v1. [Google Scholar] - Carbone, P.; Petri, D. Effect of Additive Dither on the Resolution of Ideal Quantizers. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Measur.
**1994**, 43, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Widrow, B.; Kollar, I.; Liu, M.C. Statistical Theory of Quantization. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Measur.
**1996**, 45, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Li, X.R.; Jilkov, V. Survey of Maneuvering Target Tracking. Part I. Dynamic Models. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.
**2003**, 39, 1333–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**(

**Left**): Confidence ellipsoids of a covariance matrix (dark blue), its naively quantized version (light blue), and its conservatively quantized version (orange). (

**Right**): Density of a Gaussian random variable (dark blue), histogram (light blue), and mean (orange) of its quantized version.

**Figure 2.**Confidence ellipsoids of ${\mathbf{C}}_{aa}$ and ${\mathbf{C}}_{bb}$ (blue), $\mathbb{C}({\underline{\mathrm{x}}}_{f}-\underline{\mathrm{x}})$ (orange, solid), and ${\mathbf{C}}_{ff}$ (orange, dashed) when ${\mathbf{C}}_{ab}\ne \mathbf{0}$. The result obtained using optimal fusion with the erroneous assumption ${\mathbf{C}}_{ab}=0$ is shown on the left. The result achieved using CI is shown on the right.

**Figure 3.**Average Frobenius norm of the quantization error matrix ${\Delta}_{dd}$ of the diagonal dominance-based quantization approach (

**top**), and the relative improvement achieved by the modified Cholesky-based quantization approach (

**bottom**) for varying dimensions n and bits per codeword b.

**Figure 4.**Relative increase of actual MSE (solid)/averaged trace (dashed) of DD-OPT with respect to OPT for varying dimensions n and bits per codeword b. Top row with quantized estimate vector and quantized error covariance, bottom row only with quantized error covariance.

**Figure 5.**Relative increase of actual MSE (solid)/averaged trace (dashed) of MC-OPT with respect to DD-OPT for varying dimensions n and bits per codeword b. Top row with quantized estimate vector and quantized error covariance, bottom row only with quantized error covariance.

**Figure 6.**Relative increase of actual MSE (solid)/averaged trace (dashed) of DD-CI with respect to CI for varying dimensions n and bits per codeword b. Top row with quantized estimate vector and quantized error covariance, bottom row only with quantized error covariance.

**Figure 7.**Relative increase of actual MSE (solid)/averaged trace (dashed) of MC-CI with respect to DD-CI for varying dimensions n and bits per codeword b. Top row with quantized estimate vector and quantized error covariance, bottom row only with quantized error covariance.

**Figure 8.**The estimate MSE of sensor node b plotted over time step k for varying bits per codeword using DD-CI. ‘CI’ indicates the use of a 64 bit floating point representation for each scalar.

**Figure 9.**The estimate MSE of sensor node b plotted over time step k for varying bits per codeword using MC-CI. ‘CI’ indicates the use of a 64 bit floating point representation for each scalar.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Funk, C.; Noack, B.; Hanebeck, U.D.
Conservative Quantization of Covariance Matrices with Applications to Decentralized Information Fusion. *Sensors* **2021**, *21*, 3059.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093059

**AMA Style**

Funk C, Noack B, Hanebeck UD.
Conservative Quantization of Covariance Matrices with Applications to Decentralized Information Fusion. *Sensors*. 2021; 21(9):3059.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093059

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Funk, Christopher, Benjamin Noack, and Uwe D. Hanebeck.
2021. "Conservative Quantization of Covariance Matrices with Applications to Decentralized Information Fusion" *Sensors* 21, no. 9: 3059.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093059