Vehicle State Estimation Using Robust Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter

Engineering Research Express
PAPER You may also like

- Designing and validating a robust adaptive
Vehicle state estimation using a maximum neuromodulation algorithm for closed-loop
control of brain states
likelihood based robust adaptive extended kalman Hao Fang and Yuxiao Yang
- A Hybrid Extended Kalman Filter as an

filter considering unknown white Gaussian process Observer for a Pot-Electro-Magnetic
Actuator
and measurement noise signal Simon Schmidt and Paolo Mercorelli
- On the interplay between robustness and

dynamic planning for adaptive radiation
To cite this article: Rahul Prakash and Dharmendra Kumar Dheer 2023 Eng. Res. Express 5 025066 therapy
Michelle Böck, Kjell Eriksson and Anders
Forsgren
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 111.235.68.130 on 19/06/2023 at 06:09

Eng. Res. Express 5 (2023) 025066 https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/acd73e
PAPER
Vehicle state estimation using a maximum likelihood based robust

adaptive extended kalman filter considering unknown white
RECEIVED
19 March 2023
REVISED
14 May 2023
Gaussian process and measurement noise signal
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
19 May 2023
PUBLISHED
Rahul Prakash and Dharmendra Kumar Dheer∗
16 June 2023 Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India
∗
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: rahulp.phd19.ee@nitp.ac.in and dkdheer@nitp.ac.in
Keywords: covariance matching, maximum likelihood principle, extended kalman filter, unscented kalman filter, non-linear bicycle model,
vehicle state estimation
Abstract
The stochastic nature of noise signals affects the vehicle’s internal states and the outputs, resulting in
the difficulty in estimation. The unknown or time-varying nature of noise signals if not taken into
account for estimation, the results will diverge and be highly deteriorated. In this paper, a maximum
likelihood principle (MLP) based adaptive robust extended kalman filter for estimating the states of
the adopted non-linear vehicle model is proposed. An observability test is done for the purpose of
estimation. A covariance matching (CM) based robust adaptive high forgetting factor based fault
tolerant technique is also employed on the robust adaptive extended and unscented kalman filters for
comparison purpose. The Robustness of the filter is analyzed by varying the parameter of the vehicle
through a local sensitivity analysis. The results show that the MLP based approach to the extended
kalman filter performs well in three simulations for sinusoidal steering, Double Lance Change, J-Turn,
Fishhook, Slalom maneuver in comparison to robust adaptive unscented kalman filter. Friction
coefficient of 0.8 (dry road) and 0.4 (wet road) is chosen for the simulation. The sideslip angle RMSE
value for MLP based estimation is obtained as 2.62e-05, 4.545e-06 for Sine and DLC maneuver.
1. Introduction
As the demand for autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs) has escalated in the past decades, leading to uprise in
safety and mobility. To operate the AGVs in complex and challenging driving scenarios, the vehicle requires a
better safety, control, stability, and robustness for high-performance motion control and to avoid accidents and
loss of life. Accurate state information is necessary for different motion control objectives, such as path tracking
for different dynamic maneuvers including double lane change, sinusoidal steering, J-Turn, Fishhook maneuver,
and Slalom maneuver steering. The estimation of states is also done due to the expensiveness and non-
availability of direct measurement of the states because of the physical limitations of sensors [1, 2]. Vehicle active
safety systems, including Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), Anti-lock Braking System (ABS),
Electronic Stability Program (ESP), Active Front Steering (AFS), Active Suspension Control (ASC) requires
precise state information to assist safety systems in dynamic maneuvers for control and stability [3].
Various estimation methods are available in the literature, including Kalman Filter (KF), Extended Kalman
Filter (EKF), Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF), Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF), Particle Filter (PF), Luenberger
Observer and nonLinear observers based on different vehicle models including single and dual track [4, 5]. In the
literature, non-linear KFs are widely studied for the estimation purpose. The accuracy of the non-linear KFs
relies on the good estimation of the process noise covariance matrix (Q) and measurement noise covariance
matrix (R). However, the noise variances are uncertain, so prior to assuming a constant known value effects the
accuracy of the filter and may diverge. The covariance matrices represent uncertainty in the state dynamics or the
modelling error of the process noise and variabilities of the measurement noise. The practical significance of
these matrices constitutes the complexity of the roads, the system internal, and the sensor disturbances. Instead
© 2023 IOP Publishing Ltd

Eng. Res. Express 5 (2023) 025066 R Prakash and D K Dheer
of opting for covariance matrices as constants, these can be varied to incorporate the time-varying or unknown
statistics for higher estimation accuracy [6]. The variation in noise covariance matrices is implemented as the
adaptivity of the Kalman Filters. The adaptive KFs may be categorized on the basis of three approaches that
include Bayesian, Covariance Matching (CM), and Maximum likelihood Principle (MLP) as stated in [7–9].
In [10], an adaptive extended kalman filter deduced from maximum likelihood (MLP) method is proposed
for a rollover evaluation system utlising a nonlinear suspension model and a rolling plane vehicle model. In [11],
an adaptive extended kalman filter is proposed by utilizing a 2 DOF bicycle model to estimate the sideslip angle
and yaw rate. An observability test is performed to analyze the observability of the non-linear system and
parameter sensitivity towards the mass of the vehicle is also analyzed. In [12], an adaptive fault tolerant EKF is
proposed with partial measurements due to sensor data loss, that shows a better performance due to its
robustness towards parameter change. In [13], an Improved Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter is designed for
target tracking. The improved method is based on fading weight factors show the adaptability and robustness of
nonlinear systems in complex environments. In [14], authors have proposed an ant lion optimization (ALO)
technique to estimate sideslip angle and yaw rate by adaptively varying the noise covariance matrices. The
performance of ALO based UKF found to be better in comparison to standard EKF.
Authors of [15] have proposed a fading unscented kalman filter for vehicle state estimation utilising a 7 DOF
model by considering only the process noise but not measurement noise, thus resulting in better accuracy and
convergence speed. An adaptive hybrid fusion estimation strategy using low-cost sensors to estimate vehicle
sideslip angle in a wide driving-maneuver range is proposed in [16]. In [17], a covariance matching based NSE
algorithm is employed to adaptively vary the noise characteristics in UKF. A CM based Enhanced Adaptive UKF is
proposed to solve vehicle estimation under unknown process noise conditions in [18]. However, measurement
noise is not considered to be adaptive. An adaptive adjustment of process and output noise is adopted in [19] to
enhance the accuracy of kalman filter based on innovation and residual approach respectively for dynamic state
estimation of a synchronous machine. A combined maximum likelihood principle (MLP) and moving horizon
estimation (MHE) methods based adaptive UKF is developed in [20]. The advantage of implementing the MHE to
improve the computational efficiency of MLP, while incorporating the noise statistic characteristics. An adaptive
kalman filter based on MLP and fuzzy based CM approach is proposed for the estimation of the position of
spacecraft in [21]. An evolutionary algorithm is proposed to estimate the process and measurement noise
covariance matrices of the Kalman filter to improve the performance of the suboptimal filter for non-linear
quadrotor attitude dynamics in [22]. In [23], a combination of UKF and genetic particle swarm optimization is
implemented to tune the process and measurement noise matrices with a 7 DOF non-linear vehicle model and
magic formula tire model. The results show an improvement in convergence speed and computational load has
decreased. Similarly in [24] ALO based UKF is applied for the stability control of a four in-wheel motor
independent drive electric vehicle and performance are found to be improved for the estimation of sideslip angle
and yaw rate. In [25], authors have designed an evolutionary algorithms based model predictive control (MPC) for
lateral stability, in which the initial states for MPC are assumed to be available, and further a default KFs are
exploited to obtain states.
Based on the above mentioned enormous literature, the authors have formed the following research gap for
this paper:
• The adaptive kalman filters are designed extensively in the literature, also the robustness with respect to highly
affective parameters variation for a non-linear vehicle model with a magic formula tire model is of major
concern in vehicle state estimation. To the best of the author’s knowledge, the work carried out for the
robustness analysis of the CM and MLP based adaptive techniques is limited.
• Adaptive KFs are mainly designed on the basis of CM, MLP and evolutionary algorithms (EA) due to the
advantages of minimizing the error and enhancing the accuracy of the filter. Most of the comparisons of
adaptive KFs are done with their standard KFs but no comparison is extensively done between the two
different adaptive techniques, CM and MLP based KFs for vehicle state estimation model.
• Most of the estimation work is done utilizing the adaptive UKF for sideslip angle and yaw rate estimation by
considering longitudinal, lateral and yaw dynamics (2 or 3 dof). As the UKF is applied to highly non-linear
systems, its computational load is also higher than the EKF due to the calculation of sigma points at each time
instant. Therefore, it is of major concern for the selection of adaptive KFs for the specific mathematical vehicle
model. So, the literature also lacks a comprehensive comparison between the robust adaptive EKF and UKF
for vehicle state estimation on the basis of estimation accuracy and computational load.
In this paper, the authors have explored the potential scope of existing adaptive techniques for unknown or
time-varying gaussian process and measurement noise in the field of vehicle state estimation. The objective of
2
Figure 1. Yaw plane vehicle dynamics model.
this work for the researchers is to ease the selection of adaptive KFs for the adopted mathematical model. The
main contributions of this paper are as follows:
• A maximum likelihood principle based robust adaptive extended kalman filter for the estimation of the states
of the adopted non-linear vehicle model is proposed. This MLP based robust adaptive technique is designed to
explore the potential to enhance the accuracy of filter.
• To analyze the performance of the MLP based technique on the accuracy of the filter and computational load,
another CM based EKF and UKF are also designed on the same non-linear vehicle model.
• A robust adaptive UKF is also designed for an evident comparison with a robust adaptive EKF based on vehicle
mathematical model adopted. This is done to show that for the lesser dynamical systems adopted, robust
adaptive EKF (RAEKF) is adequate for estimation. The robustness of RAEKF is determined by the local
sensitivity index which shows the dependence of sideslip angle and yaw rate with respect to parameter
variation.
The paper is organised as follows: the vehicle mathematical model is illustrated in the section 2. Section 3
comprises of the filter design and the adaptive filter design is explained in the section 4. Numerical simulation
results and discussion is explained in section 5. Finally, the conclusion is provided in section 6.
2. Vehicle mathematical model
A single track bicycle model shown in figure 1 is a simplified model of a four wheeled car model representation to
ease the mathematical complexity. Assumptions to obtain the single track model include the same cornering
stiffness of left and right tires, weight transfer is neglected, and the slip angles of both tires are the same. Only
front steering system is utilized for this model to estimate the states. A 3 DOF non-linear yaw plane model is
defined for estimation during the lateral motion. The model includes longitudinal, lateral, and yaw motion to
estimate side slip angle, and yaw rate.
2.1. Longitudinal motion

The longitudinal motion of vehicle is defined as:
mVx = mVy r + Fxf cos d + Fxr - Fyf sin d (1)
2.2. Lateral motion

The equation governing the lateral maneuver upon providing the steering input is described by:
mVy = - mVx r + Fxf sin d + Fyf cos d + Fyr (2)
The vehicle side slip angle β is calculated by:
Vy
b = arc tan ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (3)
⎝ Vx ⎠
3
2.3. Yaw motion

The yaw motion of vehicle is stated as:
Iz r = Fyf l f cos d + Fxf l f sin d - Fyr l r (4)
where, m is the mass of vehicle, Vx is the longitudinal velocity, Vy is the lateral velocity, r is the yaw rate, Fxf is the
front longitudinal tire force, Fxr is the rear longitudinal tire force, Fyf is the front lateral tire force, Iz is the yaw
moment of inertia about z axis, lf is the distance between centre of gravity and front axle, lr is the distance between
centre of gravity and rear axle, δ is the steering angle.
2.4. Tire model

A non-linear empirical tire model is utilized here to explore the behaviour of the tire during large slip angle and
ratio known as magic formula tire model. The expression for tire force is:
y (x ) = D sin {C arc tan [Bx (1 - E ) + E arc tan (Bx )]} (5)
where, y(x) represents the longitudinal force, and the lateral force, and x represents the slip ratio, and the slip
angle. The model parameters B, C, D, and E are stiffness factor, shape factor, peak value, and curvature factor
respectively. The values of these parameters are obtained for both lateral and longitudinal motion. The details of
the calculation can be found in [6]. The shifting factors are ignored.
The tire slip angles are calculated by following equations:
Vy + l f r ⎞ Vy + l f r ⎞
a f = d - arc tan ⎛ ⎜ »d-⎛⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (6)
⎝ Vx
⎠ ⎝ Vx ⎠
Vy - l r r ⎞ Vy - l r r ⎞
ar = - arc tan ⎛ ⎜ » -⎛⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (7)
⎝ Vx ⎠ ⎝ Vx ⎠
For lateral force, the values of parameters are:
C = a 0, D = m (a1 Fz2 + a2 Fz )
F
BCD = a3 sin [2 arc tan z ] , E = a 6 Fz + a7 (8)
a4
The normal tire force Fz is calculated as in [26]:
lr h
Fzf = mg - ma x
L L
lf h
Fzr = mg + ma x (9)
L L
where, Fzf and Fzr are the front and rear normal tire forces; μ is the maximum adhesion coefficient of the road.
The tire model parameters mentioned in equation (8) are shown in table 1. The relationship between the tire slip
angle and lateral tire force is non-linear (saturation) for large tire slip angle α. For small slip angle, the tire lateral
force can be approximated as Fy ≈ BCDα as explained in [27]. Thus, for calculating the front and rear tire lateral
force obtained from equation (5), it is simplified by using equations (6)−(9) and defined by equation (10) as:
Fyf » BCDa f
Fyr » BCDar (10)
where, BCD can be approximated as (2a3/a4)Fz. Assuming constants as (2a3/a4) = k1, lrmg/L = k2, lfmg/L = k4,
hm/L = k3. Finally, the tire forces are defined by equations (11) and (12) as described below:
Vy lf r a x Vy ax l f r ⎞
Fyf = ⎛k1 k2 d - k1 k2
⎜ - k1 k2 - k1 k3 a x d + k1 k3 + k1 k3 ⎟ (11)
⎝ Vx Vx Vx Vx ⎠
Vy l r Vy a x a l r
Fyr = ⎛ - k1 k 4
⎜ + k1 k 4 r - k1 k3 + k1 k3 x r ⎞ ⎟ (12)
⎝ Vx Vx Vx Vx ⎠
The compact matrix form representation of the state transition model of the non-linear system is expressed
as:
x (t ) = g (x (t ) , u (t )) (13)
where, x is the state vector, u is the system input, f (. ) represents the state evolution function. The input vector is
composed of steering angle and longitudinal acceleration u = [δ ax]. The values of input variables for assumed
scenarios(I and II) are adopted from [28]. In the non-linear model from equation (1) to (5), the longitudinal
velocity Vx, lateral velocity Vy, yaw rate r, longitudinal tire forces Fxf, Fxr are treated as unknown variables and
difficult to measure by physical sensors. The non-linear state equation (13) is expressed as:
4
Table 1. Tire model

parameters.
Parameters Values
a0 1.6
a1 −34
a2 1250
a3 2320
a4 12.8
a5 0
a6 −0.0053
a7 0.1925
b0 1.55
b1 0
b2 1000
b3 60
b4 300
b5 0.17
b6, b7 0
b8 0.2
⎡ Vy r + Fxf cos d + Fxr - Fyf sin d ⎤

⎢ ⎥
⎡ Vx ⎤ ⎢ m m m
⎥
⎢ Vy ⎥ ⎢- V r + xf F sin d Fyf cos d Fyr
x + + ⎥
⎢ ⎥ m m m⎥
x = ⎢ r ⎥ = ⎢ (14)
⎢ Fxf ⎥ ⎢ Fyf l f cos d + Fxf l f sin d - Fyr l r ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ Iz Iz Iz ⎥

⎣ Fxr ⎦ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢
⎣ 0 ⎥
⎦
Similarly, the measurement equation is written as:
y (t ) = h (x (t )) (15)
The output variables are considered as the longitudinal velocity, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate are
measured by (15) expressed as:
⎡ Vx ⎤
⎡Vx ⎤ ⎢ r ⎥
y = ⎢ r ⎥ = F sin d F cos d F (16)
a ⎢ xf yf yr ⎥
y
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ + +
⎣ m m m⎥ ⎦
equations (14) and (16) form the basis for non-linear state estimation.
3. The filter design
The system adopted in this paper is a non-linear vehicle model as explained in the previous system. Therefore,
for the purpose of estimation, two variants of non-linear KFs are implemented here. For the estimation of vehicle
motion, the kalman filter is a widely accepted mathematical tool. It provides a good estimation of states and
parameters for linear systems but for non-linear systems, the non-linear form (EKF and UKF) of standard KF is
implemented. A summarised comparison is provided in table 2.
3.1. Extended kalman filter (EKF)

In the extended kalman filter, a recursive linearisation of the model is done based on first order taylor’s series
approximation around the estimated state. The kalman filter deals with the problem of estimation of unobserved
states for a discrete time system governed by a differential equation and a measurement equation. A typical
stochastic discrete time state space system is represented in [3] as:
x k + 1 = f (x k , u k ) + w
yk = h (x k) + v (17)
where, k is the sampling time instant, xk represents the state vector, u denotes the input vector, z is the
measurement vector, w is the process noise that affects the system internal states, v is the measurement noise
affecting the measurement of the system. Both noise ω and v are assumed to be Gaussian white with zero mean
with Q as the process noise covariance matrix, and R as the measurement noise covariance matrix respectively.
5
Table 2. Comparison of extended and unscented kalman filters.
EKF UKF
Based on Taylor series expansion. Based on UT of Sigma Points.

First order Jacobian Matrices (JM) are calculated. SPs are calculated based on α value.
JM is calculated at the estimated mean. SPs are calculated around the estimated mean.
Applied upto 4 or 5 dof mathematical model. Applied for highly non-linear Systems.
Computational time is lower relative to UKF. Computational time is higher relative to EKF.
ωk ∼ N(0, Qk), vk ∼ N(0, Rk). xk and yk are the state and measurement at the time instant k, and functions f and h
are the non-linear functions. These non-linear functions are linearised as shown:
f (x k - 1, uk - 1) » f (uk - 1, mk - 1)+
f ¢ (uk - 1, mk - 1)(x k - 1 - mk - 1)
=f (uk - 1, mk - 1) + Fk (x k - 1 - mk - 1)
h (x k) » h (mk) + h¢ (mk)(x t - mk)

=h (mk) + Hk (x k - mk) (18)
where, Fk and Hk are the Jacobian matrices of f and h, respectively.
¶fi (x , u)
Fk (i , j ) = (19)
¶ (x j ) x = xˆk - 1
¶h i (x )
Hk (i , j ) = (20)
¶ (x j ) x = xˆk-- 1
The extended kalman filter equations are divided into two groups of operation as given in [11]: Prediction of
state via non-linear state equations and covariance are given by the equations (21)–(22) :
xˆk- = f (xˆk - 1, uk) (21)
Pk- = Fk P k - 1FkT + Q (22)

and measurement update is given by the equations (23) –(25) :
Kk = Pk-HkT (Hk Pk-HkT + R)-1 (23)
xˆk = xˆk- + Kk ( yk - Hk xˆk-) (24)
P k = (I - Kk Hk) Pk- (25)
where, xˆk-, Pk-, Kk, xˆk ,and Pk represents the predicted state vector, variance matrix for xˆk-, Kalman gain matrix,
updated state vector, and updated covariance estimate. The prediction equations estimate the next current state
and the error covariance matrix. The correction step provides feedback to the predicted estimate for correction.
Since the process noise and measurement noise are dynamic in nature, the values of Q and R are stochastic at
every time instant. The values of noises for both process and measurement required to be minimized, in view of
estimated states are approximated as true states. Therefore, the selection of process noise and measurement
noise directly affects the filtering accuracy at the each instant and result into the divergence in the estimation.
Assuming a set value for both noises does not guarantee to be optimal. Instead, the values of Q and R need to be
optimized for textcolorredimproved filter estimation accuracy.
3.2. Discrete state space model

The physical meaning related to the measured data is the collection of data at a specific time interval Δ(t) given
by the output equation. In order to apply the EKF equations described in the previous section, the equations (13)
and (15) need to be converted to equivalently discrete form. The model is discretized by implementing the first
order Euler approximation with Δt as the sampling time [1]. The discrete model is defined as:
x k + 1 = f (x k, uk) = Ix k + g (x k, uk) Dk + w k
yk = h (x k) + v k (26)
where, I is identity matrix with N dimension. Now, EKF equation can be implemented for estimation on
equation (26). Further, the discretized model is linearized by calculating the Jacobian matrices Fk and Hk at the
previous estimates. The non-linear discrete model is described as:
6
⎡ V + ⎛V r + Fxf , k cos dk + Fxr , k - Fyf , k sin d ⎞ Dk ⎤

⎢ x , k ⎝ y, k
⎜ ⎟
m m m ⎠ ⎥
V ⎢ ⎥
⎡ x,k+1 ⎤ ⎢ Fxf , k sin dk Fyf , k cos dk Fyr , k ⎞ ⎥
V
⎢ Vy, k + 1 ⎥ ⎢ y, k + ⎛ - Vx,k
⎜ r + + + ⎟ Dk
⎢ rk + 1 ⎥ = ⎢ ⎝ m m m ⎠ ⎥
⎥ (27)
⎢
F
⎥ ⎢
⎛ Fyf , kl f cos dk Fxf , kl f sin dk Fyr , kl r ⎞ ⎥
⎢ xf , k + 1 ⎥ ⎢ rk + ⎜ + - ⎟ Dk ⎥
⎢ Iz Iz Iz ⎠
⎣ Fxr , k + 1⎥⎦ ⎢ ⎝ ⎥
⎢ Fxf , k ⎥
⎢ Fxr , k ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ Vx , k ⎤
⎡Vx , k ⎤ ⎢ rk ⎥
⎢ rk ⎥ = ⎢ Fxf , k sin dk Fyf , k cos d k Fyr , k ⎥ (28)
⎣ a y, k ⎥
⎢ ⎦ ⎢ + + ⎥
⎣ m m m ⎦
Further, the model described by equations (27) and (28) is expanded and detailed in appendix A.
The Jacobian matrices are obtained as:
⎡ ¶f1 ¶f1 ¶f1 ¶f1 ⎤ ¶f1

⎢ ¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k) ¶(rk) ¶(Fxf , k) ¶(Fxr , k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶f2 ¶f2 ¶f2 ¶f2 ¶f2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶f3 ¶f3 ¶f3 ¶f3 ¶f3 ⎥
Fk = ⎢ (29)
¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k) ¶(rk) ¶(Fxf , k) ¶(Fxr , k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶f4 ¶f4 ¶f4 ¶f4 ¶f4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶f5 ¶f5 ¶f5 ¶f5 ¶f5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k) ¶(rk) ¶(Fxf , k) ¶(Fxr , k) ⎦
⎡ ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ⎤

⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶h2 ¶h2 ¶h2 ¶h2 ¶h2 ⎥
Hk = (30)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ¶h3 ¶h3 ¶h3 ¶h3 ¶h3 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
The expansion of equations (29) and (30) is detailed in appendix A and B.
3.3. Unscented kalman filter

The non-linear model is linearised by calculating the Jacobian matrix at each point of linearisation in the EKF
approach. For a function with higher non-linearity, the calculation of the Jacobian matrix deteriorates the
accuracy of the filter by introducing errors in the true posterior mean and covariance [3, 29]. In UKF, the
Unscented Transform technique is used to generate a set of sigma points which represent the probability
distribution. The mean and covariance of sigma points are equal to the original state distribution.
The specific steps of UKF is given as follows:
3.3.1. Initialization
The initial mean and covariance of state estimated is assumed as:
x 0 = E ( x 0) (31)
P0 = E [(x 0 - x )(x 0 - x )T ] (32)

where, x = [vx 0, vy 0, r0, Fxf 0, Fxr 0 ]T . The initial values are set to be x 0 = [30, 0.01, 0.001,50000,50000]T .
3.3.2. Calculation of sigma points and weights

The number of sigma points are calculated as 2n + 1. A matrix χ comprises of positions of the sigma points is
generated with 2n + 1 χi column vectors. The symmetrical sigma points are obtained using the following set of
equations.
7
⎧x i=0
ci = x + ( ( n + l ) P )
x i i = 1, 2,¼n (33)
⎨
⎩ x - ( (n + l) Px )i - n i = n + 1,¼2n
where, λ is the adjustment parameter described as λ = α2(n + κ) − n and α and κ are the scaling factors that
determine how far sigma points are from the mean. The value of α ò (0,1] and κ 0.
Weights of sigma points are calculated as:
l
wm
0 = (34)
n+l
l
w c0 = + 1 - a2 + b (35)
n+l
1
w ci = w m
i = i = n + 1,¼2n (36)
2 (n + l )
where, β represents the higher order characteristics of the historical state information. It is optimal for a
Gaussian when β is equal to 2. The χk is composed of 2n + 1 sigma points as:
c k = [x k ∣ k x + ( (n + l ) P k ∣ k ) x - ( (n + l) P k ∣ k )] (37)
3.3.3. Propagation of sigma points through non-linear system function

The non-linear transformation of each sigma point is done by the following equation:
c k + 1 ∣ k = f (c k ∣ k , u k ) (38)
3.3.4. Time update

A one step prediction of the state mean is obtained as:
2n
xk + 1 ∣k = å w mi ci,k + 1 ∣ k (39)
i=0
Prediction of the error covariance matrix is defined by the equation (40):

2n
Pk+1∣k = å {wci (ci,k + 1 ∣k - xk + 1 ∣k)
i=0
´ (ci, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k )T } + Q (40)
3.3.5. Measurement update

Then, the sigma points are propagated by the non-linear observation equation defined as:
yi, k + 1 ∣ k = h (ci, k + 1 ∣ k , uk) (41)
The mean of the system observation is given by the equation (42):
2n
yk + 1 ∣ k = å w mi yi,k + 1 ∣ k (42)
i=0
The error covariance matrix of the system observation is defined by the equation (43):
2n
Pyk + 1, yk + 1 = å {wci (yi,k + 1 ∣k - xk + 1 ∣k)
i=0
´ (yi, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k )T } + R (43)
The cross correlation covariance matrix is obtained as:
2n
Pxk + 1, yk + 1 = å wci (ci,k + 1 ∣k - xk + 1 ∣k)(yi,k + 1 ∣k - xk + 1 ∣k )T (44)
i=0
The Kalman gain feedback matrix is obtained by the equation (45):

Kk + 1 = Pxk + 1, yk + 1 Py-k +1 1, yk + 1 (45)
The updated state estimate and error covariance matrix are given by the equations (46) and (47):
xˆk + 1 ∣ k + 1 = xˆk + 1 ∣ k + Kk + 1 ( yk + 1 - yˆk + 1 ∣ k) (46)
8
P k + 1 ∣ k + 1 = P k + 1 ∣ k + Kk + 1Pyk + 1, yk + 1 KkT+ 1 (47)
3.4. Observability analysis

For the design of the state estimators, observability is an important characteristics [30]. The physical significance
of the observability is that whether with the information of input and measured output at a time kn for a state x
(km) where m = 0, 1, 2... no of time steps, the internal states are derived. For a non-linear estimator, the definition
of observability is local and refers to the Lie derivative. The time derivative of the measurement y is:
dy ¶h dx ¶h
= = f (x ) (48)
dt ¶x dt ¶x
Higher derivatives of z can be written compactly by introducing the operator Lf (Lie derivative)
¶h
L f [ h] = f (x ) (49)
¶x
d kz
= L fk [h] (50)
dt k
A system with state vector x of dimension n is locally observable at x0 if the observability matrix:
O (x 0, u1, u2) = [dL f0 [h] , dL1f [h],¼,dL fn - 1 [h]] (51)
where, n is the full rank (i.e. n linearly independent rows). By observing the equation (51) it is found that the rank
is 5, so the system is observable.
4. Adaptive filter design
In the recursive algorithm of KFs for prediction and correction of the mean and covariance of states, the noise
covariance matrices are varied or chosen to be unknown for the real time implementation. This time varying
characteristic of noise is incorporated into the filter algorithm to make filter adaptive to the dynamic covariance
matrices. It is evident from equations (22) and (40), if the process noise Q is inaccurate, the predicted state
covariance Pk- and Pk+1|k will be biased, and the resulting estimated Pk and Pk+1|k+1 to be biased. Thus the
kalman gain Kk and Kk+1 will be inaccurate, resulting deteriorating the state estimate obtained from
equations (24) and (46). And, Similarly for the measurement noise R. Thus it can be concluded that, without
accurate system noise variance, the solution of filters may be deteriorated or divergent.
Covariance matching and maximum likelihood techniques are implemented on the system defined by
equation (26) for the adoption of noise variation in KFs and are compared. The flow chart of adaptive EKF and
UKF is shown in figures 2 and 3 respectively.
4.1. Covariance matching technique

4.1.1. Robust Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter (RAEKF)
To improve the accuracy of estimation, a Forgetting Factor based Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter (FFRAEKF)
is employed in this paper to accommodate the time-varying or unknown statistics of noise. An online noise
statistic estimator (NSE) based on covariance matching is used to vary the Q and R in the iterative process of the
adaptive filter. Firstly, the noise covariance matrices are calculated by an unbiased NSE algorithm given by
equations (54) and (55).
e k = yk - Hk xˆk- (52)
dk = (1 - b)(1 - b k + 1) (53)
Rk + 1 = (1 - dk) Rk + dk [e k e k ¢ - Hk P k ∣ k + 1Hk ¢] (54)
Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢ + P k - Fk P k - 1Fk ¢] (55)

where, ek is the residual between the real and predicted system measurements at time step k, dk is the proportion
factor, and b is the forgetting factor whose value is chosen to be 0.997 in this work. The properties of Q and R to
be non-negative definite and positive definite respectively, if lost in the matrix operation in the unbiased NSE
equations, will reduce the robustness and a loss of information may occur.
To overcome this problem, a novel fault tolerant biased NSE is employed for adapting the noise statistics in
real-time given by the equations (56) and (57). This fault-tolerant NSE includes a modified biased NSE that
ensures robustness and retains covariance correction items in the unbiased NSE.
9
Figure 2. Flow chart of RAEKF.
⎧ Rk + 1 if Rk + 1 is positive definite
⎪
R k + 1 = (1 - d k ) R k + (56)
⎨ d [diag (e e ¢) + H P H ¢] otherwise
⎪ k k k k k k
⎩
⎧ Rk + 1 if Rk + 1 is non-negative definite
⎪ (1 - d k ) R k +
Qk + 1 = (57)
⎨ dk [diag (Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢) + Kk Sk ∣ k + 1Kk ¢]
⎪
⎩ otherwise
4.1.2. Robust adaptive unscented kalman filter(RAUKF)

The UKF algorithm is widely investigated in the literature with Q and R assumed to be known. For real-time
implementation, a robust adaptive UKF is implemented to include the time-varying statistics of noise. To
estimate the covariance of process and measurement noise, a derivative fault-tolerant NSE algorithm based on
covariance matching is used, which can retain most covariance correction information and improve the
robustness of RAUKF. Similar to RAEKF, the unbiased NSE algorithm is combined with UKF for the noise
adoption defined by equations (58) and (59).
R k + 1 = (1 - d k ) R k + d k [e k e k ¢
2n
- å [w ci (yi, k + 1 ∣ k - yk + 1 ∣ k)(yi, k + 1 ∣ k - yk + 1 ∣ k )T ] (58)
i=0
10
Figure 3. Flow chart of RAUKF.
Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢ + P k

2n
- å w ci (ci, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k)(ci, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k )T ] (59)
i=0
A novel derivative fault tolerant biased NSE algorithm defined by equations (60) and (61) is employed if Q
and R lost their nonnegative definiteness and positive definiteness respectively.
Rk + 1 = (1 - dk) Rk + dk [diag (e k e k ¢)
2n
- å w ci (y*i, k + 1 ∣ k - yk*+ 1 ∣ k)(y*i, k + 1 ∣ k - yk*+ 1 ∣ k )T ] (60)
i=0
Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [diag (Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢) + P k

2n
- å w ci (ci, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k)(ci, k + 1 ∣ k - x k + 1 ∣ k )T ] (61)
i=0
A brief of the used algorithms is presented in [17] and [31].
4.2. Maximum likelihood principle

In MLP technique for state estimation, the log likelihood function is maximized. A statistical solution obtained
by MLP technique aids to evaluate the model and resulting in small error norm.
4.2.1. Robust adaptive extended kalman filter (RAEKF):

In this RAEKF, the noise covariance matrices are adapted with respect to time. To collect independent
measurement data, a moving observation window is used. The process and observation noise covariance
11
matrices are adaptively varied using equations (63) and (64).

k
1
C vk = å ek ek ¢
N i=k-N +1
(62)
Rk + 1 = C vk - Hk Pk-Hk (63)
Qk + 1 = Kk C vk Kk ¢ + Pk+ - Fk Pk+- 1Fk ¢ (64)
where, Cvk is the innovation matrix calculated by averaging the prediction error inside the window N. According
to the application, a tradeoff between the biasness and tractability of the estimate should be considered for
selecting the value of N . Pk-, Pk+ is priori state covariance matrix, posteriori state covariance matrix. The
derivation of MLP based AEKF can be found in [10, 21, 32].
4.2.2. Adaptive unscented kalman filter

The noise covariance matrices are updated by applying MLP as explained in [20]. A novel Expectation
Maximisation (EM) technique is employed to improve the computational efficiency. The process noise and
observation noise matrices are defined by equations (65) and (66) respectively.
1 (s - 1)
Qs = [B1 - B2(s - 1) - (B2(s - 1) )T + B3(s - 1)] (65)
N
1 (s - 1)
Rs = [B4 - B5(s - 1) - (B5(s - 1) )T + B6(s - 1)] (66)
N
where, the matrices Bi(s − 1)(i = 1, 2, K6) is given by the equations (67).
k
B1(s - 1) = å [xˆ i(s - 1) xˆ iT (s - 1) + P (j s - 1)]
i=k-N +1
k 2n
⎡ (s - 1) T ⎤
B2(s - 1) = å ⎢ å w j f (c i , j - 1 ).(c i , j ) ⎥
m (s - 1)
i=k -N +1 ⎣ j=0 ⎦
k 2n
⎡ (s - 1) ⎤
B3(s - 1) = å ⎢ å w j f (c i , j - 1 ).f (c i , j - 1 ) ⎥
m (s - 1) T
i=k -N +1 ⎣ j=0 ⎦
k
B4(s - 1) = å [ yi yiT ]
i=k-N +1
k 2n
⎡ (s - 1) T ⎤
B5(s - 1) = å ⎢ å w j h (c i, j ).yi ⎥
m
i=k -N +1 ⎣ j=0 ⎦
k 2n
⎡ ⎤
B6(s - 1) = å ⎢å w mj h (c(is,j- 1)).hT (c(is,j- 1))⎥ (67)
i=k -N +1 ⎣ j=0 ⎦
5. Numerical simulation results and discussions
Two different estimation techniques are explored in this paper in a view to analyze the efficacy of the adaptivity
of KFs to accommodate the dynamic nature of the noise. CM and MLP based adaptive KFs are implemented on
the non-linear vehicle model for the estimation of sideslip angle and yaw rate. For the estimation purpose, the
observability analysis of the model under study is done and found to be fully observable. Steering angle and
longitudinal acceleration are applied as inputs to the vehicle model. The measured outputs of the vehicle are
chosen as longitudinal velocity, yaw rate, and lateral acceleration after the observability analysis. The sideslip
angle is obtained from the ratio of estimated longitudinal velocity and lateral velocity. The adaptive estimation
techniques described in above section is evaluated on parameters of a real SUV/Sedan type vehicle obtained
from [33]. For the simulation, the vehicle parameters adopted are mentioned in table 3. The simulation work is
carried out in MATLAB R2022a running on a 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1135G7 @ 2.40 GHz CPU.
The constants k1, k2, k3, k4 for the lateral front and rear tire forces are assumed for ease of mathematical
calculation and the values obtained as 360, 8400, 390, 5460 respectively from the vehicle parameters. The
Jacobian matrices Fk, Hk are expressed in terms of these parameters, the states to be estimated and the inputs δk,
ax,k. The initial assumed values of states Vx, Vy, r, Fxf, Fxr are 30, 0.01, 0.001, 50000,50000.
For all the estimation techniques, the tuning parameters are chosen to be same. The prior guess of process
and measurement noise covariances (Q, R) are set using q = 0.8, r = 0.8 given by the equation (68).
12
Table 3. Vehicle parameters in simulation.
Parameters Values
Vehicle Mass (m) 1420kg

Distance between front axle and CG (lf) 1.01 m
Distance between rear axle and CG (lr) 1.56 m
Height of the CG (h) 0.709 m
Inertia of z axis (Iz) 1660 kgm2
⎡ 0.64 0 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 0 0.64 0 0 0 ⎥
Q =⎢ 0 0 0.64 0 0 ⎥,
⎢ 0 0 0 0.64 0 ⎥
⎢
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0.64 ⎥
⎦
⎡ 0.64 0 0 ⎤
R = ⎢ 0 0.64 0 ⎥ (68)
⎣ 0 0 0.64 ⎦
The obstacles moving on the roads are dynamic in nature, so they may cause fatal accidents if the sensors
available on-board does not provide reduced noise measurements. For the costly sensors or the states that are
not directly measured, these states must be estimated with reduced noise to avoid the accidents. In this paper,
five different dynamic steering inputs including sine, double lane change, J-Turn, Fishhook, and Slalom
maneuvers available in the literature are exploited for the estimation purpose. In these maneuvers, the vehicle is
maneuverd at the extreme position of road or the road can be considered as a racing track and thus generating a
dynamic behaviour in the states to be estimated. The longitudinal acceleration ax as an input considered here
comprises of both acceleration, and deceleration and constant value. Thus providing a dynamic profile of inputs
for the estimation purpose. It is assumed that the input variables profile are generated such that to avoid the
collision from the obstacles. The performance of the estimation techniques of the state variables are done on dry
and wet road surfaces for all five different steering inputs. The friction coefficient for dry and wet surfaces is
taken as 0.8 and 0.4 respectively.
For the reliability and validity of the proposed method, the authors have done the experimental simulation
for five different steering inputs considering both dry and wet road surfaces for each steering angle inputs. The
performance of the proposed methodology is evaluated in terms of calculating the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) for three different simulations. The RMSE is calculated for Yaw Rate, and Sideslip Angle. For the
stability of the vehicle during different types of steering angle inputs and for different road type surface, the yaw
and lateral dynamics plays an important role. The spinning and skidding of the vehicle from its defined trajectory
is observed with the help of yaw rate and sideslip angle respectively. For the dry road surface, due to the high
friction the tires are able to experience the required lateral forces for turning and the spinning of the vehicle is
controlled. For the wet surface, due to the low friction coefficient the tires are not able to experience the required
lateral force and therefore the vehicle start to skid-off from the trajectory.
Therefore, for the friction coefficient of 0.8, the yaw rate is evaluated and for the friction coefficient of 0.4, the
sideslip angle is evaluated for steering inputs including DLC, J-Turn, FH, and Slalom maneuver. The obtained
results are shown and the RMSE is also presented here for the three simulations.
For the comparison purpose, firstly, the performance of adaptive EKF and UKF are compared for accuracy
in terms of root mean square error (RMSE). Thereafter, a comparison between the adaptive techniques
implemented is briefed.
Using the root mean square of the error between the actual value and the estimated value to measure the
accuracy of the estimate quantitatively, the calculations are as follows:
N
(xˆ i - x )2
RMSE = å N
(69)
i=1
where, N represents the number of data set in actual state variable, x represents actual data set of state variable, x̂
represents estimated data set of state variables. Using equation (69), a quantitative analysis is done between the
adaptive estimation techniques for CM and MLP based. A local sensitivity analysis is done on the estimation
technique to check the sensitivity of parameter variation towards the state variables. From this analysis, the
robustness of estimation technique towards the parameter variation is easily analyzed. The equation (70) defines
the sensitivity index as:
13
Figure 4. Inputs to vehicle model.
Figure 5. CM and MLP based RAEKF estimation.
P ⎛ dO ⎞
SIindex = (70)
O ⎝ dP ⎠
where, P represents the parameter of interest, O represents the state variable i.e. sideslip angle and yaw rate.
In the CM based approach, a high forgetting factor b value is chosen due to the fact that the more emphasis is
given on the new measurement data and less on the old data. Generally, the value range lies between (0,1]. The
estimation of sideslip angle is obtained by taking the ratio of estimated longitudinal and lateral velocity. For a
clear observation, the estimation by CM and MLP based technique is shown by cyan and black colour
respectively. Twice simulation is done for both adaptive techniques to check the RMSE present in the estimation
and to provide better understanding in terms of accuracy of the adaptive filters.
5.1. Sinusoidal steering maneuver

A sinusoidal steering maneuver and longitudinal acceleration are opted as the two inputs to the vehicle for the
estimation of states. The input variables profile to the vehicle is shown in figure 4. The sinusoidal maneuver and
longitudinal acceleration are shown in figures 4(a) and (b). In the following sections, the simulations results
obtained after the implementation of adaptive techniques for KFs are discussed.
5.1.1. CM and MLP based RAEKF

The simulation results for CM and MLP based RAEKF are depicted in figure 5. The estimation of the sideslip
angle and yaw rate is shown in figures 5(a) and (b) respectively. In the mentioned figures, it is observed that the
estimation of actual signal by CM and MLP based adaptive techniques is approximately same as shown in the
time interval 10 t 11. Figures 5(c) and (d) illustrates the estimation of longitudinal and lateral velocity
14
Figure 6. CM and MLP based RAUKF estimation.
Table 4. Error value table for sine maneuver with friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4.
RMSE
Techniques Simulations
μ = 0.8 μ = 0.4
β (rad) r (rad/s) β (rad) r (rad/s)
I 1 2.60e-05 3.44e-04 2.60e-05 3.44e-04

2 3.26e-05 2.87e-04 3.26e-05 2.87e-04
3 2.54e-05 3.27e-04 3.73e-05 3.34e-04
II 1 1.15e-05 1.31e-04 1.15e-05 1.31e-04
2 2.62e-05 1.90e-04 2.62e-05 1.90e-04
3 2.24e-05 1.55e-04 2.64e-05 1.112e-04
III 1 0.0023 0.0037 0.0023 0.0037
2 0.0021 0.0035 0.0021 0.0035
3 0.0022 0.0036 0.0022 0.0036
IV 1 0.0015 0.0034 0.0015 0.0034
2 0.0012 0.0032 0.0012 0.0032
3 0.0010 0.0033 0.0013 0.0033
Note. CM based RAEKF: Technique I, MLP based RAEKF: Technique II, CM based RAUKF:
Technique III, MLP based RAUKF: Technique IV.
respectively. It is observed that the adopted techniques estimates the actual signal in the presence of noise signal
with a marginal error.
5.1.2. CM and MLP based RAUKF:

The value of scaling factors α = 0.005, κ = 0.01 is chosen for both the CM and MLP based RAUKF estimation
after many trail and errors. Figure 6 illustrates the simulation results for the CM and MLP based RAUKF. The
estimation results for sideslip angle and yaw rate is observed in figures 6(a) and (b). For the time interval
9 t 11, it can be seen that the estimated signals of the sideslip angle and yaw rate comprises of errors. The
longitudinal and lateral velocity estimation is shown in figures 6(c) and (d) respectively. During the time interval
8 t 9 for longitudinal velocity and 9 t 11 for lateral velocity estimation, there is error for both CM and
MLP based techniques. Table 4, show the RMSE in estimation for Sideslip Angle and Yaw Rate for friction
coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4. From the table, it is found that the RMSE for MLP based RAUKF is less as compared to
CM based RAUKF for both the simulations.
15
Figure 8. RAEKF estimation for DLC.
Figure 9. RAUKF estimation for DLC.
5.2. Double lane change maneuver

The input profile for the DLC is shown in figures 7. The steering angle is shown in figure 7(a) and the longitudinal
acceleration is shown in figure 7(b).
The DLC maneuver is carried out as input to the vehicle model and the obtained results are plotted with
respect to dry and wet road type surface. Figure 8 and 9 depicts the obtained results of the state estimation for the
applied methods including RAEKF and RAUKF respectively. Figure 8(a) show the sideslip angle for wet surface
with μ = 0.4, it can be seen in the figure that the estimation plot of the proposed MLP based estimation
comprises of less error in comparison to the CM based estimation. Thus it performs better in comparison to CM
based estimation with higher accuracy. Figure 8(b) depict the yaw rate estimation for higher friction of μ = 0.8
(dry surface), and it is found that, for the time interval 11 t 13, the MLP based adaptive technique estimates
the state more accurately than CM based technique. The estimation accuracy of the RAUKF is observed from the
figures 9(a) and (b). From the figures it can be seen that the performances gets deteriorated for the same time
interval and for other transient time intervals.
To compare the performance of the proposed method with other methods, RMSE is calculated for all the
methods and is shown in the table 5. Table shows the error values calculated in the estimation of sideslip angle
16
Figure 11. RAEKF estimation for J-Turn maneuver.
Table 5. Error value table for DLC with friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4.
RMSE
μ = 0.8 μ = 0.4
I 1 0.0116 1.034e-04 2.058e-04 0.0121

2 1.1137e-04 0.0117 2.164e-04 0.0134
3 2.2713e-04 0.0116 2.013e-04 0.0129
II 1 4.175e-06 2.928e-04 9.398e-06 3.837e-04
2 4.545e-06 3.628e-04 5.92e-06 2.488e-04
3 3.545e-06 3.152e-04 4.64e-06 2.312e-04
III 1 0.0029 0.0108 0.0015 0.0113
2 0.0027 0.0117 0.0014 0.0117
3 0.0028 0.0116 0.0014 0.0116
IV 1 0.0029 0.0121 0.0015 0.0125
2 0.0028 0.0120 0.0015 0.0113
3 0.0027 0.0119 0.0014 0.0112
and yaw rate for μ = 0.8, and 0.4 respectively. The simulation is done three times to check the variation present
in the error and the values are compared to observe the reliability of the proposed method over other methods.
From the table it can be seen that the proposed MLP based RAEKF method has a minimum error in comparison
to other methods.
5.3. J-Turn maneuver

The J-Turn maneuver is applied as the steering angle input to the selected vehicle model is shown in figure 10.
Figure 11 shows the estimation of sideslip angle and yaw rate by utilizing the RAEKF method. A time interval of
13 t 15 during the transient change of steering input is shown for a clear view. For a wet surface with
μ = 0.4, estimation of sideslip angle is shown in figure 11(a). The estimation of the sideslip angle comprises of a
17
Figure 12. RAUKF estimation for J-turn maneuver.
Table 6. Error value table for J-Turn with friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4.
RMSE
μ = 0.8 μ = 0.4
I 1 1.0422e-04 0.0120 2.0107e-04 0.0127

2 1.085e-04 0.0127 2.125e-04 0.0125
3 1.665e-06 3.326e-04 2.027e-04 0.0126
II 1 4.585e-06 3.342e-04 6.089e-06 2.112e-04
2 4.665e-06 3.326e-04 1.425e-05 5.364e-04
3 3.542e-06 2.536e-04 3.625e-05 3.638e-04
III 1 0.0010 0.0118 4.137e-04 0.0119
2 0.0011 0.0120 4.2304e-04 0.0117
3 0.0012 0.0121 4.1282e-04 0.0118
IV 1 0.001 0.0120 4.151e-04 0.0117
2 0.0010 0.0124 3.242e-04 0.0113
3 0.0011 0.0125 3.627e-04 0.0115
good accuracy with a negligible amount of error. The yaw rate is estimated for dry surface with μ = 0.8, and is
shown in figure 11(b). The yaw rate estimated by utilizing the proposed method has better accuracy with no
fluctuations in compared to the CM based method. Figure 12 shows the estimation utilizing the RAUKF. The
sideslip angle estimation is depicted in figure 12(a), from the figure it can be observed that the estimation has
good accuracy for the proposed method. The estimated yaw rate by utilizing is shown in figure 12(b) comprises
of fluctuations for both the CM and MLP based adaptive methods. Table 6 shows the error values in the
estimation for all methods with friction coefficient of μ = 0.8 and 0.4. In the table, the RMSE for both states with
dry and wet road types is given. From the table, it is evident that the proposed MLP based RAEKF method
comprises of minimum error for both surface types. The error values of the RAEKF method are found to be
lower in comparison to the values of RAUKF.
5.4. Fishhook maneuver

The input profile for the fishhook maneuver is shown in figure 13. The steering angle input is shown in
figure 13(a) and the longitudinal acceleration input is depicted in figure 13(b).
The estimation for the FH maneuver utilizing RAEKF is shown in figure 14. The sideslip angle is estimated
for a friction coefficient of 0.4 by implementing the proposed MLP based method is depicted in figure 14(a).
From the figure, it can be observed that the estimation of state obtained from the proposed method comprises
higher accuracy, which is highlighted for the time interval 3 t 5. The yaw rate estimation for μ = 0.8 is
shown in figure 14(b), it is seen that the accuracy of the MLP based method is better than the CM based method.
For the time interval 14 t 19, the CM based estimation comprises of fluctuations, which is not in the case of
proposed method. The performance of the RAUKF for the estimation of states is seen in figure 15. The sideslip
angle estimation for μ = 0.4 utilizing CM and MLP based adaptive methods are shown. A clear error margin is
seen for the time interval 2 t 6 due to a transient change in the steering. For the yaw rate estimation,
18
Figure 14. RAEKF estimation for fishhook maneuver.
Figure 15. RAUKF estimation for fishhook maneuver.
fluctuations and an error can be observed during the process and are highlighted for the time interval
16 t 19.
The estimation accuracy is shown with the help of the calculated RMSE values in table 7 for different
methods with both dry and wet road surface types. In the table, for a clear comparison, the error values in the
state estimation for μ = 0.8 and 0.4 are provided. The RMSE values of sideslip angle and yaw rate for the
proposed method are found to be minimal in comparison to other methods. The obtained values of the
proposed method comprises of a negligible error value. While due to the fluctuations in the yaw rate estimated
values, the error values are large.
5.5. Slalom maneuver

The slalom maneuver input as steering angle is given to vehicle model is shown in figure 16(a) and the
longitudinal acceleration is shown in figure 16(b).
The estimation of sideslip angle with a friction coefficient of μ = 0.4 by utilizing the RAEKF is shown in
17(d). The time interval of 13 t 15 is highlighted to show the accuracy of the methods. It is found that, the
proposed method comprises of a negligible marginal error. Figure 17(b) shows the yaw rate estimation for
μ = 0.8. From the figure it can be observed that the proposed method has better accuracy than the CM based
19
Figure 17. RAEKF estimation for slalom maneuver.
Table 7. Error value table for fishhook maneuver with friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4.
RMSE
μ = 0.8 μ = 0.4
I 1 1.055e-04 0.0121 2.0408e-04 0.0118

2 1.037e-04 0.0123 2.174e-04 0.0123
3 1.224e-04 0.0122 2.232e-04 0.0122
II 1 2.908e-06 2.374e-04 7.706e-06 2.909e-04
2 3.314e-06 2.318e-04 1.126e-05 3.992e-04
3 2.142314e-06 2.318e-04 1.126e-05 3.992e-04
III 1 0.0014 0.0119 6.130e-04 0.0119
2 0.0029 0.0117 6.1909e-04 0.0121
3 0.0028 0.0118 6.7253e-04 0.0120
IV 1 0.0029 0.0121 6.277e-04 0.0123
2 0.0014 0.0118 6.1968e-04 0.0122
3 0.0013 0.0119 6.7237e-04 0.0121
adaptive method. The performance of RAUKF for the state estimation is shown in figure 18. From the figures
18(a) and (b), it is seen that the estimation values comprises of error as shown in the highlighted part of the
graph. Table 8 shows the calculated RMSE values for the slalom maneuver. From the table it is evident the error
value is the minimum for the proposed method in comparison to other methods.
From the simulation results, it is evident that, the error present in adopted adaptive techniques for RAEKF is
less in comparison to the RAUKF. Estimation of lateral velocity using RAUKF incorporates a relatively large
error with respect to estimation done by RAEKF, due to which estimation of sideslip angle also deteriorates. For
yaw rate estimation using RAUKF, the amount of error is relatively high in comparison to RAEKF. From the
discussion on the simulation results and the RMSE values, it is evident that the error for RAEKF is less in
20
Figure 18. RAUKF estimation for slalom maneuver.
Table 8. Error value table for slalom maneuver with friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4.
RMSE
μ = 0.8 μ = 0.4
I 1 1.035e-04 0.0120 2.1252e-04 0.0125

2 1.027e-04 0.0119 2.114e-04 0.0124
3 1.245e-04 0.0119 2.845e-04 0.0125
II 1 3.213e-06 2.111e-04 9.852e-06 2.111e-04
2 3.652e-06 2.345e-04 8.963e-06 3.264e-04
3 3.142e-06 2.473e-04 7.643e-06 2.036e-04
III 1 9.069e-04 0.0122 4.811e-04 0.0108
2 9.217e-04 0.0120 4.738e-04 0.0120
3 9.217e-04 0.0120 4.738e-04 0.0120
IV 1 9.185e-04 0.0119 4.713e-04 0.0113
2 6.767e-04 0.0026 2.636e-04 0.0116
3 5.559e-04 0.0024 3.364e-04 0.0112
Table 9. Local sensitivity analysis table for sideslip

angle.
Parameters Values SI
Vehicle Mass (m) 1120kg 0.25

1420kg 0.20
1720kg 0.17
Distance between front 0.96 m 2.45
axle and CG (lf) 1.01 m 2.63
1.06 m 3.01
Distance between rear 1.51 m −2.60
axle and CG (lr) 1.56 m −2.49
1.61 m −2.38
comparison to RAUKF. For CM and MLP techniques, MLP has lower RMSE and therefore the robustness is
analysed for MLP based RAEKF technique.
For the robustness analysis, a local sensitivity analysis is done first to observe the affect of parameter variation
on the state variables as shown in the table 9 and 10. From these tables, it is observed that, the negative sign of the
sensitivity index shows inverse relation and positive sign shows a direct relation. The value of lf is decreased to
0.96 and lr is increased to 1.61, resulting an increase in sideslip angle. Similarly, if value of lf is increased to 1.06
and lr is decreased to 1.51, resulting in increase of sideslip angle. The similar pattern is applied to the yaw rate.
21
Figure 19. Variation of sideslip angle towards lf and lr.
Table 10. Local sensitivity analysis table for

yaw rate.
Parameters Values SI
Vehicle Mass (m) 1120kg −0.92

1420kg −0.94
1720kg −0.95
Distance between front 0.96 m 1.50
axle and CG (lf) 1.01 m 1.72
1.06 m 2.18
Distance between rear 1.51 m −2.81
axle and CG (lr) 1.56 m −2.66
1.61 m −2.53
Table 11. Computational load for CM and MLP

based RAEKF and RAUKF.
Technique Simulation Time (s)
CM Based RAEKF I 76
II 77
MLP Based RAEKF I 62
II 64
CM Based RAUKF I 107
II 106
MLP Based RAUKF I 102
II 99
From this sensitivity analysis, the parameter of greater influence on state variable is obtained. The parameters are
allowed to vary and the robustness of the employed estimation technique is analysed.
The robustness of the estimation schemes for sideslip angle and yaw rate is analysed towards the variation of
lf and lr depicted in figure 19. Firstly, the values of lf and lr are changed to 0.96 and 1.61 respectively, and then the
values are changed to 1.06 and 1.51 respectively. Figure 19(a) shows the robust estimation of Sideslip angle
towards the variation of lf and lr. From this figure, the change actual signal can be seen and thus the estimation of
sideslip angle is observed. Figure 19(b) depicts the robust estimation for yaw rate with respect to the change in lf
and lr. The presence of positive and negative sign in the sensitivity index for β and r is depicted as the variations
shown in the figures mentioned. It is observed that, the precise estimation of variations in the actual signal is
done with respect to the change in lf and lr. Both the states are estimated accurately showing the robust
performance of the MLP based RAEKF when the parameters are changed.
The computational load for the adopted estimation schemes is shown in table 11. It is seen that the
computational load of MLP is better in comparison to the CM based approach.
The presence of error in RAUKF is relatively higher than in RAEKF due to the spread of sigma points around
the mean. The variations in the spread of sigma points is obtained by α and κ value that is adopted such that to
22
Table 12. RMSE comparison of proposed method with [14, 15, 23, 24]
for sideslip angle.
State RMSE (rad)
β [14] 7.64e-04 (DLC Maneuver), 0.0682 (Sine

Maneuver)
β (Proposed) 1.0284e-04 (DLC Maneuver), 7.0516e-05 (Sine
Maneuver)
β [15] 3.36e-03 (DLC Maneuver)
β (Proposed) 8.0366e-05 (DLC Maneuver)
β [23] 2.41e-03 (DLC Maneuver), 0.0035 (Slalom
Maneuver)
β (Proposed) 7.5902e-05 (DLC Maneuver), 7.0302e-05 (Slalom
Maneuver)
β [24] 4.102e-03 (Slalom Maneuver)
β (Proposed) 7.1102e-05 (Slalom Maneuver)
Table 13. RMSE comparison of proposed method with [14, 15, 23, 24]
for yaw rate.
State RMSE (rad/s)
r [14] 0.00278 (DLC Maneuver),1.0396 (Sine Maneuver)

r (Proposed) 0.00143 (DLC Maneuver), 0.0113 (Sine Maneuver)
r [15] 0.0261 (DLC Maneuver)
r (Proposed) 0.0119 (DLC Maneuver)
r [23] 0.00679 (DLC Maneuver), 0.0431 (Slalom
Maneuver)
r (Proposed) 0.00124 (DLC Maneuver), 0.0114 (Slalom
Maneuver)
r [24] 0.0222 (Slalom Maneuver)
r (Proposed) 0.0115 (Slalom Maneuver)
Table 14. RMSE comparison between the

simulation results and experimental
results [3, 18].
State RMSE (rad/s)
β [3] 0.0956 (Sine Maneuver)

β (Proposed) 7.0516e-05 (Sine Maneuver)
β [18] 0.0261 (DLC Maneuver)
β (Proposed) 0.0119 (DLC Maneuver)
obtain minimum error for the adopted vehicle model. These sigma points are transformed by the non-linear
function twice in each iteration, thus elapsing more computational time than RAEKF.
Furthermore, to show the improvement in estimation accuracy, comparisons are also made between the
proposed method and estimation methods proposed in the literatures [14, 15, 23, 24]. The comparison is done
for three transient steering angle inputs including DLC, Sine, and the Slalom maneuver. The initial longitudinal
velocity is set according to the values mentioned in the literatures and the friction coefficient is set at 0.8 for a dry
asphalt road. After performing the estimation of the states by utilizing the proposed estimation method on the
vehicle model parameters mentioned in these literatures, the obtained error values are shown in tables 12 and 13.
Table 12 represents the error values in the estimated value of the sideslip angle. The proposed method has
considerably reduced the error value in sideslip angle estimation for all the compared literatures. The error The
RMSE values for the yaw rate are shown in table 13. From the table it is evident that the proposed estimation
technique has reduced the error in the estimated states obtained and has higher accuracy in comparison to the
mentioned literatures. The literatures have implemented the evolutionary algorithms including ant colony
optimization, genetic particle swarm optimization that gives the suboptimal solution due to which the error
value is large. The maximum likehood principle based adaptive RAEKF technique has performed well in
comparison to these methods.
23
Table 15. RMSE comparison between the simulation results and

experimental results [3, 24].
State RMSE (rad/s)
r [3] 1.1405 (Sine Maneuver)

r (Proposed) 0.0113 (Sine Maneuver)
r [18] 1.24e-02 (Sine Maneuver), 0.6e-02 (DLC
Maneuver)
r (Proposed) 1.17e-03 (Sine Maneuver), 1.20e-03 (DLC
Maneuver)
The obtained simulation results for different steering angle inputs are compared with the experimental
results from the published papers [3, 18]. In [3], authors have implemented a modified unscented kalman filter
optimized by utilizing ant colony optimization on a non-linear vehicle model. In [18] also, a non-linear vehicle
model is adopted for the estimation of states utilizing an enhanced adaptive unscented kalman filter. Both
literatures have considered a 3 degrees of freedom vehicle non-linear model as in this work. The experimental
results in terms of estimation error values for sideslip angle and yaw rate are shown in tables 14 and 15 for [3, 18].
Tables also show the estimation error utilizing the proposed method.
The authors have implemented the proposed method on the non-linear vehicle with the same parameters to
obtain the simulation results. The obtained simulation results are then compared with the experimental results
provided in the literature. The simulation is done for transient steering angle inputs including sine and DLC
maneuver for both literatures. Table 14, shows a comparison between the simulation and experimental results of
the error values in the sideslip angle estimation. From the table it can be seen that the proposed method has
performed well and the difference between both the results are marginal. The yaw rate comparison between the
simulation results obtained and the experimental results are shown in table 15. The difference between the two
results is small. The proposed method works quite well for both compared literatures.
From the numerical simulation results and RMSE calculations, following are the findings:
• It is observed that the RMSE for sideslip angle and yaw rate have marginal errors for both CM and MLP
techniques. Also, the difference between the errors from both techniques are quit marginal.
• For RAUKF estimation, the RMSE of the MLP based technique is less in comparison to CM based technique.
• On comparing the RAEKF and RAUKF estimations, the RMSE for RAEKF is found to be less as compared to
RAUKF for both CM and MLP adaptive techniques.
• The robustness is analysed for the MLP based RAEKF estimation due to less error in comparison to other
estimation schemes. It is found that the proposed estimation scheme for the adopted non-linear mathematical
vehicle model is robust with respect to a change in the parameters of greater influence.
6. Conclusion
This paper presents a non-linear vehicle state estimation using robust adaptive kalman filters for estimating
the two most important vehicle states. The maximum likelihood principle based RAEKF is proposed for the
adopted non-linear bicycle model and is compared with covariance matching based estimation. The MLP and
CM adaptive techniques are adopted to incorporate the stochastic nature of unknown or time-varying noises
in the process and measurement models. The estimation is done for both RAEKF and RAUKF on the same
vehicle model to analyze the necessity of non-linear KFs on a specific vehicle model. From observability
analysis, the lateral velocity, yaw rate and lateral acceleration are opted as measured outputs. The simulation
results are obtained for five different dynamic steering angle inputs including sine, DLC, J-Turn, Fishhook,
and Slalom maneuver considering the friction coefficient of 0.8 and 0.4. The performance of the MLP is found
to be better than the CM based estimation. Also, the estimation done by the proposed robust adaptive
extended kalman filter technique for the adopted non-linear vehicle bicycle model performs better than the
RAUKF estimation in terms of accuracy and computational load. A local sensitivity analysis is done for the
robustness analysis for MLP based RAEKF. The estimation is found to be robust with respect to the variation
in the parameters of the vehicle.
In the future, these techniques can be applied to the full vehicle model considering the wheel rotational
dynamics. The computational load can be improved on higher versions of processors. Further, a controller can
be designed based on the estimation of stable operation of the vehicle.
24
Data availability statement
The data cannot be made publicly available upon publication because no suitable repository exists for hosting
data in this field of study. The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request
from the authors.
Appendix A. Detailed equations of process jacobian
¶f1 k1 (Vy, k + l f rk) sin dk {k3 a x , k - k2} ⎞

= 1 + ⎛⎜ ⎟ Dk
¶(Vx , k) ⎝ Vx2, k m ⎠
¶f1 k1 sin dk Dk {k2 - k3 a x , k} ⎞
= ⎛⎜rk + ⎟ Dk
¶(Vy, k) ⎝ Vx , km ⎠
¶f1 k1 l f sin dk Dk {k2 - k3 a x , k} ⎞
= ⎛⎜Vy, k + ⎟ Dk
¶ (r k ) ⎝ Vx , km ⎠
¶f1 cos dk ⎞
=⎛ Dk
¶(Fxf , k) ⎝ m ⎠
¶f1 Dk
= (A.1)
¶(Fxr , k) m
¶f2 k1 cos dk (Vy, k + l f r )(k2 - k3 a x , k) k1 (Vy, k - l r r )(k 4 - k3 a x , k) ⎞

= ⎛⎜ - rx , k + + ⎟ Dk
¶(Vx , k) ⎝ 2
Vx , k m Vx2, k m ⎠
¶f2 k1 cos d (
k 2k - k a
3 x,k ) k (
1 4 k - k a )
3 x,k ⎞
=1 - ⎛ ⎜ + Dk ⎟
¶(Vy, k) ⎝ V x m Vx m ⎠
¶f2 k1 l f cos dk (k2 - k3 a x , k) k1 l r (k 4 - k3 a x , k) ⎞
= ⎛ - Vx , k -
⎜ - Dk ⎟
¶(rx , k) ⎝ Vx m Vx m ⎠
¶f2 sin dk ⎞
=⎛ Dk
¶(Fxf , k) ⎝ m ⎠
¶f2
=0 (A.2)
¶(Fxr , k)
⎛ k1 (k2 - k3 a x , k) cos dk (Vy l f + l f r )

2
¶f3 (k 4 - k3 a x , k)(Vy l r - l r2 r ) ⎞
=⎜ - ⎟ Dk
¶(Vx , k) ⎝ Vx2, k Iz Vx2, k Iz ⎠
¶f3 k l
1 f cos d k ( - k 2 + k a
3 x,k ) k1 l r (k 4 - k3 a x , k) ⎞
= ⎛⎜ + ⎟ Dk
¶(Vy, k) ⎝ V I
x,k z Vx , kIz ⎠
⎛ k1 l f cos dk (k2 - k3 a x , k)
2
¶f3 l (k 4 - k3 a x , k) ⎞
2
=1 - ⎜ + r ⎟ Dk
¶ (r k ) ⎝ Vx , kIz Vx , kIz ⎠
¶f3 l f sin d k
=⎛ ⎜ ⎟
⎞ Dk
¶(Fxf , k) ⎝ Iz ⎠
¶f3
=0 (A.3)
¶(Fxr , k)
¶f4 ¶f4
= 0, =0
¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k)
¶f4 ¶f4
= 0, =1
¶(rx , k) ¶(Fxf , k)
¶f4
=0 (A.4)
¶(Fxr , k)
25
¶f5 ¶f5
= 0, =0
¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k)
¶f5 ¶f5
= 0, =0
¶(rx , k) ¶(Fxf , k)
¶f5
=1 (A.5)
¶(Fxr , k)
Appendix B. Detailed equations of measurement Jacobian
¶h1 ¶h1
= 1, =0
¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k)
¶h1 ¶h1
=0 = 0,
¶ (r k ) ¶(Fxf , k)
¶h1
=0 (B.1)
¶(Fxr , k)
¶h2 ¶h2
= 0, =0
¶(Vx , k) ¶(Vy, k)
¶h2 ¶h2
=1 = 0,
¶ (r k ) ¶(Fxf , k)
¶h2
=0 (B.2)
¶(Fxr , k)
¶h3 cos dk (Vy, k + l f r )(k2 - k3 a x , k)

= k1 ⎛⎜
¶(Vx , k) ⎝ Vx2, k m
(Vy, k - l r r )(k 4 - k3 a x , k)} ⎞
+ ⎟ (B.3)
Vx2, k m ⎠
¶h3 k1 {cos dk (k2 - k3 a x , k)
=⎛ ⎜
¶(Vy, k) ⎝ Vx m
(k 4 - k3 a x , k)} ⎞
+ ⎟ (B.4)
Vx m ⎠
¶h3 k1 (l f cos dk (k2 k3 a x , k) l r (k 4 k3 a x , k))
=- (B.5)
¶ (r k ) Vx m
¶h3 sin dk ⎞ ¶h3
=⎛ Dk =0 (B.6)
¶(Fxf , k) ⎝ m ⎠ ¶(Fxr , k)
ORCID iDs
Dharmendra Kumar Dheer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6231-8813
References
[1] Hu C et al 2019 MME-EKF-based path-tracking control of autonomous vehicles considering input saturation IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol. 68 5246–59
[2] Gadola M, Chindamo D, Romano M and Padula F 2014 Development and validation of a Kalman filter-based model for vehicle slip
angle estimation Vehicle System Dynamics 52 68–84
[3] Kim D, Min K, Kim H and Huh K 2020 Vehicle sideslip angle estimation using deep ensemble-based adaptive Kalman filter Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 144 106862
[4] Guo H, Cao D, Chen H, Lv C, Wang H and Yang S 2018 Vehicle dynamic state estimation: state of the art schemes and perspectives
IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 5 418–31
[5] Jin X, Yin G and Chen N 2019 Advanced estimation techniques for vehicle system dynamic state: a survey Sensors 19 4289
[6] Wang Z, Qin Y, Gu L and Dong M 2017 Vehicle system state estimation based on adaptive unscented Kalman filtering combing with
road classification IEEE Access. 5 27786–99
[7] Ludwig S A 2018 Genetic algorithm based Kalman filter adaptation algorithm for magnetic and inertial measurement unit 2018 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE pp 1–7
26
[8] Meng Y, Gao S, Zhong Y, Hu G and Subic A 2016 Covariance matching based adaptive unscented Kalman filter for direct filtering in
INS/GNSS integration Acta Astronautica 120 171–81
[9] Hu G, Gao B, Zhong Y and Gu C 2020 Unscented kalman filter with process noise covariance estimation for vehicular ins/gps
integration system Information Fusion 64 194–204
[10] Wang C, Wang Z, Zhang L, Cao D and Dorrell D G 2020 A vehicle rollover evaluation system based on enabling state and parameter
estimation IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17 4003–13
[11] Reina G, Paiano M and Blanco-Claraco J L 2017 Vehicle parameter estimation using a model-based estimator Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing 87 227–41
[12] Wang Y, Xu L, Zhang F, Dong H, Liu Y and Yin G 2021 An adaptive fault-tolerant EKF for vehicle state estimation with partial missing
measurements IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 26 1318–27
[13] Long Z, Zhang X, Peng X and Yang G 2019 An improved adaptive extended Kalman filter used for target tracking (2019 Chinese
Automation Congress (CAC). IEEE) pp 1017–22
[14] Liu Y and Cui D 2022 Estimation algorithm for vehicle state estimation using ant lion optimization algorithm Advances in Mechanical
Engineering 14 16878132221085839
[15] Liu Y and Cui D 2022 Vehicle state estimation based on adaptive fading unscented kalman filter Mathematical Problems in Engineering
2022 7355110
[16] Li X, Song X and Chan C 2014 Reliable vehicle sideslip angle fusion estimation using low-cost sensors Measurement 51 241–58
[17] Qin Z, Chen L, Hu M and Chen X 2022 A lateral and longitudinal dynamics control framework of autonomous vehicles based on multi-
parameter joint estimation IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 71 5837–52
[18] Zhang Y, Li M, Zhang Y, Hu Z, Sun Q and Lu B 2022 An enhanced adaptive unscented kalman filter for vehicle state estimation IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 71 6502412
[19] Akhlaghi S, Zhou N and Huang Z 2017 Adaptive adjustment of noise covariance in Kalman filter for dynamic state estimation 2017
IEEE power & energy society general meeting IEEE pp 1–5
[20] Gao B, Gao S, Hu G, Zhong Y and Gu C 2018 Maximum likelihood principle and moving horizon estimation based adaptive unscented
Kalman filter Aerospace Science and Technology 73 184–96
[21] Fraser C T and Ulrich S 2021 Adaptive extended Kalman filtering strategies for spacecraft formation relative navigation Acta
Astronautica 178 700–21
[22] Kaba A and Kıyak E 2020 Optimizing a Kalman filter with an evolutionary algorithm for nonlinear quadrotor attitude dynamics Journal
of Computational Science 39 101051
[23] Liu Y J, Dou C H, Shen F and Sun Q Y 2021 Vehicle state estimation based on unscented kalman filtering and a genetic-particle swarm
algorithm Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C. 102 447–69
[24] Zhang Y, Ma J, Zhao X, Liu X and Zhang K 2021 A modified unscented kalman filter combined with ant lion optimization for vehicle
state estimation Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2021 8847075
[25] Prakash R and Dheer D K 2023 Evolutionary Algorithms Based Model Predictive Control for Vehicle Lateral and Roll Motion Control
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 48 1–15
[26] Rajamani R 2011 Vehicle Dynamics and Control (Springer Science & Business Media)
[27] Chen W, Tan D and Zhao L 2018 Vehicle sideslip angle and road friction estimation using online gradient descent algorithm IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol. 67 11475–85
[28] Rasekhipour Y, Khajepour A, Chen S K and Litkouhi B 2016 A potential field-based model predictive path-planning controller for
autonomous road vehicles IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 18 1255–67
[29] Ren H, Chen S, Liu G and Zheng K 2014 Vehicle state information estimation with the unscented Kalman filter Advances in Mechanical
Engineering 6 589397
[30] Reina G and Messina A 2019 Vehicle dynamics estimation via augmented extended kalman filtering Measurement 133 383–95
[31] Fang X, Nan L, Jiang Z and Chen L 2017 Robust node position estimation algorithms for wireless sensor networks based on improved
adaptive Kalman filters Computer Communications 101 69–81
[32] Mohamed A and Schwarz K 1999 Adaptive Kalman filtering for INS/GPS J. Geod. 73 193–203
[33] Heydinger G J, Bixel R A, Garrott W R, Pyne M, Howe J G and Guenther D A 1998 Measured vehicle inertial parameters-NHTSA’s data
through SAE Transactions 1999 2462–85
27

Vehicle State Estimation Using Robust Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle State Estimation Using Robust Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Research Express

PAPER You may also like

- A Hybrid Extended Kalman Filter as an

- On the interplay between robustness and

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 111.235.68.130 on 19/06/2023 at 06:09

Vehicle state estimation using a maximum likelihood based robust

© 2023 IOP Publishing Ltd

Figure 1. Yaw plane vehicle dynamics model.

2. Vehicle mathematical model

2.1. Longitudinal motion

mVx = mVy r + Fxf cos d + Fxr - Fyf sin d (1)

2.2. Lateral motion

mVy = - mVx r + Fxf sin d + Fyf cos d + Fyr (2)

The vehicle side slip angle β is calculated by:

2.3. Yaw motion

2.4. Tire model

Table 1. Tire model

⎡ Vy r + Fxf cos d + Fxr - Fyf sin d ⎤

3. The ﬁlter design

3.1. Extended kalman ﬁlter (EKF)

Table 2. Comparison of extended and unscented kalman ﬁlters.

Based on Taylor series expansion. Based on UT of Sigma Points.

h (x k) » h (mk) + h¢ (mk)(x t - mk)

Pk- = Fk P k - 1FkT + Q (22)

3.2. Discrete state space model

⎡ V + ⎛V r + Fxf , k cos dk + Fxr , k - Fyf , k sin d ⎞ Dk ⎤

⎡ ¶f1 ¶f1 ¶f1 ¶f1 ⎤ ¶f1

⎡ ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ¶h1 ⎤

3.3. Unscented kalman ﬁlter

P0 = E [(x 0 - x )(x 0 - x )T ] (32)

3.3.2. Calculation of sigma points and weights

3.3.3. Propagation of sigma points through non-linear system function

3.3.4. Time update

Prediction of the error covariance matrix is deﬁned by the equation (40):

3.3.5. Measurement update

The Kalman gain feedback matrix is obtained by the equation (45):

P k + 1 ∣ k + 1 = P k + 1 ∣ k + Kk + 1Pyk + 1, yk + 1 KkT+ 1 (47)

3.4. Observability analysis

4. Adaptive ﬁlter design

4.1. Covariance matching technique

Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢ + P k - Fk P k - 1Fk ¢] (55)

Figure 2. Flow chart of RAEKF.

4.1.2. Robust adaptive unscented kalman ﬁlter(RAUKF)

Figure 3. Flow chart of RAUKF.

Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢ + P k

Qk + 1 = (1 - dk) Qk + dk [diag (Kk e k e k ¢Kk ¢) + P k

A brief of the used algorithms is presented in [17] and [31].

4.2. Maximum likelihood principle

4.2.1. Robust adaptive extended kalman ﬁlter (RAEKF):

matrices are adaptively varied using equations (63) and (64).

4.2.2. Adaptive unscented kalman ﬁlter

5. Numerical simulation results and discussions

Table 3. Vehicle parameters in simulation.

Vehicle Mass (m) 1420kg

Figure 4. Inputs to vehicle model.

Figure 5. CM and MLP based RAEKF estimation.

5.1. Sinusoidal steering maneuver

5.1.1. CM and MLP based RAEKF

Figure 6. CM and MLP based RAUKF estimation.

β (rad) r (rad/s) β (rad) r (rad/s)

I 1 2.60e-05 3.44e-04 2.60e-05 3.44e-04

5.1.2. CM and MLP based RAUKF: