## Nonlinear Kalman filtering techniques for incoherent backscatter lidar: return power and log power estimation

Applied Optics, Vol. 28, Issue 18, pp. 3908-3917 (1989)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.28.003908

Enhanced HTML Acrobat PDF (1198 KB)

### Abstract

Recursive estimation of nonlinear functions of the return power in a lidar system entails use of a nonlinear filter. This also permits processing of returns in the presence of multiplicative noise (speckle). The use of the extended Kalman filter is assessed here for estimation of return power, log power, and speckle noise (which is regarded as a system rather than a measurement component), using coherent lidar returns and tested with simulated data. Reiterative processing of data samples using system models comprising a random walk signal together with an uncorrelated speckle term leads to self-consistent estimation of the parameters.

© 1989 Optical Society of America

**History**

Original Manuscript: November 7, 1988

Published: September 15, 1989

**Citation**

Barry J. Rye and R. Michael Hardesty, "Nonlinear Kalman filtering techniques for incoherent backscatter lidar: return power and log power estimation," Appl. Opt. **28**, 3908-3917 (1989)

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-28-18-3908

Sort: Year | Journal | Reset

### References

- B. J. Rye, R. M. Hardesty, “Time Series Identification and Kalman Filtering Techniques for Doppler Lidar Velocity Estimation,” Appl. Opt. 28, 879–891 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- A. Gelb, Ed., Applied Optimal Estimation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1974).
- A. P. Sage, J. L. Melsa, Estimation Theory with Applications to Communications and Control (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971).
- An alternative approach to the measurement Eq. (4) is logarithmic transformation of the measurement; using y = ln[Y − U], x = ln[S], w = ln[W], and in the absence of additive noise, we then obtain a linear measurement equation like that of Eq. (2) but with w appearing as the additive noise term. A complication arises if w does not have zero mean. If x is known to be constant and the statistics of w are stationary, the problem is simply one of determining the resulting bias in the average14; otherwise it is necessary to show that the variation of the bias is negligible (e.g., less than other sources of error) over the range of parameters encountered. For differential log ratio measurements of the form x = ln[S1/S2], y = ln[(Y1 − U1)/(Y2 − U2)], the problem is mitigated because w = ln[W1/W2] does have zero mean provided the statistics of W1 and W2 are identical. This removes bias in the absence of extra additive noise and leads7 to relatively small bias provided the variances R1 and R2 of this noise are small or S1/S2 ∼ R1R2.
- R. E. Warren, “Adaptive Kalman-Bucy Filter for Differential Absorption Lidar Time Series Data,” Appl. Opt. 26, 4755–4760 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Strictly P can only be interpreted as the covariance of the estimate for a linear filter with known system model. For nonlinear filters, including adaptive filters designed to determine the properties of an unknown system model, P should be at best regarded as a useful approximation to the covariance matrix; here we use the term estimate covariance matrix for brevity.
- B. J. Rye, “Power Ratio Estimation in Incoherent Backscatter Lidar: Heterodyne Receiver with Square Law Detection,” J. Climate Appl. Meteorol. 22, 1899–1913 (1983). [CrossRef]
- Because the approximation described makes the linear filter slightly suboptimal and might arguably lead to results that are prejudiced against it, the process was repeated with the power, rather than the log power, generated using a random walk [using Eqs. (6a) and (2)] and filtered optimally with the constant value for Q1 from the simulation; the log power was then filtered suboptimally using a variable Q1 generated by Eq. (14). The conclusions drawn from the results were unaffected by these changes.
- Inspection of Eqs. (13c) and (13d) indicates that, if the variance terms are normalized12 to Q1, the unknowns can be combined to leave only two, Q1m and Q1R. It is believed that physical interpretation calls for knowledge of all three despite the additional computational burden entailed.
- J. A. Nelder, R. Mead, “A Simplex Method for Function Minimization,” Comput. J. 7, 308–313 (1965). [CrossRef]
- R. K. Mehra, “On the Identification of Variances and Adaptive Kalman Filtering,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC-15, 175–184 (1970). [CrossRef]
- R. H. Jones, “Maximum Likelihood Fitting of ARMA Models to Time Series with Missing Observations,” Technometrics 22, 389–395 (1980). [CrossRef]
- B. J. Rye, “A Wavelength Switching Algorithm for Single Laser Differential Absorption Lidar Systems,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 1062, 267–273 (1989).
- D. S. Zrnic, “Mean Power Estimation with a Recursive Filter,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. AES-13, 281–289 (1977). [CrossRef]

## Cited By |
Alert me when this paper is cited |

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article | Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.