A twin whose sensor never produces outliers: how many particles does a bootstrap filter need, and is the average effective sample size the right thing to size on?
research/particle-twin
Gaussian-sensor twin vs outliers for a bootstrap particle filter: exact ESS fraction c₀e^{−ay²}, the mean ESS barely moves (0.671 vs 0.645) while P(ESS<1%) rises 120× (2.5e-4 → 3.1e-2), a twin-sized N=528 fails 4.4% of real steps, and posterior-mean error is 45–421× the twin's.
What it found
For a bootstrap particle filter the large-N effective-sample-size fraction is exactly c0 e−ay² in the measurement y (c0 = 0.866, a = 1/6 at P = R = 1). With 5% real outliers at 10× the noise scale the mean ESS fraction barely moves (0.671 in the twin, 0.645 real, at every dimension), but P(ESS < 1% of N) goes from 2.5×10−4 to 3.1×10−2 (120×). Sizing N = 528 for ESS ≥ 50 at 1% failure in the twin fails 4.4% of real steps, and the particle posterior mean's error against the exact Kalman update is 45× to 421× the twin's for N = 50 to 1000, falling barely at all with N. The large-N formula is checked against quadrature and simulation and fails once Nρ is small (reported). Stylised: scalar update, simulated outliers, no resampling dynamics.
A figure from its own output
Paper, code and results
More in Digital twins & sim-to-real
- Can a fixed inflation radius stand in for a rectangular robot's footprint in a narrow gap?Point/circle/calibrated-inflation footprint twin vs a rectangular robot with heading error in a narrow gap: exact pass probability
2Φ(θ*/σ)−1, circle twins are step functions, a 95%-calibrated inflation is 0.17 m too small at 3× the heading error, 10-gap missions succeed 0.60 where the twin says 1. - If a twin gives every scene the same inlier fraction, how many RANSAC iterations does it say we need, and is that enough when real scenes vary?RANSAC iteration budget from a fixed-inlier-fraction twin (17 for 99%) vs scenes with beta-binomial inlier counts: exact failure 1.3–30% at that budget, 99% needs 19–458 iterations or is unreachable for κ≤2; stylised, line fitting only.
- Can a lidar twin give each beam an independent visibility probability, or do neighbouring beams share occluders?Lidar twin with independent per-beam visibility vs a Poisson occluder field: beams closer than an occluder diameter share occluders, exact blind probability by inclusion–exclusion over union lengths, 8 beams at 25 cm blind 0.0815 vs the twin's 0.0039 (20.9×), the twin is exact once spacing ≥ 2ρ, an occluder-field ensemble matches. Stylised.
- A battery twin with no internal resistance: how much endurance and how large a burst does the real, sagging cell actually give?Battery twin with no internal resistance vs a real sagging cell: endurance exactly
(1+√(1−u))/2of the twin's (0.5 at the fold), 9–94% of charge stranded at the voltage cutoff, a burst of 0.5 fails below 51% charge where the twin's floor is 0 (a flat 20% reserve covers only a third of the full-charge limit), and a constant-derate refit errs +12% to +473% off its fit power. Stylised. - How many real trajectories does a classifier two-sample test need to reject a wrong digital twin, compared with a paired error test?How many real trajectories does a classifier two-sample test need to reject a wrong digital twin? Stylised pendulum: for a 20% Coulomb error a paired error test has power 0.98 at 100 trajectories vs 0.25 for the C2ST (which needs ~200), but for a 10% error the paired test stalls at 0.09–0.20 up to 800 while the C2ST reaches 1.00 at 400, and for same-variance noise-shape error the paired test has power ≤0.07 at every size. Null calibration approximate (60 replicates). Preliminary, simulated only.
- Was the paired digital-twin test weak, or was its statistic?Was the paired twin test weak, or was its statistic? Stylised pendulum, Student-t noise: the mean squared residual has power ~0.1 at a 10% Coulomb error up to n = 400, while median, trimmed, absolute and Huber statistics reach 0.94–1.00 from n = 50; Gaussian noise barely cares.
All 164 Digital twins & sim-to-real projects →
Other research topics
Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1
Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.