4 ms·
I attended a short series of lectures by Kalman years ago. As I recall it, he very strongly emphasised the virtue of working directly with observed data, avoidi
by hanche 3y ago
I attended a short series of lectures by Kalman years ago. As I recall it, he very strongly emphasised the virtue of working directly with observed data, avoiding the biases resulting from positing a model and trying to adapt it to the data. He was quite insistent on this point, citing Newton’s _Principia_ as a good example of this principle at work: Newton, he said, did not cast around for models that might explain Kepler’s laws. Instead, he _derived_ the inverse square law of gravitation from Kepler’s laws, largely using geometric arguments. He was an excellent speaker, and highly opinionated. And of course he did explain the idea behind the Kalman filter. However, since I never needed them myself in my work, I have long since forgotten the details.
- p5a0u9l 3y agoThat’s a cool story. I feel like this is so overlooked. I’ve worked with scientists and engineers who’ve actually deployed systems that are incredibly complicated and pretty well known. Those folks are usually skeptical of trendy algorithms and usually start with first principles. 90% of the time, a boring old linear Kalman with simple (or no) motion model will do the trick.
- tnecniv 3y agoNo motion model? If your model doesn’t have dynamics, it’s not really doing Kalman filtering