daviddoji/Kalman-and-Bayesian-Filters-in-Python
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #143 from horaceheaven/patch-1

Browse Source 
Fix: 'to' missing from sentence
This commit is contained in:
Roger Labbe 2017-05-11 13:16:32 -07:00 committed by GitHub
commit 171b8649c2
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
09-Nonlinear-Filtering.ipynb
View File

@ -911,7 +911,7 @@
"\n",
"Some will quibble with that advice. A lot of recent publications are devoted to a comparison of the EKF, UKF, and perhaps a few other choices for a given problem. Do you not need to perform a similar comparison for your problem? If you are sending a rocket to Mars then of course you do. You will be balancing issues such as accuracy, round off errors, divergence, mathematical proof of correctness, and the computational effort required. I can't imagine not knowing the EKF intimately. \n",
"\n",
"On the other hand the UKF works spectacularly! I use it at work for real world applications. I mostly haven't even tried to implement an EKF for these applications because I can verify that the UKF is working fine. Is it possible that I might eke out another 0.2% of performance from the EKF in certain situations? Sure! Do I care? No! I completely understand the UKF implementation, it is easy to test and verify, I can pass the code to others and be confident that they can understand and modify it, and I am not a masochist that wants to battle difficult equations when I already have a working solution. If the UKF or particle filters start to perform poorly for some problem then I will turn other techniques, but not before then. And realistically, the UKF usually provides substantially better performance than the EKF over a wide range of problems and conditions. If \"really good\" is good enough I'm going to spend my time working on other problems. \n",
"On the other hand the UKF works spectacularly! I use it at work for real world applications. I mostly haven't even tried to implement an EKF for these applications because I can verify that the UKF is working fine. Is it possible that I might eke out another 0.2% of performance from the EKF in certain situations? Sure! Do I care? No! I completely understand the UKF implementation, it is easy to test and verify, I can pass the code to others and be confident that they can understand and modify it, and I am not a masochist that wants to battle difficult equations when I already have a working solution. If the UKF or particle filters start to perform poorly for some problem then I will turn other to techniques, but not before then. And realistically, the UKF usually provides substantially better performance than the EKF over a wide range of problems and conditions. If \"really good\" is good enough I'm going to spend my time working on other problems. \n",
"\n",
"I'm belaboring this point because in most textbooks the EKF is given center stage, and the UKF is either not mentioned at all or just given a 2 page gloss that leaves you completely unprepared to use the filter. The UKF is still relatively new, and it takes time to write new editions of books. At the time many books were written the UKF was either not discovered yet, or it was just an unproven but promising curiosity. But I am writing this now, the UKF has had enormous success, and it needs to be in your toolkit. That is what I will spend most of my effort trying to teach you. "
]