-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
Tutorial Notebooks for Bayesian Filtering in Linear and Nonlinear State-Space Models #292
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tutorial Notebooks for Bayesian Filtering in Linear and Nonlinear State-Space Models #292
Conversation
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
1ce9abc to
a73a1be
Compare
e7e3b24 to
4223bbb
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the align block somehow does not render well -- at least in ReviewNB.
also: "Note that this can be generalized to a linear, time-varying state space model"
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I dont think the inline comments here are necessary -- it is just two lines with descriptive variable names
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps add some explanation aka "This example thus requires a discrete, lti, Gaussian transition. In Probnum, this is the "DiscreteLTIGaussian" object, which needs to be initialised with the state transition, shift vector and process noise covariance matrix."
What do you think? I suppose this would apply to the blocks below, too.
It is also fine though if you dont wanna do it.
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the sake of consistency, I would prefer that to stay capitalized, if that's ok with you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did not mean capitalisation, but the comma and the dash: Linear, Time-Invariant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Alright :)
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say here we would need some explanation of what is going on? I.e. statespace.generate samples from the state space model.
Reply via ReviewNB
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
have you tried plotting the uncertainty sausages in the same plot as the measurents? Would be good to see if their width is appropriate or not
Reply via ReviewNB
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They _are_plotted in every plot. For the components that are observed, the uncertainty is just lower (above row of plots)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah okay my bad, I did not see that.
| @@ -0,0 +1,4552 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Only the dynamics model changes' -- well, the data does too?
"linear, time-invariant stochastic differential equation (SDE)".
Please remind me that we should discuss whether we want to talk about "Wiener processes", or "Brownian motion", and which letters we use in the notation.
Reply via ReviewNB
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think talking about Brownian Motion might be more consistent, cf. IBM. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in this case yes. Though, on a side note, I personally prefer Wiener process (as this is also how I write my papers about this stuff, and AFAIK, nathanael does too), but this is beyond this PR. There is a discussion in the ODE notation about this issue, so we can continue there,.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed.
|
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-17T07:46:30Z maths doesnt render well
schmidtjonathan commented on 2021-02-23T10:23:49Z That's an issue with ReviewNB, I think. Because in the notebook, it does. pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-23T10:49:13Z this is what I get on readthedocs. I dont think the "$" should be there schmidtjonathan commented on 2021-02-23T10:56:11Z Oh damn, my bad! Fixed. Thanks for catching that! |
|
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-17T07:46:30Z sounds a bit salty ;)
schmidtjonathan commented on 2021-02-23T10:24:25Z Does it? :D Not intended pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-23T10:50:20Z hmmmm now that I read it again, I am less sure about my comment... maybe I was in a petty mood last time, feel free to ignore this :D schmidtjonathan commented on 2021-02-23T10:57:20Z Alright :D |
|
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-17T07:46:31Z maybe a side remark as to what happens with less easy-to-derive jacobians? I.e. use UKF or AD framework of your choice.
|
|
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-17T07:46:31Z samplign and interpolation? |
|
View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-17T07:46:32Z maybe label with "95%" stdev, instead of 1.96? schmidtjonathan commented on 2021-02-23T10:34:07Z I prefer the version as is, but I'm ok with changing it, if you wish :) pnkraemer commented on 2021-02-23T10:51:23Z I think it is personal preference, so your call. I personally prefer the percentage, because it is easier to parse, but I guess one can also argue for the 1.96 thing to be more representative of what is going on. If you prefer this, go ahead with it |
|
Overall, it looks great! Thanks for your efforts on this! Most of my comments are small things. I only commented some things once, whereas it could be said about the entire PR. Do with this information what you like :) |
|
That's an issue with ReviewNB, I think. Because in the notebook, it does. View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
Does it? :D Not intended View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
I prefer the version as is, but I'm ok with changing it, if you wish :) View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
42c2f63 to
b42a0d2
Compare
|
this is what I get on readthedocs. I dont think the "$" should be there View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
hmmmm now that I read it again, I am less sure about my comment... maybe I was in a petty mood last time, feel free to ignore this :D View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
I think it is personal preference, so your call. I personally prefer the percentage, because it is easier to parse, but I guess one can also argue for the 1.96 thing to be more representative of what is going on. If you prefer this, go ahead with it View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
Oh damn, my bad! Fixed. Thanks for catching that! View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
Alright :D View entire conversation on ReviewNB |
|
@pnkraemer |
e5e42dc to
7668275
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, thanks for your work on this!
7668275 to
eda6a41
Compare
Closes #237