weighting of estimates
Jost Bernasch
bernasch at forwiss.tu-muenchen.de
Tue Aug 3 03:41:45 EDT 1993
James Franklin writes:
> If you have a fairly accurate and a fairly inaccurate way of estimating
>something, it is obviously not good to take their simple average (that
>is, half of one plus half of the other). The correct weighting of the
>estimates is in inverse proportion to their variances (that is, keep
>closer to the more accurate one).
Of course this is the correct weighting. Since the 60s this is done
very succesfully with the well-known "Kalman Filter". In this theory
the optimal combination of knowledge sources is described and
proofed in detail.
See the original work
@article{Kalman:60,
AUTHOR = {R.E. Kalman},
TITLE = "A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prdiction Problems.",
VOLUME = 12,
number = 1,
PAGES = {35--45},
JOURNAL = "Trans. ASME, series D, J. Basic Eng.",
YEAR = 1960
}
some neural network literature concerning this subject
@Article{WatanabeTzafestas:90,
author = "Watanabe and Tzafestas",
title = "Learning Algorithms for Neural Networks with the Kalman
Filter",
journal = JIRS,
year = 1990,
volume = 3,
number = 4,
pages = "305-319",
keywords= "kalman, neural net"
}
@string{JIRS = {Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems}}
and a very good and practice oriented book
@book{Gelb:74,
AUTHOR = "A. Gelb",
TITLE = "Applied {O}ptimal {E}stimation",
PUBLISHER = "{M.I.T} {P}ress, {C}ambridge, {M}assachusetts",
YEAR = "1974"
}
(At least, that is the correct
>weighting if the estimates are independent: if they are correlated,
>it is more complicated, but not much more). Proofs are easy, and included
>in the ref below:
For proofs and extensions to non-linear filtering and correlated
weights see the control theory literature. A lot of work is already
done!
-- Jost
Jost Bernasch
Bavarian Research Center for Knowledge-Based Systems
Orleansstr. 34, D-81667 Muenchen , Germany
bernasch at forwiss.tu-muenchen.de
More information about the Connectionists
mailing list