alt Hacker NewsAuthor here.
I recently updated the homepage of my Kalman Filter tutorial with a new example based on a simple radar tracking problem. The goal was to make the Kalman Filter understandable to anyone with basic knowledge of statistics and linear algebra, without requiring advanced mathematics.
The example starts with a radar measuring the distance to a moving object and gradually builds intuition around noisy measurements, prediction using a motion model, and how the Kalman Filter combines both. I also tried to keep the math minimal while still showing where the equations come from.
I would really appreciate feedback on clarity. Which parts are intuitive? Which parts are confusing? Is the math level appropriate?
If you have used Kalman Filters in practice, I would also be interested to hear whether this explanation aligns with your intuition.
Replies
Firstly I think the clarity in general is good. The one piece I think you could do with explaining early on is which pieces of what you are describing are the model of the system and which pieces are the Kalman filter. I was following along as you built the markov model of the state matrix etc and then you called those equations the Kalman filter, but I didn't think we had built a Kalman filter yet.
Your early explanation of the filter (as a method for estimating the state of a system under uncertainty) was great but (unless I missed it) when you introduced the equations I wasn't clear that was the filter. I hope that makes sense.
You lead with "Moreover, it is an optimal algorithm that minimizes state estimation uncertainty." By the end of the tutorial I understood what this meant, but "optimal algorithm" is a vague term I am unfamiliar with (despite using Kalman Filters in my work). It might help to expand on the term briefly before diving into the math, since IIUC it's the key characteristic of the method.
You could do a line extension of your product, like "Kalman Filter in Financial Markets" and sell additional copies :)
I just glossed through for now so might have missed it, but it seemed you pulled the process noise matrix Q out of a hat. I guess it's explained properly in the book but would be nice with some justification for why the entries are what they are.