Feedback
Hey Arthur,
Great page.
Your coverage of the statistical foundation is awesome, but I can't help but feel some of the terms used here can be made simpler for the CS students. Since this page is named "particle filtering" instead of "sequential Monte Carlo" , the large amount of big stats-y terms may be able to be reduced. A picture of the graphical model can be very helpful in explaining recursive estimation. Also, was the filtering problem described somewhere?
A couple math equations may be helpful in the prerequisite sections. The mentioning of a posterior distribution without describing what is being conditioned on (some observations) makes the word "posterior" somewhat vacuous in the Bayesian estimation section. The actual posterior distribution is only given later in the mathematical model section, but it may be a good idea to put it in the prereq sections, as a build-up to the actual PF formulation.
In the PF algorithm section, the terms "random variable", "sample", and "particle" seem to be used interchangeably, and may confuse readers who don't know they're referring to the same concept.
The example is quite well written, but perhaps relating some of the English terms to (or re-formulating the explanation in terms of) the previous 's and 's. Also, I think a moving gif would be a lot better than the still-image.
Thanks for the good read, Ricky
- (5) The topic is relevant for the course.
- (4) The writing is clear and the English is good.
- (4) The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds).
- (4) The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand.
- (4) The abstract is a concise and clear summary.
- (4.5) There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear.
- (3) There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code.
- (5) It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic).
- (5) It is correct.
- (4) It was neither too short nor too long for the topic.
- (4) It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page).
- (3) It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki.
- (5) The references and links to external pages are well chosen.
- (4) I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic.
- (3) This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate.