|WikiProject Robotics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Added cleanup tag: this article does not give someone in the field an adequate overview of what a Gaussian process is, and goes off on a tangent involving undefined math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps it could be made accessible to a somewhat broader audience, but where does it go off on a tangent or get into "undefined math"? It gives the definition and a simple characterization, and then it lists examples, with links. Michael Hardy 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, any article can be improved in many ways, and surely this one can also. However, I have no idea what you mean by undefined math. In addition, I would have thought that for someone in the field, this article is rather banal and uninteresting, since surely its contents would be already familiar to such an individual. Do you mean someone not in the field? --CSTAR 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Somehow my reply never went through. Michael-- Yes, you're right. Technically the indices were previously defined way at the top, thus I removed the cleanup tag. Nevertheless it wasn't very clear I thought, so I improved the article lots by categorizing all the glomped-up text, and making the definition abit clearer. CSTAR-- No, I meant what I said: "someone in the field". Even as a reference, it was hard to follow. I've already fixed it though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
- Also CSTAR, I personally find it rather haughty, to imagine the only people who have any business reading this entry are people who've been working with this material for 4+ years. The point of a reference is to be a reference for someone who wants to learn or brush up on the material. No offense. Ninjagecko 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think your statement(the only people who have any business reading this entry are people who've been working with this material for 4+ years) paraphrases in any way what I said. In any case what I had intended to say was that the article was technicaly correct. --CSTAR 13:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
suggestions for clarification
I'm not in the field, and I have found some things I wish this article would clarify. Please feel free to say there is some other, introductory article to the topic that I should have read which would have explained the answers to my questions.
- 1. What is an easy, mathematical example of a Gaussian process?
- 2. Does the definition imply that a Gaussian process is normally distrusted? (I think the answer is obviously yes, but I have no experience to justify changing this article.)
- 3. How does the definition imply the parenthetical remark "any linear functional applied to the sample function Xt will give a normally distributed result"? An example? So integrating Xt yields a Gaussian process?
- 4. What is a sample function? pdf? cdf? Other types?
- Gaussian processes are distributions over infinite dimensional objects (i.e functions), whereas multivariate normal distributions are defined over finite dimensional objects or variables. In other words, GPs can be thought of as extension of multivariate normal distributions to infinite dimensionality. appoose (talk)
- I do not know the proof, but for 3, integration of a GP results in a GP as well as any other linear operation (summing, differentiation, etc.) Aghez (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Link to the Gaussian Processes Research Group at the Australian Centre for Field Robotics
I have renamed the link to www.gaussianprocesses.com, to "The Gaussian Processes Research Group at the Australian Centre for Field Robotics". The web site has a very general sounding name, but the home page is currently recruiting students to a lab, rather than explaining the theory of Gaussian processes, as the link description previously claimed to do. I hope this avoids confusion. Mebden (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the that appears in the second display formula of the section the Imaginary unit? If it is an index, it is not bound to any summation sign. Maybe a real-valued variable? I do not have a reference with me of the formula so I cannot fix it, but I guess that something is missing. I would be grateful if someone does fix it. Junkie.dolphin (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that it is the imaginary unit is confirmed/implied by the equation being part of a sentence starting "Using characteristic functions ....". Melcombe (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)