You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello. Thanks for the code, but I have a question about the function P_miss. From what I understand, you're calculating the probability of getting a miss in a time duration. From the Infotaxis paper, it is calculated by substituting in rho_0, where you end up with rho_0 = exp(-dt * average_num_hits). But in your code, you average the exp(-dt * hit_rate) over all source locations with sum(exp(-dt * hit_rate) * probability_distribution).
My question is, why not get this by averaging the hit_rate, resulting in rho_0 = exp(-dt*sum(hit_rate * probability_distribution))? Wouldn't that be closer to what the paper is saying?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, thank you for your interest. This is a nice catch! It has been a long time since I programmed this, and I guess I understood the P_miss part as conditional: P_miss = P(miss | r0) * P(r0 | Trajectory), where the paper calculates it as P_miss ~ Poisson(mean rate).
I think due to exp is monotonic, the difference should not affect the result qualitatively (let me know if I am wrong).
I am still not sure why the authors do not choose the alternative way, though. Maybe it is related to physics principles?
Hmm, would it be correct to say, in layman's terms not mathematical, in your code "Probability of missing the source = probability of getting a miss given the source location averaged over all source positions."
And for the paper, "Probability of missing the source is a poisson distribution of the average number of hits over all source positions."
Hello. Thanks for the code, but I have a question about the function P_miss. From what I understand, you're calculating the probability of getting a miss in a time duration. From the Infotaxis paper, it is calculated by substituting in rho_0, where you end up with rho_0 = exp(-dt * average_num_hits). But in your code, you average the exp(-dt * hit_rate) over all source locations with sum(exp(-dt * hit_rate) * probability_distribution).
My question is, why not get this by averaging the hit_rate, resulting in rho_0 = exp(-dt*sum(hit_rate * probability_distribution))? Wouldn't that be closer to what the paper is saying?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: