= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (316)
I'm quite new to LW, and find myself wondering whether Hidden Markov models (HMM) are underappreciated as a formal reasoning tool in the rationalist community, especially compared to Bayesian networks?
Perhaps it's because HMM seem to be more difficult to grasp?
Or it's because formally HMM are just a special case of Bayesian networks (i.e. dynamic Bayes nets)? Still, HMM are widely used in science on their own.
For comparison, Google search "bayes OR bayesian network OR net" site:lesswrong.com gives 1,090 results.
Google search hidden markov model site:lesswrong.com gives 91 results.
Hidden Markov models are a reasoning model to solve a specific problem. If you don't face that specific problem they are no use.
Most of the problems we discuss aren't modeled well with HMMs.