Fornew readers and those who request to be “好友 good friends” please read my 公告栏 first.

這些是我個人意見及看法. 讀者可信可不信

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-388372-564011.html

我的中文不夠好.所以不能说这愽主是在真的捧這位Ronald Mahler还是在讽刺他.虽然multiple-target detection不是我的研究專業,但是對這門學科也少知一二.但是我從來沒有聼說過Mahler這個人. 所以我特地的去請教了在這方面的專家. 這些專家都起碼是IEEE Fellow  (會士). 在学術上都有大家公認的成就. 下面是他們對Mahler 的評價:

 1.   I haven't heard from Ronald Mahler for a long time – probably about ten years. I took a look at one of his papers. It seems to be along the same lines as his work when we last talked to him: data fusion with fuzzy logic, Dempster-Shafer reasoning, etc. I think he is probably a better mathematician than most people in that field (blogger'snote: Because others are engineers and not professionalmathematicians), but I'm not sure that there's anything of general importance or usefulness in his work.( 註二) 

2.                 would agree with his (the above) assessment that this guy (whom I met in a conference) is producing many papers with many formulas
but of unclear importance :)

3.     As far as Ron Mahler is considered, he definitely is the greatest contributor to multitarget tracking - in his own mind, and the minds of a number of gullible people. He did come up with the Probability Hypothesis Density (PHD) algorithm that yields the expected number of targets (first moment only) in a quantized space. Several other people say that their Bayesian algorithms are essentially the same and they are probably right but all these techniques are extremely complex computationally. The PHD can even yield questionable results when there are missed detections. Mahler also believes firmly in the opposite of Einstein's dictum "Make things as simple as possible, but nor simpler" and is a practitioner of the most obscure possible way of presenting his work.

Hope this answers your question.

4.                I never heard of this person. My impression is that SPIE accepts any paper (註一) and is similar to a conference proceedings.

5.     My opinion is that SPIE proceedings have very mixed publication standards. I have heard of Ronald Mahler through my work in the sensor fusion area. I do not believe I have every met him.  His work is okay, probably somewhat like my opinion of the SPIE proceedings ... mixed ... he has some good work, but also many papers that are not high quality.

我的结论是这樣: Mahler 是個不得志的二三流數學家拿了一些工程畀不常用的數學來 

賣野人頭

. 他的文章雖然沒有錯誤但也沒有什么出色. 這些文章都發表在沒有價值的會議文集上(不是在有價值的期刊上Archival Journal). 他是自己在鼓吹自巳,自己在引用自巳. 他也不是IEEE fellow, 院士資格更不用說了.给他一个"大牛"的頭衍是他不夠資格.要是諷刺他還可以.

像LOCKHEED-Martin 這樣的大公司常囍歡用一二個理論科學家來點裝公司對科學的資深.尤其是在公司華盛頓的辦公廳. 可以向政府機關 

賣

野人頭. Mahler 看起來就是這樣一個雇員. 假如他對公司事業真有大貢獻的話,他該早被升高職位了.或者早被一流大學挖去做終身教授了

註一: 會議文集一般來說都是比較容易被收入的.因為開會需要收註冊費,要有人來參加會議才能不陪本. 不像期刊(Archival Journal) 會有嚴格的審查. 我對SPIE的經驗(十年前的) 是名氣不太高只想賺錢收開會費的組織

註二:一篇真有價值的文章在十年內一定被學術界大从公认.假如十年後还是無名的話不太可能有真價值.

Note added 4/30/2012 6:14 am EDT in the US. I thank the many comments and readers. My article obviously hit a nerve - in less than 24 hours it attracted close to 5000 hits and over 20 comments. I cannot respond to each comment in limited space and time. Thus, in time I'll write a separate article to answer these useful and valuable comments. Stay tuned.

(Note added May 25, 2012. My naive mind was further educated while in China this week when it was pointed out to me that even though my article was specifically addressed to the status of Ro Maher. Many people may have interpreted that I was actually attacking some unnamed person in China, i.e., “pointing finger at the boysenberry but actually scolding mulberry”。Nothing can be further from the truth. I am not that sophisticated.