<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Signal Processing on Chris Liatas</title><link>https://liatas.com/tags/signal-processing/</link><description>Recent content in Signal Processing on Chris Liatas</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:30:00 +0300</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://liatas.com/tags/signal-processing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Beyond the moving average: Savitzky-Golay</title><link>https://liatas.com/posts/savitzky-golay-smoothing/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:30:00 +0300</pubDate><guid>https://liatas.com/posts/savitzky-golay-smoothing/</guid><description>&lt;div class="headerclaim"&gt;A walk through a smoothing technique and where it earns its keep. The market-flavoured examples later are illustrative &lt;strong&gt;quantitative analysis on synthetic data&lt;/strong&gt; — for education, not financial advice.&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When dealing with noisy data, many of us reach for the same tool first: a &lt;strong&gt;moving average&lt;/strong&gt;. It is one line of code, it is intuitive, and it does remove noise. The catch is that it tends to do a bit more than that. A moving average is a fairly blunt instrument: alongside the jitter, it also tends to soften &lt;em&gt;structure&lt;/em&gt; — flattening peaks, filling in troughs, and smearing the shape of the features we may actually care about. If all we want is a calmer-looking line, for example to visualize trends over a long period, that is usually fine. If we care about &lt;em&gt;how tall&lt;/em&gt; a peak is, &lt;em&gt;how wide&lt;/em&gt; a response is, or &lt;em&gt;how fast&lt;/em&gt; something is changing, a plain average can quietly discard the part we wanted.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>