I'm trying to solve the following equation for the variable h:
F is the normal cumulative distribution function
f is the probability density function of chi-square distribution.
I want to solve it numerically using Matlab.
First I tried to solve the problem with a simpler version of function F and f.
Then, I tried to solve the problem as below:
n = 3; % n0 in the equation
k = 2;
P = 0.99; % P* in the equation
F = #(x,y,h) normcdf(h./sqrt((n-1)*(1./x+1./y)));
g1 = #(y,h)integral(#(x) F(x,y,h).*chi2pdf(x,n),0,Inf, 'ArrayValued', true);
g2 = #(h) integral(#(y) (g1(y,h).^(k-1)).*chi2pdf(y,n),0,Inf)-P;
bsolve = fzero(g2,0)
I obtained an answer of 5.1496. The problem is that this answer seems wrong.
There is a paper which provides a table of h values obtained by solving the above equation. This paper was published in 1984, when the computer power was not good enough to solve the equation quickly. They solved it with various values:
n0 = 3:20, 30:10:50
k = 2:10
P* = 0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
They provide the value of h in each case.
Now I'm trying to solve this equation and get the value of h with different values of n0, k and P* (for example n0=25, k=12 and P*=0.975), where the paper does not provide the value of h.
The Matlab code above gives me different values of h than the paper.
For example:
n0=3, k=2 and P*=0.99: my code gives h = 5.1496, the paper gives h = 10.276.
n0=10, k=4 and P*=0.9: my code gives h = 2.7262, the paper gives h = 2.912.
The author says
The integrals were evaluated using 32 point Gauss-Laguerre numerical quadrature. This was accomplished by evaluating the inner integral at the appropriate 32 values of y which were available from the IBM subroutine QA32. The inner integral was also evaluated using 32 point Gauss-Laguerre numerical quadrature. Each of the 32 values of the inner integral was raised to the k-1 power and multiplied by the appropriate constant.
Matlab seems to use the same method of quadrature:
q = integral(fun,xmin,xmax) numerically integrates function fun from xmin to xmax using global adaptive quadrature and default error tolerances.
Does any one have any idea which results are correct? Either I have made some mistake(s) in the code, or the paper could be wrong - possibly because the author used only 32 values in estimating the integrals?
This does work, but the chi-squared distribution has (n-1) degrees of freedom, not n as in the code posted. If that's fixed then the Rinott's constant values agree with literature. Or at least, the literature that isn't behind a paywall. Can't speak to the 1984 Wilcox.
Related
Given the equation
For some given function f(x) where gamma is also given, how can you numerically solve for upper bound u in Matlab?
f(x) can be a placeholder for any model.
This is a root-finding and integration problem but with my lack of knowledge in Matlab, I'm still trying to figure out how it is done.
My initial solution is a brute force approach. Let's say we have
and gamma = 0.8, we can find the definite integral from -inf to u by extracting its integral from some very small value u, working our way up until we reach a result gamma = 0.8.
syms f(x)
f(x) = (1/(sqrt(6*pi)))*exp(-(x^2/6));
gamma = 0.8;
u = -10;
res = int(f,x,-Inf,u);
while double(res) <= gamma
u = u+0.1;
res = int(f,x,-Inf,u);
end
fprintf("u is %f", u);
This solution is pretty slow and will definitely not work all the time.
I set u = 10 because looking at the graph of the function, we don't really get anything outside the interval [-5, 5].
You can use MATLAB Symbolic Math Toolbox (an addon you might need to install).
That way you can define yourself a "true" unknow variable x (not an array of x-values) and later integrate from negative infinity:
syms f(x)
f(x) = exp(2*x) % an example function
gamma = int(f,x,-Inf,u)
This yields gamma as the integral from -Inf to u, after defining f(x) as a symbolic function and u as a scalar
Introduction
If you want to know the grand scheme... read the introduction. If not, Just skip down to My Problem.
I have a project for my Differential Equations and Linear Algebra course where I have to use a computer algebra system to solve both linear, ordinary differential equations of the first degree with constant coefficients and a non-linear ODE with constant coefficients. I have to show this being done both analytically and numerically. My plan is to have 2 functions that make use of the dsolve function for the analytical part and a function called ODE1 I learned about through this tutorial by Matlab. This function is defined to approximate the solution to the differential equation using Euler's Method. The functions would all use the same input parameters so each input could be defined once and the functions would all understand what inputs to use (maybe nest the functions under one calling function). The goal is to evaluate the analytical solution over the same interval being used to find the numerical approximation and compare the results in both a table and graph. I got the numerical solution to give me a "table" in the form of a row vector and also graph that row vector. I began having an issue with the Analytic solution...
My Problem
To solve a linear ODE of the first order, I generated this function
function [s1] = L_Analytic(eqn,t0,h,numstep,y0)
% eqn is the differential equation to be solved
% t0 is the start of the interval that the resulting equation is to be evaluated at
% h is the stepsize
% numstep is the number of steps
% y0 is the initial condition
syms y(x)
cond = y(0) == y0;
A = dsolve(eqn,cond);
s1 = A;
S1 = s1;
for t = t0 : h : h*(numstep-2)
S1 = [subs(S1); vpa(subs(s1))]
end
end
The list generated by this function L_Analytic(diff(y)==y, 0, 0.1, 5, 1) is
1
1.0
1.105170...
1.221402...
1.349858...
When using the numerical method in a different function in Matlab using the same inputs, I get the list:
1.0000
1.1000
1.2100
1.3310
1.4641
For those who know their way around differential equations or are proficient in calculus, the solution to y' = y is e^x, and when evaluated over the interval 0:0.4 using 5 steps, the list should be
1
1.105...
1.2214...
1.3498...
1.4918...
after some rounding.
So the issue here is that I have an extra entry of 1 in my analytical solutions. I'm confident it has something to do with the subs(S1) part of S1 = [subs(S1); vpa(subs(s1))] in the for loop but I am stumped as to how to fix this.
I kind of understand why I need to use the subs function, in that I am using symbolic variables to use the dsolve function which outputs symbolic variables in its answer. Also, in order for the for loop to iterate and change, the symbolic variables must be substituted for real values of t each time. I did try moving the vpa(subs(s1)) just before the for loop, but this just returned the same value in the vector 5 times. I also tried not using subs(S1) and it gave me
exp(t)
1.0
1.1051709...
1.2214027...
1.3498588...
so I'm positive it's this part of the code.
Side Note: I understand the analytical method outputs a column vector as does the ODE1 shown in the video that's linked. In order to have Matlab plot this as one line, I transposed the column vector to make a row vector and will do the same with the analytical solution once the solution part is fixed.
By changing the internals of the for loop I made it work. My final function code turned out to be this:
function [s1] = L_Analytic3(eqn,t0,h,numstep,y0)
%Differential Equation solver for specific inputs
% eqn is the differential equation
% t0 is start of evaluation interval
% h is stepize
% numstep is the number of steps
% y0 is the initial condition
syms y(x)
cond = y(0) == y0;
A = dsolve(eqn, cond);
s1 = A;
S1 = s1;
for x = t0 : h : h*(numstep)
subs(x);
if x == t0
S1 = subs(s1,x);
else
S1 = [subs(S1), subs(s1,vpa(x))];
end
end
end
I'm trying to find the line which best fits to the data. I use the following code below but now I want to have the data placed into an array sorted so it has the data which is closest to the line first how can I do this? Also is polyfit the correct function to use for this?
x=[1,2,2.5,4,5];
y=[1,-1,-.9,-2,1.5];
n=1;
p = polyfit(x,y,n)
f = polyval(p,x);
plot(x,y,'o',x,f,'-')
PS: I'm using Octave 4.0 which is similar to Matlab
You can first compute the error between the real value y and the predicted value f
err = abs(y-f);
Then sort the error vector
[val, idx] = sort(err);
And use the sorted indexes to have your y values sorted
y2 = y(idx);
Now y2 has the same values as y but the ones closer to the fitting value first.
Do the same for x to compute x2 so you have a correspondence between x2 and y2
x2 = x(idx);
Sembei Norimaki did a good job of explaining your primary question, so I will look at your secondary question = is polyfit the right function?
The best fit line is defined as the line that has a mean error of zero.
If it must be a "line" we could use polyfit, which will fit a polynomial. Of course, a "line" can be defined as first degree polynomial, but first degree polynomials have some properties that make it easy to deal with. The first order polynomial (or linear) equation you are looking for should come in this form:
y = mx + b
where y is your dependent variable and X is your independent variable. So the challenge is this: find the m and b such that the modeled y is as close to the actual y as possible. As it turns out, the error associated with a linear fit is convex, meaning it has one minimum value. In order to calculate this minimum value, it is simplest to combine the bias and the x vectors as follows:
Xcombined = [x.' ones(length(x),1)];
then utilized the normal equation, derived from the minimization of error
beta = inv(Xcombined.'*Xcombined)*(Xcombined.')*(y.')
great, now our line is defined as Y = Xcombined*beta. to draw a line, simply sample from some range of x and add the b term
Xplot = [[0:.1:5].' ones(length([0:.1:5].'),1)];
Yplot = Xplot*beta;
plot(Xplot, Yplot);
So why does polyfit work so poorly? well, I cant say for sure, but my hypothesis is that you need to transpose your x and y matrixies. I would guess that that would give you a much more reasonable line.
x = x.';
y = y.';
then try
p = polyfit(x,y,n)
I hope this helps. A wise man once told me (and as I learn every day), don't trust an algorithm you do not understand!
Here's some test code that may help someone else dealing with linear regression and least squares
%https://youtu.be/m8FDX1nALSE matlab code
%https://youtu.be/1C3olrs1CUw good video to work out by hand if you want to test
function [a0 a1] = rtlinreg(x,y)
x=x(:);
y=y(:);
n=length(x);
a1 = (n*sum(x.*y) - sum(x)*sum(y))/(n*sum(x.^2) - (sum(x))^2); %a1 this is the slope of linear model
a0 = mean(y) - a1*mean(x); %a0 is the y-intercept
end
x=[65,65,62,67,69,65,61,67]'
y=[105,125,110,120,140,135,95,130]'
[a0 a1] = rtlinreg(x,y); %a1 is the slope of linear model, a0 is the y-intercept
x_model =min(x):.001:max(x);
y_model = a0 + a1.*x_model; %y=-186.47 +4.70x
plot(x,y,'x',x_model,y_model)
I need to perform the following operations as shown in the image. I need to calculate the value of function H for different inputs(x) using MATLAB.
I am giving the following command from Symbolic Math Toolbox
syms y t x;
f1=(1-exp(-y))/y;
f2=-t+3*int(f1,[0,t]);
f3=exp(f2);
H=int(f3,[0,x]);
but the value of 2nd integral i.e. integral in the function H can't be calculated and my output is of the form of
H =
int(exp(3*eulergamma - t - 3*ei(-t) + 3*log(t)), t, 0, x)
If any of you guys know how to evaluate this or have a different idea about this, please share it with me.
Directly Finding the Numerical Solution using integral:
Since you want to calculate H for different values of x, so instead of analytical solution, you can go for numerical solution.
Code:
syms y t;
f1=(1-exp(-y))/y; f2=-t+3*int(f1,[0,t]); f3=exp(f2);
H=integral(matlabFunction(f3),0,100) % Result of integration when x=100
Output:
H =
37.9044
Finding the Approximate Analytical Solution using Monte-Carlo Integration:
It probably is an "Elliptic Integral" and cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions. However, you can find an approximate analytical solution using "Monte-Carlo Integration" according to which:
where f(c) = 1/n Σ f(xᵢ)
Code:
syms x y t;
f1=(1-exp(-y))/y; f2=-t+3*int(f1,[0,t]); f3=exp(f2);
f3a= matlabFunction(f3); % Converting to function handle
n = 1000;
t = x*rand(n,1); % Generating random numbers within the limits (0,x)
MCint(x) = x * mean(f3a(t)); % Integration
H= double(MCint(100)) % Result of integration when x=100
Output:
H =
35.2900
% Output will be different each time you execute it since it is based
% on generation of random numbers
Drawbacks of this approach:
Solution is not exact but approximated.
Greater the value of n, better the result and slower the code execution speed.
Read the documentation of matlabFunction, integral, Random Numbers Within a Specific Range, mean and double for further understanding of the code(s).
I have an unknown non-linear system and I want to model it using another system with some adaptable parameters (for instance, a neural network). So, I want to fix an online learning structure of the unknown system without knowing its dynamics, I can only interact with it through inputs-outputs. My problem is that I can not make it work in MATLAB using ode solvers. Lets say that we have this real system (my actual system is more complicated, but I will give a simple example in order to be understood):
function dx = realsystem(t, x)
u = 2;
dx = -3*x+6*u;
end
and we solve the equations like this:
[t,x_real] = ode15s(#(t,x)realsystem(t,x), [0 1], 0)
We suppose that is an unknown system and we do not know the coefficients 3 and 6 so we take an adaptive system with the 2 adaptive laws:
dx(t) = -p1(t)*x(t) + p2(t)*u(t)
dp1(t) = -e(t)*x(t)
dp2(t) = e(t)*u(t)
with e(t) the error e(t) = x(t) - x_real(t).
The thing is that I cannot find a way to feed the real values for each t to the ode solver in order to have online learning.
I tried with something like this but it didn't work:
function dx = adaptivesystem(t, x, x_real)
dx = zeros(3,1);
e = x_real - x;
u = 2;
dx(1) = -x(2)*x(1)+x(3)*u;
dx(2) = -e*x(1); %dx(2) = dp1(t)
dx(3) = e*u; %dx(3) = dp2(t)
end
You should be aware that your problem is ill-posed as it is. Given any trajectory x(t) obtained via sampling and smoothing/interpolating, you can choose p1(t) at will and set
p2(t) = ( x'(t) - p1(t)*x(t) ) / u.
So you have to formulate restrictions. One obvious is that the functions p1 and p2 should be valid for all trajectories of the black-box system. Do you have different trajectories available?
Another variant is to demand that p1 and p2 are constants. Actually, in this case and if you have equally spaced samples available, it would be easier to first find a good difference equation for the data. With the samples x[n] for time t[n]=t0+n*dt form a matrix X with rows
[ -u, x[n], x[n+1], ... ,x[n+k] ] for n=0, ... , N-k
and apply QR decomposition or SVD to X to determine the right hand kernel vectors. QR may fail to show a usable rank deficiency, so use the SVD on the top square part of R = USV^T, S diagonal, ordered as usual, U,V square and orthogonal, and use the last row of V, with coefficients
[b, a[0], ..., a[k] ],
corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue, to form the difference equation
a[0]*x[n]+a[1]*x[n-1]+...+a[k]*x[n-k]=b*u.
If the effective rank of R resp. S is not (k-1), then reduce k to be the effective rank plus one and start again.
If in the end k=1 is found, then you can make a differential equation out of it. Reformulate the difference equation as
a[0]*(x[n]-x[n-1])/dt = -(a[0]+a[1])/dt * x[n-1] + b/dt * u
and read off the differential equation
x'(t) = -(a[0]+a[1])/(a[0]*dt) * x(t) + b/(a[0]*dt) * u
One may reject this equation if the coefficients become uncomfortably large.