I have two covariances of size 6*6, one is supposed be the true covariance and the other is the Maximum likelihood estimate for my covariance. Is there any way I could validate my estimated covariance?
I don't know how exactly you determined your covariance matrix, but generally it is a good first step to check the confidence intervals of your estimators.
Heuristically speaking a wide confidence interval suggests that your estimator has a lot of uncertainty.
Take a look at the Matlab function corrcoef, which also gives lower and upper bounds for the estimated correlation coefficients,
cf. https://uk.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/corrcoef.html#bunkanr .
Maybe using this function on your data gives you a good starting point. If you use your own function to estimate the ML estimators, you will have to add the confidence intervals yourself.
Related
I have to use SVD in Matlab to obtain a reduced version of my data.
I've read that the function svds(X,k) performs the SVD and returns the first k eigenvalues and eigenvectors. There is not mention in the documentation if the data have to be normalized.
With normalization I mean both substraction of the mean value and division by the standard deviation.
When I implemented PCA, I used to normalize in such way. But I know that it is not needed when using the matlab function pca() because it computes the covariance matrix by using cov() which implicitly performs the normalization.
So, the question is. I need the projection matrix useful to reduce my n-dim data to k-dim ones by SVD. Should I perform data normalization of the train data (and therefore, the same normalization to further projected new data) or not?
Thanks
Essentially, the answer is yes, you should typically perform normalization. The reason is that features can have very different scalings, and we typically do not want to take scaling into account when considering the uniqueness of features.
Suppose we have two features x and y, both with variance 1, but where x has a mean of 1 and y has a mean of 1000. Then the matrix of samples will look like
n = 500; % samples
x = 1 + randn(n,1);
y = 1000 + randn(n,1);
svd([x,y])
But the problem with this is that the scale of y (without normalizing) essentially washes out the small variations in x. Specifically, if we just examine the singular values of [x,y], we might be inclined to say that x is a linear factor of y (since one of the singular values is much smaller than the other). But actually, we know that that is not the case since x was generated independently.
In fact, you will often find that you only see the "real" data in a signal once we remove the mean. At the extremely end, you could image that we have some feature
z = 1e6 + sin(t)
Now if somebody just gave you those numbers, you might look at the sequence
z = 1000001.54, 1000001.2, 1000001.4,...
and just think, "that signal is boring, it basically is just 1e6 plus some round off terms...". But once we remove the mean, we see the signal for what it actually is... a very interesting and specific one indeed. So long story short, you should always remove the means and scale.
It really depends on what you want to do with your data. Centering and scaling can be helpful to obtain principial components that are representative of the shape of the variations in the data, irrespective of the scaling. I would say it is mostly needed if you want to further use the principal components itself, particularly, if you want to visualize them. It can also help during classification since your scores will then be normalized which may help your classifier. However, it depends on the application since in some applications the energy also carries useful information that one should not discard - there is no general answer!
Now you write that all you need is "the projection matrix useful to reduce my n-dim data to k-dim ones by SVD". In this case, no need to center or scale anything:
[U,~] = svd(TrainingData);
RecudedData = U(:,k)'*TestData;
will do the job. The svds may be worth considering when your TrainingData is huge (in both dimensions) so that svd is too slow (if it is huge in one dimension, just apply svd to the gram matrix).
It depends!!!
A common use in signal processing where it makes no sense to normalize is noise reduction via dimensionality reduction in correlated signals where all the fearures are contiminated with a random gaussian noise with the same variance. In that case if the magnitude of a certain feature is twice as large it's snr is also approximately twice as large so normalizing the features makes no sense since it would just make the parts with the worse snr larger and the parts with the good snr smaller. You also don't need to subtract the mean in that case (like in PCA), the mean (or dc) isn't different then any other frequency.
I have a discrete curve y=f(x). I know the locations and amplitudes of peaks. I want to approximate the curve by fitting a gaussian at each peak. How should I go about finding the optimized gaussian parameters ? I would like to know if there is any inbuilt function which will make my task simpler.
Edit
I have fixed mean of gaussians and tried to optimize on sigma using
lsqcurvefit() in matlab. MSE is less. However, I have an additional hard constraint that the value of approximate curve should be equal to the original function at the peaks. This constraint is not satisfied by my model. I am pasting current working code here. I would like to have a solution which obeys the hard constraint at peaks and approximately fits the curve at other points. The basic idea is that the approximate curve has fewer parameters but still closely resembles the original curve.
fun = #(x,xdata)myFun(x,xdata,pks,locs); %pks,locs are the peak locations and amplitudes already available
x0=w(1:6)*0.25; % my initial guess based on domain knowledge
[sigma resnorm] = lsqcurvefit(fun,x0,xdata,ydata); %xdata and ydata are the original curve data points
recons = myFun(sigma,xdata,pks,locs);
figure;plot(ydata,'r');hold on;plot(recons);
function f=myFun(sigma,xdata,a,c)
% a is constant , c is mean of individual gaussians
f=zeros(size(xdata));
for i = 1:6 %use 6 gaussians to approximate function
f = f + a(i) * exp(-(xdata-c(i)).^2 ./ (2*sigma(i)^2));
end
end
If you know your peak locations and amplitudes, then all you have left to do is find the width of each Gaussian. You can think of this as an optimization problem.
Say you have x and y, which are samples from the curve you want to approximate.
First, define a function g() that will construct the approximation for given values of the widths. g() takes a parameter vector sigma containing the width of each Gaussian. The locations and amplitudes of the Gaussians will be constrained to the values you already know. g() outputs the value of the sum-of-gaussians approximation at each point in x.
Now, define a loss function L(), which takes sigma as input. L(sigma) returns a scalar that measures the error--how badly the given approximation (using sigma) differs from the curve you're trying to approximate. The squared error is a common loss function for curve fitting:
L(sigma) = sum((y - g(sigma)) .^ 2)
The task now is to search over possible values of sigma, and find the choice that minimizes the error. This can be done using a variety of optimization routines.
If you have the Mathworks optimization toolbox, you can use the function lsqnonlin() (in this case you won't have to define L() yourself). The curve fitting toolbox is probably an alternative. Otherwise, you can use an open source optimization routine (check out cvxopt).
A couple things to note. You need to impose the constraint that all values in sigma are greater than zero. You can tell the optimization algorithm about this constraint. Also, you'll need to specify an initial guess for the parameters (i.e. sigma). In this case, you could probably choose something reasonable by looking at the curve in the vicinity of each peak. It may be the case (when the loss function is nonconvex) that the final solution is different, depending on the initial guess (i.e. you converge to a local minimum). There are many fancy techniques for dealing with this kind of situation, but a simple thing to do is to just try with multiple different initial guesses, and pick the best result.
Edited to add:
In python, you can use optimization routines in the scipy.optimize module, e.g. curve_fit().
Edit 2 (response to edited question):
If your Gaussians have much overlap with each other, then taking their sum may cause the height of the peaks to differ from your known values. In this case, you could take a weighted sum, and treat the weights as another parameter to optimize.
If you want the peak heights to be exactly equal to some specified values, you can enforce this constraint in the optimization problem. lsqcurvefit() won't be able to do it because it only handles bound constraints on the parameters. Take a look at fmincon().
you can use Expectation–Maximization algorithm for fitting Mixture of Gaussians on your data. it don't care about data dimension.
in documentation of MATLAB you can lookup gmdistribution.fit or fitgmdist.
I try to convert matlab code to numpy and figured out that numpy has a different result with the std function.
in matlab
std([1,3,4,6])
ans = 2.0817
in numpy
np.std([1,3,4,6])
1.8027756377319946
Is this normal? And how should I handle this?
The NumPy function np.std takes an optional parameter ddof: "Delta Degrees of Freedom". By default, this is 0. Set it to 1 to get the MATLAB result:
>>> np.std([1,3,4,6], ddof=1)
2.0816659994661326
To add a little more context, in the calculation of the variance (of which the standard deviation is the square root) we typically divide by the number of values we have.
But if we select a random sample of N elements from a larger distribution and calculate the variance, division by N can lead to an underestimate of the actual variance. To fix this, we can lower the number we divide by (the degrees of freedom) to a number less than N (usually N-1). The ddof parameter allows us change the divisor by the amount we specify.
Unless told otherwise, NumPy will calculate the biased estimator for the variance (ddof=0, dividing by N). This is what you want if you are working with the entire distribution (and not a subset of values which have been randomly picked from a larger distribution). If the ddof parameter is given, NumPy divides by N - ddof instead.
The default behaviour of MATLAB's std is to correct the bias for sample variance by dividing by N-1. This gets rid of some of (but probably not all of) of the bias in the standard deviation. This is likely to be what you want if you're using the function on a random sample of a larger distribution.
The nice answer by #hbaderts gives further mathematical details.
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. The variance of a random variable X is defined as
An estimator for the variance would therefore be
where denotes the sample mean. For randomly selected , it can be shown that this estimator does not converge to the real variance, but to
If you randomly select samples and estimate the sample mean and variance, you will have to use a corrected (unbiased) estimator
which will converge to . The correction term is also called Bessel's correction.
Now by default, MATLABs std calculates the unbiased estimator with the correction term n-1. NumPy however (as #ajcr explained) calculates the biased estimator with no correction term by default. The parameter ddof allows to set any correction term n-ddof. By setting it to 1 you get the same result as in MATLAB.
Similarly, MATLAB allows to add a second parameter w, which specifies the "weighing scheme". The default, w=0, results in the correction term n-1 (unbiased estimator), while for w=1, only n is used as correction term (biased estimator).
For people who aren't great with statistics, a simplistic guide is:
Include ddof=1 if you're calculating np.std() for a sample taken from your full dataset.
Ensure ddof=0 if you're calculating np.std() for the full population
The DDOF is included for samples in order to counterbalance bias that can occur in the numbers.
When solving the log likelihood expression for autoregressive models, I cam across the variance covariance matrix Tau given under slide 9 Parameter estimation of time series tutorial. Now, in order to use
fminsearch
to maximize the likelihood function expression, I need to express the likelihood function where the variance covariance matrix arises. Can somebody please show with an example how I can implement (determinant of Gamma)^-1/2 ? Any other example apart from autoregressive model will also do.
How about sqrt(det(Gamma)) for the sqrt-determinant and inv(Gamma) for inverse?
But if you do not want to implement it yourself you can look at yulewalkerarestimator
UPD: For estimation of autocovariance matrix use xcov
also, this topic is a bit more explained here
In MATLAB I need to generate a second derivative of a gaussian window to apply to a vector representing the height of a curve. I need the second derivative in order to determine the locations of the inflection points and maxima along the curve. The vector representing the curve may be quite noise hence the use of the gaussian window.
What is the best way to generate this window?
Is it best to use the gausswin function to generate the gaussian window then take the second derivative of that?
Or to generate the window manually using the equation for the second derivative of the gaussian?
Or even is it best to apply the gaussian window to the data, then take the second derivative of it all? (I know these last two are mathematically the same, however with the discrete data points I do not know which will be more accurate)
The maximum length of the height vector is going to be around 100-200 elements.
Thanks
Chris
I would create a linear filter composed of the weights generated by the second derivative of a Gaussian function and convolve this with your vector.
The weights of a second derivative of a Gaussian are given by:
Where:
Tau is the time shift for the filter. If you are generating weights for a discrete filter of length T with an odd number of samples, set tau to zero and allow t to vary from [-T/2,T/2]
sigma - varies the scale of your operator. Set sigma to a value somewhere between T/6. If you are concerned about long filter length then this can be reduced to T/4
C is the normalising factor. This can be derived algebraically but in practice I always do this numerically after calculating the filter weights. For unity gain when smoothing periodic signals, I will set C = 1 / sum(G'').
In terms of your comment on the equivalence of smoothing first and taking a derivative later, I would say it is more involved than that. As which derivative operator would you use in the second step? A simple central difference would not yield the same results.
You can get an equivalent (but approximate) response to a second derivative of a Gaussian by filtering the data with two Gaussians of different scales and then taking the point-wise differences between the two resulting vectors. See Difference of Gaussians for that approach.