I’m working with the Matlab Curve Fitting tool for the very first time and I have a question. My fit is exponential with two terms and it looks pretty good. The problem is, it won’t start from P(0,0), although my first measurement is.
Is it possible to force a start value onto my fit? Also, how does R-squared work? Is it safe to rely on?
Thank you so much
See a thorough description of this process here
In short, the most common method of fitting to a polynomial in matlab, polyfit, does not allow for forcing through zero (or anywhere else), and so a different function is required, lsqlin, for example.
Related
I'm using MATLAB to work with some spectrograms. I'm new to this kind of thing and come from more of a CS background than a signals background, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here although it may turn out to be fairly basic.
I'm trying to compute spectral difference, which I conceptually am pretty sure I understand. I've got a signal, I can do the SFT on it with MATLAB's spectrogram() function. Then, I try to loop over the spectrogram for the entire signal and at each sampled point compute the difference from the previous point by looping over powers at each frequency and subtracting. I thought I had the concept down, but when I try to run it, I realize that the points returned when I write "MySpectrogram(n,k)" are complex numbers, or atleast look like that. They are formed such that the first part of the number is negative, and then after it there is a +Coefficient*I (-.07+0.0061i) for example. I tried to square these results. After squaring them, they still appear as complex numbers. Now I am totally lost. Can someone explain what's happening?
I'm calling s = spectrogram(x,window,noverlap,nfft).
Here's the documentation for spectrogram
If you need to access the power spectrum, use this:
[s,f,t,ps] = spectrogram(x,window,noverlap,f,fs)
I have been looking for a Matlab function that can do a nonlinear total least square fit, basically fit a custom function to data which has errors in all dimensions. The easiest case being x and y data-points with different given standard deviations in x and y, for every single point. This is a very common scenario in all natural sciences and just because most people only know how to do a least square fit with errors in y does not mean it wouldn't be extremely useful. I know the problem is far more complicated than a simple y-error, this is probably why most (not even physicists like myself) learned how to properly do this with multidimensional errors.
I would expect that a software like matlab could do it but unless I'm bad at reading the otherwise mostly useful help pages I think even a 'full' Matlab license doesn't provide such fitting functionality. Other tools like Origin, Igor, Scipy use the freely available fortran package "ODRPACK95", for instance. There are few contributions about total least square or deming fits on the file exchange, but they're for linear fits only, which is of little use to me.
I'd be happy for any hint that can help me out
kind regards
First I should point out that I haven't practiced MATLAB much since I graduated last year (also as a Physicist). That being said, I remember using
lsqcurvefit()
in MATLAB to perform non-linear curve fits. Now, this may, or may not work depending on what you mean by custom function? I'm assuming you want to fit some known expression similar to one of these,
y = A*sin(x)+B
y = A*e^(B*x) + C
It is extremely difficult to perform a fit without knowning the form, e.g. as above. Ultimately, all mathematical functions can be approximated by polynomials for small enough intervals. This is something you might want to consider, as MATLAB does have lots of tools for doing polynomial regression.
In the end, I would acutally reccomend you to write your own fit-function. There are tons of examples for this online. The idea is to know the true solution's form as above, and guess on the parameters, A,B,C.... Create an error- (or cost-) function, which produces an quantitative error (deviation) between your data and the guessed solution. The problem is then reduced to minimizing the error, for which MATLAB has lots of built-in functionality.
I have a curve which looks roughly / qualitative like the curves displayed in those 3 images.
The only thing I know is that the first part of the curve is hardware-specific supposed to be a linear curve and the second part is some sort of logarithmic part (might be a combination of two logarithmic curves), i.e. linlog camera. But I couldn't tell the mathematic structure of the equation, e.g. wether it looks like a*log(b)+c or a*(log(c+b))^2 etc. Is there a way to best fit/find out a good regression for this type of curve and is there a certain way to do this specifically in MATLAB? :-) I've got the student version, i.e. all toolboxes etc.
fminsearch is a very general way to find best-fit parameters once you have decided on a parametric equation. And the optimization toolbox has a range of more-sophisticated ways.
Comparing the merits of one parametric equation against another, however, is a deep topic. The main thing to be aware of is that you can always tweak the equation, adding another term or parameter or whatever, and get a better fit in terms of lower sum-squared-error or whatever other goodness-of-fit metric you decide is appropriate. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to keep adding parameters: your solution might be becoming overly complex. In the end the most reliable way to compare how well two different parametric models are doing is to cross-validate: optimize the parameters on a subset of the data, and evaluate only on data that the optimization procedure has not yet seen.
You can try the "function finder" on my curve fitting web site zunzun.com and see what it comes up with - it is free. If you have any trouble please email me directly and I'll do my best to help.
James Phillips
zunzun#zunzun.com
Are there any faster and more efficient solvers other than fmincon? I'm using fmincon for a specific problem and I run out of memory for modest sized vector variable. I don't have any supercomputers or cloud computing options at my disposal, either. I know that any alternate solution will still run out of memory but I'm just trying to see where the problem is.
P.S. I don't want a solution that would change the way I'm approaching the actual problem. I know convex optimization is the way to go and I have already done enough work to get up until here.
P.P.S I saw the other question regarding the open source alternatives. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for more efficient ones, if someone faced the same problem adn shifted to a better solver.
Hmmm...
Without further information, I'd guess that fmincon runs out of memory because it needs the Hessian (which, given that your decision variable is 10^4, will be 10^4 x numel(f(x1,x2,x3,....)) large).
It also takes a lot of time to determine the values of the Hessian, because fmincon normally uses finite differences for that if you don't specify derivatives explicitly.
There's a couple of things you can do to speed things up here.
If you know beforehand that there will be a lot of zeros in your Hessian, you can pass sparsity patterns of the Hessian matrix via HessPattern. This saves a lot of memory and computation time.
If it is fairly easy to come up with explicit formulae for the Hessian of your objective function, create a function that computes the Hessian and pass it on to fmincon via the HessFcn option in optimset.
The same holds for the gradients. The GradConstr (for your non-linear constraint functions) and/or GradObj (for your objective function) apply here.
There's probably a few options I forgot here, that could also help you. Just go through all the options in the optimization toolbox' optimset and see if they could help you.
If all this doesn't help, you'll really have to switch optimizers. Given that fmincon is the pride and joy of MATLAB's optimization toolbox, there really isn't anything much better readily available, and you'll have to search elsewhere.
TOMLAB is a very good commercial solution for MATLAB. If you don't mind going to C or C++...There's SNOPT (which is what TOMLAB/SNOPT is based on). And there's a bunch of things you could try in the GSL (although I haven't seen anything quite as advanced as SNOPT in there...).
I don't know on what version of MATLAB you have, but I know for a fact that in R2009b (and possibly also later), fmincon has a few real weaknesses for certain types of problems. I know this very well, because I once lost a very prestigious competition (the GTOC) because of it. Our approach turned out to be exactly the same as that of the winners, except that they had access to SNOPT which made their few-million variable optimization problem converge in a couple of iterations, whereas fmincon could not be brought to converge at all, whatever we tried (and trust me, WE TRIED). To this day I still don't know exactly why this happens, but I verified it myself when I had access to SNOPT. Once, when I have an infinite amount of time, I'll find this out and report this to the MathWorks. But until then...I lost a bit of trust in fmincon :)
I need to construct an interpolating function from a 2D array of data. The reason I need something that returns an actual function is, that I need to be able to evaluate the function as part of an expression that I need to numerically integrate.
For that reason, "interp2" doesn't cut it: it does not return a function.
I could use "TriScatteredInterp", but that's heavy-weight: my grid is equally spaced (and big); so I don't need the delaunay triangularisation.
Are there any alternatives?
(Apologies for the 'late' answer, but I have some suggestions that might help others if the existing answer doesn't help them)
It's not clear from your question how accurate the resulting function needs to be (or how big, 'big' is), but one approach that you could adopt is to regress the data points that you have using a least-squares or Kalman filter-based method. You'd need to do this with a number of candidate function forms and then choose the one that is 'best', for example by using an measure such as MAE or MSE.
Of course this requires some idea of what the form underlying function could be, but your question isn't clear as to whether you have this kind of information.
Another approach that could work (and requires no knowledge of what the underlying function might be) is the use of the fuzzy transform (F-transform) to generate line segments that provide local approximations to the surface.
The method for this would be:
Define a 2D universe that includes the x and y domains of your input data
Create a 2D fuzzy partition of this universe - chosing partition sizes that give the accuracy you require
Apply the discrete F-transform using your input data to generate fuzzy data points in a 3D fuzzy space
Pass the inverse F-transform as a function handle (along with the fuzzy data points) to your integration function
If you're not familiar with the F-transform then I posted a blog a while ago about how the F-transform can be used as a universal approximator in a 1D case: http://iainism-blogism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/fuzzy-wuzzy-was.html
To see the mathematics behind the method and extend it to a multidimensional case then the University of Ostravia has published a PhD thesis that explains its application to various engineering problems and also provides an example of how it is constructed for the case of a 2D universe: http://irafm.osu.cz/f/PhD_theses/Stepnicka.pdf
If you want a function handle, why not define f=#(xi,yi)interp2(X,Y,Z,xi,yi) ?
It might be a little slow, but I think it should work.
If I understand you correctly, you want to perform a surface/line integral of 2-D data. There are ways to do it but maybe not the way you want it. I had the exact same problem and it's annoying! The only way I solved it was using the Surface Fitting Tool (sftool) to create a surface then integrating it.
After you create your fit using the tool (it has a GUI as well), it will generate an sftool object which you can then integrate in (2-D) using quad2d
I also tried your method of using interp2 and got the results (which were similar to the sfobject) but I had no idea how to do a numerical integration (line/surface) with the data. Creating thesfobject and then integrating it was much faster.
It was the first time I do something like this so I confirmed it using a numerically evaluated line integral. According to Stoke's theorem, the surface integral and the line integral should be the same and it did turn out to be the same.
I asked this question in the mathematics stackexchange, wanted to do a line integral of 2-d data, ended up doing a surface integral and then confirming the answer using a line integral!