I have a vector z that I want to approximate by a linear combination of two other vectors (x,y) such that the residual of a*x+b*y and z is minimized. Also I want to keep one coefficient (a) positive for the fitting.
Any suggestions which command may help?
Thanks!
If you didn't have a bound on one of the coefficients, your problem could have been viewed as multiple regression (solved in matlab by regress). Since one of the coefficients is bounded, you should use lsqlin. This function solves least squares problems with bounds or inequalities on the coefficients. Don't forget to include an all-ones intercept predictor if your signals are not centered.
I think that fminsearch would be an overshoot in this case, since lsqlin does exactly what you want.
You have to define a function, which desribes the cost. The lower the cost is, the better the solution. The output must be a single scalar, e.g. the norm of the difference.
To avoid negative values for x, add something like (x<0)*inf. This rejects every solution with a negative x.
If done so, use fminsearch for a numeric solution.
Related
I have the following problem. I have a N x N real matrix called Z(x; t), where x and t might be vectors in general. I have N_s observations (x_k, Z_k), k=1,..., N_s and I'd like to find the vector of parameters t that better approximates the data in the least square sense, which means I want t that minimizes
S(t) = \sum_{k=1}^{N_s} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^N (Z_{k, i j} - Z(x_k; t))^2
This is in general a non-linear fitting of a matrix function. I'm only finding examples in which one has to fit scalar functions which are not immediately generalizable to a matrix function (nor a vector function). I tried using the scipy.optimize.leastsq function, the package symfit and lmfit, but still I don't manage to find a solution. Eventually, I'm ending up writing my own code...any help is appreciated!
You can do curve-fitting with multi-dimensional data. As far as I am aware, none of the low-level algorithms explicitly support multidimensional data, but they do minimize a one-dimensional array in the least-squares sense. And the fitting methods do not really care about the "independent variable(s)" x except in that they help you calculate the array to be minimized - perhaps to calculate a model function to match to y data.
That is to say: if you can write a function that would take the parameter values and calculate the matrix to be minimized, just flatten that 2-d (on n-d) array to one dimension. The fit will not mind.
I'm solving a second order differential equation in MATLAB using a finite element method, where I write the second order derivative of a function f as:
d^2f/dx^2 = (f_{i}-f_{i-1}/(x_{i}-x{i-1}) - f_{i+1}-f_{i}/(x_{i+1}-x{i})/(x_{i+1}-x{i-1})/2
Now this operation on f can be translated into a matrix, for which I can then find the eigenvectors, which then are the solutions to the given differential equation.
All this works well for a uniform grid of x-values, i.e. same spacing. But when I try to do it for a nonuniform I get oscillations that should not be there, because the values in the matrix are weighted differently depending on how close the neighbouring grid points are.
Is my approach wrong? Should I use some kind of weighting to take care of the nonuniformity?
I am not sure if I got it right, but the relation you wrote:
d^2f/dx^2 = (f_{i}-f_{i-1}/(x_{i}-x{i-1}) - f_{i+1}-f_{i}/(x_{i+1}-x{i})/(x_{i+1}-x{i-1})/2
looks like finite difference NOT finite element!!!
Otherwise, finite element method does not care (much) about the change of element size from one point to the other in most of the mechanics problems.
If you are handling a finite difference problem, the method does not have to have a regular mesh, but the relations have to be written "carefully" in order to avoid the confusion that may be included in the system matrices.
Hi I am trying to solve a linear system of the following type:
A*x=b,
where A is the coefficient matrix,
x is the vectors of unknowns and
b is the vector of solution.
The coefficient matrix (A) is a n-by-n sparse matrix, with even zeros in the diagonal. In order to solve this system in an accurate way I am using an iterative method in Matlab called bicgstab (Biconjugate gradients stabilized method).
This coefficient matrix (A) has a
det(A)=-4.1548e-05 and a rcond(A)= 1.1331e-04.
Therefore the matrix is ill-conditioned. I first try to perform a scaling and the results where:
det(A)= -1.2612e+135 but the rcond(A)=5.0808e-07...
Therefore the matrix is still ill-conditioned... I verify and the sum of all absolute value of the non-diagonal elements where 163.60 and the sum of all absolute value of the diagonal elements where 32.49... Therefore the matrix of coefficient is not diagonally dominant and will not converge using my function bicgstab...
I am looking for someone that can help me with performing a pivoting to the coefficient matrix (A) so it can be diagonally dominant. Or any advice to solve this problem....
Thanks for the help.
First there should be quite a few things noted here:
Don't use the determinant to estimate the "amount of singularity" of your matrix. The determinant is the product of all the eigenvalues of your matrix, and therefore its scaling can be wildly misleading compared to a much better measure like the condition number, leading to the next point..
your conditioning (according to rcond) isn't that bad, are you working with single or double precision? Large problems can routinely get condition numbers in this range and still be quite solvable, but of course this depends on a very complicated interaction of many factors, of which the condition number plays only a small part. This leads to another complicated point:
Diagonal dominance may not help you at all here. BiCGStab as far as I know does not require diagonal dominance for its convergence, and also I don't think diagonal dominance is known even to help it. Diagonal dominance is usually an assumption made by other iterative methods such as the Jacobi method or Gauss-Seidel. Actually the convergence behavior of BiCGStab is not very well understood at all, and it is usually only used when memory is a very severe problem but conjugate gradients is not applicable.
If you are really interested in using a Krylov method (such as BiCGStab) to solve your problem, then you generally need to have more understanding of where your matrix is coming from so that you can choose a sensible preconditioner.
So this calls for a bit more information. Do you know more about this matrix? Is it arising from some kind of physical problem? Do you know for example if it is symmetric or positive definite (I will assume not both because you are not using CG).
Let me end with some actionable advice which is very generic, and so not necessarily optimal:
If memory is not an issue, consider using restarted GMRES instead of BiCGStab. My experience is that GMRES has much more robust convergence.
Try an approximate factorization preconditioner such as ILU. MATLAB has a function for this built in.
I'm not too familiar with MATLAB or computational mathematics so I was wondering how I might solve an equation involving the sum of squares, where each term involves two vectors- one known and one unknown. This formula is supposed to represent the error and I need to minimize the error. I think I'm supposed to use least squares but I don't know too much about it and I'm wondering what function is best for doing that and what arguments would represent my equation. My teacher also mentioned something about taking derivatives and he formed a matrix using derivatives which confused me even more- am I required to take derivatives?
The problem that you must be trying to solve is
Min u'u = min \sum_i u_i^2, u=y-Xbeta, where u is the error, y is the vector of dependent variables you are trying to explain, X is a matrix of independent variables and beta is the vector you want to estimate.
Since sum u_i^2 is diferentiable (and convex), you can evaluate the minimal of this expression calculating its derivative and making it equal to zero.
If you do that, you find that beta=inv(X'X)X'y. This maybe calculated using the matlab function regress http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/regress.html or writing this formula in Matlab. However, you should be careful how to evaluate the inverse (X'X) see Most efficient matrix inversion in MATLAB
from a simulation problem, I want to calculate complex square matrices on the order of 1000x1000 in MATLAB. Since the values refer to those of Bessel functions, the matrices are not at all sparse.
Since I am interested in the change of the determinant with respect to some parameter (the energy of a searched eigenfunction in my case), I overcome the problem at the moment by first searching a rescaling factor for the studied range and then calculate the determinants,
result(k) = det(pre_factor*Matrix{k});
Now this is a very awkward solution and only works for matrix dimensions of, say, maximum 500x500.
Does anybody know a nice solution to the problem? Interfacing to Mathematica might work in principle but I have my doubts concerning feasibility.
Thank you in advance
Robert
Edit: I did not find a convient solution to the calculation problem since this would require changing to a higher precision. Instead, I used that
ln det M = trace ln M
which is, when I derive it with respect to k
A = trace(inv(M(k))*dM/dk)
So I at least had the change of the logarithm of the determinant with respect to k. From the physical background of the problem I could derive constraints on A which in the end gave me a workaround valid for my problem. Unfortunately I do not know if such a workaround could be generalized.
You should realize that when you multiply a matrix by a constant k, then you scale the determinant of the matrix by k^n, where n is the dimension of the matrix. So for n = 1000, and k = 2, you scale the determinant by
>> 2^1000
ans =
1.07150860718627e+301
This is of course a huge number, so you might expect that it should fail, since in double precision, MATLAB will only represent floating point numbers as large as realmax.
>> realmax
ans =
1.79769313486232e+308
There is no need to do all the work of recomputing that determinant, not that computing the determinant of a huge matrix like that is a terribly well-posed problem anyway.
If speed is not a concern, you may want to use det(e^A) = e^(tr A) and take as A some scaling constant times your matrix (so that A - I has spectral radius less than one).
EDIT: In MatLab, the log of a matrix (logm) is calculated via trigonalization. So it is better for you to compute the eigenvalues of your matrix and multiply them (or better, add their logarithm). You did not specify whether your matrix was symmetric or not: if it is, finding eigenvalues are easier than if it is not.
You said the current value of the determinant is about 10^-300.
Are you trying to get the determinant at a certain value, say 1? If so, rescaling is awkward: the matrix you are considering is ill-conditioned, and, considering the precision of the machine, you should consider the output determinant to be zero. It is impossible to get a reliable inverse in other words.
I would suggest to modify the columns or lines of the matrix rather than rescale it.
I used R to make a small test with a random matrix (random normal values), it seems the determinant should be clearly non-zero.
> n=100
> M=matrix(rnorm(n**2),n,n)
> det(M)
[1] -1.977380e+77
> kappa(M)
[1] 2318.188
This is not strictly a matlab solution, but you might want to consider using Mahout. It's specifically designed for large-scale linear algebra. (1000x1000 is no problem for the scales it's used to.)
You would call into java to pass data to/from Mahout.