Skip to main content

performance tuning - Efficiency problem with least square algorithm (Error in both variables)


I was informing myself about the least square algorithms with errors in x and y. I found this post and the top answer wasn't working for magnitudes around 10^-20. Because I couldn't figure out why, I completed the code from belisarius to also produce errors on slope and intercept. But my code is really, really slow, if I take 10 or more {x, y} pairs with errors it takes way too long. I think it's the Reduce part that slows it down so much, but I don't know how to make it more efficient. Also the function output isn't really elegant yet.



LinFit[xi_List, yi_List, errx_List, erry_List]:=
Module[{n=Length@xi,wi,ui,vi,wmean,d,g,a,b,set,least,c,wxi,wyi},
wxi=errx^-2;
wyi=erry^-2;
wi[i_,m_]:=wxi[[i]] wyi[[i]]/(m^2 wyi[[i]]+wxi[[i]]);
ui[i_,m_]:=xi[[i]]-wmean[xi,m];
vi[i_,m_]:=yi[[i]]-wmean[yi,m];
wmean[q_List,m_]:=Sum[wi[i,m] q[[i]],{i,n}]/Sum[wi[i,m],{i,n}];
d[m_]:=Sum[wi[i,m]^2 ui[i,m]^2/wxi[[i]],{i,n}];
g[m_]:=-Sum[wi[i,m] ui[i,m] vi[i,m],{i,n}]/d[m];

a[m_]:=2 Sum[wi[i,m]^2 ui[i,m] vi[i,m]/wxi[[i]],{i,n}]/(3 d[m]);
b[m_]:=(Sum[wi[i,m]^2 vi[i,m]^2/wxi[[i]],{i,n}]-Sum[wi[i,m] ui[i,m]^2{i,n}])/(3d[m]);

set={ToRules@Reduce[\[FormalM]^3-3 a[\[FormalM]] \[FormalM] \[FormalM]+
3 b[\[FormalM]] \[FormalM]-g[\[FormalM]]==0&&\[FormalC]==wmean[yi,\[FormalM]]-
\[FormalM]wmean[xi,\[FormalM]]&&\[FormalA]==Sqrt[1/(n-2) Sum[wi[i,\[FormalM]]
( \[FormalM] ui[i,\[FormalM]]-vi[i,\[FormalM]])^2,{i,n}]/
Sum[wi[i,\[FormalM]] ui[i,\[FormalM]]^2,{i,n}]]&&\[FormalB]==Sqrt[(
Sum[wi[i,\[FormalM]] xi[[i]]^2,{i,n}]/Sum[wi[i,\[FormalM]],{i,n}])*
\[FormalA]^2],{\[FormalM],\[FormalC],\[FormalA],\[FormalB]},

Backsubstitution->True]};
least=Sum[wxi[[i]] (xi[[i]]-(yi[[i]]-\[FormalC])/\[FormalM])^2+wyi[[i]] (yi[[i]]-
(\[FormalM] xi[[i]]+\[FormalC]))^2,{i,Length@xi}]/.set[[Flatten@Position[
\[FormalM]/.set,_Real]]];
c=Flatten@set[[Flatten@Position[\[FormalM]/.set,_Real]]][[Position[
least,Min@least][[1]]]];
{Function[(\[FormalM]/.c[[1]])#+\[FormalC]/.c[[2]]][x],
{\[FormalA]/.c[[3]],\[FormalB]/.c[[4]]}}
]

Answer




"worals" is an acronym for Weighted Orthogonal Regression by Alternating Least Squares.
Arguments: x and y are lists of measured values,
sx and sy are lists of the corresponding standard errors of measurement.
The returned values are {chisquare, {intercept, slope}}.


worals[x_, y_, sx_, sy_] := Block[{a,b,f,z, u = 1/sx, v = 1/sy, w = (sy/sx)^2},
{a,b} = (y*v).PseudoInverse@{v,x*v}; f = #.#&[(a+b*x-y)v];
While[f > (z = (x*w + (y-a)b)/(b^2 + w);
{a,b} = (y*v).PseudoInverse@{v,z*v};
f = #.#&@Join[(z-x)u,(a+b*z-y)v])];
{f,{a,b}}]


If the true relation is linear, and if the errors are independent normal with zero means and standard deviations as given in sx & sy, (or, more to the point, if the foregoing are not too far from truth) then the returned chisquare will have a Chi-Square distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom, where n = Length@x. The corresponding p-value is GammaRegularized[(n-2)/2, chisquare/2].


EDIT, responding to questions.


The model is {x = z + d, y = a + b*z + e}, where d & e are random errors, and a, b, & z are unknowns for which values are to be found that minimize the weighted sum of squares f = #.# & @ Join[(z-x)/sx,(a+b*z-y)/sy]. We start with z = x, then minimize f alternately with respect to either {a,b} or z with the other held constant, until f no longer changes.


To estimate the error in {a,b}, I usually jackknife the solution:


n = Length@x; {f,ab} = worals[x,y,sx,sy];
{jab,jc} = {ab + (n-1)(ab-Mean@#), (n-1)^2/n Covariance@#}& @
Table[Last[worals@@(Delete[#,i]&/@{x,y,sx,sy})],{i,n}]

jab is the jackknifed estimate of {a,b}, and jc is the jackknifed estimate of its covariance matrix; Sqrt@Diagonal@jc gives the estimates of the two standard errors.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.