I have some data which I've undertaken a 7 order polynomial regression on using r; the plot resembles a bell curve.
I need to find the two steepest parts of the curve. So far I have managed to find and show the steepest ascending slope, now I need the steepest descending slope.
Here is what I have so far:
attach(DATA1)
names(DATA1)
"dist" "ohms"
plot(dist,ohms)
reg<-lm(ohms~poly(dist,7))
summary(reg)
lines(smooth.spline(dist,predict(reg)))
xv<-seq(min(dist),max(dist),0.02)
yv<-predict(reg,list(dist=xv))
lines(xv,yv,lwd=2)
plot(xv,yv,type="l")
xv[which(abs(diff(yv))==max(abs(diff(yv))))]
abline(v=xv[which(abs(diff(yv))==max(abs(diff(yv))))])
Does anybody know how to find the steepest descending part of the slope?
Thanks
I think that you have a problem here:
abs(diff(yv))==max(abs(diff(yv)))
In this line, diff(yv) is almost the derivative of yv. By taking the absolute value of it you are ignoring whether yv increases or decreases so you'll get either the steepest ascent or descent, but you will not know which one.
Since you are interested in finding the steepest ascent and descent try this instead:
diff(yv) == max(diff(yv))
diff(yv) == min(diff(yv))
The first should return true when the change in yv is maximum (steepest ascent) and the second one where it has the steepest descent.
Related
I'm using the 'spatstat' package in R and obtained a set of Ripley's K functions (or L functions). I want to find a good way to average out this set of graphs on a single average line, as well as graphing out the standard deviation or confidence interval around this average line.
So far I've tried:
env.A <- envelope(A, fun=Lest, correction=c("Ripley"), nsim=99, rank=1, global=TRUE)
Aa <- env.A
avg <- eval.fv((Aa+Bb+Cc+Dd+Ee+Ff+Gg+Hh+Ii+Jj+Kk+Ll+Mm+Nn+Oo+Pp+Qq+Rr+Ss+Tt+Uu+Vv+Ww+Xx)/24)
plot(avg, xlim=c(0,200), . - r ~ r, ylab='', legend='')
With this, I got the average line from the data set.
However, I'm now stuck on finding the confidence interval around this average line.
Does anyone know a good way to do this?
The help file for envelope explains how to do this.
E <- envelope(A, Lest, correction="Ripley", nsim=100, VARIANCE=TRUE)
plot(E, . - r ~ r)
See help(envelope) for more explanation.
In this example, the average or middle curve is computed using a theoretical formula, because the simulations are generated from Complete Spatial Randomness, and the theoretical value of the L function is known. If you want the middle curve to be determined by the sample averages instead, set use.theo = FALSE in the call to envelope.
Can I also point out that the bands you get from envelope are not confidence intervals. A confidence interval would be centred around the estimated L function for the data point pattern A. The bands you get from the envelope command are centred around the mean value of the simulated curves. They are significance bands and their interpretation is related to a statistical significance test. This is also explained in the help file.
I am attempting to understand how the predict.loess function is able to compute new predicted values (y_hat) at points x that do not exist in the original data. For example (this is a simple example and I realize loess is obviously not needed for an example of this sort but it illustrates the point):
x <- 1:10
y <- x^2
mdl <- loess(y ~ x)
predict(mdl, 1.5)
[1] 2.25
loess regression works by using polynomials at each x and thus it creates a predicted y_hat at each y. However, because there are no coefficients being stored, the "model" in this case is simply the details of what was used to predict each y_hat, for example, the span or degree. When I do predict(mdl, 1.5), how is predict able to produce a value at this new x? Is it interpolating between two nearest existing x values and their associated y_hat? If so, what are the details behind how it is doing this?
I have read the cloess documentation online but am unable to find where it discusses this.
However, because there are no coefficients being stored, the "model" in this case is simply the details of what was used to predict each y_hat
Maybe you have used print(mdl) command or simply mdl to see what the model mdl contains, but this is not the case. The model is really complicated and stores a big number of parameters.
To have an idea what's inside, you may use unlist(mdl) and see the big list of parameters in it.
This is a part of the manual of the command describing how it really works:
Fitting is done locally. That is, for the fit at point x, the fit is made using points in a neighbourhood of x, weighted by their distance from x (with differences in ‘parametric’ variables being ignored when computing the distance). The size of the neighbourhood is controlled by α (set by span or enp.target). For α < 1, the neighbourhood includes proportion α of the points, and these have tricubic weighting (proportional to (1 - (dist/maxdist)^3)^3). For α > 1, all points are used, with the ‘maximum distance’ assumed to be α^(1/p) times the actual maximum distance for p explanatory variables.
For the default family, fitting is by (weighted) least squares. For
family="symmetric" a few iterations of an M-estimation procedure with
Tukey's biweight are used. Be aware that as the initial value is the
least-squares fit, this need not be a very resistant fit.
What I believe is that it tries to fit a polynomial model in the neighborhood of every point (not just a single polynomial for the whole set). But the neighborhood does not mean only one point before and one point after, if I was implementing such a function I put a big weight on the nearest points to the point x, and lower weights to distal points, and tried to fit a polynomial that fits the highest total weight.
Then if the given x' for which height should be predicted is closest to point x, I tried to use the polynomial fitted on the neighborhoods of the point x - say P(x) - and applied it over x' - say P(x') - and that would be the prediction.
Let me know if you are looking for anything special.
To better understand what is happening in a loess fit try running the loess.demo function from the TeachingDemos package. This lets you interactively click on the plot (even between points) and it then shows the set of points and their weights used in the prediction and the predicted line/curve for that point.
Note also that the default for loess is to do a second smoothing/interpolating on the loess fit, so what you see in the fitted object is probably not the true loess fitting information, but the secondary smoothing.
Found the answer on page 42 of the manual:
In this algorithm a set of points typically small in number is selected for direct
computation using the loess fitting method and a surface is evaluated using an interpolation
method that is based on blending functions. The space of the factors is divided into
rectangular cells using an algorithm based on k-d trees. The loess fit is evaluated at
the cell vertices and then blending functions do the interpolation. The output data
structure stores the k-d trees and the fits at the vertices. This information
is used by predict() to carry out the interpolation.
I geuss that for predict at x, predict.loess make a regression with some points near x, and calculate the y-value at x.
Visit https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/223469/how-does-a-loess-model-do-its-prediction
I have the following pairs of points:
(0 , 100) ; (0.81 , 41) ; (1.38 , 20) ; (1.75 , 9) ; (2 , 4)
How can I determine the equation of the curve passing through this points?
Thanks very much!
UPDATE
What I'm trying to achieve is to get the function representative of the height decrease depicted in the picture.
There are infinitely many curves passing through these points. You have to be more specific.
If you want the minimal degree polynomial that passes through them you can use Lagrange interpolation polynomial.
With your example it would be a polynomial of degree 4.
But as I said if you allow for higher degrees you would get infinitely many results.
You can use lots of representations, depending on your requirements for continuity at each point.
Piecewise linear segments will "work", but you could also go with higher order piecewise interpolations. You could use Bezier or some other splining technique.
You could assume a single polynomial of order 4 and calculate the coefficients so it passed through each point.
There are lots of ways to do it.
If your data is x_i,y_i (i=1..n) you could fit a line through x_i,log(y_i); if that line is log(y_i) ~ a*x_i + b, then x->exp(b)*exp(a*x) may well fit the original data.
I found this website which seems to be precisely what I need. I just have to input my data pairs and choose the appropriate degree (in my case 4). It then compute the correlation factor and the equation.
http://www.arachnoid.com/polysolve/index.html
If I got a polynomial curve, and I want to find all monotonic curve segments and corresponding intervals by programming.
What's the best way to do this...
I want to avoid solving equation like f'(x) = 0;
Using some nice numerical ways to do this,like bi-section, is preferred.
f'(x) expression is available.
Thanks.
Add additional details. For example, I get a curve in 2d space, and its polynomial is
x: f(t)
y: g(t)
t is [0,1]
So, if I want to get its monotonic curve segment, I must know the position of t where its tangent vector is (1,0).
One direct way to resolve this is to setup an equation "f'(x) = 0".
But I want to use the most efficient way to do this.
For example, I try to use recursive ways to find this.
Divide the range [0,1] to four parts, and check whether the four tangents projection on vector (1,0) are in same direction, and two points are close enough. If not, continue to divide the range into 4 parts, until they are in same direction in (1,0) and (0,1), and close enough.
I think you will have to find the roots of f'(x) using a numerical method (feel free to implement any root-seeking algorithm you want, Wikipedia has a list). The roots will be those points where the gradient reaches zero; say x1, x2, x3.
You then have a set of intervals (-inf, x1) (x1, x2) etc, continuity of a polynomial ensures that the gradient will be always positive or always negative between a particular pair of points.
So evaluating the gradient sign at a point within each interval will tell you whether that interval is monotically increasing or not. If you don't care for a "strictly" increasing section, you could patch together adjacent intervals which have positive gradient (as a point of inflection will show up as one of the f'(x)=0 roots).
As an alternative to computing the roots of f', you can also use Sturm Sequences.
They allow counting the number of roots (here, the roots of f') in an interval.
The monotic curve segments are delimited by the roots of f'(x). You can find the roots by using an iterative algorithm like Newton's method.
I attached image:
(source: piccy.info)
So in this image there is a diagram of the function, which is defined on the given points.
For example on points x=1..N.
Another diagram, which was drawn as a semitransparent curve,
That is what I want to get from the original diagram,
i.e. I want to approximate the original function so that it becomes smooth.
Are there any methods for doing that?
I heard about least squares method, which can be used to approximate a function by straight line or by parabolic function. But I do not need to approximate by parabolic function.
I probably need to approximate it by trigonometric function.
So are there any methods for doing that?
And one idea, is it possible to use the Least squares method for this problem, if we can deduce it for trigonometric functions?
One more question!
If I use the discrete Fourier transform and think about the function as a sum of waves, so may be noise has special features by which we can define it and then we can set to zero the corresponding frequency and then perform inverse Fourier transform.
So if you think that it is possible, then what can you suggest in order to identify the frequency of noise?
Unfortunately many solutions here presented don't solve the problem and/or they are plain wrong.
There are many approaches and they are specifically built to solve conditions and requirements you must be aware of !
a) Approximation theory: If you have a very sharp defined function without errors (given by either definition or data) and you want to trace it exactly as possible, you are using
polynominal or rational approximation by Chebyshev or Legendre polynoms, meaning that you
approach the function by a polynom or, if periodical, by Fourier series.
b) Interpolation: If you have a function where some points (but not the whole curve!) are given and you need a function to get through this points, you can use several methods:
Newton-Gregory, Newton with divided differences, Lagrange, Hermite, Spline
c) Curve fitting: You have a function with given points and you want to draw a curve with a given (!) function which approximates the curve as closely as possible. There are linear
and nonlinear algorithms for this case.
Your drawing implicates:
It is not remotely like a mathematical function.
It is not sharply defined by data or function
You need to fit the curve, not some points.
What do you want and need is
d) Smoothing: Given a curve or datapoints with noise or rapidly changing elements, you only want to see the slow changes over time.
You can do that with LOESS as Jacob suggested (but I find that overkill, especially because
choosing a reasonable span needs some experience). For your problem, I simply recommend
the running average as suggested by Jim C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_average
Sorry, cdonner and Orendorff, your proposals are well-minded, but completely wrong because you are using the right tools for the wrong solution.
These guys used a sixth polynominal to fit climate data and embarassed themselves completely.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
Use loess in R (free).
E.g. here the loess function approximates a noisy sine curve.
(source: stowers-institute.org)
As you can see you can tweak the smoothness of your curve with span
Here's some sample R code from here:
Step-by-Step Procedure
Let's take a sine curve, add some
"noise" to it, and then see how the
loess "span" parameter affects the
look of the smoothed curve.
Create a sine curve and add some noise:
period <- 120 x <- 1:120 y <-
sin(2*pi*x/period) +
runif(length(x),-1,1)
Plot the points on this noisy sine curve:
plot(x,y, main="Sine Curve +
'Uniform' Noise") mtext("showing
loess smoothing (local regression
smoothing)")
Apply loess smoothing using the default span value of 0.75:
y.loess <- loess(y ~ x, span=0.75,
data.frame(x=x, y=y))
Compute loess smoothed values for all points along the curve:
y.predict <- predict(y.loess,
data.frame(x=x))
Plot the loess smoothed curve along with the points that were already
plotted:
lines(x,y.predict)
You could use a digital filter like a FIR filter. The simplest FIR filter is just a running average. For more sophisticated treatment look a something like a FFT.
This is called curve fitting. The best way to do this is to find a numeric library that can do it for you. Here is a page showing how to do this using scipy. The picture on that page shows what the code does:
(source: scipy.org)
Now it's only 4 lines of code, but the author doesn't explain it at all. I'll try to explain briefly here.
First you have to decide what form you want the answer to be. In this example the author wants a curve of the form
f(x) = p0 cos (2π/p1 x + p2) + p3 x
You might instead want the sum of several curves. That's OK; the formula is an input to the solver.
The goal of the example, then, is to find the constants p0 through p3 to complete the formula. scipy can find this array of four constants. All you need is an error function that scipy can use to see how close its guesses are to the actual sampled data points.
fitfunc = lambda p, x: p[0]*cos(2*pi/p[1]*x+p[2]) + p[3]*x # Target function
errfunc = lambda p: fitfunc(p, Tx) - tX # Distance to the target function
errfunc takes just one parameter: an array of length 4. It plugs those constants into the formula and calculates an array of values on the candidate curve, then subtracts the array of sampled data points tX. The result is an array of error values; presumably scipy will take the sum of the squares of these values.
Then just put some initial guesses in and scipy.optimize.leastsq crunches the numbers, trying to find a set of parameters p where the error is minimized.
p0 = [-15., 0.8, 0., -1.] # Initial guess for the parameters
p1, success = optimize.leastsq(errfunc, p0[:])
The result p1 is an array containing the four constants. success is 1, 2, 3, or 4 if ths solver actually found a solution. (If the errfunc is sufficiently crazy, the solver can fail.)
This looks like a polynomial approximation. You can play with polynoms in Excel ("Add Trendline" to a chart, select Polynomial, then increase the order to the level of approximation that you need). It shouldn't be too hard to find an algorithm/code for that.
Excel can show the equation that it came up with for the approximation, too.