MathGroup Archive 2005

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: changing algorithm, finding residuals w/FindFit

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg56904] Re: changing algorithm, finding residuals w/FindFit
  • From: dh <dh at>
  • Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 03:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <d59l9q$6h6$> <> <d5ctld$mcc$>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Hi Ed,
see below
Sincerely, Daniel

Edward Peschko wrote:

 >On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:15:19AM +0200, dh wrote:
 >>Hi Ed,
 >>if you want linear least square, you can use the one liner:
 >>points[[All, 2]] - ( Fit[points, {1, x, x^2}, x] /. x :> points[[All, 
 >ok, now suppose that I wanted to make a list of points containing both 
 >residual *and* the x-coordinate associated with that residual.
 >The best I've come up with is:
 >residuals = Thread
 >          [
 >               {
 >                    points[[All,1]],
 >                    points[[All,2]] - (func /. x:> points[[All,1]] )
 >               }
 >          ]
Your ideas are basically o.k., but the above will not work. Thread takes 
Take another point of view:
Considering the list of points, you want to replace the y values by the 
residuals. Towards this aim we define a pure function:  (...)& and use 
Map /@:

{#[[1]],#[[2]]-fun/.x->#[[1]] }& /@ points

This leaves the x value unchanged and replaces the y value by the 
residual. Further, if you later want to encapsulate everything into a 
function, it is not convenient to work with expressions like your "func" 
because you have the arbitrary variable "x" . It is better to use a 
"pure" function. E.g.

fun1=Evaluate[fun/.x -> # ]&

this can now be applied like a "real" function. e.g. fun1[2.]
With this we can define  the function residuals:

residuals[points_,fun_]:={#[[1]],#[[2]]-fun[#[[1]]]}& /@ points

and you would call it like:


Note that we need a "pure" function now.

 >where func == 1 + x + 0. x^2. I'm not sure, but this is how I read it:
 >    'All' gives a cross-array slice in an array of arrays

All simply means every value of the index. It does not matter if we have 
a 1,2,.. dimensional array.

 >    '-', given two arrays, applies that operation to each element of that
 >         array

provided the two arrays have the same shape or we have a scalar and an 

 >    x:> points[[All, 1]] applies a production rule that substitutes x for
 >         each x value in the cross-array slice.
 >    the parens group in the second expression so that instead of doing 
 >    combination of evals and getting back
 >        (
 >            (y1 - func(x1), y1 - func(x2), y1 - func(x3)),
 >            (y2 - func(x1), y2 - func(x2), y2 - func(x3)),
 >            etc.
 >        )
 >    you get back:
 >           (y1 - func(x1), y2-func(x2), y3 - func(x3))
 >    Finally, Thread applied on the whole thing interleaves values to get
 >           ((x1, y1-func(x1)), (x2, y2 - func(x2)), (x3, y3 - func(x3)))
 >Is that basically right? Is there a way to do this in an easier way?
 >Now... how would you make this into a generic function that took an 
array of
 >2D points and a function with one variable? I'd like to be able to call
 >    Residual[ points, function, ResidualType -> xsquared ]
 >and return back a list of points, with their x values and their associated
 >vertical residuals. And I'd love to be able to expand this later on to 
have different
 >types of residuals. And more to the point it would be a great 
programming exercise.
 >I would think to be truly production worthy, it would need to be able to:
 >     1) query the function, figure out if it is of the form:
 >        f[x_] = ...
 >        or is simply a variable that could use /. to substitute for 
 >     2) if it found none or more than one variable, return an exception
 >     3) query the points, and see that they are in fact a two dimensional
 >        array of points (ie: validate their data structure)
 >     4) return back a list of point pairs.
 >Any ideas on how to do on the above? and is there perhaps a good 
 >text on mathematica that people would recommend?

I myself learned it by reading the "BOOK". It is long, but for 
programming you can jump over the type setting stuff.  Further,for 
beginners there is a book from Nancy Blachman (hope I remember the name 
correctly) or there is the book from Roman Maeder and many others I do 
no more remember.

 >(ps -
 >>The option "Method" can have following values:
 >> Possible settings for Method include "ConjugateGradient", "Gradient",
 >>"LevenbergMarquardt", "Newton" and "QuasiNewton", with the default being
 >Hmm.. I didn't notice any of this when going through the 'help' icon for
 >findFit. It just says:
 >     'method automatic'
 >with no links to point to the various methods. Perhaps the documentation
 >could be updated?

Hi, in the Help for FindFit (version 5.1) you find:
"Possible settings for Method are as for FindMinimum. "

 >    pps - another thing with the online help menu - I noticed that the
 >    items that are found by 'go' depend on which tab that is open.
 >    Which I guess makes sense, once you know what you are doing.
 >    But perhaps a 'search all' button would be helpful (next to the
 >    'Go' button would help) - if nothing but to remind you that you
 >    are only searching under one tab, not everything.

Sort of an "Search All" is the "Master Index" tab.

 >    I missed finding all the info on the statistical packages not
 >    knowing this. And who knows what else..


Daniel Huber
Metrohm Ltd.
Oberdorfstr. 68
CH-9100 Herisau
Tel. +41 71 353 8585, Fax +41 71 353 8907
E-Mail:<mailto:dh at>

  • Prev by Date: Representation and Simulation of Dynamic Systems
  • Next by Date: Re: Mathematica Notebook Organiztion
  • Previous by thread: Re: changing algorithm, finding residuals w/FindFit
  • Next by thread: letrec/named let