Does anyone have experience with algorithms for evaluating hypergeometric functions? I would be interested in general references, but I'll describe my particular problem in case someone has dealt with it.
My specific problem is evaluating a function of the form 3F2(a, b, 1; c, d; 1) where a, b, c, and d are all positive reals and c+d > a+b+1. There are many special cases that have a closed-form formula, but as far as I know there are no such formulas in general. The power series centered at zero converges at 1, but very slowly; the ratio of consecutive coefficients goes to 1 in the limit. Maybe something like Aitken acceleration would help?
I tested Aitken acceleration and it does not seem to help for this problem (nor does Richardson extrapolation). This probably means Pade approximation doesn't work either. I might have done something wrong though, so by all means try it for yourself.
I can think of two approaches.
One is to evaluate the series at some point such as z = 0.5 where convergence is rapid to get an initial value and then step forward to z = 1 by plugging the hypergeometric differential equation into an ODE solver. I don't know how well this works in practice; it might not, due to z = 1 being a singularity (if I recall correctly).
The second is to use the definition of 3F2 in terms of the Meijer G-function. The contour integral defining the Meijer G-function can be evaluated numerically by applying Gaussian or doubly-exponential quadrature to segments of the contour. This is not terribly efficient, but it should work, and it should scale to relatively high precision.
Is it correct that you want to sum a series where you know the ratio of successive terms and it is a rational function?
I think Gosper's algorithm and the rest of the tools for proving hypergeometric identities (and finding them) do exactly this, right? (See Wilf and Zielberger's A=B book online.)
Related
I am reading the book "Introduction to linear algebra" by Gilbert Strang. The section is called "Orthonormal Bases and Gram-Schmidt". The author several times emphasised the fact that with orthonormal basis it's very easy and fast to calculate Least Squares solution, since Qᵀ*Q = I, where Q is a design matrix with orthonormal basis. So your equation becomes x̂ = Qᵀb.
And I got the impression that it's a good idea to every time calculate QR decomposition before applying Least Squares. But later I figured out time complexity for QR decomposition and it turned out to be that calculating QR decomposition and after that applying Least Squares is more expensive than regular x̂ = inv(AᵀA)Aᵀb.
Is that right that there is no point in using QR decomposition to speed up Least Squares? Or maybe I got something wrong?
So the only purpose of QR decomposition regarding Least Squares is numerical stability?
There are many ways to do least squares; typically these vary in applicability, accuracy and speed.
Perhaps the Rolls-Royce method is to use SVD. This can be used to solve under-determined (fewer obs than states) and singular systems (where A'*A is not invertible) and is very accurate. It is also the slowest.
QR can only be used to solve non-singular systems (that is we must have A'*A invertible, ie A must be of full rank), and though perhaps not as accurate as SVD is also a good deal faster.
The normal equations ie
compute P = A'*A
solve P*x = A'*b
is the fastest (perhaps by a large margin if P can be computed efficiently, for example if A is sparse) but is also the least accurate. This too can only be used to solve non singular systems.
Inaccuracy should not be taken lightly nor dismissed as some academic fanciness. If you happen to know that the problems ypu will be solving are nicely behaved, then it might well be fine to use an inaccurate method. But otherwise the inaccurate routine might well fail (ie say there is no solution when there is, or worse come up with a totally bogus answer).
I'm a but confused that you seem to be suggesting forming and solving the normal equations after performing the QR decomposition. The usual way to use QR in least squares is, if A is nObs x nStates:
decompose A as A = Q*(R )
(0 )
transform b into b~ = Q'*b
(here R is upper triangular)
solve R * x = b# for x,
(here b# is the first nStates entries of b~)
I have been trying to implement a locally-weighted logistic regression algorithm in Ruby. As far as I know, no library currently exists for this algorithm, and there is very little information available, so it's been difficult.
My main resource has been the dissertation of Dr. Kan Deng, in which he described the algorithm in what I feel is pretty light detail. My work so far on the library is here.
I've run into trouble when trying to calculate B (beta). From what I understand, B is a (1+d x 1) vector that represents the local weighting for a particular point. After that, pi (the probability of a positive output) for that point is the sigmoid function based on the B for that point. To get B, use the Newton-Raphson algorithm recursively a certain number of times, probably no more than ten.
Equation 4-4 on page 66, the Newton-Raphson algorithm itself, doesn't make sense to me. Based on my understanding of what X and W are, (x.transpose * w * x).inverse * x.transpose * w should be a (1+d x N) matrix, which doesn't match up with B, which is (1+d x 1). The only way that would work, then, is if e were a (N x 1) vector.
At the top of page 67, under the picture, though, Dr. Deng just says that e is a ratio, which doesn't make sense to me. Is e Euler's Constant, and it just so happens that that ratio is always 2.718:1, or is it something else? Either way, the explanation doesn't seem to suggest, to me, that it's a vector, which leaves me confused.
The use of pi' is also confusing to me. Equation 4-5, the derivative of the sigmoid function w.r.t. B, gives a constant multiplied by a vector, or a vector. From my understanding, though, pi' is just supposed to be a number, to be multiplied by w and form the diagonal of the weight algorithm W.
So, my two main questions here are, what is e on page 67 and is that the 1xN matrix I need, and how does pi' in equation 4-5 end up a number?
I realize that this is a difficult question to answer, so if there is a good answer then I will come back in a few days and give it a fifty point bounty. I would send an e-mail to Dr. Deng, but I haven't been able to find out what happened to him after 1997.
If anyone has any experience with this algorithm or knows of any other resources, any help would be much appreciated!
As far as I can see, this is just a version of Logistic regression in which the terms in the log-likelihood function have a multiplicative weight depending on their distance from the point you are trying to classify. I would start by getting familiar with an explanation of logistic regression, such as http://czep.net/stat/mlelr.pdf. The "e" you mention seems to be totally unconnected with Euler's constant - I think he is using e for error.
If you can call Java from Ruby, you may be able to make use of the logistic classifier in Weka described at http://weka.sourceforge.net/doc.stable/weka/classifiers/functions/Logistic.html - this says "Although original Logistic Regression does not deal with instance weights, we modify the algorithm a little bit to handle the instance weights." If nothing else, you could download it and look at its source code. If you do this, note that it is a fairly sophisticated approach - for instance, they check beforehand to see if all the points actually lie pretty much in some subspace of the input space, and project down a few dimensions if they do.
Let P(x) denote the polynomial in question. The least fixed point (LFP) of P is the lowest value of x such that x=P(x). The polynomial has real coefficients. There is no guarantee in general that an LFP will exist, although one is guaranteed to exist if the degree is odd and ≥ 3. I know of an efficient solution if the degree is 3. x=P(x) thus 0=P(x)-x. There is a closed-form cubic formula, solving for x is somewhat trivial and can be hardcoded. Degrees 2 and 1 are similarly easy. It's the more complicated cases that I'm having trouble with, since I can't seem to come up with a good algorithm for arbitrary degree.
EDIT:
I'm only considering real fixed points and taking the least among them, not necessarily the fixed point with the least absolute value.
Just solve f(x) = P(x) - x using your favorite numerical method. For example, you could iterate
x_{n + 1} = x_n - P(x_n) / (P'(x_n) - 1).
You won't find closed-form formula in general because there aren't any closed-form formula for quintic and higher polynomials. Thus, for quintic and higher degree you have to use a numerical method of some sort.
Since you want the least fixed point, you can't get away without finding all real roots of P(x) - x and selecting the smallest.
Finding all the roots of a polynomial is a tricky subject. If you have a black box routine, then by all means use it. Otherwise, consider the following trick:
Form M the companion matrix of P(x) - x
Find all eigenvalues of M
but this requires you have access to a routine for finding eigenvalues (which is another tricky problem, but there are plenty of good libraries).
Otherwise, you can implement the Jenkins-Traub algorithm, which is a highly non trivial piece of code.
I don't really recommend finding a zero (with eg. Newton's method) and deflating until you reach degree one: it is very unstable if not done properly, and you'll lose a lot of accuracy (and it is very difficult to tackle multiple roots with it). The proper way do do it is in fact the above-mentioned Jenkins-Traub algorithm.
This problem is trying to find the "least" (here I'm not sure if you mean in magnitude or actually the smallest, which could be the most negative) root of a polynomial. There is no closed form solution for polynomials of large degree, but there are myriad numerical approaches to finding roots.
As is often the case, Wikipedia is a good place to begin your search.
If you want to find the smallest root, then you can use the rule of signs to pin down the interval where it exists and then use some numerical method to find roots in that interval.
I'm observing a sinusoidally-varying source, i.e. f(x) = a sin (bx + d) + c, and want to determine the amplitude a, offset c and period/frequency b - the shift d is unimportant. Measurements are sparse, with each source measured typically between 6 and 12 times, and observations are at (effectively) random times, with intervals between observations roughly between a quarter and ten times the period (just to stress, the spacing of observations is not constant for each source). In each source the offset c is typically quite large compared to the measurement error, while amplitudes vary - at one extreme they are only on the order of the measurement error, while at the other extreme they are about twenty times the error. Hopefully that fully outlines the problem, if not, please ask and i'll clarify.
Thinking naively about the problem, the average of the measurements will be a good estimate of the offset c, while half the range between the minimum and maximum value of the measured f(x) will be a reasonable estimate of the amplitude, especially as the number of measurements increase so that the prospects of having observed the maximum offset from the mean improve. However, if the amplitude is small then it seems to me that there is little chance of accurately determining b, while the prospects should be better for large-amplitude sources even if they are only observed the minimum number of times.
Anyway, I wrote some code to do a least-squares fit to the data for the range of periods, and it identifies best-fit values of a, b and d quite effectively for the larger-amplitude sources. However, I see it finding a number of possible periods, and while one is the 'best' (in as much as it gives the minimum error-weighted residual) in the majority of cases the difference in the residuals for different candidate periods is not large. So what I would like to do now is quantify the possibility that the derived period is a 'false positive' (or, to put it slightly differently, what confidence I can have that the derived period is correct).
Does anybody have any suggestions on how best to proceed? One thought I had was to use a Monte-Carlo algorithm to construct a large number of sources with known values for a, b and c, construct samples that correspond to my measurement times, fit the resultant sample with my fitting code, and see what percentage of the time I recover the correct period. But that seems quite heavyweight, and i'm not sure that it's particularly useful other than giving a general feel for the false-positive rate.
And any advice for frameworks that might help? I have a feeling this is something that can likely be done in a line or two in Mathematica, but (a) I don't know it, an (b) don't have access to it. I'm fluent in Java, competent in IDL and can probably figure out other things...
This looks tailor-made for working in the frequency domain. Apply a Fourier transform and identify the frequency based on where the power is located, which should be clear for a sinusoidal source.
ADDENDUM To get an idea of how accurate is your estimate, I'd try a resampling approach such as cross-validation. I think this is the direction that you're heading with the Monte Carlo idea; lots of work is out there, so hopefully that's a wheel you won't need to re-invent.
The trick here is to do what might seem at first to make the problem more difficult. Rewrite f in the similar form:
f(x) = a1*sin(b*x) + a2*cos(b*x) + c
This is based on the identity for the sin(u+v).
Recognize that if b is known, then the problem of estimating {a1, a2, c} is a simple LINEAR regression problem. So all you need to do is use a 1-variable minimization tool, working on the value of b, to minimize the sum of squares of the residuals from that linear regression model. There are many such univariate optimizers to be found.
Once you have those parameters, it is easy to find the parameter a in your original model, since that is all you care about.
a = sqrt(a1^2 + a2^2)
The scheme I have described is called a partitioned least squares.
If you have a reasonable estimate of the size and the nature of your noise (e.g. white Gaussian with SD sigma), you can
(a) invert the Hessian matrix to get an estimate of the error in your position and
(b) should be able to easily derive a significance statistic for your fit residues.
For (a), compare http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys6720/handouts/curve_fit/curve_fit/node6.html
For (b), assume that your measurement errors are independent and thus the variance of their sum is the sum of their variances.
I'm trying to perform some calculations on a non-directed, cyclic, weighted graph, and I'm looking for a good function to calculate an aggregate weight.
Each edge has a distance value in the range [1,∞). The algorithm should give greater importance to lower distances (it should be monotonically decreasing), and it should assign the value 0 for the distance ∞.
My first instinct was simply 1/d, which meets both of those requirements. (Well, technically 1/∞ is undefined, but programmers tend to let that one slide more easily than do mathematicians.) The problem with 1/d is that the function cares a lot more about the difference between 1/1 and 1/2 than the difference between 1/34 and 1/35. I'd like to even that out a bit more. I could use √(1/d) or ∛(1/d) or even ∜(1/d), but I feel like I'm missing out on a whole class of possibilities. Any suggestions?
(I thought of ln(1/d), but that goes to -∞ as d goes to ∞, and I can't think of a good way to push that up to 0.)
Later:
I forgot a requirement: w(1) must be 1. (This doesn't invalidate the existing answers; a multiplicative constant is fine.)
perhaps:
exp(-d)
edit: something along the lines of
exp(k(1-d)), k real
will fit your extra requirement (I'm sure you knew that but what the hey).
How about 1/ln (d + k)?
Some of the above answers are versions of a Gaussian distribution which I agree is a good choice. The Gaussian or normal distribution can be found often in nature. It is a B-Spline basis function of order-infinity.
One drawback to using it as a blending function is its infinite support requires more calculations than a finite blending function. A blend is found as a summation of product series. In practice the summation may stop when the next term is less than a tolerance.
If possible form a static table to hold discrete Gaussian function values since calculating the values is computationally expensive. Interpolate table values if needed.
How about this?
w(d) = (1 + k)/(d + k) for some large k
d = 2 + k would be the place where w(d) = 1/2
It seems you are in effect looking for a linear decrease, something along the lines of infinity - d. Obviously this solution is garbage, but since you are probably not using a arbitrary precision data type for the distance, you could use yourDatatype.MaxValue - d to get a linear decreasing function for this.
In fact you might consider using (yourDatatype.MaxValue - d) + 1 you are using doubles, because you could then assign the weight of 0 if your distance is "infinity" (since doubles actually have a value for that.)
Of course you still have to consider implementation details like w(d) = double.infinity or w(d) = integer.MaxValue, but these should be easy to spot if you know the actual data types you are using ;)