× 19778
Extract mean from an ARMA(p,q) process
mean of an AR(p) process is mean= (intercept)/(1-phi1-phi2-..-phip) ,is this formula the same for an ARMA(p,q) also..?
ARMA(p,q):
Xt= intercept + Phi1 Xt-1 + Phi2 Xt-2 + ...+ Phip Xt-p + Epsilont+ theta1 Epsilont-1 +..+
thetaq Epsilont-q
where phi1,phi2,..,phip are the coefficients of AR part..
more info: I am comparing mean of a time series before an event and after an event..generally one can take a simple mean and compare. but since my data is auto-correlated I want to model the time series before and after so I can compare before and after means .. hence I need to extract the mean from a ARMA(p,q) process.
Thank You in advance
Yes, the moving average terms do not affect the marginal mean, they only affect the variance.
In comparing the two means, you will also need to adjust the variances because of the autocorrelations.
You are better off fitting an intervention model rather than trying to handle the autocorrelations by hand.
Related
I am being asked to take a look at a scenario where a company has many projects that they wish to complete, but with any company budget comes into play. There is a Y value of a predefined score, with multiple X inputs. There are also 3 main constraints of Capital Costs, Expense Cost and Time for Completion in Months.
The ask is could an algorithmic approach be used to optimize which projects should be done for the year given the 3 constraints. The approach also should give different results if the constraint values change. The suggested method is multiple regression. Though I have looked into different approaches in detail. I would like to ask the wider community, if anyone has dealt with a similar problem, and what approaches have you used.
Fisrt thing we should understood, a conclution of something is not base on one argument.
this is from communication theory, that every human make a frame of knowledge (understanding conclution), where the frame construct from many piece of knowledge / information).
the concequence is we cannot use single linear regression in math to create a ML / DL system.
at least we should use two different variabel to make a sub conclution. if we push to use single variable with use linear regression (y=mx+c). it's similar to push computer predict something with low accuration. what ever optimization method that you pick...it's still low accuracy..., why...because linear regresion if you use in real life, it similar with predict 'habbit' base on data, not calculating the real condition.
that's means...., we should use multiple linear regression (y=m1x1+m2x2+ ... + c) to calculate anything in order to make computer understood / have conclution / create model of regression. but, not so simple like it. because of computer try to make a conclution from data that have multiple character / varians ... you must classified the data and the conclution.
for an example, try to make computer understood phitagoras.
we know that phitagoras formula is c=((a^2)+(b^2))^(1/2), and we want our computer can make prediction the phitagoras side (c) from two input values (a and b). so to do that, we should make a model or a mutiple linear regresion formula of phitagoras.
step 1 of course we should make a multi character data of phitagoras.
this is an example
a b c
3 4 5
8 6 10
3 14 etc..., try put 10 until 20 data
try to make a conclution of regression formula with multiple regression to predic the c base on a and b values.
you will found that some data have high accuration (higher than 98%) for some value and some value is not to accurate (under 90%). example a=3 and b=14 or b=15, will give low accuration result (under 90%).
so you must make and optimization....but how to do it...
I know many method to optimize, but i found in manual way, if I exclude the data that giving low accuracy result and put them in different group then, recalculate again to the data group that excluded, i will get more significant result. do again...until you reach the accuracy target that you want.
each group data, that have a new regression, is a new class.
means i will have several multiple regression base on data that i input (the regression come from each group of data / class) and the accuracy is really high, 99% - 99.99%.
and with the several class, the regresion have a fuction as a 'label' of the class, this is what happens in the backgroud of the automation computation. but with many module, the user of the module, feel put 'string' object as label, but the truth is, the string object binding to a regresion that constructed as label.
with some conditional parameter you can get the good ML with minimum number of data train.
try it on excel / libreoffice before step more further...
try to follow the tutorial from this video
and implement it in simple data that easy to construct in excel, like pythagoras.
so the answer is yes...the multiple regression is the best approach for optimization.
I have implemented an algorithm that uses two other algorithms for calculating the shortest path in a graph: Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford. Based on the time complexity of the these algorithms, I can calculate the running time of my implementation, which is easy giving the code.
Now, I want to experimentally verify my calculation. Specifically, I want to plot the running time as a function of the size of the input (I am following the method described here). The problem is that I have two parameters - number of edges and number of vertices.
I have tried to fix one parameter and change the other, but this approach results in two plots - one for varying number of edges and the other for varying number of vertices.
This leads me to my question - how can I determine the order of growth based on two plots? In general, how can one experimentally determine the running time complexity of an algorithm that has more than one parameter?
It's very difficult in general.
The usual way you would experimentally gauge the running time in the single variable case is, insert a counter that increments when your data structure does a fundamental (putatively O(1)) operation, then take data for many different input sizes, and plot it on a log-log plot. That is, log T vs. log N. If the running time is of the form n^k you should see a straight line of slope k, or something approaching this. If the running time is like T(n) = n^{k log n} or something, then you should see a parabola. And if T is exponential in n you should still see exponential growth.
You can only hope to get information about the highest order term when you do this -- the low order terms get filtered out, in the sense of having less and less impact as n gets larger.
In the two variable case, you could try to do a similar approach -- essentially, take 3 dimensional data, do a log-log-log plot, and try to fit a plane to that.
However this will only really work if there's really only one leading term that dominates in most regimes.
Suppose my actual function is T(n, m) = n^4 + n^3 * m^3 + m^4.
When m = O(1), then T(n) = O(n^4).
When n = O(1), then T(n) = O(m^4).
When n = m, then T(n) = O(n^6).
In each of these regimes, "slices" along the plane of possible n,m values, a different one of the terms is the dominant term.
So there's no way to determine the function just from taking some points with fixed m, and some points with fixed n. If you did that, you wouldn't get the right answer for n = m -- you wouldn't be able to discover "middle" leading terms like that.
I would recommend that the best way to predict asymptotic growth when you have lots of variables / complicated data structures, is with a pencil and piece of paper, and do traditional algorithmic analysis. Or possibly, a hybrid approach. Try to break the question of efficiency into different parts -- if you can split the question up into a sum or product of a few different functions, maybe some of them you can determine in the abstract, and some you can estimate experimentally.
Luckily two input parameters is still easy to visualize in a 3D scatter plot (3rd dimension is the measured running time), and you can check if it looks like a plane (in log-log-log scale) or if it is curved. Naturally random variations in measurements plays a role here as well.
In Matlab I typically calculate a least-squares solution to two-variable function like this (just concatenates different powers and combinations of x and y horizontally, .* is an element-wise product):
x = log(parameter_x);
y = log(parameter_y);
% Find a least-squares fit
p = [x.^2, x.*y, y.^2, x, y, ones(length(x),1)] \ log(time)
Then this can be used to estimate running times for larger problem instances, ideally those would be confirmed experimentally to know that the fitted model works.
This approach works also for higher dimensions but gets tedious to generate, maybe there is a more general way to achieve that and this is just a work-around for my lack of knowledge.
I was going to write my own explanation but it wouldn't be any better than this.
I am using the code in this website http://blog.chrislowis.co.uk/2008/11/24/ruby-gsl-pearson.html to implement a Pearson Correlation given two time series data like so:
require 'gsl'
pearson_correlation = GSL::Stats::correlation(
GSL::Vector.alloc(first_metrics),GSL::Vector.alloc(second_metrics)
)
This returns a number such as -0.2352461593569471.
I'm currently using the highcharts library and am feeding it two sets of timeseries data. Given that I have a finite time series for both sets, can I do something with this number (-0.2352461593569471) to create a third time series showing the slope of this curve? If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd really appreciate it!
No, correlation doesn't tell you anything about the slope of the line of best fit. It just tells you approximately how much of the variability in one variable (or one time series, in this case) can be explained by the other. There is a reasonably good description here: http://www.graphpad.com/support/faqid/1141/.
How you deal with the data in your specific case is highly dependent on what you're trying to achieve. Are you trying to show that variable X causes variable Y? If so, you could start by dropping the time-series-ness, and just treat the data as paired values, and use linear regression. If you're trying to find a model of how X and Y vary together over time, you could look at multivariate linear regression (I'm not very familiar with this, though).
so I am making a simple simulation of different planets with individual velocity flying around space and orbiting each other.
I plan to simulate their pull on each other by considering each planet as projecting their own "gravity vector field." Each time step I'm going to add the vectors outputted from each planets individual vector field equation (V = -xj + (-yj) or some notation like it) except the one being effected in the calculation, and use the effected planets position as input to the equations.
However this would inaccurate, and does not consider the gravitational pull as continuous and constant. Bow do I calculate the movement of my planets if each is continuously effecting the others?
Thanks!
In addition to what Blender writes about using Newton's equations, you need to consider how you will be integrating over your "acceleration field" (as you call it in the comment to his answer).
The easiest way is to use Euler's Method. The problem with that is it rapidly diverges, but it has the advantage of being easy to code and to be reasonably fast.
If you are looking for better accuracy, and are willing to sacrifice some performance, one of the Runge-Kutta methods (probably RK4) would ordinarily be a good choice. I'll caution you that if your "acceleration field" is dynamic (i.e. it changes over time ... perhaps as a result of planets moving in their orbits) RK4 will be a challenge.
Update (Based on Comment / Question Below):
If you want to calculate the force vector Fi(tn) at some time step tn applied to a specific object i, then you need to compute the force contributed by all of the other objects within your simulation using the equation Blender references. That is for each object, i, you figure out how all of the other objects pull (apply force) and those vectors when summed will be the aggregate force vector applied to i. Algorithmically this looks something like:
for each object i
Fi(tn) = 0
for each object j ≠ i
Fi(tn) = Fi(tn) + G * mi * mj / |pi(tn)-pj(tn)|2
Where pi(tn) and pj(tn) are the positions of objects i and j at time tn respectively and the | | is the standard Euclidean (l2) normal ... i.e. the Euclidean distance between the two objects. Also, G is the gravitational constant.
Euler's Method breaks the simulation into discrete time slices. It looks at the current state and in the case of your example, considers all of the forces applied in aggregate to all of the objects within your simulation and then applies those forces as a constant over the period of the time slice. When using
ai(tn) = Fi(tn)/mi
(ai(tn) = acceleration vector at time tn applied to object i, Fi(tn) is the force vector applied to object i at time tn, and mi is the mass of object i), the force vector (and therefore the acceleration vector) is held constant for the duration of the time slice. In your case, if you really have another method of computing the acceleration, you won't need to compute the force, and can instead directly compute the acceleration. In either event, with the acceleration being held as constant, the position at time tn+1, p(tn+1) and velocity at time tn+1, v(tn+1), of the object will be given by:
pi(tn+1) = 0.5*ai(tn)*(tn+1-tn)2 + vi(tn)*(tn+1-tn)+pi(tn)
vi(tn+1) = ai(tn+1)*(tn+1-tn) + vi(tn)
The RK4 method fits the driver of your system to a 2nd degree polynomial which better approximates its behavior. The details are at the wikipedia site I referenced above, and there are a number of other resources you should be able to locate on the web. The basic idea is that instead of picking a single force value for a particular timeslice, you compute four force vectors at specific times and then fit the force vector to the 2nd degree polynomial. That's fine if your field of force vectors doesn't change between time slices. If you're using gravity to derive the vector field, and the objects which are the gravitational sources move, then you need to compute their positions at each of the four sub-intervals in order compute the force vectors. It can be done, but your performance is going to be quite a bit poorer than using Euler's method. On the plus side, you get more accurate motion of the objects relative to each other. So, it's a challenge in the sense that it's computationally expensive, and it's a bit of a pain to figure out where all the objects are supposed to be for your four samples during the time slice of your iteration.
There is no such thing as "continuous" when dealing with computers, so you'll have to approximate continuity with very small intervals of time.
That being said, why are you using a vector field? What's wrong with Newton?
And the sum of the forces on an object is that above equation. Equate the two and solve for a
So you'll just have to loop over all the objects one by one and find the acceleration on it.
I am working on a program that needs to fit numerous cosine waves in order to determine one of the parameters for the function. The equation that I am using is y = y_0 + Acos((4*pi*L)/x + pi) where L is the value that I am trying to obtain from the best fit line.
I know that it is possible to do this correctly by hand for each set of data, but what is the best way to automate this process? I am currently reading in the data from text files, and running a loop with the initial paramiters changing until I have an array of paramater values that have an amplitude similar to the data, then I check the percent difference between points on the center peak and two end peaks to try to pick the best one. It in consistently picking lower values than what I get when fitting by hand (almost exactly one phase off). So is there a way to improve this method, or another method that works better?
Edit: My LabVIEW version has a cos fitting VI which is what I am using, the problem is when I try to automate the fitting by changing the initial parameters using a loop, I cant figure out how to get the program to pick the same best fit line as a human would pick.
Why not just use a Fast Fourier Transform? This should be way faster than fitting a cosine. In the result vector of complex numbers look for the largest peak of in the totals. You're given frequency (position in the FFT result vector), amplitude and phase.
You can evaluate the goodness of the fit by computing the difference between fitting curve and your data. A VI does this in the "Advanced curve fitting" palette. Then all you have to do is pick up the best fit.