Determining multivariate least squares with constraintNonlinear least squaresImplementation of Partial Least Squares (PLS)?Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) with RLinknon linear Least Squares with model function given by ODE'sComputing least squares errorLeast squares approximationLeast squares fit to find unknown coefficientsWeighted orthogonal least squares without constant termLinear least squaresNonlinear Weighted Total Least Squares

Organic chemistry Iodoform Reaction

Is it possible to build a CPA Secure encryption scheme which remains secure even when the encryption of secret key is given?

Can a Gentile theist be saved?

Is there a word to describe the feeling of being transfixed out of horror?

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?

Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?

Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?

Superhero words!

Reply ‘no position’ while the job posting is still there (‘HiWi’ position in Germany)

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Adding empty element to declared container without declaring type of element

QGIS Geometry Generator Line Type

tikz grid without top edge

What should I use for Mishna study?

General topology proving something for all of its points

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?

How to decode Core DB Account.Signers using the stellar js-sdk

What would you call a finite collection of unordered objects that are not necessarily distinct?

Partial sums of primes

Calculating the number of days between 2 dates in Excel

Why isn't KTEX's runway designation 10/28 instead of 9/27?

How did Monica know how to operate Carol's "designer"?



Determining multivariate least squares with constraint


Nonlinear least squaresImplementation of Partial Least Squares (PLS)?Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) with RLinknon linear Least Squares with model function given by ODE'sComputing least squares errorLeast squares approximationLeast squares fit to find unknown coefficientsWeighted orthogonal least squares without constant termLinear least squaresNonlinear Weighted Total Least Squares













3












$begingroup$


I have some composition data for a geological sample and its constituent minerals. I want to estimate the proportions of the minerals that make up the bulk sample. This is essentially a mass balance problem. Each variable is pseudo-independent (but constrained by constant sum).



I'm starting with the matrix form $a.x=b$,
where, $a$ is the array $elemental~composition~vector times mineral ~species$, $x$ is the column vector of mineral proportions, and $b$ is the bulk composition. The key constraint with this kind of problem is that



$0 leq x_j leq 1~~~~~(j=1,...m)$



and



$sum_j=1^m x_j=1$



here is some example data



a=63.1545, 64.3049, 100., 37.1417, 32.4026, 30.0382, 30.7033, 0., 36.5444, 0., 0., 0., 0.0034,
0.0016, 0.01, 0., 0.6641, 2.35946, 26.91, 0., 0., 0.297125, 0., 0., 0., 51.3026,
17.8683, 21.096, 0., 11.2387, 14.3019, 6.46115, 0.34805, 0., 14.368, 0., 0., 0., 0.,
0.0223, 0.1191, 0., 30.6859, 32.0779, 1.5471, 1.5014, 0., 11.5299, 0., 0., 0., 43.3621,
0., 0., 0., 0.94408, 0.6131, 0.0986, 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 2.1039,
0., 0., 0., 1.14598, 1.82486, 0.03695, 0.00935, 0., 0.2312, 0., 0., 0., 0.0166,
0.625667, 9.77073, 0., 1.35584, 0.0558, 0.05635, 0., 0., 0.079275, 0., 0., 0., 0.018,
0., 2.80603, 0., 10.7388, 0.0245429, 27.7454, 2.19443, 55.08, 10.5478, 56.03, 78.13, 10.44, 0.0262,
15.7365, 0.0874667, 0., 1.89652, 8.54851, 0.00475, 0., 0., 0.09665, 0., 0., 0., 0.0115,
0., 0., 0., 0.16636, 0., 0., 0.0293, 42.4, 0.0114, 0., 0., 0., 0.0617

b=65.67, 0.52, 14.77, 5.418, 0.13, 0.3, 3.22, 2.05, 6.07, 0.13


If I use the LeastSquares function I get



lsq = LeastSquares[a, b]



0.331681, 0.283916, 0.166439, 0.172393, 0.0586919,
0.0795275,
0.00802007, 0.00244529, -0.030593, -0.0157832, -0.0220087,
-0.00294087, -0.0363984




This result looks OK, except negative proportions are not allowed and the sum does not equal 1.



Total@lsq



0.99539




How do I implement linear least squares fitting for multivariate data under the constraint that values lie between 0 to 1 and sum to 1 in Mathematica?



Also how can I derive the residuals for the fit?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 14:53











  • $begingroup$
    @JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 15:49










  • $begingroup$
    Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 16:30















3












$begingroup$


I have some composition data for a geological sample and its constituent minerals. I want to estimate the proportions of the minerals that make up the bulk sample. This is essentially a mass balance problem. Each variable is pseudo-independent (but constrained by constant sum).



I'm starting with the matrix form $a.x=b$,
where, $a$ is the array $elemental~composition~vector times mineral ~species$, $x$ is the column vector of mineral proportions, and $b$ is the bulk composition. The key constraint with this kind of problem is that



$0 leq x_j leq 1~~~~~(j=1,...m)$



and



$sum_j=1^m x_j=1$



here is some example data



a=63.1545, 64.3049, 100., 37.1417, 32.4026, 30.0382, 30.7033, 0., 36.5444, 0., 0., 0., 0.0034,
0.0016, 0.01, 0., 0.6641, 2.35946, 26.91, 0., 0., 0.297125, 0., 0., 0., 51.3026,
17.8683, 21.096, 0., 11.2387, 14.3019, 6.46115, 0.34805, 0., 14.368, 0., 0., 0., 0.,
0.0223, 0.1191, 0., 30.6859, 32.0779, 1.5471, 1.5014, 0., 11.5299, 0., 0., 0., 43.3621,
0., 0., 0., 0.94408, 0.6131, 0.0986, 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 2.1039,
0., 0., 0., 1.14598, 1.82486, 0.03695, 0.00935, 0., 0.2312, 0., 0., 0., 0.0166,
0.625667, 9.77073, 0., 1.35584, 0.0558, 0.05635, 0., 0., 0.079275, 0., 0., 0., 0.018,
0., 2.80603, 0., 10.7388, 0.0245429, 27.7454, 2.19443, 55.08, 10.5478, 56.03, 78.13, 10.44, 0.0262,
15.7365, 0.0874667, 0., 1.89652, 8.54851, 0.00475, 0., 0., 0.09665, 0., 0., 0., 0.0115,
0., 0., 0., 0.16636, 0., 0., 0.0293, 42.4, 0.0114, 0., 0., 0., 0.0617

b=65.67, 0.52, 14.77, 5.418, 0.13, 0.3, 3.22, 2.05, 6.07, 0.13


If I use the LeastSquares function I get



lsq = LeastSquares[a, b]



0.331681, 0.283916, 0.166439, 0.172393, 0.0586919,
0.0795275,
0.00802007, 0.00244529, -0.030593, -0.0157832, -0.0220087,
-0.00294087, -0.0363984




This result looks OK, except negative proportions are not allowed and the sum does not equal 1.



Total@lsq



0.99539




How do I implement linear least squares fitting for multivariate data under the constraint that values lie between 0 to 1 and sum to 1 in Mathematica?



Also how can I derive the residuals for the fit?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 14:53











  • $begingroup$
    @JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 15:49










  • $begingroup$
    Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 16:30













3












3








3





$begingroup$


I have some composition data for a geological sample and its constituent minerals. I want to estimate the proportions of the minerals that make up the bulk sample. This is essentially a mass balance problem. Each variable is pseudo-independent (but constrained by constant sum).



I'm starting with the matrix form $a.x=b$,
where, $a$ is the array $elemental~composition~vector times mineral ~species$, $x$ is the column vector of mineral proportions, and $b$ is the bulk composition. The key constraint with this kind of problem is that



$0 leq x_j leq 1~~~~~(j=1,...m)$



and



$sum_j=1^m x_j=1$



here is some example data



a=63.1545, 64.3049, 100., 37.1417, 32.4026, 30.0382, 30.7033, 0., 36.5444, 0., 0., 0., 0.0034,
0.0016, 0.01, 0., 0.6641, 2.35946, 26.91, 0., 0., 0.297125, 0., 0., 0., 51.3026,
17.8683, 21.096, 0., 11.2387, 14.3019, 6.46115, 0.34805, 0., 14.368, 0., 0., 0., 0.,
0.0223, 0.1191, 0., 30.6859, 32.0779, 1.5471, 1.5014, 0., 11.5299, 0., 0., 0., 43.3621,
0., 0., 0., 0.94408, 0.6131, 0.0986, 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 2.1039,
0., 0., 0., 1.14598, 1.82486, 0.03695, 0.00935, 0., 0.2312, 0., 0., 0., 0.0166,
0.625667, 9.77073, 0., 1.35584, 0.0558, 0.05635, 0., 0., 0.079275, 0., 0., 0., 0.018,
0., 2.80603, 0., 10.7388, 0.0245429, 27.7454, 2.19443, 55.08, 10.5478, 56.03, 78.13, 10.44, 0.0262,
15.7365, 0.0874667, 0., 1.89652, 8.54851, 0.00475, 0., 0., 0.09665, 0., 0., 0., 0.0115,
0., 0., 0., 0.16636, 0., 0., 0.0293, 42.4, 0.0114, 0., 0., 0., 0.0617

b=65.67, 0.52, 14.77, 5.418, 0.13, 0.3, 3.22, 2.05, 6.07, 0.13


If I use the LeastSquares function I get



lsq = LeastSquares[a, b]



0.331681, 0.283916, 0.166439, 0.172393, 0.0586919,
0.0795275,
0.00802007, 0.00244529, -0.030593, -0.0157832, -0.0220087,
-0.00294087, -0.0363984




This result looks OK, except negative proportions are not allowed and the sum does not equal 1.



Total@lsq



0.99539




How do I implement linear least squares fitting for multivariate data under the constraint that values lie between 0 to 1 and sum to 1 in Mathematica?



Also how can I derive the residuals for the fit?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have some composition data for a geological sample and its constituent minerals. I want to estimate the proportions of the minerals that make up the bulk sample. This is essentially a mass balance problem. Each variable is pseudo-independent (but constrained by constant sum).



I'm starting with the matrix form $a.x=b$,
where, $a$ is the array $elemental~composition~vector times mineral ~species$, $x$ is the column vector of mineral proportions, and $b$ is the bulk composition. The key constraint with this kind of problem is that



$0 leq x_j leq 1~~~~~(j=1,...m)$



and



$sum_j=1^m x_j=1$



here is some example data



a=63.1545, 64.3049, 100., 37.1417, 32.4026, 30.0382, 30.7033, 0., 36.5444, 0., 0., 0., 0.0034,
0.0016, 0.01, 0., 0.6641, 2.35946, 26.91, 0., 0., 0.297125, 0., 0., 0., 51.3026,
17.8683, 21.096, 0., 11.2387, 14.3019, 6.46115, 0.34805, 0., 14.368, 0., 0., 0., 0.,
0.0223, 0.1191, 0., 30.6859, 32.0779, 1.5471, 1.5014, 0., 11.5299, 0., 0., 0., 43.3621,
0., 0., 0., 0.94408, 0.6131, 0.0986, 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 2.1039,
0., 0., 0., 1.14598, 1.82486, 0.03695, 0.00935, 0., 0.2312, 0., 0., 0., 0.0166,
0.625667, 9.77073, 0., 1.35584, 0.0558, 0.05635, 0., 0., 0.079275, 0., 0., 0., 0.018,
0., 2.80603, 0., 10.7388, 0.0245429, 27.7454, 2.19443, 55.08, 10.5478, 56.03, 78.13, 10.44, 0.0262,
15.7365, 0.0874667, 0., 1.89652, 8.54851, 0.00475, 0., 0., 0.09665, 0., 0., 0., 0.0115,
0., 0., 0., 0.16636, 0., 0., 0.0293, 42.4, 0.0114, 0., 0., 0., 0.0617

b=65.67, 0.52, 14.77, 5.418, 0.13, 0.3, 3.22, 2.05, 6.07, 0.13


If I use the LeastSquares function I get



lsq = LeastSquares[a, b]



0.331681, 0.283916, 0.166439, 0.172393, 0.0586919,
0.0795275,
0.00802007, 0.00244529, -0.030593, -0.0157832, -0.0220087,
-0.00294087, -0.0363984




This result looks OK, except negative proportions are not allowed and the sum does not equal 1.



Total@lsq



0.99539




How do I implement linear least squares fitting for multivariate data under the constraint that values lie between 0 to 1 and sum to 1 in Mathematica?



Also how can I derive the residuals for the fit?







fitting






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 20 at 16:12









user64494

3,56311022




3,56311022










asked Mar 20 at 13:14









geordiegeordie

2,0491630




2,0491630







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 14:53











  • $begingroup$
    @JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 15:49










  • $begingroup$
    Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 16:30












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 14:53











  • $begingroup$
    @JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 15:49










  • $begingroup$
    Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – geordie
    Mar 20 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    Mar 20 at 16:30







2




2




$begingroup$
My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 14:53





$begingroup$
My usual soapbox speech: Why not consult a statistician first and then figure out how to implement an appropriate process in Mathematica? Consider stats.stackexchange.com/questions/267014/….
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 14:53













$begingroup$
@JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
$endgroup$
– geordie
Mar 20 at 15:26




$begingroup$
@JimB precisely because someone will tell me that I can't use continuum methods with compositional data. The constant sum problem is considered a vague oddity in geological circles and largely ignored (for better or worse).
$endgroup$
– geordie
Mar 20 at 15:26












$begingroup$
I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 15:49




$begingroup$
I'm sure there must be more to it than "They won't let me do what I want!" Compositional data analysis has a pretty standard set of statistical approaches. Chemists use it all the time. These approaches are many times called "mixture designs": itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri54.htm. Maybe you've been talking to the wrong folks.
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 15:49












$begingroup$
Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
$endgroup$
– geordie
Mar 20 at 16:22




$begingroup$
Like I said, geologists don't. Perhaps it has to do with the general 'noisiness' of geoscience datasets. Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers.
$endgroup$
– geordie
Mar 20 at 16:22




1




1




$begingroup$
"Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 16:30




$begingroup$
"Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
$endgroup$
– JimB
Mar 20 at 16:30










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

One approach is to reframe it as a minimization problem:



xVec = Array[x, 13];
NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2], Total[xVec] == 1, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


You can also get an improved residual by relaxing the equality constraint:



NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2] + (Total[xVec] - 1)^2, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


Thanks to Roman for some simplifications.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
    $endgroup$
    – Roman
    Mar 20 at 14:15



















4












$begingroup$

This can be done as a linear programming problem although the optimization is not least-squares in that case. The idea is to set up new variables, which are absolute values of discrepancies between a.x. and b. This can be done as below.



xvec = Array[x, Length[a[[1]]]];
dvec = Array[d, Length[a]];
lpolys = a.xvec - b;
ineqs = Flatten[Thread[xvec >= 0], Thread[dvec - lpolys >= 0],
Thread[dvec + lpolys >= 0], Total[xvec] == 1];


Now use NMinimize.



min, vals = 
NMinimize[Total[dvec], ineqs, Join[xvec, dvec], PrecisionGoal -> 10]
Total[xvec /. vals]

(* Out[90]= 0.627674050324, x[1] -> 0.339337833732,
x[2] -> 0.292918812222, x[3] -> 0.195908896153,
x[4] -> 0.10491683141, x[5] -> 0.0591148361052, x[6] -> 0.,
x[7] -> 0., x[8] -> 0.00181140763364, x[9] -> 0., x[10] -> 0.,
x[11] -> 0., x[12] -> 0., x[13] -> 0.00599138274489, d[1] -> 0.,
d[2] -> 0., d[3] -> 0.502611255236, d[4] -> 0.,
d[5] -> 0.0178984583702, d[6] -> 0.0717916527728, d[7] -> 0.,
d[8] -> 0., d[9] -> 0., d[10] -> 0.0353726839451

Out[91]= 1. *)





share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "387"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193638%2fdetermining-multivariate-least-squares-with-constraint%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6












    $begingroup$

    One approach is to reframe it as a minimization problem:



    xVec = Array[x, 13];
    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2], Total[xVec] == 1, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    You can also get an improved residual by relaxing the equality constraint:



    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2] + (Total[xVec] - 1)^2, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    Thanks to Roman for some simplifications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
      $endgroup$
      – Roman
      Mar 20 at 14:15
















    6












    $begingroup$

    One approach is to reframe it as a minimization problem:



    xVec = Array[x, 13];
    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2], Total[xVec] == 1, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    You can also get an improved residual by relaxing the equality constraint:



    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2] + (Total[xVec] - 1)^2, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    Thanks to Roman for some simplifications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
      $endgroup$
      – Roman
      Mar 20 at 14:15














    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$

    One approach is to reframe it as a minimization problem:



    xVec = Array[x, 13];
    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2], Total[xVec] == 1, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    You can also get an improved residual by relaxing the equality constraint:



    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2] + (Total[xVec] - 1)^2, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    Thanks to Roman for some simplifications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    One approach is to reframe it as a minimization problem:



    xVec = Array[x, 13];
    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2], Total[xVec] == 1, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    You can also get an improved residual by relaxing the equality constraint:



    NMinimize[Total[(a.xVec - b)^2] + (Total[xVec] - 1)^2, Thread[xVec >= 0], xVec]


    Thanks to Roman for some simplifications.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 20 at 15:32

























    answered Mar 20 at 13:43









    bill sbill s

    54.7k377157




    54.7k377157











    • $begingroup$
      Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
      $endgroup$
      – Roman
      Mar 20 at 14:15

















    • $begingroup$
      Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
      $endgroup$
      – Roman
      Mar 20 at 14:15
















    $begingroup$
    Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
    $endgroup$
    – Roman
    Mar 20 at 14:15





    $begingroup$
    Thread[xVec > 0] would be simpler on the third line and does the same thing. Also, you can constrain the sum by equality: NMinimize[(a.xVec-b).(a.xVec-b), Total[xVec]==1, Thread[xVec>0], xVec]. I think the square in Total[(a.xVec - b)]^2 should be taken inside of the Total, not outside.
    $endgroup$
    – Roman
    Mar 20 at 14:15












    4












    $begingroup$

    This can be done as a linear programming problem although the optimization is not least-squares in that case. The idea is to set up new variables, which are absolute values of discrepancies between a.x. and b. This can be done as below.



    xvec = Array[x, Length[a[[1]]]];
    dvec = Array[d, Length[a]];
    lpolys = a.xvec - b;
    ineqs = Flatten[Thread[xvec >= 0], Thread[dvec - lpolys >= 0],
    Thread[dvec + lpolys >= 0], Total[xvec] == 1];


    Now use NMinimize.



    min, vals = 
    NMinimize[Total[dvec], ineqs, Join[xvec, dvec], PrecisionGoal -> 10]
    Total[xvec /. vals]

    (* Out[90]= 0.627674050324, x[1] -> 0.339337833732,
    x[2] -> 0.292918812222, x[3] -> 0.195908896153,
    x[4] -> 0.10491683141, x[5] -> 0.0591148361052, x[6] -> 0.,
    x[7] -> 0., x[8] -> 0.00181140763364, x[9] -> 0., x[10] -> 0.,
    x[11] -> 0., x[12] -> 0., x[13] -> 0.00599138274489, d[1] -> 0.,
    d[2] -> 0., d[3] -> 0.502611255236, d[4] -> 0.,
    d[5] -> 0.0178984583702, d[6] -> 0.0717916527728, d[7] -> 0.,
    d[8] -> 0., d[9] -> 0., d[10] -> 0.0353726839451

    Out[91]= 1. *)





    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      This can be done as a linear programming problem although the optimization is not least-squares in that case. The idea is to set up new variables, which are absolute values of discrepancies between a.x. and b. This can be done as below.



      xvec = Array[x, Length[a[[1]]]];
      dvec = Array[d, Length[a]];
      lpolys = a.xvec - b;
      ineqs = Flatten[Thread[xvec >= 0], Thread[dvec - lpolys >= 0],
      Thread[dvec + lpolys >= 0], Total[xvec] == 1];


      Now use NMinimize.



      min, vals = 
      NMinimize[Total[dvec], ineqs, Join[xvec, dvec], PrecisionGoal -> 10]
      Total[xvec /. vals]

      (* Out[90]= 0.627674050324, x[1] -> 0.339337833732,
      x[2] -> 0.292918812222, x[3] -> 0.195908896153,
      x[4] -> 0.10491683141, x[5] -> 0.0591148361052, x[6] -> 0.,
      x[7] -> 0., x[8] -> 0.00181140763364, x[9] -> 0., x[10] -> 0.,
      x[11] -> 0., x[12] -> 0., x[13] -> 0.00599138274489, d[1] -> 0.,
      d[2] -> 0., d[3] -> 0.502611255236, d[4] -> 0.,
      d[5] -> 0.0178984583702, d[6] -> 0.0717916527728, d[7] -> 0.,
      d[8] -> 0., d[9] -> 0., d[10] -> 0.0353726839451

      Out[91]= 1. *)





      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        This can be done as a linear programming problem although the optimization is not least-squares in that case. The idea is to set up new variables, which are absolute values of discrepancies between a.x. and b. This can be done as below.



        xvec = Array[x, Length[a[[1]]]];
        dvec = Array[d, Length[a]];
        lpolys = a.xvec - b;
        ineqs = Flatten[Thread[xvec >= 0], Thread[dvec - lpolys >= 0],
        Thread[dvec + lpolys >= 0], Total[xvec] == 1];


        Now use NMinimize.



        min, vals = 
        NMinimize[Total[dvec], ineqs, Join[xvec, dvec], PrecisionGoal -> 10]
        Total[xvec /. vals]

        (* Out[90]= 0.627674050324, x[1] -> 0.339337833732,
        x[2] -> 0.292918812222, x[3] -> 0.195908896153,
        x[4] -> 0.10491683141, x[5] -> 0.0591148361052, x[6] -> 0.,
        x[7] -> 0., x[8] -> 0.00181140763364, x[9] -> 0., x[10] -> 0.,
        x[11] -> 0., x[12] -> 0., x[13] -> 0.00599138274489, d[1] -> 0.,
        d[2] -> 0., d[3] -> 0.502611255236, d[4] -> 0.,
        d[5] -> 0.0178984583702, d[6] -> 0.0717916527728, d[7] -> 0.,
        d[8] -> 0., d[9] -> 0., d[10] -> 0.0353726839451

        Out[91]= 1. *)





        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        This can be done as a linear programming problem although the optimization is not least-squares in that case. The idea is to set up new variables, which are absolute values of discrepancies between a.x. and b. This can be done as below.



        xvec = Array[x, Length[a[[1]]]];
        dvec = Array[d, Length[a]];
        lpolys = a.xvec - b;
        ineqs = Flatten[Thread[xvec >= 0], Thread[dvec - lpolys >= 0],
        Thread[dvec + lpolys >= 0], Total[xvec] == 1];


        Now use NMinimize.



        min, vals = 
        NMinimize[Total[dvec], ineqs, Join[xvec, dvec], PrecisionGoal -> 10]
        Total[xvec /. vals]

        (* Out[90]= 0.627674050324, x[1] -> 0.339337833732,
        x[2] -> 0.292918812222, x[3] -> 0.195908896153,
        x[4] -> 0.10491683141, x[5] -> 0.0591148361052, x[6] -> 0.,
        x[7] -> 0., x[8] -> 0.00181140763364, x[9] -> 0., x[10] -> 0.,
        x[11] -> 0., x[12] -> 0., x[13] -> 0.00599138274489, d[1] -> 0.,
        d[2] -> 0., d[3] -> 0.502611255236, d[4] -> 0.,
        d[5] -> 0.0178984583702, d[6] -> 0.0717916527728, d[7] -> 0.,
        d[8] -> 0., d[9] -> 0., d[10] -> 0.0353726839451

        Out[91]= 1. *)






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 20 at 14:34









        Daniel LichtblauDaniel Lichtblau

        47.3k276164




        47.3k276164



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193638%2fdetermining-multivariate-least-squares-with-constraint%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

            Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?