Determining multivariate least squares with constraint












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
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    yesterday
















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
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    yesterday














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 yesterday









user64494

3,55311022




3,55311022










asked yesterday









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
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    yesterday














  • 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
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
    $endgroup$
    – JimB
    yesterday








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
yesterday






$begingroup$
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
yesterday














$begingroup$
@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
yesterday




$begingroup$
@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
yesterday












$begingroup$
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
yesterday




$begingroup$
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
yesterday












$begingroup$
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
yesterday




$begingroup$
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
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
"Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
$endgroup$
– JimB
yesterday




$begingroup$
"Most other sciences are able to rely on fairly precise numbers." Ha, ha. You're funny!
$endgroup$
– JimB
yesterday










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
    yesterday





















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
      yesterday


















    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
      yesterday
















    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 yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    bill sbill s

    54.5k377156




    54.5k377156












    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday




















    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday


















    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday













    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 yesterday









        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

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            迪纳利

            南乌拉尔铁路局