Metric for rating funtion accuracy from R^m to R.


by TylerH
Tags: accuracy, funtion, metric, rating
TylerH
TylerH is offline
#1
Sep12-13, 02:20 PM
P: 737
I'm writing program in which I generate pseudo random expressions with the hope of finding one that closely approximates the given data set. The functions map from R^m (an m-tuple of reals) to a real. What I need is a way to rate the functions by their accuracy. Are there any known methods for doing this? Maybe something from stats.

Ideally this would be a method that would take a list of expected outputs and actual outputs and return a real number. A uniform distribution would be good, but not required.
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Math modeling handbook now available
Hyperbolic homogeneous polynomials, oh my!
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
Office_Shredder
Office_Shredder is offline
#2
Sep12-13, 02:24 PM
Mentor
P: 4,499
A standard thing is to do something like
[tex] \sum_{j} \left( y_j - z_j \right)^2 [/tex]

where the yj are the actual data that you measured, and the zj are the predictions that you made (this is called the sum of squared errors). It's used mostly because it's easy to work with sums of squares when doing analytical calculations (like trying to minimize it). If you're doing a numerical method, people will often instead use the sum of the absolute values of the errors, especially if they consider the property "makes sure there are no significant outliers at the cost of being off by slightly more on average" to be a negative quality
TylerH
TylerH is offline
#3
Sep12-13, 06:35 PM
P: 737
I went with the abs value one because, by nature of the fact they're all random, there are going to be a lot of bad solutions. So I thought a metric which doesn't underestimate their badness would be better. Thanks.

Office_Shredder
Office_Shredder is offline
#4
Sep13-13, 07:10 AM
Mentor
P: 4,499

Metric for rating funtion accuracy from R^m to R.


Quote Quote by TylerH View Post
I went with the abs value one because, by nature of the fact they're all random, there are going to be a lot of bad solutions. So I thought a metric which doesn't underestimate their badness would be better. Thanks.
I don't really understand what this post is trying to get at.... do you mean that your data has a lot of noise in it?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Inverse of funtion. General Math 2
How is sqrt(x) not a funtion? General Math 5
characteristic funtion of RV Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 3
Vector Funtion Calculus & Beyond Homework 6
increasing funtion Calculus 2