Problem at Work with Regression

  • Thread starter Thread starter Diffy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regression Work
Diffy
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
Hi

I've been tasked with making a sort of sensitivity analysis tool. The goal was to get as many parameters as possible and then use them to build a model that would allow users to change variables a bit and see what happens to the one dependent variable.

So I used a multi variable regression tool to come up with a single equation:

y = c1*x1 + c2*x2 + ... + cn*xn

Here c's are the calculated coefficients, x's are the independent variables and y is the one dependent value.

Then what I did was I built at tool that allowed the users to adjust the variables they wanted to adjust to see how that changes y. The problem is that when some variables are adjusted up, it makes y go down which does make much sense in our business model.

So I have a few questions
1) Should I be using a different type of regression?
2) Is there a better way to go about this?
3) Are there ways to influence the coefficients I calculate?


Additional info:
Please let me know if additional info is needed.
R^2 = .978
F = 93.967
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So maybe I will try asking in a different way since I did not get any responses yet.

I want to build a model based on variables to predict a value, but my variables are have very little correlation to the value I want to predict. What I mean by this is when I look at scatter plots of my variable versus the values I want to predict there is no immediately obvious best fit line, the graphs are truly scattered!

Is there even a way to build an accurate model?
 
Lies, damn lies and statistics. You are touching a very sensitive subject. The main problem if you are asking physicists is this: We make a model and then we fit it to our data. If the fitted model yields wrong results we discard it, or say that it produces wrong results in variable a, but say that it explains some values for variable b better than other models.

You have decided that you have some process that produces a variable y. Your model assumes that it can be expressed as a function of some variables which has a dominating linear component overshadowed by noise.

In physics we usually know the noise. We can measure if it fits our model. And now we come to your job. You were the person who claims that your data should be model-able in the manner you stated. Your model seems to yield wrong results, maybe you should discard it. Why is there noise in your data? Can you reduce it. Is is gaussian?

Of course there are more tools you could use, and maybe squeeze more from your data, but we don't even know what kind of data you have, and you are probably better advised to look at what other people are doing in your field.

On the other hand your fit parameters don't look so bad. Maybe this site gives you some ideas: http://documents.wolfram.com/applications/eda/FittingDataToLinearModelsByLeast-SquaresTechniques.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top