Scaling expression for better data range?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pamparana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression Scale
pamparana
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I have a bit of an issue regarding scaling of an expression. So, the scenario is as follows.

I have a confidence value that can be associated with the solution given by an optimization routine and it is as follows:

C = exp(-A)/(exp(-A) + exp(-B))

where A, B and C are some energy values returned by the optimization routine and C represents the confidence or the probability assigned to the solution A. Also, B is always greater than A.

After some simple manipulation, the expression becomes:

C = 1.0 / (1 + exp(A-B))

Now, in the beginning my issue was that the values A, B and C were usually quite large (in tens of thousands). So this expression was giving values of 0.5 when A and B were very close and when the difference was something a bit larger (in absolute numbers), then the expression would basically become 1.

So, I realized I needed to do some normalization and the first thing I tried was divide everything by A. So, now the expression becomes:

C = 1.0 / (1 + exp(1-B/A))

Now typically B/A is something from 1 to 1.01. So, now I have a similar problem: As exp(1-B/A) will basically be 0.5.

So, what I would like to do is introduce some scaling, normalization on this expression that would help me basically capture the changes in my data range. I would be grateful for any suggestions that anyone might have.

Thanks,
Luca
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For some reason, for me this formula resembles Statistical Mechanics, more exactly the Partition Function.

If this formula didnt come directly from it, maybe you could read about it, see if it applies to your problem, and see if there is already some technique for doing what you want.
 
Hello,

it is sort of derived from the Ising model but actually it is just a coincidence that it looks like the partition function.

My problem is actually much simpler:

So, ok.

C= 1 / (1 + e^(B/A)) for the moment assume B >= A, So C can range from 0.5 to 1.

Typically, B/A ranges from 1 to 1.01. What I would like to do is have some sort of scaling so when B/A is "close" to 1, then C is close to 0.5 but when it starts to diverge, then C starts to get closer to 1. However, I do not want a linear scale as I want to exaggerate the differences.

I can now a priori what the maximum B and A values will be. I was wondering what suitable function can I use. One thing that comes to mind is to actually use the exponential:

So,

C = 1 / (1 + e^(e^(factor)*B/A)).

However, I am not sure how I can derive this "factor" term in a suitable way from B and A values that would make sense.

Thanks,

Luca
 
Hey pamparana.

Have you considered modelling your variables on derivative information?

Basically what I am getting at is using derivative information to work backwards to get an empirical value for your 'factor' variable. So if you specify specific derivative behaviour at some given point, then you can use that to get equations for 'factor' and hence evaluate it for those given conditions.
 
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