Regression with a Vandermonde matrix.












1












$begingroup$


From what I understand, when doing a least squares regression with a Vandermonde matrix, you're essentially solving the equation



$y=Xa$



Where y is a vector of y-values, X is the Vandermonde matrix, and a is a vector of coefficients.



When you solve this equation for a,



$a=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$



You get the above expression for a.



My understanding is that this should be a solution to the set of equations. However, it is possible to fit n points of data to a k-th degree polynomial, where n>k. This would imply that there are more equations than unknowns, which results in no possible solutions. However, the vector a can be calculated. This resulting vector does not completely perfectly satisfy



$y=Xa$



But instead is a good approximation, as with regression.



Why can we get a value for a? As I do not believe this could be possible if we were dealing with n equations, and k unknowns. Where does the matrix solution differ from solving k unknowns with n equations?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    From what I understand, when doing a least squares regression with a Vandermonde matrix, you're essentially solving the equation



    $y=Xa$



    Where y is a vector of y-values, X is the Vandermonde matrix, and a is a vector of coefficients.



    When you solve this equation for a,



    $a=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$



    You get the above expression for a.



    My understanding is that this should be a solution to the set of equations. However, it is possible to fit n points of data to a k-th degree polynomial, where n>k. This would imply that there are more equations than unknowns, which results in no possible solutions. However, the vector a can be calculated. This resulting vector does not completely perfectly satisfy



    $y=Xa$



    But instead is a good approximation, as with regression.



    Why can we get a value for a? As I do not believe this could be possible if we were dealing with n equations, and k unknowns. Where does the matrix solution differ from solving k unknowns with n equations?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1


      0



      $begingroup$


      From what I understand, when doing a least squares regression with a Vandermonde matrix, you're essentially solving the equation



      $y=Xa$



      Where y is a vector of y-values, X is the Vandermonde matrix, and a is a vector of coefficients.



      When you solve this equation for a,



      $a=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$



      You get the above expression for a.



      My understanding is that this should be a solution to the set of equations. However, it is possible to fit n points of data to a k-th degree polynomial, where n>k. This would imply that there are more equations than unknowns, which results in no possible solutions. However, the vector a can be calculated. This resulting vector does not completely perfectly satisfy



      $y=Xa$



      But instead is a good approximation, as with regression.



      Why can we get a value for a? As I do not believe this could be possible if we were dealing with n equations, and k unknowns. Where does the matrix solution differ from solving k unknowns with n equations?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      From what I understand, when doing a least squares regression with a Vandermonde matrix, you're essentially solving the equation



      $y=Xa$



      Where y is a vector of y-values, X is the Vandermonde matrix, and a is a vector of coefficients.



      When you solve this equation for a,



      $a=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Ty$



      You get the above expression for a.



      My understanding is that this should be a solution to the set of equations. However, it is possible to fit n points of data to a k-th degree polynomial, where n>k. This would imply that there are more equations than unknowns, which results in no possible solutions. However, the vector a can be calculated. This resulting vector does not completely perfectly satisfy



      $y=Xa$



      But instead is a good approximation, as with regression.



      Why can we get a value for a? As I do not believe this could be possible if we were dealing with n equations, and k unknowns. Where does the matrix solution differ from solving k unknowns with n equations?







      matrices






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Sep 2 '13 at 5:00









      Potato

      21.6k1189190




      21.6k1189190










      asked Sep 2 '13 at 4:52









      user2738622user2738622

      61




      61






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          First, a little explanation of what is happening when you solve for $a$ in



          $vec{a}=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Tvec{y}$ .



          The $(X^TX)^{-1}X^T$ part is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. It uses $X$'s Gramian matrix (the $X^TX$), which is a square positive semidefinite matrix yielding the same eigenvectors as $X$ while squaring its eigenvalues. Taking the inverse of this Gramian matrix and multiplying it by $X^T$ actually performs a least square fit (see this and this reference). It is a property of the pseudoinverse.



          As for your question about dealing with $n$ equations and $k$ unknowns, there are two possible cases (I suppose the rank of your matrix is at least equal to $k$):




          • The number of (linearly independent) equations is greater than the number of unknowns ( $n > k$, matrix is overdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution or none exist. The least squares regression is commonly used in this case. It will give the coefficients $vec{a}$ that minimizes the euclidean norm of the errors: $min epsilon : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} + epsilon right) $.

          • The number of (linearly independent) equations is equal or less than the number of unknowns ( $n le k$, matrix is full rank or underdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution (when full rank) or many (up to an infinity) of them exist (when full rank or underdetermined). The pseudoinverse will construct the solution that minimizes the euclidean norm among all solutions in the matrix the nullspace: $min hat{a} : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} right) $.






          share|cite|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: "69"
            };
            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: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            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
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481845%2fregression-with-a-vandermonde-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            First, a little explanation of what is happening when you solve for $a$ in



            $vec{a}=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Tvec{y}$ .



            The $(X^TX)^{-1}X^T$ part is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. It uses $X$'s Gramian matrix (the $X^TX$), which is a square positive semidefinite matrix yielding the same eigenvectors as $X$ while squaring its eigenvalues. Taking the inverse of this Gramian matrix and multiplying it by $X^T$ actually performs a least square fit (see this and this reference). It is a property of the pseudoinverse.



            As for your question about dealing with $n$ equations and $k$ unknowns, there are two possible cases (I suppose the rank of your matrix is at least equal to $k$):




            • The number of (linearly independent) equations is greater than the number of unknowns ( $n > k$, matrix is overdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution or none exist. The least squares regression is commonly used in this case. It will give the coefficients $vec{a}$ that minimizes the euclidean norm of the errors: $min epsilon : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} + epsilon right) $.

            • The number of (linearly independent) equations is equal or less than the number of unknowns ( $n le k$, matrix is full rank or underdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution (when full rank) or many (up to an infinity) of them exist (when full rank or underdetermined). The pseudoinverse will construct the solution that minimizes the euclidean norm among all solutions in the matrix the nullspace: $min hat{a} : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} right) $.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              First, a little explanation of what is happening when you solve for $a$ in



              $vec{a}=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Tvec{y}$ .



              The $(X^TX)^{-1}X^T$ part is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. It uses $X$'s Gramian matrix (the $X^TX$), which is a square positive semidefinite matrix yielding the same eigenvectors as $X$ while squaring its eigenvalues. Taking the inverse of this Gramian matrix and multiplying it by $X^T$ actually performs a least square fit (see this and this reference). It is a property of the pseudoinverse.



              As for your question about dealing with $n$ equations and $k$ unknowns, there are two possible cases (I suppose the rank of your matrix is at least equal to $k$):




              • The number of (linearly independent) equations is greater than the number of unknowns ( $n > k$, matrix is overdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution or none exist. The least squares regression is commonly used in this case. It will give the coefficients $vec{a}$ that minimizes the euclidean norm of the errors: $min epsilon : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} + epsilon right) $.

              • The number of (linearly independent) equations is equal or less than the number of unknowns ( $n le k$, matrix is full rank or underdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution (when full rank) or many (up to an infinity) of them exist (when full rank or underdetermined). The pseudoinverse will construct the solution that minimizes the euclidean norm among all solutions in the matrix the nullspace: $min hat{a} : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} right) $.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                First, a little explanation of what is happening when you solve for $a$ in



                $vec{a}=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Tvec{y}$ .



                The $(X^TX)^{-1}X^T$ part is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. It uses $X$'s Gramian matrix (the $X^TX$), which is a square positive semidefinite matrix yielding the same eigenvectors as $X$ while squaring its eigenvalues. Taking the inverse of this Gramian matrix and multiplying it by $X^T$ actually performs a least square fit (see this and this reference). It is a property of the pseudoinverse.



                As for your question about dealing with $n$ equations and $k$ unknowns, there are two possible cases (I suppose the rank of your matrix is at least equal to $k$):




                • The number of (linearly independent) equations is greater than the number of unknowns ( $n > k$, matrix is overdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution or none exist. The least squares regression is commonly used in this case. It will give the coefficients $vec{a}$ that minimizes the euclidean norm of the errors: $min epsilon : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} + epsilon right) $.

                • The number of (linearly independent) equations is equal or less than the number of unknowns ( $n le k$, matrix is full rank or underdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution (when full rank) or many (up to an infinity) of them exist (when full rank or underdetermined). The pseudoinverse will construct the solution that minimizes the euclidean norm among all solutions in the matrix the nullspace: $min hat{a} : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} right) $.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                First, a little explanation of what is happening when you solve for $a$ in



                $vec{a}=(X^TX)^{-1}X^Tvec{y}$ .



                The $(X^TX)^{-1}X^T$ part is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. It uses $X$'s Gramian matrix (the $X^TX$), which is a square positive semidefinite matrix yielding the same eigenvectors as $X$ while squaring its eigenvalues. Taking the inverse of this Gramian matrix and multiplying it by $X^T$ actually performs a least square fit (see this and this reference). It is a property of the pseudoinverse.



                As for your question about dealing with $n$ equations and $k$ unknowns, there are two possible cases (I suppose the rank of your matrix is at least equal to $k$):




                • The number of (linearly independent) equations is greater than the number of unknowns ( $n > k$, matrix is overdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution or none exist. The least squares regression is commonly used in this case. It will give the coefficients $vec{a}$ that minimizes the euclidean norm of the errors: $min epsilon : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} + epsilon right) $.

                • The number of (linearly independent) equations is equal or less than the number of unknowns ( $n le k$, matrix is full rank or underdetermined). In this case, either a single exact solution (when full rank) or many (up to an infinity) of them exist (when full rank or underdetermined). The pseudoinverse will construct the solution that minimizes the euclidean norm among all solutions in the matrix the nullspace: $min hat{a} : left( hat{y} = Xvec{a} right) $.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jul 22 '15 at 7:08









                SoravuxSoravux

                1363




                1363






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481845%2fregression-with-a-vandermonde-matrix%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

                    Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

                    Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

                    A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$