1. Did you plot the data within subsets to evaluate the appropriateness of any particular model?

2. Did you previously use "nls" to estimate parameters in the exponential model to appropriate subsets of the data? If yes, did you make various plots of residuals, e.g., vs. predicted to evaluate lack of fit, normal probability plots (qqnorm) to evaluate the distribution of residuals, and absolute values of residuals vs. predicted to evaluate homogeniety of variance.

3. Only if residual plots suggest lack of fit would I abandon the exponential model. Even then, I would be loath to embrace splines just because they are too unconstrained and not tied to any theoretical model of the phenomena of interest. What does available theory tell you about possible functional forms for the model? If an exponential does not hold in part of the regions of interest, what alternative functional forms might be suggested by the available theory?

4. Have you also made qqplots, e.g., qqnorm, of parameters estimated from model fits? My preference is to look for normality everywhere it make physical sense in the application, to transform, e.g., with logarithms or logits or probits or log(-log(yield)), where the transform would more likely be normal [possibly adding a small constant or multiplying by a number close to 1 to avoid taking logarithm of 0]. Then I use rnorm rather than runif.

hope this helps.
spencer graves

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Sorry for the confussion.
# The way I had originally generated the data was
# sort of like this (cut and paste the code below a few times):

foo.curve <- runif(1,0.8,1.2) * exp(runif(1,-0.015,-0.005) * 1:500) +
runif(1,0.25,0.75) ts.plot(foo.curve, lwd = 2)


# where the min and max values in runif() were mined from the data using
nls.
# Are there similar ways to manipulate the smooth spline parameters to
give that kind of data?
# I still need a smooth line but would like the nugget, sill and range
to change # (to borrow terms from semivariance)


On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:46:28 -0700 Spencer Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

Have you considered adding noise to "predict(spline.model)$y"? If
this won't solve your problem, then I think I don't understand what you
want to do.


spencer graves

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

# I need to generate some data. I'm modeling some time series

that follow


a
# negative exponential decay (mostly). I have 20 samples that

can easily


be fit with cubic splines.
# What I want to do is generate many thousands of similar samples

using


the parameters from the splines

# For instance one data sample looks not unlike this:
foo.curve <- 1 * exp(-0.01 * 1:500) + 0.5 ts.plot(foo.curve, lwd = 2)


# Another sample looks not unlike this:
foo.curve2 <- 0.9 * exp(-0.02 * 1:500) + 0.5 ts.plot(foo.curve2, lwd = 2)




# They can be fit with splines easily like so:

ts.plot(foo.curve, lwd = 2)
spline.model <- smooth.spline(foo.curve)

fits4foo <- predict(spline.model)$y
spline4foo <- spline(1:500, fits4foo)
lines(spline4foo$x, spline4foo$y, col = "red", lwd = 2, lty =

"dashed")


# I originally generated the data I needed by using a nls model

and


# adding some noise to the mean of the coefficents from those

fits.


# However, I've been told to try and do this using splines for

arcane


reasons.

# So, if you had 20 splines like spline.model above and wanted

to generate


some similar data what would you do?
# Thanks in advance.









Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:

______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help













Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:


______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help

______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help

Reply via email to