Skip to main content
added 117 characters in body
Source Link
compareCIResults[opts : OptionsPattern[NonlinearModelFit]] := 
 TableForm[{#["ParameterConfidenceIntervalTable"] & /@ {nlm[
     xyAsOffset] xyAsOffset, nlm[xyAsAbsoluteTime]opts], nlm[xyAsAbsoluteTime, opts]}}, 
  TableHeadings -> {{opts}, {"xyAsOffsets""xAsOffsetsFromTRef", "xyAsAbsoluteTime"
     "xAsAbsoluteTime"}}]];
compareCIResults[]
TableForm[{#["ParameterConfidenceIntervalTable"] & /@ {nlm[
     xyAsOffset], nlm[xyAsAbsoluteTime]}}, 
 TableHeadings -> {{}, {"xyAsOffsets", "xyAsAbsoluteTime"}}]
compareCIResults[opts : OptionsPattern[NonlinearModelFit]] := 
 TableForm[{#["ParameterConfidenceIntervalTable"] & /@ {nlm[
      xyAsOffset, opts], nlm[xyAsAbsoluteTime, opts]}}, 
  TableHeadings -> {{opts}, {"xAsOffsetsFromTRef", 
     "xAsAbsoluteTime"}}];
compareCIResults[]
added 77 characters in body
Source Link

NOTE: At this point, the only difference between xAsOffsets and xAsAbsoluteTime is thattheir IntegerLength[] size: the former are offset values from a TRef {0, 3600, ...} with IntegerLength[] <= 7 whereas the latter are AbsoluteTime values {3819830400, 3819832200, ...} whose IntegerLength[] == 10. Both are monotonically increasing by 1800.

NOTE: At this point, the only difference between xAsOffsets and xAsAbsoluteTime is that the former are offset values from a TRef {0, 3600, ...} whereas the latter are AbsoluteTime values {3819830400, 3819832200, ...}. Both are monotonically increasing by 1800.

NOTE: At this point, the only difference between xAsOffsets and xAsAbsoluteTime is their IntegerLength[] size: the former are offset values from a TRef {0, 3600, ...} with IntegerLength[] <= 7 whereas the latter are AbsoluteTime values {3819830400, 3819832200, ...} whose IntegerLength[] == 10. Both are monotonically increasing by 1800.

deleted 18 characters in body
Source Link
  1. Why does NLM ignore parameter constraints Abs[phi] <= 2Pi when AbsoluteTime units are utilized?
  2. Is there an additional NLM tuning parameter to ensure Phi never steps outside its constrained param value?
  3. Is there a two-pass strategy to get reasonable phaseCIs (e.g., estimate BestFitParameters in one pass with a specific NLM Method, and then run a second NLM passing with a Method that explicitly applies parameter constraints)?
  4. (More generally) What other issues does NLM have with respect to TimeSeries data with Circular and/or Directional Statistical models?
  1. Why does NLM ignore parameter constraints Abs[phi] <= 2Pi when AbsoluteTime units are utilized?
  2. Is there an additional NLM tuning parameter to ensure Phi never steps outside its constrained param value?
  3. Is there a two-pass strategy to get reasonable phaseCIs (e.g., estimate BestFitParameters in one pass with a specific NLM Method, and then run a second NLM passing with a Method that explicitly applies parameter constraints?
  4. (More generally) What other issues does NLM have with respect to TimeSeries data with Circular and/or Directional Statistical models?
  1. Why does NLM ignore parameter constraints Abs[phi] <= 2Pi when AbsoluteTime units are utilized?
  2. Is there an additional NLM tuning parameter to ensure Phi never steps outside its constrained param value?
  3. Is there a two-pass strategy to get reasonable phaseCIs (e.g., estimate BestFitParameters in one pass with a specific NLM Method, and then run a second NLM passing with a Method that explicitly applies parameter constraints)?
  4. (More generally) What other issues does NLM have with respect to TimeSeries data with Circular Statistical models?
added 27 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
added 275 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
edited body
Source Link
Loading
edited tags
Link
Loading
Source Link
Loading