# Having problems with NonlinearModelFit

I have data points — denoted by Fk— covering quite a large range $(1,\,10^{1010})$. I plotted them with ListLogPlot. Then I tried to fit the data points using NonlinearModelFit, and now I have two problems:

1. Fitting the data points

fit = NonlinearModelFit[Fk, a*k^(B*k), {a, B}, k]


gives 1 k^1 for the fitted model.

However, fitting the data points with:

fit2 = NonlinearModelFit[Fk, a*k^(b*c*k), {a, b, c}, k]


gives the fitted model 140.714 k^1.16997 k which I completely do not unterstand. I mean why should the output change upon inserting the variable $c$, which could also be combined with $b$ such that say $b\,c= B$ and fit should be equal to fit2.

2. If I now plot the data Fk vs. k together with the fitted model, the fitted curve ends at some value of $k \approx 120$, and I do not unterstand why. My code for this is

Show[{ListLogPlot[Fk, PlotStyle -> Red], LogPlot[fit2[k], {k, 0, 300}]}] Red dots = data points; blue line = fitted curve

• Thanks, is it now ok? – user46908 Feb 26 '17 at 13:03
• Yes, I will delete my comment. – m_goldberg Feb 26 '17 at 13:05
• Can you provide us with your points? (Btw it makes no sense to fit b*c since they're directly correlated into each other.) – Julien Kluge Feb 26 '17 at 14:13
• For the fact that the plot stops at a value around k=120, that may be because your function is hitting the upper limit of machine-precision numbers. See (105774). Try increasing the WorkingPrecision for your Plot function. – MarcoB Feb 26 '17 at 15:49
• Non-linear fitting rarely plug-and-play. Two things I would recommend: (i) Find a good initial guess for the parameters. E.g., a=Fk. (ii) If the fit is 1% off at k=300 the absolute error is $10^{800}$ times larger than a 1000% error at k=50. That is, you probably want to specify weights to be some function of Fk. Finally, plotting works with Exclusions -> None, see this bug. – Felix Feb 26 '17 at 16:20

You want to fit the log of Fk and add in some constraints for the parameters.

Fk[n_] := LinearSolve[
Table[PadRight[Table[StirlingS2[k, m], {m, k}], n], {k, 1, n}],
Table[BellB[k]^2, {k, 1, n}]];
data = Transpose[{Range[1, 300], Log[Fk]}];

nlm = NonlinearModelFit[data, {Log[a] + b k Log[k], a > 0 && b > 0}, {a, b}, k];
nlm["BestFitParameters"]
(* {a -> 74145.49180618675,b -> 1.1879871492270795} *)


But this doesn't provide a great fit. (Or rather if you add in a few more terms, you can predict a whole lot better. But that's not a Mathematica issue.)

ListLogPlot[{Fk, Exp[nlm["PredictedResponse"]]}] Here is a "close-up" of the lack of fit showing the residual associated with the values of k: • Hi Jim. Thanks for your answer. I now used your NonlinearModelFit however I got a different a and b: {a -> 1.70003*10^-6, b -> 1.20435} – user46908 Feb 27 '17 at 7:03
• And yes, you are right it is not the best fit. I will try to make it better, but what I am looking for is just an asymptotic behaviour of the Fk, thus from the fit I already kind of see what to expect. – user46908 Feb 27 '17 at 7:13
• Using loga as the parameter rather than a in Log[a] gives a number much closer to yours and (maybe more importantly) gives a smaller error variance. However, if your objective is to estimate asymptotic behaviour and you're not so interested in small values of k, then that probably doesn't help much. – JimB Feb 27 '17 at 17:06
• Yeah I realized that even for getting just an asymptotic behaviour my fit was far too bad, thus I changed the model to ak^(bk^c). Now the fit is much better and the residuals pretty small. Thanks again for your answer. – user46908 Feb 28 '17 at 7:04