• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:00
CEST 19:00
KST 02:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed10Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Who will win EWC 2025? Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Starcraft in widescreen A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Future of Porn Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 628 users

The Math Thread - Page 32

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 30 31 32 All
naughtDE
Profile Blog Joined May 2019
158 Posts
August 04 2020 14:34 GMT
#621
On August 04 2020 23:14 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?

I don't mind expensive books, I don't mind dry books. One of my favorite books that tried to teach me something is Stephen Prata's C Primer Plus. I like books because authors put more effort into compilating material. Maybe some maths profs on TL here want to recommend their own book on the topic? Most important to me are clearness and straight forwardness in expression.

Any book recommendations for self-studying operations research?
__________________
I don't mind expensive...


From what I've heard, James R Munkres 'Topology' is a great textbook.
I haven't read it, but my experience of his writing in 'Analysis on Manifolds' has been wonderful, he's very clear and insightful.


God that was fast. Thanks man, gonna check out it!
"I'll take [LET IT SNOW] for 800" - Sean Connery (Darrell Hammond)
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
August 04 2020 15:04 GMT
#622
On August 04 2020 23:14 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?

I don't mind expensive books, I don't mind dry books. One of my favorite books that tried to teach me something is Stephen Prata's C Primer Plus. I like books because authors put more effort into compilating material. Maybe some maths profs on TL here want to recommend their own book on the topic? Most important to me are clearness and straight forwardness in expression.

Any book recommendations for self-studying operations research?
__________________
I don't mind expensive...


From what I've heard, James R Munkres 'Topology' is a great textbook.
I haven't read it, but my experience of his writing in 'Analysis on Manifolds' has been wonderful, he's very clear and insightful.

That was the textbook for my uni's course in topology. It is a good book, but you need a pretty solid basis, mainly in algebra, before tackling this, as it is definitely not an easy topic, and he assumes quite a lot of prior knowledge.
CoughingHydra
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
177 Posts
August 04 2020 15:06 GMT
#623
On August 04 2020 23:34 naughtDE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2020 23:14 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?

I don't mind expensive books, I don't mind dry books. One of my favorite books that tried to teach me something is Stephen Prata's C Primer Plus. I like books because authors put more effort into compilating material. Maybe some maths profs on TL here want to recommend their own book on the topic? Most important to me are clearness and straight forwardness in expression.

Any book recommendations for self-studying operations research?
__________________
I don't mind expensive...


From what I've heard, James R Munkres 'Topology' is a great textbook.
I haven't read it, but my experience of his writing in 'Analysis on Manifolds' has been wonderful, he's very clear and insightful.


God that was fast. Thanks man, gonna check out it!

I learned first from Munkres' book and I find it is good for general topology, i.e., if you do not have a specific direction in mind (geometry, functional analysis, etc.). But if you would like to go in a specific direction, for example for geometry, then I would recommend reading Lee's Introduction to topological manifolds - I find that this book gives you a much better understanding of the relationship between topological definitions and geometrical intuition, and as Munkres has also a lot of exercises to chew through.
naughtDE
Profile Blog Joined May 2019
158 Posts
August 04 2020 17:25 GMT
#624
On August 05 2020 00:06 CoughingHydra wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2020 23:34 naughtDE wrote:
On August 04 2020 23:14 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?

I don't mind expensive books, I don't mind dry books. One of my favorite books that tried to teach me something is Stephen Prata's C Primer Plus. I like books because authors put more effort into compilating material. Maybe some maths profs on TL here want to recommend their own book on the topic? Most important to me are clearness and straight forwardness in expression.

Any book recommendations for self-studying operations research?
__________________
I don't mind expensive...


From what I've heard, James R Munkres 'Topology' is a great textbook.
I haven't read it, but my experience of his writing in 'Analysis on Manifolds' has been wonderful, he's very clear and insightful.


God that was fast. Thanks man, gonna check out it!

I learned first from Munkres' book and I find it is good for general topology, i.e., if you do not have a specific direction in mind (geometry, functional analysis, etc.). But if you would like to go in a specific direction, for example for geometry, then I would recommend reading Lee's Introduction to topological manifolds - I find that this book gives you a much better understanding of the relationship between topological definitions and geometrical intuition, and as Munkres has also a lot of exercises to chew through.

Seems like Lee has a nice appendix ^^.
"I'll take [LET IT SNOW] for 800" - Sean Connery (Darrell Hammond)
CoughingHydra
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
177 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-08-04 19:13:27
August 04 2020 19:04 GMT
#625
On August 05 2020 02:25 naughtDE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 05 2020 00:06 CoughingHydra wrote:
On August 04 2020 23:34 naughtDE wrote:
On August 04 2020 23:14 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?

I don't mind expensive books, I don't mind dry books. One of my favorite books that tried to teach me something is Stephen Prata's C Primer Plus. I like books because authors put more effort into compilating material. Maybe some maths profs on TL here want to recommend their own book on the topic? Most important to me are clearness and straight forwardness in expression.

Any book recommendations for self-studying operations research?
__________________
I don't mind expensive...


From what I've heard, James R Munkres 'Topology' is a great textbook.
I haven't read it, but my experience of his writing in 'Analysis on Manifolds' has been wonderful, he's very clear and insightful.


God that was fast. Thanks man, gonna check out it!

I learned first from Munkres' book and I find it is good for general topology, i.e., if you do not have a specific direction in mind (geometry, functional analysis, etc.). But if you would like to go in a specific direction, for example for geometry, then I would recommend reading Lee's Introduction to topological manifolds - I find that this book gives you a much better understanding of the relationship between topological definitions and geometrical intuition, and as Munkres has also a lot of exercises to chew through.

Seems like Lee has a nice appendix ^^.

Well, it's mostly a review of definitions and basic results. Just to reiterate: with Munkres you would definitely obtain a more comprehensive knowledge in topology - Lee concentrates on the geometric aspects (e.g. he has a nice chapter on the classification of 2-dim. compact manifolds), but barely touches other typical stuff one does in general topology - conditions when a topological space is metrizable (interesting in itself), Tychonoff theorem, Stone-Čech compactification, and Baire theory (all three important in functional analysis).
Joni_
Profile Joined April 2011
Germany352 Posts
August 04 2020 19:54 GMT
#626
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?


If the DE in your name means german, then you could check out the book "Allgemeine Topologie" by Rene Bartsch, simply because it is written in an enticing, non-dry way in its prose, introductions and motivations but is still a proper maths book. Rene used to give a Topology lecture here at TU Darmstadt that followed it (for obvious reasons), although I'm not sure if the lecture came before the book or vice versa.

I mainly remember the book because the better students in the lecture enjoyed his lecture and the book so much, quite a bunch of them bought the book and proof-read it thoroughly, some accumulating a decent amount of corrections that made it into the errata (available on Rene's webpage) and because the small part of the book I read (Uniform Spaces) was a great read, at least for me.
Melliflue
Profile Joined October 2012
United Kingdom1389 Posts
August 05 2020 17:04 GMT
#627
There are two ways of teaching/learning topology. There is the direct method of starting with definitions and examples, and there is a geometric approach that treats topology as a generalisation of metric spaces (where there is a concept of distance).

The direct method is more abstract, but quicker. It is probably better for students who prefer set theory or logic. This is the approach taken by Munkres.

The geometric approach is more common because most students find it more intuitive. This approach defines metric spaces first and gives properties, theorems, etc about them. Then the definition of a topological space is given, followed by the same/analogous properties, theorems, etc. For books that take this approach you can try Mendelson's 'Introduction to Topology' or Sutherland's 'Introduction to Metric and Topological Spaces'.

There are also many notes freely available online; lots of professors put up lecture notes.
naughtDE
Profile Blog Joined May 2019
158 Posts
August 06 2020 21:33 GMT
#628
On August 05 2020 04:54 Joni_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 04 2020 22:53 naughtDE wrote:
Any book recommendations for thoroughly self-studying topology?


If the DE in your name means german, then you could check out the book "Allgemeine Topologie" by Rene Bartsch, simply because it is written in an enticing, non-dry way in its prose, introductions and motivations but is still a proper maths book. Rene used to give a Topology lecture here at TU Darmstadt that followed it (for obvious reasons), although I'm not sure if the lecture came before the book or vice versa.

I mainly remember the book because the better students in the lecture enjoyed his lecture and the book so much, quite a bunch of them bought the book and proof-read it thoroughly, some accumulating a decent amount of corrections that made it into the errata (available on Rene's webpage) and because the small part of the book I read (Uniform Spaces) was a great read, at least for me.


It does not, but it is one of the languages I speak. I tried to read some of the first semester stuff from Siegfried Bosch years ago, but basically came running back to English, as German when used in a scientific context can become the most obfuscated language. I just had a look inside "Allgemeine Topologie" by Rene Bartsch and he surely puts things very clearly, maybe I give German another go.

@Melliflue That's a +1 for munkres then!
"I'll take [LET IT SNOW] for 800" - Sean Connery (Darrell Hammond)
greys
Profile Joined September 2020
14 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-10-09 11:47:04
October 08 2020 12:12 GMT
#629
--- Nuked ---
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11497 Posts
October 08 2020 12:14 GMT
#630
Very reasonable to bump a thread which has had no activity for three months with that information. Are you an adbot?
JimmyJRaynor
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada16692 Posts
October 08 2020 14:43 GMT
#631
On October 08 2020 21:12 greys wrote:
I study math in college right now, it is probably the hardest subject for me

the hardest math course i ever took was MAT 344: Applied Combinatorics. It had two midterms worth 25% and a final exam worth 50%. The first midterm occurred just before you were still eligible to drop the course without incurring an academic penalty. There were 30 people in the class before the first midterm. There were 14 remaining after that first midterm exam. More than half the class bailed.
Ray Kassar To David Crane : "you're no more important to Atari than the factory workers assembling the cartridges"
JimmyJRaynor
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada16692 Posts
October 08 2020 14:44 GMT
#632
On October 08 2020 21:14 Simberto wrote:
Very reasonable to bump a thread which has had no activity for three months with that information. Are you an adbot?

i do not think he is an adbot.
to wit...
https://tl.net/forum/entertainment/87868-movie-discussion?page=458#9142
Ray Kassar To David Crane : "you're no more important to Atari than the factory workers assembling the cartridges"
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5544 Posts
December 04 2020 11:29 GMT
#633
I seem to have exhausted my other options, so I thought maybe I'd ask here. Is there an analytical method that would be suitable for the problem I've described below? I'm looking for a way to correlate one response variable with multiple independent variables.

I'm working on several different materials. Each of them consists of 3-4 phases. Their phase composition overlaps to some extent. Each phase in a given material has a characteristic volume fraction (F). The phase properties I'd be looking at are elastic modulus (E), hardness (H) and plastic yield strength (Y). They may take somewhat different values between nominally the same phases in different materials. Some phases can be inherently brittle and not deform plastically, which means they don't have Y that could be measured. Each material has an overall wear resistance (R). Below is an illustration of what I mean:

material #1: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) -> R

material #2: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) + phase D (F, E, H) -> R

material #3: phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase Z (F, E, H, Y) -> R

A phase not being present in a given alloy is equal to it having a fraction equal zero. F is a weighting coefficient in a way. The relationship between phase properties or phase fraction and R is not necessarily linear.

We'd like to be able to predict R based on F, E, H and Y of the constituent phases (if there is indeed a link), as well as determine which variables may be superfluous.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
December 07 2020 08:29 GMT
#634
On December 04 2020 20:29 maybenexttime wrote:
I seem to have exhausted my other options, so I thought maybe I'd ask here. Is there an analytical method that would be suitable for the problem I've described below? I'm looking for a way to correlate one response variable with multiple independent variables.

I'm working on several different materials. Each of them consists of 3-4 phases. Their phase composition overlaps to some extent. Each phase in a given material has a characteristic volume fraction (F). The phase properties I'd be looking at are elastic modulus (E), hardness (H) and plastic yield strength (Y). They may take somewhat different values between nominally the same phases in different materials. Some phases can be inherently brittle and not deform plastically, which means they don't have Y that could be measured. Each material has an overall wear resistance (R). Below is an illustration of what I mean:

material #1: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) -> R

material #2: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) + phase D (F, E, H) -> R

material #3: phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase Z (F, E, H, Y) -> R

A phase not being present in a given alloy is equal to it having a fraction equal zero. F is a weighting coefficient in a way. The relationship between phase properties or phase fraction and R is not necessarily linear.

We'd like to be able to predict R based on F, E, H and Y of the constituent phases (if there is indeed a link), as well as determine which variables may be superfluous.

Sounds like a regression problem. If you're explicitly interested in finding your superfluous variables, lasso regression is good, and in general any linear regression model is a good place to start.

If your problem is very non-linear and not easily linearized, you can use a decision tree or forest regression model, but it won't give you a neat formula that looks like the ones you described.
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5544 Posts
December 07 2020 11:19 GMT
#635
On December 07 2020 17:29 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2020 20:29 maybenexttime wrote:
I seem to have exhausted my other options, so I thought maybe I'd ask here. Is there an analytical method that would be suitable for the problem I've described below? I'm looking for a way to correlate one response variable with multiple independent variables.

I'm working on several different materials. Each of them consists of 3-4 phases. Their phase composition overlaps to some extent. Each phase in a given material has a characteristic volume fraction (F). The phase properties I'd be looking at are elastic modulus (E), hardness (H) and plastic yield strength (Y). They may take somewhat different values between nominally the same phases in different materials. Some phases can be inherently brittle and not deform plastically, which means they don't have Y that could be measured. Each material has an overall wear resistance (R). Below is an illustration of what I mean:

material #1: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) -> R

material #2: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) + phase D (F, E, H) -> R

material #3: phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase Z (F, E, H, Y) -> R

A phase not being present in a given alloy is equal to it having a fraction equal zero. F is a weighting coefficient in a way. The relationship between phase properties or phase fraction and R is not necessarily linear.

We'd like to be able to predict R based on F, E, H and Y of the constituent phases (if there is indeed a link), as well as determine which variables may be superfluous.

Sounds like a regression problem. If you're explicitly interested in finding your superfluous variables, lasso regression is good, and in general any linear regression model is a good place to start.

If your problem is very non-linear and not easily linearized, you can use a decision tree or forest regression model, but it won't give you a neat formula that looks like the ones you described.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have a look.

I considered multiple linear regression at the very start, but wasn't sure whether it's suitable for this kind of problem. The variables are not truly independent here. E.g. (1) the phase fraction must somehow affect how each phase's properties contribute to the net R value. If the fraction of a phase is at 0.05 you'd expect its impact to be low regardless of its properties. (2) H is a function of and E and Y, but not in a straightforward way - different combinations of E and Y can give the same H, but H generally increases with increasing E or Y. I would've skipped H altogether if it weren't for the fact that some phases don't have Y at all. (3) E, H and Y are a function of the phases' chemical composition and crystal structure.

I'm not sure how to treat F. Should it be a variable alongside E, H and Y or rather another coefficient modulating them?

It's hard to say how non-linear the problem is. Studies on simpler materials (single phase, with maybe some fraction of a strengthening phase) revealed some general trends in terms of Y and H/E ratio, but not a clear function. Most likely due to other confounding factors, such as the crystal structure or oxide type.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
December 09 2020 19:07 GMT
#636
On December 07 2020 20:19 maybenexttime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 07 2020 17:29 Acrofales wrote:
On December 04 2020 20:29 maybenexttime wrote:
I seem to have exhausted my other options, so I thought maybe I'd ask here. Is there an analytical method that would be suitable for the problem I've described below? I'm looking for a way to correlate one response variable with multiple independent variables.

I'm working on several different materials. Each of them consists of 3-4 phases. Their phase composition overlaps to some extent. Each phase in a given material has a characteristic volume fraction (F). The phase properties I'd be looking at are elastic modulus (E), hardness (H) and plastic yield strength (Y). They may take somewhat different values between nominally the same phases in different materials. Some phases can be inherently brittle and not deform plastically, which means they don't have Y that could be measured. Each material has an overall wear resistance (R). Below is an illustration of what I mean:

material #1: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) -> R

material #2: phase A (F, E, H, Y) + phase C (F, E, H) + phase D (F, E, H) -> R

material #3: phase B (F, E, H, Y) + phase Z (F, E, H, Y) -> R

A phase not being present in a given alloy is equal to it having a fraction equal zero. F is a weighting coefficient in a way. The relationship between phase properties or phase fraction and R is not necessarily linear.

We'd like to be able to predict R based on F, E, H and Y of the constituent phases (if there is indeed a link), as well as determine which variables may be superfluous.

Sounds like a regression problem. If you're explicitly interested in finding your superfluous variables, lasso regression is good, and in general any linear regression model is a good place to start.

If your problem is very non-linear and not easily linearized, you can use a decision tree or forest regression model, but it won't give you a neat formula that looks like the ones you described.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have a look.

I considered multiple linear regression at the very start, but wasn't sure whether it's suitable for this kind of problem. The variables are not truly independent here. E.g. (1) the phase fraction must somehow affect how each phase's properties contribute to the net R value. If the fraction of a phase is at 0.05 you'd expect its impact to be low regardless of its properties. (2) H is a function of and E and Y, but not in a straightforward way - different combinations of E and Y can give the same H, but H generally increases with increasing E or Y. I would've skipped H altogether if it weren't for the fact that some phases don't have Y at all. (3) E, H and Y are a function of the phases' chemical composition and crystal structure.

I'm not sure how to treat F. Should it be a variable alongside E, H and Y or rather another coefficient modulating them?

It's hard to say how non-linear the problem is. Studies on simpler materials (single phase, with maybe some fraction of a strengthening phase) revealed some general trends in terms of Y and H/E ratio, but not a clear function. Most likely due to other confounding factors, such as the crystal structure or oxide type.

Couple of approaches here. The first is to just try it and see. This is almost always the first approach as it is simple. In particular the tree/forest models deal fairly well with covariant variables, but even a simple linear regression model with l1 and/or l2 regularization can do well. It all depends on the data and the problem.

If these don't work well at all, modelling it is going to be tough and you may need some feature engineering to get more information out of your data. However, you can still use some other tricks to tease out some of the covariance. You can use LDA to transform your data to an orthogonal base, and the underlying coefficients will tell you which variables were particularly informative. PCA does something similar, but doesn't take your dependent variable into account specifically. Either can help you weed out some of the covariance.
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5544 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-12-10 16:27:39
December 10 2020 13:55 GMT
#637
Thanks a bunch! Many of those terms sound completely foreign to me. I will have to do some reading. :-) I've been exploring the possibility of using dimensional analysis (suggested by one professor), but the problem is so different from the examples shown in the literature, that I got lost.

Could you tell me if those methods are suitable for problems which do not feature large datasets? I have a total of 7 materials (M1-M7), composed of 5 different phases (A, B, X, C, D). Each of them consists of 2-3 phases (I decided to ignore some minor phases to makes things simpler) and has a net R value. Each of those phases is characterized by 3-4 parameters (F, E, H and possibly Y). R is a function of the properties of the phases that comprise the material (how do I add lower indices?):

R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_C, E_C, H_C, F_D, E_D, H_D).

Since the materials don't contain all the phases, the fractions of the non-present phases effectively equal zero while the other phase parameters do not exist (which I suppose is different from being equal to zero?).

M1: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M2: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M3: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_C, E_C, H_C)

M4: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M5: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_C, E_C, H_C)

M6: R = f(F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M7: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_C, E_C, H_C)

We only get one set of values for each material because R and F, E, H and Y are measured is different experiments, using different samples. We can't measure R twice for a given material, then measure F, E, H and Y twice, and say this set of F, E, H and Y corresponds to this R and that set to that R. The number of data points is equal to the number of materials studied, and it's much lower than the number of variables. Is this a problem?

Edit: According to Wiki, lasso does perform variable selection, which is somewhat reassuring. :-)

Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (or data points). Archetypal cases for the application of feature selection include the analysis of written texts and DNA microarray data, where there are many thousands of features, and a few tens to hundreds of samples.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
December 17 2020 11:03 GMT
#638
On December 10 2020 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:
Thanks a bunch! Many of those terms sound completely foreign to me. I will have to do some reading. :-) I've been exploring the possibility of using dimensional analysis (suggested by one professor), but the problem is so different from the examples shown in the literature, that I got lost.

Could you tell me if those methods are suitable for problems which do not feature large datasets? I have a total of 7 materials (M1-M7), composed of 5 different phases (A, B, X, C, D). Each of them consists of 2-3 phases (I decided to ignore some minor phases to makes things simpler) and has a net R value. Each of those phases is characterized by 3-4 parameters (F, E, H and possibly Y). R is a function of the properties of the phases that comprise the material (how do I add lower indices?):

R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_C, E_C, H_C, F_D, E_D, H_D).

Since the materials don't contain all the phases, the fractions of the non-present phases effectively equal zero while the other phase parameters do not exist (which I suppose is different from being equal to zero?).

M1: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M2: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M3: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_C, E_C, H_C)

M4: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M5: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_C, E_C, H_C)

M6: R = f(F_B, E_B, H_B, Y_B, F_X, E_X, H_X, F_D, E_D, H_D)

M7: R = f(F_A, E_A, H_A, Y_A, F_C, E_C, H_C)

We only get one set of values for each material because R and F, E, H and Y are measured is different experiments, using different samples. We can't measure R twice for a given material, then measure F, E, H and Y twice, and say this set of F, E, H and Y corresponds to this R and that set to that R. The number of data points is equal to the number of materials studied, and it's much lower than the number of variables. Is this a problem?

Edit: According to Wiki, lasso does perform variable selection, which is somewhat reassuring. :-)

Show nested quote +
Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (or data points). Archetypal cases for the application of feature selection include the analysis of written texts and DNA microarray data, where there are many thousands of features, and a few tens to hundreds of samples.


Basically the more variables you have and the fewer samples, the greater the chance for overfitting, so generally you'll want to use the methods to prevent overfitting more aggressively. Regularization and feature selection are techniques that do exactly that. Dimensionality reduction (with LDA, PCA or a few more complex methods) are another (alternative/complementary) way of doing that.

But you need to just dive in and start experimenting with the various techniques, as there is no theoretical best way to do this (well, I guess in theory, there is, we just don't know what it is, and it is different for every problem).

One word of caution: with so few samples, and if running more experiments is hard and expensive, then be extra careful to set aside a few samples for your test set and *do not ever use them*. You can then use various ways for splitting your train and validation data, and once you think you have a method that works well, then use your test data to make sure that is indeed a good method. If you use your test data too much to guide the rest of the process, you can still be overfitting and will need new different data to test whether your method actually works!
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5544 Posts
December 17 2020 13:00 GMT
#639
On December 17 2020 20:03 Acrofales wrote:Basically the more variables you have and the fewer samples, the greater the chance for overfitting, so generally you'll want to use the methods to prevent overfitting more aggressively. Regularization and feature selection are techniques that do exactly that. Dimensionality reduction (with LDA, PCA or a few more complex methods) are another (alternative/complementary) way of doing that.

But you need to just dive in and start experimenting with the various techniques, as there is no theoretical best way to do this (well, I guess in theory, there is, we just don't know what it is, and it is different for every problem).

I've been learning about those methods from StatQuest. Your recommendations seem well-suited for the problem I'm working on. Very solid advice. You've been really helpful. :-)

I'm not sure if it's possible to solve it this way, but it's my best bet. Even if it doesn't work out, I'll still have plenty of data to analyze qualitatively.

One word of caution: with so few samples, and if running more experiments is hard and expensive, then be extra careful to set aside a few samples for your test set and *do not ever use them*. You can then use various ways for splitting your train and validation data, and once you think you have a method that works well, then use your test data to make sure that is indeed a good method. If you use your test data too much to guide the rest of the process, you can still be overfitting and will need new different data to test whether your method actually works!

Thanks for the warning. I'm aware of that. Having this few data points will make splitting my data tricky. Unfortunately, adding more data points would require making new materials and testing them. That would probably cost several thousand pounds per data point. :-P
Prev 1 30 31 32 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV European League
16:00
Swiss Groups Day 4
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
WardiTV674
TKL 218
IndyStarCraft 186
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 448
TKL 218
IndyStarCraft 186
UpATreeSC 171
BRAT_OK 62
MindelVK 16
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 30453
Rain 2680
BeSt 1378
EffOrt 1035
firebathero 475
Stork 441
Rush 194
Light 190
PianO 154
Mind 117
[ Show more ]
Trikslyr81
Aegong 58
Movie 56
sSak 49
GoRush 27
Shinee 26
JulyZerg 25
yabsab 20
Terrorterran 17
scan(afreeca) 16
Shine 7
Bale 5
SilentControl 4
Dota 2
qojqva3691
monkeys_forever203
League of Legends
Dendi1424
Counter-Strike
sgares636
flusha256
Other Games
FrodaN4168
singsing2237
B2W.Neo1252
Beastyqt612
ceh9412
Lowko267
Pyrionflax132
ToD126
oskar121
Skadoodle79
ArmadaUGS78
elazer72
QueenE66
Mew2King66
ForJumy 31
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3344
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta5
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2093
League of Legends
• Nemesis3050
• Jankos1683
• TFBlade546
Other Games
• Shiphtur6
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Monday
7h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
23h
Replay Cast
1d 7h
The PondCast
1d 17h
WardiTV European League
1d 23h
Replay Cast
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Epic.LAN
3 days
CSO Contender
4 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Online Event
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
6 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.