1

I have a set of $n$ events. Each event has $m$ variables. At least 1 event produces an observation. It is possible for several events to occur simultaneously.

E.g.

4 Events. 3 variables each:

$E_{11}=0.4, E_{12}=-0.3, E_{13}=-0.4, E_{21}=0.3, ... , E_{42}=-3.0, E_{43}=2.1$
produces $y_1 = -5$

Here all events occurred simultaneously.

However, it is also possible for this to occur:

$E_{11}=0.2, E_{12}=0.2, E_{13}=-2$ and all other events are 0 (they did not occur).

So I want to scale up all the coefficients to match the observation.

Effectively I want to be able to weigh the events with 4 weights; $W_1$ to $W_4$ so that the total contribution for the first vector (all events) would be:

$W_1\cdot$(regression coeffs of $E_1) + W_2\cdot$(regression coeffs of $E_2) + ... + W_4\cdot$(regression coeffs of $E_4)$. Where each $W$ here has been normalized (and all $W$ are $>0)$.

In solving this regression, you have the usual matrix of observations $A$, a sparse weight matrix $w$, the vector of unknown coefficients $x$ and the resulting observations $y$.

I.e.

\begin{align} \displaystyle \left( \begin{array}{lllll} E^1_{11} & E^1_{12} & ... & E^1_{42} & E^1_{43}\\ E^2_{11} & E^2_{12} & ... & E^2_{42} & E^2_{43}\\ ... \\ E^{k-1}_{11} & E^{k-1}_{12} & ... & E^{k-1}_{42} & E^{k-1}_{43}\\ E^{k}_{11} & E^{k}_{12} & ... & E^{k}_{42} & E^{k}_{43} \end{array}\right)\\\cdot \left(\begin{array}{lllll} \frac {W_1}{\sum_4 W_i} & \frac {W_1}{\sum_4 W_i} & ... & \frac {W_4}{\sum_4 W_i} & \frac {W_4}{\sum_4 W_i}\\ \frac {W_1}{W_1+W_2} & \frac {W_1}{W_1+W_2} & ... & 0 & 0\\ ... \\ 0 & 0 & ... & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & ... & 1 & 1\end{array}\right)^T \left(\begin{array}{l} a_{11}\\a_{12}\\a_{13}\\...\\a_{41}\\a_{42}\\a_{43}\end{array}\right)\\= \left(\begin{array}{l} y_1\\ y_2\\ ...\\ y_{k-1}\\ y_{k} \end{array} \right) \end{align}

In the above equation, the first observation had all 4 events happen, the second one only events 1 and 2 occurred etc. The last observation only had event 4 occur. The $E$s and $y$s are known.

I need the vector of coefficients (the $a$s) and the weights $(w_1$ – $w_4)$. How do I solve this efficiently? Thanks.

Glen_b
  • 282,281
  • 1
    Please explain your notation: what do the values of the $E_{ij}$ mean? What is an "event" (the word has a conventional meaning in probability that seems to differ from your usage)? What does it mean to "produce an observation"? What does it mean to "match the observation"? Where you speak of a "total contribution," what is contributing to what? What are the $a_{ij}$? – whuber Feb 17 '14 at 15:01
  • 1
    Shouldn't the last row of your w matrix consist of a pair of 1's rather than w_4? – John Jiang Feb 17 '14 at 20:09
  • 1
    Correct - the last row should be 1's - fixed. The Eij's are just the known data for Event i variable j (so it's just a real number). I'm using Event in the context of the problem - not in the conventional sense - it is a predictor matrix. The aij are the traditional regression coefficients. – user1726633 Feb 18 '14 at 08:29

1 Answers1

1

If you multiply the predictor matrix (the ones with $E_{ij}$s with your weight matrix (which must be square), you get a new modified predictor matrix. Then you can proceed with the new problem like you do with any linear regression problem, provided the problem is underdetermined. I am not sure what significance the middle weight matrix has statistically. Here is my best guess: you want $w_i$ to represent the relative weight of say the sum of regressors squared in $i$th "event" (I prefer to call $i$th predictor group), such that when only a single event has nonzero predictors, the sum of squares of their regressors should be 1, whereas if $i$th and $j$th events have nonzero predictors, then the sum of the regressors squared belonging to the $i$th event should be $\frac{w_i}{(w_i + w_j)}$. Similarly for when more events have nonzero predictors. Right?

This is not addressed by your matrix formulation, but is significantly harder to solve. It's a hybrid of cosine similarity and linear regressions, due to the normalization step. Nonetheless it's a convex optimization problem since you can formulate it as a linear regression problem with a bunch of quadratic equality constraints. It's tractable as long as the latter set of constraints is small, the size of which is linear in the number of "events". I don't know what's a good package in standard stat software that solved equality constrained convex optimization problems, so others can comment. A look at Stephen Boyd's convex optimization book would be helpful.

Nick Stauner
  • 12,342
  • 5
  • 52
  • 110