1

Let’s say I have a function $f(p,q):R^{n+m}→R$, with $p∈R^n$ and $q∈R^m$. I have a set of $q_{i=1,…,k},y_{i=1,…,k}$ and I want to find $p$ so I use the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm to resolve the minimization problem: $${\min_{p}\sum _{i=1}^{k}[y_{i}-f(q_{i}|{\boldsymbol {p}})]^{2}\,}.$$

At the end I get:

  • My parameters $p$.
  • The Jacobian of $f$.
  • The Hessian of $f$.

What I’m searching for is the inverses Jacobians and Hessians, like how can I find:

$${\displaystyle J(f^{-1})={\begin{pmatrix}{\dfrac {\partial p_{1}}{\partial y_{1}}}&\cdots &{\dfrac {\partial p_{1}}{\partial y_{k}}}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\{\dfrac {\partial p_{n}}{\partial y_{1}}}&\cdots &{\dfrac {\partial p_{n}}{\partial y_{k}}}\end{pmatrix}},}$$

and

$${\forall i=1,...,k, \displaystyle H_{i}(f^{-1})={\begin{pmatrix}{\dfrac {\partial p_{i}}{\partial y_{1}\partial y_{1}}}&\cdots &{\dfrac {\partial p_{i}}{\partial y_{1}\partial y_{k}}}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\{\dfrac {\partial p_{i}}{\partial y_{k}\partial y_{1}}}&\cdots &{\dfrac {\partial p_{i}}{\partial y_{k}\partial y_{k}}}\end{pmatrix}},}$$

directly from what was computed in the first place?

Not sure for the Hessian, but at least for the Jacobian, I know the inverse function theorem states:

$$J(f^{-1})=\left[J(f)\right]^{-1}.$$

But how can I “trick” this problem to get a squared, invertible Jacobian?

loyd.f
  • 131
  • Do you need these objects only about the minima or do you need some sort of routine that can compute them at an arbitrary point? – whpowell96 May 28 '24 at 19:49
  • @whpowell96 only at the minima I guess. The exact question I'm trying to answer is like "what would be the new calibrated value $p$ if $y_i$ moved infinitesimally?" – loyd.f May 28 '24 at 20:02
  • 1
    I see. The term for this in the literature is sensitivity analysis. I don't think you need the Hessian for this, but you can proceed via the IFT to do something like this to get your answer I think https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1835821/least-squares-sensitivity-to-data – whpowell96 May 28 '24 at 20:09
  • Thanks a lot! But still I'm not sure of some things. This paper looks to be the closest to answer to my issue. At the chapter 3 it writes $X(c,w): \mathbb{R}^{N+M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^N$ but then eq $(11)$ (what I'm acutally interested of) writes $\partial_xC=-\left[\partial_c\Omega\right]^{-1}\partial_x\Omega$. But in my case it would be $c\in\mathbb{R}^M$, not $c\in\mathbb{R}^N$. $\partial_c\Omega$ is not invertible, it's not even squared... Should I go with the pseudo-inverse of $\partial_c\Omega$? – loyd.f Jun 01 '24 at 14:23

0 Answers0