Monotonic transformation to smooth the probabilities The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Thinking: Why equivalent percentage increase of A and decrease of B is not the same end result?Increase difficulty level based on probabilitiesCalculating probability based variables?Looking for peculiar vector transformationHow to find Fantasy Football Playoff ProbabilitiesProbabilities of survival vs. probabilities of being sampledSomething with a probability of 1% occurring 100 timesSicherman versus standard 2d6, playing backgammon: is there an advantage to either side?Expected Value of BillsEstimating probabilities of switching between two states
Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?
"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?
Derivation tree not rendering
how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
Simulating Exploding Dice
Relations between two reciprocal partial derivatives?
How many people can fit inside Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?
How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time
Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?
First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun
Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?
Problems with Ubuntu mount /tmp
Hopping to infinity along a string of digits
Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?
Would it be possible to rearrange a dragon's flight muscle to somewhat circumvent the square-cube law?
Finding the path in a graph from A to B then back to A with a minimum of shared edges
How to pronounce 1ターン?
Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion?
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
Arduino Pro Micro - switch off LEDs
How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?
Monotonic transformation to smooth the probabilities
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Thinking: Why equivalent percentage increase of A and decrease of B is not the same end result?Increase difficulty level based on probabilitiesCalculating probability based variables?Looking for peculiar vector transformationHow to find Fantasy Football Playoff ProbabilitiesProbabilities of survival vs. probabilities of being sampledSomething with a probability of 1% occurring 100 timesSicherman versus standard 2d6, playing backgammon: is there an advantage to either side?Expected Value of BillsEstimating probabilities of switching between two states
$begingroup$
I am studying some event for a set of objects that can be plotted on a square $[0, 100] ^ 2$. I have used logistic regression to calculate probabilities that event occur for different objects and the output can be plotted as below:

We can observe a high density around point $(100, 50)$ and that basically the farther the less probable the event is. A distance to this point is one of the predictors, but there are also few others. What I am interested in is to capture a potential movement, i.e. how valuable is to move from point $A$ to point $B$. But I would like to reward also those movements which are made far from the point $(100, 50)$, not only those near to the point. And for the former the absolute increase in probability will be small even if a movement is pretty significant (long distance), while for the latter we can observe a large increase in probabilities even with a tiny move. So I think what I would need is to somehow nullify/smooth effect of distance from $(100, 50)$, i.e. make it less significant for calculating our movement gain. And I do not really know how to accomplish that. I cannot calculate the percentage gain, because this results in a really large gains. I think I need some monotonic transformation that would make a large probabilities lower and low probabilities higher. Any ideas what I could apply here?
Edit
@AlexFrancisco, I decided to edit a post to include an image that should help me in explanations. My question is: is there a way to restrict the parameters $a, b, c, M$ to such intervals that changing values within those intervals would make $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ different concave functions ranging from identity (blue curve), by slightly concave function (purple curve) to maximally concave function (red curve)?

In other words, I would like to exclude those values of $a, b, c, M$ that makes $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ not concave.
probability transformation monotone-functions logistic-regression
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am studying some event for a set of objects that can be plotted on a square $[0, 100] ^ 2$. I have used logistic regression to calculate probabilities that event occur for different objects and the output can be plotted as below:

We can observe a high density around point $(100, 50)$ and that basically the farther the less probable the event is. A distance to this point is one of the predictors, but there are also few others. What I am interested in is to capture a potential movement, i.e. how valuable is to move from point $A$ to point $B$. But I would like to reward also those movements which are made far from the point $(100, 50)$, not only those near to the point. And for the former the absolute increase in probability will be small even if a movement is pretty significant (long distance), while for the latter we can observe a large increase in probabilities even with a tiny move. So I think what I would need is to somehow nullify/smooth effect of distance from $(100, 50)$, i.e. make it less significant for calculating our movement gain. And I do not really know how to accomplish that. I cannot calculate the percentage gain, because this results in a really large gains. I think I need some monotonic transformation that would make a large probabilities lower and low probabilities higher. Any ideas what I could apply here?
Edit
@AlexFrancisco, I decided to edit a post to include an image that should help me in explanations. My question is: is there a way to restrict the parameters $a, b, c, M$ to such intervals that changing values within those intervals would make $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ different concave functions ranging from identity (blue curve), by slightly concave function (purple curve) to maximally concave function (red curve)?

In other words, I would like to exclude those values of $a, b, c, M$ that makes $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ not concave.
probability transformation monotone-functions logistic-regression
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am studying some event for a set of objects that can be plotted on a square $[0, 100] ^ 2$. I have used logistic regression to calculate probabilities that event occur for different objects and the output can be plotted as below:

We can observe a high density around point $(100, 50)$ and that basically the farther the less probable the event is. A distance to this point is one of the predictors, but there are also few others. What I am interested in is to capture a potential movement, i.e. how valuable is to move from point $A$ to point $B$. But I would like to reward also those movements which are made far from the point $(100, 50)$, not only those near to the point. And for the former the absolute increase in probability will be small even if a movement is pretty significant (long distance), while for the latter we can observe a large increase in probabilities even with a tiny move. So I think what I would need is to somehow nullify/smooth effect of distance from $(100, 50)$, i.e. make it less significant for calculating our movement gain. And I do not really know how to accomplish that. I cannot calculate the percentage gain, because this results in a really large gains. I think I need some monotonic transformation that would make a large probabilities lower and low probabilities higher. Any ideas what I could apply here?
Edit
@AlexFrancisco, I decided to edit a post to include an image that should help me in explanations. My question is: is there a way to restrict the parameters $a, b, c, M$ to such intervals that changing values within those intervals would make $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ different concave functions ranging from identity (blue curve), by slightly concave function (purple curve) to maximally concave function (red curve)?

In other words, I would like to exclude those values of $a, b, c, M$ that makes $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ not concave.
probability transformation monotone-functions logistic-regression
$endgroup$
I am studying some event for a set of objects that can be plotted on a square $[0, 100] ^ 2$. I have used logistic regression to calculate probabilities that event occur for different objects and the output can be plotted as below:

We can observe a high density around point $(100, 50)$ and that basically the farther the less probable the event is. A distance to this point is one of the predictors, but there are also few others. What I am interested in is to capture a potential movement, i.e. how valuable is to move from point $A$ to point $B$. But I would like to reward also those movements which are made far from the point $(100, 50)$, not only those near to the point. And for the former the absolute increase in probability will be small even if a movement is pretty significant (long distance), while for the latter we can observe a large increase in probabilities even with a tiny move. So I think what I would need is to somehow nullify/smooth effect of distance from $(100, 50)$, i.e. make it less significant for calculating our movement gain. And I do not really know how to accomplish that. I cannot calculate the percentage gain, because this results in a really large gains. I think I need some monotonic transformation that would make a large probabilities lower and low probabilities higher. Any ideas what I could apply here?
Edit
@AlexFrancisco, I decided to edit a post to include an image that should help me in explanations. My question is: is there a way to restrict the parameters $a, b, c, M$ to such intervals that changing values within those intervals would make $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ different concave functions ranging from identity (blue curve), by slightly concave function (purple curve) to maximally concave function (red curve)?

In other words, I would like to exclude those values of $a, b, c, M$ that makes $1 - mathcalF(f(x))$ not concave.
probability transformation monotone-functions logistic-regression
probability transformation monotone-functions logistic-regression
edited Mar 25 at 6:53
jakes
asked Sep 26 '18 at 13:04
jakesjakes
298
298
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Assume that the density $f$ is positive on $[0, 100]^2$ and there exists a constant $M > 0$ such that $f(x) leqslant M$ for any $x in [0, 100]^2$. Two families of prototypical transformations are given first:$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracMf(x) right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracMf(x) right)^b - 1 right)^a,
$$
where $a, b > 0$ are parameters. To see the rationale, consider two families of density functions:$$
f_1(x) = M exp(-(d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a), quad f_2(x) = fracM((d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a + 1)^tfrac1b,
$$
where $x_0 = (100, 50)$ and $d$ is some distance function. Note that for $d(x, y) = sqrtsmash[b](x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2$, $a = dfrac12$, $b = dfrac23$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the density functions of bivariate normal distribution and that of bivariate Cauchy distribution, respectively. Solving $d(x, x_0)$ from $f_1$ and $f_2$ yields $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_1(f_1)(x)$ and $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_2(f_2)(x)$, respectively.
Now, since it may be unpractical to assume that $f$ is positive, or $f$ may be almost $0$ at points far from $x_0$, then it is useful to introduce another parameter $c > 0$, i.e.$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracM + cf(x) + c right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
After normalization,$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( fraclndfracM + cf(x) + clndfracM + cc right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( fracleft( dfracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1left( dfracM + cc right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2931595%2fmonotonic-transformation-to-smooth-the-probabilities%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Assume that the density $f$ is positive on $[0, 100]^2$ and there exists a constant $M > 0$ such that $f(x) leqslant M$ for any $x in [0, 100]^2$. Two families of prototypical transformations are given first:$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracMf(x) right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracMf(x) right)^b - 1 right)^a,
$$
where $a, b > 0$ are parameters. To see the rationale, consider two families of density functions:$$
f_1(x) = M exp(-(d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a), quad f_2(x) = fracM((d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a + 1)^tfrac1b,
$$
where $x_0 = (100, 50)$ and $d$ is some distance function. Note that for $d(x, y) = sqrtsmash[b](x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2$, $a = dfrac12$, $b = dfrac23$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the density functions of bivariate normal distribution and that of bivariate Cauchy distribution, respectively. Solving $d(x, x_0)$ from $f_1$ and $f_2$ yields $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_1(f_1)(x)$ and $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_2(f_2)(x)$, respectively.
Now, since it may be unpractical to assume that $f$ is positive, or $f$ may be almost $0$ at points far from $x_0$, then it is useful to introduce another parameter $c > 0$, i.e.$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracM + cf(x) + c right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
After normalization,$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( fraclndfracM + cf(x) + clndfracM + cc right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( fracleft( dfracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1left( dfracM + cc right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that the density $f$ is positive on $[0, 100]^2$ and there exists a constant $M > 0$ such that $f(x) leqslant M$ for any $x in [0, 100]^2$. Two families of prototypical transformations are given first:$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracMf(x) right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracMf(x) right)^b - 1 right)^a,
$$
where $a, b > 0$ are parameters. To see the rationale, consider two families of density functions:$$
f_1(x) = M exp(-(d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a), quad f_2(x) = fracM((d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a + 1)^tfrac1b,
$$
where $x_0 = (100, 50)$ and $d$ is some distance function. Note that for $d(x, y) = sqrtsmash[b](x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2$, $a = dfrac12$, $b = dfrac23$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the density functions of bivariate normal distribution and that of bivariate Cauchy distribution, respectively. Solving $d(x, x_0)$ from $f_1$ and $f_2$ yields $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_1(f_1)(x)$ and $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_2(f_2)(x)$, respectively.
Now, since it may be unpractical to assume that $f$ is positive, or $f$ may be almost $0$ at points far from $x_0$, then it is useful to introduce another parameter $c > 0$, i.e.$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracM + cf(x) + c right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
After normalization,$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( fraclndfracM + cf(x) + clndfracM + cc right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( fracleft( dfracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1left( dfracM + cc right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that the density $f$ is positive on $[0, 100]^2$ and there exists a constant $M > 0$ such that $f(x) leqslant M$ for any $x in [0, 100]^2$. Two families of prototypical transformations are given first:$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracMf(x) right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracMf(x) right)^b - 1 right)^a,
$$
where $a, b > 0$ are parameters. To see the rationale, consider two families of density functions:$$
f_1(x) = M exp(-(d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a), quad f_2(x) = fracM((d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a + 1)^tfrac1b,
$$
where $x_0 = (100, 50)$ and $d$ is some distance function. Note that for $d(x, y) = sqrtsmash[b](x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2$, $a = dfrac12$, $b = dfrac23$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the density functions of bivariate normal distribution and that of bivariate Cauchy distribution, respectively. Solving $d(x, x_0)$ from $f_1$ and $f_2$ yields $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_1(f_1)(x)$ and $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_2(f_2)(x)$, respectively.
Now, since it may be unpractical to assume that $f$ is positive, or $f$ may be almost $0$ at points far from $x_0$, then it is useful to introduce another parameter $c > 0$, i.e.$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracM + cf(x) + c right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
After normalization,$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( fraclndfracM + cf(x) + clndfracM + cc right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( fracleft( dfracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1left( dfracM + cc right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
$endgroup$
Assume that the density $f$ is positive on $[0, 100]^2$ and there exists a constant $M > 0$ such that $f(x) leqslant M$ for any $x in [0, 100]^2$. Two families of prototypical transformations are given first:$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracMf(x) right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracMf(x) right)^b - 1 right)^a,
$$
where $a, b > 0$ are parameters. To see the rationale, consider two families of density functions:$$
f_1(x) = M exp(-(d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a), quad f_2(x) = fracM((d(x, x_0))^tfrac1a + 1)^tfrac1b,
$$
where $x_0 = (100, 50)$ and $d$ is some distance function. Note that for $d(x, y) = sqrtsmash[b](x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2$, $a = dfrac12$, $b = dfrac23$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the density functions of bivariate normal distribution and that of bivariate Cauchy distribution, respectively. Solving $d(x, x_0)$ from $f_1$ and $f_2$ yields $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_1(f_1)(x)$ and $d(x, x_0) = mathscrF_2(f_2)(x)$, respectively.
Now, since it may be unpractical to assume that $f$ is positive, or $f$ may be almost $0$ at points far from $x_0$, then it is useful to introduce another parameter $c > 0$, i.e.$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( lnfracM + cf(x) + c right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( left( fracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
After normalization,$$
mathscrF_1(f)(x) = left( fraclndfracM + cf(x) + clndfracM + cc right)^a, quad mathscrF_2(f)(x) = left( fracleft( dfracM + cf(x) + c right)^b - 1left( dfracM + cc right)^b - 1 right)^a.
$$
edited Oct 8 '18 at 0:03
answered Oct 3 '18 at 6:23
SaadSaad
20.7k92452
20.7k92452
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
thank you. great answer, deserved bounty reward indeed.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 8 '18 at 11:05
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Since $mathscr F(f)$ are transformations to recover the “distance,” it would be inevitably decreasing to some sense. But considering $1-mathscr F(f)$ with suitable $a,b,c$ should give what you need.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 19 '18 at 7:04
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
$begingroup$
@jakes Assume that $f$ depends only on the distance $d$. Since $d$ itself changes linearly with respect to $d$, transforming $f(d)$ to $d$ would offset the variation of $f$.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 1:35
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2931595%2fmonotonic-transformation-to-smooth-the-probabilities%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
If $f$ is known beforehand, the range of all parameters can be presumably determined as long as $f$ really depends on a certain distance function. But since there seems to be only empirical information about $f$ based on sampling, it's unlikely to determine the range.
$endgroup$
– Saad
Oct 21 '18 at 9:43
$begingroup$
Sad news, but thanks anyway.
$endgroup$
– jakes
Oct 21 '18 at 9:48