# Overview and Tutorial¶

## Introduction¶

The `lsqfit` module is designed to facilitate least-squares fitting of noisy data by multi-dimensional, nonlinear functions of arbitrarily many parameters, each with a (Bayesian) prior. `lsqfit` makes heavy use of another module, `gvar` (distributed separately), which provides tools that simplify the analysis of error propagation, and also the creation of complicated multi-dimensional Gaussian distributions. This technology also allows `lsqfit` to calculate exact derivatives of fit functions from the fit functions themselves, using automatic differentiation, thereby avoiding the need to code these by hand (the fitters use the derivatives). The power of the `gvar` module, particularly for correlated distributions, enables a variety of unusual fitting strategies, as we illustrate below; it is a feature that distinguishes `lsqfit` from standard fitting packages.

The following (complete) code illustrates basic usage of `lsqfit`:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

y = {                                 # data for the dependent variable
'data1' : gv.gvar([1.376, 2.010], [[ 0.0047, 0.01], [ 0.01, 0.056]]),
'data2' : gv.gvar([1.329, 1.582], [[ 0.0047, 0.0067], [0.0067, 0.0136]]),
'b/a'   : gv.gvar(2.0, 0.5)
}
x = {                                 # independent variable
'data1' : np.array([0.1, 1.0]),
'data2' : np.array([0.1, 0.5])
}
prior = {}
prior['a'] = gv.gvar(0.5, 0.5)
prior['b'] = gv.gvar(0.5, 0.5)

def fcn(x, p):                        # fit function of x and parameters p
ans = {}
for k in ['data1', 'data2']:
ans[k] = gv.exp(p['a'] + x[k] * p['b'])
ans['b/a'] = p['b'] / p['a']
return ans

# do the fit
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=(x, y), prior=prior, fcn=fcn, debug=True)
print(fit.format(maxline=True))       # print standard summary of fit

p = fit.p                             # best-fit values for parameters
outputs = dict(a=p['a'], b=p['b'])
outputs['b/a'] = p['b']/p['a']
inputs = dict(y=y, prior=prior)
print(gv.fmt_values(outputs))              # tabulate outputs
print(gv.fmt_errorbudget(outputs, inputs)) # print error budget for outputs
```

This code fits the function `f(x,a,b)= exp(a+b*x)` (see `fcn(x,p)`) to two sets of data, labeled `data1` and `data2`, by varying parameters `a` and `b` until `f(x['data1'],a,b)` and `f(x['data2'],a,b)` equal `y['data1']` and `y['data2']`, respectively, to within the `y`s’ errors.

The means and covariance matrices for the `y`s are specified in the `gv.gvar(...)`s used to create them: thus, for example,

```>>> print(y['data1'])
[1.376(69) 2.01(24)]
>>> print(y['data1'].mean, "+-", y['data1'].sdev)
1.376 +- 0.068556546004
>>> print(gv.evalcov(y['data1']))   # covariance matrix
[[ 0.0047  0.01  ]
[ 0.01    0.056 ]]
```

shows the means, standard deviations and covariance matrix for the data in the first data set (0.0685565 is the square root of the 0.0047 in the covariance matrix).

The dictionary `prior` gives a priori estimates for the two parameters, `a` and `b`: each is assumed to be 0.5±0.5 before fitting. The parameters `p[k]` in the fit function `fcn(x, p)` are stored in a dictionary having the same keys and layout as `prior` (since `prior` specifies the fit parameters for the fitter).

In addition to the `data1` and `data2` data sets, there is an extra piece of input data, `y['b/a']`, which indicates that `b/a` is 2±0.5. The fit function for this data is simply the ratio `b/a` (represented by `p['b']/p['a']` in fit function `fcn(x,p)`). The fit function returns a dictionary having the same keys and layout as the input data `y`.

The output from the code sample above is:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.17     Q = 0.97    logGBF = 0.65538

Parameters:
a   0.253 (32)     [  0.50 (50) ]
b   0.449 (65)     [  0.50 (50) ]

Fit:
key        y[key]     f(p)[key]
---------------------------------------
b/a     2.00 (50)     1.78 (30)
data1 0    1.376 (69)    1.347 (46)
1     2.01 (24)     2.02 (16)
data2 0    1.329 (69)    1.347 (46)
1     1.58 (12)    1.612 (82)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 8/0.0)

Values:
a: 0.253(32)
b/a: 1.78(30)
b: 0.449(65)

Partial % Errors:
a       b/a         b
----------------------------------------
y:     12.75     16.72     14.30
prior:      0.92      1.58      1.88
----------------------------------------
total:     12.78     16.80     14.42

```

The best-fit values for `a` and `b` are 0.253(32) and 0.449(65), respectively; and the best-fit result for `b/a` is 1.78(30), which, because of correlations, is slightly more accurate than might be expected from the separate errors for `a` and `b`. The error budget for each of these three quantities is tabulated at the end and shows that the bulk of the error in each case comes from uncertainties in the `y` data, with only small contributions from uncertainties in the priors `prior`. The fit results corresponding to each piece of input data are also tabulated (`Fit: ...`); the agreement is excellent, as expected given that the `chi**2` per degree of freedom is only 0.17.

Note that the constraint in `y` on `b/a` in this example is much tighter than the constraints on `a` and `b` separately. This suggests a variation on the previous code, where the tight restriction on `b/a` is built into the prior rather than `y`:

```... as before ...

y = {                      # data for the dependent variable
'data1' : gv.gvar([1.376, 2.010], [[ 0.0047, 0.01], [ 0.01, 0.056]]),
'data2' : gv.gvar([1.329, 1.582], [[ 0.0047, 0.0067], [0.0067, 0.0136]])
}
x = {                      # independent variable
'data1' : np.array([0.1, 1.0]),
'data2' : np.array([0.1, 0.5])
}
prior = {}
prior['a'] = gv.gvar(0.5, 0.5)
prior['b'] = prior['a'] * gv.gvar(2.0, 0.5)

def fcn(x, p):             # fit function of x and parameters p[k]
ans = {}
for k in ['data1', 'data2']:
ans[k] = gv.exp(p['a'] + x[k]*p['b'])
return ans

... as before ...
```

Here the dependent data `y` no longer has an entry for `b/a`, and neither do results from the fit function; but the prior for `b` is now 2±0.5 times the prior for `a`, thereby introducing a correlation that limits the ratio `b/a` to be 2±0.5 in the fit. This code gives almost identical results to the first one — very slightly less accurate, since there is slightly less input data. We can often move information from the `y` data to the prior or back since both are forms of input information.

There are several things worth noting from this example:

• The input data (`y`) is expressed in terms of Gaussian random variables — quantities with means and a covariance matrix. These are represented by objects of type `gvar.GVar` in the code; module `gvar` has a variety of tools for creating and manipulating Gaussian random variables (also see below).

• The input data is stored in a dictionary (`y`) whose values can be `gvar.GVar`s or arrays of `gvar.GVar`s. The use of a dictionary allows for far greater flexibility than, say, an array. The fit function (`fcn(x, p)`) has to return a dictionary with the same layout as that of `y` (that is, with the same keys and where the value for each key has the same shape as the corresponding value in `y`). `lsqfit` allows `y` to be an array instead of a dictionary, which might be preferable for simple fits (but usually not otherwise).

• The independent data (`x`) can be anything; it is simply passed through the fit code to the fit function `fcn(x,p)`. It can also be omitted altogether, in which case the fit function depends only upon the parameters: `fcn(p)`.

• The fit parameters (`p` in `fcn(x,p)`) are also stored in a dictionary whose values are `gvar.GVar`s or arrays of `gvar.GVar`s. Again this allows for great flexibility. The layout of the parameter dictionary is copied from that of the prior (`prior`). Again `p` can be a single array instead of a dictionary, if that simplifies the code.

• The best-fit values of the fit parameters (`fit.p[k]`) are also `gvar.GVar`s and these capture statistical correlations between different parameters that are indicated by the fit. These output parameters can be combined in arithmetic expressions, using standard operators and standard functions, to obtain derived quantities. These operations take account of and track statistical correlations.

• Function `gvar.fmt_errorbudget()` is a useful tool for assessing the origins (`inputs`) of the statistical errors obtained in various final results (`outputs`). It is particularly useful for analyzing the impact of the a priori uncertainties encoded in the prior (`prior`).

• Parameter `debug=True` is set in `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. This is a good idea, particularly in the early stages of a project, because it causes the code to check for various common errors and give more intelligible error messages than would otherwise arise. This parameter can be dropped once code development is over.

• The priors for the fit parameters specify Gaussian distributions, characterized by the means and standard deviations given `gv.gvar(...)`. Some other distributions are available, and new ones can be created. The distribution for parameter `a`, for example, can be switched to a log-normal distribution by replacing `prior['a']=gv.gvar(0.5, 0.5)` with:

```prior['log(a)'] = gv.log(gv.gvar(0.5,0.5))
```

in the code. This change would be desirable, for example, if we knew a priori that parameter `a` is positive since this is guaranteed with a log-normal distribution. Only the prior need be changed. (In particular, the fit function `fcn(x,p)` need not be changed.)

What follows is a tutorial that demonstrates in greater detail how to use these modules in a selection of variations on the data fitting problem. As above, code for the examples is specified completely (with one exception) and so can be copied into a file, and run as is. It can also be modified, allowing for experimentation.

Another way to learn about the modules is to examine the case studies that follow this section. Each focuses on a single problem, again with the full code and data to allow for experimentation.

About Printing: The examples in this tutorial use the `print` function as it is used in Python 3. Drop the outermost parenthesis in each `print` statement if using Python 2; or add

```from __future__ import print_function
```

at the start of your file.

## Gaussian Random Variables and Error Propagation¶

The inputs and outputs of a nonlinear least squares analysis are probability distributions, and these distributions will be Gaussian provided the input data are sufficiently accurate. `lsqfit` assumes this to be the case. (It also provides tests for non-Gaussian behavior, together with methods for dealing with such behavior. See: Non-Gaussian Behavior; Testing Fits.)

One of the most distinctive features of `lsqfit` is that it is built around a class, `gvar.GVar`, of objects that can be used to represent arbitrarily complicated Gaussian distributions — that is, they represent Gaussian random variables that specify the means and covariance matrix of the probability distributions. The input data for a fit are represented by a collection of `gvar.GVar`s that specify both the values and possible errors in the input values. The result of a fit is a collection of `gvar.GVar`s specifying the best-fit values for the fit parameters and the estimated uncertainties in those values.

`gvar.GVar`s are defined in the `gvar` module. There are five important things to know about them (see the `gvar` documentation for more details):

1. `gvar.GVar`s are created by `gvar.gvar()`, individually or in groups: for example,

```>>> import gvar as gv
>>> print(gv.gvar(1.0, 0.1), gv.gvar('1.0 +- 0.2'), gv.gvar('1.0(4)'))
1.00(10) 1.00(20) 1.00(40)

>>> print(gv.gvar([1.0, 1.0, 1.0], [0.1, 0.2, 0.41]))
[1.00(10) 1.00(20) 1.00(41)]

>>> print(gv.gvar(['1.0(1)', '1.0(2)', '1.00(41)']))
[1.00(10) 1.00(20) 1.00(41)]

>>> print(gv.gvar(dict(a='1.0(1)', b=['1.0(2)', '1.0(4)'])))
{'a': 1.00(10),'b': array([1.00(20), 1.00(40)], dtype=object)}
```

`gvar` uses the compact notation 1.234(22) to represent 1.234±0.022 — the digits in parentheses indicate the uncertainty in the rightmost corresponding digits quoted for the mean value. Very large (or small) numbers use a notation like 1.234(22)e+10.

2. `gvar.GVar`s describe not only means and standard deviations, but also statistical correlations between different objects. For example, the `gvar.GVar`s created by

```>>> import gvar as gv
>>> a, b = gv.gvar([1, 1], [[0.01, 0.01], [0.01, 0.010001]])
>>> print(a, b)
1.00(10) 1.00(10)
```

both have means of `1` and standard deviations equal to or very close to `0.1`, but the ratio `b/a` has a standard deviation that is 100x smaller:

```>>> print(b / a)
1.0000(10)
```

This is because the covariance matrix specified for `a` and `b` when they were created has large, positive off-diagonal elements:

```>>> print(gv.evalcov([a, b]))         # covariance matrix
[[ 0.01      0.01    ]
[ 0.01      0.010001]]
```

These off-diagonal elements imply that `a` and `b` are strongly correlated, which means that `b/a` or `b-a` will have much smaller uncertainties than `a` or `b` separately. The correlation coefficient for `a` and `b` is 0.99995:

```>>> print(gv.evalcorr([a, b]))        # correlation matrix
[[ 1.       0.99995]
[ 0.99995  1.     ]]
```
3. `gvar.GVar`s can be used in arithmetic expressions or as arguments to pure-Python functions. The results are also `gvar.GVar`s. Covariances are propagated through these expressions following the usual rules, (automatically) preserving information about correlations. For example, the `gvar.GVar`s `a` and `b` above could have been created using the following code:

```>>> import gvar as gv
>>> a = gv.gvar(1, 0.1)
>>> b = a + gv.gvar(0, 0.001)
>>> print(a, b)
1.00(10) 1.00(10)

>>> print(b / a)
1.0000(10)

>>> print(gv.evalcov([a, b]))
[[ 0.01      0.01    ]
[ 0.01      0.010001]]
```

The correlation is obvious from this code: `b` is equal to `a` plus a very small correction. From these variables we can create new variables that are also highly correlated:

```>>> x = gv.log(1 + a ** 2)
>>> y = b * gv.cosh(a / 2)
>>> print(x, y, y / x)
0.69(10) 1.13(14) 1.627(34)

>>> print gv.evalcov([x, y])
[[ 0.01        0.01388174]
[ 0.01388174  0.01927153]]
```

The `gvar` module defines versions of the standard Python functions (`sin`, `cos`, …) that work with `gvar.GVar`s. Most any numeric pure-Python function will work with them as well. Numeric functions that are compiled in C or other low-level languages generally do not work with `gvar.GVar`s; they should be replaced by equivalent pure-Python functions if they are needed for `gvar.GVar`-valued arguments. See the `gvar` documentation for more information.

The fact that correlation information is preserved automatically through arbitrarily complicated arithmetic is what makes `gvar.GVar`s particularly useful. This is accomplished using automatic differentiation to compute the derivatives of any derived `gvar.GVar` with respect to the primary `gvar.GVar`s (those defined using `gvar.gvar()`) from which it was created. As a result, for example, we need not provide derivatives of fit functions for `lsqfit` (which are needed for the fit) since they are computed implicitly by the fitter from the fit function itself. Also it becomes trivial to build correlations into the priors used in fits, and to analyze the propagation of errors through complicated functions of the parameters after the fit.

4. The uncertainties in derived `gvar.GVar`s come from the uncertainties in the primary `gvar.GVar`s from which they were created. It is easy to create an “error budget” that decomposes the uncertainty in a derived `gvar.GVar` into components coming from each of the primary `gvar.GVar`s involved in its creation. For example,

```>>> import gvar as gv
>>> a = gv.gvar('1.0(1)')
>>> b = gv.gvar('0.9(2)')
>>> x = gv.log(1 + a ** 2)
>>> y = b * gv.cosh(a / 2)
>>> outputs = dict(x=x, y=y)
>>> print(gv.fmt_values(outputs))
Values:
y: 1.01(23)
x: 0.69(10)

>>> inputs = dict(a=a, b=b)
>>> print(gv.fmt_errorbudget(outputs=outputs, inputs=inputs))
Partial % Errors:
y         x
------------------------------
a:      2.31     14.43
b:     22.22      0.00
------------------------------
total:     22.34     14.43
```

The error budget shows that most of `y`’s 22.34% uncertainty comes from `b`, with just 2.3% coming from `a`. The total uncertainty is the sum in quadrature of the two separate uncertainties. The uncertainty in `x` is entirely from `a`, of course.

5. Storing `gvar.GVar`s in a file for later use is somewhat complicated because one generally wants to hold onto their correlations as well as their mean values and standard deviations. One easy way to do this is to put all of the `gvar.GVar`s to be saved into a single array or dictionary that is saved using function `gvar.dump()`: for example, use

```>>> gv.dump([a, b, x, y], 'outputfile.p')
```

to save the variables defined above in a file named `'outputfile.p'`. Loading the file into a Python code later, with `gvar.load()`, recovers the array with standard deviations and correlations intact:

```>>> a,b,x,y = gv.load('outputfile.p')
>>> print(a, b, x, y)
1.00(10) 0.90(20) 0.69(10) 1.01(23)
>>> print(y / b, gv.sqrt(gv.exp(x) - 1) / a)
1.128(26) 1(0)
```

`gvar.dump()` and `gvar.load()` are similar to the same functions in Python’s `pickle` module, except that they can deal properly with `gvar.GVar`s. They can be used to archive (possibly nested) containers like dictionaries and lists that contain `gvar.GVar`s (together with other data types), as well as many other types of object containing `gvar.GVar`s. In particular, they can be used to save the best-fit parameters from a fit,

```>>> gv.dump(fit.p, 'fitpfile.p')
```

or the entire `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` object:

```>>> gv.dump(fit, 'fitfile.p')
```

The archived fit preserves all or most of the fit object’s functionality (depending upon whether or not the fit function can be pickled): for example,

```>>> fit = gv.load('fitfile.p')
>>> print(fit)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.17     Q = 0.97    logGBF = 0.65538

Parameters:
a   0.253 (32)     [  0.50 (50) ]
b   0.449 (65)     [  0.50 (50) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 8/0.0)

>>> p = fit.p
>>> outputs = dict(a=p['a'], b=p['b'])
>>> outputs['b/a'] = p['b']/p['a']
>>> inputs = dict(y=y, prior=prior)
>>> print(gv.fmt_errorbudget(outputs, inputs))
Partial % Errors:
a       b/a         b
----------------------------------------
y:     12.75     16.72     14.30
prior:      0.92      1.58      1.88
----------------------------------------
total:     12.78     16.80     14.42
```

There is considerably more information about `gvar.GVar`s in the documentation for module `gvar`.

## Basic Fits¶

A fit analysis typically requires three types of input:

1. fit data `x,y` (or possibly just `y`);

2. a function `y = f(x,p)` relating values of `y` to values of `x` and a set of fit parameters `p`; if there is no `x`, then `y = f(p)`;

3. some a priori idea about the fit parameters’ values (possibly quite imprecise — for example, that a particular parameter is of order 1).

The point of the fit is to improve our knowledge of the parameter values, beyond our a priori impressions, by analyzing the fit data. We now show how to do this using the `lsqfit` module for a more realistic problem, one that is familiar from numerical simulations of quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

We need code for each of the three fit inputs. The fit data in our example is assembled by the following function:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv

def make_data():
x = np.array([  5.,   6.,   7.,   8.,   9.,  10.,  12.,  14.])
ymean = np.array(
[  4.5022829417e-03,   1.8170543788e-03,   7.3618847843e-04,
2.9872730036e-04,   1.2128831367e-04,   4.9256559129e-05,
8.1263644483e-06,   1.3415253536e-06]
)
ycov = np.array(
[[ 2.1537808808e-09,   8.8161794696e-10,   3.6237356558e-10,
1.4921344875e-10,   6.1492842463e-11,   2.5353714617e-11,
4.3137593878e-12,   7.3465498888e-13],
[  8.8161794696e-10,   3.6193461816e-10,   1.4921610813e-10,
6.1633547703e-11,   2.5481570082e-11,   1.0540958082e-11,
1.8059692534e-12,   3.0985581496e-13],
[  3.6237356558e-10,   1.4921610813e-10,   6.1710468826e-11,
2.5572230776e-11,   1.0608148954e-11,   4.4036448945e-12,
7.6008881270e-13,   1.3146405310e-13],
[  1.4921344875e-10,   6.1633547703e-11,   2.5572230776e-11,
1.0632830128e-11,   4.4264622187e-12,   1.8443245513e-12,
3.2087725578e-13,   5.5986403288e-14],
[  6.1492842463e-11,   2.5481570082e-11,   1.0608148954e-11,
4.4264622187e-12,   1.8496194125e-12,   7.7369196122e-13,
1.3576009069e-13,   2.3914810594e-14],
[  2.5353714617e-11,   1.0540958082e-11,   4.4036448945e-12,
1.8443245513e-12,   7.7369196122e-13,   3.2498644263e-13,
5.7551104112e-14,   1.0244738582e-14],
[  4.3137593878e-12,   1.8059692534e-12,   7.6008881270e-13,
3.2087725578e-13,   1.3576009069e-13,   5.7551104112e-14,
1.0403917951e-14,   1.8976295583e-15],
[  7.3465498888e-13,   3.0985581496e-13,   1.3146405310e-13,
5.5986403288e-14,   2.3914810594e-14,   1.0244738582e-14,
1.8976295583e-15,   3.5672355835e-16]]
)
return x, gv.gvar(ymean, ycov)
```

The function call `x,y = make_data()` returns eight `x[i]`, and the corresponding values `y[i]` that we will fit. The `y[i]` are `gvar.GVar`s (Gaussian random variables — see previous section) built from the mean values in `ymean` and the covariance matrix `ycov`, which shows strong correlations:

```>>> print(y)                      # fit data
[0.004502(46) 0.001817(19) 0.0007362(79) ... 1.342(19)e-06]

>>> print(gv.evalcorr(y))         # correlation matrix
[[ 1.          0.99853801  0.99397698  ... 0.83814041]
[ 0.99853801  1.          0.99843828  ... 0.86234032]
[ 0.99397698  0.99843828  1.          ... 0.88605708]
...
...
...
[ 0.83814041  0.86234032  0.88605708  ... 1.        ]]
```

These particular data were generated numerically. They come from a function that is a sum of a very large number of decaying exponentials,

```a[i] * np.exp(-E[i] * x)
```

with coefficients `a[i]` of order 0.5±0.4 and exponents `E[i]` of order i+1±0.4. The function was evaluated with a particular set of parameters `a[i]` and `E[i]`, and then noise was added to create this data. Our challenge is to find estimates for the values of the parameters `a[i]` and `E[i]` that were used to create the data.

Next we need code for the fit function. Here we know that a sum of decaying exponentials is appropriate, and therefore we define the following Python function:

```import numpy as np

def f(x, p):         # function used to fit x, y data
a = p['a']       # array of a[i]s
E = p['E']       # array of E[i]s
return sum(ai * np.exp(-Ei * x) for ai, Ei in zip(a, E))
```

The fit parameters, `a[i]` and `E[i]`, are stored as arrays in a dictionary, using labels `a` and `E` to access them. These parameters are varied in the fit to find the best-fit values `p=fit.p` for which `f(x,fit.p)` most closely approximates the `y`s in our fit data. The number of exponentials included in the sum is specified implicitly in this function, by the lengths of the `p['a']` and `p['E']` arrays. In principle there are infinitely many exponentials; in practice, given the finite precision of our data, we will need only a few.

Finally we need to define priors that encapsulate our a priori knowledge about the fit-parameter values. In practice we almost always have a priori knowledge about parameters; it is usually impossible to design a fit function without some sense of the parameter sizes. Given such knowledge it is important (often essential) to include it in the fit. This is done by designing priors for the fit, which are probability distributions for each parameter that describe the a priori uncertainty in that parameter. As discussed in the previous section, we use objects of type `gvar.GVar` to describe (Gaussian) probability distributions. Here we know that each `a[i]` is of order 0.5±0.4, while `E[i]` is of order 1+i±0.4. A prior that represents this information is built using the following code:

```import lsqfit
import gvar as gv

def make_prior(nexp):               # make priors for fit parameters
prior = gv.BufferDict()         # any dictionary works
prior['a'] = [gv.gvar(0.5, 0.4) for i in range(nexp)]
prior['E'] = [gv.gvar(i+1, 0.4) for i in range(nexp)]
return prior
```

where `nexp` is the number of exponential terms that will be used (and therefore the number of `a[i]`s and `E[i]`s). With `nexp=3`, for example, we have:

```>>> print(prior['a'])
[0.50(40) 0.50(40) 0.50(40)]

>>> print(prior['E'])
[1.00(40), 2.00(40), 3.00(40)]
```

We habitually use dictionary-like class `gvar.BufferDict` for the prior because it allows for a variety of non-Gaussian priors (see Positive Parameters; Non-Gaussian Priors). If non-Gaussian priors are unnecessary, `gvar.BufferDict` can be replaced by `dict()` or most any other Python dictionary class.

With fit data, a fit function, and a prior for the fit parameters, we are finally ready to do the fit, which is now easy:

```fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=(x, y), fcn=f, prior=prior)
```

Our complete Python program is, therefore:

```import lsqfit
import numpy as np
import gvar as gv

def main():
x, y = make_data()              # collect fit data
p0 = None                       # make larger fits go faster (opt.)
for nexp in range(1, 7):
print('************************************* nexp =', nexp)
prior = make_prior(nexp)
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=(x, y), fcn=f, prior=prior, p0=p0)
print(fit)                  # print the fit results
if nexp > 2:
E = fit.p['E']          # best-fit parameters
a = fit.p['a']
print('E1/E0 =', E / E, '  E2/E0 =', E / E)
print('a1/a0 =', a / a, '  a2/a0 =', a / a)
if fit.chi2 / fit.dof < 1.:
p0 = fit.pmean          # starting point for next fit (opt.)
print()

# error budget analysis
outputs = {
'E1/E0':E/E, 'E2/E0':E/E,
'a1/a0':a/a, 'a2/a0':a/a
}
inputs = {'E':fit.prior['E'], 'a':fit.prior['a'], 'y':y}
print('================= Error Budget Analysis')
print(gv.fmt_values(outputs))
print(gv.fmt_errorbudget(outputs,inputs))

def f(x, p):                        # function used to fit x, y data
a = p['a']                      # array of a[i]s
E = p['E']                      # array of E[i]s
return sum(ai * np.exp(-Ei * x) for ai, Ei in zip(a, E))

def make_prior(nexp):               # make priors for fit parameters
prior = gv.BufferDict()         # any dictionary works
prior['a'] = [gv.gvar(0.5, 0.4) for i in range(nexp)]
prior['E'] = [gv.gvar(i+1, 0.4) for i in range(nexp)]
return prior

def make_data():                     # assemble fit data
x = np.array([  5.,   6.,   7.,   8.,   9.,  10.,  12.,  14.])
ymean = np.array(
[  4.5022829417e-03,   1.8170543788e-03,   7.3618847843e-04,
2.9872730036e-04,   1.2128831367e-04,   4.9256559129e-05,
8.1263644483e-06,   1.3415253536e-06]
)
ycov = np.array(
[[ 2.1537808808e-09,   8.8161794696e-10,   3.6237356558e-10,
1.4921344875e-10,   6.1492842463e-11,   2.5353714617e-11,
4.3137593878e-12,   7.3465498888e-13],
[  8.8161794696e-10,   3.6193461816e-10,   1.4921610813e-10,
6.1633547703e-11,   2.5481570082e-11,   1.0540958082e-11,
1.8059692534e-12,   3.0985581496e-13],
[  3.6237356558e-10,   1.4921610813e-10,   6.1710468826e-11,
2.5572230776e-11,   1.0608148954e-11,   4.4036448945e-12,
7.6008881270e-13,   1.3146405310e-13],
[  1.4921344875e-10,   6.1633547703e-11,   2.5572230776e-11,
1.0632830128e-11,   4.4264622187e-12,   1.8443245513e-12,
3.2087725578e-13,   5.5986403288e-14],
[  6.1492842463e-11,   2.5481570082e-11,   1.0608148954e-11,
4.4264622187e-12,   1.8496194125e-12,   7.7369196122e-13,
1.3576009069e-13,   2.3914810594e-14],
[  2.5353714617e-11,   1.0540958082e-11,   4.4036448945e-12,
1.8443245513e-12,   7.7369196122e-13,   3.2498644263e-13,
5.7551104112e-14,   1.0244738582e-14],
[  4.3137593878e-12,   1.8059692534e-12,   7.6008881270e-13,
3.2087725578e-13,   1.3576009069e-13,   5.7551104112e-14,
1.0403917951e-14,   1.8976295583e-15],
[  7.3465498888e-13,   3.0985581496e-13,   1.3146405310e-13,
5.5986403288e-14,   2.3914810594e-14,   1.0244738582e-14,
1.8976295583e-15,   3.5672355835e-16]]
)
return x, gv.gvar(ymean, ycov)

if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
```

We are not sure a priori how many exponentials are needed to fit our data. Consequently we write our code to try fitting with each of `nexp=1,2,3..6` terms. (The pieces of the code involving `p0` are optional; they make the more complicated fits go about 30 times faster since the output from one fit is used as the starting point for the next fit — see the discussion of the `p0` parameter for `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`.) Running this code produces the following output, which is reproduced here in some detail in order to illustrate a variety of features:

```************************************* nexp = 1
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 1.2e+03     Q = 0    logGBF = -4837.2

Parameters:
a 0   0.00735 (59)      [  0.50 (40) ]  *
E 0    1.1372 (49)      [  1.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 12/0.0)

************************************* nexp = 2
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 2.2     Q = 0.024    logGBF = 111.69

Parameters:
a 0    0.4024 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1    0.4471 (46)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90104 (51)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8282 (14)      [  2.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 9/0.0)

************************************* nexp = 3
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.63     Q = 0.76    logGBF = 116.29

Parameters:
a 0    0.4019 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1     0.406 (14)      [  0.50 (40) ]
2      0.61 (36)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90039 (54)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8026 (82)      [  2.00 (40) ]
2      2.83 (19)      [  3.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 28/0.0)

E1/E0 = 2.0020(86)   E2/E0 = 3.14(21)
a1/a0 = 1.011(32)   a2/a0 = 1.52(89)
************************************* nexp = 4
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.63     Q = 0.76    logGBF = 116.3

Parameters:
a 0    0.4019 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1     0.406 (14)      [  0.50 (40) ]
2      0.61 (36)      [  0.50 (40) ]
3      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90039 (54)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8026 (82)      [  2.00 (40) ]
2      2.83 (19)      [  3.00 (40) ]
3      4.00 (40)      [  4.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 9/0.0)

E1/E0 = 2.0020(86)   E2/E0 = 3.14(21)
a1/a0 = 1.011(32)   a2/a0 = 1.52(89)
************************************* nexp = 5
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.63     Q = 0.76    logGBF = 116.3

Parameters:
a 0    0.4019 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1     0.406 (14)      [  0.50 (40) ]
2      0.61 (36)      [  0.50 (40) ]
3      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
4      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90039 (54)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8026 (82)      [  2.00 (40) ]
2      2.83 (19)      [  3.00 (40) ]
3      4.00 (40)      [  4.00 (40) ]
4      5.00 (40)      [  5.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 4/0.0)

E1/E0 = 2.0020(86)   E2/E0 = 3.14(21)
a1/a0 = 1.011(32)   a2/a0 = 1.52(89)
************************************* nexp = 6
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.63     Q = 0.76    logGBF = 116.3

Parameters:
a 0    0.4019 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1     0.406 (14)      [  0.50 (40) ]
2      0.61 (36)      [  0.50 (40) ]
3      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
4      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
5      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90039 (54)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8026 (82)      [  2.00 (40) ]
2      2.83 (19)      [  3.00 (40) ]
3      4.00 (40)      [  4.00 (40) ]
4      5.00 (40)      [  5.00 (40) ]
5      6.00 (40)      [  6.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 2/0.0)

E1/E0 = 2.0020(86)   E2/E0 = 3.14(21)
a1/a0 = 1.011(32)   a2/a0 = 1.52(89)
================= Error Budget Analysis
Values:
E1/E0: 2.0020(86)
E2/E0: 3.14(21)
a1/a0: 1.011(32)
a2/a0: 1.52(89)

Partial % Errors:
E1/E0     E2/E0     a1/a0     a2/a0
--------------------------------------------------
a:      0.07      5.47      0.82     52.75
E:      0.12      3.23      1.04     25.36
y:      0.40      2.08      2.78      5.24
--------------------------------------------------
total:      0.43      6.72      3.15     58.78

```

There are several things to notice here:

• Clearly two exponentials (`nexp=2`) are not sufficient. The `chi**2` per degree of freedom (`chi2/dof`) is significantly larger than one. The `chi**2` improves substantially for `nexp=3` exponentials, and there is essentially no change when further exponentials are added.

• The best-fit values for each parameter are listed for each of the fits, together with the prior values (in brackets, on the right). Values for each `a[i]` and `E[i]` are listed in order, starting at the points indicated by the labels `a` and `E`. Asterisks are printed at the end of the line if the mean best-fit value differs from the prior’s mean by more than one standard deviation (see `nexp=1`); the number of asterisks, up to a maximum of 5, indicates how many standard deviations the difference is. Differences of one or two standard deviations are not uncommon; larger differences could indicate a problem with the data, prior, or fit function.

Once the fit converges, the best-fit values for the various parameters agree well — that is to within their errors, approximately — with the exact values, which we know since we made the data. For example, `a` and `E` for the first exponential are 0.402(4) and 0.9004(5), respectively, from the fit, while the exact answers are 0.4 and 0.9; and we get 0.406(14) and 1.803(8) for the second exponential where the exact values are 0.4 and 1.8.

• Note in the fit with `nexp=4` how the mean and standard deviation for the parameters governing the fourth (and last) exponential are identical to the values in the corresponding priors: 0.50(40) from the fit for `a` and 4.0(4) for `E`. This tells us that our fit data have no information to add to what we knew a priori about these parameters — there isn’t enough data and what we have isn’t accurate enough.

This situation remains true of further terms as they are added in the `nexp=5` and later fits. This is why the fit results stop changing once we have `nexp=3` exponentials. There is no point in including further exponentials, beyond the need to verify that the fit has indeed converged. Note that the underlying function from which the data came had 100 exponential terms.

• The last fit includes `nexp=6` exponentials and therefore has 12 parameters. This is in a fit to 8 `y`s. Old-fashioned fits, without priors, are impossible when the number of parameters exceeds the number of data points. That is clearly not the case here, where the number of terms and parameters can be made arbitrarily large, eventually (after `nexp=3` terms) with no effect at all on the results.

The reason is that the prior that we include for each new parameter is, in effect, a new piece of data (equal to the mean and standard deviation of the a priori expectation for that parameter). Each prior leads to a new term in the `chi**2` function; we are fitting both the data and our a priori expectations for the parameters. So in the `nexp=6` fit, for example, we actually have 20 pieces of data to fit: the 8 `y`s plus the 12 prior values for the 12 parameters.

That priors are additional fit data becomes obvious if we rewrite our fit function as

```def g(x, p):         # function used to fit x, y data
a = p['a']       # array of a[i]s
E = p['E']       # array of E[i]s
return dict(
y=sum(ai * np.exp(-Ei * x) for ai, Ei in zip(a, E)),
a=a,
E=E,
)
```

and add the following right after the loop in the `main()` function:

```print('************************************* nexp =', nexp, '(fit g(x,p))')
data = (x, dict(y=y, a=prior['a'], E=prior['E']))
gfit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=data, fcn=g, prior=None, p0=p0)
print(gfit)
print()
```

This gives exactly the same results as the last fit from the loop, but now with the prior explicitly built into the fit function and data. This way of implementing priors, although equivalent, is generally less convenient.

The effective number of degrees of freedom (`dof` in the output above) is the number of pieces of data minus the number of fit parameters, or 20-12=8 in this last case. With priors for every parameter, the number of degrees of freedom is always equal to the number of `y`s, irrespective of how many fit parameters there are.

• The Gaussian Bayes Factor (whose logarithm is `logGBF` in the output) is a measure of the likelihood that the actual data being fit could have come from a theory with the prior and fit function used in the fit. The larger this number, the more likely it is that the prior/fit-function and data could be related. Here it grows dramatically from the first fit (`nexp=1`) but then stops changing after `nexp=3`. The implication is that these data are much more likely to have come from a theory with `nexp>=3` than one with `nexp=1`.

• In the code, results for each fit are captured in a Python object `fit`, which is of type `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. A summary of the fit information is obtained by printing `fit`. Also the best-fit results for each fit parameter can be accessed through `fit.p`, as is done here to calculate various ratios of parameters.

The errors in these ratios automatically account for any correlations in the statistical errors for different parameters. This is evident in the ratio `a1/a0`, which would be 1.010(35) if there was no statistical correlation between our estimates for `a1` and `a0`, but in fact is 1.010(31) in this fit. The modest (positive) correlation is clear from the correlation matrix:

```>>> print(gv.evalcorr(fit.p['a'][:2]))
[[ 1.          0.36353303]
[ 0.36353303  1.        ]]
```
• After the last fit, the code uses function `gvar.fmt_errorbudget` to create an error budget. This requires dictionaries of fit inputs and outputs, and uses the dictionary keys to label columns and rows, respectively, in the error budget table. The table shows, for example, that the 0.43% uncertainty in `E1/E0` comes mostly from the fit data (0.40%), with small contributions from the uncertainties in the priors for `a` and `E` (0.07% and 0.12%, respectively). The total uncertainty is the sum in quadrature of these errors. This breakdown suggests that reducing the errors in `y` by 25% might reduce the error in `E1/E0` to around 0.3% (and it does). The uncertainty in `E2/E0`, on the other hand, comes mostly from the priors and is less likely to improve (it doesn’t).

Finally we inspect the fit’s quality point by point. The input data are compared with results from the fit function, evaluated with the best-fit parameters, in the following table (obtained in the code by printing the output from `fit.format(maxline=True)`):

```Fit:
x[k]               y[k]          f(x[k],p)
-----------------------------------------------
5      0.004502 (46)      0.004506 (46)
6      0.001817 (19)      0.001819 (19)
7     0.0007362 (79)     0.0007373 (78)
8     0.0002987 (33)     0.0002993 (32)
9     0.0001213 (14)     0.0001216 (13)
10    0.00004926 (57)    0.00004941 (56)
12       8.13(10)e-06      8.160(96)e-06
14      1.342(19)e-06      1.348(17)e-06
```

The fit is excellent over the entire three orders of magnitude. This information is presented again in the following plot, which shows the ratio `y/f(x,p)`, as a function of `x`, using the best-fit parameters `p`. The correct result for this ratio, of course, is one. The smooth variation in the data — smooth compared with the size of the statistical-error bars — is an indication of the statistical correlations between individual `y`s. This particular plot was made using the `matplotlib` module, with the following code added to the end of `main()` (outside the loop):

```import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
ratio = y / f(x, fit.pmean)
plt.xlim(4, 15)
plt.ylim(0.95, 1.05)
plt.xlabel('x')
plt.ylabel('y / f(x,p)')
plt.errorbar(x=x, y=gv.mean(ratio), yerr=gv.sdev(ratio), fmt='ob')
plt.plot([4.0, 21.0], [1.0, 1.0], 'b:')
plt.show()
```

## Chained Fits; Large Data Sets¶

The priors in a fit represent knowledge that we have about the parameters before we do the fit. This knowledge might come from theoretical considerations or experiment. Or it might come from another fit. Here we look at two examples that exploit the possibility of chaining fits, where the output of one fit is an input (the prior) to another.

Imagine first that we want to add new information to that extracted from the fit in the previous section. For example, we might learn from some other source that the ratio of amplitudes `a/a` equals 1±1e-5. The challenge is to combine this new information with information extracted from the fit above without rerunning that fit. (We assume it is not possible to rerun.)

We can combine the new data with the old fit results by creating a new fit that uses the best-fit parameters, `fit.p`, from the old fit as its prior. To try this out, we modify the `main()` function in the previous section, adding the new fit at the end:

```def main():
x, y = make_data()              # collect fit data
p0 = None                       # make larger fits go faster (opt.)
for nexp in range(1, 5):
prior = make_prior(nexp)
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=(x, y), fcn=fcn, prior=prior, p0=p0)
if fit.chi2 / fit.dof < 1.:
p0 = fit.pmean          # starting point for next fit (opt.)

# print nexp=4 fit results
print('--------------------- original fit')
print(fit)
E = fit.p['E']                  # best-fit parameters
a = fit.p['a']
print('E1/E0 =', E / E, '  E2/E0 =', E / E)
print('a1/a0 =', a / a, '  a2/a0 =', a / a)

def ratio(p):                   # new fit function
a = p['a']
return a / a

prior = fit.p                   # prior = best-fit parameters from nexp=4 fit
data = gv.gvar(1, 1e-5)         # new data for the ratio

newfit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=data, fcn=ratio, prior=prior)
print('\n--------------------- new fit to extra information')
print(newfit)
E = newfit.p['E']
a = newfit.p['a']
print('E1/E0 =', E / E, '  E2/E0 =', E / E)
print('a1/a0 =', a / a, '  a2/a0 =', a / a)
```

The results of the new fit (to one piece of new data) are at the end of the output:

```--------------------- original fit
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.63     Q = 0.76    logGBF = 116.3

Parameters:
a 0    0.4019 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
1     0.406 (14)      [  0.50 (40) ]
2      0.61 (36)      [  0.50 (40) ]
3      0.50 (40)      [  0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90039 (54)      [  1.00 (40) ]
1    1.8026 (82)      [  2.00 (40) ]
2      2.83 (19)      [  3.00 (40) ]
3      4.00 (40)      [  4.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/1    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 4/0.0)

E1/E0 = 2.0020(86)   E2/E0 = 3.14(21)
a1/a0 = 1.011(32)   a2/a0 = 1.52(89)

--------------------- new fit to extra information
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.12     Q = 0.73    logGBF = 2.4648

Parameters:
a 0    0.4018 (40)      [  0.4019 (40) ]
1    0.4018 (40)      [   0.406 (14) ]
2      0.57 (34)      [    0.61 (36) ]
3      0.50 (40)      [    0.50 (40) ]
E 0   0.90033 (51)      [ 0.90039 (54) ]
1    1.7998 (13)      [  1.8026 (81) ]
2      2.79 (14)      [    2.83 (19) ]
3      4.00 (40)      [    4.00 (40) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 14/0.0)

E1/E0 = 1.9991(12)   E2/E0 = 3.10(16)
a1/a0 = 1.000000(10)   a2/a0 = 1.43(85)
```

Parameters `a` and `E` are essentially unchanged by the new information, but `a` and `E` are much more precise, as is `a/a`, of course.

It might seem odd that `E`, for example, is changed at all, since the fit function, `ratio(p)`, makes no mention of it. This is not surprising, however, since `ratio(p)` does depend upon `a`, and `a` is strongly correlated with `E` through the prior (correlation coefficient of 0.94). It is important to include all parameters from the first fit as parameters in the new fit, in order to capture the impact of the new information on parameters correlated with `a/a`.

Obviously, we can use further fits in order to incorporate additional data. The prior for each new fit is the best-fit output (`fit.p`) from the previous fit. The output from the chain’s final fit is the cumulative result of all of these fits.

Note that this particular problem can be done much more simply using a weighted average (`lsqfit.wavg()`). Adding the following code onto the end of the `main()` function above

```fit.p['a1/a0'] = fit.p['a'] / fit.p['a']
new_data = {'a1/a0' : gv.gvar(1,1e-5)}
new_p = lsqfit.wavg([fit.p, new_data])

print('chi2/dof = {:.2f}\n' .format(new_p.chi2 / new_p.dof))
print('E:', new_p['E'][:4])
print('a:', new_p['a'][:4])
print('a1/a0:', new_p['a1/a0'])
```

gives the following output:

```chi2/dof = 0.12

E: [0.90033(51) 1.7998(13) 2.79(14) 4.00(40)]
a: [0.4018(40) 0.4018(40) 0.57(34) 0.50(40)]
a1/a0: 1.000000(10)
```

Here we do a weighted average of `a/a` from the original fit (`fit.p['a1/a0']`) with our new piece of data (`new_data['a1/a0']`). The dictionary `new_p` returned by `lsqfit.wavg()` has an entry for every key in either `fit.p` or `new_data`. The weighted average for `a/a` is in `new_p['a1/a0']`. New values for the fit parameters, that take account of the new data, are stored in `new_p['E']` and `new_p['a']`. The `E[i]` and `a[i]` estimates differ from their values in `fit.p` since those parameters are correlated with `a/a`. Consequently when the ratio is shifted by new data, the `E[i]` and `a[i]` are shifted as well. The final results in `new_p` are identical to what we obtained above.

One place where chained fits can be useful is when there is lots of fit data. Imagine, as a second example, a situation that involves 10,000 highly correlated `y[i]`s. A straight fit would take a very long time because part of the fit process involves diagonalizing the fit data’s (dense) 10,000×10,000 covariance matrix. Instead we break the data up into batches of 100 and do chained fits of one batch after another:

```# read data from disk
print('x = [{}  {} ... {}]'.format(x, x, x[-1]))
print('y = [{}  {} ... {}]'.format(y, y, y[-1]))
print('corr(y,y) =', gv.evalcorr([y, y[-1]])[1,0])
print()

# fit function and prior
def fcn(x, p):
return p + p * np.exp(- p * x)
prior = gv.gvar(['0(1)', '0(1)', '0(1)'])

# Nstride fits, each to nfit data points
nfit = 100
Nstride = len(y) // nfit
fit_time = 0.0
for n in range(0, Nstride):
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(
data=(x[n::Nstride], y[n::Nstride]), prior=prior, fcn=fcn
)
prior = fit.p
if n in [0, 9]:
print('******* Results from ', (n+1) * nfit, 'data points')
print(fit)
print('******* Results from ', Nstride * nfit, 'data points (final)')
print(fit)
```

In the loop, we fit only 100 data points at a time, but the prior we use is the best-fit result from the fit to the previous 100 data points, and its prior comes from fitting the 100 points before those, and so on for 100 fits in all. The output from this code is:

```x = [0.2  0.200080008001 ... 1.0]
y = [0.836(10)  0.835(10) ... 0.686(10)]
corr(y,y) = 0.990099009901

******* Results from  100 data points
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 1.1     Q = 0.23    logGBF = 523.92

Parameters:
0    0.494 (13)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
1   0.3939 (75)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
2    0.715 (23)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 11/0.1)

******* Results from  1000 data points
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 1.1     Q = 0.29    logGBF = 544.96

Parameters:
0    0.491 (10)     [  0.492 (10) ]
1   0.3969 (24)     [ 0.3965 (25) ]
2   0.7084 (70)     [ 0.7095 (74) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 6/0.0)

******* Results from  10000 data points (final)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 1     Q = 0.48    logGBF = 548.63

Parameters:
0     0.488 (10)      [   0.488 (10) ]
1   0.39988 (77)      [ 0.39982 (78) ]
2    0.7002 (23)      [  0.7003 (23) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 4/0.4)

```

It shows the errors on `p` and `p` decreasing steadily as more data points are included. The error on `p`, however, hardly changes at all. This is a consequence of the strong correlation between different `y[i]`s (and its lack of x-dependence). The “correct” answers here are 0.5, 0.4 and 0.7.

Chained fits are slower that straight fits with large amounts of uncorrelated data, provided `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` is informed ahead of time that the data are uncorrelated (by default it checks for correlations, which can be expensive for lots of data). The fitter is informed by using argument `udata` instead of `data` to specify the fit data:

```x, y = read_data()
print('x = [{}  {} ... {}]'.format(x, x, x[-1]))
print('y = [{}  {} ... {}]'.format(y, y, y[-1]))
print()

# fit function and prior
def fcn(x, p):
return p + p * np.exp(- p * x)
prior = gv.gvar(['0(1)', '0(1)', '0(1)'])

fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(udata=(x, y), prior=prior, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
```

Using `udata` rather than `data` causes `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` to ignore correlations in the data, whether they exist or not. Uncorrelated fits are typically much faster when fitting large amounts of data, so it is then possible to fit much more data (e.g., 1,000,000 or more `y[i]`s is straightforward on a laptop).

## `x` has Errors¶

We now consider variations on our basic fit analysis (described in Basic Fits). The first variation concerns what to do when the independent variables, the `x`s, have errors, as well as the `y`s. This is easily handled by turning the `x`s into fit parameters, and otherwise dispensing with independent variables.

To illustrate, consider the data assembled by the following `make_data` function:

```import gvar as gv

def make_data():
x = gv.gvar([
'0.73(50)',   '2.25(50)',  '3.07(50)',  '3.62(50)',  '4.86(50)',
'6.41(50)',   '6.39(50)',  '7.89(50)',  '9.32(50)',  '9.78(50)',
'10.83(50)', '11.98(50)', '13.37(50)', '13.84(50)', '14.89(50)'
])
y = gv.gvar([
'3.85(70)',  '5.5(1.7)',  '14.0(2.6)',   '21.8(3.4)',   '47.0(5.2)',
'79.8(4.6)', '84.9(4.6)',  '95.2(2.2)',   '97.65(79)',   '98.78(55)',
'99.41(25)', '99.80(12)', '100.127(77)', '100.202(73)', '100.203(71)'
])
return x,y
```

The function call `x,y = make_data()` returns values for the `x[i]`s and the corresponding `y[i]`s, where now both are `gvar.GVar`s.

We want to fit the `y` values with a function of the form:

```b0 / ((1 + gv.exp(b1 - b2 * x)) ** (1. / b3)).
```

So we have two sets of parameters for which we need priors: the `b[i]`s and the `x[i]`s:

```import gvar as gv

def make_prior(x):
prior = gv.BufferDict()
prior['b'] = gv.gvar(['0(500)', '0(5)', '0(5)', '0(5)'])
prior['x'] = x
return prior
```

The prior values for the `x[i]` are just the values returned by `make_data()`. The corresponding fit function is:

```import gvar as gv

def fcn(p):
b0, b1, b2, b3 = p['b']
x = p['x']
return b0 / ((1. + gv.exp(b1 - b2 * x)) ** (1. / b3))
```

where the dependent variables `x[i]` are no longer arguments of the function, but rather are fit parameter in dictionary `p`.

The actual fit is now straightforward:

```import lsqfit

x, y = make_data()
prior = make_prior(x)
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=y, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
```

This generates the following output:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.35     Q = 0.99    logGBF = -40.156

Parameters:
b 0   100.238 (60)      [    0 (500) ]
1      3.5 (1.2)      [  0.0 (5.0) ]
2     0.797 (87)      [  0.0 (5.0) ]
3      0.77 (35)      [  0.0 (5.0) ]
x 0      1.26 (41)      [  0.73 (50) ]  *
1      1.87 (34)      [  2.25 (50) ]
2      2.84 (28)      [  3.07 (50) ]
3      3.42 (29)      [  3.62 (50) ]
4      4.72 (32)      [  4.86 (50) ]
5      6.45 (33)      [  6.41 (50) ]
6      6.69 (35)      [  6.39 (50) ]
7      8.15 (36)      [  7.89 (50) ]
8      9.30 (35)      [  9.32 (50) ]
9      9.91 (37)      [  9.78 (50) ]
10     10.77 (37)      [ 10.83 (50) ]
11     11.70 (38)      [ 11.98 (50) ]
12     13.34 (46)      [ 13.37 (50) ]
13     13.91 (48)      [ 13.84 (50) ]
14     14.88 (50)      [ 14.89 (50) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 13/0.1)

```

The fit gives new results for the `b[i]` parameters that are much improved from our prior estimates. Results for many of the `x[i]`s are improved as well, by information from the fit data. The following plot shows the fit (dashed line) compared with the input data for `y`: ## Correlated Parameters; Gaussian Bayes Factor¶

`gvar.GVar` objects allow for complicated priors, including priors that correlate different fit parameters. The following fit analysis code illustrates how this is done:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

def main():
x, y = make_data()
prior = make_prior()
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=(x,y), fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
print('p1/p0 =', fit.p / fit.p, 'p3/p2 =', fit.p / fit.p)
print('corr(p0,p1) =', gv.evalcorr(fit.p[:2])[1,0])

def make_data():
x = np.array([
4., 2., 1., 0.5, 0.25, 0.167, 0.125, 0.1, 0.0833, 0.0714, 0.0625
])
y = gv.gvar([
'0.198(14)', '0.216(15)', '0.184(23)', '0.156(44)', '0.099(49)',
'0.142(40)', '0.108(32)', '0.065(26)', '0.044(22)', '0.041(19)',
'0.044(16)'
])
return x, y

def make_prior():
p = gv.gvar(['0(1)', '0(1)', '0(1)', '0(1)'])
p = 20 * p + gv.gvar('0.0(1)')        # p correlated with p
return p

def fcn(x, p):
return (p * (x**2 + p * x)) / (x**2 + x * p + p)

if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
```

Here, again, functions `make_data()` and `make_prior()` assemble the fit data and prior, and parameters `p[i]` are adjusted by the fitter to make `fcn(x[i], p)` agree with the data value `y[i]`. The priors are fairly broad (0±1) for all of the parameters, except for `p`. The prior introduces a tight relationship between `p` and `p`: it sets `p=20*p` up to corrections of order 0±0.1. This a priori relationship is built into the prior and restricts the fit.

Running the code gives the following output:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.61     Q = 0.82    logGBF = 19.129

Parameters:
0   0.149 (17)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
1    2.97 (34)     [     0 (20) ]
2    1.23 (61)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]  *
3    0.59 (15)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 19/0.0)

p1/p0 = 19.97(67)     p3/p2 = 0.48(22)
corr(p0,p1) = 0.9570678206095675
```

Note how the ratio `p1/p0` is much more accurate than either quantity separately. The prior introduces a strong, positive correlation between the two parameters that survives the fit: the correlation coefficient is 0.96. Comparing the fit function with the best-fit parameters (dashed line) with the data shows a good fit: If we omit the constraint in the prior,

```def make_prior():
p = gv.gvar(['0(1)', '0(20)', '0(1)', '0(1)'])
return p
```

we obtain quite different fit results:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.35     Q = 0.97    logGBF = 11.036

Parameters:
0   0.211 (18)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
1   -0.02 (14)     [     0 (20) ]
2    0.07 (10)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
3   0.008 (43)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 28/0.0)

p1/p0 = -0.08(64)     p3/p2 = 0.10(62)
corr(p0,p1) = -0.5928698851782287
```

Note that the Gaussian Bayes Factor (see `logGBF` in the output) is larger with the correlated prior (`logGBF = 19.1`) than it was for the uncorrelated prior (`logGBF = 11.0`). Had we been uncertain as to which prior was more appropriate, this difference says that the data prefers the correlated prior. (More precisely, it says that we would be `exp(19.1-11.0) = 3300` times more likely to get our `x,y` data from a theory with the correlated prior than from one with the uncorrelated prior.) This difference is significant despite the fact that the `chi**2` is lower for the uncorrelated case. `chi**2` tests goodness of fit, but there are usually more ways than one to get a good fit. Some are more plausible than others, and the Bayes Factor helps sort out which.

The Gaussian Bayes Factor is an approximation to the Bayes Factor which is valid in the limit where all distributions can be approximated by Gaussians. The Bayes Factor is the probability (density) that the fit data would be generated randomly from the fit function and priors (the model) used in the fit. Ratios of Bayes Factors from fits with different models tell us about the relative likelihood of the different models given the data. (Actually the ratio gives the ratio of probabilities for obtaining the data from the models, as opposed to the probabilities for the models given the data. See the discussion below.)

## `y` has No Error; Marginalization¶

Occasionally there are fit problems where values for the dependent variable `y` are known exactly (to machine precision). This poses a problem for least-squares fitting since the `chi**2` function is infinite when standard deviations are zero. How does one assign errors to exact `y`s in order to define a `chi**2` function that can be usefully minimized?

It is almost always the case in physical applications of this sort that the fit function has in principle an infinite number of parameters. It is, of course, impossible to extract information about infinitely many parameters from a finite number of `y`s. In practice, however, we generally care about only a few of the parameters in the fit function. The goal for a least-squares fit is to figure out what a finite number of exact `y`s can tell us about the parameters we want to know.

The key idea here is to use priors to model the part of the fit function that we don’t care about, and to remove that part of the function from the analysis by subtracting it out from the input data. This is called marginalization.

To illustrate how it is done, we consider data that is generated from an infinite sum of decaying exponentials, like that in Basic Fits:

```import numpy as np

def make_data():
x = np.array([ 1., 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2., 2.2, 2.4, 2.6])
y = np.array([
0.2740471001620033,  0.2056894154005132,  0.158389402324004,
0.1241967645280511,  0.0986901274726867,  0.0792134506060024,
0.0640743982173861,  0.052143504367789 ,  0.0426383022456816,
])
return x, y
```

Now `x,y = make_data()` returns nine `x[i]`s together with the corresponding `y[i]`s, but where the `y[i]`s are exact and so no longer represented by `gvar.GVar`s.

We want to fit these data with a sum of exponentials, as before:

```import numpy as np

def fcn(x,p):
a = p['a']       # array of a[i]s
E = p['E']       # array of E[i]s
return np.sum(ai * np.exp(-Ei*x) for ai, Ei in zip(a, E))
```

We know that the amplitudes `a[i]` are of order 0.5±0.5, and that the leading exponent `E` is 1±0.1, as are the differences between subsequent exponents `dE[i] = E[i] - E[i-1]`. This a priori knowledge is encoded in the priors:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv

def make_prior(nexp):
prior = gv.BufferDict()
prior['a'] = gv.gvar(nexp * ['0.5(5)'])
dE = gv.gvar(nexp * ['1.0(1)'])
prior['E'] = np.cumsum(dE)
return prior
```

We use a large number of exponential terms since our `y[i]`s are exact: we keep 100 terms in all, but our results are unchanged with any number greater than about 10. Only a small number `nexp` of these are included in the fit function. The `100-nexp` terms left out are subtracted from the `y[i]` before the fit, using the prior values for the omitted parameters to evaluate these terms. This gives new fit data `ymod[i]`:

```prior = make_prior(100)

# the first nexp terms are fit; the remainder go into ymod
fit_prior = gv.BufferDict()
ymod_prior = gv.BufferDict()
for k in prior:
fit_prior[k] = prior[:nexp]
ymod_prior[k] = prior[nexp:]

ymod = y - fcn(x, ymod_prior)
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=(x, ymod), prior=fit_prior, fcn=fcn)
```

By subtracting `fcn(x, ymod_prior)` from `y`, we remove the parameters that are in `ymod_prior` from the data, and consequently those parameters need not be included in fit function. The fitter uses only the parameters left in `fit_prior`.

Our complete code, therefore, is:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

def main():
x, y = make_data()
prior = make_prior(100)             # 100 exponential terms in all
p0 = None
for nexp in range(1, 6):
# marginalize the last 100 - nexp terms (in ymod_prior)
fit_prior = gv.BufferDict()     # part of prior used in fit
ymod_prior = gv.BufferDict()    # part of prior absorbed in ymod
for k in prior:
fit_prior[k] = prior[k][:nexp]
ymod_prior[k] = prior[k][nexp:]
ymod = y - fcn(x, ymod_prior)   # remove temrs in ymod_prior

# fit modified data with just nexp terms (in fit_prior)
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(
data=(x, ymod), prior=fit_prior, fcn=fcn, p0=p0, tol=1e-10,
)

# print fit information
print('************************************* nexp =',nexp)
print(fit.format(True))
p0 = fit.pmean

# print summary information and error budget
E = fit.p['E']                      # best-fit parameters
a = fit.p['a']
outputs = {
'E1/E0':E / E, 'E2/E0':E / E,
'a1/a0':a / a, 'a2/a0':a / a
}
inputs = {
'E prior':prior['E'], 'a prior':prior['a'],
'svd cut':fit.correction,
}
print(gv.fmt_values(outputs))
print(gv.fmt_errorbudget(outputs, inputs))

def fcn(x,p):
a = p['a']       # array of a[i]s
E = p['E']       # array of E[i]s
return np.sum(ai * np.exp(-Ei*x) for ai, Ei in zip(a, E))

def make_prior(nexp):
prior = gv.BufferDict()
prior['a'] = gv.gvar(nexp * ['0.5(5)'])
dE = gv.gvar(nexp * ['1.0(1)'])
prior['E'] = np.cumsum(dE)
return prior

def make_data():
x = np.array([ 1., 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2., 2.2, 2.4, 2.6])
y = np.array([
0.2740471001620033,  0.2056894154005132,  0.158389402324004 ,
0.1241967645280511,  0.0986901274726867,  0.0792134506060024,
0.0640743982173861,  0.052143504367789 ,  0.0426383022456816,
])
return x, y

if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
```

We loop over `nexp`, moving parameters from `ymod` back into the fit as `nexp` increases. The output from this script is:

```************************************* nexp = 1
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.19     Q = 0.99    logGBF = 79.803

Parameters:
a 0   0.4067 (32)     [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.9030 (16)     [  1.00 (10) ]

Fit:
x[k]           y[k]       f(x[k],p)
----------------------------------------
1     0.167 (74)     0.1648 (10)
1.2     0.141 (49)    0.13760 (82)
1.4     0.118 (32)    0.11487 (65)
1.6     0.099 (22)    0.09589 (51)
1.8     0.082 (14)    0.08004 (40)
2    0.0686 (97)    0.06682 (31)
2.2    0.0572 (65)    0.05578 (24)
2.4    0.0476 (44)    0.04656 (19)
2.6    0.0397 (30)    0.03887 (15)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/2    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 11/0.0)

************************************* nexp = 2
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.19     Q = 1    logGBF = 81.799

Parameters:
a 0   0.4015 (23)     [  0.50 (50) ]
1    0.435 (24)     [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.9007 (11)     [  1.00 (10) ]
1    1.830 (28)     [  2.00 (14) ]  *

Fit:
x[k]            y[k]        f(x[k],p)
------------------------------------------
1      0.235 (28)      0.2330 (27)
1.2      0.186 (15)      0.1847 (17)
1.4     0.1484 (81)      0.1474 (10)
1.6     0.1190 (44)     0.11833 (63)
1.8     0.0960 (24)     0.09552 (38)
2     0.0778 (13)     0.07749 (23)
2.2    0.06331 (74)     0.06313 (14)
2.4    0.05173 (41)    0.051624 (84)
2.6    0.04242 (23)    0.042351 (50)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/2    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 27/0.0)

************************************* nexp = 3
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.2     Q = 0.99    logGBF = 83.077

Parameters:
a 0    0.4011 (18)      [  0.50 (50) ]
1     0.426 (28)      [  0.50 (50) ]
2     0.468 (56)      [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.90045 (77)      [  1.00 (10) ]
1     1.822 (27)      [  2.00 (14) ]  *
2      2.84 (12)      [  3.00 (17) ]

Fit:
x[k]             y[k]         f(x[k],p)
--------------------------------------------
1       0.260 (10)       0.2593 (22)
1.2      0.1998 (45)       0.1995 (11)
1.4      0.1559 (20)      0.15576 (54)
1.6     0.12316 (91)      0.12305 (27)
1.8     0.09824 (41)      0.09818 (13)
2     0.07902 (19)     0.078988 (62)
2.2    0.063990 (85)     0.063973 (30)
2.4    0.052106 (38)     0.052098 (14)
2.6    0.042622 (17)    0.0426176 (68)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/3    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 64/0.0)

************************************* nexp = 4
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.21     Q = 0.99    logGBF = 83.212

Parameters:
a 0    0.4009 (10)      [  0.50 (50) ]
1     0.424 (22)      [  0.50 (50) ]
2     0.469 (61)      [  0.50 (50) ]
3     0.426 (94)      [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.90036 (44)      [  1.00 (10) ]
1     1.819 (19)      [  2.00 (14) ]  *
2      2.83 (11)      [  3.00 (17) ]
3      3.83 (15)      [  4.00 (20) ]

Fit:
x[k]              y[k]          f(x[k],p)
----------------------------------------------
1       0.2687 (38)       0.26843 (95)
1.2       0.2039 (14)       0.20376 (39)
1.4      0.15778 (51)       0.15771 (16)
1.6      0.12399 (19)      0.123955 (63)
1.8     0.098616 (69)      0.098603 (25)
2     0.079187 (26)      0.079182 (10)
2.2    0.0640650 (96)     0.0640627 (39)
2.4    0.0521401 (36)     0.0521392 (15)
2.6    0.0426371 (13)    0.04263670 (61)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/3    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 140/0.1)

************************************* nexp = 5
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.21     Q = 0.99    logGBF = 83.28

Parameters:
a 0    0.4009 (10)      [  0.50 (50) ]
1     0.424 (22)      [  0.50 (50) ]
2     0.468 (62)      [  0.50 (50) ]
3      0.42 (11)      [  0.50 (50) ]
4      0.45 (18)      [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.90036 (43)      [  1.00 (10) ]
1     1.819 (19)      [  2.00 (14) ]  *
2      2.83 (11)      [  3.00 (17) ]
3      3.83 (15)      [  4.00 (20) ]
4      4.83 (18)      [  5.00 (22) ]

Fit:
x[k]               y[k]          f(x[k],p)
-----------------------------------------------
1        0.2721 (14)       0.27196 (64)
1.2       0.20516 (42)       0.20510 (21)
1.4       0.15824 (13)      0.158219 (68)
1.6      0.124154 (38)      0.124147 (22)
1.8      0.098678 (12)     0.0986752 (70)
2     0.0792099 (36)     0.0792090 (23)
2.2     0.0640734 (11)    0.06407305 (85)
2.4    0.05214320 (33)    0.05214310 (40)
2.6    0.04263821 (10)    0.04263818 (27)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/3    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 248/0.1)

Values:
E2/E0: 3.15(12)
E1/E0: 2.021(20)
a2/a0: 1.17(15)
a1/a0: 1.057(52)

Partial % Errors:
E2/E0     E1/E0     a2/a0     a1/a0
--------------------------------------------------
E prior:      3.87      0.86     12.10      4.51
svd cut:      0.04      0.04      0.33      0.16
a prior:      0.84      0.47      5.33      1.92
--------------------------------------------------
total:      3.96      0.98     13.23      4.90

```

Here we use `fit.format(True)` to print out a table of `x` and `y` (actually `ymod`) values, together with the value of the fit function using the best-fit parameters. There are several things to notice:

• Even the `nexp=1` fit, where we fit the data with just a single exponential, gives results for the two parameters that are accurate to 1% or better. The results don’t change much as further terms are shifted from `ymod` to the fit function, and stop changing completely by `nexp=4`.

In fact it is straightforward to prove that best-fit parameter means and standard deviations, as well as `chi**2`, should be exactly the same in such situations provided the fit function is linear in all fit parameters. Here the fit function is approximately linear, given our small standard deviations, and so results are only approximately independent of `nexp`.

• `ymod` has large uncertainties when `nexp` is small, because of the uncertainties in the priors used to evaluate `fcn(x, ymod_prior)`. This is clear from the following plots: The solid lines in these plot show the exact results, from `y` in the code. The dashed lines show the fit function with the best-fit parameters for the `nexp` terms used in each fit, and the data points show `ymod` — these last two agree well, as expected from the excellent `chi**2` values. The uncertainties in different `ymod[i]`s are highly correlated with each other because they come from the same priors (in `ymod_prior`). These correlations are evident in the plots and are essential to this procedure.

• Although we motivated this example by the need to deal with `y`s having no errors, it is straightforward to apply the same ideas to a situation where the `y`s have errors. Often in a fit we are interested in only one or two of many fit parameters. Getting rid of the uninteresting parameters (by absorbing them into `ymod`) can greatly reduce the number of parameters varied by the fit, thereby speeding up the fit. Here we are in effect doing a 100-exponential fit to our data, but actually fitting with only a handful of parameters (only 2 for `nexp=1`). The parameters removed in this way are said to be marginalized.

## SVD Cuts and Roundoff Error¶

All of the fits discussed above have (default) SVD cuts of 1e-12. This has little impact in most of the problems, but makes a big difference in the problem discussed in the previous section. Had we run that fit, for example, with an SVD cut of 1e-19, instead of 1e-12, we would have obtained the following output:

```************************************* nexp = 5
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.21     Q = 0.99    logGBF = 85.403

Parameters:
a 0    0.4009 (10)      [  0.50 (50) ]
1     0.424 (22)      [  0.50 (50) ]
2     0.469 (62)      [  0.50 (50) ]
3      0.42 (11)      [  0.50 (50) ]
4      0.46 (18)      [  0.50 (50) ]
E 0   0.90036 (43)      [  1.00 (10) ]
1     1.819 (19)      [  2.00 (14) ]  *
2      2.83 (11)      [  3.00 (17) ]
3      3.83 (15)      [  4.00 (20) ]
4      4.83 (18)      [  5.00 (22) ]

Fit:
x[k]               y[k]      f(x[k],p)
-------------------------------------------
1        0.2721 (14)     0.272 (69)
1.2       0.20516 (42)     0.205 (57)
1.4       0.15824 (13)     0.158 (40)
1.6      0.124154 (38)     0.124 (27)
1.8      0.098678 (12)     0.099 (18)
2     0.0792099 (36)     0.079 (11)
2.2     0.0640734 (11)    0.0641 (70)
2.4    0.05214320 (33)    0.0521 (43)
2.6    0.04263821 (10)    0.0426 (25)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-19/0    tol = (1e-10*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 309/0.1)

Values:
E2/E0: 3.1(2.7)
E1/E0: 2.02(45)
a2/a0: 1.2(5.3)
a1/a0: 1.1(1.4)

Partial % Errors:
E2/E0     E1/E0     a2/a0     a1/a0
--------------------------------------------------
E prior:     54.30      8.06    256.81     56.39
svd cut:      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00
a prior:     67.92     20.58    376.32    124.24
--------------------------------------------------
total:     86.96     22.10    455.59    136.44

```

The standard deviations quoted for `E1/E0`, etc. are much too large compared with the standard deviations than what we obtained in the previous section. This is due to roundoff error. The strong correlations between the different data points (`ymod[i]` — see the previous section) in this analysis result in a data covariance matrix that is too ill-conditioned without an SVD cut.

The inverse of the data’s covariance matrix is used in the `chi**2` function that is minimized by `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. Given the finite precision of computer hardware, it is impossible to compute this inverse accurately if the matrix is almost singular, and in such situations the reliability of the fit results is in question. The eigenvalues of the covariance matrix in this example (for `nexp=5`) cover a range of about 18 orders of magnitude — too large to be handled in normal double precision computation. The smallest eigenvalues and their eigenvectors are likely to be quite inaccurate.

A standard solution to this common problem in least-squares fitting is to introduce an SVD cut, here called `svdcut`:

```fit = nonlinear_fit(data=(x, ymod), fcn=f, prior=prior, p0=p0, svdcut=1e-12)
```

This regulates the singularity of the covariance matrix by replacing its smallest eigenvalues with a larger, minimum eigenvalue. The cost is less precision in the final results since we are decreasing the precision of the input `y` data. This is a conservative move, but numerical stability is worth the trade off. The listing shows that 3 eigenvalues are modified when `svdcut=1e-12` (see entry for `svdcut/n`); no eigenvalues are changed when `svdcut=1e-19`.

The SVD cut is actually applied to the correlation matrix, which is the covariance matrix rescaled by standard deviations so that all diagonal elements equal 1. Working with the correlation matrix rather than the covariance matrix helps mitigate problems caused by large scale differences between different variables. Eigenvalues of the correlation matrix that are smaller than a minimum eigenvalue, equal to `svdcut` times the largest eigenvalue, are replaced by the minimum eigenvalue, while leaving their eigenvectors unchanged. This defines a new, less singular correlation matrix from which a new, less singular covariance matrix is constructed. Larger values of `svdcut` affect larger numbers of eigenmodes and increase errors in the final results.

The results shown in the previous section include an error budget, and it has an entry for the error introduced by the (default) SVD cut (obtained from `fit.correction`). The contribution is negligible. It is zero when `svdcut=1e-19`, of course, but the instability caused by the ill-conditioned covariance matrix in that case makes it unacceptable.

The SVD cut is applied separately to each block diagonal sub-matrix of the correlation matrix. This means, among other things, that errors for uncorrelated data are unaffected by the SVD cut. Applying an SVD cut of 1e-4, for example, to the following singular covariance matrix,

```[[  1.0   1.0   0.0  ]
[  1.0   1.0   0.0  ]
[  0.0   0.0   1e-20]],
```

gives a new, non-singular matrix

```[[  1.0001   0.9999   0.0  ]
[  0.9999   1.0001   0.0  ]
[  0.0      0.0      1e-20]]
```

where only the upper left sub-matrix is different.

`lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` uses a default value for `svdcut` of 1e-12. This default can be overridden, as shown above, but for many problems it is a good choice. Roundoff errors become more accute, however, when there are strong correlations between different parts of the fit data or prior. Then much larger `svdcut`s may be needed.

The SVD cut is applied to both the data and the prior. It is possible to apply SVD cuts to either of these separately using `gvar.regulate()` before the fit: for example,

```y = gv.regulate(ymod, svdcut=1e-10)
prior = gv.regulate(prior, svdcut=1e-12)
fit = nonlinear_fit(data=(x, y), fcn=f, prior=prior, svdcut=None)
```

applies different SVD cuts to the prior and data.

Note that taking `svdcut=-1e-12`, with a minus sign, causes the problematic modes to be dropped. This is a more conventional implementation of SVD cuts, but here it results in much less precision than using `svdcut=1e-12` (giving, for example, 2.094(94) for `E1/E0`, which is almost five times less precise). Dropping modes is equivalent to setting the corresponding variances to infinity, which is (obviously) much more conservative and less realistic than setting them equal to the SVD-cutoff variance.

The method `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit.check_roundoff()` can be used to check for roundoff errors by adding the line `fit.check_roundoff()` after the fit. It generates a warning if roundoff looks to be a problem. This check is done automatically if `debug=True` is added to the argument list of `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`.

## SVD Cuts and Inadequate Statistics¶

Roundoff error is one reason to use SVD cuts. Another is inadequate statistics. Consider the following example, which seeks to fit data obtained by averaging `N=5` random samples (a very small number of samples):

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

def main():
ysamples = [
[0.0092441016, 0.0068974057, 0.0051480509, 0.0038431422, 0.0028690492],
[0.0092477405, 0.0069030565, 0.0051531383, 0.0038455855, 0.0028700587],
[0.0092558569, 0.0069102437, 0.0051596569, 0.0038514537, 0.0028749153],
[0.0092294581, 0.0068865156, 0.0051395262, 0.003835656, 0.0028630454],
[0.009240534, 0.0068961523, 0.0051480046, 0.0038424661, 0.0028675632],
]
y = gv.dataset.avg_data(ysamples)
x = np.array([15., 16., 17., 18., 19.])
def fcn(p):
return p['a'] * gv.exp(- p['b'] * x)
prior = dict(a='0.75(5)', b='0.30(3)')
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=y, prior=prior, fcn=fcn, svdcut=0.0)
print(fit.format(True))

if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
```

This gives a terrible fit:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 4.4e+03     Q = 0    logGBF = -10844

Parameters:
a    0.77794 (26)      [ 0.750 (50) ]
b   0.296452 (32)      [ 0.300 (30) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 0/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 4/0.0)

```

The problem is that the small eigenvalues of the fit data’s correlation matrix are badly underestimated when we have only a small number of samples (compared with the number of data points being fit). Indeed the smallest eigenvalues vanish (exactly) when the number of samples is smaller than the number of data points.

An SVD cut is needed. We use `gvar.dataset.svd_analysis()` to estimate the appropriate size of the cut (by means of a bootstrap simulation that identifies the eigenmodes of the correlation matrix that are poorly estimated from our data sample). To use it we replace the line

```y = gv.dataset.avg_data(ysamples)
```

in the code by

```s = gv.dataset.svd_diagnosis(ysamples)
y = s.avgdata
```

and set `svdcut=s.svdcut` in the call to the fitter. The result is the following (excellent) fit:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.38     Q = 0.86    logGBF = 53.598

Parameters:
a    0.74338 (29)      [ 0.750 (50) ]
b   0.292480 (42)      [ 0.300 (30) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 0.0028/3    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 5/0.0)

```

The SVD cut is set to `0.0028` here and modifies 3 of the 5 eigenmodes in the correlation matrix. Generally one needs an SVD cut unless there are many more samples than data points — 10 or 100 times as many.

See the discussions in Goodness of Fit and Fit Residuals and Q-Q Plots for further analysis of this example.

`lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` will apply an SVD cut if keyword parameter `svdcut` is set. Another way to implement SVD cuts is using `gvar.regulate()` to modify the fit data before it is fit.

## `y` has Unknown Errors¶

There are situations where the input data `y` is known to have uncertainties, but where we do not know how big those uncertainties are. A common approach is to infer these uncertainties from the fluctuations of the data around the best-fit result.

As an example, consider the following data:

```x = np.array([1., 2., 3., 4.])
y = np.array([3.4422, 1.2929, 0.4798, 0.1725])
```

We want to fit these data with a simple exponential:

```p * gv.exp( - p * x)
```

where from we know a priori that `p` is 10±1 and `p` is 1±0.1. We assume that the relative uncertainty in `y` is `x`-independent and uncorrelated.

Our strategy is to introduce a relative error for the data and to vary its size to maximize the `logGBF` that results from a fit to our exponential. The choice that maximizes the Bayes Factor is the one that is favored by the data. This procedure is called the Empirical Bayes method.

This method is implemented in a driver program

```fit, z = lsqfit.empbayes_fit(z0, fitargs)
```

which varies parameter `z`, starting at `z0`, to maximize `fit.logGBF` where

```fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(**fitargs(z)).
```

Function `fitargs(z)` returns a dictionary containing the arguments for `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. These arguments are varied as functions of `z`. The optimal fit (that is, the one for which `fit.logGBF` is maximum) and `z` are returned.

Here we want to vary the relative error assigned to the data values, so we use the following code, where the uncertainty in `y[i]` is set equal to `dy[i] = y[i] * z`:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

# fit data and prior
x = np.array([1., 2., 3., 4.])
y = np.array([3.4422, 1.2929, 0.4798, 0.1725])
prior = gv.gvar(['10(1)', '1.0(1)'])

# fit function
def fcn(x, p):
return p * gv.exp(-p * x)

# find optimal dy
def fitargs(z):
dy = y * z
newy = gv.gvar(y, dy)
return dict(data=(x, newy), fcn=fcn, prior=prior)

fit, z = lsqfit.empbayes_fit(0.001, fitargs)
print(fit.format(True))
```

This code produces the following output:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.59     Q = 0.67    logGBF = 7.4834

Parameters:
0     9.44 (18)     [ 10.0 (1.0) ]
1   0.9978 (68)     [  1.00 (10) ]

Fit:
x[k]           y[k]      f(x[k],p)
---------------------------------------
1     3.442 (54)     3.481 (45)
2     1.293 (20)     1.283 (11)
3    0.4798 (75)    0.4731 (40)
4    0.1725 (27)    0.1744 (23)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 3/0.0)

```

The variation in the data suggests a relative error of about 1.6% for the input data. The overall fit is excellent.

It is important to appreciate that the outcome of a such a fit depends in detail on the assumptions you make about `y`’s uncertainties `dy`. We assume `dy/y` is `x`-independent above, but we get a somewhat different answer if instead we assume that `dy` is constant. Then `fitrargs` becomes

```def fitargs(z):
dy =  np.ones_like(y) * z
newy = gv.gvar(y, dy)
return dict(data=(x, newy), fcn=fcn, prior=prior)
```

and the output is:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.67     Q = 0.61    logGBF = 7.7643

Parameters:
0    9.207 (47)     [ 10.0 (1.0) ]
1   0.9834 (42)     [  1.00 (10) ]

Fit:
x[k]           y[k]      f(x[k],p)
---------------------------------------
1    3.4422 (66)    3.4435 (66)
2    1.2929 (66)    1.2879 (50)
3    0.4798 (66)    0.4817 (38)
4    0.1725 (66)    0.1802 (22)  *

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 3/0.0)

```

The data suggest an uncertainty of 0.0066 in each `y[i]`. Results for the fit parameters `fit.p[i]` are similar in the two cases, but the error on `p` is almost four times smaller with constant `dy`.

There is no way to tell from the data which of these error scenarios for `y` is correct. `logGBF` is slightly larger for the second fit, despite its larger `chi2/dof`, but the difference is not significant. There isn’t enough data and it doesn’t cover a large enough range to distinguish between these two options. Additional information about the data or data taking is needed to decide.

The Empirical Bayes method for setting `dy` becomes trivial when there are no priors and when `dy` is assumed to be `x`-independent. Then it is possible to minimize the chi**2 function without knowing `dy`, since `dy` factors out. The optimal `dy` is just the standard deviation of the fit residuals `y[i] - fcn(x[i],p)` with the best-fit parameters `p`. This assumption is implicit in many fit routines that fit data without errors (and without priors).

## Tuning Priors with the Empirical Bayes Criterion¶

Given two choices of prior for a parameter, the one that results in a larger Gaussian Bayes Factor after fitting (see `logGBF` in fit output or `fit.logGBF`) is the one preferred by the data. We can use this fact to tune a prior or set of priors in situations where we are uncertain about the correct a priori value: we vary the widths and/or central values of the priors of interest to maximize `logGBF`. In effect we are using the data to get a feel for what is a reasonable prior. This procedure for setting priors is again, as in the previous section, an example of the Empirical Bayes method and can be implemented using function `lsqfit.empbayes_fit()`.

The following code illustrates how this is done:

```import numpy as np
import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

x = np.array([0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7])
y = np.array([
'0.133426(95)', '0.20525(15)', '0.27491(20)', '0.32521(25)',
'0.34223(28)', '0.32394(28)', '0.27857(27)'
])

def fcn(x, p):
return gv.exp(-p - p * x - p * x**2 - p * x**3)

def fitargs(z):
dp = z
prior = gv.gvar([gv.gvar(0, dp) for i in range(4)])
return dict(prior=prior, fcn=fcn, data=(x,y))

fit,z = lsqfit.empbayes_fit(1.0, fitargs)
print(fit.format(True))
```

Here the fitter varies parameters `p` until `fcn(x,p)` equals the input data `y`. We don’t know a priori how large the coefficients `p[i]` are. In `fitargs` we assume they are all of order `dp = z`. Function `empbayes_fit` varies `z` to maximize `fit.logGBF`. The output is as follows:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.81     Q = 0.58    logGBF = 21.274

Parameters:
0   2.5904 (22)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]
1   -6.530 (22)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *
2    7.832 (65)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *
3   -1.688 (55)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]

Fit:
x[k]             y[k]        f(x[k],p)
-------------------------------------------
0.1    0.133426 (95)    0.133451 (92)
0.2     0.20525 (15)     0.20512 (10)
0.3     0.27491 (20)     0.27509 (14)
0.4     0.32521 (25)     0.32516 (15)
0.5     0.34223 (28)     0.34220 (19)
0.6     0.32394 (28)     0.32392 (18)
0.7     0.27857 (27)     0.27859 (26)

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 1/0.0)

```

The data suggest that the coefficients are of order 0±5.3. The actual values of the parameters are, of course, consistent with the Empirical Bayes estimate.

The Bayes factor, `exp(fit.logGBF)`, is useful for deciding about fit functions as well as priors. If we repeat the analysis above but with the following data

```x = np.array([0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7])
y = np.array([
'0.133213(95)', '0.20245(15)', '0.26282(19)', '0.29099(22)',
'0.27589(22)', '0.22328(19)', '0.15436(14)'
])
```

we find that fits with 3 or 4 `p[i]`s give the following results:

```========== fcn(x,p) = exp(-p - p * x - p * x**2)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.86     Q = 0.53    logGBF = 27.07

Parameters:
0    2.5911 (12)      [  0.0 (5.3) ]
1   -6.5420 (68)      [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *
2    7.8711 (86)      [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 8/0.0)

========== fcn(x,p) = exp(-p - p * x - p * x**2 - p * x**3)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.82     Q = 0.57    logGBF = 22.617

Parameters:
0   2.5920 (21)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]
1   -6.553 (22)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *
2    7.905 (64)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]  *
3   -0.029 (54)     [  0.0 (5.3) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 11/0.0)

```

The two fits are almost equally good, giving almost the same `chi**2` values. The first fit, with only 3 `p[i]`s, however, has a significantly larger `logGBF`. This indicates that this data is `exp(27.1-22.6) = 90` times more likely to come from the theory with only 3 `p[i]`s than from the one with 4. The data much prefer the 3-parameter theory, and they do, as it turns out, come from such a theory. Note that the value for `p` in the second case is consistent with zero, but the errors on the other parameters are much larger if it is included in the fit.

The Empirical Bayes procedure can be abused, because it is possible to make `logGBF` arbitrarily large. For example, setting

```prior = gv.gvar([
'2.5904 +- 2.6e-16', '-6.53012 +- 6.5e-16',
'7.83211 +- 7.8e-16', '-1.68813 +- 1.7e-16',
])
```

in the problem above and then fitting gives `logGBF=52.2`, which is much larger than the alternatives above. This “prior” is ridiculous, however: it has means equal to the best-fit results with standard deviations that are 16 orders of magnitude smaller. This is the kind of prior you get from Empirical Bayes if you vary the means and standard deviations of all parameters independently.

Bayes Theorem explains what is wrong with such priors. The Bayes Factor is proportional to the probability `P(y|model)` that the fit data would arise given the model (priors plus fit function). When selecting models, we really want to maximize `P(model|y)`, the probability of the model given the data. These two probabilities are different, but are related by Bayes Theorem: `P(model|y)` is proportional to `P(y|model)` times `P(model)`, where `P(model)` is the a priori probability of the model being correct. When we choose a model by maximizing `logGBF` (that is, by maximizing `P(y|model)`), we are implicitly assuming that the various models we are considering are all equally likely candidates — that is, we are assuming that `P(model)` is approximately constant across the model space we are exploring. The a priori probability for the ridiculous prior just above is vanishingly small, and so comparing its `logGBF` to the others is nonsensical.

Note that `empbayes_fit()` allows `fitargs(z)` to return a dictionary of arguments for the fitter together with a `plausibility` for `z`, which corresponds to `log(P(model))` in the discussion above. This allows you steer the search away from completely implausible solutions.

Empirical Bayes tends to be most useful when varying the width of the prior for a single parameter, or varying the widths of a group of parameters together. It is also useful for validating (rather than setting) the choice of a prior or set of priors for a fit, by comparing the optimal choice (according to the data) with choice actually used.

## Positive Parameters; Non-Gaussian Priors¶

The priors for `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` are all Gaussian. There are situations, however, where other distributions would be desirable. One such case is where a parameter is known to be positive, but is close to zero in value (“close” being defined relative to the a priori uncertainty). For such cases we would like to use non-Gaussian priors that force positivity — for example, priors that impose log-normal or exponential distributions on the parameter. Ideally the decision to use such a distribution is made on a parameter- by-parameter basis, when creating the priors, and has no impact on the definition of the fit function itself.

`lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` supports log-normal distributions among others. This functionality is implemented through the `gvar.BufferDict` dictionary class, which is the standard dictionary used by `lsqfit` internally and for results. See the `gvar.BufferDict` documentation for more information.

The prior for a parameter `'a'`, for example, is switched from a Gaussian distribution to a log-normal distribution by replacing `prior['a']` in the fit prior with a prior for its logarithm, `prior['log(a)']`. This causes `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` to use the logarithm as the fit parameter (with its Gaussian prior). Fit parameters are stored in a `gvar.BufferDict` `p`, which returns values for `p['log(a)']`, as expected, but also for `p['a']`, where the latter is automatically set equal to the exponential of the former. Consequently only the prior need be changed to switch distributions. In particular the fit function can be expressed directly in terms of fit parameter `p['a']`, so that it is independent of the distribution chosen for the `'a'` prior.

To illustrate consider a simple problem where an experimental quantity `y` is known to be positive, but experimental errors mean that measured values can often be negative:

```import gvar as gv
import lsqfit

y = gv.gvar([
'-0.17(20)', '-0.03(20)', '-0.39(20)', '0.10(20)', '-0.03(20)',
'0.06(20)', '-0.23(20)', '-0.23(20)', '-0.15(20)', '-0.01(20)',
'-0.12(20)', '0.05(20)', '-0.09(20)', '-0.36(20)', '0.09(20)',
'-0.07(20)', '-0.31(20)', '0.12(20)', '0.11(20)', '0.13(20)'
])
```

We want to know the average value `a` of the `y`s and so could use the following fitting code:

```prior = {'a':gv.gvar('0.02(2)')}               # a = average of y's

def fcn(p, N=len(y)):
return N * [p['a']]

fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=y, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
print('a =', fit.p['a'])
```

where we are assuming a priori information that suggests the average is around 0.02. The output from this code is:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.84     Q = 0.67    logGBF = 5.3431

Parameters:
a   0.004 (18)     [ 0.020 (20) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 4/0.0)

a = 0.004(18)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.252

Parameters:
log(a)   -4.44 (97)     [ -3.9 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.012 (11)     [ 0.020 (20) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 25/0.0)

a = 0.012(11)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.66    logGBF = 5.2858

Parameters:
sqrt(a)   0.099 (67)     [ 0.141 (71) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.010 (13)     [ 0.020 (20) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 19/0.0)

a = 0.010(13)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.2385

Parameters:
ga(a)   -0.59 (96)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.011 (13)     [ 0.020 (16) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 15/0.0)

a = 0.011(13)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.2385

Parameters:
ga(a)   -0.59 (96)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.011 (13)     [ 0.020 (16) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 15/0.0)

a = 0.011(13)

Histogram Analysis:
mean = 0.014054(22)   sdev = 0.010659(21)   skew = 0.6181(26)   ex_kurt = -0.5593(50)
median = 0.011867(19)   plus = 0.014385(31)   minus = 0.008761(18)
```

This is not such a useful result since much of the one-sigma range for `a` is negative, and yet we know that `a` must be postive.

A better analysis uses a log-normal distribution for `a`:

```prior = {}
prior['log(a)'] = gv.log(gv.gvar('0.02(2)'))   # log(a) not a

def fcn(p, N=len(y)):
return N * [p['a']]

fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=y, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
print('a =', fit.p['a'])                       # exp(log(a))
```

The fit parameter is now `log(a)` rather than `a` itself, but the code is unchanged except for the definition of the prior. In particular the fit function is identical to what we used in the first case since parameter dictionary `p` returns values for both `'a'` and `'log(a)'`.

The result from this fit is

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.252

Parameters:
log(a)   -4.44 (97)     [ -3.9 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.012 (11)     [ 0.020 (20) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 25/0.0)

a = 0.012(11)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.66    logGBF = 5.2858

Parameters:
sqrt(a)   0.099 (67)     [ 0.141 (71) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.010 (13)     [ 0.020 (20) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 19/0.0)

a = 0.010(13)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.2385

Parameters:
ga(a)   -0.59 (96)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.011 (13)     [ 0.020 (16) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 15/0.0)

a = 0.011(13)
Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.2385

Parameters:
ga(a)   -0.59 (96)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.011 (13)     [ 0.020 (16) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 15/0.0)

a = 0.011(13)

Histogram Analysis:
mean = 0.014054(22)   sdev = 0.010659(21)   skew = 0.6181(26)   ex_kurt = -0.5593(50)
median = 0.011867(19)   plus = 0.014385(31)   minus = 0.008761(18)
```

which is more compelling. Parameters listed above the dashed line in the parameter table are the actual parameters used in the fit; those listed below the dashed line are derived from those above the line. The “correct” value for `a` here is 0.015 (given the method used to generate the `y`s).

Other distributions are available. For example, the code

```prior = {}
prior['f(a)'] = gv.BufferDict.uniform('f', 0, 0.04)

def fcn(p, N=len(y)):
return N * [p['a']]

fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=y, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
print('a =', fit.p['a'])                       # exp(log(a))
```

creates a function `f(a)` such that the prior for parameter `p['a']` is uniformly distributed between 0 and 0.04, and zero otherwise. The function name `f` is arbitrary; `f(a)` has a Gaussian prior 0 ± 1. This code gives the following output:

```Least Square Fit:
chi2/dof [dof] = 0.85     Q = 0.65    logGBF = 5.2385

Parameters:
f(a)   -0.59 (96)     [  0.0 (1.0) ]
-----------------------------------------------
a   0.011 (13)     [ 0.020 (16) ]

Settings:
svdcut/n = 1e-12/0    tol = (1e-08*,1e-10,1e-10)    (itns/time = 15/0.0)

a = 0.011(13)
```

This fit implies that `a=0.011(13)` which is almost identical to the result obtained from the log-normal distribution.

New distributions can be defined using `gvar.BufferDict.add_distribution()`. For example,

```import lsqfit
import gvar as gv

def invf(x):
return 0.02 + 0.02 * gv.tanh(x)

def f(x):                                   # not used
return gv.arctanh((x - 0.02) / 0.02)

prior = {}
prior['f(a)'] = gv.gvar('0.00(75)')

def fcn(p, N=len(y)):
return N * [p['a']]

fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(prior=prior, data=y, fcn=fcn)
print(fit)
print('a =', fit.p['a'])
```

does a fit with Gaussian parameter `f(a)`, which forces `a` to lie between 0 and 0.04. This fit gives `a=0.012(12)`, which again agrees well with log-normal fit. The prior 0±0.75 for `f(a)` is chosen to make the prior probability distribution for parameter `a` almost flat across most (80%) of the interval 0.02±0.02.

## Faster Fitters¶

`lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` uses fitters from the Gnu Scientific Library (GSL) and/or from the `scipy` Python module to do the actual fitting, depending upon which of these is installed. It is worth trying a different fitter or fit algorithm if a fit is causing trouble, since different fitters are optimized for different problems. The fitter is selected using the `fitter` argument in `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. There are currently three fitters available:

`fitter='gsl_multifit'`

The standard GSL least-squares fitter which is wrapped in Python class `lsqfit.gsl_multifit`. This is the default fitter provided GSL is installed. It offers a wide range of options, including several different algorithms that are selected by setting `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` parameter `alg` equal to `'lm'`, `'lmaccel'`, `'subspace2D'`, `'dogleg'`, and so on. See the documentation.

`fitter='gsl_v1_multifit'`

The GSL fitter from version 1 of the GSL library. This is wrapped in Python class `lsqfit.gsl_v1_multifit`. It was the fitter used in `lsqfit` versions earlier than version 9.0. It supports a few different algorithms (parameter `alg`) including `'lmsder'` and `'lmder'`.

`fitter='scipy_least_squares'`

The standard `scipy` least-squares fitter, here provided with an `lsqfit` interface by class `lsqfit.scipy_least_squares`. This is the default fitter when GSL is not available. It also provides a variety of algorithms (set parameter `method`), and other options, such as loss functions for handling outliers. See the `scipy` documentation.

The default configurations for these fitters are chosen to emphasize robustness rather than speed, and therefore some of the non-default options can be much faster. Adding

```fitter='gsl_multifit', alg='subspace2D', scaler='more', solver='cholesky'
```

to `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`’s argument list, for example, can double or triple the fitter’s speed for large problems. The more robust choices are important for challenging fits, but straightforward fits can be greatly accelerated by using different options. The `scipy_least_squares` fitter can also be much faster than the default. It is worth experimenting when fits become costly.

Method `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit.set()` modifies the defaults used by `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. For example, we can make the fast option mentioned above the default choice for any subsequent fit by calling:

```lsqfit.nonlinear_fit.set(
fitter='gsl_multifit',
alg='subspace2D',
scaler='more',
solver='cholesky',
)
```

Default values for parameters `svdcut`, `debug`, `maxit`, `fitter`, and `tol` can be reset, as can any parameters that are sent to the underlying fitter (e.g., `alg`, `scaler`, and `solver` here). Calling the function with no arguments returns a dictionary containing the current defaults. `nonlinear_fit.set(clear=True)` restores the original defaults.

`lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` is easier to use than the underlying fitters because it can handle correlated data, and it automatically generates Jacobian functions for the fitter, using automatic differentiation. It also is integrated with the `gvar` module, which provides powerful tools for error propagation, generating error budgets, and creating potentially complicated priors for Bayesian fitting. The underlying fitters are available from `lsqfit` for use in other more specialized applications.

## Debugging and Troubleshooting¶

When a fit refuses to work, the first thing to check is that the data, prior, and fit function are properly constructed. Setting parameter `debug=True` in `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` causes the code to look for common mistakes and report on them with more intelligible error messages. The code also then checks for significant roundoff errors in the matrix inversion of the covariance matrix. It is a good idea to set this parameter in the early stages of any project.

Sometimes the optimization algorithm has trouble finding the true minimum of the `chi**2` function, leading to unexpectedly poor fits. Trying a different algorithm (see Faster Fitters) will sometimes help. Another option is to replace `svdcut` with `eps` in `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`, which changes the underlying fit functions from which `chi**2` is constructed. A third option is to try different starting points `p0`. The following code, for example, tries 5 starting points drawn at random from the prior:

```import gvar as gv
import lsqfit
...
gv.ranseed(12345)     # gives same results if run script again
for p0 in gv.raniter(prior, n=5):
fit = lsqfit.nonlinear_fit(data=data, prior=prior, fcn=fcn, p0=p0)
print(fit)
```

Alternatively, simply set parameter `p0=True` to generate a random starting point for each fit.

A common mistake is a mismatch between the format of the data and the format of what comes back from the fit function. Another mistake is when a fit function `fcn(p)` returns results containing `gvar.GVar`s when the parameters `p` are all just numbers (or arrays of numbers). The only way a `gvar.GVar` should get into a fit function is through the parameters; if a fit function requires an extra `gvar.GVar`, that `gvar.GVar` should be turned into a parameter by adding it to the prior.

Error messages that come from inside the GSL routines used by `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` are usually due to errors in one of the inputs to the fit (that is, the fit data, the prior, or the fit function). Again setting `debug=True` may catch the errors before they land in GSL.

Occasionally `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit` appears to go crazy, with gigantic `chi**2`s (e.g., `1e78`). This could be because there is a genuine zero-eigenvalue mode in the covariance matrix of the data or prior. Such a zero mode makes it impossible to invert the covariance matrix when evaluating `chi**2`. One fix is to regulate the covariance matrix used in the fit by setting, for example, `svdcut=1e-8` (or `eps=1e-8`) in the call to `lsqfit.nonlinear_fit`. Such cuts regulate exact or nearly exact zero modes, while leaving important modes mostly unaffected.

Even if regulation works in such a case, the question remains as to why one of the covariance matrices has a zero mode. A common cause is if the same `gvar.GVar` was used for more than one prior. For example, one might think that

```>>> import gvar as gv
>>> z = gv.gvar(1, 1)
>>> prior = gv.BufferDict(a=z, b=z)
```

creates a prior 1±1 for each of parameter `a` and parameter `b`. Indeed each parameter separately is of order 1±1, but in a fit the two parameters would be forced equal to each other because their priors are both set equal to the same `gvar.GVar`, `z`:

```>>> print(prior['a'], prior['b'])
1.0(1.0) 1.0(1.0)
>>> print(prior['a']-prior['b'])
0(0)
```

That is, while parameters `a` and `b` fluctuate over a range of 1±1, they fluctuate together, in exact lock-step. The covariance matrix for `a` and `b` must therefore be singular, with a zero mode corresponding to the combination `a-b`; it is all 1s in this case:

```>>> import numpy as np
>>> cov = gv.evalcov(prior.flat)    # prior's covariance matrix
>>> print(np.linalg.det(cov))       # determinant is zero
0.0
```

This zero mode upsets `nonlinear_fit()`. If `a` and `b` are meant to fluctuate together then an SVD cut as above will give correct results (with `a` and `b` being forced equal to several decimal places, depending upon the cut). Of course, simply replacing `b` by `a` in the fit function would be even better. If, on the other hand, `a` and `b` were not meant to fluctuate together, the prior should be redefined:

```>>> prior = gv.BufferDict(a=gv.gvar(1, 1), b=gv.gvar(1, 1))
```

where now each parameter has its own `gvar.GVar`. This line can be rewritten

```>>> prior = gv.gvar(dict(a='1(1)', b='1(1)'))
```

which is slighlty more succinct.
{"ft_lang_label":"__label__en","ft_lang_prob":0.70215327,"math_prob":0.98646116,"size":95079,"snap":"2023-14-2023-23","text_gpt3_token_len":32021,"char_repetition_ratio":0.1525217,"word_repetition_ratio":0.17830276,"special_character_ratio":0.40626216,"punctuation_ratio":0.17914353,"nsfw_num_words":0,"has_unicode_error":false,"math_prob_llama3":0.9949314,"pos_list":[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8],"im_url_duplicate_count":[null,1,null,1,null,1,null,1,null],"WARC_HEADER":"{\"WARC-Type\":\"response\",\"WARC-Date\":\"2023-06-02T02:03:06Z\",\"WARC-Record-ID\":\"<urn:uuid:141848f0-c666-4c3e-aad9-aaea6b40ad3e>\",\"Content-Length\":\"456886\",\"Content-Type\":\"application/http; msgtype=response\",\"WARC-Warcinfo-ID\":\"<urn:uuid:5c0aa1bf-e8d2-414c-a72d-fa65ac03e8a6>\",\"WARC-Concurrent-To\":\"<urn:uuid:cde8e54a-5d51-4fb3-9b6b-c1dd8bd8f085>\",\"WARC-IP-Address\":\"104.17.33.82\",\"WARC-Target-URI\":\"https://lsqfit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/overview.html\",\"WARC-Payload-Digest\":\"sha1:OTUOHCRRKP6ETIAP65GL4RCZMJ2XGU3I\",\"WARC-Block-Digest\":\"sha1:DDEDKVRJDVB2UVZJLZ5QVHEDPOGPADCC\",\"WARC-Identified-Payload-Type\":\"text/html\",\"warc_filename\":\"/cc_download/warc_2023/CC-MAIN-2023-23/CC-MAIN-2023-23_segments_1685224648245.63_warc_CC-MAIN-20230602003804-20230602033804-00420.warc.gz\"}"}