-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cross-validation and model selection #5
Comments
Our ultimate goal is to have a dictionary of dictionaries for each source that contains entries for:
This dictionary is a dimensionality-reduced representation of the data in the interval. After we do have this, we can do lots of fun things-- go back and inspect the residual spectrum-- what is the actual noise distribution? How many outliers (cosmic rays, flares) are there, and where are they? We could then go back and re-do everything with a refined noise model, masked cosmic-rays, and maybe non-linear regression methods. |
Note that it's a little awkward that we're bungling multiterm Lomb Scargle and top N periods. Strictly speaking, those top N periods arise from assumptions of an underlying Fourier series, so we should actually have N_top_periods x N_Fourier_terms = 5 * 4 = 20 (times 2 = 40 for sines and cosines!) linearly-regressed coefficients in our model. However, that's not the right thing to do, since many of the top_N_periods are actually aliases of the main period, by design. So what we're doing is some weird approximation of strictly Fourier methods. Our strategy has the drawback of being non-orthogonal, but has the (potential, unproven) benefit of picking up real physics that has multiple periods (e.g. differential rotation? multiple stars? weird physics?). Let's try it anyways... |
We'll need:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: