comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » mpcurvefit vs. a matlab fitting technique
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
mpcurvefit vs. a matlab fitting technique [message #61614] Tue, 22 July 2008 03:52
sheilakanani is currently offline  sheilakanani
Messages: 2
Registered: July 2008
Junior Member
Hi there,

I am trying to run an IDL program using mpcurvefit. The same program
was written in Matlab and used lsqcurvefit for the fitting. I am
having some serious issues with mpcurvefit (although it is better than
the IDL curvefit!) and was hoping you can help me resolve these
issues.

I put 4 coefficients into the fitting routine then mpcurvefit "spits"
out the fitted values for these coefficients. However, the program is
not stable at all. For example

If I put [9.4,0.24,0.77,-1.5]
into the routine
I get [ 9.538911, 0.15903937, 0.72624838, -1.3497545] out.

But if I change the input even slightly eg [9.4,0.24,0.77,-1.5]
I get totally different values out, eg [7.7098139, 0.19333284,
0.60223838, -0.85758867]

Surely this should not be the case?

Also the outputs differ for the same inputs depending on whether I run
IDL on Windows or on Linux.

When I run the same fitting algorithm using Matlab and lsqcurvefit the
program is much more stable. If I put slightly different values into
the routine I still get similar values out, as the iterations conviene
on particular values.

What am I doing wrong with mpcurvefit?! Is there any way to make it
stable. I have gone through the code over and over again and I can't
see what I am doing wrong.

Thank you for your time.
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Previous Topic: union or overlap of two plots
Next Topic: Re: newbie wants to enforce "array conservation"

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Oct 09 19:58:49 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.83929 seconds