Re: Comparing LS and TLS

On Mar 25, 12:58 pm, Gordon Sande <g.sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-03-25 16:38:27 -0300,spasmous<spasm...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

I wrote some code to test the total least squares method. Results were
disappointing: for 10000 trials with different added Gaussian noise
the least squares produces the smallest error. When there are multiple
right hand side vectors there is a specific algorithm for TLS, which I
also compared (Ref Golub & van Loan). Results of this were worse than
LS and randomly better or worse than single RHS TLS.

I'm curious why is the special purpose TLS for multiple RHS not the
best? And why LS is superior to either TLS approach?!?

Numerical analysis will tell you HOW to compute it.
Statistics will tell you WHY you might want to compute it.

Why would you ask a statistics question in a numerical analysis newsgroup?
Try sci.stat.math for a meaningful response. Do not be surprised to find
that you have not asked the question in a sensible way. Operationally
that means that you may not have actually done the experiment you think
you did.

When do you think TLS is called for? Hint: What errors do you have in the
predictors?


You're master of the vaguely negative comment that implies the poster
is a fool, so point scored there. But seriously what is wrong with the
simulation I posted? I honestly didn't understand the remarks in your
earlier post, please can you point out something specific wrong :)
.