A general approach to statistical modeling of physical laws:
  nonparametric regression
A general approach to statistical modeling of physical laws:
nonparametric regression
Igor Grabec∗
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,
Aškerčeva 6, PP 394, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia†
(Dated: October 26, 2018)
Abstract
Statistical modeling of experimental physical laws is based on the probability density function
of measured variables. It is expressed by experimental data via a kernel estimator. The kernel
is determined objectively by the scattering of data during calibration of experimental setup. A
physical law, which relates measured variables, is optimally extracted from experimental data by
the conditional average estimator. It is derived directly from the kernel estimator and corresponds
to a general nonparametric regression. The proposed method is demonstrated by the modeling of a
return map of noisy chaotic data. In this example, the nonparametric regression is used to predict
a future value of chaotic time series from the present one. The mean predictor error is used in
the definition of predictor quality, while the redundancy is expressed by the mean square distance
between data points. Both statistics are used in a new definition of predictor cost function. From
the minimum of the predictor cost function, a proper number of data in the model is estimated.
PACS numbers: 02.50.-r,07.05.-t,05.45.-a,89.90.+n,84.35.+i,06.20.DK
∗Also at Amanova, Kantetova 75, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
†Electronic address: igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si; URL: http://www.fs.uni-lj.si/lasin/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0089v1
mailto:igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si
http://www.fs.uni-lj.si/lasin/
I. INTRODUCTION
A basic task of physical description of natural phenomena is to express relations between
experimental data about measured variables in terms of physical laws [1]. Since the corre-
sponding analytical modeling essentially depends on the intuition of the explorer performing
it, an ambiguity surrounds this basic task and there thus arises a question how this could be
avoided. This problem becomes of fundamental practical importance when developing intel-
ligent electronic systems for automatic modeling of physical laws [2]. The ambiguity could
be avoided if a unique objective method of modeling was found that would take into account
common properties of experimental observations and of transitions from experimental data
to models. The aim of this article is to show how such a method could be developed from
basic principles of probability and statistics, as well as to demonstrate an example of its
applicability.
A common property of all experimental explorations is that each experiment corresponds
to a process proceeding from preparation to execution. If we want a selected experiment
to yield any information about the phenomenon under observation, then the result of the
experiment may not be determined in advance i.e. several outcomes of the experiment must
be possible. The next common property is repeatability of experiments. Consequently, a
correct presentation of experimental observations requires the use of a distribution of ex-
perimental results and this must be related to the concept of probability. The probability
distribution is, therefore, a common basis for the description of natural properties in terms
of experimental data [3], while the transition from experimental data to an analytical ex-
pression of the corresponding probability distribution function is the crucial problem of
modeling. An objective solution of this problem represents statistical modeling of the prob-
ability distribution function by a nonparametric kernel estimator if the kernel is determined
by a calibration of the experimental setup [4, 5, 6]. For this purpose, the central theorem of
probability theory and the maximum entropy principle provide a quite general route to the
specification of the kernel function of the estimator. In this case, an experimental physical
law, which represents a relation between observed variables, can also be generally expressed
by applying the theory of optimal statistical estimators. The resulting nonparametric re-
gression is the conditional average (CA), which can be automatically extracted from the
probability density function (PDF) of experimental data in a measurement system. The
complete approach to modeling thus appears objective, independent of the intuition of the
observer and, consequently, generally applicable for automatic execution. Due to these con-
venient properties, CA is widely applicable in various fields of natural and technical sciences
A nonparametric expression of the PDF by the kernel estimator has already been proposed
by Parzen [7, 8], but weaknesses of his proposal are that the kernel function is arbitrarily
introduced, and that there is an assumption that its width should decrease to zero when the
number of data is increased to infinity. In order to avoid this weakness, we specify the kernel
function objectively by the scattering of the measurement system output during calibration
[7, 8]. The only ambiguity in the expression of the PDF is then related to the number of
experimental data, which according to Parzen’s assumption should not be limited. Since an
infinite number of experiments cannot be performed, there arises a fundamental question:
”How many experiments is it reasonable to perform in order to explore the phenomenon
properly by a given experimental setup?” Intuitively, we can conclude that it is reasonable to
repeat experiments for as long as they bring new information. However, with an increasing
number of experiments, the acquired data points become ever more concentrated in the
sample space and consequently the repetition of the experiments becomes redundant. This
is observed when distances between data points become comparable to the width of the kernel
function. This reasoning led recently to a specification of an information cost function C
[4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. For this purpose the indeterminacy of measurements was first
expressed in terms of information entropy, which further led to definition of the experimental
information I and the redundancy R of experiments. Using these statistics, the information
cost function was expressed by the difference C = R− I. From the position of its minimum,
a proper number of experiments can then be objectively determined [4, 5, 6].
Estimation of the information cost function is related to the calculation of integrals, which
is inconvenient in a multivariate case. Therefore, another statistic, with similar properties
but more simple calculation, is sought. Since it has been shown previously that the pre-
dictor quality exhibits similar properties to the experimental information, we utilize it here
in the definition of the predictor cost function. From its minimum, a proper number of
experiments can also be estimated. If this is used as a proper number for the adaptation of
the nonparametric regression to data provided by experiments, the modeling of the corre-
sponding physical law can be performed automatically on a data acquisition system of the
experimental setup. To demonstrate this possibility, we first briefly describe the nonpara-
metric regression and then turn to the definition of the predictor quality, redundancy and
cost function. Properties of all statistics are subsequently demonstrated in the modeling of
a return map corresponding to a noisy chaotic process.
II. FUNDAMENTALS OF NONPARAMETRIC MODELING
A. Description of kernel function
Let us consider a phenomenon that can be described by just two joint variables, since the
generalization to a multivariate case is straightforward. A single result of joint measurement
is represented by the couple z = (x, y). We next assume that the phenomenon can be
characterized statistically by repetition of measurements yielding sample points zn = (xn, yn)
in the joint span of a two channel instrument S
= Sx ⊗ Sy.
Since the instruments are generally subject to stochastic disturbances, the results of
measurements are scattered even during repetition of calibration [9]. The scattering can be
described by the data provided by a series of repeated simultaneous calibrations of both
instrument channels. For this purpose, we have to perform a joint measurement on an
object representing two physical units ux and uy which we denote together by the joint unit
u = (ux, uy). The scattering of instrument outputs during calibration is characterized by the
joint PDF ψ(z|u), which we call the scattering function (SF) [2, 4, 9]. When the interaction
between both channels is negligible, the SF is given by the product ψ(z|u) = ψ(x|ux)ψ(y|uy).
Without loss of generality, we further consider a case with equal channels which are subject
to mutually independent random disturbances that do not depend on u. In such cases,
the central limit theorem of probability theory, as well as the maximum entropy principle,
suggest that we express the SF of a particular channel by the Gaussian function:
g(x− ux, σ) =
−(x− ux)
The parameters ux, σ represent the mean value and standard deviation of signal x at the cal-
ibration and can be statistically estimated from given data. The joint SF is then determined
by the product ψ(z− u) = g(x− ux, σ) g(y − uy, σ).
When reporting experimental results, experimentalists most often only specify mean val-
ues and standard deviations of variables during calibration. The maximum entropy principle
tells us that, in such cases, the Gaussian function is the best choice for SF [2, 9].
B. Nonparametric estimation of PDF pertaining to experimental data
When we perform a single measurement, we get a sample z1 = (x1, y1) that represents
the mean value of z during measurement and, therefore, we express the PDF as ψ(z−z1) =
ψ(x − x1)ψ(y − y1). When we repeat the measurements N times, we get a set of samples
{zi, 1 ≤ i ≤ N}, by which we model the joint PDF by the statistical average:
f(z) =
ψ(z− zi) (2)
that represents the kernel estimator.
Properties of the particular components x, y are described by the marginal PDFs
f(x), f(y). They are obtained from the joint PDF by integration with respect to one com-
ponent, for example:
f(x) =
f(z)dy =
ψ(x− xi). (3)
For modeling natural laws, the most important is the conditional PDF of the variable y at
a given value of x, defined as:
f(y|x) =
ψ(z− zi)
ψ(x− xj)
C. Estimation of a physical law
Distributions of joint experimental data, for example that shown in Fig. 1, often resemble
a ridge along some hypothetical line yo(x), which we want to extract from the given data
in an optimal way. For this purpose, we select from a set of joint data only those that
pertain to some selected x. These joint data generally exhibit various values of y which we
try to represent by a single value called the predictor of the variable y from a given value x.
We consider as an optimal predictor of the hypothetical yo the value yp at which the mean
square prediction error is minimal:
E[(yp − y)2|x] = min(yp). (5)
0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
FIG. 1: The joint PDF f(z) utilized to demonstrate the properties of the conditional average
estimator.
Here E[. . . |x] denotes the operation of statistical averaging at given condition x. The mini-
mum satisfies the equation: dE[(yp − y)2|x]/dyp = 0 that yields as the optimal predictor yp
the conditional average:
yp(x) = E[y|x] =
y f(y|x) dy (6)
By using Eq. (4), we obtain for the conditional average the expansion:
yp(x) =
yiψ(x− xi, σ)
ψ(x− xj , σ)
yiBi(x). (7)
The coefficients of this expansion are sample values yi, while the basis functions are
Bi(x) =
ψ(x− xi, σ)
ψ(x− xj , σ)
, (8)
and satisfy the following conditions:
Bi(x) = 1 , 0 ≤ Bi(x) ≤ 1. (9)
The basis functions Bi(x) can be interpreted as a normalized measure of similarity between
the given value of x and its sample value xi. At a given x, the sample value ym contributes
most to the estimated value yp(x) whose complementary sample value xm is most similar to
The calculation of yp(x) corresponds to an associative recall of memorized items, which
is a property of an intelligence. Therefore, the estimator yp(x) could be treated as a basis
for the development of a machine intelligence based on modeling of natural laws. The
conditional average given in Eq. 7 in fact corresponds to a normalized radial basis function
neural network which is equivalent to a multilayer perceptron – the basic paradigm used in
the theory of artificial neural networks [2, 21].
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODEL
A. Predictor quality
A predictor maps the stochastic variable x to a new stochastic variable yp that gener-
ally differs from the variable y. When the variables x, y are related by some hypothetical
physical law yo(x) and the measurement noise is small, the first and second statistical mo-
ments E[y − yp], E[(y − yp)2] of the prediction error are also small. The second moment
is: E[(y − yp)2] = Var(y) + Var(yp) − 2Cov(y, yp) + [m(y) − m(yp)]2, where E,m,Var,Cov
denote statistical average, mean value, variance and covariance respectively. In the case of
statistically independent variables y and yp with equal mean values, the last two terms are
zero and we get: E[(y − yp)2] = Var(y) + Var(yp). With respect to this relation, we define
the predictor quality relatively by the formula
Q = 1− E[(y − yp)
Var(y) + Var(yp)
2Cov(y, yp)
Var(y) + Var(yp)
− [m(y)−m(yp)]
Var(y) + Var(yp)
The quality is 1 if the prediction is exact: yp = y, while it is 0 if y and yp are statistically
independent and have equal mean values. The quality Q may be negative if m(y) 6= m(yp).
For the predictor defined by the conditional average yp(x) =
y f(y|x) dy, we analytically
obtain the equalities: m(y) = m(yp) and Cov(y, yp) = Var(yp), which yield
2Var(yp)
Var(y) + Var(yp)
. (11)
From the definition of the conditional average, it follows 0 ≤ Var(yp) ≤ Var(y) and therefore
0 ≤ Q ≤ 1. This inequality need not be fulfilled exactly if CA is statistically estimated from
a finite number of samples.
With an increasing N , we generally expect that the CA statistically estimated by Eq. (7)
increasingly better represents the governing physical law and, consequently, that the corre-
sponding predictor quality Q on average increases to a certain limit value. As mentioned
previously, an unlimited increase in the number of experiments is experimentally impossible
and, consequently, there arises the question how to determine a proper number No of data
that will yield a judicious estimation of the governing law.
B. Redundancy and predictor cost function
To answer the last question, we have analyzed various experimental cases which have
shown us that, with an increasing number of experimental samples, the value of predictor
quality generally stabilizes when the distance between data points becomes similar to the
width σ of the scattering function. Therefore, it is not reasonable to surpass significantly
the corresponding number of data. This can be achieved if a ratio of σ and a proper
measure of distance δ between neighbor data points is considered. For this purpose, we
introduce δ over the mean value of minimum square distance between data points: δ2 =
E[min{(xi−xj)2+(yi−yj)2)}; i = 1 . . . N, j = 1 . . .N, ], and define a measure of redundancy
of data by the relative variable:
R = 2N
Since δ2 is comprised of two terms denoting contributions from x and y components, a
factor 2 is utilized in the nominator. The fraction 2σ2/δ2 represents an average increase of
redundancy that is assigned to the acquisition of a new data point. In order to take into
account acquisition of N data points, factor N is further used. With respect to this, we
introduce the predictor cost function by the sum:
C = R−Q+ 1
E[(y − yp)2]
Var(y) + Var(yp)
. (13)
The constant 1 is inserted in the first row in order to obtain a more simple expression
in the second row of Eq. 13. In the same way as the definition of the information cost
function given in [5, 6], the cost function is here expressed in a relative form comprised
of two terms: the first corresponds to the redundancy of experiments due to inaccurate
measurements while the second represents the influence of acquisition of information about
the phenomenon by experiments. With an increasing number of samples N , the redundancy
on average increases while the second term decreases with the decreasing error. Therefore,
the cost function C exhibits a minimum at some No that represents a proper number of data
needed for the modeling of the physical law governing the phenomenon explored. However,
the influence of the first term becomes prevailing when the distance between data points δ
becomes essentially smaller than the width σ of the scattering function.
IV. EXAMPLE
To demonstrate the properties of the CA estimator, we utilize the data generated by a
noise-corrupted chaotic return map with the span Sx = (0, 1). This example is used because
similar cases often appear in the analysis of chaotic time series [2, 14]. The basic problem
in such an analysis is to extract the return map from a given record of time series that
is influenced by additive noise of instrumental origin. In our case, we apply analytically
determined data to provide for a comparison between the original and extracted physical
law and to make feasible an objective reproduction of the complete method. The basic
governing law is here given by the logistic map:
χn+1 = 3.8χn(1− χn), (14)
while the initial value χ1 is arbitrary selected from the interval (0, 1) using a random gener-
ator. To the values of generated chaotic series, the Gaussian noise ν of zero mean value and
standard deviation σ = 0.1 is added to simulate an additive noise of measurement. The iter-
ative solution of Eq. 14 then yields a series of noise corrupted chaotic values: xn = χn + νn.
Figure 2 shows two records of such a series that were used in modeling and testing of the
proposed method.
From the series {xn ;n = 1 . . .}, the joint samples of the basic variables x, y are obtained
by treating the successive value of xn as the dependent variable: yn = xn+1. The generator
of data is thus analytically described by the rule:
xn = χn + νn
yn = xn+1, (15)
while the governing law is given by yo = 3.8 x(1−x). The sample points {xn, yn ; n = 1 . . .N}
are distributed along the corresponding parabola in the sample space. According to our
previous treatment, the standard deviation σ corresponds to the width of the instrument
scattering function ψ. The joint PDF shown in Fig. 1 is determined by the kernel estimator
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FIG. 2: Records of the basic – (X), and the testing – (Xt) noise corrupted chaotic series.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
TESTING OF CA PREDICTOR
FIG. 3: Testing of the CA predictor. Graphs represent the governing law yo and basic data y –
(top two: · · · ; ∗ ∗ ∗), test yt and predicted data yp – (middle two: + + + ; ◦ ◦ ◦ ), and prediction
error Er = yp − yt – (bottom: ♦♦♦). The upper two parabolas are displaced successively by 0.35
in the vertical direction for better visualization.
Eq. (2) using 200 data, while a reduced set of 30 data is further utilized to demonstrate
the properties of the conditional average estimator. The data obtained from the pure chaos
generator are shown by yo · ·· in the top parabola of Fig. 3, while the basic noise-corrupted
data y ∗ ∗∗ are shown by points scattered around pure data points.
The conditional average estimator is obtained by inserting data from the basic data
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MEAN SQUARE PREDICTOR ERROR
FIG. 4: Mean square prediction error E[(y − yp)2] as a function of the data number N .
set into Eq. (7). To demonstrate its performance, we additionally generated with different
seeds of random generators a set of Nt = 60 test data {xt,i, yt,i}. Based on data xt,i from
this set, the corresponding values of yp,i are predicted by the CA estimator. The test and
predicted data are shown in Fig. 3 by the middle two sets of points (+ + + and ◦ ◦ ◦).
The prediction error Er = yp − yt, calculated from both data sets, is presented by ♦♦♦
at the bottom of Fig. 3. Relatively small differences between predicted and test points
indicate that the properties of the governing law yo(x) are properly modeled by the CA
estimator. To confirm this qualitative conclusion, we next analyze the properties of statistics
E[(ye − yt)2], Q, δ2, R, C depending on the the number of data N used in modeling. The
number of test data is kept constant Nt = 60 during calculation of these statistics. Properties
of the statistical model of the governing law depend on sets of samples utilized in modeling
and testing. To demonstrate this dependence, we repeated the modeling and testing three
times using various statistical sample sets.
The mean square predictor error E[(y − yp)2] is presented in Fig. 4 versus number of
samples N . Its value varies statistically but, on average, it decreases with the increasing
numberN . Statistical fluctuations are largest at smallN and significantly depend on samples
used in modeling. However, with the increasing N , the statistical fluctuations are ever less
pronounced. If the number of test samples Nt is much larger than the number of samples N ,
changing the testing sample set does not significantly influence the properties of estimated
statistics, which is the case in our demonstration. This is the reason why we use the value
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PREDICTOR QUALITY
FIG. 5: Predictor quality Q as a function of the data number N .
Nt = 60.
The predictor quality Q, as determined from the prediction error, is presented in Fig. 5
versus number of samples N . For each data set the statistical fluctuations decrease with
increasing N so that qualities calculated from different data sets converge to the same limit
value. With increasing N , the curves determined from different data sets merge approxi-
mately at N ∼ 11. The quality is there ∼ 0.97 and rises to ∼ 0.98 at N = 30. At N ∼ 11,
the difference between the curves obtained from different data sets is about two orders
of magnitude smaller than the corresponding quality. With respect to these properties, we
could conjecture that in the present case about 11 data values already provide for a judicious
modeling of the governing law yo(x) by the CA predictor.
To confirm our last conjecture, we turn to the determination of the predictor cost function.
For this purpose, let us first analyze the properties of the mean square distance between data
points δ2. The corresponding graph, shown in Fig. 6, indicates that δ2 is rather monotonously
decreasing with the number of samples with the approximate dependence being ∼ 1/N .
Consequently, the corresponding redundancy R is increasing with N similarly as ∼ N2.
This conclusion is confirmed by the graph in Fig. 7.
Following the definition given by Eq. 13, we obtain from the estimated error and the
redundancy the predictor cost function C shown in Fig. 8. Its minimum is not very pro-
nounced. From various statistical data sets, we obtain the estimates of the minimal value
Co = 0.033±0.006. The corresponding number No = 10±2 confirms our previous conjecture
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MSD BETWEEN DATA POINTS
FIG. 6: Mean square distance between data points δ2 as a function of the data number N .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
REDUNDANCY
FIG. 7: Redundancy R as a function of the data number N .
stemming from the analysis of predictor quality.
With an increasing number of samples N , the quality Q(N) of the CA predictor exhibits
a convergence to some limit value Q∞ that characterizes hypothetical maximum quality of
proposed nonparametric statistical modeling. This limit value generally increases with the
decreasing scattering width σ. Related to this, the minimal value of cost function is dimin-
ished and takes place at a larger No ; for instance at σ = 0.005 we get Co = 0.018 ± 0.003
and No = 14± 3. However, the limit value of the quality Q∞ is less than 1 if 1/σ and N are
finite. This means that it is not possible to exactly determine the governing physical law
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PREDICTOR COST FUNCTION
FIG. 8: Predictor cost function C as a function of the data number N .
y = yo(x) from joint data obtained by an instrument influenced by stochastic disturbances.
V. DISCUSSION
Our method of estimation of natural laws from given data can be simply generalized to
multivariate cases by substituting corresponding vectors for the variables x, y. Such modeling
has already been applied in a variety of examples stemming from physical [15], technical
[2, 16], economic [2, 16] and medical environments [2, 17, 18]. Particularly in economic
and medical environments, phenomena are often characterized by many variables that could
be either informative or disturbing. Due to the complexity of such cases, there usually
exists little or no information about a possible function that could describe the governing
law. In relation to this, researchers are faced with the problem of how to define complexity
and to reduce it by extracting informative variables from a given set [19]. Alongside mutual
information, the predictor quality could also be applied for this purpose. For instance, it has
been recently shown in the field of medicine how an analysis of predictor quality can provide
for an ordering of variables and the extraction of a set that yields an optimal predictor of
the disease healing process [17, 18]. Such an analysis makes feasible further progress towards
the origins of the treated disease.
The value of the proper number No, as defined by the minimum of predictor cost function,
could be interpreted as a measure of the complexity of an adequate predictor model. It is
important that this measure depends only on the accuracy of observation and properties of
the phenomenon represented by given experimental data.
In relation to the example demonstrated here, there emerges an important conclusion
about the description of natural phenomena by physical laws in the form y = yo(x). As
long as such a law is considered as the only basis for the description of the phenomenon,
it is not sufficient for a complete description, since no information is provided about the
properties of the sample space of joint data. Consider a well known example – the law
m = ρV that relates the mass m, the volume V and the density ρ of an object. This
law does not include the restriction m ≥ 0, and is in this aspect not complete. Similar,
but much more complex, examples are met when treating chaotic phenomena and their
strange attractors [14]. For example, the law applied here is a special case of the law
χn+1 = aχn(1 − χn), with a being a constant. Depending on the value of a and the
starting value χ1, the series {χn ;n = 1 . . .} exhibits at large values of parameter n →
∞ either a discrete or a continuous sample space. Moreover, in the continuous case, the
sample space can be comprised of disconnected intervals which could hardly be predicted
analytically. Similar, but still more cumbersome, is the situation if we consider chaotic
processes with continuous parameters. Consequently, a governing law y = yo(x) appears
incomplete for description of the phenomenon. The most outstanding deficiency is that it
does not include information about the structure of the sample space corresponding to the
observed phenomenon. This deficiency does not appear if we consider as a basis for modeling
the probability density function and estimate it nonparametrically, directly from measured
joint data. The extraction of a law that describes a relation between variables can then be
generally performed by using the conditional average estimator. However, applications of
simple parametrical laws, like m = ρV , are of tremendous importance for analytical sciences
and we do not expect that the proposed nonparametric models could substitute for them,
although they are convenient for direct applications. Consequently, the question arises of
how to find a univocal link between both paradigms of modeling.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Our approach indicates that the objectively introduced kernel estimator provides for a
nonparametric statistical modeling of a quantitatively explored phenomenon. Since no a
priori information about the form of the governing physical law is required, the modeling
can be automatically performed by a computer in a measurement system. The proposed
predictor cost function C provides for estimating the proper number No of data needed for
the modeling. Properties of the predictor cost function resemble those of information cost
function [5, 6], but its estimation is much more simple. The properties of the extracted
model of the governing law can be quantitatively described by the predictor quality Q and
redundancy R of data from which the governing law is extracted. This law represents
the distribution of the variable y at a given value x by a single predicted value yp(x).
Such a compressed representation generally corresponds to creation of information about
the explored phenomenon [5, 6]. This is in contrast to the loss of information caused by
stochastic disturbances in signal transmission channels [20]. If the extraction of information
from observations is considered as a basis of natural intelligence [21, 22], then a system
capable of estimating a physical law from measured data autonomously must be treated as
an intelligent unit. Such an interpretation provides a common basis for a unified treatment
of experimental sciences and natural or artificial intelligence [2, 21, 22].
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by The Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology
of the Republic of Slovenia and EU – COST.
[1] R. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 1994).
[2] I. Grabec and W. Sachse, Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control (Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1997).
[3] R. E. Collins, Found. Physics 35, 734 (2005).
[4] I. Grabec, Eur. Phys. J. B 22, 129 (2001).
[5] I. Grabec, Eur. Phys. J. B 48, 279 (2005), (DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2005-00391-0).
[6] I. Grabec, arXiv:cs.IT/0612027 v1 5, (2006).
[7] E. Parzen, Ann. Math. Stat. 35, 1065 (1962).
[8] R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis (J. Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1973), Ch. 4.
[9] J. C. G. Lesurf, Information and Measurement (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2002).
[10] J. Risanen, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Addison-Wesley, 1990), ed.
W. H. Zurek, 117-125.
[11] J. Rissanen, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 42, 40 (1996).
[12] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1991).
[13] A. N. Kolmogorov, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory IT-2, 102 (1956).
[14] F. C. Moon, Chaotic and Fractal Dynamics (John Wiley & Sons, INC. New York, 1992).
[15] S. Mandelj, I. Grabec and E. Govekar, Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos 11, 2731 (2001).
[16] M. Thaler, I. Grabec and A. Poredoš, Physica A 35, 46 (2005).
[17] I. Grabec and D. Grošelj, Comput. Methods in Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 6, 319 (2003)
[18] I. Grabec, I. Ferkolj and D. Grošelj, Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Computational
Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare, Lisbon, (CIMED-2005 Proceedings, ISBN: 0-86341-
520-2,IEE, 2005), ed. J. M. Fonseca, 311-316
[19] C. H. Bennett, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Addison-Wesley, 1990),
ed. W. H. Zurek, 137-148.
[20] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Univ. of Illinois
Press, Urbana, 1949).
[21] S. Haykin, Neural Networks, A Comprehensive Foundation (Mcmillan College Publishing
Company, New York, 1994)
[22] D. J. C. MacKay Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003)
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0612027
	Introduction
	 Fundamentals of nonparametric modeling
	Description of kernel function
	 Nonparametric estimation of PDF pertaining to experimental data
	Estimation of a physical law
	 Characteristics of the model
	 Predictor quality
	 Redundancy and predictor cost function
	 Example
	 Discussion
	 Conclusions
	Acknowledgments
	References
