1. Table 1: Linear Fit ( )
Fit Results
- ( = 0.984), Adjusted ( = 0.983)
- RMSE = 0.593
- F-statistic = 569, p-value = ()
Fitted equation:
ANOVA Table:
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | MATLAB | 1 | – | 569 | |
| Residual | – | 9 | – | ||
| Total | – | 10 |
Parameter SE and t-tests:
| Param | Estimate | SE | t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β₀ | 3.0662 | 0.33457 | 9.1645 | |
| β₁ | 1.3495 | 0.056553 | 23.863 |
Matrix results:
2. Table 2: Fits
(a) Linear Fit ()
- ( = 0.923), Adjusted ( = 0.915)
- RMSE = 8.03
- F-statistic = 108, p-value = ()
Fitted equation:
Parameter SE and t-tests:
| Param | Estimate | SE | t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β₀ | -13.956 | 4.5277 | -3.0824 | 0.013089 |
| β₁ | 7.9646 | 0.76533 | 10.407 | () |
(b) Quadratic Fit ()
- Transform (Z = )
- , Adjusted ( = 1.000)
- RMSE = 0.533
- F-statistic = (), p-value = ()
Fitted equation:
Parameter SE and t-tests:
| Param | Estimate | SE | t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β₀ | -2.0705 | 0.23471 | -8.8218 | () |
| β₁ | 0.7982 | 0.0048908 | 163.21 | () |
(c) Model Comparison
- Linear model: High () but residuals show curvature → poor fit at large
- Quadratic model: (), residuals random, very small RMSE.
- Conclusion: Quadratic model is the better fit. Residual analysis confirms.


