I am simulating a basic Galton-Watson process (GWP) using a geometric distribution. I'm using this to find the probability of extinction for each generation. My question is, how do I find the generation at which the probability of extinction is equal to 1?
For example, I can create a function for the GWP like so:
# Galton-Watson Process for geometric distribution
GWP <- function(n, p) {
Sn <- c(1, rep(0, n))
for (i in 2:(n + 1)) {
Sn[i] <- sum(rgeom(Sn[i - 1], p))
}
return(Sn)
}
where, n is the number of generations.
Then, if I set the geometric distribution parameter p = 0.25... then to calculate the probability of extinction for, say, generation 10, I just do this:
N <- 10 # Number of elements in the initial population.
GWn <- replicate(N, GWP(10, 0.25)[10])
probExtinction <- sum(GWn==0)/N
probExtinction
This will give me the probability of extinction for generation 10... to find the probability of extinction for each generation I have to change the index value (to the corresponding generation number) when creating GWn... But what I'm trying to do is find at which generation will the probability of extinction = 1.
Any suggestions as to how I might go about solving this problem?
I can tell you how you would do this problem in principle, but I'm going to suggest that you may run into some difficulties (if you already know everything I'm about to say, just take it as advice to the next reader ...)
theoretically, the Galton-Watson process extinction probability never goes exactly to 1 (unless prob==1, or in the infinite-time limit)
of course, for any given replicate and random-number seed you can compute the first time point (if any) at which all of your lineages have gone extinct. This will be highly variable across runs, depending on the random-number seed ...
the distribution of extinction times is extremely skewed; lineages that don't go extinct immediately will last a loooong time ...
I modified your GWP function in two ways to make it more efficient: (1) stop the simulation when the lineage goes extinct; (2) replace the sum of geometric deviates with a single negative binomial deviate (see here)
GWP <- function(n, p) {
Sn <- c(1, rep(0, n))
for (i in 2:(n + 1)) {
Sn[i] <- rnbinom(1, size=Sn[i - 1], prob=p)
if (Sn[i]==0) break ## extinct, bail out
}
return(Sn)
}
The basic strategy now is: (1) run the simulations for a while, keep the entire trajectory; (2) compute extinction probability in every generation; (3) find the first generation such that p==1.
set.seed(101)
N <- 10 # Number of elements in the initial population.
maxgen <- 100
GWn <- replicate(N, GWP(maxgen, 0.5), simplify="array")
probExtinction <- rowSums(GWn==0)/N
which(probExtinction==1)[1]
(Subtract 1 from the last result if you want to start indexing from generation 0.) In this case the answer is NA, because there's 1/10 lineages that manages to stay alive (and indeed gets very large, so it will probably persist almost forever)
plot(0:maxgen, probExtinction, type="s") ## plot extinction probability
matplot(1+GWn,type="l",lty=1,col=1,log="y") ## plot lineage sizes (log(1+x) scale)
## demonstration that (sum(rgeom(n,...)) is equiv to rnbinom(1,size=n,...)
nmax <- 70
plot(prop.table(table(replicate(10000, sum(rgeom(10, prob=0.3))))),
xlim=c(0,nmax))
points(0:nmax,dnbinom(0:nmax, size=10, prob=0.3), col=2,pch=16)
Related
I've written an R script (sourced from here) simulating the path of a geometric Brownian motion of a stock price, and I need the simulation to run 1000 times such that I generate 1000 paths of the process Ut = Ste^-mu*t, by discretizing the law of motion derived from Ut which is the bottom line of the solution to the question posted here.
The process also has n = 252 steps and discretization step = 1/252, also risk of sigma = 0.4 and instantaneous drift mu, which I've treated as zero, although I'm not sure about this. I'm struggling to simulate 1000 paths of the process but am able to generate one single path, I'm unsure which variables I need to change or whether there's an issue in my for loop that's restricting me from generating all 1000 paths. Could it also be that the script is simulating each individual point for 252 realization instead of simulating the full process? If so, would this restrict me from generating all 1000 paths? Is it also possible that the array I'm generating defined as U hasn't being correctly generated by me? U[0] must equal 1 and so too must the first realization U(1) = 1. The code is below, I'm pretty stuck trying to figure this out so any help is appreciated.
#Simulating Geometric Brownian motion (GMB)
tau <- 1 #time to expiry
N <- 253 #number of sub intervals
dt <- tau/N #length of each time sub interval
time <- seq(from=0, to=N, by=dt) #time moments in which we simulate the process
length(time) #it should be N+1
mu <- 0 #GBM parameter 1
sigma <- 0.4 #GBM parameter 2
s0 <- 1 #GBM parameter 3
#simulate Geometric Brownian motion path
dwt <- rnorm(N, mean = 0, sd = 1) #standard normal sample of N elements
dW <- dwt*sqrt(dt) #Brownian motion increments
W <- c(0, cumsum(dW)) #Brownian motion at each time instant N+1 elements
#Define U Array and set initial values of U
U <- array(0, c(N,1)) #array of U
U[0] = 1
U[1] <- s0 #first element of U is s0. with the for loop we find the other N elements
for(i in 2:length(U)){
U[i] <- (U[1]*exp(mu - 0.5*sigma^2*i*dt + sigma*W[i-1]))*exp(-mu*i)
}
#Plot
plot(ts(U), main = expression(paste("Simulation of Ut")))
This questions is quite difficult to answer since there are a lot of unclear things, at least to me.
To begin with, length(time) is equal to 64010, not N + 1, which will be 254.
If I understand correctly, the brownian motion function returns the position in one dimension given a time. Hence, to calculate this position for each time the following can be enough:
s0*exp((mu - 0.5*sigma^2)*time + sigma*rnorm(length(time),0,time))
However, this calculates 64010 points, not 253. If you replicate it 1000 times, it gives 64010000 points, which is quite a lot.
> B <- 1000
> res <- replicate(B, {
+ s0*exp((mu - 0.5*sigma^2)*time + sigma*rnorm(length(time),0,time))
+ })
> length(res)
[1] 64010000
> dim(res)
[1] 64010 1000
I know I'm missing the second part, the one explained here, but I actually don't fully understand what you need there. If you can draw the formula maybe I can help you.
In general, avoid programming in R using for loops to iterate vectors. R is a vectorized language, and there is no need for that. If you want to run the same code B times, the replicate(B,{ your code }) function is your firend.
Is there a way in R to generate random coordinates with a minimum distance between them?
E.g. what I'd like to avoid
x <- c(0,3.9,4.1,8)
y <- c(1,4.1,3.9,7)
plot(x~y)
This is a classical problem from stochastic geometry. Completely random points in space where the number of points falling in disjoint regions are independent of each other corresponds to a homogeneous Poisson point process (in this case in R^2, but could be in almost any space).
An important feature is that the total number of points has to be random before you can have independence of the counts of points in disjoint regions.
For the Poisson process points can be arbitrarily close together. If you define a process by sampling the Poisson process until you don't have any points that are too close together you have the so-called Gibbs Hardcore process. This has been studied a lot in the literature and there are different ways to simulate it. The R package spatstat has functions to do this. rHardcore is a perfect sampler, but if you want a high intensity of points and a big hard core distance it may not terminate in finite time... The distribution can be obtained as the limit of a Markov chain and rmh.default lets you run a Markov chain with a given Gibbs model as its invariant distribution. This finishes in finite time but only gives a realisation of an approximate distribution.
In rmh.default you can also simulate conditional on a fixed number of points. Note that when you sample in a finite box there is of course an upper limit to how many points you can fit with a given hard core radius, and the closer you are to this limit the more problematic it becomes to sample correctly from the distribution.
Example:
library(spatstat)
beta <- 100; R = 0.1
win <- square(1) # Unit square for simulation
X1 <- rHardcore(beta, R, W = win) # Exact sampling -- beware it may run forever for some par.!
plot(X1, main = paste("Exact sim. of hardcore model; beta =", beta, "and R =", R))
minnndist(X1) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.102402
Approximate simulation
model <- rmhmodel(cif="hardcore", par = list(beta=beta, hc=R), w = win)
X2 <- rmh(model)
#> Checking arguments..determining simulation windows...Starting simulation.
#> Initial state...Ready to simulate. Generating proposal points...Running Metropolis-Hastings.
plot(X2, main = paste("Approx. sim. of hardcore model; beta =", beta, "and R =", R))
minnndist(X2) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.1005433
Approximate simulation conditional on number of points
X3 <- rmh(model, control = rmhcontrol(p=1), start = list(n.start = 42))
#> Checking arguments..determining simulation windows...Starting simulation.
#> Initial state...Ready to simulate. Generating proposal points...Running Metropolis-Hastings.
plot(X3, main = paste("Approx. sim. given n =", 42))
minnndist(X3) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.1018068
OK, how about this? You just generate random number pairs without restriction and then remove the onces which are too close. This could be a great start for that:
minimumDistancePairs <- function(x, y, minDistance){
i <- 1
repeat{
distance <- sqrt((x-x[i])^2 + (y-y[i])^2) < minDistance # pythagorean theorem
distance[i] <- FALSE # distance to oneself is always zero
if(any(distance)) { # if too close to any other point
x <- x[-i] # remove element from x
y <- y[-i] # and remove element from y
} else { # otherwise...
i = i + 1 # repeat the procedure with the next element
}
if (i > length(x)) break
}
data.frame(x,y)
}
minimumDistancePairs(
c(0,3.9,4.1,8)
, c(1,4.1,3.9,7)
, 1
)
will lead to
x y
1 0.0 1.0
2 4.1 3.9
3 8.0 7.0
Be aware, though, of the fact that these are not random numbers anymore (however you solve problem).
You can use rejection sapling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_sampling
The principle is simple: you resample until you data verify the condition.
> set.seed(1)
>
> x <- rnorm(2)
> y <- rnorm(2)
> (x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2
[1] 6.565578
> while((x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2 > 1) {
+ x <- rnorm(2)
+ y <- rnorm(2)
+ }
> (x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2
[1] 0.9733252
>
The following is a naive hit-and-miss approach which for some choices of parameters (which were left unspecified in the question) works well. If performance becomes an issue, you could experiment with the package gpuR which has a GPU-accelerated distance matrix calculation.
rand.separated <- function(n,x0,x1,y0,y1,d,trials = 1000){
for(i in 1:trials){
nums <- cbind(runif(n,x0,x1),runif(n,y0,y1))
if(min(dist(nums)) >= d) return(nums)
}
return(NA) #no luck
}
This repeatedly draws samples of size n in [x0,x1]x[y0,y1] and then throws the sample away if it doesn't satisfy. As a safety, trials guards against an infinite loop. If solutions are hard to find or n is large you might need to increase or decrease trials.
For example:
> set.seed(2018)
> nums <- rand.separated(25,0,10,0,10,0.2)
> plot(nums)
runs almost instantly and produces:
Im not sure what you are asking.
if you want random coordinates here.
c(
runif(1,max=y[1],min=x[1]),
runif(1,max=y[2],min=x[2]),
runif(1,min=y[3],max=x[3]),
runif(1,min=y[4],max=x[4])
)
I've been working with MCMC for population genetics and I have some doubts.
I'm not experienced in statistics and because of that I have difficulty.
I have code to run MCMC, 1000 iterations. I start by creating a matrix with 0's (50 columns = 50 individuals and 1000 lines for 1000 iterations).
Then I create a random vector to substitute the first line of the matrix. This vector has 1's and 2's, representing population 1 or population 2.
I also have genotype frequencies and the genotypes of the 50 individuals.
What I want is to, according to the genotype frequencies and genotypes, determine to what population an individual belongs.
Then, I'll keep changing the population assigned to a random individual and checking if the new value should be accepted.
niter <- 1000
z <- matrix(0,nrow=niter,ncol=ncol(targetinds))
z[1,] <- sample(1:2, size=ncol(z), replace=T)
lhood <- numeric(niter)
lhood[1] <- compute_lhood_K2(targetinds, z[1,], freqPops)
accepted <- 0
priorz <- c(1e-6, 0.999999)
for(i in 2:niter) {
z[i,] <- z[i-1,]
# propose new vector z, by selecting a random individual, proposing a new zi value
selind <- sample(1:nind, size=1)
# proposal probability of selecting individual at random
proposal_ratio_ind <- log(1/nind)-log(1/nind)
# propose a new index for the selected individual
if(z[i,selind]==1) {
z[i,selind] <- 2
} else {
z[i,selind] <- 1
}
# proposal probability of changing the index of individual is 1/2
proposal_ratio_cluster <- log(1/2)-log(1/2)
propratio <- proposal_ratio_ind+proposal_ratio_cluster
# compute f(x_i|z_i*, p)
# the probability of the selected individual given the two clusters
probindcluster <- compute_lhood_ind_K2(targetinds[,selind],freqPops)
# likelihood ratio f(x_i|z_i*,p)/f(x_i|z_i, p)
lhoodratio <- probindcluster[z[i,selind]]-probindcluster[z[i-1,selind]]
# prior ratio pi(z_i*)/pi(z_i)
priorratio <- log(priorz[z[i,selind]])-log(priorz[z[i-1,selind]])
# accept new value according to the MH ratio
mh <- lhoodratio+propratio+priorratio
# reject if the random value is larger than the MH ratio
if(runif(1)>exp(mh)) {
z[i,] <- z[i-1,] # keep the same z
lhood[i] <- lhood[i-1] # keep the same likelihood
} else { # if accepted
lhood[i] <- lhood[i-1]+lhoodratio # update the likelihood
accepted <- accepted+1 # increase the number of accepted
}
}
It is asked that I have to change the proposal probability so that the new proposed values are proportional to the likelihood. This leads to a Gibbs sampling MCMC algorithm, supposedly.
I don't know what to change in the code to do this. I also don't understand very well the concept of proposal probability and how to chose the prior.
Grateful if someone knows how to clarify my doubts.
Your current proposal is done here:
# propose a new index for the selected individual
if(z[i,selind]==1) {
z[i,selind] <- 2
} else {
z[i,selind] <- 1
}
if the individual is assigned to cluster 1, then you propose to switch assignment deterministically by assigning them to cluster 2 (and vice versa).
You didn't show us what freqPops is, but if you want to propose according to freqPops then I believe the above code has to be replaced by
z[i,selind] <- sample(c(1,2),size=1,prob=freqPops)
(at least that is what I understand when you say you want to propose based on the likelihood - however, that statement of yours is unclear).
For this now to be a valid mcmc gibbs sampling algorithm you also need to change the next line of code:
proposal_ratio_cluster <- log(freqPops[z[i-1,selind]])-log(fregPops[z[i,selind]])
Forgive me if this has been asked before (I feel it must have, but could not find precisely what I am looking for).
Have can I draw one element of a vector of whole numbers (from 1 through, say, 10) using a probability function that specifies different chances of the elements. If I want equal propabilities I use runif() to get a number between 1 and 10:
ceiling(runif(1,1,10))
How do I similarly sample from e.g. the exponential distribution to get a number between 1 and 10 (such that 1 is much more likely than 10), or a logistic probability function (if I want a sigmoid increasing probability from 1 through 10).
The only "solution" I can come up with is first to draw e6 numbers from the say sigmoid distribution and then scale min and max to 1 and 10 - but this looks clumpsy.
UPDATE:
This awkward solution (and I dont feel it very "correct") would go like this
#Draw enough from a distribution, here exponential
x <- rexp(1e3)
#Scale probs to e.g. 1-10
scaler <- function(vector, min, max){
(((vector - min(vector)) * (max - min))/(max(vector) - min(vector))) + min
}
x_scale <- scaler(x,1,10)
#And sample once (and round it)
round(sample(x_scale,1))
Are there not better solutions around ?
I believe sample() is what you are looking for, as #HubertL mentioned in the comments. You can specify an increasing function (e.g. logit()) and pass the vector you want to sample from v as an input. You can then use the output of that function as a vector of probabilities p. See the code below.
logit <- function(x) {
return(exp(x)/(exp(x)+1))
}
v <- c(seq(1,10,1))
p <- logit(seq(1,10,1))
sample(v, 1, prob = p, replace = TRUE)
i have do to a monte carlo approach for AR(1) time series. I have to generate 10,000 time series of length 100 and afterwards i have to get the first step autocorrelation rho_1 for every time series. My problem is that i just get NA values for the autocorrelation and the calculation takes way to much time. I have no problem with computing the AR(1) time series.
Thank you for your help :)
gen_ar <- function(a,b,length,start)
{
z<-rep(0,length)
e<-rnorm(n=length,sd=1)
z[1]<-start
for (i in 2:length)
{
z[i]<-a+b*z[i-1]+e[i]
}
z
}
mc <- matrix(c(rep(0,10000000)),nrow=10000)
for (i in 1:10000)
{
mc[i,] <- gen_ar(0.99,1,100,0)
}
ac <- matrix(c(rep(0,10000)),nrow=1)
for (i in 1:10000){
for (j in 1:99){
ac[i] <- cor(mc[i,j],mc[i,j+1])
}
}
Statistics aside, I think this achieves your goals, and I don't get NA's. I changed the way it was done b/c you said it was going slow.
mc <- matrix(rep(NA,1E5), nrow=100)
for(i in seq_len(100)){
mc[,i] <- arima.sim(model=list(ar=0.99), n=100, sd=1) + 1
}
myAR <- function(x){
cor(x[-1], x[-length(x)])
}
answer <- apply(mc, 2, myAR)
I skipped the last set of nested for loops and replaced them with apply(). It seems easier to read, and is likely faster. Also, to use apply(), I created a function called myAR, which carries out the same calculation that cor() did in your for() loops.
Now, there are a couple of statistical adjustments that I made. Primarily, these were in the simulation step.
First, your simulated AR(1) process has a coefficient that is equal to 1, which seems odd to me (this would not be stationary, and arima.sim() won't even let you simulate this type of process).
Moreover, your "a" parameter adds 1 to the time series at each time step. In other words, your time series is monotonically increasing from 1 to 100 because the coefficient is equal to 1. This too would make your time series nonstationary, and with such a strong positive slope the cor() function would likely return 1 as the estimated correlation, regardless of the value of the simulated AR coefficient. I assume that you wanted the long-term mean to hover near 1, so the 1 is simply added to the entire time series after it is simulated, not iteratively at each time step.
Assuming that you did want to generate a nonstationary time series by adding some constant (a) at each time step, you could do the following:
myInnov <- function(N=100, a=1, SD=1) {a + rnorm(n=N, sd=SD)}
mc2 <- matrix(rep(NA,1E7), nrow=100)
for(i in seq_len(1E5)){
mc2[,i] <- arima.sim(model=list(ar=0.99), n=100, innov=myInnov(a=1, N=100, SD=1)) + 1
}
I hope that this helps.