I am working on a project which involves combining two Weibull distributions and thus creating a double peaked curve. I then aim to make predictions using this. I have searched online and I can't seem to find anything on this or if R has a function that allows me to combine two Weibulls.
Below shows the code I have used to create the two Weibull distributions I wish to combine to make one single probability density function.
curve(dweibull(x, scale=30.59898985, shape=2.27136646),from=0, to=70, main="Weibull distribution")
curve(dweibull(x, scale=19.39743639, shape=1.22800332),from=0, to=70, main="Weibull distribution")
Any help would be amazing.
Thanks!
Would it make sense to combine the probability distributions and then use the element "y" of your final list to make predictions? If so, this should work. The final AUC is still ~1.
dwb1 <- curve(dweibull(x, scale=30.59898985, shape=2.27136646),from=0, to=70, main="Weibull distribution")
dwb2 <- curve(dweibull(x, scale=19.39743639, shape=1.22800332),from=0, to=70, main="Weibull distribution")
# combine
final.dwb <- lapply(c("x", "y"), (function(i){
(dwb1[[i]] + dwb2[[i]])/2
}))
names(final.dwb) <- c("x", "y")
# plot
plot(final.dwb$y ~ final.dwb$x, xlim=c(0,70), main = "combined Weibull distributions", type = "n", las = 2)
lines(final.dwb$y ~ final.dwb$x, xlim=c(0,70), main = "combined Weibull distributions")
Say you want the probability at a time of interest
t1 = 30
Search among the x you have and find the closest to t1 and then return the corresponding y
id <- which.min(abs(t1 - final.dwb$x))
final.dwb$y[id]
I have frequency values changing with the time (x axis units), as presented on the picture below. After some normalization these values may be seen as data points of a density function for some distribution.
Q: Assuming that these frequency points are from Weibull distribution T, how can I fit best Weibull density function to the points so as to infer the distribution T parameters from it?
sample <- c(7787,3056,2359,1759,1819,1189,1077,1080,985,622,648,518,
611,1037,727,489,432,371,1125,69,595,624)
plot(1:length(sample), sample, type = "l")
points(1:length(sample), sample)
Update.
To prevent from being misunderstood, I would like to add little more explanation. By saying I have frequency values changing with the time (x axis units) I mean I have data which says that I have:
7787 realizations of value 1
3056 realizations of value 2
2359 realizations of value 3 ... etc.
Some way towards my goal (incorrect one, as I think) would be to create a set of these realizations:
# Loop to simulate values
set.values <- c()
for(i in 1:length(sample)){
set.values <<- c(set.values, rep(i, times = sample[i]))
}
hist(set.values)
lines(1:length(sample), sample)
points(1:length(sample), sample)
and use fitdistr on the set.values:
f2 <- fitdistr(set.values, 'weibull')
f2
Why I think it is incorrect way and why I am looking for a better solution in R?
in the distribution fitting approach presented above it is assumed that set.values is a complete set of my realisations from the distribution T
in my original question I know the points from the first part of the density curve - I do not know its tail and I want to estimate the tail (and the whole density function)
Here is a better attempt, like before it uses optim to find the best value constrained to a set of values in a box (defined by the lower and upper vectors in the optim call). Notice it scales x and y as part of the optimization in addition to the Weibull distribution shape parameter, so we have 3 parameters to optimize over.
Unfortunately when using all the points it pretty much always finds something on the edges of the constraining box which indicates to me that maybe Weibull is maybe not a good fit for all of the data. The problem is the two points - they ares just too large. You see the attempted fit to all data in the first plot.
If I drop those first two points and just fit the rest, we get a much better fit. You see this in the second plot. I think this is a good fit, it is in any case a local minimum in the interior of the constraining box.
library(optimx)
sample <- c(60953,7787,3056,2359,1759,1819,1189,1077,1080,985,622,648,518,
611,1037,727,489,432,371,1125,69,595,624)
t.sample <- 0:22
s.fit <- sample[3:23]
t.fit <- t.sample[3:23]
wx <- function(param) {
res <- param[2]*dweibull(t.fit*param[3],shape=param[1])
return(res)
}
minwx <- function(param){
v <- s.fit-wx(param)
sqrt(sum(v*v))
}
p0 <- c(1,200,1/20)
paramopt <- optim(p0,minwx,gr=NULL,lower=c(0.1,100,0.01),upper=c(1.1,5000,1))
popt <- paramopt$par
popt
rms <- paramopt$value
tit <- sprintf("Weibull - Shape:%.3f xscale:%.1f yscale:%.5f rms:%.1f",popt[1],popt[2],popt[3],rms)
plot(t.sample[2:23], sample[2:23], type = "p",col="darkred")
lines(t.fit, wx(popt),col="blue")
title(main=tit)
You can directly calculate the maximum likelihood parameters, as described here.
# Defining the error of the implicit function
k.diff <- function(k, vec){
x2 <- seq(length(vec))
abs(k^-1+weighted.mean(log(x2), w = sample)-weighted.mean(log(x2),
w = x2^k*sample))
}
# Setting the error to "quite zero", fulfilling the equation
k <- optimize(k.diff, vec=sample, interval=c(0.1,5), tol=10^-7)$min
# Calculate lambda, given k
l <- weighted.mean(seq(length(sample))^k, w = sample)
# Plot
plot(density(rep(seq(length(sample)),sample)))
x <- 1:25
lines(x, dweibull(x, shape=k, scale= l))
Assuming the data are from a Weibull distribution, you can get an estimate of the shape and scale parameter like this:
sample <- c(7787,3056,2359,1759,1819,1189,1077,1080,985,622,648,518,
611,1037,727,489,432,371,1125,69,595,624)
f<-fitdistr(sample, 'weibull')
f
If you are not sure whether it is distributed Weibull, I would recommend using the ks.test. This tests whether your data is from a hypothesised distribution. Given your knowledge of the nature of the data, you could test for a few selected distributions and see which one works best.
For your example this would look like this:
ks = ks.test(sample, "pweibull", shape=f$estimate[1], scale=f$estimate[2])
ks
The p-value is insignificant, hence you do not reject the hypothesis that the data is from a Weibull distribution.
Update: The histograms of either the Weibull or exponential look like a good match to your data. I think the exponential distribution gives you a better fit. Pareto distribution is another option.
f<-fitdistr(sample, 'weibull')
z<-rweibull(10000, shape= f$estimate[1],scale= f$estimate[2])
hist(z)
f<-fitdistr(sample, 'exponential')
z = rexp(10000, f$estimate[1])
hist(z)
I am working with the cumulative emergence of flies over time (taken at irregular intervals) over many summers (though first I am just trying to make one year work). The cumulative emergence follows a sigmoid pattern and I want to create a maximum likelihood estimation of a 3-parameter Weibull cumulative distribution function. The three-parameter models I've been trying to use in the fitdistrplus package keep giving me an error. I think this must have something to do with how my data is structured, but I cannot figure it out. Obviously I want it to read each point as an x (degree days) and a y (emergence) value, but it seems to be unable to read two columns. The main error I'm getting says "Non-numeric argument to mathematical function" or (with slightly different code) "data must be a numeric vector of length greater than 1". Below is my code including added columns in the df_dd_em dataframe for cumulative emergence and percent emergence in case that is useful.
degree_days <- c(998.08,1039.66,1111.29,1165.89,1236.53,1293.71,
1347.66,1387.76,1445.47,1493.44,1553.23,1601.97,
1670.28,1737.29,1791.94,1849.20,1920.91,1967.25,
2036.64,2091.85,2152.89,2199.13,2199.13,2263.09,
2297.94,2352.39,2384.03,2442.44,2541.28,2663.90,
2707.36,2773.82,2816.39,2863.94)
emergence <- c(0,0,0,1,1,0,2,3,17,10,0,0,0,2,0,3,0,0,1,5,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0)
cum_em <- cumsum(emergence)
df_dd_em <- data.frame (degree_days, emergence, cum_em)
df_dd_em$percent <- ave(df_dd_em$emergence, FUN = function(df_dd_em) 100*(df_dd_em)/46)
df_dd_em$cum_per <- ave(df_dd_em$cum_em, FUN = function(df_dd_em) 100*(df_dd_em)/46)
x <- pweibull(df_dd_em[c(1,3)],shape=5)
dframe2.mle <- fitdist(x, "weibull",method='mle')
Here's my best guess at what you're after:
Set up data:
dd <- data.frame(degree_days=c(998.08,1039.66,1111.29,1165.89,1236.53,1293.71,
1347.66,1387.76,1445.47,1493.44,1553.23,1601.97,
1670.28,1737.29,1791.94,1849.20,1920.91,1967.25,
2036.64,2091.85,2152.89,2199.13,2199.13,2263.09,
2297.94,2352.39,2384.03,2442.44,2541.28,2663.90,
2707.36,2773.82,2816.39,2863.94),
emergence=c(0,0,0,1,1,0,2,3,17,10,0,0,0,2,0,3,0,0,1,5,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0))
dd <- transform(dd,cum_em=cumsum(emergence))
We're actually going to fit to an "interval-censored" distribution (i.e. probability of emergence between successive degree day observations: this version assumes that the first observation refers to observations before the first degree-day observation, you could change it to refer to observations after the last observation).
library(bbmle)
## y*log(p) allowing for 0/0 occurrences:
y_log_p <- function(y,p) ifelse(y==0 & p==0,0,y*log(p))
NLLfun <- function(scale,shape,x=dd$degree_days,y=dd$emergence) {
prob <- pmax(diff(pweibull(c(-Inf,x), ## or (c(x,Inf))
shape=shape,scale=scale)),1e-6)
## multinomial probability
-sum(y_log_p(y,prob))
}
library(bbmle)
I should probably have used something more systematic like the method of moments (i.e. matching the mean and variance of a Weibull distribution with the mean and variance of the data), but I just hacked around a bit to find plausible starting values:
## preliminary look (method of moments would be better)
scvec <- 10^(seq(0,4,length=101))
plot(scvec,sapply(scvec,NLLfun,shape=1))
It's important to use parscale to let R know that the parameters are on very different scales:
startvals <- list(scale=1000,shape=1)
m1 <- mle2(NLLfun,start=startvals,
control=list(parscale=unlist(startvals)))
Now try with a three-parameter Weibull (as originally requested) -- requires only a slight modification of what we already have:
library(FAdist)
NLLfun2 <- function(scale,shape,thres,
x=dd$degree_days,y=dd$emergence) {
prob <- pmax(diff(pweibull3(c(-Inf,x),shape=shape,scale=scale,thres)),
1e-6)
## multinomial probability
-sum(y_log_p(y,prob))
}
startvals2 <- list(scale=1000,shape=1,thres=100)
m2 <- mle2(NLLfun2,start=startvals2,
control=list(parscale=unlist(startvals2)))
Looks like the three-parameter fit is much better:
library(emdbook)
AICtab(m1,m2)
## dAIC df
## m2 0.0 3
## m1 21.7 2
And here's the graphical summary:
with(dd,plot(cum_em~degree_days,cex=3))
with(as.list(coef(m1)),curve(sum(dd$emergence)*
pweibull(x,shape=shape,scale=scale),col=2,
add=TRUE))
with(as.list(coef(m2)),curve(sum(dd$emergence)*
pweibull3(x,shape=shape,
scale=scale,thres=thres),col=4,
add=TRUE))
(could also do this more elegantly with ggplot2 ...)
These don't seem like spectacularly good fits, but they're sane. (You could in principle do a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test based on the expected number of emergences per interval, and accounting for the fact that you've fitted a three-parameter model, although the values might be a bit low ...)
Confidence intervals on the fit are a bit of a nuisance; your choices are (1) bootstrapping; (2) parametric bootstrapping (resample parameters assuming a multivariate normal distribution of the data); (3) delta method.
Using bbmle::mle2 makes it easy to do things like get profile confidence intervals:
confint(m1)
## 2.5 % 97.5 %
## scale 1576.685652 1777.437283
## shape 4.223867 6.318481
dd <- data.frame(degree_days=c(998.08,1039.66,1111.29,1165.89,1236.53,1293.71,
1347.66,1387.76,1445.47,1493.44,1553.23,1601.97,
1670.28,1737.29,1791.94,1849.20,1920.91,1967.25,
2036.64,2091.85,2152.89,2199.13,2199.13,2263.09,
2297.94,2352.39,2384.03,2442.44,2541.28,2663.90,
2707.36,2773.82,2816.39,2863.94),
emergence=c(0,0,0,1,1,0,2,3,17,10,0,0,0,2,0,3,0,0,1,5,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0))
dd$cum_em <- cumsum(dd$emergence)
dd$percent <- ave(dd$emergence, FUN = function(dd) 100*(dd)/46)
dd$cum_per <- ave(dd$cum_em, FUN = function(dd) 100*(dd)/46)
dd <- transform(dd)
#start 3 parameter model
library(FAdist)
## y*log(p) allowing for 0/0 occurrences:
y_log_p <- function(y,p) ifelse(y==0 & p==0,0,y*log(p))
NLLfun2 <- function(scale,shape,thres,
x=dd$degree_days,y=dd$percent) {
prob <- pmax(diff(pweibull3(c(-Inf,x),shape=shape,scale=scale,thres)),
1e-6)
## multinomial probability
-sum(y_log_p(y,prob))
}
startvals2 <- list(scale=1000,shape=1,thres=100)
m2 <- mle2(NLLfun2,start=startvals2,
control=list(parscale=unlist(startvals2)))
summary(m2)
#graphical summary
windows(5,5)
with(dd,plot(cum_per~degree_days,cex=3))
with(as.list(coef(m2)),curve(sum(dd$percent)*
pweibull3(x,shape=shape,
scale=scale,thres=thres),col=4,
add=TRUE))
I found this code on internet that compares a normal distribution to different student distributions:
x <- seq(-4, 4, length=100)
hx <- dnorm(x)
degf <- c(1, 3, 8, 30)
colors <- c("red", "blue", "darkgreen", "gold", "black")
labels <- c("df=1", "df=3", "df=8", "df=30", "normal")
plot(x, hx, type="l", lty=2, xlab="x value",
ylab="Density", main="Comparison of t Distributions")
for (i in 1:4){
lines(x, dt(x,degf[i]), lwd=2, col=colors[i])
}
I would like to adapt this to my situation where I would like to compare my data to a normal distribution. This is my data:
library(quantmod)
getSymbols("^NDX",src="yahoo", from='1997-6-01', to='2012-6-01')
daily<- allReturns(NDX) [,c('daily')]
dailySerieTemporel<-ts(data=daily)
ss<-na.omit(dailySerieTemporel)
The objectif being to see if my data is normal or not... Can someone help me out a bit with this ? Thank you very much I really appreciate it !
If you are only concern about knowing if your data is normal distributed or not, you can apply the Jarque-Bera test. This test states that under the null your data is normal distributed, see details here. You can perform this test using jarque.bera.test function.
library(tseries)
jarque.bera.test(ss)
Jarque Bera Test
data: ss
X-squared = 4100.781, df = 2, p-value < 2.2e-16
Clearly, from the result, you can see that your data is not normaly distributed since the null has been rejected even at 1%.
To see why your data is not normaly distributed you can take a look at the descriptive statistics:
library(fBasics)
basicStats(ss)
ss
nobs 3776.000000
NAs 0.000000
Minimum -0.105195
Maximum 0.187713
1. Quartile -0.009417
3. Quartile 0.010220
Mean 0.000462
Median 0.001224
Sum 1.745798
SE Mean 0.000336
LCL Mean -0.000197
UCL Mean 0.001122
Variance 0.000427
Stdev 0.020671
Skewness 0.322820
Kurtosis 5.060026
From the last two rows, one can realize that ss has an excess of kurtosis, and the skewness is not zero. This is the basis of the Jarque-Bera test.
But if you are interested in compare actual distribution of your data agaist a normal distibuted random variable with the same mean and variance as your data, you can first estimate the empirical density function from your data using a kernel and then plot it, finally you only have to generate a normal random variable with same mean and variance as you data, do something like this:
plot(density(ss, kernel='epanechnikov'))
set.seed(125)
lines(density(rnorm(length(ss), mean(ss), sd(ss)), kernel='epanechnikov'), col=2)
In this fashion you can generate other curve from another probability distribution.
The tests suggested by #Alex Reynolds will help you if your interest is to know what possible distribution your data were drawn from. If this is your goal you can take a look at any goodness-of-it test in any statistics texbook. Nevertheless, if just want to know if your variable is normally distributed then Jarque-Bera test is good enough.
Take a look at Q-Q, Shapiro-Wilk or K-S tests to see if your data are normally distributed.