If I wanted to efficiently generate a random discrete probability distribution of N probabilities which sum up to 1, I could go with Hadley's comment here:
prop.table(runif(N))
If I repeat this many times, the average probability for each of the N elements should be ~1/N.
What if I want the average probability for each of the N elements not to be 1/N but a specified number a priori?
E.g. N = 4 elements, I have the apriori distribution:
apriori <- c(0.2, 0.3, 0.1, 0.4)
And I would like random distributions based on this a priori, e.g.:
c(0.21, 0.29, 0.12, 0.38)
c(0.19, 0.29, 0.08, 0.44)
c(0.19, 0.33, 0.1, 0.38)
Etc.
Where we go by either of these rules:
1) On average each of the elements probabilities would be (approx.) its probability in the a priori distribution
2) There's a "perturbation" parameter, say perturbation = 0.05 which means either: (a) we're letting each of the probabilities i to be in the apriori[i] +- perturbation range or (b) we're letting each of the probabilities i to be in the apriori[i] +- perturbation * apriori[i] range (i.e. plus/minus 5% of that apriori probability, not absolute 5%)
I have no idea how to do this while keeping rule 1.
Regarding rule 2, my initial inefficient thought would be perturbing each of the first N - 1 elements by a random allowed amount, setting the last element to be 1 - sum(N-1_probs) and wrapping this with a while loop until the last element is also legitimate.
I didn't even implement it yet because that's very inefficient (say I want 100K of such distributions...). Ideas?
As proposed by prof.Bolker, you ought to look at Dirichlet distribution. Let's denote mean apriori values by capital letters Ci and sampled values by small letters ci. It will automatically, from distribution properties, provide you with two features:
Sum i ci = 1
Each ci is within [0...1] range
so right away you could use them as probabilities.
Given Ci, and looking at distribution definition (check the link), the only free parameter left is
a0 = Sum i ai
and each ai = Ci * a0
Such choice of ai will (again, automatically) provide proper mean value E[ci] = Ci.
Bigger a0 - ci would be more narrow around Ci. Variance is roughly speaking Var[ci] ~ Ci/a0, so for 5% you might try to use a0 of 50.
Some R code
library(MCMCpack)
apriori <- c(0.2, 0.3, 0.1, 0.4) # your C_i
a0 <- 50
a <- a0*apriori
set.seed(12345)
# sample your c_i and use it, for example, to throw uneven dice
ci <- rdirichlet(1, a)
dice <- rmultinom(1, 1, ci)
# another dice throw
ci <- rdirichlet(1, a)
dice <- rmultinom(1, 1, ci)
...
I have a solution, but it will end up with the draws being normal. I think you can probably do something similar to draw a uniform distribution. Don't have much experience with this, but I would lean towards a rejection kind of policy where you draw lots of things quickly, and then reject the ones that don't fit your criteria
rm(list = ls())
library(parallel)
library(data.table)
library(tictoc)
# set up the distribution informatoin
P <- 4
values <- 1:P
dist_scores <- data.table(param = values,
prob = c(0.2, 0.3, 0.1, 0.4), key = "param")
perturbation <- 0.05
method = "a"
switch (method,
"a" = {dist_scores[, min := prob - perturbation]
dist_scores[, max := prob + perturbation]},
"b" = {dist_scores[, min := prob * (1-perturbation)]
dist_scores[, max := prob * (1+perturbation)]}
)
# turn this in to a set of data that can be sampled
N <- 10000
v <- unlist(sapply(values, FUN = function(x){
rep(x, round(dist_scores$prob[x]*N, 0))
}))
table(v)/N
# set number of samples, and number of draws for each iteration
sams <- 10000
reps <- 200
tic()
# loop through and draw reps from the sample. Rejection policy will remove
# ones that dont meet the conditions
new_iters <- mclapply(1:sams, FUN = function(x){
y <- data.table(param = sample(v, reps, replace = TRUE))
out <- y[, .(val = .N/reps), keyby = param]
out <- dist_scores[out,]
if(out[,all(val >= min & val <= max)]){
return(out[, c("param", "val"), with = FALSE])
}else{
return(NULL)
}
})
reject_rate <- sum(sapply(new_iters, is.null))/sams
# number of samples
sams - reject_rate*sams
toc()
out <- rbindlist(new_iters)
par(mfrow = c(2,2))
for(i in values){
hist(out[param == i, val])
}enter code here
and using a normal distribution for each of your probability ?
perturbation <- 0.05
plouf <- sapply(apriori,function(x){max(rnorm(1,mean = x, sd = perturbation*x),0)})
plouf <- plouf/sum(plouf)
> plouf
[1] 0.2020629 0.3057111 0.0994482 0.3927778
Related
I'm trying to gain a deeper understanding of the sampling distribution, and I've been working through some simulations to that end. For this exercise, the distribution I'm working with is a log-normal distribution with mean=0.1 and sigma=0.17. My code is below:
n_sims <- 1000
mu <- rep(NA, n_sims)
lo95 <- rep(NA, n_sims)
hi95 <- rep(NA, n_sims)
data <- rlnorm(1000, 0.1, 0.17)
for (i in 1:n_sims){
sim <- sample(data, 1000)
mu[i] <- mean(sim)
lo95[i] <- mean(sim) - 2*sd(sim)
hi95[i] <- mean(sim) + 2*sd(sim)
}
xs <- seq(1,n_sims,1)
plot(xs, mu, pch=16, ylim = c(min(lo95)-0.05, max(hi95)+0.05))
segments(xs, lo95, xs, hi95, lwd = 0.5, col = "gray")
sum((lo95 <= 1.1) & (hi95 >= 1.1))
I'm expecting 95% of the samples to contain the true value of the distribution (1.1 on the transformed scale), but the last line of code reveals that all of the 1000 samples contain the true mean? My understanding is that only 95% of these simulations should contain the correct mean. Is there something I'm not understanding?
The bug is located here: sample(data, 1000).
The default for the sample function is "replace=FALSE" thus every iteration is using the same exact samples. To properly bootstrap your analysis you need to sample with replacement: sim <- sample(data, 1000, replace=TRUE).
Also to calculate the confidence limits of your estimated mean, I believe you want to use mu +/- 2*sd/sqrt(n), where n is the number of samples.
This is an extended question I found from here (Method #1: http://santiago.begueria.es/2010/10/generating-spatially-correlated-random-fields-with-r/) and here (Method #2: https://gist.github.com/brentp/1306786). I know these two sites covered very well (Thanks!) with relatively small size of dimension (e.g., 1000x1). I am trying to generate spatially clustered binary data with large size of dimension like >=100000x1 dimension, for example, c(1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0, …, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) with 1000 times / case study. Here are slightly modified codes from the sites.
# Method #1
dim1 <- 1000
dim2 <- 1
xy <- expand.grid(seq_len(dim1), seq_len(dim2))
colnames(xy) <- c("x", "y")
geo.model <- gstat(formula = z~x+y, locations = ~x+y, dummy = TRUE, beta = 0,
model = vgm(psill = 1,"Exp",
range = dim1), # Range parameter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nmax = 30) # Spatial correlation model
sim.mat <- predict(geo.model, newdata = xy, nsim = 1)
sim.mat[,3] <- ifelse(sim.mat[,3] > quantile(sim.mat[,3], .1), 0, 1)
plot(sim.mat[, 3])
# Method #2
# generate autocorrelated data.
nLags = 1000 # number of lags (size of region)
# fake, uncorrelated observations
X = rnorm(nLags)
# fake sigma... correlated decreases distance.
sigma = diag(nLags)
corr = .999
sigma <- corr ^ abs(row(sigma)-col(sigma))
#sigma
# Y is autocorrelated...
Y <- t(X %*% chol(sigma))
y <- ifelse(Y >= quantile(Y, probs=.9), 1, 0)[, 1]
plot(y)
Both methods work very well to generate binary data when dim1 is less than 10000. However, when I tried several hundred thousand (e.g., >= 100,000), it seems to take a long time or memory issue.
For example, when I used “nLags = 50000” in Method #2, I got an error message (“Error: cannot allocate vector of size 9.3 Gb”) after the code “sigma <- corr ^ abs(row(sigma)-col(sigma))”.
I would like to find an efficient (time- and memory-saving) way to generate such a spatially clustered binary data 1000 times (especially, with dim1 >= 100000) per each case study (about 200 cases).
I have thought about applying multiple probabilities in "sample" function or probability distribution. I am not sure how to and beyond my scope.
There are a lot of answers regarding to plotting confidence intervals.
I'm reading the paper by Lourme A. et al (2016) and I'd like to draw the 90% confidence boundary and the 10% exceptional points like in the Fig. 2 from the paper: .
I can't use LaTeX and insert the picture with the definition of confidence areas:
library("MASS")
library(copula)
set.seed(612)
n <- 1000 # length of sample
d <- 2 # dimension
# random vector with uniform margins on (0,1)
u1 <- runif(n, min = 0, max = 1)
u2 <- runif(n, min = 0, max = 1)
u = matrix(c(u1, u2), ncol=d)
Rg <- cor(u) # d-by-d correlation matrix
Rg1 <- ginv(Rg) # inv. matrix
# round(Rg %*% Rg1, 8) # check
# the multivariate c.d.f of u is a Gaussian copula
# with parameter Rg[1,2]=0.02876654
normal.cop = normalCopula(Rg[1,2], dim=d)
fit.cop = fitCopula(normal.cop, u, method="itau") #fitting
# Rg.hat = fit.cop#estimate[1]
# [1] 0.03097071
sim = rCopula(n, normal.cop) # in (0,1)
# Taking the quantile function of N1(0, 1)
y1 <- qnorm(sim[,1], mean = 0, sd = 1)
y2 <- qnorm(sim[,2], mean = 0, sd = 1)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(y1, y2, col="red"); abline(v=mean(y1), h=mean(y2))
plot(sim[,1], sim[,2], col="blue")
hist(y1); hist(y2)
Reference.
Lourme, A., F. Maurer (2016) Testing the Gaussian and Student's t copulas in a risk management framework. Economic Modelling.
Question. Could anyone help me and give the explanation of the variable v=(v_1,...,v_d) and G(v_1),..., G(v_d) in the equation?
I think v is the non-random matrix, the dimensions should be $k^2$ (grid points) by d=2 (dimensions). For example,
axis_x <- seq(0, 1, 0.1) # 11 grid points
axis_y <- seq(0, 1, 0.1) # 11 grid points
v <- expand.grid(axis_x, axis_y)
plot(v, type = "p")
So, your question is about the vector nu and correponding G(nu).
nu is a simple random vector drawn from any distribution that has a domain (0,1). (Here I use uniform distribution). Since you want your samples in 2D one single nu can be nu = runif(2). Given the explanations above, G is a gaussain pdf with mean 0 and a covariance matrix Rg. (Rg has dimensions of 2x2 in 2D).
Now what the paragraph says: if you have a random sample nu and you want it to be drawn from Gamma given the number of dimensions d and confidence level alpha then you need to compute the following statistic (G(nu) %*% Rg^-1) %*% G(nu) and check that is below the pdf of Chi^2 distribution for d and alpha.
For example:
# This is the copula parameter
Rg <- matrix(c(1,runif(2),1), ncol = 2)
# But we need to compute the inverse for sampling
Rginv <- MASS::ginv(Rg)
sampleResult <- replicate(10000, {
# we draw our nu from uniform, but others that map to (0,1), e.g. beta, are possible, too
nu <- runif(2)
# we compute G(nu) which is a gaussian cdf on the sample
Gnu <- qnorm(nu, mean = 0, sd = 1)
# for this we compute the statistic as given in formula
stat <- (Gnu %*% Rginv) %*% Gnu
# and return the result
list(nu = nu, Gnu = Gnu, stat = stat)
})
theSamples <- sapply(sampleResult["nu",], identity)
# this is the critical value of the Chi^2 with alpha = 0.95 and df = number of dimensions
# old and buggy threshold <- pchisq(0.95, df = 2)
# new and awesome - we are looking for the statistic at alpha = .95 quantile
threshold <- qchisq(0.95, df = 2)
# we can accept samples given the threshold (like in equation)
inArea <- sapply(sampleResult["stat",], identity) < threshold
plot(t(theSamples), col = as.integer(inArea)+1)
The red points are the points you would keep (I plot all points here).
As for drawing the decision boundries, I think it is a little bit more complicated, since you need to compute the exact pair of nu so that (Gnu %*% Rginv) %*% Gnu == pchisq(alpha, df = 2). It is a linear system that you solve for Gnu and then apply inverse to get your nu at the decision boundries.
edit: Reading the paragraph again, I noticed, the parameter for Gnu does not change, it is simply Gnu <- qnorm(nu, mean = 0, sd = 1).
edit: There was a bug: for threshold you need to use the quantile function qchisq instead of the distribution function pchisq - now corrected in the code above (and updated the figures).
This has two parts: first, compute the copula value as a function of X and Y; then, plot the curve giving the boundary where the copula exceeds the threshold.
Computing the value is basically linear algebra which #drey has answered. This is a rewritten version so that the copula is given by a function.
cop1 <- function(x)
{
Gnu <- qnorm(x)
Gnu %*% Rginv %*% Gnu
}
copula <- function(x)
{
apply(x, 1, cop1)
}
Plotting the boundary curve can be done using the same method as here (which in turn is the method used by the textbooks Modern Applied Stats with S, and Elements of Stat Learning). Create a grid of values, and use interpolation to find the contour line at the given height.
Rg <- matrix(c(1,runif(2),1), ncol = 2)
Rginv <- MASS::ginv(Rg)
# draw the contour line where value == threshold
# define a grid of values first: avoid x and y = 0 and 1, where infinities exist
xlim <- 1e-3
delta <- 1e-3
xseq <- seq(xlim, 1-xlim, by=delta)
grid <- expand.grid(x=xseq, y=xseq)
prob.grid <- copula(grid)
threshold <- qchisq(0.95, df=2)
contour(x=xseq, y=xseq, z=matrix(prob.grid, nrow=length(xseq)), levels=threshold,
col="grey", drawlabels=FALSE, lwd=2)
# add some points
data <- data.frame(x=runif(1000), y=runif(1000))
points(data, col=ifelse(copula(data) < threshold, "red", "black"))
I am working on my project about the income distribution... I would like to generate random data for testing the theory. Let say I have N=5 countries and each country has n=1000 population and i want to generate random income (NORMAL DISTRIBUTION) for each person in each population with the constraint of income is between 0 and 1 and at same mean and DIFFERENT standard deviation for all countries. I used the function rnorm(n, meanx, sd) to do it. I know that UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION (runif(n,min, max) has some arguments for setting min, max, but no rnorm. Since rnorm doesn't provide the argument for setting min and max value. I have to write a piece of code to check the set of random data to see whether they satisfy my constraints of [0,1] or not.
I successfully generated income data for n=100. However, if i increase n = k times of 100, for eg. n=200, 300 ......1000. My programme is hanging. I can see why the programs is hanging, since it just generate data randomly without constraints of min, max. Therefore, when I do with larger n, the probabilities that i will generate successfully is less than with n=100. And the loop just running again : generate data, failed check.
Technically speaking, to fix this problem, I think of breaking n=1000 into small batches, let say b=100. Since rnorm successfully generate with 100 samples in range [0,1] and it is NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, it will work well if i run the loop of 10 times of 100samples separately for each batch of 100 samples. And then, I will collect all data of 10 * 100 samples into one data of 1000 for my later analysis.
However, mathematically speakign, I am NOT SURE whether the constrain of NORMAL DISTRIBUTION for n=1000 is still satisfied or not by doing this way. I attached here my code. Hopefully my explanation is clear to you. All of your opinions will be very useful to my work. Thanks a lot.
# Update:
# plot histogram
# create the random data with same mean, different standard deviation and x in range [0,1]
# Generate the output file
# Generate data for K countries
#---------------------------------------------
# Configurable variables
number_of_populations = 5
n=100 #number of residents (*** input the number whish is k times of 100)
meanx = 0.7
sd_constant = 0.1 # sd = sd_constant + j/50
min=0 #min income
max=1 #max income
#---------------------------------------------
batch =100 # divide the large number of residents into small batch of 100
x= matrix(
0, # the data elements
nrow=n, # number of rows
ncol=number_of_populations, # number of columns
byrow = TRUE) # fill matrix by rows
x_temp = rep(0,n)
# generate income data randomly for each country
for (j in 1:number_of_populations){
# 1. Generate uniform distribution
#x[,j] <- runif(n,min, max)
# 2. Generate Normal distribution
sd = sd_constant+j/50
repeat
{
{
x_temp <- rnorm(n, meanx, sd)
is_inside = TRUE
for (i in 1:n){
if (x_temp[i]<min || x_temp[i] >max) {
is_inside = FALSE
break
}
}
}
if(is_inside==TRUE) {break}
} #end repeat
x[,j] <- x_temp
}
# write in csv
# each column stores different income of its residents
working_dir= "D:\\dataset\\"
setwd(working_dir)
file_output = "random_income.csv"
sink(file_output)
write.table(x,file=file_output,sep=",", col.names = F, row.names = F)
sink()
file.show(file_output) #show the file in directory
#plot histogram of x for each population
#par(mfrow=c(3,3), oma=c(0,0,0,0,0))
attach(mtcars)
par(mfrow=c(1,5))
for (j in 1:number_of_populations)
{
#plot(X[,i],y,'xlab'=i)
hist(x[,j],main="Normal",'xlab'=j)
}
Here's a sensible simple way...
sampnorm01 <- function(n) qnorm(runif(n,min=pnorm(0),max=pnorm(1)))
Test it out:
mysamp <- sampnorm01(1e5)
hist(mysamp)
Thanks to #PatrickPerry, here is a generalized truncated normal, again using the inverse CDF method. It allows for different parameters on the normal and different truncation bounds.
rtnorm <- function(n, mean = 0, sd = 1, min = 0, max = 1) {
bounds <- pnorm(c(min, max), mean, sd)
u <- runif(n, bounds[1], bounds[2])
qnorm(u, mean, sd)
}
Test it out:
mysamp <- rtnorm(1e5, .7, .2)
hist(mysamp)
You can normalize the data:
x = rnorm(100)
# normalize
min.x = min(x)
max.x = max(x)
x.norm = (x - min.x)/(max.x - min.x)
print(x.norm)
Here is my take on it.
The data is first normalized (at which stage the standard deviation is lost). After that, it is fitted to the range specified by the lower and upper parameters.
#' Creates a random normal distribution within the specified bounds
#'
#' WARNING: This function does not preserve the standard deviation
#' #param n The number of values to be generated
#' #param mean The mean of the distribution
#' #param sd The standard deviation of the distribution
#' #param lower The lower limit of the distribution
#' #param upper The upper limit of the distribution
rtnorm <- function(n, mean = 0, sd = 1, lower = -1, upper = 1){
mean = ifelse(test = (is.na(mean)|| (mean < lower) || (mean > upper)),
yes = mean(c(lower, upper)),
no = mean)
data <- rnorm(n, mean = mean, sd = sd) # data
if (!is.na(lower) && !is.na(upper)){ # adjust data to specified range
drange <- range(data) # data range
irange <- range(lower, upper) # input range
data <- (data - drange[1]) / (drange[2] - drange[1]) # normalize data (make it 0 to 1)
data <- (data * (irange[2] - irange[1])) + irange[1] # adjust to specified range
}
return(data)
}
Example:
a <- rtnorm(n = 1000, lower = 10, upper = 90)
range(a)
plot(hist(a, 50))
I'm trying to create (in r) the equivalent to the following MATLAB function that will generate n samples from a mixture of N(m1,(s1)^2) and N(m2, (s2)^2) with a fraction, alpha, from the first Gaussian.
I have a start, but the results are notably different between MATLAB and R (i.e., the MATLAB results give occasional values of +-8 but the R version never even gives a value of +-5). Please help me sort out what is wrong here. Thanks :-)
For Example:
Plot 1000 samples from a mix of N(0,1) and N(0,36) with 95% of samples from the first Gaussian. Normalize the samples to mean zero and standard deviation one.
MATLAB
function
function y = gaussmix(n,m1,m2,s1,s2,alpha)
y = zeros(n,1);
U = rand(n,1);
I = (U < alpha)
y = I.*(randn(n,1)*s1+m1) + (1-I).*(randn(n,1)*s2 + m2);
implementation
P = gaussmix(1000,0,0,1,6,.95)
P = (P-mean(P))/std(P)
plot(P)
axis([0 1000 -15 15])
hist(P)
axis([-15 15 0 1000])
resulting plot
resulting hist
R
yn <- rbinom(1000, 1, .95)
s <- rnorm(1000, 0 + 0*yn, 1 + 36*yn)
sn <- (s-mean(s))/sd(s)
plot(sn, xlim=range(0,1000), ylim=range(-15,15))
hist(sn, xlim=range(-15,15), ylim=range(0,1000))
resulting plot
resulting hist
As always, THANK YOU!
SOLUTION
gaussmix <- function(nsim,mean_1,mean_2,std_1,std_2,alpha){
U <- runif(nsim)
I <- as.numeric(U<alpha)
y <- I*rnorm(nsim,mean=mean_1,sd=std_1)+
(1-I)*rnorm(nsim,mean=mean_2,sd=std_2)
return(y)
}
z1 <- gaussmix(1000,0,0,1,6,0.95)
z1_standardized <- (z1-mean(z1))/sqrt(var(z1))
z2 <- gaussmix(1000,0,3,1,1,0.80)
z2_standardized <- (z2-mean(z2))/sqrt(var(z2))
z3 <- rlnorm(1000)
z3_standardized <- (z3-mean(z3))/sqrt(var(z3))
par(mfrow=c(2,3))
hist(z1_standardized,xlim=c(-10,10),ylim=c(0,500),
main="Histogram of 95% of N(0,1) and 5% of N(0,36)",
col="blue",xlab=" ")
hist(z2_standardized,xlim=c(-10,10),ylim=c(0,500),
main="Histogram of 80% of N(0,1) and 10% of N(3,1)",
col="blue",xlab=" ")
hist(z3_standardized,xlim=c(-10,10),ylim=c(0,500),
main="Histogram of samples of LN(0,1)",col="blue",xlab=" ")
##
plot(z1_standardized,type='l',
main="1000 samples from a mixture N(0,1) and N(0,36)",
col="blue",xlab="Samples",ylab="Mean",ylim=c(-10,10))
plot(z2_standardized,type='l',
main="1000 samples from a mixture N(0,1) and N(3,1)",
col="blue",xlab="Samples",ylab="Mean",ylim=c(-10,10))
plot(z3_standardized,type='l',
main="1000 samples from LN(0,1)",
col="blue",xlab="Samples",ylab="Mean",ylim=c(-10,10))
There are two problems, I think ... (1) your R code is creating a mixture of normal distributions with standard deviations of 1 and 37. (2) By setting prob equal to alpha in your rbinom() call, you're getting a fraction alpha in the second mode rather than the first. So what you are getting is a distribution that is mostly a Gaussian with sd 37, contaminated by a 5% mixture of Gaussian with sd 1, rather than a Gaussian with sd 1 that is contaminated by a 5% mixture of a Gaussian with sd 6. Scaling by the standard deviation of the mixture (which is about 36.6) basically reduces it to a standard Gaussian with a slight bump near the origin ...
(The other answers posted here do solve your problem perfectly well, but I thought you might be interested in a diagnosis ...)
A more compact (and perhaps more idiomatic) version of your Matlab gaussmix function (I think runif(n)<alpha is slightly more efficient than rbinom(n,size=1,prob=alpha) )
gaussmix <- function(n,m1,m2,s1,s2,alpha) {
I <- runif(n)<alpha
rnorm(n,mean=ifelse(I,m1,m2),sd=ifelse(I,s1,s2))
}
set.seed(1001)
s <- gaussmix(1000,0,0,1,6,0.95)
Not that you asked for it, but the mclust package offers a way to generalize your problem to more dimensions and diverse covariance structures. See ?mclust::sim. The example task would be done this way:
require(mclust)
simdata = sim(modelName = "V",
parameters = list(pro = c(0.95, 0.05),
mean = c(0, 0),
variance = list(modelName = "V",
d = 1,
G = 2,
sigmasq = c(0, 36))),
n = 1000)
plot(scale(simdata[,2]), type = "h")
I recently wrote the density and sampling function of a multinomial mixture of normal distributions:
dmultiNorm <- function(x,means,sds,weights)
{
if (length(means)!=length(sds)) stop("Length of means must be equal to length of standard deviations")
N <- length(x)
n <- length(means)
if (missing(weights))
{
weights <- rep(1,n)
}
if (length(weights)!=n) stop ("Length of weights not equal to length of means and sds")
weights <- weights/sum(weights)
dens <- numeric(N)
for (i in 1:n)
{
dens <- dens + weights[i] * dnorm(x,means[i],sds[i])
}
return(dens)
}
rmultiNorm <- function(N,means,sds,weights,scale=TRUE)
{
if (length(means)!=length(sds)) stop("Length of means must be equal to length of standard deviations")
n <- length(means)
if (missing(weights))
{
weights <- rep(1,n)
}
if (length(weights)!=n) stop ("Length of weights not equal to length of means and sds")
Res <- numeric(N)
for (i in 1:N)
{
s <- sample(1:n,1,prob=weights)
Res[i] <- rnorm(1,means[s],sds[s])
}
return(Res)
}
With means being a vector of means, sds being a vector of standard deviatians and weights being a vector with proportional probabilities to sample from each of the distributions. Is this useful to you?
Here is code to do this task:
"For Example: Plot 1000 samples from a mix of N(0,1) and N(0,36) with 95% of samples from the first Gaussian. Normalize the samples to mean zero and standard deviation one."
plot(multG <- c( rnorm(950), rnorm(50, 0, 36))[sample(1000)] , type="h")
scmulG <- scale(multG)
summary(scmulG)
#-----------
V1
Min. :-9.01845
1st Qu.:-0.06544
Median : 0.03841
Mean : 0.00000
3rd Qu.: 0.13940
Max. :12.33107