I have a bunch of random variables (X1,....,Xn) which are i.i.d. Exp(1/2) and represent the duration of time of a certain event. So this distribution has obviously an expected value of 2, but I am having problems defining it in R. I did some research and found something about a so-called Monte-Carlo Stimulation, but I don't seem to find what I am looking for in it.
An example of what i want to estimate is: let's say we have 10 random variables (X1,..,X10) distributed as above, and we want to determine for example the probability P([X1+...+X10<=25]).
Thanks.
You don't actually need monte carlo simulation in this case because:
If Xi ~ Exp(λ) then the sum (X1 + ... + Xk) ~ Erlang(k, λ) which is just a Gamma(k, 1/λ) (in (k, θ) parametrization) or Gamma(k, λ) (in (α,β) parametrization) with an integer shape parameter k.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution#Related_distributions)
So, P([X1+...+X10<=25]) can be computed by
pgamma(25, shape=10, rate=0.5)
Are you aware of rexp() function in R? Have a look at documentation page by typing ?rexp in R console.
A quick answer to your Monte Carlo estimation of desired probability:
mean(rowSums(matrix(rexp(1000 * 10, rate = 0.5), 1000, 10)) <= 25)
I have generated 1000 set of 10 exponential samples, putting them into a 1000 * 10 matrix. We take row sum and get a vector of 1000 entries. The proportion of values between 0 and 25 is an empirical estimate of the desired probability.
Thanks, this was helpful! Can I use replicate with this code, to make it look like this: F <- function(n, B=1000) mean(replicate(B,(rexp(10, rate = 0.5)))) but I am unable to output the right result.
replicate here generates a matrix, too, but it is an 10 * 1000 matrix (as opposed to a 1000* 10 one in my answer), so you now need to take colSums. Also, where did you put n?
The correct function would be
F <- function(n, B=1000) mean(colSums(replicate(B, rexp(10, rate = 0.5))) <= n)
For non-Monte Carlo method to your given example, see the other answer. Exponential distribution is a special case of gamma distribution and the latter has additivity property.
I am giving you Monte Carlo method because you name it in your question, and it is applicable beyond your example.
Related
How do I use the Binomial function to solve this experiment:
number of trials -> n=18,
p=10%
success x=2
The answer is 28% . I am using Binomial(18, 0.1) but how I pass the n=2?
julia> d=Binomial(18,0.1)
Binomial{Float64}(n=18, p=0.1)
pdf(d,2)
How can I solve this in Julia?
What you want is the Probability Mass Function, aka the probability, that in a binomial experiment of n Bernoulli independent trials with a probability p of success on each individual trial, we obtain exactly x successes.
The way to answer this question in Julia is, using the Distribution package, to first create the "distribution" object with parameters n and p, and then call the function pdf to this object and the variable x:
using Distributions
n = 18 # number of trials in our experiments
p = 0.1 # probability of success of a single trial
x = 2 # number of successes for which we want to compute the probability/PMF
binomialDistribution = Binomial(n,p)
probOfTwoSuccesses = pdf(binomialDistribution,x)
Note that all the other probability related functions (like cdf, quantile, .. but also rand) work in the same way.. you first build the distribution object, that embed the specific distribution parameters, and then you call the function over the distribution object and the variable you are looking for, e.g. quantile(binomialDistribution,0.9) for 90% quantile.
I have been going through some random number simulation equations while i found out that as Pareto dosent have an inbuilt function.
RPareto is found as
rpareto <- function(n,a,l){
rp <- l*((1-runif(n))^(-1/a)-1)
rp
}
can someone explain the intuitive meaning behind this.
It's a well known result that if X is a continuous random variable with CDF F(.), then Y = F(X) has a Uniform distribution on [0, 1].
This result can be used to draw random samples of any continuous random variable whose CDF is known: generate u, a Uniform(0, 1) random variable and then determine the value of x for which F(x) = u.
In specific cases, there may well be more efficient ways of sampling from F(.), but this will always work as a fallback.
It's likely (I haven't checked the accuracy of the code myself, but it looks about right) that the body of your function solves f(x) = u for known u in order to generate a random variable with a Pareto distribution. You can check it with a little algebra after getting the CDF from this Wikipedia page.
I am asked to implement an algorithm to simulate from a poisson (lambda) distribution using simulation from an exponential distribution.
I was given the following density:
P(X = k) = P(X1 + · · · + Xk ≤ 1 < X1 + · · · + Xk+1), for k = 1, 2, . . . .
P(X = k) is the poisson with lambda, and Xi is exponential distribution.
I wrote code to simulate the exponential distribution, but have no clue how to simulate a poisson. Could anybody help me about this? Thanks million.
My code:
n<-c(1:k)
u<-runif(k)
x<--log(1-u)/lambda
I'm working on the assumption you (or your instructor) want to do this from first principles rather than just calling the builtin Poisson generator. The algorithm is pretty straightforward. You count how many exponentials you can generate with the specified rate until their sum exceeds 1.
My R is rusty and this sounds like a homework anyway, so I'll express it as pseudo-code:
count <- 0
sum <- 0
repeat {
generate x ~ exp(lambda)
sum <- sum + x
if sum > 1
break
else
count <- count + 1
}
The value of count after you break from the loop is your Poisson outcome for this trial. If you wrap this as a function, return count rather than breaking from the loop.
You can improve this computationally in a couple of ways. The first is to notice that the 1-U term for generating the exponentials has a uniform distribution, and can be replaced by just U. The more significant improvement is obtained by writing the evaluation as maximize i s.t. SUM(-log(Ui) / rate) <= 1, so SUM(log(Ui)) >= -rate.
Now exponentiate both sides and simplify to get
PRODUCT(Ui) >= Exp(-rate).
The right-hand side of this is constant, and can be pre-calculated, reducing the amount of work from k+1 log evaluations and additions to one exponentiation and k+1 multiplications:
count <- 0
product <- 1
threshold = Exp(-lambda)
repeat {
generate u ~ Uniform(0,1)
product <- product * u
if product < threshold
break
else
count <- count + 1
}
Assuming you do the U for 1-U substitution for both implementations, they are algebraically equal and will yield identical answers to within the precision of floating point arithmetic for a given set of U's.
You can use rpois to generate Poisson variates as per above suggestion. However, my understanding of the question is that you wish to do so from first principles rather than using built-in functions. To do this, you need to use the property of the Poisson arrivals stating that the inter-arrival times are exponentially distributed. Therefore we proceed as follows:
Step 1: Generate a (large) sample from the exponential distribution and create vector of cumulative sums. The k-th entry of this vector is the waiting time to the k-th Poisson arrival
Step 2: Measure how many arrivals we see in a unit time interval
Step3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 many times and gather the results into a vector
This will be your sample from the Poisson distribution with the correct rate parameter.
The code:
lambda=20 # for example
out=sapply(1:100000, function(i){
u<-runif(100)
x<--log(1-u)/lambda
y=cumsum(x)
length(which(y<=1))
})
Then you can test the validity vs the built-in function via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test:
ks.test(out, rpois(100000, lambda))
So I am wanting to create a logistic regression that simultaneously satisfies two constraints.
The link here, outlines how to use the Excel solver to maximize the value of Log-Likelihood value of a logistic regression, but I am wanting to implement a similar function in R
What I am trying to create in the end is an injury risk function. These take an S-shape function.
As we see, the risk curves are calculated from the following equation
Lets take some dummy data to begin with
set.seed(112233)
A <- rbinom(153, 1, 0.6)
B <- rnorm(153, mean = 50, sd = 5)
C <- rnorm(153, mean = 100, sd = 15)
df1 <- data.frame(A,B,C)
Lets assume A indicates if a bone was broken, B is the bone density and C is the force applied.
So we can form a logistic regression model that uses B and C are capable of explaining the outcome variable A. A simple example of the regression may be:
Or
glm(A ~ B + C, data=df1, family=binomial())
Now we want to make the first assumption that at zero force, we should have zero risk. This is further explained as A1. on pg.124 here
Here we set our A1=0.05 and solve the equation
A1 = 1 - (1-P(0))^n
where P(0) is the probability of injury when the injury related parameter is zero and n is the sample size.
We have our sample size and can solve for P(0). We get 3.4E-4. Such that:
The second assumption is that we should maximize the log-likelihood function of the regression
We want to maximize the following equation
Where pi is estimated from the above equation and yi is the observed value for non-break for each interval
My what i understand, I have to use one of the two functions in R to define a function for max'ing LL. I can use mle from base R or the mle2 from bbmle package.
I guess I need to write a function along these lines
log.likelihood.sum <- function(sequence, p) {
log.likelihood <- sum(log(p)*(sequence==1)) + sum(log(1-p)*(sequence==0))
}
But I am not sure where I should account for the first assumption. Ie. am I best to build it into the above code, and if so, how? Or will it be more effiecient to write a secondary finction to combine the two assumptions. Any advice would be great, as I have very limited experience in writing and understanding functions
I have the pdf of a distribution. This distribution is not a standard distribution and no functions exist in R to sample from it. How to I sample from this pdf using R?
This is more of a statistics question, as it requires sampling, but in general, you can take this approach to the problem:
Find a distribution f, whose pdf, when multiplied by any given constant k, is always greater than the pdf of the distribution in question, g.
For each sample, do the following steps:
Sample a random number x from the distribution f.
Calculate C = f(x)*k/g(x). This should be equal to or less than 1.
Draw a random number u from a uniform distribution U(0,1). If C < u, then go back to step 3. Otherwise keep x as the number and continue sampling if desired.
This process is known as rejection sampling, and is often used in random number generators that are not uniform.
The normal distribution and the uniform distribution are some of the more common distributions to sample from, but you can do other ones. Generally you want the shapes of k*f(x) and g(x) to be very close, so you don't have to reject a lot of samples.
Here's an example implementation:
#n is sample size
#g is pdf you want to sample from
#rf is sampling function for f
#df is density function for f
#k is multiplicative constant
#... is any necessary parameters for f
function.sample <- function(n,g,rf,df,k,...){
results = numeric(n)
counter = 0
while(counter < n){
x = rf(1,...)
x.pdf = df(x,...)
if (runif(0,1) >= x.pdf * k/g(x)){
results[counter+1] = x
counter = counter + 1
}
}
}
There are other methods to do random sampling, but this is usually the easiest, and it works well for most functions (unless their PDF is hard to calculate but their CDF isn't).