In R, how does the function ar.yw estimate the variance? Specifically, where does the number "var.pred" come from? It does not seem to come from the usual YW estimate of the variance, nor the sum of squared residuals divided by df (even though there is disagreement about what the df should be, none of the choices give an answer equivalent to var.pred). And yes, I know that there are better methods than YW; just trying to figure out what R is doing.
set.seed(82346)
temp <- arima.sim(n=10, list(ar = 0.5), sd=1)
fit <- ar(temp, method = "yule-walker", demean = FALSE, aic=FALSE, order.max=1)
## R's estimate of the sigma squared
fit$var.pred
## YW estimate
sum(temp^2)/10 - fit$ar*sum(temp[2:10]*temp[1:9])/10
## YW if there was a mean
sum((temp-mean(temp))^2)/10 - fit$ar*sum((temp[2:10]-mean(temp))*(temp[1:9]-mean(temp)))/10
## estimate based on residuals, different possible df.
sum(na.omit(fit$resid^2))/10
sum(na.omit(fit$resid^2))/9
sum(na.omit(fit$resid^2))/8
sum(na.omit(fit$resid^2))/7
Need to read the code if it's not documented.
?ar.yw
Which says: "In ar.yw the variance matrix of the innovations is computed from the fitted coefficients and the autocovariance of x." If that is not enough explanation, then you need to look at the code:
methods(ar.yw)
#[1] ar.yw.default* ar.yw.mts*
#see '?methods' for accessing help and source code
getAnywhere(ar.yw.default)
# there are two cases that I see
x <- as.matrix(x)
nser <- ncol(x)
if (nser > 1L) # .... not your situation
#....
else{
r <- as.double(drop(xacf))
z <- .Fortran(C_eureka, as.integer(order.max), r, r,
coefs = double(order.max^2), vars = double(order.max),
double(order.max))
coefs <- matrix(z$coefs, order.max, order.max)
partialacf <- array(diag(coefs), dim = c(order.max, 1L,
1L))
var.pred <- c(r[1L], z$vars)
#.......
order <- if (aic)
(0L:order.max)[xaic == 0L]
else order.max
ar <- if (order)
coefs[order, seq_len(order)]
else numeric()
var.pred <- var.pred[order + 1L]
var.pred <- var.pred * n.used/(n.used - (order + 1L))
So you now need to find the Fortran code for C_eureka. I think I'm finding it here: https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/library/stats/src/eureka.f This is the code that aI think is returning the var.pred estimate. I'm not a time series guy and It's your responsibility to review this process for applicability to your problem.
subroutine eureka (lr,r,g,f,var,a)
c
c solves Toeplitz matrix equation toep(r)f=g(1+.)
c by Levinson's algorithm
c a is a workspace of size lr, the number
c of equations
c
snipped
c estimate the innovations variance
var(l) = var(l-1) * (1 - f(l,l)*f(l,l))
if (l .eq. lr) return
d = 0.0d0
q = 0.0d0
do 50 i = 1, l
k = l-i+2
d = d + a(i)*r(k)
q = q + f(l,i)*r(k)
50 continue
Related
So, just a touch of backstory. I've been learning biostatistics in the past 4-5 months in university, 6 months of biomathematics before that. I only started deep diving into programming around 5 days ago.
I've been trying to redo t.test() with my own function.
test2 = function(t,u){
T = (mean(t) - u) / ( sd(t) / sqrt(length(t)))
t1=round(T, digits=5)
df=length(t)
cat(paste('t - value =', t1,
'\n','df =', df-1,
'\n','Alternative hipotézis: a minta átlag nem egyenlő a hipotetikus átlaggal'))
}
I tried searching the formula for the p-value, I found one, but when I used it, my value was different from the one within the t.test.
The t-value and the df do match t.test().
I highly appreciate any help, thank you.
P.s: Don't worry about the last line, it's in Hungarian.
The p-value can be derived from the probability function of the t distribution pt. Using this and making the notation more common with sample x and population mean mu we can use something like:
test2 <- function(x, u){
t <- (mean(x) - u) / (sd(x) / sqrt(length(x)))
df <- length(x) - 1
cat('t-value =', t, ', df =', df, ', p =', 2 * (1 - pt(q=t, df=df)), '\n')
}
set.seed(123) # remove this for other random values
## random sample
x <- rnorm(10, mean=5.5)
## population mean
mu <- 5
## own function
test2(x, mu)
## one sample t-test from R
t.test(x, mu=mu)
We get for the own test2:
t-value = 1.905175 , df = 9, p = 0.08914715
and for R's t.test
One Sample t-test
data: x
t = 1.9052, df = 9, p-value = 0.08915
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 5
95 percent confidence interval:
4.892330 6.256922
sample estimates:
mean of x
5.574626
The definitive source of what R is doing is the source code. If you look at the source code for stats:::t.test.default (which you can get by typing stats:::t.test.default into the console, without parentheses at the end and hitting enter), you'll see that for a single-sample test like the one you're trying to do above, you would get the following:
nx <- length(x)
mx <- mean(x)
vx <- var(x)
df <- nx - 1
stderr <- sqrt(vx/nx)
tstat <- (mx - mu)/stderr
if (alternative == "less") {
pval <- pt(tstat, df)
}
else if (alternative == "greater") {
pval <- pt(tstat, df, lower.tail = FALSE)
}
else {
pval <- 2 * pt(-abs(tstat), df)
}
These are the relevant pieces (there's a lot more code in there, too).
I notice searching through stackoverflow for similar questions that this has been asked several times hasn't really been properly answered. Perhaps with help from other users this post can be a helpful guide to programming a numerical estimate of the parameters of a multivariate normal distribution.
I know, I know! The closed form solutions are available and trivial to implement. In my case I am interested in modifying the likelihood function for a specific purpose and I don't expect an exact analytic solution so this is a test case to check the procedure.
So here is my attempt. Please comment. Especially if I am missing opportunities for optimization. Note, I'm not a statistician so I'd appreciate any pointers.
ll_multN <- function(theta,X) {
# theta = c(mu, diag(Sigma), Sigma[upper.tri(Sigma)])
# X is an nxk dataset
# MLE: L = - (nk/2)*log(2*pi) - (n/2)*log(det(Sigma)) - (1/2)*sum_i(t(X_i-mu)^2 %*% Sigma^-1 %*% (X_i-mu)^2)
# summation over i is performed using a apply call for efficiency
n <- nrow(X)
k <- ncol(X)
# def mu
mu.vec <- theta[1:k]
# def Sigma
Sigma.diag <- theta[(k+1):(2*k)]
Sigma.offd <- theta[(2*k+1):length(theta)]
Sigma <- matrix(NA, k, k)
Sigma[upper.tri(Sigma)] <- Sigma.offd
Sigma <- t(Sigma)
Sigma[upper.tri(Sigma)] <- Sigma.offd
diag(Sigma) <- Sigma.diag
# compute summation
sum_i <- sum(apply(X, 1, function(x) (matrix(x,1,k)-mu.vec)%*%solve(Sigma)%*%t(matrix(x,1,k)-mu.vec)))
# compute log likelihood
logl <- -.5*n*k*log(2*pi) - .5*n*log(det(Sigma))
logl <- logl - .5*sum_i
return(-logl)
}
Simulated dataset generated using the rmvnorm() function in the package "mvtnorm". Random positive definite covariance matrix generated using the additional function Posdef() (taken from here: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-February/153708)
library(mvtnorm)
Posdef <- function (n, ev = runif(n, 0, 5)) {
# generates a random positive definite covariance matrix
Z <- matrix(ncol=n, rnorm(n^2))
decomp <- qr(Z)
Q <- qr.Q(decomp)
R <- qr.R(decomp)
d <- diag(R)
ph <- d / abs(d)
O <- Q %*% diag(ph)
Z <- t(O) %*% diag(ev) %*% O
return(Z)
}
set.seed(2)
n <- 1000 # number of data points
k <- 3 # number of variables
mu.tru <- sample(0:3, k, replace=T) # random mean vector
Sigma.tru <- Posdef(k) # random covariance matrix
eigen(Sigma.tru)$val # check positive def (all lambda > 0)
# Generate simulated dataset
X <- rmvnorm(n, mean=mu.tru, sigma=Sigma.tru)
# initial parameter values
pars.init <- c(mu=rep(0,k), sig_ii=rep(1,k), sig_ij=rep(0, k*(k-1)/2))
# limits for optimization algorithm
eps <- .Machine$double.eps # get a small value for bounding the paramter space to avoid things such as log(0).
lower.bound <- c(rep(-Inf,k), # bound on mu
rep(eps,k), # bound on sigma_ii
rep(-Inf,k)) # bound on sigma_ij i=/=j
upper.bound <- c(rep(Inf,k), # bound on mu
rep(100,k), # bound on sigma_ii
rep(100,k)) # bound on sigma_ij i=/=j
system.time(
o <- optim(pars.init,
ll_multN, X=X, method="L-BFGS-B",
lower = lower.bound,
upper = upper.bound)
)
plot(x=c(mu.tru,diag(Sigma.tru),Sigma.tru[upper.tri(Sigma.tru)]),
y=o$par,
xlab="Parameter",
ylab="Estimate",
pch=20)
abline(c(0,1), col="red", lty=2)
This currently runs on my laptop in
user system elapsed
47.852 24.014 24.611
and gives this graphical output:
Estimated mean and variance
In particular any advice on limit setting or algorithm choice would be much appreciated.
Thanks
I am trying to build a portfolio which is optimized with respect to another in R.
I am trying to minimize the objective function
$$min Var(return_p-return'weight_{bm})$$
with the constraints
$$ 1_n'w = 1$$
$$w > .005$$
$$w < .8$$
with w being the returns from a portfolio. there are 10 securities, so I set the benchmark weights at .1 each.
I know that
$$ Var(return_p-return'weight_{bm})= var(r) + var(r'w_{bm}) - 2*cov(r_p, r'w_{bm})=var(r'w)-2cov(r'w,r'w_{bm})=w'var(r)w-2cov(r'w,r'w_{bm})$$
$$=w'var(r)w-2cov(r',r'w_bm)w$$
the last term is of the form I need so I tried to solve this with solve.QP in R, the constraints are giving me a problem though.
here is my code
trackport <- array(rnorm(obs * assets, mean = .2, sd = .15), dim = c(obs,
assets)) #this is the portfolio which the assets are tracked against
wbm <- matrix(rep(1/assets, assets)) #random numbers for the weights
Aeq <- t(matrix(rep(1,assets), nrow=assets, ncol = 1)) #col of 1's to add
#the weights
Beq <- 1 # weights should sum to 1's
H = 2*cov(trackport) #times 2 because of the syntax
#multiplies the returns times coefficients to create a vector of returns for
#the benchmark
rbm = trackport %*% wbm
#covariance between the tracking portfolio and benchmark returns
eff <- cov(trackport, rbm)
#constraints
Amatrix <- t(matrix(c(Aeq, diag(assets), -diag(assets)), ncol = assets,
byrow = T))
Bvector <- matrix(c(1,rep(.005, assets), rep(.8, assets)))
#solve
solQP3 <- solve.QP(Dmat = H,
dvec = zeros, #reduces to min var portfolio for
#troubleshooting purposes
Amat = Amatrix,
bvec = Bvector,
meq = 1)
the error I am getting is "constraints are inconsistent, no solution!" but I can't find what's wrong with my A matrix
My (transposed) A matrix looks like this
[1,1,...,1]
[1,0,...,0]
[0,1,...,0]
...
[0,0,...,1]
[-1,0,...,0]
[0,-1,...,0]
...
[0,0,...,-1]
and my $b_0$ looks like this
[1]
[.005]
[.005]
...
[.005]
[.8]
[.8]
...
[.8]
so I'm not sure why it isn't finding a solution, could anyone take a look?
I'm not familiar with the package, but just took a quick look at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/quadprog/quadprog.pdf , which apparently is what you are using.
Your RHS values of .8 should be -0.8 because this function uses ≥ inequalities. So you have been constraining the variables to be ≥ .005 and ≤ -0.8, which of course is not what you want, and is infeasible.
So leave transposed A as is and make
b0:
[1]
[.005]
[.005]
...
[.005]
[-.8]
[-.8]
...
[-.8]
I am interested to build a R function that I can use to test the limits of the Taylor series approximation. I am aware that there is limits to what I am doing, but it's exactly those limits I wish to investigate.
I have two normally distributed random variables x and y. x has a mean of 7 and a standard deviation (sd) of 1. y has a mean of 5 and a sd of 4.
me.x <- 4; sd.x <- 1
me.y <- 5; sd.y <- 4
I know how to estimate the mean ratio of y/x, like this
# E(y/x) = E(y)/E(x) - Cov(y,x)/E(x)^2 + Var(x)*E(y)/E(x)^3
me.y/me.x - 0/me.x^2 + sd.x*me.y/me.x^3
[1] 1.328125
I am however stuck on how to estimate the Standard Deviation of the ratio? I realize I have to use a Taylor expansion, but not how to use it.
Doing a simple simulation I get
x <- rnorm(10^4, mean = 4, sd = 1); y <- rnorm(10^4, mean = 5, sd = 4)
sd(y/x)
[1] 2.027593
mean(y/x)[1]
1.362142
There is an analytical expression for the PDF of the ratio of two gaussians, done
by David Hinkley (e.g. see Wikipedia). So we could compute all momentums, means etc. I typed it and apparently it clearly doesn't have finite second momentum, thus it doesn't have finite standard deviation. Note, I've denoted your Y gaussian as my X, and your X as my Y (formulas assume X/Y). I've got mean value of ratio pretty close to the what you've got from simulation, but last integral is infinite, sorry. You could sample more and more values, but from sampling std.dev is growing as well, as noted by #G.Grothendieck
library(ggplot2)
m.x <- 5; s.x <- 4
m.y <- 4; s.y <- 1
a <- function(x) {
sqrt( (x/s.x)^2 + (1.0/s.y)^2 )
}
b <- function(x) {
(m.x*x)/s.x^2 + m.y/s.y^2
}
c <- (m.x/s.x)^2 + (m.y/s.y)^2
d <- function(x) {
u <- b(x)^2 - c*a(x)^2
l <- 2.0*a(x)^2
exp( u / l )
}
# PDF for the ratio of the two different gaussians
PDF <- function(x) {
r <- b(x)/a(x)
q <- pnorm(r) - pnorm(-r)
(r*d(x)/a(x)^2) * (1.0/(sqrt(2.0*pi)*s.x*s.y)) * q + exp(-0.5*c)/(pi*s.x*s.y*a(x)^2)
}
# normalization
nn <- integrate(PDF, -Inf, Inf)
nn <- nn[["value"]]
# plot PDF
p <- ggplot(data = data.frame(x = 0), mapping = aes(x = x))
p <- p + stat_function(fun = function(x) PDF(x)/nn) + xlim(-2.0, 6.0)
print(p)
# first momentum
m1 <- integrate(function(x) x*PDF(x), -Inf, Inf)
m1 <- m1[["value"]]
# mean
print(m1/nn)
# some sampling
set.seed(32345)
n <- 10^7L
x <- rnorm(n, mean = m.x, sd = s.x); y <- rnorm(n, mean = m.y, sd = s.y)
print(mean(x/y))
print(sd(x/y))
# second momentum - Infinite!
m2 <- integrate(function(x) x*x*PDF(x), -Inf, Inf)
Thus, it is impossible to test any Taylor expansion for std.dev.
With the cautions suggested by #G.Grothendieck in mind: a useful mnemonic for products and quotients of independent X and Y variables is
CV^2(X/Y) = CV^2(X*Y) = CV^2(X) + CV^2(Y)
where CV is the coefficient of variation (sd(X)/mean(X)), so CV^2 is Var/mean^2. In other words
Var(Y/X)/(m(Y/X))^2 = Var(X)/m(X)^2 + Var(Y)/m(Y)^2
or rearranging
sd(Y/X) = sqrt[ Var(X)*m(Y/X)^2/m(X)^2 + Var(Y)*m(Y/X)^2/m(Y)^2 ]
For random variables with the mean well away from zero, this is a reasonable approximation.
set.seed(101)
y <- rnorm(1000,mean=5)
x <- rnorm(1000,mean=10)
myx <- mean(y/x)
sqrt(var(x)*myx^2/mean(x)^2 + var(y)*myx^2/mean(y)^2) ## 0.110412
sd(y/x) ## 0.1122373
Using your example is considerably worse because the CV of Y is close to 1 -- I initially thought it looked OK, but now I see that it's biased as well as not capturing the variability very well (I'm also plugging in the expected values of the mean and SD rather than their simulated values, but for such a large sample that should be a minor part of the error.)
me.x <- 4; sd.x <- 1
me.y <- 5; sd.y <- 4
myx <- me.y/me.x - 0/me.x^2 + sd.x*me.y/me.x^3
x <- rnorm(1e4,me.x,sd.x); y <- rnorm(1e4,me.y,sd.y)
c(myx,mean(y/x))
sdyx <- sqrt(sd.x^2*myx^2/me.x^2 + sd.y^2*myx^2/me.y^2)
c(sdyx,sd(y/x))
## 1.113172 1.197855
rvals <- replicate(1000,
sd(rnorm(1e4,me.y,sd.y)/rnorm(1e4,me.x,sd.x)))
hist(log(rvals),col="gray",breaks=100)
abline(v=log(sdyx),col="red",lwd=2)
min(rvals) ## 1.182698
All the canned delta-method approaches to computing the variance of Y/X use the point estimate for Y/X (i.e. m(Y/X) = mY/mX), rather than the second-order approximation you used above. Constructing higher-order forms for both the mean and the variance should be straightforward if possibly tedious (a computer algebra system might help ...)
mvec <- c(x = me.x, y = me.y)
V <- diag(c(sd.x, sd.y)^2)
car::deltaMethod(mvec, "y/x", V)
## Estimate SE
## y/x 1.25 1.047691
library(emdbook)
sqrt(deltavar(y/x,meanval=mvec,Sigma=V)) ## 1.047691
sqrt(sd.x^2*(me.y/me.x)^2/me.x^2 + sd.y^2*(me.y/me.x)^2/me.y^2) ## 1.047691
For what it's worth, I took the code in #SeverinPappadeux's answer and made it into a function gratio(mx,my,sx,sy). For the Cauchy case (gratio(0,0,1,1)) it gets confused and reports a mean of 0 (which should be NA/divergent) but correctly reports the variance/std dev as divergent. For the parameters specified by the OP (gratio(5,4,4,1)) it gives mean=1.352176, sd=NA as above. For the first parameters I tried above (gratio(10,5,1,1)) it gives mean=0.5051581, sd=0.1141726.
These numerical experiments strongly suggest to me that the ratio of Gaussians sometimes has a well-defined variance, but I don't know when (time for another question on Math StackOverflow or CrossValidated?)
Such approximations are unlikely to be useful since the distribution may not have a finite standard deviation. Look at how unstable it is:
set.seed(123)
n <- 10^6
X <- rnorm(n, me.x, sd.x)
Y <- rnorm(n, me.y, sd.y)
sd(head(Y/X, 10^3))
## [1] 1.151261
sd(head(Y/X, 10^4))
## [1] 1.298028
sd(head(Y/X, 10^5))
## [1] 1.527188
sd(Y/X)
## [1] 1.863168
Contrast that with what happens when we try the same thing with a normal random variable:
sd(head(Y, 10^3))
## [1] 3.928038
sd(head(Y, 10^4))
## [1] 3.986802
sd(head(Y, 10^5))
## [1] 3.984113
sd(Y)
## [1] 3.999024
Note: If you were in a different situation, e.g. the denominator has compact support, then you could do this:
library(car)
m <- c(x = me.x, y = me.y)
v <- diag(c(sd.x, sd.y)^2)
deltaMethod(m, "y/x", v)
Given:
set.seed(1001)
outcome<-rnorm(1000,sd = 1)
covariate<-rnorm(1000,sd = 1)
log-likelihood of normal pdf:
loglike <- function(par, outcome, covariate){
cov <- as.matrix(cbind(1, covariate))
xb <- cov * par
(- 1/2* sum((outcome - xb)^2))
}
optimize:
opt.normal <- optim(par = 0.1,fn = loglike,outcome=outcome,cov=covariate, method = "BFGS", control = list(fnscale = -1),hessian = TRUE)
However I get different results when running an simple OLS. However maximizing log-likelihhod and minimizing OLS should bring me to a similar estimate. I suppose there is something wrong with my optimization.
summary(lm(outcome~covariate))
Umm several things... Here's a proper working likelihood function (with names x and y):
loglike =
function(par,x,y){cov = cbind(1,x); xb = cov %*% par;(-1/2)*sum((y-xb)^2)}
Note use of matrix multiplication operator.
You were also only running it with one par parameter, so it was not only broken because your loglike was doing element-element multiplication, it was only returning one value too.
Now compare optimiser parameters with lm coefficients:
opt.normal <- optim(par = c(0.1,0.1),fn = loglike,y=outcome,x=covariate, method = "BFGS", control = list(fnscale = -1),hessian = TRUE)
opt.normal$par
[1] 0.02148234 -0.09124299
summary(lm(outcome~covariate))$coeff
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.02148235 0.03049535 0.7044466 0.481319029
covariate -0.09124299 0.03049819 -2.9917515 0.002842011
shazam.
Helpful hints: create data that you know the right answer for - eg x=1:10; y=rnorm(10)+(1:10) so you know the slope is 1 and the intercept 0. Then you can easily see which of your things are in the right ballpark. Also, run your loglike function on its own to see if it behaves as you expect.
Maybe you will find it usefull to see the difference between these two methods from my code. I programmed it the following way.
data.matrix <- as.matrix(hprice1[,c("assess","bdrms","lotsize","sqrft","colonial")])
loglik <- function(p,z){
beta <- p[1:5]
sigma <- p[6]
y <- log(data.matrix[,1])
eps <- (y - beta[1] - z[,2:5] %*% beta[2:5])
-nrow(z)*log(sigma)-0.5*sum((eps/sigma)^2)
}
p0 <- c(5,0,0,0,0,2)
m <- optim(p0,loglik,method="BFGS",control=list(fnscale=-1,trace=10),hessian=TRUE,z=data.matrix)
rbind(m$par,sqrt(diag(solve(-m$hessian))))
And for the lm() method I find this
m.ols <- lm(log(assess)~bdrms+lotsize+sqrft+colonial,data=hprice1)
summary(m.ols)
Also if you would like to estimate the elasticity of assessed value with respect to the lotsize or calculate a 95% confidence interval
for this parameter, you could use the following
elasticity.at.mean <- mean(hprice1$lotsize) * m$par[3]
var.coefficient <- solve(-m$hessian)[3,3]
var.elasticity <- mean(hprice1$lotsize)^2 * var.coefficient
# upper bound
elasticity.at.mean + qnorm(0.975)* sqrt(var.elasticity)
# lower bound
elasticity.at.mean + qnorm(0.025)* sqrt(var.elasticity)
A more simple example of the optim method is given below for a binomial distribution.
loglik1 <- function(p,n,n.f){
n.f*log(p) + (n-n.f)*log(1-p)
}
m <- optim(c(pi=0.5),loglik1,control=list(fnscale=-1),
n=73,n.f=18)
m
m <- optim(c(pi=0.5),loglik1,method="BFGS",hessian=TRUE,
control=list(fnscale=-1),n=73,n.f=18)
m
pi.hat <- m$par
numerical calculation of s.d
rbind(pi.hat=pi.hat,sd.pi.hat=sqrt(diag(solve(-m$hessian))))
analytical
rbind(pi.hat=18/73,sd.pi.hat=sqrt((pi.hat*(1-pi.hat))/73))
Or this code for the normal distribution.
loglik1 <- function(p,z){
mu <- p[1]
sigma <- p[2]
-(length(z)/2)*log(sigma^2) - sum(z^2)/(2*sigma^2) +
(mu*sum(z)/sigma^2) - (length(z)*mu^2)/(2*sigma^2)
}
m <- optim(c(mu=0,sigma2=0.1),loglik1,
control=list(fnscale=-1),z=aex)