Hello and thanks in advance for the help!
A while back I asked a question about randomly selecting values according to a probability distribution. This is related, but I think it deserves its own post.
The vector I created in the last question was binary, now I would like to generate a weighted vector (ie with bounded integers). I am sampling from a zero-inflated or quasi-poisson distribution with a long tail, so there is a much higher probability of selecting a zero than another value, but there is a finite probability of selecting a large value (eg 63).
I can use rpois to select values from a poisson distribution and create a vector of a given length. This is similar to what I would like to do, so I will use it as an example.
e=seq(0:63)
vec<-c(0,0,0,1,1,1)
ones <- which(vec == 1L)
temp=rpois((sum(vec)),e)
vec[ones]<-temp
This works well for assigning a specific number of values selected from a poisson distribution to a vector. Is there anyway to make it quasi-poisson or zero inflated?
There's a big list of the different distributions here: http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Distributions.html
For zero inflated poisson...
install.packages("gamlss.dist")
library(gamlss.dist)
rZIP(n, mu, sigma)
For quasi-poisson, it looks like there are some capabilities within the VGAM package with quasipoissonff, but that seems to be for fitting rather than generating. It looks like Arthur Charpentier was on to something here - but you really need to know what you're looking for to get the distribution right: http://freakonometrics.blog.free.fr/index.php?post/2010/10/21/How-to-genrerate-variables-from-a-quasi-Poisson-distribution
Related
Recently I read "The BUGS Book – A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis" to learn WinBUGS. The way WinBUGS describes the derivation of posterior distribution makes me feel confused.
Let's take Example 4.1.1 in this book to illustrae:
Suppose we observe the number of deaths y in a given hospital for a
high-risk operation. Let n denote the total number of such
operations performed and suppose we wish to make inferences regarding
the underlying true mortality rate, $\theta$.
The code of WinBUGS is:
y <- 10 # the number of deaths
n <- 100 # the total number of such operations
#########################
y ~ dbin(theta,n) # likelihood, also a parametric sampling distribution
logit(theta) <- logit.theta # normal prior for the logistic transform of theta
logit.theta ~ dnorm(0,0.368) # precision = 1/2.71
The author said that:
The software knows how to derive the posterior distribution and
subsequently sample from it.
My question is:
Which code reflects the logic structure to tell WinBUGS about "which parameter that I want to calculate its posterior distribution"?
This question seems silly, but if I do not read the background first, I truly cannot find directly in the code above about which parameter is focused on (e.g., theta, or y?).
Below are some of my thoughts (as a beginner of WinBUGS):
I think the following three attributions of the code style in WinBUGS makes me confused:
(1) the code does not follow "a specific sequence". For example, why is logit.theta ~ dnorm(0,0.368) not in front of logit(theta) <- logit.theta?
(2) repeated variable. Foe example, why did the last two lines not be reduced into one line: logit(theta) ~ dnorm(0,0.368)?
(3) variables are defined in more than one place. For example, y is defined two times: y <- 10 and y ~ dbin(theta, n). This one has been explained in Appendix A of the book (i.e., However, a check has been built in so that when finding a logical node that also features as a stochastic node, a stochastic node is created with the calculated values as fixed data), yet I still cannot catch its meaning.
BUGS is a declarative language. For the most part, statements aren't executed in sequence, they define different parts of the model. BUGS works on models that can be represented by directed acyclic graphs, i.e. those where you put a prior on some components, then conditional distributions on other components given the earlier ones.
It's a fairly simple language, so I think logit(theta) ~ dnorm(0, 0.368) is just too complicated for it.
The language lets you define a complicated probability model, and declare observations of certain components in it. Once you declare an observation, the model that BUGS samples from is the the original full model conditioned on that observation. y <- 10 defines observed data. y ~ dbin(theta,n) is part of the model.
The statement n <- 100 could be either: for fixed constants like n, it doesn't really matter which way you think of it. Either the model says that n is always 100, or n has an undeclared prior distribution not depending on any other parameter, and an observed value of 100. These two statements are equivalent.
Finally, your big question: Nothing in the code above says which parameter you want to look at. BUGS will compute the joint posterior distribution of every parameter. n and y will take on their fixed values, theta and logit.theta will both be simulated from the posterior. In another part of your code (or by using the WinBUGS menus) you can decide which of those to look at.
I've tried to contact William Revelle about this but he isn't responding.
In the psych package there is a function called cor.smoother, which determines whether or not a correlation matrix is positive definite. Its explanation is as follows:
"cor.smoother examines all of nvar minors of rank nvar-1 by systematically dropping one variable at a time and finding the eigen value decomposition. It reports those variables, which, when dropped, produce a positive definite matrix. It also reports the number of negative eigenvalues when each variable is dropped. Finally, it compares the original correlation matrix to the smoothed correlation matrix and reports those items with absolute deviations great than cut. These are all hints as to what might be wrong with a correlation matrix."
It is the really the statement in bold that I am hoping someone can interpret in a more understandable way for me?
A belated answer to your question.
Correlation matrices are said to be improper (or more accurately, not positive semi-definite) when at least one of the eigen values of the matrix is less than 0. This can happen if you have some missing data and are using pair-wise complete correlations. It is particularly likely to happen if you are doing tetrachoric or polychoric correlations based upon data sets with some or even a lot of missing data.
(A correlation matrix, R, may be decomposed into a set of eigen vectors (X) and eigen values (lambda) where R = X lambda X’. This decomposition is the basis of components analysis and factor analysis, but that is more than you want to know.)
The cor.smooth function finds the eigen values and then adjusts the negative ones by making them slightly positive (and adjusting the other ones to compensate for this change).
The cor.smoother function attempts to identify the variables that are making the matrix improper. It does this by considering all the matrices generated by dropping one variable at a time and seeing which ones of those are not positive semi-definite (i.e. have eigen values < 0.) Ideally, this will identify one variable that is messing things up.
An example of this is in the burt data set where the sorrow-tenderness correlation was probably mistyped and the .87 should be .81.
cor.smoother(burt) #identifies tenderness and sorrow as likely culprits
Perhaps this is a philosophical question rather than a programming question, but here goes...
In R, is there some package or method that will let you deal with "less than"s as a concept?
Backstory: I have some data which, for privacy reasons, is given as <5 for small numbers (representing integers 1, 2, 3 or 4, in fact). I'd like to do some simple arithmetic on this data (adding, subtracting, averaging, etc.) but obviously I need to find some way to deal with these <5s conceptually. I could replace them all with NAs, sure, but of course that's throwing away potentially useful information, and I would like to avoid that if possible.
Some examples of what I mean:
a <- c(2,3,8)
b <- c(<5,<5,8)
mean(a)
> 4.3333
mean(b)
> 3.3333 -> 5.3333
If you are interested in the values at the bounds, I would take each dataset and split it into two datasets; one with all <5s set to 1 and one with all <5s set to 4.
a <- c(2,3,8)
b1 <- c(1,1,8)
b2 <- c(4,4,8)
mean(a)
# 4.333333
mean(b1)
# 3.3333
mean(b2)
# 5.3333
Following #hedgedandlevered proposal, but he's wrong wrt normal and/or uniform. You ask for integer numbers, so you have to use discrete distributions, like Poisson, binomial (including negative one), geometric etc
In statistics "less than" data is known as "left censored" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censoring_(statistics), searching on "censored data" might help.
My favoured approach to analysing such data is maximum likelihood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood. There are a number of R packages for maximum likelihood estimation, I like the survival package https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survival/index.html but there are others, e.g. fitdistrplus https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fitdistrplus/index.html which "provides functions for fitting univariate distributions to different types of data (continuous censored or non-censored data and discrete data) and allowing different estimation methods (maximum likelihood, moment matching, quantile matching and maximum goodness-of-t estimation)".
You will have to specify (assume?) the form of the distribution of the data; you say it is integer so maybe a Poisson [related] distribution may be appropriate.
Treat them as a certain probability distribution of your choosing, and replace them with actual randomly generated numbers. All equal to 2.5, normal-like distribution capped at 0 and 5, uniform on [0,5] are all options
I deal with similar data regularly. I strongly dislike any of the suggestions of replacing the <5 values with a particular number. Consider the following two cases:
c(<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,6,12,18)
c(<5,6,12,18)
The problem comes when you try to do arithmetic with these.
I think a solution to your issue is to think of the values as factors (in the R sense. You can bin the values above 5 too if that helps, for example
c(<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,<5,5-9,10-14,15-19)
c(<5,5-9,10-14,15-19)
Now, you still wouldn't do arithmetic on these, but your summary statistics (histograms/proportion tables/etc...) would make more sense.
I am using the OptimalCutpoints package in R to find the optimal cutoff point from ROC curve. The criterion for finding the optimal threshold is maximizing Youden's index:
J = sensitivity + specificity - 1
I am trying to do the same in matlab with the function perfcurve. I run perfcurve with the default criteria for two axis, the FPR in x-coordinates and TPR in y-coordinates. The perfcurve returns a matrix with thresholds and chooses one of them according to the criteria.
The problem is that the optimal threshold that matlab gives, is not the same as in R. However, the optimal threshold according to R is included in the threshold matrix that matlab returns.
How can I replicate the results that R returns with the ones in matlab? I am suspecting that the criteria are not correctly set in matlab for Youden's index.
If you look at the documentation for perfcurve (specifically the OPTROCPT row), you would see that the formula that matlab uses to find the best threshold is quite different, and includes a cost matrix in the optimality criterion.
If you want to replicate what is done in R exactly, use the X and Y return values to compute the Youden index for each threshold, and then choose the best (see how to find max and it's index in array in matlab for some idea how to do it).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
how to generate pseudo-random positive definite matrix with constraints on the off-diagonal elements?
The user wants to impose a unique, non-trivial, upper/lower bound on the correlation between every pair of variable in a var/covar matrix.
For example: I want a variance matrix in which all variables have 0.9 > |rho(x_i,x_j)| > 0.6, rho(x_i,x_j) being the correlation between variables x_i and x_j.
Thanks.
There are MANY issues here.
First of all, are the pseudo-random deviates assumed to be normally distributed? I'll assume they are, as any discussion of correlation matrices gets nasty if we diverge into non-normal distributions.
Next, it is rather simple to generate pseudo-random normal deviates, given a covariance matrix. Generate standard normal (independent) deviates, and then transform by multiplying by the Cholesky factor of the covariance matrix. Add in the mean at the end if the mean was not zero.
And, a covariance matrix is also rather simple to generate given a correlation matrix. Just pre and post multiply the correlation matrix by a diagonal matrix composed of the standard deviations. This scales a correlation matrix into a covariance matrix.
I'm still not sure where the problem lies in this question, since it would seem easy enough to generate a "random" correlation matrix, with elements uniformly distributed in the desired range.
So all of the above is rather trivial by any reasonable standards, and there are many tools out there to generate pseudo-random normal deviates given the above information.
Perhaps the issue is the user insists that the resulting random matrix of deviates must have correlations in the specified range. You must recognize that a set of random numbers will only have the desired distribution parameters in an asymptotic sense. Thus, as the sample size goes to infinity, you should expect to see the specified distribution parameters. But any small sample set will not necessarily have the desired parameters, in the desired ranges.
For example, (in MATLAB) here is a simple positive definite 3x3 matrix. As such, it makes a very nice covariance matrix.
S = randn(3);
S = S'*S
S =
0.78863 0.01123 -0.27879
0.01123 4.9316 3.5732
-0.27879 3.5732 2.7872
I'll convert S into a correlation matrix.
s = sqrt(diag(S));
C = diag(1./s)*S*diag(1./s)
C =
1 0.0056945 -0.18804
0.0056945 1 0.96377
-0.18804 0.96377 1
Now, I can sample from a normal distribution using the statistics toolbox (mvnrnd should do the trick.) As easy is to use a Cholesky factor.
L = chol(S)
L =
0.88805 0.012646 -0.31394
0 2.2207 1.6108
0 0 0.30643
Now, generate pseudo-random deviates, then transform them as desired.
X = randn(20,3)*L;
cov(X)
ans =
0.79069 -0.14297 -0.45032
-0.14297 6.0607 4.5459
-0.45032 4.5459 3.6549
corr(X)
ans =
1 -0.06531 -0.2649
-0.06531 1 0.96587
-0.2649 0.96587 1
If your desire was that the correlations must ALWAYS be greater than -0.188, then this sampling technique has failed, since the numbers are pseudo-random. In fact, that goal will be a difficult one to achieve unless your sample size is large enough.
You might employ a simple rejection scheme, whereby you do the sampling, then redo it repeatedly until the sample has the desired properties, with the correlations in the desired ranges. This may get tiring.
An approach that might work (but one that I've not totally thought out at this point) is to use the standard scheme as above to generate a random sample. Compute the correlations. I they fail to lie in the proper ranges, then identify the perturbation one would need to make to the actual (measured) covariance matrix of your data, so that the correlations would be as desired. Now, find a zero mean random perturbation to your sampled data that would move the sample covariance matrix in the desired direction.
This might work, but unless I knew that this is actually the question at hand, I won't bother to go any more deeply into it. (Edit: I've thought some more about this problem, and it appears to be a quadratic programming problem, with quadratic constraints, to find the smallest perturbation to a matrix X, such that the resulting covariance (or correlation) matrix has the desired properties.)
This is not a complete answer, but a suggestion of a possible constructive method:
Looking at the characterizations of the positive definite matrices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive-definite_matrix) I think one of the most affordable approaches could be using the Sylvester criterion.
You can start with a trivial 1x1 random matrix with positive determinant and expand it in one row and column step by step while ensuring that the new matrix has also a positive determinant (how to achieve that is up to you ^_^).
Woodship,
"First of all, are the pseudo-random deviates assumed to be normally distributed?"
yes.
"Perhaps the issue is the user insists that the resulting random matrix of deviates must have correlations in the specified range."
Yes, that's the whole difficulty
"You must recognize that a set of random numbers will only have the desired distribution parameters in an asymptotic sense."
True, but this is not the problem here: your strategy works for p=2, but fails for p>2, regardless of sample size.
"If your desire was that the correlations must ALWAYS be greater than -0.188, then this sampling technique has failed, since the numbers are pseudo-random. In fact, that goal will be a difficult one to achieve unless your sample size is large enough."
It is not a sample size issue b/c with p>2 you do not even observe convergence to the right range for the correlations, as sample size growths: i tried the technique you suggest before posting here, it obviously is flawed.
"You might employ a simple rejection scheme, whereby you do the sampling, then redo it repeatedly until the sample has the desired properties, with the correlations in the desired ranges. This may get tiring."
Not an option, for p large (say larger than 10) this option is intractable.
"Compute the correlations. I they fail to lie in the proper ranges, then identify the perturbation one would need to make to the actual (measured) covariance matrix of your data, so that the correlations would be as desired."
Ditto
As for the QP, i understand the constraints, but i'm not sure about the way you define the objective function; by using the "smallest perturbation" off some initial matrix, you will always end up getting the same (solution) matrix: all the off diagonal entries will be exactly equal to either one of the two bounds (e.g. not pseudo random); plus it is kind of an overkill isn't it ?
Come on people, there must be something simpler