Hello
I would like create an array with numbers from different intervals.
For example, with the following code:
using Distributions
A = rand(Uniform(1,10),1,20)
"A" contains 20 numbers between 1 and 10.
I would like create "B" where "B" contains 20 numbers between 1 and 4, or between 6 and 10 but not between 4 and 6.
Is it possible ?
Thank you
I think for general usecase, you want to make sure that the new probability you're sampling from is still a uniform one, albeit spread across non-connecting ranges.
I hacked together a function that produces a new uniform distribution from multiple disconnected uniform distributions:
using Distributions
function general_uniform(distributions...)
all_dists = [distributions...]
sort!(all_dists, by = D -> minimum(D))
# make sure ranges are non overlapping
#assert all(map(maximum, all_dists)[1:end-1] .<= map(minimum, all_dists)[2:end])
dist_legths = map(D -> maximum(D) - minimum(D), all_dists)
ratios = dist_legths ./ sum(dist_legths)
return MixtureModel(all_dists, Categorical(ratios))
end
Then you can sample from this like this:
B = rand(general_uniform(Uniform(1,4), Uniform(6,10)),1,20)
This will give you a uniform distribution even if your ranges don't have the same length. For example:
general_uniform(Uniform(0,1), Uniform(1,10))
Will sample from range 0-1 with probability of 0.1 and from range 1-10 with probability of 0.9.
For example, the following gives a number around 5:
mean(rand(general_uniform(Uniform(0,9), Uniform(9,10)),1000))
Sure:
numbers = []
for i in 1 : 20
if rand() < 0.5
push!(numbers, rand(Uniform(1,4)))
else
push!(numbers, rand(Uniform(6,10)))
end
end
You can also do a mixture:
D = MixtureModel([Uniform(1,4), Uniform(6,10)], Categorical([0.5,0.5]))
rand(D, 1, 20)
Here you have to specify a probability distribution over which uniform distribution to select from, hence the Categorical. The code above samples from each uniform range with equal probability. You can adjust the weighting by changing the Categorical as you see fit.
Using a mixture model of two uniform distributions
rand(MixtureModel(Uniform[Uniform(1,4),Uniform(6,10)]),1,20)
edit :: this sampling is only correct if the size of the intervals is equal!
hth!
Related
I'm working with a dataset where the values of my variable of interest are hidden. I have the range (min max), mean, and sd of this variable and for each observation, I have information on which decile the value for observation lies in. Is there any way I can impute some values for this variable using the random number generator or rnormal() suite of commands in Stata? Something along the lines of:
set seed 1
gen imputed_var=rnormal(mean,sd,decile) if decile==1
Appreciate any help on this, thanks!
I am not familiar with Stata, but the following may get you in the right direction.
In general, to generate a random number in a certain decile:
Generate a random number in [(decile-1)/10, decile/10], where decile is the desired decile, from 1 through 10.
Find the quantile of the random number just generated.
Thus, in pseudocode, the following will achieve what you want (I'm not sure about the exact names of the corresponding functions in Stata, though, which is why it's pseudocode):
decile = 4 # 4th decile
# Generate a random number in the decile (here, [0.3, 0.4]).
v = runiform((decile-1)/10, decile/10)
# Convert the number to a normal random number
q = qnormal(v) # Quantile of the standard normal distribution
# Scale and shift the number to the desired mean
# and standard deviation
q = q * sd + mean
This is precisely the suggestion just made by #Peter O. I make the same assumption he did: that by a common abuse of terminology, "decile" is your shorthand for decile class, bin or interval. Historically, deciles are values corresponding to cumulative probabilities 0.1(0.1)0.9, not any bins those values delimit.
. clear
. set obs 100
number of observations (_N) was 0, now 100
. set seed 1506
. gen foo = invnormal(runiform(0, 0.1))
. su foo
Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
foo | 100 -1.739382 .3795648 -3.073447 -1.285071
and (closer to your variable names)
gen wanted = invnormal(runiform(0.1 * (decile - 1), 0.1 * decile))
Suppose i provide you with random seeds between 0 and 1 but after some observations you find out that my seeds are not distributed properly and most of them are less than 0.5, would you still be able to use this source by using an algorithm that makes the seeds more distributed?
If yes, please provide me with necessary sources.
It really depends on how numbers are distributed in interval [0...1]. In general, you need CDF (cumulative distribution function) to map some arbitrary [0...1] domain distribution into uniform [0...1]. But for some particular cases you could do some simple transformation. Code below (in Python) first construct simple unfair RNG which generates 60% of numbers below 0.5 and 40% above.
import random
def unfairRng():
q = random.random()
if q < 0.6: # result is skewed toward [0...0.5] interval
return 0.5*random.random()
return 0.5 + 0.5*random.random()
random.seed(312345)
nof_trials = 100000
h = [0, 0]
for k in range(0, nof_trials):
q = unfairRng()
h[0 if q < 0.5 else 1] += 1
print(h)
I count then numbers above and below 0.5, and output on my machine is
[60086, 39914]
which is quite close to 60/40 split I described.
Ok, let's "fix" RNG by taking numbers from unfairRNG and alternating just returning value and next time returning 1-value. Again, Python code
def fairRng():
if (fairRng.even == 0):
fairRng.even = 1
return unfairRng()
else:
fairRng.even = 0
return 1.0 - unfairRng()
fairRng.even = 0
h = [0, 0]
for k in range(0, nof_trials):
q = fairRng()
h[0 if q < 0.5 else 1] += 1
print(h)
Again, counting histogram and result is
[49917, 50083]
which "fix" unfair RNG and make it fair.
Flipping a coin out of an unfair coin is done by flipping twice and, if the results are different, using the first; otherwise, discard the result.
This results in a coin with exactly 50/50 chance, but it's not guaranteed to run in finite time.
Random number sequences generated by any algorithm will have no more entropy ("randomness") than the seeds themselves. For instance, if each seed has an entropy of only 1 bit for every 64 bits, they can each be transformed, at least in theory, to a 1 bit random number with full entropy. However, measuring the entropy of those seeds is nontrivial (entropy estimation). Moreover, not every algorithm is suitable in all cases for extracting the entropy of random seeds (entropy extraction, randomness extraction).
I'm searching for an algorithm (no matter what programming language, maybe Pseudo-code?) where you get a random number with different probability's.
For example:
A random Generator, which simulates a dice where the chance for a '6'
is 50% and for the other 5 numbers it's 10%.
The algorithm should be scalable, because this is my exact problem:
I have a array (or database) of elements, from which i want to
select 1 random element. But each element should have a different
probability to be selected. So my idea is that every element get a
number. And this number divided by the sum of all numbers results the
chance for the number to be randomly selected.
Anybody know a good programming language (or library) for this problem?
The best solution would be a good SQL Query which delivers 1 random entry.
But i would also be happy with every hint or attempt in an other programming language.
A simple algorithm to achieve it is:
Create an auexillary array where sum[i] = p1 + p2 + ... + pi. This is done only once.
When you draw a number, draw a number r with uniform distribution over [0,sum[n]), and binary search for the first number higher than the uniformly distributed random number. It can be done using binary search efficiently.
It is easy to see that indeed the probability for r to lay in a certain range [sum[i-1],sum[i]), is indeed sum[i]-sum[i-1] = pi
(In the above, we regard sum[-1]=0, for completeness)
For your cube example:
You have:
p1=p2=....=p5 = 0.1
p6 = 0.5
First, calculate sum array:
sum[1] = 0.1
sum[2] = 0.2
sum[3] = 0.3
sum[4] = 0.4
sum[5] = 0.5
sum[6] = 1
Then, each time you need to draw a number: Draw a random number r in [0,1), and choose the number closest to it, for example:
r1 = 0.45 -> element = 4
r2 = 0.8 -> element = 6
r3 = 0.1 -> element = 2
r4 = 0.09 -> element = 1
An alternative answer. Your example was in percentages, so set up an array with 100 slots. A 6 is 50%, so put 6 in 50 of the slots. 1 to 5 are at 10% each, so put 1 in 10 slots, 2 in 10 slots etc. until you have filled all 100 slots in the array. Now pick one of the slots at random using a uniform distribution in [0, 99] or [1, 100] depending on the language you are using.
The contents of the selected array slot will give you the distribution you want.
ETA: On second thoughts, you don't actually need the array, just use cumulative probabilities to emulate the array:
r = rand(100) // In range 0 -> 99 inclusive.
if (r < 50) return 6; // Up to 50% returns a 6.
if (r < 60) return 1; // Between 50% and 60% returns a 1.
if (r < 70) return 2; // Between 60% and 70% returns a 2.
etc.
You already know what numbers are in what slots, so just use cumulative probabilities to pick a virtual slot: 50; 50 + 10; 50 + 10 + 10; ...
Be careful of edge cases and whether your RNG is 0 -> 99 or 1 -> 100.
I'm trying to generate some random numbers with simple non-uniform probability to mimic lifelike data for testing purposes. I'm looking for a function that accepts mu and sigma as parameters and returns x where the probably of x being within certain ranges follows a standard bell curve, or thereabouts. It needn't be super precise or even efficient. The resulting dataset needn't match the exact mu and sigma that I set. I'm just looking for a relatively simple non-uniform random number generator. Limiting the set of possible return values to ints would be fine. I've seen many suggestions out there, but none that seem to fit this simple case.
Box-Muller transform in a nutshell:
First, get two independent, uniform random numbers from the interval (0, 1], call them U and V.
Then you can get two independent, unit-normal distributed random numbers from the formulae
X = sqrt(-2 * log(U)) * cos(2 * pi * V);
Y = sqrt(-2 * log(U)) * sin(2 * pi * V);
This gives you iid random numbers for mu = 0, sigma = 1; to set sigma = s, multiply your random numbers by s; to set mu = m, add m to your random numbers.
My first thought is why can't you use an existing library? I'm sure that most languages already have a library for generating Normal random numbers.
If for some reason you can't use an existing library, then the method outlined by #ellisbben is fairly simple to program. An even simpler (approximate) algorithm is just to sum 12 uniform numbers:
X = -6 ## We set X to be -mean value of 12 uniforms
for i in 1 to 12:
X += U
The value of X is approximately normal. The following figure shows 10^5 draws from this algorithm compared to the Normal distribution.
How can I convert a uniform distribution (as most random number generators produce, e.g. between 0.0 and 1.0) into a normal distribution? What if I want a mean and standard deviation of my choosing?
There are plenty of methods:
Do not use Box Muller. Especially if you draw many gaussian numbers. Box Muller yields a result which is clamped between -6 and 6 (assuming double precision. Things worsen with floats.). And it is really less efficient than other available methods.
Ziggurat is fine, but needs a table lookup (and some platform-specific tweaking due to cache size issues)
Ratio-of-uniforms is my favorite, only a few addition/multiplications and a log 1/50th of the time (eg. look there).
Inverting the CDF is efficient (and overlooked, why ?), you have fast implementations of it available if you search google. It is mandatory for Quasi-Random numbers.
The Ziggurat algorithm is pretty efficient for this, although the Box-Muller transform is easier to implement from scratch (and not crazy slow).
Changing the distribution of any function to another involves using the inverse of the function you want.
In other words, if you aim for a specific probability function p(x) you get the distribution by integrating over it -> d(x) = integral(p(x)) and use its inverse: Inv(d(x)). Now use the random probability function (which have uniform distribution) and cast the result value through the function Inv(d(x)). You should get random values cast with distribution according to the function you chose.
This is the generic math approach - by using it you can now choose any probability or distribution function you have as long as it have inverse or good inverse approximation.
Hope this helped and thanks for the small remark about using the distribution and not the probability itself.
Here is a javascript implementation using the polar form of the Box-Muller transformation.
/*
* Returns member of set with a given mean and standard deviation
* mean: mean
* standard deviation: std_dev
*/
function createMemberInNormalDistribution(mean,std_dev){
return mean + (gaussRandom()*std_dev);
}
/*
* Returns random number in normal distribution centering on 0.
* ~95% of numbers returned should fall between -2 and 2
* ie within two standard deviations
*/
function gaussRandom() {
var u = 2*Math.random()-1;
var v = 2*Math.random()-1;
var r = u*u + v*v;
/*if outside interval [0,1] start over*/
if(r == 0 || r >= 1) return gaussRandom();
var c = Math.sqrt(-2*Math.log(r)/r);
return u*c;
/* todo: optimize this algorithm by caching (v*c)
* and returning next time gaussRandom() is called.
* left out for simplicity */
}
Where R1, R2 are random uniform numbers:
NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, with SD of 1:
sqrt(-2*log(R1))*cos(2*pi*R2)
This is exact... no need to do all those slow loops!
Reference: dspguide.com/ch2/6.htm
Use the central limit theorem wikipedia entry mathworld entry to your advantage.
Generate n of the uniformly distributed numbers, sum them, subtract n*0.5 and you have the output of an approximately normal distribution with mean equal to 0 and variance equal to (1/12) * (1/sqrt(N)) (see wikipedia on uniform distributions for that last one)
n=10 gives you something half decent fast. If you want something more than half decent go for tylers solution (as noted in the wikipedia entry on normal distributions)
I would use Box-Muller. Two things about this:
You end up with two values per iteration
Typically, you cache one value and return the other. On the next call for a sample, you return the cached value.
Box-Muller gives a Z-score
You have to then scale the Z-score by the standard deviation and add the mean to get the full value in the normal distribution.
It seems incredible that I could add something to this after eight years, but for the case of Java I would like to point readers to the Random.nextGaussian() method, which generates a Gaussian distribution with mean 0.0 and standard deviation 1.0 for you.
A simple addition and/or multiplication will change the mean and standard deviation to your needs.
The standard Python library module random has what you want:
normalvariate(mu, sigma)
Normal distribution. mu is the mean, and sigma is the standard deviation.
For the algorithm itself, take a look at the function in random.py in the Python library.
The manual entry is here
This is a Matlab implementation using the polar form of the Box-Muller transformation:
Function randn_box_muller.m:
function [values] = randn_box_muller(n, mean, std_dev)
if nargin == 1
mean = 0;
std_dev = 1;
end
r = gaussRandomN(n);
values = r.*std_dev - mean;
end
function [values] = gaussRandomN(n)
[u, v, r] = gaussRandomNValid(n);
c = sqrt(-2*log(r)./r);
values = u.*c;
end
function [u, v, r] = gaussRandomNValid(n)
r = zeros(n, 1);
u = zeros(n, 1);
v = zeros(n, 1);
filter = r==0 | r>=1;
% if outside interval [0,1] start over
while n ~= 0
u(filter) = 2*rand(n, 1)-1;
v(filter) = 2*rand(n, 1)-1;
r(filter) = u(filter).*u(filter) + v(filter).*v(filter);
filter = r==0 | r>=1;
n = size(r(filter),1);
end
end
And invoking histfit(randn_box_muller(10000000),100); this is the result:
Obviously it is really inefficient compared with the Matlab built-in randn.
This is my JavaScript implementation of Algorithm P (Polar method for normal deviates) from Section 3.4.1 of Donald Knuth's book The Art of Computer Programming:
function normal_random(mean,stddev)
{
var V1
var V2
var S
do{
var U1 = Math.random() // return uniform distributed in [0,1[
var U2 = Math.random()
V1 = 2*U1-1
V2 = 2*U2-1
S = V1*V1+V2*V2
}while(S >= 1)
if(S===0) return 0
return mean+stddev*(V1*Math.sqrt(-2*Math.log(S)/S))
}
I thing you should try this in EXCEL: =norminv(rand();0;1). This will product the random numbers which should be normally distributed with the zero mean and unite variance. "0" can be supplied with any value, so that the numbers will be of desired mean, and by changing "1", you will get the variance equal to the square of your input.
For example: =norminv(rand();50;3) will yield to the normally distributed numbers with MEAN = 50 VARIANCE = 9.
Q How can I convert a uniform distribution (as most random number generators produce, e.g. between 0.0 and 1.0) into a normal distribution?
For software implementation I know couple random generator names which give you a pseudo uniform random sequence in [0,1] (Mersenne Twister, Linear Congruate Generator). Let's call it U(x)
It is exist mathematical area which called probibility theory.
First thing: If you want to model r.v. with integral distribution F then you can try just to evaluate F^-1(U(x)). In pr.theory it was proved that such r.v. will have integral distribution F.
Step 2 can be appliable to generate r.v.~F without usage of any counting methods when F^-1 can be derived analytically without problems. (e.g. exp.distribution)
To model normal distribution you can cacculate y1*cos(y2), where y1~is uniform in[0,2pi]. and y2 is the relei distribution.
Q: What if I want a mean and standard deviation of my choosing?
You can calculate sigma*N(0,1)+m.
It can be shown that such shifting and scaling lead to N(m,sigma)
I have the following code which maybe could help:
set.seed(123)
n <- 1000
u <- runif(n) #creates U
x <- -log(u)
y <- runif(n, max=u*sqrt((2*exp(1))/pi)) #create Y
z <- ifelse (y < dnorm(x)/2, -x, NA)
z <- ifelse ((y > dnorm(x)/2) & (y < dnorm(x)), x, z)
z <- z[!is.na(z)]
It is also easier to use the implemented function rnorm() since it is faster than writing a random number generator for the normal distribution. See the following code as prove
n <- length(z)
t0 <- Sys.time()
z <- rnorm(n)
t1 <- Sys.time()
t1-t0
function distRandom(){
do{
x=random(DISTRIBUTION_DOMAIN);
}while(random(DISTRIBUTION_RANGE)>=distributionFunction(x));
return x;
}