What does this mean:
Find discrete multivariate distributions which have explicit formula for their joint probability generating function?
Please if anyone understand this question , just give an example or expression for me!
I am assuming that you know what an MGF is. So, looking at this question, you will have to find the MGFS of multiple variate distributions.
For example,
Lets take the Poisson distribution.
1. It is univariate
2. It is discrete
and has an MGF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
MGF can be calculated by E(e^tx) for any distribution.
Related
I am given the following problem.
I have a Set of functions which are linear combinations of the following functions (f1,f2,f3....fn) and a noisy dataset of pairs (x,y). I want to find a function from my set which approximates the dataset the best.
They key to finding the solution is to find coefficients a1,a2...an so that the resulting function f=a1*f1...an*fn approximates y well given the input x. If the data wasnt noisy, I could just choose 5 points and solve the resulting system of equations but I dont think this would work well with noisy data.
How would one find the coefficients ?
(I am asking for an algorithm and not for a program, for example matlab, that does the job for me)
In presence of noise you need to find some approximation solution, that minimizes discrepancies with ideal solution.
Such best fit problems are usually solved by optimization algorithms.
Widely used one is Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm.
I know many uniform random number generators(RNGs) based on some algorithms, physical systems and so on. Eventually, all these lead to uniformly distributed random numbers. It's interesting and important to know whether there is Gaussian RNGs, i.e. the algorithm or something else creates Gaussian random numbers. Much precisely I want to say that I don't want to use transformations such as Box–Muller or Marsaglia polar method to get Gaussian from Uniform RNGs. I am interested if there is some paper, algorithm or even idea to create Gaussian random numbers without any of use Uniform RNGs. It's just to say we pretend that we don't know there exist Uniform random number generators.
As already noted in answers/comments, by virtue of CLT some sum of any iid random number could be made into some reasonable looking gaussian. If incoming stream is uniform, this is basically Bates distribution. Ami Tavory answer is pretty much amounts to using Bates in disguise. You could look at closely related Irwin-Hall distribution, and at n=12 or higher they look a lot like gaussian.
There is one method which is used in practice and does not rely on transformation of the U(0,1) - Wallace method (Wallace, C. S. 1996. "Fast Pseudorandom Generators for Normal and Exponential Variates." ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software.), or gaussian pool method. I would advice to read description here and see if it fits your purpose
As others have noted, it's a bit unclear what is your motivation for this, and therefore I'm not sure if the following answers your question.
Nevertheless, it is possible to generate (an approximation of) this without the specific formulas transforming uniform RNGs that you mention.
As with any RNG, we have to have some source of randomness (or pseudo-randomness). I'm assuming, therefore, that there is some limitless sequence of binary bits which are independently equally likely to be 0 or 1 (note that it's possible to counter that this is a uniform discrete binary RNG, so I'm unsure if this answers your question).
Choose some large fixed n. For each invocation of the RNG, generate n such bits, sum them as x, and return
(2 x - 1) / √n
By the de Moivre–Laplace theorem this is normal with mean 0 and variance 1.
I'm trying to implement the 1-D Pseudo Wigner Distribution. The distribution has this expression:
where n and k represent time and frequency, m is the shifting parameter. z[n] is a vector and z* is the complex conjugate. The author of this article say that
it can be interpreted as the Discrete Fourier Transform of the product z[n+m]z*[n-m].
I would like to know which is the smartest and fastest way to implement this (in particular the product z[m+n]z*[n-m], if I get this then I can apply the fft) because I need to use this expression a lot of times. Any help is greatly appreciated!
I would like to generate some pseudorandom numbers on (-infinity, infinity) with a Gaussian distribution of standard deviation s and mean m. Any suggestions about how to do this? I'd appreciate any help in the right direction, as there seems to be a huge literature out there as how best to generate pseudorandom numbers.
You can generate a Gaussian distribution (also known as a normal distribution) buy using a uniform random number generator and an appropriate algorithm. Check out [stackoverflow link to Gaussian algorithms][1]
Do you really want to go from +/- infinity? Does that make sense?
A simple algorithm to use is the Box-Muller method.
Normal Dist. Random # = SQRT(-2*LN(RAND()))*SIN(2*PI()*RAND())
The Box-Muller method is mathematically exact if implemented with a perfect uniform random number generator and infinite precision. (oops.. in that formula, mu/mean =0 and sigma = 1 and random #'s are between 0 and 1) see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Box-MullerTransformation.html
I'm writing a program that simulates various random walks (with differing distributions). At each timestep, I need randomly generated, two dimensional step distances and angles from the distribution of the random walk. I'm hoping someone can check my understanding of how to generate these random numbers.
As I understand it I can use Inverse Transform Sampling as follows:
If f(x) is the pdf of our random walk that has a non-uniform distribution, and y is a random number from a uniform distribution.
Then if we let f(x) = y and solve to find x then we have a random number from the non-uniform distribution.
Is this a feasible solution?
Not quite. The function that needs to be inverted is not f(x), the pdf, but F(x)=P(X<=x)=int_{-inf}^{x}f(t)dt, the cdf. The good thing is that F is monotone, so actually has a unique inverse (unlike f).
There are multiple other ways of generating random numbers according to a given distribution. For example, if the cdf F is difficult to compute or to invert, rejection sampling can be a good option if f is easy to compute.
You are close, but not quite. Every probability density function (pdf) has a corresponding cumulative density function (cdf). An important property about CDF(x) is that they are always between 0 and 1. Because it is relatively easy to draw a random number between 0 and 1, we can use that to work our way backwards to the distribution. So changing the word pdf to CDF in your question makes the statement correct.
As an aside for this to make sense computationally you need to find an easy to calculate inverse of the CDF. One way to do this is to fit a polynomial approximation to the CDF and find the inverse of that function. There are more advanced techniques for simulating probability distributions with messy distributions. See this book chapter for the details.