I am trying to generate a skewed trapezoidal distribution using inverse transform sampling.
The inputs are the values where the ramps start and end (a, b, c, d) and the sample size.
a=-3;b=-1;c=1;d=8;
SampleSize=10e4;
h=2/(d+c-a-b);
Then I calculate the ratio of the length of ramps and flat components to get sample size for each:
firstramp=round(((b-a)/(d-a)),3);
flat=round((c-b)/(d-a),3);
secondramp=round((d-c)/(d-a),3);
n1=firstramp*SampleSize; %sample size for first ramp
n3=secondramp*SampleSize; %sample size for second ramp
n2=flat*SampleSize;
And then finally I get the histogram from the following code:
quartile1=h/2*(b-a);
quartile2=1-h/2*(d-c);
y1=linspace(0,quartile1,n1);
y2=linspace(quartile1,quartile2,n2);
y3=linspace(quartile2,1,n3);
%inverse cumulative distribution functions
invcdf1=a+sqrt(2*(b-a)/h)*sqrt(y1);
invcdf2=(a+b)/2+y2/h;
invcdf3=d-sqrt(2*(d-c)/h)*sqrt(1-y3);
distr=[invcdf1 invcdf2 invcdf3];
histogram(distr,100)
However the sampling of ramps and flat components are not equal, looks like this:
I fixed this by trial and error, by reducing the sample size of the ramps by half:
n1=0.5*firstramp*SampleSize; %sample size for first ramp
n3=0.5*secondramp*SampleSize; %sample size for second ramp
n2=flat*SampleSize;
This made the distribution look like this:
However this makes the output sample less than what is given in input.
I've also tried different combinations of changing the sample sizes of ramps and flat.
This also works:
n1=0.75*firstramp*SampleSize; %sample size for first ramp
n3=0.75*secondramp*SampleSize; %sample size for second ramp
n2=1.5*flat*SampleSize;
It increases the output samples, but it's still not close.
Any help will be appreciated.
Full code:
a=-3;b=-1;c=1;d=8;
SampleSize=10e4;%*1.33333333333333;
h=2/(d+c-a-b);
firstramp=round(((b-a)/(d-a)),3);
flat=round((c-b)/(d-a),3);
secondramp=round((d-c)/(d-a),3);
n1=firstramp*SampleSize; %sample size for first ramp
n3=secondramp*SampleSize; %sample size for second ramp
n2=flat*SampleSize;
quartile1=h/2*(b-a);
quartile2=1-h/2*(d-c);
y1=linspace(0,quartile1,.75*n1);
y2=linspace(quartile1,quartile2,1.5*n2);
y3=linspace(quartile2,1,.75*n3);
%inverse cumulative distribution functions
invcdf1=a+sqrt(2*(b-a)/h)*sqrt(y1);
invcdf2=(a+b)/2+y2/h;
invcdf3=d-sqrt(2*(d-c)/h)*sqrt(1-y3);
distr=[invcdf1 invcdf2 invcdf3];
histogram(distr,100)
%end
I don't know Matlab so I was hoping somebody else would jump in on this, but since nobody did here goes.
If I'm reading your code correctly what you did is not an inversion. Inversion is 1-1, i.e., one uniform input produces one outcome. You seem to be using a technique known as the "composition method". In composition the overall distribution is comprised of component pieces, each of which is straightforward to generate. You choose which component to generate from based on their proportions/probabilities relative to the whole. For density functions, probability is found as the area under the density curve, so your first mistake was in sampling the components relative to the width of each component rather than using their areas. The correct sampling proportions are 2/13, 4/13, and 7/13 for what you designated the firstramp, flat, and secondramp components, respectively. A second mistake (which is relatively minor) was to assign exact sample sizes to each of the components. Having probability 2/13 does not mean that exactly 2*SampleSize/13 of your samples will be from the firstramp, it means that's the expected sample size for that component. The expected value of a random variate is not necessarily (or even likely to be) the outcome you will actually get.
In pseudocode, the composition approach would be
generate U ~ Uniform(0,1)
if U <= 2/13:
generate and return a value from firstramp
else if U <= 6/13:
generate and return a value from flat
else:
generate and return a value from secondramp
Note that since each of the generate options will use one or more uniforms, and choosing between the options requires a uniform U, this is not an inversion.
If you want an actual inversion, you need to quantify your density, integrate it to get the cumulative distribution function, then apply the inversion technique by setting F(X) = U and solving for X. Since your distribution is made of distinct components, both the density and cumulative density will be piecewise functions.
After deriving the height based on the requirement that the areas of the two triangles and the flat section must add up to 1, I came up with the following for your density:
| (x + 3) / 13 -3 <= x <= -1
|
f(x) = | 2 / 13 -1 <= x <= 1
|
| 2 * (8 - x) / 91 1 <= x <= 8
Integrating this and collecting terms produces the CDF:
| (x + 3)**2 / 26 -3 <= x <= -1
|
F(x) = | (2 + x) * 2 / 13 -1 <= x <= 1
|
| 6 / 13 + [49 - (x - 8)**2] / 91 1 <= x <= 8
Finally, determining the values of F(x) at the break points between the segments and applying inversion yields the following pseudocode algorithm:
generate U ~ Uniform(0,1)
if U <= 2 / 13:
return 2 * sqrt( (13 * U) / 2 ) - 3
else if U <= 6 / 13:
return (13 * U) / 2 - 2:
else:
return 8 - sqrt( 91 * (1 - U) )
Note that this is a true inversion. The outcome is determined by generating a single U, and transforming it in different ways depending on which range it falls in.
I am having a hard time with the question below. I am not sure if I got it correct, but either way, I need some help futher understanding it if anyone has time to explain, please do.
Design L1 and L2 distance functions to assess the similarity of bank customers. Each customer is characterized by the following attributes:
− Age (customer’s age, which is a real number with the maximum age is 90 years and minimum age 15 years)
− Cr (“credit rating”) which is ordinal attribute with values ‘very good’, ‘good, ‘medium’, ‘poor’, and ‘very poor’.
− Av_bal (avg account balance, which is a real number with mean 7000, standard deviation is 4000)
Using the L1 distance function computes the distance between the following 2 customers: c1 = (55, good, 7000) and c2 = (25, poor, 1000). [15 points]
Using the L2 distance function computes the distance between the above mentioned 2 customers
Using the L2 distance function computes the distance between the above mentioned 2 customers.
Answer with L1
d(c1,c2) = (c1.cr-c2.cr)/4 +(c1.avg.bal –c2.avg.bal/4000)* (c1.age-mean.age/std.age)-( c2.age-mean.age/std.age)
The question as is, leaves some room for interpretation. Mainly because similarity is not specified exactly. I will try to explain what the standard approach would be.
Usually, before you start, you want to normalize values such that they are rougly in the same range. Otherwise, your similarity will be dominated by the feature with the largest variance.
If you have no information about the distribution but just the range of the values you want to try to nomalize them to [0,1]. For your example this means
norm_age = (age-15)/(90-15)
For nominal values you want to find a mapping to ordinal values if you want to use Lp-Norms. Note: this is not always possible (e.g., colors cannot intuitively be mapped to ordinal values). In you case you can transform the credit rating like this
cr = {0 if ‘very good’, 1 if ‘good, 2 if ‘medium’, 3 if ‘poor’, 4 if ‘very poor’}
afterwards you can do the same normalization as for age
norm_cr = cr/4
Lastly, for normally distributed values you usually perform standardization by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation.
norm_av_bal = (av_bal-7000)/4000
Now that you have normalized your values, you can go ahead and define the distance functions:
L1(c1, c2) = |c1.norm_age - c2.norm_age| + |c1.norm_cr - c2.norm_cr |
+ |c1.norm_av_bal - c2.norm_av_bal|
and
L2(c1, c2) = sqrt((c1.norm_age - c2.norm_age)2 + (c1.norm_cr -
c2.norm_cr)2 + (c1.norm_av_bal -
c2.norm_av_bal)2)
I'm successfully using Welford's method to compute running variance and standard deviation as described many times on Stack Overflow and John D Cook's excellent blog post.
I store the timestamp, count, sum, and running calculation of "Sk" and stdev in a database table PER DAY.
I would like to combine or rollup the daily computed count,sum, and Sk values get a MONTHLY standard deviation.
John D Cook's blog has another post that provides an algorithm to combine two "RunningStats" into 1 (see operator+ method). This works for combining 2 days into 1. I could use this to iterate through the days to combine all days in the month. However, unlike calculating daily stdev where I have a large number of samples that must be dealt with in a streaming fashion, I have access to all the daily data, and would like a single formula to combine all days in the month at once. That would lend itself to creation of a database view.
It does not appear that simply summing up the Sk values and dividing by the total monthly count - 1 produces accurate variance.
Example Data:
DATE, COUNT, SUM, Sk, STDDEV
1-Jun-15, 60, 514, 1556.733336, 5.14
2-Jun-15, 51, 455, 1523.686274, 5.52
3-Jun-15, 61, 556, 1494.196722, 4.99
...
Let x1, ..., xn be the values for one day. Then, as I understand it, Sk is defined (mathematically; the rolling implementation is different) as follows.
Mk = (sum_{i=1}^n xi) / n [Mk = SUM / COUNT]
Sk = sum_{i=1}^n (xi - Mk)^2.
The problem with summing the Sk column is that each value is computed with respect to a different mean, so the overall variance is an underestimate. Instead, we should have a term like
sum_{i=1}^n (xi - (Mk + delta))^2,
which we rewrite in terms of the existing quantities.
sum_{i=1}^n (xi - (Mk + delta))^2
= sum_{i=1}^n (xi - Mk - delta)^2
= sum_{i=1}^n ((xi - Mk)^2 - 2 (xi - Mk) delta + delta^2)
= Sk + n delta^2.
Here delta is the monthly mean minus the daily mean. Once again, I do not warrant numerical stability.
I'm trying to sort a bunch of products by customer ratings using a 5 star system. The site I'm setting this up for does not have a lot of ratings and continue to add new products so it will usually have a few products with a low number of ratings.
I tried using average star rating but that algorithm fails when there is a small number of ratings.
Example a product that has 3x 5 star ratings would show up better than a product that has 100x 5 star ratings and 2x 2 star ratings.
Shouldn't the second product show up higher because it is statistically more trustworthy because of the larger number of ratings?
Prior to 2015, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) publicly listed the formula used to rank their Top 250 movies list. To quote:
The formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles gives a true Bayesian estimate:
weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
where:
R = average for the movie (mean)
v = number of votes for the movie
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 25000)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 7.0)
For the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.
It's not so hard to understand. The formula is:
rating = (v / (v + m)) * R +
(m / (v + m)) * C;
Which can be mathematically simplified to:
rating = (R * v + C * m) / (v + m);
The variables are:
R – The item's own rating. R is the average of the item's votes. (For example, if an item has no votes, its R is 0. If someone gives it 5 stars, R becomes 5. If someone else gives it 1 star, R becomes 3, the average of [1, 5]. And so on.)
C – The average item's rating. Find the R of every single item in the database, including the current one, and take the average of them; that is C. (Suppose there are 4 items in the database, and their ratings are [2, 3, 5, 5]. C is 3.75, the average of those numbers.)
v – The number of votes for an item. (To given another example, if 5 people have cast votes on an item, v is 5.)
m – The tuneable parameter. The amount of "smoothing" applied to the rating is based on the number of votes (v) in relation to m. Adjust m until the results satisfy you. And don't misinterpret IMDb's description of m as "minimum votes required to be listed" – this system is perfectly capable of ranking items with less votes than m.
All the formula does is: add m imaginary votes, each with a value of C, before calculating the average. In the beginning, when there isn't enough data (i.e. the number of votes is dramatically less than m), this causes the blanks to be filled in with average data. However, as votes accumulates, eventually the imaginary votes will be drowned out by real ones.
In this system, votes don't cause the rating to fluctuate wildly. Instead, they merely perturb it a bit in some direction.
When there are zero votes, only imaginary votes exist, and all of them are C. Thus, each item begins with a rating of C.
See also:
A demo. Click "Solve".
Another explanation of IMDb's system.
An explanation of a similar Bayesian star-rating system.
Evan Miller shows a Bayesian approach to ranking 5-star ratings:
where
nk is the number of k-star ratings,
sk is the "worth" (in points) of k stars,
N is the total number of votes
K is the maximum number of stars (e.g. K=5, in a 5-star rating system)
z_alpha/2 is the 1 - alpha/2 quantile of a normal distribution. If you want 95% confidence (based on the Bayesian posterior distribution) that the actual sort criterion is at least as big as the computed sort criterion, choose z_alpha/2 = 1.65.
In Python, the sorting criterion can be calculated with
def starsort(ns):
"""
http://www.evanmiller.org/ranking-items-with-star-ratings.html
"""
N = sum(ns)
K = len(ns)
s = list(range(K,0,-1))
s2 = [sk**2 for sk in s]
z = 1.65
def f(s, ns):
N = sum(ns)
K = len(ns)
return sum(sk*(nk+1) for sk, nk in zip(s,ns)) / (N+K)
fsns = f(s, ns)
return fsns - z*math.sqrt((f(s2, ns)- fsns**2)/(N+K+1))
For example, if an item has 60 five-stars, 80 four-stars, 75 three-stars, 20 two-stars and 25 one-stars, then its overall star rating would be about 3.4:
x = (60, 80, 75, 20, 25)
starsort(x)
# 3.3686975120774694
and you can sort a list of 5-star ratings with
sorted([(60, 80, 75, 20, 25), (10,0,0,0,0), (5,0,0,0,0)], key=starsort, reverse=True)
# [(10, 0, 0, 0, 0), (60, 80, 75, 20, 25), (5, 0, 0, 0, 0)]
This shows the effect that more ratings can have upon the overall star value.
You'll find that this formula tends to give an overall rating which is a bit
lower than the overall rating reported by sites such as Amazon, Ebay or Wal-mart
particularly when there are few votes (say, less than 300). This reflects the
higher uncertainy that comes with fewer votes. As the number of votes increases
(into the thousands) all overall these rating formulas should tend to the
(weighted) average rating.
Since the formula only depends on the frequency distribution of 5-star ratings
for the item itself, it is easy to combine reviews from multiple sources (or,
update the overall rating in light of new votes) by simply adding the frequency
distributions together.
Unlike the IMDb formula, this formula does not depend on the average score
across all items, nor an artificial minimum number of votes cutoff value.
Moreover, this formula makes use of the full frequency distribution -- not just
the average number of stars and the number of votes. And it makes sense that it
should since an item with ten 5-stars and ten 1-stars should be treated as
having more uncertainty than (and therefore not rated as highly as) an item with
twenty 3-star ratings:
In [78]: starsort((10,0,0,0,10))
Out[78]: 2.386028063783418
In [79]: starsort((0,0,20,0,0))
Out[79]: 2.795342687927806
The IMDb formula does not take this into account.
See this page for a good analysis of star-based rating systems, and this one for a good analysis of upvote-/downvote- based systems.
For up and down voting you want to estimate the probability that, given the ratings you have, the "real" score (if you had infinite ratings) is greater than some quantity (like, say, the similar number for some other item you're sorting against).
See the second article for the answer, but the conclusion is you want to use the Wilson confidence. The article gives the equation and sample Ruby code (easily translated to another language).
Well, depending on how complex you want to make it, you could have ratings additionally be weighted based on how many ratings the person has made, and what those ratings are. If the person has only made one rating, it could be a shill rating, and might count for less. Or if the person has rated many things in category a, but few in category b, and has an average rating of 1.3 out of 5 stars, it sounds like category a may be artificially weighed down by the low average score of this user, and should be adjusted.
But enough of making it complex. Let’s make it simple.
Assuming we’re working with just two values, ReviewCount and AverageRating, for a particular item, it would make sense to me to look ReviewCount as essentially being the “reliability” value. But we don’t just want to bring scores down for low ReviewCount items: a single one-star rating is probably as unreliable as a single 5 star rating. So what we want to do is probably average towards the middle: 3.
So, basically, I’m thinking of an equation something like X * AverageRating + Y * 3 = the-rating-we-want. In order to make this value come out right we need X+Y to equal 1. Also we need X to increase in value as ReviewCount increases...with a review count of 0, x should be 0 (giving us an equation of “3”), and with an infinite review count X should be 1 (which makes the equation = AverageRating).
So what are X and Y equations? For the X equation want the dependent variable to asymptotically approach 1 as the independent variable approaches infinity. A good set of equations is something like:
Y = 1/(factor^RatingCount)
and (utilizing the fact that X must be equal to 1-Y)
X = 1 – (1/(factor^RatingCount)
Then we can adjust "factor" to fit the range that we're looking for.
I used this simple C# program to try a few factors:
// We can adjust this factor to adjust our curve.
double factor = 1.5;
// Here's some sample data
double RatingAverage1 = 5;
double RatingCount1 = 1;
double RatingAverage2 = 4.5;
double RatingCount2 = 5;
double RatingAverage3 = 3.5;
double RatingCount3 = 50000; // 50000 is not infinite, but it's probably plenty to closely simulate it.
// Do the calculations
double modfactor = Math.Pow(factor, RatingCount1);
double modRating1 = (3 / modfactor)
+ (RatingAverage1 * (1 - 1 / modfactor));
double modfactor2 = Math.Pow(factor, RatingCount2);
double modRating2 = (3 / modfactor2)
+ (RatingAverage2 * (1 - 1 / modfactor2));
double modfactor3 = Math.Pow(factor, RatingCount3);
double modRating3 = (3 / modfactor3)
+ (RatingAverage3 * (1 - 1 / modfactor3));
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("RatingAverage: {0}, RatingCount: {1}, Adjusted Rating: {2:0.00}",
RatingAverage1, RatingCount1, modRating1));
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("RatingAverage: {0}, RatingCount: {1}, Adjusted Rating: {2:0.00}",
RatingAverage2, RatingCount2, modRating2));
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("RatingAverage: {0}, RatingCount: {1}, Adjusted Rating: {2:0.00}",
RatingAverage3, RatingCount3, modRating3));
// Hold up for the user to read the data.
Console.ReadLine();
So you don’t bother copying it in, it gives this output:
RatingAverage: 5, RatingCount: 1, Adjusted Rating: 3.67
RatingAverage: 4.5, RatingCount: 5, Adjusted Rating: 4.30
RatingAverage: 3.5, RatingCount: 50000, Adjusted Rating: 3.50
Something like that? You could obviously adjust the "factor" value as needed to get the kind of weighting you want.
You could sort by median instead of arithmetic mean. In this case both examples have a median of 5, so both would have the same weight in a sorting algorithm.
You could use a mode to the same effect, but median is probably a better idea.
If you want to assign additional weight to the product with 100 5-star ratings, you'll probably want to go with some kind of weighted mode, assigning more weight to ratings with the same median, but with more overall votes.
If you just need a fast and cheap solution that will mostly work without using a lot of computation here's one option (assuming a 1-5 rating scale)
SELECT Products.id, Products.title, avg(Ratings.score), etc
FROM
Products INNER JOIN Ratings ON Products.id=Ratings.product_id
GROUP BY
Products.id, Products.title
ORDER BY (SUM(Ratings.score)+25.0)/(COUNT(Ratings.id)+20.0) DESC, COUNT(Ratings.id) DESC
By adding in 25 and dividing by the total ratings + 20 you're basically adding 10 worst scores and 10 best scores to the total ratings and then sorting accordingly.
This does have known issues. For example, it unfairly rewards low-scoring products with few ratings (as this graph demonstrates, products with an average score of 1 and just one rating score a 1.2 while products with an average score of 1 and 1k+ ratings score closer to 1.05). You could also argue it unfairly punishes high-quality products with few ratings.
This chart shows what happens for all 5 ratings over 1-1000 ratings:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot3D%5B%2825%2Bxy%29/%2820%2Bx%29%2C%7Bx%2C1%2C1000%7D%2C%7By%2C0%2C6%7D%5D
You can see the dip upwards at the very bottom ratings, but overall it's a fair ranking, I think. You can also look at it this way:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot3D%5B6-%28%2825%2Bxy%29/%2820%2Bx%29%29%2C%7Bx%2C1%2C1000%7D%2C%7By%2C0%2C6%7D%5D
If you drop a marble on most places in this graph, it will automatically roll towards products with both higher scores and higher ratings.
Obviously, the low number of ratings puts this problem at a statistical handicap. Never the less...
A key element to improving the quality of an aggregate rating is to "rate the rater", i.e. to keep tabs of the ratings each particular "rater" has supplied (relative to others). This allows weighing their votes during the aggregation process.
Another solution, more of a cope out, is to supply the end-users with a count (or a range indication thereof) of votes for the underlying item.
One option is something like Microsoft's TrueSkill system, where the score is given by mean - 3*stddev, where the constants can be tweaked.
After look for a while, I choose the Bayesian system.
If someone is using Ruby, here a gem for it:
https://github.com/wbotelhos/rating
I'd highly recommend the book Programming Collective Intelligence by Toby Segaran (OReilly) ISBN 978-0-596-52932-1 which discusses how to extract meaningful data from crowd behaviour. The examples are in Python, but its easy enough to convert.