Skip to main content

probability or statistics - Faster method for CDF of Multinomial Distribution?


Take the following:


p= N@{459/10703, 1/973, 95/10703, 635/10703, 179/10703, 565/10703,
      54/973, 474/10703, 794/10703, 548/10703, 52/1529, 1/10703, 

      61/973, 86/1529, 775/10703, 162/10703, 160/10703, 870/10703, 
      157/10703, 816/10703, 691/10703, 471/10703, 192/10703, 
      10/973, 307/10703};

q={5, 6, 8, 20, 5, 14, 15, 12, 14, 5, 16, 14, 9, 8, 14, 9, 17, 18,
   6, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 15};

n=200;

CDF[MultinomialDistribution[n, p], q] // AbsoluteTiming


I gave up waiting and aborted.


Any ideas for a faster method in native Mathematica for multinomial distribution CDF?


Edit: I'll be adding a bounty as soon as it's available to stimulate ideas/answers.


Here's a more trivial test case to use for those interested with results/timings from loungebook. Even with this much simpler case, better than five orders of magnitude performance gain.


probs = {.15, .1, .05, .2, .35, .12, .03};
counts = {18, 16, 13, 20, 21, 12, 10};
n = 49;
ClearSystemCache[];
fast = multinomFastCDF2[n, probs, counts] // AbsoluteTiming

ClearSystemCache[];
mma = CDF[MultinomialDistribution[n, probs], counts] // AbsoluteTiming
Last@fast == Last@mma
First@mma/First@fast


{0.00393243, 0.897792}


{2526.37, 0.897792}


True


642446.





Answer



Came up with this, using N[{...},14] on the setting of p in the OP to get sufficient result precision, it finishes in a few tenths on the loungebook:


multinomFastCDF2[n_Integer, p_, q_] := If[n < 0 || n > Tr[q], 0,
   FullSimplify[E n! Last@Fold[Take[ListConvolve[##, {1, -1}, 0], UpTo[n + 1]] &, 
                               MapThread[Divide[Gamma[#2 + 1, #1], Gamma[#2 + 1]] 
                               Normalize[Divide[E^-#1 #1^Range[0, #2], Range[0, #2]!], Total] &, 
                                        {p,q}]]]];

Arguments are the number of trials, category probabilities, and CDF vector to evaluate.



If anyone can come up with better, I'm all eyes...


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more