Skip to main content

numerics - How to compute the inverse CDF of HyperbolicDistribution properly?


Fixed in version 9.




I want to compute the CDF and inverse CDF of the hyperbolic distribution:


α = 2; β = 3/2;

x = -3;
u = N[CDF[HyperbolicDistribution[α, β, 1, 0], x], 30]

The output of the above code is


5.36058384200167863956651004148*10^-6

A small, but not too small number. Now, since the CDF and inverse CDF are compositional inverses, I expect the output from the following line to be approximately $-3$:


xA = N[InverseCDF[HyperbolicDistribution[α, β, 1, 0], u], 30]

But Mathematica instead returns



-23.0838707895835608942828900958

which is just way off. So, am I doing something wrong here? Or are Mathematica's CDF[] and InverseCDF[] functions not to be trusted for this distribution?


When the above experiment is repeated with the normal distribution, there are no problems:


x = -12;
u = N[CDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], x], 30]
xA = N[InverseCDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], u], 30]

The output is $-12$, as expected.



Answer




One hack-ish method for evaluating an inverse CDF is to use the event location functionality of NDSolve[]. As an example:


dist = HyperbolicDistribution[2, 3/2, 1, 0];
c0 = N[CDF[dist, 0], 20]
0.058032099055437685722

Suppose that we want to evaluate the inverse CDF for this particular hyperbolic distribution at the $p$-value $7\times10^{-6}$. Since this value is smaller than c0, we integrate the ODE for the CDF,


$$c^\prime(x)=\mathtt{PDF[dist},\;x\mathtt{]},\quad c^\prime(0)=\mathtt{c0}$$


backwards, like so:


With[{p = 7*^-6}, 
x0 = Extract[c["Domain"] /.

First @ NDSolve[{c'[u] == PDF[dist, u], c[0] == c0}, c, {u, -Infinity, 0},
AccuracyGoal -> Infinity,
Method -> {"EventLocator", "Event" -> c[u] == p,
Method -> "StiffnessSwitching"}], {1, 1}]]
-2.9217514743315895

However, the value thus returned is not sufficiently accurate:


CDF[dist, x0]
7.00002*10^-6


The cure is easy: treat x0 as a starting value for further polishing with Newton-Raphson:


With[{p = 7*^-6}, 
xx = FixedPoint[(# - (CDF[dist, #] - p)/PDF[dist, #]) &, x0]]
-2.9217521320606825

which gives a much better result:


CDF[dist, xx]
7.*10^-6

If one wanted to evaluate the inverse CDF for values greater than c0, one should of course integrate forward (that is, change the integration interval to {u, 0, Infinity}) and then extract the right end of the "Domain" of the InterpolatingFunction[] (using, say, Extract[(* stuff *), {1, 2}]).





Another ODE-based method that can be used is based on the usual formula for the derivative of an inverse function:


$$\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dx}f^{(-1)}(x)=\frac1{f^\prime(f^{(-1)}(x))}$$


which can be treated as an ODE for the inverse CDF. For the case of the hyperbolic distribution, Leobacher and Pillichshammer, in their paper, suggest the use of the initial condition


$$f^{(-1)}(\mathtt{CDF[HyperbolicDistribution[}\alpha,\beta,\delta,\mu\mathtt{]},x_0\mathtt{]})=x_0,\qquad x_0=\mu+\frac{\beta\delta}{\sqrt{\alpha^2-\beta^2}}$$


Here's a Mathematica demonstration of this strategy, using the $p$-value $2\times10^{-8}$:


dist = HyperbolicDistribution[2, 3/2, 1, 0];
With[{α = 2, β = 3/2, δ = 1, μ = 0}, xs = N[μ + β δ/Sqrt[α^2 - β^2], 25]];
cs = CDF[dist, xs];


With[{p = 2*^-8},
x0 = c[p] /.
First @ NDSolve[{c'[u] == 1/PDF[dist, c[u]], c[cs] == xs}, c, {u, cs, p},
AccuracyGoal -> Infinity, Method -> "StiffnessSwitching"]]
-4.630068132899461

One can again use Newton-Raphson to further polish the value obtained:


With[{p = 2*^-8}, xx = FixedPoint[(# - (CDF[dist, #] - p)/PDF[dist, #]) &, x0]]
-4.62518360657725


This strategy will run into numerical difficulties for $p$-values very near to $0$ or very near to $1$; see the Leobacher/Pillichshammer paper for details on how to proceed in these cases.




Encapsulating any of these two strategies into a general procedure is left as an exercise to the interested reader.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.