Skip to main content

probability or statistics - Representative Smooth Kernel Distribution from Truncated Distribution


I am trying to produce a better distribution from a dataset that is bounded to be greater than 0. Here is an example distribution from the documentation that mimics the behavior of the actual dataset:


data = RandomVariate[ExponentialDistribution[2], 10^4];
dist = SmoothKernelDistribution[data];
\[ScriptCapitalD] = TruncatedDistribution[{0, Infinity}, dist];
Plot[Evaluate@PDF[\[ScriptCapitalD], x], {x, -1, 5}, PlotRange -> All,

  Filling -> Axis]

enter image description here


As you can see, the peak of the SmoothKernelDistribution is not at 0, but at some value slightly greater than zero. The more points there are in the dataset, the closer the peak is to zero, as there will be a point in the dataset that is closer and closer to zero with more points. In the real dataset, I don't have the liberty of drawing more points, but I do know that the real dataset is restricted to be > 0.


Using the standard histogram, the peak will be 0 given a large enough bin size, which I guess can be achieved in SmoothKernelDistribution by increasing the kernel width, but as far as I can tell SmoothKernelDistribution does not automatically set this width to avoid the above behavior. My question is: How do I generate a SmoothKernelDistribution which mimics the behavior of the underlying distribution?



Answer



As of version 9 there is an undocumented extension to the kernel functions which allows you to bound the domain. You do this by specifying the kernel function as {"Bounded", c, ker} where c is the left boundary (0 in your case) and ker is the usual kernel function. You can also allow for both the left and right to be bounded via {"Bounded", {c1, c2}, ker}. Bounding only on the right can be done using c1 = -Infinity.


This works by reflecting part of the data about the boundaries and subsequently truncating the resulting estimate. As this is undocumented I make no promises that it won't someday change or that it is 100% tested.


data = RandomVariate[ExponentialDistribution[2], 10^4];
dist = SmoothKernelDistribution[data, Automatic, {"Bounded", 0, "Gaussian"}];

Plot[Evaluate@PDF[dist, x], {x, -1, 5}, PlotRange -> All,Filling -> Axis]

enter image description here


Edit:


To do something similar without M9 (though not in full generality) you can try reflecting the data about the y-axis and truncate yourself.


data = RandomVariate[ExponentialDistribution[2], 10^4];
pseudodata = Join[-data, data];
dist = TruncatedDistribution[{0, \[Infinity]}, 
   SmoothKernelDistribution[pseudodata]];
Plot[PDF[dist, x], {x, -1, 5}, PlotRange -> All, Filling -> Axis]


enter image description here


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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