Skip to main content

calculus and analysis - Derivative of integrated noise Gaussian likelihood


In a Bayesian problem with Gaussian likelihood with mean μ and a uniform prior on the standard deviation σ, it is possible to derive the marginal posterior (where σ has been integrated out of the joint).


p(μ)=baN(x|μ,σ)U(σ|a,b)p(μ)dσ


which can be done in Mathematica (omitting p(μ) as it doesn't affect the integration):


Assuming[{a > 0, b > 0, n > 0, sse > 0, b > a}, 
Integrate[(1/(Sqrt[2 Pi sigma^2]))^n

Exp[-(x - mu)^2/(2 sigma^2)] PDF[UniformDistribution[{a, b}], sigma], {sigma, a, b}]]

To yield this expression,


(\[Pi]^(-n/2) (1/(mu - x)^2)^(-(1/2) + n/2) (Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 a^2)] - 
Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 b^2)]))/(2 Sqrt[2] (a - b))

Letting g equal the log of the above expression, I can determine its derivative wrt x,


FullSimplify@D[g, mu]

which equals this horror,



 fDeriv2[x_, mu_, n_, a_, b_] := (-2^(3/2 - n/2) E^(-((mu - x)^2/(2 a^2))) ((mu - x)^2/a^2)^(1/2 (-1 + n)) +
2^(3/2 - n/2) E^(-((mu - x)^2/(2 b^2))) ((mu - x)^2/b^2)^(
1/2 (-1 + n)) - (-1 + n) (Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 a^2)] -
Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 b^2)]))/((mu - x) (Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 a^2)] -
Gamma[1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 b^2)]))

The issue with this expression is that it becomes unstable when xmu is small and n is large.


For example,


fDeriv2[0.1, 0.2, 100, 2, 4]


yields


ComplexInfinity

I know that the derivative exists but the denominator and the numerator are either really big or small which, with numerical under/over-flow leads the calculation to fail.


Does anyone know how I can derive a more 'friendly' expression for the derivative that doesn't have these pathologies?


Edit: to further illustrate the pathologies of this expression, I plot it as a function of x:


Plot[fDeriv2[x, 10, 100, 2, 4], {x, 10, 100}, PlotRange -> Full]

enter image description here



Answer




The answer to this is actually much simpler than it appears since I failed to notice that there is a common term (differences of two incomplete Gammas) in the above. This means that we can avoid the numerical issues above by the following expression (note, not an approximation):


fDeriv[x_, mu_, n_, a_, b_] := ((-2^(3/2 - n/2) E^(-((mu - x)^2/(2 a^2))) ((mu - x)^2/
a^2)^(1/2 (-1 + n)) +
2^(3/2 - n/2) E^(-((mu - x)^2/(2 b^2))) ((mu - x)^2/
b^2)^(1/2 (-1 + n)))/((mu - x) Gamma[
1/2 (-1 + n), (mu - x)^2/(2 a^2), (mu - x)^2/(2 b^2)]) - (-1 +
n)/(mu - x))

which when plotted produces a graph indistinguishable from that of JimB's answer.


Comments

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...

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...

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...