Archive for random number generation

complexity of the von Neumann algorithm

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2017 by xi'an

“Without the possibility of computing infimum and supremum of the density f over compact subintervals of the domain of f, sampling absolutely continuous distribution using the rejection method seems to be impossible in total generality.”

The von Neumann algorithm is another name for the rejection method introduced by von Neumann circa 1951. It was thus most exciting to spot a paper by Luc Devroye and Claude Gravel appearing in the latest Statistics and Computing. Assessing the method in terms of random bits and precision. Specifically, assuming that the only available random generator is one of random bits, which necessarily leads to an approximation when the target is a continuous density. The authors first propose a bisection algorithm for distributions defined on a compact interval, which compares random bits with recursive bisections of the unit interval and stops when the interval is small enough.

In higher dimension, for densities f over the unit hypercube, they recall that the original algorithm consisted in simulating uniforms x and u over the hypercube and [0,1], using the uniform as the proposal distribution and comparing the density at x, f(x), with the rescaled uniform. When using only random bits, the proposed method is based on a quadtree that subdivides the unit hypercube into smaller and smaller hypercubes until the selected hypercube is entirely above or below the density. And is small enough for the desired precision. This obviously requires for the computation of the upper and lower bound of the density over the hypercubes to be feasible, with Devroye and Gravel considering that this is a necessary property as shown by the above quote. Densities with non-compact support can be re-expressed as densities on the unit hypercube thanks to the cdf transform. (Actually, this is equivalent to the general accept-reject algorithm, based on the associated proposal.)

“With the oracles introduced in our modification of von Neumann’s method, we believe that it is impossible to design a rejection algorithm for densities that are not Riemann-integrable, so the question of the design of a universally valid rejection algorithm under the random bit model remains open.”

In conclusion, I enjoyed very much reading this paper, especially the reflection it proposes on the connection between Riemann integrability and rejection algorithms. (Actually, I cannot think straight away of a simulation algorithm that would handle non-Riemann-integrable densities, apart from nested sampling. Or of significant non-Riemann-integrable densities.)

ratio-of-uniforms [#4]

Posted in Books, pictures, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , on December 2, 2016 by xi'an

Possibly the last post on random number generation by Kinderman and Monahan’s (1977) ratio-of-uniform method. After fiddling with the Gamma(a,1) distribution when a<1 for a while, I indeed figured out a way to produce a bounded set with this method: considering an arbitrary cdf Φ with corresponding pdf φ, the uniform distribution on the set Λ of (u,v)’s in R⁺xX such that

0≤u≤Φοƒ[φοΦ⁻¹(u)v]

induces the distribution with density proportional to ƒ on φοΦ⁻¹(U)V. This set Λ has a boundary that is parameterised as

u=Φοƒ(x),  v=1/φοƒ(x), x∈Χ

which remains bounded in u since Φ is a cdf and in v if φ has fat enough tails. At both 0 and ∞. When ƒ is the Gamma(a,1) density this can be achieved if φ behaves like log(x)² near zero and like a inverse power at infinity. Without getting into all the gory details, closed form density φ and cdf Φ can be constructed for all a’s, as shown for a=½ by the boundaries in u and v (yellow) below

bundawhich leads to a bounded associated set Λ

ratgamp5At this stage, I remain uncertain of the relevance of such derivations, if only because the set A thus derived is ill-suited for uniform draws proposed on the enclosing square box. And also because a Gamma(a,1) simulation can rather simply be derived from a Gamma(a+1,1) simulation. But, who knows?!, there may be alternative usages of this representation, such as innovative slice samplers. Which means the ratio-of-uniform method may reappear on the ‘Og one of those days…

ratio-of-uniforms [#3]

Posted in Books, pictures, R, Statistics with tags , , , , , on November 4, 2016 by xi'an

Being still puzzled (!) by the ratio-of-uniform approach, mostly failing to catch its relevance for either standard distributions in a era when computing a cosine or an exponential is negligible, or non-standard distributions for which computing bounds and boundaries is out-of-reach, I kept searching for solutions that would include unbounded densities and still produce compact boxes, as this seems essential for accept-reject simulation if not for slice sampling. And after exploring some dead-ends (in tune with running in Venezia!), I came upon the case of the generalised logistic transform

h(\omega)=\omega^a/(1+\omega^a)

which ensures that the [ratio-of-almost-uniform] set I defined in my slides last week

\mathfrak{H}=\left\{(u,v);\ 0\le u\le h(f(v/g(u))\right\}

is bounded in u. Since the transform g is the derivative of the inverse of h (!),

g(y)=a^{-1}y^{(1-a)/a}/(1-y)^{(1-3a)/a}

the parametrisation of the boundary of H is

u(x)=f(x)^a/(1+f(x)^a)\ v(x)=a^{-1}xf(x)^{(a-1)/a}(1+f(x)^a)^2

which means it remains bounded if (a) a≤1 [to ensure boundedness at infinity] and (b) the limit of v(x) at zero [where I assume the asymptote stands] is bounded. Meaning

\lim_{x\to 0} xf(x)^{2a+1/a-1}<\infty

Working a wee bit more on the problem led me to realise that resorting to an arbitrary cdf Φ instead of the logistic cdf could solve the problem for most distributions, including all Gammas! Indeed, the boundary of H is now

u(x)=\Phi(f(x))^a\ v(x)=a^{-1}xf(x)^{(a-1)/a}/\varphi(f(x))

which means it remains bounded if φ has very heavy tails, like 1/x². To handle the explosion when x=0. And an asymptote itself at zero, to handle the limit at infinity when f(x) goes to zero.

ratio-of-uniforms

Posted in Books, pictures, R, Statistics with tags , , , , on October 24, 2016 by xi'an

One approach to random number generation that had always intrigued me is Kinderman and Monahan’s (1977) ratio-of-uniform method. The method is based on the result that the uniform distribution on the set A of (u,v)’s in R⁺xX such that

0≤u²≤ƒ(v/u)

induces the distribution with density proportional to ƒ on V/U. Hence the name. The proof is straightforward and the result can be seen as a consequence of the fundamental lemma of simulation, namely that simulating from the uniform distribution on the set B of (w,x)’s in R⁺xX such that

0≤w≤ƒ(x)

induces the marginal distribution with density proportional to ƒ on X. There is no mathematical issue with this result, but I have difficulties with picturing the construction of efficient random number generators based on this principle.

ratouniI thus took the opportunity of the second season of [the Warwick reading group on] Non-uniform random variate generation to look anew at this approach. (Note that the book is freely available on Luc Devroye’s website.) The first thing I considered is the shape of the set A. Which has nothing intuitive about it! Luc then mentions (p.195) that the boundary of A is given by

u(x)=√ƒ(x),v(x)=x√ƒ(x)

which then leads to bounding both ƒ and x→x²ƒ(x) to create a box around A and an accept-reject strategy, but I have trouble with this result without making further assumptions about ƒ… Using a two component normal mixture as a benchmark, I found bounds on u(.) and v(.) and simulated a large number of points within the box to end up with the above graph that indeed the accepted (u,v)’s were within this boundary. And the same holds with a more ambitious mixture:

bagpiiipe

arbitrary distributions with set correlation

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 11, 2015 by xi'an

A question recently posted on X Validated by Antoni Parrelada: given two arbitrary cdfs F and G, how can we simulate a pair (X,Y) with marginals  F and G, and with set correlation ρ? The answer posted by Antoni Parrelada was to reproduce the Gaussian copula solution: produce (X’,Y’) as a Gaussian bivariate vector with correlation ρ and then turn it into (X,Y)=(F⁻¹(Φ(X’)),G⁻¹(Φ(Y’))). Unfortunately, this does not work, because the correlation does not keep under the double transform. The graph above is part of my answer for a χ² and a log-Normal cdf for F amd G: while corr(X’,Y’)=ρ, corr(X,Y) drifts quite a  lot from the diagonal! Actually, by playing long enough with my function

tacor=function(rho=0,nsim=1e4,fx=qnorm,fy=qnorm)
{
  x1=rnorm(nsim);x2=rnorm(nsim)
  coeur=rho
  rho2=sqrt(1-rho^2)
  for (t in 1:length(rho)){
     y=pnorm(cbind(x1,rho[t]*x1+rho2[t]*x2))
     coeur[t]=cor(fx(y[,1]),fy(y[,2]))}
  return(coeur)
}

Playing further, I managed to get an almost flat correlation graph for the admittedly convoluted call

tacor(seq(-1,1,.01),
      fx=function(x) qchisq(x^59,df=.01),
      fy=function(x) qlogis(x^59))

zerocorNow, the most interesting question is how to produce correlated simulations. A pedestrian way is to start with a copula, e.g. the above Gaussian copula, and to twist the correlation coefficient ρ of the copula until the desired correlation is attained for the transformed pair. That is, to draw the above curve and invert it. (Note that, as clearly exhibited by the graph just above, all desired correlations cannot be achieved for arbitrary cdfs F and G.) This is however very pedestrian and I wonder whether or not there is a generic and somewhat automated solution…

a weird beamer feature…

Posted in Books, Kids, Linux, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2014 by xi'an

As I was preparing my slides for my third year undergraduate stat course, I got a weird error that got a search on the Web to unravel:

! Extra }, or forgotten \endgroup.
\endframe ->\egroup
  \begingroup \def \@currenvir {frame}
l.23 \end{frame}
  \begin{slide}
?

which was related with a fragile environment

\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{simulation in practice}
\begin{itemize}
\item For a given distribution $F$, call the corresponding 
pseudo-random generator in an arbitrary computer language
\begin{verbatim}
> x=rnorm(10)
> x
 [1] -0.021573 -1.134735  1.359812 -0.887579
 [7] -0.749418  0.506298  0.835791  0.472144
\end{verbatim}
\item use the sample as a statistician would
\begin{verbatim}
> mean(x)
[1] 0.004892123
> var(x)
[1] 0.8034657
\end{verbatim}
to approximate quantities related with $F$
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}\begin{frame}

but not directly the verbatim part: the reason for the bug was that the \end{frame} command did not have a line by itself! Which is one rare occurrence where the carriage return has an impact in LaTeX, as far as I know… (The same bug appears when there is an indentation at the beginning of the line. Weird!) [Another annoying feature is wordpress turning > into &gt; in the sourcecode environment…]

Foundations of Statistical Algorithms [book review]

Posted in Books, Linux, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 28, 2014 by xi'an

There is computational statistics and there is statistical computing. And then there is statistical algorithmic. Not the same thing, by far. This 2014 book by Weihs, Mersman and Ligges, from TU Dortmund, the later being also a member of the R Core team, stands at one end of this wide spectrum of techniques required by modern statistical analysis. In short, it provides the necessary skills to construct statistical algorithms and hence to contribute to statistical computing. And I wish I had the luxury to teach from Foundations of Statistical Algorithms to my graduate students, if only we could afford an extra yearly course…

“Our aim is to enable the reader (…) to quickly understand the main ideas of modern numerical algorithms [rather] than having to memorize the current, and soon to be outdated, set of popular algorithms from computational statistics.”(p.1)

The book is built around the above aim, first presenting the reasons why computers can produce answers different from what we want, using least squares as a mean to check for (in)stability, then second establishing the ground forFishman Monte Carlo methods by discussing (pseudo-)random generation, including MCMC algorithms, before moving in third to bootstrap and resampling techniques, and  concluding with parallelisation and scalability. The text is highly structured, with frequent summaries, a division of chapters all the way down to sub-sub-sub-sections, an R implementation section in each chapter, and a few exercises. Continue reading