0
$\begingroup$

I am trying to simulate a log-normal random variable $Y$ with mean $m = \mathbb{E}[Y] = 0.001$ and standard deviation $s = 0.094$ by simulating a normal sample instead, and then exponentiating it.

From definition of log-normal distribution, if we let $X = \ln Y$ then $X \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$, where $$ \sigma^2 = \ln \left(\frac{s^2}{m^2}+1\right) \text{ and } \mu = \ln(m) - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}, $$ which in my case seems to imply $$ \mu \approx -11.4511, \sigma \approx 3.0144. $$

So I simulate a large normally distributed sample (1 mln points), which comes out with sample mean and standard deviation of approximately $-11.448$ and $3.01435$, which is very nice.

Then, I exponentiate every entry in the sample, expecting to get a log-normal sample with my original parameters. The mean and standard deviation of this exponentiated sample are $0.0010199$ and $0.055741$. So the mean comes in very close, but the standard deviation is way off the mark.

I tried multiple experiments, and it seems the mean is matched, but the standard deviation is not. I implemented both in Excel and in Python (happy to post the code if needed) but I don't understand why I cannot match the standard deviation in the log-normal sample.

It could be it requires more points to converge, but 1 mln points seems like a very large number to at least get 2-3 digits after the decimal point correctly?

I would appreciate any ideas. Thank you very much.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Edited to include 'simulation' tag. May attract attention from someone who has more experience with this sort of thing than either of us. $\endgroup$ – BruceET Jul 28 '15 at 8:52
1
$\begingroup$

I think the particular values of $m$ and $s$ you are using give rise to unexpected computational difficulties. Perhaps it is just too much to wish for two-place accuracy retrieving $s$ with a million simulated values. Also, taking the ordinary SD of lognormal data may not be the optimal way to estimate parameter $s$ (especially when it is small). I'm not absolutely sure of any of this because I have not taken the time to track exactly where it goes wrong.

However, if $m = .1$ and $s = .4$, your method seems to work just fine. Here is a brief session in R:

 m = .1;  s = .4
 sg = sqrt(log(1 + s^2/m^2));  sg
 ## 1.683215
 mu = log(m) - .5*sg^2;  mu
 ## -3.719192
 x = rnorm(10^6, mu, sg);  y = exp(x)
 mean(x);  sd(x)
 ## -3.720081
 ## 1.682534
 mean(y);  sd(y)
 ## 0.09942132
 ## 0.4097221

Searching the internet for 'lognormal distribution', I found a MathWorks page that says (in your notation) that a lognormal distribution with mean $m$ and variance $s^2$ has $\mu = \ln(m^2/\sqrt{s^2 + m^2})$ and $\sigma = \sqrt{\ln(1+ s^s/m^2)}.$ Maybe it is my imagination, but for various values of $m$ and $s$ these computations seemed a little more stable getting $\mu$ and $\sigma$. (But that still does not cure your problem.)

 m = .1;  s = .2
 mu = log(m^2/sqrt(s^2 + m^2)); mu
 ## -3.107304
 sg = sqrt(log(1+s^2/m^2)); sg
 ## 1.268636
 x = rnorm(10^6, mu, sg)
 mean(x);  sd(x)
 ## -3.107111
 ## 1.269737
 y = exp(x)
 mean(y); sd(y)
 ## 0.1000590
 ## 0.1992975

R generates lognormal samples directly with the function rlnorm. Here are some related results.

 y = rlnorm(10^6, -11.4511, 3.0144);  mean(y);  sd(y)  # Your values
 ## 0.0009537684
 ## 0.03262853    # not accurate to two places
 y = rlnorm(10^6, -3.107304, 1.268636); mean(y); sd(y) # m=.1, s=.2
 ## 0.1003433
 ## 0.2027905
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, it is all about a long tail. I tried it with billion entries, and mean looks ok to 5 digits, but st. dev. is still all over the place. Increasing the mean to 0.05 already matched the st.dev. to 3 digits at 1 mln trials, and doing down to 0.005 with 1 billion trials is not enough... I wonder what the relationship there would be... $\endgroup$ – gt6989b Jul 29 '15 at 20:16
0
$\begingroup$

The problem is the small mean (m=0.001). The following R code generates samples of size n from a lognormal with mean m and standard deviation n:

rlnorm2 <- function(n, m, s) {

  # samples from lognormal with m1=1, s1=1:

  sig1 = sqrt(log(2))
  mu1  = - 1/2*log(2)

  y1 <- rlnorm(n, mu1, sig1)

  # then transforms the sample into a lognormal with m2=m, s2=2:

  sig2 = sqrt(log(1+s^2/m^2))
  mu2  = log(m) - 1/2*sig2^2

  y2 <- exp(mu2)*(exp(-mu1)*y1)^(sig2/sig1)

  y2
}
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to MSE. Please edit using $\TeX$ commands. $\endgroup$ – user249332 Mar 16 '16 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If, instead of mathematical formulas, you are trying to convey R code, one way to make it easier for Readers to parse your code is by using monospaced fonts. The code button at the top of the edit/post window automates this pretty well, but you can do it manually by starting lines with four blank spaces, or by surrounding shorter snippets of code with backticks. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 16 '16 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ I did the monospaced "code formatting" for you. If you don't agree that it improves your Answer for Readers, feel free to "revert" my edit (clicking on the link where I edited it brings up the Edit History, and from there you can rollback to your original version). $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 17 '16 at 16:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.