0
$\begingroup$

My ultimate goal is to be able to have a way to generate a vector of size $N$ of correlated Bernoulli random variables. One way I am doing this is to use the Gaussian Coupla approach. However, the Gaussian Coupla approach just leaves me with a vector:

$$ (p_1, \ldots, p_N) \in [0,1]^N $$

Suppose that I have generated $(p_1, \ldots, p_N)$ such that the common correlation between them is $\rho$. Now, how can I transform these into a new vector of $0$ or $1$'s? In other words, I would like:

$$ (X_1, \ldots, X_N) \in \{0,1\}^N $$

but with the same correlation $\rho$.

One approach I thought of was to assign a hard cutoff rule such that if $p_i < 0.5$, then let $X_i = 0$ and if $p_i \geq 0.5$, then let $X_i = 1$.

This seems to work well in simulations in that it retains the correlation structure but it is very arbitrary to me what cutoff value should be chosen aside from $0.5$.

Another way is to treat each $X_i$ as a Bernoulli random variable with success probability $p_i$ and sample from it. However this approach seems to cause loss of correlation and instead of $\rho$, I may get $\frac{\rho}{2}$ or $\frac{\rho}{3}$.

Does anyone have any thoughts or inputs into this? Thank you.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There are a lot of simple ways to make correlated Bernoulli variables with the same marginal distribution and the same correlation parameter. For example, you could define $\{Y_0, Y_1, ..., Y_n\}$ as i.i.d. Bernoulli with $P[Y_i=1]=m$. Define an independent variable $H \in\{0,1\}$ with $P[H=1]=\theta$. Then define $$ X_i = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} Y_0 &\mbox{ if $H=0$} \\ Y_i & \mbox{ if $H=1$} \end{array} \right.$$ so $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ are correlated Bernoulli with the same mean $E[X_i]=m$ and the same correlation parameter $E[X_iX_j] = m(1-\theta) + m^2\theta$ for $i \neq j$. You can slide $\theta \in [0,1]$ to slide $E[X_iX_j] \in [m^2, m]$.

Notice that $X_i X_j \leq X_i \implies E[X_iX_j] \leq E[X_i] = m$. So the largest possible $E[X_iX_j]$ value for any method is $m$, which can be achieved by this particular method. However, the lowest $E[X_iX_j]$ that this particular method can provide is $m^2$.

It is possible to get $E[X_iX_j]<m^2$ with alternative methods. For example, if $m \leq 1/n$, then we can design to have $E[X_iX_j] = 0$ simply by defining $U$ as a random variable uniform over $[0,1]$ and defining $$ X_i = 1_{\{U \in \mathcal{A}_i\}} $$ where $\mathcal{A}_i$ are disjoint subsets of $[0,1]$, each with measure $m$.

An interesting and non-obvious question is, for a given $m \in [0,1]$, what is the set of all $E[X_iX_j]$ values that can be achieved, assuming $E[X_i]=m$ for all $i$, and $E[X_iX_j]$ is the same for all $i \neq j$. (The above shows that we can achieve $E[X_iX_j] \in [m^2, m]$, and it is impossible to make it larger than $m$, so it remains only to consider the interval $[0,m^2)$.)

It is also easy to see that if we can achieve $E[X_iX_j]=\rho$ for all $i\neq j$ and for $\rho < m^2$, we can achieve any point in the interval $[\rho, m]$. So the achievable set is always an interval, and it suffices to consider, for each $m \in [0,1]$, the smallest $E[X_iX_j]$ value that can be achieved.

$\endgroup$

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.