2
$\begingroup$

This is an applied math question.

I am doing some numerical work, in Python, using Scipy.stats. But it is really the underlying math that matters, and I am questioning the results/implementation. It is really the math that counts.

The general problem is I am using lognormal (LN) RVs to obtain multiplicative results through iteration. So, for example, I have a starting 'known' LN RV which is sort of like a Dirac-delta function: if $Y=e^X$, where Y is lognormal and X is thus normal. To be clear, Y has both a mean and an SD (standard deviation) which can be calculated/observed empirically. Underylying it is a normal distribution for X with parameters $\mu$ and $\sigma$, which can be derived from Y's mean and SD (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution ).

Since it is lognormal, I can multiply it by another LN distribution to get a new lognormal distribution. in practice - if we call the parameters of the first distribution $mu_1$ and $sigma_1$, and those of the second $mu_2$ and $sigma_2$ , we can calculate the $X$ representation as:

$$\mu - \mu_1 + \mu_2$$ $$\sigma = (\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2)^{0.5}$$

assuming, of course, independence.

All works well. But Python offers an additional parameter 'offset', which shifts the lognormal left or right by the fixed amount. Thus, if you have a wrapper around the Scipy calls that creates an object RV=Lognorm(100000, 10000, -50000) the pdf delivered does, indeed, have an SD = 10,000, but centered at 50,000 (since the 100,000 offset is offset by -50,000).

What I struggle with is this.

If you, in fact, ask the package fro the mean and SD for RV, it gives mean=50,000 and SD = 10,000. Thus, it looks like it creates an RV that is not totally shifted left by 50,000 - which would possibly allow positive probability of values less than zero - but that it adjusts the mean downward by 50,000.

It looks to me like a bit of a software kludge that works. To my way of thinking, shifting to the left by 'n' units could/should preserve all central moments, but(1) will allow negative values and (2) there should not exist a proper, 2-parameter lognormal that gives the same pdf - i.e., pdf(100000, 10000) shifted left 50000 is not pdf(50000, 10000) since the pdf has, in its definition, $e^{ln(x)}$ and the shift should appear as $e^{ln(x)-s}$, where $s$ is the shift amount.

Am I missing something here, or is this just a convention of Python which does not conform to the actual definition of the lognorm distribution? Or am I wrong on the definition/understanding of a three-parameter lognormal distribution?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The third parameter of a three-parameter lognormal distribution is typically non-negative in natural interpretations such as waiting times. If it is non-zero, then the resulting distribution does not correspond to a usual two-parameter lognormal distribution and so you lose multiplicative properties of the lognormal $\endgroup$ – Henry Jun 6 '18 at 9:19
  • $\begingroup$ That was my thought as well. Either the error introduced (in my case) is so small that you can't distinguish the difference from a graph, or they have some internal 'workaround' to support the three variable idea/convention, from what I can see. $\endgroup$ – eSurfsnake Jun 6 '18 at 15:08
1
$\begingroup$

After much experimentation (and a few bits of help from others), what I determined (or at least it appears) that when Scipy does a trivariate lognormal, it really gives you the lognormal with $mean-offset$ as the actual mean, and an unchanged standard deviation of the Y distribution. Thus, the returned pdf is a lognormal itself.

$\endgroup$

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.