Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

Comparison of Nakagami and Gamma distributions for a list of data

Alex Teymouri
Posted 1 year ago
POSTED BY: Alex Teymouri
6 Replies
Sort By:
Jim Baldwin
Jim Baldwin
Posted 1 year ago

@RohitNamjoshi and @AlexTeyMouri: Don't you both want to have 2 * 2 (i.e., 2 * number of estimated parameters) rather than 2 * 1?

Also, is there a real need for a parametric representation of the distribution of the observed data? In other words, why not consider the following?

Show[Histogram[data, "FreedmanDiaconis", "PDF"], SmoothHistogram[data]]

Histogram and nonparametric density function
POSTED BY: Jim Baldwin
Alex Teymouri
Alex Teymouri
Posted 1 year ago

Dear Rohit and Jim,

Thank you so much.

Is it possible to show that SmoothHistogram is better than the Nakagami and Gamma distributions by calculating the AIC values?

With best Regards
POSTED BY: Alex Teymouri
Jim Baldwin
Jim Baldwin
Posted 1 year ago

Which is best depends on what you mean by "best", your subject matter, and your objective.

Because you appear to be selecting between a Gamma and a Nakagami distribution, I would assume that there is no theoretical reason for either. As Henrik Schachner demonstrated even a Normal distribution has a smaller AIC value (which is likely involved in FindDistribution.

If the objective is just to summarize the distribution of this particular dataset, then a nonparametric density estimate (i.e., a SmoothHistogram) is what I would recommend. (It's the 21st century so histograms should not be the first thing to come to mind.)

If there is some appropriate subject matter knowledge or more specific objective is given, then better and more specific advice can be obtained.
POSTED BY: Jim Baldwin

Hi Alex,

as it seems, Nakagami is slightly better. But if you let the system decide, the NormalDistribution winns:

gam = EstimatedDistribution[data, GammaDistribution[\[Alpha], \[Beta]]];
nak = EstimatedDistribution[data, NakagamiDistribution[\[Mu], \[Omega]]];
best = FindDistribution[data];

plot = Plot[{PDF[gam, x], PDF[nak, x], PDF[best, x]}, {x, Min[data], Max[data]}, PlotStyle -> {Red, Green, {Dashed, Blue}}, PlotLabels -> {"Gamma", "Nakagami", "best:Normal"}];

Show[Histogram[data, Automatic, "PDF"], plot, PlotRange -> {{4, 17.7}, Automatic}, ImageSize -> Large]

enter image description here

Does that help? Regards -- Henrik

POSTED BY: Henrik Schachner
Alex Teymouri
Alex Teymouri
Posted 1 year ago

Thank you, Henrik.

As you know, we can evaluate these statistics distributions using the AIC.

Where I did I mistake?

(*Maximum Likelihood for Gamma*)

mlegam = 
 FindDistributionParameters[data, GammaDistribution[\[Alpha], \[Beta]]]

(*AIC for Gamma*)

aicgam = -2 LogLikelihood[
    GammaDistribution[{\[Alpha], \[Beta]} /. mlegam], data] + 2*1

(*Maximum Likelihood for Nakagami*)

mlenak = 
 FindDistributionParameters[data, 
  NakagamiDistribution[\[Mu], \[Omega]]]

(*AIC for Nakagami*)

aicnak = -2 LogLikelihood[
    NakagamiDistribution[{\[Mu], \[Omega]} /. mlenak], data] + 2*1
POSTED BY: Alex Teymouri

Hi Alex,

There are a couple of syntax errors. Try

aicgam = -2 LogLikelihood[GammaDistribution[\[Alpha], \[Beta]] /. mlegam, data] + 2*1

aicnak = -2 LogLikelihood[NakagamiDistribution[\[Mu], \[Omega]] /. mlenak, data] + 2*1
POSTED BY: Rohit Namjoshi
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Tag limit exceeded
Note: Only the first five people you tag will receive an email notification; the other tagged names will appear as links to their profiles.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard