I Beta Distributed Random Variates

Click For Summary
Generating random numbers from the beta distribution using the method described involves taking the ratio of sums of independent exponential random variables. However, there is confusion regarding the support intervals of the beta distribution [0,1] and the exponential distribution [0,∞), leading to concerns that this method might produce values outside the beta distribution's range. Suggestions include using truncated exponential distributions or discarding out-of-range samples. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the beta integral's interpretation and suggests utilizing existing libraries for generating beta samples. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity in statistical methods and the relevance of the beta distribution in various applications.
BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19
Hello,

I am looking at different methods for generating random numbers from the beta distribution. I am a bit confused about the following statement:

"It is known that if ##a, b ∈ N_{>0} = \{1, 2, 3, . . .\}##, ##Y = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^a X_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{a+b}X_k}## is ##\mathrm{Be}(a, b)##-distributed where ##X_1, X_2, . . .## are IID Exp(1) random variates."

What I am confused by is the different intervals of support that the beta distribution and exponential distribution have. The beta distribution is supported on [0,1] whereas the exponential distribution on [0, inf).

It seems that this method for generating samples from the beta distribution results in values greater than 1 which should otherwise be zero.

So what does one typically do in this situation?
Generate samples from a truncated exponential?
Throw away samples that are outside the support interval of the beta distribution?

I hope my question is clear,

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BOAS said:
Hello,

I am looking at different methods for generating random numbers from the beta distribution. I am a bit confused about the following statement:

"It is known that if ##a, b ∈ N_{>0} = \{1, 2, 3, . . .\}##, ##Y = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^a X_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{a+b}X_k}## is ##\mathrm{Be}(a, b)##-distributed where ##X_1, X_2, . . .## are IID Exp(1) random variates."
append: ##[0,1]## uniform random variables.

- - - -
Try that instead. With respect to a conjugate prior in Bayesian Inference, order statistics, and even a combinatorial interpretation of the the Beta integral (for the normalizing constant), the interpretation is always for uniform random variable over ##[0,1]## -- or ##(0,1)##. I have a hunch that that is what was being aimed at here.
- - - -
In general I'm not such a fan of opaque 'it is known that statements', especially when they are wrong. There are plenty of built-in libraries for generating from Beta, so I'm not really sure what you're aiming to do here.
 
Last edited:
StoneTemplePython said:
append: ##[0,1]## uniform random variables.

- - - -
Try that instead. With respect to a conjugate prior in Bayesian Inference, order statistics, and even a combinatorial interpretation of the the Beta integral (for the normalizing constant), the interpretation is always for uniform random variable over ##[0,1]## -- or ##(0,1)##. I have a hunch that that is what was being aimed at here.
- - - -
In general I'm not such a fan of opaque 'it is known that statements', especially when they are wrong. There are plenty of built-in libraries for generating from Beta, so I'm not really sure what you're aiming to do here.

Thank you, that looks much better!

I know that there are libraries for sampling from many of these distributions but I am learning a bit about different methods of doing so. The point is to generate the samples.
 
BOAS said:
Thank you, that looks much better!

I know that there are libraries for sampling from many of these distributions but I am learning a bit about different methods of doing so. The point is to generate the samples.

A couple other thoughts:the beta integral itself has a very nice probability interpretation which may help you get some intuition for what's going on here. I know I enjoy this video from MIT's 6.041x on edx (video hosted on youtube)



- - - -
if you are interested in computing, and have ever looked at building a Spam vs Ham classifier (a very simple Naive Bayes project) the Beta pdf comes up very naturally as a (conjugate) prior.

And finally, to the extent you are interested in ranking things like sports teams, you may find it interesting to see the Beta distribution lurking in part 3 of the below link, under "The Basic Statistic — Laplace’s Method". The Colley ranking system is used in BCS system for ranking college football -- its simple, transparent and unreasonably effective.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf
 
Last edited:
BOAS said:
"It is known that if ##a, b ∈ N_{>0} = \{1, 2, 3, . . .\}##, ##Y = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^a X_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{a+b}X_k}## is ##\mathrm{Be}(a, b)##-distributed where ##X_1, X_2, . . .## are IID Exp(1) random variates."

It seems that this method for generating samples from the beta distribution results in values greater than 1 which should otherwise be zero.
Both the numerator and denominator contain the common summand ##( X_1 + X_2 + ...X_a) = S ## So the fraction is of the form ##Y = \frac{S}{S+p} ## where ##p = \sum_{j=a+1}^{a+b} X_j##.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.