How to plot a scaled lognormal function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around plotting a scaled lognormal function given specific parameters, including the mean (μ), standard deviation (σ), maximum height, and area. Participants explore how to adjust the lognormal probability density function (PDF) to achieve a desired maximum height and discuss the implications of using different parameterizations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in plotting a lognormal function with specified parameters (μ=3.5, σ=1.5, area=1965, maximum height=4724) using Excel or R.
  • Another participant suggests multiplying the lognormal PDF by the desired area to achieve the correct scaling but notes that the maximum height does not match the specified value.
  • A different participant questions the interpretation of μ and σ, suggesting that the natural logarithm of these values may need to be used instead.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between the maximum height of the PDF and the parameters μ and σ, with some proposing formulas to adjust the function accordingly.
  • There is mention of the need to find a faster method to plot the function without first plotting the non-scaled distribution.
  • One participant calculates the maximum height of the PDF at a specific x-value and discusses the implications of scaling the function to achieve the desired maximum height.
  • Another participant raises the possibility of deriving an expression that relates the area of the scaled function to the height at the maximum, μ, and σ.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct parameters to use for the lognormal function and how to achieve the desired scaling. There is no consensus on a single method for plotting the function that incorporates the maximum height directly.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the maximum of the lognormal distribution can vary based on the parameters used, and there are unresolved questions about the relationship between the area and the maximum height in the context of scaling the PDF.

eduyu2018
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am trying to plot a lognormal function. I have the value of μ=3.5, the value of σ=1.5 and the value of the Area = 1965. I have as well the value of the maximum height (Amp.=4724). I am tryiing to plot these with Excel or with R but I do not know how. I know how to plot a distribution of area 1 but not if the area is different.

Can you help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I must be missing something. I plotted the lognormal PDF with parameters ##\mu=3.5## and ##\sigma=1.5##. That should have area 1, so I multiplied it by 1965 to get your desired area.
##f(x) = \frac{1965} {\sigma x \sqrt{2π} } e^{-\frac{(ln(x) - \mu)^2} {2\sigma^2}}##

The plot has a maximum of about 48.6 -- not close to the value 4724 that you specify. Are your ##\mu## and ##\sigma## the standard lognormal parameters?
 
You are right, the value of 1965 can not be the area.I think that the values you should enter into the function should be the ln of μ and σ. I tried both and still the values are not correct.

How can I plot the function but using the value of the height instead of the value of the area? I am sure that the height is 4724. How can I obtain the area if I know the height of the maximum μ and σ? Or how can I plot it?

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
I know from my earlier plot, that the maximum of the lognormal(3.5,1.5) PDF is about 48.61/1965 = 0.024737913486. So you can multiply the lognormal PDF by 4724/0.024737913486 = 190,962.
Plot
##f(x) = \frac{190962} {\sigma x \sqrt{2π} } e^{-\frac{(ln(x) - \mu)^2} {2\sigma^2}}##
 
If I plot ths funtion, the maximum height is not 4724. I am looking for a way to plot the lognormal funtion if I know μ and σ and the maximum height.

Thank you!
 
I get a maximum height of 4724.07 at x=3.49. What do you get?
 
Ok, my maximum is different because I am putting the ln of μ and σ. If I put your values I obtain the same. I should introduce μ and σ or the ln of μ and σ.

Independently of this. Do you think I can find a function to directly plot the graph if I know the maximum height, μ and σ? I have to represent different functions and I don't want to do the process with each one to find the value of 190962 or 14800 if I use the ln
 
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing:
I am using the ##\mu_Z## and ##\sigma_Z## of the lognormal distributed variable ##X = e^{\mu_Z+\sigma_ZS}##, where S is a standard normal random variable. S is standard normal. ##Z=\mu_Z+\sigma_ZS## is normally distributed with mean ##\mu_Z## and standard deviation ##\sigma_Z##. Then ##\mu_Z## and ##\sigma_Z^2## are the usual parameters of the lognormal X but not the statistical mean and variance of it.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution.)

From the link, the statistical mean and variation of the lognormal random ##X## is ##\mu_X = e^{\mu_Z + \frac {\sigma_Z^2}{2}}## and ##\sigma_X^2 = (e^{\sigma_Z^2}-1)e^{2\mu_Z+\sigma_Z^2}##.
It sounds like you are not saying that ##\mu_Z = 3.5## and ##\sigma_Z=1.5##
Are you saying that ##\mu_X = 3.5## and ##\sigma_X=1.5##? Or are you talking about yet another random variable ##Y=1965 X## which has area 1965, and saying that ##\mu_Y = 3.5## and ##\sigma_Y=1.5##?
 
Last edited:
Hi, thank you again for your time. You are right, I am saying my ##\mu_x=3.5## and my ##\sigma_x=1.5##. The ##\mu_z## and ##\sigma_z## are respectively 1.2 and 0.34 (using the equations you send me). I get the maximum at x=2.9 aprox.

Forget about the 1965, I thhought it was the area, but it is not. I know that the height at the maximum of my distribution is 4772 and I want a formula to plot the distribution if I know ##\mu_z##, ##\sigma_z## and this height.
 
  • #10
Ok. Plotting ##f(x) = lognormal(1.2, 0.34^2)## I could find maximum of 0.37 at x=3.49. I scaled that and plotted (4772/0.37)f(x). In that plot I could find a maximum of 4829.239 at x=2.957. So I scaled again and plotted ##(4772/4829.239)(4772/0.37)f(x) = 12744.4308932945 f(x)## . Zooming in on that plot, it looked like it has a maximum of 4772.00004 at x=2.9576682.
 
  • #11
Umm, I do not know why the maximum changes from 3,49 to 2,96

But then I have to know first the maximum of the distribution (this 0,37). This value is going to change depending of the distribution (##\mu## and ##\sigma##). I would like to fine a faster method to plot the function without having to plot first the non-scaled distribution.

I understant that the value of 12744 is the area of the new function. Is there an expresion relating this number with the height at the maximum, ##\mu## and ##\sigma##?
 
  • #12
eduyu2018 said:
Umm, I do not know why the maximum changes from 3,49 to 2,96
You can verify that the value of the PDF at ##x=2.9576682, \mu=1.2, \sigma=0.34## is 0.37443806439 by using the PDF calculator in https://www.medcalc.org/manual/log-normal_distribution_functions.php.
But then I have to know first the maximum of the distribution (this 0,37). This value is going to change depending of the distribution (##\mu## and ##\sigma##). I would like to fine a faster method to plot the function without having to plot first the non-scaled distribution.
I guess you could calculate the derivative of the PDF and get an equation for the zero of it (that might require an iterative algorithm). From that, you can calculate the maximum at that point and scale appropriately.
I understant that the value of 12744 is the area of the new function. Is there an expresion relating this number with the height at the maximum, ##\mu## and ##\sigma##?
The scale factor, S, the you use to set the maximum at the desired maximum will also scale the integral of the PDF (the area) from one to S.
 
  • #13
Thank you for your comments. I will do it in that way. I have to do a lot of this plots and I was wishing it would be an easy way to plot all just with a formula including the height.
Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K