# S.O.S. Mathematics CyberBoard

Your Resource for mathematics help on the web!
 It is currently Sun, 19 May 2013 01:01:09 UTC

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: lognormal scaling?Posted: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:20:56 UTC
 Member of the 'S.O.S. Math' Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:48:38 UTC
Posts: 537
Hi there,

In this paper

http://polymer.bu.edu/hes/articles/lgcmps99.pdf

on page 3 in fig 3b they show scaled probability versus scaled volatility.

They describe the scaling as log-normal scaling with

\sqrt(v) exp(a-v/4)P(VT) as a function of [ln(V(T)-a]/\sqrt{\pi v}, where a and v are the mean and the "width" on a logarithmic scale

I don't really understand what they mean here?

a is just the logarithmic mean
v I assume in the standard deviation?

So why are the observations not just re-scales as (V(T)-a)/v?

Top

 Post subject: Re: lognormal scaling?Posted: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:35 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6003
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
Bazman wrote:
Hi there,

In this paper

http://polymer.bu.edu/hes/articles/lgcmps99.pdf

on page 3 in fig 3b they show scaled probability versus scaled volatility.

They describe the scaling as log-normal scaling with

\sqrt(v) exp(a-v/4)P(VT) as a function of [ln(V(T)-a]/\sqrt{\pi v}, where a and v are the mean and the "width" on a logarithmic scale

I don't really understand what they mean here?

a is just the logarithmic mean
v I assume in the standard deviation?

So why are the observations not just re-scales as (V(T)-a)/v?

No! If you scale by , then what happens to ? Clearly that is not what you want.

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: lognormal scaling?Posted: Wed, 16 May 2012 17:39:12 UTC
 Member of the 'S.O.S. Math' Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:48:38 UTC
Posts: 537
You would get:

but that is not what they do, I believe (although I admit the instructions are not clear hence my confusion).

where a is the natural log (not ) of the expectation of the data and is the natural log of the standard deviation calculated as shown below:

http://www.chinarel.com/onlinebook/Acce ... bution.htm

where as shown they take the width to be 3 standard deviations (of the median rank values).

So I am still confused by several points:

1.) Why is the probability weighted as shown in the original article? It seems to give the correct results but I would like to know how it was derived?
2.) Why is the denominator of the volatility scaling and not just given that in the new article above is the standard deviation and not the variance? again it works when I treat where is as shown in the new article but I would like to understand why? + I have no idea why the is there.
3.) Where does the formula for the calculation of the standard deviation on the log log graph in the new article come from? It works but why?
4.) When calculating the standard deviation in the article in the new link they use median rank as opposed to just the standard 3 deviations? Is it necessary to use the median rank? Again it seems to give the correct answer although the difference with just 3 standard deviations is small.
5.) in the last part they take the base case to be however this function is not defined for negative values? + shouldn't the equation be ? I get round this be calculating the base case function on a domain on the same length as the rescaled range but starting at zero and then plot it against the rescaled range which seems to work. Just want to check that my workaround here is correct?

even if you only answer some of the questions above you would be helping me a lot!

Top

 Post subject: Re: lognormal scaling?Posted: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:59:19 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6003
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
Bazman wrote:
You would get:

but that is not what they do, I believe (although I admit the instructions are not clear hence my confusion).

where a is the natural log (not ) of the expectation of the data and is the natural log of the standard deviation calculated as shown below:

http://www.chinarel.com/onlinebook/Acce ... bution.htm

where as shown they take the width to be 3 standard deviations (of the median rank values).

So I am still confused by several points:

1.) Why is the probability weighted as shown in the original article? It seems to give the correct results but I would like to know how it was derived?
2.) Why is the denominator of the volatility scaling and not just given that in the new article above is the standard deviation and not the variance? again it works when I treat where is as shown in the new article but I would like to understand why? + I have no idea why the is there.
3.) Where does the formula for the calculation of the standard deviation on the log log graph in the new article come from? It works but why?
4.) When calculating the standard deviation in the article in the new link they use median rank as opposed to just the standard 3 deviations? Is it necessary to use the median rank? Again it seems to give the correct answer although the difference with just 3 standard deviations is small.
5.) in the last part they take the base case to be however this function is not defined for negative values? + shouldn't the equation be ? I get round this be calculating the base case function on a domain on the same length as the rescaled range but starting at zero and then plot it against the rescaled range which seems to work. Just want to check that my workaround here is correct?

even if you only answer some of the questions above you would be helping me a lot!

Well, is not , but the density function. Hence the (recall that if , then has density .

The suggests .

The is indeed not necessary. But you need a somewhere anyway when you work with normal distribution and friends.

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: lognormal scaling?Posted: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:16:13 UTC
 Member of the 'S.O.S. Math' Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:48:38 UTC
Posts: 537
OK I think I am somewhat closer.

Using the result for the change of variables of a distribution shown about half way down this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilit ... y_function

If the probability density function of a random variable X is given as , it is possible to calculate the probability density function of using the formula

Thus the lognormal distibution with and

Taking the change of variable to be

I have excluded the term shown in the original paper from the denominator as I agree with outermeasure that it doesn't seem to fit

and taking the inverse

and the derivative is

and so applying the change of variable formula above.

where now the transformed variable is used in instead of

This is close to the form given in the sheet apart from the scaling factor on the probability is instead of

Can you see how to I can get to the solution given in the original paper from here?

Top

 Post subject: Re: lognormal scaling?Posted: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:13:13 UTC
 Member of the 'S.O.S. Math' Hall of Fame

Joined: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:48:38 UTC
Posts: 537
ignore previous post

OK I think I am somewhat closer.

Using the result for the change of variables of a distribution shown about half way down this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilit ... y_function

If the probability density function of a random variable X is given as , it is possible to calculate the probability density function of using the formula

Thus the lognormal distibution with params and

and we want to transform to

which they describe as the lognormal form in which and

Taking the change of variable to be

and this effectively cancels out the term in the original pdf when you take it out of the square root and place it in the numerator.

and taking the inverse

and the derivative is

and so applying the change of variable formula above.

where now the transformed variable is used in instead of

now

and

this cancels with the term in the denomiator of the first fraction in the original pdf leaving

which is the solution we are looking for apart from the factor of can you see where that might cancel?

So the formula looks correct but I am not getting correct scaling when I apply to data.

My question is:

1.) When the variables are plotted in a log-log plot (as in fig 3a of the original paper), can I take to be equal to the value of the peak probability ?
If so should I then take or ?
Using the figure seems to work much better giving nearly right answers? But intuitively it seems wrong? The only place scale is used is in the log-log plot?

2.) Similarly they say that should be the width of the parabola on a log-log scale? I simply take this to mean the difference in the values of when at the maximum and minimum probabilities respectively. Is this correct?
If so and the similar to part 1 should I use this value expressed on a or scale?

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ High School and College Mathematics    Algebra    Geometry and Trigonometry    Calculus    Matrix Algebra    Differential Equations    Probability and Statistics    Proposed Problems Applications    Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc.    Computer Science    Math for Business and Economics Advanced Mathematics    Foundations    Algebra and Number Theory    Analysis and Topology    Applied Mathematics    Other Topics in Advanced Mathematics Other Topics    Administrator Announcements    Comments and Suggestions for S.O.S. Math    Posting Math Formulas with LaTeX    Miscellaneous