2
$\begingroup$

stats noob here.

I have a (circular) dataset with values in [0, 2pi]. I need some kind of a measure of how disperse or diverse the dataset is. I have looked a bit into non circular (regular) data, and I happened to come across coefficient of variation as a non-dimensional measure of dispersion in a dataset.

My question is: can I modify the coefficient of variation in my case as (circular stddev) / (circular mean) and use it as a dispersion measure?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Mathematically, provided you are not dividing by zero of course you can. The question is whether that is statistically meaningful. I would think it is but you should consult some statistics reference $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2022 at 9:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you help us understand what you mean by dispersion? To the statistician, this is the same thing as standard deviation (or, at least, standard deviation is one way to measure dispersion). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @John Madden: To me dispersion is a more informal term, which could be quantified various ways. Maybe depends on context, though ... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. For instance, conceivably a dataset with half its values equal to $\theta$ and the other half equal to $\theta + \pi$ could be considered "most dispersed." $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 15:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @kjetilbhalvorsen Maybe I should have included the exact parenthetical that I did =P I'm only asking because OP seems to be asking about a coefficient of variation rather than a measure of dispersion tout court. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 16:38

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

Given the finite support of the domain, and the fact that the most dispersed distribution in this case is certainly the uniform distribution $U$ (with $u(x) = 1/2\pi$), you could measure the dispersion via the Kullback-Leibler divergence from uniformity, which in this case is closely related to the entropy of the distribution:

$$ D_{KL}(P \mid \mid U) = - \int_0^{2\pi} p(x) \log \left( \frac{p(x)}{1/2\pi} \right) \, dx = \log \left(\frac{1}{2 \pi} \right) - \int_0^{2\pi} p(x) \log p(x) \, dx $$

One reason to suppose that this could be preferable to standard deviation (or the c.v., which does have a problematic zero divisor case) is that this is invariant under rotations of the plane in which $x$ measures angles -- the value $x = 0 \, \textrm{rad}$ is usually an arbitrary marker point in cases where circular distributions would be use, and any other point on the circle could have been chosen as $x' = 0 \, \textrm{rad}$. Because the definition only involves a total integral and the values of $p(x)$, the result is the same no matter what reference direction is chosen as 0 radians.

The standard deviation of a distribution on on the real line is useful exactly because is invariant to linear translations of the axis, but fails to respect the underlying symmetry for the circular domain (think, for instance, if the probability spiked at a value just greater than $0$ and another value at just less than $2\pi$, the standard deviation would be large, but $0$ and $2\pi$ are close in angular space -- with a different choice of reference direction these points could have numerically similar angles, and the distribution would have small standard deviation.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't this formula always yield an infinite or zero value when applied to the empirical distribution of the data? Given that, what do you propose to use for $P$? If you really mean this to be essentially the entropy of $P$, then this solution distinguishes between datasets with tied values and datasets without tied values, but doesn't reflect what one likely means by "dispersion" of the angles. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ $0$ and $2\pi$ are certainly close in angular space; they are identical. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox, oops, I omitted the "just greater than" and "just less than" qualifiers the second time around $\endgroup$
    – jwimberley
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough. Epsilon is not zero. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 16:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are standard solutions. The key is to analyze the cosine and sine of the angles. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 17:12
0
$\begingroup$

Short answer is No. A coefficient of variation such as you define it is not just useless, it is meaningless.

For example, two datasets that are 350, 0, 10 degrees and 170, 180, 190 degrees have (I suggest) equal dispersion by any standard BUT dividing any measure of dispersion by the mean makes no sense, even if it is a vector mean. In other words, the mean can easily be zero.

(In this example, and rarely, the vector mean and the ordinary mean coincide for each dataset.)

More generally, the position of the mean depends on a convention about what is zero direction. In geography and Earth sciences, North as a bearing is usually zero, but there could be excellent grounds for using another direction as zero. The same goes for time of day, time of year and any other circular outcome space.

But a positive answer is that several measures of dispersion are defined for circular data. The range can often be useful, defined as the complement of the largest gap on the circle. So, the two toy examples above both have range 20 degrees: that is obvious enough for 170, 180, 190 and obvious when you think about it for the other example. The mean resultant length is more nearly standard. (It has many other names, including vector strength and consistency.)

There is an entire literature on circular statistics with several dedicated monographs, for all that many statistical people never have cause to know about it.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I don't think this directly answers your question but you seem to be looking for a way to measure dispersion in circular data. As others have pointed out, there is a literature on circular statistics and standard solutions to this problem. The basic summary statistic for circular (or otherwise cyclic) data is the mean vector.

Assuming your data is not weighted, you interpret every angle $\theta_i$ as a unit vector.

$$ \bar{v}_i = [\text{cos}(\theta_i), \text{sin}(\theta_i)]$$

Your mean is then given by:

$$ \bar{r} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{n} \bar{v}_i $$

The angle of $\bar{r}$ ($\theta_\bar{r} = \text{atan2}(y_\bar{r}, x_\bar{r}$) gives you the mean angle of the data. The magnitude of $\bar{r}$ ($|\bar{r}| = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$) ranges from 0 (data is completely dispersed, uniform) to 1 (all data points are identical). Circular standard deviation and angular deviation can both be computed from $|\bar{r}|$.

There are also a number of tests on dispersion, the most basic of which is the Rayleigh test (is the data sufficiently concentrated in a particular direction or not).

If you're a stats noob (like me) I would recommend something like Batschelet (1981), Circular Statistics in Biology. It gives a very easy introduction which explains why circular and linear measures should not generally be mixed and then provides a 'cookbook' of different tests and the assumptions which must be satisfied in order for them to be valid.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.