2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to find out whether the performance of the geometric mean of a distribution as a measure of its central tendency would be impaired by the distribution being multimodal.

For example, imagine I want to estimate the most likely central value for the probability distribution of stock market returns, which is unknown. I draw a random sample of equities in order to use sample moments to estimate the population moments. I can do this using sample metrics such as arithmetic / geometric mean, median, mode etc.

If I use a geometric mean to estimate the most likely central value for the population pdf, and I have bimodal / multimodal data, will the geometric mean of that sample be more biased as an estimate of the central tendency of the population than it would be were the data unimodal? For instance, I know that the arithmetic mean of both unimodal and bimodal samples here would produce the same value. What if the whole population followed a bimodal distribution? Would a geometric mean be inappropriate to use to estimate population mean from a sample mean in this case?

Sorry if this is unclear. I am still new to statistics.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Could you explain what aspect of any multimodal distribution your measure of "central tendency" ought to reflect? $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about that whuber, I have edited my question. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ There is a subtlety lurking here. The GM is the (usual) arithmetic mean when the data are expressed as logarithms. But it is possible that in terms of the logarithms the distribution is unimodal! If that's the case, perhaps it's a signal from the data gods that you should be expressing the data in logarithms from the outset and analyzing them from that perspective. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented May 16, 2023 at 17:09

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I am new to statistics myself.

Here's a numeric example pinpointing the constituents of above question:

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from scipy.stats import gmean

s = pd.Series(np.r_[np.random.normal(5, 1, size=1000),
                    np.random.normal(13, 2, size=1000)], name='f(x)')
ax = s.plot.hist(bins=50)
_, ymax = ax.get_ylim()
ax.axvline(s.mean(), ymax=ymax, color='red', label='arithmetic mean')
ax.axvline(gmean(s), ymax=ymax, color='blue', label='geometric mean')
ax.legend()

enter image description here

While in the above example geometric mean tends closer to the sample distribution peak, it is certainly unwise to use it as a general replacement for $E[X]$ or $\mu$ in equations, unless you already know what you are doing.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For bimodal distributions, no measures of central tendency other than multiple modes make any sense. Estimate the whole distribution, including using the empirical cumulative distribution function. Quantiles may be slightly meaningful. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2022 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ This isn't terribly convincing except as a demonstration of what didn't need much demonstration. If your distribution is strongly bimodal, then no one measure of level will work well at capturing what is going on in between the two main clumps. There remains the point made by @whuber in comments: just possibly the bimodality on a transformed scale is not as strong as it appears on the original scale. The possibility has to be answered by data analysis rather than by simulation. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Commented May 14 at 17:43

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.