19
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to estimate the parameters of a gamma distribution that fits best to my data sample. I only want to use the mean, std (and hence variance) from the data sample, not the actual values - since these won't always be available in my application.

According to this document, the following formulas can be applied to estimate the shape and scale: formulas

I tried this for my data, however the results are very different compared to fitting a gamma distribution on the actual data using a python programming library.

I attach my data/code to show the issue at hand:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import gamma

data = [91.81, 10.02, 27.61, 50.48, 3.34, 26.35, 21.0, 79.27, 31.04, 8.85, 109.2, 15.52, 11.03, 41.09, 10.75, 96.43, 109.52, 33.28, 7.66, 65.44, 52.43, 19.25, 10.97, 586.52, 56.91, 157.18, 434.74, 16.07, 334.43, 6.63, 108.41, 4.45, 42.03, 39.75, 300.17, 4.37, 343.19, 32.04, 42.57, 29.53, 276.75, 15.43, 117.67, 75.47, 292.43, 457.91, 5.49, 17.69, 10.31, 58.91, 76.94, 37.39, 64.46, 187.25, 30.0, 9.94, 83.05, 51.11, 17.68, 81.98, 4.41, 33.24, 20.36, 8.8, 846.0, 154.24, 311.09, 120.72, 65.13, 25.52, 50.9, 14.27, 17.74, 529.82, 35.13, 124.68, 13.21, 88.24, 12.12, 254.32, 22.09, 61.7, 88.08, 18.75, 14.34, 931.67, 19.98, 50.86, 7.71, 5.57, 8.81, 14.49, 26.74, 13.21, 8.92, 26.65, 10.09, 7.74, 21.23, 66.35, 31.81, 36.61, 92.29, 26.18, 20.55, 17.18, 35.44, 6.63, 69.0, 8.81, 19.87, 5.46, 29.81, 122.01, 57.83, 33.04, 9.91, 196.0, 34.26, 34.31, 36.55, 7.74, 6.68, 6.83, 18.83, 6.6, 50.78, 95.65, 53.91, 81.62, 57.96, 26.72, 76.25, 5.48, 4.43, 133.04, 33.37, 45.26, 30.51, 9.98, 11.08, 28.95, 71.25, 70.65, 3.34, 12.28, 111.67, 139.86, 23.34, 30.0, 26.38, 33.51, 1112.64, 25.87, 148.59, 552.79, 11.11, 47.8, 7.8, 9.98, 7.69, 85.46, 3.59, 122.71, 32.09, 82.51, 12.14, 12.57, 8.8, 49.61, 95.41, 26.99, 13.29, 4.57, 7.78, 4.4, 6.66, 12.17, 12.18, 1533.01, 22.95, 15.93, 14.82, 2.2, 12.04, 9.94, 17.64, 6.66, 18.64, 83.66, 142.99, 30.76, 67.57, 9.88, 46.44, 19.5, 22.2, 43.1, 653.67, 9.86, 7.69, 7.74, 27.19, 38.64, 12.32, 182.34, 43.13, 3.28, 14.32, 69.78, 32.2, 17.66, 18.67, 4.4, 9.05, 56.94, 33.32, 13.2, 15.07, 12.73, 3.32, 35.44, 14.35, 66.68, 51.28, 6.86, 75.49, 5.54, 21.0, 24.2, 38.1, 13.31, 7.78, 5.76, 51.86, 11.09, 20.71, 36.74, 21.97, 10.36, 32.04, 96.94, 13.93, 51.84, 6.88, 27.58, 100.56, 20.97, 828.16, 6.63, 32.15, 19.92, 253.23, 25.35, 23.35, 17.6, 43.18, 19.36, 13.7, 3.31, 22.99, 26.58, 4.43, 2.22, 55.46, 22.34, 13.24, 86.18, 181.29, 52.15, 5.52, 21.12, 34.24, 49.78, 14.37, 39.73, 78.22, 26.6, 20.19, 26.57, 105.8, 11.08, 46.47, 52.82, 13.46, 8.0, 7.74, 49.73, 4.4, 5.44, 51.7, 28.64, 8.95, 9.15, 4.46, 21.03, 29.92, 19.89, 4.38, 19.94, 7.77, 23.43, 57.07, 86.5, 12.82, 103.85, 39.63, 8.83, 42.32, 17.02, 14.29, 16.75, 24.4, 27.97, 8.83, 8.91, 24.23, 6.58, 30.97, 150.58, 122.73, 17.69, 37.11, 11.05, 298.23, 25.58, 9.91, 38.85, 17.24, 82.17, 42.11, 3.29, 38.63, 27.55, 18.22, 127.16, 57.66, 34.45, 41.26, 45.91, 9.88, 34.48, 484.33, 58.42, 30.09, 6.69, 254.49, 1313.58, 39.89, 3.31, 7.83, 10.98, 13.21, 67.78, 7.77, 117.72, 20.03, 83.23, 31.28, 38.97, 6.63, 6.63, 36.6, 22.12, 154.57, 112.65, 19.88, 674.18, 83.31, 5.54, 8.81, 11.06, 178.33, 30.47, 1180.39, 79.33, 37.74, 86.3, 16.61, 53.94, 52.78, 20.83, 11.15, 26.68, 86.04, 180.26, 99.62, 11.17, 28.74, 56.85, 15.51, 95.37, 44.09, 6.68, 12.14, 6.72, 19.81, 10.05, 34.26, 69.84, 14.35, 17.72, 8.81, 20.86, 37.69, 24.62, 72.11, 8.83, 7.69, 60.79, 20.02, 9.41, 13.24, 29.8, 43.09, 25.34, 174.34, 161.6, 119.34, 30.08, 54.15, 7.74, 249.29, 9.98, 21.87, 38.92, 98.45, 95.07, 7.74, 4.45, 81.98, 12.18, 28.66, 5.58, 59.94, 22.15, 9.98, 18.86, 6.69, 134.97, 13.29, 4.43, 8.88, 5.74, 25.16, 122.39, 3.53, 6.68, 3.4, 17.58, 62.51, 584.3, 46.63, 21.19, 22.14, 5.74, 8.19, 7.74, 7.64, 4.41, 3.32, 130.76, 3.29, 31.04, 3.26, 18.83, 168.31, 7.68, 120.19, 43.95, 747.12, 18.75, 306.24, 29.72, 5.57, 6.65, 53.2, 7.96, 25.34, 25.57, 8.85, 93.59, 92.96, 23.4, 60.0, 6.63, 12.15, 49.98, 39.75, 7.77, 5.73, 18.74, 11.58, 281.32, 13.99, 4.59, 13.35, 25.05, 9.98, 5.58, 91.43, 288.94, 15.43, 7.8, 9.92, 18.69, 6.63, 78.38, 18.86, 63.03, 26.38, 166.41, 27.78, 54.21, 173.32, 11.12, 17.85, 14.43, 31.31, 3.37, 16.63, 5.51, 77.74, 8.89, 17.71, 3.24, 9.28, 22.12, 2.2, 19.41, 12.23, 22.31, 9.36, 18.85, 51.5, 8.3, 23.0, 29.7, 29.81, 4.65, 75.77, 55.52, 144.45, 6.68, 13.26, 72.78, 56.71, 46.35, 6.63, 8.88, 6.61, 41.7, 15.09, 5.51, 18.78, 74.09, 487.0, 27.52, 18.99, 44.18, 41.76, 6.65, 23.62, 175.68, 446.38, 87.13, 165.69, 16.57, 7.88, 16.57, 80.17, 135.75, 3.29, 134.16, 25.58, 45.13, 114.23, 471.15, 97.75, 12.2, 32.01, 62.21, 22.36, 193.55, 210.65, 42.39, 27.57, 106.15, 44.76, 16.6, 134.76, 18.81, 14.76, 7.97, 160.59, 39.21, 60.36, 62.45, 72.18, 91.15, 23.71, 105.04, 70.87, 25.57, 122.09, 60.09, 38.8, 133.87, 4.41, 13.28, 45.63, 45.41, 67.81, 26.68, 97.33, 723.5, 5.51, 164.05, 165.32, 4.45, 57.67, 85.82, 11.56, 12.26, 17.97, 31.04, 76.72, 15.01, 35.88, 32.37, 23.63, 85.57, 9.34, 4.45, 90.25, 73.71, 45.99, 14.24, 176.85, 65.21, 9.92, 15.02, 12.9, 21.4, 59.94, 64.62, 37.53, 147.89, 36.52, 97.67, 16.65, 22.1, 23.38, 76.85, 16.58, 7.72, 17.75, 91.25, 9.91, 18.46, 4.45, 3.29, 73.18, 19.5, 5.58, 18.85, 28.64, 7.8, 43.74, 4.43, 7.99, 132.4, 41.48, 14.45, 8.78, 8.14, 9.95, 2.46, 16.61, 32.71, 17.74, 4.46, 68.25, 34.55, 9.92, 181.31, 37.63, 125.22, 25.37, 24.45, 220.92, 11.09, 35.46, 588.56, 58.21, 22.39, 78.55, 135.13, 280.65, 273.41, 381.07, 60.56, 68.63, 40.17, 27.68, 23.68, 23.15, 28.8, 20.94, 21.92, 159.06, 9.94, 127.52, 32.4, 15.93, 99.09, 48.31, 104.66, 257.4, 117.08, 180.32, 66.55, 95.99, 17.74, 30.14, 270.54, 39.8, 54.77, 16.04, 76.99, 5.43, 8.78, 76.96, 10.39, 18.47, 290.11, 48.35, 289.06, 10.44, 57.75, 47.83, 101.62, 96.3, 71.62, 256.97, 149.45, 22.17, 23.15, 89.25, 36.46, 90.03, 69.14, 28.27, 28.72, 17.44, 43.38, 56.72, 84.96, 25.4, 55.06, 47.68, 92.11, 6.65, 30.94, 15.38, 27.44, 516.55, 5.83, 19.45, 41.53, 110.69, 6.82, 54.09, 13.31, 89.8, 25.57, 110.89, 3.32, 93.76, 33.81, 80.87, 30.9, 58.53, 185.22, 4.38, 58.75, 189.53, 7.19, 7.8, 48.97, 28.8, 48.52, 45.96, 309.44, 29.16, 2.22, 255.91, 78.7, 102.67, 33.32, 43.2, 19.5, 91.59, 139.89, 5.51, 213.96, 10.02, 10.03, 39.87, 8.95, 27.74, 7.78, 65.93, 45.41, 263.21, 33.06, 5.54, 59.77, 2.2, 9.95, 14.38, 44.76, 96.45, 15.91, 133.07, 38.03, 36.43, 7.83, 105.41, 20.5, 25.35, 20.55, 119.59, 24.31, 28.81, 101.0, 67.0, 143.85, 20.55, 83.45, 60.62, 25.19, 6.65, 1745.95, 41.62, 44.96, 65.42, 9.92, 24.23, 73.56, 34.35, 75.72, 18.77, 88.59, 312.55, 56.43, 106.61, 11.44, 22.04, 5.73, 197.92, 25.32, 144.83, 145.36, 4.43, 18.33, 48.72, 33.42, 8.83, 18.85, 32.25, 88.56, 14.95, 147.39, 9.25, 35.24, 141.51, 14.41, 5.49, 42.28, 75.69, 16.96, 6.71, 17.33, 710.34, 68.92, 28.39, 24.98, 33.03, 31.06, 46.24, 36.77, 43.74, 11.48, 22.14, 13.21, 15.8, 21.9, 5.51, 20.66, 22.04, 127.0, 21.03, 36.75, 61.45, 42.12, 238.3, 57.43, 28.61, 31.31, 15.43, 8.88, 54.26, 34.01, 5.79, 8.02, 25.68, 19.67, 29.19, 4.38, 15.05, 5.57, 32.31, 81.68, 29.92, 397.98, 119.2, 5.52, 25.54, 12.78, 17.78, 100.97, 253.58, 8.92, 22.04, 22.03, 86.57, 97.27, 106.29, 33.31, 13.34, 35.57, 40.75, 6.57, 23.32, 6.63, 30.09, 62.39, 35.62, 25.23, 5.49, 77.67, 4.41, 8.77, 12.09, 32.0, 7.75, 25.44, 27.57, 25.51, 81.59, 8.83, 64.15, 48.92, 52.25, 2.2, 13.29, 15.52, 320.64, 22.26, 21.03, 79.27, 6.61, 59.38, 40.19, 43.07, 2.26, 20.97, 8.8, 205.43, 51.82, 8.78, 90.72, 6.63, 14.46, 85.62, 72.53, 29.24, 68.81, 67.6, 1.15, 13.15, 17.71, 20.06, 77.42, 167.72, 5.54, 34.45, 5.51, 54.04, 7.8, 79.91, 4.62, 66.39, 164.13, 78.1, 49.72, 19.92, 28.92, 709.25, 18.19, 875.38, 60.92, 5.55, 71.14, 301.2, 27.74, 34.26, 108.78, 88.28, 75.83, 7.82, 8.78, 44.68, 20.98, 41.9, 8.88, 124.18, 198.8, 180.0, 71.61, 119.27, 59.33, 3.28, 43.88, 14.46, 64.34, 158.59, 41.98, 32.28, 14.43, 48.49, 2.36, 14.38, 25.52, 7.83, 2.2, 292.18, 8.97, 36.18, 7.8, 8.89, 43.26, 25.35, 12.29, 6.88, 34.48, 11.09, 16.57, 35.99, 13.45, 6.6, 162.65, 13.23, 26.91, 55.62, 61.4, 48.47, 89.62, 7.77, 6.65, 11.56, 23.28, 6.66, 7.74, 4.62, 5.8, 24.56, 10.16, 8.91, 14.45, 25.37, 6.61, 75.29, 11.03, 36.75, 38.61, 36.52, 17.75, 61.87, 31.92, 120.9, 144.82, 70.98, 19.98, 80.09, 30.17, 35.48, 2.4, 42.15, 24.29, 111.26, 71.9, 158.23, 49.75, 7.75, 13.28, 10.97, 5.51, 34.37, 56.61, 138.83, 231.4, 20.17, 29.89, 20.27, 7.69, 77.35, 12.26, 1144.41, 9.95, 7.72, 196.64, 499.4, 114.38, 24.43, 94.88, 75.15, 4.48, 8.89, 196.05, 95.15, 99.28, 42.36, 234.32, 4.59, 80.97, 237.69, 89.34, 4.51, 6.68, 148.42, 108.58, 5.48, 132.38, 7.94, 204.74, 11.08, 74.24, 146.22, 79.5, 17.68, 10.51, 550.77, 45.35, 23.28, 47.57, 40.56, 114.76, 29.81, 15.51, 11.0, 26.61, 6.74, 142.82, 12.17]

Some info about the data:

Mean: 68.71313036020582, Variance: 19112.931263699986, Standard Deviation: 138.24952536518882, Amount elements in training data: 1166

Histogram of the data:

enter image description here

Using the python library for fitting:

x = np.linspace(0,300,1000)
# Gamma
shape, loc, scale = gamma.fit(data, floc=0)
print(shape, loc, scale)
y = gamma.pdf(x, shape, loc, scale)
plt.title('Fitted Gamma')
plt.plot(x, y)
plt.show()

fitted gamma

Parameters: 0.7369587045435088 0 93.2387797804

Estimated it myself:

def calculateGammaParams(data):
    mean = np.mean(data)
    std = np.std(data)
    shape = (mean/std)**2
    scale = (std**2)/mean
    return (shape, 0, scale)

eshape, eloc, escale = calculateGammaParams(data)
print(eshape, eloc, escale)
ey = gamma.pdf(x, eshape, eloc, escale)
plt.title('Estimated Gamma')
plt.plot(x, ey)
plt.show()

estimated

Parameters: 0.247031406055 0 278.155443705

One can clearly see a huge difference.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Please show what you calculated that was "very far from 1" -- this won't related to whether the moment-based estimates are themselves good or not. If possible give your data (e.g. if the sample size is small enough to include in your post) and your parameter estimates calculated both ways. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica May 19 '17 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ I have updated my question with data, sample code and plots. I hope this helps clarifying my question. $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 10:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seem not to be sure that you would like to fit a Gamma distribution. This raises the more fundamental question: why are you going through this exercise in the first place? What are you hoping to accomplish by fitting any distribution to the data? $\endgroup$ – whuber May 19 '17 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber I'm fitting the data in order to be able to make some assumptions about future data - more precisely to identify outlier behaviour. I heard the Gamma/lognorm would be a good fit for this type of data. $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 22 '17 at 7:35
15
$\begingroup$

Both the MLEs and moment based estimators are consistent and so you'd expect that in sufficiently large samples from a gamma distribution they'd tend to be quite similar. However, they won't necessarily be alike when the distribution is not close to a gamma.

Looking at the distribution of the log of the data, it is roughly symmetric - or indeed actually somewhat right skew. This indicates that the gamma model is inappropriate (for a gamma the log should be left skew).

It may be that an inverse gamma model may perform better for these data. But the same mild right-skew in the logs would be seen with any number of other distributions -- we can't really say much for sure based on the direction of skewness on the log scale.

This may be part of the explanation for why the two sets of estimates are dissimilar -- the method of moments and the MLEs won't tend to be consistent with each other.

You can estimate inverse gamma parameters by inverting the data, fitting a gamma, and then keeping those parameter estimates as is. You can also estimate lognormal parameters from mean and standard deviation (several posts on site show how, or see wikipedia), but the heavier the tail of the distribution, the worse those method of moments estimators will tend to be.


It seems (from comments below my answer) that the real issue is that parameter estimates must be updated "on-line" - to take only summary information, not the entire data - and update parameter estimates from the summary information. The reason for using the sample mean and variance in the question is that they can be quickly updated.

However, they're not the only things that can be quickly updated!

Distributions in the exponential family, where $f_{X}(x\mid \theta )=\exp \left(\eta (\theta )\cdot T(x)-A(\theta )+B(x)\right)\,$ have a sufficient statistic, $T(x)$.

(NB here $\theta$ is a vector of parameters, and $T$ is vector of sufficient statistics -- of the same dimension)

For all of the distributions I discuss (gamma, lognormal, inverse gamma) the sufficient statistics are easily updated. For reasons of stability, I suggest updating the following quantities (which between them are sufficient for all three distributions):

  • the mean of the data

  • the mean of the logs of the data

  • the variance of the logs of the data

For actual maximum likelihood, you'd use $s^2_n$ rather than the Bessel-corrected version of the variance, but it doesn't matter all that much (and if you update the Bessel-corrected version you can get the $n$-denominator version easily so it won't matter which you update).

Stable variance-updates should be used. [Do not update the mean of the squares and use $\frac{1}{n}\sum x_i^2-\bar{x}^2$ to compute variance -- that's asking for trouble.]


If you want to assess the suitability of the model over time, you will want to store more than sufficient statistics. Binned data might serve for that. A few hundred (say 500 or so) well chosen bins will be barely distinguishable in a plot from raw data (even in a Q-Q plot), but bin counts take little room to store and are rapidly updated. You'll probably need a much wider range of bins than you expect the data to take up, so perhaps 2000 bins total even if only a fraction of them might be used in a plot, and you'll need end-bins that cover values out to the ends of the possible range for the variable ($0$ and $\infty$). I'd suggest binning the logs rather than the original data for model assessment purposes.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the explanation, what would be a better fitting distribution if I may ask? $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ I have made a suggestion in an edit ... an inverse gamma may fit better -- or indeed any number of other possibilities consistent with that observation about the logs. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica May 19 '17 at 11:51
  • $\begingroup$ I've fitted the inverse gamma using the python library and the results look very promising. However, I can't quite figure out how to find the shape and scale for the invgamma analytically. I thought it would use the same calculateGammaParams() function that I wrote and simply inverse the scale and shape, by doing 1/scale and 1/shape. However this seems wrong. The fitted params are 0.918884418421 0 14.8279520471, while my estimates are 0.247031406055 0 278.155443705 $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ A lognormal looks not too bad. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox May 19 '17 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox I actually tried a lognormal before giving the Gamma a try. At first glance it seemed that the Gamma fitted better, however I need to be able to estimate the parameters using the sample's mean/variance/std, can this also easily be done for the lognormal? $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 12:52
9
$\begingroup$

The estimates obtained this way are method of moments estimates. In particular, we know that $\mbox{E}(X) = \alpha \theta$ and $\mbox{Var}[X] = \alpha \theta^2$ for a gamma distribution with shape parameter $\alpha$ and scale parameter $\theta$ (see wikipedia). Solving these equations for $\alpha$ and $\theta$ yields $\alpha = \mbox{E}[X]^2/\mbox{Var}[X]$ and $\theta = \mbox{Var}[X] / \mbox{E}[X]$. Now substitute the sample estimates to obtain the method of moments estimates $\hat{\alpha} = \bar{x}^2 / s^2$ and $\hat{\theta} = s^2 / \bar{x}$.

Those are not the MLEs (again, see wikipedia). I don't know what library you used for estimating the parameters, but typically such libraries yield MLEs. And those could be rather different than the method of moment estimates.

Also, the "sum under the curve" is not quite the right thing to compute for a continuous random variable -- you really need to integrate. And regardless of what you plug in for $\alpha$ and $\theta$ (of course with the constraint that these parameters must be > 0, this must always integrate to 1.

Update:

After posting the data, I used R for obtaining the MLEs and method of moment estimates. This yields:

> library(MASS)
> fitdistr(y, dgamma, start=list(shape=1, scale=1))
      shape         scale   
   0.73684030   93.26893829 
 ( 0.02613277) ( 4.59104121)

> mean(y)^2 / var(y)
[1] 0.2468195
> var(y) / mean(y)
[1] 278.3942

So, essentially the same as was obtained with Python. So, the estimates simply are just that different using maximum likelihood estimation versus the method of moments.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have updated my question with the data, plots and sample code. I believe I used those formula's that you mentioned for calculating the shape and scale. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 10:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the information Wolfgang, it is greatly appreciated. $\endgroup$ – DJanssens May 19 '17 at 14:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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