2
$\begingroup$

I have a yield loss data(due to some climate disasters) for each year as below, I want to fit the dataset with some distribution function such as normal, weibull, gumbel and so on, It seems like a weibull distribution from the histogram plot, but the goodness of fit result show a bad Q-Q plot, and the k-s test reject as a weibull distribution.

It seems that there are some outliers or unexpected higher values in the tail? should I fit with a discrete probability distribution such as poison?

should I try another distribution function, or my dataset is not suitale for any distribution function, any one can give me some advice?

x=c(0, 0.094, 0.491, 0, 0.029, 0.049, 0.219, 0.068, 0.051, 0.507, 0.086, 0.028, 0, 0.021, 0, 0.162, 0, 0.096, 0.088, 0.061, 0, 0.099, 0.113, 0, 0.319, 0.282, 0.016, 1.055, 0.064, 0.062, 0, 0.719, 0.123, 0, 0, 0.033, 0, 0.062, 0, 0.024, 0, 0, 0.065, 0, 0.143, 0.048, 0, 0, 0, 0.037, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.025, 0.036, 0)

simple test code in R are as below:

require(fitdistrplus)
fit=fitdist(x+0.0001,"weibull")
plot(fit)
gof=gofstat(fit,fitnames="weibull")
gof$kstest

performance of weibull fitting histogram

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$

migrated from stackoverflow.com Nov 18 '17 at 15:35

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ with 40% $0$-values, it makes no sense to fit a pure-continuous distribution. A zero-inflated model may make sense; it looks to me like an inverse-gamma with zero-inflation might be reasonable (above 0, the distribution is more heavily right skew than a lognormal, so an ordinary gamma won't really work) $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 11 '17 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ It makes sense! $\endgroup$ – earclimate Dec 27 '17 at 8:14
1
$\begingroup$

It seems to be closer to a gamma distribution (with a lot of 0 values), but the test rejects it.

enter image description here

The histogram doesn't seem to be representing the data very well, you actually have a very "long tailed distribution" in a "zero inflated" dataset, these topics may help: Linear Model vs Log-Linear vs Negative Binomial and

Goodness of fit for long-tailed distributed data

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It really seems to be much closer to a gamma distribution. and there are much information from the links that you provide, my dataset is some what close to that question. but my purpose is fitting the dataset with a proper statistic distribution, and get the probability for risk analysis, while the mentioned links was devoted to modelling with a lm or glm model. $\endgroup$ – earclimate Nov 19 '17 at 12:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have found another related question dealing with similar problems: link "The simplest solution is to fit a Bernoulli model to the zero/non-zero data, then a continuous model (lognormal? Gamma?) for the non-zero values. If you want to fit a truncated continuous distribution to the non-zero values, that gets harder …" link but I also do not find any examples or tipps of hoe to achieve that. $\endgroup$ – earclimate Nov 19 '17 at 12:23

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.