I've an Italian cities dataset. It's similar to those British ones used in literature, but has some differences, though.

I decided to perform a logarithmic binning to avoid noise on the right end of the distribution (plot on the left, below). This clearly shows a lognormal behaviour against freq.

Then, on the original data I fit a powerlaw (red) and a lognormal model (green). The lognormal model seems to fit very well, with a xmin value which is clearly less than the xmin from the power law.

Here's how both bins set have been built

bins <- 100

population.bins <- hist(italian.towns$PopResidente,
                        breaks = seq(from = min(italian.towns$PopResidente), 
                                     to = max(italian.towns$PopResidente), length.out = bins),

population.log.bins <- hist(italian.towns$PopResidente,
           breaks = exp(seq(log(min(italian.towns$PopResidente)), log(max(italian.towns$PopResidente)), len = bins)),

and here's the plot:

lognorm and CDF plot from italian towns

I know there's something missing in my knowledge but the question is: does the left plot look like a lognormal because I did a logarithmic binning or because the data itself is log-normal (thus the CDF fits the green line)?


The data itself is lognormal. You can confirm this for yourself by using a graphing method that doesn't put data into bins.



Or you could try manually fitting a normal distribution to the Log Population.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the basis on which you assert "The data itself is lognormal"? $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Aug 2 '18 at 11:05

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.