2
$\begingroup$

I have seen the min-max normalization formula in several answers (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), where data is normalized into the interval $\left[0,1 \right]$.

However, is there a method to normalize data into the interval $\left(0,1 \right)$, i.e. excluding 0 and 1?

EDIT:

My data is a sample from a uniform distribution within the range $\left[a,b \right]$. I would like to normalize it into the interval $\left(0,1 \right)$ while remaining uniformly distributed.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $$\frac{1}{1 + \exp(-x)} \in (0,1)$$ for any $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Do you have some other requirements that would exclude this? $\endgroup$ – Sycorax Dec 4 '18 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Sycorax, to clarify, i just edited my question to point out that my data sample should be uniformly distributed. $\endgroup$ – skoestlmeier Dec 4 '18 at 16:01
3
$\begingroup$

Using the property that the CDF is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$, you can compute the empirical CDF for $x$. This is essentially the same as ranking the data and then rescaling by the number of elements $n$. To enforce the requirement that the scaled data exclude 0 and 1, you can deviate from the standard ECDF procedure and construct the scale so that the outputs are $\frac{1}{n+1}, \frac{2}{n+1},\cdots, \frac{n}{n+1}$, which is likewise uniform.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There's a whole class of symmetric versions of your scaling procedure: $u_\alpha(i) = \frac{i-\alpha}{n+1-2\alpha}$ (with $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$, of which the above has $\alpha=0$. (There's also asymmetric ones which have uses in some applications) $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 6 '18 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ Does this have any particular name? $\endgroup$ – Sycorax Dec 6 '18 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ Several, I think but I can't recall any right now. It comes up in probability plotting. Blom 1958 "Statistical Estimates and Transformed Beta Variables" is the standard reference for this thing (and variations). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Dec 7 '18 at 8:49
5
$\begingroup$

A uniform distribution on $(a, b)$ is the same as a uniform distribution on $[a, b]$, since for any $X$ distributed uniformly on $[a, b]$, $P(X = a) = P(X = b) = 0$. So, just use the formulae for translating to $[0, 1]$. On the other hand, if your sample has a value equal to $a$ or $b$, then you can safely conclude that you don't actually have a continuous uniform distribution.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't agree with your latter statement. Following the same logic, you could exclude any data from ever being sampled from a uniform distribution. $\endgroup$ – dedObed Dec 4 '18 at 19:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dedObed The argument works for any countable set of points, because any such set has Lebesgue measure zero, but not for uncountable sets. $\endgroup$ – Kodiologist Dec 4 '18 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that a uniform distribution on (a, b) is the same as a uniform on [a, b]. The claim I challenge is "if your sample has a value equal to a or b [...] you don't actually have a continuous uniform distribution." $\endgroup$ – dedObed Dec 4 '18 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ @dedObed I know. I'm saying that the argument works because $\{a, b\}$, the set of just the two values $a$ and $b$, is countable. It wouldn't if you used a non-null set, which is what would be required to "follow the same logic" to "exclude any data from ever being sampled from a uniform distribution". $\endgroup$ – Kodiologist Dec 4 '18 at 20:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @dedObed I guess the chief thing to keep in mind is that continuous distributions are the sort of ethereal mathematical entities you can't get in real life. Computers fake a continuous uniform distribution with a discrete distribution that covers a large number of floating-point values. It's close enough for many applied purposes, but, e.g., a random float will always be rational, whereas a random sample from a continuous uniform distribution will be almost surely irrational. $\endgroup$ – Kodiologist Dec 4 '18 at 21:58
1
$\begingroup$

The formula $x' = \frac{x - \min{x}}{\max{x} - \min{x}}$ will normalize the values in $[0,1]$.

I am not sure of why you want to exclude $0$ and $1$, anyway one way would be to choose a new minimum and maximum values for the transformed variable, e.g. $[0+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$. You can then transform the variable using $$x' = \epsilon + (1-2\epsilon) \cdot \left(\frac{x - \min{x}}{\max{x} - \min{x}} \right)$$

Another way could be, as suggested by Sycorax in his comment, to use a logistic transform $$ x' = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-x)} $$ This ensures that $\forall x \in \mathbb{R} \implies x' \in (0,1)$. However, depending on the original distribution of $x$, $x'$ might span only a limited range of the interval $(0,1)$, so you might want to try e.g. to standardize $x$ before applying the logistic transform.

$\endgroup$

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.