DOCSLIB.ORG

Modeling Word Burstiness Using the Dirichlet Distribution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modeling Word Burstiness Using the Dirichlet Distribution Modeling Word Burstiness Using the Dirichlet Distribution Rasmus E. Madsen [email protected] Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark David Kauchak [email protected] Charles Elkan [email protected] Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92092-0144 Abstract suggested heuristics to improve its performance. In this paper, we follow an alternative path. We present a Multinomial distributions are often used to different probabilistic model that, without any heuris- model text documents. However, they do tic changes, is far better suited for representing a class not capture well the phenomenon that words of text documents. in a document tend to appear in bursts: if a word appears once, it is more likely to As most researchers do, we represent an individual appear again. In this paper, we propose document as a vector of word counts (Salton et al., the Dirichlet compound multinomial model 1975). This bag-of-words representation loses seman- (DCM) as an alternative to the multinomial. tic information, but it simplifies further processing. The DCM model has one additional degree The usual next simplification is the assumption that of freedom, which allows it to capture bursti- documents are generated by repeatedly drawing words ness. We show experimentally that the DCM from a fixed distribution. Under this assumption, is substantially better than the multinomial word emissions are independent given the class, i.e. the at modeling text data, measured by perplex- naive Bayes property holds. This property is not valid ity. We also show using three standard docu- (Lewis, 1998), but naive Bayes models remain popu- ment collections that the DCM leads to bet- lar (McCallum & Nigam, 1998; Sebastiani, 2002) be- ter classification than the multinomial model. cause they are fast and easy to implement, they can DCM performance is comparable to that ob- be fitted even with limited training data, and they tained with multiple heuristic changes to the do yield accurate classification when heuristics are ap- multinomial model. plied (Jones, 1972; Rennie et al., 2003). The central problem with the naive Bayes assumption is that words tend to appear in bursts, as opposed to 1. Introduction being emitted independently (Church & Gale, 1995; Katz, 1996). Rennie et al. (2003) address this is- Document classification is the task of identifying what sue by log-normalizing counts, reducing the impact of topic(s) a document concerns. Generative approaches burstiness on the likelihood of a document. Teevan to classification are popular since they are relatively and Karger (2003) empirically search for a model that easy to interpret and can be trained quickly. With fits documents well within an exponential family of these approaches, the key problem is to develop a prob- models, while Jansche (2003) proposes a zero-inflated abilistic model that represents the data well. Unfor- mixture model. tunately, for text classification too little attention has been devoted to this task. Instead, a generic multino- In this paper we go further. We show that the multino- mial model is typically used. mial model is appropriate for common words, but not for other words. The distributions of counts produced Recent work (Rennie et al., 2003) has pointed out a by multinomials are fundamentally different from the number of deficiencies of the multinomial model, and count distributions of natural text. Zipf’s law (Zipf, nd 1949) states that the probability pi of occurrence of an Appearing in Proceedings of the 22 International Confer- −a ence on Machine Learning, Bonn, Germany, 2005. Copy- event follows a power law pi ≈ i , where i is the rank right 2005 by the author(s)/owner(s). of the event and a is a parameter. The most famous Modeling Word Burstiness Using the Dirichlet Distribution example of Zipf’s law is that the frequency of an En- glish word, as a function of the word’s rank, follows a power law with exponent close to minus one. We propose to model a collection of text documents with a Dirichlet distribution (Minka, 2003). The Dirichlet distribution can be interpreted in two ways for this purpose, either as a bag-of-scaled-documents or as a bag-of-bags-of-words. We show below that the latter approach works well. Dirichlet distributions have been used previously to model text, but our approach is fundamentally dif- ferent. In the LDA approach (Blei et al., 2003) the Dirichlet is a distribution over topics, while each topic Figure 1. Count probabilities of common, average and rare is modeled in the usual way as a multinomial distribu- words in the industry sector corpus. The figure shows, tion over words. In our approach, each topic, i.e. each for example, that the probability a given rare word occurs class of documents, is modeled in a novel way by a exactly 10 times in a document is 10−6. A ripple effect is Dirichlet distribution instead of by a multinomial. Our seen for common words because no vocabulary pruning is approach is therefore complementary to the LDA and done, so certain HTML keywords such as “font” or “table” related approaches. occur an even number of times in beginning and ending tags. 2. Multinomial modeling of text When using a multinomial distribution to model text, 3. The burstiness phenomenon the multinomial specifies the probability of observing The term “burstiness” (Church & Gale, 1995; Katz, a given vector of word counts, where the probability 1996) describes the behavior of a rare word appearing θw of emitting word w is subject to the constraints P many times in a single document. Because of the large w θw = 1 and θw > 0 for all w. The probability of a number of possible words, most words do not appear document x represented as a vector of counts xw is in a given document. However, if a word does appear n! W once, it is much more likely to appear again, i.e. words Y xw p(x|θ) = θw appear in bursts. To illustrate this behavior, the prob- QW x ! w=1 w w=1 ability that a given word occurs in a document exactly where xw is the number of times word w appears in x times is shown in Figure 1 for the industry sector the document, W is the size of the vocabulary, and corpus. Words have been split into three categories P n = xw. based on how often they appear in the corpus. The categories are “common,” “average,” and “rare.” The The multinomial distribution is different for each dif- common words are the 500 most frequent words; they ferent document length n. This is not a problem when represent 1% of the words in the vocabulary and 71% learning the parameters; it is possible to generalize of the emissions. The average words are the next 5000 over documents with different lengths. The maximum most common words; they represent 10% of the vocab- likelihood parameter estimates θˆ are ulary and 21% of the emissions. The rare words are PD x the rest of the vocabulary (50,030 words) and account θˆ = d=1 dw w PW PD for 8% of the emissions. w0=1 d=1 xdw0 where d is the document number and D is the number A few things should be noted about Figure 1. Not sur- of documents. These estimates depend only on the prisingly, common words are more probable than av- fraction of times a given word appears in the entire erage words which are more probable than rare words. corpus. Interestingly, though, the curves for the three cate- gories of words are close to parallel and have similar When the multinomial model is used to generate a decay rates. Even though average and rare words are document, the distribution of the number of emissions less likely to appear, once a word has appeared, the (i.e. count) of an individual word is a binomial: probability that it will occur multiple times is similar n across all words. xw n−xw p(xw|θ) = θw (1 − θw) . (1) xw Equation (1) shows that it is unlikely under the multi- Modeling Word Burstiness Using the Dirichlet Distribution Figure 2. Count probabilities for a maximum likelihood Figure 3. Simplex of possible count vectors using multinomial model, trained with the industry sector cor- the multinomial bag-of-words model with parameters pus. 0.4375, 0.25, 0.3125 and n = 50. nomial model for a word to occur many times in a where θ is a vector in the W -dimensional probability P document, because the single word count distribution simplex, i.e. w θw = 1. The α vector entries are the decays exponentially. Figure 2 shows the average word parameters of the Dirichlet. count probabilities from ten synthetic corpora gener- When modeling text, the θ vector represents a docu- ated from a multinomial model trained on the industry ment, making the model have the form dataparameter. sector corpus. Each synthetic corpus was generated so This form makes Dirichlet models qualitatively similar its documents have the same length distribution as to Zipf distributions, where the parameter is an expo- documents in the industry sector corpus. nent. In contrast, the multinomial model has the form The multinomial captures the burstiness of common parameterdata. By rewriting the Dirichlet distribution words, but the burstiness of average and rare words is in the exponential family form not modeled correctly. This is a major deficiency in W the multinomial model since rare and average words X log p(θ|α) = (α − 1) log θ represent 99% of the vocabulary and 29% of emissions w w w=1 and, more importantly, these words are key features W W for classification.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connection Between Dirichlet Distributions and a Scale-Invariant Probabilistic Model Based on Leibniz-Like Pyramids
    Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Connection between Dirichlet distributions and a scale-invariant probabilistic model based on Leibniz-like pyramids This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text. View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: 152.84.125.254 This content was downloaded on 22/12/2014 at 23:17 Please note that terms and conditions apply. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment Connection between Dirichlet distributions and a scale-invariant probabilistic model based on J. Stat. Mech. Leibniz-like pyramids A Rodr´ıguez1 and C Tsallis2,3 1 Departamento de Matem´atica Aplicada a la Ingenier´ıa Aeroespacial, Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid, Pza. Cardenal Cisneros s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain 2 Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F´ısicas and Instituto Nacional de Ciˆencia e Tecnologia de Sistemas Complexos, Rua Xavier Sigaud 150, 22290-180 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2014) P12027 3 Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] Received 4 November 2014 Accepted for publication 30 November 2014 Published 22 December 2014 Online at stacks.iop.org/JSTAT/2014/P12027 doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/12/P12027 Abstract. We show that the N limiting probability distributions of a recently introduced family of d→∞-dimensional scale-invariant probabilistic models based on Leibniz-like (d + 1)-dimensional hyperpyramids (Rodr´ıguez and Tsallis 2012 J. Math. Phys. 53 023302) are given by Dirichlet distributions for d = 1, 2, ...
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Mutual Information
    Distribution of Mutual Information Marcus Hutter IDSIA, Galleria 2, CH-6928 Manno-Lugano, Switzerland [email protected] http://www.idsia.ch/-marcus Abstract The mutual information of two random variables z and J with joint probabilities {7rij} is commonly used in learning Bayesian nets as well as in many other fields. The chances 7rij are usually estimated by the empirical sampling frequency nij In leading to a point es­ timate J(nij In) for the mutual information. To answer questions like "is J (nij In) consistent with zero?" or "what is the probability that the true mutual information is much larger than the point es­ timate?" one has to go beyond the point estimate. In the Bayesian framework one can answer these questions by utilizing a (second order) prior distribution p( 7r) comprising prior information about 7r. From the prior p(7r) one can compute the posterior p(7rln), from which the distribution p(Iln) of the mutual information can be cal­ culated. We derive reliable and quickly computable approximations for p(Iln). We concentrate on the mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis, and non-informative priors. For the mean we also give an exact expression. Numerical issues and the range of validity are discussed. 1 Introduction The mutual information J (also called cross entropy) is a widely used information theoretic measure for the stochastic dependency of random variables [CT91, SooOO] . It is used, for instance, in learning Bayesian nets [Bun96, Hec98] , where stochasti­ cally dependent nodes shall be connected. The mutual information defined in (1) can be computed if the joint probabilities {7rij} of the two random variables z and J are known.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 24: Dirichlet Distribution and Dirichlet Process
    Stat260: Bayesian Modeling and Inference Lecture Date: April 28, 2010 Lecture 24: Dirichlet distribution and Dirichlet Process Lecturer: Michael I. Jordan Scribe: Vivek Ramamurthy 1 Introduction In the last couple of lectures, in our study of Bayesian nonparametric approaches, we considered the Chinese Restaurant Process, Bayesian mixture models, stick breaking, and the Dirichlet process. Today, we will try to gain some insight into the connection between the Dirichlet process and the Dirichlet distribution. 2 The Dirichlet distribution and P´olya urn First, we note an important relation between the Dirichlet distribution and the Gamma distribution, which is used to generate random vectors which are Dirichlet distributed. If, for i ∈ {1, 2, · · · , K}, Zi ∼ Gamma(αi, β) independently, then K K S = Zi ∼ Gamma αi, β i=1 i=1 ! X X and V = (V1, · · · ,VK ) = (Z1/S, · · · ,ZK /S) ∼ Dir(α1, · · · , αK ) Now, consider the following P´olya urn model. Suppose that • Xi - color of the ith draw • X - space of colors (discrete) • α(k) - number of balls of color k initially in urn. We then have that α(k) + j<i δXj (k) p(Xi = k|X1, · · · , Xi−1) = α(XP) + i − 1 where δXj (k) = 1 if Xj = k and 0 otherwise, and α(X ) = k α(k). It may then be shown that P n α(x1) α(xi) + j<i δXj (xi) p(X1 = x1, X2 = x2, · · · , X = x ) = n n α(X ) α(X ) + i − 1 i=2 P Y α(1)[α(1) + 1] · · · [α(1) + m1 − 1]α(2)[α(2) + 1] · · · [α(2) + m2 − 1] · · · α(C)[α(C) + 1] · · · [α(C) + m − 1] = C α(X )[α(X ) + 1] · · · [α(X ) + n − 1] n where 1, 2, · · · , C are the distinct colors that appear in x1, · · · ,xn and mk = i=1 1{Xi = k}.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exciting Guide to Probability Distributions – Part 2
    The Exciting Guide To Probability Distributions – Part 2 Jamie Frost – v1.1 Contents Part 2 A revisit of the multinomial distribution The Dirichlet Distribution The Beta Distribution Conjugate Priors The Gamma Distribution We saw in the last part that the multinomial distribution was over counts of outcomes, given the probability of each outcome and the total number of outcomes. xi f(x1, ... , xk | n, p1, ... , pk)= [n! / ∏xi!] ∏pi The count of The probability of each outcome. each outcome. That’s all smashing, but suppose we wanted to know the reverse, i.e. the probability that the distribution underlying our random variable has outcome probabilities of p1, ... , pk, given that we observed each outcome x1, ... , xk times. In other words, we are considering all the possible probability distributions (p1, ... , pk) that could have generated these counts, rather than all the possible counts given a fixed distribution. Initial attempt at a probability mass function: Just swap the domain and the parameters: The RHS is exactly the same. xi f(p1, ... , pk | n, x1, ... , xk )= [n! / ∏xi!] ∏pi Notational convention is that we define the support as a vector x, so let’s relabel p as x, and the counts x as α... αi f(x1, ... , xk | n, α1, ... , αk )= [n! / ∏ αi!] ∏xi We can define n just as the sum of the counts: αi f(x1, ... , xk | α1, ... , αk )= [(∑αi)! / ∏ αi!] ∏xi But wait, we’re not quite there yet. We know that probabilities have to sum to 1, so we need to restrict the domain we can draw from: s.t.
    [Show full text]
  • Stat 5101 Lecture Slides: Deck 8 Dirichlet Distribution
    Stat 5101 Lecture Slides: Deck 8 Dirichlet Distribution Charles J. Geyer School of Statistics University of Minnesota This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-sa/4.0/). 1 The Dirichlet Distribution The Dirichlet Distribution is to the beta distribution as the multi- nomial distribution is to the binomial distribution. We get it by the same process that we got to the beta distribu- tion (slides 128{137, deck 3), only multivariate. Recall the basic theorem about gamma and beta (same slides referenced above). 2 The Dirichlet Distribution (cont.) Theorem 1. Suppose X and Y are independent gamma random variables X ∼ Gam(α1; λ) Y ∼ Gam(α2; λ) then U = X + Y V = X=(X + Y ) are independent random variables and U ∼ Gam(α1 + α2; λ) V ∼ Beta(α1; α2) 3 The Dirichlet Distribution (cont.) Corollary 1. Suppose X1;X2;:::; are are independent gamma random variables with the same shape parameters Xi ∼ Gam(αi; λ) then the following random variables X1 ∼ Beta(α1; α2) X1 + X2 X1 + X2 ∼ Beta(α1 + α2; α3) X1 + X2 + X3 . X1 + ··· + Xd−1 ∼ Beta(α1 + ··· + αd−1; αd) X1 + ··· + Xd are independent and have the asserted distributions. 4 The Dirichlet Distribution (cont.) From the first assertion of the theorem we know X1 + ··· + Xk−1 ∼ Gam(α1 + ··· + αk−1; λ) and is independent of Xk. Thus the second assertion of the theorem says X1 + ··· + Xk−1 ∼ Beta(α1 + ··· + αk−1; αk)(∗) X1 + ··· + Xk and (∗) is independent of X1 + ··· + Xk. That proves the corollary. 5 The Dirichlet Distribution (cont.) Theorem 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Parameter Specification of the Beta Distribution and Its Dirichlet
    %HWD'LVWULEXWLRQVDQG,WV$SSOLFDWLRQV 3DUDPHWHU6SHFLILFDWLRQRIWKH%HWD 'LVWULEXWLRQDQGLWV'LULFKOHW([WHQVLRQV 8WLOL]LQJ4XDQWLOHV -5HQpYDQ'RUSDQG7KRPDV$0D]]XFKL (Submitted January 2003, Revised March 2003) I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 II. SPECIFICATION OF PRIOR BETA PARAMETERS..............................................5 A. Basic Properties of the Beta Distribution...............................................................6 B. Solving for the Beta Prior Parameters...................................................................8 C. Design of a Numerical Procedure........................................................................12 III. SPECIFICATION OF PRIOR DIRICHLET PARAMETERS................................. 17 A. Basic Properties of the Dirichlet Distribution...................................................... 18 B. Solving for the Dirichlet prior parameters...........................................................20 IV. SPECIFICATION OF ORDERED DIRICHLET PARAMETERS...........................22 A. Properties of the Ordered Dirichlet Distribution................................................. 23 B. Solving for the Ordered Dirichlet Prior Parameters............................................ 25 C. Transforming the Ordered Dirichlet Distribution and Numerical Stability ......... 27 V. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 31 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Dirichlet Distributions on the Ball and Moments
    Generalized Dirichlet distributions on the ball and moments F. Barthe,∗ F. Gamboa,† L. Lozada-Chang‡and A. Rouault§ September 3, 2018 Abstract The geometry of unit N-dimensional ℓp balls (denoted here by BN,p) has been intensively investigated in the past decades. A particular topic of interest has been the study of the asymptotics of their projections. Apart from their intrinsic interest, such questions have applications in several probabilistic and geometric contexts [BGMN05]. In this paper, our aim is to revisit some known results of this flavour with a new point of view. Roughly speaking, we will endow BN,p with some kind of Dirichlet distribution that generalizes the uniform one and will follow the method developed in [Ski67], [CKS93] in the context of the randomized moment space. The main idea is to build a suitable coordinate change involving independent random variables. Moreover, we will shed light on connections between the randomized balls and the randomized moment space. n Keywords: Moment spaces, ℓp -balls, canonical moments, Dirichlet dis- tributions, uniform sampling. AMS classification: 30E05, 52A20, 60D05, 62H10, 60F10. arXiv:1002.1544v2 [math.PR] 21 Oct 2010 1 Introduction The starting point of our work is the study of the asymptotic behaviour of the moment spaces: 1 [0,1] j MN = t µ(dt) : µ ∈M1([0, 1]) , (1) (Z0 1≤j≤N ) ∗Equipe de Statistique et Probabilit´es, Institut de Math´ematiques de Toulouse (IMT) CNRS UMR 5219, Universit´ePaul-Sabatier, 31062 Toulouse cedex 9, France. e-mail: [email protected] †IMT e-mail: [email protected] ‡Facultad de Matem´atica y Computaci´on, Universidad de la Habana, San L´azaro y L, Vedado 10400 C.Habana, Cuba.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatially Constrained Student's T-Distribution Based Mixture Model
    J Math Imaging Vis (2018) 60:355–381 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-017-0759-8 Spatially Constrained Student’s t-Distribution Based Mixture Model for Robust Image Segmentation Abhirup Banerjee1 · Pradipta Maji1 Received: 8 January 2016 / Accepted: 5 September 2017 / Published online: 21 September 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017 Abstract The finite Gaussian mixture model is one of the Keywords Segmentation · Student’s t-distribution · most popular frameworks to model classes for probabilistic Expectation–maximization · Hidden Markov random field model-based image segmentation. However, the tails of the Gaussian distribution are often shorter than that required to model an image class. Also, the estimates of the class param- 1 Introduction eters in this model are affected by the pixels that are atypical of the components of the fitted Gaussian mixture model. In In image processing, segmentation refers to the process this regard, the paper presents a novel way to model the image of partitioning an image space into some non-overlapping as a mixture of finite number of Student’s t-distributions for meaningful homogeneous regions. It is an indispensable step image segmentation problem. The Student’s t-distribution for many image processing problems, particularly for med- provides a longer tailed alternative to the Gaussian distri- ical images. Segmentation of brain images into three main bution and gives reduced weight to the outlier observations tissue classes, namely white matter (WM), gray matter (GM), during the parameter estimation step in finite mixture model. and cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF), is important for many diag- Incorporating the merits of Student’s t-distribution into the nostic studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Expansion of the Kullback-Leibler Divergence, and a New Class of Information Metrics
    axioms Article Expansion of the Kullback-Leibler Divergence, and a New Class of Information Metrics David J. Galas 1,*, Gregory Dewey 2, James Kunert-Graf 1 and Nikita A. Sakhanenko 1 1 Pacific Northwest Research Institute, 720 Broadway, Seattle, WA 98122, USA; [email protected] (J.K.-G.); [email protected] (N.A.S.) 2 Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 106 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Editors: Abbe Mowshowitz and Matthias Dehmer Received: 31 January 2017; Accepted: 27 March 2017; Published: 1 April 2017 Abstract: Inferring and comparing complex, multivariable probability density functions is fundamental to problems in several fields, including probabilistic learning, network theory, and data analysis. Classification and prediction are the two faces of this class of problem. This study takes an approach that simplifies many aspects of these problems by presenting a structured, series expansion of the Kullback-Leibler divergence—a function central to information theory—and devise a distance metric based on this divergence. Using the Möbius inversion duality between multivariable entropies and multivariable interaction information, we express the divergence as an additive series in the number of interacting variables, which provides a restricted and simplified set of distributions to use as approximation and with which to model data. Truncations of this series yield approximations based on the number of interacting variables. The first few terms of the expansion-truncation are illustrated and shown to lead naturally to familiar approximations, including the well-known Kirkwood superposition approximation. Truncation can also induce a simple relation between the multi-information and the interaction information.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook on Probability Distributions
    R powered R-forge project Handbook on probability distributions R-forge distributions Core Team University Year 2009-2010 LATEXpowered Mac OS' TeXShop edited Contents Introduction 4 I Discrete distributions 6 1 Classic discrete distribution 7 2 Not so-common discrete distribution 27 II Continuous distributions 34 3 Finite support distribution 35 4 The Gaussian family 47 5 Exponential distribution and its extensions 56 6 Chi-squared's ditribution and related extensions 75 7 Student and related distributions 84 8 Pareto family 88 9 Logistic distribution and related extensions 108 10 Extrem Value Theory distributions 111 3 4 CONTENTS III Multivariate and generalized distributions 116 11 Generalization of common distributions 117 12 Multivariate distributions 133 13 Misc 135 Conclusion 137 Bibliography 137 A Mathematical tools 141 Introduction This guide is intended to provide a quite exhaustive (at least as I can) view on probability distri- butions. It is constructed in chapters of distribution family with a section for each distribution. Each section focuses on the tryptic: definition - estimation - application. Ultimate bibles for probability distributions are Wimmer & Altmann (1999) which lists 750 univariate discrete distributions and Johnson et al. (1994) which details continuous distributions. In the appendix, we recall the basics of probability distributions as well as \common" mathe- matical functions, cf. section A.2. And for all distribution, we use the following notations • X a random variable following a given distribution, • x a realization of this random variable, • f the density function (if it exists), • F the (cumulative) distribution function, • P (X = k) the mass probability function in k, • M the moment generating function (if it exists), • G the probability generating function (if it exists), • φ the characteristic function (if it exists), Finally all graphics are done the open source statistical software R and its numerous packages available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN∗).
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dirichlet Distribution Parameters
    Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dirichlet Distribution Parameters Jonathan Huang Abstract. Dirichlet distributions are commonly used as priors over propor- tional data. In this paper, I will introduce this distribution, discuss why it is useful, and compare implementations of 4 different methods for estimating its parameters from observed data. 1. Introduction The Dirichlet distribution is one that has often been turned to in Bayesian statistical inference as a convenient prior distribution to place over proportional data. To properly motivate its study, we will begin with a simple coin toss example, where the task will be to find a suitable distribution P which summarizes our beliefs about the probability that the toss will result in heads, based on all prior such experiments. 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 H/(H+T) Figure 1. A distribution over possible probabilities of obtaining heads We will want to convey several things via such a distribution. First, if we have an idea of what the odds of heads are, then we will want P to reflect this. For example, if we associate P with the experiment of flipping a penny, we would hope that P gives strong probability to 50-50 odds. Second, we will want the distribution to somehow reflect confidence by expressing how many coin flips we have witnessed 1 2 JONATHAN HUANG in the past, the idea being that the more coin flips one has seen, the more confident one is about how a coin must behave. In the case where we have never seen a coin flip experiment, then P should assign uniform probability to all odds.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Continuous Probability Distributions
    Field Guide to Continuous Probability Distributions Gavin E. Crooks v 1.0.0 2019 G. E. Crooks – Field Guide to Probability Distributions v 1.0.0 Copyright © 2010-2019 Gavin E. Crooks ISBN: 978-1-7339381-0-5 http://threeplusone.com/fieldguide Berkeley Institute for Theoretical Sciences (BITS) typeset on 2019-04-10 with XeTeX version 0.99999 fonts: Trump Mediaeval (text), Euler (math) 271828182845904 2 G. E. Crooks – Field Guide to Probability Distributions Preface: The search for GUD A common problem is that of describing the probability distribution of a single, continuous variable. A few distributions, such as the normal and exponential, were discovered in the 1800’s or earlier. But about a century ago the great statistician, Karl Pearson, realized that the known probabil- ity distributions were not sufficient to handle all of the phenomena then under investigation, and set out to create new distributions with useful properties. During the 20th century this process continued with abandon and a vast menagerie of distinct mathematical forms were discovered and invented, investigated, analyzed, rediscovered and renamed, all for the purpose of de- scribing the probability of some interesting variable. There are hundreds of named distributions and synonyms in current usage. The apparent diver- sity is unending and disorienting. Fortunately, the situation is less confused than it might at first appear. Most common, continuous, univariate, unimodal distributions can be orga- nized into a small number of distinct families, which are all special cases of a single Grand Unified Distribution. This compendium details these hun- dred or so simple distributions, their properties and their interrelations.
    [Show full text]