In this example, we generate observations from the Poisson kernel-based distribution on the sphere, Sd − 1. Given a vector μ ∈ 𝒮d − 1, where 𝒮d − 1 = {x ∈ ℝd : ||x|| = 1}, and a parameter ρ such that 0 < ρ < 1, the probability density function of a d-variate Poisson kernel-based density is defined by:
$$ f(\mathbf{x}|\rho, \mathbf{\mu}) = \frac{1-\rho^2}{\omega_d ||\mathbf{x} - \rho \mathbf{\mu}||^d}, $$
where μ is a vector orienting the center of the distribution, ρ is a parameter to control the concentration of the distribution around the vector μ, and it is related to the variance of the distribution. Furthermore, ωd = 2πd/2[Γ(d/2)]−1 is the surface area of the unit sphere in ℝd (see Golzy and Markatou, 2020). When ρ → 0, the Poisson kernel-based density tends to the uniform density on the sphere. Connection of the PKBDs to other distributions are discussed in detail in Golzy and Markatou (2020).
We consider mean direction μ = (0, 0, 1), d = 3 and the concentration parameter is ρ = 0.8.
We sampled n = 1000
observations for each method available. Golzy and Markatou (2020)
proposed an acceptance-rejection method for simulating data from a PKBD
using von Mises-Fisher envelopes (rejvmf
method).
Furthermore, Sablica, Hornik, and Leydold (2023) proposed new ways for
simulating from the PKBD, using angular central Gaussian envelopes
(rejacg
) or using the projected Saw distributions
(rejpsaw
).
n <- 1000
set.seed(2468)
# Generate observations using the rejection algorithm with von-Mises
# distribution envelopes
dat1 <- rpkb(n = n, rho=rho, mu=mu, method="rejvmf")
# Generate observations using the rejection algorithm with angular central
# Gaussian distribution envelopes
dat2 <- rpkb(n = n, rho=rho, mu=mu, method="rejacg")
# Generate observations using the projected Saw distribution
dat3 <- rpkb(n = n, rho=rho, mu=mu, method="rejpsaw")
The number of observations generated is determined by n
for rpkb()
. This function returns a list with the matrix of
generated observations x
, the number of tries
numTries
, and the number of acceptances
numAccepted
.
## Length Class Mode
## x 3000 -none- numeric
## numAccepted 1 -none- numeric
## numTries 1 -none- numeric
We extract the generated data sets and create a unique data set.
Finally, the observations generated through the different methods are compared graphically, by displaying the data points on the sphere colored with respect to the used method.
library(rgl)
# Legend information
classes <- c("rejvmf", "rejacg", "rejpsaw")
# Fix a color for each method
colors <- c("red", "blue", "green")
labels <- factor(rep(colors, each = 1000))
# Element needed for the Legend position in the following plot
offset <- 0.25
# Coordinates for legend placement
legend_x <- max(x[,1]) + offset
legend_y <- max(x[,2]) + offset
legend_z <- seq(min(x[,3]), length.out = length(classes), by = offset)
open3d()
## null
## 1
# Create the legend
for (i in seq_along(classes)) {
text3d(legend_x, legend_y, legend_z[i], texts = classes[i], adj = c(0, 0.5))
points3d(legend_x-0.1, legend_y, legend_z[i], col = colors[i], size = 5)
}
title3d("", line = 3, cex = 1.5, font=2, add=TRUE)
# Plot the sampled observations colored with respect to the used method
plot3d(x[,1], x[,2], x[,3], col = labels, size = 5, add=TRUE)
title3d("", line = 3, cex = 1.5, font=2, add=TRUE)
# Add a Sphere as background
rgl.spheres(0 , col = "transparent", alpha = 0.2)
# Rotate and zoom the generated 3 dimensional plot to facilitate visualization
view3d(theta = 10, phi = -25, zoom = 0.5)
# rglwidget is added in order to display the generated figure into the html
# replication file.
rglwidget()
A limitation of the rejvmf
method is that it does not
ensure the computational feasibility of the sampler for ρ approaching 1.
Golzy, M. and Markatou, M. (2020). Poisson Kernel-Based Clustering on the Sphere: Convergence Properties, Identifiability, and a Method of Sampling, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 29(4), 758-770. DOI: 10.1080/10618600.2020.1740713.
Sablica, L., Hornik, K. and Leydold, J. (2023). “Efficient sampling from the PKBD distribution”, Electronic Journal of Statistics, 17(2), 2180-2209. DOI: 10.1214/23-EJS2149