# Month: May 2012

Let us fix ${d\geq1}$. Let ${E_{d,n}}$ be the set of paths of the simple random walk of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$, with ${2n}$ steps, starting and ending at the origin of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$. In other words, ${\gamma=(\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_{2n})\in(\mathbb{Z}^d)^{2n}}$ belongs to ${E_{d,n}}$ iff ${\gamma_0=\gamma_{2n}=0}$, and ${\gamma_{i}-\gamma_{i-1}\in\{\pm e_1,\ldots,\pm e_d\}}$ for every ${1\leq i\leq 2n}$, where ${e_1,\ldots,e_d}$ is the canonical basis. We have

$\mathrm{Card}(E_{d,n}) = \sum_{2k_1+\cdots+2k_d=2n}\binom{2n}{k_1,k_1,\ldots,k_d,k_d} =\binom{2n}{n}\sum_{k_1+\cdots+k_d=n}\binom{n}{k_1,\ldots,k_d}^2.$

How to simulate the uniform law on the finite set ${E_{d,n}}$?

Case ${d=1}$. The cardinal of ${E_{1,n}}$ is huge:

$\mathrm{Card}(E_{1,n})=\binom{2n}{n}\sim\frac{2^{2n}}{\sqrt{n\pi}}.$

To simulate the uniform law on ${E_{1,n}}$, it suffices to generate uniformly ${n}$ positions among ${2n}$ positions, which can be done by using a random uniform permutation on the vector ${V=(1,\ldots,1,-1,\ldots,-1)}$ which contains ${n}$ symbols ${+1}$ and ${n}$ symbols ${-1}$. This produces a random element ${\Gamma}$ of ${E_{1,n}}$, and for every ${\gamma\in E_{1,n}}$, denoting ${\Sigma}$ the set of permutations of ${\{1,\ldots,2n\}}$ sending the ${\pm 1}$’s of ${V}$ to the positions of the ${\pm 1}$’s in the edges of ${\gamma}$,

$\mathbb{P}(\Gamma=\gamma) =\sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\frac{1}{(2n)!} =\frac{n!n!}{(2n)!}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Card}(E_{1,n})}.$

The complexity of this algorithm is linear in ${n}$. Here is the pseudo-code:

V = [ones(1,n),-ones(1,n)]
GAMMA = cumsum([0,V(randperm(2n))])

Case ${d=2}$. Using the Vandermonde binomial convolution formula, we find

$\mathrm{Card}(E_{2,n}) =\binom{2n}{n}\sum_{k}\binom{n}{k}^2 =\binom{2n}{n}^2\sim\frac{4^{2n}}{n\pi}.$

Let us use the fact that ${{(Z_n)}_{n\geq0}={(X_n,Y_n)}_{n\geq0}}$ is a simple random walk on ${\mathbb{Z}^2}$ iff ${{(X_n-Y_n)}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${{(X_n+Y_n)}_{n\geq0}}$ are two independent simple random walks on ${2\mathbb{Z}}$. Moreover, ${Z_n=(0,0)}$ iff ${X_n-Y_n=0}$ and ${X_n+Y_n=0}$. Thus, if ${\gamma_1}$ and ${\gamma_2}$ are independent and uniform on ${E_{1,n}}$ then ${(\gamma_1-\gamma_2,\gamma_1+\gamma_2)/2}$ is uniform on ${E_{2,n}}$. This gives again an algorithm with a linear complexity in ${n}$. Here is the pseudo-code:

V = [ones(1,n),-ones(1,n)]
A = cumsum([0,V(randperm(2n))/2])
B = cumsum([0,V(randperm(2n))/2])
GAMMA = [A-B;A+B]

General case ${d\geq1}$. One may compute ${C_{d,n}=\mathrm{Card}(E_{d,n})/\binom{2n}{n}}$ recursively:

$C_{d,n}=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}^2C_{d-1,n-k}.$

For ${d\geq3}$, no simple closed formula seems to be known for ${C_{d,n}}$, see the book Problems in applied mathematics (problem 87-2 page 149). Let ${\gamma}$ be an element of ${E_{d,n}}$, and let ${k_1,\ldots,k_d}$ be the number of ${e_1,\ldots,e_d}$ steps. Since the path starts and ends at the same point, this is also the number of ${-e_1,\ldots,-e_d}$ steps, and ${k_1+\cdots+k_d=n}$. To make ${\gamma}$ random and uniform, we may first generate ${(k_1,\ldots,k_d)}$ with probability

$p_{k_1,\ldots,k_d} =\frac{\binom{n}{k_1,\ldots,k_d}^2}{C_{d,n}}$

then create the vector

$V=(e_1,\ldots,e_1,\ldots,e_d,\ldots,e_d,-e_1,\ldots,-e_1,\ldots,-e_d,\ldots,-e_d)$

where for each ${1\leq i\leq d}$, both ${e_i}$ and ${-e_i}$ appear ${k_i}$ times, and finally permute this vector with a random uniform permutation. This gives a random ${\Gamma}$ in ${E_{d,n}}$ such that for every ${\gamma\in E_{d,n}}$ with ${k’_i}$ the number of ${e_i}$ in ${\gamma}$, and ${\Sigma}$ the set of permutations of ${\{1,\ldots,2n\}}$ sending the ${\pm e_i}$’s of ${V}$ to the positions of the ${\pm e_i}$’s in the edges of ${\gamma}$,

$\mathbb{P}(\Gamma=\gamma) =\sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\frac{p_{k_1′,\ldots,k_d’}}{(2n)!} =\frac{k_1′!^2\cdots k_d’!^2}{(2n)!}p_{k_1′,\ldots,k_d’} =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Card}(E_{d,n})}.$

This algorithm, valid for any ${d\geq1}$, coincides with the one used above for ${d=1}$, but differs from the one used above for ${d=2}$ (which was based on a special property). Here is the pseudo-code (does not include the implementation of randk):

K = randk(n,d)
t = 0
for i=1 to d do
if K(i)${>}$0 then
V(t+1:t+K(i),i) = ones(K(i),1)
t = t+K(i)
endif
endfor
V = [V;-V]
GAMMA = cumsum([zeros(1,d);V(randperm(2n),:)])

Note. This algorithm reduces the problem to the implementation of randk, for which I do not have an elegant solution for now when ${d\geq3}$, apart using the classical algorithm for discrete laws, or a rejection method, or a Metropolis-Hastings approximate algorithm. It is maybe possible to reduce the problem to the simulation of the standard multinomial distribution. The vector ${(k_1,\ldots,k_d)}$ belongs to the discrete simplex

$\{(k_1,\ldots,k_d)\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}:k_1+\cdots+k_d=n\},$

and the cardinal of this set is ${\binom{n+d-1}{n}}$ (the number of multinomial coefficients). As for the standard multinomial distribution, the largest value of ${p_{k_1,\ldots,k_d}}$ is achieved when ${k_1,\ldots,k_d}$ are such that ${\lfloor n/d\rfloor \leq k_i\leq \lceil n/d\rceil}$ for every ${1\leq i\leq d}$ (central multinomial coefficients).
Note. The analysis of the coupon collector problem indicates that when ${d\gg1}$ and ${n\gg d\log(d)}$ then almost all the ${k_i}$’s are non zero.
Note. To solve the more general random walk bridge problem in which the starting point ${x}$ and the ending point ${y}$ are not the same, one may think of adding ${|y_i-x_i|}$ occurrences of ${\mathrm{sign}(y_i-x_i)e_i}$ in the recipe.
Problem. Solve the non symmetric case (step ${e_i}$ with probability ${p_{e_i}}$).

This post is devoted to the classical algorithm for the simulation of a discrete law ${P=\sum_{a\in A}p_a\delta_a}$ on an at most countable set ${A}$. One may number the atoms by selecting a bijection ${\sigma:A\rightarrow\{1,2,\ldots\}}$. Now if we partition the real interval ${[0,1]}$ into blocs of respective Lebesgue measure ${p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)},p_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}}$, etc, for instance one may use the intervals

$I_1=[0,p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}[, I_2=[p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)},p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}+p_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}[,\ldots$

and if ${U}$ is a uniform random variable on ${[0,1]}$, then ${\mathbb{P}(U\in I_{\sigma(a)})=p_a}$ for every ${a\in A}$. The classical algorithm goes then as follows: we first generate ${U}$ using rand, next, if ${U\leq p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}}$ then we output ${\sigma^{-1}(1)}$, elseif ${U\leq p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}+p_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}}$, we output ${\sigma^{-1}(2)}$, etc. The cost of this algorithm is the number of comparisons ${N}$ needed. This number is random, and follows actually the image law of ${P}$ by the map ${\sigma}$. In particular, we have ${\mathbb{E}(N)=\sum_{a\in A} \sigma(a)p_{a}}$.

Any ${\sigma}$ minimizing the average cost ${\mathbb{E}(N)}$ satisfies to ${p_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}\geq p_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}\geq\cdots}$. The best average cost is obtained by labeling the atoms in decreasing probability order, and its value is the mean of this relabeled discrete law.

For the geometric distribution of arbitrary mean, and for the Poisson distribution of unit mean, the atoms are already labeled decreasingly. For finite discrete distributions, the cost of the reordering is ${|A|\log|A|}$ with high probability (quick sort, can be done once for all).

One may ask if one can simulate the Poisson distribution of arbitrary mean ${\lambda}$ from a generator of the Poisson distribution of unit mean. The answer is positive, and relies simply on thinning. Namely, if ${X_1,\ldots,X_{\lceil\lambda\rceil}}$ are i.i.d. Poisson random variables with unit mean, then their sum ${S=X_1+\cdots+X_{\lceil\lambda\rceil}}$ is Poisson with mean ${\lceil\lambda\rceil}$, and conditional on ${\{S=n\}}$, if ${B_1,\ldots,B_n}$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables with mean ${\lambda/\lceil\lambda\rceil}$ then ${B_1+\cdots+B_S}$ follows the Poisson distribution of mean ${\lambda}$ (Poisson-Binomial mixtures are Poisson).

I like very much such kind of concrete elementary mathematics, involving basic algorithmic and probabilistic concepts. Try this with your students!

This post is devoted to an algorithm due to Aart Johannes Stam for the simulation of the uniform law on the set ${\Pi_n}$ of partitions of ${\{1,\ldots,n\}}$. This law gives the same probability ${1/B_n}$ to every element of ${\Pi_n}$, where ${B_n=\mathrm{Card}(\Pi_n)}$. In combinatorics, ${{(B_n)}_{n\geq1}}$ are the Bell numbers. We have ${B_1=1}$, ${B_2=2}$, and more generally, using the convention ${B_0=1}$,

$B_{n+1}=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}B_k$

(here ${k}$ stands for the number of elements outside the bloc containing ${n+1}$). Now, the formal series ${G(X)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{B_n}{n!}X^n}$ satisfies to ${G'(X)=\exp(X)G(X)}$, and thus

$G(X)=\exp(\exp(X)-1).$

We recognize the Laplace transform of the Poisson law of unit mean. In particular, the Bell numbers are the moments of this law, which gives the Dobinski formula:

$B_n=\frac{1}{e}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{k^n}{k!}.$

To simulate the uniform law on ${\Pi_n}$, the idea is to associate a random color to each element of ${\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ and to decide that elements of identical color are in the same bloc. More precisely, we first generate a random integer ${K}$ taking the value ${k}$ with probability ${k^n/(k!eB_n)}$ (this is a well defined law thanks to the Dobinski formula above). Next, conditional on ${K}$, we generate i.i.d. random variables ${C_1,\ldots,C_n}$ according to the uniform law on ${\{1,\ldots,K\}}$. Finally, we define the random element ${P}$ of ${\Pi_n}$ obtained by deciding that ${i}$ and ${j}$ are in the same bloc iff ${C_i=C_j}$. It turns out that ${P}$ follows the uniform law on ${\Pi_n}$ since for every ${p\in\Pi_n}$ with say ${b}$ blocs:

$\begin{array}{rcl} \mathbb{P}(P=p) &=&\sum_{k=b}^\infty\mathbb{P}(P=p|K=k)\mathbb{P}(K=k)\\ &=&\sum_{k=b}^\infty\frac{k(k-1)\cdots(k-b+1)}{k^n}\frac{k^n}{k!eB_n}\\ &=&\frac{1}{B_n}. \end{array}$

Exercice. Evaluate the complexity of this algorithm!

References.

Note. I’ve learnt this algorithm while writing an expository text with Yan Doumerc and Florent Malrieu on the chinese restaurant process. It is worth noting that the uniform law on ${\Pi_n}$ does not belong to the Ewens one parameter family of laws on partitions. This is in contrast with the uniform law on permutations, which coincides with the Ewens law of unit parameter.

Note. One should not confuse finite set partitions with integer partitions, which are rather related to Young or Ferrers diagrams.