Abstract

This paper introduces a new family of generalized lambda distributions (GLDs) based on a method of doubling symmetric GLDs. The focus of the development is in the context of L-moments and L-correlation theory. As such, included is the development of a procedure for specifying double GLDs with controlled degrees of L-skew, L-kurtosis, and L-correlations. The procedure can be applied in a variety of settings such as modeling events and Monte Carlo or simulation studies. Further, it is demonstrated that estimates of L-skew, L-kurtosis, and L-correlation are substantially superior to conventional product-moment estimates of skew, kurtosis, and Pearson correlation in terms of both relative bias and efficiency when heavy tailed distributions are of concern.

1. Introduction

The conventional moment-based family of generalized lambda distributions (GLDs) is often used in various applied mathematics contexts to model and describe data by a single functional form [1, page 5]. Some examples include modeling non-log-normal security price distributions [2], biological and physical phenomena [3], and solar radiation data [4]. The GLD is also a popular tool for generating random variables for Monte Carlo or simulation studies. Some examples include studies in such areas as operations research [5], microarray research [6], and structural equation modeling [7].

The family of GLDs is based on the transformation [1, page 21], [9, 11], [10, page 127]𝑞(𝑢)=𝜆1+𝑢𝜆3(1𝑢)𝜆4𝜆2,(1.1) where 𝑢 is uniformly distributed on the interval (0,1). The parameters 𝜆1 and 𝜆2 are location and scale parameters, while 𝜆3 and 𝜆4 are shape parameters that determine the skew and kurtosis of a GLD. The pdf and cdf associated with (1.1) can be expressed as [10, page 127]𝑓𝑞(𝑢)(𝑞(𝑢))=1𝑓(𝑢)=𝑞(𝑢),𝑞𝐹(𝑢),(1.2)𝑞(𝑢)(𝑞(𝑢))=𝐹(𝑢)=(𝑞(𝑢),𝑢),(1.3) where 𝑓2 and 𝐹2 are parametric forms of the pdf and cdf with the mappings 𝑢(𝑥,𝑦) and 𝑢(𝑥,𝑣) with 𝑥=𝑞(𝑢), 𝑦=1/𝑞(𝑢), 𝑣=𝑢, and where 1 and 𝑢 are the regular uniform pdf and cdf, respectively. It is assumed that 𝑞(𝑢)>0 in (1.2) to ensure a valid pdf that is, the transformation in (1.1) is strictly increasing. An essential requirement for a valid pdf is that 𝜆2, 𝜆3, 𝜆4 in (1.1) all have the same sign [1, page 24]. For more specific details on the parameter space and conditions related to valid GLDs, see Karian and Dudewicz [1, pages 21–47]. Provided in Figure 1 is an example of a valid GLD pdf based on (1.1) and (1.2).

Symmetric GLDs are produced for the case where 𝜆3=𝜆4 in (1.1) and where the mean (𝛼1), variance (𝛼22), skew (𝛼3), and kurtosis (𝛼4) can be determined from [8]𝛼1=𝜆1,𝛼(1.4)22=2/1+2𝜆32𝛽1+𝜆3,1+𝜆3𝜆22𝛼,(1.5)3𝛼=0,(1.6)4=6𝛽1+2𝜆3,1+2𝜆34𝛽1+𝜆3,1+3𝜆34𝛽1+3𝜆3,1+𝜆3+2/1+4𝜆3𝜆42.(1.7) Numerical solutions for 𝜆2 and 𝜆3 in (1.5) and (1.7) can be found in [1, Appendix B], which are associated with standardized GLDs (i.e., 𝛼1=𝜆1=0, 𝛼22=1). Note that the term 𝛽 in (1.5) and (1.7) represents the complete beta function where the arguments cannot be negative. As such, for the 𝑘th moment to exist then we must have 𝜆3>1/𝑘 [8, 9, 11]. Thus, the condition 𝜆3>1/4 ensures that the first four moments exist.

We propose a new family of asymmetric GLDs based on a technique referred to herein as doubling symmetric GLDs. More specifically, a family of double GLDs can be created by selecting a pair of constants (𝜆, 𝜆) and transforming separately for 𝑢1/2 and 𝑢1/2 as follows: 𝑢𝑞(𝑢)=𝜆(1𝑢)𝜆𝛿𝜆22𝜆1,for0<𝑢2,𝑢𝜆(1𝑢)𝜆𝛿𝜆22𝜆1,for2𝑢<1,(1.8) where 𝜆 (𝜆) is the nonzero shape parameter for the left (right) side of a distribution and 𝛿 is the (positive) parameter that determines the height of the double GLD at 𝑢=1/2. Provided in Figure 2 is an example of a double GLD pdf based on (1.2) and (1.8). Inspection of Figures 1 and 2 clearly indicates that these two GLDs are markedly different even though both distributions have the same values of skew (𝛼3=3) and kurtosis (𝛼4=65). Note that the values of 𝜆 and 𝜆 in Figure 2 were determined based on the equations for 𝛼3 and 𝛼4 given in the appendix.

Conventional moment-based estimators (e.g., 𝛼3,4) have unfavorable attributes insofar as they can be substantially biased, have high variance, or can be influenced by outliers. For example, inspection of Figure 2 indicates, on average, that the estimates of 𝛼3,4 are only 67.70% and 14.70% of their associated population parameters. Note that each estimate of 𝛼3,4 in Figure 2 was calculated based on samples of size 𝑛=250 and the formulae currently used by most commercial software packages such as SAS, SPSS, and Minitab, for computing skew and kurtosis.

𝐿-moment-based estimators, such as 𝐿-skew (𝜏3) and 𝐿-kurtosis (𝜏4), have been introduced to address the limitations associated with conventional moment-based estimators [12, 13]. Specifically, some of the advantages that 𝐿-moments have over conventional moments are that they (a) exist whenever the mean of the distribution exists, (b) are nearly unbiased for all sample sizes and distributions, and (c) are more robust in the presence of outliers. For example, the estimates of ̂𝜏3,4 in Figure 2 are relatively much closer to their respective parameters 𝜏3,4 with much smaller standard errors than their corresponding conventional moment-based analogs 𝛼3,4. More specifically, the estimates of ̂𝜏3,4 that were simulated are, on average, 98.89% and 99.23% of their parameters.

In the context of multivariate data generation, the methodology has been developed for simulating symmetric (or asymmetric) GLDs based on (1.1) with specified Pearson correlation structures [2, 14]. This methodology is based on conventional product moments and the popular NORTA (NORmal To Anything, [15]) approach, which begins with generating multivariate standard normal deviates. However, the NORTA approach is not without its limitations. Specifically, one limitation arises because the Pearson correlation is not invariant under nonlinear strictly increasing transformations such as (1.1). As such, the NORTA approach must begin with the computation of an intermediate correlation (IC) matrix, which is different than the specified correlation matrix between the GLDs. The purpose of the IC matrix is to adjust for the effect of the transformation in (1.1) such that the resulting GLDs have their specified skew, kurtosis, and Pearson correlation matrix.

Two additional limitations associated with the NORTA approach in this context are that solutions to an IC matrix may neither (a) exist in the range of [–1, +1] as the absolute values of the ICs must be greater than (or equal to) their specified Pearson correlations nor (b) yield a positive definite IC matrix albeit the specified Pearson correlation matrix is positive definite [16]. Further, these two problems can be exacerbated when heavy tailed distributions are involved in the computation of ICs as functions performing numerical integration can more frequently either fail to converge or yield incorrect solutions. In contradistinction, it has been demonstrated in the context of the 𝐿-correlation that the limitations associated with the NORTA approach are less pronounced because the solution values of an IC matrix are in closer proximity to their specified (positive definite) 𝐿-correlation matrix [17].

In view of the above, the present aim is to derive the double GLD family of distributions based on (1.8) in the contexts of 𝐿-moment and 𝐿-correlation theory. Specifically, the purpose of this paper is to develop the methodology and a procedure for simulating double GLDs with specified 𝐿-moments and 𝐿-correlations. The primary advantages of the proposed procedure are that estimates of 𝐿-skew, 𝐿-kurtosis, and 𝐿-correlation are less biased and more efficient.

The remainder of this paper is organized into four sections. The next section provides a summary of univariate 𝐿-moment theory and the derivations of the system of equations and boundary conditions for generating double GLDs with specified values of 𝐿-skew and 𝐿-kurtosis. The section thereafter introduces the coefficient of 𝐿-correlation and the equation is subsequently derived for determining ICs for specified 𝐿-correlations between double GLDs. The steps for implementing the proposed 𝐿-moment procedure are subsequently described. A numerical example and results of a simulation are also provided to confirm the derivations and compare the new 𝐿-moment-based procedure with the conventional product-moment-based procedure. In the last section, the results of the simulation are discussed.

2. Methodology

2.1. Preliminaries

Let 𝑋1,,𝑋𝑗,,𝑋𝑛 be 𝑖𝑖𝑑 random variables each with continuous pdf 𝑓(𝑥), cdf 𝐹(𝑥), order statistics denoted as 𝑋1𝑛𝑋𝑗𝑛𝑋𝑛𝑛, and 𝐿-moments defined in terms of either linear combinations of (a) expectations of order statistics or (b) probability weighted moments (𝛽𝑖). For the purposes considered herein, the first four 𝐿-moments associated with 𝑋𝑗𝑛 are expressed as [13, pages 20–22]Λ1𝑋=𝐸11=𝛽0Λ,(2.1)2=12𝐸𝑋22𝑋12=2𝛽1𝛽0Λ,(2.2)3=13𝐸𝑋332𝑋23+𝑋13=6𝛽26𝛽1+𝛽0Λ,(2.3)4=14𝐸𝑋443𝑋34+3𝑋24𝑋14=20𝛽330𝛽2+12𝛽1𝛽0,(2.4) where the 𝛽𝑖 are determined from𝛽𝑖=𝑥{𝐹(𝑥)}𝑖𝑓(𝑥)𝑑𝑥,(2.5) where 𝑖=0,,3. The coefficients associated with 𝛽𝑖 in (2.5) are obtained from shifted orthogonal Legendre polynomials and are computed as shown in [13, page 20].

The 𝐿-moments Λ1 and Λ2 in (2.1) and (2.2) are measures of location and scale and are the arithmetic mean and one-half the coefficient of mean difference, respectively. Higher-order 𝐿-moments are transformed to dimensionless quantities referred to as 𝐿-moment ratios defined as 𝜏𝑟=Λ𝑟/Λ2 for 𝑟3, and where 𝜏3 and 𝜏4 are the analogs to the conventional measures of skew and kurtosis. In general, 𝐿-moment ratios are bounded in the interval 1<𝜏𝑟<1 as is the index of 𝐿-skew (𝜏3) where a symmetric distribution implies that all 𝐿-moment ratios with odd subscripts are zero. Other smaller boundaries can be found for more specific cases. For example, the index of 𝐿-kurtosis (𝜏4) has the boundary condition for continuous distributions of [18]5𝜏2314<𝜏4<1.(2.6)

2.2. 𝐿-Moments for Double GLDs

The family of double GLDs, associated with (1.8), based on 𝐿-moments is less restrictive than the family based on conventional moments insofar as we may consider the nonzero parameters of 𝜆,𝜆>1 for any distribution with finite 𝑘 order 𝐿-moments rather than 𝜆,𝜆>1/𝑘 for the 𝑘th-order conventional moment to exist. This advantage is attributed to Hosking’s Theorem 1 [12] which states that if the mean (Λ1) exists, then all other 𝐿-moments will have finite expectations.

As such, the family of double GLDs can be derived in the context of 𝐿-moments by defining the probability weighted moments based on (2.5) in terms of 𝑞(𝑢) in (1.1) and the regular uniform pdf and cdf as𝛽𝑖=01/2𝑞𝑢,𝜆𝑢,𝛿𝑖𝑑𝑢+11/2𝑞𝑢,𝜆𝑢,𝛿𝑖𝑑𝑢.(2.7) Integrating (2.7) for 𝑖=0,1,2,3 and using (2.1)–(2.4) yields Λ1=12𝜆𝛿1+𝜆4𝜆+2𝜆1𝛿1+𝜆4𝜆Λ,(2.8)2=2𝜆2𝛿2+3𝜆+𝜆2+2𝜆2𝛿2+3𝜆+𝜆2𝜏,(2.9)3=212𝜆2𝜆+6𝜆25+2𝜆+1𝜆1+𝜆+𝜆35+2𝜆+1𝜆1+𝜆+𝜆49(11)2𝜆+1+(11)2𝜆+1𝜆6𝜆2𝜆32𝜆+11+𝜆2+𝜆3+𝜆+𝜆(11)2𝜆+149+(3)2𝜆+2+2𝜆+1𝜆56+𝜆23+𝜆3+𝜆2𝜆1+𝜆2+𝜆+2𝜆1+𝜆2+𝜆,𝜏(2.10)4=1+𝜆2+𝜆1+𝜆2+𝜆×2𝜆𝜆𝜆211+𝜆2+𝜆3+𝜆4+𝜆+2𝜆𝜆𝜆211+𝜆2+𝜆3+𝜆4+𝜆2𝜆1+𝜆2+𝜆+2𝜆1+𝜆2+𝜆.(2.11) Thus, given specified values of 𝜏3 and 𝜏4, (2.10) and (2.11) can be numerically solved for the corresponding values of 𝜆 and 𝜆. Note that the values of 𝐿-skew (𝜏3) and 𝐿-kurtosis (𝜏4) in (2.10) and (2.11) are independent of the value of 𝛿 selected in (1.8). Further, inspection of (2.10) and (2.11) indicates that interchanging values for the parameters 𝜆 and 𝜆 reverses the direction of 𝜏3 and has no effect on 𝜏4.

For the special case of 𝜆=𝜆 the double GLD is symmetric where 𝜏3=0 in (2.10) and 𝜏4 in (2.11) will simplify to the expression𝜏4=𝜆𝜆21𝜆𝜆+3+4.(2.12) Differentiating (2.12) with respect to 𝜆 and equating the resulting expression to zero and solving for 𝜆 yields a minimum value of 𝐿-kurtosis of𝜏min4=125612+56=0.010205,(2.13) where 𝜆=𝜆=61. As such, using (2.10) and (2.11) with 𝜆=61 and 𝜆(1,61), provided in Figure 3 is a graph of the region for feasible combinations of 𝜏3 and 𝜏4 for double GLDs. Feasible combinations of 𝜏3 and 𝜏4 for (2.10) and (2.11) will lie in the region above the curve graphed in the |𝜏3|,𝜏4 plane of Figure 3.

Provided in Figure 4 are some examples of various double GLDs. These distributions are used in the simulation portion of this study in Section 4. The next section begins with an introduction to the 𝐿-correlation.

3. The 𝐿-Correlation for Double GLDs

The coefficient of 𝐿-correlation (see [19]) is introduced by considering two random variables 𝑌𝑗 and 𝑌𝑘 with continuous distribution functions 𝐹(𝑌𝑗) and 𝐹(𝑌𝑘), respectively. The second 𝐿-moments of 𝑌𝑗 and 𝑌𝑘 can alternatively be expressed asΛ2𝑌𝑗𝑌=2Cov𝑗𝑌,𝐹𝑗,Λ(3.1)2𝑌𝑘𝑌=2Cov𝑘𝑌,𝐹𝑘.(3.2) The second 𝐿-comoments of 𝑌𝑗 toward 𝑌𝑘 and 𝑌𝑘 toward 𝑌𝑗 areΛ2𝑌𝑗,𝑌𝑘𝑌=2Cov𝑗𝑌,𝐹𝑘,Λ(3.3)2𝑌𝑘,𝑌𝑗𝑌=2Cov𝑘𝑌,𝐹𝑗.(3.4) As such, the 𝐿-correlations of 𝑌𝑗 toward 𝑌𝑘 and 𝑌𝑘 toward 𝑌𝑗 are expressed as𝜂𝑗𝑘=Λ2𝑌𝑗,𝑌𝑘Λ2𝑌𝑗𝜂,(3.5)𝑘𝑗=Λ2𝑌𝑘,𝑌𝑗Λ2𝑌𝑘.(3.6) The 𝐿-correlation in (3.5) or (3.6) is bounded such that 1𝜂𝑗𝑘1 where a value of 𝜂𝑗𝑘=1 (𝜂𝑗𝑘=1) indicates a strictly increasing (decreasing) monotone relationship between the two variables. In general, we would also note that 𝜂𝑗𝑘𝜂𝑘𝑗.

In the context of the 𝐿-moment-based double GLD, suppose it is desired to simulate 𝑇 distributions of the form in (1.8) with a specified 𝐿-correlation matrix and where each distribution has its own specified values of 𝜏3 and 𝜏4. Let 𝑍1,,𝑍𝑇 denote standard normal variables where the distribution functions and bivariate density function associated with 𝑍𝑗 and 𝑍𝑘 are expressed as Φ𝑧𝑗𝑍=Pr𝑗𝑧𝑗=𝑧𝑗(2𝜋)1/2exp𝑤2𝑗2𝑑𝑤𝑗,(3.7)Φ𝑧𝑘𝑍=Pr𝑘𝑧𝑘=𝑧𝑘(2𝜋)1/2exp𝑤2𝑘2𝑑𝑤𝑘,(3.8)𝑓𝑗𝑘=2𝜋1𝜌2𝑗𝑘1/212exp1𝜌2𝑗𝑘1𝑧2𝑗+𝑧2𝑘2𝜌𝑗𝑘𝑧𝑗𝑧𝑘.(3.9) Using (3.7), it follows that the 𝑗th double GLD associated with (1.8) can be expressed as 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)) because Φ(𝑧𝑗)𝑈(0,1). As such, using (3.5), the 𝐿-correlation of 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)) toward 𝑞𝑘(Φ(𝑧𝑘)) can be evaluated using solved values of 𝜆𝑗 and 𝜆𝑗 for 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)), a specified intermediate correlation (IC) 𝜌𝑗𝑘 in (3.9), and the following integral expressed as𝜂𝑗𝑘=2𝜋+𝑥𝑗𝑞𝑗Φ𝑧𝑗,𝜆𝑗,𝜆𝑗Φ𝑧𝑘𝑓𝑗𝑘𝑑𝑧𝑗𝑑𝑧𝑘.(3.10) The double GLD in (3.10) is standardized by a linear transformation such that it has a mean of zero and one-half the coefficient of mean difference equal to that of the unit-normal distribution as𝑥𝑗𝑞𝑗Φ𝑧𝑗,𝜆𝑗,𝜆𝑗𝑞=𝜉𝑗Φ𝑧𝑗,𝜆𝑗,𝜆𝑗Λ1,(3.11) where Λ1 is the mean from (2.8) and 𝜉 is a constant that scales Λ2 in (2.9) and in the denominator of (3.5) to 1/𝜋 as𝜉=𝛿41+𝜆𝑗2+𝜆𝑗1+𝜆𝑗1+𝜆𝑗2𝜆𝑗1+𝜆𝑗2+𝜆𝑗𝜋+2𝜆𝑗1+𝜆𝑗1+𝜆𝑗𝜋.(3.12) Analogously, the 𝐿-correlation of 𝑞𝑘(Φ(𝑧𝑘)) toward 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)) is expressed as𝜂𝑘𝑗=2𝜋+𝑥𝑘𝑞𝑘Φ𝑧𝑘,𝜆𝑘,𝜆𝑘Φ𝑧𝑗𝑓𝑗𝑘𝑑𝑧𝑘𝑑𝑧𝑗.(3.13) Note for the special case that if 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)) in (3.10) and 𝑞𝑘(Φ(𝑧𝑘)) in (3.13) have the same parameters that is, 𝜆𝑗=𝜆𝑘 and 𝜆𝑗=𝜆𝑘, then 𝜂𝑗𝑘=𝜂𝑘𝑗. Provided in Algorithm 1 is source code written in Mathematica [20] that implements the computation of an IC (𝜌𝑗𝑘) based on (3.10). The details for simulating double GLDs with specified𝐿-correlations are described in the next section.

Φ 𝑗 = C D F [ N o r m a l D i s t r i b u t i o n [ 0 , 1 ] , 𝑍 𝑗 ] ;
Φ 𝑘 = C DF [ NormalDistribution [ 0,1 ] , 𝑍 𝑘 ] ;
𝜆 = 0 . 2 7 7 9 7 3 3 5 9 8 2 8 3 2 3 2 ;
𝜆 = 0 . 0 8 3 2 9 4 7 9 1 4 3 3 1 2 7 6 2 ;
𝑞 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑗 ( 1 Φ 𝑗 ) 𝜆 ) / ( 𝜆 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 / 𝜋 ) ;
𝑞 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑗 ( 1 Φ 𝑗 ) 𝜆 ) / ( 𝜆 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 / 𝜋 ) ;
(* Standardizing constants Λ 1 from Eq. ( 2 . 8 ) and 𝜉 from Eq. ( 3 . 1 2 ) *)
𝑋 = 𝜉 ( 𝑞 Λ 1 ) ;
𝑋 = 𝜉 ( 𝑞 Λ 1 ) ;
(* Intermediate Correlation *)
𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 = 0.395685;
Needs [ “MultivariateStatistics`” ]
𝑓 𝑗 𝑘 = P DF [ MultinormalDistribution [ { 0,0}, { { 1, 𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 } , { 𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 ,1 } } ] , { 𝑍 𝑗 , 𝑍 𝑘 } ] ;
(* Compute the specified 𝐿 -correlation *)
𝜂 𝑗 𝑘 = 2 𝜋 NIntegrate [ Piecewise [ { { 𝑋 , Φ 𝑗 0 . 5 } , { 𝑋 , Φ 𝑗 > 0 . 5 } } ] × Φ 𝑘 × 𝑓 𝑗 𝑘 ,
{ 𝑍 𝑗 , 10, 10}, { 𝑍 𝑘 , −10, 10}, Method MultiDimensional ]
0.40

4. The Procedure and Simulation Study

To implement the procedure for simulating double GLDs with specified 𝐿-moments and 𝐿-correlations we suggest the following six steps. (1)Specify the 𝐿-moments for 𝑇 transformations of the form in (1.8), that is, 𝑞1(Φ(𝑧1)),,𝑞𝑇(Φ(𝑧𝑇))and obtain the solutions for the parameters of 𝜆𝑗 and 𝜆𝑗by solving (2.10) and (2.11) using the specified values of 𝐿-skew (𝜏3) and 𝐿-kurtosis (𝜏4) for each distribution. Specify a 𝑇×𝑇 matrix of 𝐿-correlations (𝜂𝑗𝑘) for 𝑞𝑗(Φ(𝑧𝑗)) toward 𝑞𝑘(Φ(𝑧𝑘)), where 𝑗<𝑘{1,2,,𝑇}. (2)Compute the (Pearson) intermediate correlations (ICs) 𝜌𝑗𝑘 by substituting the solutions of 𝜆𝑗 and 𝜆𝑗 from Step (1) into (3.10) and then numerically integrate to solve for 𝜌𝑗𝑘 (see Algorithm 1 for an example). Repeat this step separately for all 𝑇(𝑇1)/2 pairwise combinations of correlations. (3)Assemble the ICs into a 𝑇×𝑇 matrix and decompose this matrix using a Cholesky factorization. Note that this step requires the IC matrix to be positive definite. (4)Use the results of the Cholesky factorization from Step (3) to generate 𝑇 standard normal variables (𝑍1,,𝑍𝑇) correlated at the intermediate levels as follows: 𝑍1=𝑎11𝑉1𝑍2=𝑎12𝑉1+𝑎22𝑉2𝑍𝑗=𝑎1𝑗𝑉1+𝑎2𝑗𝑉2++𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑉𝑖++𝑎𝑗𝑗𝑉𝑗𝑍𝑇=𝑎1𝑇𝑉1+𝑎2𝑇𝑉2++𝑎𝑖𝑇𝑉𝑖++𝑎𝑗𝑇𝑉𝑗++𝑎𝑇𝑇𝑉𝑇,(4.1) where 𝑉1,,𝑉𝑇 are independent standard normal random variables and where 𝑎𝑖𝑗 represents the element in the 𝑖th row and the 𝑗th column of the matrix associated with the Cholesky factorization performed in Step 3. (5)Substitute 𝑍1,,𝑍𝑇 from Step (4) into the following Taylor series-based expansion for the standard normal cdf [21]: Φ𝑍𝑗=12𝑍+𝜙𝑗𝑍𝑗+𝑍3𝑗3+𝑍5𝑗+𝑍(35)7𝑗(357)+,(4.2) where 𝜙(𝑍𝑗) denotes the standard normal pdf and where the absolute error associated with (4.2) is less than 8×1016. (6)Substitute the regular uniform deviates, Φ(𝑍𝑗), generated from Step (5) into the 𝑇 equations of the form in (1.8), as noted in Step (1), to generate the double GLDs with the specified 𝐿-moments and 𝐿-correlations.

To demonstrate the steps above and evaluate the proposed procedure, a comparison between the new 𝐿-moment and conventional product moment-based procedures is subsequently described. Specifically, the distributions in Figure 4 are used as a basis for a comparison using the specified correlation matrices in Table 1 where both strong and moderate levels of correlation are considered. Tables 2 and 3 give the solved IC matrices for the conventional moment- and 𝐿-moment-based procedures, respectively. See Algorithm 2 for the algorithm and an example for computing ICs for the conventional procedure. Tables 4 and 5 give the results of the Cholesky decompositions on the IC matrices, which are then used to create 𝑍1,,𝑍4 with the specified ICs by making use of the formulae given in (4.1) of Step (4) with 𝑇=4. The values of 𝑍1,,𝑍4 are subsequently transformed to Φ(𝑍1),,Φ(𝑍4) using (4.2) and then substituted into equations of the form in (1.8) to produce 𝑞1(Φ(𝑍1)),,𝑞4(Φ(𝑍4)) for both procedures.

Φ 𝑗 = C DF[NormalDistribution [ 0,1], 𝑍 𝑗 ];
Φ 𝑘 = C DF[NormalDistribution [ 0,1], 𝑍 𝑘 ];
𝜆 𝑗 = 0 . 2 7 7 9 7 3 3 5 9 8 2 8 3 2 3 2 ;
𝜆 𝑗 = 0 . 0 8 3 2 9 4 7 9 1 4 3 3 1 2 7 6 2 ;
𝜆 𝑘 = 0 . 3 6 6 2 5 9 9 0 6 9 2 9 8 9 9 4 ;
𝜆 𝑘 = 0 . 1 2 9 7 7 7 1 2 6 3 0 8 0 0 0 4 ;
𝑞 𝑗 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑗 𝑗 ( 1 Φ 𝑗 ) 𝜆 𝑗 ) / ( 𝜆 𝑗 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 𝑗 / 𝜋 ) ;
𝑞 𝑗 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑗 𝑗 ( 1 Φ 𝑗 ) 𝜆 𝑗 ) / ( 𝜆 𝑗 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 𝑗 / 𝜋 ) ;
𝑞 𝑘 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑘 𝑘 ( 1 Φ 𝑘 ) 𝜆 𝑘 ) / ( 𝜆 𝑘 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 𝑘 / 𝜋 ) ;
𝑞 𝑘 = ( Φ 𝜆 𝑘 𝑘 ( 1 Φ 𝑘 ) 𝜆 𝑘 ) / ( 𝜆 𝑘 × 2 ( 3 / 2 ) 𝜆 𝑘 / 𝜋 ) ;
(* Standardizing constants 𝛼 1 and 𝛼 2 from Equation ( A . 2 ) in the Appendix *)
𝑋 𝑗 = ( 𝑞 𝑗 𝛼 1 𝑗 ) / 𝛼 2 𝑗 ;
𝑋 𝑗 = ( 𝑞 𝑗 𝛼 1 𝑗 ) / 𝛼 2 𝑗 ;
𝑋 𝑘 = ( 𝑞 𝑘 𝛼 1 𝑘 ) / 𝛼 2 𝑘 ;
𝑋 𝑘 = ( 𝑞 𝑘 𝛼 1 𝑘 ) / 𝛼 2 𝑘 ;
(* Intermediate Correlation *)
𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 = 0 . 4 0 6 7 8 6 ;
Needs[“MultivariateStatistics`”]
𝑓 𝑗 𝑘 = P DF [ MultinormalDistribution [ { 0,0}, { { 1, 𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 } , { 𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 ,1 } } ] , { 𝑍 𝑗 , 𝑍 𝑘 } ] ;
(* Compute the specified conventional Pearson correlation *)
𝜌 𝑗 𝑘 = NIntegrate [ Piecewise [ { { 𝑋 𝑗 , Φ 𝑗 0 . 5 } , { 𝑋 𝑗 , Φ 𝑗 > 0 . 5 } } ] × Piecewise [ { { 𝑋 𝑘 , Φ 𝑘
0 . 5 } , { 𝑋 𝑘 , Φ 𝑘 > 0 . 5 } } ] × 𝑓 𝑗 𝑘 , { 𝑍 𝑗 , −10, 10}, { 𝑍 𝑘 , −10, 10}, Method MultiDimensional ]
0.40

In terms of the simulation, a Fortran algorithm was written for both procedures to generate 25,000 independent sample estimates for the specified parameters of (a) conventional skew (𝛼3), kurtosis (𝛼4), and Pearson correlation (𝜌𝑗𝑘); (b) 𝐿-skew (𝜏3), 𝐿-kurtosis (𝜏4), and 𝐿-correlation (𝜂𝑗𝑘). The estimates of 𝜏3,4 were based on samples of size 𝑛=250 and the estimates of 𝜂𝑗𝑘 were based on sample sizes of 𝑛=25 and 𝑛=1000. The estimates for 𝛼3,4 were based on Fisher’s 𝑘-statistics, that is, the formulae currently used by most commercial software packages such as SAS, SPSS, and Minitab, for computing indices of skew and kurtosis (where 𝛼3,4=0 for the standard normal distribution). The formulae used for computing estimates for 𝜏3,4 were Headrick’s equations (2.4) and (2.6) [22]. The estimate for 𝜌𝑗𝑘 was based on the usual formula for the Pearson product-moment of correlation statistic and the estimate for 𝜂𝑗𝑘 was computed based on (3.5) using the empirical forms of the cdfs in (3.1) and (3.3). The estimates for 𝜌𝑗𝑘 and 𝜂𝑗𝑘 were both transformed using Fisher’s 𝑧 transformation. Bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapped average estimates, confidence intervals (C.I.s), and standard errors were subsequently obtained for the estimates associated with the parameters (𝛼3,4, 𝜏3,4, 𝑧𝜌𝑗𝑘, 𝑧𝜂𝑗𝑘) using 10,000 resamples via the commercial software package Spotfire S+ [23]. The bootstrap results for the estimates of 𝑧𝜌𝑗𝑘 and 𝑧𝜂𝑗𝑘 were transformed back to their original metrics. Further, if a parameter (𝑃) was outside its associated bootstrap C.I., then an index of relative bias (RB) was computed for the estimate (𝐸) as RB=((𝐸𝑃)/𝑃)×100. The results of the simulation are reported in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and are discussed in the next section.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

One of the advantages that 𝐿-moment ratios have over conventional moment-based estimators is that they can be far less biased when sampling is from distributions with heavy tails [13, 19]. Inspection of the simulation results in Tables 6 and 7 clearly indicates that this is the case. Specifically, the superiority that estimates of 𝐿-moment ratios (𝜏3,𝜏4) have over their corresponding conventional moment-based counterparts (𝛼3,𝛼4) is obvious. For example, with samples of size 𝑛=25 the estimates of skew and kurtosis for Distribution 1 were, on average, only 64.07% and 10.22% of their associated population parameters, whereas the estimates of 𝐿-skew and 𝐿-kurtosis were 98.6% and 99.35% of their respective parameters. It is also evident from comparing Tables 6 and 7 that 𝐿-skew and 𝐿-kurtosis are more efficient estimators as their standard errors are substantially smaller and more stable than the conventional moment-based estimators of skew and kurtosis.

Presented in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 are the results associated with the conventional Pearson and 𝐿-correlations. Overall inspection of these tables indicates that the 𝐿-correlation is superior to the Pearson correlation in terms of relative bias. For example, for strong correlations (𝑛=25) the relative bias for the two heavy tailed distributions (i.e., distributions 1 and 2) was 8.66% for the Pearson correlation compared to only 1.17% for the 𝐿-correlation. Further, for large sample sizes (𝑛=1000), the 𝐿-correlation bootstrap C.I.s contained all of the population parameters, whereas the Pearson correlation C.I.s contained none of the parameters. It is also noted that the variability of the 𝐿-correlation appears to be more stable than that of the Pearson correlation both within and across the different conditions.

In summary, the new 𝐿-moment-based procedure is an attractive alternative to the traditional conventional moment-based procedure. In particular, the 𝐿-moment-based double GLD procedure has distinct advantages when distributions with heavy tails are used. Finally, we note that Mathematica Version 8.0.1 [20] source code is available from the authors for implementing both the conventional and new 𝐿-moment-based procedures.

Appendix

System of Conventional Moment-Based Equations for Double GLDs

The moments (𝜇𝑟=1,,4) based on (1.8) can be determined from𝜇𝑟=01/2𝑞𝑢,𝜆,𝛿𝑟𝑑𝑢+11/2𝑞𝑢,𝜆,𝛿𝑟𝑑𝑢.(A.1) The mean, variance, skew, and kurtosis are in general (e.g., [24])𝛼1=𝜇1,𝛼22=𝜇2𝜇21,𝛼3=𝜇33𝜇2𝜇1+2𝜇31𝜇23/2,𝛼4=𝜇44𝜇3𝜇13𝜇22+12𝜇2𝜇216𝜇41𝜇22.(A.2) In terms of the double GLD in Figure 2, setting 𝛿=1/2𝜋 in (A.1) for the unit normal distribution, the moments associated with the location and scale parameters in (A.2) are 𝛼1=𝜇1=12𝜋212𝜆𝜆+𝜆2+2𝜆1𝜆+𝜆2,𝜇2=𝜋4𝜆1/1+2𝜆2𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+𝜆8𝜆2+𝜋4𝜆1/1+2𝜆+2𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+𝜆8𝜆2𝜋3/2Γ𝜆8𝜆Γ3/2+𝜆(A.3) and the moments related to skew and kurtosis are as follows: 𝜇3=(3)8𝜆𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+2𝜆162𝜆3𝜋3/2(3)2𝜆𝜆Γ2𝜆H2F1Reg𝜆,1+2𝜆,2+2𝜆,1/2162𝜆3𝜋3/2+8𝜆1𝜆3/𝜆31+3𝜆162𝜆3𝜋3/2+8𝜆1/1+3𝜆162𝜆3𝜋3/2(3)8𝜆𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+2𝜆162𝜆3𝜋3/2+(3)2𝜆𝜆Γ2𝜆H2F1Reg𝜆,1+2𝜆,2+2𝜆,1/2162𝜆3𝜋3/2,(A.4)𝜇4=24𝜆6𝜋2𝜆41+4𝜆+24𝜆6𝜋2𝜆41+4𝜆24𝜆4𝜋2𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+3𝜆𝜆424𝜆4𝜋2𝛽1/2,1+3𝜆,1+𝜆𝜆4+24𝜆4𝜋2𝛽1/2,1+𝜆,1+3𝜆𝜆4(3)24𝜆5𝜋2𝛽1/2,1+2𝜆,1+2𝜆𝜆4+24𝜆4𝜋2𝛽1/2,1+3𝜆,1+𝜆𝜆4+3𝜋5/2Γ1+2𝜆64𝜆4Γ3/2+2𝜆24𝜆3𝜋2Γ𝜆Γ1+3𝜆𝜆3Γ2+4𝜆+(3)22𝜆6𝜋2Γ1+2𝜆H2F1Reg2𝜆,1+2𝜆,2+2𝜆,1/2𝜆4,(A.5) where H2F1Reg(),Γ(), and 𝛽() are the regularized hypergeometric, gamma, and incomplete beta functions, respectively.