Incorrect computation of quantiles of vector of infinities

[simonster]

julia> quantile([Inf, Inf], 0.5)
NaN

I think this should be Inf, which is what median returns.

[alexhallam]

julia> quantile([Inf], 0.5)
Inf

Is this sufficient?

[johnmyleswhite]

I believe that is the behavior that Simon has in mind. Do you have a modification of the code that produces that result?

[alexhallam]

It is already doing that.

[johnmyleswhite]

I see. Then, no, I think Simon wants his case and similar cases to be handled and not only the single-element of Inf case.

[alexhallam]

Also,

julia> quantile([0,Inf], 0.5)
Inf

I am not sure what it means to find quantile([Inf, Inf], 0.5). Maybe NaN is not a bad output.

[simonster]

I think quantile([Inf, Inf], 0.5) should be the same as middle(Inf, Inf)and median([Inf, Inf]) which are both Inf.

More generally, something like this should also return Inf and not NaN:

quantile([-0.817856,0.584222,4.40526,-3.11349,1.31774,-2.48744,Inf,Inf,2.40881,-1.25807,1.37004], 0.95)

For both of these cases, I believe the operation is mathematically well-defined, and R, NumPy, and MATLAB all return Inf.

[johnmyleswhite]

Just to be sure, what you mean is that these operations are well-defined given the standard ordering on the extended real line, right?

[alexhallam]

Wow, I did not mean to digress to measure theory. I have been eager to find a intro issue in Julia to dig my teeth into. I just wanted to make sure that this was desired functionality before I started working on it. If it is expected functionality in R, NumPy, and Matlab then I would not mind attempting it in Julia.

[johnmyleswhite]

I don't think you need to deal with measure theory, just with the idea that -Inf and Inf are valid values and that they sort like -Inf < x < Inf for all finite x. Imagine a distribution that generates -Inf, 0 and Inf all with probability 1/3. Simon's point IIUC is that all of the quantiles of that distribution are well-defined as elements of the extended real line.

But it seems clear we should make sure there's broad consensus on what the correct behavior of both median and quantile would be before you work on this.

[andreasnoack]

I don't think there is a good reason to produce the NaN here. The NaN only occurs because we rewrite the interpolation (1-h)*a + h*b as a + h(b - a) so when a and b are Inf it becomes NaN. In the original form, it would have been Inf. The rewrite ensures that the quantiles are monotonous in the probability so we probably want to keep it. I believe that something like a + ifelse(a == b, zero(a), h*(b - a)) should be just fine.

[andreasnoack]

Adding a check for a==b to https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/base/statistics.jl#L681 is probably the way to go. @alexhallam are you up for preparing a PR?

[alexhallam]

I would love to! Thanks!

[simonbyrne]

While we're at it we should probably make these consistent:

julia> quantile([Inf,1.0],0.5)
Inf

julia> quantile([-Inf,1.0],0.5)
NaN

Need to think of a good way to do this though.

[simonbyrne]

Though that appears to be my fault (#16572 and JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl#164 (comment))

[tkelman]

is this closed by #19574 or is there any more to do here?

[andreasnoack]

The issue @simonbyrne mentions is not fixed. I think we might have to check a and b for isfinite and only use the rewritten interpolation when both are true.

[alexhallam]

I agree. That is a good way to solve the problem. I can work on that.

[ararslan]

Seems to have been fixed by #19659.