{"word_count": 491, "character_count": 3383}
With Stéphane Tufféry, we were working this week on a chapter of a book, entitled Statistical Learning in Actuarial Science. The chapter should be based on R functions, and we wanted to reproduce some outputs he previously obtained with SAS. The good thing is that even complex functions (logistic regression, regression trees, etc) produce the same kind of outputs. But we found a problem that we could not fix: generating identical training subsets of observations... Out of 1,000 lines, we subsample about 600 lines. The problem is that we could not generate the same sets of indexes with R, and SAS. Even using similar random generators... (execpt if we want to extract 1 or 2 lines, no more).Let us try to explain what's going on (based on code produced by Stéphane). According to Eubank (2010), there are (at least) two generators of random numbers in SAS,Fishman and Moore (1982) used for function RANUNIMersenne-Twister used for the RAND function, based on Matsumoto and Nishimura (1997)For instance, for the RAND function, if we generate a Gaussian sample - with Mersenne-Twister algorithm - the code should be%LET SEED =6;%LET NREP=10;DATA TESTRANDOM ;  CALL STREAMINIT(&#38;SEED);  DO REP = 1 TO &#38;NREP;   X = RAND ('NORMAL');    OUTPUT;  END;RUN;PROC PRINT DATA = TESTRANDOM ;RUN ;And we get hereObs.REPX112.1068022-0.25604330.2869244-0.22806551.34569660.1634177-0.27788880.02133991.2405010101.01054&#160;If we want a Uniform sample, it should be%LET SEED =6;%LET NREP=10;DATA TESTRANDM ;CALL STREAMINIT(&#38;SEED);DO REP = 1 TO &#38;NREP;  X = RAND ('UNIFORM');   OUTPUT;END;RUN;PROC PRINT DATA = TESTRANDOM ;RUN ;Obs.REPX110.66097220.48044330.87849440.19916550.04838660.19966770.81353880.53807990.0110510100.53753On good thing (so far) about the latest, is that Mersenne-Twister has been coded in R, in the RNGkind function&#62; RNGkind("Mersenne")&#62; set.seed(6)&#62; runif(10) [1] 0.64357277 0.91590888 0.09523258 0.29537280 [5] 0.76993170 0.25589353 0.51789573 0.67784993 [9] 0.14722782 0.70052604But the output is different, even if we're supposed to start, here, with the same seed. Now, if we want to make sure about what is done here, let us write our own codes of the Fishman and Moore (1982) algorithm (in order to reproduce the SAS output). The R version of&#62; a = 397204094      # RANUNI multiplier&#62; seed = 123         # seed&#62; n = 10             # sample size&#62; m = (2^31) - 1     # period&#62; for (i in (1:n-1)) {+ seed = (a*seed)%%m+ u = seed / m+ print(u)+ }[1] 0.7503961[1] 0.3209121[1] 0.3453204[1] 0.2683455[1] 0.241798[1] 0.9888181[1] 0.3943279[1] 0.9710172[1] 0.001632214[1] 0.921537Let us now run a similar code with SAS,%LET SEED =123;%LET NREP=10;DATA FRANUNI (KEEP = x) ;seed = &#38;SEED ;DO REP = 1 TO &#38;NREP;  CALL RANUNI(seed, x);  OUTPUT;END;RUN;PROC PRINT DATA = FRANUNI ;RUN ;and we get the following outputObs.x10.7504020.3209130.1783940.9060350.3571260.2211170.7864480.3980890.12467100.18769It looks like here, indeed, we start with the same seed, since the first two numbers generated are similar. But then, it looks like we really have random numbers... If we change the seed, the first two numbers are similar, but that's all.We might be missing something trivial here, but we did not see it. So if anyone has a clue about reproducibility issues when generating random samples, with R and SAS, we are interested !