Generate N random numbers within a range with a constant sum

Question

I want to generate N random numbers drawn from a specif distribution (e.g uniform random) between [a,b] which sum to a constant C. I have tried a couple of solutions I could

Answer 1

In case you want the sample to follow a uniform distribution, the problem reduces to generate N random numbers with sum = 1. This, in turn, is a special case of the Dirichlet distribution but can also be computed more easily using the Exponential distribution. Here is how:

1. Take a uniform sample v₁ … v_N with all v_i between 0 and 1.
2. For all i, 1<=i<=N, define u_i := -ln v_i (notice that u_i > 0).
3. Normalize the u_i as p_i := u_i/s where s is the sum u₁+...+u_N.

The p₁..p_N are uniformly distributed (in the simplex of dim N-1) and their sum is 1.

You can now multiply these p_i by the constant C you want and translate them by summing some other constant A like this

q_i := A + p_i*C.

EDIT 3

In order to address some issues raised in the comments, let me add the following:

• To ensure that the final random sequence falls in the interval [a,b] choose the constants A and C above as A := a and C := b-a, i.e., take q_i = a + p_i*(b-a). Since p_i is in the range (0,1) all q_i will be in the range [a,b].
• One cannot take the (negative) logarithm -ln(v_i) if v_i happens to be 0 because ln() is not defined at 0. The probability of such an event is extremely low. However, in order to ensure that no error is signaled the generation of v₁ ... v_N in item 1 above must threat any occurrence of 0 in a special way: consider -ln(0) as +infinity (remember: ln(x) -> -infinity when x->0). Thus the sum s = +infinity, which means that p_i = 1 and all other p_j = 0. Without this convention the sequence (0...1...0) would never be generated (many thanks to @Severin Pappadeux for this interesting remark.)
• As explained in the 4th comment attached to the question by @Neil Slater it is logically impossible to fulfill all the requirements of the original framing. Therefore any solution must relax the constraints to a proper subset of the original ones. Other comments by @Behrooz seem to confirm that this would suffice in this case.

EDIT 2

One more issue has been raised in the comments:

Why rescaling a uniform sample does not suffice?

In other words, why should I bother to take negative logarithms?

The reason is that if we just rescale then the resulting sample won't distribute uniformly across the segment (0,1) (or [a,b] for the final sample.)

To visualize this let's think 2D, i.e., let's consider the case N=2. A uniform sample (v₁,v₂) corresponds to a random point in the square with origin (0,0) and corner (1,1). Now, when we normalize such a point dividing it by the sum s=v₁+v₂ what we are doing is projecting the point onto the diagonal as shown in the picture (keep in mind that the diagonal is the line x + y = 1):

But given that green lines, which are closer to the principal diagonal from (0,0) to (1,1), are longer than orange ones, which are closer to the axes x and y, the projections tend to accumulate more around the center of the projection line (in blue), where the scaled sample lives. This shows that a simple scaling won't produce a uniform sample on the depicted diagonal. On the other hand, it can be proven mathematically that the negative logarithms do produce the desired uniformity. So, instead of copypasting a mathematical proof I would invite everyone to implement both algorithms and check that the resulting plots behave as this answer describes.

(Note: here is a blog post on this interesting subject with an application to the Oil & Gas industry)