Difference between revisions of "Poisson race distribution"
From Maths
(Added proof and entire gist of missing case.) |
m (Removing inline name) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Let {{M|X\sim}}[[Poisson distribution|{{M|\text{Poi} }}]]{{M|(\lambda_1)}} and {{M|Y\sim\text{Poi}(\lambda_2)}} be given {{plural|random variable|s}} (that are [[independent random variables|independent]]), then define a new random variable: | Let {{M|X\sim}}[[Poisson distribution|{{M|\text{Poi} }}]]{{M|(\lambda_1)}} and {{M|Y\sim\text{Poi}(\lambda_2)}} be given {{plural|random variable|s}} (that are [[independent random variables|independent]]), then define a new random variable: | ||
* {{M|Z:\eq X-Y}} | * {{M|Z:\eq X-Y}} | ||
− | We | + | We<ref>I've heard this somewhere before, I can't remember where from - I've had a quick search, while not established it's in the right area</ref> call this a "''Poisson race''" as in some sense they're racing, {{M|Z>0}} then {{M|X}} is winning, {{M|Z\eq 0}}, neck and neck and {{M|Z<0}} then {{M|Y}} is winning. |
* {{Caveat|Remember that Poisson measures stuff ''per unit thing''}}, meaning, for example, that say we are talking "defects per mile of track" with {{M|\lambda_1}} being the defects per mile of the left rail (defined somehow) and {{M|\lambda_2}} the defects per mile of the right rail. | * {{Caveat|Remember that Poisson measures stuff ''per unit thing''}}, meaning, for example, that say we are talking "defects per mile of track" with {{M|\lambda_1}} being the defects per mile of the left rail (defined somehow) and {{M|\lambda_2}} the defects per mile of the right rail. | ||
** If there are 5 on the left and 3 on the right {{M|Z}} for that mile was {{M|+2}} - the next mile is independent and doesn't start off with this bias, that is {{M|Z\eq 0}} for the next mile it doesn't mean the right rail caught up with 2 more than the left for this mile. | ** If there are 5 on the left and 3 on the right {{M|Z}} for that mile was {{M|+2}} - the next mile is independent and doesn't start off with this bias, that is {{M|Z\eq 0}} for the next mile it doesn't mean the right rail caught up with 2 more than the left for this mile. |
Latest revision as of 10:33, 24 December 2018
\newcommand{\P}[2][]{\mathbb{P}#1{\left[{#2}\right]} } \newcommand{\Pcond}[3][]{\mathbb{P}#1{\left[{#2}\!\ \middle\vert\!\ {#3}\right]} } \newcommand{\Plcond}[3][]{\Pcond[#1]{#2}{#3} } \newcommand{\Prcond}[3][]{\Pcond[#1]{#2}{#3} }
\newcommand{\l}[1]{\lambda#1}
Contents
[hide]Definition
Let X\sim\text{Poi} (\lambda_1) and Y\sim\text{Poi}(\lambda_2) be given random variables (that are independent), then define a new random variable:
- Z:\eq X-Y
We[1] call this a "Poisson race" as in some sense they're racing, Z>0 then X is winning, Z\eq 0, neck and neck and Z<0 then Y is winning.
- Caveat:Remember that Poisson measures stuff per unit thing, meaning, for example, that say we are talking "defects per mile of track" with \lambda_1 being the defects per mile of the left rail (defined somehow) and \lambda_2 the defects per mile of the right rail.
- If there are 5 on the left and 3 on the right Z for that mile was +2 - the next mile is independent and doesn't start off with this bias, that is Z\eq 0 for the next mile it doesn't mean the right rail caught up with 2 more than the left for this mile.
- So this doesn't model an ongoing race.
Descriptions
- for k\ge 0 and k\in\mathbb{Z} we have:
- Claim 1: \P{Z\eq k}\eq \lambda_1^k e^{-\lambda_1-\lambda_2} \sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\frac{(\lambda_1\lambda_2)^i}{i!(i+k)!} [Note 1], which may be written:
- \P{Z\eq k}\eq \lambda_1^k e^{-\lambda_1-\lambda_2}\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\left( \frac{(\lambda_1\lambda_2)^i}{(i!)^2}\cdot\frac{i!}{(i+k)!}\right) - this has some terms that look a bit like a Poisson term (squared) - perhaps it might lead to a closed form.
- Claim 1: \P{Z\eq k}\eq \lambda_1^k e^{-\lambda_1-\lambda_2} \sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\frac{(\lambda_1\lambda_2)^i}{i!(i+k)!} [Note 1], which may be written:
- for k\le 0 and k\in\mathbb{Z} we can re-use the above result with X and Y flipped:
- Can't find where I've written it down, will not guess it
Proof of claims
Grade: B
This page requires one or more proofs to be filled in, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. Unless there are any caveats mentioned below the statement comes from a reliable source. As always, Warnings and limitations will be clearly shown and possibly highlighted if very important (see template:Caution et al).
The message provided is:
The message provided is:
k | X | Y |
---|---|---|
0 | X\eq 0 | Y\eq 0 |
X\eq 1 | Y\eq 1 | |
X\eq 2 | Y\eq 2 | |
\vdots | \vdots | |
X\eq i | Y\eq i | |
1 | X\eq 1 | Y\eq 0 |
X\eq 2 | Y\eq 1 | |
X\eq 3 | Y\eq 2 | |
\vdots | \vdots | |
X\eq i+1 | Y\eq i | |
2 | X\eq 2 | Y\eq 0 |
X\eq 3 | Y\eq 1 | |
X\eq 4 | Y\eq 2 | |
\vdots | \vdots | |
X\eq i+2 | Y\eq i | |
\cdots | ||
j | X\eq j | Y\eq 0 |
X\eq j+1 | Y\eq 1 | |
X\eq j+2 | Y\eq 2 | |
\vdots | \vdots | |
X\eq i+j | Y\eq i |
Finding \P{Z\eq k} for k\in\mathbb{N}_0
TODO: Cover why we split the cases (from below: "Whereas: if we have k<0 then Y>X so if we have Y\eq 0 then X< 0 follows, which we can't do, so we must sum the other way around ) - good start
- Let k\in\mathbb{N}_0 be given
- Suppose k\ge 0
- Then X-Y\eq k giving X\eq Y+k
- Specifically, k\ge 0 means X-Y\ge 0 so X\ge Y and so forth as shown for a handful of values in the table on the right
- As Poisson is only defined for values in \mathbb{N}_0 we can start with Y\eq 0 and X will be \ge 0 too
- Whereas: if we have k<0 then Y>X so if we have Y\eq 0 then X< 0 follows, which we can't do, so we must sum the other way around if k<0. This is why we analyse \P{Z\eq k} as two cases!
- As Poisson is only defined for values in \mathbb{N}_0 we can start with Y\eq 0 and X will be \ge 0 too
- So we see that if Y takes any value in \mathbb{N}_0 that X\eq Y+k means X\in\mathbb{N}_0 too, the key point
- Thus we want to sum over i\in\mathbb{N}_0 of \P{Y\eq i\wedge X\eq i+k} as for these cases we see X-Y\eq i+k-i\eq k as required
- So: \P{Z\eq k}:\eq\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0} \P{Y\eq i}\cdot\Pcond{X\eq i+k}{Y\eq i}
- As X and Y are independent distributions we know \Pcond{X\eq u}{Y\eq v}\eq\P{X\eq u} we see:
- \P{Z\eq k}\eq\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0} \P{Y\eq i}\cdot\P{X\eq i+k}
- Then \P{Z\eq k}\eq\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}{\Bigg[ \underbrace{e^{-\l{_2} }\cdot\frac{\l{_2}^i}{i!} }_{\P{Y\eq i} }\cdot\underbrace{e^{-\l{_1} }\cdot\frac{\l{_1}^{i+k} }{(i+k)!} }_{\P{X\eq i+k} }\cdot\Bigg]} - by definition of the Poisson distribution
- \eq e^{-\lambda_1-\l{_2} }\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\frac{(\lambda_1\cdot\lambda_2)^i}{i!}\cdot\frac{\lambda_1^k}{(i+k)!}
- Notice that (i+k)!\eq i!\big((i+1)(i+2)\cdots(i+k)\big)\eq i!\frac{(i+k)!}{i!} , so \frac{1}{(i+k)!}\eq \frac{1}{i!\frac{(i+k)!}{i!} } \eq \frac{i!}{i!(i+k)!}
- So \P{Z\eq k} \eq e^{-\lambda_1-\l{_2} }\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\frac{(\lambda_1\cdot\lambda_2)^i\lambda_1^k}{i!}\cdot\frac{i!}{i!(i+k)!}
- Finally giving:
- \P{Z\eq k} \eq e^{-\lambda_1-\l{_2} }\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}\lambda_1^k\cdot\frac{(\lambda_1\cdot\lambda_2)^i}{i!i!}\cdot\frac{i!}{(i+k)!} or
- is is perhaps better written as: \P{Z\eq k} \eq e^{-\lambda_1-\l{_2} }\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}{\left[\lambda_1^k\cdot\frac{(\lambda_1\cdot\lambda_2)^i}{(i!)^2}\cdot\frac{1}{\prod_{j\eq 1}^{k}(i+j)}\right]}
- Finally giving:
- As X and Y are independent distributions we know \Pcond{X\eq u}{Y\eq v}\eq\P{X\eq u} we see:
- So: \P{Z\eq k}:\eq\sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0} \P{Y\eq i}\cdot\Pcond{X\eq i+k}{Y\eq i}
- Suppose k\ge 0
NOTES for k<0
Let k':\eq -k so it's positive and note that:
- X-Y\eq k means Y-X\eq -k\eq k'
- Importantly Y-X\eq k' for k' >0 (as k<0 we see k':\eq -k > 0)
- Let X':\eq Y and Y':\eq X then we have:
- X'-Y'\eq k' for k'>0 and both X' and Y' as Poisson distributions with given rates
- We can use the k\ge 0 formula for this as k'>0 so is certainly \ge 0
- X'-Y'\eq k' for k'>0 and both X' and Y' as Poisson distributions with given rates
- Let X':\eq Y and Y':\eq X then we have:
- Importantly Y-X\eq k' for k' >0 (as k<0 we see k':\eq -k > 0)
Notes
- Jump up ↑ Note that \sum_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}a_i means \sum^\infty_{i\eq 0}a_i - see Notes:Infinity notation
References
- Jump up ↑ I've heard this somewhere before, I can't remember where from - I've had a quick search, while not established it's in the right area
|