Calculating Posterior Prob. of an Impurity's Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter _N3WTON_
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the posterior probability of an impurity's presence using Bayes' Theorem. Given the probabilities of detecting the impurity (0.80) and not detecting it when absent (0.90), along with prior probabilities of 0.40 for presence and 0.60 for absence, the calculations lead to a posterior probability of approximately 0.91 after conducting three experiments with two detections. The exact posterior probability is confirmed to be 256/283, or approximately 0.9046.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bayes' Theorem
  • Knowledge of probability concepts such as prior and posterior probabilities
  • Familiarity with binomial coefficients and their application in probability
  • Basic statistical analysis skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of Bayes' Theorem in real-world scenarios
  • Learn about binomial distributions and how to calculate probabilities using binomial coefficients
  • Explore advanced topics in probability theory, such as conditional probability
  • Investigate the implications of false positives and false negatives in detection systems
USEFUL FOR

Chemical engineers, statisticians, data scientists, and anyone involved in quality control or impurity detection in products will benefit from this discussion.

_N3WTON_
Messages
350
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


A chemical engineer is interested in determining whether a certain trace impurity is present in a product. An experiment has a probability of 0.80 of detecting the impurity if it is present. The probability of not detecting the impurity if it is absent is 0.90. The prior probabilities of the impurity being present and being absent are 0.40 and 0.60 respectively. Three separate experiments result in only two decisions. What is the posterior probability that the impurity is present?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


So I know that the event that an impurity is present and not present are disjoint and exhaustive, so Bayes Theorem does apply. I let D denote the event that an impurity was detected in 2 of 3 tests and I denotes the event that an impurity is present.
\mathcal P{(I|D)} = \frac{\mathcal P{(D|I)}* \mathcal P{(I)}}{\mathcal P{(D|I)}* \mathcal P{(I)} + \mathcal P{(D|I')}* \mathcal P{(I')}}
Also, I know that the probabilities for \mathcal P{(I)} = 0.40 and \mathcal P{(I')} = 0.60
However, at this point I am not sure where to go with the problem. I understand that I need to determine \mathcal P{(D|I)} and \mathcal P{(D|I')} but I'm not sure how to go about doing this..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you relate the other percent values that is the 80% and 90% to them?
 
jedishrfu said:
Can you relate the other percent values that is the 80% and 90% to them?
Would I need to use the fact that there are \dbinom{3}{2} ways an impurity could be detected in 2 of 3 tests in order to calculate the needed probabilities? Then I could relate the 80% and 90% somehow, yes?
 
_N3WTON_ said:
Three separate experiments result in only two decisions.

One question is whether the experiments are done on the same sample of product. I suppose we must assume so in order to have an interesting problem.

Another question is: what is the meaning of "two decisions"? It would be clear if the problem said "two detections". I suppose we must assume that interpretation.

Number the experiments 1,2,3. Assume an impurity is present. One way to get two detections in three experiments is a detection in experiment 1, a detection in experiment 2 and a no-detection in experiment 3. Write down the expression for that probability.

Then imagine adding up the expressions for all possible ways of getting two detections in three experiments and you'll see where combinations comes into the picture.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Another question is: what is the meaning of "two decisions"? It would be clear if the problem said "two detections".
I'm really sorry about that, upon reading your comment I went back and realized that I didn't copy the problem correctly, it does indeed say "two detections". Also, I believe that we are meant to assume that the same sample is being used. Anyhow, thank you for the help.
 
Last edited:
So I think I have found the values I need, hopefully someone can confirm/deny:
\mathcal P{(D|I)} = \dbinom{3}{2} * (0.8)^{2} * (1-0.8)^{2} = 0.384
\mathcal P{(D|I')} = \dbinom{3}{2} * (1-0.9)^{2} * (0.9) = 0.027
So after substituting these values into the Bayes Theorem equation my final answer is \mathcal P{(I|D)} = 0.91
 
_N3WTON_ said:
So I think I have found the values I need, hopefully someone can confirm/deny:
\mathcal P{(D|I)} = \dbinom{3}{2} * (0.8)^{2} * (1-0.8)^{2} = 0.384
\mathcal P{(D|I')} = \dbinom{3}{2} * (1-0.9)^{2} * (0.9) = 0.027
So after substituting these values into the Bayes Theorem equation my final answer is \mathcal P{(I|D)} = 0.91

The exact answer is ##P(I|D) = 256/283 \doteq 0.9046 ##. So, yes, I guess you could be right.
 
Ray Vickson said:
The exact answer is ##P(I|D) = 256/283 \doteq 0.9046 ##. So, yes, I guess you could be right.
May I ask how you arrived at the exact answer?
 
Nvm, I think I figured it out :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
27K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K