Can the Expected Value be Written as an Integral?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expected value Value
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression for the expected value of a quantity \( G^2 \) involving an exponentially distributed random variable \( \alpha \). Participants explore whether the expected value can be accurately represented as an integral and discuss potential discrepancies between two formulations of the expression.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the expression \( G^2=\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{E}_1\,\alpha+\mathcal{N}} \) and questions if it can be expressed as an integral.
  • Another participant notes a potential inconsistency between the two expressions, highlighting the absence of \( \mathcal{E}_1 \) in the integral form.
  • A later reply suggests that \( \overline{\gamma} \) refers to the mean of the exponential distribution and proposes a possible correction to the expression.
  • One participant clarifies that the original expression should include the expectation operator, \( E[G^2] \), and discusses the evaluation of the integral leading to a consistent result.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about whether the authors' formulation contains typos, indicating that the matter remains unresolved for them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the original expressions contain typos or if they are correct as stated. There are multiple competing views regarding the interpretation and formulation of the expected value.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential missing parts in the authors' solution and express uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the integral representation. The discussion highlights dependencies on the definitions of variables and the interpretation of the expectation operator.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello,

I have the following expression:

G^2=\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{E}_1\,\alpha+\mathcal{N}}

where \alpha is an exponentially distributed random variable, and all other variables are constants. The authors said that, this expected value can be written as:

G^2=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}(\gamma+1)}\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma}}\text{e}^{-\gamma/\overline{\gamma}}\,d\gamma

Is this right, or there are typos?

Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
S_David said:
Hello,

I have the following expression:

G^2=\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{E}_1\,\alpha+\mathcal{N}}

where \alpha is an exponentially distributed random variable, and all other variables are constants. The authors said that, this expected value can be written as:

G^2=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}(\gamma+1)}\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma}}\text{e}^{-\gamma/\overline{\gamma}}\,d\gamma

Is this right, or there are typos?

Regards

It looks like something is missing. You have a constant (E1) in the first expression which is not in the second, while you have a constant in the second (gamma bar) which is not in the first.
 
Here

<br /> G^2=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N }(\gamma+1)}\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma}}\text{e}^{-\gamma/\overline{\gamma}}\,d\gamma<br />

* Since the original expression was named G^2, this should be something like E[G^2] or \mu_{G^2}

* It appears that the variable of integration is \gamma and \overline \gamma refers to the mean of the exponential distribution. With the form of the denominator in the integral, it does appear that either the constant from the initial expression is missing, or that it was incorrectly typed : could it be that the expression was supposed to be

<br /> G^2 = \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}\alpha + \mathcal{N}} = \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}\left( \alpha + 1 \right)} \, \text{\huge{?}}<br />

If so, that explains the form of the integral.
 
statdad said:
Here

<br /> G^2=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N }(\gamma+1)}\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma}}\text{e}^{-\gamma/\overline{\gamma}}\,d\gamma<br />

* Since the original expression was named G^2, this should be something like E[G^2] or \mu_{G^2}

* It appears that the variable of integration is \gamma and \overline \gamma refers to the mean of the exponential distribution. With the form of the denominator in the integral, it does appear that either the constant from the initial expression is missing, or that it was incorrectly typed : could it be that the expression was supposed to be

<br /> G^2 = \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}\alpha + \mathcal{N}} = \frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{N}\left( \alpha + 1 \right)} \, \text{\huge{?}}<br />

If so, that explains the form of the integral.

I am sorry, I was wrong, it says that:

G^2=E_{\alpha}\left[\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{E}_1\,\alpha+\mathcal{N}}\right]

where E_X[.] is the expectation operator. Anyway, the authors has the aforementioned integral evaluated as:

G^2=\frac{\mathcal{E}_2}{\mathcal{E}_1\,\Omega_1}\,\text{e}^{1/\overline{\gamma}}\,E_1\left(\frac{1}{\overline{\gamma}}\right)

where \overline{\gamma}=\frac{\Omega_1\,\mathcal{E}_1}{\mathcal{N}}, and E_1(.) is the exponential integral. The final result is consistent with the integration, so, this removes any doubt about typos, doesn't it?
 
So, your post was the typo? doesn't matter, as long as the confusion is cleared up for you. glad you got to the bottom of it.
 
statdad said:
So, your post was the typo? doesn't matter, as long as the confusion is cleared up for you. glad you got to the bottom of it.

No, I posted what they wrote, except the expectation operator that I forgot. What I meant is that it is unlikely that the authors continue on typos. So, the matter is still stucked for me. I don't know what is the missing part in their solution.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K