Undergrad Conditional Expectation Value of Poisson Arrival in Fixed T

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the conditional expectation values of arrival times in a Poisson process with rate λ over a fixed interval [0, T]. The first arrival time, E[T1|T1≤T], is derived using the properties of exponential distributions and results in a specific formula involving T and λ. For the second and third arrival times, E[T2|T1<T2≤T] and E[T3|T2<T3≤T], the approach involves considering the total number of events m within the interval and applying a formula for expected times based on the number of events. The discussion emphasizes the need to account for the uncertainty in the number of arrivals while calculating these expectations. Overall, the calculations aim to provide a clearer understanding of expected arrival times in a Poisson framework.
Mehmood_Yasir
Messages
68
Reaction score
2
Assume a Poisson process with rate ##\lambda##.

Let ##T_{1}##,##T_{2}##,##T_{3}##,... be the time until the ##1^{st}, 2^{nd}, 3^{rd}##,...(so on) arrivals following exponential distribution. If I consider the fixed time interval ##[0-T]##, what is the expectation value of the arrival time ##1^{st}, 2^{nd}, 3^{rd}... ## i.e.,
1. ##E[T_{1}|T_{1}\le T]## ?
2. ##E[T_{2}|T_{1}<T_{2}\le T]## ?
3. ##E[T_{3}|T_{2}<T_{3}\le T]## ?
My approach! For Poisson process with rate ##\lambda##, each time interval corresponds to a random variable ##X_i## with an exponeitial distribution.Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&T_1=X_1 \\&
T_2=X_1+X_2\\&T_3=X_1+X_2+X3\\&...
\end{align*}
##T_i## has Gamma distribuiotn ##\Gamma(i,\lambda)##. If ##T## is a deterministic value not a random variable. Then, ##E[T_{1}|T_{1}\le T]##
\begin{align*}
E[T_{1}|T_{1}\le T]&=\int_{0}^\infty t_1f_{T_1|T_1 \le T}(t_1)dt_1\\&=\frac{1}{1-e^{-\lambda T}}\int_{0}^T t_1 \lambda e^{-\lambda t_1}dt_1\\&=\frac{-1}{1-e^{-\lambda T}}\int_0^T t_1de^{-\lambda t_1}\\&\text{(Final solution is )}\\&=\frac{-(Te^{-\lambda T}+\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{-\lambda T}-\frac{1}{\lambda})}{1-e^{-\lambda T}}
\end{align*}

What about ##E[T_{2}|T_{1}<T_{2}\le T]## and ##E[T_{3}|T_{2}<T_{3}\le T]##.
Can someone please guide me? I thank in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this is valid:
Suppose there are exactly m events in [0,T]. The probability of that is PT,m=##\frac{(\lambda T)^m}{m!}e^{-\lambda T}##.
For n≤m, the expected time to the nth of them is ##E[n,m,T]=\frac{nT}{m+1}##. The expected time over all values of m is then ##\frac{\Sigma _{m≥n}E[n,m,T]P_{T,m}}{\Sigma _{m≥n} P_{T,m}}##.

As a check, for large n that approximates ##\frac{nT}{n+1}##, as it should.
 
@haruspex many thanks for your answer. I tried to understand it but could not get it completely. Actually we don't know the no. of events in time ##[0-T]##.
Let me put this way. E.g., assume an arrival appear at ##t=0## and starts a clock for a duration of Time ##T##. Now the rest of the arrivals follow poisson process with rate ##\lambda##. When clock time which is ##T## expires, we have to calculate now the expected arrival time of the first, second and third,...so on.
I did for the first arrival which is in fact conditional expectation value of the arrival time i.e., ##E[T_{1}|T_{1}<=T]##.

Since the expected value of the arrival time of the second arrival will be greater than the arrival time of the first arrival and will be less than ##T##. Is this approach CORRECT analogous to my first proposal for determining value of the ##E[T_{2}|T_{1}<T_{2}<=T]## (see the attached image)?
image.png
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 507
Mehmood_Yasir said:
Actually we don't know the no. of events in time [0−T]
I understand that. If you look at my final expression you will see it sums over all m (total number of events in T) ≥ n.
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K