Conditional normal distribution

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the conditional distribution of a multivariate normal distribution where certain variables are known to be below zero and others above. The user seeks to find p(x_az|x_bz<0), emphasizing the need for conditioning on an interval rather than a specific value. There is a suggestion to consider applying Bayes' rule to approach the problem. The user acknowledges the challenge of truncating the resulting distribution above zero. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of conditional distributions in multivariate statistics.
jstar
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all

First of all, I am new here but I am not new to statistics. But I need your help:smile:

I do have a multivariate normal distribution: x~p(mu,sig)

the vector x has to groups of variables, those that I know are below zero (x_bz), and those that I know are above zero (x_az).
I am interested in the conditional distribution of the x above zero: p(x_az|x_bz<0). Can someone help me derive this distribution or is this a known distribution I was to stupid to find?

thanks for all input, J
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the vector x has to groups of variables, those that I know are below zero (x_bz), and those that I know are above zero (x_az).
You mean, some of the vector components have positive realizations while some other components have negative realizations, is that correct?
 
yes, I do know the signs and would like to know how the positive vector components are distributed conditional on the information that the others are below zero (but I do not know what value they hold - only the signs).

so what I want is to condition the multivariate normal distribution on an intervall - and not as usually on a single value or vector:

p(x_az|x_bz<0) <> p(x_az|x_bz=0).

and then truncate the resulting distribution above zero (which should be the easier part, I think/hope)

thank for any idea
 
Last edited:
Have you thought of applying the Bayes rule?
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K