Distribution of Exponential Random Variable (RV)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distribution of an exponential random variable (RV) defined in a paper, specifically examining the forms of its probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a derived RV. Participants explore the implications of the hazard rate and engage in derivations related to the CDF of a new RV defined in terms of two exponentially distributed RVs.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the PDF of the exponential RV is given by f_{X_1}(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}, asserting that this form has a mean of 1/\lambda.
  • Others suggest an alternative form for the PDF as f_{X_1}(x)=\frac{1}{\lambda} e^{-\frac{x}{\lambda}} without reaching consensus on which is correct.
  • A participant elaborates on a derived RV Z=\frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1} and presents a CDF expression, prompting questions about the correctness of their derivation compared to the paper's result.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over a variable 'r' in the author's expression, later correcting it to 'e' and detailing their derivation steps.
  • One participant follows the derivation and finds it convincing but has not completed the final manipulations to verify the result.
  • Another participant notes that the expressions for the CDF presented by different participants appear equivalent under a substitution, raising questions about the factor of \lambda in the author's expression.
  • Clarification is provided regarding the factor of \lambda, indicating it arises from the differential element during substitution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct form of the PDF for the exponential RV and the derivation of the CDF for the new RV Z. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views and no consensus reached on the correctness of the expressions presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misprints in the paper and the need for careful derivation steps, indicating that assumptions about variable definitions and substitutions play a significant role in the discussion.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello,

In a paper, the authors defined an exponential Random Variable (RV) as [tex]X_1 \mbox{~EXP}(\lambda)[/tex] where [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the hazard rate. What will be the distribution of this RV:
[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}[/tex] or
[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\frac{1}{\lambda} e^{-\frac{x}{\lambda}}[/tex]

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
saeddawoud said:
Hello,

In a paper, the authors defined an exponential Random Variable (RV) as [tex]X_1 \mbox{~EXP}(\lambda)[/tex] where [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the hazard rate. What will be the distribution of this RV:
[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}[/tex] or
[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\frac{1}{\lambda} e^{-\frac{x}{\lambda}}[/tex]

Thanks in advance.


I'm pretty sure it is

[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}[/tex]

You can check that this distribution has mean [tex]1/\lambda[/tex]. If [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the hazard rate, then [tex]\mu = 1/\lambda[/tex] is the mean waiting time for the process to end (for example, X could be the lifetime of a battery).
 
Adeimantus said:
I'm pretty sure it is

[tex]f_{X_1}(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}[/tex]

You can check that this distribution has mean [tex]1/\lambda[/tex]. If [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the hazard rate, then [tex]\mu = 1/\lambda[/tex] is the mean waiting time for the process to end (for example, X could be the lifetime of a battery).

Ok, fine. Now, let me elaborate about the point where I had stopped. The authers defined two exponentially distributed RVs [tex]X_1~exp(\lambda)[/tex] and [tex]X_2~exp(\mu)[/tex]. Then, based on that, defined a new RV say [tex]Z=\frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1}[/tex], and found the Commulative Distribtion Function (CDF) of [tex]Z[/tex] as:

[tex] F_Z(z)= Pr \left[ Z \leq z\right] \\<br /> = Pr \left[ \frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1}\leq z\right]<br /> =1-\lambda \mu e^{-z(\lambda+\mu)} \int_0^\infty exp\left[\frac{-z(z+1)}{x}-\lambda\mu x\right] \, dx[/tex]
I tried to do it by myself and got another result which is:
[tex]1-\mu e^{-z(\lambda+\mu)}\int_0^\infty exp \left[\frac{-\lambda z(z+1)}{x}-\mu x\right] \,dx[/tex]

Did I do something wrong in my derivation?
 
Last edited:
saeddawoud said:
Ok, fine. Now, let me elaborate about the point where I had stopped. The authers defined two exponentially distributed RVs [tex]X_1~exp(\lambda)[/tex] and [tex]X_2~exp(\mu)[/tex]. Then, based on that, defined a new RV say [tex]Z=\frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1}[/tex], and found the Commulative Distribtion Function (CDF) of [tex]Z[/tex] as:

[tex] F_Z(z)= Pr \left[ Z \leq z\right] \\<br /> = Pr \left[ \frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1}\leq z\right]<br /> =1-\lambda\mu r^{-z(\lambda+\mu)} \int_0^\infty exp\left[\frac{-z(z+1)}{x}-\lambda\mu x\right] \, dx[/tex]
I tried to do it by myself and got another result which is:
[tex]1-\mu e^{-z(\lambda+\mu)}\int_0^\infty exp \left[\frac{-\lambda z(z+1)}{x}-\mu x\right] \,dx[/tex]

Did I do something wrong in my derivation?

Hmm. I'm not getting either of those answers. First of all, what is 'r' in the expression given by the authors? Also, can you show the steps of your derivation?
 
Adeimantus said:
Hmm. I'm not getting either of those answers. First of all, what is 'r' in the expression given by the authors? Also, can you show the steps of your derivation?
I am sorry, it is not 'r' but 'e'. Ok, the steps of my derivation are as the following:

[tex]F_Z(z)= \mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(X_2-z) \leq z(X_2+1)\right]=\int_0^\infty \mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(\beta-z) \leq z(\beta+1)\right] f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta[/tex]

[tex]=\int_0^z \mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(\beta-z) \leq z(\beta+1)\right] f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta \, + \int_z^{\infty} \mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(\beta-z) \leq z(\beta+1)\right] f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta[/tex]

But:

[tex]\mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(\beta-z) \leq z(\beta+1) \right] = 1[/tex] for [tex]0\leq \beta \leq z[/tex]

Then:

[tex]F_Z(z)=\int_0^z f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta + \int_z^{\infty} \mbox{Pr}\left[X_1(\beta-z) \leq z(\beta+1)\right] f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta[/tex]

[tex]=F_{X_2}(z) + \int_z^{\infty}\left(1-\mbox{exp}\left[\frac{-\lambda z(\beta+1)}{\beta-z}\right]\right)\, f_{X_2}(\beta) \, d\beta[/tex]

Now, multiply [tex]f_{X_2}(\beta)[/tex] by the terms in the cirular brackets inside the integral, and then make change of variables [tex]x = \beta-z[/tex], and after some simple mathematical manipulations you get my answer.
 
I follow your derivation, and it looks good, although I haven't yet done those last manipulations to get your answer. I'll try it and see if I get what you did.


edit: yes, I get the same answer you do. Perhaps the answer in the paper is a misprint?
 
Last edited:
saeddawoud said:
[tex] F_Z(z)= Pr \left[ Z \leq z\right] \\<br /> = Pr \left[ \frac{X_1X_2}{X_1+X_2+1}\leq z\right]<br /> =1-\lambda \mu e^{-z(\lambda+\mu)} \int_0^\infty exp\left[\frac{-z(z+1)}{x}-\lambda\mu x\right] \, dx[/tex]
I tried to do it by myself and got another result which is:
[tex]1-\mu e^{-z(\lambda+\mu)}\int_0^\infty exp \left[\frac{-\lambda z(z+1)}{x}-\mu x\right] \,dx[/tex]

Did I do something wrong in my derivation?

Those expressions are the same. Try substituting [itex]\lambda x[/itex] for x in your expression.
 
gel said:
Those expressions are the same. Try substituting [itex]\lambda x[/itex] for x in your expression.
In this way the expression inside the exponential function will be the same. But, what about [tex]\lambda[/tex] in the author's expression which is outside the integral? How did they get it?
 
saeddawoud said:
In this way the expression inside the exponential function will be the same. But, what about [tex]\lambda[/tex] in the author's expression which is outside the integral? How did they get it?

The factor of [tex]\lambda[/tex] outside the integral comes from the differential element, dx, when you make the substitution x-->[tex]\lambda[/tex]x, as gel suggested. Sorry I didn't notice the equivalence of the expressions yesterday. I was distracted by women's iceskating on TV. :blushing:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K