Evaluating CDF of a Random Variable with Exponential Components

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cdf
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a random variable defined in terms of other random variables with exponential components. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and integration techniques necessary for this evaluation, addressing issues related to variable definitions and integration limits.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the CDF of the random variable as an integral involving the probabilities of the components, questioning the correctness of the integration limits.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for knowledge of joint distributions, later clarifying that the random variables are independent.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of variable names in the integral, specifically regarding the substitution of ##a_2## with ##\beta##.
  • Several participants propose different forms of the integral for evaluating the CDF, with some expressing confusion about the equivalence of their approaches.
  • One participant outlines a method for solving the CDF using a double integral, suggesting that their approach is fundamentally similar to others despite differences in notation.
  • Another participant substitutes the CDF and PDF into the integral, leading to a complex expression involving the Beta function and the Gauss Hypergeometric function, questioning the validity of the results obtained from software evaluations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the formulation of the integral and the appropriateness of variable substitutions. There is no consensus on the correctness of the integral expressions or the final evaluation of the CDF, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly defining variables and understanding their independence. There are unresolved questions regarding the limits of integration and the conditions under which the derived CDF remains valid.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello all,

I have the following random variable ##X=\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}##, where ##a_i=b_i/c_i##, where ##b_i## and ##c_i## are exponential random variables with mean 1. I need to evaluate the CDF of ##X## as

F_X(x)=Pr\left[X\leq x\right]=Pr\left[\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}\leq x\right]=\int_0^{\infty}Pr\left[a_1\leq x(a_2+1)\right]f_{a_2}(a_2)\,da_2

I found the CDF and PDF of ##a_i## as ##F_{a_i}(x)=1-\frac{1}{1+x}## and ##f_{a_i}(x)=\frac{1}{(1+x)^2}##. My fist question is: are the limits of the integral above correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't solve this unless you know the joint distributions of the variables.
 
micromass said:
You can't solve this unless you know the joint distributions of the variables.

All random variables are independent. I forgot to mention this.
 
OK. I agree with the pdf and cfd of the ##a_i## then. But ##a_2## is the name of a function. So you can't use that as integration variable.
 
Is this OK?

$$
F_X(x)=Pr\left[X\leq x\right]=Pr\left[\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}\leq x\right]=\int_0^{\infty}Pr\left[a_1\leq x(\beta+1)\right]f_{a_2}(\beta)\,d\beta
$$
 
S_David said:
Is this OK?

$$
F_X(x)=Pr\left[X\leq x\right]=Pr\left[\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}\leq x\right]=\int_0^{\infty}Pr\left[a_1\leq x(\beta+1)\right]f_{a_2}(\beta)\,d\beta
$$

I don't see how that follows. I would agree with

$$
F_X(x)=Pr\left[X\leq x\right]=Pr\left[\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}\leq x\right]=\int_0^{\infty}Pr\left[a_1\leq x(a_2+1)\right]f_{a_2}(\beta)\,d\beta
$$

But I don't see why the ##a_2## can be a ##\beta##.
 
micromass said:
I don't see how that follows. I would agree with

$$
F_X(x)=Pr\left[X\leq x\right]=Pr\left[\frac{a_1}{a_2+1}\leq x\right]=\int_0^{\infty}Pr\left[a_1\leq x(a_2+1)\right]f_{a_2}(\beta)\,d\beta
$$

But I don't see why the ##a_2## can be a ##\beta##.

OK, thanks. So, I guess this means that the limits are correct. I would like to proceed to evaluate the integral, because I did on my papers, and got a final expression, but evaluating it using software gave me values that aren't correct.
 
The integral you posted is not correct. I don't see where it comes from at all.
 
micromass said:
The integral you posted is not correct. I don't see where it comes from at all.

$$Pr\left[a_1\leq x(a_2+1)\right]=\int_{a_2}Pr\left[\left. a_1\leq x(\beta+1)\right| a_2=\beta\right]f_{a_2}(\beta)\,d\beta$$

To my undertsnading, since ##a_2## is a random variable too, we average over all the values of ##a_2##. For the sake of argument, how would you find the CDF above?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I would solve it by evaluating the following integral:
\mathbb{P}\{a_1\leq x(a_2 + 1)\} = \int_0^{+\infty} \int_0^{x(\beta_2 + 1)} f_{a_1}(\beta_1)f_{a_2}(\beta_2) d\beta_1 d\beta_2
 
  • #11
micromass said:
I would solve it by evaluating the following integral:
\mathbb{P}\{a_1\leq x(a_2 + 1)\} = \int_0^{+\infty} \int_0^{x(\beta_2 + 1)} f_{a_1}(\beta_1)f_{a_2}(\beta_2) d\beta_1 d\beta_2

I think our disagreement is only about using symbols. Your evaluation can be re-written as
$$
\mathbb{P}\{a_1\leq x(a_2 + 1)\} = \int_0^{+\infty} \underbrace{\left[\int_0^{x(\beta_2 + 1)} f_{a_1}(\beta_1)\,d\beta_1\right]}_{F_{a_1}\left(x[\beta_2+1]\right)=Pr\left[a_1\leq x(\beta_2+1)\right]} f_{a_2}(\beta_2) d\beta_2
$$

which is effectively the same as I did in the the previous posts.

Are we on the same page now?
 
  • #12
Substituting the CDF of ##a_1## and the PDF of ##a_2## in the integral yields

$$F_X(x)=\int_0^{\infty}\left[1-\frac{1}{1+x(\beta+1)}\right]\frac{1}{(1+\beta)^2}\,d\beta=1-\frac{1}{x}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\beta+\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)}\frac{1}{(1+\beta)^2}\,d\beta$$

Then I used the integral formula attached from the table of integrals. Is there anything wrong in my work?
 

Attachments

  • Formula.png
    Formula.png
    17.8 KB · Views: 545
  • #13
Using the integration formula attached yields to:

F_X(x)=1-\frac{1}{x}B(1,2)_2F_1(2,1;3;1-\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right))

where ##B(.,.)## is the Beta function, and ##_2F_1## is the Gauss Hypergeometric function. The constants in the integral attached are: ##\nu=1##, ##\beta=1## which implies that ##\mu=2##, and ##\gamma=1+\frac{1}{x}## which implies ##\rho=1##. I checked the conditions, and they are satisfied. However, the result of ##F_X(x)## must be in ##[0,\,1]## which isn't the case when I evaluate it in Mathematica. Why? I appreciate any help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K