How is the half-normal distribution associated with the c.d.f formula derived?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) for the half-normal distribution, specifically how to transition between different integral representations of the c.d.f. The participants explore mathematical transformations and coordinate changes relevant to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the c.d.f. of the half-normal distribution and requests clarification on the transition between two integral forms.
  • Another participant suggests using polar coordinates to express the integral, indicating a transformation involving an angle theta.
  • Several participants discuss the integration over a rectangle and the limitations of using spherical coordinates in this context.
  • There is a focus on the transformation of variables and the resulting Jacobian when changing coordinates.
  • One participant corrects a mathematical expression regarding the relationship between x1 and x2 in the context of the transformation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the approach of using polar coordinates and transformations, but there is no consensus on the specific steps or correctness of the transformations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the chosen coordinate system and the assumptions made during the transformation process, which remain unresolved.

Zoran
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi: I am reading an article that deals with the distribution function associated with the half-normal distribution. The author presents a formula for the c.d.f. as:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{2}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{x}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2} \left (w ^{2}\right )\right ]dw \right \}^{2r-2}[/tex]

Note that r=2,3,...

The expression above is also equal to:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{2}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{x}\int_{0}^{x} \exp \left [- \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2} \right ) \right ]dx_{1}dx_{2}\right \}^{r-1}[/tex]

which I have no problem with. The author then states that the second equation above is also equal to:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{4}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\left [ 1-\exp \left ( -\frac{1}{2}x^{2}\sec ^{2}\theta \right ) \right ]d\theta \right \}^{r-1}[/tex]

Can someone explain to me how the author gets from the second equation to the third (or last) equation above.


Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Zoran said:
Hi: I am reading an article that deals with the distribution function associated with the half-normal distribution. The author presents a formula for the c.d.f. as:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{2}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{x}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2} \left (w ^{2}\right )\right ]dw \right \}^{2r-2}[/tex]

Note that r=2,3,...

The expression above is also equal to:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{2}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{x}\int_{0}^{x} \exp \left [- \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2} \right ) \right ]dx_{1}dx_{2}\right \}^{r-1}[/tex]

which I have no problem with. The author then states that the second equation above is also equal to:

[tex]\left [ G\left ( x \right ) \right ]^{2r-2}=\left ( \frac{4}{\pi } \right )^{r-1}\left \{ \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\left [ 1-\exp \left ( -\frac{1}{2}x^{2}\sec ^{2}\theta \right ) \right ]d\theta \right \}^{r-1}[/tex]

Can someone explain to me how the author gets from the second equation to the third (or last) equation above.

Since an angle has been introduced in the final result, I would try to express the integral using polar coordinates in the x1,x2 plane.
 
You basically want to show this:

[tex]\int_{0}^{x}\int_{0}^{x} \exp \left [- \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2} \right ) \right ]dx_{1}dx_{2} = 2 \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\left [ 1-\exp \left ( -\frac{1}{2}x^{2}\sec ^{2}\theta \right ) \right ]d\theta[/tex]

Since you are integrating over a rectangle from (0,0) to (x,x) here, you can't really use spherical coordinates.

You can, however, use an angle theta=0..pi/4 and one cartesian coordinate, i.e. x_1 to describe half of your rectangle. The transformation should look kinda like

[tex]x_1=x_1[/tex]
[tex]x_2 = x_1 \tan \theta[/tex]

For the argument inside the exponential function, you will get
[tex]x_1^2 + x_2^2 = x_1 (\tan^2\theta + 1) = x_1^2 \sec^2 \theta[/tex]
For your Jacobian, you will get:
[tex]x_1 (\tan\theta)' = x_1 \sec^2\theta[/tex]
Once you do the x_1-Integration, the theta-Part of the Jacobian will go away.
 
Last edited:
susskind_leon said:
You basically want to show this:

[tex]\int_{0}^{x}\int_{0}^{x} \exp \left [- \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2} \right ) \right ]dx_{1}dx_{2} = 2 \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\left [ 1-\exp \left ( -\frac{1}{2}x^{2}\sec ^{2}\theta \right ) \right ]d\theta[/tex]

Since you are integrating over a rectangle from (0,0) to (x,x) here, you can't really use spherical coordinates.

You can, however, use an angle theta=0..pi/4 and one cartesian coordinate, i.e. x_1 to describe half of your rectangle. The transformation should look kinda like

[tex]x_1=x_1[/tex]
[tex]x_2 = x_1 \tan \theta[/tex]

For the argument inside the exponential function, you will get
[tex]x_1^2 + x_2^2 = x_1 (\tan^2\theta + 1) = x_1^2 \sec^2 \theta[/tex]
For your Jacobian, you will get:
[tex]x_1 (\tan\theta)' = x_1 \sec^2\theta[/tex]
Once you do the x_1-Integration, the theta-Part of the Jacobian will go away.


Okay, thanks.

Note that I think you meant to write:

[tex]x_1^2 + x_2^2 = x_1^2 (\tan^2\theta + 1) = x_1^2 \sec^2 \theta[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Yup, of course, sry ;)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K