How to interpret the hazard function and its integral?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around interpreting the hazard function in the context of accident rates at two workplaces, A and B. The original poster presents a mathematical relationship between the hazard functions of the two workplaces and explores the implications of integrating the hazard function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the integral of the hazard function and its relation to the probability of accidents. They express confusion about the integration process and whether they have integrated the correct function.
  • Some participants question the definitions of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and its derivative, suggesting a connection to Poisson processes or other statistical models.
  • One participant clarifies that the CDF describes the probability of an accident occurring before a certain time, which leads to further exploration of the relationship between the hazard function and the CDF.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants actively questioning and clarifying concepts related to the hazard function and its integral. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions of the functions involved, but no consensus has been reached on the original poster's integration approach.

Contextual Notes

The original poster's inquiry is framed within a homework context, which may impose specific constraints or expectations regarding the interpretation of the hazard function and its applications. There is an indication of potential assumptions about the nature of the processes being discussed, such as whether they pertain to Poisson or renewal processes.

Eclair_de_XII
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
91

Homework Statement


"Suppose that the accident rate for one workplace ##A## is ##k## times the rate of another workplace ##B##. In other words, ##\lambda_A(t)=k⋅\lambda_B(t)##. Conclude that the probability of no accidents in workplace ##A## is the probability of no accidents in workplace ##B## to the ##k##-th power.

In other words, if ##\lambda_A(t)=k⋅\lambda_B(t)##, then ##P(X^c|A)=P(X^c|B)^k## where ##X## denotes the event of an accident."

Homework Equations


Hazard function: ##\lambda(t)=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}##
-denotes the probability of an accident happening on ##t+\delta t## given no accidents have happened by ##t##

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm having trouble interpreting this function, honestly. I mean, what do I get if I integrate ##\lambda(t)##? Is it not just the probability of an accident happening between some initial time ##t_0## and some final time ##t_f## for either workplace? What I got, through integration, was:

(Assuming ##\lambda## is constant)

##\lambda_B(t)=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}##
##\lambda_Bt=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}dt##
##\lambda_Bt=\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}dt=P(X|B)##

##P(X|B)=-\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-ln|F(t)-1|=ln|F(t_0)-1|-ln|F(t_f)-1|=ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|##

Then what I get for ##P(X|A)## is:

##P(X|A)=-k⋅\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-k⋅ln|F(t)-1|=k⋅[ln|F(t_0)-1|-ln|F(t_f)-1|]=k⋅ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|=ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|^k=P(X|B)^k##

I'm confused on how ##\lambda(t)## works... Can anyone tell me how to interpret its integral? Can anyone tell me if I integrated the wrong function?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you start by telling us what ##F(t)## and ##F'(t)## are? I think CDF and PDF, but of what?

Given the ##\lambda##'s in here, I have a strong suspicion we're talking about Poissons and exponential inter-arrivals, but maybe this is about more general renewal processes or something completely different... To the extent its Poisson related there should be some simplifications that make this a lot easier.
 
StoneTemplePython said:
Can you start by telling us what ##F(t)## and ##F'(t)## are?

Well, ##F(t)## is the c.d.f. describing the probability of having an accident before time ##t##. So... ##F(t)=Pr(T \leq t)## and ##F'(t)## is the derivative of that. So ##F(t)## is the area under ##F'(t)## but above ##F(t)=0##.
 
Eclair_de_XII said:

Homework Statement


"Suppose that the accident rate for one workplace ##A## is ##k## times the rate of another workplace ##B##. In other words, ##\lambda_A(t)=k⋅\lambda_B(t)##. Conclude that the probability of no accidents in workplace ##A## is the probability of no accidents in workplace ##B## to the ##k##-th power.

In other words, if ##\lambda_A(t)=k⋅\lambda_B(t)##, then ##P(X^c|A)=P(X^c|B)^k## where ##X## denotes the event of an accident."

Homework Equations


Hazard function: ##\lambda(t)=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}##
-denotes the probability of an accident happening on ##t+\delta t## given no accidents have happened by ##t##

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm having trouble interpreting this function, honestly. I mean, what do I get if I integrate ##\lambda(t)##? Is it not just the probability of an accident happening between some initial time ##t_0## and some final time ##t_f## for either workplace? What I got, through integration, was:

(Assuming ##\lambda## is constant)

##\lambda_B(t)=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}##
##\lambda_Bt=\frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}dt##
##\lambda_Bt=\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{1-F(t)}dt=P(X|B)##

##P(X|B)=-\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-ln|F(t)-1|=ln|F(t_0)-1|-ln|F(t_f)-1|=ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|##

Then what I get for ##P(X|A)## is:

##P(X|A)=-k⋅\int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{F'(t)}{F(t)-1}dt=-k⋅ln|F(t)-1|=k⋅[ln|F(t_0)-1|-ln|F(t_f)-1|]=k⋅ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|=ln|\frac{F(t_0)-1}{F(t_f)-1}|^k=P(X|B)^k##

I'm confused on how ##\lambda(t)## works... Can anyone tell me how to interpret its integral? Can anyone tell me if I integrated the wrong function?

Note that
$$\lambda(t) = -\frac{G'(t)}{G(t)},$$
where ##G(t) = P(T > t) = 1 - F(t)## (for a lifetime ##T## with hazard function ##\lambda(t)##).
Thus,
$$G(t) = \exp \left(-\int_0^t \lambda(s) \, ds \right). $$
Now just compare ##G_A(t)## with ##G_B(t)##
 
Thanks, I figured it out.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K