I am having difficulty with a Gamma Distribution problem

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a Gamma Distribution problem related to automobile accidents modeled as a Poisson process. The expected value and standard deviation for the time until the 10th accident, denoted as V, were calculated, with the variance derived from the formula n/(Lambda^2). The probability that V exceeds one hour was addressed, with clarification that it involves calculating the number of arrivals within that timeframe. A correct approach was suggested, emphasizing the need to sum probabilities for fewer than 10 arrivals rather than including the 10th accident. The conversation highlighted the importance of understanding the relationship between Poisson and Erlang distributions in this context.
mattclgn
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Automobile accidents occur in the United States over a 72 hour holiday period like events in a Poisson process with parameter lambda=10/hr. V is the time until the 10th accident
a) what is expected value of V or E[V] and standard deviation?
b) What is the probability that V is larger than 1 hour?

Homework Equations


variance = n/(Lambda^2)
fX(x)={λαxα−1e−λxΓ(α) x>0 otherwise

∫∞0λαxα−1e−λxΓ(α)dx=λαΓ(α)∫∞0xα−1e−λxdx

I'm going to post to Wolfram, as I think I'm doing a terrible job of explaining the above...I hope that is okay http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GammaDistribution.html

The Attempt at a Solution


a)so since variance = n/(Lambda^2) or 10/100, we can take square root to get both
b)...no idea
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sorry should clarify, for a, I took the square root and it matched up with the answer in the back of the book.
 
mattclgn said:
sorry should clarify, for a, I took the square root and it matched up with the answer in the back of the book.

So, do you now know how to do (b)?

BTW: a random variable such as V--- which is a sum of a fixed, integer number of independent, identically-distributed exponential random variables---occurs so often it is given a name all on its own: it is an Erlang distribution. In this case, V has a 10-Erlang distribution (10 being the number of arrivals you are waiting for).

Of course, Erlang is a special case of Gamma, but has many nice properties that a general Gamma may not have. In particular, there is a close relationship between things like P(V <= t) and Poisson random variables on the interval [0,t]. Google "Erlang distribution".
 
Last edited:
Not really, eventually guy i was studying with figured out...or rather just tried...I guess the expression is brute forcing it. It's basically Poisson, but several of them summed, in this case, sum of i=0 to 10 to the i power 10 being equal to (lambda*x) lambda is 10 as it is mean (10/hr) and x is one as while normally right oriented, is greater than one.

i might be kind of off on this...

but we then multiply the entire thing by exp(LAMBDA*x) and it gives approx the correct answer within about 1000th of a decimal point. or .459...

But I think I'm supposed to have some simpler way to sort it out.
 
please forgive the lateness of this response.
 
mattclgn said:
Not really, eventually guy i was studying with figured out...or rather just tried...I guess the expression is brute forcing it. It's basically Poisson, but several of them summed, in this case, sum of i=0 to 10 to the i power 10 being equal to (lambda*x) lambda is 10 as it is mean (10/hr) and x is one as while normally right oriented, is greater than one.

i might be kind of off on this...

but we then multiply the entire thing by exp(LAMBDA*x) and it gives approx the correct answer within about 1000th of a decimal point. or .459...

But I think I'm supposed to have some simpler way to sort it out.

I presume that by "brute force" you mean you applied integration by parts 10 times and arrived at ##P(V > 10) = \sum_{i=0}^{10} p_i (10)##, where ##p_i(a) = e^{-a} a^i/i!## and ##a = \lambda t = 10 \times 1 = 10##. Is that what you did? Well: that is not correct; the summation should be from ##i = 0## to ##i = 9## only, and the numerical answer should be 0.4579. If the summation goes up to i = 10 the numerical value is .5830. Check your work again.

Anyway, a much easier way to derive the formula is to note that ##V > 1## means that the 10th arrival occurs later than 1 hour, so equivalently, the number of arrivals within 1 hour is 9 or fewer; that is: ##P(V > 1) = \sum_{n=0}^9 p_n(10)##. Of course, you still need to do some work to compute the sum, but you can by-pass all the integrations by parts.

In general, if ##T_n## is the time of the nth arrival in a rate-##\lambda## Poisson process, we have
P(T_n &gt; t) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} p_k(\lambda t)
Here, ##p_k(a) = e^{-a} a^k/k!##.
 
Ray Vickson said:
I presume that by "brute force" you mean you applied integration by parts 10 times and arrived at ##P(V > 10) = \sum_{i=0}^{10} p_i (10)##, where ##p_i(a) = e^{-a} a^i/i!## and ##a = \lambda t = 10 \times 1 = 10##. Is that what you did? Well: that is not correct; the summation should be from ##i = 0## to ##i = 9## only, and the numerical answer should be 0.4579. If the summation goes up to i = 10 the numerical value is .5830. Check your work again.

Anyway, a much easier way to derive the formula is to note that ##V > 1## means that the 10th arrival occurs later than 1 hour, so equivalently, the number of arrivals within 1 hour is 9 or fewer; that is: ##P(V > 1) = \sum_{n=0}^9 p_n(10)##. Of course, you still need to do some work to compute the sum, but you can by-pass all the integrations by parts.

In general, if ##T_n## is the time of the nth arrival in a rate-##\lambda## Poisson process, we have
P(T_n &gt; t) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} p_k(\lambda t)
Here, ##p_k(a) = e^{-a} a^k/k!##.
Okay, yeah, i got the right answer but did the wrong work!

It looks like I miscounted and just didn't do it until ten...or rather I counted up ten and included zero so i had a count of ten, but set the bounds incorrectly. I got 10086.57319 *exp(-10) or .457929714.

Okay, I'll try it again the other way you showed.
 
mattclgn said:
Okay, yeah, i got the right answer but did the wrong work!

It looks like I miscounted and just didn't do it until ten...or rather I counted up ten and included zero so i had a count of ten, but set the bounds incorrectly. I got 10086.57319 *exp(-10) or .457929714.

Okay, I'll try it again the other way you showed.

There is nothing to try; you will need to do exactly the same computation. The only difference is in the method of developing/justifying the formula; the formula itself is the same.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
12K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K