Is there an analytical solution to the integral of a PDF?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analytical solution to a specific integral related to probability density functions (PDFs) in the context of conditional probability. Participants explore the derivation and proof of the integral involving a matrix, specifically focusing on the Gaussian integral and its properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Owen presents an integral involving a matrix and compares it to the multivariate normal PDF, questioning the existence of an analytical solution.
  • Some participants clarify the notation and suggest corrections regarding the powers of the determinant in the integral.
  • There is a reference to the Gaussian integral and its known analytical solution, with a link provided for further reading.
  • Participants discuss the normalization of the Gaussian integral and its implications for the PDF.
  • One participant mentions the need to convert to polar coordinates for evaluating the n-dimensional version of the Gaussian integral, assuming the matrix is non-singular.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of Cholesky factorization for covariance matrices in simplifying the evaluation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the properties of the Gaussian integral and its relevance to the discussion. However, there are differing views on the specifics of the integral's formulation and the conditions under which it can be evaluated, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the assumptions needed for the integral's evaluation, particularly concerning the properties of the matrix involved and the conditions for applying certain mathematical techniques.

Owen
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

I have an engineering background with a pretty terrible grounding in statistics and just about all maths that I can't immediately visualize as some kind of dynamic system, so forgive me if this is an obvious question!

I am working through a set of derivations for a conditional probability problem and am a little stuck on a rigorous proof of the following...

[tex]\int_{\Re^{n}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}A B A^T)dA = \frac{1}{|2\pi B|^{1/2}}[/tex]

I can arrive at this solution by comparing the integral with that of the multivariate normal PDF which by definition is

[tex]\int_{\Re^{n}}\frac{1}{|2\pi \Sigma|^{1/2}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}X \Sigma^{-1} X^T)dX = 1[/tex]

(Substitute [tex]X = A[/tex] and [tex]\Sigma = B^{-1}[/tex] then cross multiply by everything outside of the exponential.)

Am I right in thinking that there is no analytical solution of this integral? It feels wrong to simply state it without proof, but if there is no solution how else can I present it?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Owen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you mean "integral" = |2 pi B|^(1/2), instead of |2 pi B|^(-1/2)?
 
Thanks for the reply!

I believe it should be ^(-1/2) as I'm substituting sigma with B^-1 and I'm fairly sure that 1/det(B^-1) = det(B) (although I can't remember the proof for this!). So the fraction inside the integral gets flipped on the LHS, making ^(-1/2) correct.

I'm pretty happy with the first equation, its the fact that I've used the 2nd equation to construct it and I'd like to prove the second equation, if this is even possible!
 
Owen said:
I'm pretty happy with the first equation, its the fact that I've used the 2nd equation to construct it and I'd like to prove the second equation, if this is even possible!

The Gaussian integral: [tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e ^{-x^2}dx=\sqrt{x}[/tex]

An analytic solution of this is given here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral

When normalized, it gives the core function for the Gaussian PDF where [tex](x-\mu)^2/2\sigma^2[/tex] replaces [tex]x^2[/tex].
 
Last edited:
Owen said:
Thanks for the reply!

I believe it should be ^(-1/2) as I'm substituting sigma with B^-1 and I'm fairly sure that 1/det(B^-1) = det(B) (although I can't remember the proof for this!). So the fraction inside the integral gets flipped on the LHS, making ^(-1/2) correct.

Okay, but then "2 pi" should be a divisor, not a multiplier of B.
 
Cheers for the replies.

EnumaElish, you are correct. I wrote this post from memory without referring to my notes. The 2pi is indeed a divisor!

SW VandeCarr, that's exactly what I was after. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction!
 
Owen said:
Cheers for the replies.

EnumaElish, you are correct. I wrote this post from memory without referring to my notes. The 2pi is indeed a divisor!

SW VandeCarr, that's exactly what I was after. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction!

You're welcome. This function and the closely related error function (erf) are about the most interesting in probability theory. They are non-elementary special functions.
 
Sorry. The Gaussian integral is: [tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e ^{-x^2}dx=\sqrt{\pi}[/tex].
 
Last edited:
The Gaussian integral can be evaluated by first squaring (to get a 2d integral) then changing to polar coordinates. To work out the nd version you'll need to convert to coordinates such that e.g. y'y = x'Bx (this assumes B is non-singular).
 
  • #10
bpet said:
The Gaussian integral can be evaluated by first squaring (to get a 2d integral) then changing to polar coordinates. To work out the nd version you'll need to convert to coordinates such that e.g. y'y = x'Bx (this assumes B is non-singular).

Just want to second this point. If B can't be decomposed by Cholesky factorization, then the answer will not be so simple. Thankfully all covariance matrices are ok. So this is step 1. Then once you are converted to independent y's, its simply a product of gaussian integrals, that is step 2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K