Solving for Poisson Probability Change w/ Function x

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a probability problem involving a Poisson process where the rate function w(t) is dependent on another function x(t). The original poster seeks to express the probability P(x) of an event occurring as a function of x, rather than time t.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the rate function w(t) and its dependence on x(t). There are attempts to apply the chain rule for integration to express probabilities in terms of x. Questions arise about the implications of having multiple functions x1(t), x2(t), and x3(t) and how they affect the probability calculations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights on the mathematical formulation of the problem, particularly regarding the integration process and the nature of the Poisson process. There is an ongoing exploration of how the changing function w(x) impacts the probability P(x) and whether the original poster's understanding aligns with the mathematical implications.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses confusion about the relationship between the rate of change dx/dt and the resulting probabilities, particularly when w(x) is an increasing function. There is a noted complexity in having multiple functions x(t) and their respective probabilities, which adds to the discussion's depth.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Suppose that a system is such that in a time dt, the probability that an event A occurs, given that it has not already happened, is given by:
P(t,t+dt) = w(t) * dt

The solution for the probability that A has occurred at a time t is something like:

P(t) = 1 - exp(∫0tw('t)dt')

Now suppose that w(t) is changing due to some function x such that really w(t) = w(x(t)). How do I find the probability P(x) that the event A has occurred as a function of x?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The chain rule (or substitution for integrals):
\int w(t')dt'= \int w(x(t'))\left(\frac{dt'}{dx}\right)\left(\frac{dx}{dt'}\right) dt'= \int w(x)\left(\frac{dt'}{dx}\right)dx= \int_{x(0)}^{x(t)} \frac{w(x)}{\frac{dx}{dt'}}dx
 
But doesn't that still give me P(t) when I carry out the integration? My problem is that I have 3 different x1(t), x2(t), x3(t) and I want P(xi) for each of these so I can see when the probability in each case becomes significant. So in the above formula when I plug in x(t) in the end I still get something which is controlled by t. Where am I confusing myself?
I also find it weird that if w(x) is an increasing function then the probability P(x) takes longer to reach a significant value when dx/dt is large. Intuitively I would think that if x(t) is driven to large values faster such that w(x) gets larger faster then the probability P(x) should do the same. Where am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
aaaa202 said:
But doesn't that still give me P(t) when I carry out the integration? My problem is that I have 3 different x1(t), x2(t), x3(t) and I want P(xi) for each of these so I can see when the probability in each case becomes significant. So in the above formula when I plug in x(t) in the end I still get something which is controlled by t. Where am I confusing myself?
I also find it weird that if w(x) is an increasing function then the probability P(x) takes longer to reach a significant value when dx/dt is large. Intuitively I would think that if x(t) is driven to large values faster such that w(x) gets larger faster then the probability P(x) should do the same. Where am I wrong?

As I read it, you have three "curves ##x_1(t), x_2(t), x_3(t)## and for each of them you have a (non-homogeneous) Poisson process with rate ##r_i(t) = w[x_i(t)]##. That will give you three different "counting processes" ##N_1(t), N_2(t), N_3(t)## with
P\{ N_i(t) = n \} = \frac{m_i(t)^n \, e^{-m_i(t)}}{n!}, \, n = 0,1,2,\ldots
and where
m_i(t) = \int_0^t w[x_i(\tau)] \, d \tau , i = 1,2,3.
That seems to be what you are saying; if it is not, you need to clarify what you want.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K