Solving Gaussian Random Variable Expected Value: CDF & Expectation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaggis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cdf Expectation
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the expected value E(exp(G^2λ/2)) for a Gaussian random variable defined by its cumulative distribution function φ(t). The user attempts to solve the problem using integration and considers applying Fubini's theorem but encounters difficulties due to variable bounds. Key insights include the relationship between the expected value and the probability density function, with a reminder that λ must be less than 1 for the calculations to hold. Participants suggest verifying the initial steps in the user's approach to ensure accuracy. The conversation emphasizes the complexities involved in integrating functions of random variables.
Jaggis
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have trouble with the following problem:

Gaussian random variable is defined as follows

\phi(t) = P(G \leq t)= 1/\sqrt{2\pi} \int^{t}_{-\infty} exp(-x^2/2)dx.
Calculate the expected value

E(exp(G^2\lambda/2)).

Hint:

Because \phi is a cumulative distribution function, \phi(+\infty) = 1.

My attempt at solution:

I start with:

E(exp(G^2\lambda/2)) = \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}P(exp(G^2\lambda/2) \geq t)dt = \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}P(-\sqrt{2/\lambda*lnt}) \geq G \geq \sqrt{2/\lambda*lnt})dt
=1/\sqrt{2\pi} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}(\int^{\sqrt{2/\lambda*lnt})}_{\sqrt{2/\lambda*lnt})}e^{-x^2/2}dx)dt.

Then my instinct would be to use Fubini theorem because I'd like to get rid of the integral of exp(-x^2/2) by \phi(+\infty) = 1.

However, because both bounds are functions of t, it wouldn't work.

Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
General formula: Let h(G) be a function of G. Let f(x) be the probability density function for G. Then:
E(h(G))=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}h(x)f(x)dx.
In your case h(G)=exp(G^2 \lambda /2) and f(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}}.

As you can see \lambda < 1 is necessary.
 
Jaggis, I suggest you double-check your first equals sign.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K