<< Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
Before examining a general approximation procedure which has significant consequences for later treatments, we consider some illustrative examples.
A random variable with the Poisson distribution is unbounded. However, for a given parameter value μ , the probability for , n sufficiently large, is negligible. Experimentindicates (i.e., six standard deviations beyond the mean) is a reasonable value for .
>>mu = [5 10 20 30 40 50 70 100 150 200];>>K = zeros(1,length(mu));>>p = zeros(1,length(mu));>>for i = 1:length(mu)
K(i) = floor(mu(i)+ 6*sqrt(mu(i)));p(i) = cpoisson(mu(i),K(i));
end>>disp([mu;K;p*1e6]')5.0000 18.0000 5.4163 % Residual probabilities are 0.000001
10.0000 28.0000 2.2535 % times the numbers in the last column.20.0000 46.0000 0.4540 % K is the value of k needed to achieve
30.0000 62.0000 0.2140 % the residual shown.40.0000 77.0000 0.1354
50.0000 92.0000 0.066870.0000 120.0000 0.0359
100.0000 160.0000 0.0205150.0000 223.0000 0.0159
200.0000 284.0000 0.0133
An m-procedure for discrete approximation
If X is bounded, absolutely continuous with density functon f X , the m-procedure tappr sets up the distribution for an approximating simple random variable. An interval containing the range of X is divided into a specified number of equal subdivisions. The probability mass for each subinterval is assigned to the midpoint. If is the length of the subintervals, then the integral of the density function over the subintervalis approximated by . where t i is the midpoint. In effect, the graph of the density over the subinterval is approximated by a rectangle of length and height . Once the approximating simple distribution is established, calculations are carried out as for simple random variables.
Suppose . Determine .
SOLUTION
In this case, an analytical solution is easy. on the interval , so
. We use tappr as follows:
>>tappr
Enter matrix [a b]of x-range endpoints [0 1]
Enter number of x approximation points 200Enter density as a function of t 3*t.^2
Use row matrices X and PX as in the simple case>>M = (X>= 0.2)&(X<= 0.9);>>p = M*PX'
p = 0.7210
Because of the regularity of the density and the number of approximation points, the result agrees quite well with the theoretical value.
The next example is a more complex one. In particular, the distribution is not bounded. However, it is easy to determine a bound beyond which the probability is negligible.
The life (in miles) of a certain brand of radial tires may be represented by a random variable X with density
where , and . Determine .
>>a = 40000;>>b = 20/3;>>k = 1/4000;>>% Test shows cutoff point of 80000 should be satisfactory>>tappr
Enter matrix [a b]of x-range endpoints [0 80000]
Enter number of x approximation points 80000/20Enter density as a function of t (t.^2/a^3).*(t<40000) + ...
(b/a)*exp(k*(a-t)).*(t>= 40000)
Use row matrices X and PX as in the simple case>>P = (X>= 45000)*PX'
P = 0.1910 % Theoretical value = (2/3)exp(-5/4) = 0.191003>>cdbn
Enter row matrix of VALUES XEnter row matrix of PROBABILITIES PX % See
[link] for plot
In this case, we use a rather large number of approximation points. As a consequence, the results are quite accurate. In the single-variable case,designating a large number of approximating points usually causes no computer memory problem.
The general approximation procedure
We show now that any bounded real random variable may be approximated as closely as desired by a simple random variable (i.e., one having a finite set of possible values). For the unboundedcase, the approximation is close except in a portion of the range having arbitrarily small total probability.
We limit our discussion to the bounded case, in which the range of X is limited to a bounded interval . Suppose I is partitioned into n subintervals by points t i , , with and . Let be the i th subinterval, and (see [link] ). Now random variable X may map into any point in the interval, and hence into any point in each subinterval M i . Let be the set of points mapped into M i by X . Then the E i form a partition of the basic space Ω . For the given subdivision, we form a simple random variable X s as follows. In each subinterval, pick a point . Consider the simple random variable .
This random variable is in canonical form. If , then and . Now the absolute value of the difference satisfies
Since this is true for each ω and the corresponding subinterval, we have the important fact
By making the subintervals small enough by increasing the number of subdivision points, we can make the difference as small as we please.
While the choice of the s i is arbitrary in each M i , the selection of (the left-hand endpoint) leads to the property . In this case, if we add subdivision points to decrease the size of some or all of the M i , the new simple approximation Y s satisfies
To see this, consider (see [link] ). M i is partitioned into and E i is partitioned into . X maps into and into . Y s maps into t i and maps into . X s maps both and into t i . Thus, the asserted inequality must hold for each ω By taking a sequence of partitions in which each succeeding partition refines the previous (i.e. adds subdivision points) in such a way that themaximum length of subinterval goes to zero, we may form a nondecreasing sequence of simple random variables X n which increase to X for each ω .
The latter result may be extended to random variables unbounded above. Simply let N th set of subdivision points extend from a to N , making the last subinterval . Subintervals from a to N are made increasingly shorter. The result is a nondecreasing sequence of simple random variables, with as , for each .
For probability calculations, we simply select an interval I large enough that the probability outside I is negligible and use a simple approximation over I .
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Applied probability' conversation and receive update notifications?