3
$\begingroup$

Currently, my approach is to split $N(\min(t, T^*))$ like the following by the law of total expectation.

\begin{align*} &E(N(\min(t,T^*))) = E(N(t \wedge T^*)) \\ = {}&E(N(t\wedge T^*) \mid t \le T^*) \cdot P(t \le T^*) + E(N(t\wedge T^*) \mid t > T^*) \cdot P(t > T^*). \end{align*}

To make it less confusing and more concrete, one could think of the target expectation as $E(N(\min(3, T^*)))$ when $t=3$. Later, generalize the solution to suit any given $t$.

The first and second parts become

\begin{align*} &E(N(t\wedge T^*)\mid t \le T^* )\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x P(N(t\wedge T^*) = x\mid t \le T^*)\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(t\wedge T^*) = x, t \le T^*)}{P(t \le T^*)}\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(t) = x, t \le T^*)}{P(t \le T^*)}\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(t) = x) P(t \le T^*)}{P(t \le T^*)}\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x P(N(t) = x)\\ ={}& E(N(t)) = \lambda t; \end{align*}

\begin{align*} &E(N(t\wedge T^*) \mid t > T^*)\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x P(N(t\wedge T^*) = x\mid t > T^*) \hspace{1cm}\color{red}{T^* < t}\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(t\wedge T^*) = x \mid t > T^*)}{P(t > T^*)} \\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(t\wedge T^*) = x ,t > T^*)}{P(t > T^*)}\\ ={}& \sum_{x = 0}^\infty x \frac{P(N(T^*) = x ,T^* < t)}{P(T^* < t)} \end{align*}

by the conditional expectation.

So, the problem is $N(T^*)$ and $T^*$ are less likely to be independent; how to find the probability $P(N(T^*) = x ,T^* < t)$?

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Please consider adding the self-study tag. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you're doing a little more work than you need to; you can work directly with the expectations, instead of having to go back to the summations. For example, if $T^*>t$, then $\mathbb{E}N(\cdot) =\mathbb{E}N(t)= \lambda t$, and we don't need to write stuff out. Similarly, $\mathbb{E}N(T^*)$ is linear in $T^*$, which makes calculations for the $T^* < t$ case straightforward. $\endgroup$
    – jbowman
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @jbowman. Thanks for your comments. And yes, the first term essentially ends up with $\lambda t$. I did a simulation, which is consistent with $\lambda t$. Do you mean the second term would look like $\lambda T^*$, since $T^*$ is a variable ($0 < T^* < t$), then do the integration over it? That is an interesting approach; I will try that and let you know. $\endgroup$
    – yuw444
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 16:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes; it's an application of the law of total expectation again. $\endgroup$
    – jbowman
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ @jbowman, I just tried the simulation as suggested. Unfortunately, the second term still has some underestimation at the beginning of $t$, then converges at the end. I believe the problem is still $E(N(T^*))$ is linear relying on $N(T^*)$ and $T^*$ are independent, which is less likely. $\endgroup$
    – yuw444
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 17:24

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

We can use the law of total expectations to simplify the problem as follows:

$$\mathbb{E} N(\min(t,T^*)) = \lambda \mathbb{E}\min(t,T^*)$$

Finding $\mathbb{E} \min(t,T^*)$ is straightforward:

$$\mathbb{E} \min(t,T^*) = \mathbb{E} (T^*|T^*\leq t)P(T^*\leq t) + tP(T^*> t) \tag 1$$

Using the memoryless property of the exponential distribution allows us to simplify further, as:

$$\mathbb{E} T^* = \mathbb{E}(T^*|T^*\leq t)P(T^*\leq t) + \mathbb{E}(T^*|T^*> t)P(T^*> t)$$

and $\mathbb{E} (T^*|T^*> t) = \lambda^*+t$ while $\mathbb{E} T^* = \lambda^*$. Therefore, rearranging terms,

$$\mathbb{E}(T^*|T^*\leq t)P(T^*\leq t) = \lambda^* - (\lambda^*+t)P(T^*>t)$$

Substituting into the right hand side of eq. (1) gives us:

$$\mathbb{E}\min(t,T^*) = \lambda^* - (\lambda^*+t)P(T^*>t) + tP(T^*> t) = \lambda^*(1-e^{-t/\lambda^* })$$

One more substitution gets us to:

$$\mathbb{E} N (\min(t,T^*)) = \lambda \lambda^*(1-e^{-t/\lambda^* })$$

Now for a check via simulation. We will set $\lambda = 1.138$, $\lambda^* = 0.842$, and $t = 1.234$:

lambda <- 1.138
lambdastar <- 0.842
tc <- 1.234
 
tstar <- rexp(100000, 1/lambdastar)
x <- rpois(100000, lambda*pmin(tstar, tc))
 
lambda*lambdastar*(1-exp(-tc/lambdastar))
[1] 0.7369016
 
mean(x)
[1] 0.73378
sd(x)/sqrt(length(x))
[1] 0.003133204

which seems to match as well as we would hope.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the detailed explaination, I am running an simulation on a continuous scale of $X$ and let you know how it goes. $\endgroup$
    – yuw444
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ I mean the continuous scale of $tc$ in your simulation. The result is consistent for any $tc$. Thanks so much for your generous help. $\endgroup$
    – yuw444
    Commented Aug 21, 2023 at 21:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.