2
$\begingroup$

I know that if you sample $K$ random variables $(X_1, X_2, \dots, X_K)$ from Gamma distributions using shape parameters $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots \alpha_K)$ and a scale parameter $\theta = 1$ such that $X_i \sim \Gamma(\alpha_i,\theta) = \Gamma(\alpha_i,1)$ then $\left(\frac{X_1}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \frac{X_2}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \dots, \frac{X_K}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}\right) \sim \textrm{Dir}(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_K)$ where $\textrm{Dir}(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_K)$ is a Dirichlet distribution with a concentration parameter $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_K)$.

My question is does this result hold for any scale parameter $\theta > 0$? The proofs I've read (e.g. http://mayagupta.org/publications/FrigyikKapilaGuptaIntroToDirichlet.pdf), which use the change-of-variables formula, seem to set $\theta = 1$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ As long as its the same scale. The reasoning is simple, since dividing a variable with scale $\theta$ by $\theta$ gives scale $1$. In the ratios, the $\theta$s in the numerator and denominator will cancel, making it the same for any other particular value $\theta$ might be. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jun 26 '14 at 2:51
5
$\begingroup$

The result for scale 1 straightforwardly implies the generalized result for arbitrary scale $\theta>0$ as follows. Let
\begin{equation} X_k \sim \Gamma(\alpha_i,\theta),~i\in \{1,\ldots,K\}, \end{equation} and the $X_i$s be mutually independent. Now, let us define variables $(Z_1,\ldots,Z_k)$ by scaling the $X$s: \begin{equation} Z_i = \frac{X_i}{\theta},~i\in \{1,\ldots,K\}. \end{equation} The $Z_i$s are mutually independent and $Z_i\sim \Gamma(\alpha_i,1)$. Then, we express \begin{equation} \left(\frac{X_1}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \frac{X_2}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \dots, \frac{X_K}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}\right) \end{equation} in terms of the $Z_i$s: \begin{equation} =\left(\frac{Z_1\theta}{\sum_{i = 1}^K( Z_i\theta)}, \frac{Z_2\theta}{\sum_{i = 1}^K (Z_i\theta)}, \dots, \frac{Z_K\theta}{\sum_{i = 1}^K (Z_i\theta)}\right). \end{equation} Divide both numerator and denominator by $\theta$: \begin{equation} =\left(\frac{Z_1}{\sum_{i = 1}^K Z_i}, \frac{Z_2}{\sum_{i = 1}^K Z_i}, \dots, \frac{Z_K}{\sum_{i = 1}^K Z_i}\right). \end{equation} By construction the $Z_i$s have $\Gamma(\alpha_i,1)$ distributions, and thus the last expression has the $\mathrm{Dir}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_K)$ distribution. That is, it has been shown that \begin{equation} \left(\frac{X_1}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \frac{X_2}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}, \dots, \frac{X_K}{\sum_{i = 1}^K X_i}\right) \sim \mathrm{Dir}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_K). \end{equation}

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. I know the result is the same but did you mean to write $\theta Z_i$ rather than $Z_i / \theta$ when replacing $X_i$ (and then multiply numerator and denominator by $\theta^{-1}$)? $\endgroup$ – Richy Jun 27 '14 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed. Sorry about that, thanks for spotting the mistake. I have now edited the answer to fix that. $\endgroup$ – Juho Kokkala Jun 27 '14 at 10:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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