7
$\begingroup$

Suppose that I have $X_1,X_2,X_3,...X_n$ iid random variables from a Poisson distribution of parameter $\lambda$. Given that $X_1 +X_2+X_3 +...+X_n = t$, what is the probability that exactly $k$ of $X_1,X_2,X_3,...X_n$ are zero?

--

My approach: I started out by considering the joint probability mass function where $X_1 +X_2+X_3 +...+X_n = t$ and $k$ of $X_1,X_2,X_3,...X_n$ is zero but I do not know how to proceed from here. If I use a binomial model to calculate the probability of having k number of zeros, I do not know how to impose the constraint on the sum of $X_n$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This question was clear enough to get answers, so I do not understand the vote to close as unclear $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Oct 5 '17 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ Have you done the $n=2$ case? What do you learn from the answer? $\endgroup$ – P.Windridge Oct 5 '17 at 15:54
2
$\begingroup$

Let $Y:=X_1+\ldots+X_n$. Observe that the distribution of $(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ conditional on $Y = t$ is multinomial (exercise). This gives a conceptually easier way to think about the problem- you have $n$ boxes and throw $t$ balls in them at random. What is the probability that $k$ are empty?

Well, first of all, there are $n^t$ ways of throwing the $t$ balls in the $n$ boxes with no restrictions.

Now it gets a little more complicated, even though we are just counting stuff. There are $\binom{n}{k}$ ways of choosing the $k$ boxes that stay empty. We are then left with $t$ balls to throw into the $n-k$ remaining boxes, such that each box is not empty. You can do this by inclusion/exclusion, just like in the proof of the Stirling number https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/550256/stirling-numbers-of-second-type .

Combining these ingredients gives the desired probability, $$ \frac{1}{n^t}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{n-k} (-1)^{n-k-j} \binom{n-k}{j} j^t, $$ $t \ge n-k$, $n \ge k$.

Note that $\lambda$ does not feature in the answer.


Out of interest and as a quick exercise I coded this (borrowing a Stirling number function I found with Google) to see what the answer looks like:

##-- Stirling numbers of the 2nd kind
##-- (Abramowitz/Stegun: 24,1,4 (p. 824-5 ; Table 24.4, p.835)

##> S^{(m)}_n = number of ways of partitioning a set of $n$ elements into $m$
##> non-empty subsets

Stirling2 <- function(n,m)
{
  ## Purpose:  Stirling Numbers of the 2-nd kind
  ##        S^{(m)}_n = number of ways of partitioning a set of
  ##                      $n$ elements into $m$ non-empty subsets
  ## Author: Martin Maechler, Date:  May 28 1992, 23:42
  ## ----------------------------------------------------------------
  ## Abramowitz/Stegun: 24,1,4 (p. 824-5 ; Table 24.4, p.835)
  ## Closed Form : p.824 "C."
  ## ----------------------------------------------------------------

  if (0 > m || m > n) stop("'m' must be in 0..n !")
  k <- 0:m
  sig <- rep(c(1,-1)*(-1)^m, length= m+1)# 1 for m=0; -1 1 (m=1)
  ## The following gives rounding errors for (25,5) :
  ## r <- sum( sig * k^n /(gamma(k+1)*gamma(m+1-k)) )
  ga <- gamma(k+1)
  round(sum( sig * k^n /(ga * rev(ga))))
}


pmf<-function(n,t,k) {
  if (t >= (n-k) & n >= k) {
    (choose(n,k) * factorial(n-k) * Stirling2(t,n-k) )/(n^t)
  } else {
    0
  }
}


lambda <- 1
n <- 10
reps <- 500000
set.seed(2017)
X <- matrix(ncol=n,nrow=reps,data=rpois(n*reps,lambda))

K <- apply(X, 1,function(x){sum(x == 0)})
hist(K)

# restrict only to those that sum to t
Y<-rowSums(X)


t<-8
G<- (Y == t)
sum(G)

k <- 5
#head(X[which(K==k),])
#head(Y[which(K==k)])
#head(X[G,])
#head(Y[G])

posskvalues <- (n-t):n
nk <- length(posskvalues)
empP <- numeric(nk)
thP <- numeric(nk)

for(i in 1:nk) {
  k <- posskvalues[i]
# sum(K[G] == k)
  empP[i] <- sum(K[G] == k)/sum(G)
  thP[i] <- pmf(n,t,k)
}

plot(posskvalues,empP,main=paste("n=",n,", t=",t))
points(posskvalues,thP,pch="x")

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

$Y = X_1+X_2+\cdots + X_n$ is a Poisson random variable with parameter $n\lambda$. So you can write down an expression for $P(Y=t)$.

There are $\binom{n}{k}$ choices for a set of $k$ variables that are zero. Pick a specific set. Then, the sum of the complementary set of variables is a Poisson random variable $Z$ with parameter $(n-k)\lambda$, and $Z$ is independent of the chosen $k$ variables. So, you can use independence to write down expressions for

$P(Z=t)$,

$P($chosen $k$ variables are $0)$,

$P($chosen $k$ are zero AND $Z=t) = P($chosen $k$ are zero AND $Y=t)$.

Can you take it from here? There shouldn't be any binomial distributions involved...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What if $Z$ has zeros in it? $\endgroup$ – The Yellow Oct 4 '17 at 21:26
  • $\begingroup$ What about it? $Z$ is the sum of Poisson random variables and if some of them are 0, the rest must be larger if the sum is to be $t$. $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Oct 4 '17 at 22:22
  • $\begingroup$ I only want k variables that are zero. "Poisson random variable Z with parameter (n−k)λ" -> it is possible that the complementary set of variables could contain zeros as well, in which case I have more than k zeros for $X_1,X_2,X_3,...X_n$ $\endgroup$ – The Yellow Oct 4 '17 at 23:05
  • $\begingroup$ P(k zero|t) = p(t|k zero) * P(k zero)/P(t) .... This strategy works for a specific set of $k$ variables being equal to zero. $$P(\text{specific k zero} \vert t) = \frac{ \left(\frac{(n-k)\lambda^t e^{-(n-k)\lambda t}}{t!}\right) \left( \frac{\lambda^0 e^{-\lambda t}}{0!} \right)^k }{\left(\frac{n\lambda^t e^{-n\lambda t}}{t!}\right)} = \left( \frac{n-k}{n} \right)^t$$ However, what if we want to know any set of $k$ variables being equal to zero? This problem seems more difficult. (I am not sure whether this any instead of specific is the question) $\endgroup$ – Martijn Weterings Oct 5 '17 at 2:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question is about having k variables equal to zero. It is not a specific set of k variable. The question that I have regarding the above answer is that what if the $X_i$s assumed to be non-zero take on a zero value. More specifically, in "$P($chosen $k$ are zero AND $Y=t)$.", what if $X_i$ in $Y$ takes on a zero value, in which case I would have more than k zeros in total. $\endgroup$ – The Yellow Oct 5 '17 at 4:00

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.