Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Though the question here (Partial sums of exponential series - Stack Exchange) is similar, it is more specialized and I rather need a general approximation for an arbitrary partial sum.

Essentially, I am trying to approximate the probability mass function of a particular random variable and I ended up with a Poisson random variable's CDF in the mix. Hence, for my purpose, I need to figure out a reasonable approximation of the sum:

$\displaystyle\sum_{k = 0}^{r} \frac{\lambda^k}{k!}$ OR the tail, i.e. $\displaystyle\sum_{k = r}^{\infty} \frac{\lambda^k}{k!}$

Does someone know some approximations for this? Also, if there exist conditions for those approximations to be valid, I'd like to know them as well.

Thanks in advance!

Addendum: There appears to be a closed form expression for such a partial sum:

$\displaystyle\sum_{k = 0}^{r} \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = e^\lambda \frac{\Gamma(r + 1, \lambda)}{\Gamma(r + 1)}$,

where $\Gamma(a, x)$ is defined as: $\displaystyle \Gamma(a, x) = \int_x^\infty t^{a - 1} e^t \,dt$ and $\displaystyle \Gamma(a) = \Gamma(a, 0)$.

Is there a simple closed form approximation for the Gamma function? At the end of the day, somehow or the other, I either end up with a summation sign or an integral. I just want to be able to pin down this partial sum as a numeric quantity, that is reasonably approximate.

share|cite|improve this question
What language/environment are you using for computations? Chances are someone has already implemented the Gamma function more efficiently and better than you could in a few hours. Unless the approximation is central to the research you're attempting to perform, use a library. For instance, in C++:… – dls Jul 15 '12 at 21:28
The idea is to not use exact values but come up with approximations that are suitable for analytical interpretation. I am attempting to mathematically model a system that has been implemented in real life. In order for the model to be of value, I need to make it as simple as possible. Therefore, to reduce complexity, I am using the mean values rather than the whole PMF, justified by ideas such as mean dynamics to model the dynamics of the system. To be clear, I am asking for an analytical approximation of aforementioned partial sum. Thanks for the response however (May help me in the future) – lite-whowantstoknow Jul 15 '12 at 21:39
Gotcha, I misinterpreted your phrase 'numeric quantity'. – dls Jul 15 '12 at 23:07
How large are your $r$ and $\lambda$ ? – Yves Daoust Dec 14 '15 at 14:17
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Use Taylor's series with remainder. We know that $$ e^\lambda = \sum_{k=0}^r \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} + \frac{e^{c\lambda}\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!}, $$ for some $c \in [0,1]$. Therefore $$ \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} \leq e^\lambda - \sum_{k=0}^r \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} \leq e^\lambda \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!}. $$ You can also get these estimates using more elementary means: $$ \sum_{k=r+1}^\infty \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} \left[ 1 + \frac{\lambda}{r+2} + \frac{\lambda^2}{(r+2)(r+3)} + \cdots \right] < \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} \sum_{t=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda^t}{t!} = \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} e^\lambda. $$ We can get a different upper bound by comparison to a geometric series, when $\lambda < r+2$: $$ \sum_{k=r+1}^\infty \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} \leq \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} \sum_{t=0}^\infty \left(\frac{\lambda}{r+2}\right)^t = \frac{\lambda^{r+1}}{(r+1)!} \frac{r+2}{r+2-\lambda}. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for giving me an approximation AND a starting point to think in the right direction. Hopefully this approximation in itself is good enough for my purposes. At least, now I know which direction to look for answers. Thanks again! – lite-whowantstoknow Jul 15 '12 at 21:42
Edit: The upper bound didn't seem to be all that tight! Lower bound was better, but still needed tweaking. I then realized I could use the quantity $c$ in $\displaystyle e^{c\lambda}$ as a parameter that can be used for fitting the analytically computed mean value (obtained from the accurate PMF). It seems to work perfectly for a well chosen, small value of $c$. I am quite glad that now, my analysis seems systematic and not ad-hoc as it was earlier! Thanks for the help by the way. – lite-whowantstoknow Jul 15 '12 at 22:38

matlab has a built-in function gammainc($\lambda, a$, 'upper') = ${\Gamma(a, \lambda)\over \Gamma(\lambda)}$.

Also see "A computational procedure for incomplete Gamma functions" by Walter Gautschi.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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