Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I am trying to solve the following problem.

Let $X_1,X_2,…$ be independent with the common normal density $\eta$, and $S_k= X_1+⋯+X_k$. If $m <n$ find the joint density of $(S_m,S_n)$ and the conditional density for $S_m$ given that $S_n=t$.

Solution attempt

Let the independent random variables have $X_1,X_2,…$ with the common normal density $\eta$ have parameters $(\mu,\sigma^2)$. Then both $S_m$ and $S_n$ have normal densities with parameters$(m\mu,m\sigma^2)$ and $(n\mu,n\sigma^2)$ respectively and there densities are $f_{S_m}$ and $f_{S_n}$.

We also observe that $S_m$ and $S_{n-m}$ are two independent random variables with density $f_{S_m}$and $f_{S_{n-m}}$ and the density of their sum $S_n$ is $f_{S_n}$. The pairs $(S_m,S_n )$ and $(S_m,S_{n-m})$ are related by linear transformation $S_m= S_m,S_{n-m}=S_n-S_m$ with determinant 1. So the joint density of $(S_m,S_n)$ is given by $f_{S_m}(x) f_{S_{n-m}}(s-x)$

$f_{S_m} (x) f_{S_{n-m}} (s-x)=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt {2\pi m \sigma ^{2}}}e^{-\dfrac {\left( x-m \mu\right) ^{2}} {2m \sigma ^{2} }}\dfrac{1}{\sqrt {2\pi (n-m) \sigma ^{2}}}e^{-\dfrac {\left( s-x-(n-m)\mu\right) ^{2}} {2(n-m) \sigma ^{2} }}$

$f_{S_m} (x) f_{S_{n-m}} (s-x)=\dfrac{1}{2\pi\sigma ^{2}\sqrt { m(n-m) }}e^{\dfrac {-(n-m)\left( x-m \mu\right) ^{2}-m\left( s-x-(n-m)\mu\right) ^{2}} {2m(n-m) \sigma ^{2} }}$

I can 't seem to be able to put this into the standard bi-variate normal distribution form.

This appears like a bivariate normal density which tallies with the answer provided by the author but he also states a bivariate normal density with variances $m, n$ and covariance $\sqrt {\dfrac {m} {n}}$.

share|improve this question
    
$\sqrt {\dfrac {m} {n}}$ is correlation, not covariance, btw, for 1st part, if you accept that they are joint normal covariance & variance are obvious, based on i.i.d. & having little to do with normal. –  mike Oct 5 '12 at 16:08
    
@mike Please correct me if i am wrong but as per the calculation i provided $1-\rho^2 = m(n-m)$ so should n't $\rho =\sqrt {1-mn+m^{2}}$ and $covariance = \rho \sigma^2$. How are you getting that correlation value ? –  Hardy Oct 5 '12 at 19:27
1  
the correlation will always be less that 1, and regardless of distribution, using only i.i.d., $\sigma^2(S_m) = m\sigma^2, cov(S_m, S_n) = \sigma^2 m \wedge n$ –  mike Oct 8 '12 at 12:44
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted
+100

This seems to be a case where going back to full-fledged formulas right from the start may not help the comprehension, so let us try to keep formulas at a distance as long as possible and to understand what is going on (although formulas will be necessary in the end, of course...).

Assume that $\eta$ has mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$. Then the joint distribution of $(S_m,S_n)$ is bivariate normal hence it is characterized by the mean vector $(\mathbb ES_m,\mathbb ES_n)=(m\mu,n\mu)$ and the variance-covariance matrix $C$ with entries $\mathrm{var}(S_m)=m\sigma^2$, $\mathrm{var}(S_n)=n\sigma^2$, and $\mathrm{cov}(S_m,S_n)=m\sigma^2$. In particular, the inverse of the variance-covariance matrix $C=\sigma^2\begin{pmatrix}m & m \\ m & n\end{pmatrix}$ is the matrix $C^{-1}=\dfrac1{\tau^2}\begin{pmatrix}n & -m \\ -m & m\end{pmatrix}$ with $\tau^2=m(n-m)\sigma^2$.

Hence the joint density at $(x,y)$ of the centered vector $(S_m-m\mu,S_n-n\mu)$ is proportional to $$ \exp\left(-\frac1{2\tau^2}(x,y)C^{-1}(x,y)^T\right)=\exp\left(-\frac1{2\tau^2}(nx^2-2mxy+my^2)\right). $$ Conditioning by $[S_n=t]$ is equivalent to fixing $y=t-n\mu$ in this formula and considering the resulting one-variable function of $x$ as a multiple of a density. Hence, the density of $S_m-m\mu$ conditionally on $[S_n=t]$ is proportional to $$ \exp\left(-\frac1{2\tau^2}(nx^2-2mxy)\right)\propto\exp\left(-\frac{n}{2\tau^2}\left(x-\frac{my}n\right)^2\right). $$ Thus, the distribution of $S_m$ conditionally on $[S_n=t]$ is normal with mean $\mu_t$ and variance $\sigma_t^2$, with $$ \mu_t=(my/n)+m\mu=mt/n,\qquad\sigma^2_t=\tau^2/n=(n-m)(m/n)\sigma^2. $$ One may find reassuring that $\mu_t=t$ and $\sigma^2_t=0$ when $n=m$ (why?) and that $\mu_t=0$ and $\sigma^2_t=0$ when $m=0$ (why?).

Nota: The fact that the distribution of $S_m$ conditionally on $[S_n=t]$ has mean $\mu_t=mt/n$ and variance $\sigma_t^2=(n-m)(m/n)\sigma^2$, is valid for every sequence $(S_k)$ of sums of i.i.d. random variables $(X_k)$ with variance $\sigma^2$, irrespectively of the common distribution of the random variables $X_k$. The fact that this conditional distribution is normal depends very much of the common distribution of the random variables $X_k$ being normal, naturally.

Edit: To prove that $(S_m,S_n)$ is bivariate normal, the canonical way is to start from the fact that $X=(X_k)_{1\leqslant k\leqslant n}$ is a gaussian vector with i.i.d. coordinates with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$. Furthermore, there exists a matrix $A$ of size $2\times n$ such that the vector $U=(S_m,S_n)$ is $U=A\cdot X$. Since $U$ is an affine transformation of $X$, $U$ is a gaussian vector with mean $A\cdot \mathbb E(X)$ and variance-covariance $C=A\cdot \mathrm{Cov}(X)\cdot A^T=\sigma^2 AA^T$.

Finally, writing $L_k$ for a line of $k$ ones and $Z_k$ for a line of $k$ zeroes, the definition of $S_m$ and $S_n$ yields $A=\begin{pmatrix}L_m & Z_{n-m}\\ L_m & L_{n-m}\end{pmatrix}$ hence $A\cdot \mathbb E(X)=\begin{pmatrix}m\mu\\ n\mu\end{pmatrix}$ and $AA^T=\begin{pmatrix}m & m\\ m & n\end{pmatrix}$, as indicated above.

share|improve this answer
    
in the second paragraph, second line you mention that the joint distribution is bi-variate normal. How are you able to conclude that ? There seem to be a lot of examples where the bi variate density is not normal but whose marginal densities are both normal. I suspect this joint density to be bi variate normal, but i do not think it is a valid assumption. –  Hardy Oct 25 '12 at 18:11
    
The assumption is valid since it is mentioned in your post. Hint: independent. –  Did Oct 25 '12 at 18:24
    
The independence in the question statement refers to $X_1,X_2...$. I think $S_m$ and $S_n$ are not be independent for $n = m + some other no $. Even if $S_m$ and $S_n$ were independent how do we still know there distribution would be bivariate normal ? –  Hardy Oct 25 '12 at 18:31
    
We know $S_m$ and $S_n$ are not independent. We also know their distribution is bivariate normal because: (1) every linear transform of a gaussian vector is a gaussian vector and (2) every vector whose coordinates are normal and independent is gaussian. Ergo. –  Did Oct 25 '12 at 18:35
    
Just saw your updated comment. I am not convinced that we have enough to conclude that they have bivariate normal density. Could you kindly cite me a result, showing a proof of this ? I'll search too. –  Hardy Oct 25 '12 at 18:53
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

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.