Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I want to find a simpler form or closed form for the following integral: $$ \int_A \,\prod_{t=1}^T f_{\Gamma(a,\theta_t)}(x_t) \,d\mathbf{x} $$ where $A$ is the simplex $$ A = \{\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^T : \sum_{t=1}^T x_t = 1 \hbox{ and } x_t \geq 0\} $$ and $f_{\Gamma(a,\theta_t)}$ is the Gamma density $$ f_{\Gamma(a,\theta_t)}(x_t) = \theta_t^a x_t^{a-1} \exp(-x_t \theta_t) / \Gamma(a) . $$ We require that $a$ and $\theta_t$ are positive real numbers.

It seems that this shouldn't be too hard, but I've really been stumped. I have tried various methods from the paper by Wolpert and Wolf mentioned in this blog post - but when I follow the algorithm described in that paper, I end up running into even harder analytical difficulties at the end, when it is required to take an inverse Laplace transform of some product.

I feel that there must be a lower-tech way to do this! Thanks in advance for any help.

share|cite|improve this question

Indeed, your integral is $g(1)$ where the Laplace trnsform $L(g)$ of $g$ is such that, for every positive $s$, $$ L(g)(s)=\prod_{t=1}^T\left(\frac{\theta_t}{\theta_t+s}\right)^a. $$ For some simple values of $a$, one can decompose this rational fraction of $s$ into simple elements and inverse each term. If I am not mistaken, when $a=1$ and all the $\theta_t$ are distinct, the result is $$ g(1)=\sum_t\theta_t\mathrm{e}^{-\theta_t}\prod_{i\ne t}\frac{\theta_i}{\theta_i-\theta_t}. $$ Unfortunately, I do not know a simple way of inverting $L(g)$ in the general case.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for this answer! Unfortunately this is exactly the approach I was taking to solve the problem myself, but so far I've been stuck at the same spot. At least now I know I'm probably not missing something totally obvious. – N F May 31 '11 at 18:36
Yes, I wrote this at least partly as a kind of note to myself... (By the way, why the name Not Durrett? Is this a kind of personal motto?) – Did May 31 '11 at 18:57
:) Well, I started using "Not Durrett" online in a couple of math forums last year when I was going through Durrett's probability textbook in a class. He seems to have a bit better grasp of probability than I do, so I was "Not Durrett". His textbook is certainly frustrating at times for someone who doesn't already know everything though... – N F Jun 2 '11 at 3:53

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.