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

Assume a single real-valued variable, and frequent irregular observations of its value over a series of time-spans. In each time span, I'm assuming the samples are from a distribution of values which the variable assumes during that time span... I intend to compare distributions between time-spans, hoping to find patterns that are otherwise obscured by the detail of the irregular sampling.

The most obvious way I can see to characterise these distributions is the first n central moments... so, for example, I can calculate approximations of the Mean, Variance, Skew and Kurtosis for the sample data. I am aware, however, of distributions which do not have meaningful definitions of central moments (Cauchy distributions, for example) and recognise that trying to characterise such a distribution by approximated central moments is unlikely to provide useful insights.

Aside from central moments, what other approaches might I use to try to classify distributions?

share|cite|improve this question

Characteristic functions are often used. The characteristic function of the probability distribution of a real random variable $X$ is $$ \psi_X(t) = \mathbb{E}\left(e^{itX}\right). $$ If $t$ is real, this always exists. There's an immense literature on this topic.

In one sense this next topic won't answer your question: you seem to want something that is still there when moments don't exist. But as an alternative to central moments these are of interest. The $n$th cumulant $\operatorname{cum}_n(X)$ of a probability distribution of a random variable exists only if the $n$th moment exists. It shares with the $n$th moment and the $n$th central moment the property of $n$th-degree homogeneity: $\operatorname{cum}_n(cX) = c^n \operatorname{cum}_n(X)$. When $n>1$, it shares with the $n$th central moment the property of translation-invariance: $\operatorname{cum}_n(X+c)=\operatorname{cum}_n(X)$. (If $n=1$, we have equivariance rather than invariance: $\operatorname{cum}_1(X+c)=\operatorname{cum}_1(X)+c$.) Finally, it shares with the second and third central moments the "cumulative property": for $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ independent, we have $\operatorname{cum}_n(X_x+\cdots+X_n)=\operatorname{cum}_n(X_1)+\cdots+\operatorname{cum}_n(X_1)$. Higher central moments, i.e. $n\ge4$, don't have that property.

The second and third cumulants are in fact the second and third central moments; the first cumulant is the expectation; the fourth cumulant is $$ \operatorname{cum}_4(X) = \mathbb{E}\left( (X - \mathbb{E}(X))^4\right) - 3\left(\operatorname{var}(X)\right)^2. $$

See the Wikipedia article.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. The snag as I see it with a Characteristic-function approach is that I'd need to have a model for the system in order to pick a function which I'd then fit to my data. My situation is that I have data; I think treating it as a series of distributions is sensible - but I have no credible model for the system I'm measuring. I've already read about Cumulants - but discounted these as I'd assumed they'd offer no advantage over central moments... In what circumstances would Cumulants work best? – aSteve Nov 29 '11 at 9:58

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.