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 estimate the pdf distribution of a polynomial transformation of a known continuous random variable $X$:

$Y = f(X) = a_nX^n + \cdots + a_1X + a_0$

Normally, the only numerical approach I know of is by using a simulation. What I tried to do:

evaluate discrete points the pdf of $Y$ by solving a root finding problem:

$P(a_nX^n + \cdots + a_1X + a_0 = c) = P(X = \alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is the root of $a_nX^n + \cdots + a_1X + a_0 - c = 0$.

I do this for varying $c$. I then evaluate these $\alpha$'s in the continuous distribution of the known $X$, and use the found points to fit a curve as approximation to the pdf of $Y$.

When I try this, the shape of the curve is right, however, it is not normalized.

I believe I am making an error by evaluating discrete points in a continuous distribution (which should be 0 by definition), but why is it that the shape of the curve is still right?

share|cite|improve this question
Hint: think of the particular case $Y=X^2$, with X being (say) uniform in $[0,1]$. – leonbloy Dec 2 '11 at 18:04
I don't get it? (I know there are multiple zeros possible) – James Dec 2 '11 at 18:16
multiple solutions is not the main issue, and in my example there is only one solution. The point is that if X is uniform, your procedure would always result a uniform Y - and that's wrong. – leonbloy Dec 2 '11 at 18:32
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Your problem is not really related to discretization, but with a bad understanding of changes of variables. It's true that the probability function of discrete variables gives you directly the probability of the events $P(X=x)$, and hence it's enough to find the inverse mapping; but for continuous variables things are a little more subtle. A continuous density (say, for the sake of simplicity a continuous random variable X which has besides a continuous density) gives you (informally) the probability that the variable falls inside a neighbourhood of $x$, multiplied by the width of that interval:

$$f_X(x) \; \Delta x \approx P(x-\frac{\Delta x}{2} \leq X < x+\frac{\Delta x}{2}) \; $$

(the approximation is to be understood as a limit).

Now, if you have a transformation $Y = g(X)$, to get the corresponding $f_Y(y)$, then, it's not enough to find out the inverse mapping, $x = g^{-1}(y)$ (analytically or numerically... and leaving aside temporarily the issue of multiple solutions) and then write $f_Y(y) = f_X(g^{-1}(y))$. That's basically what you've apparently done, and that is wrong, because the events "X equals $x$" cannot be assigned a probability. The correct way would be to put in correspondence the events "X falls in this neighborhood of $x$" and "Y falls in this neighborhood of $y$" and take the limit:

$$ f_Y(y) \; \Delta y \approx f_X(x) \; \Delta x $$

$$ f_Y(y) \approx \frac{f_X(g^{-1}(y))}{\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}} $$

If $g(X)$ is monotonous incresing, the denominator tends to $g'(x)=g'(g^{-1}(y))$ , and you get the standard formula for change of variables. If not, you have a little more work to do (as is your case) - but at least you get the idea.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for the explanation. However, I do not fully agree with you on ""X equals x" cannot be assigned a probability.": if we apply the definition of what a random variable is (a mapping between two measurable spaces), than that probability should be 0. Anyway, I will use the cdf, as that avoids the problem. – James Dec 2 '11 at 19:46

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.