3
$\begingroup$

Suppose the number of sales, N, in a year on a sales portfolio has a poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda$. Sales are either large with probability $p$ or small with probability $1-p$, independently from each other.

Suppose we observer $r$ large sales. Show that the conditional distribution of $N - r \mid r$ is poisson.

I've managed to complete the question from first principles:

Let $R$ be the number of large sales, we have $ R \mid N$ is binomially distributed with parameters $N$ and $p$.

If we consider $P(N - r = s \mid R = r)$ and apply Bayes conditional probability formula we eventually get the result.

I am wondering if there is perhaps a simplier way to do it? For instance, could we perhaps just directly use the the result that, $$ \text{ Posterior PDF } \propto \text{Prior PDF } \times \text{ Likelihood}$$ that is, $$f(\theta \mid x) \propto f(\theta) \times L(x \mid \theta)$$

Can this general formula be applied in this case as a shortcut?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ When the $\text{“} \propto \text{''}$ symbol is used in this context, sometimes it may be too easy to forget that it does not mean proportional as a function of $x,$ but rather proportional as a function of $\theta. \qquad$ $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 30 '17 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ If you know the desired final form, or suspect it might be a member of a known family, a useful trick is to take the logarithm, simpify the sum of the log prior and the log-likelihood, and then by matching it to a known family you can identify the posterior and its normalising constant immediately $\endgroup$ – Nadiels Aug 30 '17 at 19:52
0
$\begingroup$

Let's call the random variables for total sales $N$, larger sales $R$ and smaller sales $M$. Clearly $N=R+M$.

You are looking for $\Pr(M=m\mid R=r)$ and how it varies with $m$. Using your Bayes expression and dropping multiplicative terms unrelated to $m$, this is $$\Pr(N=m+r\mid R=r)$$ $$\propto \Pr(N=m+r)\Pr(R=r \mid N=m+r)$$ $$= \frac{e^{-\lambda} \lambda^{m+r}}{(m+r)!} \frac{(m+r)!}{r!\, m!}p^r(1-p)^{m}$$ $$\propto \frac{(\lambda(1-p))^{m}}{ m!}$$ which is proportional to the probability mass function of a Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda(1-p)$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Incidentally, since the final expression does not contain $r$, this implies $M$ and $R$ are independent $\endgroup$ – Henry Aug 31 '17 at 7:47
0
$\begingroup$

$N \sim\operatorname{Poisson}(\lambda)$ and $R\mid N \sim\operatorname{Binomial}(N,p).$ \begin{align} & \Pr( R = r) = \operatorname{E}(\Pr(R = r \mid N)) \\[10pt] = {} & \operatorname{E}\left( \binom N r p^r (1-p)^{N-r} \right) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \binom n r p^r(1-p)^{n-r} \Pr(N=n) \\[10pt] = {} & \sum_{n=r}^\infty \text{starting at }n=r\text{ rather than } n=0 \text{ because } \binom n r = 0 \text{ when } n<r \\[10pt] = {} & \sum_{n=r}^\infty \binom n r p^r(1-p)^{n-r} \frac {\lambda^n e^{-\lambda}} {n!} = \sum_{n=r}^\infty \frac{p^r}{r!} \cdot \frac{(1-p)^{n-r}}{(n-r)!} \cdot \lambda^n e^{-\lambda} \end{align} The factors $\dfrac{p^r}{r!}$ and $e^{-\lambda}$ can be pulled out of the sum because they do not change as $n$ changes.

Then the substitution $m=n-r$ changes $\sum_{n=r}^\infty$ to $\sum_{m=0}^\infty,$ starting at $0$ rather than at $r.$

So you have $$ \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{(1-p)^m}{m!}. $$ And that is $e^{1-p}.$ Then fill in the rest of the algebraic details.

That's one way. Maybe if I'm back later I'll see if there's another convenient way to do it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. I guess I am trying to get it of the form similar to the question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/321573/… - however I am having trouble deciding what the "prior" and the "likelihood" is here, as the answer seems like a posterior. $\endgroup$ – DH. Aug 30 '17 at 20:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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