Pivots for exponential distribution
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my mathematical statistics course I got the following problem:
Let $X_{1}, ... , X_{n}$ be an i.i.d. sample from the Exp($lambda$) distribution. Construct two different pivots
and two confidence intervals for $lambda$ (of confidence level $1-alpha$) based on these pivots. Use that if $X sim Exp(lambda) Rightarrow lambda X sim Exp(1)$ in combination with the following two facts (do not prove them):
(1) $X_{(1)}$ $sim$ Exp($nlambda$),
(2) if $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. with Exp($1$) distribution, then $2sumlimits_{i=1}^{n}Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$.
So far this is what I got:
We will first use $2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$. We now use $y=lambda x$, so we get
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n} &Rightarrow 2 lambda sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} = 2 lambda bar{x} n sim chi^{2}_{2n}\
end{split}
end{equation*}
Thus
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2} &leq 2lambda bar{x} n leq chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}\
frac{chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2}}{2 bar{x} n} &leq lambda leq frac{chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}}{2 bar{x} n}
end{split}
end{equation*}
So this is my first pivot. I have no idea whether this is okay, and I also have no clue how to proceed for the second pivot. Any suggestions are welcome!
statistics parameter-estimation
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my mathematical statistics course I got the following problem:
Let $X_{1}, ... , X_{n}$ be an i.i.d. sample from the Exp($lambda$) distribution. Construct two different pivots
and two confidence intervals for $lambda$ (of confidence level $1-alpha$) based on these pivots. Use that if $X sim Exp(lambda) Rightarrow lambda X sim Exp(1)$ in combination with the following two facts (do not prove them):
(1) $X_{(1)}$ $sim$ Exp($nlambda$),
(2) if $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. with Exp($1$) distribution, then $2sumlimits_{i=1}^{n}Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$.
So far this is what I got:
We will first use $2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$. We now use $y=lambda x$, so we get
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n} &Rightarrow 2 lambda sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} = 2 lambda bar{x} n sim chi^{2}_{2n}\
end{split}
end{equation*}
Thus
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2} &leq 2lambda bar{x} n leq chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}\
frac{chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2}}{2 bar{x} n} &leq lambda leq frac{chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}}{2 bar{x} n}
end{split}
end{equation*}
So this is my first pivot. I have no idea whether this is okay, and I also have no clue how to proceed for the second pivot. Any suggestions are welcome!
statistics parameter-estimation
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
1
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my mathematical statistics course I got the following problem:
Let $X_{1}, ... , X_{n}$ be an i.i.d. sample from the Exp($lambda$) distribution. Construct two different pivots
and two confidence intervals for $lambda$ (of confidence level $1-alpha$) based on these pivots. Use that if $X sim Exp(lambda) Rightarrow lambda X sim Exp(1)$ in combination with the following two facts (do not prove them):
(1) $X_{(1)}$ $sim$ Exp($nlambda$),
(2) if $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. with Exp($1$) distribution, then $2sumlimits_{i=1}^{n}Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$.
So far this is what I got:
We will first use $2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$. We now use $y=lambda x$, so we get
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n} &Rightarrow 2 lambda sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} = 2 lambda bar{x} n sim chi^{2}_{2n}\
end{split}
end{equation*}
Thus
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2} &leq 2lambda bar{x} n leq chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}\
frac{chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2}}{2 bar{x} n} &leq lambda leq frac{chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}}{2 bar{x} n}
end{split}
end{equation*}
So this is my first pivot. I have no idea whether this is okay, and I also have no clue how to proceed for the second pivot. Any suggestions are welcome!
statistics parameter-estimation
In my mathematical statistics course I got the following problem:
Let $X_{1}, ... , X_{n}$ be an i.i.d. sample from the Exp($lambda$) distribution. Construct two different pivots
and two confidence intervals for $lambda$ (of confidence level $1-alpha$) based on these pivots. Use that if $X sim Exp(lambda) Rightarrow lambda X sim Exp(1)$ in combination with the following two facts (do not prove them):
(1) $X_{(1)}$ $sim$ Exp($nlambda$),
(2) if $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. with Exp($1$) distribution, then $2sumlimits_{i=1}^{n}Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$.
So far this is what I got:
We will first use $2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n}$. We now use $y=lambda x$, so we get
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
2 sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} Y_{i} sim chi^{2}_{2n} &Rightarrow 2 lambda sumlimits_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} = 2 lambda bar{x} n sim chi^{2}_{2n}\
end{split}
end{equation*}
Thus
begin{equation*}
begin{split}
chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2} &leq 2lambda bar{x} n leq chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}\
frac{chi^{2}_{2n,alpha / 2}}{2 bar{x} n} &leq lambda leq frac{chi^{2}_{2n, 1-alpha /2}}{2 bar{x} n}
end{split}
end{equation*}
So this is my first pivot. I have no idea whether this is okay, and I also have no clue how to proceed for the second pivot. Any suggestions are welcome!
statistics parameter-estimation
statistics parameter-estimation
asked Nov 19 at 17:53
Mathbeginner
1328
1328
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
1
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
1
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
1
1
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your derivation of the confidence interval for rate $lambda$ using the sample mean
and the chi-squared distribution is correct. You can verify the result at Wikipedia under 'Confidence intervals'. This is a commonly used CI for $lambda$ using the sufficient statistic.
The derivation of the CI for $lambda$ using the minimum $X_{(1)} = V$ is similar.
The quantity $nVlambda sim mathsf{Exp}(1).$ For example,
$$P(L_e < nVlambda < U_e) = Pleft(frac{L_e}{nV} < lambda < frac{U_e}{nV}right) = 0.95,$$
where $L_e$ and $U_e$ cut probability 0.25 from the lower and upper tails of
$mathsf{Exp}(1),$ respectively.
Below is a simulation in R with a million iterations, for $n = 20, lambda = 0.2.$
m = 10^6; n = 20; lam = .2; x = rexp(m*n, lam)
MAT = matrix(x, nrow=m) # m x n matrix, each row a sample of size n
s = rowSums(MAT) # one million sample sums
mean(s); sd(s)
[1] 100.0436 # aprx E(S) = 100
[1] 22.36627
L.c = qchisq(.025,2*n); U.c = qchisq(.975,2*n); L.c; U.c
[1] 24.43304
[1] 59.34171
mean(L.c/(2*s) < lam & U.c/(2*s) > lam)
[1] 0.950114 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
v = apply(MAT, 1, min) # one million sample minimums
mean(v); sd(v)
[1] 0.2501739 # aprx E(V) = 1/4
[1] 0.2503302
L.e = qexp(.025); U.e = qexp(.975); L.e; U.e
[1] 0.02531781
[1] 3.688879
mean(L.e/(n*v) < lam & U.e/(n*v) > lam)
[1] 0.950174 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
The histogram in the left panel below shows the simulated chi-squared distribution of $2nbar Xlambda = 2lambdasum_iX_i$ and the right panel
shows the simulated exponential distribution of $nVlambda = nlambda X_{(1)}.$
Exact density functions are shown as black curves.

R code to make the figure follows:
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(2*s*lam, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Sum")
curve(dchisq(x,2*n), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.c, U.c), col="red")
hist(n*lam*v, prob=T, ylim=0:1, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Minimum")
curve(dexp(x), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.e, U.e), col="red")
par(mfrow=c(1,1))
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s))returned 0.1837638 andmean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v))returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005259%2fpivots-for-exponential-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your derivation of the confidence interval for rate $lambda$ using the sample mean
and the chi-squared distribution is correct. You can verify the result at Wikipedia under 'Confidence intervals'. This is a commonly used CI for $lambda$ using the sufficient statistic.
The derivation of the CI for $lambda$ using the minimum $X_{(1)} = V$ is similar.
The quantity $nVlambda sim mathsf{Exp}(1).$ For example,
$$P(L_e < nVlambda < U_e) = Pleft(frac{L_e}{nV} < lambda < frac{U_e}{nV}right) = 0.95,$$
where $L_e$ and $U_e$ cut probability 0.25 from the lower and upper tails of
$mathsf{Exp}(1),$ respectively.
Below is a simulation in R with a million iterations, for $n = 20, lambda = 0.2.$
m = 10^6; n = 20; lam = .2; x = rexp(m*n, lam)
MAT = matrix(x, nrow=m) # m x n matrix, each row a sample of size n
s = rowSums(MAT) # one million sample sums
mean(s); sd(s)
[1] 100.0436 # aprx E(S) = 100
[1] 22.36627
L.c = qchisq(.025,2*n); U.c = qchisq(.975,2*n); L.c; U.c
[1] 24.43304
[1] 59.34171
mean(L.c/(2*s) < lam & U.c/(2*s) > lam)
[1] 0.950114 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
v = apply(MAT, 1, min) # one million sample minimums
mean(v); sd(v)
[1] 0.2501739 # aprx E(V) = 1/4
[1] 0.2503302
L.e = qexp(.025); U.e = qexp(.975); L.e; U.e
[1] 0.02531781
[1] 3.688879
mean(L.e/(n*v) < lam & U.e/(n*v) > lam)
[1] 0.950174 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
The histogram in the left panel below shows the simulated chi-squared distribution of $2nbar Xlambda = 2lambdasum_iX_i$ and the right panel
shows the simulated exponential distribution of $nVlambda = nlambda X_{(1)}.$
Exact density functions are shown as black curves.

R code to make the figure follows:
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(2*s*lam, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Sum")
curve(dchisq(x,2*n), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.c, U.c), col="red")
hist(n*lam*v, prob=T, ylim=0:1, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Minimum")
curve(dexp(x), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.e, U.e), col="red")
par(mfrow=c(1,1))
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s))returned 0.1837638 andmean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v))returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your derivation of the confidence interval for rate $lambda$ using the sample mean
and the chi-squared distribution is correct. You can verify the result at Wikipedia under 'Confidence intervals'. This is a commonly used CI for $lambda$ using the sufficient statistic.
The derivation of the CI for $lambda$ using the minimum $X_{(1)} = V$ is similar.
The quantity $nVlambda sim mathsf{Exp}(1).$ For example,
$$P(L_e < nVlambda < U_e) = Pleft(frac{L_e}{nV} < lambda < frac{U_e}{nV}right) = 0.95,$$
where $L_e$ and $U_e$ cut probability 0.25 from the lower and upper tails of
$mathsf{Exp}(1),$ respectively.
Below is a simulation in R with a million iterations, for $n = 20, lambda = 0.2.$
m = 10^6; n = 20; lam = .2; x = rexp(m*n, lam)
MAT = matrix(x, nrow=m) # m x n matrix, each row a sample of size n
s = rowSums(MAT) # one million sample sums
mean(s); sd(s)
[1] 100.0436 # aprx E(S) = 100
[1] 22.36627
L.c = qchisq(.025,2*n); U.c = qchisq(.975,2*n); L.c; U.c
[1] 24.43304
[1] 59.34171
mean(L.c/(2*s) < lam & U.c/(2*s) > lam)
[1] 0.950114 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
v = apply(MAT, 1, min) # one million sample minimums
mean(v); sd(v)
[1] 0.2501739 # aprx E(V) = 1/4
[1] 0.2503302
L.e = qexp(.025); U.e = qexp(.975); L.e; U.e
[1] 0.02531781
[1] 3.688879
mean(L.e/(n*v) < lam & U.e/(n*v) > lam)
[1] 0.950174 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
The histogram in the left panel below shows the simulated chi-squared distribution of $2nbar Xlambda = 2lambdasum_iX_i$ and the right panel
shows the simulated exponential distribution of $nVlambda = nlambda X_{(1)}.$
Exact density functions are shown as black curves.

R code to make the figure follows:
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(2*s*lam, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Sum")
curve(dchisq(x,2*n), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.c, U.c), col="red")
hist(n*lam*v, prob=T, ylim=0:1, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Minimum")
curve(dexp(x), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.e, U.e), col="red")
par(mfrow=c(1,1))
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s))returned 0.1837638 andmean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v))returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your derivation of the confidence interval for rate $lambda$ using the sample mean
and the chi-squared distribution is correct. You can verify the result at Wikipedia under 'Confidence intervals'. This is a commonly used CI for $lambda$ using the sufficient statistic.
The derivation of the CI for $lambda$ using the minimum $X_{(1)} = V$ is similar.
The quantity $nVlambda sim mathsf{Exp}(1).$ For example,
$$P(L_e < nVlambda < U_e) = Pleft(frac{L_e}{nV} < lambda < frac{U_e}{nV}right) = 0.95,$$
where $L_e$ and $U_e$ cut probability 0.25 from the lower and upper tails of
$mathsf{Exp}(1),$ respectively.
Below is a simulation in R with a million iterations, for $n = 20, lambda = 0.2.$
m = 10^6; n = 20; lam = .2; x = rexp(m*n, lam)
MAT = matrix(x, nrow=m) # m x n matrix, each row a sample of size n
s = rowSums(MAT) # one million sample sums
mean(s); sd(s)
[1] 100.0436 # aprx E(S) = 100
[1] 22.36627
L.c = qchisq(.025,2*n); U.c = qchisq(.975,2*n); L.c; U.c
[1] 24.43304
[1] 59.34171
mean(L.c/(2*s) < lam & U.c/(2*s) > lam)
[1] 0.950114 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
v = apply(MAT, 1, min) # one million sample minimums
mean(v); sd(v)
[1] 0.2501739 # aprx E(V) = 1/4
[1] 0.2503302
L.e = qexp(.025); U.e = qexp(.975); L.e; U.e
[1] 0.02531781
[1] 3.688879
mean(L.e/(n*v) < lam & U.e/(n*v) > lam)
[1] 0.950174 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
The histogram in the left panel below shows the simulated chi-squared distribution of $2nbar Xlambda = 2lambdasum_iX_i$ and the right panel
shows the simulated exponential distribution of $nVlambda = nlambda X_{(1)}.$
Exact density functions are shown as black curves.

R code to make the figure follows:
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(2*s*lam, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Sum")
curve(dchisq(x,2*n), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.c, U.c), col="red")
hist(n*lam*v, prob=T, ylim=0:1, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Minimum")
curve(dexp(x), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.e, U.e), col="red")
par(mfrow=c(1,1))
Your derivation of the confidence interval for rate $lambda$ using the sample mean
and the chi-squared distribution is correct. You can verify the result at Wikipedia under 'Confidence intervals'. This is a commonly used CI for $lambda$ using the sufficient statistic.
The derivation of the CI for $lambda$ using the minimum $X_{(1)} = V$ is similar.
The quantity $nVlambda sim mathsf{Exp}(1).$ For example,
$$P(L_e < nVlambda < U_e) = Pleft(frac{L_e}{nV} < lambda < frac{U_e}{nV}right) = 0.95,$$
where $L_e$ and $U_e$ cut probability 0.25 from the lower and upper tails of
$mathsf{Exp}(1),$ respectively.
Below is a simulation in R with a million iterations, for $n = 20, lambda = 0.2.$
m = 10^6; n = 20; lam = .2; x = rexp(m*n, lam)
MAT = matrix(x, nrow=m) # m x n matrix, each row a sample of size n
s = rowSums(MAT) # one million sample sums
mean(s); sd(s)
[1] 100.0436 # aprx E(S) = 100
[1] 22.36627
L.c = qchisq(.025,2*n); U.c = qchisq(.975,2*n); L.c; U.c
[1] 24.43304
[1] 59.34171
mean(L.c/(2*s) < lam & U.c/(2*s) > lam)
[1] 0.950114 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
v = apply(MAT, 1, min) # one million sample minimums
mean(v); sd(v)
[1] 0.2501739 # aprx E(V) = 1/4
[1] 0.2503302
L.e = qexp(.025); U.e = qexp(.975); L.e; U.e
[1] 0.02531781
[1] 3.688879
mean(L.e/(n*v) < lam & U.e/(n*v) > lam)
[1] 0.950174 # CI covers rate with probability 95%
The histogram in the left panel below shows the simulated chi-squared distribution of $2nbar Xlambda = 2lambdasum_iX_i$ and the right panel
shows the simulated exponential distribution of $nVlambda = nlambda X_{(1)}.$
Exact density functions are shown as black curves.

R code to make the figure follows:
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(2*s*lam, prob=T, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Sum")
curve(dchisq(x,2*n), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.c, U.c), col="red")
hist(n*lam*v, prob=T, ylim=0:1, col="skyblue2", main="Pivot Using Minimum")
curve(dexp(x), add=T, lwd=2); abline(v=c(L.e, U.e), col="red")
par(mfrow=c(1,1))
edited Nov 20 at 1:47
answered Nov 20 at 1:42
BruceET
35k71440
35k71440
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s))returned 0.1837638 andmean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v))returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
add a comment |
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s))returned 0.1837638 andmean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v))returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Very nice, thanks a lot. Really appreciate the amount of work, the graphs make it a lot more intuitive!
– Mathbeginner
Nov 21 at 9:08
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
Can you figure out how to find the average length of each kind of CI? Of course, shorter is better.
– BruceET
Nov 21 at 17:28
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,
mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s)) returned 0.1837638 and mean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v)) returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
On a different run of the R code from the one shown in my Answer,
mean(U.c/(2*s) - L.c/(2*s)) returned 0.1837638 and mean(U.e/(n*v) - L.e/(n*v)) returned 20.28393. The CI based on the sufficient statistic is much shorter.– BruceET
Nov 21 at 20:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005259%2fpivots-for-exponential-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Using your notation, the second pivot could be $nlambda X_{(1)}sim text{Exp}(1)$ or equivalently, $2nlambda X_{(1)}simchi^2_2$.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 20:06
Thanks, the first one makes sense to me. The second one, not so much, but that must be because this is all still a bit of a vague area for me.
– Mathbeginner
Nov 19 at 20:37
1
A Chi-square variable with 2 degrees of freedom is just an Exponential variable with mean 2.
– StubbornAtom
Nov 19 at 21:04