Inferring observation time from a Brownian motion












1












$begingroup$


This might be a bit lengthy question. So let me proceed in steps.



General description: I have some observations, based on which I want to infer their occurring time.



Specific setting: Let $W(t)$ be a Brownian motion.
I have an observation $X$ defined as
$$X = BW(delta) + (1-B)W(2delta),$$
where $B$ is a Bernoulli draw with success rate $frac{1}{2}$ and is independent of $W(t)$; and $delta>0$ is some constant observation latency.



In words, the above is meant to capture the setting that I do not know when the observation $X$ occurred:
It might have occurred at time $t=delta$ or at time $t=2delta$, equally likely.



So given the observation $X$, I can infer something about the time of its occurrence: By Bayesian rule,
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)}{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)+mathbb{P}(B=0)mathbb{P}(X|B=0)}
= frac{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)}{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)+frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X)}.
$$

Given that $W(t)$ is a Brownian motion, $W(delta)$ and $W(2delta)$ are normally distributed with respective densities
$$mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{2pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(2delta)}$$
and
$$mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{4pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(4delta)}.$$
So the above translates to a function of the density ratio
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{1}{1+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}},
$$

which is decreasing in the magnitude of $|X|$.
That is, the more extreme $X$ realizes to be, the less likely it comes from the early $W(delta)$.
This makes sense as $W(delta)$ is less volatile than $W(2delta)$.



Next I want to consider what happens when $deltadownarrow0$, i.e., when the gap between the timing of the observation asymptotically vanishes.
Intuitively, when $deltadownarrow0$, $W(delta)=W(2delta)=W(0)$ and $X=W(0)$, leaving no room for inference for $B$.



Analytically, however, from the above expression, in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)=0$, suggesting that I should always infer that $B=0$.



So what is the correct result? Can I infer anything about $B$ in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:48












  • $begingroup$
    I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:57










  • $begingroup$
    Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:38
















1












$begingroup$


This might be a bit lengthy question. So let me proceed in steps.



General description: I have some observations, based on which I want to infer their occurring time.



Specific setting: Let $W(t)$ be a Brownian motion.
I have an observation $X$ defined as
$$X = BW(delta) + (1-B)W(2delta),$$
where $B$ is a Bernoulli draw with success rate $frac{1}{2}$ and is independent of $W(t)$; and $delta>0$ is some constant observation latency.



In words, the above is meant to capture the setting that I do not know when the observation $X$ occurred:
It might have occurred at time $t=delta$ or at time $t=2delta$, equally likely.



So given the observation $X$, I can infer something about the time of its occurrence: By Bayesian rule,
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)}{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)+mathbb{P}(B=0)mathbb{P}(X|B=0)}
= frac{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)}{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)+frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X)}.
$$

Given that $W(t)$ is a Brownian motion, $W(delta)$ and $W(2delta)$ are normally distributed with respective densities
$$mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{2pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(2delta)}$$
and
$$mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{4pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(4delta)}.$$
So the above translates to a function of the density ratio
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{1}{1+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}},
$$

which is decreasing in the magnitude of $|X|$.
That is, the more extreme $X$ realizes to be, the less likely it comes from the early $W(delta)$.
This makes sense as $W(delta)$ is less volatile than $W(2delta)$.



Next I want to consider what happens when $deltadownarrow0$, i.e., when the gap between the timing of the observation asymptotically vanishes.
Intuitively, when $deltadownarrow0$, $W(delta)=W(2delta)=W(0)$ and $X=W(0)$, leaving no room for inference for $B$.



Analytically, however, from the above expression, in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)=0$, suggesting that I should always infer that $B=0$.



So what is the correct result? Can I infer anything about $B$ in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:48












  • $begingroup$
    I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:57










  • $begingroup$
    Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:38














1












1








1





$begingroup$


This might be a bit lengthy question. So let me proceed in steps.



General description: I have some observations, based on which I want to infer their occurring time.



Specific setting: Let $W(t)$ be a Brownian motion.
I have an observation $X$ defined as
$$X = BW(delta) + (1-B)W(2delta),$$
where $B$ is a Bernoulli draw with success rate $frac{1}{2}$ and is independent of $W(t)$; and $delta>0$ is some constant observation latency.



In words, the above is meant to capture the setting that I do not know when the observation $X$ occurred:
It might have occurred at time $t=delta$ or at time $t=2delta$, equally likely.



So given the observation $X$, I can infer something about the time of its occurrence: By Bayesian rule,
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)}{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)+mathbb{P}(B=0)mathbb{P}(X|B=0)}
= frac{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)}{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)+frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X)}.
$$

Given that $W(t)$ is a Brownian motion, $W(delta)$ and $W(2delta)$ are normally distributed with respective densities
$$mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{2pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(2delta)}$$
and
$$mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{4pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(4delta)}.$$
So the above translates to a function of the density ratio
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{1}{1+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}},
$$

which is decreasing in the magnitude of $|X|$.
That is, the more extreme $X$ realizes to be, the less likely it comes from the early $W(delta)$.
This makes sense as $W(delta)$ is less volatile than $W(2delta)$.



Next I want to consider what happens when $deltadownarrow0$, i.e., when the gap between the timing of the observation asymptotically vanishes.
Intuitively, when $deltadownarrow0$, $W(delta)=W(2delta)=W(0)$ and $X=W(0)$, leaving no room for inference for $B$.



Analytically, however, from the above expression, in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)=0$, suggesting that I should always infer that $B=0$.



So what is the correct result? Can I infer anything about $B$ in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




This might be a bit lengthy question. So let me proceed in steps.



General description: I have some observations, based on which I want to infer their occurring time.



Specific setting: Let $W(t)$ be a Brownian motion.
I have an observation $X$ defined as
$$X = BW(delta) + (1-B)W(2delta),$$
where $B$ is a Bernoulli draw with success rate $frac{1}{2}$ and is independent of $W(t)$; and $delta>0$ is some constant observation latency.



In words, the above is meant to capture the setting that I do not know when the observation $X$ occurred:
It might have occurred at time $t=delta$ or at time $t=2delta$, equally likely.



So given the observation $X$, I can infer something about the time of its occurrence: By Bayesian rule,
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)}{mathbb{P}(B=1)mathbb{P}(X|B=1)+mathbb{P}(B=0)mathbb{P}(X|B=0)}
= frac{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)}{frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X)+frac{1}{2}mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X)}.
$$

Given that $W(t)$ is a Brownian motion, $W(delta)$ and $W(2delta)$ are normally distributed with respective densities
$$mathbb{P}(W(delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{2pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(2delta)}$$
and
$$mathbb{P}(W(2delta)=X) = frac{1}{sqrt{4pidelta}}e^{-X^2/(4delta)}.$$
So the above translates to a function of the density ratio
$$mathbb{P}(B=1|X) = frac{1}{1+frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}},
$$

which is decreasing in the magnitude of $|X|$.
That is, the more extreme $X$ realizes to be, the less likely it comes from the early $W(delta)$.
This makes sense as $W(delta)$ is less volatile than $W(2delta)$.



Next I want to consider what happens when $deltadownarrow0$, i.e., when the gap between the timing of the observation asymptotically vanishes.
Intuitively, when $deltadownarrow0$, $W(delta)=W(2delta)=W(0)$ and $X=W(0)$, leaving no room for inference for $B$.



Analytically, however, from the above expression, in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)=0$, suggesting that I should always infer that $B=0$.



So what is the correct result? Can I infer anything about $B$ in the limit of $deltadownarrow0$?







brownian-motion statistical-inference bayesian






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 28 '18 at 6:26









J. DoeJ. Doe

61




61












  • $begingroup$
    But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:48












  • $begingroup$
    I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:57










  • $begingroup$
    Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:38


















  • $begingroup$
    But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:48












  • $begingroup$
    I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 28 '18 at 11:57










  • $begingroup$
    Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:38
















$begingroup$
But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 28 '18 at 11:48






$begingroup$
But the expected size of $X^2$ will also shrink as $delta rightarrow 0$. For $X sim W(delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = delta$ and for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = Var(X) = 4delta$. So $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ will still depend on whether $X^2$ is large compared to $delta$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 28 '18 at 11:48














$begingroup$
I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 28 '18 at 11:57




$begingroup$
I made a mistake above: for $X sim W(2delta), mathbb{E}(X^2) = 2delta$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 28 '18 at 11:57












$begingroup$
Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 29 '18 at 13:32






$begingroup$
Right, $mathbb{E}[X^2]=delta$ or $2delta$. That is, on average, the size of $X$ is shrinking too. But for any realization of $X$, the above derivation is correct, I guess?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 29 '18 at 13:32














$begingroup$
Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 29 '18 at 17:38




$begingroup$
Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I've tried to give a full answer below.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 29 '18 at 17:38










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

The probability $$mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) = frac{1}{1 + frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}}$$ only depends on $X$ and $delta$ through the term $X^2/(4delta)$. Now let's think about the cases when $B = 1$ or $B = 0$.



When $B = 1$ then $X sim N(0, delta)$, so $X/sqrt{delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/delta sim chi^2_1$, a chi-squared distribution. And $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/4$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $4$.



When $B = 0$ then $X sim N(0, 2delta)$, so $X/sqrt{2delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/(2delta) sim chi^2_1$, and $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/2$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $2$.



In either case, the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$. So as $delta rightarrow 0$, $mathbb{P}(B = 1mid X)$ does not tend to any particular limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:50










  • $begingroup$
    I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:24












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 31 '18 at 0:19












  • $begingroup$
    Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30












  • $begingroup$
    Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 9:57













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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054629%2finferring-observation-time-from-a-brownian-motion%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









0












$begingroup$

The probability $$mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) = frac{1}{1 + frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}}$$ only depends on $X$ and $delta$ through the term $X^2/(4delta)$. Now let's think about the cases when $B = 1$ or $B = 0$.



When $B = 1$ then $X sim N(0, delta)$, so $X/sqrt{delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/delta sim chi^2_1$, a chi-squared distribution. And $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/4$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $4$.



When $B = 0$ then $X sim N(0, 2delta)$, so $X/sqrt{2delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/(2delta) sim chi^2_1$, and $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/2$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $2$.



In either case, the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$. So as $delta rightarrow 0$, $mathbb{P}(B = 1mid X)$ does not tend to any particular limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:50










  • $begingroup$
    I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:24












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 31 '18 at 0:19












  • $begingroup$
    Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30












  • $begingroup$
    Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 9:57


















0












$begingroup$

The probability $$mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) = frac{1}{1 + frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}}$$ only depends on $X$ and $delta$ through the term $X^2/(4delta)$. Now let's think about the cases when $B = 1$ or $B = 0$.



When $B = 1$ then $X sim N(0, delta)$, so $X/sqrt{delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/delta sim chi^2_1$, a chi-squared distribution. And $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/4$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $4$.



When $B = 0$ then $X sim N(0, 2delta)$, so $X/sqrt{2delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/(2delta) sim chi^2_1$, and $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/2$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $2$.



In either case, the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$. So as $delta rightarrow 0$, $mathbb{P}(B = 1mid X)$ does not tend to any particular limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:50










  • $begingroup$
    I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:24












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 31 '18 at 0:19












  • $begingroup$
    Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30












  • $begingroup$
    Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 9:57
















0












0








0





$begingroup$

The probability $$mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) = frac{1}{1 + frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}}$$ only depends on $X$ and $delta$ through the term $X^2/(4delta)$. Now let's think about the cases when $B = 1$ or $B = 0$.



When $B = 1$ then $X sim N(0, delta)$, so $X/sqrt{delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/delta sim chi^2_1$, a chi-squared distribution. And $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/4$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $4$.



When $B = 0$ then $X sim N(0, 2delta)$, so $X/sqrt{2delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/(2delta) sim chi^2_1$, and $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/2$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $2$.



In either case, the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$. So as $delta rightarrow 0$, $mathbb{P}(B = 1mid X)$ does not tend to any particular limit.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The probability $$mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) = frac{1}{1 + frac{1}{sqrt{2}}e^{X^2/(4delta)}}$$ only depends on $X$ and $delta$ through the term $X^2/(4delta)$. Now let's think about the cases when $B = 1$ or $B = 0$.



When $B = 1$ then $X sim N(0, delta)$, so $X/sqrt{delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/delta sim chi^2_1$, a chi-squared distribution. And $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/4$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $4$.



When $B = 0$ then $X sim N(0, 2delta)$, so $X/sqrt{2delta} sim N(0, 1)$. Therefore $X^2/(2delta) sim chi^2_1$, and $X^2/(4delta) sim chi^2_1/2$, the distribution of a $chi^2_1$ random variable divided by $2$.



In either case, the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$. So as $delta rightarrow 0$, $mathbb{P}(B = 1mid X)$ does not tend to any particular limit.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 29 '18 at 17:38









AlexAlex

674412




674412












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:50










  • $begingroup$
    I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:24












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 31 '18 at 0:19












  • $begingroup$
    Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30












  • $begingroup$
    Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 9:57




















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:50










  • $begingroup$
    I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:24












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
    $endgroup$
    – J. Doe
    Dec 31 '18 at 0:19












  • $begingroup$
    Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 8:30












  • $begingroup$
    Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    Dec 31 '18 at 9:57


















$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 30 '18 at 10:50




$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, Alex. This is very clear for the conclusion that "the distribution of $X^2/(4delta)$ does not depend on $delta$". But I guess in evaluating $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, it is the realization of $X$ that matters (as opposed to its distribution)?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 30 '18 at 10:50












$begingroup$
I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 30 '18 at 13:24






$begingroup$
I agree, what I'm saying is that $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ is not dependent on $delta$. For any value of $delta$ the probability that $B = 1$ given $X$ just depends on whether the realization of $X^2/(4delta)$ is larger or smaller than we would expect if $B = 1$. As $delta downarrow 0$, nothing of interest happens to the probability we will assign to the event $B = 1$.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 30 '18 at 13:24














$begingroup$
Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 31 '18 at 0:19






$begingroup$
Thanks again, Alex. Very much appreciated. So I think I see the issue much clearer now but I am still not so sure of the conclusion you hinted above. Indeed, fixing any value of $delta$, $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$ just depends on the realization of $X^2/delta$. So as I take the limit of $deltadownarrow0$, the realization of $X^2/delta$ explodes to infinity (for any $|X|neq0$) and this affects $mathbb{P}(B=1|X)$, no?
$endgroup$
– J. Doe
Dec 31 '18 at 0:19














$begingroup$
Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 31 '18 at 8:30






$begingroup$
Sure, if you fix $X neq 0$ then $X^2/delta rightarrow infty$ and $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X) rightarrow 0$ as $delta downarrow 0$. I assumed you were talking about calculating $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X)$ when $X=BW(delta)+(1−B)W(2delta)$. So if you were thinking about this probability as $delta downarrow 0$, you would need a sequence of $delta$s $delta_0, delta_1, dots$ that converges down to $0$, and for each $delta_i$ you need a new random variable $X_i =BW(delta_i)+(1−B)W(2delta_i)$. Then the sequence of $mathbb{P}(B = 1 mid X_i)$ realizations will not tend to a limit.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 31 '18 at 8:30














$begingroup$
Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 31 '18 at 9:57






$begingroup$
Compare with the Weak Law of Large Numbers, where a probability depends on a constant $n$ and converges to $1$ as $n rightarrow infty$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#Weak_law
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 31 '18 at 9:57




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054629%2finferring-observation-time-from-a-brownian-motion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna