1

We have a point process where the interarrival time is described by a random variable, $T$. Further, $E(T)=t$ and $T=t+\epsilon$, where $E(\epsilon)=0$ and $\epsilon \in (-t, \infty)$. The $\epsilon$ terms of successive inter-arrival samples are denoted $\epsilon_i$ and they can be correlated with each other.

We take some arbitrary interval of size $u$ and observe the number of events, $N$ that fall into this interval. Note that the interval is started at some random time, $J$ which is completely un-correlated with the point process itself. This makes the interval $(J,J+u)$. Here by definition, we pick $J$ in a way that conditional on the arrivals, $T_i$ for the $i$th event and the fact that $J$ lies between $T_i$ and $T_{i+1}$, $J-T_i$ is uniform over the interval $(T_i, T_{i+1})$. This can be achieved for example, by requiring $J$ be uniform over a very large interval, much larger than $t$.

I conjecture (regardless of the distribution of $T$):

$$E(N) = \frac{u}{t}$$

How do I prove or disprove this in general? Here are some special cases.


Case-1: when $T \sim Exp(\lambda)$, this becomes a Poisson process and it is easy to show this.


Case-2: when $\epsilon = 0$, we get a deterministic process where events happen every $t$ interval. Please pay careful attention to this case since it is crucial in understanding the premise of the question.

Let $X$ be the time from the start of the interval to the very first event. By definition, $X$ is a uniform random variable between $0$ and $t$. In this case we get:

$$N = 1 + \left[\frac{u-X}{t}\right]=1+\left[\frac{u}{t}-\frac{X}{t}\right]=1+\left[\frac{u}{t}-U\right]$$

Where $U$ is a uniform random variable between $0$ and $1$. Taking expectation, we get:

$$E(N) = \frac{u}{t}$$

using the result here: Prove that $E([c-U]) = c-1$.


One approach to prove this for the general case could be to somehow take all the $\epsilon_i$'s and fold them into $u$.


Here is a python simulation that demonstrates this for a particular point process that has inter-arrival time: $10$ with $50\%$ probability and $20$ with $50\%$ probability. This makes the average inter-arrival time, $t=15$. And the number of events within a window of size $1$ unit is $\frac{1}{15}$. You can plug other inter-arrival distributions into the code below and see that the conjecture continues to hold.

import numpy as np
catches = 0
for _ in range(50000):
  j = np.random.uniform()*1000
  #j = np.random.exponential(500)
  t_i = 0
  while t_i < j+100:
      if np.random.uniform() < 0.5:
          t_i += 10
      else:
          t_i += 20
      if j < t_i and t_i < j+1:
          catches += 1
print(catches/50000)

See here: https://gist.github.com/ryu577/662f9cb593d40920e161cfef3eba0244 for a variety of inter-arrival distributions all satisfying this conjecture.


EDIT: In case anyone is looking for inspiration, here is something I was trying: Need help validating a proof that for any point process with MTBF $t$, the events in an interval sized $u$ will be $\frac{u}{t}$. It's an attempt at a proof, but I now know the proof doesn't work. In the end of it, $\eta$ and $U$ are not independent and that's what kills it.

Rohit Pandey
  • 6,803
  • "It is easy to see that $X$ is a uniform random variable" not easy for me... – zhoraster May 05 '21 at 07:27
  • @zhoraster - the interval was started at a random point in time. What would make it more likely for $X$ to be in any one sub-interval of $(0,t)$ over another? – Rohit Pandey May 05 '21 at 08:10
  • "What would make it more likely..." A proper definition? In fact, you didn't define your point process. And in general I would not expect the said property to hold. – zhoraster May 05 '21 at 14:33
  • When I talk about $X$, I'm in the context of the deterministic point process where an event happens every $t$ interval ($t$ is non-stochastic). So, events are happening every $5$ minutes (say) and I start my interval at some random time. This start of the interval will be between two events 5 minutes apart. But, there is no reason whatsoever by definition for it to lie any closer to the event on the right than it is to the event on the left. In fact, it is equally likely to lie anywhere within that 5 minute interval formed by the event to its right and the one to its left. – Rohit Pandey May 05 '21 at 18:42
  • Maybe you are doing something close to the Elementary Renewal Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewal_theory#Elementary_renewal_theorem But in that setting the holding time has to be i.i.d. – BGM May 09 '21 at 05:22
  • @BGM - the key difference between my conjecture and the elementary renewal theorem is that they require $u \to \infty$ while I don't. Instead, I have a strict condition on the start of the interval, $J$. But I claim the result holds for small $u$ as well. And the simulation in the question demonstrates it (the $u$ is pretty small there). Also, I claim this holds even if the times are not i.i.d, but will be delighted to see a proof even under the i.i.d assumption (the simulation is i.i.d). – Rohit Pandey May 09 '21 at 06:39

1 Answers1

2

EDIT: I missed the requirement that the interval was to start at a random point in time (very ill defined concept). The counter example proves that this cannot happen for any arbitrary interval. I have update the prove to reflect that.

  • Original Answer -

I'd offer an attempt at a counter example. I will make many assumptions showing there is a very special case where the formula doesn't hold. Let the inter arrival time $T$ be a discrete random variable that takes the value $0$ with probability $\frac 12$ and $2t$ with probability $\frac 12$.

Let $T_i, i\in\mathbb{N}$ denote the arrival times. And assume that $T_{i+1}-T_i$ are also independent. Then look at the intervall $[0,u]$. Assume further that the first arrival $T_0$ is distributed like $T$ as well and independent of all other waiting/arrival times.

$$\mathbb{E}[N]=\sum_{i\geq 1} \mathbb{P}(T_i\leq u, T_{i+1} > u) \cdot i$$

Let us compute the probability that at least $N$ events happen in $[0,u]$ that is $\mathbb{P}(T_{N-1}\leq u)=\mathbb{P}(T_{N-1}-T_0 + T_0\leq u)=\mathbb{P}\left(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N-1} T_i-T_{i-1} + T_0 - 0 \leq u\right)$.

By the i.i.d. assumptions this is basically $\mathbb{P}(NT\leq u)$. Assume $u<t$. Then for any $N\geq 1$ this implies that all waiting times must be $0$, which happens with probability $2^{-N}$. The probability that exactly $N$ events occur is half that (the next arrival time must have length $2t$). Thus the expectation:

$$\mathbb{E}(N)=\sum\limits_{N\geq 1} \frac 12 2^{-N}N=\sum\limits_{N\geq 1} \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \frac 12 2^{-N}=\sum\limits_{i\geq 1} \sum\limits_{N=i+1}^\infty \frac 12 2^{-N}=\sum_{i\geq 1} \frac 12 2^{-i}=\frac 12\neq \frac ut$$.


Now do not consider a stationary interval, but the interval $[J, J+u[$ with $u$ fixed and $J$ a non-negative real valued random variable. Let $J$ take two discrete values $0,a$ such that $\mathbb{P}(J=0)=\mathbb{P}(J=a)=\frac 12$ and $0<a<\frac t{1000}$. Also assume that $(J,T_1,\ldots)$ are jointly independent.

As before we have seen, that $\mathbb{E}(N|J=0)=\frac 12 \neq \frac ut$. Now consider the case $J=a$. What is the probability that at least $N$ arrivals occur in the interval? We have that the first $k$ arrivals occur at $0$ and the next events occur at time $s>a>0$. Since $s$ must be $2t$ these occure outside the interval alltogether (since $s = 2t > u + a = \frac{1001}{1000} t$). Thus the probability of any event occuring in the interval is $0$ and thus $\mathbb{E}(N|J=a)=0$. Together this yields $\mathbb{E}(N)=\frac 14\neq \frac ut$.

Snake707
  • 1,041
  • 5
  • 7
  • I'm reading through in detail, but one issue with the counter-example right off the bat is that the interval can't start at $0$, when the point process itself starts as well. The interval has to be $(J, J+u)$ where $J$ is a random variable completely un-correlated with the point process itself. Note this means it can't be too close to $0$, when the point process itself starts. Otherwise, its easy to take the deterministic point process from my question and carefully construct the interval in a way that the conjecture is violated. – Rohit Pandey May 05 '21 at 18:40
  • Or, you can consider a deterministic point process which has events always separated by 10 minutes. Then, start an interval at $t=0$ and end it at $t=9$ minutes. The number of events in this interval will always be $0$, so the average is not $\frac{9}{10}$. But, if the interval starts at a random time, it'll get one event inside it $9$ out of $10$ times and $0$ events $1$ out of $10$ times. The expected number of events will then indeed become $\frac{9}{10}$. – Rohit Pandey May 05 '21 at 23:43
  • HI I missed somehow your restriction to the intervall that is supposed to be randomly starting. Starting an intervall at a random time is very ill defined. You do not have a uniform distribution on $(0,\infty)$. So I bet you could assume some probability distribution for $J$ and still finish the counter example. – Snake707 May 06 '21 at 06:53
  • I don't think you'll find a counter-example if $J$ is completely unrelated to the point process. I have good reason to believe the conjecture is actually true. If you have one event every $t$ interval on average, the number of events in an interval of size $u$ should be $\frac{u}{t}$ on average. – Rohit Pandey May 06 '21 at 07:43
  • Hi. Well the stationary interval $[0,u[$ is a random interval. The random variable controlling the start is $J=0$. The joint probability distribution of $(J,T_1,\ldots)$ can easily be written as a product. Thus they are independent. – Snake707 May 06 '21 at 13:20
  • I believe that your statement does not hold to the general degree that you think it does. My counter examples are based on very small intervals and very easy random variables. Most importantly in my cases the expectations are fixed values and do not depend on the parameters you ascribe. However, I think some version of that statement could hold in less general settings. I would start with an process of i.i.d. waiting times, that are continuously distributed. And $J$ having some continuous distribution on $(0,\infty)$. – Snake707 May 06 '21 at 13:35
  • Look, start simple. I'll point you again to the deterministic point process I referenced above in this chat. It's very clear that my conjecture is true for that very simple point process. However, setting $J=0$ breaks it. It's not that $J$ has to be random, it can be deterministic. However, it should have no propensity for being closer or farther from any of the arrivals of the point process. One way to do it is to have you pick a $J$ anyway you like, then I pick the point process independently without knowing how you picked $J$. Repeat this many times and calculate the expected events. – Rohit Pandey May 06 '21 at 15:43
  • I believe I have a counter example to your hypothesis. Both in your original (unedited) version and in your edited version. – Snake707 May 06 '21 at 15:49
  • Sorry, I don't think your second example works either. It's not enough to add some stochasticity to $J$ , which is all you did. There should be no propensity for samples from $J$ to prefer any arrival of the point process. In your second example, they still do at least half the time. Again, I'll refer you back to the deterministic point process. If I start $J$ at $0$ half the time there, I'll get an expected value less than $\frac{9}{10}$. Please use that (the deterministic point process) as a template. The conjecture holds for that case and there is a proof in the question. – Rohit Pandey May 06 '21 at 17:11
  • As a general rule, if you have a counter-example and the counter-example can be used to also contradict the conjecture for the case of the deterministic point process, then the counter-example is probably flawed. – Rohit Pandey May 06 '21 at 17:26