Compute integral for expected value in R.












0














From a previous assignment, I found that the extinction probability of of a branching process is given by solving the equation



$$G(s)=s,$$



where $G(s)=e^{lambda(s-1)}$ is the PGF and noting the smallest root in terms of $s$. The solution to the equation



$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$



will be a function of $lambda$, namley $s(lambda)$ which can be computed numerically for a fixed $lambda.$



Now I'm asked to numerically find the expected value of this probability given that $lambdasimGamma(15,9)$. Let's for convention now use the function $s(Lambda)$, where $LambdasimGamma(15,9)$, I know that the expected value of a function of a random variable $X$ is given by



$$mathbb{E}[g(X)]=int_{infty}^{infty}g(x)cdotpi(x)dx,$$



where $pi(x)$ is the pdf of $X$. So in my case I get



$$mathbb{E}[s(Lambda)]=int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)pi(lambda)dlambda=int_0^{infty}s(lambda)frac{9^{15}}{Gamma(15)}lambda^{15-1}e^{-9lambda}dlambda.$$



Since $9^{15}/Gamma(15)approx 2361.7$ we have that the integral to be numerically computed in R is



$$2361.7int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)lambda^{14}e^{-9lambda}.$$



I figured, since we don't have a closed form expression for $s(lambda)$, that I need nestled functions, first express the solution of $G(s)-s=0$ in one function depending on $s$, keeping $lambda$ constant and then wrap this with another function only depending on $lambda,$ like this:



fun = function(lambda){
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}

roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2] # since this root is the smallest one.
integrand = probExtinction*exp((-9)*lambda)*lambda^(14)

return(integrand)
}

ExpectedProb = 2361.7*integrate(fun,0,Inf)$value


But here is where trouble starts. I get the error below. I understand what the error means, it's that if the function values at the endpoints are not oposite, then the function never crosses the x-axis, thus no roots will be found. However, plotting the function $f(x)=e^{a(x-1)}-x$ I see that the function dramatically changes behavior when $a$ passes $1$. I don't see how to fix my code in order to deal with this issue.



Error in uniroot(f, lower = xseq[i], upper = xseq[i + 1], ...) : 
f() values at end points not of opposite sign
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In lambda * (s - 1) :
longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length
2: In if (is.na(f.lower)) stop("f.lower = f(lower) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used
3: In if (is.na(f.upper)) stop("f.upper = f(upper) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used


Whats weird is that when I only run this code I don't get the uniroot-error:



lambda = 2 
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}
roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2])


Anyone knows how I can fix this?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
    – Yuriy S
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27










  • @YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:29
















0














From a previous assignment, I found that the extinction probability of of a branching process is given by solving the equation



$$G(s)=s,$$



where $G(s)=e^{lambda(s-1)}$ is the PGF and noting the smallest root in terms of $s$. The solution to the equation



$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$



will be a function of $lambda$, namley $s(lambda)$ which can be computed numerically for a fixed $lambda.$



Now I'm asked to numerically find the expected value of this probability given that $lambdasimGamma(15,9)$. Let's for convention now use the function $s(Lambda)$, where $LambdasimGamma(15,9)$, I know that the expected value of a function of a random variable $X$ is given by



$$mathbb{E}[g(X)]=int_{infty}^{infty}g(x)cdotpi(x)dx,$$



where $pi(x)$ is the pdf of $X$. So in my case I get



$$mathbb{E}[s(Lambda)]=int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)pi(lambda)dlambda=int_0^{infty}s(lambda)frac{9^{15}}{Gamma(15)}lambda^{15-1}e^{-9lambda}dlambda.$$



Since $9^{15}/Gamma(15)approx 2361.7$ we have that the integral to be numerically computed in R is



$$2361.7int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)lambda^{14}e^{-9lambda}.$$



I figured, since we don't have a closed form expression for $s(lambda)$, that I need nestled functions, first express the solution of $G(s)-s=0$ in one function depending on $s$, keeping $lambda$ constant and then wrap this with another function only depending on $lambda,$ like this:



fun = function(lambda){
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}

roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2] # since this root is the smallest one.
integrand = probExtinction*exp((-9)*lambda)*lambda^(14)

return(integrand)
}

ExpectedProb = 2361.7*integrate(fun,0,Inf)$value


But here is where trouble starts. I get the error below. I understand what the error means, it's that if the function values at the endpoints are not oposite, then the function never crosses the x-axis, thus no roots will be found. However, plotting the function $f(x)=e^{a(x-1)}-x$ I see that the function dramatically changes behavior when $a$ passes $1$. I don't see how to fix my code in order to deal with this issue.



Error in uniroot(f, lower = xseq[i], upper = xseq[i + 1], ...) : 
f() values at end points not of opposite sign
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In lambda * (s - 1) :
longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length
2: In if (is.na(f.lower)) stop("f.lower = f(lower) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used
3: In if (is.na(f.upper)) stop("f.upper = f(upper) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used


Whats weird is that when I only run this code I don't get the uniroot-error:



lambda = 2 
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}
roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2])


Anyone knows how I can fix this?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
    – Yuriy S
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27










  • @YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:29














0












0








0







From a previous assignment, I found that the extinction probability of of a branching process is given by solving the equation



$$G(s)=s,$$



where $G(s)=e^{lambda(s-1)}$ is the PGF and noting the smallest root in terms of $s$. The solution to the equation



$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$



will be a function of $lambda$, namley $s(lambda)$ which can be computed numerically for a fixed $lambda.$



Now I'm asked to numerically find the expected value of this probability given that $lambdasimGamma(15,9)$. Let's for convention now use the function $s(Lambda)$, where $LambdasimGamma(15,9)$, I know that the expected value of a function of a random variable $X$ is given by



$$mathbb{E}[g(X)]=int_{infty}^{infty}g(x)cdotpi(x)dx,$$



where $pi(x)$ is the pdf of $X$. So in my case I get



$$mathbb{E}[s(Lambda)]=int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)pi(lambda)dlambda=int_0^{infty}s(lambda)frac{9^{15}}{Gamma(15)}lambda^{15-1}e^{-9lambda}dlambda.$$



Since $9^{15}/Gamma(15)approx 2361.7$ we have that the integral to be numerically computed in R is



$$2361.7int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)lambda^{14}e^{-9lambda}.$$



I figured, since we don't have a closed form expression for $s(lambda)$, that I need nestled functions, first express the solution of $G(s)-s=0$ in one function depending on $s$, keeping $lambda$ constant and then wrap this with another function only depending on $lambda,$ like this:



fun = function(lambda){
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}

roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2] # since this root is the smallest one.
integrand = probExtinction*exp((-9)*lambda)*lambda^(14)

return(integrand)
}

ExpectedProb = 2361.7*integrate(fun,0,Inf)$value


But here is where trouble starts. I get the error below. I understand what the error means, it's that if the function values at the endpoints are not oposite, then the function never crosses the x-axis, thus no roots will be found. However, plotting the function $f(x)=e^{a(x-1)}-x$ I see that the function dramatically changes behavior when $a$ passes $1$. I don't see how to fix my code in order to deal with this issue.



Error in uniroot(f, lower = xseq[i], upper = xseq[i + 1], ...) : 
f() values at end points not of opposite sign
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In lambda * (s - 1) :
longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length
2: In if (is.na(f.lower)) stop("f.lower = f(lower) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used
3: In if (is.na(f.upper)) stop("f.upper = f(upper) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used


Whats weird is that when I only run this code I don't get the uniroot-error:



lambda = 2 
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}
roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2])


Anyone knows how I can fix this?










share|cite|improve this question















From a previous assignment, I found that the extinction probability of of a branching process is given by solving the equation



$$G(s)=s,$$



where $G(s)=e^{lambda(s-1)}$ is the PGF and noting the smallest root in terms of $s$. The solution to the equation



$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$



will be a function of $lambda$, namley $s(lambda)$ which can be computed numerically for a fixed $lambda.$



Now I'm asked to numerically find the expected value of this probability given that $lambdasimGamma(15,9)$. Let's for convention now use the function $s(Lambda)$, where $LambdasimGamma(15,9)$, I know that the expected value of a function of a random variable $X$ is given by



$$mathbb{E}[g(X)]=int_{infty}^{infty}g(x)cdotpi(x)dx,$$



where $pi(x)$ is the pdf of $X$. So in my case I get



$$mathbb{E}[s(Lambda)]=int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)pi(lambda)dlambda=int_0^{infty}s(lambda)frac{9^{15}}{Gamma(15)}lambda^{15-1}e^{-9lambda}dlambda.$$



Since $9^{15}/Gamma(15)approx 2361.7$ we have that the integral to be numerically computed in R is



$$2361.7int_{0}^{infty}s(lambda)lambda^{14}e^{-9lambda}.$$



I figured, since we don't have a closed form expression for $s(lambda)$, that I need nestled functions, first express the solution of $G(s)-s=0$ in one function depending on $s$, keeping $lambda$ constant and then wrap this with another function only depending on $lambda,$ like this:



fun = function(lambda){
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}

roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2] # since this root is the smallest one.
integrand = probExtinction*exp((-9)*lambda)*lambda^(14)

return(integrand)
}

ExpectedProb = 2361.7*integrate(fun,0,Inf)$value


But here is where trouble starts. I get the error below. I understand what the error means, it's that if the function values at the endpoints are not oposite, then the function never crosses the x-axis, thus no roots will be found. However, plotting the function $f(x)=e^{a(x-1)}-x$ I see that the function dramatically changes behavior when $a$ passes $1$. I don't see how to fix my code in order to deal with this issue.



Error in uniroot(f, lower = xseq[i], upper = xseq[i + 1], ...) : 
f() values at end points not of opposite sign
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In lambda * (s - 1) :
longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length
2: In if (is.na(f.lower)) stop("f.lower = f(lower) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used
3: In if (is.na(f.upper)) stop("f.upper = f(upper) is NA") :
the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used


Whats weird is that when I only run this code I don't get the uniroot-error:



lambda = 2 
sLambda = function(s){exp(lambda*(s-1))-s}
roots = uniroot.all(sLambda,c(0,1))
probExtinction = roots[2])


Anyone knows how I can fix this?







probability integration probability-theory expected-value






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 4 '18 at 11:07







Parseval

















asked Dec 4 '18 at 10:59









ParsevalParseval

2,7771718




2,7771718












  • In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
    – Yuriy S
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27










  • @YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:29


















  • In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
    – Yuriy S
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27










  • @YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:29
















In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
– Yuriy S
Dec 4 '18 at 11:27




In general, if you get the condition has length > 1 and only the first element will be used that means your function is not suitable for vector arguments. Either use lapply, sapply or just do a loop so the argument is not a vector
– Yuriy S
Dec 4 '18 at 11:27












@YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
– Parseval
Dec 4 '18 at 11:29




@YuriyS - Loop with what index? I don't understand where to place the loop. Can you elaborate?
– Parseval
Dec 4 '18 at 11:29










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














The solution of
$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$ is given in terms of Lambert function and it is
$$s=-frac{Wleft(-lambda, e^{-lambda } right)}{lambda }$$ This function is available in R (have a look here).



When plotted, the integrand looks very nice but you still need numerical integration. If I did it properly, the result is $approx 0.4002$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27






  • 1




    @Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
    – Claude Leibovici
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:30











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%2f3025426%2fcompute-integral-for-expected-value-in-r%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









1














The solution of
$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$ is given in terms of Lambert function and it is
$$s=-frac{Wleft(-lambda, e^{-lambda } right)}{lambda }$$ This function is available in R (have a look here).



When plotted, the integrand looks very nice but you still need numerical integration. If I did it properly, the result is $approx 0.4002$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27






  • 1




    @Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
    – Claude Leibovici
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:30
















1














The solution of
$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$ is given in terms of Lambert function and it is
$$s=-frac{Wleft(-lambda, e^{-lambda } right)}{lambda }$$ This function is available in R (have a look here).



When plotted, the integrand looks very nice but you still need numerical integration. If I did it properly, the result is $approx 0.4002$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27






  • 1




    @Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
    – Claude Leibovici
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:30














1












1








1






The solution of
$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$ is given in terms of Lambert function and it is
$$s=-frac{Wleft(-lambda, e^{-lambda } right)}{lambda }$$ This function is available in R (have a look here).



When plotted, the integrand looks very nice but you still need numerical integration. If I did it properly, the result is $approx 0.4002$.






share|cite|improve this answer












The solution of
$$e^{lambda(s-1)}-s=0$$ is given in terms of Lambert function and it is
$$s=-frac{Wleft(-lambda, e^{-lambda } right)}{lambda }$$ This function is available in R (have a look here).



When plotted, the integrand looks very nice but you still need numerical integration. If I did it properly, the result is $approx 0.4002$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 4 '18 at 11:23









Claude LeiboviciClaude Leibovici

119k1157132




119k1157132












  • Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27






  • 1




    @Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
    – Claude Leibovici
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:30


















  • Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
    – Parseval
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:27






  • 1




    @Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
    – Claude Leibovici
    Dec 4 '18 at 11:30
















Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
– Parseval
Dec 4 '18 at 11:27




Thanks, I know that it can be expressed in the Lambert function, I did that too and got the same answer but since we have not covered this Lambert function, we are not supposed to ue it. Is there a way to do this without using that function?
– Parseval
Dec 4 '18 at 11:27




1




1




@Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
– Claude Leibovici
Dec 4 '18 at 11:30




@Parseval. No idea ! Sorry for that. Cheers :-(
– Claude Leibovici
Dec 4 '18 at 11:30


















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%2f3025426%2fcompute-integral-for-expected-value-in-r%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

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen