Hello,
I was wondering how to derive the asymptotic expansion of the following function:
where
![]()
is the probability function of the i-th event, say.
I don't even know where to start, or if asymptotic expansion can be done.
Printable View
Hello,
I was wondering how to derive the asymptotic expansion of the following function:
where
![]()
is the probability function of the i-th event, say.
I don't even know where to start, or if asymptotic expansion can be done.
Well, if you have a set of N elements, and p_i is the probability of the i-th element in this set, then that's how you could relate p_i. In fact, p_i=P(X=some value in the set). If you want, you can disregard N, I just need to see how such an expansion could be done.
I believe I should be more explicit in what I am looking for.
I have the following discrete function:
whereis the probability of the
object in the indexed set
. Consider this probability distribution to be a theoretical distribution.
Now, from some experiments, say that I have collected the empirical probability distributionin order to build the following function:
Obviously, these two functions are mathematical expectations onand
, wherein the first function,
, is the theoretical expectation, while the second function,
, is the observed expectation. Therefore, I wanted to calculate the error involved in terms of the asymptotic expansion of the difference in observed and theoretical probabilities.
That is, given theerror term,
, I am looking for an asymptotic expansion on
in order to provide an asymptotic argument on the discrepancy between the two expectations above.
Hence, I am looking to express the errorin terms of some asymptotic series
so that it can be the asymptotic expansion of function
. In other words, I want to find that series so that:
I don't even know how to start looking for. Any insights would be encouraging for me to explore further.
Thank you, Laurent.
Apparently, in the second "more precise" expansion, the linear terms seem to disappear. Does that imply that the discrepancy is negligible?
I mean, how would you interpret the right-hand side of the inequality? Could you write that using Big-O notation such as the following:
Ok, here's what I came up with.
The forward difference that you consider:
is the first-order Newton series approximation of the xlogx function:
Then, from this, we approximated function E = S - H as:
Now, we may consider approximating the expansion using n-th order Newton series approximations. That is, define the n-th order forward difference as:
where C(n,i) is the combination "n choose i".
Then, we to obtain the n-th order derivative approximation of f, we have:
Or, we may write:
And, the general expression for our discrepancy function E = S - H becomes:
as, naturally.
So, for instance, for, and using the function
, we have the second-order approximation of E equal to:
How would you comment on this approach? I am really interested on your insights and suggestions.
Also, by definitionis equivalent to stating that
.
Now, shouldn't the little-o in our functions above be equal to:
![]()
for the n-th order approximation, so that it complies with the definition of asymptotic equivalence?
I don't know about this Newton approximation, but there is obviously something wrong with your formulas: I guess you have to sum the approximation terms forup to the order you want. For Taylor approximation, for instance,
, and not just
, of course.
Anyway, I would be very surprised if you need third order approximation or beyond.
Yes, by definition, I need to sum up the terms. Thanks for your input, though a comment of yours on how to interpret, say, the second-order approximation would also be appreciated.