Hubbry Logo
Compound probability distributionCompound probability distributionMain
Open search
Compound probability distribution
Community hub
Compound probability distribution
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Compound probability distribution
Compound probability distribution
from Wikipedia

In probability and statistics, a compound probability distribution (also known as a mixture distribution or contagious distribution) is the probability distribution that results from assuming that a random variable is distributed according to some parametrized distribution, with (some of) the parameters of that distribution themselves being random variables. If the parameter is a scale parameter, the resulting mixture is also called a scale mixture.

The compound distribution ("unconditional distribution") is the result of marginalizing (integrating) over the latent random variable(s) representing the parameter(s) of the parametrized distribution ("conditional distribution").

Definition

[edit]

A compound probability distribution is the probability distribution that results from assuming that a random variable is distributed according to some parametrized distribution with an unknown parameter that is again distributed according to some other distribution . The resulting distribution is said to be the distribution that results from compounding with . The parameter's distribution is also called the mixing distribution or latent distribution. Technically, the unconditional distribution results from marginalizing over , i.e., from integrating out the unknown parameter(s) . Its probability density function is given by:

The same formula applies analogously if some or all of the variables are vectors.

From the above formula, one can see that a compound distribution essentially is a special case of a marginal distribution: The joint distribution of and is given by , and the compound results as its marginal distribution: . If the domain of is discrete, then the distribution is again a special case of a mixture distribution.

Properties

[edit]

General

[edit]

The compound distribution will depend on the specific expression of each distribution, as well as which parameter of is distributed according to the distribution , and the parameters of will include any parameters of that are not marginalized, or integrated, out. The support of is the same as that of , and if the latter is a two-parameter distribution parameterized with the mean and variance, some general properties exist.

Mean and variance

[edit]

The compound distribution's first two moments are given by the law of total expectation and the law of total variance:

If the mean of is distributed as , which in turn has mean and variance the expressions above imply and , where is the variance of .

Proof

[edit]

let and be probability distributions parameterized with mean a variance asthen denoting the probability density functions as and respectively, and being the probability density of we haveand we have from the parameterization and thatand therefore the mean of the compound distribution as per the expression for its first moment above.


The variance of is given by , andgiven the fact that and . Finally we get

Applications

[edit]

Testing

[edit]

Distributions of common test statistics result as compound distributions under their null hypothesis, for example in Student's t-test (where the test statistic results as the ratio of a normal and a chi-squared random variable), or in the F-test (where the test statistic is the ratio of two chi-squared random variables).

Overdispersion modeling

[edit]

Compound distributions are useful for modeling outcomes exhibiting overdispersion, i.e., a greater amount of variability than would be expected under a certain model. For example, count data are commonly modeled using the Poisson distribution, whose variance is equal to its mean. The distribution may be generalized by allowing for variability in its rate parameter, implemented via a gamma distribution, which results in a marginal negative binomial distribution. This distribution is similar in its shape to the Poisson distribution, but it allows for larger variances. Similarly, a binomial distribution may be generalized to allow for additional variability by compounding it with a beta distribution for its success probability parameter, which results in a beta-binomial distribution.

Bayesian inference

[edit]

Besides ubiquitous marginal distributions that may be seen as special cases of compound distributions, in Bayesian inference, compound distributions arise when, in the notation above, F represents the distribution of future observations and G is the posterior distribution of the parameters of F, given the information in a set of observed data. This gives a posterior predictive distribution. Correspondingly, for the prior predictive distribution, F is the distribution of a new data point while G is the prior distribution of the parameters.

Convolution

[edit]

Convolution of probability distributions (to derive the probability distribution of sums of random variables) may also be seen as a special case of compounding; here the sum's distribution essentially results from considering one summand as a random location parameter for the other summand.[1]

Computation

[edit]

Compound distributions derived from exponential family distributions often have a closed form. If analytical integration is not possible, numerical methods may be necessary.

Compound distributions may relatively easily be investigated using Monte Carlo methods, i.e., by generating random samples. It is often easy to generate random numbers from the distributions as well as and then utilize these to perform collapsed Gibbs sampling to generate samples from .

A compound distribution may usually also be approximated to a sufficient degree by a mixture distribution using a finite number of mixture components, allowing to derive approximate density, distribution function etc.[1]

Parameter estimation (maximum-likelihood or maximum-a-posteriori estimation) within a compound distribution model may sometimes be simplified by utilizing the EM-algorithm.[2]

Examples

[edit]

Similar terms

[edit]

The notion of "compound distribution" as used e.g. in the definition of a Compound Poisson distribution or Compound Poisson process is different from the definition found in this article. The meaning in this article corresponds to what is used in e.g. Bayesian hierarchical modeling.

The special case for compound probability distributions where the parametrized distribution is the Poisson distribution is also called mixed Poisson distribution.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In , a compound probability distribution refers to the distribution of a random sum S=i=1NXiS = \sum_{i=1}^N X_i, where NN is a non-negative integer-valued representing the number of terms, and the XiX_i (for i=1,2,i = 1, 2, \dots) are independent and identically distributed s that are independent of NN. This construction arises naturally in scenarios where the number of summands is itself , such as modeling aggregate quantities with uncertain counts. Formally, the probability generating function (PGF) of SS is given by GS(s)=GN(GX(s))G_S(s) = G_N(G_X(s)), where GNG_N and GXG_X are the PGFs of NN and a single XiX_i, respectively; this relation facilitates computation of moments and tail probabilities. The is E[S]=E[N]E[X1]E[S] = E[N] \cdot E[X_1], while the variance is Var(S)=E[N]Var(X1)+Var(N)(E[X1])2\operatorname{Var}(S) = E[N] \cdot \operatorname{Var}(X_1) + \operatorname{Var}(N) \cdot (E[X_1])^2, highlighting how variability in both NN and the XiX_i contributes to the overall spread. These properties make compound distributions versatile for deriving higher-order moments and analyzing asymptotic behavior, often using Wald's identities under suitable conditions. Notable examples include the , where NN follows a with rate λ\lambda, commonly used to model total claims in or total service time in queueing systems; in this case, the moment generating function is MS(t)=exp(λ(MX(t)1))M_S(t) = \exp(\lambda (M_X(t) - 1)). The can also be viewed as a compound distribution, arising as a Poisson mixed with a gamma-distributed rate or as a Poisson-logarithmic random sum. Applications span risk theory, , and stochastic processes, where compound distributions capture and heavy tails better than simple parametric forms. Historically, the term "compound distribution" was introduced by Feller in the context of mixtures and sums but later refined to distinguish random sums from parametric mixtures.

Fundamentals

Definition

A compound probability distribution arises as the distribution of a random sum X=i=1NYiX = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i, where NN is a nonnegative integer-valued discrete random representing the random number of terms, and the YiY_i (for i=1,2,i = 1, 2, \dots ) are independent and identically distributed random variables that are independent of NN. The distribution of NN is termed the primary or distribution, while the common distribution of each YiY_i is the secondary or component distribution. This structure models scenarios where the number of summands is stochastic, such as aggregate claims in or total progeny in branching processes. Under the assumptions that NN takes values in {0,1,2,}\{0, 1, 2, \dots\} and the YiY_i are i.i.d. and independent of NN, the probability laws of XX can be expressed using convolutions. For the discrete case, where XX takes discrete values, the is P(X=x)=k=0P(N=k)P(i=1kYi=x),P(X = x) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} P(N = k) \, P\left( \sum_{i=1}^k Y_i = x \right), with the convention that the sum is 0 when k=0k=0. In the continuous case, if the YiY_i admit a ff, then the density function of XX is fX(x)=k=0P(N=k)f(k)(x),f_X(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} P(N = k) \, f^{(k)}(x), where f(k)f^{(k)} denotes the kk-fold convolution density of ff (and f(0)f^{(0)} is a Dirac delta at 0). Prominent examples of compound distributions include the compound Poisson (where NN is Poisson-distributed), compound binomial, and compound geometric distributions, each inheriting properties from their primary and secondary components.

Historical Context

The concept of compound probability distributions emerged in the early within , building on Siméon Denis Poisson's foundational work on the from 1837. The compound Poisson process, a key early example, was introduced by Filip Lundberg in his 1903 doctoral thesis, where he modeled insurance claims as a Poisson process for the number of events combined with random claim sizes to assess ruin probabilities. This approach marked the initial formalization of compounding a counting process with independent severity distributions, laying groundwork for applications in risk modeling. A significant milestone occurred in 1923 when Felix Eggenberger and derived the as a with a gamma-distributed rate parameter (a ), interpreting it as a contagion model in urn schemes. This mixture representation highlighted compounding's utility for beyond simple Poisson assumptions. In 1930, Harald Cramér advanced collective risk theory in his treatise "On the Mathematical Theory of Risk," systematizing Lundberg's ideas by analyzing the compound Poisson process for aggregate claims in insurance, including approximations for ruin probabilities. During the 1940s, generalized compound distributions within , exploring their role in recurrent events and branching processes using generating functions, as detailed in his 1943 work on the Pascal distribution as a compound form. Concurrently, Paul Lévy's contributions in the and integrated into broader stochastic processes through his development of infinitely divisible distributions, which encompass compound Poisson and lead to stable distributions as limits of normalized sums. These efforts solidified compound distributions as essential tools in by mid-century.

Mathematical Properties

General Characteristics

Compound probability distributions, also known as random sum distributions, arise as the distribution of X=i=1NYiX = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i, where NN is a non-negative integer-valued independent of the i.i.d. sequence Y1,Y2,Y_1, Y_2, \dots with common distribution identical to that of YY. These distributions exhibit several structural properties that distinguish them from simple sums or mixtures. Notably, they inherit certain stability features from their components, such as belonging to the same parametric family under specific compounding operations; for instance, a with logarithmic series-distributed jumps yields the , preserving closure within the family of discrete distributions used in over-dispersed modeling. A key characteristic is that compound distributions can be infinitely divisible if both the counting distribution of NN and the summand distribution of YY are infinitely divisible. This property allows the distribution to be expressed as the limit of convolutions of simpler distributions, facilitating approximations in large-scale systems like risk aggregation. For example, compound Poisson distributions, where NN follows a Poisson law, are infinitely divisible provided the jump sizes YiY_i have an infinitely divisible distribution, enabling their use in constructions. The (PGF) of XX is given by the composition GX(s)=GN(GY(s))G_X(s) = G_N(G_Y(s)), where GNG_N and GYG_Y are the PGFs of NN and YY, respectively; similarly, the (MGF), when it exists, satisfies MX(t)=MN(logMY(t))M_X(t) = M_N(\log M_Y(t)) under suitable conditions on the supports. This compositional structure underscores the recursive nature of the distribution, as XX represents a compound sum implying iterated convolutions: the density or mass function involves convolving the distribution of YY a random number of times, weighted by the probabilities of NN. In terms of shape and asymptotic behavior, compound distributions are often unimodal, inheriting this trait from the component distributions if they are unimodal, but they typically display heavier tails compared to either the counting or summand distributions alone. This tail heaviness arises from the variability in NN, which amplifies extreme events; for instance, in compound heavy-tailed models, the tail probability P(X>x)P(X > x) decays more slowly than that of YY, dominated by scenarios with large NN or large individual YiY_i, as analyzed in collective risk theory.

Moments and Higher Moments

The moments of a compound probability distribution, defined as X=i=1NYiX = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i where the YiY_i are independent and identically distributed s independent of the nonnegative integer-valued NN, and assuming all relevant moments are finite, can be expressed in terms of the moments of NN and YY. The is given by E[X]=E[N]E[Y],\mathbb{E}[X] = \mathbb{E}[N] \cdot \mathbb{E}[Y], a result known as Wald's identity that holds under the independence condition and finite first moments. The variance follows from the : Var(X)=E[N]Var(Y)+Var(N)(E[Y])2.[](https://utstat.utoronto.ca/mikevans/oldjeffrosenthal/chap3.pdf)\mathrm{Var}(X) = \mathbb{E}[N] \cdot \mathrm{Var}(Y) + \mathrm{Var}(N) \cdot (\mathbb{E}[Y])^2.[](https://utstat.utoronto.ca/mikevans/oldjeffrosenthal/chap3.pdf) Higher moments are conveniently handled through s, which add under independent summation and facilitate recursive computation for compound structures. The generating function of XX is KX(t)=KN(KY(t))K_X(t) = K_N(K_Y(t)), where KNK_N and KYK_Y are the generating functions of NN and YY, respectively; this composition yields a recursive formula for the cumulants κr(X)\kappa_r(X) of order r1r \geq 1: κr(X)=E[N]κr(Y)+κ1(N)κr1(Y)+,\kappa_r(X) = \mathbb{E}[N] \cdot \kappa_r(Y) + \kappa_1(N) \cdot \kappa_{r-1}(Y) + \cdots, with further terms involving higher cumulants of NN and lower cumulants of YY, derived via applied to the composition. Note that the first two cumulants recover the and variance: κ1(X)=E[X]\kappa_1(X) = \mathbb{E}[X] and κ2(X)=Var(X)\kappa_2(X) = \mathrm{Var}(X). In the special case of a , where NN follows a with rate parameter λ\lambda, the variance simplifies to Var(X)=λE[Y2]=λ(Var(Y)+(E[Y])2),\mathrm{Var}(X) = \lambda \cdot \mathbb{E}[Y^2] = \lambda \left( \mathrm{Var}(Y) + (\mathbb{E}[Y])^2 \right), since E[N]=Var(N)=λ\mathbb{E}[N] = \mathrm{Var}(N) = \lambda.

Derivations and Proofs

The of a compound random variable X=i=1NYiX = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i, where NN is a non-negative integer-valued independent of the i.i.d. sequence {Yi}\{Y_i\} with common distribution having finite mean E[Y]<\mathbb{E}[Y] < \infty and E[N]<\mathbb{E}[N] < \infty, is derived using the law of iterated expectations. Conditioning on NN, the conditional expectation is E[XN=n]=nE[Y]\mathbb{E}[X \mid N = n] = n \mathbb{E}[Y] for n1n \geq 1, and E[XN=0]=0\mathbb{E}[X \mid N = 0] = 0. Thus, E[X]=E[E[XN]]=E[NE[Y]]=E[N]E[Y]\mathbb{E}[X] = \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}[X \mid N]] = \mathbb{E}[N \mathbb{E}[Y]] = \mathbb{E}[N] \mathbb{E}[Y]. This holds under the assumption that E[Y]<\mathbb{E}[|Y|] < \infty and E[N]<\mathbb{E}[N] < \infty to ensure the expectations exist. The variance of XX follows from the law of total variance, assuming E[Y2]<\mathbb{E}[Y^2] < \infty and E[N]<\mathbb{E}[N] < \infty. The conditional variance is Var(XN=n)=nVar(Y)\mathrm{Var}(X \mid N = n) = n \mathrm{Var}(Y) for n1n \geq 1, and Var(XN=0)=0\mathrm{Var}(X \mid N = 0) = 0. The conditional expectation is E[XN]=NE[Y]\mathbb{E}[X \mid N] = N \mathbb{E}[Y]. Therefore, Var(X)=E[Var(XN)]+Var(E[XN])=E[NVar(Y)]+Var(NE[Y])=Var(Y)E[N]+(E[Y])2Var(N).\mathrm{Var}(X) = \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{Var}(X \mid N)] + \mathrm{Var}(\mathbb{E}[X \mid N]) = \mathbb{E}[N \mathrm{Var}(Y)] + \mathrm{Var}(N \mathbb{E}[Y]) = \mathrm{Var}(Y) \mathbb{E}[N] + (\mathbb{E}[Y])^2 \mathrm{Var}(N). This decomposition requires the second moments to be finite for convergence. The probability generating function (PGF) of XX, defined as GX(s)=E[sX]G_X(s) = \mathbb{E}[s^X] for s1|s| \leq 1, is obtained by conditioning on NN. The conditional PGF is E[sXN=k]=(GY(s))k\mathbb{E}[s^X \mid N = k] = (G_Y(s))^k, where GY(s)G_Y(s) is the PGF of YY. Thus, GX(s)=k=0P(N=k)(GY(s))k=GN(GY(s)),G_X(s) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty P(N = k) (G_Y(s))^k = G_N(G_Y(s)), provided the infinite sum converges, which holds if GY(s)G_Y(s) is defined for s1|s| \leq 1 and NN has a proper distribution. The case N=0N=0 contributes P(N=0)1P(N=0) \cdot 1 to the sum, corresponding to X=0X=0. For convergence of the series, the support of YY must ensure GY(s)G_Y(s) is analytic in the unit disk or the moments are finite as needed. A compound Poisson distribution, where NPoisson(λ)N \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(\lambda) for λ>0\lambda > 0 and the YiY_i are i.i.d. with ϕ(t)=E[eitY]\phi(t) = \mathbb{E}[e^{itY}], has ψX(t)=exp(λ(ϕ(t)1))\psi_X(t) = \exp(\lambda (\phi(t) - 1)). To show , note that for any positive integer nn, ψX(t)=[exp(λn(ϕ(t)1))]n,\psi_X(t) = \left[ \exp\left( \frac{\lambda}{n} (\phi(t) - 1) \right) \right]^n, where each factor is the characteristic function of a compound Poisson with rate λ/n\lambda/n and the same jump distribution, confirming it can be expressed as the nn-fold convolution of identical distributions. This property assumes the jump distribution is arbitrary but proper, with the Poisson ensuring non-negative integer counts. Edge cases include λ=0\lambda = 0, reducing to a degenerate distribution at 0, which is trivially infinitely divisible.

Applications

Statistical Modeling

Compound probability distributions are particularly valuable in statistical modeling for addressing in count , where the variance exceeds the mean, a common issue in fields like and . For instance, the , a classic compound Poisson-gamma distribution, effectively models such overdispersion by incorporating a gamma-distributed mixing parameter that accounts for extra variability beyond the Poisson assumption. In ecological studies, this approach has been applied to species abundance , where environmental heterogeneity leads to clustered counts that violate Poisson equidispersion, allowing for more accurate inference on . Hypothesis testing in compound distribution models often involves score tests to compare compound variants against simpler baselines, such as distinguishing a compound Poisson from a standard Poisson in generalized linear regression frameworks. These tests leverage the score statistic under the of no , requiring only from the simpler model, which enhances computational while detecting extra variation due to unobserved factors. Seminal work by Cameron and demonstrated the robustness of such tests in overdispersed Poisson regressions, showing they maintain appropriate size and power even with moderate sample sizes. Parameter estimation for compound distributions typically employs the method of moments (MoM) or (MLE), balancing simplicity and efficiency. In MoM, sample moments are equated to theoretical moments—often the mean and variance—to solve for parameters like the mixing distribution's shape, providing closed-form solutions for distributions like the negative binomial. MLE, in contrast, maximizes the log-likelihood function, yielding asymptotically efficient estimators but requiring numerical optimization; for the negative binomial dispersion parameter, it has been shown to be unique and consistent under standard conditions. These methods outperform direct Poisson fitting by incorporating the compound structure, though MoM is preferred for initial estimates due to its robustness to outliers. The primary advantage of compound distributions in statistical modeling lies in their ability to capture unobserved heterogeneity, such as varying exposure rates or individual differences not explicitly measured, leading to more realistic variance structures than standard distributions. This is evident in epidemiological applications, where negative binomial models have been used to analyze clustering in outbreak data, accounting for superspreading events that cause overdispersion in case counts during events like transmission. By integrating moments for estimation, these models briefly link to higher-order properties without delving into Bayesian frameworks. Overall, they improve model fit and predictive accuracy in heterogeneous datasets, reducing bias in regression coefficients.

Bayesian Analysis

Compound probability distributions play a central role in by representing mixtures where a of one distribution is itself random, drawn from a prior distribution. This setup naturally arises in hierarchical modeling, allowing for the incorporation of at multiple levels. A classic example is the compound distribution formed by a Poisson likelihood NPoisson(λ)N \sim \text{Poisson}(\lambda) with λ\lambda following a Gamma prior λGamma(α,β)\lambda \sim \text{Gamma}(\alpha, \beta), which results in a marginal distribution for NN that is negative binomial. This mixture structure facilitates closed-form posterior updates due to conjugacy, where the posterior for λ\lambda remains Gamma-distributed: λNGamma(α+N,β+1)\lambda \mid N \sim \text{Gamma}(\alpha + N, \beta + 1). In hierarchical Bayesian models, compound distributions are particularly useful for modeling random effects, such as varying intercepts or slopes in regression settings where group-specific parameters are drawn from a higher-level distribution. For instance, in Bayesian regression, random effects can be represented as a with Gamma-mixed rates to account for in count data across clusters. The serves as a for the Poisson likelihood in these setups, ensuring tractable posterior inference when the rate parameter is uncertain. This conjugacy simplifies the integration over hyperparameters, enabling efficient computation of marginal posteriors for model parameters. Inference for compound parameters often relies on Markov chain Monte Carlo methods like , which iteratively samples from conditional posteriors in the hierarchical structure, or variational inference techniques that approximate the joint posterior with a factorized distribution to scale to high-dimensional settings. proves effective for compound models by augmenting latent variables, such as the mixing rates, to sample from the full conditional distributions. Variational methods, in turn, optimize a lower bound on the to infer approximate posteriors, particularly beneficial for large datasets involving compound hierarchies. The advantages of compound distributions in Bayesian analysis stem from their ability to naturally model uncertainty in rate parameters, providing flexible priors that capture heterogeneity without assuming fixed values. This is especially valuable in fields like , where rate parameters for drug absorption or elimination vary across individuals due to physiological differences, allowing hierarchical compounds to propagate uncertainty through the . Such modeling enhances predictive accuracy by integrating prior knowledge with observed data, yielding robust estimates of parameter variability.

Signal Processing and Convolution

In , compound Poisson processes serve as foundational models for phenomena involving random impulses, such as in communication systems. Shot noise arises from the discrete nature of charge carriers, modeled as a compound Poisson process where the signal X(t)=i=1N(t)YiX(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} Y_i, with N(t)N(t) representing the Poisson-distributed number of events up to time tt and YiY_i the independent jump sizes or impulse responses. This framework captures the superposition of pulses in optical and electronic communications, where the Poisson arrival of photons or electrons leads to fluctuations that degrade signal quality. Early formulations trace back to analyses of noise, extended to compound forms for non-exponential decays in modern applications like fiber-optic channels. The (PDF) of a compound distribution admits a convolution-based interpretation, reflecting the of random variables. Specifically, the PDF of the total X=i=1NYiX = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i is given by fX(x)=k=0P(N=k)fY(k)(x)f_X(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty P(N=k) f_Y^{*(k)}(x), where fY(k)f_Y^{*(k)} denotes the kk-fold of the secondary distribution fYf_Y, and P(N=0)P(N=0) includes a Dirac delta at zero. This structure arises naturally in for the response to clustered impulses, with iterative convolutions weighted by the counting distribution enabling efficient computation via transforms like Fourier or Laplace for filtering noisy aggregates. Such representations underpin techniques to recover underlying signals from observed compound . Applications extend to queueing theory, where compound distributions model workload accumulation in M/G/1 queues, with waiting times following a compound geometric form due to the geometric number of preceding service times under Poisson arrivals. In this setting, the steady-state waiting time distribution approximates the convolution of service times weighted by the queue length probabilities, aiding performance analysis for systems like data networks. Similarly, in risk theory, aggregate claims are modeled as compound Poisson sums, S(t)=i=1N(t)XiS(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} X_i, where N(t)N(t) counts claim occurrences and XiX_i individual severities, informing ruin probabilities and reserve calculations in insurance portfolios. These models highlight the role of convolutions in predicting overflow or excess in dynamic systems. In filtering contexts, compound distributions accommodate non-Gaussian noise in extended Kalman filters, particularly for jump processes like compound Poisson disturbances in state estimation. Modified progressive extended Kalman filters handle compound measurement noises by approximating higher moments, improving robustness in tracking systems with impulsive outliers, such as or networks under sporadic interference. This adaptation preserves the recursive structure of the standard Kalman update while accounting for the heavy-tailed nature of compound sums. Compound distributions relate to broader Lévy processes, where subordinated or variants model beyond normal . Stable compound processes, as limits of normalized sums with heavy-tailed jumps, generate Lévy flights exhibiting super-diffusion, with characteristic exponents less than 2 leading to non-local spread in physical systems like turbulent flows or biological transport. These connections enable compound models to approximate infinite-activity Lévy paths for simulating irregular propagation in signal environments.

Computational Approaches

Closed-Form Solutions

Closed-form solutions for compound probability distributions exist only in specific cases where the counting distribution NN and the severity distribution YY permit explicit expressions for the probability mass or density functions of the compound sum S=i=1NYiS = \sum_{i=1}^N Y_i. One prominent example is the compound Poisson-exponential distribution, which yields the . Specifically, if NPoisson(λ)N \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(\lambda) and YExponential(β)Y \sim \mathrm{Exponential}(\beta) independently, then SS follows a [Gamma](/page/Gammadistribution)(λ,β)\mathrm{[Gamma](/page/Gamma_distribution)}(\lambda, \beta) distribution. Another example is the , which arises as a compound Poisson distribution with logarithmic series severity distribution. For broader classes of discrete compound distributions, particularly in actuarial contexts, the Panjer recursion provides an efficient analytical method to compute the (PMF) recursively without full . For distributions where the counting PMF satisfies PN(k)=(a+b/k)PN(k1)P_N(k) = (a + b/k) P_N(k-1) for k1k \geq 1 (with PN(0)=1abP_N(0) = 1 - a - b), the compound PMF hn=P(S=n)h_n = P(S = n) obeys hn=(a+bn)j=1njf(j)hnj,n1,h_n = \left(a + \frac{b}{n}\right) \sum_{j=1}^n j f(j) h_{n-j}, \quad n \geq 1, with h0=PN(0)h_0 = P_N(0), where f(j)f(j) is the severity PMF. This recursion applies to compound Poisson, binomial, and negative binomial cases and enables exact PMF evaluation for integer-valued severities in aggregate loss models. Transform methods offer another avenue for deriving closed forms by inverting generating functions. The (PGF) of SS is GS(s)=GN(GY(s))G_S(s) = G_N(G_Y(s)), and inversion via P(S=k)=1k!dkdskGS(s)s=0P(S = k) = \frac{1}{k!} \frac{d^k}{ds^k} G_S(s) \bigg|_{s=0}
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.