2

The inter-arrival time of a Poisson Process, $t$, conforms to the exponential distribution, so the probability density function for $t$ is $f(t)=\lambda e^{-\lambda t}$, $t>0$. ($\lambda$ is the arrival rate of the Poisson Process.)

For two adjacent arrivals $i$ and $j$ ($i$ is in front of $j$), if their inter-request time $t$ is less than a constant $\tau$ ($t<\tau$), then remove $j$. If the arrival immediately after $j$ is $k$, and the inter-request time between $j$ and $k$ is still less than $\tau$, we also remove $k$, so on and so forth.

In other words, arrivals close enough ($t<\tau$) are all removed except the beginning one.

Here is my question: What is the process that the rest arrivals conform to? If there is no well-known process that can describe this process, what is the best way to approximate it?

Edit: Except for the answer from @Did, I found another answer regarding this question.

Let $t_i$ denote the inter-arrival time of the original Poisson Process, and $t$ denote the inter-arrival time for the remaining process. Assume $t_1$, $t_2$,...,$t_n$ to be a series of continuous inter-arrival variables for the original Poisson Process, with $t_1$ starting from arrival $A_j$ and $t_n$ ending with arrival $A_k$.

Further assume that arrivals $A_j$ and $A_k$ to be two adjacent arrivals that will remain (i.e., no arrivals remain between $A_j$ and $A_k$). Then we have

$$t=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}t_i+t_n$$

And $t_i<\tau~(i=1...n-1)$, $t_n>\tau$.

So we can derive the distribution density function $g(t)$ for $t$ is

$$g(t)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}f(t|n)P\{t<\tau\}^{n-1}(1-P\{t<\tau\})$$

where $f(t)=\lambda e^{-\lambda t}$ and $P\{t<\tau\}=1-e^{-\lambda \tau}$.

(Note:The above formula seems to be right at first glance, but I do not know how to interpret mathematically.)

Based on this formula, the explicit form for $g(t)$ is

$$g(t)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\lambda^{-1}\frac{(t-n\tau)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}u(t-n\tau)$$ where $u(t)$ is a step function with $u(t)=0$ when $t<0$ and $u(t)=1$ otherwise.

Bloodmoon
  • 469

1 Answers1

2

The first remaining arrival time is the first arrival time $T_1$ of the original process $(T_n)_{n\geqslant1}$ hence it is exponentially distributed with parameter $\lambda$. The rest of the remaining process is a homogenous point process whose interarrival time distribution has the density $$f_{\lambda,\tau}:t\mapsto \lambda g(t)\exp\left(-\lambda\int_0^tg(s)\mathrm ds\right),$$ where the function $g$ is defined, for every $t\geqslant0$, by $$g(t)=1-P(A_t),$$ and $A_t$ is the event that $t\lt\tau$ or that, in the original process $(T_n)$, there exists some integer $n$ such that $T_1\lt\tau$, $T_2-T_1\lt\tau$, ..., $T_n-T_{n-1}\lt \tau$ and $t-T_n\lt\tau$. We now characterize $P(A_t)$.

If $t\lt\tau$, $P(A_t)=1$. If $t\gt\tau$, conditioning on the time $t-s$ of the last event before $t$ in the original process, one gets $$P(A_t)=\int_0^\tau P(A_{t-s})\lambda\mathrm e^{-\lambda s}\mathrm ds,$$ that is, $$P(A_t)=\lambda\mathrm e^{-\lambda t}\int_{t-\tau}^t P(A_s)\mathrm e^{\lambda s}\mathrm ds.$$ Thus, $P(A_t)=1$ for every $t\lt\tau$, and, for every $t\gt\tau$, $$\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}P(A_t)=-\lambda\mathrm e^{-\lambda\tau}P(A_{t-\tau}).$$ For every $k\geqslant0$ and $u$ in $(0,1)$, let $$a_k(u)=P(A_{(k+u)\tau}),$$ then $a_0(u)=1$ for every $u$ in $(0,1)$, and, for every $k\geqslant1$ and $u$ in $(0,1)$, $$a'_k(u)=-ca_{k-1}(u),\qquad c=\lambda\tau\mathrm e^{-\lambda\tau},$$ hence each function $a_k$ is (the restriction to the interval $(0,1)$ of) a polynomial function of degree $k$ whose coefficients depend on ($k$ and) $\lambda\tau$ only, each function $a_k$ is decreasing on $(0,1)$, and $a_k\to0$ when $k\to\infty$.

Edit: A heuristics for the behaviour of $P(A_t)$ when $t$ is large is to assume that the shape of $a_k$ converges when $k\to\infty$ in the sense that $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{a_k(u)}{a_k(0)}=b(u).$$ This suggests that $a'_k(u)\approx a_k(0)b'(u)$, hence the differential equation linking $a_k$ to $a_{k-1}$ would read $a_k(0)b'(u)\approx-ca_{k-1}(0)b(u)$. Since $a_k(0)=a_{k-1}(1)$, this suggests that $a_{k}(0)/a_{k-1}(0)\to\alpha$ and $b(u)\approx\mathrm e^{-cu/\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ solves the identity $$\alpha=\mathrm e^{-c/\alpha}.$$ Since one solution is $\alpha=\mathrm e^{-\lambda\tau}$, after some algebraic simplifications, all this suggests that, at least when $t$ is large, $$P(A_t)\approx\mathrm e^{-\lambda t}.$$ Edit-edit: Explicit formulas (but with summations) are as follows. Consider the generating function $$A(u,x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k(u)x^k,$$ then the identities $a_0(u)=1$ and $a_k(0)=a_{k-1}(1)$ for every $k\geqslant1$ yield $$A(0,x)=1+xA(1,x),$$ while the differential equations $a'_0(u)=0$ and $a'_k(u)=-ca_{k-1}(u)$ for every $k\geqslant1$ yield $$\partial_uA(u,x)=-cxA(u,x).$$ Thus, for every $u$ in $(0,1)$, $$A(u,x)=A(0,x)\mathrm e^{-cxu}.$$ Using this for $u=1$ and comparing to the formula for $A(1,x)$, one gets $$A(0,x)=\frac1{1-x\mathrm e^{-cx}},$$ and, finally, $$A(u,x)=\frac{\mathrm e^{-cxu}}{1-x\mathrm e^{-cx}}=\sum_{n\geqslant0}x^n\mathrm e^{-cx(u+n)}.$$ Expanding each exponential on the RHS and collecting the $x^k$ terms yields, for every $k\geqslant0$, $$a_k(u)=\sum_{i=0}^k(-1)^i\frac{c^i}{i!}(u+k-i)^i,$$ that is, for every $t\geqslant0$, $$P(A_t)=\sum_{n=0}^{\lfloor t/\tau\rfloor}\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\mathrm e^{-n\lambda\tau}(\lambda t-n\lambda\tau)^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\mathrm e^{-n\lambda\tau}[(\lambda t-n\lambda\tau)_+]^n.$$

Did
  • 279,727
  • Thank you for your answer. I still have some minor questions regarding your answer. "The first remaining arrival time is exponentially distributed with parameter λ": what do you mean by the "first remaining arrival"? and why the parameter is still $\lambda$? I take $t$ as the inter-arrival time throughout the answer, but why $t$ can minus $T_n$? (in the definition of $A_t$, you write $t−T_n<\lambda$) I know that it may be difficult to derive the exact expression for $a(t)$ or $a_k(t)$, but is there any neat function that can approximate $a(t)$ or $a_k(t)$? – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 07:11
  • (1.) One starts with a standard Poisson process, then one removes some of the events in it and considers the process of the remaining ones. Obviously, the first event of the original process remains. (2.) The original process after a remaining time is distributed like the original process hence the next remaining time is the preceding one plus D, where D is distributed like the first remaining time from the original process if one adds to it an event at time zero. (3.) See Edit. – Did Sep 27 '14 at 08:56
  • Thanks for the explanations. I can now understand the first two questions. For the third one, you gave a very brief probability function for $P(A_t)$ when $t$ is large, how to define large here? – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 12:34
  • No idea. Sorry. You might want to simulate recursively the exact solution and compare it to this approximation. – Did Sep 27 '14 at 12:57
  • OK, thanks a lot! – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 13:01
  • Hang on... There may be a way to twist the formulas again... – Did Sep 27 '14 at 13:03
  • Looking forward to you answer!!! – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 13:05
  • This is what I thought: one can write down an explicit formula for $P(A_t)$, but it is not very handy if one wants to extract information about $P(A_t)$, for example when $t\to\infty$. – Did Sep 27 '14 at 13:23
  • WOW! So great! Since you have written down the explicit formula for $P(A_t)$ and it is a little bit complicated, I am wondering if I can use software tools to find the approximations, e.g., Mathematica or Wolframalpha? – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 14:01
  • I guess this would be my last question: how do you derive the first formula on $f_{\lambda,\tau}(t)$? – Bloodmoon Sep 27 '14 at 15:30
  • This corresponds to the density of the time between two successive events when the intensity at some time $t$ after the last event is $\lambda g(t)$. – Did Sep 27 '14 at 15:39
  • I found another question while going through the calculation: actually $\frac{d}{dt}P(A_t)=-\lambda^2e^{-\lambda t} \int_{t-\tau}^t P(A_s)e^{\lambda s}ds + \lambda P(A_t) - \lambda e^{-\lambda \tau} P(A_{t-\tau})$, why did you omit the first two terms? – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 08:45
  • Why "actually"? The identity in your comment is equivalent to the identity in my answer (the only difference being that the identity in your comment is difficult to use). – Did Sep 28 '14 at 08:48
  • Why are these two identities equivalent? You mean that the first two terms in my identity equals zero? – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 08:51
  • Yes. Look at them carefully... – Did Sep 28 '14 at 08:52
  • Please enlighten me! I cannot figure it out. T^T – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 09:01
  • Hmm, it seems that, according to the definition of $A_t$, you only remove the "close" arrivals at the beginning of the Poisson process (the first arrival remains), while the following "close" arrivals all remain "as is". Please correct me if I am wrong. – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 14:25
  • You are wrong, see the first paragraph of my answer and the point (2.) in my first comment. – Did Sep 28 '14 at 14:32
  • Point 2: "The original process after a remaining time is distributed like the original process hence the next remaining time is the preceding one plus D, where D is distributed like the first remaining time from the original process if one adds to it an event at time zero." I guess by this point you mean that the following "close" arrivals are removed, and the inter-arrival time for the remaining arrivals, $t$, has the same distribution with the case that the first "close" arrivals are removed, is that right? – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 15:54
  • I am unable to parse what you mean in your last comment. Please use math formulas if this helps. – Did Sep 28 '14 at 16:03
  • Sorry being so stupid. Let's go back to the beginning of your answer. Let $t$ denote the inter-arrival time for the remaining process, let $T_i$ denote the arrival time of the original Poisson Process, so $T_1$ is the time of the first arrival, and $t$ starts from $T_1$. In my opinion, $A_t$ is the event that $t<\tau$ or that, in the original process ($T_n$), there exists some integer $n$ such that $T_2−T_1<\tau, ..., T_n−T_{n−1}< \tau$ and $t−T_n<\tau$. Why should I place an event at time zero? – Bloodmoon Sep 28 '14 at 16:45
  • Sorry but maybe we can agree that your opinion about the nature of A_t is irrelevant since I defined A_t. :-) The way I defined and used A_t, events A_t with t random are irrelevant, one deals only with A_t for some deterministic nonnegative times t... I might try to post some more notations to repeat what is going on, but I think you should try hard to write down the specific mathematical problems you have with the answer. – Did Sep 28 '14 at 17:21
  • To be honest I am trying to understand the rationale of your answer, which is the basis of the derivation. And the specific mathematical problem I can raise right now is why $-\lambda^2e^{-\lambda t} \int_{t-\tau}^t P(A_s)e^{\lambda s}ds + \lambda P(A_t)$ equal zero, and I beg you can tell me. Moreover, I found another answer about this question which is in a totally different way, I am trying to understand both answers and understand the differences, which leads to chaos in my mind. I will post that answer shortly. – Bloodmoon Sep 29 '14 at 02:47
  • Would you please take a loot at the edit in this question? Thanks! @Did – Bloodmoon Sep 29 '14 at 06:33
  • Re the "specific mathematical problem" you raise: the second displayed identity in my post with P(A_t) as LHS says exactly this. What is the next specific mathematical problem you face, if any, when reading my answer? – Did Sep 29 '14 at 13:14
  • OOOH! I was struggling in the calculus of $P(A_t)$! My next appeal is, as you mentioned above, posting some more notations to repeat what is going on with $A_t$, and why do you define $A_t$ in this way, because this is what $g(t)=1-P(A_t)$ relies on. Moreover, can I take the remaining process as, or approximately as, a renewal process (which means the inter-arrival time for the remaining process are i.i.d variables)? I will go on going through the mathematical derivation. – Bloodmoon Sep 29 '14 at 15:04