Pearson Distribution - Definition

Definition

A Pearson density p is defined to be any valid solution to the differential equation (cf. Pearson 1895, p. 381)

\frac{p'(x)}{p(x)} + \frac{a+x-\lambda}{b_2 (x-\lambda)^2 + b_1 (x-\lambda) + b_0} = 0. \qquad (1) \!

with :

According to Ord, Pearson devised the underlying form of Equation (1) on the basis of, firstly, the formula for the derivative of the logarithm of the density function of the normal distribution (which gives a linear function) and, secondly, from a recurrence relation for values in the probability mass function of the hypergeometric distribution (which yields the linear-divided-by-quadratic structure).

In Equation (1), the parameter a determines a stationary point, and hence under some conditions a mode of the distribution, since

follows directly from the differential equation.

Since we are confronted with a first order linear differential equation with variable coefficients, its solution is straightforward:

p(x) \propto \exp\left( -\!\int\!\!\frac{x-a}{b_2 x^2 + b_1 x + b_0} \,\mathrm{d}x \right). \!

The integral in this solution simplifies considerably when certain special cases of the integrand are considered. Pearson (1895, p. 367) distinguished two main cases, determined by the sign of the discriminant (and hence the number of real roots) of the quadratic function

f(x) = b_2\,x^2 + b_1\,x + b_0. \qquad (2)\!

Read more about this topic:  Pearson Distribution

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “Scientific method is the way to truth, but it affords, even in
    principle, no unique definition of truth. Any so-called pragmatic
    definition of truth is doomed to failure equally.”
    —Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)

    “... we all know the wag’s definition of a philanthropist: a man whose charity increases directly as the square of the distance.”
    —George Eliot [Mary Ann (or Marian)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)