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:

    “No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
    —Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)

    “Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
    Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
    Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
    Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
    —Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)