<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="blosxom/2.0" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
  <channel>
    <title>Notebooks   </title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks</link>
    <description>Cosma's Notebooks</description>
    <language>en</language>

  <item>
    <title>&lt;!-- Created by HTMX version 4.0 --&gt;</title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks/2007/11/27#random-time-changes</link>
    <description>Random Time Changes for Stochastic Processes 

&lt;P&gt;There are a class of results about transforming 
one &lt;a href=&quot;stochastic-processes.html&quot;&gt;stochastic process&lt;/a&gt; into another by 
stretching and shrinking the time-scale, sometimes in a deterministic manner, 
more often by means of a &lt;em&gt;random&lt;/em&gt; change of time-scale which depends on 
the realized trajectory of the process you started with. 

&lt;P&gt;The easiest example might be from point processes (which deserve a notebook 
of their own, some day).  The simplest point process is the homogeneous Poisson 
process with &quot;unit intensity&quot;: there is a constant probability per unit time of 
an event happening, which we can normalize to 1 (if necessary by changing our 
time unit).  Events are thus laid down completely independently of one another. 
The consequence is that the distance between successive events is exponentially 
distributed, with mean 1.  So you can imagine someone creating a realization of 
a homogeneous Poisson process with unit intensity by winding up a kitchen timer 
for a random, exponentially-distributed amount of time, and then putting down a 
point whenever it buzzes, at which point it is immediately reset to a new, 
totally independent count. 

&lt;P&gt;Now suppose you have a homogeneous Poisson process which does not have unit 
intensity, but one whose probability per unit time of an event 
is  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_1.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \lambda $ &quot;&gt;
.  To make a realization of this process look like a 
realization of the standard Poisson process, simply take the time-axis and 
rescale it by  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_2.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \lambda $ &quot;&gt;
 --- stretch out the separation between 
points if the process has high intensity (so that points fall close together), 
or compress them if the process has low intensity (so that points are widely 
spaced).  Symbolically, one defines a new time,  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_3.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \tau = t \lambda $ &quot;&gt;
, 
and now  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_4.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ X(\tau) $ &quot;&gt;
 looks like a realization of the standard Poisson 
process, even though  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_5.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ X(t) $ &quot;&gt;
 does not. 

&lt;P&gt;If the Poisson process is &lt;em&gt;in&lt;/em&gt;homogeneous, so that the probability 
per unit time follows some fixed intensity function  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_6.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \lambda(t) $ &quot;&gt;
, then 
the idea is similar, though the implementation is more complicated.  We want 
the new time to run slow and stretch out when the intensity is high, and we 
want it to run fast and compress events when the intensity is low.  It turns 
out that the right definition is 
 
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_7.gif&quot; alt=&quot;\[ 
\tau(t) = \int_{0}^{t}{\lambda(t) dt} 
 \] &quot;&gt;

More specifically, if  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_8.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ t_1, t_2, \ldots $ &quot;&gt;
 are the times of the events, 
then the transformed times  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_9.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \tau(t_1), \tau(t_2), \ldots $ &quot;&gt;
 come from a 
standard Poisson process, and  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_10.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \tau(t_{i+1}) - \tau(t_i) $ &quot;&gt;
 are IID and 
exponentially distributed with mean 1.  (This reduces to the previous 
result when the intensity function is homogeneous.) 

&lt;P&gt;Now suppose that the intensity function is not fixed, but depends on some 
random inputs, including possibly the history of the process.  We write this 
as  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_11.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \lambda(t|\mathcal{H}_t) $ &quot;&gt;
, where  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_12.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \mathcal{H}_t $ &quot;&gt;
 is 
supposed to summarize everything that goes into setting the intensity.  (Even 
more technically,  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_13.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \mathcal{H}_t $ &quot;&gt;
 is a sigma-field, and the collection 
of them over various &lt;em&gt;t&lt;/em&gt; forms a filtration; the intensity is a random 
process adapted to this filtration.  I could get even more technical if you 
make me.)  If one now defines the rescaled time 
 
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_14.gif&quot; alt=&quot;\[ 
\tau(t) = \int_{0}^{t}{\lambda(t|\mathcal{H}_t) dt} 
 \] &quot;&gt;

it still the case that  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_15.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \tau(t_1), \tau(t_2), \ldots $ &quot;&gt;
 looks exactly 
like a realization of a standard Poisson process.  But notice that the way we 
have re-scaled time is random, and possibly different from one realization of 
the original point process to another, because the times at which events 
happened can be included in the information represented 
by  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_16.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \mathcal{H}_t $ &quot;&gt;
. 

&lt;P&gt;This idea is not limited to point processes; one can transform many other 
sorts of stochastic processes to standardized versions by the appropriate 
random time changes.  (A trivial example: If  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_17.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ W(t) $ &quot;&gt;
 is a standard 
Wiener process, then  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_18.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ X(t) = \sigma W(t) $ &quot;&gt;
 is a non-standard Wiener 
process, where  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_19.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ X(t) - X(s) \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2 |t-s|) $ &quot;&gt;
. 
But  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_20.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ X(t/\sigma^2) $ &quot;&gt;
 is then a standard Wiener process again.) 
Generally speaking, to know how to do the transformation requires that one know 
something about the structure and parameters of the process. 

&lt;P&gt;This leads to what I can only call a brilliant little trick for doing 
statistical inference on stochastic processes, first made explicit (so far as I 
know) by Brown et al.  If one is trying to fit a model to a point process, for 
example, what's going on is that you have a set of possible guesses about the 
conditional intensity function, say  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_21.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \phi(t|\mathcal{H}_t;\theta) $ &quot;&gt;
, 
where  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_22.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \theta $ &quot;&gt;
 is a parameter indexing the different functions. 
For one parameter value, call it  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_23.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \theta_0 $ &quot;&gt;
, this is actually 
right: 
 
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_24.gif&quot; alt=&quot;\[ \phi(t|\mathcal{H}_t;\theta_0) = \lambda(t|\mathcal{H}_t) \] &quot;&gt;
 If your 
guess at  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_25.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \theta_0 $ &quot;&gt;
, call it  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_26.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \hat{\theta} $ &quot;&gt;
, is right, then 
you can use  
&lt;img align=absmiddle src=&quot;random-time-changes_27.gif&quot; alt=&quot;$ \phi(t|\mathcal{H}_t;\hat{\theta}) $ &quot;&gt;
 to transform the 
original point process into a realization of a standard Poisson process.  And 
it is really easy to test whether something &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; a realization of such a 
process (are the inter-event times exponentially distributed with mean 1? are 
the independent?).  Notice that there are no free parameters in the hypothesis 
one ends up testing.  So you can estimate the parameter however you like, and 
then do a back-end test on the goodness of fit. 

&lt;P&gt;I would really like to know more about how this can be done for other 
processes, and its strengths and limitations as e.g. a means 
of &lt;a hef=&quot;model-selection.html&quot;&gt;model selection&lt;/a&gt;. 

&lt;ul&gt;Recommended: 
	&lt;li&gt;Emery N. Brown Riccardo Barbieri Val&amp;eacute;rie Ventura, Robert 
E. Kass and Loren M. Frank, &quot;The Time-Rescaling Theorem and Its Applications to 
Neural Spike Train Data Analysis&quot;, &lt;cite&gt;Neural 
Computation&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;14&lt;/strong&gt; (2002): 325--346 
[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~vventura/rescaling.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF reprint&lt;/a&gt;] 
	&lt;li&gt;Olav Kallenberg, &lt;cite&gt;Foundations of Modern Probability&lt;/cite&gt; 
	&lt;/ul&gt; 

&lt;ul&gt;To read: 
	&lt;li&gt;Uwe K&amp;uuml;chler and Michael Sorensen, &lt;cite&gt;Exponential Families 
of Stochastic Processes&lt;/cite&gt; 
	&lt;/ul&gt; 
</description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>