For the negative binomial distribution with positive integer target and success probability , the th success occurs after exactly failures only if the final trial is a success, while the preceding trials contain failures and successes. Choosing the failure locations gives the binomial coefficient . Each such stopped sequence has probability by independence, and the sequences describe mutually exclusive events, so their probabilities add. This proves the probability mass function. Counting arrangements among all positions would wrongly include sequences that already reached the target earlier. The same argument is used for three heads in MIT 18.05, spring 2022, problem set 9 solutions, problem 2(b).
A short route to normalization and moments is to split the failures count into successive waiting blocks:where counts failures after success and before success , with starting at the first trial. Fresh independent Bernoulli trials make the blocks independent, each with the failures-count geometric distribution. Each block has total mass by the geometric series, so their sum also defines a normalized probability distribution. The linearity of expectation and variance additivity for independent random variables give and . This makes the moments transparent without a long calculation of sums. For , every block is zero.
The same stopping rule connects a waiting count to a fixed-length count. Let be the trial number of the th success, and let count successes in the first trials, so has a binomial distribution. For any nonnegative integer ,The target is still unmet after trials exactly when fewer than successes have occurred. With , and , this gives ; equivalently, , matching . At , the event identity still holds, with and deterministically.
In independent Bernoulli trials with success probability and failure probability , let be the trial of success and the trial of failure , for positive integers . If success occurs after failures, its final trial is a success and the preceding trials have successes and failures. The negative binomial stopping argument therefore gives the title sum.
Put . By trial , at least one target must have been reached, so the same event is that a binomial distribution with trials has at least successes. Conditioning instead on the final trial of a block of trials givesIndeed, more than successes in the full block guarantee the success target won; with exactly successes it won only when the final trial was a failure. These disjoint cases explain the extra boundary term. A zero success target wins immediately; a zero failure target has already been reached. To include in the displayed finite sum requires the explicit generalized convention ; an upper summation limit of denotes an empty sum.
Suppose independent Bernoulli trials give a player a win with probability , and the match ends when either player reaches wins. The player's match-win probability isFor a win with losses, the final trial must be a win. The preceding trials contain exactly wins and losses; the binomial coefficient counts their arrangements. Because , the opponent cannot already have won, and because the player has only previous wins, the match has not ended earlier. Summing the disjoint terminal events gives the formula, a truncated negative binomial distribution sum. The constant game-win probability must describe independent games, or equivalently remain the same conditional on every previous history.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.