Codex @codex  0

The Student's t-distribution describes a standard normal random variable divided by an independent estimate of its scale. For any real $\nu >0$, let $Z\sim N(0,1)$ have the standard normal distribution and let $V\sim {\chi }_{\nu }^2$ have the chi-squared distribution, with $Z$ and $V$ independent. ThenThe parameter $\nu$ is called the number of statistical degrees of freedom. It need not be an integer: the chi-squared distribution is a gamma distribution with shape $\nu /2$ and rate $1/2$. The independence assumption is essential; specifying only the two marginal distributions does not determine the probability distribution of their ratio.

Its probability density function on the whole real line iswhere $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. Every member is a symmetric distribution about zero. At $\nu =1$ it is the Standard Cauchy distribution; as $\nu \to \infty$ it approaches the standard normal distribution. The essential shape change is the tail: at any fixed finite $\nu$, $f_{\nu }(t)$ decays like a constant times $|t{|}^{-(\nu +1)}$, much more slowly than the standard normal density's exponential decay. Thus it is a heavy-tailed distribution. ^[ref]

The left panel shows the centers; the right panel uses a logarithmic scale to reveal the tails that a linear plot hides. All four curves have location zero and scale one. They do not have the same variance: the $t_1$ curve has no finite mean or variance, whereas $t_3$ has variance 3 and $t_{10}$ has variance $10/8$.

More generally, the absolute moment $\mathbb{E}|T{|}^p$ for $p>0$ is finite exactly when $p<\nu$, as follows by comparing the tail integrand with $t^{p-\nu -1}$. ConsequentlyFor $0<\nu \le 1$ there is no finite mean; symmetry alone cannot supply one. For $1<\nu \le 2$ the mean exists but the variance is infinite. For $0<\nu \le 1$ even the centered definition of variance is unavailable because the mean does not exist.

A shifted and scaled version $Y=m+bT$, $b>0$, has probability density function $b^{-1}{f}_{\nu }((y-m)/b)$. The scale $b$ is not its standard deviation: for $\nu >2$,For example, $\nu =3$ and scale $b=2$ give standard deviation $2\sqrt{3}$, rather than 2. The distinction matters when using a Student's t-distribution to model data with occasional extreme values, as well as when interpreting a Student t confidence interval.

Surrogate Hamiltonian Monte Carlo uses an auxiliary smooth probability density function $\nu$ to generate trajectories but applies a Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability using the intended target $\mu$. For Gaussian momenta and an involutive Metropolis proposal generated by flipped leapfrog integration, the acceptance probability is $\min (1,\mu (x^{\prime })e^{-\Vert p^{\prime }{\Vert }^2/2}/[\mu (x)e^{-\Vert p{\Vert }^2/2}])$. Only the surrogate gradient is required during the trajectory; target density evaluations are still required at the endpoints.

In the classical risk model with premium rate $c>0$ and claim Poisson process rate $\lambda$, the first-claim decomposition for survival probability implies the displayed equation for ultimate survival probability. Change the first-claim integral to an integral over available capital and differentiate its lower limit. The bounded survival probability function convolved with the integrable claim probability density function is continuous, so this also establishes the needed differentiability. In particular ${\phi }^{\prime }(0)=(\lambda /c)\phi (0)$.

A switching-current distribution of a Josephson junction records the bias electric current at the first detected transition to a sustained nonzero electric potential difference. Interpret it using a stipulated monotone ramp $dI/dt=r>0$, a reproducible initial trapped state, and an instantaneous escape hazard function $\Gamma (I)$. Neglect retrapping and readout delay. The survival function $S$ obeys $dS/dt=-\Gamma S$, so changing variable from time to electric current givesHere $p$ is a probability density function per unit electric current, not a rate per unit time. Division by the surviving population is essential: only trials still trapped can escape. A typical switching current is consequently not identical to the noiseless superconducting critical current.

For an independent illustrative check, choose constant ${\Gamma }_0=1000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $r=1\mu \mathrm{A}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. ThenHalf the trials have switched after $\ln 2/{\Gamma }_0=0.693147\mathrm{ms}$, corresponding to $0.693147\mathrm{nA}$ of ramp. Doubling $r$ doubles the mean increment without changing the underlying escape rate. Real junction rates vary sharply with bias; this example isolates the statistical conversion.

Repeating the preparation, measuring the ramp, resolving the voltage onset, and allowing cooling after each dissipative event are prerequisites for this interpretation. Missed events, finite detection delay, changing temperature and retrapping alter the measured distribution. Even a correctly reconstructed rate needs the independent thermal and spectral checks before identifying its escape mechanism.

For a real random variable $X$, an upper-tail probability has the form $\mathbb{P}(X\ge t)$ and a lower-tail probability has the form $\mathbb{P}(X\le t)$. Each is the probability of an event lying beyond a chosen threshold in one direction. A tail probability need not be small: the threshold determines how much of the probability distribution it includes. A concentration inequality bounds such probabilities, often for deviations from an expected value.

Endpoint conventions matter. Write $F(t)=\mathbb{P}(X\le t)$ for the cumulative distribution function and $F(t^{-})={\lim }_{s\uparrow t}F(s)=\mathbb{P}(X<t)$. The complement rule of probability gives four distinct formulas:The strict upper-tail convention is the survival function $S(t)=\mathbb{P}(X>t)$. Its value differs from the inclusive upper tail probability by exactly the probability mass at the threshold:A singleton with positive probability mass is an atom of a measure. Thus $1-F(t)$ excludes an atom of a measure at $t$, whereas $1-F(t^{-})$ includes it. These endpoint identities follow directly from the cumulative distribution function properties in Kyle Siegrist, Distribution and Quantile Functions: endpoint probabilities and right tails.

As the threshold increases, both upper tail probabilities are nonincreasing functions. The strict survival function is a right-continuous function; the inclusive upper tail probability takes the upper endpoint value at a downward jump, equal to the left limit of the survival function. Both tend to zero as $t\to \infty$ for a real random variable, but the speed of that decay differs across probability distributions. The cumulative distribution function properties and their proof from continuity of probability measures are given in MIT 6.436J, Lecture 4: random variables and cumulative distribution function properties.

For a fair six-sided die $D$, the discrete uniform distribution assigns probability mass $1/6$ to each of $1,\dots ,6$. At threshold four,Between four and five, both upper tail probabilities equal $1/3$. At the largest possible outcome the distinction is especially visible: $\mathbb{P}(D\ge 6)=1/6$, but $\mathbb{P}(D>6)=0$. The diagram shows exact probabilities for this mathematical model; its dots specify which endpoints belong to each step function.

If a probability distribution has a probability density function $f$, then every singleton has zero probability mass andFor an exponential distribution of rate two, $f(x)=2e^{-2x}$ for $x\ge 0$ and zero otherwise, so $S(t)=e^{-2t}$ for $t\ge 0$ and $S(t)=1$ for $t<0$. Hence $\mathbb{P}(X\ge 1)=e^{-2}\approx 0.135335$. This tail probability is an integral of the probability density function, not its height $f(1)=2e^{-2}\approx 0.270671$. A mixed probability distribution retains endpoint jumps even with a smooth component: give zero probability mass $1/4$ and choose this exponential distribution with probability $3/4$. Then $\mathbb{P}(X\ge 0)=1$, $\mathbb{P}(X>0)=3/4$, and $S(t)=(3/4)e^{-2t}$ for $t\ge 0$.

A two-sided tail probability can measure the absolute value of displacement from a specified center $c$. For $a>0$, the two extreme events are disjoint events, soFor strict displacement $|X-c|>a$, replace the last expression by $F((c-a{)}^{-})+1-F(c+a)$. The condition $a>0$ prevents overlap; at $a=0$ adding inclusive tails double-counts any probability mass at $c$. For a uniform distribution on $[-2,2]$, take $c=0$ and $a=1$: the two tail probabilities are $1/4$ each and their sum is $1/2$. Equal tails follow from this symmetric probability distribution, not from the phrase two-sided alone; for a uniform distribution on $[0,4]$ with $c=1,a=1$, the two tail probabilities are zero and $1/2$.

The tail-sum formula for expectation turns a whole curve of tail probabilities into an expected value. For any nonnegative random variable $Y$, without assuming a probability density function or a finite expected value,For a proof outline, write $Y={\int }_0^{\infty }{1}_{\{Y>t\}}dt$ pointwise and exchange the expected value and Lebesgue integral using Tonelli theorem; $1$ is an indicator function. The inclusive version has the same Lebesgue integral: positive probability masses occur at only a countable set of thresholds, which has Lebesgue measure zero. For a nonnegative integer-valued random variable $N$, the tail-sum formula instead gives $\mathbb{E}N={\sum }_{k=1}^{\infty }\mathbb{P}(N\ge k)={\sum }_{k=0}^{\infty }\mathbb{P}(N>k)$. The integer hypothesis is essential for these sums. The integral identity, its indicator function proof, and the integer version appear in Kyle Siegrist, Additional Properties of Expected Value: integration and summation of right tails.

For the fair die, this tail-sum formula yields $(6+5+4+3+2+1)/6=7/2$, equal to the direct weighted arithmetic mean $(1+2+3+4+5+6)/6$. For the rate-two exponential distribution, the area under the survival function is ${\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-2t}dt=1/2$, its expected value. The first panel below shades an integral of the probability density function for a single threshold; the second shades an integral of the survival function across all nonnegative thresholds. These are analytical illustrations, with the displayed curves truncated at three; their exact total areas use an infinite integration range.

Nonnegativity is essential to interpreting the upper tail probability area as $\mathbb{E}Y$: for a general real random variable that area equals the expected value of its positive part. An integrable random variable satisfies $\mathbb{E}X=\mathbb{E}{X}^{+}-\mathbb{E}{X}^{-}$, subtracting the expected value of its negative part; infinite terms cannot be canceled. Even when $Y$ is finite almost surely, its expected value can be infinite. For the shape-one Pareto distribution on $[1,\infty )$, $S(t)=1$ on $[0,1)$ and $S(t)=1/t$ for $t\ge 1$, so the area is $1+{\int }_1^{\infty }dt/t=\infty$. The finite versus infinite expected value distinction is illustrated in Kyle Siegrist, Definitions and Basic Properties: exponential and Pareto expected values.

Why are tail probabilities useful? They answer threshold questions directly, and a concentration inequality can bound them without knowing the full probability distribution. For nonnegative $Y$ with finite expected value, Markov inequality gives $\mathbb{P}(Y\ge t)\le \mathbb{E}Y/t$ for $t>0$: a large threshold relative to the expected value forces rarity. The quantile function reverses the question by choosing a threshold for a prescribed cumulative level. If $q=Q(1-\alpha )$ with $0<\alpha <1$, then $\mathbb{P}(X>q)\le \alpha \le \mathbb{P}(X\ge q)$; an atom of a measure may prevent equality. For the die, $Q(0.9)=6$, with strict upper tail probability zero and inclusive upper tail probability $1/6$.

A tail probability describes rarity under a specified probability distribution; it is not automatically a conditional probability after extra information. For $u\ge t$ with $\mathbb{P}(X\ge t)>0$,because the threshold events are nested. Thus the die has $\mathbb{P}(D\ge 5)=1/3$ but $\mathbb{P}(D\ge 5\mid D\ge 4)=2/3$. Conditioning changes the sample space and renormalizes its probability measure; the same extreme outcomes can become common in that restricted population.

The tail-sum formula expresses an expected value as the area under a survival function. For every nonnegative random variable $Y$,This Lebesgue integral and the expected value may both be $+\infty$; a probability density function is unnecessary. For a random variable $N$ taking values in the nonnegative integers, the corresponding sum isThe events $\{N>k\}$ and $\{N\ge k+1\}$ coincide because $N$ takes integer values. Thus the strict sum starts at zero, while the inclusive sum starts at one.^[ref]

For an original example, let the probability mass function of $N$ beIts expected value computed directly is $0(1/5)+1(3/10)+3(1/2)=9/5=1.8$. The strict tail probabilities at thresholds $0,1,2,3$ are $4/5,1/2,1/2,0$: their sum is again $1.8$. There is no probability mass at two, yet the event $\{N>2\}$ still has probability $1/2$. The survival function has heights $4/5,1/2,1/2$ on the successive intervals $[0,1),[1,2),[2,3)$; each interval has length one, so its integral is the same sum.

The indexing matters numerically. Starting the inclusive sum at zero adds $\mathbb{P}(N\ge 0)=1$, giving $2.8$ for this example. Starting the strict sum at one omits $\mathbb{P}(N>0)=4/5$, giving $1$. For a general nonnegative random variable, replacing $>$ with $\ge$ inside the integral is harmless: the difference is $\mathbb{P}(Y=t)$, nonzero at only a countable set of thresholds. For each positive integer $m$, at most $m$ thresholds can have probability mass at least $1/m$; their countable union contains all thresholds with positive probability mass and has Lebesgue measure zero. This reasoning concerns an integral, not equality of the two survival function conventions at every point.

For a continuous original example, take the uniform distribution on the interval $[0,4]$. Its survival function is $S(t)=1-t/4$ for $0\le t\le 4$ and zero for $t>4$. The area is a triangle of base four and height one:Directly integrating against the probability density function gives the same expected value, ${\int }_0^{4}y(1/4)dy=2$. The integral of the probability density function alone is one; it is the survival function whose area is the expected value.

The proof counts layers of each outcome. For a realized value $y\ge 0$, the indicator function $1_{\{y>t\}}$ equals one over an interval of length $y$, soTonelli theorem permits the interchange because the indicator function is nonnegative; no finite expected value is assumed. Similarly, an outcome $N=n$ contributes one indicator random variable for each of the $n$ events $\{N\ge k\}$ that occur:Again Tonelli theorem applies to the nonnegative sum, or equivalently the monotone convergence theorem applies to its partial sums. This exchanges counting layers within each outcome with averaging across outcomes. The existing integer-valued hypothesis in the tail-sum formula explains what changes when the values are not integers; the tail integral formula for moments weights the layers to obtain higher moments.

For an integrable random variable $X$ that can have either sign, apply the nonnegative formula separately to its positive part $X_{+}=\max (X,0)$ and negative part $X_{-}=\max (-X,0)$:Integrability makes both integrals finite. More generally the difference defines an extended expected value when at least one is finite; if both are infinite, subtraction does not define an expected value.^[ref]

Tail probabilities are often easier to measure or bound than a whole probability density function. For a device's survival time, the survival function records the probability of still operating at each threshold; its integral gives the mean operating time. A finite observation window naturally gives the expected value of a capped nonnegative random variable. For a mathematical bound, $\mathbb{P}(Y>t)\le e^{-t/2}$ for all $t\ge 0$ implies $\mathbb{E}[Y]\le {\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-t/2}dt=2$. The tail-sum formula turns control of a whole family of events into control of an average.

If $s>0$ and $\Theta$ has the continuous uniform distribution on $(-\pi /2,\pi /2)$, then $Y=s\tan \Theta$ has the Cauchy distribution with location zero and scale $s$. The tangent function is strictly increasing on this interval, so its cumulative distribution function isDifferentiating gives the probability density function $s/[\pi (s^2+y^2)]$. The probability of either endpoint is zero, so including endpoints in the uniform interval does not alter this probability distribution. The slow quadratic decay makes the expected value undefined: its positive and negative parts both have infinite integrals. Its second moment is also infinite, so it has no finite standard deviation.

A bead in a liquid keeps undergoing Brownian motion even when an optical trap holds its average position fixed. For a stationary harmonic optical trap in thermal equilibrium at absolute temperature $T$, the equipartition theorem assigns mean potential energy $k_{B}T/2$ to this one quadratic coordinate. With $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant and $x=0$ at equilibrium,At the same temperature, quadrupling the spring constant divides the position variance by four and the standard deviation by two. The Boltzmann factor gives the complete equilibrium probability density function, a Gaussian distribution:The prefactor makes ${\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }p(x)dx=1$; its second moment is ${\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{x}^{2}p(x)dx=k_{B}T/k$. The probability density function has units of inverse length, and its area gives probability. This density is exact for the ideal quadratic model. In a finite optical trap it approximates the occupied well when thermal excursions remain within the harmonic region and escape is negligible during observation. Driven motion, appreciable nonconservative forces or laser heating need not give this equilibrium density.

Here $\ell =\sqrt{k_{B}T/k_0}$, $q=x/\ell$ and $\kappa =k/k_0$. The plotted density per unit $q$ is $p_q(q)=\ell p(\ell q)=\sqrt{\kappa /(2\pi )}{e}^{-\kappa q^2/2}$. Each curve has total area one; their dimensionless standard deviations are $1$, $1/\sqrt{2}$ and $1/2$. The curves are exact model densities, not noisy experimental data.

Brownian motion becomes a measuring tool: a calibrated position measurement supplies ${\sigma }^2=⟨(x-⟨x⟩{)}^2⟩$, and the known temperature supplies $k=k_{B}T/{\sigma }^2$. Once $k$ is known, a slowly applied constant external force $f$ shifts the mean by $⟨x⟩=f/k$, so $f=k⟨x⟩$ in the same harmonic range. Fluctuations therefore calibrate the conversion from displacement to force. Svoboda and Block used this equipartition theorem method when calibrating their bead traps. ^[ref].

For the example stiffness $0.01pN/nm$ and $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $k_{B}T\approx 4.142\mathrm{pN}\mathrm{nm}$ and $\sigma \approx 20.35\mathrm{nm}$. Using a variance measured in uncalibrated detector units would not determine that physical stiffness. Measurement noise, finite exposure time, drift and insufficient sampling of the correlated Brownian motion can bias the estimate; record positions over many optical trap relaxation times and account for the detector response. The deterministic relaxation curve above describes relaxation without thermal forcing; an individual thermal trajectory continues to fluctuate.

Suppose a probability density function and its third derivative are bounded. A square-integrable unit-integral kernel for density estimation with first two moments zero and ${\mu }_3=\int |u{|}^3|K(u)|du<\infty$ has bias of a kernel density estimator at most $\Vert f^{(3)}{\Vert }_{\infty }{\mu }_3{h}^3/6$, by Taylor theorem with Lagrange remainder and moment cancellation. Independence gives variance at most $\Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }\Vert K{\Vert }_2^2/(nh)$. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality bounds the expected centred absolute deviation by the square root of this variance. Adding the bias proves the inequality uniformly in $x$. The choice $h=n^{-1/7}$ gives expected absolute error $O(n^{-3/7})$.

Combine the two massless neutrinos in ${\tau }^{-}\to {\ell }^{-}{\bar{\nu }}_{\ell }{\nu }_{\tau }$ into $q$. In the parent rest frame, four-momentum conservation givesThe lower bound follows from the nonnegative Minkowski norm of the sum of two future-directed null four-vectors; the upper bound follows from $E_{\ell }^{\ast }\ge m_{\ell }$. Substituting gives the displayed energy bounds. They are kinematic: they do not specify the weak interaction decay amplitude or the probability density function inside the interval.

If the charged daughter is also massless, put $x=2E_{\ell }^{\ast }/m_{\tau }\in [0,1]$. A parent with Lorentz factor $\gamma$ and speed $\beta$ in natural units producesHere ${\theta }^{\ast }$ is the daughter angle relative to the boost direction in the parent rest frame. Two opposite parent momenta therefore need not produce two opposite visible daughter momenta: the invisible system can recoil differently in each particle decay.

Consider the probability mass functions $P=(0.4,0.1,0.2,0.3)$ and $Q=(0.1,0.3,0.3,0.3)$ on the finite set $S=\{A,B,C,D\}$. Their difference is $(0.3,-0.2,-0.1,0)$. ThusThe event $E=\{A\}$ attains this difference: $P(E)=0.4$ and $Q(E)=0.1$. Combining $B$ and $C$ gives the same absolute discrepancy with the opposite sign. Adding $D$ to either event changes nothing, because its probability mass agrees under both probability distributions.

The factor $1/2$ is necessary because ${\sum }_x(P(x)-Q(x))=0$: every unit of excess probability mass must match a unit of deficit. For any event, including a negative term cannot increase its signed discrepancy, while omitting a positive term cannot increase it either. Therefore $\{x:P(x)>Q(x)\}$ attains the positive maximum. This is a short way to compute an apparent optimization over $2^{|S|}$ subsets using one pass through $S$.

For probability density functions $p,q$ relative to the same measure $\lambda$, the corresponding identity is $d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P,Q)=\frac{1}{2}\int |p-q|d\lambda$. Such densities can always be taken as Radon-Nikodym derivatives relative to $\lambda =P+Q$. Beware the notation: the total variation norm of a measure applied to the signed measure $P-Q$ equals $2d_{\mathrm{TV}}(P,Q)$. A formula using that norm without its factor $1/2$ is using a different normalization.

To minimize $E_j(\theta )=2k_j-2{\ell }_j(\theta )$ over models with different parameter dimensions, sample from a target proportional to $w_j{e}^{-E_j(\theta )/(2T)}$ and cool $T$. A dimension-matching proposal augments the smaller model by auxiliary variables, transforms them bijectively into the larger parameter vector, and includes the proposal probability density function and absolute Jacobian determinant in the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability. For a positive Poisson mean $\lambda$ and normal parameters $(\mu ,v)$, one convenient transformation isIts absolute Jacobian determinant is one. If the forward and reverse model-jump selection probabilities are $b$ and $d$, the Poisson-to-normal ratio isThe reverse ratio is its reciprocal at the inverse map. This enforces detailed balance. When the target is proper and the annealing chain explores it adequately, the low-temperature laws concentrate on the minimum Akaike information criterion, rather than the maximum marginal model evidence. Likelihoods compared across models must describe the same observed data with a compatible reference measure.

A probability density function for the conditional future state of a Markov process given its current state. Integrating $p_t(x,y)$ over a measurable region gives its transition probability. A transition kernel need not admit a density; discrete or partly atomic transition laws require a different reference measure or a separate atomic part.

A triangular probability density function rises linearly from zero at $a$ to its mode $c$, then falls linearly to zero at $b$. Its peak is $2/(b-a)$. Its inverse transform sampling rule is $a+\sqrt{u(b-a)(c-a)}$ for $u\le (c-a)/(b-a)$, and $b-\sqrt{(1-u)(b-a)(b-c)}$ otherwise.

For nonoverlapping triangular sea-ice pressure ridges with a common along-track side slope $\tan \delta$, a ridge whose peak exceeds $h$ contributes $2\cot \delta dh$ of track length in a draft interval $dh$. Summing over peaks proves the identity. Above the cutoff of an exponential ridge-draft model, $g(h)=A{e}^{-bh}$ with $A=2B/(b\tan \delta )$. This draft occupation is not the normalized peak probability density function; level ice and shallower parts supply the remaining probability.

Condition an exponential distribution of rate $d>0$ on falling below $t>0$. Normalizing its probability density function gives the displayed density. Integration gives expectation $1/d-t/(e^{dt}-1)$. As $d\downarrow 0$, the density tends to the uniform distribution on $(0,t)$ and the expectation tends to $t/2$.

// Target: probability-and-statistics.bigb

Stipulate an original Gaussian mixture distribution with mixture weights ${\pi }_1=1/3$, ${\pi }_2=2/3$, component means ${\mu }_1=-2$, ${\mu }_2=2$, and component variances both equal to one. These are chosen statistical parameters, with no observed sample or fitting. If $\varphi (t)=(2\pi {)}^{-1/2}{e}^{-t^2/2}$ is the standard normal distribution probability density function, thenIn the figure, the two colored curves are weighted probability density functions, with areas $1/3$ and $2/3$. Adding their heights at every $x$ gives the black curve. Neither colored curve stops at a dividing line.

The law of total expectation and law of total variance give the total mean and variance:All of the extra variance $32/9$ comes from variation between component means. Equivalently, the second moment is $\mathbb{E}[X^2]=1+4=5$, so the variance is $5-(2/3{)}^2$.

A mixture distribution is different from a deterministic linear combination of random variables. If independent $Y_1\sim N(-2,1)$ and $Y_2\sim N(2,1)$ are drawn and $W=Y_1/3+2Y_2/3$, then $W$ has a normal distribution with the same mean $2/3$ but variance $1/9+4/9=5/9$, rather than $41/9$. Every draw of $W$ uses both random variables. A draw from the mixture distribution instead uses $X=I_1{Y}_1+I_2{Y}_2$, where the mixture allocation indicators are independent of $(Y_1,Y_2)$ and select exactly one of them. The expression for $f$ adds densities, not simultaneous random outcomes.

For $0\le q\le 1$ and $r>0$, this mixed probability distribution has probability mass $1-q$ at zero and ordinary probability density function $q/r$ on $(0,r)$. That ordinary density integrates to $q$, not to one; conditioned on $S>0$, the law is the uniform distribution on $(0,r)$. Its cumulative distribution function is zero for $s<0$, $1-q+qs/r$ for $0\le s<r$, and one for $s\ge r$.

For each positive integer $k$, integration gives $\mathbb{E}[S^k]=q{r}^k/(k+1)$. Thus the expected value is $qr/2$ and the variance is $q{r}^2/3-q^2{r}^2/4$. The nonzero atom contributes to normalization even though it contributes zero to positive moments. At $q=0$, conditioning on positive delay is undefined because the conditioning event has probability zero.

For $a,b>1$, the maximum of $r$ on $[0,1]$ occurs at $(a-1)/(a+b-2)$. If one parameter is one, the maximum is attained at the corresponding endpoint; if both are one, $r$ is constant. Let $M=\sup r$. Accept an independent uniform distribution proposal $X$ when another uniform draw is at most $r(X)/M$. The accepted probability density function is the beta distribution, and acceptance probability is $B(a,b)/M$.

For independent and identically distributed random variables $U_1,\dots ,U_n$ with the continuous uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, the $r$th order statistic has Beta distributionIts probability density function, mean, and variance areThe probability density function is zero outside $[0,1]$; values assigned to its endpoints do not change any probability. Peter Kempthorne's MIT lecture notes derive the uniform order statistic law and these moments. ^[ref].

For $n=5$, the minimum, sample median, and sample maximum correspond to $r=1,3,5$. Their probability density functions are $5(1-t{)}^4$, $30t^2(1-t{)}^2$, and $5t^4$, respectively. The sample median therefore has Beta distribution $\mathrm{Beta}(3,3)$, mean $1/2$, and variance $1/28\approx 0.0357143$. Its cumulative distribution function isFor instance, $\mathbb{P}(U_{(3)}\le 1/4)=53/512\approx 0.103516$. The mean of the minimum is $1/6$, and the mean of the sample maximum is $5/6$. The fixed observed sample median $0.4$ in the order statistic example is one possible outcome; $1/2$ is the average over repeated statistical samples from this uniform distribution.

Each curve has area one. The extreme order statistics favor the ends, while the sample median favors the center. The endpoint density height $5$ is legitimate: the probability density function gives area per unit length, rather than point probability. In particular, a continuous uniform distribution has zero probability of producing an endpoint.

For a short proof, the binomial distribution counting identity under order statistic gives $\mathbb{P}(U_{(r)}\le t)={\sum }_{k=r}^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)t^k(1-t{)}^{n-k}$. Taking its derivative cancels consecutive terms, leaving the displayed probability density function. Recognize its normalizing factorial coefficient as that of the Beta distribution, then substitute $\alpha =r$, $\beta =n+1-r$ into the Beta distribution mean and variance formulas. Although the original observations are independent, their order statistics generally are dependent; see the positive covariance of two uniform order statistics.