We are playing a game where we keep on choosing a number from the uniform distribution U(0,1). The game goes on until we have the current number less than the previously picked number, i.e. the game will stop if we get a number less than the previous number and will continue if we get a number greater than equal to the previous number. What is the expected value of the final number?
1 Answer
Let \begin{equation*} N:=\inf\{n\ge2\colon X_{n-1}>X_n\}, \end{equation*} where $X_1,X_2,\dots$ are independent random variables uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. We want to find \begin{equation*} EX_N=\sum_{n=2}^\infty EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}>X_n). \tag{1} \end{equation*}
We have \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}>X_n) \\ &=EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}) \\ &-EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n), \end{aligned} \tag{2} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}) \\ &=EX_n\,P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1})=\frac12\,\frac1{(n-1)!}. \end{aligned} \tag{3} \end{equation*}
The calculation of $EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ is more involved than that of $EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1})$, because $X_n$ and $1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ are not independent -- in contrast with $X_n$ and $1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1})$.
The main idea in the calculation of $EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ is to express $X_n$ in terms of indicators, to allow a better blending with the indicator $1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$.
Toward that end, note that $X_n=\int_0^{X_n} dx=\int_0^1 dx\,1(X_n>x)$ and
$$1(X_n>x)1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n) \\
=1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n>x),$$
so that
$$X_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n) \\
=\int_0^1 dx\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n>x),$$
the latter expression being indeed in terms of the indicators $1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n>x)$.
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n) \\
&=E\int_0^1 dx\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n>x) \\
&=\int_0^1 dx\,P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n>x) \\
&=\int_0^1 dx\,[P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n) \\
&\qquad\qquad-P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n\le x)] \\
&=P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n) \\
&-\int_0^1 dx\,P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n\le x) \\
&=\frac1{n!}-\int_0^1 dx\,x^n\frac1{n!} = \frac1{n!}-\frac1{(n+1)!}.
\end{aligned}
\tag{4}
\end{equation*}
So, by (1), (2), (3), (4),
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
EX_N&=\sum_{n=2}^\infty \Big(\frac12\,\frac1{(n-1)!}-\frac1{n!}+\frac1{(n+1)!}\Big) \\
&=\frac e2-1\approx0.359.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
One may also note that \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &EN=E\sum_{n=0}^\infty1(N>n)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty P(N>n) \\ &=\sum_{n=0}^\infty P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_n) =\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac1{n!}=e\approx2.72. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}
Simulation with Mathematica appears to confirm these results (click on the image below to enlarge it):
-
1$\begingroup$ I think there must be a fault in your program. I just repeated a simulation with numpy (in python) and got $0.35905$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2021 at 20:07
-
1$\begingroup$ @DieterKadelka : Thank you for your comment. There indeed was a mistake in my Mathematica programming, which is now fixed, and the results are in agreement. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2021 at 20:28
-
$\begingroup$ @ShashankNathani : The two expressions, $E(1-X_n)\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ and $EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$, are simply related to each other (I have now added a detail on this). However, $E(1-X_n)\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ is more directly expressible in terms of $P(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n\le x)$ than $EX_n\,1(X_1\le\cdots\le X_{n-1}\le X_n)$ is. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2021 at 2:40
-
$\begingroup$ @ShashankNathani : Do you have any further questions or concerns about this answer? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 15:18
-
$\begingroup$ @ShashankNathani : (i) I did not use conditional expectations anywhere in this answer. (ii) It is not correct to say that I could not use $X_n$ "directly" and therefore had to use $1-X_n$ instead. I just thought that it would be a bit easier to deal with $1-X_n$ first and then with $X_n$, as $1-X_n$ and $X_n$ are very simply related to each other anyway. (iii) However, I have now rewritten the answer without using $1-X_n$. I have also added more details. Are you satisfied now with the answer? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 22:33