Unit 12, lesson 77

Arrival Counts and Waiting Times

How the first arrival of a Poisson process gives an exponential waiting time, how interarrival times add up to the kth arrival time, how waiting events become count events, and why the wait is memoryless.

  • Video 77
  • Poisson Processes

Requests reach a server at an average rate of two per minute. One question asks how many requests arrive in the next three minutes, and its answer is a count. Another asks how long the server waits for the next request, and its answer is a time in minutes. Under a homogeneous Poisson model both questions describe the same arrivals, so an event about the time of the first or the kth arrival can be rewritten as an event about counts. This lesson uses that link to find the law of the first wait, of the gaps between arrivals and of the time of the kth arrival, and to show why an exponential wait has no memory.

Key terms

First arrival time

Definition Let N(t)N(t), for t≥0t \ge 0, be a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ>0\lambda > 0. So N(0)=0N(0) = 0, the counts in disjoint time intervals are independent, and the count in any interval of length tt is Pois⁡(λt)\operatorname{Pois}(\lambda t). Here N(t)N(t) is the number of arrivals up to and including time tt. The first arrival time T1T_1 is the time at which the count first reaches 11. For every t≥0t \ge 0,

{T1>t}={N(t)=0},\{T_1 > t\} = \{N(t) = 0\},

because the first arrival comes after time tt exactly when no arrival has happened by time tt. Taking complements gives {T1≤t}={N(t)≥1}\{T_1 \le t\} = \{N(t) \ge 1\}.

In plain words “Still waiting at time tt” and “no arrivals by time tt” are two descriptions of the same outcomes. The first speaks about a time and the second about a count, and that is why waiting probabilities can be read off from Poisson counts.

Example In a constructed model, requests arrive as a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute. The count in the first half minute is N(0.5)∼Pois⁡(1)N(0.5) \sim \operatorname{Pois}(1), so

P(T1>0.5)=P(N(0.5)=0)=e−1≈0.3679.\begin{aligned} &P(T_1 > 0.5) \\[0.4em] &\quad = P(N(0.5) = 0) \\[0.4em] &\quad = e^{-1} \approx 0.3679. \end{aligned}

The chance of waiting more than thirty seconds is about 36.836.8 percent. The chance that the first request comes within thirty seconds is 1−e−1≈0.63211 - e^{-1} \approx 0.6321, which is also the chance of at least one arrival in a half-minute window.

Exponential waiting time

Definition In a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ>0\lambda > 0, the first arrival time has the exponential distribution with rate λ\lambda, written T1∼Exp⁡(λ)T_1 \sim \operatorname{Exp}(\lambda). For t≥0t \ge 0 its survival function, CDF and density are

P(T1>t)=e−λt,F(t)=1−e−λt,f(t)=λe−λt,\begin{gathered} P(T_1 > t) = e^{-\lambda t}, \\[0.4em] F(t) = 1 - e^{-\lambda t}, \\[0.4em] f(t) = \lambda e^{-\lambda t}, \end{gathered}

and F(t)=f(t)=0F(t) = f(t) = 0 for t<0t < 0. The survival function is P(N(t)=0)P(N(t) = 0) from the previous card, and the density is the derivative of FF for t>0t > 0. Since e−λt→0e^{-\lambda t} \to 0 as t→∞t \to \infty, the first arrival happens at some finite time with probability 11. The mean is E[T1]=1/λE[T_1] = 1/\lambda, the variance is Var⁡(T1)=1/λ2\operatorname{Var}(T_1) = 1/\lambda^2 and the standard deviation is SD⁡(T1)=1/λ\operatorname{SD}(T_1) = 1/\lambda. With λ\lambda in arrivals per unit of time and tt in the same unit, the product λt\lambda t is a pure number, the density is measured per unit of time, and the mean 1/λ1/\lambda is a time.

In plain words The rate gives the mean count of a window by multiplying by the window’s length, and it gives the mean wait by taking the reciprocal. The density is not a probability. A probability is the area under the density over a time interval, and P(T1=t)=0P(T_1 = t) = 0 for every single time tt, even though the arrival happens at some time with probability 11.

Example With λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute, a three-minute window has mean count 2⋅3=62 \cdot 3 = 6, while the first wait has mean 1/21/2 minute, or 3030 seconds. The variance of the wait is 0.250.25 square minute and its standard deviation is 0.50.5 minute, as large as the mean. So the waits are not concentrated near 3030 seconds. A wait under 1010 seconds has probability 1−e−1/3≈0.28351 - e^{-1/3} \approx 0.2835, and a wait over one minute has probability e−2≈0.1353e^{-2} \approx 0.1353. The density at 00 is f(0)=2f(0) = 2 per minute, a value above 11 that is not a probability. For a wait longer than 4545 seconds, first convert 4545 seconds to 0.750.75 minute, then

P(T1>0.75)=e−1.5≈0.2231.\begin{aligned} P(T_1 > 0.75) &= e^{-1.5} \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.2231. \end{aligned}

Working in seconds gives the same exponent, since the rate is 2/60=1/302/60 = 1/30 per second and 45/30=1.545/30 = 1.5.

Memoryless waiting

Definition For all s≥0s \ge 0 and t≥0t \ge 0, a waiting time T1∼Exp⁡(λ)T_1 \sim \operatorname{Exp}(\lambda) satisfies

P(T1>s+t∣T1>s)=e−λ(s+t)e−λs=e−λt.\begin{aligned} &P(T_1 > s + t \mid T_1 > s) \\[0.4em] &\quad = \frac{e^{-\lambda (s + t)}}{e^{-\lambda s}} = e^{-\lambda t}. \end{aligned}

The conditioning event has probability e−λs>0e^{-\lambda s} > 0, and the event {T1>s+t}\{T_1 > s + t\} lies inside {T1>s}\{T_1 > s\}, so the conditional probability is the ratio of the two survival probabilities. Given that no arrival has happened by time ss, the remaining wait T1−sT_1 - s is again Exp⁡(λ)\operatorname{Exp}(\lambda). In a Poisson process the same holds from any fixed time ss. The count N(s+t)−N(s)N(s + t) - N(s) is Pois⁡(λt)\operatorname{Pois}(\lambda t) and is independent of the arrivals up to time ss, so the wait from time ss until the next arrival is Exp⁡(λ)\operatorname{Exp}(\lambda) whatever happened before ss.

In plain words Time already spent waiting does not make an arrival overdue. After an empty stretch, the wait still to come has the same law as a fresh wait. This is a statement about conditional probabilities, and the time already spent still counts toward the total wait. It comes from the model’s constant rate and its independent counts in disjoint intervals, not from the mere fact that a question is about waiting. Many real waits are not memoryless, for example a bus that runs on a timetable or a part that wears out with age.

Example With λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute, suppose 2020 seconds pass with no arrival. The probability of waiting more than another 3030 seconds is e−2⋅0.5=e−1≈0.3679e^{-2 \cdot 0.5} = e^{-1} \approx 0.3679, the same as for a fresh wait of 3030 seconds. The unconditional probability of a total wait above 5050 seconds is smaller,

P(T1>56)=e−5/3≈0.1889,\begin{aligned} P\left(T_1 > \tfrac{5}{6}\right) &= e^{-5/3} \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.1889, \end{aligned}

because it also requires the first 2020 seconds to be empty, which has probability e−2/3e^{-2/3}, and e−2/3⋅e−1=e−5/3e^{-2/3} \cdot e^{-1} = e^{-5/3}.

Interarrival time

Definition Let TkT_k be the time of the kkth arrival for k=1,2,…k = 1, 2, \dots, and set T0=0T_0 = 0. The kkth interarrival time is the gap

Gk=Tk−Tk−1,G_k = T_k - T_{k-1},

so G1=T1G_1 = T_1 is the first wait. In a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ>0\lambda > 0, the gaps G1,G2,…G_1, G_2, \dots are independent and each has the Exp⁡(λ)\operatorname{Exp}(\lambda) distribution. Conversely, if independent Exp⁡(λ)\operatorname{Exp}(\lambda) gaps are added up to give arrival times, counting the arrivals up to each time tt produces a homogeneous Poisson process with rate λ\lambda.

In plain words After each arrival, the wait for the next one has the same exponential law as the very first wait and does not depend on the earlier gaps. Generating the gaps one at a time is a second, equivalent way to describe the process.

Example With λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute, every gap has mean 3030 seconds. The probability that one particular gap, for instance the one after the fourth arrival, lasts more than a minute is e−2≈0.1353e^{-2} \approx 0.1353. By independence, the probability that each of the first three gaps lasts more than a minute is

(e−2)3=e−6≈0.0025.\left(e^{-2}\right)^{3} = e^{-6} \approx 0.0025.

The kth arrival time

Definition For k≥1k \ge 1, the kkth arrival time is the sum of the first kk gaps,

Tk=G1+G2+⋯+Gk.T_k = G_1 + G_2 + \cdots + G_k.

By linearity of expectation and the independence of the gaps,

E[Tk]=kλ,Var⁡(Tk)=kλ2.\begin{gathered} E[T_k] = \frac{k}{\lambda}, \\[0.4em] \operatorname{Var}(T_k) = \frac{k}{\lambda^2}. \end{gathered}

For k=1k = 1 this is the exponential first wait. For k≥2k \ge 2 the arrival time TkT_k is not exponential, because an exponential variable with mean k/λk/\lambda has variance k2/λ2k^2/\lambda^2, which is larger than k/λ2k/\lambda^2.

In plain words A gap is the time between two neighboring arrivals, or from time 00 to the first arrival, while an arrival time is measured from time 00 and adds up all the gaps before it. Each gap is exponential, but the sum of several gaps is not. Its standard deviation is only 1/k1/\sqrt{k} times its mean.

Example With λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute, the third arrival time T3T_3 has mean 3/2=1.53/2 = 1.5 minutes and variance 3/43/4 square minute, so its standard deviation is 3/2≈0.866\sqrt{3}/2 \approx 0.866 minute. An exponential wait with the same mean of 1.51.5 minutes would have standard deviation 1.51.5 minutes, so T3T_3 does not have an exponential distribution. Its probabilities come from counts, as the next card shows.

Count and waiting time connection

Definition For every k≥1k \ge 1 and t≥0t \ge 0,

{Tk≤t}={N(t)≥k},\{T_k \le t\} = \{N(t) \ge k\},

since the kkth arrival has happened by time tt exactly when at least kk arrivals have happened by then. Taking complements and using N(t)∼Pois⁡(λt)N(t) \sim \operatorname{Pois}(\lambda t),

P(Tk>t)=P(N(t)≤k−1)=∑j=0k−1e−λt(λt)jj!.\begin{aligned} &P(T_k > t) \\[0.4em] &\quad = P(N(t) \le k - 1) \\[0.4em] &\quad = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \frac{e^{-\lambda t}(\lambda t)^{j}}{j!}. \end{aligned}

For k=1k = 1 the sum has the single term e−λte^{-\lambda t}, the exponential survival function again.

In plain words A question about when the kkth arrival happens becomes a question about how many arrivals a window holds. The window runs from time 00 to the time in the question, and its count is compared with kk. The kkth arrival comes after time tt exactly when fewer than kk arrivals have happened by time tt.

Example With λ=2\lambda = 2 per minute, the count in the first minute is N(1)∼Pois⁡(2)N(1) \sim \operatorname{Pois}(2). The second arrival comes within one minute exactly when that count is at least 22, so

P(T2≤1)=1−e−2−2e−2=1−3e−2≈0.5940.\begin{aligned} &P(T_2 \le 1) \\[0.4em] &\quad = 1 - e^{-2} - 2e^{-2} \\[0.4em] &\quad = 1 - 3e^{-2} \approx 0.5940. \end{aligned}

The subtracted terms are P(N(1)=0)P(N(1) = 0) and P(N(1)=1)P(N(1) = 1). An exponential wait with the same mean of one minute would give 1−e−1≈0.63211 - e^{-1} \approx 0.6321, a different number.

Check yourself

  1. A constructed model treats arrivals at a help desk as a homogeneous Poisson process with rate 33 per hour. Find the mean of the first wait in minutes, the probability that the first wait is longer than 2020 minutes, and the probability of no arrivals in the first 4040 minutes.
Show the answer

Work in hours, the unit of the rate. The mean wait is 1/λ=1/31/\lambda = 1/3 hour, which is 2020 minutes. Twenty minutes is 1/31/3 hour, so the first wait is longer than that with probability e−3⋅1/3=e−1≈0.3679e^{-3 \cdot 1/3} = e^{-1} \approx 0.3679. Forty minutes is 2/32/3 hour, so the count in that window is Pois⁡(2)\operatorname{Pois}(2) and it is zero with probability e−2≈0.1353e^{-2} \approx 0.1353.

  1. In the same model, the first 2020 minutes pass with no arrival. Find the probability that the next 2020 minutes also have no arrival. A classmate argues that after a quiet stretch an arrival is overdue, so the answer should be below e−1e^{-1}. What is wrong with this, and why is your answer larger than the probability e−2e^{-2} found in question 1?
Show the answer

The event is that the first wait is longer than 2/32/3 hour, given that it is longer than 1/31/3 hour. By memorylessness

P(T1>23∣T1>13)=e−2e−1=e−1≈0.3679.\begin{aligned} &P\left(T_1 > \tfrac{2}{3} \mid T_1 > \tfrac{1}{3}\right) \\[0.4em] &\quad = \frac{e^{-2}}{e^{-1}} = e^{-1} \approx 0.3679. \end{aligned}

The same answer follows from independent increments, since the count in the second stretch of 2020 minutes is Pois⁡(1)\operatorname{Pois}(1) and independent of the empty first stretch. Under this model the quiet stretch says nothing about the future, so no arrival is overdue. The probability e−2≈0.1353e^{-2} \approx 0.1353 from question 1 is unconditional. It also requires the first 2020 minutes to be empty, which has probability e−1e^{-1}, and e−1⋅e−1=e−2e^{-1} \cdot e^{-1} = e^{-2}.

  1. In the same model, a classmate notes that the third arrival time has mean 11 hour, treats it as exponential with mean 11 hour, and reports 1−e−11 - e^{-1} as the probability that the third arrival comes within the first hour. Find the correct probability.
Show the answer

The mean is right, since E[T3]=3/λ=1E[T_3] = 3/\lambda = 1 hour, but T3T_3 is the sum of three independent exponential gaps and is not exponential. Use counts instead. The count in the first hour is N(1)∼Pois⁡(3)N(1) \sim \operatorname{Pois}(3), and the third arrival comes within the hour exactly when N(1)≥3N(1) \ge 3. So

P(T3≤1)=1−P(N(1)≤2)=1−e−3(1+3+92)=1−8.5 e−3≈0.5768.\begin{aligned} &P(T_3 \le 1) \\[0.4em] &\quad = 1 - P(N(1) \le 2) \\[0.4em] &\quad = 1 - e^{-3}\left(1 + 3 + \tfrac{9}{2}\right) \\[0.4em] &\quad = 1 - 8.5\,e^{-3} \approx 0.5768. \end{aligned}

The classmate’s value 1−e−1≈0.63211 - e^{-1} \approx 0.6321 is too large.

How this lesson connects