Harder brainteaser than the coin flip

Suppose X ~ Normal(0; 1) and Y = X + epsilon, where epsilon ~ Normal(0; sigma^2) and epsilon is independent of X. Conditional on observing Y , what is the distribution of X?

SBs for 1st correct answer

Edit - this is in response to //www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/the-hardest-brainteaser-that-you-ever-did-see

Edit - solved below so scrolling down is cheating if you want to solve.

28 Comments
 

Well, by my calculations, the correct answer is -theta --- +epsilon(X-Y^epsilon+1)

"Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat, that's a fact.
 

Well, by my calculations, the correct answer is -theta --- +epsilon(X-Y^epsilon+1)

"Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat, that's a fact.
 

Bivariate Normal Distribution FTW

"Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat, that's a fact.
 

Zy,Zx f(x, y)dxdy = 1 f(x, y) >= 0

Where Z is the integral

"Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat, that's a fact.
 
ivoteforthatguythe distribution of X is the same as the distribution of Y.

Y = X + epsilon, so X = Y - epsilon. Since epsilon is an unbiased normal variate, X and Y are equivalent under permutation. By symmetry, X and Y follow the same distribution.

No such luck, sorry. Very common mistake though.
 
Dr Joe
ivoteforthatguythe distribution of X is the same as the distribution of Y.

Y = X + epsilon, so X = Y - epsilon. Since epsilon is an unbiased normal variate, X and Y are equivalent under permutation. By symmetry, X and Y follow the same distribution.

No such luck, sorry. Very common mistake though.

lol

then i will go with my second choice: X ~ Normal(0; 1).

i hope this isn't a gag question.

 

What kind of interview are they asking you this in?

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
 

Hey,

Is the answer:

P(X|Y) ~ N(rho*y/(sigma^2+1),(1-rho)^2)

where rho is the correlation coefficient of X and Y? (i.e. rho = Cov(X,Y)/(Var(X)Var(Y)) = Cov(X,Y)/(sigma^2+1))

I had to use paper and pencil for this [x has been edited to y, since y is observed...]

Just Do It
 
maximumlikelihoodHey,

Is the answer:

P(X|Y) ~ N(rho*y/(sigma^2+1),(1-rho)^2)

where rho is the correlation coefficient of X and Y? (i.e. rho = Cov(X,Y)/(Var(X)Var(Y)) = Cov(X,Y)/(sigma^2+1))

I had to use paper and pencil for this [x has been edited to y, since y is observed...]

Nope
 

Ok what about this:

P(X|Y) ~ N(rho*y/A, 1-rho^2)

where A = sqrt(sigma^2+1)

I spent some time on this now, is it wrong? Again rho is the correlation coeff. AFAIK all Gaussians used here should be 1-D.

Just Do It
 
whocaresdrDr ... this isn't that hard.

(X|Y) ~ N(Y/(1+sig^2), (sig^2)/(1+sig^2))

Also ML, you can compute rho explicitly given independence of X and eps...you know the formula for covariance and you know the variances of X and Y....

We have a winner.

Also, I never said this was that hard. But I think it is a very good question to test overall comfort with conditional probability. Just having the insight to say that E[X|Y] =!= Y, and E[X|Y] is between 0 and Y is sufficient here for most purposes.

 
whocaresdrDr ... this isn't that hard.

(X|Y) ~ N(Y/(1+sig^2), (sig^2)/(1+sig^2))

Also ML, you can compute rho explicitly given independence of X and eps...you know the formula for covariance and you know the variances of X and Y....

Shouldnt the E(X|Y)=Y/(1+sigma) without the square power?

 
yhp2009
whocaresdrDr ... this isn't that hard.

(X|Y) ~ N(Y/(1+sig^2), (sig^2)/(1+sig^2))

Also ML, you can compute rho explicitly given independence of X and eps...you know the formula for covariance and you know the variances of X and Y....

Shouldnt the E(X|Y)=Y/(1+sigma) without the square power?

I checked, and no, the original answer is correct.
 

Also, a note to the above who fell into the trick of thinking the mean was Y (which is a gut instinct), an easy demonstration of the fallacy occurs when we allow

Y = X1 + X2, with X1 and X2 iid. (this is generalizable to Y = Sigma(X_i))

Then, clearly, E(X1|Y) = E(X2|Y) and by linearity E(X1|Y) + E(X2|Y) = Y, so E(X1|Y) = Y/2.

A more general form of this reasoning is used to give the result here.

 

Ok, I guessed I rushed it, yes rho = 1/sqrt(1+sigma^2) with X and epsilon independent. I don't know if this counts as a brainteaser though - its not involved but I doubt this will be asked at general analysts' interview, or maybe I'm wrong.

Just Do It
 

Nesciunt est et in quia id. Et sit sed reprehenderit ut. Non eos totam non exercitationem.

Dolore ipsam temporibus quisquam sed velit vero nobis quas. Eius praesentium quidem laudantium maxime qui explicabo nam. Numquam sapiente perspiciatis et voluptas hic sapiente ipsum esse.

Ut nisi ut illo molestias. Accusantium sint ut sint voluptatem autem ducimus. Dolor minima minus esse quas.

 

Odio harum qui necessitatibus a. Aut atque maiores praesentium. Veniam odio esse omnis.

Eaque magnam saepe eum quisquam non illum qui. Corrupti aut deleniti accusamus odio quos aut. Qui aperiam saepe id animi laboriosam. Ut ex eligendi aut voluptas repellendus molestias sequi non. Soluta aut consequatur excepturi iure voluptas animi nihil.

Ea ab provident mollitia molestiae dolores pariatur. Rerum tenetur recusandae et. Omnis molestiae quaerat repellat. Eaque quia voluptas quasi. Aut quia omnis architecto est qui et.

Ducimus architecto dolore optio consequatur voluptatibus ducimus. Nam corporis beatae adipisci. Corrupti corrupti et qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan 01 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (46) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Mimbs's picture
Mimbs
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”