Talk:Inverse Gaussian distribution

message: it would be illustrative to have a graphical represaentation of the distribution
----------
The last change (November 4) to the Brownian motion section was made by me... reference is "The Inverse Gaussian Distribution: Theory, methodology and applications" p29.
Deavik 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: graphics

message: There are several parameterizations of the inverse Gaussian distribution, including one which makes the relationship between it and a Brownian motion with drift more explicit (in terms of the drift parameter v and the variance parameter  \sigma^2).  These other parameterizations should be at least mentioned.  I am not aware of any good reason to present the given one as "canonical"; though if such a reason exists, it, too, should be presented.
Cheers, Eliezg 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameterizations 

message: I think the likelihood function should be changed to:
:
L(\mu, \lambda)=
\left(      \frac\lambda{2\pi}   \right)^\frac n 2  
\left(      \prod^n_{i=1} \frac{w_i}{X_i^3}    \right)^{\frac12} 
\exp\left(\frac\lambda{\mu} -\frac\lambda{2\mu^2}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i X_i - \frac\lambda 2 \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \frac1{X_i} \right).
Without this additional term, you can not solve the first order condition for the MLE's, as they are given in this article.
Ryantg (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: L(\mu, \lambda)=
\left( \frac{\lambda}{2\pi}   \right)^\frac n 2
\left( \prod^n_{i=1} \frac{w_i}{X_i^3}    \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{\mu} \sum_{i=1}^n w_i -\frac{\lambda}{2\mu^2}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i X_i - \frac\lambda 2 \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \frac1{X_i} \right).
Batman50 (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in likelihood function. 

message: the article mentioned the name is misleading, and the inverse gaussian distribution is not the distribution of Y=\frac{1}{X} (X is normal), then what is the name of the distribution of Y???? It will be great if we say something about that.
Jackzhp (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the misleading part

message: Apart from formatting differences, a figure identical to the one shown can be generated in R using
plot(x, dinvgauss(x, 1, 1), type="l", xaxs="i", yaxs="i", xlab="", ylab="", col=1);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x,1,0.2),col=2);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x,1,3),col=3);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x,3,1),col=4);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x,3,0.2),col=5)
However, according to the R manual (e.g., ), the second parameter of the function dinvgauss corresponds to 1/lambda, instead of lambda. Hence, the figure's labels should be replaced. Alternatively, use the following code to generate an interesting sequence of densities:
x<-seq(0,3,0.01);
plot(x, dinvgauss(x, 1, 1/4), type="l", xaxs="i", yaxs="i", xlab="", ylab="", col=1,ylim=c(0,2.5));
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 1/2), type="l", col=2);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 1), type="l", col=3);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 2), type="l", col=4);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 4), type="l", col=5);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 8), type="l", col=6);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 16), type="l", col=7);
lines(x,dinvgauss(x, 1, 32), type="l", col=8)
Btw, it would be useful to add code snippets that generate the graphs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szepi (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the labels of the figure 

message: I think one of the introductory paragraphs is likely to be misconstrued, specifically the clause, "while the Gaussian describes the distribution of distance at fixed time in Brownian motion . . . ."  It is so commonplace to generalize Brownian motion to higher dimensions that I think it is confusing to claim the process's distance is Gaussian (since in higher dimensions, it isn't).  I think this article should not assume that readers be familiar with Brownian motion.  If we ditched the word "distance" and replaced it with "level," I think we would not only clear up the ambiguity, but the wording would nicely complement the following sentence: Gaussian describes level at a certain time; inverse Gaussian describes time to hit a certain level.  Disadvantage:  "level" isn't very precise, although my gut tells me it is fairly intuitive. LandruBek (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the initial description 

message: The article should, I think, also mention the special case of this distribution as μ tends to infinity.  This is how I was first introduced to the IG distribution -- it describes the hitting time of a drift-less Wiener process at level λ².  The derivation is an elementary one from the CDF of a Gaussian using a simple change of variables, and thus I think readers are likely to expect to see this case mentioned explicitly. LandruBek (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there is no drift...