graphics[edit]

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)[reply]

Parameterizations[edit]

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)[reply]

Error in likelihood function.[edit]

I think the likelihood function should be changed to:

L(\mu ,\lambda )=\left({\frac {\lambda }{2\pi }}\right)^{\frac {n}{2}}\left(\prod _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {w_{i}}{X_{i}^{3}}}\right)^{\frac {1}{2}}\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}{\frac {1}{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)[reply]

I agree - fixed Batman50 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was not quite right. The expression on the current page is correct:

L(\mu ,\lambda )=\left({\frac {\lambda }{2\pi }}\right)^{\frac {n}{2}}\left(\prod _{i=1}^{n}{\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}{\frac {1}{X_{i}}}\right).

Batman50 (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the misleading part[edit]

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)[reply]

Error in the labels of the figure[edit]

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., [1]), 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)[reply]

Clarifying the initial description[edit]

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)[reply]

If there is no drift...[edit]

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)[reply]