Talk:Compound probability distribution

Latest comment: 10 months ago by 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E in topic The proof is muddled

Exponential-inverse gamma edit

The article contains the text "Compounding an exponential distribution with parameter distributed according to an inverse gamma distribution yields a pareto distribution." I am not sure this works and https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/646852/compound-of-gamma-and-exponential-distribution suggests that it should be an exponential-gamma mixture. I don't have a reference for this though. 217.44.78.244 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The proof is muddled edit

In the subsection Proof, there are unnecessary and confusing simplifications and misleading or mistaken notation.

1) There is no good reason to write   and   as if they are parametrized by mean and standard deviation. In fact, it is misleading, because we are given only that   is parametrized by  , and   is fixed. The other three quantities are outcomes, not parameters.

Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the relation between   and   is bijective, so reparametrization to make them equal might not be possible.

2) Writing the variance   as   is incorrect, since   is a random variable and   is a constant. (If it is intended to be a random variable, this has not been declared, and moreover, it can't be pulled out of an integral as the quantity   is.)

It would be better if

a) The expression   were substituted for   wherever the latter is being used to denote the mean of  , and

b) The variables  ,  , and   were deleted, and replaced by the expressions

     .

In fact, these quantities are all calculated at some point in the proof as it is written, so the logic and sequencing of the proof don't have to change, just the symbols in the calculations.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply