| Probability density function The red curve is the standard normal distribution |
|
| Cumulative distribution function |
|
| Notation | ![]() |
|---|---|
| Parameters | μ ∈ R — mean (location) σ2 > 0 — variance (squared scale) |
| Support | x ∈ R |
![]() |
|
| CDF | ![]() |
| Mean | μ |
| Median | μ |
| Mode | μ |
| Variance | ![]() |
| Skewness | 0 |
| Ex. kurtosis | 0 |
| Entropy | ![]() |
| MGF | ![]() |
| CF | ![]() |
| Fisher information | ![]() |
In probability theory, the normal (or Gaussian) distribution is a continuous probability distribution, defined by the formula

The parameter μ in this formula is the mean or expectation of the distribution (and also its median and mode). The parameter σ is its standard deviation; its variance is therefore σ 2. A random variable with a Gaussian distribution is said to be normally distributed and is called a normal deviate.
If μ = 0 and σ = 1, the distribution is called the standard normal distribution or the unit normal distribution, and a random variable with that distribution is a standard normal deviate.
Normal distributions are extremely important in statistics, and are often used in the natural and social sciences for real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known.[1][2] One reason for their popularity is the central limit theorem, which states that, under mild conditions, the mean of a large number of random variables independently drawn from the same distribution is distributed approximately normally, irrespective of the form of the original distribution. Thus, physical quantities that are expected to be the sum of many independent processes (such as measurement errors) often have a distribution very close to normal. Another reason is that a large number of results and methods (such as propagation of uncertainty and least squares parameter fitting) can be derived analytically, in explicit form, when the relevant variables are normally distributed.
The normal distribution is also the only absolutely continuous distribution all of whose cumulants beyond the first two (i.e. other than the mean and variance) are zero. It is also the continuous distribution with the maximum entropy for a given mean and variance.[3][4]
The normal distribution is symmetric about its mean, and is non-zero over the entire real line. As such it may not be a suitable model for variables that are inherently positive or strongly skewed, such as the weight of a person or the price of a share. Such variables may be better described by other distributions, such as the log-normal distribution or the Pareto distribution.
The normal distribution is also practically zero once the value x lies more than a few standard deviations away from the mean. Therefore, it may not be appropriate when one expects a significant fraction of outliers, values that lie many standard deviations away from the mean. Least-squares and other statistical inference methods that are optimal for normally distributed variables often become highly unreliable. In those cases, one assumes a more heavy-tailed distribution, and the appropriate robust statistical inference methods.
The normal distributions are a subclass of the elliptical distributions.
The Gaussian distribution is sometimes informally called the bell curve. However, there are many other distributions that are bell-shaped (such as Cauchy's, Student's, and logistic). The terms Gaussian function and Gaussian bell curve are also ambiguous since they sometimes refer to multiples of the normal distribution whose integral is not 1; that is,
for arbitrary positive constants a, b and c.
The simplest case of a normal distribution is known as the standard normal distribution, described by this probability density function:

The factor
in this expression ensures that the total area under the curve ϕ(x) is equal to one[proof]. The 12 in the exponent ensures that the distribution has unit variance (and therefore also unit standard deviation). This function is symmetric around x=0, where it attains its maximum value
; and has inflection points at +1 and −1.
Any normal distribution is a version of the standard normal distribution whose domain has been stretched by a factor σ (the standard deviation) and then translated by μ (the mean value), that is

The probability density must be scaled by
so that the integral is still 1.
If Z is a standard normal deviate, then X = Zσ + μ will have a normal distribution with expected value μ and standard deviation σ. Conversely, if X is a general normal deviate, then Z = (X − μ)/σ will have a standard normal distribution.
Every normal distribution is the exponential of a quadratic function:

where a is negative and c is
. In this form, the mean value μ is −b/a, and the variance σ2 is −1/(2a). For the standard normal distribution, a is −1/2, b is zero, and c is
.
The standard Gaussian distribution (with zero mean and unit variance) is often denoted with the Greek letter ϕ (phi).[5] The alternative form of the Greek phi letter, φ, is also used quite often.
The normal distribution is also often denoted by N(μ, σ2).[6] Thus when a random variable X is distributed normally with mean μ and variance σ2, we write

Some authors advocate using the precision τ as the parameter defining the width of the distribution, instead of the deviation σ or the variance σ2. The precision is normally defined as the reciprocal of the variance, 1/σ2.[7] The formula for the distribution then becomes

This choice is claimed to have advantages in numerical computations when σ is very close to zero, and to simplify formulas in some contexts, such as in the Bayesian inference of variables with multivariate normal distribution.
Occasionally, the precision τ is defined as 1/σ, the reciprocal of the standard deviation; so that

Authors may differ also on which normal distribution should be called the "standard" one. Gauss himself defined the standard normal as having variance σ2 = 12, that is

Stephen Stigler[8] goes even further, defining the standard normal with variance σ2 = 12π :

According to Stigler, this formulation is advantageous because of a much simpler and easier-to-remember formula, the fact that the pdf has unit height at zero, and simple approximate formulas for the quantiles of the distribution.
The normal distribution f(x), with any mean μ and any positive deviation σ, has the following properties:
Furthermore, the standard normal distribution ϕ (with μ = 0 and σ = 1) also has the following properties:
The plain and absolute moments of a variable X are the expected values of Xp and |X|p,respectively. If the expected value μ of X is zero, these parameters are called central moments. Usually we are interested only in moments with integer order p.
If X has a normal distribution, these moments exist and are finite for any p whose real part is greater than −1. For any non-negative integer p, the plain central moments are
![\mathrm{E}\left[X^p\right] =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }p\text{ is odd,} \\
\sigma^p\,(p-1)!! & \text{if }p\text{ is even.}
\end{cases}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/2/f/32f936665e1a94aad5cf15e56fccbcbf.png)
Here n!! denotes the double factorial, that is the product of every odd number from n to 1.
The central absolute moments coincide with plain moments for all even orders, but are nonzero for odd orders. For any non-negative integer p,
![\operatorname{E}\left[|X|^p\right] =
\sigma^p\,(p-1)!! \cdot \left.\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} & \text{if }p\text{ is odd} \\
1 & \text{if }p\text{ is even}
\end{cases}\right\}
= \sigma^p \cdot \frac{2^{\frac{p}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{p+1}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\pi}}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/e/1/9e12b7a47f6253e30ede254c36bed638.png)
The last formula is valid also for any non-integer p > −1.
When the mean μ is not zero, the plain and absolute moments can be expressed in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions 1F1 and U.[citation needed]
![\begin{align}
\operatorname{E} \left[ X^p \right] &=\sigma^p \cdot (-i\sqrt{2}\sgn\mu)^p \; U\left( {-\frac{1}{2}p},\, \frac{1}{2},\, -\frac{1}{2}(\mu/\sigma)^2 \right), \\
\operatorname{E} \left[ |X|^p \right] &=\sigma^p \cdot 2^{\frac p 2} \frac {\Gamma\left(\frac{1+p}{2}\right)}{\sqrt\pi}\; _1F_1\left( {-\frac{1}{2}p},\, \frac{1}{2},\, -\frac{1}{2}(\mu/\sigma)^2 \right).
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/c/e/0ce765d5d6a7d98ef7bd644c4a96ec56.png)
These expressions remain valid even if p is not integer. See also generalized Hermite polynomials.
| Order | Non-central moment | Central moment |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | μ | 0 |
| 2 | μ2 + σ2 | σ 2 |
| 3 | μ3 + 3μσ2 | 0 |
| 4 | μ4 + 6μ2σ2 + 3σ4 | 3σ 4 |
| 5 | μ5 + 10μ3σ2 + 15μσ4 | 0 |
| 6 | μ6 + 15μ4σ2 + 45μ2σ4 + 15σ6 | 15σ 6 |
| 7 | μ7 + 21μ5σ2 + 105μ3σ4 + 105μσ6 | 0 |
| 8 | μ8 + 28μ6σ2 + 210μ4σ4 + 420μ2σ6 + 105σ8 | 105σ 8 |
The Fourier transform of a normal distribution f with mean μ and deviation σ is[12]

where i is the imaginary unit. If the mean μ is zero, the first factor is 1, and the Fourier transform is also a normal distribution on the frequency domain, with mean 0 and standard deviation 1/σ. In particular, the standard normal distribution ϕ (with μ=0 and σ=1) is an eigenfunction of the Fourier transform.
In probability theory, the Fourier transform of the probability distribution of a real-valued random variable X is called the characteristic function of that variable, and can be defined as the expected value of eitX, as a function of the real variable t (the frequency parameter of the Fourier transform). This definition can be analytically extended to a complex-value parameter t.[13]
The moment generating function of a real random variable X is defined as the expected value of etX, as a function of the real parameter t. For a normal distribution with mean μ and deviation σ, the moment generating function exists and is equal to

The cumulant generating function is the logarithm of the moment generating function, namely

Since this is a quadratic polynomial in t, only the first two cumulants are nonzero, namely the mean μ and the variance σ2.
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution, usually denoted with the capital Greek letter
(phi), is the integral

In statistics one often uses the related error function, or erf(x), defined as the probability of a random variable with normal distribution of mean 0 and variance 1/2 falling in the range
; that is

These integrals cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, and are often said to be special functions. They are closely related, namely
![\Phi(x)\; =\; \frac12\left[1 + \operatorname{erf}\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/2/7/9274c63d392688a2999223e83337b194.png)
For a generic normal distribution f with mean μ and deviation σ, the cumulative distribution function is
![F(x)\;=\;\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}\right)\;=\; \frac12\left[1 + \operatorname{erf}\left(\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/1/6/b165a2bcd34eaf1e8aab3a8ed3573903.png)
The complement of the standard normal CDF,
, is often called the Q-function, especially in engineering texts.[14][15] It gives the probability of that the value of a standard normal random variable X will exceed x. Other definitions of the Q-function, all of which are simple transformations of
, are also used occasionally.[16]
The graph of the standard normal CDF
has 2-fold rotational symmetry around the point (0,1/2); that is,
. Its antiderivative (indefinite integral)
is
.
About 68% of values drawn from a normal distribution are within one standard deviation σ away from the mean; about 95% of the values lie within two standard deviations; and about 99.7% are within three standard deviations. This fact is known as the 68-95-99.7 (empirical) rule, or the 3-sigma rule.
More precisely, the probability that a normal deviate lies in the range μ − nσ and μ + nσ is given by

To 12 decimal places, the values for n = 1, 2, ..., 6 are:[17]
| n | F(μ+nσ) − F(μ−nσ) | i.e. 1 minus ... | or 1 in ... | OEIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.682689492137 | 0.317310507863 | 3.15148718753 | |
| 2 | 0.954499736104 | 0.045500263896 | 21.9778945080 | |
| 3 | 0.997300203937 | 0.002699796063 | 370.398347345 | |
| 4 | 0.999936657516 | 0.000063342484 | 15,787.1927673 | |
| 5 | 0.999999426697 | 0.000000573303 | 1,744,277.89362 | |
| 6 | 0.999999998027 | 0.000000001973 | 506,797,345.897 |
The quantile function of a distribution is the inverse of the cumulative distribution function. The quantile function of the standard normal distribution is called the probit function, and can be expressed in terms of the inverse error function:

For a normal random variable with mean μ and variance σ2, the quantile function is

The quantile
of the standard normal distribution is commonly denoted as zp. These values are used in hypothesis testing, construction of confidence intervals and Q-Q plots. A normal random variable X will exceed μ + σzp with probability 1−p; and will lie outside the interval μ ± σzp with probability 2(1−p). In particular, the quantile z0.975 is 1.96; therefore a normal random variable will lie outside the interval μ ± 1.96σ in only 5% of cases.
The following table gives the multiple n of σ such that X will lie in the range μ ± nσ with a specified probability p. These values are useful to determine tolerance interval for sample averages and other statistical estimators with normal (or asymptotically normal) distributions:[18]
| F(μ+nσ) − F(μ−nσ) | n | F(μ+nσ) − F(μ−nσ) | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.80 | 1.281551565545 | 0.999 | 3.290526731492 | |
| 0.90 | 1.644853626951 | 0.9999 | 3.890591886413 | |
| 0.95 | 1.959963984540 | 0.99999 | 4.417173413469 | |
| 0.98 | 2.326347874041 | 0.999999 | 4.891638475699 | |
| 0.99 | 2.575829303549 | 0.9999999 | 5.326723886384 | |
| 0.995 | 2.807033768344 | 0.99999999 | 5.730728868236 | |
| 0.998 | 3.090232306168 | 0.999999999 | 6.109410204869 |
In the limit when σ tends to zero, the probability density f(x) eventually tends to zero at any x ≠ μ, but grows without limit if x = μ, while its integral remains equal to 1. Therefore, the normal distribution cannot be defined as an ordinary function when σ = 0.
However, one can define the normal distribution with zero variance as a generalized function; specifically, as Dirac's "delta function" δ translated by the mean μ, that is f(x) = δ(x−μ). Its CDF is then the Heaviside step function translated by the mean μ, namely

The central limit theorem states that under certain (fairly common) conditions, the sum of a large number of random variables will have an approximately normal distribution. More specifically, suppose that X1, …, Xn be independent and identically distributed random variables, all with the same arbitrary distribution, with zero mean and variance σ2; and that Z is their mean scaled by
, that is,

Then, as n increases, the probability distribution of Z will tend to the normal distribution with zero mean and variance σ2.
The theorem can be extended to variables Xi are not independent and/or not identically distributed, if certain constraints on the degree of dependence and the moments of the distributions.
A great number of test statistics, scores, and estimators encountered in practice contain sums of certain random variables in them, even more estimators can be represented as sums of random variables through the use of influence functions. The central limit theorem implies that those statistical parameters will have asymptotically normal distributions.
The central limit theorem also implies that certain distributions can be approximated by the normal distribution, for example:
Whether these approximations are sufficiently accurate depends on the purpose for which they are needed, and the rate of convergence to the normal distribution. It is typically the case that such approximations are less accurate in the tails of the distribution.
A general upper bound for the approximation error in the central limit theorem is given by the Berry–Esseen theorem, improvements of the approximation are given by the Edgeworth expansions.
The family of normal distributions is closed under linear transformations. That is, if X is normally distributed with mean μ and deviation σ, then the variable Y = aX + b, for any real numbers a and b, is also normally distributed, with mean aμ + b and deviation aσ.
Also if X1 and X2 are two independent normal random variables, with means μ1, μ2 and standard deviations σ1, σ2, then their sum X1 + X2 will also be normally distributed,[proof] with mean μ1 + μ2 and variance
.
In particular, if X and Y are independent normal deviates with zero mean and variance σ2, then X + Y and X − Y are also independent and normally distributed, with zero mean and variance 2σ2. This is a special case of the polarization identity.[19]
Also, if X1, X2 are two independent normal deviates with mean μ and deviation σ, and a, b are arbitrary real numbers, then the variable

is also normally distributed with mean μ and deviation σ. It follows that the normal distribution is stable (with exponent α = 2).
More generally, any linear combination of independent normal deviates is a normal deviate.
For any positive integer n, any normal distribution with mean μ and variance σ2 is the distribution of the sum of n independent normal deviates, each with mean μ/n and variance σ2/n. This property is called infinite divisibility.[20]
Conversely, if X1 and X2 are independent random variables and their sum X1 + X2 has a normal distribution, then both X1 and X2 must be normal deviates.[21]
This result is known as Cramér's decomposition theorem, and is equivalent to saying that the convolution of two distribution is normal if and only if both are normal. Cramér's theorem implies that a linear combination of independent non-Gaussian variables will never have an exactly normal distribution, although it may approach it arbitrarily close.[22]
Bernstein's theorem states that if X and Y are independent and X + Y and X − Y are also independent, then both X and Y must necessarily have normal distributions.[23][24]
More generally, if X1, ..., Xn are independent random variables, then two distinct linear combinations ∑akXk and ∑bkXk will be independent if and only if all Xk's are normal and ∑akbkσ 2
k = 0, where σ 2
k denotes the variance of Xk.[23]



and
, and natural statistics x and x2. The dual, expectation parameters for normal distribution are η1 = μ and η2 = μ2 + σ2.
If X is distributed normally with mean μ and variance σ2, then
If X1 and X2 are two independent standard normal random variables with mean 0 and variance 1, then
has the Rayleigh distribution, also known as the chi distribution with 2 degrees of freedom.
.![t = \frac{\overline X - \mu}{S/\sqrt{n}} = \frac{\frac{1}{n}(X_1+\cdots+X_n) - \mu}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\left[(X_1-\overline X)^2+\cdots+(X_n-\overline X)^2\right]}} \ \sim\ t_{n-1}.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/5/a/35addf92e4d247fe1e2436780514b88e.png)

The split normal distribution is most directly defined in terms of joining scaled sections of the density functions of different normal distributions and rescaling the density to integrate to one. The truncated normal distribution results from rescaling a section of a single density function.
The notion of normal distribution, being one of the most important distributions in probability theory, has been extended far beyond the standard framework of the univariate (that is one-dimensional) case (Case 1). All these extensions are also called normal or Gaussian laws, so a certain ambiguity in names exists.
One of the main practical uses of the Gaussian law is to model the empirical distributions of many different random variables encountered in practice. In such case a possible extension would be a richer family of distributions, having more than two parameters and therefore being able to fit the empirical distribution more accurately. The examples of such extensions are:
Normality tests assess the likelihood that the given data set {x1, …, xn} comes from a normal distribution. Typically the null hypothesis H0 is that the observations are distributed normally with unspecified mean μ and variance σ2, versus the alternative Ha that the distribution is arbitrary. A great number of tests (over 40) have been devised for this problem, the more prominent of them are outlined below:
. For normally distributed data this plot should lie on a 45° line between (0, 0) and (1, 1).It is often the case that we don't know the parameters of the normal distribution, but instead want to estimate them. That is, having a sample (x1, …, xn) from a normal N(μ, σ2) population we would like to learn the approximate values of parameters μ and σ2. The standard approach to this problem is the maximum likelihood method, which requires maximization of the log-likelihood function:

Taking derivatives with respect to μ and σ2 and solving the resulting system of first order conditions yields the maximum likelihood estimates:

Estimator
is called the sample mean, since it is the arithmetic mean of all observations. The statistic
is complete and sufficient for μ, and therefore by the Lehmann–Scheffé theorem,
is the uniformly minimum variance unbiased (UMVU) estimator.[33] In finite samples it is distributed normally:

The variance of this estimator is equal to the μμ-element of the inverse Fisher information matrix
. This implies that the estimator is finite-sample efficient. Of practical importance is the fact that the standard error of
is proportional to
, that is, if one wishes to decrease the standard error by a factor of 10, one must increase the number of points in the sample by a factor of 100. This fact is widely used in determining sample sizes for opinion polls and the number of trials in Monte Carlo simulations.
From the standpoint of the asymptotic theory,
is consistent, that is, it converges in probability to μ as n → ∞. The estimator is also asymptotically normal, which is a simple corollary of the fact that it is normal in finite samples:

The estimator
is called the sample variance, since it is the variance of the sample (x1, …, xn). In practice, another estimator is often used instead of the
. This other estimator is denoted s2, and is also called the sample variance, which represents a certain ambiguity in terminology; its square root s is called the sample standard deviation. The estimator s2 differs from
by having (n − 1) instead of n in the denominator (the so-called Bessel's correction):

The difference between s2 and
becomes negligibly small for large n's. In finite samples however, the motivation behind the use of s2 is that it is an unbiased estimator of the underlying parameter σ2, whereas
is biased. Also, by the Lehmann–Scheffé theorem the estimator s2 is uniformly minimum variance unbiased (UMVU),[33], which makes it the "best" estimator among all unbiased ones. However it can be shown that the biased estimator
is "better" than the s2 in terms of the mean squared error (MSE) criterion. In finite samples both s2 and
have scaled chi-squared distribution with (n − 1) degrees of freedom:

The first of these expressions shows that the variance of s2 is equal to 2σ4/(n−1), which is slightly greater than the σσ-element of the inverse Fisher information matrix
. Thus, s2 is not an efficient estimator for σ2, and moreover, since s2 is UMVU, we can conclude that the finite-sample efficient estimator for σ2 does not exist.
Applying the asymptotic theory, both estimators s2 and
are consistent, that is they converge in probability to σ2 as the sample size n → ∞. The two estimators are also both asymptotically normal:

In particular, both estimators are asymptotically efficient for σ2.
By Cochran's theorem, for normal distributions the sample mean
and the sample variance s2 are independent, which means there can be no gain in considering their joint distribution. There is also a reverse theorem: if in a sample the sample mean and sample variance are independent, then the sample must have come from the normal distribution. The independence between
and s can be employed to construct the so-called t-statistic:

This quantity t has the Student's t-distribution with (n − 1) degrees of freedom, and it is an ancillary statistic (independent of the value of the parameters). Inverting the distribution of this t-statistics will allow us to construct the confidence interval for μ;[34] similarly, inverting the χ2 distribution of the statistic s2 will give us the confidence interval for σ2:[35]
![\begin{align}
& \mu \in \left[\, \hat\mu + t_{n-1,\alpha/2}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}s,\ \
\hat\mu + t_{n-1,1-\alpha/2}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}s \,\right] \approx
\left[\, \hat\mu - |z_{\alpha/2}|\frac{1}{\sqrt n}s,\ \
\hat\mu + |z_{\alpha/2}|\frac{1}{\sqrt n}s \,\right], \\
& \sigma^2 \in \left[\, \frac{(n-1)s^2}{\chi^2_{n-1,1-\alpha/2}},\ \
\frac{(n-1)s^2}{\chi^2_{n-1,\alpha/2}} \,\right] \approx
\left[\, s^2 - |z_{\alpha/2}|\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{n}}s^2,\ \
s^2 + |z_{\alpha/2}|\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{n}}s^2 \,\right],
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3/d/a3d966d4dfadbaa6e1d74e21716cb4b9.png)
where tk,p and χ 2
k,p are the pth quantiles of the t- and χ2-distributions respectively. These confidence intervals are of the level 1 − α, meaning that the true values μ and σ2 fall outside of these intervals with probability α. In practice people usually take α = 5%, resulting in the 95% confidence intervals. The approximate formulas in the display above were derived from the asymptotic distributions of
and s2. The approximate formulas become valid for large values of n, and are more convenient for the manual calculation since the standard normal quantiles zα/2 do not depend on n. In particular, the most popular value of α = 5%, results in |z0.025| = 1.96.
Bayesian analysis of normally distributed data is complicated by the many different possibilities that may be considered:
The formulas for the non-linear-regression cases are summarized in the conjugate prior article.
The following auxiliary formula is useful for simplifying the posterior update equations, which otherwise become fairly tedious.

This equation rewrites the sum of two quadratics in x by expanding the squares, grouping the terms in x, and completing the square. Note the following about the complex constant factors attached to some of the terms:
has the form of a weighted average of y and z.
This shows that this factor can be thought of as resulting from a situation where the reciprocals of quantities a and b add directly, so to combine a and b themselves, it's necessary to reciprocate, add, and reciprocate the result again to get back into the original units. This is exactly the sort of operation performed by the harmonic mean, so it is not surprising that
is one-half the harmonic mean of a and b.A similar formula can be written for the sum of two vector quadratics: If x, y, z are vectors of length k, and A and B are symmetric, invertible matrices of size
, then

where

Note that the form x′ A x is called a quadratic form and is a scalar:

In other words, it sums up all possible combinations of products of pairs of elements from x, with a separate coefficient for each. In addition, since
, only the sum
matters for any off-diagonal elements of A, and there is no loss of generality in assuming that A is symmetric. Furthermore, if A is symmetric, then the form
.
Another useful formula is as follows:

where 
For a set of i.i.d. normally distributed data points X of size n where each individual point x follows
with known variance σ2, the conjugate prior distribution is also normally distributed.
This can be shown more easily by rewriting the variance as the precision, i.e. using τ = 1/σ2. Then if
and
we proceed as follows.
First, the likelihood function is (using the formula above for the sum of differences from the mean):
![\begin{align}
p(\mathbf{X}|\mu,\tau) &= \prod_{i=1}^n \sqrt{\frac{\tau}{2\pi}} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\tau(x_i-\mu)^2\right) \\
&= \left(\frac{\tau}{2\pi}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\tau \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i-\mu)^2\right) \\
&= \left(\frac{\tau}{2\pi}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\tau \left(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar{x})^2 + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right].
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/c/e/2ce343e2660391c54abee999c19a9e7d.png)
Then, we proceed as follows:
![\begin{align}
p(\mu|\mathbf{X}) &\propto p(\mathbf{X}|\mu) p(\mu) \\
& = \left(\frac{\tau}{2\pi}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\tau \left(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar{x})^2 + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right] \sqrt{\frac{\tau_0}{2\pi}} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\tau_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right) \\
&\propto \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\tau\left(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar{x})^2 + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right) + \tau_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right)\right) \\
&\propto \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2} \left(n\tau(\bar{x}-\mu)^2 + \tau_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2 \right)\right) \\
&= \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}(n\tau + \tau_0)\left(\mu - \dfrac{n\tau \bar{x} + \tau_0\mu_0}{n\tau + \tau_0}\right)^2 + \frac{n\tau\tau_0}{n\tau+\tau_0}(\bar{x} - \mu_0)^2\right) \\
&\propto \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}(n\tau + \tau_0)\left(\mu - \dfrac{n\tau \bar{x} + \tau_0\mu_0}{n\tau + \tau_0}\right)^2\right)
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/2/6/826d95b551fd1a0063c80adecb08c1de.png)
In the above derivation, we used the formula above for the sum of two quadratics and eliminated all constant factors not involving μ. The result is the kernel of a normal distribution, with mean
and precision
, i.e.

This can be written as a set of Bayesian update equations for the posterior parameters in terms of the prior parameters:

That is, to combine n data points with total precision of nτ (or equivalently, total variance of n/σ2) and mean of values
, derive a new total precision simply by adding the total precision of the data to the prior total precision, and form a new mean through a precision-weighted average, i.e. a weighted average of the data mean and the prior mean, each weighted by the associated total precision. This makes logical sense if the precision is thought of as indicating the certainty of the observations: In the distribution of the posterior mean, each of the input components is weighted by its certainty, and the certainty of this distribution is the sum of the individual certainties. (For the intuition of this, compare the expression "the whole is (or is not) greater than the sum of its parts". In addition, consider that the knowledge of the posterior comes from a combination of the knowledge of the prior and likelihood, so it makes sense that we are more certain of it than of either of its components.)
The above formula reveals why it is more convenient to do Bayesian analysis of conjugate priors for the normal distribution in terms of the precision. The posterior precision is simply the sum of the prior and likelihood precisions, and the posterior mean is computed through a precision-weighted average, as described above. The same formulas can be written in terms of variance by reciprocating all the precisions, yielding the more ugly formulas

For a set of i.i.d. normally distributed data points X of size n where each individual point x follows
with known mean μ, the conjugate prior of the variance has an inverse gamma distribution or a scaled inverse chi-squared distribution. The two are equivalent except for having different parameterizations. The use of the inverse gamma is more common, but the scaled inverse chi-squared is more convenient, so we use it in the following derivation. The prior for σ2 is as follows:
![p(\sigma^2|\nu_0,\sigma_0^2) = \frac{(\sigma_0^2\frac{\nu_0}{2})^{\frac{\nu_0}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\nu_0}{2} \right)}~\frac{\exp\left[ \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right]}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\frac{\nu_0}{2}}} \propto \frac{\exp\left[ \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right]}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\frac{\nu_0}{2}}}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/d/2/2d24e8288ffd53d6bb4144b839b53379.png)
The likelihood function from above, written in terms of the variance, is:
![\begin{align}
p(\mathbf{X}|\mu,\sigma^2) &= \left(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i-\mu)^2\right] \\
&= \left(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left[-\frac{S}{2\sigma^2}\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/b/9/ab910b8c6a7797f8d3bb4b1feb63cdec.png)
where

Then:
![\begin{align}
p(\sigma^2|\mathbf{X}) &\propto p(\mathbf{X}|\sigma^2) p(\sigma^2) \\
&= \left(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \exp\left[-\frac{S}{2\sigma^2}\right] \frac{(\sigma_0^2\frac{\nu_0}{2})^{\frac{\nu_0}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\nu_0}{2} \right)}~\frac{\exp\left[ \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right]}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\frac{\nu_0}{2}}} \\
&\propto \left(\frac{1}{\sigma^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}} \frac{1}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\frac{\nu_0}{2}}} \exp\left[-\frac{S}{2\sigma^2} + \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right] \\
&= \frac{1}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\frac{\nu_0+n}{2}}} \exp\left[-\frac{\nu_0 \sigma_0^2 + S}{2\sigma^2}\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/d/3/4d33d694b59a9b8a276746550f246e28.png)
This is also a scaled inverse chi-squared distribution, where

or equivalently

Reparameterizing in terms of an inverse gamma distribution, the result is:

For a set of i.i.d. normally distributed data points X of size n where each individual point x follows
with unknown mean μ and variance σ2, a combined (multivariate) conjugate prior is placed over the mean and variance, consisting of a normal-inverse-gamma distribution. Logically, this originates as follows:
The priors are normally defined as follows:

The update equations can be derived, and look as follows:

The respective numbers of pseudo-observations just add the number of actual observations to them. The new mean hyperparameter is once again a weighted average, this time weighted by the relative numbers of observations. Finally, the update for
is similar to the case with known mean, but in this case the sum of squared deviations is taken with respect to the observed data mean rather than the true mean, and as a result a new "interaction term" needs to be added to take care of the additional error source stemming from the deviation between prior and data mean.
Proof is as follows.
The prior distributions are
![\begin{align}
p(\mu|\sigma^2; \mu_0, n_0) &\sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_0,\sigma^2/n_0) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\frac{\sigma^2}{n_0}}} \exp\left(-\frac{n_0}{2\sigma^2}(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right) \\
&\propto (\sigma^2)^{-1/2} \exp\left(-\frac{n_0}{2\sigma^2}(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right) \\
p(\sigma^2; \nu_0,\sigma_0^2) &\sim I\chi^2(\nu_0,\sigma_0^2) = IG(\nu_0/2, \nu_0\sigma_0^2/2) \\
&= \frac{(\sigma_0^2\nu_0/2)^{\nu_0/2}}{\Gamma(\nu_0/2)}~\frac{\exp\left[ \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right]}{(\sigma^2)^{1+\nu_0/2}} \\
&\propto {(\sigma^2)^{-(1+\nu_0/2)}} \exp\left[ \frac{-\nu_0 \sigma_0^2}{2 \sigma^2}\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/2/982b3134788f33032333ef33defe270d.png)
Therefore, the joint prior is
![\begin{align}
p(\mu,\sigma^2; \mu_0, n_0, \nu_0,\sigma_0^2) &= p(\mu|\sigma^2; \mu_0, n_0)\,p(\sigma^2; \nu_0,\sigma_0^2) \\
&\propto (\sigma^2)^{-(\nu_0+3)/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + n_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right)\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/b/a/cba3c2acd49e1596c3f918225b652a81.png)
The likelihood function from the section above with known variance is:
![\begin{align}
p(\mathbf{X}|\mu,\sigma^2) &= \left(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{n/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i -\mu)^2\right)\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/0/c/10c4657e0479fa5313a048dcd7b90fd7.png)
Writing it in terms of variance rather than precision, we get:
![\begin{align}
p(\mathbf{X}|\mu,\sigma^2) &= \left(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{n/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar{x})^2 + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right] \\
&\propto {\sigma^2}^{-n/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \left(S + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right]
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8/c/b8caae03ffce96cdce304e5da12778b3.png)
where 
Therefore, the posterior is (dropping the hyperparameters as conditioning factors):
![\begin{align}
p(\mu,\sigma^2|\mathbf{X}) & \propto p(\mu,\sigma^2) \, p(\mathbf{X}|\mu,\sigma^2) \\
& \propto (\sigma^2)^{-(\nu_0+3)/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + n_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2\right)\right] {\sigma^2}^{-n/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \left(S + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right] \\
&= (\sigma^2)^{-(\nu_0+n+3)/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + S + n_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2 + n(\bar{x} -\mu)^2\right)\right] \\
&= (\sigma^2)^{-(\nu_0+n+3)/2} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + S + \frac{n_0 n}{n_0+n}(\mu_0-\bar{x})^2 + (n_0+n)\left(\mu-\frac{n_0\mu_0 + n\bar{x}}{n_0 + n}\right)^2\right)\right] \\
& \propto (\sigma^2)^{-1/2} \exp\left[-\frac{n_0+n}{2\sigma^2}\left(\mu-\frac{n_0\mu_0 + n\bar{x}}{n_0 + n}\right)^2\right] \\
& \quad\times (\sigma^2)^{-(\nu_0/2+n/2+1)} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + S + \frac{n_0 n}{n_0+n}(\mu_0-\bar{x})^2\right)\right] \\
& = \mathcal{N}_{\mu|\sigma^2}\left(\frac{n_0\mu_0 + n\bar{x}}{n_0 + n}, \frac{\sigma^2}{n_0+n}\right) \cdot {\rm IG}_{\sigma^2}\left(\frac12(\nu_0+n), \frac12\left(\nu_0\sigma_0^2 + S + \frac{n_0 n}{n_0+n}(\mu_0-\bar{x})^2\right)\right).
\end{align}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/5/9/859aca41127daf68fa0abd11f94d04da.png)
In other words, the posterior distribution has the form of a product of a normal distribution over p(μ|σ2) times an inverse gamma distribution over p(σ2), with parameters that are the same as the update equations above.
The occurrence of normal distribution in practical problems can be loosely classified into three categories:
Certain quantities in physics are distributed normally, as was first demonstrated by James Clerk Maxwell. Examples of such quantities are:
Approximately normal distributions occur in many situations, as explained by the central limit theorem. When the outcome is produced by a large number of small effects acting additively and independently, its distribution will be close to normal. The normal approximation will not be valid if the effects act multiplicatively (instead of additively), or if there is a single external influence that has a considerably larger magnitude than the rest of the effects.
I can only recognize the occurrence of the normal curve – the Laplacian curve of errors – as a very abnormal phenomenon. It is roughly approximated to in certain distributions; for this reason, and on account for its beautiful simplicity, we may, perhaps, use it as a first approximation, particularly in theoretical investigations.
There are statistical methods to empirically test that assumption, see the above Normality tests section.
In computer simulations, especially in applications of the Monte-Carlo method, it is often desirable to generate values that are normally distributed. The algorithms listed below all generate the standard normal deviates, since a N(μ, σ2
) can be generated as X = μ + σZ, where Z is standard normal. All these algorithms rely on the availability of a random number generator U capable of producing uniform random variates.


The standard normal CDF is widely used in scientific and statistical computing. The values Φ(x) may be approximated very accurately by a variety of methods, such as numerical integration, Taylor series, asymptotic series and continued fractions. Different approximations are used depending on the desired level of accuracy.


|
|
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article titled History of the normal distribution. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2013. |
Some authors[44][45] attribute the credit for the discovery of the normal distribution to de Moivre, who in 1738[nb 2] published in the second edition of his "The Doctrine of Chances" the study of the coefficients in the binomial expansion of (a + b)n. De Moivre proved that the middle term in this expansion has the approximate magnitude of
, and that "If m or ½n be a Quantity infinitely great, then the Logarithm of the Ratio, which a Term distant from the middle by the Interval ℓ, has to the middle Term, is
."[46] Although this theorem can be interpreted as the first obscure expression for the normal probability law, Stigler points out that de Moivre himself did not interpret his results as anything more than the approximate rule for the binomial coefficients, and in particular de Moivre lacked the concept of the probability density function.[47]
In 1809 Gauss published his monograph "Theoria motus corporum coelestium in sectionibus conicis solem ambientium" where among other things he introduces several important statistical concepts, such as the method of least squares, the method of maximum likelihood, and the normal distribution. Gauss used M, M′, M′′, … to denote the measurements of some unknown quantity V, and sought the "most probable" estimator: the one that maximizes the probability φ(M−V) · φ(M′−V) · φ(M′′−V) · … of obtaining the observed experimental results. In his notation φΔ is the probability law of the measurement errors of magnitude Δ. Not knowing what the function φ is, Gauss requires that his method should reduce to the well-known answer: the arithmetic mean of the measured values.[nb 3] Starting from these principles, Gauss demonstrates that the only law that rationalizes the choice of arithmetic mean as an estimator of the location parameter, is the normal law of errors:[48]

where h is "the measure of the precision of the observations". Using this normal law as a generic model for errors in the experiments, Gauss formulates what is now known as the non-linear weighted least squares (NWLS) method.[49]
Although Gauss was the first to suggest the normal distribution law, Laplace made significant contributions.[nb 4] It was Laplace who first posed the problem of aggregating several observations in 1774,[50] although his own solution led to the Laplacian distribution. It was Laplace who first calculated the value of the integral ∫ e−t ²dt = √π in 1782, providing the normalization constant for the normal distribution.[51] Finally, it was Laplace who in 1810 proved and presented to the Academy the fundamental central limit theorem, which emphasized the theoretical importance of the normal distribution.[52]
It is of interest to note that in 1809 an American mathematician Adrain published two derivations of the normal probability law, simultaneously and independently from Gauss.[53] His works remained largely unnoticed by the scientific community, until in 1871 they were "rediscovered" by Abbe.[54]
In the middle of the 19th century Maxwell demonstrated that the normal distribution is not just a convenient mathematical tool, but may also occur in natural phenomena:[55] "The number of particles whose velocity, resolved in a certain direction, lies between x and x + dx is

Since its introduction, the normal distribution has been known by many different names: the law of error, the law of facility of errors, Laplace's second law, Gaussian law, etc. Gauss himself apparently coined the term with reference to the "normal equations" involved in its applications, with normal having its technical meaning of orthogonal rather than "usual".[56] However, by the end of the 19th century some authors[nb 5] had started using the name normal distribution, where the word "normal" was used as an adjective – the term now being seen as a reflection of the fact that this distribution was seen as typical, common – and thus "normal". Peirce (one of those authors) once defined "normal" thus: "...the 'normal' is not the average (or any other kind of mean) of what actually occurs, but of what would, in the long run, occur under certain circumstances."[57] Around the turn of the 20th century Pearson popularized the term normal as a designation for this distribution.[58]
Many years ago I called the Laplace–Gaussian curve the normal curve, which name, while it avoids an international question of priority, has the disadvantage of leading people to believe that all other distributions of frequency are in one sense or another 'abnormal'.
Also, it was Pearson who first wrote the distribution in terms of the standard deviation σ as in modern notation. Soon after this, in year 1915, Fisher added the location parameter to the formula for normal distribution, expressing it in the way it is written nowadays:

The term "standard normal", which denotes the normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance came into general use around 1950s, appearing in the popular textbooks by P.G. Hoel (1947) "Introduction to mathematical statistics" and A.M. Mood (1950) "Introduction to the theory of statistics".[59]
When the name is used, the "Gaussian distribution" was named after Carl Friedrich Gauss, who introduced the distribution in 1809 as a way of rationalizing the method of least squares as outlined above. Among English speakers, both "normal distribution" and "Gaussian distribution" are in common use, with different terms preferred by different communities.
|unused_data= ignored (help)| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Normal distribution |
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here you can share your comments or contribute with more information, content, resources or links about this topic.