Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 12;10:e69324. doi: 10.7554/eLife.69324

Figure 2. Accuracy of our integral representations for the Telegraph and negative binomial distribution.

Figure 2.

(A) For each of the results in (3 - 5), we compare the (fixed-parameter) Telegraph and negative binomial distributions with their respective compound representations for two different sets of parameter values. The top panel (pink) shows comparisons for (3), with parameter values (left) λ=2, μ=12, K=100, μ=3, and KBetaK(5,9), and (right) λ=1, μ=20, K=100, μ=2 and KBetaK(3,18). The middle panel (green) gives comparisons for (4), with parameter values (left) λ=10, β=2, μ=2 and KGamma(12,2) and (right) λ=1, β=1, μ=2 and KGamma(3,1). The bottom panel (coral) gives comparisons for (5). The parameter values (left) are λ=10, λ=15 and c=2 and (right) are λ=2, λ=5 and c=3. (B) The top figure compares a Telegraph(2,4,60) distribution with samples from a compound Telegraph distribution with normal noise Norm(37,10) on the transcription rate parameter. The middle figure compares a NegBin(5,0.5) with samples from a compound Telegraph distribution with normal noise Norm(5.5,2.3) on the transcription rate parameter. The bottom figure compares a NegBin(5,1) distribution with samples from a compound negative binomial distribution with normal noise Norm(2.3,0.6) on the burst intensity parameter.