Unit 6, lesson 43

Poisson Distributions

How the Poisson distribution models a count over a fixed exposure, when its parameter is rate times exposure, how the exponential series normalizes it, why its mean and variance are equal, and when it approximates a binomial.

  • Video 43
  • Finite Populations and Poisson Counts

How many events will a sensor record in the next fifteen minutes? The answer is a count that can be 00, 11, 22 or more, and there is no fixed number of trials to list. The Poisson distribution is one model for such a count, with a single parameter equal to the expected count over the stated window. This lesson gives its probability formula, shows why the probabilities add to 11, derives its mean and variance, turns a rate and an exposure into the parameter, and checks how well it approximates a binomial count.

Key terms

Poisson distribution

Definition Let λ>0\lambda > 0. A random variable XX has the Poisson distribution with parameter λ\lambda, written X∼Pois⁡(λ)X \sim \operatorname{Pois}(\lambda), if its PMF is

pX(k)=e−λλkk!p_X(k) = \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k}}{k!}

for k=0,1,2,…k = 0, 1, 2, \dots, and pX(x)=0p_X(x) = 0 for every other xx. The support is the set of all nonnegative integers, and each of them has positive probability. The mass at k=0k = 0 uses 0!=10! = 1 and λ0=1\lambda^{0} = 1, so P(X=0)=e−λP(X = 0) = e^{-\lambda}. For λ=0\lambda = 0 the distribution Pois⁡(0)\operatorname{Pois}(0) is defined as the point mass at 00, with P(X=0)=1P(X = 0) = 1.

In plain words A Poisson variable counts events in a fixed window of time, length, area or some other exposure, and for λ>0\lambda > 0 the model puts no upper limit on the count. Being a count does not make a variable Poisson. A count with a hard cap, such as the number of occupied seats in a room with 4040 seats, has probability 00 above the cap, while every Poisson law with λ>0\lambda > 0 gives positive probability to every nonnegative integer.

Example A constructed sensor model says that the number XX of recorded events in fifteen minutes is Pois⁡(3)\operatorname{Pois}(3). Then

P(X=2)=e−3 322!=4.5 e−3≈0.2240.\begin{aligned} P(X = 2) &= \frac{e^{-3}\, 3^{2}}{2!} \\[0.4em] &= 4.5\, e^{-3} \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.2240. \end{aligned}

The count is zero with probability e−3≈0.0498e^{-3} \approx 0.0498, so P(X≥1)=1−e−3≈0.9502P(X \ge 1) = 1 - e^{-3} \approx 0.9502. For at most two events, add the first three masses,

P(X≤2)=e−3(1+3+4.5)=8.5 e−3≈0.4232.\begin{aligned} &P(X \le 2) \\[0.4em] &\quad = e^{-3}(1 + 3 + 4.5) \\[0.4em] &\quad = 8.5\, e^{-3} \approx 0.4232. \end{aligned}

The probability of at least three events is the complement 1−8.5 e−3≈0.57681 - 8.5\, e^{-3} \approx 0.5768, not the single mass P(X=3)P(X = 3).

Poisson parameter

Definition The parameter λ\lambda of Pois⁡(λ)\operatorname{Pois}(\lambda) is a nonnegative real number, and it equals the expected count, E[X]=λE[X] = \lambda, as the card on the mean and variance shows. This one number determines the whole distribution. It need not be an integer, although the count always is. Negative values are not allowed, since then pX(1)=e−λλp_X(1) = e^{-\lambda}\lambda would be negative. For λ>0\lambda > 0 and k≥1k \ge 1, consecutive masses satisfy

pX(k)pX(k−1)=λk,\frac{p_X(k)}{p_X(k - 1)} = \frac{\lambda}{k},

so the mass goes up from k−1k - 1 to kk when k<λk < \lambda and goes down when k>λk > \lambda. Hence the most likely count is ⌊λ⌋\lfloor \lambda \rfloor, the greatest integer at most λ\lambda, when λ\lambda is not an integer, and when λ\lambda is a positive integer the counts λ−1\lambda - 1 and λ\lambda tie for the largest mass.

In plain words The parameter is the expected count over the stated window. The actual count need not equal the parameter, and the parameter need not be the single most likely count. A mean of 2.52.5 events is a sensible parameter even though a window never holds 2.52.5 events.

Example For the sensor model with λ=3\lambda = 3, the masses at 22 and 33 are equal, since 32/2!=4.53^{2}/2! = 4.5 and 33/3!=27/6=4.53^{3}/3! = 27/6 = 4.5. Both are 4.5 e−3≈0.22404.5\, e^{-3} \approx 0.2240, and the mean 33 is one of the two most likely counts. For λ=2.5\lambda = 2.5 the masses at 00, 11, 22 and 33 are about 0.08210.0821, 0.20520.2052, 0.25650.2565 and 0.21380.2138, so the most likely count is 22, and the mean 2.52.5 is not a possible value at all. The degenerate law Pois⁡(0)\operatorname{Pois}(0) puts probability 11 on the count 00.

Rate times exposure

Definition Exposure is the amount of time, length, area or other measure over which events are counted. Suppose a model states that events occur at a constant average rate rr per unit of exposure, so that the expected count over an exposure of size tt is rtrt, and that this count is Poisson. Then the count over exposure tt is Pois⁡(λ)\operatorname{Pois}(\lambda) with

λ=rt,\lambda = r t,

where rr and tt use the same unit, for example events per minute and minutes, so that λ\lambda is a number of events. Using this formula for windows of different sizes is part of the assumed model. It does not follow from the distribution of the count in a single window.

In plain words The rate describes the model per unit of exposure, and the parameter describes one particular window. Convert the units first, then multiply. Real mechanisms can break the constant-rate Poisson model, for example when the rate changes during the day, when events arrive in bursts, or when capacity limits the count. A measured average rate times the exposure estimates λ\lambda when the model holds, but it does not show that the model holds.

Example The sensor model with mean 33 events per fifteen minutes has rate r=3/15=0.2r = 3/15 = 0.2 events per minute. Under the same constant-rate model, a thirty-minute window has λ=0.2⋅30=6\lambda = 0.2 \cdot 30 = 6 and a one-hour window has λ=0.2⋅60=12\lambda = 0.2 \cdot 60 = 12. The probability of no events in thirty minutes is e−6≈0.0025e^{-6} \approx 0.0025. Using λ=0.2\lambda = 0.2 for the thirty-minute window would confuse the rate with the parameter.

Exponential series

Definition For every real number λ\lambda, the exponential series converges, and its sum is

eλ=∑k=0∞λkk!=1+λ+λ22!+λ33!+⋯ .\begin{aligned} e^{\lambda} &= \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\lambda^{k}}{k!} \\[0.4em] &= 1 + \lambda + \frac{\lambda^{2}}{2!} \\[0.4em] &\quad + \frac{\lambda^{3}}{3!} + \cdots. \end{aligned}

The Poisson masses are the terms of this series multiplied by the constant e−λe^{-\lambda}, so

∑k=0∞e−λλkk!=e−λeλ=1.\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k}}{k!} = e^{-\lambda} e^{\lambda} = 1.

Since every mass is nonnegative, this shows that the Poisson PMF is a valid distribution for every λ>0\lambda > 0.

In plain words Before normalizing, the count kk gets the weight λk/k!\lambda^{k}/k!. These weights are exactly the terms of the series for eλe^{\lambda}, so they add to eλe^{\lambda}, and multiplying every weight by the single constant e−λe^{-\lambda} makes the total 11. That constant is the normalizing factor, and it also equals the probability of no events. The argument is about an infinite sum and assumes nothing about the counts being equally likely.

Example For λ=3\lambda = 3 the weights of the counts 00 to 55 are 11, 33, 4.54.5, 4.54.5, 3.3753.375 and 2.0252.025, and the whole series adds to e3≈20.09e^{3} \approx 20.09. The first three weights total 8.58.5, so P(X≤2)=8.5/e3≈0.4232P(X \le 2) = 8.5/e^{3} \approx 0.4232 is the share of the total weight that sits on the counts 00, 11 and 22.

Poisson mean and variance

Definition If X∼Pois⁡(λ)X \sim \operatorname{Pois}(\lambda) with λ≥0\lambda \ge 0, then E[X]=λE[X] = \lambda, Var⁡(X)=λ\operatorname{Var}(X) = \lambda and SD⁡(X)=λ\operatorname{SD}(X) = \sqrt{\lambda}. In the mean series the term k=0k = 0 is zero, and for k≥1k \ge 1 the factor kk cancels against k!k!. With j=k−1j = k - 1,

E[X]=∑k=1∞k e−λλkk!=λ∑j=0∞e−λλjj!=λ.\begin{aligned} E[X] &= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k\, \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k}}{k!} \\[0.4em] &= \lambda \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{j}}{j!} \\[0.4em] &= \lambda. \end{aligned}

In the same way, for k≥2k \ge 2 the factor k(k−1)k(k - 1) cancels against k!=k(k−1)(k−2)!k! = k(k - 1)(k - 2)!, the terms k=0k = 0 and k=1k = 1 are zero, and with j=k−2j = k - 2,

E[X(X−1)]=∑k=2∞e−λλk(k−2)!=λ2∑j=0∞e−λλjj!=λ2.\begin{aligned} &E[X(X - 1)] \\[0.4em] &\quad = \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k}}{(k - 2)!} \\[0.4em] &\quad = \lambda^{2} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{j}}{j!} = \lambda^{2}. \end{aligned}

Since X2=X(X−1)+XX^{2} = X(X - 1) + X, the second moment is E[X2]=λ2+λE[X^{2}] = \lambda^{2} + \lambda, and Var⁡(X)=λ2+λ−λ2=λ\operatorname{Var}(X) = \lambda^{2} + \lambda - \lambda^{2} = \lambda. All of these series converge, so both moments exist.

In plain words The mean and the variance are the same number, although the mean is measured in counts and the variance in squared counts. Equal mean and variance is a property of this family, not of counts in general, and it does not prove that a count is Poisson. A binomial count has variance np(1−p)np(1 - p), which is smaller than its mean npnp whenever n≥1n \ge 1 and p>0p > 0.

Example For the sensor model with λ=3\lambda = 3, the mean is 33 events, the variance is 33 and the standard deviation is 3≈1.732\sqrt{3} \approx 1.732 events. A variable YY that equals 00 or 22 with probability 12\tfrac{1}{2} each has mean 11 and E[Y2]=2E[Y^{2}] = 2, so its variance is 2−1=12 - 1 = 1. Its mean and variance agree, yet it is not Poisson, since it never takes the value 11.

Poisson approximation to the binomial

Definition Let λ>0\lambda > 0, and for each n≥1n \ge 1 let Xn∼Bin⁡(n,pn)X_n \sim \operatorname{Bin}(n, p_n), where npn→λn p_n \to \lambda as n→∞n \to \infty. Then for every fixed k=0,1,2,…k = 0, 1, 2, \dots,

lim⁡n→∞P(Xn=k)=e−λλkk!.\lim_{n \to \infty} P(X_n = k) = \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k}}{k!}.

In practice, a Bin⁡(n,p)\operatorname{Bin}(n, p) count with many trials and a small success probability is approximated by Pois⁡(np)\operatorname{Pois}(np), which has the same mean. This is an approximation, not an equality. Le Cam’s inequality bounds its error. If X∼Bin⁡(n,p)X \sim \operatorname{Bin}(n, p) and Y∼Pois⁡(np)Y \sim \operatorname{Pois}(np), then ∣P(X∈A)−P(Y∈A)∣≤np2\lvert P(X \in A) - P(Y \in A) \rvert \le np^{2} for every set AA of counts.

In plain words Many independent chances, each with a small probability, give a count that is nearly Poisson with the same mean. Under the binomial model the binomial probability is the exact answer, and the Poisson number stands in for it with an error that should be checked or bounded. The two laws are never identical when p>0p > 0, because a binomial count never exceeds nn, while a Poisson count with a positive parameter exceeds nn with positive probability. Their variances also differ, np(1−p)np(1 - p) against npnp.

Example For n=100n = 100 independent trials with success probability 0.020.02, the exact probability of no successes is 0.98100≈0.132620.98^{100} \approx 0.13262. The approximation with λ=100⋅0.02=2\lambda = 100 \cdot 0.02 = 2 gives e−2≈0.13534e^{-2} \approx 0.13534, which is off by about 0.002720.00272, or 0.270.27 percentage points. Le Cam’s inequality guarantees an error of at most 100⋅0.022=0.04100 \cdot 0.02^{2} = 0.04 for every event, so the actual error here is far below the guarantee. The binomial variance is 1.961.96 and the Poisson variance is 22.

Check yourself

  1. A constructed model for calls to a help desk assumes a constant rate of 22 calls per hour and a Poisson count in every window. For a thirty-minute window, find the parameter, the probability of no calls, the probability of at least two calls, and the mean and variance of the count.
Show the answer

Thirty minutes is half an hour, so the parameter is λ=2⋅12=1\lambda = 2 \cdot \tfrac{1}{2} = 1 call. The probability of no calls is e−1≈0.3679e^{-1} \approx 0.3679. Exactly one call has probability e−1⋅11/1!=e−1e^{-1} \cdot 1^{1}/1! = e^{-1} as well, so

P(X≥2)=1−2e−1≈0.2642.\begin{aligned} P(X \ge 2) &= 1 - 2e^{-1} \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.2642. \end{aligned}

The mean and the variance both equal 11.

  1. Each of 200200 items in a batch is defective with probability 0.010.01, independently of the others. Find the exact probability of no defects, its Poisson approximation and the difference between them. Which of the two numbers is the answer under this model?
Show the answer

The number of defects is Bin⁡(200,0.01)\operatorname{Bin}(200, 0.01), so the exact probability of none is 0.99200≈0.133980.99^{200} \approx 0.13398. The Poisson approximation uses λ=200⋅0.01=2\lambda = 200 \cdot 0.01 = 2 and gives e−2≈0.13534e^{-2} \approx 0.13534. The difference is about 0.001360.00136, roughly half the difference 0.002720.00272 found for 100100 trials with probability 0.020.02, a binomial count with the same mean 22. The binomial value is the answer under the model. The Poisson value is an approximation, and its error is within the Le Cam bound 200⋅0.012=0.02200 \cdot 0.01^{2} = 0.02.

  1. A sensor records every true event twice. The number NN of true events in an hour is modeled as Pois⁡(1.5)\operatorname{Pois}(1.5), so the recorded count R=2NR = 2N has mean 33. Is RR a Pois⁡(3)\operatorname{Pois}(3) variable?
Show the answer

No. The recorded count takes only even values, so P(R=1)=0P(R = 1) = 0, while a Pois⁡(3)\operatorname{Pois}(3) count equals 11 with probability 3e−3≈0.14943e^{-3} \approx 0.1494. The variances disagree too, since Var⁡(R)=4Var⁡(N)=4⋅1.5=6\operatorname{Var}(R) = 4 \operatorname{Var}(N) = 4 \cdot 1.5 = 6, while a Poisson count with mean 33 has variance 33. Matching the mean is not enough. The recorded events arrive in pairs, and clustered events like these need not follow a Poisson law.

How this lesson connects

It also uses the exponential function and the number e.