Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can anyone show how the expected value and variance of the zero inflated Poisson, with probability mass function

$$ f(y) = \begin{cases} \pi+(1-\pi)e^{-\lambda}, & \text{if }y=0 \\ (1-\pi)\frac{\lambda^{y}e^{-\lambda}}{y!}, & \text{if }y=1,2.... \end{cases} $$

where $\pi$ is the probability that the observation is zero by a binomial process and $\lambda$ is the mean of the Poisson, is derived?

The result is expected value $\mu$ =(1-$\pi$)$\lambda$ and the variance is $\mu$+ $\frac{\pi}{(1-\pi)}\mu^{2}$.

ADD: I am looking for a process. For example, can you use a moment generating function? Ultimately I'd like to see how to do this to better understand the zero inflated gamma and other, as well.

share|improve this question
It seems you know a model for how such a probability distribution would arise. Can you use that to help you? – cardinal Nov 20 '11 at 4:08

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Method 0: The lazy statistician.

Note that for $y \neq 0$ we have $f(y) = (1-\pi) p_y$ where $p_y$ is the probability that a Poisson random variable takes value $y$. Since the term corresponding to $y = 0$ does not affect the expected value, our knowledge of the Poisson and the linearity of expectation immediately tells us that $$ \mu = (1-\pi) \lambda $$ and $$ \mathbb E Y^2 = (1-\pi) (\lambda^2 + \lambda) \> . $$

A little algebra and the identity $\mathrm{Var}(Y) = \mathbb E Y^2 - \mu^2$ yields the result.

Method 1: A probabilistic argument.

It's often helpful to have a simple probabilistic model for how a distribution arises. Let $Z \sim \mathrm{Ber}(1-\pi)$ and $Y \sim \mathrm{Poi}(\lambda)$ be independent random variables. Define $$ X = Z \cdot Y \>. $$ Then, it is easy to see that $X$ has the desired distribution $f$. To check this, note that $\renewcommand{\Pr}{\mathbb P}\Pr(X = 0) = \Pr(Z=0) + \Pr(Z=1, Y=0) = \pi + (1-\pi) e^{-\lambda}$ by independence. Similarly $\Pr(X = k) = \Pr(Z=1, Y=k)$ for $k \neq 0$.

From this, the rest is easy, since by the independence of $Z$ and $Y$, $$ \mu = \mathbb E X = \mathbb E Z Y = (\mathbb E Z) (\mathbb E Y) = (1-\pi)\lambda \>, $$ and, $$ \mathrm{Var}(X) = \mathbb E X^2 - \mu^2 = (\mathbb E Z)(\mathbb E Y^2) - \mu^2 = (1-\pi)(\lambda^2 + \lambda) - \mu^2 = \mu + \frac{\pi}{1-\pi}\mu^2 \> . $$

Method 2: Direct calculation.

The mean is easily obtained by a slight trick of pulling one $\lambda$ out and rewriting the limits of the sum. $$ \mu = \sum_{k=1}^\infty (1-\pi) k e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = (1-\pi) \lambda e^{-\lambda} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda^j}{j!} = (1-\pi) \lambda \> . $$

A similar trick works for the second moment: $$ \mathbb E X^2 = (1-\pi) \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^2 e^{-\lambda} \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = (1-\pi)\lambda e^{-\lambda} \sum_{j=0}^\infty (j+1) \frac{\lambda^j}{j!} = (1-\pi)(\lambda^2 + \lambda) \>, $$ from which point we can proceed with the algebra as in the first method.


Addendum: This details a couple tricks used in the calculations above.

First recall that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = e^\lambda$.

Second, note that $$ \sum_{k=0}^\infty k \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty k \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda^k}{(k-1)!} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda \cdot \lambda^{k-1}}{(k-1)!} = \lambda \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda^j}{j!} = \lambda e^{\lambda} \>, $$ where the substitution $j = k-1$ was made in the second-to-last step.

In general, for the Poisson, it is easy to calculate the factorial moments $\mathbb E X^{(n)} = \mathbb E X(X-1)(X-2)\cdots(X-n+1)$ since $$ e^\lambda \mathbb E X^{(n)} = \sum_{k=n}^\infty k(k-1)\cdots(k-n+1) \frac{\lambda^k}{k!} = \sum_{k=n}^\infty \frac{\lambda^n \lambda^{k-n}}{(k-n)!} = \lambda^n \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda^j}{j!} = \lambda^n e^\lambda \>, $$ so $\mathbb E X^{(n)} = \lambda^n$. We get to "skip" to the $n$th index for the start of the sum in the first equality since for any $0 \leq k < n$, $k(k-1)\cdots(k-n+1) = 0$ since exactly one term in the product is zero.

share|improve this answer
Cardinal, this is fantastic. Would you mind giving a quick detail on pulling out the $\lambda$? My summation is <very> rusty. Thanks! – B_Miner Nov 20 '11 at 5:44
Thanks again for this. This may be an easy question, but what happens to the top part the pdf (when y=0) $\pi+(1-\pi)e^{-\lambda}$ why doesnt' it get included in the calculation for $\mu$? – B_Miner Nov 20 '11 at 13:45
1  
Recall the definition of the expected value for a discrete random variable: $\mu = \mathbb E Y = \sum_{y=0}^\infty y \mathbb P(Y = y)$. So for $y = 0$, the term in the expected value is $0 \cdot (\pi + (1-\pi)e^{-\lambda}) = 0$. – cardinal Nov 20 '11 at 14:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.