21
$\begingroup$

If I have random variables $X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_n$ that are Poisson distributed with parameters $\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n$, what is the distribution of $Y=\left\lfloor\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n X_i}{n}\right\rfloor$ (i.e. the integer floor of the average)?

A sum of Poissons is also Poisson, but I am not confident enough in statistics to determine if it is the same for the case above.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba I rolled back your edit of the title because this is not actually "rounding." Cardinal's previous edit, although not quite as precise, seems preferable because it's accurate. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Nov 22 '17 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber Okay. I was hesitating when making this edit, but decided to include the word "rounding" because currently the title does not hint to the main difficulty here (and so is in a way misleading). The proper term should be "rounding down", so maybe "What is the distribution of an average of Poisson random variables, rounded down?" - even though I will admit it sounds a bit cumbersome. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Nov 22 '17 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba Further edits are of course welcome! $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Nov 22 '17 at 19:56
28
$\begingroup$

A generalization of the question asks for the distribution of $Y = \lfloor X/m \rfloor$ when the distribution of $X$ is known and supported on the natural numbers. (In the question, $X$ has a Poisson distribution of parameter $\lambda = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \cdots + \lambda_n$ and $m=n$.)

The distribution of $Y$ is easily determined by the distribution of $mY$, whose probability generating function (pgf) can be determined in terms of the pgf of $X$. Here's an outline of the derivation.


Write $p(x) = p_0 + p_1 x + \cdots + p_n x^n + \cdots$ for the pgf of $X$, where (by definition) $p_n = \Pr(X=n)$. $mY$ is constructed from $X$ in such a way that its pgf, $q$, is

$$\eqalign{q(x) &=& \left(p_0 + p_1 + \cdots + p_{m-1}\right) + \left(p_m + p_{m+1} + \cdots + p_{2m-1}\right)x^m + \cdots + \\&&\left(p_{nm} + p_{nm+1} + \cdots + p_{(n+1)m-1}\right)x^{nm} + \cdots.}$$

Because this converges absolutely for $|x| \le 1$, we can rearrange the terms into a sum of pieces of the form

$$D_{m,t}p(x) = p_t + p_{t+m}x^m + \cdots + p_{t + nm}x^{nm} + \cdots$$

for $t=0, 1, \ldots, m-1$. The power series of the functions $x^t D_{m,t}p$ consist of every $m^\text{th}$ term of the series of $p$ starting with the $t^\text{th}$: this is sometimes called a decimation of $p$. Google searches presently don't turn up much useful information on decimations, so for completeness, here's a derivation of a formula.

Let $\omega$ be any primitive $m^\text{th}$ root of unity; for instance, take $\omega = \exp(2 i \pi / m)$. Then it follows from $\omega^m=1$ and $\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\omega^j = 0$ that

$$x^t D_{m,t}p(x) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \omega^{t j} p(x/\omega^j).$$

To see this, note that the operator $x^t D_{m,t}$ is linear, so it suffices to check the formula on the basis $\{1, x, x^2, \ldots, x^n, \ldots \}$. Applying the right hand side to $x^n$ gives

$$x^t D_{m,t}[x^n] = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \omega^{t j} x^n \omega^{-nj}= \frac{x^n}{m}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \omega^{(t-n) j.}$$

When $t$ and $n$ differ by a multiple of $m$, each term in the sum equals $1$ and we obtain $x^n$. Otherwise, the terms cycle through powers of $\omega^{t-n}$ and these sum to zero. Whence this operator preserves all powers of $x$ congruent to $t$ modulo $m$ and kills all the others: it is precisely the desired projection.

A formula for $q$ follows readily by changing the order of summation and recognizing one of the sums as geometric, thereby writing it in closed form:

$$\eqalign{ q(x) &= \sum_{t=0}^{m-1} (D_{m,t}[p])(x) \\ &= \sum_{t=0}^{m-1} x^{-t} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \omega^{t j} p(\omega^{-j}x ) \\ &= \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} p(\omega^{-j}x) \sum_{t=0}^{m-1} \left(\omega^j/x\right)^t \\ &= \frac{x(1-x^{-m})}{m} \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \frac{p(\omega^{-j}x)}{x-\omega^j}. }$$

For example, the pgf of a Poisson distribution of parameter $\lambda$ is $p(x) = \exp(\lambda(x-1))$. With $m=2$, $\omega=-1$ and the pgf of $2Y$ will be

$$\eqalign{ q(x) &= \frac{x(1-x^{-2})}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{2-1} \frac{p((-1)^{-j}x)}{x-(-1)^j} \\ &= \frac{x-1/x}{2} \left(\frac{\exp(\lambda(x-1))}{x-1} + \frac{\exp(\lambda(-x-1))}{x+1}\right) \\ &= \exp(-\lambda) \left(\frac{\sinh (\lambda x)}{x}+\cosh (\lambda x)\right). }$$

One use of this approach is to compute moments of $X$ and $mY$. The value of the $k^\text{th}$ derivative of the pgf evaluated at $x=1$ is the $k^\text{th}$ factorial moment. The $k^\text{th}$ moment is a linear combination of the first $k$ factorial moments. Using these observations we find, for instance, that for a Poisson distributed $X$, its mean (which is the first factorial moment) equals $\lambda$, the mean of $2\lfloor(X/2)\rfloor$ equals $\lambda- \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} e^{-2\lambda}$, and the mean of $3\lfloor(X/3)\rfloor$ equals $\lambda -1+e^{-3 \lambda /2} \left(\frac{\sin \left(\frac{\sqrt{3} \lambda }{2}\right)}{\sqrt{3}}+\cos \left(\frac{\sqrt{3} \lambda}{2}\right)\right)$:

Means

The means for $m=1,2,3$ are shown in blue, red, and yellow, respectively, as functions of $\lambda$: asymptotically, the mean drops by $(m-1)/2$ compared to the original Poisson mean.

Similar formulas for the variances can be obtained. (They get messy as $m$ rises and so are omitted. One thing they definitively establish is that when $m \gt 1$ no multiple of $Y$ is Poisson: it does not have the characteristic equality of mean and variance) Here is a plot of the variances as a function of $\lambda$ for $m=1,2,3$:

Variances

It is interesting that for larger values of $\lambda$ the variances increase. Intuitively, this is due to two competing phenomena: the floor function is effectively binning groups of values that originally were distinct; this must cause the variance to decrease. At the same time, as we have seen, the means are changing, too (because each bin is represented by its smallest value); this must cause a term equal to the square of the difference of means to be added back. The increase in variance for large $\lambda$ becomes larger with larger values of $m$.

The behavior of the variance of $mY$ with $m$ is surprisingly complex. Let's end with a quick simulation (in R) showing what it can do. The plots show the difference between the variance of $m\lfloor X/m \rfloor$ and the variance of $X$ for Poisson distributed $X$ with various values of $\lambda$ ranging from $1$ through $5000$. In all cases the plots appear to have reached their asymptotic values at the right.

set.seed(17)
par(mfrow=c(3,4))
temp <- sapply(c(1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200,500,1000,2000,5000), function(lambda) {
  x <- rpois(20000, lambda)
  v <- sapply(1:floor(lambda + 4*sqrt(lambda)), 
              function(m) var(floor(x/m)*m) - var(x))
  plot(v, type="l", xlab="", ylab="Increased variance", 
       main=toString(lambda), cex.main=.85, col="Blue", lwd=2)
})

Plots

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a great answer! It will probably take me some time to digest :) $\endgroup$ Aug 27 '12 at 9:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ and that is why I said "Using the floor function ... affects the variance slightly too though in a more complicated manner." $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Aug 28 '12 at 8:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Thanks for the detailed answer. There certainly are complicated ways in which the floor function affects the variance. $\endgroup$ Aug 28 '12 at 10:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Henry Yes, indeed: although the last simulation to study how the variance is affected is a little tangential to the question, I was so struck by the complex pattern that I had to share it. Who would have predicted those logarithmically-spaced peaks in the plots? It would be fair to take my answer as a mere gloss on yours (responding to Dilip's request in a comment): I did not even begin writing it until reading yours with appreciation (and, of course, voting it up). $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Aug 28 '12 at 14:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Roberto Thank you. However, the distinction between "$x$" and "$s$", being purely a matter of notation, is utterly trivial and of no mathematical or statistical import. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Dec 27 '17 at 20:16
13
$\begingroup$

As Michael Chernick says, if the individual random variables are independent then the the sum is Poisson with parameter (mean and variance) $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lambda_i$ which you might call $\lambda$.

Dividing by $n$ reduces the mean to $\lambda / n$ and variance $\lambda / n^2$ so the variance will be less than the equivalent Poisson distribution. As Michael says, not all values will be integers.

Using the floor function reduces the mean slightly, by about $\frac12 -\frac{1}{2n}$, and affects the variance slightly too though in a more complicated manner. Although you have integer values, the variance will still be substantially less than the mean and so you will have a narrower distribution than the Poisson.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, not a result I can use, but at least I know now :) $\endgroup$ Aug 25 '12 at 0:11
  • $\begingroup$ If the lambdas are not all equal, shouldn't the result be more like a negative binomial than a Poisson (ignoring the non-integer part for the moment)? What am I missing here? $\endgroup$ Aug 25 '12 at 16:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @gung: You are missing the point that the individual $\lambda_i$ only affect the distribution through their sum and how many there are. It doesn't matter what particular values they take: $\lambda_1=1, \lambda_2=2, \lambda_3=9$ will give the same result as $\lambda_1=4, \lambda_2=4, \lambda_3=4$. $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Aug 25 '12 at 16:13
11
$\begingroup$

The probability mass function of the average of $n$ independent Poisson random variables can be written down explicitly, though the answer might not help you very much. As Michael Chernick noted in comments on his own answer, the sum $\sum_i X_i$ of independent Poisson random variables $X_i$ with respective parameters $\lambda_i$ is a Poisson random variable with parameter $\lambda = \sum_i \lambda_i$. Hence, $$P\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^n X_i= k\right\} = \exp(-\lambda)\frac{\lambda^k}{k!}, ~~ k = 0, 1, 2, \ldots,$$ Thus, $\hat{Y} = n^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ is a random variable taking on value $k/n$ with probability $\exp(-\lambda)\frac{\lambda^k}{k!}$. Note that $\hat{Y}$ is not an integer-valued random variable (though it does take on uniformly-spaced rational values). It follows easily that $Y = \lfloor \hat{Y} \rfloor$ is an integer-valued random variable taking on value $m$ with probability $$P\{Y = m\} = P\left\{\left\lfloor \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i \right\rfloor = m\right\} = \exp(-\lambda)\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{\lambda^{mn+i}}{(mn+i)!}, ~~ m = 0, 1, 2, \ldots,$$ This is not the probability mass function of a Poisson random variable. Formulas for the mean and variance can be written down using this probability mass function, but they don't obviously lead to nice simple answers in terms of $\lambda$ and $n$. Approximate values can be obtained as pointed out by Henry.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ +1 There are closed formulas for the moments of $Y$, though. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Aug 25 '12 at 4:21
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the rigorous formulation! Any chance you'd like to take a crack at the formulas for mean and variance? $\endgroup$ Aug 25 '12 at 8:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps @whuber will post a link (or a citation of a book or journal article) where the closed-form formulas for the moments can be found, or will write an answer giving the formulas themselves, with or without a detailed derivation. $\endgroup$ Aug 25 '12 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Dilip My claim about closed formulas was not based on anything published, so I have posted a separate reply indicating what I had in mind and how it might be used to understand this situation. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Aug 26 '12 at 20:48
4
$\begingroup$

Y will not be Poisson. Note that Poisson random variables take on non negative integer values. Once you divide by a constant you create a random variable that can have non-integer values. It will still have the shape of the Poisson. It is just that the discrete probabilities may occur at non-integer points.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ That makes sense, but what if $Y$ is actually discrete, for example the floor of the average? Would that make it Poisson? $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '12 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ @lucas1024 I don't think so but I am not sure. $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '12 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ The shape of the sum $\sum X_i$ is definetevely Poisson, right? its mean and variance are identical as well. Isn't there something like an scaled Poisson ? Y is just a poisson variable (the sum) that is scaled by $n^{-1}$ $\endgroup$
    – JDav
    Aug 24 '12 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ @JDav The sum is Poisson with the rate parameter equal to the sum of the individual rate parameters. But the OP scales by 1/n and then wants to truncate the the the integer just below Y. I don't know exactly what that does to the distribution. $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '12 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ My previous comment assumed independence. $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '12 at 23:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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