2
$\begingroup$

I would like to estimate Poisson means from data sets where means are usually in the range 0.5 to 10. 0 (zeros) in the data are unambiguous; estimates of higher-event numbers degrade in rough proportion to the number of events.

This R code is a reasonable data simulator:

data<-rpois(100, 1.5)
datasim <- function (x, upto = 6) {
 counts <- matrix(nrow = (upto+1), ncol = 2)
 for (i in 1:(upto+1)) {
    counts[i,1] <- i-1
    counts[i,2] <- length(which(x==i-1))
 }
return(counts)
}
simdata<-datasim(data, upto=3)

> simdata
     [,1] [,2]
[1,]    0   19
[2,]    1   42
[3,]    2   19
[4,]    3   10

In general: if I have a subset of event counts, how can I estimate the Poisson mean and CI? I've looked at 'fitdistr', glm's, Poisson.exact, etc. but I haven't found a solution to this problem - I'd like to assure myself that the solution explicitly recognizes that some events are excluded from the data, and that the number of excluded data are known - that n=100 in the example.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ To restate the question somewhat, in an attempt to make sure I understand it, you have a bunch of Poisson data that's censored at some number (either known or unknown), and you know how many observations were censored, and you'd like to estimate the mean taking the censorship into account? $\endgroup$
    – jbowman
    Commented Nov 12, 2013 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ If you don't know how many observations are 'lost' you move from censoring to truncation. But "estimates of higher event numbers degrade" sounds different from both censoring and truncation. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Nov 13, 2013 at 0:57
  • $\begingroup$ The number of observations are known; what is uncertain is whether an observation is, say, 4 events or 5 events, and the distinction is more uncertain at the higher event number. For the simulated data in the example, it would be feasible to use the given data as observed as well as specify 10 observations at greater than or equal to 4 events. So I think censored, not truncated, is appropriate. Thanks for terminological clarification. $\endgroup$
    – AlbertusW
    Commented Nov 13, 2013 at 15:46

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

For a censored Poisson you can use the UWSE. In particular, for your example, the vector of sets $ (\left\{0\right\},\left\{1\right\},\left\{2\right\},\left\{3\right\}) $ generates a unique weight vector. So, according to the explanation here: https://paradsp.wordpress.com/ (bottom of site), a consistent estimate is:

$$ \hat{\lambda_{UWSE}} = \min_{\lambda > 0}||(e^{-\lambda},\lambda e^{-\lambda},\frac{\lambda^2e^{-\lambda}}{2},\frac{\lambda^3e^{-\lambda}}{6} ) - (\hat{w_{0}},\hat{w_{1}} ,\hat{w_{2}},\hat{w_{3}})||_2 $$

where $\hat{w_{0}},\hat{w_{1}} ,\hat{w_{2}},\hat{w_{3}} $ are the relative frequencies of the obervations $ 0,1,2,3 $ respectively. For the data given in the example: $\hat{w_{0}}= 0.19,\hat{w_{1}} = 0.42 ,\hat{w_{2}} = 0.19,\hat{w_{3}} = 0.10 $. Computing this numerically in R, I get:

$$ \hat{\lambda_{UWSE}} = 1.47$$

which is quite close to the true value of $ 1.5 $.

If you want a quick closed form solution ,but trading off for some accuracy, choosing the set $\left\{0\right\} $ is enough to generate a unique weight. Then:

$$ \hat{\lambda_{UWSE}} = -ln(\hat{w_{0}}) = 1.66 $$

which is a bit further off.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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