Mastering the Poisson Distribution: Intuition and Foundations

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Mastering the Poisson Distribution: Intuition and Foundations

You’ve probably used the normal distribution one or two times too many. We all have — It’s a true workhorse. But sometimes, we run into problems. For instance, when predicting or forecasting values, simulating data given a particular data-generating process, or when we try to visualise model output and explain them intuitively to non-technical stakeholders. Suddenly, things don’t make much sense: can a user really have made -8 clicks on the banner? Or even 4.3 clicks? Both are examples of how count data doesn’t behave. I’ve found that better encapsulating the data generating process into my modelling has been key to having sensible model output. Using the Poisson distribution when it was appropriate has not only helped me convey more meaningful insights to stakeholders, but it has also enabled me to produce more accurate error estimates, better Inference, and sound decision-making. In this post, my aim is to help you get a deep intuitive feel for the Poisson distribution by walking through example applications, and taking a dive into the foundations — the maths. I hope you learn not just how it works, but also why it works, and when to apply the distribution. If you know of a resource that has helped you grasp the concepts in this blog particularly well, you’re invited to share it in the comments! Outline Examples and use cases: Let’s walk through some use cases and sharpen the intuition I just mentioned. Along the way, the relevance of the Poisson Distribution will become clear. The foundations: Next, let’s break down the equation into its individual components. By studying each part, we’ll uncover why the distribution works the way it does. The assumptions: Equipped with some formality, it will be easier to understand the assumptions that power the distribution, and at the same time set the boundaries for when it works, and when not. When real life deviates from the model: Finally, let’s explore the special links that the Poisson distribution has with the Negative Binomial distribution. Understanding these relationships can deepen our understanding, and provide alternatives when the Poisson distribution is not suited for the job. Example in an online marketplace I chose to deep dive into the Poisson distribution because it frequently appears in my day-to-day work. Online marketplaces rely on binary user choices from two sides: a seller deciding to list an item and a buyer deciding to make a purchase. These micro-behaviours drive supply and demand, both in the short and long term. A marketplace is born. Binary choices aggregate into counts — the sum of many such decisions as they occur. Attach a timeframe to this counting process, and you’ll start seeing Poisson distributions everywhere. Let’s explore a concrete example next. Consider a seller on a platform. In a given month, the seller may or may not list an item for sale (a binary choice). We would only know if she did because then we’d have a measurable count of the event. Nothing stops her from listing another item in the same month. If she does, we count those events. The total could be zero for an inactive seller or, say, 120 for a highly engaged seller. Over several months, we would observe a varying number of listed items by this seller — sometimes fewer, sometimes more — hovering around an average monthly listing rate. That is essentially a Poisson process. When we get to the assumptions section, you’ll see what we had to assume away to make this example work. Other examples Other phenomena that can be modelled with a Poisson distribution include: Sports analytics: The number of goals scored in a match between two teams. Queuing: Customers arriving at a help desk or customer support calls. Insurance: The number of claims made within a given period. Each of these examples warrants further inspection, but for the remainder of this post, we’ll use the marketplace example to illustrate the inner workings of the distribution. The mathy bit … or foundations. I find opening up the probability mass function (PMF) of distributions helpful to understanding why things work as they do. The PMF of the Poisson distribution goes like: Where λ is the rate parameter, and 𝑘 is the manifested count of the random variable (𝑘 = 0, 1, 2, 3, … events). Very neat and compact. The probability mass function of the Poisson distribution, for a few different lambdas. Contextualising λ and k: the marketplace example In the context of our earlier example — a seller listing items on our platform — λ represents the seller’s average monthly listings. As the expected monthly value for this seller, λ orchestrates the number of items she would list in a month. Note that λ is a Greek letter, so read: λ is a parameter that we can estimate from data. On the other hand, 𝑘 does not hold any information about the seller’s idiosyncratic behaviour. It’s the target value we set for the number of events that may happen to learn about its probability. The dual role of λ as the mean and variance When I said that λ orchestrates the number of monthly listings for the seller, I meant it quite literally. Namely, λ is both the expected value and variance of the distribution, indifferently, for all values of λ. This means that the mean-to-variance ratio (index of dispersion) is always 1. To put this into perspective, the normal distribution requires two parameters — 𝜇 and 𝜎², the average and variance respectively — to fully describe it. The Poisson distribution achieves the same with just one. Having to estimate only one parameter can be beneficial for parametric inference. Specifically, by reducing the variance of the model and increasing the statistical power. On the other hand, it can be too limiting of an assumption. Alternatives like the Negative Binomial distribution can alleviate this limitation. We’ll explore that later. Breaking down the probability mass function Now that we know the smallest building blocks, let’s zoom out one step: what is λᵏ, 𝑒^⁻λ, and 𝑘!, and more importantly, what is each of these components’ function in the whole? λᵏ is a weight that expresses how likely it is for 𝑘 events to happen, given that the expectation is λ. Note that “likely” here does not mean a probability, yet. It’s merely a signal strength. 𝑘! is a combinatorial correction so that we can say that the order of the events is irrelevant. The events are interchangeable. 𝑒^⁻λ normalises the integral of the PMF function to sum up to 1. It’s called the partition function of exponential-family distributions. In more detail, λᵏ relates the observed value 𝑘 to the expected value of the random variable, λ. Intuitively, more probability mass lies around the expected value. Hence, if the observed value lies close to the expectation, the probability of occurring is larger than the probability of an observation far removed from the expectation. Before we can cross-check our intuition with the numerical behaviour of λᵏ, we need to consider what 𝑘! does. Interchangeable events Had we cared about the order of events, then each unique event could be ordered in 𝑘! ways. But because we don’t, and we deem each event interchangeable, we “divide out” 𝑘! from λᵏ to correct for the overcounting. Since λᵏ is an exponential term, the output will always be larger as 𝑘 grows, holding λ constant. That is the opposite of our intuition that there is maximum probability when λ = 𝑘, as the output is larger when 𝑘 = λ + 1. But now that we know about the interchangeable events assumption — and the overcounting issue — we know that we have to factor in 𝑘! like so: λᵏ 𝑒^⁻λ / 𝑘!, to see the behaviour we expect. Now let’s check the intuition of the relationship between λ and 𝑘 through λᵏ, corrected for 𝑘!. For the same λ, say λ = 4, we should see λᵏ 𝑒^⁻λ / 𝑘! to be smaller for values of 𝑘 that are far removed from 4, compared to values of 𝑘 that lie close to 4. Like so: inline code: 4²/2 = 8 is smaller than 4⁴/24 = 10.7. This is consistent with the intuition of a higher likelihood of 𝑘 when it’s near the expectation. The image below shows this relationship more generally, where you see that the output is larger as 𝑘 approaches λ. The probability mass function without the normalising component e^-lambda. The assumptions First, let’s get one thing off the table: the difference between a Poisson process, and the Poisson distribution. The process is a stochastic continuous-time model of points happening in given interval: 1D, a line; 2D, an area, or higher dimensions. We, data scientists, most often deal with the one-dimensional case, where the “line” is time, and the points are the events of interest — I dare to say. These are the assumptions of the Poisson process: The occurrence of one event does not affect the probability of a second event. Think of our seller going on to list another item tomorrow indifferently of having done so already today, or the one from five days ago for that matter. The point here is that there is no memory between events. The average rate at which events occur, is independent of any occurrence. In other words, no event that happened (or will happen) alters λ, which remains constant throughout the observed timeframe. In our seller example, this means that listing an item today does not increase or decrease the seller’s motivation or likelihood of listing another item tomorrow. Two events cannot occur at exactly the same instant. If we were to zoom at an infinite granular level on the timescale, no two listings could have been placed simultaneously; always sequentially. From these assumptions — no memory, constant rate, events happening alone — it follows that 1) any interval’s number of events is Poisson-distributed with parameter λₜ and 2) that disjoint intervals are independent — two key properties of a Poisson process. A Note on the distribution:The distribution simply describes probabilities for various numbers of counts in an interval. Strictly speaking, one can use the distribution pragmatically whenever the data is nonnegative, can be unbounded on the right, has mean λ, and reasonably models the data. It would be just convenient if the underlying process is a Poisson one, and actually justifies using the distribution. The marketplace example: Implications So, can we justify using the Poisson distribution for our marketplace example? Let’s open up the assumptions of a Poisson process and take the test. Constant λ Why it may fail: The seller has patterned online activity; holidays; promotions; listings are seasonal goods. Consequence: λ is not constant, leading to overdispersion (mean-to-variance ratio is larger than 1, or to temporal patterns. Independence and memorylessness Why it may fail: The propensity to list again is higher after a successful listing, or conversely, listing once depletes the stock and intervenes with the propensity of listing again. Consequence: Two events are no longer independent, as the occurrence of one informs the occurrence of the other. Simultaneous events Why it may fail: Batch-listing, a new feature, was introduced to help the sellers. Consequence: Multiple listings would come online at the same time, clumped together, and they would be counted simultaneously. Balancing rigour and pragmatism As Data Scientists on the job, we may feel trapped between rigour and pragmatism. The three steps below should give you a sound foundation to decide on which side to err, when the Poisson distribution falls short: Pinpoint your goal: is it inference, simulation or prediction, and is it about high-stakes output? List the worst thing that can happen, and the cost of it for the business. Identify the problem and solution: why does the Poisson distribution not fit, and what can you do about it? list 2-3 solutions, including changing nothing. Balance gains and costs: Will your workaround improve things, or make it worse? and at what cost: interpretability, new assumptions introduced and resources used. Does it help you in achieving your goal? That said, here are some counters I use when needed. When real life deviates from your model Everything described so far pertains to the standard, or homogenous, Poisson process. But what if reality begs for something different? In the next section, we’ll cover two extensions of the Poisson distribution when the constant λ assumption does not hold. These are not mutually exclusive, but neither they are the same: Time-varying λ: a single seller whose listing rate ramps up before holidays and slows down afterward Mixed Poisson distribution: multiple sellers listing items, each with their own λ can be seen as a mixture of various Poisson processes Time-varying λ The first extension allows λ to have its own value for each time t. The PMF then becomes Where the number of events 𝐾(𝑇) in an interval 𝑇 follows the Poisson distribution with a rate no longer equal to a fixed λ, but one equal to: More intuitively, integrating over the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡 + 𝑖 gives us a single number: the expected value of events over that interval. The integral will vary by each arbitrary interval, and that’s what makes λ change over time. To understand how that integration works, it was helpful for me to think of it like this: if the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡₁ integrates to 3, and 𝑡₁ to 𝑡₂ integrates to 5, then the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡₂ integrates to 8 = 3 + 5. That’s the two expectations summed up, and now the expectation of the entire interval. Practical implication One may want to modeling the expected value of the Poisson distribution as a function of time. For instance, to model an overall change in trend, or seasonality. In generative model notation: Time may be a continuous variable, or an arbitrary function of it. Process-varying λ: Mixed Poisson distribution But then there’s a gotcha. Remember when I said that λ has a dual role as the mean and variance? That still applies here. Looking at the “relaxed” PMF*, the only thing that changes is that λ can vary freely with time. But it’s still the one and only λ that orchestrates both the expected value and the dispersion of the PMF*. More precisely, 𝔼[𝑋] = Var(𝑋) still holds. There are various reasons for this constraint not to hold in reality. Model misspecification, event interdependence and unaccounted for heterogeneity could be the issues at hand. I’d like to focus on the latter case, as it justifies the Negative Binomial distribution — one of the topics I promised to open up. Heterogeneity and overdispersionImagine we are not dealing with one seller, but with 10 of them listing at different intensity levels, λᵢ, where 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, …, 10 sellers. Then, essentially, we have 10 Poisson processes going on. If we unify the processes and estimate the grand λ, we simplify the mixture away. Meaning, we get a correct estimate of all sellers on average, but the resulting grand λ is naive and does not know about the original spread of λᵢ. It still assumes that the variance and mean are equal, as per the axioms of the distribution. This will lead to overdispersion and, in turn, to underestimated errors. Ultimately, it inflates the false positive rate and drives poor decision-making. We need a way to embrace the heterogeneity amongst sellers’ λᵢ. Negative binomial: Extending the Poisson distributionAmong the few ways one can look at the Negative Binomial distribution, one way is to see it as a compound Poisson process — 10 sellers, sounds familiar yet? That means multiple independent Poisson processes are summed up to a single one. Mathematically, first we draw λ from a Gamma distribution: λ ~ Γ(r, θ), then we draw the count 𝑋 | λ ~ Poisson(λ). In one image, it is as if we would sample from plenty Poisson distributions, corresponding to each seller. A negative Binomial distribution arises from many Poisson distributions. The more exposing alias of the Negative binomial distribution is Gamma-Poisson mixture distribution, and now we know why: the dictating λ comes from a continuous mixture. That’s what we needed to explain the heterogeneity amongst sellers. Let’s simulate this scenario to gain more intuition. Gamma mixture of lambda. First, we draw λᵢ from a Gamma distribution: λᵢ ~ Γ(r, θ). Intuitively, the Gamma distribution tells us about the variety in the intensity — listing rate — amongst the sellers. On a practical note, one can instill their assumptions about the degree of heterogeneity in this step of the model: how different are sellers? By varying the levels of heterogeneity, one can observe the impact on the final Poisson-like distribution. Doing this type of checks (i.e., posterior predictive check), is common in Bayesian modeling, where the assumptions are set explicitly. Gamma-Poisson mixture distribution versus homogenous Poisson distribution. Τhe dashed line reflects λ, which is 4 for both distributions. In the second step, we plug the obtained λ into the Poisson distribution: 𝑋 | λ ~ Poisson(λ), and obtain a Poisson-like distribution that represents the summed subprocesses. Notably, this unified process has a larger dispersion than expected from a homogeneous Poisson distribution, but it is in line with the Gamma mixture of λ. Heterogeneous λ and inference A practical consequence of introducing flexibility into your assumed distribution is that inference becomes more challenging. More parameters (i.e., the Gamma parameters) need to be estimated. Parameters act as flexible explainers of the data, tending to overfit and explain away variance in your variable. The more parameters you have, the better the explanation may seem, but the model also becomes more susceptible to noise in the data. Higher variance reduces the power to identify a difference in means, if one exists, because — well — it gets lost in the variance. Countering the loss of power Confirm whether you indeed need to extend the standard Poisson distribution. If not, simplify to the simplest, most fit model. A quick check on overdispersion may suffice for this. Pin down the estimates of the Gamma mixture distribution parameters using regularising, informative priors (think: Bayes). During my research process for writing this blog, I learned a great deal about the connective tissue underlying all of this: how the binomial distribution plays a fundamental role in the processes we’ve discussed. And while I’d love to ramble on about this, I’ll save it for another post, perhaps. In the meantime, feel free to share your understanding in the comments section below 👍. Conclusion The Poisson distribution is a simple distribution that can be highly suitable for modelling count data. However, when the assumptions do not hold, one can extend the distribution by allowing the rate parameter to vary as a function of time or other factors, or by assuming subprocesses that collectively make up the count data. This added flexibility can address the limitations, but it comes at a cost: increased flexibility in your modelling raises the variance and, consequently, undermines the statistical power of your model. If your end goal is inference, you may want to think twice and consider exploring simpler models for the data. Alternatively, switch to the Bayesian paradigm and leverage its built-in solution to regularise estimates: informative priors. I hope this has given you what you came for — a better intuition about the Poisson distribution. I’d love to hear your thoughts about this in the comments! Unless otherwise noted, all images are by the author.Originally published at https://aalvarezperez.github.io on January 5, 2025.

I’ve found that better encapsulating the data generating process into my modelling has been key to having sensible model output. Using the Poisson distribution when it was appropriate has not only helped me convey more meaningful insights to stakeholders, but it has also enabled me to produce more accurate error estimates, better Inference, and sound decision-making.

In this post, my aim is to help you get a deep intuitive feel for the Poisson distribution by walking through example applications, and taking a dive into the foundations — the maths. I hope you learn not just how it works, but also why it works, and when to apply the distribution.

If you know of a resource that has helped you grasp the concepts in this blog particularly well, you’re invited to share it in the comments!

Outline

Examples and use cases: Let’s walk through some use cases and sharpen the intuition I just mentioned. Along the way, the relevance of the Poisson Distribution will become clear.
The foundations: Next, let’s break down the equation into its individual components. By studying each part, we’ll uncover why the distribution works the way it does.
The assumptions: Equipped with some formality, it will be easier to understand the assumptions that power the distribution, and at the same time set the boundaries for when it works, and when not.
When real life deviates from the model: Finally, let’s explore the special links that the Poisson distribution has with the Negative Binomial distribution. Understanding these relationships can deepen our understanding, and provide alternatives when the Poisson distribution is not suited for the job.

Example in an online marketplace

I chose to deep dive into the Poisson distribution because it frequently appears in my day-to-day work. Online marketplaces rely on binary user choices from two sides: a seller deciding to list an item and a buyer deciding to make a purchase. These micro-behaviours drive supply and demand, both in the short and long term. A marketplace is born.

Binary choices aggregate into counts — the sum of many such decisions as they occur. Attach a timeframe to this counting process, and you’ll start seeing Poisson distributions everywhere. Let’s explore a concrete example next.

Consider a seller on a platform. In a given month, the seller may or may not list an item for sale (a binary choice). We would only know if she did because then we’d have a measurable count of the event. Nothing stops her from listing another item in the same month. If she does, we count those events. The total could be zero for an inactive seller or, say, 120 for a highly engaged seller.

Over several months, we would observe a varying number of listed items by this seller — sometimes fewer, sometimes more — hovering around an average monthly listing rate. That is essentially a Poisson process. When we get to the assumptions section, you’ll see what we had to assume away to make this example work.

Other examples

Other phenomena that can be modelled with a Poisson distribution include:

Sports analytics: The number of goals scored in a match between two teams.
Queuing: Customers arriving at a help desk or customer support calls.
Insurance: The number of claims made within a given period.

Each of these examples warrants further inspection, but for the remainder of this post, we’ll use the marketplace example to illustrate the inner workings of the distribution.

The mathy bit

… or foundations.

I find opening up the probability mass function (PMF) of distributions helpful to understanding why things work as they do. The PMF of the Poisson distribution goes like:

Where λ is the rate parameter, and 𝑘 is the manifested count of the random variable (𝑘 = 0, 1, 2, 3, … events). Very neat and compact.

Graph: The probability mass function of the Poisson distribution, for a few different lambdas. — The probability mass function of the Poisson distribution, for a few different lambdas.

Contextualising λ and k: the marketplace example

In the context of our earlier example — a seller listing items on our platform — λ represents the seller’s average monthly listings. As the expected monthly value for this seller, λ orchestrates the number of items she would list in a month. Note that λ is a Greek letter, so read: λ is a parameter that we can estimate from data. On the other hand, 𝑘 does not hold any information about the seller’s idiosyncratic behaviour. It’s the target value we set for the number of events that may happen to learn about its probability.

The dual role of λ as the mean and variance

When I said that λ orchestrates the number of monthly listings for the seller, I meant it quite literally. Namely, λ is both the expected value and variance of the distribution, indifferently, for all values of λ. This means that the mean-to-variance ratio (index of dispersion) is always 1.

To put this into perspective, the normal distribution requires two parameters — 𝜇 and 𝜎², the average and variance respectively — to fully describe it. The Poisson distribution achieves the same with just one.

Having to estimate only one parameter can be beneficial for parametric inference. Specifically, by reducing the variance of the model and increasing the statistical power. On the other hand, it can be too limiting of an assumption. Alternatives like the Negative Binomial distribution can alleviate this limitation. We’ll explore that later.

Breaking down the probability mass function

Now that we know the smallest building blocks, let’s zoom out one step: what is λᵏ, 𝑒^⁻λ, and 𝑘!, and more importantly, what is each of these components’ function in the whole?

λᵏ is a weight that expresses how likely it is for 𝑘 events to happen, given that the expectation is λ. Note that “likely” here does not mean a probability, yet. It’s merely a signal strength.
𝑘! is a combinatorial correction so that we can say that the order of the events is irrelevant. The events are interchangeable.
𝑒^⁻λ normalises the integral of the PMF function to sum up to 1. It’s called the partition function of exponential-family distributions.

In more detail, λᵏ relates the observed value 𝑘 to the expected value of the random variable, λ. Intuitively, more probability mass lies around the expected value. Hence, if the observed value lies close to the expectation, the probability of occurring is larger than the probability of an observation far removed from the expectation. Before we can cross-check our intuition with the numerical behaviour of λᵏ, we need to consider what 𝑘! does.

Interchangeable events

Had we cared about the order of events, then each unique event could be ordered in 𝑘! ways. But because we don’t, and we deem each event interchangeable, we “divide out” 𝑘! from λᵏ to correct for the overcounting.

Since λᵏ is an exponential term, the output will always be larger as 𝑘 grows, holding λ constant. That is the opposite of our intuition that there is maximum probability when λ = 𝑘, as the output is larger when 𝑘 = λ + 1. But now that we know about the interchangeable events assumption — and the overcounting issue — we know that we have to factor in 𝑘! like so: λᵏ 𝑒^⁻λ / 𝑘!, to see the behaviour we expect.

Now let’s check the intuition of the relationship between λ and 𝑘 through λᵏ, corrected for 𝑘!. For the same λ, say λ = 4, we should see λᵏ 𝑒^⁻λ / 𝑘! to be smaller for values of 𝑘 that are far removed from 4, compared to values of 𝑘 that lie close to 4. Like so: inline code: 4²/2 = 8 is smaller than 4⁴/24 = 10.7. This is consistent with the intuition of a higher likelihood of 𝑘 when it’s near the expectation. The image below shows this relationship more generally, where you see that the output is larger as 𝑘 approaches λ.

Graph: The probability mass function without the normalising component e^-lambda. — The probability mass function without the normalising component e^-lambda.

The assumptions

First, let’s get one thing off the table: the difference between a Poisson process, and the Poisson distribution. The process is a stochastic continuous-time model of points happening in given interval: 1D, a line; 2D, an area, or higher dimensions. We, data scientists, most often deal with the one-dimensional case, where the “line” is time, and the points are the events of interest — I dare to say.

These are the assumptions of the Poisson process:

The occurrence of one event does not affect the probability of a second event. Think of our seller going on to list another item tomorrow indifferently of having done so already today, or the one from five days ago for that matter. The point here is that there is no memory between events.
The average rate at which events occur, is independent of any occurrence. In other words, no event that happened (or will happen) alters λ, which remains constant throughout the observed timeframe. In our seller example, this means that listing an item today does not increase or decrease the seller’s motivation or likelihood of listing another item tomorrow.
Two events cannot occur at exactly the same instant. If we were to zoom at an infinite granular level on the timescale, no two listings could have been placed simultaneously; always sequentially.

From these assumptions — no memory, constant rate, events happening alone — it follows that 1) any interval’s number of events is Poisson-distributed with parameter λₜ and 2) that disjoint intervals are independent — two key properties of a Poisson process.

A Note on the distribution:
The distribution simply describes probabilities for various numbers of counts in an interval. Strictly speaking, one can use the distribution pragmatically whenever the data is nonnegative, can be unbounded on the right, has mean λ, and reasonably models the data. It would be just convenient if the underlying process is a Poisson one, and actually justifies using the distribution.

The marketplace example: Implications

So, can we justify using the Poisson distribution for our marketplace example? Let’s open up the assumptions of a Poisson process and take the test.

Constant λ

Why it may fail: The seller has patterned online activity; holidays; promotions; listings are seasonal goods.
Consequence: λ is not constant, leading to overdispersion (mean-to-variance ratio is larger than 1, or to temporal patterns.

Independence and memorylessness

Why it may fail: The propensity to list again is higher after a successful listing, or conversely, listing once depletes the stock and intervenes with the propensity of listing again.
Consequence: Two events are no longer independent, as the occurrence of one informs the occurrence of the other.

Simultaneous events

Why it may fail: Batch-listing, a new feature, was introduced to help the sellers.
Consequence: Multiple listings would come online at the same time, clumped together, and they would be counted simultaneously.

Balancing rigour and pragmatism

As Data Scientists on the job, we may feel trapped between rigour and pragmatism. The three steps below should give you a sound foundation to decide on which side to err, when the Poisson distribution falls short:

Pinpoint your goal: is it inference, simulation or prediction, and is it about high-stakes output? List the worst thing that can happen, and the cost of it for the business.
Identify the problem and solution: why does the Poisson distribution not fit, and what can you do about it? list 2-3 solutions, including changing nothing.
Balance gains and costs: Will your workaround improve things, or make it worse? and at what cost: interpretability, new assumptions introduced and resources used. Does it help you in achieving your goal?

That said, here are some counters I use when needed.

When real life deviates from your model

Everything described so far pertains to the standard, or homogenous, Poisson process. But what if reality begs for something different?

In the next section, we’ll cover two extensions of the Poisson distribution when the constant λ assumption does not hold. These are not mutually exclusive, but neither they are the same:

Time-varying λ: a single seller whose listing rate ramps up before holidays and slows down afterward
Mixed Poisson distribution: multiple sellers listing items, each with their own λ can be seen as a mixture of various Poisson processes

Time-varying λ

The first extension allows λ to have its own value for each time t. The PMF then becomes

Where the number of events 𝐾(𝑇) in an interval 𝑇 follows the Poisson distribution with a rate no longer equal to a fixed λ, but one equal to:

More intuitively, integrating over the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡 + 𝑖 gives us a single number: the expected value of events over that interval. The integral will vary by each arbitrary interval, and that’s what makes λ change over time. To understand how that integration works, it was helpful for me to think of it like this: if the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡₁ integrates to 3, and 𝑡₁ to 𝑡₂ integrates to 5, then the interval 𝑡 to 𝑡₂ integrates to 8 = 3 + 5. That’s the two expectations summed up, and now the expectation of the entire interval.

Practical implication
One may want to modeling the expected value of the Poisson distribution as a function of time. For instance, to model an overall change in trend, or seasonality. In generative model notation:

Time may be a continuous variable, or an arbitrary function of it.

Process-varying λ: Mixed Poisson distribution

But then there’s a gotcha. Remember when I said that λ has a dual role as the mean and variance? That still applies here. Looking at the “relaxed” PMF*, the only thing that changes is that λ can vary freely with time. But it’s still the one and only λ that orchestrates both the expected value and the dispersion of the PMF*. More precisely, 𝔼[𝑋] = Var(𝑋) still holds.

There are various reasons for this constraint not to hold in reality. Model misspecification, event interdependence and unaccounted for heterogeneity could be the issues at hand. I’d like to focus on the latter case, as it justifies the Negative Binomial distribution — one of the topics I promised to open up.

Heterogeneity and overdispersion
Imagine we are not dealing with one seller, but with 10 of them listing at different intensity levels, λᵢ, where 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, …, 10 sellers. Then, essentially, we have 10 Poisson processes going on. If we unify the processes and estimate the grand λ, we simplify the mixture away. Meaning, we get a correct estimate of all sellers on average, but the resulting grand λ is naive and does not know about the original spread of λᵢ. It still assumes that the variance and mean are equal, as per the axioms of the distribution. This will lead to overdispersion and, in turn, to underestimated errors. Ultimately, it inflates the false positive rate and drives poor decision-making. We need a way to embrace the heterogeneity amongst sellers’ λᵢ.

Negative binomial: Extending the Poisson distribution
Among the few ways one can look at the Negative Binomial distribution, one way is to see it as a compound Poisson process — 10 sellers, sounds familiar yet? That means multiple independent Poisson processes are summed up to a single one. Mathematically, first we draw λ from a Gamma distribution: λ ~ Γ(r, θ), then we draw the count 𝑋 | λ ~ Poisson(λ).

In one image, it is as if we would sample from plenty Poisson distributions, corresponding to each seller.

A negative Binomial distribution arises from many Poisson distributions.

The more exposing alias of the Negative binomial distribution is Gamma-Poisson mixture distribution, and now we know why: the dictating λ comes from a continuous mixture. That’s what we needed to explain the heterogeneity amongst sellers.

Let’s simulate this scenario to gain more intuition.

First, we draw λᵢ from a Gamma distribution: λᵢ ~ Γ(r, θ). Intuitively, the Gamma distribution tells us about the variety in the intensity — listing rate — amongst the sellers.

On a practical note, one can instill their assumptions about the degree of heterogeneity in this step of the model: how different are sellers? By varying the levels of heterogeneity, one can observe the impact on the final Poisson-like distribution. Doing this type of checks (i.e., posterior predictive check), is common in Bayesian modeling, where the assumptions are set explicitly.

*Gamma-Poisson mixture distribution versus homogenous Poisson distribution. Τhe dashed line reflects λ, which is 4 for both distributions.*

In the second step, we plug the obtained λ into the Poisson distribution: 𝑋 | λ ~ Poisson(λ), and obtain a Poisson-like distribution that represents the summed subprocesses. Notably, this unified process has a larger dispersion than expected from a homogeneous Poisson distribution, but it is in line with the Gamma mixture of λ.

Heterogeneous λ and inference

A practical consequence of introducing flexibility into your assumed distribution is that inference becomes more challenging. More parameters (i.e., the Gamma parameters) need to be estimated. Parameters act as flexible explainers of the data, tending to overfit and explain away variance in your variable. The more parameters you have, the better the explanation may seem, but the model also becomes more susceptible to noise in the data. Higher variance reduces the power to identify a difference in means, if one exists, because — well — it gets lost in the variance.

Countering the loss of power

Confirm whether you indeed need to extend the standard Poisson distribution. If not, simplify to the simplest, most fit model. A quick check on overdispersion may suffice for this.
Pin down the estimates of the Gamma mixture distribution parameters using regularising, informative priors (think: Bayes).

During my research process for writing this blog, I learned a great deal about the connective tissue underlying all of this: how the binomial distribution plays a fundamental role in the processes we’ve discussed. And while I’d love to ramble on about this, I’ll save it for another post, perhaps. In the meantime, feel free to share your understanding in the comments section below 👍.

Conclusion

The Poisson distribution is a simple distribution that can be highly suitable for modelling count data. However, when the assumptions do not hold, one can extend the distribution by allowing the rate parameter to vary as a function of time or other factors, or by assuming subprocesses that collectively make up the count data. This added flexibility can address the limitations, but it comes at a cost: increased flexibility in your modelling raises the variance and, consequently, undermines the statistical power of your model.

If your end goal is inference, you may want to think twice and consider exploring simpler models for the data. Alternatively, switch to the Bayesian paradigm and leverage its built-in solution to regularise estimates: informative priors.

I hope this has given you what you came for — a better intuition about the Poisson distribution. I’d love to hear your thoughts about this in the comments!

Unless otherwise noted, all images are by the author.
Originally published at https://aalvarezperez.github.io on January 5, 2025.

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Sheetz replaces VMware at more than 830 stores

The two companies have a relationship dating back to 2020, when Sheetz first deployed StorMagic’s SvSAN software as the hyperconverged storage layer with VMware across hundreds of store locations to virtualize critical in-store application. The setup supported mission-critical applications such as payment processing, loyalty programs, kitchen management and store operations.

Glenfarne Group secures $500 million for Texas LNG development

Glenfarne Group LLC has secured fresh capital to continue development and early construction works for the proposed Texas LNG plant to be constructed on a 625-acre site in the Port of Brownsville, Tex. HPS Investment Partners, a part of BlackRock, agreed to the $500-million investment, which serves as one of

AI workloads shake up observability market

There are 19 vendors that made the cut for Gartner’s new report. Its Leaders quadrant includes (alphabetically) Chronosphere, Coralogix, Datadog, Dynatrace, Elastic, Grafana Labs, IBM, and New Relic. The Challengers are Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, LogicMonitor, Microsoft, and Splunk. The two Visionaries are BMC Helix and Honeycomb. Those dubbed

Huawei eying possible DRAM market entry

Chinese tech giant Huawei is reportedly entering the DRAM manufacturing business in a bid to cash in on the insane profitability of memory sales. Three firms – Micron Technology, SK hynix, and Samsung Electronics — account for 95% of the DRAM on the market worldwide. The rest is small players,

S&P Global: Hormuz vessel transits fall amid heightened security risks

Vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remained subdued July 10-12 as heightened regional security risks continued to weigh on movements through the strategic waterway, according to S&P Global MINT and S&P Global Commodities at Sea data. A total of 73 vessels transited the strait during the 3-day period, averaging fewer than 25 crossings/day. Transits fell to 11 on July 12, the lowest since June 14, after Iran declared the strait closed amid what the Persian Gulf Strait Authority described as “illegal movements” of US military forces in the region. No inbound crossings were recorded July 12, the first such occurrence since June 12. Six of the day’s 11 transits were assessed as compliant vessels. Total crossings were 32 on July 10 and 30 on July 11. The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) said July 12 that the regional threat level remained severe. Despite Iran’s closure declaration, JMIC said the southern route remained available and had been expanded for two-way vessel traffic. Energy carriers—including oil, chemical, LPG, and LNG tankers—accounted for about 48% of transits July 10-12. About two-thirds of energy-carrier crossings involved compliant vessels, although only 10 compliant energy carriers entered the Persian Gulf, mostly without visible automatic identification system (AIS) signals. Inbound tanker capacity also softened. An average 6.5 million b/d of new oil and LPG tanker capacity entered the Gulf through Hormuz July 1-12, with VLCCs and Suezmaxes accounting for nearly 80%. Average inbound capacity fell to 6 million b/d July 10-12 from 8.5 million b/d in the first week of July. All compliant outbound energy carriers transiting Hormuz during the 3-day period did so without visible AIS signals, including ADNOC-operated LNG carrier AL HAMRA and several VLCC and product tankers. Iran-linked and US-sanctioned vessels accounted for nearly 60% of all crossings during the period.

Beyond AI Pilots: Scaling AI-Enabled Decision Making in Energy

Date: Thursday, August 6, 2026Time: 11:00 AM (GMT-04:00) Eastern Time – New YorkDuration: 60 minutes Already registered? Click here to log in now. Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a strategic priority across industrial organizations, yet many companies continue to struggle with fragmented data, disconnected workflows, and AI initiatives that never move beyond pilot projects. The challenge is not access to AI—it is creating the business context, governance, and lifecycle intelligence needed to transform AI insights into measurable operational outcomes. Join Siemens Digital Industries Software to learn how Intelligence Center X, part of the Siemens Xcelerator portfolio, helps organizations connect enterprise data, workflows, and AI capabilities into a single governed environment where people and AI work together to drive faster, more informed decisions. In this session, we’ll explore how organizations can: • Move beyond isolated AI experiments to enterprise-scale deployment • Connect engineering, manufacturing, operations, supply chain, and service data into a unified intelligence framework • Enable AI agents to operate within governed, human-in-the-loop business processes • Improve operational performance through AI-assisted decision-making • Accelerate issue resolution, reduce manual effort, and increase organizational agility Attendees will also learn how Intelligence Center X combines lifecycle intelligence, industrial data models, AI orchestration, and low-code application development to create production-ready AI solutions that deliver measurable business value. Real-world examples will demonstrate how organizations have achieved significant improvements, including reductions in manual effort, faster issue resolution, improved data quality, and enhanced decision-making capabilities. Whether you are responsible for digital transformation, operations, manufacturing, engineering, or executive strategy, this webinar will provide practical insight into building a scalable foundation for industrial AI and creating a future where people and AI work together to drive business outcomes.

TotalEnergies lets drilling, completions contract for Suriname deepwater oil project

TotalEnergies has let contracts to Halliburton for work on the GranMorgu deepwater oil development project offshore Suriname. The workscope includes drilling and completions services for a long-term program that includes applying integrated digital workflows, real time data, and remote operations control for drilling and completions. As part of the project scope, Halliburton worked with local suppliers to upgrade its liquid mud and cement plant and supported construction of Suriname’s first completions and drilling workshop, featuring advanced maintenance and repair capabilities, the service provider said in a release July 13. The aim of the GranMorgu project is to develop resources on Block 58, which lies about 150 km off the Surinamese coast. Specifically, Sapakara and Krabdagu fields, which contain estimated recoverable reserves of nearly 760 million bbl, TotalEnergies noted on its website. The project’s floating production, storage, and offloading unit (FPSO), with a capacity of 220,000 b/d, is based on tested design principles of units in nearby Guyana and designed for potential future tie-in of satellite fields. Production start-up is expected in 2028. TotalEnergies is operator of the project with 40% interest. Partners are APA Corp. (40%) and state-owned Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname NV (20%).

Aramco lets stimulation, completion services contract for unconventional gas development

Saudi Aramco has awarded Halliburton a multi-year contract to provide stimulation and completion services for the company’s unconventional gas development program in Saudi Arabia. Halliburton said July 15 that the award is part of a broader multibillion-dollar contract framework supporting the Kingdom’s unconventional resource expansion. Under the agreement, Halliburton will deploy intelligent fracturing automation technologies designed to optimize treatment performance in real time and support execution across multiwell development campaigns. The company said the technologies will enable greater digital integration across field operations. Development of the Jafurah unconventional gas field, the Middle East’s largest liquids-rich shale gas play, is under way. In support of the program, Halliburton plans to expand local manufacturing capacity, strengthen its supply chain network, and increase workforce development initiatives within the Kingdom as activity levels continue to grow. “Beginning in the third quarter of 2026, Halliburton will deploy the Kingdom’s first fully integrated intelligent fracturing platform through OCTIV® Auto Frac and Sensori™ fracturing monitoring services to contribute to asset value for one of the world’s largest unconventional fields,” said Rami Yassine, senior vice-president, Eastern Hemisphere, Halliburton. Jafurah background Jafurah is a key component of Aramco’s gas expansion strategy intended to help meet rising demand for natural gas in power generation and industry. In February 2026, the operator said it seeks to expand sales gas production capacity by about 80% by 2030 compared with 2021 production levels. At the time, Aramco said unconventional shale gas output from Jafurah began in December 2025. The field covers about 17,000 sq km and is estimated to contain 229 tcf of raw gas and 75 billion stb of condensate. Aramco expects the development to produce 2 bcfd of sales gas, 420 MMscfd of ethane, and about 630,000 b/d of high-value liquids by 2030.

Digitalization paying off for Rompetrol’s Petromidia refinery

Rompetrol Rafinare SA—jointly owned by Kazakhstan’s state-owned JSC NC KazMunayGas (KMG) subsidiary KMG International NV (54.63%) and Romania’s Ministry of Economy, Energy & Business Environment (44.7%)—is using proprietary operations management software from Emerson Electric Co. to improve alarm performance its more than 5-million tonne/year Petromidia refinery in Năvodari, Romania, on the Black Sea. To date, implementation of Emerson’s DeltaV AgileOps operations management software has helped reduce distributed control system (DCS) alarm volumes at the Petromidia refinery by more than 95%, the service provider said on July 14. Emerson said the project improved alarm performance, increased operator effectiveness, and brought alarm rates within the Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association (EEMUA) 191 guideline recommendations. Before implementation of DeltaV AgileOps, alarm behavior at the refinery—Romania’s largest—expanded beyond recommended best practices, including high alarm volumes during plant disturbances, nuisance-chattering alarms, and alarms that remained active during normal operation. To address those issues, Rompetrol Rafinare worked with KMG International’s engineering and maintenance services provider SC Rominserv SRL to improve alarm quality and reduce nuisance alarms across the refinery. Use of DeltaV AgileOps—which pulls alarm and event data directly from the DeltaV DCS running the plant—provided continuous visibility into alarm performance, including average and peak alarm rates, recurring alarm sequences, and time spent outside recommended operating thresholds, Emerson said. Following implementation, engineering teams at the refinery used performance dashboards and historical trending to identify high-frequency alarms, stale alarms, and nuisance “bad actor” alarms responsible for disproportionate alarm activity. The teams evaluated alarm behavior during steady-state operation, startup conditions, and process disturbances, then assessed proposed changes to alarm limits, priorities, and suppression strategies against plant data. Emerson said the project reduced alarm generation to fewer than 50,000 alarms/month from more than 2 million alarms/month during normal operation. Emerson—which linked the outcome to EEMUA 191 guidance that

EIA: US crude inventories down 1.7 million bbl

US crude oil inventories for the week ended July 10, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, decreased by 1.7 million bbl from the previous week, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). At 409.7 million bbl, US crude oil inventories are about 6% below the 5-year average for this time of year, the EIA report indicated. EIA said total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 1.5 million bbl from last week and are 8% below the 5-year average for this time of year. Finished gasoline inventories and blending components inventories both decreased last week. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 4.6 million bbl last week and are about 11% below the 5-year average for this time of year. Propane-propylene inventories increased by 3 million bbl from last week and are 28% above the 5-year average for this time of year, EIA said. US crude oil refinery inputs averaged 17.1 million b/d for the week ended July 10, which was 99,000 b/d more than the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 96.2% of capacity. Gasoline production decreased, averaging 9.6 million b/d. Distillate fuel production increased, averaging 5.3 million b/d. US crude oil imports averaged 5.7 million b/d, up 60,000 b/d from the previous week. Over the last 4 weeks, crude oil imports averaged about 5.5 million b/d, 12.2% less than the same 4-week period last year. Total motor gasoline imports averaged 354,000 b/d. Distillate fuel imports averaged 93,000 b/d.

Tech Explainer: Data Center Cooling – Air, Evaporative, Liquid, and Hybrid Approaches

Data Center Cooling Glossary The following definitions reflect common terminology used in Department of Energy guidance, ASHRAE TC 9.9 materials, Berkeley Lab resources and Green Grid efficiency metrics. Adiabatic Cooling — A cooling process that uses water evaporation to lower the temperature of air before it reaches a heat exchanger or cooling coil. It can reduce compressor demand but consumes water when evaporative assistance is active. Air-Cooled Data Center — A facility in which heat is removed from IT equipment primarily by moving conditioned air through servers, even if that heat is later transferred to water or refrigerant elsewhere in the cooling system. Air Handler — Equipment that moves, filters and conditions air before delivering it to a data hall or other controlled space. Air-Side Economizer — A system that uses suitable outdoor air, either directly or mixed with return air, to reduce or avoid compressor-based refrigeration. Airflow Management — The practice of delivering conditioned air where it is needed while preventing hot exhaust air from recirculating into server inlets. Approach Temperature — The temperature difference between the two fluids leaving a heat exchanger at their closest thermal point. In a cooling tower, it commonly refers to the difference between leaving-water temperature and entering-air wet-bulb temperature. A smaller approach generally indicates more effective heat transfer. ASHRAE TC 9.9 — The ASHRAE technical committee focused on mission-critical facilities, data centers, technology spaces and electronic equipment. It is a major source of environmental and thermal guidance for data center operators and equipment manufacturers. Blanking Panel — A panel installed in unused rack spaces to prevent hot exhaust air from recirculating to server intakes. British Thermal Unit, or BTU — A unit of heat energy commonly used to express the heating or cooling capacity of equipment. Cabinet — An enclosure, also commonly called

The AI Infrastructure Split Screen: Capital Rush Meets Community Resistance

It would be difficult to construct a more revealing snapshot of the AI infrastructure market than the one delivered in mid-July. In the same news cycle, Csquare completed a billion-dollar initial public offering, Switch was linked to a potential $10 billion IPO, and Databricks reached a reported valuation of $188 billion. At the project level, developers advanced or disclosed campuses measured not in tens or hundreds of megawatts, but in gigawatts—from Meta’s expanding Louisiana complex and Google’s reported Wyoming plans to new Crusoe, QTS, MARA and Tract developments. Yet the same week brought a state-level permitting pause in New York, a decisive project rejection in Palm Beach County, planned protests across more than 20 states, and fresh disputes over parkland, water availability and local control. This is the data center and AI landscape in 2026: capital is abundant but increasingly discriminating; power is more valuable than the underlying real estate; and community consent has become nearly as important as interconnection capacity. Public Markets Put Different Prices on the AI Stack The capital-market headlines illustrated how differently investors are valuing the various layers of AI infrastructure. Csquare priced 50 million shares at $21, raising approximately $1.05 billion and establishing an equity valuation of roughly $3.2 billion. The offering was substantial, but it priced below the proposed $23-to-$27 range, and the shares finished their first trading day slightly below the offer price. Brookfield retained approximately 67% of the company’s voting power following the transaction. That reception contrasts sharply with the valuation being discussed for Switch. The DigitalBridge-backed operator has reportedly engaged Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan for a potential IPO that could raise as much as $10 billion and value Switch near $80 billion, including debt. The transaction remains prospective, but the figure is striking when compared with the $11 billion take-private agreement

New York State just hit pause on the AI data center boom

The moratorium could result in some “border-hopping,” with enterprises hosting local servers in adjacent states like Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New Jersey, but that’s not likely to be widespread, Kimball noted. The realistic regional impact will be “more of a slow squeeze rather than a shock,” he said. This could result in tighter colocation availability and firmer pricing in the New York Metropolitan area over the next few years. Cloud providers may also steer new AI capacity to regions like Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Utah, where power and permitting are more predictable. An inflection point, but more trickle-down than direct impact Indeed, noted Jeremy Roberts, senior director for research and content at Info-Tech Research Group, the moratorium is an “inflection point” and a “way to placate an increasingly angry public,”.

TeraWulf’s $19B Anthropic Lease Puts Its Brownfield AI Strategy to the Test

He added that the company’s strategy is centered on owning and operating critical infrastructure, maintaining direct relationships with customers and controlling the long-term evolution of its campuses. This Model Differs Significantly from the Previous Abernathy JV TeraWulf and Fluidstack created the Abernathy venture in 2025 to develop a 168-MW critical IT load campus on approximately 120 acres near Abernathy, Texas. The project’s total utility requirement has been described as approximately 240 MW. Fluidstack committed to a 25-year lease at the campus, with Google providing approximately $1.3 billion of credit support for Fluidstack’s obligations. TeraWulf acquired a 50.1% interest in the joint venture through an investment of approximately $450 million. The project subsequently issued $1.3 billion in senior secured notes to support construction and related expenses. The Abernathy agreements were expected to produce approximately $9.5 billion in contracted revenue for the joint venture over the initial 25-year term. Construction has been advancing toward delivery during the second half of 2026. Following the sale, Fluidstack and the other purchasers will control the project. TeraWulf agreed to sell its Abernathy interest for approximately $530 million, compared with its $450 million investment in the joint venture. The consideration is scheduled to be paid in three installments through April 2027, with the proceeds expected to support investment in infrastructure opportunities that TeraWulf intends to own and operate directly. The decision does not necessarily indicate that TeraWulf has become less interested in partnerships with Fluidstack. Fluidstack remains an important tenant at TeraWulf’s Lake Mariner campus in New York, and the companies have built a substantial pipeline of AI infrastructure together. In infrastructure terms, TeraWulf is acting as both developer and capital allocator. It originated the Abernathy project, helped secure the customer and financing structure, advanced construction and is now monetizing its interest before the campus begins

Comparing Space-Driven Data Center Strategies: Modular Satellites vs. Integrated Rocket Nodes

In addition to developing radiation-tolerant computing, optical communications, deployable solar arrays and orbital thermal-management systems, Cowboy must successfully design, manufacture, test and license a new rocket. Its launch vehicle would require authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration in addition to the approvals needed for the satellite constellation. Cowboy nevertheless enters the race with considerably more capital than Orbital. The company announced a $275 million Series B round in May at a reported $2 billion valuation. Founded in 2024 by Robinhood co-founder Baiju Bhatt, with a focus on space-based solar power before expanding into orbital computing and launch systems. One Hundred Kilowatts Versus One Megawatt The clearest distinction between the two proposals is the capacity assigned to each node. Orbital’s production design calls for approximately 100 kilowatts of computing power per satellite. Cowboy is targeting megawatt-class spacecraft, potentially giving each Stampede node approximately 10 times the power capacity of an Orbital satellite. At their stated maximum scales, Orbital’s 100,000 satellites would provide approximately 10 gigawatts. If Cowboy ultimately achieved one megawatt across all 20,000 Stampede spacecraft, its theoretical aggregate capacity would approach 20 gigawatts. Those figures should be treated as design objectives, not capacity forecasts. Neither company has demonstrated even one operational node at its proposed production power level. Orbital’s smaller satellites may be easier to test and deploy incrementally. The company can begin with a single hosted GPU, progress to a purpose-built prototype and expand as launch economics and customer demand permit. Cowboy’s larger nodes could provide more useful computing capacity with fewer satellites and potentially fewer launches. Combining the rocket stage and data center would also reduce the amount of structural mass that does not directly support power generation or computing. The tradeoff is concentration risk. The failure of a megawatt Cowboy spacecraft would remove considerably more capacity than

Google Cloud configuration update disrupts VMware Engine stretched clusters

“Google made a network setting change that accidentally broke the connection between the two data center zones in VMware Engine. The virtual machines themselves kept running fine, but nobody could reach them, and there was a risk that some machines might lose the ability to save data properly. This indicates that even managed cloud infrastructure can experience failures in critical shared network components,” said Pareekh Jain, CEO at EIIRTrend & Pareekh Consulting. Neil Shah, vice president at Counterpoint Research, said the real culprit here is the SDN orchestration control plane, where a routine internal network update or configuration tweak introduced routing failure across multiple zones. “While most of the physical nodes are distributed for exactly this redundancy purpose, they are still tightly coupled to a singular shared orchestration fabric, so if that control plane crashes, then everything comes crashing down, and the physical distributed nodes become irrelevant.” Stretched clusters fall short Although the outage did not bring down virtual machines, the incident undermined the primary reason enterprises deploy stretched clusters.

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle