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.

Startup Amutable plotting Linux security overhaul to counter hacking threats

Verifiable integrity Computing is full of security problems, and Linux is no exception to this rule, given convincing the protective free and open source software community of the wisdom of a radical new idea often turns out to be as big a challenge as the engineering itself. While Linux distros

Forward Networks launches agentic AI system built on network digital twin

The practical difference becomes clear in troubleshooting workflows. When asked to triage a ServiceNow ticket, the agent reads the ticket content, gathers context about entities mentioned from the digital twin, automatically performs path traces for connectivity issues, and returns a diagnosis. The complete workflow remains visible to operators throughout the

Top 11 network outages and application failures of 2025

Asana: February 5 & 6 Duration: Two consecutive outages, with the second lasting approximately 20 minutes Symptoms: Service unavailability and degraded performance Cause: A configuration change overloaded server logs on February 5, causing servers to restart. A second outage with similar characteristics occurred the following day. Takeaways: “This pair of

Introducing CodeMender: an AI agent for code security

While large language models are rapidly improving, mistakes in code security could be costly. CodeMender’s automatic validation process ensures that code changes are correct across many dimensions by only surfacing for human review high-quality patches that, for example, fix the root cause of the issue, are functionally correct, cause no

Chevron Sees Self-Funding Model in VEN to Safeguard Cash

Chevron Corp. intends to finance Venezuelan oil investments with cash from oil sales rather than committing new capital to the country, Chief Financial Officer Eimear Bonner said in an interview. Chevron plans to increase its Venezuelan production by 50% within the next two years but will do so without changing overall capital spending, said Bonner, who’s Chevron career has included tours of duty from Thailand and the UK to Central Asia. The Venezuelan growth plan requires additional authorizations from the US Treasury, she noted. “Our model is a venture-funded model,” Bonner said. “Any change in our investment levels or capital levels, we’d look at this like any asset opportunity or investment opportunity that we have in the portfolio. It would need to have an appropriate return on investment.” The only oil supermajor operating in Venezuela, Chevron’s cautious stance on injecting fresh capital is a reality check on how quickly the nation’s oil industry can be revived. While it has the world’s biggest reserves on paper, socialist regimes leaders have a history of nationalizing oilfields drilled by US and European operators. Chevron currently produces about 250,000 barrels a day from joint ventures with state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA. The country accounts for about 2% of Chevron’s annual cash flow. Bonner welcomed Acting President Delcy Rodriguez’s efforts to reform the country’s nationalist oil policies in moves that promises to lower taxes and permit more foreign investment. “It appears that those reforms are working toward ensuring all the things that would make Venezuela an attractive place for future investment: rule of law, commercial stability, competitiveness,” Bonner said. “It seems like a step in the right direction.” WHAT DO YOU THINK? Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate

Oil Closes Lower but Posts Strong Monthly Gain

Oil edged lower, though still notched its biggest monthly gain since 2022, as US President Donald Trump reiterated openness to negotiations with Iran, though investors remain on edge about the potential for further tensions. West Texas Intermediate fell 0.3% to settle near $65 a barrel, snapping a breathless three-day rally, while Brent ended the day above $70. Prices tumbled after Trump told reporters that Iran wants to make a deal. The US president’s messaging has shifted from punishing Tehran for its deadly crackdown on protesters to this week trying to extract a new nuclear agreement. That siphoned some risk premium out of a market on edge after Trump ordered naval assets to the region, with an aircraft-carrier strike group recently arriving in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic is the fifth-biggest producer in the OPEC+ alliance, when including Russia. The de-escalatory remarks from Trump aren’t necessarily new, but heading into the weekend, the market is trying to gauge where Trump’s head is at, said Rebecca Babin, a senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth Group. “Any signal that he may lean toward diplomacy rather than military action creates immediate selling pressure,” she added. Crude had earlier fallen alongside other markets as Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Federal Reserve chair led to a debate about how far he would cut interest rates. The US president later said that Warsh “certainly wants to cut rates.” Several bullish factors are still at play, limiting the slide. In the US, coastal cities are bracing for a record-setting cold spell to intensify in coming days, in a potential disruption to production and boost to heating demand. The storm would come just a week after Winter Storm Fern shut in nearly 2 million barrels a day of US oil production at its peak,

Greece Warns Shipowners Against Sailing Near Iran Coast

Greece, home to the world’s largest oil tanker fleet, told the nation’s vessel owners to do what they can to stay away from Iran’s coast — a task that is all but impossible for those entering the Persian Gulf to collect cargoes of Middle East crude. Shipowners were directed to sail closer to the United Arab Emirates and Oman when transiting the Strait of Hormuz, according to two advisories seen by Bloomberg. They were issued by the Greek shipping ministry to local shipowner associations on Jan. 27 and 29. The advisories said more warships were operating near the strait and warned that the European Union’s latest sanctions on Iran risked further inflaming tensions around Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and southern parts of the Red Sea. They were sent to the Hellenic Chamber of Shipping, the Union of Greek Shipowners and the Hellenic Shortsea Shipowners Association. A spokesman for Greece’s shipping ministry confirmed the notices had been sent. The global shipping community and oil traders are closely watching developments in the Middle East after the US dispatched an aircraft-carrier strike group to the region. President Donald Trump said he hoped he would not have to use it against Iran, which monitoring groups have accused of killing thousands of people during recent protests. The Strait of Hormuz is critical to the global oil supply, with roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne crude passing through the corridor. Much of that oil is transported on Greek-owned vessels. Greece is the biggest tanker owner by tonnage, according to Clarkson Research Services, a unit of the world’s largest shipbroker. WHAT DO YOU THINK? Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

Exxon, Chevron Lift Oil Production, Blunting Price Drop

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. surpassed profit expectations as higher oil production helped offset the blow from lower crude prices. The titans of the US oil industry expanded output from the US Permian Basin, Guyana and other regions. For Exxon, full-year production hit a 40-year high while Chevron benefited from the integration of its $48 billion takeover of Hess Corp. The outperformance comes as major US drillers face growing pressure to assist in the Trump administration’s aspiration to revive the Venezuelan oil sector after the ouster of strongman Nicolas Maduro. Chevron intends to finance a 50% increase in its Venezuelan oil production with cash from oil sales rather than committing new capital to the country, Chief Financial Officer Eimear Bonner said during an interview. As the only major oil explorer with ongoing operations in the South American nation, Chevron has a leg up on rivals that departed years ago during a nationalization campaign by Maduro’s predecessor, the late former leader Hugo Chavez. Late Thursday, The Trump administration took steps to begin relaxing some of the punishing sanctions that have isolated the Venezuelan energy industry. The move gives other US companies the go-ahead to work with the state-controlled oil producer, with restrictions such as a prohibition on transactions with Chinese-tied entities. Exxon’s adjusted fourth-quarter net income of $1.71 a share was 2 cents higher than the average estimate in a Bloomberg survey. Chevron earned $1.52 a share, 14 cents higher than expected. For both companies, debt ratios crept higher during the final three months of 2025. Exxon shares fell 1% at 9:35 a.m. in New York. Chevron rose 1.1%. “We’re capturing more value from every barrel and molecule we produce and building growth platforms at scale,” Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in a statement. The strategy is “creating a

2026 US power sector outlook

In 2026, the electric utility sector faces unprecedented load growth that is challenging the physical infrastructure of the grid and the regulatory and market structures that have guided its development for decades. Federal and state authorities are at odds over who will manage this growth as officials come under pressure over rising costs. At the same time, the Trump administration has moved to exert more direct control over the power system under the banner of “energy dominance.” The stories in our 2026 outlook series below comprise a road map to the year ahead, including what to expect from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the impacts of new federal policy on renewables and other resources, and technological advances that promise to unlock new efficiencies. We’re tracking the biggest trends rewriting the rules of how the U.S. produces and delivers power heading into what is sure to be a defining year for energy.

Customers, don’t expect electric bill relief in 2026: ‘The cake is baked.’

Listen to the article 16 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. Rising energy demand, inflation, grid investment, extreme weather and volatile fuel costs are increasing the cost of electricity faster than many households can keep up, and there are no easy fixes, experts say. Mitigating the problem would require threading a needle of policy alternatives, but even with the right policies, it will take time to reduce customer energy burdens. The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts the national average residential price per kilowatt hour in 2026 at 18 cents, up approximately 37% from 2020. “I don’t see hidden costs that can be suddenly squeezed out of the system,” said Ray Gifford, managing partner of Wilkinson Barker Knauer’s Denver office and former chair of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. “You are talking about an industry where most of the costs are fixed, and the assets are long-lived.” Energy affordability has recently become politically salient, but for many low-income people, “the energy affordability crisis is not new,” said Joe Daniel, a principal on the Rocky Mountain Institute’s carbon free electricity team. In 2017, 25% of all U.S. households — more than 30 million — faced a high energy burden, defined as paying more than 6% of income on energy bills, according to a report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. For the poorest, it can be much higher. Households making less than 30% of area median income paid about 11% of their income for electricity alone, according to data from the Department of Energy covering the years 2018 to 2022. The Department of Energy’s Low-Income Energy Affordability Data Tool shows households’ energy burden in the lower 48 states and Washington, D.C. The data is based on the American Community Survey 5-year Estimates for 2018-2022. Retrieved from

How Robotics Is Re-Engineering Data Center Construction and Operations

Physical AI: A Reusable Robotics Stack for Data Center Operations This is where the recent collaboration between Multiply Labs and NVIDIA becomes relevant, even though the application is biomanufacturing rather than data centers. Multiply Labs has outlined a robotics approach built on three core elements: Digital twins using NVIDIA Isaac Sim to model hardware and validate changes in simulation before deployment. Foundation-model-based skill learning via NVIDIA Isaac GR00T, enabling robots to generalize tasks rather than rely on brittle, hard-coded behaviors. Perception pipelines including FoundationPose and FoundationStereo, that convert expert demonstrations into structured training data. Taken together, this represents a reusable blueprint for data center robotics. Applying the Lesson to Data Center Environments The same physical-AI techniques now being applied in lab and manufacturing environments map cleanly onto the realities of data center operations, particularly where safety, uptime, and variability intersect. Digital-twin-first deployment Before a robot ever enters a live data hall, it needs to be trained in simulation. That means modeling aisle geometry, obstacles, rack layouts, reflective surfaces, and lighting variation; along with “what if” scenarios such as blocked aisles, emergency egress conditions, ladders left in place, or spill events. Simulation-first workflows make it possible to validate behavior and edge cases before introducing any new system into a production environment. Skill learning beats hard-coded rules Data centers appear structured, but in practice they are full of variability: temporary cabling, staged parts, mixed-vendor racks, and countless human exceptions. Foundation-model approaches to manipulation are designed to generalize across that messiness far better than traditional rule-based automation, which tends to break when conditions drift even slightly from the expected state. Imitation learning captures tribal knowledge Many operational tasks rely on tacit expertise developed over years in the field, such as how to manage stiff patch cords, visually confirm latch engagement, or stage a

Applied Digital CEO Wes Cummins On the Hard Part of the AI Boom: Execution

Designing for What Comes After the Current AI Cycle Applied Digital’s design philosophy starts with a premise many developers still resist: today’s density assumptions may not hold. “We’re designing for maximum flexibility for the future—higher density power, lower density power, higher voltage delivery, and more floor space,” Cummins said. “It’s counterintuitive because densities are going up, but we don’t know what comes next.” That choice – to allocate more floor space even as rack densities climb – signals a long-view approach. Facilities are engineered to accommodate shifts in voltage, cooling topology, and customer requirements without forcing wholesale retrofits. Higher-voltage delivery, mixed cooling configurations, and adaptable data halls are baked in from the start. The goal is not to predict the future perfectly, Cummins stressed, but to avoid painting infrastructure into a corner. Supply Chain as Competitive Advantage If flexibility is the design thesis, supply chain control is the execution weapon. “It’s a huge advantage that we locked in our MEP supply chain 18 to 24 months ago,” Cummins said. “It’s a tight environment, and more timelines are going to get missed in 2026 because of it.” Applied Digital moved early to secure long-lead mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components; well before demand pressure fully rippled through transformers, switchgear, chillers, generators, and breakers. That foresight now underpins the company’s ability to make credible delivery commitments while competitors confront procurement bottlenecks. Cummins was blunt: many delays won’t stem from poor planning, but from simple unavailability. From 100 MW to 700 MW Without Losing Control The past year marked a structural pivot for Applied Digital. What began as a single, 100-megawatt “field of dreams” facility in North Dakota has become more than 700 MW under construction, with expansion still ahead. “A hundred megawatts used to be considered scale,” Cummins said. “Now we’re at 700

From Silicon to Cooling: Dell’Oro Maps the AI Data Center Buildout

For much of the past decade, data center growth could be measured in incremental gains: another efficiency point here, another capacity tranche there. That era is over. According to a cascade of recent research from Dell’Oro Group, the AI investment cycle has crossed into a new phase, one defined less by experimentation and more by industrial-scale execution. Across servers, networks, power, and cooling, Dell’Oro’s latest data points to a market being reshaped end-to-end by AI workloads which are pulling forward capital spending, redefining bill-of-material assumptions, and forcing architectural transitions that are rapidly becoming non-negotiable. Capex Becomes the Signal The clearest indicator of the shift is spending. Dell’Oro reported that worldwide data center capital expenditures rose 59 percent year-over-year in 3Q 2025, marking the eighth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth. Importantly, this is no longer a narrow, training-centric surge. “The Top 4 US cloud service providers—Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft—continue to raise data center capex expectations for 2025, supported by increased investments in both AI and general-purpose infrastructure,” said Baron Fung, Senior Research Director at Dell’Oro Group. He added that Oracle is on track to double its data center capex as it expands capacity for the Stargate project. “What is notable this cycle is not just the pace of spending, but the expanding scope of investment,” Fung said. Hyperscalers are now scaling accelerated compute, general-purpose servers, and the supporting infrastructure required to deploy AI at production scale, while simultaneously applying tighter discipline around asset lifecycles and depreciation to preserve cash flow. The result is a capex environment that looks less speculative and more structural, with investment signals extending well into 2026. Accelerators Redefine the Hardware Stack At the component level, the AI effect is even more pronounced. Dell’Oro found that global data center server and storage component revenue jumped 40 percent

Rethinking Water in the AI Data Center Era

Finding Water by Eliminating Waste: Leakage as a Hidden Demand Driver ION Water and Meta frame leakage not as a marginal efficiency issue, but as one of the largest and least visible sources of water demand. According to the release, more than half of the water paid for at some properties can be lost to “invisible leaks,” including running toilets, aging water heaters, and faulty fixtures that go undetected for extended periods. ION’s platform is designed to surface that hidden demand. By monitoring water consumption at the unit level, the system flags anomalies in real time and directs maintenance teams to specific fixtures, rather than entire buildings. The company says this approach can reduce leak-driven water waste by as much as 60%. This represents an important evolution in how hyperscalers defend and contextualize their water footprints: Instead of focusing solely on their own direct WUE metrics, operators are investing in demand reduction within the same watershed where their data centers operate. That shift reframes the narrative from simply managing active water consumption to actively helping stabilize stressed local water systems. The Accounting Shift: Volumetric Water Benefits (VWB) The release explicitly positions the project as a model for Volumetric Water Benefits (VWB) initiatives, projects intended to deliver measurable environmental gains while also producing operational and financial benefits for underserved communities. This framing aligns with a broader stewardship accounting movement promoted by organizations such as the World Resources Institute, which has developed Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting (VWBA) as a standardized method for quantifying and valuing watershed-scale benefits. Meta is explicit that the project supports its water-positive commitment tied to its Temple, Texas data center community. The company has set a 2030 goal to restore more water than it consumes across its global operations and has increasingly emphasized “water stewardship in our data center

Microsoft and Meta’s Earnings Week Put the AI Data Center Cycle in Sharp Relief

If you’re trying to understand where the hyperscalers really are in the AI buildout, beyond the glossy campus renders and “superintelligence” rhetoric, this week’s earnings calls from Microsoft and Meta offered a more grounded view. Both companies are spending at a scale the data center industry has never had to absorb at once. Both are navigating the same hard constraints: power, capacity, supply chain, silicon allocation, and time-to-build. But the market’s reaction split decisively, and that divergence tells its own story about what investors will tolerate in 2026. To wit: Massive capex is acceptable when the return narrative is already visible in the P&L…and far less so when the payoff is still being described as “early innings.” Microsoft: AI Demand Is Real. So Is the Cost Microsoft’s fiscal Q2 2026 results reinforced the core fact that has been driving North American hyperscale development for two years: Cloud + AI growth is still accelerating, and Azure remains one of the primary runways. Microsoft said Q2 total revenue rose to $81.3 billion, while Microsoft Cloud revenue reached $51.5 billion, up 26% (constant currency 24%). Intelligent Cloud revenue hit $32.9 billion, up 29%, and Azure and other cloud services revenue grew 39%. That’s the demand signal. The supply signal is more complicated. On the call and in follow-on reporting, Microsoft’s leadership framed the moment as a deliberate capacity build into persistent AI adoption. Yet the bill for that build is now impossible to ignore: Reuters reported Microsoft’s capital spending totaled $37.5 billion in the quarter, up nearly 66% year-over-year, with roughly two-thirds going toward computing chips. That “chips first” allocation matters for the data center ecosystem. It implies a procurement and deployment reality that many developers and colo operators have been living: the short pole is not only power and buildings; it’s GPU

Network engineers take on NetDevOps roles to advance stalled automation efforts

What NetDevOps looks like Most enterprises begin their NetDevOps journey modestly by automating a limited set of repetitive, lower-level tasks. Nearly 70% of enterprises pursuing infrastructure automation start with task-level scripting, rather than end-to-end automation, according to theCUBE Research’s AppDev Done Right Summit. This can include using tools such as Ansible or Python scripts to standardize device provisioning, configuration changes, or other routine changes. Then, more mature teams adopt Git for version control, define golden configurations, and apply basic validation before and after changes, explains Bob Laliberte, principal analyst at SiliconANGLE and theCUBE. A smaller group of enterprises extends automation efforts into complete CI/CD-style workflows with consistent testing, staged deployments, and automated verification, Laliberte adds. This capability is present in less than 25% of enterprises today, according to theCUBE, and it is typically focused on specific domains such as data center fabric or cloud networking. NetDevOps usually exists with the network organization as a dedicated automation or platform subgroup, and more than 60% of enterprises anchor NetDevOps initiatives within traditional infrastructure teams rather than application or platform engineering groups, according to Laliberte. “In larger enterprises, NetDevOps capabilities are increasingly centralized within shared infrastructure or platform teams that provide tooling, pipelines, and guardrails across compute, storage, and networking,” Laliberte says. “In more advanced or cloud-native environments, network specialists may be embedded within application, site reliability engineering (SRE), or platform teams, particularly where networking directly impacts application performance.” Transforming work At its core, NetDevOps isn’t just about changing titles for network engineers. It is about changing workflows, behaviors, and operating models across network operations.

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