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.

Network evolution for the Agentic AI era

With all of the attention being paid to the compute resources required to power AI, connectivity is sometimes overlooked. This poses a new dynamic for those planning their next phase of AI deployment. Those who modernize their IP networks can unlock new revenue from AI-driven services, while those who delay

Bharat Petroleum awards contract for Bina refinery expansion

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (BPCL) has let a contract to Duncan Engineering Ltd. (DEL) for supply of valves as part of the operator’s project to expand production of petrochemicals at its 7.8-million tonne/year (tpy) refinery at Bina, Madya Pradesh. As part the late-June contract award, DEL will deliver its critical

Neste plans 9-week turnaround at Porvoo refinery

Neste Corp. will undertake a major turnaround beginning in August at its 10-million tonne/year (tpy) refinery in the Kilpilahti industrial area of Porvoo, Finland, about 20 miles east of Helsinki. Budgeted at an overall investment of more than €400-million ($457 million) and scheduled to run through October, the 9-week turnaround

Meta reuses old RAM in new servers with custom bridge chip

With the cost of new RAM soaring, Meta has found a thrifty way to reuse older memory in newer servers. The performance of about 40% of Meta’s millions of servers is limited by a lack of memory, the company said — but it has a surplus of older DIMMs from

Energy Department Announces Up to $150 Million to Boost Unconventional Oil and Gas Recovery, Advance Hydraulic Fracture Characterization, and Revolutionize Produced Water Management

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office (HGEO) today announced up to $150 million in federal funding for cost-shared projects aimed at advancing three critical priorities for the U.S. oil and natural gas industry—dramatically improving recovery efficiency from unconventional oil and gas reservoirs, advancing hydraulic fracture characterization technologies, and developing innovative solutions for produced water management. This initiative advances resident Trump’s Executive Order , “Unleashing American Energy,” and the Secretarial Order “Unleashing the Golden Era of Energy Dominance,” to provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy to all Americans through the responsible development of our nation’s abundant domestic oil and natural gas supplies. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are unleashing America’s energy potential to secure our nation’s future,” said DOE Acting Assistant Secretary of the Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office Curt Coccodrilli. “By unlocking more of our domestic oil and natural gas resources, improving our understanding of hydraulic fracturing, and innovating in produced water management, we are not only creating jobs and lowering energy costs for American families, we are also driving innovation that will benefit our economy for generations to come.” DOE has released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) seeking innovative proposals that address technical, economic, and environmental barriers across the following areas, with a focus on increasing domestic energy production and strengthening American energy dominance: Enhanced Recovery from Unconventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs: With recovery rates from unconventional reservoirs often below 10%, significant oil and gas resources remain untapped. Funding in this area will support the rapid field deployment of novel technologies and processes—including exploring the potential of carbon dioxide as an injectant—to improve oil and gas extraction, increase the recovery factor, and lower the break-even cost of primary recovery operations to increase the efficiency of our national resources and provide more affordable energy. Advanced Characterization of Fracture Propagation,

Department of Energy Celebrates Fourth Criticality Ahead of July 4th Goal

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy celebrates yet another win for the American nuclear energy renaissance. Early Saturday, as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Reactor Pilot Program, Aalo Atomics’ test reactor, Aalo-X, successfully completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration. The experiment took place at Idaho National Laboratory and is the fourth DOE-authorized advanced reactor to achieve the criticality milestone, exceeding the July 4th goal outlined by President Trump in his May 2025 executive order. “Last month I toured the Aalo facility at Idaho National Laboratory and was impressed by the company’s determination to successfully demonstrate their technology by the Fourth of July,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “President Trump asked for three advanced reactors to be authorized and achieve criticality by the 250th anniversary of our great country. I’m pleased to share that through the dedication and hard work of Aalo, INL and DOE, we have surpassed that ask and delivered four!” Aalo-X joins a growing list of successful advanced reactor designs and spotlights the continued progress and momentum of participants in DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program and the Nuclear Energy Launch Pad initiative. In June, Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 reactor, Valar Atomics’ Ward 250, and Deployable Energy’s Unity achieved criticality. “The hardest problem in nuclear was never the physics, our country simply forgot how to build. The success of the Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program is proof America can execute again,” said Yasir Arafat, President and CTO, Aalo Atomics. “We are proud to play a major role in America’s nuclear renaissance, going from breaking ground to a sustained chain reaction in just eight months, one of the fastest reactor builds in modern American history.” The fourth criticality of a DOE authorized reactor design surpasses what many skeptics thought American reactor developers could achieve in response to President

San Mateo Midstream expands Delaware basin footprint with $752-million acquisition

San Mateo said the assets complement its existing gathering and processing system and will improve natural gas flow across the northern Delaware basin in southeast New Mexico and West Texas. The acquisition is expected to increase San Mateo’s designed processing capacity to more than 1 bcfd and expand its gathering network to more than 800 miles. Integration of the systems is expected to provide immediate operating synergies, including the ability to move volumes between Cardinal’s Loving County plant and San Mateo’s Marlan and Black River plants in Eddy County. “With this acquisition, San Mateo not only gains more processing capacity, a larger pipeline system and a more diverse customer base but also improves its positioning for strategic transactions in the future,” said Brian J. Willey, San Mateo chairman and executive vice-president of midstream for Matador. Willey added that connecting the systems will “complete the circle” of San Mateo’s Delaware basin infrastructure, enhancing flow assurance for Matador and third‑party customers and improving flexibility to move natural gas throughout the northern Delaware basin north to south or south to north. The transaction is expected to close on or before July 31, 2026, subject to customary conditions. Cardinal’s field employees are expected to join San Mateo upon closing.

QatarEnergy signs commercial declaration for offshore Cyprus

QatarEnergy has signed a commercial discovery declaration for the Glaucus and Pegasus fields in Cyprus, partnering with Cyprus and ExxonMobil to progress development plans and regulatory approvals for offshore gas production. <!–> June 30, 2026 –> Key Highlights QatarEnergy signed a commercial discovery declaration for offshore Cyprus. QatarEnergy, the government of Cyprus, and ExxonMobil will support the next phase of Block 10 development.

Neste charts course for renewable fuels amidst industry retreat

Another technology that could provide massive potential to help meet rising energy demand and contribute to global climate goals is renewable hydrogen. Renewable hydrogen—or green hydrogen—is produced by electrolysis, where hydrogen is processed from water using renewable electricity (e.g., wind, solar) by splitting water molecules. Currently, around 95% of all hydrogen is made using fossil-derived natural gas, resulting in high GHG emissions. Since renewable hydrogen is nearly free of GHG emissions, the transition to a renewable hydrogen economy hold potential to transform the energy landscape. Just as with Neste’s the pilot program in Rotterdam, renewable fuel producers could benefit by evaluating options for replacing fossil-based hydrogen with renewable hydrogen in their production processes. In the renewable fuels production process, supply chain optimization is critical to ensure stable flows of both raw materials and end products. For Neste, this means an extensive global network for sourcing renewable raw materials and a market-centric distribution network to ensure renewable fuels reach customers and key markets quickly and efficiently. In the US, Neste made a major strategic move to enhance its supply network with the acquisition of Mahoney Environmental in 2020. This integration provides Neste with access to used cooking oil from over 100,000 locations across the country. To ensure efficient product delivery, Neste has also been fostering partnerships with infrastructure providers to lease terminals that are strategically located near key markets. These terminals are often well-connected to fuel logistics via vessels, barges, trucks, and pipelines. Having terminal capacities close to key markets can notably increase the availability and accessibility of Neste’s renewable fuels to customers. For example, the streamlined logistics system enabled a major expansion of Neste’s SAF supply in 2025, when Neste and United Airlines Inc. extended their partnership, making United the first commercial airline to purchase SAF for use on flights

Talos Energy, Ridgewood sign deal to acquire Gulf of Mexico assets from Shell Offshore

Talos would acquire a 25% non-operated working interest in the bp plc-operated (50%) Na Kika platform and the Kepler, Ariel, Fourier, and Herschel fields, along with a 50% working interest and operatorship in the Coulomb field, the company said in a separate release. The Na Kika interests are subject to a 30-day preferential purchase right held by affiliates of bp. According to bp’s website, Na Kika is one of bp’s “most prolific producers in the Gulf,” as a hub for 8 subsea fields with more than 100 miles of infield flowlines which make up the gathering system. Na Kika, which lies 140 miles southeast of New Orleans in 6,340 ft of water, is designed to process up to 130,000 b/d of oil and 550 MMcfd of natural gas. If exercised, Talos would acquire only the 50% working interest and operatorship in Coulomb field, Talos said. Shell’s entitlement production from the assets is expected to average 37,000 boe/d in 2025. The company reported proved reserves at year-end 2025 of 4.3 MMboe for Na Kika and 7.2 MMboe for Coulomb. Based on its internal modeling, Na Kika and Coulomb “will not be meaningful contributors to production by 2030,” Shell said. Average first-quarter 2026 production attributable to the interests Talos expects to acquire was about 16,000 boe/d, of which about 77% was oil, Talos said. What Shell retains The agreement includes a 50% upside-sharing arrangement with Shell from closing through year-end 2027, subject to commodity price thresholds and certain other contingencies. The arrangement applies if realized oil prices exceed $60/bbl, Talos said. According to Shell, it will receive uncapped upside-linked payments through 2027 and overriding royalty interests on production from future Na Kika tiebacks, subject to specified conditions. Shell Trading US Co. will retain rights to offtake production from Na Kika and Coulomb

Cloud sovereignty: First four providers sign up to CISPE certification program

“Public bodies, hospitals and industrial operators are today seeking concrete guarantees of digital sovereignty. The CISPE Sovereignty Badge provides that guarantee. It is a natural complement to European standards such as Gaia-X Level 3, strengthening transparency, compliance and digital trust. It is this ability to provide concrete proof, beyond rhetoric, that underpins genuine European digital autonomy.” said Antoine Fournier, CEO of Thésée Datacenter The EU is keen to guard against ‘sovereignty washing’ — claims by foreign-owned cloud providers that they meet local control criteria. Last month, CISPE warned about Broadcom’s claim it complied with EU conditions. It probably won’t be the last to make such claims.

What Meta, Oracle moves say about data center economics

Meta, meanwhile, is continuing its spending spree on AI infrastructure, anonymous sources told Bloomberg. The company is purportedly developing plans for new cloud infrastructure business lines that would sell access to AI computing power and models, putting it in competition with other data center giants. One potential scenario would have Meta selling access to models, including its new Muse Spark, hosted on its own AI infrastructure, as well as running the underlying data centers. This model is similar to AWS’ Bedrock offering. Another possibility is Meta selling access to “raw” computing capacity, as do neocloud businesses such as CoreWeave. This move is part of the company’s internal Meta Compute initiative, the sources said. Like Oracle, Meta has been investing hundreds of billions of dollars in data centers and expensive AI chips. And, according to its latest 10-K: “We plan to continue to significantly expand the size of our infrastructure primarily through data centers, subsea and terrestrial fiber optic cable systems, and other projects.”

Executive Roundtable: The Rise of Integrated Infrastructure

Steve Altizer, Compu Dynamics: Integration has to be foundational. It has to start at the first planning conversation, not after the equipment is selected or once the building is already designed. In previous generations of data center development, mechanical, electrical, IT, and operations teams could often work in parallel and bring the pieces together later. That worked when the load profile was more predictable and the facility had more room to absorb change. Before the introduction of ChatGPT, there was very little change to absorb. AI removes that tolerance. A change in rack density can affect electrical distribution, structural requirements, thermal strategy, commissioning, service access, and the way the site is operated. These are no longer independent decisions. They are all part of one performance system. As AI systems move toward POD-scale platforms, the boundary between IT and facility infrastructure becomes much harder to separate. The challenge is that AI workloads are too varied for a one-size-fits-all approach. Training clusters, inference nodes, enterprise AI environments, and edge sites can all have different requirements for density, cooling architecture, network connectivity, security, site conditions, and serviceability. That is why many companies are adopting a modular approach, while others are embracing hybrid models where turnkey modular AI capacity is integrated into larger campus environments. At the campus level, that means standardizing the backbone infrastructure that serves the site (utility power feeds, central cooling capacity, and network pathways), while allowing the IT environment and the integrated critical infrastructure components to evolve as workload requirements change. The goal is not modularity for its own sake. The goal is to support the next generation of AI deployments without forcing every hardware change to become a major redesign. AI infrastructure cannot be planned as a collection of disparate systems. It has to be designed as one coordinated

Data Center Insights 2026 Brings Industry Leaders Together for a Two-Day Look at the AI Infrastructure Era

The data center industry has never been more visible, more vital, or more challenged. Support for AI and its overall industry impact has pushed digital infrastructure into the public conversation. It has become clear that the sector is confronting unprecedented demands for everything from power to basic infrastructure. That convergence is the focus of Data Center Insights 2026, a two-day virtual event taking place July 15–16, 2026, produced by Endeavor B2B’s Data Center Frontier, Cabling Installation & Maintenance, ISE, Lightwave, and SecurityInfoWatch. Designed for data center owners, operators, engineers, IT leaders, and the people supporting the next generation of data center development, the event offers a concentrated look at the technologies and strategies shaping the future of digital infrastructure. The program arrives at a crucial moment. AI workloads are changing almost every assumption behind data center design. Rack densities are rising, liquid cooling is becoming mainstream, and fiber networks are being rethought for 400G and beyond. Power constraints are now central to site selection. Security is becoming highlighted and operators are being asked to build faster, scale larger, be more resource efficient and maintain resilience in an environment where downtime carries higher consequences than ever. Data Center Insights 2026 is structured to help attendees make sense of this moment. Rather than treating data center infrastructure as a set of separate disciplines, the event brings together experts across cooling, cabling, fiber, power distribution, modular design, AI infrastructure, and operational strategy. The result is a practical, cross-functional program built around the real-world questions now facing the industry. What will I learn at this event? The event opens with “Expert Roundup: The State of the Data Center Industry,” featuring perspectives from Steven Carlini of Schneider Electric.This session sets the stage by examining the forces driving change across the data center landscape in 2026.

Executive Roundtable: Scaling Beyond the Prototype Phase

Steve Altizer, Compu Dynamics: The defining challenge is keeping pace with the rate of change in the IT environment. It takes time to design, permit, build, and commission a data center. AI hardware operates on a completely different timeline. New GPU families are being introduced every 12 to 18 months, and from one generation to the next, rack power densities can double or even triple. At prototype scale, you can design around a single cluster or a specific density profile. At production scale, that approach becomes a real liability. The facility has to support today’s deployment while remaining adaptable for the next compute profile. We are not just talking about adding more power. We are preparing for major architectural shifts, including the move toward DC power delivery or cooling systems that may rely on two-phase liquid to remove heat at scale. That is what becomes materially harder. You are no longer solving for a single, static deployment. You are solving for a moving target inside a live operating environment. This is where strategic modularity proves its value. It helps decouple the lifecycle of the building from the lifecycle of the IT hardware. Instead of treating the data center as one monolithic design, modularity creates a more agile framework that can absorb new power and cooling architectures without requiring a full facility retrofit every time the IT roadmap shifts. At Compu Dynamics Modular, we are seeing this play out in real time. The value of a turnkey modular approach is not simply speed. It is the agility owners need to keep pace with ever-evolving rack densities, power delivery requirements, and cooling architectures.

Q2 Executive Roundtable Recap

Matt Vincent is Editor in Chief of Data Center Frontier, where he leads editorial strategy and coverage focused on the infrastructure powering cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and the digital economy. A veteran B2B technology journalist with more than two decades of experience, Vincent specializes in the intersection of data centers, power, cooling, and emerging AI-era infrastructure. Since assuming the EIC role in 2023, he has helped guide Data Center Frontier’s coverage of the industry’s transition into the gigawatt-scale AI era, with a focus on hyperscale development, behind-the-meter power strategies, liquid cooling architectures, and the evolving energy demands of high-density compute, while working closely with the Digital Infrastructure Group at Endeavor Business Media to expand the brand’s analytical and multimedia footprint. Vincent also hosts The Data Center Frontier Show podcast, where he interviews industry leaders across hyperscale, colocation, utilities, and the data center supply chain to examine the technologies and business models reshaping digital infrastructure. Since its inception he serves as Head of Content for the Data Center Frontier Trends Summit. Before becoming Editor in Chief, he served in multiple senior editorial roles across Endeavor Business Media’s digital infrastructure portfolio, with coverage spanning data centers and hyperscale infrastructure, structured cabling and networking, telecom and datacom, IP physical security, and wireless and Pro AV markets. He began his career in 2005 within PennWell’s Advanced Technology Division and later held senior editorial positions supporting brands such as Cabling Installation & Maintenance, Lightwave Online, Broadband Technology Report, and Smart Buildings Technology. Vincent is a frequent moderator, interviewer, and keynote speaker at industry events including the HPC Forum, where he delivers forward-looking analysis on how AI and high-performance computing are reshaping digital infrastructure. He graduated with honors from Indiana University Bloomington with a B.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing and lives in southern New Hampshire with

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