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.

US lets China buy semiconductor design software again

The reversal marks a dramatic shift from the aggressive stance the Trump administration took in May, when it imposed sweeping restrictions on electronic design automation (EDA) software — the critical tools needed to design advanced semiconductors. A short-lived stoppage The restrictions had targeted what analysts called the “upstream” of chip

Hardcoded root credentials in Cisco Unified CM trigger max-severity alert

The affected products-Cisco Unified CM and Unified CM SME–are core components of enterprise telephony infrastructure, widely deployed across government agencies, financial institutions, and large corporations to manage voice, video, and messaging at scale. A flaw in these systems could allow attackers to compromise an organization’s communications, letting them log in

HPE finalizes Juniper acquisition, forms new AI-centric networking unit

“We have agreed with the DOJ to offer a license, through an auction, to specific aspects of Juniper Mist, which is just the AI operations part,” HPE CEO Antonio Neri explained during the press conference. The distinction is technically significant. Competitors will gain access to Mist’s anomaly detection and predictive failure

Solving multicloud networking challenges to scale businesses with AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its demand for massive computational power have spurred the growth of cloud and edge computing. As AI pilot projects take off and scale, there has been an increasing demand for more flexible and high-performing infrastructure. This has led to the rise of multi-cloud networking as organisations

HCLTech Expands Partnership with Equinor

Norwegian energy major Equinor ASA has expanded its collaboration with HCL Technologies Limited (HCLTech) to cover Equinor’s IT landscape across several key strategic areas. The two companies agreed to accelerate Equinor’s digital transformation through the acceleration of cloud migration and standardization of services across operations. Furthermore, HCLTech said it will enhance Equinor’s cyber resilience and network performance, improve workplace experience through automation, and enable advanced user experiences with technologies like augmented reality (AR). “We’re pleased to continue our long-standing collaboration with Equinor”, Sandeep Kumar Saxena, Executive Vice President, HCLTech, said. “This collaboration reflects our shared commitment to innovation and sustainability”. Over the last ten years, HCLTech has assisted with the company’s international growth, infrastructure developments, and cybersecurity enhancements. This partnership has progressed from managed services to a strategic alliance that aligns with Equinor’s broader digital and business goals, HCLTech said. Earlier HCLTech was recognized as a Responsible AI Partner by Microsoft. “This citation validates HCLTech’s AI offerings as meeting high standards of responsibility and security, built with robust guardrails, enabling compliance, reducing bias, and enhancing explainability”, the company said last month. The company said responsible AI is integrated throughout HCLTech’s GenAI solutions and services, including its service transformation platform, AI Force; its value stream innovation platform, AI Foundry; its physical AI engineering-driven development capability, AI Engineering; and its global experiential spaces, AI Labs – ensuring that governance is incorporated from the design phase through to deployment. To contact the author, email [email protected] 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. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Angola Raises Diesel Price by 33 Pct, Third Increase This Year

Angola raised the diesel price by 33%, the third increase this year as authorities press ahead with fuel-subsidy cuts that have been encouraged by the International Monetary Fund. The price will rise to 400 kwanzas ($0.43) per liter on Friday from 300 kwanza previously, the Petroleum Derivatives Regulatory Institute said in a statement late Thursday. The increase is part of a “gradual adjustment of fuel prices,” it said. Previous hikes were announced in March and April. The IRDP said prices of other fuels, including gasoline and liquefied-petroleum gas, will remain unchanged in Angola, Africa’s third-largest oil producer. The IMF said in February that Angola should do more to eliminate subsidies that cost about $3 billion last year — similar to the amount the government spent on health and education last year. The latest hike follows an IMF-World Bank review of Angola’s financial system that ended last month. 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.

OPEC+ Moves Meeting to Saturday as Group Weighs Another Hike

Key OPEC+ members brought forward to Saturday an online meeting where they’re set to consider a fourth bumper oil production increase, delegates said. Saudi Arabia and its partners have been discussing another output hike of 411,000 barrels a day for August as their base-case scenario as they seek to recoup lost market share. The video-conference was moved one day earlier because of scheduling issues, said the officials, who asked not to be identified since the change isn’t yet public. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has roiled markets in recent months by speeding up the return of halted output, despite faltering demand and an impending surplus. Their strategy shift is dragging crude prices lower, offering relief to consumers and playing into calls from US President Donald Trump for cheaper fuel. Eight major OPEC+ members have already agreed to restart 411,000 barrels a day in May, June and July, triple the rate they initially scheduled. Officials have said that Riyadh is eager to revive more idle production as quickly as possible to regain market share ceded to US shale drillers and other rivals. The kingdom’s pivot away from years of supply restraint aimed at shoring up crude prices has upended traders’ assumptions about what role the OPEC+ alliance will continue to play in world oil markets. Brent crude futures traded near $68 a barrel in London on Friday. The international benchmark plunged 12% last week as a tentative truce between Israel and Iran allayed fears over the threat to Middle East energy exports. Further OPEC+ increases threaten to create a glut. Global oil inventories have been building at a brisk clip of around 1 million barrels a day in recent months as demand cools in China and supplies continue to swell across the Americas. Markets are headed for a substantial surplus later this year,

Methane Emission Tracking Satellite Lost in Space, EDF Says

Methane emissions tracking satellite MethaneSAT lost contact with mission operations, and it is “likely not recoverable,” the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said in a statement. “After pursuing all options to restore communications, we learned this morning that the satellite has lost power,” the EDF said. “The engineering team is conducting a thorough investigation into the loss of communication. This is expected to take time. We will share what we learn,” the nonprofit organization added. Launched in March 2024, MethaneSAT had been collecting methane emissions data over the past year. It was one of the most advanced methane tracking satellites in space, measuring methane emissions in oil and gas producing regions across the world, according to the statement. “The mission has been a remarkable success in terms of scientific and technological accomplishment, and for its lasting influence on both industry and regulators worldwide,” the EDF said. “Thanks to MethaneSAT, we have gained critical insight about the distribution and volume of methane being released from oil and gas production areas. We have also developed an unprecedented capability to interpret the measurements from space and translate them into volumes of methane released. This capacity will be valuable to other missions,” the organization continued. MethaneSAT had the ability to monitor both high-emitting methane sources and small sources spread over a wide area, according to the release. It is designed to measure regions at intervals under seven days, regularly monitoring roughly 50 major regions accounting for more than 80 percent of global oil and gas production, according to an earlier statement. “The advanced spectrometers developed specifically for MethaneSAT met or exceeded all expectations throughout the mission. In combination with the mission algorithms and software, we showed that the highly sensitive instrument could see total methane emissions, even at low levels, over wide areas, including both

How Has USA Energy Use Changed Since 1776?

A new analysis piece published on the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website recently, which was penned by Mickey Francis, Program Manager and Lead Economist for the EIA’s State Energy Data System, has outlined how U.S. energy use has changed since the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. The piece highlighted that, according to the EIA’s monthly energy review, in 2024, the U.S. consumed about 94 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy. Fossil fuels – namely petroleum, natural gas, and coal – made up 82 percent of total U.S. energy consumption last year, the piece pointed out, adding that non-fossil fuel energy accounted for the other 18 percent. Petroleum remained the most-consumed fuel in the United States, the piece stated, outlining that this has been the case for the past 75 years. It also highlighted that, last year, nuclear energy consumption exceeded coal consumption for the first time ever. The analysis piece went on to note that, when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, wood was the largest source of energy in the United States. “Used for heating, cooking, and lighting, wood remained the largest U.S. energy source until the late 1800s, when coal consumption became more common,” it added. “Wood energy is still consumed, mainly by industrial lumber and paper plants that burn excess wood waste to generate electricity,” it continued. The piece went on to highlight that coal was the largest source of U.S. energy for about 65 years, from 1885 until 1950. “Early uses of coal included many purposes that are no longer common, such as in stoves for home heating and in engines for trains and ships. Since the 1960s, nearly all coal consumed in the United States has been for electricity generation,” the piece said. The analysis piece went on to state that petroleum has

Ocean Installer Awarded EPCI Contract for Var Energi’s Balder Project

Subsea services firm Ocean Installer has been awarded a fast-track engineering, procurement, construction and installation (EPCI) contract by Var Energi for further development of the Balder Phase VI project for the further development of the Balder area in the North Sea. This project is part of Var Energi’s hub development strategy in the Balder area, which is centered around the newly installed Jotun floating production storage and offloading vessel (FPSO), Ocean Installer said in a news release. Ocean Installer said it will execute subsea umbilicals, risers, and flowlines (SURF) activities including the fabrication and installation of flexible flowlines and umbilicals. Financial details of the contract were not disclosed. The project is scheduled to deliver first oil by the end of 2026, reinforcing both companies’ shared commitment to efficient development of subsea tie-backs on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), according to the release. “Var Energi is a key customer for Ocean Installer and the wider Moreld group. It’s exciting to see that Ocean Installer signs a new contract within the same week that the Jotun FPSO starts producing first oil as part of the Balder Future project, in which Ocean Installer has played a key role,” Moreld CEO Geir Austigard said. The contract is called off under the strategic partnership contract entered into with Vår Energi in June 2022. It is also a continuation of a multi-year collaboration between Vår Energi and Ocean Installer in the Balder area, where Ocean Installer has been engaged since 2019, the release said. “We are happy that Vår Energi continues to place their trust in us. Subsea tiebacks have been the core of our business for 14 years, and as the NCS transitions to more marginal fields, our expertise is valuable in enabling faster and more cost-efficient developments. Working together with Vår Energi to utilize

CoreWeave achieves a first with Nvidia GB300 NVL72 deployment

The deployment, Kimball said, “brings Dell quality to the commodity space. Wins like this really validate what Dell has been doing in reshaping its portfolio to accommodate the needs of the market — both in the cloud and the enterprise.” Although concerns were voiced last year that Nvidia’s next-generation Blackwell data center processors had significant overheating problems when they were installed in high-capacity server racks, he said that a repeat performance is unlikely. Nvidia, said Kimball “has been very disciplined in its approach with its GPUs and not shipping silicon until it is ready. And Dell almost doubles down on this maniacal quality focus. I don’t mean to sound like I have blind faith, but I’ve watched both companies over the last several years be intentional in delivering product in volume. Especially as the competitive market starts to shape up more strongly, I expect there is an extremely high degree of confidence in quality.” CoreWeave ‘has one purpose’ He said, “like Lambda Labs, Crusoe and others, [CoreWeave] seemingly has one purpose (for now): deliver GPU capacity to the market. While I expect these cloud providers will expand in services, I think for now the type of customer employing services is on the early adopter side of AI. From an enterprise perspective, I have to think that organizations well into their AI journey are the consumers of CoreWeave.” “CoreWeave is also being utilized by a lot of the model providers and tech vendors playing in the AI space,” Kimball pointed out. “For instance, it’s public knowledge that Microsoft, OpenAI, Meta, IBM and others use CoreWeave GPUs for model training and more. It makes sense. These are the customers that truly benefit from the performance lift that we see from generation to generation.”

Oracle to power OpenAI’s AGI ambitions with 4.5GW expansion

“For CIOs, this shift means more competition for AI infrastructure. Over the next 12–24 months, securing capacity for AI workloads will likely get harder, not easier. Though cost is coming down but demand is increasing as well, due to which CIOs must plan earlier and build stronger partnerships to ensure availability,” said Pareekh Jain, CEO at EIIRTrend & Pareekh Consulting. He added that CIOs should expect longer wait times for AI infrastructure. To mitigate this, they should lock in capacity through reserved instances, diversify across regions and cloud providers, and work with vendors to align on long-term demand forecasts. “Enterprises stand to benefit from more efficient and cost-effective AI infrastructure tailored to specialized AI workloads, significantly lower their overall future AI-related investments and expenses. Consequently, CIOs face a critical task: to analyze and predict the diverse AI workloads that will prevail across their organizations, business units, functions, and employee personas in the future. This foresight will be crucial in prioritizing and optimizing AI workloads for either in-house deployment or outsourced infrastructure, ensuring strategic and efficient resource allocation,” said Neil Shah, vice president at Counterpoint Research. Strategic pivot toward AI data centers The OpenAI-Oracle deal comes in stark contrast to developments earlier this year. In April, AWS was reported to be scaling back its plans for leasing new colocation capacity — a move that AWS Vice President for global data centers Kevin Miller described as routine capacity management, not a shift in long-term expansion plans. Still, these announcements raised questions around whether the hyperscale data center boom was beginning to plateau. “This isn’t a slowdown, it’s a strategic pivot. The era of building generic data center capacity is over. The new global imperative is a race for specialized, high-density, AI-ready compute. Hyperscalers are not slowing down; they are reallocating their capital to

Arista Buys VeloCloud to reboot SD-WANs amid AI infrastructure shift

What this doesn’t answer is how Arista Networks plans to add newer, security-oriented Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) capabilities to VeloCloud’s older SD-WAN technology. Post-acquisition, it still has only some of the building blocks necessary to achieve this. Mapping AI However, in 2025 there is always more going on with networking acquisitions than simply adding another brick to the wall, and in this case it’s the way AI is changing data flows across networks. “In the new AI era, the concepts of what comprises a user and a site in a WAN have changed fundamentally. The introduction of agentic AI even changes what might be considered a user,” wrote Arista Networks CEO, Jayshree Ullal, in a blog highlighting AI’s effect on WAN architectures. “In addition to people accessing data on demand, new AI agents will be deployed to access data independently, adapting over time to solve problems and enhance user productivity,” she said. Specifically, WANs needed modernization to cope with the effect AI traffic flows are having on data center traffic. Sanjay Uppal, now VP and general manager of the new VeloCloud Division at Arista Networks, elaborated. “The next step in SD-WAN is to identify, secure and optimize agentic AI traffic across that distributed enterprise, this time from all end points across to branches, campus sites, and the different data center locations, both public and private,” he wrote. “The best way to grab this opportunity was in partnership with a networking systems leader, as customers were increasingly looking for a comprehensive solution from LAN/Campus across the WAN to the data center.”

Data center capacity continues to shift to hyperscalers

However, even though colocation and on-premises data centers will continue to lose share, they will still continue to grow. They just won’t be growing as fast as hyperscalers. So, it creates the illusion of shrinkage when it’s actually just slower growth. In fact, after a sustained period of essentially no growth, on-premises data center capacity is receiving a boost thanks to genAI applications and GPU infrastructure. “While most enterprise workloads are gravitating towards cloud providers or to off-premise colo facilities, a substantial subset are staying on-premise, driving a substantial increase in enterprise GPU servers,” said John Dinsdale, a chief analyst at Synergy Research Group.

Oracle inks $30 billion cloud deal, continuing its strong push into AI infrastructure.

He pointed out that, in addition to its continued growth, OCI has a remaining performance obligation (RPO) — total future revenue expected from contracts not yet reported as revenue — of $138 billion, a 41% increase, year over year. The company is benefiting from the immense demand for cloud computing largely driven by AI models. While traditionally an enterprise resource planning (ERP) company, Oracle launched OCI in 2016 and has been strategically investing in AI and data center infrastructure that can support gigawatts of capacity. Notably, it is a partner in the $500 billion SoftBank-backed Stargate project, along with OpenAI, Arm, Microsoft, and Nvidia, that will build out data center infrastructure in the US. Along with that, the company is reportedly spending about $40 billion on Nvidia chips for a massive new data center in Abilene, Texas, that will serve as Stargate’s first location in the country. Further, the company has signaled its plans to significantly increase its investment in Abu Dhabi to grow out its cloud and AI offerings in the UAE; has partnered with IBM to advance agentic AI; has launched more than 50 genAI use cases with Cohere; and is a key provider for ByteDance, which has said it plans to invest $20 billion in global cloud infrastructure this year, notably in Johor, Malaysia. Ellison’s plan: dominate the cloud world CTO and co-founder Larry Ellison announced in a recent earnings call Oracle’s intent to become No. 1 in cloud databases, cloud applications, and the construction and operation of cloud data centers. He said Oracle is uniquely positioned because it has so much enterprise data stored in its databases. He also highlighted the company’s flexible multi-cloud strategy and said that the latest version of its database, Oracle 23ai, is specifically tailored to the needs of AI workloads. Oracle

Datacenter industry calls for investment after EU issues water consumption warning

CISPE’s response to the European Commission’s report warns that the resulting regulatory uncertainty could hurt the region’s economy. “Imposing new, standalone water regulations could increase costs, create regulatory fragmentation, and deter investment. This risks shifting infrastructure outside the EU, undermining both sustainability and sovereignty goals,” CISPE said in its latest policy recommendation, Advancing water resilience through digital innovation and responsible stewardship. “Such regulatory uncertainty could also reduce Europe’s attractiveness for climate-neutral infrastructure investment at a time when other regions offer clear and stable frameworks for green data growth,” it added. CISPE’s recommendations are a mix of regulatory harmonization, increased investment, and technological improvement. Currently, water reuse regulation is directed towards agriculture. Updated regulation across the bloc would encourage more efficient use of water in industrial settings such as datacenters, the asosciation said. At the same time, countries struggling with limited public sector budgets are not investing enough in water infrastructure. This could only be addressed by tapping new investment by encouraging formal public-private partnerships (PPPs), it suggested: “Such a framework would enable the development of sustainable financing models that harness private sector innovation and capital, while ensuring robust public oversight and accountability.” Nevertheless, better water management would also require real-time data gathered through networks of IoT sensors coupled to AI analytics and prediction systems. To that end, cloud datacenters were less a drain on water resources than part of the answer: “A cloud-based approach would allow water utilities and industrial users to centralize data collection, automate operational processes, and leverage machine learning algorithms for improved decision-making,” argued CISPE.

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