Let $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ be the unknown probability vector of a finite discrete distribution $X$. We are able to sample $X$ and we want to learn $x$.


Each observation belongs to the $i^\text{th}$ category with probability $x_i$, thus for a sample of size $m \in \mathbb{N}$, the sum of the $i^\text{th}$ category follows a binomial distribution $B(x_i\ ,\ m)$. These binomial random variables are not independent since their sum is $m$ ($X$ is a distribution). However, I found a trick online : if you sum over a $M \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(m)$ sample size rather than $m$, the sum $M_i$ of the $i^\text{th}$ category is no longer binomial but follows $\mathrm{Poisson}(m \times x_i)$ law. Furthermore, these $n$ Poisson random variables are independent! I try to prove this.

My approach

I proved that $M_i \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(m \times x_i)$ for any $i$ : $$ \sum_{j=0}^\infty \left(\ P[\mathrm{Poisson}(m)=j] \times P[B(p,j)=k]\ \right) = P[\mathrm{Poisson}(p\times m)=k]$$ $\iff$ $$ \sum_{j=k}^{\infty} \left(\ P[\mathrm{Poisson}(m)=j] \times P[B(p,j)=k]\ \right) = P[\mathrm{Poisson}(p\times m)=k]$$ $\iff$ $$ \sum_{j=k}^{\infty} \left(\frac{e^{-m} m^j}{j!} \times \frac{j!\ p^k (1-p)^{j-k}}{k!\ (j-k)!} \right) = \frac{e^{-pm} (p m)^k}{k!}$$ $\iff$ $$e^{-m} \sum_{j=k}^\infty \left(\frac{m^j (1-p)^{j-k}}{(j-k)!} \right) = e^{-pm} m^k$$ $\iff$ $$e^{-m} \sum_{j'=0}^\infty \left(\frac{m^{j'+k} (1-p)^{j'}}{j'!} \right) = e^{-pm} m^k$$ $\iff$ $$e^{-m} e^{m(1-p)} m^k = e^{-pm}m^k $$ $\square$

Now, how can I prove that all those $n$ random variables are independent ? I found this paper which states that even if $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_1 + X_2$ are $\mathrm{Poisson}$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ don't have to be independent. But here we are not in the general case since we have $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n x_i = 1$.

  • $\begingroup$ You're not using the word "sample" correctly. If I throw a die 100 times and see how many times I get each of the six possible outcomes, that's one sample, of size 100, not 100 samples. ${}\qquad{}$ $\endgroup$ Jul 9, 2015 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps you should read all of the answers before accepting one. Sometimes a later answer is better because it is posted later. $\endgroup$ Jul 9, 2015 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelHardy Corrected, is the question more clear now ? I finally choosed the answer which highlight the (trivial) point I was missing : $M_i$ knowing $(M=k)$ is Binomial. $\endgroup$
    – François
    Jul 10, 2015 at 9:50

2 Answers 2


Ok let's start by stating the result you are looking for (according to my interpretation):

Let $\lambda >0 $, $m \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda)$ and also let $p_i> 0 \;,\; i \in \{1,\dotsc,n\}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i = 1$. Also let $X = (X_1, \dotsc, X_n) \big\vert m \sim \text{Multinomial}(m, (p_1,\dotsc,p_n))$. It then follows that: $X_i \sim \text{Pois}(p_i\lambda)$ and the $X_i$ are all independent.

I will show the result for $n=2$, it is straightforward to generalize this to $n \geq 2$. In the case $n=2$ we can state the result in a simpler way, namely:

$$ m \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda)$$

and conditional on $m$: $$ \begin{align} X_1 &\sim \text{Binomial}(m, p_1) \\ X_2 = m - X_1 &\sim \text{Binomial}(m, 1-p_1) \end{align} $$

Now let $k,l \in \mathbb N$. Since you already derived the marginal distributions, it follows that:

$$\Pr\left[X_1=k\right] = \frac{e^{-p_1\lambda}(p_1\lambda)^k}{k!} \;,\; \Pr\left[X_2=l\right] = \frac{e^{-(1-p_1)\lambda}((1-p_1)\lambda)^l}{l!}$$

It also holds that:

$$ \begin{align} \Pr\left[X_1=k, X_2=l\right] &= \Pr\left[X_1=k, m=k+l\right] \\ &= \Pr\left[X_1=k \; \vert \; m=k+l\right]\Pr\left[m=k+l\right] \\ &= \binom{k+l}{k}p_1^k(1-p_1)^l \frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{k+l}}{(k+l)!} \\ &= \Pr\left[X_1=k\right]\Pr\left[X_2=l\right] \end{align} $$

From the second to the third line I used the fact that $m \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda)$ and that $X_1 \big\vert m = k+l \sim \text{Binomial}(k+l, p_1)$.

This proves the independence of $X_1$ and $X_2$.


It appears that what you have in mind is that $x_1+\cdots+x_n=1$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are all non-negative. You use some words in slightly non-standard ways; in particular you say $x$ is a distribution. I'd have said $x$ is a parameter. The number of observations is $M\sim\mathrm{Poisson}(m)$ and each observation is in the $i$th category with probability $x_i$. If you let $M_i$ be the number in the $i$th category, then $M_i\sim\mathrm{Poisson}(mx_i)$.

If I understand correctly, your question is how to show that $M_1,\ldots,M_n$ are independent. You have $M_1+\cdots+M_n=M$.

\begin{align} & \Pr(M_1=k_1\ \&\ \cdots\ \&\ M_n=k_n) \\[6pt] = {} & \Pr(M=k)\cdot\Pr(M_1=k_1\ \&\ \cdots\ \&\ M_n=k_n\mid M=k) \\[6pt] = {} & \frac{m^k e^{-m}}{k!} \cdot \frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_n!} x_1^{k_1}\cdots x_n^{k_n} \\[6pt] = {} & m^{k_1+\cdots+k_n} e^{-mx_1-\cdots-mx_n} \frac 1 {k_1!\cdots k_n!} x_1^{k_1}\cdots x_1^{k_n} \\[6pt] = {} & \frac{(mx_1)^{k_1} e^{-mx_1}}{k_1!} \cdots \frac{(mx_n)^{k_n} e^{-mx_n}}{k_n!} \\[6pt] = {} & \Pr(M_1=k_1)\cdots\Pr(M_n=k_n). \end{align}


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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