4

I understand that variance can be zero if all data points are equal.

Can anybody state an example, where sample variance is equal to sample mean and what - if any - is its significance to distributions like the Poisson.

Glen_b
  • 257,508
  • 32
  • 553
  • 939
bioinformatician
  • 293
  • 2
  • 4
  • 9
  • 4
    Well for Poisson distribution, you get that variance is always equal mean. For any parametric distribution which has more than one parameter, the mean and variance are usually the functions of these parameters, so it is not that hard to find such parameter values that these functions coincide. Take for example normal distribution $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$. Take $\mu=\sigma^2$ and presto, you have a distribution whose variance is equal to mean. – mpiktas Apr 20 '12 at 08:51
  • I think you are talking about sample variance and sample mean in your first sentence, not about the mean and variance of the random variable. The variance of a r.v. $X$ is zero if and only if ${\mathbb P}[X=a]=1$ for some $a$. –  Apr 20 '12 at 09:03
  • 1
    For population means and variances (as opposed to sample means and variances, [this question](http://stats.stackexchange.com/q/18621/6633) and great answers by Henry and by whuber might be of some relevance. – Dilip Sarwate Apr 20 '12 at 10:45
  • 3
    Notice that in general you'd want to compare the mean to the standard deviation, not to the variance: variance and mean have different dimensions, so it seldom makes sense to say "mean equals variance" (that property would depend on scale). I can make sense for discrete distributions, as the Poisson. – leonbloy Apr 20 '12 at 11:33
  • 3
    (This is a bit of a joke, but it's worth contemplating.) The datasets $\{0,0,\ldots,0\}$ have zero mean and zero variance. If such data are assumed to come from a Poisson distribution, they provide evidence of a low intensity. :-) – whuber Apr 20 '12 at 15:54
  • 2
    Voted to close as not a real question... – Macro May 08 '12 at 13:48
  • 6
    I think there's some value in the question, from two points of view: (a) illustrating that it's not at all hard to construct samples with mean=variance by hand and (b) illustrating that even though for a Poisson mean and and variance are the same on average, that having that be true in a sample isn't an indication of its Poisson-ness (by giving an example which is pretty clearly not Poisson). There's a misconception underlying the question which is worth dealing with, I think. So - while I understand the impulse to close, I want to keep the question. – Glen_b Aug 23 '13 at 06:49

3 Answers3

4

I'll assume you only want samples consisting of non-negative integers (otherwise its obviously not Poisson). Indeed, without those restrictions, it's pretty trivial - though largely meaningless, because the variance-ratio changes as you change scale. (It makes more sense with counts though.)

I'll also assume you want the $n-1$ form of the sample variance (the unbiased form).

Some examples:

n=2: a) 0 1      
     b) 1 3
     c) 3 6
     d) 6 10 (you may discern a pattern here, and yes, it holds in general for n=2)

n=3: a) 0 1 2
     b) 2 4 6 
     c) 4 6 9


n=4: a) 1 1 2 4
     b) 3 3 3 7

n=7: 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 

n=11: 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 

These took me a few minutes to construct.

It doesn't really have much significance other than giving a lack of evidence against the Poisson (at least on the basis of the ratio of variance to mean). In no way does it tell you that the data is Poisson.

Edit: For example, here's a sample that is pretty obviously not Poisson (in the sense that the chance that you could end up with a sample like that from a Poisson is reaally small):

n=21:  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

For starters, all the values are even!

Here's another that's pretty clearly not Poisson:

n=9: 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 14 14

Edit: here's a biggish sample that's not so plainly inconsistent with Poisson:

n=101: 
    1  2  4  5  6  6  6  6  6  6  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  8  8
    8  8  8  8  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9  9 10 10 10 10 10
   10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
   11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 18
   22

... though it's a bit too kurtotic to really be very consistent with a Poisson.

Glen_b
  • 257,508
  • 32
  • 553
  • 939
1

for any random variable $\xi$, we can introduce a new variable $x=\xi+const$ so that $E[x]=E[\xi+const]=E[\xi]+const$

$Var[x]=Var[\xi+const]=Var[\xi]$

choosing $const=Var[\xi]-E[\xi]$ we can make $E[x]=Var[x]$.

So, you can make an example of your own using this method. There's no significance of this fact. It says that by moving the variable's mean you can make it equal to anything including its variance

Aksakal
  • 55,939
  • 5
  • 90
  • 176
  • The difficulty with this answer is drawing a connection to the Poisson; you can't arbitrarily shift values around with Poisson counts. – Glen_b Mar 26 '14 at 05:11
  • The larger difficulty is that the difference between variance and mean is dimensionally nonsensical unless the variable concerned is dimensionless and unit-free. – Nick Cox Mar 26 '14 at 09:43
  • In the actual Poisson sample mean and variance are not equal usually, unless only by a chance. Distribution itself has this quality. Counts are dimensionless with caveat. Other measurements can be easily transformed like 1 meter to 100cm. However 1 count per second can't be transformed into 60 counts per minute in the sample. Though the Poisson parameter can be. – Aksakal Mar 26 '14 at 11:36
  • 3
    I don't think you are taking the dimensional argument seriously; it is not refuted or rebutted by changing units of measurement. Units are matter of convention, but dimensions aren't. – Nick Cox Mar 26 '14 at 12:18
0

yes variance can be equal to mean in Poisson distribution.

  • 2
    This doesn't appear to be directly relevant, because the question refers to "data points" and the *sample* variance, whereas you mention a theoretical distribution. Could you expand your answer to show its relevance? – whuber Oct 30 '19 at 18:11