IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/compst/v32y2017i1d10.1007_s00180-016-0686-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative evaluation of various frequentist and Bayesian non-homogeneous Poisson counting models

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Grzegorczyk

    (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

  • Mahdi Shafiee Kamalabad

    (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

Abstract

In this paper a comparative evaluation study on popular non-homogeneous Poisson models for count data is performed. For the study the standard homogeneous Poisson model (HOM) and three non-homogeneous variants, namely a Poisson changepoint model (CPS), a Poisson free mixture model (MIX), and a Poisson hidden Markov model (HMM) are implemented in both conceptual frameworks: a frequentist and a Bayesian framework. This yields eight models in total, and the goal of the presented study is to shed some light onto their relative merits and shortcomings. The first major objective is to cross-compare the performances of the four models (HOM, CPS, MIX and HMM) independently for both modelling frameworks (Bayesian and frequentist). Subsequently, a pairwise comparison between the four Bayesian and the four frequentist models is performed to elucidate to which extent the results of the two paradigms (‘Bayesian vs. frequentist’) differ. The evaluation study is performed on various synthetic Poisson data sets as well as on real-world taxi pick-up counts, extracted from the recently published New York City Taxi database.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Grzegorczyk & Mahdi Shafiee Kamalabad, 2017. "Comparative evaluation of various frequentist and Bayesian non-homogeneous Poisson counting models," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:compst:v:32:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00180-016-0686-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00180-016-0686-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00180-016-0686-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00180-016-0686-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:compst:v:32:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00180-016-0686-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.