# Posts

## Stochastic processes

In previous posts I have often written about point processes, which are mathematical objects that seek to represent points scattered over some space. Arguably a more popular random object is something called a stochastic process. This type of mathematical object, also frequently called a random process, is studied in mathematics. But the origins of stochastic processes stem from various phenomena in the real world.

Stochastic processes find applications representing some type of seemingly random change of a system (usually with respect to time). Examples include the growth of some population, the emission of radioactive particles, or the movements of financial markets. There are many types of stochastic processes with applications in various fields outside of mathematics, including the physical sciences, social sciences, finance, and engineering.

In this post I will cover the standard definition of a stochastic process. But first a quick reminder of some probability basics.

## Probability basics

### Random experiment

The mathematical field of probability arose from trying to understand games of chance. In these games, some random experiment is performed. A coin is flipped. A die is cast. A card is drawn. These random experiments give the initial intuition behind probability. Such experiments can be considered in more general or abstract terms.

A random experiment has the properties:

1. Sample space: A sample space, denoted here by $$\Omega$$, is the set of all (conceptually) possible outcomes of the random experiment;
2. Outcomes: An outcome, denoted here by $$\omega$$, is an element of the sample space $$\Omega$$, meaning $$\omega \in \Omega$$, and it is called a sample point or realization.
3. Events: An event is a subset of the sample space $$\Omega$$ for which probability is defined.
##### Examples
###### One die

Consider the rolling a traditional six-sided die with the sides numbered from $$1$$ to $$6$$. Its sample space is $$\Omega=\{1, 2, 3,4,5,6\}$$. A possible event is an even number, corresponding to the outcomes $$\{2\}$$, $$\{4\}$$, and $$\{6\}$$.

###### Two coins

Consider the flipping two identical coins, where each coin has a head appearing on one side and a tail on the other. We denote the head and tail respectively by $$H$$ and $$T$$. Then the sample space $$\Omega$$ is all the possible outcomes, meaning $$\Omega=\{HH, TT, HT, TH\}$$. A possible event is at least one head appearing, which corresponds to the outcomes $$\{HH\}$$, $$\{HT\}$$, and $$\{TH\}$$.

Conversely, three heads $$\{HHH\}$$, the number $$5$$, or the queen of diamonds appearing are clearly not possible outcomes of flipping two coins, which means they are not elements of the sample space.

### Modern probability approach

For a random experiment, we formalize what events are possible (or not) with a mathematical object called a $$\sigma$$-algebra. (It is also called $$\sigma$$-field.) This object is a mathematical set with certain properties with respect to set operations. It is a fundamental concept in measure theory, which is the standard approach for the theory of integrals. Measure theory serves as the foundation of modern probability theory.

In modern probability theory, if we want to define a random mathematical object, such as a random variable, we start with a random experiment in the context of a probability space or probability triple $$(\Omega,\mathcal{A},\mathbb{P})$$, where:

1. $$\Omega$$ is a sample space, which is the set of all (conceptually) possible outcomes;
2. $$\mathcal{A}$$ is a $$\sigma$$-algebra or $$\sigma$$-field, which is a family of events (subsets of $$\Omega$$);
3. $$\mathbb{P}$$ is a probability measure, which assigns probability to each event in $$\mathcal{A}$$.

To give some intuition behind this approach, David Williams says to imagine that Tyche, Goddess of Chance, chooses a point $$\omega\in\Omega$$ at random according to the law $$\mathbb{P}$$ such that an event $$A\in \mathcal{A}$$ has a probability given by $$\mathbb{P}(A)$$, where we understand probability with our own intuition. We can also choose $$\omega\in\Omega$$ by using some physical experiment, as long as it is random.

With this formalism, mathematicians define random objects by using a certain measurable function or mapping that maps to a suitable space of mathematical objects. For example, a real-valued random variable is a measurable function from $$\Omega$$ to the real line. To consider other random mathematical objects, we just need to define a measurable mapping from $$\Omega$$ to a suitable mathematical space.

## Definition

### Stochastic process

Mathematically, a stochastic process is usually defined as a collection of random variables indexed by some set, often representing time. (Other interpretations exists such as a stochastic process being a random function.)

More formally, a stochastic process is defined as a collection of random variables defined on a common probability space $$(\Omega,{\cal A}, \mathbb{P} )$$, where $$\Omega$$ is a sample space, $${\cal A}$$ is a $$\sigma$$-algebra, and $$\mathbb{P}$$ is a probability measure, and the random variables, indexed by some set $$T$$, all take values in the same mathematical space $$S$$, which must be measurable with respect to some $$\sigma$$-algebra $$\Sigma$$.

Put another way, for a given probability space $$( \mathbb{P}, {\cal A}, \Omega)$$ and a measurable space $$(S, \Sigma)$$, a stochastic process is a collection of $$S$$-valued random variables, which we can write as:

$$\{X(t):t\in T \}.$$

For each $$t\in T$$, $$X(t)$$ is a random variable. Historically, a point $$t\in T$$ was interpreted as time, so $$X(t)$$ is random variable representing a value observed at time $$t$$.

Often collection of random variables $$\{X(t):t\in T \}$$ is denoted by simply a single letter such as $$X$$.  There are different notations for stochastic processes. For example, a stochastic process can also be written as $$\{X(t,\omega):t\in T \}$$, reflecting that is function of the two variables, $$t\in T$$ and $$\omega\in \Omega$$.

### Index set

The set $$T$$ is called the index set or parameter set of the stochastic process. Typically this set is some subset of the real line, such as the natural numbers or an interval. If the set is countable, such as the natural numbers, then it is a discrete-time stochastic process. Conversely, an interval for the index set gives a continuous-time stochastic process.

(If the index set is some two or higher dimensional Euclidean space or manifold, then typically the resulting stochastic or random process is called a random field.)

### State space

The mathematical space $$S$$ is called the state space of the stochastic process. The precise mathematical space can be any one of many different mathematical sets such as the integers, the real line, $$n$$-dimensional Euclidean space, the complex plane, or more abstract mathematical spaces. The different spaces reflects the different values that the stochastic process can take.

### Sample function

A single outcome of a stochastic process is called a sample function, a sample path, or, a realization. It is formed by taking a single value of each random variable of the stochastic process. More precisely, if $$\{X(t,\omega):t\in T \}$$ is a stochastic process, then for any point $$\omega\in\Omega$$, the mapping
$X(\cdot,\omega): T \rightarrow S,$
is a sample function of the stochastic process $$\{X(t,\omega):t\in T \}$$. Other names exist such as trajectory, and path function.

## Examples

The range of stochastic processes is limitless, as stochastic processes can be used to construct new ones. Broadly speaking, stochastic processes can be classified by their index set and their state space. For example, we can consider a discrete-time and continuous-time stochastic processes.

There are some commonly used stochastic processes. I’ll give the details of a couple of very simple ones.

### Bernoulli process

A very simple stochastic process is the Bernoulli process, which is a sequence of independent and identically distributed (iid) random variables. The value of each random variable can be one of two values, typically $$0$$ and $$1$$, but they could be also $$-1$$ and $$+1$$ or $$H$$ and $$T$$. To generate this stochastic process, each random variable takes one value,  say, $$1$$ with probability $$p$$ or the other value, say, $$0$$ with probability $$1-p$$.

We can can liken this stochastic process to flipping a coin, where the probability of a head is $$p$$ and its value is $$1$$, while the value of a tail is $$0$$. In other words, a Bernoulli process is a sequence of iid Bernoulli random variables. The Bernoulli process has the counting numbers (that is, the positive integers) as its index set, meaning $$T=1,\dots$$, while in this example the state space is simply $$S=\{0,1\}$$.

(We can easily generalize the Bernoulli process by having a sequence of iid variables with the same probability space.)

### Random walks

A random walk is a type of stochastic process that is usually defined as sum of a sequence of iid random variables or random vectors in Euclidean space. Given random walks are formed from a sum, they are stochastic processes that evolve in discrete time. (But some also use the term to refer to stochastic processes that change in continuous time.)

A classic example of this stochastic process is the simple random walk, which is based on a Bernoulli process, where each iid Bernoulli variable takes either the value positive one or negative one. More specifically, the simple random walk increases by one with probability, say, $$p$$, or decreases by one with probability $$1-p$$. The index set of this stochastic process is the natural numbers, while its state space is the integers.

Random walks can be defined in more general settings such as $$n$$- dimensional Euclidean space. There are other types of random walks, defined on different mathematical objects, such as lattices and groups, and in general they are highly studied and have many applications in different disciplines.

### Markov processes

One important way for classifying stochastic processes is the stochastic dependence between random variables. For the Bernoulli process, there was no dependence between any random variable, giving a very simple stochastic process. But this is not a very interesting stochastic process.

A more interesting (and typically useful) stochastic process is one in which the random variables depend on each other in some way. For example, the next position of a random walk depends on the current position, which in turn depends on the previous position.

A large family of stochastic processes in which the next value depends on the current value are called Markov processes or Markov chains. (Both names are used. The term Markov chain is largely used when either the state space or index is discrete, but there does not seem to be an agreed upon convention. When I think Markov chain, I think discrete time.) The definition of a Markov process has a property that constrains the dependence between the random variables, as the next random variable only depends on the current random variable, and not all the previous random variables. This constraint on the dependence typically renders Markov processes more tractable than general stochastic processes.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of Markov processes. Their study and application appear throughout probability, science, and technology.

### Counting processes

A counting process is a stochastic process that takes the values of non-negative integers, meaning its state space is the counting numbers, and is non-decreasing. A simple example of a counting process is an asymmetric random walk, which increases by one with some probability $$p$$ or remains the same value with probability $$1-p$$. In other words, the accumulative sum of a Bernoulli process.  This is an example of a discrete-time counting process, but continuous-time ones also exist.

A counting process can be also interpreted as a counting as a random counting measure on the index set.

### Two important stochastic processes

The most two important stochastic processes are the Poisson process and the Wiener process (often called Brownian motion process or just Brownian motion). They are important for both applications and theoretical reasons, playing fundamental roles in the theory of stochastic processes. In future posts I’ll cover these two stochastic processes.

## Code

The code used to create the plots in this post is found here on my code repository. The code exists in both MATLAB and Python.

There are many, many books covering the fundamentals of modern probability theory, including those (in roughly increasing order of difficulty) by Grimmett and Stirzaker, Karr, Rosenthal, Shiryaev, Durrett, and Billingsley. A very quick introduction is given in this web article.

The development of stochastic processes is one of the great achievements in modern mathematics. Researchers and practitioners have both studied them in great depth and found many applications for them. Consequently, there is no shortage of literature on stochastic processes. For example:

Finally, one of the main pioneers of stochastic processes was Joseph Doob. His seminal book was simply called Stochastic Processes.

## Binomial point process

The binomial point process is arguably the simplest point process. It consists of a non-random number of points scattered randomly and independently over some bounded region of space. In this post I will describe the binomial point process, how it leads to the Poisson point process, and its historical role as stars in the sky.

The binomial point process is an important stepping stone in the theory of point process. But I stress that for mathematical models, I would always use a Poisson point process instead of a binomial one. The only exception would be if you were developing a model for a small, non-random number of points.

## Uniform binomial point process

We start with the simplest binomial point process, which has uniformly located points. (I described simulating this point process in an early post. The code is here.)

### Definition

Consider some bounded (or more precisely, compact) region, say, $$W$$, of the plane plane $$\mathbb{R}^2$$, but the space can be more general.  The uniform binomial point process is created by scattering $$n$$ points uniformly and independently across the set $$W$$.

### Distribution

Consider a single point uniformly scattered in the region $$W$$, giving a binomial point process with $$n=1$$.  We look at some region $$B$$, which is a subset of $$W$$, implying $$B\subseteq W$$.  What is the probability that the single point $$X$$ falls in region $$B$$?

First we write $$\nu(W)$$ and $$\nu(B)$$  to denote the respective areas (or more precisely, Lebesgue measures) of the regions $$W$$ and $$B$$, hence $$\nu(B)\leq \nu(W)$$. Then this probability, say, $$p$$, is simply the ratio of the two areas, giving

$$p= P(X\in B)=\frac{\nu(B)}{\nu(W)}.$$

The event of a single point being found in the set $$B$$ is a single Bernoulli trial, like flipping a single coin. But if there are $$n$$ points, then there are $$n$$ Bernoulli trials, which bring us to the binomial distribution.

For a uniform binomial point process $$N_W$$, the number of randomly located points being found in a region $$B$$ is a binomial random variable, say, $$N_W(B)$$, with probability parameter $$p=\nu(B)/ \nu(W)$$. The probability mass function of $$N_W(B)$$ is

$$P(N_W(B)=k)={n\choose k} p^k(1-p)^{n-k}.$$

We can write the expression more explicitly

$$P(N_W(B)=k)={n\choose k} \left[\frac{\nu(B)}{ \nu(W)}\right]^k\left[1-\frac{\nu(B)}{\nu(W)}\right]^{n-k}.$$

## Poisson limit

### Poisson random variable

A standard exercise in introductory probability is deriving the Poisson distribution by taking the limit of the binomial distribution. This is done by sending $$n$$ (the total number of Bernoulli trials) to infinity while keeping the binomial mean $$\mu:=p n$$ fixed, which sends the probability $$p=\mu/n$$ to zero.

More precisely, for $$\mu\geq0$$, setting $$p_n=\mu/n$$ and keeping $$\mu :=p_n n$$ fixed, we have the limit result

$$\lim_{n\to \infty} {n \choose k} p_n^k (1-p_n)^{n-k} = \frac{\mu^k}{k!}\, e^{-\mu}.$$

We can use, for example, Stirling’s approximation to prove this limit result.

We can make the same limit argument with the binomial point process.

### Homogeneous Poisson point process

We consider the intensity of the uniform binomial point process, which is the average number of points in a unit area. For a binomial point process, this is simply

$$\lambda := \frac{n}{\nu(W)}.$$

For the Poisson limit, we expand the region $$W$$ so it covers the whole plane $$\mathbb{R}^2$$, while keeping the intensity $$\lambda = n/\nu(W)$$ fixed. This means that the area $$\nu(W)$$ approaches infinity while the probability $$p=\nu(B)/\nu(W)$$ goes to zero. Then in the limit we arrive at the homogeneous Poisson point process $$N$$ with intensity $$\lambda$$.

The number of points of $$N$$ falling in the set $$B$$ is a random variable $$N(B)$$ with the probability mass function

$$P(N(B)=k)=\frac{[\lambda \nu(B)]^k}{k!}\,e^{-\lambda \nu(B)}.$$

## General binomial point process

Typically in point process literature, one first encounters the uniform binomial point process. But we can generalize it so the points are distributed according to some general distribution.

### Definition

We write $$\Lambda$$ to denote a non-negative Radon measure on $$W$$, meaning $$\Lambda(W)< \infty$$ and $$\Lambda(B)\geq 0$$ for all (measurable) sets $$B\subseteq W$$.  We can also assume a more general space for the underlying space such as a compact metric space, which is (Borel) measurable. But the intuition still works for compact region of the plane $$\mathbb{R}^2$$.

For the $$n$$ points, we assume each point is distributed according to the probability measure

$$\bar{\Lambda}= \frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda(W)}.$$

The resulting point process is a general binomial point process. The proofs for this point process remain essentially the same, replacing the Lebesgue measure $$\nu$$, such as area or volume, with the non-negative measure $$\Lambda$$.

### Example

A typical example of the intensity measure $$\Lambda$$ has the form

$$\Lambda(B)= \int_B f(x) dx\,,$$

where $$f$$ is a non-negative density function on $$W$$. Then the probability density of a single point is

$$p(x) = \frac{1}{c}f(x),$$

where $$c$$ is a normalization constant

$$c= \int_W f(x) dx\,.$$

On a set $$W \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$$ using Cartesian coordinates, a specific example of the density $$f$$ is

$$f(x_1,x_2) = \lambda e^{-(x_1^2+x_2^2)}.$$

### Distribution

Assuming a general binomial point process $$N_W$$ on $$W$$, we can use the previous arguments to obtain the binomial distribution

$$P(N_W(B)=k)={n\choose k} \left[\frac{\Lambda(B)}{\Lambda(W)}\right]^k\left[1-\frac{\Lambda(B)}{\Lambda(W)}\right]^{n-k}.$$

### General Poisson point process

We can easily adapt the Poisson limit arguments for the general binomial Poisson point process, which results in the general Poisson point process $$N$$ with intensity measure $$\Lambda$$. The number of points of $$N$$ falling in the set $$B$$ is a random variable $$N(B)$$ with the probability mass function

$$P(N(B)=k)=\frac{[\Lambda(B)]^k}{k!}\, e^{-\Lambda(B)}.$$

## History: Stars in the sky

The uniform binomial point process is an example of a spatial point process. With points being scattered uniformly and independently, its sheer simplicity makes it a natural choice for an early spatial model. But which scattered objects?

Perhaps not surprisingly, it is trying to understand star locations where we find the earliest known example of somebody describing something like a random point process. In 1767 in England John Michell wrote:

what it is probable would have been the least apparent distance of any two or more stars, any where in the whole heavens, upon the supposition that they had been scattered by mere chance, as it might happen

As an example, Michelle studied the six brightest stars in the Pleiades star cluster. He concluded the stars were not scattered by mere chance. Of course “scattered by mere chance” is not very precise in today’s probability language, but we can make the reasonable assumption that Michell meant the points were uniformly and independently scattered.

Years later in 1860 Simon Newcomb  examined Michell’s problem, motivating him to derive the Poisson distribution as the limit of the binomial distribution. Newcomb also studied star locations. Stephen Stigler considers this as the first example of applying the Poisson distribution to real data, pre-dating the famous work by Ladislaus Bortkiewicz who studied rare events such as deaths from horse kicks. We also owe Bortkiewicz the terms Poisson distribution and stochastic (in the sense of random).

### Code

Here, on my repository, are some pieces of code that simulate a uniform binomial point process on a rectangle.

For an introduction to spatial statistics, I suggest the lectures notes by Baddeley, which form Chapter 1 of these published lectures, edited by Baddeley, Bárány, Schneider, and Weil. The binomial point process is covered in Section 1.3.

The binomial point process is also covered briefly in the classic text Stochastic Geometry and its Applications by Chiu, Stoyan, Kendall and Mecke; see Section 2.2. Similar material is covered in the book’s previous edition by Stoyan, Kendall and Mecke.

Haenggi also wrote a readable introductory book called Stochastic Geometry for Wireless networks, where he gives the basics of point process theory. The binomial point process is covered in Section 2.4.4.

For some history on point processes and the Poisson distribution, I suggest starting with the respective papers:

• Guttorp and Thorarinsdottir, What Happened to Discrete Chaos, the Quenouille Process, and the Sharp Markov Property?;
• Stigler, Poisson on the Poisson distribution.

Histories of the Poisson distribution and the Poisson point process are found in the books:

## Summary: Poisson simulations

Here’s a lazy summary post where I list all the posts on various Poisson simulations. I’ve also linked to code, which is found on this online repository. The code is typically written in MATLAB and Python.

## Posts

### Poisson point processes

Some simulations of Poisson point processes are also covered in this post on the Julia programming language:

## Voronoi tessellations in architecture

A colleague just sent me this photo of a colourful building on the Gold Coast. The building is the new Home of the Arts (HOTA) Gallery, as detailed here. It is covered in a Voronoi tessellation. I described this very useful geometrical object in a previous post.

A casual Google reveals that other buildings have Voronoi-inspired architecture. For example, The Fry building at the University of Bristol in Britain, which fittingly houses the mathematics department.

The building for the Alibaba headquarters in China also evokes Voronoi imagery. But those Voronoi constructions do no feature the colours of the HOTA Gallery, which is reminiscent of diagrams produced by scientific plotting packages.

(Of course I don’t mind the odd Voronoi tesselation. For example, a couple of months ago I set for my website image a Voronoi tesselation, created by the Franco-German artist Plaisance Puisatier. And the cover of a book I co-wrote has a diagram based on the signal-to-interference ratio, which can be considered as a generalization of a Voronoi tessellation.)

## Mathematical buildings

Another building that employs an interesting geometrical object is RMIT’s Storey Hall, located in Melbourne. It features Penrose tiling, which is an example of a non-periodic tiling. Loosely speaking, that means if you tile an infinite plane with a given a set of tiles, then no translation of the plane will yield the same pattern again. The Penrose tiling is also inside the building, as you can see on this website.

On topic of non-periodic tiling, the buildings at Federation Square in Melbourne are covered by pinwheel tiling, as shown on this mathematics website, which is also non-periodic. According to Wikipedia, Charles Radin proposed this tiling based on a construction by the late and famous John Conway who died earlier this year, being yet another victim of the pandemic.

## Mathematical architects

While writing this post, I noticed that both the HOTA Gallery and Storey Hall were designed by ARM Architecture. Some of their other buildings have a geometrical aspect. Clearly they have a mathematical inclination.

## Simulating Poisson random variables in Fortran

The hint’s in the title. I wrote a simple function in Fortran for simulating (or sampling) Poisson random variables. (More precisely, I should say that the function generates Poisson variates.) I used the simple direct method. This method is based on the exponential inter-arrival times of the Poisson (stochastic) process.

My code should not be used for large Poisson parameter values (larger than, say, 20 or 30), as the code may be too slow. Other methods exist for larger parameter values, which I’ve discussed previously.

I just use the standard Fortran function random_number for generating (pseudo-)random numbers. I am not an expert in Fortran, but my Poisson function seems to work fine. I wrote and ran a simple test that estimates the first and second moments, which should match for Poisson variables.

My Fortran code is very similar to the code that I wrote in C and C#, which is located here. You should be able to run it on this website or similar ones that can compile Fortran (95) code.

For various Poisson simulation methods, see the stochastic simulation books by Devroye (Section X.3) or Fishman (Section 8.16). There’s a free online version of Devroye’s book here. The book by Gentle (Section 5.2.8) also briefly covers Poisson variables.

In this post on generating Poisson variates, John D. Cook briefly discusses the direct method (for small Poisson parameter values), as well as a rejection method from a 1979 paper by Atkinson.

I wrote the Poisson code using Fortran 95. There are various books and websites on Fortran. The website tutorialspoint.com gives a good introduction to Fortran. You can also edit, compile and run your Fortran code there with its online Fortran editor. I found this short summary a good start. For alternative Fortran code of a Poisson generator, consult the classic book Numerical Recipes, though I believe the book versions only exist for Fortran 77 and Fortran 90.

## Code

On this page I’ve only included the code of the functions for generating uniform and Poisson variates. The rest of the code, including the test, is located here.

!Poisson function -- returns a single Poisson random variable
function funPoissonSingle(lambda) result(randPoisson)
real, intent(in) :: lambda !input
real :: exp_lambda !constant for terminating loop
real :: randUni !uniform variable
real :: prodUni !product of uniform variables
integer :: randPoisson !Poisson variable

exp_lambda= exp(-lambda)

!initialize variables
randPoisson = -1;
prodUni = 1;
do while (prodUni > exp_lambda)
randUni = funUniformSingle() !generate uniform variable
prodUni = prodUni * randUni; !update product
randPoisson = randPoisson + 1 !increase Poisson variable
end do
end function

!Uniform function -- returns a standard uniform random variable
function funUniformSingle() result(randUni)
real randUni;
call random_seed
call random_number(randUni)

end function


## Frozen code

My simulation code has been frozen and buried in Norway. Well, some of my code that I keep on a GitHub repository has become part of a code preservation project. Consequently, beneath my profile it reads:

Arctic Code Vault Contributor

This is part of what is called the GitHub Archive Program. The people behind it aim to preserve large amounts of (open source) code for future generations in thousands and thousands of years time. But how do they do that?

Well, basically, the good people at GitHub chose and converted many, many, many lines of code into certain error-resistant formats, such as QR code. They then printed it all out and buried it deep in an abandoned mine shaft in frozen Norway. (The frozen and stable Norway is also home to a famous seed bank.)

My code in this project includes most of the code that has appeared in these posts. Of course my contribution is just a drop in the vast code ocean of this project. In fact, at least two or three of my colleagues have also had their code put into deep freeze.

Still, it’s a nice thought to know that stuff I wrote, including code for these very posts, will be potentially around for a very long time.

## Simulating a Poisson point process on a n-dimensional sphere

In the previous post I outlined how to simulate or sample a homogeneous Poisson point process on the surface of a sphere. Now I will consider a homogeneous Poisson point process on the $$(n-1)-$$ sphere, which is the surface of the Euclidean ball in $$n$$ dimensions.

This is a short post because it immediately builds off the previous post. For positioning the points uniformly, I will use Method 2 from that post, which uses normal random variables, as it immediately gives a fast method in $$n$$ dimensions.

I wrote this post and the code more for curiosity than any immediate application. But simulating a Poisson point process in this setting requires placing points uniformly on a sphere. And there are applications in that, such as Monte Carlo integration methods, as mentioned in this post, which nicely details different sampling methods.

## Steps

As is the case for other shapes, simulating a Poisson point process requires two steps.

##### Number of points

The number of points of a Poisson point process on the surface of a sphere of radius $$r>0$$ is a Poisson random variable. The mean of this random variable is $$\lambda S_{n-1}$$, where $$S_{n-1}$$ is the surface area of the sphere.  For a ball embedded in $$n$$ dimension, the area of the corresponding sphere is given by

$$S_{n-1} = \frac{2 \pi ^{n/2} }{\Gamma(n/2)} r^{n-1},$$

where $$\Gamma$$ is the gamma function, which is a natural generalization of the factorial. In MATLAB, we can simply use the function gamma.  In Python, we need to use the SciPy function scipy.special. gamma.

### Locations of points

For each point on the sphere, we generate $$n$$ standard normal or Gaussian random variables, say, $$W_1, \dots, W_n$$, which are independent of each other. These random variables are the Cartesian components of the random point. We rescale the components by the Euclidean norm, then multiply by the radius $$r$$.

For $$i=1,\dots, n$$, we obtain

$$X_i=\frac{rW_i}{(W_1^2+\cdots+W_n^2)^{1/2}}.$$

These are the Cartesian coordinates of a point uniformly scattered on a  sphere with radius $$r$$ and a centre at the origin.

###### How does it work?

In the post on the circle setting, I gave a more detailed outline of the proof, where I said the method is like the Box-Muller transform in reverse. The joint density of the normal random variables is from a multivariate normal distribution with zero correlation. This joint density a function of the Cartesian equation for a sphere. This means the density is constant on the sphere, implying that the angle of the point $$(W_1,\dots, W_n)$$ will be uniformly distributed.

The vector formed from the normal variables $$(W_1,\dots,W_n)$$ is a random variable with a chi distribution.  But the final vector, which stretches from the origin to the point $$(X_1,\dots,X_n)$$, has length one, because we rescaled it with the Euclidean norm.

## Code

The code for all my posts is located online here. For this post, the code in MATLAB and Python is here.

I recommend this blog post, which discusses different methods for randomly placing points on spheres and inside spheres (or, rather, balls) in a uniform manner.  (Embedded in two dimensions, a sphere is a circle and a ball is a disk.)

Our Method 2 for positioning points uniformly, which uses normal variables, comes from the paper:

• 1959, Muller, A note on a method for generating points uniformly on n-dimensional spheres.

Two recent works on this approach are the papers:

• 2010, Harman and Lacko, On decompositional algorithms for uniform sampling from -spheres and -balls;
• 2017, Voelker, Gosman, Stewart, Efficiently sampling vectors and coordinates.

## Simulating a Poisson point process on a sphere

In this post I’ll describe how to simulate or sample a homogeneous Poisson point process on the surface of a sphere. I have already simulated this point process on a rectangle, triangle disk, and circle.

Of course, by sphere, I mean the everyday object that is the surface of a three-dimensional ball, where this two-dimensional object is often denoted by $$S^2$$.  Mathematically, this is a generalization from a Poisson point process on a circle, which is slightly simpler than randomly positioning points on a disk.  I recommend reading those two posts first, as a lot of the material presented here builds off them.

I have not needed such a simulation in my own work, but I imagine there are many reasons why you would want to simulate a Poisson point process on a sphere. As some motivation, we can imagine these points on a sphere representing, say, meteorites or lightning hitting the Earth.

The generating the number of points is not difficult. The trick is positioning the points on the sphere in a uniform way.  As is often the case, there are various ways to do this, and I recommend this post, which lists the main ones.  I will use two methods that I consider the most natural and intuitive ones, namely using spherical coordinates and normal random variables, which is what I did in the post on the circle.

Incidentally, a simple modification allows you to scatter the points uniformly inside the sphere, but you would typically say ball in mathematics, giving a Poisson point process inside a ball; see below for details.

## Steps

As always, simulating a Poisson point process requires two steps.

##### Number of points

The number of points of a Poisson point process on the surface of a sphere of radius $$r>0$$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $$\lambda S_2$$, where $$S_2=4\pi r^2$$ is the surface area of the sphere. (In this post I give some details for simulating or sampling Poisson random variables or, more accurately, variates.)

### Locations of points

For any homogeneous Poisson point process, we need to position the points uniformly on the underlying space, which is in this case is the sphere. I will outline two different methods for positioning the points randomly and uniformly on a sphere.

##### Method 1: Spherical coordinates

The first method is based on spherical coordinates $$(\rho, \theta,\phi)$$, where the radial coordinate $$\rho\geq 0$$, and the angular coordinates $$0 \leq \theta\leq 2\pi$$ and $$0\leq \phi \leq \pi$$. The change of coordinates gives $$x=\rho\sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)$$, $$y=\rho\sin(\theta)\sin(\phi)$$, and $$z=\rho\cos(\phi)$$.

Now we use Proposition 1.1 in this paper. For each point, we generate two uniform variables $$V$$ and $$\Theta$$ on the respective intervals $$(-1,1)$$ and $$(0,2\pi)$$. Then we place the point with the Cartesian coordinates

$$X = r \sqrt{1-V^2} \cos\Theta,$$

$$Y = r \sqrt{1-V^2}\sin\Theta,$$

$$Z=r V.$$

This method places a uniform point on a sphere with a radius $$r$$.

###### How does it work?

I’ll skip the precise details, but give some interpretation of this method. The random variable $$\Phi := \arccos V$$ is the $$\phi$$-coordinate of the uniform point, which implies $$\sin \Phi=\sqrt{1-V^2}$$, due to basic trigonometric identities.  The area element in polar coordinates is $$dA = \rho^2 \sin\phi d\phi d\theta$$, which is constant with respect to $$\theta$$. After integrating with respect to $$\phi$$,  we see that the random variable $$V=\cos\Phi$$ needs to be uniform (instead of $$\Phi$$) to ensure the point is uniformly located on the surface.

##### Method 2: Normal random variables

For each point, we generate three standard normal or Gaussian random variables, say, $$W_x$$, $$W_y$$, and $$W_z$$, which are independent of each other. (The term standard here means the normal random variables have mean $$\mu =0$$ and standard deviation $$\sigma=1$$.)  The three random variables are the Cartesian components of the random point. We rescale the components by the Euclidean norm, then multiply by the radius $$r$$, giving

$$X=\frac{rW_x}{(W_x^2+W_y^2+W_z^2)^{1/2}},$$

$$Y=\frac{rW_y}{(W_x^2+W_y^2+W_z^2)^{1/2}},$$

$$Z=\frac{rW_z}{(W_x^2+W_y^2+W_z^2)^{1/2}}.$$

These are the Cartesian coordinates of a point uniformly scattered on a  sphere with radius $$r$$ and a centre at the origin.

###### How does it work?

The procedure is somewhat like the Box-Muller transform in reverse. In the post on the circle setting,  I gave an outline of the proof, which I recommend reading. The joint density of the normal random variables is from a multivariate normal distribution with zero correlation. This joint density is constant on the sphere, implying that the angle of the point $$(W_x, W_y, W_z)$$ will be uniformly distributed.

The vector formed from the normal variables $$(W_x, W_y,W_z)$$ is a random variable with a chi distribution.  We can see that the vector from the origin to the point $$(X,Y,Z)$$ has length one, because we rescaled it with the Euclidean norm.

## Plotting

Depending on your plotting software, the points may more resemble points on an ellipsoid than a sphere due to the different scaling of the x, y and z axes. To fix this in MATLAB, run the command: axis square. In Python, it’s not straightforward to do this, as it seems to lack an automatic function, so I have skipped it.

## Results

I have presented some results produced by code written in MATLAB and Python. The blue points are the Poisson points on the sphere. I have used a surface plot (with clear faces) to illustrate the underling sphere in black.

##### Python

Note: The aspect ratio in 3-D Python plots tends to squash the sphere slightly, but it is a sphere.

## Code

The code for all my posts is located online here. For this post, the code in MATLAB and Python is here.  In Python I used the library mpl_toolkits for doing 3-D plots.

## Poisson point process inside the sphere

Perhaps you want to simulate a Poisson point process inside the ball.  There are different ways we can do this, but I will describe just one way, which builds off Method 1 for positioning the points uniformly. (In a later post, I will modify Method 2, giving a way to uniformly position points inside the ball.)

For this simulation method, you need to make two simple modifications to the simulation procedure.

##### Number of points

The number of points of a Poisson point process inside a sphere of radius $$r>0$$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $$\lambda V_3$$, where $$V_3=4\pi r^3$$ is the volume of the sphere.

### Locations of points

We will modify Method 1 as outlined above. To sample the points uniformly in the sphere, you need to generate uniform variables on the unit interval $$(0,1)$$, take their cubic roots, and then, multiply them by the radius $$r$$. (This is akin to the step of taking the square root in the disk setting.) The random variables for the angular coordinates are generated as before.

I recommend this blog post, which discusses different methods for randomly placing points on spheres and inside spheres (or, rather, balls) in a uniform manner.  (Embedded in two dimensions, a sphere is a circle and a ball is a disk.)

Our Method 2 for positioning points uniformly, which uses normal variables, comes from the paper:

• 1959, Muller, A note on a method for generating points uniformly on n-dimensional spheres.

This sampling method relies upon old observations that normal variables are connected to spheres and circles. I also found this post on a similar topic.

Here is some sample Python code for creating a 3-D scatter plot.

## Simulating a Poisson point process on a circle

In this post, I’ll take a break from the more theoretical posts. Instead I’ll describe how to simulate or sample a homogeneous Poisson point process on a circle.  I have already simulated this point process on a rectangle, triangle and disk. In some sense, I should have done this simulation method before the disk one, as it’s easier to simulate. I recommend reading that post first, as the material presented here builds off it.

Sampling a homogeneous Poisson point process on a circle is rather straightforward.  It just requires using a fixed radius and uniformly choose angles from interval $$(0, 2\pi)$$. But the circle setting gives an opportunity to employ a different method for positioning points uniformly on circles and, more generally, spheres. This approach uses Gaussian random variables, and it becomes much more efficient when the points are placed on high dimensional spheres.

## Steps

Simulating a Poisson point process requires two steps: simulating the random number of points and then randomly positioning each point.

##### Number of points

The number of points of a Poisson point process on circle of radius $$r>0$$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $$\lambda C$$, where $$C=2\pi r$$ is the circumference of the circle.  You just need to be able to need to produce (pseudo-)random numbers according to a Poisson distribution.

To generate Poisson variables in MATLAB,  use the poissrnd function with the argument $$\lambda C$$.  In Python, use either the scipy.stats.poisson or numpy.random.poisson function from the SciPy or NumPy libraries. (If you’re curious how Poisson simulation works, I suggest seeing this post for details on sampling Poisson random variables or, more accurately, variates.)

### Locations of points

For a homogeneous Poisson point process, we need to uniformly position points on the underlying space, which is this case is a circle. We will look at two different ways to position points uniformly on a circle. The first is arguably the most natural approach.

##### Method 1: Polar coordinates

We use polar coordinates due to the nature of the problem. To position all the points uniformly on a circle, we simple generate uniform numbers on the unit interval $$(0,1)$$. We then multiply these random numbers by $$2\pi$$.

We have generated polar coordinates for points uniformly located on the circle. To plot the points, we have to convert the coordinates back to Cartesian form by using the change of coordinates:  $$x=\rho\cos(\theta)$$ and $$y=\rho\sin(\theta)$$.

##### Method 2: Normal random variables

For each point, we generate two standard normal or Gaussian random variables, say, $$W_x$$ and $$W_y$$, which are independent of each other. (The term standard here means the normal random variables have mean $$\mu =0$$ and standard deviation $$\sigma=1$$.) These two random variables are the Cartesian components of a random point.  We then rescale the two values by the Euclidean norm, giving

$$X=\frac{W_x}{(W_x^2+W_y^2)^{1/2}},$$

$$Y=\frac{W_y}{(W_x^2+W_y^2)^{1/2}}.$$

These are the Cartesian coordinates of points uniformly scattered around a unit circle with centre at the origin. We multiply the two random values $$X$$ and $$Y$$ by the $$r>0$$  for a circle with radius $$r$$.

###### How does it work?

The procedure is somewhat like the Box-Muller transform in reverse. I’ll give an outline of the proof. The joint density of the random variables $$W_x$$ and $$W_y$$ is that of the bivariate normal distribution with zero correlation, meaning it has the joint density

$$f(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}e^{[-(x^2+y^2)/2]}.$$

We see that the function $$f$$ is a constant when we trace around any line for which $$(x^2+y^2)$$ is a constant, which is simply the Cartesian equation for a circle (where the radius is the square root of the aforementioned constant). This means that the angle of the point $$(W_x, W_y)$$ will be uniformly distributed.

Now we just need to look at the distance of the random point. The vector formed from the pair of normal variables $$(W_x, W_y)$$ is a Rayleigh random variable.  We can see that the vector from the origin to the point $$(X,Y)$$ has length one, because we rescaled it with the Euclidean norm.

## Results

I have presented some results produced by code written in MATLAB and Python. The blue points are the Poisson points on the sphere. I have used a surface plot (with clear faces) in black to illustrate the underling sphere.

## Code

The code for all my posts is located online here. For this post, the code in MATLAB and Python is here.

I recommend this blog post, which discusses different methods for randomly placing points on spheres and inside spheres (or, rather, balls) in a uniform manner.  (Embedded in two dimensions, a sphere is a circle and a ball is a disk.) A key paper on using normal variables is the following:

• 1959, Muller, A note on a method for generating points uniformly on n-dimensional spheres.

As I mentioned in the post on the disk, the third edition of the classic book Stochastic Geometry and its Applications by Chiu, Stoyan, Kendall and Mecke details on page 54 how to uniformly place points on a disk.  It just requires a small modification for the circle.

## Cox point process

In previous posts I have often stressed the importance of the Poisson point process as a mathematical model. But it can be unsuitable for certain mathematical models.  We can generalize it by first considering a non-negative random measure, called a driving or directing measure. Then a Poisson point process, which is independent of the random driving measure, is generated by using the random measure as its intensity or mean measure. This doubly stochastic construction gives what is called a Cox point process.

In practice we don’t typically observe the driving measure. This means that it’s impossible to distinguish a Cox point process from a Poisson point process if there’s only one realization available. By conditioning on the random driving measure, we can use the properties of the Poisson point process to derive those of the resulting Cox point process.

By the way, Cox point processes are also known as doubly stochastic Poisson point processes. Guttorp and Thorarinsdottir argue that we should call them the Quenouille point processes, as Maurice Quenouille introduced an example of it before Sir David Cox. But I opt for the more common name.

In this post I’ll cover a couple examples of Cox point processes. But first I will need to give a more precise mathematical definition.

## Definition

We consider a point process defined on some underlying mathematical space $$\mathbb{S}$$, which is sometimes called the carrier space or state space.  The underlying space is often the real line $$\mathbb{R}$$, the plane $$\mathbb{R}^2$$, or some other familiar mathematical space like a square lattice.

For the first definition, we use the concept of a random measure.

Let $$M$$ be a non-negative random measure on $$\mathbb{S}$$. Then a point process $$\Phi$$ defined on some underlying space $$\mathbb{S}$$ is a Cox point process driven by the intensity measure $$M$$ if the conditional distribution of $$\Phi$$ is a Poisson point process with intensity function $$M$$.

We can give a slightly less general definition of a Cox  point process by using a random intensity function.

Let $$Z=\{Z(x):x\in\mathbb{S} \}$$ be a non-negative random field such that with probability one, $$x\rightarrow Z(x)$$ is a locally integrable function. Then a point process $$\Phi$$ defined on some underlying space $$\mathbb{S}$$ is a Cox point process driven by $$Z$$ if the conditional distribution of $$\Phi$$ is a Poisson point process with intensity function $$Z$$.

The random driving measure $$M$$ is then simply the integral
$$M(B)=\int_B Z(x)\, dx , \quad B\subseteq S.$$

## Over-dispersion

The random driving measures take different forms, giving different Cox point processes. But there is a general observation that can be made for all Cox point processes. For any region $$B \subseteq S$$, it can be shown that the number of points $$\Phi (B)$$ adheres to the inequality
$$\mathbb{Var} [\Phi (B)] \geq \mathbb{E} [\Phi (B)],$$

where $$\mathbb{Var} [\Phi (B)]$$ is the variance of the random variable $$\Phi (B)$$.  As a comparison, for a Poisson point process $$\Phi’$$, the variance of $$\Phi’ (B)$$ is simply $$\mathbb{Var} [\Phi’ (B)] =\mathbb{E} [\Phi’ (B)]$$.  Due to its greater variance, the Cox point process is said to be over-dispersed compared to the Poisson point process.

## Special cases

There is an virtually unlimited number of ways to define a random driving measure, where each one yields a different a Cox point process. But in general we are restricted by examining only tractable and interesting Cox point processes. I will give some common examples, but I stress that the Cox point process family is very large.

### Mixed Poisson point process

For the random driving measure $$M$$, an obvious example is the product form $$M= Y \mu$$, where $$Y$$ is some independent non-negative random variable and $$\mu$$ is the Lebesgue measure on $$\mathbb{S}$$. This driving measure gives the mixed Poisson point process. The random variable $$Y$$ is the only source of randomness.

### Log-Gaussian Cox point process

Instead of a random variable, we can use a non-negative random field to define a random driving measure.  We then have the product $$M= Y \mu$$, where $$Y$$ is now some independent non-negative random field. (A random field is a collection of random variables indexed by some set, which in this case is the underlying space $$\mathbb{S}$$.)

Arguably the most tractable and used random field is the Gaussian random field. This random field, like Gaussian or normal random variables, takes both negative and positive values. But if we define the random field such that its logarithm is a Gaussian field $$Z$$, then we obtain the non-negative random driving measure $$M=\mu e^Z$$, giving the log-Gaussian Cox point process.

This point process has found applications in spatial statistics.

### Cox-Poisson line-point process

To construct this Cox point process, we first consider a Poisson line process, which I discussed previously.  Given a Poisson line process, we then place an independent one-dimensional Poisson point process on each line. We then obtain an example of a Cox point process, which we could call a Cox line-point process orCox-Poisson line-point process. (But I am not sure of the best name.)

Researchers have recently used this point process to study wireless communication networks in cities, where the streets correspond to Poisson lines. For example, see these two preprints:

### Shot-noise Cox point process

We construct the next Cox point process by first considering a Poisson point process on the space $$\mathbb{S}$$ to create a shot noise term. (Shot noise is just the sum of some function over all the points of a point process.) We then use it as the driving measure of the Cox point process.

More specifically, we first introduce a kernel function $$k(\cdot,\cdot)$$ on $$\mathbb{S}$$, where $$k(x,\cdot)$$ is a probability density function for all points $$x\in \mathbb{S}$$. We then consider a Poisson point process $$\Phi’$$ on $$\mathbb{S}\times (0,\infty)$$. We assume the Poisson point process $$\Phi’$$ has a locally integrable intensity function $$\mu$$.

(We can interpret the point process $$\Phi’$$ as a spatially-dependent marked Poisson point process, where the unmarked Poisson point process is defined on $$\mathbb{S}$$. We then assume each point $$X$$ of this unmarked point process has a mark $$T \in (0,\infty)$$ with probability density $$\mu(X,t)$$.)

The resulting shot noise

$$Z(x)= \sum_{(Y,T)\in \Phi’} T \, k(Y,x)\,,$$

gives the random field. We then use it as the random intensity function to drive the shot-noise Cox point process.

In previous posts, I have detailed how to simulate non-Poisson point processes such as the Matérn and Thomas cluster point processes. These are examples of a Neyman-Scott point process, which is a special case of a shot noise Cox point process. All these point processes find applications in spatial statistics.

## Simulation

Unfortunately, there is no universal way to simulate all Cox point processes. (And even if there were one, it would not be the most optimal way for every Cox point process.) The simulation method depends on how the Cox point process is constructed, which usually means how its directing or driving measure is defined.

In previous posts I have presented ways (with code) to simulate these Cox point processes:

In addition to the Matérn and Thomas point processes, there are ways to simulate more general shot noise Cox point processes. I will cover that in another post.