Hi James, I'm a bit behind ...
My answer about the basic question ("a patch of 100 pixels each with zero counts - what is the variance?") you ask is the following: 1) we all know the Poisson PDF (Probability Distribution Function) P(k|l) = l^k*e^(-l)/k! (where k stands for for an integer >=0 and l is lambda) which tells us the probability of observing k counts if we know l. The PDF is normalized: SUM_over_k (P(k|l)) is 1 when k=0...infinity is 1. 2) you don't know before the experiment what l is, and you assume it is some number x with 0<=x<=xmax (the xmax limit can be calculated by looking at the physics of the experiment; it is finite and less than the overload value of the pixel, otherwise you should do a different experiment). Since you don't know that number, all the x values are equally likely - you use a uniform prior. 3) what is the PDF P(l|k) of l if we observe k counts? That can be found with Bayes theorem, and it turns out that (due to the uniform prior) the right hand side of the formula looks the same as in 1) : P(l|k) = l^k*e^(-l)/k! (again, the ! stands for the factorial, it is not a semantic exclamation mark). This is eqs. 7.42 and 7.43 in Agostini "Bayesian Reasoning in Data Analysis". 3a) side note: if we calculate the expectation value for l, by multiplying with l and integrating over l from 0 to infinity, we obtain E(P(l|k))=k+1, and similarly for the variance (Agostini eqs 7.45 and 7.46) 4) for k=0 (zero counts observed in a single pixel), this reduces to P(l|0)=e^(-l) for a single observation (pixel). (this is basic math; see also §7.4.1 of Agostini. 5) since we have 100 independent pixels, we must multiply the individual PDFs to get the overall PDF f, and also normalize to make the integral over that PDF to be 1: the result is f(l|all 100 pixels are 0)=n*e^(-n*l). (basic math). A more Bayesian procedure would be to realize that the posterior PDF P(l|0)=e^(-l) of the first pixel should be used as the prior for the second pixel, and so forth until the 100th pixel. This has the same result f(l|all 100 pixels are 0)=n*e^(-n*l) (Agostini § 7.7.2)! 6) the expectation value INTEGRAL_0_to_infinity over l*n*e^(-n*l) dl is 1/n . This is 1 if n=1 as we know from 3a), and 1/100 for 100 pixels with 0 counts. 7) the variance is then INTEGRAL_0_to_infinity over (l-1/n)^2*n*e^(-n*l) dl . This is 1/n^2 I find these results quite satisfactory. Please note that they deviate from the MLE result: expectation value=0, variance=0 . The problem appears to be that a Maximum Likelihood Estimator may give wrong results for small n; something that I've read a couple of times but which appears not to be universally known/taught. Clearly, the result in 6) and 7) for large n converges towards 0, as it should be. What this also means is that one should really work out the PDF instead of just adding expectation values and variances (and arriving at 100 if all 100 pixels have zero counts) because it is contradictory to use a uniform prior for all the pixels if OTOH these agree perfectly in being 0! What this means for zero-dose extrapolation I have not thought about. At least it prevents infinite weights! Best, Kay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/