# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

August  2019, 13(4): 787-803. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019036

## Compound truncated Poisson normal distribution: Mathematical properties and Moment estimation

 1 Departamento de Estatística, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife-PE, ZIP 50740-540, Brazil 2 Departamento de Estatística e Matemática Aplicada, Centro de Ciências, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza-CE, ZIP 60440-900, Brazil 3 Programas de Pós-Graduação em Estatística e Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife-PE, ZIP 50740-570, Brazil

* Corresponding author: Abraão D. C. Nascimento

Received  May 2018 Revised  February 2019 Published  May 2019

The proposal of efficient distributions is a crucial step for decision making in practice. Mixture models are adjustment tools which are often used to describe complex phenomena. However, as one disadvantage, such models impose hard inference procedures, submitted to a large number of parameters. To solve this issue, this paper proposes a new model which is able to describe multimodal, symmetric and asymmetric behaviors with only three parameters, called compound truncated Poisson normal (CTPN) distribution. Some properties of the CTPN law are derived and discussed: characteristic and cumulant functions and ordinary moments. A moment estimation procedure for CTPN parameters is also provided. This procedure consists of solving one nonlinear equation in terms of a single parameter. An application with images of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is made. The results present evidence that the CTPN can outperform the $\mathcal{G}^0$, $\mathcal{K}$ and BGN (laws commonly used in SAR literature), as well as GBGL models.

Citation: Abraão D. C. Nascimento, Leandro C. Rêgo, Raphaela L. B. A. Nascimento. Compound truncated Poisson normal distribution: Mathematical properties and Moment estimation. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (4) : 787-803. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019036
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
CTPN pdf and hrf curves at several parametric points
Real SAR image and plots of empirical densities (gray curve) vs. fitted pdf and cdf of CTPN (solid curves), BGN (dashed curves), GBGL (long dashed curves), $\mathcal{G}^0$ (dot curves) and $\mathcal{K}$ (dashes and dot curves) distributions
Performance under synthetic data from ML and MM estimates
 $n$ $\widehat{\lambda}$ $\widehat{\mu}$ $\widehat{\sigma^2}$ $\widehat{\lambda}_\text{ML}$ $\widehat{\mu}_{\text{ML}}$ $\widehat{\sigma^2}_{\text{ML}}$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\lambda})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\mu})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\sigma^2})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\text{ML}})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\mu}_{\text{ML}})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\sigma^2}_{\text{ML}})$ $\underline{ \lambda=0.5, \quad \mu=0.0 \quad\text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0 }$ $100$ 0.52180 -0.00120 0.98868 0.30940 -0.00031 1.04032 (0.32178) (0.43337) (0.40898) (0.37080) (0.43669) (0.46791) $500$ 0.48627 0.00517 0.98751 0.51697 -0.00215 0.99796 (0.30808) (0.42401) (0.41713) (0.28531) (0.42028) (0.42127) $1000$ 0.49767 0.00086 0.98671 0.51001 0.00007 0.99977 (0.30462) (0.42893) (0.41342) (0.23593) (0.41714) (0.41957) $\underline{ \lambda=1.0, \quad \mu=0.0 \quad \text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0}$ $100$ 1.29115 0.00151 0.98319 1.13192 0.00392 0.99745 (2.74401) (0.67237) (0.37800) (1.91113) (0.67445) (0.38453) $500$ 1.04780 0.00364 1.01459 1.21035 -0.00048 0.98445 (2.00933) (0.68142) (0.38981) (1.32994) (0.66745) (0.34096) $1000$ 1.00027 0.00511 1.02289 1.14585 0.00100 0.99060 (1.87405) (0.66863) (0.39364) (1.06556) (0.66538) (0.34668) $\underline{ \lambda=2.0, \quad \mu=0.0\quad \text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0}$ $100$ 2.46275 -0.00678 1.04992 2.02837 -0.00339 1.05890 (8.67409) (1.66999) (0.80539) (4.75657) (1.66939) (0.74710) $500$ 2.28215 -0.00509 1.07334 2.10954 -0.00261 1.01838 (8.09059) (1.68661) (0.76915) (3.48636) (1.67472) (0.69420) $1000$ 2.23503 -0.00410 1.07847 2.27558 -0.00020 0.98418 (7.93255) (1.68785) (0.76165) (3.55280) (1.67065) (0.67192)
 $n$ $\widehat{\lambda}$ $\widehat{\mu}$ $\widehat{\sigma^2}$ $\widehat{\lambda}_\text{ML}$ $\widehat{\mu}_{\text{ML}}$ $\widehat{\sigma^2}_{\text{ML}}$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\lambda})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\mu})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\sigma^2})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\lambda}_{\text{ML}})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\mu}_{\text{ML}})$ $\text{MSE}(\widehat{\sigma^2}_{\text{ML}})$ $\underline{ \lambda=0.5, \quad \mu=0.0 \quad\text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0 }$ $100$ 0.52180 -0.00120 0.98868 0.30940 -0.00031 1.04032 (0.32178) (0.43337) (0.40898) (0.37080) (0.43669) (0.46791) $500$ 0.48627 0.00517 0.98751 0.51697 -0.00215 0.99796 (0.30808) (0.42401) (0.41713) (0.28531) (0.42028) (0.42127) $1000$ 0.49767 0.00086 0.98671 0.51001 0.00007 0.99977 (0.30462) (0.42893) (0.41342) (0.23593) (0.41714) (0.41957) $\underline{ \lambda=1.0, \quad \mu=0.0 \quad \text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0}$ $100$ 1.29115 0.00151 0.98319 1.13192 0.00392 0.99745 (2.74401) (0.67237) (0.37800) (1.91113) (0.67445) (0.38453) $500$ 1.04780 0.00364 1.01459 1.21035 -0.00048 0.98445 (2.00933) (0.68142) (0.38981) (1.32994) (0.66745) (0.34096) $1000$ 1.00027 0.00511 1.02289 1.14585 0.00100 0.99060 (1.87405) (0.66863) (0.39364) (1.06556) (0.66538) (0.34668) $\underline{ \lambda=2.0, \quad \mu=0.0\quad \text{ and } \quad \sigma^2=1.0}$ $100$ 2.46275 -0.00678 1.04992 2.02837 -0.00339 1.05890 (8.67409) (1.66999) (0.80539) (4.75657) (1.66939) (0.74710) $500$ 2.28215 -0.00509 1.07334 2.10954 -0.00261 1.01838 (8.09059) (1.68661) (0.76915) (3.48636) (1.67472) (0.69420) $1000$ 2.23503 -0.00410 1.07847 2.27558 -0.00020 0.98418 (7.93255) (1.68785) (0.76165) (3.55280) (1.67065) (0.67192)
Descriptive analysis of real intensity data (CV, $K$ and $S$ represent sample coefficient of variation, kurtosis and skewness, respectively)
 Mean Median CV % K S Size 0.0026170 0.0031120 69.24582 10.79774 2.221156 1248
 Mean Median CV % K S Size 0.0026170 0.0031120 69.24582 10.79774 2.221156 1248
ML estimates for the $\operatorname{CTPN}(\lambda, \mu, \sigma)$, $\operatorname{BGN}(s, \mu, \sigma, \alpha, \beta)$, $\operatorname{GBGL}(\lambda, a, b, c)$, $\mathcal{G}^0(\alpha, \gamma, L)$ and $\mathcal{K}(\alpha, \lambda, L)$ distributions. Standard errors are in parenthesis
 Model Estimated Parameters BGN 0.928 $0.112 \times 10^{-2}$ $0.036 \times 10^{-2}$ 1.945 0.224 ($2.158 \times 10^{-4}$) ($1.455 \times 10^{-5}$) ($3.109\times 10^{-6}$) (0.077) ($6.617 \times 10^{-3}$) GBGL 9.802 28.242 41.872 0.242 $\bullet$ (0.755) (0.160) (0.204) ($0.559 \times 10^{-2}$) $\bullet$ CTPN 1.576 $0.149 \times 10^{-2}$ $0.034 \times 10^{-2}$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.107) ($1.151 \times 10^{-2}$) ($1.661 \times 10^{-3}$) $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\mathcal{G}^0$ -4.210 0.010 11.818 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.186) (0.007) (4.443) $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\mathcal{K}$ 0.959 192.416 12.567 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.049) (21.964) (0.828) $\bullet$ $\bullet$
 Model Estimated Parameters BGN 0.928 $0.112 \times 10^{-2}$ $0.036 \times 10^{-2}$ 1.945 0.224 ($2.158 \times 10^{-4}$) ($1.455 \times 10^{-5}$) ($3.109\times 10^{-6}$) (0.077) ($6.617 \times 10^{-3}$) GBGL 9.802 28.242 41.872 0.242 $\bullet$ (0.755) (0.160) (0.204) ($0.559 \times 10^{-2}$) $\bullet$ CTPN 1.576 $0.149 \times 10^{-2}$ $0.034 \times 10^{-2}$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.107) ($1.151 \times 10^{-2}$) ($1.661 \times 10^{-3}$) $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\mathcal{G}^0$ -4.210 0.010 11.818 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.186) (0.007) (4.443) $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\mathcal{K}$ 0.959 192.416 12.567 $\bullet$ $\bullet$ (0.049) (21.964) (0.828) $\bullet$ $\bullet$
Goodness-of-fit measures for the fitted CTPN, BGN, GBGL, $\mathcal{G}^0$ and $\mathcal{K}$ models on EMISAR real data
 Goodness-of-fit measures Performance for different models CTPN BGN $\mathcal{G}^0$ $\mathcal{K}$ GBGL $\text{d}_\text{KS}$ 0.039778 0.065079 0.072632 0.21423 0.079914 $\text{p-value}_\text{KS}$ 0.03853 $5.12 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.8 \times 10^{-6}$ $< 2.2 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.4 \times 10^{-7}$ $\text{W}^*$ 0.5869176 0.8601945 1.600842 1.961929 1.692876 $\text{A}^*$ 4.6622426 4.6381167 9.733052 14.299778 12.226518 $\text{AIC}$ -12675.79 -12726.81 -12646.98 -11635.48 -12557.52 $\text{AIC}_c$ -12675.77 -12726.76 -12646.96 -12675.77 -12557.49 $\text{BIC}$ -12660.41 -12701.16 -12631.59 -12660.41 -12537.01
 Goodness-of-fit measures Performance for different models CTPN BGN $\mathcal{G}^0$ $\mathcal{K}$ GBGL $\text{d}_\text{KS}$ 0.039778 0.065079 0.072632 0.21423 0.079914 $\text{p-value}_\text{KS}$ 0.03853 $5.12 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.8 \times 10^{-6}$ $< 2.2 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.4 \times 10^{-7}$ $\text{W}^*$ 0.5869176 0.8601945 1.600842 1.961929 1.692876 $\text{A}^*$ 4.6622426 4.6381167 9.733052 14.299778 12.226518 $\text{AIC}$ -12675.79 -12726.81 -12646.98 -11635.48 -12557.52 $\text{AIC}_c$ -12675.77 -12726.76 -12646.96 -12675.77 -12557.49 $\text{BIC}$ -12660.41 -12701.16 -12631.59 -12660.41 -12537.01
 [1] Fairouz Tchier. Nondeterministic semantics of compound diagrams. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2015, 8 (6) : 1357-1371. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2015.8.1357 [2] Said Hadd, Rosanna Manzo, Abdelaziz Rhandi. Unbounded perturbations of the generator domain. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2015, 35 (2) : 703-723. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.703 [3] Marcela Mejía, J. Urías. An asymptotically perfect pseudorandom generator. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2001, 7 (1) : 115-126. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2001.7.115 [4] I-Lin Wang, Ju-Chun Lin. A compaction scheme and generator for distribution networks. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (1) : 117-140. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.117 [5] Axel Heim, Vladimir Sidorenko, Uli Sorger. Computation of distributions and their moments in the trellis. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2008, 2 (4) : 373-391. doi: 10.3934/amc.2008.2.373 [6] Zhimin Zhang, Yang Yang, Chaolin Liu. On a perturbed compound Poisson model with varying premium rates. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 721-736. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016043 [7] Sara D. Cardell, Amparo Fúster-Sabater. Modelling the shrinking generator in terms of linear CA. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2016, 10 (4) : 797-809. doi: 10.3934/amc.2016041 [8] Raluca Felea, Romina Gaburro, Allan Greenleaf, Clifford Nolan. Microlocal analysis of Doppler synthetic aperture radar. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (6) : 1283-1307. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019056 [9] Paulina Ávila-Torres, Fernando López-Irarragorri, Rafael Caballero, Yasmín Ríos-Solís. The multimodal and multiperiod urban transportation integrated timetable construction problem with demand uncertainty. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (2) : 447-472. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017055 [10] Angel Angelov, Marcus Wagner. Multimodal image registration by elastic matching of edge sketches via optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (2) : 567-590. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.567 [11] Mikko Kaasalainen. Multimodal inverse problems: Maximum compatibility estimate and shape reconstruction. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (1) : 37-57. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.37 [12] José M. Amigó, Ángel Giménez. Formulas for the topological entropy of multimodal maps based on min-max symbols. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (10) : 3415-3434. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.3415 [13] Emmanuel Gobet, Mohamed Mrad. Convergence rate of strong approximations of compound random maps, application to SPDEs. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (10) : 4455-4476. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018171 [14] Linlin Tian, Xiaoyi Zhang, Yizhou Bai. Optimal dividend of compound poisson process under a stochastic interest rate. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-17. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019047 [15] Thomas Hillen, Kevin J. Painter, Amanda C. Swan, Albert D. Murtha. Moments of von mises and fisher distributions and applications. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (3) : 673-694. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017038 [16] Yves Bourgault, Damien Broizat, Pierre-Emmanuel Jabin. Convergence rate for the method of moments with linear closure relations. Kinetic & Related Models, 2015, 8 (1) : 1-27. doi: 10.3934/krm.2015.8.1 [17] Thomas Chen, Ryan Denlinger, Nataša Pavlović. Moments and regularity for a Boltzmann equation via Wigner transform. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2019, 39 (9) : 4979-5015. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2019204 [18] Venkateswaran P. Krishnan, Eric Todd Quinto. Microlocal aspects of common offset synthetic aperture radar imaging. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2011, 5 (3) : 659-674. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.659 [19] Lassi Roininen, Markku S. Lehtinen, Petteri Piiroinen, Ilkka I. Virtanen. Perfect radar pulse compression via unimodular fourier multipliers. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2014, 8 (3) : 831-844. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2014.8.831 [20] George Avalos. Strong stability of PDE semigroups via a generator resolvent criterion. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2008, 1 (2) : 207-218. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2008.1.207

2018 Impact Factor: 1.469