Codex @codex  0

Equip $S$ with a sigma-algebra $\mathcal{S}$. A Poisson random measure with intensity measure of a point process $\mu$ is a random counting measure $\Pi$ such that, for every measurable $A$ with $\mu (A)<\infty$,and the counts on every finite collection of pairwise disjoint measurable sets are independent. Thus $\mathbb{E}\Pi (A)=\mu (A)$. For a sigma-finite measure $\mu$, sets of infinite intensity contain infinitely many points almost surely: exhaust such a set by increasing finite-intensity sets and use the Poisson count tails as their means tend to infinity. The count is a measurable random variable for every measurable $A$, which is part of saying that $\Pi$ is a random measure.

Under the usual point representation write $\Pi ={\sum }_j{\delta }_{Z_j}$, counting multiplicities. If $\mu$ is a non-atomic measure, this is a simple Poisson point process; if $\mu$ has atoms, several point occurrences can have the same location, and each occurrence is counted separately. In a topological setting, local finiteness requires that the intensity be finite on compact sets.

Sufficient existence conditions are that $S$ is a standard Borel space and $\mu$ is a sigma-finite measure. This gives existence of a Poisson random measure on a standard Borel space. If a simple locally finite configuration is desired, additionally take a non-atomic, locally finite intensity on a locally compact second-countable Hausdorff space. These conditions are sufficient, not claimed necessary. In particular sigma-finiteness suffices for a countable family of occurrences that can each be independently coloured.

Let $R$ and $G$ be the red and green counting measures. The marking assumption means that, conditional on $\Pi$, the colours of all point occurrences are independent, with the same red probability $r$. For a measurable set $A$ of finite intensity $m=\mu (A)$, condition on its total count. To obtain $a$ red and $b$ green points the total must be $a+b$, so direct multiplication gives the joint red and green Poisson count formulaThus the two counts are independent Poisson variables with respective means $rm$ and $(1-r)m$. This computation includes zero intensity with the usual convention for the probability of zero counts.

For disjoint finite-intensity sets $A_1,\dots ,A_k$, the original counts are independent. Conditional marking in different sets uses disjoint collections of independent colours. Repeating the preceding calculation therefore givesThis proves the disjoint-count definition for each coloured Poisson point process and independence of their two count vectors.

To obtain independence of the whole processes, take any finite list of red test sets and any finite list of green test sets, initially all of finite intensity. Refine their union into the disjoint cells given by their membership patterns. Every test-set count is the sum of the counts of its cells. The entire red cell vector is independent of the entire green cell vector by the product formula, hence so are the corresponding test-set count vectors. For arbitrary measurable test sets, intersect first with a finite-intensity exhaustion of $S$ and pass to the increasing count limits. The count cylinder events generate the two evaluation sigma-algebras, and independence extended from generating pi-systems gives independence of those sigma-algebras. ConsequentlyThis is a direct count proof of the Poisson thinning theorem; no general marking or thinning result has been used to deduce it.

Poisson thinning splits a Poisson process by independently marking each arrival as retained or rejected. Let the original Homogeneous Poisson process have rate $\lambda >0$, and let $p(s)\in [0,1]$ be a deterministic measurable function of time. Attach independent uniform distributions $U_1,U_2,\dots$ on $(0,1)$, independent of the entire original Poisson process. At arrival time $T_i$, retain the arrival if $U_i\le p(T_i)$. Given all arrival times, these decisions are independent and have the specified retention probabilities. Define the two counting processes using an indicator function:The Poisson thinning theorem gives independent retained and rejected Inhomogeneous Poisson processes. Their rates are $\lambda p(s)$ and $\lambda (1-p(s))$, respectively, in the sense of the intensity function of a point process. In particular, for $0\le a<b$,The independence is of the two whole processes: every finite collection of retained counts is independent of every finite collection of rejected counts. It is not merely zero covariance for one interval. For constant $p$, the streams are Homogeneous Poisson processes of rates $\lambda p$ and $\lambda (1-p)$; the endpoints $p=0,1$ include the identically zero stream.^[ref]

For an exact toy calculation, take $\lambda =2$ per minute and retain with $p(s)=1/4$ on $(0,2]$ and $p(s)=3/4$ on $(2,4]$. In the first two minutes, the retained and rejected expected values are $2\cdot 2\cdot 1/4=1$ and $2\cdot 2\cdot 3/4=3$. In the next two minutes they are $3$ and $1$. Over all four minutes, $R_4,D_4$ are independent Poisson distributions with mean $4$ each, and their sum $N_4$ has mean $8$. ThusThese probabilities and expected values describe the model, not empirical measurements. In the diagram, the original nine synthetic arrivals split into five retained and four rejected arrivals; those realized counts need not equal their expected values.

The mechanism explains why mutually exclusive labels can yield independent counts: randomness of the original total offsets the dependence from allocating a fixed total. For constant $p$ and an interval with original mean $m$, the conditional retained count has a binomial distribution given $N=n$. The joint probability generating function isThis factorization proves the two independent Poisson distributions; disjoint original intervals give independent pairs. For varying $p(s)$, the Independent marking theorem for Poisson point processes gives the same conclusion with the two integrated intensities. The joint red and green Poisson count formula gives the corresponding direct calculation with probability mass functions.

Independence here is unconditional. After conditioning on $N=n$, the identity $D=n-R$ gives covariance $\mathrm{Cov}(R,D\mid N=n)=-np(1-p)$ for constant $p$. Thus the retained and rejected counts are dependent for $n>0$ and $0<p<1$, even though their unconditional covariance is zero. Poisson thinning can model independent routing of arrivals, or independent detection of arrivals with a known efficiency schedule; using only a retention fraction without checking the marking mechanism can give a wrong count law.