Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80 (2003) 75–79

www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

Uncertainty in counts and operating time in estimating Poisson

occurrence rates
Harry F. Martz*, Michael S. Hamada
Group D-1, MS F600, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
Received 14 October 2002; accepted 19 November 2002

Abstract
When quantifying a plant-specific Poisson event occurrence rate l in PRA studies, it is sometimes the case that either the reported plant-
specific number of events x or the operating time t (or both) are uncertain. We present a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method that can
be used to obtain the required average posterior distribution of l which reflects the corresponding uncertainty in x and/or t. The method
improves upon existing methods and is also easy to implement using hierarchical Bayesian software that is freely available from the Web.
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Poisson rate; Data uncertainties; Bayesian; Markov chain Monte Carlo

1. Introduction consider this same approach when estimating a binomial

In many reliability or risk-based studies, we are
interested in quantifying state-of-knowledge uncertainties
in a plant-specific Poisson event occurrence rate l per unit
time. The corresponding Poisson plant-specific data consist
of observing x events (such as failures) in total operating (or
exposure) time t. In the most general case, in addition to
uncertainty about l, we may also be uncertain about the
plant-specific data themselves; that is, the values of x and/or
t. For example, Wierman et al. [1,2] state that “for the
reactor protection system (RPS) data, however, the number
of events itself was difficult to determine from the often-
vague Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS)
failure reports”. For the RPS considered by Wierman
et al.[1,2], it was sometimes unclear from the failure reports
whether the safety function was lost or whether the failure
reported represented a total loss of function for the
component.
Following earlier work by Siu and Apostolakis [3], Siu
[4], and Mosleh [5], Martz and Picard [6] presented a suite
of Bayesian methods for estimating l that account for
uncertainties in all three combinations of x and/or t. Atwood
and Gentillon [7] and Martz, Kvam and Atwood [8] likewise
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hfm@lanl.gov (H.F. Martz), hamada@lanl.gov
(M.S. Hamada).
probability in the presence of uncertainty about x and/or n.
Basically, Martz and Picard [6] (as well as the others) assign
a subjective probability for every possible scenario regard-
ing the uncertain data, analyze and obtain a posterior
distribution of l for each scenario, and then weight these
individual posteriors to obtain a combined average
(expected) posterior distribution.
In this paper we propose using a full Bayesian treatment
[9]. When t is certain, this approach yields the average
posterior distribution of Martz and Picard [6]. When t is
uncertain, the full Bayesian approach updates both l and t
(i.e. yielding the joint posterior distribution for l and t) and
gives an average marginal posterior distribution for l.
The full Bayesian treatment is easily implemented using
free software available from the Web and has a number of
advantages. Tedious numerical approximations required by
the previous methods cited earlier are no longer needed.
Thus, the proposed approach is exact up to a controllable
Monte Carlo simulation error. Moreover, we no longer have
to restrict our consideration to a conjugate gamma prior
distribution on l which makes the proposed approach
significantly more versatile in practice. Finally, when t is
uncertain, the full Bayesian treatment also provides
improved information about t.
Suppose that we express our uncertainty about x by
means of the discrete distribution {½xi ; Pðxi Þ; i ¼

0951-8320/03/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 2 0 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 7 - 3
76 H.F. Martz, M.S. Hamada / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80 (2003) 75–79

1; 2; …; m}; where m is the total number of possible values Table 1

that x can assume, and Pðxi Þ is the probability that x ¼ xi : WinBUGS source code for calculating the marginal posterior distribution
on l for Plant A using a gamma prior on l when t is uncertain
Further, we independently express our uncertainty about t
by means of the probability density function gðtÞ: In the Model
most general case, the average marginal posterior distri- Model
bution of l with respect to Pð·Þ and gð·Þ is given by {
" ! # mu , 2lambda*t
Xm ð
Poissonðxi ll;tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞ x , dpois(mu)
p
ðlÞ ¼ ÐÐ dt Pðxi Þ; lambda , dgamma(a,b)
i¼1
Poissonðxi ll;tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞdl dt t , dlnorm(psi, tau)I(,6)
ð1Þ }
Data
where Poissonðxi ll;tÞ denotes a Poisson probability distri- list(
bution of xi conditional on l and t, and pðl; uÞ is the prior a ¼ 4.67,
b ¼ 4.78,
distribution of l in which u denotes the prior distribution
x ¼ 7,
hyperparameters. For example, in the case of a gamma prior psi ¼ 1.327,
distribution, u ¼ ða;bÞ where a and b are the gamma tau ¼ 16.525
shape and scale parameters, respectively. Note that the )
term inside the large parentheses in Eq. (1) is the joint Inits
list()
posterior distribution of l and t given xi : The integral inside
the large square brackets in Eq. (1) is thus the marginal
posterior distribution of l given xi ; while the outer
summation is the desired weighted average marginal worked examples. The documentation is very thorough and
posterior distribution of l. well written. WinBUGS uses the modern statistical
Contrast Eq. (1) with Martz and Picard’s [6] average technique known as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
posterior distribution of l which has the following form simulation to numerically produce the required marginal
" ! # posterior distribution of l as well as the marginal posterior
Xm ð Poissonðxi ll; tÞpðl; uÞ
p
ðlÞ ¼ Ð gðtÞdt Pðxi Þ: distribution of t [11].
Poissonðxi ll; tÞpðl; uÞdl
i¼1 Consider the same example used in Martz and Picard [6]
ð2Þ and first considered by Engelhardt [12]. The example
The difference between Eqs. (1) and (2) is that in Eq. (1) t involves failure data from a 1993 study concerning the high
has been updated while in Eq. (2) t has not. pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system in commercial
In Section 2 we consider uncertainty in t when x is nuclear power boiling water reactors (BWRs). We are
precisely known, while the opposite case is considered in interested in estimating the rate of occurrence l of events
Section 3. In Section 4 we consider the most general case of per reactor year which were either actual failures of the
simultaneous uncertainty in both x and t. In order to HPCI system to start on demand or would result in a HPCI
compare results, we will illustrate these cases using the system (or some portion of it) failure to start on demand,
same examples considered by Martz and Picard [6]. such as a valve which was inadvertently closed. The data
consist of the number of such events in a given operating
time during the years 1987– 1992 for each of 23 BWRs
2. Uncertainty in the total operating time having HPCI systems.
Suppose we consider Plant A in which x ¼ 7 failure
We first assume that t is uncertain while x is precisely events were reported in t ¼ 3.77 reactor years of operation.
known. This is equivalent to using a distribution PðxÞ in Eq. Further suppose that, for Plant A, x ¼ 7 is precisely known
(1) that places all of its mass on the known value of x. In this while the operating time t is uncertain. Because of the six-
case, Eq. (1) becomes year calendar time period of the data, the support of gðtÞ
! cannot exceed 6 years. We now consider an appropriately
ð Poissonðxll; tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞ
p
ðlÞ ¼ ÐÐ dt: ð3Þ truncated lognormal distribution for gðtÞ with median 3.77
Poissonðxll; tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞdl dt
Table 2
We now use a standard hierarchical Bayesian statistical
Results in executing the WinBUGS source code in Table 1 with a gamma
approach for calculating Eq. (3). We use the existing prior on l
Microsoft Windows-based software package WinBUGS
[10] that is available for free download from the Web at Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95%
URL http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/. WinBUGS is
lambda 1.32 0.41 0.74 1.27 2.08
extremely easy to learn and use and, along with a
t 4.12 0.82 2.82 4.08 5.55
comprehensive user’s manual, includes two volumes of
 H.F. Martz, M.S. Hamada / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80 (2003) 75–79 77

Table 3 all calculated based on 10,000 MCMC draws and a 500-

Results in executing the modified WinBUGS source code in Table 1 with a draw burn-in.
lognormal prior on l
The results for l in Table 2 closely agree with those of
Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95% Martz and Picard [6]. As a consequence of the strong priors
on both l and t, the marginal posterior distribution on t is
lambda 1.30 0.43 0.72 1.24 2.09 shifted somewhat to the right of the lognormal prior on t.
t 4.15 0.83 2.84 4.10 5.59 Now consider a lognormal prior on l obtained by
matching the gamma prior mean and variance with all else
remaining the same. As stated in Section 1, a nonconjugate
and error factor of 1.5; thus, a Lognormalðt; 1:327; 0:246Þ prior such as this cannot be handled by the Martz and Picard
distribution with support ð0; 6Þ: [6] method. However, to address this case here, the
First consider a conjugate gamma prior distribution on l. WinBUGS source code in Table 1 must be only slightly
Engelhardt [12] uses the data from the 23 plants to fit a modified: the statement ‘lambda , dgamma(a,b)’ is now
Gammaðl; 4:67; 4:78Þ prior distribution on l. Note that the replaced by ‘lambda , dlnorm(a,b)’; ‘a ¼ 4.67’ is replaced
mean and standard deviation of this prior are 0.98 and 0.45 by ‘a ¼ 2 0.120’; and ‘b ¼ 4.78’ must be replaced by
events per reactor-year, respectively. For this gamma prior, ‘b ¼ 5.154’. The corresponding results are shown in Table 3.
Table 1 gives the WinBUGS source code for use in Note that the marginal posterior results in Table 3 are
calculating the average posterior distribution of l in Eq. (3) essentially the same as those in Table 2. This indicates the
for Plant A as well as the posterior distribution on t. Note relative insensitivity to the choice between a gamma and a
that, following the WinBUGS lognormal parameterization, lognormal prior on l for this example.
the parameter tau ¼ 1=ð0:246Þ2 :
The output obtained by executing the WinBUGS source
code in Table 1 is shown in Table 2. The data in Table 2 3. Uncertainty in the number of event occurrences
summarize the marginal average posterior distribution of l
for Plant A as well as the corresponding marginal posterior Suppose now that we have uncertainty in the number of
distribution of t. The moments and quantiles in Table 2 were Poisson events x but where the operating time t is precisely
known. In this case, Eq. (1) becomes
" #
Xm
Poissonðxi ll; tÞpðl; uÞ
p
ðlÞ ¼ Ð Pðxi Þ: ð4Þ
i¼1
Poissonðxi ll; tÞpðl; uÞdl
Table 4
WinBUGS source code for calculating the average posterior distribution on
l for Plant A using a gamma prior on l when x is uncertain Again consider the Martz and Picard [6] HPCI system
example for Plant A in which t ¼ 3.77 is precisely known
Model but where we are not sure whether x is 5, 6 or 7. In this
Model
{
example, m ¼ 3 and PðxÞ is given by
mu[1] , 2lambda[1]*t
mu[2] , 2lambda[2]*t Pðx ¼ 5Þ ¼ 0:03; Pðx ¼ 6Þ ¼ 0:34;
mu[3] , 2lambda[3]*t ð5Þ
x[1] , dpois(mu[1]) Pðx ¼ 7Þ ¼ 0:63:
x[2] , dpois(mu[2])
x[3] , dpois(mu[3]) For a Gammaðl; 4:67; 4:78Þ prior distribution on l, Table 4
lambda[1] , dgamma(a,b) gives the WinBUGS source code for use in calculating the
lambda[2] , dgamma(a,b)
average posterior distribution of l in Eq. (4).
lambda[3] , dgamma(a,b)
u , dunif(0,1) The average posterior distribution of l obtained by
avgposterior , 2 step(Px[1] 2 u)*lambda[1] þ executing the WinBUGS source code in Table 4 is shown in
step(u 2 Px[1])*step(Px[1] þ Px[2] 2 u)*lambda[2] þ Table 5. The individual posterior distributions of l (in this
step(u 2 Px[1] 2 Px[2])*lambda[3]
}
Data Table 5
list( Results in executing the WinBUGS source code in Table 4 with a gamma
t ¼ 3.77, prior on l
a ¼ 4.67,
b ¼ 4.78, Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95%
x ¼ c(5,6,7),
Px ¼ c(.03,.34,.63) avgposterior 1.32 0.39 0.74 1.28 2.01
) lambda[1] 1.13 0.36 0.61 1.09 1.79
Inits lambda[2] 1.26 0.39 0.70 1.22 1.95
list() lambda[3] 1.36 0.40 0.79 1.32 2.08
78 H.F. Martz, M.S. Hamada / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80 (2003) 75–79

Table 6 Table 7
Results in executing the modified WinBUGS source code in Table 4 with a WinBUGS source code for calculating the average marginal posterior
lognormal prior on l distribution on l for Plant A using a gamma prior on l when both x and t are
uncertain
Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95%
Model
avgposterior 1.30 0.42 0.72 1.24 2.07 Model
lambda[1] 1.10 0.36 0.60 1.05 1.77 {
lambda[2] 1.22 0.39 0.68 1.16 1.95 mu[1] , 2lambda[1]*t[1]
lambda[3] 1.35 0.43 0.76 1.30 2.15 mu[2] , 2lambda[2]*t[2]
mu[3] , 2lambda[3]*t[3]
x[1] , dpois(mu[1])
x[2] , dpois(mu[2])
case, they are gamma distributions) for the three values of x x[3] , dpois(mu[3])
are also summarized in Table 5. lambda[1] , dgamma(a,b)
lambda[2] , dgamma(a,b)
The results agree with the average posterior distribution lambda[3] , dgamma(a,b)
in Martz and Picard [6] obtained using numerical t[1] , dlnorm(psi,tau)I(,6)
integration. t[2] , dlnorm(psi,tau)I(,6)
Now consider the same Lognormalðl; 20:120; 0:440Þ t[3] , dlnorm(psi,tau)I(,6)
prior distribution used before. In this case, the WinBUGS u , dunif(0,1)
avg_lambda , 2 step(Px[1] 2 u)*lambda[1] þ
source code in Table 4 is modified exactly the same as step(u 2 Px[1])*step(Px[1] þ Px[2] 2 u)*lambda[2] þ
described in Section 2, and the corresponding results are step(u 2 Px[1] 2 Px[2])*lambda[3]
shown in Table 6. avg_t , 2 step(Px[1] 2 u)*t[1] þ
Upon comparing Tables 5 and 6 we see that the average step(u 2 Px[1])*step(Px[1] þ Px[2] 2 u)*t[2] þ
posterior is slightly more diffuse in the case of a lognormal step(u 2 Px[1] 2 Px[2])*t[3]
}
prior on l. Data
list(
a ¼ 4.67,
4. Uncertainty in both the number of event occurrences b ¼ 4.78,
and the total operating time psi ¼ 1.327075
tau ¼ 16.459810
x ¼ c(5,6,7),
We now consider the case in which both x and t are Px ¼ c(.03,.34,.63)
uncertain and again consider the HPCI system example. As )
in Section 2, we express our uncertainty about t in the form Inits
of a truncated Lognormalðt; 1:327; 0:246Þ distribution with list()
support ð0; 6Þ and our uncertainty about x using PðxÞ in Eq.
(5). In the case, Eq. (1) becomes and Picard [6]. We observe that the average marginal
posterior in Table 8 is both shifted slightly to the left and is
p
ðlÞ
2 0 1 3 slightly less diffuse than the average posterior obtained by
3 6ð6 B C 7 Martz and Picard [6] using numerical integration. One
X 6 B Poissonðxi ll;tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞ C 7
¼ 6 B ð6 ð1 Cdt7Pðxi Þ; reason for this is our use of a truncated lognormal
4 0@ A 5 uncertainty distribution for t that is less skewed to the
i¼1 Poissonðxi ll;tÞpðl; uÞgðtÞdl dt
0 0 right and less diffuse than the standard lognormal distri-
ð6Þ bution originally considered by Martz and Picard [6].

where gðtÞ denotes the above truncated lognormal distri-

Table 8
bution on t.
Results in executing the WinBUGS source code in Table 7 with a gamma
For a Gammaðl; 4:67; 4:78Þ prior distribution on l, Table prior on l
7 gives the WinBUGS source code for use in calculating the
average marginal posterior distribution of l in Eq. (6). Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95%
Table 8 contains the summary moments and quantiles for
avg_lambda 1.28 0.41 0.70 1.23 2.03
the average marginal posterior distribution on l in Eq. (6),
lambda[1] 1.11 0.38 0.59 1.07 1.80
the individual posteriors on l and t corresponding to the lambda[2] 1.22 0.39 0.66 1.18 1.94
three values of x, as well as the average marginal posterior lambda[3] 1.32 0.41 0.73 1.27 2.06
distribution on t obtained by executing the WinBUGS avg_t 4.08 0.81 2.81 4.04 5.53
source code in Table 7. t[1] 3.94 0.01 2.67 3.88 5.42
t[2] 4.04 0.01 2.78 4.00 5.44
We can compare the average marginal posterior results in
t[3] 4.13 0.01 2.83 4.10 5.56
Table 8 with the corresponding results in Table 3 of Martz
 H.F. Martz, M.S. Hamada / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80 (2003) 75–79 79

Table 9 MCMC posterior draws (10,000 here) can be output to a file

Results in executing the modified WinBUGS source code in Table 7 with a for use in other uncertainty propagation analyses.
lognormal prior on l
Finally, this method can easily be implemented using
Node Mean Std dev 5% Median 95% existing hierarchical Bayesian software that is freely
available for Web download.
avg_lambda 1.26 0.43 0.68 1.19 2.08
lambda[1] 1.10 0.38 0.58 1.04 1.80
lambda[2] 1.19 0.41 0.64 1.13 1.96
References
lambda[3] 1.31 0.44 0.72 1.24 2.12
avg_t 4.11 0.83 2.81 4.06 5.55
t[1] 3.94 0.82 2.67 3.88 5.40 [1] Wierman TE, Beck ST, Calley MB, Eide SA, Gentillon CD, Kohn
t[2] 4.05 0.83 2.76 4.01 5.52 WE. Reliability study: combustion engineering reactor protection
t[3] 4.14 0.82 2.84 4.12 5.57 system, 1984–1998. NUREG/CR-5500, vol. 10 (INEL/EXT-97-
00740), INEEL; 2002.
[2] Wierman TE, Beck ST, Calley MB, Eide SA, Gentillon CD, Kohn
Suppose we now consider a Lognormalðl; 20:120; 0:440Þ WE. Reliability study: Babcock and Wilcox reactor protection
prior distribution on l. As before, the WinBUGS source code system, 1984–1998. NUREG/CR-5500, vol. 11 (INEL/EXT-97-
in Table 7 is modified exactly the same as before, and the 00740), INEEL; 2002.
[3] Siu N, Apostolakis G. Modeling the detection rates of fires in nuclear
results are shown in Table 9. power plants: development and application of a methodology for
Upon comparing Tables 8 and 9, in this case we see that treating imprecise evidence. Risk Anal 1986;6:43–59.
the average marginal posterior of l is insensitive to the [4] Siu N. A Monte Carlo method for multiple parameter estimation in the
choice of either a gamma or lognormal prior on l. presence of uncertain data. Reliab Engng Syst Safety 1990;28:59– 98.
[5] Mosleh A. Hidden sources of uncertainty: judgment in the collection
and analysis of data. Nucl Engng Des 1986;93:187 –98.
[6] Martz HF, Picard RR. Uncertainty in Poisson event counts and
5. Conclusions exposure time in rate estimation. Reliab Engng Syst Safety 1995;48:
181–90.
[7] Atwood CL, Gentillon CD. Bayesian treatment of uncertainty in
We have presented a new method which can be used to classifying data: two case studies. Proceedings of the ESREL ’96/
quantify the effect of uncertainty in the operating time t PSAM-III International Conference on Probability Safety Assessment
and/or the number of event occurrences x when estimating and Management; 1996.
the event occurrence rate in a Poisson sampling model. This [8] Martz HF, Kvam PH, Atwood CL. Uncertainty in binomial failures
and demands with applications to reliability. Int J Reliab, Quality,
new method has several advantages over the existing Safety Engng 1996;3:43–57.
methods of Martz and Picard [6]. Nonconjugate prior [9] Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis.
distributions (such as a lognormal) can easily be accom- London: Chapman & Hall; 1995.
modated. Various moment approximation methods and [10] Gilks WR, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter DJ. A language and program for
distributional choices, such as the necessity to identify a complex Bayesian modeling. The Statistician 1994;43:169–78.
[11] Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov chain Monte
family for the desired average posterior distribution, are Carlo in practice. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996.
completely avoided. For example, a truncated uncertainty [12] Engelhardt ME. Events in time: basic analysis of Poisson data. EGG-
distribution for t can now be considered. In addition, the RAAM-11088, INEL; 1994.