DOCSLIB.ORG

Deep Learning for Channel Coding Via Neural Mutual Information Estimation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deep Learning for Channel Coding Via Neural Mutual Information Estimation Deep Learning for Channel Coding via Neural Mutual Information Estimation Rick Fritschek∗, Rafael F. Schaefery, and Gerhard Wunder∗ ∗ Heisenberg Communications and Information Theory Group y Information Theory and Applications Chair Freie Universität Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin Takustr. 9, 14195 Berlin, Germany Einsteinufer 25, 10587 Berlin, Germany Email: {rick.fritschek, g.wunder}@fu-berlin.de Email: [email protected] Abstract—End-to-end deep learning for communication sys- to this general model and subsequently fine-tune the receiver, tems, i.e., systems whose encoder and decoder are learned, has i.e., the weights of the decoding part of the NN, based on the attracted significant interest recently, due to its performance actual received signals. This approach was implemented in [2]. which comes close to well-developed classical encoder-decoder designs. However, one of the drawbacks of current learning Another approach is to use generative adversarial networks approaches is that a differentiable channel model is needed for (GANs), which was introduced in [3]. GANs are composed of the training of the underlying neural networks. In real-world two competing neural networks, i.e., a generative NN and a scenarios, such a channel model is hardly available and often the discriminative NN. Here, the generative NN tries to transform channel density is not even known at all. Some works, therefore, a uniform input to the real data distribution, whereas the focus on a generative approach, i.e., generating the channel from samples, or rely on reinforcement learning to circumvent discriminative NN compares the samples of the real distribution this problem. We present a novel approach which utilizes a (from the data) to the fake generated distribution and tries to recently proposed neural estimator of mutual information. We estimate the probability that a sample came from the real use this estimator to optimize the encoder for a maximized mutual data. Therefore, both neural networks are competing against information, only relying on channel samples. Moreover, we show each other. Due to their effectiveness and good performance, that our approach achieves the same performance as state-of-the- art end-to-end learning with perfect channel model knowledge. GANs are a popular and active research direction. In our problem of end-to-end learning for communications, GANs were used in [4], [5] to produce an artificial channel model I. INTRODUCTION which approximates the true channel distribution and can Deep learning based methods for wireless communication is therefore be used for end-to-end training of the encoder and an emerging field whose performance is becoming competitive decoder. The third approach is using reinforcement learning to state-of-the-art techniques that evolved over decades of (RL) and is, therefore, circumventing the problem with the back- research. One of the most prominent recent examples is the propagation itself by using a feedback link [6]. In this approach, end-to-end learning of communication systems utilizing (deep) the transmitter can be seen as an agent which performs actions neural networks (NNs) as encoding and decoding functions in an environment and receives a reward through the feedback with an in-between noise layer that represents the channel link. The transmitter can then be optimized to minimize an [1]. In this configuration, the system resembles the concept arbitrary loss function, connected to the actions, i.e., the of an autoencoder in the field of machine learning, which transmitted signals in our case. This work was subsequently does not compress but adds redundancy to increase reliability. extended towards noisy feedback links in [7]. However, the arXiv:1903.02865v1 [cs.IT] 7 Mar 2019 These encoder-decoder systems can achieve bit error rates drawback of this approach is, that RL is known for its sample which come close to practical baseline techniques if they are inefficiency, meaning that it needs large sample sizes to achieve used for over-the-air transmissions [2]. This is promising since high accuracy. Moreover, both approaches (via RL and GAN) complex encoding and decoding functions can be learned on- still have a dependence on the receiver of the system. As the the-fly without extensive communication-theoretic analysis and GAN approach approximates the channel density as a surrogate design, possibly enabling future communication systems to for the missing channel model, it still needs end-to-end learning better cope with new and changing channel scenarios and use- in the last step. The RL approach, on the other hand, needs cases. However, the previously mentioned approaches have the the feedback of the receiver and therefore also depends on the drawback that they require a known channel model to properly decoder. In this paper, we make progress on this by proposing choose the noise layer within the autoencoder. Moreover, a method that is completely independent of the decoder. This this channel model needs to be differentiable to enable back- circumvents the challenge of a missing channel model. propagation through the whole system to optimize, i.e., learn, Our contribution: From a communication theoretic perspec- the optimal weights of the NN. tive, we know that the optimal transmission rate is a function of One approach is to assume a generic channel model, e.g. the mutual information I(X; Y ) between input X and output a Gaussian model. The idea is then to first learn according Y of a channel p(yjx). For example, the capacity C of an 2 Transmitter Training Receiver Training where the noise Zi is i.i.d. over i with Zi ∼ CN (0; σ ). The receiver uses a decoder g(yn) =m ^ to estimate and recover the n n M X Y M original message. Moreover, the block error rate Pe is defined R C → as the average probability of error over all messages → ˆ C R M arg max Softmax Channel Dense NN Normalize Dense NN jMj Embedding 1 X P = Pr(M^ 6= mjM = m): (3) e jMj Optimize m=1 Optimize Loss Feedback III. NEURAL ESTIMATION OF MUTUAL INFORMATION I˜ Xn Y n Optimize θ( ; ) A straight forward computation and therefore evaluation of the mutual information is difficult due to its dependence on the Fig. 1: The figure shows our channel coding approach. We joint probability density of the underlying random variables. A train an approximation of the mutual information I~ (Xn; Y n) θ fallback solution is therefore a limitation on mutual information between the channel input and output samples (xn; yn), which approximations. The main challenge here is to provide an is used to optimize the neural network of the channel encoder. accurate and stable approximation from low sample sizes. Both are alternatingly trained until convergence. Common approaches are based for example on binning of the probability space [9], [10], k-nearest neighbor statistics [11]– [13], maximum likelihood estimation [14], and variational lower additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel (as properly bounds [15]. We focus on a recently proposed estimator [8], defined in the next section) is given by the maximum of the coined mutual information neural estimation (MINE), which p(x) mutual information over the input distribution under an utilizes the Donsker-Varadhan representation of the Kullback- P average power constraint , i.e., Leibler divergence, which in turn is connected to the mutual P information by C = max I(X; Y ) = log 1 + : (1) 2 2 p(x):E(X )≤P σ Z p(x; y) I(X; Y ) := p(x; y) log dxdy This suggests to use mutual information as a metric to learn the X ×Y p(x)p(y) optimal channel encoding function of AWGN channels as well = DKL(p(x; y)jjp(x)p(y)) as other communication channels. However, the mutual informa- p(x; y) tion also dependents on the channel probability distribution. But = log : Ep(x;y) p(x)p(y) instead of approximating the channel probability distribution itself, we will approximate the mutual information between The Donsker-Varadhan representation can be stated as the samples of the channel input and output and optimize D (P jjQ) = sup [g(X; Y )] − log( [eg(X;Y )]) the encoder weights, by maximizing the mutual information KL EP EQ (4) g:Ω!R between them, see Fig. 1. For that, we utilize a recent NN estimator of the mutual information [8] and integrate it in our where the supremum is taken over all measurable functions communication framework. We are, therefore, independent of g such that the expectation is finite. Now, depending on the the decoder and can reliably train our encoding function using function class, the right hand side of (4) yields a lower bound only channel samples. on the KL-divergence, which is tight for optimal functions. Notation: We stick to the convention of upper case random In [8] Belghazi et al. proposed to choose a neural network, variables X and lower case realizations x, i.e. X ∼ p(x), parametrized with θ 2 Θ as function family Tθ : X × Y ! R where p(x) is the probability mass or density function of X. for the lower bound. This yields the estimator n Moreover, p(x ) is the probability mass or density function I(X; Y ) ≥ sup [T (X; Y )] − log [eTθ (X;Y )]: n Ep(x;y) θ Ep(x)p(y) of the random vector X . We also use jX j to denote the θ2Θ (5) cardinality of a set X . The expectation is denoted by E[·]. Moreover, they show that the above estimator is consistent II. POINT-TO-POINT COMMUNICATION MODEL in the sense that it converges to the true value for increasing We consider a communication model with a transmitter, sample size k. Another closely related estimator is based on a channel, and a receiver.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Measures of Entropy and Information
    On Measures of Entropy and Information Tech. Note 009 v0.7 http://threeplusone.com/info Gavin E. Crooks 2018-09-22 Contents 5 Csiszar´ f-divergences 12 Csiszar´ f-divergence ................ 12 0 Notes on notation and nomenclature 2 Dual f-divergence .................. 12 Symmetric f-divergences .............. 12 1 Entropy 3 K-divergence ..................... 12 Entropy ........................ 3 Fidelity ........................ 12 Joint entropy ..................... 3 Marginal entropy .................. 3 Hellinger discrimination .............. 12 Conditional entropy ................. 3 Pearson divergence ................. 14 Neyman divergence ................. 14 2 Mutual information 3 LeCam discrimination ............... 14 Mutual information ................. 3 Skewed K-divergence ................ 14 Multivariate mutual information ......... 4 Alpha-Jensen-Shannon-entropy .......... 14 Interaction information ............... 5 Conditional mutual information ......... 5 6 Chernoff divergence 14 Binding information ................ 6 Chernoff divergence ................. 14 Residual entropy .................. 6 Chernoff coefficient ................. 14 Total correlation ................... 6 Renyi´ divergence .................. 15 Lautum information ................ 6 Alpha-divergence .................. 15 Uncertainty coefficient ............... 7 Cressie-Read divergence .............. 15 Tsallis divergence .................. 15 3 Relative entropy 7 Sharma-Mittal divergence ............. 15 Relative entropy ................... 7 Cross entropy
    [Show full text]
  • Information Theory 1 Entropy 2 Mutual Information
    CS769 Spring 2010 Advanced Natural Language Processing Information Theory Lecturer: Xiaojin Zhu [email protected] In this lecture we will learn about entropy, mutual information, KL-divergence, etc., which are useful concepts for information processing systems. 1 Entropy Entropy of a discrete distribution p(x) over the event space X is X H(p) = − p(x) log p(x). (1) x∈X When the log has base 2, entropy has unit bits. Properties: H(p) ≥ 0, with equality only if p is deterministic (use the fact 0 log 0 = 0). Entropy is the average number of 0/1 questions needed to describe an outcome from p(x) (the Twenty Questions game). Entropy is a concave function of p. 1 1 1 1 7 For example, let X = {x1, x2, x3, x4} and p(x1) = 2 , p(x2) = 4 , p(x3) = 8 , p(x4) = 8 . H(p) = 4 bits. This definition naturally extends to joint distributions. Assuming (x, y) ∼ p(x, y), X X H(p) = − p(x, y) log p(x, y). (2) x∈X y∈Y We sometimes write H(X) instead of H(p) with the understanding that p is the underlying distribution. The conditional entropy H(Y |X) is the amount of information needed to determine Y , if the other party knows X. X X X H(Y |X) = p(x)H(Y |X = x) = − p(x, y) log p(y|x). (3) x∈X x∈X y∈Y From above, we can derive the chain rule for entropy: H(X1:n) = H(X1) + H(X2|X1) + ..
    [Show full text]
  • Information Theory and Maximum Entropy 8.1 Fundamentals of Information Theory
    NEU 560: Statistical Modeling and Analysis of Neural Data Spring 2018 Lecture 8: Information Theory and Maximum Entropy Lecturer: Mike Morais Scribes: 8.1 Fundamentals of Information theory Information theory started with Claude Shannon's A mathematical theory of communication. The first building block was entropy, which he sought as a functional H(·) of probability densities with two desired properties: 1. Decreasing in P (X), such that if P (X1) < P (X2), then h(P (X1)) > h(P (X2)). 2. Independent variables add, such that if X and Y are independent, then H(P (X; Y )) = H(P (X)) + H(P (Y )). These are only satisfied for − log(·). Think of it as a \surprise" function. Definition 8.1 (Entropy) The entropy of a random variable is the amount of information needed to fully describe it; alternate interpretations: average number of yes/no questions needed to identify X, how uncertain you are about X? X H(X) = − P (X) log P (X) = −EX [log P (X)] (8.1) X Average information, surprise, or uncertainty are all somewhat parsimonious plain English analogies for entropy. There are a few ways to measure entropy for multiple variables; we'll use two, X and Y . Definition 8.2 (Conditional entropy) The conditional entropy of a random variable is the entropy of one random variable conditioned on knowledge of another random variable, on average. Alternative interpretations: the average number of yes/no questions needed to identify X given knowledge of Y , on average; or How uncertain you are about X if you know Y , on average? X X h X i H(X j Y ) = P (Y )[H(P (X j Y ))] = P (Y ) − P (X j Y ) log P (X j Y ) Y Y X X = = − P (X; Y ) log P (X j Y ) X;Y = −EX;Y [log P (X j Y )] (8.2) Definition 8.3 (Joint entropy) X H(X; Y ) = − P (X; Y ) log P (X; Y ) = −EX;Y [log P (X; Y )] (8.3) X;Y 8-1 8-2 Lecture 8: Information Theory and Maximum Entropy • Bayes' rule for entropy H(X1 j X2) = H(X2 j X1) + H(X1) − H(X2) (8.4) • Chain rule of entropies n X H(Xn;Xn−1; :::X1) = H(Xn j Xn−1; :::X1) (8.5) i=1 It can be useful to think about these interrelated concepts with a so-called information diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • A Characterization of Guesswork on Swiftly Tilting Curves Ahmad Beirami, Robert Calderbank, Mark Christiansen, Ken Duffy, and Muriel Medard´
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by MURAL - Maynooth University Research Archive Library 1 A Characterization of Guesswork on Swiftly Tilting Curves Ahmad Beirami, Robert Calderbank, Mark Christiansen, Ken Duffy, and Muriel Medard´ Abstract Given a collection of strings, each with an associated probability of occurrence, the guesswork of each of them is their position in a list ordered from most likely to least likely, breaking ties arbitrarily. Guesswork is central to several applications in information theory: Average guesswork provides a lower bound on the expected computational cost of a sequential decoder to decode successfully the transmitted message; the complementary cumulative distribution function of guesswork gives the error probability in list decoding; the logarithm of guesswork is the number of bits needed in optimal lossless one-to-one source coding; and guesswork is the number of trials required of an adversary to breach a password protected system in a brute-force attack. In this paper, we consider memoryless string-sources that generate strings consisting of i.i.d. characters drawn from a finite alphabet, and characterize their corresponding guesswork. Our main tool is the tilt operation on a memoryless string-source. We show that the tilt operation on a memoryless string-source parametrizes an exponential family of memoryless string-sources, which we refer to as the tilted family of the string-source. We provide an operational meaning to the tilted families by proving that two memoryless string-sources result in the same guesswork on all strings of all lengths if and only if their respective categorical distributions belong to the same tilted family.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Models
    Recap: Language models Foundations of Natural Language Processing Language models tell us P (~w) = P (w . w ): How likely to occur is this • 1 n Lecture 4 sequence of words? Language Models: Evaluation and Smoothing Roughly: Is this sequence of words a “good” one in my language? LMs are used as a component in applications such as speech recognition, Alex Lascarides • machine translation, and predictive text completion. (Slides based on those from Alex Lascarides, Sharon Goldwater and Philipp Koehn) 24 January 2020 To reduce sparse data, N-gram LMs assume words depend only on a fixed- • length history, even though we know this isn’t true. Alex Lascarides FNLP lecture 4 24 January 2020 Alex Lascarides FNLP lecture 4 1 Evaluating a language model Two types of evaluation in NLP Intuitively, a trigram model captures more context than a bigram model, so Extrinsic: measure performance on a downstream application. • should be a “better” model. • – For LM, plug it into a machine translation/ASR/etc system. – The most reliable evaluation, but can be time-consuming. That is, it should more accurately predict the probabilities of sentences. • – And of course, we still need an evaluation measure for the downstream system! But how can we measure this? • Intrinsic: design a measure that is inherent to the current task. • – Can be much quicker/easier during development cycle. – But not always easy to figure out what the right measure is: ideally, one that correlates well with extrinsic measures. Let’s consider how to define an intrinsic measure for LMs.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Networks and Backpropagation
    10-601 Introduction to Machine Learning Machine Learning Department School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Neural Networks and Backpropagation Neural Net Readings: Murphy -- Matt Gormley Bishop 5 Lecture 20 HTF 11 Mitchell 4 April 3, 2017 1 Reminders • Homework 6: Unsupervised Learning – Release: Wed, Mar. 22 – Due: Mon, Apr. 03 at 11:59pm • Homework 5 (Part II): Peer Review – Expectation: You Release: Wed, Mar. 29 should spend at most 1 – Due: Wed, Apr. 05 at 11:59pm hour on your reviews • Peer Tutoring 2 Neural Networks Outline • Logistic Regression (Recap) – Data, Model, Learning, Prediction • Neural Networks – A Recipe for Machine Learning Last Lecture – Visual Notation for Neural Networks – Example: Logistic Regression Output Surface – 2-Layer Neural Network – 3-Layer Neural Network • Neural Net Architectures – Objective Functions – Activation Functions • Backpropagation – Basic Chain Rule (of calculus) This Lecture – Chain Rule for Arbitrary Computation Graph – Backpropagation Algorithm – Module-based Automatic Differentiation (Autodiff) 3 DECISION BOUNDARY EXAMPLES 4 Example #1: Diagonal Band 5 Example #2: One Pocket 6 Example #3: Four Gaussians 7 Example #4: Two Pockets 8 Example #1: Diagonal Band 9 Example #1: Diagonal Band 10 Example #1: Diagonal Band Error in slides: “layers” should read “number of hidden units” All the neural networks in this section used 1 hidden layer. 11 Example #1: Diagonal Band 12 Example #1: Diagonal Band 13 Example #1: Diagonal Band 14 Example #1: Diagonal Band 15 Example #2: One Pocket
    [Show full text]
  • Entropy and Decisions
    Entropy and decisions CSC401/2511 – Natural Language Computing – Winter 2021 Lecture 5, Serena Jeblee, Frank Rudzicz and Sean Robertson CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 University of Toronto This lecture • Information theory and entropy. • Decisions. • Classification. • Significance and hypothesis testing. Can we quantify the statistical structure in a model of communication? Can we quantify the meaningful difference between statistical models? CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 2 Information • Imagine Darth Vader is about to say either “yes” or “no” with equal probability. • You don’t know what he’ll say. • You have a certain amount of uncertainty – a lack of information. Darth Vader is © Disney And the prequels and Rey/Finn Star Wars suck CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 3 Star Trek is better than Star Wars Information • Imagine you then observe Darth Vader saying “no” • Your uncertainty is gone; you’ve received information. • How much information do you receive about event ! when you observe it? 1 ! 1 = log ! )(1) For the units For the inverse of measurement 1 1 ! "# = log = log = 1 bit ! )("#) ! 1 ,2 CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 4 Information • Imagine Darth Vader is about to roll a fair die. • You have more uncertainty about an event because there are more possibilities. • You receive more information when you observe it. 1 ! 5 = log ! )(5) " = log! ! ≈ 2.59 bits ⁄" CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 5 Information is additive • From k independent, equally likely events ", 1 " 1 1 $ 8 = log = log $ % binary decisions = log! = % bits ! 9(8") ! 9 8 " 1 " 52 • For a unigram model, with each of 50K words # equally likely, 1 $ < = log ≈ 15.61 bits ! 1 550000 and for a sequence of 1K words in that model, " 1 $ < = log! ≈ 15,610???bits 1 #$$$ 550000 CSC401/2511 – Spring 2021 6 Information with unequal events • An information source S emits symbols without memory from a vocabulary #!, #", … , ## .
    [Show full text]
  • A Gentle Tutorial on Information Theory and Learning Roni Rosenfeld Carnegie Mellon University Outline • First Part Based Very
    Outline Definition of Information • First part based very loosely on [Abramson 63]. (After [Abramson 63]) • Information theory usually formulated in terms of information Let E be some event which occurs with probability channels and coding — will not discuss those here. P (E). If we are told that E has occurred, then we say that we have received 1. Information 1 I(E) = log2 2. Entropy P (E) bits of information. 3. Mutual Information 4. Cross Entropy and Learning • Base of log is unimportant — will only change the units We’ll stick with bits, and always assume base 2 • Can also think of information as amount of ”surprise” in E (e.g. P (E) = 1, P (E) = 0) • Example: result of a fair coin flip (log2 2= 1 bit) • Example: result of a fair die roll (log2 6 ≈ 2.585 bits) Carnegie Carnegie Mellon 2 ITtutorial,RoniRosenfeld,1999 Mellon 4 ITtutorial,RoniRosenfeld,1999 A Gentle Tutorial on Information Information Theory and Learning • information 6= knowledge Concerned with abstract possibilities, not their meaning Roni Rosenfeld • information: reduction in uncertainty Carnegie Carnegie Mellon University Mellon Imagine: #1 you’re about to observe the outcome of a coin flip #2 you’re about to observe the outcome of a die roll There is more uncertainty in #2 Next: 1. You observed outcome of #1 → uncertainty reduced to zero. 2. You observed outcome of #2 → uncertainty reduced to zero. =⇒ more information was provided by the outcome in #2 Carnegie Mellon 3 ITtutorial,RoniRosenfeld,1999 Entropy Entropy as a Function of a Probability Distribution A Zero-memory information source S is a source that emits sym- Since the source S is fully characterized byP = {p1,...pk} (we bols from an alphabet {s1, s2,...,sk} with probabilities {p1, p2,...,pk}, don’t care what the symbols si actually are, or what they stand respectively, where the symbols emitted are statistically indepen- for), entropy can also be thought of as a property of a probability dent.
    [Show full text]
  • Entropy, Relative Entropy, Cross Entropy Entropy
    Entropy, Relative Entropy, Cross Entropy Entropy Entropy, H(x) is a measure of the uncertainty of a discrete random variable. Properties: ● H(x) >= 0 ● Entropy Entropy ● Lesser the probability for an event, larger the entropy. Entropy of a six-headed fair dice is log26. Entropy : Properties Primer on Probability Fundamentals ● Random Variable ● Probability ● Expectation ● Linearity of Expectation Entropy : Properties Primer on Probability Fundamentals ● Jensen’s Inequality Ex:- Subject to the constraint that, f is a convex function. Entropy : Properties ● H(U) >= 0, Where, U = {u , u , …, u } 1 2 M ● H(U) <= log(M) Entropy between pair of R.Vs ● Joint Entropy ● Conditional Entropy Relative Entropy aka Kullback Leibler Distance D(p||q) is a measure of the inefficiency of assuming that the distribution is q, when the true distribution is p. ● H(p) : avg description length when true distribution. ● H(p) + D(p||q) : avg description length when approximated distribution. If X is a random variable and p(x), q(x) are probability mass functions, Relative Entropy/ K-L Divergence : Properties D(p||q) is a measure of the inefficiency of assuming that the distribution is q, when the true distribution is p. Properties: ● Non-negative. ● D(p||q) = 0 if p=q. ● Non-symmetric and does not satisfy triangular inequality - it is rather divergence than distance. Relative Entropy/ K-L Divergence : Properties Asymmetricity: Let, X = {0, 1} be a random variable. Consider two distributions p, q on X. Assume, p(0) = 1-r, p(1) = r ; q(0) = 1-s, q(1) = s; If, r=s, then D(p||q) = D(q||p) = 0, else for r!=s, D(p||q) != D(q||p) Relative Entropy/ K-L Divergence : Properties Non-negativity: Relative Entropy/ K-L Divergence : Properties Relative Entropy of joint distributions as Mutual Information Mutual Information, which is a measure of the amount of information that one random variable contains about another random variable.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduced Perplexity: a Simplified Perspective on Assessing Probabilistic Forecasts Kenric P
    Reduced perplexity: A simplified perspective on assessing probabilistic forecasts Kenric P. Nelson1,2 A simple, intuitive approach to the assessment of probabilistic inferences is introduced. The Shannon information metrics are translated to the probability domain. The translation shows that the negative logarithmic score and the geometric mean are equivalent measures of the accuracy of a probabilistic inference. Thus there is both a quantitative reduction in perplexity, which is the inverse of the geometric mean of the probabilities, as good inference algorithms reduce the uncertainty and a qualitative reduction due to the increased clarity between the original set of probabilistic forecasts and their central tendency, the geometric mean. Further insight is provided by showing that the Rényi and Tsallis entropy functions translated to the probability domain are both the weighted generalized mean of the distribution. The generalized mean of probabilistic forecasts forms a spectrum of performance metrics referred to as a Risk Profile. The arithmetic mean is used to measure the decisiveness, while the -2/3 mean is used to measure the robustness. 1 Introduction The objective of this chapter is to introduce a clear and simple approach to assessing the performance of probabilistic forecasts. This is important because machine learning and other techniques for decision making are often only evaluated in terms of percentage of correct decisions. Management of uncertainty in these systems requires that accurate probabilities be assigned to decisions. Unfortunately the existing assessment methods based on “scoring rules” [1], [2], which are defined later in the chapter, are poorly understood and often misapplied and/or misinterpreted. The approach here will be to ground the assessment of probability forecasts using information theory [3]–[5], while framing the results from the perspective of the central tendency and fluctuation of the forecasted probabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • K-Nearest Neighbor Based Consistent Entropy Estimation for Hyperspherical Distributions
    Entropy 2011, 13, 650-667; doi:10.3390/e13030650 OPEN ACCESS entropy ISSN 1099-4300 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy Article k-Nearest Neighbor Based Consistent Entropy Estimation for Hyperspherical Distributions Shengqiao Li 1,, Robert M. Mnatsakanov 1,2, and Michael E. Andrew 1 1 Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Statistics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails: [email protected] (S.L.); [email protected] (R.M.). Received: 22 December 2010; in revised form: 27 January 2011 / Accepted: 28 February 2011 / Published: 8 March 2011 Abstract: A consistent entropy estimator for hyperspherical data is proposed based on the k-nearest neighbor (knn) approach. The asymptotic unbiasedness and consistency of the estimator are proved. Moreover, cross entropy and Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence estimators are also discussed. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the estimators for models including uniform and von Mises-Fisher distributions. The proposed knn entropy estimator is compared with the moment based counterpart via simulations. The results show that these two methods are comparable. Keywords: hyperspherical distribution; directional data; differential entropy; cross entropy; Kullback-Leibler divergence; k-nearest neighbor 1. Introduction The Shannon (or differential) entropy of a continuously distributed random variable (r.v.) X with probability density function (pdf ) f is widely used in probability theory and information theory as a measure of uncertainty. It is defined as the negative mean of the logarithm of the density function, i.e., H(f)=−Ef [ln f(X)] (1) Entropy 2011, 13 651 k-Nearest neighbor (knn) density estimators were proposed by Mack and Rosenblatt [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Entropy Methods for Joint Distributions in Decision Analysis Ali E
    146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2006 Entropy Methods for Joint Distributions in Decision Analysis Ali E. Abbas, Member, IEEE Abstract—A fundamental step in decision analysis is the elicita- When used to construct joint probability distributions in de- tion of the decision maker’s information about the uncertainties of cision analysis, the maximum entropy approach has several ad- the decision situation in the form of a joint probability distribution. vantages: 1) it incorporates as much (or as little) information as This paper presents a method based on the maximum entropy prin- ciple to obtain a joint probability distribution using lower order there is available at the time of making the decision; 2) it makes joint probability assessments. The approach reduces the number no assumptions about a particular form of a joint distribution; of assessments significantly and also reduces the number of con- 3) it applies to both numeric and nonnumeric variables (such as ditioning variables in these assessments. We discuss the order of the categorical events Sunny/Rainy for weather); and 4) it does the approximation provided by the maximum entropy distribution not limit itself to the use of only moments and correlation co- with each lower order assessment using a Monte Carlo simulation and discuss the implications of using the maximum entropy distri- efficients, which may be difficult to elicit in decision analysis bution in Bayesian inference. We present an application to a prac- practice. tical decision situation faced by a semiconductor testing company We do observe, however, that there is a tradeoff between the in the Silicon Valley.
    [Show full text]