Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1408.4908

Theoretical Foundations of Equitability and the Maximal Information Coefficient

Yakir A. Reshef·David N. Reshef·Pardis C. Sabeti·Michael Mitzenmacher
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The maximal information coefficient (MIC) is a tool for finding the strongest pairwise relationships in a data set with many variables (Reshef et al., 2011). MIC is useful because it gives similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types. This property, called {\em equitability}, is important for analyzing high-dimensional data sets. Here we formalize the theory behind both equitability and MIC in the language of estimation theory. This formalization has a number of advantages. First, it allows us to show that equitability is a generalization of power against statistical independence. Second, it allows us to compute and discuss the population value of MIC, which we call MIC_*. In doing so we generalize and strengthen the mathematical results proven in Reshef et al. (2011) and clarify the relationship between MIC and mutual information. Introducing MIC_* also enables us to reason about the properties of MIC more abstractly: for instance, we show that MIC_* is continuous and that there is a sense in which it is a canonical "smoothing" of mutual information. We also prove an alternate, equivalent characterization of MIC_* that we use to state new estimators of it as well as an algorithm for explicitly computing it when the joint probability density function of a pair of random variables is known. Our hope is that this paper provides a richer theoretical foundation for MIC and equitability going forward. This paper will be accompanied by a forthcoming companion paper that performs extensive empirical analysis and comparison to other methods and discusses the practical aspects of both equitability and the use of MIC and its related statistics.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEcs.ITmath.ITmath.STq-bio.QMstat.MLstat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yakir A. Reshef, David N. Reshef, Pardis C. Sabeti, Michael Mitzenmacher. 2014-08-21. Theoretical Foundations of Equitability and the Maximal Information Coefficient. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.4908

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗