Bibliographic record
Abstract
We correct claims about lower bounds on mutual information (MI) between real-valued random variables made by Kraskov et al., Phys. Rev. E 69, 066138 (2004). We show that non-trivial lower bounds on MI in terms of linear correlations depend on the marginal (single variable) distributions. This is so in spite of the invariance of MI under reparametrizations, because linear correlations are not invariant under them. The simplest bounds are obtained for Gaussians, but the most interesting ones for practical purposes are obtained for uniform marginal distributions. The latter can be enforced in general by using the ranks of the individual variables instead of their actual values, in which case one obtains bounds on MI in terms of Spearman correlation coefficients. We show with gene expression data that these bounds are in general nontrivial, and the degree of their (non)saturation yields valuable insight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".