Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistical validation of mutual information calculations: Comparison of alternative numerical algorithms

Cellucci, C. J., Albano, A. M., Rapp, P. E.·2005·Physical Review E

Abstract

Given two time series X and Y , their mutual information, I (X,Y) = I (Y,X) , is the average number of bits of X that can be predicted by measuring Y and vice versa. In the analysis of observational data, calculation of mutual information occurs in three contexts: identification of nonlinear correlation, determination of an optimal sampling interval, particularly when embedding data, and in the investigation of causal relationships with directed mutual information. In this contribution a minimum description length argument is used to determine the optimal number of elements to use when characterizing the distributions of X and Y . However, even when using partitions of the X and Y axis indicated by minimum description length, mutual information calculations performed with a uniform partition of the XY plane can give misleading results. This motivated the construction of an algorithm for calculating mutual information that uses an adaptive partition. This algorithm also incorporates an explicit test of the statistical independence of X and Y in a calculation that returns an assessment of the corresponding null hypothesis. The previously published Fraser-Swinney algorithm for calculating mutual information includes a sophisticated procedure for local adaptive control of the partitioning process. When the Fraser and Swinney algorithm and the algorithm constructed here are compared, they give very similar numerical results (less than 4% difference in a typical application). Detailed comparisons are possible when X and Y are correlated jointly Gaussian distributed because an analytic expression for I (X,Y) can be derived for that case. Based on these tests, three conclusions can be drawn. First, the algorithm constructed here has an advantage over the Fraser-Swinney algorithm in providing an explicit calculation of the probability of the null hypothesis that X and Y are independent. Second, the Fraser-Swinney algorithm is marginally the more accurate of the two algorithms when large data sets are used. With smaller data sets, however, the Fraser-Swinney algorithm reports structures that disappear when more data are available. Third, the algorithm constructed here requires about 0.5% of the computation time required by the Fraser-Swinney algorithm.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreve.71.066208

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
Cellucci, C. J., Albano, A. M., & Rapp, P. E.
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2005-06-22
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
066208-066208
ISSN
  • 1539-3755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-2376
OpenAlex
W2062775555
Cited by
210
References
4
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical validation of mutual information calculations: Comparison of alternative numerical algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physreve.71.066208
The paper
Cellucci, C. J., Albano, A. M., & Rapp, P. E. (2005). Statistical validation of mutual information calculations: Comparison of alternative numerical algorithms. Physical Review E. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.71.066208

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.