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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912791 · Cited by 22,989
Detecting strange attractors in turbulence
Takens, F. (1981) · Lecture Notes in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/bfb0091924 · Cited by 10,459
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718
Sauer, T., Yorke, J. A., & Casdagli, M. (1991) · Journal of Statistical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01053745 · Cited by 2,045
Cited by
Causality detection based on information-theoretic approaches in time series analysis
HLAVACKOVASCHINDLER, K., PALUS, M., VEJMELKA, M., & BHATTACHARYA, J. (2007) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.12.004 · Cited by 800
Equitability, mutual information, and the maximal information coefficient
Kinney, J. B., & Atwal, G. S. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1309933111 · Cited by 667
Reverse engineering and identification in systems biology: strategies, perspectives and challenges
Villaverde, A. F., & Banga, J. R. (2014) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0505 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Cellucci, C. J., Albano, A. M., & Rapp, P. E.
- Venue
- Physical Review E
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- 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.