PreprintCited by 6

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Nonnegative Decomposition of Multivariate Information

Williams, Paul L., Beer, Randall D.·2010·arXiv

Abstract

Of the various attempts to generalize information theory to multiple variables, the most widely utilized, interaction information, suffers from the problem that it is sometimes negative. Here we reconsider from first principles the general structure of the information that a set of sources provides about a given variable. We begin with a new definition of redundancy as the minimum information that any source provides about each possible outcome of the variable, averaged over all possible outcomes. We then show how this measure of redundancy induces a lattice over sets of sources that clarifies the general structure of multivariate information. Finally, we use this redundancy lattice to propose a definition of partial information atoms that exhaustively decompose the Shannon information in a multivariate system in terms of the redundancy between synergies of subsets of the sources. Unlike interaction information, the atoms of our partial information decomposition are never negative and always support a clear interpretation as informational quantities. Our analysis also demonstrates how the negativity of interaction information can be explained by its confounding of redundancy and synergy.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1004.2515

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.

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Univ of Illinois Press, 1949).
  2. D. Pines, The Many-Body Problem (Addison-Wesley, 1997).
  3. P. Dayan and L. F. Abbott, Theoretical Neuroscience: Compu- tational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems (MIT Press, 2001).
  4. F. Rieke, D. Warland, R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, and W. Bialek, Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code (MIT Press, 1999).
  5. S. Watanabe, IBM Journal of Research and Development, 4, 66 (1960).
  6. W. R. Garner, Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Con- cepts (Wiley, 1962).
  7. G. Tononi, O. Sporns, and G. M. Edelman, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 91, 5033 (1994).
  8. W. J. McGill, Psychometrika, 19, 97 (1954).
  9. T. S. Han, Information and Control, 46, 26 (1980).
  10. A. J. Bell, Proceedings of ICA2003, 921 (2003).
  11. T. J. Gawne and B. J. Richmond, J Neurosci, 13, 2758 (1993).
  12. R. W. Yeung, Information Theory and Network Coding (Springer, 2008).
  13. T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Interscience, 2006).
  14. S. Takano, Proc Jpn Acad, 50, 109 (1974).
  15. T. Tsujishita, Adv Appl Math, 16, 269 (1995).
  16. Z. Zhang and R. W. Yeung, IEEE Trans Inf Theory, 44, 1440 (1998).
  17. G. Rota, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 2, 340 (1964).
  18. R. P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ Press, 1997).
  19. L. Comtet, Advanced Combinatorics: The Art of Finite and Infinite Expansions (Springer, 1974).
  20. J. Pearl and G. Shafer, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988).
  21. N. Brenner, S. P. Strong, R. Koberle, W. Bialek, and R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, Neural Comput, 12, 1531 (2000).
  22. S. Panzeri, S. R. Schultz, A. Treves, and E. T. Rolls, Proc R Soc B, 266, 1001 (1999).
  23. E. Schneidman, W. Bialek, and M. J. Berry, J Neurosci, 23, 11539 (2003).
  24. P. E. Latham and S. Nirenberg, J Neurosci, 25, 5195 (2005).
  25. A. Jakulin and I. Bratko, Arxiv preprint cs/0308002 (2003). · arXiv
  26. D. Anastassiou, Mol Syst Biol, 3, 1 (2007).
  27. D. Wiedemann, Order, 8, 5 (1991).
  28. N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, Phys Rev A, 55, 3371 (1997).
  29. H. Matsuda, Phys Rev E, 62, 3096 (2000).
  30. I. Gat and N. Tishby, Advances in NIPS, 111 (1999).
  31. N. S. Narayanan, E. Y. Kimchi, and M. Laubach, J Neurosci, 25, 4207 (2005).
  32. J. H. Moore, J. C. Gilbert, C. T. Tsai, F. T. Chiang, T. Holden, N. Barney, and B. C. White, J Theor Biol, 241, 252 (2006).
  33. P. Chanda, A. Zhang, D. Brazeau, L. Sucheston, J. L. Freuden- heim, C. Ambrosone, and M. Ramanathan, Am J Hum Genet, 81, 939 (2007).
  34. D. J. C. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Univ Press, 2003).
  35. L. Orlóci, M. Anand, and V. D. Pillar, Community Ecol, 3, 217 (2002).
  36. V. Vedral, Rev Mod Phys, 74, 197 (2002).
  37. S. Amari, IEEE Trans Inf Theory, 47, 1701 (2001).
  38. M. Grabisch and M. Roubens, Int J Game Theory, 28, 547 (1999).
  39. M. R. DeWeese and M. Meister, Network, 10, 325 (1999).
  40. D. A. Butts, Network, 14, 177 (2003).
  41. B. A. Davey and H. A. Priestley, Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ Press, 2002).
  42. J. Crampton and G. Loizou, International Mathematical Journal, 1, 223 (2001).
  43. S. M. Ross, A First Course in Probability, 8th ed. (Prentice Hall, 2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Williams, P. L., & Beer, R. D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2010
References
0
Type
Preprint

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: Nonnegative Decomposition of Multivariate Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.1004.2515
The paper
Williams, P. L., & Beer, R. D. (2010). Nonnegative Decomposition of Multivariate Information. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1004.2515