BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Peter D. Grunwald

Peter D. Grunwald appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceInformation Theorymath.ITphysics.data-an

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
4topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Explicit Bounds for Entropy Concentration under Linear Constraints

Consider the set of all sequences of $n$ outcomes, each taking one of $m$ values, that satisfy a number of linear constraints. If $m$ is fixed while $n$ increases, most sequences that satisfy the constraints result in frequency vectors whose entropy approaches that of the maximum entropy vector satisfying the constraints. This well-known "entropy concentration" phenomenon underlies the maximum entropy method. Existing proofs of the concentration phenomenon are based on limits or asymptotics and unrealistically assume that constraints hold precisely, supporting maximum entropy inference more in principle than in practice. We present, for the first time, non-asymptotic, explicit lower bounds on $n$ for a number of variants of the concentration result to hold to any prescribed accuracies, with the constraints holding up to any specified tolerance, taking into account the fact that allocations of discrete units can satisfy constraints only approximately. Again unlike earlier results, we measure concentration not by deviation from the maximum entropy value, but by the $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ distances from the maximum entropy-achieving frequency vector. One of our results holds independently of the alphabet size $m$ and is based on a novel proof technique using the multi-dimensional Berry-Esseen theorem. We illustrate and compare our results using various detailed examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Updating Sets of Probabilities

We consider how an agent should update her uncertainty when it is represented by a set P of probability distributions and the agent observes that a random variable X takes on value x, given that the agent makes decisions using the minimax criterion, perhaps the best-studied and most commonly-used criterion in the literature. We adopt a game-theoretic framework, where the agent plays against a bookie, who chooses some distribution from P. We consider two reasonable games that differ in what the bookie knows when he makes his choice. Anomalies that have been observed before, like time inconsistency, can be understood as arising because different games are being played, against bookies with different information. We characterize the important special cases in which the optimal decision rules according to the minimax criterion amount to either conditioning or simply ignoring the information. Finally, we consider the relationship between conditioning and calibration when uncertainty is described by sets of probabilities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Updating Probabilities

As examples such as the Monty Hall puzzle show, applying conditioning to update a probability distribution on a ``naive space', which does not take into account the protocol used, can often lead to counterintuitive results. Here we examine why. A criterion known as CAR (coarsening at random) in the statistical literature characterizes when ``naive' conditioning in a naive space works. We show that the CAR condition holds rather infrequently. We then consider more generalized notions of update such as Jeffrey conditioning and minimizing relative entropy (MRE). We give a generalization of the CAR condition that characterizes when Jeffrey conditioning leads to appropriate answers, but show that there are no such conditions for MRE. This generalizes and interconnects previous results obtained in the literature on CAR and MRE.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

When Ignorance is Bliss

It is commonly-accepted wisdom that more information is better, and that information should never be ignored. Here we argue, using both a Bayesian and a non-Bayesian analysis, that in some situations you are better off ignoring information if your uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures. These include situations in which the information is relevant for the prediction task at hand. In the non-Bayesian analysis, we show how ignoring information avoids dilation, the phenomenon that additional pieces of information sometimes lead to an increase in uncertainty. In the Bayesian analysis, we show that for small sample sizes and certain prediction tasks, the Bayesian posterior based on a noninformative prior yields worse predictions than simply ignoring the given information.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Maximum Entropy and the Glasses You Are Looking Through

We give an interpretation of the Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) Principle in game-theoretic terms. Based on this interpretation, we make a formal distinction between different ways of {em applying/} Maximum Entropy distributions. MaxEnt has frequently been criticized on the grounds that it leads to highly representation dependent results. Our distinction allows us to avoid this problem in many cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access