# Note on the Riemann Zeta Function

As you know, I’ve been doing research in information theory, and some of my recent work has some superficial connections to the Zeta function, since I was making use of logarithms of complex numbers.

I noticed the following graph:

In short, we’d be looking at the Zeta function using values of s produced by powers of the logarithm function:

$zeta(log^n (-1) /x).$

There appears to be several zeros for n = 6.

You can see it yourself on wolfram using the following link:

But, I don’t know enough about this topic to be sure that this is actually interesting, since I know that at least some of the zeros of this function are considered “trivial”.

Nonetheless, I thought I’d share this in case some of you found it interesting and had insights.

Regards,

Charles

# On the Applications of Information Theory to Physics

I’ve attached an updated draft of what is in effect a summary of the work I’ve been doing applying information theory to physics, that I thought some of you would find interesting, given the popularity of my work on the connections between information theory and artificial intelligence.

Despite the imposing title, the attached note is actually a straightforward explainer that a computer scientist or mathematician with almost no background in physics will have no trouble understanding. In fact, it arguably doubles as a quick explainer on what are in my opinion some very interesting issues in physics.

The full suite of related articles is available on my researchgate homepage here.

Happy Holidays,

Charles

Non-Local Interactions, Spin, the Strong and Weak Forces, Inertia, and Faraday Induction (1) (1)

# Fast N-Dimensional Categorization Algorithm

In a previous post entitled, “Using Information Theory to Create Categories with No Prior Information”, I presented an algorithm that can quickly construct categories given a linear dataset with no other prior information. In this post, I’ll present a generalization of that algorithm that can be applied to a dataset of n-dimensional vectors, again with no prior information. Like all of the other work I’ve presented as part of this project, this algorithm is again rooted in information theory and computer theory. For an explanation as to why this algorithm works, you should see the post below, as this is really just a generalization of the previous algorithm applied to higher dimensional data, with no meaningfully new theory.

In this post, I’m going to focus on the results of this algorithm, which are quite good. I’ll also discuss the runtime complexity of the algorithm, which I believe to be worst-case $O(log(n)n^{D+1})$, where D is the dimension of the dataset, making this algorithm exceptionally fast for what it is, which is a data categorization algorithm.

As a general matter, the only thing that this algorithm requires is a dataset that has a measure function that maps to a real number. In simpler terms, all we need in order to make use of this algorithm is a function that can compare the “distance” between any two data points in the dataset. This means that we can apply this algorithm to any n-dimensional dataset simply by making use of the norm of the difference between any two vectors in the dataset, and that we can also apply this algorithm to non-Euclidean spaces, so long as we have a well-defined measure function on the space.

In a follow up post, I’ll show how we can actually use this algorithm to produce a well-defined measure in classification problems by iterating through different measures until we produce the “right” measure that results in the maximum change in the structure of our classification.

Runtime Complexity

The first thing that this algorithm does is test the symmetry of the dataset using a function called “partition_array”, which is attached together with all of the other scripts you need to run this algorithm. Partition_array repeatedly subdivides the space in which the dataset exists into smaller and smaller “chunks”, until each chunk contains a maximally different amount of information. In this case, just imagine breaking a cube of 3-space into smaller and smaller equally sized subcubes. As we do this, the number of data points within each subcube will vary as a function of the number of subdivisions, with the number of data points per subcube generally decreasing as a function of the number of subdivisions, simply because each subcube will get smaller as we increase the number of subdivisions.

For reasons explained below, this algorithm stops once it finds the partition size that maximizes the standard deviation of the information contained within each subcube. This will produce a number N, which is how many times we’ve subdivided each dimension in order to achieve this maximization. It turns out that N is a measure of how symmetrically the data is distributed within its own space. If N is large, then the data is symmetrically distributed. If N is small, then the data is asymmetrically distributed.

The partition_array algorithm begins by making an initial guess as to the value of N, which it sets to the log of the number of the items in the dataset. Then, depending upon the characteristics of the dataset, it will either increase its guess, or decrease its guess, by either multiplying its first guess by 2, or dividing its first guess by 2, respectively. It will continue doing this until it finds the value of N that maximizes the standard deviation of the information contained in each subcube, which will cause the value of N to increase, or decrease, exponentially. However, the algorithm prevents N from increasing past the number of items in the dataset, and also prevents it from decreasing below 1. As a result, if n is the number of items in the dataset, then the partition_array algorithm runtime complexity cannot exceed log(n).

For each value of N generated by partition_array, another function called “test_entropy” is called. This is the function that actually tests the information content of each subcube. As part of this function, we will have to test each item in the dataset to determine which subcube it belongs to. Because we divide each dimension N times, which generates $N^3$ subcubes, and N is necessarily less than or equal to n, it follows that the number of subcubes cannot exceed $n^3$. As a result, we’ll have to do at most $n^4$ comparisons each time we call test_entropy.

As a general matter, this implies that the runtime complexity of this phase of the algorithm is necessarily less than,

$log(n)n^{D+1}$,

where D is the dimension of the space. In this case, D = 3, and therefore, the worst-case runtime complexity is $log(n)n^4$.

Though this is only the preprocessing phase of the algorithm, it is actually the part of the algorithm with the highest worst-case runtime complexity. As a result, this algorithm has an overall worst-case runtime complexity of $O(log(n)n^{D+1})$, making it extremely fast for what it does.

In a follow up post, I’ll present a vectorized categorization algorithm that omits this step, allowing for extremely fast categorization of high-dimensional data.

Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that the algorithm makes short work of data that actually has structure, and struggles with data that is truly randomized. This is not surprising, since truly randomized data should be highly symmetrical, forcing the preprocessing stage into the worst-case runtime (i.e., producing a very large value of N).

Application to Data

I’ve attached a set of scripts that make it easy to test the algorithm, which should be called from the Octave command line as follows:

data_categories_array = optimize_categories_3D(data_array);

[X Y Z S C] = display_categorization_3D(data_categories_array,num_items);

figure, scatter3(X,Y,Z,S,C);

The generate_n_random_categories_3D script does exactly what its name suggests, which is to generate categories of random vectors in 3-space. The script creates what we know to be categories of data by randomly generating a set of seed values, around which it will generate some random data points.

So, for example, if num_categories = 2, and num_items = 1000, then it will create 2 categories of data that each contain 500 data points. This is accomplished by generating 2 seed locations, about which each category is centered. These seed locations can be anywhere from [0 0 0] to [base base base]. As a result, the greater the value of base is, the greater the space in which the data exists. Therefore, a small number of categories and a large value of base increases the probability that our categories will be very far apart.

The min_spread and max_spread control how diffuse the data is around each category’s central point. The first category generated has the minimum diffusion, and the last category generated has the maximum diffusion, with diffusion increasing linearly with each category generated. A high value of adjustment in essence forces each category’s central point to be generated along the same line, and a zero value of adjustment allows the central points to be generated randomly throughout the entire space from [0 0 0] to [base base base].

The “optimize_categories_3D” algorithm takes the data, and sorts it into categories, using the process I described above, which are then formatted for display by the “display_categorization_3D” function.

Data points are represented by the little ‘o’ rings in the attached images. When two data points are part of the same category, the display algorithm paints them with the same color. However, because category colors are randomly generated, it’s possible for two different categories of data to be assigned approximately the same color, and, though extremely unlikely, it’s even possible they’re assigned the exact same color. As a result, local colors are what to look for if you want to determine what data points are part of the same category.

The size of the ring representing a data point is determined by the size of the category to which the data point belongs. If the data point is part of a big category, then the ring will be big. If the data point is part of a small category, then the ring will be small.

I’ve attached graphs from two series of datasets, one for which the value of adjustment is high, forcing categories to be generated along a roughly straight line, and another for which the value of adjustment is zero, allowing categories of data to be spontaneously generated anywhere within the space bounded by [0 0 0] to [base base base].

The first series consists of 11 datasets, with all of the inputs to the random data generator remaining constant for each data set, except the value of max_spread, which increases from the first dataset to the last dataset. Each dataset in the first series consists of 50 categories, with 10 points in each category, for a total of 500 data points per data set. The first dataset in this series looks like a series of tightly packed rings, since for the first dataset, the min_spread equals the max_spread, meaning that each of the categories in this dataset should be roughly identically distributed, and just seeded at different locations in the space. As we move through this series of datasets, max_spread increases, meaning that the first category in each dataset will be more tightly packed than the last category in that same data set. This is why the last dataset in this series looks like a lot like a confetti cannon, since the first category in that data set is tightly packed, and the last category is extremely diffuse, representing the maximum possible spread for that entire data set.

Looking at the results, you can clearly see that the algorithm generates intuitively correct categorizations, grouping tightly packed clusters into a small number of relatively large categories, and diffuse clusters into a large number of relatively small categories. The last two charts show how many categories the algorithm actually generates for each series. Specifically, as max_spread increases, the number of categories generated for each of the 11 datasets in this series is as follows:

46 42 46 66 73 78 88 86 106 85 126

Note that 50 categories is in some sense the “correct” answer, since that is the number of clusters generated by the underlying random data generator. However, as the diffusion of each cluster increases, the clusters will become more diffuse, causing each cluster to lose its structure, and causing neighboring clusters to overlap. As a result, we should expect the number of categories identified by the algorithm to increase as a function of diffusion, which is exactly what happens.

The next series of datasets is generated using exactly the same variables, except the value of adjustment is set to 0, and the difference between the min and max spread is smaller to account for the smaller space the data occupies (this is a consequence of adjustment being set to 0). As a result, in this case, the seed values for the clusters propagate randomly throughout the entire space. This causes the datasets to start out in little tightly packed clusters that are randomly distributed, and eventually diffuse into generally unstructured data with a few small local clusters that the algorithm does a great job of categorizing together, when appropriate.

As max_spread increases, the number of categories generated for each of the 11 data sets is as follows:

46 180 265 321 261 297 331 329 365 375 246

Again, 50 is arguably the “correct” answer. However, in this case, the algorithm is clearly far more sensitive to diffusion in the data, which isn’t surprising, since in this case, we haven’t constrained the diffusion at all, but instead, have allowed the data to propagate randomly throughout the entire space.

To generate the “confetti cannon” data, use the following:

base = 10;
num_items = 500;
num_categories = 50;

for i = 0 : 10

data_categories_array = optimize_categories_3D(data_array);
[X Y Z S C] = display_categorization_3D(data_categories_array,num_items);
figure, scatter3(X,Y,Z,S,C)

endfor

To generate the randomly clustered data, use the following:

base = 25;
num_items = 500;
num_clusters = 50;

for i = 0 : 10

clear data_categories_array
tic; data_categories_array = optimize_categories_3D(data_array);toc
[X Y Z S C] = display_categorization_3D(data_categories_array, 500);
figure, scatter3(X,Y,Z,S,C)

endfor

In a follow up post, I’ll show how we can categorize new data, and predict to which category new data fits best, using the opposite approach: that is, we find the dataset of best-fit for new data by including the new data into a series of datasets, and the dataset that changes the least in terms of the structure of its categories is the dataset to which the new data fits best. We measure the change in structure of the categories by using the entropy of the categorization, just as we did above. In short, new data fits best where it disturbs category structure the least, and we measure change in category structure using the entropy of the categorization.

The relevant Octave scripts are available here:

display_categorization_3D

find_most_distant_pair

generate_categories_3D

generate_n_random_categories_3D

left_right_delta_3D

optimize_categories_3D

partition_array_3D

test_entropy_array_3D

# A Simple Model of Non-Turing Equivalent Computation

Alan Turing’s statement of what is now known as the Church-Turing Thesis asserts that all forms of “mechanical” computation are equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. The Church-Turing Thesis is not a mathematical theorem, but is instead a hypothesis that has turned out to be true as an empirical matter. That is, every model of computation that has ever been proposed has been proven to be capable of computations that are either equivalent to, or a subset of, the computations that can be performed by a UTM.

Nonetheless, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, there are good reasons to believe that nature itself is capable of generating non-computable processes. First off, it is mathematically impossible for a UTM to generate information (see the post below for a simple proof). Nonetheless, human beings do this all the time. In fact, I’m doing exactly that right now.

At the same time, Alan Turing is one of my personal heroes, so it’s not easy for me to disagree with him. He’s also a cosmically intelligent human being that I don’t disagree with, without extreme caution. As a result, I’ll hedge my bets and say that what I present below is exactly what he was hoping to be true: that there is a simple model of computation beyond the UTM, and that nature is, as common sense suggests, stranger and more complicated than even the strangest fiction.

The “Box”

We naturally associate computation with symbolic computation, since that’s what we’re taught to do from the time we’re born. That is, computation is what you to do numbers and symbols, and computers are tools you use to do a lot of computations in a short amount of time. This view is embedded in the Church-Turing Thesis itself, in that Turing described computation as an inherently “mechanical” process. But when you compress the input to a UTM maximally, what you really have is a “trigger”. That is, there’s some string that we provide as the input to some box, and then that box spontaneously generates some output. That input string will probably be totally unrecognizable as anything that should be associated with the output that it will ultimately generate, since, by definition, we’ve eliminated all the compressible structure in the input, leaving what will be a maximally randomized kernel.

Abstracting from this, we can define a kind of computation that is not the product of mathematical operations performed on a set of symbols. Instead, we can view the input to a computational device as a trigger for the outputs that follow. This view allows us to break free of the mathematical restraints of mechanical computation, which prevent us from generating complexity. That is, as noted above, and proven below, the complexity of the output of a UTM can never exceed the complexity of its input. If, however, we treat the input to a device as a trigger, and not the subject of some mathematical operation, then we can map a finite string to anything we’d like, including, for example, a particular configuration of a continuous surface.

Implementing this would require a continuous system that responds to inputs. Some kind of wave seems to be the best candidate, but I’m not claiming to know what physical systems we should use. Instead, I’m presenting what I believe to be a simple mathematical model of computation that is on its face non-computable, and leaving it up to the adults in the room to figure out how to implement it.

Assume that we have some input m, that we give to our computational device X.
In particular, let’s assume X is always in some state that we’ll represent as a series of integer values mapped to an uncountable space. That is, the state of X can be represented as an uncountable multi-set of integers, which for convenience we’ll imagine being represented as heights in a plane. Specifically, imagine an otherwise flat plane that has some height to it, with the height of the plane at a given point representing the value of the state of X at that point, and the aggregate set of heights representing the overall state of X at a given moment in time.

When X is given some input m, assume that its state changes from some X_0, to some other state X(m).

We could assume that the state of X changes for some period of time after receiving the input m, or switches immediately to X(m). Either way, the important part is to assume that X is, by definition, capable of being in states that require an infinite amount of information to fully represent. We could of course also allow X to be in states that require only a finite amount of information to represent, but the bit that will make X decidedly non-computable is the ability to be in a state that is in effect a chaotic wave. That is, a discontinuous set of integer values mapped onto a continuous surface, that, as a result, cannot be compressed into some finite representation.

If such a system exists, X would be, by its nature, non-computable, since, first of all, X generates states that require an uncountable number of integers to fully represent. Since a UTM can generate only finite outputs, the states of X cannot be simulated by a UTM. Further, X is capable of being in non-compressible, infinitely complex states, which means that there is no finite compression of at least some of the states of X, again implying that, even if we could “read” every point on the surface of X, there are at least some states of X that could not be compressed into a finite string that could in turn generate the complete state of X on some UTM.

As a result, if such a system exists, then we would be able to take a finite string, and trigger an output that contains an infinite amount of information, generating complexity. Further, by juxtaposing two waves directly on top of each other, we would presumably generate constructive interference, the result of which we could define as the “sum” of two inputs. By juxtaposing two slightly offset waves, we would presumably generate destructive interference, the result of which we could define as the “difference” between two inputs. As a result, if we could understand and control such a system, perhaps we could perform otherwise non-computable computations.

# Correlation, Computability, and the Complexity of Music

If we know truly nothing at all about a data set, then the fact that the data is presented to us as a collection of vectors does not necessarily imply that there is any connection between the underlying dimensions of the vectors. That is, it could just be a coincidence that has caused these otherwise independent dimensions of data to be combined into vector form. This suggests that whether we create categories based upon the vectors as a whole, or the individual dimensions of the vectors, will depend upon our ex ante assumptions about the data.

Even in the case where the components of the vectors are not statistically correlated, it could still nonetheless be rational to treat the components as part of a whole. This would be the case whenever a combination of underlying characteristics affects the whole. Color is a good example of this. As a general matter, we’ll probably want to categorize colors as a whole (i.e., a single RGB vector), but the individual components of a data set of colors might not necessarily be correlated with each other. That is, we could be given a data set of colors where the red, blue, and green luminosity levels are all statistically independent of each other. Nonetheless, the combinations of color luminosities determine the perceived colors, and therefore, we can rationally construct categories using entire vectors, and not just the components of the vectors, despite the fact that the components of the vectors might be statistically independent of each other. In this case, this is driven by a perceptual phenomenon, since it just happens to be the case that the brain combines different exogenous wavelengths of light into a single perceived color.

This example highlights the distinction between (1) statistical correlation between the components of a vector, and (2) the co-relevance of the components of a vector in their contribution to some whole that is distinct from its underlying components.

Similar ideas apply to music, where a chord produces something that is distinct from its individual components. That is, when a single note is played, there is no harmony, since by definition there is only one note. This is in some sense a point of semantics, but it can also be expressed mathematically. That is, when a single note is played, there is no relationship to be considered between any two notes, since there is, of course, only one note. When two notes are played, however, not only are there two auditory signals being generated, but there is a third distinct artifact of this arrangement, which is the relationship between the two notes. As we add notes to the chord, the number of relationships between the notes increases.

We can count these relationships using simple combinatorics. For example, 3 notes played simultaneously creates 7 distinct perceptual artifacts. Specifically, there are the 3 individual notes; the 3 combinations of any two notes; and the 1 combination of all 3 notes. An untrained musician might not be conscious of these relationships, whereas a trained musician will be. But in either case, in a manner more or less analogous to how a blue and a red source produce magenta, which is a non-spectral color, two or more notes generate higher order perceptual experiences that are fundamentally different than those generated by their individual components. That is, harmony is a perceptual experience that must be distinct from the signals generated by its underlying components, since certain combinations of notes are known to be harmonious, whereas others are not, and instead produce dissonance (i.e., combinations of notes that “clash”).

Unlike visual art, which exists in a Euclidean space, music extends through time, in a fairly rigorous manner, with definite mathematical relationships between the notes played at a given moment, and between the notes played over time. Moreover, these relationships change in a non-linear manner as a function of the underlying variables. For example, a “major third” is arguably the most pleasant sound in music, and is generally associated with an expression of joy (think of the melody from Beethoven’s, “Ode to Joy”). One half-step down (which is the minimum decrement in the 12-tone scale), and we find the minor third, which, while harmonious, is generally associated with an expression of sadness (think of the opening to Beethoven’s, “Moonlight Sonata”). One whole-step down from a major third, we find a harmonically neutral combination between the root of a chord and the second note in the related scale. That is, adding this note to a chord doesn’t really change the character of the chord, but adds a bit of richness to it. In contrast, one whole step up from a major third, and we find a tritone, which is a dissonance so visceral, it’s generally associated with evil in cheesy horror movies, producing a demented sound (have a listen to the opening of “Totentanz”, by Franz Liszt).

In short, though there are undoubtedly patterns in music, the underlying space is extremely complex, and varies in an almost chaotic manner (at least over small intervals) as a function of its fundamental components.

This suggests that generating high-quality, complex music is probably a much harder problem than generating high-quality visual art. With all due respect to visual artists, the fact is that you can add statistical noise to the positions of pixels in a Picasso, and it will still look similar to the original piece. Similarly, you can add statistical noise to its colors, and nonetheless produce something that looks close to the original piece. As a result, it suggests that you can “approximate” visual art using statistical techniques. This is a consequence of the space in which visual art exists, which is a Euclidean physical space, and a roughly logarithmic color space. In contrast, if you “blur” Mahler’s 5th Symphony, changing the notes slightly, you’re going to produce a total disaster. This is a consequence of the underlying space in music, which is arguably chaotic over small intervals, though it certainly has patterns over large intervals.

Upon reflection, it is, therefore, actually remarkable that human beings can take something as complex as a symphony, which will have an enormous number of relationships to consider, that change randomly as a function of their underlying variables, and reduce it to a perceptual experience that is either harmonious or not. The ability to create something so complex that is nonetheless structured, and perceived in a unitary manner by others, borders on the astonishing.

It suggests that the minds of people like Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms, could provide insights into how some human beings somehow operate as net contributors of structured information, despite the fact that it is mathematically impossible for a classical computer to generate “new information”, since the Kolmogorov complexity of the output of a Turning Machine is always less than or equal to the complexity of its input. That is, a Turing Machine can alter, and destroy information, but it cannot create new information that did not exist beforehand.

This can be easily proven as follows:

Let $K(x)$ denote the computational complexity of the string $x$, and let $y = U(x)$ denote the output of a UTM when given $x$ as input. Because $x$ generated $y$, by definition, $K(y) \leq |x|$. Put informally, $K(y)$ is the length, measured in bits, of the shortest program that generates $y$ on a UTM. Since $x$ generates $y$ when $x$ is given as the input to a UTM, it follows that $K(y)$ can’t be bigger than the length of $x$. This in turn implies that $K(y) \leq K(x) + C$. That is, we can generate $y$ by first running the shortest program that will generate $x$, which has a length of $K(x)$, and then feed $x$ back into the UTM, which will in turn generate $y$. This is simply a UTM that “runs twice”, the code for which will have a length of $C$ that does not depend upon $x$, which proves the result. That is, there’s a UTM that always runs twice, and the code for that machine is independent of the particular $x$ under consideration.

We could, therefore, take the view that meaningful non-determinism is the best evidence for computation beyond what is possible by a UTM.

That is, if a source generates outputs, the complexities of which consistently exceed the aggregate complexities of any apparent inputs, then that source simply cannot be computable, since, as we just proved above, computable processes cannot generate complexity. If it is also the case that this source generates outputs that have structure, then we cannot say that this source is simply producing random outputs. Therefore, any such source would be a net contributor of structured information, which means that the source would be a non-random, non-computable source.

I am clearly suggesting the possibility that at least some human beings are capable of producing artifacts, the complexities of which exceed the aggregate complexities of any obvious sources of information. In short, human creativity might be the best evidence for non-random, non-computable processes of nature, which would in turn, imply that at least some human beings are fundamentally different from all known machines. This view suggests that, similarly, our greatest mathematicians weren’t operating as theorem provers, beginning with assumptions and mechanistically deducing conclusions, but were perhaps arriving at conclusions that did not follow from any obvious available sources of information, with minds that made use of processes of nature that we do not yet fully understand. This is probably why these people are referred to as geniuses. That is, the artifacts produced by people like Newton, Gauss, and Beethoven are astonishing precisely because they don’t follow from any obvious set of assumptions, but are instead only apparent after they’ve already been articulated.

But in addition to the admittedly anecdotal narrative above, there is also a measure of probability developed by Ray Solomonoff that provides a more convincing theoretical justification for the view that human creativity probably isn’t the product of a computable process. Specifically, Solomonoff showed that if we provide random inputs to a UTM (e.g., a binary coin toss), then the probability of that UTM generating a given output string $x$ is given by,

$p \approx 1/2^{K(x)}$,

where $K(x)$ is the same Kolmogorov complexity of x we just discussed above. That is, the probability that a UTM given random inputs generates a given string $x$ is approximately equal to $1/2^{K(x)}$.

We can certainly iteratively generate all binary inputs to a UTM, and it is almost certainly the case that, for example, no one has stumbled upon the correct input to a UTM that will generate Mahler’s 5th symphony. So, if we want to argue that the creative process is nonetheless the product of a computable process, it follows that the computable process, in this case, Mahler’s creative process, is the product happenstance, where a series of random inputs serendipitously found their way to Gustav Mahler, ultimately causing his internal mental process to generate a masterpiece.

In addition to sounding ridiculous when stated in these terms, it turns out that Solomonoff’s equation above also casts serious doubt on this as a credible possibility. Specifically, because we’ve presumably yet to find the correct input to a UTM that will generate Mahler’s 5th symphony, this input string is presumably fairly large. This implies that the probability that an encoded version of Mahler’s 5th will be generated by a UTM given random inputs is extremely low. As a result, we’re left with the conclusion that large, high-complexity artifacts that nonetheless have structure are probably not the product of a random input being fed to a UTM. Moreover, such artifacts are even less likely to be the product of pure chance, since $K(x) \leq |x| + C$. That is, we can just feed the input x to a UTM that simply copies its input, so a string is never more complex than its own length plus a constant. As a result, assuming $x$ is an encoding of Mahler’s 5th symphony, we’re probably far more likely to randomly generate $y$, for which $U(y) = x$, than we are to generate $x$ itself. But as we just showed above, both of these outcomes have probabilities so small that it’s probably more sensible to assume that we just don’t understand how some people think.

As a result, Solomonoff’s equation expresses something we all know to be true in mathematical terms: I can toss coins for a billion years, and I’ll still never produce something like Mahler’s 5th. In the jargon of computer theory, Mahler’s 5th Symphony might be the best evidence that the Church-Turing Thesis is false.

This view is even more alarming when you consider the algorithmic probability of generating a DNA molecule…

# Using Information Theory to Create Categories with No Prior Information

In a previous post below entitled, “Image Recognition with No Prior Information”, I introduced an algorithm that can identify structure in random images with no prior information by making use of assumptions rooted in information theory. As part of that algorithm, I showed how we can use the Shannon entropy of a matrix to create meaningful, objective categorizations ex ante, without any prior information about the data we’re categorizing. In this post, I’ll present a generalized algorithm that can take in an arbitrary data set, and quickly construct meaningful, intuitively correct partitions of the data set, again with no prior information.

Though I am still conducting research on the run-time of the algorithm, the algorithm generally takes only a few seconds to run on an ordinary commercial laptop, and I believe the worst case complexity of the algorithm to be $O(log(n)n^2 + n^2 + n)$, where n is the number of data points in the data set.

The Distribution of Information

Consider the vector of integers  x = [1 2 3 5 10 11 15 21]. In order to store, convey, or operate on x, we’d have to represent x in some form, and as a result, by its nature, x has some intrinsic information content. In this case, x consists of a series of 8 integers, all less than $2^5 = 32$, so we could, for example, represent the entire vector as a series of 8, 5-bit binary numbers, using a total of 40 bits. This would be a reasonable measure of the amount of information required to store or communicate x. But for purposes of this algorithm, we’re not really interested in how much information is required to store or communicate a data set. Instead, we’re actually more interested in the information content of certain partitions of the data set.

Specifically, we begin by partitioning x into equal intervals of Δ = (21-1) / N, where N is some integer. That is, we take the max and min elements, take their difference, and divide by some integer N, which will result in some rational number that we’ll use as an interval with which we’ll partition x. If we let N = 2, then Δ = 10, and our partition is given by {1 2 3 5 10 11} {15 21}. That is, we begin with the minimum element of the set, add Δ, and all elements less than or equal to that minimum + Δ are included in the first subset. In this case, this would group all elements from 1 to 1 + Δ = 11. The next subset is in this case generated by taking all numbers greater than 11, up to and including 1 + 2Δ = 21. If instead we let N = 3, then Δ = 6 + ⅔, and our partition is in this case given by {1 2 3 5} {10 11} {15 21}.

As expected, by increasing N, we decrease Δ, thereby generating a partition that consists of a larger number of smaller subsets. As a result, the information content of our partition changes as a function of N, and eventually, our partition will consist entirely of single element sets that contain an equal amount of information (and possibly, some empty subsets). Somewhere along the way from N = 1 to that maximum, we’ll reach a point where the subsets contain maximally different amounts of information, which we treat as an objective point of interest, since it is an a priori partition that generates maximally different subsets, at least with respect to their information content.

First, we’ll need to define our measure of information content. For this purpose, we assume that the information content of a subset is given by the Shannon information,

$I = log(1/p)$,

where p is the probability of the subset. In this case, the partition is a static artifact, and as a result, the subsets don’t have real probabilities. Nonetheless, each partition is by definition comprised of some number of m elements, where m is some portion of the total number of elements M. For example, in this case, M = 8, and for Δ = 6 + ⅔, the first subset of the partition consists of m = 4 elements. As a result, we could assume that p = m/M = ½, producing an information content of log(2) = 1 bit.

As noted above, as we iterate through values of N, the information contents of the subsets will change. For any fixed value of N, we can measure the standard deviation of the information contents of the subsets generated by the partition. There will be some value of N for which this standard deviation is maximized. This is the value of N that will generate maximally different subsets of x that are all nonetheless bounded by the same interval Δ.

This is not, however, where the algorithm ends. Instead, it is just a pre-processing step we’ll use to measure how symmetrical the data is. Specifically, if the data is highly asymmetrical, then a low value of N will result in a partition that consists of subsets with different numbers of elements, and therefore, different measures of information content. In contrast, if the data is highly symmetrical, then it will require several subdivisions until the data is broken into unequally sized subsets.

For example, consider the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 15}. If N = 2, then Δ = 7, and immediately, the set set is broken into subsets of {1, 2, 3, 4} and {15}, which are of significantly different sizes when compared to the size of the original set. In contrast, given the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, if N = 2, then Δ = 2, resulting in subsets of {1, 2, 3} {4, 5}. It turns out that the standard deviation is in this case maximized when N = 3, resulting in a partition given by {1, 2} {3} {4, 5}. We can then express the standard deviation of the partition as an Octave vector:

std( [ log(5/2) log(5) log(5/2) ] ) = 0.57735.

As a result, we can use N as a measure of symmetry, which will in turn inform how we ultimately group elements together into categories. The attached partition_vec script finds the optimum value of N.

Symmetry, Dispersion, and Expected Category Sizes

To begin, recall that N can be used as a measure of the symmetry of a data set. Specifically, returning to our example x = [1 2 3 5 10 11 15 21] above, it turns out that N = 2, producing a maximum standard deviation of 1.1207 bits. This means that it requires very little subdivision to cause x to be partitioned into equally bounded subsets that contain maximally different amounts of information. This suggests that there’s a decent chance that we can meaningfully partition x into categories that are “big” relative to its total size. Superficially, this seems reasonable, since, for example, {1 2 3 5} {10 11 15} {21} would certainly be a reasonable partition.

As a general matter, we assume that a high value of N creates an ex ante expectation of small categories, and that a low value of N creates an ex ante expectation of large categories. As a result, a high value of N should correspond to a small initial guess as to how different two elements need to be in order to be categorized separately, and a low value of N should correspond to a large initial guess for this value.

It turns out that the following equation, which I developed in the context of recognizing structure in images, works quite well:

$divisor = N^{N(1-symm)}/ 10$,

where divisor is the number by which we’ll divide the standard deviation of our data set, generating our initial minimum “guess” as to what constitutes a sufficient difference between elements in order to cause them to be categorized separately. That is, our initial sufficient difference will be proportional to s / divisor.

“Symm” is, as the name suggests, yet another a measure of symmetry, and a measure of dispersion about the median of a data set. Symm also forms the basis of a very simple measure of correlation that I’ll discuss in a follow up post. Specifically, symm is given by the square root of the average of the sum of the squares of the differences between the maximum and minimum elements of a set, the second largest and second smallest element of a set, and so on.

For example, in the case of the vector x, symm is given by,

$[\frac{1}{8} ( (21 - 1)^2 + (15 - 2)^2 + (11 -3)^2 + (10 - 5)^2 + (10 - 5)^2 + (11 -3)^2 + (15 - 2)^2 + (21 - 1)^2 )]^{\frac{1}{2}},$

which is 12.826.

As we increase the distance between the elements from the median of a data set, we increase symm. As we decrease this distance, we decrease symm. For example, symm([ 2 3 4 5 6 ]) is greater than symm([ 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 ]). Also note that a data set that is “tightly packed” on one side of its median and diffuse on the other will have a lower value of symm than another data set that is diffuse on both sides of its median. For example, symm([ 1 2 3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 ]) is less than symm([ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]).

For purposes of our algorithm, symm is yet another a measure of how big we should expect our categories to be ex ante. A large value of symm implies a data set that is diffuse about its median, suggesting bigger categories, whereas a small value of symm implies a data set that is tightly packed about its median, suggesting smaller categories. For purposes of calculating divisor above, we first convert the vector in question into a probability distribution by dividing by the sum over all elements of the vector. So in the case of x, we first calculate,

x’ = [0.014706 0.029412 0.044118 0.073529 0.147059 0.161765 0.220588 0.308824].

Then, we calculate symm(x’) = 0.18861. Putting it all together, this implies divisor = 0.30797.

Determining Sufficient Difference

One of the great things about this approach is that it allows us to define an objective, a priori measure of how different two elements need to be in order to be categorized separately. Specifically, we’ll make use of a technique I described in a previous post below that iterates through different minimum sufficient differences, until we reach a point where the structure of the resultant partition “cracks”, causing the algorithm to terminate, ultimately producing what is generally a high-quality partition of the data set. The basic underlying assumption is that the Shannon entropy of a mathematical object can be used as a measure of the object’s structural complexity. The point at which the Shannon entropy changes the most over some interval is, therefore, an objective local maximum where a significant change in structure occurs. I’ve noticed that this point is, across a wide variety of objects, including images and probabilities, where the intrinsic structure of an object comes into focus.

First, let maxiterations be the maximum number of times we’ll allow the main loop of the algorithm to iterate. We’ll want our final guess as to the minimum sufficient difference between categories to be s, the standard deviation of the data set. At the same time, we’ll want our initial guess to be proportional to s / divisor. As a result, we use a counter that begins at 0, and iterates up to divisor, in increments of,

$increment = divisor / maxiterations$,

This allows us to set the minimum sufficient difference between categories to,

$delta = s(counter / divisor)$,

which will ultimately cause delta to begin at 0, and iterate up to s, as counter iterates from 0 to divisor, increasing by increment upon each iteration.

After calculating an initial value for delta, the main loop of the algorithm begins by selecting an initial “anchor” value from the data set, which is in this case simply the first element of the data set. This anchor will be the first element of the first category of our partition. Because we are assuming that we know nothing about the data, we can’t say ex ante which item from the data set should be selected as the initial element. In the context of image recognition, we had a bit more information about the data, since we knew that the data represented an image, and therefore, had a good reason to impose additional criteria on our selection of the initial element. In this case, we are assuming that we have no idea what the data set represents, and as a result, we simply iterate through the data set in the order in which it is presented to us. This means that the first element of the first category of our partition is simply the first element of the data set.

We then iterate through the data set, again in the order in which it is presented, adding elements to this first category, provided the element under consideration is within delta of the anchor element. Once we complete an iteration through the data set, we select the anchor for the second category, which will in this case be the first available element of the data set that was not included in our first category. This process continues until all elements of the data set have been included in a category, at which point the algorithm measures the entropy of the partition, which is simply the weighted average information content of each category. That is, the entropy of a partition is,

$H(P) = \Sigma (p log(1 / p))$.

We then store H, increment delta, and repeat this entire process for the new value of delta, which will produce another partition, and therefore, another measure of entropy. Let H_1 and H_2 represent the entropies of the partitions generated by delta_1 and delta_2, respectively. The algorithm will calculate $(H_1 - H_2)^2$, and compare it to the maximum change in entropy observed over all iterations, which is initially set to 0. That is, as we increment delta, we measure the rate of change in the entropy of the partition as a function of delta, and store the value of delta for which this rate of change is maximized.

As noted above, it turns out that, as a general matter, this is a point at which the inherent structure of a mathematical object comes into focus. This doesn’t imply that this method produces the “correct” partition of a data set, or an image, but rather, that it is expected to produce reasonable partitions ex ante based upon our analysis and assumptions above.

Minimum Required Structure

We can’t say in advance exactly how this algorithm will behave, and as a result, I’ve also included a test condition in the main loop of the algorithm that ensures that the resultant partition has a certain minimum amount of structure. That is, in addition to testing for the maximum change in entropy, the algorithm also ensures that the resultant partition has a certain minimum amount of structure, as measured using the entropy of the partition.

In particular, the minimum entropy required is given by,

$H_{min} = (1 - symm)log(numitems)$,

where symm is the same measure of symmetry discussed above. This minimum is enforced by simply having the loop terminate the moment the entropy of the partition tests below the minimum required entropy.

Note that as the number of items in our data set increases, the maximum possible entropy of the partition, given by log(numitems), increases as well. Further, as our categories increase in size, and decrease in number, the entropy of the resultant partition will decrease. If symm is low (i.e., close to 0), then we have good reason to expect a partition that contains a large number of narrow categories, meaning that we shouldn’t allow the algorithm to generate a low entropy partition. If symm is high, then we can be more comfortable allowing the algorithm to run a bit longer, producing a lower entropy partition. See, “Image Recognition with No Prior Information” on my researchgate page for more on the theory underlying this algorithm, symm, and the Shannon entropy generally.

Applying the Algorithm to Data

Let’s consider the data sets generated by the following code:

for i = 1 : 25

endfor

for i = 26 : 50

endfor

This is of course just random data, but to give the data some intuitive appeal, we could assume that base = 4, adjustment = 3, spread = .1, and interpret the resulting data as heights measured in two populations of people: one population that is significantly shorter than average (i.e., around 4 feet tall), and another population that is significantly taller than average (i.e., around 7 feet tall). Note that in Octave, rand() produces a random number from 0 to 1. This is implemented by the attached generate_random_data script.

Each time we run this code, we’ll generate a data set of what we’re interpreting as heights, that we know to be comprised of two sets of numbers: one set clustered around 4, and the other set clustered around 7. If we run the categorization algorithm on the data (which I’ve attached as optimize_linear_categories), we’ll find that the average number of categories generated is around 2.7. As a result, the algorithm does a good job at distinguishing between the two sets of numbers that we know to be present.

Note that as we decrease the value of adjustment, we decrease the difference between the sets of numbers generated by the two loops in the code above. As a result, decreasing the value of adjustment blurs the line between the two categories of numbers. This is reflected in the results produced by the algorithm, as shown in the attached graph, in which the number of categories decreases exponentially as the value of adjustment goes from 0 to 3.

Similarly, as we increase spread, we increase the intersection between the two sets of numbers, thereby again decreasing the distinction between the two sets of numbers. However, the number of categories appears to grow linearly in this case as a function of spread over the interval .1 to .7, with adjustment fixed at 3.

As a general matter, these results demonstrate that the algorithm behaves in an intuitive manner, generating a small number of wide categories when appropriate, and a large number of narrow categories when appropriate.

Generalizing this algorithm to the n-dimensional case should be straightforward, and I’ll follow up with those scripts sometime over the next few days. Specifically, we can simply substitute the arithmetic difference between two data points with the norm of the difference between two n-dimensional vectors. Of course, some spaces, such as an RGB color space, might require non-Euclidean measures of distance. Nonetheless, the point remains, that the concepts presented above are general, and should not, as a general matter, depend upon the dimension of the data set.

The relevant Octave / Matlab scripts are available here:

generate_linear_categories

generate_random_data

left_right_delta

optimize_linear_categories

partition_vec

spec_log

test_entropy_vec

vector_entropy

# A Mathematical Theory of Partial Information

The fundamental observation underlying all of information theory is that probability and information are inextricably related to one another through Shannon’s celebrated equation,

I = log(1/p),

where I is the optimal code length for a signal with a probability of p. This equation in turn allows us to measure the information content of a wide variety of mathematical objects, regardless of whether or not they are actually sources that generate signals. For example, in the posts below, I’ve shown how this equation can be used to evaluate the information content of an image, a single color, a data set, and even a particle. In each of these instances, however, we evaluated the information content of a definite object, with known properties. In this post, I’ll discuss how we can measure the information content of a message that conveys partial information about an uncertain event, in short, answering the question of, “how much did I learn from that message?”

Exclusionary Messages

Let’s begin with a simple example. Consider a three-sided dice, with equally likely outcomes we’ll label A, B, and C. If we want to efficiently encode and record the outcomes of some number of throws, then Shannon’s equation above implies that we should assign a code of length log(3) bits to each of the three possible outcomes.

Now imagine that we have received information that guarantees that outcome A will not occur on the next throw. This is obviously a hypothetical, and in reality, it would generally not be possible to exclude outcomes with certainty in this manner, but let’s assume for the sake of illustration that an oracle has informed us that A will not occur on the next throw. Note that this doesn’t tell us what the next throw will be, since both B and C are still a possibility. It does, however, provide us with some information, since we know that the next throw will not be A.

Now imagine that, instead, our oracle told us that the next throw is certain to be A. That is, our oracle knows, somehow, that no matter what happens, the next throw will be A. In this case, we have specified a definite outcome. Moreover, this outcome has a known ex ante probability, which in turn implies that it has an information content. Specifically, in this case, the probability of A is 1/3, and its information content is log(3) bits. Since learning in advance that A will occur is not meaningfully distinguishable from actually observing A (at least for this purpose), upon learning that A will be the next outcome, we receive log(3) bits of information. As a result, we receive log(3) bits of information upon receipt of the message from our oracle, and learn nothing at all upon throwing the dice, since we already know the outcome of the next throw. Note that this doesn’t change the total amount of information observed, which is still log(3) bits. Instead, the message changes the timing of the receipt of that information. That is, either we receive log(3) bits from the oracle, or we observe log(3) bits upon throwing the dice. The only question is when we receive the information, not how much information we receive.

Now let’s return to the first case where our oracle told us that the outcome will definitely not be A. In this case, our oracle has excluded an event, rather than specified a particular event. As a result, we cannot associate this information with any single event in the event space, since two outcomes are still possible. We call this type of information an exclusionary message, since it excludes certain possibilities from the event space of an uncertain outcome. As a general matter, any information that reduces the set of possible outcomes can be viewed as an exclusionary message. For example, if instead our oracle said that the next outcome will be either B or C, then this message can be recharacterized as an exclusionary message conveying that A will not occur.

If we receive an exclusionary message that leaves only one possible outcome for a particular trial, then the information content of that message should equal the information content of observing the actual outcome itself. Returning to our example above, if our oracle tells us that B and C will not occur upon the next throw, then that leaves A as the only possible outcome. As a result, knowing that neither of B and C will occur should convey log(3) bits of information. Therefore, intuitively, we expect an exclusionary message that leaves more than one possible outcome remaining to convey less than log(3) bits of information. For example, if our oracle says that B will not occur, then that message should convey fewer than log(3) bits, since it conveys less information than knowing that neither of B and C will occur.

As a general matter, we assume that the information content of an exclusionary message that asserts the non-occurrence of an event that otherwise has a probability of p of occurring is given by,

I = log(1/(1-p)).

The intuition underlying this assumption is similar to that which underlies Shannon’s equation above. Specifically, an event with a high ex ante probability that fails to occur carries a great deal of surprisal, and therefore, a great deal of information. In contrast, a low probability event that fails to occur carries very little surprisal, and therefore, very little information. Note that, as a result, the information content of an exclusionary message will depend upon the ex ante probability for the event excluded by the message, which is something we will address again below when we consider messages that update probabilities, as opposed to exclude events.

Returning to our example, if our oracle informs us that A will not occur on the next throw, then that message conveys log(3/2) bits of information. Upon receipt of that message, the probabilities of B and C should be adjusted to the conditional probabilities generated by assuming that A will not occur. In this case, this implies that B and C each have a probability of 1/2. When we ultimately throw either a B or a C, the total information received from the message and observing the throw is log(3/2) + log(2) = log(3) bits. This is consistent with our observation above that the oracle does not change the total amount of information received, but instead, merely changes the timing of the receipt of that information.

If instead our oracle informs us that neither of A and B will occur, then that message conveys log(3) bits of information, the same amount of information that would be conveyed if our oracle told us that C will occur. This is consistent with our assumption that the amount of information contained in the message should increase as a function of the number of events that it excludes, since this will eventually lead to a single event being left as the only possible outcome.

If we receive two separate messages, one informing us of the non-occurrence of A, and then another message that informs us of the non-occurrence of B, both received prior to actually throwing the dice, then this again leaves C as the only possible outcome. But, we can still measure the information content of each message separately. Specifically, the first message asserts the non-occurrence of an event that has a probability of 1/3, and therefore, conveys log(3/2) bits of information. The second message, however, asserts the non-occurrence of an event that has a probability of 1/2 after receipt of the first message. That is, after the first message is received, the probabilities of the remaining outcomes are adjusted to the conditional probabilities generated by assuming that A does not occur. This implies that upon receipt of the second message, B and C each have a probability of 1/2. As a result, the second message conveys log(2) bits of information, since it excludes an outcome that has a probability of 1/2. Together, the two messages convey log(3/2) + log(2) = log(3) bits of information, which is consistent with our assumption that whether a message identifies a particular outcome, or excludes all outcomes but one, then the same amount of information should be conveyed in either case.

As a general matter, this approach ensures that the total information conveyed by exclusionary messages and through observation is always equal to the original ex ante information content of the outcome that is ultimately observed. As a result, this approach “conserves” information, and simply moves its arrival through time.

As a general matter, when we receive a message asserting the non-occurrence of an event with a probability of p*, then we’ll update the remaining probabilities to the conditional probabilities generated by assuming the non-occurrence of the event. This means all remaining probabilities will be divided by 1 – p*. Therefore, the total information conveyed by the message followed by the observation of an event with a probability of p is given by,

log(1/(1-p*)) + log((1-p*)/p) = log(1/p).

That is, the total information conveyed by an exclusionary message and any subsequent observation is always equal to the original ex ante information content of the observation.

Partial Information and Uncertainty

This approach also allows us to measure the information content of messages that don’t predict specific outcomes, but instead provide partial information about outcomes. For example, assume that we have a row of N boxes, each labelled 1 through N. Further, assume that exactly one of the boxes contains a pebble, but that we don’t know which box contains the pebble ex ante, and assume that each box is equally like to contain the pebble ex ante. Now assume that we receive a message that eliminates the possibility that box 1 contains the pebble. Because all boxes are equally likely to contain the pebble, the information content of that message is log(N/N-1). Now assume that we receive a series of messages, each eliminating one of the boxes from the set of boxes that could contain the pebble. The total information conveyed by these messages is given by,

log(N/(N-1)) + log((N-1)/(N-2)) + … + log(2) = log(N).

That is, a series of messages that gradually eliminate possible locations for the pebble conveys the same amount of information as actually observing the pebble. Note that simply opening a given box would constitute an exclusionary message, since it conveys information that will either reveal the location of the pebble, or eliminate the opened box from the set of possible locations for the pebble.

As a general matter, we can express the uncertainty as to the location of the pebble as follows:

U = Log(N) – I.

Messages that Update Probabilities

In the previous section, we considered messages that exclude outcomes from the event space of a probability distribution. In practice, information is likely to come in some form that changes our expectations as to the probability of an outcome, as opposed to eliminating an outcome as a possibility altogether. In the approach we developed above, we assumed that the information content of the message in question is determined by the probability of the event that it excluded. In this case, there is no event being excluded, but instead, a single probability being updated.

Let’s begin by continuing with our example above of the three-sided dice and assume that we receive a message that updates the probability of throwing an A from 1/3 to 1/4. Because the message conveys no information about the probabilities of B and C, let’s assume that their probabilities maintain the same proportion to each other. In this particular case, this implies that each of A and B have a probability of 3/8. Though its significance is not obvious, we can assume that the updated probabilities of A and B are conditional probabilities, specifically, the result of division by a probability, which in this case would be 8/9. That is, in our analysis above, we assumed that the remaining probabilities are adjusted by dividing by the probability that the excluded event does not occur. In this case, though there is no event being excluded, we can, nonetheless, algebraically solve for a probability, division by which, will generate the updated probabilities for the outcomes that were not the subject of the message.

Continuing with our example above, the message updating the probability of A from 1/3 to 1/4 would in this case have an information content of log(9/8). Upon observing either B or C after receipt of this message, the total information conveyed would be log(9/8) + log(8/3) = log(3). Note that information is not conserved if we were to subsequently observe A, but this is consistent with our analysis above, since throwing an A after receipt of an exclusionary message regarding A would imply that we’ve observed an infinite amount of information.

Interestingly, this approach implies the existence of a probability, the significance of which is not obvious. Specifically, if we receive a message with an information content of i, then since,

i = log(1/1 – p),

the probability associated with that information is given by,

$p = 1 - 1/2^i$.

This is the same form of probability we addressed in the post below, “Using Information Theory to Explain Color Perception”. In the analysis above, this was the probability of an event excluded by a message. If we assume that, similarly, in this case, this is the probability of some event that failed to occur, then the information content of the message would again increase as a function of surprisal, with high probability events that fail to occur carrying more information than low probability events.

We can still make use of this probability to inform our method, even though we don’t fully understand its significance. Specifically, this probability implies that messages that update probabilities always relate to probabilities that are reduced. That is, just like an exclusionary message eliminates an event from the outcome space, a message that updates a probability must always be interpreted as reducing the probabilities of some outcomes in the event space, meaning that the conditional probabilities of the outcomes that are not the subject of the message will be increased. Since we divide by 1 – p to generate those conditional probabilities, assuming that the conditional probabilities decrease implies that the probability 1 – p > 1, which in turn implies that p < 0. As a result, assuming that p is in fact a probability provides insight into our method, regardless of whether or not we fully understand the significance of the probability.

For example, if we receive a message that increases the probability of A to 2/3, then we would interpret that message as decreasing the probability of both B and C to 1/6. That is, we recharacterize the message so that the subject of the message is actually outcomes B and C. Recall that we determine p by looking to the conditional probabilities of the outcomes that are not the subject of the message, and so in this case, we have (1/3)/(1-p) = 2/3, which implies that 1 – p = 1/2. Therefore, the information content of the message is log(2), and upon observing an A, the total information received is log(2) + log(3/2) = log(3), i.e., the original ex ante information content of the outcome A.

# Using Information Theory to Explain Color Perception

RGB encoding is an incredibly useful representational schema that has helped facilitate the proliferation and current ubiquity of high quality digital images. Nonetheless, the color space generated by RGB vectors using its natural Euclidean boundaries as a subset of 3-space is not representative of how human beings actually perceive differences in color. We could of course chalk this up to subjectivity, or some biological processes that cause human beings to inaccurately distinguish between colors. Instead, I think that human beings perceive colors in a perfectly rational, efficient manner, and that information theory can help us understand why it is that human beings don’t perceive changes in color and luminosity linearly. Specifically, I believe that human beings naturally, and rationally, construct efficient codes for the colors they perceive, leading to changes in perceived colors that are logarithmic, rather than linear in nature.

The Information Content of a Color

The fundamental observation that underlies all of information theory is the following equation due to Claude Shannon:

$I = \log(1/p)$,

where $I$ is the optimal code length (measured in bits) of a signal with a probability of p. In this particular case, the ultimate goal is to take an RGB color vector, map it to a probability, and from that, generate a code length using the equation above that we will treat as the information content of the color represented by the RGB vector (see the posts below for more on this approach).

In previous posts, I used this method to measure the information content of a set of pixels, despite the fact that a set of pixels is not a source, but is instead a static artifact. Nonetheless, a set of pixels will have some distribution of colors, that, while fixed, can be viewed as corresponding to a probability distribution. As a result, we can measure the information content of a group of pixels by treating the frequency of each color as a probability, and then calculating the entropy of the resulting probability distribution. But unlike a set of pixels, a single color has no distribution, and is instead, using RGB encoding, a single 3-vector of integers. As a result, there’s no obvious path to our desired probability.

Let’s begin by being even more abstract, and attempt to evaluate the information content of a single color channel in an RGB vector. This will be some integer x with a value from 0 to 255. If we’d like to make use of the equation above, we’ll have to associate x with some probability, and generate a code for it, the length of which we can treat as the information content of the color channel. One obvious approach would be to view x as a fraction of 255. This will produce a number $p = x/255$ that can be easily interpreted (at least mathematically) as a probability. But upon examination, we’ll see that this approach is unsatisfying from a theoretical perspective.

First, note that $x$ is measure of luminosity that we intend to map to a probability. Luminosity is an objective unit of measurement that does not depend upon its source. As a result, the probability we assign to x should similarly not depend upon the particular source we’re making use of, if we want our method to be objective. That is, a particular level of luminosity should be associated with the same probability regardless of the source that is generating it.

To make things less abstract, imagine that we had a series of 5 identical light bulbs bundled together. The more lights we have on, the greater the luminosity generated by the device. If we assign probabilities to these luminosity levels based upon the portion of lights that are on, then using four out of five lights would correspond to a probability of 4/5. Our code length for that outcome would then be $\log(5/4)$. Now imagine that we have a group of 10 identical light bulbs bundled together. On this device, using 4 of the lights produces a probability of 4/10, and a code length of $\log(10/4)$. In both cases, the luminosity generated would be the same, since in both cases, exactly 4 lights are on. This implies that, as a general matter, if we use this approach, our code lengths will depend upon the particular light source used, and will, therefore, not be an objective mapping from luminosity to probability.

Instead, what we’re really looking for is something akin to what Ray Solomonoff called the “universal prior”. That is, we’d like an objective ex ante probability that we can ascribe to a given luminosity without any context or other prior information. If we give this probability physical meaning, in this case, our probability would be an objective ex ante probability for seeing a particular luminosity. This might sound like a tall order, but it turns out that by using Shannon’s equation above, we can generate priors that are useful in the context of understanding how human beings perceive colors, even if we don’t believe that they are actually universal probabilities. In short, I think that the human brain uses universal priors because they work, not because they’re actually correct answers to cosmic questions like, “what’s the probability of seeing blue?”

Information and Luminosity

Thanks to modern physics, we know that light is quantized, and comes in little “chunks” called photons. This means that more luminous light sources literally generate more photons, and therefore, more information. For those that are interested, I’ve written a fairly in-depth study of this topic, and others, which you can find here:

A Computational Model of Time-Dilation

This does not, however, imply that perceived luminosity will vary in proportion to the actual luminosity of the source. Instead, I assume that perceived luminosity is proportional to the amount of information triggered by signals generated by our sense organs upon observing a light source. Under this view, what human beings perceive as luminosity is actually a measure of information content, and not a measure of luminosity itself. That is, one light appears to glow brighter than another because the brighter light triggers a signal in our sense organs that contains more information than the signal triggered by the darker light source. This implies that sense organs that detect light are designed to measure information, not luminosity. Moreover, this implies that what we perceive as light is a representation of the amount of information generated by a light source, and not the actual luminosity generated by the light source. In crude terms, human vision is a bit counter, not a light meter.

If this is true, then it’s not the number of photons generated by a light source that we perceive, but the number of bits required to represent the number of photons generated by the light source. We can make sense of this by assuming that our perceptions are representational, and that our brain has a code for “light”, and a code for luminosity. When we see a light with a given luminosity, our brain recognizes it as a light, and generates a code for “light”, and then attaches a code for the perceived level of luminosity, which then triggers a sense impression of a light with a particular brightness. This view assumes that what we experience as sight is quite literally a representation, triggered by codes that are generated by our senses.

This view might be philosophically troubling, but we’ll see shortly that it produces the right answers, so, as a pragmatist, I’m willing to consider the possibility that what I perceive is what Kant would call phenomena (i.e., a representation of a thing), and not noumena (i.e., the underlying thing itself). In some sense, this is trivially the case, since we interact with the world through our senses, and as a result, our senses are our only source of information about the external world. But when we measure luminosity with something other than our eyes, it turns out that there’s a systematic disconnect between perceived luminosity, and actual measured luminosity, suggesting that there is real physical meaning to Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. That is, the fact that human beings perceive luminosity as a logarithmic function of actual measured luminosity suggests the possibility that, as a general matter, our perceptions are representational.

Leaving the philosophy, and returning to the mathematics, this view implies that the total signal information generated by our sense organs upon observing a light source with an actual luminosity of $L$ should be given by,

$i = \log(L) + C$,

where $C$ is a constant that represents the length of the code for perceiving light.

Note that, in this case, $i$ is not the information content of a Shannon code. Instead, $i$ is the raw signal information generated by our sense organs upon observing the light source itself. So let’s take things a step further, and assume that our sense organs are efficient, and make use of compression, which would mean that at some point along the set of processes that generate our perceptions, the initial code with a length of i is compressed. Further, for simplicity, let’s assume that it’s compressed using a Shannon code. In order to do so, we’ll need an ex ante probability. Again, we’re not suggesting that this probability is the “correct” probability of observing a particular signal, but rather, that it is a useful prior.

We can accomplish this by taking Shannon’s equation and solving for p. Specifically, we see that given an amount of information $i$, the probability associated with that information is given by,

$p = 1/2^i$ .

Again, we can agonize over the physical meaning of this probability, and say that it’s the correct ex ante prior for observing a given amount of information $i$. This has some intuitive appeal, since intuition suggests that as a general matter, low information events should be far more likely than high information events, which could explain why we find unusual events exciting and interesting. But we don’t need to take it that far. Instead, we can assume that our sense organs make use of a universal prior of this sort because it’s useful as a practical matter, not because it’s actually correct as an objective matter.

In this case, note that $p = 1/L$ (ignoring the constant term $C$), so plugging $p$ back into Shannon’s original equation, we obtain the following:

$I = \log(L)$.

In short, we end up at the same place. This suggests that whether or not our sense organs make use of signal compression, in the specific case of perceiving luminosity, we end up with a code whose length is given by the logarithm of the luminosity of the source, which is consistent with how human beings actually perceive luminosity.

In summation, human beings perceive luminosity logarithmically as a function of actual luminosity because what we are perceiving is a representation of the information content of a light source, not actual light, and not a representation of light.

If we take an RGB channel value as a proxy for luminosity, we can now finally express the information content of a single color channel value $x$ as simply $I = \log(x)$.

Color and Entropy

Luminosity is of course only one aspect of color, since colors also convey actual color information. To address this aspect, I assume that color itself is the consequence of the brain’s distinctions between the possible distributions of luminosity across different wavelengths of light. That is, a light source will have some total luminosity across all of the wavelengths that it generates, and the color ultimately perceived is the result of the distribution of that total luminosity among the individual wavelengths of light produced by the source. This is consistent with the fact that scalar multiples of a given RGB vector don’t change the color that is generated, but instead simply change the luminosity of the color.

Let’s consider the specific case of a given color vector $(x y z)$. The total luminosity of the vector is simply $L = x + y + z$. As a result, we can construct a distribution of luminosity given by,

$(p_1 p_2 p_3) = \frac{(x y z)}{L}$.

We can then take the entropy of $(p_1 p_2 p_3)$, which will give us a measure of the diffusion of the luminosity across the three channels. The maximum diffusion occurs when each channel has an equal amount of luminosity, which will produce no color at all, and scale from black to white, suggesting that color itself is the perceptual result of asymmetry in the distribution of information across wavelengths of light. In short, a high entropy color contains very little color information, and a low entropy color contains a lot of color information.

Comparing Colors Using Information Theory

Combining the information content of the color channels of an RGB vector, and the entropy of the vector, we can construct an overall measure of the difference between two colors $(x y z)$ and $(a b c)$ as follows:

$\delta L = ||\log((x y z)) - \log((a b c))||$,

and,

$\delta H= (H_1 - H_2)^2/\log(3)^2$,

where $H_1$ and $H_2$ are the respective entropies of $(x y z)$ and $(a b c)$. That is, we take the logarithm of the color vectors, then we take the norm of the difference, and this will give us a measure of the difference in luminosity between two colors. Then, we take the difference between the entropies of the two color vectors, which will give us a measure of how different the two colors are in terms of how much color information they convey. Note that each of $H_1$ and $H_1$ are necessarily less than or equal to $\log(3)$.

Though we can of course consider these two metrics separately, we can also combine them into a single metric that allows us to compare two colors:

$\delta T = 50 \delta L (\delta H + 1)$.

Since the logarithmic scale creates small differences between colors, I’ve chosen a multiplier of 50 to make the differences more noticeable, but this is otherwise an arbitrary scalar.

I’ve attached a color bar that begins with black (0 0 0), and increases linearly by a factor of 25.5 along the blue channel, together with a graph that shows the difference between each pair of adjacent colors, as measured by $\delta T$. As you can see, the colors become more similar as we traverse the color bar from left to right, despite the fact that their distances in Euclidean space are constant.

I’ve also attached another color bar that iterates through eight colors, but in this case, the increment moves from one channel to another, as if we were counting from 0 to 7 in binary using three bits.

The actual colors used in this case are as follows:

0 0 0
0 0 128
0 128 0
0 128 128
128 0 0
128 0 128
128 128 0
128 128 128

As you can see, yet again, the measured differences in color reflect how human beings actually perceive changes in color. Note that the greatest difference is between a non-primary blue, and primary red, which is intuitively correct both analytically (since there’s no intersection between the two colors) and visually (since there is a great deal of contrast between the two colors).

Perception and Symbolic Computation

In short, if we assume that human beings perceive colors as encoded representations of underlying physical objects, then by applying principles of information theory, we can generate equations that accurately reflect how human beings actually perceive colors. Taken as a whole, this is rather remarkable, since it suggests that the human body might, at least in some cases, operate like an efficient processor of representational information. This implies that our perceptions are the result of symbolic computations that manipulate representations, rather than one-to-one approximations of external objects. In less abstract terms, this view suggests that the way we perceive objects is more like the abstract symbolic representation of the number π , than a specific decimal approximation of the number represented by that symbol. In short, it could be that human beings not only think in terms of symbolic representations, but that we actually perceive in terms of symbolic representations. If correct, this suggests that attempts to mimic human intelligence should, at least in part, be focused on intelligent symbolic computation, and not just statistical techniques such as machine learning.

# Using Information Theory to Inform Belief

When multiple sources of information produce different, possibly even superficially conflicting probabilities for the same event, the question arises as to how those probabilities should be treated. That is, different sources, or different experimental tests, could imply different probabilities for the same event. There’s no obvious objective solution to this problem, and as a practical matter, even a crude method, such as taking a simple average of the probabilities, will probably work just fine for something like determining the probabilities of a coin toss. However, when dealing with arbitrary data, perhaps even with no prior information about the mechanics that generated the data, such an approach is likely to eliminate too much information about the structure of the data itself, generating useless answers.

Any solution to this problem is really an answer to the question of how much weight we should ascribe to each probability. That is, whatever probability we ultimately arrive at as the “correct” answer can be expressed as a linear combination of the underlying probabilities, even if that’s not how we actually arrived at the correct answer. While this might seem like a trivial statement of algebra, it offers insight into the fundamental question that underlies any solution to this problem, which is, “how much attention should I pay to this piece of information?”

Shannon Coding

In 1948, Claude Shannon showed that there was a surprising connection between probability and information. Though he was arguably only trying to construct optimally short encodings for messages, he ended up uncovering a deep, and fundamental relationship between the nature of probability and information. To establish an intuition, consider the string x = (aaab), and assume that we want to encode x as a binary string. First we need to assign a binary code to each of a and b. Since a appears more often than b, if we want to minimize the length of our encoding of x, then we should assign a shorter code to a than we do to b. For example, if we signify the end of a binary code with a 1, we could assign the code 1 to a, and 01 to b. As such, our encoding of x would be 11101, and since x contains 4 characters, the average number of bits per character in our encoding of x is 5/4. Now consider the string x = (ab). In this case, there are no opportunities for this type of compression because all characters appear an equal number of times. The same would be true of x = (abcbca), or x = (qs441z1zsq), each of which has a uniform distribution of characters. In short, we can take advantage of the statistical structure of a string, assigning longer codes to characters that appear less often, and shorter codes to characters that appear more often. If all characters appear an equal number of times, then there are no opportunities for this type of compression.

Shannon showed that, in general, we can construct an optimally short encoding, without any loss of information, if we assign a code of length log(1/p) bits to a signal that has a probability of p. That is, if the frequency of a signal from a source is p, and we want to encode that source, then we should assign a code of length log(1/p) to the signal. It follows that if a source has N possible signals, and the probability of each signal is 1/N (i.e., the signals have a uniform distribution), then the expected code length of a signal generated by the source is log(N).

Resource Management and Human Behavior

Even though it is ultimately a human being that will assign a code to a signal, and therefore ascribe information to the signal, if we take a step back, we see that, using an optimal encoding, a low probability event carries more information than a high probability event. Moreover, Shannon’s coding method is objectively optimal, in that it is not possible to construct a better encoding without losing information (if we’re considering only the distribution of the signals). That is, a source generates signals, not information, but once a human being observes a source, a representational system is required if that person wants to record, or communicate, the signals generated by that source, which will produce information. As a result, though a human being must take the active steps of observing a source, and then encoding its signals, there is an objective component to the statement that low probability events carry more information than high probability events. This is consistent with common sense, and possibly even how our brains filter information. Put crudely, as an example, high probability stories are generally considered boring (e.g., “I went to my local pub last night”), whereas extraordinary, and unlikely tales generally garner a great deal of attention and inquiry (e.g., “I met a celebrity at my local pub last night”).

You could take the view that this is just an oddity of human nature, and that people prefer unusual tales. Alternatively, you could also take the view that it is instead the consequence of something much more profound about how our brains filter out the information that constantly bombards our senses. Specifically, it seems possible that our decisions allocate resources to the experiences most likely to generate the lowest probability signals, thereby maximizing our information intake. Without spending too much time on the topic, this view could explain why human beings are generally drawn towards things and experiences that are presented as exclusive, rare, or unusual, and less enthusiastic about things and experiences that are presented as common, or mundane. In this view, pretensions and preferences are the product of a rational resource management system that allocates the senses towards experiences that are most likely to maximize the amount of information observed.

Information and Probability

Returning to the original problem above, the probability of an event should then be a function of the probabilities implied by a data set, and the importance of each data point in our data set. For simplicity, let’s assume that we have total confidence in the data from which we derive our probabilities. That is, we’re assuming our data is free from errors and reflects events that actually occurred, and were properly measured and recorded.

Let’s begin with the classic example of a coin toss, and assume that 5 people are all tossing perfectly identical coins, 25 times each, and recording the results. If one of those 5 people came back and said that they had tossed 25 heads in a row, we would probably view that as extraordinary, but possible. Considering this person’s data in isolation, the observed probability of heads would be 1, and the observed probability of tails would be 0. In contrast, our ex ante expectation, assuming the coins were expected to be a fair, would have been that the probability of each of heads and tails is 1/2. Assuming that all of the other people come back with roughly equal probabilities for heads and tales, our outlier data set would assign a probability of 1 to an event that we assumed to have a probability of 1/2, and a probability of 0 to another event that we assumed to have a probability of 1/2.

Before we consider how much weight to ascribe to this “outlier” data, let’s consider another case that will inform our method. Now assume that instead, 4 out of the 5 people report roughly equal probabilities for heads and tails, whereas one person reports back that their coin landed on its side 13 times out of 25 tosses, and that the remaining tosses we’re split roughly equally between heads and tails. That is, rather than landing on heads or tails, the coin actually landed on its side 13 times. This is an event that is generally presumed to have a probability of 0, and ignored. So upon hearing this piece of information, we would probably be astonished (recall that we are not calling the data itself into question). That is, something truly incredible has happened, since an event that has a probability of effectively zero has in fact happened 13 times. Considering the data reported by this person in isolation, we’d have an event that generally has an ex ante probability of 0 being assigned an observed probability of about 1/2, and then two events that typically have an ex ante probability of 1/2 being assigned observed probabilities of about 1/4.

Now ask yourself, which is more remarkable:

(1) the first case, where the person reported that an event with an ex ante probability of 1/2 had an observed probability of 1; or

(2) the second case, where the person reported that an event that had an ex ante probability of 0 had an observed probability of 1/2?

Though the magnitude of the difference between the ex ante probability and the observed probability is the same in both cases, the clear answer is that the second case is far more surprising. This suggests an inherent asymmetry in probabilities that are biased towards low probability events. That is, “surprisal” is not a function of just the difference between the expected probability and the observed probability, but also of the probability itself, with low probability events generating greater “surprisal”.

If we return to Shannon’s formula for the optimal code length for a signal, we see this same asymmetry, since low probability signals are assigned longer codes than high probability signals. This suggests the possibility that we can mirror surprisal in observations by weighting probabilities using the information content of the probability itself. That is, we can use the optimal code length for a signal with a given probability to inform our assessment as to how important the data underlying a particular reported probability is.

Under this view, the reports generated by the people flipping coins will contain different amounts of information. The more low probability events a given report contains, the greater the information contained in the report, implying that data that describes low probability events quite literally contains more information than data that describes high probability events. As a result, we assume that for a given event, the data underlying a low reported probability contains more information than the data underlying a high reported probability.

Information-Weighted Probabilities

Rather than simply weight the probabilities by their individual code lengths (which might work just fine in certain contexts), I’ve been making use of a slightly different technique in image recognition, which looks at how much the information associated with a given data point deviates from the average amount of information contained across all data points in the data set. Specifically, the algorithm I’ve been making use of partitions an image into equally sized regions, with the size of the region adjusted until the algorithm finds the point at which each region contains a maximally different amount of information. That is, for a given region size, the algorithm measures the average entropy of each region (by analyzing the color distribution of each region), and then calculates the standard deviation of the entropies over all regions. It keeps iterating through region sizes until it finds the size that maximizes the standard deviation of the entropies over all regions. This ends up working quite well at uncovering structure in arbitrary images with no prior information, with the theory being that if two regions within an image contain legitimately different features, then they should contain objectively different quantities of information. By maximizing the information contrast of an image, under this theory, we maximize the probability that each region contains a different feature than its neighboring regions. I then have a second algorithm that is essentially an automata “crawl” around the image and gather up similar regions (see the paper entitled, “A New Model of Artificial Intelligence” for more on this approach).

By analogy, if we have a set of probabilities, ${p_1, p_2, p_3, \ldots , p_n}$, all purportedly informing us at to the probability of the same event, then we can assign weights to each probability that reflect how “unusual” the information content of the probability itself is in the context of the other probabilities. We begin by taking the logarithm of the reciprocal of each probability, log(1/pi), which gives us the optimal code length for a signal with a probability of pi. We’re not interested in encoding anything, but instead using the code length associated with a probability to measure the information contained in the data that generated the probability in the first instance. This will produce a set of code lengths for each probability ${l_1, l_2, l_3, \ldots , l_n}$, with lower probabilities having longer code lengths than higher probabilities. We then calculate the average code length over the entire set, u. This is our average information content, from which we will determine how “unusual” a probability is, ultimately generating the weight we’ll assign to the probability. In short, if a probability was generated by an unusually large, or unusually small, amount of information relative to the average amount of information, then we’re going to assign it a larger weight.

Specifically, we calculate the weight for each probability as follows:

$w_i = (l_i - u)^2 + 1.$

That is, we take the variance and add 1 to it, producing a set of weights that are greater than or equal to 1. This produces a probability given by the weighted sum,

$p = \frac{1}{W} (w_1p_1 + w_2p_2 + ... + w_np_n)$,

where $W$ is the sum over all weights.

This formulation gives greater weight to outlier probabilities than those that are closer to the average probability, but because we begin with the code length associated with each probability, and not the probability itself, we overstate outlier low probabilities more than outlier high probabilities. That is, this method reflects our observations above, that events that have lower probabilities generate more surprisal, and therefore, “get more attention” in this method. Put differently, this method balances both (1) how “unusual” a data point is compared to the rest of the data set, and (2) how much information went into generating the data point. Since lower probability events are generated by data that contains more information (which is admittedly an assumption of this model), unusual low probabilities are given more weight than unusual high probabilities, and average probabilities have the same, minimum weight.

For example, the information weighted probability of the probabilities {.8 .8 .05} is 0.47. In contrast, the simple average of those probabilities is .55.

Note that this method doesn’t require any ex ante probabilities at all, so the question of what “prior” probability to use is moot. That is, this method takes the data as it is, with no expectations at all, and generates a probability based upon the assumed information content of the data that generated each probability. As a result, this method could be useful for situations where no prior information about the data is available, and we are forced to make sense of the data “in a vacuum”.

# Information Theory and Time-Dilation

All,

I’ve assembled all of my additional notes on time-dilation and information theory on my blog at researchgate here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Information-Theory-16

I’ve also attached pdf copies of the documents here.

Regards,

Charles

A Unified Model of the Gravitational, Electrostatic, and Magnetic Forces (43)

Non-Local Interactions, Quantum Spin, the Strong and Weak Forces, and Inertia (21)

CompModofTD5-1v2 (35)

Mass_Energy_and_Momentum

MomentumMagnetismWaves25

On_the_Value_of_Gamma