IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i20p3893-d947914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Technical Remarks on Negations of Discrete Probability Distributions and Their Information Loss

Author

Listed:
  • Ingo Klein

    (Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20, D-90403 Nürnberg, Germany)

Abstract

Negation of a discrete probability distribution was introduced by Yager. To date, several papers have been published discussing generalizations, properties, and applications of negation. The recent work by Wu et al. gives an excellent overview of the literature and the motivation to deal with negation. Our paper focuses on some technical aspects of negation transformations. First, we prove that independent negations must be affine-linear. This fact was established by Batyrshin et al. as an open problem. Secondly, we show that repeated application of independent negations leads to a progressive loss of information (called monotonicity). In contrast to the literature, we try to obtain results not only for special but also for the general class of ϕ -entropies. In this general framework, we can show that results need to be proven only for Yager negation and can be transferred to the entire class of independent (=affine-linear) negations. For general ϕ -entropies with strictly concave generator function ϕ , we can show that the information loss increases separately for sequences of odd and even numbers of repetitions. By using a Lagrangian approach, this result can be extended, in the neighbourhood of the uniform distribution, to all numbers of repetition. For Gini, Shannon, Havrda–Charvát (Tsallis), Rényi and Sharma–Mittal entropy, we prove that the information loss has a global minimum of 0. For dependent negations, it is not easy to obtain analytical results. Therefore, we simulate the entropy distribution and show how different repeated negations affect Gini and Shannon entropy. The simulation approach has the advantage that the entire simplex of discrete probability vectors can be considered at once, rather than just arbitrarily selected probability vectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingo Klein, 2022. "Some Technical Remarks on Negations of Discrete Probability Distributions and Their Information Loss," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-26, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:20:p:3893-:d:947914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/20/3893/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/20/3893/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaozhuan Gao & Yong Deng, 2019. "The generalization negation of probability distribution and its application in target recognition based on sensor fusion," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(5), pages 15501477198, May.
    2. Ildar Z. Batyrshin, 2021. "Contracting and Involutive Negations of Probability Distributions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-11, September.
    3. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M. & Park, Jong Hee, 2011. "MCMCpack: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i09).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bakar, Khandoker Shuvo & Sahu, Sujit K., 2015. "spTimer: Spatio-Temporal Bayesian Modeling Using R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 63(i15).
    2. Baştürk, Nalan & Grassi, Stefano & Hoogerheide, Lennart & Opschoor, Anne & van Dijk, Herman K., 2017. "The R Package MitISEM: Efficient and Robust Simulation Procedures for Bayesian Inference," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i01).
    3. Ji, Yonggang & Lin, Nan & Zhang, Baoxue, 2012. "Model selection in binary and tobit quantile regression using the Gibbs sampler," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 827-839.
    4. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    5. Martin Hernani Merino & Enver Gerald Tarazona Vargas & Antonieta Hamann Pastorino & José Afonso Mazzon, 2014. "Validation of Sustainable Development Practices Scale Using the Bayesian Approach to Item Response Theory," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 26(2), pages 147-162.
    6. Emmanuel Mensaklo & Chukiat Chaiboonsri & Kanchana Chokethaworn & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2023. "Comparing Classical and Bayesian Panel Kink Regression Frameworks in Estimating the Impact of Economic Freedom on Economic Growth," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, October.
    7. Daniel W. Hill Jr., 2016. "Avoiding Obligation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(6), pages 1129-1158, September.
    8. Mark David Nieman, 2016. "Moments in time: Temporal patterns in the effect of democracy and trade on conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(3), pages 273-293, July.
    9. Paul M. Garrett & Yu-Wen Wang & Joshua P. White & Yoshihsa Kashima & Simon Dennis & Cheng-Ta Yang, 2022. "High Acceptance of COVID-19 Tracing Technologies in Taiwan: A Nationally Representative Survey Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Corona, Francisco & Forrest, David & Tena, J.D. & Wiper, Michael, 2019. "Bayesian forecasting of UEFA Champions League under alternative seeding regimes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 722-732.
    11. Xu, Hao & Gardoni, Paolo, 2020. "Conditional formulation for the calibration of multi-level random fields with incomplete data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    12. Shulgin, Sergey & Zinkina, Julia & Korotayev, Andrey, 2017. "“Neighbors in values”: A new dataset of cultural distances between countries based on individuals’ values, and its application to the study of global trade," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 966-985.
    13. Corona Francisco & Horrillo Juan de Dios Tena & Wiper Michael Peter, 2017. "On the importance of the probabilistic model in identifying the most decisive games in a tournament," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 11-23, March.
    14. Bayerstadler, Andreas & van Dijk, Linda & Winter, Fabian, 2016. "Bayesian multinomial latent variable modeling for fraud and abuse detection in health insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 244-252.
    15. Tanwar, Priya & Srivastava, Amit, 2023. "Negation and redistribution with a preference — An information theoretic analysis," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    16. Murray Pollock & Paul Fearnhead & Adam M. Johansen & Gareth O. Roberts, 2020. "Quasi‐stationary Monte Carlo and the ScaLE algorithm," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1167-1221, December.
    17. Paul Boeck & Michael L. DeKay & Jolynn Pek, 2024. "Adventitious Error and Its Implications for Testing Relations Between Variables and for Composite Measurement Outcomes," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1055-1073, September.
    18. Devin Caughey & James Dunham & Christopher Warshaw, 2018. "The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 133-151, July.
    19. Fernández-i-Marín, Xavier, 2016. "ggmcmc: Analysis of MCMC Samples and Bayesian Inference," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 70(i09).
    20. Badinger, Harald & Mühlböck, Monika & Nindl, Elisabeth & Reuter, Wolf Heinrich, 2014. "Theoretical vs. empirical power indices: Do preferences matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 158-176.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:20:p:3893-:d:947914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.