Fisher Information Metric - Definition

Definition

Given a statistical manifold, with coordinates given by, one writes for the probability distribution. Here, is a specific value drawn from a collection of (discrete or continuous) random variables X. The probability is normalized, in that

The Fisher information metric then takes the form:

g_{jk}(\theta) = \int_X \frac{\partial \log p(x,\theta)}{\partial \theta_j} \frac{\partial \log p(x,\theta)}{\partial \theta_k} p(x,\theta) \, dx.

The integral is performed over all values x of all random variables X. Again, the variable is understood as a coordinate on the Riemann manifold. The labels j and k index the local coordinate axes on the manifold.

When the probability is derived from the Gibbs measure, as it would be for any Markovian process, then can also be understood to be a Lagrange multiplier; Lagrange multipliers are used to enforce constraints, such as holding the expectation value of some quantity constant. If there are n constraints holding n different expectation values constant, then the manifold is n-dimensional. In this case, the metric can be explicitly derived from the partition function; a derivation and discussion is presented there.

Substituting from information theory, an equivalent form of the above definition is:

g_{jk}(\theta) = \int_X \frac{\partial^2 i(x,\theta)}{\partial \theta_j \partial \theta_k} p(x,\theta) \, dx = \mathrm{E} \left[ \frac{\partial^2 i(x,\theta)}{\partial \theta_j \partial \theta_k} \right].

Read more about this topic:  Fisher Information Metric

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)