Papers for

statistical model designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Boolean entropy and information inequalities reveal limits in probability sums

Entropic Inequalities and Limit Theorems in Boolean Probability

Abstract: We study Boolean entropy and Fisher information in information inequalities and the Boolean central limit theorem. We prove a fractional Stam inequality for the Boolean Fisher information associated with arbitrary fractional partitions of subset sums, and derive an entropy power inequality for sums of Boolean independent random variables and its weighted version. We then establish a Boolean analogue of Barron's entropy convergence result along the Boolean central limit theorem: Boolean entropy converges to the entropy of the Rademacher law if and only if the initial entropy is finite. Furthermore, under a finite fourth moment, in the Boolean central limit theorem, we obtain \[ Γ(μ_n\mid\mathbf b)= \frac{m_4(μ)-1-m_3(μ)^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +o\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right), \] with an explicit example showing sharpness. For symmetric laws with finite fourth moment and finite Boolean Fisher information, \[ Ψ(μ_n\mid\mathbf b) =2\bigl(m_4(μ)-1\bigr)\frac{\log n}{n} +o\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right). \] Our approach is based on the Nevanlinna representation of Cauchy transforms.

Wed 14 OctInformation Theory
The gist
The paper looks at how a special kind of entropy, Boolean entropy, behaves when you add together certain random things that follow Boolean probability rules. The authors find new inequalities related to this entropy and information, and show how the entropy approaches a specific standard pattern. They also provide detailed formulas describing how quickly this convergence happens under certain mathematical conditions. Their work uses advanced mathematical tools to understand these properties better.
Open → 2610.20178v1

Links between diffusion models and optimal transport in data generation

Some remarks on the connection between generative diffusion and optimal transport

Abstract: We discuss three simple connections between generative diffusion and optimal transport. First, the joint law of the data and of their Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noising is, at every time, the solution of an entropic optimal-transport problem, at a temperature set by the noise level. Backward diffusion can consequently be read as an annealing which gradually decreases the entropic regularization. Second, we study the speciation transition--how the modes of the data distribution emerge during generation--and compare how it happens in diffusion and flow matching with respect to optimal transport. Using Gaussian mixtures as high-dimensional example, we show that the dynamical instability through which diffusion and flow matching separate the modes becomes, for optimal transport, an exponentially thin boundary layer at the beginning of generation, which is rounded by entropic regularization. Third, considering a generic forward dynamics with a general confining potential, we show that the backward process driven by the score also satisfies a drift-based variational principle whose minimal cost is the entropy difference between initial and final distributions.

Fri 9 OctMachine Learning
The gist
This work explains how a process used to create data, called generative diffusion, is connected to a mathematical way of matching distributions called optimal transport. The authors show that adding noise to data and then removing it can be understood through an entropic optimal transport problem, with the noise level controlling how smooth the process is. They also study how distinct groups in data appear during generation, comparing diffusion methods with flow-based ones. Finally, they reveal a new perspective on how the reverse part of the diffusion process can be seen as minimizing a cost related to entropy changes.
Open → 2610.13614v1

Internal prediction gaps can grow large without harming final predictions

How Wrong Can a Good Predictor Be? Diverging Updates with Vanishing Predictive KL

Abstract: Accurate posterior prediction need not require accurate approximation of Bayesian updates. We prove that an unbounded gap between the update maps can coexist with vanishing predictive KL for every fixed finite $K\ge2$ in a stationary symmetric Gaussian HMM. Exact Bayesian mixing and an explicit deterministic radial filter act on the same $K-1$ belief coordinates. As $q\to0^+$, their separation in centered logits in the worst case grows at least linearly in the natural confidence scale $L_K(q)$, while their categorical $D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\mathrm{exact}\|\mathrm{radial})$ vanishes at the same explicit witness. Along stationary HMM trajectories, the expected terminal KL between filtered posteriors also converges to zero at $H(q)=\lceil-\log(q)/c\rceil+1$. Typical blocks without switches drive both filters into a common confidence cone, where softmax curvature suppresses their disagreement; a single Gaussian maximal event controls adaptive noise. A sweep with equally spaced Gaussians over $K\in\{2,4,8\}$ illustrates the opposing trends, and binary controls at long horizons compare saturating and nonsaturating recurrences. The result isolates two missing links between internal update gaps and predictive cost: the contribution of separating states to expected loss and decoder sensitivity. Thus even an unbounded internal update gap does not by itself certify predictive failure. The construction is fixed in $K$ and does not provide a universal criterion for when compression is harmless or characterize when internal gaps must incur task loss.

Thu 10 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
This paper shows that even if two methods for updating beliefs in a model differ a lot internally, their predictions about future observations can still be very similar. The authors prove this using a mathematical example involving hidden Markov models with Gaussian noise. They explain that differences in internal updates may not always cause mistakes in tasks that rely on predictions. This finding helps clarify when simplifications or approximations inside prediction systems may still work well in practice.
Open → 2609.11132v1