2014
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1403623111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

R 2 -equitability is satisfiable

Abstract: Kinney and Atwal (1) make excellent points about mutual information, the maximal information coefficient (2, 3), and "equitability." One of their central claims, however, is that, "No nontrivial dependence measure can satisfy R 2 -equitability." We argue that this is the result of a poorly constructed definition, which we quote:

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Kinney and Atwal [ 16 ] have recently asserted that “No nontrivial dependence measure can satisfy R 2 -equitability”, providing a theorem to support this. However, as we show [ 17 ], their result hinges on a peculiar definition of “noise”, which allows a trend to be embedded in the noise term, effectively introducing an un-identifiability in their definition which they then exploit to prove the notion incoherent. When you take the trend out of the noise term, you are left with a perfectly sensible notion of “ R 2 -equitability”.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kinney and Atwal [ 16 ] have recently asserted that “No nontrivial dependence measure can satisfy R 2 -equitability”, providing a theorem to support this. However, as we show [ 17 ], their result hinges on a peculiar definition of “noise”, which allows a trend to be embedded in the noise term, effectively introducing an un-identifiability in their definition which they then exploit to prove the notion incoherent. When you take the trend out of the noise term, you are left with a perfectly sensible notion of “ R 2 -equitability”.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, Justin B. Kinney & Gurinder S. Atwal indicate that MIC does not have the property of “equitability”, and the reported simulation evidences contain artifacts [ 42 ]. However, Reshef et al [ 43 ] and Murrell et al [ 44 ] have called Kinney and Atwal’s methodology into question. Their work led to the better understanding of equitability and MIC and allowed researchers in the area to move forward.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since its publication, Kinney and Atwal (2014) has been the subject of two published technical comments [Murrell, Murrell and Murrell (2014), Reshef et al (2014)] describing its main limitations, which are threefold. First, the central proof of the impossibility of equitability with respect to R 2 in Kinney and Atwal (2014) applies only to perfect equitability, and says nothing about the achievability of the more general (approximate) notion with which we are primarily interested and regarding which we have previously made claims about MIC.…”
Section: Relationship To Equitability Analysis Frommentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That is, even if no method is perfectly equitable with respect to R 2 , some methods can be more equitable with respect to R 2 than others, and the question remains which methods come meaningfully close to the ideal [Reshef et al (2014)]. Second, the impossibility result relies crucially on a nonidentifiable noise model Q in which, for example, a noiseless parabola can be obtained as a "noisy" linear relationship [Murrell, Murrell and Murrell (2014)]. Third, though mutual information indeed outperforms MIC under the specific sample size and noise model chosen in Kinney and Atwal (2014), this is not the case in general [Reshef et al (2014)].…”
Section: Relationship To Equitability Analysis Frommentioning
confidence: 99%