#### Send to
jQuery(document).ready( function () {
jQuery("#send_to_menu input[type='radio']").click( function () {
var selectedValue = jQuery(this).val().toLowerCase();
var selectedDiv = jQuery("#send_to_menu div." + selectedValue);
if(selectedDiv.is(":hidden")){
jQuery("#send_to_menu div.submenu:visible").slideUp();
selectedDiv.slideDown();
}
});
});
jQuery("#sendto").bind("ncbipopperclose", function(){
jQuery("#send_to_menu div.submenu:visible").css("display","none");
jQuery("#send_to_menu input[type='radio']:checked").attr("checked",false);
});

# Equitability, mutual information, and the maximal information coefficient.

### Author information

- 1
- Simons Center for Quantitative Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724.

### Abstract

How should one quantify the strength of association between two random variables without bias for relationships of a specific form? Despite its conceptual simplicity, this notion of statistical "equitability" has yet to receive a definitive mathematical formalization. Here we argue that equitability is properly formalized by a self-consistency condition closely related to Data Processing Inequality. Mutual information, a fundamental quantity in information theory, is shown to satisfy this equitability criterion. These findings are at odds with the recent work of Reshef et al. [Reshef DN, et al. (2011) Science 334(6062):1518-1524], which proposed an alternative definition of equitability and introduced a new statistic, the "maximal information coefficient" (MIC), said to satisfy equitability in contradistinction to mutual information. These conclusions, however, were supported only with limited simulation evidence, not with mathematical arguments. Upon revisiting these claims, we prove that the mathematical definition of equitability proposed by Reshef et al. cannot be satisfied by any (nontrivial) dependence measure. We also identify artifacts in the reported simulation evidence. When these artifacts are removed, estimates of mutual information are found to be more equitable than estimates of MIC. Mutual information is also observed to have consistently higher statistical power than MIC. We conclude that estimating mutual information provides a natural (and often practical) way to equitably quantify statistical associations in large datasets.

### Comment in

- R2-equitability is satisfiable. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014]
- Reply to Murrell et al.: Noise matters. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014]
- Cleaning up the record on the maximal information coefficient and equitability. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014]
- Reply to Reshef et al.: Falsifiability or bust. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014]

- PMID:
- 24550517
- PMCID:
- PMC3948249
- DOI:
- 10.1073/pnas.1309933111

- [Indexed for MEDLINE]