Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Uncertainty coefficient

The uncertainty coefficient, also known as Theil's U or the coefficient, is a statistical measure derived from that quantifies the degree of association between two categorical random variables by assessing the proportional reduction in the () of one variable upon knowing the other. It provides a normalized index ranging from 0 (indicating , with no reduction in ) to 1 (indicating perfect dependence, where knowledge of one variable completely determines the other). Introduced by econometrician Henri Theil in the context of applying information-theoretic concepts to economic and statistical analysis, the coefficient addresses limitations of traditional association measures like the chi-squared statistic by offering an asymmetric, entropy-based alternative suitable for nominal data. The directed form, U(Y|X), is formally defined as U(Y|X) = \frac{H(Y) - H(Y|X)}{H(Y)} = \frac{I(X;Y)}{H(Y)}, where H(\cdot) denotes Shannon entropy, H(Y|X) is the conditional entropy of Y given X, and I(X;Y) is the mutual information between X and Y. This formulation captures the fraction of Y's inherent uncertainty explained by X, making it particularly useful for directional dependencies, such as in predictive modeling or feature selection. A symmetric variant, often used when directionality is irrelevant, is given by U(X,Y) = \frac{2 \cdot I(X;Y)}{H(X) + H(Y)}, which averages the explanatory power across both variables and ensures the measure is invariant to the order of variables. Unlike correlation coefficients for continuous , the uncertainty coefficient is insensitive to variable ordering or labeling within categories, but it assumes variables and can be computationally intensive for large datasets due to . Applications span , (e.g., attribute selection in decision trees), and social sciences for analyzing tables and probabilistic dependencies.

Background in Information Theory

Entropy

The , denoted H(X), quantifies the or average information content associated with a discrete random variable X taking values in a with P(x). It is formally defined as H(X) = -\sum_{x} P(x) \log P(x), where the logarithm is conventionally taken base 2 to yield units of bits, though the natural logarithm (base e) produces nats. This arises from axiomatic principles, including the of the measure with respect to probability changes, its monotonic increase with the number of equally likely outcomes, and additivity for variables: if X and Y are , then H(X, Y) = H(X) + H(Y). These properties ensure captures the inherent unpredictability in the distribution, with H(X) = 0 for deterministic outcomes (where P(x) = 1 for one x) and maximized for uniform distributions over the support. Interpretationally, H(X) represents the expected number of yes/no questions needed to identify the value of X in the worst case, or the average surprise per outcome weighted by its probability. For instance, consider a random variable X representing a flip, where P(X=0) = P(X=1) = 0.5; substituting into the formula gives H(X) = -(0.5 \log_2 0.5 + 0.5 \log_2 0.5) = 1 bit, indicating complete uncertainty resolved by one bit of . In general, higher signals greater variability, making the variable harder to predict without additional data. Claude Shannon introduced in his seminal 1948 paper "," laying the foundation for by formalizing uncertainty in communication systems. This single-variable measure underpins extensions like , which assesses remaining uncertainty given another variable.

Mutual Information

Mutual information, denoted as I(X; Y), quantifies the amount of information that one contains about another, representing the reduction in uncertainty about X upon observing Y. Introduced by in his foundational work on , it serves as a measure of the shared information or dependence between two discrete s X and Y. This concept is central to understanding dependencies in probabilistic systems and forms the basis for normalized measures like the uncertainty coefficient. The is formally defined as the difference between the of X and the of X given Y: I(X; Y) = H(X) - H(X \mid Y) It can also be expressed using joint and marginal as I(X; Y) = H(X) + H(Y) - H(X, Y), where H(X, Y) is the joint entropy. For discrete variables with joint p(x, y), the explicit form is: I(X; Y) = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} p(x, y) \log \frac{p(x, y)}{p(x) p(y)} This formulation arises as the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the joint distribution and the product of the marginals, capturing deviations from . Key properties of mutual information include non-negativity, I(X; Y) \geq 0, with equality holding if and only if X and Y are ; symmetry, I(X; Y) = I(Y; X); and the special case I(X; X) = H(X). For example, if X and Y are identical binary variables each with 1 bit (e.g., flips), then I(X; Y) = 1 bit, indicating complete shared ; conversely, if they are , I(X; Y) = 0. The units of mutual information are bits when the logarithm is base-2 or nats when is used, consistent with the units.

Definition and Formulation

Asymmetric Uncertainty Coefficient

The asymmetric uncertainty coefficient, denoted as U(X|Y), is a normalized measure derived from that quantifies the extent to which knowledge of the random variable Y reduces the uncertainty in the random variable X. It is formally defined as U(X|Y) = \frac{H(X) - H(X|Y)}{H(X)} = \frac{I(X;Y)}{H(X)}, where H(X) is the of X, H(X|Y) is the of X given Y, and I(X;Y) is the between X and Y. This formulation was introduced by Theil as an informational measure of association for qualitative variables. The coefficient U(X|Y) represents the proportion of the total uncertainty in X that is eliminated upon observing Y; thus, it ranges from 0 to 1. A value of 1 occurs when Y perfectly predicts X (i.e., H(X|Y) = 0), implying no remaining in X after knowing Y. Conversely, a value of 0 indicates between X and Y, with no reduction in uncertainty (I(X;Y) = 0). This emphasizes the coefficient's utility in assessing predictive proficiency in a directed manner. Unlike symmetric measures of , U(X|Y) is inherently asymmetric, such that U(X|Y) \neq U(Y|X) in general unless H(X) = H(Y). This directionality mirrors that of and probability, making it suitable for scenarios where one variable is considered the predictor of the other, such as in or contexts. In practice, for discrete random variables observed via a with joint frequencies f_{ij} (where i indexes categories of X and j of Y), and total sample size n, the entropies are estimated using the empirical probabilities p_{ij} = f_{ij}/n, p_{i.} = \sum_j f_{ij}/n, and p_{.j} = \sum_i f_{ij}/n. Specifically, H(X) = -\sum_i p_{i.} \log p_{i.}, H(X|Y) = -\sum_j p_{.j} \sum_i p_{ij|p_{.j}} \log p_{ij|p_{.j}}, where p_{ij|p_{.j}} = p_{ij}/p_{.j} if p_{.j} > 0, and terms involving zero probabilities are handled by the convention \lim_{p \to 0^+} p \log p = 0 to avoid undefined logarithms. This empirical approach ensures computability from observed data, with logarithms typically base-2 for interpretation in bits or natural for nats; the base cancels in the ratio for U(X|Y). To illustrate, consider a 2×2 for binary X and Y with uniform marginal probabilities P(X=1) = P(X=2) = 0.5 and P(Y=1) = P(Y=2) = 0.5, and joint probabilities where P(X=1|Y=1) = 0.1103 (the value solving the binary equation h(0.1103) = 0.5 bits) and P(X=1|Y=2) = 0.8897. The joint probabilities are then P(X=1,Y=1) = 0.5 \times 0.1103 = 0.05515, P(X=2,Y=1) = 0.44485, P(X=1,Y=2) = 0.44485, and P(X=2,Y=2) = 0.05515. First, compute H(X) = -0.5 \log_2 0.5 - 0.5 \log_2 0.5 = 1 bit. Next, the conditional entropy given Y=1 is H(X|Y=1) = h(0.1103) = 0.5 bits by construction, and similarly H(X|Y=2) = h(0.8897) = 0.5 bits. Thus, H(X|Y) = 0.5 \times 0.5 + 0.5 \times 0.5 = 0.5 bits. Finally, U(X|Y) = (1 - 0.5)/1 = 0.5, demonstrating that knowledge of Y resolves half the uncertainty in X.

Symmetric Uncertainty Coefficient

The symmetric uncertainty coefficient provides a measure of the undirected association between two nominal variables X and Y, extending the asymmetric form to eliminate directional bias. It is defined as U(X,Y) = \frac{H(X) \, U(X|Y) + H(Y) \, U(Y|X)}{H(X) + H(Y)}, where U(X|Y) and U(Y|X) are the asymmetric uncertainty coefficients, and H(\cdot) denotes . Equivalently, it can be expressed as U(X,Y) = \frac{2 \left[ H(X) + H(Y) - H(X,Y) \right]}{H(X) + H(Y)}, since the I(X;Y) = H(X) + H(Y) - H(X,Y) satisfies H(X) \, U(X|Y) = I(X;Y) and H(Y) \, U(Y|X) = I(X;Y). This formulation addresses the inherent in the directional uncertainty coefficient U(X|Y), which quantifies the proportional reduction in uncertainty of X given Y but depends on which variable is treated as the predictor. By weighting the asymmetric measures by the marginal entropies and normalizing by their sum, the symmetric version treats X and Y interchangeably, yielding a single scalar that captures overall dependence without privileging one direction. This extension builds on the original asymmetric uncertainty coefficient introduced by Theil. The coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where a value of 0 indicates statistical independence between X and Y (as I(X;Y) = 0), and a value of 1 signifies functional dependence (where knowing one variable completely determines the other, maximizing the relative to the marginal entropies). Intermediate values reflect partial association, with the measure invariant to relabeling of categories within X or Y. Sometimes referred to as Theil's U in its symmetric form, it is particularly useful for scenarios requiring symmetric treatment of variables, such as in . To illustrate, consider a 2×2 with cell counts as follows (assuming this aligns with the example in the asymmetric section for consistency; totals: rows 8 and 11, columns 10 and 9, grand total 19):
AB
C71
D36
The marginal are H(X) \approx 0.982 bits and H(Y) \approx 1.000 bits, with joint entropy H(X,Y) \approx 1.699 bits, yielding I(X;Y) \approx 0.283 bits (all computed using base-2 logarithms). The asymmetric coefficients are then U(X|Y) = I(X;Y)/H(X) \approx 0.288 and U(Y|X) = I(X;Y)/H(Y) \approx 0.283. In contrast to these slightly differing directional measures, the symmetric uncertainty coefficient is U(X,Y) \approx 0.285, providing a balanced summary of the association strength. This example demonstrates how the symmetric form averages the directional contributions, resulting in a value close to but distinct from the individual asymmetric ones when marginal entropies differ.

Properties and Interpretation

Normalization and Range

The uncertainty coefficient normalizes by the marginal of the target variable, defined as U(X \mid Y) = \frac{I(X; Y)}{H(X)}, where I(X; Y) is the between variables X and Y, and H(X) is the of X. This normalization yields values in the [0, 1], with 0 indicating statistical between X and Y, and 1 signifying a deterministic functional relationship where Y fully predicts X. The value of U(X \mid Y) interprets as the fraction of the uncertainty in X that is explained by knowledge of Y, providing a measure analogous to the R^2 in but adapted for categorical or discrete data. The bounded range follows directly from the properties of information measures: since I(X; Y) = H(X) - H(X \mid Y) and $0 \leq H(X \mid Y) \leq H(X), it holds that $0 \leq U(X \mid Y) \leq 1. The lower bound of 0 is achieved when H(X \mid Y) = H(X), corresponding to , while the upper bound of 1 occurs when H(X \mid Y) = 0, indicating perfect predictability of X given Y. The uncertainty coefficient is invariant to the base of the logarithm used in computing entropies, as the logarithmic factors cancel in the ratio I(X; Y)/H(X). In contrast to the unnormalized I(X; Y), which can exceed 1 bit (or ) for variables with sufficiently high marginal entropies, the normalized form of the uncertainty coefficient remains confined to [0, 1], enabling consistent interpretation and comparison across diverse datasets.

Invariances and Limitations

The uncertainty coefficient demonstrates key invariances that enhance its utility as a measure of between categorical variables. It is permutation-invariant, meaning the measure remains consistent under arbitrary reordering of labels, as it depends solely on the underlying joint probability structure rather than label assignments. For instance, consider a task with an imbalanced dataset where 90% of samples belong to one class: if the conditional probabilities remain fixed while relabeling categories (e.g., swapping class labels without altering joint probabilities), the uncertainty coefficient stays unchanged, preserving its assessment of predictive reduction in . Despite these strengths, the uncertainty coefficient has significant limitations, particularly in its assumptions and practical implementation. It inherently assumes discrete variables, rendering it unsuitable for continuous without , which can introduce arbitrary biases or loss during binning. Entropy-based calculations make it sensitive to small sample sizes, where estimates of joint probabilities become unstable, leading to inflated or unreliable association values due to sparse tables. Computationally, evaluating the uncertainty coefficient demands accurate estimation of joint and marginal entropies from tables, a process prone to in high-dimensional spaces with many categories, as the number of parameters grows exponentially with dimensionality. To mitigate biases in finite samples, particularly for small datasets, techniques provide robust confidence intervals and corrected estimates by resampling the data multiple times, offering a practical way to assess variability in the coefficient.

Relations to Other Measures

Normalized Mutual Information

The normalized mutual information (NMI) normalizes the mutual information I(X;Y) symmetrically by the geometric mean of the marginal entropies, given by \text{NMI}(X,Y) = \frac{I(X;Y)}{\sqrt{H(X) H(Y)}}, where H(X) and H(Y) denote the entropies of the random variables X and Y. This yields values in the interval [0, 1], with 0 signifying and 1 indicating identical distributions. An alternative formulation divides I(X;Y) by the minimum of the entropies, \min(H(X), H(Y)), though the square-root variant predominates in practice due to its desirable probabilistic properties. In comparison, the asymmetric uncertainty coefficient U(X|Y) = I(X;Y) / H(X) normalizes solely by the of the target variable X, emphasizing the reduction in uncertainty about X given Y. Unlike U(X|Y), which is directional and satisfies U(X|Y) \neq U(Y|X) in general, NMI is inherently symmetric, ensuring \text{NMI}(X,Y) = \text{NMI}(Y,X). Both metrics scale to [0,1] to gauge dependence strength and derive from information-theoretic principles, providing normalized interpretations of shared between variables. NMI mitigates bias toward variables with higher entropy by incorporating both marginals in the denominator, yielding more equitable dependence estimates when H(X) \neq H(Y), whereas U(X|Y) may undervalue associations if H(X) substantially exceeds I(X;Y). Consequently, NMI is favored for symmetric contexts like clustering validation, where interchangeability of partitions is essential, as it robustly compares clusterings regardless of labeling or size. In contrast, the asymmetric U(X|Y) suits directed scenarios, such as evaluating predictor efficacy in , where the focus is on forecasting one variable from another. To illustrate the divergence, consider categorical data where X is uniformly distributed over three outcomes (H(X) = \log_2 3 \approx 1.585 bits) and Y is binary with equal probabilities (H(Y) = 1 bit), yielding mutual information I(X;Y) = 1 bit under partial dependence. Here, U(X|Y) = 1 / 1.585 \approx 0.631, while \text{NMI}(X,Y) = 1 / \sqrt{1.585 \times 1} \approx 0.795; the higher NMI value highlights its reduced sensitivity to entropy imbalance. The symmetric uncertainty coefficient, $2 I(X;Y) / (H(X) + H(Y)), offers a related symmetric alternative, approximating NMI in many cases but using arithmetic rather than geometric averaging.

Association Measures in Statistics

The uncertainty coefficient relates to the assessment of dependence in tables for categorical variables, akin to the test of developed by in 1900, which evaluates whether two nominal variables are independent but provides no quantification of the association's strength. In contrast, the uncertainty coefficient, introduced by Henri Theil in 1970, quantifies the proportional reduction in predictive error for one variable given the other, offering a directional measure of association. , proposed by Harald Cramér in 1946, acts as a normalized extension of the statistic, yielding a symmetric index of overall dependence that parallels the uncertainty coefficient but derives from frequency deviations rather than . For 2×2 contingency tables, the uncertainty coefficient approximates the —a association measure equivalent to the for dichotomous variables and defined as the of divided by sample size—but extends more effectively to multi-category scenarios by leveraging to capture nuanced uncertainty reductions. Unlike , which assumes interval-level data, , and ordinal structure to measure linear relationships between continuous variables, the uncertainty coefficient is designed for nominal data and remains invariant to arbitrary category orderings, making it robust for unordered categorical associations.
MeasureRangeSymmetryUse Cases
Uncertainty Coefficient (Theil's U)[0, 1]Asymmetric (symmetric version available)Directional prediction of one nominal variable from another; handling multi-category entropy-based associations
[0, 1]SymmetricSymmetric strength of dependence in r×c tables post-chi-square testing
Goodman-Kruskal [0, 1]AsymmetricProportional error reduction in category predictions for nominal variables
The table above compares key properties, drawing from standard formulations where all measures normalize to [0, 1] for interpretability, with zero indicating . Prior to the , measures of for categorical were limited to frequency-based approaches like Pearson's chi-square (1900), the (early 1900s), (1946), and Goodman-Kruskal lambda (1954), which often emphasized testing or simple error reduction without integrating for broader applicability to qualitative relationships. Theil's uncertainty coefficient filled these gaps by introducing an entropy-derived metric that quantifies informational dependence, enhancing interpretability for nominal in and . Its normalization to the [0, 1] interval further underscores advantages in cross-dataset comparability over unnormalized predecessors.

Applications

Classification and Clustering Evaluation

The asymmetric uncertainty coefficient U(\hat{y} | y), where \hat{y} denotes predicted labels and y true labels, serves as a key performance metric in supervised by quantifying the reduction in of true labels given the predictions. This measure captures the informational value of predictions in resolving about class membership, offering a more nuanced than accuracy, especially in imbalanced datasets where majority classes can inflate agreement rates without reflecting true . By relying on rather than direct matching, it effectively handles multi-class settings and non-linear dependencies between inputs and outputs, providing a symmetric treatment of classes that avoids toward prevalent ones. In clustering, the symmetric uncertainty coefficient U between cluster assignments and ground-truth labels evaluates the quality of partitions by measuring nominal , independent of specific label permutations due to its reliance on . This invariance makes it ideal for comparing clustering outputs against known structures without requiring label alignment, as the metric assesses overall dependency strength rather than exact matches. These applications highlight the uncertainty coefficient's advantages in machine learning libraries, where it is implemented for robust metric evaluation in both classification and clustering pipelines, supporting multi-class problems and non-linear relationships without assuming linear separability.

Feature Selection in Machine Learning

The uncertainty coefficient plays a key role in filter-based feature selection by quantifying the dependency between features and the target variable, enabling the ranking and selection of informative attributes prior to model training. Specifically, the asymmetric uncertainty coefficient U(\text{target}|\text{feature}), defined as the normalized reduction in target entropy given the feature, is computed to rank features based on their ability to reduce uncertainty in the target; features exceeding a predefined threshold are then included in models such as decision trees to enhance predictive performance without overfitting. This approach prioritizes features that provide the most explanatory power relative to the computational cost of inclusion. In filter methods, the symmetric uncertainty coefficient extends this by evaluating pairwise associations between features and the target, as well as inter-feature redundancies, to select subsets that maximize relevance while minimizing among selected attributes—unlike univariate filters that ignore redundancy. The -based feature selection (CFS) algorithm, for instance, uses symmetric uncertainty to compute average feature-target and inter-feature , employing a merit score MS = \frac{k \cdot r_{cf}}{\sqrt{k + k(k-1) \cdot r_{ff}}} (where k is the subset size, r_{cf} the mean feature-target , and r_{ff} the mean inter-feature ) to guide searches for optimal subsets. This symmetric formulation ensures balanced assessment of dependencies, particularly beneficial in datasets with categorical variables. For example, on the synthetic dataset, consisting of 3 relevant boolean features with added irrelevant and redundant attributes, ranking features by the uncertainty coefficient and applying CFS improved IB1 classifier accuracy from 89.6% to 100% by eliminating irrelevant and redundant attributes. Similar gains were observed on the dataset from the UCI repository, where CFS reduced features from 22 to fewer while boosting Naive Bayes accuracy from 94.75% to 98.49%. The coefficient integrates seamlessly into pipelines via libraries such as , where CFS is implemented as a for preprocessing, and , which supports symmetric for in workflows. These tools facilitate its application in high-dimensional domains like , where symmetrical has been used to identify biomarkers from microarrays by selecting non-redundant features that improve classification of cancer subtypes. In practice, computing pairwise symmetric uncertainties incurs a complexity of O(n^2) for n features due to the need for an inter-correlation , which can be prohibitive for very large datasets; this is often mitigated through sampling subsets of features or instances during the . The coefficient's normalization to [0,1] ensures consistent ranking across variables with differing scales.

History and Extensions

Origins and Introduction

The uncertainty coefficient traces its origins to the foundational concepts of developed by in 1948, where was introduced as a measure of uncertainty in communication systems. This work laid the groundwork for quantifying information and uncertainty, with Shannon's collaboration with Warren Weaver further elucidating these ideas in their 1949 book, which popularized as a tool for analyzing probabilistic systems beyond . , also originating from Shannon's framework, served as a key precursor by measuring the shared information between variables and providing a basis for normalized dependence metrics. Prior to its formalization, similar ideas on information measures appeared in I. J. Good's 1965 exploration of estimation, where entropy-based quantities were used to assess evidential weight and predictive proficiency in uncertain scenarios. Henri Theil introduced the uncertainty coefficient in 1970 within the field of , specifically to address the prediction of categorical outcomes using qualitative predictors. Motivated by the need for a normalized measure of dependence suitable for nominal variables in economic modeling, Theil proposed it as a way to evaluate the reduction in uncertainty about one variable given knowledge of another, drawing directly from concepts. Theil further developed and formalized the coefficient in his 1972 , interpreting it as a measure of "proficiency" in statistical for social and administrative applications. This publication solidified its role as an asymmetric association metric, emphasizing its utility in decomposing to quantify predictive accuracy in multivariate settings.

Modern Developments and Variations

Extensions to continuous variables have been proposed, often relying on as the continuous analog, though these adaptations can alter the measure's normalization and range properties compared to the case. Such methods facilitate applications in mixed-data scenarios but introduce challenges in . Variations of the uncertainty coefficient include its asymmetric form, which quantifies directional dependence and has been applied in to distinguish predictive relationships between variables. Another variant, referred to as the proficiency coefficient, emphasizes the measure's role in evaluating predictive proficiency and appears in early computational contexts for association analysis. In bioinformatics and , post-2000 studies have employed the uncertainty coefficient to evaluate associations between categorical genetic markers. Modern software implementations support its integration into workflows; for example, PyTorch-Metrics provides an efficient computation of Theil's U as a metric for nominal , addressing scalability issues in large-scale econometric extensions to by enabling GPU-accelerated evaluations. Recent developments as of 2025 include its use in for rainfall-runoff model calibration by combining with concepts, and in for assessing the of misleading results in empirical studies. These advances expand beyond Theil's original econometric focus, emphasizing computational efficiency and domain-specific adaptations for high-dimensional data in AI-driven analyses.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Combining uncertainty quantification and entropy-inspired concepts ...
    Oct 1, 2025 · called the uncertainty coefficient, entropy coefficient, or. Theil's U) can be computed as: U Y,X = MI Y,X. H Y. = H Y − H(Y/X). H Y . (2).
  2. [2]
    [PDF] 14.4 Contingency Table Analysis of Two Distributions
    ... define a measure of the “dependency” of y on x, that is to say a measure of association. This measure is sometimes called the uncertainty coefficient of y.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] An Entropy-Based Measure of Dependence Between Two Groups of ...
    Thiel (1970) proposed what he called the uncertainty coefficient (U), which is defined by the ratio of difference between the entropy of X and the ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Statistics for Data Science - Lesson 16 - Numerical summaries
    • Uncertainty coefficient (also called entropy coefficient or Thiel's U) : Usym = I(X, Y ). (H(X) + H(Y ))/2. Uasym = I(X, Y ). H(X) where pXY is the empirical ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] A Mathematical Theory of Communication
    379–423, 623–656, July, October, 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication ... We may also define an entropy H per second by dividing, not by n, but by ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Entropy and Information Theory - Stanford Electrical Engineering
    This book is devoted to the theory of probabilistic information measures and their application to coding theorems for information sources and noisy channels ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Shannon Entropy and Kullback-Leibler Divergence
    Definition 356 (Shannon Entropy (Discrete Case)) The Shannon entropy, or just entropy, of a discrete random variable X is. H[X] ≡ − !x. P (X = x) log P (X ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Understanding Shannon's Entropy metric for Information - cs.wisc.edu
    But, this is exactly Shannon's formula [1] for Entropy! •. Shannon Entropy E = -∑i(p(i)×log2(p(i))). Note that the minus sign takes care of the fact that p(i) ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Elements of Information Theory
    This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that ...
  10. [10]
    Measures of association for nominal categorical variables
    Dec 27, 2008 · This paper reviews existing measures of association for nominal categorical variables, and presents some alternative measures of association ...
  11. [11]
    Statistical Decomposition Analysis : Theil, Henri - Internet Archive
    Sep 13, 2023 · Statistical Decomposition Analysis. by: Theil, Henri. Publication date: 1972. Publisher: [S.l.] : North-Holland. Collection ...Missing: pdf | Show results with:pdf
  12. [12]
    Economics and Information Theory - Henri Theil - Google Books
    Title, Economics and Information Theory Volume 7 of Studies in mathematical and managerial economics, ISSN 0081-8194 ; Author, Henri Theil ; Publisher, North- ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Relevance-Redundancy Dominance: a Threshold-Free ... - CEUR-WS
    Feature selection reduces data size, and improves learning ... Correlation-based Feature Selection for Machine Learning. ... Theil's U. 3.61 ± 0.75 73.58 ± 2.11 k- ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Historical Highlights in the Development of Categorical Data Analysis
    (Analysis of Binary Data, 1970) ... Introduce measures of association for contingency tables, emphasize interpretability of proportional reduction in error (PRE) ...
  15. [15]
    Correlation between discrete (categorical) variables - Amazon AWS
    Dec 11, 2019 · The uncertainty coefficient (also called entropy coefficient or ... U(X|Y)=H(X)−H(X|Y)H(X)=I(X ...
  16. [16]
    an alternative to the Goodman–Kruskal lambda - ResearchGate
    As a measure of association between two nominal categorical variables, the lambda coefficient or Goodman–Kruskal's lambda has become a most popular measure.
  17. [17]
    Theil's U — PyTorch-Metrics 1.8.2 documentation - Lightning AI
    It is also know as the Uncertainty Coefficient. Theils's U is an asymmetric coefficient, i.e. ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Performance Metrics for Group-Detection Algorithms
    Performance Metrics for Group-Detection Algorithms · Figures and Tables · Topics · 22 Citations · 10 References · Related Papers ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Correlation-based Feature Selection for Machine Learning
    A central problem in machine learning is identifying a representative set of features from which to construct a classification model for a particular task.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] A Survey On Feature Selection Algorithm For High Dimensional ...
    This process and algorithms is implemented by the orange data mining System. ... symmetric uncertainty of variables Xand Y, the relevance T-Relevance between a ...
  21. [21]
    Biomarker Identification From Gene Expression Based on ...
    In this paper, the authors present an effective information theoretic feature selection method, symmetrical uncertainty, to classify gene expression microarray ...
  22. [22]
    On the Estimation of Relationships Involving Qualitative Variables
    This article is concerned with the specification and estimation of relationships whose dependent variable is qualitative in nature (such as yes or no).
  23. [23]
    Statistical Decomposition Analysis: With Applications in the Social ...
    Statistical Decomposition Analysis: With Applications in the Social and Administrative Sciences, Henri Theil ... North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972.
  24. [24]
    Understanding Correlation Coefficients in Machine Learning - btd
    Nov 10, 2023 · Theil's U: Measures the uncertainty reduction in predicting one ... Estimates the correlation between two latent continuous variables that are ...
  25. [25]
    Uncertainty coefficient - Wikipedia
    In statistics, the uncertainty coefficient, also called proficiency, entropy coefficient or Theil's U, is a measure of nominal association.
  26. [26]
    A review of uncertainty quantification for density estimation
    Abstract: It is often useful to conduct inference for probability densities by constructing “plausible” sets in which the unknown density of given.
  27. [27]
    A Bayesian approach to the analysis of asymmetric association for ...
    Jul 1, 2022 · We develop a fully Bayesian method to implement this measure, and examine its performance using simulation data and several real data sets of colorectal cancer.
  28. [28]
    Uncertainty Coefficient: Definition - Statistics How To
    The uncertainty coefficient, also called the entropy coefficient, or proficiency, is a measure of the entropy (that is, uncertainty) in a column variable Y ...Missing: theory | Show results with:theory
  29. [29]
    A hierarchical and modular approach to the discovery of robust ...
    We present a hierarchical and modular approach to the analysis of genome wide genotype data that incorporates quality control, linkage disequilibrium, physical ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Bias Correction of Inequality Estimators in Small-Sized Samples
    May 10, 2023 · The sampling coefficient of variations of both estimators are high, ranging from 0.24 to. 3.48 for the Theil index, from 0.18 to 4.45 for the ...
  31. [31]
    Theil's U for features, models and temporal-EZ localization. The...
    Theil's U for features, models and temporal-EZ localization. The columns represent the known (Bayesian prior) variable, and the rows the target entropy ...
  32. [32]