our current thread is an adjustment to the error measure.
We’re not sure that this is necessary. I quite like the current form of the errors. I’ve spent much of the past week searching for counterexamples to the ∃ deterministic latent theorem and I haven’t found anything yet (although it’s partially a manual search). My current approach takes a P(X_1,X_2) distribution, finds a minimal stochastic NL, then finds a minimal deterministic NL. The deterministic error has always been within a factor of 2 of the stochastic error. So currently we’re expecting the theorem can be rescued.
DKL(P[X]||∑ΛQ[X,Λ]) rather than DKL(P[X,Λ]||Q[X,Λ])
That seems like a cool idea for the mediation condition, but Isn’t it trivial for the redundancy conditions?
We’re not sure that this is necessary. I quite like the current form of the errors. I’ve spent much of the past week searching for counterexamples to the ∃ deterministic latent theorem and I haven’t found anything yet (although it’s partially a manual search). My current approach takes a P(X_1,X_2) distribution, finds a minimal stochastic NL, then finds a minimal deterministic NL. The deterministic error has always been within a factor of 2 of the stochastic error. So currently we’re expecting the theorem can be rescued.
That seems like a cool idea for the mediation condition, but Isn’t it trivial for the redundancy conditions?
Indeed, that specific form doesn’t work for the redundancy conditions. We’ve been fiddling with it.