Fisher matrix - equivalence or not between sequences

In summary: So, you need to be careful. In summary, I am currently studying Fisher's formalism as part of parameter estimation. This involves working with the Fisher matrix, which is the inverse matrix of the covariance matrix. To make calculations easier, one can project the Fisher matrix onto a new basis using the Jacobian matrix, and then marginalize the projected matrix by removing the row and column corresponding to the parameter of interest. This results in a new covariance matrix, which can then be inverted to obtain a new Fisher matrix. In order to prove that two different sequences of operations will result in the same final Fisher matrix, it is necessary to model both sequences using basic matrix algebra and compare them with blocked multiplication using the Schur Complement. Care
  • #1
fab13
312
6
I am currently studying Fisher's formalism as part of parameter estimation.

From this documentation :

Iw60x.png


They that Fisher matrix is the inverse matrix of the covariance matrix. Initially, one builds a matrix "full" that takes into account all the parameters.

1) Projection : We can then do what we call a projection, that is to say that we express this matrix in another base by using the Jacobian matrix which involves the derivatives of the starting parameters with respect to the new parameters that one chooses: this matrix is called "projected matrix".

2) Marginalization : Once we have this projected matrix, we can do another operation which is the "marginalization of a parameter": that is to say that we delete in the projected matrix the row and the column corresponding to this marginalized parameter.

Finally, once I have the projected matrix, I can invert it to know the covariance matrix associated with the parameters (the new ones).

Now, I would like if the 2 following sequences gives the same final matrix :

1st sequence :

1.1) Starting from the Fisher matrix "full"

1.2) Invert "full" fisher Matrix to get Covariance matrix

1.3) Marginalize on Covariance matrix with respect to a parameter (or even several but I am interested first only in one), that is to say to remove the column and line corresponding to the parameter that one wants to marginalize.

1.4) Invert new Covariance matrix to get new Fisher

1.5) Project the new Fisher into new basis of parameters making the product: ## F_{\kappa \lambda} = \sum_ {i,j} \, J_{i \kappa} \, F_{ij} \, J _{\lambda j}##

2nd sequence :

2.1) Starting from the Fisher matrix "full"

2.2) Projecting with the Jacobian matrix

2.3) Invert to get new Covariance matrix

2.4) Marginalize the projected matrix = remove the column and line corresponding to the parameter that one wants to marginalize.

2.5) Invert to have the new Fisher matrix.

Will I get the same final Fisher matrix at the end of step 1.5) and step 2.5) ?

if this is the case, how could I prove it in an analytical way ?


Maybe the second sequence is not right to get the equivalence between sequence 1) and sequence 2) ?
 

Attachments

  • Iw60x.png
    Iw60x.png
    70.9 KB · Views: 724
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
fab13 said:
I am currently studying Fisher's formalism as part of parameter estimation...

Now, I would like if the 2 following sequences gives the same final matrix :

1st sequence :

1.1) Starting from the Fisher matrix "full"

1.2) Invert "full" fisher Matrix to get Covariance matrix

1.3) Marginalize on Covariance matrix with respect to a parameter (or even several but I am interested first only in one), that is to say to remove the column and line corresponding to the parameter that one wants to marginalize.

1.4) Invert new Covariance matrix to get new Fisher

1.5) Project the new Fisher into new basis of parameters making the product: ## F_{\kappa \lambda} = \sum_ {i,j} \, J_{i \kappa} \, F_{ij} \, J _{\lambda j}##

2nd sequence ...

If it were me, I'd start by modelling all of part 1 with basic matrix algebra.

As a hint for ##1.3)##, consider what happens when you have ##\mathbf \Sigma## as an n x n covariance matrix and ##\mathbf S## as the n dimensional identity matrix with the final column deleted. now consider what happens when you compute

##\mathbf S^T \mathbf{\Sigma S}##

up to a graph isomorphism this is the deletion routine. (i.e. you can assume WLOG that you always want to delete final row and column)

- - - - -
After this, I'd then compare it with blocked multiplication using the Schur Complement which has "??" next to it in your text blurb.

Finally, write up the second sequence as well in terms of matrix algebra. Pinning down exactly what's going on with the Jacobian is going to be key.
 
  • #3
@StoneTemplePython . Thanks for your quick answer.

I have a simple issue concerning the calculus of matrix algebra betwee 2 sequences : in the first case, if I chose a parameter ##\alpha## when I do a marginalization on covariance matrix (from full initial Fisher matrix), which new paramater ##\beta'## have I got to take in the second case when I want to marginalize on the inverse of Fisher's matrix projected (i.e I express the initial Fisher matrix into new basis of parameters with Jacobian) ?

Regards
 
  • #4
fab13 said:
@StoneTemplePython . Thanks for your quick answer.

I have a simple issue concerning the calculus of matrix algebra betwee 2 sequences : in the first case, if I chose a parameter ##\alpha## when I do a marginalization on covariance matrix (from full initial Fisher matrix), which new paramater ##\beta'## have I got to take in the second case when I want to marginalize on the inverse of Fisher's matrix projected (i.e I express the initial Fisher matrix into new basis of parameters with Jacobian) ?

Regards

This really falls on you. It isn't clear to me what or why you want to do a change of variables. Writing this out in full, starting with sequence 1, as I suggested above, is the way forward. For an arbitrary change of variables, your deletion routine effected via ##\mathbf S## is going to lead to problems. The right way to do this is do your deletion / marginalization routine on the variables you want to get rid of... considering this problem for an arbitrary change of variable is going to not get you anywhere and will cause problems.

You may consider the case of a change of variables where you want to get marginalize ##x_n##... if you do a change of variables for all others except ##x_n## -- i.e. for ##\{x_1, ..., x_{n-1}\}## it should be ok. (Verify this with blocked matrix algebra.)

But if you do a change of variables incorporating ##x_n## so, say, the new variables are each a non-trivial convex combination of ##x_1, ..., x_{n-1}, x_n## then you can't possibly hope to delete / do the same marginalize via ##\mathbf S##.
 

1. What is the Fisher matrix and how is it used in scientific research?

The Fisher matrix is a mathematical tool used in statistics and data analysis to evaluate the precision and accuracy of estimated parameters in a model. It is commonly used in scientific research, particularly in fields such as physics, astronomy, and engineering, to assess the performance of experiments and observations.

2. What does it mean for two sequences to be equivalent in the context of the Fisher matrix?

In the context of the Fisher matrix, two sequences are considered equivalent if they produce the same results in terms of parameter estimation. This means that even if the sequences are different, they yield the same information about the parameters being estimated.

3. How do you determine if two sequences are equivalent using the Fisher matrix?

To determine if two sequences are equivalent, you can compare their Fisher information matrices. If the matrices are identical, then the sequences are equivalent. However, if the matrices are not identical, it does not necessarily mean that the sequences are not equivalent, as there may be a scaling factor that can be applied to make them equivalent.

4. What are the implications of equivalence between sequences in terms of experimental design?

If two sequences are equivalent in terms of the Fisher matrix, it means that they will provide the same information about the parameters being estimated. This can be useful in experimental design, as it allows for flexibility in choosing the best sequence for an experiment without affecting the accuracy of the results.

5. Are there any limitations to using the Fisher matrix to determine equivalence between sequences?

Yes, there are some limitations to using the Fisher matrix to determine equivalence between sequences. For example, the Fisher matrix assumes that the model being used is linear and that the errors are normally distributed. If these assumptions are not met, the results may not accurately reflect the equivalence between sequences.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
769
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
918
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
909
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top