How Can Lagrange Multipliers Determine Maximum Shannon Entropy?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on using Lagrange multipliers to determine the maximum Shannon entropy for a probability distribution constrained by the normalization condition, specifically the equation ∑_{x} p(x) = 1. The Lagrangian is defined as L(p_k, λ) = -∑_{k} p_k log₂(p_k) - λC(p_k), where C(p_k) = p_1 + p_2 + ... + p_d - 1. The partial derivatives with respect to p_k and λ yield a system of equations that must be solved simultaneously to find the optimal probabilities p_k.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrange multipliers
  • Familiarity with Shannon entropy
  • Knowledge of calculus, specifically partial derivatives
  • Basic probability theory and normalization conditions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Lagrange multipliers in optimization problems
  • Learn about Shannon entropy and its significance in information theory
  • Explore the derivation of the maximum entropy distribution
  • Investigate the implications of constraints in optimization scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and researchers in information theory who are interested in optimization techniques and entropy calculations.

Irishdoug
Messages
102
Reaction score
16
Homework Statement
Given a random variable X with d possible outcomes and distribution p(x),prove that the Shannon entropy is maximised for the uniform distribution where all outcomes are equally likely p(x) =1/d
Relevant Equations
## H(X) = - \sum_{x}^{} p(x)log_{2}p(x) ##

##log_{2}## is used as the course is a Quantum Information one.
I have used the Lagrange multiplier way of answering. So I have set up the equation with the constraint that ## \sum_{x}^{} p(x) = 1##

So I have:

##L(x,\lambda) = - \sum_{x}^{} p(x)log_{2}p(x) - \lambda(\sum_{x}^{} p(x) - 1) = 0##

I am now supposed to take the partial derivatives with respect to p(x) and ##\lambda##, however the derivatives with respect to ##\lambda## will give 0 I believe as we have to constants, 1 and -1.

So ##\frac{\partial (- \sum_{x}^{} p(x)log_{2}p(x) - \lambda(\sum_{x}^{} p(x) - 1)) }{\partial p(x)} = -(log_{2}p(x) + \frac{1}{ln_{2}}+\lambda) = 0##

I am unsure what to do with the summation signs, and I am also unsure how to proceed from here. Can I please have some help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The partials with respect to ##\lambda## should recover your constraint functions since the ##\lambda## dependent terms in your Lagrangian are only ##\lambda## times your constraint functions. Also consider using an index:

Sample space is ##\{ x_1, x_2, \cdots x_d\}## and ##p_k = p(x_k)##

L(p_k, \lambda) = -\sum_{k} p_k \log_2(p_k) - \lambda C(p_k)
with ##C## your constraint function ##C(p_k) = p_1+p_2+\ldots +p_d - 1## and normalized probabilities equate to ##C=0##.

\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k} L =\frac{1}{\ln(2)} -\log_2(p_k) -\lambda \doteq 0
\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} L = C(p_k) \doteq 0
(using ##\doteq## to indicate application of a constraint rather than an a priori identity.)
This is your ##d+1## equation on your ##d+1## free variables ##(p_1, p_2, \ldots ,p_d, \lambda)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K