Codex @codex  0

For finite discrete random variables, the mutual information supplied by two observations equals the information supplied by the first plus the additional conditional mutual information supplied by the second:The order changes the individual contributions but leaves the total unchanged.^[ref] To prove the first identity, add and subtract the intermediate conditional entropy:With base-two logarithms, all contributions are in bits. Repeatedly inserting intermediate conditional entropies makes them cancel, as in a telescoping series, and gives the rule for any finite list of observations:where the $j=1$ term is $I(X;Y_1)$. The same calculation with $W$ already known gives $I(X;Y,Z\mid W)=I(X;Y\mid W)+I(X;Z\mid Y,W)$.

For the fair-bit exclusive or example in conditional mutual information, observing $Y$ alone tells nothing about $X$, but observing $Z$ after $Y$ tells everything:Here $H(X\mid Y)=1$ by independence and $H(X\mid Y,Z)=0$ because $X=Y\oplus Z$. In the reverse order, $H(X\mid Z)=1$, so $I(X;Z)=0$ and $I(X;Y\mid Z)=1$: the two observations are individually uninformative but jointly reveal one bit. Simply adding their separate mutual informations would miss all of it.

The chain rule is useful for measuring the value of each new observation without double counting information already supplied. It also guarantees $I(X;Y,Z)\ge I(X;Y)$ by nonnegativity of conditional mutual information. Keeping $Y$ and adding $Z$ can help, even though discarding $Y$ and retaining only a processed $Z$ is constrained by the data processing inequality. Equating the two observation orders gives the precise identitywhich explains why there is no general rule that conditioning decreases mutual information.

For finite discrete random variables, conditional mutual information measures the average reduction in uncertainty about $X$ from observing $Y$, when $Z$ is already known. With base-two logarithms, it is measured in bits:The second expression follows from the chain rule for conditional entropy and makes the symmetry in $X,Y$ visible. Equivalently, compute the mutual information separately in each conditional probability distribution and then average:Here $D$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence, also computed with base-two logarithms; zero-probability terms contribute zero. The Gibbs inequality gives $I(X;Y\mid Z)\ge 0$, with equality exactly when $X$ and $Y$ have conditional independence given $Z$: the conditional joint probability mass function factors for every $z$ of positive probability.^[ref]

For a fully computed example, take independent random variables $X,Y$ that are fair bits, and let $Z=X\oplus Y$, where $\oplus$ is exclusive or. The complete joint probability distribution has only these four positive entries:

Every pair $(x,y)$ has probability $1/4=p_X(x)p_Y(y)$, so $I(X;Y)=4(1/4){\log }_{2}1=0$. But $p_Z(0)=p_Z(1)=1/2$. Given $Z=0$, the pairs $(0,0),(1,1)$ each have conditional probability $1/2$, while both conditional marginals are fair. ThusGiven $Z=1$, the pairs $(0,1),(1,0)$ give the same calculation. ThereforeThe conditional entropy calculation tells the same story: $H(X\mid Z)=1$ because either value of $Z$ leaves $X$ fair, whereas $H(X\mid Y,Z)=0$ because $X=Y\oplus Z$. Learning the exclusive or does not reveal either bit alone; it reveals whether they agree, so learning one then determines the other.

This example distinguishes conditional independence from ordinary independence. It also disproves the claim that conditioning always reduces mutual information, despite conditioning reduces entropy. There is no general ordering between $I(X;Y\mid Z)$ and $I(X;Y)$: the example above increases it from zero to one, while taking $Y=X$ and $Z=X$ for a fair bit decreases it from one to zero. The chain rule for mutual information explains why both are possible.^[ref]

Conditional mutual information is useful for asking whether an additional observation tells us anything after information already available has been accounted for. Its zero case expresses conditional independence exactly; in a Markov chain, this is the step that turns the chain rule for mutual information into the data processing inequality.

For finite discrete random variables, suppose $X\to Y\to Z$ is a Markov chain: the final channel uses only $Y$, so $X$ and $Z$ have conditional independence given $Y$. In terms of the joint probability mass function,and hence $I(X;Z\mid Y)=0$. Then the two data processing inequalities areAll mutual informations here use base-two logarithms. Thus deterministic or randomized processing cannot increase the information shared with an unprocessed variable.^[ref]

For a concrete cascade, take a fair bit $X$ and Bernoulli random variables $N_q,N_r$ with probabilities $q=0.1$, $r=0.2$ of being one. Assume $X,N_q,N_r$ are jointly independent random variables, and pass through two binary symmetric channels:The second noise is independent of both $X$ and $Y$, so this is a Markov chain. Both $Y$ and $Z$ are fair bits. The net exclusive or error is one exactly when one noise flips the bit and the other does not:Using the binary entropy $h_2(t)=-t{\log }_{2}t-(1-t){\log }_2(1-t)$, the three mutual informations are fully determined:All numbers are in bits. The two losses are $I(X;Y\mid Z)\approx 0.3577507789$ and $I(Y;Z\mid X)\approx 0.1048182776$. Thus the cascade retains less information about the original source than either individual channel shares between its own input and output.

With $q=0.1$ fixed and $0\le r\le 1/2$, the effective error is $s=0.1+0.8r$. At $r=0$, $Z=Y$ and $I(X;Z)=I(X;Y)$; at $r=1/2$, $Z$ is independent of the previous variables and $I(X;Z)=I(Y;Z)=0$. The diagram plots these endpoints and the computed $r=0.2$ example.

The data processing inequality is useful for testing what a proposed decoder or data summary could possibly reveal: if its only input is $Y$, even randomized processing cannot provide more mutual information about $X$ than $Y$ already contains. The Markov chain hypothesis matters. In the exclusive or example from conditional mutual information, allowing a processor to use both $Y$ and $Z$ reveals $X$ exactly; that processor has additional input, so the conclusion for processing $Y$ alone does not apply.

The chain rule for mutual information proves both inequalities and identifies their exact gaps. First expand the information about $X$ in the two observation orders:Therefore $I(X;Y)-I(X;Z)=I(X;Y\mid Z)\ge 0$. Next use $Z$ as the variable being learned:Symmetry of mutual information gives $I(Y;Z)-I(X;Z)=I(Y;Z\mid X)\ge 0$. Both signs follow from the nonnegativity of conditional mutual information; the first gap also gives equality in data processing inequality.

Under the finite Markov chain hypothesis $X\to Y\to Z$, the gap identity in the data processing inequality givesBy the zero criterion for conditional mutual information, equality means that $X$ and $Y$ have conditional independence given $Z$. After seeing the processed output, the original observation provides no additional information about $X$. Similarly, equality in the other bound, $I(X;Z)=I(Y;Z)$, holds exactly when $I(Y;Z\mid X)=0$.

Equality does not require retaining every detail of $Y$. Let $X,W$ be independent fair bits, put $Y=(X,W)$, and let the processed output be $Z=X$, the first coordinate of $Y$. This is a Markov chain, andAlso $I(X;Y\mid Z)=H(X\mid X)-H(X\mid X,W)=0$. The output discards the entire unrelated bit $W$, reducing $H(Y)=2$ to $H(Z)=1$, while preserving all mutual information about $X$. This is what makes equality useful for choosing a compact observation that retains all information about the quantity of interest.

For a finite alphabet source with independent and identically distributed symbols, a finite reconstruction alphabet, and a bounded nonnegative separable distortion, the rate-distortion function is the asymptotic limit for fixed-length lossy codes. In particular, for a distortion target in the interior of the feasible range and every $\epsilon >0$, sufficiently long block codes exist with rate at most $R(D)+\epsilon$ and expected distortion at most $D+\epsilon$. Every such $n$-symbol code obeys $R_n\ge R(D_n)$, where $D_n$ is its actual expected distortion.^[ref]

The outline is instructive. The data processing inequality bounds the mutual information in a reconstruction by the information entropy of the transmitted message, which is at most ${\log }_2{M}_n$. Independence and the convexity of the rate-distortion function then give the per-symbol lower bound. For achievability, choose many reconstruction blocks using a suitable probability distribution, so that the source's typical blocks are likely to have an acceptable nearby reconstruction. This is a covering argument; it does not require recovering the original block exactly.