Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Geometric PID: Bivariate Info Decomposition

Updated 22 April 2026
  • Geometric PID is an information-theoretic framework that decomposes shared, unique, and synergistic contributions of two sources to a target using KL divergence and convex geometry.
  • It employs projections onto convex hulls in probability simplices, offering a clear geometric interpretation with a rigorous axiomatic foundation.
  • While ensuring nonnegativity and interpretability, its restriction to bivariate systems and computational overhead highlight challenges for higher-dimensional generalizations.

Geometric Partial Information Decomposition (PID) is an information-theoretic framework designed to disentangle the contributions of multiple information sources to a target variable in terms of redundancy, unique information, and synergy. The Geometric PID formalism offers an operational and mathematically principled construction of redundancy for bivariate systems, rooted in the geometry of probability distributions and Kullback–Leibler (KL) projections. It is notable for its rigorous axiomatic foundation, clear geometric interpretation, and explicit computability, though it is inherently restricted to systems with exactly two sources (Liardi et al., 3 Mar 2026).

1. Formal Definition of Geometric PID

Consider two discrete source variables X1X_1, X2X_2 and a target YY with joint distribution P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y). For each x1x_1 in the support of X1X_1, the conditional distribution pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1) is viewed as a point in the probability simplex ΔY\Delta_Y. Similarly, for x2x_2 in the support of X2X_2, X2X_20 is defined.

Define for X2X_21 the convex hull X2X_22 and analogously X2X_23 for X2X_24. The information projection (I-projection) of X2X_25 onto X2X_26 is

X2X_27

yielding the projected conditional X2X_28. The directed projected information from X2X_29 into YY0 is then

YY1

Redundant information is given by

YY2

The atoms of the PID lattice are then given by Möbius inversion:

  • Redundancy: YY3
  • Unique information of YY4: YY5
  • Unique information of YY6: YY7
  • Synergy: YY8

2. Geometric Interpretation and Information Projection

Each conditional YY9 (P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)0) can be interpreted as a point on the P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)1-simplex. The set of conditionals P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)2 spans a convex polytope P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)3. The projection P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)4 finds the point in P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)5 that is closest (in the KL sense) to P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)6. Intuitively, this projects the information that P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)7 has about P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)8 onto the “statistical structure” available from P(x1,x2,y)P(x_1, x_2, y)9. This geometry underpins the “shared” content: only information already expressible by x1x_10 conditionals is counted as redundant.

Symmetry is enforced by minimizing the directed projections in both possible directions.

3. Computational Workflow

Computation of the Geometric PID proceeds as follows (Liardi et al., 3 Mar 2026):

  1. Marginal and Conditional Computation: Compute x1x_11, x1x_12, x1x_13, then the conditionals x1x_14 and x1x_15.
  2. Convex Hull Construction: Form x1x_16 as the convex hull of x1x_17. For each x1x_18, solve the convex projection (e.g., using Blahut–Arimoto or gradient methods) to find x1x_19.
  3. Projected Information Calculation: Compute X1X_10 using the projected conditionals.
  4. Symmetry Step: Repeat for X1X_11.
  5. Redundancy and Atom Derivation: Assign X1X_12 and derive X1X_13 as above.

The following table summarizes the definitions of the bivariate PID atoms:

Atom Formula Description
Redundancy X1X_14 Information shared by X1X_15, X1X_16 about X1X_17
Unique X1X_18 X1X_19 Unique information of pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)0
Unique pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)1 pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)2 Unique information of pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)3
Synergy pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)4 Information only available jointly

4. Axiomatic Properties and Limiting Results

The Geometric redundancy pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)5 satisfies the following axioms and properties:

  • Self-redundancy (SR): pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)6
  • (Weak) Symmetry (S₀): Invariant under swapping pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)7
  • (Weak) Monotonicity (M₀): Redundancy does not increase when adding a source, pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)8
  • Subset-Equality (SE): If pyx1:=P(Y=yX1=x1)p_{y|x_1} := P(Y=y|X_1=x_1)9 then ΔY\Delta_Y0
  • Nonnegativity (GP): ΔY\Delta_Y1
  • Local Positivity (LP): All PID atoms are nonnegative
  • Identity (ID): For ΔY\Delta_Y2, ΔY\Delta_Y3
  • Independent-Identity (IID): If ΔY\Delta_Y4, ΔY\Delta_Y5
  • Lower Bound (LB): Redundancy lower-bounded by less-informative surrogates
  • Equivalence-Invariance (EI): Invariant to relabeling of variable values

Crucially, several no-go results establish that Geometric PID cannot be consistently extended to more than two sources while retaining all the aforementioned properties plus chain-rule (TC) or target monotonicity (TM). Indeed, Geometric PID fails TM/TC: adding more of ΔY\Delta_Y6 can decrease redundancy.

5. Illustrative Example: XOR Gate

For ΔY\Delta_Y7 and ΔY\Delta_Y8 independent fair bits, ΔY\Delta_Y9:

  • x2x_20 for x2x_21; thus x2x_22 for all x2x_23 is the simplex center.
  • The projections x2x_24, so x2x_25.
  • x2x_26, x2x_27, x2x_28 bit, so x2x_29 bit: all information is synergistic, no redundancy. This aligns with the expected behavior for the XOR structure (Liardi et al., 3 Mar 2026).

6. Advantages, Limitations, and Applications

Advantages

  • Identity Validity: Satisfies the ID axiom; independent copies do not yield spurious redundancy.
  • Nonnegativity and Interpretability: All PID atoms are nonnegative and possess a geometric interpretation as KL projections.
  • Label Invariance: Equivalence-invariant under invertible relabeling of variable values.

Limitations

  • Bivariate Only: Formalism is restricted to two sources; no generalization exists to higher dimensions that preserves all core properties and ID.
  • Violation of Target-Monotonicity: Adding more of X2X_20 can decrease redundancy (TM fails).
  • Computational Overhead: For large support on X2X_21, repeated convex optimizations may become computationally expensive.

Use Cases

  • Bivariate PID: Settings where two source variables are analyzed for contributions to a target.
  • Contexts Demanding Identity and Nonnegativity: Experimental systems needing strict adherence to these axioms.
  • Low-dimensional Targets: These facilitate practical geometric projection computation.

7. Relation to Alternative Geometric PID Approaches

A related but distinct geometric PID approach leverages information geometry over partially ordered sets (posets) of variable subsets (Sugiyama et al., 2016). This framework generalizes Amari's hierarchy to enable decomposition on structured spaces, constructing a dually-flat manifold (with X2X_22- and X2X_23-coordinates) for arbitrary posets and deriving PID atoms through Möbius inversion on KL divergence projections. While more general and multivariate, the practical and conceptual constraints differ from the bivariate-focused Geometric PID defined by Harder et al. Thus, users should be cautious to distinguish these two flavors of "geometric" PID, as only the latter corresponds precisely to the KL-projection and simplex geometry described in (Liardi et al., 3 Mar 2026).

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (2)

Topic to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this topic yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this topic yet.

Follow Topic

Get notified by email when new papers are published related to Geometric Partial Information Decomposition (PID).