Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42316652›Full record

ArticlePhysical review. E2026

Comparing frameworks for similarity-aware generalized entropy (sentropy).

Phuc Nguyen, Josiah Couch, Rahul Bansal, Alexandra Morgan, Chris Tam, Miao Li, Rima Arnaout, Ramy Arnaout

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical review. E, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Phuc NguyenBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Josiah CouchBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Rahul BansalBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Alexandra MorganBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Chris TamBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Miao LiBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Rima ArnaoutUniversity of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, San Francisco, California 94143, USA.
Ramy ArnaoutBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shannon entropy is not the only entropy that is relevant to machine-learning datasets, nor possibly even the most important one. Traditional entropies such as Shannon entropy capture information represented by elements' frequencies, but not the richer information encoded by their similarities and differences. Capturing the latter requires similarity-sensitive entropy: "sentropy." Sentropy can be measured using either the recently developed Leinster-Cobbold-Reeve framework (LCR) or the newer Vendi score (VS). This raises the practical question of which one to use: LCR or VS. Here we address this question theoretically and numerically, using 53 large and well-known imaging and tabular datasets. We find that LCR and VS values can differ by orders of magnitude and are complementary, except in limiting cases. We show that both LCR and VS results depend on how similarities are scaled and introduce the notion of "half distance" to parametrize this dependence. We prove that VS provides an upper bound on LCR for all non-negative values of the Rényi-Hill order parameter, as well as for negative values in the special case that the similarity matrix is full rank. We conclude that VS is preferable only when a dataset's elements can be usefully interpreted as linear combinations of a more fundamental set of "ur-elements" or when the system that the dataset describes has a quantum mechanical character. In the broader case where one simply wishes to capture the rich information encoded by elements' similarities and differences as well as their frequencies, we propose that LCR should be favored; nevertheless, for certain half distances, the two methods can complement each other.

Identifiers

PMID42316652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.