ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2026
Sampling bias corrections for discrete and Gaussian partial information decompositions.
Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Causally Informative Entropic Inequalities within Families of Distributions with Shared Marginals.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Partial information decomposition (PID) has emerged as a principled way to decompose the information carried by neural activity into components identifying whether interactions among neurons or brain areas generate synergistic or redundant information. Here, we demonstrate that empirical measures of synergy and redundancy based on either Gaussian or discrete probability estimators suffer from a substantial limited-sampling estimation bias. This bias is much larger for synergy than for redundancy. The gap between them increases with the number of parameters specifying the probability distributions. We develop procedures that effectively correct for the bias and provide rules of thumb for the sample sizes required to obtain unbiased estimates. We show that, when used on empirical brain datasets, they successfully remove large synergy biases across species, recording modalities, and experimental designs. Our bias corrections extend the range of neuroscience questions and experimental designs addressable with PID and allow accurate comparisons between synergy and redundancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.