We consider strategy proof mechanisms for facility location which maximize equitability between agents. As is common in the literature, we measure equitability with the Gini index. We first prove a simple but fundamental impossibility result that no strategy proof mechanism can bound the approximation ratio of the optimal Gini index of utilities for one or more facilities. We propose instead computing approximation ratios of the complemented Gini index of utilities, and consider how well both deterministic and randomized mechanisms approximate this. In addition, as Nash welfare is often put forwards as an equitable compromise between egalitarian and utilitarian outcomes, we consider how well mechanisms approximate the Nash welfare.

We consider a trading marketplace that is populated by traders with diverse trading strategies and objectives. The marketplace allows the suppliers to list their goods and facilitates matching between buyers and sellers. In return, such a marketplace typically charges fees for facilitating trade. The goal of this work is to design a dynamic fee schedule for the marketplace that is equitable and profitable to all traders while being profitable to the marketplace at the same time (from charging fees). Since the traders adapt their strategies to the fee schedule, we present a reinforcement learning framework for simultaneously learning a marketplace fee schedule and trading strategies that adapt to this fee schedule using a weighted optimization objective of profits and equitability. We illustrate the use of the proposed approach in detail on a simulated stock exchange with different types of investors, specifically market makers and consumer investors. As we vary the equitability weights across different investor classes, we see that the learnt exchange fee schedule starts favoring the class of investors with the highest weight. We further discuss the observed insights from the simulated stock exchange in light of the general framework of equitable marketplace mechanism design.

Given a high-dimensional data set we often wish to find the strongest relationships within it. A common strategy is to evaluate a measure of dependence on every variable pair and retain the highest-scoring pairs for follow-up. This strategy works well if the statistic used is equitable [Reshef et al. 2015a], i.e., if, for some measure of noise, it assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships regardless of relationship type (e.g., linear, exponential, periodic). In this paper, we introduce and characterize a population measure of dependence called MIC*. We show three ways that MIC* can be viewed: as the population value of MIC, a highly equitable statistic from [Reshef et al. 2011], as a canonical "smoothing" of mutual information, and as the supremum of an infinite sequence defined in terms of optimal one-dimensional partitions of the marginals of the joint distribution. Based on this theory, we introduce an efficient approach for computing MIC* from the density of a pair of random variables, and we define a new consistent estimator MICe for MIC* that is efficiently computable. In contrast, there is no known polynomial-time algorithm for computing the original equitable statistic MIC. We show through simulations that MICe has better bias-variance properties than MIC. We then introduce and prove the consistency of a second statistic, TICe, that is a trivial side-product of the computation of MICe and whose goal is powerful independence testing rather than equitability. We show in simulations that MICe and TICe have good equitability and power against independence respectively. The analyses here complement a more in-depth empirical evaluation of several leading measures of dependence [Reshef et al. 2015b] that shows state-of-the-art performance for MICe and TICe.

A measure of dependence is said to be equitable if it gives similar scores to equally noisy relationship of different types. In practice, we do not know what kind of functional relationship is underlying two given observations, Hence the equitability of dependence measure is critical in analysis and by scoring relationships according to an equitable measure one hopes to find important patterns of any type of further examination. In this paper, we introduce our definition of equitability of a dependence measure, which is naturally from this initial description, and Further more power-equitable(weak-equitable) is introduced which is of the most practical meaning in evaluating the equitablity of a dependence measure.

The maximal information coefficient (MIC) is a tool for finding the strongest pairwise relationships in a data set with many variables (Reshef et al., 2011). MIC is useful because it gives similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types. This property, called {\em equitability}, is important for analyzing high-dimensional data sets. Here we formalize the theory behind both equitability and MIC in the language of estimation theory. This formalization has a number of advantages. First, it allows us to show that equitability is a generalization of power against statistical independence. Second, it allows us to compute and discuss the population value of MIC, which we call MIC_*. In doing so we generalize and strengthen the mathematical results proven in Reshef et al. (2011) and clarify the relationship between MIC and mutual information. Introducing MIC_* also enables us to reason about the properties of MIC more abstractly: for instance, we show that MIC_* is continuous and that there is a sense in which it is a canonical "smoothing" of mutual information. We also prove an alternate, equivalent characterization of MIC_* that we use to state new estimators of it as well as an algorithm for explicitly computing it when the joint probability density function of a pair of random variables is known. Our hope is that this paper provides a richer theoretical foundation for MIC and equitability going forward. This paper will be accompanied by a forthcoming companion paper that performs extensive empirical analysis and comparison to other methods and discusses the practical aspects of both equitability and the use of MIC and its related statistics.

For analysis of a high-dimensional dataset, a common approach is to test a null hypothesis of statistical independence on all variable pairs using a non-parametric measure of dependence. However, because this approach attempts to identify any non-trivial relationship no matter how weak, it often identifies too many relationships to be useful. What is needed is a way of identifying a smaller set of relationships that merit detailed further analysis. Here we formally present and characterize equitability, a property of measures of dependence that aims to overcome this challenge. Notionally, an equitable statistic is a statistic that, given some measure of noise, assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types [Reshef et al. 2011]. We begin by formalizing this idea via a new object called the interpretable interval, which functions as an interval estimate of the amount of noise in a relationship of unknown type. We define an equitable statistic as one with small interpretable intervals. We then draw on the equivalence of interval estimation and hypothesis testing to show that under moderate assumptions an equitable statistic is one that yields well powered tests for distinguishing not only between trivial and non-trivial relationships of all kinds but also between non-trivial relationships of different strengths. This means that equitability allows us to specify a threshold relationship strength $x_0$ and to search for relationships of all kinds with strength greater than $x_0$. Thus, equitability can be thought of as a strengthening of power against independence that enables fruitful analysis of data sets with a small number of strong, interesting relationships and a large number of weaker ones. We conclude with a demonstration of how our two equivalent characterizations of equitability can be used to evaluate the equitability of a statistic in practice.

In exploratory data analysis, we are often interested in identifying promising pairwise associations for further analysis while filtering out weaker, less interesting ones. This can be accomplished by computing a measure of dependence on all variable pairs and examining the highest-scoring pairs, provided the measure of dependence used assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types. This property, called equitability, is formalized in Reshef et al. [2015b]. In addition to equitability, measures of dependence can also be assessed by the power of their corresponding independence tests as well as their runtime. Here we present extensive empirical evaluation of the equitability, power against independence, and runtime of several leading measures of dependence. These include two statistics introduced in Reshef et al. [2015a]: MICe, which has equitability as its primary goal, and TICe, which has power against independence as its goal. Regarding equitability, our analysis finds that MICe is the most equitable method on functional relationships in most of the settings we considered, although mutual information estimation proves the most equitable at large sample sizes in some specific settings. Regarding power against independence, we find that TICe, along with Heller and Gorfine's S^DDP, is the state of the art on the relationships we tested. Our analyses also show a trade-off between power against independence and equitability consistent with the theory in Reshef et al. [2015b]. In terms of runtime, MICe and TICe are significantly faster than many other measures of dependence tested, and computing either one makes computing the other trivial. This suggests that a fast and useful strategy for achieving a combination of power against independence and equitability may be to filter relationships by TICe and then to examine the MICe of only the significant ones.

A measure of dependence is said to be equitable if it gives similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types. Equitability is important in data exploration when the goal is to identify a relatively small set of strongest associations within a dataset as opposed to finding as many non-zero associations as possible, which often are too many to sift through. Thus an equitable statistic, such as the maximal information coefficient (MIC), can be useful for analyzing high-dimensional data sets. Here, we explore both equitability and the properties of MIC, and discuss several aspects of the theory and practice of MIC. We begin by presenting an intuition behind the equitability of MIC through the exploration of the maximization and normalization steps in its definition. We then examine the speed and optimality of the approximation algorithm used to compute MIC, and suggest some directions for improving both. Finally, we demonstrate in a range of noise models and sample sizes that MIC is more equitable than natural alternatives, such as mutual information estimation and distance correlation.

Reshef et al. recently proposed a new statistical measure, the "maximal information coefficient" (MIC), for quantifying arbitrary dependencies between pairs of stochastic quantities. MIC is based on mutual information, a fundamental quantity in information theory that is widely understood to serve this need. MIC, however, is not an estimate of mutual information. Indeed, it was claimed that MIC possesses a desirable mathematical property called "equitability" that mutual information lacks. This was not proven; instead it was argued solely through the analysis of simulated data. Here we show that this claim, in fact, is incorrect. First we offer mathematical proof that no (non-trivial) dependence measure satisfies the definition of equitability proposed by Reshef et al.. We then propose a self-consistent and more general definition of equitability that follows naturally from the Data Processing Inequality. Mutual information satisfies this new definition of equitability while MIC does not. Finally, we show that the simulation evidence offered by Reshef et al. was artifactual. We conclude that estimating mutual information is not only practical for many real-world applications, but also provides a natural solution to the problem of quantifying associations in large data sets.