A.1 Proof of Proposition 1 We note that 1 is restated and was proved in [25, Appendix A.1] Proof of 2: Non-negativity directly follows by non-negativity of mutual information. Proof of 5: The proof relies on the independence of functions of independent random variables. This concludes the proof. 1 A.2 Proof of Proposition 2 By translation invariance of mutual information, we may assume w.l.o.g. that the means are Next, we show that we may equivalently optimize with the added unit variance constraint. Example 3.4]), we have I (A B) null, where the last equality uses the unit variance property and Schur's determinant formula. Armed with Lemma 1, we are in place to prove Proposition 2. Since the CCA solutions Theorem 2.2], which is restated next for completeness.

This work proposes a middle ground in the form of a scalable information-theoretic generalization of CCA, termed max-sliced mutual information (mSMI).

The theory of Koopman operators allows to deploy non-parametric machine learning algorithms to predict and analyze complex dynamical systems.

Suppose h ( )=e x p ( ) . M -matrix (see [ 50 ]).

It consists of reconstructing a 3D tomogram from captured 2D projections of the scanned sample.

One challenge of continual learning is "catastrophic forgetting" [Had+20; VT19; Kem+18]: A model However, if contexts similar to A arise repeatedly, this may be undesirable.. In machine learning, many data sets display cyclic or periodic patterns.

Concept erasure aims to remove specified features from a representation. It can improve fairness (e.g.

Optimal Transport distance to predict the model's performance for any data mixture