2111.09484
Information-theoretic formulation of dynamical systems: causality, modeling, and control
Adrián Lozano-Durán, Gonzalo Arranz
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Strong Field
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper states generalized Fano-type bounds on modeling error (probability and expectation) and a Pinsker-type distributional bound, and motivates maximizing mutual information and minimizing KL divergence for model design. The candidate solution reconstructs these results rigorously: it derives the list-decoding version of Fano’s inequality with an explicit construction of the indicator random variable and the local list size Lε, converts it to the expectation bound via the standard inequality E[Z] ≥ ε P(Z > ε), and proves Pinsker’s inequality in the base-2 convention. These match the paper’s displayed formulas for Pe, E||Q̂−Q̃||, and the Y-quantity bounds, including the KL-to-TV relation. Minor gaps in the paper’s presentation (no proof of the generalized Fano step, loose treatment of Lε and partition geometry, and a slightly imprecise remark about concavity of mutual information) are supplied or clarified by the model. Overall, the claims coincide and are correct; the proofs differ in detail but are consistent with the paper’s statements and intent (Pe bound and expectation bound: 5.12–5.14; distributional bound and Y-quantity bounds: 5.17, 5.20a–b). See the paper’s equations and surrounding text for context and statements: generalized Fano and expectation bound (5.12–5.14) , the modeling setup and definitions (5.1–5.11) , the Pinsker-type inequality (5.17) , and the Y-quantity bounds (5.20a–b) with modeling implications .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field
\textbf{Justification:}
The paper’s main inequalities are standard but thoughtfully assembled into a coherent framework for modeling and control of high-dimensional deterministic systems. The bounds are correct as stated and the takeaways (maximize MI; minimize KL) are well-motivated. A few notational and geometric details (partition scale, list size, degrees of freedom vs alphabet size) should be clarified, and an imprecise remark about mutual information concavity should be corrected. Including short proof sketches (appendix) would make the contribution self-contained.