Skip to main content
  • 332 Accesses

Abstract

Given two probability measures, say p and m, on a common probability space, how different or distant from each other are they? Similarly, given two random processes with distributions p and m, how distant are the processes from each other and what impact does such a distance have on their respective ergodic properties? The goal of this final chapter is to develop two quite distinct notions of the distance d(p,m) between measures or processes and to use these ideas to delve further into the ergodic properties of processes and the ergodic decomposition. One metric, the distributional distance, measures how well the probabilities of certain important events match up for the two probability measures, and hence this metric need not have any relation to any underlying metric on the original sample space. In other words, the metric makes sense even when we are not putting probability measures on metric spaces. The second metric, the ρ̄-distance (rho-bar distance) depends very strongly on a metric on the output space of the process and measures distance not by how different probabilities are, but by how well one process can be made to approximate another. The second metric is primarily useful in applications in information theory and statistics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Wiley, New York, 1968.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. P. Billingsley, Weak Convergence of Measures: Applications in Probability, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1971.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Dobrushin. private correspondence

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. M. Dudley, “Distances of probability measures and random variables,” Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 39, pp. 1563–1572, 1968.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. R. M. Gray and L. D. Davisson, Ergodic and Information Theory, Benchmark Papers in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 19, Dowden, Hutchninson, & Ross, Stroudsbug PA, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. M. Gray, D. L. Neuhoff, and P. C. Shields, “A generalization of Ornstein’s d-bar distance with applications to information theory,” Annals of Probability, vol. 3, pp. 315–328, April 1975.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. F. R. Hample, “A general qualitative definition of robustness,” Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 42, pp. 1887–1896, 1971.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. K. Jacobs, “The ergodic decomposition of the Kolmogorov-Sinai invariant,” in Ergodic Theory, ed. F. B. Wright, Academic Press, New York, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  9. V. I. Levenshtein, “Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals,” Sov. Phys. -Dokl, vol. 10, pp. 707–710, 1966.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. J. Moser, E. Phillips, and S. Varadhan, Ergodic Theory: A Seminar, Courant Institute of Math. Sciences, New York, 1975.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. D. Ornstein, “An application of ergodic theory to probability theory,” Ann. Probability, vol. 1, pp. 43–58, 1973.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. D. Ornstein, Ergodic Theory, Randomness, and Dynamical Systems, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Papantoni-Kazakos and R. M. Gray, “Robustness of estimators on stationary observations,” Annals of Probability, vol. 7, pp. 989–1002, Dec. 1979.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. V. Strassen, “The existence of probability measures with given marginals,” Ann. Math. Statist, vol. 36, pp. 423–429, 1965.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. S. S. Vallender, “Computing the Wasserstein distance between probability distributions on the line,” Theor. Probability Appl., vol. 18, pp. 824–827, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  16. L. N. Vasershtein, “Markov processes on countable product space describing large systems of automata,” Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, vol. 5, pp. 64–73, 1969.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. L. N. Vasershtein, “Markov processes on countable product space describing large systems of automata,” Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, vol. 5, pp. 64–73, 1969.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gray, R.M. (1988). Process Metrics and the Ergodic Decomposition. In: Probability, Random Processes, and Ergodic Properties. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2024-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2024-2_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-2026-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2024-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics