user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Information lies in the eye of the beholder: The effect of representations on observed mutual information

Paper content:
Learning can be framed as trying to encode the mutual information between input and output while discarding other information in the input.
Since the distribution between input and output is unknown, also the true mutual information is.
To quantify how difficult it is to learn a task, we calculate a observed mutual information score by dividing the estimated mutual information by the entropy of the input.
We substantiate this score analytically by showing that the estimated mutual information has an error that increases with the entropy of the data.
Intriguingly depending on how the data is represented the observed entropy and mutual information can vary wildly.
There needs to be a match between how data is represented and how a model encodes it.
Experimentally we analyze image-based input data representations and demonstrate that performance outcomes of extensive network architectures searches are well aligned to the calculated score.
Therefore to ensure better learning outcomes, representations may need to be tailored to both task and model to align with the implicit distribution of the model.
Sometimes perspective is everything.
While the information content of encoded data may not change when the way it is represented changes, its usefulness can vary dramatically (see Fig. 1 ).
A "useful" representation then is one that makes it easy to extract information of interest.
This in turn very much depends on who or which algorithm is extracting the information.
Evidently the way data is encoded and how a model "decodes" the information needs to match.
Historically, people have invented a large variety of "data representations" to convey information.
An instance of this theme is the heliocentric vs. geocentric view of the solar system.
Before the heliocentric viewpoint was widely accepted, scholars had already worked out the movements of the planets (Theodossiou et al., 2002) .
The main contribution of the new perspective was that now the planetary trajectories were simple ellipses instead of more complicated movements involving loops 1 .
In a machine learning context, many have experimented with finding good data representations for specific tasks such as speech recognition (Logan et al., 2000) , different color spaces for face recognition (Hsu et al., 2002) , for increased robustness in face detection (Podilchuk & Zhang, 1998) , and many others.
Yet no clear understanding has emerged of why a given representation is more suited to one task but less for another.
We cast the problem of choosing the data representation for learning as one of determining the ease of encoding the relationship between input and output which depends both on how the data is represented and which model is supposed to encode it.
Contribution: In this work, we argue that learning a task is about encoding the relationship between input and output.
Each model implicitly has a way of encoding information, where some variations in the data are easier to encode than others.
Armed with this insight, we empirically evaluate different data representations and record what impact data representations have on learning outcomes and types of networks found by automated network optimization.
Most interestingly, we are able Figure 1 : These images contain different representations of the same information.
However, one of the two is much easier for us to understand.
We posit that, for our nervous system, one of the two images has a higher observed mutual information for the task of recognizing the person.
to show that relative learning outcomes can be predicted by an empirical mutual information score, which we coin Observed Mutual Information (OMI) score.
After evaluating a total of 5753 networks, 3702 of which finished training, we have verified our intuition that representations are important.
We see a fairly consistent pattern over all datasets of RGB and YCbCr being the best representations, followed by PREC and blockwise DCT, while DCT falls short (see Fig. 3 ).
Moreover, we observe the great importance of hyperparameters in the spread of results for each network architecture.
Had we chosen to hand-tune our parameters and accidentally picked a very poor performing network for the RGB representation we could have easily come to the conclusion that DCT achieves better results on all datasets.
As we predicted, the performance of a representations also depends greatly on the network architecture.
This is especially visible for the lane following dataset.
We can see that, surprisingly, dense networks are among the best for both RGB and YCbCr, while they fall far behind on all other representations.
The OMI scores we proposed show strong correlation with the results we obtained from architecture search.
They can even predict the comparatively small differences between the other representations with reasonable accuracy (see Fig. 2 ).
It is unclear why the prediction fails for some of the datasets, especially the linear score on the KDEF dataset.
Overall, we observe the significant correlated effect representation has on estimated entropy, OMI scores as well as performance.
This work started by trying to pave a way to the exciting task of determining the difficulty of a learning task.
To achieve this we introduced OMI, as a score that takes both estimated mutual information and possible variance of such an estimate into account.
If the score proves itself also in future works, it may serve as a useful tool for automatic representation or architecture search.
As outlined, this will depend to a great deal on how well we understand the candidate distributions of network architectures and representations that are currently in use.
Similarly, it will be beneficial to study further techniques on removing the bias in the estimation of mutual information and entropy.
We have shown that in many problems of interests the naive computation of mutual information is biased and representation dependent; our OMI score partially remove this bias.
This score also now provides a criterion to evaluate different representations in a principled way.
To narrate Tab.
2 we note that that estimating small entropy values is very error prone.
When assuming a normal distribution, the entropy is calculated via the sum of the logarithm of eigenvalues of the covariance matrix of the data.
The conditioning of the logarithm however gets worse, the closer its argument is to zero.
Eigenvalues close enough to zero are thus likely to carry a significant error when used for entropy computation.
This all is to say that while purely mathematically it is impossible to have negative mutual information values, numerically such things are bound to happen when dealing with small eigenvalues as is prominent with the DCT representation.

assistant: text: We take a step towards measuring learning task difficulty and demonstrate that in practice performance strongly depends on the match of the representation of the information and the model interpreting it.