Aufgaben:Exercise 3.5Z: Kullback-Leibler Distance again: Difference between revisions

From LNTwww
No edit summary
Fix interlanguage link: resolve redirect chain
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


{{quiz-Header|Buchseite=Informationstheorie/Einige Vorbemerkungen zu zweidimensionalen Zufallsgrößen
{{quiz-Header|Buchseite=Information_Theory/Some_Preliminary_Remarks_on_Two-Dimensional_Random_Variables
}}
}}


[[File:P_ID2762__Inf_Z_3_4.png|right|Empirisch ermittelte Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktionen]]
[[File:P_ID2762__Inf_Z_3_4.png|right|frame|Determined probability mass functions]]
Die Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktion lautet:
The probability mass function is:
:$$P_X(X) = [\hspace{0.03cm}0.25\hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.03cm} 0.25\hspace{0.03cm},\hspace{0.03cm} 0.25 \hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.03cm} 0.25\hspace{0.03cm}]\hspace{0.05cm}$$
:$$P_X(X) = \big[\hspace{0.03cm}0.25\hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.25\hspace{0.15cm},\hspace{0.15cm} 0.25 \hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.25\hspace{0.03cm}\big]\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
Die Zufallsgröße $X$ ist also gekennzeichnet durch
The random variable  $X$  is thus characterised by
* den Symbolumfang $M=4$,
* the symbol set size  $M=4$,
* gleiche Wahrscheinlichkeiten $P_X(1) = P_X(2) = P_X(3) = P_X(4) = 1/4$ .
* equal probabilities  $P_X(1) = P_X(2) = P_X(3) = P_X(4) = 1/4$ .




Die Zufallsgröße $Y$ ist stets eine Näherung für $X$. Sie wurde per Simulation aus einer Gleichverteilung gewonnen, wobei jeweils nur $N$ Zufallswerte ausgewertet wurden. Das heißt:
The random variable  $Y$  is always an approximation for  $X$:
$P_Y(1)$, ... ,$P_Y(4)$ sind im herkömmlichen Sinn keine Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Sie beschreiben vielmehr [[Stochastische_Signaltheorie/Wahrscheinlichkeit_und_relative_H%C3%A4ufigkeit#Bernoullisches_Gesetz_der_gro.C3.9Fen_Zahlen| relative Häufigkeiten]].
*It was obtained by simulation from a uniform distribution, whereby only  $N$  random numbers were evaluated in each case.  This means:  
*$P_Y(1)$, ... , $P_Y(4)$  are not probabilities in the conventional sense.  Rather, they describe  [[Theory_of_Stochastic_Signals/Wahrscheinlichkeit_und_relative_H%C3%A4ufigkeit#Bernoullisches_Gesetz_der_gro.C3.9Fen_Zahlen| relative frequencies]].


Das Ergebnis der sechsten Versuchsreihe (mit  $N=1000$) wird demnach durch die folgende Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktion zusammengefasst:


:$$P_Y(X) = [\hspace{0.05cm}0.225\hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.05cm} 0.253\hspace{0.05cm},\hspace{0.05cm} 0.250 \hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.05cm} 0.272\hspace{0.05cm}]
The result of the sixth test series  (with   $N=1000)$  is thus summarised by the following probability function:
\hspace{0.05cm}$$
Bei dieser Schreibweise ist bereits berücksichtigt, dass die Zufallsgrößen $X$ und $Y$ auf dem gleichen Alphabet $X = \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$ basieren.


Mit diesen Voraussetzungen gilt für die ''relative Entropie'' (englisch: ''Informational Divergence'') zwischen den beiden Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktionen $P_X(.)$ und $P_Y(.)$ :
:$$P_Y(X) = \big [\hspace{0.05cm}0.225\hspace{0.15cm}, \hspace{0.05cm} 0.253\hspace{0.05cm},\hspace{0.15cm} 0.250 \hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.272\hspace{0.05cm}\big]\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
This notation already takes into account that the random variables  $X$  and  $Y$  are based on the same alphabet  $X = \{1,\ 2,\ 3,\ 4\}$.
 
With these preconditions, the  '''informational divergence'''  between the two probability functions  $P_X(.)$  and  $P_Y(.)$ :


:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) =  {\rm E}_X \hspace{-0.1cm}\left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(X)}{P_Y(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^{M}  P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) =  {\rm E}_X \hspace{-0.1cm}\left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(X)}{P_Y(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^{M}  P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


Man bezeichnet $D( P_X\hspace{0.05cm} || \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  als (erste) Kullback–Leibler–Distanz.  
One calls  $D( P_X\hspace{0.05cm} || \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  the (first)  '''Kullback-Leibler distance'''.
*Diese ist ein Maß für die Ähnlichkeit zwischen den beiden Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktionen $P_X(.)$ und $P_Y(.)$.   
*This is a measure of the similarity between the two probability mass functions  $P_X(.)$  and  $P_Y(.)$.   
*Die Erwartungswertbildung geschieht hier hinsichtlich der (tatsächlich gleichverteilten) Zufallsgröße $X$. Dies wird durch die Nomenklatur $E_X[.]$ angedeutet.
*The expected value formation occurs here with regard to the  (actually equally distributed)  random variable  $X$.  This is indicated by the nomenclature  ${\rm E}_X\big[.\big]$.




Eine zweite Form der Kullback–Leibler–Distanz ergibt sich durch die Erwartungswertbildung hinsichtlich der Zufallsgröße $Y \Rightarrow E_Y[.]$:
A second form of Kullback-Leibler distance results from the formation of expected values with respect to the random variable  $Y$   ⇒   ${\rm E}_Y\big [.\big ]$:


:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) =  {\rm E}_Y \hspace{-0.1cm} \left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(X)}{P_X(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^M  P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) =  {\rm E}_Y \hspace{-0.1cm} \left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(X)}{P_X(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^M  P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$




''Hinweise:''
*Die Aufgabe gehört zum  Kapitel [[Informationstheorie/Einige_Vorbemerkungen_zu_zweidimensionalen_Zufallsgrößen|Einige Vorbemerkungen zu den 2D-Zufallsgrößen]].
*Insbesondere wird Bezug genommen auf die Seite [[Informationstheorie/Einige_Vorbemerkungen_zu_zweidimensionalen_Zufallsgrößen#Relative_Entropie_.E2.80.93_Kullback.E2.80.93Leibler.E2.80.93Distanz|Relative Entropie – Kullback-Leibler-Distanz]].
*Die Angaben der Entropie  $H(Y)$ und der Kullback–Leibler–Distanz  $D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  in obiger Grafik sind in „bit” zu verstehen.
* Die in der Grafik  mit „???"  versehenen Felder sollen von Ihnen in dieser Aufgabe ergänzt werden.
*Sollte die Eingabe des Zahlenwertes „0” erforderlich sein, so geben Sie bitte „0.” ein.




===Fragebogen===
 
Hints:
*The exercise belongs to the chapter  [[Information_Theory/Some_Preliminary_Remarks_on_Two-Dimensional_Random_Variables|Some preliminary remarks on two-dimensional random variables]].
*In particular, reference is made to the page  [[Information_Theory/Some_Preliminary_Remarks_on_Two-Dimensional_Random_Variables#Informational_divergence_-_Kullback-Leibler_distance|Relative entropy – Kullback-Leibler distance]].
*The entropy   $H(Y)$  and the Kullback-Leibler distance   $D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$   in the above graph are to be understood in  "bit".
* The fields marked with  "???"  in the graph are to be completed by you in this task.
 
 
===Questions===


<quiz display=simple>
<quiz display=simple>


{Welche Entropie besitzt die Zufallsgröße $X$ ?
{What is the entropy of the random variable&nbsp; $X$ ?
|type="{}"}
|type="{}"}
$H(X)\ = \ $ { 2 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$H(X)\ = \ $ { 2 1% } $\ \rm bit$


{Wie groß sind die Entropien der Zufallsgrößen $Y$ (Näherungen für $X$)?  
{What are the entropies of the random variables&nbsp; $Y$&nbsp; $($approximations for&nbsp; $X)$?  
|type="{}"}
|type="{}"}
$N=10^3\text{:} \ H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.9968 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^3\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.9968 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \ H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.941 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.941 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \ H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.6855 1%  } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ { 1.6855 1%  } $\ \rm bit$


{Berechnen Sie die folgenden Kullback–Leibler–Distanzen.
{Calculate the following Kullback-Leibler distances.
|type="{}"}
|type="{}"}
$N=10^3\text{:} \ D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}  P_Y) \ = \ $ { 0.00328 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^3\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}  P_Y) \ = \ $ { 0.00328 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \ D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}  P_Y) \ = \ $  { 0.0442 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}  P_Y) \ = \ $  { 0.0442 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \ D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)  \ = \ $  { 0.345 1% } $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)  \ = \ $  { 0.345 1% } $\ \rm bit$


{Liefert $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ jeweils exakt das gleiche Ergebnis?
{Does&nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$&nbsp; give exactly the same result in each case?
|type="[]"}
|type="()"}
- Ja.
- Yes.
+ Nein.  
+ No.  


{Welche Aussagen gelten für die Kullback–Leibler–Distanzen bei $N = 4$?
{Which statements are true for the Kullback-Leibler distances with&nbsp; $N = 4$?
|type="[]"}
|type="[]"}
- Es gilt $D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0$.
- &nbsp; $D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0$&nbsp; is true.
- Es gilt $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.5 \ \rm  bit$
- &nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.5 \ \rm  bit$&nbsp; is true.
+ $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ ist unendlich groß
+ &nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$&nbsp; is infinitely large.
- Es gilt $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0$.
- &nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0$&nbsp; holds.
+ Es gilt $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.5 \ \rm bit$.  
+ &nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.5 \ \rm bit$&nbsp; holds.  
- $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ ist unendlich groß.  
- &nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$&nbsp; is infinitely large.


{Ändern sich sowohl $H(Y)$ als auch $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ monoton mit $N$?
{Do both&nbsp; $H(Y)$&nbsp; and&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$&nbsp; change monotonically with&nbsp; $N$?
|type="[]"}
|type="()"}
- Ja,
- Yes,
+ Nein.
+ No.




</quiz>
</quiz>


===Musterlösung===
===Solution===
{{ML-Kopf}}
{{ML-Kopf}}


'''(1)'''&nbsp; Bei gleichen Wahrscheinlichkeiten gilt mit $M = 4$: &nbsp;  $H(X) = {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} M  
'''(1)'''&nbsp; With equal probabilities, and with&nbsp; $M = 4$:  
\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 2\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$  
:$$H(X) = {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} M\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 2\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
 




'''(2)'''&nbsp; Die Wahrscheinlichkeiten für die empirisch ermittelten Zufallsgrößen $Y$ weichen im Allgemeinen (nicht immer!) von der Gleichverteilung um so mehr ab, je kleiner der Parameter $N$ ist. Man erhält
'''(2)'''&nbsp; The probabilities for the empirically determined random variables&nbsp; $Y$&nbsp; generally&nbsp; (not always!)&nbsp; deviate from the uniform distribution the more the parameter&nbsp; $N$&nbsp; is smaller.&nbsp; One obtains for
* $N = 1000 \Rightarrow P_Y(Y) =  [0.225, 0.253, 0.250, 0.272]$:  
* $N = 1000 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) =  \big [0.225, \ 0.253, \ 0.250, \ 0.272 \big ]$:  
:$$H(Y) \hspace{-0.15cm} = \hspace{-0.15cm}
:$$H(Y) =0.225 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.225} +0.253 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.253} +0.250 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.250} +0.272 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.272}\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9968\ {\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
0.225 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.225} +
* $N = 100 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) = \big[0.24, \ 0.16, \ 0.30, \ 0.30\big]$:  
0.253 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.253} +
:$$H(Y) = \hspace{0.05cm}\text{...} \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9410\ {\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
0.250 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.250} +
* $N = 10 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) =  \big[0.5, \ 0.1, \ 0.3, \ 0.1 \big]$:
0.272 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.272}  
:$$H(Y) = \hspace{0.05cm}\text{...} \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.6855\ {\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9968\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* $N = 100\Rightarrow  P_Y(Y) = [0.24, 0.16, 0.30, 0.30]$:  
:$$H(Y) = ... \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9410\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* $N = 10 \Rightarrow  P_Y(Y) =  [0.5, 0.1, 0.3, 0.1]$:
:$$H(Y) = ... \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.6855\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


'''(3)'''&nbsp; Die Gleichung für die gesuchte Kullback–Leibler–Distanz lautet:


:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \sum_{\mu = 1}^{4}  P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)}
=  \frac{1/4}{{\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot
\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{P_Y(1)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(2)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(3)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(4)}
\right ] $$
:$$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)  =  \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot
\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{P_Y(1) \cdot P_Y(2)\cdot P_Y(3)\cdot P_Y(4)}
\right ] \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


Der Logarithmus zur Basis 2 &nbsp; &rArr;  &nbsp; $\log_2(.)$ wurde zur einfachen Nutzung des Taschenrechners durch den Zehnerlogarithmus  2 &nbsp; &rArr;  &nbsp; $\lg(.)$  ersetzt. Man erhält die folgenden numerischen Ergebnisse:
'''(3)'''&nbsp; The equation for the Kullback-Leibler distance we are looking for is:
* für $N=1000$:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot
\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.225 \cdot 0.253\cdot 0.250\cdot 0.272}
\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 3.28 \cdot 10^{-3}\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* für $N=100$:  
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot
\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.24 \cdot 0.16\cdot 0.30\cdot 0.30}
\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 4.42 \cdot 10^{-2}\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* für $N=10$:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot
\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.5 \cdot 0.1\cdot 0.3\cdot 0.1}
\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 3.45 \cdot 10^{-1}\,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


'''(4)'''&nbsp; Richtig ist <u>Nein</u>, wie am Beispiel $N = 100$ gezeigt werden soll:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \sum_{\mu = 1}^{4} P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)}= \frac{1/4}{{\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{P_Y(1)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(2)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(3)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(4)}\right ] $$
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) =   \sum_{\mu = 1}^M P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} = 0.24\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.24}{0.25} + 0.16\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.16}{0.25} +2 \cdot 0.30\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.30}{0.25}  = 0.0407\,{\rm (bit)}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
:$$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)  =  \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{P_Y(1) \cdot P_Y(2)\cdot P_Y(3)\cdot P_Y(4)}\right ] \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


In der Teilaufgabe (c) haben wir stattdessen $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.0442$ erhalten. Das bedeutet auch: Der Name „Distanz” ist etwas irreführend. Danach würde man eigentlich $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ = $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ erwarten.
The logarithm to the base&nbsp; $ 2$&nbsp; &rArr;  &nbsp; $\log_2(.)$&nbsp; was replaced by the logarithm to the base&nbsp; $ 10$ &nbsp; &rArr;  &nbsp; $\lg(.)$ for easy use of the calculator.


The following numerical results are obtained:
* for $N=1000$:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.225 \cdot 0.253\cdot 0.250\cdot 0.272}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.00328 \,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* for $N=100$:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.24 \cdot 0.16\cdot 0.30\cdot 0.30}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.0442 \,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm},$$
* for $N=10$:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.5 \cdot 0.1\cdot 0.3\cdot 0.1}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.345 \,{\rm (bit)}}  \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


'''(5)'''&nbsp; Mit $P_Y(X) = [0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.25]$ erhält man:
 
 
'''(4)'''&nbsp; Correct is&nbsp; <u>'''No'''</u>,&nbsp; as will be shown by the example&nbsp; $N = 100$&nbsp;:
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) =  \sum_{\mu = 1}^M  P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} = 0.24\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.24}{0.25} + 0.16\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.16}{0.25} +2 \cdot 0.30\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.30}{0.25}  = 0.0407\ {\rm (bit)}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
 
*In subtask&nbsp; '''(3)'''&nbsp; we got&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.0442$&nbsp; instead.
*This also means: &nbsp; The designation „distance” is somewhat misleading.
*According to this, one would actually expect&nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$&nbsp;.
 
 
 
[[File:P_ID2763__Inf_Z_3_4e.png|right|frame|Probability function, entropy and Kullback-Leibler distance]]
'''(5)'''&nbsp; With&nbsp; $P_Y(X) = \big [0, \ 0.25, \ 0.5, \ 0.25 \big ]$&nbsp; one obtains:
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.50}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
:$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.50}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$


Aufgrund des ersten Terms ergibt sich für $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$ ein unendlich großer Wert. Für die zweite Kullback–Leibler–Distanz gilt:
*Because of the first term, the value of&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$&nbsp; is infinitely large.
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0}{0.25} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+
*For the second Kullback-Leibler distance holds:
0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.5}{0.25}
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0}{0.25} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.5}{0.25}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
\hspace{0.05cm}.$$


[[File:P_ID2763__Inf_Z_3_4e.png|right|Wahrscheinlichkeitsfunktion, Entropie und Kullback–Leibler–Distanz]]
*After looking at the limits, one can see that the first term yields the result&nbsp; $0$&nbsp;.&nbsp; The second term also yields zero, and one obtains as the final result:
Nach einer Grenzwertbetrachtung erkennt man, dass der erste Term das Ergebnis $0$ liefert. Auch der zweite Term ergibt sich zu $0$, und man erhält als Endergebnis:
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} (2) \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.5\,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
:$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} (2) \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.5\,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


Richtig sind somit die <u>Aussagen 3 und 5</u>:  
&nbsp; <u>Statements 3 and 5</u> are therefore correct:  
*Auch aus diesem Extrembeispiel wird deutlich, dass sich $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ stets von $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ unterscheidet.  
*From this extreme example it is clear that&nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$&nbsp; is always different from&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$&nbsp;.
*Nur für den Sonderfall $P_Y = P_X$ sind beide Kullback–Leibler–Distanzen gleich, nämlich Null.  
*Only for the special case&nbsp; $P_Y \equiv P_X$&nbsp; are both Kullback-Leibler distances equal, namely zero.  
*Die nebenstehende Tabelle zeigt das vollständige Ergebnis dieser Aufgabe.
*The adjacent table shows the complete result of this task.
 
 


'''(6)'''&nbsp; Richtig ist <u>Nein</u>. Die Tendenz ist zwar eindeutig: Je größer $N$ ist,
* desto mehr nähert sich $H(Y)$ im Prinzip dem Endwert $H(X) = 2 \ \rm bit$ an.
* um so kleiner werden die Distanzen $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ und $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$.




Man erkennt aus der Tabelle aber auch, dass es Ausnahmen gibt:
* Die Entropie $H(Y)$ ist für $N = 1000$ kleiner als für $N = 400$,
* Die Distanz $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$ ist für $N = 1000$ größer als für $N = 400$.


'''(6)'''&nbsp; Correct is again&nbsp; <u>'''No'''</u>. &nbsp; Although the tendency is clear: &nbsp; The larger&nbsp; $N$&nbsp; is,
* the more&nbsp; $H(Y)$&nbsp; approaches in principle the final value&nbsp; $H(X) = 2 \ \rm bit$,
* the smaller the distances&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$&nbsp; and&nbsp; $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ become.


Der Grund hierfür ist, dass das hier dokumentierte empirische Experiment mit $N = 400$ eher zu einer Gleichverteilung geführt hat als das Experiment mit $N = 1000$.


Würde man dagegen sehr (unendlich) viele Versuche mit $N = 400$ und $N = 1000$ starten und über diese mitteln, ergäbe sich tatsächlich der eigentlich erwartete monotone Verlauf.
However, one can also see from the table that there are exceptions:
* The entropy&nbsp; $H(Y)$&nbsp; is smaller for&nbsp; $N = 1000$&nbsp; than for&nbsp; $N = 400$.
* The distance&nbsp; $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$&nbsp; is greater for&nbsp; $N = 1000$&nbsp; than for&nbsp; $N = 400$.
* The reason for this is that the experiment documented here with&nbsp; $N = 400$&nbsp; was more likely to lead to a uniform distribution than the experiment with&nbsp; $N = 1000$.
*If, on the other hand, one were to start a very (infinitely) large number of experiments with&nbsp; $N = 400$&nbsp; and&nbsp; $N = 1000$&nbsp; and average over all of them, the actually expected monotonic course would actually result.


{{ML-Fuß}}
{{ML-Fuß}}
Line 171: Line 166:




[[Category:Aufgaben zu Informationstheorie|^3.1 Vorbemerkungen zu 2D-Zufallsgrößen^]]
[[Category:Information Theory: Exercises|^3.1 General Information on 2D Random Variables^]]
[[de:Aufgaben:Aufgabe 3.5Z: Nochmals Kullback-Leibler-Distanz]]

Latest revision as of 17:58, 16 March 2026

Determined probability mass functions

The probability mass function is:

$$P_X(X) = \big[\hspace{0.03cm}0.25\hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.25\hspace{0.15cm},\hspace{0.15cm} 0.25 \hspace{0.03cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.25\hspace{0.03cm}\big]\hspace{0.05cm}.$$

The random variable  $X$  is thus characterised by

  • the symbol set size  $M=4$,
  • equal probabilities  $P_X(1) = P_X(2) = P_X(3) = P_X(4) = 1/4$ .


The random variable  $Y$  is always an approximation for  $X$:

  • It was obtained by simulation from a uniform distribution, whereby only  $N$  random numbers were evaluated in each case.  This means:  
  • $P_Y(1)$, ... , $P_Y(4)$  are not probabilities in the conventional sense.  Rather, they describe  relative frequencies.


The result of the sixth test series  (with  $N=1000)$  is thus summarised by the following probability function:

$$P_Y(X) = \big [\hspace{0.05cm}0.225\hspace{0.15cm}, \hspace{0.05cm} 0.253\hspace{0.05cm},\hspace{0.15cm} 0.250 \hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.15cm} 0.272\hspace{0.05cm}\big]\hspace{0.05cm}.$$

This notation already takes into account that the random variables  $X$  and  $Y$  are based on the same alphabet  $X = \{1,\ 2,\ 3,\ 4\}$.

With these preconditions, the  informational divergence  between the two probability functions  $P_X(.)$  and  $P_Y(.)$ :

$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = {\rm E}_X \hspace{-0.1cm}\left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(X)}{P_Y(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^{M} P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$

One calls  $D( P_X\hspace{0.05cm} || \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  the (first)  Kullback-Leibler distance.

  • This is a measure of the similarity between the two probability mass functions  $P_X(.)$  and  $P_Y(.)$.
  • The expected value formation occurs here with regard to the  (actually equally distributed)  random variable  $X$.  This is indicated by the nomenclature  ${\rm E}_X\big[.\big]$.


A second form of Kullback-Leibler distance results from the formation of expected values with respect to the random variable  $Y$   ⇒   ${\rm E}_Y\big [.\big ]$:

$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = {\rm E}_Y \hspace{-0.1cm} \left [ {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(X)}{P_X(X)}\right ] \hspace{0.2cm}=\hspace{0.2cm} \sum_{\mu = 1}^M P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$



Hints:


Questions

1 What is the entropy of the random variable  $X$ ?

$H(X)\ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$

2 What are the entropies of the random variables  $Y$  $($approximations for  $X)$?

$N=10^3\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} H(Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$

3 Calculate the following Kullback-Leibler distances.

$N=10^3\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^2\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$
$N=10^1\text{:} \hspace{0.5cm} D( P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) \ = \ $ $\ \rm bit$

4 Does  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$  give exactly the same result in each case?

Yes.
No.

5 Which statements are true for the Kullback-Leibler distances with  $N = 4$?

  $D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0$  is true.
  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.5 \ \rm bit$  is true.
  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$  is infinitely large.
  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0$  holds.
  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.5 \ \rm bit$  holds.
  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$  is infinitely large.

6 Do both  $H(Y)$  and  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$  change monotonically with  $N$?

Yes,
No.


Solution

(1)  With equal probabilities, and with  $M = 4$:

$$H(X) = {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} M\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 2\,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


(2)  The probabilities for the empirically determined random variables  $Y$  generally  (not always!)  deviate from the uniform distribution the more the parameter  $N$  is smaller.  One obtains for

  • $N = 1000 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) = \big [0.225, \ 0.253, \ 0.250, \ 0.272 \big ]$:
$$H(Y) =0.225 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.225} +0.253 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.253} +0.250 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.250} +0.272 \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{1}{0.272}\hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9968\ {\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm},$$
  • $N = 100 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) = \big[0.24, \ 0.16, \ 0.30, \ 0.30\big]$:
$$H(Y) = \hspace{0.05cm}\text{...} \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.9410\ {\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm},$$
  • $N = 10 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ P_Y(Y) = \big[0.5, \ 0.1, \ 0.3, \ 0.1 \big]$:
$$H(Y) = \hspace{0.05cm}\text{...} \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 1.6855\ {\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


(3)  The equation for the Kullback-Leibler distance we are looking for is:

$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \sum_{\mu = 1}^{4} P_X(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_X(\mu)}{P_Y(\mu)}= \frac{1/4}{{\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{P_Y(1)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(2)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(3)} + \frac{0.25}{P_Y(4)}\right ] $$
$$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{P_Y(1) \cdot P_Y(2)\cdot P_Y(3)\cdot P_Y(4)}\right ] \hspace{0.05cm}.$$

The logarithm to the base  $ 2$  ⇒   $\log_2(.)$  was replaced by the logarithm to the base  $ 10$   ⇒   $\lg(.)$ for easy use of the calculator.

The following numerical results are obtained:

  • for $N=1000$:
$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.225 \cdot 0.253\cdot 0.250\cdot 0.272}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.00328 \,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm},$$
  • for $N=100$:
$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.24 \cdot 0.16\cdot 0.30\cdot 0.30}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.0442 \,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm},$$
  • for $N=10$:
$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = \frac{1}{4 \cdot {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm}(2)} \cdot\left [ {\rm lg} \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25^4}{0.5 \cdot 0.1\cdot 0.3\cdot 0.1}\right ] \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.345 \,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$


(4)  Correct is  No,  as will be shown by the example  $N = 100$ :

$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = \sum_{\mu = 1}^M P_Y(\mu) \cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{P_Y(\mu)}{P_X(\mu)} = 0.24\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.24}{0.25} + 0.16\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.16}{0.25} +2 \cdot 0.30\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.30}{0.25} = 0.0407\ {\rm (bit)}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
  • In subtask  (3)  we got  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.0442$  instead.
  • This also means:   The designation „distance” is somewhat misleading.
  • According to this, one would actually expect  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ .


Probability function, entropy and Kullback-Leibler distance

(5)  With  $P_Y(X) = \big [0, \ 0.25, \ 0.5, \ 0.25 \big ]$  one obtains:

$$D(P_X \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y) = 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.50}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
  • Because of the first term, the value of  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  is infinitely large.
  • For the second Kullback-Leibler distance holds:
$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0}{0.25} + 2 \cdot 0.25\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.25}{0.25}+0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{0.5}{0.25}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
  • After looking at the limits, one can see that the first term yields the result  $0$ .  The second term also yields zero, and one obtains as the final result:
$$D(P_Y \hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X) = 0.50\cdot {\rm log}_2 \hspace{0.1cm} (2) \hspace{0.15cm} \underline {= 0.5\,{\rm (bit)}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$

  Statements 3 and 5 are therefore correct:

  • From this extreme example it is clear that  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$  is always different from  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$ .
  • Only for the special case  $P_Y \equiv P_X$  are both Kullback-Leibler distances equal, namely zero.
  • The adjacent table shows the complete result of this task.



(6)  Correct is again  No.   Although the tendency is clear:   The larger  $N$  is,

  • the more  $H(Y)$  approaches in principle the final value  $H(X) = 2 \ \rm bit$,
  • the smaller the distances  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_Y)$  and  $D(P_Y\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm} P_X)$ become.


However, one can also see from the table that there are exceptions:

  • The entropy  $H(Y)$  is smaller for  $N = 1000$  than for  $N = 400$.
  • The distance  $D(P_X\hspace{0.05cm}|| \hspace{0.05cm}P_Y)$  is greater for  $N = 1000$  than for  $N = 400$.
  • The reason for this is that the experiment documented here with  $N = 400$  was more likely to lead to a uniform distribution than the experiment with  $N = 1000$.
  • If, on the other hand, one were to start a very (infinitely) large number of experiments with  $N = 400$  and  $N = 1000$  and average over all of them, the actually expected monotonic course would actually result.