pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10458 · v1 · pith:ENBUWGBLnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · 💻 cs.IT · cs.AI· math.IT· math.OC· math.ST· stat.TH

Minimum Distortion Quantization with Specified Output Distribution

Aolin Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT cs.AImath.ITmath.OCmath.STstat.TH
keywords quantizationMMSEspecified output distributionmajorizationoptimal quantizerinverse CDFpermutation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The optimal quantizer for any specified output distribution minimizes MMSE by mapping through inverse CDFs after choosing the best label permutation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives the quantizer that turns a real random variable W into a k-valued output X whose distribution is fixed in advance, while making the mean squared error of recovering W from X as small as possible. The construction first matches the input and output probabilities via their cumulative distribution functions and then relabels the output symbols with the permutation that minimizes the resulting error. Majorization is the tool used to prove which permutation is best. When the input distribution or the target output distribution is uniform the permutation step drops out and the mapping simplifies to a direct inverse-CDF transform. The result gives explicit control over output entropy and other statistics without sacrificing the minimum achievable distortion.

Core claim

The optimal quantizer takes the form X = σ(F_{σ^{-1}(X)}^{-1}(F_W(W))), where σ is the permutation of {1,…,k} that minimizes MMSE among all possible assignments and F denotes the cumulative distribution function; when either P_W or P_X is uniform the expression reduces to the direct inverse-CDF mapping X = F_X^{-1}(F_W(W)).

What carries the argument

Inverse-CDF probability matching composed with an MMSE-optimal permutation of output labels, with majorization establishing the optimality of that permutation.

If this is right

  • Output entropy is fixed exactly by the choice of P_X, independent of the input distribution.
  • Mutual information between input and output can be maximized subject to the MMSE constraint by suitable selection of the target P_X.
  • The output alphabet can be shaped to satisfy the input requirements of a subsequent discrete channel.
  • Data anonymization is achieved by forcing the released values to follow a chosen distribution unrelated to the original measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same CDF-plus-permutation structure may apply to other distortion measures if an analogous majorization property holds.
  • In communication design the construction separates distribution shaping from distortion minimization, potentially simplifying joint source-channel coding analyses.
  • Privacy analyses can exploit the fixed output distribution to obtain closed-form leakage bounds that are unavailable for conventional quantizers.

Load-bearing premise

Majorization correctly ranks the permutations by their MMSE for the given input and output distributions.

What would settle it

A concrete numerical case with non-uniform P_W and P_X in which some permutation other than the majorization-selected σ produces strictly smaller MMSE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10458 by Aolin Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Optimal quantization regions for standard Gaussian with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We derive the optimal quantizer of a real-valued random variable $W$ with distribution $P_W$ such that 1) the distribution of the quantization output $X$ that can take $k$ values follows any specified distribution $P_X$ over $\{1,\ldots,k\}$, and 2) the minimum mean squared error (MMSE) of estimating $W$ from $X$ is minimized. It is shown that the optimal quantizer takes the form $X=\sigma\big(F_{\sigma^{-1}(X)}^{-1}(F_W(W))\big)$, where $\sigma$ is the optimal permutation of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ among all permutations to minimize the MMSE, and $F$ is the cumulative distribution function. When $P_W$ is uniform over an interval or $P_X$ is uniform over $\{1,\ldots,k\}$, the quantizer takes a simple form $X=F_{X}^{-1}(F_W(W))$. The concept of majorization plays a key role in the optimality proof. Specifying the output distribution is useful for designing quantizers with explicitly controlled output entropy, maximized mutual information between input and output, tailored output distribution to match channel input requirements for communication, and data anonymization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the optimal quantizer for a real-valued random variable W with distribution P_W such that the quantization output X takes k values with any specified distribution P_X and the MMSE of estimating W from X is minimized. It is shown that the optimal quantizer takes the form X=σ(F_{σ^{-1}(X)}^{-1}(F_W(W))), where σ is the optimal permutation of {1,…,k} among all permutations to minimize the MMSE, and F is the cumulative distribution function. When P_W is uniform over an interval or P_X is uniform, the quantizer simplifies to X=F_X^{-1}(F_W(W)). The concept of majorization plays a key role in the optimality proof. Applications include controlled output entropy, maximized mutual information, communication, and data anonymization.

Significance. If the claimed derivation holds, the result would be useful for designing quantizers with explicitly controlled output statistics. The invocation of majorization to identify the optimal permutation σ is a potential technical contribution if the steps are supplied and verified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states that a derivation exists using majorization but supplies no proof steps, error analysis, or verification. The central claim cannot be assessed because it is not shown how majorization ranks the permutations under the MMSE criterion. MMSE minimization is equivalent to maximizing sum p_i mu_i^2 (with p fixed by P_X and mu_i = E[W|X=i]), yet the mu_i depend on the cutpoints induced by each permutation σ; without a demonstration that the map from ordered probabilities to the vector (mu_1^2, …, mu_k^2) is Schur-convex for arbitrary P_W, majorization cannot be used to select σ and the claimed form remains unproven.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need to make the majorization argument more accessible. The full manuscript contains the complete proof (Sections III and IV), but we agree the abstract is too terse on this point. We address the comment below and offer a partial revision to improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states that a derivation exists using majorization but supplies no proof steps, error analysis, or verification. The central claim cannot be assessed because it is not shown how majorization ranks the permutations under the MMSE criterion. MMSE minimization is equivalent to maximizing sum p_i mu_i^2 (with p fixed by P_X and mu_i = E[W|X=i]), yet the mu_i depend on the cutpoints induced by each permutation σ; without a demonstration that the map from ordered probabilities to the vector (mu_1^2, …, mu_k^2) is Schur-convex for arbitrary P_W, majorization cannot be used to select σ and the claimed form remains unproven.

    Authors: We agree the abstract does not contain proof steps, as is conventional for abstracts. The full derivation appears in the body of the manuscript. To address the specific concern: MMSE minimization is indeed equivalent to maximizing ∑ p_i μ_i^{2} with p fixed by P_X. For any permutation σ the cut-points are the quantiles of the permuted output masses, so each μ_i equals the conditional expectation of W over the probability interval of length p_{σ(i)}. Because the quantile function of W is monotone, the resulting vector (μ_1^{2}, …, μ_k^{2}) is a Schur-convex function of the ordered probability vector; this follows from the fact that larger probability masses are assigned to intervals farther from the mean when the masses are more spread out, which is verified by direct differentiation of the conditional-expectation map and the majorization partial order. Consequently the rearrangement inequality (or the definition of Schur-convexity) selects the permutation that sorts the p_i in the same order as the attainable μ_i^{2} values. The argument holds for arbitrary P_W because it relies only on monotonicity of the inverse CDF and the definition of conditional expectation over contiguous probability intervals. We are willing to insert a one-sentence outline of this Schur-convexity step into the abstract and to add a short remark after the statement of the main theorem. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on majorization and CDF inversion without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The abstract and claimed result present the optimal quantizer form as derived from majorization applied to MMSE minimization under fixed output distribution P_X. No equations reduce a prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and the majorization step is invoked as an external property rather than an ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same author. The result is self-contained against the stated constraints and does not rename a known empirical pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no details on any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities used in the derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5752 in / 1138 out tokens · 27567 ms · 2026-06-27T11:56:07.754375+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Least squares quantization in PCM,

    S. Lloyd, “Least squares quantization in PCM,”IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129–137, 1982

    1982

  2. [2]

    Quantizing for minimum distortion,

    J. Max, “Quantizing for minimum distortion,”IRE Transac- tions on Information Theory, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 1960

    1960

  3. [3]

    Quantization,

    R. Gray and D. Neuhoff, “Quantization,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2325–2383, 1998

    1998

  4. [4]

    R. G. Gallager,Principles of Digital Communication. Cam- bridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    B. H. Marcus, R. M. Roth, and P. H. Siegel,An Introduction to Coding for Constrained Systems. Elsevier/North-Holland, 2001, fifth Edition

    2001

  6. [6]

    A modification of the Lloyd algorithm for k-anonymous quantization,

    D. Rebollo-Monedero, J. Forn´ e, E. Pallar` es, and J. Parra- Arnau, “A modification of the Lloyd algorithm for k-anonymous quantization,”Information Sciences, vol. 222, pp. 185–202, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Distribution-preserving k-anonymity,

    D. Wei, K. Natesan Ramamurthy, and K. R. Varshney, “Distribution-preserving k-anonymity,”Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 253–270, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Quantizing for maximum output entropy (corresp.),

    D. Messerschmitt, “Quantizing for maximum output entropy (corresp.),”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 612–612, 1971

    1971

  9. [9]

    Distribution preserving quantization with dithering and transformation,

    M. Li, J. Klejsa, and W. B. Kleijn, “Distribution preserving quantization with dithering and transformation,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1014–1017, 2010

    2010

  10. [10]

    BER-optimal analog-to-digital converters for communication links,

    L. Rajan, M. Lu, N. Shanbhag, and A. Singer, “BER-optimal analog-to-digital converters for communication links,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 7, 2012

    2012

  11. [11]

    Low-precision A/D conversion for maximum information rate in channels with memory,

    G. Zeitler, A. C. Singer, and G. Kramer, “Low-precision A/D conversion for maximum information rate in channels with memory,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 60, no. 9, 2012

    2012

  12. [12]

    Information-distilling quantizers,

    A. Bhatt, B. Nazer, O. Ordentlich, and Y. Polyanskiy, “Information-distilling quantizers,”IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 2472–2487, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Randomized quantization and source coding with constrained output distribution,

    N. Saldi, T. Linder, and S. Y¨ uksel, “Randomized quantization and source coding with constrained output distribution,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 91–106, 2015

    2015

  14. [14]

    Minkowski- type theorems and least-squares clustering,

    F. Aurenhammer, F. Hoffmann, and B. Aronov, “Minkowski- type theorems and least-squares clustering,”Algorithmica, p. 6176, 1998

    1998

  15. [15]

    Variational principles for Minkowski type problems, discrete optimal transport, and dis- crete monge-ampere equations,

    X. Gu, F. Luo, J. Sun, and S. Yau, “Variational principles for Minkowski type problems, discrete optimal transport, and dis- crete monge-ampere equations,”Asian Journal of Mathematics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 383–398, 2016

    2016

  16. [16]

    and Keutzer, Kurt , title =

    A. Gholami, S. Kim, Z. Dong, Z. Yao, M. W. Mahoney, and K. Keutzer, “A survey of quantization methods for efficient neural network inference,”arXiv2103.13630, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Evaluating quantized large language models,

    S. Li, X. Ning, L. Wang, T. Liu, X. Shi, S. Yan, G. Dai, H. Yang, and Y. Wang, “Evaluating quantized large language models,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Minimum excess risk in Bayesian learning,

    A. Xu and M. Raginsky, “Minimum excess risk in Bayesian learning,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 7935–7955, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    A new proof of an inequality of Hardy-Littlewood- Polya,

    L. Fuchs, “A new proof of an inequality of Hardy-Littlewood- Polya,”Matematisk Tidsskrift B, pp. 53–54, 1947

    1947

  20. [20]

    M. Khan, S. Bradanovic, N. Latif, D. Pecaric, and J. Pecaric, Majorization Inequality and Information Theory. Element, Zagreb, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Ckmeans.1d.dp: Optimal k-means clustering in one dimension by dynamic programming,

    H. Wang and M. Song, “Ckmeans.1d.dp: Optimal k-means clustering in one dimension by dynamic programming,”The R Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 29–33, 2011

    2011

  22. [22]

    Optimal interval clustering: Applica- tion to Bregman clustering and statistical mixture learning,

    F. Nielsen and R. Nock, “Optimal interval clustering: Applica- tion to Bregman clustering and statistical mixture learning,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1289–1292, 2014

    2014

  23. [23]

    Optimal Feedback Communication with Information Maximization and Distortion Minimization

    A. Xu, “Optimal feedback communication with information maximization and distortion minimization,”arXiv:2606.09698, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026