Maximum likelihood estimation for the $\lambda$-exponential family

Jiaowen Yang; Jun Zhang; Ting-Kam Leonard Wong; Xiwei Tian

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Maximum likelihood estimation for the $\lambda$-exponential family

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a fixed-point iteration for maximum likelihood in λ-exponential families that strictly increases the log-likelihood at every non-fixed step when λ<0, yielding MLEs through escort-expectation weighted averages of the…

desk verdict A genuinely new fixed-point MLE method, but the central monotonicity proof has a sign error and the examples don't verify the standing assumption—both fixable, but not as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03582 v1 pith:TJX3DJUK submitted 2025-05-06 math.ST stat.TH

Xiwei Tian , Ting-Kam Leonard Wong , Jiaowen Yang , Jun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62F1062B10

keywords λ-exponentialfamilymaximumlikelihoodestimationfixed-pointiterationλ-dualityescortexpectationq-GaussiandistributionDirichletperturbation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes and analyzes a fixed-point algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation in the $\lambda$-exponential family, a constant-curvature generalization of the exponential family built on a deformed duality from optimal transport. The core claim is that, for $\lambda<0$ and under a set of regularity conditions, the log-likelihood strictly increases at every non-fixed iteration of the algorithm, so the iterates can be driven to the first-order conditions of the MLE. The scheme replaces the classical condition $\nabla\phi(\hat{\theta})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_i F(x_i)$ with an escort-expectation fixed point $\hat{\eta}=\sum_i w_i(\hat{\theta})F(x_i)$, and the update is $\eta^{(k+1)}=\sum_i w_i(\theta^{(k)})F(x_i)$. The paper illustrates the algorithm on a simulated $q$-Gaussian distribution and on the Dirichlet perturbation model, where the update becomes a simplex operation that does not depend on the noise parameter $\lambda$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\lambda$-duality between the primal potential $\varphi$ and the dual potential $\psi=\varphi^{(\lambda)}$, defined by $\psi(\eta)=\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda}\log(1+\lambda\theta\cdot\eta)-\varphi(\theta)\right]$. The $\lambda$-gradient $\nabla^{(\lambda)}\varphi(\theta)=\nabla\varphi(\theta)/(1-\lambda\nabla\varphi(\theta)\cdot\theta)$ gives the escort expectation parameter $\eta$, and its inverse is $\nabla^{(\lambda)}\psi$. The algorithm is the fixed-point map $\eta\mapsto\sum_i w_i(\eta)F(x_i)$ with weights $w_i\propto 1/(1+\lambda\theta\cdot y_i)$. The monotonicity proof uses $\Psi(\eta)=e^{\lambda\psi(\eta)}$, which is strictly concave when $\lambda<0$; strict concavity makes the weighted average of the tangent terms $\kappa_i(\eta)=\Psi(\eta)+\nabla\Psi(\eta)\cdot(y_i-\eta)$ move in the right direction between iterates, and the AM-GM inequality turns that directional movement into a log-likelihood increase.

What would settle it

With a simulated $q$-Gaussian sample of size $n=500$ and $\lambda=-1.2$, run Algorithm 1 from a dense grid of initial $\theta^{(0)}$ in $\Theta=(-\infty,0)$; if any run has $\ell(\theta^{(k+1)})\leq\ell(\theta^{(k)})$ while $\theta^{(k)}$ is not a fixed point of (9), Theorem 1 fails. A second check is to compute $F(S)$ and $\Xi$ explicitly for the $q$-Gaussian example under the paper's sign conventions and test the containment $S\subset\Xi$ required by Assumption 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a regular exponential family, the MLE satisfies $\nabla\phi(\hat{\theta})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_i F(x_i)$. The paper's first-order condition (9) replaces this with $\hat{\eta}=\sum_i w_i(\hat{\theta})y_i$, where $w_i(\theta)$ are normalized weights proportional to $1/(1+\lambda\theta\cdot y_i)$ and $\eta$ is the $\lambda$-gradient escort parameter. Algorithm 1 iterates this condition: $\eta^{(k+1)}=\sum_i w_i(\theta^{(k)})y_i$, $\theta^{(k+1)}=\nabla^{(\lambda)}\psi(\eta^{(k+1)})$. The central discovery is Theorem 1: under Assumption 1, unless $\theta^{(k)}$ already solves (9), the next iterate has strictly larger log-likelihood. The proof writes the likelihood as a product of tangent terms $\kappa_i(\eta)=\Psi(\eta)+\nabla\Psi(\eta)\cdot(y_i-\eta)$ with $\Psi=e^{\lambda\psi}$; the strict concavity of $\Psi$ for $\lambda<0$, combined with an AM-GM argument, converts a one-step inequality into monotone likelihood improvement. The paper also reports that the Dirichlet perturbation update is $p^{(k+1)}=p^{(k)}\oplus\frac{1}{n}\sum_i(q_i\ominus p^{(k)})$, independent of $\lambda$, analogous to the sample mean in a normal location model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 1: for $\lambda<0$, the dual parameter set $\Xi=\nabla^{(\lambda)}\varphi(\Theta)$ is convex and contains every statistic $F(x_i)$ from the common support, so the next dual iterate stays in $\Xi$ and the strict concavity of $e^{\lambda\psi}$ can be used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any fixed point of Algorithm 1 satisfies the MLE first-order condition (9), so in the $\lambda<0$ regime the maximum likelihood estimator must be a fixed point of the escort-expectation map.
The log-likelihood never decreases along an orbit of Algorithm 1 when Assumption 1 holds, so the iteration can be started from any valid parameter without risking a worse estimate.
In the $\lambda\to0$ limit the fixed-point condition reduces to the classical equation $\nabla\phi(\hat{\theta})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_i F(x_i)$, making the algorithm a continuous bridge between standard and deformed exponential-family estimation.
For the Dirichlet perturbation model, the update $p^{(k+1)}=p^{(k)}\oplus\frac{1}{n}\sum_i(q_i\ominus p^{(k)})$ does not involve $\lambda$, so the composition parameter can be estimated without knowing the fixed noise size $\sigma$.
The simulated $q$-Gaussian case with $\lambda=-1.2$ and $n=500$ and the Dirichlet case with $d=2$ and $n=100$ converge quickly from different initial values, supporting the practical use of the algorithm.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Monotonicity alone does not establish a convergence rate; the paper also leaves uniqueness of the fixed point open, and Proposition 2's proof is said to be omitted for space, so the claimed $\lambda$-independence of the Dirichlet update currently rests on a sketch. A natural next step is to analyze the Jacobian of the map $T$ at the fixed point and prove linear convergence with an explicit constan
Assumption 1 requires the observed statistics $F(x_i)$ to lie in the convex dual set $\Xi$, but the paper only states that this can be verified rather than carrying out the verification; checking this containment should be a routine diagnostic before applying the algorithm to a new model.
Because the proof uses only the strict concavity of $e^{\lambda\psi}$, the same argument is likely to transfer to other $c$-dualities from optimal transport whose deformed potentials are strictly concave, giving a general template for monotone maximum-likelihood algorithms.
The Dirichlet update's independence from $\lambda$ suggests a testable hypothesis: in models where $\lambda$ is a nuisance scale parameter, the iteration may still estimate the structural parameter consistently under misspecification of $\lambda$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The fixed-point iteration in Algorithm 1 is a natural and apparently new way to compute MLEs for λ-exponential families, and the monotonicity theorem is probably true. But the proof as printed is not valid: the key inequality (21) has the wrong direction, and the examples do not verify the standing Assumption 1. Both are fixable, but a reader cannot currently trust the central claim as written.

What's genuinely new: the update rule follows directly from the first-order condition, and the proof strategy via λ-duality is distinct from the bound-optimization approach in [9]. The observation that the Dirichlet perturbation update is λ-independent (Prop. 2) is nice and potentially useful. The paper is clearly structured and the relation between the weights and the dual potential is worked out in a way that should make the proof repairable.

The soft spots, in proportion. The sign error is the main one. From (20), strict concavity of Ψ gives Ψ(η^{k+1}) < Ψ(η^k) + ∇Ψ(η^k)·(η^{k+1}−η^k), so the weighted sum is Σ w_i κ_i(η^{k+1}) < Σ w_i κ_i(η^k), the reverse of (21). The next displayed inequality and the AM-GM step use this reversed direction, so the intended proof does go through if (21) is flipped. But as printed, the argument asserts A < B and then derives consequences of B < A; that is an internal inconsistency in the central theorem. It's a one-line fix, but it is a load-bearing line.

Second, Assumption 1 says Ξ contains the common support S. That assumption is not verified for the examples, and in the q-Gaussian case it looks ill-typed: S is a subset of the sample space X=R, while Ξ is a subset of the dual parameter space. The authors also seem to get the sign of Ξ wrong in Example 1—the computation I did gives η > 0 for their parametrization, not η < 0, which matters because the data statistics are nonnegative. The assumption presumably should involve F(S) ⊂ Ξ (or its convex hull), and it needs to be checked.

Third, Proposition 2 is explicitly left without proof; minor, but it shows the paper is not fully self-contained.

Bottom line: this is a paper for the information-geometry / deformed exponential family community. The central idea is solid and likely correct, but the printed proof fails at one point. A serious referee should engage. I'd accept it conditionally and ask for the fix.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fixed-point algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation in the λ-exponential family, using the dual parameterization provided by λ-duality. The main result, Theorem 1, asserts that under Assumption 1 and for λ<0, the log-likelihood strictly increases at every iterate unless the current parameter already satisfies the first-order fixed-point condition. The method is illustrated on the q-Gaussian distribution and the Dirichlet perturbation model, and Proposition 2 states that the Dirichlet perturbation update is independent of λ.

Significance. If the result is correct, the paper contributes a computationally useful and theoretically interesting MM-type algorithm for the λ-exponential family, and it demonstrates a nontrivial application of λ-duality to estimation. The core idea, using strict concavity of Ψ=e^{λψ} to obtain a monotonicity argument, is elegant and is likely repairable. However, as printed, the proof of the main theorem contains an inconsistent inequality and several auxiliary statements are unproved or contain sign errors. These issues are substantial but appear to be local rather than fatal to the intended result.

major comments (4)

[§2, Theorem 1 proof, Eq. (21)] In Eq. (21) the strict inequality has the wrong direction. With A=Σ_i w_i(θ^{(k)})κ_i(η^{(k)}) and B=Σ_i w_i(θ^{(k)})κ_i(η^{(k+1)}), Eq. (20) gives A=Ψ(η^{(k)})+∇Ψ(η^{(k)})·(η^{(k+1)}−η^{(k)}) and B=Ψ(η^{(k+1)}). Since Ψ=e^{λψ} is strictly concave on Ξ, the tangent line at η^{(k)} lies above the graph, so B<A. The paper asserts A<B, while the following displayed inequality, namely (1/n)Σ_i κ_i(η^{(k+1)})/κ_i(η^{(k)})<1, is the consequence of B<A. The printed proof is therefore internally inconsistent; the argument can be repaired by reversing the inequality in (21) and then applying the AM-GM step as written.
[§2, Eqs. (7), (17), (18)] The passage from the definition of κ_i to κ_i=p(x_i;θ)^λ is not justified as printed. From (15) and (16) one obtains 1+λθ·y_i = κ_i(η)(1+λθ·η)/Ψ(η), not κ_i(η)/(Ψ(η)(1+λθ·η)) as in the first fraction of (17). The final identity κ_i=p_i^λ becomes correct only if the Fenchel–Young relation used is φ(θ)+ψ(η)=(1/λ)log(1+λθ·η), but (7) states a relation involving φ_λ and ψ_λ, which are never defined. If φ_λ and ψ_λ are intended to mean (e^{λφ}−1)/λ and (e^{λψ}−1)/λ, the identity does not match the c-conjugate defined in (6), and the derivation of (18) does not follow as written. Please define the notation and correct (17) and (7).
[§2, Assumption 1 and Example 1] Assumption 1 is ill-typed: S is a subset of the sample space X, while Ξ is a subset of R^d, so the statement that Ξ contains S cannot hold for the examples. The intended condition is presumably F(S)⊂Ξ, possibly with closure or with the convex hull of F(S) contained in Ξ; this is needed so that the iterates η^{(k+1)} remain in Ξ and the concavity of Ψ can be applied. Moreover, Example 1 contains sign errors: with φ(θ)=−1/2 log(−θ), definition (5) gives η=−1/[(2+λ)θ]∈(0,∞) and θ=−1/[(2+λ)η], not η=1/(2+λ)·1/θ, θ=1/(2+λ)·1/η, and Ξ=(0,∞), not (−∞,0). These errors affect the correctness of Figure 1 and the claimed verification of Assumption 1.
[§3, Proposition 2] Proposition 2 is stated without proof; the proof is dismissed with 'details are omitted due to space constraints.' This is a substantive claim about the algorithm's update being independent of λ, and it is advertised as an analogue of the normal location model. The proof should be included, or the statement should be explicitly labeled as a conjecture or empirical observation, so that the result can be verified.

minor comments (5)

[§2, Eq. (7)] The notation φ_λ and ψ_λ in Eq. (7) is inconsistent with the notation φ^{(λ)} used in (3) and (6); please define these symbols or use φ and ψ throughout.
[§2, Algorithm 1] The indexing in the sentence defining (η^{(k)})_{k≥1} and (θ^{(0)})_{k≥0} is garbled; it should be (η^{(k)})_{k≥0} and (θ^{(k)})_{k≥0} after assigning an initial value.
[§2, Theorem 1 statement] The theorem statement uses θ^{(k)} with a hat in some places and without in others; please unify the notation.
[§2, Assumption 1] The statement that the regularity conditions 'can be verified' for the examples is unsupported; please provide at least a sketch of the verification, especially for the q-Gaussian example given the sign issues in Example 1.
[§2, Figure 1] If the corrected formulas imply η>0, the horizontal axis of Figure 1, which runs from −5 to 0, is inconsistent with those formulas; the figure should be regenerated or the parametrization clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fixed-point iteration and monotonicity proof are derived from the model's score equation and the assumed λ-duality, not from the theorem's conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: differentiate the log likelihood to get the first-order condition (9); define Algorithm 1 directly from that fixed-point equation; and prove Theorem 1 by an inequality using the assumed strict concavity of Ψ = e^{λψ} on Ξ. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction: the weights wi(θ) in (10) are functions of the current iterate and the data, and the monotonicity claim compares successive likelihood values via an analytic inequality. The use of [17] for λ-conjugate duality, Condition III.10, and the q-Gaussian parametrization constitutes genuine mathematical support external to this paper's algorithm, and it does not assume the target monotonicity result. Proposition 2 is left unproved, but an omitted proof of an illustrative update formula is a completeness concern, not circularity. There are self-citations to [16,17,18,19], but they are not load-bearing in the sense of making the conclusion true by definition. A skeptical reader's observation that inequality (21) may have the wrong direction is a potential correctness defect in the proof, not an instance of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an algorithm and a proof within an existing duality framework. It introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on Assumption 1 and on λ-duality results imported from the authors' prior work [17,18,19], which are not independently verified in this preprint.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumption 1: λ<0, Θ is the natural parameter set, [17, Condition III.10] holds, and the dual parameter set Ξ=∇^{(λ)}φ(Θ) is convex and contains the common support S.
Used throughout Section 2 to ensure the λ-conjugate ψ is well-defined, the λ-gradient is a diffeomorphism, and (1/λ)(e^{λψ}-1) is strictly convex. Not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Regularity of φ, ψ, and differentiability of Ψ on Ξ.
The proof of Theorem 1 differentiates Ψ and uses strict concavity; Assumption 1 is intended to supply this but the details are left to [17].
domain assumption Fenchel-Young identity (7) for the λ-conjugate.
Equation (7) is imported from [17] or [18] and is used to rewrite 1+λθ·y_i in terms of κ_i and to connect e^{λφ}.
domain assumption Strict concavity of Ψ(η)=e^{λψ(η)} for λ<0.
Used in the key inequality (21) of Theorem 1. The paper derives it from the strict convexity of (1/λ)(e^{λψ}-1), but the printed inequality direction is inconsistent with this concavity.
standard math Brouwer fixed point theorem.
Used to assert existence of a fixed point of T on the convex hull of y1,...,yn.
standard math AM-GM inequality.
Used to pass from the average ratio to the product ratio in Theorem 1.
domain assumption Explicit potential φ and dual parameter formulas for the q-Gaussian and Dirichlet perturbation models from [17].
Example 1 and Section 3 rely on [17, Example III.17] and [17, Proposition III.20]; these are cited as established but not re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum likelihood estimation for the $\lambda$-exponential family." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJX3DJUK

@misc{pith2026250503582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum likelihood estimation for the $\lambda$-exponential family},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJX3DJUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03582}
}

abstract

The $\lambda$-exponential family generalizes the standard exponential family via a generalized convex duality motivated by optimal transport. It is the constant-curvature analogue of the exponential family from the information-geometric point of view, but the development of computational methodologies is still in an early stage. In this paper, we propose a fixed point iteration for maximum likelihood estimation under i.i.d.~sampling, and prove using the duality that the likelihood is monotone along the iterations. We illustrate the algorithm with the $q$-Gaussian distribution and the Dirichlet perturbation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03582 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two trajectories pηpkqq of Algorithm 1 for the q-Gaussian distribution in Example 1. The solid curve shows the graph of Tpηq on Ξ “ p´8, 0q defined by (13) for the given data-set. The dashed line is the graph of the identity map. The fixed point (indicated by the cross) corresponds to the MLE. We are now ready to state the main result of the paper whose proof is a novel application of the λ-duality. In particular, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left: True p (red ▲) and samples (`) from the Dirichlet perturbation model. Right: Three trajectories pppkqqkě0 of the algorithm (25) with different initial values. They all converge quickly to the MLE (blue ▲). With (24), we can express the update (13) in terms of the simplex parameter ppkq rather than the dual parameter ηpkq. In the following proposition, we show that the update for the Dirichlet perturbation is,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

A mathematical study of the excess growth rate
cs.IT 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The excess growth rate is the unique functional, up to a constant, satisfying each of three axiom systems; its deterministic maximizer invests only in the best- and worst-performing assets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[9]

Foundations of Data Science 6(1), 85–123 (2024)

Guilmeau, T., Chouzenoux, E., Elvira, V.: On variational inference and maximum likelihood estimation with theλ-exponential family. Foundations of Data Science 6(1), 85–123 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Pattern Analysis and Applications27(1), 26 (2024)

Abe, M., Nomura, Y., Kurita, T.: Nonlinear dimensionality reduction with q- Gaussian distribution. Pattern Analysis and Applications27(1), 26 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

Springer (2016)

Amari, S.I.: Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Entropy 13(6), 1170–1185 (2011)

Amari, S.i., Ohara, A.: Geometry ofq-exponential family of probability distribu- tions. Entropy 13(6), 1170–1185 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications391(18), 4308–4319 (2012)

Amari, S.i., Ohara, A., Matsuzoe, H.: Geometry of deformed exponential families: Invariant, dually-flat and conformal geometries. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications391(18), 4308–4319 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems24 (2011)

Ding, N., Qi, Y., Vishwanathan, S.:t-divergence based approximate inference. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems24 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems

Ding, N., Vishwanathan, S.:t-logistic regression. In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems. vol. 23 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

Mathematical Ge- ology 35(3), 279–300 (2003)

Egozcue, J.J., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V., Mateu-Figueras, G., Barcelo-Vidal, C.: Iso- metric logratio transformations for compositional data analysis. Mathematical Ge- ology 35(3), 279–300 (2003)

work page 2003

Show all 19 references

[8]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30 (2017)

Futami, F., Sato, I., Sugiyama, M.: Expectation propagation fort-exponential fam- ily usingq-algebra. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30 (2017)

2017
[10]

Information Geometry7(Suppl 1), 303–327 (2024)

Kainth, A.S., Wong, T.K.L., Rudzicz, F.: Conformal mirror descent with logarith- mic divergences. Information Geometry7(Suppl 1), 303–327 (2024)

2024
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15549 (2025)

Machado, A.F., Charpentier, A., Gallic, E.: Optimal transport on categorical data for counterfactuals using compositional data and Dirichlet transport. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15549 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[12]

Springer (2011)

Naudts, J.: Generalised Thermostatistics. Springer (2011)

2011
[13]

Probability Theory and Related Fields178(1), 613–654 (2020)

Pal, S., Wong, T.K.L.: Multiplicative Schröodinger problem and the Dirichlet transport. Probability Theory and Related Fields178(1), 613–654 (2020)

2020
[14]

In: Geometric Science of Information: 5th International Conference, GSI 2021, Paris, France, July 21–23, 2021, Proceedings 5

Tao, Z., Wong, T.K.L.: Projections with logarithmic divergences. In: Geometric Science of Information: 5th International Conference, GSI 2021, Paris, France, July 21–23, 2021, Proceedings 5. pp. 477–486. Springer (2021)

2021
[15]

American Mathematical Society (2003)

Villani, C.: Topics in Optimal Transportation. American Mathematical Society (2003)

2003
[16]

Information Geometry1(1), 39–78 (2018)

Wong, T.K.L.: Logarithmic divergences from optimal transport and Rényi geome- try. Information Geometry1(1), 39–78 (2018)

2018
[17]

IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68(8), 5353–5373 (2022)

Wong,T.K.L.,Zhang,J.:TsallisandRényideformationslinkedviaanew λ-duality. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory68(8), 5353–5373 (2022)

2022
[18]

In: Handbook of Statistics, vol

Zhang, J., Wong, T.K.L.: λ-deformed probability families with subtractive and divisive normalizations. In: Handbook of Statistics, vol. 45, pp. 187–215. Elsevier (2021)

2021
[19]

Entropy24(2), 193 (2022)

Zhang, J., Wong, T.K.L.: λ-deformation: A canonical framework for statistical manifolds of constant curvature. Entropy24(2), 193 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [9]

Foundations of Data Science 6(1), 85–123 (2024)

Guilmeau, T., Chouzenoux, E., Elvira, V.: On variational inference and maximum likelihood estimation with theλ-exponential family. Foundations of Data Science 6(1), 85–123 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Pattern Analysis and Applications27(1), 26 (2024)

Abe, M., Nomura, Y., Kurita, T.: Nonlinear dimensionality reduction with q- Gaussian distribution. Pattern Analysis and Applications27(1), 26 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [2]

Springer (2016)

Amari, S.I.: Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [3]

Entropy 13(6), 1170–1185 (2011)

Amari, S.i., Ohara, A.: Geometry ofq-exponential family of probability distribu- tions. Entropy 13(6), 1170–1185 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [4]

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications391(18), 4308–4319 (2012)

Amari, S.i., Ohara, A., Matsuzoe, H.: Geometry of deformed exponential families: Invariant, dually-flat and conformal geometries. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications391(18), 4308–4319 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [5]

Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems24 (2011)

Ding, N., Qi, Y., Vishwanathan, S.:t-divergence based approximate inference. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems24 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [6]

In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems

Ding, N., Vishwanathan, S.:t-logistic regression. In: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems. vol. 23 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Mathematical Ge- ology 35(3), 279–300 (2003)

Egozcue, J.J., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V., Mateu-Figueras, G., Barcelo-Vidal, C.: Iso- metric logratio transformations for compositional data analysis. Mathematical Ge- ology 35(3), 279–300 (2003)

work page 2003