Indicator Functions: Distilling the Information from Gaussian Random Fields

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2506.06668
• Title: Indicator Functions: Distilling the Information from Gaussian Random Fields
• Authors: Andrew Repp, Ravi K. Sheth, István Szapudi, Yan-Chuan Cai
• Classification: astro-ph.CO (Cosmology and Non-Galactic Astrophysics)
• Submission Date: October 24, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06668v2

Abstract

This paper investigates the distribution of Fisher information regarding the power spectrum amplitude in Gaussian random density fields. The authors discover that information is not uniformly distributed across the field at a given smoothing scale. By introducing indicator functions that stratify the field by density, they derive analytical expressions for the information content of each density interval in the joint probability distribution. For a specific distance range (60-80 h⁻¹ Mpc), the study finds that information peaks at moderately rare densities (approximately 100 smoothed survey cells). Counterintuitively, within finite survey volumes and specific distance ranges, indicator function analysis using only partial survey cells can surpass the performance of traditional two-point statistics. This result provides theoretical guidance for optimizing sampling strategies in cosmological information extraction.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

The core problem addressed in this paper is: How is cosmological information (particularly power spectrum amplitude information) distributed spatially in Gaussian random fields? Which density regions contain the most information?

Problem Significance

1. Information Extraction Efficiency: Current and future large survey projects (such as DESI, Euclid, Roman) generate massive datasets, but more data does not necessarily translate to more information. Standard analysis tools (power spectrum and correlation functions) exhibit an "information plateau" phenomenon at high wave numbers.
2. Computational Resource Optimization: Understanding the spatial distribution of information can help identify the most information-rich survey cells, thereby improving data analysis efficiency and reducing computational burden.
3. Systematic Error Robustness: Focusing on information-rich regions (rather than noise-dominated regions) can enhance robustness against various systematic errors.

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Traditional Two-Point Statistics: Power spectrum and correlation functions show reduced information extraction efficiency on nonlinear scales.
2. Uniform Weighting Problem: Traditional methods weight all density regions equally, diluting the contribution of high-information regions.
3. Complex Nonlinear Processing: Requires sophisticated perturbation theory to handle nonlinear effects.

Research Motivation

Building on recent developments in marked statistics, particularly indicator function power spectra and density-split clustering methods, this paper proposes using an indicator function framework to unify understanding of density-dependent analysis, thereby locating information sources and designing more efficient information extraction methods.

Core Contributions

1. Analytical Expression Derivation: Derives analytical expressions for Fisher information related to indicator functions in Gaussian random fields (Equations 40 and 41), explicitly quantifying the information content of different density intervals.
2. Information Distribution Pattern: Discovers that information peaks at moderately rare densities (|ν| ≈ 3-4, corresponding to approximately 100 survey cells), rather than at extreme or average densities.
3. Counterintuitive Finding: Demonstrates that within finite survey volumes and specific distance ranges, indicator function correlations ξ_I(r) can contain more information than the complete correlation function ξ(r), despite using only partial survey cells.
4. Theoretical Explanation: Clarifies why indicator function analysis can "distill" information—by optimizing the weighting scheme to focus on the most information-rich cells, avoiding the dilution effect from non-informative cells.
5. Volume Dependence Analysis: Reveals non-trivial volume dependence of information: the maximum information in ξ_I(r) grows as ln(V)², while information in ξ(r) is directly proportional to volume V.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Gaussian random density field δ(r), discretized into N_c cells after smoothing
Output: Distribution of Fisher information for power spectrum amplitude A_z
Constraints: Linear evolution assumption, known power spectrum shape, amplitude unknown

Theoretical Framework

1. Fisher Information Fundamentals

For an n-point Gaussian distribution, the Fisher information for power spectrum amplitude ln(σ²) is: $I_n = n I_1 = n/2$

This fundamental result is derived through recursive computation of conditional probabilities. For lognormal distributions, the information is: $I_1 = (1 + σ²_A/2)/2$

2. Indicator Function Definition

For any density interval B, the indicator function is defined as: $I_B(x) = \begin{cases} 1 & x \in B \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$

The normalized indicator function correlation is: $ξ_{I_B}(r) = \frac{P_{11}(B)}{P(B)²} - 1$

where P₁₁(B) is the probability that two points separated by distance r simultaneously fall within density interval B.

3. Weak Correlation Approximation

Under the weak correlation assumption (γ ≡ ξ(r)/σ² ≪ 1), the relationship between indicator function correlation and standard correlation function is: $ξ_I(r) = \frac{ξ(r)⟨ν²⟩_B}{σ²}$

where ν ≡ δ/σ is the normalized density contrast.

Core Derivations

1. Probability Distribution of Observed Quantities

The observed indicator function correlation ξ̂_I approximately follows a Gaussian distribution (when N₁ ≫ 1): $P(ξ̂_I) ≈ \frac{P²_1}{σ_{1|1}\sqrt{2π}} \exp\left(-\frac{P⁴_1(ξ̂_I - ξ_I)²}{2σ²_{1|1}}\right)$

with variance: $σ²_{ξ̂_I} = \frac{(1+ξ_I)(1-P_1(1+ξ_I))}{P²_1 N_p}$

where N_p is the number of cell pairs separated by distance r.

2. Fisher Information Calculation

Fisher information is defined as: $I_{A_z} = \left⟨\left(\frac{d}{dA_z}\ln P(ξ̂_I)\right)²\right⟩$

Through detailed derivation (including derivatives of variance and mean with respect to amplitude), the main results are obtained:

High Probability Regime (N₁ ≫ 1): $I_{A_z} = \frac{1}{A²_z(1-P_1)} \frac{(P_1-2)²(ν²-1)²}{8(1-P_1)}$

Low Probability Limit (N₁ ≪ 1): $I_{A_z} = \frac{N_1(ν²-1)²}{4A²_z}$

Technical Innovations

1. Conditional Variance Approximation: Estimates the conditional variance of P̂₁₁ through binomial distribution approximation, simplifying the complex correlation structure.
2. Small Probability Assumption: Under the condition σ₁ ≪ P₁, simplifies integrals to enable analytical derivation (Equation 21: N₁ ≫ 1/(1-ξ̄_I) ≈ 1).
3. Dual-Regime Analysis: Separately handles high and low probability regimes, covering the complete density range.
4. First-Order Approximation: Neglects γ² terms, maintaining accuracy in the linear regime while simplifying expressions.

Experimental Setup

Dataset

Simulated Generation: Using FyeldGenerator package to generate Gaussian random fields

• Small Volume: 500 h⁻¹ Mpc cube, 32³ grid points (resolution ~16 h⁻¹ Mpc)
• Large Volume: 1000 h⁻¹ Mpc cube, 64³ grid points (8× volume increase)
• Power Spectrum: Based on Millennium Simulation linear power spectrum
• Amplitude Settings: σ² = 0.60 and 0.65 (approximately σ₈ = 0.8)
• Number of Realizations: 10,000 realizations per amplitude, 50 total sets

Evaluation Metrics

1. Fisher Information: Computed through numerical differentiation of P(ξ̂_I)
2. Amplitude Constraint Capability: Assessed through posterior distribution variance
3. Information Comparison: Compared with information from standard correlation function ξ(r)

Comparison Methods

• Standard Two-Point Correlation Function: ξ(r) in the same distance range [60, 80) h⁻¹ Mpc
• Theoretical Predictions: Equations 39 (high probability) and 41 (low probability)

Implementation Details

• Distance Range: R = [60, 80) h⁻¹ Mpc
• Density Intervals: δ ∈ -5.5, 5.5, width Δδ = 0.5
• Periodic Boundary Conditions: Periodic universe simulation
• Information Estimation Methods:
  • Purple points: Gaussian approximation P(ξ̂_I) (applicable for N₁ > 10)
  • Green points: Direct binning statistics (applicable for all densities)
• Pseudo-Information Correction: Estimated and subtracted statistical noise through dual realizations at identical amplitude

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Information Distribution Pattern (Figure 1)

Small Volume Survey (32³ cells):

• Information peaks at |ν| ≈ 3.5, corresponding to N₁ ≈ 100 cells
• Peak information I_ ≈ 80-100 (units: A_z⁻²)
• Information from standard correlation function ξ(r): I ≈ 13

Large Volume Survey (64³ cells):

• Peak position shifts to |ν| ≈ 4.0, with N₁ still approximately 100
• Peak information I_ ≈ 120-150
• Standard correlation function information increases to I ≈ 80
• Key Finding: In the |ν| ≈ 3.5-4.5 range, ξ_I(r) information consistently exceeds ξ(r)

2. Theoretical Prediction Accuracy

• High Probability Regime (purple points): Predictions from Equation 39 show excellent agreement with simulations, particularly in the N₁ > 100 region
• Low Probability Regime (green points): Equation 41 accurately captures information trends at extreme densities
• Transition Region: Clear boundary between applicable regimes of the two formulas
• Higher-Order Effects: Near |ν| ≈ 1, first-order approximation predicts zero information, but non-zero information exists in simulations (from neglected higher-order terms)

3. Volume Dependence

• ξ(r) Information: Increases from 13 to 80, approximately 6-fold (volume increases 8-fold, slightly below linear relationship)
• ξ_I(r) Peak Position: Blue curve position remains unchanged, but applicable range extends
• Effective Information Region: Larger volumes allow higher |ν| values to satisfy N₁ > 100 condition

Amplitude Constraint Experiments (Figure 2)

Experimental Design

Using 64³ cell realizations, constraining σ² (amplitude proxy) through ξ̂_I and ξ̂

Constraint Methods

Standard Correlation Function: Direct inference from σ²_ = ξ̂(r)/γ

Indicator Function Correlation:

1. Infer σ̂² from P̂₁ as prior
2. Combine with likelihood function of ξ̂_I
3. Obtain σ² through Bayesian posterior

Result Comparison

ν ≈ -4.0 (Left Panel):

• ξ_I constraint: σ² = 0.624 ± 0.010 (1σ)
• ξ constraint: σ² = 0.625 ± 0.013
• ξ_I performs better, with standard deviation reduced by approximately 23%

ν ≈ -2.8 (Right Panel):

• ξ_I constraint: σ² = 0.625 ± 0.012
• ξ constraint: σ² = 0.625 ± 0.013
• Comparable performance between methods

True Value: σ² = 0.625 (both methods unbiased)

Ablation Analysis

Impact of Approximation Assumptions

1. Small Probability Assumption σ₁ ≪ P₁: Valid for N₁ > 10, limits applicability of Equation 40
2. Weak Correlation Assumption γ ≪ 1: Neglecting γ² terms causes visible deviations in Figure 1
3. Small Interval Width Δδ: Affects precision of P₁ approximation (Equation 36)
4. Conditional Variance Approximation: Equation 27 depends on k value, but limited practical impact

Experimental Findings

1. Optimal Density Interval: Information peak consistently appears near N₁ ≈ 100, representing optimal balance between rarity and statistical significance.
2. Information "Distillation" Effect: Indicator functions selectively focus on high-information density regions, avoiding information dilution from uniform weighting across all densities in ξ(r).
3. Non-Trivial Volume Scaling:
   • Maximum information in ξ_I(r) ∝ (ln V)²
   • Information in ξ(r) ∝ V
   • For finite volumes, windows exist where ξ_I outperforms ξ
4. Cramér-Rao Bound Not Achieved: In Figure 2, constraint capability reciprocal (~62) is lower than Figure 1 information (~80), indicating constraint methods do not fully achieve theoretical limits.

Related Work

Density-Dependent Statistics

1. Marked Statistics: Sheth (1998), Beisbart & Kerscher (2000) analyze clustering using density as "marks"
2. Pioneering Work: Abbas & Sheth (2005, 2007) first systematically study density environment modulation of power spectrum
3. Recent Progress:
   • Paranjape et al. (2018), Shi & Sheth (2018): Theoretical frameworks
   • Alam et al. (2019): BOSS data applications
   • Paillas et al. (2021, 2023): BOSS CMASS density-split clustering

Indicator Function Correlation Methods

1. Sliced Correlations: Neyrinck et al. (2018) closely related to indicator functions
2. Characteristic Functions: Bernardeau (2022) χ_i functions equivalent to indicator functions in this paper
3. Unified Framework: Repp & Szapudi (2022) establish unified theoretical framework for indicator functions

Multi-Tracer Analysis

• McDonald & Seljak (2009), Hamaus et al. (2011): Different density intervals viewed as multiple tracers
• Barreira & Krause (2023), Nikakhtar et al. (2024): Multi-tracer information gains

Information Plateau Problem

• Neyrinck & Szapudi (2007), Lee & Pen (2008): Discover high-wavenumber information plateau
• Wolk et al. (2015): Quantify information saturation effects

Gaussianization Transformations

• Neyrinck et al. (2009): Logarithmic transformation for approximately lognormal fields
• Carron & Szapudi (2013), Repp & Szapudi (2017): Log-density analysis

Trimming Methods

• Simpson et al. (2011, 2013, 2016): Remove nonlinear peaks through trimming
• Lombriser et al. (2015), Giblin et al. (2018): Information analysis of trimmed fields
• This paper notes: δ_C(r) = Σ_{p_i≤C} p_i I_(r), likely extracting most information only from p_i ≈ C

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Information Localization: In Gaussian random fields, power spectrum amplitude information is primarily concentrated in moderately rare density regions (|ν| ≈ 3-4), corresponding to approximately 100 survey cells.
2. Indicator Function Advantages: Under specific distance ranges and finite volumes, indicator function correlation ξ_I(r) can contain more information than the complete correlation function ξ(r).
3. Mechanism Explanation: This advantage stems from optimized weighting—ξ_I focuses on high-information cells while ξ(r) weights all densities uniformly, causing information dilution.
4. Volume Effects: Although first-order approximation shows ξ_I information not explicitly volume-dependent, the applicable range (N₁ > 100) expands with volume, causing maximum usable information to grow as (ln V)².
5. Practical Value: This method provides guidance for optimizing survey data analysis, improving efficiency and enhancing robustness against systematic errors.

Limitations

1. Gaussian Assumption: Derivations based on Gaussian fields; actual cosmological density fields show significant non-Gaussianity at small scales.
   • Partial Mitigation: Can apply to log-density A = ln(1+δ) (approximately Gaussian)
2. Linear Regime Restriction: Assumes linear evolution; high-density peaks actually in nonlinear regime.
   • Potential Solution: Indicator functions can selectively exclude nonlinear regions
3. Single Distance Interval: Analyzes only r ∈ [60, 80) h⁻¹ Mpc, not considering cross-correlations between different distance intervals.
4. Discrete Sampling Not Considered: Theoretical derivations based on continuous fields, not addressing actual discrete sampling in surveys.
5. Amplitude Parameter Specific: Analysis optimized for amplitude-type parameters, may not apply to shape parameters.
6. Approximation Accuracy:
   • First-order approximation neglects γ² terms
   • Conditional variance estimation (Equation 27) depends on k value
   • Reduced accuracy near |ν| ≈ 1

Future Directions

1. Non-Gaussian Extensions: Generalize theory to lognormal and more general non-Gaussian fields.
2. Nonlinear Processing:
   • Combine indicator function selective exclusion of nonlinear peaks
   • Explore integration with perturbation theory
3. BAO Applications:
   • Direct application at BAO scales (near-Gaussian regime)
   • BAO peak position differences across density layers may provide more precise measurements
   • Avoid model dependence of reconstruction methods
4. Full Distance Range Analysis: Study joint information across all distance intervals, including cross-correlations.
5. Real Data Validation: Test methods on actual survey data from DESI, Euclid, etc.
6. Optimized Sampling Strategies: Design adaptive sampling schemes based on information distribution.
7. Trimming Method Improvements: Investigate whether most information can be extracted only from p_i ≈ C density intervals.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor:
   • Derives from fundamental Fisher information definitions with clear logic
   • Provides analytical expressions applicable to two regimes (Equations 40 and 41)
   • Clearly marks approximation conditions and applicable ranges
2. Counterintuitive Insights:
   • Reveals "less is more" phenomenon: partial cells contain more information
   • Clarifies non-uniform spatial information distribution
   • Explains non-trivial volume scaling relationships
3. Comprehensive Experimental Validation:
   • 50 independent simulations, 20,000 realizations per set
   • Two volume scales verify volume effects
   • Two information estimation methods (Gaussian approximation and direct binning)
   • Independent amplitude constraint experiments verify practicality
4. Methodological Innovation:
   • Unified indicator function framework
   • Pseudo-information correction algorithm (Appendix A)
   • Bayesian constraint method combining counts-in-cells priors
5. Practical Value:
   • Provides quantitative guidance for survey design
   • Directly applicable to BAO scale analysis
   • Compatible with existing density-split methods

Weaknesses

1. Significant Gaussian Limitations:
   • Application limited by non-Gaussian effects
   • Nonlinear scales require additional processing
   • Logarithmic transformation only partially mitigates
2. Single Distance Interval Analysis:
   • Does not consider covariances between different r intervals
   • Total information assessment incomplete
   • Comparison with ξ(r) may be unfair (ξ(r) contains information from all r)
3. Approximation-Induced Deviations:
   • Figure 1 shows theory-simulation divergence near |ν| ≈ 1
   • Neglected γ² terms visible in certain regions
   • Systematic error from conditional variance approximation not fully quantified
4. Cramér-Rao Bound Not Achieved:
   • Figure 2 constraint methods do not reach theoretical information limits
   • Suggests potential efficiency loss in practical applications
   • Requires more optimal parameter inference methods
5. Computational Complexity Not Discussed:
   • Indicator function analysis requires multiple density intervals
   • Computational cost comparison with traditional methods absent
   • Feasibility assessment for real survey applications insufficient
6. Missing Systematic Error Analysis:
   • While claiming greater robustness to systematic errors, specific verification absent
   • Selection bias, redshift errors, and other real effects not considered

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution:
   • Provides solid information-theoretic foundation for density-dependent statistics
   • Connects multiple research directions (marked statistics, density-split clustering, multi-tracer analysis)
   • May inspire development of new statistical methods
2. Practical Value:
   • Direct guidance for large surveys like DESI, Euclid
   • BAO analysis may benefit immediately
   • Sampling strategy optimization could save observational resources
3. Reproducibility:
   • Detailed method descriptions, complete formulas
   • Uses public software packages (FyeldGenerator)
   • Data and code available upon request
   • Real data application reproducibility may require additional work
4. Limitation Impact:
   • Gaussian assumption limits near-term application scope
   • Requires follow-up work extending to non-Gaussian cases
   • May require 1-2 years for real survey validation

Applicable Scenarios

Most Suitable Applications:

1. BAO Scale Analysis: At 100-150 h⁻¹ Mpc scales, density field nearly Gaussian, directly applicable
2. Weak Gravitational Lensing: Large-scale shear field approximately Gaussian
3. CMB Analysis: Temperature fluctuations form Gaussian field
4. Linear-Scale Cosmology: Any analysis with k < 0.1 h Mpc⁻¹

Scenarios Requiring Improvements:

1. Small-Scale Nonlinear Regime: Requires logarithmic transformation or nonlinear extensions
2. High-Redshift Nonlinear Structures: Requires more complex probability distribution models
3. Discrete Tracers (galaxies, galaxy clusters): Must account for Poisson sampling and bias effects

Inapplicable Scenarios:

1. Strongly nonlinear regimes (k > 1 h Mpc⁻¹)
2. Shape parameter constraints (method optimized for amplitude)
3. Analyses requiring full k-mode information

Key References

1. Abbas & Sheth (2005, 2007): Pioneering work on conditional power spectrum analysis in density environments
2. Repp & Szapudi (2022): Establishment of unified indicator function framework
3. Neyrinck et al. (2018): Sliced correlation function methods
4. Paillas et al. (2021, 2023): Density-split clustering applications in BOSS data
5. Bernardeau (2022): Characteristic function theory
6. Kaiser (1984): Bias theory foundations
7. Neyrinck & Szapudi (2007): Discovery of information plateau phenomenon

Summary

This paper makes important theoretical contributions to the field of cosmological information extraction. Through rigorous Fisher information analysis, it reveals the non-uniform spatial distribution of information in Gaussian random fields and provides actionable analytical expressions. The counterintuitive finding—that a subset of high-information cells can exceed full-sample analysis—offers new perspectives for optimizing survey strategies.

Despite limitations from Gaussian assumptions, the method has direct applicability in near-linear regimes such as BAO scales. As future work extends the theory to non-Gaussian cases, indicator function analysis is poised to become a standard tool for next-generation cosmological surveys. The combination of theoretical depth, comprehensive experimental validation, and practical value makes this an important reference in the field.