Ted Dunning has a blog post about calculating G2 (aka LLR) using Entropy calculations as components. I found this really intriguing.
Ted's original post: http://tdunning.blogspot.com/2008/03/surprise-and-coincidence.html
And yesterday he was nice enough to help fix my Excel (and subsequent Java) implementation, correcting for +/- signs in the final formula. He even produced a corrected Excel sheet.
Discussion with Ted about his formula and his answer to my post: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/693178/35616
But I think there's still a separate issue (or a misunderstanding on my part). Most LLR papers talk about negative and positive values. Things that are more prominent in A vs. prominent in B should change signs, so you know which direction the change is in. A couple examples of this discussion: Can the log likelihood ratio for a simple vs simple hypothesis take a negative value? and http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Kuhn09aLogLikelihoodRatio.pdf
Chi Squared is often compared to G2 (LLR). Although Chi Squared is always positive, since it's squared!, apparently the "G2" test doesn't hold to that, the "2" perhaps being a bit misleading.
Looking at Dunning's calculations, I don't see how the sign can ever flip?
His contingency tables:
Corpus A Corpus B Row Totals Target Word k_11 k_12 totalRow1 Other Words k_21 k_22 totalRow2 Column totals col1 col2 grandTotal
You then calculate Entropy for row totals, column totals, and the overall 4 k cells:
These are later combined in the final formula, along with grandTotal.
BUT the signs don't change when a word moves from column 1 to column 2:
- For row1, if you transpose k_11 and k_12 (and assuming row 2 is unchanged), then row 1's row's total stays the same, and therefore H_rowTotals doesn't change sign.
- Transposing k_11 and k_12 does change the order of the column totals, BUT the calculation of H_colTotals isn't impacted by order, so the sign doesn't change.
- And then when calculating H_k, it also doesn't care what order the k cells are in, so it also doesn't change sign.
- And of course the grand total is always >= 0.
So transposing k_11 and k_12 can't change the sign of H_rows, H_cols, H_k, nor grandTotal, which are the only 4 variable inputs into the final formula, so the final formulate can't change signs.
Ted was nice enough to upload a revised Excel sheet, but it actually demonstrates this non-sign change: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36863361/entropy-and-LLR-suspect-gist.xlsx
But whether you do:
Corpus A Corpus B Target Word 10 0 Other Words 0 10
Corpus A Corpus B Target Word 0 10 Other Words 10 0
You still get: +27.7
The only theory I can think of is maybe there's some alternative definition of Entropy that is order dependent; or something that approximates it.
Another theory I discarded was that maybe you change the signs of one of the columns, but that won't work since it would generate negative numbers in the probability calculation which would then be invalid as inputs to the log function.
To be clear, I'm super grateful for the previous help, but this sign change keeps bugging me. Also, posting this on the Stats Stack Exchange site, vs. the general Math site, since I think it's more specific.