1

Testing Optimality of
Sequential Decision-Making
Meik Dörpinghaus, Member, IEEE, Izaak Neri, Édgar Roldán,

arXiv:1801.01574v1 [] 4 Jan 2018

Heinrich Meyr, Life Fellow, IEEE, and Frank Jülicher

Abstract
This paper provides a statistical method to test whether a system that performs a binary sequential
hypothesis test is optimal in the sense of minimizing the average decision times while taking decisions
with given reliabilities. The proposed method requires samples of the decision times, the decision
outcomes, and the true hypotheses, but does not require knowledge on the statistics of the observations
or the properties of the decision-making system. The method is based on fluctuation relations for decision
time distributions which are proved for sequential probability ratio tests. These relations follow from
the martingale property of probability ratios and hold under fairly general conditions. We illustrate these
tests with numerical experiments and discuss potential applications.
This work has been partly supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Cluster of Excellence EXC 1056
’Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed)’ and within the CRC 912 ’Highly Adaptive Energy-Efficient Computing
(HAEC)’. The material in this paper has been presented in part at the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory
(ISIT), Aachen, Germany, June 2017 [1].
M. Dörpinghaus is with the Vodafone Chair Mobile Communications Systems and with the Center for Advancing Electronics
Dresden (cfaed), Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany (e-mail: meik.doerpinghaus@tu-dresden.de).
Izaak Neri is with the Max-Planck-Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany, with the Max-PlanckInstitute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany, and with the Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden
(cfaed), Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany (e-mail: izaakneri@posteo.net).
Édgar Roldán is with the Max-Planck-Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany, with the Center for
Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed), Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany, and with GISC – Grupo
Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos, Madrid, Spain (e-mail: edgar@edgarroldan.com).
H. Meyr is an emeritus of the Institute for Integrated Signal Processing Systems, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen,
Germany and is now a grand professor of the Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed) at Technische Universität
Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany (e-mail: meyr@iss.rwth-aachen.de).
Frank Jülicher is with the Max-Planck-Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden and with the Center
for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed), Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany, Germany (e-mail:
julicher@pks.mpg.de).

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

2

Index Terms
Sequential hypothesis testing, sequential probability ratio test, sequential analysis, decision-making,
mutual information.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In sequential decision-making it is important to make fast and reliable decisions. In this regard,
consider, e.g., an autonomous car which has to decide whether an obstacle is present or not on the
road. Such decisions are executed by dedicated signal processing algorithms. These algorithms
should use the available measurements in an optimal way such that the average time to take a
decision is minimized. For practical use it is key to test if the implemented decision algorithms
achieve the optimum performance, i.e., if decisions are made as fast as possible with a given
reliability.
Sequential decision-making has been first mathematically formulated in the seminal work by
A. Wald who introduced a sequential probability ratio test [2]. Wald’s test takes binary decisions
on two hypotheses based on sequential observations of a stochastic process. For independent
and identically distributed (i.i.d.) observations this test yields the minimum mean decision
time for decisions with a given probability of error and a given hypothesis [3]. Wald’s test
accumulates the likelihood ratio given by the sequence of observations and decides as soon as
this cumulative likelihood ratio exceeds or falls below two given thresholds which depend on
the required reliability of the decision. A key characteristic of such a sequential test is that its
termination time is a random quantity depending on the actual realization of the observation
sequence. The Wald test has been applied to non i.i.d. observation processes, nonhomogeneous
and correlated continuous-time processes, and has been generalized for multiple hypotheses
[4]; general optimality criteria for sequential probability ratio tests have been proved when
probabilities of errors tend to zero, see e.g. [4]–[8].
Now we consider the decision-making device as a black box which takes as input the observation process, corresponding to one of two hypotheses, and gives as output a binary decision
variable at a random decision time. Can we determine whether this decision-making device is
optimal based on the statistics of the output of the device — the decisions and the decision
times — and the knowledge of the true hypothesis? Indeed, in the present paper we introduce a
test for optimality of sequential decision-making based on necessary conditions for optimality.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

3

Notably, this test does not require knowledge of the realizations or the statistics of the observation
processes.
We first consider a device which takes as input the realization of a continuous stochastic
process corresponding to one of the two hypothesis H1 or H2 , and gives as output a binary
decision variable D ∈ {1, 2} (corresponding to the hypotheses H1 and H2 , respectively) at the
random decision time T elapsed since the beginning of the observations. We will show that
optimality of sequential probability ratio tests — in the sense that the mean decision time is
minimized while fulfilling given reliability constraints — requires that the following conditions
on the distribution of the decision time T hold
pT (t|H = 1, D = 1) = pT (t|H = 2, D = 1)

(1)

pT (t|H = 1, D = 2) = pT (t|H = 2, D = 2).

(2)

Here, pT is the probability density of the decision time and H ∈ {1, 2} (corresponding to the
hypotheses H1 and H2 ) denotes the random binary hypothesis. The necessary conditions (1)
and (2) for optimality imply that the distribution of the decision time T given a certain outcome
are independent of the actual hypothesis. Moreover, this implies that the decision time T of the
optimal sequential test does not contain any information on which hypothesis is true beyond the
decision outcome D. As a consequence, we can quantify the optimality of a given black-box
test by measuring the mutual information between the hypothesis H and the decision time T
conditioned on the output of the test D, i.e., I(H; T|D). In case the test is optimal it must hold
that
I(H; T|D) = 0.

(3)

Based on the following example it can be seen that (3) is a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for optimality in the sense of minimizing the mean decision time given a certain
reliability. Consider we have an optimal decision device using the Wald test. Now we delay
all decisions by a constant time tdelay . Still I(H; T + tdelay |D) = 0 with T being the decision
time of the Wald test. Indeed, (3) is not a sufficient condition for the minimal mean decision
time, but rather a measure for the optimal usage of information by the decision device. If
I(H; T|D) > 0 this means that the decision time T contains additional information on the
hypothesis H beyond the actual decision D implying that the decision device does not exploit all
the available information. Hence, I(H; T|D) measures the degree of divergence from optimality

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

4

in the sense of optimal usage of information. For practical purposes it is easier to test whether the
black-box decision device fulfills the optimality condition in (3) rather than testing if the decision
device decides with the minimum mean decision time, since the minimum mean decision time
is in general not known. Furthermore, consider that in experimental setups we can measure
a decision output D at a certain time T + Tdelay , with Tdelay a random delay time, but in
general we do not know at which time T the decision has been taken, as the decision device
is a black box device and we cannot clearly separate the actual decision making process from
nondecision processes. If the decision time Tdelay is statistical independent of H when conditioned
on D and T, then I(H; T|D) = 0 implies that I(H; T + Tdelay |D) = 0, and I(H; T + Tdelay |D)
can be used as a necessary condition to test optimality of decision devices. If additionally
I(H; Tdelay |D, T + Tdelay ) = 0, then I(H; T|D) = I(H; T + Tdelay |D). In this paper we derive
the optimality conditions (1) - (3) and generalize them to discrete-time observation processes.
We furthermore formulate tests for optimal sequential hypothesis testing (sequential decisionmaking) based on (1) - (3). Finally, we illustrate our results in computer experiments.
The optimality conditions (1) - (3) are of interest in different contexts. For example these
conditions allow to test optimality of sequential decision-making in engineered devices. An
example are decision-making devices based on machine learning such as deep neural networks.
Such algorithms have the power to solve very complex tasks and adapt to specific environments
by learning. The advantage of machine learning is that not all environmental situations need to
be learned at design time, which for many applications like self driving cars is not practical.
However, while neural networks exhibit best performance in comparison to other approaches the
principles which lead to their successful operation are yet unclear. It would be very useful to
quantify if decisions made on such deep learning approaches are close to optimal. In addition to
engineering, the tests proposed in this paper could also allow to understand if specific biological
systems use all available information optimally to make reliable decisions on the fly. In this
regard, consider the example of sequential decision-making by humans in two-choice decision
tasks based on perceptual stimuli or biological cells making decisions on their fate based on
extracellular cues. We discuss the application of the tests for optimality to these examples in
more detail below.
Notation: We denote random variables by upper case sans serif letters, e.g., X. All random
quantities are defined on the measurable space (Ω, F) and are governed by the probability
measure P. The probability density function of a random variable X given Y = y is written
January 8, 2018

DRAFT

5

pX (x|Y = y). Moreover, for discrete random variables P (X = x|Y = y) denotes the probability
of X = x given Y = y. The restriction of the measure P to a sub-σ algebra G ⊆ F is written as
P|G . Finally, log denotes the natural logarithm and log2 is the logarithm w.r.t. base 2. The mutual
i
h
information and the conditional mutual information are defined by I(X; Y) = E log2 ppXX(X|Y)
(X)
h
i
pX (X|Y,Z)
and I(X; Y|Z) = E log2 pX (X|Z) , respectively, where the mathematical expectation E[·] is taken
with respect to the measure P.
Organization of the Paper: The paper is organized as follows. After the introduction,
we describe the system setup in detail in Section II where we also give a precise problem
formulation including definitions of optimality for sequential decision-making. Subsequently,
in Section III we derive the main theorems and corollaries describing properties of optimal
sequential probability ratio tests for the case of continuous observation processes. In Section IV
for certain conditions we extend these theorems and corollaries to the discrete-time scenario. In
Section V we formulate statistical tests to decide whether a black-box decision device performs
optimal sequential decision-making based on the theorems and corollaries derived in Section
III and IV, and we also discuss how to measure the distance of the black-box decision device
to optimality. We illustrate the application of these tests based on numerical experiments in
Section VI. In Section VII we discuss the applicability and the limitations of the provided tests
for optimality. Readers who are mainly interested in the application of the statistical tests for
optimality may skip Sections III and IV.
II. S YSTEM S ETUP AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. System Setup
We consider a sequential binary decision problem based on an observation process Xt with the
time index t either discrete, t ∈ Z+ , or continuous, t ∈ R+ . The stochastic process Xt is generated
by one of two possible models corresponding to two hypotheses H1 and H2 . To describe the
statistics of the process Xt we consider the filtered probability space (Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 , P) with
{Ft }t≥0 the natural filtration generated by the observation process Xt and the hypothesis H.
We consider H to be a time independent random variable. The statistics of the observation
process under the two hypothesis are described by the conditional probability measures given
the hypothesis Pl [Φ] = E [1Φ |H = l] with l ∈ {1, 2} corresponding to the hypothesis H1 and H2 ,
respectively [9]; here 1Φ (ω) is the indicator function on the set Φ. We also consider the filtered
probability spaces (Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 , Pl ) with l ∈ {1, 2} associated with the two hypotheses. We
January 8, 2018

DRAFT

6

consider for continuous-time processes that the filtration {Ft }t≥0 is right-continuous [4], i.e.,
Ft = ∩s>t Fs for all times t ∈ R+ .
A sequential test makes binary decisions based on sequential observations of the process Xt
and tries to guess which of the hypotheses H1 and H2 is true. A sequential test δ = (D, T)
returns a binary output D at a random time T. The decision time T is a stopping time, which is
determined by the time when Xt satisfies for the first time a certain criterion. This stopping rule
is non-anticipating in the sense that it depends only on observations of the input sequence up
to the current time, i.e., the decision causally depends on the observation process. The decision
function is a map from the trajectory {Xt }T0 to {1, 2}, which determines the decision of the test.
We now consider the following class of sequential tests with given reliabilities
C(α1 , α2 ) = {δ : P (D = 2|H = 1) ≤ α2 , P (D = 1|H = 2) ≤ α1 , E[T|H = i] < ∞, i ∈ {1, 2}}
(4)
where E[T|H = i] denotes the expected termination time in case hypothesis i is true and where the
expectation is taken over the observation sequences Xt . Moreover, α1 and α2 are the maximum
allowed error probabilities of the two error types. We assume that α1 , α2 < 0.5. Notice that we
restrict ourselves to tests which terminate almost surely. This assumption is fulfilled in many
cases like the case of i.i.d. observation processes [10, Th. 6.2-1] and stationary observation
processes. Note that the class of sequential tests given by C(α1 , α2 ) does not consider prior
knowledge on the statistics of H.
We define the following optimality criterion.
Definition 1 (Optimality in terms of mean decision times). An optimal test δ ∗ = (D∗ , T∗ )
minimizes the two mean decision times E[T∗ |H = i] corresponding to the hypothesis i = 1 and
i = 2 for a given reliability, i.e.
E[T∗ |H = i] =

inf
δ∈C(α1 ,α2 )

E[T|H = i],

i = 1, 2.

(5)

Note that in Definition 1 we assume that there exists a test for which the infimum is attained.
If such a test does not exist than we can still find a test for which the two mean decision times
are arbitrarily close to their infimum values.
Sequential probability ratio tests or Wald-tests are optimal in the sense of Definition 1 [2]. It
has been proved that for the case of time-discrete i.i.d. observation processes the Wald test is

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

7

optimal in the sense of Definition 1 [3]. Furthermore, under broad conditions for the observation
process it has been proved that sequential probability ratio tests are optimal in the sense of
Definition 1 in the limit of small error probabilities [4]–[8].
For discrete-time and i.i.d. processes the Wald test collects observations Xt (which can be
understood as samples of a corresponding continuous-time process) until the cumulated loglikelihood ratio
Sk =

k
X

∆n =

k
X

n=1

n=1


log

pX (Xn |H = 1)
pX (Xn |H = 2)


for k ≥ 1

(6)

exceeds (falls below) a prescribed threshold L1 (L2 ) for the first time. In (6) ∆n are the increments
of the log-likelihood ratio at time instant n. The test decides D = 1 (D = 2), i.e., for H1 (H2 ),
when Sk first crosses L1 (L2 ). In (6), pX (·|H) denotes the probability density function of the
observations Xk conditioned on the event H. The thresholds L1 and L2 depend on the maximum
allowed probabilities for making a wrong decision α1 and α2 . A decision with the given reliability
constraints α1 and α2 can be made when the cumulative log-likelihood ratio Sk for the first time
crosses one of the thresholds before crossing the opposite one. The thresholds are functions of
α1 and α2 . In general, the thresholds L1 and L2 are difficult to obtain. However, the optimal
thresholds yielding the minimum mean decision time can be approximated by [10, p. 148]
1 − α2
α1
α2
.
L2 = log
1 − α1
L1 = log

(7)
(8)

The choice in (7) and (8) still guarantees that the error constraints in (4) are fulfilled. In summary,
the sequential probability ratio test decides at the time
TWald = min{k ∈ N : Sk ∈
/ (L2 , L1 )}

(9)

for the decision
DWald


 1 if S
TWald ≥ L1
=
 2 if ST
≤ L2 .
Wald

(10)

Analogously, the Wald test for non-i.i.d. observation processes is given by (9) and (10) with the
log-likelihood ratio
k
X

k
X

pXn (Xn |X1n−1 , H = 1)
Sk =
∆n =
log
pXn (Xn |X1n−1 , H = 2)
n=1
n=1

for k ≥ 1

(11)

where Xn−1
= [X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ].
1
January 8, 2018

DRAFT

8

The Wald test can also be formulated for continuous-time observation processes. In this case
probability densities of the observation trajectories do not always exist. However, the likelihood
ratio eSt can be defined in terms of the Radon-Nikodým derivative of the probability space
(Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 , P1 ) with respect to the probability space (Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 , P2 ):
eSt =

dP1 |Ft
dP2 |Ft

(12)

with t ≥ 0. Here, the process St is the cumulative log-likelihood ratio and Pi |Ft (i = 1, 2) are
restricted measures of Pi w.r.t. the σ-algebra Ft . A decision with the given reliability constraints
α1 and α2 can be made when the cumulative log-likelihood ratio St for the first time crosses one
of the thresholds before crossing the opposite one. I.e., the test decides D = 1 (D = 2) in case
it crosses L1 (L2 ) for the first time before crossing L2 (L1 ) where the thresholds are functions
of α1 and α2 . For continuous observation processes St is continuous and the thresholds are
exactly given by (7) and (8), see, e.g., [10, p. 148]. Therefore, the Wald test for continuous-time
observation processes is defined by
Tdec = inf{t ∈ R+ : St ∈
/ (L2 , L1 )}

(13)

with the decision output given by
Ddec


 1 if S
Tdec ≥ L1
=
 2 if ST ≤ L2 .
dec

(14)

B. Problem Statement
Consider now the black-box decision device as illustrated in Fig. 1 for which the stochastic
observation process Xt and the algorithm of the decision device are both unknown. Such a blackbox decision device is a sequential test δ for which the function (D, T) is unknown. We ask now
the question: Is it possible to determine whether such a black-box decision device is optimal in
the sense of Definition 1 based on many outcomes D and T of the device?
Having access to the decision outcomes and decision times it is impossible to verify optimality
in terms of Definition 1. In this regard consider that the value of the minimum mean decision
time is typically unknown since the observed process Xt and its statistics are often not known.
We thus introduce the following alternative definition of optimality, which is based on the idea
that optimal sequential decision-making needs to exploit the available information optimally.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

9

Stochastic process

Decision device
Input

Decision output
Output
Decision time

Fig. 1. Black-box model of binary sequential decision-making: a decision device observes sequentially a stochastic process Xt
until it takes a decision D = 1 (D = 2) corresponding to the hypothesis H = 1 (H = 2) at a random decision time T.

Definition 2 (Optimality in terms of information). An optimal test δ ∗ = (D∗ , T∗ ) minimizes the
mutual information I(H; T|D), i.e.
I(H; T∗ |D∗ ) =

inf

I(H; T|D).

δ=(D,T)∈C(α1 ,α2 )

(15)

Later we will show that for continuous observation processes optimality in the sense of
Definition 1 implies optimality in the sense of Definition 2 but not vise versa. In this regard,
consider that (15) is invariant w.r.t. time delays Tdelay in the decisions, i.e., I(H; T∗ |D∗ ) =
I(H; T∗ + Tdelay |D∗ ), if Tdelay is statistically independent of H conditioned on D and T and if
additionally Tdelay satisfies that I(H; Tdelay |D∗ , T∗ + Tdelay ) = 0. Moreover, we will show that
for continuous observation processes optimal information usage implies that I(H; T∗ |D∗ ) = 0,
because a test achieving I(H; T|D) = 0 always exists and I(H; T|D) is nonnegative. For these reasons Definition 2 will allows us to formulate practical tests for optimality of sequential decisionmaking in black-box decision devices. In general, for the discrete-time setting I(H; T∗ |D∗ ) > 0,
as the information on the hypothesis does not arrive continuously but in chunks, which makes
it more difficult to test optimality in discrete-time settings.
III. O PTIMALITY C ONDITIONS FOR C ONTINUOUS O BSERVATION P ROCESSES
To understand the conditions on optimal sequential decision-making we will derive relations
between decision time distributions of optimal binary sequential probability ratio tests. In this section we consider optimal sequential probability ratio tests for continuous observation processes,
which are given by (Tdec , Ddec ) in (13) - (14). We call these relations decision time fluctuation
relations for their reminiscence to stopping time fluctuation relations in non-equilibrium statistical
physics, in particular stochastic thermodynamics [11], [12]. In order to derive these relations

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

10

we use a key property of the exponential of the cumulative log-likelihood ratio eSt defined in
(12), namely that it is a positive and uniformly integrable martingale process with respect to
the probability measure P2 and the filtration generated by the observation process [9]. An Ft adapted and integrable process is called a martingale w.r.t. Ft and a measure P if its expected
value at time t equals to its value at a previous time t̃, when the expected value is conditioned
on observations up to the time t̃. For eSt , Ft , and P2 this implies that
h
i
St
E e Ft̃ , H = 2 = eSt̃

(16)

P2 -almost surely and with t̃ < t. Integrability of eSt implies that E[eSt |H = 2] = 1 < ∞.
A. Decision Time Fluctuation Relation for Optimal Decision Devices
Theorem 1. We consider a binary sequential hypothesis testing problem with the hypotheses
H ∈ {1, 2}. Let P1 and P2 be two probability measures on the same filtered probability space
(Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 ) corresponding to the hypothesis H = 1 and H = 2, respectively. We assume that
{Ft }t≥0 is right continuous. We consider that on F∞ = ∩t≥0 Ft , the probability measure P2 is
absolutely continuous with respect to P1 . Furthermore, we consider that the realization of the
process eSt =

dP1 |Ft
dP2 |Ft

is P2 almost surely continuous. Let Tdec and Ddec be as in (13) and (14)

with E[Tdec |H = i] < ∞ (i = 1, 2). We also assume that Tdec has a density function. Under
these assumptions the following holds
pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 1) = pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 1)

(17)

pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 2) = pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 2)

(18)

where pTdec (t|H, Ddec ) is the decision time distribution conditioned on the hypothesis H and the
decision output Ddec .
Proof. Let
Φ1 (t) = {ω ∈ Ω : Tdec (ω) ≤ t and Ddec (ω) = 1}

(19)

be the set of trajectories for which the decision time does not exceed t and the test decides for
Ddec = 1. The probability of the event Φ1 (t) with respect to the measures P1 or P2 is equal to
the cumulative distribution of the decision time Tdec conditioned on the hypothesis H = 1 or

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

11

H = 2, respectively, and conditioned on the decision outcome Ddec = 1. We find the following
identity between P1 (Φ1 (t)) and P2 (Φ1 (t)):
Z
P1 (Φ1 (t)) =

dP1 |Ft

(20)

eSt dP2 |Ft

(21)

eSTdec dP2 |Ft

(22)

dP2 |Ft

(23)

ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ1 (t)
L1

Z

=e

ω∈Φ1 (t)

= eL1 P2 (Φ1 (t))

(24)

where for (21) we have used the Radon-Nikodým theorem and the definition (12). For equality
(22) we have applied Doob’s optional sampling theorem [9], [13] to the uniformly integrable
P2 -martingale process eSt . For (23) we have used that eSt is a continuous process and achieves
the value eL1 at time Tdec .
The probability density functions of Tdec can be expressed in terms of the derivatives of the
cumulative distributions Pk (Φ1 (t)) (k = 1, 2)
d
P1 (Φ1 (t))
dt
d
= 1|H = 2) = P2 (Φ1 (t)).
dt

pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 1)P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) =

(25)

pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 1)P (Ddec

(26)

The ratio of the decision probabilities is
P (Ddec = 1|H = 1)
1 − α2
=
= eL1
P (Ddec = 1|H = 2)
α1

(27)

which follows from P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) = limt→∞ P1 (Φ1 (t)), P (Ddec = 1|H = 2) =
limt→∞ P2 (Φ1 (t)), Eq. (24), and from the assumption that the test terminates almost surely.
Taking the derivative of the left hand side (LHS) of (20) and the right hand side (RHS) of (24),
and using Eqs. (25) to (27), we prove Eq. (17). Analogously, Eq. (18) can be proved.
B. Decision Time Fluctuation Relation for Optimal Decision Devices with Unknown Hypotheses
In the following, we derive a second fluctuation relation, which we will apply to test optimality of sequential decision-making with less information than required for Theorem 1 (see
Section V-B2), but holds only if the maximal allowed error probabilities are symmetric, i.e.,

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

12

α1 = α2 , and the measures P1 and P2 on (Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 ) are related by a measurable involution
Θ. We consider that
P2 = P1 ◦ Θ

(28)

with Θ : Ω → Ω a measurable involution, i.e., Θ is invertible with inverse Θ−1 = Θ and with
Θ(Φ) ∈ F for all Φ ∈ F.
Theorem 2. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 1, with the additional assumption that
P2 = P1 ◦ Θ with Θ a measurable involution, and with the additional assumption that the
maximal allowed error probabilities fulfill α1 = α2 , the following holds
pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 1) = pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 2)

(29)

pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 1) = pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 2).

(30)

Furthermore, it holds that
pTdec (t|Ddec = 1) = pTdec (t|Ddec = 2).

(31)

The proof of Theorem 2 is given in Appendix A.
A special case of the result in Theorem 2 has been found in the context of nonequilibrium
statistical physics [11], [12]: the two hypotheses correspond to a forward and a backward
direction of the arrow of time, and Θ corresponds to the time-reversal operation. The RadonNikodým derivative St is then the stochastic entropy production, and the decision time Tdec is
its two-boundary first-passage time to cross one of two given symmetric values. Moreover, in
communication theory such a symmetry has been found to show that the probability of cycle slips
to the positive/negative boundary in phase-locked loops used for synchronization is independent
of time [14, Eq. (74)].
C. Information Theoretic Implications of Optimal Sequential Decision-Making
Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 express statistical dependencies of different random quantities
involved in optimal sequential decision-making. Based on Theorem 1 we will now show the
following.
Corollary 1. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 1, the following equality for mutual
information holds
I(H; Tdec |Ddec ) = 0
January 8, 2018

(32)

DRAFT

13

i.e., I(H; Tdec , Ddec ) = I(H; Ddec ).
Proof. By the chain rule for mutual information, I(H; Tdec |Ddec ) can be expressed by
I(H; Tdec , Ddec ) = I(H; Ddec ) + I(H; Tdec |Ddec ).

(33)

The second term on the RHS of (33) is given by



pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
I(H; Tdec |Ddec ) = E log2
(34)
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec )



pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
(35)
= E log2
pTdec ,H (Tdec , H = 1|Ddec ) + pTdec ,H (Tdec , H = 2|Ddec )



pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
= E log2
pT (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)P (H = 1|Ddec ) + pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 2)P (H = 2|Ddec )


 dec
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
= E log2
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)P (H = 1|Ddec ) + pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)P (H = 2|Ddec )
(36)



pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
= E log2
(37)
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1) (P (H = 1|Ddec ) + P (H = 2|Ddec ))



pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H)
(38)
= E log2
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)






pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 2)
= P (H = 1)E log2
+ P (H = 2)E log2
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec , H = 1)
=0
(39)
where for (36) and for (39) we have used Theorem 1.
Corollary 1 states that in case of optimal sequential decision-making the decision time Tdec
does not give any additional information on the hypothesis H beyond the decision outcome Ddec .
In this regard, consider that the first term on the RHS of (33) is the mutual information the
decision outcome of the test Ddec gives about the actual hypothesis H. The second term on the
RHS of (33) I(H; Tdec |Ddec ) is the additional information the termination time Tdec gives on
the hypothesis H beyond the information given by the decision Ddec . Thus, we have proved that
for continuous observation processes optimal sequential decision-making w.r.t. Definition 2 is
achievable and that I(H; T∗ |D∗ ) = 0. Note that since sequential probability ratio tests (Ddec , Tdec )
have been shown to be optimal in the sense of Definition 1, Corollary 1 implies that optimality
in the sense of Definition 1 also implies optimality in the sense of Definition 2.
In case the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied additionally, the following two corollaries
hold.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

14

Corollary 2. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 2, the following equality holds
I(Ddec ; Tdec ) = 0.

(40)

Proof. It holds that


pTdec (Tdec |Ddec )
I(Ddec ; Tdec ) = E log
(41)
pTdec (Tdec )


pTdec (Tdec |Ddec )
= E log
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec = 1)P (Ddec = 1) + pTdec (Tdec |Ddec = 2)P (Ddec = 2)


pTdec (Tdec |Ddec )
(42)
= E log
pTdec (Tdec |Ddec = 1)
=0
(43)
where we have used (31) in (42) and (43).
Corollary 3. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 2, and with the additional assumption
that P (H = 1) = P (H = 2), the following equality holds
I(H; Tdec ) = 0.

(44)

The proof of Corollary 3 is given in Appendix B.
IV. O PTIMALITY C ONDITIONS FOR D ISCRETE -T IME O BSERVATION P ROCESSES
In the following, we extend the analysis on optimal information usage in sequential decisionmaking to the discrete-time setting. In discrete time the optimal test in the sense of Definition 1
is given by TWald and DWald defined in (9) and (10). Extending our results to a discretetime setting is relevant for discrete-time systems. Moreover, in usual experimental setups a
continuous-time system is sampled yielding a discrete-time representation. The extension from
continuous processes to discrete-time processes is not straightforward, as one key characteristic
in the continuous-time setting is the fact that the test terminates with a cumulative log-likelihood
ratio exactly hitting one of the thresholds. This property of continuous processes does not hold
true in the discrete-time setting, where the mean value of the cumulative log-likelihood ratio at
the decision time slightly overshoots the thresholds.
The thresholds L1 and L2 depend on the maximum allowed error probabilities α1 and α2 ,
cf. (4). Due to the fact that in the discrete-time setting the trajectory of the accumulated loglikelihood ratios Sk in (6) does not necessarily hit one of the thresholds the determination of the

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

15

optimal thresholds L1 and L2 in terms of α1 and α2 are rather involved, see [2]. L1 and L2 are
chosen such that the allowed error probabilities given in (4) are obeyed with equality.
In the following, we study the statistical dependencies between the hypothesis H, the decision
DWald , and the number of observations TWald the sequential probability ratio test given by (9)
and (10) uses to make decisions.
The necessary condition for optimal decision devices given in Theorem 1 for the continuoustime setting does not carry over to the discrete-time settings as we will discuss in the following.
This can be understood from applying the steps in the proof of Theorem 1 in (20) to (24) to
the discrete-time setting. In the discrete-time case with t ∈ Z+ the measure P1 (Φ1 (t)) of the
discrete-time version of the set Φ1 (t) in (19) can be expressed by
Z
P1 (Φ1 (t)) =
dP1 |Ft

(45)

ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=

eSt dP2 |Ft

(46)

eSTWald dP2 |Ft

(47)

ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ1 (t)

R
=

ω∈Φ1 (t)

eSTWald dP2 |Ft Z

R
ω∈Φ1 (t)

dP2 |Ft

dP2 |Ft

(48)

ω∈Φ1 (t)



= E eSTWald |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) P2 (Φ1 (t))


= eL1 E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) P2 (Φ1 (t))

(49)
(50)

where M1 > 0 in (50) is the overshoot beyond the threshold L1 . Since in general the distribution
of the overshoot M1 = STWald − L1 depends on the time t the fluctuation relations (17) and (18)
do not extend to the discrete-time case.
Translating (25) and (26) to the discrete-time setting yields
pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 1)P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) = P1 (Φ1 (t + 1)) − P1 (Φ1 (t))

(51)

pTdec (t|H = 2, Ddec = 1)P (Ddec = 1|H = 2) = P2 (Φ1 (t + 1)) − P2 (Φ1 (t))

(52)

for t ≥ 1.
Taking the difference between the values of P1 (Φ1 (t)) at two consecutive time instants we
get


P1 (Φ1 (t + 1)) − P1 (Φ1 (t)) = eL1 E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t + 1) P2 (Φ1 (t + 1))


− eL1 E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) P2 (Φ1 (t)).
January 8, 2018

(53)

DRAFT

16



In case E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) = K is time independent, we get from (51) and (52)
1 − α2
P (DWald = 1|H = 1)
=
= eL1 K
P (DWald = 1|H = 2)
α1

(54)

where we have used the assumption that the test terminates almost surely, and we get the
fluctuation relations corresponding to Theorem 1 for decision times TWald in the discrete-time
case.


The constraint that E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) is time independent is approximately fulfilled
in case the size of the thresholds L1 and L2 is large in comparison to the average increase of
the log-likelihood ratio ∆n per observation sample, see (11). This can be seen as taking the
continuum limit of the decision making process. In this regard, consider that the distribution
of the overshoot M1 is time independent if the distribution of the distance LDWald − STWald −1 , at
the time instant before a decision is taken, is time independent, and if the distribution of the
increment ∆TWald is independent of time. The distribution of LDWald − STWald −1 is time independent
if the initial value of the cumulative log-likelihood has no significant influence anymore on the
distribution of STWald −1 when conditioning on termination at time instant TWald . This is satisfied in
case TWald is sufficiently large, which holds if the thresholds L1 and L2 are large in comparison
to the average of the increments of the log-likelihood ratio ∆n . This is illustrated for an example
based on numerical simulations in Section VI-A4.
In the following, we assume that the condition


E eM1 |H = 2, ω ∈ Φ1 (t) = K

(55)

is fulfilled. For many practical applications this condition is approximately fulfilled, see the
numerical experiments in Section VI.
The results on optimal information usage carry over from continuous time to discrete time
given that (55) holds.
Theorem 3. We consider a binary sequential hypothesis testing problem with the hypotheses
H ∈ {1, 2}. Let {pXk+1 (·|H = 1)} and {pXk+1 (·|H = 2)} be two sequences of probability density
1

1

functions of the sequence of real valued observations {X1 , X2 , . . .} in case hypothesis H = 1
and H = 2 are true, respectively, and with k ∈ Z+ . Let TWald and DWald be as in (9) and (10)

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

17

with E[TWald |H = i] < ∞ (i = 1, 2). Under these assumptions and the assumption that (55) is
fulfilled it holds that
P (TWald = k|H = 2, DWald = 1) = P (TWald = k|H = 1, DWald = 1)

(56)

P (TWald = k|H = 2, DWald = 2) = P (TWald = k|H = 1, DWald = 2)

(57)

for all k ∈ Z+ .
Theorem 3 implies optimal usage of information with respect to Definition 2 for the discretetime setting yielding the following corollary.
Corollary 4. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 3, the following equality for mutual
information holds
I(H; TWald , DWald ) = I(H; DWald )

(58)

I(H; TWald |DWald ) = 0.

(59)

implying that

The proof follows along the same line as the proof of Corollary 1, but this time based on
Theorem 3.
Analogously, Theorem 2 carries over to the discrete-time case.
Theorem 4. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 3, with the additional assumption that
pXk+1 (·|H = 2) = pXk+1 ◦Θ (·|H = 1) for k ∈ Z+ , where Θ is a measurable involution, and the
1

1

additional assumption that the maximal allowed error probabilities fulfill α1 = α2 , the following
holds
P (TWald = k|H = 1, DWald = 1) = P (TWald = k|H = 1, DWald = 2)

(60)

P (TWald = k|H = 2, DWald = 1) = P (TWald = k|H = 2, DWald = 2)

(61)

for all k ∈ Z+ . Furthermore, it holds that
P (TWald = k|DWald = 1) = P (TWald = k|DWald = 2) for all k ∈ Z+ .

(62)

Theorem 4 can be proved by carrying over the proof of Theorem 2 to the discrete-time case
and additionally using a modification of the application of Doob’s optional sampling theorem
similar to (48) to (50) leading to the additional assumption that (55) is fulfilled.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

18

A special case of Theorem 4 was shown in [1] for the case of i.i.d. observation processes and
low error probabilities α1 = α2 .
Using Theorem 4 also Corollary 2 and Corollary 3 carry over to the discrete-time case.
Corollary 5. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 4, the following equality holds
I(DWald ; TWald ) = 0.

(63)

Corollary 6. Under the same conditions as in Theorem 4, and with the additional assumption
that P (H = 1) = P (H = 2), the following equality holds
I(H; TWald ) = 0.

(64)

The proofs of Corollary 5 and Corollary 6 follow along the lines of the proves of Corollary 2
and Corollary 3.
V. T ESTS FOR O PTIMALITY OF S EQUENTIAL D ECISION -M AKING
For the case of continuous observation processes Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 hold for binary
sequential probability ratio tests which are optimal in the sense of Definition 1. In case of
additional symmetry conditions, Theorem 2, Corollary 2, and Corollary 3 hold as well. Under
the reasonable assumption that the joint statistics of (H, T, D) have a unique solution over all
tests fulfilling (5), these theorems and corollaries are necessary conditions for optimal sequential
decision-making in the sense of Definition 1. Likewise, for discrete-time observation processes
which fulfill the condition given by (55) Theorem 3 and Corollary 4 give necessary conditions
for optimal sequential decision-making. In case additional symmetry conditions are fulfilled also
Theorem 4, Corollary 5, and Corollary 6 hold. Based on these theorems and corollaries we
formulate tests to test optimality of sequential decision-making in black-box decision devices
and present algorithms to measure the distance to optimality of the decision process in the
black-box decision device.
A. Continuous-Observation Processes
1) Testing Optimality and Measuring the Distance to Optimality in Case of Known Hypotheses: We sample m independent realizations {hi , ti , di }i=1,...,m of the joint random variables
(H, T, D) given by subsequent decisions, where H corresponds to the random variable describing
the actual hypothesis and T and D are the outputs, decision time and decision variable, of the

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

19

black-box decision device. In case the observation window of the experimentalist is not sufficiently large such that for certain samples the black box has not decided yet, the experimentalist
can discard those samples.
We first state a statistical test which can reject, with a certain statistical significance, the null
hypothesis that the given black-box device is optimal in the sense of Definition 2 and, thus, also in
the sense of Definition 1. We create from the whole set of realizations four subsets of decision
times Ar,s = {ti , i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} : (hi , di ) = (r, s)} with (r, s) ∈ {(1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 2)}.
Under the null hypothesis, Theorem 1 implies that the subsets A1,1 and A2,1 contain independent
realizations of decision times from the same distribution and, analogously, A1,2 and A2,2 contain
independent realizations of decision times from the same distribution. Whether two sets of
independent realizations are sampled from the same continuous distribution can be tested with a
certain significance using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test [15, pp. 663-665]. Note that
we do not require knowledge on the statistics P1 and P2 of the observation process Xt , which
makes our test for optimality of decision devices very useful for practical applications where in
many situations such statistics are unknown. Notice that because the observation process Xt may
take values in a high-dimensional space it can be difficult to get a good estimate of its statistics.
A quantity for the distance of the sequential decision-making process of the black-box decision
device with respect to the optimal sequential decision process in the sense of Definition 2 is
ˆ T|D) of the mutual information I(H; T|D). The estimate
given by the empirical estimate I(H;
ˆ T|D) can be gained from empirical estimates of entropy and differential entropy, see [16]
I(H;
and [17]. Note that with the chain rule for mutual information it holds that
I(H; T|D) = I(H; D, T) − I(H; D).

(65)

The first term on the RHS of (65) is the complete mutual information that the output of the
black-box decision device, (D, T), gives on the hypothesis H. The second term on the RHS of
(65) is the mutual information between the decision D and the hypothesis H, which in case of
optimal sequential decision-making equals the complete mutual information I(H; D, T). Hence,
with (65) I(H; T|D) measures the information the black-box device discards in case of nonˆ T|D) provides a measure for how much the decision
optimal decision-making. Therefore, I(H;
statistics of a certain black-box device diverge from the optimal solution, or less formally stated,
how close to optimality a decision device behaves.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

20

2) Testing Optimality in Case of Unknown Hypotheses: If the statistics of the observation
process Xt fulfill the involution condition (28) and if the constraints on the error probabilities
α1 and α2 are equal implying symmetric thresholds L1 = −L2 = L, then based on Theorem 2
we formulate a test which is able to reject optimality in the sense of Definition 2 and, thus, also
in the sense of Definition 1. Different to the test formulated in Section V-A1 we do not require
knowledge of the actual realizations of the hypothesis H, which in certain situations is important
for practical application.
We sample m independent realizations {ti , di }i=1,...,m of the joint random variables (T, D),
where T and D are the outputs, decision variable and decision time, of the black-box decision
device. As in the case of known hypotheses samples for which the black-box decision device
has not terminated yet can be discarded. Under the above assumptions, we state a statistical
test which can reject, with a certain statistical significance, the null hypothesis that the given
black-box device is optimal. We create from the whole set of realizations two subsets of decision
times Ar = {ti , i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} : di = r} with r ∈ {1, 2}. Under the current null hypothesis,
Theorem 2 implies that the subsets A1 and A2 contain independent realizations of decision
times from the same distribution. We can again use a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test [15,
pp. 663-665] to reject the null hypothesis with a certain significance. Corollaries 2 and 3 provide
alternative means to test optimality of sequential decision-making.
Quantifying the degree of optimality using the mutual informations I(D; T) or I(H; T) provides
in general no clear interpretation. Hence, in order to quantify the divergence of the black-box
device from optimal sequential decision-making we can use I(H; T|D) based on Corollary 1.
B. Discrete-Time Observation Processes
Analogously to the case of continuous observation processes we formulate tests for optimality
of sequential decision-making in discrete time and we also present algorithms to measure the
distance to optimality of black-box decision devices. We use Theorems 3, Theorem 4 and
Corollary 4.
1) Testing Optimality and Measuring the Distance to Optimality in Case of Known Hypotheses: We sample m independent realizations {hi , ti , di }i=1,...,m of the joint random variables
(H, T, D) given by subsequent decisions, where H corresponds to the random variable describing
the actual hypothesis and T and D are the outputs, decision time and the decision variable, of

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

21

the black-box decision device. As before we discard samples for which the black-box decision
device has not decided yet.
The algorithm to test optimality of a black-box decision device is analogous to the case of continuous observation processes. We construct from the whole set of realizations {hi , ti , di }i=1,...,m
four

sets

of

decision

times

Ar,s

=

{ti , i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} : (hi , di ) = (r, s)}

with

(r, s) ∈ {(1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 2)}. Theorem 3 implies that the subsets A1,1 and A2,1 contain
independent realizations of decision times from the same distribution and, analogously, A1,2 and
A2,2 contain independent realizations of decision times from the same distribution. Whether two
sets of independent realizations are sampled from the same discrete distribution can be tested
with a certain significance using the two-sample χ2 -test [18, p. 253, Problem 3].
A quantity for the distance to optimality of a black-box decision device with respect to the
optimal sequential decision process in the sense of Definition 2 is in discrete time given by the
ˆ T|D) of the mutual information I(H; T|D), see , cf. Corollary 4.
empirical estimate I(H;
2) Testing Optimality in Case of Unknown Hypotheses: As in the continuous case testing
optimality of a black-box decision device can be done even in case of unknown hypothesis in
case certain additional conditions are fulfilled. Namely, the statistics of the observation process
Xt have to fulfill the involution condition (28) and the constraints on the error probabilities α1 and
α2 have to be equal, implying symmetric thresholds L1 = −L2 = L. Then based on Theorem 4
we can formulate the following test. We sample m independent realizations {ti , di }i=1,...,m of the
joint random variables (T, D), where T and D are the decision time and decision variable of the
black-box decision device. We create from the whole set of realizations two subsets of decision
times Ak = {ti , i ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} : di = k} with k ∈ {1, 2}. Theorem 4 implies that the subsets
A1 and A2 contain independent realizations of decision times from the same distribution in case
the black-box decision device is optimal. We can again use a two-sample χ2 -test [18, p. 253,
Problem 3] to test whether the two subsets A1 and A2 are sampled from the same distribution.
Corollary 5 and Corollary 6 provide alternatives to test optimality of sequential decision-making.
VI. T ESTING O PTIMALITY IN N UMERICAL E XPERIMENTS
In this section we apply our algorithms to test optimality of binary sequential decision-making
of black-box devices and to measure the degree of divergence from optimality. We consider a
class of decision devices which for certain parameter values are optimal, and we verify whether
our algorithms are able to detect the parameters for which the decision devices are optimal. In

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

22

this section we distinguish again continuous and discrete observation processes. However, here
we will start with discrete-time processes which allow for simpler numerical study.
To distinguish theoretical quantities from empirical estimates we denote by P̂ and Iˆ the
empirical estimates of the probabilities P and mutual informations I. Furthermore, we write
Ê [·] for the empirical estimate of the expectation E [·].
A. Discrete-time observation processes
1) Testing optimality in case of known hypotheses: We consider an observation sequence
X = (X1 , X2 , . . . , Xk ) where the Xn (where n ∈ [1, k]) are i.i.d. random variables drawn from
one of two possible probability distributions corresponding to the two hypotheses H ∈ {1, 2},
i.e.,
k
 Y
pXk1 xk1 |H =
pX (xn |H) .

(66)

n=1

In our example the densities pX (·|H) are Gaussian with mean µi and variance σi2 with i ∈ {1, 2}
corresponding to the two hypotheses H = i. In the special case where µ1 = −µ2 and σ1 = σ2
the involution property (28) holds.
We consider a class of decision models representing the black-box decision devices. These
decision models use the Wald sequential probability ratio test based on a model of the external
world which may be incorrect. Each decision model computes the cumulative log-likelihood
ratio of two Gaussian distributions with mean µ̃i and variance σ̃i2 (with i ∈ {1, 2}), i.e.,


k
X
pX (Xn |H = 1)
log
S̃k =
pX (Xn |H = 2)
n=1

k 
σ̃2 X (Xn − µ̃2 )2 (Xn − µ̃1 )2
= k log
+
−
.
σ̃1 n=1
2σ̃22
2σ̃12

(67)

The decision time of the model is
T = min{k ∈ N : S̃k ∈
/ (L2 , L1 )}

(68)

and the decision variable is given by

 1 if S̃ ≥ L
T
1
D=
 2 if S̃T ≤ L2

(69)

with the two thresholds L1 > 0 and L2 < 0. If µ̃i = µi and σ̃i = σi then the black-box device
uses the correct model of the external world and makes optimal sequential decisions in the sense

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

23

0.2

0.3
0.25

0.15

0.2

0.1

0.15
0.1

0.05
0
0

0.05
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(a) Optimal decision-making: black-box decision device uses

(b) Sub-optimal decision-making: black-box decision device

the correct model of the external world

uses the wrong model of the external world

Fig. 2. Illustration of Theorem 3 using the observation model given by (66) and the decision model given by (67) to (69). The
distributions of the observation process corresponding to the two hypotheses are Gaussian with parameters (µ1 , σ1 ) = (0, 5)
and (µ2 , σ2 ) = (1, 10), respectively. The decision model has threshold values L1 = 4 and L2 = −2 and parameters: (a)
(µ̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (µ1 , σ1 ) and (µ̃2 , σ̃2 ) = (µ2 , σ2 ), (b) (µ̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (µ1 , σ1 ) and (µ̃2 , σ̃2 ) = (5, σ2 ). The empirical error probabilities
are in (a) α1 = 0.041 and α2 = 0.0133 and (b) α1 = 0.0335 and α2 = 0.0506. Distributions are estimated using 1e + 6
simulation runs.

of minimizing the decision time (see Definition 1) since T = TWald and D = DWald . Corollary 4
implies that for these parameter values the black-box device makes also optimal sequential
decisions in the sense of information usage (see Definition 2). If additionally L1 = −L2 , then
α1 = α2 = α.
We now study the decision time distributions to illustrate Theorem 3 using numerical simulations. In Fig. 2 we present the estimated decision time distributions for optimal and suboptimal sequential decision-making. Consistent with Theorem 3 the estimates of the distributions
P̂ (T = k|H = 2, D = a) and P̂ (T = k|H = 1, D = a) (a ∈ {1, 2}) overlap if the black-box
decision device performs the Wald test and if condition (55) is approximately fulfilled as shown
in Fig. 2(a). If the black-box decision device is suboptimal, as is the case in Fig. 2(b), then
these two distributions are different. Moreover, since (55) is only approximately fulfilled, the
theoretical distributions P (T = k|H = 2, D = a) and P (T = k|H = 1, D = a) (a ∈ {1, 2})
corresponding to the estimates shown in Fig. 2(a) are also different. This example illustrates the
value of Theorem 3 to quantify optimality for practical purposes in discrete time.
In Fig. 3 we use the statistical test for optimality described in Section V-B1. We plot the

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

24

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

0
-4

(a) Two sample χ2 -test of (56) for D = 1

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

(b) Two sample χ2 -test of (57) for D = 2

Fig. 3. Illustration of testing optimality for discrete-time observations and for known hypotheses as described in Section V-B1.
Numerical results presented are for the observation model given by (66) and the decision model of the black box given by
(67) to (69). The observation process has parameters σ1 = 5, (µ2 , σ2 ) = (1, 10) and the values of µ1 are given in the
legend. The decision model of the black-box decision device has threshold values L1 = 4 and L2 = −2 and parameters
(µ̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (µ1 , σ1 ), σ̃2 = σ2 and with µ̃2 as given by the abscissa. We plot the p-values for the null hypothesis that (a)
pT (T|D = 1, H = 1) = pT (T|D = 1, H = 2) (b) pT (T|D = 2, H = 1) = pT (T|D = 2, H = 2). The estimates of the p-values
are average values over 1e + 4 two-sample χ2 -tests; each two-sample χ2 -tests evaluates a p-value over a population of 1e + 5
outcomes of the black-box decision device. We took P (H = 1) = P (H = 2) = 1/2, and a maximum observation window of
10 observations, i.e., all outcomes with more than 10 observations are discarded.
0.15
0.001
0.1
0.0001
0.05
1e-05
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

(a) Divergence to optimality in information usage

4

0
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

(b) Divergence to optimality in average decision times

Fig. 4. Estimating the divergence to optimality in the sense of Definitions 1 and 2, using the observation model given by (66)
and the decision model of the black box given by (67) to (69). The parameters of the observation process and of the decision
model are the same as in Fig. 3. Fig. 4(b) shows the estimate of the average decision time of the black-box decision device
divided by the estimate of the average decision time of a Wald test (µ2 = µ̃2 ), with the same error probabilities as achieved by
the black-box decision device, minus one; therefore each Wald test has different values of the thresholds L1 and L2 depending
on µ̃2 . In Fig. 4(a) each sample point is calculated using 1e + 9 simulation runs, and in Fig. 4(b) using 1e + 8 simulation runs.
We took P (H = 1) = P (H = 2) = 1/2.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

25

2

2

test
test
corresponding to, respectively, a two-sample χ2 -test
and pχD=2
estimates of the p-values pχD=1

of the subsets A1,1 and A2,1 , see Fig. 3(a), and a two-sample χ2 -test of the subsets A1,2 and A2,2 ,
see Fig. 3(b). These p-values denote the probability to falsely reject the null hypothesis that the
samples in the two data sets are drawn from the same decision time distribution. Therefore, for
example in the case of µ1 = −2 and D = 1 we can safely reject the null hypothesis for values
of µ˜2 > 3 since the p-value is small. For values of µ˜2 ∈ [−4, 3] we need more data to safely
reject the hypothesis that the test is optimal.
2) Measuring divergence to optimality of black-box decision devices: With the same example
as in Fig. 3 we illustrate how to use Corollary 4 to estimate the divergence of a black-box decision
device to the optimal case given by Definition 2. Note that in the example of Fig. 3 condition (55)
is only approximately fulfilled, and therefore we only expect (59) to be approximately fulfilled.
In Fig. 4(a) we present the numerical estimates of I (H; T|, D). In accordance with Corollary 4,
if the test is optimal, i.e., the black-box decision device uses a Wald test, than the estimate of the
mutual information I (H; T|, D) is minimal and approaches zero. In the example of Fig. 4(a) this
happens at µ̃2 = 1. For this case also the mean decision time is minimized as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Note that Corollary 4 is not a sufficient condition to test optimality with respect to Definition 1,
i.e., to test whether the black-box decision device achieves the minimum mean decision time, as
is illustrated by Fig. 4(a) where we observe a second minimum for the estimate of I (H; T|, D).
However, for this second minimum the black-box decision device is optimal with respect to
Definition 2, which is not related to a minimum mean decision time as illustrated in Fig. 4(b).
Note that the estimation of I (H; T|, D) in Fig. 4(a) requires only knowledge of the output of the
decision device whereas the estimation of the minimum mean decision time E [TWald ] requires
knowledge on the statistics of the observation process, which in practical applications is often
unavailable.
3) Testing optimality in case of unknown hypotheses: In this section now we consider testing
optimality in case of unknown hypotheses based on Theorem 4. However, the example given by
(66) to (69) is not suitable to discuss Theorem 4. The reason is that the cumulative log-likelihood
ratio process S̃k becomes a drift-diffusion process in the continuous limit independent of the
choice of µ̃i and σ̃i , for which it is known that the two-boundary first-passage time distribution
with symmetric thresholds satisfies the fluctuation relation [11]. Therefore, the estimates of the
distributions P̂ (T = k|H = a, D = 1) and P̂ (T = k|H = a, D = 2) (a ∈ {1, 2}) always overlap
(data not shown).

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

26

0.02

0.05
0.04

0.015

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.005

0.01

0
0

100

50

150

200

0
0

50

100

150

200

(a) Optimal decision-making: black-box decision device uses

(b) Sub-optimal decision-making: black-box decision device

the correct model of the external world

uses the wrong model of the external world

Fig. 5. Illustration of Theorem 4 using the observation model given by (70) and the decision model given by (71), (68), and
(69). The distributions of the observation process corresponding to the two hypotheses are with parameters v1 = −v2 = 1,
w1 = w2 = −1, σ1 = σ2 = 5, respectively. The decision model has threshold values L1 = 4 and L2 = −4 and uses the
parameters: (a) (ṽ1 , w̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (v1 , w1 , σ1 ) and (ṽ2 , w̃2 , σ̃2 ) = (v2 , w2 , σ2 ), (b) (ṽ1 , w̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (v1 , w1 , σ1 ) and (ṽ2 , w̃2 , σ̃2 ) =
(v2 , −0.5, σ2 ). The empirical error probabilities are in (a) α1 = 0.014 and α2 = 0.014 and (b) α1 = 0.0092 and α2 = 0.6932.
The distributions are estimated using 1e + 7 simulation runs.

Therefore, we choose a different example to illustrate the value of Theorem 4. We consider
Markovian observation processes X = (X1 , X2 , . . . , Xk ) drawn from one of two probability
distributions
k
 Y
pXk1 xk1 |H = h =
pX2 (xn |H = h, X1 = xn−1 )

(70)

n=1

with X0 = 0 and h ∈ {1, 2}. In our example the densities pX2 (·|H = h, X1 = xn−1 ) are Gaussian
with mean µh (X1 ) = vh + (wh + 1) X1 and variance σh2 with h ∈ {1, 2}, corresponding to the
two hypotheses H = h. If v1 = −v2 , w1 = w2 and σ1 = σ2 , then the involution property (28)
holds, such that Theorem 4 can be applied.
We consider again a class of black-box decision devices which use the Wald sequential
probability ratio test based on its model of the external world. The black-box decision devices
compute the cumulative log-likelihood ratio based on parameters ṽh , w̃h and σ̃h2 (with h ∈ {1, 2}),
i.e.,
S̃k =

k
X
n=1

January 8, 2018


log

pX2 |H,X1 (Xn |H = 1, Xn−1 )
pX2 |H,X1 (Xn |H = 2, Xn−1 )



DRAFT

27

k

σ̃2 X
+
= k log
σ̃1 n=1



(Xn − Xn−1 − ṽ2 − w̃2 Xn−1 )2 (Xn − Xn−1 − ṽ1 − w̃1 Xn−1 )2
−
2σ̃22
2σ̃12


.
(71)

The decision time T and the decision variable D are still given by (68) and (69) with the two
thresholds L1 > 0 and L2 < 0.
We now illustrate Theorem 4 using numerical simulations. In Fig. 5 we illustrate Theorem 4 for
optimal and suboptimal sequential decision-making with symmetric thresholds L1 = −L2 = 4
and for v1 = −v2 = 1, w1 = w2 = −1, σ1 = σ2 = 5 such that the involution property (28) holds.
Consistent with Theorem 4 the distributions P̂ (T = k|H = h, D = 1) and P̂ (T = k|H = h, D =
2) (h ∈ {1, 2}) overlap if the black-box decision device performs the Wald test, and is thus
optimal, and if (55) approximately applies. If the black-box decision device is suboptimal, as is
the case in Fig. 5(b), then these two distributions may be different. Note that since Theorem 3
also applies, all distributions in Fig. 5(a) overlap.
4) Overshoot problem: Due to the overshoot problem for discrete-time observation processes
in general the condition given by (55) is violated. Therefore, even in the case of the Wald
test I(H; TWald |DWald ) is in general larger than zero. In the present section, we discuss how
far I(H; TWald |DWald ) deviates from zero in practical situations. We also discuss how far the
condition imposed by (55) is fulfilled in our numerical examples.
For this purpose, we first estimate I(H; TWald |DWald ) as a function of the threshold values and
the number of test runs. In Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b) it can be seen that for the Wald test the estimate
of I(H; TWald |DWald ) saturates with an increasing number of test runs at a non-zero value, and
therefore I(H; TWald |DWald ) > 0. This is an intrinsic aspect of sequential decision-making with
discrete observation processes and cannot be avoided. For small values of λ, which parameterizes
the threshold values, we see ripples in the mutual information. The minima occur approximately
at integer multiples of the most likely value of the increase of the cumulative log-likelihood ratio
Sk . For example, in Fig. 6(b) we illustrate how the estimate of the mutual information converges
to its asymptotic value for λ = 0.16 and λ = 0.36, corresponding to the first maximum and
the third minimum in Fig. 6(b). For large values of λ, i.e., when the distance of the thresholds
to the origin is large with respect to the typical increase of the cumulative log-likelihood ratio,
the mutual information I(H; TWald |DWald ) decreases as a function of λ. Even for large values
of λ, the estimate of the mutual information I(H; TWald |DWald ) does not converge to zero as a

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

28

function of the number of test runs but saturates, as the condition in (55) is not fulfilled. This
is illustrated in Fig. 6(b) for the values λ = 1 and λ = 3.
The fact that I(H; TWald |DWald ) is larger than zero indicates that here the condition given by


(55) is not fulfilled. To show this, in Fig. 6(c) we plot E eM1 |Φ1 (k), H = 2 as a function of
time k.
In conclusion, Corollary 4 is applicable to test optimality of the black-box decision device
if condition (55) is approximately fulfilled, which is the case when the threshold values of the
Wald test are far enough from the origin in comparison to the average increase of the cumulative
log-likelihood ratio per observation.
B. Continuous observation processes
In this section we illustrate Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 for continuous observation processes.
The decision model we study here is a drift diffusion process and has been used to describe
reaction-time distributions of two-choice decision tasks of human subjects [19], [20].
1) Observation model and decision model: We consider an observation process Xt which is
an Itô-process solving the stochastic differential equation
dXt = µi dt + σ dWt

(72)

where µi is a constant drift, with i ∈ {1, 2} corresponding to the two hypotheses H = i, where
σ is a constant noise amplitude, and where X0 = 0. Here Wt is a standard Wiener process. If
µ1 = −µ2 then the involution property (28) holds.
We consider black-box decision devices which compute the continuous version of the cumulative log-likelihood ratio in the Wald sequential probability ratio test, cf. (67), which is given
by
µ̃1 − µ̃2
µ̃22 − µ̃21
+ Xt
.
2
2σ̃
σ̃ 2

(73)

T = inf{t ∈ R : S̃t ∈
/ (L2 , L1 )}

(74)

S̃t = t
The decision time of the model is

and the decision variable is given by

 1 if S̃ ≥ L
T
1
D=
 2 if S̃T ≤ L2

January 8, 2018

(75)

DRAFT

29

0.01

1e+6
1e+7
1e+8
1e+9
1e+10

0.0001

0.01
0.001
0.0001
1e-05

1e-06

1e-06

1e-08
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1e-07
10000

= 0.16
= 0.36
=1
=3

1e+06

1e+08

1e+10

ˆ TWald |DWald ) as a function of the distance
(a) Estimate I(H;

ˆ TWald |DWald ) over the
(b) Convergence of the estimate I(H;

parameter λ of the thresholds and for given values of the

number of test runs N and for given values of the distance

number of test runs N .

parameter λ of the thresholds.

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

5

10

15

20

(c) Evaluation of the condition (55) for the Wald test based on

plotting E eM1 |Φ1 (k), H = 2 over k (solid lines). Also the
corresponding P̂ (TWald = k|H = 2, DWald = 1) is shown

(dashed lines). It can be seen that E eM1 |Φ1 (k), H = 2 is
not independent of k such that (55) does not hold. Especially
for λ = 0.16, the value corresponding to the first maximum

in Fig. 6(a), E eM1 |Φ1 (k), H = 2 varies in the area with
the majority of the probability mass of the termination time
yielding a larger I(H; TWald |DWald ) than in the case of
λ = 0.36, the value corresponding to the third minimum in

Fig. 6(a), where E eM1 |Φ1 (k), H = 2 varies less over k.
Fig. 6. Illustration of the impact of discreteness of the observation process. As in Fig. 2, 3 and 4, we use the observation model
given by (66) with parameters (µ1 , σ1 ) = (0, 5) and (µ2 , σ2 ) = (1, 10). The decision model is the Wald test given by (67) to
(69) with parameters (µ̃1 , σ̃1 ) = (µ1 , σ1 ), (µ̃2 , σ̃2 ) = (µ2 , σ2 ), L1 = 4λ, L2 = −2λ.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

30

with the two thresholds L1 > 0 and L2 < 0.
Note that the cumulative log-likelihood ratio, in the case the hypothesis H = i is true, is the
following Itô process
dS̃t = ai dt +

√
2b dWt

(76)

with


µ̃1 − µ̃2
µ̃1 + µ̃2
ai =
−
+ µi ,
σ̃ 2
2

2
1
µ̃1 − µ̃2
b=
σ
.
2
σ̃ 2

i ∈ {1, 2}

(77)
(78)

The sequential decision-making device (T, D) has error probabilities
α1 = P (D = 1|H = 2) =
α2 = P (D = 2|H = 1) =

1−e
1−e
e

a1 L2
b

a2 L2
b

(79)

a2 (L2 −L1 )
b

−e

1−e

a1 (L2 −L1 )
b

a1 (L2 −L1 )
b

.

(80)

The values of a1 , a2 , b, L1 and L2 are chosen such that α1 , α2 ∈ [0, 1/2]. If µ̃1 = µ1 , µ̃2 = µ2
and σ̃ = σ, then S̃t = St and (T, D) = (Tdec , Ddec ) with error probabilities as given by (7) and
(8). Notice that the stochastic differential equation of St is of the form [21]

2
µ1 − µ2
(−1)i+1 µ1 − µ2
dWt , i ∈ {1, 2}
dt +
dSt =
2
σ
σ
√ Rt
and e−St = − 2b 0 e−St0 dWt0 is a Pi -martingale process. For the special case of

(81)

µ̃1 + µ̃2 = µ1 + µ2
(82)
2  µ̃1 −µ̃2 
we have S̃t = c St with c = σ̃σ
and hence (T, D) = (Tdec , Ddec ) with error probabiliµ1 −µ2
ties, α1 = (1 − eL2 /c )/(1 − e(L2 −L1 )/c ) and α2 = (eL2 /c − e(L2 −L1 )/c )/(1 − e(L2 −L1 )/c ). Thus, in
case (82) holds the black box decision device is optimal. Note that (82) implies that a1 = −a2 .
2) Illustration of Theorem 1: We consider now the special case of
|L2 |  b/|a1 |,

|L2 |  b/|a2 |

(83)

for which the expression of the distribution of decision times simplifies and allows analytical
evaluation.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

31

In the following we illustrate Theorem 1. The Laplace transform of the distributions of decision
times are known for arbitrary values of L1 and L2 [22]. If the conditions in (83) are fulfilled,
we get
(|a1 |t−L1 )2
L1
+ o(1)
pT (t|D = 1, H = 1) = √
e− 4bt
2 πb t3/2
(|a2 |t−L1 )2
L1
pT (t|D = 1, H = 2) = √
e− 4bt
+ o(1)
2 πb t3/2
(|a |t+L )2
1
1
− 1 4bt 2
√
pT (t|D = 2, H = 1) =
e
|a1 |
1 − e− b L1 πb t3/2


1
1
−L21 /(bt)−|L2 |L1 /(bt)
+ o(1)
×
|L2 | − (L1 + |L2 |)e
2
2
(|a |t+L )2
1
1
− 2 4bt 2
√
pT (t|D = 2, H = 2) =
e
|a2 |
1 − e− b L1 πb t3/2


1
1
−L21 /(bt)−|L2 |L1 /(bt)
×
|L2 | − (L1 + |L2 |)e
+ o(1)
2
2

(84)
(85)

(86)

(87)

where o denotes the little-o notation taken with respect to |L2 | going to infinity. The fluctuation
relations (17) and (18) hold for a1 = −a2 , and thus for µ̃1 + µ̃2 = µ1 +µ2 . This is consistent with
Theorem 1 which states that the fluctuation relation must hold whenever (T, D) = (Tdec , Ddec ).
3) Optimality in mean decision times: With this example we can also verify optimality of
sequential hypothesis testing in the sense of Definition 1. The mean decision times are given by

L1
+ O |L2 |e|a1 |L2 /b
E [T|D = 1, H = 1] =
(88)
|a1 |

L1
+ O |L2 |e|a2 |L2 /b
E [T|D = 1, H = 2] =
(89)
|a2 |



e−(|a1 |/b)L1
1
|a1 |L2 /b
E [T|D = 2, H = 1] =
|L2 | − 2L1
+
O
|L
|e
(90)
2
|a1 |
1 − e−(|a1 |/b)L1



1
e−(|a2 |/b)L1
−a2 L2 /b
|L2 | − 2L1
+
O
|L
(91)
E [T|D = 2, H = 2] =
2 |e
−(|a
|/b)L
1
|a2 |
1−e 2
where O denotes the big-O notation. The corresponding values of the average decision times of
the Wald test yielding the same error probabilities α1 and α2 as (T, D) are

2

σ
1 − α2
E [Tdec |D = 1, H = 1] = E [Tdec |D = 1, H = 2] = 2
log
+ O |L2 |eL2 .
µ1 − µ2
α1
(92)
It can be shown that for L2 → −∞ we have E [T|D = 1, H = 1] − E [Tdec |D = 1, H = 1] ≥ 0,
which is consistent with the optimality of the sequential probability ratio test in the sense of
minimal decision times.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

32

0.05

1

0.04

0.8

0.03

0.6

0.02

0.4

0.01

0.2

0
0

1

0.5

1.5

2

(a) Divergence to optimality in information usage; note that

0
0

0.5

1

2

1.5

(b) Divergence to optimality in average decision times

the black solid line and the green dotted line overlap.
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1e-05
1e-06
1000

10000

1e+05

1e+06 1e+07
number of runs

1e+08

1e+09

(c) Empirical estimate of the mutual information as a function
of the number of test runs
Fig. 7. Measuring the divergence to optimality in the sense of Definitions 1 and 2 using the continuous observation process (72)
and the decision-making model (73) - (75) . The parameters defining the observation process are µ1 = 0, µ2 = 1 and σ = 5
q
µ̃2
log α1
and the parameters defining the decision-making device are µ̃1 = 0, L1 = 4, α1 = 0.01, σ̃ = σ 2 2µ2µ̃−1 −
and µ̃2
µ̃1 −µ̃2 L1
as given on the abscissa. The range of µ̃2 plotted corresponds with σ̃ ≥ 0. (a): Theoretical value of the mutual information
I(H; N|D) as given by (94) for given values of the time resolution Tr in the legend. (b): Theoretical values of the mean decision
ˆ N|D) as a function of the number of test runs, for given values of
time as given by (88) - (92). (c): Empirical estimate I(H;
µ̃2 and for Tr = E [Tdec |H = 1]. The corresponding theoretical value of the mutual information is indicated by the horizontal
dashed lines. Note that we have generated variates of the random variables (T, H, D) according to the distributions (79) - (80),
(84) - (87), and P (H = 1) = P (H = 2) = 1/2; we have generated variates from the inverse Gaussian distribution with the
algorithm in [23].

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

33

4) Illustration of Corollary 1: We can also compute the mutual information in the limit
L2 → −∞, which is for P (H = 1) = P (H = 2) = 1/2 given by
I (H; T|D) =

1 + α1
log2 (1 + α1 )
2


Z ∞
(|a |t−L )2
(|a |t−L )2
(|a |t−L )2
L1
−3/2 − 1 4bt 1
− 2 4bt 1 + 1 4bt 1
dt t
e
log2 1 + α1 e
− √
4 πb 0


Z
(|a |t−L )2
(|a2 |t−L1 )2
(|a1 |t−L1 )2
α1 L1 ∞
−3/2 − 2 4bt 1
−
4bt
dt t
e
log2 α1 + e 4bt
(93)
− √
4 πb 0

with α1 = ea2 L1 /b following from (79) and α1 ∈ [0, 1/2]. If |a2 | = |a1 |, then (93) yields
I (H; T|D) = 0, and otherwise I (H; T|D) > 0. In Fig. 7(a) with the black solid line we
q
log α1
1 −µ̃2
illustrate I (H; T|D) as a function µ̃2 for values of σ̃ = σ 2 2µ2µ̃−µ̃
such that the error
1 −µ̃2 L1
probability is fixed and we choose α1 = 0.01. The mutual information is zero for µ̃2 = µ2 = 1,
corresponding to a2 = −a1 and (T, D) = (Tdec , Ddec ). In Fig. 7(b) we can easily observe the
optimality of the test for µ̃2 = µ2 = 1 where the decision time takes its minimal value given
by E [Tdec |Ddec = 1, H = 1]. Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 7(b) illustrate the advantage of using mutual
information as a measure for testing optimality with respect to the average decision time. The
mutual information is a useful quantity since I(H; T|D) = 0 at the optimal point, whereas the
average decision time E[T|H] = E[Tdec |H], and hence we require knowledge of E[Tdec |H] to test
optimality using decision times.
5) Practical implementation of tests for optimality of continuous observation processes:
Implementation of our tests for optimality in a computer does not allow to directly treat the
absolutely continuous random variable T. Moreover as any practical time measurement device
has a finite time resolution, we are only able to retrieve T up to a finite quantization resolution.
Thus, we discuss here how far finite resolution of T influences our tests for optimality. Note that
we still consider that the decision device operates in continuous time and also that the observation
process is continuous. Measuring the decision times T under a finite resolution Tr is equivalent
R nTr
to discretizing the distributions (84) - (87) such that P (N = n|D, H) = (n−1)T
dtpT (t|D, H)
r
with N ∈ N being a discrete random variable. Corresponding to (93) the mutual information
I (H; N|D) can be expressed by
1 + α1
log2 (1 + α1 )
2

R nTr
!
∞ Z nTr
2
X
(n−1)Tr
L1
dt
(|a1 |t − L1 )
− √
exp −
log2 1 + α1 R nT
3/2
r
4bt
4 πb n=1 (n−1)Tr t

I (H; N|D) =

dt
t3/2

dt
(n−1)Tr t3/2

January 8, 2018



(|a2 |t−L1 )2
exp − 4bt


(|a1 |t−L1 )2
exp − 4bt

DRAFT

34

α1 L1
− √
4 πb

∞
X
n=1

Z

nTr

(n−1)Tr

2

dt
(|a2 |t − L1 )
exp −
3/2
t
4bt

!



R nTr

dt

(n−1)Tr t3/2

log2 α1 + R nT
r

dt
(n−1)Tr t3/2



(|a1 |t−L1 )2
exp − 4bt

 .
(|a2 |t−L1 )2
exp − 4bt
(94)

Fig. 7(a) illustrates the impact of the discretization time Tr on I (H; N|D). Note that for a1 = −a2 ,
corresponding to µ̃2 = 1, the mutual information I (H; N|D) = 0 for any value of Tr , since
by the data processing inequality time discretization of T can just discard information [24,
Theorem 2.8.1]. However, for a1 6= −a2 , corresponding to µ̃2 6= 1, the mutual information might
significantly decrease because of discarding information by time discretization. Fig. 7(a) shows
that for Tr ∼ 0.1 E [Tdec |H = 1] the mutual information I (H; N|D) ≈ I (H; T|D) and the effect
of finite resolution is negligible.
Direct implementation of our tests for optimality also requires to deal with a finite number
of runs of the test. In Fig. 7(c) we evaluate the dependency of the estimate Iˆ (H; N|D) on the
number of runs of the test for suboptimal tests (µ̃2 = 0.5, µ̃2 = 1.5) and an optimal test
(µ̃2 = 1). The estimate of the mutual information decreases with the number of test runs, and
for suboptimal tests converges to a theoretical value which is larger than zero. For an optimal
sequential decision-making test, the estimate of the mutual information converges to zero. Note
that this is contrary to the case of discrete-time observation processes, as illustrated in Fig. 6(b),
where the estimate of the mutual information, even in the optimal case, saturates as a function
of the number of test runs and converges to a positive value.
VII. D ISCUSSION
In the present paper we have shown that optimality of black box decision devices can be
tested by studying decision time distributions given the knowledge of the actual hypothesis and
the decision variable. To obtain these results we have shown that decisions times of binary
sequential probability ratio tests of continuous observation processes satisfy fluctuation relations
given by Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. Based on these fluctuation relations we have shown
that the conditional mutual information I(H, Tdec |Ddec ) between the hypothesis H, the decision
time Tdec conditioned on the decision variable Ddec is equal to zero, see Corollary 1. Using
several numerical experiments we have illustrated our statistical tests. We have also discussed
the limitations of our tests for sequential decision-making based on discrete-time observations.
Applying our tests for optimality has several advantageous properties. Testing the necessary
conditions given by Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 requires knowledge about three random variables,

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

35

namely, the hypothesis H, the decision variable D, and the output time of the decision device
T + Tdelay . Note that we do not require direct measurements of the decision time T, but allow
for random or deterministic delay Tdelay in the output time, which needs to be statistically
independent of H conditioned on T and D. Remarkably, the statistics of the actual observation
process and the properties of the decision-making device, such as the allowed error probabilities
α1 and α2 , are not required. For these reasons our tests are well applicable under practical
experimental conditions. We now discuss a few practical examples.
Studies in cognitive psychology have measured the reaction time distributions in experiments
of two-choice decision tasks performed by human subjects about simple perceptual and cognitive
stimuli, see e.g. [19], [20]. For fast decisions – of the order of one second – distributions of
reaction times and error probabilities can be well described with a simple model for sequential
decision-making in continuous time [19], [20]. Neural activity associated with the actual decisionmaking process has been identified in experiments with rhesus monkeys trained to perform rapid
two-choice decisions in simple visual tasks [25], [26]. Interestingly, it was found that the firing
rates of neurons in the lateral intra-parietal area correlate with the cumulative evidence associated
with the hypothesis, and that a decision model based on a threshold crossing process describes
the decision-time data well [27]. Furthermore, it has been conjectured that the cortex and basal
ganglia, two brain regions in vertebrates, perform a multihypothesis sequential probability ratio
test [28], [29], which is optimal for small error probabilities [4], [8]. Theorem 1 and Corollary 1
may be used as tools to quantify the closeness to optimality of sequential decision making by
human subjects or monkeys in two-choice decision tasks. In this regard, note that experiments of
two-choice decision tasks performed by human subjects or monkeys allow to measure reaction
times, decision variables, and the actual realizations of the hypothesis, which are known by the
construction of the experiment.
Cell fate decisions are important changes of cell behavior in response to external signals.
Examples are cell division controlled by growth factors, programmed cell death due to signals
or the differentiation of pluripotent progenitor cell to a specific cell type as a result of biochemical
signals. Cellular signaling events that control cell fate can involve signaling molecules, such as,
hormones, growth factors, and cytokines [30], [31]. Because of intrinsic and extrinsic noise,
cellular signaling processes have a stochastic component. Cell-fate decisions can be considered
as an example of sequential decision-making based on a sequence of noisy input signals. An
example of how cells could implement sequential probability ratio tests with simple examples

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

36

of protein reaction networks has been given in [32]. Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 could be used
to investigate the degree of optimality of cell-fate decisions. The timing of cell-fate decisions
could be measured in experiments by monitoring the expression levels of fluorescently labelled
molecular markers associated with the cell-fate transition within clonal populations [30], [31].
Following at the same time the input signals could in principle permit to calculate the differences
of decision time distributions of correct and incorrect decisions.
As already stated with our introductory example on obstacle detection for autonomous cars,
sequential binary decision problems arise in many engineered systems. However, different to
the assumption made for the Wald test the statistics of the observation processes Pl (l = 1, 2)
are often unknown, corresponding to a nonparametric decision problem. One approach to tackle
such sequential decision problems is to apply neural networks in combination with reinforcement
learning [33]. The approach presented in [33] closely approximates the behavior of the optimal
sequential probability ratio test and achieves a similar performance. Alternatively, in [34] an
approach for nonparametric binary sequential hypothesis testing is presented, where the binary
sequential detector is learned form training samples based on a so-called Wald-Kernel. The aim
of these algorithms is to use the available measurements in an optimal way such that the average
time to take a decision is minimized. However, the behavior of algorithms like neural networks
[35], [36] can hardly be analyzed making them similar to a black-box decision device causing
the problem to verify their optimality which nevertheless is crucial for application in safety
critical systems like autonomous cars. This gap can be filled by out test for optimality based on
Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 allowing to determine the degree of optimality of these decisionmaking devices just requiring the actual hypothesis H, the decision variable D and the decision
time T of several test runs. This is especially important to determine, whether the learning
process already converged sufficiently.
So far our approach is limited to binary sequential probability ratio tests without prior knowledge on the hypotheses. Sequential probability ratio tests have been extended to a Bayesian
setting where prior knowledge on the hypothesis H is available [10, Ch. 6.2], and have also been
extended to the multihypothesis scenario. The extension of our results to these settings is for
further study.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

37

A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
Proof. We first show that the log-likelihood ratio St is odd under the transformation given by
the involution Θ. This can be shown as follows
eSt (Θ(ω)) =
=
=
=
=

dP1 |Ft
(Θ(ω))
dP2 |Ft
dP1 |Ft
(Θ(ω))
d(P1 ◦ Θ)|Ft
d(P1 ◦ Θ)|Ft
(ω)
d(P1 ◦ Θ ◦ Θ)|Ft
d(P1 ◦ Θ)|Ft
(ω)
dP1 |Ft
dP2 |Ft
(ω)
dP1 |Ft

= e−St (ω) .

(95)
(96)
(97)
(98)
(99)
(100)

Let
Φ1 (t) = {ω ∈ Ω : Tdec (ω) ≤ t and Ddec (ω) = 1}

(101)

Φ2 (t) = {ω ∈ Ω : Tdec (ω) ≤ t and Ddec (ω) = 2}

(102)

be the set of trajectories for which the decision time does not exceed t and the test decides for
Ddec = 1 and Ddec = 2, respectively. Since α1 = α2 we have also L1 = −L2 , and because of
the property St (Θ(ω)) = −St (ω), it follows that
Φ1 (t) = Θ (Φ2 (t)) .

(103)

P2 (Φ1 (t)) = (P1 ◦ Θ)(Φ1 (t))

(104)

Therefore, also

January 8, 2018

= P1 (Θ(Φ1 (t)))

(105)

= P1 (Φ2 (t)).

(106)

DRAFT

38

Now the following holds
Z
P1 (Φ1 (t)) =

dP1 |Ft

(107)

eSt dP2 |Ft

(108)

eSt d(P1 ◦ Θ)|Ft

(109)

ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ1 (t)

Z

eSt (Θ(ω)) dP1 |Ft

=

(110)

ω∈Θ(Φ1 (t))

Z
=

e−St dP1 |Ft

(111)

e−STdec dP1 |Ft

(112)

ω∈Φ2 (t)

Z
=
ω∈Φ2 (t)
−L2

Z
dP1 |Ft

=e

(113)

ω∈Φ2 (t)

= e−L2 P1 (Φ2 (t))

(114)

where for (108) we have used the Radon-Nikodým theorem and the definition in (12). For
equality (109) we have used the involution relation (28) between the measures. In (110) we have
applied a variable transformation in the integral. In (111) we have used the sign reversal of St
given by Eqs. (95) and (100) and the involution relation between the sets Φ2 (t) = Θ (Φ1 (t)).
In (112) we have applied Doob’s optional sampling theorem to the P1 -martingale e−St . For (113)
we have used that e−St is a continuous process and reaches the value e−L2 at the time Tdec .
The probability density functions of Tdec can be expressed in terms of the derivatives of the
cumulative distributions P(Φk (t)) (k = 1, 2)
d
P1 (Φ1 (t))
dt
d
= 2|H = 1) = P1 (Φ2 (t)).
dt

pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 1)P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) =

(115)

pTdec (t|H = 1, Ddec = 2)P (Ddec

(116)

For the ratio of the decision probabilities we find
P (Ddec = 1|H = 1)
1 − α2
1 − α1
=
=
= e−L2
P (Ddec = 2|H = 1)
α2
α2

(117)

P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) = lim P1 (Φ1 (t))

(118)

P (Ddec = 2|H = 1) = lim P1 (Φ2 (t)).

(119)

which follows from
t→∞

t→∞

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

39

Eq. (114), and the assumption that the test terminates almost surely. Notice that we have used
symmetric error probabilities for which α1 = α2 . Taking the derivative of the LHS of (107) and
the RHS of (114) and using Eq. (117) we prove Eq. (29). Analogously, Eq. (30) can be proved.
Equation (31) follows from the identities
pTdec (t|Ddec = d)
= pTdec (t|Ddec = d, H = 1)P (H = 1|Ddec = d) + pTdec (t|Ddec = d, H = 2)P (H = 2|Ddec = d)
= pTdec (t|Ddec = d, H = 1)P (H = 1|Ddec = d) + pTdec (t|Ddec = d, H = 1)P (H = 2|Ddec = d)
= pTdec (t|Ddec = d, H = 1)

(120)

with d ∈ {1, 2} and where we have used Theorem 1. Using (29) and (120) we find (31), which
completes the proof.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF C OROLLARY 3
Proof. The mutual information in (44) is given by
 

pTdec (Tdec |H)
I(H; Tdec ) = E log
pTdec (Tdec )

 
P (Ddec = 1)pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = 1) + P (Ddec = 2)pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = 2)
= E log
.
pTdec (Tdec )
(121)
We find
P (Ddec = 1|H = 1)P (H = 1) + P (Ddec = 1|H = 2)P (H = 2)
P (Ddec = 1)
=
P (Ddec = 2)
P (Ddec = 2|H = 1)P (H = 1) + P (Ddec = 2|H = 2)P (H = 2)
P (Ddec = 1|H = 1) P (H = 1) +
=
·
P (Ddec = 2|H = 1) P (H = 1) +
=

1 − α P (H = 1) +
·
α
P (H = 1) +

α
P (H
1−α
1−α
P (H
α

= 2)
= 2)

(1 − α)P (H = 1) + αP (H = 2)
αP (H = 1) + (1 − α)P (H = 2)
=1
=

P (Ddec =1|H=2)
P (H
P (Ddec =1|H=1)
P (Ddec =2|H=2)
P (H
P (Ddec =2|H=1)

(122)

= 2)
= 2)

(123)
(124)
(125)
(126)

where we have used that the priors on H are identical, and that α1 = α2 = α. For (124) we
have used (27) and (117). As Ddec is a binary random variable, it follows that P (Ddec = 1) =
P (Ddec = 2) = 12 .
January 8, 2018

DRAFT

40

It also holds that
pTdec (Tdec ) =

X

X

P (H = h)P (Ddec = d|H = h) pTdec (Tdec |H = h, Ddec = d)(127)

h∈{1,2} d∈{1,2}

=

X

X

P (H = h)P (Ddec = d|H = h) pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = d)

(128)

h∈{1,2} d∈{1,2}

= pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec )

X

X

P (H = h)P (Ddec = d|H = h)

(129)

h∈{1,2} d∈{1,2}

= pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec )

(130)

where in (128) we have used Theorem 1 and in (129) we have used Theorem 2.
Using (126) and (130) we get for the argument of the log in (121)
P (Ddec = 1)pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = 1) + P (Ddec = 2)pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = 2)
pTdec (Tdec )
pT (Tdec |H, Ddec = 1) + pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec = 2)
= dec
(131)
2 pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec )
pT (Tdec |H, Ddec )
= dec
(132)
pTdec (Tdec |H, Ddec )
=1
(133)
where we have applied again Theorem 2. This completes the proof.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We acknowledge Yannis Kalaidzidis, Mostafa Khalili-Marandi, and Marino Zerial for fruitful
discussions.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Dörpinghaus, É. Roldán, I. Neri, H. Meyr, and F. Jülicher, “An information theoretic analysis of sequential decisionmaking,” in Proc. of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Aachen, Germany, June 2017,
pp. 3050–3054.
[2] A. Wald, “Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses,” Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 117–186, June 1945.
[3] A. Wald and J. Wolfowitz, “Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test,” Ann. Math. Statist., pp. 326–339,
1948.
[4] A. Tartakovsky, I. Nikiforov, and M. Basseville, Sequential Analysis: Hypothesis Testing and Changepoint Detection, ser.
Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability.

CRC Press, 2014.

[5] T. L. Lai, “Asymptotic optimality of invariant sequential probability ratio tests,” The Annals of Statistics, pp. 318–333,
1981.
[6] A. Tartakovsky, “Asymptotically optimal sequential tests for nonhomogeneous processes,” Sequential analysis, vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 33–61, 1998.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

41

[7] A. G. Tartakovsky, “Asymptotic optimality of certain multihypothesis sequential tests: Non-iid case,” Statistical Inference
for Stochastic Processes, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 265–295, 1998.
[8] V. Draglia, A. G. Tartakovsky, and V. V. Veeravalli, “Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests. i. asymptotic
optimality,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 2448–2461, 1999.
[9] R. Liptser and A. Shiryaev, Statistics of Random Processes: I. General Theory, ser. Applications of mathematics : stochastic
modelling and applied Probability.

Springer, 2001.

[10] J. L. Melsa, D. L. Cohn et al., Decision and estimation theory.

McGraw-Hill, 1978.

[11] É. Roldán, I. Neri, M. Dörpinghaus, H. Meyr, and F. Jülicher, “Decision making in the arrow of time,” Physical Review
Letters, vol. 115, no. 25, p. 250602, 2015.
[12] I. Neri, E. Roldán, and F. Jülicher, “Statistics of infima and stopping times of entropy production and applications to active
molecular processes,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 7, p. 011019, Feb 2017.
[13] D. Williams, Probability with martingales.

Cambridge university press, 1991.

[14] W. C. Lindsey and H. Meyr, “Complete statistical description of the phase-error process generated by correlative tracking
systems,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 194–202, 1977.
[15] M. H. DeGroot and M. J. Schervish, Probability and statistics, 4th ed.

Addison-Wesley„ 2012.

[16] J. Beirlant, E. J. Dudewicz, L. Györfi, and E. C. Van der Meulen, “Nonparametric entropy estimation: An overview,”
International Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17–39, 1997.
[17] J. Jiao, K. Venkat, Y. Han, and T. Weissman, “Minimax estimation of functionals of discrete distributions,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2835–2885, 2015.
[18] A. W. van der Vaart, Asymptotic Statistics, 1st ed.

Cambridge University Press, 1998, vol. 3.

[19] R. Ratcliff and P. L. Smith, “A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time.” Psychological
review, vol. 111, no. 2, p. 333, 2004.
[20] R. Ratcliff and G. McKoon, “The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks,” Neural
computation, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 873–922, 2008.
[21] S. Pigolotti, I. Neri, E. Roldán, and F. Jülicher, “Generic properties of stochastic entropy production,” Phys. Rev. Lett.,
vol. 119, p. 140604, Oct 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.140604
[22] S. Redner, A guide to first-passage processes.

Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[23] J. R. Michael, W. R. Schucany, and R. W. Haas, “Generating random variates using transformations with multiple roots,”
The American Statistician, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 88–90, 1976.
[24] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edition.

New York: Wiley & Sons, 2006.

[25] M. N. Shadlen and W. T. Newsome, “Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area lip) of the rhesus
monkey,” Journal of neurophysiology, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 1916–1936, 2001.
[26] J. D. Roitman and M. N. Shadlen, “Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual
discrimination reaction time task,” Journal of neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 21, pp. 9475–9489, 2002.
[27] S. Kira, T. Yang, and M. N. Shadlen, “A neural implementation of Wald’s sequential probability ratio test,” Neuron, vol. 85,
no. 4, pp. 861–873, 2015.
[28] R. Bogacz and K. Gurney, “The basal ganglia and cortex implement optimal decision making between alternative actions,”
Neural computation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 442–477, 2007.
[29] R. Bogacz, “Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour,” Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 11,
no. 3, pp. 118–125, 2007.
[30] R. Losick and C. Desplan, “Stochasticity and cell fate,” science, vol. 320, no. 5872, pp. 65–68, 2008.

January 8, 2018

DRAFT

42

[31] A. Raj and A. van Oudenaarden, “Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences,” Cell, vol.
135, no. 2, pp. 216–226, 2008.
[32] E. D. Siggia and M. Vergassola, “Decisions on the fly in cellular sensory systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 39, pp. E3704–E3712, 2013.
[33] C. Guo and A. Kuh, “Temporal difference learning applied to sequential detection,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 278–287, Mar 1997.
[34] D. Teng and E. Ertin, “Learning to aggregate information for sequential inferences,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.07964,
2015.
[35] C. M. Bishop, Pattern recognition and machine learning.
[36] A. Engel, Statistical mechanics of learning.

January 8, 2018

Springer, 2006.

Cambridge University Press, 2001.

DRAFT

