AI Analytics Ui

AI Analytics Ui — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Plotting algorithms for the Mandelbrot set

  There are many programs and algorithms used to plot the Mandelbrot set and other fractals, some of which are described in fractal-generating software. These programs use a variety of algorithms to determine the color of individual pixels efficiently. == Escape time algorithm == The simplest algorithm for generating a representation of the Mandelbrot set is known as the "escape time" algorithm. A repeating calculation is performed for each x, y point in the plot area and based on the behavior of that calculation, a color is chosen for that pixel. === Unoptimized naïve escape time algorithm === In both the unoptimized and optimized escape time algorithms, the x and y locations of each point are used as starting values in a repeating, or iterating calculation (described in detail below). The result of each iteration is used as the starting values for the next. The values are checked during each iteration to see whether they have reached a critical "escape" condition, or "bailout". If that condition is reached, the calculation is stopped, the pixel is drawn, and the next x, y point is examined. For some starting values, escape occurs quickly, after only a small number of iterations. For starting values very close to but not in the set, it may take hundreds or thousands of iterations to escape. For values within the Mandelbrot set, escape will never occur. The programmer or user must choose how many iterations–or how much "depth"–they wish to examine. The higher the maximal number of iterations, the more detail and subtlety emerge in the final image, but the longer time it will take to calculate the fractal image. Escape conditions can be simple or complex. Because no complex number with a real or imaginary part greater than 2 can be part of the set, a common bailout is to escape when either coefficient exceeds 2. A more computationally complex method that detects escapes sooner, is to compute distance from the origin using the Pythagorean theorem, i.e., to determine the absolute value, or modulus, of the complex number. If this value exceeds 2, or equivalently, when the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts exceed 4, the point has reached escape. More computationally intensive rendering variations include the Buddhabrot method, which finds escaping points and plots their iterated coordinates. The color of each point represents how quickly the values reached the escape point. Often black is used to show values that fail to escape before the iteration limit, and gradually brighter colors are used for points that escape. This gives a visual representation of how many cycles were required before reaching the escape condition. To render such an image, the region of the complex plane we are considering is subdivided into a certain number of pixels. To color any such pixel, let c {\displaystyle c} be the midpoint of that pixel. We now iterate the critical point 0 under P c {\displaystyle P_{c}} , checking at each step whether the orbit point has modulus larger than 2. When this is the case, we know that c {\displaystyle c} does not belong to the Mandelbrot set, and we color our pixel according to the number of iterations used to find out. Otherwise, we keep iterating up to a fixed number of steps, after which we decide that our parameter is "probably" in the Mandelbrot set, or at least very close to it, and color the pixel black. In pseudocode, this algorithm would look as follows. The algorithm does not use complex numbers and manually simulates complex-number operations using two real numbers, for those who do not have a complex data type. The program may be simplified if the programming language includes complex-data-type operations. for each pixel (Px, Py) on the screen do x0 := scaled x coordinate of pixel (scaled to lie in the Mandelbrot X scale (-2.00, 0.47)) y0 := scaled y coordinate of pixel (scaled to lie in the Mandelbrot Y scale (-1.12, 1.12)) x := 0.0 y := 0.0 iteration := 0 max_iteration := 1000 while (xx + yy ≤ 22 AND iteration < max_iteration) do xtemp := xx - yy + x0 y := 2xy + y0 x := xtemp iteration := iteration + 1 color := palette[iteration] plot(Px, Py, color) Here, relating the pseudocode to c {\displaystyle c} , z {\displaystyle z} and P c {\displaystyle P_{c}} : z = x + i y {\displaystyle z=x+iy\ } z 2 = x 2 + 2 i x y {\displaystyle z^{2}=x^{2}+2ixy} - y 2 {\displaystyle y^{2}\ } c = x 0 + i y 0 {\displaystyle c=x_{0}+iy_{0}\ } and so, as can be seen in the pseudocode in the computation of x and y: x = R e ⁡ ( z 2 + c ) = x 2 − y 2 + x 0 {\displaystyle x=\mathop {\mathrm {Re} } (z^{2}+c)=x^{2}-y^{2}+x_{0}} and y = I m ⁡ ( z 2 + c ) = 2 x y + y 0 . {\displaystyle y=\mathop {\mathrm {Im} } (z^{2}+c)=2xy+y_{0}.\ } To get colorful images of the set, the assignment of a color to each value of the number of executed iterations can be made using one of a variety of functions (linear, exponential, etc.). One practical way, without slowing down calculations, is to use the number of executed iterations as an entry to a palette initialized at startup. If the color table has, for instance, 500 entries, then the color selection is n mod 500, where n is the number of iterations. === Optimized escape time algorithms === The code in the previous section uses an unoptimized inner while loop for clarity. In the unoptimized version, one must perform five multiplications per iteration. To reduce the number of multiplications the following code for the inner while loop may be used instead: x2:= 0 y2:= 0 w:= 0 while (x2 + y2 ≤ 4 and iteration < max_iteration) do x:= x2 - y2 + x0 y:= w - x2 - y2 + y0 x2:= x x y2:= y y w:= (x + y) (x + y) iteration:= iteration + 1 The above code works via some algebraic simplification of the complex multiplication: ( i y + x ) 2 = − y 2 + 2 i y x + x 2 = x 2 − y 2 + 2 i y x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(iy+x)^{2}&=-y^{2}+2iyx+x^{2}\\&=x^{2}-y^{2}+2iyx\end{aligned}}} Using the above identity, the number of multiplications can be reduced to three instead of five. The above inner while loop can be further optimized by expanding w to w = x 2 + 2 x y + y 2 {\displaystyle w=x^{2}+2xy+y^{2}} Substituting w into y = w − x 2 − y 2 + y 0 {\displaystyle y=w-x^{2}-y^{2}+y_{0}} yields y = 2 x y + y 0 {\displaystyle y=2xy+y_{0}} and hence calculating w is no longer needed. The further optimized pseudocode for the above is: x:= 0 y:= 0 x2:= 0 y2:= 0 while (x2 + y2 ≤ 4 and iteration < max_iteration) do x2:= x x y2:= y y y:= 2 x y + y0 x:= x2 - y2 + x0 iteration:= iteration + 1 Note that in the above pseudocode, 2 x y {\displaystyle 2xy} seems to increase the number of multiplications by 1, but since 2 is the multiplier the code can be optimized via ( x + x ) y {\displaystyle (x+x)y} . == Coloring algorithms == In addition to plotting the set, a variety of algorithms have been developed to efficiently color the set in an aesthetically pleasing way show structures of the data (scientific visualisation) === Histogram coloring === A more complex coloring method involves using a histogram which pairs each pixel with said pixel's maximum iteration count before escape/bailout. This method will equally distribute colors to the same overall area, and, importantly, is independent of the maximum number of iterations chosen. This algorithm has four passes. The first pass involves calculating the iteration counts associated with each pixel (but without any pixels being plotted). These are stored in an array IterationCounts[x][y], where x and y are the x and y coordinates of said pixel on the screen respectively. The first step of the second pass is to create an array NumIterationsPerPixel[n], where the array size n is the maximum iteration count. Next, one must iterate over the array of pixel-iteration count pairs IterationCounts[x][y], and retrieve each pixel's saved iteration count, i, via e.g. i = IterationCounts[x][y]. After each pixel's iteration count i is retrieved, it is necessary to index the NumIterationsPerPixel array at i and increment the indexed value (which is initially zero) -- e.g. NumIterationsPerPixel[i] = NumIterationsPerPixel[i] + 1. for (x = 0; x < width; x++) do for (y = 0; y < height; y++) do i:= IterationCounts[x][y] NumIterationsPerPixel[i]++ The third pass iterates through the NumIterationsPerPixel array and adds up all the stored values, saving them in total. The array index represents the number of pixels that reached that iteration count before bailout. total: = 0 for (i = 0; i < max_iterations; i++) do total += NumIterationsPerPixel[i] After this, the fourth pass begins and all the values in the IterationCounts array are indexed, and, for each iteration count i, associated with each pixel, the count is added to a global sum of all the iteration counts from 1 to i in the NumIterationsPerPixel array . This value is then normalized by dividing the sum by the total value computed earlier. hue[][]:= 0.0 for (x = 0; x < width; x++) do for (y = 0; y < height; y++) do iteration:= Iteration

  Read more →
• 

  Scale-invariant feature operator

  In the fields of computer vision and image analysis, the scale-invariant feature operator (or SFOP) is an algorithm to detect local features in images. The algorithm was published by Förstner et al. in 2009. == Algorithm == The scale-invariant feature operator (SFOP) is based on two theoretical concepts: spiral model feature operator Desired properties of keypoint detectors: Invariance and repeatability for object recognition Accuracy to support camera calibration Interpretability: Especially corners and circles, should be part of the detected keypoints (see figure). As few control parameters as possible with clear semantics Complementarity to known detectors scale-invariant corner/circle detector. == Theory == === Maximize the weight === Maximize the weight w {\displaystyle w} = 1/variance of a point p {\displaystyle p} w ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ( N ( σ ) − 2 ) λ m i n ( M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ) Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) {\displaystyle w(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )=\left(N(\sigma )-2\right){\frac {\lambda _{min}(M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma ))}{\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )}}} comprising: 1. the image model Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ∑ n = 1 N ( σ ) [ ( q n − p ) T R α ∇ T g ( q n ) ] 2 G σ ( q n − p ) = N ( σ ) t r { R α ∇ τ ∇ τ T R α T ∗ p p T G σ ( p ) } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )&=\sum _{n=1}^{N(\sigma )}[(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )^{T}\mathbf {R} _{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{T}g(\mathbf {q} _{n})]^{2}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )\\&=N(\sigma )\mathbf {tr} \left\{R_{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }^{T}R_{\alpha }^{T}\mathbf {p} \mathbf {p} ^{T}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )\right\}\end{aligned}}} 2. the smaller eigenvalue of the structure tensor M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ⏟ structure tensor = G σ ( p ) ⏟ weighted summation ∗ ( R σ ∇ τ ∇ τ T R σ T ) ⏟ squared rotated gradients {\displaystyle \underbrace {M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )} _{\text{structure tensor}}=\underbrace {G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )} _{\text{weighted summation}}\underbrace {(R_{\sigma }\nabla _{\tau }\nabla _{\tau }^{T}R_{\sigma }^{T})} _{\text{squared rotated gradients}}} === Reduce the search space === Reduce the 5-dimensional search space by linking the differentiation scale τ {\displaystyle \tau } to the integration scale τ = σ / 3 {\displaystyle \tau =\sigma /3} solving for the optimal α ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\alpha }}} using the model Ω ( α ) = a − b cos ⁡ ( 2 α − 2 α 0 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (\alpha )=a-b\cos(2\alpha -2\alpha _{0})} and determining the parameters from three angles, e. g. Ω ( 0 ∘ ) , Ω ( 60 ∘ ) , Ω ( 120 ∘ ) → a , b , α 0 → α ^ {\displaystyle \Omega (0^{\circ }),\Omega (60^{\circ }),\Omega (120^{\circ })\quad \rightarrow \quad a,b,\alpha _{0}\quad \rightarrow \quad {\hat {\alpha }}} pre-selection possible: α = 0 ∘ → junctions , α = 90 ∘ → circular features {\displaystyle \alpha =0^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{junctions}},\quad \alpha =90^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{circular features}}} === Filter potential keypoints === non-maxima suppression over scale, space and angle thresholding the isotropy λ 2 ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{2(M)}} :eigenvalues characterize the shape of the keypoint, smallest eigenvalue has to be larger than threshold T λ {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }} derived from noise variance V ( n ) {\displaystyle V(n)} and significance level S {\displaystyle S} : T λ ( V ( n ) , τ , σ , S ) = N ( σ ) 16 π τ 4 V ( n ) χ 2 , S 2 {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }(V(n),\tau ,\sigma ,S)={\frac {N(\sigma )}{16\pi \tau ^{4}}}V(n)\chi _{2,S}^{2}} == Algorithm == == Results == === Interpretability of SFOP keypoints ===

  Read more →
• 

  Sufficient dimension reduction

  In statistics, sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a paradigm for analyzing data that combines the ideas of dimension reduction with the concept of sufficiency. Dimension reduction has long been a primary goal of regression analysis. Given a response variable y and a p-dimensional predictor vector x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , regression analysis aims to study the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the conditional distribution of y {\displaystyle y} given x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction is a function R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} that maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R k {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , k < p, thereby reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . For example, R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be one or more linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} is said to be sufficient if the distribution of y ∣ R ( x ) {\displaystyle y\mid R({\textbf {x}})} is the same as that of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, no information about the regression is lost in reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} if the reduction is sufficient. == Graphical motivation == In a regression setting, it is often useful to summarize the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} graphically. For instance, one may consider a scatterplot of y {\displaystyle y} versus one or more of the predictors or a linear combination of the predictors. A scatterplot that contains all available regression information is called a sufficient summary plot. When x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} is high-dimensional, particularly when p ≥ 3 {\displaystyle p\geq 3} , it becomes increasingly challenging to construct and visually interpret sufficiency summary plots without reducing the data. Even three-dimensional scatter plots must be viewed via a computer program, and the third dimension can only be visualized by rotating the coordinate axes. However, if there exists a sufficient dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} with small enough dimension, a sufficient summary plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be constructed and visually interpreted with relative ease. Hence sufficient dimension reduction allows for graphical intuition about the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , which might not have otherwise been available for high-dimensional data. Most graphical methodology focuses primarily on dimension reduction involving linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . The rest of this article deals only with such reductions. == Dimension reduction subspace == Suppose R ( x ) = A T x {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})=A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient dimension reduction, where A {\displaystyle A} is a p × k {\displaystyle p\times k} matrix with rank k ≤ p {\displaystyle k\leq p} . Then the regression information for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} can be inferred by studying the distribution of y ∣ A T x {\displaystyle y\mid A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} , and the plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus A T x {\displaystyle A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient summary plot. Without loss of generality, only the space spanned by the columns of A {\displaystyle A} need be considered. Let η {\displaystyle \eta } be a basis for the column space of A {\displaystyle A} , and let the space spanned by η {\displaystyle \eta } be denoted by S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} . It follows from the definition of a sufficient dimension reduction that F y ∣ x = F y ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle F_{y\mid x}=F_{y\mid \eta ^{T}x},} where F {\displaystyle F} denotes the appropriate distribution function. Another way to express this property is y ⊥ ⊥ x ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}\mid \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}},} or y {\displaystyle y} is conditionally independent of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , given η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} . Then the subspace S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} is defined to be a dimension reduction subspace (DRS). === Structural dimensionality === For a regression y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the structural dimension, d {\displaystyle d} , is the smallest number of distinct linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} necessary to preserve the conditional distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, the smallest dimension reduction that is still sufficient maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The corresponding DRS will be d-dimensional. === Minimum dimension reduction subspace === A subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is said to be a minimum DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} if it is a DRS and its dimension is less than or equal to that of all other DRSs for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . A minimum DRS S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is not necessarily unique, but its dimension is equal to the structural dimension d {\displaystyle d} of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , by definition. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} has basis η {\displaystyle \eta } and is a minimum DRS, then a plot of y versus η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a minimal sufficient summary plot, and it is (d + 1)-dimensional. == Central subspace == If a subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , and if S ⊂ S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\subset {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} for all other DRSs S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} , then it is a central dimension reduction subspace, or simply a central subspace, and it is denoted by S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . In other words, a central subspace for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} exists if and only if the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} of all dimension reduction subspaces is also a dimension reduction subspace, and that intersection is the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . The central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does not necessarily exist because the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} is not necessarily a DRS. However, if S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does exist, then it is also the unique minimum dimension reduction subspace. === Existence of the central subspace === While the existence of the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} is not guaranteed in every regression situation, there are some rather broad conditions under which its existence follows directly. For example, consider the following proposition from Cook (1998): Let S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} and S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} be dimension reduction subspaces for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . If x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} has density f ( a ) > 0 {\displaystyle f(a)>0} for all a ∈ Ω x {\displaystyle a\in \Omega _{x}} and f ( a ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(a)=0} everywhere else, where Ω x {\displaystyle \Omega _{x}} is convex, then the intersection S 1 ∩ S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\cap {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is also a dimension reduction subspace. It follows from this proposition that the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} exists for such x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . == Methods for dimension reduction == There are many existing methods for dimension reduction, both graphical and numeric. For example, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) were introduced in the 1990s and continue to be widely used. Although SIR was originally designed to estimate an effective dimension reducing subspace, it is now understood that it estimates only the central subspace, which is generally different. More recent methods for dimension reduction include likelihood-based sufficient dimension reduction, estimating the central subspace based on the inverse third moment (or kth moment), estimating the central solution space, graphical regression, envelope model, and the principal support vector machine. For more details on these and other methods, consult the statistical literature. Principal components analysis (PCA) and similar methods for dimension reduction are not based on the sufficiency principle. === Example: linear regression === Consider the regression model y = α + β T x + ε , where ε ⊥ ⊥ x . {\displaystyle y=\alpha +\beta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}+\varepsilon ,{\text{ where }}\varepsilon \perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}.} Note that the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} is the same as the distribution of y ∣ β T x {\displ

  Read more →
• 

  Extremal Ensemble Learning

  Extremal Ensemble Learning (EEL) is a machine learning algorithmic paradigm for graph partitioning. EEL creates an ensemble of partitions and then uses information contained in the ensemble to find new and improved partitions. The ensemble evolves and learns how to form improved partitions through extremal updating procedure. The final solution is found by achieving consensus among its member partitions about what the optimal partition is. == Reduced-Network Extremal Ensemble Learning (RenEEL) == A particular implementation of the EEL paradigm is the Reduced-Network Extremal Ensemble Learning (RenEEL) scheme for partitioning a graph. RenEEL uses consensus across many partitions in an ensemble to create a reduced network that can be efficiently analyzed to find more accurate partitions. These better quality partitions are subsequently used to update the ensemble. An algorithm that utilizes the RenEEL scheme is currently the best algorithm for finding the graph partition with maximum modularity, which is an NP-hard problem.

  Read more →
• 

  Automated dispensing cabinet

  An automated dispensing cabinet (ADC), also called a unit-based cabinet (UBC), automated dispensing device (ADD), or automated dispensing machine (ADM)[1], is a computerized medicine cabinet for hospitals and healthcare settings. ADCs allow medications to be stored and dispensed near the point of care while controlling and tracking drug distribution. == Overview == Hospital pharmacies have provided medications for patients by filling patient-specific cassettes of unit-dose medications that were then delivered to the nursing unit and stored in medication cabinets or carts. ADCs, originally designed for hospital use, were introduced in hospitals in the 1980s and have facilitated the transition to alternative delivery models and more decentralized medication distribution systems.[2] Implementing automated dispensing cabinets as part of a decentralized or hybrid medication distribution system can improve patient safety and the accountability of the inventory, streamline certain billing processes. However, in the 2000s, the technology began to be deployed into other care settings where medication doses were stored onsite, and higher security methods were needed to control inventory, access, and dispensing of each patient dose. Settings that now deploy ADCs include long-term care facilities, hospice, critical access hospitals, surgery centers, group homes, residential care facilities, rehab and psych environments, animal health, dental clinics, and nursing education simulation. These diverse care settings share a common need to safely store, account for, and dispense individual doses of medications, especially narcotics and high-value medications, at the point of care.[3] ADCs track user access and dispensed medications, and their use can improve control over medication inventory. The real-time inventory reports generated by many cabinets can simplify the filling process and help the pharmacy track expired drugs. Furthermore, by restricting individual drugs – such as high-risk medications and controlled substances – to unique drawers within the cabinet, overall inventory management, patient safety, and medication security can be improved. Automated dispensing cabinets allow the pharmacy department to profile physician orders before they are dispensed.[4] ADCs can also enable providers to record medication charges upon dispensing, reducing the billing paperwork the pharmacy is responsible for. In addition, nurses can note returned medications using the cabinets' computers, enabling direct credits to patients' accounts. Since automated cabinets can be located on the nursing unit floor, nursing have speedier access to a patient's medications. Also, shorter waiting time ensures improved patient comfort and care.[5] == Role of automated dispensing in healthcare == Automated dispensing is a pharmacy practice in which a device dispenses medications and fills prescriptions. ADCs, which can handle many different medications, are available from a number of manufacturers such as BD, ARxIUM, and Omnicell. Though members of the pharmacy community have been utilizing automation technology since the 1980s, companies are constantly improving ADCs to meet changing needs and health standards in the industry. Several goals can be met by implementing an automated product in a healthcare facility. Patient safety can be ensured with the use of ADC technology such as barcoding. Anesthesia ADCs in operating rooms and perioperative areas may include label printing to prevent mix-ups such as errors between morphine and hydromorphone, two different opioid analgesics that frequently get confused. These systems also communicate with the pharmacy and its information management system to track medications removed and support inventory replenishment. == Key features == ADCs are like automated teller machines whose specific technologies such as barcode scanning and clinical decision support can improve medication safety. Some have metal locking drawers for added security and some have automated single-dose dispensing to prevent the need for a blind count each time a controlled substance is accessed. Over the years, ADCs have been adapted to facilitate compliance with emerging regulatory requirements such as pharmacy review of medication orders and safe practice recommendations. ADCs incorporate advanced software and electronic interfaces to synthesize high-risk steps in the medication use process. These unit-based medication repositories provide computer-controlled storage, dispensation, tracking, and documentation of medication distribution in the resident care unit. Since automated dispensing cabinets are not located in the pharmacy, they are considered "decentralized" medication distribution systems. Instead, they can be found at the point of care on the resident care unit. Tracking of the stocking and distribution process can occur by interfacing the unit with a central pharmacy computer. These cabinets can also be interfaced with other external databases such as resident profiles, the facility's admission/discharge/transfer system, and billing systems. Most ADC providers offer scalable systems since several important factors vary widely by facility such as budget, physical room size, patient population/demographics, type of healthcare facility, etc.

  Read more →
• 

  Learning classifier system

  Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a

  Read more →
• 

  Multinomial logistic regression

  In statistics, multinomial logistic regression is a classification method that generalizes logistic regression to multiclass problems, i.e. with more than two possible discrete outcomes. That is, it is a model that is used to predict the probabilities of the different possible outcomes of a categorically distributed dependent variable, given a set of independent variables (which may be real-valued, binary-valued, categorical-valued, etc.). Multinomial logistic regression is known by a variety of other names, including polytomous LR, multiclass LR, softmax regression, multinomial logit (mlogit), the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) classifier, and the conditional maximum entropy model. == Background == Multinomial logistic regression is used when the dependent variable in question is nominal (equivalently categorical, meaning that it falls into any one of a set of categories that cannot be ordered in any meaningful way) and for which there are more than two categories. Some examples would be: Which major will a college student choose, given their grades, stated likes and dislikes, etc.? Which blood type does a person have, given the results of various diagnostic tests? In a hands-free mobile phone dialing application, which person's name was spoken, given various properties of the speech signal? Which candidate will a person vote for, given particular demographic characteristics? Which country will a firm locate an office in, given the characteristics of the firm and of the various candidate countries? These are all statistical classification problems. They all have in common a dependent variable to be predicted that comes from one of a limited set of items that cannot be meaningfully ordered, as well as a set of independent variables (also known as features, explanators, etc.), which are used to predict the dependent variable. Multinomial logistic regression is a particular solution to classification problems that use a linear combination of the observed features and some problem-specific parameters to estimate the probability of each particular value of the dependent variable. The best values of the parameters for a given problem are usually determined from some training data (e.g. some people for whom both the diagnostic test results and blood types are known, or some examples of known words being spoken). == Assumptions == The multinomial logistic model assumes that data are case-specific; that is, each independent variable has a single value for each case. As with other types of regression, there is no need for the independent variables to be statistically independent from each other (unlike, for example, in a naive Bayes classifier); however, collinearity is assumed to be relatively low, as it becomes difficult to differentiate between the impact of several variables if this is not the case. If the multinomial logit is used to model choices, it relies on the assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA), which is not always desirable. This assumption states that the odds of preferring one class over another do not depend on the presence or absence of other "irrelevant" alternatives. For example, the relative probabilities of taking a car or bus to work do not change if a bicycle is added as an additional possibility. This allows the choice of K alternatives to be modeled as a set of K − 1 independent binary choices, in which one alternative is chosen as a "pivot" and the other K − 1 compared against it, one at a time. The IIA hypothesis is a core hypothesis in rational choice theory; however numerous studies in psychology show that individuals often violate this assumption when making choices. An example of a problem case arises if choices include a car and a blue bus. Suppose the odds ratio between the two is 1 : 1. Now if the option of a red bus is introduced, a person may be indifferent between a red and a blue bus, and hence may exhibit a car : blue bus : red bus odds ratio of 1 : 0.5 : 0.5, thus maintaining a 1 : 1 ratio of car : any bus while adopting a changed car : blue bus ratio of 1 : 0.5. Here the red bus option was not in fact irrelevant, because a red bus was a perfect substitute for a blue bus. If the multinomial logit is used to model choices, it may in some situations impose too much constraint on the relative preferences between the different alternatives. It is especially important to take into account if the analysis aims to predict how choices would change if one alternative were to disappear (for instance if one political candidate withdraws from a three candidate race). Other models like the nested logit or the multinomial probit may be used in such cases as they allow for violation of the IIA. == Model == === Introduction === There are multiple equivalent ways to describe the mathematical model underlying multinomial logistic regression. This can make it difficult to compare different treatments of the subject in different texts. The article on logistic regression presents a number of equivalent formulations of simple logistic regression, and many of these have analogues in the multinomial logit model. The idea behind all of them, as in many other statistical classification techniques, is to construct a linear predictor function that constructs a score from a set of weights that are linearly combined with the explanatory variables (features) of a given observation using a dot product: score ⁡ ( X i , k ) = β k ⋅ X i , {\displaystyle \operatorname {score} (\mathbf {X} _{i},k)={\boldsymbol {\beta }}_{k}\cdot \mathbf {X} _{i},} where Xi is the vector of explanatory variables describing observation i, βk is a vector of weights (or regression coefficients) corresponding to outcome k, and score(Xi, k) is the score associated with assigning observation i to category k. In discrete choice theory, where observations represent people and outcomes represent choices, the score is considered the utility associated with person i choosing outcome k. The predicted outcome is the one with the highest score. The difference between the multinomial logit model and numerous other methods, models, algorithms, etc. with the same basic setup (the perceptron algorithm, support vector machines, linear discriminant analysis, etc.) is the procedure for determining (training) the optimal weights/coefficients and the way that the score is interpreted. In particular, in the multinomial logit model, the score can directly be converted to a probability value, indicating the probability of observation i choosing outcome k given the measured characteristics of the observation. This provides a principled way of incorporating the prediction of a particular multinomial logit model into a larger procedure that may involve multiple such predictions, each with a possibility of error. Without such means of combining predictions, errors tend to multiply. For example, imagine a large predictive model that is broken down into a series of submodels where the prediction of a given submodel is used as the input of another submodel, and that prediction is in turn used as the input into a third submodel, etc. If each submodel has 90% accuracy in its predictions, and there are five submodels in series, then the overall model has only 0.95 = 59% accuracy. If each submodel has 80% accuracy, then overall accuracy drops to 0.85 = 33% accuracy. This issue is known as error propagation and is a serious problem in real-world predictive models, which are usually composed of numerous parts. Predicting probabilities of each possible outcome, rather than simply making a single optimal prediction, is one means of alleviating this issue. === Setup === The basic setup is the same as in logistic regression, the only difference being that the dependent variables are categorical rather than binary, i.e. there are K possible outcomes rather than just two. The following description is somewhat shortened; for more details, consult the logistic regression article. ==== Data points ==== Specifically, it is assumed that we have a series of N observed data points. Each data point i (ranging from 1 to N) consists of a set of M explanatory variables x1,i ... xM,i (also known as independent variables, predictor variables, features, etc.), and an associated categorical outcome Yi (also known as dependent variable, response variable), which can take on one of K possible values. These possible values represent logically separate categories (e.g. different political parties, blood types, etc.), and are often described mathematically by arbitrarily assigning each a number from 1 to K. The explanatory variables and outcome represent observed properties of the data points, and are often thought of as originating in the observations of N "experiments" — although an "experiment" may consist of nothing more than gathering data. The goal of multinomial logistic regression is to construct a model that explains the relationship between the explanatory variables and the outcome, so tha

  Read more →
• 

  Sufficient dimension reduction

  In statistics, sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a paradigm for analyzing data that combines the ideas of dimension reduction with the concept of sufficiency. Dimension reduction has long been a primary goal of regression analysis. Given a response variable y and a p-dimensional predictor vector x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , regression analysis aims to study the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the conditional distribution of y {\displaystyle y} given x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction is a function R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} that maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R k {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , k < p, thereby reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . For example, R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be one or more linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} is said to be sufficient if the distribution of y ∣ R ( x ) {\displaystyle y\mid R({\textbf {x}})} is the same as that of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, no information about the regression is lost in reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} if the reduction is sufficient. == Graphical motivation == In a regression setting, it is often useful to summarize the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} graphically. For instance, one may consider a scatterplot of y {\displaystyle y} versus one or more of the predictors or a linear combination of the predictors. A scatterplot that contains all available regression information is called a sufficient summary plot. When x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} is high-dimensional, particularly when p ≥ 3 {\displaystyle p\geq 3} , it becomes increasingly challenging to construct and visually interpret sufficiency summary plots without reducing the data. Even three-dimensional scatter plots must be viewed via a computer program, and the third dimension can only be visualized by rotating the coordinate axes. However, if there exists a sufficient dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} with small enough dimension, a sufficient summary plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be constructed and visually interpreted with relative ease. Hence sufficient dimension reduction allows for graphical intuition about the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , which might not have otherwise been available for high-dimensional data. Most graphical methodology focuses primarily on dimension reduction involving linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . The rest of this article deals only with such reductions. == Dimension reduction subspace == Suppose R ( x ) = A T x {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})=A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient dimension reduction, where A {\displaystyle A} is a p × k {\displaystyle p\times k} matrix with rank k ≤ p {\displaystyle k\leq p} . Then the regression information for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} can be inferred by studying the distribution of y ∣ A T x {\displaystyle y\mid A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} , and the plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus A T x {\displaystyle A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient summary plot. Without loss of generality, only the space spanned by the columns of A {\displaystyle A} need be considered. Let η {\displaystyle \eta } be a basis for the column space of A {\displaystyle A} , and let the space spanned by η {\displaystyle \eta } be denoted by S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} . It follows from the definition of a sufficient dimension reduction that F y ∣ x = F y ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle F_{y\mid x}=F_{y\mid \eta ^{T}x},} where F {\displaystyle F} denotes the appropriate distribution function. Another way to express this property is y ⊥ ⊥ x ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}\mid \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}},} or y {\displaystyle y} is conditionally independent of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , given η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} . Then the subspace S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} is defined to be a dimension reduction subspace (DRS). === Structural dimensionality === For a regression y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the structural dimension, d {\displaystyle d} , is the smallest number of distinct linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} necessary to preserve the conditional distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, the smallest dimension reduction that is still sufficient maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The corresponding DRS will be d-dimensional. === Minimum dimension reduction subspace === A subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is said to be a minimum DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} if it is a DRS and its dimension is less than or equal to that of all other DRSs for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . A minimum DRS S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is not necessarily unique, but its dimension is equal to the structural dimension d {\displaystyle d} of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , by definition. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} has basis η {\displaystyle \eta } and is a minimum DRS, then a plot of y versus η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a minimal sufficient summary plot, and it is (d + 1)-dimensional. == Central subspace == If a subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , and if S ⊂ S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\subset {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} for all other DRSs S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} , then it is a central dimension reduction subspace, or simply a central subspace, and it is denoted by S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . In other words, a central subspace for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} exists if and only if the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} of all dimension reduction subspaces is also a dimension reduction subspace, and that intersection is the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . The central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does not necessarily exist because the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} is not necessarily a DRS. However, if S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does exist, then it is also the unique minimum dimension reduction subspace. === Existence of the central subspace === While the existence of the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} is not guaranteed in every regression situation, there are some rather broad conditions under which its existence follows directly. For example, consider the following proposition from Cook (1998): Let S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} and S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} be dimension reduction subspaces for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . If x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} has density f ( a ) > 0 {\displaystyle f(a)>0} for all a ∈ Ω x {\displaystyle a\in \Omega _{x}} and f ( a ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(a)=0} everywhere else, where Ω x {\displaystyle \Omega _{x}} is convex, then the intersection S 1 ∩ S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\cap {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is also a dimension reduction subspace. It follows from this proposition that the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} exists for such x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . == Methods for dimension reduction == There are many existing methods for dimension reduction, both graphical and numeric. For example, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) were introduced in the 1990s and continue to be widely used. Although SIR was originally designed to estimate an effective dimension reducing subspace, it is now understood that it estimates only the central subspace, which is generally different. More recent methods for dimension reduction include likelihood-based sufficient dimension reduction, estimating the central subspace based on the inverse third moment (or kth moment), estimating the central solution space, graphical regression, envelope model, and the principal support vector machine. For more details on these and other methods, consult the statistical literature. Principal components analysis (PCA) and similar methods for dimension reduction are not based on the sufficiency principle. === Example: linear regression === Consider the regression model y = α + β T x + ε , where ε ⊥ ⊥ x . {\displaystyle y=\alpha +\beta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}+\varepsilon ,{\text{ where }}\varepsilon \perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}.} Note that the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} is the same as the distribution of y ∣ β T x {\displ

  Read more →
• 

  CHAOS (chess)

  CHAOS (Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff) is a chess playing program that was developed by programmers working at the RCA Systems Programming division in the late 1960s. It played competitively in computer chess competitions in the 1970s and 1980s. It differed from other programs of that era in its look-ahead philosophy, choosing to use chess knowledge to evaluate fewer positions and continuations as opposed to simple evaluations that relied on deep look-ahead to avoid bad moves. == Introduction == CHAOS was originally developed by Ira Ruben, Fred Swartz, Victor Berman, Joe Winograd and William Toikka while working at RCA in Cinnaminson, NJ. Its name is an acronym for 'Chess Heuristics and Other Stuff.' Program development moved to the Computing Center of the University of Michigan when Swartz changed jobs, and Mike Alexander joined the development group. Swartz, Alexander and Berman were continuously group members from that point onward in CHAOS' evolution, as others of the original authors left and new members contributed episodically. Chess Senior Master Jack O'Keefe contributed to CHAOS' development from about 1980 onwards. CHAOS was written in Fortran, except for low-level board representation manipulations written in assembly language or C. Due to this portability, it ran on RCA, Univac and IBM-compatible mainframes in its lifetime. CHAOS heralds from the mainframe computing era when only machines of that capacity were able to play at a high level. Consequently, development and testing could only take place at off-peak times for production use of the machine. In a competition, CHAOS had to run on a dedicated mainframe with a telephone link to the match venue. In its later years, CHAOS ran on computers on the machine assembly floor of Amdahl Corporation on MTS. == Background == === Chess and artificial intelligence === Mathematicians Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, working separately, were the first to view playing chess as a challenge to machines. Working for AT&T / Bell Labs with its access to telephone switching equipment, Shannon built a relay-based machine that learned how to work its way through a two-dimensional, 5x5 cell maze in 1949. Shannon viewed this as an analogue of the way that organisms learn things about their natural environment. There is a random element to searching it, a memory element to benefit from the search outcome, and a reward element that reinforces learning when the global outcome is favorable to the organism. Soon afterward, Shannon wrote a mathematical analysis of the game of chess, published in 1950. Like with the maze, he broke down game play into the necessary elements for reinforcement learning. Associated with each board configuration a move will be made from, there is a numerical score. To decide what move to make, a player wants to maximize their own position's score after the move and to minimize their opponent's score (a minimax view). Since there are about 32 possible moves at each of the early stages of the game, and about 40 moves and responses in each game, then there are about 32 80 {\displaystyle 32^{80}} or about 10 120 {\displaystyle 10^{120}} possible games - an impossibly large set to evaluate completely. Therefore, there must be a way to limit the number of moves to look ahead for to find the best one. Reducing the game to these few key elements provided a way to think about human intelligence in general. Shannon became part of a wider group using computing machines to mimic aspects of human intelligence that grew into the general idea of artificial intelligence. (Other members of this group were John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, Alan Kotok, Alex Bernstein and Richard Greenblatt.) The paradigm that evolved was that there was a quantification of the position on the board into a score, an evaluation method to find favorable outcomes (minimax, later alpha-beta pruning), and a strategy to manage the combinatorial explosion of the look-ahead possibilities. By the early 1960s, there were computer programs that played chess at a rudimentary level. They used very simple evaluation functions for each position and tried to search as far forward as was practical given the time constraints and available compute power. Naturally, programmers optimized their code to use the available computing resources. This led to a major philosophical divide among chess programs: those that tried to evaluate as many positions as possible, and those that tried to evaluate the most promising move sequences as deeply as possible. CHAOS was firmly in the camp believing only the most promising moves should be evaluated in depth. Said Swartz, "The 'brute force people' ... look at every (possible move) no matter what garbage it is. Most moves are just terrible, terrible moves, and most computing time is being spent on pure garbage." The program spent more time evaluating each board position in the expectation that it would find the most promising lines of play to explore in depth. In 1983, the then-fastest chess program (Belle) evaluated 110,000 positions per second, and typical programs 1000–50,000 per second, whereas CHAOS evaluated about 50-100 per second. === Machine learning and strategies to manage search === From about 1949 onward, Arthur Samuel began work for IBM on machine learning, culminating in a checkers-playing program in 1952 and publications on the topic. Concurrently, Christopher Strachey created Checkers, a program to play the board game of checkers in 1951, but it had no capacity to learn from its play. Checkers was chosen by both authors because it was simpler than chess yet contained the basic characteristics of an intellectual activity, and, in Samuel's view, was a test-bed in which heuristic procedures and learning processes could be evaluated quickly. Checker playing programs introduced the notion of the game tree and evaluating play to various depths to choose the best move. The complexity of chess, however, promoted it to the status of an analogue for human intelligence, and it attracted computer scientists' attention, who referred to it as research into artificial intelligence (AI). Like checkers, it required a numerical assessment of each arrangement of chess pieces on a board. It also required looking ahead to future moves to decide how to play the present position. Due to the enormous number of possible moves, there had to be a way to confine the look-ahead search to the most promising lines of play. From these factors, the notion of minimax score evaluation developed and, later, alpha-beta tree pruning to abandon looking at positions worse than any that have already been examined. === Chess search strategies === The AI community viewed artificial intelligence as comprising two parts: a way to symbolically quantify the knowledge in hand (a chess board position), and a set of heuristics to limit look-ahead to the consequences of a move. The early chess playing programs attempted to look forward as far as possible, perhaps to 3 moves ahead by each player, and to choose the best outcome. This led to the horizon effect, whereby a key move 4 or more moves ahead would be unexamined and therefore missed. Consequently, the programs were quite weak and heuristics to manage the search became important in their development. CHAOS used a selective search strategy with iterative widening. As chess programs evolved, they incorporated books of opening lines of play from historic sources. Nowadays, book moves are catalogued in machine-readable form, but originally programmers had to type them in. CHAOS had an extensive book for its time of around 10,000 moves that O'Keefe helped to develop. A problem with play from an opening book is the behavior of the program when the play leaves the book: the positional advantage may be so subtle that the evaluation scheme may be unable to understand it, leading to very wide and shallow searches to establish a line of play. The horizon effect again plagues move selection after leaving the book. CHAOS mitigated these problems by only using book lines that it could understand, and by relying on cached analyses of continuations out of the book made while the opponent's clock was running. == Game Play History == CHAOS played in twelve ACM computer chess tournaments and four World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC). Its debut was the ACM computer chess tournament in 1973, taking 2nd place. In 1974, it again won 2nd place in the WCCC, defeating the tournament favorite Chess 4.0 but losing to Kaissa. CHAOS was close to winning the 1980 WCCC, but lost to Belle in a playoff. The 1985 ACM computer chess tournament was CHAOS' last competition. One of CHAOS' notable victories was over Chess 4.0 at the 1974 WCCC tournament. Chess 4.0 was unbeaten by any other program up until then. Playing as white, CHAOS made a knight sacrifice (16 Nd4-e6!!) that traded material for open lines of attack and eventually won the game. CHAOS’ authors thought the move was due to a

  Read more →
• 

  Taguchi loss function

  The Taguchi loss function is graphical depiction of loss developed by the Japanese business statistician Genichi Taguchi to describe a phenomenon affecting the value of products produced by a company. Praised by Dr. W. Edwards Deming (the business guru of the 1980s American quality movement), it made clear the concept that quality does not suddenly plummet when, for instance, a machinist exceeds a rigid blueprint tolerance. Instead 'loss' in value progressively increases as variation increases from the intended condition. This was considered a breakthrough in describing quality, and helped fuel the continuous improvement movement. The concept of Taguchi's quality loss function was in contrast with the American concept of quality, popularly known as goal post philosophy, the concept given by American quality guru Phil Crosby. Goal post philosophy emphasizes that if a product feature doesn't meet the designed specifications it is termed as a product of poor quality (rejected), irrespective of amount of deviation from the target value (mean value of tolerance zone). This concept has similarity with the concept of scoring a 'goal' in the game of football or hockey, because a goal is counted 'one' irrespective of the location of strike of the ball in the 'goal post', whether it is in the center or towards the corner. This means that if the product dimension goes out of the tolerance limit the quality of the product drops suddenly. Through his concept of the quality loss function, Taguchi explained that from the customer's point of view this drop of quality is not sudden. The customer experiences a loss of quality the moment product specification deviates from the 'target value'. This 'loss' is depicted by a quality loss function and it follows a parabolic curve mathematically given by L = k(y–m)2, where m is the theoretical 'target value' or 'mean value' and y is the actual size of the product, k is a constant and L is the loss. This means that if the difference between 'actual size' and 'target value' i.e. (y–m) is large, loss would be more, irrespective of tolerance specifications. In Taguchi's view tolerance specifications are given by engineers and not by customers; what the customer experiences is 'loss'. This equation is true for a single product; if 'loss' is to be calculated for multiple products the loss function is given by L = k[S2 + ( y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} – m)2], where S2 is the 'variance of product size' and y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} is the average product size. == Overview == The Taguchi loss function is important for a number of reasons—primarily, to help engineers better understand the importance of designing for variation.

  Read more →
• 

  Probabilistic latent semantic analysis

  Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI, especially in information retrieval circles) is a statistical technique for the analysis of two-mode and co-occurrence data. In effect, one can derive a low-dimensional representation of the observed variables in terms of their affinity to certain hidden variables, just as in latent semantic analysis, from which PLSA evolved. Compared to standard latent semantic analysis which stems from linear algebra and downsizes the occurrence tables (usually via a singular value decomposition), probabilistic latent semantic analysis is based on a mixture decomposition derived from a latent class model. == Model == Considering observations in the form of co-occurrences ( w , d ) {\displaystyle (w,d)} of words and documents, PLSA models the probability of each co-occurrence as a mixture of conditionally independent multinomial distributions: P ( w , d ) = ∑ c P ( d ) P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) = P ( d ) ∑ c P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w,d)=\sum _{c}P(d)P(c|d)P(w|c)=P(d)\sum _{c}P(c|d)P(w|c)} with c {\displaystyle c} being the words' topic. Note that the number of topics is a hyperparameter that must be chosen in advance and is not estimated from the data. The first formulation is the symmetric formulation, where w {\displaystyle w} and d {\displaystyle d} are both generated from the latent class c {\displaystyle c} in similar ways (using the conditional probabilities P ( d | c ) {\displaystyle P(d|c)} and P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} ), whereas the second formulation is the asymmetric formulation, where, for each document d {\displaystyle d} , a latent class is chosen conditionally to the document according to P ( c | d ) {\displaystyle P(c|d)} , and a word is then generated from that class according to P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} . Although we have used words and documents in this example, the co-occurrence of any couple of discrete variables may be modelled in exactly the same way. So, the number of parameters is equal to c d + w c {\displaystyle cd+wc} . The number of parameters grows linearly with the number of documents. In addition, although PLSA is a generative model of the documents in the collection it is estimated on, it is not a generative model of new documents. Their parameters are learned using the EM algorithm. == Application == PLSA may be used in a discriminative setting, via Fisher kernels. PLSA has applications in information retrieval and filtering, natural language processing, machine learning from text, bioinformatics, and related areas. It is reported that the aspect model used in the probabilistic latent semantic analysis has severe overfitting problems. == Extensions == Hierarchical extensions: Asymmetric: MASHA ("Multinomial ASymmetric Hierarchical Analysis") Symmetric: HPLSA ("Hierarchical Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis") Generative models: The following models have been developed to address an often-criticized shortcoming of PLSA, namely that it is not a proper generative model for new documents. Latent Dirichlet allocation – adds a Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distribution Higher-order data: Although this is rarely discussed in the scientific literature, PLSA extends naturally to higher order data (three modes and higher), i.e. it can model co-occurrences over three or more variables. In the symmetric formulation above, this is done simply by adding conditional probability distributions for these additional variables. This is the probabilistic analogue to non-negative tensor factorisation. == History == This is an example of a latent class model (see references therein), and it is related to non-negative matrix factorization. The present terminology was coined in 1999 by Thomas Hofmann.

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatical evolution

  Grammatical evolution (GE) is a genetic programming (GP) technique (or approach) from evolutionary computation pioneered by Conor Ryan, JJ Collins and Michael O'Neill in 1998 at the BDS Group in the University of Limerick. As in any other GP approach, the objective is to find an executable program, program fragment, or function, which will achieve a good fitness value for a given objective function. In most published work on GP, a LISP-style tree-structured expression is directly manipulated, whereas GE applies genetic operators to an integer string, subsequently mapped to a program (or similar) through the use of a grammar, which is typically expressed in Backus–Naur form. One of the benefits of GE is that this mapping simplifies the application of search to different programming languages and other structures. == Problem addressed == In type-free, conventional Koza-style GP, the function set must meet the requirement of closure: all functions must be capable of accepting as their arguments the output of all other functions in the function set. Usually, this is implemented by dealing with a single data-type such as double-precision floating point. While modern Genetic Programming frameworks support typing, such type-systems have limitations that Grammatical Evolution does not suffer from. == GE's solution == GE offers a solution to the single-type limitation by evolving solutions according to a user-specified grammar (usually a grammar in Backus-Naur form). Therefore, the search space can be restricted, and domain knowledge of the problem can be incorporated. The inspiration for this approach comes from a desire to separate the "genotype" from the "phenotype": in GP, the objects the search algorithm operates on and what the fitness evaluation function interprets are one and the same. In contrast, GE's "genotypes" are ordered lists of integers which code for selecting rules from the provided context-free grammar. The phenotype, however, is the same as in Koza-style GP: a tree-like structure that is evaluated recursively. This model is more in line with how genetics work in nature, where there is a separation between an organism's genotype and the final expression of phenotype in proteins, etc. Separating genotype and phenotype allows a modular approach. In particular, the search portion of the GE paradigm needn't be carried out by any one particular algorithm or method. Observe that the objects GE performs search on are the same as those used in genetic algorithms. This means, in principle, that any existing genetic algorithm package, such as the popular GAlib, can be used to carry out the search, and a developer implementing a GE system need only worry about carrying out the mapping from list of integers to program tree. It is also in principle possible to perform the search using some other method, such as particle swarm optimization (see the remark below); the modular nature of GE creates many opportunities for hybrids as the problem of interest to be solved dictates. Brabazon and O'Neill have successfully applied GE to predicting corporate bankruptcy, forecasting stock indices, bond credit ratings, and other financial applications. GE has also been used with a classic predator-prey model to explore the impact of parameters such as predator efficiency, niche number, and random mutations on ecological stability. It is possible to structure a GE grammar that for a given function/terminal set is equivalent to genetic programming. == Criticism == Despite its successes, GE has been the subject of some criticism. One issue is that as a result of its mapping operation, GE's genetic operators do not achieve high locality which is a highly regarded property of genetic operators in evolutionary algorithms. == Variants == Although GE was originally described in terms of using an Evolutionary Algorithm, specifically, a Genetic Algorithm, other variants exist. For example, GE researchers have experimented with using particle swarm optimization to carry out the searching instead of genetic algorithms with results comparable to that of normal GE; this is referred to as a "grammatical swarm"; using only the basic PSO model it has been found that PSO is probably equally capable of carrying out the search process in GE as simple genetic algorithms are. (Although PSO is normally a floating-point search paradigm, it can be discretized, e.g., by simply rounding each vector to the nearest integer, for use with GE.) Yet another possible variation that has been experimented with in the literature is attempting to encode semantic information in the grammar in order to further bias the search process. Other work showed that, with biased grammars that leverage domain knowledge, even random search can be used to drive GE. == Related work == GE was originally a combination of the linear representation as used by the Genetic Algorithm for Developing Software (GADS) and Backus Naur Form grammars, which were originally used in tree-based GP by Wong and Leung in 1995 and Whigham in 1996. Other related work noted in the original GE paper was that of Frederic Gruau, who used a conceptually similar "embryonic" approach, as well as that of Keller and Banzhaf, which similarly used linear genomes. == Implementations == There are several implementations of GE. These include the following.

  Read more →
• 

  Powerset (company)

  Powerset was an American company based in San Francisco, California, that, in 2006, was developing a natural language search engine for the Internet. On July 1, 2008, Powerset was acquired by Microsoft for an estimated $100 million (~$143 million in 2024). Powerset was working on building a natural language search engine that could find targeted answers to user questions (as opposed to keyword based search). For example, when confronted with a question like "Which U.S. state has the highest income tax?", conventional search engines ignore the question phrasing and instead do a search on the keywords "state", "highest", "income", and "tax". Powerset on the other hand, attempts to use natural language processing to understand the nature of the question and return pages containing the answer. The company was in the process of "building a natural language search engine that reads and understands every sentence on the Web". The company has licensed natural language technology from PARC, the former Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. On May 11, 2008, the company unveiled a tool for searching a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than keywords. Acquisition by Microsoft: One significant milestone in Powerset's history was its acquisition by Microsoft on July 1, 2008, for an estimated $100 million. This acquisition was part of Microsoft's broader strategy to enhance its search capabilities and compete more effectively with other search engine providers, particularly Google. Natural Language Search Engine: Powerset's primary focus was on developing a natural language search engine capable of understanding and interpreting user queries in a more human-like manner. Instead of simply matching keywords, Powerset aimed to comprehend the meaning behind the words, allowing for more accurate and contextually relevant search results. Technology and Partnerships: Powerset had licensed natural language technology from PARC, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. This technology likely played a crucial role in the development of Powerset's NLP capabilities. Wikipedia Search Tool: In May 2008, Powerset unveiled a search tool that allowed users to search a fixed subset of English Wikipedia using conversational phrases rather than traditional keywords. This demonstrated the potential of Powerset's NLP technology in providing more precise and relevant search results. == Powerlabs == In a form of beta testing, Powerset opened an online community called Powerlabs on September 17, 2007. Business Week said: "The company hopes the site will marshal thousands of people to help build and improve its search engine before it goes public next year." Said The New York Times: "[Powerset Labs] goes far beyond the 'alpha' or 'beta' testing involved in most software projects, when users put a new product through rigorous testing to find its flaws. Powerset doesn’t have a product yet, but rather a collection of promising natural language technologies, which are the fruit of years of research at Xerox PARC." Powerlabs' initial search results are taken from Wikipedia. == Notable people == Barney Pell (born March 18, 1968, in Hollywood, California) was co-founder and CEO of Powerset. Pell received his Bachelor of Science degree in symbolic systems from Stanford University in 1989, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and was a National Merit Scholar. Pell received a PhD in computer science from Cambridge University in 1993, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He has worked at NASA, as chief strategist and vice president of business development at StockMaster.com (acquired by Red Herring in March, 2000) and at Whizbang! Labs. Prior to joining Powerset, Pell was an Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Mayfield Fund, a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. Pell is also a founder of Moon Express, Inc., a U.S. company awarded a $10M commercial lunar contract by NASA and a competitor in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Steve Newcomb was the COO and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he was a co-founder of Loudfire, General Manager at Promptu, and was on the board of directors at Jaxtr. He left Powerset in October 2007 to form Virgance, a social startup incubator. Lorenzo Thione (born in Como, Italy) was the product architect and co-founder of Powerset. Prior to joining Powerset, he worked at FXPAL in natural language processing and related research fields. Thione earned his master's degree in software engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Ronald Kaplan, former manager of research in Natural Language Theory and Technology at PARC, served as the company's CTO and CSO. Ryan Ferrier is a member of the founding team of Powerset. He managed personnel and internal operations. After 2008 he went on to co-found Serious Business, which made Facebook applications and was later bought by Zynga. Another Powerset alumnus, Alex Le, became CTO of Serious Business and went on to become an executive producer at Zynga when it bought the company. Siqi Chen founded a stealth startup in mobile computing after leaving Powerset. Tom Preston-Werner worked at Powerset and left after the acquisition to found GitHub. == Investors == Powerset attracted a wide range of investors, many of whom had considerable experience in the venture capital field. The company received $12.5 million (~$18.2 million in 2024) in Series A funding during November 2007, co-led by the venture capital firms Foundation Capital and The Founders Fund. Among the better-known investors: Esther Dyson, founding chairman of ICANN, founder of the newsletter Release 1.0 and editor at Cnet Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal Luke Nosek, founder of PayPal Todd Parker. Managing Partner, Hidden River Ventures Reid Hoffman, executive vice president of PayPal and founder of LinkedIn First Round Capital, seed-stage venture firm

  Read more →
• 

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic (DSAC) is a suite of model-free off-policy reinforcement learning algorithms, tailored for learning decision-making or control policies in complex systems with continuous action spaces. Distinct from traditional methods that focus solely on expected returns, DSAC algorithms are designed to learn a Gaussian distribution over stochastic returns, called value distribution. This focus on Gaussian value distribution learning notably diminishes value overestimations, which in turn boosts policy performance. Additionally, the value distribution learned by DSAC can also be used for risk-aware policy learning. From a technical standpoint, DSAC is essentially a distributional adaptation of the well-established soft actor-critic (SAC) method. To date, the DSAC family comprises two iterations: the original DSAC-v1 and its successor, DSAC-T (also known as DSAC-v2), with the latter demonstrating superior capabilities over the Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) in Mujoco benchmark tasks. The source code for DSAC-T can be found at the following URL: Jingliang-Duan/DSAC-T. Both iterations have been integrated into an advanced, Pytorch-powered reinforcement learning toolkit named GOPS: GOPS (General Optimal control Problem Solver).

  Read more →
• 

  Minimum Population Search

  In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.

  Read more →