AI App Gemini

AI App Gemini — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Reverse correlation technique

  The reverse correlation technique is a data driven study method used primarily in psychological and neurophysiological research. This method earned its name from its origins in neurophysiology, where cross-correlations between white noise stimuli and sparsely occurring neuronal spikes could be computed quicker when only computing it for segments preceding the spikes. The term has since been adopted in psychological experiments that usually do not analyze the temporal dimension, but also present noise to human participants. In contrast to the original meaning, the term is here thought to reflect that the standard psychological practice of presenting stimuli of defined categories to the participants is "reversed": Instead, the participant's mental representations of categories are estimated from interactions of the presented noise and the behavioral responses. It is used to create composite pictures of individual and/or group mental representations of various items (e.g. faces, bodies, and the self) that depict characteristics of said items (e.g. trustworthiness and self-body image). This technique is helpful when evaluating the mental representations of those with and without mental illnesses. == Terms == This technique utilizes spike-triggered average to explain what areas of signal and noise in an image are valuable for the given research question. Signal is information used to produce objects of value that help explain and connect the world around us. Noise is commonly referred to as unwanted signal that obscures the information that the signal is trying to present. Most importantly for reverse correlation studies, noise is randomly varying information. To determine the areas of importance using reverse correlation, noise is applied to a base image and then evaluated by observers. A base image is any image void of noise that relates to the research question. A base image that has noise superimposed on top is the stimuli that is presented to and evaluated by participants. Each time a new set of stimuli is presented to a participant, this is known as a trial. After a participant has responded to hundreds to thousands of trials, a researcher is ready to create a classification image. A classification image (abbreviated as "CI" in some studies) is a single image that represents the average noise patterns in the images selected by participants. A classification image can also be computed for groups by averaging the individuals’ classification images. These classification images are what researchers use to interpret the data and draw conclusions. As a whole, the reverse correlation method is a process that results in a composite image (from an individual or group) that can be used to estimate and interpret mental representations. == Basic study layout == The reverse correlation method is typically executed as an in-lab computer experiment. This method follows four broad steps. Each of the following steps are described in greater detail below. After creating a research question and determining that the reverse correlation method is the most suitable technique to answer the question, a researcher must (1) design randomly varying stimuli. After the stimuli have been prepared, a researcher should (2) collect data from participants who will see and respond to approximately 300 -1,000 trials. Each trial will either consist of one or two images (side by side) derived from the same base image with noise superimposed on top. Participant responses will depend on the chosen study design; if a researcher presents only one image at a time, participants rate the image on a 4pt scale, but when two images are shown, the participant is asked to choose which best aligns with the given category (e.g. choose the image that looks the most aggressive). Once all of the data is collected, the researcher will (3) compute classification images for each participant and using those images compute group classification images. Finally, with the classification images available, the researcher will (4) evaluate the images and draw conclusions about their results. === Step 1: making stimuli === When designing the stimuli for a reverse correlation study, the two primary factors that one should consider are (1) the base image and (2) the noise that will be used. While not all bases are images per se, the majority are and for this reason the base is typically referred to as a base image. The base image should represent whatever the research question is addressing. For example, if you are interested in peoples’ mental representations of Chinese people, it would not make sense to use a base image of a Spanish or Caucasian person. Again, if you are interested in the mental representations of male vocal patterns, it would make the most sense to use a base vocal pattern that has been produced by a male. Having a base is important because it provides a kind of anchor for participants to work from. When there is no base image, the number of trials that are required increases dramatically, thus making it harder to collect data. While there are studies that have excluded a base image, (e.g. the S study), for more elaborate and nuanced research questions, it is important to have a base image that is a fair representation of what participants are being asked to categorize. Photographs of faces are generally the most popular base image. Although the reverse correlation method is capable of investigating a wide variety of research questions, the most common application of the method is for evaluating faces on a single trait. Reverse correlation studies that address evaluations of the face are sometimes referred to as being a face space reverse correlation model (FSRCM). Thankfully, there are existing databases for face images of varying demographics and emotion that work well as base images. The reverse correlation method can also be used to help researchers identify what areas of an image (e.g. the areas on the face) have diagnostic value. In order to identify these areas of value, researchers start by minimizing the space a participant can pull information from. By imposing a “mask” on an image (e.g. blur an image while leaving random areas un-blurred), this reduces the information individuals might see, and forces them to focus on certain areas. Then, if/when participants are able to correctly identify an image with a trait repeatedly, we can draw conclusions about what areas have diagnostic value. While faces and visual stimuli are the most popular, this is not the only stimuli that can be used in a reverse correlation study. This method was originally designed for auditory stimuli which allows researchers to investigate how perceivers interpret auditory information and create trait based attributions to different sound patterns. For example, by segmenting a vocal recording of a single word (total sound time 426 ms) into six segments (71 ms each), and varying each segment's pitch using Gaussian distributions, researchers were able to uncover what vocal patterns people associated with certain traits. Specifically, this study investigated how listeners rated sound clips of the word “really” as sounding more interrogative (i.e. like the more common reverse correlation studies this study had participants listen to two sound clips per trial, choose which fit the category the best, and then created an average of the pitch contours). Beyond face and auditory perception, research utilizing the reverse correlation method has expanded to investigate how individuals see three-dimensional objects in images with noise (but no signal). After selecting your base image, regardless of what the image is, it is helpful to apply a Gaussian blur to smooth noise in the image. While noise will be applied later, it is helpful to reduce existing noise in the photo before applying your chosen noise. There are three primary choices when it comes to noise: white noise, sine-wave noise, and Gabor noise. The latter two of these constrain the configurations that the noise can have, and because of this white noise is usually the most commonly used. Regardless of the type of noise that is chosen, it is crucial that the noise randomly varies. === Step 2: data collection === Once the stimuli for the study has been developed, the researcher must make a few decisions before actually collecting the data. The researcher must come to a conclusion on how many stimuli will be presented at a time and how many trials the participants will see. In terms of stimuli presentation, a researcher can choose from either a 2-Image Forced Choice (2IFC) or a 4-Alternative Forced Choice (4AFC). The 2IFC presents two images at once (side by side) and requires participants to choose between the two on a specified category (e.g. which image looks the most like a male). Typically the noise from the left image is the mathematical inverse of the noise from the right image. This method was developed to better answer questions that could n

  Read more →
• 

  LPBoost

  Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks

  Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks (also relational blockmodeling) is an approach of generalized blockmodeling, analysing the binary network(s). As most network analyses deal with binary networks, this approach is also considered as the fundamental approach of blockmodeling. This is especially noted, as the set of ideal blocks, when used for interpretation of blockmodels, have binary link patterns, which precludes them to be compared with valued empirical blocks. When analysing the binary networks, the criterion function is measuring block inconsistencies, while also reporting the possible errors. The ideal block in binary blockmodeling has only three types of conditions: "a certain cell must be (at least) 1, a certain cell must be 0 and the f {\displaystyle f} over each row (or column) must be at least 1". It is also used as a basis for developing the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks.

  Read more →
• 

  Targeted maximum likelihood estimation

  Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) (also more accurately referred to as Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation) is a general statistical estimation framework for causal inference and semiparametric models. TMLE combines ideas from maximum likelihood estimation, semiparametric efficiency theory, and machine learning. It was introduced by Mark J. van der Laan and colleagues in the mid-2000s as a method that yields asymptotically efficient plug-in estimators while allowing the use of flexible, data-adaptive algorithms such as ensemble machine learning for nuisance parameter estimation. TMLE is used in epidemiology, biostatistics, and the social sciences to estimate causal effects in observational and experimental studies. Applications of TMLE include Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE) for time-varying treatments and confounders. Variations in how the targeting step in TMLE is carried out have resulted in various versions of TMLE such as Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) and Adaptive TMLE for improved finite-sample performance and automated variable selection. == History == The TMLE framework was first described by van der Laan and Rubin (2006) as a general approach for the construction of efficient plug-in estimators of smooth features of the data density. It was demonstrated in the context of causal inference and missing data problems. It was developed to address limitations of traditional doubly robust methods, such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), by respecting the plug-in principle in the sense that it respects that the target parameter is a function of the data density that is an element of the statistical model. TMLE estimates the data density or relevant parts of it with machine learning and targets these machine learning fits before it is plugged in the target parameter mapping. In this manner, a TMLE always respects global knowledge and satisfies known bounds such as that the target parameter is a probability . Since its introduction, TMLE has been developed in a series of theoretical and applied papers, culminating in book-length treatments of the method and its applications to survival analysis, adaptive designs, and longitudinal data. == Methodology == At its core, TMLE is a two-step estimation procedure: Initial estimation: Machine learning methods (such as the Super Learner ensemble) are used to obtain flexible estimates of nuisance parameters, such as outcome regressions and propensity scores. Targeting step: The initial estimate is updated by solving a score equation (the efficient influence function) so that the final estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient under mild regularity conditions. The targeted machine learning fit is then mapped into the corresponding estimator of the target parameter by simply plugging it in the target parameter mapping. This approach balances the bias–variance trade-off by combining data-adaptive estimation with semiparametric efficiency theory. TMLE is doubly robust, meaning it remains consistent if either the outcome model or the treatment model is consistently estimated. === Formula === Here we explain the TMLE of the average treatment effect of a binary treatment on an outcome adjusting for baseline covariates. Consider i.i.d. observations O i = ( W i , A i , Y i ) {\displaystyle O_{i}=(W_{i},A_{i},Y_{i})} from a distribution P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} , where W {\displaystyle W} are baseline covariates, A {\displaystyle A} is a binary treatment, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is an outcome. Let Q ¯ ( a , w ) = E [ Y ∣ A = a , W = w ] {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}(a,w)=\mathbb {E} [Y\mid A=a,W=w]} represent the outcome model and g ( a ∣ w ) = P ( A = a ∣ W = w ) {\displaystyle g(a\mid w)=P(A=a\mid W=w)} represent the propensity score. The average treatment effect (ATE) is given by ψ 0 = E { Q ¯ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ( 0 , W ) } . {\displaystyle \psi _{0}=\mathbb {E} \{{\bar {Q}}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}(0,W)\}.} A basic TMLE for the ATE proceeds as follows: Step 1: Estimate initial models. Obtain estimates Q ¯ ^ ( a , w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}(a,w)} and g ^ ( a ∣ w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(a\mid w)} , often using flexible methods such as Super Learner. Step 2: Compute the clever covariate. Define: H ( A , W ) = A g ^ ( 1 ∣ W ) − 1 − A g ^ ( 0 ∣ W ) . {\displaystyle H(A,W)={\frac {A}{{\hat {g}}(1\mid W)}}-{\frac {1-A}{{\hat {g}}(0\mid W)}}.} Step 3: Estimate the fluctuation parameter. Fit a logistic regression of Y {\displaystyle Y} on H ( A , W ) {\displaystyle H(A,W)} with logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {logit} ({\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W))} as offset. This yields ε ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\varepsilon }}} , the MLE that solves the score equation: 1 n ∑ i = 1 n H ( A i , W i ) { Y i − Q ¯ ^ ε ( A i , W i ) } = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}H(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \{}Y_{i}-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{\varepsilon }(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \}}=0.} Step 4: Update the initial estimate. Apply the "blip" to obtain the targeted estimate: Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( A , W ) = expit ⁡ ( logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) + ε ^ H ( A , W ) ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(A,W)=\operatorname {expit} {\Big (}\operatorname {logit} {\big (}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W){\big )}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H(A,W){\Big )}.} Step 5: Compute the TMLE. The ATE estimate is: ψ ^ TMLE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n [ Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 1 , W i ) − Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 0 , W i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big [}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(1,W_{i})-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(0,W_{i}){\big ]}.} Inference. The efficient influence function (EIF) for the ATE is: D ∗ ( O ) = H ( A , W ) { Y − Q ¯ ∗ ( A , W ) } + Q ¯ ∗ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ∗ ( 0 , W ) − ψ . {\displaystyle D^{}(O)=H(A,W)\{Y-{\bar {Q}}^{}(A,W)\}+{\bar {Q}}^{}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}^{}(0,W)-\psi .} The variance is estimated by σ ^ 2 = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n ( D ∗ ( O i ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big (}D^{}(O_{i}){\big )}^{2}} , yielding Wald-type confidence intervals ψ ^ TMLE ± z 1 − α / 2 σ ^ / n {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}\pm z_{1-\alpha /2}\,{\hat {\sigma }}/{\sqrt {n}}} . Remark. For continuous outcomes, a linear fluctuation Q ¯ ^ ∗ = Q ¯ ^ + ε ^ H {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}={\hat {\bar {Q}}}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H} may be used instead. For bounded continuous outcomes, the logistic fluctuation (after rescaling Y {\displaystyle Y} to [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ) is often preferred for improved finite-sample performance. == Applications == TMLE has been applied in: Epidemiology: Estimating causal effects of exposures and interventions in observational cohort studies. Clinical trials and real-world evidence: The Targeted Learning roadmap provides a structured framework for generating and validating real-world evidence (RWE), bridging randomized trials and observational data using TMLE and related estimation techniques. This approach enables transparency, sensitivity analysis, and stronger causal inference for regulatory and clinical trial contexts. High-dimensional settings: Integration with ensemble methods for causal effect estimation. TMLE has been successfully applied in pharmacoepidemiology where a large number of covariates are automatically selected to adjust for confounding. In a study of post–myocardial infarction statin use and 1-year mortality, TMLE demonstrated robust performance relative to inverse probability weighting in scenarios with hundreds of potential confounders. == Derivatives and extensions == Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE): A methodological extension of TMLE for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments, confounders, and censoring. It allows the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes and intervention-specific causal effects over time. This framework was originally introduced by van der Laan & Gruber (2012). Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE): Enhances finite-sample performance and variable selection by collaboratively fitting the treatment mechanism in conjunction with the target parameter. == Software == Several R packages implement TMLE and related methods: tmle: Functions for binary, categorical, and continuous outcomes. ltmle: Implementation for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments and outcomes. ctmle: Algorithms for collaborative TMLE and adaptive variable selection. SuperLearner: A theoretically grounded, cross-validated ensemble learning method that combines predictions from multiple algorithms to minimize predictive risk. Widely used in TMLE for estimating nuisance parameters. The original implementation is available as the R package SuperLearner. Recent machine learning platforms like H2O AutoML implement similar ensemble strategies, combining diverse learners in parallel and leveraging stacking and blending techniques, effectively functioning as a large-scale Super Learner.

  Read more →
• 

  Digital transaction management

  Digital transaction management (DTM) is a category of cloud services designed to digitally manage document-based transactions. DTM removes the friction inherent in transactions that involve people, documents, and data to create faster, easier, more convenient, and secure processes. DTM goes beyond content and document management to include e-signatures, authentication and non-repudiation; enabling co-browsing between the customer and the business; document transfer and certification; secure archiving that goes beyond records management; and a variety of meta-processes around managing electronic transactions and the documents associated with them. DTM standards are proposed and managed by the xDTM Standard Association Aragon Research has estimated that "by YE 2016, 70% of large enterprises will have a DTM initiative underway or fully implemented."

  Read more →
• 

  Naive Bayes classifier

  In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln ⁡ Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln ⁡ p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays

  Read more →
• 

  Tensor product network

  A tensor product network, in artificial neural networks, is a network that exploits the properties of tensors to model associative concepts such as variable assignment. Orthonormal vectors are chosen to model the ideas (such as variable names and target assignments), and the tensor product of these vectors construct a network whose mathematical properties allow the user to easily extract the association from it.

  Read more →
• 

  Exploratory blockmodeling

  Exploratory blockmodeling is an (inductive) approach (or a group of approaches) in blockmodeling regarding the specification of an ideal blockmodel. This approach, also known as hypotheses-generating, is the simplest approach, as it "merely involves the definition of the block types permitted as well as of the number of clusters." With this approach, researcher usually defines the best possible blockmodel, which then represent the base for the analysis of the whole network. This approach is usually based on: previous analyses and theoretical considerations, using stricker blockmodel and block types, where the structural equivalence is stricker than the regular equivalence and using smaller number of classes. The opposite approach is called a confirmatory blockmodeling.

  Read more →
• 

  SurveyLab

  SurveyLab is an online system designed for creating and deploying surveys, questionnaires, web forms, tests, and quizzes. The platform functions as a web application, without the need for additional software installation. Founded in 2006, by the Polish company 7 Points, SurveyLab is used by businesses and professional users for market research, human resources assessments, customer feedback, and academic research. == History == SurveyLab was launched in 2006 under the name MySurveyLab, developed by the Warsaw-based company 7 Points. Early media coverage described the system as supporting online survey creation, real-time reporting, group collaboration and question logic, and noted that the platform was opened to custom feature development. MySurveyLab featured multi-user accounts, SSL-secured surveys, and support for right-to-left languages. Further 2010s updates improved reporting capabilities, expanded question types, and integration options. In 2020, the platform was rebranded to SurveyLab. By the early 2020s, the software supported integrations with external tools including Zapier, and offered additional analytics features. In 2025, 7 Points reported that SurveyLab had over 85,000 registered users and had processed over 7 million surveys. == Functionalities == SurveyLab is a web-based platform used for creating online surveys, questionnaires, and forms. Independent reviewers and software directories describe it as a tool used for market research, customer feedback management, and human resources-related assessments, including employee feedback surveys. According to the creators at 7 Points, SurveyLab supports customer satisfaction measurement, survey analysis, and 360-degree feedback evaluations. The platform allows users to create surveys with no limits on the number of questions or responses. Independent reviews describe SurveyLab as offering multiple-choice, matrix, rating-scale, and open-ended questions. According to 7 Points, the platform manages market-research workflows, including Net Promoter Score, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Effort Score questions. The tool can also re-use previous answers in later questions, and create A/B survey variants. SurveyLab can integrate with external services and applications through APIs and third-party connectors. According to its developers, the platform can connect with customer service tools, as well as CRM, marketing automation, e-commerce, and data-storage tools An industry review cited workflow integrations with CINT, Slack, Salesforce, and Zendesk Other integrations included Aquera (SSO), Sona Systems (internet research), and Synerise (customer data management). == Data collection and aggregation == Independent descriptions note that SurveyLab can combine results from emails, SMS, website widgets and pop-ups, QR codes, and social media. Its surveys are also accessible through mobile apps on iOS and Android, used for online and offline data collection in the field. Developers state that the tool supports exporting data as CSV, Excel, and SPSS, with independent reviews also mentioning PDF and PowerPoint. SurveyLab can automate response collection through a multi-channel survey distribution and reporting. It includes data trends, offline responses, and reminders to non-respondents. According to its documentation, newer versions include AI-based tools that detect and analyze sentiment, and a survey builder generating questionnaires based on user prompts. === Data security and compliance === According to 7 Points, SurveyLab provides password-protected surveys, token-based access, IP-address filtering, and two-factor authentication for user accounts, and it complies with the General Data Protection Regulation. == Awards and accolades == In 2017, SurveyLab was listed in Capterra’s Top 20 Survey Software ranking, among 20 highest-scoring survey tools based on market presence and user base. In 2018, a software review platform FinancesOnline awarded SurveyLab the Rising Star Award and the Great User Experience Award, distinctions given to products that demonstrate positive user satisfaction and strong usability characteristics.

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling linked networks

  Blockmodeling linked networks is an approach in blockmodeling in analysing the linked networks. Such approach is based on the generalized multilevel blockmodeling approach. The main objective of this approach is to achieve clustering of the nodes from all involved sets, while at the same time using all available information. At the same time, all one-mode and two-node networks, that are connected, are blockmodeled, which results in obtaining only one clustering, using nodes from each sets. Each cluster ideally contains only nodes from one set, which also allows the modeling of the links among clusters from different sets (through two-mode networks). This approach was introduced by Aleš Žiberna in 2014. Blockmodeling linked networks can be done using: separate analysis: blockmodeling each level separately; conversion approach: converting all one-mode networks to the same level and joining with two-mode networks; a true multilevel approach: one-mode and two-mode networks are blockmodeled at the same time, resulting in one clustering for nodes from each level.

  Read more →
• 

  Large margin nearest neighbor

  Large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) classification is a statistical machine learning algorithm for metric learning. It learns a pseudometric designed for k-nearest neighbor classification. The algorithm is based on semidefinite programming, a sub-class of convex optimization. The goal of supervised learning (more specifically classification) is to learn a decision rule that can categorize data instances into pre-defined classes. The k-nearest neighbor rule assumes a training data set of labeled instances (i.e. the classes are known). It classifies a new data instance with the class obtained from the majority vote of the k closest (labeled) training instances. Closeness is measured with a pre-defined metric. Large margin nearest neighbors is an algorithm that learns this global (pseudo-)metric in a supervised fashion to improve the classification accuracy of the k-nearest neighbor rule. == Setup == The main intuition behind LMNN is to learn a pseudometric under which all data instances in the training set are surrounded by at least k instances that share the same class label. If this is achieved, the leave-one-out error (a special case of cross validation) is minimized. Let the training data consist of a data set D = { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } ⊂ R d × C {\displaystyle D=\{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}\subset R^{d}\times C} , where the set of possible class categories is C = { 1 , … , c } {\displaystyle C=\{1,\dots ,c\}} . The algorithm learns a pseudometric of the type d ( x → i , x → j ) = ( x → i − x → j ) ⊤ M ( x → i − x → j ) {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})=({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})^{\top }\mathbf {M} ({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})} . For d ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle d(\cdot ,\cdot )} to be well defined, the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } needs to be positive semi-definite. The Euclidean metric is a special case, where M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is the identity matrix. This generalization is often (falsely) referred to as Mahalanobis metric. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the metric under varying M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } . The two circles show the set of points with equal distance to the center x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . In the Euclidean case this set is a circle, whereas under the modified (Mahalanobis) metric it becomes an ellipsoid. The algorithm distinguishes between two types of special data points: target neighbors and impostors. === Target neighbors === Target neighbors are selected before learning. Each instance x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} has exactly k {\displaystyle k} different target neighbors within D {\displaystyle D} , which all share the same class label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} . The target neighbors are the data points that should become nearest neighbors under the learned metric. Let us denote the set of target neighbors for a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} as N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} . === Impostors === An impostor of a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} is another data point x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} with a different class label (i.e. y i ≠ y j {\displaystyle y_{i}\neq y_{j}} ) which is one of the nearest neighbors of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . During learning the algorithm tries to minimize the number of impostors for all data instances in the training set. == Algorithm == Large margin nearest neighbors optimizes the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } with the help of semidefinite programming. The objective is twofold: For every data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} , the target neighbors should be close and the impostors should be far away. Figure 1 shows the effect of such an optimization on an illustrative example. The learned metric causes the input vector x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} to be surrounded by training instances of the same class. If it was a test point, it would be classified correctly under the k = 3 {\displaystyle k=3} nearest neighbor rule. The first optimization goal is achieved by minimizing the average distance between instances and their target neighbors ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})} . The second goal is achieved by penalizing distances to impostors x → l {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{l}} that are less than one unit further away than target neighbors x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} (and therefore pushing them out of the local neighborhood of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} ). The resulting value to be minimized can be stated as: ∑ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i [ d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ] + {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}[d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})]_{+}} With a hinge loss function [ ⋅ ] + = max ( ⋅ , 0 ) {\textstyle [\cdot ]_{+}=\max(\cdot ,0)} , which ensures that impostor proximity is not penalized when outside the margin. The margin of exactly one unit fixes the scale of the matrix M {\displaystyle M} . Any alternative choice c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} would result in a rescaling of M {\displaystyle M} by a factor of 1 / c {\displaystyle 1/c} . The final optimization problem becomes: min M ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) + λ ∑ i , j , l ξ i j l {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {M} }\sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+\lambda \sum _{i,j,l}\xi _{ijl}} ∀ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i {\displaystyle \forall _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}} d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ≤ ξ i j l {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})\leq \xi _{ijl}} ξ i j l ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}\geq 0} M ⪰ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} \succeq 0} The hyperparameter λ > 0 {\textstyle \lambda >0} is some positive constant (typically set through cross-validation). Here the variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} (together with two types of constraints) replace the term in the cost function. They play a role similar to slack variables to absorb the extent of violations of the impostor constraints. The last constraint ensures that M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is positive semi-definite. The optimization problem is an instance of semidefinite programming (SDP). Although SDPs tend to suffer from high computational complexity, this particular SDP instance can be solved very efficiently due to the underlying geometric properties of the problem. In particular, most impostor constraints are naturally satisfied and do not need to be enforced during runtime (i.e. the set of variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} is sparse). A particularly well suited solver technique is the working set method, which keeps a small set of constraints that are actively enforced and monitors the remaining (likely satisfied) constraints only occasionally to ensure correctness. == Extensions and efficient solvers == LMNN was extended to multiple local metrics in the 2008 paper. This extension significantly improves the classification error, but involves a more expensive optimization problem. In their 2009 publication in the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Weinberger and Saul derive an efficient solver for the semi-definite program. It can learn a metric for the MNIST handwritten digit data set in several hours, involving billions of pairwise constraints. An open source Matlab implementation is freely available at the authors web page. Kumal et al. extended the algorithm to incorporate local invariances to multivariate polynomial transformations and improved regularization.

  Read more →
• 

  Elastic map

  Elastic maps provide a tool for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. By their construction, they are a system of elastic springs embedded in the data space. This system approximates a low-dimensional manifold. The elastic coefficients of this system allow the switch from completely unstructured k-means clustering (zero elasticity) to the estimators located closely to linear PCA manifolds (for high bending and low stretching modules). With some intermediate values of the elasticity coefficients, this system effectively approximates non-linear principal manifolds. This approach is based on a mechanical analogy between principal manifolds, that are passing through "the middle" of the data distribution, and elastic membranes and plates. The method was developed by A.N. Gorban, A.Y. Zinovyev and A.A. Pitenko in 1996–1998. == Energy of elastic map == Let S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} be a data set in a finite-dimensional Euclidean space. Elastic map is represented by a set of nodes w j {\displaystyle {\bf {w}}_{j}} in the same space. Each datapoint s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} has a host node, namely the closest node w j {\displaystyle {\bf {w}}_{j}} (if there are several closest nodes then one takes the node with the smallest number). The data set S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is divided into classes K j = { s | w j is a host of s } {\displaystyle K_{j}=\{s\ |\ {\bf {w}}_{j}{\mbox{ is a host of }}s\}} . The approximation energy D is the distortion D = 1 2 ∑ j = 1 k ∑ s ∈ K j ‖ s − w j ‖ 2 {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{j=1}^{k}\sum _{s\in K_{j}}\|s-{\bf {w}}_{j}\|^{2}} , which is the energy of the springs with unit elasticity which connect each data point with its host node. It is possible to apply weighting factors to the terms of this sum, for example to reflect the standard deviation of the probability density function of any subset of data points { s i } {\displaystyle \{s_{i}\}} . On the set of nodes an additional structure is defined. Some pairs of nodes, ( w i , w j ) {\displaystyle ({\bf {w}}_{i},{\bf {w}}_{j})} , are connected by elastic edges. Call this set of pairs E {\displaystyle E} . Some triplets of nodes, ( w i , w j , w k ) {\displaystyle ({\bf {w}}_{i},{\bf {w}}_{j},{\bf {w}}_{k})} , form bending ribs. Call this set of triplets G {\displaystyle G} . The stretching energy is U E = 1 2 λ ∑ ( w i , w j ) ∈ E ‖ w i − w j ‖ 2 {\displaystyle U_{E}={\frac {1}{2}}\lambda \sum _{({\bf {w}}_{i},{\bf {w}}_{j})\in E}\|{\bf {w}}_{i}-{\bf {w}}_{j}\|^{2}} , The bending energy is U G = 1 2 μ ∑ ( w i , w j , w k ) ∈ G ‖ w i − 2 w j + w k ‖ 2 {\displaystyle U_{G}={\frac {1}{2}}\mu \sum _{({\bf {w}}_{i},{\bf {w}}_{j},{\bf {w}}_{k})\in G}\|{\bf {w}}_{i}-2{\bf {w}}_{j}+{\bf {w}}_{k}\|^{2}} , where λ {\displaystyle \lambda } and μ {\displaystyle \mu } are the stretching and bending moduli respectively. The stretching energy is sometimes referred to as the membrane, while the bending energy is referred to as the thin plate term. For example, on the 2D rectangular grid the elastic edges are just vertical and horizontal edges (pairs of closest vertices) and the bending ribs are the vertical or horizontal triplets of consecutive (closest) vertices. The total energy of the elastic map is thus U = D + U E + U G . {\displaystyle U=D+U_{E}+U_{G}.} The position of the nodes { w j } {\displaystyle \{{\bf {w}}_{j}\}} is determined by the mechanical equilibrium of the elastic map, i.e. its location is such that it minimizes the total energy U {\displaystyle U} . == Expectation-maximization algorithm == For a given splitting of dataset S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} in classes K j {\displaystyle K_{j}} , minimization of the quadratic functional U {\displaystyle U} is a linear problem with the sparse matrix of coefficients. Therefore, similar to principal component analysis or k-means, a splitting method is used: For given { w j } {\displaystyle \{{\bf {w}}_{j}\}} find { K j } {\displaystyle \{K_{j}\}} ; For given { K j } {\displaystyle \{K_{j}\}} minimize U {\displaystyle U} and find { w j } {\displaystyle \{{\bf {w}}_{j}\}} ; If no change, terminate. This expectation-maximization algorithm guarantees a local minimum of U {\displaystyle U} . For improving the approximation various additional methods are proposed. For example, the softening strategy is used. This strategy starts with a rigid grids (small length, small bending and large elasticity modules λ {\displaystyle \lambda } and μ {\displaystyle \mu } coefficients) and finishes with soft grids (small λ {\displaystyle \lambda } and μ {\displaystyle \mu } ). The training goes in several epochs, each epoch with its own grid rigidness. Another adaptive strategy is growing net: one starts from a small number of nodes and gradually adds new nodes. Each epoch goes with its own number of nodes. == Applications == Most important applications of the method and free software are in bioinformatics for exploratory data analysis and visualisation of multidimensional data, for data visualisation in economics, social and political sciences, as an auxiliary tool for data mapping in geographic informational systems and for visualisation of data of various nature. The method is applied in quantitative biology for reconstructing the curved surface of a tree leaf from a stack of light microscopy images. This reconstruction is used for quantifying the geodesic distances between trichomes and their patterning, which is a marker of the capability of a plant to resist to pathogenes. Recently, the method is adapted as a support tool in the decision process underlying the selection, optimization, and management of financial portfolios. The method of elastic maps has been systematically tested and compared with several machine learning methods on the applied problem of identification of the flow regime of a gas-liquid flow in a pipe. There are various regimes: Single phase water or air flow, Bubbly flow, Bubbly-slug flow, Slug flow, Slug-churn flow, Churn flow, Churn-annular flow, and Annular flow. The simplest and most common method used to identify the flow regime is visual observation. This approach is, however, subjective and unsuitable for relatively high gas and liquid flow rates. Therefore, the machine learning methods are proposed by many authors. The methods are applied to differential pressure data collected during a calibration process. The method of elastic maps provided a 2D map, where the area of each regime is represented. The comparison with some other machine learning methods is presented in Table 1 for various pipe diameters and pressure. Here, ANN stands for the backpropagation artificial neural networks, SVM stands for the support vector machine, SOM for the self-organizing maps. The hybrid technology was developed for engineering applications. In this technology, elastic maps are used in combination with Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and backpropagation ANN. The textbook provides a systematic comparison of elastic maps and self-organizing maps (SOMs) in applications to economic and financial decision-making.

  Read more →
• 

  QF-Test

  QF-Test from Quality First Software is a cross-platform software tool for automated testing of programs via the graphical user interface (GUI) test automation). The program is specialized on (Java/Swing, Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT), Eclipse plug-ins and rich client platform (RCP) applications, ULC and JavaFX) cross-web browser test automation of static and dynamic web applications (HTML and web frameworks like Angular, Ext JS, Fluent UI React, Google Web Toolkit (GWT), jQuery UI, jQueryEasyUI Remote Application Platform (RAP), Qooxdoo, RichFaces, Vaadin, React, Smart GWT, Vue.js, ICEfaces and ZK). Version 4.1 added support for macOS and the Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge browsers via the Selenium WebDriver. Representational State Transfer (RESTful) web service testing. From version 5.0, Windows applications can also be tested (classic Win32 applications, .NET framework applications (often developed in C#) based on Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) or Windows Forms, Windows apps and Universal Windows Platform (UWP) applications using Extensible Application Markup Language (XAML) controls) and modern C++ applications (such as Qt applications). Version 5.3 added support for the Chrome DevTools protocol, which allows browsers to be controlled using CDP drivers. Since then, mobile testing for iOS and Android, accessibility testing of web applications and SmartID, a new approach for more flexible and robust component recognition, have been introduced. Powerful enhancements such as WebAPI testing and AI-assisted validation complement the test automation tool. == Overview == QF-Test (the successor of qftestJUI, available since 2001) enables regression and load testing and runs on Windows, Unix and macOS. It is mainly used commercially by testers, developers or business analysts (modelling, low code approaches) with or without programming knowledge as part of software Quality Assurance. Since December 2008, a webtest add-on is available which allows test automation of browser-based GUIs (such as Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Apple Safari, and Microsoft Edge) along with extant Java GUI test functions, which was extended to include JavaFX in July 2014. From 2018, QF-Test version 4.2 can test PDF documents, from 2020 native desktop applications (QF-Test version 5) and in 2022, mobile application testing will be added. The basis for efficient use in test automation is stable component recognition (IDs, logical screen elements, labels, CustomWebResolver, SmartID, ...) with low maintenance effort. == Features == General – QF-Test's capture/replay function enables recording of tests for beginners, while modular programming (modularizing) allows creating large test suites in a concise arrangement. For the advanced user who requires even more control over his application, the tool offers access to internal program structures through the standard scripting languages Jython, the Java implementation of the popular Python language, JavaScript, and Groovy. The tool also offers a batch processing mode, allowing to run tests unattended and then generate XML, HTML and JUnit reports. Thus the tool can be integrated into existing build/test frameworks like Jenkins, Ant or Maven. Another mode is the so-called Daemon mode for distributed test execution. A specific integration with many test management tools exists. There is a test debugger (enabling arbitrary stepping and editing variables at runtime) and a fully automated dependency management that takes care of pre- and postconditions and helps isolating test cases. Data-driven testing with no need for scripting is possible. Web testing: cross-browser on Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, Edge (including Chromium-based), Opera and Safari for static and dynamic websites (HTML5, Ajax, DOM). A headless browser can also be used for testing. QF-Test fully supports frameworks like Angular, React and Vue.js, but also many specific UI toolkits like Smart (GWT), GXT/ExtGWT, ExtJS, ICEfaces, jQuery UI, Kendo UI, PrimeFaces, Qooxdoo, RAP, RichFaces, Vaadin and ZK. Easy integration with Selenium makes it easy to balance development and functional testing. Electron applications can also be tested. Other (e.g., SAP UI5, Siebel Open UI, Salesforce) and future web toolkits can be integrated with little effort. Short-term and individual customisations (CustomWebResolver) are possible via an optimised interface JavaFX, Java Swing, SWT, Eclipse plug-ins and RCP applications and ULC. Support for testing when migrating from JavaSwing or JavaFX to web applications (e.g. via Webswing). Hybrid applications based on multiple technologies are also supported, e.g. applications that integrate HTML content into Java applications using JxBrowser. Windows-based applications (Win32, .NET, Windows Forms, WPF, Windows apps, Qt). Android applications can be tested on real devices and with the Android Studio emulator. iOS applications can also be tested on real devices and with the Xcode Simulator. Testing of PDF documents (document comparisons, checking content, texts, images/graphic objects, layouts, "invisible" or partially hidden objects). QF-Test 9 introduces web accessibility testing to automatically check compliance with WCAG and other standards. QF-Test 10 introduces powerful enhancements for WebAPI testing and AI-assisted validation.

  Read more →
• 

  Random indexing

  Random indexing is a dimensionality reduction method and computational framework for distributional semantics, based on the insight that very-high-dimensional vector space model implementations are impractical, that models need not grow in dimensionality when new items (e.g. new terminology) are encountered, and that a high-dimensional model can be projected into a space of lower dimensionality without compromising L2 distance metrics if the resulting dimensions are chosen appropriately. This is the original point of the random projection approach to dimension reduction first formulated as the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma, and locality-sensitive hashing has some of the same starting points. Random indexing, as used in representation of language, originates from the work of Pentti Kanerva on sparse distributed memory, and can be described as an incremental formulation of a random projection. It can be also verified that random indexing is a random projection technique for the construction of Euclidean spaces—i.e. L2 normed vector spaces. In Euclidean spaces, random projections are elucidated using the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. The TopSig technique extends the random indexing model to produce bit vectors for comparison with the Hamming distance similarity function. It is used for improving the performance of information retrieval and document clustering. In a similar line of research, Random Manhattan Integer Indexing (RMII) is proposed for improving the performance of the methods that employ the Manhattan distance between text units. Many random indexing methods primarily generate similarity from co-occurrence of items in a corpus. Reflexive Random Indexing (RRI) generates similarity from co-occurrence and from shared occurrence with other items.

  Read more →
• 

  Constructing skill trees

  Constructing skill trees (CST) is a hierarchical reinforcement learning algorithm which can build skill trees from a set of sample solution trajectories obtained from demonstration. CST uses an incremental MAP (maximum a posteriori) change point detection algorithm to segment each demonstration trajectory into skills and integrate the results into a skill tree. CST was introduced by George Konidaris, Scott Kuindersma, Andrew Barto and Roderic Grupen in 2010. == Algorithm == CST consists of mainly three parts;change point detection, alignment and merging. The main focus of CST is online change-point detection. The change-point detection algorithm is used to segment data into skills and uses the sum of discounted reward R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} as the target regression variable. Each skill is assigned an appropriate abstraction. A particle filter is used to control the computational complexity of CST. The change point detection algorithm is implemented as follows. The data for times t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} and models Q with prior p ( q ∈ Q ) {\displaystyle p(q\in Q)} are given. The algorithm is assumed to be able to fit a segment from time j + 1 {\displaystyle j+1} to t using model q with the fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)_{}^{}} . A linear regression model with Gaussian noise is used to compute P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} . The Gaussian noise prior has mean zero, and variance which follows I n v e r s e G a m m a ( v 2 , u 2 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {InverseGamma} \left({\frac {v}{2}},{\frac {u}{2}}\right)} . The prior for each weight follows N o r m a l ( 0 , σ 2 δ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Normal} (0,\sigma ^{2}\delta )} . The fit probability P ( j , t , q ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)} is computed by the following equation. P ( j , t , q ) = π − n 2 δ m | ( A + D ) − 1 | 1 2 u v 2 ( y + u ) u + v 2 Γ ( n + v 2 ) Γ ( v 2 ) {\displaystyle P(j,t,q)={\frac {\pi ^{-{\frac {n}{2}}}}{\delta ^{m}}}\left|(A+D)^{-1}\right|^{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {u^{\frac {v}{2}}}{(y+u)^{\frac {u+v}{2}}}}{\frac {\Gamma ({\frac {n+v}{2}})}{\Gamma ({\frac {v}{2}})}}} Then, CST compute the probability of the changepoint at time j with model q, P t ( j , q ) {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)} and P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} using a Viterbi algorithm. P t ( j , q ) = ( 1 − G ( t − j − 1 ) ) P ( j , t , q ) p ( q ) P j MAP {\displaystyle P_{t}(j,q)=(1-G(t-j-1))P(j,t,q)p(q)P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}} P j MAP = max i , q P j ( i , q ) g ( j − i ) 1 − G ( j − i − 1 ) , ∀ j < t {\displaystyle P_{j}^{\text{MAP}}=\max _{i,q}{\frac {P_{j}(i,q)g(j-i)}{1-G(j-i-1)}},\forall j Read more →