AI App Jesus

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

• 

  Apache Hama

  Apache Hama is a distributed computing framework based on bulk synchronous parallel computing techniques for massive scientific computations e.g., matrix, graph and network algorithms. Originally a sub-project of Hadoop, it became an Apache Software Foundation top level project in 2012. It was created by Edward J. Yoon, who named it (short for "Hadoop Matrix Algebra"), and Hama also means hippopotamus in Yoon's native Korean language (하마), following the trend of naming Apache projects after animals and zoology (such as Apache Pig). Hama was inspired by Google's Pregel large-scale graph computing framework described in 2010. When executing graph algorithms, Hama showed a fifty-fold performance increase relative to Hadoop. Retired in April 2020, project resources are made available as part of the Apache Attic. Yoon cited issues of installation, scalability, and a difficult programming model for its lack of adoption. == Architecture == Hama consists of three major components: BSPMaster, GroomServers and Zookeeper. === BSPMaster === BSPMaster is responsible for: Maintaining groom server status Controlling super steps in a cluster Maintaining job progress information Scheduling jobs and assigning tasks to groom servers Disseminating execution class across groom servers Controlling fault Providing users with the cluster control interface. A BSP Master and multiple grooms are started by the script. Then, the bsp master starts up with a RPC server for groom servers. Groom servers starts up with a BSPPeer instance and a RPC proxy to contact the bsp master. After started, each groom periodically sends a heartbeat message that encloses its groom server status, including maximum task capacity, unused memory, and so on. Each time the BSP master receives a heartbeat message, it brings the groom server status up-to-date. The bsp master makes use of groom servers' status in order to assign tasks to idle groom servers - and returns a heartbeat response containing assigned tasks and others actions for a groom server to do. Currently BSP master has a FIFO job scheduler and simple task assignment algorithms. === GroomServer === A groom server (shortly referred to as groom) is a process that performs BSP tasks assigned by BSPMaster. Each groom contacts the BSPMaster, and it takes assigned tasks and reports its status by means of periodical piggybacks with BSPMaster. Each groom is designed to run with HDFS or other distributed storages. Basically, a groom server and a data node should be run on one physical node. === Zookeeper === A Zookeeper is used to manage the efficient barrier synchronisation of the BSPPeers.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic mapping (statistics)

  Semantic mapping (SM) is a statistical method for dimensionality reduction (the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space). SM can be used in a set of multidimensional vectors of features to extract a few new features that preserves the main data characteristics. SM performs dimensionality reduction by clustering the original features in semantic clusters and combining features mapped in the same cluster to generate an extracted feature. Given a data set, this method constructs a projection matrix that can be used to map a data element from a high-dimensional space into a reduced dimensional space. SM can be applied in construction of text mining and information retrieval systems, as well as systems managing vectors of high dimensionality. SM is an alternative to random mapping, principal components analysis and latent semantic indexing methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Farthest-first traversal

  In computational geometry, the farthest-first traversal of a compact metric space is a sequence of points in the space, where the first point is selected arbitrarily and each successive point is as far as possible from the set of previously-selected points. The same concept can also be applied to a finite set of geometric points, by restricting the selected points to belong to the set or equivalently by considering the finite metric space generated by these points. For a finite metric space or finite set of geometric points, the resulting sequence forms a permutation of the points, also known as the greedy permutation. Every prefix of a farthest-first traversal provides a set of points that is widely spaced and close to all remaining points. More precisely, no other set of equally many points can be spaced more than twice as widely, and no other set of equally many points can be less than half as far to its farthest remaining point. In part because of these properties, farthest-point traversals have many applications, including the approximation of the traveling salesman problem and the metric k-center problem. They may be constructed in polynomial time, or (for low-dimensional Euclidean spaces) approximated in near-linear time. == Definition and properties == A farthest-first traversal is a sequence of points in a compact metric space, with each point appearing at most once. If the space is finite, each point appears exactly once, and the traversal is a permutation of all of the points in the space. The first point of the sequence may be any point in the space. Each point p after the first must have the maximum possible distance to the set of points earlier than p in the sequence, where the distance from a point to a set is defined as the minimum of the pairwise distances to points in the set. A given space may have many different farthest-first traversals, depending both on the choice of the first point in the sequence (which may be any point in the space) and on ties for the maximum distance among later choices. Farthest-point traversals may be characterized by the following properties. Fix a number k, and consider the prefix formed by the first k points of the farthest-first traversal of any metric space. Let r be the distance between the final point of the prefix and the other points in the prefix. Then this subset has the following two properties: All pairs of the selected points are at distance at least r from each other, and All points of the metric space are at distance at most r from the subset. Conversely any sequence having these properties, for all choices of k, must be a farthest-first traversal. These are the two defining properties of a Delone set, so each prefix of the farthest-first traversal forms a Delone set. == Applications == Rosenkrantz, Stearns & Lewis (1977) used the farthest-first traversal to define the farthest-insertion heuristic for the travelling salesman problem. This heuristic finds approximate solutions to the travelling salesman problem by building up a tour on a subset of points, adding one point at a time to the tour in the ordering given by a farthest-first traversal. To add each point to the tour, one edge of the previous tour is broken and replaced by a pair of edges through the added point, in the cheapest possible way. Although Rosenkrantz et al. prove only a logarithmic approximation ratio for this method, they show that in practice it often works better than other insertion methods with better provable approximation ratios. Later, the same sequence of points was popularized by Gonzalez (1985), who used it as part of greedy approximation algorithms for two problems in clustering, in which the goal is to partition a set of points into k clusters. One of the two problems that Gonzalez solve in this way seeks to minimize the maximum diameter of a cluster, while the other, known as the metric k-center problem, seeks to minimize the maximum radius, the distance from a chosen central point of a cluster to the farthest point from it in the same cluster. For instance, the k-center problem can be used to model the placement of fire stations within a city, in order to ensure that every address within the city can be reached quickly by a fire truck. For both clustering problems, Gonzalez chooses a set of k cluster centers by selecting the first k points of a farthest-first traversal, and then creates clusters by assigning each input point to the nearest cluster center. If r is the distance from the set of k selected centers to the next point at position k + 1 in the traversal, then with this clustering every point is within distance r of its center and every cluster has diameter at most 2r. However, the subset of k centers together with the next point are all at distance at least r from each other, and any k-clustering would put some two of these points into a single cluster, with one of them at distance at least r/2 from its center and with diameter at least r. Thus, Gonzalez's heuristic gives an approximation ratio of 2 for both clustering problems. Gonzalez's heuristic was independently rediscovered for the metric k-center problem by Dyer & Frieze (1985), who applied it more generally to weighted k-center problems. Another paper on the k-center problem from the same time, Hochbaum & Shmoys (1985), achieves the same approximation ratio of 2, but its techniques are different. Nevertheless, Gonzalez's heuristic, and the name "farthest-first traversal", are often incorrectly attributed to Hochbaum and Shmoys. For both the min-max diameter clustering problem and the metric k-center problem, these approximations are optimal: the existence of a polynomial-time heuristic with any constant approximation ratio less than 2 would imply that P = NP. As well as for clustering, the farthest-first traversal can also be used in another type of facility location problem, the max-min facility dispersion problem, in which the goal is to choose the locations of k different facilities so that they are as far apart from each other as possible. More precisely, the goal in this problem is to choose k points from a given metric space or a given set of candidate points, in such a way as to maximize the minimum pairwise distance between the selected points. Again, this can be approximated by choosing the first k points of a farthest-first traversal. If r denotes the distance of the kth point from all previous points, then every point of the metric space or the candidate set is within distance r of the first k − 1 points. By the pigeonhole principle, some two points of the optimal solution (whatever it is) must both be within distance r of the same point among these first k − 1 chosen points, and (by the triangle inequality) within distance 2r of each other. Therefore, the heuristic solution given by the farthest-first traversal is within a factor of two of optimal. Other applications of the farthest-first traversal include color quantization (clustering the colors in an image to a smaller set of representative colors), progressive scanning of images (choosing an order to display the pixels of an image so that prefixes of the ordering produce good lower-resolution versions of the whole image rather than filling in the image from top to bottom), point selection in the probabilistic roadmap method for motion planning, simplification of point clouds, generating masks for halftone images, hierarchical clustering, finding the similarities between polygon meshes of similar surfaces, choosing diverse and high-value observation targets for underwater robot exploration, fault detection in sensor networks, modeling phylogenetic diversity, matching vehicles in a heterogenous fleet to customer delivery requests, uniform distribution of geodetic observatories on the Earth's surface or of other types of sensor network, generation of virtual point lights in the instant radiosity computer graphics rendering method, and geometric range searching data structures. == Algorithms == === Greedy exact algorithm === The farthest-first traversal of a finite point set may be computed by a greedy algorithm that maintains the distance of each point from the previously selected points, performing the following steps: Initialize the sequence of selected points to the empty sequence, and the distances of each point to the selected points to infinity. While not all points have been selected, repeat the following steps: Scan the list of not-yet-selected points to find a point p that has the maximum distance from the selected points. Remove p from the not-yet-selected points and add it to the end of the sequence of selected points. For each remaining not-yet-selected point q, replace the distance stored for q by the minimum of its old value and the distance from p to q. For a set of n points, this algorithm takes O(n2) steps and O(n2) distance computations. === Approximations === A faster approximation algorithm, given by Har-Peled & Mendel (2006), applie

  Read more →
• 

  Variable-order Bayesian network

  Variable-order Bayesian network (VOBN) models provide an important extension of both the Bayesian network models and the variable-order Markov models. VOBN models are used in machine learning in general and have shown great potential in bioinformatics applications. These models extend the widely used position weight matrix (PWM) models, Markov models, and Bayesian network (BN) models. In contrast to the BN models, where each random variable depends on a fixed subset of random variables, in VOBN models these subsets may vary based on the specific realization of observed variables. The observed realizations are often called the context and, hence, VOBN models are also known as context-specific Bayesian networks. The flexibility in the definition of conditioning subsets of variables turns out to be a real advantage in classification and analysis applications, as the statistical dependencies between random variables in a sequence of variables (not necessarily adjacent) may be taken into account efficiently, and in a position-specific and context-specific manner.

  Read more →
• 

  WiPay

  WiPay is a Caribbean-based payment technology company that specializes in electronic payments for businesses. WiPay was founded in 2016 by Aldwyn Wayne Jr., a Trinidadian businessman and graduate of Georgia Tech Institute. In September 2019, WiPay partnered with MasterCard. As a result, WiPay became the only licensed Payment Facilitator (PAYFAC) on both the MasterCard and Visa networks in the region.

  Read more →
• 

  Variational message passing

  Variational message passing (VMP) is an approximate inference technique for continuous- or discrete-valued Bayesian networks, with conjugate-exponential parents, developed by John Winn. VMP was developed as a means of generalizing the approximate variational methods used by such techniques as latent Dirichlet allocation, and works by updating an approximate distribution at each node through messages in the node's Markov blanket. == Likelihood lower bound == Given some set of hidden variables H {\displaystyle H} and observed variables V {\displaystyle V} , the goal of approximate inference is to maximize a lower-bound on the probability that a graphical model is in the configuration V {\displaystyle V} . Over some probability distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} (to be defined later), ln ⁡ P ( V ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) P ( H | V ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) [ ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) Q ( H ) − ln ⁡ P ( H | V ) Q ( H ) ] {\displaystyle \ln P(V)=\sum _{H}Q(H)\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{P(H|V)}}=\sum _{H}Q(H){\Bigg [}\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{Q(H)}}-\ln {\frac {P(H|V)}{Q(H)}}{\Bigg ]}} . So, if we define our lower bound to be L ( Q ) = ∑ H Q ( H ) ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) Q ( H ) {\displaystyle L(Q)=\sum _{H}Q(H)\ln {\frac {P(H,V)}{Q(H)}}} , then the likelihood is simply this bound plus the relative entropy between P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} . Because the relative entropy is non-negative, the function L {\displaystyle L} defined above is indeed a lower bound of the log likelihood of our observation V {\displaystyle V} . The distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} will have a simpler character than that of P {\displaystyle P} because marginalizing over P {\displaystyle P} is intractable for all but the simplest of graphical models. In particular, VMP uses a factorized distribution Q ( H ) = ∏ i Q i ( H i ) , {\displaystyle Q(H)=\prod _{i}Q_{i}(H_{i}),} where H i {\displaystyle H_{i}} is a disjoint part of the graphical model. == Determining the update rule == The likelihood estimate needs to be as large as possible; because it's a lower bound, getting closer log ⁡ P {\displaystyle \log P} improves the approximation of the log likelihood. By substituting in the factorized version of Q {\displaystyle Q} , L ( Q ) {\displaystyle L(Q)} , parameterized over the hidden nodes H i {\displaystyle H_{i}} as above, is simply the negative relative entropy between Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} and Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} plus other terms independent of Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} if Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} is defined as Q j ∗ ( H j ) = 1 Z e E − j { ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) } {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}(H_{j})={\frac {1}{Z}}e^{\mathbb {E} _{-j}\{\ln P(H,V)\}}} , where E − j { ln ⁡ P ( H , V ) } {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{-j}\{\ln P(H,V)\}} is the expectation over all distributions Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} except Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} . Thus, if we set Q j {\displaystyle Q_{j}} to be Q j ∗ {\displaystyle Q_{j}^{}} , the bound L {\displaystyle L} is maximized. == Messages in variational message passing == Parents send their children the expectation of their sufficient statistic while children send their parents their natural parameter, which also requires messages to be sent from the co-parents of the node. == Relationship to exponential families == Because all nodes in VMP come from exponential families and all parents of nodes are conjugate to their children nodes, the expectation of the sufficient statistic can be computed from the normalization factor. == VMP algorithm == The algorithm begins by computing the expected value of the sufficient statistics for that vector. Then, until the likelihood converges to a stable value (this is usually accomplished by setting a small threshold value and running the algorithm until it increases by less than that threshold value), do the following at each node: Get all messages from parents. Get all messages from children (this might require the children to get messages from the co-parents). Compute the expected value of the nodes sufficient statistics. == Constraints == Because every child must be conjugate to its parent, this has limited the types of distributions that can be used in the model. For example, the parents of a Gaussian distribution must be a Gaussian distribution (corresponding to the Mean) and a gamma distribution (corresponding to the precision, or one over σ {\displaystyle \sigma } in more common parameterizations). Discrete variables can have Dirichlet parents, and Poisson and exponential nodes must have gamma parents. More recently, VMP has been extended to handle models that violate this conditional conjugacy constraint. == Literature == John Winn; Christopher M. Bishop (2005). "Variational Message Passing" (PDF). Journal of Machine Learning Research. 6: 661–694. ISSN 1533-7928. Wikidata Q139488859. Beal, M.J. (2003). Variational Algorithms for Approximate Bayesian Inference (PDF) (PhD). Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-04-28. Retrieved 2007-02-15.

  Read more →
• 

  Prototype methods

  Prototype methods are machine learning methods that use data prototypes. A data prototype is a data value that reflects other values in its class, e.g., the centroid in a K-means clustering problem. == Methods == The following are some prototype methods K-means clustering Learning vector quantization (LVQ) Gaussian mixtures == Related Methods == While K-nearest neighbor's does not use prototypes, it is similar to prototype methods like K-means clustering.

  Read more →
• 

  Vladimir Batagelj

  Vladimir Batagelj (born June 14, 1948 in Idrija, Yugoslavia) is a Slovenian mathematician and an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Ljubljana. He is known for his work in discrete mathematics and combinatorial optimization, particularly analysis of social networks and other large networks (blockmodeling). == Education and career == Vladimir Batagelj completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ljubljana in 1986 under the direction of Tomaž Pisanski. He stayed at the University of Ljubljana as a professor until his retirement, where he was a professor of sociology and statistics, while also being a chair of the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences. As visiting professor, he was taught at the University of Pittsburgh (1990-91) and at the University of Konstanz (2002). He was also a member of editorial boards of two journals: Informatica and Journal of Social Structure. His work has been cited over 11000 times. His book Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek on blockmodeling, coauthored with Wouter de Nooy and Andrej Mrvar, is Batagelj's most cited work and has over 3300 citations. The book was translated into Chinese and Japanese. The revised and expanded third edition has been published by Cambridge University Press. In 1975, 11 years before completing his PhD, Batagelj published a solo paper in Communications of the ACM. Batagelj authored more than 20 textbooks in Slovenian, covering topics like TeX, combinatorics and discrete mathematics. He has also written extensively in the Slovenian popular science journal Presek. Batagelj has advised 9 Ph.D. students. == Pajek == Batagelj is particularly known for his work on Pajek, a freely available software for analysis and visualization of large networks. He began work on Pajek in 1996 with Andrej Mrvar, who was then his PhD student. == Awards and honors == First prizes for contributions (with Andrej Mrvar) to Graph Drawing Contests in years: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2005 / Graph Drawing Hall of Fame. In 2007 the book Generalized blockmodeling was awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association In 2007 he was awarded (together with Anuška Ferligoj) the Simmel Award by INSNA. In 2013, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar received the INSNA's William D. Richards Software award for their work on Pajek. == Selected bibliography == Vladimir Batagelj, Social Network Analysis, Large-Scale [1]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 8245–8265. Vladimir Batagelj, Complex Networks, Visualization of [2]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 1253–1268. Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2005 (ISBN 0-521-60262-9). ESNA in Japanese, TDU, 2010. Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj, Anuška Ferligoj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Generalized Blockmodeling (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2004 (ISBN 0-521-84085-6)

  Read more →
• 

  Quantification (machine learning)

  In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation

  Read more →
• 

  Implicit blockmodeling

  Implicit blockmodeling is an approach in blockmodeling, similar to a valued and homogeneity blockmodeling, where initially an additional normalization is used and then while specifying the parameter of the relevant link is replaced by the block maximum. This approach was first proposed by Batagelj and Ferligoj in 2000, and developed by Aleš Žiberna in 2007/08. Comparing with homogeneity, the implicit blockmodeling will perform similarly with max-regular equivalence, but slightly worse in other settings. It will perform worse than valued and homogeneity blockmodeling with a pre-specified blockmodel.

  Read more →
• 

  Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory

  Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory (also known as VC theory) was developed during 1960–1990 by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. The theory is a form of computational learning theory, which attempts to explain the learning process from a statistical point of view. == Introduction == VC theory covers at least four parts (as explained in The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory): Theory of consistency of learning processes What are (necessary and sufficient) conditions for consistency of a learning process based on the empirical risk minimization principle? Nonasymptotic theory of the rate of convergence of learning processes How fast is the rate of convergence of the learning process? Theory of controlling the generalization ability of learning processes How can one control the rate of convergence (the generalization ability) of the learning process? Theory of constructing learning machines How can one construct algorithms that can control the generalization ability? VC Theory is a major subbranch of statistical learning theory. One of its main applications in statistical learning theory is to provide generalization conditions for learning algorithms. From this point of view, VC theory is related to stability, which is an alternative approach for characterizing generalization. In addition, VC theory and VC dimension are instrumental in the theory of empirical processes, in the case of processes indexed by VC classes. Arguably these are the most important applications of the VC theory, and are employed in proving generalization. Several techniques will be introduced that are widely used in the empirical process and VC theory. The discussion is mainly based on the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics. == Overview of VC theory in empirical processes == === Background on empirical processes === Let ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} be a measurable space. For any measure Q {\displaystyle Q} on ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} , and any measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } , define Q f = ∫ f d Q {\displaystyle Qf=\int fdQ} Measurability issues will be ignored here, for more technical detail see. Let F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} be a class of measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } and define: ‖ Q ‖ F = sup { | Q f | : f ∈ F } . {\displaystyle \|Q\|_{\mathcal {F}}=\sup\{\vert Qf\vert \ :\ f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}.} Let X 1 , … , X n {\displaystyle X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}} be independent, identically distributed random elements of ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Then define the empirical measure P n = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n δ X i , {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\delta _{X_{i}},} where δ here stands for the Dirac measure. The empirical measure induces a map F → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\to \mathbf {R} } given by: f ↦ P n f = 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}f={\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))} Now suppose P is the underlying true distribution of the data, which is unknown. Empirical Processes theory aims at identifying classes F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} for which statements such as the following hold: uniform law of large numbers: ‖ P n − P ‖ F → n 0 , {\displaystyle \|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}}{\underset {n}{\to }}0,} That is, as n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\to \infty } , | 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) − ∫ f d P | → 0 {\displaystyle \left|{\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))-\int fdP\right|\to 0} uniformly for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . uniform central limit theorem: G n = n ( P n − P ) ⇝ G , in ℓ ∞ ( F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {G} _{n}={\sqrt {n}}(\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)\rightsquigarrow \mathbb {G} ,\quad {\text{in }}\ell ^{\infty }({\mathcal {F}})} In the former case F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Glivenko–Cantelli class, and in the latter case (under the assumption ∀ x , sup f ∈ F | f ( x ) − P f | < ∞ {\displaystyle \forall x,\sup \nolimits _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}\vert f(x)-Pf\vert <\infty } ) the class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Donsker or P-Donsker. A Donsker class is Glivenko–Cantelli in probability by an application of Slutsky's theorem. These statements are true for a single f {\displaystyle f} , by standard LLN, CLT arguments under regularity conditions, and the difficulty in the Empirical Processes comes in because joint statements are being made for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . Intuitively then, the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} cannot be too large, and as it turns out that the geometry of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} plays a very important role. One way of measuring how big the function set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is to use the so-called covering numbers. The covering number N ( ε , F , ‖ ⋅ ‖ ) {\displaystyle N(\varepsilon ,{\mathcal {F}},\|\cdot \|)} is the minimal number of balls { g : ‖ g − f ‖ < ε } {\displaystyle \{g:\|g-f\|<\varepsilon \}} needed to cover the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} (here it is obviously assumed that there is an underlying norm on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ). The entropy is the logarithm of the covering number. Two sufficient conditions are provided below, under which it can be proved that the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is Glivenko–Cantelli or Donsker. A class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Glivenko–Cantelli if it is P-measurable with envelope F such that P ∗ F < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F<\infty } and satisfies: ∀ ε > 0 sup Q N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , F , L 1 ( Q ) ) < ∞ . {\displaystyle \forall \varepsilon >0\quad \sup \nolimits _{Q}N(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q},{\mathcal {F}},L_{1}(Q))<\infty .} The next condition is a version of Dudley's theorem. If F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is a class of functions such that ∫ 0 ∞ sup Q log ⁡ N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , 2 , F , L 2 ( Q ) ) d ε < ∞ {\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }\sup \nolimits _{Q}{\sqrt {\log N\left(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q,2},{\mathcal {F}},L_{2}(Q)\right)}}d\varepsilon <\infty } then F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Donsker for every probability measure P such that P ∗ F 2 < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F^{2}<\infty } . In the last integral, the notation means ‖ f ‖ Q , 2 = ( ∫ | f | 2 d Q ) 1 2 {\displaystyle \|f\|_{Q,2}=\left(\int |f|^{2}dQ\right)^{\frac {1}{2}}} . === Symmetrization === The majority of the arguments about how to bound the empirical process rely on symmetrization, maximal and concentration inequalities, and chaining. Symmetrization is usually the first step of the proofs, and since it is used in many machine learning proofs on bounding empirical loss functions (including the proof of the VC inequality which is discussed in the next section). It is presented here: Consider the empirical process: f ↦ ( P n − P ) f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( X i ) − P f ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto (\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(X_{i})-Pf)} Turns out that there is a connection between the empirical and the following symmetrized process: f ↦ P n 0 f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ε i f ( X i ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varepsilon _{i}f(X_{i})} The symmetrized process is a Rademacher process, conditionally on the data X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} . Therefore, it is a sub-Gaussian process by Hoeffding's inequality. Lemma (Symmetrization). For every nondecreasing, convex Φ: R → R and class of measurable functions F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , E Φ ( ‖ P n − P ‖ F ) ≤ E Φ ( 2 ‖ P n 0 ‖ F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \Phi (\|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}})\leq \mathbb {E} \Phi \left(2\left\|\mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}\right\|_{\mathcal {F}}\right)} The proof of the Symmetrization lemma relies on introducing independent copies of the original variables X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} (sometimes referred to as a ghost sample) and replacing the inner expectation of the LHS by these copies. After an application of Jensen's inequality different signs could be introduced (hence the name symmetrization) without changing the expectation. The proof can be found below because of its instructive nature. The same proof method can be used to prove the Glivenko–Cantelli theorem. A typical way of proving empirical CLTs, first uses symmetrization to pass the empirical process to P n 0 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}} and then argue conditionally on the data, using the fact that Rademacher processes are simple processes with nice properties. === VC Connection === It turns out that there is a fascinating connection between certain combinatorial properties of the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} and the entropy numbers. Uniform covering numbers can be controlled by the notion of Vapnik–Chervonenkis classes of sets – or shortly VC sets. Consider a collection C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of subsets of the sample space X {\displaystyle

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Gapo

  Gapo is a Vietnamese social networking service based in Hanoi, Vietnam. Users are able to create a personal profile and share text, photos and videos with others on the platform. Users can also use Gapo for live streaming, instant messaging, blogging, and online payments. Gapo was launched in July 2019 by Hà Trung Kiên and Duong Vi Khoa. == History == Gapo was founded in response to calls for Vietnam's Communist-led government to produce a domestic alternative to social media giants like Facebook and Google. Gapo officially launched on July 23, 2019 at an event in Hanoi. The company received 500 billion đồng (US$22 million) in funding from technology corporation G-Group to be utilized in the first phase of development. They also partnered with Sony Music Entertainment to provide music content to its services. == Features == Gapo features a news feed for posting content, livestreaming, instant messaging, and blogging. It also allows users to pay online and access public services. == Reception == Within two days of launch, Gapo received about 200,000 registrations. By September 2019, the user base increased to one million. Upon launch, Gapo experienced significant technical difficulties. Users complained about the inability to sign up for a new account and said that certain functions were not available for use at launch. This issue caused Gapo to temporarily suspend their services in order to perform upgrades and bug fixes. Gapo relaunched the next day, though many users reported that the access speed decreased. The mobile app also received mixed reviews from users in both the App Store and the Google Play Store, with an average rating of 3.1 and 3.5, respectively. Most users found the app to be a knockoff of Facebook, although some users praised the app for being locally developed. === Expert opinions on platform viability === Le Hong Hiep of the ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute was doubtful that a Vietnamese-owned social network service could be as powerful as a foreign-based service, stating that Vietnam might not be able to develop a viable social media network to compete with the likes of Facebook or Google. Others, like blogger Ann Chi, said that, due to local players complying with local censorship policy, there is a chance that locals might not trust Gapo and other local services in light of possible surveillance. Regarding the targeted user base figure for the end of 2019 and 2021, experts cautioned that the company might need an additional trillion đồng of funding to reach its planned user base targets. In response, the company stated that Gapo was never meant to compete with Facebook, but instead noted that the main difference between Gapo and Facebook is that Gapo provides a personalized user experience through customization. == Censorship == Gapo has the right to censor posts and news that are deemed offensive and inaccurate by users or not approved by the censorship curators.

  Read more →
• 

  Witness set

  In combinatorics and computational learning theory, a witness set is a set of elements that distinguishes a given Boolean function from a given class of other Boolean functions. Let C {\displaystyle C} be a concept class over a domain X {\displaystyle X} (that is, a family of Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} ) and c {\displaystyle c} be a concept in X {\displaystyle X} (a single Boolean function). A subset S {\displaystyle S} of X {\displaystyle X} is a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} in X {\displaystyle X} if S {\displaystyle S} distinguishes c {\displaystyle c} from all the other functions in C {\displaystyle C} , in the sense that no other function in C {\displaystyle C} has the same values on S {\displaystyle S} . For a concept class with | C | {\displaystyle |C|} concepts, there exists a concept that has a witness of size at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|C|} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of all Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} . By a result of Bondy (1972) there exists a single witness set of size at most | C | − 1 {\displaystyle |C|-1} that is valid for all concepts in C {\displaystyle C} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of the indicator functions of the empty set and some singleton sets. One way to construct this set is to interpret the concepts as bitstrings, and the domain elements as positions in these bitstrings. Then the set of positions at which a trie of the bitstrings branches forms the desired witness set. This construction is central to the operation of the fusion tree data structure. The minimum size of a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} is called the witness size or specification number and is denoted by w C ( c ) {\displaystyle w_{C}(c)} . The value max { w C ( c ) : c ∈ C } {\displaystyle \max\{w_{C}(c):c\in C\}} is called the teaching dimension of C {\displaystyle C} . It represents the number of examples of a concept that need to be presented by a teacher to a learner, in the worst case, to enable the learner to determine which concept is being presented. Witness sets have also been called teaching sets, keys, specifying sets, or discriminants. The "witness set" terminology is from Kushilevitz et al. (1996), who trace the concept of witness sets to work by Cover (1965).

  Read more →
• 

  Automated Pain Recognition

  Automated Pain Recognition (APR) is a method for objectively measuring pain and at the same time represents an interdisciplinary research area that comprises elements of medicine, psychology, psychobiology, and computer science. The focus is on computer-aided objective recognition of pain, implemented on the basis of machine learning. Automated pain recognition allows for the valid, reliable detection and monitoring of pain in people who are unable to communicate verbally. The underlying machine learning processes are trained and validated in advance by means of unimodal or multimodal body signals. Signals used to detect pain may include facial expressions or gestures and may also be of a (psycho-)physiological or paralinguistic nature. To date, the focus has been on identifying pain intensity, but visionary efforts are also being made to recognize the quality, site, and temporal course of pain. However, the clinical implementation of this approach is a controversial topic in the field of pain research. Critics of automated pain recognition argue that pain diagnosis can only be performed subjectively by humans. == Background == Pain diagnosis under conditions where verbal reporting is restricted - such as in verbally and/or cognitively impaired people or in patients who are sedated or mechanically ventilated - is based on behavioral observations by trained professionals. However, all known observation procedures (e.g., Zurich Observation Pain Assessment (ZOPA)); Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD) require a great deal of specialist expertise. These procedures can be made more difficult by perception- and interpretation-related misjudgments on the part of the observer. With regard to the differences in design, methodology, evaluation sample, and conceptualization of the phenomenon of pain, it is difficult to compare the quality criteria of the various tools. Even if trained personnel could theoretically record pain intensity several times a day using observation instruments, it would not be possible to measure it every minute or second. In this respect, the goal of automated pain recognition is to use valid, robust pain response patterns that can be recorded multimodally for a temporally dynamic, high-resolution, automated pain intensity recognition system. == Procedure == For automated pain recognition, pain-relevant parameters are usually recorded using non-invasive sensor technology, which captures data on the (physical) responses of the person in pain. This can be achieved with camera technology that captures facial expressions, gestures, or posture, while audio sensors record paralinguistic features. (Psycho-)physiological information such as muscle tone and heart rate can be collected via biopotential sensors (electrodes). Pain recognition requires the extraction of meaningful characteristics or patterns from the data collected. This is achieved using machine learning techniques that are able to provide an assessment of the pain after training (learning), e.g., "no pain," "mild pain," or "severe pain." == Parameters == Although the phenomenon of pain comprises different components (sensory discriminative, affective (emotional), cognitive, vegetative, and (psycho-)motor), automated pain recognition currently relies on the measurable parameters of pain responses. These can be divided roughly into the two main categories of "physiological responses" and "behavioral responses". === Physiological responses === In humans, pain almost always initiates autonomic nervous processes that are reflected measurably in various physiological signals. ==== Physiological signals ==== Measurements can include electrodermal activity (EDA, also skin conductance), electromyography (EMG), electrocardiogram (ECG), blood volume pulse (BVP), electroencephalogram (EEG), respiration, and body temperature, which are regulatory mechanisms of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. Physiological signals are mainly recorded using special non-invasive surface electrodes (for EDA, EMG, ECG, and EEG), a blood volume pulse sensor (BVP), a respiratory belt (respiration), and a thermal sensor (body temperature). Endocrinological and immunological parameters can also be recorded, but this requires measures that are somewhat invasive (e.g., blood sampling). === Behavioral responses === Behavioral responses to pain fulfil two functions: protection of the body (e.g., through protective reflexes) and external communication of the pain (e.g., as a cry for help). The responses are particularly evident in facial expressions, gestures, and paralinguistic features. ==== Facial expressions ==== Behavioral signals captured comprise facial expression patterns (expressive behavior), which are measured with the aid of video signals. Facial expression recognition is based on the everyday clinical observation that pain often manifests itself in the patient's facial expressions but that this is not necessarily always the case, since facial expressions can be inhibited through self-control. Despite the possibility that facial expressions may be influenced consciously, facial expression behavior represents an essential source of information for pain diagnosis and is thus also a source of information for automatic pain recognition. One advantage of video-based facial expression recognition is the contact-free measurement of the face, provided that it can be captured on video, which is not possible in every position (e.g., lying face down) or may be limited by bandages covering the face. Facial expression analysis relies on rapid, spontaneous, and temporary changes in neuromuscular activity that lead to visually detectable changes in the face. ==== Gestures ==== Gestures are also captured predominantly using non-contact camera technology. Motor pain responses vary and are strongly dependent on the type and cause of the pain. They range from abrupt protective reflexes (e.g., spontaneous retraction of extremities or doubling up) to agitation (pathological restlessness) and avoidance behavior (hesitant, cautious movements). ==== Paralinguistic features of language ==== Among other things, pain leads to nonverbal linguistic behavior that manifests itself in sounds such as sighing, gasping, moaning, whining, etc. Paralinguistic features are usually recorded using highly sensitive microphones. == Algorithms == After the recording, pre-processing (e.g., filtering), and extraction of relevant features, an optional information fusion can be performed. During this process, modalities from different signal sources are merged to generate new or more precise knowledge. The pain is classified using machine learning processes. The method chosen has a significant influence on the recognition rate and depends greatly on the quality and granularity of the underlying data. Similar to the field of affective computing, the following classifiers are currently being used: Support Vector Machine (SVM): The goal of an SVM is to find a clearly defined optimal hyperplane with the greatest minimal distance to two (or more) classes to be separated. The hyperplane acts as a decision function for classifying an unknown pattern. Random Forest (RF): RF is based on the composition of random, uncorrelated decision trees. An unknown pattern is judged individually by each tree and assigned to a class. The final classification of the patterns by the RF is then based on a majority decision. k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN): The k-NN algorithm classifies an unknown object using the class label that most commonly classifies the k neighbors closest to it. Its neighbors are determined using a selected similarity measure (e.g., Euclidean distance, Jaccard coefficient, etc.). Artificial neural networks (ANNs): ANNs are inspired by biological neural networks and model their organizational principles and processes in a very simplified manner. Class patterns are learned by adjusting the weights of the individual neuronal connections. == Databases == In order to classify pain in a valid manner, it is necessary to create representative, reliable, and valid pain databases that are available to the machine learner for training. An ideal database would be sufficiently large and would consist of natural (not experimental), high-quality pain responses. However, natural responses are difficult to record and can only be obtained to a limited extent; in most cases they are characterized by suboptimal quality. The databases currently available therefore contain experimental or quasi-experimental pain responses, and each database is based on a different pain model. The following list shows a selection of the most relevant pain databases (last updated: April 2020): UNBC-McMaster Shoulder Pain BioVid Heat Pain EmoPain SenseEmotion X-ITE Pain

  Read more →