AI Apps Free

AI Apps Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Transfer function matrix

In control system theory, and various branches of engineering, a transfer function matrix, or just transfer matrix is a generalisation of the transfer functions of single-input single-output (SISO) systems to multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems. The matrix relates the outputs of the system to its inputs. It is a particularly useful construction for linear time-invariant (LTI) systems because it can be expressed in terms of the s-plane. In some systems, especially ones consisting entirely of passive components, it can be ambiguous which variables are inputs and which are outputs. In electrical engineering, a common scheme is to gather all the voltage variables on one side and all the current variables on the other regardless of which are inputs or outputs. This results in all the elements of the transfer matrix being in units of impedance. The concept of impedance (and hence impedance matrices) has been borrowed into other energy domains by analogy, especially mechanics and acoustics. Many control systems span several different energy domains. This requires transfer matrices with elements in mixed units. This is needed both to describe transducers that make connections between domains and to describe the system as a whole. If the matrix is to properly model energy flows in the system, compatible variables must be chosen to allow this. == General == A MIMO system with m outputs and n inputs is represented by a m × n matrix. Each entry in the matrix is in the form of a transfer function relating an output to an input. For example, for a three-input, two-output system, one might write, [ y 1 y 2 ] = [ g 11 g 12 g 13 g 21 g 22 g 23 ] [ u 1 u 2 u 3 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\\y_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}g_{11}&g_{12}&g_{13}\\g_{21}&g_{22}&g_{23}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}u_{1}\\u_{2}\\u_{3}\end{bmatrix}}} where the un are the inputs, the ym are the outputs, and the gmn are the transfer functions. This may be written more succinctly in matrix operator notation as, Y = G U {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} =\mathbf {G} \mathbf {U} } where Y is a column vector of the outputs, G is a matrix of the transfer functions, and U is a column vector of the inputs. In many cases, the system under consideration is a linear time-invariant (LTI) system. In such cases, it is convenient to express the transfer matrix in terms of the Laplace transform (in the case of continuous time variables) or the z-transform (in the case of discrete time variables) of the variables. This may be indicated by writing, for instance, Y ( s ) = G ( s ) U ( s ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} (s)=\mathbf {G} (s)\mathbf {U} (s)} which indicates that the variables and matrix are in terms of s, the complex frequency variable of the s-plane arising from Laplace transforms, rather than time. The examples in this article are all assumed to be in this form, although that is not explicitly indicated for brevity. For discrete time systems s is replaced by z from the z-transform, but this makes no difference to subsequent analysis. The matrix is particularly useful when it is a proper rational matrix, that is, all its elements are proper rational functions. In this case, the state-space representation can be applied. In systems engineering, the overall system transfer matrix G (s) is decomposed into two parts: H (s) representing the system being controlled, and C(s) representing the control system. C (s) takes as its inputs the inputs of G (s) and the outputs of H (s). The outputs of C (s) form the inputs for H (s). == Electrical systems == In electrical systems, it is often the case that the distinction between input and output variables is ambiguous. They can be either, depending on circumstance and point of view. In such cases, the concept of port (a place where energy is transferred from one system to another) can be more useful than input and output. It is customary to define two variables for each port (p): the voltage across it (Vp) and the current entering it (Ip). For instance, the transfer matrix of a two-port network can be defined as follows, [ V 1 V 2 ] = [ z 11 z 12 z 21 z 22 ] [ I 1 I 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\\V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}z_{11}&z_{12}\\z_{21}&z_{22}\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{1}\\I_{2}\end{bmatrix}}} where the zmn are called the impedance parameters, or z-parameters. They are so-called because they are in units of impedance and relate port currents to a port voltage. The z-parameters are not the only way that transfer matrices are defined for two-port networks. Six basic matrices relate voltages and currents, each with advantages for particular system network topologies. However, only two of these can be extended beyond two ports to an arbitrary number of ports. These two are the z-parameters and their inverse, the admittance parameters or y-parameters. To understand the relationship between port voltages and currents and inputs and outputs, consider the simple voltage divider circuit. If we only wish to consider the output voltage (V2) resulting from applying the input voltage (V1) then the transfer function can be expressed as, [ V 2 ] = [ R 2 R 1 + R 2 ] [ V 1 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}{\dfrac {R_{2}}{R_{1}+R_{2}}}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\end{bmatrix}}} which can be considered the trivial case of a 1×1 transfer matrix. The expression correctly predicts the output voltage if there is no current leaving port 2, but is increasingly inaccurate as the load increases. If, however, we attempt to use the circuit in reverse, driving it with a voltage at port 2 and calculate the resulting voltage at port 1 the expression gives completely the wrong result even with no load on port 1. It predicts a greater voltage at port 1 than was applied at port 2, an impossibility with a purely resistive circuit like this one. To correctly predict the behaviour of the circuit, the currents entering or leaving the ports must also be taken into account, which is what the transfer matrix does. The impedance matrix for the voltage divider circuit is, [ V 1 V 2 ] = [ R 1 + R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 ] [ I 1 I 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}\\V_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}R_{1}+R_{2}&R_{2}\\R_{2}&R_{2}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{1}\\I_{2}\end{bmatrix}}} which fully describes its behaviour under all input and output conditions. At microwave frequencies, none of the transfer matrices based on port voltages and currents are convenient to use in practice. Voltage is difficult to measure directly, current next to impossible, and the open circuits and short circuits required by the measurement technique cannot be achieved with any accuracy. For waveguide implementations, circuit voltage and current are entirely meaningless. Transfer matrices using different sorts of variables are used instead. These are the powers transmitted into, and reflected from a port, which are readily measured in the transmission line technology used in distributed-element circuits in the microwave band. The most well-known and widely used of these sorts of parameters is the scattering parameters, or s-parameters. == Mechanical and other systems == The concept of impedance can be extended into the mechanical and other domains through a mechanical-electrical analogy, hence the impedance parameters and other forms of 2-port network parameters can also be extended to the mechanical domain. To do this, an effort variable and a flow variable are made analogues of voltage and current, respectively. For mechanical systems under translation these variables are force and velocity respectively. Expressing the behaviour of a mechanical component as a two-port or multi-port with a transfer matrix is a useful thing to do because, like electrical circuits, the component can often be operated in reverse and its behaviour is dependent on the loads at the inputs and outputs. For instance, a gear train is often characterised simply by its gear ratio, a SISO transfer function. However, the gearbox output shaft can be driven around to turn the input shaft, requiring a MIMO analysis. In this example, the effort and flow variables are torque T and angular velocity ω, respectively. The transfer matrix in terms of z-parameters will look like, [ T 1 T 2 ] = [ z 11 z 12 z 21 z 22 ] [ ω 1 ω 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}T_{1}\\T_{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}z_{11}&z_{12}\\z_{21}&z_{22}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\omega _{1}\\\omega _{2}\end{bmatrix}}} However, the z-parameters are not necessarily the most convenient for characterising gear trains. A gear train is the analogue of an electrical transformer and the h-parameters (hybrid parameters) better describe transformers because they directly include the turns ratios (the analogue of gear ratios). The gearbox transfer matrix in h-parameter format is, [ T 1 ω 2 ] = [ h 11 h 12 h 21 h 22 ] [ ω 1 T 2 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}T_{1}\\\omega _{2}\end{bm
Read more →
Inverted pendulum

An inverted pendulum is a pendulum that has its center of mass above its pivot point. It is unstable and falls over without additional help. It can be suspended stably in this inverted position by using a control system to monitor the angle of the pole and move the pivot point horizontally back under the center of mass when it starts to fall over, keeping it balanced. The inverted pendulum is a classic problem in dynamics and control theory and is used as a benchmark for testing control strategies. It is often implemented with the pivot point mounted on a cart that can move horizontally under control of an electronic servo system as shown in the photo; this is called a cart and pole apparatus. Most applications limit the pendulum to 1 degree of freedom by affixing the pole to an axis of rotation. Whereas a normal pendulum is stable when hanging downward, an inverted pendulum is inherently unstable, and must be actively balanced in order to remain upright; this can be done either by applying a torque at the pivot point, by moving the pivot point horizontally as part of a feedback system, changing the rate of rotation of a mass mounted on the pendulum on an axis parallel to the pivot axis and thereby generating a net torque on the pendulum, or by oscillating the pivot point vertically. A simple demonstration of moving the pivot point in a feedback system is achieved by balancing an upturned broomstick on the end of one's finger. A second type of inverted pendulum is a tiltmeter for tall structures, which consists of a wire anchored to the bottom of the foundation and attached to a float in a pool of oil at the top of the structure that has devices for measuring movement of the neutral position of the float away from its original position. == Overview == A pendulum with its bob hanging directly below the support pivot is at a stable equilibrium point, where it remains motionless because there is no torque on the pendulum. If displaced from this position, it experiences a restoring torque that returns it toward the equilibrium position. A pendulum with its bob in an inverted position, supported on a rigid rod directly above the pivot, 180° from its stable equilibrium position, is at an unstable equilibrium point. At this point again there is no torque on the pendulum, but the slightest displacement away from this position causes a gravitation torque on the pendulum that accelerates it away from equilibrium, causing it to fall over. In order to stabilize a pendulum in this inverted position, a feedback control system can be used, which monitors the pendulum's angle and moves the position of the pivot point sideways when the pendulum starts to fall over, to keep it balanced. The inverted pendulum is a classic problem in dynamics and control theory and is widely used as a benchmark for testing control algorithms (PID controllers, state-space representation, neural networks, fuzzy control, genetic algorithms, etc.). Variations on this problem include multiple links, allowing the motion of the cart to be commanded while maintaining the pendulum, and balancing the cart-pendulum system on a see-saw. The inverted pendulum is related to rocket or missile guidance, where the center of gravity is located behind the center of drag causing aerodynamic instability. The understanding of a similar problem can be shown by simple robotics in the form of a balancing cart. Balancing an upturned broomstick on the end of one's finger is a simple demonstration, and the problem is solved by self-balancing personal transporters such as the Segway PT, the self-balancing hoverboard and the self-balancing unicycle. Another way that an inverted pendulum may be stabilized, without any feedback or control mechanism, is by oscillating the pivot rapidly up and down. This is called Kapitza's pendulum. If the oscillation is sufficiently strong (in terms of its acceleration and amplitude) then the inverted pendulum can recover from perturbations in a strikingly counterintuitive manner. If the driving point moves in simple harmonic motion, the pendulum's motion is described by the Mathieu equation. == Equations of motion == The equations of motion of inverted pendulums are dependent on what constraints are placed on the motion of the pendulum. Inverted pendulums can be created in various configurations resulting in a number of Equations of Motion describing the behavior of the pendulum. === Stationary pivot point === In a configuration where the pivot point of the pendulum is fixed in space, the equation of motion is similar to that for an uninverted pendulum. The equation of motion below assumes no friction or any other resistance to movement, a rigid massless rod, and the restriction to 2-dimensional movement. θ ¨ − g ℓ sin ⁡ θ = 0 {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}-{g \over \ell }\sin \theta =0} Where θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}} is the angular acceleration of the pendulum, g {\displaystyle g} is the standard gravity on the surface of the Earth, ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the length of the pendulum, and θ {\displaystyle \theta } is the angular displacement measured from the equilibrium position. When θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}} added to both sides, it has the same sign as the angular acceleration term: θ ¨ = g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}={g \over \ell }\sin \theta } Thus, the inverted pendulum accelerates away from the vertical unstable equilibrium in the direction initially displaced, and the acceleration is inversely proportional to the length. Tall pendulums fall more slowly than short ones. Derivation using torque and moment of inertia: The pendulum is assumed to consist of a point mass, of mass m {\displaystyle m} , affixed to the end of a massless rigid rod, of length ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , attached to a pivot point at the end opposite the point mass. The net torque of the system must equal the moment of inertia times the angular acceleration: τ n e t = I θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\tau }}_{\mathrm {net} }=I{\ddot {\theta }}} The torque due to gravity providing the net torque: τ n e t = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\tau }}_{\mathrm {net} }=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} Where θ {\displaystyle \theta \ } is the angle measured from the inverted equilibrium position. The resulting equation: I θ ¨ = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle I{\ddot {\theta }}=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} The moment of inertia for a point mass: I = m R 2 {\displaystyle I=mR^{2}} In the case of the inverted pendulum the radius is the length of the rod, ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } . Substituting in I = m ℓ 2 {\displaystyle I=m\ell ^{2}} m ℓ 2 θ ¨ = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle m\ell ^{2}{\ddot {\theta }}=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} Mass and ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} is divided from each side resulting in: θ ¨ = g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}={g \over \ell }\sin \theta } === Inverted pendulum on a cart === An inverted pendulum on a cart consists of a mass m {\displaystyle m} at the top of a pole of length ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } pivoted on a horizontally moving base as shown in the adjacent image. The cart is restricted to linear motion and is subject to forces resulting in or hindering motion. === Essentials of stabilization === The essentials of stabilizing the inverted pendulum can be summarized qualitatively in three steps. 1. If the tilt angle θ {\displaystyle \theta } is to the right, the cart must accelerate to the right and vice versa. 2. The position of the cart x {\displaystyle x} relative to track center is stabilized by slightly modulating the null angle (the angle error that the control system tries to null) by the position of the cart, that is, null angle = θ + k x {\displaystyle =\theta +kx} where k {\displaystyle k} is small. This makes the pole want to lean slightly toward track center and stabilize at track center where the tilt angle is exactly vertical. Any offset in the tilt sensor or track slope that would otherwise cause instability translates into a stable position offset. A further added offset gives position control. 3. A normal pendulum subject to a moving pivot point such as a load lifted by a crane, has a peaked response at the pendulum radian frequency of ω p = g / ℓ {\displaystyle \omega _{p}={\sqrt {g/\ell }}} . To prevent uncontrolled swinging, the frequency spectrum of the pivot motion should be suppressed near ω p {\displaystyle \omega _{p}} . The inverted pendulum requires the same suppression filter to achieve stability. As a consequence of the null angle modulation strategy, the position feedback is positive, that is, a sudden command to move right produces an initial cart motion to the left followed by a move right to rebalance the pendulum. The interaction of the pendulum instability and the positive position feedback instability to produce a stable system is a feature that makes the mathematical analysis an interesting and challenging problem. === From Lagrange's equations === The equations of motion c
Read more →
Parity benchmark

Parity problems are widely used as benchmark problems in genetic programming but inherited from the artificial neural network community. Parity is calculated by summing all the binary inputs and reporting if the sum is odd or even. This is considered difficult because: a very simple artificial neural network cannot solve it, and all inputs need to be considered and a change to any one of them changes the answer.
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 →
Comparison of raster graphics editors

Raster graphics editors can be compared by many variables, including availability. == List == == General information == Basic general information about the editor: creator, company, license, etc. == Operating system support == The operating systems on which the editors can run natively, that is, without emulation, virtual machines or compatibility layers. In other words, the software must be specifically coded for the operation system; for example, Adobe Photoshop for Windows running on Linux with Wine does not fit. == Features == == Color spaces == == File support ==
Read more →
Accumulated local effects

Accumulated local effects (ALE) is a machine learning interpretability method. == Concepts == ALE uses a conditional feature distribution as an input and generates augmented data, creating more realistic data than a marginal distribution. It ignores far out-of-distribution (outlier) values. Unlike partial dependence plots and marginal plots, ALE is not defeated in the presence of correlated predictors. It analyzes differences in predictions instead of averaging them by calculating the average of the differences in model predictions over the augmented data, instead of the average of the predictions themselves. == Example == Given a model that predicts house prices based on its distance from city center and size of the building area, ALE compares the differences of predictions of houses of different sizes. The result separates the impact of the size from otherwise correlated features. == Limitations == Defining evaluation windows is subjective. High correlations between features can defeat the technique. ALE requires more and more uniformly distributed observations than PDP so that the conditional distribution can be reliably determined. The technique may produce inadequate results if the data is highly sparse, which is more common with high-dimensional data (curse of dimensionality).
Read more →
NSynth

NSynth (a portmanteau of "Neural Synthesis") is a WaveNet-based autoencoder for synthesizing audio, outlined in a paper in April 2017. == Overview == The model generates sounds through a neural network based synthesis, employing a WaveNet-style autoencoder to learn its own temporal embeddings from four different sounds. Google then released an open source hardware interface for the algorithm called NSynth Super, used by notable musicians such as Grimes and YACHT to generate experimental music using artificial intelligence. The research and development of the algorithm was part of a collaboration between Google Brain, Magenta and DeepMind. == Technology == === Dataset === The NSynth dataset is composed of 305,979 one-shot instrumental notes featuring a unique pitch, timbre, and envelope, sampled from 1,006 instruments from commercial sample libraries. For each instrument the dataset contains four-second 16 kHz audio snippets by ranging over every pitch of a standard MIDI piano, as well as five different velocities. The dataset is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. === Machine learning model === A spectral autoencoder model and a WaveNet autoencoder model are publicly available on GitHub. The baseline model uses a spectrogram with fft_size 1024 and hop_size 256, MSE loss on the magnitudes, and the Griffin-Lim algorithm for reconstruction. The WaveNet model trains on mu-law encoded waveform chunks of size 6144. It learns embeddings with 16 dimensions that are downsampled by 512 in time. == NSynth Super == In 2018 Google released a hardware interface for the NSynth algorithm, called NSynth Super, designed to provide an accessible physical interface to the algorithm for musicians to use in their artistic production. Design files, source code and internal components are released under an open source Apache License 2.0, enabling hobbyists and musicians to freely build and use the instrument. At the core of the NSynth Super there is a Raspberry Pi, extended with a custom printed circuit board to accommodate the interface elements. == Influence == Despite not being publicly available as a commercial product, NSynth Super has been used by notable artists, including Grimes and YACHT. Grimes reported using the instrument in her 2020 studio album Miss Anthropocene. YACHT announced an extensive use of NSynth Super in their album Chain Tripping. Claire L. Evans compared the potential influence of the instrument to the Roland TR-808. The NSynth Super design was honored with a D&AD Yellow Pencil award in 2018.
Read more →
Facial recognition system

A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but
Read more →
JBoss Tools

JBoss Tools is a set of Eclipse plugins and features designed to help JBoss and JavaEE developers develop applications. It is an umbrella project for the JBoss developed plugins that will make it into JBoss Developer Studio. == Modules == JBoss Tools includes the following modules: Visual Page Editor (VPE). The visual editor contributed by Exadel supports visual editing of HTML and JSF (JSP and Facelets) pages. VPE also includes visual support for JSF component libraries including JBoss RichFaces. Seam Tools. Includes support for (for example) seam-gen, RichFaces VE integration, Seam related code completion and refactoring. Hibernate Tools. Supporting mapping files, annotations and JPA with reverse engineering, code completion, project wizards, refactoring, interactive HQL/JPA-QL/Criteria execution and more. In short a merger of Hibernate Tools and Exadel ORM features. JBoss AS Tools. Easy start, stop and debug of JBoss AS 4+ servers from within Eclipse. Also includes features for packaging and deployment of any type of Eclipse project. Drools IDE. Rules file editing, Rete View, working memory debugging/inspection and more. jBPM Tools. jBPM workflow editing, deployment, etc. JBossWS Tools. Inspecting, invoking, developing and functional/load/compliance testing of web services over HTTP, base tooling provided by soapUI with the addition of JBossWS specific features/support. JBoss ESB Tools. The structured xml editor for the jboss-esb.xml file used in JBoss ESB. Birt Tools. Hibernate and Seam extensions for Eclipse BIRT. Portal Tools. JBoss Tools supports the JSR-168 Portlet Specification (Portlet 1.0), JSR-286 Portlet Specification (Portlet 2.0) and works with PortletBridge for supporting Portlets in JSF/Seam applications. To enable these features, add the JBoss Portlet facet to a new or an existing web project. Core/General Tools. To reduce the UI clutter, most of the "configure project" menu items move into the Configure menu introduced in Eclipse 3.5 instead of always having a static JBoss Tools menu entry show up even in projects unrelated to JBoss Tools. Smooks Tools. The editor for Smooks configuration files. JBoss ESB Tools. The ESB project Wizard, which creates a project that can be deployed as an .esb archive to a JBoss AS-based server with JBoss ESB installed. JMX Tools. JMX Tools allows establishing multiple JMX connections and provides views for exploring the JMX tree and execute operations directly from Eclipse. The JMX Tools replaces the JMX node previously available in the JBoss Server View. JST/JSF Tools. RichFaces Support, Code Assists, Web XML/JSP/XHTML Editors, CSS Style Editing, web.xml validation, Faceleted taglib in taglib.xml is supported with XSD schema location. Project Examples. The experimental feature called Project Example wizard aims to allow users to download example projects from a remote site and have them working out-of-the-box. AS/Project Archives Tools. To deploy projects compressed, configurable in the server editor. If enabled, all projects deployed to that server will be compressed instead of in an exploded folder. Maven Tools. The optional integration with m2eclipse to provide Maven support for projects created by JBoss Tools and to some extent core WTP projects. BPEL Tools. A BPEL Editor based on the Eclipse BPEL project has been added to JBoss Tools. This means that users can create, edit and deploy BPEL artifacts for the Riftsaw BPEL Runtime. CDI (JSR-299) Tools. Support of the Contexts and Dependency Injection annotations; it works on any Eclipse Java project (via the Configure menu with CDI enabled).
Read more →
BrownBoost

BrownBoost is a boosting algorithm that may be robust to noisy datasets. BrownBoost is an adaptive version of the boost by majority algorithm. As is the case for all boosting algorithms, BrownBoost is used in conjunction with other machine learning methods. BrownBoost was introduced by Yoav Freund in 2001. == Motivation == AdaBoost performs well on a variety of datasets; however, it can be shown that AdaBoost does not perform well on noisy data sets. This is a result of AdaBoost's focus on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. In contrast, BrownBoost effectively "gives up" on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. The core assumption of BrownBoost is that noisy examples will be repeatedly mislabeled by the weak hypotheses and non-noisy examples will be correctly labeled frequently enough to not be "given up on." Thus only noisy examples will be "given up on," whereas non-noisy examples will contribute to the final classifier. In turn, if the final classifier is learned from the non-noisy examples, the generalization error of the final classifier may be much better than if learned from noisy and non-noisy examples. The user of the algorithm can set the amount of error to be tolerated in the training set. Thus, if the training set is noisy (say 10% of all examples are assumed to be mislabeled), the booster can be told to accept a 10% error rate. Since the noisy examples may be ignored, only the true examples will contribute to the learning process. == Algorithm description == BrownBoost uses a non-convex potential loss function, thus it does not fit into the AdaBoost framework. The non-convex optimization provides a method to avoid overfitting noisy data sets. However, in contrast to boosting algorithms that analytically minimize a convex loss function (e.g. AdaBoost and LogitBoost), BrownBoost solves a system of two equations and two unknowns using standard numerical methods. The only parameter of BrownBoost ( c {\displaystyle c} in the algorithm) is the "time" the algorithm runs. The theory of BrownBoost states that each hypothesis takes a variable amount of time ( t {\displaystyle t} in the algorithm) which is directly related to the weight given to the hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } . The time parameter in BrownBoost is analogous to the number of iterations T {\displaystyle T} in AdaBoost. A larger value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as if it were less noisy and therefore will give up on fewer examples. Conversely, a smaller value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as more noisy and give up on more examples. During each iteration of the algorithm, a hypothesis is selected with some advantage over random guessing. The weight of this hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and the "amount of time passed" t {\displaystyle t} during the iteration are simultaneously solved in a system of two non-linear equations ( 1. uncorrelated hypothesis w.r.t example weights and 2. hold the potential constant) with two unknowns (weight of hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and time passed t {\displaystyle t} ). This can be solved by bisection (as implemented in the JBoost software package) or Newton's method (as described in the original paper by Freund). Once these equations are solved, the margins of each example ( r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} in the algorithm) and the amount of time remaining s {\displaystyle s} are updated appropriately. This process is repeated until there is no time remaining. The initial potential is defined to be 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Since a constraint of each iteration is that the potential be held constant, the final potential is 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( r i ( x j ) / c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}(r_{i}(x_{j})/{\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Thus the final error is likely to be near 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . However, the final potential function is not the 0–1 loss error function. For the final error to be exactly 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} , the variance of the loss function must decrease linearly w.r.t. time to form the 0–1 loss function at the end of boosting iterations. This is not yet discussed in the literature and is not in the definition of the algorithm below. The final classifier is a linear combination of weak hypotheses and is evaluated in the same manner as most other boosting algorithms. == BrownBoost learning algorithm definition == Input: m {\displaystyle m} training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x j ∈ X , y j ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{j}\in X,\,y_{j}\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} The parameter c {\displaystyle c} Initialise: s = c {\displaystyle s=c} . (The value of s {\displaystyle s} is the amount of time remaining in the game) r i ( x j ) = 0 {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})=0} ∀ j {\displaystyle \forall j} . The value of r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin at iteration i {\displaystyle i} for example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . While s > 0 {\displaystyle s>0} : Set the weights of each example: W i ( x j ) = e − ( r i ( x j ) + s ) 2 c {\displaystyle W_{i}(x_{j})=e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+s)^{2}}{c}}}} , where r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin of example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} Find a classifier h i : X → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle h_{i}:X\to \{-1,+1\}} such that ∑ j W i ( x j ) h i ( x j ) y j > 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}W_{i}(x_{j})h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}>0} Find values α , t {\displaystyle \alpha ,t} that satisfy the equation: ∑ j h i ( x j ) y j e − ( r i ( x j ) + α h i ( x j ) y j + s − t ) 2 c = 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t)^{2}}{c}}}=0} . (Note this is similar to the condition E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} set forth by Schapire and Singer. In this setting, we are numerically finding the W i + 1 = exp ⁡ ( ⋯ ⋯ ) {\displaystyle W_{i+1}=\exp \left({\frac {\cdots }{\cdots }}\right)} such that E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} .) This update is subject to the constraint ∑ ( Φ ( r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j + s − t ) − Φ ( r i ( x j ) + s ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle \sum \left(\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t\right)-\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+s\right)\right)=0} , where Φ ( z ) = 1 − erf ( z / c ) {\displaystyle \Phi (z)=1-{\mbox{erf}}(z/{\sqrt {c}})} is the potential loss for a point with margin r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} Update the margins for each example: r i + 1 ( x j ) = r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j {\displaystyle r_{i+1}(x_{j})=r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}} Update the time remaining: s = s − t {\displaystyle s=s-t} Output: H ( x ) = sign ( ∑ i α i h i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle H(x)={\textrm {sign}}\left(\sum _{i}\alpha _{i}h_{i}(x)\right)} == Empirical results == In preliminary experimental results with noisy datasets, BrownBoost outperformed AdaBoost's generalization error; however, LogitBoost performed as well as BrownBoost. An implementation of BrownBoost can be found in the open source software JBoost.
Read more →
Memetic algorithm

In computer science and operations research, a memetic algorithm (MA) is an extension of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) that aims to accelerate the evolutionary search for the optimum. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. An MA uses one or more suitable heuristics or local search techniques to improve the quality of solutions generated by the EA and to speed up the search. The effects on the reliability of finding the global optimum depend on both the use case and the design of the MA. Memetic algorithms represent one of the recent growing areas of research in evolutionary computation. The term MA is now widely used as a synergy of evolutionary or any population-based approach with separate individual learning or local improvement procedures for problem search. Quite often, MAs are also referred to in the literature as Baldwinian evolutionary algorithms, Lamarckian EAs, cultural algorithms, or genetic local search. == Introduction == Inspired by both Darwinian principles of natural evolution and Dawkins' notion of a meme, the term memetic algorithm (MA) was introduced by Pablo Moscato in his technical report in 1989 where he viewed MA as being close to a form of population-based hybrid genetic algorithm (GA) coupled with an individual learning procedure capable of performing local refinements. The metaphorical parallels, on the one hand, to Darwinian evolution and, on the other hand, between memes and domain specific (local search) heuristics are captured within memetic algorithms thus rendering a methodology that balances well between generality and problem specificity. This two-stage nature makes them a special case of dual-phase evolution. The basic idea behind an MA is to combine the advantages of a global search performed by an EA (or another global search method) with the local refinement provided by one or more local search techniques, while avoiding their drawbacks. The main disadvantage of EAs is that, when searching in the vicinity of an optimum, they perform poorly in determining the exact position of that optimum. The downside of local search methods lies simply in the locality of their search relative to the chosen starting point. The combination of these two classes of methods aims to merge global and local search so that the advantages of both approaches can be leveraged. The idea of this approach can be illustrated by the search for the highest mountain in the Alps. A local search method would climb one of the mountains near the starting point, ignoring Mont Blanc as long as the starting point is not in its vicinity. An EA, on the other hand, will likely only find Mont Blanc after examining many other mountains, valleys, and hills, and then it will have difficulty identifying the summit cross. From the perspective of an MA’s global search procedure, however, only the summits of hills and mountains are seen, and its search is limited to finding the best summit. The open question is whether the additional effort required for the local search is worthwhile. This depends not only on the design of the MA but also on the specific application and the local search methods used. In the context of complex optimization, many different instantiations of memetic algorithms have been reported across a wide range of application domains, in general, converging to high-quality solutions more efficiently than their conventional evolutionary counterparts. In general, using the ideas of memetics within a computational framework is called memetic computing or memetic computation (MC). With MC, the traits of universal Darwinism are more appropriately captured. Viewed in this perspective, MA is a more constrained notion of MC. More specifically, MA covers one area of MC, in particular dealing with areas of evolutionary algorithms that marry other deterministic refinement techniques for solving optimization problems. MC extends the notion of memes to cover conceptual entities of knowledge-enhanced procedures or representations. == Theoretical Background == The no-free-lunch theorems of optimization and search state that all optimization strategies are equally effective with respect to the set of all optimization problems. Conversely, this means that one can expect the following: The more efficiently an algorithm solves a problem or class of problems, the less general it is and the more problem-specific knowledge it builds on. This insight leads directly to the recommendation to complement generally applicable metaheuristics with application-specific methods or heuristics, which fits well with the concept of MAs. == The development of MAs == === 1st generation === Pablo Moscato characterized an MA as follows: "Memetic algorithms are a marriage between a population-based global search and the heuristic local search made by each of the individuals. ... The mechanisms to do local search can be to reach a local optimum or to improve (regarding the objective cost function) up to a predetermined level." And he emphasizes "I am not constraining an MA to a genetic representation.". This original definition of MA although encompasses characteristics of cultural evolution (in the form of local refinement) in the search cycle, it may not qualify as a true evolving system according to universal Darwinism, since all the core principles of inheritance/memetic transmission, variation, and selection are missing. This suggests why the term MA stirred up criticisms and controversies among researchers when first introduced. The following pseudo code would correspond to this general definition of an MA: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Initialize: Generate an initial population, evaluate the individuals and assign a quality value to them; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Evolve a new population using stochastic search operators. Evaluate all individuals in the population and assign a quality value to them. Select the subset of individuals, Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} , that should undergo the individual improvement procedure. for each individual in Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} do Perform individual learning using meme(s) with frequency or probability of f i l {\displaystyle f_{il}} , with an intensity of t i l {\displaystyle t_{il}} . Proceed with Lamarckian or Baldwinian learning. end for end while Lamarckian learning in this context means to update the chromosome according to the improved solution found by the individual learning step, while Baldwinian learning leaves the chromosome unchanged and uses only the improved fitness. This pseudo code leaves open which steps are based on the fitness of the individuals and which are not. In question are the evolving of the new population and the selection of Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} . Since most MA implementations are based on EAs, the pseudo code of a corresponding representative of the first generation is also given here, following Krasnogor: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Based on an EA Initialization: t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} ; // Initialization of the generation counter Randomly generate an initial population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} ; Compute the fitness f ( p ) ∀ p ∈ P ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p)\ \ \forall p\in P(t)} ; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Selection: Accordingly to f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(p)} choose a subset of P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and store it in M ( t ) {\displaystyle M(t)} ; Offspring: Recombine and mutate individuals p ∈ M ( t ) {\displaystyle p\in M(t)} and store them in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; Learning: Improve p ′ {\displaystyle p'} by local search or heuristic ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; Evaluation: Compute the fitness f ( p ′ ) ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p')\ \ \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; if Lamarckian learning then Update chromosome of p ′ {\displaystyle p'} according to improvement ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; fi New generation: Generate P ( t + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(t+1)} by selecting some individuals from P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; t = t + 1 {\displaystyle t=t+1} ; // Increment the generation counter end while Return best individual p ∈ P ( t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in P(t-1)} as result; There are some alternatives for this MA scheme. For example: All or some of the initial individuals may be improved by the meme(s). The parents may be locally improved instead of the offspring. Instead of all offspring, only a randomly selected or fitness-dependent fraction may undergo local improvement. The latter requires the evaluation of the offspring in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} prior to the Learning step. === 2nd generation === Multi-meme, hyper-heuristic and meta-Lamarckian MA are referred to as second generation MA exhibiting the principles of me
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 →
And–or tree

An and–or tree is a graphical representation of the reduction of problems (or goals) to conjunctions and disjunctions of subproblems (or subgoals). == Example == The and–or tree: represents the search space for solving the problem P, using the goal-reduction methods: P if Q and R P if S Q if T Q if U == Definitions == Given an initial problem P0 and set of problem solving methods of the form: P if P1 and … and Pn the associated and–or tree is a set of labelled nodes such that: The root of the tree is a node labelled by P0. For every node N labelled by a problem or sub-problem P and for every method of the form P if P1 and ... and Pn, there exists a set of children nodes N1, ..., Nn of the node N, such that each node Ni is labelled by Pi. The nodes are conjoined by an arc, to distinguish them from children of N that might be associated with other methods. A node N, labelled by a problem P, is a success node if there is a method of the form P if nothing (i.e., P is a "fact"). The node is a failure node if there is no method for solving P. If all of the children of a node N, conjoined by the same arc, are success nodes, then the node N is also a success node. Otherwise the node is a failure node. == Search strategies == An and–or tree specifies only the search space for solving a problem. Different search strategies for searching the space are possible. These include searching the tree depth-first, breadth-first, or best-first using some measure of desirability of solutions. The search strategy can be sequential, searching or generating one node at a time, or parallel, searching or generating several nodes in parallel. == Relationship with logic programming == The methods used for generating and–or trees are propositional logic programs (without variables). In the case of logic programs containing variables, the solutions of conjoint sub-problems must be compatible. Subject to this complication, sequential and parallel search strategies for and–or trees provide a computational model for executing logic programs. == Relationship with two-player games == And–or trees can also be used to represent the search spaces for two-person games. The root node of such a tree represents the problem of one of the players winning the game, starting from the initial state of the game. Given a node N, labelled by the problem P of the player winning the game from a particular state of play, there exists a single set of conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the opponents responding moves. For each of these children nodes, there exists a set of non-conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the player's defending moves. For solving game trees with proof-number search family of algorithms, game trees are to be mapped to and–or trees. MAX-nodes (i.e. maximizing player to move) are represented as OR nodes, MIN-nodes map to AND nodes. The mapping is possible, when the search is done with only a binary goal, which usually is "player to move wins the game".
Read more →
Proximal policy optimization

Proximal policy optimization (PPO) is a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm for training an intelligent agent. Specifically, it is a policy gradient method, often used for deep RL when the policy network is very large. == History == The predecessor to PPO, Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO), was published in 2015. It addressed the instability issue of another algorithm, the Deep Q-Network (DQN), by using the trust region method to limit the KL divergence between the old and new policies. However, TRPO uses the Hessian matrix (a matrix of second derivatives) to enforce the trust region, but the Hessian is inefficient for large-scale problems. PPO was published in 2017. It was essentially an approximation of TRPO that does not require computing the Hessian. The KL divergence constraint was approximated by simply clipping the policy gradient. Since 2018, PPO was the default RL algorithm at OpenAI. PPO has been applied to many areas, such as controlling a robotic arm, beating professional players at Dota 2 (OpenAI Five), and playing Atari games. == TRPO == TRPO, the predecessor of PPO, is an on-policy algorithm. It can be used for environments with either discrete or continuous action spaces. The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} Hyperparameters: KL-divergence limit δ {\textstyle \delta } , backtracking coefficient α {\textstyle \alpha } , maximum number of backtracking steps K {\textstyle K} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Estimate policy gradient as g ^ k = 1 | D k | ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ log ⁡ π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) | θ k A ^ t {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}_{k}=\left.{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\log \pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)\right|_{\theta _{k}}{\hat {A}}_{t}} Use the conjugate gradient algorithm to compute x ^ k ≈ H ^ k − 1 g ^ k {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}_{k}\approx {\hat {H}}_{k}^{-1}{\hat {g}}_{k}} where H ^ k {\textstyle {\hat {H}}_{k}} is the Hessian of the sample average KL-divergence. Update the policy by backtracking line search with θ k + 1 = θ k + α j 2 δ x ^ k T H ^ k x ^ k x ^ k {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\theta _{k}+\alpha ^{j}{\sqrt {\frac {2\delta }{{\hat {x}}_{k}^{T}{\hat {H}}_{k}{\hat {x}}_{k}}}}{\hat {x}}_{k}} where j ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , … K } {\textstyle j\in \{0,1,2,\ldots K\}} is the smallest value which improves the sample loss and satisfies the sample KL-divergence constraint. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. == PPO == The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Update the policy by maximizing the PPO-Clip objective: θ k + 1 = arg ⁡ max θ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T min ( π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) π θ k ( a t ∣ s t ) A π θ k ( s t , a t ) , g ( ϵ , A π θ k ( s t , a t ) ) ) {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\arg \max _{\theta }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\min \left({\frac {\pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}{\pi _{\theta _{k}}\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}}A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right),\quad g\left(\epsilon ,A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right)\right)\right)} typically via stochastic gradient ascent with Adam. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. Like all policy gradient methods, PPO is used for training an RL agent whose actions are determined by a differentiable policy function by gradient ascent. Intuitively, a policy gradient method takes small policy update steps, so the agent can reach higher and higher rewards in expectation. Policy gradient methods may be unstable: A step size that is too big may direct the policy in a suboptimal direction, thus having little possibility of recovery; a step size that is too small lowers the overall efficiency. To solve the instability, PPO implements a clip function that constrains the policy update of an agent from being too large, so that larger step sizes may be used without negatively affecting the gradient ascent process. === Basic concepts === To begin the PPO training process, the agent is set in an environment to perform actions based on its current input. In the early phase of training, the agent can freely explore solutions and keep track of the result. Later, with a certain amount of transition samples and policy updates, the agent will select an action to take by randomly sampling from the probability distribution P ( A | S ) {\displaystyle P(A|S)} generated by the policy network. The actions that are most likely to be beneficial will have the highest probability of being selected from the random sample. After an agent arrives at a different scenario (a new state) by acting, it is rewarded with a positive reward or a negative reward. The objective of an agent is to maximize the cumulative reward signal across sequences of states, known as episodes. === Policy gradient laws: the advantage function === The advantage function (denoted as A {\displaystyle A} ) is central to PPO, as it tries to answer the question of whether a specific action of the agent is better or worse than some other possible action in a given state. By definition, the advantage function is an estimate of the relative value for a selected action. If the output of this function is positive, it means that the action in question is better than the average return, so the possibilities of selecting that specific action will increase. The opposite is true for a negative advantage output. The advantage function can be defined as A = Q − V {\displaystyle A=Q-V} , where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the discounted sum of rewards (the total weighted reward for the completion of an episode) and V {\displaystyle V} is the baseline estimate. Since the advantage function is calculated after the completion of an episode, the program records the outcome of the episode. Therefore, calculating advantage is essentially an unsupervised learning problem. The baseline estimate comes from the value function that outputs the expected discounted sum of an episode starting from the current state. In the PPO algorithm, the baseline estimate will be noisy (with some variance), as it also uses a neural network, like the policy function itself. With Q {\displaystyle Q} and V {\displaystyle V} computed, the advantage function is calculated by subtracting the baseline estimate from the actual discounted return. If A > 0 {\displaystyle A>0} , the actual return of the action is better than the expected return from experience; if A < 0 {\displaystyle A<0} , the actual return is worse. === Ratio function === In PPO, the ratio function ( r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} ) calculates the probability of selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} given the current policy network, divided by the previous probability under the old policy. In other words: If r t ( θ ) > 1 {\displaystyle r_{t}(\theta )>1} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the policy network parameters, then selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} is more likely based on the current policy than the previous policy. If 0 ≤ r t ( θ ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq r_{t}(\theta )<1} , then selecting actio
Read more →
Weighted majority algorithm (machine learning)

In machine learning, weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a meta learning algorithm used to construct a compound algorithm from a pool of prediction algorithms, which could be any type of learning algorithms, classifiers, or even real human experts. The algorithm assumes that we have no prior knowledge about the accuracy of the algorithms in the pool, but there are sufficient reasons to believe that one or more will perform well. Assume that the problem is a binary decision problem. To construct the compound algorithm, a positive weight is given to each of the algorithms in the pool. The compound algorithm then collects weighted votes from all the algorithms in the pool, and gives the prediction that has a higher vote. If the compound algorithm makes a mistake, the algorithms in the pool that contributed to the wrong predicting will be discounted by a certain ratio β where 0<β<1. It can be shown that the upper bounds on the number of mistakes made in a given sequence of predictions from a pool of algorithms A {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} } is O ( l o g | A | + m ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {O(log|A|+m)} } if one algorithm in x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} makes at most m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } mistakes. There are many variations of the weighted majority algorithm to handle different situations, like shifting targets, infinite pools, or randomized predictions. The core mechanism remains similar, with the final performances of the compound algorithm bounded by a function of the performance of the specialist (best performing algorithm) in the pool.
Read more →