AI Art Discord Server

AI Art Discord Server — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Alternating decision tree

  An alternating decision tree (ADTree) is a machine learning method for classification. It generalizes decision trees and has connections to boosting. An ADTree consists of an alternation of decision nodes, which specify a predicate condition, and prediction nodes, which contain a single number. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true, and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. == History == ADTrees were introduced by Yoav Freund and Llew Mason. However, the algorithm as presented had several typographical errors. Clarifications and optimizations were later presented by Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoffrey Holmes and Richard Kirkby. Implementations are available in Weka and JBoost. == Motivation == Original boosting algorithms typically used either decision stumps or decision trees as weak hypotheses. As an example, boosting decision stumps creates a set of T {\displaystyle T} weighted decision stumps (where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of boosting iterations), which then vote on the final classification according to their weights. Individual decision stumps are weighted according to their ability to classify the data. Boosting a simple learner results in an unstructured set of T {\displaystyle T} hypotheses, making it difficult to infer correlations between attributes. Alternating decision trees introduce structure to the set of hypotheses by requiring that they build off a hypothesis that was produced in an earlier iteration. The resulting set of hypotheses can be visualized in a tree based on the relationship between a hypothesis and its "parent." Another important feature of boosted algorithms is that the data is given a different distribution at each iteration. Instances that are misclassified are given a larger weight while accurately classified instances are given reduced weight. == Alternating decision tree structure == An alternating decision tree consists of decision nodes and prediction nodes. Decision nodes specify a predicate condition. Prediction nodes contain a single number. ADTrees always have prediction nodes as both root and leaves. An instance is classified by an ADTree by following all paths for which all decision nodes are true and summing any prediction nodes that are traversed. This is different from binary classification trees such as CART (Classification and regression tree) or C4.5 in which an instance follows only one path through the tree. === Example === The following tree was constructed using JBoost on the spambase dataset (available from the UCI Machine Learning Repository). In this example, spam is coded as 1 and regular email is coded as −1. The following table contains part of the information for a single instance. The instance is scored by summing all of the prediction nodes through which it passes. In the case of the instance above, the score is calculated as The final score of 0.657 is positive, so the instance is classified as spam. The magnitude of the value is a measure of confidence in the prediction. The original authors list three potential levels of interpretation for the set of attributes identified by an ADTree: Individual nodes can be evaluated for their own predictive ability. Sets of nodes on the same path may be interpreted as having a joint effect The tree can be interpreted as a whole. Care must be taken when interpreting individual nodes as the scores reflect a re weighting of the data in each iteration. == Description of the algorithm == The inputs to the alternating decision tree algorithm are: A set of inputs ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is a vector of attributes and y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is either -1 or 1. Inputs are also called instances. A set of weights w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} corresponding to each instance. The fundamental element of the ADTree algorithm is the rule. A single rule consists of a precondition, a condition, and two scores. A condition is a predicate of the form "attribute value." A precondition is simply a logical conjunction of conditions. Evaluation of a rule involves a pair of nested if statements: 1 if (precondition) 2 if (condition) 3 return score_one 4 else 5 return score_two 6 end if 7 else 8 return 0 9 end if Several auxiliary functions are also required by the algorithm: W + ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{+}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all positively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all negatively labeled examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} W ( c ) = W + ( c ) + W − ( c ) {\displaystyle W(c)=W_{+}(c)+W_{-}(c)} returns the sum of the weights of all examples that satisfy predicate c {\displaystyle c} The algorithm is as follows: 1 function ad_tree 2 input Set of m training instances 3 4 wi = 1/m for all i 5 a = 1 2 ln W + ( t r u e ) W − ( t r u e ) {\displaystyle a={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(true)}{W_{-}(true)}}} 6 R0 = a rule with scores a and 0, precondition "true" and condition "true." 7 P = { t r u e } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}=\{true\}} 8 C = {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=} the set of all possible conditions 9 for j = 1 … T {\displaystyle j=1\dots T} 10 p ∈ P , c ∈ C {\displaystyle p\in {\mathcal {P}},c\in {\mathcal {C}}} get values that minimize z = 2 ( W + ( p ∧ c ) W − ( p ∧ c ) + W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) ) + W ( ¬ p ) {\displaystyle z=2\left({\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge c)W_{-}(p\wedge c)}}+{\sqrt {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)}}\right)+W(\neg p)} 11 P + = p ∧ c + p ∧ ¬ c {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}+=p\wedge c+p\wedge \neg c} 12 a 1 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge c)+1}}} 13 a 2 = 1 2 ln W + ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 W − ( p ∧ ¬ c ) + 1 {\displaystyle a_{2}={\frac {1}{2}}{\textrm {ln}}{\frac {W_{+}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}{W_{-}(p\wedge \neg c)+1}}} 14 Rj = new rule with precondition p, condition c, and weights a1 and a2 15 w i = w i e − y i R j ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}=w_{i}e^{-y_{i}R_{j}(x_{i})}} 16 end for 17 return set of Rj The set P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} grows by two preconditions in each iteration, and it is possible to derive the tree structure of a set of rules by making note of the precondition that is used in each successive rule. == Empirical results == Figure 6 in the original paper demonstrates that ADTrees are typically as robust as boosted decision trees and boosted decision stumps. Typically, equivalent accuracy can be achieved with a much simpler tree structure than recursive partitioning algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial development

  Artificial development, also known as artificial embryogeny or machine intelligence or computational development, is an area of computer science and engineering concerned with computational models motivated by genotype–phenotype mappings in biological systems. Artificial development is often considered a sub-field of evolutionary computation, although the principles of artificial development have also been used within stand-alone computational models. Within evolutionary computation, the need for artificial development techniques was motivated by the perceived lack of scalability and evolvability of direct solution encodings (Tufte, 2008). Artificial development entails indirect solution encoding. Rather than describing a solution directly, an indirect encoding describes (either explicitly or implicitly) the process by which a solution is constructed. Often, but not always, these indirect encodings are based upon biological principles of development such as morphogen gradients, cell division and cellular differentiation (e.g. Doursat 2008), gene regulatory networks (e.g. Guo et al., 2009), degeneracy (Whitacre et al., 2010), grammatical evolution (de Salabert et al., 2006), or analogous computational processes such as re-writing, iteration, and time. The influences of interaction with the environment, spatiality and physical constraints on differentiated multi-cellular development have been investigated more recently (e.g. Knabe et al. 2008). Artificial development approaches have been applied to a number of computational and design problems, including electronic circuit design (Miller and Banzhaf 2003), robotic controllers (e.g. Taylor 2004), and the design of physical structures (e.g. Hornby 2004).

  Read more →
• 

  Kubeflow

  Kubeflow is an open-source platform for machine learning and MLOps on Kubernetes introduced by Google. The different stages in a typical machine learning lifecycle are represented with different software components in Kubeflow, including model development (Kubeflow Notebooks), model training (Kubeflow Pipelines, Kubeflow Training Operator), model serving (KServe), and automated machine learning (Katib). Each component of Kubeflow can be deployed separately, and it is not a requirement to deploy every component. == History == The Kubeflow project was first announced at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America 2017 by Google engineers David Aronchick, Jeremy Lewi, and Vishnu Kannan to address a perceived lack of flexible options for building production-ready machine learning systems. The project has also stated it began as a way for Google to open-source how they ran TensorFlow internally. The first release of Kubeflow (Kubeflow 0.1) was announced at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Europe 2018. Kubeflow 1.0 was released in March 2020 via a public blog post announcing that many Kubeflow components were graduating to a "stable status", indicating they were now ready for production usage. In October 2022, Google announced that the Kubeflow project had applied to join the Cloud Native Computing Foundation. In July 2023, the foundation voted to accept Kubeflow as an incubating stage project. == Components == === Kubeflow Notebooks for model development === Machine learning models are developed in the notebooks component called Kubeflow Notebooks. The component runs web-based development environments inside a Kubernetes cluster, with native support for Jupyter Notebook, Visual Studio Code, and RStudio. === Kubeflow Pipelines for model training === Once developed, models are trained in the Kubeflow Pipelines component. The component acts as a platform for building and deploying portable, scalable machine learning workflows based on Docker containers. Google Cloud Platform has adopted the Kubeflow Pipelines DSL within its Vertex AI Pipelines product. === Kubeflow Training Operator for model training === For certain machine learning models and libraries, the Kubeflow Training Operator component provides Kubernetes custom resources support. The component runs distributed or non-distributed TensorFlow, PyTorch, Apache MXNet, XGBoost, and MPI training jobs on Kubernetes. === KServe for model serving === The KServe component (previously named KFServing) provides Kubernetes custom resources for serving machine learning models on arbitrary frameworks including TensorFlow, XGBoost, scikit-learn, PyTorch, and ONNX. KServe was developed collaboratively by Google, IBM, Bloomberg, NVIDIA, and Seldon. Publicly disclosed adopters of KServe include Bloomberg, Gojek, the Wikimedia Foundation, and others. === Katib for automated machine learning === Lastly, Kubeflow includes a component for automated training and development of machine learning models, the Katib component. It is described as a Kubernetes-native project and features hyperparameter tuning, early stopping, and neural architecture search. == Release timeline ==

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence arms race

  A military artificial intelligence arms race is a technological, economic, and military competition between two or more states to develop and deploy advanced AI technologies and lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The goal is to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over rivals, similar to previous arms races involving nuclear or conventional military technologies. Since the mid-2010s, many analysts have noted the emergence of such an arms race between superpowers for better AI technology and military AI, driven by increasing geopolitical and military tensions. An AI arms race is sometimes placed in the context of an AI Cold War between the United States and China. Several influential figures and publications have emphasized that whoever develops artificial general intelligence (AGI) first could dominate global affairs in the 21st century. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the leader in AI will "rule the world." Researchers and experts, such as Leopold Aschenbrenner and Adrian Pecotic respectively, warn that the AGI race between major powers like the U.S. and China could reshape geopolitical power. This includes AI for surveillance, autonomous weapons, decision-making systems, cyber operations, and more. == Terminology == Lethal autonomous weapons systems use artificial intelligence to identify and kill human targets without human intervention. LAWS have colloquially been called "slaughterbots" or "killer robots". Broadly, any competition for superior AI is sometimes framed as an "arms race". Advantages in military AI overlap with advantages in other sectors, as countries pursue both economic and military advantages, as per previous arms races throughout history. == History == In 2014, AI specialist Steve Omohundro warned that "An autonomous weapons arms race is already taking place". According to Siemens, worldwide military spending on robotics was US$5.1 billion in 2010 and US$7.5 billion in 2015. China became a top player in artificial intelligence research in the 2010s. According to the Financial Times, in 2016, for the first time, China published more AI research papers than the entire European Union. When restricted to number of AI papers in the top 5% of cited papers, China overtook the United States in 2016 but lagged behind the European Union. 23% of the researchers presenting at the 2017 American Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) conference were Chinese. Eric Schmidt, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Alphabet, has predicted China will be the leading country in AI by 2025. == Risks == One risk concerns the AI race itself, whether or not the race is won by any one group. There are strong incentives for development teams to cut corners with regard to the safety of the system, increasing the risk of critical failures and unintended consequences. This is in part due to the perceived advantage of being the first to develop advanced AI technology. One team appearing to be on the brink of a breakthrough can encourage other teams to take shortcuts, ignore precautions and deploy a system that is less ready. Some argue that using "race" terminology at all in this context can exacerbate this effect. Another potential danger of an AI arms race is the possibility of losing control of the AI systems; the risk is compounded in the case of a race to artificial general intelligence, which may present an existential risk. In 2023, a United States Air Force official reportedly said that during a computer test, a simulated AI drone killed the human character operating it. The USAF later said the official had misspoken and that it never conducted such simulations. A third risk of an AI arms race is whether or not the race is actually won by one group. The concern is regarding the consolidation of power and technological advantage in the hands of one group. A US government report argued that "AI-enabled capabilities could be used to threaten critical infrastructure, amplify disinformation campaigns, and wage war":1, and that "global stability and nuclear deterrence could be undermined".:11 == By nation == === United States === In 2014, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel posited the "Third Offset Strategy" that rapid advances in artificial intelligence will define the next generation of warfare. According to data science and analytics firm Govini, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) increased investment in artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing from $5.6 billion in 2011 to $7.4 billion in 2016. However, the civilian NSF budget for AI saw no increase in 2017. Japan Times reported in 2018 that the United States private investment is around $70 billion per year. The November 2019 'Interim Report' of the United States' National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence confirmed that AI is critical to US technological military superiority. The U.S. has many military AI combat programs, such as the Sea Hunter autonomous warship, which is designed to operate for extended periods at sea without a single crew member, and to even guide itself in and out of port. From 2017, a temporary US Department of Defense directive requires a human operator to be kept in the loop when it comes to the taking of human life by autonomous weapons systems. On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Board published the draft of a report recommending principles for the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense that would ensure a human operator would always be able to look into the 'black box' and understand the kill-chain process. However, a major concern is how the report will be implemented. The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) (pronounced "jake") is an American organization on exploring the usage of AI (particularly edge computing), Network of Networks, and AI-enhanced communication, for use in actual combat. It is a subdivision of the United States Armed Forces and was created in June 2018. The organization's stated objective is to "transform the US Department of Defense by accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI to achieve mission impact at scale. The goal is to use AI to solve large and complex problem sets that span multiple combat systems; then, ensure the combat Systems and Components have real-time access to ever-improving libraries of data sets and tools." In 2023, Microsoft pitched the DoD to use DALL-E models to train its battlefield management system. OpenAI, the developer of DALL-E, removed the blanket ban on military and warfare use from its usage policies in January 2024. The Biden administration imposed restrictions on the export of advanced NVIDIA chips and GPUs to China in an effort to limit China's progress in artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. The policy aimed to prevent the use of cutting-edge U.S. technology in military or surveillance applications and to maintain a strategic advantage in the global AI race. In 2025, under the second Trump administration, the United States began a broad deregulation campaign aimed at accelerating growth in sectors critical to artificial intelligence, including nuclear energy, infrastructure, and high-performance computing. The goal was to remove regulatory barriers and attract private investment to boost domestic AI capabilities. This included easing restrictions on data usage, speeding up approvals for AI-related infrastructure projects, and incentivizing innovation in cloud computing and semiconductors. Companies like NVIDIA, Oracle, and Cisco played a central role in these efforts, expanding their AI research, data center capacity, and partnerships to help position the U.S. as a global leader in AI development. ==== Project Maven ==== Project Maven is a Pentagon project involving using machine learning and engineering talent to distinguish people and objects in drone videos, apparently giving the government real-time battlefield command and control, and the ability to track, tag and spy on targets without human involvement. Initially the effort was led by Robert O. Work who was concerned about China's military use of the emerging technology. Reportedly, Pentagon development stops short of acting as an AI weapons system capable of firing on self-designated targets. The project was established in a memo by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense on 26 April 2017. Also known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross Functional Team, it is, according to Lt. Gen. of the United States Air Force Jack Shanahan in November 2017, a project "designed to be that pilot project, that pathfinder, that spark that kindles the flame front of artificial intelligence across the rest of the [Defense] Department". Its chief, U.S. Marine Corps Col. Drew Cukor, said: "People and computers will work symbiotically to increase the ability of weapon systems to detect objects." Project Maven has been noted by allies, such as Australia's Ian Langford, for the

  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 →
• 

  Information gain ratio

  In decision tree learning, information gain ratio is a ratio of information gain to the intrinsic information. It was proposed by Ross Quinlan, to reduce a bias towards multi-valued attributes by taking the number and size of branches into account when choosing an attribute. Information gain is also known as mutual information. == Information gain calculation == Information gain is the reduction in entropy produced from partitioning a set with attributes a {\displaystyle a} and finding the optimal candidate that produces the highest value: IG ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle {\text{IG}}(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where T {\displaystyle T} is a random variable and H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . The information gain is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. == Split information calculation == The split information value for a test is defined as follows: SplitInformation ( X ) = − ∑ i = 1 n N ( x i ) N ( x ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( x i ) N ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{SplitInformation}}(X)=-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}}} where X {\displaystyle X} is a discrete random variable with possible values x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x i {\displaystyle {x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{i}}} and N ( x i ) {\displaystyle N(x_{i})} being the number of times that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} occurs divided by the total count of events N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} where x {\displaystyle x} is the set of events. The split information value is a positive number that describes the potential worth of splitting a branch from a node. This in turn is the intrinsic value that the random variable possesses and will be used to remove the bias in the information gain ratio calculation. == Information gain ratio calculation == The information gain ratio is the ratio between the information gain and the split information value: IGR ( T , a ) = IG ( T , a ) / SplitInformation ( T ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\text{IG}}(T,a)/{\text{SplitInformation}}(T)} IGR ( T , a ) = − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T ) log ⁡ P ( T ) − ( − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T | a ) log ⁡ P ( T | a ) ) − ∑ i = 1 n N ( t i ) N ( t ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( t i ) N ( t ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\frac {-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T)\log \mathrm {P} (T)}-(-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T|a)\log \mathrm {P} (T|a)})}{-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}}}}} == Example == Using weather data published by Fordham University, the table was created below: Using the table above, one can find the entropy, information gain, split information, and information gain ratio for each variable (outlook, temperature, humidity, and wind). These calculations are shown in the tables below: Using the above tables, one can deduce that Outlook has the highest information gain ratio. Next, one must find the statistics for the sub-groups of the Outlook variable (sunny, overcast, and rainy), for this example one will only build the sunny branch (as shown in the table below): One can find the following statistics for the other variables (temperature, humidity, and wind) to see which have the greatest effect on the sunny element of the outlook variable: Humidity was found to have the highest information gain ratio. One will repeat the same steps as before and find the statistics for the events of the Humidity variable (high and normal): Since the play values are either all "No" or "Yes", the information gain ratio value will be equal to 1. Also, now that one has reached the end of the variable chain with Wind being the last variable left, they can build an entire root to leaf node branch line of a decision tree. Once finished with reaching this leaf node, one would follow the same procedure for the rest of the elements that have yet to be split in the decision tree. This set of data was relatively small, however, if a larger set was used, the advantages of using the information gain ratio as the splitting factor of a decision tree can be seen more. == Advantages == Information gain ratio biases the decision tree against considering attributes with a large number of distinct values. For example, suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain ratio is used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant. These will be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's telephone number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer. Due to its high amount of distinct values, this will not be chosen to be tested near the root. == Disadvantages == Although information gain ratio solves the key problem of information gain, it creates another problem. If one is considering an amount of attributes that have a high number of distinct values, these will never be above one that has a lower number of distinct values. == Difference from information gain == Information gain's shortcoming is created by not providing a numerical difference between attributes with high distinct values from those that have less. Example: Suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain is often used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant, so they can be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's credit card number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer, but we do not want to include it in the decision tree: deciding how to treat a customer based on their credit card number is unlikely to generalize to customers we haven't seen before. Information gain ratio's strength is that it has a bias towards the attributes with the lower number of distinct values. Below is a table describing the differences of information gain and information gain ratio when put in certain scenarios.

  Read more →
• 

  Multifactor dimensionality reduction

  Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) is a statistical approach, also used in machine learning automatic approaches, for detecting and characterizing combinations of attributes or independent variables that interact to influence a dependent or class variable. MDR was designed specifically to identify nonadditive interactions among discrete variables that influence a binary outcome and is considered a nonparametric and model-free alternative to traditional statistical methods such as logistic regression. The basis of the MDR method is a constructive induction or feature engineering algorithm that converts two or more variables or attributes to a single attribute. This process of constructing a new attribute changes the representation space of the data. The end goal is to create or discover a representation that facilitates the detection of nonlinear or nonadditive interactions among the attributes such that prediction of the class variable is improved over that of the original representation of the data. == Illustrative example == Consider the following simple example using the exclusive OR (XOR) function. XOR is a logical operator that is commonly used in data mining and machine learning as an example of a function that is not linearly separable. The table below represents a simple dataset where the relationship between the attributes (X1 and X2) and the class variable (Y) is defined by the XOR function such that Y = X1 XOR X2. Table 1 A machine learning algorithm would need to discover or approximate the XOR function in order to accurately predict Y using information about X1 and X2. An alternative strategy would be to first change the representation of the data using constructive induction to facilitate predictive modeling. The MDR algorithm would change the representation of the data (X1 and X2) in the following manner. MDR starts by selecting two attributes. In this simple example, X1 and X2 are selected. Each combination of values for X1 and X2 are examined and the number of times Y=1 and/or Y=0 is counted. In this simple example, Y=1 occurs zero times and Y=0 occurs once for the combination of X1=0 and X2=0. With MDR, the ratio of these counts is computed and compared to a fixed threshold. Here, the ratio of counts is 0/1 which is less than our fixed threshold of 1. Since 0/1 < 1 we encode a new attribute (Z) as a 0. When the ratio is greater than one we encode Z as a 1. This process is repeated for all unique combinations of values for X1 and X2. Table 2 illustrates our new transformation of the data. Table 2 The machine learning algorithm now has much less work to do to find a good predictive function. In fact, in this very simple example, the function Y = Z has a classification accuracy of 1. A nice feature of constructive induction methods such as MDR is the ability to use any data mining or machine learning method to analyze the new representation of the data. Decision trees, neural networks, or a naive Bayes classifier could be used in combination with measures of model quality such as balanced accuracy and mutual information. == Machine learning with MDR == As illustrated above, the basic constructive induction algorithm in MDR is very simple. However, its implementation for mining patterns from real data can be computationally complex. As with any machine learning algorithm there is always concern about overfitting. That is, machine learning algorithms are good at finding patterns in completely random data. It is often difficult to determine whether a reported pattern is an important signal or just chance. One approach is to estimate the generalizability of a model to independent datasets using methods such as cross-validation. Models that describe random data typically don't generalize. Another approach is to generate many random permutations of the data to see what the data mining algorithm finds when given the chance to overfit. Permutation testing makes it possible to generate an empirical p-value for the result. Replication in independent data may also provide evidence for an MDR model but can be sensitive to difference in the data sets. These approaches have all been shown to be useful for choosing and evaluating MDR models. An important step in a machine learning exercise is interpretation. Several approaches have been used with MDR including entropy analysis and pathway analysis. Tips and approaches for using MDR to model gene-gene interactions have been reviewed. == Extensions to MDR == Numerous extensions to MDR have been introduced. These include family-based methods, fuzzy methods, covariate adjustment, odds ratios, risk scores, survival methods, robust methods, methods for quantitative traits, and many others. == Applications of MDR == MDR has mostly been applied to detecting gene-gene interactions or epistasis in genetic studies of common human diseases such as atrial fibrillation, autism, bladder cancer, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer and tuberculosis. It has also been applied to other biomedical problems such as the genetic analysis of pharmacology outcomes. A central challenge is the scaling of MDR to big data such as that from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Several approaches have been used. One approach is to filter the features prior to MDR analysis. This can be done using biological knowledge through tools such as BioFilter. It can also be done using computational tools such as ReliefF. Another approach is to use stochastic search algorithms such as genetic programming to explore the search space of feature combinations. Yet another approach is a brute-force search using high-performance computing. == Implementations == www.epistasis.org provides an open-source and freely-available MDR software package. An R package for MDR. An sklearn-compatible Python implementation. An R package for Model-Based MDR. MDR in Weka. Generalized MDR.

  Read more →
• 

  Non-separable wavelet

  Non-separable wavelets are multi-dimensional wavelets that are not directly implemented as tensor products of wavelets on some lower-dimensional space. They have been studied since 1992. They offer a few important advantages. Notably, using non-separable filters leads to more parameters in design, and consequently better filters. The main difference, when compared to the one-dimensional wavelets, is that multi-dimensional sampling requires the use of lattices (e.g., the quincunx lattice). The wavelet filters themselves can be separable or non-separable regardless of the sampling lattice. Thus, in some cases, the non-separable wavelets can be implemented in a separable fashion. Unlike separable wavelet, the non-separable wavelets are capable of detecting structures that are not only horizontal, vertical or diagonal (show less anisotropy). == Examples == Red-black wavelets Contourlets Shearlets Directionlets Steerable pyramids Non-separable schemes for tensor-product wavelets

  Read more →
• 

  Huber loss

  In statistics, the Huber loss is a loss function used in robust regression, that is less sensitive to outliers in data than the squared error loss. A variant for classification is also sometimes used. == Definition == The Huber loss function describes the penalty incurred by an estimation procedure f. Huber (1964) defines the loss function piecewise by L δ ( a ) = { 1 2 a 2 for | a | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | a | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{a^{2}}&{\text{for }}|a|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \cdot \left(|a|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} This function is quadratic for small values of a, and linear for large values, with equal values and slopes of the different sections at the two points where | a | = δ {\displaystyle |a|=\delta } . The variable a often refers to the residuals, that is to the difference between the observed and predicted values a = y − f ( x ) {\displaystyle a=y-f(x)} , so the former can be expanded to L δ ( y , f ( x ) ) = { 1 2 ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 for | y − f ( x ) | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | y − f ( x ) | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{\left(y-f(x)\right)}^{2}&{\text{for }}\left|y-f(x)\right|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \ \cdot \left(\left|y-f(x)\right|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The Huber loss is the convolution of the absolute value function with the rectangular function, scaled and translated. Thus it "smoothens out" the former's corner at the origin. == Motivation == Two very commonly used loss functions are the squared loss, L ( a ) = a 2 {\displaystyle L(a)=a^{2}} , and the absolute loss, L ( a ) = | a | {\displaystyle L(a)=|a|} . The squared loss function results in an arithmetic mean-unbiased estimator, and the absolute-value loss function results in a median-unbiased estimator (in the one-dimensional case, and a geometric median-unbiased estimator for the multi-dimensional case). The squared loss has the disadvantage that it has the tendency to be dominated by outliers—when summing over a set of a {\displaystyle a} 's (as in ∑ i = 1 n L ( a i ) {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}L(a_{i})} ), the sample mean is influenced too much by a few particularly large a {\displaystyle a} -values when the distribution is heavy tailed: in terms of estimation theory, the asymptotic relative efficiency of the mean is poor for heavy-tailed distributions. As defined above, the Huber loss function is strongly convex in a uniform neighborhood of its minimum a = 0 {\displaystyle a=0} ; at the boundary of this uniform neighborhood, the Huber loss function has a differentiable extension to an affine function at points a = − δ {\displaystyle a=-\delta } and a = δ {\displaystyle a=\delta } . These properties allow it to combine much of the sensitivity of the mean-unbiased, minimum-variance estimator of the mean (using the quadratic loss function) and the robustness of the median-unbiased estimator (using the absolute value function). == Pseudo-Huber loss function == The Pseudo-Huber loss function can be used as a smooth approximation of the Huber loss function. It combines the best properties of L2 squared loss and L1 absolute loss by being strongly convex when close to the target/minimum and less steep for extreme values. The scale at which the Pseudo-Huber loss function transitions from L2 loss for values close to the minimum to L1 loss for extreme values and the steepness at extreme values can be controlled by the δ {\displaystyle \delta } value. The Pseudo-Huber loss function ensures that derivatives are continuous for all degrees. It is defined as L δ ( a ) = δ 2 ( 1 + ( a / δ ) 2 − 1 ) . {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)=\delta ^{2}\left({\sqrt {1+(a/\delta )^{2}}}-1\right).} As such, this function approximates a 2 / 2 {\displaystyle a^{2}/2} for small values of a {\displaystyle a} , and approximates a straight line with slope δ {\displaystyle \delta } for large values of a {\displaystyle a} . While the above is the most common form, other smooth approximations of the Huber loss function also exist. == Variant for classification == For classification purposes, a variant of the Huber loss called modified Huber is sometimes used. Given a prediction f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} (a real-valued classifier score) and a true binary class label y ∈ { + 1 , − 1 } {\displaystyle y\in \{+1,-1\}} , the modified Huber loss is defined as L ( y , f ( x ) ) = { max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) 2 for y f ( x ) > − 1 , − 4 y f ( x ) otherwise. {\displaystyle L(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}\max(0,1-y\,f(x))^{2}&{\text{for }}\,\,y\,f(x)>-1,\\[4pt]-4y\,f(x)&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The term max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \max(0,1-y\,f(x))} is the hinge loss used by support vector machines; the quadratically smoothed hinge loss is a generalization of L {\displaystyle L} . == Applications == The Huber loss function is used in robust statistics, M-estimation and additive modelling.

  Read more →
• 

  Information gain (decision tree)

  In the context of decision trees in information theory and machine learning, information gain refers to the conditional expected value of the Kullback–Leibler divergence of the univariate probability distribution of one variable from the conditional distribution of this variable given the other one. (In broader contexts, information gain can also be used as a synonym for either Kullback–Leibler divergence or mutual information, but the focus of this article is on the more narrow meaning below.) Explicitly, the information gain of a random variable X {\displaystyle X} obtained from an observation of a random variable A {\displaystyle A} taking value a {\displaystyle a} is defined as: I G ( X , a ) = D KL ( P X ∣ a ∥ P X ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {IG}}(X,a)=D_{\text{KL}}{\bigl (}P_{X\mid a}\parallel P_{X}{\bigr )}} In other words, it is the Kullback–Leibler divergence of P X ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{X}(x)} (the prior distribution for X {\displaystyle X} ) from P X ∣ a ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{X\mid a}(x)} (the posterior distribution for X {\displaystyle X} given A = a {\displaystyle A=a} ). The expected value of the information gain is the mutual information I ( X ; A ) {\displaystyle I(X;A)} : E A ⁡ [ I G ( X , A ) ] = I ( X ; A ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{A}[{\mathit {IG}}(X,A)]=I(X;A)} i.e. the reduction in the entropy of X {\displaystyle X} achieved by learning the state of the random variable A {\displaystyle A} . In machine learning, this concept can be used to define a preferred sequence of attributes to investigate to most rapidly narrow down the state of X. Such a sequence (which depends on the outcome of the investigation of previous attributes at each stage) is called a decision tree, and when applied in the area of machine learning is known as decision tree learning. Usually an attribute with high mutual information should be preferred to other attributes. == General definition == In general terms, the expected information gain is the reduction in information entropy Η from a prior state to a state that takes some information as given: I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the conditional entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . This is intuitively plausible when interpreting entropy Η as a measure of uncertainty of a random variable T {\displaystyle T} : by learning (or assuming) a {\displaystyle a} about T {\displaystyle T} , our uncertainty about T {\displaystyle T} is reduced (i.e. I G ( T , a ) {\displaystyle IG(T,a)} is positive), unless of course T {\displaystyle T} is independent of a {\displaystyle a} , in which case H ( T | a ) = H ( T ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T|a)=\mathrm {H} (T)} , meaning I G ( T , a ) = 0 {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=0} . == Formal definition == Let T denote a set of training examples, each of the form ( x , y ) = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . , x k , y ) {\displaystyle ({\textbf {x}},y)=(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...,x_{k},y)} where x a ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\displaystyle x_{a}\in \mathrm {vals} (a)} is the value of the a th {\displaystyle a^{\text{th}}} attribute or feature of example x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} and y is the corresponding class label. The information gain for an attribute a is defined in terms of Shannon entropy H ( − ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (-)} as follows. For a value v taken by attribute a, let S a ( v ) = { x ∈ T | x a = v } {\displaystyle S_{a}{(v)}=\{{\textbf {x}}\in T|x_{a}=v\}} be defined as the set of training inputs of T for which attribute a is equal to v. Then the information gain of T for attribute a is the difference between the a priori Shannon entropy H ( T ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T)} of the training set and the conditional entropy H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} . H ( T | a ) = ∑ v ∈ v a l s ( a ) | S a ( v ) | | T | ⋅ H ( S a ( v ) ) . {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T|a)=\sum _{v\in \mathrm {vals} (a)}{{\frac {|S_{a}{(v)}|}{|T|}}\cdot \mathrm {H} \left(S_{a}{\left(v\right)}\right)}.} I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathrm {H} (T|a)} The mutual information is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case, the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. In particular, the values v ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\displaystyle v\in vals(a)} defines a partition of the training set data T into mutually exclusive and all-inclusive subsets, inducing a categorical probability distribution P a ( v ) {\textstyle P_{a}{(v)}} on the values v ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\textstyle v\in vals(a)} of attribute a. The distribution is given P a ( v ) := | S a ( v ) | | T | {\textstyle P_{a}{(v)}:={\frac {|S_{a}{(v)}|}{|T|}}} . In this representation, the information gain of T given a can be defined as the difference between the unconditional Shannon entropy of T and the expected entropy of T conditioned on a, where the expectation value is taken with respect to the induced distribution on the values of a. I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − ∑ v ∈ v a l s ( a ) P a ( v ) H ( S a ( v ) ) = H ( T ) − E P a [ H ( S a ( v ) ) ] = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}IG(T,a)&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\sum _{v\in \mathrm {vals} (a)}{P_{a}{(v)}\mathrm {H} \left(S_{a}{(v)}\right)}\\&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathbb {E} _{P_{a}}{\left[\mathrm {H} {(S_{a}{(v)})}\right]}\\&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)}.\end{alignedat}}} == Example == In engineering applications, information is analogous to signal, and entropy is analogous to noise. It determines how a decision tree chooses to split data. The leftmost figure below is very impure and has high entropy corresponding to higher disorder and lower information value. As we go to the right, the entropy decreases, and the information value increases. Now, it is clear that information gain is the measure of how much information a feature provides about a class. Let's visualize information gain in a decision tree as shown in the right: The node t is the parent node, and the sub-nodes tL and tR are child nodes. In this case, the parent node t has a collection of cancer and non-cancer samples denoted as C and NC respectively. We can use information gain to determine how good the splitting of nodes is in a decision tree. In terms of entropy, information gain is defined as: To understand this idea, let's start by an example in which we create a simple dataset and want to see if gene mutations could be related to patients with cancer. Given four different gene mutations, as well as seven samples, the training set for a decision can be created as follows: In this dataset, a 1 means the sample has the mutation (True), while a 0 means the sample does not (False). A sample with C denotes that it has been confirmed to be cancerous, while NC means it is non-cancerous. Using this data, a decision tree can be created with information gain used to determine the candidate splits for each node. For the next step, the entropy at parent node t of the above simple decision tree is computed as:H(t) = −[pC,t log2(pC,t) + pNC,t log2(pNC,t)] where, probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at node t, pC,t = n(t, C) / n(t), probability of selecting a class ‘NC’ sample at node t, pNC,t = n(t, NC) / n(t), n(t), n(t, C), and n(t, NC) are the number of total samples, ‘C’ samples and ‘NC’ samples at node t respectively.Using this with the example training set, the process for finding information gain beginning with H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} for Mutation 1 is as follows: pC, t = 4/7 pNC, t = 3/7 H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} = −(4/7 × log2(4/7) + 3/7 × log2(3/7)) = 0.985 Note: H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} will be the same for all mutations at the root. The relatively high value of entropy H ( t ) = 0.985 {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}=0.985} (1 is the optimal value) suggests that the root node is highly impure and the constituents of the input at the root node would look like the leftmost figure in the above Entropy Diagram. However, such a set of data is good for learning the attributes of the mutations used to split the node. At a certain node, when the homogeneity of the constituents of the input occurs (as shown in the rightmost figure in the above Entropy Diagram), the dataset would no longer be good for learning. Moving on, the entropy at left and right child nodes of the above decision tree is computed using the formulae:H(tL) = −[pC,L log2(pC,L) + pNC,L log2(pNC,L)]H(tR) = −[pC,R log2(pC,R) + pNC,R log2(pNC,R)]where, probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at the left child node, pC,L = n(tL, C) / n(tL), probability of selecting a class ‘NC’ sample at the left child node, pNC,L = n(tL, NC) / n(tL), probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at the right child node, pC,R = n(tR, C) / n(tR), prob

  Read more →
• 

  Principal component analysis

  Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear dimensionality reduction technique with applications in exploratory data analysis, visualization and data preprocessing. The data are linearly transformed onto a new coordinate system such that the directions (principal components) capturing the largest variation in the data can be easily identified. The principal components of a collection of points in a real coordinate space are a sequence of p {\displaystyle p} unit vectors, where the i {\displaystyle i} -th vector is the direction of a line that best fits the data while being orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} vectors. Here, a best-fitting line is defined as one that minimizes the average squared perpendicular distance from the points to the line. These directions (i.e., principal components) constitute an orthonormal basis in which different individual dimensions of the data are linearly uncorrelated. Many studies use the first two principal components in order to plot the data in two dimensions and to visually identify clusters of closely related data points. Principal component analysis has applications in many fields such as population genetics, microbiome studies, and atmospheric science. == Overview == When performing PCA, the first principal component of a set of p {\displaystyle p} variables is the derived variable formed as a linear combination of the original variables that explains the most variance. The second principal component explains the most variance in what is left once the effect of the first component is removed, and we may proceed through p {\displaystyle p} iterations until all the variance is explained. PCA is most commonly used when many of the variables are highly correlated with each other and it is desirable to reduce their number to an independent set. The first principal component can equivalently be defined as a direction that maximizes the variance of the projected data. The i {\displaystyle i} -th principal component can be taken as a direction orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} principal components that maximizes the variance of the projected data. For either objective, it can be shown that the principal components are eigenvectors of the data's covariance matrix. Thus, the principal components are often computed by eigendecomposition of the data covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of the data matrix. PCA is the simplest of the true eigenvector-based multivariate analyses and is closely related to factor analysis. Factor analysis typically incorporates more domain-specific assumptions about the underlying structure and solves eigenvectors of a slightly different matrix. PCA is also related to canonical correlation analysis (CCA). CCA defines coordinate systems that optimally describe the cross-covariance between two datasets while PCA defines a new orthogonal coordinate system that optimally describes variance in a single dataset. Robust and L1-norm-based variants of standard PCA have also been proposed. == History == PCA was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson, as an analogue of the principal axis theorem in mechanics; it was later independently developed and named by Harold Hotelling in the 1930s. Depending on the field of application, it is also named the discrete Karhunen–Loève transform (KLT) in signal processing, the Hotelling transform in multivariate quality control, proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in mechanical engineering, singular value decomposition (SVD) of X (invented in the last quarter of the 19th century), eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of XTX in linear algebra, factor analysis (for a discussion of the differences between PCA and factor analysis see Ch. 7 of Jolliffe's Principal Component Analysis), Eckart–Young theorem (Harman, 1960), or empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) in meteorological science (Lorenz, 1956), empirical eigenfunction decomposition (Sirovich, 1987), quasiharmonic modes (Brooks et al., 1988), spectral decomposition in noise and vibration, and empirical modal analysis in structural dynamics. == Intuition == PCA can be thought of as fitting a p-dimensional ellipsoid to the data, where each axis of the ellipsoid represents a principal component. If some axis of the ellipsoid is small, then the variance along that axis is also small. To find the axes of the ellipsoid, we must first center the values of each variable in the dataset on 0 by subtracting the mean of the variable's observed values from each of those values. These transformed values are used instead of the original observed values for each of the variables. Then, we compute the covariance matrix of the data and calculate the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of this covariance matrix. Then we must normalize each of the orthogonal eigenvectors to turn them into unit vectors. Once this is done, each of the mutually-orthogonal unit eigenvectors can be interpreted as an axis of the ellipsoid fitted to the data. This choice of basis will transform the covariance matrix into a diagonalized form, in which the diagonal elements represent the variance of each axis. The proportion of the variance that each eigenvector represents can be calculated by dividing the eigenvalue corresponding to that eigenvector by the sum of all eigenvalues. Biplots and scree plots (degree of explained variance) are used to interpret findings of the PCA. == Details == PCA is defined as an orthogonal linear transformation on a real inner product space that transforms the data to a new coordinate system such that the greatest variance by some scalar projection of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the first principal component), the second greatest variance on the second coordinate, and so on. Consider an n × p {\displaystyle n\times p} data matrix, X, with column-wise zero empirical mean (the sample mean of each column has been shifted to zero), where each of the n rows represents a different repetition of the experiment, and each of the p columns gives a particular kind of feature (say, the results from a particular sensor). Mathematically, the transformation is defined by a set of size l {\displaystyle l} (where l {\displaystyle l} is usually selected to be strictly less than p {\displaystyle p} to reduce dimensionality) of p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional vectors of weights or coefficients w ( k ) = ( w 1 , … , w p ) ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(k)}=(w_{1},\dots ,w_{p})_{(k)}} that map each row vector x ( i ) = ( x 1 , … , x p ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{(i)}=(x_{1},\dots ,x_{p})_{(i)}} of X to a new vector of principal component scores t ( i ) = ( t 1 , … , t l ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} _{(i)}=(t_{1},\dots ,t_{l})_{(i)}} , given by t k ( i ) = x ( i ) ⋅ w ( k ) f o r i = 1 , … , n k = 1 , … , l {\displaystyle {t_{k}}_{(i)}=\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} _{(k)}\qquad \mathrm {for} \qquad i=1,\dots ,n\qquad k=1,\dots ,l} in such a way that the individual variables t 1 , … , t l {\displaystyle t_{1},\dots ,t_{l}} of t considered over the data set successively inherit the maximum possible variance from X, with each coefficient vector w constrained to be a unit vector. The above may equivalently be written in matrix form as T = X W {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} =\mathbf {X} \mathbf {W} } where T i k = t k ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {T} }_{ik}={t_{k}}_{(i)}} , X i j = x j ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {X} }_{ij}={x_{j}}_{(i)}} , and W j k = w j ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {W} }_{jk}={w_{j}}_{(k)}} . === First component === In order to maximize variance, the first weight vector w(1) thus has to satisfy w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( t 1 ) ( i ) 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( x ( i ) ⋅ w ) 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}(t_{1})_{(i)}^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} \right)^{2}\right\}} Equivalently, writing this in matrix form gives w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ‖ X w ‖ 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { w T X T X w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\left\|\mathbf {Xw} \right\|^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} \right\}} Since w(1) has been defined to be a unit vector, it equivalently also satisfies w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max { w T X T X w w T w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max \left\{{\frac {\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} }{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {w} }}\right\}} The quantity to be maximised can be recognised as a Rayleigh quotient. A standard result for a positive semidefinite matrix such as XTX is that the quotient's maximum possible value is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, which occurs when w is the corresponding eigenvector. With w(1) found, the first principal component of a data vector

  Read more →
• 

  INaturalist

  iNaturalist is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit social network of naturalists, citizen scientists, and biologists built on the concept of mapping and sharing observations of biodiversity across the globe. iNaturalist may be accessed via its website or from its mobile applications. iNaturalist includes an automated species identification tool, and users further assist each other in identifying organisms from photographs and sound recordings. As of 5 August 2025, iNaturalist users had contributed nearly 300 million observations of plants, animals, fungi, and other organisms worldwide, and 400,000 users were active in the previous 30 days. iNaturalist serves as an important resource of open data for biodiversity research, conservation, and education, describing itself as "an online social network of people sharing biodiversity information to help each other learn about nature." It is the primary application for crowd-sourced biodiversity data in places such as Mexico, southern Africa, and Australia, and the project has been called "a standard-bearer for natural history mobile applications." Most of iNaturalist's software is open source. It has contributed to over 4,000 research papers and is widely used by scientists, land managers, and conservationists worldwide. The platform has also been active in the discovery of new species and rediscovery of species previously assumed to be extinct. == History == iNaturalist began in 2008 as a UC Berkeley School of Information Master's final project of Nate Agrin, Jessica Kline, and Ken-ichi Ueda. Agrin and Ueda continued work on the site with Sean McGregor, a web developer. In 2011, Ueda began collaboration with Scott Loarie, a research fellow at Stanford University and lecturer at UC Berkeley. Ueda and Loarie are the current co-directors of iNaturalist.org. The organization merged with the California Academy of Sciences on 24 April 2014. In 2017, iNaturalist became a joint initiative between the California Academy of Sciences and the National Geographic Society. With these collaborations and growing popularity of the site since 2012, the number of participants and observations has roughly doubled each year. In 2014, iNaturalist reached 1 million observations. Later, as of October 2023, there were 181 million observations (163 million verifiable). On 11 July 2023 iNaturalist announced its status as a newly independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. === Google AI controversy === On 9 June 2025 Google announced that iNaturalist would be part of its "Generative AI Accelerator". This announcement, paired with the initial lack of information on the iNaturalist site, led to outcry from many iNaturalist users in the blog comments and forum, worrying about the consequences for the environment, volunteer engagement, reliability and raised questions about the decision making within iNaturalist, while some saw the backlash as a sign that people want to resist 'corrosive technologies'. PZ Myers, a biology professor who uses iNaturalist in his teaching, published an article on his website Pharyngula stating that "any decision that drives people away and replaces them with a hallucinating bot is a bad decision". == Platforms == Users can interact with iNaturalist in the following ways: through the iNaturalist.org website, through two mobile apps: iNaturalist (iOS/Android) and Seek by iNaturalist (iOS/Android), or through partner organizations such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) website. On the iNaturalist.org website, visitors can search the public dataset and interact with other people adding observations and identifications. The website provides tools for registered users to add, identify, and discuss observations, write journal posts, explore information about species, create project pages to recruit participation, and coordinate work on their topics of interest. On the iNaturalist mobile app, users can create and share nature observations to the online dataset, explore observations both nearby and around the world, and learn about different species. Seek by iNaturalist, a separate app marketed to families, requires no online account registration and all observations may remain private. Seek incorporates features of gamification, such as providing a list of nearby organisms to find and encouraging the collection of badges and participation in challenges. Seek was initially released in the spring of 2018. == Observations == The iNaturalist platform is based on crowdsourcing of observations and identifications. An iNaturalist observation records a person's encounter with an individual organism at a particular time and place. An iNaturalist observation may also record evidence of an organism, such as animal tracks, nests, or scat. The scope of iNaturalist excludes natural but inert subjects such as geologic or hydrologic features. Users typically upload photos as evidence of their findings, though audio recordings are also accepted, and such evidence is not a strict requirement. Users may share observation locations publicly, "obscure" them to display a less precise location or make the locations completely private. iNaturalist users can add identifications to each other's observations in order to confirm or improve the identification of the observation. Observations are classified as "Casual", "Needs ID" (needs identification), or "Research Grade" based on the quality of the data provided and the community identification process. Any quality of data can be downloaded from iNaturalist and "Research Grade" observations are often incorporated into other online databases such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the Atlas of Living Australia. === Automated species identification === In addition to observations being identified by others in the community, iNaturalist includes an automated species identification tool, first released in 2017. Images can be identified via a computer vision model which has been trained on the large database of the observations on iNaturalist. Multiple species suggestions are typically provided with the suggestion that the software guesses to be most likely is at the top of the list. A broader taxon such as a genus or family is commonly provided if the model is unsure of the species. It is trained once or twice a year, and the threshold for species included in the training set has changed over time. It can be difficult for the model to guess correctly if the species in question is infrequently observed or hard to identify from images alone, or if the image submitted has poor lighting, is blurry, or contains multiple subjects. In February 2023, iNaturalist released v2.1 of its computer vision model, which was trained on a new source model which performed significantly better than the previous models trained using a different source model. In April 2025 iNaturalist released an updated app for iOS, changing the original version to "iNaturalist Classic." == Projects == Users have created and contributed to tens of thousands of different projects on iNaturalist. The platform is commonly used to record observations during bioblitzes, which are biological surveying events that attempt to record all the species that occur within a designated area, and a specific project type on iNaturalist. Other project types include collections of observations by location or taxon or documenting specific types of observations such as animal tracks and signs, the spread of invasive species, roadkill, fishing catches, or discovering new species. In 2011, iNaturalist was used as a platform to power the Global Amphibian and Global Reptile BioBlitzes, in which observations were used to help monitor the occurrence and distribution of the world's reptiles and amphibian species. The US National Park Service partnered with iNaturalist to record observations from the 2016 National Parks BioBlitz. That project exceeded 100,000 observations in August 2016. In 2017, the United Nations Environment Programme teamed up with iNaturalist to celebrate World Environment Day.. In 2022, Reef Ecologic teamed up with iNaturalist to celebrate World Oceans Day. === City Nature Challenge === In 2016, Lila Higgins from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and Alison Young from the California Academy of Sciences co-founded the City Nature Challenge (CNC). In the first City Nature Challenge, naturalists in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area documented over 20,000 observations with the iNaturalist platform. In 2017, the CNC expanded to 16 cities across the United States and collected over 125,000 observations of wildlife in 5 days. The CNC expanded to a global audience in 2018, with 68 cities participating from 19 countries, with some cities using community science platforms other than iNaturalist to participate. In 4 days, over 17,000 people cataloged over 440,000 nature observations in urban regions around the world. In 2019, the CNC once again expanded, with 35,000 parti

  Read more →
• 

  Random neural network

  The Random Neural Network (RNN) is a mathematical representation of an interconnected network of neurons or cells which exchange spiking signals. It was invented by Erol Gelenbe and is linked to the G-network model of queueing networks which Erol Gelenbe also invented, and with his Gene Regulatory Network models. In this model, each neuronal cell state is represented by an integer whose value rises when the cell receives an excitatory spike and drops when it receives an inhibitory spike. The spikes can originate outside the network itself, or they can come from other cells in the networks. Cells whose internal excitatory state has a positive value are allowed to send out spikes of either kind to other cells in the network according to specific cell-dependent spiking rates. The model has a mathematical solution in steady-state which provides the joint probability distribution of the network in terms of the individual probabilities that each cell is excited and able to send out spikes. Computing this solution is based on solving a set of non-linear algebraic equations whose parameters are related to the spiking rates of individual cells and their connectivity to other cells, as well as the arrival rates of spikes from outside the network. The RNN is a recurrent model, i.e. a neural network that is allowed to have complex feedback loops. A highly energy-efficient implementation of random neural networks was demonstrated by Krishna Palem et al. using the Probabilistic CMOS or PCMOS technology and was shown to be c. 226–300 times more efficient in terms of Energy-Performance-Product. RNNs are also related to artificial neural networks, which (like the random neural network) have gradient-based learning algorithms. The learning algorithm for an n-node random neural network that includes feedback loops (it is also a recurrent neural network) is of computational complexity O(n^3) (the number of computations is proportional to the cube of n, the number of neurons). The random neural network can also be used with other learning algorithms such as reinforcement learning. The RNN has been shown to be a universal approximator for bounded and continuous functions.

  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 →