AI Assistant Job Description

AI Assistant Job Description — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  LIVAC Synchronous Corpus

  LIVAC is an uncommon language corpus dynamically maintained since 1995. Different from other existing corpora, LIVAC has adopted a rigorous and regular "Windows" approach in processing and filtering massive media texts from representative Chinese speech communities such as Beijing, Hong Kong, Macau, Taipei, Singapore, Shanghai, as well as Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. The contents are thus deliberately repetitive in most cases, represented by textual samples drawn from editorials, local and international news, cross-Taiwan Strait news, as well as news on finance, sports and entertainment. By 2023, more than 3 billion characters of news media texts have been filtered, of which 700 million characters have been processed and analyzed and have yielded an expanding Pan-Chinese dictionary of 2.5 million words from the Pan-Chinese printed media. Through rigorous analysis based on computational linguistic methodology, LIVAC has at the same time accumulated a large amount of accurate and meaningful statistical data on the Chinese language and on their diverse speech communities in the Pan-Chinese context, and the results show considerable and important long standing as well as evolving variations. The "Windows" approach is the most innovative feature of LIVAC and has enabled Pan-Chinese media texts to be quantitatively analyzed according to various attributes such as locations, time and subject domains. Thus, various types of comparative studies and applications in information technology as well as development of often related innovative applications have been possible. Moreover, LIVAC has allowed longitudinal developments to be taken into account, facilitating Key Word in Context (KWIC) search and comprehensive study of target words and their underlying concepts as well as linguistic structures over the past 25 years, based on the above mentioned variables of location, time and subject. Results from the extensive and accumulative data analysis contained in LIVAC have enabled the cultivation of textual databases of proper names, place names, organization names, new words, and bi-weekly and annual rosters of media figures. Related applications have included the establishment of verb and adjective databases, the formulation of sentiment indices, and related opinion mining, to measure and compare the popularity of global media figures in the Chinese media (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese Celebrity Rosters, later renamed as the Pan-Chinese Newsmaker Rosters). Notable among these are the decades long periodic reviews of the 25 years of annual pan-Chinese rosters since 2000 and compilation of new word databases (LIVAC Annual Pan-Chinese New Word Rosters). On this basis, the analysis of the emergence, diffusion and transformation of new words, and the publication of dictionaries of neologisms have been made possible. A recent focus is on the relative balance between disyllabic words and growing trisyllabic words in the Chinese language, and the comparative study of light verbs in three Chinese speech communities. as well as the link between the language use and use of language as a reflection of epochal change in China. A new LIVAC version 3.1 was launched in February 2024. == Corpus data processing == Accessing media texts, manual input, etc. Text unification including conversion from simplified to traditional Chinese characters, stored as Big5 and Unicode versions Automatic word segmentation Automatic alignment of parallel texts Manual verification, part-of-speech tagging Extraction of words and addition to regional sub-corpora Combination of regional sub-corpora to update the LIVAC corpus, and master lexical database == Labeling for data curation == Categories used include general terms and proper names, such as: general names, surnames, semi titles; geographical, organizations and commercial entities, etc.; time, prepositions, locations, etc.; stack-words; loanwords; case-word; numerals, etc. Construction of databases of proper names, place names, and specific terms, etc. Generate rosters: "new word rosters", "celebrity or media personality rosters", "place name rosters", compound words and matched words Other parts of speech tagging for sub-database, such as common nouns, numerals, numeral classifiers, different types of verbs, and of adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles marking mood, onomatopoeia, interjection, etc. == Applications == Compilation of Pan-Chinese dictionaries or local dictionaries Information technology research, such as predictive Chinese text input for mobile phones, automatic speech to text conversion, opinion mining Comparative studies on linguistic and cultural developments in the Pan-Chinese regions, especially in a critical period of history in modern China. Language teaching and learning research, and speech-to-text conversion Customized service on linguistic research and lexical search for international corporations and government agencies The above applications are provided by the following functions: Word Segmentation Search Phrase Search Example Sentence Selection Multi-word Comparison Word Cloud

  Read more →
• 

  FERET database

  The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database is a dataset used for facial recognition system evaluation as part of the Face Recognition Technology (FERET) program. It was first established in 1993 under a collaborative effort between Harry Wechsler at George Mason University and Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. The FERET database serves as a standard database of facial images for researchers to use to develop various algorithms and report results. The use of a common database also allowed one to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in methodology and gauge their strengths and weaknesses. The facial images for the database were collected between December 1993 and August 1996, accumulating a total of 14,126 images pertaining to 1,199 individuals along with 365 duplicate sets of images that were taken on a different day. In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of these images. The dataset tested includes 2,413 still facial images, representing 856 individuals. The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all (computing)

  Winner-take-all is a computational principle applied in computational models of neural networks by which neurons compete with each other for activation. In the classical form, only the neuron with the highest activation stays active while all other neurons shut down; however, other variations allow more than one neuron to be active, for example the soft winner take-all, by which a power function is applied to the neurons. == Neural networks == In the theory of artificial neural networks, winner-take-all networks are a case of competitive learning in recurrent neural networks. Output nodes in the network mutually inhibit each other, while simultaneously activating themselves through reflexive connections. After some time, only one node in the output layer will be active, namely the one corresponding to the strongest input. Thus the network uses nonlinear inhibition to pick out the largest of a set of inputs. Winner-take-all is a general computational primitive that can be implemented using different types of neural network models, including both continuous-time and spiking networks. Winner-take-all networks are commonly used in computational models of the brain, particularly for distributed decision-making or action selection in the cortex. Important examples include hierarchical models of vision, and models of selective attention and recognition. They are also common in artificial neural networks and neuromorphic analog VLSI circuits. It has been formally proven that the winner-take-all operation is computationally powerful compared to other nonlinear operations, such as thresholding. In many practical cases, there is not only one single neuron which becomes active but there are exactly k neurons which become active for a fixed number k. This principle is referred to as k-winners-take-all. === Example algorithm === Consider a single linear neuron, with inputs x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}} . Each input has weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , and the output of the neuron is ∑ i w i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}w_{i}x_{i}} . In the Instar learning rule, on each input vector, the weight vectors are modified according to Δ w i = η ( x i − w i ) {\displaystyle \Delta w_{i}=\eta (x_{i}-w_{i})} where η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate. This rule is unsupervised, since we need just the input vector, not a reference output. Now, consider multiple linear neurons y 1 , … , y m {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{m}} . The output of each satisfies y i = ∑ j w i j x j {\displaystyle y_{i}=\sum _{j}w_{ij}x_{j}} . In the winner-take-all algorithm, the weights are modified as follows. Given an input vector x {\displaystyle x} , each output is computed. The neuron with the largest output is selected, and the weights going into that neuron are modified according to the Instar learning rule. All other weights remain unchanged. The k-winners-take-all rule is similar, except that the Instar learning rule is applied to the weights going into the k neurons with the largest outputs. == Circuit example == A simple, but popular CMOS winner-take-all circuit is shown on the right. This circuit was originally proposed by Lazzaro et al. (1989) using MOS transistors biased to operate in the weak-inversion or subthreshold regime. In the particular case shown there are only two inputs (IIN,1 and IIN,2), but the circuit can be easily extended to multiple inputs in a straightforward way. It operates on continuous-time input signals (currents) in parallel, using only two transistors per input. In addition, the bias current IBIAS is set by a single global transistor that is common to all the inputs. The largest of the input currents sets the common potential VC. As a result, the corresponding output carries almost all the bias current, while the other outputs have currents that are close to zero. Thus, the circuit selects the larger of the two input currents, i.e., if IIN,1 > IIN,2, we get IOUT,1 = IBIAS and IOUT,2 = 0. Similarly, if IIN,2 > IIN,1, we get IOUT,1 = 0 and IOUT,2 = IBIAS. A SPICE-based DC simulation of the CMOS winner-take-all circuit in the two-input case is shown on the right. As shown in the top subplot, the input IIN,1 was fixed at 6nA, while IIN,2 was linearly increased from 0 to 10nA. The bottom subplot shows the two output currents. As expected, the output corresponding to the larger of the two inputs carries the entire bias current (10nA in this case), forcing the other output current nearly to zero. == Other uses == In stereo matching algorithms, following the taxonomy proposed by Scharstein and Szelliski, winner-take-all is a local method for disparity computation. Adopting a winner-take-all strategy, the disparity associated with the minimum or maximum cost value is selected at each pixel. It is axiomatic that in the electronic commerce market, early dominant players such as AOL or Yahoo! get most of the rewards. By 1998, one study found the top 5% of all web sites garnered more than 74% of all traffic. The winner-take-all hypothesis in economics suggests that once a technology or a firm gets ahead, it will do better and better over time, whereas lagging technology and firms will fall further behind. See First-mover advantage.

  Read more →
• 

  Feature selection

  In machine learning, feature selection is the process of selecting a subset of relevant features (variables, predictors) for use in model construction. Feature selection techniques are used for several reasons: simplification of models to make them easier to interpret, shorter training times, to avoid the curse of dimensionality, improve the compatibility of the data with a certain learning model class, to encode inherent symmetries present in the input space. The central premise when using feature selection is that data sometimes contains features that are redundant or irrelevant, and can thus be removed without incurring much loss of information. Redundancy and irrelevance are two distinct notions, since one relevant feature may be redundant in the presence of another relevant feature with which it is strongly correlated. Feature extraction creates new features from functions of the original features, whereas feature selection finds a subset of the features. Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (data points). == Introduction == A feature selection algorithm can be seen as the combination of a search technique for proposing new feature subsets, along with an evaluation measure which scores the different feature subsets. The simplest algorithm is to test each possible subset of features finding the one which minimizes the error rate. This is an exhaustive search of the space, and is computationally intractable for all but the smallest of feature sets. The choice of evaluation metric heavily influences the algorithm, and it is these evaluation metrics which distinguish between the three main categories of feature selection algorithms: wrappers, filters and embedded methods. Wrapper methods use a predictive model to score feature subsets. Each new subset is used to train a model, which is tested on a hold-out set. Counting the number of mistakes made on that hold-out set (the error rate of the model) gives the score for that subset. As wrapper methods train a new model for each subset, they are very computationally intensive, but usually provide the best performing feature set for that particular type of model or typical problem. Filter methods use a proxy measure instead of the error rate to score a feature subset. This measure is chosen to be fast to compute, while still capturing the usefulness of the feature set. Common measures include the mutual information, the pointwise mutual information, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Relief-based algorithms, and inter/intra class distance or the scores of significance tests for each class/feature combinations. Filters are usually less computationally intensive than wrappers, but they produce a feature set which is not tuned to a specific type of predictive model. This lack of tuning means a feature set from a filter is more general than the set from a wrapper, usually giving lower prediction performance than a wrapper. However the feature set doesn't contain the assumptions of a prediction model, and so is more useful for exposing the relationships between the features. Many filters provide a feature ranking rather than an explicit best feature subset, and the cut off point in the ranking is chosen via cross-validation. Filter methods have also been used as a preprocessing step for wrapper methods, allowing a wrapper to be used on larger problems. One other popular approach is the Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm, commonly used with Support Vector Machines to repeatedly construct a model and remove features with low weights. Embedded methods are a catch-all group of techniques which perform feature selection as part of the model construction process. The exemplar of this approach is the LASSO method for constructing a linear model, which penalizes the regression coefficients with an L1 penalty, shrinking many of them to zero. Any features which have non-zero regression coefficients are 'selected' by the LASSO algorithm. Improvements to the LASSO include Bolasso which bootstraps samples; Elastic net regularization, which combines the L1 penalty of LASSO with the L2 penalty of ridge regression; and FeaLect which scores all the features based on combinatorial analysis of regression coefficients. AEFS further extends LASSO to nonlinear scenario with autoencoders. These approaches tend to be between filters and wrappers in terms of computational complexity. In traditional regression analysis, the most popular form of feature selection is stepwise regression, which is a wrapper technique. It is a greedy algorithm that adds the best feature (or deletes the worst feature) at each round. The main control issue is deciding when to stop the algorithm. In machine learning, this is typically done by cross-validation. In statistics, some criteria are optimized. This leads to the inherent problem of nesting. More robust methods have been explored, such as branch and bound and piecewise linear network. == Subset selection == Subset selection evaluates a subset of features as a group for suitability. Subset selection algorithms can be broken up into wrappers, filters, and embedded methods. Wrappers use a search algorithm to search through the space of possible features and evaluate each subset by running a model on the subset. Wrappers can be computationally expensive and have a risk of over fitting to the model. Filters are similar to wrappers in the search approach, but instead of evaluating against a model, a simpler filter is evaluated. Embedded techniques are embedded in, and specific to, a model. Many popular search approaches use greedy hill climbing, which iteratively evaluates a candidate subset of features, then modifies the subset and evaluates if the new subset is an improvement over the old. Evaluation of the subsets requires a scoring metric that grades a subset of features. Exhaustive search is generally impractical, so at some implementor (or operator) defined stopping point, the subset of features with the highest score discovered up to that point is selected as the satisfactory feature subset. The stopping criterion varies by algorithm; possible criteria include: a subset score exceeds a threshold, a program's maximum allowed run time has been surpassed, etc. Alternative search-based techniques are based on targeted projection pursuit which finds low-dimensional projections of the data that score highly: the features that have the largest projections in the lower-dimensional space are then selected. Search approaches include: Exhaustive Best first Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Greedy forward selection Greedy backward elimination Particle swarm optimization Targeted projection pursuit Scatter search Variable neighborhood search Two popular filter metrics for classification problems are correlation and mutual information, although neither are true metrics or 'distance measures' in the mathematical sense, since they fail to obey the triangle inequality and thus do not compute any actual 'distance' – they should rather be regarded as 'scores'. These scores are computed between a candidate feature (or set of features) and the desired output category. There are, however, true metrics that are a simple function of the mutual information; see here. Other available filter metrics include: Class separability Error probability Inter-class distance Probabilistic distance Entropy Consistency-based feature selection Correlation-based feature selection == Optimality criteria == The choice of optimality criteria is difficult as there are multiple objectives in a feature selection task. Many common criteria incorporate a measure of accuracy, penalised by the number of features selected. Examples include Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Mallows's Cp, which have a penalty of 2 for each added feature. AIC is based on information theory, and is effectively derived via the maximum entropy principle. Other criteria are Bayesian information criterion (BIC), which uses a penalty of log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} for each added feature, minimum description length (MDL) which asymptotically uses log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} , Bonferroni / RIC which use 2 log ⁡ p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {p}}}} , maximum dependency feature selection, and a variety of new criteria that are motivated by false discovery rate (FDR), which use something close to 2 log ⁡ p q {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {\frac {p}{q}}}}} . A maximum entropy rate criterion may also be used to select the most relevant subset of features. == Structure learning == Filter feature selection is a specific case of a more general paradigm called structure learning. Feature selection finds the relevant feature set for a specific target variable whereas structure learning finds the relationships between all the variables, usually by expressing these relationships as a graph. The most common structure learning algorithms

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-language information retrieval

  Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is a subfield of information retrieval dealing with retrieving information written in a language different from the language of the user's query. The term "cross-language information retrieval" has many synonyms, of which the following are perhaps the most frequent: cross-lingual information retrieval, translingual information retrieval, multilingual information retrieval. The term "multilingual information retrieval" refers more generally both to technology for retrieval of multilingual collections and to technology which has been moved to handle material in one language to another. The term Multilingual Information Retrieval (MLIR) involves the study of systems that accept queries for information in various languages and return objects (text, and other media) of various languages, translated into the user's language. Cross-language information retrieval refers more specifically to the use case where users formulate their information need in one language and the system retrieves relevant documents in another. To do so, most CLIR systems use various translation techniques. CLIR techniques can be classified into different categories based on different translation resources: Dictionary-based CLIR techniques Parallel corpora based CLIR techniques Comparable corpora based CLIR techniques Machine translator based CLIR techniques CLIR systems have improved so much that the most accurate multi-lingual and cross-lingual adhoc information retrieval systems today are nearly as effective as monolingual systems. Other related information access tasks, such as media monitoring, information filtering and routing, sentiment analysis, and information extraction require more sophisticated models and typically more processing and analysis of the information items of interest. Much of that processing needs to be aware of the specifics of the target languages it is deployed in. Mostly, the various mechanisms of variation in human language pose coverage challenges for information retrieval systems: texts in a collection may treat a topic of interest but use terms or expressions which do not match the expression of information need given by the user. This can be true even in a mono-lingual case, but this is especially true in cross-lingual information retrieval, where users may know the target language only to some extent. The benefits of CLIR technology for users with poor to moderate competence in the target language has been found to be greater than for those who are fluent. Specific technologies in place for CLIR services include morphological analysis to handle inflection, decompounding or compound splitting to handle compound terms, and translations mechanisms to translate a query from one language to another. The first workshop on CLIR was held in Zürich during the SIGIR-96 conference. Workshops have been held yearly since 2000 at the meetings of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Researchers also convene at the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) to discuss their findings regarding different systems and methods of information retrieval, and the conference has served as a point of reference for the CLIR subfield. Early CLIR experiments were conducted at TREC-6, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on November 19–21, 1997. Google Search had a cross-language search feature that was removed in 2013.

  Read more →
• 

  Automated Pain Recognition

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

  Read more →
• 

  Oja's rule

  Oja's learning rule, or simply Oja's rule, named after Finnish computer scientist Erkki Oja (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈojɑ], AW-yuh), is a model of how neurons in the brain or in artificial neural networks change connection strength, or learn, over time. It is a modification of the standard Hebb's Rule that, through multiplicative normalization, solves all stability problems and generates an algorithm for principal components analysis. This is a computational form of an effect which is believed to happen in biological neurons. == Theory == Oja's rule requires a number of simplifications to derive, but in its final form it is demonstrably stable, unlike Hebb's rule. It is a single-neuron special case of the Generalized Hebbian Algorithm. However, Oja's rule can also be generalized in other ways to varying degrees of stability and success. === Formula === Consider a simplified model of a neuron y {\displaystyle y} that returns a linear combination of its inputs x using presynaptic weights w: y ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 m x j w j {\displaystyle \,y(\mathbf {x} )~=~\sum _{j=1}^{m}x_{j}w_{j}} Oja's rule defines the change in presynaptic weights w given the output response y {\displaystyle y} of a neuron to its inputs x to be Δ w = w n + 1 − w n = η y n ( x n − y n w n ) , {\displaystyle \,\Delta \mathbf {w} ~=~\mathbf {w} _{n+1}-\mathbf {w} _{n}~=~\eta \,y_{n}(\mathbf {x} _{n}-y_{n}\mathbf {w} _{n}),} where η is the learning rate which can also change with time. Note that the bold symbols are vectors and n defines a discrete time iteration. The rule can also be made for continuous iterations as d w d t = η y ( t ) ( x ( t ) − y ( t ) w ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle \,{\frac {d\mathbf {w} }{dt}}~=~\eta \,y(t)(\mathbf {x} (t)-y(t)\mathbf {w} (t)).} === Derivation === The simplest learning rule known is Hebb's rule, which states in conceptual terms that neurons that fire together, wire together. In component form as a difference equation, it is written Δ w = η y ( x n ) x n {\displaystyle \,\Delta \mathbf {w} ~=~\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} _{n})\mathbf {x} _{n}} , or in scalar form with implicit n-dependence, w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x ) x i {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{i}} , where y(xn) is again the output, this time explicitly dependent on its input vector x. Hebb's rule has synaptic weights approaching infinity with a positive learning rate. We can stop this by normalizing the weights so that each weight's magnitude is restricted between 0, corresponding to no weight, and 1, corresponding to being the only input neuron with any weight. We do this by normalizing the weight vector to be of length one: w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x ) x i ( ∑ j = 1 m [ w j ( n ) + η y ( x ) x j ] p ) 1 / p {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~{\frac {w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{i}}{\left(\sum _{j=1}^{m}[w_{j}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{j}]^{p}\right)^{1/p}}}} . Note that in Oja's original paper, p=2, corresponding to quadrature (root sum of squares), which is the familiar Cartesian normalization rule. However, any type of normalization, even linear, will give the same result without loss of generality. For a small learning rate | η | ≪ 1 {\displaystyle |\eta |\ll 1} the equation can be expanded as a Power series in η {\displaystyle \eta } . w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) 1 / p + η ( y x i ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) 1 / p − w i ( n ) ∑ j y x j w j p − 1 ( n ) ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) ( 1 + 1 / p ) ) + O ( η 2 ) {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~{\frac {w_{i}(n)}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{1/p}}}~+~\eta \left({\frac {yx_{i}}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{1/p}}}-{\frac {w_{i}(n)\sum _{j}yx_{j}w_{j}^{p-1}(n)}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{(1+1/p)}}}\right)~+~O(\eta ^{2})} . For small η, our higher-order terms O(η2) go to zero. We again make the specification of a linear neuron, that is, the output of the neuron is equal to the sum of the product of each input and its synaptic weight to the power of p-1, which in the case of p=2 is synaptic weight itself, or y ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 m x j w j p − 1 {\displaystyle \,y(\mathbf {x} )~=~\sum _{j=1}^{m}x_{j}w_{j}^{p-1}} . We also specify that our weights normalize to 1, which will be a necessary condition for stability, so | w | = ( ∑ j = 1 m w j p ) 1 / p = 1 {\displaystyle \,|\mathbf {w} |~=~\left(\sum _{j=1}^{m}w_{j}^{p}\right)^{1/p}~=~1} , which, when substituted into our expansion, gives Oja's rule, or w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x i − w i ( n ) y ) {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(x_{i}-w_{i}(n)y)} . === Stability and PCA === In analyzing the convergence of a single neuron evolving by Oja's rule, one extracts the first principal component, or feature, of a data set. Furthermore, with extensions using the Generalized Hebbian Algorithm, one can create a multi-Oja neural network that can extract as many features as desired, allowing for principal components analysis. A principal component aj is extracted from a dataset x through some associated vector qj, or aj = qj⋅x, and we can restore our original dataset by taking x = ∑ j a j q j {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ~=~\sum _{j}a_{j}\mathbf {q} _{j}} . In the case of a single neuron trained by Oja's rule, we find the weight vector converges to q1, or the first principal component, as time or number of iterations approaches infinity. We can also define, given a set of input vectors Xi, that its correlation matrix Rij = XiXj has an associated eigenvector given by qj with eigenvalue λj. The variance of outputs of our Oja neuron σ2(n) = ⟨y2(n)⟩ then converges with time iterations to the principal eigenvalue, or lim n → ∞ σ 2 ( n ) = λ 1 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\sigma ^{2}(n)~=~\lambda _{1}} . These results are derived using Lyapunov function analysis, and they show that Oja's neuron necessarily converges on strictly the first principal component if certain conditions are met in our original learning rule. Most importantly, our learning rate η is allowed to vary with time, but only such that its sum is divergent but its power sum is convergent, that is ∑ n = 1 ∞ η ( n ) = ∞ , ∑ n = 1 ∞ η ( n ) p < ∞ , p > 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }\eta (n)=\infty ,~~~\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }\eta (n)^{p}<\infty ,~~~p>1} . Our output activation function y(x(n)) is also allowed to be nonlinear and nonstatic, but it must be continuously differentiable in both x and w and have derivatives bounded in time. == Applications == Oja's rule was originally described in Oja's 1982 paper, but the principle of self-organization to which it is applied is first attributed to Alan Turing in 1952. PCA has also had a long history of use before Oja's rule formalized its use in network computation in 1989. The model can thus be applied to any problem of self-organizing mapping, in particular those in which feature extraction is of primary interest. Therefore, Oja's rule has an important place in image and speech processing. It is also useful as it expands easily to higher dimensions of processing, thus being able to integrate multiple outputs quickly. A canonical example is its use in binocular vision. === Biology and Oja's subspace rule === There is clear evidence for both long-term potentiation and long-term depression in biological neural networks, along with a normalization effect in both input weights and neuron outputs. However, while there is no direct experimental evidence yet of Oja's rule active in a biological neural network, a biophysical derivation of a generalization of the rule is possible. Such a derivation requires retrograde signalling from the postsynaptic neuron, which is biologically plausible (see neural backpropagation), and takes the form of Δ w i j ∝ ⟨ x i y j ⟩ − ϵ ⟨ ( c p r e ∗ ∑ k w i k y k ) ⋅ ( c p o s t ∗ y j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \Delta w_{ij}~\propto ~\langle x_{i}y_{j}\rangle -\epsilon \left\langle \left(c_{\mathrm {pre} }\sum _{k}w_{ik}y_{k}\right)\cdot \left(c_{\mathrm {post} }y_{j}\right)\right\rangle ,} where as before wij is the synaptic weight between the ith input and jth output neurons, x is the input, y is the postsynaptic output, and we define ε to be a constant analogous the learning rate, and cpre and cpost are presynaptic and postsynaptic functions that model the weakening of signals over time. Note that the angle brackets denote the average and the ∗ operator is a convolution. By taking the pre- and post-synaptic functions into frequency space and combining integration terms with the convolution, we find that this gives an arbitrary-dimensional generalization of Oja's rule known as Oja's Subspace, namely Δ w = C x ⋅ w − w ⋅ C y . {\displaystyle \Delta w~=~Cx\cdot w-w\cdot Cy.}

  Read more →
• 

  Analogical modeling

  Analogical modeling (AM) is a formal theory of exemplar based analogical reasoning, proposed by Royal Skousen, professor of Linguistics and English language at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. It is applicable to language modeling and other categorization tasks. Analogical modeling is related to connectionism and nearest neighbor approaches, in that it is data-based rather than abstraction-based; but it is distinguished by its ability to cope with imperfect datasets (such as caused by simulated short term memory limits) and to base predictions on all relevant segments of the dataset, whether near or far. In language modeling, AM has successfully predicted empirically valid forms for which no theoretical explanation was known (see the discussion of Finnish morphology in Skousen et al. 2002). == Implementation == === Overview === An exemplar-based model consists of a general-purpose modeling engine and a problem-specific dataset. Within the dataset, each exemplar (a case to be reasoned from, or an informative past experience) appears as a feature vector: a row of values for the set of parameters that define the problem. For example, in a spelling-to-sound task, the feature vector might consist of the letters of a word. Each exemplar in the dataset is stored with an outcome, such as a phoneme or phone to be generated. When the model is presented with a novel situation (in the form of an outcome-less feature vector), the engine algorithmically sorts the dataset to find exemplars that helpfully resemble it, and selects one, whose outcome is the model's prediction. The particulars of the algorithm distinguish one exemplar-based modeling system from another. In AM, we think of the feature values as characterizing a context, and the outcome as a behavior that occurs within that context. Accordingly, the novel situation is known as the given context. Given the known features of the context, the AM engine systematically generates all contexts that include it (all of its supracontexts), and extracts from the dataset the exemplars that belong to each. The engine then discards those supracontexts whose outcomes are inconsistent (this measure of consistency will be discussed further below), leaving an analogical set of supracontexts, and probabilistically selects an exemplar from the analogical set with a bias toward those in large supracontexts. This multilevel search exponentially magnifies the likelihood of a behavior's being predicted as it occurs reliably in settings that specifically resemble the given context. === Analogical modeling in detail === AM performs the same process for each case it is asked to evaluate. The given context, consisting of n variables, is used as a template to generate 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} supracontexts. Each supracontext is a set of exemplars in which one or more variables have the same values that they do in the given context, and the other variables are ignored. In effect, each is a view of the data, created by filtering for some criteria of similarity to the given context, and the total set of supracontexts exhausts all such views. Alternatively, each supracontext is a theory of the task or a proposed rule whose predictive power needs to be evaluated. It is important to note that the supracontexts are not equal peers one with another; they are arranged by their distance from the given context, forming a hierarchy. If a supracontext specifies all of the variables that another one does and more, it is a subcontext of that other one, and it lies closer to the given context. (The hierarchy is not strictly branching; each supracontext can itself be a subcontext of several others, and can have several subcontexts.) This hierarchy becomes significant in the next step of the algorithm. The engine now chooses the analogical set from among the supracontexts. A supracontext may contain exemplars that only exhibit one behavior; it is deterministically homogeneous and is included. It is a view of the data that displays regularity, or a relevant theory that has never yet been disproven. A supracontext may exhibit several behaviors, but contain no exemplars that occur in any more specific supracontext (that is, in any of its subcontexts); in this case it is non-deterministically homogeneous and is included. Here there is no great evidence that a systematic behavior occurs, but also no counterargument. Finally, a supracontext may be heterogeneous, meaning that it exhibits behaviors that are found in a subcontext (closer to the given context), and also behaviors that are not. Where the ambiguous behavior of the nondeterministically homogeneous supracontext was accepted, this is rejected because the intervening subcontext demonstrates that there is a better theory to be found. The heterogeneous supracontext is therefore excluded. This guarantees that we see an increase in meaningfully consistent behavior in the analogical set as we approach the given context. With the analogical set chosen, each appearance of an exemplar (for a given exemplar may appear in several of the analogical supracontexts) is given a pointer to every other appearance of an exemplar within its supracontexts. One of these pointers is then selected at random and followed, and the exemplar to which it points provides the outcome. This gives each supracontext an importance proportional to the square of its size, and makes each exemplar likely to be selected in direct proportion to the sum of the sizes of all analogically consistent supracontexts in which it appears. Then, of course, the probability of predicting a particular outcome is proportional to the summed probabilities of all the exemplars that support it. (Skousen 2002, in Skousen et al. 2002, pp. 11–25, and Skousen 2003, both passim) === Formulas === Given a context with n {\displaystyle n} elements: total number of pairings: n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} number of agreements for outcome i: n i 2 {\displaystyle n_{i}^{2}} number of disagreements for outcome i: n i ( n − n i ) {\displaystyle n_{i}(n-n_{i})} total number of agreements: ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}^{2}}} total number of disagreements: ∑ n i ( n − n i ) = n 2 − ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}(n-n_{i})}=n^{2}-\sum {n_{i}^{2}}} === Example === This terminology is best understood through an example. In the example used in the second chapter of Skousen (1989), each context consists of three variables with potential values 0-3 Variable 1: 0,1,2,3 Variable 2: 0,1,2,3 Variable 3: 0,1,2,3 The two outcomes for the dataset are e and r, and the exemplars are: 3 1 0 e 0 3 2 r 2 1 0 r 2 1 2 r 3 1 1 r We define a network of pointers like so: The solid lines represent pointers between exemplars with matching outcomes; the dotted lines represent pointers between exemplars with non-matching outcomes. The statistics for this example are as follows: n = 5 {\displaystyle n=5} n r = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}=4} n e = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}=1} total number of pairings: n 2 = 25 {\displaystyle n^{2}=25} number of agreements for outcome r: n r 2 = 16 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}=16} number of agreements for outcome e: n e 2 = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}^{2}=1} number of disagreements for outcome r: n r ( n − n r ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})=4} number of disagreements for outcome e: n e ( n − n e ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{e}(n-n_{e})=4} total number of agreements: n r 2 + n e 2 = 17 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2}=17} total number of disagreements: n r ( n − n r ) + n e ( n − n e ) = n 2 − ( n r 2 + n e 2 ) = 8 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})+n_{e}(n-n_{e})=n^{2}-(n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2})=8} uncertainty or fraction of disagreement: 8 / 25 = .32 {\displaystyle 8/25=.32} Behavior can only be predicted for a given context; in this example, let us predict the outcome for the context "3 1 2". To do this, we first find all of the contexts containing the given context; these contexts are called supracontexts. We find the supracontexts by systematically eliminating the variables in the given context; with m variables, there will generally be 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} supracontexts. The following table lists each of the sub- and supracontexts; x means "not x", and - means "anything". These contexts are shown in the venn diagram below: The next step is to determine which exemplars belong to which contexts in order to determine which of the contexts are homogeneous. The table below shows each of the subcontexts, their behavior in terms of the given exemplars, and the number of disagreements within the behavior: Analyzing the subcontexts in the table above, we see that there is only 1 subcontext with any disagreements: "3 1 2", which in the dataset consists of "3 1 0 e" and "3 1 1 r". There are 2 disagreements in this subcontext; 1 pointing from each of the exemplars to the other (see the pointer network pictured above). Therefore, only supracontexts containing this subcontext will contain any disagreements. We use a simple rule to identify the homogeneous supraco

  Read more →
• 

  Edge inference

  Edge inference is the process of running machine learning or deep learning models on local devices (edge devices) such as smartphones, IoT devices, embedded systems, and edge servers instead of centralized cloud computing infrastructure. A key feature of edge computing is edge inference, which allows for real-time data processing, low latency, and improved privacy by reducing the amount of data sent to remote servers.

  Read more →
• 

  Persian Speech Corpus

  The Persian Speech Corpus is a Modern Persian speech corpus for speech synthesis. The corpus contains phonetic and orthographic transcriptions of about 2.5 hours of Persian speech aligned with recorded speech on the phoneme level, including annotations of word boundaries. Previous spoken corpora of Persian include FARSDAT, which consists of read aloud speech from newspaper texts from 100 Persian speakers and the Telephone FARsi Spoken language DATabase (TFARSDAT) which comprises seven hours of read and spontaneous speech produced by 60 native speakers of Persian from ten regions of Iran. The Persian Speech Corpus was built using the same methodologies laid out in the doctoral project on Modern Standard Arabic of Nawar Halabi at the University of Southampton. The work was funded by MicroLinkPC, who own an exclusive license to commercialise the corpus, though the corpus is available for non-commercial use through the corpus' website. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The corpus was built for speech synthesis purposes, but has been used for building HMM based voices in Persian. It can also be used to automatically align other speech corpora with their phonetic transcript and could be used as part of a larger corpus for training speech recognition systems. == Contents == The corpus is downloadable from its website, and contains the following: 396 .wav files containing spoken utterances 396 .lab files containing text utterances 396 .TextGrid files containing the phoneme labels with time stamps of the boundaries where these occur in the .wav files. phonetic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Phoneme Sequence]" in every line orthographic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Orthographic Transcript]" in every line

  Read more →
• 

  Elastic net regularization

  In statistics and, in particular, in the fitting of linear or logistic regression models, the elastic net is a regularized regression method that linearly combines the L1 and L2 penalties of the lasso and ridge methods. Nevertheless, elastic net regularization is typically more accurate than both methods with regard to reconstruction. == Specification == The elastic net method overcomes the limitations of the LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) method which uses a penalty function based on ‖ β ‖ 1 = ∑ j = 1 p | β j | . {\displaystyle \|\beta \|_{1}=\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}|\beta _{j}|.} Use of this penalty function has several limitations. For example, in the "large p, small n" case (high-dimensional data with few examples), the LASSO selects at most n variables before it saturates. Also if there is a group of highly correlated variables, then the LASSO tends to select one variable from a group and ignore the others. To overcome these limitations, the elastic net adds a quadratic part ( ‖ β ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\beta \|^{2}} ) to the penalty, which when used alone is ridge regression (known also as Tikhonov regularization). The estimates from the elastic net method are defined by β ^ ≡ argmin β ( ‖ y − X β ‖ 2 + λ 2 ‖ β ‖ 2 + λ 1 ‖ β ‖ 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}\equiv {\underset {\beta }{\operatorname {argmin} }}(\|y-X\beta \|^{2}+\lambda _{2}\|\beta \|^{2}+\lambda _{1}\|\beta \|_{1}).} The quadratic penalty term makes the loss function strongly convex, and it therefore has a unique minimum. The elastic net method includes the LASSO and ridge regression: in other words, each of them is a special case where λ 1 = λ , λ 2 = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}=\lambda ,\lambda _{2}=0} or λ 1 = 0 , λ 2 = λ {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}=0,\lambda _{2}=\lambda } . Meanwhile, the naive version of elastic net method finds an estimator in a two-stage procedure : first for each fixed λ 2 {\displaystyle \lambda _{2}} it finds the ridge regression coefficients, and then does a LASSO type shrinkage. This kind of estimation incurs a double amount of shrinkage, which leads to increased bias and poor predictions. To improve the prediction performance, sometimes the coefficients of the naive version of elastic net is rescaled by multiplying the estimated coefficients by ( 1 + λ 2 ) {\displaystyle (1+\lambda _{2})} . Examples of where the elastic net method has been applied are: Support vector machine Metric learning Portfolio optimization Cancer prognosis == Reduction to support vector machine == It was proven in 2014 that the elastic net can be reduced to the linear support vector machine. A similar reduction was previously proven for the LASSO in 2014. The authors showed that for every instance of the elastic net, an artificial binary classification problem can be constructed such that the hyper-plane solution of a linear support vector machine (SVM) is identical to the solution β {\displaystyle \beta } (after re-scaling). The reduction immediately enables the use of highly optimized SVM solvers for elastic net problems. It also enables the use of GPU acceleration, which is often already used for large-scale SVM solvers. The reduction is a simple transformation of the original data and regularization constants X ∈ R n × p , y ∈ R n , λ 1 ≥ 0 , λ 2 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle X\in {\mathbb {R} }^{n\times p},y\in {\mathbb {R} }^{n},\lambda _{1}\geq 0,\lambda _{2}\geq 0} into new artificial data instances and a regularization constant that specify a binary classification problem and the SVM regularization constant X 2 ∈ R 2 p × n , y 2 ∈ { − 1 , 1 } 2 p , C ≥ 0. {\displaystyle X_{2}\in {\mathbb {R} }^{2p\times n},y_{2}\in \{-1,1\}^{2p},C\geq 0.} Here, y 2 {\displaystyle y_{2}} consists of binary labels − 1 , 1 {\displaystyle {-1,1}} . When 2 p > n {\displaystyle 2p>n} it is typically faster to solve the linear SVM in the primal, whereas otherwise the dual formulation is faster. Some authors have referred to the transformation as Support Vector Elastic Net (SVEN), and provided the following MATLAB pseudo-code: == Software == "Glmnet: Lasso and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models" is a software which is implemented as an R source package and as a MATLAB toolbox. This includes fast algorithms for estimation of generalized linear models with ℓ1 (the lasso), ℓ2 (ridge regression) and mixtures of the two penalties (the elastic net) using cyclical coordinate descent, computed along a regularization path. JMP Pro 11 includes elastic net regularization, using the Generalized Regression personality with Fit Model. "pensim: Simulation of high-dimensional data and parallelized repeated penalized regression" implements an alternate, parallelised "2D" tuning method of the ℓ parameters, a method claimed to result in improved prediction accuracy. scikit-learn includes linear regression and logistic regression with elastic net regularization. SVEN, a Matlab implementation of Support Vector Elastic Net. This solver reduces the Elastic Net problem to an instance of SVM binary classification and uses a Matlab SVM solver to find the solution. Because SVM is easily parallelizable, the code can be faster than Glmnet on modern hardware. SpaSM, a Matlab implementation of sparse regression, classification and principal component analysis, including elastic net regularized regression. Apache Spark provides support for Elastic Net Regression in its MLlib machine learning library. The method is available as a parameter of the more general LinearRegression class. SAS (software) The SAS procedure Glmselect and SAS Viya procedure Regselect support the use of elastic net regularization for model selection.

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized weighted majority algorithm

  The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun

  Read more →
• 

  Circular thresholding

  Circular thresholding is an algorithm for automatic image threshold selection in image processing. Most threshold selection algorithms assume that the values (e.g. intensities) lie on a linear scale. However, some quantities such as hue and orientation are a circular quantity, and therefore require circular thresholding algorithms. The example shows that the standard linear version of Otsu's method when applied to the hue channel of an image of blood cells fails to correctly segment the large white blood cells (leukocytes). In contrast the white blood cells are correctly segmented by the circular version of Otsu's method. == Methods == There are a relatively small number of circular image threshold selection algorithms. The following examples are all based on Otsu's method for linear histograms: (Tseng, Li and Tung 1995) smooth the circular histogram, and apply Otsu's method. The histogram is cyclically rotated so that the selected threshold is shifted to zero. Otsu's method and histogram rotation are applied iteratively until several heuristics involving class size, threshold location, and class variance are satisfied. (Wu et al. 2006) smooth the circular histogram until it contains only two peaks. The histogram is cyclically rotated so that the midpoint between the peaks is shifted to zero. Otsu's method and histogram rotation are applied iteratively until convergence of the threshold. (Lai and Rosin 2014) applied Otsu's method to the circular histogram. For the two class circular thresholding task they showed that, for a histogram with an even number of bins, the optimal solution for Otsu's criterion of within-class variance is obtained when the histogram is split into two halves. Therefore the optimal solution can be efficiently obtained in linear rather than quadratic time. == References and further reading == D.-C. Tseng, Y.-F. Li, and C.-T. Tung, Circular histogram thresholding for color image segmentation in Proc. Int. Conf. Document Anal. Recognit., 1995, pp. 673–676. J. Wu, P. Zeng, Y. Zhou, and C. Olivier, A novel color image segmentation method and its application to white blood cell image analysis in Proc. Int. Conf. Signal Process., vol. 2. 2006, pp. 16–20. Y.K. Lai, P.L. Rosin, Efficient Circular Thresholding, IEEE Trans. on Image Processing 23(3), 992–1001 (2014). doi:10.1109/TIP.2013.2297014

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling

  Blockmodeling is a set or a coherent framework, that is used for analyzing social structure and also for setting procedure(s) for partitioning (clustering) social network's units (nodes, vertices, actors), based on specific patterns, which form a distinctive structure through interconnectivity. It is primarily used in statistics, machine learning and network science. As an empirical procedure, blockmodeling assumes that all the units in a specific network can be grouped together to such extent to which they are equivalent. Regarding equivalency, it can be structural, regular or generalized. Using blockmodeling, a network can be analyzed using newly created blockmodels, which transforms large and complex network into a smaller and more comprehensible one. At the same time, the blockmodeling is used to operationalize social roles. While some contend that the blockmodeling is just clustering methods, Bonacich and McConaghy state that "it is a theoretically grounded and algebraic approach to the analysis of the structure of relations". Blockmodeling's unique ability lies in the fact that it considers the structure not just as a set of direct relations, but also takes into account all other possible compound relations that are based on the direct ones. The principles of blockmodeling were first introduced by Francois Lorrain and Harrison C. White in 1971. Blockmodeling is considered as "an important set of network analytic tools" as it deals with delineation of role structures (the well-defined places in social structures, also known as positions) and the discerning the fundamental structure of social networks. According to Batagelj, the primary "goal of blockmodeling is to reduce a large, potentially incoherent network to a smaller comprehensible structure that can be interpreted more readily". Blockmodeling was at first used for analysis in sociometry and psychometrics, but has now spread also to other sciences. == Definition == A network as a system is composed of (or defined by) two different sets: one set of units (nodes, vertices, actors) and one set of links between the units. Using both sets, it is possible to create a graph, describing the structure of the network. During blockmodeling, the researcher is faced with two problems: how to partition the units (e.g., how to determine the clusters (or classes), that then form vertices in a blockmodel) and then how to determine the links in the blockmodel (and at the same time the values of these links). In the social sciences, the networks are usually social networks, composed of several individuals (units) and selected social relationships among them (links). Real-world networks can be large and complex; blockmodeling is used to simplify them into smaller structures that can be easier to interpret. Specifically, blockmodeling partitions the units into clusters and then determines the ties among the clusters. At the same time, blockmodeling can be used to explain the social roles existing in the network, as it is assumed that the created cluster of units mimics (or is closely associated with) the units' social roles. Blockmodeling can thus be defined as a set of approaches for partitioning units into clusters (also known as positions) and links into blocks, which are further defined by the newly obtained clusters. A block (also blockmodel) is defined as a submatrix, that shows interconnectivity (links) between nodes, present in the same or different clusters. Each of these positions in the cluster is defined by a set of (in)direct ties to and from other social positions. These links (connections) can be directed or undirected; there can be multiple links between the same pair of objects or they can have weights on them. If there are not any multiple links in a network, it is called a simple network. A matrix representation of a graph is composed of ordered units, in rows and columns, based on their names. The ordered units with similar patterns of links are partitioned together in the same clusters. Clusters are then arranged together so that units from the same clusters are placed next to each other, thus preserving interconnectivity. In the next step, the units (from the same clusters) are transformed into a blockmodel. With this, several blockmodels are usually formed, one being core cluster and others being cohesive; a core cluster is always connected to cohesive ones, while cohesive ones cannot be linked together. Clustering of nodes is based on the equivalence, such as structural and regular. The primary objective of the matrix form is to visually present relations between the persons included in the cluster. These ties are coded dichotomously (as present or absent), and the rows in the matrix form indicate the source of the ties, while the columns represent the destination of the ties. Equivalence can have two basic approaches: the equivalent units have the same connection pattern to the same neighbors or these units have same or similar connection pattern to different neighbors. If the units are connected to the rest of network in identical ways, then they are structurally equivalent. Units can also be regularly equivalent, when they are equivalently connected to equivalent others. With blockmodeling, it is necessary to consider the issue of results being affected by measurement errors in the initial stage of acquiring the data. == Different approaches == Regarding what kind of network is undergoing blockmodeling, a different approach is necessary. Networks can be one–mode or two–mode. In the former all units can be connected to any other unit and where units are of the same type, while in the latter the units are connected only to the unit(s) of a different type. Regarding relationships between units, they can be single–relational or multi–relational networks. Further more, the networks can be temporal or multilevel and also binary (only 0 and 1) or signed (allowing negative ties)/values (other values are possible) networks. Different approaches to blockmodeling can be grouped into two main classes: deterministic blockmodeling and stochastic blockmodeling approaches. Deterministic blockmodeling is then further divided into direct and indirect blockmodeling approaches. Among direct blockmodeling approaches are: structural equivalence and regular equivalence. Structural equivalence is a state, when units are connected to the rest of the network in an identical way(s), while regular equivalence occurs when units are equally related to equivalent others (units are not necessarily sharing neighbors, but have neighbour that are themselves similar). Indirect blockmodeling approaches, where partitioning is dealt with as a traditional cluster analysis problem (measuring (dis)similarity results in a (dis)similarity matrix), are: conventional blockmodeling, generalized blockmodeling: generalized blockmodeling of binary networks, generalized blockmodeling of valued networks and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling, prespecified blockmodeling. According to Brusco and Steinley (2011), the blockmodeling can be categorized (using a number of dimensions): deterministic or stochastic blockmodeling, one–mode or two–mode networks, signed or unsigned networks, exploratory or confirmatory blockmodeling. == Blockmodels == Blockmodels (sometimes also block models) are structures in which: vertices (e.g., units, nodes) are assembled within a cluster, with each cluster identified as a vertex; from such vertices a graph can be constructed; combinations of all the links (ties), represented in a block as a single link between positions, while at the same time constructing one tie for each block. In a case, when there are no ties in a block, there will be no ties between the two positions that define the block. Computer programs can partition the social network according to pre-set conditions. When empirical blocks can be reasonably approximated in terms of ideal blocks, such blockmodels can be reduced to a blockimage, which is a representation of the original network, capturing its underlying 'functional anatomy'. Thus, blockmodels can "permit the data to characterize their own structure", and at the same time not seek to manifest a preconceived structure imposed by the researcher. Blockmodels can be created indirectly or directly, based on the construction of the criterion function. Indirect construction refers to a function, based on "compatible (dis)similarity measure between paris of units", while the direct construction is "a function measuring the fit of real blocks induced by a given clustering to the corresponding ideal blocks with perfect relations within each cluster and between clusters according to the considered types of connections (equivalence)". === Types === Blockmodels can be specified regarding the intuition, substance or the insight into the nature of the studied network; this can result in such models as follows: parent-child role systems, organizational hierarchies, systems of

  Read more →
• 

  Bayesian network

  A Bayesian network (also known as a Bayes network, Bayes net, belief network, or decision network) is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph (DAG). While it is one of several forms of causal notation, causal networks are special cases of Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks are ideal for taking an event that occurred and predicting the likelihood that any one of several possible known causes was the contributing factor. For example, a Bayesian network could represent the probabilistic relationships between diseases and symptoms. Given symptoms, the network can be used to compute the probabilities of the presence of various diseases. Efficient algorithms can perform inference and learning in Bayesian networks. Bayesian networks that model sequences of variables (e.g. speech signals or protein sequences) are called dynamic Bayesian networks. Generalizations of Bayesian networks that can represent and solve decision problems under uncertainty are called influence diagrams. == Graphical model == Formally, Bayesian networks are directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) whose nodes represent variables in the Bayesian sense: they may be observable quantities, latent variables, unknown parameters or hypotheses. Each edge represents a direct conditional dependency. Any pair of nodes that are not connected (i.e. no path connects one node to the other) represent variables that are conditionally independent of each other. Each node is associated with a probability function that takes, as input, a particular set of values for the node's parent variables, and gives (as output) the probability (or probability distribution, if applicable) of the variable represented by the node. For example, if m {\displaystyle m} parent nodes represent m {\displaystyle m} Boolean variables, then the probability function could be represented by a table of 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} entries, one entry for each of the 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} possible parent combinations. Similar ideas may be applied to undirected, and possibly cyclic, graphs such as Markov networks. == Example == Suppose we want to model the dependencies between three variables: the sprinkler (or more appropriately, its state - whether it is on or not), the presence or absence of rain and whether the grass is wet or not. Observe that two events can cause the grass to become wet: an active sprinkler or rain. Rain has a direct effect on the use of the sprinkler (namely that when it rains, the sprinkler usually is not active). This situation can be modeled with a Bayesian network (shown to the right). Each variable has two possible values, T (for true) and F (for false). The joint probability function is, by the chain rule of probability, Pr ( G , S , R ) = Pr ( G ∣ S , R ) Pr ( S ∣ R ) Pr ( R ) {\displaystyle \Pr(G,S,R)=\Pr(G\mid S,R)\Pr(S\mid R)\Pr(R)} where G = "Grass wet (true/false)", S = "Sprinkler turned on (true/false)", and R = "Raining (true/false)". The model can answer questions about the presence of a cause given the presence of an effect (so-called inverse probability) like "What is the probability that it is raining, given the grass is wet?" by using the conditional probability formula and summing over all nuisance variables: Pr ( R = T ∣ G = T ) = Pr ( G = T , R = T ) Pr ( G = T ) = ∑ x ∈ { T , F } Pr ( G = T , S = x , R = T ) ∑ x , y ∈ { T , F } Pr ( G = T , S = x , R = y ) {\displaystyle \Pr(R=T\mid G=T)={\frac {\Pr(G=T,R=T)}{\Pr(G=T)}}={\frac {\sum _{x\in \{T,F\}}\Pr(G=T,S=x,R=T)}{\sum _{x,y\in \{T,F\}}\Pr(G=T,S=x,R=y)}}} Using the expansion for the joint probability function Pr ( G , S , R ) {\displaystyle \Pr(G,S,R)} and the conditional probabilities from the conditional probability tables (CPTs) stated in the diagram, one can evaluate each term in the sums in the numerator and denominator. For example, Pr ( G = T , S = T , R = T ) = Pr ( G = T ∣ S = T , R = T ) Pr ( S = T ∣ R = T ) Pr ( R = T ) = 0.99 × 0.01 × 0.2 = 0.00198. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pr(G=T,S=T,R=T)&=\Pr(G=T\mid S=T,R=T)\Pr(S=T\mid R=T)\Pr(R=T)\\&=0.99\times 0.01\times 0.2\\&=0.00198.\end{aligned}}} Then the numerical results (subscripted by the associated variable values) are Pr ( R = T ∣ G = T ) = 0.00198 T T T + 0.1584 T F T 0.00198 T T T + 0.288 T T F + 0.1584 T F T + 0.0 T F F = 891 2491 ≈ 35.77 % . {\displaystyle \Pr(R=T\mid G=T)={\frac {0.00198_{TTT}+0.1584_{TFT}}{0.00198_{TTT}+0.288_{TTF}+0.1584_{TFT}+0.0_{TFF}}}={\frac {891}{2491}}\approx 35.77\%.} To answer an interventional question, such as "What is the probability that it would rain, given that we wet the grass?" the answer is governed by the post-intervention joint distribution function Pr ( S , R ∣ do ( G = T ) ) = Pr ( S ∣ R ) Pr ( R ) {\displaystyle \Pr(S,R\mid {\text{do}}(G=T))=\Pr(S\mid R)\Pr(R)} obtained by removing the factor Pr ( G ∣ S , R ) {\displaystyle \Pr(G\mid S,R)} from the pre-intervention distribution. The do operator forces the value of G to be true. The probability of rain is unaffected by the action: Pr ( R ∣ do ( G = T ) ) = Pr ( R ) . {\displaystyle \Pr(R\mid {\text{do}}(G=T))=\Pr(R).} To predict the impact of turning the sprinkler on: Pr ( R , G ∣ do ( S = T ) ) = Pr ( R ) Pr ( G ∣ R , S = T ) {\displaystyle \Pr(R,G\mid {\text{do}}(S=T))=\Pr(R)\Pr(G\mid R,S=T)} with the term Pr ( S = T ∣ R ) {\displaystyle \Pr(S=T\mid R)} removed, showing that the action affects the grass but not the rain. These predictions may not be feasible given unobserved variables, as in most policy evaluation problems. The effect of the action do ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{do}}(x)} can still be predicted, however, whenever the back-door criterion is satisfied. It states that, if a set Z of nodes can be observed that d-separates (or blocks) all back-door paths from X to Y then Pr ( Y , Z ∣ do ( x ) ) = Pr ( Y , Z , X = x ) Pr ( X = x ∣ Z ) . {\displaystyle \Pr(Y,Z\mid {\text{do}}(x))={\frac {\Pr(Y,Z,X=x)}{\Pr(X=x\mid Z)}}.} A back-door path is one that ends with an arrow into X. Sets that satisfy the back-door criterion are called "sufficient" or "admissible." For example, the set Z = R is admissible for predicting the effect of S = T on G, because R d-separates the (only) back-door path S ← R → G. However, if S is not observed, no other set d-separates this path and the effect of turning the sprinkler on (S = T) on the grass (G) cannot be predicted from passive observations. In that case P(G | do(S = T)) is not "identified". This reflects the fact that, lacking interventional data, the observed dependence between S and G is due to a causal connection or is spurious (apparent dependence arising from a common cause, R). (see Simpson's paradox) To determine whether a causal relation is identified from an arbitrary Bayesian network with unobserved variables, one can use the three rules of "do-calculus" and test whether all do terms can be removed from the expression of that relation, thus confirming that the desired quantity is estimable from frequency data. Using a Bayesian network can save considerable amounts of memory over exhaustive probability tables, if the dependencies in the joint distribution are sparse. For example, a naive way of storing the conditional probabilities of 10 two-valued variables as a table requires storage space for 2 10 = 1024 {\displaystyle 2^{10}=1024} values. If no variable's local distribution depends on more than three parent variables, the Bayesian network representation stores at most 10 ⋅ 2 3 = 80 {\displaystyle 10\cdot 2^{3}=80} values. One advantage of Bayesian networks is that it is intuitively easier for a human to understand (a sparse set of) direct dependencies and local distributions than complete joint distributions. == Inference and learning == Bayesian networks perform three main inference tasks: Inferring unobserved variables Parameter learning for the probability distributions of each node in the network Structure learning of the graphical network === Inferring unobserved variables === Because a Bayesian network is a complete model for its variables and their relationships, it can be used to answer probabilistic queries about them. For example, the network can be used to update knowledge of the state of a subset of variables when other variables (the evidence variables) are observed. This process of computing the posterior distribution of variables given evidence is called probabilistic inference. The posterior gives a universal sufficient statistic for detection applications, when choosing values for the variable subset that minimize some expected loss function, for instance the probability of decision error. A Bayesian network can thus be considered a mechanism for automatically applying Bayes' theorem to complex problems. The most common exact inference methods are: variable elimination, which eliminates (by integration or summation) the non-observed non-query variables one by one by distributing the sum over the prod

  Read more →