AI Avatar Kids

AI Avatar Kids — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Pwnie Awards

The Pwnie Awards are an annual awards ceremony that recognizes both excellence and incompetence in the field of information security, described by SecurityWeek as an event that "recognizes excellence and mocks incompetence in cybersecurity." Winners are selected by a committee of security industry professionals from nominations collected from the information security community. Nominees are announced yearly at Summercon, and the awards themselves are presented at the Black Hat Security Conference. == Origins == The name Pwnie Award is based on the word "pwn", which is hacker slang meaning to "compromise" or "control" based on the previous usage of the word "own" (and it is pronounced similarly). The name "The Pwnie Awards," pronounced as "Pony," is meant to sound like the Tony Awards, an awards ceremony for Broadway theater in New York City. == History == The Pwnie Awards were founded in 2007 by Alexander Sotirov and Dino Dai Zovi following discussions regarding Dino's discovery of a cross-platform QuickTime vulnerability (CVE-2007-2175) and Alexander's discovery of an ANI file processing vulnerability (CVE-2007-0038) in Internet Explorer. == Winners == === 2024 === Most Epic Fail: Crowdstrike for 2024 CrowdStrike incident Best Mobile Bug: Operation Triangulation Lamest Vendor Response: Xiaomi for obstructing Pwn2Own researchers from using their services Best Cryptographic Attack: GoFetch Best Desktop Bug: forcing realtime WebAudio playback in Chrome (CVE-2023-5996) Best Song: Touch Some Grass by UwU Underground Best Privilege Escalation: Windows Streaming Service UAF (CVE-2024-30089) by Valentina Palmiotti (chompie) Best Remote Code Execution: Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2024-30080) Most Epic Achievement: Discovery and reverse engineering of the XZ Utils backdoor Most Innovative Research: Let the Cache Cache and Let the WebAssembly Assemble: Knocking’ on Chrome’s Shell by Edouard Bochin, Tao Yan, and Bo Qu Most Underhyped Research: See No Eval: Runtime Dynamic Code Execution in Objective-C === 2023 === Best Desktop Bug: CountExposure! by RyeLv(@b2ahex) Best Cryptographic Attack: Video-based cryptanalysis: Extracting Cryptographic Keys from Video Footage of a Device’s Power LED by Ben Nassi, Etay Iluz, Or Cohen, Ofek Vayner, Dudi Nassi, Boris Zadov, Yuval Elovici Best Song: Clickin’ Most Innovative Research: Inside Apple’s Lightning: Jtagging the iPhone for Fuzzing and Profit Most Under-Hyped Research: Activation Context Cache Poisoning Best Privilege Escalation Bug: URB Excalibur: Slicing Through the Gordian Knot of VMware VM Escapes Best Remote Code Execution Bug: ClamAV RCE Lamest Vendor Response: Three Lessons From Threema: Analysis of a Secure Messenger Most Epic Fail: “Holy fucking bingle, we have the no fly list,” Epic Achievement: Clement Lecigne: 0-days hunter world champion Lifetime Achievement Award: Mudge === 2022 === Lamest Vendor Response: Google's "TAG" response team for "unilaterally shutting down a counterterrorism operation." Epic Achievement: Yuki Chen’s Windows Server-Side RCE Bugs Most Epic Fail: HackerOne Employee Caught Stealing Vulnerability Reports for Personal Gains Best Desktop Bug: Pietro Borrello, Andreas Kogler, Martin Schwarzl, Moritz Lipp, Daniel Gruss, Michael Schwarz for Architecturally Leaking Data from the Microarchitecture Most Innovative Research: Pietro Borrello, Martin Schwarzl, Moritz Lipp, Daniel Gruss, Michael Schwarz for Custom Processing Unit: Tracing and Patching Intel Atom Microcode Best Cryptographic Attack: Hertzbleed: Turning Power Side-Channel Attacks Into Remote Timing Attacks on x86 by Yingchen Wang, Riccardo Paccagnella, Elizabeth Tang He, Hovav Shacham, Christopher Fletcher, David Kohlbrenner Best Remote Code Execution Bug: KunlunLab for Windows RPC Runtime Remote Code Execution (CVE-2022-26809) Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Qidan He of Dawnslab, for Mystique in the House: The Droid Vulnerability Chain That Owns All Your Userspace Best Mobile Bug: FORCEDENTRY Most Under-Hyped Research: Yannay Livneh for Spoofing IP with IPIP Best Song: Dialed Up by Project Mammoth === 2021 === Lamest Vendor Response: Cellebrite, for their response to Moxie, the creator of Signal, reverse-engineering their UFED and accompanying software and reporting a discovered exploit. Epic Achievement: Ilfak Guilfanov, in honor of IDA's 30th Anniversary. Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Baron Samedit of Qualys, for the discovery of a 10-year-old exploit in sudo. Best Song: The Ransomware Song by Forrest Brazeal Best Server-Side Bug: Orange Tsai, for his Microsoft Exchange Server ProxyLogon attack surface discoveries. Best Cryptographic Attack: The NSA for its disclosure of a bug in the verification of signatures in Windows which breaks the certificate trust chain. Most Innovative Research: Enes Göktaş, Kaveh Razavi, Georgios Portokalidis, Herbert Bos, and Cristiano Giuffrida at VUSec for their research on the "BlindSide" Attack. Most Epic Fail: Microsoft, for their failure to fix PrintNightmare. Best Client-Side Bug: Gunnar Alendal's discovery of a buffer overflow on the Samsung Galaxy S20's secure chip. Most Under-Hyped Research: The Qualys Research Team for 21Nails, 21 vulnerabilities in Exim, the Internet's most popular mail server. === 2020 === Best Server-Side Bug: BraveStarr (CVE-2020-10188) – A Fedora 31 netkit telnetd remote exploit (Ronald Huizer') Best Privilege Escalation Bug: checkm8 – A permanent unpatchable USB bootrom exploit for a billion iOS devices. (axi0mX) Epic Achievement: "Remotely Rooting Modern Android Devices" (Guang Gong) Best Cryptographic Attack: Zerologon vulnerability (Tom Tervoort, CVE-2020-1472) Best Client-Side Bug: RCE on Samsung Phones via MMS (CVE-2020-8899 and -16747), a zero click remote execution attack. (Mateusz Jurczyk) Most Under-Hyped Research: Vulnerabilities in System Management Mode (SMM) and Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) (CVE-2019-0151 and -0152) (Gabriel Negreira Barbosa, Rodrigo Rubira Branco, Joe Cihula) Most Innovative Research: TRRespass: When Memory Vendors Tell You Their Chips Are Rowhammer-free, They Are Not. (Pietro Frigo, Emanuele Vannacci, Hasan Hassan, Victor van der Veen, Onur Mutlu, Cristiano Giuffrida, Herbert Bos, Kaveh Razavi) Most Epic Fail: Microsoft; for the implementation of Elliptic-curve signatures which allowed attackers to generate private pairs for public keys of any signer, allowing HTTPS and signed binary spoofing. (CVE-2020-0601) Best Song: Powertrace by Rebekka Aigner, Daniel Gruss, Manuel Weber, Moritz Lipp, Patrick Radkohl, Andreas Kogler, Maria Eichlseder, ElTonno, tunefish, Yuki and Kater Lamest Vendor Response: Daniel J. Bernstein (CVE-2005-1513) === 2019 === Best Server-Side Bug: Orange Tsai and Meh Chang, for their SSL VPN research. Most Innovative Research: Vectorized Emulation Brandon Falk Best Cryptographic Attack: \m/ Dr4g0nbl00d \m/ Mathy Vanhoef, Eyal Ronen Lamest Vendor Response: Bitfi Most Over-hyped Bug: Allegations of Supermicro hardware backdoors, Bloomberg Most Under-hyped Bug: Thrangrycat, (Jatin Kataria, Red Balloon Security) === 2018 === Most Innovative Research: Spectre/Meltdown (Paul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin, Daniel Gruss, Werner Haas, Mike Hamburg, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher, Michael Schwarz, Yuval Yarom) Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Spectre/Meltdown (Paul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin, Daniel Gruss, Werner Haas, Mike Hamburg, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher, Michael Schwarz, Yuval Yarom) Lifetime Achievement: Michał Zalewski Best Cryptographic Attack: ROBOT - Return Of Bleichenbacher’s Oracle Threat Hanno Böck, Juraj Somorovsky, Craig Young Lamest Vendor Response: Bitfi hardware crypto-wallet, after the "unhackable" device was hacked to extract the keys required to steal coins and rooted to play Doom. === 2017 === Epic Achievement: Federico Bento for Finally getting TIOCSTI ioctl attack fixed Most Innovative Research: ASLR on the line Ben Gras, Kaveh Razavi, Erik Bosman, Herbert Bos, Cristiano Giuffrida Best Privilege Escalation Bug: DRAMMER Victor van der Veen, Yanick Fratantonio, Martina Lindorfer, Daniel Gruss, Clementine Maurice, Giovanni Vigna, Herbert Bos, Kaveh Razavi, Cristiano Giuffrida Best Cryptographic Attack: The first collision for full SHA-1 Marc Stevens, Elie Bursztein, Pierre Karpman, Ange Albertini, Yarik Markov Lamest Vendor Response: Lennart Poettering - for mishandling security vulnerabilities most spectacularly for multiple critical Systemd bugs Best Song: Hello (From the Other Side) - Manuel Weber, Michael Schwarz, Daniel Gruss, Moritz Lipp, Rebekka Aigner === 2016 === Most Innovative Research: Dedup Est Machina: Memory Deduplication as an Advanced Exploitation Vector Erik Bosman, Kaveh Razavi, Herbert Bos, Cristiano Giuffrida Lifetime Achievement: Peiter Zatko aka Mudge Best Cryptographic Attack: DROWN attack Nimrod Aviram et al. Best Song: Cyberlier - Katie Mous
Read more →
FERET (facial recognition technology)

The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) program was a government-sponsored project that aimed to create a large, automatic face-recognition system for intelligence, security, and law enforcement purposes. The program began in 1993 under the combined leadership of Dr. Harry Wechsler at George Mason University (GMU) and Dr. Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in Adelphi, Maryland and resulted in the development of the Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database. The goal of the FERET program was to advance the field of face recognition technology by establishing a common database of facial imagery for researchers to use and setting a performance baseline for face-recognition algorithms. Potential areas where this face-recognition technology could be used include: Automated searching of mug books using surveillance photos Controlling access to restricted facilities or equipment Checking the credentials of personnel for background and security clearances Monitoring airports, border crossings, and secure manufacturing facilities for particular individuals Finding and logging multiple appearances of individuals over time in surveillance videos Verifying identities at ATM machines Searching photo ID records for fraud detection The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is currently managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). By 2017, the FERET database has been used to train artificial intelligence programs and computer vision algorithms to identify and sort faces. == History == The origin of facial recognition technology is largely attributed to Woodrow Wilson Bledsoe and his work in the 1960s, when he developed a system to identify faces from a database of thousands of photographs. The FERET program first began as a way to unify a large body of face-recognition technology research under a standard database. Before the program's inception, most researchers created their own facial imagery database that was attuned to their own specific area of study. These personal databases were small and usually consisted of images from less than 50 individuals. The only notable exceptions were the following: Alex Pentland’s database of around 7500 facial images at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joseph Wilder's database of around 250 individuals at Rutgers University Christoph von der Malsburg’s database of around 100 facial images at the University of Southern California (USC) The lack of a common database made it difficult to compare the results of face recognition studies in the scientific literature because each report involved different assumptions, scoring methods, and images. Most of the papers that were published did not use images from a common database nor follow a standard testing protocol. As a result, researchers were unable to make informed comparisons between the performances of different face-recognition algorithms. In September 1993, the FERET program was spearheaded by Dr. Harry Wechsler and Dr. Jonathon Phillips under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Defense Counterdrug Technology Development Program through DARPA with ARL serving as technical agent. === Phase I === The first facial images for the FERET database were collected from August 1993 to December 1994, a time period known as Phase I. The pictures were initially taken with a 35-mm camera at both GMU and ARL facilities, and the same physical setup was used in each photography session to keep the images consistent. For each individual, the pictures were taken in sets, including two frontal views, a right and left profile, a right and left quarter profile, a right and left half profile, and sometimes at five extra locations. Therefore, a set of images consisted of 5 to 11 images per person. At the end of Phase I, the FERET database had collected 673 sets of images, resulting in over 5000 total images. At the end of Phase I, five organizations were given the opportunity to test their face-recognition algorithm on the newly created FERET database in order to compare how they performed against each other. There five principal investigators were: MIT, led by Alex Pentland Rutgers University, led by Joseph Wilder The Analytic Science Company (TASC), led by Gale Gordon The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, led by Lewis Sadler and Thomas Huang USC, led by Christoph von der Malsburg During this evaluation, three different automatic tests were given to the principal investigators without human intervention: The large gallery test, which served to baseline how algorithms performed against a database when it has not been properly tuned. The false-alarm test, which tested how well the algorithm monitored an airport for suspected terrorists. The rotation test, which measured how well the algorithm performed when the images of an individual in the gallery had different poses compared to those in the probe set. For most of the test trials, the algorithms developed by USC and MIT managed to outperform the other three algorithms for the Phase I evaluation. === Phase II === Phase II began after Phase I, and during this time, the FERET database acquired more sets of facial images. By the start of the Phase II evaluation in March 1995, the database contained 1109 sets of images for a total of 8525 images of 884 individuals. During the second evaluation, the same algorithms from the Phase I evaluation were given a single test. However, the database now contained significantly more duplicate images (463, compared to the previous 60), making the test more challenging. === Phase III === Afterwards, the FERET program entered Phase III where another 456 sets of facial images were added to the database. The Phase III evaluation, which took place in September 1996, aimed to not only gauge the progress of the algorithms since the Phase I assessment but also identify the strengths and weaknesses of each algorithm and determine future objectives for research. By the end of 1996, the FERET database had accumulated a total of 14,126 facial images pertaining to 1199 different individuals as well as 365 duplicate sets of images. As a result of the FERET program, researchers were able to establish a common baseline for comparing different face-recognition algorithms and create a large standard database of facial images that is open for research. In 2003, DARPA released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of the images in the FERET database (existing reference).
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 →
Latent and observable variables

In statistics, latent variables (from Latin: present participle of lateo 'lie hidden') are variables that can only be inferred indirectly through a mathematical model from other observable variables that can be directly observed or measured. Such latent variable models are used in many disciplines, including engineering, medicine, ecology, physics, machine learning/artificial intelligence, natural language processing, bioinformatics, chemometrics, demography, economics, management, political science, psychology and the social sciences. Latent variables may correspond to aspects of physical reality. These could in principle be measured, but may not be for practical reasons. Among the earliest expressions of this idea is Francis Bacon's polemic the Novum Organum, itself a challenge to the more traditional logic expressed in Aristotle's Organon: But the latent process of which we speak, is far from being obvious to men’s minds, beset as they now are. For we mean not the measures, symptoms, or degrees of any process which can be exhibited in the bodies themselves, but simply a continued process, which, for the most part, escapes the observation of the senses. In this situation, the term hidden variables is commonly used, reflecting the fact that the variables are meaningful, but not observable. Other latent variables correspond to abstract concepts, like categories, behavioral or mental states, or data structures. The terms hypothetical variables or hypothetical constructs may be used in these situations. The use of latent variables can serve to reduce the dimensionality of data. Many observable variables can be aggregated in a model to represent an underlying concept, making it easier to understand the data. In this sense, they serve a function similar to that of scientific theories. At the same time, latent variables link observable "sub-symbolic" data in the real world to symbolic data in the modeled world. == Examples == === Psychology === Latent variables, as created by factor analytic methods, generally represent "shared" variance, or the degree to which variables "move" together. Variables that have no correlation cannot result in a latent construct based on the common factor model. The "Big Five personality traits" have been inferred using factor analysis. extraversion spatial ability wisdom: “Two of the more predominant means of assessing wisdom include wisdom-related performance and latent variable measures.” Spearman's g, or the general intelligence factor in psychometrics === Economics === Examples of latent variables from the field of economics include quality of life, business confidence, morale, happiness and conservatism: these are all variables which cannot be measured directly. However, by linking these latent variables to other, observable variables, the values of the latent variables can be inferred from measurements of the observable variables. Quality of life is a latent variable which cannot be measured directly, so observable variables are used to infer quality of life. Observable variables to measure quality of life include wealth, employment, environment, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, and social belonging. === Medicine === Latent-variable methodology is used in many branches of medicine. A class of problems that naturally lend themselves to latent variables approaches are longitudinal studies where the time scale (e.g. age of participant or time since study baseline) is not synchronized with the trait being studied. For such studies, an unobserved time scale that is synchronized with the trait being studied can be modeled as a transformation of the observed time scale using latent variables. Examples of this include disease progression modeling and modeling of growth (see box). == Inferring latent variables == There exists a range of different model classes and methodology that make use of latent variables and allow inference in the presence of latent variables. Models include: linear mixed-effects models and nonlinear mixed-effects models Hidden Markov models Factor analysis Item response theory Analysis and inference methods include: Principal component analysis Instrumented principal component analysis Partial least squares regression Latent semantic analysis and probabilistic latent semantic analysis EM algorithms Metropolis–Hastings algorithm === Bayesian algorithms and methods === Bayesian statistics is often used for inferring latent variables. Latent Dirichlet allocation The Chinese restaurant process is often used to provide a prior distribution over assignments of objects to latent categories. The Indian buffet process is often used to provide a prior distribution over assignments of latent binary features to objects.
Read more →
Test data

Test data are sets of inputs or information used to verify the correctness, performance, and reliability of software systems. Test data encompass various types, such as positive and negative scenarios, edge cases, and realistic user scenarios, and aims to exercise different aspects of the software to uncover bugs and validate its behavior. Test data is also used in regression testing to verify that new code changes or enhancements do not introduce unintended side effects or break existing functionalities. == Background == Test data may be used to verify that a given set of inputs to a function produces an expected result. Alternatively, data can be used to challenge the program's ability to handle unusual, extreme, exceptional, or unexpected inputs. Test data can be produced in a focused or systematic manner, as is typically the case in domain testing, or through less focused approaches, such as high-volume randomized automated tests. Test data can be generated by the tester or by a program or function that assists the tester. It can be recorded for reuse or used only once. Test data may be created manually, using data generation tools (often based on randomness), or retrieved from an existing production environment. The data set may consist of synthetic (fake) data, but ideally, it should include representative (real) data. == Limitations == Due to privacy regulations such as GDPR, PCI, and the HIPAA, the use of privacy-sensitive personal data for testing is restricted. However, anonymized (and preferably subsetted) production data may be used as representative data for testing and development. Programmers may also choose to generate synthetic data as an alternative to using real or anonymized data. While synthetic data can offer significant advantages, such as enhanced privacy and flexibility, it also comes with limitations. For instance, generating synthetic data that accurately reflects real-world complexity can be challenging. There is also a risk of synthetic data not fully capturing the nuances of real data, potentially leading to gaps in test coverage. == Domain testing == Domain testing is a set of techniques focusing on test data. This includes identifying critical inputs, values at the boundaries between equivalence classes, and combinations of inputs that drive the system toward specific outputs. Domain testing helps ensure that various scenarios are effectively tested, including edge cases and unusual conditions.
Read more →
Mean squared prediction error

In statistics the mean squared prediction error (MSPE), also known as mean squared error of the predictions, of a smoothing, curve fitting, or regression procedure is the expected value of the squared prediction errors (PE), the square difference between the fitted values implied by the predictive function g ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}}} and the values of the (unobservable) true value g. It is an inverse measure of the explanatory power of g ^ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}},} and can be used in the process of cross-validation of an estimated model. Knowledge of g would be required in order to calculate the MSPE exactly; in practice, MSPE is estimated. == Formulation == If the smoothing or fitting procedure has projection matrix (i.e., hat matrix) L, which maps the observed values vector y {\displaystyle y} to predicted values vector y ^ = L y , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=Ly,} then PE and MSPE are formulated as: P E i = g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {PE_{i}} =g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i}),} MSPE = E ⁡ [ PE i 2 ] = ∑ i = 1 n PE i 2 ⁡ / n . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {E} \left[\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}\right]=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}/n.} The MSPE can be decomposed into two terms: the squared bias (mean error) of the fitted values and the variance of the fitted values: MSPE = ME 2 + VAR , {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {ME} ^{2}+\operatorname {VAR} ,} ME = E ⁡ [ g ^ ( x i ) − g ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {ME} =\operatorname {E} \left[{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-g(x_{i})\right]} VAR = E ⁡ [ ( g ^ ( x i ) − E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) ] ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {VAR} =\operatorname {E} \left[\left({\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-\operatorname {E} \left[{g}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}\right].} The quantity SSPE=nMSPE is called sum squared prediction error. The root mean squared prediction error is the square root of MSPE: RMSPE=√MSPE. == Computation of MSPE over out-of-sample data == The mean squared prediction error can be computed exactly in two contexts. First, with a data sample of length n, the data analyst may run the regression over only q of the data points (with q < n), holding back the other n – q data points with the specific purpose of using them to compute the estimated model’s MSPE out of sample (i.e., not using data that were used in the model estimation process). Since the regression process is tailored to the q in-sample points, normally the in-sample MSPE will be smaller than the out-of-sample one computed over the n – q held-back points. If the increase in the MSPE out of sample compared to in sample is relatively slight, that results in the model being viewed favorably. And if two models are to be compared, the one with the lower MSPE over the n – q out-of-sample data points is viewed more favorably, regardless of the models’ relative in-sample performances. The out-of-sample MSPE in this context is exact for the out-of-sample data points that it was computed over, but is merely an estimate of the model’s MSPE for the mostly unobserved population from which the data were drawn. Second, as time goes on more data may become available to the data analyst, and then the MSPE can be computed over these new data. == Estimation of MSPE over the population == When the model has been estimated over all available data with none held back, the MSPE of the model over the entire population of mostly unobserved data can be estimated as follows. For the model y i = g ( x i ) + σ ε i {\displaystyle y_{i}=g(x_{i})+\sigma \varepsilon _{i}} where ε i ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} , one may write n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = g T ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) g + σ 2 tr ⁡ [ L T L ] . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=g^{\text{T}}(I-L)^{\text{T}}(I-L)g+\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[L^{\text{T}}L\right].} Using in-sample data values, the first term on the right side is equivalent to ∑ i = 1 n ( E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) ] ) 2 = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 tr ⁡ [ ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) ] . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\operatorname {E} \left[g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[\left(I-L\right)^{T}\left(I-L\right)\right].} Thus, n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} If σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} is known or well-estimated by σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} , it becomes possible to estimate MSPE by n ⋅ M S P E ^ ⁡ ( L ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 − σ ^ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {\widehat {MSPE}} (L)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}-{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} Colin Mallows advocated this method in the construction of his model selection statistic Cp, which is a normalized version of the estimated MSPE: C p = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 σ ^ 2 − n + 2 p . {\displaystyle C_{p}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}}{{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}}}-n+2p.} where p the number of estimated parameters p and σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} is computed from the version of the model that includes all possible regressors. That concludes this proof.
Read more →
Promoter based genetic algorithm

The promoter based genetic algorithm (PBGA) is a genetic algorithm for neuroevolution developed by F. Bellas and R.J. Duro in the Integrated Group for Engineering Research (GII) at the University of Coruña, in Spain. It evolves variable size feedforward artificial neural networks (ANN) that are encoded into sequences of genes for constructing a basic ANN unit. Each of these blocks is preceded by a gene promoter acting as an on/off switch that determines if that particular unit will be expressed or not. == PBGA basics == The basic unit in the PBGA is a neuron with all of its inbound connections as represented in the following figure: The genotype of a basic unit is a set of real valued weights followed by the parameters of the neuron and proceeded by an integer valued field that determines the promoter gene value and, consequently, the expression of the unit. By concatenating units of this type we can construct the whole network. With this encoding it is imposed that the information that is not expressed is still carried by the genotype in evolution but it is shielded from direct selective pressure, maintaining this way the diversity in the population, which has been a design premise for this algorithm. Therefore, a clear difference is established between the search space and the solution space, permitting information learned and encoded into the genotypic representation to be preserved by disabling promoter genes. == Results == The PBGA was originally presented within the field of autonomous robotics, in particular in the real time learning of environment models of the robot. It has been used inside the Multilevel Darwinist Brain (MDB) cognitive mechanism developed in the GII for real robots on-line learning. In another paper it is shown how the application of the PBGA together with an external memory that stores the successful obtained world models, is an optimal strategy for adaptation in dynamic environments. Recently, the PBGA has provided results that outperform other neuroevolutionary algorithms in non-stationary problems, where the fitness function varies in time.
Read more →
Exploratory blockmodeling

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

Meta-learning is a subfield of machine learning where automatic learning algorithms are applied to metadata about machine learning experiments. As of 2017, the term had not found a standard interpretation, however the main goal is to use such metadata to understand how automatic learning can become flexible in solving learning problems, hence to improve the performance of existing learning algorithms or to learn (induce) the learning algorithm itself, hence the alternative term learning to learn. Flexibility is important because each learning algorithm is based on a set of assumptions about the data, its inductive bias. This means that it will only learn well if the bias matches the learning problem. A learning algorithm may perform very well in one domain, but not on the next. This poses strong restrictions on the use of machine learning or data mining techniques, since the relationship between the learning problem (often some kind of database) and the effectiveness of different learning algorithms is not yet understood. By using different kinds of metadata, like properties of the learning problem, algorithm properties (like performance measures), or patterns previously derived from the data, it is possible to learn, select, alter or combine different learning algorithms to effectively solve a given learning problem. Critiques of meta-learning approaches bear a strong resemblance to the critique of metaheuristic, a possibly related problem. A good analogy to meta-learning, and the inspiration for Jürgen Schmidhuber's early work (1987) and Yoshua Bengio et al.'s work (1991), considers that genetic evolution learns the learning procedure encoded in genes and executed in each individual's brain. In an open-ended hierarchical meta-learning system using genetic programming, better evolutionary methods can be learned by meta evolution, which itself can be improved by meta meta evolution, etc. == Definition == A proposed definition for a meta-learning system combines three requirements: The system must include a learning subsystem. Experience is gained by exploiting meta knowledge extracted in a previous learning episode on a single dataset, or from different domains. Learning bias must be chosen dynamically. Bias refers to the assumptions that influence the choice of explanatory hypotheses and not the notion of bias represented in the bias-variance dilemma. Meta-learning is concerned with two aspects of learning bias. Declarative bias specifies the representation of the space of hypotheses, and affects the size of the search space (e.g., represent hypotheses using linear functions only). Procedural bias imposes constraints on the ordering of the inductive hypotheses (e.g., preferring smaller hypotheses). == Common approaches == There are three common approaches: using (cyclic) networks with external or internal memory (model-based) learning effective distance metrics (metrics-based) explicitly optimizing model parameters for fast learning (optimization-based). === Model-Based === Model-based meta-learning models updates its parameters rapidly with a few training steps, which can be achieved by its internal architecture or controlled by another meta-learner model. ==== Memory-Augmented Neural Networks ==== A Memory-Augmented Neural Network, or MANN for short, is claimed to be able to encode new information quickly and thus to adapt to new tasks after only a few examples. ==== Meta Networks ==== Meta Networks (MetaNet) learns a meta-level knowledge across tasks and shifts its inductive biases via fast parameterization for rapid generalization. === Metric-Based === The core idea in metric-based meta-learning is similar to nearest neighbors algorithms, which weight is generated by a kernel function. It aims to learn a metric or distance function over objects. The notion of a good metric is problem-dependent. It should represent the relationship between inputs in the task space and facilitate problem solving. ==== Convolutional Siamese Neural Network ==== Siamese neural network is composed of two twin networks whose output is jointly trained. There is a function above to learn the relationship between input data sample pairs. The two networks are the same, sharing the same weight and network parameters. ==== Matching Networks ==== Matching Networks learn a network that maps a small labelled support set and an unlabelled example to its label, obviating the need for fine-tuning to adapt to new class types. ==== Relation Network ==== The Relation Network (RN), is trained end-to-end from scratch. During meta-learning, it learns to learn a deep distance metric to compare a small number of images within episodes, each of which is designed to simulate the few-shot setting. ==== Prototypical Networks ==== Prototypical Networks learn a metric space in which classification can be performed by computing distances to prototype representations of each class. Compared to recent approaches for few-shot learning, they reflect a simpler inductive bias that is beneficial in this limited-data regime, and achieve satisfied results. === Optimization-Based === What optimization-based meta-learning algorithms intend for is to adjust the optimization algorithm so that the model can be good at learning with a few examples. ==== LSTM Meta-Learner ==== LSTM-based meta-learner is to learn the exact optimization algorithm used to train another learner neural network classifier in the few-shot regime. The parametrization allows it to learn appropriate parameter updates specifically for the scenario where a set amount of updates will be made, while also learning a general initialization of the learner (classifier) network that allows for quick convergence of training. ==== Temporal Discreteness ==== Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) is a fairly general optimization algorithm, compatible with any model that learns through gradient descent. ==== Reptile ==== Reptile is a remarkably simple meta-learning optimization algorithm, given that both of its components rely on meta-optimization through gradient descent and both are model-agnostic. == Examples == Some approaches which have been viewed as instances of meta-learning: Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are universal computers. In 1993, Jürgen Schmidhuber showed how "self-referential" RNNs can in principle learn by backpropagation to run their own weight change algorithm, which may be quite different from backpropagation. In 2001, Sepp Hochreiter & A.S. Younger & P.R. Conwell built a successful supervised meta-learner based on Long short-term memory RNNs. It learned through backpropagation a learning algorithm for quadratic functions that is much faster than backpropagation. Researchers at Deepmind (Marcin Andrychowicz et al.) extended this approach to optimization in 2017. In the 1990s, Meta Reinforcement Learning or Meta RL was achieved in Schmidhuber's research group through self-modifying policies written in a universal programming language that contains special instructions for changing the policy itself. There is a single lifelong trial. The goal of the RL agent is to maximize reward. It learns to accelerate reward intake by continually improving its own learning algorithm which is part of the "self-referential" policy. An extreme type of Meta Reinforcement Learning is embodied by the Gödel machine, a theoretical construct which can inspect and modify any part of its own software which also contains a general theorem prover. It can achieve recursive self-improvement in a provably optimal way. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) was introduced in 2017 by Chelsea Finn et al. Given a sequence of tasks, the parameters of a given model are trained such that few iterations of gradient descent with few training data from a new task will lead to good generalization performance on that task. MAML "trains the model to be easy to fine-tune." MAML was successfully applied to few-shot image classification benchmarks and to policy-gradient-based reinforcement learning. Variational Bayes-Adaptive Deep RL (VariBAD) was introduced in 2019. While MAML is optimization-based, VariBAD is a model-based method for meta reinforcement learning, and leverages a variational autoencoder to capture the task information in an internal memory, thus conditioning its decision making on the task. When addressing a set of tasks, most meta learning approaches optimize the average score across all tasks. Hence, certain tasks may be sacrificed in favor of the average score, which is often unacceptable in real-world applications. By contrast, Robust Meta Reinforcement Learning (RoML) focuses on improving low-score tasks, increasing robustness to the selection of task. RoML works as a meta-algorithm, as it can be applied on top of other meta learning algorithms (such as MAML and VariBAD) to increase their robustness. It is applicable to both supervised meta learning and meta reinforcement learning. Discovering meta-knowledge works by inducing knowledge
Read more →
Probabilistic latent semantic analysis

Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI, especially in information retrieval circles) is a statistical technique for the analysis of two-mode and co-occurrence data. In effect, one can derive a low-dimensional representation of the observed variables in terms of their affinity to certain hidden variables, just as in latent semantic analysis, from which PLSA evolved. Compared to standard latent semantic analysis which stems from linear algebra and downsizes the occurrence tables (usually via a singular value decomposition), probabilistic latent semantic analysis is based on a mixture decomposition derived from a latent class model. == Model == Considering observations in the form of co-occurrences ( w , d ) {\displaystyle (w,d)} of words and documents, PLSA models the probability of each co-occurrence as a mixture of conditionally independent multinomial distributions: P ( w , d ) = ∑ c P ( d ) P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) = P ( d ) ∑ c P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w,d)=\sum _{c}P(d)P(c|d)P(w|c)=P(d)\sum _{c}P(c|d)P(w|c)} with c {\displaystyle c} being the words' topic. Note that the number of topics is a hyperparameter that must be chosen in advance and is not estimated from the data. The first formulation is the symmetric formulation, where w {\displaystyle w} and d {\displaystyle d} are both generated from the latent class c {\displaystyle c} in similar ways (using the conditional probabilities P ( d | c ) {\displaystyle P(d|c)} and P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} ), whereas the second formulation is the asymmetric formulation, where, for each document d {\displaystyle d} , a latent class is chosen conditionally to the document according to P ( c | d ) {\displaystyle P(c|d)} , and a word is then generated from that class according to P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} . Although we have used words and documents in this example, the co-occurrence of any couple of discrete variables may be modelled in exactly the same way. So, the number of parameters is equal to c d + w c {\displaystyle cd+wc} . The number of parameters grows linearly with the number of documents. In addition, although PLSA is a generative model of the documents in the collection it is estimated on, it is not a generative model of new documents. Their parameters are learned using the EM algorithm. == Application == PLSA may be used in a discriminative setting, via Fisher kernels. PLSA has applications in information retrieval and filtering, natural language processing, machine learning from text, bioinformatics, and related areas. It is reported that the aspect model used in the probabilistic latent semantic analysis has severe overfitting problems. == Extensions == Hierarchical extensions: Asymmetric: MASHA ("Multinomial ASymmetric Hierarchical Analysis") Symmetric: HPLSA ("Hierarchical Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis") Generative models: The following models have been developed to address an often-criticized shortcoming of PLSA, namely that it is not a proper generative model for new documents. Latent Dirichlet allocation – adds a Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distribution Higher-order data: Although this is rarely discussed in the scientific literature, PLSA extends naturally to higher order data (three modes and higher), i.e. it can model co-occurrences over three or more variables. In the symmetric formulation above, this is done simply by adding conditional probability distributions for these additional variables. This is the probabilistic analogue to non-negative tensor factorisation. == History == This is an example of a latent class model (see references therein), and it is related to non-negative matrix factorization. The present terminology was coined in 1999 by Thomas Hofmann.
Read more →
Random indexing

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

A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts: in hierarchical clustering, it illustrates the arrangement of the clusters produced by the corresponding analyses. in computational biology, it shows the clustering of genes or samples, sometimes in the margins of heatmaps. in phylogenetics, it displays the evolutionary relationships among various biological taxa. In this case, the dendrogram is also called a phylogenetic tree. The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure". == Clustering example == For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( a {\displaystyle a} to e {\displaystyle e} ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).
Read more →
Inauthentic text

An inauthentic text is a computer-generated expository document meant to appear as genuine, but which is actually meaningless. Frequently they are created in order to be intermixed with genuine documents and thus manipulate the results of search engines, as with Spam blogs. They are also carried along in email in order to fool spam filters by giving the spam the superficial characteristics of legitimate text. Sometimes nonsensical documents are created with computer assistance for humorous effect, as with Dissociated press or Flarf poetry. They have also been used to challenge the veracity of a publication—MIT students submitted papers generated by a computer program called SCIgen to a conference, where they were initially accepted. This led the students to claim that the bar for submissions was too low. With the amount of computer generated text outpacing the ability of people to humans to curate it, there needs some means of distinguishing between the two. Yet automated approaches to determining absolutely whether a text is authentic or not face intrinsic challenges of semantics. Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" giving an example of grammatically correct, but semantically incoherent sentence; some will point out that in certain contexts one could give this sentence (or any phrase) meaning. The first group to use the expression in this regard can be found below from Indiana University. Their work explains in detail an attempt to detect inauthentic texts and identify pernicious problems of inauthentic texts in cyberspace. The site has a means of submitting text that assesses, based on supervised learning, whether a corpus is inauthentic or not. Many users have submitted incorrect types of data and have correspondingly commented on the scores. This application is meant for a specific kind of data; therefore, submitting, say, an email, will not return a meaningful score.
Read more →
Fitness function

A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex
Read more →
Probabilistic latent semantic analysis

Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI, especially in information retrieval circles) is a statistical technique for the analysis of two-mode and co-occurrence data. In effect, one can derive a low-dimensional representation of the observed variables in terms of their affinity to certain hidden variables, just as in latent semantic analysis, from which PLSA evolved. Compared to standard latent semantic analysis which stems from linear algebra and downsizes the occurrence tables (usually via a singular value decomposition), probabilistic latent semantic analysis is based on a mixture decomposition derived from a latent class model. == Model == Considering observations in the form of co-occurrences ( w , d ) {\displaystyle (w,d)} of words and documents, PLSA models the probability of each co-occurrence as a mixture of conditionally independent multinomial distributions: P ( w , d ) = ∑ c P ( d ) P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) = P ( d ) ∑ c P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w,d)=\sum _{c}P(d)P(c|d)P(w|c)=P(d)\sum _{c}P(c|d)P(w|c)} with c {\displaystyle c} being the words' topic. Note that the number of topics is a hyperparameter that must be chosen in advance and is not estimated from the data. The first formulation is the symmetric formulation, where w {\displaystyle w} and d {\displaystyle d} are both generated from the latent class c {\displaystyle c} in similar ways (using the conditional probabilities P ( d | c ) {\displaystyle P(d|c)} and P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} ), whereas the second formulation is the asymmetric formulation, where, for each document d {\displaystyle d} , a latent class is chosen conditionally to the document according to P ( c | d ) {\displaystyle P(c|d)} , and a word is then generated from that class according to P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} . Although we have used words and documents in this example, the co-occurrence of any couple of discrete variables may be modelled in exactly the same way. So, the number of parameters is equal to c d + w c {\displaystyle cd+wc} . The number of parameters grows linearly with the number of documents. In addition, although PLSA is a generative model of the documents in the collection it is estimated on, it is not a generative model of new documents. Their parameters are learned using the EM algorithm. == Application == PLSA may be used in a discriminative setting, via Fisher kernels. PLSA has applications in information retrieval and filtering, natural language processing, machine learning from text, bioinformatics, and related areas. It is reported that the aspect model used in the probabilistic latent semantic analysis has severe overfitting problems. == Extensions == Hierarchical extensions: Asymmetric: MASHA ("Multinomial ASymmetric Hierarchical Analysis") Symmetric: HPLSA ("Hierarchical Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis") Generative models: The following models have been developed to address an often-criticized shortcoming of PLSA, namely that it is not a proper generative model for new documents. Latent Dirichlet allocation – adds a Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distribution Higher-order data: Although this is rarely discussed in the scientific literature, PLSA extends naturally to higher order data (three modes and higher), i.e. it can model co-occurrences over three or more variables. In the symmetric formulation above, this is done simply by adding conditional probability distributions for these additional variables. This is the probabilistic analogue to non-negative tensor factorisation. == History == This is an example of a latent class model (see references therein), and it is related to non-negative matrix factorization. The present terminology was coined in 1999 by Thomas Hofmann.
Read more →