AI Chatbot Interface

AI Chatbot Interface — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  SMART Health Card

  The SMART Health Card framework is an open source immunity passport program designed to store and share medical information in paper or digital form. It was initially launched as a vaccine passport during the COVID-19 pandemic, but is envisioned for use for other infectious diseases. SMART Health Cards include a QR code which can be scanned and verified using the official SMART Health Card Verifier mobile app, supported by Apple and Android. It was rolled out by the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) based on technology developed at Boston Children's Hospital, and standards set by Health Level Seven International (HL7) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It is recognized by the International Organization for Standardization. == History == === Founding === In February 2009, United States president Barack Obama signed an economic stimulus package which included $19 billion in funds for investment in health information technology. The following month, researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Kenneth Mandl and Isaac Kohane, published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine calling for the modernization of electronic health records through API integrations on mobile devices. In April 2010, the pair secured a $15 million grant through the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) program. With this federal funding, the researchers began development of an interoperable healthcare IT platform they called "Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies" (SMART). The first iteration of the platform API was previewed later that year, and "SMART Classic" was released in 2011. In 2013, SMART adopted the open-source Fast Health Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard developed by Health Level Seven International (HL7). The newly named SMART on FHIR platform was debuted in February 2014 at the Health Information Management Systems Society conference. === 21st Century Cures Act === According to SMART Health IT, Mandl successfully lobbied for the inclusion of a universal API requirement in the 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law on December 13, 2016. The team also advocated for a federal rule establishing SMART as the universal API. In 2019, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology published the "final rule" specifying the SMART framework as the standard to satisfy the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act; the rule was implemented in June 2020. === COVID-19 === The SMART Health Card framework was deployed as a "de facto standard" for vaccine passports in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and other international jurisdictions. On January 14, 2021, the Mitre Corporation announced the launch of a new public–private partnership called the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) alongside the CARIN Alliance, Cerner, Change Healthcare, The Commons Project Foundation, Epic Systems, Evernorth, Mayo Clinic, Microsoft, Oracle, Safe Health, and Salesforce. VCI's purpose was to employ the SMART Health Card framework in order to create a unified proof-of-vaccination system for COVID-19 vaccines.The California Department of Public Health introduced a Digital Covid-19 Vaccine Record portal in June 2021, allowing individuals to verify their vaccination status using the SMART Health Card reader. On August 5, 2021, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the introduction of the "Excelsior Pass Plus" which would expand its Excelsior Pass program into other states and internationally by connecting it to the SMART Health Card system. As of August 27, 2021, 415,000 citizens of Louisiana had added their COVID-19 vaccination status to their state-run, SMART Health Card enabled LA Wallet. On September 8, 2021, Hawaii governor David Ige announced the rollout of the state's Hawaiʻi SMART Health Card. County-level health departments across the United States partnered with VaccineCheck to issue SMART Health Cards by verifying vaccine cards provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Government of Canada spent CAD$4.6 million to develop a proof-of-vaccination credential on the SMART Health Card framework, enabling its ArriveCAN travel application to store, recognize and verify credentials from every province, territory and foreign country. Since October 2021, Canadian provinces and territories used the SMART Health Card format as a requirement by the federal government, including British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the Yukon. On October 13, 2021, the American Immunization Registry Association (AIRA) published a statement encouraging adoption of SMART Health Cards as a common standard "where allowed by local law and policy." "SMARTHealth.Cards" was listed as a supporting member of AIRA through the VCI. A SMART Health Cards Global Forum was held on October 28, 2021. The event featured keynote speakers Andy Slavitt (former Senior Pandemic Advisor to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 pandemic response team) and Mike Leavitt (former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services). On December 20, 2021, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare launched its COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate Application using the SMART Health Card. By January 2022, about 80% of Americans who had received a COVID-19 vaccine had access to a SMART Health Card through their state governments, local businesses, universities and healthcare systems. == Participants == === Developers === SMART Health IT is based out of the Computational Health Informatics Program (CHIP) at the Boston Children's Hospital. CHIP's related projects include Apache cTAKES, Genomic Information Commons, HealthMap, and VaccineFinder. The SMART Health Card's project sponsor is HL7 International's Public Health Work Group, consisting of representatives from Allscripts, the Altarum Institute, Tennessee Department of Health and Washington State Department of Health. === Issuers === Official registries of authorized SMART Health Card issuers are maintained by SMART Health IT, the Vaccination Credential Initiative, and the CommonTrust Network. Authorized issuers include:

  Read more →
• 

  Multiclass classification

  In machine learning and statistical classification, multiclass classification or multinomial classification is the problem of classifying instances into one of three or more classes (classifying instances into one of two classes is called binary classification). For example, deciding on whether an image is showing a banana, peach, orange, or an apple is a multiclass classification problem, with four possible classes (banana, peach, orange, apple), while deciding on whether an image contains an apple or not is a binary classification problem (with the two possible classes being: apple, no apple). While many classification algorithms (e.g., decision trees, k-NN, neural networks and multinomial logistic regression) naturally permit the use of more than two classes, some are by nature binary algorithms (e.g., classical binary support vector machine) and require decomposition strategies such as one-vs-all, one-vs-one, or ECOC to solve multiclass problems. Multiclass classification should not be confused with multi-label classification, where multiple labels are to be predicted for each instance (e.g., predicting that an image contains both an apple and an orange, in the previous example). == Better-than-random multiclass models == From the confusion matrix of a multiclass model, we can determine whether a model does better than chance. Let K ≥ 3 {\displaystyle K\geq 3} be the number of classes, O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}} a set of observations, y ^ : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} a model of the target variable y : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle y:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} and n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i,j}} be the number of observations in the set { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\}} . We note n i . = ∑ j n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i.}=\sum _{j}n_{i,j}} , n . j = ∑ i n i , j {\displaystyle n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i,j}} , n = ∑ j n . j = ∑ i n i . {\displaystyle n=\sum _{j}n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i.}} , λ i = n i . n {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {n_{i.}}{n}}} and μ j = n . j n {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {n_{.j}}{n}}} . It is assumed that the confusion matrix ( n i , j ) i , j {\displaystyle (n_{i,j})_{i,j}} contains at least one non-zero entry in each row, that is λ i > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}>0} for any i {\displaystyle i} . Finally we call "normalized confusion matrix" the matrix of conditional probabilities ( P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) ) i , j = ( n i , j n i . ) i , j {\displaystyle (\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i))_{i,j}=\left({\frac {n_{i,j}}{n_{i.}}}\right)_{i,j}} . === Intuitive explanation === The lift is a way of measuring the deviation from independence of two events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} : L i f t ( A , B ) = P ( A ∩ B ) P ( A ) P ( B ) = P ( A ∣ B ) P ( A ) = P ( B ∣ A ) P ( B ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\cap B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)\mathbb {P} (B)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\mid B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (B\mid A)}{\mathbb {P} (B)}}} We have L i f t ( A , B ) > 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)>1} if and only if events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} occur simultaneously with a greater probability than if they were independent. In other words, if one of the two events occurs, the probability of observing the other event increases. A first condition to satisfy is to have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} . And the quality of a model (better or worse than chance) does not change if we over- or undersample the dataset, that is if we multiply each row R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} of the confusion matrix by a constant c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . Thus the second condition is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for doing better than chance need only depend on the normalized confusion matrix. The condition on lifts can be reformulated with One versus Rest binary models : for any i {\displaystyle i} , we define the binary target variable y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} , and the binary model y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} of y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} . Each of the y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} models is a "One versus Rest" model. L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)} only depends on the events { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} and { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} , so merging or not merging the other classes doesn't change its value. We therefore have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) = L i f t ( y i = 1 , y ^ i = 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)=\mathrm {Lift} (y_{i}=1,{\hat {y}}_{i}=1)} and the first condition is that all binary One versus Rest models are better than chance. ==== Example ==== If K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} and 2 is the class of interest , the normalized confusion matrix is ( s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y s e n s i t i v i t y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {specificity} &1-\mathrm {specificity} \\1-\mathrm {sensitivity} &\mathrm {sensitivity} \end{pmatrix}}} and we have L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) − 1 = P ( y = y ^ = 1 ) λ 1 μ 1 − 1 = n 1 , 1 n n 1. n .1 − 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)-1={\frac {\mathbb {P} (y={\hat {y}}=1)}{\lambda _{1}\mu _{1}}}-1={\frac {n_{1,1}n}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}-1} = n 1 , 1 ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 + n 2 , 1 + n 2 , 2 ) − ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 ) ( n 1 , 1 + n 2 , 1 ) n 1. n .1 = n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 n 1. n .1 {\displaystyle ={\frac {n_{1,1}(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2}+n_{2,1}+n_{2,2})-(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2})(n_{1,1}+n_{2,1})}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}={\frac {n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}} . Thus L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Similarly, by swapping the roles of 1 and 2, we find that L i f t ( y = 2 , y ^ = 2 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=2,{\hat {y}}=2)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Dividing by n 1. n 2. {\displaystyle n_{1.}n_{2.}} we find that the necessary and sufficient condition on the normalized confusion matrix is s e n s i t i v i t y s p e c i f i c i t y − ( 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y ) ( 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y ) ≥ 0 ⟺ s e n s i t i v i t y + s p e c i f i c i t y − 1 ≥ 0 ⟺ J ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {sensitivity} \ \mathrm {specificity} -(1-\mathrm {sensitivity} )(1-\mathrm {specificity} )\geq 0\iff \mathrm {sensitivity} +\mathrm {specificity} -1\geq 0\iff J\geq 0} . This brings us back to the classical binary condition: Youden's J must be positive (or zero for random models). === Random models === A random model is a model that is independent of the target variable. This property is easily reformulated with the confusion matrix. This proposition shows that the model y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of y {\displaystyle y} is uninformative if and only if there are two families of numbers ( α i ) i {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i})_{i}} and ( β j ) j {\displaystyle (\beta _{j})_{j}} such that P ( { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } ) = α i β j {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (\{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\})=\alpha _{i}\beta _{j}} for any i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . === Multiclass likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios === We define generalized likelihood ratios calculated from the normalized confusion matrix: for any i {\displaystyle i} and j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\not =i} , let L R i , j = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{i,j}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)}}} . When K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} , if 2 is the class of interest,, we find the classical likelihood ratios L R 1 , 2 = L R + {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{1,2}=\mathrm {LR} _{+}} and L R 2 , 1 = 1 L R − {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{2,1}={\frac {1}{\mathrm {LR} _{-}}}} . Multiclass diagnostic odds ratios can also be defined using the formula D O R i , j = D O R j , i = L R i , j L R j , i = n i , i n j , j n i , j n j , i = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {DOR} _{i,j}=\mathrm {DOR} _{j,i}=\mathrm {LR} _{i,j}\mathrm {LR} _{j,i}={\frac {n_{i,i}n_{j,j}}{n_{i,j}n_{j,i}}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=i)}}} We saw above that a better-than-chance model (or a random model) must verify L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} and λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} . According to the previous corollary, likelihood ratios are thus greater

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared error

  In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] + E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ ⁡ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ ⁡ [ ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ⁡ ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator

  Read more →
• 

  Latent class model

  In statistics, a latent class model (LCM) is a model for clustering multivariate discrete data. It assumes that the data arise from a mixture of discrete distributions, within each of which the variables are independent. It is called a latent class model because the class to which each data point belongs is unobserved (or latent). Latent class analysis (LCA) is a subset of structural equation modeling used to find groups or subtypes of cases in multivariate categorical data. These groups or subtypes of cases are called "latent classes". When faced with the following situation, a researcher might opt to use LCA to better understand the data: Symptoms a, b, c, and d have been recorded in a variety of patients diagnosed with diseases X, Y, and Z. Disease X is associated with symptoms a, b, and c; disease Y is linked to symptoms b, c, and d; and disease Z is connected to symptoms a, c, and d. In this context, the LCA would attempt to detect the presence of latent classes (i.e., the disease entities), thus creating patterns of association in the symptoms. As in factor analysis, LCA can also be used to classify cases according to their maximum likelihood class membership probability. The key criterion for resolving the LCA is identifying latent classes in which the observed symptom associations are effectively rendered null. This is because within each class, the diseases responsible for the symptoms create a structure of dependencies. As a result, the symptoms become conditionally independent, meaning that, given the class a case belongs to, the symptoms are no longer related to one another. == Model == Within each latent class, the observed variables are statistically independent—an essential aspect of latent class modeling. Usually, the observed variables are statistically dependent. By introducing the latent variable, independence is restored in the sense that within classes, variables are independent (local independence). Therefore, the association between the observed variables is explained by the classes of the latent variable (McCutcheon, 1987). In one form, the LCM is written as p i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ≈ ∑ t T p t ∏ n N p i n , t n , {\displaystyle p_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,\prod _{n}^{N}p_{i_{n},t}^{n},} where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of latent classes and p t {\displaystyle p_{t}} are the so-called recruitment or unconditional probabilities that should sum to one. p i n , t n {\displaystyle p_{i_{n},t}^{n}} are the marginal or conditional probabilities. For a two-way latent class model, the form is p i j ≈ ∑ t T p t p i t p j t . {\displaystyle p_{ij}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,p_{it}\,p_{jt}.} This two-way model is related to probabilistic latent semantic analysis and non-negative matrix factorization. The probability model used in LCA is closely related to the Naive Bayes classifier. The main difference is that in LCA, the class membership of an individual is a latent variable, whereas in Naive Bayes classifiers, the class membership is an observed label. == Related methods == There are a number of methods with distinct names and uses that share a common relationship. Cluster analysis is, like LCA, used to discover taxon-like groups of cases in data. Multivariate mixture estimation (MME) is applicable to continuous data and assumes that such data arise from a mixture of distributions, such as a set of heights arising from a mixture of men and women. If a multivariate mixture estimation is constrained so that measures must be uncorrelated within each distribution, it is termed latent profile analysis. Modified to handle discrete data, this constrained analysis is known as LCA. Discrete latent trait models further constrain the classes to form from segments of a single dimension, allocating members to classes based on that dimension. An example would be assigning cases to social classes based on ability or merit. In a practical instance, the variables could be multiple choice items of a political questionnaire. In this case, the data consists of an N-way contingency table with answers to the items for a number of respondents. In this example, the latent variable refers to political opinion, and the latent classes to political groups. Given group membership, the conditional probabilities specify the chance that certain answers are chosen. == Application == LCA may be used in many fields, such as: collaborative filtering, Behavior Genetics and Evaluation of diagnostic tests.

  Read more →
• 

  Naked Objects for .NET

  Naked Objects for .NET or Naked Objects MVC is a software framework that builds upon the ASP.NET MVC framework. As the name suggests, the framework synthesizes two architectural patterns: naked objects and model–view–controller (MVC). These two patterns have been considered as antithetical. However, Trygve Reenskaug (the inventor of the MVC pattern) has made it clear that he does not see it that way, in his foreword to Richard Pawson's PhD thesis on the Naked Objects pattern. The Naked Objects MVC framework will take a domain model (written as Plain Old CLR Objects) and render it as a complete HTML application without the need for writing any user interface code - by means of a small set of generic View and Controller classes. The framework uses reflection rather than code generation. The developer may then choose to create customised Views and/or Controllers, using standard ASP.NET MVC patterns, for use where the generic user interface is not suitable.

  Read more →
• 

  Sigmoid function

  A sigmoid function is any mathematical function whose graph has a characteristic S-shaped or sigmoid curve. A common example of a sigmoid function is the logistic function. Other sigmoid functions are given in the Examples section. In some fields, most notably in the context of artificial neural networks, the term "sigmoid function" is used as a synonym for "logistic function". Special cases of sigmoid functions include the Gompertz curve (used in modeling systems that saturate at large values of x) and the ogee curve (used in the spillway of some dams). Sigmoid functions have domain of all real numbers, with return (response) value commonly monotonically increasing but could be decreasing. Sigmoid functions most often show a return value (y axis) in the range 0 to 1. Another commonly used range is from −1 to 1. There is also the Heaviside step function, which instantaneously transitions between 0 and 1. A wide variety of sigmoid functions including the logistic and hyperbolic tangent functions have been used as the activation function of artificial neurons. Sigmoid curves are also common in statistics as cumulative distribution functions (which go from 0 to 1), such as the integrals of the logistic density, the normal density, and Student's t probability density functions. The logistic sigmoid function is invertible, and its inverse is the logit function. == Theory == In mathematics, a unitary sigmoid function is a bounded sigmoid-type function normalized to the unit range, typically with lower and upper asymptotes at 0 and 1. The theory proposed by Grebenc distinguishes three kinds of unitary sigmoid functions according to their asymptotic behavior and the presence or absence of oscillation near the asymptotes. A general form of a unitary sigmoid function is y = A S ( f ( x ) ) + B , {\displaystyle y=A\,S(f(x))+B,} where S {\displaystyle S} is an increasing sigmoid function, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} is a transformation of the independent variable, and A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} are constants controlling scaling and translation. === Classification === ==== 1st kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the first kind is a bounded increasing function that approaches its lower and upper asymptotes monotonically, without oscillation. This class includes many of the standard sigmoid functions used in statistics, biomathematics, and engineering, such as the logistic function and related generalizations. ==== 2nd kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the second kind is a bounded increasing function that oscillates near the upper asymptote while preserving an overall sigmoid transition. ==== 3rd kind ==== A unitary sigmoid function of the third kind is a bounded increasing function that oscillates near both the lower and upper asymptotes. These functions retain the global shape of a sigmoid curve but exhibit oscillatory behavior in the vicinity of both limiting states. === Taxonomy === The tables below show the taxonomy of unitary sigmoid functions of all three kinds. Table 1. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 1st kind Table 2. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 2nd kind on the unbounded interval Table 3. Taxonomy matrix with examples of sigmoid functions of the 3rd kind === Construction methods === The same theory presents a list of 30 methods for constructing sigmoid functions.. These include algebraic transformations, integration and convolution methods, constructions from bell-shaped functions, solutions of ordinary and partial differential equations, recursive schemes, stochastic differential equations, feedback systems, and chaotic systems. M0: Construction method for sigmoid functions not evident or intuitive M1: Inverse of singularity functions M2: Sigmoid functions of embedded positive functions M3: Rising a sigmoid function to the power M4: Exponentiating a sigmoid function M5: Symmetric sigmoid functions derived from asymmetric ones M6: Sigmoid functions of the reciprocal independent variable M7: Embedding a sigmoid function into other function M8: Sum of sigmoid functions M9: Multiplication of sigmoid functions M10: Integral of the product of an increasing and a decreasing function M11: Derivation from lambda (bell-shaped) functions M12: Integration of lambda (bell-shaped) function M13: Integration of the sum of lambda (bell-shaped) functions M14: Integration of the product of two lambda (bell-shaped) functions M15: Integration of the difference of two shifted sigmoid functions M16: Integration of the product of two shifted sigmoid functions M17: Convolution of sigmoid functions M18: Integration of the product of lambda and sigmoid function M19: Solutions of ordinary differential equations M20: Solutions of partial differential equation (PDE) M21: Solutions of functional differential equation (FDE) M22: Sum of a sigmoid function and some derivatives M23: Combination of sigmoid functions, its derivative and integral M24: Filtering sigmoid functions M25: Special cases of Gauss hypergeometric functions M26: Feedback closed-loop systems M27: Recursive functions M28: Recursive time-delayed feed-forward loops M29: Solutions of stochastic differential equation M30: Chaotic sigmoid functions Consult reference for more details. == Definition == A sigmoid function is a bounded, differentiable, real function that is defined for all real input values and has a positive derivative at each point. == Properties == In general, a sigmoid function is monotonic, and has a first derivative which is bell shaped. Conversely, the integral of any continuous, non-negative, bell-shaped function (with one local maximum and no local minimum, unless degenerate) will be sigmoidal. Thus the cumulative distribution functions for many common probability distributions are sigmoidal. One such example is the error function, which is related to the cumulative distribution function of a normal distribution; another is the arctan function, which is related to the cumulative distribution function of a Cauchy distribution. A sigmoid function is constrained by a pair of horizontal asymptotes as x → ± ∞ {\displaystyle x\rightarrow \pm \infty } . A sigmoid function is convex for values less than a particular point, and it is concave for values greater than that point: in many of the examples here, that point is 0. == Examples == Logistic function f ( x ) = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} Hyperbolic tangent (shifted and scaled version of the logistic function, above) f ( x ) = tanh ⁡ x = e x − e − x e x + e − x {\displaystyle f(x)=\tanh x={\frac {e^{x}-e^{-x}}{e^{x}+e^{-x}}}} Arctangent function f ( x ) = arctan ⁡ x {\displaystyle f(x)=\arctan x} Gudermannian function f ( x ) = gd ⁡ ( x ) = ∫ 0 x d t cosh ⁡ t = 2 arctan ⁡ ( tanh ⁡ ( x 2 ) ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\operatorname {gd} (x)=\int _{0}^{x}{\frac {dt}{\cosh t}}=2\arctan \left(\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)\right)} Error function f ( x ) = erf ⁡ ( x ) = 2 π ∫ 0 x e − t 2 d t {\displaystyle f(x)=\operatorname {erf} (x)={\frac {2}{\sqrt {\pi }}}\int _{0}^{x}e^{-t^{2}}\,dt} Generalised logistic function f ( x ) = ( 1 + e − x ) − α , α > 0 {\displaystyle f(x)=\left(1+e^{-x}\right)^{-\alpha },\quad \alpha >0} Smoothstep function f ( x ) = { ( ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − u 2 ) N d u ) − 1 ∫ 0 x ( 1 − u 2 ) N d u , | x | ≤ 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 N ∈ Z ≥ 1 {\displaystyle f(x)={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle \left(\int _{0}^{1}\left(1-u^{2}\right)^{N}du\right)^{-1}\int _{0}^{x}\left(1-u^{2}\right)^{N}\ du},&|x|\leq 1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\quad N\in \mathbb {Z} \geq 1} Some algebraic functions, for example f ( x ) = x 1 + x 2 {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {x}{\sqrt {1+x^{2}}}}} and in a more general form f ( x ) = x ( 1 + | x | k ) 1 / k {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {x}{\left(1+|x|^{k}\right)^{1/k}}}} Up to shifts and scaling, many sigmoids are special cases of f ( x ) = φ ( φ ( x , β ) , α ) , {\displaystyle f(x)=\varphi (\varphi (x,\beta ),\alpha ),} where φ ( x , λ ) = { ( 1 − λ x ) 1 / λ λ ≠ 0 e − x λ = 0 {\displaystyle \varphi (x,\lambda )={\begin{cases}(1-\lambda x)^{1/\lambda }&\lambda \neq 0\\e^{-x}&\lambda =0\\\end{cases}}} is the inverse of the negative Box–Cox transformation, and α < 1 {\displaystyle \alpha <1} and β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} are shape parameters. Smooth transition function normalized to (−1,1): f ( x ) = { 2 1 + e − 2 m x 1 − x 2 − 1 , | x | < 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 = { tanh ⁡ ( m x 1 − x 2 ) , | x | < 1 sgn ⁡ ( x ) | x | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f(x)&={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle {\frac {2}{1+e^{-2m{\frac {x}{1-x^{2}}}}}}-1},&|x|<1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\\&={\begin{cases}{\displaystyle \tanh \left(m{\frac {x}{1-x^{2}}}\right)},&|x|<1\\\\\operatorname {sgn}(x)&|x|\geq 1\\\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} using the hyperbolic tangent mentioned above. Here, m {\displaystyle m} is a free parameter encoding the slope at x = 0 {\displaystyle x=0} , which must be great

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatical evolution

  Grammatical evolution (GE) is a genetic programming (GP) technique (or approach) from evolutionary computation pioneered by Conor Ryan, JJ Collins and Michael O'Neill in 1998 at the BDS Group in the University of Limerick. As in any other GP approach, the objective is to find an executable program, program fragment, or function, which will achieve a good fitness value for a given objective function. In most published work on GP, a LISP-style tree-structured expression is directly manipulated, whereas GE applies genetic operators to an integer string, subsequently mapped to a program (or similar) through the use of a grammar, which is typically expressed in Backus–Naur form. One of the benefits of GE is that this mapping simplifies the application of search to different programming languages and other structures. == Problem addressed == In type-free, conventional Koza-style GP, the function set must meet the requirement of closure: all functions must be capable of accepting as their arguments the output of all other functions in the function set. Usually, this is implemented by dealing with a single data-type such as double-precision floating point. While modern Genetic Programming frameworks support typing, such type-systems have limitations that Grammatical Evolution does not suffer from. == GE's solution == GE offers a solution to the single-type limitation by evolving solutions according to a user-specified grammar (usually a grammar in Backus-Naur form). Therefore, the search space can be restricted, and domain knowledge of the problem can be incorporated. The inspiration for this approach comes from a desire to separate the "genotype" from the "phenotype": in GP, the objects the search algorithm operates on and what the fitness evaluation function interprets are one and the same. In contrast, GE's "genotypes" are ordered lists of integers which code for selecting rules from the provided context-free grammar. The phenotype, however, is the same as in Koza-style GP: a tree-like structure that is evaluated recursively. This model is more in line with how genetics work in nature, where there is a separation between an organism's genotype and the final expression of phenotype in proteins, etc. Separating genotype and phenotype allows a modular approach. In particular, the search portion of the GE paradigm needn't be carried out by any one particular algorithm or method. Observe that the objects GE performs search on are the same as those used in genetic algorithms. This means, in principle, that any existing genetic algorithm package, such as the popular GAlib, can be used to carry out the search, and a developer implementing a GE system need only worry about carrying out the mapping from list of integers to program tree. It is also in principle possible to perform the search using some other method, such as particle swarm optimization (see the remark below); the modular nature of GE creates many opportunities for hybrids as the problem of interest to be solved dictates. Brabazon and O'Neill have successfully applied GE to predicting corporate bankruptcy, forecasting stock indices, bond credit ratings, and other financial applications. GE has also been used with a classic predator-prey model to explore the impact of parameters such as predator efficiency, niche number, and random mutations on ecological stability. It is possible to structure a GE grammar that for a given function/terminal set is equivalent to genetic programming. == Criticism == Despite its successes, GE has been the subject of some criticism. One issue is that as a result of its mapping operation, GE's genetic operators do not achieve high locality which is a highly regarded property of genetic operators in evolutionary algorithms. == Variants == Although GE was originally described in terms of using an Evolutionary Algorithm, specifically, a Genetic Algorithm, other variants exist. For example, GE researchers have experimented with using particle swarm optimization to carry out the searching instead of genetic algorithms with results comparable to that of normal GE; this is referred to as a "grammatical swarm"; using only the basic PSO model it has been found that PSO is probably equally capable of carrying out the search process in GE as simple genetic algorithms are. (Although PSO is normally a floating-point search paradigm, it can be discretized, e.g., by simply rounding each vector to the nearest integer, for use with GE.) Yet another possible variation that has been experimented with in the literature is attempting to encode semantic information in the grammar in order to further bias the search process. Other work showed that, with biased grammars that leverage domain knowledge, even random search can be used to drive GE. == Related work == GE was originally a combination of the linear representation as used by the Genetic Algorithm for Developing Software (GADS) and Backus Naur Form grammars, which were originally used in tree-based GP by Wong and Leung in 1995 and Whigham in 1996. Other related work noted in the original GE paper was that of Frederic Gruau, who used a conceptually similar "embryonic" approach, as well as that of Keller and Banzhaf, which similarly used linear genomes. == Implementations == There are several implementations of GE. These include the following.

  Read more →
• 

  Bootstrap aggregating

  Bootstrap aggregating, also called bagging (from bootstrap aggregating) or bootstrapping, is a machine learning (ML) ensemble meta-algorithm designed to improve the stability and accuracy of ML classification and regression algorithms. It also reduces variance and overfitting. Although it is usually applied to decision tree methods, it can be used with any type of method. Bagging is a special case of the ensemble averaging approach. == Description of the technique == Given a standard training set D {\displaystyle D} of size n {\displaystyle n} , bagging generates m {\displaystyle m} new training sets D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} , each of size n ′ {\displaystyle n'} , by sampling from D {\displaystyle D} uniformly and with replacement. By sampling with replacement, some observations may be repeated in each D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} . If n ′ = n {\displaystyle n'=n} , then for large n {\displaystyle n} the set D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} is expected to have the fraction (1 - 1/e) (~63.2%) of the unique samples of D {\displaystyle D} , the rest being duplicates. This kind of sample is known as a bootstrap sample. Sampling with replacement ensures each bootstrap is independent from its peers, as it does not depend on previous chosen samples when sampling. Then, m {\displaystyle m} models are fitted using the above bootstrap samples and combined by averaging the output (for regression) or voting (for classification). Bagging leads to "improvements for unstable procedures", which include, for example, artificial neural networks, classification and regression trees, and subset selection in linear regression. Bagging was shown to improve preimage learning. On the other hand, it can mildly degrade the performance of stable methods such as k-nearest neighbors. == Process of the algorithm == === Key Terms === There are three types of datasets in bootstrap aggregating. These are the original, bootstrap, and out-of-bag datasets. Each section below will explain how each dataset is made except for the original dataset. The original dataset is whatever information is given. === Creating the bootstrap dataset === The bootstrap dataset is made by randomly picking objects from the original dataset. Also, it must be the same size as the original dataset. However, the difference is that the bootstrap dataset can have duplicate objects. Here is a simple example to demonstrate how it works along with the illustration below: Suppose the original dataset is a group of 12 people. Their names are Emily, Jessie, George, Constantine, Lexi, Theodore, John, James, Rachel, Anthony, Ellie, and Jamal. By randomly picking a group of names, let us say our bootstrap dataset had James, Ellie, Constantine, Lexi, John, Constantine, Theodore, Constantine, Anthony, Lexi, Constantine, and Theodore. In this case, the bootstrap sample contained four duplicates for Constantine, and two duplicates for Lexi, and Theodore. === Creating the out-of-bag dataset === The out-of-bag dataset represents the remaining people who were not in the bootstrap dataset. It can be calculated by taking the difference between the original and the bootstrap datasets. In this case, the remaining samples who were not selected are Emily, Jessie, George, Rachel, and Jamal. Keep in mind that since both datasets are sets, when taking the difference the duplicate names are ignored in the bootstrap dataset. The illustration below shows how the math is done: === Application === Creating the bootstrap and out-of-bag datasets is crucial since it is used to test the accuracy of ensemble learning algorithms like random forest. For example, a model that produces 50 trees using the bootstrap/out-of-bag datasets will have a better accuracy than if it produced 10 trees. Since the algorithm generates multiple trees and therefore multiple datasets the chance that an object is left out of the bootstrap dataset is low. The next few sections talk about how the random forest algorithm works in more detail. === Creation of Decision Trees === The next step of the algorithm involves the generation of decision trees from the bootstrapped dataset. To achieve this, the process examines each gene/feature and determines for how many samples the feature's presence or absence yields a positive or negative result. This information is then used to compute a confusion matrix, which lists the true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives of the feature when used as a classifier. These features are then ranked according to various classification metrics based on their confusion matrices. Some common metrics include estimate of positive correctness (calculated by subtracting false positives from true positives), measure of "goodness", and information gain. These features are then used to partition the samples into two sets: those that possess the top feature, and those that do not. The diagram below shows a decision tree of depth two being used to classify data. For example, a data point that exhibits Feature 1, but not Feature 2, will be given a "No". Another point that does not exhibit Feature 1, but does exhibit Feature 3, will be given a "Yes". This process is repeated recursively for successive levels of the tree until the desired depth is reached. At the very bottom of the tree, samples that test positive for the final feature are generally classified as positive, while those that lack the feature are classified as negative. These trees are then used as predictors to classify new data. === Random Forests === The next part of the algorithm involves introducing yet another element of variability amongst the bootstrapped trees. In addition to each tree only examining a bootstrapped set of samples, only a small but consistent number of unique features are considered when ranking them as classifiers. This means that each tree only knows about the data pertaining to a small constant number of features, and a variable number of samples that is less than or equal to that of the original dataset. Consequently, the trees are more likely to return a wider array of answers, derived from more diverse knowledge. This results in a random forest, which possesses numerous benefits over a single decision tree generated without randomness. In a random forest, each tree "votes" on whether or not to classify a sample as positive based on its features. The sample is then classified based on majority vote. An example of this is given in the diagram below, where the four trees in a random forest vote on whether or not a patient with mutations A, B, F, and G has cancer. Since three out of four trees vote yes, the patient is then classified as cancer positive. Because of their properties, random forests are considered one of the most accurate data mining algorithms, are less likely to overfit their data, and run quickly and efficiently even for large datasets. They are primarily useful for classification as opposed to regression, which attempts to draw observed connections between statistical variables in a dataset. This makes random forests particularly useful in such fields as banking, healthcare, the stock market, and e-commerce where it is important to be able to predict future results based on past data. One of their applications would be as a useful tool for predicting cancer based on genetic factors, as seen in the above example. There are several important factors to consider when designing a random forest. If the trees in the random forests are too deep, overfitting can still occur due to over-specificity. If the forest is too large, the algorithm may become less efficient due to an increased runtime. Random forests also do not generally perform well when given sparse data with little variability. However, they still have numerous advantages over similar data classification algorithms such as neural networks, as they are much easier to interpret and generally require less data for training. As an integral component of random forests, bootstrap aggregating is very important to classification algorithms, and provides a critical element of variability that allows for increased accuracy when analyzing new data, as discussed below. == Improving Random Forests and Bagging == While the techniques described above utilize random forests and bagging (otherwise known as bootstrapping), there are certain techniques that can be used in order to improve their execution and voting time, their prediction accuracy, and their overall performance. The following are key steps in creating an efficient random forest: Specify the maximum depth of trees: Instead of allowing the random forest to continue until all nodes are pure, it is better to cut it off at a certain point in order to further decrease chances of overfitting. Prune the dataset: Using an extremely large dataset may create results that are less indicative of the data provided than a smaller set that more accurately represents what is being focused on. Continue pruning the data at each

  Read more →
• 

  Caspio

  Caspio, Inc. is an American software company providing a low-code platform for building cloud-based business applications. Founded in 2000 by Frank Zamani, the company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, with operations in Poland, the Philippines, and Spain. Caspio’s platform allows organizations to create online database applications and workflow tools without extensive coding. == History == Caspio was founded by Frank Zamani in 2000. The company initially focused on simplifying custom cloud applications and reducing development time and cost as compared to traditional software development. Caspio released the first version of its platform, Caspio Bridge, in 2001. In 2014, Caspio released a HIPAA-Compliant Edition of its low-code application development platform. Caspio also released an EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance Edition of its low-code application development platform in 2016. Caspio's second European Software Development Center opened in Kraków, Poland in 2017. In 2019, Forrester Research listed Caspio and three other platforms in its highest of four ranked tiers of twelve low-code platforms for business developers based on rankings of offerings and strategy at that time. Caspio also opened data centers in Montreal, Canada and India in 2020.

  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 →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Showcase Workshop

  Showcase Workshop, also referred to as Showcase, is a SaaS company that develops a presentation-building application for business use. Users upload files and images to a web platform which generates presentations viewable on a suite of mobile apps. Showcase was founded in 2011. The company’s headquarters are in Wellington, New Zealand. == History == Showcase Workshop was originally developed in response to dynamically changing content being presented on iPads at the 2012 Olympics. After market-testing a beta version of the core application, Showcase Workshop launched commercially in 2012. In 2014 Showcase partnered with Vodafone Global Enterprise. == Product == Users upload pre-existing PDFs, videos, images and Microsoft Office documents to a secure server, building presentations or ‘showcases’ which can then be downloaded via the mobile apps. The presentations are used for mobile sales enablement, training, or operational/health and safety purposes. == Reception == Reviewers have praised the ease of use of Showcase, calling it a “better alternative to developing a native app” and “intuitive”. Criticisms include the lack of differing templates and a lack of complex customisation controls. Showcase was nominated for a Tabby Award in 2014 and won a Tabby Award in 2015 for its Windows app.

  Read more →
• 

  Prototype methods

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

  Read more →
• 

  Calibration (statistics)

  There are two main uses of the term calibration in statistics that denote special types of statistical inference problems. Calibration can mean a reverse process to regression, where instead of a future dependent variable being predicted from known explanatory variables, a known observation of the dependent variables is used to predict a corresponding explanatory variable; procedures in statistical classification to determine class membership probabilities which assess the uncertainty of a given new observation belonging to each of the already established classes. In addition, calibration is used in statistics with the usual general meaning of calibration. For example, model calibration can be also used to refer to Bayesian inference about the value of a model's parameters, given some data set, or more generally to any type of fitting of a statistical model. As Philip Dawid puts it, "a forecaster is well calibrated if, for example, of those events to which he assigns a probability 30 percent, the long-run proportion that actually occurs turns out to be 30 percent." == In classification == Calibration in classification means transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities. An overview of calibration methods for two-class and multi-class classification tasks is given by Gebel (2009). A classifier might separate the classes well, but be poorly calibrated, meaning that the estimated class probabilities are far from the true class probabilities. In this case, a calibration step may help improve the estimated probabilities. A variety of metrics exist that are aimed to measure the extent to which a classifier produces well-calibrated probabilities. Foundational work includes the Expected Calibration Error (ECE). Into the 2020s, variants include the Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) and the Test-based Calibration Error (TCE), which address limitations of the ECE metric that may arise when classifier scores concentrate on narrow subset of the [0,1] range. A 2020s advancement in calibration assessment is the introduction of the Estimated Calibration Index (ECI). The ECI extends the concepts of the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) to provide a more nuanced measure of a model's calibration, particularly addressing overconfidence and underconfidence tendencies. Originally formulated for binary settings, the ECI has been adapted for multiclass settings, offering both local and global insights into model calibration. This framework aims to overcome some of the theoretical and interpretative limitations of existing calibration metrics. Through a series of experiments, Famiglini et al. demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in delivering a more accurate understanding of model calibration levels and discuss strategies for mitigating biases in calibration assessment. An online tool has been proposed to compute both ECE and ECI. The following univariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the two-class case: Assignment value approach, see Garczarek (2002) Bayes approach, see Bennett (2002) Isotonic regression, see Zadrozny and Elkan (2002) Platt scaling (a form of logistic regression), see Lewis and Gale (1994) and Platt (1999) Bayesian Binning into Quantiles (BBQ) calibration, see Naeini, Cooper, Hauskrecht (2015) Beta calibration, see Kull, Filho, Flach (2017) === In probability prediction and forecasting === In prediction and forecasting, a Brier score is sometimes used to assess prediction accuracy of a set of predictions, specifically that the magnitude of the assigned probabilities track the relative frequency of the observed outcomes. Philip E. Tetlock employs the term "calibration" in this sense in his 2015 book Superforecasting. This differs from accuracy and precision. For example, as expressed by Daniel Kahneman, "if you give all events that happen a probability of .6 and all the events that don't happen a probability of .4, your discrimination is perfect but your calibration is miserable". In meteorology, in particular, as concerns weather forecasting, a related mode of assessment is known as forecast skill. == In regression == The calibration problem in regression is the use of known data on the observed relationship between a dependent variable and an independent variable to make estimates of other values of the independent variable from new observations of the dependent variable. This can be known as "inverse regression"; there is also sliced inverse regression. The following multivariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the case with classes count greater than two: Reduction to binary tasks and subsequent pairwise coupling, see Hastie and Tibshirani (1998) Dirichlet calibration, see Gebel (2009) === Example === One example is that of dating objects, using observable evidence such as tree rings for dendrochronology or carbon-14 for radiometric dating. The observation is caused by the age of the object being dated, rather than the reverse, and the aim is to use the method for estimating dates based on new observations. The problem is whether the model used for relating known ages with observations should aim to minimise the error in the observation, or minimise the error in the date. The two approaches will produce different results, and the difference will increase if the model is then used for extrapolation at some distance from the known results.

  Read more →