AI Chatbot Q

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

Coherent extrapolated volition

Coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) is a theoretical framework in the field of AI alignment describing an approach by which an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would act on a benevolent supposition of what humans would want if they were more knowledgeable, more rational, had more time to think, and had matured together as a society, as opposed to humanity's current individual or collective preferences. It was proposed by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2004 as part of his work on friendly AI. == Concept == CEV proposes that an advanced AI system should derive its goals by extrapolating the idealized volition of humanity. This means aggregating and projecting human preferences into a coherent utility function that reflects what people would desire under ideal epistemic and moral conditions. The aim is to ensure that AI systems are aligned with humanity's true interests, rather than with transient or poorly informed preferences. In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted. == Debate == Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom note that CEV has several interesting properties. It is designed to be humane and self-correcting, by capturing the source of human values instead of trying to list them. It avoids the difficulty of laying down an explicit, fixed list of rules. It encapsulates moral growth, preventing flawed current moral beliefs from getting locked in. It limits the influence that a small group of programmers can have on what the ASI would value, thus also reducing the incentives to build ASI first. And it keeps humanity in charge of its destiny. CEV also faces significant theoretical and practical challenges. Bostrom notes that CEV has "a number of free parameters that could be specified in various ways, yielding different versions of the proposal." One such parameter is the extrapolation base (whose extrapolated volition is taken into account). For example, whether it should include people with severe dementia, patients in a vegetative state, foetuses, or embryos. He also notes that if CEV's extrapolation base only includes humans, there is a risk that the result would be ungenerous toward other animals and digital minds. One possible solution would be to include a mechanism to expand CEV's extrapolation base. == Variants and alternatives == A proposed theoretical alternative to CEV is to rely on an artificial superintelligence's superior cognitive capabilities to figure out what is morally right, and let it act accordingly. It is also possible to combine both techniques, for instance with the ASI following CEV except when it is morally impermissible. In another review, a philosophical analysis explores CEV through the lens of social trust in autonomous systems. Drawing on Anthony Giddens' concept of "active trust", the author proposes an evolution of CEV into "Coherent, Extrapolated and Clustered Volition" (CECV). This formulation aims to better reflect the moral preferences of diverse cultural groups, thus offering a more pragmatic ethical framework for designing AI systems that earn public trust while accommodating societal diversity.
Read more →
Tanagra (machine learning)

Tanagra is a free suite of machine learning software for research and academic purposes developed by Ricco Rakotomalala at the Lumière University Lyon 2, France. Tanagra supports several standard data mining tasks such as: Visualization, Descriptive statistics, Instance selection, feature selection, feature construction, regression, factor analysis, clustering, classification and association rule learning. Tanagra is an academic project. It is widely used in French-speaking universities. Tanagra is frequently used in real studies and in software comparison papers. == History == The development of Tanagra was started in June 2003. The first version was distributed in December 2003. Tanagra is the successor of Sipina, another free data mining tool which is intended only for supervised learning tasks (classification), especially the interactive and visual construction of decision trees. Sipina is still available online and is maintained. Tanagra is an "open source project" as every researcher can access the source code and add their own algorithms, as long as they agree and conform to the software distribution license. The main purpose of the Tanagra project is to give researchers and students a user-friendly data mining software, conforming to the present norms of the software development in this domain (especially in the design of its GUI and the way to use it), and allowing the analyzation of either real or synthetic data. From 2006, Ricco Rakotomalala made an important documentation effort. A large number of tutorials are published on a dedicated website. They describe the statistical and machine learning methods and their implementation with Tanagra on real case studies. The use of other free data mining tools on the same problems is also widely described. The comparison of the tools enables readers to understand the possible differences in the presentation of results. == Description == Tanagra works similarly to current data mining tools. The user can design visually a data mining process in a diagram. Each node is a statistical or machine learning technique, the connection between two nodes represents the data transfer. But unlike the majority of tools which are based on the workflow paradigm, Tanagra is very simplified. The treatments are represented in a tree diagram. The results are displayed in an HTML format. This makes it is easy to export the outputs in order to visualize the results in a browser. It is also possible to copy the result tables to a spreadsheet. Tanagra makes a good compromise between statistical approaches (e.g. parametric and nonparametric statistical tests), multivariate analysis methods (e.g. factor analysis, correspondence analysis, cluster analysis, regression) and machine learning techniques (e.g. neural network, support vector machine, decision trees, random forest).
Read more →
Multilayer perceptron

In deep learning, a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a kind of modern feedforward neural network consisting of fully connected neurons with nonlinear activation functions, organized in layers, notable for being able to distinguish data that is not linearly separable. Modern neural networks are trained using backpropagation and are colloquially referred to as "vanilla" networks. MLPs grew out of an effort to improve on single-layer perceptrons, which could only be applied to linearly separable data. A perceptron traditionally used a Heaviside step function as its nonlinear activation function. However, the backpropagation algorithm requires that modern MLPs use continuous activation functions such as sigmoid or ReLU. Multilayer perceptrons form the basis of deep learning, and are applicable across a vast set of diverse domains. == Timeline == In 1943, Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts proposed the binary artificial neuron as a logical model of biological neural networks. In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt proposed the multilayered perceptron model, consisting of an input layer, a hidden layer with randomized weights that did not learn, and an output layer with learnable connections. In 1962, Rosenblatt published many variants and experiments on perceptrons in his book Principles of Neurodynamics, including up to 2 trainable layers by "back-propagating errors". However, it was not the backpropagation algorithm, and he did not have a general method for training multiple layers. In 1965, Alexey Grigorevich Ivakhnenko and Valentin Lapa published Group Method of Data Handling. It was one of the first deep learning methods, used to train an eight-layer neural net in 1971. In 1967, Shun'ichi Amari reported the first multilayered neural network trained by stochastic gradient descent, was able to classify non-linearily separable pattern classes. Amari's student Saito conducted the computer experiments, using a five-layered feedforward network with two learning layers. Backpropagation was independently developed multiple times in early 1970s. The earliest published instance was Seppo Linnainmaa's master thesis (1970). Paul Werbos developed it independently in 1971, but had difficulty publishing it until 1982. In 1986, David E. Rumelhart et al. popularized backpropagation. In 2003, interest in backpropagation networks returned due to the successes of deep learning being applied to language modelling by Yoshua Bengio with co-authors. In 2021, a very simple NN architecture combining two deep MLPs with skip connections and layer normalizations was designed and called MLP-Mixer; its realizations featuring 19 to 431 millions of parameters were shown to be comparable to vision transformers of similar size on ImageNet and similar image classification tasks. == Mathematical foundations == === Activation function === If a multilayer perceptron has a linear activation function in all neurons, that is, a linear function that maps the weighted inputs to the output of each neuron, then linear algebra shows that any number of layers can be reduced to a two-layer input-output model. In MLPs some neurons use a nonlinear activation function that was developed to model the frequency of action potentials, or firing, of biological neurons. The two historically common activation functions are both sigmoids, and are described by y ( v i ) = tanh ⁡ ( v i ) and y ( v i ) = ( 1 + e − v i ) − 1 {\displaystyle y(v_{i})=\tanh(v_{i})~~{\textrm {and}}~~y(v_{i})=(1+e^{-v_{i}})^{-1}} . The first is a hyperbolic tangent that ranges from −1 to 1, while the other is the logistic function, which is similar in shape but ranges from 0 to 1. Here y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the output of the i {\displaystyle i} th node (neuron) and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is the weighted sum of the input connections. Alternative activation functions have been proposed, including the rectifier and softplus functions. More specialized activation functions include radial basis functions (used in radial basis networks, another class of supervised neural network models). In recent developments of deep learning the rectified linear unit (ReLU) is more frequently used as one of the possible ways to overcome the numerical problems related to the sigmoids. === Layers === The MLP consists of three or more layers (an input and an output layer with one or more hidden layers) of nonlinearly-activating nodes. Since MLPs are fully connected, each node in one layer connects with a certain weight w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} to every node in the following layer. === Learning === Learning occurs in the perceptron by changing connection weights after each piece of data is processed, based on the amount of error in the output compared to the expected result. This is an example of supervised learning, and is carried out through backpropagation, a generalization of the least mean squares algorithm in the linear perceptron. We can represent the degree of error in an output node j {\displaystyle j} in the n {\displaystyle n} th data point (training example) by e j ( n ) = d j ( n ) − y j ( n ) {\displaystyle e_{j}(n)=d_{j}(n)-y_{j}(n)} , where d j ( n ) {\displaystyle d_{j}(n)} is the desired target value for n {\displaystyle n} th data point at node j {\displaystyle j} , and y j ( n ) {\displaystyle y_{j}(n)} is the value produced by the perceptron at node j {\displaystyle j} when the n {\displaystyle n} th data point is given as an input. The node weights can then be adjusted based on corrections that minimize the error in the entire output for the n {\displaystyle n} th data point, given by E ( n ) = 1 2 ∑ output node j e j 2 ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(n)={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{{\text{output node }}j}e_{j}^{2}(n)} . Using gradient descent, the change in each weight w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is Δ w j i ( n ) = − η ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) y i ( n ) {\displaystyle \Delta w_{ji}(n)=-\eta {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}y_{i}(n)} where y i ( n ) {\displaystyle y_{i}(n)} is the output of the previous neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate, which is selected to ensure that the weights quickly converge to a response, without oscillations. In the previous expression, ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}} denotes the partial derivate of the error E ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(n)} according to the weighted sum v j ( n ) {\displaystyle v_{j}(n)} of the input connections of neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The derivative to be calculated depends on the induced local field v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} , which itself varies. It is easy to prove that for an output node this derivative can be simplified to − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) = e j ( n ) ϕ ′ ( v j ( n ) ) {\displaystyle -{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}=e_{j}(n)\phi ^{\prime }(v_{j}(n))} where ϕ ′ {\displaystyle \phi ^{\prime }} is the derivative of the activation function described above, which itself does not vary. The analysis is more difficult for the change in weights to a hidden node, but it can be shown that the relevant derivative is − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) = ϕ ′ ( v j ( n ) ) ∑ k − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v k ( n ) w k j ( n ) {\displaystyle -{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}=\phi ^{\prime }(v_{j}(n))\sum _{k}-{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{k}(n)}}w_{kj}(n)} . This depends on the change in weights of the k {\displaystyle k} th nodes, which represent the output layer. So to change the hidden layer weights, the output layer weights change according to the derivative of the activation function, and so this algorithm represents a backpropagation of the activation function.
Read more →
Confirmatory blockmodeling

Confirmatory blockmodeling is a deductive approach in blockmodeling, where a blockmodel (or part of it) is prespecify before the analysis, and then the analysis is fit to this model. When only a part of analysis is prespecify (like individual cluster(s) or location of the block types), it is called partially confirmatory blockmodeling. This is so-called indirect approach, where the blockmodeling is done on the blockmodel fitting (e.g., a priori hypothesized blockmodel). Opposite approach to the confirmatory blockmodeling is an inductive exploratory blockmodeling.
Read more →
Micro stuttering

Micro stuttering is a visual artifact in real-time computer graphics in which the time intervals between consecutively displayed frames are uneven, even though the average frame rate reported by benchmarking software appears adequate. Tools such as 3DMark typically compute frame rates over intervals of one second or more, which can conceal momentary drops in the instantaneous frame rate that the viewer perceives as hitching or jerking of on-screen motion. At low frame rates the effect is visible as a stutter in moving images, degrading the experience in interactive applications such as video games. In severe cases a lower but more consistent frame rate can appear smoother than a higher but more erratic one. The term gained prominence in the late 2000s in discussions of multi-GPU rendering (see History), but micro stuttering also affects single-GPU systems. Common causes on modern hardware include real-time shader compilation, asset streaming from storage, VRAM exhaustion, and driver bugs. == Causes == === Shader compilation === A common cause of micro stuttering on modern PCs is real-time shader compilation. Shaders are small programs that instruct the GPU on how to render visual effects such as lighting, shadows, and reflections. On consoles, developers can pre-compile all shaders for the known, fixed hardware. On PCs, the variety of GPU architectures means shaders must often be compiled at run time, either when the game launches or during gameplay itself. When the rendering engine encounters a shader that has not yet been compiled, the CPU must finish the compilation before the GPU can draw the affected object. This causes a spike in frame time that the player perceives as a hitch. The problem has been particularly associated with games built on Unreal Engine 4 running under DirectX 12, because DX12 shifts more shader management responsibility to the application. Several techniques exist to reduce shader compilation stutter. Pipeline State Object (PSO) pre-caching records the shader permutations used at runtime so that they can be compiled in advance on subsequent launches. Asynchronous shader compilation moves the work to background CPU threads to avoid blocking the main rendering thread. Platform-level services such as Steam's shader pre-caching distribute previously compiled shaders to users with matching GPU hardware. The Steam Deck, which contains a single fixed GPU, benefits from pre-compiled shader caches because all units share the same hardware configuration. === Other causes === Micro stuttering on single-GPU systems can have several additional causes. CPU bottlenecks or scheduling interruptions from background tasks can prevent the processor from preparing frames at regular intervals. Asset streaming during gameplay (loading textures, geometry, or audio from storage) can produce hitches sometimes called traversal stutter; the use of solid-state drives and technologies such as DirectStorage has reduced but not eliminated this. VRAM exhaustion forces data to be swapped between video memory and system memory over the PCI Express bus, which is slower. Graphics driver bugs can also introduce stutter; Nvidia released hotfix driver 551.46 in February 2024 to correct intermittent micro stuttering when V-Sync was enabled. == Measurement == Micro stuttering drew attention to the limitations of average frame rate as a performance metric. In 2013, Scott Wasson at The Tech Report published a series of articles advocating frame time analysis, in which the delivery time of every individual frame is recorded and plotted rather than collapsed into a single frames-per-second figure. This approach was adopted by other hardware review publications in the following years. GPU reviews now routinely report 1% low and 0.1% low frame rates alongside the average. The 1% low is the average frame rate of the slowest 1% of frames in a sample; it serves as an indicator of worst-case smoothness. A large gap between the average and the 1% low suggests poor frame pacing. Tools for capturing per-frame timing data include FRAPS, PresentMon, OCAT, CapFrameX, and MSI Afterburner with RivaTuner Statistics Server. == Mitigation == === Frame pacing === Frame pacing is a software technique that regulates the timing of frame delivery to produce even intervals between displayed frames. Game engines, GPU drivers, and platform libraries all implement frame pacing strategies to varying degrees. On mobile platforms, Google provides the Android Frame Pacing library (Swappy) as part of the Android Game Development Kit. In December 2025, the Khronos Group published the VK_EXT_present_timing Vulkan extension, giving developers explicit control over presentation timing in a cross-platform graphics API for the first time. === Variable refresh rate === Variable refresh rate (VRR) display technologies allow a monitor's refresh rate to change to match the GPU's frame output. Implementations include Nvidia G-Sync (2013), AMD FreeSync (2015), and the VESA Adaptive-Sync standard built into DisplayPort 1.2a and later. VRR eliminates the screen tearing that results from a mismatch between frame rate and refresh rate, and avoids the frame-holding behaviour of V-Sync that can itself cause stutter. It is effective at smoothing moderate frame rate fluctuations but cannot compensate for large sudden spikes in frame time such as those caused by shader compilation or heavy asset streaming. VRR support has become standard in gaming monitors, televisions (via HDMI 2.1), and the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. === Frame generation === Beginning with DLSS 3 on the GeForce RTX 40 series in 2022, Nvidia introduced AI-based frame generation, which uses dedicated optical flow hardware and a neural network to create new frames between traditionally rendered ones. AMD followed with FSR 3 in 2023, using an algorithmic approach, and the AI-based FSR 4 for the Radeon RX 9000 series in 2025. DLSS 4, released in January 2025 for the GeForce RTX 50 series, can generate up to three frames per rendered frame using a technique called Multi Frame Generation. Frame generation increases the displayed frame rate but introduces its own frame pacing concerns. If the underlying rendered frames are unevenly timed, the interpolated frames can make the unevenness more apparent rather than less. DLSS 4 addresses this with hardware-level flip metering on the GPU's display engine, which controls the timing of frame presentation more precisely than the CPU-based pacing used in DLSS 3. Both vendors pair frame generation with latency-reduction features (Nvidia Reflex and AMD Anti-Lag+) to offset the additional input latency that results from inserting synthetic frames into the pipeline. === Frame rate limiters === Capping the frame rate below the display's maximum refresh rate, using tools such as RivaTuner Statistics Server, in-game limiters, or driver-level settings, is a common way to improve frame pacing. Preventing the GPU from running ahead of the display reduces variability in frame delivery times and can produce a smoother result than an uncapped but more irregular frame rate. == History == === Multi-GPU configurations === Micro stuttering was first widely documented in the late 2000s as a side effect of multi-GPU configurations using Alternate Frame Rendering (AFR), in which consecutive frames are assigned to alternating GPUs. Because each GPU may take a different amount of time to complete its assigned frame — due to varying scene complexity, driver scheduling, or inter-GPU communication overhead — the resulting frame delivery is irregular even when the average frame rate is high. Both Nvidia SLI and AMD CrossFireX were affected, with dual-GPU setups exhibiting the worst frame pacing irregularities. In 2012 benchmarks using Battlefield 3, dual Radeon HD 7970 cards in CrossFire showed 85% variation in frame delivery times compared with 7% for a single card, while dual GeForce GTX 680 cards in SLI showed only 7% variation compared with 5% for a single card. Multi-GPU micro stuttering became a significant factor in the eventual decline and discontinuation of consumer multi-GPU gaming. Nvidia restricted SLI to a handful of enthusiast-class cards from the GeForce 10 series onward, then replaced it with NVLink on the GeForce RTX 20 series, which saw limited gaming adoption. AMD ceased active CrossFire development around 2017. By the mid-2020s, neither vendor's current consumer GPUs support multi-GPU rendering for games. Other factors that contributed to the decline include DirectX 12 placing multi-GPU support in the hands of game developers rather than driver authors, the incompatibility of temporal anti-aliasing and other temporal rendering techniques with AFR, and the increasing size, power draw, and cost of individual GPUs. The third-party utility RadeonPro could reduce CrossFire micro stuttering through dynamic V-Sync and frame pacing adjustments, and AMD later introduced a driver-level frame paci
Read more →
Language identification in the limit

Language identification in the limit is a formal model for inductive inference of formal languages, mainly by computers (see machine learning and induction of regular languages). It was introduced by E. Mark Gold in a technical report and a journal article with the same title. In this model, a teacher provides to a learner some presentation (i.e. a sequence of strings) of some formal language. The learning is seen as an infinite process. Each time the learner reads an element of the presentation, it should provide a representation (e.g. a formal grammar) for the language. Gold defines that a learner can identify in the limit a class of languages if, given any presentation of any language in the class, the learner will produce only a finite number of wrong representations, and then stick with the correct representation. However, the learner need not be able to announce its correctness; and the teacher might present a counterexample to any representation arbitrarily long after. Gold defined two types of presentations: Text (positive information): an enumeration of all strings the language consists of. Complete presentation (positive and negative information): an enumeration of all possible strings, each with a label indicating if the string belongs to the language or not. == Learnability == This model is an early attempt to formally capture the notion of learnability. Gold's journal article introduces for contrast the stronger models Finite identification (where the learner has to announce correctness after a finite number of steps), and Fixed-time identification (where correctness has to be reached after an apriori-specified number of steps). A weaker formal model of learnability is the Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) model, introduced by Leslie Valiant in 1984. == Examples == It is instructive to look at concrete examples (in the tables) of learning sessions the definition of identification in the limit speaks about. A fictitious session to learn a regular language L over the alphabet {a,b} from text presentation:In each step, the teacher gives a string belonging to L, and the learner answers a guess for L, encoded as a regular expression. In step 3, the learner's guess is not consistent with the strings seen so far; in step 4, the teacher gives a string repeatedly. After step 6, the learner sticks to the regular expression (ab+ba). If this happens to be a description of the language L the teacher has in mind, it is said that the learner has learned that language.If a computer program for the learner's role would exist that was able to successfully learn each regular language, that class of languages would be identifiable in the limit. Gold has shown that this is not the case. A particular learning algorithm always guessing L to be just the union of all strings seen so far:If L is a finite language, the learner will eventually guess it correctly, however, without being able to tell when. Although the guess didn't change during step 3 to 6, the learner couldn't be sure to be correct.Gold has shown that the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit, however, this class is neither finitely nor fixed-time identifiable. Learning from complete presentation by telling:In each step, the teacher gives a string and tells whether it belongs to L (green) or not (red, struck-out). Each possible string is eventually classified in this way by the teacher. Learning from complete presentation by request:The learner gives a query string, the teacher tells whether it belongs to L (yes) or not (no); the learner then gives a guess for L, followed by the next query string. In this example, the learner happens to query in each step just the same string as given by the teacher in example 3.In general, Gold has shown that each language class identifiable in the request-presentation setting is also identifiable in the telling-presentation setting, since the learner, instead of querying a string, just needs to wait until it is eventually given by the teacher. == Gold's theorem == More formally, a language L {\displaystyle L} is a nonempty set, and its elements are called sentences. a language family is a set of languages. a language-learning environment E {\displaystyle E} for a language L {\displaystyle L} is a stream of sentences from L {\displaystyle L} , such that each sentence in L {\displaystyle L} appears at least once. a language learner is a function f {\displaystyle f} that sends a list of sentences to a language. This is interpreted as saying that, after seeing sentences a 1 , a 2 . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2}...,a_{n}} in that order, the language learner guesses that the language that produces the sentences should be f ( a 1 , . . . , a n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},...,a_{n})} . Note that the learner is not obliged to be correct — it could very well guess a language that does not even contain a 1 , . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{n}} . a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} in environment E = ( a 1 , a 2 , . . . ) {\displaystyle E=(a_{1},a_{2},...)} if the learner always guesses L {\displaystyle L} after seeing enough examples from the environment. a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} if it learns L {\displaystyle L} in any environment E {\displaystyle E} for L {\displaystyle L} . a language family is learnable if there exists a language learner that can learn all languages in the family. Notes: In the context of Gold's theorem, sentences need only be distinguishable. They need not be anything in particular, such as finite strings (as usual in formal linguistics). Learnability is not a concept for individual languages. Any individual language L {\displaystyle L} could be learned by a trivial learner that always guesses L {\displaystyle L} . Learnability is not a concept for individual learners. A language family is learnable if, and only if, there exists some learner that can learn the family. It does not matter how well the learner performs for learning languages outside the family. Gold's theorem is easily bypassed if negative examples are allowed. In particular, the language family { L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L ∞ } {\displaystyle \{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{\infty }\}} can be learned by a learner that always guesses L ∞ {\displaystyle L_{\infty }} until it receives the first negative example ¬ a n {\displaystyle \neg a_{n}} , where a n ∈ L n + 1 ∖ L n {\displaystyle a_{n}\in L_{n+1}\setminus L_{n}} , at which point it always guesses L n {\displaystyle L_{n}} . == Learnability characterization == Dana Angluin gave the characterizations of learnability from text (positive information) in a 1980 paper. If a learner is required to be effective, then an indexed class of recursive languages is learnable in the limit if there is an effective procedure that uniformly enumerates tell-tales for each language in the class (Condition 1). It is not hard to see that if an ideal learner (i.e., an arbitrary function) is allowed, then an indexed class of languages is learnable in the limit if each language in the class has a tell-tale (Condition 2). == Language classes learnable in the limit == The table shows which language classes are identifiable in the limit in which learning model. On the right-hand side, each language class is a superclass of all lower classes. Each learning model (i.e. type of presentation) can identify in the limit all classes below it. In particular, the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit by text presentation (cf. Example 2 above), while the class of regular languages is not. Pattern Languages, introduced by Dana Angluin in another 1980 paper, are also identifiable by normal text presentation; they are omitted in the table, since they are above the singleton and below the primitive recursive language class, but incomparable to the classes in between. == Sufficient conditions for learnability == Condition 1 in Angluin's paper is not always easy to verify. Therefore, people come up with various sufficient conditions for the learnability of a language class. See also Induction of regular languages for learnable subclasses of regular languages. === Finite thickness === A class of languages has finite thickness if every non-empty set of strings is contained in at most finitely many languages of the class. This is exactly Condition 3 in Angluin's paper. Angluin showed that if a class of recursive languages has finite thickness, then it is learnable in the limit. A class with finite thickness certainly satisfies MEF-condition and MFF-condition; in other words, finite thickness implies M-finite thickness. === Finite elasticity === A class of languages is said to have finite elasticity if for every infinite sequence of strings s 0 , s 1 , . . . {\displaystyle s_{0},s_{1},...} and every infinite sequence of languages in the class L 1 , L 2 , . . . {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...} , there exists a finite number n such
Read more →
Vladimir Batagelj

Vladimir Batagelj (born June 14, 1948 in Idrija, Yugoslavia) is a Slovenian mathematician and an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Ljubljana. He is known for his work in discrete mathematics and combinatorial optimization, particularly analysis of social networks and other large networks (blockmodeling). == Education and career == Vladimir Batagelj completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ljubljana in 1986 under the direction of Tomaž Pisanski. He stayed at the University of Ljubljana as a professor until his retirement, where he was a professor of sociology and statistics, while also being a chair of the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences. As visiting professor, he was taught at the University of Pittsburgh (1990-91) and at the University of Konstanz (2002). He was also a member of editorial boards of two journals: Informatica and Journal of Social Structure. His work has been cited over 11000 times. His book Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek on blockmodeling, coauthored with Wouter de Nooy and Andrej Mrvar, is Batagelj's most cited work and has over 3300 citations. The book was translated into Chinese and Japanese. The revised and expanded third edition has been published by Cambridge University Press. In 1975, 11 years before completing his PhD, Batagelj published a solo paper in Communications of the ACM. Batagelj authored more than 20 textbooks in Slovenian, covering topics like TeX, combinatorics and discrete mathematics. He has also written extensively in the Slovenian popular science journal Presek. Batagelj has advised 9 Ph.D. students. == Pajek == Batagelj is particularly known for his work on Pajek, a freely available software for analysis and visualization of large networks. He began work on Pajek in 1996 with Andrej Mrvar, who was then his PhD student. == Awards and honors == First prizes for contributions (with Andrej Mrvar) to Graph Drawing Contests in years: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2005 / Graph Drawing Hall of Fame. In 2007 the book Generalized blockmodeling was awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association In 2007 he was awarded (together with Anuška Ferligoj) the Simmel Award by INSNA. In 2013, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar received the INSNA's William D. Richards Software award for their work on Pajek. == Selected bibliography == Vladimir Batagelj, Social Network Analysis, Large-Scale [1]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 8245–8265. Vladimir Batagelj, Complex Networks, Visualization of [2]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 1253–1268. Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2005 (ISBN 0-521-60262-9). ESNA in Japanese, TDU, 2010. Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj, Anuška Ferligoj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Generalized Blockmodeling (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2004 (ISBN 0-521-84085-6)
Read more →
Q-learning

Q-learning is a reinforcement learning algorithm that trains an agent to assign values to its possible actions based on its current state, without requiring a model of the environment (model-free). It can handle problems with stochastic transitions and rewards without requiring adaptations. For example, in a grid maze, an agent learns to reach an exit worth 10 points. At a junction, Q-learning might assign a higher value to moving right than left if right gets to the exit faster, improving this choice by trying both directions over time. For any finite Markov decision process, Q-learning finds an optimal policy in the sense of maximizing the expected value of the total reward over any and all successive steps, starting from the current state. Q-learning can identify an optimal action-selection policy for any given finite Markov decision process, given infinite exploration time and a partly random policy. "Q" refers to the function that the algorithm computes: the expected reward—that is, the quality—of an action taken in a given state. == Reinforcement learning == Reinforcement learning involves an agent, a set of states S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , and a set A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} of actions per state. By performing an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} , the agent transitions from state to state. Executing an action in a specific state provides the agent with a reward (a numerical score). The goal of the agent is to maximize its total reward. It does this by adding the maximum reward attainable from future states to the reward for achieving its current state, effectively influencing the current action by the potential future reward. This potential reward is a weighted sum of expected values of the rewards of all future steps starting from the current state. As an example, consider the process of boarding a train, in which the reward is measured by the negative of the total time spent boarding (alternatively, the cost of boarding the train is equal to the boarding time). One strategy is to enter the train door as soon as they open, minimizing the initial wait time for yourself. If the train is crowded, however, then you will have a slow entry after the initial action of entering the door as people are fighting you to depart the train as you attempt to board. The total boarding time, or cost, is then: 0 seconds wait time + 15 seconds fight time On the next day, by random chance (exploration), you decide to wait and let other people depart first. This initially results in a longer wait time. However, less time is spent fighting the departing passengers. Overall, this path has a higher reward than that of the previous day, since the total boarding time is now: 5 second wait time + 0 second fight time Through exploration, despite the initial (patient) action resulting in a larger cost (or negative reward) than in the forceful strategy, the overall cost is lower, thus revealing a more rewarding strategy. == Algorithm == After Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} steps into the future the agent will decide some next step. The weight for this step is calculated as γ Δ t {\displaystyle \gamma ^{\Delta t}} , where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (the discount factor) is a number between 0 and 1 ( 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \gamma \leq 1} ). Assuming γ < 1 {\displaystyle \gamma <1} , it has the effect of valuing rewards received earlier higher than those received later (reflecting the value of a "good start"). γ {\displaystyle \gamma } may also be interpreted as the probability to succeed (or survive) at every step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} . The algorithm, therefore, has a function that calculates the quality of a state–action combination: Q : S × A → R {\displaystyle Q:{\mathcal {S}}\times {\mathcal {A}}\to \mathbb {R} } . Before learning begins, ⁠ Q {\displaystyle Q} ⁠ is initialized to a possibly arbitrary fixed value (chosen by the programmer). Then, at each time t {\displaystyle t} the agent selects an action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} , observes a reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} , enters a new state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (that may depend on both the previous state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} and the selected action), and Q {\displaystyle Q} is updated. The core of the algorithm is a Bellman equation as a simple value iteration update, using the weighted average of the current value and the new information: Q n e w ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ⏟ learning rate ) ⋅ Q ( S t , A t ) ⏟ current value + α ⏟ learning rate ⋅ ( R t + 1 ⏟ reward + γ ⏟ discount factor ⋅ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) ⏟ estimate of optimal future value ⏟ new value (temporal difference target) ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}})\cdot \underbrace {Q(S_{t},A_{t})} _{\text{current value}}+\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}}\cdot {\bigg (}\underbrace {\underbrace {R_{t+1}} _{\text{reward}}+\underbrace {\gamma } _{\text{discount factor}}\cdot \underbrace {\max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} _{\text{estimate of optimal future value}}} _{\text{new value (temporal difference target)}}{\bigg )}} where R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} is the reward received when moving from the state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} to the state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} , and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate ( 0 < α ≤ 1 ) {\displaystyle (0<\alpha \leq 1)} . Note that Q n e w ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})} is the sum of three terms: ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})} : the current value (weighted by one minus the learning rate) α R t + 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \,R_{t+1}} : the reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} to obtain if action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} is taken when in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} (weighted by learning rate) α γ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) {\displaystyle \alpha \gamma \max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} : the maximum reward that can be obtained from state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (weighted by learning rate and discount factor) An episode of the algorithm ends when state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} is a final or terminal state. However, Q-learning can also learn in non-episodic tasks (as a result of the property of convergent infinite series). If the discount factor is lower than 1, the action values are finite even if the problem can contain infinite loops or paths. For all final states s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} , Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} is never updated, but is set to the reward value r {\displaystyle r} observed for state s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} . In most cases, Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} can be taken to equal zero. == Influence of variables == === Learning rate === The learning rate or step size determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 makes the agent learn nothing (exclusively exploiting prior knowledge), while a factor of 1 makes the agent consider only the most recent information (ignoring prior knowledge to explore possibilities). In fully deterministic environments, a learning rate of α t = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=1} is optimal. When the problem is stochastic, the algorithm converges under some technical conditions on the learning rate that require it to decrease to zero. In practice, often a constant learning rate is used, such as α t = 0.1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=0.1} for all t {\displaystyle t} . === Discount factor === The discount factor ⁠ γ {\displaystyle \gamma } ⁠ determines the importance of future rewards. A factor of 0 will make the agent "myopic" (or short-sighted) by only considering current rewards, i.e. r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} (in the update rule above), while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the action values may diverge. For ⁠ γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} ⁠, without a terminal state, or if the agent never reaches one, all environment histories become infinitely long, and utilities with additive, undiscounted rewards generally become infinite. Even with a discount factor only slightly lower than 1, Q-function learning leads to propagation of errors and instabilities when the value function is approximated with an artificial neural network. In that case, starting with a lower discount factor and increasing it towards its final value accelerates learning. === Initial conditions (Q0) === Since Q-learning is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. High initial values, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action is selected, the update rule will cause it to have lower values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. The first reward r {\displaystyle r} can be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value
Read more →
Color clock

The color clock, or color timer, is a part of the video circuitry of computer graphics hardware that works with analog color television systems. The clock is timed to match the timing of the color standard it works with, typically NTSC or PAL, ensuring that the data being read from the computer memory to create the image on-screen is in sync with the display. Depending on the speed of the color clock, the product of the resolution and number of colors is defined. Slow color clocks of many early games consoles and home computers resulted in limited color palettes at the highest resolutions.
Read more →
VITAL (machine learning software)

VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) was a Board Management Software machine learning proprietary software developed by Aging Analytics, a company registered in Bristol (England) and dissolved in 2017. Andrew Garazha (the firm's Senior Analyst) declared that the project aimed "through iterative releases and updates to create a piece of software capable of making autonomous investment decisions." According to Nick Dyer-Witheford, VITAL 1.0 was a "basic algorithm". On 13 May 2014, Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong venture capital firm, claimed to have appointed VITAL to its board of directors in order to prove that artificial intelligence could be an instrument for investment decision-making. The announcement received great press coverage despite the fact commentators consider this a publicity stunt. Fortune reported in 2019 that VITAL is no longer used. == Criticism == Academics and journalists viewed VITAL's board appointment with skepticism. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey called it "a publicity hype". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found it is "a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Simon Sharwood of The Register, wrote there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." Florian Möslein, a law professor at the University of Marburg, wrote in 2018 that "Vital has widely been acknowledged as the 'world's first artificial intelligence company director'". Vice journalist Jason Koebler suggested that the software did not have any article intelligence capabilities and concluded "VITAL can’t talk, and it can’t hear, and it can’t be a real, functional executive of a company." Sharwood of The Register noted that because VITAL was not a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws. However, in a 2017 interview to The Nikkei, Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, stated that VITAL had observer status on the board and no voting rights. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey said of VITAL, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." Vice journalist Jason Koebler said "this is a gimmick" and said "There is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found VITAL's appointment to be noncredible, saying it is "a bit of a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Osborne said that a core duty of board members to converse with each other, which the algorithm is incapable of doing, so its more likely functionality is to serve as a springboard for conversation among other board members. In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." == Machine intelligence as board member == VITAL was created by a group of programmers employed by Aging Analytics According to Andrew Garazh, Aging Analytics Senior Analyst, VITAL was not a machine learning algorithm as the necessary datasets on investment rounds, intellectual property and clinical trial outcomes are generally not disclosed. Rather, VITAL used fuzzy logic based on 50 parameters to assess risk factors. Aging Analytics licensed the software to Deep Knowledge Ventures. It was used to help the human board members of Deep Knowledge Venture make investment decisions in biotechnology companies. For instance, it supported investments in Insilico Medicine, which creates ways for computers to help find drugs in research into aging. VITAL also supported investing in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which uses the OncoFinder algorithm to choose and appraise cancer treatments. According to Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, the motivation for using VITAL was the large number of failed investments in the biotechnology sector and the desire to avoid investing in companies likely to fail. == Ethical and legal implications == Scholars addressed questions around the safety, privacy, accountability transparency and bias in algorithms. Writing in the philosophical journal Multitudes, the academic Ariel Kyrou raised questions about the consequences of a mistake made by an algorithm recommending a dangerous investment. He raised the hypothetical where VITAL was able to persuade the board to invest in a startup that had the facade of doing research into treatment for age-associated ills, but in actuality was run by terrorists who were raising funds. Kyrou raised a series of questions about who society would fault for VITAL's mistake. As the owner of VITAL, should Deep Knowledge Ventures be held accountable, or rather should the companies that supplied data to VITAL or the people who created VITAL be held liable? Simon Sharwood of The Register wrote that because the appointment of a software program to the board directors is not legally feasible in Hong Kong, there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". Quoting a Thomson Reuters website describing Hong Kong legislation related to corporate governance, Sharwood pointed out that in Hong Kong "the board comprises all of the directors of the company" and "a director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group." He concluded that since VITAL cannot be considered a "natural person", it is merely a "cosmetic" appointment to the board and that "this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator". Sharwood further argued that corporations frequently purchase directors and officers liability insurance but that it would be practically impossible to get such insurance for VITAL. Sharwood also wrote that were VITAL to be hacked, any misinformation it outputs could be considered "false and misleading communications". In the book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence, Florian Mölein wrote that VITAL could not become a director as defined in Hong Kong's corporate laws, so the other directors just were approaching it as "a member of [the] board with observer status". Lin Shaowei raised concerns in a Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law article about how the software's appearance inspired a complex question about the relationship between corporate law and artificial intelligence. VITAL could be considered either a board director who has voting rights or an observer who does not. Lin said either choice raised questions about whether VITAL is subject to corporate law and who would be held accountable if VITAL recommends a choice that turns out to be damaging to the company. David Theo Goldberg in the Critical Times, a peer reviewed journal in Critical Global Theory, argues that VITAL processed a dataset to predict the most remunerative investment opportunities. Drawing his analysis on an article from Business Insider, Goldberg describes VITAL's decision-making predictiveness based "on surface pattern recognition and the identification of regularities and/or irregularities". In other words, Goldberg asserts that "the normativity of the surface" explains algorithmic knowledge of a "product" like VITAL. In Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari mentions VITAL as an example of the future risks that humankind faces. Harari argues that the human mind is being replaced by a world in which algorithms and data make the decisions. Specifically, it is argued that "as algorithms push humans out of the job market," executive boards driven by artificial intelligence are more likely to give priority to algorithms over the humans.
Read more →
Physical neural network

A physical neural network is a type of artificial neural network in which an electrically adjustable material is used to emulate the function of a neural synapse or a higher-order (dendritic) neuron model. "Physical" neural network is used to emphasize the reliance on physical hardware used to emulate neurons as opposed to software-based approaches. More generally the term is applicable to other artificial neural networks in which a memristor or other electrically adjustable resistance material is used to emulate a neural synapse. == Types of physical neural networks == === ADALINE === In the 1960s Bernard Widrow and Ted Hoff developed ADALINE (Adaptive Linear Neuron) which used electrochemical cells called memistors (memory resistors) to emulate synapses of an artificial neuron. The memistors were implemented as 3-terminal devices operating based on the reversible electroplating of copper such that the resistance between two of the terminals is controlled by the integral of the current applied via the third terminal. The ADALINE circuitry was briefly commercialized by the Memistor Corporation in the 1960s enabling some applications in pattern recognition. However, since the memistors were not fabricated using integrated circuit fabrication techniques the technology was not scalable and was eventually abandoned as solid-state electronics became mature. === Analog VLSI === In 1989 Carver Mead published his book Analog VLSI and Neural Systems, which spun off perhaps the most common variant of analog neural networks. The physical realization is implemented in analog VLSI. This is often implemented as field effect transistors in low inversion. Such devices can be modelled as translinear circuits. This is a technique described by Barrie Gilbert in several papers around mid 1970th, and in particular his Translinear Circuits from 1981. With this method circuits can be analyzed as a set of well-defined functions in steady-state, and such circuits assembled into complex networks. === Physical Neural Network === Alex Nugent describes a physical neural network as one or more nonlinear neuron-like nodes used to sum signals and nanoconnections formed from nanoparticles, nanowires, or nanotubes which determine the signal strength input to the nodes. Alignment or self-assembly of the nanoconnections is determined by the history of the applied electric field performing a function analogous to neural synapses. Numerous applications for such physical neural networks are possible. For example, a temporal summation device can be composed of one or more nanoconnections having an input and an output thereof, wherein an input signal provided to the input causes one or more of the nanoconnection to experience an increase in connection strength thereof over time. Another example of a physical neural network is taught by U.S. Patent No. 7,039,619 entitled "Utilized nanotechnology apparatus using a neural network, a solution and a connection gap," which issued to Alex Nugent by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on May 2, 2006. A further application of physical neural network is shown in U.S. Patent No. 7,412,428 entitled "Application of hebbian and anti-hebbian learning to nanotechnology-based physical neural networks," which issued on August 12, 2008. Nugent and Molter have shown that universal computing and general-purpose machine learning are possible from operations available through simple memristive circuits operating the AHaH plasticity rule. More recently, it has been argued that also complex networks of purely memristive circuits can serve as neural networks. === Phase change neural network === In 2002, Stanford Ovshinsky described an analog neural computing medium in which phase-change material has the ability to cumulatively respond to multiple input signals. An electrical alteration of the resistance of the phase change material is used to control the weighting of the input signals. === Memristive neural network === Greg Snider of HP Labs describes a system of cortical computing with memristive nanodevices. The memristors (memory resistors) are implemented by thin film materials in which the resistance is electrically tuned via the transport of ions or oxygen vacancies within the film. DARPA's SyNAPSE project has funded IBM Research and HP Labs, in collaboration with the Boston University Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems (CNS), to develop neuromorphic architectures which may be based on memristive systems. === Protonic artificial synapses === In 2022, researchers reported the development of nanoscale brain-inspired artificial synapses, using the ion proton (H+), for 'analog deep learning'.
Read more →
Ensemble learning

In statistics and machine learning, ensemble methods use multiple learning algorithms to obtain better predictive performance than could be obtained from any of the constituent learning algorithms alone. Unlike a statistical ensemble in statistical mechanics, which is usually infinite, a machine learning ensemble consists of only a concrete finite set of alternative models, but typically allows for much more flexible structure to exist among those alternatives. == Overview == Supervised learning algorithms search through a hypothesis space to find a suitable hypothesis that will make good predictions with a particular problem. Even if this space contains hypotheses that are very well-suited for a particular problem, it may be very difficult to find a good one. Ensembles combine multiple hypotheses to form one which should be theoretically better. Ensemble learning trains two or more machine learning algorithms on a specific classification or regression task. The algorithms within the ensemble model are generally referred as "base models", "base learners", or "weak learners" in literature. These base models can be constructed using a single modelling algorithm, or several different algorithms. The idea is to train a diverse set of weak models on the same modelling task, such that the outputs of each weak learner have poor predictive ability (i.e., high bias), and among all weak learners, the outcome and error values exhibit high variance. Fundamentally, an ensemble learning model trains at least two high-bias (weak) and high-variance (diverse) models to be combined into a better-performing model. The set of weak models — which would not produce satisfactory predictive results individually — are combined or averaged to produce a single, high performing, accurate, and low-variance model to fit the task as required. Ensemble learning typically refers to bagging (bootstrap aggregating), boosting or stacking/blending techniques to induce high variance among the base models. Bagging creates diversity by generating random samples from the training observations and fitting the same model to each different sample — also known as homogeneous parallel ensembles. Boosting follows an iterative process by sequentially training each base model on the up-weighted errors of the previous base model, producing an additive model to reduce the final model errors — also known as sequential ensemble learning. Stacking or blending consists of different base models, each trained independently (i.e. diverse/high variance) to be combined into the ensemble model — producing a heterogeneous parallel ensemble. Common applications of ensemble learning include random forests (an extension of bagging), Boosted Tree models, and Gradient Boosted Tree Models. Models in applications of stacking are generally more task-specific — such as combining clustering techniques with other parametric and/or non-parametric techniques. Evaluating the prediction of an ensemble typically requires more computation than evaluating the prediction of a single model. In one sense, ensemble learning may be thought of as a way to compensate for poor learning algorithms by performing a lot of extra computation. On the other hand, the alternative is to do a lot more learning with one non-ensemble model. An ensemble may be more efficient at improving overall accuracy for the same increase in compute, storage, or communication resources by using that increase on two or more methods, than would have been improved by increasing resource use for a single method. Fast algorithms such as decision trees are commonly used in ensemble methods (e.g., random forests), although slower algorithms can benefit from ensemble techniques as well. By analogy, ensemble techniques have been used also in unsupervised learning scenarios, for example in consensus clustering or in anomaly detection. == Ensemble theory == Empirically, ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a significant diversity among the models. Many ensemble methods, therefore, seek to promote diversity among the models they combine. Although perhaps non-intuitive, more random algorithms (like random decision trees) can be used to produce a stronger ensemble than very deliberate algorithms (like entropy-reducing decision trees). Using a variety of strong learning algorithms, however, has been shown to be more effective than using techniques that attempt to dumb-down the models in order to promote diversity. It is possible to increase diversity in the training stage of the model using correlation for regression tasks or using information measures such as cross entropy for classification tasks. Theoretically, one can justify the diversity concept because the lower bound of the error rate of an ensemble system can be decomposed into accuracy, diversity, and the other term. === The geometric framework === Ensemble learning, including both regression and classification tasks, can be explained using a geometric framework. Within this framework, the output of each individual classifier or regressor for the entire dataset can be viewed as a point in a multi-dimensional space. Additionally, the target result is also represented as a point in this space, referred to as the "ideal point." The Euclidean distance is used as the metric to measure both the performance of a single classifier or regressor (the distance between its point and the ideal point) and the dissimilarity between two classifiers or regressors (the distance between their respective points). This perspective transforms ensemble learning into a deterministic problem. For example, within this geometric framework, it can be proved that the averaging of the outputs (scores) of all base classifiers or regressors can lead to equal or better results than the average of all the individual models. It can also be proved that if the optimal weighting scheme is used, then a weighted averaging approach can outperform any of the individual classifiers or regressors that make up the ensemble or as good as the best performer at least. == Ensemble size == While the number of component classifiers of an ensemble has a great impact on the accuracy of prediction, there is a limited number of studies addressing this problem. A priori determining of ensemble size and the volume and velocity of big data streams make this even more crucial for online ensemble classifiers. Mostly statistical tests were used for determining the proper number of components. More recently, a theoretical framework suggested that there is an ideal number of component classifiers for an ensemble such that having more or less than this number of classifiers would deteriorate the accuracy. It is called "the law of diminishing returns in ensemble construction." Their theoretical framework shows that using the same number of independent component classifiers as class labels gives the highest accuracy. == Common types of ensembles == === Bayes optimal classifier === The Bayes optimal classifier is a classification technique. It is an ensemble of all the hypotheses in the hypothesis space. On average, no other ensemble can outperform it. The Naive Bayes classifier is a version of this that assumes that the data is conditionally independent on the class and makes the computation more feasible. Each hypothesis is given a vote proportional to the likelihood that the training dataset would be sampled from a system if that hypothesis were true. To facilitate training data of finite size, the vote of each hypothesis is also multiplied by the prior probability of that hypothesis. The Bayes optimal classifier can be expressed with the following equation: y = a r g m a x c j ∈ C ∑ h i ∈ H P ( c j | h i ) P ( T | h i ) P ( h i ) {\displaystyle y={\underset {c_{j}\in C}{\mathrm {argmax} }}\sum _{h_{i}\in H}{P(c_{j}|h_{i})P(T|h_{i})P(h_{i})}} where y {\displaystyle y} is the predicted class, C {\displaystyle C} is the set of all possible classes, H {\displaystyle H} is the hypothesis space, P {\displaystyle P} refers to a probability, and T {\displaystyle T} is the training data. As an ensemble, the Bayes optimal classifier represents a hypothesis that is not necessarily in H {\displaystyle H} . The hypothesis represented by the Bayes optimal classifier, however, is the optimal hypothesis in ensemble space (the space of all possible ensembles consisting only of hypotheses in H {\displaystyle H} ). This formula can be restated using Bayes' theorem, which says that the posterior is proportional to the likelihood times the prior: P ( h i | T ) ∝ P ( T | h i ) P ( h i ) {\displaystyle P(h_{i}|T)\propto P(T|h_{i})P(h_{i})} hence, y = a r g m a x c j ∈ C ∑ h i ∈ H P ( c j | h i ) P ( h i | T ) {\displaystyle y={\underset {c_{j}\in C}{\mathrm {argmax} }}\sum _{h_{i}\in H}{P(c_{j}|h_{i})P(h_{i}|T)}} === Bootstrap aggregating (bagging) === Bootstrap aggregation (bagging) involves training an ensemble on bootstrapped data sets. A bootstrapped set is cr
Read more →
Croissant (metadata format)

Croissant is a metadata format design to support sharing of datasets for machine learning applications. It is a platform-agnostic schema used to standardize metadata in data repositories like Hugging Face, kaggle, Dataverse and OpenML. == Structure == Croissant builds upon schema.org, uses primarily JSON-LD, and divides metadata in four "layers": Dataset Metadata, Resource, Structure and Semantic: The Dataset Metadata layer constrains which schema.org properties should be used, including additional properties, linking together the resources (files) of the dataset with general metadata, like licensing and citation information. The Resource layer describes the individual files and sets of those using two new classes, FileObject and FileSet. A FileSet may be a collection of related images. The Structure layer specifies how the files are organized in the dataset. A RecordSet class describes how resources are present, configurations that may very a lot between modality. This specification facilitates interoperability of the datasets. Finally, the Semantic layer adds information for practical reuse of the dataset, such as splits for train, test and validation subsets. It also provides a default extension for metadata related to responsible AI. The use of a standard machine-readable structure increases, for example, the discoverability of datasets in search engines such as Google Dataset Search. == History == Croissant was shared in arXiv in March 2024 and published in the proceedings of NeurIPS 2024. It started as community driven as a MLCommons Croissant Working Group, including stakeholders organizations from academia and industry, including Google, the open data institute, Sage Bionetworks and King's College London. Variations of Croissant are developed to support datasets in different areas of research, such as Geo-Croissant for geospatial datasets. Other technical extensions, such as support for RDF, soon followed.
Read more →
Sample exclusion dimension

In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.
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 →