AI Chatbot Social Network

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

• 

  Microsoft Clipchamp

  Microsoft Clipchamp is a freemium video editing tool developed by Australian company Clipchamp Pty Ltd., a subsidiary of Microsoft. It is a web-based, non-linear editing software that allows users to import, edit, and export audiovisual material in a web browser window. The application is designed to be easy to use for beginners. Clipchamp has offices in Australia, the Philippines, Germany, and the United States. According to figures published by the company, at the beginning of 2021, it had more than 14 million users worldwide. In September 2021, Clipchamp Pty Ltd. was acquired by Microsoft. It has since been offered in a personal version through a Microsoft account and in a business or education version through a work or school account that is built on OneDrive and SharePoint. == Features == Microsoft Clipchamp has multiple features that allow further creativity and accessibility. Since July 2023, users can drag and drop files from their computer, OneDrive, and SharePoint (images, sound & video files) into a list of all media uploaded or inserted. Users can insert media into the video timeline as many times as they want. Users can replace an image, sound, or video clip with another by dragging and dropping it over the target. There is also a Gap Remover tool that removes gaps in the video. Videos can be trimmed, along with timings that can be edited. The user can crop videos and images, too. Text can be added anywhere on the screen, and can be in many fonts, and the size can be changed, too. Specific text color can be selected using presets or an HSV picker, and specific Text Styles (bold, medium, italics, normal) can be selected. The aspect ratio can also be selected, including 16:9, 9:16, 1:1, 4:5, 2:3, and 21:9. Clipchamp also supports numerous effects and transitions for videos and images. The user can export videos in 480p, 720p, and 1080p for free. Exporting GIFs are possible, while the video has to be 15 seconds or less. Microsoft Clipchamp uses a hybrid model of desktop and online application. In the personal version of Clipchamp (on Windows and in a web browser), video processing is all done locally on the computer and mobile phones, but the app itself runs online as a browser-based web app. This is done by uploading and saving project data and information like file names online but not the associated media files themselves. In the work version of Clipchamp, which is a part of Microsoft 365, media files are still processed locally but are automatically backed up to the user's OneDrive or SharePoint work or school account so that it can be accessed anywhere. This version also has integration with other Microsoft productivity services like Microsoft Teams and Microsoft Stream. == History == Clipchamp Pty Ltd. was founded as a startup company by Alexander Dreiling (current CEO), Dave Hewitt, Tobias Raub and Soeren Balko, in Brisbane, Australia, in 2013. In an interview given to SmartCompany, Dreiling commented that at first, the company was "trying to build an enormous, distributed supercomputer". Among the first software developed by the company's team was a tool for video compression and conversion. 2014 saw the official launch of the first version of the free, audiovisual browser-based software on the Clipchamp platform. When the supercomputer project ground to a halt, the team decided to keep going with the video programming technology, which was, in the words of Dreiling, "a tool that worked on Chromebooks". In June 2016, Clipchamp was valued at 1.1 million dollars, according to the Wall Street Journal. In the same month, the second version of Clipchamp was launched internationally. By 2018, the firm had amassed 6.5 million users, attracting investors such as Steve Baxter, who invested one million dollars. In 2020, Clipchamp set up a base in Seattle, USA, after achieving capital of 13.2 million dollars, from alliances made with investment funds such as Transition Level Investments, Tola Capital, and TEN13, among others. In February 2021, Clipchamp published on its website that it has 14 million users worldwide, registered in 250 countries and territories. At that time, the company announced that it had an audiovisual library of 800,000 files. On September 7, 2021, Microsoft announced the acquisition of Clipchamp. In a press release, they expressed their interest in learning more about the video content creation market. Johnson Winter Slattery advised Microsoft on its acquisition. Clipchamp was integrated as part of Windows 11 beginning on March 9, 2022, as part of Insider Preview Build 22572.

  Read more →
• 

  Witness set

  In combinatorics and computational learning theory, a witness set is a set of elements that distinguishes a given Boolean function from a given class of other Boolean functions. Let C {\displaystyle C} be a concept class over a domain X {\displaystyle X} (that is, a family of Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} ) and c {\displaystyle c} be a concept in X {\displaystyle X} (a single Boolean function). A subset S {\displaystyle S} of X {\displaystyle X} is a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} in X {\displaystyle X} if S {\displaystyle S} distinguishes c {\displaystyle c} from all the other functions in C {\displaystyle C} , in the sense that no other function in C {\displaystyle C} has the same values on S {\displaystyle S} . For a concept class with | C | {\displaystyle |C|} concepts, there exists a concept that has a witness of size at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|C|} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of all Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} . By a result of Bondy (1972) there exists a single witness set of size at most | C | − 1 {\displaystyle |C|-1} that is valid for all concepts in C {\displaystyle C} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of the indicator functions of the empty set and some singleton sets. One way to construct this set is to interpret the concepts as bitstrings, and the domain elements as positions in these bitstrings. Then the set of positions at which a trie of the bitstrings branches forms the desired witness set. This construction is central to the operation of the fusion tree data structure. The minimum size of a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} is called the witness size or specification number and is denoted by w C ( c ) {\displaystyle w_{C}(c)} . The value max { w C ( c ) : c ∈ C } {\displaystyle \max\{w_{C}(c):c\in C\}} is called the teaching dimension of C {\displaystyle C} . It represents the number of examples of a concept that need to be presented by a teacher to a learner, in the worst case, to enable the learner to determine which concept is being presented. Witness sets have also been called teaching sets, keys, specifying sets, or discriminants. The "witness set" terminology is from Kushilevitz et al. (1996), who trace the concept of witness sets to work by Cover (1965).

  Read more →
• 

  SqueezeNet

  SqueezeNet is a deep neural network for image classification released in 2016. SqueezeNet was developed by researchers at DeepScale, University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University. In designing SqueezeNet, the authors' goal was to create a smaller neural network with fewer parameters while achieving competitive accuracy. Their best-performing model achieved the same accuracy as AlexNet on ImageNet classification, but has a size 510x less than it. == Version history == SqueezeNet was originally released on February 22, 2016. This original version of SqueezeNet was implemented on top of the Caffe deep learning software framework. Shortly thereafter, the open-source research community ported SqueezeNet to a number of other deep learning frameworks. On February 26, 2016, Eddie Bell released a port of SqueezeNet for the Chainer deep learning framework. On March 2, 2016, Guo Haria released a port of SqueezeNet for the Apache MXNet framework. On June 3, 2016, Tammy Yang released a port of SqueezeNet for the Keras framework. In 2017, companies including Baidu, Xilinx, Imagination Technologies, and Synopsys demonstrated SqueezeNet running on low-power processing platforms such as smartphones, FPGAs, and custom processors. As of 2018, SqueezeNet ships "natively" as part of the source code of a number of deep learning frameworks such as PyTorch, Apache MXNet, and Apple CoreML. In addition, third party developers have created implementations of SqueezeNet that are compatible with frameworks such as TensorFlow. Below is a summary of frameworks that support SqueezeNet. == Relationship to other networks == === AlexNet === SqueezeNet was originally described in SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and <0.5MB model size. AlexNet is a deep neural network that has 240 MB of parameters, and SqueezeNet has just 5 MB of parameters. This small model size can more easily fit into computer memory and can more easily be transmitted over a computer network. However, it's important to note that SqueezeNet is not a "squeezed version of AlexNet." Rather, SqueezeNet is an entirely different DNN architecture than AlexNet. What SqueezeNet and AlexNet have in common is that both of them achieve approximately the same level of accuracy when evaluated on the ImageNet image classification validation dataset. === Model compression === Model compression (e.g. quantization and pruning of model parameters) can be applied to a deep neural network after it has been trained. In the SqueezeNet paper, the authors demonstrated that a model compression technique called Deep Compression can be applied to SqueezeNet to further reduce the size of the parameter file from 5 MB to 500 KB. Deep Compression has also been applied to other DNNs, such as AlexNet and VGG. == Variants == Some of the members of the original SqueezeNet team have continued to develop resource-efficient deep neural networks for a variety of applications. A few of these works are noted in the following table. As with the original SqueezeNet model, the open-source research community has ported and adapted these newer "squeeze"-family models for compatibility with multiple deep learning frameworks. In addition, the open-source research community has extended SqueezeNet to other applications, including semantic segmentation of images and style transfer.

  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 →
• 

  Groover

  Groover is an online platform, record label and distributor, connecting artists and musicians with music professionals and media outlets. The service was founded in 2018 in France and operates from offices in Paris and New York. The platform has over 3,000 active contacts, including SPIN Magazine and Sofar Sounds. Groover uses a micro-payment model. Among the platform's over 500,000 regular users are record labels such as Ninja Tune, Ba Da Bing Records, Dance To The Radio, Roche Musique, Wagram Music, Secret City Records, and artists including Bonobo, Michael Bolton, Aloe Blacc, Haddaway, Passenger, La Femme and Chinese Man. == History == Groover was launched at the MaMA Music Convention in October 2018. It was co-founded by Dorian Perron, Romain Palmieri, and Rafaël Cohen while they were students at UC Berkeley. Initially growing in France, the company has expanded to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. In March 2019, Groover was part of the Business France delegation at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival. In June 2019, Groover raised €1.3 million from various angel investors. In April 2021, Groover acquired the platform Soonvibes, which had 70,000 users at the time, in order to strengthen its community in the electronic music space. In November 2021, Groover announced a €6 million funding round from Bpifrance Creative Industries and Partech. Between 2023 and 2025, Groover entered strategic partnerships with major artist service providers, including CD Baby, TuneCore, SoundCloud, UnitedMasters, Symphonic Distribution, Audiomack and SACEM. In February 2024, Groover announced a Series A funding round of $8 million from OneRagTime, Trind, Techmind, and Mozza Angels. == Function == Using a micro-payment system, professionals listen to tracks and provide written feedback. These professionals retain full editorial independence and are under no obligation to share the track or contact the artist. == Awards == 2nd Prize for Music Innovation 2023 from the Centre national de la musique (France) "Future Creator" Award at the Petit Poucet Competition 2019 Jury's Special Mention at the MaMA Invent 2019 competition 1st Prize for Digital Initiative in Culture, Communication & Media 2019 awarded by Audiens "Start-up of the Year" at the Social Music Awards 2020 French American Entrepreneurship Award 2022 at the French Consulate in New York

  Read more →
• 

  Population model (evolutionary algorithm)

  The population model of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) describes the structural properties of its population to which its members are subject. A population is the set of all proposed solutions of an EA considered in one iteration, which are also called individuals according to the biological role model. The individuals of a population can generate further individuals as offspring with the help of the genetic operators of the procedure. The simplest and widely used population model in EAs is the global or panmictic model, which corresponds to an unstructured population. It allows each individual to choose any other individual of the population as a partner for the production of offspring by crossover, whereby the details of the selection are irrelevant as long as the fitness of the individuals plays a significant role. Due to global mate selection, the genetic information of even slightly better individuals can prevail in a population after a few generations (iteration of an EA), provided that no better other offspring have emerged in this phase. If the solution found in this way is not the optimum sought, that is called premature convergence. This effect can be observed more often in panmictic populations. In nature global mating pools are rarely found. What prevails is a certain and limited isolation due to spatial distance. The resulting local neighbourhoods initially evolve independently and mutants have a higher chance of persisting over several generations. As a result, genotypic diversity in the gene pool is preserved longer than in a panmictic population. It is therefore obvious to divide the previously global population by substructures. Two basic models were introduced for this purpose, the island models, which are based on a division of the population into fixed subpopulations that exchange individuals from time to time, and the neighbourhood models, which assign individuals to overlapping neighbourhoods, also known as cellular genetic or evolutionary algorithms (cGA or cEA). The associated division of the population also suggests a corresponding parallelization of the procedure. For this reason, the topic of population models is also frequently discussed in the literature in connection with the parallelization of EAs. == Island models == In the island model, also called the migration model or coarse grained model, evolution takes place in strictly divided subpopulations. These can be organised panmictically, but do not have to be. From time to time an exchange of individuals takes place, which is called migration. The time between an exchange is called an epoch and its end can be triggered by various criteria: E.g. after a given time or given number of completed generations, or after the occurrence of stagnation. Stagnation can be detected, for example, by the fact that no fitness improvement has occurred in the island for a given number of generations. Island models introduce a variety of new strategy parameters: Number of subpopulations Size of the subpopulations Neighbourhood relations between islands: they determine which islands are considered neighbouring and can thus exchange individuals, see picture of a simple unidirectional ring (black arrows) and its extension by additional bidirectional neighbourhood relations (additional green arrows) Criteria for the termination of an epoch, synchronous or asynchronous migration Migration rate: number or proportion of individuals involved in migration. Migrant selection: There are many alternatives for this. E.g. the best individuals can replace the worst or randomly selected ones. Depending on the migration rate, this can affect one or more individuals at a time. With these parameters, the selection pressure can be influenced to a considerable extent. For example, it increases with the interconnectedness of the islands and decreases with the number of subpopulations or the epoch length. == Neighbourhood models or cellular evolutionary algorithms == The neighbourhood model, also called diffusion model or fine grained model, defines a topological neighbouhood relation between the individuals of a population that is independent of their phenotypic properties. The fundamental idea of this model is to provide the EA population with a special structure defined as a connected graph, in which each vertex is an individual that communicates with its nearest neighbours. Particularly, individuals are conceptually set in a toroidal mesh, and are only allowed to recombine with close individuals. This leads to a kind of locality known as isolation by distance. The set of potential mates of an individual is called its neighbourhood or deme. The adjacent figure illustrates that by showing two slightly overlapping neighbourhoods of two individuals marked yellow, through which genetic information can spread between the two demes. It is known that in this kind of algorithm, similar individuals tend to cluster and create niches that are independent of the deme boundaries and, in particular, can be larger than a deme. There is no clear borderline between adjacent groups, and close niches could be easily colonized by competitive ones and maybe merge solution contents during this process. Simultaneously, farther niches can be affected more slowly. EAs with this type of population are also well known as cellular EAs (cEA) or cellular genetic algorithms (cGA). A commonly used structure for arranging the individuals of a population is a 2D toroidal grid, although the number of dimensions can be easily extended (to 3D) or reduced (to 1D, e.g. a ring, see the figure on the right). The neighbourhood of a particular individual in the grid is defined in terms of the Manhattan distance from it to others in the population. In the basic algorithm, all the neighbourhoods have the same size and identical shapes. The two most commonly used neighbourhoods for two-dimensional cEAs are L5 and C9, see the figure on the left. Here, L stands for Linear while C stands for Compact. Each deme represents a panmictic subpopulation within which mate selection and the acceptance of offspring takes place by replacing the parent. The rules for the acceptance of offspring are local in nature and based on the neighbourhood: for example, it can be specified that the best offspring must be better than the parent being replaced or, less strictly, only better than the worst individual in the deme. The first rule is elitist and creates a higher selective pressure than the second non-elitist rule. In elitist EAs, the best individual of a population always survives. In this respect, they deviate from the biological model. The overlap of the neighbourhoods causes a mostly slow spread of genetic information across the neighbourhood boundaries, hence the name diffusion model. A better offspring now needs more generations than in panmixy to spread in the population. This promotes the emergence of local niches and their local evolution, thus preserving genotypic diversity over a longer period of time. The result is a better and dynamic balance between breadth and depth search adapted to the search space during a run. Depth search takes place in the niches and breadth search in the niche boundaries and through the evolution of the different niches of the whole population. For the same neighbourhood size, the spread of genetic information is larger for elongated figures like L9 than for a block like C9, and again significantly larger than for a ring. This means that ring neighbourhoods are well suited for achieving high quality results, even if this requires comparatively long run times. On the other hand, if one is primarily interested in fast and good, but possibly suboptimal results, 2D topologies are more suitable. == Comparison == When applying both population models to genetic algorithms, evolutionary strategy and other EAs, the splitting of a total population into subpopulations usually reduces the risk of premature convergence and leads to better results overall more reliably and faster than would be expected with panmictic EAs. Island models have the disadvantage compared to neighbourhood models that they introduce a large number of new strategy parameters. Despite the existing studies on this topic in the literature, a certain risk of unfavourable settings remains for the user. With neighbourhood models, on the other hand, only the size of the neighbourhood has to be specified and, in the case of the two-dimensional model, the choice of the neighbourhood figure is added. == Parallelism == Since both population models imply population partitioning, they are well suited as a basis for parallelizing an EA. This applies even more to cellular EAs, since they rely only on locally available information about the members of their respective demes. Thus, in the extreme case, an independent execution thread can be assigned to each individual, so that the entire cEA can run on a parallel hardware platform. The island model also supports p

  Read more →
• 

  Naive Bayes classifier

  In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln ⁡ Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln ⁡ p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays

  Read more →
• 

  Dominance-based rough set approach

  The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl

  Read more →
• 

  Agentive logic

  Agentive logic (also called the logic of action or logic of agency) is the field of philosophical logic and logic in computer science that studies formal representations of agents, their actions, and their abilities. An agentive logic in the narrower sense is a formal system whose primitive operators express that an agent does something, can do something, or sees to it that something is the case. Agentive logics generalise modal logic by adding modalities indexed to agents and to actions. Typical examples include: STIT logics (from sees to it that) with operators of the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} meaning that agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; dynamic logics of action with program-like modalities [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } meaning, roughly, that after every (respectively, some) execution(s) of action α {\displaystyle \alpha } , φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; logics with explicit agentive operators such as "can do", "brings about", or "is able to ensure". Agentive logics are used in action theory in philosophy, in the semantics of natural language, in the theory of program verification, and in artificial intelligence, where they underpin formalisms for reasoning about actions, planning, and intelligent agents. == Terminology and scope == The adjective agentive derives from the Latin agens ("one who acts") and originally referred to the grammatical agent of a verb. In logical contexts it designates operators or predicates whose primary argument position is an agent rather than a proposition alone, for example A i φ {\displaystyle A_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} does φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ") or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} can bring about φ {\displaystyle \varphi } "). In contemporary literature, agentive logic is sometimes used narrowly for formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's modal account of facere ("to do"). More broadly, the term is used interchangeably with logic of action or logic of agency to cover a family of modal and dynamic logics designed to capture the structure of action and choice. == Historical background == === Medieval and early modern roots === Medieval logicians already explored analogies between modalities of action and alethic modalities such as possibility and necessity, for instance, in discussions of obligation and power. An influential early agentive analysis is due to St. Anselm (11th century), who treated "doing φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " as a kind of modal operator on propositions, anticipating later modal logics of agency. Modern reconstructions of Anselm's theory show that the resulting "agentive logic" can be modelled with neighbourhood semantics and satisfies a recognisable square of opposition. === Modern logic of action === Modern study of the logic of action began in the mid-20th century, parallel to developments in deontic logic and tense logic. Early systems were proposed by Georg Henrik von Wright, Stig Kanger, and others, often motivated by questions about norms and responsibility. From the 1960s onward, two largely independent but eventually converging traditions emerged: a branching-time tradition, culminating in STIT logics, emphasising agents' choices among possible futures; and dynamic logics of programs and actions, developed within computer science to reason about program execution. In the 1990s and 2000s, action logics were further developed in connection with knowledge representation, planning, and multi-agent systems in AI, and with dynamic and update semantics in linguistics. == Core ideas == Despite their diversity, most agentive logics share some general themes: Agents are treated as explicit indices of modal operators, as in [ i d o e s ] φ {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {does}}]\varphi } or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } . Actions are represented either implicitly, via changes between possible worlds along an accessibility relation, or explicitly, as terms denoting primitive and composite actions. Choice and ability are captured by modalities describing what an agent can ensure, usually relative to assumptions about the environment and other agents. Formal properties such as closure under composition, interaction between different agents, and connections to obligation (what an agent ought to do) and knowledge (what an agent knows how to do) are investigated. == STIT logics == STIT ("sees to it that") logics, originating in work by Nuel Belnap and collaborators, treat agency in a branching-time framework. A STIT model consists of a partially ordered set of moments with a tree-like structure, sets of histories (maximal branches through the tree), and for each agent at each moment, a partition of the histories through that moment representing the choices available to the agent. Intuitively, an agent's action at a moment determines which equivalence class (choice cell) of histories becomes actual; a formula [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} is true at a history–moment pair if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds on all histories in the choice cell corresponding to the agent's current action. Different STIT operators have been distinguished, notably: the Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , which requires only that the agent's choice guarantees φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ; and the deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , which additionally requires that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not already historically necessary. STIT frameworks have been extended with group agency operators, temporal modalities, epistemic operators, and deontic operators to study responsibility, collective action, and obligations under indeterminism. == Dynamic logics of action == Dynamic logic was originally developed to reason about the behaviour of computer programs, treating program execution as a kind of action. In propositional dynamic logic (PDL), action terms α , β , … {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\dots } denote abstract programs or actions, and formulas of the form [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } express that all, respectively some, terminating executions of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to states where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. From the standpoint of agentive logic, dynamic logic provides: a language for building complex actions from primitives via sequencing, choice, and iteration (e.g., α ; β {\displaystyle \alpha ;\beta } , α ∪ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cup \beta } , α ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ^{}} ); a Kripke semantics in which actions correspond to labelled accessibility relations; and proof systems (such as Hoare logic and weakest precondition calculi) for reasoning about the correctness of action sequences. Extensions such as concurrent dynamic logic add operators for parallel composition, allowing reasoning about interacting processes and concurrent actions. John-Jules Ch. Meyer and others have argued that dynamic logic is a natural base for logics of agents, by adding modalities for knowledge, belief, and ability on top of the action modalities. Dynamic logics have also been applied to normative reasoning, yielding dynamic deontic logics where actions are related to obligations and permissions, and to dynamic epistemic logics in which information-changing actions such as announcements are modelled as programs. == Situation calculus and other action formalisms == In artificial intelligence, reasoning about action and change is often based on first-order languages that explicitly represent situations, events, and fluents (time-varying properties). The best known is situation calculus, introduced by John McCarthy and developed extensively by Raymond Reiter. In such formalisms: action terms name primitive actions; a function symbol (often d o {\displaystyle {\mathsf {do}}} ) maps an action and a situation to a successor situation; and axioms describe which fluents hold in which situations and how actions change them. Reiter's successor state axioms give compact specifications of how each fluent changes under all actions, and precondition axioms specify when actions are possible. Related formalisms include the event calculus and fluent calculus, which provide alternative ways of representing events and their effects. While these systems are often first-order rather than modal, they are closely related to agentive logics: their action terms and transition structures can be seen as providing models for dynamic or STIT-style modalities, and conversely, dynamic logics can be used as abstract specification languages for such AI formalisms. == Ability, agency, and related modalities == Many agentive logics introduce explicit operators for ability or "can-do"

  Read more →
• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

  Silhouette is a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified. It was proposed by Belgian statistician Peter Rousseeuw in 1987. The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette value ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters. A clustering with an average silhouette width of over 0.7 is considered to be "strong", a value over 0.5 "reasonable", and over 0.25 "weak". However, with an increasing dimensionality of the data, it becomes difficult to achieve such high values because of the curse of dimensionality, as the distances become more similar. The silhouette score is specialized for measuring cluster quality when the clusters are convex-shaped, and may not perform well if the data clusters have irregular shapes or are of varying sizes. The silhouette value can be calculated with any distance metric, such as Euclidean distance or Manhattan distance. == Definition == Assume the data have been clustered via any technique, such as k-medoids or k-means, into k {\displaystyle k} clusters. For data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} (data point i {\displaystyle i} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} ), calculate a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} , the average distance that i {\displaystyle i} is from all other points in that cluster: a ( i ) = 1 | C i | − 1 ∑ j ∈ C i , i ≠ j d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle a(i)={\frac {1}{|C_{i}|-1}}\sum _{j\in C_{i},i\neq j}d(i,j)} where | C i | {\displaystyle |C_{i}|} is the number of points belonging to cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} , and d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle d(i,j)} is the distance between data points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} (we divide by | C i | − 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|-1} because the distance d ( i , i ) {\displaystyle d(i,i)} is not included in the sum). a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} can be interpreted as a measure of how well i {\displaystyle i} is assigned to its cluster (the smaller the value, the better the assignment). We then define the mean dissimilarity of point i {\displaystyle i} to some cluster C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} as the mean of the distance from i {\displaystyle i} to all points in C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} (where C j ≠ C i {\displaystyle C_{j}\neq C_{i}} ). For each data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} , we now define b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} as the average distance between i {\displaystyle i} and the points in the closest cluster (hence: "min") that i {\displaystyle i} does not belong to: b ( i ) = min j ≠ i 1 | C j | ∑ l ∈ C j d ( i , l ) {\displaystyle b(i)=\min _{j\neq i}{\frac {1}{|C_{j}|}}\sum _{l\in C_{j}}d(i,l)} The cluster with the smallest mean dissimilarity is said to be the "neighboring cluster" of i {\displaystyle i} because it is the next best fit cluster for point i {\displaystyle i} . We now define a silhouette (value) of one data point i {\displaystyle i} s ( i ) = b ( i ) − a ( i ) max { a ( i ) , b ( i ) } {\displaystyle s(i)={\frac {b(i)-a(i)}{\max\{a(i),b(i)\}}}} , if | C i | > 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|>1} and s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} , if | C i | = 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|=1} , which can also be written as s ( i ) = { 1 − a ( i ) b ( i ) , if a ( i ) < b ( i ) 0 , if a ( i ) = b ( i ) b ( i ) a ( i ) − 1 , if a ( i ) > b ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)={\begin{cases}1-{\frac {a(i)}{b(i)}},&{\mbox{ if }}a(i)b(i)\\\end{cases}}} From the above definition, s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is bounded to the interval [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]} , i.e. − 1 ≤ s ( i ) ≤ 1. {\displaystyle -1\leq s(i)\leq 1.} Note that a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is not clearly defined for clusters with size = 1, in which case we set s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} . This choice is arbitrary, but neutral in the sense that it is at the midpoint of the bounds, -1 and 1. For s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} to be close to 1 we require a ( i ) ≪ b ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)\ll b(i)} . As a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is a measure of how dissimilar i {\displaystyle i} is to its own cluster, a small value means it is well matched. Furthermore, a large b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} implies that i {\displaystyle i} is badly matched to its neighbouring cluster. Thus an s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} close to 1 means that the data is appropriately clustered. If s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is close to -1, then by the same logic we see that i {\displaystyle i} would be more appropriate if it was clustered in its neighbouring cluster. An s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} near zero means that the datum is on the border of two natural clusters. The mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all points of a cluster is a measure of how tightly grouped all the points in the cluster are. Thus the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset is a measure of how appropriately the data have been clustered. If there are too many or too few clusters, as may occur when a poor choice of k {\displaystyle k} is used in the clustering algorithm (e.g., k-means), some of the clusters will typically display much narrower silhouettes than the rest. Thus silhouette plots and means may be used to determine the natural number of clusters within a dataset. One can also increase the likelihood of the silhouette being maximized at the correct number of clusters by re-scaling the data using feature weights that are cluster specific. Kaufman et al. introduced the term silhouette coefficient for the maximum value of the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset, i.e., S C = max k s ~ ( k ) , {\displaystyle SC=\max _{k}{\tilde {s}}\left(k\right),} where s ~ ( k ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {s}}\left(k\right)} represents the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset for a specific number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} . The silhouette coefficient describes the best possible clustering possible for a given number of clusters, as measured by the highest average silhouette score for all points in the dataset. == Simplified and medoid silhouette == Computing the silhouette coefficient needs all O ( N 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(N^{2})} pairwise distances, making this evaluation much more costly than clustering with k-means. For a clustering with centers μ C I {\displaystyle \mu _{C_{I}}} for each cluster C I {\displaystyle C_{I}} , we can use the following simplified Silhouette for each point i ∈ C I {\displaystyle i\in C_{I}} instead, which can be computed using only O ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(Nk)} distances: a ′ ( i ) = d ( i , μ C I ) {\displaystyle a'(i)=d(i,\mu _{C_{I}})} and b ′ ( i ) = min C J ≠ C I d ( i , μ C J ) {\displaystyle b'(i)=\min _{C_{J}\neq C_{I}}d(i,\mu _{C_{J}})} , which has the additional benefit that a ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)} is always defined, then define accordingly the simplified silhouette and simplified silhouette coefficient s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) max { a ′ ( i ) , b ′ ( i ) } {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{\max\{a'(i),b'(i)\}}}} S C ′ = max k 1 N ∑ i s ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle SC'=\max _{k}{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i}s'\left(i\right)} . If the cluster centers are medoids (as in k-medoids clustering) instead of arithmetic means (as in k-means clustering), this is also called the medoid-based silhouette or medoid silhouette. If every object is assigned to the nearest medoid (as in k-medoids clustering), we know that a ′ ( i ) ≤ b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)\leq b'(i)} , and hence s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) = 1 − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{b'(i)}}=1-{\frac {a'(i)}{b'(i)}}} . == Silhouette clustering == Instead of using the average silhouette to evaluate a clustering obtained from, e.g., k-medoids or k-means, we can try to directly find a solution that maximizes the Silhouette. We do not have a closed form solution to maximize this, but it will usually be best to assign points to the nearest cluster as done by these methods. Van der Laan et al. proposed to adapt the standard algorithm for k-medoids, PAM, for this purpose and call this algorithm PAMSIL: Choose initial medoids by using PAM Compute the average silhouette of this initial solution For each pair of a medoid m and a non-medoid x swap m and x compute the average silhouette of the resulting solution remember the best swap un-swap m and x for the next iteration Perform the best swap and return to

  Read more →
• 

  Multimodal learning

  Multimodal learning is a type of deep learning that integrates and processes multiple types of data, referred to as modalities, such as text, audio, images, or video. This integration allows for a more holistic understanding of complex data, improving model performance in tasks like visual question answering, cross-modal retrieval, text-to-image generation, aesthetic ranking, and image captioning. Multimodal learning was proposed in 2011 at the beginning of the deep learning period. Large multimodal models, such as Google Gemini and GPT-4o, have become increasingly popular since 2023, enabling increased versatility and a broader understanding of real-world phenomena. == Motivation == Data usually comes with different modalities which carry different information. For example, it is very common to caption an image to convey the information not presented in the image itself. Similarly, sometimes it is more straightforward to use an image to describe information which may not be obvious from text. As a result, if different words appear in similar images, then these words likely describe the same thing. Conversely, if a word is used to describe seemingly dissimilar images, then these images may represent the same object. Thus, in cases dealing with multi-modal data, it is important to use a model which is able to jointly represent the information such that the model can capture the combined information from different modalities. == Multimodal transformers == Models such as CLIP (Contrastive Language–Image Pretraining) learn joint representations of images and text by optimizing contrastive objectives, allowing the model to match images with their corresponding textual descriptions. == Multimodal deep Boltzmann machines == A Boltzmann machine is a type of stochastic neural network invented by Geoffrey Hinton and Terry Sejnowski in 1985. Boltzmann machines can be seen as the stochastic, generative counterpart of Hopfield nets. They are named after the Boltzmann distribution in statistical mechanics. The units in Boltzmann machines are divided into two groups: visible units and hidden units. Each unit is like a neuron with a binary output that represents whether it is activated or not. General Boltzmann machines allow connection between any units. However, learning is impractical using general Boltzmann Machines because the computational time is exponential to the size of the machine. A more efficient architecture is called restricted Boltzmann machine where connection is only allowed between hidden unit and visible unit, which is described in the next section. Multimodal deep Boltzmann machines can process and learn from different types of information, such as images and text, simultaneously. This can notably be done by having a separate deep Boltzmann machine for each modality, for example one for images and one for text, joined at an additional top hidden layer. == Applications == Multimodal machine learning has numerous applications across various domains: Cross-modal retrieval: cross-modal retrieval allows users to search for data across different modalities (e.g., retrieving images based on text descriptions), improving multimedia search engines and content recommendation systems. Classification and missing data retrieval: multimodal Deep Boltzmann Machines outperform traditional models like support vector machines and latent Dirichlet allocation in classification tasks and can predict missing data in multimodal datasets, such as images and text. Healthcare diagnostics: multimodal models integrate medical imaging, genomic data, and patient records to improve diagnostic accuracy and early disease detection, especially in cancer screening. Content generation: models like DALL·E generate images from textual descriptions, benefiting creative industries, while cross-modal retrieval enables dynamic multimedia searches. Robotics and human-computer interaction: multimodal learning improves interaction in robotics and AI by integrating sensory inputs like speech, vision, and touch, aiding autonomous systems and human-computer interaction. Emotion recognition: combining visual, audio, and text data, multimodal systems enhance sentiment analysis and emotion recognition, applied in customer service, social media, and marketing.

  Read more →
• 

  Multilinear principal component analysis

  Multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) is a multilinear extension of principal component analysis (PCA) that is used to analyze M-way arrays, also informally referred to as "data tensors". M-way arrays may be modeled by linear tensor models, such as CANDECOMP/Parafac, or by multilinear tensor models, such as multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) or multilinear (tensor) independent component analysis (MICA). In 2005, Vasilescu and Terzopoulos introduced the Multilinear PCA terminology as a way to better differentiate between multilinear data models that employed 2nd order statistics versus higher order statistics to compute a set of independent components for each mode, such as Multilinear ICA Multilinear PCA may be applied to compute the causal factors of data formation, or as signal processing tool on data tensors whose individual observation have either been vectorized, or whose observations are treated as a collection of column/row observations, an "observation as a matrix", and concatenated into a data tensor. The latter approach is suitable for compression and reducing redundancy in the rows, columns and fibers that are unrelated to the causal factors of data formation. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos in their paper "TensorFaces" introduced the M-mode SVD algorithm which are algorithms misidentified in the literature as the HOSVD or the Tucker which employ the power method or gradient descent, respectively. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos framed the data analysis, recognition and synthesis problems as multilinear tensor problems. Data is viewed as the compositional consequence of several causal factors, that are well suited for multi-modal tensor factor analysis. The power of the tensor framework was showcased by analyzing human motion joint angles, facial images or textures in the following papers: Human Motion Signatures (CVPR 2001, ICPR 2002), face recognition – TensorFaces, (ECCV 2002, CVPR 2003, etc.) and computer graphics – TensorTextures (Siggraph 2004). == The algorithm == The MPCA solution follows the alternating least square (ALS) approach. It is iterative in nature. As in PCA, MPCA works on centered data. Centering is a little more complicated for tensors, and it is problem dependent. == Feature selection == MPCA features: Supervised MPCA is employed in causal factor analysis that facilitates object recognition while a semi-supervised MPCA feature selection is employed in visualization tasks. == Extensions == Various extension of MPCA: Robust MPCA (RMPCA) Multi-Tensor Factorization, that also finds the number of components automatically (MTF)

  Read more →
• 

  Record sealing

  Record sealing is the process of making public records inaccessible to the public. In many cases, a person with a sealed record gains the legal right to deny or not acknowledge anything to do with the arrest and the legal proceedings from the case itself. Records are commonly sealed in a number of situations: Sealed birth records (typically after adoption or determination of paternity) Juvenile criminal records may be sealed Other types of cases involving juveniles may be sealed, anonymized, or pseudonymized ("impounded"); e.g., child sex offense or custody cases Cases using witness protection information may be partly sealed Cases involving trade secrets Cases involving state secrets == Filing under seal in US court == Normally, records should not be filed under seal without a court permission. However, FRCP 5.2 requires that sensitive text – like Social Security number, Taxpayer Identification Number, birthday, bank accounts, and children’s names – should be redacted off the filings made with the court and accompanying exhibits. A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy under seal, or the Court can choose to order later that an additional filing be made under seal without redaction. Alternately, the filing party may ask the court’s permission to file some exhibits completely under seal. When the document is filed "under seal", it should have a clear indication for the court clerk to file it separately – most often by stamping words "Filed Under Seal" on the bottom of each page. Person making filing should also provide instructions to the court clerk that the document needs to be filed "under seal". Courts often have specific requirements to these filings in their Local Rules. == Difference from expungement == Expungement, which is a physical destruction, namely a complete erasure of one's criminal records, and therefore usually carries a higher standard, differs from record sealing, which is only to restrict the public's access to records, so that only certain law enforcement agencies or courts, under special circumstances, will have access to them. A record seal will greatly improve the chance of employment, as employers will not have access to damning records. There are occasions, like expungement, where one can truthfully state under oath that they have never been convicted before. Most of the time, a record seal has more relaxed requirements than an expungement. If an expungement is not allowed with a case, then sealing a record may be the best bet. Different states have different terms for what constitutes sealing of a record. == Cybersecurity incidents involving sealed records == Several cybersecurity incidents have demonstrated that sealed court documents are not always secure in practice, with vulnerabilities and data breaches exposing sensitive information. In January 2021, following the SolarWinds cyber attack, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court United States District Court for the District of Nevada announced that its Case Management/Electronic Case Files CM/ECF system had been potentially compromised. The judiciary stated that additional safeguards were being implemented to protect filings, and that the review of the incident and its impact was ongoing. Reports noted that the breach raised concerns about exposure of highly sensitive and sealed documents submitted through the CM/ECF system. In 2023, security researcher Jason Parker, following a tip from an activist, identified flaws in online court systems that exposed sealed records including confidential testimony and medical records through publicly accessible portals. In 2024, a cyber intrusion targeting attorneys in a civil case involving Representative Matt Gaetz led to the unauthorized access and leak of sealed depositions and related records. The breach exposed confidential testimony and financial records, some of which were later reported by news outlets, raising concerns about the security of electronically stored legal materials and the handling of sealed filings. In 2025, multiple reports confirmed that the federal judiciary's CM/ECF and PACER (law) filing system was compromised, exposing sealed indictments, confidential informant information, and other sensitive filings. Some courts temporarily reverted to paper-based filing to mitigate the risks of further disclosure. The FBI later confirmed that the breach had exposed sealed records, and investigators suspected foreign state actors were involved. == GAO publications referencing sealed records == Closed Criminal Plea and Sentencing Proceedings (1983) – Reviewed Department of Justice policies on closing plea and sentencing hearings. GAO noted that sealed transcripts should be unsealed once the reasons for closure no longer applied. Information on Plea Agreements and Settlements in Defense Procurement Fraud Cases (1992) – Examined outcomes of procurement fraud prosecutions. GAO observed that in some instances the results were sealed from public access. Military Recruiting: More Needs to Be Done to Better Screen Applicants and Detect Fraud (1999) – Investigated fraudulent enlistments in the armed forces. The report highlighted that sealed juvenile records often prevented recruiters from discovering prior offenses. Social Security Numbers: Governments Could Do More to Reduce Display in Public Records (2004) – Analyzed risks associated with SSN availability in state and local records. GAO pointed out that some categories of records, such as adoption proceedings, were sealed and less likely to expose identifiers. Social Security Numbers: Stronger Safeguards Needed to Protect Privacy (2005 testimony) – Testimony before Congress reiterating concerns over SSN exposure in public records, while noting that sealed categories (e.g., adoption) were exceptions. U.S. Supreme Court: Policies and Perspectives on Video and Audio Coverage of Appellate Court Proceedings (2016) – Surveyed appellate court policies on courtroom media coverage. The report acknowledged distinctions between public filings, confidential submissions, and sealed materials. Evictions: National Data Are Limited and Challenging to Collect (2024) – Examined nationwide eviction data. GAO reported that in some states eviction records may be sealed or expunged, limiting researchers' ability to compile datasets. DOD Fraud Risk Management: Enhanced Data and Collaboration Could Improve Efforts (2024) – Reviewed Department of Defense fraud-risk management. GAO noted that some adjudicative records in its dataset were sealed, restricting completeness of oversight data.

  Read more →
• 

  Multinomial logistic regression

  In statistics, multinomial logistic regression is a classification method that generalizes logistic regression to multiclass problems, i.e. with more than two possible discrete outcomes. That is, it is a model that is used to predict the probabilities of the different possible outcomes of a categorically distributed dependent variable, given a set of independent variables (which may be real-valued, binary-valued, categorical-valued, etc.). Multinomial logistic regression is known by a variety of other names, including polytomous LR, multiclass LR, softmax regression, multinomial logit (mlogit), the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) classifier, and the conditional maximum entropy model. == Background == Multinomial logistic regression is used when the dependent variable in question is nominal (equivalently categorical, meaning that it falls into any one of a set of categories that cannot be ordered in any meaningful way) and for which there are more than two categories. Some examples would be: Which major will a college student choose, given their grades, stated likes and dislikes, etc.? Which blood type does a person have, given the results of various diagnostic tests? In a hands-free mobile phone dialing application, which person's name was spoken, given various properties of the speech signal? Which candidate will a person vote for, given particular demographic characteristics? Which country will a firm locate an office in, given the characteristics of the firm and of the various candidate countries? These are all statistical classification problems. They all have in common a dependent variable to be predicted that comes from one of a limited set of items that cannot be meaningfully ordered, as well as a set of independent variables (also known as features, explanators, etc.), which are used to predict the dependent variable. Multinomial logistic regression is a particular solution to classification problems that use a linear combination of the observed features and some problem-specific parameters to estimate the probability of each particular value of the dependent variable. The best values of the parameters for a given problem are usually determined from some training data (e.g. some people for whom both the diagnostic test results and blood types are known, or some examples of known words being spoken). == Assumptions == The multinomial logistic model assumes that data are case-specific; that is, each independent variable has a single value for each case. As with other types of regression, there is no need for the independent variables to be statistically independent from each other (unlike, for example, in a naive Bayes classifier); however, collinearity is assumed to be relatively low, as it becomes difficult to differentiate between the impact of several variables if this is not the case. If the multinomial logit is used to model choices, it relies on the assumption of independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA), which is not always desirable. This assumption states that the odds of preferring one class over another do not depend on the presence or absence of other "irrelevant" alternatives. For example, the relative probabilities of taking a car or bus to work do not change if a bicycle is added as an additional possibility. This allows the choice of K alternatives to be modeled as a set of K − 1 independent binary choices, in which one alternative is chosen as a "pivot" and the other K − 1 compared against it, one at a time. The IIA hypothesis is a core hypothesis in rational choice theory; however numerous studies in psychology show that individuals often violate this assumption when making choices. An example of a problem case arises if choices include a car and a blue bus. Suppose the odds ratio between the two is 1 : 1. Now if the option of a red bus is introduced, a person may be indifferent between a red and a blue bus, and hence may exhibit a car : blue bus : red bus odds ratio of 1 : 0.5 : 0.5, thus maintaining a 1 : 1 ratio of car : any bus while adopting a changed car : blue bus ratio of 1 : 0.5. Here the red bus option was not in fact irrelevant, because a red bus was a perfect substitute for a blue bus. If the multinomial logit is used to model choices, it may in some situations impose too much constraint on the relative preferences between the different alternatives. It is especially important to take into account if the analysis aims to predict how choices would change if one alternative were to disappear (for instance if one political candidate withdraws from a three candidate race). Other models like the nested logit or the multinomial probit may be used in such cases as they allow for violation of the IIA. == Model == === Introduction === There are multiple equivalent ways to describe the mathematical model underlying multinomial logistic regression. This can make it difficult to compare different treatments of the subject in different texts. The article on logistic regression presents a number of equivalent formulations of simple logistic regression, and many of these have analogues in the multinomial logit model. The idea behind all of them, as in many other statistical classification techniques, is to construct a linear predictor function that constructs a score from a set of weights that are linearly combined with the explanatory variables (features) of a given observation using a dot product: score ⁡ ( X i , k ) = β k ⋅ X i , {\displaystyle \operatorname {score} (\mathbf {X} _{i},k)={\boldsymbol {\beta }}_{k}\cdot \mathbf {X} _{i},} where Xi is the vector of explanatory variables describing observation i, βk is a vector of weights (or regression coefficients) corresponding to outcome k, and score(Xi, k) is the score associated with assigning observation i to category k. In discrete choice theory, where observations represent people and outcomes represent choices, the score is considered the utility associated with person i choosing outcome k. The predicted outcome is the one with the highest score. The difference between the multinomial logit model and numerous other methods, models, algorithms, etc. with the same basic setup (the perceptron algorithm, support vector machines, linear discriminant analysis, etc.) is the procedure for determining (training) the optimal weights/coefficients and the way that the score is interpreted. In particular, in the multinomial logit model, the score can directly be converted to a probability value, indicating the probability of observation i choosing outcome k given the measured characteristics of the observation. This provides a principled way of incorporating the prediction of a particular multinomial logit model into a larger procedure that may involve multiple such predictions, each with a possibility of error. Without such means of combining predictions, errors tend to multiply. For example, imagine a large predictive model that is broken down into a series of submodels where the prediction of a given submodel is used as the input of another submodel, and that prediction is in turn used as the input into a third submodel, etc. If each submodel has 90% accuracy in its predictions, and there are five submodels in series, then the overall model has only 0.95 = 59% accuracy. If each submodel has 80% accuracy, then overall accuracy drops to 0.85 = 33% accuracy. This issue is known as error propagation and is a serious problem in real-world predictive models, which are usually composed of numerous parts. Predicting probabilities of each possible outcome, rather than simply making a single optimal prediction, is one means of alleviating this issue. === Setup === The basic setup is the same as in logistic regression, the only difference being that the dependent variables are categorical rather than binary, i.e. there are K possible outcomes rather than just two. The following description is somewhat shortened; for more details, consult the logistic regression article. ==== Data points ==== Specifically, it is assumed that we have a series of N observed data points. Each data point i (ranging from 1 to N) consists of a set of M explanatory variables x1,i ... xM,i (also known as independent variables, predictor variables, features, etc.), and an associated categorical outcome Yi (also known as dependent variable, response variable), which can take on one of K possible values. These possible values represent logically separate categories (e.g. different political parties, blood types, etc.), and are often described mathematically by arbitrarily assigning each a number from 1 to K. The explanatory variables and outcome represent observed properties of the data points, and are often thought of as originating in the observations of N "experiments" — although an "experiment" may consist of nothing more than gathering data. The goal of multinomial logistic regression is to construct a model that explains the relationship between the explanatory variables and the outcome, so tha

  Read more →
• 

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic (DSAC) is a suite of model-free off-policy reinforcement learning algorithms, tailored for learning decision-making or control policies in complex systems with continuous action spaces. Distinct from traditional methods that focus solely on expected returns, DSAC algorithms are designed to learn a Gaussian distribution over stochastic returns, called value distribution. This focus on Gaussian value distribution learning notably diminishes value overestimations, which in turn boosts policy performance. Additionally, the value distribution learned by DSAC can also be used for risk-aware policy learning. From a technical standpoint, DSAC is essentially a distributional adaptation of the well-established soft actor-critic (SAC) method. To date, the DSAC family comprises two iterations: the original DSAC-v1 and its successor, DSAC-T (also known as DSAC-v2), with the latter demonstrating superior capabilities over the Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) in Mujoco benchmark tasks. The source code for DSAC-T can be found at the following URL: Jingliang-Duan/DSAC-T. Both iterations have been integrated into an advanced, Pytorch-powered reinforcement learning toolkit named GOPS: GOPS (General Optimal control Problem Solver).

  Read more →