AI Chat Character Apps

AI Chat Character Apps — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Distributed Common Ground System

  The Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is a system which produces military intelligence for multiple branches of the American military. == DCGS Programs == DCGS-N - DCGS for the United States Navy DCGS-A - DCGS for the United States Army AF DCGS - DCGS for the United States Air Force DCGS-MC - DCGS for the United States Marine Corps DCGS-SOF - DCGS for the United States Special Operations Forces IS&A Support Center - DCGS-A Help Desk for the United States Army - https://dcgsahelp.max.gov/ - Max.gov sunset 15 December 2023 == Description == While in U.S. Air Force use, the system produces intelligence collected by the U-2 Dragonlady, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator. The previous system of similar use was the Deployable Ground Station (DGS), which was first deployed in July 1994. Subsequent version of DGS were developed from 1995 through 2009. Although officially designated a "weapons system", it consists of computer hardware and software connected together in a computer network, devoted to processing and dissemination of information such as images. The 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing of the Air Combat Command operates and maintains the USAF system. A plan envisioned in 1998 was to develop interoperable systems for the Army and Navy, in addition to the Air Force. By 2006, version 10.6 was deployed by the Air Force, and a version known as DCGS-A was developed for the Army. After a 2010 report by General Michael T. Flynn, the program was intended to use cloud computing and be as easy to use as an iPad, which soldiers over a few years were commonly using. By April 2011, project manager Colonel Charles Wells announced version 3 of the Army system (code named "Griffin") was being deployed in the US war in Afghanistan. In January 2012, the United States Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center hosted a meeting based on the DCGS-A early experience. It brought together technology providers in the hope of developing more integrated systems using cloud computing with open architectures, compared to previously specialized custom-built systems. A major contractor was Lockheed Martin, with computers supplied by Silicon Graphics International out of its Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin office. Software known as the Analyst's Notebook, originally developed by i2 Limited, was included in DCGS-A. IBM acquired i2 in 2011. Some US Army personnel reported using a Palantir Technologies product to improve their ability to predict locations of improvised explosive devices. An April 2012 report recommending further study after initial success. Palantir software was rated easy to use, but did not have the flexibility and wide number of data sources of DCGS-A. In July 2012, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (from California, the state where Palantir is based) complained of US DoD obstacles to its wider use. Although a limited test in August 2011 by the Test and Evaluation Command had recommended deployment, operation problems of DCGS-A included the baseline system was "not operationally effective" with reboots on average about every 8 hours. A set of improvements was identified in November 2012. The press reported some of the shortcomings uncovered by General Genaro Dellarocco in the tests. The ambitious goal of integrating 473 data sources for 75 million reports proved to be challenging, after spending an estimated $2.3 billion on the Army system alone. In May 2013 Politico reported that Palantir lobbyists and some anonymous returning veterans continued to advocate the use of its software, despite its interoperability limits. In particular, members of special forces and US Marines were not required to use the official Army system. Similar stories appeared in other publications, with Army representatives (such as Major General Mary A. Legere) citing the limitations of various systems. Congressman Hunter was a member of the House Armed Services Committee which required a review of the program, after two other members of congress sent an open letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee included testimony from Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno. The 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) has found the system to be "unstable, slow, not friendly and a major hindrance to operations". The equivalent system for the United States Navy was planned for initial deployment by 2015, and within a shipboard network called Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) by 2016. Some early testing was announced in 2009 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman. A portion of the software, a distributed data framework for the DCGS integration backbone (DIB) version 4, was submitted to an open-source software repository of the Codice Foundation on GitHub. The framework was new for DIB version 4, replacing the legacy DIB portal with an Ozone Widget Framework interface. It was written in the Java programming language. == DCGS-A == Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the United States Army's primary system to post data, process information, and disseminate Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) information about the threat, weather, and terrain to echelons. DCGS-A provides commanders the ability to task battle-space sensors and receive intelligence information from multiple sources. === Promotion === An August 17, 2011, UPI article quoted i2 Chief Executive Officer Robert Griffin who commented on DCGS-A's best-of-breed approach to development. The article detailed the Army contracting with i2 for Analyst's Notebook software. "With its open architecture, Analyst's Notebook supports the Army's strategy to employ and integrate best-of-breed solutions from across the industry to meet the dynamic needs users face in the field on a daily basis." A February 1, 2012, article in the Army web page quoted Mark Kitz, DCGS-A technical director. DCGS-A "uses the latest in cloud technology to rapidly gather, collaborate and share intelligence data from multiple sources to deliver a common operating picture. DCGS-A is able to rapidly adapt to changing operational environments by leveraging an iterative development model and open architecture allowing for collaboration with multiple government, industry and academic partners." A July 2012 article in SIGNAL Magazine, monthly publication of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, promoted DCGS-A as taking advantage of technological environments with which young soldiers are familiar. The article quoted the DCGS-A program manager, Col. Charles Wells on the systems benefits. The article also included Lockheed Martin's DCGS-A program manager. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an article May 4, 2012, about Wisconsin-located companies helping DCGS-A with cloud computing technology. The article promoted the speed when cloud computing processes intelligence and cost savings by analyzing data in the field. === The U.S. Army's 2011 Posture Statement === The U.S. Army released its 2011 Army Posture Statement March 2. It included a statement on DCGS-A: “The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the Army's premier intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise for the tasking of sensors, analysis and processing of data, exploitation of data, and dissemination of intelligence (TPED) across all echelons. It is the Army component of the larger Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E) and interoperable with other Service DCGS programs. Under the DI2E framework, USD (I) hopes to provide COCOM Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs) capabilities interoperable with DCGS-A through a Cloud/widget approach. DCGS-A connects tactical, operational, and theater-level commanders to hundreds of intelligence and intelligence-related data sources at all classification levels and allows them to focus efforts of the entire ISR community on their information requirements. === Comparisons === Some Ground Commanders who describe DCGS-A as "unwieldy and unreliable, hard to learn and difficult to use," supporting alternative software from Palantir Technologies. Palantir software supports small unit situational awareness, but is not sufficiently funded to support the broader role that DCGS-A fulfills. == Operators == 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing 9th Intelligence Squadron 13th Intelligence Squadron 548th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group 548 Operational Support Squadron 48th Intelligence Squadron 101st Intelligence Squadron 113th Air Support Operations Squadron 127th Command and Control Squadron 161st Intelligence Squadron

  Read more →
• 

  Principal component analysis

  Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear dimensionality reduction technique with applications in exploratory data analysis, visualization and data preprocessing. The data are linearly transformed onto a new coordinate system such that the directions (principal components) capturing the largest variation in the data can be easily identified. The principal components of a collection of points in a real coordinate space are a sequence of p {\displaystyle p} unit vectors, where the i {\displaystyle i} -th vector is the direction of a line that best fits the data while being orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} vectors. Here, a best-fitting line is defined as one that minimizes the average squared perpendicular distance from the points to the line. These directions (i.e., principal components) constitute an orthonormal basis in which different individual dimensions of the data are linearly uncorrelated. Many studies use the first two principal components in order to plot the data in two dimensions and to visually identify clusters of closely related data points. Principal component analysis has applications in many fields such as population genetics, microbiome studies, and atmospheric science. == Overview == When performing PCA, the first principal component of a set of p {\displaystyle p} variables is the derived variable formed as a linear combination of the original variables that explains the most variance. The second principal component explains the most variance in what is left once the effect of the first component is removed, and we may proceed through p {\displaystyle p} iterations until all the variance is explained. PCA is most commonly used when many of the variables are highly correlated with each other and it is desirable to reduce their number to an independent set. The first principal component can equivalently be defined as a direction that maximizes the variance of the projected data. The i {\displaystyle i} -th principal component can be taken as a direction orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} principal components that maximizes the variance of the projected data. For either objective, it can be shown that the principal components are eigenvectors of the data's covariance matrix. Thus, the principal components are often computed by eigendecomposition of the data covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of the data matrix. PCA is the simplest of the true eigenvector-based multivariate analyses and is closely related to factor analysis. Factor analysis typically incorporates more domain-specific assumptions about the underlying structure and solves eigenvectors of a slightly different matrix. PCA is also related to canonical correlation analysis (CCA). CCA defines coordinate systems that optimally describe the cross-covariance between two datasets while PCA defines a new orthogonal coordinate system that optimally describes variance in a single dataset. Robust and L1-norm-based variants of standard PCA have also been proposed. == History == PCA was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson, as an analogue of the principal axis theorem in mechanics; it was later independently developed and named by Harold Hotelling in the 1930s. Depending on the field of application, it is also named the discrete Karhunen–Loève transform (KLT) in signal processing, the Hotelling transform in multivariate quality control, proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in mechanical engineering, singular value decomposition (SVD) of X (invented in the last quarter of the 19th century), eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of XTX in linear algebra, factor analysis (for a discussion of the differences between PCA and factor analysis see Ch. 7 of Jolliffe's Principal Component Analysis), Eckart–Young theorem (Harman, 1960), or empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) in meteorological science (Lorenz, 1956), empirical eigenfunction decomposition (Sirovich, 1987), quasiharmonic modes (Brooks et al., 1988), spectral decomposition in noise and vibration, and empirical modal analysis in structural dynamics. == Intuition == PCA can be thought of as fitting a p-dimensional ellipsoid to the data, where each axis of the ellipsoid represents a principal component. If some axis of the ellipsoid is small, then the variance along that axis is also small. To find the axes of the ellipsoid, we must first center the values of each variable in the dataset on 0 by subtracting the mean of the variable's observed values from each of those values. These transformed values are used instead of the original observed values for each of the variables. Then, we compute the covariance matrix of the data and calculate the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of this covariance matrix. Then we must normalize each of the orthogonal eigenvectors to turn them into unit vectors. Once this is done, each of the mutually-orthogonal unit eigenvectors can be interpreted as an axis of the ellipsoid fitted to the data. This choice of basis will transform the covariance matrix into a diagonalized form, in which the diagonal elements represent the variance of each axis. The proportion of the variance that each eigenvector represents can be calculated by dividing the eigenvalue corresponding to that eigenvector by the sum of all eigenvalues. Biplots and scree plots (degree of explained variance) are used to interpret findings of the PCA. == Details == PCA is defined as an orthogonal linear transformation on a real inner product space that transforms the data to a new coordinate system such that the greatest variance by some scalar projection of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the first principal component), the second greatest variance on the second coordinate, and so on. Consider an n × p {\displaystyle n\times p} data matrix, X, with column-wise zero empirical mean (the sample mean of each column has been shifted to zero), where each of the n rows represents a different repetition of the experiment, and each of the p columns gives a particular kind of feature (say, the results from a particular sensor). Mathematically, the transformation is defined by a set of size l {\displaystyle l} (where l {\displaystyle l} is usually selected to be strictly less than p {\displaystyle p} to reduce dimensionality) of p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional vectors of weights or coefficients w ( k ) = ( w 1 , … , w p ) ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(k)}=(w_{1},\dots ,w_{p})_{(k)}} that map each row vector x ( i ) = ( x 1 , … , x p ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{(i)}=(x_{1},\dots ,x_{p})_{(i)}} of X to a new vector of principal component scores t ( i ) = ( t 1 , … , t l ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} _{(i)}=(t_{1},\dots ,t_{l})_{(i)}} , given by t k ( i ) = x ( i ) ⋅ w ( k ) f o r i = 1 , … , n k = 1 , … , l {\displaystyle {t_{k}}_{(i)}=\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} _{(k)}\qquad \mathrm {for} \qquad i=1,\dots ,n\qquad k=1,\dots ,l} in such a way that the individual variables t 1 , … , t l {\displaystyle t_{1},\dots ,t_{l}} of t considered over the data set successively inherit the maximum possible variance from X, with each coefficient vector w constrained to be a unit vector. The above may equivalently be written in matrix form as T = X W {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} =\mathbf {X} \mathbf {W} } where T i k = t k ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {T} }_{ik}={t_{k}}_{(i)}} , X i j = x j ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {X} }_{ij}={x_{j}}_{(i)}} , and W j k = w j ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {W} }_{jk}={w_{j}}_{(k)}} . === First component === In order to maximize variance, the first weight vector w(1) thus has to satisfy w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( t 1 ) ( i ) 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( x ( i ) ⋅ w ) 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}(t_{1})_{(i)}^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} \right)^{2}\right\}} Equivalently, writing this in matrix form gives w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ‖ X w ‖ 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { w T X T X w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\left\|\mathbf {Xw} \right\|^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} \right\}} Since w(1) has been defined to be a unit vector, it equivalently also satisfies w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max { w T X T X w w T w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max \left\{{\frac {\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} }{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {w} }}\right\}} The quantity to be maximised can be recognised as a Rayleigh quotient. A standard result for a positive semidefinite matrix such as XTX is that the quotient's maximum possible value is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, which occurs when w is the corresponding eigenvector. With w(1) found, the first principal component of a data vector

  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 →
• 

  Algorithmic learning theory

  Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.

  Read more →
• 

  Pixelmator

  Pixelmator is a series of graphics editors developed by Apple for macOS, iOS, and iPadOS. Pixelmator apps leverage Apple-specific technologies such as CoreML and Metal. Pixelmator uses a proprietary format across their apps (.PXD), but supports editing a variety of file types including Photoshop, RAW, and WebP. == History == Pixelmator Team was founded in 2007 by Lithuanian brothers Saulius and Aidas Dailidė, and released Pixelmator (now Pixelmator Classic) 1.0 in September of the same year. The company resided in Vilnius, Lithuania. In November 2024, Pixelmator Team agreed to be acquired by Apple for an unknown monetary amount, which was completed on 11 February 2025, the company was later folded into Apple with its products coming under them fully. == Pixelmator Classic == Pixelmator Classic was the original version of Pixelmator released for Mac on 25 September 2007. It uses a palette-style interface with floating toolbars compared to Pixelmator Pro's single-window interface. It is no longer being updated and has been delisted from the Mac App Store. == Pixelmator iOS == Pixelmator for iOS launched on 23 October 2014 as an iPad-exclusive app with touch-optimized versions of Pixelmator's desktop features. In May 2015, Pixelmator for iOS 2.0 was released with support for the iPhone. Apple no longer updates Pixelmator for iOS as of 13 January 2026, shortly before the release of Pixelmator Pro for iPad. == Pixelmator Pro == Pixelmator Pro is an image, video, and vector editing software for macOS that launched on 29 November 2017. It was a paid upgrade for Pixelmator Classic users, featuring a redesigned interface, a graphics pipeline rewritten using Metal, Apple silicon support and a greater focus on ML/AI editing features. On 28 January 2026, Apple announced Apple Creator Studio, a subscription bundle for their professional software that contains Pixelmator Pro. They also brought Pixelmator Pro to iPad, shortly after discontinuing Pixelmator iOS. == Photomator == Photomator (formerly Pixelmator Photo) is a photo-oriented editing app which launched on iPad in 2019, on iOS in 2021, and macOS in 2022. After launching the macOS version, the app moved from a one-time purchase to a subscription; however, a lifetime license can still be purchased for $99. Photomator differentiates itself from other Pixelmator apps with features such as batch editing of full photoshoots and AI-powered color correction. Edits in Photomator are made on a single layer and are non-destructive.

  Read more →
• 

  Abess

  abess (Adaptive Best Subset Selection, also ABESS) is a machine learning method designed to address the problem of best subset selection. It aims to determine which features or variables are crucial for optimal model performance when provided with a dataset and a prediction task. abess was introduced by Zhu in 2020 and it dynamically selects the appropriate model size adaptively, eliminating the need for selecting regularization parameters. abess is applicable in various statistical and machine learning tasks, including linear regression, the Single-index model, and other common predictive models. abess can also be applied in biostatistics. == Basic Form == The basic form of abess is employed to address the optimal subset selection problem in general linear regression. abess is an l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} method, it is characterized by its polynomial time complexity and the property of providing both unbiased and consistent estimates. In the context of linear regression, assuming we have knowledge of n {\displaystyle n} independent samples ( x i , y i ) , i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i}),i=1,\ldots ,n} , where x i ∈ R p × 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p\times 1}} and y i ∈ R {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} } , we define X = ( x 1 , … , x n ) ⊤ {\displaystyle X=(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})^{\top }} and y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) ⊤ {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})^{\top }} . The following equation represents the general linear regression model: y = X β + ε . {\displaystyle y=X\beta +\varepsilon .} To obtain appropriate parameters β {\displaystyle \beta } , one can consider the loss function for linear regression: L n LR ( β ; X , y ) = 1 2 n ‖ y − X β ‖ 2 2 . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y)={\frac {1}{2n}}\|y-X\beta \|_{2}^{2}.} In abess, the initial focus is on optimizing the loss function under the l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} constraint. That is, we consider the following problem: min β ∈ R p × 1 L n LR ( β ; X , y ) , subject to ‖ β ‖ 0 ≤ s , {\displaystyle \min _{\beta \in \mathbb {R} ^{p\times 1}}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y),{\text{ subject to }}\|\beta \|_{0}\leq s,} where s {\displaystyle s} represents the desired size of the support set, and ‖ β ‖ 0 = ∑ i = 1 p I ( β i ≠ 0 ) {\displaystyle \|\beta \|_{0}=\sum _{i=1}^{p}{\mathcal {I}}_{(\beta _{i}\neq 0)}} is the l 0 {\displaystyle l_{0}} norm of the vector. To address the optimization problem described above, abess iteratively exchanges an equal number of variables between the active set and the inactive set. In each iteration, the concept of sacrifice is introduced as follows: For j in the active set ( j ∈ A ^ {\displaystyle j\in {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} ): ξ j = L n LR ( β ^ A ∖ { j } ) − L n LR ( β ^ A ) = X j ⊤ X j 2 n ( β ^ j ) 2 {\displaystyle \xi _{j}={\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{{\mathcal {A}}\backslash \{j\}}\right)-{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}\right)={\frac {{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}}{2n}}\left({\hat {\beta }}_{j}\right)^{2}} For j in the inactive set ( j ∉ A ^ {\displaystyle j\notin {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} ): ξ j = L n LR ( β ^ A ) − L n LR ( β ^ A + t ^ { j } ) = X j ⊤ X j 2 n ( d ^ j X j ⊤ X j / n ) 2 {\displaystyle \xi _{j}={\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}\right)-{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}+{\hat {\boldsymbol {t}}}^{\{j\}}\right)={\frac {{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}}{2n}}\left({\frac {{\hat {\mathrm {d} }}_{j}}{{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}/n}}\right)^{2}} Here are the key elements in the above equations: β ^ A {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}^{\mathcal {A}}} : This represents the estimate of β {\displaystyle \beta } obtained in the previous iteration. A ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathcal {A}}}} : It denotes the estimated active set from the previous iteration. β ^ A ∖ { j } {\displaystyle {\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{{\mathcal {A}}\backslash \{j\}}} : This is a vector where the j-th element is set to 0, while the other elements are the same as β ^ A {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}^{\mathcal {A}}} . t ^ { j } = arg ⁡ min t L n LR ( β ^ A + t { j } ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\boldsymbol {t}}}^{\{j\}}=\arg \min _{t}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}\left({\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}}^{\mathcal {A}}+{\boldsymbol {t}}^{\{j\}}\right)} : Here, t { j } {\displaystyle t^{\{j\}}} represents a vector where all elements are 0 except the j-th element. d ^ j = X j ⊤ ( y − X β ^ ) / n {\displaystyle {\hat {d}}_{j}={\boldsymbol {X}}_{j}^{\top }({\boldsymbol {y}}-{\boldsymbol {X}}{\hat {\boldsymbol {\beta }}})/n} : This is calculated based on the equation mentioned. The iterative process involves exchanging variables, with the aim of minimizing the sacrifices in the active set while maximizing the sacrifices in the inactive set during each iteration. This approach allows abess to efficiently search for the optimal feature subset. In abess, select an appropriate s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} and optimize the above problem for active sets size s = 1 , … , s max {\displaystyle s=1,\ldots ,s_{\max }} using the information criterion GIC = n log ⁡ L n LR + s log ⁡ p log ⁡ log ⁡ n , {\displaystyle {\text{GIC}}=n\log {\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}+s\log p\log \log n,} to adaptively choose the appropriate active set size s {\displaystyle s} and obtain its corresponding abess estimator. == Generalizations == The splicing algorithm in abess can be employed for subset selection in other models. === Distribution-Free Location-Scale Regression === In 2023, Siegfried extends abess to the case of Distribution-Free and Location-Scale. Specifically, it considers the optimization problem max ϑ ∈ R P , β ∈ R J , γ ∈ R J ∑ i = 1 N ℓ i ( ϑ , x i ⊤ β , exp ⁡ ( x i ⊤ γ ) − 1 ) , {\displaystyle \max _{{\boldsymbol {\vartheta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{P},{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{J},{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{J}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\ell _{i}\left({\boldsymbol {\vartheta }},{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\beta }},{\sqrt {\exp \left({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}\right)}}^{-1}\right),} subject to ‖ ( β ⊤ , γ ⊤ ) ⊤ ‖ 0 ≤ s , {\displaystyle \left\|\left({\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{\top },{\boldsymbol {\gamma }}^{\top }\right)^{\top }\right\|_{0}\leq s,} where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is a loss function, ϑ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\vartheta }}} is a parameter vector, β {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\beta }}} and γ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\gamma }}} are vectors, and x i {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}} is a data vector. This approach, demonstrated across various applications, enables parsimonious regression modeling for arbitrary outcomes while maintaining interpretability through innovative subset selection procedures. === Groups Selection === In 2023, Zhang applied the splicing algorithm to group selection, optimizing the following model: min β ∈ R p L n LR ( β ; X , y ) subject to ∑ j = 1 J I ( ‖ β G j ‖ 2 ≠ 0 ) ≤ s {\displaystyle \min _{{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}}{\mathcal {L}}_{n}^{\text{LR}}(\beta ;X,y){\text{ subject to }}\sum _{j=1}^{J}I\left(\|{\boldsymbol {\beta }}_{G_{j}}\|_{2}\neq 0\right)\leq s} Here are the symbols involved: J {\displaystyle J} : Total number of feature groups, representing the existence of J {\displaystyle J} non-overlapping feature groups in the dataset. G j {\displaystyle G_{j}} : Index set for the j {\displaystyle j} -th feature group, where j {\displaystyle j} ranges from 1 to J {\displaystyle J} , representing the feature grouping structure in the data. s {\displaystyle s} : Model size, a positive integer determined from the data, limiting the number of selected feature groups. === Regression with Corrupted Data === Zhang applied the splicing algorithm to handle corrupted data. Corrupted data refers to information that has been disrupted or contains errors during the data collection or recording process. This interference may include sensor inaccuracies, recording errors, communication issues, or other external disturbances, leading to inaccurate or distorted observations within the dataset. === Single Index Models === In 2023, Tang applied the splicing algorithm to optimal subset selection in the Single-index model. The form of the Single Index Model (SIM) is given by y i = g ( b ⊤ x i , e i ) , i = 1 , … , n , {\displaystyle y_{i}=g({\boldsymbol {b}}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i},e_{i}),\quad i=1,\ldots ,n,} where b {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {b}}} is the parameter vector, e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is the error term. The corresponding loss function is defined as l n ( β ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( r i n − 1 2 − x i ⊤ β ) 2 , {\displaystyle l_{n}({\boldsymbol {\beta }})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {r_{i}}{n}}-{\frac {1}{2}}-{\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}^{\top }{\boldsymbol {\beta }}\right)^{2},} where r {\disp

  Read more →
• 

  Common Voice

  Common Voice is a crowdsourcing project started by Mozilla to create a free and open speech corpus. The project is supported by volunteers who record sample sentences with a microphone and review recordings of other users. The transcribed sentences are collected in a voice database available under the public domain license CC0. This license ensures that developers can use the database for voice-to-text and text-to-voice applications without restrictions or costs. == Aims == Common Voice aims to provide diverse voice samples. According to Mozilla's Katharina Borchert, many existing projects took datasets from public radio or otherwise had datasets that underrepresented both women and people with pronounced accents. == Voice database == The first dataset was released in November 2017. More than 20,000 users worldwide had recorded 500 hours of English sentences. In February 2019, the first batch of languages was released for use. This included 18 languages such as English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese, but also less prevalent languages like Welsh and Kabyle. In total, this included almost 1,400 hours of recorded voice data from more than 42,000 contributors. By July 2020 the database had amassed 7,226 hours of voice recordings in 54 languages, 5,591 hours of which had been verified by volunteers. In May 2021, following the work to add Kinyarwanda, the project received a grant to add Kiswahili. At the beginning of 2022, Bengali.AI partnered with Common Voice to launch the "Bangla Speech Recognition" project that aims to make machines understand the Bangla language. 2000 hours of voice was collected. In September 2022, it was announced that the Twi language of Ghana was the 100th language to be added to the database. As of December 2025, Mozilla Common Voice collects voice data for over 250 languages, with the most hours having been collected in English, Catalan, Kinyarwanda, Belarusian and Esperanto.

  Read more →
• 

  Cellular evolutionary algorithm

  A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) is a kind of evolutionary algorithm (EA) in which individuals cannot mate arbitrarily, but every one interacts with its closer neighbors on which a basic EA is applied (selection, variation, replacement). The cellular model simulates natural evolution from the point of view of the individual, which encodes a tentative optimization, learning, or search problem solution. The essential 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 who communicates with his nearest neighbors. 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 "neighborhood". It is known that, in this kind of algorithm, similar individuals tend to cluster creating niches, and these groups operate as if they were separate sub-populations (islands). There is no clear borderline between adjacent groups, and close niches could be easily colonized by competitive niches and potentially merge solution contents during the process. Simultaneously, farther niches can be affected more slowly. == Introduction == A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) usually evolves a structured bidimensional grid of individuals, although other topologies are also possible. In this grid, clusters of similar individuals are naturally created during evolution, promoting exploration in their boundaries, while exploitation is mainly performed by direct competition and merging inside them. The grid is usually 2D toroidal structure, although the number of dimensions can be easily extended (to 3D) or reduced (to 1D, e.g. a ring). The neighborhood of a particular point of the grid (where an individual is placed) is defined in terms of the Manhattan distance from it to others in the population. Each point of the grid has a neighborhood that overlaps the neighborhoods of nearby individuals. In the basic algorithm, all the neighborhoods have the same size and identical shapes. The two most commonly used neighborhoods are L5, also called the Von Neumann or NEWS (North, East, West and South) neighborhood, and C9, also known as the Moore neighborhood. Here, L stands for "linear" while C stands for "compact". In cEAs, the individuals can only interact with their neighbors in the reproductive cycle where the variation operators are applied. This reproductive cycle is executed inside the neighborhood of each individual and, generally, consists in selecting two parents among its neighbors according to a certain criterion, applying the variation operators to them (recombination and mutation for example), and replacing the considered individual by the recently created offspring following a given criterion, for instance, replace if the offspring represents a better solution than the considered individual. == Synchronous versus asynchronous == In a regular synchronous cEA, the algorithm proceeds from the very first top left individual to the right and then to the several rows by using the information in the population to create a new temporary population. After finishing with the bottom-right last individual the temporary population is full with the newly computed individuals, and the replacement step starts. In it, the old population is completely and synchronously replaced with the newly computed one according to some criterion. Usually, the replacement keeps the best individual in the same position of both populations, that is, elitism is used. According to the update policy of the population used, an asynchronous cEA may also be defined and is a well-known issue in cellular automata. In asynchronous cEAs the order in which the individuals in the grid are update changes depending on the choice of criterion: line sweep, fixed random sweep, new random sweep, and uniform choice. All four proceed using the newly computed individual (or the original if better) for the computations of its neighbors. The overlap of the neighborhoods provides an implicit mechanism of solution migration to the cEA. Since the best solutions spread smoothly through the whole population, genetic diversity in the population is preserved longer than in non structured EAs. This soft dispersion of the best solutions through the population is one of the main issues of the good tradeoff between exploration and exploitation that cEAs perform during the search. This tradeoff can be tuned (and by extension the genetic diversity level along the evolution) by modifying (for instance) the size of the neighborhood used, as the overlap degree between the neighborhoods grows according to the size of the neighborhood. A cEA can be seen as a cellular automaton (CA) with probabilistic rewritable rules, where the alphabet of the CA is equivalent to the potential number of solutions of the problem. Hence, knowledge from research in CAs can be applied to cEAs. == Parallelism == Cellular EAs are very amenable to parallelism, thus usually found in the literature of parallel metaheuristics. In particular, fine grain parallelism can be used to assign independent threads of execution to every individual, thus allowing the whole cEA to run on a concurrent or actually parallel hardware platform. In this way, large time reductions can be obtained when running cEAs on FPGAs or GPUs. However, it is important to stress that cEAs are a model of search, in many senses different from traditional EAs. Also, they can be run in sequential and parallel platforms, reinforcing the fact that the model and the implementation are two different concepts. See here for a complete description on the fundamentals for the understanding, design, and application of cEAs.

  Read more →
• 

  Imaging phantom

  An imaging phantom, or simply phantom (less commonly spelled fantom), is a specially designed object that is scanned or imaged in the field of medical imaging to evaluate, analyze, and tune the performance of various imaging devices. A phantom is more readily available and provides more consistent results than the use of a living subject or cadaver, while also avoiding direct risks to living subjects. Phantoms were originally employed in 2D x-ray–based imaging techniques such as radiography or fluoroscopy, but more recently phantoms with desired imaging characteristics have been developed for 3D techniques such as SPECT, MRI, CT, ultrasound, PET, and other imaging modalities. == Design == A phantom used to evaluate an imaging device should respond in a similar manner to how human tissues and organs would act in that specific imaging modality. For instance, phantoms made for 2D radiography may hold various quantities of x-ray contrast agents with similar x-ray absorbing properties (such as the attenuation coefficient) to normal tissue to tune the contrast of the imaging device or modulate the patient's exposure to radiation. In such a case, the radiography phantom would not necessarily need to have similar textures and mechanical properties since these are not relevant in x-ray imaging modalities. However, in the case of ultrasonography, a phantom with similar rheological and ultrasound scattering properties to real tissue would be essential, but x-ray absorbing properties would not be relevant. The term "phantom" describes an object that is designed to resemble human tissue and can be evaluated, analyzed or manipulated to study the performance of a medical device. Phantoms are created using a digital file that is rendered through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computer-aided design (CAD). The digital files allow for quick modifications that are read by the 3D printer. The 3D printer will create the product in successive layers using polymeric materials. There are several types of phantoms including tissue-mimicking, radiological phantoms, dental phantoms, BOMABs (used to calibrate whole-body counters), and more.

  Read more →
• 

  Mathematics of neural networks in machine learning

  An artificial neural network (ANN) or neural network combines biological principles with advanced statistics to solve problems in domains such as pattern recognition and game-play. ANNs adopt the basic model of neuron analogues connected to each other in a variety of ways. == Structure == === Neuron === A neuron with label j {\displaystyle j} receiving an input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} from predecessor neurons consists of the following components: an activation a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , the neuron's state, depending on a discrete time parameter, an optional threshold θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , which stays fixed unless changed by learning, an activation function f {\displaystyle f} that computes the new activation at a given time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} from a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the net input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} giving rise to the relation a j ( t + 1 ) = f ( a j ( t ) , p j ( t ) , θ j ) , {\displaystyle a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} and an output function f out {\displaystyle f_{\text{out}}} computing the output from the activation o j ( t ) = f out ( a j ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle o_{j}(t)=f_{\text{out}}(a_{j}(t)).} Often the output function is simply the identity function. An input neuron has no predecessor but serves as input interface for the whole network. Similarly an output neuron has no successor and thus serves as output interface of the whole network. === Propagation function === The propagation function computes the input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} to the neuron j {\displaystyle j} from the outputs o i ( t ) {\displaystyle o_{i}(t)} and typically has the form p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j . {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}.} === Bias === A bias term can be added, changing the form to the following: p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j + w 0 j , {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}+w_{0j},} where w 0 j {\displaystyle w_{0j}} is a bias. == Neural networks as functions == Neural network models can be viewed as defining a function that takes an input (observation) and produces an output (decision) f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} or a distribution over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} or both X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} and Y {\displaystyle \textstyle Y} . Sometimes models are intimately associated with a particular learning rule. A common use of the phrase "ANN model" is really the definition of a class of such functions (where members of the class are obtained by varying parameters, connection weights, or specifics of the architecture such as the number of neurons, number of layers or their connectivity). Mathematically, a neuron's network function f ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)} is defined as a composition of other functions g i ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}(x)} , that can further be decomposed into other functions. This can be conveniently represented as a network structure, with arrows depicting the dependencies between functions. A widely used type of composition is the nonlinear weighted sum, where f ( x ) = K ( ∑ i w i g i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)=K\left(\sum _{i}w_{i}g_{i}(x)\right)} , where K {\displaystyle \textstyle K} (commonly referred to as the activation function) is some predefined function, such as the hyperbolic tangent, sigmoid function, softmax function, or rectifier function. The important characteristic of the activation function is that it provides a smooth transition as input values change, i.e. a small change in input produces a small change in output. The following refers to a collection of functions g i {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}} as a vector g = ( g 1 , g 2 , … , g n ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g=(g_{1},g_{2},\ldots ,g_{n})} . This figure depicts such a decomposition of f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} , with dependencies between variables indicated by arrows. These can be interpreted in two ways. The first view is the functional view: the input x {\displaystyle \textstyle x} is transformed into a 3-dimensional vector h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} , which is then transformed into a 2-dimensional vector g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} , which is finally transformed into f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of optimization. The second view is the probabilistic view: the random variable F = f ( G ) {\displaystyle \textstyle F=f(G)} depends upon the random variable G = g ( H ) {\displaystyle \textstyle G=g(H)} , which depends upon H = h ( X ) {\displaystyle \textstyle H=h(X)} , which depends upon the random variable X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of graphical models. The two views are largely equivalent. In either case, for this particular architecture, the components of individual layers are independent of each other (e.g., the components of g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} are independent of each other given their input h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} ). This naturally enables a degree of parallelism in the implementation. Networks such as the previous one are commonly called feedforward, because their graph is a directed acyclic graph. Networks with cycles are commonly called recurrent. Such networks are commonly depicted in the manner shown at the top of the figure, where f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} is shown as dependent upon itself. However, an implied temporal dependence is not shown. == Backpropagation == Backpropagation training algorithms fall into three categories: steepest descent (with variable learning rate and momentum, resilient backpropagation); quasi-Newton (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno, one step secant); Levenberg–Marquardt and conjugate gradient (Fletcher–Reeves update, Polak–Ribiére update, Powell–Beale restart, scaled conjugate gradient). === Algorithm === Let N {\displaystyle N} be a network with e {\displaystyle e} connections, m {\displaystyle m} inputs and n {\displaystyle n} outputs. Below, x 1 , x 2 , … {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots } denote vectors in R m {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , y 1 , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\dots } vectors in R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , and w 0 , w 1 , w 2 , … {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},w_{2},\ldots } vectors in R e {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{e}} . These are called inputs, outputs and weights, respectively. The network corresponds to a function y = f N ( w , x ) {\displaystyle y=f_{N}(w,x)} which, given a weight w {\displaystyle w} , maps an input x {\displaystyle x} to an output y {\displaystyle y} . In supervised learning, a sequence of training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x p , y p ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{p},y_{p})} produces a sequence of weights w 0 , w 1 , … , w p {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},\dots ,w_{p}} starting from some initial weight w 0 {\displaystyle w_{0}} , usually chosen at random. These weights are computed in turn: first compute w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} using only ( x i , y i , w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i},w_{i-1})} for i = 1 , … , p {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,p} . The output of the algorithm is then w p {\displaystyle w_{p}} , giving a new function x ↦ f N ( w p , x ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto f_{N}(w_{p},x)} . The computation is the same in each step, hence only the case i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} is described. w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} is calculated from ( x 1 , y 1 , w 0 ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1},w_{0})} by considering a variable weight w {\displaystyle w} and applying gradient descent to the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x 1 ) , y 1 ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x_{1}),y_{1})} to find a local minimum, starting at w = w 0 {\displaystyle w=w_{0}} . This makes w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} the minimizing weight found by gradient descent. == Learning pseudocode == To implement the algorithm above, explicit formulas are required for the gradient of the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x ) , y ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x),y)} where the function is E ( y , y ′ ) = | y − y ′ | 2 {\displaystyle E(y,y')=|y-y'|^{2}} . The learning algorithm can be divided into two phases: propagation and weight update. === Propagation === Propagation involves the following steps: Propagation forward through the network to generate the output value(s) Calculation of the cost (error term) Propagation of the output activations back through the network using the training pattern target to generate the deltas (the difference between the targeted and actual output values) of all output and hidden neurons. === Weight update === For each weight: Multiply the weight's output delta and input activation to find the gradient of the weight. Subtract the ratio (percentage) of the weight's gradient from the weight. The learning rate is the ratio (percentage) that influences the speed and quality of learning. The greater the ratio, the faster the neuron trains, but the lower the ratio, the more accurat

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Relief (feature selection)

  Relief is an algorithm developed by Kenji Kira and Larry Rendell in 1992 that takes a filter-method approach to feature selection that is notably sensitive to feature interactions. It was originally designed for application to binary classification problems with discrete or numerical features. Relief calculates a feature score for each feature which can then be applied to rank and select top scoring features for feature selection. Alternatively, these scores may be applied as feature weights to guide downstream modeling. Relief feature scoring is based on the identification of feature value differences between nearest neighbor instance pairs. If a feature value difference is observed in a neighboring instance pair with the same class (a 'hit'), the feature score decreases. Alternatively, if a feature value difference is observed in a neighboring instance pair with different class values (a 'miss'), the feature score increases. The original Relief algorithm has since inspired a family of Relief-based feature selection algorithms (RBAs), including the ReliefF algorithm. Beyond the original Relief algorithm, RBAs have been adapted to (1) perform more reliably in noisy problems, (2) generalize to multi-class problems (3) generalize to numerical outcome (i.e. regression) problems, and (4) to make them robust to incomplete (i.e. missing) data. To date, the development of RBA variants and extensions has focused on four areas; (1) improving performance of the 'core' Relief algorithm, i.e. examining strategies for neighbor selection and instance weighting, (2) improving scalability of the 'core' Relief algorithm to larger feature spaces through iterative approaches, (3) methods for flexibly adapting Relief to different data types, and (4) improving Relief run efficiency. Their strengths are that they are not dependent on heuristics, they run in low-order polynomial time, and they are noise-tolerant and robust to feature interactions, as well as being applicable for binary or continuous data; however, it does not discriminate between redundant features, and low numbers of training instances fool the algorithm. == Relief Algorithm == Take a data set with n instances of p features, belonging to two known classes. Within the data set, each feature should be scaled to the interval [0 1] (binary data should remain as 0 and 1). The algorithm will be repeated m times. Start with a p-long weight vector (W) of zeros. At each iteration, take the feature vector (X) belonging to one random instance, and the feature vectors of the instance closest to X (by Euclidean distance) from each class. The closest same-class instance is called 'near-hit', and the closest different-class instance is called 'near-miss'. Update the weight vector such that W i = W i − ( x i − n e a r H i t i ) 2 + ( x i − n e a r M i s s i ) 2 , {\displaystyle W_{i}=W_{i}-(x_{i}-\mathrm {nearHit} _{i})^{2}+(x_{i}-\mathrm {nearMiss} _{i})^{2},} where i {\displaystyle i} indexes the components and runs from 1 to p. Thus the weight of any given feature decreases if it differs from that feature in nearby instances of the same class more than nearby instances of the other class, and increases in the reverse case. After m iterations, divide each element of the weight vector by m. This becomes the relevance vector. Features are selected if their relevance is greater than a threshold τ. Kira and Rendell's experiments showed a clear contrast between relevant and irrelevant features, allowing τ to be determined by inspection. However, it can also be determined by Chebyshev's inequality for a given confidence level (α) that a τ of 1/sqrt(αm) is good enough to make the probability of a Type I error less than α, although it is stated that τ can be much smaller than that. Relief was also described as generalizable to multinomial classification by decomposition into a number of binary problems. == ReliefF Algorithm == Kononenko et al. propose a number of updates to Relief. Firstly, they find the near-hit and near-miss instances using the Manhattan (L1) norm rather than the Euclidean (L2) norm, although the rationale is not specified. Furthermore, they found taking the absolute differences between xi and near-hiti, and xi and near-missi to be sufficient when updating the weight vector (rather than the square of those differences). === Reliable probability estimation === Rather than repeating the algorithm m times, implement it exhaustively (i.e. n times, once for each instance) for relatively small n (up to one thousand). Furthermore, rather than finding the single nearest hit and single nearest miss, which may cause redundant and noisy attributes to affect the selection of the nearest neighbors, ReliefF searches for k nearest hits and misses and averages their contribution to the weights of each feature. k can be tuned for any individual problem. === Incomplete data === In ReliefF, the contribution of missing values to the feature weight is determined using the conditional probability that two values should be the same or different, approximated with relative frequencies from the data set. This can be calculated if one or both features are missing. === Multi-class problems === Rather than use Kira and Rendell's proposed decomposition of a multinomial classification into a number of binomial problems, ReliefF searches for k near misses from each different class and averages their contributions for updating W, weighted with the prior probability of each class. == Other Relief-based Algorithm Extensions/Derivatives == The following RBAs are arranged chronologically from oldest to most recent. They include methods for improving (1) the core Relief algorithm concept, (2) iterative approaches for scalability, (3) adaptations to different data types, (4) strategies for computational efficiency, or (5) some combination of these goals. For more on RBAs see these book chapters or this most recent review paper. === RRELIEFF === Robnik-Šikonja and Kononenko propose further updates to ReliefF, making it appropriate for regression. === Relieved-F === Introduced deterministic neighbor selection approach and a new approach for incomplete data handling. === Iterative Relief === Implemented method to address bias against non-monotonic features. Introduced the first iterative Relief approach. For the first time, neighbors were uniquely determined by a radius threshold and instances were weighted by their distance from the target instance. === I-RELIEF === Introduced sigmoidal weighting based on distance from target instance. All instance pairs (not just a defined subset of neighbors) contributed to score updates. Proposed an on-line learning variant of Relief. Extended the iterative Relief concept. Introduced local-learning updates between iterations for improved convergence. === TuRF (a.k.a. Tuned ReliefF) === Specifically sought to address noise in large feature spaces through the recursive elimination of features and the iterative application of ReliefF. === Evaporative Cooling ReliefF === Similarly seeking to address noise in large feature spaces. Utilized an iterative `evaporative' removal of lowest quality features using ReliefF scores in association with mutual information. === EReliefF (a.k.a. Extended ReliefF) === Addressing issues related to incomplete and multi-class data. === VLSReliefF (a.k.a. Very Large Scale ReliefF) === Dramatically improves the efficiency of detecting 2-way feature interactions in very large feature spaces by scoring random feature subsets rather than the entire feature space. === ReliefMSS === Introduced calculation of feature weights relative to average feature 'diff' between instance pairs. === SURF === SURF identifies nearest neighbors (both hits and misses) based on a distance threshold from the target instance defined by the average distance between all pairs of instances in the training data. Results suggest improved power to detect 2-way epistatic interactions over ReliefF. === SURF (a.k.a. SURFStar) === SURF extends the SURF algorithm to not only utilized 'near' neighbors in scoring updates, but 'far' instances as well, but employing inverted scoring updates for 'far instance pairs. Results suggest improved power to detect 2-way epistatic interactions over SURF, but an inability to detect simple main effects (i.e. univariate associations). === SWRF === SWRF extends the SURF algorithm adopting sigmoid weighting to take distance from the threshold into account. Also introduced a modular framework for further developing RBAs called MoRF. === MultiSURF (a.k.a. MultiSURFStar) === MultiSURF extends the SURF algorithm adapting the near/far neighborhood boundaries based on the average and standard deviation of distances from the target instance to all others. MultiSURF uses the standard deviation to define a dead-band zone where 'middle-distance' instances do not contribute to scoring. Evidence suggests MultiSURF performs best in detecting pure 2-way feature interactions. === Reli

  Read more →
• 

  BioBIKE

  BioBike(nee. BioLingua ) is a cloud-based, through-the-web programmable (Paas) symbolic biocomputing and bioinformatics platform that aims to make computational biology, and especially intelligent biocomputing (that is, the application of Artificial Intelligence to computational biology) accessible to research scientists who are not expert programmers. == Unique capabilities == BioBIKE is an integrated symbolic biocomputing and bioinformatics platform, built from the start as an entirely (what is now called) cloud-based architecture where all computing is done in remote servers, and all user access is accomplished through web browsers. BioBIKE has a built-in frame system in which all objects, data, and knowledge are represented. This enables code written either in the native Lisp, in the visual programming language, or systems of rules expressed in the SNARK theorem prover to access the whole of biological knowledge in an integrated manner. For its time (released in 2002) it was unique in permitting users to create fully functional biocomputing programs that run on the back-end servers entirely through the web browser UI. (In modern terms it was one of the first PaaS (Platform as a Service) systems, predating even Salesforce in this capability.) Initially this programming was carried out in raw Lisp, but Jeff Elhai's team at VCU, with NSF funding, created an entirely graphical programming environment on top of BioBIKE based upon the Boxer-style programming environments. Being a multi-headed, multi-threaded, multi-user, multi-tenancy cloud-based system, BioBIKE users were able to directly work together through their web browsers, remotely sharing the same listener and memory space. This permitted a unique sort of collaboration, discussed in Shrager (2007). A specialized offshoot of BioBIKE called "BioDeducta" includes SRI's SNARK theorem prover, offering unique "deductive biocomputing" capabilities. == Implementation == BioBIKE is open-source software implemented using the Lisp programming language. Continuing development takes place by the BioBIKE team centered at Virginia Commonwealth University . == History == BioBIKE was originally called "BioLingua", and was developed by Jeff Shrager at The Carnegie Inst. of Washington Dept. of Plant Biology, and JP Massar with funding from NASA's Astrobiology Division. Shrager and Massar wanted to create a web-based, multi-user Lisp Machine, specialized for bioinformatics. Other early contributors to the project included Mike Travers, and Jeff Elhai of VCU. Elhai obtained continuing funding from the National Science Foundation for the project, which was renamed BioBIKE. Elhai and colleagues added BioBIKE's unique visual programming language. Shrager, meanwhile, collaborated with Richard Waldinger at SRI to build SRI's (SNARK) theorem prover into BioBIKE, creating a deductive biocomputing system, called BioDeducta. == Instances == There used to be a number of BioBIKE verticals in different biological domains, including viral pathogens, cyanobacteria and other bacteria, Arabidopsis thaliana, and several others described in the references.

  Read more →
• 

  Weighted majority algorithm (machine learning)

  In machine learning, weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a meta learning algorithm used to construct a compound algorithm from a pool of prediction algorithms, which could be any type of learning algorithms, classifiers, or even real human experts. The algorithm assumes that we have no prior knowledge about the accuracy of the algorithms in the pool, but there are sufficient reasons to believe that one or more will perform well. Assume that the problem is a binary decision problem. To construct the compound algorithm, a positive weight is given to each of the algorithms in the pool. The compound algorithm then collects weighted votes from all the algorithms in the pool, and gives the prediction that has a higher vote. If the compound algorithm makes a mistake, the algorithms in the pool that contributed to the wrong predicting will be discounted by a certain ratio β where 0<β<1. It can be shown that the upper bounds on the number of mistakes made in a given sequence of predictions from a pool of algorithms A {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} } is O ( l o g | A | + m ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {O(log|A|+m)} } if one algorithm in x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} makes at most m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } mistakes. There are many variations of the weighted majority algorithm to handle different situations, like shifting targets, infinite pools, or randomized predictions. The core mechanism remains similar, with the final performances of the compound algorithm bounded by a function of the performance of the specialist (best performing algorithm) in the pool.

  Read more →
• 

  Induction of regular languages

  In computational learning theory, induction of regular languages refers to the task of learning a formal description (e.g. grammar) of a regular language from a given set of example strings. Although E. Mark Gold has shown that not every regular language can be learned this way (see language identification in the limit), approaches have been investigated for a variety of subclasses. They are sketched in this article. For learning of more general grammars, see Grammar induction. == Definitions == A regular language is defined as a (finite or infinite) set of strings that can be described by one of the mathematical formalisms called "finite automaton", "regular grammar", or "regular expression", all of which have the same expressive power. Since the latter formalism leads to shortest notations, it shall be introduced and used here. Given a set Σ of symbols (a.k.a. alphabet), a regular expression can be any of ∅ (denoting the empty set of strings), ε (denoting the singleton set containing just the empty string), a (where a is any character in Σ; denoting the singleton set just containing the single-character string a), r + s (where r and s are, in turn, simpler regular expressions; denoting their set's union) r ⋅ s (denoting the set of all possible concatenations of strings from r's and s's set), r + (denoting the set of n-fold repetitions of strings from r's set, for any n ≥ 1), or r (similarly denoting the set of n-fold repetitions, but also including the empty string, seen as 0-fold repetition). For example, using Σ = {0,1}, the regular expression (0+1+ε)⋅(0+1) denotes the set of all binary numbers with one or two digits (leading zero allowed), while 1⋅(0+1)⋅0 denotes the (infinite) set of all even binary numbers (no leading zeroes). Given a set of strings (also called "positive examples"), the task of regular language induction is to come up with a regular expression that denotes a set containing all of them. As an example, given {1, 10, 100}, a "natural" description could be the regular expression 1⋅0, corresponding to the informal characterization "a 1 followed by arbitrarily many (maybe even none) 0's". However, (0+1) and 1+(1⋅0)+(1⋅0⋅0) is another regular expression, denoting the largest (assuming Σ = {0,1}) and the smallest set containing the given strings, and called the trivial overgeneralization and undergeneralization, respectively. Some approaches work in an extended setting where also a set of "negative example" strings is given; then, a regular expression is to be found that generates all of the positive, but none of the negative examples. == Lattice of automata == Dupont et al. have shown that the set of all structurally complete finite automata generating a given input set of example strings forms a lattice, with the trivial undergeneralized and the trivial overgeneralized automaton as bottom and top element, respectively. Each member of this lattice can be obtained by factoring the undergeneralized automaton by an appropriate equivalence relation. For the above example string set {1, 10, 100}, the picture shows at its bottom the undergeneralized automaton Aa,b,c,d in grey, consisting of states a, b, c, and d. On the state set {a,b,c,d}, a total of 15 equivalence relations exist, forming a lattice. Mapping each equivalence E to the corresponding quotient automaton language L(Aa,b,c,d / E) obtains the partially ordered set shown in the picture. Each node's language is denoted by a regular expression. The language may be recognized by quotient automata w.r.t. different equivalence relations, all of which are shown below the node. An arrow between two nodes indicates that the lower node's language is a proper subset of the higher node's. If both positive and negative example strings are given, Dupont et al. build the lattice from the positive examples, and then investigate the separation border between automata that generate some negative example and such that do not. Most interesting are those automata immediately below the border. In the picture, separation borders are shown for the negative example strings 11 (green), 1001 (blue), 101 (cyan), and 0 (red). Coste and Nicolas present an own search method within the lattice, which they relate to Mitchell's version space paradigm. To find the separation border, they use a graph coloring algorithm on the state inequality relation induced by the negative examples. Later, they investigate several ordering relations on the set of all possible state fusions. Kudo and Shimbo use the representation by automaton factorizations to give a unique framework for the following approaches (sketched below): k-reversible languages and the "tail clustering" follow-up approach, Successor automata and the predecessor-successor method, and pumping-based approaches (framework-integration challenged by Luzeaux, however). Each of these approaches is shown to correspond to a particular kind of equivalence relations used for factorization. == Approaches == === k-reversible languages === Angluin considers so-called "k-reversible" regular automata, that is, deterministic automata in which each state can be reached from at most one state by following a transition chain of length k. Formally, if Σ, Q, and δ denote the input alphabet, the state set, and the transition function of an automaton A, respectively, then A is called k-reversible if: ∀a0, ..., ak ∈ Σ ∀s1, s2 ∈ Q: δ(s1, a0...ak) = δ(s2, a0...ak) ⇒ s1 = s2, where δ means the homomorphic extension of δ to arbitrary words. Angluin gives a cubic algorithm for learning of the smallest k-reversible language from a given set of input words; for k = 0, the algorithm has even almost linear complexity. The required state uniqueness after k + 1 given symbols forces unifying automaton states, thus leading to a proper generalization different from the trivial undergeneralized automaton. This algorithm has been used to learn simple parts of English syntax; later, an incremental version has been provided. Another approach based on k-reversible automata is the tail clustering method. === Successor automata === From a given set of input strings, Vernadat and Richetin build a so-called successor automaton, consisting of one state for each distinct character and a transition between each two adjacent characters' states. For example, the singleton input set {aabbaabb} leads to an automaton corresponding to the regular expression (a+⋅b+). An extension of this approach is the predecessor-successor method which generalizes each character repetition immediately to a Kleene + and then includes for each character the set of its possible predecessors in its state. Successor automata can learn exactly the class of local languages. Since each regular language is the homomorphic image of a local language, grammars from the former class can be learned by lifting, if an appropriate (depending on the intended application) homomorphism is provided. In particular, there is such a homomorphism for the class of languages learnable by the predecessor-successor method. The learnability of local languages can be reduced to that of k-reversible languages. === Early approaches === Chomsky and Miller (1957) used the pumping lemma: they guess a part v of an input string uvw and try to build a corresponding cycle into the automaton to be learned; using membership queries they ask, for appropriate k, which of the strings uw, uvvw, uvvvw, ..., uvkw also belongs to the language to be learned, thereby refining the structure of their automaton. In 1959, Solomonoff generalized this approach to context-free languages, which also obey a pumping lemma. === Cover automata === Câmpeanu et al. learn a finite automaton as a compact representation of a large finite language. Given such a language F, they search a so-called cover automaton A such that its language L(A) covers F in the following sense: L(A) ∩ Σ≤ l = F, where l is the length of the longest string in F, and Σ≤ l denotes the set of all strings not longer than l. If such a cover automaton exists, F is uniquely determined by A and l. For example, F = {ad, read, reread } has l = 6 and a cover automaton corresponding to the regular expression (r⋅e)⋅a⋅d. For two strings x and y, Câmpeanu et al. define x ~ y if xz ∈ F ⇔ yz ∈ F for all strings z of a length such that both xz and yz are not longer than l. Based on this relation, whose lack of transitivity causes considerable technical problems, they give an O(n4) algorithm to construct from F a cover automaton A of minimal state count. Moreover, for union, intersection, and difference of two finite languages they provide corresponding operations on their cover automata. Păun et al. improve the time complexity to O(n2). === Residual automata === For a set S of strings and a string u, the Brzozowski derivative u−1S is defined as the set of all rest-strings obtainable from a string in S by cutting off its prefix u (if possible), formally: u−1S = {v ∈ Σ: uv ∈ S}, cf. picture. Denis et al. define a

  Read more →