AI Code Editor Online Free

AI Code Editor Online Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Legendre moment

  In mathematics, Legendre moments are a type of image moment and are achieved by using the Legendre polynomial. Legendre moments are used in areas of image processing including: pattern and object recognition, image indexing, line fitting, feature extraction, edge detection, and texture analysis. Legendre moments have been studied as a means to reduce image moment calculation complexity by limiting the amount of information redundancy through approximation. == Legendre moments == Source: With order of m + n, and object intensity function f(x,y): L m n = ( 2 m + 1 ) ( 2 n + 1 ) 4 ∫ − 1 1 ∫ − 1 1 P m ( x ) P n ( y ) f ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle L_{mn}={\frac {(2m+1)(2n+1)}{4}}\int \limits _{-1}^{1}\int \limits _{-1}^{1}P_{m}(x)P_{n}(y)f(x,y)\,dx\,dy} where m,n = 1, 2, 3, ...∞ with the nth-order Legendre polynomials being: P n ( x ) = ∑ k = 0 n a k , n x k = ( − 1 ) n 2 n n ! ( d d x ) [ ( 1 − x 2 ) n ] {\displaystyle P_{n}(x)=\sum _{k=0}^{n}a_{k,n}x^{k}={\frac {(-1)^{n}}{2^{n}n!}}\left({\frac {d}{dx}}\right)[(1-x^{2})^{n}]} which can also be written: P n ( x ) = ∑ k = 0 D ( n ) ( − 1 ) k ( 2 n − 2 k ) ! 2 n k ! ( n − k ) ! ( n − 2 k ) ! x n − 2 k = ( 2 n ) ! 2 n ( n ! ) 2 x n − ( 2 n − 2 ) ! 2 n 1 ! ( n − 1 ) ! ( n − 2 ) ! x n − 2 + ⋯ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}P_{n}(x)&=\sum _{k=0}^{D(n)}(-1)^{k}{\frac {(2n-2k)!}{2^{n}k!(n-k)!(n-2k)!}}x^{n-2k}\\[5pt]&={\frac {(2n)!}{2^{n}(n!)^{2}}}x^{n}-{\frac {(2n-2)!}{2^{n}1!(n-1)!(n-2)!}}x^{n-2}+\cdots \end{aligned}}} where D(n) = floor(n/2). The set of Legendre polynomials {Pn(x)} form an orthogonal set on the interval [−1,1]: ∫ − 1 1 P n ( x ) P m ( x ) d x = 2 2 n + 1 δ n m {\displaystyle \int _{-1}^{1}P_{n}(x)P_{m}(x)\,dx={\frac {2}{2n+1}}\delta _{nm}} A recurrence relation can be used to compute the Legendre polynomial: ( n + 1 ) P n + 1 ( x ) − ( 2 n + 1 ) x P n ( x ) + n P n − 1 ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle (n+1)P_{n+1}(x)-(2n+1)xP_{n}(x)+nP_{n-1}(x)=0} f(x,y) can be written as an infinite series expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials [−1 ≤ x,y ≤ 1.]: f ( x , y ) = ∑ m = 0 ∞ ∑ n = 0 ∞ λ m n P m ( x ) P n ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)=\sum _{m=0}^{\infty }\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }\lambda _{mn}P_{m}(x)P_{n}(y)}

  Read more →
• 

  Calibration (statistics)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Julia (programming language)

  Julia is a dynamic general-purpose programming language. As a high-level language, distinctive aspects of Julia's design include a type system with parametric polymorphism, the use of multiple dispatch as a core programming paradigm, just-in-time compilation and a parallel garbage collection implementation. Notably, Julia does not support classes with encapsulated methods but instead relies on the types of all of a function's arguments to determine which method will be called. By default, Julia is run similarly to scripting languages, using its runtime, and allows for interactions, but Julia programs can also be compiled to small binary standalone executables (or to small libraries for e.g. Python), with e.g. the JuliaC.jl compiler. Julia programs can reuse libraries from other languages, and vice versa. Julia has interoperability with C, C++, Fortran, Rust, Python, and R. Additionally, some Julia packages have bindings to be used from Python and R as libraries. Julia is supported by programmer tools like IDEs (see below) and by notebooks like Pluto.jl, Jupyter, and since 2025, Google Colab officially supports Julia natively. Julia is sometimes used in embedded systems (e.g. has been used in a satellite in space on a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4; 64-bit Pis work best with Julia, and Julia is supported in Raspbian). == History == Work on Julia began in 2009, when Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski, Viral B. Shah, and Alan Edelman set out to create a free language that was both high-level and fast. On 14 February 2012, the team launched a website with a blog post explaining the language's mission. In an interview with InfoWorld in April 2012, Karpinski said about the name of the language, Julia: "There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name." Bezanson said he chose the name on the recommendation of a friend, then years later wrote: Maybe julia stands for "Jeff's uncommon lisp is automated"? Julia's syntax is stable, since version 1.0 in 2018, and Julia has a backward compatibility guarantee for 1.x and also a stability promise for the documented (stable) API, while in the years before in the early development prior to 0.7 the syntax (and semantics) was changed in new versions. All of the (registered package) ecosystem uses the new and improved syntax, and in most cases relies on new APIs that have been added regularly, and in some cases minor additional syntax added in a forward compatible way e.g. in Julia 1.7. In the 10 years since the 2012 launch of pre-1.0 Julia, the community has grown. The Julia package ecosystem has over 11.8 million lines of code (including docs and tests). The JuliaCon academic conference for Julia users and developers has been held annually since 2014 with JuliaCon2020 welcoming over 28,900 unique viewers, and then JuliaCon2021 breaking all previous records (with more than 300 JuliaCon2021 presentations available for free on YouTube, up from 162 the year before), and 43,000 unique viewers during the conference. Three of the Julia co-creators are the recipients of the 2019 James H. Wilkinson Prize for Numerical Software (awarded every four years) "for the creation of Julia, an innovative environment for the creation of high-performance tools that enable the analysis and solution of computational science problems." Also, Alan Edelman, professor of applied mathematics at MIT, has been selected to receive the 2019 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award "for outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, and computational science and for contributions to the Julia programming language." Version 0.3 was released in August 2014. Both Julia 0.7 and version 1.0 were released on 8 August 2018. Julia 1.4 added syntax for generic array indexing to handle e.g. 0-based arrays. The memory model was also changed. Julia 1.5 released in August 2020 added record and replay debugging support, for Mozilla's rr tool. The release changed the behavior in the REPL (to soft scope) to the one used in Jupyter, but keeps full compatible with non-REPL code (that retains hard scope). Julia 1.6 was the largest release since 1.0, and it was the long-term support (LTS) version for the longest time. Since Julia 1.7 development is back to time-based releases, and it was released in November 2021 with e.g. a new default random-number generator and Julia 1.7.3 fixed at least one security issue. Julia 1.8 added options for hiding source code when compiling Julia source code to executables. Julia 1.9 has added the ability to precompile packages to native machine code, done automatically; to improve precompilation of packages a new package PrecompileTools.jl was introduced, for use by package developers. Julia 1.10 was released on 25 December 2023 with new features such as parallel garbage collection. Julia 1.11 was released on 7 October 2024, and with it 1.10.5 became the next long-term support (LTS) version (i.e. those became the only two supported versions), since replaced by 1.10.10 released on 27 June, and 1.6 is no longer an LTS version. Julia 1.11 adds e.g. the new public keyword to signal safe public API (Julia users are advised to use such API, not internals, of Julia or packages, and package authors advised to use the keyword, generally indirectly, e.g. prefixed with the @compat macro, from Compat.jl, to also support older Julia versions, at least the LTS version). Julia 1.12 was released on 7 October 2025 (and 1.12.5 on 9 February 2026), and with it a JuliaC.jl package including the juliac compiler that works with it, for making rather small binary executables (much smaller than was possible before; through the use of new so-called trimming feature). Julia 1.10 LTS is an officially still-supported branch, but the 1.11 branch has also been maintained after 1.12 release, with 1.11.8 released and then 1.11.9 released on 8 February 2026. === JuliaCon === Since 2014, the Julia Community has hosted an annual Julia Conference focused on developers and users. The first JuliaCon took place in Chicago and kickstarted the annual occurrence of the conference. Since 2014, the conference has taken place across a number of locations including MIT and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The event audience has grown from a few dozen people to over 28,900 unique attendees during JuliaCon 2020, which took place virtually. JuliaCon 2021 also took place virtually with keynote addresses from professors William Kahan, the primary architect of the IEEE 754 floating-point standard (which virtually all CPUs and languages, including Julia, use), Jan Vitek, Xiaoye Sherry Li, and Soumith Chintala, a co-creator of PyTorch. JuliaCon grew to 43,000 unique attendees and more than 300 presentations (still freely accessible, plus for older years). JuliaCon 2022 will also be virtual held between July 27 and July 29, 2022, for the first time in several languages, not just in English. === Sponsors === The Julia language became a NumFOCUS fiscally sponsored project in 2014 in an effort to ensure the project's long-term sustainability. Jeremy Kepner at MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the founding sponsor of the Julia project in its early days. In addition, funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Intel, and agencies such as NSF, DARPA, NIH, NASA, and FAA have been essential to the development of Julia. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox web browser, with its research grants for H1 2019, sponsored "a member of the official Julia team" for the project "Bringing Julia to the Browser", meaning to Firefox and other web browsers. The Julia language is also supported by individual donors on GitHub. === The Julia company === JuliaHub, Inc. was founded in 2015 as Julia Computing, Inc. by Viral B. Shah, Deepak Vinchhi, Alan Edelman, Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski and Keno Fischer. In June 2017, Julia Computing raised US$4.6 million in seed funding from General Catalyst and Founder Collective, the same month was "granted $910,000 by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to support open-source Julia development, including $160,000 to promote diversity in the Julia community", and in December 2019 the company got $1.1 million funding from the US government to "develop a neural component machine learning tool to reduce the total energy consumption of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings". In July 2021, Julia Computing announced they raised a $24 million Series A round led by Dorilton Ventures, which also owns Formula One team Williams Racing, that partnered with Julia Computing. Williams' Commercial Director said: "Investing in companies building best-in-class cloud technology is a strategic focus for Dorilton and Julia's versatile platform, with revolutionary capabilities in simulation and modelling, is hugely relevant to our business. We look forward to embedding Julia Computing in the world's most technologically advanced sport". In June 2023, JuliaHub received (again, now

  Read more →
• 

  Latent Dirichlet allocation

  In natural language processing, latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a generative statistical model that explains how a collection of text documents can be described by a set of unobserved "topics." For example, given a set of news articles, LDA might discover that one topic is characterized by words like "president", "government", and "election", while another is characterized by "team", "game", and "score". It is one of the most common topic models. The LDA model was first presented as a graphical model for population genetics by J. K. Pritchard, M. Stephens and P. Donnelly in 2000. The model was subsequently applied to machine learning by David Blei, Andrew Ng, and Michael I. Jordan in 2003. Although its most frequent application is in modeling text corpora, it has also been used for other problems, such as in clinical psychology, social science, and computational musicology. The core assumption of LDA is that documents are represented as a random mixture of latent topics, and each topic is characterized by a probability distribution over words. The model is a generalization of probabilistic latent semantic analysis (pLSA), differing primarily in that LDA treats the topic mixture as a Dirichlet prior, leading to more reasonable mixtures and less susceptibility to overfitting. Learning the latent topics and their associated probabilities from a corpus is typically done using Bayesian inference, often with methods like Gibbs sampling or variational Bayes. == History == In the context of population genetics, LDA was proposed by J. K. Pritchard, M. Stephens and P. Donnelly in 2000. LDA was applied in machine learning by David Blei, Andrew Ng and Michael I. Jordan in 2003. == Overview == === Population genetics === In population genetics, the model is used to detect the presence of structured genetic variation in a group of individuals. The model assumes that alleles carried by individuals under study have origin in various extant or past populations. The model and various inference algorithms allow scientists to estimate the allele frequencies in those source populations and the origin of alleles carried by individuals under study. The source populations can be interpreted ex-post in terms of various evolutionary scenarios. In association studies, detecting the presence of genetic structure is considered a necessary preliminary step to avoid confounding. === Clinical psychology, mental health, and social science === In clinical psychology research, LDA has been used to identify common themes of self-images experienced by young people in social situations. Other social scientists have used LDA to examine large sets of topical data from discussions on social media (e.g., tweets about prescription drugs). Additionally, supervised Latent Dirichlet Allocation with covariates (SLDAX) has been specifically developed to combine latent topics identified in texts with other manifest variables. This approach allows for the integration of text data as predictors in statistical regression analyses, improving the accuracy of mental health predictions. One of the main advantages of SLDAX over traditional two-stage approaches is its ability to avoid biased estimates and incorrect standard errors, allowing for a more accurate analysis of psychological texts. In the field of social sciences, LDA has proven to be useful for analyzing large datasets, such as social media discussions. For instance, researchers have used LDA to investigate tweets discussing socially relevant topics, like the use of prescription drugs and cultural differences in China. By analyzing these large text corpora, it is possible to uncover patterns and themes that might otherwise go unnoticed, offering valuable insights into public discourse and perception in real time. === Musicology === In the context of computational musicology, LDA has been used to discover tonal structures in different corpora. === Machine learning === One application of LDA in machine learning – specifically, topic discovery, a subproblem in natural language processing – is to discover topics in a collection of documents, and then automatically classify any individual document within the collection in terms of how "relevant" it is to each of the discovered topics. A topic is considered to be a set of terms (i.e., individual words or phrases) that, taken together, suggest a shared theme. For example, in a document collection related to pet animals, the terms dog, spaniel, beagle, golden retriever, puppy, bark, and woof would suggest a DOG_related theme, while the terms cat, siamese, Maine coon, tabby, manx, meow, purr, and kitten would suggest a CAT_related theme. There may be many more topics in the collection – e.g., related to diet, grooming, healthcare, behavior, etc. that we do not discuss for simplicity's sake. (Very common, so called stop words in a language – e.g., "the", "an", "that", "are", "is", etc., – would not discriminate between topics and are usually filtered out by pre-processing before LDA is performed. Pre-processing also converts terms to their "root" lexical forms – e.g., "barks", "barking", and "barked" would be converted to "bark".) If the document collection is sufficiently large, LDA will discover such sets of terms (i.e., topics) based upon the co-occurrence of individual terms, though the task of assigning a meaningful label to an individual topic (i.e., that all the terms are DOG_related) is up to the user, and often requires specialized knowledge (e.g., for collection of technical documents). The LDA approach assumes that: The semantic content of a document is composed by combining one or more terms from one or more topics. Certain terms are ambiguous, belonging to more than one topic, with different probability. (For example, the term training can apply to both dogs and cats, but are more likely to refer to dogs, which are used as work animals or participate in obedience or skill competitions.) However, in a document, the accompanying presence of specific neighboring terms (which belong to only one topic) will disambiguate their usage. Most documents will contain only a relatively small number of topics. In the collection, e.g., individual topics will occur with differing frequencies. That is, they have a probability distribution, so that a given document is more likely to contain some topics than others. Within a topic, certain terms will be used much more frequently than others. In other words, the terms within a topic will also have their own probability distribution. When LDA machine learning is employed, both sets of probabilities are computed during the training phase, using Bayesian methods and an expectation–maximization algorithm. LDA is a generalization of older approach of probabilistic latent semantic analysis (pLSA), The pLSA model is equivalent to LDA under a uniform Dirichlet prior distribution. pLSA relies on only the first two assumptions above and does not care about the remainder. While both methods are similar in principle and require the user to specify the number of topics to be discovered before the start of training (as with k-means clustering) LDA has the following advantages over pLSA: LDA yields better disambiguation of words and a more precise assignment of documents to topics. Computing probabilities allows a "generative" process by which a collection of new "synthetic documents" can be generated that would closely reflect the statistical characteristics of the original collection. Unlike LDA, pLSA is vulnerable to overfitting especially when the size of corpus increases. The LDA algorithm is more readily amenable to scaling up for large data sets using the MapReduce approach on a computing cluster. == Model == With plate notation, which is often used to represent probabilistic graphical models (PGMs), the dependencies among the many variables can be captured concisely. The boxes are "plates" representing replicates, which are repeated entities. The outer plate represents documents, while the inner plate represents the repeated word positions in a given document; each position is associated with a choice of topic and word. The variable names are defined as follows: M denotes the number of documents N is number of words in a given document (document i has N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} words) α is the parameter of the Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distributions β is the parameter of the Dirichlet prior on the per-topic word distribution θ i {\displaystyle \theta _{i}} is the topic distribution for document i φ k {\displaystyle \varphi _{k}} is the word distribution for topic k z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} is the topic for the j-th word in document i w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the specific word. The fact that W is grayed out means that words w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} are the only observable variables, and the other variables are latent variables. As proposed in the original paper, a sparse Dirichlet prior can be used to model the to

  Read more →
• 

  Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine

  The Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine (sometimes called the Machine Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine or MENACE) was a mechanical computer made from 304 matchboxes designed and built by artificial intelligence researcher Donald Michie and his colleague Roger Chambers, in 1961. It was designed to play human opponents in games of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) by returning a move for any given state of play and to refine its strategy through reinforcement learning. This was one of the first types of artificial intelligence. Michie and Chambers did not have immediate access to a computer; they worked around this by building the engine out of matchboxes. The matchboxes they used each represented a single possible layout of a noughts and crosses grid. When the computer first played, it would randomly choose moves based on the current layout. As it played more games, through a reinforcement loop, it disqualified strategies that led to losing games, and supplemented strategies that led to winning games. Michie held a tournament against MENACE in 1961, wherein he experimented with different openings. Following MENACE's maiden tournament against Michie, it demonstrated successful artificial intelligence in its strategy. Michie's essays on MENACE's weight initialisation and the BOXES algorithm used by MENACE became popular in the field of computer science research. Michie was honoured for his contribution to machine learning research, and was twice commissioned to program a MENACE simulation on an actual computer. == Origin == Donald Michie (1923–2007) had been on the team decrypting the German Tunny Code during World War II. Fifteen years later, he wanted to further display his mathematical and computational prowess with an early convolutional neural network. Since computer equipment was not obtainable for such uses, and Michie did not have a computer readily available, he decided to display and demonstrate artificial intelligence in a more esoteric format and constructed a functional mechanical computer out of matchboxes and beads. MENACE was constructed as the result of a bet with a computer science colleague who postulated that such a machine was impossible. Michie undertook the task of collecting and defining each matchbox as a "fun project", later turned into a demonstration tool. Michie completed his essay on MENACE in 1963, "Experiments on the mechanization of game-learning", as well as his essay on the BOXES Algorithm, written with R. A. Chambers and had built up an AI research unit in Hope Park Square, Edinburgh, Scotland. MENACE learned by playing successive matches of noughts and crosses. Each time, it would eliminate a losing strategy by the human player confiscating the beads that corresponded to each move. It reinforced winning strategies by making the moves more likely, by supplying extra beads. This was one of the earliest versions of the Reinforcement Loop, the schematic algorithm of looping the algorithm, dropping unsuccessful strategies until only the winning ones remain. This model starts as completely random, and gradually learns. == Composition == MENACE was made from 304 matchboxes glued together in an arrangement similar to a chest of drawers. Each box had a code number, which was keyed into a chart. This chart had drawings of tic-tac-toe game grids with various configurations of X, O, and empty squares, corresponding to all possible permutations a game could go through as it progressed. After removing duplicate arrangements (ones that were simply rotations or mirror images of other configurations), MENACE used 304 permutations in its chart and thus that many matchboxes. Each individual matchbox tray contained a collection of coloured beads. Each colour represented a move on a square on the game grid, and so matchboxes with arrangements where positions on the grid were already taken would not have beads for that position. Additionally, at the front of the tray were two extra pieces of card in a "V" shape, the point of the "V" pointing at the front of the matchbox. Michie and his artificial intelligence team called MENACE's algorithm "Boxes", after the apparatus used for the machine. The first stage "Boxes" operated in five phases, each setting a definition and a precedent for the rules of the algorithm in relation to the game. == Operation == MENACE played first, as O, since all matchboxes represented permutations only relevant to the "X" player. To retrieve MENACE's choice of move, the opponent or operator located the matchbox that matched the current game state, or a rotation or mirror image of it. For example, at the start of a game, this would be the matchbox for an empty grid. The tray would be removed and lightly shaken so as to move the beads around. Then, the bead that had rolled into the point of the "V" shape at the front of the tray was the move MENACE had chosen to make. Its colour was then used as the position to play on, and, after accounting for any rotations or flips needed based on the chosen matchbox configuration's relation to the current grid, the O would be placed on that square. Then the player performed their move, the new state was located, a new move selected, and so on, until the game was finished. When the game had finished, the human player observed the game's outcome. As a game was played, each matchbox that was used for MENACE's turn had its tray returned to it ajar, and the bead used kept aside, so that MENACE's choice of moves and the game states they belonged to were recorded. Michie described his reinforcement system with "reward" and "punishment". Once the game was finished, if MENACE had won, it would then receive a "reward" for its victory. The removed beads showed the sequence of the winning moves. These were returned to their respective trays, easily identifiable since they were slightly open, as well as three bonus beads of the same colour. In this way, in future games MENACE would become more likely to repeat those winning moves, reinforcing winning strategies. If it lost, the removed beads were not returned, "punishing" MENACE, and meaning that in future it would be less likely, and eventually incapable if that colour of bead became absent, to repeat the moves that cause a loss. If the game was a draw, one additional bead was added to each box. == Results in practice == === Optimal strategy === Noughts and crosses has a well-known optimal strategy. A player must place their symbol in a way that blocks the other player from achieving any rows while simultaneously making a row themself. However, if both players use this strategy, the game always ends in a draw. If the human player is familiar with the optimal strategy, and MENACE can quickly learn it, then the games will eventually only end in draws. The likelihood of the computer winning increases quickly when the computer plays against a random-playing opponent. When playing against a player using optimal strategy, the odds of a draw grow to 100%. In Donald Michie's official tournament against MENACE in 1961 he used optimal strategy, and he and the computer began to draw consistently after twenty games. Michie's tournament had the following milestones: Michie began by consistently opening with "Variant 0", the middle square. At 15 games, MENACE abandoned all non-corner openings. At just over 20, Michie switched to consistently using "Variant 1", the bottom-right square. At 60, he returned to Variant 0. As he neared 80 games, he moved to "Variant 2", the top-middle. At 110, he switched to "Variant 3", the top right. At 135, he switched to "Variant 4", middle-right. At 190, he returned to Variant 1, and at 210, he returned to Variant 0. The trend in changes of beads in the "2" boxes runs: === Correlation === Depending on the strategy employed by the human player, MENACE produces a different trend on scatter graphs of wins. Using a random turn from the human player results in an almost-perfect positive trend. Playing the optimal strategy returns a slightly slower increase. The reinforcement does not create a perfect standard of wins; the algorithm will draw random uncertain conclusions each time. After the j-th round, the correlation of near-perfect play runs: 1 − D D − D ( j + 2 ) ∑ i = 0 j D ( j i + 1 ) V i {\displaystyle {1-D \over D-D^{(j+2)}}\sum _{i=0}^{j}D^{(ji+1)}V_{i}} Where Vi is the outcome (+1 is win, 0 is draw and -1 is loss) and D is the decay factor (average of past values of wins and losses). Below, Mn is the multiplier for the n-th round of the game. == Legacy == Donald Michie's MENACE proved that a computer could learn from failure and success to become good at a task. It used what would become core principles within the field of machine learning before they had been properly theorised. For example, the combination of how MENACE starts with equal numbers of types of beads in each matchbox, and how these are then selected at random, creates a learning behaviour similar to weight initialisation

  Read more →
• 

  Amazon Rekognition

  Amazon Rekognition is a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) computer vision platform that was launched in 2016. It has been sold to, and used by, a number of United States government agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Orlando, Florida police, as well as private entities. == Capabilities == Rekognition provides a number of computer vision capabilities, which can be divided into two categories: Algorithms that are pre-trained on data collected by Amazon or its partners, and algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset. As of July 2019, Rekognition provides the following computer vision capabilities. === Pre-trained algorithms === Celebrity recognition in images Facial attribute detection in images, including gender, age range, emotions (e.g. happy, calm, disgusted), whether the face has a beard or mustache, whether the face has eyeglasses or sunglasses, whether the eyes are open, whether the mouth is open, whether the person is smiling, and the location of several markers such as the pupils and jaw line. People Pathing enables tracking of people through a video. An advertised use-case of this capability is to track sports players for post-game analysis. Text detection and classification in images Unsafe visual content detection === Algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset === SearchFaces enables users to import a database of images with pre-labeled faces, to train a machine learning model on this database, and to expose the model as a cloud service with an API. Then, the user can post new images to the API and receive information about the faces in the image. The API can be used to expose a number of capabilities, including identifying faces of known people, comparing faces, and finding similar faces in a database. Face-based user verification == History and use == === 2017 === In late 2017, the Washington County, Oregon Sheriff's Office began using Rekognition to identify suspects' faces. Rekognition was marketed as a general-purpose computer vision tool, and an engineer working for Washington County decided to use the tool for facial analysis of suspects. Rekognition was offered to the department for free, and Washington County became the first US law enforcement agency known to use Rekognition. In 2018, the agency logged over 1,000 facial searches. The county, according to the Washington Post, by 2019 was paying about $7 a month for all of its searches. The relationship was unknown to the public until May 2018. In 2018, Rekognition was also used to help identify celebrities during a royal wedding telecast. === 2018 === In April 2018, it was reported that FamilySearch was using Rekognition to enable their users to "see which of their ancestors they most resemble based on family photographs". In early 2018, the FBI also began using it as a pilot program for analyzing video surveillance. In May 2018, it was reported by the ACLU that Orlando, Florida was running a pilot using Rekognition for facial analysis in law enforcement, with that pilot ending in July 2019. After the report, on June 22, 2018, Gizmodo reported that Amazon workers had written a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos requesting he cease selling Rekognition to US law enforcement, particularly ICE and Homeland Security. A letter was also sent to Bezos by the ACLU. On June 26, 2018, it was reported that the Orlando police force had ceased using Rekognition after their trial contract expired, reserving the right to use it in the future. The Orlando Police Department said that they had "never gotten to the point to test images" due to old infrastructure and low bandwidth. In July 2018, the ACLU released a test showing that Rekognition had falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshot photos, particularly Congresspeople of color. 25 House members afterwards sent a letter to Bezos, expressing concern about Rekognition. Amazon responded saying the Rekognition test had generated 80 percent confidence, while it recommended law enforcement only use matches rated at 99 percent confidence. The Washington Post states that Oregon instead has officers pick a "best of five" result, instead of adhering to the recommendation. In September 2018, it was reported that Mapillary was using Rekognition to read the text on parking signs (e.g. no stopping, no parking, or specific parking hours) in cities. In October 2018, it was reported that Amazon had earlier that year pitched Rekognition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Amazon defended government use of Rekognition. On December 1, 2018, it was reported that 8 Democratic lawmakers had said in a letter that Amazon had "failed to provide sufficient answers" about Rekognition, writing that they had "serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public." === 2019 === In January 2019, MIT researchers published a peer-reviewed study asserting that Rekognition had more difficulty in identifying dark-skinned females than competitors such as IBM and Microsoft. In the study, Rekognition misidentified darker-skinned women as men 31% of the time, but made no mistakes for light-skinned men. Amazon called the report "misinterpreted results" of the research with an improper "default confidence threshold." In January 2019, Amazon's shareholders "urged Amazon to stop selling Rekognition software to law enforcement agencies." Amazon in response defended its use of Rekognition, but supported new federal oversight and guidelines to "make sure facial recognition technology cannot be used to discriminate." In February 2019, it was reported that Amazon was collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on developing standardized tests to improve accuracy and remove bias with facial recognition. In March 2019, an open letter regarding Rekognition was sent by a group of prominent AI researchers to Amazon, criticizing its sale to law enforcement with around 50 signatures. In April 2019, Amazon was told by the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had to vote on two shareholder proposals seeking to limit Rekognition. Amazon argued that the proposals were an "insignificant public policy issue for the Company" not related to Amazon's ordinary business, but their appeal was denied. The vote was set for May. The first proposal was tabled by shareholders. On May 24, 2019, 2.4% of shareholders voted to stop selling Rekognition to government agencies, while a second proposal calling for a study into Rekognition and civil rights had 27.5% support. In August 2019, the ACLU again used Rekognition on members of government, with 26 of 120 lawmakers in California flagged as matches to mugshots. Amazon stated the ACLU was "misusing" the software in the tests, by not dismissing results that did not meet Amazon's recommended accuracy threshold of 99%. By August 2019, there had been protests against ICE's use of Rekognition to surveil immigrants. In March 2019, Amazon announced a Rekognition update that would improve emotional detection, and in August 2019, "fear" was added to emotions that Rekognition could detect. === 2020 === In June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. === 2024 === The Department of Justice disclosed that the FBI is initiating the use of Amazon Rekognition. The DOJ's AI inventory revealed the FBI's "Project Tyr" aims to customize Rekognition to identify nudity, weapons, explosives, and other information from lawfully acquired media. === 2025 === In late 2025, the New York Times reported that scientist, Dr. Jürgen Matthäus, retired from as the head of research at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., used Amazon Rekognition to identify the shooter in the Holocaust photograph known as The Last Jew in Vinnitsa "with more than 99 percent certainty" — as Jakobus Onnen (1906–1943), a teacher from Tichelwarf near Weener in East Frisia who had been a member of the SS since 1934 and was later killed in action near Zhitomir in 1943. The photographer and victim remain unidentified. == Controversy regarding facial analysis == === Racial and gender bias === In 2018, MIT researchers Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru published a study called Gender Shades. In this study, a set of images was collected, and faces in the images were labeled with face position, gender, and skin tone information. The images were run through SaaS facial recognition platforms from Face++, IBM, and Microsoft. In all three of these platforms, the classifiers performed best on male faces (with error rates on female faces being 8.1% to 20.6% higher than error rates on male faces), and they performed worst on dark female faces (with error rates ranging from 20.8% to 30.4%). The authors hypothesized that this discr

  Read more →
• 

  Probably approximately correct learning

  In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function network

  In the field of mathematical modeling, a radial basis function network is an artificial neural network that uses radial basis functions as activation functions. The output of the network is a linear combination of radial basis functions of the inputs and neuron parameters. Radial basis function networks have many uses, including function approximation, time series prediction, classification, and system control. They were first formulated in a 1988 paper by Broomhead and Lowe, both researchers at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. == Network architecture == Radial basis function (RBF) networks typically have three layers: an input layer, a hidden layer with a non-linear RBF activation function and a linear output layer. The input can be modeled as a vector of real numbers x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The output of the network is then a scalar function of the input vector, φ : R n → R {\displaystyle \varphi :\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } , and is given by φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N a i ρ ( | | x − c i | | ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}\rho (||\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}||)} where N {\displaystyle N} is the number of neurons in the hidden layer, c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} is the center vector for neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} is the weight of neuron i {\displaystyle i} in the linear output neuron. Functions that depend only on the distance from a center vector are radially symmetric about that vector, hence the name radial basis function. In the basic form, all inputs are connected to each hidden neuron. The norm is typically taken to be the Euclidean distance (although the Mahalanobis distance appears to perform better with pattern recognition) and the radial basis function is commonly taken to be Gaussian ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = exp ⁡ [ − β i ‖ x − c i ‖ 2 ] {\displaystyle \rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}=\exp \left[-\beta _{i}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert ^{2}\right]} . The Gaussian basis functions are local to the center vector in the sense that lim | | x | | → ∞ ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{||x||\to \infty }\rho (\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert )=0} i.e. changing parameters of one neuron has only a small effect for input values that are far away from the center of that neuron. Given certain mild conditions on the shape of the activation function, RBF networks are universal approximators on a compact subset of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . This means that an RBF network with enough hidden neurons can approximate any continuous function on a closed, bounded set with arbitrary precision. The parameters a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} , c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} , and β i {\displaystyle \beta _{i}} are determined in a manner that optimizes the fit between φ {\displaystyle \varphi } and the data. === Normalization === ==== Normalized architecture ==== In addition to the above unnormalized architecture, RBF networks can be normalized. In this case the mapping is φ ( x ) = d e f ∑ i = 1 N a i ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = ∑ i = 1 N a i u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} where u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = d e f ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ j = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c j ‖ ) {\displaystyle u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\frac {\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{j=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{j}\right\Vert {\big )}}}} is known as a normalized radial basis function. ==== Theoretical motivation for normalization ==== There is theoretical justification for this architecture in the case of stochastic data flow. Assume a stochastic kernel approximation for the joint probability density P ( x ∧ y ) = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) σ ( | y − e i | ) {\displaystyle P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)={1 \over N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\,\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\,\sigma {\big (}\left\vert y-e_{i}\right\vert {\big )}} where the weights c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} and e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} are exemplars from the data and we require the kernels to be normalized ∫ ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) d n x = 1 {\displaystyle \int \rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\,d^{n}\mathbf {x} =1} and ∫ σ ( | y − e i | ) d y = 1 {\displaystyle \int \sigma {\big (}\left\vert y-e_{i}\right\vert {\big )}\,dy=1} . The probability densities in the input and output spaces are P ( x ) = ∫ P ( x ∧ y ) d y = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\int P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)\,dy={1 \over N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\,\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} and The expectation of y given an input x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is φ ( x ) = d e f E ( y ∣ x ) = ∫ y P ( y ∣ x ) d y {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ E\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)=\int y\,P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)dy} where P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)} is the conditional probability of y given x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The conditional probability is related to the joint probability through Bayes' theorem P ( y ∣ x ) = P ( x ∧ y ) P ( x ) {\displaystyle P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)={\frac {P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)}{P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)}}} which yields φ ( x ) = ∫ y P ( x ∧ y ) P ( x ) d y {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\int y\,{\frac {P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)}{P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)}}\,dy} . This becomes φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N e i ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = ∑ i = 1 N e i u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} when the integrations are performed. === Local linear models === It is sometimes convenient to expand the architecture to include local linear models. In that case the architectures become, to first order, φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( a i + b i ⋅ ( x − c i ) ) ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(a_{i}+\mathbf {b} _{i}\cdot \left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right)\right)\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} and φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( a i + b i ⋅ ( x − c i ) ) u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(a_{i}+\mathbf {b} _{i}\cdot \left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right)\right)u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} in the unnormalized and normalized cases, respectively. Here b i {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} _{i}} are weights to be determined. Higher order linear terms are also possible. This result can be written φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 2 N ∑ j = 1 n e i j v i j ( x − c i ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{2N}\sum _{j=1}^{n}e_{ij}v_{ij}{\big (}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}{\big )}} where e i j = { a i , if i ∈ [ 1 , N ] b i j , if i ∈ [ N + 1 , 2 N ] {\displaystyle e_{ij}={\begin{cases}a_{i},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [1,N]\\b_{ij},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [N+1,2N]\end{cases}}} and v i j ( x − c i ) = d e f { δ i j ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) , if i ∈ [ 1 , N ] ( x i j − c i j ) ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) , if i ∈ [ N + 1 , 2 N ] {\displaystyle v_{ij}{\big (}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}{\big )}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\begin{cases}\delta _{ij}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [1,N]\\\left(x_{ij}-c_{ij}\right)\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [N+1,2N]\end{cases}}} in the unnormalized case and in the normalized case. Here δ i j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}} is a Kronecker delta function defined as δ i j = { 1 , if i = j 0 , if i ≠ j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}={\begin{cases}1,&{\mbox{if }}i=j\\0,&{\mbox{if }}i\neq j\end{cases}}} . == Training == RBF networks are typically trained from pairs of input and target values x ( t ) , y ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} (t),y(t)} , t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} by a two-step algorithm. In the first step, the center vectors c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} of the RBF functions in the hidden layer

  Read more →
• 

  Learning to rank

  Learning to rank (LTR) or machine-learned ranking (MLR) is the application of machine learning, often supervised, semi-supervised or reinforcement learning, in the construction of ranking models for information retrieval and recommender systems. Training data may, for example, consist of lists of items with some partial order specified between items in each list. This order is typically induced by giving a numerical or ordinal score or a binary judgment (e.g. "relevant" or "not relevant") for each item. The goal of constructing the ranking model is to rank new, unseen lists in a similar way to rankings in the training data. == Applications == === In information retrieval === Ranking is a central part of many information retrieval problems, such as document retrieval, collaborative filtering, sentiment analysis, and online advertising. A possible architecture of a machine-learned search engine is shown in the accompanying figure. Training data consists of queries and documents matching them together with the relevance degree of each match. It may be prepared manually by human assessors (or raters, as Google calls them), who check results for some queries and determine relevance of each result. It is not feasible to check the relevance of all documents, and so typically a technique called pooling is used — only the top few documents, retrieved by some existing ranking models are checked. This technique may introduce selection bias. Alternatively, training data may be derived automatically by analyzing clickthrough logs (i.e. search results which got clicks from users), query chains, or such search engines' features as Google's (since-replaced) SearchWiki. Clickthrough logs can be biased by the tendency of users to click on the top search results on the assumption that they are already well-ranked. Training data is used by a learning algorithm to produce a ranking model which computes the relevance of documents for actual queries. Typically, users expect a search query to complete in a short time (such as a few hundred milliseconds for web search), which makes it impossible to evaluate a complex ranking model on each document in the corpus, and so a two-phase scheme is used. First, a small number of potentially relevant documents are identified using simpler retrieval models which permit fast query evaluation, such as the vector space model, Boolean model, weighted AND, or BM25. This phase is called top- k {\displaystyle k} document retrieval and many heuristics were proposed in the literature to accelerate it, such as using a document's static quality score and tiered indexes. In the second phase, a more accurate but computationally expensive machine-learned model is used to re-rank these documents. === In other areas === Learning to rank algorithms have been applied in areas other than information retrieval: In machine translation for ranking a set of hypothesized translations; In computational biology for ranking candidate 3-D structures in protein structure prediction problems; In recommender systems for identifying a ranked list of related news articles to recommend to a user after he or she has read a current news article. == Feature vectors == For the convenience of MLR algorithms, query-document pairs are usually represented by numerical vectors, which are called feature vectors. Such an approach is sometimes called bag of features and is analogous to the bag of words model and vector space model used in information retrieval for representation of documents. Components of such vectors are called features, factors or ranking signals. They may be divided into three groups (features from document retrieval are shown as examples): Query-independent or static features — those features, which depend only on the document, but not on the query. For example, PageRank or document's length. Such features can be precomputed in off-line mode during indexing. They may be used to compute document's static quality score (or static rank), which is often used to speed up search query evaluation. Query-dependent or dynamic features — those features, which depend both on the contents of the document and the query, such as TF-IDF score or other non-machine-learned ranking functions. Query-level features or query features, which depend only on the query. For example, the number of words in a query. Some examples of features, which were used in the well-known LETOR dataset: TF, TF-IDF, BM25, and language modeling scores of document's zones (title, body, anchors text, URL) for a given query; Lengths and IDF sums of document's zones; Document's PageRank, HITS ranks and their variants. Selecting and designing good features is an important area in machine learning, which is called feature engineering. == Evaluation measures == There are several measures (metrics) which are commonly used to judge how well an algorithm is doing on training data and to compare the performance of different MLR algorithms. Often a learning-to-rank problem is reformulated as an optimization problem with respect to one of these metrics. Examples of ranking quality measures: Mean average precision (MAP); DCG and NDCG; Precision@n, NDCG@n, where "@n" denotes that the metrics are evaluated only on top n documents; Mean reciprocal rank; Kendall's tau; Spearman's rho. DCG and its normalized variant NDCG are usually preferred in academic research when multiple levels of relevance are used. Other metrics such as MAP, MRR and precision, are defined only for binary judgments. Recently, there have been proposed several new evaluation metrics which claim to model user's satisfaction with search results better than the DCG metric: Expected reciprocal rank (ERR); Yandex's pfound. Both of these metrics are based on the assumption that the user is more likely to stop looking at search results after examining a more relevant document, than after a less relevant document. == Approaches == Learning to Rank approaches are often categorized using one of three approaches: pointwise (where individual documents are ranked), pairwise (where pairs of documents are ranked into a relative order), and listwise (where an entire list of documents are ordered). Tie-Yan Liu of Microsoft Research Asia has analyzed existing algorithms for learning to rank problems in his book Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. He categorized them into three groups by their input spaces, output spaces, hypothesis spaces (the core function of the model) and loss functions: the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approach. In practice, listwise approaches often outperform pairwise approaches and pointwise approaches. This statement was further supported by a large scale experiment on the performance of different learning-to-rank methods on a large collection of benchmark data sets. In this section, without further notice, x {\displaystyle x} denotes an object to be evaluated, for example, a document or an image, f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} denotes a single-value hypothesis, h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} denotes a bi-variate or multi-variate function and L ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle L(\cdot )} denotes the loss function. === Pointwise approach === In this case, it is assumed that each query-document pair in the training data has a numerical or ordinal score. Then the learning-to-rank problem can be approximated by a regression problem — given a single query-document pair, predict its score. Formally speaking, the pointwise approach aims at learning a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} predicting the real-value or ordinal score of a document x {\displaystyle x} using the loss function L ( f ; x j , y j ) {\displaystyle L(f;x_{j},y_{j})} . A number of existing supervised machine learning algorithms can be readily used for this purpose. Ordinal regression and classification algorithms can also be used in pointwise approach when they are used to predict the score of a single query-document pair, and it takes a small, finite number of values. === Pairwise approach === In this case, the learning-to-rank problem is approximated by a classification problem — learning a binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} that can tell which document is better in a given pair of documents. The classifier shall take two documents as its input and the goal is to minimize a loss function L ( h ; x u , x v , y u , v ) {\displaystyle L(h;x_{u},x_{v},y_{u,v})} . The loss function typically reflects the number and magnitude of inversions in the induced ranking. In many cases, the binary classifier h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} is implemented with a scoring function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . As an example, RankNet adapts a probability model and defines h ( x u , x v ) {\displaystyle h(x_{u},x_{v})} as the estimated probability of the document x u {\displaystyle x_{u}} has higher quality than x v {\displaystyle x_{v}} : P u , v ( f ) = CDF ( f ( x u ) − f ( x v ) ) , {\displaystyle P_{u,v}(f)={\text{CDF}

  Read more →
• 

  GeWorkbench

  geWorkbench (genomics Workbench) is an open-source software platform for integrated genomic data analysis. It is a desktop application written in the programming language Java. geWorkbench uses a component architecture. As of 2016, there are more than 70 plug-ins available, providing for the visualization and analysis of gene expression, sequence, and structure data. geWorkbench is the Bioinformatics platform of MAGNet, the National Center for the Multi-scale Analysis of Genomic and Cellular Networks, one of the 8 National Centers for Biomedical Computing funded through the NIH Roadmap (NIH Common Fund). Many systems and structure biology tools developed by MAGNet investigators are available as geWorkbench plugins. == Features == Computational analysis tools such as t-test, hierarchical clustering, self-organizing maps, regulatory network reconstruction, BLAST searches, pattern-motif discovery, protein structure prediction, structure-based protein annotation, etc. Visualization of gene expression (heatmaps, volcano plot), molecular interaction networks (through Cytoscape), protein sequence and protein structure data (e.g., MarkUs). Integration of gene and pathway annotation information from curated sources as well as through Gene Ontology enrichment analysis. Component integration through platform management of inputs and outputs. Among data that can be shared between components are expression datasets, interaction networks, sample and marker (gene) sets and sequences. Dataset history tracking - complete record of data sets used and input settings. Integration with 3rd party tools such as GenePattern, Cytoscape, and Genomespace. Demonstrations of each feature described can be found at GeWorkbench-web Tutorials. == Versions == geWorkbench is open-source software that can be downloaded and installed locally. A zip file of the released version Java source is also available. Prepackaged installer versions also exist for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux.

  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 →
• 

  Ordination (statistics)

  Ordination or gradient analysis, in multivariate analysis, is a method complementary to data clustering, and used mainly in exploratory data analysis (rather than in hypothesis testing). In contrast to cluster analysis, ordination orders quantities in a (usually lower-dimensional) latent space. In the ordination space, quantities that are near each other share attributes (i.e., are similar to some degree), and dissimilar objects are farther from each other. Such relationships between the objects, on each of several axes or latent variables, are then characterized numerically and/or graphically in a biplot. The first ordination method, principal components analysis, was suggested by Karl Pearson in 1901. == Methods == Ordination methods can broadly be categorized in eigenvector-, algorithm-, or model-based methods. Many classical ordination techniques, including principal components analysis, correspondence analysis (CA) and its derivatives (detrended correspondence analysis, canonical correspondence analysis, and redundancy analysis, belong to the first group). The second group includes some distance-based methods such as non-metric multidimensional scaling, and machine learning methods such as T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding and nonlinear dimensionality reduction. The third group includes model-based ordination methods, which can be considered as multivariate extensions of Generalized Linear Models. Model-based ordination methods are more flexible in their application than classical ordination methods, so that it is for example possible to include random-effects. Unlike in the aforementioned two groups, there is no (implicit or explicit) distance measure in the ordination. Instead, a distribution needs to be specified for the responses as is typical for statistical models. These and other assumptions, such as the assumed mean-variance relationship, can be validated with the use of residual diagnostics, unlike in other ordination methods. == Applications == Ordination can be used on the analysis of any set of multivariate objects. It is frequently used in several environmental or ecological sciences, particularly plant community ecology. It is also used in genetics and systems biology for microarray data analysis and in psychometrics.

  Read more →
• 

  AI content watermarking

  AI content watermarking is the process of embedding imperceptible yet detectable signals into content generated by artificial intelligence systems, such as text, images, audio, or video. The technique allows the content to be traced and identified as machine-generated without compromising its quality for the end user. AI watermarking has emerged as a key approach to address growing concerns about misinformation, deepfakes, copyright infringement, and the traceability of synthetic content in the context of the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence. Unlike traditional visible watermarks used in photography, AI content watermarks are typically invisible to humans and can only be detected and deciphered algorithmically. The concept is distinct from the watermarking of AI models themselves (to prevent model theft) and from the watermarking of training data (to combat unauthorized data use). Modern AI watermarking schemes are typically formalized as a pair of algorithms, an embedding (or generation) algorithm and a detection algorithm, sharing a secret key, whose performance is evaluated along three competing axes: quality (the watermark must not noticeably degrade outputs), detectability (the watermark must be statistically distinguishable from unwatermarked content), and robustness (the watermark must persist under adversarial or incidental modifications). == Background == Digital watermarking has been used for decades to protect physical and digital media, from paper currency to photographs. Classical schemes typically embedded a fixed bit-string into a fixed cover signal, with robustness criteria defined against a small fixed set of distortions such as JPEG compression or additive Gaussian noise. The rapid advancement of generative AI in the early 2020s, however, created a new and qualitatively different demand: rather than protecting a single artifact, watermarks for AI content must be embedded automatically across an open-ended distribution of generated outputs while remaining robust to a much wider class of adversarial transformations, including paraphrasing, image regeneration via diffusion models, and re-recording. Large image generation models such as DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney, along with large language models like ChatGPT, made it possible to produce highly realistic synthetic text, images, audio, and video at scale, raising significant ethical and security concerns. In July 2023, the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon, to develop watermarking and other provenance technologies to help users identify AI-generated content. == Formal definitions and design goals == Most modern AI watermarking schemes can be formalized as a pair of algorithms ( W m , D e t e c t ) {\displaystyle ({\mathsf {Wm}},{\mathsf {Detect}})} parameterized by a secret key k {\displaystyle k} . The embedding algorithm W m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Wm}}} takes a generative model M {\displaystyle M} (and optionally a prompt) and returns a watermarked output x {\displaystyle x} ; the detection algorithm D e t e c t ( x , k ) {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Detect}}(x,k)} outputs a real-valued score (typically a p-value or log-likelihood ratio) used to decide whether x {\displaystyle x} was produced by the watermarked generator. The literature evaluates such schemes along several largely conflicting criteria: Criteria for evaluation include imperceptibility or quality preservation, measured for text via perplexity and human preference judgments, and for images and audio via metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, or PESQ. Detectability is typically expressed as the true positive rate at a fixed false positive rate (e.g. 1% or 10^-6), or as the number of tokens or pixels needed to reach a given confidence level. Robustness refers to the requirement that the watermark should survive expected modifications like JPEG or MP3 compression, cropping, noise, paraphrasing, or machine translation. Distortion-freeness is a stronger property requiring that the marginal distribution of any single watermarked output be statistically identical to the unwatermarked model's distribution. Schemes due to Aaronson, Christ et al., and Kuditipudi et al. are distortion-free in this sense, while the original Kirchenbauer et al. scheme is not. Forgery resistance or unforgeability means an adversary without the secret key should be unable to produce content that passes detection. == Techniques == AI watermarking techniques vary significantly depending on the type of content being watermarked. At its core, the process involves two main stages: embedding (or encoding) the watermark, and detection. There are two primary methods for embedding: watermarking during content generation, which requires access to the AI model itself but is generally more robust, and post-generation watermarking, which can be applied to content from any source, including closed-source models. Watermarks can be broadly classified as visible, including overt marks such as logos or text overlays, or imperceptible, which are detectable only by algorithms. They can also be classified by durability: robust watermarks are designed to withstand common transformations such as compression, cropping, and re-encoding, while fragile watermarks are easily destroyed by any alteration, making them useful for tamper detection. A further axis distinguishes zero-bit watermarks, which only signal "this content was generated by model M," from multi-bit watermarks, which embed an arbitrary payload (such as a user identifier) that can be recovered at detection time. === Text === Text watermarking is considered one of the most challenging modalities because natural language offers relatively limited redundancy compared to images or audio. Modern approaches for large language models alter the autoregressive sampling process so that some statistical signature is left in the choice of tokens, while leaving the surface form of the text unchanged. The literature distinguishes three main families of generation-time text watermarks. Logit-biasing schemes (e.g. KGW) add a fixed bias δ {\displaystyle \delta } to a pseudorandomly selected subset of vocabulary logits before softmax sampling. Reweighting or sampling-based schemes (e.g. SynthID-Text) compose multiple pseudorandom tournaments over the model's full distribution. Distortion-free schemes based on the Gumbel-max trick or inverse transform sampling (Aaronson 2022; Kuditipudi et al. 2023; Christ et al. 2024) preserve the marginal output distribution of the model. ==== KGW: token-probability shifting ==== The pioneering "green list / red list" scheme of Kirchenbauer et al. (KGW), introduced at ICML 2023, is the foundation for most subsequent text watermarks. At each decoding step t {\displaystyle t} , a pseudorandom function (PRF) keyed by a secret k {\displaystyle k} is applied to a context window of h {\displaystyle h} previous tokens to deterministically partition the vocabulary V {\displaystyle V} of size N {\displaystyle N} into a "green list" G ⊂ V {\displaystyle G\subset V} of size γ N {\displaystyle \gamma N} and its complement, the "red list" R = V ∖ G {\displaystyle R=V\setminus G} , where γ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma \in (0,1)} (typically γ = 1 / 2 {\displaystyle \gamma =1/2} ) is the green fraction. A logits processor then increments every green-list logit by a fixed bias δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} before softmax: ℓ v ′ = ℓ v + δ ⋅ 1 [ v ∈ G ] {\displaystyle \ell '_{v}=\ell _{v}+\delta \cdot \mathbf {1} [v\in G]} so that, after sampling, green tokens are over-represented but generation is not constrained to green tokens alone; high-entropy positions tolerate the bias gracefully, while low-entropy positions (where one token dominates the logits) override the watermark and preserve correctness on factual content. Detection requires only the secret key and the candidate text, not the language model itself. The detector recomputes the partition g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} for each token, counts the number of green hits | G | hits {\displaystyle |G|_{\text{hits}}} in a sequence of length T {\displaystyle T} , and computes a one-proportion z-test statistic: z = | G | hits − γ T T γ ( 1 − γ ) {\displaystyle z={\frac {|G|_{\text{hits}}-\gamma T}{\sqrt {T\gamma (1-\gamma )}}}} Under the null hypothesis that the text was written by an unwatermarked source (human or another model), the green-hit count is approximately binomially distributed with mean γ T {\displaystyle \gamma T} ; a large positive z {\displaystyle z} rejects the null hypothesis. The original paper reports that fewer than 25 watermarked tokens are sufficient to detect a watermark with a false positive rate below 10^-5 on the OPT-1.3B model. A follow-up study by the same group documented robustness under temperature sampling, top-p (nucleus) sampling, and human paraphrasing, and proposed sliding-window

  Read more →
• 

  Genotypic and phenotypic repair

  Genotypic and phenotypic repair are optional components of an evolutionary algorithm (EA). An EA reproduces essential elements of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve demanding optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. A candidate solution is represented by a - usually linear - data structure that plays the role of an individual's chromosome. New solution candidates are generated by mutation and crossover operators following the example of biology. These offspring may be defective, which is corrected or compensated for by genotypic or phenotypic repair. == Description == Genotypic repair, also known as genetic repair, is the removal or correction of impermissible entries in the chromosome that violate restrictions. In phenotypic repair, the corrections are only made in the genotype-phenotype mapping and the chromosome remains unchanged. Michalewicz wrote about the importance of restrictions in real-world applications: "In general, constraints are an integral part of the formulation of any problem". Restriction violations are application-specific and therefore it depends on the current problem whether and which type of repair is useful. They can usually also be treated by a correspondingly extended evaluation and it depends on the problem which measures are possible and which is the most suitable. If a phenotypic repair is feasible, then it is usually the most efficient compared to the other measures. A survey on repair methods used as constraint handling techniques can be found in. Violations of the range limits of genes should be avoided as far as possible by the formulation of the genome. If this is not possible or if restrictions within the search space defined by the genome are involved, their violations are usually handled by the evaluation. This can be done, for example, by penalty functions that lower the fitness. Repair is often also required for combinatorial tasks. The application of a 1- or n-point crossover operator can, for example, lead to genes being missing in one of the child genomes that are present in duplicate in the other. In this case, a suitable genotypic repair measure is to move the surplus genes to the other genome in a positional manner. The use of the aforementioned operators in combinatorial tasks has also proven to be useful in combination with crossover types specially developed for permutations, at least for certain problems. Particularly in combinatorial problems, it has been observed that genotypic repair can promote premature convergence to a suboptimum, but can also significantly accelerate a successful search. Studies on various tasks have shown that this is application-dependent. An effective measure to avoid premature convergence is generally the use of structured populations instead of the usual panmictic ones. Sequence restrictions play a role in many scheduling tasks, for example when it comes to planning workflows. If, for example, it is specified that step A must be carried out before step B and the gene of step B is located before the gene of A in the chromosome, then there is an impermissible gene sequence. This is because the scheduling operation of step B requires the planned end of step A for correct scheduling, but this is not yet scheduled at the time gene B is processed. The problem can be solved in two ways: The scheduling operation of step B is postponed until the gene from step A has been processed. The genome remains unchanged and the repair only influences the genotype-phenotype mapping. Since only the phenotype is changed, this is referred to as phenotypic repair. If, on the other hand, the gene of step B is moved behind the gene of step A, this is a genotypic repair. The same applies to the alternative shift of gene A in front of gene B. In this case, genotypic repair has the disadvantage that it prevents a meaningful restructuring of the gene sequence in the chromosome if this requires several intermediate steps (mutations) that at least partially violate restrictions.

  Read more →
• 

  Ordinal regression

  In statistics, ordinal regression, also called ordinal classification, is a type of regression analysis used for predicting an ordinal variable, i.e. a variable whose value exists on an arbitrary scale where only the relative ordering between different values is significant. It can be considered an intermediate problem between regression and classification. Examples of ordinal regression are ordered logit and ordered probit. Ordinal regression turns up often in the social sciences, for example in the modeling of human levels of preference (on a scale from, say, 1–5 for "very poor" through "excellent"), as well as in information retrieval. In machine learning, ordinal regression may also be called ranking learning. == Linear models for ordinal regression == Ordinal regression can be performed using a generalized linear model (GLM) that fits both a coefficient vector and a set of thresholds to a dataset. Suppose one has a set of observations, represented by length-p vectors x1 through xn, with associated responses y1 through yn, where each yi is an ordinal variable on a scale 1, ..., K. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume y is a non-decreasing vector, that is, yi ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } yi+1. To this data, one fits a length-p coefficient vector w and a set of thresholds θ1, ..., θK−1 with the property that θ1 < θ2 < ... < θK−1. This set of thresholds divides the real number line into K disjoint segments, corresponding to the K response levels. The model can now be formulated as Pr ( y ≤ i ∣ x ) = σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \Pr(y\leq i\mid \mathbf {x} )=\sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )} or, the cumulative probability of the response y being at most i is given by a function σ (the inverse link function) applied to a linear function of x. Several choices exist for σ; the logistic function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 1 + e − ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )={\frac {1}{1+e^{-(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )}}}} gives the ordered logit model, while using the CDF of the standard normal distribution gives the ordered probit model. A third option is to use an exponential function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 − exp ⁡ ( − exp ⁡ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )=1-\exp(-\exp(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} ))} which gives the proportional hazards model. === Latent variable model === The probit version of the above model can be justified by assuming the existence of a real-valued latent variable (unobserved quantity) y, determined by y ∗ = w ⋅ x + ε {\displaystyle y^{}=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +\varepsilon } where ε is normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance, conditioned on x. The response variable y results from an "incomplete measurement" of y, where one only determines the interval into which y falls: y = { 1 if y ∗ ≤ θ 1 , 2 if θ 1 < y ∗ ≤ θ 2 , 3 if θ 2 < y ∗ ≤ θ 3 ⋮ K if θ K − 1 < y ∗ . {\displaystyle y={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if}}~~y^{}\leq \theta _{1},\\2&{\text{if}}~~\theta _{1} Read more →