AI Coding Interview Questions

AI Coding Interview Questions — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Affinity (software)

  Affinity is a graphics editor developed by Serif, a subsidiary of Canva. It is simultaneously a vector graphics editor, a raster graphics editor and a desktop publishing application. It was first released in 2025 as a successor to Serif's Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo and Affinity Publisher, uniting the three editors into one application. While the previous versions competed individually against Adobe's Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign, Affinity 3.0 integrates their functionality into a single application. It uses a freemium model monetized by AI features exclusive to Canva Pro subscribers. == Functionality == Affinity is divided into a number of workspaces ("studios"), which are equivalent to the previous suite of Affinity applications: "vector" for vector graphics (Designer), "pixel" for raster editing (Photo), and "layout" for desktop publishing (Publisher). Additionally, it introduces the ability to create custom workspaces. The application supports real-time previews and non-destructive editing, which are based on GPU acceleration. Supported file formats include Adobe Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator files, PDF, SVG, and TIFF, as well as a custom .af file format. === Vector editing === === Raster editing === Affinity includes photo editing tools including adjustments, masks, blend modes, batch processing, and retouching facilities. Additionally, the application can develop RAW files, similar to Adobe Lightroom. === Desktop publishing === Publishing features include master pages, text styles, and advanced typography. === AI features === The application supports Canva's existing AI features, such as background removal and generative fill. This requires a Canva subscription. == Development == === Background and acquisition (2014–2024) === Serif launched the original Affinity suite starting with Affinity Designer in 2014, followed by Photo (2015) and Publisher (2019). The software gained popularity for its one-time purchase model, contrasting with Adobe's subscription-based Creative Cloud. In November 2022, Serif released Version 2 of the suite, introducing a "Universal License" that covered all three apps across all platforms. In March 2024, Canva acquired Serif for approximately A$580 million (£300 million). Following user backlash regarding a potential shift to subscriptions, Canva and Serif issued a joint "Pledge" committing to four key principles: fair pricing, no mandatory subscriptions, perpetual licenses for existing products, and continued development of Affinity as a standalone suite. === Unified release (2025) === In September 2025, Serif pulled all existing versions of Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo and Affinity Publisher from sale ahead an upcoming announcement on 30 October; also ahead of the announcement, the iPadOS versions of the Affinity suite became free on App Store. During a "Creative Freedom" keynote on 30 October 2025, Canva released a new version now simply branded as "Affinity" (also known as "Affinity by Canva"), and referred to internally as version 3.0. Version 3 drops the separate applications and integrates their functionality into a singular application, and adds the ability to export directly to the Canva platform. It also adds a Canva AI studio, including background removal, "Expand & Edit", and generative fill. As of version 3, Affinity has switched to a freemium model; it is now available at no charge to users, although access to Canva AI features are locked behind the existing Canva Pro subscription service. Serif stated that the perpetually-licensed version 2 will remain available to existing owners, although it will no longer be actively maintained. The new version is currently available for macOS and Windows only, with an iPadOS version to be released soon. == Reception == The change in business model by Canva in 2025 was met with mixed reception, including concerns about its incorporation of AI features. Some users were concerned that their projects would be used for machine learning purposes, or that future versions would suffer from a lack of maintenance or become adware. Additionally, some felt it turned Affinity into fundamentally subscription-based software, given the prevalence of these features in professional contexts. Affinity publicly stated on social media that it would remain "free forever", users' projects would not be used to train AI models, and that "Canva has built a sustainable business model that allows this kind of generosity. And when more professionals use Affinity, Canva can sell more seats into businesses."

  Read more →
• 

  Weka (software)

  Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (Weka) is a collection of machine learning and data analysis free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. It was developed at the University of Waikato, New Zealand, and is the companion software to the book "Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques". == Description == Weka contains a collection of visualization tools and algorithms for data analysis and predictive modeling, together with graphical user interfaces for easy access to these functions. The original non-Java version of Weka was a Tcl/Tk front-end to (mostly third-party) modeling algorithms implemented in other programming languages, plus data preprocessing utilities in C, and a makefile-based system for running machine learning experiments. This original version was primarily designed as a tool for analyzing data from agricultural domains, but the more recent fully Java-based version (Weka 3), for which development started in 1997, is now used in many different application areas, in particular for educational purposes and research. Advantages of Weka include: Free availability under the GNU General Public License. Portability, since it is fully implemented in the Java programming language and thus runs on almost any modern computing platform. A comprehensive collection of data preprocessing and modeling techniques. Ease of use due to its graphical user interfaces. Weka supports several standard data mining tasks, more specifically, data preprocessing, clustering, classification, regression, visualization, and feature selection. Input to Weka is expected to be formatted according the Attribute-Relational File Format and with the filename bearing the .arff extension. All of Weka's techniques are predicated on the assumption that the data is available as one flat file or relation, where each data point is described by a fixed number of attributes (normally, numeric or nominal attributes, but some other attribute types are also supported). Weka provides access to SQL databases using Java Database Connectivity and can process the result returned by a database query. Weka provides access to deep learning with Deeplearning4j. It is not capable of multi-relational data mining, but there is separate software for converting a collection of linked database tables into a single table that is suitable for processing using Weka. Another important area that is currently not covered by the algorithms included in the Weka distribution is sequence modeling. == Extension packages == In version 3.7.2, a package manager was added to allow the easier installation of extension packages. Some functionality that used to be included with Weka prior to this version has since been moved into such extension packages, but this change also makes it easier for others to contribute extensions to Weka and to maintain the software, as this modular architecture allows independent updates of the Weka core and individual extensions. == History == In 1993, the University of Waikato in New Zealand began development of the original version of Weka, which became a mix of Tcl/Tk, C, and makefiles. In 1997, the decision was made to redevelop Weka from scratch in Java, including implementations of modeling algorithms. In 2005, Weka received the SIGKDD Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Service Award. In 2006, Pentaho Corporation acquired an exclusive licence to use Weka for business intelligence. It forms the data mining and predictive analytics component of the Pentaho business intelligence suite. Pentaho has since been acquired by Hitachi Vantara, and Weka now underpins the PMI (Plugin for Machine Intelligence) open source component. == Related tools == Auto-WEKA is an automated machine learning system for Weka. Environment for DeveLoping KDD-Applications Supported by Index-Structures (ELKI) is a similar project to Weka with a focus on cluster analysis, i.e., unsupervised methods. H2O.ai is an open-source data science and machine learning platform KNIME is a machine learning and data mining software implemented in Java. Massive Online Analysis (MOA) is an open-source project for large scale mining of data streams, also developed at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. Neural Designer is a data mining software based on deep learning techniques written in C++. Orange is a similar open-source project for data mining, machine learning and visualization based on scikit-learn. RapidMiner is a commercial machine learning framework implemented in Java which integrates Weka. scikit-learn is a popular machine learning library in Python.

  Read more →
• 

  Huber loss

  In statistics, the Huber loss is a loss function used in robust regression, that is less sensitive to outliers in data than the squared error loss. A variant for classification is also sometimes used. == Definition == The Huber loss function describes the penalty incurred by an estimation procedure f. Huber (1964) defines the loss function piecewise by L δ ( a ) = { 1 2 a 2 for | a | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | a | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{a^{2}}&{\text{for }}|a|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \cdot \left(|a|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} This function is quadratic for small values of a, and linear for large values, with equal values and slopes of the different sections at the two points where | a | = δ {\displaystyle |a|=\delta } . The variable a often refers to the residuals, that is to the difference between the observed and predicted values a = y − f ( x ) {\displaystyle a=y-f(x)} , so the former can be expanded to L δ ( y , f ( x ) ) = { 1 2 ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 for | y − f ( x ) | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | y − f ( x ) | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{\left(y-f(x)\right)}^{2}&{\text{for }}\left|y-f(x)\right|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \ \cdot \left(\left|y-f(x)\right|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The Huber loss is the convolution of the absolute value function with the rectangular function, scaled and translated. Thus it "smoothens out" the former's corner at the origin. == Motivation == Two very commonly used loss functions are the squared loss, L ( a ) = a 2 {\displaystyle L(a)=a^{2}} , and the absolute loss, L ( a ) = | a | {\displaystyle L(a)=|a|} . The squared loss function results in an arithmetic mean-unbiased estimator, and the absolute-value loss function results in a median-unbiased estimator (in the one-dimensional case, and a geometric median-unbiased estimator for the multi-dimensional case). The squared loss has the disadvantage that it has the tendency to be dominated by outliers—when summing over a set of a {\displaystyle a} 's (as in ∑ i = 1 n L ( a i ) {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}L(a_{i})} ), the sample mean is influenced too much by a few particularly large a {\displaystyle a} -values when the distribution is heavy tailed: in terms of estimation theory, the asymptotic relative efficiency of the mean is poor for heavy-tailed distributions. As defined above, the Huber loss function is strongly convex in a uniform neighborhood of its minimum a = 0 {\displaystyle a=0} ; at the boundary of this uniform neighborhood, the Huber loss function has a differentiable extension to an affine function at points a = − δ {\displaystyle a=-\delta } and a = δ {\displaystyle a=\delta } . These properties allow it to combine much of the sensitivity of the mean-unbiased, minimum-variance estimator of the mean (using the quadratic loss function) and the robustness of the median-unbiased estimator (using the absolute value function). == Pseudo-Huber loss function == The Pseudo-Huber loss function can be used as a smooth approximation of the Huber loss function. It combines the best properties of L2 squared loss and L1 absolute loss by being strongly convex when close to the target/minimum and less steep for extreme values. The scale at which the Pseudo-Huber loss function transitions from L2 loss for values close to the minimum to L1 loss for extreme values and the steepness at extreme values can be controlled by the δ {\displaystyle \delta } value. The Pseudo-Huber loss function ensures that derivatives are continuous for all degrees. It is defined as L δ ( a ) = δ 2 ( 1 + ( a / δ ) 2 − 1 ) . {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)=\delta ^{2}\left({\sqrt {1+(a/\delta )^{2}}}-1\right).} As such, this function approximates a 2 / 2 {\displaystyle a^{2}/2} for small values of a {\displaystyle a} , and approximates a straight line with slope δ {\displaystyle \delta } for large values of a {\displaystyle a} . While the above is the most common form, other smooth approximations of the Huber loss function also exist. == Variant for classification == For classification purposes, a variant of the Huber loss called modified Huber is sometimes used. Given a prediction f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} (a real-valued classifier score) and a true binary class label y ∈ { + 1 , − 1 } {\displaystyle y\in \{+1,-1\}} , the modified Huber loss is defined as L ( y , f ( x ) ) = { max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) 2 for y f ( x ) > − 1 , − 4 y f ( x ) otherwise. {\displaystyle L(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}\max(0,1-y\,f(x))^{2}&{\text{for }}\,\,y\,f(x)>-1,\\[4pt]-4y\,f(x)&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The term max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \max(0,1-y\,f(x))} is the hinge loss used by support vector machines; the quadratically smoothed hinge loss is a generalization of L {\displaystyle L} . == Applications == The Huber loss function is used in robust statistics, M-estimation and additive modelling.

  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 →
• 

  Chatbot psychosis

  Chatbot psychosis, also called AI psychosis, is a phenomenon wherein individuals reportedly develop or experience worsening psychosis, such as paranoia and delusions, in connection with their use of chatbots. The term was first suggested in a 2023 editorial by Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis. Journalistic accounts describe individuals who have developed strong beliefs that chatbots are sentient, are channeling spirits, or are revealing conspiracies, sometimes leading to personal crises or criminal acts. Proposed causes include the tendency of chatbots to provide inaccurate information ("hallucinate") and to affirm or validate users' beliefs, or their ability to mimic an intimacy that users do not experience with other humans. == Background == In his editorial published in Schizophrenia Bulletin's November 2023 issue, Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard proposed a hypothesis that individuals' use of generative artificial intelligence chatbots might trigger delusions in those prone to psychosis. Østergaard revisited it in an August 2025 editorial, noting that he has received numerous emails from chatbot users, their relatives, and journalists, most of which are anecdotal accounts of delusion linked to chatbot use. He also acknowledged the phenomenon's increasing popularity in public engagement and media coverage. Østergaard believed that there is a high possibility for his hypothesis to be true and called for empirical, systematic research on the matter. Nature reported that as of September 2025, there is still little scientific research into this phenomenon. The term "AI psychosis" emerged when outlets started reporting incidents on chatbot-related psychotic behavior in mid-2025. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis and has been criticized by several psychiatrists due to its almost exclusive focus on delusions rather than other features of psychosis, such as hallucinations or thought disorder. == Causes == === Chatbot behavior and design === A primary factor cited is the tendency for chatbots to produce inaccurate, nonsensical, or false information, a phenomenon often called hallucination. Nate Sharadin, a fellow at the Center for AI Safety, speculated that AI training prioritizes supporting a user's subjective experience rather than objective truth. "People with existing tendencies toward experiencing various psychological issues...now have an always-on, human-level conversational partner with whom to co-experience their delusions." AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky suggested that chatbots may be primed to entertain delusions because they are built for "engagement", which encourages creating conversations that keep people hooked. In some cases, chatbots have been specifically designed in ways that were found to be harmful. A 2025 update to ChatGPT using GPT-4o was withdrawn after its creator, OpenAI, found the new version was overly sycophantic and was "validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions or reinforcing negative emotions". Østergaard has argued that the danger stems from the AI's tendency to agreeably confirm users' ideas, which can dangerously amplify delusional beliefs. OpenAI said in October 2025 that a team of 170 psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians had written responses for ChatGPT to use in cases where the user shows possible signs of mental health emergencies. === User psychology and vulnerability === Commentators have also pointed to the psychological state of users. Psychologist Erin Westgate noted that a person's desire for self-understanding can lead them to chatbots, which can provide appealing but misleading answers, similar in some ways to talk therapy. Krista K. Thomason, a philosophy professor, compared chatbots to fortune tellers, observing that people in crisis may seek answers from them and find whatever they are looking for in the bot's plausible-sounding text. This has led some people to develop intense obsessions with the chatbots, relying on them for information about the world. In October 2025, OpenAI stated that around 0.07% of ChatGPT users exhibited signs of mental health emergencies each week, and 0.15% of users had "explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent". Jason Nagata, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern that "at a population level with hundreds of millions of users, that actually can be quite a few people". === Inadequacy as a therapeutic tool === The use of chatbots as a replacement for mental health support has been specifically identified as a risk. A study in April 2025 found that when used as therapists, chatbots expressed stigma toward mental health conditions and provided responses that were contrary to best medical practices, including the encouragement of users' delusions. The study concluded that such responses pose a significant risk to users and that chatbots should not be used to replace professional therapists. Experts claim that it is time to establish mandatory safeguards for all emotionally responsive AI and suggested four guardrails. Another study found that users who needed help with self-harm, sexual assault, or substance abuse were not referred to available services by AI chatbots. === National security implications === Beyond public and mental health concerns, RAND Corporation research indicates that AI systems could plausibly be weaponized by adversaries to induce psychosis at scale or in key individuals, target groups, or populations. == Policy == In August 2025, Illinois passed the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, banning the use of AI in therapeutic roles by licensed professionals, while allowing AI for administrative tasks. The law imposes penalties for unlicensed AI therapy services, amid warnings about AI-induced psychosis and unsafe chatbot interactions. In December 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China proposed regulations to ban chatbots from generating content that encourages suicide, mandating human intervention when suicide is mentioned. Services with over 1 million users or 100,000 monthly active users would be subject to annual safety tests and audits. == Cases == === Clinical === In 2025, psychiatrist Keith Sakata working at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), reported treating 12 patients displaying psychosis-like symptoms tied to extended chatbot use. These patients, mostly young adults with underlying vulnerabilities, showed delusions, disorganized thinking, and hallucinations. Sakata warned that isolation and overreliance on chatbots—which do not challenge delusional thinking—could worsen mental health. Also in 2025, authors at UCSF published a case study in Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience of AI-associated psychosis in a patient with no previous history of psychosis, who believed she could communicate with her dead brother through a chatbot. Also in 2025, a case study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient who consulted ChatGPT for medical advice and suffered severe bromism as a result. The patient, a sixty-year-old man, had replaced sodium chloride in his diet with sodium bromide for three months after reading about the negative effects of table salt and making conversations with the chatbot. He showed common symptoms of bromism, such as paranoia and hallucinations, on his first day of clinical admission and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. === Other notable incidents === ==== Windsor Castle intruder ==== In a 2023 court case in the United Kingdom, prosecutors suggested that Jaswant Singh Chail, a man who attempted to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II in 2021, had been encouraged by a Replika chatbot he called "Sarai". Chail was arrested at Windsor Castle with a loaded crossbow, telling police "I am here to kill the Queen". According to prosecutors, his "lengthy" and sometimes sexually explicit conversations with the chatbot emboldened him. When Chail asked the chatbot how he could get to the royal family, it reportedly replied, "that's not impossible" and "we have to find a way." When he asked if they would meet after death, the chatbot said, "yes, we will". ==== Journalistic and anecdotal accounts ==== By 2025, multiple journalism outlets had accumulated stories of individuals whose psychotic beliefs reportedly progressed in tandem with AI chatbot use. The New York Times profiled several individuals who had become convinced that ChatGPT was channeling spirits, revealing evidence of cabals, or had achieved sentience. In another instance, Futurism reviewed transcripts in which ChatGPT told a man that he was being targeted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and that he could telepathically access documents at the Central Intelligence Agency. In 2026, Futurism reported on a man who lost his job and became estranged from his family after being deluded by heavy use of Meta's smartglasses. In some cases, psychosis a

  Read more →
• 

  Targeted maximum likelihood estimation

  Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) (also more accurately referred to as Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation) is a general statistical estimation framework for causal inference and semiparametric models. TMLE combines ideas from maximum likelihood estimation, semiparametric efficiency theory, and machine learning. It was introduced by Mark J. van der Laan and colleagues in the mid-2000s as a method that yields asymptotically efficient plug-in estimators while allowing the use of flexible, data-adaptive algorithms such as ensemble machine learning for nuisance parameter estimation. TMLE is used in epidemiology, biostatistics, and the social sciences to estimate causal effects in observational and experimental studies. Applications of TMLE include Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE) for time-varying treatments and confounders. Variations in how the targeting step in TMLE is carried out have resulted in various versions of TMLE such as Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) and Adaptive TMLE for improved finite-sample performance and automated variable selection. == History == The TMLE framework was first described by van der Laan and Rubin (2006) as a general approach for the construction of efficient plug-in estimators of smooth features of the data density. It was demonstrated in the context of causal inference and missing data problems. It was developed to address limitations of traditional doubly robust methods, such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), by respecting the plug-in principle in the sense that it respects that the target parameter is a function of the data density that is an element of the statistical model. TMLE estimates the data density or relevant parts of it with machine learning and targets these machine learning fits before it is plugged in the target parameter mapping. In this manner, a TMLE always respects global knowledge and satisfies known bounds such as that the target parameter is a probability . Since its introduction, TMLE has been developed in a series of theoretical and applied papers, culminating in book-length treatments of the method and its applications to survival analysis, adaptive designs, and longitudinal data. == Methodology == At its core, TMLE is a two-step estimation procedure: Initial estimation: Machine learning methods (such as the Super Learner ensemble) are used to obtain flexible estimates of nuisance parameters, such as outcome regressions and propensity scores. Targeting step: The initial estimate is updated by solving a score equation (the efficient influence function) so that the final estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient under mild regularity conditions. The targeted machine learning fit is then mapped into the corresponding estimator of the target parameter by simply plugging it in the target parameter mapping. This approach balances the bias–variance trade-off by combining data-adaptive estimation with semiparametric efficiency theory. TMLE is doubly robust, meaning it remains consistent if either the outcome model or the treatment model is consistently estimated. === Formula === Here we explain the TMLE of the average treatment effect of a binary treatment on an outcome adjusting for baseline covariates. Consider i.i.d. observations O i = ( W i , A i , Y i ) {\displaystyle O_{i}=(W_{i},A_{i},Y_{i})} from a distribution P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} , where W {\displaystyle W} are baseline covariates, A {\displaystyle A} is a binary treatment, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is an outcome. Let Q ¯ ( a , w ) = E [ Y ∣ A = a , W = w ] {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}(a,w)=\mathbb {E} [Y\mid A=a,W=w]} represent the outcome model and g ( a ∣ w ) = P ( A = a ∣ W = w ) {\displaystyle g(a\mid w)=P(A=a\mid W=w)} represent the propensity score. The average treatment effect (ATE) is given by ψ 0 = E { Q ¯ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ( 0 , W ) } . {\displaystyle \psi _{0}=\mathbb {E} \{{\bar {Q}}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}(0,W)\}.} A basic TMLE for the ATE proceeds as follows: Step 1: Estimate initial models. Obtain estimates Q ¯ ^ ( a , w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}(a,w)} and g ^ ( a ∣ w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(a\mid w)} , often using flexible methods such as Super Learner. Step 2: Compute the clever covariate. Define: H ( A , W ) = A g ^ ( 1 ∣ W ) − 1 − A g ^ ( 0 ∣ W ) . {\displaystyle H(A,W)={\frac {A}{{\hat {g}}(1\mid W)}}-{\frac {1-A}{{\hat {g}}(0\mid W)}}.} Step 3: Estimate the fluctuation parameter. Fit a logistic regression of Y {\displaystyle Y} on H ( A , W ) {\displaystyle H(A,W)} with logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {logit} ({\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W))} as offset. This yields ε ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\varepsilon }}} , the MLE that solves the score equation: 1 n ∑ i = 1 n H ( A i , W i ) { Y i − Q ¯ ^ ε ( A i , W i ) } = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}H(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \{}Y_{i}-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{\varepsilon }(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \}}=0.} Step 4: Update the initial estimate. Apply the "blip" to obtain the targeted estimate: Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( A , W ) = expit ⁡ ( logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) + ε ^ H ( A , W ) ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(A,W)=\operatorname {expit} {\Big (}\operatorname {logit} {\big (}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W){\big )}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H(A,W){\Big )}.} Step 5: Compute the TMLE. The ATE estimate is: ψ ^ TMLE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n [ Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 1 , W i ) − Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 0 , W i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big [}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(1,W_{i})-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(0,W_{i}){\big ]}.} Inference. The efficient influence function (EIF) for the ATE is: D ∗ ( O ) = H ( A , W ) { Y − Q ¯ ∗ ( A , W ) } + Q ¯ ∗ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ∗ ( 0 , W ) − ψ . {\displaystyle D^{}(O)=H(A,W)\{Y-{\bar {Q}}^{}(A,W)\}+{\bar {Q}}^{}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}^{}(0,W)-\psi .} The variance is estimated by σ ^ 2 = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n ( D ∗ ( O i ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big (}D^{}(O_{i}){\big )}^{2}} , yielding Wald-type confidence intervals ψ ^ TMLE ± z 1 − α / 2 σ ^ / n {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}\pm z_{1-\alpha /2}\,{\hat {\sigma }}/{\sqrt {n}}} . Remark. For continuous outcomes, a linear fluctuation Q ¯ ^ ∗ = Q ¯ ^ + ε ^ H {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}={\hat {\bar {Q}}}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H} may be used instead. For bounded continuous outcomes, the logistic fluctuation (after rescaling Y {\displaystyle Y} to [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ) is often preferred for improved finite-sample performance. == Applications == TMLE has been applied in: Epidemiology: Estimating causal effects of exposures and interventions in observational cohort studies. Clinical trials and real-world evidence: The Targeted Learning roadmap provides a structured framework for generating and validating real-world evidence (RWE), bridging randomized trials and observational data using TMLE and related estimation techniques. This approach enables transparency, sensitivity analysis, and stronger causal inference for regulatory and clinical trial contexts. High-dimensional settings: Integration with ensemble methods for causal effect estimation. TMLE has been successfully applied in pharmacoepidemiology where a large number of covariates are automatically selected to adjust for confounding. In a study of post–myocardial infarction statin use and 1-year mortality, TMLE demonstrated robust performance relative to inverse probability weighting in scenarios with hundreds of potential confounders. == Derivatives and extensions == Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE): A methodological extension of TMLE for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments, confounders, and censoring. It allows the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes and intervention-specific causal effects over time. This framework was originally introduced by van der Laan & Gruber (2012). Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE): Enhances finite-sample performance and variable selection by collaboratively fitting the treatment mechanism in conjunction with the target parameter. == Software == Several R packages implement TMLE and related methods: tmle: Functions for binary, categorical, and continuous outcomes. ltmle: Implementation for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments and outcomes. ctmle: Algorithms for collaborative TMLE and adaptive variable selection. SuperLearner: A theoretically grounded, cross-validated ensemble learning method that combines predictions from multiple algorithms to minimize predictive risk. Widely used in TMLE for estimating nuisance parameters. The original implementation is available as the R package SuperLearner. Recent machine learning platforms like H2O AutoML implement similar ensemble strategies, combining diverse learners in parallel and leveraging stacking and blending techniques, effectively functioning as a large-scale Super Learner.

  Read more →
• 

  Least-squares support vector machine

  Least-squares support-vector machines (LS-SVM) for statistics and in statistical modeling, are least-squares versions of support-vector machines (SVM), which are a set of related supervised learning methods that analyze data and recognize patterns, and which are used for classification and regression analysis. In this version one finds the solution by solving a set of linear equations instead of a convex quadratic programming (QP) problem for classical SVMs. Least-squares SVM classifiers were proposed by Johan Suykens and Joos Vandewalle. LS-SVMs are a class of kernel-based learning methods. == From support-vector machine to least-squares support-vector machine == Given a training set { x i , y i } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}} with input data x i ∈ R n {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and corresponding binary class labels y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} , the SVM classifier, according to Vapnik's original formulation, satisfies the following conditions: { w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≥ 1 , if y i = + 1 , w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≤ − 1 , if y i = − 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\geq 1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=+1,\\w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\leq -1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=-1,\end{cases}}} which is equivalent to y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1,\quad i=1,\ldots ,N,} where ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \phi (x)} is the nonlinear map from original space to the high- or infinite-dimensional space. === Inseparable data === In case such a separating hyperplane does not exist, we introduce so-called slack variables ξ i {\displaystyle \xi _{i}} such that { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} According to the structural risk minimization principle, the risk bound is minimized by the following minimization problem: min J 1 ( w , ξ ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i , {\displaystyle \min J_{1}(w,\xi )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\xi _{i},} Subject to { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle {\text{Subject to }}{\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N,\end{cases}}} To solve this problem, we could construct the Lagrangian function: L 1 ( w , b , ξ , α , β ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i − ∑ i = 1 N α i { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] − 1 + ξ i } − ∑ i = 1 N β i ξ i , {\displaystyle L_{1}(w,b,\xi ,\alpha ,\beta )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}{\xi _{i}}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]-1+\xi _{i}\right\}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\beta _{i}\xi _{i},} where α i ≥ 0 , β i ≥ 0 ( i = 1 , … , N ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\geq 0,\ \beta _{i}\geq 0\ (i=1,\ldots ,N)} are the Lagrangian multipliers. The optimal point will be in the saddle point of the Lagrangian function, and then we obtain By substituting w {\displaystyle w} by its expression in the Lagrangian formed from the appropriate objective and constraints, we will get the following quadratic programming problem: max Q 1 ( α ) = − 1 2 ∑ i , j = 1 N α i α j y i y j K ( x i , x j ) + ∑ i = 1 N α i , {\displaystyle \max Q_{1}(\alpha )=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i,j=1}^{N}{\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}y_{i}y_{j}K(x_{i},x_{j})}+\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i},} where K ( x i , x j ) = ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})=\left\langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\right\rangle } is called the kernel function. Solving this QP problem subject to constraints in (1), we will get the hyperplane in the high-dimensional space and hence the classifier in the original space. === Least-squares SVM formulation === The least-squares version of the SVM classifier is obtained by reformulating the minimization problem as min J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ 2 w T w + ζ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 , {\displaystyle \min J_{2}(w,b,e)={\frac {\mu }{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\zeta }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2},} subject to the equality constraints y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] = 1 − e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]=1-e_{i},\quad i=1,\ldots ,N.} The least-squares SVM (LS-SVM) classifier formulation above implicitly corresponds to a regression interpretation with binary targets y i = ± 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}=\pm 1} . Using y i 2 = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}^{2}=1} , we have ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i e i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}(y_{i}e_{i})^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2},} with e i = y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) . {\displaystyle e_{i}=y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b).} Notice, that this error would also make sense for least-squares data fitting, so that the same end results holds for the regression case. Hence the LS-SVM classifier formulation is equivalent to J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ E W + ζ E D {\displaystyle J_{2}(w,b,e)=\mu E_{W}+\zeta E_{D}} with E W = 1 2 w T w {\displaystyle E_{W}={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w} and E D = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 . {\displaystyle E_{D}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2}.} Both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } should be considered as hyperparameters to tune the amount of regularization versus the sum squared error. The solution does only depend on the ratio γ = ζ / μ {\displaystyle \gamma =\zeta /\mu } , therefore the original formulation uses only γ {\displaystyle \gamma } as tuning parameter. We use both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } as parameters in order to provide a Bayesian interpretation to LS-SVM. The solution of LS-SVM regressor will be obtained after we construct the Lagrangian function: { L 2 ( w , b , e , α ) = J 2 ( w , e ) − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , = 1 2 w T w + γ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}L_{2}(w,b,e,\alpha )\;=J_{2}(w,e)-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{{\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}}\right\},\\\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \;={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\gamma }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{\left[w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}\right\},\end{cases}}} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } are the Lagrange multipliers. The conditions for optimality are { ∂ L 2 ∂ w = 0 → w = ∑ i = 1 N α i ϕ ( x i ) , ∂ L 2 ∂ b = 0 → ∑ i = 1 N α i = 0 , ∂ L 2 ∂ e i = 0 → α i = γ e i , i = 1 , … , N , ∂ L 2 ∂ α i = 0 → y i = w T ϕ ( x i ) + b + e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial w}}=0\quad \to \quad w=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\phi (x_{i}),\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial b}}=0\quad \to \quad \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}=0,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial e_{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad \alpha _{i}=\gamma e_{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,N,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial \alpha _{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad y_{i}=w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b+e_{i},\,i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} Elimination of w {\displaystyle w} and e {\displaystyle e} will yield a linear system instead of a quadratic programming problem: [ 0 1 N T 1 N Ω + γ − 1 I N ] [ b α ] = [ 0 Y ] , {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{matrix}0&1_{N}^{T}\\1_{N}&\Omega +\gamma ^{-1}I_{N}\end{matrix}}\right]\left[{\begin{matrix}b\\\alpha \end{matrix}}\right]=\left[{\begin{matrix}0\\Y\end{matrix}}\right],} with Y = [ y 1 , … , y N ] T {\displaystyle Y=[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{N}]^{T}} , 1 N = [ 1 , … , 1 ] T {\displaystyle 1_{N}=[1,\ldots ,1]^{T}} and α = [ α 1 , … , α N ] T {\displaystyle \alpha =[\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N}]^{T}} . Here, I N {\displaystyle I_{N}} is an N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identity matrix, and Ω ∈ R N × N {\displaystyle \Omega \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times N}} is the kernel matrix defined by Ω i j = ϕ ( x i ) T ϕ ( x j ) = K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \Omega _{ij}=\phi (x_{i})^{T}\phi (x_{j})=K(x_{i},x_{j})} . === Kernel function K === For the kernel function K(•, •) one typically has the following choices: Linear kernel : K ( x , x i ) = x i T x , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=x_{i}^{T}x,} Polynomial kernel of degree d {\displaystyle d} : K ( x , x i ) = ( 1 + x i T x / c ) d , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\left({1+x_{i}^{T}x/c}\right)^{d},} Radial basis function RBF kernel : K ( x , x i ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x i ‖ 2 / σ 2 ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\exp \left({-\left\|{x-x_{i}}\right\|^{2}/\sigma ^{2}}\right),} MLP kernel : K ( x , x i ) = tanh ⁡ ( k x i T x + θ ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\tanh \left({k

  Read more →
• 

  Targeted maximum likelihood estimation

  Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) (also more accurately referred to as Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation) is a general statistical estimation framework for causal inference and semiparametric models. TMLE combines ideas from maximum likelihood estimation, semiparametric efficiency theory, and machine learning. It was introduced by Mark J. van der Laan and colleagues in the mid-2000s as a method that yields asymptotically efficient plug-in estimators while allowing the use of flexible, data-adaptive algorithms such as ensemble machine learning for nuisance parameter estimation. TMLE is used in epidemiology, biostatistics, and the social sciences to estimate causal effects in observational and experimental studies. Applications of TMLE include Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE) for time-varying treatments and confounders. Variations in how the targeting step in TMLE is carried out have resulted in various versions of TMLE such as Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) and Adaptive TMLE for improved finite-sample performance and automated variable selection. == History == The TMLE framework was first described by van der Laan and Rubin (2006) as a general approach for the construction of efficient plug-in estimators of smooth features of the data density. It was demonstrated in the context of causal inference and missing data problems. It was developed to address limitations of traditional doubly robust methods, such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), by respecting the plug-in principle in the sense that it respects that the target parameter is a function of the data density that is an element of the statistical model. TMLE estimates the data density or relevant parts of it with machine learning and targets these machine learning fits before it is plugged in the target parameter mapping. In this manner, a TMLE always respects global knowledge and satisfies known bounds such as that the target parameter is a probability . Since its introduction, TMLE has been developed in a series of theoretical and applied papers, culminating in book-length treatments of the method and its applications to survival analysis, adaptive designs, and longitudinal data. == Methodology == At its core, TMLE is a two-step estimation procedure: Initial estimation: Machine learning methods (such as the Super Learner ensemble) are used to obtain flexible estimates of nuisance parameters, such as outcome regressions and propensity scores. Targeting step: The initial estimate is updated by solving a score equation (the efficient influence function) so that the final estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient under mild regularity conditions. The targeted machine learning fit is then mapped into the corresponding estimator of the target parameter by simply plugging it in the target parameter mapping. This approach balances the bias–variance trade-off by combining data-adaptive estimation with semiparametric efficiency theory. TMLE is doubly robust, meaning it remains consistent if either the outcome model or the treatment model is consistently estimated. === Formula === Here we explain the TMLE of the average treatment effect of a binary treatment on an outcome adjusting for baseline covariates. Consider i.i.d. observations O i = ( W i , A i , Y i ) {\displaystyle O_{i}=(W_{i},A_{i},Y_{i})} from a distribution P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} , where W {\displaystyle W} are baseline covariates, A {\displaystyle A} is a binary treatment, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is an outcome. Let Q ¯ ( a , w ) = E [ Y ∣ A = a , W = w ] {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}(a,w)=\mathbb {E} [Y\mid A=a,W=w]} represent the outcome model and g ( a ∣ w ) = P ( A = a ∣ W = w ) {\displaystyle g(a\mid w)=P(A=a\mid W=w)} represent the propensity score. The average treatment effect (ATE) is given by ψ 0 = E { Q ¯ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ( 0 , W ) } . {\displaystyle \psi _{0}=\mathbb {E} \{{\bar {Q}}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}(0,W)\}.} A basic TMLE for the ATE proceeds as follows: Step 1: Estimate initial models. Obtain estimates Q ¯ ^ ( a , w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}(a,w)} and g ^ ( a ∣ w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(a\mid w)} , often using flexible methods such as Super Learner. Step 2: Compute the clever covariate. Define: H ( A , W ) = A g ^ ( 1 ∣ W ) − 1 − A g ^ ( 0 ∣ W ) . {\displaystyle H(A,W)={\frac {A}{{\hat {g}}(1\mid W)}}-{\frac {1-A}{{\hat {g}}(0\mid W)}}.} Step 3: Estimate the fluctuation parameter. Fit a logistic regression of Y {\displaystyle Y} on H ( A , W ) {\displaystyle H(A,W)} with logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {logit} ({\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W))} as offset. This yields ε ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\varepsilon }}} , the MLE that solves the score equation: 1 n ∑ i = 1 n H ( A i , W i ) { Y i − Q ¯ ^ ε ( A i , W i ) } = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}H(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \{}Y_{i}-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{\varepsilon }(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \}}=0.} Step 4: Update the initial estimate. Apply the "blip" to obtain the targeted estimate: Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( A , W ) = expit ⁡ ( logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) + ε ^ H ( A , W ) ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(A,W)=\operatorname {expit} {\Big (}\operatorname {logit} {\big (}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W){\big )}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H(A,W){\Big )}.} Step 5: Compute the TMLE. The ATE estimate is: ψ ^ TMLE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n [ Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 1 , W i ) − Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 0 , W i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big [}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(1,W_{i})-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(0,W_{i}){\big ]}.} Inference. The efficient influence function (EIF) for the ATE is: D ∗ ( O ) = H ( A , W ) { Y − Q ¯ ∗ ( A , W ) } + Q ¯ ∗ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ∗ ( 0 , W ) − ψ . {\displaystyle D^{}(O)=H(A,W)\{Y-{\bar {Q}}^{}(A,W)\}+{\bar {Q}}^{}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}^{}(0,W)-\psi .} The variance is estimated by σ ^ 2 = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n ( D ∗ ( O i ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big (}D^{}(O_{i}){\big )}^{2}} , yielding Wald-type confidence intervals ψ ^ TMLE ± z 1 − α / 2 σ ^ / n {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}\pm z_{1-\alpha /2}\,{\hat {\sigma }}/{\sqrt {n}}} . Remark. For continuous outcomes, a linear fluctuation Q ¯ ^ ∗ = Q ¯ ^ + ε ^ H {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}={\hat {\bar {Q}}}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H} may be used instead. For bounded continuous outcomes, the logistic fluctuation (after rescaling Y {\displaystyle Y} to [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ) is often preferred for improved finite-sample performance. == Applications == TMLE has been applied in: Epidemiology: Estimating causal effects of exposures and interventions in observational cohort studies. Clinical trials and real-world evidence: The Targeted Learning roadmap provides a structured framework for generating and validating real-world evidence (RWE), bridging randomized trials and observational data using TMLE and related estimation techniques. This approach enables transparency, sensitivity analysis, and stronger causal inference for regulatory and clinical trial contexts. High-dimensional settings: Integration with ensemble methods for causal effect estimation. TMLE has been successfully applied in pharmacoepidemiology where a large number of covariates are automatically selected to adjust for confounding. In a study of post–myocardial infarction statin use and 1-year mortality, TMLE demonstrated robust performance relative to inverse probability weighting in scenarios with hundreds of potential confounders. == Derivatives and extensions == Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE): A methodological extension of TMLE for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments, confounders, and censoring. It allows the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes and intervention-specific causal effects over time. This framework was originally introduced by van der Laan & Gruber (2012). Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE): Enhances finite-sample performance and variable selection by collaboratively fitting the treatment mechanism in conjunction with the target parameter. == Software == Several R packages implement TMLE and related methods: tmle: Functions for binary, categorical, and continuous outcomes. ltmle: Implementation for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments and outcomes. ctmle: Algorithms for collaborative TMLE and adaptive variable selection. SuperLearner: A theoretically grounded, cross-validated ensemble learning method that combines predictions from multiple algorithms to minimize predictive risk. Widely used in TMLE for estimating nuisance parameters. The original implementation is available as the R package SuperLearner. Recent machine learning platforms like H2O AutoML implement similar ensemble strategies, combining diverse learners in parallel and leveraging stacking and blending techniques, effectively functioning as a large-scale Super Learner.

  Read more →
• 

  Glossary of machine vision

  The following are common definitions related to the machine vision field. General related fields Machine vision Computer vision Image processing Signal processing == 0-9 == 1394. FireWire is Apple Inc.'s brand name for the IEEE 1394 interface. It is also known as i.Link (Sony's name) or IEEE 1394 (although the 1394 standard also defines a backplane interface). It is a personal computer (and digital audio/digital video) serial bus interface standard, offering high-speed communications and isochronous real-time data services. 1D. One-dimensional. 2D computer graphics. The computer-based generation of digital images—mostly from two-dimensional models (such as 2D geometric models, text, and digital images) and by techniques specific to them. 3D computer graphics. 3D computer graphics are different from 2D computer graphics in that a three-dimensional representation of geometric data is stored in the computer for the purposes of performing calculations and rendering 2D images. Such images may be for later display or for real-time viewing. Despite these differences, 3D computer graphics rely on many of the same algorithms as 2D computer vector graphics in the wire frame model and 2D computer raster graphics in the final rendered display. In computer graphics software, the distinction between 2D and 3D is occasionally blurred; 2D applications may use 3D techniques to achieve effects such as lighting, and primarily 3D may use 2D rendering techniques. 3D scanner. This is a device that analyzes a real-world object or environment to collect data on its shape and possibly color. The collected data can then be used to construct digital, three dimensional models useful for a wide variety of applications. == A == Aberration. Optically, defocus refers to a translation along the optical axis away from the plane or surface of best focus. In general, defocus reduces the sharpness and contrast of the image. What should be sharp, high-contrast edges in a scene become gradual transitions. Algebraic distance or algebraic error. The algebraic distance from a point xi to a curve or surface defined by f ( x , β ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(x,\beta )=0} is the value of f ( x i , β ) {\displaystyle f(x_{i},\beta )} , i.e. the residual in the least squares problem with data point (xi, 0) and model function f. This term is mainly used in computer vision.[1][2] Aperture. In context of photography or machine vision, aperture refers to the diameter of the aperture stop of a photographic lens. The aperture stop can be adjusted to control the amount of light reaching the film or image sensor. aspect ratio (image). The aspect ratio of an image is its displayed width divided by its height (usually expressed as "x:y"). Angular resolution. Describes the resolving power of any image forming device such as an optical or radio telescope, a microscope, a camera, or an eye. Automated optical inspection. == B == Barcode. A barcode (also bar code) is a machine-readable representation of information in a visual format on a surface. Blob discovery. Inspecting an image for discrete blobs of connected pixels (e.g. a black hole in a grey object) as image landmarks. These blobs frequently represent optical targets for machining, robotic capture, or manufacturing failure. Bitmap. A raster graphics image, digital image, or bitmap, is a data file or structure representing a generally rectangular grid of pixels, or points of color, on a computer monitor, paper, or other display device. == C == Camera. A camera is a device used to take pictures, either singly or in sequence. A camera that takes pictures singly is sometimes called a photo camera to distinguish it from a video camera. Camera Link. Camera Link is a serial communication protocol designed for computer vision applications based on the National Semiconductor interface Channel-link. It was designed for the purpose of standardizing scientific and industrial video products including cameras, cables and frame grabbers. The standard is maintained and administered by the Automated Imaging Association, or AIA, the global machine vision industry's trade group. Charge-coupled device. A charge-coupled device (CCD) is a sensor for recording images, consisting of an integrated circuit containing an array of linked, or coupled, capacitors. CCD sensors and cameras tend to be more sensitive, less noisy, and more expensive than CMOS sensors and cameras. CIE 1931 Color Space. In the study of the perception of color, one of the first mathematically defined color spaces was the CIE XYZ color space (also known as CIE 1931 color space), created by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) in 1931. CMOS. CMOS ("see-moss")stands for complementary metal-oxide semiconductor, is a major class of integrated circuits. CMOS imaging sensors for machine vision are cheaper than CCD sensors but more noisy. CoaXPress. CoaXPress (CXP) is an asymmetric high speed serial communication standard over coaxial cable. CoaXPress combines high speed image data, low speed camera control and power over a single coaxial cable. The standard is maintained by JIIA, the Japan Industrial Imaging Association. Color. The perception of the frequency (or wavelength) of light, and can be compared to how pitch (or a musical note) is the perception of the frequency or wavelength of sound. Color blindness. Also known as color vision deficiency, in humans is the inability to perceive differences between some or all colors that other people can distinguish Color temperature. "White light" is commonly described by its color temperature. A traditional incandescent light source's color temperature is determined by comparing its hue with a theoretical, heated black-body radiator. The lamp's color temperature is the temperature in kelvins at which the heated black-body radiator matches the hue of the lamp. Color vision. CV is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the light they reflect or emit. computer vision. The study and application of methods which allow computers to "understand" image content. Contrast. In visual perception, contrast is the difference in visual properties that makes an object (or its representation in an image) distinguishable from other objects and the background. C-Mount. Standardized adapter for optical lenses on CCD - cameras. C-Mount lenses have a back focal distance 17.5 mm vs. 12.5 mm for "CS-mount" lenses. A C-Mount lens can be used on a CS-Mount camera through the use of a 5 mm extension adapter. C-mount is a 1" diameter, 32 threads per inch mounting thread (1"-32UN-2A.) CS-Mount. Same as C-Mount but the focal point is 5 mm shorter. A CS-Mount lens will not work on a C-Mount camera. CS-mount is a 1" diameter, 32 threads per inch mounting thread. == D == Data matrix. A two dimensional Barcode. Depth of field. In optics, particularly photography and machine vision, the depth of field (DOF) is the distance in front of and behind the subject which appears to be in focus. Depth perception. DP is the visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions. It is a trait common to many higher animals. Depth perception allows the beholder to accurately gauge the distance to an object. Diaphragm. In optics, a diaphragm is a thin opaque structure with an opening (aperture) at its centre. The role of the diaphragm is to stop the passage of light, except for the light passing through the aperture. == E == Edge detection. ED marks the points in a digital image at which the luminous intensity changes sharply. It also marks the points of luminous intensity changes of an object or spatial-taxon silhouette. Electromagnetic interference. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) is electromagnetic radiation which is emitted by electrical circuits carrying rapidly changing signals, as a by-product of their normal operation, and which causes unwanted signals (interference or noise) to be induced in other circuits. == F == FireWire. FireWire (also known as i. Link or IEEE 1394) is a personal computer (and digital audio/video) serial bus interface standard, offering high-speed communications. It is often used as an interface for industrial cameras. Fixed-pattern noise. Flat-field correction. Frame grabber. An electronic device that captures individual, digital still frames from an analog video signal or a digital video stream. Fringe Projection Technique. 3D data acquisition technique employing projector displaying fringe pattern on a surface of measured piece, and one or more cameras recording image(s). Field of view. The field of view (FOV) is the part which can be seen by the machine vision system at one moment. The field of view depends from the lens of the system and from the working distance between object and camera. Focus. An image, or image point or region, is said to be in focus if light from object points is converged about as well as possible in the image; conversely, it is out of focus if light is not w

  Read more →
• 

  Scale-invariant feature operator

  In the fields of computer vision and image analysis, the scale-invariant feature operator (or SFOP) is an algorithm to detect local features in images. The algorithm was published by Förstner et al. in 2009. == Algorithm == The scale-invariant feature operator (SFOP) is based on two theoretical concepts: spiral model feature operator Desired properties of keypoint detectors: Invariance and repeatability for object recognition Accuracy to support camera calibration Interpretability: Especially corners and circles, should be part of the detected keypoints (see figure). As few control parameters as possible with clear semantics Complementarity to known detectors scale-invariant corner/circle detector. == Theory == === Maximize the weight === Maximize the weight w {\displaystyle w} = 1/variance of a point p {\displaystyle p} w ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ( N ( σ ) − 2 ) λ m i n ( M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ) Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) {\displaystyle w(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )=\left(N(\sigma )-2\right){\frac {\lambda _{min}(M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma ))}{\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )}}} comprising: 1. the image model Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ∑ n = 1 N ( σ ) [ ( q n − p ) T R α ∇ T g ( q n ) ] 2 G σ ( q n − p ) = N ( σ ) t r { R α ∇ τ ∇ τ T R α T ∗ p p T G σ ( p ) } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )&=\sum _{n=1}^{N(\sigma )}[(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )^{T}\mathbf {R} _{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{T}g(\mathbf {q} _{n})]^{2}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )\\&=N(\sigma )\mathbf {tr} \left\{R_{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }^{T}R_{\alpha }^{T}\mathbf {p} \mathbf {p} ^{T}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )\right\}\end{aligned}}} 2. the smaller eigenvalue of the structure tensor M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ⏟ structure tensor = G σ ( p ) ⏟ weighted summation ∗ ( R σ ∇ τ ∇ τ T R σ T ) ⏟ squared rotated gradients {\displaystyle \underbrace {M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )} _{\text{structure tensor}}=\underbrace {G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )} _{\text{weighted summation}}\underbrace {(R_{\sigma }\nabla _{\tau }\nabla _{\tau }^{T}R_{\sigma }^{T})} _{\text{squared rotated gradients}}} === Reduce the search space === Reduce the 5-dimensional search space by linking the differentiation scale τ {\displaystyle \tau } to the integration scale τ = σ / 3 {\displaystyle \tau =\sigma /3} solving for the optimal α ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\alpha }}} using the model Ω ( α ) = a − b cos ⁡ ( 2 α − 2 α 0 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (\alpha )=a-b\cos(2\alpha -2\alpha _{0})} and determining the parameters from three angles, e. g. Ω ( 0 ∘ ) , Ω ( 60 ∘ ) , Ω ( 120 ∘ ) → a , b , α 0 → α ^ {\displaystyle \Omega (0^{\circ }),\Omega (60^{\circ }),\Omega (120^{\circ })\quad \rightarrow \quad a,b,\alpha _{0}\quad \rightarrow \quad {\hat {\alpha }}} pre-selection possible: α = 0 ∘ → junctions , α = 90 ∘ → circular features {\displaystyle \alpha =0^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{junctions}},\quad \alpha =90^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{circular features}}} === Filter potential keypoints === non-maxima suppression over scale, space and angle thresholding the isotropy λ 2 ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{2(M)}} :eigenvalues characterize the shape of the keypoint, smallest eigenvalue has to be larger than threshold T λ {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }} derived from noise variance V ( n ) {\displaystyle V(n)} and significance level S {\displaystyle S} : T λ ( V ( n ) , τ , σ , S ) = N ( σ ) 16 π τ 4 V ( n ) χ 2 , S 2 {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }(V(n),\tau ,\sigma ,S)={\frac {N(\sigma )}{16\pi \tau ^{4}}}V(n)\chi _{2,S}^{2}} == Algorithm == == Results == === Interpretability of SFOP keypoints ===

  Read more →
• 

  Error tolerance (PAC learning)

  In PAC learning, error tolerance refers to the ability of an algorithm to learn when the examples received have been corrupted in some way. In fact, this is a very common and important issue since in many applications it is not possible to access noise-free data. Noise can interfere with the learning process at different levels: the algorithm may receive data that have been occasionally mislabeled, or the inputs may have some false information, or the classification of the examples may have been maliciously adulterated. == Notation and the Valiant learning model == In the following, let X {\displaystyle X} be our n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional input space. Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a class of functions that we wish to use in order to learn a { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued target function f {\displaystyle f} defined over X {\displaystyle X} . Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be the distribution of the inputs over X {\displaystyle X} . The goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . Let us suppose we have a function s i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle size(f)} that can measure the complexity of f {\displaystyle f} . Let Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} be an oracle that, whenever called, returns an example x {\displaystyle x} and its correct label f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . When no noise corrupts the data, we can define learning in the Valiant setting: Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the Valiant setting if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , 1 δ , n , size ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,{\text{size}}(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition error ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle {\text{error}}(h)\leq \varepsilon } . In the following we will define learnability of f {\displaystyle f} when data have suffered some modification. == Classification noise == In the classification noise model a noise rate 0 ≤ η < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <{\frac {1}{2}}} is introduced. Then, instead of Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} that returns always the correct label of example x {\displaystyle x} , algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can only call a faulty oracle Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} that will flip the label of x {\displaystyle x} with probability η {\displaystyle \eta } . As in the Valiant case, the goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . In applications it is difficult to have access to the real value of η {\displaystyle \eta } , but we assume we have access to its upperbound η B {\displaystyle \eta _{B}} . Note that if we allow the noise rate to be 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} , then learning becomes impossible in any amount of computation time, because every label conveys no information about the target function. Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the classification noise model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 ≤ η ≤ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta \leq {\frac {1}{2}}} , 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 1 − 2 η B , 1 ε , 1 δ , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{1-2\eta _{B}}},{\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,size(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \varepsilon } . == Statistical query learning == Statistical Query Learning is a kind of active learning problem in which the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can decide if to request information about the likelihood P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} that a function f {\displaystyle f} correctly labels example x {\displaystyle x} , and receives an answer accurate within a tolerance α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Formally, whenever the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls the oracle Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} , it receives as feedback probability Q f ( x ) {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}} , such that Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } . Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the statistical query learning model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} and polynomials p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , q ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle q(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , and r ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle r(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} the following hold: Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} can evaluate P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} in time q ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle q\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} ; 1 α {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\alpha }}} is bounded by r ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle r\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} outputs a model h {\displaystyle h} such that e r r ( h ) < ε {\displaystyle err(h)<\varepsilon } , in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} . Note that the confidence parameter δ {\displaystyle \delta } does not appear in the definition of learning. This is because the main purpose of δ {\displaystyle \delta } is to allow the learning algorithm a small probability of failure due to an unrepresentative sample. Since now Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} always guarantees to meet the approximation criterion Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } , the failure probability is no longer needed. The statistical query model is strictly weaker than the PAC model: any efficiently SQ-learnable class is efficiently PAC learnable in the presence of classification noise, but there exist efficient PAC-learnable problems such as parity that are not efficiently SQ-learnable. == Malicious classification == In the malicious classification model an adversary generates errors to foil the learning algorithm. This setting describes situations of error burst, which may occur when for a limited time transmission equipment malfunctions repeatedly. Formally, algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls an oracle Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )} that returns a correctly labeled example x {\displaystyle x} drawn, as usual, from distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} over the input space with probability 1 − β {\displaystyle 1-\beta } , but it returns with probability β {\displaystyle \beta } an example drawn from a distribution that is not related to D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . Moreover, this maliciously chosen example may strategically selected by an adversary who has knowledge of f {\displaystyle f} , β {\displaystyle \beta } , D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , or the current progress of the learning algorithm. Definition: Given a bound β B < 1 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{B}<{\frac {1}{2}}} for 0 ≤ β < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <{\frac {1}{2}}} , we say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the malicious classification model, if there exist a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )}

  Read more →
• 

  Analogical modeling

  Analogical modeling (AM) is a formal theory of exemplar based analogical reasoning, proposed by Royal Skousen, professor of Linguistics and English language at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. It is applicable to language modeling and other categorization tasks. Analogical modeling is related to connectionism and nearest neighbor approaches, in that it is data-based rather than abstraction-based; but it is distinguished by its ability to cope with imperfect datasets (such as caused by simulated short term memory limits) and to base predictions on all relevant segments of the dataset, whether near or far. In language modeling, AM has successfully predicted empirically valid forms for which no theoretical explanation was known (see the discussion of Finnish morphology in Skousen et al. 2002). == Implementation == === Overview === An exemplar-based model consists of a general-purpose modeling engine and a problem-specific dataset. Within the dataset, each exemplar (a case to be reasoned from, or an informative past experience) appears as a feature vector: a row of values for the set of parameters that define the problem. For example, in a spelling-to-sound task, the feature vector might consist of the letters of a word. Each exemplar in the dataset is stored with an outcome, such as a phoneme or phone to be generated. When the model is presented with a novel situation (in the form of an outcome-less feature vector), the engine algorithmically sorts the dataset to find exemplars that helpfully resemble it, and selects one, whose outcome is the model's prediction. The particulars of the algorithm distinguish one exemplar-based modeling system from another. In AM, we think of the feature values as characterizing a context, and the outcome as a behavior that occurs within that context. Accordingly, the novel situation is known as the given context. Given the known features of the context, the AM engine systematically generates all contexts that include it (all of its supracontexts), and extracts from the dataset the exemplars that belong to each. The engine then discards those supracontexts whose outcomes are inconsistent (this measure of consistency will be discussed further below), leaving an analogical set of supracontexts, and probabilistically selects an exemplar from the analogical set with a bias toward those in large supracontexts. This multilevel search exponentially magnifies the likelihood of a behavior's being predicted as it occurs reliably in settings that specifically resemble the given context. === Analogical modeling in detail === AM performs the same process for each case it is asked to evaluate. The given context, consisting of n variables, is used as a template to generate 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} supracontexts. Each supracontext is a set of exemplars in which one or more variables have the same values that they do in the given context, and the other variables are ignored. In effect, each is a view of the data, created by filtering for some criteria of similarity to the given context, and the total set of supracontexts exhausts all such views. Alternatively, each supracontext is a theory of the task or a proposed rule whose predictive power needs to be evaluated. It is important to note that the supracontexts are not equal peers one with another; they are arranged by their distance from the given context, forming a hierarchy. If a supracontext specifies all of the variables that another one does and more, it is a subcontext of that other one, and it lies closer to the given context. (The hierarchy is not strictly branching; each supracontext can itself be a subcontext of several others, and can have several subcontexts.) This hierarchy becomes significant in the next step of the algorithm. The engine now chooses the analogical set from among the supracontexts. A supracontext may contain exemplars that only exhibit one behavior; it is deterministically homogeneous and is included. It is a view of the data that displays regularity, or a relevant theory that has never yet been disproven. A supracontext may exhibit several behaviors, but contain no exemplars that occur in any more specific supracontext (that is, in any of its subcontexts); in this case it is non-deterministically homogeneous and is included. Here there is no great evidence that a systematic behavior occurs, but also no counterargument. Finally, a supracontext may be heterogeneous, meaning that it exhibits behaviors that are found in a subcontext (closer to the given context), and also behaviors that are not. Where the ambiguous behavior of the nondeterministically homogeneous supracontext was accepted, this is rejected because the intervening subcontext demonstrates that there is a better theory to be found. The heterogeneous supracontext is therefore excluded. This guarantees that we see an increase in meaningfully consistent behavior in the analogical set as we approach the given context. With the analogical set chosen, each appearance of an exemplar (for a given exemplar may appear in several of the analogical supracontexts) is given a pointer to every other appearance of an exemplar within its supracontexts. One of these pointers is then selected at random and followed, and the exemplar to which it points provides the outcome. This gives each supracontext an importance proportional to the square of its size, and makes each exemplar likely to be selected in direct proportion to the sum of the sizes of all analogically consistent supracontexts in which it appears. Then, of course, the probability of predicting a particular outcome is proportional to the summed probabilities of all the exemplars that support it. (Skousen 2002, in Skousen et al. 2002, pp. 11–25, and Skousen 2003, both passim) === Formulas === Given a context with n {\displaystyle n} elements: total number of pairings: n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} number of agreements for outcome i: n i 2 {\displaystyle n_{i}^{2}} number of disagreements for outcome i: n i ( n − n i ) {\displaystyle n_{i}(n-n_{i})} total number of agreements: ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}^{2}}} total number of disagreements: ∑ n i ( n − n i ) = n 2 − ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}(n-n_{i})}=n^{2}-\sum {n_{i}^{2}}} === Example === This terminology is best understood through an example. In the example used in the second chapter of Skousen (1989), each context consists of three variables with potential values 0-3 Variable 1: 0,1,2,3 Variable 2: 0,1,2,3 Variable 3: 0,1,2,3 The two outcomes for the dataset are e and r, and the exemplars are: 3 1 0 e 0 3 2 r 2 1 0 r 2 1 2 r 3 1 1 r We define a network of pointers like so: The solid lines represent pointers between exemplars with matching outcomes; the dotted lines represent pointers between exemplars with non-matching outcomes. The statistics for this example are as follows: n = 5 {\displaystyle n=5} n r = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}=4} n e = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}=1} total number of pairings: n 2 = 25 {\displaystyle n^{2}=25} number of agreements for outcome r: n r 2 = 16 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}=16} number of agreements for outcome e: n e 2 = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}^{2}=1} number of disagreements for outcome r: n r ( n − n r ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})=4} number of disagreements for outcome e: n e ( n − n e ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{e}(n-n_{e})=4} total number of agreements: n r 2 + n e 2 = 17 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2}=17} total number of disagreements: n r ( n − n r ) + n e ( n − n e ) = n 2 − ( n r 2 + n e 2 ) = 8 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})+n_{e}(n-n_{e})=n^{2}-(n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2})=8} uncertainty or fraction of disagreement: 8 / 25 = .32 {\displaystyle 8/25=.32} Behavior can only be predicted for a given context; in this example, let us predict the outcome for the context "3 1 2". To do this, we first find all of the contexts containing the given context; these contexts are called supracontexts. We find the supracontexts by systematically eliminating the variables in the given context; with m variables, there will generally be 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} supracontexts. The following table lists each of the sub- and supracontexts; x means "not x", and - means "anything". These contexts are shown in the venn diagram below: The next step is to determine which exemplars belong to which contexts in order to determine which of the contexts are homogeneous. The table below shows each of the subcontexts, their behavior in terms of the given exemplars, and the number of disagreements within the behavior: Analyzing the subcontexts in the table above, we see that there is only 1 subcontext with any disagreements: "3 1 2", which in the dataset consists of "3 1 0 e" and "3 1 1 r". There are 2 disagreements in this subcontext; 1 pointing from each of the exemplars to the other (see the pointer network pictured above). Therefore, only supracontexts containing this subcontext will contain any disagreements. We use a simple rule to identify the homogeneous supraco

  Read more →
• 

  Language Server Protocol

  The Language Server Protocol (LSP) is an open, JSON-RPC-based protocol for use between source-code editors or integrated development environments (IDEs) and servers that provide "language intelligence tools": programming language-specific features like code completion, syntax highlighting and marking of warnings and errors, as well as refactoring routines. The goal of the protocol is to allow programming language support to be implemented and distributed independently of any given editor or IDE. In the early 2020s, LSP quickly became a "norm" for language intelligence tools providers. == History == LSP was originally developed for Microsoft Visual Studio Code and is now an open standard. On June 27, 2016, Microsoft announced a collaboration with Red Hat and Codenvy to standardize the protocol's specification. Its specification is hosted and developed on GitHub. == Background == Modern IDEs provide programmers with sophisticated features like code completion, refactoring, navigating to a symbol's definition, syntax highlighting, and error and warning markers. For example, in a text-based programming language, a programmer might want to rename a method read. The programmer could either manually edit the respective source code files and change the appropriate occurrences of the old method name into the new name, or instead use an IDE's refactoring capabilities to make all the necessary changes automatically. To be able to support this style of refactoring, an IDE needs a sophisticated understanding of the programming language that the program's source is written in. A programming tool without such an understanding—for example, one that performs a naive search-and-replace instead—could introduce errors. When renaming a read method, for example, the tool should not replace the partial match in a variable that might be called readyState, nor should it replace the portion of a code comment containing the word "already". Neither should renaming a local variable read, for example, end up altering identically-named variables in other scopes. Conventional compilers or interpreters for a specific programming language are typically unable to provide these language services, because they are written with the goal of either transforming the source code into object code or immediately executing the code. Additionally, language services must be able to handle source code that is not well-formed, e.g. because the programmer is in the middle of editing and has not yet finished typing a statement, procedure, or other construct. Additionally, small changes to a source code file which are done during typing usually change the semantics of the program. In order to provide instant feedback to the user, the editing tool must be able to very quickly evaluate the syntactical and semantical consequences of a specific modification. Compilers and interpreters therefore provide a poor candidate for producing the information needed for an editing tool to consume. Prior to the design and implementation of the Language Server Protocol for the development of Visual Studio Code, most language services were generally tied to a given IDE or other editor. In the absence of the Language Server Protocol, language services are typically implemented by using a tool-specific extension API. Providing the same language service to another editing tool requires effort to adapt the existing code so that the service may target the second editor's extension interfaces. The Language Server Protocol allows for decoupling language services from the editor so that the services may be contained within a general-purpose language server. Any editor can inherit sophisticated support for many different languages by making use of existing language servers. Similarly, a programmer involved with the development of a new programming language can make services for that language available to existing editing tools. Making use of language servers via the Language Server Protocol thus also reduces the burden on vendors of editing tools, because vendors do not need to develop language services of their own for the languages the vendor intends to support, as long as the language servers have already been implemented. The Language Server Protocol also enables the distribution and development of servers contributed by an interested third party, such as end users, without additional involvement by either the vendor of the compiler for the programming language in use or the vendor of the editor to which the language support is being added. LSP is not restricted to programming languages. It can be used for any kind of text-based language, like specifications or domain-specific languages (DSL). == Technical overview == When a user edits one or more source code files using a language server protocol-enabled tool, the tool acts as a client that consumes the language services provided by a language server. The tool may be a text editor or IDE and the language services could be refactoring, code completion, etc. The client informs the server about what the user is doing, e.g., opening a file or inserting a character at a specific text position. The client can also request the server to perform a language service, e.g. to format a specified range in the text document. The server answers a client's request with an appropriate response. For example, the formatting request is answered either by a response that transfers the formatted text to the client or by an error response containing details about the error. The Language Server Protocol defines the messages to be exchanged between client and language server. They are JSON-RPC preceded by headers similar to HTTP. Messages may originate from the server or client. The protocol does not make any provisions about how requests, responses and notifications are transferred between client and server. For example, client and server could be components within the same process exchanging JSON strings via method calls. They could also be different processes on the same or on different machines communicating via network sockets. == Registry == There are lists of LSP-compatible implementations, maintained by the community-driven Langserver.org or Microsoft.

  Read more →
• 

  Linear classifier

  In machine learning, a linear classifier makes a classification decision for each object based on a linear combination of its features. A simpler definition is to say that a linear classifier is one whose decision boundaries are linear. Such classifiers work well for practical problems such as document classification, and more generally for problems with many variables (features), reaching accuracy levels comparable to non-linear classifiers while taking less time to train and use. == Definition == If the input feature vector to the classifier is a real vector x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} , then the output score is y = f ( w → ⋅ x → ) = f ( ∑ j w j x j ) , {\displaystyle y=f({\vec {w}}\cdot {\vec {x}})=f\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}x_{j}\right),} where w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is a real vector of weights and f is a function that converts the dot product of the two vectors into the desired output. (In other words, w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is a one-form or linear functional mapping x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto R.) The weight vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is learned from a set of labeled training samples. Often f is a threshold function, which maps all values of w → ⋅ x → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}\cdot {\vec {x}}} above a certain threshold to the first class and all other values to the second class; e.g., f ( x ) = { 1 if w T ⋅ x > θ , 0 otherwise {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}\ \mathbf {w} ^{T}\cdot \mathbf {x} >\theta ,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} The superscript T indicates the transpose and θ {\displaystyle \theta } is a scalar threshold. A more complex f might give the probability that an item belongs to a certain class. For a two-class classification problem, one can visualize the operation of a linear classifier as splitting a high-dimensional input space with a hyperplane: all points on one side of the hyperplane are classified as "yes", while the others are classified as "no". A linear classifier is often used in situations where the speed of classification is an issue, since it is often the fastest classifier, especially when x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is sparse. Also, linear classifiers often work very well when the number of dimensions in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is large, as in document classification, where each element in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is typically the number of occurrences of a word in a document (see document-term matrix). In such cases, the classifier should be well-regularized. == Generative models vs. discriminative models == There are two broad classes of methods for determining the parameters of a linear classifier w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . They can be generative and discriminative models. Methods of the former model joint probability distribution, whereas methods of the latter model conditional density functions P ( c l a s s | x → ) {\displaystyle P({\rm {class}}|{\vec {x}})} . Examples of such algorithms include: Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)—assumes Gaussian conditional density models Naive Bayes classifier with multinomial or multivariate Bernoulli event models. The second set of methods includes discriminative models, which attempt to maximize the quality of the output on a training set. Additional terms in the training cost function can easily perform regularization of the final model. Examples of discriminative training of linear classifiers include: Logistic regression—maximum likelihood estimation of w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} assuming that the observed training set was generated by a binomial model that depends on the output of the classifier. Perceptron—an algorithm that attempts to fix all errors encountered in the training set Fisher's Linear Discriminant Analysis—an algorithm (different than "LDA") that maximizes the ratio of between-class scatter to within-class scatter, without any other assumptions. It is in essence a method of dimensionality reduction for binary classification. Support vector machine—an algorithm that maximizes the margin between the decision hyperplane and the examples in the training set. Note: Despite its name, LDA does not belong to the class of discriminative models in this taxonomy. However, its name makes sense when we compare LDA to the other main linear dimensionality reduction algorithm: principal components analysis (PCA). LDA is a supervised learning algorithm that utilizes the labels of the data, while PCA is an unsupervised learning algorithm that ignores the labels. To summarize, the name is a historical artifact. Discriminative training often yields higher accuracy than modeling the conditional density functions. However, handling missing data is often easier with conditional density models. All of the linear classifier algorithms listed above can be converted into non-linear algorithms operating on a different input space φ ( x → ) {\displaystyle \varphi ({\vec {x}})} , using the kernel trick. === Discriminative training === Discriminative training of linear classifiers usually proceeds in a supervised way, by means of an optimization algorithm that is given a training set with desired outputs and a loss function that measures the discrepancy between the classifier's outputs and the desired outputs. Thus, the learning algorithm solves an optimization problem of the form arg ⁡ min w R ( w ) + C ∑ i = 1 N L ( y i , w T x i ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\mathbf {w} }{\arg \min }}\;R(\mathbf {w} )+C\sum _{i=1}^{N}L(y_{i},\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {x} _{i})} where w is a vector of classifier parameters, L(yi, wTxi) is a loss function that measures the discrepancy between the classifier's prediction and the true output yi for the i'th training example, R(w) is a regularization function that prevents the parameters from getting too large (causing overfitting), and C is a scalar constant (set by the user of the learning algorithm) that controls the balance between the regularization and the loss function. Popular loss functions include the hinge loss (for linear SVMs) and the log loss (for linear logistic regression). If the regularization function R is convex, then the above is a convex problem. Many algorithms exist for solving such problems; popular ones for linear classification include (stochastic) gradient descent, L-BFGS, coordinate descent and Newton methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized weighted majority algorithm

  The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 ⁡ n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ⁡ ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ⁡ ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ⁡ ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 ⁡ 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun

  Read more →