AI Coding Quality

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

• 

  Synthesia (company)

  Synthesia Limited is a British multinational artificial intelligence company based in London, United Kingdom. It is a synthetic media-generation software developer and creator of AI-generated video content, including audio-visual agents and cloned avatars. Britain's largest generative-AI firm, it is used by 70% of FTSE 100 and over 90% of Fortune 100 companies. == Overview == Synthesia is most often used by corporations for localized communication, orientation, employee training videos, advertising campaigns, reporting, product demonstrations, customer service, and to create chatbots. Its software algorithm mimics speech and facial movements based on video recordings of an individual’s speech and facial expressions. From this, a text-to-speech video is created to look and sound like the individual. Swiss bank UBS incorporated Synthesia AI-powered avatars of their human financial experts, for instance, in 2025. Users create content via the platform's pre-generated AI presenters or by creating digital representations of themselves, or personal avatars, using the platform's AI video editing tool. These avatars can be used to narrate videos generated from text. As of August 2021, Synthesia's voice database included multiple gender options in over 60 languages. Its free voice library doubled by 2025, to 140 languages and accents, and its Express-Voice technology can clone a user's own voice, or generate a synthetic one. === Deepfakes === The platform prohibits use of its software to create non-consensual clones, including of celebrities or political figures for satirical purposes. Explicit consent must be provided in addition to a strict pre-screening regimen for use of an individual's likeness to avoid “deepfaking”. While the company prohibits use of its technology for misinformation or "news-like content", an October 2023 Freedom House report stated that Synthesia tools had been used by governments in Venezuela, China, Burkina Faso, and Russia to create videos of fake TV news outlets with AI-generated avatars in order to spread propaganda. Actor Dan Dewhirst signed a contract with the company in 2021, becoming one of the first actors whose likeness would be made into an AI avatar, finding his likeness used in the Venezuelan generated-videos. The company stated, in February 2024, that it had improved its misuse detection systems, and, in April 2024, that new users of its technology are screened by the company, and content employing it is further vetted by Synthesia moderators. == History == Synthesia's software utilizes deep learning architecture developed by Lourdes Agapito and Matthias Niessner. The company was co-founded in 2017 by Agapito, Niessner, Victor Riparbelli, and Steffen Tjerrild. In 2018, the company first demonstrated the software's capabilities on the BBC programme Click when it presented a digitization of Matthew Amroliwala speaking Spanish, Mandarin, and Hindi. Through Synthesia's first two years of existence, it employed 10 people and struggled to make sales, leading to an expansion of the company's focus. It moved on from just targeting entertainment studios to a variety of businesses. In 2020, Synthesia users were reported to include Amazon, Tiffany & Co. and IHG Hotels & Resorts. In January 2024, the company introduced its AI video assistant, which turns text-to-video. That April, with a reported 55,000 customers, including half of the Fortune 100, Synthesia launched "expressive avatars". That September, an enhanced dubbing feature was launched, to translate video in 30 languages with naturalized lip-syncing. Peter Hill joined Synthesia as CTO in January 2025, following 25 years at Amazon, and two years as CEO and CPO of Wildfire Studios. That March, a million dollar base of shares was formed to furnish human actors, employed to generate digital avatars, with company stock, which all of its employees hold. By June of that year, 150,000 individuals from among Synthesia's 65,000 customers had created AI-generated avatars of themselves. In July 2025, the company's new global headquarters at Regent’s Place was opened by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who described Britain's largest generative-AI company, then valued at over $2 billion, as a "London success story". By that October, its technology was employed by 90% of the Fortune 100, and Synthesia 3.0 was launched, with hyper-realistic digital avatars equipped with AI-powered dubbing and translation, and a built-in video assistant. In January 2026, it reached a $4 billion valuation, with 70% of FTSE 100 companies noted among its customers. === Funding === The company raised $3.1 million in seed funding in 2019. In April 2021, the company raised $12.5 million in Series A funding. In December 2021, it raised $50 million in a Series B funding round led by Kleiner Perkins and GV (then Google Ventures). Synthesia gained a total valuation of $1 billion, and achieved unicorn status, when it raised $90 million from Accel and Nvidia partnership NVentures, in June 2023, during its Series C funding round. Counting 60,000 customers by January 2025, including over 60% of Fortune 100 companies; the company raised $180 million in a Series D round led by NEA, with new investors World Innovation Lab (WiL), Atlassian Ventures and PSP Growth, as well as existing investors GV, MMC Ventures and FirstMark, doubling Synthesia's valuation to $2.1 billion. Capital raised by 2025 had reached $330 million, with investments slated to further product innovation, talent growth, and company expansion in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia. In April 2025, Adobe Inc. invested £10 million in the company for a strategic partnership. Synthesia subsequently rejected a $3 billion acquisition offer from Adobe, choosing to remain independent. With a revenue stream then exceeding $100 million annually; GV led a Series E funding round in October 2025, resulting in Synthesia's $4 billion valuation, raising $200 million from GV, Nvidia and Accel to develop, in 2026, interactive audio-visual avatar "agents" that converse on topic, for automated sales training and corporate communications, such as recruiting. == Recognition == In 2021, Synthesia partnered with Lay's to create the Messi Messages campaign featuring Argentine footballer Lionel Messi. Users created personalized messages with Synthesia's software and sent custom artificial reality video messages from Messi based on their text input. The campaign received a Cannes Lion Award under the Bronze category. In February 2025, UK Science and Technology Minister Peter Kyle commended Synthesia's "pioneering generative AI innovations."

  Read more →
• 

  Operational taxonomic unit

  An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy. Nowadays, however, the term is commonly used in a different context and refers to clusters of (uncultivated or unknown) organisms, grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (originally coined as mOTU; molecular OTU). In other words, OTUs are pragmatic proxies for "species" at different taxonomic levels, in the absence of traditional systems of biological classification as are available for macroscopic organisms. For several years, OTUs have been the most commonly used units of diversity, especially when analysing small subunit 16S (for prokaryotes) or 18S rRNA (for eukaryotes) marker gene sequence datasets. == Molecular OTU by clustering of marker gene sequences == In the approach represented by DNA barcoding, a particular locus is chosen to be used as the marker gene for classification. This locus should be universally present in the scope selected, variable enough to be different among close-related species, and be flanked by conservative sequences that allow for easy amplification and detection. There are databases containing sequences for such marker genes from many different species, allowing for comparison. (Sometimes only using one locus does not provide sufficient resolution, so multiple marker genes are used. This is the case for plants, where rbcL+matK is common.) Sequences obtained this way can be clustered according to their similarity to one another, and operational taxonomic units are defined based on the similarity threshold set by the researcher. The exact threshold depends on the taxa in question and the mutational rates of the selected locus in the taxon. 97–99% are commonly used, but "it is now recognized to be somewhat arbitrary as sequence variation within and among species varies across taxa". 100% similarity (fully identical) is also common, also known as single variants. It remains debatable how well this commonly used method recapitulates true microbial species phylogeny or ecology. Although OTUs can be calculated differently when using different algorithms or thresholds, research by Schmidt et al. (2014) demonstrated that 16S-derived microbial OTUs were generally ecologically consistent across habitats and several clustering approaches. The number of OTUs defined may be inflated due to errors in DNA sequencing. === OTU clustering approaches === There are three main approaches to clustering OTUs: De novo, for which the clustering is based on similarities between sequencing reads. Closed-reference, for which the clustering is performed against a reference database of sequences. Open-reference, where clustering is first performed against a reference database of sequences, then any remaining sequences that could not be mapped to the reference are clustered de novo. Using a reference provides taxonomic context for the OTUs found. Alternatively, taxonomic context can be found after the construction of clusters by comparing representative sequences from clusters against a reference database. There are also specialized classifiers for this purpose which are much faster than naive comparison using BLAST. === OTU clustering algorithms === Hierarchical clustering algorithms (HCA): uclust & cd-hit & ESPRIT Bayesian clustering: CROP == Molecular OTU by other methods == In addition to similarity-based grouping, marker gene sequences can be sorted into OTUs using molecular phylogeny, k-mer composition, or hybrid methods combining these methods with similarity. There are also Bayesian tree-less methods and machine learning approaches. Using phylogeny often involves manually assigning terminal clades or single nodes to an OTU, so this is usually only done for refinement. Genome skimming can be used to obtain high-copy DNA without the need to choose marker genes or to design PCR primers for the chosen genes. It can provide fairly good coverage of organelle DNA and repetitive elements such as ribosomal DNA, both of which can be used like marker genes in OTU analysis. Whole-genome sequencing is more expensive and involves the production and processing of more data. By considering the entire genome, many (sometimes over 100) marker genes can be used at the same time, producing highly resolved phylogenies that correctly identify problematic taxa. It is also possible to use entire genomes for OTU assignment. For example, genomes from different bacterial species almost always have an average nucleotide identity lower than 95%, a fact that can be used to define new OTUs (and likely new species).

  Read more →
• 

  GraphLab

  Turi is a graph-based, high performance, distributed computation framework written in C++. The GraphLab project was started by Prof. Carlos Guestrin of Carnegie Mellon University in 2009. It is an open source project that uses the Apache License. While GraphLab was originally developed for machine learning tasks, it has also been developed for other data-mining tasks. == Motivation == As the amounts of collected data and computing power grow (multicore, GPUs, clusters, clouds), modern datasets no longer fit into one computing node. Efficient distributed parallel algorithms for handling large-scale data are required. The GraphLab framework is a parallel programming abstraction targeted for sparse iterative graph algorithms. GraphLab provides a programming interface, allowing deployment of distributed machine learning algorithms. The main design considerations behind the design of GraphLab are: Sparse data with local dependencies Iterative algorithms Potentially asynchronous execution == GraphLab toolkits == On top of GraphLab, several implemented libraries of algorithms: Topic modeling - contains applications like LDA, which can be used to cluster documents and extract topical representations. Graph analytics - contains applications like pagerank and triangle counting, which can be applied to general graphs to estimate community structure. Clustering - contains standard data clustering tools such as Kmeans Collaborative filtering - contains a collection of applications used to make predictions about users interests and factorize large matrices. Graphical models - contains tools for making joint predictions about collections of related random variables. Computer vision - contains a collection of tools for reasoning about images. == Turi == Turi (formerly called Dato and before that GraphLab Inc.) is a company that was founded by Prof. Carlos Guestrin from University of Washington in May 2013 to continue development support of the GraphLab open source project. Dato Inc. raised a $6.75M Series A from Madrona Venture Group and New Enterprise Associates (NEA). They raised a $18.5M Series B from Vulcan Capital and Opus Capital, with participation from Madrona and NEA. On August 5, 2016, Turi was acquired by Apple Inc. for $200,000,000.

  Read more →
• 

  Synaptic weight

  In neuroscience and computer science, synaptic weight refers to the strength or amplitude of a connection between two nodes, corresponding in biology to the amount of influence the firing of one neuron has on another. The term is typically used in artificial and biological neural network research. == Computation == In a computational neural network, a vector or set of inputs x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} and outputs y {\displaystyle {\textbf {y}}} , or pre- and post-synaptic neurons respectively, are interconnected with synaptic weights represented by the matrix w {\displaystyle w} , where for a linear neuron y j = ∑ i w i j x i or y = w x {\displaystyle y_{j}=\sum _{i}w_{ij}x_{i}~~{\textrm {or}}~~{\textbf {y}}=w{\textbf {x}}} . where the rows of the synaptic matrix represent the vector of synaptic weights for the output indexed by j {\displaystyle j} . The synaptic weight is changed by using a learning rule, the most basic of which is Hebb's rule, which is usually stated in biological terms as Neurons that fire together, wire together. Computationally, this means that if a large signal from one of the input neurons results in a large signal from one of the output neurons, then the synaptic weight between those two neurons will increase. The rule is unstable, however, and is typically modified using such variations as Oja's rule, radial basis functions or the backpropagation algorithm. == Biology == For biological networks, the effect of synaptic weights is not as simple as for linear neurons or Hebbian learning. However, biophysical models such as BCM theory have seen some success in mathematically describing these networks. In the mammalian central nervous system, signal transmission is carried out by interconnected networks of nerve cells, or neurons. For the basic pyramidal neuron, the input signal is carried by the axon, which releases neurotransmitter chemicals into the synapse which is picked up by the dendrites of the next neuron, which can then generate an action potential which is analogous to the output signal in the computational case. The synaptic weight in this process is determined by several variable factors: How well the input signal propagates through the axon (see myelination), The amount of neurotransmitter released into the synapse and the amount that can be absorbed in the following cell (determined by the number of AMPA and NMDA receptors on the cell membrane and the amount of intracellular calcium and other ions), The number of such connections made by the axon to the dendrites, How well the signal propagates and integrates in the postsynaptic cell. The changes in synaptic weight that occur is known as synaptic plasticity, and the process behind long-term changes (long-term potentiation and depression) is still poorly understood. Hebb's original learning rule was originally applied to biological systems, but has had to undergo many modifications as a number of theoretical and experimental problems came to light.

  Read more →
• 

  Tribute (website)

  Tribute is an American video-sharing website headquartered in Brooklyn. Created in 2014 by Andrew Horn and Rory Petty, the platform lets customers create video montages (called "tributes") for occasions including weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, get well soon, and memorials. Tribute.co allows users to record video messages, request submissions from friends and family, insert photos, add music, and send the resulting video tribute montage to a recipient. == Overview == Tribute's collaborative technology starts with inviting people to contribute via email, SMS or social media. Participants receive a prompt to record a short video via their phone, computer or tablet. The site's video editing software allows users to drag and drop the clips in their desired order without prior video editing experience. == History == When Andrew Horn turned twenty-seven, his girlfriend, Miki Agrawal surprised him with a video montage containing clips of his family and closest friends explaining why they loved him. This resulted in Andrew's idea to create Tribute–a "living eulogy" video-compilation service that he co-founded with software engineer Rory Petty. Founded in 2014, Tribute's activity accelerated in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it had sent over 5 million videos as of December 2021. While social distance restrictions were in effect, the site provided a way for people to connect while in-person celebrations were put on hold. For each video sold, Tribute makes one available to hospitals for free and has partnered with Cleveland Clinic Cancer Center in Ohio, Lurie Children's Hospital in Illinois and CarePoint Health in New Jersey.

  Read more →
• 

  VITAL (machine learning software)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Q-learning

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

  Read more →
• 

  Multiclass classification

  In machine learning and statistical classification, multiclass classification or multinomial classification is the problem of classifying instances into one of three or more classes (classifying instances into one of two classes is called binary classification). For example, deciding on whether an image is showing a banana, peach, orange, or an apple is a multiclass classification problem, with four possible classes (banana, peach, orange, apple), while deciding on whether an image contains an apple or not is a binary classification problem (with the two possible classes being: apple, no apple). While many classification algorithms (e.g., decision trees, k-NN, neural networks and multinomial logistic regression) naturally permit the use of more than two classes, some are by nature binary algorithms (e.g., classical binary support vector machine) and require decomposition strategies such as one-vs-all, one-vs-one, or ECOC to solve multiclass problems. Multiclass classification should not be confused with multi-label classification, where multiple labels are to be predicted for each instance (e.g., predicting that an image contains both an apple and an orange, in the previous example). == Better-than-random multiclass models == From the confusion matrix of a multiclass model, we can determine whether a model does better than chance. Let K ≥ 3 {\displaystyle K\geq 3} be the number of classes, O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}} a set of observations, y ^ : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} a model of the target variable y : O → { 1 , . . . , K } {\displaystyle y:{\mathcal {O}}\to \{1,...,K\}} and n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i,j}} be the number of observations in the set { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\}} . We note n i . = ∑ j n i , j {\displaystyle n_{i.}=\sum _{j}n_{i,j}} , n . j = ∑ i n i , j {\displaystyle n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i,j}} , n = ∑ j n . j = ∑ i n i . {\displaystyle n=\sum _{j}n_{.j}=\sum _{i}n_{i.}} , λ i = n i . n {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {n_{i.}}{n}}} and μ j = n . j n {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {n_{.j}}{n}}} . It is assumed that the confusion matrix ( n i , j ) i , j {\displaystyle (n_{i,j})_{i,j}} contains at least one non-zero entry in each row, that is λ i > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}>0} for any i {\displaystyle i} . Finally we call "normalized confusion matrix" the matrix of conditional probabilities ( P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) ) i , j = ( n i , j n i . ) i , j {\displaystyle (\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i))_{i,j}=\left({\frac {n_{i,j}}{n_{i.}}}\right)_{i,j}} . === Intuitive explanation === The lift is a way of measuring the deviation from independence of two events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} : L i f t ( A , B ) = P ( A ∩ B ) P ( A ) P ( B ) = P ( A ∣ B ) P ( A ) = P ( B ∣ A ) P ( B ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\cap B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)\mathbb {P} (B)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (A\mid B)}{\mathbb {P} (A)}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} (B\mid A)}{\mathbb {P} (B)}}} We have L i f t ( A , B ) > 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (A,B)>1} if and only if events A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} occur simultaneously with a greater probability than if they were independent. In other words, if one of the two events occurs, the probability of observing the other event increases. A first condition to satisfy is to have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} . And the quality of a model (better or worse than chance) does not change if we over- or undersample the dataset, that is if we multiply each row R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} of the confusion matrix by a constant c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} . Thus the second condition is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for doing better than chance need only depend on the normalized confusion matrix. The condition on lifts can be reformulated with One versus Rest binary models : for any i {\displaystyle i} , we define the binary target variable y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} , and the binary model y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} of y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} which is the indicator of event { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} . Each of the y ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}_{i}} models is a "One versus Rest" model. L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)} only depends on the events { y = i } {\displaystyle \{y=i\}} and { y ^ = i } {\displaystyle \{{\hat {y}}=i\}} , so merging or not merging the other classes doesn't change its value. We therefore have L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) = L i f t ( y i = 1 , y ^ i = 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)=\mathrm {Lift} (y_{i}=1,{\hat {y}}_{i}=1)} and the first condition is that all binary One versus Rest models are better than chance. ==== Example ==== If K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} and 2 is the class of interest , the normalized confusion matrix is ( s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y s e n s i t i v i t y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {specificity} &1-\mathrm {specificity} \\1-\mathrm {sensitivity} &\mathrm {sensitivity} \end{pmatrix}}} and we have L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) − 1 = P ( y = y ^ = 1 ) λ 1 μ 1 − 1 = n 1 , 1 n n 1. n .1 − 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)-1={\frac {\mathbb {P} (y={\hat {y}}=1)}{\lambda _{1}\mu _{1}}}-1={\frac {n_{1,1}n}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}-1} = n 1 , 1 ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 + n 2 , 1 + n 2 , 2 ) − ( n 1 , 1 + n 1 , 2 ) ( n 1 , 1 + n 2 , 1 ) n 1. n .1 = n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 n 1. n .1 {\displaystyle ={\frac {n_{1,1}(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2}+n_{2,1}+n_{2,2})-(n_{1,1}+n_{1,2})(n_{1,1}+n_{2,1})}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}={\frac {n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}}{n_{1.}n_{.1}}}} . Thus L i f t ( y = 1 , y ^ = 1 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=1,{\hat {y}}=1)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Similarly, by swapping the roles of 1 and 2, we find that L i f t ( y = 2 , y ^ = 2 ) ≥ 1 ⟺ n 1 , 1 n 2 , 2 − n 1 , 2 n 2 , 1 ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=2,{\hat {y}}=2)\geq 1\iff n_{1,1}n_{2,2}-n_{1,2}n_{2,1}\geq 0} . Dividing by n 1. n 2. {\displaystyle n_{1.}n_{2.}} we find that the necessary and sufficient condition on the normalized confusion matrix is s e n s i t i v i t y s p e c i f i c i t y − ( 1 − s e n s i t i v i t y ) ( 1 − s p e c i f i c i t y ) ≥ 0 ⟺ s e n s i t i v i t y + s p e c i f i c i t y − 1 ≥ 0 ⟺ J ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {sensitivity} \ \mathrm {specificity} -(1-\mathrm {sensitivity} )(1-\mathrm {specificity} )\geq 0\iff \mathrm {sensitivity} +\mathrm {specificity} -1\geq 0\iff J\geq 0} . This brings us back to the classical binary condition: Youden's J must be positive (or zero for random models). === Random models === A random model is a model that is independent of the target variable. This property is easily reformulated with the confusion matrix. This proposition shows that the model y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} of y {\displaystyle y} is uninformative if and only if there are two families of numbers ( α i ) i {\displaystyle (\alpha _{i})_{i}} and ( β j ) j {\displaystyle (\beta _{j})_{j}} such that P ( { y = i } ∩ { y ^ = j } ) = α i β j {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (\{y=i\}\cap \{{\hat {y}}=j\})=\alpha _{i}\beta _{j}} for any i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . === Multiclass likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios === We define generalized likelihood ratios calculated from the normalized confusion matrix: for any i {\displaystyle i} and j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\not =i} , let L R i , j = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{i,j}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)}}} . When K = 2 {\displaystyle K=2} , if 2 is the class of interest,, we find the classical likelihood ratios L R 1 , 2 = L R + {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{1,2}=\mathrm {LR} _{+}} and L R 2 , 1 = 1 L R − {\displaystyle \mathrm {LR} _{2,1}={\frac {1}{\mathrm {LR} _{-}}}} . Multiclass diagnostic odds ratios can also be defined using the formula D O R i , j = D O R j , i = L R i , j L R j , i = n i , i n j , j n i , j n j , i = P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = j ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = j ) P ( y ^ = j ∣ y = i ) / P ( y ^ = i ∣ y = i ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {DOR} _{i,j}=\mathrm {DOR} _{j,i}=\mathrm {LR} _{i,j}\mathrm {LR} _{j,i}={\frac {n_{i,i}n_{j,j}}{n_{i,j}n_{j,i}}}={\frac {\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=j)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=j)}{\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=j\mid y=i)/\mathbb {P} ({\hat {y}}=i\mid y=i)}}} We saw above that a better-than-chance model (or a random model) must verify L i f t ( y = i , y ^ = i ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Lift} (y=i,{\hat {y}}=i)\geq 1} for any i {\displaystyle i} and λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} . According to the previous corollary, likelihood ratios are thus greater

  Read more →
• 

  I-MSCP

  i-MSCP (internet Multi Server Control Panel) was a free and open-source software for shared hosting environments management on Linux servers. It comes with a large choice of modules for various services such as Apache2, ProFTPd, Dovecot, Courier, Bind9, and can be easily extended through plugins, or listener files using its events-based API. Latest stable is the 1.5.3 version (build 2018120800) which has been released on 8 December 2018. The i-MSCP is no longer under development, although the developer has repeatedly claimed to be working on a new version, which has never has been published or even shown in any possible way. Whether development occurs or not, the current version of the software is not installable, as it only supports outdated versions of systems for which some of the necessary software to install i-MSCP cannot be installed. == Licensing == i-MSCP has a dual license. A part of the base code is licensed under the Mozilla Public License. All new code, and submissions to i-MSCP are licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 (LGPLv2). To solve this license conflict there is work on a complete rewrite for a completely LGPLv2 licensed i-MSCP. == Features == === Supported Linux Distributions === Debian Jessie (8.x), Stretch (9.x), Buster (10.x) Devuan Jessie (1.0), ASCII (2.x) Ubuntu Trusty Thar (14.04 LTS), Bionic Beaver (18.04 LTS) === Supported Daemons / Services === Web server: Apache (ITK, Fcgid and FastCGI/PHP-FPM), Nginx Name server: Bind9 MTA (Mail Transport Agent): Postfix MDA (Mail Delivery Agent): Courier, Dovecot Database: MySQL, MariaDB, Percona FTP-Server: ProFTPD, vsftpd Web statistics: AWStats === Addons === PhpMyAdmin Pydio, formerly AjaXplorer Net2ftp Roundcube Rainloop == Competing software == cPanel DTC Froxlor ISPConfig ispCP OpenPanel hestiacp Plesk SysCP Virtualmin

  Read more →
• 

  Variable kernel density estimation

  In statistics, adaptive or "variable-bandwidth" kernel density estimation is a form of kernel density estimation in which the size of the kernels used in the estimate are varied depending upon either the location of the samples or the location of the test point. It is a particularly effective technique when the sample space is multi-dimensional. == Rationale == Given a set of samples, { x → i } {\displaystyle \lbrace {\vec {x}}_{i}\rbrace } , we wish to estimate the density, P ( x → ) {\displaystyle P({\vec {x}})} , at a test point, x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} : P ( x → ) ≈ W n h D {\displaystyle P({\vec {x}})\approx {\frac {W}{nh^{D}}}} W = ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}} w i = K ( x → − x → i h ) {\displaystyle w_{i}=K\left({\frac {{\vec {x}}-{\vec {x}}_{i}}{h}}\right)} where n is the number of samples, K is the "kernel", h is its width and D is the number of dimensions in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . The kernel can be thought of as a simple, linear filter. Using a fixed filter width may mean that in regions of low density, all samples will fall in the tails of the filter with very low weighting, while regions of high density will find an excessive number of samples in the central region with weighting close to unity. To fix this problem, we vary the width of the kernel in different regions of the sample space. There are two methods of doing this: balloon and pointwise estimation. In a balloon estimator, the kernel width is varied depending on the location of the test point. In a pointwise estimator, the kernel width is varied depending on the location of the sample. For multivariate estimators, the parameter, h, can be generalized to vary not just the size, but also the shape of the kernel. This more complicated approach will not be covered here. == Balloon estimators == A common method of varying the kernel width is to make it inversely proportional to the density at the test point: h = k [ n P ( x → ) ] 1 / D {\displaystyle h={\frac {k}{\left[nP({\vec {x}})\right]^{1/D}}}} where k is a constant. If we back-substitute the estimated PDF, and assuming a Gaussian kernel function, we can show that W is a constant: W = k D ( 2 π ) D / 2 {\displaystyle W=k^{D}(2\pi )^{D/2}} A similar derivation holds for any kernel whose normalising function is of the order hD, although with a different constant factor in place of the (2 π)D/2 term. This produces a generalization of the k-nearest neighbour algorithm. That is, a uniform kernel function will return the KNN technique. There are two components to the error: a variance term and a bias term. The variance term is given as: e 1 = P ∫ K 2 n h D {\displaystyle e_{1}={\frac {P\int K^{2}}{nh^{D}}}} . The bias term is found by evaluating the approximated function in the limit as the kernel width becomes much larger than the sample spacing. By using a Taylor expansion for the real function, the bias term drops out: e 2 = h 2 n ∇ 2 P {\displaystyle e_{2}={\frac {h^{2}}{n}}\nabla ^{2}P} An optimal kernel width that minimizes the error of each estimate can thus be derived. == Use for statistical classification == The method is particularly effective when applied to statistical classification. There are two ways we can proceed: the first is to compute the PDFs of each class separately, using different bandwidth parameters, and then compare them as in Taylor. Alternatively, we can divide up the sum based on the class of each sample: P ( j , x → ) ≈ 1 n ∑ i = 1 , c i = j n w i {\displaystyle P(j,{\vec {x}})\approx {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1,c_{i}=j}^{n}w_{i}} where ci is the class of the ith sample. The class of the test point may be estimated through maximum likelihood.

  Read more →
• 

  Pruning (artificial neural network)

  In deep learning, pruning is the practice of removing parameters from an existing artificial neural network. The goal of this process is to reduce the size (parameter count) of the neural network (and therefore the computational resources required to run it) whilst maintaining accuracy. This can be compared to the biological process of synaptic pruning which takes place in mammalian brains during development. == Node (neuron) pruning == A basic algorithm for pruning is as follows: Evaluate the importance of each neuron. Rank the neurons according to their importance (assuming there is a clearly defined measure for "importance"). Remove the least important neuron. Check a termination condition (to be determined by the user) to see whether to continue pruning. == Edge (weight) pruning == Most work on neural network pruning does not remove full neurons or layers (structured pruning). Instead, it focuses on removing the most insignificant weights (unstructured pruning), namely, setting their values to zero. This can either be done globally by comparing weights from all layers in the network or locally by comparing weights in each layer separately. Different metrics can be used to measure the importance of each weight. Weight magnitude as well as combinations of weight and gradient information are commonly used metrics. Early work suggested also to change the values of non-pruned weights. == When to prune the neural network? == Pruning can be applied at three different stages: before training, during training, or after training. When pruning is performed during or after training, additional fine-tuning epochs are typically required. Each approach involves different trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost.

  Read more →
• 

  Linear discriminant analysis

  Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), canonical variates analysis (CVA), or discriminant function analysis is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics and other fields, to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. The resulting combination may be used as a linear classifier, or, more commonly, for dimensionality reduction before later classification. LDA is closely related to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis, which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements. However, ANOVA uses categorical independent variables and a continuous dependent variable, whereas discriminant analysis has continuous independent variables and a categorical dependent variable (i.e. the class label). Logistic regression and probit regression are more similar to LDA than ANOVA is, as they also explain a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. These other methods are preferable in applications where it is not reasonable to assume that the independent variables have a normal distribution, which is a fundamental assumption of the LDA method. LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data. LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA, in contrast, does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on similarities rather than differences. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made. LDA works when the measurements made on independent variables for each observation are continuous quantities. When dealing with categorical independent variables, the equivalent technique is discriminant correspondence analysis. Discriminant analysis is used when groups are known a priori (unlike in cluster analysis). Each case must have a score on one or more quantitative predictor measures, and a score on a group measure. In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - the act of distributing things into groups, classes or categories of the same type. == History == The original dichotomous discriminant analysis was developed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1936. It is different from an ANOVA or MANOVA, which is used to predict one (ANOVA) or multiple (MANOVA) continuous dependent variables by one or more independent categorical variables. Discriminant function analysis is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership. == LDA for two classes == Consider a set of observations x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (also called features, attributes, variables or measurements) for each sample of an object or event with known class y {\displaystyle y} . This set of samples is called the training set in a supervised learning context. The classification problem is then to find a good predictor for the class y {\displaystyle y} of any sample of the same distribution (not necessarily from the training set) given only an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . LDA approaches the problem by assuming that the conditional probability density functions p ( x → | y = 0 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=0)} and p ( x → | y = 1 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=1)} are both the normal distribution with mean and covariance parameters ( μ → 0 , Σ 0 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{0},\Sigma _{0}\right)} and ( μ → 1 , Σ 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{1},\Sigma _{1}\right)} , respectively. Under this assumption, the Bayes-optimal solution is to predict points as being from the second class if the log of the likelihood ratios is bigger than some threshold T, so that: 1 2 ( x → − μ → 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x → − μ → 0 ) + 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 0 | − 1 2 ( x → − μ → 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x → − μ → 1 ) − 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 1 | > T {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})+{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{0}|-{\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})-{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{1}|\ >\ T} Without any further assumptions, the resulting classifier is referred to as quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). LDA instead makes the additional simplifying homoscedasticity assumption (i.e. that the class covariances are identical, so Σ 0 = Σ 1 = Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0}=\Sigma _{1}=\Sigma } ) and that the covariances have full rank. In this case, several terms cancel: x → T Σ 0 − 1 x → = x → T Σ 1 − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}{\vec {x}}={\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} x → T Σ i − 1 μ → i = μ → i T Σ i − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {\mu }}_{i}={{\vec {\mu }}_{i}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} because both sides are scalar and transpose to each other ( Σ i {\displaystyle \Sigma _{i}} is Hermitian) and the above decision criterion becomes a threshold on the dot product w → T x → > c {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\vec {x}}>c} for some threshold constant c, where w → = Σ − 1 ( μ → 1 − μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}=\Sigma ^{-1}({\vec {\mu }}_{1}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} c = 1 2 w → T ( μ → 1 + μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle c={\frac {1}{2}}\,{\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }({\vec {\mu }}_{1}+{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} This means that the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of this linear combination of the known observations. It is often useful to see this conclusion in geometrical terms: the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of projection of multidimensional-space point x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} (thus, we only consider its direction). In other words, the observation belongs to y {\displaystyle y} if corresponding x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is located on a certain side of a hyperplane perpendicular to w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . The location of the plane is defined by the threshold c {\displaystyle c} . == Assumptions == The assumptions of discriminant analysis are the same as those for MANOVA. The analysis is quite sensitive to outliers and the size of the smallest group must be larger than the number of predictor variables. Multivariate normality: Independent variables are normal for each level of the grouping variable. Homogeneity of variance/covariance (homoscedasticity): Variances among group variables are the same across levels of predictors. Can be tested with Box's M statistic. It has been suggested, however, that linear discriminant analysis be used when covariances are equal, and that quadratic discriminant analysis may be used when covariances are not equal. Independence: Participants are assumed to be randomly sampled, and a participant's score on one variable is assumed to be independent of scores on that variable for all other participants. It has been suggested that discriminant analysis is relatively robust to slight violations of these assumptions, and it has also been shown that discriminant analysis may still be reliable when using dichotomous variables (where multivariate normality is often violated). == Discriminant functions == Discriminant analysis works by creating one or more linear combinations of predictors, creating a new latent variable for each function. These functions are called discriminant functions. The number of functions possible is either N g − 1 {\displaystyle N_{g}-1} where N g {\displaystyle N_{g}} = number of groups, or p {\displaystyle p} (the number of predictors), whichever is smaller. The first function created maximizes the differences between groups on that function. The second function maximizes differences on that function, but also must not be correlated with the previous function. This continues with subsequent functions with the requirement that the new function not be correlated with any of the previous functions. Given group j {\displaystyle j} , with R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} sets of sample space, there is a discriminant rule such that if x ∈ R j {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} _{j}} , then x ∈ j {\displaystyle x\in j} . Discriminant analysis then, finds “good” regions of R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} to minimize classification error, therefore leading to a high percent correct classified in the classification table. Each function is given a discriminant score to determine how well it predicts group placement. Structure Corr

  Read more →
• 

  The Future of Work and Death

  The Future of Work and Death is a 2016 documentary by Sean Blacknell and Wayne Walsh about the exponential growth of technology. The film showed at several film festivals including Raindance Film Festival, International Film Festival Rotterdam, Academia Film Olomouc and CPH:DOX. In May 2017 it received an official screening at the European Commission. It was distributed by First Run Features and Journeyman Pictures and was released on iTunes, Amazon Prime and On-demand on 9 May 2017. The film was made available on Sundance Now on 27 November 2017. A companion piece to the film, The Cost of Living, a documentary concerning universal basic income in Britain, was released on Amazon Prime on 8 October 2020. == Synopsis == World experts in the fields of futurology, anthropology, neuroscience, and philosophy consider the impact of technological advances on the two 'certainties' of human life; work and death. Charting human developments from Homo habilis, past the Industrial Revolution, to the digital age and beyond, the film looks at the shocking exponential rate at which mankind has managed to create technologies to ease the process of living. As we embark on the next phase of our adaptation, with automation and artificial intelligence signifying the complete move from man to machine, the film asks what the implications are for human fulfilment in an approaching era of job obsolescence and extreme longevity. == Cast == Dudley Sutton – Narrator Aubrey de Grey – Biomedical gerontologist and CSO of the SENS Research Foundation Will Self – Writer, journalist, political commentator and Professor of Contemporary Thought at Brunel University Rudolph E. Tanzi – Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Martin Ford – Futurist and author Steve Fuller – Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the Department of sociology at University of Warwick Murray Shanahan – Professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London Gray Scott – Futurist, executive producer of this production Vivek Wadhwa – Entrepreneur, academic and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University Zoltan Istvan – Transhumanist and journalist Joanna Cook – Anthropologist, University College London Nicholas Kamara – Physician, Kable Hospital David Pearce – Transhumanist philosopher and co-founder of Humanity+ Peter Cochrane – Futurist and entrepreneur John Harris – Bioethicist, philosopher and Director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester Riva Melissa-Tez – Entrepreneur and transhumanist Ian Pearson – Futurologist Stuart Armstrong – Artificial intelligence researcher at Future of Humanity Institute

  Read more →
• 

  LPBoost

  Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J

  Read more →
• 

  Oja's rule

  Oja's learning rule, or simply Oja's rule, named after Finnish computer scientist Erkki Oja (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈojɑ], AW-yuh), is a model of how neurons in the brain or in artificial neural networks change connection strength, or learn, over time. It is a modification of the standard Hebb's Rule that, through multiplicative normalization, solves all stability problems and generates an algorithm for principal components analysis. This is a computational form of an effect which is believed to happen in biological neurons. == Theory == Oja's rule requires a number of simplifications to derive, but in its final form it is demonstrably stable, unlike Hebb's rule. It is a single-neuron special case of the Generalized Hebbian Algorithm. However, Oja's rule can also be generalized in other ways to varying degrees of stability and success. === Formula === Consider a simplified model of a neuron y {\displaystyle y} that returns a linear combination of its inputs x using presynaptic weights w: y ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 m x j w j {\displaystyle \,y(\mathbf {x} )~=~\sum _{j=1}^{m}x_{j}w_{j}} Oja's rule defines the change in presynaptic weights w given the output response y {\displaystyle y} of a neuron to its inputs x to be Δ w = w n + 1 − w n = η y n ( x n − y n w n ) , {\displaystyle \,\Delta \mathbf {w} ~=~\mathbf {w} _{n+1}-\mathbf {w} _{n}~=~\eta \,y_{n}(\mathbf {x} _{n}-y_{n}\mathbf {w} _{n}),} where η is the learning rate which can also change with time. Note that the bold symbols are vectors and n defines a discrete time iteration. The rule can also be made for continuous iterations as d w d t = η y ( t ) ( x ( t ) − y ( t ) w ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle \,{\frac {d\mathbf {w} }{dt}}~=~\eta \,y(t)(\mathbf {x} (t)-y(t)\mathbf {w} (t)).} === Derivation === The simplest learning rule known is Hebb's rule, which states in conceptual terms that neurons that fire together, wire together. In component form as a difference equation, it is written Δ w = η y ( x n ) x n {\displaystyle \,\Delta \mathbf {w} ~=~\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} _{n})\mathbf {x} _{n}} , or in scalar form with implicit n-dependence, w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x ) x i {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{i}} , where y(xn) is again the output, this time explicitly dependent on its input vector x. Hebb's rule has synaptic weights approaching infinity with a positive learning rate. We can stop this by normalizing the weights so that each weight's magnitude is restricted between 0, corresponding to no weight, and 1, corresponding to being the only input neuron with any weight. We do this by normalizing the weight vector to be of length one: w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x ) x i ( ∑ j = 1 m [ w j ( n ) + η y ( x ) x j ] p ) 1 / p {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~{\frac {w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{i}}{\left(\sum _{j=1}^{m}[w_{j}(n)+\eta \,y(\mathbf {x} )x_{j}]^{p}\right)^{1/p}}}} . Note that in Oja's original paper, p=2, corresponding to quadrature (root sum of squares), which is the familiar Cartesian normalization rule. However, any type of normalization, even linear, will give the same result without loss of generality. For a small learning rate | η | ≪ 1 {\displaystyle |\eta |\ll 1} the equation can be expanded as a Power series in η {\displaystyle \eta } . w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) 1 / p + η ( y x i ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) 1 / p − w i ( n ) ∑ j y x j w j p − 1 ( n ) ( ∑ j w j p ( n ) ) ( 1 + 1 / p ) ) + O ( η 2 ) {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~{\frac {w_{i}(n)}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{1/p}}}~+~\eta \left({\frac {yx_{i}}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{1/p}}}-{\frac {w_{i}(n)\sum _{j}yx_{j}w_{j}^{p-1}(n)}{\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}^{p}(n)\right)^{(1+1/p)}}}\right)~+~O(\eta ^{2})} . For small η, our higher-order terms O(η2) go to zero. We again make the specification of a linear neuron, that is, the output of the neuron is equal to the sum of the product of each input and its synaptic weight to the power of p-1, which in the case of p=2 is synaptic weight itself, or y ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 m x j w j p − 1 {\displaystyle \,y(\mathbf {x} )~=~\sum _{j=1}^{m}x_{j}w_{j}^{p-1}} . We also specify that our weights normalize to 1, which will be a necessary condition for stability, so | w | = ( ∑ j = 1 m w j p ) 1 / p = 1 {\displaystyle \,|\mathbf {w} |~=~\left(\sum _{j=1}^{m}w_{j}^{p}\right)^{1/p}~=~1} , which, when substituted into our expansion, gives Oja's rule, or w i ( n + 1 ) = w i ( n ) + η y ( x i − w i ( n ) y ) {\displaystyle \,w_{i}(n+1)~=~w_{i}(n)+\eta \,y(x_{i}-w_{i}(n)y)} . === Stability and PCA === In analyzing the convergence of a single neuron evolving by Oja's rule, one extracts the first principal component, or feature, of a data set. Furthermore, with extensions using the Generalized Hebbian Algorithm, one can create a multi-Oja neural network that can extract as many features as desired, allowing for principal components analysis. A principal component aj is extracted from a dataset x through some associated vector qj, or aj = qj⋅x, and we can restore our original dataset by taking x = ∑ j a j q j {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ~=~\sum _{j}a_{j}\mathbf {q} _{j}} . In the case of a single neuron trained by Oja's rule, we find the weight vector converges to q1, or the first principal component, as time or number of iterations approaches infinity. We can also define, given a set of input vectors Xi, that its correlation matrix Rij = XiXj has an associated eigenvector given by qj with eigenvalue λj. The variance of outputs of our Oja neuron σ2(n) = ⟨y2(n)⟩ then converges with time iterations to the principal eigenvalue, or lim n → ∞ σ 2 ( n ) = λ 1 {\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\sigma ^{2}(n)~=~\lambda _{1}} . These results are derived using Lyapunov function analysis, and they show that Oja's neuron necessarily converges on strictly the first principal component if certain conditions are met in our original learning rule. Most importantly, our learning rate η is allowed to vary with time, but only such that its sum is divergent but its power sum is convergent, that is ∑ n = 1 ∞ η ( n ) = ∞ , ∑ n = 1 ∞ η ( n ) p < ∞ , p > 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }\eta (n)=\infty ,~~~\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }\eta (n)^{p}<\infty ,~~~p>1} . Our output activation function y(x(n)) is also allowed to be nonlinear and nonstatic, but it must be continuously differentiable in both x and w and have derivatives bounded in time. == Applications == Oja's rule was originally described in Oja's 1982 paper, but the principle of self-organization to which it is applied is first attributed to Alan Turing in 1952. PCA has also had a long history of use before Oja's rule formalized its use in network computation in 1989. The model can thus be applied to any problem of self-organizing mapping, in particular those in which feature extraction is of primary interest. Therefore, Oja's rule has an important place in image and speech processing. It is also useful as it expands easily to higher dimensions of processing, thus being able to integrate multiple outputs quickly. A canonical example is its use in binocular vision. === Biology and Oja's subspace rule === There is clear evidence for both long-term potentiation and long-term depression in biological neural networks, along with a normalization effect in both input weights and neuron outputs. However, while there is no direct experimental evidence yet of Oja's rule active in a biological neural network, a biophysical derivation of a generalization of the rule is possible. Such a derivation requires retrograde signalling from the postsynaptic neuron, which is biologically plausible (see neural backpropagation), and takes the form of Δ w i j ∝ ⟨ x i y j ⟩ − ϵ ⟨ ( c p r e ∗ ∑ k w i k y k ) ⋅ ( c p o s t ∗ y j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \Delta w_{ij}~\propto ~\langle x_{i}y_{j}\rangle -\epsilon \left\langle \left(c_{\mathrm {pre} }\sum _{k}w_{ik}y_{k}\right)\cdot \left(c_{\mathrm {post} }y_{j}\right)\right\rangle ,} where as before wij is the synaptic weight between the ith input and jth output neurons, x is the input, y is the postsynaptic output, and we define ε to be a constant analogous the learning rate, and cpre and cpost are presynaptic and postsynaptic functions that model the weakening of signals over time. Note that the angle brackets denote the average and the ∗ operator is a convolution. By taking the pre- and post-synaptic functions into frequency space and combining integration terms with the convolution, we find that this gives an arbitrary-dimensional generalization of Oja's rule known as Oja's Subspace, namely Δ w = C x ⋅ w − w ⋅ C y . {\displaystyle \Delta w~=~Cx\cdot w-w\cdot Cy.}

  Read more →