AI Data Bias

AI Data Bias — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Hierarchical Risk Parity

  Hierarchical Risk Parity (HRP) is an advanced investment portfolio optimization framework developed in 2016 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. HRP is a probabilistic graph-based alternative to the prevailing mean-variance optimization (MVO) framework developed by Harry Markowitz in 1952, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in economic sciences. HRP algorithms apply discrete mathematics and machine learning techniques to create diversified and robust investment portfolios that outperform MVO methods out-of-sample. HRP aims to address the limitations of traditional portfolio construction methods, particularly when dealing with highly correlated assets. Following its publication, HRP has been implemented in numerous open-source libraries, and received multiple extensions. == Key features == HRP portfolios have been proposed as a robust alternative to traditional quadratic optimization methods, including the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA) of Markowitz. HRP addresses three central issues commonly associated with quadratic optimizers: numerical instability, excessive concentration in a small number of assets, and poor out-of-sample performance. HRP leverages techniques from graph theory and machine learning to construct diversified portfolios using only the information embedded in the covariance matrix. Unlike quadratic programming methods, HRP does not require the covariance matrix to be invertible. Consequently, HRP remains applicable even in cases where the covariance matrix is ill-conditioned or singular—conditions under which standard optimizers fail. Monte Carlo simulations indicate that HRP achieves lower out-of-sample variance than CLA, despite the fact that minimizing variance is the explicit optimization objective of CLA. Furthermore, HRP portfolios exhibit lower realized risk compared to those generated by traditional risk parity methodologies. Empirical backtests have demonstrated that HRP would have historically outperformed conventional portfolio construction techniques. Algorithms within the HRP framework are characterized by the following features: Machine Learning Approach: HRP employs hierarchical clustering, a machine learning technique, to group similar assets based on their correlations. This allows the algorithm to identify the underlying hierarchical structure of the portfolio, and avoid that errors spread through the entire network. Risk-Based Allocation: The algorithm allocates capital based on risk, ensuring that assets only compete with similar assets for representation in the portfolio. This approach leads to better diversification across different risk sources, while avoiding the instability associated with noisy returns estimates. Covariance Matrix Handling: Unlike traditional methods like Mean-Variance Optimization, HRP does not require inverting the covariance matrix. This makes it more stable and applicable to portfolios with a large number of assets, particularly when the covariance matrix's condition number is high. == The problem: Markowitz's Curse == Portfolio construction is perhaps the most recurrent financial problem. On a daily basis, investment managers must build portfolios that incorporate their views and forecasts on risks and returns. Despite the theoretical elegance of Markowitz's mean-variance framework, its practical implementation is hindered by several limitations that undermine the reliability of solutions derived from the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA). A principal concern is the high sensitivity of optimal portfolios to small perturbations in expected returns: even minor forecasting errors can result in significantly different allocations (Michaud, 1998). Given the inherent difficulty of producing accurate return forecasts, numerous researchers have advocated for approaches that forgo expected returns entirely and instead rely solely on the covariance structure of asset returns. This has given rise to risk-based allocation methods, among which risk parity is a widely cited example (Jurczenko, 2015). While eliminating return forecasts mitigates some instability, it does not eliminate it. Quadratic programming techniques employed in portfolio optimization require the inversion of a positive-definite covariance matrix, meaning all eigenvalues must be strictly positive. When the matrix is numerically ill-conditioned—that is, when the ratio of its largest to smallest eigenvalue (its condition number) is large—matrix inversion becomes unreliable and prone to significant numerical errors (Bailey and López de Prado, 2012). The condition number of a covariance, correlation, or any symmetric (and thus diagonalizable) matrix is defined as the absolute value of the ratio between its largest and smallest eigenvalues in modulus. The figure on the right presents the sorted eigenvalues of several correlation matrices; the condition number is represented by the ratio of the first to last eigenvalues in each sequence. A diagonal correlation matrix, which is equal to its own inverse, exhibits the minimum possible condition number. As the number of correlated (or multicollinear) assets in a portfolio increases, the condition number rises. At high levels, this leads to severe numerical instability, whereby slight modifications in any matrix entry may result in drastically different inverses. This phenomenon, often referred to as Markowitz’s curse, encapsulates the paradox wherein increased correlation among assets heightens the theoretical need for diversification, yet simultaneously increases the likelihood of unstable optimization outcomes. Consequently, the potential benefits of diversification are frequently overshadowed by estimation errors. These problems are exacerbated as the dimensionality of the covariance matrix increases. The estimation of each covariance term consumes degrees of freedom, and in general, a minimum of 1 2 N ( N + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}N(N+1)} independent and identically distributed (IID) observations is required to estimate a non-singular covariance matrix of dimension N {\displaystyle N} . For example, constructing an invertible covariance matrix of dimension 50 necessitates at least five years of daily IID observations. However, empirical evidence suggests that the correlation structure of financial assets is highly unstable over such extended periods. These difficulties are highlighted by the observation that even naïve allocation strategies—such as equally weighted portfolios—have frequently outperformed both mean-variance and risk-based optimizations in out-of-sample tests (De Miguel et al., 2009). == The solution: Hierarchical Risk Parity == The HRP algorithm addresses Markowitz's curse in three steps: Hierarchical Clustering: Assets are grouped into clusters based on their correlations, forming a hierarchical tree structure. Quasi-Diagonalization: The correlation matrix is reordered based on the clustering results, revealing a block diagonal structure. Recursive Bisection: Weights are assigned to assets through a top-down approach, splitting the portfolio into smaller sub-portfolios and allocating capital based on inverse variance. === Step 1: Hierarchical clustering === Given a T × N {\displaystyle T\times N} matrix of asset returns X {\displaystyle X} , where each column represents a time series of returns for one of N {\displaystyle N} assets over T {\displaystyle T} time periods, a hierarchical clustering process can be used to construct a tree-based representation of asset relationships. First, we compute the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} correlation matrix ρ = ρ i , j i , j = 1 . . . N {\displaystyle \rho ={\rho _{i,j}}\;{i,j=1\;...\;N}} , where ρ i , j = c o r r ( X i , X j ) {\displaystyle \rho _{i,j}=\mathrm {corr} (X_{i},X_{j})} . From this, a pairwise distance matrix D = d i , j {\displaystyle D={d_{i,j}}} is defined using the transformation: d i , j = 1 2 ( 1 − ρ i , j ) {\displaystyle d_{i,j}={\sqrt {{\frac {1}{2}}(1-\rho _{i,j})}}} This distance function defines a proper metric space, satisfying non-negativity, identity of indiscernibles, symmetry, and the triangle inequality. Next, a secondary distance matrix D ~ = d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {D}}={{\tilde {d}}_{i,j}}} is computed, where each entry measures the Euclidean distance between the distance profiles of two assets: d ~ i , j = ∑ n = 1 N ( d n , i − d n , j ) 2 {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}={\sqrt {\sum _{n=1}^{N}(d_{n,i}-d_{n,j})^{2}}}} While d i , j {\displaystyle d_{i,j}} reflects correlation-based proximity between two assets, d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} quantifies dissimilarity across the entire system, as it depends on all pairwise distances. Hierarchical clustering proceeds by identifying the pair ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} with the smallest value of d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} (for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} ), and forming a new cluster u [ 1 ] = ( i , j ) {\displaystyle u[1]=(i,j)} .

  Read more →
• 

  Kernel method

  In machine learning, kernel machines are a class of algorithms for pattern analysis, whose best known member is the support-vector machine (SVM). These methods involve using linear classifiers to solve nonlinear problems. The general task of pattern analysis is to find and study general types of relations (for example clusters, rankings, principal components, correlations, classifications) in datasets. For many algorithms that solve these tasks, the data in raw representation have to be explicitly transformed into feature vector representations via a user-specified feature map: in contrast, kernel methods require only a user-specified kernel, i.e., a similarity function over all pairs of data points computed using inner products. The feature map in kernel machines is infinite dimensional but only requires a finite dimensional matrix from user-input according to the representer theorem. Kernel machines are slow to compute for datasets larger than a couple of thousand examples without parallel processing. Kernel methods owe their name to the use of kernel functions, which enable them to operate in a high-dimensional, implicit feature space without ever computing the coordinates of the data in that space, but rather by simply computing the inner products between the images of all pairs of data in the feature space. This operation is often computationally cheaper than the explicit computation of the coordinates. This approach is called the "kernel trick". Kernel functions have been introduced for sequence data, graphs, text, images, as well as vectors. Algorithms capable of operating with kernels include the kernel perceptron, support-vector machines (SVM), Gaussian processes, principal components analysis (PCA), canonical correlation analysis, ridge regression, spectral clustering, linear adaptive filters and many others. Most kernel algorithms are based on convex optimization or eigenproblems and are statistically well-founded. Typically, their statistical properties are analyzed using statistical learning theory (for example, using Rademacher complexity). == Motivation and informal explanation == Kernel methods can be thought of as instance-based learners: rather than learning some fixed set of parameters corresponding to the features of their inputs, they instead "remember" the i {\displaystyle i} -th training example ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {x} _{i},y_{i})} and learn for it a corresponding weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . Prediction for unlabeled inputs, i.e., those not in the training set, are treated by the application of a similarity function k {\displaystyle k} , called a kernel, between the unlabeled input x ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {x'} } and each of the training inputs x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} . For instance, a kernelized binary classifier typically computes a weighted sum of similarities y ^ = sgn ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i y i k ( x i , x ′ ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=\operatorname {sgn} \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}y_{i}k(\mathbf {x} _{i},\mathbf {x'} ),} where y ^ ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\in \{-1,+1\}} is the kernelized binary classifier's predicted label for the unlabeled input x ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {x'} } whose hidden true label y {\displaystyle y} is of interest; k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k\colon {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } is the kernel function that measures similarity between any pair of inputs x , x ′ ∈ X {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in {\mathcal {X}}} ; the sum ranges over the n labeled examples { ( x i , y i ) } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{(\mathbf {x} _{i},y_{i})\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the classifier's training set, with y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} ; the w i ∈ R {\displaystyle w_{i}\in \mathbb {R} } are the weights for the training examples, as determined by the learning algorithm; the sign function sgn {\displaystyle \operatorname {sgn} } determines whether the predicted classification y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}} comes out positive or negative. Kernel classifiers were described as early as the 1960s, with the invention of the kernel perceptron. They rose to great prominence with the popularity of the support-vector machine (SVM) in the 1990s, when the SVM was found to be competitive with neural networks on tasks such as handwriting recognition. == Mathematics: the kernel trick == The kernel trick avoids the explicit mapping that is needed to get linear learning algorithms to learn a nonlinear function or decision boundary. For all x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } and x ′ {\displaystyle \mathbf {x'} } in the input space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , certain functions k ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle k(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} can be expressed as an inner product in another space V {\displaystyle {\mathcal {V}}} . The function k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k\colon {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } is often referred to as a kernel or a kernel function. The word "kernel" is used in mathematics to denote a weighting function for a weighted sum or integral. Certain problems in machine learning have more structure than an arbitrary weighting function k {\displaystyle k} . The computation is made much simpler if the kernel can be written in the form of a "feature map" φ : X → V {\displaystyle \varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}\to {\mathcal {V}}} which satisfies k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ V . {\displaystyle k(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle _{\mathcal {V}}.} The key restriction is that ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ V {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {V}}} must be a proper inner product. On the other hand, an explicit representation for φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not necessary, as long as V {\displaystyle {\mathcal {V}}} is an inner product space. The alternative follows from Mercer's theorem: an implicitly defined function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } exists whenever the space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} can be equipped with a suitable measure ensuring the function k {\displaystyle k} satisfies Mercer's condition. Mercer's theorem is similar to a generalization of the result from linear algebra that associates an inner product to any positive-definite matrix. In fact, Mercer's condition can be reduced to this simpler case. If we choose as our measure the counting measure μ ( T ) = | T | {\displaystyle \mu (T)=|T|} for all T ⊂ X {\displaystyle T\subset X} , which counts the number of points inside the set T {\displaystyle T} , then the integral in Mercer's theorem reduces to a summation ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n k ( x i , x j ) c i c j ≥ 0. {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{n}k(\mathbf {x} _{i},\mathbf {x} _{j})c_{i}c_{j}\geq 0.} If this summation holds for all finite sequences of points ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {x} _{1},\dotsc ,\mathbf {x} _{n})} in X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} and all choices of n {\displaystyle n} real-valued coefficients ( c 1 , … , c n ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},\dots ,c_{n})} (cf. positive definite kernel), then the function k {\displaystyle k} satisfies Mercer's condition. Some algorithms that depend on arbitrary relationships in the native space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} would, in fact, have a linear interpretation in a different setting: the range space of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . The linear interpretation gives us insight about the algorithm. Furthermore, there is often no need to compute φ {\displaystyle \varphi } directly during computation, as is the case with support-vector machines. Some cite this running time shortcut as the primary benefit. Researchers also use it to justify the meanings and properties of existing algorithms. Theoretically, a Gram matrix K ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} with respect to { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{\mathbf {x} _{1},\dotsc ,\mathbf {x} _{n}\}} (sometimes also called a "kernel matrix"), where K i j = k ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=k(\mathbf {x} _{i},\mathbf {x} _{j})} , must be positive semi-definite (PSD). Empirically, for machine learning heuristics, choices of a function k {\displaystyle k} that do not satisfy Mercer's condition may still perform reasonably if k {\displaystyle k} at least approximates the intuitive idea of similarity. Regardless of whether k {\displaystyle k} is a Mercer kernel, k {\displaystyle k} may still be referred to as a "kernel". If the kernel function k {\displaystyle k} is also a covariance function as used in Gaussian processes, then the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} } can also be called a covariance matrix. == Applications == Application areas of kernel methods are diverse and include geostatistics, kriging, inverse distance weighting, 3D reconstruction, bioinformatics, cheminformatics, information extraction and handwriting recognition. == Popular kernels == Fisher kernel Graph kernels Kernel smoother Polynomial kernel Radial basis function kern

  Read more →
• 

  Absorbing Markov chain

  In the mathematical theory of probability, an absorbing Markov chain is a Markov chain in which every state can reach an absorbing state. An absorbing state is a state that, once entered, cannot be left. Like general Markov chains, there can be continuous-time absorbing Markov chains with an infinite state space. However, this article concentrates on the discrete-time discrete-state-space case. == Formal definition == A Markov chain is an absorbing chain if there is at least one absorbing state and it is possible to go from any state to at least one absorbing state in a finite number of steps. In an absorbing Markov chain, a state that is not absorbing is called transient. === Canonical form === Let an absorbing Markov chain with transition matrix P have t transient states and r absorbing states. The rows of P represent sources, while columns represent destinations. By ordering the transient states before the absorbing states, it can be assumed that P has the form P = [ Q R 0 I r ] , {\displaystyle P={\begin{bmatrix}Q&R\\\mathbf {0} &I_{r}\end{bmatrix}},} where Q is a t-by-t matrix, R is a nonzero t-by-r matrix, 0 is an r-by-t zero matrix, and Ir is the r-by-r identity matrix. Thus, Q describes the probability of transitioning from some transient state to another while R describes the probability of transitioning from some transient state to some absorbing state. The probability of transitioning from i to j in exactly k steps is the (i,j)-entry of Pk, further computed below. When considering only transient states, the probability is found in the upper left of Pk, the (i,j)-entry of Qk. == Fundamental matrix == === Expected number of visits to a transient state === A basic property about an absorbing Markov chain is the expected number of visits to a transient state j starting from a transient state i (before being absorbed). This can be established to be given by the (i, j) entry of so-called fundamental matrix N, obtained by summing Qk for all k (from 0 to ∞). It can be proven that N := ∑ k = 0 ∞ Q k = ( I t − Q ) − 1 , {\displaystyle N:=\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }Q^{k}=(I_{t}-Q)^{-1},} where It is the t-by-t identity matrix. The computation of this formula is the matrix equivalent of the geometric series of scalars, ∑ k = 0 ∞ q k = 1 1 − q {\displaystyle {\textstyle \sum }_{k=0}^{\infty }q^{k}={\tfrac {1}{1-q}}} . With the matrix N in hand, also other properties of the Markov chain are easy to obtain. === Expected number of steps before being absorbed === The expected number of steps before being absorbed in any absorbing state, when starting in transient state i can be computed via a sum over transient states. The value is given by the ith entry of the vector t := N 1 , {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} :=N\mathbf {1} ,} where 1 is a length-t column vector whose entries are all 1. === Absorbing probabilities === By induction, P k = [ Q k ( I t − Q k ) N R 0 I r ] . {\displaystyle P^{k}={\begin{bmatrix}Q^{k}&(I_{t}-Q^{k})NR\\\mathbf {0} &I_{r}\end{bmatrix}}.} The probability of eventually being absorbed in the absorbing state j when starting from transient state i is given by the (i,j)-entry of the matrix B := N R {\displaystyle B:=NR} . The number of columns of this matrix equals the number of absorbing states r. An approximation of those probabilities can also be obtained directly from the (i,j)-entry of P k {\displaystyle P^{k}} for a large enough value of k, when i is the index of a transient, and j the index of an absorbing state. This is because ( lim k → ∞ P k ) i , t + j = B i , j {\displaystyle \left(\lim _{k\to \infty }P^{k}\right)_{i,t+j}=B_{i,j}} . === Transient visiting probabilities === The probability of visiting transient state j when starting at a transient state i is the (i,j)-entry of the matrix H := ( N − I t ) ( N dg ) − 1 , {\displaystyle H:=(N-I_{t})(N_{\operatorname {dg} })^{-1},} where Ndg is the diagonal matrix with the same diagonal as N. === Variance on number of transient visits === The variance on the number of visits to a transient state j with starting at a transient state i (before being absorbed) is the (i,j)-entry of the matrix N 2 := N ( 2 N dg − I t ) − N sq , {\displaystyle N_{2}:=N(2N_{\operatorname {dg} }-I_{t})-N_{\operatorname {sq} },} where Nsq is the Hadamard product of N with itself (i.e. each entry of N is squared). === Variance on number of steps === The variance on the number of steps before being absorbed when starting in transient state i is the ith entry of the vector ( 2 N − I t ) t − t sq , {\displaystyle (2N-I_{t})\mathbf {t} -\mathbf {t} _{\operatorname {sq} },} where tsq is the Hadamard product of t with itself (i.e., as with Nsq, each entry of t is squared). == Examples == === String generation === Consider the process of repeatedly flipping a fair coin until the sequence (heads, tails, heads) appears. This process is modeled by an absorbing Markov chain with transition matrix P = [ 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 0 1 ] . {\displaystyle P={\begin{bmatrix}1/2&1/2&0&0\\0&1/2&1/2&0\\1/2&0&0&1/2\\0&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}}.} The first state represents the empty string, the second state the string "H", the third state the string "HT", and the fourth state the string "HTH". Although in reality, the coin flips cease after the string "HTH" is generated, the perspective of the absorbing Markov chain is that the process has transitioned into the absorbing state representing the string "HTH" and, therefore, cannot leave. For this absorbing Markov chain, the fundamental matrix is N = ( I − Q ) − 1 = ( [ 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ] − [ 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 ] ) − 1 = [ 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 0 1 ] − 1 = [ 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}N&=(I-Q)^{-1}=\left({\begin{bmatrix}1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{bmatrix}}-{\begin{bmatrix}1/2&1/2&0\\0&1/2&1/2\\1/2&0&0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{-1}\\[4pt]&={\begin{bmatrix}1/2&-1/2&0\\0&1/2&-1/2\\-1/2&0&1\end{bmatrix}}^{-1}={\begin{bmatrix}4&4&2\\2&4&2\\2&2&2\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}}} The expected number of steps starting from each of the transient states is t = N 1 = [ 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 ] [ 1 1 1 ] = [ 10 8 6 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} =N\mathbf {1} ={\begin{bmatrix}4&4&2\\2&4&2\\2&2&2\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}10\\8\\6\end{bmatrix}}.} Therefore, the expected number of coin flips before observing the sequence (heads, tails, heads) is 10, the entry for the state representing the empty string. === Games of chance === Games based entirely on chance can be modeled by an absorbing Markov chain. A classic example of this is the ancient Indian board game Snakes and Ladders. The graph on the left plots the probability mass in the lone absorbing state that represents the final square as the transition matrix is raised to larger and larger powers. To determine the expected number of turns to complete the game, compute the vector t as described above and examine tstart, which is approximately 39.2. === Infectious disease testing === Infectious disease testing, either of blood products or in medical clinics, is often taught as an example of an absorbing Markov chain. The public U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) model for HIV and for hepatitis B, for example, illustrates the property that absorbing Markov chains can lead to the detection of disease, versus the loss of detection through other means. In the standard CDC model, the Markov chain has five states, a state in which the individual is uninfected, then a state with infected but undetectable virus, a state with detectable virus, and absorbing states of having quit/been lost from the clinic, or of having been detected (the goal). The typical rates of transition between the Markov states are the probability p per unit time of being infected with the virus, w for the rate of window period removal (time until virus is detectable), q for quit/loss rate from the system, and d for detection, assuming a typical rate λ {\displaystyle \lambda } at which the health system administers tests of the blood product or patients in question. It follows that we can "walk along" the Markov model to identify the overall probability of detection for a person starting as undetected, by multiplying the probabilities of transition to each next state of the model as: p ( p + q ) w ( w + q ) d ( d + q ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p}{(p+q)}}{\frac {w}{(w+q)}}{\frac {d}{(d+q)}}} . The subsequent total absolute number of false negative tests—the primary CDC concern—would then be the rate of tests, multiplied by the probability of reaching the infected but undetectable state, times the duration of staying in the infected undetectable state: p ( p + q ) 1 ( w + q ) λ {\displaystyle {\frac {p}{(p+q)}}{\frac {1}{(w+q)}}\lambda } .

  Read more →
• 

  Multifactor dimensionality reduction

  Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) is a statistical approach, also used in machine learning automatic approaches, for detecting and characterizing combinations of attributes or independent variables that interact to influence a dependent or class variable. MDR was designed specifically to identify nonadditive interactions among discrete variables that influence a binary outcome and is considered a nonparametric and model-free alternative to traditional statistical methods such as logistic regression. The basis of the MDR method is a constructive induction or feature engineering algorithm that converts two or more variables or attributes to a single attribute. This process of constructing a new attribute changes the representation space of the data. The end goal is to create or discover a representation that facilitates the detection of nonlinear or nonadditive interactions among the attributes such that prediction of the class variable is improved over that of the original representation of the data. == Illustrative example == Consider the following simple example using the exclusive OR (XOR) function. XOR is a logical operator that is commonly used in data mining and machine learning as an example of a function that is not linearly separable. The table below represents a simple dataset where the relationship between the attributes (X1 and X2) and the class variable (Y) is defined by the XOR function such that Y = X1 XOR X2. Table 1 A machine learning algorithm would need to discover or approximate the XOR function in order to accurately predict Y using information about X1 and X2. An alternative strategy would be to first change the representation of the data using constructive induction to facilitate predictive modeling. The MDR algorithm would change the representation of the data (X1 and X2) in the following manner. MDR starts by selecting two attributes. In this simple example, X1 and X2 are selected. Each combination of values for X1 and X2 are examined and the number of times Y=1 and/or Y=0 is counted. In this simple example, Y=1 occurs zero times and Y=0 occurs once for the combination of X1=0 and X2=0. With MDR, the ratio of these counts is computed and compared to a fixed threshold. Here, the ratio of counts is 0/1 which is less than our fixed threshold of 1. Since 0/1 < 1 we encode a new attribute (Z) as a 0. When the ratio is greater than one we encode Z as a 1. This process is repeated for all unique combinations of values for X1 and X2. Table 2 illustrates our new transformation of the data. Table 2 The machine learning algorithm now has much less work to do to find a good predictive function. In fact, in this very simple example, the function Y = Z has a classification accuracy of 1. A nice feature of constructive induction methods such as MDR is the ability to use any data mining or machine learning method to analyze the new representation of the data. Decision trees, neural networks, or a naive Bayes classifier could be used in combination with measures of model quality such as balanced accuracy and mutual information. == Machine learning with MDR == As illustrated above, the basic constructive induction algorithm in MDR is very simple. However, its implementation for mining patterns from real data can be computationally complex. As with any machine learning algorithm there is always concern about overfitting. That is, machine learning algorithms are good at finding patterns in completely random data. It is often difficult to determine whether a reported pattern is an important signal or just chance. One approach is to estimate the generalizability of a model to independent datasets using methods such as cross-validation. Models that describe random data typically don't generalize. Another approach is to generate many random permutations of the data to see what the data mining algorithm finds when given the chance to overfit. Permutation testing makes it possible to generate an empirical p-value for the result. Replication in independent data may also provide evidence for an MDR model but can be sensitive to difference in the data sets. These approaches have all been shown to be useful for choosing and evaluating MDR models. An important step in a machine learning exercise is interpretation. Several approaches have been used with MDR including entropy analysis and pathway analysis. Tips and approaches for using MDR to model gene-gene interactions have been reviewed. == Extensions to MDR == Numerous extensions to MDR have been introduced. These include family-based methods, fuzzy methods, covariate adjustment, odds ratios, risk scores, survival methods, robust methods, methods for quantitative traits, and many others. == Applications of MDR == MDR has mostly been applied to detecting gene-gene interactions or epistasis in genetic studies of common human diseases such as atrial fibrillation, autism, bladder cancer, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer and tuberculosis. It has also been applied to other biomedical problems such as the genetic analysis of pharmacology outcomes. A central challenge is the scaling of MDR to big data such as that from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Several approaches have been used. One approach is to filter the features prior to MDR analysis. This can be done using biological knowledge through tools such as BioFilter. It can also be done using computational tools such as ReliefF. Another approach is to use stochastic search algorithms such as genetic programming to explore the search space of feature combinations. Yet another approach is a brute-force search using high-performance computing. == Implementations == www.epistasis.org provides an open-source and freely-available MDR software package. An R package for MDR. An sklearn-compatible Python implementation. An R package for Model-Based MDR. MDR in Weka. Generalized MDR.

  Read more →
• 

  Halloween Problem

  In computing, the Halloween Problem refers to a phenomenon in databases in which an update operation causes a change in the physical location of a row, potentially allowing the row to be visited again later in the same update operation. This could even cause an infinite loop in some cases where updates continually place the updated record ahead of the scan performing the update operation. The potential for this database error was first discovered by Don Chamberlin, Pat Selinger, and Morton Astrahan in the mid-1970s, on Halloween day, while working on query optimization. They wrote a SQL query supposed to give a ten percent raise to every employee who earned less than $25,000. This query would run successfully, with no errors, but when finished all the employees in the database earned at least $25,000, because it kept giving them a raise until they reached that level. The expectation was that the query would iterate over each of the employee records with a salary less than $25,000 precisely once. In fact, because even updated records were visible to the query execution engine and so continued to match the query's criteria, salary records were matching multiple times and each time being given a 10% raise until they were all greater than $25,000. Contrary to what some believe, the name is not descriptive of the nature of the problem but rather was given due to the day it was discovered on. As recounted by Don Chamberlin: Pat and Morton discovered this problem on Halloween... I remember they came into my office and said, "Chamberlin, look at this. We have to make sure that when the optimizer is making a plan for processing an update, it doesn't use an index that is based on the field that is being updated. How are we going to do that?" It happened to be on a Friday, and we said, "Listen, we are not going to be able to solve this problem this afternoon. Let's just give it a name. We'll call it the Halloween Problem and we'll work on it next week." And it turns out it has been called that ever since.

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function kernel

  In machine learning, the radial basis function kernel, or RBF kernel, is a popular kernel function used in various kernelized learning algorithms. In particular, it is commonly used in support vector machine classification. The RBF kernel on two samples x , x ′ ∈ R k {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , represented as feature vectors in some input space, is defined as K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}} may be recognized as the squared Euclidean distance between the two feature vectors. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter. An equivalent definition involves a parameter γ = 1 2 σ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \gamma ={\tfrac {1}{2\sigma ^{2}}}} : K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − γ ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp(-\gamma \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2})} Since the value of the RBF kernel decreases with distance and ranges between zero (in the infinite-distance limit) and one (when x = x'), it has a ready interpretation as a similarity measure. The feature space of the kernel has an infinite number of dimensions; for σ = 1 {\displaystyle \sigma =1} , its expansion using the multinomial theorem is: exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( 2 2 x ⊤ x ′ − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) j j ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ∑ n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) x ′ 1 n 1 ⋯ x ′ k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)&=\exp \left({\frac {2}{2}}\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} -{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\exp \left(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} \right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} )^{j}}{j!}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }\quad \sum _{n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right){\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right){\frac {{x'}_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots {x'}_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\\[5pt]&=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \end{alignedat}}} φ ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) ( a ℓ 0 ( 0 ) , a 1 ( 1 ) , … , a ℓ 1 ( 1 ) , … , a 1 ( j ) , … , a ℓ j ( j ) , … ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\left(a_{\ell _{0}}^{(0)},a_{1}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{1}}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{1}^{(j)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{j}}^{(j)},\dots \right)} where ℓ j = ( k + j − 1 j ) {\displaystyle \ell _{j}={\tbinom {k+j-1}{j}}} , a ℓ ( j ) = x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! | n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j ∧ 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ j {\displaystyle a_{\ell }^{(j)}={\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\quad |\quad n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j\wedge 1\leq \ell \leq \ell _{j}} == Approximations == Because support vector machines and other models employing the kernel trick do not scale well to large numbers of training samples or large numbers of features in the input space, several approximations to the RBF kernel (and similar kernels) have been introduced. Typically, these take the form of a function z that maps a single vector to a vector of higher dimensionality, approximating the kernel: ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( x ′ ) ⟩ ≈ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ = K ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle z(\mathbf {x} ),z(\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \approx \langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle =K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} where φ {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi } is the implicit mapping embedded in the RBF kernel. === Fourier random features === One way to construct such a z is to randomly sample from the Fourier transformation of the kernel φ ( x ) = 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle \varphi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle w_{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where w 1 , . . . , w D {\displaystyle w_{1},...,w_{D}} are independent samples from the normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Theorem: E ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = e ‖ x − y ‖ 2 / ( 2 σ 2 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=e^{\|x-y\|^{2}/(2\sigma ^{2})}.} Proof: It suffices to prove the case of D = 1 {\displaystyle D=1} . Use the trigonometric identity cos ⁡ ( a − b ) = cos ⁡ ( a ) cos ⁡ ( b ) + sin ⁡ ( a ) sin ⁡ ( b ) {\displaystyle \cos(a-b)=\cos(a)\cos(b)+\sin(a)\sin(b)} , the spherical symmetry of Gaussian distribution, then evaluate the integral ∫ − ∞ ∞ cos ⁡ ( k x ) e − x 2 / 2 2 π d x = e − k 2 / 2 . {\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {\cos(kx)e^{-x^{2}/2}}{\sqrt {2\pi }}}dx=e^{-k^{2}/2}.} Theorem: Var ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = O ( D − 1 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=O(D^{-1})} . (Appendix A.2). === Nyström method === Another approach uses the Nyström method to approximate the eigendecomposition of the Gram matrix K, using only a random sample of the training set.

  Read more →
• 

  Representer theorem

  For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span ⁡ { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin ⁡ { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span ⁡ { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple kernel learning

  Multiple kernel learning refers to a set of machine learning methods that use a predefined set of kernels and learn an optimal linear or non-linear combination of kernels as part of the algorithm. Reasons to use multiple kernel learning include a) the ability to select for an optimal kernel and parameters from a larger set of kernels, reducing bias due to kernel selection while allowing for more automated machine learning methods, and b) combining data from different sources (e.g. sound and images from a video) that have different notions of similarity and thus require different kernels. Instead of creating a new kernel, multiple kernel algorithms can be used to combine kernels already established for each individual data source. Multiple kernel learning approaches have been used in many applications, such as event recognition in video, object recognition in images, and biomedical data fusion. == Algorithms == Multiple kernel learning algorithms have been developed for supervised, semi-supervised, as well as unsupervised learning. Most work has been done on the supervised learning case with linear combinations of kernels, however, many algorithms have been developed. The basic idea behind multiple kernel learning algorithms is to add an extra parameter to the minimization problem of the learning algorithm. As an example, consider the case of supervised learning of a linear combination of a set of n {\displaystyle n} kernels K {\displaystyle K} . We introduce a new kernel K ′ = ∑ i = 1 n β i K i {\displaystyle K'=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\beta _{i}K_{i}} , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is a vector of coefficients for each kernel. Because the kernels are additive (due to properties of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces), this new function is still a kernel. For a set of data X {\displaystyle X} with labels Y {\displaystyle Y} , the minimization problem can then be written as min β , c E ( Y , K ′ c ) + R ( K , c ) {\displaystyle \min _{\beta ,c}\mathrm {E} (Y,K'c)+R(K,c)} where E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is an error function and R {\displaystyle R} is a regularization term. E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is typically the square loss function (Tikhonov regularization) or the hinge loss function (for SVM algorithms), and R {\displaystyle R} is usually an ℓ n {\displaystyle \ell _{n}} norm or some combination of the norms (i.e. elastic net regularization). This optimization problem can then be solved by standard optimization methods. Adaptations of existing techniques such as the Sequential Minimal Optimization have also been developed for multiple kernel SVM-based methods. === Supervised learning === For supervised learning, there are many other algorithms that use different methods to learn the form of the kernel. The following categorization has been proposed by Gonen and Alpaydın (2011) ==== Fixed rules approaches ==== Fixed rules approaches such as the linear combination algorithm described above use rules to set the combination of the kernels. These do not require parameterization and use rules like summation and multiplication to combine the kernels. The weighting is learned in the algorithm. Other examples of fixed rules include pairwise kernels, which are of the form k ( ( x 1 i , x 1 j ) , ( x 2 i , x 2 j ) ) = k ( x 1 i , x 2 i ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 j ) + k ( x 1 i , x 2 j ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 i ) {\displaystyle k((x_{1i},x_{1j}),(x_{2i},x_{2j}))=k(x_{1i},x_{2i})k(x_{1j},x_{2j})+k(x_{1i},x_{2j})k(x_{1j},x_{2i})} . These pairwise approaches have been used in predicting protein-protein interactions. ==== Heuristic approaches ==== These algorithms use a combination function that is parameterized. The parameters are generally defined for each individual kernel based on single-kernel performance or some computation from the kernel matrix. Examples of these include the kernel from Tenabe et al. (2008). Letting π m {\displaystyle \pi _{m}} be the accuracy obtained using only K m {\displaystyle K_{m}} , and letting δ {\displaystyle \delta } be a threshold less than the minimum of the single-kernel accuracies, we can define β m = π m − δ ∑ h = 1 n ( π h − δ ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {\pi _{m}-\delta }{\sum _{h=1}^{n}(\pi _{h}-\delta )}}} Other approaches use a definition of kernel similarity, such as A ( K 1 , K 2 ) = ⟨ K 1 , K 2 ⟩ ⟨ K 1 , K 1 ⟩ ⟨ K 2 , K 2 ⟩ {\displaystyle A(K_{1},K_{2})={\frac {\langle K_{1},K_{2}\rangle }{\sqrt {\langle K_{1},K_{1}\rangle \langle K_{2},K_{2}\rangle }}}} Using this measure, Qui and Lane (2009) used the following heuristic to define β m = A ( K m , Y Y T ) ∑ h = 1 n A ( K h , Y Y T ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {A(K_{m},YY^{T})}{\sum _{h=1}^{n}A(K_{h},YY^{T})}}} ==== Optimization approaches ==== These approaches solve an optimization problem to determine parameters for the kernel combination function. This has been done with similarity measures and structural risk minimization approaches. For similarity measures such as the one defined above, the problem can be formulated as follows: max β , tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = 1 , K ′ ≥ 0 A ( K t r a ′ , Y Y T ) . {\displaystyle \max _{\beta ,\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=1,K'\geq 0}A(K'_{tra},YY^{T}).} where K t r a ′ {\displaystyle K'_{tra}} is the kernel of the training set. Structural risk minimization approaches that have been used include linear approaches, such as that used by Lanckriet et al. (2002). We can define the implausibility of a kernel ω ( K ) {\displaystyle \omega (K)} to be the value of the objective function after solving a canonical SVM problem. We can then solve the following minimization problem: min tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = c ω ( K t r a ′ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=c}\omega (K'_{tra})} where c {\displaystyle c} is a positive constant. Many other variations exist on the same idea, with different methods of refining and solving the problem, e.g. with nonnegative weights for individual kernels and using non-linear combinations of kernels. ==== Bayesian approaches ==== Bayesian approaches put priors on the kernel parameters and learn the parameter values from the priors and the base algorithm. For example, the decision function can be written as f ( x ) = ∑ i = 0 n α i ∑ m = 1 p η m K m ( x i m , x m ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=0}^{n}\alpha _{i}\sum _{m=1}^{p}\eta _{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})} η {\displaystyle \eta } can be modeled with a Dirichlet prior and α {\displaystyle \alpha } can be modeled with a zero-mean Gaussian and an inverse gamma variance prior. This model is then optimized using a customized multinomial probit approach with a Gibbs sampler. These methods have been used successfully in applications such as protein fold recognition and protein homology problems ==== Boosting approaches ==== Boosting approaches add new kernels iteratively until some stopping criteria that is a function of performance is reached. An example of this is the MARK model developed by Bennett et al. (2002) f ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ∑ m = 1 P α i m K m ( x i m , x m ) + b {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{m=1}^{P}\alpha _{i}^{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})+b} The parameters α i m {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}^{m}} and b {\displaystyle b} are learned by gradient descent on a coordinate basis. In this way, each iteration of the descent algorithm identifies the best kernel column to choose at each particular iteration and adds that to the combined kernel. The model is then rerun to generate the optimal weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} and b {\displaystyle b} . === Semisupervised learning === Semisupervised learning approaches to multiple kernel learning are similar to other extensions of supervised learning approaches. An inductive procedure has been developed that uses a log-likelihood empirical loss and group LASSO regularization with conditional expectation consensus on unlabeled data for image categorization. We can define the problem as follows. Let L = ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle L={(x_{i},y_{i})}} be the labeled data, and let U = x i {\displaystyle U={x_{i}}} be the set of unlabeled data. Then, we can write the decision function as follows. f ( x ) = α 0 + ∑ i = 1 | L | α i K i ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\alpha _{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{|L|}\alpha _{i}K_{i}(x)} The problem can be written as min f L ( f ) + λ R ( f ) + γ Θ ( f ) {\displaystyle \min _{f}L(f)+\lambda R(f)+\gamma \Theta (f)} where L {\displaystyle L} is the loss function (weighted negative log-likelihood in this case), R {\displaystyle R} is the regularization parameter (Group LASSO in this case), and Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } is the conditional expectation consensus (CEC) penalty on unlabeled data. The CEC penalty is defined as follows. Let the marginal kernel density for all the data be g m π ( x ) = ⟨ ϕ m π , ψ m ( x ) ⟩ {\displaystyle g_{m}^{\pi }(x)=\langle \phi _{m}^{\pi },\psi _{m}(x)\rangle } where ψ m ( x ) = [ K m ( x 1 , x ) , … , K m ( x L , x ) ] T {\displaystyle \psi _{m}(x)=[K_{m}(x_{1},x),\ldots ,K_{m}(x_{L},x)]^{T}} (the kernel distance between the labe

  Read more →
• 

  Snapshot isolation

  In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.

  Read more →
• 

  Error-driven learning

  In reinforcement learning, error-driven learning is a method for adjusting a model's (intelligent agent's) parameters based on the difference between its output results and the ground truth. These models stand out as they depend on environmental feedback, rather than explicit labels or categories. They are based on the idea that language acquisition involves the minimization of the prediction error (MPSE). By leveraging these prediction errors, the models consistently refine expectations and decrease computational complexity. Typically, these algorithms are operated by the GeneRec algorithm. Error-driven learning has widespread applications in cognitive sciences and computer vision. These methods have also found successful application in natural language processing (NLP), including areas like part-of-speech tagging, parsing, named entity recognition (NER), machine translation (MT), speech recognition (SR), and dialogue systems. == Formal Definition == Error-driven learning models are ones that rely on the feedback of prediction errors to adjust the expectations or parameters of a model. The key components of error-driven learning include the following: A set S {\displaystyle S} of states representing the different situations that the learner can encounter. A set A {\displaystyle A} of actions that the learner can take in each state. A prediction function P ( s , a ) {\displaystyle P(s,a)} that gives the learner's current prediction of the outcome of taking action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} . An error function E ( o , p ) {\displaystyle E(o,p)} that compares the actual outcome o {\displaystyle o} with the prediction p {\displaystyle p} and produces an error value. An update rule U ( p , e ) {\displaystyle U(p,e)} that adjusts the prediction p {\displaystyle p} in light of the error e {\displaystyle e} . == Algorithms == Error-driven learning algorithms refer to a category of reinforcement learning algorithms that leverage the disparity between the real output and the expected output of a system to regulate the system's parameters. Typically applied in supervised learning, these algorithms are provided with a collection of input-output pairs to facilitate the process of generalization. The widely utilized error backpropagation learning algorithm is known as GeneRec, a generalized recirculation algorithm primarily employed for gene prediction in DNA sequences. Many other error-driven learning algorithms are derived from alternative versions of GeneRec. == Applications == === Cognitive science === Simpler error-driven learning models effectively capture complex human cognitive phenomena and anticipate elusive behaviors. They provide a flexible mechanism for modeling the brain's learning process, encompassing perception, attention, memory, and decision-making. By using errors as guiding signals, these algorithms adeptly adapt to changing environmental demands and objectives, capturing statistical regularities and structure. Furthermore, cognitive science has led to the creation of new error-driven learning algorithms that are both biologically acceptable and computationally efficient. These algorithms, including deep belief networks, spiking neural networks, and reservoir computing, follow the principles and constraints of the brain and nervous system. Their primary aim is to capture the emergent properties and dynamics of neural circuits and systems. === Computer vision === Computer vision is a complex task that involves understanding and interpreting visual data, such as images or videos. In the context of error-driven learning, the computer vision model learns from the mistakes it makes during the interpretation process. When an error is encountered, the model updates its internal parameters to avoid making the same mistake in the future. This repeated process of learning from errors helps improve the model's performance over time. For NLP to do well at computer vision, it employs deep learning techniques. This form of computer vision is sometimes called neural computer vision (NCV), since it makes use of neural networks. NCV therefore interprets visual data based on a statistical, trial and error approach and can deal with context and other subtleties of visual data. === Natural Language Processing === ==== Part-of-speech tagging ==== Part-of-speech (POS) tagging is a crucial component in Natural Language Processing (NLP). It helps resolve human language ambiguity at different analysis levels. In addition, its output (tagged data) can be used in various applications of NLP such as information extraction, information retrieval, question Answering, speech eecognition, text-to-speech conversion, partial parsing, and grammar correction. ==== Parsing ==== Parsing in NLP involves breaking down a text into smaller pieces (phrases) based on grammar rules. If a sentence cannot be parsed, it may contain grammatical errors. In the context of error-driven learning, the parser learns from the mistakes it makes during the parsing process. When an error is encountered, the parser updates its internal model to avoid making the same mistake in the future. This iterative process of learning from errors helps improve the parser's performance over time. In conclusion, error-driven learning plays a crucial role in improving the accuracy and efficiency of NLP parsers by allowing them to learn from their mistakes and adapt their internal models accordingly. ==== Named entity recognition (NER) ==== NER is the task of identifying and classifying entities (such as persons, locations, organizations, etc.) in a text. Error-driven learning can help the model learn from its false positives and false negatives and improve its recall and precision on (NER). In the context of error-driven learning, the significance of NER is quite profound. Traditional sequence labeling methods identify nested entities layer by layer. If an error occurs in the recognition of an inner entity, it can lead to incorrect identification of the outer entity, leading to a problem known as error propagation of nested entities. This is where the role of NER becomes crucial in error-driven learning. By accurately recognizing and classifying entities, it can help minimize these errors and improve the overall accuracy of the learning process. Furthermore, deep learning-based NER methods have shown to be more accurate as they are capable of assembling words, enabling them to understand the semantic and syntactic relationship between various words better. ==== Machine translation ==== Machine translation is a complex task that involves converting text from one language to another. In the context of error-driven learning, the machine translation model learns from the mistakes it makes during the translation process. When an error is encountered, the model updates its internal parameters to avoid making the same mistake in the future. This iterative process of learning from errors helps improve the model's performance over time. ==== Speech recognition ==== Speech recognition is a complex task that involves converting spoken language into written text. In the context of error-driven learning, the speech recognition model learns from the mistakes it makes during the recognition process. When an error is encountered, the model updates its internal parameters to avoid making the same mistake in the future. This iterative process of learning from errors helps improve the model's performance over time. ==== Dialogue systems ==== Dialogue systems are a popular NLP task as they have promising real-life applications. They are also complicated tasks since many NLP tasks deserving study are involved. In the context of error-driven learning, the dialogue system learns from the mistakes it makes during the dialogue process. When an error is encountered, the model updates its internal parameters to avoid making the same mistake in the future. This iterative process of learning from errors helps improve the model's performance over time. == Advantages == Error-driven learning has several advantages over other types of machine learning algorithms: They can learn from feedback and correct their mistakes, which makes them adaptive and robust to noise and changes in the data. They can handle large and high-dimensional data sets, as they do not require explicit feature engineering or prior knowledge of the data distribution. They can achieve high accuracy and performance, as they can learn complex and nonlinear relationships between the input and the output. == Limitations == Although error driven learning has its advantages, their algorithms also have the following limitations: They can suffer from overfitting, which means that they memorize the training data and fail to generalize to new and unseen data. This can be mitigated by using regularization techniques, such as adding a penalty term to the loss function, or reducing the complexity of the model. They can be sensitive to the choice of

  Read more →
• 

  Probabilistic latent semantic analysis

  Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI, especially in information retrieval circles) is a statistical technique for the analysis of two-mode and co-occurrence data. In effect, one can derive a low-dimensional representation of the observed variables in terms of their affinity to certain hidden variables, just as in latent semantic analysis, from which PLSA evolved. Compared to standard latent semantic analysis which stems from linear algebra and downsizes the occurrence tables (usually via a singular value decomposition), probabilistic latent semantic analysis is based on a mixture decomposition derived from a latent class model. == Model == Considering observations in the form of co-occurrences ( w , d ) {\displaystyle (w,d)} of words and documents, PLSA models the probability of each co-occurrence as a mixture of conditionally independent multinomial distributions: P ( w , d ) = ∑ c P ( d ) P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) = P ( d ) ∑ c P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w,d)=\sum _{c}P(d)P(c|d)P(w|c)=P(d)\sum _{c}P(c|d)P(w|c)} with c {\displaystyle c} being the words' topic. Note that the number of topics is a hyperparameter that must be chosen in advance and is not estimated from the data. The first formulation is the symmetric formulation, where w {\displaystyle w} and d {\displaystyle d} are both generated from the latent class c {\displaystyle c} in similar ways (using the conditional probabilities P ( d | c ) {\displaystyle P(d|c)} and P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} ), whereas the second formulation is the asymmetric formulation, where, for each document d {\displaystyle d} , a latent class is chosen conditionally to the document according to P ( c | d ) {\displaystyle P(c|d)} , and a word is then generated from that class according to P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} . Although we have used words and documents in this example, the co-occurrence of any couple of discrete variables may be modelled in exactly the same way. So, the number of parameters is equal to c d + w c {\displaystyle cd+wc} . The number of parameters grows linearly with the number of documents. In addition, although PLSA is a generative model of the documents in the collection it is estimated on, it is not a generative model of new documents. Their parameters are learned using the EM algorithm. == Application == PLSA may be used in a discriminative setting, via Fisher kernels. PLSA has applications in information retrieval and filtering, natural language processing, machine learning from text, bioinformatics, and related areas. It is reported that the aspect model used in the probabilistic latent semantic analysis has severe overfitting problems. == Extensions == Hierarchical extensions: Asymmetric: MASHA ("Multinomial ASymmetric Hierarchical Analysis") Symmetric: HPLSA ("Hierarchical Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis") Generative models: The following models have been developed to address an often-criticized shortcoming of PLSA, namely that it is not a proper generative model for new documents. Latent Dirichlet allocation – adds a Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distribution Higher-order data: Although this is rarely discussed in the scientific literature, PLSA extends naturally to higher order data (three modes and higher), i.e. it can model co-occurrences over three or more variables. In the symmetric formulation above, this is done simply by adding conditional probability distributions for these additional variables. This is the probabilistic analogue to non-negative tensor factorisation. == History == This is an example of a latent class model (see references therein), and it is related to non-negative matrix factorization. The present terminology was coined in 1999 by Thomas Hofmann.

  Read more →
• 

  Facial recognition system

  A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but

  Read more →
• 

  Thai QR Payment

  Thai QR Payment or PromptPay (พร้อมเพย์) is a real-time payment system in Thailand that allows money transfers through digital channels using identifiers linked to a bank account, including a mobile phone number, citizen identification number, tax identification number or bank account number. The system was introduced in 2016 as part of Thailand's national e-payment infrastructure and was developed under the National e-Payment Master Plan, a government programme intended to expand digital payment infrastructure and reduce the use of cash in everyday transactions. It is owned by National ITMX ltd and Bank of Thailand and developed by Vocalink, a group by Mastercard == History == PromptPay (originally AnyID) is one of the National e-Payment projects and policies by Thailand, to regulate and standardize electronic payments to follow the technologies with internet and smartphones that is expanding and bringing technology into Finance and Commerce. By 22 December 2015, The First Prayut cabinet have approved the project as a national infastructure PromptPay has also been used in cross-border payment linkages with other real-time payment systems in Southeast Asia. In April 2021, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Bank of Thailand launched a linkage between Singapore's PayNow and Thailand's PromptPay, allowing customers of participating banks to send money between the two countries using a mobile phone number. In June 2021, the central banks of Thailand and Malaysia launched a cross-border QR payment linkage between PromptPay and Malaysia's DuitNow system. == Services == PromptPay's Services have included Encrypted Transactions and Payment between Two Individuals (C2C) Government Infrastructure Payment Tax Returns Individual PromptPay e-Wallet Thai QR Payment Pay Alert e-Donation Cross Border QR Payment

  Read more →
• 

  Multidimensional analysis

  In statistics, econometrics and related fields, multidimensional analysis (MDA) is a data analysis process that groups data into two categories: data dimensions and measurements. For example, a data set consisting of the number of wins for a single football team at each of several years is a single-dimensional (in this case, longitudinal) data set. A data set consisting of the number of wins for several football teams in a single year is also a single-dimensional (in this case, cross-sectional) data set. A data set consisting of the number of wins for several football teams over several years is a two-dimensional data set. == Higher dimensions == In many disciplines, two-dimensional data sets are also called panel data. While, strictly speaking, two- and higher-dimensional data sets are "multi-dimensional", the term "multidimensional" tends to be applied only to data sets with three or more dimensions. For example, some forecast data sets provide forecasts for multiple target periods, conducted by multiple forecasters, and made at multiple horizons. The three dimensions provide more information than can be gleaned from two-dimensional panel data sets. == Software == Computer software for MDA include Online analytical processing (OLAP) for data in relational databases, pivot tables for data in spreadsheets, and Array DBMSs for general multi-dimensional data (such as raster data) in science, engineering, and business.

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-entropy

  In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p ⁡ [ log ⁡ q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p ⁡ [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log ⁡ Q ( x ) d x = E p ⁡ [ − log ⁡ Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p ⁡ [ ℓ ] = − E p ⁡ [ ln ⁡ q ( x ) ln ⁡ ( 2 ) ] = − E p ⁡ [ log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp ⁡ log ⁡ [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ⁡ ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log ⁡ q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log ⁡ L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (

  Read more →