AI Data Flywheel

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

• 

  Clubdjpro

  ClubDJPro (often referred to as ClubDJ) is a DJ console and video mixing tool developed by Cube Software Solutions Inc. software. It was released in June 2005. == User interface == ClubDJPro has a GUI that was designed to allow aesthetic revisions via Skins. The skin engine that ClubDJPro uses allows for the ability to expand the software to take up the entire screen. As of 4.4.3.3 there are 3 user changeable skins included in the program which are changeable in the preferences tab. They are called 'AquaLung', 'Eleanor', and 'Grabber'. == Editions == ClubDJPro is available in two different editions, with separate features depending upon their target consumer group. DJ Edition - Can play audio files only. VJ Edition - Contains all of the features of the DJ Edition, in addition to support for video, karaoke, and visualizations. == Supported MIDI Controllers == Supported since version 2.0: Hercules Console Hercules Console MK2 Hercules Control MP3 PCDJ DAC-2 Controller == History == The initial "final release" of ClubDJPro was released on June 24, 2005. On June 26, 2009, the 4th iteration of the ClubDJPro software was released. The development of the software and website appears to have halted. As of March 2018 the website continues to show a new version "Coming Spring 2016".

  Read more →
• 

  Ensemble learning

  In statistics and machine learning, ensemble methods use multiple learning algorithms to obtain better predictive performance than could be obtained from any of the constituent learning algorithms alone. Unlike a statistical ensemble in statistical mechanics, which is usually infinite, a machine learning ensemble consists of only a concrete finite set of alternative models, but typically allows for much more flexible structure to exist among those alternatives. == Overview == Supervised learning algorithms search through a hypothesis space to find a suitable hypothesis that will make good predictions with a particular problem. Even if this space contains hypotheses that are very well-suited for a particular problem, it may be very difficult to find a good one. Ensembles combine multiple hypotheses to form one which should be theoretically better. Ensemble learning trains two or more machine learning algorithms on a specific classification or regression task. The algorithms within the ensemble model are generally referred as "base models", "base learners", or "weak learners" in literature. These base models can be constructed using a single modelling algorithm, or several different algorithms. The idea is to train a diverse set of weak models on the same modelling task, such that the outputs of each weak learner have poor predictive ability (i.e., high bias), and among all weak learners, the outcome and error values exhibit high variance. Fundamentally, an ensemble learning model trains at least two high-bias (weak) and high-variance (diverse) models to be combined into a better-performing model. The set of weak models — which would not produce satisfactory predictive results individually — are combined or averaged to produce a single, high performing, accurate, and low-variance model to fit the task as required. Ensemble learning typically refers to bagging (bootstrap aggregating), boosting or stacking/blending techniques to induce high variance among the base models. Bagging creates diversity by generating random samples from the training observations and fitting the same model to each different sample — also known as homogeneous parallel ensembles. Boosting follows an iterative process by sequentially training each base model on the up-weighted errors of the previous base model, producing an additive model to reduce the final model errors — also known as sequential ensemble learning. Stacking or blending consists of different base models, each trained independently (i.e. diverse/high variance) to be combined into the ensemble model — producing a heterogeneous parallel ensemble. Common applications of ensemble learning include random forests (an extension of bagging), Boosted Tree models, and Gradient Boosted Tree Models. Models in applications of stacking are generally more task-specific — such as combining clustering techniques with other parametric and/or non-parametric techniques. Evaluating the prediction of an ensemble typically requires more computation than evaluating the prediction of a single model. In one sense, ensemble learning may be thought of as a way to compensate for poor learning algorithms by performing a lot of extra computation. On the other hand, the alternative is to do a lot more learning with one non-ensemble model. An ensemble may be more efficient at improving overall accuracy for the same increase in compute, storage, or communication resources by using that increase on two or more methods, than would have been improved by increasing resource use for a single method. Fast algorithms such as decision trees are commonly used in ensemble methods (e.g., random forests), although slower algorithms can benefit from ensemble techniques as well. By analogy, ensemble techniques have been used also in unsupervised learning scenarios, for example in consensus clustering or in anomaly detection. == Ensemble theory == Empirically, ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a significant diversity among the models. Many ensemble methods, therefore, seek to promote diversity among the models they combine. Although perhaps non-intuitive, more random algorithms (like random decision trees) can be used to produce a stronger ensemble than very deliberate algorithms (like entropy-reducing decision trees). Using a variety of strong learning algorithms, however, has been shown to be more effective than using techniques that attempt to dumb-down the models in order to promote diversity. It is possible to increase diversity in the training stage of the model using correlation for regression tasks or using information measures such as cross entropy for classification tasks. Theoretically, one can justify the diversity concept because the lower bound of the error rate of an ensemble system can be decomposed into accuracy, diversity, and the other term. === The geometric framework === Ensemble learning, including both regression and classification tasks, can be explained using a geometric framework. Within this framework, the output of each individual classifier or regressor for the entire dataset can be viewed as a point in a multi-dimensional space. Additionally, the target result is also represented as a point in this space, referred to as the "ideal point." The Euclidean distance is used as the metric to measure both the performance of a single classifier or regressor (the distance between its point and the ideal point) and the dissimilarity between two classifiers or regressors (the distance between their respective points). This perspective transforms ensemble learning into a deterministic problem. For example, within this geometric framework, it can be proved that the averaging of the outputs (scores) of all base classifiers or regressors can lead to equal or better results than the average of all the individual models. It can also be proved that if the optimal weighting scheme is used, then a weighted averaging approach can outperform any of the individual classifiers or regressors that make up the ensemble or as good as the best performer at least. == Ensemble size == While the number of component classifiers of an ensemble has a great impact on the accuracy of prediction, there is a limited number of studies addressing this problem. A priori determining of ensemble size and the volume and velocity of big data streams make this even more crucial for online ensemble classifiers. Mostly statistical tests were used for determining the proper number of components. More recently, a theoretical framework suggested that there is an ideal number of component classifiers for an ensemble such that having more or less than this number of classifiers would deteriorate the accuracy. It is called "the law of diminishing returns in ensemble construction." Their theoretical framework shows that using the same number of independent component classifiers as class labels gives the highest accuracy. == Common types of ensembles == === Bayes optimal classifier === The Bayes optimal classifier is a classification technique. It is an ensemble of all the hypotheses in the hypothesis space. On average, no other ensemble can outperform it. The Naive Bayes classifier is a version of this that assumes that the data is conditionally independent on the class and makes the computation more feasible. Each hypothesis is given a vote proportional to the likelihood that the training dataset would be sampled from a system if that hypothesis were true. To facilitate training data of finite size, the vote of each hypothesis is also multiplied by the prior probability of that hypothesis. The Bayes optimal classifier can be expressed with the following equation: y = a r g m a x c j ∈ C ∑ h i ∈ H P ( c j | h i ) P ( T | h i ) P ( h i ) {\displaystyle y={\underset {c_{j}\in C}{\mathrm {argmax} }}\sum _{h_{i}\in H}{P(c_{j}|h_{i})P(T|h_{i})P(h_{i})}} where y {\displaystyle y} is the predicted class, C {\displaystyle C} is the set of all possible classes, H {\displaystyle H} is the hypothesis space, P {\displaystyle P} refers to a probability, and T {\displaystyle T} is the training data. As an ensemble, the Bayes optimal classifier represents a hypothesis that is not necessarily in H {\displaystyle H} . The hypothesis represented by the Bayes optimal classifier, however, is the optimal hypothesis in ensemble space (the space of all possible ensembles consisting only of hypotheses in H {\displaystyle H} ). This formula can be restated using Bayes' theorem, which says that the posterior is proportional to the likelihood times the prior: P ( h i | T ) ∝ P ( T | h i ) P ( h i ) {\displaystyle P(h_{i}|T)\propto P(T|h_{i})P(h_{i})} hence, y = a r g m a x c j ∈ C ∑ h i ∈ H P ( c j | h i ) P ( h i | T ) {\displaystyle y={\underset {c_{j}\in C}{\mathrm {argmax} }}\sum _{h_{i}\in H}{P(c_{j}|h_{i})P(h_{i}|T)}} === Bootstrap aggregating (bagging) === Bootstrap aggregation (bagging) involves training an ensemble on bootstrapped data sets. A bootstrapped set is cr

  Read more →
• 

  Universal approximation theorem

  In the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of accuracy. These theorems provide a mathematical justification for using neural networks, assuring researchers that a sufficiently large or deep network can model the complex, non-linear relationships often found in real-world data. The best-known version of the theorem applies to feedforward networks with a single hidden layer. It states that if the layer's activation function is non-polynomial (which is true for common choices like the sigmoid function or ReLU), then the network can act as a "universal approximator." Universality is achieved by increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer, making the network "wider." Other versions of the theorem show that universality can also be achieved by keeping the network's width fixed but increasing its number of layers, making it "deeper." These are existence theorems. They guarantee that a network with the right structure exists, but they do not provide a method for finding the network's parameters (training it), nor do they specify exactly how large the network must be for a given function. Finding a suitable network remains a practical challenge that is typically addressed with optimization algorithms like backpropagation. == Setup == Artificial neural networks are combinations of multiple simple mathematical functions that implement more complicated functions from (typically) real-valued vectors to real-valued vectors. The spaces of multivariate functions that can be implemented by a network are determined by the structure of the network, the set of simple functions, and its multiplicative parameters. A great deal of theoretical work has gone into characterizing these function spaces. Most universal approximation theorems are in one of two classes. The first quantifies the approximation capabilities of neural networks with an arbitrary number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary width" case) and the second focuses on the case with an arbitrary number of hidden layers, each containing a limited number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary depth" case). In addition to these two classes, there are also universal approximation theorems for neural networks with bounded number of hidden layers and a limited number of neurons in each layer ("bounded depth and bounded width" case). == History == === Arbitrary width === The first results concerned the arbitrary width case. Ken-ichi Funahashi (May 1989) showed that Rumelhart–Hinton–Williams type backpropagation networks possess universal approximation capability with a class of sigmoidal activation functions, extending the result to multi-output mappings as well. Kurt Hornik, Maxwell Stinchcombe, and Halbert White (July 1989) showed that multilayer feed-forward networks with as few as one hidden layer are universal approximators, provided that the activation function satisfies certain conditions. George Cybenko (December 1989) independently established a related result for sigmoid activation functions using functional-analytic methods. Hornik also showed in 1991 that it is not the specific choice of the activation function but rather the multilayer feed-forward architecture itself that gives neural networks the potential of being universal approximators. Moshe Leshno et al in 1993 and later Allan Pinkus in 1999 showed that the universal approximation property is equivalent to having a nonpolynomial activation function. === Arbitrary depth === The arbitrary depth case was also studied by a number of authors such as Gustaf Gripenberg in 2003, Dmitry Yarotsky, Zhou Lu et al in 2017, Boris Hanin and Mark Sellke in 2018 who focused on neural networks with ReLU activation function. In 2020, Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons extended those results to neural networks with general activation functions such, e.g. tanh or GeLU. One special case of arbitrary depth is that each composition component comes from a finite set of mappings. In 2024, Cai constructed a finite set of mappings, named a vocabulary, such that any continuous function can be approximated by compositing a sequence from the vocabulary. This is similar to the concept of compositionality in linguistics, which is the idea that a finite vocabulary of basic elements can be combined via grammar to express an infinite range of meanings. === Bounded depth and bounded width === The bounded depth and bounded width case was first studied by Maiorov and Pinkus in 1999. They showed that there exists an analytic sigmoidal activation function such that two hidden layer neural networks with bounded number of units in hidden layers are universal approximators. In 2018, Guliyev and Ismailov constructed a smooth sigmoidal activation function providing universal approximation property for two hidden layer feedforward neural networks with fewer units in hidden layers. In 2018, they also constructed single hidden layer networks with bounded width that are still universal approximators for univariate functions. However, this does not apply for multivariable functions. In 2022, Shen et al. obtained precise quantitative information on the depth and width required to approximate a target function by deep and wide ReLU neural networks. === Quantitative bounds === The question of minimal possible width for universality was first studied in 2021, Park et al obtained the minimum width required for the universal approximation of Lp functions using feed-forward neural networks with ReLU as activation functions. Similar results that can be directly applied to residual neural networks were also obtained in the same year by Paulo Tabuada and Bahman Gharesifard using control-theoretic arguments. In 2023, Cai obtained the optimal minimum width bound for the universal approximation. For the arbitrary depth case, Leonie Papon and Anastasis Kratsios derived explicit depth estimates depending on the regularity of the target function and of the activation function. === Kolmogorov network === The Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem is similar in spirit. Indeed, certain neural network families can directly apply the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem to yield a universal approximation theorem. Robert Hecht-Nielsen showed that a three-layer neural network can approximate any continuous multivariate function. This was extended to the discontinuous case by Vugar Ismailov. In 2024, Ziming Liu and co-authors showed a practical application. === Reservoir computing and quantum reservoir computing === In reservoir computing a sparse recurrent neural network with fixed weights equipped of fading memory and echo state property is followed by a trainable output layer. Its universality has been demonstrated separately for what concerns networks of rate neurons and spiking neurons, respectively. In 2024, the framework has been generalized and extended to quantum reservoirs where the reservoir is based on qubits defined over Hilbert spaces. === Variants === Variants include discontinuous activation functions, noncompact domains, certifiable networks, random neural networks, and alternative network architectures and topologies. The universal approximation property of width-bounded networks has been studied as a dual of classical universal approximation results on depth-bounded networks. For input dimension d x {\displaystyle d_{x}} and output dimension d y {\displaystyle d_{y}} the minimum width required for the universal approximation of the Lp functions is exactly m a x { d x + 1 , d y } {\displaystyle max\{d_{x}+1,d_{y}\}} (for a ReLU network). More generally this also holds if both ReLU and a threshold activation function are used. Universal function approximation on graphs (or rather on graph isomorphism classes) by popular graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs or GNNs) can be made as discriminative as the Weisfeiler–Leman graph isomorphism test. In 2020, a universal approximation theorem result was established by Brüel-Gabrielsson, showing that graph representation with certain injective properties is sufficient for universal function approximation on bounded graphs and restricted universal function approximation on unbounded graphs, with an accompanying O ( | V | ⋅ | E | ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\left|V\right|\cdot \left|E\right|)} -runtime method that performed at state of the art on a collection of benchmarks (where V {\displaystyle V} and E {\displaystyle E} are the sets of nodes and edges of the graph respectively). There are also a variety of results between non-Euclidean spaces and other commonly used architectures and, more generally, algorithmically generated sets of functions, such as the convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, radial basis functions, or neural networks with specific properties. == Arbitrary-width case == A universal approximation theorem formally states that a family of neural network funct

  Read more →
• 

  Universal approximation theorem

  In the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of accuracy. These theorems provide a mathematical justification for using neural networks, assuring researchers that a sufficiently large or deep network can model the complex, non-linear relationships often found in real-world data. The best-known version of the theorem applies to feedforward networks with a single hidden layer. It states that if the layer's activation function is non-polynomial (which is true for common choices like the sigmoid function or ReLU), then the network can act as a "universal approximator." Universality is achieved by increasing the number of neurons in the hidden layer, making the network "wider." Other versions of the theorem show that universality can also be achieved by keeping the network's width fixed but increasing its number of layers, making it "deeper." These are existence theorems. They guarantee that a network with the right structure exists, but they do not provide a method for finding the network's parameters (training it), nor do they specify exactly how large the network must be for a given function. Finding a suitable network remains a practical challenge that is typically addressed with optimization algorithms like backpropagation. == Setup == Artificial neural networks are combinations of multiple simple mathematical functions that implement more complicated functions from (typically) real-valued vectors to real-valued vectors. The spaces of multivariate functions that can be implemented by a network are determined by the structure of the network, the set of simple functions, and its multiplicative parameters. A great deal of theoretical work has gone into characterizing these function spaces. Most universal approximation theorems are in one of two classes. The first quantifies the approximation capabilities of neural networks with an arbitrary number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary width" case) and the second focuses on the case with an arbitrary number of hidden layers, each containing a limited number of artificial neurons ("arbitrary depth" case). In addition to these two classes, there are also universal approximation theorems for neural networks with bounded number of hidden layers and a limited number of neurons in each layer ("bounded depth and bounded width" case). == History == === Arbitrary width === The first results concerned the arbitrary width case. Ken-ichi Funahashi (May 1989) showed that Rumelhart–Hinton–Williams type backpropagation networks possess universal approximation capability with a class of sigmoidal activation functions, extending the result to multi-output mappings as well. Kurt Hornik, Maxwell Stinchcombe, and Halbert White (July 1989) showed that multilayer feed-forward networks with as few as one hidden layer are universal approximators, provided that the activation function satisfies certain conditions. George Cybenko (December 1989) independently established a related result for sigmoid activation functions using functional-analytic methods. Hornik also showed in 1991 that it is not the specific choice of the activation function but rather the multilayer feed-forward architecture itself that gives neural networks the potential of being universal approximators. Moshe Leshno et al in 1993 and later Allan Pinkus in 1999 showed that the universal approximation property is equivalent to having a nonpolynomial activation function. === Arbitrary depth === The arbitrary depth case was also studied by a number of authors such as Gustaf Gripenberg in 2003, Dmitry Yarotsky, Zhou Lu et al in 2017, Boris Hanin and Mark Sellke in 2018 who focused on neural networks with ReLU activation function. In 2020, Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons extended those results to neural networks with general activation functions such, e.g. tanh or GeLU. One special case of arbitrary depth is that each composition component comes from a finite set of mappings. In 2024, Cai constructed a finite set of mappings, named a vocabulary, such that any continuous function can be approximated by compositing a sequence from the vocabulary. This is similar to the concept of compositionality in linguistics, which is the idea that a finite vocabulary of basic elements can be combined via grammar to express an infinite range of meanings. === Bounded depth and bounded width === The bounded depth and bounded width case was first studied by Maiorov and Pinkus in 1999. They showed that there exists an analytic sigmoidal activation function such that two hidden layer neural networks with bounded number of units in hidden layers are universal approximators. In 2018, Guliyev and Ismailov constructed a smooth sigmoidal activation function providing universal approximation property for two hidden layer feedforward neural networks with fewer units in hidden layers. In 2018, they also constructed single hidden layer networks with bounded width that are still universal approximators for univariate functions. However, this does not apply for multivariable functions. In 2022, Shen et al. obtained precise quantitative information on the depth and width required to approximate a target function by deep and wide ReLU neural networks. === Quantitative bounds === The question of minimal possible width for universality was first studied in 2021, Park et al obtained the minimum width required for the universal approximation of Lp functions using feed-forward neural networks with ReLU as activation functions. Similar results that can be directly applied to residual neural networks were also obtained in the same year by Paulo Tabuada and Bahman Gharesifard using control-theoretic arguments. In 2023, Cai obtained the optimal minimum width bound for the universal approximation. For the arbitrary depth case, Leonie Papon and Anastasis Kratsios derived explicit depth estimates depending on the regularity of the target function and of the activation function. === Kolmogorov network === The Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem is similar in spirit. Indeed, certain neural network families can directly apply the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem to yield a universal approximation theorem. Robert Hecht-Nielsen showed that a three-layer neural network can approximate any continuous multivariate function. This was extended to the discontinuous case by Vugar Ismailov. In 2024, Ziming Liu and co-authors showed a practical application. === Reservoir computing and quantum reservoir computing === In reservoir computing a sparse recurrent neural network with fixed weights equipped of fading memory and echo state property is followed by a trainable output layer. Its universality has been demonstrated separately for what concerns networks of rate neurons and spiking neurons, respectively. In 2024, the framework has been generalized and extended to quantum reservoirs where the reservoir is based on qubits defined over Hilbert spaces. === Variants === Variants include discontinuous activation functions, noncompact domains, certifiable networks, random neural networks, and alternative network architectures and topologies. The universal approximation property of width-bounded networks has been studied as a dual of classical universal approximation results on depth-bounded networks. For input dimension d x {\displaystyle d_{x}} and output dimension d y {\displaystyle d_{y}} the minimum width required for the universal approximation of the Lp functions is exactly m a x { d x + 1 , d y } {\displaystyle max\{d_{x}+1,d_{y}\}} (for a ReLU network). More generally this also holds if both ReLU and a threshold activation function are used. Universal function approximation on graphs (or rather on graph isomorphism classes) by popular graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs or GNNs) can be made as discriminative as the Weisfeiler–Leman graph isomorphism test. In 2020, a universal approximation theorem result was established by Brüel-Gabrielsson, showing that graph representation with certain injective properties is sufficient for universal function approximation on bounded graphs and restricted universal function approximation on unbounded graphs, with an accompanying O ( | V | ⋅ | E | ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\left|V\right|\cdot \left|E\right|)} -runtime method that performed at state of the art on a collection of benchmarks (where V {\displaystyle V} and E {\displaystyle E} are the sets of nodes and edges of the graph respectively). There are also a variety of results between non-Euclidean spaces and other commonly used architectures and, more generally, algorithmically generated sets of functions, such as the convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, radial basis functions, or neural networks with specific properties. == Arbitrary-width case == A universal approximation theorem formally states that a family of neural network funct

  Read more →
• 

  Straight-Through Quality

  Straight-Through Quality (STQ) are approaches and outputs of test automation that have quality and deliver business benefit. STQ takes its name from the business concept of straight-through processing (STP). Also acting as a tool and enabler for STP. Traditional techniques for testing and delivery have often required a great deal of manual support and intervention. These approaches are subject to human error, cost of delay and lack of reuse. These also have the negative side-effect of being unable to deliver 'fail-fast' approaches, which have proven popular with Agile practitioners. Previous traditional approaches have been typically expensive where whole silo'ed departments are created within commercial companies to deliver Quality and Deployment alone. Thus STQ as an approach hopes to resolve this problem. == Examples == Tangible examples of STQ approaches in the software industry are present and often known as continuous integration (CI) and continuous delivery (CD). These combined can ensure that software delivery is integrated, automatically tested and ready for automatic delivery at any time. Together CI/CD can enable STQ which can be used as Business output terminology for business users who do not understand the technical complexities of CI/CD.

  Read more →
• 

  Sparse PCA

  Sparse principal component analysis (SPCA or sparse PCA) is a technique used in statistical analysis and, in particular, in the analysis of multivariate data sets. It extends the classic method of principal component analysis (PCA) for the reduction of dimensionality of data by introducing sparsity structures to the input variables. A particular disadvantage of ordinary PCA is that the principal components are usually linear combinations of all input variables. SPCA overcomes this disadvantage by finding components that are linear combinations of just a few input variables (SPCs). This means that some of the coefficients of the linear combinations defining the SPCs, called loadings, are equal to zero. The number of nonzero loadings is called the cardinality of the SPC. == Mathematical formulation == Consider a data matrix, X {\displaystyle X} , where each of the p {\displaystyle p} columns represent an input variable, and each of the n {\displaystyle n} rows represents an independent sample from data population. One assumes each column of X {\displaystyle X} has mean zero, otherwise one can subtract column-wise mean from each element of X {\displaystyle X} . Let Σ = 1 n − 1 X ⊤ X {\displaystyle \Sigma ={\frac {1}{n-1}}X^{\top }X} be the empirical covariance matrix of X {\displaystyle X} , which has dimension p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} . Given an integer k {\displaystyle k} with 1 ≤ k ≤ p {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq p} , the sparse PCA problem can be formulated as maximizing the variance along a direction represented by vector v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} while constraining its cardinality: max v T Σ v subject to ‖ v ‖ 2 = 1 ‖ v ‖ 0 ≤ k . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &v^{T}\Sigma v\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{2}=1\\&\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}\leq k.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 1 The first constraint specifies that v is a unit vector. In the second constraint, ‖ v ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}} represents the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} pseudo-norm of v, which is defined as the number of its non-zero components. So the second constraint specifies that the number of non-zero components in v is less than or equal to k, which is typically an integer that is much smaller than dimension p. The optimal value of Eq. 1 is known as the k-sparse largest eigenvalue. If one takes k=p, the problem reduces to the ordinary PCA, and the optimal value becomes the largest eigenvalue of covariance matrix Σ. After finding the optimal solution v, one deflates Σ to obtain a new matrix Σ 1 = Σ − ( v T Σ v ) v v T , {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}=\Sigma -(v^{T}\Sigma v)vv^{T},} and iterate this process to obtain further principal components. However, unlike PCA, sparse PCA cannot guarantee that different principal components are orthogonal. In order to achieve orthogonality, additional constraints must be enforced. The following equivalent definition is in matrix form. Let V {\displaystyle V} be a p×p symmetric matrix, one can rewrite the sparse PCA problem as max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 ‖ V ‖ 0 ≤ k 2 R a n k ( V ) = 1 , V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\Vert V\Vert _{0}\leq k^{2}\\&Rank(V)=1,V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 2 Tr is the matrix trace, and ‖ V ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \Vert V\Vert _{0}} represents the non-zero elements in matrix V. The last line specifies that V has matrix rank one and is positive semidefinite. The last line means that one has V = v v T {\displaystyle V=vv^{T}} , so Eq. 2 is equivalent to Eq. 1. Moreover, the rank constraint in this formulation is actually redundant, and therefore sparse PCA can be cast as the following mixed-integer semidefinite program max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 | V i , i | ≤ z i , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } , | V i , j | ≤ 1 2 z i , ∀ i , j ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } : i ≠ j , V ⪰ 0 , z ∈ { 0 , 1 } p , ∑ i z i ≤ k {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\vert V_{i,i}\vert \leq z_{i},\forall i\in \{1,...,p\},\vert V_{i,j}\vert \leq {\frac {1}{2}}z_{i},\forall i,j\in \{1,...,p\}:i\neq j,\\&V\succeq 0,z\in \{0,1\}^{p},\sum _{i}z_{i}\leq k\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 Because of the cardinality constraint, the maximization problem is hard to solve exactly, especially when dimension p is high. In fact, the sparse PCA problem in Eq. 1 is NP-hard in the strong sense. == Computational considerations == As most sparse problems, variable selection in SPCA is a computationally intractable non-convex NP-hard problem, therefore greedy sub-optimal algorithms are often employed to find solutions. Note also that SPCA introduces hyperparameters quantifying in what capacity large parameter values are penalized. These might need tuning to achieve satisfactory performance, thereby adding to the total computational cost. == Algorithms for SPCA == Several alternative approaches (of Eq. 1) have been proposed, including a regression framework, a penalized matrix decomposition framework, a convex relaxation/semidefinite programming framework, a generalized power method framework an alternating maximization framework forward-backward greedy search and exact methods using branch-and-bound techniques, a certifiably optimal branch-and-bound approach Bayesian formulation framework. A certifiably optimal mixed-integer semidefinite branch-and-cut approach The methodological and theoretical developments of Sparse PCA as well as its applications in scientific studies are recently reviewed in a survey paper. === Notes on Semidefinite Programming Relaxation === It has been proposed that sparse PCA can be approximated by semidefinite programming (SDP). If one drops the rank constraint and relaxes the cardinality constraint by a 1-norm convex constraint, one gets a semidefinite programming relaxation, which can be solved efficiently in polynomial time: max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 1 T | V | 1 ≤ k V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\mathbf {1} ^{T}|V|\mathbf {1} \leq k\\&V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 In the second constraint, 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a p×1 vector of ones, and |V| is the matrix whose elements are the absolute values of the elements of V. The optimal solution V {\displaystyle V} to the relaxed problem Eq. 3 is not guaranteed to have rank one. In that case, V {\displaystyle V} can be truncated to retain only the dominant eigenvector. While the semidefinite program does not scale beyond n=300 covariates, it has been shown that a second-order cone relaxation of the semidefinite relaxation is almost as tight and successfully solves problems with n=1000s of covariates == Applications == === Financial Data Analysis === Suppose ordinary PCA is applied to a dataset where each input variable represents a different asset, it may generate principal components that are weighted combination of all the assets. In contrast, sparse PCA would produce principal components that are weighted combination of only a few input assets, so one can easily interpret its meaning. Furthermore, if one uses a trading strategy based on these principal components, fewer assets imply less transaction costs. === Biology === Consider a dataset where each input variable corresponds to a specific gene. Sparse PCA can produce a principal component that involves only a few genes, so researchers can focus on these specific genes for further analysis. === High-dimensional Hypothesis Testing === Contemporary datasets often have the number of input variables ( p {\displaystyle p} ) comparable with or even much larger than the number of samples ( n {\displaystyle n} ). It has been shown that if p / n {\displaystyle p/n} does not converge to zero, the classical PCA is not consistent. In other words, if we let k = p {\displaystyle k=p} in Eq. 1, then the optimal value does not converge to the largest eigenvalue of data population when the sample size n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } , and the optimal solution does not converge to the direction of maximum variance. But sparse PCA can retain consistency even if p ≫ n . {\displaystyle p\gg n.} The k-sparse largest eigenvalue (the optimal value of Eq. 1) can be used to discriminate an isometric model, where every direction has the same variance, from a spiked covariance model in high-dimensional setting. Consider a hypothesis test where the null hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} are generated from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance equal to an identity matrix, and the alternative hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} is generated from a spiked model with signal strength θ {\displaystyle \theta } : H 0 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p ) , H 1 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p + θ v v T ) , {\displaystyle H_{0}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}),\quad H_{1}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}+\theta vv^{T}),} where v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}

  Read more →
• 

  Expectation–maximization algorithm

  In statistics, an expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm is an iterative method to find (local) maximum likelihood or maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of parameters in statistical models, where the model depends on unobserved latent variables. The EM iteration alternates between performing an expectation (E) step, which creates a function for the expectation of the log-likelihood evaluated using the current estimate for the parameters, and a maximization (M) step, which computes parameters maximizing the expected log-likelihood found on the E step. These parameter-estimates are then used to determine the distribution of the latent variables in the next E step. It can be used, for example, to estimate a mixture of gaussians, or to solve the multiple linear regression problem. == History == The EM algorithm was explained and given its name in a classic 1977 paper by Arthur Dempster, Nan Laird, and Donald Rubin. They pointed out that the method had been "proposed many times in special circumstances" by earlier authors. One of the earliest is the gene-counting method for estimating allele frequencies by Cedric Smith. Another was proposed by H.O. Hartley in 1958, and Hartley and Hocking in 1977, from which many of the ideas in the Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper originated. Another one by S.K Ng, Thriyambakam Krishnan and G.J McLachlan in 1977. Hartley's ideas can be broadened to any grouped discrete distribution. A very detailed treatment of the EM method for exponential families was published by Rolf Sundberg in his thesis and several papers, following his collaboration with Per Martin-Löf and Anders Martin-Löf. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper in 1977 generalized the method and sketched a convergence analysis for a wider class of problems. The Dempster–Laird–Rubin paper established the EM method as an important tool of statistical analysis. See also Meng and van Dyk (1997). The convergence analysis of the Dempster–Laird–Rubin algorithm was flawed and a correct convergence analysis was published by C. F. Jeff Wu in 1983. Wu's proof established the EM method's convergence also outside of the exponential family, as claimed by Dempster–Laird–Rubin. == Introduction == The EM algorithm is used to find (local) maximum likelihood parameters of a statistical model in cases where the equations cannot be solved directly. Typically these models involve latent variables in addition to unknown parameters and known data observations. That is, either missing values exist among the data, or the model can be formulated more simply by assuming the existence of further unobserved data points. For example, a mixture model can be described more simply by assuming that each observed data point has a corresponding unobserved data point, or latent variable, specifying the mixture component to which each data point belongs. Finding a maximum likelihood solution typically requires taking the derivatives of the likelihood function with respect to all the unknown values, the parameters and the latent variables, and simultaneously solving the resulting equations. In statistical models with latent variables, this is usually impossible. Instead, the result is typically a set of interlocking equations in which the solution to the parameters requires the values of the latent variables and vice versa, but substituting one set of equations into the other produces an unsolvable equation. The EM algorithm proceeds from the observation that there is a way to solve these two sets of equations numerically. One can simply pick arbitrary values for one of the two sets of unknowns, use them to estimate the second set, then use these new values to find a better estimate of the first set, and then keep alternating between the two until the resulting values both converge to fixed points. It's not obvious that this will work, but it can be proven in this context. Additionally, it can be proven that the derivative of the likelihood is (arbitrarily close to) zero at that point, which in turn means that the point is either a local maximum or a saddle point. In general, multiple maxima may occur, with no guarantee that the global maximum will be found. Some likelihoods also have singularities in them, i.e., nonsensical maxima. For example, one of the solutions that may be found by EM in a mixture model involves setting one of the components to have zero variance and the mean parameter for the same component to be equal to one of the data points. == Description == === The symbols === Given the statistical model which generates a set X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } of observed data, a set of unobserved latent data or missing values Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , and a vector of unknown parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , along with a likelihood function L ( θ ; X , Z ) = p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} )=p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})} , the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the unknown parameters is determined by maximizing the marginal likelihood of the observed data L ( θ ; X ) = p ( X ∣ θ ) = ∫ p ( X , Z ∣ θ ) d Z = ∫ p ( X ∣ Z , θ ) p ( Z ∣ θ ) d Z {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}L({\boldsymbol {\theta }};\mathbf {X} )=p(\mathbf {X} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})&=\int p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \\&=\int p(\mathbf {X} \mid \mathbf {Z} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }})p(\mathbf {Z} \mid {\boldsymbol {\theta }})\,d\mathbf {Z} \end{aligned}}} However, this quantity is often intractable since Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unobserved and the distribution of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } is unknown before attaining θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} . === The EM algorithm === The EM algorithm seeks to find the maximum likelihood estimate of the marginal likelihood by iteratively applying these two steps: More succinctly, we can write it as one equation: θ ( t + 1 ) = arg ⁡ max θ ⁡ E Z ∼ p ( ⋅ | X , θ ( t ) ) ⁡ [ log ⁡ p ( X , Z | θ ) ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t+1)}=\mathop {\arg \max } _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}\operatorname {E} _{\mathbf {Z} \sim p(\cdot |\mathbf {X} ,{\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{(t)})}\left[\log p(\mathbf {X} ,\mathbf {Z} |{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right]\,} === Interpretation of the variables === The typical models to which EM is applied use Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } as a latent variable indicating membership in one of a set of groups: The observed data points X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } may be discrete (taking values in a finite or countably infinite set) or continuous (taking values in an uncountably infinite set). Associated with each data point may be a vector of observations. The missing values (aka latent variables) Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are discrete, drawn from a fixed number of values, and with one latent variable per observed unit. The parameters are continuous, and are of two kinds: Parameters that are associated with all data points, and those associated with a specific value of a latent variable (i.e., associated with all data points whose corresponding latent variable has that value). However, it is possible to apply EM to other sorts of models. The motivation is as follows. If the value of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} is known, usually the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } can be found by maximizing the log-likelihood over all possible values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , either simply by iterating over Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } or through an algorithm such as the Viterbi algorithm for hidden Markov models. Conversely, if we know the value of the latent variables Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } , we can find an estimate of the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} fairly easily, typically by simply grouping the observed data points according to the value of the associated latent variable and averaging the values, or some function of the values, of the points in each group. This suggests an iterative algorithm, in the case where both θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} and Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are unknown: First, initialize the parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} to some random values. Compute the probability of each possible value of ⁠ Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } ⁠, given ⁠ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} ⁠. Then, use the just-computed values of Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } to compute a better estimate for the parameters ⁠ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} ⁠. Iterate steps 2 and 3 until convergence. The algorithm as just described monotonically approaches a local minimum of the cost function. == Properties == Although an EM iteration does increase the observed data (i.e., marginal) likelihood function, no guarantee exists that the sequence converges to a maximum likelihood estimator. For multimodal distributions, this means that an EM algorithm may co

  Read more →
• 

  Error tolerance (PAC learning)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Conduit (company)

  Conduit Ltd. is an international software company. From its founding in 2005 to 2013, its most well-known product was the Conduit toolbar, which was widely-described as malware. In 2013, it spun off its toolbar business; today, its main product is a mobile development platform that allows users to create native and web mobile applications for smartphones. == Products == From 2005 to 2013, the company's most well-known product was the Conduit toolbar, which is flagged by most antivirus software as potentially unwanted and adware. Conduit's toolbar software is often downloaded by malware packages from other publishers. The company spun off the toolbar division that manages the Conduit toolbar in 2013. Today, the company's main product is a mobile development platform that allows users to create native and web mobile applications for smartphones. App creation for its App Gallery is free, but it charges a monthly subscription fee to place apps on the App Store or Google Play. == History == Conduit was founded in 2005 by Shilo, Dror Erez, and Gaby Bilcyzk. Between years 2005 and 2013, it ran a successful but controversial toolbar platform business. Conduit was part of the so-called Download Valley companies monetizing free software and downloads by bundling adware. The toolbars were criticized by some as being very difficult to uninstall. The toolbar software was referred to as a "potentially unwanted program" by some in the computer industry because it could be used to change browser settings. The company had more than 400 employees in 2013. In September same year, Conduit spun off its entire website toolbar business division, which combined with Perion Network. After the deal, Conduit shareholders owned 81% of Perion's existing shares and both Perion and Conduit remained independent companies. The substantial size of the Conduit user base allowed Perion to immediately surpass AOL in U.S. searches. In 2015, Conduit announced it would purchase Keeprz, a mobile customer loyalty platform, for $45 million.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized multidimensional scaling

  Generalized multidimensional scaling (GMDS) is an extension of metric multidimensional scaling, in which the target space is non-Euclidean. When the dissimilarities are distances on a surface and the target space is another surface, GMDS allows finding the minimum-distortion embedding of one surface into another. GMDS is an emerging research direction. Currently, main applications are recognition of deformable objects (e.g. for three-dimensional face recognition) and texture mapping.

  Read more →
• 

  NSynth

  NSynth (a portmanteau of "Neural Synthesis") is a WaveNet-based autoencoder for synthesizing audio, outlined in a paper in April 2017. == Overview == The model generates sounds through a neural network based synthesis, employing a WaveNet-style autoencoder to learn its own temporal embeddings from four different sounds. Google then released an open source hardware interface for the algorithm called NSynth Super, used by notable musicians such as Grimes and YACHT to generate experimental music using artificial intelligence. The research and development of the algorithm was part of a collaboration between Google Brain, Magenta and DeepMind. == Technology == === Dataset === The NSynth dataset is composed of 305,979 one-shot instrumental notes featuring a unique pitch, timbre, and envelope, sampled from 1,006 instruments from commercial sample libraries. For each instrument the dataset contains four-second 16 kHz audio snippets by ranging over every pitch of a standard MIDI piano, as well as five different velocities. The dataset is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. === Machine learning model === A spectral autoencoder model and a WaveNet autoencoder model are publicly available on GitHub. The baseline model uses a spectrogram with fft_size 1024 and hop_size 256, MSE loss on the magnitudes, and the Griffin-Lim algorithm for reconstruction. The WaveNet model trains on mu-law encoded waveform chunks of size 6144. It learns embeddings with 16 dimensions that are downsampled by 512 in time. == NSynth Super == In 2018 Google released a hardware interface for the NSynth algorithm, called NSynth Super, designed to provide an accessible physical interface to the algorithm for musicians to use in their artistic production. Design files, source code and internal components are released under an open source Apache License 2.0, enabling hobbyists and musicians to freely build and use the instrument. At the core of the NSynth Super there is a Raspberry Pi, extended with a custom printed circuit board to accommodate the interface elements. == Influence == Despite not being publicly available as a commercial product, NSynth Super has been used by notable artists, including Grimes and YACHT. Grimes reported using the instrument in her 2020 studio album Miss Anthropocene. YACHT announced an extensive use of NSynth Super in their album Chain Tripping. Claire L. Evans compared the potential influence of the instrument to the Roland TR-808. The NSynth Super design was honored with a D&AD Yellow Pencil award in 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  Prescription monitoring program

  In the United States, prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) or prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-run programs which collect and distribute data about the prescription and dispensation of federally controlled substances and, depending on state requirements, other potentially abusable prescription drugs. PMPs are meant to help prevent adverse drug-related events such as opioid overdoses, drug diversion, and substance abuse by decreasing the amount and/or frequency of opioid prescribing, and by identifying those patients who are obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e., "doctor shopping") or those physicians overprescribing opioids. Most US health care workers support the idea of PMPs, which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments. The database, whose use is required by State law, typically requires prescribers and pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense from their offices) to report the dispensation of such prescriptions to an electronic online database. The majority of PMPs are authorized to notify law enforcement agencies or licensing boards or physicians when a prescriber, or patients receiving prescriptions, exceed thresholds established by the state or prescription recipient exceeds thresholds established by the State. All states have implemented PDMPs, although evidence for the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. While prescription of opioids has decreased with PMP use, overdose deaths in many states have actually increased, with those states sharing data with neighboring jurisdictions or requiring reporting of more drugs experiencing highest increases in deaths. This may be because those declined opioid prescriptions turn to street drugs, whose potency and contaminants carry greater overdose risk. == History == Prescription drug monitoring programs, or PDMPs, are an example of one initiative proposed to alleviate effects of the opioid crisis. The programs are designed to restrict prescription drug abuse by limiting a patient's ability to obtain similar prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e. “doctor shopping”) and reducing diversion of controlled substances. This is meant to reduce risk of fatal overdose caused by high doses of opioids or interactions between opioids and benzodiazepenes, and to enable better decision making on the part of healthcare providers who may be unaware of a patient's prescription drug use, history or other prescriptions. PDMPs have been implemented in state legislations since 1939 in California, a time before electronic medical records, though implementation rose alongside increased awareness of overprescribing of opioids and overdose. A later New York state program was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe. But, by 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had enacted PDMP legislation. In 2021 Missouri, the last State to not use a PMP, adopted legislation to create one. PMPs are constantly being updated to increase speed of data collection, sharing of data across States, and ease of interpretation. This is being done by integrating PDMP reports with other health information technologies such as health information exchanges (HIE), electronic health record (EHR) systems, and/ or pharmacy dispensing software systems. One program that has been implemented in nine states is called the PDMP Electronic Health Records Integration and Interoperability Expansion, also known as PEHRIIE. Another software, marketed by Bamboo Health and integrated with PMPs in 43 states, uses an algorithm to track factors thought to increase risk of diversion, abuse or overdose, and assigns patients a three digit score based on presumed indicators of risk. While some studies have suggested that PDMP-HIT integration and sharing of interstate data brings benefits such as reduced opioid-related inpatient morbidity, others have found no or negative impact on mortality compared to states without PMP data sharing. Patient and media reports suggest need for testing and evaluation of algorithmic software used to score risk, with some patients reporting denial of prescriptions without c explanation or clarity of data. == Goals == Most health care workers support PMPs which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments, as well as law-enforcement agencies. The collaboration supports the legitimate medical use of controlled substances while limiting their abuse and diversion. Pharmacies dispensing controlled substances and prescribers typically must register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense controlled substances from their offices) report the dispensation to an electronic online database. Some pharmacy software can submit these reports automatically to multiple states. == Usage == === List of programs by state === === Software systems === NarxCare is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) run by Bamboo Health. Bamboo Health was formerly known as Appriss. It is widely used across the United States by pharmacies including Rite Aid as well as those at Walmart and Sam’s Club. The NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient, combining data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states to make the registries interoperable nationally. It also uses machine learning to generate an "Overdose Risk Score" that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data; these scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Advertised as an "analytics tool and care management platform", the NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient including how many pharmacies they have visited and the combinations of medication they are prescribed. It combines data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states, making the registries interoperable nationally. It additionally uses machine learning to generate various three-digit "risk scores" and an overall "Overdose Risk Score", collectively referred to as Narx Scores, in a process that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data as well as court records. == Controversy == Many doctors and researchers support the idea of PDMPs as a tool in combatting the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing, opioid diversion and supply, opioid misuse, and opioid-related morbidity and mortality are common elements in data entered into PDMPs. Prescription Monitoring Programs are purported to offer economic benefits for the states who implement them by decreasing overall health care costs, lost productivity, and investigation times. However, there are many studies that conclude the impact of PDMPs is unclear. While use of PMPs has been accompanied by decrease in opioid prescribing, few analyses consider corresponding use of street opioids, extramedical use, or diversion, which might provide a more holistic method for evaluation of PMP intent and efficacy. Evidence for PDMP impact on fatal overdoses is decidedly mixed, with multiple studies finding increased overdose rates in some states, decreases in others, or no clear impact. Interestingly, an increase in heroin overdoses after PDMP implementation has been commonly reported, presumably as denial of prescription opioids sends patients in search of street drugs. Narx Scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the generation process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Writing in Duke Law Journal, Jennifer Oliva stated that "black-box algorithms" are used to generate the scores.

  Read more →
• 

  Commonsense knowledge (artificial intelligence)

  In artificial intelligence research, commonsense knowledge consists of facts about the everyday world, such as "Lemons are sour" or "Cows say moo", that all humans are expected to know. It is currently an unsolved problem in artificial general intelligence. The first AI program to address common sense knowledge was Advice Taker in 1959 by John McCarthy. Commonsense knowledge can underpin a commonsense reasoning process, to attempt inferences such as "You might bake a cake because you want people to eat the cake." A natural language processing process can be attached to the commonsense knowledge base to allow the knowledge base to attempt to answer questions about the world. Common sense knowledge also helps to solve problems in the face of incomplete information. Using widely held beliefs about everyday objects, or common sense knowledge, AI systems make common sense assumptions or default assumptions about the unknown similar to the way people do. In an AI system or in English, this is expressed as "Normally P holds", "Usually P" or "Typically P so Assume P". For example, if we know the fact "Tweety is a bird", because we know the commonly held belief about birds, "typically birds fly," without knowing anything else about Tweety, we may reasonably assume the fact that "Tweety can fly." As more knowledge of the world is discovered or learned over time, the AI system can revise its assumptions about Tweety using a truth maintenance process. If we later learn that "Tweety is a penguin" then truth maintenance revises this assumption because we also know "penguins do not fly". == Commonsense reasoning == Commonsense reasoning simulates the human ability to use commonsense knowledge to make presumptions about the type and essence of ordinary situations they encounter every day, and to change their "minds" should new information come to light. This includes time, missing or incomplete information and cause and effect. The ability to explain cause and effect is an important aspect of explainable AI. Truth maintenance algorithms automatically provide an explanation facility because they create elaborate records of presumptions. Compared with humans, all existing computer programs that attempt human-level AI perform extremely poorly on modern "commonsense reasoning" benchmark tests such as the Winograd Schema Challenge. The problem of attaining human-level competency at "commonsense knowledge" tasks is considered to probably be "AI complete" (that is, solving it would require the ability to synthesize a fully human-level intelligence), although some oppose this notion and believe compassionate intelligence is also required for human-level AI. Common sense reasoning has been applied successfully in more limited domains such as natural language processing and automated diagnosis or analysis. == Commonsense knowledge base construction == Compiling comprehensive knowledge bases of commonsense assertions (CSKBs) is a long-standing challenge in AI research. From early expert-driven efforts like CYC and WordNet, significant advances were achieved via the crowdsourced OpenMind Commonsense project, which led to the crowdsourced ConceptNet KB. Several approaches have attempted to automate CSKB construction, most notably, via text mining (WebChild, Quasimodo, TransOMCS, Ascent), as well as harvesting these directly from pre-trained language models (AutoTOMIC). These resources are significantly larger than ConceptNet, though the automated construction mostly makes them of moderately lower quality. Challenges also remain on the representation of commonsense knowledge: Most CSKB projects follow a triple data model, which is not necessarily best suited for breaking more complex natural language assertions. A notable exception here is GenericsKB, which applies no further normalization to sentences, but retains them in full. == Applications == Around 2013, MIT researchers developed BullySpace, an extension of the commonsense knowledgebase ConceptNet, to catch taunting social media comments. BullySpace included over 200 semantic assertions based around stereotypes, to help the system infer that comments like "Put on a wig and lipstick and be who you really are" are more likely to be an insult if directed at a boy than a girl. ConceptNet has also been used by chatbots and by computers that compose original fiction. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, common sense knowledge was used in an intelligent software agent to detect violations of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. == Data == As an example, as of 2012 ConceptNet includes these 21 language-independent relations: IsA (An "RV" is a "vehicle" | X is an instance of a Y) UsedFor (a "cake tin" is used for "making cakes" | X is used for the purpose Y) HasA (A "rabbit" has a "tail" | X possesses Y element or feature) CapableOf (a "cook" is capable of "making baked goods" | X is capable of doing Y) Desires (a "child" desires "the aroma of baking" | X has a desire for Y) CreatedBy ("cake" is created by a "baker" | X is created by Y) PartOf (a "knife" is be part of a "knife set" | X is a part of Y) Causes ("Heat" causes "cooking"| X is what causes Y) LocatedNear (the "oven" is located near the "refrigerator" | X is located near Y) AtLocation (Somewhere a "Cook" can be at a "restaurant" | X is at the location of Y) DefinedAs (a "Cupcake" is defined as a "cake" that also has the qualities of being "small", "baked within a wrapper", and "containing only one area of frosting or icing" | X is defined as Y that also has the properties A, B & C) SymbolOf (a "heart" is a symbol of "affection" | X is a symbolic representation of Y) ReceivesAction ("cake" can receive the action of being "eaten" | X is capable of receiving action Y) HasPrerequisite ("baking" has the prerequisite of obtaining the "ingredients" | X cannot do Y unless A does B) MotivatedByGoal ("baking" is motivated by the goal of "consumption"/"eating" | X has the motivation of Y goal) CausesDesire ("baking" makesYou want to "follow recipe" | X causes the desire to do Y) MadeOf ("Cake" is made of "flour"/"eggs"/"sugar"/"oil"/etc | X is made of Y) HasFirstSubevent ("baking" has first subevent "make batter" | To do X the first thing that needs to be done is Y) HasSubevent ("eat" has subevent "swallow" | Doing X will lead to Y event following) HasLastSubevent ("sleeping" has last subevent of "waking" | Doing X ends with the event Y) == Commonsense knowledge bases == Cyc Open Mind Common Sense (data source) and ConceptNet (datastore and NLP engine) Evi Graphiq

  Read more →
• 

  Polynomial kernel

  In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.

  Read more →
• 

  International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing

  ICASSP, the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, is an annual flagship conference organized by IEEE Signal Processing Society. Ei Compendex has indexed all papers included in its proceedings. The first ICASSP was held in 1976 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, based on the success of a conference in Massachusetts four years earlier that had focused specifically on speech signals. As ranked by Google Scholar's h-index metric in 2016, ICASSP has the highest h-index of any conference in the Signal Processing field. The Brazilian ministry of education gave the conference an 'A1' rating based on its h-index. == Conference list ==

  Read more →