AI Detector Deepseek

AI Detector Deepseek — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine

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

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Ordination (statistics)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Ordination (statistics)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Self-management (computer science)

  Self-management is the process by which computer systems manage their own operation without human intervention. Self-management technologies are expected to pervade the next generation of network management systems. The growing complexity of modern networked computer systems is a limiting factor in their expansion. The increasing heterogeneity of corporate computer systems, the inclusion of mobile computing devices, and the combination of different networking technologies like WLAN, cellular phone networks, and mobile ad hoc networks make the conventional, manual management difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone. More recently, self-management has been suggested as a solution to increasing complexity in cloud computing. An industrial initiative towards realizing self-management is the Autonomic Computing Initiative (ACI) started by IBM in 2001. The ACI defines the following four functional areas: Self-configuration Auto-configuration of components Self-healing Automatic discovery, and correction of faults; automatically applying all necessary actions to bring system back to normal operation Self-optimization Automatic monitoring and control of resources to ensure the optimal functioning with respect to the defined requirements Self-protection Proactive identification and protection from arbitrary attacks

  Read more →
• 

  Jpred

  Jpred v.4 is the latest version of the JPred Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Server which provides predictions by the JNet algorithm, one of the most accurate methods for secondary structure prediction, that has existed since 1998 in different versions. In addition to protein secondary structure, JPred also makes predictions of solvent accessibility and coiled-coil regions. The JPred service runs up to 134 000 jobs per month and has carried out over 2 million predictions in total for users in 179 countries. == JPred 2 == The static HTML pages of JPred 2 are still available for reference. == JPred 3 == The JPred v3 followed on from previous versions of JPred developed and maintained by James Cuff and Jonathan Barber (see JPred References). This release added new functionality and fixed many bugs. The highlights are: New, friendlier user interface Retrained and optimised version of Jnet (v2) - mean secondary structure prediction accuracy of >81% Batch submission of jobs Better error checking of input sequences/alignments Predictions now (optionally) returned via e-mail Users may provide their own query names for each submission JPred now makes a prediction even when there are no PSI-BLAST hits to the query PS/PDF output now incorporates all the predictions == JPred 4 == The current version of JPred (v4) has the following improvements and updates incorporated: Retrained on the latest UniRef90 and SCOPe/ASTRAL version of Jnet (v2.3.1) - mean secondary structure prediction accuracy of >82%. Upgraded the Web Server to the latest technologies (Bootstrap framework, JavaScript) and updating the web pages – improving the design and usability through implementing responsive technologies. Added RESTful API and mass-submission and results retrieval scripts - resulting in peak throughput above 20,000 predictions per day. Added prediction jobs monitoring tools. Upgraded the results reporting – both, on the web-site, and through the optional email summary reports: improved batch submission, added results summary preview through Jalview results visualization summary in SVG and adding full multiple sequence alignments into the reports. Improved help-pages, incorporating tool-tips, and adding one-page step-by-step tutorials. Sequence residues are categorised or assigned to one of the secondary structure elements, such as alpha-helix, beta-sheet and coiled-coil. Jnet uses two neural networks for its prediction. The first network is fed with a window of 17 residues over each amino acid in the alignment plus a conservation number. It uses a hidden layer of nine nodes and has three output nodes, one for each secondary structure element. The second network is fed with a window of 19 residues (the result of first network) plus the conservation number. It has a hidden layer with nine nodes and has three output nodes.

  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 →
• 

  Growth function

  The growth function, also called the shatter coefficient or the shattering number, measures the richness of a set family or class of functions. It is especially used in the context of statistical learning theory, where it is used to study properties of statistical learning methods. The term 'growth function' was coined by Vapnik and Chervonenkis in their 1968 paper, where they also proved many of its properties. It is a basic concept in machine learning. == Definitions == === Set-family definition === Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set family (a set of sets) and C {\displaystyle C} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set-family: H ∩ C := { h ∩ C ∣ h ∈ H } {\displaystyle H\cap C:=\{h\cap C\mid h\in H\}} The intersection-size (also called the index) of H {\displaystyle H} with respect to C {\displaystyle C} is | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle |H\cap C|} . If a set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} has m {\displaystyle m} elements then the index is at most 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} . If the index is exactly 2m then the set C {\displaystyle C} is said to be shattered by H {\displaystyle H} , because H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all the subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e.: | H ∩ C | = 2 | C | , {\displaystyle |H\cap C|=2^{|C|},} The growth function measures the size of H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} . Formally: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H\cap C|} === Hypothesis-class definition === Equivalently, let H {\displaystyle H} be a hypothesis-class (a set of binary functions) and C {\displaystyle C} a set with m {\displaystyle m} elements. The restriction of H {\displaystyle H} to C {\displaystyle C} is the set of binary functions on C {\displaystyle C} that can be derived from H {\displaystyle H} : H C := { ( h ( x 1 ) , … , h ( x m ) ) ∣ h ∈ H , x i ∈ C } {\displaystyle H_{C}:=\{(h(x_{1}),\ldots ,h(x_{m}))\mid h\in H,x_{i}\in C\}} The growth function measures the size of H C {\displaystyle H_{C}} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H_{C}|} == Examples == 1. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-lines (rays) from a given number to positive infinity, i.e., all sets of the form { x > x 0 ∣ x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x>x_{0}\mid x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains m + 1 {\displaystyle m+1} sets: the empty set, the set containing the largest element of C {\displaystyle C} , the set containing the two largest elements of C {\displaystyle C} , and so on. Therefore: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = m + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=m+1} . The same is true whether H {\displaystyle H} contains open half-lines, closed half-lines, or both. 2. The domain is the segment [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the open sets. For any finite set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} . There are 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} such subsets, so Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} . 3. The domain is the Euclidean space R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-spaces of the form: x ⋅ ϕ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle x\cdot \phi \geq 1} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a fixed vector. Then Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=\operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} , where Comp is the number of components in a partitioning of an n-dimensional space by m hyperplanes. 4. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the real intervals, i.e., all sets of the form { x ∈ [ x 0 , x 1 ] | x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x\in [x_{0},x_{1}]|x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 , x 1 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0},x_{1}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all runs of between 0 and m {\displaystyle m} consecutive elements of C {\displaystyle C} . The number of such runs is ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle {m+1 \choose 2}+1} , so Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)={m+1 \choose 2}+1} . == Polynomial or exponential == The main property that makes the growth function interesting is that it can be either polynomial or exponential - nothing in-between. The following is a property of the intersection-size: If, for some set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} of size m {\displaystyle m} , and for some number n ≤ m {\displaystyle n\leq m} , | H ∩ C m | ≥ Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{m}|\geq \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} - then, there exists a subset C n ⊆ C m {\displaystyle C_{n}\subseteq C_{m}} of size n {\displaystyle n} such that | H ∩ C n | = 2 n {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{n}|=2^{n}} . This implies the following property of the Growth function. For every family H {\displaystyle H} there are two cases: The exponential case: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} identically. The polynomial case: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} is majorized by Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) ≤ m n + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)\leq m^{n}+1} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the smallest integer for which Growth ⁡ ( H , n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,n)<2^{n}} . == Other properties == === Trivial upper bound === For any finite H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ | H | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq |H|} since for every C {\displaystyle C} , the number of elements in H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} is at most | H | {\displaystyle |H|} . Therefore, the growth function is mainly interesting when H {\displaystyle H} is infinite. === Exponential upper bound === For any nonempty H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq 2^{m}} I.e, the growth function has an exponential upper-bound. We say that a set-family H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C {\displaystyle C} if their intersection contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e. H ∩ C = 2 C {\displaystyle H\cap C=2^{C}} . If H {\displaystyle H} shatters C {\displaystyle C} of size m {\displaystyle m} , then Growth ⁡ ( H , C ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,C)=2^{m}} , which is the upper bound. === Cartesian intersection === Define the Cartesian intersection of two set-families as: H 1 ⨂ H 2 := { h 1 ∩ h 2 ∣ h 1 ∈ H 1 , h 2 ∈ H 2 } {\displaystyle H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2}:=\{h_{1}\cap h_{2}\mid h_{1}\in H_{1},h_{2}\in H_{2}\}} . Then: Growth ⁡ ( H 1 ⨂ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ⁡ ( H 1 , m ) ⋅ Growth ⁡ ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)\cdot \operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === Union === For every two set-families: Growth ⁡ ( H 1 ∪ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ⁡ ( H 1 , m ) + Growth ⁡ ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\cup H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)+\operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === VC dimension === The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} is defined according to these two cases: In the polynomial case, VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = n − 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=n-1} = the largest integer d {\displaystyle d} for which Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . In the exponential case VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = ∞ {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=\infty } . So VCDim ⁡ ( H ) ≥ d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)\geq d} if-and-only-if Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . The growth function can be regarded as a refinement of the concept of VC dimension. The VC dimension only tells us whether Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)} is equal to or smaller than 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} , while the growth function tells us exactly how Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} changes as a function of m {\displaystyle m} . Another connection between the growth function and the VC dimension is given by the Sauer–Shelah lemma: If VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=d} , then: for all m {\displaystyle m} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ ∑ i = 0 d ( m i ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq \sum _{i=0}^{d}{m \choose i}} In particular, for all m > d + 1 {\displaystyle m>d+1} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ ( e m / d ) d = O ( m d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq (

  Read more →
• 

  Agentive logic

  Agentive logic (also called the logic of action or logic of agency) is the field of philosophical logic and logic in computer science that studies formal representations of agents, their actions, and their abilities. An agentive logic in the narrower sense is a formal system whose primitive operators express that an agent does something, can do something, or sees to it that something is the case. Agentive logics generalise modal logic by adding modalities indexed to agents and to actions. Typical examples include: STIT logics (from sees to it that) with operators of the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} meaning that agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; dynamic logics of action with program-like modalities [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } meaning, roughly, that after every (respectively, some) execution(s) of action α {\displaystyle \alpha } , φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds; logics with explicit agentive operators such as "can do", "brings about", or "is able to ensure". Agentive logics are used in action theory in philosophy, in the semantics of natural language, in the theory of program verification, and in artificial intelligence, where they underpin formalisms for reasoning about actions, planning, and intelligent agents. == Terminology and scope == The adjective agentive derives from the Latin agens ("one who acts") and originally referred to the grammatical agent of a verb. In logical contexts it designates operators or predicates whose primary argument position is an agent rather than a proposition alone, for example A i φ {\displaystyle A_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} does φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ") or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } ("agent i {\displaystyle i} can bring about φ {\displaystyle \varphi } "). In contemporary literature, agentive logic is sometimes used narrowly for formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's modal account of facere ("to do"). More broadly, the term is used interchangeably with logic of action or logic of agency to cover a family of modal and dynamic logics designed to capture the structure of action and choice. == Historical background == === Medieval and early modern roots === Medieval logicians already explored analogies between modalities of action and alethic modalities such as possibility and necessity, for instance, in discussions of obligation and power. An influential early agentive analysis is due to St. Anselm (11th century), who treated "doing φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " as a kind of modal operator on propositions, anticipating later modal logics of agency. Modern reconstructions of Anselm's theory show that the resulting "agentive logic" can be modelled with neighbourhood semantics and satisfies a recognisable square of opposition. === Modern logic of action === Modern study of the logic of action began in the mid-20th century, parallel to developments in deontic logic and tense logic. Early systems were proposed by Georg Henrik von Wright, Stig Kanger, and others, often motivated by questions about norms and responsibility. From the 1960s onward, two largely independent but eventually converging traditions emerged: a branching-time tradition, culminating in STIT logics, emphasising agents' choices among possible futures; and dynamic logics of programs and actions, developed within computer science to reason about program execution. In the 1990s and 2000s, action logics were further developed in connection with knowledge representation, planning, and multi-agent systems in AI, and with dynamic and update semantics in linguistics. == Core ideas == Despite their diversity, most agentive logics share some general themes: Agents are treated as explicit indices of modal operators, as in [ i d o e s ] φ {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {does}}]\varphi } or C i φ {\displaystyle C_{i}\varphi } . Actions are represented either implicitly, via changes between possible worlds along an accessibility relation, or explicitly, as terms denoting primitive and composite actions. Choice and ability are captured by modalities describing what an agent can ensure, usually relative to assumptions about the environment and other agents. Formal properties such as closure under composition, interaction between different agents, and connections to obligation (what an agent ought to do) and knowledge (what an agent knows how to do) are investigated. == STIT logics == STIT ("sees to it that") logics, originating in work by Nuel Belnap and collaborators, treat agency in a branching-time framework. A STIT model consists of a partially ordered set of moments with a tree-like structure, sets of histories (maximal branches through the tree), and for each agent at each moment, a partition of the histories through that moment representing the choices available to the agent. Intuitively, an agent's action at a moment determines which equivalence class (choice cell) of histories becomes actual; a formula [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} is true at a history–moment pair if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds on all histories in the choice cell corresponding to the agent's current action. Different STIT operators have been distinguished, notably: the Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , which requires only that the agent's choice guarantees φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ; and the deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , which additionally requires that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is not already historically necessary. STIT frameworks have been extended with group agency operators, temporal modalities, epistemic operators, and deontic operators to study responsibility, collective action, and obligations under indeterminism. == Dynamic logics of action == Dynamic logic was originally developed to reason about the behaviour of computer programs, treating program execution as a kind of action. In propositional dynamic logic (PDL), action terms α , β , … {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\dots } denote abstract programs or actions, and formulas of the form [ α ] φ {\displaystyle [\alpha ]\varphi } and ⟨ α ⟩ φ {\displaystyle \langle \alpha \rangle \varphi } express that all, respectively some, terminating executions of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to states where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. From the standpoint of agentive logic, dynamic logic provides: a language for building complex actions from primitives via sequencing, choice, and iteration (e.g., α ; β {\displaystyle \alpha ;\beta } , α ∪ β {\displaystyle \alpha \cup \beta } , α ∗ {\displaystyle \alpha ^{}} ); a Kripke semantics in which actions correspond to labelled accessibility relations; and proof systems (such as Hoare logic and weakest precondition calculi) for reasoning about the correctness of action sequences. Extensions such as concurrent dynamic logic add operators for parallel composition, allowing reasoning about interacting processes and concurrent actions. John-Jules Ch. Meyer and others have argued that dynamic logic is a natural base for logics of agents, by adding modalities for knowledge, belief, and ability on top of the action modalities. Dynamic logics have also been applied to normative reasoning, yielding dynamic deontic logics where actions are related to obligations and permissions, and to dynamic epistemic logics in which information-changing actions such as announcements are modelled as programs. == Situation calculus and other action formalisms == In artificial intelligence, reasoning about action and change is often based on first-order languages that explicitly represent situations, events, and fluents (time-varying properties). The best known is situation calculus, introduced by John McCarthy and developed extensively by Raymond Reiter. In such formalisms: action terms name primitive actions; a function symbol (often d o {\displaystyle {\mathsf {do}}} ) maps an action and a situation to a successor situation; and axioms describe which fluents hold in which situations and how actions change them. Reiter's successor state axioms give compact specifications of how each fluent changes under all actions, and precondition axioms specify when actions are possible. Related formalisms include the event calculus and fluent calculus, which provide alternative ways of representing events and their effects. While these systems are often first-order rather than modal, they are closely related to agentive logics: their action terms and transition structures can be seen as providing models for dynamic or STIT-style modalities, and conversely, dynamic logics can be used as abstract specification languages for such AI formalisms. == Ability, agency, and related modalities == Many agentive logics introduce explicit operators for ability or "can-do"

  Read more →
• 

  XGBoost

  XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) is an open-source software library which provides a regularizing gradient boosting framework for C++, Java, Python, R, Julia, Perl, and Scala. It works on Linux, Microsoft Windows, and macOS. From the project description, it aims to provide a "Scalable, Portable and Distributed Gradient Boosting (GBM, GBRT, GBDT) Library". It runs on a single machine, as well as the distributed processing frameworks Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, Apache Flink, and Dask. XGBoost gained much popularity and attention in the mid-2010s as the algorithm of choice for many winning teams of machine learning competitions. == History == XGBoost initially started as a research project by Tianqi Chen as part of the Distributed (Deep) Machine Learning Community (DMLC) group at the University of Washington. Initially, it began as a terminal application which could be configured using a libsvm configuration file. It became well known in the ML competition circles after its use in the winning solution of the Higgs Machine Learning Challenge. Soon after, the Python and R packages were built, and XGBoost now has package implementations for Java, Scala, Julia, Perl, and other languages. This brought the library to more developers and contributed to its popularity among the Kaggle community, where it has been used for a large number of competitions. It was soon integrated with a number of other packages making it easier to use in their respective communities. It has now been integrated with scikit-learn for Python users and with the caret package for R users. It can also be integrated into Data Flow frameworks like Apache Spark, Apache Hadoop, and Apache Flink using the abstracted Rabit and XGBoost4J. XGBoost is also available on OpenCL for FPGAs. An efficient, scalable implementation of XGBoost has been published by Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. While the XGBoost model often achieves higher accuracy than a single decision tree, it sacrifices the intrinsic interpretability of decision trees. For example, following the path that a decision tree takes to make its decision is trivial and self-explained, but following the paths of hundreds or thousands of trees is much harder. == Features == Salient features of XGBoost which make it different from other gradient boosting algorithms include: Clever penalization of trees A proportional shrinking of leaf nodes Newton Boosting Extra randomization parameter Implementation on single, distributed systems and out-of-core computation Automatic feature selection Theoretically justified weighted quantile sketching for efficient computation Parallel tree structure boosting with sparsity Efficient cacheable block structure for decision tree training == The algorithm == XGBoost works as Newton–Raphson in function space unlike gradient boosting that works as gradient descent in function space, a second order Taylor approximation is used in the loss function to make the connection to Newton–Raphson method. A generic unregularized XGBoost algorithm is: == Parameters == XGBoost has parameters which can be specified to affect how it functions and performs. Some parameters include: Learning rate (also known as the "step size" or “"shrinkage"), it is a number between 0 and 1 (default is 0.3), which determines the rate the algorithm learns from each iteration. n_estimators, sets the number of trees to be built in the ensemble, where more trees generally increases the complexity of the model, but can lead to overfitting with too many trees. Gamma (also known as Lagrange multiplier or the minimum loss reduction parameter), controls the minimum amount of loss reduction required to make a further split on a leaf node of the tree. The default in XGBoost is 0 . max_depth, represents how deeply each tree in the boosting process can grow during training, where the default is 6. == Awards == John Chambers Award (2016) High Energy Physics meets Machine Learning award (HEP meets ML) (2016)

  Read more →
• 

  Ordination (statistics)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension

  In Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension is a measure of the size (capacity, complexity, expressive power, richness, or flexibility) of a class of sets. The notion can be extended to classes of binary functions. It is defined as the cardinality of the largest set of points that the function class can shatter—that is, for which all possible binary labelings can be realized by some function in the class. It was originally defined by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. Informally, the capacity of a classification model is related to how complicated it can be. For example, consider the thresholding of a high-degree polynomial: if the polynomial evaluates above zero, that point is classified as positive, otherwise as negative. A high-degree polynomial can be wiggly, so that it can fit a given set of training points well. Such a polynomial has a high capacity. A much simpler alternative is to threshold a linear function. This function may not fit the training set well, because it has a low capacity. This notion of capacity is made rigorous below. == Definitions == === VC dimension of a set-family === Let C = { C } C ∈ C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=\{C\}_{C\in {\mathcal {C}}}} be a family of sets (also called set family, collection of sets or set of sets) and X {\displaystyle X} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set family: C ∩ X := { C ∩ X ∣ C ∈ C } . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\cap X:=\{C\cap X\mid C\in {\mathcal {C}}\}.} Here typically X {\displaystyle X} and each C ∈ C {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {C}}} are subsets of a big "universe" of possibilities U {\displaystyle U} where intersection takes place. We say that a set X {\displaystyle X} is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} if P ( X ) = C ∩ X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(X)={\mathcal {C}}\cap X} i.e. the set of intersections contains (hence is equal to) all the subsets of X {\displaystyle X} . For finite sets X {\displaystyle X} this is equivalent to | C ∩ X | = 2 | X | . {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|=2^{|X|}.} The VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is the cardinality of the largest set that is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . If arbitrarily large sets can be shattered, the VC dimension of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } . === VC dimension of a classification model === A binary classification model f {\displaystyle f} with some parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is said to shatter a set of generally positioned data points ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} if, for every assignment of labels to those points, there exists a θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that the model f {\displaystyle f} makes no errors when evaluating that set of data points. The VC dimension of a model f {\displaystyle f} is the maximum number of points that can be arranged so that f {\displaystyle f} shatters them. More formally, it is the maximum cardinal D {\displaystyle D} such that there exists a generally positioned data point set of cardinality D {\displaystyle D} that can be shattered by f {\displaystyle f} . == Examples == f {\displaystyle f} is a constant classifier (with no parameters); Its VC dimension is 0 since it cannot shatter even a single point. In general, the VC dimension of a finite classification model, which can return at most 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} different classifiers, is at most d {\displaystyle d} (this is an upper bound on the VC dimension; the Sauer–Shelah lemma gives a lower bound on the dimension). f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric threshold classifier on real numbers; i.e., for a certain threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number is larger than θ {\displaystyle \theta } and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is 1 because: (a) It can shatter a single point. For every point x {\displaystyle x} , a classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} labels it as 0 if θ > x {\displaystyle \theta >x} and labels it as 1 if θ < x {\displaystyle \theta x + 2 {\displaystyle \theta >x+2} , as (1,0) if θ ∈ [ x − 4 , x − 2 ) {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-4,x-2)} , as (1,1) if θ ∈ [ x − 2 , x ] {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-2,x]} , and as (0,1) if θ ∈ ( x , x + 2 ] {\displaystyle \theta \in (x,x+2]} . (b) It cannot shatter any set of three points. For every set of three numbers, if the smallest and the largest are labeled 1, then the middle one must also be labeled 1, so not all labelings are possible. f {\displaystyle f} is a straight line as a classification model on points in a two-dimensional plane (this is the model used by a perceptron). The line should separate positive data points from negative data points. There exist sets of 3 points that can indeed be shattered using this model (any 3 points that are not collinear can be shattered). However, no set of 4 points can be shattered: by Radon's theorem, any four points can be partitioned into two subsets with intersecting convex hulls, so it is not possible to separate one of these two subsets from the other. Thus, the VC dimension of this particular classifier is 3. It is important to remember that while one can choose any arrangement of points, the arrangement of those points cannot change when attempting to shatter for some label assignment. Note, only 3 of the 23 = 8 possible label assignments are shown for the three points. f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric sine classifier, i.e., for a certain parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number x {\displaystyle x} has sin ⁡ ( θ x ) > 0 {\displaystyle \sin(\theta x)>0} and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is infinite, since it can shatter any finite subset of the set { 2 − m ∣ m ∈ N } {\displaystyle \{2^{-m}\mid m\in \mathbb {N} \}} . == Uses == === In statistical learning theory === The VC dimension can predict a probabilistic upper bound on the test error of a classification model. Vapnik proved that the probability of the test error (i.e., risk with 0–1 loss function) distancing from an upper bound (on data that is drawn i.i.d. from the same distribution as the training set) is given by: Pr ( test error ⩽ training error + 1 N [ D ( log ⁡ ( 2 N D ) + 1 ) − log ⁡ ( η 4 ) ] ) = 1 − η , {\displaystyle \Pr \left({\text{test error}}\leqslant {\text{training error}}+{\sqrt {{\frac {1}{N}}\left[D\left(\log \left({\tfrac {2N}{D}}\right)+1\right)-\log \left({\tfrac {\eta }{4}}\right)\right]}}\,\right)=1-\eta ,} where D {\displaystyle D} is the VC dimension of the classification model, 0 < η ⩽ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\eta \leqslant 1} , and N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the training set (restriction: this formula is valid when D ≪ N {\displaystyle D\ll N} . When D {\displaystyle D} is larger, the test-error may be much higher than the training-error. This is due to overfitting). The VC dimension also appears in sample-complexity bounds. A space of binary functions with VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} can be learned with: N = Θ ( D + ln ⁡ 1 δ ε 2 ) {\displaystyle N=\Theta \left({\frac {D+\ln {1 \over \delta }}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}\right)} samples, where ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is the learning error and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the failure probability. Thus, the sample-complexity is a linear function of the VC dimension of the hypothesis space. === In computational geometry === The VC dimension is one of the critical parameters in the size of ε-nets, which determines the complexity of approximation algorithms based on them; range sets without finite VC dimension may not have finite ε-nets at all. == Bounds == The VC dimension of the dual set-family of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is strictly less than 2 vc ⁡ ( C ) + 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\operatorname {vc} ({\mathcal {C}})+1}} , and this is best possible. The VC dimension of a finite set-family C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|{\mathcal {C}}|} . This is because | C ∩ X | ≤ | X | {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|\leq |X|} by definition. Given a set-fa

  Read more →
• 

  List of assembly software and tools

  This is a list of assembly software and tools, including software used for assembly language programming, machine code generation, disassembly, debugging, binary analysis, reverse engineering, and instruction-set simulation. == Assemblers and machine-code generators == == Disassemblers and binary-analysis tools == == Debuggers with assembly-level features == == Educational IDEs, simulators and emulators == == Portable and intermediate assembly-like languages == == Assembly language families == Assembly language is not a single programming language, but a family of low-level languages associated with particular instruction set architectures and processor families. Examples include:

  Read more →
• 

  Modern Hopfield network

  Modern Hopfield networks (also known as Dense Associative Memories) are generalizations of the classical Hopfield networks that break the linear scaling relationship between the number of input features and the number of stored memories. This is achieved by introducing stronger non-linearities (either in the energy function or neurons’ activation functions) leading to super-linear (even an exponential) memory storage capacity as a function of the number of feature neurons. The network still requires a sufficient number of hidden neurons. The key theoretical idea behind the modern Hopfield networks is to use an energy function and an update rule that is more sharply peaked around the stored memories in the space of neuron’s configurations compared to the classical Hopfield network. == Classical Hopfield networks == Hopfield networks are recurrent neural networks with dynamical trajectories converging to fixed point attractor states and described by an energy function. The state of each model neuron i {\textstyle i} is defined by a time-dependent variable V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} , which can be chosen to be either discrete or continuous. A complete model describes the mathematics of how the future state of activity of each neuron depends on the known present or previous activity of all the neurons. In the original Hopfield model of associative memory, the variables were binary, and the dynamics were described by a one-at-a-time update of the state of the neurons. An energy function quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} was defined, and the dynamics consisted of changing the activity of each single neuron i {\displaystyle i} only if doing so would lower the total energy of the system. This same idea was extended to the case of V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a continuous variable representing the output of neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a monotonic function of an input current. The dynamics became expressed as a set of first-order differential equations for which the "energy" of the system always decreased. The energy in the continuous case has one term which is quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} (as in the binary model), and a second term which depends on the gain function (neuron's activation function). While having many desirable properties of associative memory, both of these classical systems suffer from a small memory storage capacity, which scales linearly with the number of input features. == Discrete variables == A simple example of the Modern Hopfield network can be written in terms of binary variables V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} that represent the active V i = + 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=+1} and inactive V i = − 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=-1} state of the model neuron i {\displaystyle i} . E = − ∑ μ = 1 N mem F ( ∑ i = 1 N f ξ μ i V i ) {\displaystyle E=-\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}F{\Big (}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{f}}\xi _{\mu i}V_{i}{\Big )}} In this formula the weights ξ μ i {\textstyle \xi _{\mu i}} represent the matrix of memory vectors (index μ = 1... N mem {\displaystyle \mu =1...N_{\text{mem}}} enumerates different memories, and index i = 1... N f {\displaystyle i=1...N_{f}} enumerates the content of each memory corresponding to the i {\displaystyle i} -th feature neuron), and the function F ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)} is a rapidly growing non-linear function. The update rule for individual neurons (in the asynchronous case) can be written in the following form V i ( t + 1 ) = sign ⁡ [ ∑ μ = 1 N mem ( F ( ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) − F ( − ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle V_{i}^{(t+1)}=\operatorname {sign} {\bigg [}\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}{\bigg (}F{\Big (}\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}-F{\Big (}-\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}{\bigg )}{\bigg ]}} which states that in order to calculate the updated state of the i {\textstyle i} -th neuron the network compares two energies: the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the ON state and the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the OFF state, given the states of the remaining neuron. The updated state of the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron selects the state that has the lowest of the two energies. In the limiting case when the non-linear energy function is quadratic F ( x ) = x 2 {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{2}} these equations reduce to the familiar energy function and the update rule for the classical binary Hopfield network. The memory storage capacity of these networks can be calculated for random binary patterns. For the power energy function F ( x ) = x n {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{n}} the maximal number of memories that can be stored and retrieved from this network without errors is given by N mem max ≈ 1 2 ( 2 n − 3 ) ! ! N f n − 1 ln ⁡ ( N f ) {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx {\frac {1}{2(2n-3)!!}}{\frac {N_{f}^{n-1}}{\ln(N_{f})}}} For an exponential energy function F ( x ) = e x {\textstyle F(x)=e^{x}} the memory storage capacity is exponential in the number of feature neurons N mem max ≈ 2 N f / 2 {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx 2^{N_{f}/2}} == Continuous variables == Modern Hopfield networks or Dense Associative Memories can be best understood in continuous variables and continuous time. Consider the network architecture, shown in Fig.1, and the equations for the neurons' state evolutionwhere the currents of the feature neurons are denoted by x i {\textstyle x_{i}} , and the currents of the memory neurons are denoted by h μ {\displaystyle h_{\mu }} ( h {\displaystyle h} stands for hidden neurons). There are no synaptic connections among the feature neurons or the memory neurons. A matrix ξ μ i {\displaystyle \xi _{\mu i}} denotes the strength of synapses from a feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} to the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The synapses are assumed to be symmetric, so that the same value characterizes a different physical synapse from the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } to the feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The outputs of the memory neurons and the feature neurons are denoted by f μ {\displaystyle f_{\mu }} and g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} , which are non-linear functions of the corresponding currents. In general these outputs can depend on the currents of all the neurons in that layer so that f μ = f ( { h μ } ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }=f(\{h_{\mu }\})} and g i = g ( { x i } ) {\textstyle g_{i}=g(\{x_{i}\})} . It is convenient to define these activation function as derivatives of the Lagrangian functions for the two groups of neuronsThis way the specific form of the equations for neuron's states is completely defined once the Lagrangian functions are specified. Finally, the time constants for the two groups of neurons are denoted by τ f {\displaystyle \tau _{f}} and τ h {\displaystyle \tau _{h}} , I i {\displaystyle I_{i}} is the input current to the network that can be driven by the presented data. General systems of non-linear differential equations can have many complicated behaviors that can depend on the choice of the non-linearities and the initial conditions. For Hopfield networks, however, this is not the case - the dynamical trajectories always converge to a fixed point attractor state. This property is achieved because these equations are specifically engineered so that they have an underlying energy function The terms grouped into square brackets represent a Legendre transform of the Lagrangian function with respect to the states of the neurons. If the Hessian matrices of the Lagrangian functions are positive semi-definite, the energy function is guaranteed to decrease on the dynamical trajectory This property makes it possible to prove that the system of dynamical equations describing temporal evolution of neurons' activities will eventually reach a fixed point attractor state. In certain situations one can assume that the dynamics of hidden neurons equilibrates at a much faster time scale compared to the feature neurons, τ h ≪ τ f {\textstyle \tau _{h}\ll \tau _{f}} . In this case the steady state solution of the second equation in the system (1) can be used to express the currents of the hidden units through the outputs of the feature neurons. This makes it possible to reduce the general theory (1) to an effective theory for feature neurons only. The resulting effective update rules and the energies for various common choices of the Lagrangian functions are shown in Fig.2. In the case of log-sum-exponential Lagrangian function the update rule (if applied once) for the states of the feature neurons is the attention mechanism commonly used in many modern AI systems (see Ref. for the derivation of this result from the continuous time formulation). == Relationship to classical Hopfield network with continuous variables == Classical formulation of continuous Hopfield networks can be understood as a

  Read more →
• 

  Dominance-based rough set approach

  The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl

  Read more →