AI Detector No Character Limit

AI Detector No Character Limit — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Psychology in cybersecurity

The psychology of cybersecurity (often intersecting with usable security and cyberpsychology) is an interdisciplinary field studying how human behavior, cognitive biases, and social dynamics influence information security. While traditional cybersecurity focuses on hardware and software vulnerabilities, this discipline addresses the "human factor," which is exploited in cyberattacks. Psychology in cybersecurity draws from cognitive psychology and human–computer interaction. == History and evolution == The challenge of human behavior in computing was noted as early as the 1960s with multi-user mainframes like the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). In 1966, a software error on CTSS caused the system's master password file to be displayed to every user upon login—one of the earliest documented security incidents attributable to a combination of system design and human factors. These behaviors gained broader significance in the 1990s as the Internet became widely accessible. High-profile incidents involving figures like Kevin Mitnick demonstrated how human trust could be exploited through social engineering such as pretexting over the phone. == Cognitive and behavioral factors == Much of the psychology of cybersecurity focuses on decision-making under stress or uncertainty. Researchers apply frameworks like dual process theory to explain why humans fall for phishing or business email compromise. Threat actors design malicious communications to trigger fast, emotional "System 1" thinking—using urgency, authority, or panic, which prompts users to click a link or wire funds before their analytical "System 2" can assess the situation's legitimacy. Industry research has consistently documented the effectiveness of these techniques at scale, pointing to several recurring psychological phenomena that influence daily security practices: Cognitive biases: The optimism bias leads users to believe they are unlikely to be targeted by cybercriminals, resulting in lax password practices or delayed software updates. The availability heuristic causes individuals to focus on highly publicized, sophisticated threats while ignoring common, statistically probable risks like credential reuse. Social influence: Attackers leverage established principles of persuasion, such as those categorized by Robert Cialdini. Impersonating a CEO leverages the psychological trigger of authority, while fake tech support scams use reciprocity (offering to fix a problem before asking for network credentials). == Neurological and pre-cognitive factors == Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies show that neural activation in visual and attentional regions decreases with repeated exposure to the same stimulus, a phenomenon termed repetition suppression. Experiments have confirmed this effect in the context of security warnings: static warning designs produce declines in user attention and adherence. Information processing research on phishing indicates that affective cues, such as artificial urgency or fear, increase cognitive load and elicit automatic heuristic processing, reducing the likelihood of analytical evaluation and facilitating compliance with malicious requests. == Security fatigue and organizational dynamics == Aggressive cybersecurity postures can sometimes lead to mental and emotional exhaustion, a phenomenon known as security fatigue. === Alert fatigue === One example is alert fatigue, which most frequently affects both end-users and security operations center analysts. Continuous exposure to browser warnings or antivirus pop-ups, particularly those that are false positives, conditions users to dismiss alerts automatically due to the volume of notifications rather than their repetitive appearance (see § Neurological and pre-cognitive factors). The scale of this problem is significant in enterprise: SOC teams in large organizations receive thousands of alerts daily, and a survey published in ACM Computer Surveys found that analysts spend over 25% of their time handling false positives, meaning that malicious indicators can be buried in the noise. === Password fatigue === Similarly, password fatigue is the feeling experienced by many people who are required to remember an excessive number of passwords as part of their daily routine, such as to log in to a computer at work. Users cope with the memory burden by making predictable, iterative changes to their passwords (such as updating "Password01!" to "Password02!"), which decreases password security.
Read more →
Latent class model

In statistics, a latent class model (LCM) is a model for clustering multivariate discrete data. It assumes that the data arise from a mixture of discrete distributions, within each of which the variables are independent. It is called a latent class model because the class to which each data point belongs is unobserved (or latent). Latent class analysis (LCA) is a subset of structural equation modeling used to find groups or subtypes of cases in multivariate categorical data. These groups or subtypes of cases are called "latent classes". When faced with the following situation, a researcher might opt to use LCA to better understand the data: Symptoms a, b, c, and d have been recorded in a variety of patients diagnosed with diseases X, Y, and Z. Disease X is associated with symptoms a, b, and c; disease Y is linked to symptoms b, c, and d; and disease Z is connected to symptoms a, c, and d. In this context, the LCA would attempt to detect the presence of latent classes (i.e., the disease entities), thus creating patterns of association in the symptoms. As in factor analysis, LCA can also be used to classify cases according to their maximum likelihood class membership probability. The key criterion for resolving the LCA is identifying latent classes in which the observed symptom associations are effectively rendered null. This is because within each class, the diseases responsible for the symptoms create a structure of dependencies. As a result, the symptoms become conditionally independent, meaning that, given the class a case belongs to, the symptoms are no longer related to one another. == Model == Within each latent class, the observed variables are statistically independent—an essential aspect of latent class modeling. Usually, the observed variables are statistically dependent. By introducing the latent variable, independence is restored in the sense that within classes, variables are independent (local independence). Therefore, the association between the observed variables is explained by the classes of the latent variable (McCutcheon, 1987). In one form, the LCM is written as p i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ≈ ∑ t T p t ∏ n N p i n , t n , {\displaystyle p_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,\prod _{n}^{N}p_{i_{n},t}^{n},} where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of latent classes and p t {\displaystyle p_{t}} are the so-called recruitment or unconditional probabilities that should sum to one. p i n , t n {\displaystyle p_{i_{n},t}^{n}} are the marginal or conditional probabilities. For a two-way latent class model, the form is p i j ≈ ∑ t T p t p i t p j t . {\displaystyle p_{ij}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,p_{it}\,p_{jt}.} This two-way model is related to probabilistic latent semantic analysis and non-negative matrix factorization. The probability model used in LCA is closely related to the Naive Bayes classifier. The main difference is that in LCA, the class membership of an individual is a latent variable, whereas in Naive Bayes classifiers, the class membership is an observed label. == Related methods == There are a number of methods with distinct names and uses that share a common relationship. Cluster analysis is, like LCA, used to discover taxon-like groups of cases in data. Multivariate mixture estimation (MME) is applicable to continuous data and assumes that such data arise from a mixture of distributions, such as a set of heights arising from a mixture of men and women. If a multivariate mixture estimation is constrained so that measures must be uncorrelated within each distribution, it is termed latent profile analysis. Modified to handle discrete data, this constrained analysis is known as LCA. Discrete latent trait models further constrain the classes to form from segments of a single dimension, allocating members to classes based on that dimension. An example would be assigning cases to social classes based on ability or merit. In a practical instance, the variables could be multiple choice items of a political questionnaire. In this case, the data consists of an N-way contingency table with answers to the items for a number of respondents. In this example, the latent variable refers to political opinion, and the latent classes to political groups. Given group membership, the conditional probabilities specify the chance that certain answers are chosen. == Application == LCA may be used in many fields, such as: collaborative filtering, Behavior Genetics and Evaluation of diagnostic tests.
Read more →
Multiple discriminant analysis

Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) is a multivariate dimensionality reduction technique. It has been used to predict signals as diverse as neural memory traces and corporate failure. MDA is not directly used to perform classification. It merely supports classification by yielding a compressed signal amenable to classification. The method described in Duda et al. (2001) §3.8.3 projects the multivariate signal down to an M−1 dimensional space where M is the number of categories. MDA is useful because most classifiers are strongly affected by the curse of dimensionality. In other words, when signals are represented in very-high-dimensional spaces, the classifier's performance is catastrophically impaired by the overfitting problem. This problem is reduced by compressing the signal down to a lower-dimensional space as MDA does. MDA has been used to reveal neural codes.
Read more →
Rule-based machine learning

Rule-based machine learning (RBML) is a term in computer science intended to encompass any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves 'rules' to store, manipulate or apply. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learner is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, artificial immune systems, and any other method that relies on a set of rules, each covering contextual knowledge. While rule-based machine learning is conceptually a type of rule-based system, it is distinct from traditional rule-based systems, which are often hand-crafted, and other rule-based decision makers. This is because rule-based machine learning applies some form of learning algorithm such as Rough sets theory to identify and minimise the set of features and to automatically identify useful rules, rather than a human needing to apply prior domain knowledge to manually construct rules and curate a rule set. == Rules == Rules typically take the form of an '{IF:THEN} expression', (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'result'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign}). An individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Therefore rule-based machine learning methods typically comprise a set of rules, or knowledge base, that collectively make up the prediction model usually known as decision algorithm. Rules can also be interpreted in various ways depending on the domain knowledge, data types(discrete or continuous) and in combinations. == RIPPER == Repeated incremental pruning to produce error reduction (RIPPER) is a propositional rule learner proposed by William W. Cohen as an optimized version of IREP.
Read more →
Level set (data structures)

In computer science, a level set is a data structure designed to represent discretely sampled dynamic level sets of functions. A common use of this form of data structure is in efficient image rendering. The underlying method constructs a signed distance field that extends from the boundary, and can be used to solve the motion of the boundary in this field. == Chronological developments == The powerful level-set method is due to Osher and Sethian 1988. However, the straightforward implementation via a dense d-dimensional array of values, results in both time and storage complexity of O ( n d ) {\displaystyle O(n^{d})} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the cross sectional resolution of the spatial extents of the domain and d {\displaystyle d} is the number of spatial dimensions of the domain. === Narrow band === The narrow band level set method, introduced in 1995 by Adalsteinsson and Sethian, restricted most computations to a thin band of active voxels immediately surrounding the interface, thus reducing the time complexity in three dimensions to O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} for most operations. Periodic updates of the narrowband structure, to rebuild the list of active voxels, were required which entailed an O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} operation in which voxels over the entire volume were accessed. The storage complexity for this narrowband scheme was still O ( n 3 ) . {\displaystyle O(n^{3}).} Differential constructions over the narrow band domain edge require careful interpolation and domain alteration schemes to stabilise the solution. === Sparse field === This O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} time complexity was eliminated in the approximate "sparse field" level set method introduced by Whitaker in 1998. The sparse field level set method employs a set of linked lists to track the active voxels around the interface. This allows incremental extension of the active region as needed without incurring any significant overhead. While consistently O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} efficient in time, O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} storage space is still required by the sparse field level set method. See for implementation details. === Sparse block grid === The sparse block grid method, introduced by Bridson in 2003, divides the entire bounding volume of size n 3 {\displaystyle n^{3}} into small cubic blocks of m 3 {\displaystyle m^{3}} voxels each. A coarse grid of size ( n / m ) 3 {\displaystyle (n/m)^{3}} then stores pointers only to those blocks that intersect the narrow band of the level set. Block allocation and deallocation occur as the surface propagates to accommodate to the deformations. This method has a suboptimal storage complexity of O ( ( n m ) 3 + m 3 n 2 ) {\displaystyle O\left((nm)3+m^{3}n^{2}\right)} , but retains the constant time access inherent to dense grids. === Octree === The octree level set method, introduced by Strain in 1999 and refined by Losasso, Gibou and Fedkiw, and more recently by Min and Gibou uses a tree of nested cubes of which the leaf nodes contain signed distance values. Octree level sets currently require uniform refinement along the interface (i.e. the narrow band) in order to obtain sufficient precision. This representation is efficient in terms of storage, O ( n 2 ) , {\displaystyle O(n^{2}),} and relatively efficient in terms of access queries, O ( log n ) . {\displaystyle O(\log \,n).} An advantage of the level method on octree data structures is that one can solve the partial differential equations associated with typical free boundary problems that use the level set method. The CASL research group has developed this line of work in computational materials, computational fluid dynamics, electrokinetics, image-guided surgery and controls. === Run-length encoded === The run-length encoding (RLE) level set method, introduced in 2004, applies the RLE scheme to compress regions away from the narrow band to just their sign representation while storing with full precision the narrow band. The sequential traversal of the narrow band is optimal and storage efficiency is further improved over the octree level set. The addition of an acceleration lookup table allows for fast O ( log ⁡ r ) {\displaystyle O(\log r)} random access, where r is the number of runs per cross section. Additional efficiency is gained by applying the RLE scheme in a dimensional recursive fashion, a technique introduced by Nielsen & Museth's similar DT-Grid. === Hash Table Local Level Set === The Hash Table Local Level Set method was introduced in 2011 by Eyiyurekli and Breen and extended in 2012 by Brun, Guittet, and Gibou, only computes the level set data in a band around the interface, as in the Narrow Band Level-Set Method, but also only stores the data in that same band. A hash table data structure is used, which provides an O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} access to the data. However, Brun et al. conclude that their method, while being easier to implement, performs worse than a quadtree implementation. They find that as it is, [...] a quadtree data structure seems more adapted than the hash table data structure for level-set algorithms. Three main reasons for worse efficiency are listed: to obtain accurate results, a rather large band is required close to the interface, which counterbalances the absence of grid nodes far from the interface; the performances are deteriorated by extrapolation procedures on the outer edges of the local grid and the width of the band restricts the time step and slows down the method. === Point-based === Corbett in 2005 introduced the point-based level set method. Instead of using a uniform sampling of the level set, the continuous level set function is reconstructed from a set of unorganized point samples via moving least squares.
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 →
Sum of absolute transformed differences

The sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) is a block matching criterion widely used in fractional motion estimation for video compression. It works by taking a frequency transform, usually a Hadamard transform, of the differences between the pixels in the original block and the corresponding pixels in the block being used for comparison. The transform itself is often of a small block rather than the entire macroblock. For example, in x264, a series of 4×4 blocks are transformed rather than doing the more processor-intensive 16×16 transform. == Comparison to other metrics == SATD is slower than the sum of absolute differences (SAD), both due to its increased complexity and the fact that SAD-specific MMX and SSE2 instructions exist, while there are no such instructions for SATD. However, SATD can still be optimized considerably with SIMD instructions on most modern CPUs. The benefit of SATD is that it more accurately models the number of bits required to transmit the residual error signal. As such, it is often used in video compressors, either as a way to drive and estimate rate explicitly, such as in the Theora encoder (since 1.1 alpha2), as an optional metric used in wide motion searches, such as in the Microsoft VC-1 encoder, or as a metric used in sub-pixel refinement, such as in x264.
Read more →
Feature selection

In machine learning, feature selection is the process of selecting a subset of relevant features (variables, predictors) for use in model construction. Feature selection techniques are used for several reasons: simplification of models to make them easier to interpret, shorter training times, to avoid the curse of dimensionality, improve the compatibility of the data with a certain learning model class, to encode inherent symmetries present in the input space. The central premise when using feature selection is that data sometimes contains features that are redundant or irrelevant, and can thus be removed without incurring much loss of information. Redundancy and irrelevance are two distinct notions, since one relevant feature may be redundant in the presence of another relevant feature with which it is strongly correlated. Feature extraction creates new features from functions of the original features, whereas feature selection finds a subset of the features. Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (data points). == Introduction == A feature selection algorithm can be seen as the combination of a search technique for proposing new feature subsets, along with an evaluation measure which scores the different feature subsets. The simplest algorithm is to test each possible subset of features finding the one which minimizes the error rate. This is an exhaustive search of the space, and is computationally intractable for all but the smallest of feature sets. The choice of evaluation metric heavily influences the algorithm, and it is these evaluation metrics which distinguish between the three main categories of feature selection algorithms: wrappers, filters and embedded methods. Wrapper methods use a predictive model to score feature subsets. Each new subset is used to train a model, which is tested on a hold-out set. Counting the number of mistakes made on that hold-out set (the error rate of the model) gives the score for that subset. As wrapper methods train a new model for each subset, they are very computationally intensive, but usually provide the best performing feature set for that particular type of model or typical problem. Filter methods use a proxy measure instead of the error rate to score a feature subset. This measure is chosen to be fast to compute, while still capturing the usefulness of the feature set. Common measures include the mutual information, the pointwise mutual information, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Relief-based algorithms, and inter/intra class distance or the scores of significance tests for each class/feature combinations. Filters are usually less computationally intensive than wrappers, but they produce a feature set which is not tuned to a specific type of predictive model. This lack of tuning means a feature set from a filter is more general than the set from a wrapper, usually giving lower prediction performance than a wrapper. However the feature set doesn't contain the assumptions of a prediction model, and so is more useful for exposing the relationships between the features. Many filters provide a feature ranking rather than an explicit best feature subset, and the cut off point in the ranking is chosen via cross-validation. Filter methods have also been used as a preprocessing step for wrapper methods, allowing a wrapper to be used on larger problems. One other popular approach is the Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm, commonly used with Support Vector Machines to repeatedly construct a model and remove features with low weights. Embedded methods are a catch-all group of techniques which perform feature selection as part of the model construction process. The exemplar of this approach is the LASSO method for constructing a linear model, which penalizes the regression coefficients with an L1 penalty, shrinking many of them to zero. Any features which have non-zero regression coefficients are 'selected' by the LASSO algorithm. Improvements to the LASSO include Bolasso which bootstraps samples; Elastic net regularization, which combines the L1 penalty of LASSO with the L2 penalty of ridge regression; and FeaLect which scores all the features based on combinatorial analysis of regression coefficients. AEFS further extends LASSO to nonlinear scenario with autoencoders. These approaches tend to be between filters and wrappers in terms of computational complexity. In traditional regression analysis, the most popular form of feature selection is stepwise regression, which is a wrapper technique. It is a greedy algorithm that adds the best feature (or deletes the worst feature) at each round. The main control issue is deciding when to stop the algorithm. In machine learning, this is typically done by cross-validation. In statistics, some criteria are optimized. This leads to the inherent problem of nesting. More robust methods have been explored, such as branch and bound and piecewise linear network. == Subset selection == Subset selection evaluates a subset of features as a group for suitability. Subset selection algorithms can be broken up into wrappers, filters, and embedded methods. Wrappers use a search algorithm to search through the space of possible features and evaluate each subset by running a model on the subset. Wrappers can be computationally expensive and have a risk of over fitting to the model. Filters are similar to wrappers in the search approach, but instead of evaluating against a model, a simpler filter is evaluated. Embedded techniques are embedded in, and specific to, a model. Many popular search approaches use greedy hill climbing, which iteratively evaluates a candidate subset of features, then modifies the subset and evaluates if the new subset is an improvement over the old. Evaluation of the subsets requires a scoring metric that grades a subset of features. Exhaustive search is generally impractical, so at some implementor (or operator) defined stopping point, the subset of features with the highest score discovered up to that point is selected as the satisfactory feature subset. The stopping criterion varies by algorithm; possible criteria include: a subset score exceeds a threshold, a program's maximum allowed run time has been surpassed, etc. Alternative search-based techniques are based on targeted projection pursuit which finds low-dimensional projections of the data that score highly: the features that have the largest projections in the lower-dimensional space are then selected. Search approaches include: Exhaustive Best first Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Greedy forward selection Greedy backward elimination Particle swarm optimization Targeted projection pursuit Scatter search Variable neighborhood search Two popular filter metrics for classification problems are correlation and mutual information, although neither are true metrics or 'distance measures' in the mathematical sense, since they fail to obey the triangle inequality and thus do not compute any actual 'distance' – they should rather be regarded as 'scores'. These scores are computed between a candidate feature (or set of features) and the desired output category. There are, however, true metrics that are a simple function of the mutual information; see here. Other available filter metrics include: Class separability Error probability Inter-class distance Probabilistic distance Entropy Consistency-based feature selection Correlation-based feature selection == Optimality criteria == The choice of optimality criteria is difficult as there are multiple objectives in a feature selection task. Many common criteria incorporate a measure of accuracy, penalised by the number of features selected. Examples include Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Mallows's Cp, which have a penalty of 2 for each added feature. AIC is based on information theory, and is effectively derived via the maximum entropy principle. Other criteria are Bayesian information criterion (BIC), which uses a penalty of log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} for each added feature, minimum description length (MDL) which asymptotically uses log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} , Bonferroni / RIC which use 2 log ⁡ p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {p}}}} , maximum dependency feature selection, and a variety of new criteria that are motivated by false discovery rate (FDR), which use something close to 2 log ⁡ p q {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {\frac {p}{q}}}}} . A maximum entropy rate criterion may also be used to select the most relevant subset of features. == Structure learning == Filter feature selection is a specific case of a more general paradigm called structure learning. Feature selection finds the relevant feature set for a specific target variable whereas structure learning finds the relationships between all the variables, usually by expressing these relationships as a graph. The most common structure learning algorithms
Read more →
Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales

Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales, or ADAMS was a $35 million DARPA project designed to identify patterns and anomalies in very large data sets. It is under DARPA's Information Innovation office and began in 2011 and ended in August 2014 The project was intended to detect and prevent insider threats such as "a soldier in good mental health becoming homicidal or suicidal", an "innocent insider becoming malicious", or "a government employee [who] abuses access privileges to share classified information". Specific cases mentioned are Nadal Malik Hasan and WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning. Commercial applications may include finance. The intended recipients of the system output are operators in the counterintelligence agencies. A final report was published on May 11, 2015, detailing a system known as Anomaly Detection Engine for Networks, or ADEN, developed by the University of Maryland, College Park, whose goal was to "identify malicious users within a network." Using multiple datasets from Wikipedia, Slashdot, and others, researchers were able to identify vandals and malicious users on a website using both conventional algorithms and artificial intelligence. The Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning was part of the ADAMS project. The Georgia Tech team includes noted high-performance computing researcher David Bader (computer scientist).
Read more →
World Programming System

The World Programming System, also known as WPS Analytics or WPS, is a software product developed by a company called World Programming (acquired by Altair Engineering). WPS Analytics supports users of mixed ability to access and process data and to perform data science tasks. It has interactive visual programming tools using data workflows, and it has coding tools supporting the use of the SAS language mixed with Python, R and SQL. == About == WPS can use programs written in the language of SAS without the need for translating them into any other language. In this regard WPS is compatible with the SAS system. WPS has a built-in language interpreter able to process the language of SAS and produce similar results. WPS is available to run on z/OS, Windows, macOS, Linux (x86, Armv8 64-bit, IBM Power LE, IBM Z), and AIX. On all supported platforms, programs written in the language of SAS can be executed from a WPS command line interface, often referred to as running in batch mode. WPS can also be used from a graphical user interface known as the WPS Workbench for managing, editing and running programs written in the language of SAS. The WPS Workbench user interface is based on Eclipse. WPS version 4 (released in March 2018) introduced a drag-and-drop workflow canvas providing interactive blocks for data retrieval, blending and preparation, data discovery and profiling, predictive modelling powered by machine learning algorithms, model performance validation and scorecards. WPS version 3 (released in February 2012) provided a new client/server architecture that allows the WPS Workbench GUI to execute SAS programs on remote server installations of WPS in a network or cloud. The resulting output, data sets, logs, etc., can then all be viewed and manipulated from inside the Workbench as if the workloads had been executed locally. SAS programs do not require any special language statements to use this feature. == Summary of main features == Runs on Windows, macOS, z/OS, Linux (x86, Armv8 64-bit, IBM Power LE, IBM Z), and AIX An integrated development environment based on Eclipse for Linux, macOS and Windows. Support for language of SAS elements. Support for the language of SAS Macros. Matrix Programming support using PROC IML. Support for generating band plots, bar charts, box plots, bubble plots, contour plots, dendrogram plots, ellipse plots, fringe plots, heat maps, high-low plots, histograms, loess plots, needle plots, pie charts, penalised b-spline, radar charts, reference lines, scatter plots, series plots, step plots, regression plots and vector plots. Support for statistical procedures ACECLUS, ASSOCRULES, ANOVA, BIN, BOXPLOT, CANCORR, CANDISC, CLUSTER, CORRESP, DISCRIM, DISTANCE, FACTOR, FASTCLUS, FREQ, GAM, GANNO, GENMOD, GLIMMIX, GLM, GLMMOD, GLMSELECT, ICLIFETEST, KDE, LIFEREG, LIFETEST, LOESS, LOGISTIC, MDS, MEANS, MI, MIANALYSE, MIXED, MODECLUS, NESTED, NLIN, NPAR1WAY, PHREG, PLAN, PLS, POWER, PRINCOMP, PROBIT, QUANTREG, RBF, REG, ROBUSTREG, RSREG, SCORE, SEGMENT, SIMNORMAL, STANDARD, STDSIZE, STDRATE, STEPDISC, SUMMARY, SURVEYMEANS, SURVEYSELECT, TPSPLINE, TRANSREG, TREE, TTEST, UNIVARIATE, VARCLUS, VARCOMP Support for time series procedures ARIMA, AUTOREG, ESM, EXPAND, FORECAST, LOAN, SEVERITY, SPECTRA, TIMESERIES, X12 Support for machine learning procedures DECISIONFOREST, DECISIONTREE, GMM, MLP, OPTIMALBIN, SEGMENT, SVM Support for ODS. Reads and writes SAS datasets (compressed or uncompressed). Access: Actian Matrix (previously known as ParAccel), DASD, DB2, Excel, Greenplum, Hadoop, Informix, Kognitio Archived 2012-08-24 at the Wayback Machine, MariaDB, MySQL, Netezza, ODBC, OLEDB, Oracle, PostgreSQL, SAND, Snowflake, SPSS/PSPP, SQL Server, Sybase, Sybase IQ, Teradata, VSAM, Vertica and XML. Support for SAS Tape Format. Direct output of reports to CSV, PDF and HTML. Support to connect WPS systems programmatically, remote submit parts of a program to execute on connected remote servers, upload and download data between the connected systems. Support for Hadoop Support for R Support for Python == Industry recognition == Gartner recognized World Programming in their Cool Vendors in Data Science, 2014 Report. == Lawsuit == In 2010 World Programming defended its use of the language of SAS in the High Court of England and Wales in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd. The software was the subject of a lawsuit by SAS Institute. The EU Court of Justice ruled in favor of World Programming, stating that the copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program. It stated that there is no copyright infringement when a company which does not have access to the source code of a program studies, observes and tests that program to create another program with the same functionality.
Read more →
Multiclass classification

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

Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.
Read more →
Computers & Graphics

Computers & Graphics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers computer graphics and related subjects such as data visualization, human-computer interaction, virtual reality, and augmented reality. It was established in 1975 and originally published by Pergamon Press. It is now published by Elsevier, which acquired Pergamon Press in 1991. From 2018 to 2022 Graphics and Visual Computing was an open access sister journal sharing the same editorial team and double-blind peer-review policies. It has since merged into GMOD, the International Journal of Graphical Models. == History == The journal was established in 1975 by founding editor-in-chief Robert Schiffman (University of Colorado, Boulder), as Computers & Graphics-UK. Schiffman, who co-organized the first SIGGRAPH conference in 1974, had the conference proceedings published as the first issue of the journal. He was succeeded in 1978 by Larry Feeser (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). In 1983 José Luis Encarnação (Technische Hochschule Darmstadt) took over. Joaquim Jorge (University of Lisbon) has been Editor-in-Chief since 2007. == Replicability == The journal is working with the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative to promote replicable results in publication. == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in: Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology EBSCO databases Ei Compendex Inspec ProQuest databases Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus Chinese Computer Federation/Recommended List of International Conferences and Journals on CAD & Graphics and Multimedia. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 2.5.
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 →
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 →