AI Detector No Login

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

• 

  Digital transaction management

  Digital transaction management (DTM) is a category of cloud services designed to digitally manage document-based transactions. DTM removes the friction inherent in transactions that involve people, documents, and data to create faster, easier, more convenient, and secure processes. DTM goes beyond content and document management to include e-signatures, authentication and non-repudiation; enabling co-browsing between the customer and the business; document transfer and certification; secure archiving that goes beyond records management; and a variety of meta-processes around managing electronic transactions and the documents associated with them. DTM standards are proposed and managed by the xDTM Standard Association Aragon Research has estimated that "by YE 2016, 70% of large enterprises will have a DTM initiative underway or fully implemented."

  Read more →
• 

  K-nearest neighbors algorithm

  In statistics, the k-nearest neighbors algorithm (k-NN) is a non-parametric supervised learning method. It was first developed by Evelyn Fix and Joseph Hodges in 1951, and later expanded by Thomas Cover. In classification, a new example is assigned a label based on the labels of its k nearest training examples; in regression, the prediction is computed from the values of those neighbors. Most often, it is used for classification, as a k-NN classifier, the output of which is a class membership. An object is classified by a plurality vote of its neighbors, with the object being assigned to the class most common among its k nearest neighbors (k is a positive integer, typically small). If k = 1, then the object is simply assigned to the class of that single nearest neighbor. The k-NN algorithm can also be generalized for regression. In k-NN regression, also known as nearest neighbor smoothing, the output is the property value for the object. This value is the average of the values of k nearest neighbors. If k = 1, then the output is simply assigned to the value of that single nearest neighbor, also known as nearest neighbor interpolation. For both classification and regression, a useful technique can be to assign weights to the contributions of the neighbors, so that nearer neighbors contribute more to the average than distant ones. For example, a common weighting scheme consists of giving each neighbor a weight of 1/d, where d is the distance to the neighbor. The input consists of the k closest training examples in a data set. The neighbors are taken from a set of objects for which the class (for k-NN classification) or the object property value (for k-NN regression) is known. This can be thought of as the training set for the algorithm, though no explicit training step is required. A peculiarity (sometimes even a disadvantage) of the k-NN algorithm is its sensitivity to the local structure of the data. In k-NN classification the function is only approximated locally and all computation is deferred until function evaluation. Since this algorithm relies on distance, if the features represent different physical units or come in vastly different scales, then feature-wise normalizing of the training data can greatly improve its accuracy. == Statistical setting == Suppose we have pairs ( X 1 , Y 1 ) , ( X 2 , Y 2 ) , … , ( X n , Y n ) {\displaystyle (X_{1},Y_{1}),(X_{2},Y_{2}),\dots ,(X_{n},Y_{n})} taking values in R d × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \{1,2\}} , where Y is the class label of X, so that X | Y = r ∼ P r {\displaystyle X|Y=r\sim P_{r}} for r = 1 , 2 {\displaystyle r=1,2} (and probability distributions P r {\displaystyle P_{r}} ). Given some norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} on R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and a point x ∈ R d {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , let ( X ( 1 ) , Y ( 1 ) ) , … , ( X ( n ) , Y ( n ) ) {\displaystyle (X_{(1)},Y_{(1)}),\dots ,(X_{(n)},Y_{(n)})} be a reordering of the training data such that ‖ X ( 1 ) − x ‖ ≤ ⋯ ≤ ‖ X ( n ) − x ‖ {\displaystyle \|X_{(1)}-x\|\leq \dots \leq \|X_{(n)}-x\|} . == Algorithm == The training examples are vectors in a multidimensional feature space, each with a class label. The training phase of the algorithm consists only of storing the feature vectors and class labels of the training samples. In the classification phase, k is a user-defined constant, and an unlabeled vector (a query or test point) is classified by assigning the label which is most frequent among the k training samples nearest to that query point. A commonly used distance metric for continuous variables is Euclidean distance. For discrete variables, such as for text classification, another metric can be used, such as the overlap metric (or Hamming distance). In the context of gene expression microarray data, for example, k-NN has been employed with correlation coefficients, such as Pearson and Spearman, as a metric. Often, the classification accuracy of k-NN can be improved significantly if the distance metric is learned with specialized algorithms such as large margin nearest neighbor or neighborhood components analysis. A drawback of the basic "majority voting" classification occurs when the class distribution is skewed. That is, examples of a more frequent class tend to dominate the prediction of the new example, because they tend to be common among the k nearest neighbors due to their large number. One way to overcome this problem is to weight the classification, taking into account the distance from the test point to each of its k nearest neighbors. The class (or value, in regression problems) of each of the k nearest points is multiplied by a weight proportional to the inverse of the distance from that point to the test point. Another way to overcome skew is by abstraction in data representation. For example, in a self-organizing map (SOM), each node is a representative (a center) of a cluster of similar points, regardless of their density in the original training data. k-NN can then be applied to the SOM. == Parameter selection == The best choice of k depends upon the data; generally, larger values of k reduces effect of the noise on the classification, but make boundaries between classes less distinct. A good k can be selected by various heuristic techniques (see hyperparameter optimization). The special case where the class is predicted to be the class of the closest training sample (i.e. when k = 1) is called the nearest neighbor algorithm. The accuracy of the k-NN algorithm can be severely degraded by the presence of noisy or irrelevant features, or if the feature scales are not consistent with their importance. Much research effort has been put into selecting or scaling features to improve classification. A particularly popular approach is the use of evolutionary algorithms to optimize feature scaling. Another popular approach is to scale features by the mutual information of the training data with the training classes. In binary (two class) classification problems, it is helpful to choose k to be an odd number as this avoids tied votes. One popular way of choosing the empirically optimal k in this setting is via bootstrap method. == The 1-nearest neighbor classifier == The most intuitive nearest neighbour type classifier is the one nearest neighbour classifier that assigns a point x to the class of its closest neighbour in the feature space, that is C n 1 n n ( x ) = Y ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C_{n}^{1nn}(x)=Y_{(1)}} . As the size of training data set approaches infinity, the one nearest neighbour classifier guarantees an error rate of no worse than twice the Bayes error rate (the minimum achievable error rate given the distribution of the data). == The weighted nearest neighbour classifier == The k-nearest neighbour classifier can be viewed as assigning the k nearest neighbours a weight 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} and all others 0 weight. This can be generalised to weighted nearest neighbour classifiers. That is, where the ith nearest neighbour is assigned a weight w n i {\displaystyle w_{ni}} , with ∑ i = 1 n w n i = 1 {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}=1} . An analogous result on the strong consistency of weighted nearest neighbour classifiers also holds. Let C n w n n {\displaystyle C_{n}^{wnn}} denote the weighted nearest classifier with weights { w n i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}\}_{i=1}^{n}} . Subject to regularity conditions, which in asymptotic theory are conditional variables which require assumptions to differentiate among parameters with some criteria. On the class distributions the excess risk has the following asymptotic expansion R R ( C n w n n ) − R R ( C Bayes ) = ( B 1 s n 2 + B 2 t n 2 ) { 1 + o ( 1 ) } , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C_{n}^{wnn})-{\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C^{\text{Bayes}})=\left(B_{1}s_{n}^{2}+B_{2}t_{n}^{2}\right)\{1+o(1)\},} for constants B 1 {\displaystyle B_{1}} and B 2 {\displaystyle B_{2}} where s n 2 = ∑ i = 1 n w n i 2 {\displaystyle s_{n}^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}^{2}} and t n = n − 2 / d ∑ i = 1 n w n i { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } {\displaystyle t_{n}=n^{-2/d}\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}\left\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\right\}} . The optimal weighting scheme { w n i ∗ } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}^{}\}_{i=1}^{n}} , that balances the two terms in the display above, is given as follows: set k ∗ = ⌊ B n 4 d + 4 ⌋ {\displaystyle k^{}=\lfloor Bn^{\frac {4}{d+4}}\rfloor } , w n i ∗ = 1 k ∗ [ 1 + d 2 − d 2 k ∗ 2 / d { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } ] {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}={\frac {1}{k^{}}}\left[1+{\frac {d}{2}}-{\frac {d}{2{k^{}}^{2/d}}}\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\}\right]} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k ∗ {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,k^{}} and w n i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}=0} for i = k ∗ + 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=k^{}+1,\dots ,n} . With optimal weights the dominant term in the asymptotic expansion of the excess risk is O ( n − 4 d + 4 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{-{\frac {4}{d+4}}})}

  Read more →
• 

  Variable kernel density estimation

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

  Read more →
• 

  Differential evolution

  Differential evolution (DE) is an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a problem by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a given measure of quality. Such methods are commonly known as metaheuristics as they make few or no assumptions about the optimized problem and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. However, metaheuristics such as DE do not guarantee an optimal solution is ever found. DE is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means DE does not require the optimization problem to be differentiable, as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. DE can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. DE optimizes a problem by maintaining a population of candidate solutions and creating new candidate solutions by combining existing ones according to its simple formulae, and then keeping whichever candidate solution has the best score or fitness on the optimization problem at hand. In this way, the optimization problem is treated as a black box that merely provides a measure of quality given a candidate solution and the gradient is therefore not needed. == History == Storn and Price introduced Differential Evolution in 1995. Books have been published on theoretical and practical aspects of using DE in parallel computing, multiobjective optimization, constrained optimization, and the books also contain surveys of application areas. Surveys on the multi-faceted research aspects of DE can be found in journal articles. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the DE algorithm works by having a population of candidate solutions (called agents). These agents are moved around in the search-space by using simple mathematical formulae to combine the positions of existing agents from the population. If the new position of an agent is an improvement then it is accepted and forms part of the population, otherwise the new position is simply discarded. The process is repeated and by doing so it is hoped, but not guaranteed, that a satisfactory solution will eventually be discovered. Formally, let f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } be the fitness function which must be minimized (note that maximization can be performed by considering the function h := − f {\displaystyle h:=-f} instead). The function takes a candidate solution as argument in the form of a vector of real numbers. It produces a real number as output which indicates the fitness of the given candidate solution. The gradient of f {\displaystyle f} is not known. The goal is to find a solution m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } for which f ( m ) ≤ f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {m} )\leq f(\mathbf {p} )} for all p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } in the search-space, which means that m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is the global minimum. Let x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} designate a candidate solution (agent) in the population. The basic DE algorithm can then be described as follows: Choose the parameters NP ≥ 4 {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}\geq 4} , CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} , and F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} . NP : NP {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}} is the population size, i.e. the number of candidate agents or "parents". CR : The parameter CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} is called the crossover probability. F : The parameter F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} is called the differential weight. Typical settings are N P = 10 n {\displaystyle NP=10n} , C R = 0.9 {\displaystyle CR=0.9} and F = 0.8 {\displaystyle F=0.8} . Optimization performance may be greatly impacted by these choices; see below. Initialize all agents x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } with random positions in the search-space. Until a termination criterion is met (e.g. number of iterations performed, or adequate fitness reached), repeat the following: For each agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the population do: Pick three agents a , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} } , and c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } from the population at random, they must be distinct from each other as well as from agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . ( a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } is called the "base" vector.) Pick a random index R ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle R\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} where n {\displaystyle n} is the dimensionality of the problem being optimized. Compute the agent's potentially new position y = [ y 1 , … , y n ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} =[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}]} as follows: For each i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , pick a uniformly distributed random number r i ∼ U ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i}\sim U(0,1)} If r i < C R {\displaystyle r_{i} Read more →

• 

  Computational heuristic intelligence

  Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.

  Read more →
• 

  VITAL (machine learning software)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic

  Distributional Soft Actor Critic (DSAC) is a suite of model-free off-policy reinforcement learning algorithms, tailored for learning decision-making or control policies in complex systems with continuous action spaces. Distinct from traditional methods that focus solely on expected returns, DSAC algorithms are designed to learn a Gaussian distribution over stochastic returns, called value distribution. This focus on Gaussian value distribution learning notably diminishes value overestimations, which in turn boosts policy performance. Additionally, the value distribution learned by DSAC can also be used for risk-aware policy learning. From a technical standpoint, DSAC is essentially a distributional adaptation of the well-established soft actor-critic (SAC) method. To date, the DSAC family comprises two iterations: the original DSAC-v1 and its successor, DSAC-T (also known as DSAC-v2), with the latter demonstrating superior capabilities over the Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) in Mujoco benchmark tasks. The source code for DSAC-T can be found at the following URL: Jingliang-Duan/DSAC-T. Both iterations have been integrated into an advanced, Pytorch-powered reinforcement learning toolkit named GOPS: GOPS (General Optimal control Problem Solver).

  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 →
• 

  BabyCenter

  BabyCenter is an online media company based in San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles that provides information on conception, pregnancy, birth, and early childhood development for parents and expecting parents. BabyCenter operates 8 country and region specific properties including websites, apps, emails, print publications, and an online community where parents can connect on a variety of topics. The visitors of website and the users of the app can sign up for free weekly email newsletters that guide them through pregnancy and their child's development. In addition to publishing detailed, medically reviewed information about pregnancy and parenting, BabyCenter, under its Mission Motherhood initiative, ran numerous social programs and has participated in public health initiatives in partnership with hospitals, healthcare agencies, nonprofits, NGOs, and government agencies to provide pregnancy and parenting advice. It also annually publishes the most popular baby names. BabyCenter LLC is part of the Everyday Health Group, a division of Ziff Davis. == History == BabyCenter was founded in October 1997 by Stanford University MBA graduates Matt Glickman and Mark Selcow, who recognized a need for information about pregnancy and parenting on the internet. BabyCenter was initially funded through $13.5 million in startup capital funding from venture capital firms, including Bessemer Venture Partners, Intel, and Trinity Ventures. The funds were used to open the BabyCenter Store in October 1998. In the early years of its operation, BabyCenter offered multiple resources and services for parents, including a website that provided medically reviewed information and guidance to new and expectant parents on such topics as fertility, labor, and childcare; a weekly email for pregnant women tailored to their week of pregnancy (based on their pregnancy due date); and community groups and chat rooms for pregnant couples and parents to discuss pregnancy and child-rearing strategies. The site grew quickly, and by early 1999 had 175 employees and an annual revenue of $35 million. In April of that year, the two founders sold BabyCenter to another website, eToys.com, for $190 million in stock. Twenty-three months later, in 2001, shortly before declaring bankruptcy, eToys sold the site to Johnson & Johnson for $10 million. During the eToys ownership, BabyCenter launched its first international E-commerce site in the UK during the spring of 2000. Starting in 2005, BabyCenter launched an expansion plan, extending its global network to Australia, Canada and other countries, staffing each outpost with local editors. In 2007, BabyCenter debuted a Mandarin-language site in China, initiated operations in India, launched a Spanish language website, and introduced its first mobile site. BabyCenter released My Pregnancy Today, its first mobile app, to Apple's App Store in August 2010 and to the Android market in April 2011. The app provided daily information, nutrition tips, advice relevant to the user's week of pregnancy, and 3-D animated videos showcasing a baby's development in utero. The My Pregnancy app was joined by a My Baby Today app in October 2011. In 2015, BabyCenter released Mom Feed, its first mobile app for parents of toddlers and older children (ages 1 to 8). Mom Feed offered personalized, stage-based information as well as content from the BabyCenter Community and Blog in a real-time stream. In 2016, BabyCenter launched its web-based Baby Names Finder. In 2018, Mom Feed was discontinued and BabyCenter replaced that experience with a separate Child Health content area on its website. Also in 2018, BabyCenter launched its mobile baby name generator, the Baby Names app, which, like the web-based Baby Names Finder, leverages data from hundreds of thousands of parents that culminates in its annual most popular Baby Names Report. In 2019, Johnson & Johnson sold Baby Center to Everyday Health Group, a division of New York-based parent company of Ziff Davis, Inc. Neither side disclosed terms of the deal. == Popular research == BabyCenter's most popular baby names is released annually and often cited by the media. In March 2024, BabyCenter did a review of the app Temu and said that the website has found products that have been recalled, could be counterfeit or circumvent U.S. safety standards and features that are important in preventing issues like choking. In 2025, BabyCenter released a report about the cost of raising a newborn baby in the first year. == Content and products == === Websites === BabyCenter has 8 country and region-specific websites around the world, including sites for the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Latin America. Users can find parenting and pregnancy advice in seven languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, French, German, and Hindi BabyCenter content for each country- or region-specific site is written by an editorial team based in that country or region. Medical and health content for each site is reviewed by a medical advisory board based there and adheres to that country or region's medical standards. For example, the U.S. site works with and follows the recommendations of such U.S. medical authorities as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. BabyCenter regularly conducts research and provides thought leadership on pregnancy and parenting topics, popularly cited by major media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Insider, MarketWatch, Axios. === Community, blogs and social === From its earliest days, BabyCenter has had a community area that allows people to join a group of parents with children born in the same month, known as a Birth Club. BabyCenter launched a blog called Momformation in 2007. Eventually, the name was changed to BabyCenter Blog. In April 2021, the BabyCenter Community was identified in a research article within the journal PLOS Computational Biology as facilitating "unobstructed communication" between parents, which avoids the "strong echo chamber phenomena" that can foster and perpetuate vaccine misinformation. === My Pregnancy and Baby Today App === The app is available in six languages, although not all features are supported for every market. Initially the apps only featured pregnancy articles that could be found on the BabyCenter website, but over the years the feature set has expanded to include a growing list of app-specific tools such as weekly fetal development information, a kick tracker, a birth plan worksheet, a contraction timer, a baby growth tracker, a photo journal for pregnant women to record their pregnancy bellies, and a photo journal for documenting a baby's first year. === Mission Motherhood™ === BabyCenter was a cofounder of the Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action (MAMA), a public-private partnership between USAID, Johnson & Johnson, the UN Foundation, and BabyCenter from 2011 to-to 2015. The MAMA program sparked the creation of MomConnect, an initiative of the South African Department of Health for which BabyCenter developed SMS messages with health information about pregnancy and a child's first year of life. BabyCenter helped develop similar messages for mMitra, a voice messaging program in India. A research article in the Maternal and Child Health Journal stated the mMitra program offered strong evidence "that tailored mobile phone voice messages can improve key infant care knowledge and practices that lead to improved infant health outcomes in low-resource settings. BabyCenter's Mission Motherhood Messages were available to qualifying organizations on the BabyCenter website. BabyCenter contributed websites for Free Basics. These websites featured age and stage-based pregnancy and baby articles targeted to low-income, lower-education women who would not otherwise have access to health information. Content developed for this program was also used to support a UNICEF SMS program during the 2016 Zika outbreak. == Awards and recognition == In 1998, BabyCenter won a Webby Award for Best Home Site. Since then, it has been nominated for a Webby Award 19 times and won either a Webby or a People's Choice Webby Award 12 times – including a People's Voice win in 2021 for Lifestyle websites and mobile sites. In 2002, it won Service Journalism award from Online Journalism Awards (OJA). In 2015, BabyCenter won five Digital Health Awards for content about autism in children. In 2016, BabyCenter won seven Digital Health Awards: four for videos about the aches and pains of pregnancy, baby sleep, and the walking milestone in child development; two for articles about baby sleep training and sleep apnea in babies; and one for the BabyCenter mobile app My Pregnancy & Baby Today. In 2021, Forbes Health chose My Pregnancy & Baby Today as the best pregnancy app of 2021, and Women's Health identified it

  Read more →
• 

  (1+ε)-approximate nearest neighbor search

  (1+ε)-approximate nearest neighbor search is a variant of the nearest neighbor search problem. A solution to the (1+ε)-approximate nearest neighbor search is a point or multiple points within distance (1+ε) R from a query point, where R is the distance between the query point and its true nearest neighbor. Reasons to approximate nearest neighbor search include the space and time costs of exact solutions in high-dimensional spaces (see curse of dimensionality) and that in some domains, finding an approximate nearest neighbor is an acceptable solution. Approaches for solving (1+ε)-approximate nearest neighbor search include k-d trees, locality-sensitive hashing and brute-force search.

  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 →
• 

  Bootstrap aggregating

  Bootstrap aggregating, also called bagging (from bootstrap aggregating) or bootstrapping, is a machine learning (ML) ensemble meta-algorithm designed to improve the stability and accuracy of ML classification and regression algorithms. It also reduces variance and overfitting. Although it is usually applied to decision tree methods, it can be used with any type of method. Bagging is a special case of the ensemble averaging approach. == Description of the technique == Given a standard training set D {\displaystyle D} of size n {\displaystyle n} , bagging generates m {\displaystyle m} new training sets D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} , each of size n ′ {\displaystyle n'} , by sampling from D {\displaystyle D} uniformly and with replacement. By sampling with replacement, some observations may be repeated in each D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} . If n ′ = n {\displaystyle n'=n} , then for large n {\displaystyle n} the set D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} is expected to have the fraction (1 - 1/e) (~63.2%) of the unique samples of D {\displaystyle D} , the rest being duplicates. This kind of sample is known as a bootstrap sample. Sampling with replacement ensures each bootstrap is independent from its peers, as it does not depend on previous chosen samples when sampling. Then, m {\displaystyle m} models are fitted using the above bootstrap samples and combined by averaging the output (for regression) or voting (for classification). Bagging leads to "improvements for unstable procedures", which include, for example, artificial neural networks, classification and regression trees, and subset selection in linear regression. Bagging was shown to improve preimage learning. On the other hand, it can mildly degrade the performance of stable methods such as k-nearest neighbors. == Process of the algorithm == === Key Terms === There are three types of datasets in bootstrap aggregating. These are the original, bootstrap, and out-of-bag datasets. Each section below will explain how each dataset is made except for the original dataset. The original dataset is whatever information is given. === Creating the bootstrap dataset === The bootstrap dataset is made by randomly picking objects from the original dataset. Also, it must be the same size as the original dataset. However, the difference is that the bootstrap dataset can have duplicate objects. Here is a simple example to demonstrate how it works along with the illustration below: Suppose the original dataset is a group of 12 people. Their names are Emily, Jessie, George, Constantine, Lexi, Theodore, John, James, Rachel, Anthony, Ellie, and Jamal. By randomly picking a group of names, let us say our bootstrap dataset had James, Ellie, Constantine, Lexi, John, Constantine, Theodore, Constantine, Anthony, Lexi, Constantine, and Theodore. In this case, the bootstrap sample contained four duplicates for Constantine, and two duplicates for Lexi, and Theodore. === Creating the out-of-bag dataset === The out-of-bag dataset represents the remaining people who were not in the bootstrap dataset. It can be calculated by taking the difference between the original and the bootstrap datasets. In this case, the remaining samples who were not selected are Emily, Jessie, George, Rachel, and Jamal. Keep in mind that since both datasets are sets, when taking the difference the duplicate names are ignored in the bootstrap dataset. The illustration below shows how the math is done: === Application === Creating the bootstrap and out-of-bag datasets is crucial since it is used to test the accuracy of ensemble learning algorithms like random forest. For example, a model that produces 50 trees using the bootstrap/out-of-bag datasets will have a better accuracy than if it produced 10 trees. Since the algorithm generates multiple trees and therefore multiple datasets the chance that an object is left out of the bootstrap dataset is low. The next few sections talk about how the random forest algorithm works in more detail. === Creation of Decision Trees === The next step of the algorithm involves the generation of decision trees from the bootstrapped dataset. To achieve this, the process examines each gene/feature and determines for how many samples the feature's presence or absence yields a positive or negative result. This information is then used to compute a confusion matrix, which lists the true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives of the feature when used as a classifier. These features are then ranked according to various classification metrics based on their confusion matrices. Some common metrics include estimate of positive correctness (calculated by subtracting false positives from true positives), measure of "goodness", and information gain. These features are then used to partition the samples into two sets: those that possess the top feature, and those that do not. The diagram below shows a decision tree of depth two being used to classify data. For example, a data point that exhibits Feature 1, but not Feature 2, will be given a "No". Another point that does not exhibit Feature 1, but does exhibit Feature 3, will be given a "Yes". This process is repeated recursively for successive levels of the tree until the desired depth is reached. At the very bottom of the tree, samples that test positive for the final feature are generally classified as positive, while those that lack the feature are classified as negative. These trees are then used as predictors to classify new data. === Random Forests === The next part of the algorithm involves introducing yet another element of variability amongst the bootstrapped trees. In addition to each tree only examining a bootstrapped set of samples, only a small but consistent number of unique features are considered when ranking them as classifiers. This means that each tree only knows about the data pertaining to a small constant number of features, and a variable number of samples that is less than or equal to that of the original dataset. Consequently, the trees are more likely to return a wider array of answers, derived from more diverse knowledge. This results in a random forest, which possesses numerous benefits over a single decision tree generated without randomness. In a random forest, each tree "votes" on whether or not to classify a sample as positive based on its features. The sample is then classified based on majority vote. An example of this is given in the diagram below, where the four trees in a random forest vote on whether or not a patient with mutations A, B, F, and G has cancer. Since three out of four trees vote yes, the patient is then classified as cancer positive. Because of their properties, random forests are considered one of the most accurate data mining algorithms, are less likely to overfit their data, and run quickly and efficiently even for large datasets. They are primarily useful for classification as opposed to regression, which attempts to draw observed connections between statistical variables in a dataset. This makes random forests particularly useful in such fields as banking, healthcare, the stock market, and e-commerce where it is important to be able to predict future results based on past data. One of their applications would be as a useful tool for predicting cancer based on genetic factors, as seen in the above example. There are several important factors to consider when designing a random forest. If the trees in the random forests are too deep, overfitting can still occur due to over-specificity. If the forest is too large, the algorithm may become less efficient due to an increased runtime. Random forests also do not generally perform well when given sparse data with little variability. However, they still have numerous advantages over similar data classification algorithms such as neural networks, as they are much easier to interpret and generally require less data for training. As an integral component of random forests, bootstrap aggregating is very important to classification algorithms, and provides a critical element of variability that allows for increased accuracy when analyzing new data, as discussed below. == Improving Random Forests and Bagging == While the techniques described above utilize random forests and bagging (otherwise known as bootstrapping), there are certain techniques that can be used in order to improve their execution and voting time, their prediction accuracy, and their overall performance. The following are key steps in creating an efficient random forest: Specify the maximum depth of trees: Instead of allowing the random forest to continue until all nodes are pure, it is better to cut it off at a certain point in order to further decrease chances of overfitting. Prune the dataset: Using an extremely large dataset may create results that are less indicative of the data provided than a smaller set that more accurately represents what is being focused on. Continue pruning the data at each

  Read more →
• 

  AltStore

  AltStore is an alternative app store for the iOS and iPadOS[1] mobile operating systems, which allows users to download applications that are not available on the App Store, most commonly tweaked apps, jailbreak apps, and apps including paid apps on the app store. It was publicly announced on September 25, 2019, and launched on September 28. == History == Riley Testut is an American developer who began to work on AltStore after Apple declined to allow his Nintendo emulator Delta on the App Store. Since Xcode allowed him to temporarily install his Delta app to his iOS device for 7 days of testing, he created AltStore in 2019 to replicate this functionality, which could be extended to other .ipa files. As of 2022, AltStore had been downloaded 1.5 million times. In the following years, AltStore expanded beyond its initial sideloading functionality. The platform was founded by Testut, with Shane Gill later joining as co-founder. AltStore was initially supported through Patreon contributions from its user community, and later saw increased adoption following regulatory developments in the European Union that enabled broader third-party app distribution. The project has also been involved in notable industry collaborations, including a partnership with Epic Games. == Features == AltStore exploits a loophole in the Xcode developer platform, which allows developers to sideload their own apps which they are working on without needing to jailbreak. Sideloaded apps are signed like a developer project for testing and will expire after 7 days with a free account or one year with a paid developer account, by which they will need to be refreshed or reinstalled.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural gas

  Neural gas is an artificial neural network, inspired by the self-organizing map and introduced in 1991 by Thomas Martinetz and Klaus Schulten. The neural gas is a simple algorithm for finding optimal data representations based on feature vectors. The algorithm was coined "neural gas" because of the dynamics of the feature vectors during the adaptation process, which distribute themselves like a gas within the data space. It is applied where data compression or vector quantization is an issue, for example speech recognition, image processing or pattern recognition. As a robustly converging alternative to the k-means clustering it is also used for cluster analysis. == Algorithm == Suppose we want to model a probability distribution P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} of data vectors x {\displaystyle x} using a finite number of feature vectors w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , where i = 1 , ⋯ , N {\displaystyle i=1,\cdots ,N} . For each time step t {\displaystyle t} Sample data vector x {\displaystyle x} from P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} Compute the distance between x {\displaystyle x} and each feature vector. Rank the distances. Let i 0 {\displaystyle i_{0}} be the index of the closest feature vector, i 1 {\displaystyle i_{1}} the index of the second closest feature vector, and so on. Update each feature vector by: w i k t + 1 = w i k t + ε ⋅ e − k / λ ⋅ ( x − w i k t ) , k = 0 , ⋯ , N − 1 {\displaystyle w_{i_{k}}^{t+1}=w_{i_{k}}^{t}+\varepsilon \cdot e^{-k/\lambda }\cdot (x-w_{i_{k}}^{t}),k=0,\cdots ,N-1} In the algorithm, ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } can be understood as the learning rate, and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as the neighborhood range. ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } are reduced with increasing t {\displaystyle t} so that the algorithm converges after many adaptation steps. The adaptation step of the neural gas can be interpreted as gradient descent on a cost function. By adapting not only the closest feature vector but all of them with a step size decreasing with increasing distance order, compared to (online) k-means clustering a much more robust convergence of the algorithm can be achieved. The neural gas model does not delete a node and also does not create new nodes. === Comparison with SOM === Compared to self-organized map, the neural gas model does not assume that some vectors are neighbors. If two vectors happen to be close together, they would tend to move together, and if two vectors happen to be apart, they would tend to not move together. In contrast, in an SOM, if two vectors are neighbors in the underlying graph, then they will always tend to move together, no matter whether the two vectors happen to be neighbors in the Euclidean space. The name "neural gas" is because one can imagine it to be what an SOM would be like if there is no underlying graph, and all points are free to move without the bonds that bind them together. == Variants == A number of variants of the neural gas algorithm exists in the literature so as to mitigate some of its shortcomings. More notable is perhaps Bernd Fritzke's growing neural gas, but also one should mention further elaborations such as the Growing When Required network and also the incremental growing neural gas. A performance-oriented approach that avoids the risk of overfitting is the Plastic Neural gas model. === Growing neural gas === Fritzke describes the growing neural gas (GNG) as an incremental network model that learns topological relations by using a "Hebb-like learning rule", only, unlike the neural gas, it has no parameters that change over time and it is capable of continuous learning, i.e. learning on data streams. GNG has been widely used in several domains, demonstrating its capabilities for clustering data incrementally. The GNG is initialized with two randomly positioned nodes which are initially connected with a zero age edge and whose errors are set to 0. Since in the GNG input data is presented sequentially one by one, the following steps are followed at each iteration: It is calculating the errors (distances) between the two closest nodes to the current input data. The error of the winner node (only the closest one) is respectively accumulated. The winner node and its topological neighbors (connected by an edge) are moving towards the current input by different fractions of their respective errors. The age of all edges connected to the winner node are incremented. If the winner node and the second-winner are connected by an edge, such an edge is set to 0. Else, an edge is created between them. If there are edges with an age larger than a threshold, they are removed. Nodes without connections are eliminated. If the current iteration is an integer multiple of a predefined frequency-creation threshold, a new node is inserted between the node with the largest error (among all) and its topological neighbor presenting the highest error. The link between the former and the latter nodes is eliminated (their errors are decreased by a given factor) and the new node is connected to both of them. The error of the new node is initialized as the updated error of the node which had the largest error (among all). The accumulated error of all nodes is decreased by a given factor. If the stopping criterion is not met, the algorithm takes a following input. The criterion might be a given number of epochs, i.e., a pre-set number of times where all data is presented, or the reach of a maximum number of nodes. === Incremental growing neural gas === Another neural gas variant inspired by the GNG algorithm is the incremental growing neural gas (IGNG). The authors propose the main advantage of this algorithm to be "learning new data (plasticity) without degrading the previously trained network and forgetting the old input data (stability)." === Growing when required === Having a network with a growing set of nodes, like the one implemented by the GNG algorithm was seen as a great advantage, however some limitation on the learning was seen by the introduction of the parameter λ, in which the network would only be able to grow when iterations were a multiple of this parameter. The proposal to mitigate this problem was a new algorithm, the Growing When Required network (GWR), which would have the network grow more quickly, by adding nodes as quickly as possible whenever the network identified that the existing nodes would not describe the input well enough. === Plastic neural gas === The ability to only grow a network may quickly introduce overfitting; on the other hand, removing nodes on the basis of age only, as in the GNG model, does not ensure that the removed nodes are actually useless, because removal depends on a model parameter that should be carefully tuned to the "memory length" of the stream of input data. The "Plastic Neural Gas" model solves this problem by making decisions to add or remove nodes using an unsupervised version of cross-validation, which controls an equivalent notion of "generalization ability" for the unsupervised setting. While growing-only methods only cater for the incremental learning scenario, the ability to grow and shrink is suited to the more general streaming data problem. == Implementations == To find the ranking i 0 , i 1 , … , i N − 1 {\displaystyle i_{0},i_{1},\ldots ,i_{N-1}} of the feature vectors, the neural gas algorithm involves sorting, which is a procedure that does not lend itself easily to parallelization or implementation in analog hardware. However, implementations in both parallel software and analog hardware were actually designed.

  Read more →
• 

  Density-based clustering validation

  Density-Based Clustering Validation (DBCV) is a metric designed to assess the quality of clustering solutions, particularly for density-based clustering algorithms like DBSCAN, Mean shift, and OPTICS. This metric is particularly suited for identifying concave and nested clusters, where traditional metrics such as the Silhouette coefficient, Davies–Bouldin index, or Calinski–Harabasz index often struggle to provide meaningful evaluations. Unlike traditional validation measures, which often rely on compact and well-separated clusters, DBCV index evaluates how well clusters are defined in terms of local density variations and structural coherence. This metric was introduced in 2014 by David Moulavi and colleagues in their work. It utilizes density connectivity principles to quantify clustering structures, making it especially effective at detecting arbitrarily shaped clusters in concave datasets, where traditional metrics may be less reliable. The DBCV index has been employed for clustering analysis in bioinformatics, ecology, techno-economy, and health informatics , as well as in numerous other fields. == Definition == DBCV index evaluates clustering structures by analyzing the relationships between data points within and across clusters. Given a dataset X = x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n {\displaystyle X={x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}}} , a density-based algorithm partitions it into K clusters C 1 , C 2 , . . . , C K {\displaystyle {C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{K}}} . Each point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to a specific cluster, denoted as C c l u s t e r ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{cluster(x_{i})}} A key concept in DBCV index is the notion of density-connected paths. Two points within the same cluster are considered density-connected if there exists a sequence of intermediate points linking them, where each consecutive pair meets a predefined density criterion. The density-based distance between two points is determined by identifying the optimal path that minimizes the maximum local reachability distance along its trajectory. DBCV index extends the Silhouette coefficient by redefining cluster cohesion and separation using density-based distances: Within-cluster density distance measures how closely a point is related to other members of its cluster: a i = 1 | C c l u s t e r ( x i ) | − 1 ∑ x j ∈ C c l u s t e r ( x i ) , y ≠ x d d e n s i t y ( x j , x i ) {\displaystyle a_{i}={\frac {1}{|C_{cluster(x_{i})}|-1}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C_{cluster(x_{i})},y\neq x}d_{density}(x_{j},x_{i})} Nearest-cluster density distance quantifies how far a point is from the closest external cluster: b i = min C ≠ C cluster ( x i ) C ∈ { C 1 , … , C K } ( 1 | C | ∑ x j ∈ C d density ( x i , x j ) ) . {\displaystyle b_{i}=\min _{C\neq C_{{\text{cluster}}(x_{i})} \atop C\in \{C_{1},\dots ,C_{K}\}}\left({\frac {1}{|C|}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C}d_{\text{density}}(x_{i},x_{j})\right).} Using these measures, the DBCV index is computed as: D B C V = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n b i − a i max ( a i , b i ) {\displaystyle DBCV={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {b_{i}-a_{i}}{\max(a_{i},b_{i})}}} == Explanation == DBCV index values range between −1 and +1: +1: Strongly cohesive and well-separated clusters. 0: Ambiguous clustering structure. −1: Poorly formed clusters or incorrect assignments. By leveraging density-based distances instead of traditional Euclidean measures, DBCV index provides a more robust evaluation of clustering performance in datasets with irregular or non-spherical distributions.

  Read more →