AI Detector Similar To Turnitin

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

• 

  GoodRx

  GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is an American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform and free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications. GoodRx compares prescription drug prices at more than 75,000 pharmacies in the United States. The platform allows users to consult a doctor online and obtain a prescription for certain types of medications. == History == === Financial performance === GoodRx was founded in Santa Monica, California in 2011. GoodRx experienced substantial growth in net income in 2017 ($9 million), 2018 ($44 million), and 2019 ($66 million), but recorded a loss of $293.6 million in 2020 due to IPO-related expenses. In September 2020, GoodRx went public on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol GDRX. The company priced its initial public offering at $33 per share, above the expected range of $24 to $28, raising more than $1.1 billion at an initial valuation of approximately $12.7 billion. In the first half of 2020, the company reported revenues of $257 million and net income of $55 million. GoodRx generated $745.4 million in revenue for the full year 2021, a 35.36% increase over 2020. During the first half of 2021, the company’s share price declined by 10.7%. The decline was attributed to increased competition in online pharmacy services and slower user growth. GoodRx reported full-year revenue of $766.6 million, with adjusted EBITDA reaching $213.5 million, exceeding guidance in the fourth quarter. GoodRx reported that 41% of prescriptions filled using its coupons were newly adherent, meaning they would not have been filled without the service. GoodRx reported a full-year 2023 revenue of $750.3 million, a decrease of 2.1% from 2022. However, its fourth-quarter revenue increased by 7% year-over-year. GoodRx achieved an Adjusted EBITDA of $217.4 million for the year and an Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 28.6%. In 2024, GoodRx achieved 6% revenue growth with $792.3 million for the full year and turned a net loss into a positive net income of $16.4 million. The company also demonstrated strong operational efficiency, with a 32.8% increase in full-year Adjusted EBITDA. In Q2 2025, GoodRx reported revenue of $203.1 million, a 1.2% increase from the previous year, and a net income of $12.8 million, a significant 92% jump, which resulted in a 6.3% net income margin. However, prescription transaction revenue declined by 3% due to a decrease in monthly active consumers, but this was offset by strong 32% growth in its Pharma Manufacturer Solutions business. GoodRx also saw a 7% decrease in subscription revenue. === Mergers and acquisitions === In 2019, GoodRx acquired HeyDoctor, a telemedicine company, to integrate virtual healthcare services into the platform. In 2021, a health video content producer, HealthiNation was acquired by GoodRx, which helped provide consumers with health information and offered pharmaceutical manufacturers new ways to reach relevant audiences. In April 2022, GoodRx acquired VitaCare Prescription Services from TherapeuticsMD to strengthen its pharma manufacturer solutions business. === Partnerships === In 2017, the company announced partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies to negotiate lower prescription drug costs. GoodRx has deep relationships with major pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, Walmart, CVS Caremark, and Publix, to allow customers to use GoodRx discounts and Gold benefits. GoodRx began its partnership with CVS Caremark in July 2023 to automatically apply coupons to insured CVS customers purchasing generic prescriptions at certain locations. In April 2024, GoodRx added Publix into its network, allowing GoodRx Gold members to use their cards at Publix Pharmacies. GoodRx partners with Pharmacy Benefit Management like Caremark, Express Scripts, and MedImpact to apply their savings directly to eligible insurance plans and members. GoodRx partners with companies like Affirm, Benefitfocus, and DoorDash to integrate their services that offer members discounts and financial flexibility for prescriptions. GoodRx also partners with organizations like the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation to support broader access to care. In October 2022, GoodRx launched Provider Mode, which allows healthcare providers to use the app to compare costs of drugs for patients based on different payment methods and drug alternatives. In 2025, GoodRx partnered with Novo Nordisk to offer discounted cash-pay access to semaglutide products like Ozempic and Wegovy through its platform and participating pharmacies. == Products and services == GoodRx started its telemedicine service GoodRx Care in September 2019. It lets people talk to a licensed provider online for common issues and get prescriptions even if they don't have insurance. They also run condition-specific subscription plans that bundle online doctor visits, FDA-approved meds, and home delivery into one monthly payment. On the weight management side, GoodRx offers prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide through their telemedicine platform. This got a boost when the oral version of Wegovy became widely available in the US in early 2026. GoodRx works with drug makers like Novo Nordisk to make some medications (including semaglutide options) more affordable for people paying cash. The telemedicine part took off after GoodRx bought HeyDoctor in 2019 and brought their virtual care tools into the main platform. == Key people == The Santa Monica-based startup was founded in September 2011 by Trevor Bezdek and former Facebook executives Doug Hirsch and Scott Marlette. Marlette was one of the first 20 employees at Facebook and built Facebook's photo application. In 2005, Hirsch was the Vice President of Product at Facebook, working closely with Mark Zuckerberg. Bezdek and Hirsch served as co-chief executive officers until April 2023, when they stepped down from those roles and technology executive Scott Wagner was appointed interim chief executive officer. Bezdek became chair of the board, while Hirsch took on the role of chief mission officer. In December 2024, GoodRx announced that healthcare executive Wendy Barnes would become president and chief executive officer effective January 1, 2025. As of 2025, Barnes serves as the company’s CEO, while Trevor Bezdek and Scott Wagner serve as co-chairs of the board, and Doug Hirsch remains involved as a co-founder and senior executive. == Controversy == On February 25, 2020, Consumer Reports published an article stating that GoodRx shared user data—specifically, pseudonymized advertising ID numbers that companies use to track the behavior of web users across websites, the names of the drugs that users browsed, and the pharmacies where users sought to fill prescriptions—with Google, Facebook, and around twenty other Internet-based companies. A few days later, GoodRx released a statement saying that it had made changes to prevent user search data on medical conditions and pharmaceuticals from being shared with Facebook. In March 2020, GoodRx stopped sending data about user prescriptions to Facebook. On February 1, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission fined GoodRx US$1.5 million for violations of the Breach Notification Rule and the Federal Trade Commission Act for allegedly failing to obtain specific, informed, and unambiguous consent from users before disclosing health-related information to Facebook and Google. In November 2024, independent pharmacies filed at least three class action lawsuits against GoodRx and major pharmacy benefit managers. The cases, brought by independent pharmacies in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, allege that GoodRx and the PBMs collaborated to suppress reimbursements for generic prescription drugs. They allege that agreements using GoodRx’s software suppressed reimbursements for generic drugs and violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The suits claim the practices amount to price fixing which harms small pharmacies while benefiting PBMs and their affiliates. GoodRx settled both the 2023 FTC action and the 2025 class action lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.

  Read more →
• 

  Self-organizing map

  A self-organizing map (SOM) or self-organizing feature map (SOFM) is an unsupervised machine learning technique used to produce a low-dimensional (typically two-dimensional) representation of a higher-dimensional data set while preserving the topological structure of the data. For example, a data set with p {\displaystyle p} variables measured in n {\displaystyle n} observations could be represented as clusters of observations with similar values for the variables. These clusters then could be visualized as a two-dimensional "map" such that observations in proximal clusters have more similar values than observations in distal clusters. This can make high-dimensional data easier to visualize and analyze. A SOM is a type of artificial neural network but is trained using competitive learning rather than the error-correction learning (e.g., backpropagation with gradient descent) used by other artificial neural networks. The SOM was introduced by the Finnish professor Teuvo Kohonen in the 1980s and therefore is sometimes called a Kohonen map or Kohonen network. The Kohonen map or network is a computationally convenient abstraction building on biological models of neural systems from the 1970s and morphogenesis models dating back to Alan Turing in the 1950s. SOMs create internal representations reminiscent of the cortical homunculus, a distorted representation of the human body, based on a neurological "map" of the areas and proportions of the human brain dedicated to processing sensory functions, for different parts of the body. == Overview == Self-organizing maps, like most artificial neural networks, operate in two modes: training and mapping. First, training uses an input data set (the "input space") to generate a lower-dimensional representation of the input data (the "map space"). Second, mapping classifies additional input data using the generated map. The goal of training is to represent an input space with p dimensions as a map space with n dimensions, where p > n. Specifically, an input space with p variables is said to have p dimensions. A map space consists of components called "nodes" or "neurons", which are arranged as a hexagonal or rectangular grid with two dimensions. The number of nodes and their arrangement are specified beforehand based on the larger goals of the analysis and exploration of the data. Each node in the map space is associated with a "weight" vector, which is the position of the node in the input space. While nodes in the map space stay fixed, training consists in moving weight vectors toward the input data (reducing a distance metric such as Euclidean distance) without spoiling the topology induced from the map space. After training, the map can be used to classify additional observations for the input space by finding the node with the closest weight vector (smallest distance metric) to the input space vector. == Learning algorithm == The goal of learning in the self-organizing map is to cause different parts of the network to respond similarly to certain input patterns. This is partly motivated by how visual, auditory or other sensory information is handled in separate parts of the cerebral cortex in the human brain. The weights of the neurons are initialized either to small random values or sampled evenly from the subspace spanned by the two largest principal component eigenvectors. With the latter alternative, learning is much faster because the initial weights already give a good approximation of SOM weights. The network must be fed a large number of example vectors that represent, as close as possible, the kinds of vectors expected during mapping. The examples are usually administered several times as iterations. The training utilizes competitive learning. When a training example is fed to the network, its Euclidean distance to all weight vectors is computed. The neuron whose weight vector is most similar to the input is called the best matching unit (BMU). The weights of the BMU and neurons close to it in the SOM grid are adjusted towards the input vector. The magnitude of the change decreases with time and with the grid-distance from the BMU. The update formula for a neuron v with weight vector Wv(s) is W v ( s + 1 ) = W v ( s ) + θ ( u , v , s ) ⋅ α ( s ) ⋅ ( D ( t ) − W v ( s ) ) {\displaystyle W_{v}(s+1)=W_{v}(s)+\theta (u,v,s)\cdot \alpha (s)\cdot (D(t)-W_{v}(s))} , where s is the step index, t is an index into the training sample, u is the index of the BMU for the input vector D(t), α(s) is a monotonically decreasing learning coefficient; θ(u, v, s) is the neighborhood function which gives the distance between the neuron u and the neuron v in step s. Depending on the implementations, t can scan the training data set systematically (t is 0, 1, 2...T-1, then repeat, T being the training sample's size), be randomly drawn from the data set (bootstrap sampling), or implement some other sampling method (such as jackknifing). The neighborhood function θ(u, v, s) (also called function of lateral interaction) depends on the grid-distance between the BMU (neuron u) and neuron v. In the simplest form, it is 1 for all neurons close enough to BMU and 0 for others, but the Gaussian and Mexican-hat functions are common choices, too. Regardless of the functional form, the neighborhood function shrinks with time. At the beginning when the neighborhood is broad, the self-organizing takes place on the global scale. When the neighborhood has shrunk to just a couple of neurons, the weights are converging to local estimates. In some implementations, the learning coefficient α and the neighborhood function θ decrease steadily with increasing s, in others (in particular those where t scans the training data set) they decrease in step-wise fashion, once every T steps. This process is repeated for each input vector for a (usually large) number of cycles λ. The network winds up associating output nodes with groups or patterns in the input data set. If these patterns can be named, the names can be attached to the associated nodes in the trained net. During mapping, there will be one single winning neuron: the neuron whose weight vector lies closest to the input vector. This can be simply determined by calculating the Euclidean distance between input vector and weight vector. While representing input data as vectors has been emphasized in this article, any kind of object which can be represented digitally, which has an appropriate distance measure associated with it, and in which the necessary operations for training are possible can be used to construct a self-organizing map. This includes matrices, continuous functions or even other self-organizing maps. === Algorithm === Randomize the node weight vectors in a map For s = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . , λ {\displaystyle s=0,1,2,...,\lambda } Randomly pick an input vector D ( t ) {\displaystyle {D}(t)} Find the node in the map closest to the input vector. This node is the best matching unit (BMU). Denote it by u {\displaystyle u} For each node v {\displaystyle v} , update its vector by pulling it closer to the input vector: W v ( s + 1 ) = W v ( s ) + θ ( u , v , s ) ⋅ α ( s ) ⋅ ( D ( t ) − W v ( s ) ) {\displaystyle W_{v}(s+1)=W_{v}(s)+\theta (u,v,s)\cdot \alpha (s)\cdot (D(t)-W_{v}(s))} The variable names mean the following, with vectors in bold, s {\displaystyle s} is the current iteration λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is the iteration limit t {\displaystyle t} is the index of the target input data vector in the input data set D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } D ( t ) {\displaystyle {D}(t)} is a target input data vector v {\displaystyle v} is the index of the node in the map W v {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} _{v}} is the current weight vector of node v {\displaystyle v} u {\displaystyle u} is the index of the best matching unit (BMU) in the map θ ( u , v , s ) {\displaystyle \theta (u,v,s)} is the neighbourhood function, α ( s ) {\displaystyle \alpha (s)} is the learning rate schedule. The key design choices are the shape of the SOM, the neighbourhood function, and the learning rate schedule. The idea of the neighborhood function is to make it such that the BMU is updated the most, its immediate neighbors are updated a little less, and so on. The idea of the learning rate schedule is to make it so that the map updates are large at the start, and gradually stop updating. For example, if we want to learn a SOM using a square grid, we can index it using ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} where both i , j ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle i,j\in 1:N} . The neighborhood function can make it so that the BMU updates in full, the nearest neighbors update in half, and their neighbors update in half again, etc. θ ( ( i , j ) , ( i ′ , j ′ ) , s ) = 1 2 | i − i ′ | + | j − j ′ | = { 1 if i = i ′ , j = j ′ 1 / 2 if | i − i ′ | + | j − j ′ | = 1 1 / 4 if | i − i ′ | + | j − j ′ | = 2 ⋯ ⋯ {\displaystyle \theta ((i,j),(i',j'),s)={\frac {1}{2^{|i-i'|+|j-j'|}}}={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}i=i',j=j'\\1/2&{\text{if

  Read more →
• 

  Q-learning

  Q-learning is a reinforcement learning algorithm that trains an agent to assign values to its possible actions based on its current state, without requiring a model of the environment (model-free). It can handle problems with stochastic transitions and rewards without requiring adaptations. For example, in a grid maze, an agent learns to reach an exit worth 10 points. At a junction, Q-learning might assign a higher value to moving right than left if right gets to the exit faster, improving this choice by trying both directions over time. For any finite Markov decision process, Q-learning finds an optimal policy in the sense of maximizing the expected value of the total reward over any and all successive steps, starting from the current state. Q-learning can identify an optimal action-selection policy for any given finite Markov decision process, given infinite exploration time and a partly random policy. "Q" refers to the function that the algorithm computes: the expected reward—that is, the quality—of an action taken in a given state. == Reinforcement learning == Reinforcement learning involves an agent, a set of states S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , and a set A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} of actions per state. By performing an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} , the agent transitions from state to state. Executing an action in a specific state provides the agent with a reward (a numerical score). The goal of the agent is to maximize its total reward. It does this by adding the maximum reward attainable from future states to the reward for achieving its current state, effectively influencing the current action by the potential future reward. This potential reward is a weighted sum of expected values of the rewards of all future steps starting from the current state. As an example, consider the process of boarding a train, in which the reward is measured by the negative of the total time spent boarding (alternatively, the cost of boarding the train is equal to the boarding time). One strategy is to enter the train door as soon as they open, minimizing the initial wait time for yourself. If the train is crowded, however, then you will have a slow entry after the initial action of entering the door as people are fighting you to depart the train as you attempt to board. The total boarding time, or cost, is then: 0 seconds wait time + 15 seconds fight time On the next day, by random chance (exploration), you decide to wait and let other people depart first. This initially results in a longer wait time. However, less time is spent fighting the departing passengers. Overall, this path has a higher reward than that of the previous day, since the total boarding time is now: 5 second wait time + 0 second fight time Through exploration, despite the initial (patient) action resulting in a larger cost (or negative reward) than in the forceful strategy, the overall cost is lower, thus revealing a more rewarding strategy. == Algorithm == After Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} steps into the future the agent will decide some next step. The weight for this step is calculated as γ Δ t {\displaystyle \gamma ^{\Delta t}} , where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (the discount factor) is a number between 0 and 1 ( 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \gamma \leq 1} ). Assuming γ < 1 {\displaystyle \gamma <1} , it has the effect of valuing rewards received earlier higher than those received later (reflecting the value of a "good start"). γ {\displaystyle \gamma } may also be interpreted as the probability to succeed (or survive) at every step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} . The algorithm, therefore, has a function that calculates the quality of a state–action combination: Q : S × A → R {\displaystyle Q:{\mathcal {S}}\times {\mathcal {A}}\to \mathbb {R} } . Before learning begins, ⁠ Q {\displaystyle Q} ⁠ is initialized to a possibly arbitrary fixed value (chosen by the programmer). Then, at each time t {\displaystyle t} the agent selects an action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} , observes a reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} , enters a new state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (that may depend on both the previous state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} and the selected action), and Q {\displaystyle Q} is updated. The core of the algorithm is a Bellman equation as a simple value iteration update, using the weighted average of the current value and the new information: Q n e w ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ⏟ learning rate ) ⋅ Q ( S t , A t ) ⏟ current value + α ⏟ learning rate ⋅ ( R t + 1 ⏟ reward + γ ⏟ discount factor ⋅ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) ⏟ estimate of optimal future value ⏟ new value (temporal difference target) ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}})\cdot \underbrace {Q(S_{t},A_{t})} _{\text{current value}}+\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}}\cdot {\bigg (}\underbrace {\underbrace {R_{t+1}} _{\text{reward}}+\underbrace {\gamma } _{\text{discount factor}}\cdot \underbrace {\max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} _{\text{estimate of optimal future value}}} _{\text{new value (temporal difference target)}}{\bigg )}} where R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} is the reward received when moving from the state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} to the state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} , and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate ( 0 < α ≤ 1 ) {\displaystyle (0<\alpha \leq 1)} . Note that Q n e w ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})} is the sum of three terms: ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})} : the current value (weighted by one minus the learning rate) α R t + 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \,R_{t+1}} : the reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} to obtain if action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} is taken when in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} (weighted by learning rate) α γ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) {\displaystyle \alpha \gamma \max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} : the maximum reward that can be obtained from state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (weighted by learning rate and discount factor) An episode of the algorithm ends when state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} is a final or terminal state. However, Q-learning can also learn in non-episodic tasks (as a result of the property of convergent infinite series). If the discount factor is lower than 1, the action values are finite even if the problem can contain infinite loops or paths. For all final states s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} , Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} is never updated, but is set to the reward value r {\displaystyle r} observed for state s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} . In most cases, Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} can be taken to equal zero. == Influence of variables == === Learning rate === The learning rate or step size determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 makes the agent learn nothing (exclusively exploiting prior knowledge), while a factor of 1 makes the agent consider only the most recent information (ignoring prior knowledge to explore possibilities). In fully deterministic environments, a learning rate of α t = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=1} is optimal. When the problem is stochastic, the algorithm converges under some technical conditions on the learning rate that require it to decrease to zero. In practice, often a constant learning rate is used, such as α t = 0.1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=0.1} for all t {\displaystyle t} . === Discount factor === The discount factor ⁠ γ {\displaystyle \gamma } ⁠ determines the importance of future rewards. A factor of 0 will make the agent "myopic" (or short-sighted) by only considering current rewards, i.e. r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} (in the update rule above), while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the action values may diverge. For ⁠ γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} ⁠, without a terminal state, or if the agent never reaches one, all environment histories become infinitely long, and utilities with additive, undiscounted rewards generally become infinite. Even with a discount factor only slightly lower than 1, Q-function learning leads to propagation of errors and instabilities when the value function is approximated with an artificial neural network. In that case, starting with a lower discount factor and increasing it towards its final value accelerates learning. === Initial conditions (Q0) === Since Q-learning is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. High initial values, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action is selected, the update rule will cause it to have lower values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. The first reward r {\displaystyle r} can be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value

  Read more →
• 

  Multimodal learning

  Multimodal learning is a type of deep learning that integrates and processes multiple types of data, referred to as modalities, such as text, audio, images, or video. This integration allows for a more holistic understanding of complex data, improving model performance in tasks like visual question answering, cross-modal retrieval, text-to-image generation, aesthetic ranking, and image captioning. Multimodal learning was proposed in 2011 at the beginning of the deep learning period. Large multimodal models, such as Google Gemini and GPT-4o, have become increasingly popular since 2023, enabling increased versatility and a broader understanding of real-world phenomena. == Motivation == Data usually comes with different modalities which carry different information. For example, it is very common to caption an image to convey the information not presented in the image itself. Similarly, sometimes it is more straightforward to use an image to describe information which may not be obvious from text. As a result, if different words appear in similar images, then these words likely describe the same thing. Conversely, if a word is used to describe seemingly dissimilar images, then these images may represent the same object. Thus, in cases dealing with multi-modal data, it is important to use a model which is able to jointly represent the information such that the model can capture the combined information from different modalities. == Multimodal transformers == Models such as CLIP (Contrastive Language–Image Pretraining) learn joint representations of images and text by optimizing contrastive objectives, allowing the model to match images with their corresponding textual descriptions. == Multimodal deep Boltzmann machines == A Boltzmann machine is a type of stochastic neural network invented by Geoffrey Hinton and Terry Sejnowski in 1985. Boltzmann machines can be seen as the stochastic, generative counterpart of Hopfield nets. They are named after the Boltzmann distribution in statistical mechanics. The units in Boltzmann machines are divided into two groups: visible units and hidden units. Each unit is like a neuron with a binary output that represents whether it is activated or not. General Boltzmann machines allow connection between any units. However, learning is impractical using general Boltzmann Machines because the computational time is exponential to the size of the machine. A more efficient architecture is called restricted Boltzmann machine where connection is only allowed between hidden unit and visible unit, which is described in the next section. Multimodal deep Boltzmann machines can process and learn from different types of information, such as images and text, simultaneously. This can notably be done by having a separate deep Boltzmann machine for each modality, for example one for images and one for text, joined at an additional top hidden layer. == Applications == Multimodal machine learning has numerous applications across various domains: Cross-modal retrieval: cross-modal retrieval allows users to search for data across different modalities (e.g., retrieving images based on text descriptions), improving multimedia search engines and content recommendation systems. Classification and missing data retrieval: multimodal Deep Boltzmann Machines outperform traditional models like support vector machines and latent Dirichlet allocation in classification tasks and can predict missing data in multimodal datasets, such as images and text. Healthcare diagnostics: multimodal models integrate medical imaging, genomic data, and patient records to improve diagnostic accuracy and early disease detection, especially in cancer screening. Content generation: models like DALL·E generate images from textual descriptions, benefiting creative industries, while cross-modal retrieval enables dynamic multimedia searches. Robotics and human-computer interaction: multimodal learning improves interaction in robotics and AI by integrating sensory inputs like speech, vision, and touch, aiding autonomous systems and human-computer interaction. Emotion recognition: combining visual, audio, and text data, multimodal systems enhance sentiment analysis and emotion recognition, applied in customer service, social media, and marketing.

  Read more →
• 

  Randonautica

  Randonautica (a portmanteau of "random" + "nautica") is an app launched on February 22, 2020 founded by Auburn Salcedo and Joshua Lengfelder. It randomly generates coordinates that encourages the user to explore their local area and report what is found. According to its creators, the app is "an attractor of strange things," letting one choose specific coordinates based on a specific theme. It gained controversy after a report of two teenagers coincidentally finding a corpse while using the application. == Overview == The app, which creators claim to be inspired by chaos theory and Guy Debord's Theory of the Dérive, offers its users three types of coordinates to choose from: an attractor, a void, or an anomaly. The app has a cult following on YouTube and TikTok and there is a subreddit made by the creators for users of the app. == History == 29-year-old circus performer Joshua Lengfelder discovered a bot called Fatum Project in a fringe science chat group on Telegram in January 2019. According to The New York Times, "He absorbed the project’s theories about how random exploration could break people out of their predetermined realities, and how people could influence random outcomes with their minds." Lengfelder then created a Telegram bot using Fatum Project's code, generating coordinates. He then created the subreddit r/randonauts in March. In October, developer Simon Nishi McCorkindale made the bot's webpage. With the help of Auburn Salcedo, chief executive of a TV agency, both created Randonauts LLC. Salcedo became the chief operating officer while Lengfelder was the CEO. The app, called Randonautica, was launched on February 22, 2020. Later the same year the app and back-end got completely overhauled by a new team of developers and got a more visual and friendlier design and logo. In April 2022 Lengfelder exited Randonauts LLC and Auburn Salcedo became CEO. == Reception == The app has as many as 10.8 million users as of July 2020, gaining popularity amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as restrictions have been lightened. Emma Chamberlain made a YouTube video about the app that helped increase its following. i-D reported that the hashtag #randonautica has gained 176.5 million views on TikTok, although it has not marketed itself yet. === Controversy === With the app's popularity, users started reporting coincidences which many find unsettling. The majority of reports were from TikTok and Reddit, as well as Telegram. The most notable controversy involved a group of people heading to a beach in Duwamish Head, Puget Sound, West Seattle per the app, where they found a bag with two dead bodies, a 27-year-old male and a 36-year-old female, as reported by the Seattle Police homicide detectives. In August 2020, police arrested and charged their landlord, Michael Lee Dudley, in connection with the murders. In March 2021, Dudley was denied bail while other people were under suspicion of aiding Dudley in the dismemberment and disposal of the bodies, but no one else had been charged. This has caused speculation that the app has an intended, puzzle-like theme. However, Lengfelder stated that it is "a shocking coincidence." Salcedo called the videos fake, and that "It’s so hard to manage, because people are really taking creative liberties after seeing how much traction the app is getting in that fear factor." In 2022, Michael Dudley was convicted of second degree murder for killing both victims, who were identified as Jessica Lewis and Austin Wenner. He was sentenced to 46 years in prison the following year. In their questions page, Randonautica's creators have said that if the app generates coordinates inside a private property, it is a violation of their terms and conditions to trespass. In addition, Randonautica has also received allegations that the app is used for human trafficking, which its creators have denied, saying that data collected by the app are anonymous. It also ensured that the app is not designed to violate religious customs, saying that "the app is simply a tool. Just as a knife can be used either to prepare dinner or to cut somebody."

  Read more →
• 

  Mathematics of neural networks in machine learning

  An artificial neural network (ANN) or neural network combines biological principles with advanced statistics to solve problems in domains such as pattern recognition and game-play. ANNs adopt the basic model of neuron analogues connected to each other in a variety of ways. == Structure == === Neuron === A neuron with label j {\displaystyle j} receiving an input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} from predecessor neurons consists of the following components: an activation a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , the neuron's state, depending on a discrete time parameter, an optional threshold θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , which stays fixed unless changed by learning, an activation function f {\displaystyle f} that computes the new activation at a given time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} from a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the net input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} giving rise to the relation a j ( t + 1 ) = f ( a j ( t ) , p j ( t ) , θ j ) , {\displaystyle a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} and an output function f out {\displaystyle f_{\text{out}}} computing the output from the activation o j ( t ) = f out ( a j ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle o_{j}(t)=f_{\text{out}}(a_{j}(t)).} Often the output function is simply the identity function. An input neuron has no predecessor but serves as input interface for the whole network. Similarly an output neuron has no successor and thus serves as output interface of the whole network. === Propagation function === The propagation function computes the input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} to the neuron j {\displaystyle j} from the outputs o i ( t ) {\displaystyle o_{i}(t)} and typically has the form p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j . {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}.} === Bias === A bias term can be added, changing the form to the following: p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j + w 0 j , {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}+w_{0j},} where w 0 j {\displaystyle w_{0j}} is a bias. == Neural networks as functions == Neural network models can be viewed as defining a function that takes an input (observation) and produces an output (decision) f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} or a distribution over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} or both X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} and Y {\displaystyle \textstyle Y} . Sometimes models are intimately associated with a particular learning rule. A common use of the phrase "ANN model" is really the definition of a class of such functions (where members of the class are obtained by varying parameters, connection weights, or specifics of the architecture such as the number of neurons, number of layers or their connectivity). Mathematically, a neuron's network function f ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)} is defined as a composition of other functions g i ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}(x)} , that can further be decomposed into other functions. This can be conveniently represented as a network structure, with arrows depicting the dependencies between functions. A widely used type of composition is the nonlinear weighted sum, where f ( x ) = K ( ∑ i w i g i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)=K\left(\sum _{i}w_{i}g_{i}(x)\right)} , where K {\displaystyle \textstyle K} (commonly referred to as the activation function) is some predefined function, such as the hyperbolic tangent, sigmoid function, softmax function, or rectifier function. The important characteristic of the activation function is that it provides a smooth transition as input values change, i.e. a small change in input produces a small change in output. The following refers to a collection of functions g i {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}} as a vector g = ( g 1 , g 2 , … , g n ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g=(g_{1},g_{2},\ldots ,g_{n})} . This figure depicts such a decomposition of f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} , with dependencies between variables indicated by arrows. These can be interpreted in two ways. The first view is the functional view: the input x {\displaystyle \textstyle x} is transformed into a 3-dimensional vector h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} , which is then transformed into a 2-dimensional vector g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} , which is finally transformed into f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of optimization. The second view is the probabilistic view: the random variable F = f ( G ) {\displaystyle \textstyle F=f(G)} depends upon the random variable G = g ( H ) {\displaystyle \textstyle G=g(H)} , which depends upon H = h ( X ) {\displaystyle \textstyle H=h(X)} , which depends upon the random variable X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of graphical models. The two views are largely equivalent. In either case, for this particular architecture, the components of individual layers are independent of each other (e.g., the components of g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} are independent of each other given their input h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} ). This naturally enables a degree of parallelism in the implementation. Networks such as the previous one are commonly called feedforward, because their graph is a directed acyclic graph. Networks with cycles are commonly called recurrent. Such networks are commonly depicted in the manner shown at the top of the figure, where f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} is shown as dependent upon itself. However, an implied temporal dependence is not shown. == Backpropagation == Backpropagation training algorithms fall into three categories: steepest descent (with variable learning rate and momentum, resilient backpropagation); quasi-Newton (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno, one step secant); Levenberg–Marquardt and conjugate gradient (Fletcher–Reeves update, Polak–Ribiére update, Powell–Beale restart, scaled conjugate gradient). === Algorithm === Let N {\displaystyle N} be a network with e {\displaystyle e} connections, m {\displaystyle m} inputs and n {\displaystyle n} outputs. Below, x 1 , x 2 , … {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots } denote vectors in R m {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , y 1 , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\dots } vectors in R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , and w 0 , w 1 , w 2 , … {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},w_{2},\ldots } vectors in R e {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{e}} . These are called inputs, outputs and weights, respectively. The network corresponds to a function y = f N ( w , x ) {\displaystyle y=f_{N}(w,x)} which, given a weight w {\displaystyle w} , maps an input x {\displaystyle x} to an output y {\displaystyle y} . In supervised learning, a sequence of training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x p , y p ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{p},y_{p})} produces a sequence of weights w 0 , w 1 , … , w p {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},\dots ,w_{p}} starting from some initial weight w 0 {\displaystyle w_{0}} , usually chosen at random. These weights are computed in turn: first compute w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} using only ( x i , y i , w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i},w_{i-1})} for i = 1 , … , p {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,p} . The output of the algorithm is then w p {\displaystyle w_{p}} , giving a new function x ↦ f N ( w p , x ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto f_{N}(w_{p},x)} . The computation is the same in each step, hence only the case i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} is described. w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} is calculated from ( x 1 , y 1 , w 0 ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1},w_{0})} by considering a variable weight w {\displaystyle w} and applying gradient descent to the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x 1 ) , y 1 ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x_{1}),y_{1})} to find a local minimum, starting at w = w 0 {\displaystyle w=w_{0}} . This makes w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} the minimizing weight found by gradient descent. == Learning pseudocode == To implement the algorithm above, explicit formulas are required for the gradient of the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x ) , y ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x),y)} where the function is E ( y , y ′ ) = | y − y ′ | 2 {\displaystyle E(y,y')=|y-y'|^{2}} . The learning algorithm can be divided into two phases: propagation and weight update. === Propagation === Propagation involves the following steps: Propagation forward through the network to generate the output value(s) Calculation of the cost (error term) Propagation of the output activations back through the network using the training pattern target to generate the deltas (the difference between the targeted and actual output values) of all output and hidden neurons. === Weight update === For each weight: Multiply the weight's output delta and input activation to find the gradient of the weight. Subtract the ratio (percentage) of the weight's gradient from the weight. The learning rate is the ratio (percentage) that influences the speed and quality of learning. The greater the ratio, the faster the neuron trains, but the lower the ratio, the more accurat

  Read more →
• 

  Language identification in the limit

  Language identification in the limit is a formal model for inductive inference of formal languages, mainly by computers (see machine learning and induction of regular languages). It was introduced by E. Mark Gold in a technical report and a journal article with the same title. In this model, a teacher provides to a learner some presentation (i.e. a sequence of strings) of some formal language. The learning is seen as an infinite process. Each time the learner reads an element of the presentation, it should provide a representation (e.g. a formal grammar) for the language. Gold defines that a learner can identify in the limit a class of languages if, given any presentation of any language in the class, the learner will produce only a finite number of wrong representations, and then stick with the correct representation. However, the learner need not be able to announce its correctness; and the teacher might present a counterexample to any representation arbitrarily long after. Gold defined two types of presentations: Text (positive information): an enumeration of all strings the language consists of. Complete presentation (positive and negative information): an enumeration of all possible strings, each with a label indicating if the string belongs to the language or not. == Learnability == This model is an early attempt to formally capture the notion of learnability. Gold's journal article introduces for contrast the stronger models Finite identification (where the learner has to announce correctness after a finite number of steps), and Fixed-time identification (where correctness has to be reached after an apriori-specified number of steps). A weaker formal model of learnability is the Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) model, introduced by Leslie Valiant in 1984. == Examples == It is instructive to look at concrete examples (in the tables) of learning sessions the definition of identification in the limit speaks about. A fictitious session to learn a regular language L over the alphabet {a,b} from text presentation:In each step, the teacher gives a string belonging to L, and the learner answers a guess for L, encoded as a regular expression. In step 3, the learner's guess is not consistent with the strings seen so far; in step 4, the teacher gives a string repeatedly. After step 6, the learner sticks to the regular expression (ab+ba). If this happens to be a description of the language L the teacher has in mind, it is said that the learner has learned that language.If a computer program for the learner's role would exist that was able to successfully learn each regular language, that class of languages would be identifiable in the limit. Gold has shown that this is not the case. A particular learning algorithm always guessing L to be just the union of all strings seen so far:If L is a finite language, the learner will eventually guess it correctly, however, without being able to tell when. Although the guess didn't change during step 3 to 6, the learner couldn't be sure to be correct.Gold has shown that the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit, however, this class is neither finitely nor fixed-time identifiable. Learning from complete presentation by telling:In each step, the teacher gives a string and tells whether it belongs to L (green) or not (red, struck-out). Each possible string is eventually classified in this way by the teacher. Learning from complete presentation by request:The learner gives a query string, the teacher tells whether it belongs to L (yes) or not (no); the learner then gives a guess for L, followed by the next query string. In this example, the learner happens to query in each step just the same string as given by the teacher in example 3.In general, Gold has shown that each language class identifiable in the request-presentation setting is also identifiable in the telling-presentation setting, since the learner, instead of querying a string, just needs to wait until it is eventually given by the teacher. == Gold's theorem == More formally, a language L {\displaystyle L} is a nonempty set, and its elements are called sentences. a language family is a set of languages. a language-learning environment E {\displaystyle E} for a language L {\displaystyle L} is a stream of sentences from L {\displaystyle L} , such that each sentence in L {\displaystyle L} appears at least once. a language learner is a function f {\displaystyle f} that sends a list of sentences to a language. This is interpreted as saying that, after seeing sentences a 1 , a 2 . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2}...,a_{n}} in that order, the language learner guesses that the language that produces the sentences should be f ( a 1 , . . . , a n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},...,a_{n})} . Note that the learner is not obliged to be correct — it could very well guess a language that does not even contain a 1 , . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{n}} . a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} in environment E = ( a 1 , a 2 , . . . ) {\displaystyle E=(a_{1},a_{2},...)} if the learner always guesses L {\displaystyle L} after seeing enough examples from the environment. a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} if it learns L {\displaystyle L} in any environment E {\displaystyle E} for L {\displaystyle L} . a language family is learnable if there exists a language learner that can learn all languages in the family. Notes: In the context of Gold's theorem, sentences need only be distinguishable. They need not be anything in particular, such as finite strings (as usual in formal linguistics). Learnability is not a concept for individual languages. Any individual language L {\displaystyle L} could be learned by a trivial learner that always guesses L {\displaystyle L} . Learnability is not a concept for individual learners. A language family is learnable if, and only if, there exists some learner that can learn the family. It does not matter how well the learner performs for learning languages outside the family. Gold's theorem is easily bypassed if negative examples are allowed. In particular, the language family { L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L ∞ } {\displaystyle \{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{\infty }\}} can be learned by a learner that always guesses L ∞ {\displaystyle L_{\infty }} until it receives the first negative example ¬ a n {\displaystyle \neg a_{n}} , where a n ∈ L n + 1 ∖ L n {\displaystyle a_{n}\in L_{n+1}\setminus L_{n}} , at which point it always guesses L n {\displaystyle L_{n}} . == Learnability characterization == Dana Angluin gave the characterizations of learnability from text (positive information) in a 1980 paper. If a learner is required to be effective, then an indexed class of recursive languages is learnable in the limit if there is an effective procedure that uniformly enumerates tell-tales for each language in the class (Condition 1). It is not hard to see that if an ideal learner (i.e., an arbitrary function) is allowed, then an indexed class of languages is learnable in the limit if each language in the class has a tell-tale (Condition 2). == Language classes learnable in the limit == The table shows which language classes are identifiable in the limit in which learning model. On the right-hand side, each language class is a superclass of all lower classes. Each learning model (i.e. type of presentation) can identify in the limit all classes below it. In particular, the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit by text presentation (cf. Example 2 above), while the class of regular languages is not. Pattern Languages, introduced by Dana Angluin in another 1980 paper, are also identifiable by normal text presentation; they are omitted in the table, since they are above the singleton and below the primitive recursive language class, but incomparable to the classes in between. == Sufficient conditions for learnability == Condition 1 in Angluin's paper is not always easy to verify. Therefore, people come up with various sufficient conditions for the learnability of a language class. See also Induction of regular languages for learnable subclasses of regular languages. === Finite thickness === A class of languages has finite thickness if every non-empty set of strings is contained in at most finitely many languages of the class. This is exactly Condition 3 in Angluin's paper. Angluin showed that if a class of recursive languages has finite thickness, then it is learnable in the limit. A class with finite thickness certainly satisfies MEF-condition and MFF-condition; in other words, finite thickness implies M-finite thickness. === Finite elasticity === A class of languages is said to have finite elasticity if for every infinite sequence of strings s 0 , s 1 , . . . {\displaystyle s_{0},s_{1},...} and every infinite sequence of languages in the class L 1 , L 2 , . . . {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...} , there exists a finite number n such

  Read more →
• 

  FastICA

  FastICA is an efficient and popular algorithm for independent component analysis invented by Aapo Hyvärinen at Helsinki University of Technology. Like most ICA algorithms, FastICA seeks an orthogonal rotation of prewhitened data, through a fixed-point iteration scheme, that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the rotated components. Non-gaussianity serves as a proxy for statistical independence, which is a very strong condition and requires infinite data to verify. FastICA can also be alternatively derived as an approximative Newton iteration. == Algorithm == === Prewhitening the data === Let the X := ( x i j ) ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} :=(x_{ij})\in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denote the input data matrix, M {\displaystyle M} the number of columns corresponding with the number of samples of mixed signals and N {\displaystyle N} the number of rows corresponding with the number of independent source signals. The input data matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } must be prewhitened, or centered and whitened, before applying the FastICA algorithm to it. Centering the data entails demeaning each component of the input data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , that is, for each i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,N} and j = 1 , … , M {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,M} . After centering, each row of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } has an expected value of 0 {\displaystyle 0} . Whitening the data requires a linear transformation L : R N × M → R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} :\mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}\to \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} of the centered data so that the components of L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} are uncorrelated and have variance one. More precisely, if X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } is a centered data matrix, the covariance of L x := L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} _{\mathbf {x} }:=\mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} is the ( N × N ) {\displaystyle (N\times N)} -dimensional identity matrix, that is, A common method for whitening is by performing an eigenvalue decomposition on the covariance matrix of the centered data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , E { X X T } = E D E T {\displaystyle E\left\{\mathbf {X} \mathbf {X} ^{T}\right\}=\mathbf {E} \mathbf {D} \mathbf {E} ^{T}} , where E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } is the matrix of eigenvectors and D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. The whitened data matrix is defined thus by === Single component extraction === The iterative algorithm finds the direction for the weight vector w ∈ R N {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N}} that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the projection w T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} } , with X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denoting a prewhitened data matrix as described above. Note that w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is a column vector. To measure non-Gaussianity, FastICA relies on a nonquadratic nonlinear function f ( u ) {\displaystyle f(u)} , its first derivative g ( u ) {\displaystyle g(u)} , and its second derivative g ′ ( u ) {\displaystyle g^{\prime }(u)} . Hyvärinen states that the functions are useful for general purposes, while may be highly robust. The steps for extracting the weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } for single component in FastICA are the following: Randomize the initial weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } Let w + ← E { X g ( w T X ) T } − E { g ′ ( w T X ) } w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{+}\leftarrow E\left\{\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}\right\}-E\left\{g'(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\right\}\mathbf {w} } , where E { . . . } {\displaystyle E\left\{...\right\}} means averaging over all column-vectors of matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } Let w ← w + / ‖ w + ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \leftarrow \mathbf {w} ^{+}/\|\mathbf {w} ^{+}\|} If not converged, go back to 2 === Multiple component extraction === The single unit iterative algorithm estimates only one weight vector which extracts a single component. Estimating additional components that are mutually "independent" requires repeating the algorithm to obtain linearly independent projection vectors - note that the notion of independence here refers to maximizing non-Gaussianity in the estimated components. Hyvärinen provides several ways of extracting multiple components with the simplest being the following. Here, 1 M {\displaystyle \mathbf {1_{M}} } is a column vector of 1's of dimension M {\displaystyle M} . Algorithm FastICA Input: C {\displaystyle C} Number of desired components Input: X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} Prewhitened matrix, where each column represents an N {\displaystyle N} -dimensional sample, where C <= N {\displaystyle C<=N} Output: W ∈ R N × C {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times C}} Un-mixing matrix where each column projects X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } onto independent component. Output: S ∈ R C × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \in \mathbb {R} ^{C\times M}} Independent components matrix, with M {\displaystyle M} columns representing a sample with C {\displaystyle C} dimensions. for p in 1 to C: w p ← {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow } Random vector of length N while w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} } changes w p ← 1 M X g ( w p T X ) T − 1 M g ′ ( w p T X ) 1 M w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {1}{M}}\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}-{\frac {1}{M}}g'(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\mathbf {1_{M}} \mathbf {w_{p}} } w p ← w p − ∑ j = 1 p − 1 ( w p T w j ) w j {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow \mathbf {w_{p}} -\sum _{j=1}^{p-1}(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {w_{j}} )\mathbf {w_{j}} } w p ← w p ‖ w p ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {\mathbf {w_{p}} }{\|\mathbf {w_{p}} \|}}} output W ← [ w 1 , … , w C ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w_{1}} ,\dots ,\mathbf {w_{C}} \end{bmatrix}}} output S ← W T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \leftarrow \mathbf {W^{T}} \mathbf {X} }

  Read more →
• 

  ISLRN

  The ISLRN or International Standard Language Resource Number is Persistent Unique Identifier for Language Resources. == Context == On November 18, 2013, 12 major organisations (see list below) from the fields Language Resources and Technologies, Computational Linguistics, and Digital Humanities held a cooperation meeting in Paris (France) and agreed to announce the establishment of the International Standard Language Resource Number (ISLRN), to be assigned to each Language Resource. Among the 12 organisations, 4 institutions constitute the ISLRN Steering Committee (ST) ADHO ACL Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing ST COCOSDA, International Committee for the Coordination & Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques ICCL (COLING) European Data Forum ELRA ST IAMT, International Association for Machine Translation Archived 2010-06-24 at the Wayback Machine ISCA LDC ST Oriental COCOSDA ST RMA, Language Resource Management Agency == Size and Content == The Joint Research Centre(JRC), the [European Commission]'s in-house science service, was the first organisation to adopt the ISLRN initiative and requested. 2500 resources and tools have already been allocated an ISLRN. These resources include written data (Annotated corpus, Annotated text, List of misspelled word, Terminological database, Treebank, Wordnet, etc.) and speech corpora (Synthesised Speech, Transcripts and Audiovisual Recordings, Conversational Speech, Folk Sayings, etc.) == Objectives == Providing Language Resources with unique names and identifiers using a standardized nomenclature ensures the identification of each Language Resources and streamlines the citation with proper references in activities within Human Language Technology as well as in documents and scientific publications. Such unique identifier also enhances the reproducibility, an essential feature of scientific work.

  Read more →
• 

  Probit model

  In statistics, a probit model is a type of regression where the dependent variable can take only two values, for example married or not married. The word is a portmanteau, coming from probability + unit. The purpose of the model is to estimate the probability that an observation with particular characteristics will fall into a specific one of the categories; moreover, classifying observations based on their predicted probabilities is a type of binary classification model. A probit model is a popular specification for a binary response model. As such it treats the same set of problems as does logistic regression using similar techniques. When viewed in the generalized linear model framework, the probit model employs a probit link function. It is most often estimated using the maximum likelihood procedure, such an estimation being called a probit regression. == Conceptual framework == Suppose a response variable Y is binary, that is it can have only two possible outcomes which we will denote as 1 and 0. For example, Y may represent presence/absence of a certain condition, success/failure of some device, answer yes/no on a survey, etc. We also have a vector of regressors X, which are assumed to influence the outcome Y. Specifically, we assume that the model takes the form P ( Y = 1 ∣ X ) = Φ ( X T β ) , {\displaystyle P(Y=1\mid X)=\Phi (X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta ),} where P is the probability and Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution. The parameters β are typically estimated by maximum likelihood. It is possible to motivate the probit model as a latent variable model. Suppose there exists an auxiliary random variable Y ∗ = X T β + ε , {\displaystyle Y^{\ast }=X^{T}\beta +\varepsilon ,} where ε ~ N(0, 1). Then Y can be viewed as an indicator for whether this latent variable is positive: Y = { 1 Y ∗ > 0 0 otherwise } = { 1 X T β + ε > 0 0 otherwise } {\displaystyle Y=\left.{\begin{cases}1&Y^{}>0\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\right\}=\left.{\begin{cases}1&X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta +\varepsilon >0\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\right\}} The use of the standard normal distribution causes no loss of generality compared with the use of a normal distribution with an arbitrary mean and standard deviation, because adding a fixed amount to the mean can be compensated by subtracting the same amount from the intercept, and multiplying the standard deviation by a fixed amount can be compensated by multiplying the weights by the same amount. To see that the two models are equivalent, note that P ( Y = 1 ∣ X ) = P ( Y ∗ > 0 ) = P ( X T β + ε > 0 ) = P ( ε > − X T β ) = P ( ε < X T β ) by symmetry of the normal distribution = Φ ( X T β ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}P(Y=1\mid X)&=P(Y^{\ast }>0)\\&=P(X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta +\varepsilon >0)\\&=P(\varepsilon >-X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta )\\&=P(\varepsilon 0 {\displaystyle t,\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }n_{t}/n=c_{t}>0} . Denote p ^ t = r t / n t {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}_{t}=r_{t}/n_{t}} σ ^ t 2 = 1 n t p ^ t ( 1 − p ^ t ) φ 2 ( Φ − 1 ( p ^ t ) ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}_{t}^{2}={\frac {1}{n_{t}}}{\frac {{\hat {p}}_{t}(1-{\hat {p}}_{t})}{\varphi ^{2}{\big (}\Phi ^{-1}({\hat {p}}_{t}){\big )}}}} Then Berkson's minimum chi-square estimator is a generalized least squares estimator in a regression of Φ − 1 ( p ^ t ) {\displaystyle \Phi ^{-1}({\hat {p}}_{t})} on x ( t ) {\displaystyle x_{(t)}} with weights σ ^ t − 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}_{t}^{-2}} : β ^ = ( ∑ t = 1 T σ ^ t − 2 x ( t ) x ( t ) T ) − 1 ∑ t = 1 T σ ^ t − 2 x ( t ) Φ − 1 ( p ^ t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\beta }}={\Bigg (}\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\hat {\sigma }}_{t}^{-2}x_{(t)}x_{(t)}^{\operatorname {T} }{\Bigg )}^{-1}\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\hat {\sigma }}_{t}^{-2}x_{(t)}\Phi ^{-1}({\hat {p}}_{t})} It can be shown that this estimator is consistent (as n→∞ and T fixed), asymptotically normal and efficient. Its advantage is the presence of a closed-form formula for the estimator. However, it is only meaningful to carry out this analysis when individual observations are not available, only their aggregated counts r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} , n t {\disp

  Read more →
• 

  Sliced inverse regression

  Sliced inverse regression (SIR) is a tool for dimensionality reduction in the field of multivariate statistics. In statistics, regression analysis is a method of studying the relationship between a response variable y and its input variable x _ {\displaystyle {\underline {x}}} , which is a p-dimensional vector. There are several approaches in the category of regression. For example, parametric methods include multiple linear regression, and non-parametric methods include local smoothing. As the number of observations needed to use local smoothing methods scales exponentially with high-dimensional data (as p grows), reducing the number of dimensions can make the operation computable. Dimensionality reduction aims to achieve this by showing only the most important dimension of the data. SIR uses the inverse regression curve, E ( x _ | y ) {\displaystyle E({\underline {x}}\,|\,y)} , to perform a weighted principal component analysis. == Model == Given a response variable Y {\displaystyle \,Y} and a (random) vector X ∈ R p {\displaystyle X\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} of explanatory variables, SIR is based on the model Y = f ( β 1 ⊤ X , … , β k ⊤ X , ε ) ( 1 ) {\displaystyle Y=f(\beta _{1}^{\top }X,\ldots ,\beta _{k}^{\top }X,\varepsilon )\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad (1)} where β 1 , … , β k {\displaystyle \beta _{1},\ldots ,\beta _{k}} are unknown projection vectors, k {\displaystyle \,k} is an unknown number smaller than p {\displaystyle \,p} , f {\displaystyle \;f} is an unknown function on R k + 1 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k+1}} as it only depends on k {\displaystyle \,k} arguments, and ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is a random variable representing error with E [ ε | X ] = 0 {\displaystyle E[\varepsilon |X]=0} and a finite variance of σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} . The model describes an ideal solution, where Y {\displaystyle \,Y} depends on X ∈ R p {\displaystyle X\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} only through a k {\displaystyle \,k} dimensional subspace; i.e., one can reduce the dimension of the explanatory variables from p {\displaystyle \,p} to a smaller number k {\displaystyle \,k} without losing any information. An equivalent version of ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \,(1)} is: the conditional distribution of Y {\displaystyle \,Y} given X {\displaystyle \,X} depends on X {\displaystyle \,X} only through the k {\displaystyle \,k} dimensional random vector ( β 1 ⊤ X , … , β k ⊤ X ) {\displaystyle (\beta _{1}^{\top }X,\ldots ,\beta _{k}^{\top }X)} . It is assumed that this reduced vector is as informative as the original X {\displaystyle \,X} in explaining Y {\displaystyle \,Y} . The unknown β i ′ s {\displaystyle \,\beta _{i}'s} are called the effective dimension reducing directions (EDR-directions). The space that is spanned by these vectors is denoted by the effective dimension reducing space (EDR-space). == Relevant linear algebra background == Given a _ 1 , … , a _ r ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\underline {a}}_{1},\ldots ,{\underline {a}}_{r}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , then V := L ( a _ 1 , … , a _ r ) {\displaystyle V:=L({\underline {a}}_{1},\ldots ,{\underline {a}}_{r})} , the set of all linear combinations of these vectors is called a linear subspace and is therefore a vector space. The equation says that vectors a _ 1 , … , a _ r {\displaystyle {\underline {a}}_{1},\ldots ,{\underline {a}}_{r}} span V {\displaystyle \,V} , but the vectors that span space V {\displaystyle \,V} are not unique. The dimension of V ( ∈ R n ) {\displaystyle \,V(\in \mathbb {R} ^{n})} is equal to the maximum number of linearly independent vectors in V {\displaystyle \,V} . A set of n {\displaystyle \,n} linear independent vectors of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} makes up a basis of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The dimension of a vector space is unique, but the basis itself is not. Several bases can span the same space. Dependent vectors can still span a space, but the linear combinations of the latter are only suitable to a set of vectors lying on a straight line. == Inverse regression == Computing the inverse regression curve (IR) means instead of looking for E [ Y | X = x ] {\displaystyle \,E[Y|X=x]} , which is a curve in R p {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{p}} it is actually E [ X | Y = y ] {\displaystyle \,E[X|Y=y]} , which is also a curve in R p {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{p}} , but consisting of p {\displaystyle \,p} one-dimensional regressions. The center of the inverse regression curve is located at E [ E [ X | Y ] ] = E [ X ] {\displaystyle \,E[E[X|Y]]=E[X]} . Therefore, the centered inverse regression curve is E [ X | Y = y ] − E [ X ] {\displaystyle \,E[X|Y=y]-E[X]} which is a p {\displaystyle \,p} dimensional curve in R p {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{p}} . == Inverse regression versus dimension reduction == The centered inverse regression curve lies on a k {\displaystyle \,k} -dimensional subspace spanned by Σ x x β i ′ s {\displaystyle \,\Sigma _{xx}\beta _{i}\,'s} . This is a connection between the model and inverse regression. Given this condition and ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \,(1)} , the centered inverse regression curve E [ X | Y = y ] − E [ X ] {\displaystyle \,E[X|Y=y]-E[X]} is contained in the linear subspace spanned by Σ x x β k ( k = 1 , … , K ) {\displaystyle \,\Sigma _{xx}\beta _{k}(k=1,\ldots ,K)} , where Σ x x = C o v ( X ) {\displaystyle \,\Sigma _{xx}=Cov(X)} . == Estimation of the EDR-directions == After having had a look at all the theoretical properties, the aim now is to estimate the EDR-directions. For that purpose, weighted principal component analyses are needed. If the sample means m ^ h ′ s {\displaystyle \,{\hat {m}}_{h}\,'s} , X {\displaystyle \,X} would have been standardized to Z = Σ x x − 1 / 2 { X − E ( X ) } {\displaystyle \,Z=\Sigma _{xx}^{-1/2}\{X-E(X)\}} . Corresponding to the theorem above, the IR-curve m 1 ( y ) = E [ Z | Y = y ] {\displaystyle \,m_{1}(y)=E[Z|Y=y]} lies in the space spanned by ( η 1 , … , η k ) {\displaystyle \,(\eta _{1},\ldots ,\eta _{k})} , where η i = Σ x x 1 / 2 β i {\displaystyle \,\eta _{i}=\Sigma _{xx}^{1/2}\beta _{i}} . As a consequence, the covariance matrix c o v [ E [ Z | Y ] ] {\displaystyle \,cov[E[Z|Y]]} is degenerate in any direction orthogonal to the η i ′ s {\displaystyle \,\eta _{i}\,'s} . Therefore, the eigenvectors η k ( k = 1 , … , K ) {\displaystyle \,\eta _{k}(k=1,\ldots ,K)} associated with the largest K {\displaystyle \,K} eigenvalues are the standardized EDR-directions. == Algorithm == === SIR algorithm === The algorithm from Li, K-C. (1991) to estimate the EDR-directions via SIR is as follows. 1. Let Σ x x {\displaystyle \,\Sigma _{xx}} be the covariance matrix of X {\displaystyle \,X} . Standardize X {\displaystyle \,X} to Z = Σ x x − 1 / 2 { X − E ( X ) } {\displaystyle \,Z=\Sigma _{xx}^{-1/2}\{X-E(X)\}} ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \,(1)} can also be rewritten as Y = f ( η 1 ⊤ Z , … , η k ⊤ Z , ε ) {\displaystyle Y=f(\eta _{1}^{\top }Z,\ldots ,\eta _{k}^{\top }Z,\varepsilon )} where η k = β k Σ x x 1 / 2 ∀ k {\displaystyle \,\eta _{k}=\beta _{k}\Sigma _{xx}^{1/2}\quad \forall \;k} .) 2. Divide the range of y i {\displaystyle \,y_{i}} into S {\displaystyle \,S} non-overlapping slices H s ( s = 1 , … , S ) . n s {\displaystyle \,H_{s}(s=1,\ldots ,S).\;n_{s}} is the number of observations within each slice and I H s {\displaystyle \,I_{H_{s}}} is the indicator function for the slice: n s = ∑ i = 1 n I H s ( y i ) {\displaystyle n_{s}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}I_{H_{s}}(y_{i})} 3. Compute the mean of z i {\displaystyle \,z_{i}} over all slices, which is a crude estimate m ^ 1 {\displaystyle \,{\hat {m}}_{1}} of the inverse regression curve m 1 {\displaystyle \,m_{1}} : z ¯ s = n s − 1 ∑ i = 1 n z i I H s ( y i ) {\displaystyle \,{\bar {z}}_{s}=n_{s}^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}z_{i}I_{H_{s}}(y_{i})} 4. Calculate the estimate for C o v { m 1 ( y ) } {\displaystyle \,Cov\{m_{1}(y)\}} : V ^ = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 S n s z ¯ s z ¯ s ⊤ {\displaystyle \,{\hat {V}}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{S}n_{s}{\bar {z}}_{s}{\bar {z}}_{s}^{\top }} 5. Identify the eigenvalues λ ^ i {\displaystyle \,{\hat {\lambda }}_{i}} and the eigenvectors η ^ i {\displaystyle \,{\hat {\eta }}_{i}} of V ^ {\displaystyle \,{\hat {V}}} , which are the standardized EDR-directions. 6. Transform the standardized EDR-directions back to the original scale. The estimates for the EDR-directions are given by: β ^ i = Σ ^ x x − 1 / 2 η ^ i {\displaystyle \,{\hat {\beta }}_{i}={\hat {\Sigma }}_{xx}^{-1/2}{\hat {\eta }}_{i}} (which are not necessarily orthogonal.)

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared error

  In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] + E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ ⁡ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ ⁡ [ ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ⁡ ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Soft independent modelling of class analogies

  Soft independent modelling by class analogy (SIMCA) is a statistical method for supervised classification of data. The method requires a training data set consisting of samples (or objects) with a set of attributes and their class membership. The term soft refers to the fact the classifier can identify samples as belonging to multiple classes and not necessarily producing a classification of samples into non-overlapping classes. == Method == In order to build the classification models, the samples belonging to each class need to be analysed using principal component analysis (PCA); only the significant components are retained. For a given class, the resulting model then describes either a line (for one Principal Component or PC), plane (for two PCs) or hyper-plane (for more than two PCs). For each modelled class, the mean orthogonal distance of training data samples from the line, plane, or hyper-plane (calculated as the residual standard deviation) is used to determine a critical distance for classification. This critical distance is based on the F-distribution and is usually calculated using 95% or 99% confidence intervals. New observations are projected into each PC model and the residual distances calculated. An observation is assigned to the model class when its residual distance from the model is below the statistical limit for the class. The observation may be found to belong to multiple classes and a measure of goodness of the model can be found from the number of cases where the observations are classified into multiple classes. The classification efficiency is usually indicated by Receiver operating characteristics. In the original SIMCA method, the ends of the hyper-plane of each class are closed off by setting statistical control limits along the retained principal components axes (i.e., score value between plus and minus 0.5 times score standard deviation). More recent adaptations of the SIMCA method close off the hyper-plane by construction of ellipsoids (e.g. Hotelling's T2 or Mahalanobis distance). With such modified SIMCA methods, classification of an object requires both that its orthogonal distance from the model and its projection within the model (i.e. score value within the region defined by the ellipsoid) are not significant. == Application == SIMCA as a method of classification has gained widespread use especially in applied statistical fields such as chemometrics and spectroscopic data analysis.

  Read more →
• 

  Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization

  Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), also known as unconstrained binary quadratic programming (UBQP), is a combinatorial optimization problem with a wide range of applications from finance and economics to machine learning. QUBO is an NP hard problem, and for many classical problems from theoretical computer science, like maximum cut, graph coloring and the partition problem, embeddings into QUBO have been formulated. Embeddings for machine learning models include support-vector machines, clustering and probabilistic graphical models. Moreover, due to its close connection to Ising models, QUBO constitutes a central problem class for adiabatic quantum computation, where it is solved through a physical process called quantum annealing. == Definition == Let B = { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} =\lbrace 0,1\rbrace } the set of binary digits (or bits), then B n {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} ^{n}} is the set of binary vectors of fixed length n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } . Given a symmetric or upper triangular matrix Q ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , whose entries Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} define a weight for each pair of indices i , j ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i,j\in \lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } , we can define the function f Q : B n → R {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}:\mathbb {B} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } that assigns a value to each binary vector x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} through f Q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q x = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n Q i j x i x j . {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{n}Q_{ij}x_{i}x_{j}.} Alternatively, the linear and quadratic parts can be separated as f Q ′ , q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q ′ x + q ⊺ x , {\displaystyle f_{{\boldsymbol {Q}}',{\boldsymbol {q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Q}}'{\boldsymbol {x}}+{\boldsymbol {q}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}},} where Q ′ ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}'\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and q ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . This is equivalent to the previous definition through Q = Q ′ + diag ⁡ [ q ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}={\boldsymbol {Q}}'+\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {q}}]} using the diag operator, exploiting that x = x ⋅ x {\displaystyle x=x\cdot x} for all binary values x {\displaystyle x} . Intuitively, the weight Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} is added if both x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} and x j = 1 {\displaystyle x_{j}=1} . The QUBO problem consists of finding a binary vector x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} that minimizes f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , i.e., ∀ x ∈ B n : f Q ( x ∗ ) ≤ f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle \forall {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}:~f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}}^{})\leq f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In general, x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} is not unique, meaning there may be a set of minimizing vectors with equal value w.r.t. f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . The complexity of QUBO arises from the number of candidate binary vectors to be evaluated, as | B n | = 2 n {\displaystyle \left|\mathbb {B} ^{n}\right|=2^{n}} grows exponentially in n {\displaystyle n} . Sometimes, QUBO is defined as the problem of maximizing f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , which is equivalent to minimizing f − Q = − f Q {\displaystyle f_{-{\boldsymbol {Q}}}=-f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . == Properties == QUBO is scale invariant for positive factors α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} , which leave the optimum x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} unchanged: f α Q ( x ) = x ⊺ ( α Q ) x = α ( x ⊺ Q x ) = α f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }(\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}){\boldsymbol {x}}=\alpha ({\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}})=\alpha f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In its general form, QUBO is NP-hard and cannot be solved efficiently by any known polynomial-time algorithm. However, there are polynomially-solvable special cases, where Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} has certain properties, for example: If all coefficients are positive, the optimum is trivially x ∗ = ( 0 , … , 0 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(0,\dots ,0)^{\intercal }} . Similarly, if all coefficients are negative, the optimum is x ∗ = ( 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }} . If Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} is diagonal, the bits can be optimized independently, and the problem is solvable in O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . The optimal variable assignments are simply x i ∗ = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=1} if Q i i < 0 {\displaystyle Q_{ii}<0} , and x i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=0} otherwise. If all off-diagonal elements of Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} are non-positive, the corresponding QUBO problem is solvable in polynomial time. QUBO can be solved using integer linear programming solvers like CPLEX or Gurobi Optimizer. This is possible since QUBO can be reformulated as a linear constrained binary optimization problem. To achieve this, substitute the product x i x j {\displaystyle x_{i}x_{j}} by an additional binary variable z i j ∈ B {\displaystyle z_{ij}\in \mathbb {B} } and add the constraints x i ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}\geq z_{ij}} , x j ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{j}\geq z_{ij}} and x i + x j − 1 ≤ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}+x_{j}-1\leq z_{ij}} . Note that z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} can also be relaxed to continuous variables within the bounds zero and one. == Applications == QUBO is a structurally simple, yet computationally hard optimization problem. It can be used to encode a wide range of optimization problems from various scientific areas. === Maximum Cut === Given a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with vertex set V = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle V=\lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } and edges E ⊆ V × V {\displaystyle E\subseteq V\times V} , the maximum cut (max-cut) problem consists of finding two subsets S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} with T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , such that the number of edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} is maximized. The more general weighted max-cut problem assumes edge weights w i j ≥ 0 ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle w_{ij}\geq 0~\forall i,j\in V} , with ( i , j ) ∉ E ⇒ w i j = 0 {\displaystyle (i,j)\notin E\Rightarrow w_{ij}=0} , and asks for a partition S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} that maximizes the sum of edge weights between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , i.e., max S ⊆ V ∑ i ∈ S , j ∉ S w i j . {\displaystyle \max _{S\subseteq V}\sum _{i\in S,j\notin S}w_{ij}.} By setting w i j = 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}=1} for all ( i , j ) ∈ E {\displaystyle (i,j)\in E} this becomes equivalent to the original max-cut problem above, which is why we focus on this more general form in the following. For every vertex in i ∈ V {\displaystyle i\in V} we introduce a binary variable x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} with the interpretation x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} if i ∈ S {\displaystyle i\in S} and x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if i ∈ T {\displaystyle i\in T} . As T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , every i {\displaystyle i} is in exactly one set, meaning there is a 1:1 correspondence between binary vectors x ∈ B n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}} and partitions of V {\displaystyle V} into two subsets. We observe that, for any i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle i,j\in V} , the expression x i ( 1 − x j ) + ( 1 − x i ) x j {\displaystyle x_{i}(1-x_{j})+(1-x_{i})x_{j}} evaluates to 1 if and only if i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in different subsets, equivalent to logical XOR. Let W ∈ R + n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {W}}\in \mathbb {R} _{+}^{n\times n}} with W i j = w i j ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle W_{ij}=w_{ij}~\forall i,j\in V} . By extending above expression to matrix-vector form we find that x ⊺ W ( 1 − x ) + ( 1 − x ) ⊺ W x = − 2 x ⊺ W x + ( W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ) ⊺ x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {W}}({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})+({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}=-2{\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}+({\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {1}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}}} is the sum of weights of all edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , where 1 = ( 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {1}}=(1,1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . As this is a quadratic function over x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} , it is a QUBO problem whose parameter matrix we can read from above expression as Q = 2 W − diag ⁡ [ W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ] , {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}=2{\boldsymbol {W}}-\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\bol

  Read more →