AI Face Combiner

AI Face Combiner — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Virtual assistant

  A virtual assistant (VA) is a software agent that can perform a range of tasks or services for a user based on user input, such as commands or questions, including verbal ones. Such technologies often incorporate chatbot capabilities to streamline task execution. The interaction may be via text, graphical interface, or voice, as some virtual assistants are able to interpret human speech and respond via synthesized voices. In many cases, users can ask their virtual assistants questions, control home automation devices and media playback, and manage other basic tasks such as email, to-do lists, and calendars – all with verbal commands. In recent years, prominent virtual assistants for direct consumer use have included Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant (Gemini), Microsoft Copilot and Samsung Bixby. Also, companies in various industries often incorporate some kind of virtual assistant technology into their customer service or support. Into the 2020s, the emergence of artificial intelligence based chatbots, such as ChatGPT, has brought increased capability and interest to the field of virtual assistant products and services. == History == === Experimental decades: 1910s–1980s === Radio Rex was the first voice-activated toy, patented in 1916 and released in 1922. It was a wooden toy in the shape of a dog that would come out of its house when its name is called. In 1952, Bell Labs presented "Audrey", the Automatic Digit Recognition machine. It occupied a six-foot-high relay rack, consumed substantial power, had streams of cables and exhibited the myriad maintenance problems associated with complex vacuum-tube circuitry. It could recognize the fundamental units of speech, phonemes. It was limited to the accurate recognition of digits spoken by designated talkers. It could therefore be used for voice dialing, but in most cases, push-button dialing was cheaper and faster, rather than speaking the consecutive digits. Another early tool which was enabled to perform digital speech recognition was the IBM Shoebox voice-activated calculator, presented to the general public during the 1962 Seattle World's Fair after its initial market launch in 1961. This early computer, developed almost 20 years before the introduction of the first IBM Personal Computer in 1981, was able to recognize 16 spoken words and the digits 0 to 9. The first natural language processing computer program or the chatbot ELIZA was developed by MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum in the 1960s. It was created to "demonstrate that the communication between man and machine was superficial". ELIZA used pattern matching and substitution methodology into scripted responses to simulate conversation, which gave an illusion of understanding on the part of the program. Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people. This gave name to the ELIZA effect, the tendency to unconsciously assume computer behaviors are analogous to human behaviors; that is, anthropomorphisation, a phenomenon present in human interactions with virtual assistants. The next milestone in the development of voice recognition technology was achieved in the 1970s at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with substantial support of the United States Department of Defense and its DARPA agency, funded five years of a Speech Understanding Research program, aiming to reach a minimum vocabulary of 1,000 words. Companies and academia including IBM, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and Stanford Research Institute took part in the program. The result was "Harpy", it mastered about 1000 words, the vocabulary of a three-year-old and it could understand sentences. It could process speech that followed pre-programmed vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar structures to determine which sequences of words made sense together, and thus reducing speech recognition errors. In 1986, Tangora was an upgrade of the Shoebox, it was a voice recognizing typewriter. Named after the world's fastest typist at the time, it had a vocabulary of 20,000 words and used prediction to decide the most likely result based on what was said in the past. IBM's approach was based on a hidden Markov model, which adds statistics to digital signal processing techniques. The method makes it possible to predict the most likely phonemes to follow a given phoneme. Still each speaker had to individually train the typewriter to recognize their voice, and pause between each word. In 1983, Gus Searcy invented the "Butler in a Box", an electronic voice home controller system. === Birth of smart virtual assistants: 1990s–2010s === In the 1990s, digital speech recognition technology became a feature of the personal computer with IBM, Philips and Lernout & Hauspie fighting for customers. Much later the market launch of the first smartphone IBM Simon in 1994 laid the foundation for smart virtual assistants as we know them today. In 1997, Dragon's NaturallySpeaking software could recognize and transcribe natural human speech without pauses between each word into a document at a rate of 100 words per minute. A version of Naturally Speaking is still available for download and it is still used today, for instance, by many doctors in the US and the UK to document their medical records. In 2001 Colloquis publicly launched SmarterChild, on platforms like AIM and MSN Messenger. While entirely text-based SmarterChild was able to play games, check the weather, look up facts, and converse with users to an extent. The first modern digital virtual assistant installed on a smartphone was Siri, which was introduced as a feature of the iPhone 4S on 4 October 2011. Apple Inc. developed Siri following the 2010 acquisition of Siri Inc., a spin-off of SRI International, which is a research institute financed by DARPA and the United States Department of Defense. Its aim was to aid in tasks such as sending a text message, making phone calls, checking the weather or setting up an alarm. Over time, it has developed to provide restaurant recommendations, search the internet, and provide driving directions. In November 2014, Amazon announced Alexa alongside the Echo. In 2016, Salesforce debuted Einstein, developed from a set of technologies underlying the Salesforce platform. Einstein was replaced by Agentforce, an agentic AI, in September 2024. In April 2017 Amazon released a service for building conversational interfaces for any type of virtual assistant or interface. === Large Language Models: 2020s-present === In the 2020s, artificial intelligence (AI) systems like ChatGPT have gained popularity for their ability to generate human-like responses to text-based conversations. In February 2020, Microsoft introduced its Turing Natural Language Generation (T-NLG), which was then the "largest language model ever published at 17 billion parameters." On November 30, 2022, ChatGPT was launched as a prototype and quickly garnered attention for its detailed responses and articulate answers across many domains of knowledge. The advent of ChatGPT and its introduction to the wider public increased interest and competition in the space. In February 2023, Google began introducing an experimental service called "Bard" which is based on its LaMDA program to generate text responses to questions asked based on information gathered from the web. While ChatGPT and other generalized chatbots based on the latest generative AI are capable of performing various tasks associated with virtual assistants, there are also more specialized forms of such technology that are designed to target more specific situations or needs. == Method of interaction == Virtual assistants work via: Text, including: online chat (especially in an instant messaging application or other application ), SMS text, e-mail or other text-based communication channel, for example Conversica's intelligent virtual assistants for business. Voice: for example with Amazon Alexa on Amazon Echo devices, Siri on an iPhone, Google Assistant on Google-enabled Android devices, or Bixby on Samsung devices. Images: some assistants, such as Google Assistant (which includes Google Lens) and Bixby on the Samsung Galaxy series, have the added capability of performing image processing to recognize objects in images. Many virtual assistants are accessible via multiple methods, offering versatility in how users can interact with them, whether through chat, voice commands, or other integrated technologies. Virtual assistants use natural language processing (NLP) to match user text or voice input to executable commands. Some continually learn using artificial intelligence techniques including machine learning and ambient intelligence. To activate a virtual assistant u

  Read more →
• 

  IDistance

  In pattern recognition, iDistance is an indexing and query processing technique for k-nearest neighbor queries on point data in multi-dimensional metric spaces. The kNN query is one of the hardest problems on multi-dimensional data, especially when the dimensionality of the data is high. iDistance is designed to process kNN queries in high-dimensional spaces efficiently and performs extremely well for skewed data distributions, which usually occur in real-life data sets. iDistance employs a two-phase search strategy involving an initial filtering of candidate regions and a subsequent refinement of results, an approach aligned with the Filter and Refine Principle (FRP). This means that the index first prunes the search space to eliminate unlikely candidates, then verifies the true nearest neighbors in a refinement step, following the general FRP paradigm used in database search algorithms. The iDistance index can also be augmented with machine learning models to learn data distributions for improved searching and storage of multi-dimensional data. == Indexing == Building the iDistance index has two steps: A number of reference points in the data space are chosen. There are various ways of choosing reference points. Using cluster centers as reference points is the most efficient way. The data points are partitioned into Voronoi cells based on well-chosen reference points. The distance between a data point and its closest reference point is calculated. This distance plus a scaling value is called the point's iDistance. By this means, points in a multi-dimensional space are mapped to one-dimensional values, and then a B+-tree can be adopted to index the points using the iDistance as the key. The figure on the right shows an example where three reference points (O1, O2, O3) are chosen. The data points are then mapped to a one-dimensional space and indexed in a B+-tree. Various extensions have been proposed to make the selection of reference points for effective query performance, including employing machine learning to learn the identification of reference points. == Query processing == To process a kNN query, the query is mapped to a number of one-dimensional range queries, which can be processed efficiently on a B+-tree. In the above figure, the query Q is mapped to a value in the B+-tree while the kNN search ``sphere" is mapped to a range in the B+-tree. The search sphere expands gradually until the k NNs are found. This corresponds to gradually expanding range searches in the B+-tree. The iDistance technique can be viewed as a way of accelerating the sequential scan. Instead of scanning records from the beginning to the end of the data file, the iDistance starts the scan from spots where the nearest neighbors can be obtained early with a very high probability. == Applications == The iDistance has been used in many applications including Image retrieval Video indexing Similarity search in P2P systems Mobile computing Recommender system == Historical background == The iDistance was first proposed by Cui Yu, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan and H. V. Jagadish in 2001. Later, together with Rui Zhang, they improved the technique and performed a more comprehensive study on it in 2005.

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatical evolution

  Grammatical evolution (GE) is a genetic programming (GP) technique (or approach) from evolutionary computation pioneered by Conor Ryan, JJ Collins and Michael O'Neill in 1998 at the BDS Group in the University of Limerick. As in any other GP approach, the objective is to find an executable program, program fragment, or function, which will achieve a good fitness value for a given objective function. In most published work on GP, a LISP-style tree-structured expression is directly manipulated, whereas GE applies genetic operators to an integer string, subsequently mapped to a program (or similar) through the use of a grammar, which is typically expressed in Backus–Naur form. One of the benefits of GE is that this mapping simplifies the application of search to different programming languages and other structures. == Problem addressed == In type-free, conventional Koza-style GP, the function set must meet the requirement of closure: all functions must be capable of accepting as their arguments the output of all other functions in the function set. Usually, this is implemented by dealing with a single data-type such as double-precision floating point. While modern Genetic Programming frameworks support typing, such type-systems have limitations that Grammatical Evolution does not suffer from. == GE's solution == GE offers a solution to the single-type limitation by evolving solutions according to a user-specified grammar (usually a grammar in Backus-Naur form). Therefore, the search space can be restricted, and domain knowledge of the problem can be incorporated. The inspiration for this approach comes from a desire to separate the "genotype" from the "phenotype": in GP, the objects the search algorithm operates on and what the fitness evaluation function interprets are one and the same. In contrast, GE's "genotypes" are ordered lists of integers which code for selecting rules from the provided context-free grammar. The phenotype, however, is the same as in Koza-style GP: a tree-like structure that is evaluated recursively. This model is more in line with how genetics work in nature, where there is a separation between an organism's genotype and the final expression of phenotype in proteins, etc. Separating genotype and phenotype allows a modular approach. In particular, the search portion of the GE paradigm needn't be carried out by any one particular algorithm or method. Observe that the objects GE performs search on are the same as those used in genetic algorithms. This means, in principle, that any existing genetic algorithm package, such as the popular GAlib, can be used to carry out the search, and a developer implementing a GE system need only worry about carrying out the mapping from list of integers to program tree. It is also in principle possible to perform the search using some other method, such as particle swarm optimization (see the remark below); the modular nature of GE creates many opportunities for hybrids as the problem of interest to be solved dictates. Brabazon and O'Neill have successfully applied GE to predicting corporate bankruptcy, forecasting stock indices, bond credit ratings, and other financial applications. GE has also been used with a classic predator-prey model to explore the impact of parameters such as predator efficiency, niche number, and random mutations on ecological stability. It is possible to structure a GE grammar that for a given function/terminal set is equivalent to genetic programming. == Criticism == Despite its successes, GE has been the subject of some criticism. One issue is that as a result of its mapping operation, GE's genetic operators do not achieve high locality which is a highly regarded property of genetic operators in evolutionary algorithms. == Variants == Although GE was originally described in terms of using an Evolutionary Algorithm, specifically, a Genetic Algorithm, other variants exist. For example, GE researchers have experimented with using particle swarm optimization to carry out the searching instead of genetic algorithms with results comparable to that of normal GE; this is referred to as a "grammatical swarm"; using only the basic PSO model it has been found that PSO is probably equally capable of carrying out the search process in GE as simple genetic algorithms are. (Although PSO is normally a floating-point search paradigm, it can be discretized, e.g., by simply rounding each vector to the nearest integer, for use with GE.) Yet another possible variation that has been experimented with in the literature is attempting to encode semantic information in the grammar in order to further bias the search process. Other work showed that, with biased grammars that leverage domain knowledge, even random search can be used to drive GE. == Related work == GE was originally a combination of the linear representation as used by the Genetic Algorithm for Developing Software (GADS) and Backus Naur Form grammars, which were originally used in tree-based GP by Wong and Leung in 1995 and Whigham in 1996. Other related work noted in the original GE paper was that of Frederic Gruau, who used a conceptually similar "embryonic" approach, as well as that of Keller and Banzhaf, which similarly used linear genomes. == Implementations == There are several implementations of GE. These include the following.

  Read more →
• 

  BookCorpus

  BookCorpus (also sometimes referred to as the Toronto Book Corpus) is a dataset consisting of the text of around 7,000 self-published books scraped from the indie ebook distribution website Smashwords. It was the main corpus used to train the initial GPT model by OpenAI, and has been used as training data for other early large language models including Google's BERT. The dataset consists of around 985 million words, and the books that comprise it span a range of genres, including romance, science fiction, and fantasy. The corpus was introduced in a 2015 paper by researchers from the University of Toronto and MIT titled "Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Books". The authors described it as consisting of "free books written by yet unpublished authors," yet this is factually incorrect. These books were published by self-published ("indie") authors who priced them at free; the books were downloaded without the consent or permission of Smashwords or Smashwords authors and in violation of the Smashwords Terms of Service. The dataset was initially hosted on a University of Toronto webpage. An official version of the original dataset is no longer publicly available, though at least one substitute, BookCorpusOpen, has been created. Though not documented in the original 2015 paper, the site from which the corpus's books were scraped is now known to be Smashwords.

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed manufacturing

  Distributed manufacturing, also known as distributed production, cloud producing, distributed digital manufacturing, and local manufacturing, is a form of decentralized manufacturing practiced by enterprises using a network of geographically dispersed manufacturing facilities that are coordinated using information technology. It can also refer to local manufacture via the historic cottage industry model, or manufacturing that takes place in the homes of consumers. == Enterprise == In enterprise environments, the primary attribute of distributed manufacturing is the ability to create value at geographically dispersed locations. For example, shipping costs could be minimized when products are built geographically close to their intended markets. Also, products manufactured in a number of small facilities distributed over a wide area can be customized with details adapted to individual or regional tastes. Manufacturing components in different physical locations and then managing the supply chain to bring them together for final assembly of a product is also considered a form of distributed manufacturing. Digital networks combined with additive manufacturing allow companies a decentralized and geographically independent distributed production (cloud manufacturing). == Consumer == Within the maker movement and DIY culture, small scale production by consumers often using peer-to-peer resources is being referred to as distributed manufacturing. Consumers download digital designs from an open design repository website like Youmagine or Thingiverse and produce a product for low costs through a distributed network of 3D printing services such as 3D Hubs, Geomiq. In the most distributed form of distributed manufacturing the consumer becomes a prosumer and manufacturers products at home with an open-source 3-D printer such as the RepRap. In 2013 a desktop 3-D printer could be economically justified as a personal product fabricator and the number of free and open hardware designs were growing exponentially. Today there are millions of open hardware product designs at hundreds of repositories and there is some evidence consumers are 3-D printing to save money. For example, 2017 case studies probed the quality of: (1) six common complex toys; (2) Lego blocks; and (3) the customizability of open source board games and found that all filaments analyzed saved the prosumer over 75% of the cost of commercially available true alternative toys and over 90% for recyclebot filament. Overall, these results indicate a single 3D printing repository, MyMiniFactory, is saving consumers well over $60 million/year in offset purchases of only toys. These 3-D printers can now be used to make sophisticated high-value products like scientific instruments. Similarly, a study in 2022 found that 81% of open source designs provided economic savings and the total savings for the 3D printing community is more than $35 million from downloading only the top 100 products at YouMagine. In general, the savings are largest when compared to conventional products when prosumers use recycled materials in 'distributed recycling and additive manufacturing' (DRAM). == Emergency Distributed Manufacturing During COVID-19 Pandemic == Distributed manufacturing became far more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic because it offered a practical response to the breakdown of centralized global supply chains. As lock downs, border restrictions, and factory shutdowns disrupted conventional production, decentralized networks using local facilities such as Open Source Medical Supplies stepped in and manufactured over 48 million products. Additive manufacturing /3D printing were used to produce urgently needed items such as face shields, ventilators and their components, nasopharyngeal swabs, and other personal protective equipment. This demonstrated that distributed manufacturing could reduce lead times, improve responsiveness, and lessen dependence on distant suppliers during crisis conditions for a wide range of products. Peer-reviewed studies on pandemic-era manufacturing note that additive manufacturing was especially valuable because digital design files could be shared rapidly and produced close to the point of need, enabling hospitals, universities, small firms, and maker communities to supplement strained medical supply chains. The pandemic also helped shift distributed manufacturing from being seen as a niche or experimental model to a credible strategy for resilience, flexibility, and emergency response. At the same time, scholars caution that its wider adoption depends on solving issues related to quality assurance, regulation, material consistency, and coordination across distributed production sites. Overall, COVID-19 popularized distributed manufacturing by showing that localized, digitally enabled production could complement traditional manufacturing systems when speed, adaptability, and supply-chain resilience were critical. == Social change == Some call attention to the conjunction of commons-based peer production with distributed manufacturing techniques. The self-reinforced fantasy of a system of eternal growth can be overcome with the development of economies of scope, and here, the civil society can play an important role contributing to the raising of the whole productive structure to a higher plateau of more sustainable and customised productivity. Further, it is true that many issues, problems and threats rise due to the large democratization of the means of production, and especially regarding the physical ones. For instance, the recyclability of advanced nanomaterials is still questioned; weapons manufacturing could become easier; not to mention the implications on counterfeiting and on "intellectual property". It might be maintained that in contrast to the industrial paradigm whose competitive dynamics were about economies of scale, commons-based peer production and distributed manufacturing could develop economies of scope. While the advantages of scale rest on cheap global transportation, the economies of scope share infrastructure costs (intangible and tangible productive resources), taking advantage of the capabilities of the fabrication tools. And following Neil Gershenfeld in that "some of the least developed parts of the world need some of the most advanced technologies", commons-based peer production and distributed manufacturing may offer the necessary tools for thinking globally but act locally in response to certain problems and needs. As well as supporting individual personal manufacturing social and economic benefits are expected to result from the development of local production economies. In particular, the humanitarian and development sector are becoming increasingly interested in how distributed manufacturing can overcome the supply chain challenges of last mile distribution. Further, distributed manufacturing has been proposed as a key element in the Cosmopolitan localism or cosmolocalism framework to reconfigure production by prioritizing socio-ecological well-being over corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption. == Technology == By localizing manufacturing, distributed manufacturing may enable a balance between two opposite extreme qualities in technology development: Low technology and High tech. This balance is understood as an inclusive middle, a "mid-tech", that may go beyond the two polarities, incorporating them into a higher synthesis. Thus, in such an approach, low-tech and high-tech stop being mutually exclusive. They instead become a dialectic totality. Mid-tech may be abbreviated to "both…and…" instead of "neither…nor…". Mid-tech combines the efficiency and versatility of digital/automated technology with low-tech's potential for autonomy and resilience. == Contracting in Distributed Manufacturing == Research into contracting and order processing models tailored for distributed manufacturing has highlighted the need for flexible, role-based frameworks and advanced digital tools. These tools and frameworks are essential for addressing issues related to quality assurance, payment structures, legal compliance, and coordination among multiple actors. By addressing these challenges, contracting models for distributed manufacturing can unlock its potential for more localized, efficient, and sustainable production systems. A system prototype has been developed to simplify contracting for distributed manufacturing. This tool allows buyers to manage orders across multiple manufacturers using a single interface, automating workflows to ensure clarity and accountability for everyone involved. This research was led by the Internet of Production, as part of the mAkE project (African European Maker Innovation Ecosystem), funded by the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

  Read more →
• 

  Premature convergence

  Premature convergence is an unwanted effect in evolutionary algorithms (EA), a metaheuristic that mimics the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm for solving an optimization problem. The effect means that the population of an EA has converged too early, resulting in being suboptimal. In this context, the parental solutions, through the aid of genetic operators, are not able to generate offspring that are superior to, or outperform, their parents. Premature convergence is a common problem found in evolutionary algorithms, as it leads to a loss, or convergence of, a large number of alleles, subsequently making it very difficult to search for a specific gene in which the alleles were present. An allele is considered lost if, in a population, a gene is present, where all individuals are sharing the same value for that particular gene. An allele is, as defined by De Jong, considered to be a converged allele, when 95% of a population share the same value for a certain gene. == Strategies for preventing premature convergence == Strategies to regain genetic variation can be: a mating strategy called incest prevention, uniform crossover, mimicking sexual selection, favored replacement of similar individuals (preselection or crowding), segmentation of individuals of similar fitness (fitness sharing), increasing population size niche and specie The genetic variation can also be regained by mutation though this process is highly random. A general strategy to reduce the risk of premature convergence is to use structured populations instead of the commonly used panmictic ones. == Identification of the occurrence of premature convergence == It is hard to determine when premature convergence has occurred, and it is equally hard to predict its presence in the future. One measure is to use the difference between the average and maximum fitness values, as used by Patnaik & Srinivas, to then vary the crossover and mutation probabilities. Population diversity is another measure which has been extensively used in studies to measure premature convergence. However, although it has been widely accepted that a decrease in the population diversity directly leads to premature convergence, there have been little studies done on the analysis of population diversity. In other words, by using the term population diversity, the argument for a study in preventing premature convergence lacks robustness, unless specified what their definition of population diversity is. There are models to counter the effect and risk of premature convergence that do not compromise core GA parameters like population size, mutation rate, and other core mechanisms. These models were inspired by biological ecology, where genetic interactions are limited by external mechanisms such as spatial topologies or speciation. These ecological models, such as the Eco-GA, adopt diffusion-based strategies to improve the robustness of GA runs and increase the likelihood of reaching near-global optima. == Causes for premature convergence == There are a number of presumed or hypothesized causes for the occurrence of premature convergence. === Self-adaptive mutations === Rechenberg introduced the idea of self-adaptation of mutation distributions in evolution strategies. According to Rechenberg, the control parameters for these mutation distributions evolved internally through self-adaptation, rather than predetermination. He called it the 1/5-success rule of evolution strategies (1 + 1)-ES: The step size control parameter would be increased by some factor if the relative frequency of positive mutations through a determined period of time is larger than 1/5, vice versa if it is smaller than 1/5. Self-adaptive mutations may very well be one of the causes for premature convergence. Accurately locating of optima can be enhanced by self-adaptive mutation, as well as accelerating the search for this optima. This has been widely recognized, though the mechanism's underpinnings of this have been poorly studied, as it is often unclear whether the optima is found locally or globally. Self-adaptive methods can cause global convergence to global optimum, provided that the selection methods used are using elitism, as well as that the rule of self-adaptation doesn't interfere with the mutation distribution, which has the property of ensuring a positive minimum probability when hitting a random subset. This is for non-convex objective functions with sets that include bounded lower levels of non-zero measurements. A study by Rudolph suggests that self-adaption mechanisms among elitist evolution strategies do resemble the 1/5-success rule, and could very well get caught by a local optimum that include a positive probability. === Panmictic populations === Most EAs use unstructured or panmictic populations where basically every individual in the population is eligible for mate selection based on fitness. Thus, The genetic information of an only slightly better individual can spread in a population within a few generations, provided that no better other offspring is produced during this time. Especially in comparatively small populations, this can quickly lead to a loss of genotypic diversity and thus to premature convergence. A well-known countermeasure is to switch to alternative population models which introduce substructures into the population that preserve genotypic diversity over a longer period of time and thus counteract the tendency towards premature convergence. This has been shown for various EAs such as genetic algorithms, the evolution strategy, other EAs or memetic algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Concept class

  In computational learning theory in mathematics, a concept over a domain X is a total Boolean function over X. A concept class is a class of concepts. Concept classes are a subject of computational learning theory. Concept class terminology frequently appears in model theory associated with probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. In this setting, if one takes a set Y as a set of (classifier output) labels, and X is a set of examples, the map c : X → Y {\displaystyle c:X\to Y} , i.e. from examples to classifier labels (where Y = { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle Y=\{0,1\}} and where c is a subset of X), c is then said to be a concept. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is then a collection of such concepts. Given a class of concepts C, a subclass D is reachable if there exists a sample s such that D contains exactly those concepts in C that are extensions to s. Not every subclass is reachable. == Background == A sample s {\displaystyle s} is a partial function from X {\displaystyle X} to { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} . Identifying a concept with its characteristic function mapping X {\displaystyle X} to { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} , it is a special case of a sample. Two samples are consistent if they agree on the intersection of their domains. A sample s ′ {\displaystyle s'} extends another sample s {\displaystyle s} if the two are consistent and the domain of s {\displaystyle s} is contained in the domain of s ′ {\displaystyle s'} . == Examples == Suppose that C = S + ( X ) {\displaystyle C=S^{+}(X)} . Then: the subclass { { x } } {\displaystyle \{\{x\}\}} is reachable with the sample s = { ( x , 1 ) } {\displaystyle s=\{(x,1)\}} ; the subclass S + ( Y ) {\displaystyle S^{+}(Y)} for Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} are reachable with a sample that maps the elements of X − Y {\displaystyle X-Y} to zero; the subclass S ( X ) {\displaystyle S(X)} , which consists of the singleton sets, is not reachable. == Applications == Let C {\displaystyle C} be some concept class. For any concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} , we call this concept 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} -good for a positive integer d {\displaystyle d} if, for all x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} , at least 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} of the concepts in C {\displaystyle C} agree with c {\displaystyle c} on the classification of x {\displaystyle x} . The fingerprint dimension F D ( C ) {\displaystyle FD(C)} of the entire concept class C {\displaystyle C} is the least positive integer d {\displaystyle d} such that every reachable subclass C ′ ⊆ C {\displaystyle C'\subseteq C} contains a concept that is 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} -good for it. This quantity can be used to bound the minimum number of equivalence queries needed to learn a class of concepts according to the following inequality: F D ( C ) − 1 ≤ # E Q ( C ) ≤ ⌈ F D ( C ) ln ⁡ ( | C | ) ⌉ {\textstyle FD(C)-1\leq \#EQ(C)\leq \lceil FD(C)\ln(|C|)\rceil } .

  Read more →
• 

  Learning classifier system

  Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a

  Read more →
• 

  AUTINDEX

  AUTINDEX is a commercial text mining software package based on sophisticated linguistics. AUTINDEX, resulting from research in information extraction, is a product of the Institute of Applied Information Sciences (IAI) which is a non-profit institute that has been researching and developing language technology since its foundation in 1985. IAI is an institute affiliated to Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany. AUTINDEX is the result of a number of research projects funded by the EU (Project BINDEX), by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the German Ministry for Economy. Amongst the latter there are the projects LinSearch, and WISSMER, see also the reference to IAI-Website. The basic functionality of AUTINDEX is the extraction of key words from a document to represent the semantics of the document. Ideally the system is integrated with a thesaurus that defines the standardised terms to be used for key word assignment. AUTINDEX is used in library applications (e.g. integrated in dandelon.com) as well as in high quality (expert) information systems, and in document management and content management environments. Together with AUTINDEX a number of additional software comes along such as an integration with Apache Solr / Lucene to provide a complete information retrieval environment, a classification and categorisation system on the basis of a machine learning software that assigns domains to the document, and a system for searching with semantically similar terms that are collected in so called tag clouds.

  Read more →
• 

  Shattered set

  A class of sets is said to shatter another set if it is possible to "pick out" any element of that set using intersection. The concept of shattered sets plays an important role in Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as VC-theory. Shattering and VC-theory are used in the study of empirical processes as well as in statistical computational learning theory. == Definition == Suppose A is a set and C is a class of sets. The class C shatters the set A if for each subset a of A, there is some element c of C such that a = c ∩ A . {\displaystyle a=c\cap A.} Equivalently, C shatters A when their intersection is equal to A's power set: P(A) = { c ∩ A | c ∈ C }. We employ the letter C to refer to a "class" or "collection" of sets, as in a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class (VC-class). The set A is often assumed to be finite because, in empirical processes, we are interested in the shattering of finite sets of data points. == Example == We will show that the class of all discs in the plane (two-dimensional space) does not shatter every set of four points on the unit circle, yet the class of all convex sets in the plane does shatter every finite set of points on the unit circle. Let A be a set of four points on the unit circle and let C be the class of all discs. To test where C shatters A, we attempt to draw a disc around every subset of points in A. First, we draw a disc around the subsets of each isolated point. Next, we try to draw a disc around every subset of point pairs. This turns out to be doable for adjacent points, but impossible for points on opposite sides of the circle. Any attempt to include those points on the opposite side will necessarily include other points not in that pair. Hence, any pair of opposite points cannot be isolated out of A using intersections with class C and so C does not shatter A. As visualized below: Because there is some subset which can not be isolated by any disc in C, we conclude then that A is not shattered by C. And, with a bit of thought, we can prove that no set of four points is shattered by this C. However, if we redefine C to be the class of all elliptical discs, we find that we can still isolate all the subsets from above, as well as the points that were formerly problematic. Thus, this specific set of 4 points is shattered by the class of elliptical discs. Visualized below: With a bit of thought, we could generalize that any set of finite points on a unit circle could be shattered by the class of all convex sets (visualize connecting the dots). == Shatter coefficient == To quantify the richness of a collection C of sets, we use the concept of shattering coefficients (also known as the growth function). For a collection C of sets s ⊂ Ω {\displaystyle s\subset \Omega } , Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } being any space, often a sample space, we define the nth shattering coefficient of C as S C ( n ) = max ∀ x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω card ⁡ { { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } ∩ s , s ∈ C } {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=\max _{\forall x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega }\operatorname {card} \{\,\{\,x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}\cap s,s\in C\}} where card {\displaystyle \operatorname {card} } denotes the cardinality of the set and x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega } is any set of n points,. S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is the largest number of subsets of any set A of n points that can be formed by intersecting A with the sets in collection C. For example, if set A contains 3 points, its power set, P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} , contains 2 3 = 8 {\displaystyle 2^{3}=8} elements. If C shatters A, its shattering coefficient(3) would be 8 and S C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)} would be 2 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2^{2}=4} . However, if one of those sets in P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} cannot be obtained through intersections in c, then S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would only be 7. If none of those sets can be obtained, S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would be 0. Additionally, if S C ( 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)=3} , for example, then there is an element in the set of all 2-point sets from A that cannot be obtained from intersections with C. It follows from this that S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would also be less than 8 (i.e. C would not shatter A) because we have already located a "missing" set in the smaller power set of 2-point sets. This example illustrates some properties of S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} : S C ( n ) ≤ 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)\leq 2^{n}} for all n because { s ∩ A | s ∈ C } ⊆ P ( A ) {\displaystyle \{s\cap A|s\in C\}\subseteq P(A)} for any A ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle A\subseteq \Omega } . If S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} , that means there is a set of cardinality n, which can be shattered by C. If S C ( N ) < 2 N {\displaystyle S_{C}(N)<2^{N}} for some N > 1 {\displaystyle N>1} then S C ( n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)<2^{n}} for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The third property means that if C cannot shatter any set of cardinality N then it can not shatter sets of larger cardinalities. == Vapnik–Chervonenkis class == If A cannot be shattered by C, there will be a smallest value of n that makes the shatter coefficient(n) less than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} because as n gets larger, there are more sets that could be missed. Alternatively, there is also a largest value of n for which the S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is still 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} , because as n gets smaller, there are fewer sets that could be omitted. The extreme of this is S C ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(0)} (the shattering coefficient of the empty set), which must always be 2 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{0}=1} . These statements lends themselves to defining the VC dimension of a class C as: V C ( C ) = min n { n : S C ( n ) < 2 n } {\displaystyle VC(C)={\underset {n}{\min }}\{n:S_{C}(n)<2^{n}\}\,} or, alternatively, as V C 0 ( C ) = max n { n : S C ( n ) = 2 n } . {\displaystyle VC_{0}(C)={\underset {n}{\max }}\{n:S_{C}(n)=2^{n}\}.\,} Note that V C ( C ) = V C 0 ( C ) + 1. {\displaystyle VC(C)=VC_{0}(C)+1.} . The VC dimension is usually defined as V C 0 {\displaystyle VC_{0}} , the largest cardinality of points chosen that will still shatter A (i.e. n such that S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} ). Altneratively, if for any n there is a set of cardinality n which can be shattered by C, then S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} for all n and the VC dimension of this class C is infinite. A class with finite VC dimension is called a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class or VC class. A class C is uniformly Glivenko–Cantelli if and only if it is a VC class.

  Read more →
• 

  Large margin nearest neighbor

  Large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) classification is a statistical machine learning algorithm for metric learning. It learns a pseudometric designed for k-nearest neighbor classification. The algorithm is based on semidefinite programming, a sub-class of convex optimization. The goal of supervised learning (more specifically classification) is to learn a decision rule that can categorize data instances into pre-defined classes. The k-nearest neighbor rule assumes a training data set of labeled instances (i.e. the classes are known). It classifies a new data instance with the class obtained from the majority vote of the k closest (labeled) training instances. Closeness is measured with a pre-defined metric. Large margin nearest neighbors is an algorithm that learns this global (pseudo-)metric in a supervised fashion to improve the classification accuracy of the k-nearest neighbor rule. == Setup == The main intuition behind LMNN is to learn a pseudometric under which all data instances in the training set are surrounded by at least k instances that share the same class label. If this is achieved, the leave-one-out error (a special case of cross validation) is minimized. Let the training data consist of a data set D = { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } ⊂ R d × C {\displaystyle D=\{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}\subset R^{d}\times C} , where the set of possible class categories is C = { 1 , … , c } {\displaystyle C=\{1,\dots ,c\}} . The algorithm learns a pseudometric of the type d ( x → i , x → j ) = ( x → i − x → j ) ⊤ M ( x → i − x → j ) {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})=({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})^{\top }\mathbf {M} ({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})} . For d ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle d(\cdot ,\cdot )} to be well defined, the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } needs to be positive semi-definite. The Euclidean metric is a special case, where M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is the identity matrix. This generalization is often (falsely) referred to as Mahalanobis metric. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the metric under varying M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } . The two circles show the set of points with equal distance to the center x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . In the Euclidean case this set is a circle, whereas under the modified (Mahalanobis) metric it becomes an ellipsoid. The algorithm distinguishes between two types of special data points: target neighbors and impostors. === Target neighbors === Target neighbors are selected before learning. Each instance x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} has exactly k {\displaystyle k} different target neighbors within D {\displaystyle D} , which all share the same class label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} . The target neighbors are the data points that should become nearest neighbors under the learned metric. Let us denote the set of target neighbors for a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} as N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} . === Impostors === An impostor of a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} is another data point x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} with a different class label (i.e. y i ≠ y j {\displaystyle y_{i}\neq y_{j}} ) which is one of the nearest neighbors of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . During learning the algorithm tries to minimize the number of impostors for all data instances in the training set. == Algorithm == Large margin nearest neighbors optimizes the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } with the help of semidefinite programming. The objective is twofold: For every data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} , the target neighbors should be close and the impostors should be far away. Figure 1 shows the effect of such an optimization on an illustrative example. The learned metric causes the input vector x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} to be surrounded by training instances of the same class. If it was a test point, it would be classified correctly under the k = 3 {\displaystyle k=3} nearest neighbor rule. The first optimization goal is achieved by minimizing the average distance between instances and their target neighbors ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})} . The second goal is achieved by penalizing distances to impostors x → l {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{l}} that are less than one unit further away than target neighbors x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} (and therefore pushing them out of the local neighborhood of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} ). The resulting value to be minimized can be stated as: ∑ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i [ d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ] + {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}[d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})]_{+}} With a hinge loss function [ ⋅ ] + = max ( ⋅ , 0 ) {\textstyle [\cdot ]_{+}=\max(\cdot ,0)} , which ensures that impostor proximity is not penalized when outside the margin. The margin of exactly one unit fixes the scale of the matrix M {\displaystyle M} . Any alternative choice c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} would result in a rescaling of M {\displaystyle M} by a factor of 1 / c {\displaystyle 1/c} . The final optimization problem becomes: min M ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) + λ ∑ i , j , l ξ i j l {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {M} }\sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+\lambda \sum _{i,j,l}\xi _{ijl}} ∀ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i {\displaystyle \forall _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}} d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ≤ ξ i j l {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})\leq \xi _{ijl}} ξ i j l ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}\geq 0} M ⪰ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} \succeq 0} The hyperparameter λ > 0 {\textstyle \lambda >0} is some positive constant (typically set through cross-validation). Here the variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} (together with two types of constraints) replace the term in the cost function. They play a role similar to slack variables to absorb the extent of violations of the impostor constraints. The last constraint ensures that M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is positive semi-definite. The optimization problem is an instance of semidefinite programming (SDP). Although SDPs tend to suffer from high computational complexity, this particular SDP instance can be solved very efficiently due to the underlying geometric properties of the problem. In particular, most impostor constraints are naturally satisfied and do not need to be enforced during runtime (i.e. the set of variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} is sparse). A particularly well suited solver technique is the working set method, which keeps a small set of constraints that are actively enforced and monitors the remaining (likely satisfied) constraints only occasionally to ensure correctness. == Extensions and efficient solvers == LMNN was extended to multiple local metrics in the 2008 paper. This extension significantly improves the classification error, but involves a more expensive optimization problem. In their 2009 publication in the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Weinberger and Saul derive an efficient solver for the semi-definite program. It can learn a metric for the MNIST handwritten digit data set in several hours, involving billions of pairwise constraints. An open source Matlab implementation is freely available at the authors web page. Kumal et al. extended the algorithm to incorporate local invariances to multivariate polynomial transformations and improved regularization.

  Read more →
• 

  Curriculum learning

  Curriculum learning is a technique in machine learning in which a model is trained on examples of increasing difficulty, where the definition of "difficulty" may be provided externally or discovered as part of the training process. This is intended to attain good performance more quickly, or to converge to a better local optimum if the global optimum is not found. == Approach == Most generally, curriculum learning is the technique of successively increasing the difficulty of examples in the training set that is presented to a model over multiple training iterations. This can produce better results than exposing the model to the full training set immediately under some circumstances; most typically, when the model is able to learn general principles from easier examples, and then gradually incorporate more complex and nuanced information as harder examples are introduced, such as edge cases. This has been shown to work in many domains, most likely as a form of regularization. There are several major variations in how the technique is applied: A concept of "difficulty" must be defined. This may come from human annotation or an external heuristic; for example in language modeling, shorter sentences might be classified as easier than longer ones. Another approach is to use the performance of another model, with examples accurately predicted by that model being classified as easier (providing a connection to boosting). Difficulty can be increased steadily or in distinct epochs, and in a deterministic schedule or according to a probability distribution. This may also be moderated by a requirement for diversity at each stage, in cases where easier examples are likely to be disproportionately similar to each other. Applications must also decide the schedule for increasing the difficulty. Simple approaches may use a fixed schedule, such as training on easy examples for half of the available iterations and then all examples for the second half. Other approaches use self-paced learning to increase the difficulty in proportion to the performance of the model on the current set. Since curriculum learning only concerns the selection and ordering of training data, it can be combined with many other techniques in machine learning. The success of the method assumes that a model trained for an easier version of the problem can generalize to harder versions, so it can be seen as a form of transfer learning. Some authors also consider curriculum learning to include other forms of progressively increasing complexity, such as increasing the number of model parameters. It is frequently combined with reinforcement learning, such as learning a simplified version of a game first. Some domains have shown success with anti-curriculum learning: training on the most difficult examples first. One example is the ACCAN method for speech recognition, which trains on the examples with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio first. == History == The term "curriculum learning" was introduced by Yoshua Bengio et al in 2009, with reference to the psychological technique of shaping in animals and structured education for humans: beginning with the simplest concepts and then building on them. The authors also note that the application of this technique in machine learning has its roots in the early study of neural networks such as Jeffrey Elman's 1993 paper Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Bengio et al showed good results for problems in image classification, such as identifying geometric shapes with progressively more complex forms, and language modeling, such as training with a gradually expanding vocabulary. They conclude that, for curriculum strategies, "their beneficial effect is most pronounced on the test set", suggesting good generalization. The technique has since been applied to many other domains: Natural language processing: Part-of-speech tagging Intent detection Sentiment analysis Machine translation Speech recognition Language model pre-training Image recognition: Facial recognition Object detection Reinforcement learning: Game-playing Graph learning Matrix factorization

  Read more →
• 

  Content Disarm and Reconstruction

  Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR) is a computer security technology for removing potentially malicious code from files. Unlike malware analysis, CDR technology does not determine or detect malware's functionality but removes all file components that are not approved within the system's definitions and policies. It is used to prevent cyber security threats from entering a corporate network perimeter. Channels that CDR can be used to protect include email and website traffic. Advanced solutions can also provide similar protection on computer endpoints, or cloud email and file sharing services. There are three levels of CDR; 1) flattening and converting the original file to a PDF, 2) stripping active content while keeping the original file type, and 3) eliminating all file-borne risk while maintaining file type, integrity and active content. Beyond these three levels, there are also more advanced forms of CDR that is able to perform "soft conversion" and "hard conversion", based on the user's preference in balancing usability and security. == Applications == CDR works by processing all incoming files of an enterprise network, deconstructing them, and removing the elements that do not match the file type's standards or set policies. CDR technology then rebuilds the files into clean versions that can be sent on to end users as intended. Because CDR removes all potentially malicious code, it can be effective against zero-day vulnerabilities that rely on being an unknown threat that other security technologies would need to patch against to maintain protection. CDR can be used to prevent cyber threats from variety of sources: Email Data Diodes Web Browsers Endpoints File Servers FTP Cloud email or webmail programs SMB/CIFS Removable media scanning (CDR Kiosk) CDR can be applied to a variety of file formats including: Images Office documents PDF Audio/video file formats Archives HTML == Open source implementations == DocBleach ExeFilter

  Read more →
• 

  Geographical cluster

  A geographical cluster is a localized anomaly, usually an excess of something given the distribution or variation of something else. Often it is considered as an incidence rate that is unusual in that there is more of some variable than might be expected. Examples would include: a local excess disease rate, a crime hot spot, areas of high unemployment, accident blackspots, unusually high positive residuals from a model, high concentrations of flora or fauna, physical features or events like earthquake epicenters etc... Identifying these extreme regions may be useful in that there could be implicit geographical associations with other variables that can be identified and would be of interest. Pattern detection via the identification of such geographical clusters is a very simple and generic form of geographical analysis that has many applications in many different contexts. The emphasis is on localized clustering or patterning because this may well contain the most useful information. A geographical cluster is different from a high concentration as it is generally second order, involving the factoring in of the distribution of something else. == Geographical cluster detection == Identifying geographical clusters can be an important stage in a geographical analysis. Mapping the locations of unusual concentrations may help identify causes of these. Some techniques include the Geographical Analysis Machine and Besag and Newell's cluster detection method.

  Read more →
• 

  Semidefinite embedding

  Maximum Variance Unfolding (MVU), also known as Semidefinite Embedding (SDE), is an algorithm in computer science that uses semidefinite programming to perform non-linear dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional vectorial input data. It is motivated by the observation that kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) does not reduce the data dimensionality, as it leverages the Kernel trick to non-linearly map the original data into an inner-product space. == Algorithm == MVU creates a mapping from the high dimensional input vectors to some low dimensional Euclidean vector space in the following steps: A neighbourhood graph is created. Each input is connected with its k-nearest input vectors (according to Euclidean distance metric) and all k-nearest neighbors are connected with each other. If the data is sampled well enough, the resulting graph is a discrete approximation of the underlying manifold. The neighbourhood graph is "unfolded" with the help of semidefinite programming. Instead of learning the output vectors directly, the semidefinite programming aims to find an inner product matrix that maximizes the pairwise distances between any two inputs that are not connected in the neighbourhood graph while preserving the nearest neighbors distances. The low-dimensional embedding is finally obtained by application of multidimensional scaling on the learned inner product matrix. The steps of applying semidefinite programming followed by a linear dimensionality reduction step to recover a low-dimensional embedding into a Euclidean space were first proposed by Linial, London, and Rabinovich. == Optimization formulation == Let X {\displaystyle X\,\!} be the original input and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} be the embedding. If i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} are two neighbors, then the local isometry constraint that needs to be satisfied is: | X i − X j | 2 = | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle |X_{i}-X_{j}|^{2}=|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\,\!} Let G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} be the Gram matrices of X {\displaystyle X\,\!} and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} (i.e.: G i j = X i ⋅ X j , K i j = Y i ⋅ Y j {\displaystyle G_{ij}=X_{i}\cdot X_{j},K_{ij}=Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\,\!} ). We can express the above constraint for every neighbor points i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} in term of G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} : G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i {\displaystyle G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji}\,\!} In addition, we also want to constrain the embedding Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} to center at the origin: 0 = | ∑ i Y i | 2 ⇔ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⋅ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⇔ ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j ⇔ ∑ i , j K i j {\displaystyle 0=|\sum _{i}Y_{i}|^{2}\Leftrightarrow (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\cdot (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}K_{ij}} As described above, except the distances of neighbor points are preserved, the algorithm aims to maximize the pairwise distance of every pair of points. The objective function to be maximized is: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}} Intuitively, maximizing the function above is equivalent to pulling the points as far away from each other as possible and therefore "unfold" the manifold. The local isometry constraint Let τ = m a x { η i j | Y i − Y j | 2 } {\displaystyle \tau =max\{\eta _{ij}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\}\,\!} where η i j := { 1 if i is a neighbour of j 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}:={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{if}}\ i{\mbox{ is a neighbour of }}j\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} prevents the objective function from diverging (going to infinity). Since the graph has N points, the distance between any two points | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ N τ {\displaystyle |Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq N\tau \,\!} . We can then bound the objective function as follows: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( N τ ) 2 = N 3 τ 2 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq {\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(N\tau )^{2}={\dfrac {N^{3}\tau ^{2}}{2}}\,\!} The objective function can be rewritten purely in the form of the Gram matrix: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 = 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( Y i 2 + Y j 2 − Y i ⋅ Y j − Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j − ∑ i , j Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − 0 − 0 ) = 1 N ( ∑ i Y i 2 ) = 1 N ( T r ( K ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}T(Y)&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(Y_{i}^{2}+Y_{j}^{2}-Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-0-0)\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{N}}(\sum _{i}Y_{i}^{2})={\dfrac {1}{N}}(Tr(K))\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} Finally, the optimization can be formulated as: Maximize T r ( K ) subject to K ⪰ 0 , ∑ i j K i j = 0 and G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i , ∀ i , j where η i j = 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{Maximize}}&&Tr(\mathbf {K} )\\&{\text{subject to}}&&\mathbf {K} \succeq 0,\sum _{ij}\mathbf {K} _{ij}=0\\&{\text{and}}&&G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji},\forall i,j{\mbox{ where }}\eta _{ij}=1,\end{aligned}}} After the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle K\,\!} is learned by semidefinite programming, the output Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} can be obtained via Cholesky decomposition. In particular, the Gram matrix can be written as K i j = ∑ α = 1 N ( λ α V α i V α j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N}(\lambda _{\alpha }V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j})\,\!} where V α i {\displaystyle V_{\alpha i}\,\!} is the i-th element of eigenvector V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }\,\!} of the eigenvalue λ α {\displaystyle \lambda _{\alpha }\,\!} . It follows that the α {\displaystyle \alpha \,\!} -th element of the output Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}\,\!} is λ α V α i {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\lambda _{\alpha }}}V_{\alpha i}\,\!} .

  Read more →