AI Face Look

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

• 

  Socially assistive robot

  A socially assistive robot (SAR) aids users through social engagement and support rather than through physical tasks and interactions. == Background == The field of socially assistive robotics emerged in the early 2000s, following the emergence of the field of social robots. In contrast to social robots, SARs aid users with specific goals related to behavior change rather than serving as purely social entities. The term "Socially assistive robot" was initially defined by Maja Matarić and David Feil-Seifer in 2005. Since its inception, the field has gained substantial recognition, featuring numerous research projects, a wealth of global research publications, startup companies, and a growing array of products on the consumer market. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the immense potential of socially assistive robots, particularly in addressing the needs of large user populations, including children engaged in remote learning, elderly individuals grappling with loneliness, and those affected by social isolation and its associated negative consequences. == Characteristics of interaction == SARs rely on artificial intelligence (AI) to generate real-time, responsive, natural, and meaningful robot behaviors during interactions with humans. The robots employ various forms of communication, such as facial expressions, gestures, body movements, and speech. In contrast to robots intended for physical tasks, SARs are designed to support and motivate users to perform their own tasks. The tasks a user engages in can be physical (e.g., rehabilitation exercises for post-stroke users), cognitive (e.g., dementia screening for elderly users), or social (e.g., turn-taking for users with autism spectrum disorders). This complex interaction involves detecting and interpreting the user's movement, behavior, intent, goals, speech, and preferences. Machine learning and robot learning techniques are frequently employed to enhance the robot's understanding of the user, predict user preferences, and provide effective assistance. The effectiveness of socially assistive robots is assessed based on objective measurements of user performance and improvement resulting from the robot’s assistance and support. Unlike other branches of robotics, where effectiveness depends on the robot's physical task completion, SAR measures the success of the robot based on the user's progress and achievements. This evaluation is carried out using quantitative objective metrics, such as time spent on tasks, accuracy, retention, and verbalization, as well as quantitative subjective metrics, such as user survey tools. SAR is based on the large body of evidence showing that users tend to respond more positively to interactions with physical robots compared to interactions with screens. Interaction with physical robots also encourages users to learn and retain more information than screen-based interactions. This fundamental insight underlines why physical robots in SAR applications are more effective, as opposed to interactions solely involving screens, tablets, or computers. == Uses and applications == SARs have been developed and validated in a wide array of applications, including healthcare, elder care, education, and training. For example, SARs have been developed to support children on the autism spectrum in acquiring and practicing social and cognitive skills, to motivate and coach stroke patients throughout their rehabilitation exercises, monitoring individuals health (ex. fall detection), and to encourage elderly users to be more physically and socially active. There is a concern that technophobia and lack of trust in robots will pose a barrier to the effectiveness of SARs in older adults.

  Read more →
• 

  Multispectral pattern recognition

  Multispectral remote sensing is the collection and analysis of reflected, emitted, or back-scattered energy from an object or an area of interest in multiple bands of regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Jensen, 2005). Subcategories of multispectral remote sensing include hyperspectral, in which hundreds of bands are collected and analyzed, and ultraspectral remote sensing where many hundreds of bands are used (Logicon, 1997). The main purpose of multispectral imaging is the potential to classify the image using multispectral classification. This is a much faster method of image analysis than is possible by human interpretation. == Multispectral remote sensing systems == Remote sensing systems gather data via instruments typically carried on satellites in orbit around the Earth. The remote sensing scanner detects the energy that radiates from the object or area of interest. This energy is recorded as an analog electrical signal and converted into a digital value though an A-to-D conversion. There are several multispectral remote sensing systems that can be categorized in the following way: === Multispectral imaging using discrete detectors and scanning mirrors === Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) NASA and ORBIMAGE, Inc., Sea-viewing Wide field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) Daedalus, Inc., Aircraft Multispectral Scanner (AMS) NASA Airborne Terrestrial Applications Sensor (ATLAS) === Multispectral imaging using linear arrays === SPOT 1, 2, and 3 High Resolution Visible (HRV) sensors and Spot 4 and 5 High Resolution Visible Infrared (HRVIR) and vegetation sensor Indian Remote Sensing System (IRS) Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS) Space Imaging, Inc. (IKONOS) Digital Globe, Inc. (QuickBird) ORBIMAGE, Inc. (OrbView-3) ImageSat International, Inc. (EROS A1) NASA Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) NASA Terra Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) === Imaging spectrometry using linear and area arrays === NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager 3 (CASI 3) NASA Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) NASA Earth Observer (EO-1) Advanced Land Imager (ALI), Hyperion, and LEISA Atmospheric Corrector (LAC) === Satellite analog and digital photographic systems === Russian SPIN-2 TK-350, and KVR-1000 NASA Space Shuttle and International Space Station Imagery == Multispectral classification methods == A variety of methods can be used for the multispectral classification of images: Algorithms based on parametric and nonparametric statistics that use ratio-and interval-scaled data and nonmetric methods that can also incorporate nominal scale data (Duda et al., 2001), Supervised or unsupervised classification logic, Hard or soft (fuzzy) set classification logic to create hard or fuzzy thematic output products, Per-pixel or object-oriented classification logic, and Hybrid approaches == Supervised classification == In this classification method, the identity and location of some of the land-cover types are obtained beforehand from a combination of fieldwork, interpretation of aerial photography, map analysis, and personal experience. The analyst would locate sites that have similar characteristics to the known land-cover types. These areas are known as training sites because the known characteristics of these sites are used to train the classification algorithm for eventual land-cover mapping of the remainder of the image. Multivariate statistical parameters (means, standard deviations, covariance matrices, correlation matrices, etc.) are calculated for each training site. All pixels inside and outside of the training sites are evaluated and allocated to the class with the more similar characteristics. === Classification scheme === The first step in the supervised classification method is to identify the land-cover and land-use classes to be used. Land-cover refers to the type of material present on the site (e.g. water, crops, forest, wet land, asphalt, and concrete). Land-use refers to the modifications made by people to the land cover (e.g. agriculture, commerce, settlement). All classes should be selected and defined carefully to properly classify remotely sensed data into the correct land-use and/or land-cover information. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to use a classification system that contains taxonomically correct definitions of classes. If a hard classification is desired, the following classes should be used: Mutually exclusive: there is not any taxonomic overlap of any classes (i.e., rain forest and evergreen forest are distinct classes). Exhaustive: all land-covers in the area have been included. Hierarchical: sub-level classes (e.g., single-family residential, multiple-family residential) are created, allowing that these classes can be included in a higher category (e.g., residential). Some examples of hard classification schemes are: American Planning Association Land-Based Classification System United States Geological Survey Land-use/Land-cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. National Vegetation and Classification System International Geosphere-Biosphere Program IGBP Land Cover Classification System === Training sites === Once the classification scheme is adopted, the image analyst may select training sites in the image that are representative of the land-cover or land-use of interest. If the environment where the data was collected is relatively homogeneous, the training data can be used. If different conditions are found in the site, it would not be possible to extend the remote sensing training data to the site. To solve this problem, a geographical stratification should be done during the preliminary stages of the project. All differences should be recorded (e.g. soil type, water turbidity, crop species, etc.). These differences should be recorded on the imagery and the selection training sites made based on the geographical stratification of this data. The final classification map would be a composite of the individual stratum classifications. After the data are organized in different training sites, a measurement vector is created. This vector would contain the brightness values for each pixel in each band in each training class. The mean, standard deviation, variance-covariance matrix, and correlation matrix are calculated from the measurement vectors. Once the statistics from each training site are determined, the most effective bands for each class should be selected. The objective of this discrimination is to eliminate the bands that can provide redundant information. Graphical and statistical methods can be used to achieve this objective. Some of the graphic methods are: Bar graph spectral plots Cospectral mean vector plots Feature space plots Cospectral parallelepiped or ellipse plots === Classification algorithm === The last step in supervised classification is selecting an appropriate algorithm. The choice of a specific algorithm depends on the input data and the desired output. Parametric algorithms are based on the fact that the data is normally distributed. If the data is not normally distributed, nonparametric algorithms should be used. The more common nonparametric algorithms are: One-dimensional density slicing Parallelipiped Minimum distance Nearest-neighbor Expert system analysis Convolutional neural network == Unsupervised classification == Unsupervised classification (also known as clustering) is a method of partitioning remote sensor image data in multispectral feature space and extracting land-cover information. Unsupervised classification require less input information from the analyst compared to supervised classification because clustering does not require training data. This process consists in a series of numerical operations to search for the spectral properties of pixels. From this process, a map with m spectral classes is obtained. Using the map, the analyst tries to assign or transform the spectral classes into thematic information of interest (i.e. forest, agriculture, urban). This process may not be easy because some spectral clusters represent mixed classes of surface materials and may not be useful. The analyst has to understand the spectral characteristics of the terrain to be able to label clusters as a specific information class. There are hundreds of clustering algorithms. Two of the most conceptually simple algorithms are the chain method and the ISODATA method. === Chain method === The algorithm used in this method operates in a two-pass mode (it passes through the multispectral dataset two times. In the first pass, the program reads through the dataset and sequentially builds clusters (groups of p

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared prediction error

  In statistics the mean squared prediction error (MSPE), also known as mean squared error of the predictions, of a smoothing, curve fitting, or regression procedure is the expected value of the squared prediction errors (PE), the square difference between the fitted values implied by the predictive function g ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}}} and the values of the (unobservable) true value g. It is an inverse measure of the explanatory power of g ^ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}},} and can be used in the process of cross-validation of an estimated model. Knowledge of g would be required in order to calculate the MSPE exactly; in practice, MSPE is estimated. == Formulation == If the smoothing or fitting procedure has projection matrix (i.e., hat matrix) L, which maps the observed values vector y {\displaystyle y} to predicted values vector y ^ = L y , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=Ly,} then PE and MSPE are formulated as: P E i = g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {PE_{i}} =g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i}),} MSPE = E ⁡ [ PE i 2 ] = ∑ i = 1 n PE i 2 ⁡ / n . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {E} \left[\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}\right]=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}/n.} The MSPE can be decomposed into two terms: the squared bias (mean error) of the fitted values and the variance of the fitted values: MSPE = ME 2 + VAR , {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {ME} ^{2}+\operatorname {VAR} ,} ME = E ⁡ [ g ^ ( x i ) − g ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {ME} =\operatorname {E} \left[{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-g(x_{i})\right]} VAR = E ⁡ [ ( g ^ ( x i ) − E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) ] ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {VAR} =\operatorname {E} \left[\left({\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-\operatorname {E} \left[{g}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}\right].} The quantity SSPE=nMSPE is called sum squared prediction error. The root mean squared prediction error is the square root of MSPE: RMSPE=√MSPE. == Computation of MSPE over out-of-sample data == The mean squared prediction error can be computed exactly in two contexts. First, with a data sample of length n, the data analyst may run the regression over only q of the data points (with q < n), holding back the other n – q data points with the specific purpose of using them to compute the estimated model’s MSPE out of sample (i.e., not using data that were used in the model estimation process). Since the regression process is tailored to the q in-sample points, normally the in-sample MSPE will be smaller than the out-of-sample one computed over the n – q held-back points. If the increase in the MSPE out of sample compared to in sample is relatively slight, that results in the model being viewed favorably. And if two models are to be compared, the one with the lower MSPE over the n – q out-of-sample data points is viewed more favorably, regardless of the models’ relative in-sample performances. The out-of-sample MSPE in this context is exact for the out-of-sample data points that it was computed over, but is merely an estimate of the model’s MSPE for the mostly unobserved population from which the data were drawn. Second, as time goes on more data may become available to the data analyst, and then the MSPE can be computed over these new data. == Estimation of MSPE over the population == When the model has been estimated over all available data with none held back, the MSPE of the model over the entire population of mostly unobserved data can be estimated as follows. For the model y i = g ( x i ) + σ ε i {\displaystyle y_{i}=g(x_{i})+\sigma \varepsilon _{i}} where ε i ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} , one may write n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = g T ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) g + σ 2 tr ⁡ [ L T L ] . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=g^{\text{T}}(I-L)^{\text{T}}(I-L)g+\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[L^{\text{T}}L\right].} Using in-sample data values, the first term on the right side is equivalent to ∑ i = 1 n ( E ⁡ [ g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) ] ) 2 = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 tr ⁡ [ ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) ] . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\operatorname {E} \left[g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[\left(I-L\right)^{T}\left(I-L\right)\right].} Thus, n ⋅ MSPE ⁡ ( L ) = E ⁡ [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} If σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} is known or well-estimated by σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} , it becomes possible to estimate MSPE by n ⋅ M S P E ^ ⁡ ( L ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 − σ ^ 2 ( n − tr ⁡ [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {\widehat {MSPE}} (L)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}-{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} Colin Mallows advocated this method in the construction of his model selection statistic Cp, which is a normalized version of the estimated MSPE: C p = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 σ ^ 2 − n + 2 p . {\displaystyle C_{p}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}}{{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}}}-n+2p.} where p the number of estimated parameters p and σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} is computed from the version of the model that includes all possible regressors. That concludes this proof.

  Read more →
• 

  Consensus clustering

  Consensus clustering is a method of aggregating (potentially conflicting) results from multiple clustering algorithms. Also called cluster ensembles or aggregation of clustering (or partitions), it refers to the situation in which a number of different (input) clusterings have been obtained for a particular dataset and it is desired to find a single (consensus) clustering which is a better fit in some sense than the existing clusterings. Consensus clustering is thus the problem of reconciling clustering information about the same data set coming from different sources or from different runs of the same algorithm. When cast as an optimization problem, consensus clustering is known as median partition, and has been shown to be NP-complete, even when the number of input clusterings is three. Consensus clustering for unsupervised learning is analogous to ensemble learning in supervised learning. == Issues with existing clustering techniques == Current clustering techniques do not address all the requirements adequately. Dealing with large number of dimensions and large number of data items can be problematic because of time complexity; Effectiveness of the method depends on the definition of "distance" (for distance-based clustering) If an obvious distance measure doesn't exist, we must "define" it, which is not always easy, especially in multidimensional spaces. The result of the clustering algorithm (that, in many cases, can be arbitrary itself) can be interpreted in different ways. == Justification for using consensus clustering == There are potential shortcomings for all existing clustering techniques. This may cause interpretation of results to become difficult, especially when there is no knowledge about the number of clusters. Clustering methods are also very sensitive to the initial clustering settings, which can cause non-significant data to be amplified in non-reiterative methods. An extremely important issue in cluster analysis is the validation of the clustering results, that is, how to gain confidence about the significance of the clusters provided by the clustering technique (cluster numbers and cluster assignments). Lacking an external objective criterion (the equivalent of a known class label in supervised analysis), this validation becomes somewhat elusive. Iterative descent clustering methods, such as the SOM and k-means clustering circumvent some of the shortcomings of hierarchical clustering by providing for univocally defined clusters and cluster boundaries. Consensus clustering provides a method that represents the consensus across multiple runs of a clustering algorithm, to determine the number of clusters in the data, and to assess the stability of the discovered clusters. The method can also be used to represent the consensus over multiple runs of a clustering algorithm with random restart (such as K-means, model-based Bayesian clustering, SOM, etc.), so as to account for its sensitivity to the initial conditions. It can provide data for a visualization tool to inspect cluster number, membership, and boundaries. However, they lack the intuitive and visual appeal of hierarchical clustering dendrograms, and the number of clusters must be chosen a priori. == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm is one of the most popular consensus clustering algorithms and is used to determine the number of clusters, K {\displaystyle K} . Given a dataset of N {\displaystyle N} total number of points to cluster, this algorithm works by resampling and clustering the data, for each K {\displaystyle K} and a N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} consensus matrix is calculated, where each element represents the fraction of times two samples clustered together. A perfectly stable matrix would consist entirely of zeros and ones, representing all sample pairs always clustering together or not together over all resampling iterations. The relative stability of the consensus matrices can be used to infer the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . More specifically, given a set of points to cluster, D = { e 1 , e 2 , . . . e N } {\displaystyle D=\{e_{1},e_{2},...e_{N}\}} , let D 1 , D 2 , . . . , D H {\displaystyle D^{1},D^{2},...,D^{H}} be the list of H {\displaystyle H} perturbed (resampled) datasets of the original dataset D {\displaystyle D} , and let M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} denote the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} connectivity matrix resulting from applying a clustering algorithm to the dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} . The entries of M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} are defined as follows: M h ( i , j ) = { 1 , if points i and j belong to the same cluster 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle M^{h}(i,j)={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if}}{\text{ points i and j belong to the same cluster}}\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Let I h {\displaystyle I^{h}} be the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identicator matrix where the ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} -th entry is equal to 1 if points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in the same perturbed dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} , and 0 otherwise. The indicator matrix is used to keep track of which samples were selected during each resampling iteration for the normalisation step. The consensus matrix C {\displaystyle C} is defined as the normalised sum of all connectivity matrices of all the perturbed datasets and a different one is calculated for every K {\displaystyle K} . C ( i , j ) = ( ∑ h = 1 H M h ( i , j ) ∑ h = 1 H I h ( i , j ) ) {\displaystyle C(i,j)=\left({\frac {\textstyle \sum _{h=1}^{H}M^{h}(i,j)\displaystyle }{\sum _{h=1}^{H}I^{h}(i,j)}}\right)} That is the entry ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} in the consensus matrix is the number of times points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} were clustered together divided by the total number of times they were selected together. The matrix is symmetric and each element is defined within the range [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . A consensus matrix is calculated for each K {\displaystyle K} to be tested, and the stability of each matrix, that is how far the matrix is towards a matrix of perfect stability (just zeros and ones) is used to determine the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . One way of quantifying the stability of the K {\displaystyle K} th consensus matrix is examining its CDF curve (see below). == Over-interpretation potential of the Monti consensus clustering algorithm == Monti consensus clustering can be a powerful tool for identifying clusters, but it needs to be applied with caution as shown by Şenbabaoğlu et al. It has been shown that the Monti consensus clustering algorithm is able to claim apparent stability of chance partitioning of null datasets drawn from a unimodal distribution, and thus has the potential to lead to over-interpretation of cluster stability in a real study. If clusters are not well separated, consensus clustering could lead one to conclude apparent structure when there is none, or declare cluster stability when it is subtle. Identifying false positive clusters is a common problem throughout cluster research, and has been addressed by methods such as SigClust and the GAP-statistic. However, these methods rely on certain assumptions for the null model that may not always be appropriate. Şenbabaoğlu et al demonstrated the original delta K metric to decide K {\displaystyle K} in the Monti algorithm performed poorly, and proposed a new superior metric for measuring the stability of consensus matrices using their CDF curves. In the CDF curve of a consensus matrix, the lower left portion represents sample pairs rarely clustered together, the upper right portion represents those almost always clustered together, whereas the middle segment represent those with ambiguous assignments in different clustering runs. The proportion of ambiguous clustering (PAC) score measure quantifies this middle segment; and is defined as the fraction of sample pairs with consensus indices falling in the interval (u1, u2) ∈ [0, 1] where u1 is a value close to 0 and u2 is a value close to 1 (for instance u1=0.1 and u2=0.9). A low value of PAC indicates a flat middle segment, and a low rate of discordant assignments across permuted clustering runs. One can therefore infer the optimal number of clusters by the K {\displaystyle K} value having the lowest PAC. == Related work == Clustering ensemble (Strehl and Ghosh): They considered various formulations for the problem, most of which reduce the problem to a hyper-graph partitioning problem. In one of their formulations they considered the same graph as in the correlation clustering problem. The solution they proposed is to compute the best k-partition of the graph, which does not take into account the penalty for merging two nodes that are far apart. Clustering aggregation (Fern and Brodley): They applied the clustering aggregation idea to a collection of soft clusterings they obtained by random projections. They used an agglomerative algorithm

  Read more →
• 

  Integrated writing environment

  An integrated writing environment (IWE) is software that provides comprehensive writing and knowledge management functionality for writers and information workers. IWEs enable writers and information workers to perform a variety of tasks related to the document in the IWE in a single environment. This provides a distraction-free workspace and streamlined writing experience. IWEs provide similar efficiency and functionality benefits to writers and information professionals that integrated development environments (IDEs) provide to software developers. == Overview == IWEs are designed to maximize productivity and help improve the quality of written work by integrating together tools that allow users to work effectively in a single application. The IWE features may include integrated content search, reversion management, outlining, note management, and reference management, as may be suitable for the target field of use. == List of IWEs == Celtx This IWE is intended for screenplay writers and has screenplay writing and management tools. Celtex provides tools for the pre-production work phase, story development, storyboarding, script breakdowns, production scheduling, and reports. Scrivener This IWE targets novel, research paper, and script writing. Scrivener provides tools to organize notes and research documents for easy access and referencing. After completing the writing, Scrivener allows the user to export the document to formats supported by common word processors, such as Microsoft Word. TeXstudio This IWE targets LaTeX documents and provides interactive spelling checker, code folding, and syntax highlighting.

  Read more →
• 

  Feature selection

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

  Read more →
• 

  Multispectral pattern recognition

  Multispectral remote sensing is the collection and analysis of reflected, emitted, or back-scattered energy from an object or an area of interest in multiple bands of regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Jensen, 2005). Subcategories of multispectral remote sensing include hyperspectral, in which hundreds of bands are collected and analyzed, and ultraspectral remote sensing where many hundreds of bands are used (Logicon, 1997). The main purpose of multispectral imaging is the potential to classify the image using multispectral classification. This is a much faster method of image analysis than is possible by human interpretation. == Multispectral remote sensing systems == Remote sensing systems gather data via instruments typically carried on satellites in orbit around the Earth. The remote sensing scanner detects the energy that radiates from the object or area of interest. This energy is recorded as an analog electrical signal and converted into a digital value though an A-to-D conversion. There are several multispectral remote sensing systems that can be categorized in the following way: === Multispectral imaging using discrete detectors and scanning mirrors === Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) NASA and ORBIMAGE, Inc., Sea-viewing Wide field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) Daedalus, Inc., Aircraft Multispectral Scanner (AMS) NASA Airborne Terrestrial Applications Sensor (ATLAS) === Multispectral imaging using linear arrays === SPOT 1, 2, and 3 High Resolution Visible (HRV) sensors and Spot 4 and 5 High Resolution Visible Infrared (HRVIR) and vegetation sensor Indian Remote Sensing System (IRS) Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS) Space Imaging, Inc. (IKONOS) Digital Globe, Inc. (QuickBird) ORBIMAGE, Inc. (OrbView-3) ImageSat International, Inc. (EROS A1) NASA Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) NASA Terra Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) === Imaging spectrometry using linear and area arrays === NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager 3 (CASI 3) NASA Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) NASA Earth Observer (EO-1) Advanced Land Imager (ALI), Hyperion, and LEISA Atmospheric Corrector (LAC) === Satellite analog and digital photographic systems === Russian SPIN-2 TK-350, and KVR-1000 NASA Space Shuttle and International Space Station Imagery == Multispectral classification methods == A variety of methods can be used for the multispectral classification of images: Algorithms based on parametric and nonparametric statistics that use ratio-and interval-scaled data and nonmetric methods that can also incorporate nominal scale data (Duda et al., 2001), Supervised or unsupervised classification logic, Hard or soft (fuzzy) set classification logic to create hard or fuzzy thematic output products, Per-pixel or object-oriented classification logic, and Hybrid approaches == Supervised classification == In this classification method, the identity and location of some of the land-cover types are obtained beforehand from a combination of fieldwork, interpretation of aerial photography, map analysis, and personal experience. The analyst would locate sites that have similar characteristics to the known land-cover types. These areas are known as training sites because the known characteristics of these sites are used to train the classification algorithm for eventual land-cover mapping of the remainder of the image. Multivariate statistical parameters (means, standard deviations, covariance matrices, correlation matrices, etc.) are calculated for each training site. All pixels inside and outside of the training sites are evaluated and allocated to the class with the more similar characteristics. === Classification scheme === The first step in the supervised classification method is to identify the land-cover and land-use classes to be used. Land-cover refers to the type of material present on the site (e.g. water, crops, forest, wet land, asphalt, and concrete). Land-use refers to the modifications made by people to the land cover (e.g. agriculture, commerce, settlement). All classes should be selected and defined carefully to properly classify remotely sensed data into the correct land-use and/or land-cover information. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to use a classification system that contains taxonomically correct definitions of classes. If a hard classification is desired, the following classes should be used: Mutually exclusive: there is not any taxonomic overlap of any classes (i.e., rain forest and evergreen forest are distinct classes). Exhaustive: all land-covers in the area have been included. Hierarchical: sub-level classes (e.g., single-family residential, multiple-family residential) are created, allowing that these classes can be included in a higher category (e.g., residential). Some examples of hard classification schemes are: American Planning Association Land-Based Classification System United States Geological Survey Land-use/Land-cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. National Vegetation and Classification System International Geosphere-Biosphere Program IGBP Land Cover Classification System === Training sites === Once the classification scheme is adopted, the image analyst may select training sites in the image that are representative of the land-cover or land-use of interest. If the environment where the data was collected is relatively homogeneous, the training data can be used. If different conditions are found in the site, it would not be possible to extend the remote sensing training data to the site. To solve this problem, a geographical stratification should be done during the preliminary stages of the project. All differences should be recorded (e.g. soil type, water turbidity, crop species, etc.). These differences should be recorded on the imagery and the selection training sites made based on the geographical stratification of this data. The final classification map would be a composite of the individual stratum classifications. After the data are organized in different training sites, a measurement vector is created. This vector would contain the brightness values for each pixel in each band in each training class. The mean, standard deviation, variance-covariance matrix, and correlation matrix are calculated from the measurement vectors. Once the statistics from each training site are determined, the most effective bands for each class should be selected. The objective of this discrimination is to eliminate the bands that can provide redundant information. Graphical and statistical methods can be used to achieve this objective. Some of the graphic methods are: Bar graph spectral plots Cospectral mean vector plots Feature space plots Cospectral parallelepiped or ellipse plots === Classification algorithm === The last step in supervised classification is selecting an appropriate algorithm. The choice of a specific algorithm depends on the input data and the desired output. Parametric algorithms are based on the fact that the data is normally distributed. If the data is not normally distributed, nonparametric algorithms should be used. The more common nonparametric algorithms are: One-dimensional density slicing Parallelipiped Minimum distance Nearest-neighbor Expert system analysis Convolutional neural network == Unsupervised classification == Unsupervised classification (also known as clustering) is a method of partitioning remote sensor image data in multispectral feature space and extracting land-cover information. Unsupervised classification require less input information from the analyst compared to supervised classification because clustering does not require training data. This process consists in a series of numerical operations to search for the spectral properties of pixels. From this process, a map with m spectral classes is obtained. Using the map, the analyst tries to assign or transform the spectral classes into thematic information of interest (i.e. forest, agriculture, urban). This process may not be easy because some spectral clusters represent mixed classes of surface materials and may not be useful. The analyst has to understand the spectral characteristics of the terrain to be able to label clusters as a specific information class. There are hundreds of clustering algorithms. Two of the most conceptually simple algorithms are the chain method and the ISODATA method. === Chain method === The algorithm used in this method operates in a two-pass mode (it passes through the multispectral dataset two times. In the first pass, the program reads through the dataset and sequentially builds clusters (groups of p

  Read more →
• 

  Multispectral pattern recognition

  Multispectral remote sensing is the collection and analysis of reflected, emitted, or back-scattered energy from an object or an area of interest in multiple bands of regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Jensen, 2005). Subcategories of multispectral remote sensing include hyperspectral, in which hundreds of bands are collected and analyzed, and ultraspectral remote sensing where many hundreds of bands are used (Logicon, 1997). The main purpose of multispectral imaging is the potential to classify the image using multispectral classification. This is a much faster method of image analysis than is possible by human interpretation. == Multispectral remote sensing systems == Remote sensing systems gather data via instruments typically carried on satellites in orbit around the Earth. The remote sensing scanner detects the energy that radiates from the object or area of interest. This energy is recorded as an analog electrical signal and converted into a digital value though an A-to-D conversion. There are several multispectral remote sensing systems that can be categorized in the following way: === Multispectral imaging using discrete detectors and scanning mirrors === Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) NASA and ORBIMAGE, Inc., Sea-viewing Wide field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) Daedalus, Inc., Aircraft Multispectral Scanner (AMS) NASA Airborne Terrestrial Applications Sensor (ATLAS) === Multispectral imaging using linear arrays === SPOT 1, 2, and 3 High Resolution Visible (HRV) sensors and Spot 4 and 5 High Resolution Visible Infrared (HRVIR) and vegetation sensor Indian Remote Sensing System (IRS) Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS) Space Imaging, Inc. (IKONOS) Digital Globe, Inc. (QuickBird) ORBIMAGE, Inc. (OrbView-3) ImageSat International, Inc. (EROS A1) NASA Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) NASA Terra Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) === Imaging spectrometry using linear and area arrays === NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager 3 (CASI 3) NASA Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) NASA Earth Observer (EO-1) Advanced Land Imager (ALI), Hyperion, and LEISA Atmospheric Corrector (LAC) === Satellite analog and digital photographic systems === Russian SPIN-2 TK-350, and KVR-1000 NASA Space Shuttle and International Space Station Imagery == Multispectral classification methods == A variety of methods can be used for the multispectral classification of images: Algorithms based on parametric and nonparametric statistics that use ratio-and interval-scaled data and nonmetric methods that can also incorporate nominal scale data (Duda et al., 2001), Supervised or unsupervised classification logic, Hard or soft (fuzzy) set classification logic to create hard or fuzzy thematic output products, Per-pixel or object-oriented classification logic, and Hybrid approaches == Supervised classification == In this classification method, the identity and location of some of the land-cover types are obtained beforehand from a combination of fieldwork, interpretation of aerial photography, map analysis, and personal experience. The analyst would locate sites that have similar characteristics to the known land-cover types. These areas are known as training sites because the known characteristics of these sites are used to train the classification algorithm for eventual land-cover mapping of the remainder of the image. Multivariate statistical parameters (means, standard deviations, covariance matrices, correlation matrices, etc.) are calculated for each training site. All pixels inside and outside of the training sites are evaluated and allocated to the class with the more similar characteristics. === Classification scheme === The first step in the supervised classification method is to identify the land-cover and land-use classes to be used. Land-cover refers to the type of material present on the site (e.g. water, crops, forest, wet land, asphalt, and concrete). Land-use refers to the modifications made by people to the land cover (e.g. agriculture, commerce, settlement). All classes should be selected and defined carefully to properly classify remotely sensed data into the correct land-use and/or land-cover information. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to use a classification system that contains taxonomically correct definitions of classes. If a hard classification is desired, the following classes should be used: Mutually exclusive: there is not any taxonomic overlap of any classes (i.e., rain forest and evergreen forest are distinct classes). Exhaustive: all land-covers in the area have been included. Hierarchical: sub-level classes (e.g., single-family residential, multiple-family residential) are created, allowing that these classes can be included in a higher category (e.g., residential). Some examples of hard classification schemes are: American Planning Association Land-Based Classification System United States Geological Survey Land-use/Land-cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. National Vegetation and Classification System International Geosphere-Biosphere Program IGBP Land Cover Classification System === Training sites === Once the classification scheme is adopted, the image analyst may select training sites in the image that are representative of the land-cover or land-use of interest. If the environment where the data was collected is relatively homogeneous, the training data can be used. If different conditions are found in the site, it would not be possible to extend the remote sensing training data to the site. To solve this problem, a geographical stratification should be done during the preliminary stages of the project. All differences should be recorded (e.g. soil type, water turbidity, crop species, etc.). These differences should be recorded on the imagery and the selection training sites made based on the geographical stratification of this data. The final classification map would be a composite of the individual stratum classifications. After the data are organized in different training sites, a measurement vector is created. This vector would contain the brightness values for each pixel in each band in each training class. The mean, standard deviation, variance-covariance matrix, and correlation matrix are calculated from the measurement vectors. Once the statistics from each training site are determined, the most effective bands for each class should be selected. The objective of this discrimination is to eliminate the bands that can provide redundant information. Graphical and statistical methods can be used to achieve this objective. Some of the graphic methods are: Bar graph spectral plots Cospectral mean vector plots Feature space plots Cospectral parallelepiped or ellipse plots === Classification algorithm === The last step in supervised classification is selecting an appropriate algorithm. The choice of a specific algorithm depends on the input data and the desired output. Parametric algorithms are based on the fact that the data is normally distributed. If the data is not normally distributed, nonparametric algorithms should be used. The more common nonparametric algorithms are: One-dimensional density slicing Parallelipiped Minimum distance Nearest-neighbor Expert system analysis Convolutional neural network == Unsupervised classification == Unsupervised classification (also known as clustering) is a method of partitioning remote sensor image data in multispectral feature space and extracting land-cover information. Unsupervised classification require less input information from the analyst compared to supervised classification because clustering does not require training data. This process consists in a series of numerical operations to search for the spectral properties of pixels. From this process, a map with m spectral classes is obtained. Using the map, the analyst tries to assign or transform the spectral classes into thematic information of interest (i.e. forest, agriculture, urban). This process may not be easy because some spectral clusters represent mixed classes of surface materials and may not be useful. The analyst has to understand the spectral characteristics of the terrain to be able to label clusters as a specific information class. There are hundreds of clustering algorithms. Two of the most conceptually simple algorithms are the chain method and the ISODATA method. === Chain method === The algorithm used in this method operates in a two-pass mode (it passes through the multispectral dataset two times. In the first pass, the program reads through the dataset and sequentially builds clusters (groups of p

  Read more →
• 

  Frameserver

  A frameserver is any program that acts as a media source in the process called frameserving, which transfers digital video data from one computer program to another without intermediate files. The program that receives the data – the frameclient – could be any type of video application. The process is controlled by the frameclient: the frameclient requests audio/video frames and the frameserver serves them. The client can request frames in any order, allowing it to pause or jump to an arbitrary frame, just as a media player does with a file on disk. The client is most commonly a media encoder, a non-linear editing system, or a media player. == Frameservers == AviSynth VirtualDub VapourSynth Debugmode FrameServer

  Read more →
• 

  Dendrogram

  A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts: in hierarchical clustering, it illustrates the arrangement of the clusters produced by the corresponding analyses. in computational biology, it shows the clustering of genes or samples, sometimes in the margins of heatmaps. in phylogenetics, it displays the evolutionary relationships among various biological taxa. In this case, the dendrogram is also called a phylogenetic tree. The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure". == Clustering example == For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( a {\displaystyle a} to e {\displaystyle e} ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).

  Read more →
• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

  Silhouette is a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified. It was proposed by Belgian statistician Peter Rousseeuw in 1987. The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette value ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters. A clustering with an average silhouette width of over 0.7 is considered to be "strong", a value over 0.5 "reasonable", and over 0.25 "weak". However, with an increasing dimensionality of the data, it becomes difficult to achieve such high values because of the curse of dimensionality, as the distances become more similar. The silhouette score is specialized for measuring cluster quality when the clusters are convex-shaped, and may not perform well if the data clusters have irregular shapes or are of varying sizes. The silhouette value can be calculated with any distance metric, such as Euclidean distance or Manhattan distance. == Definition == Assume the data have been clustered via any technique, such as k-medoids or k-means, into k {\displaystyle k} clusters. For data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} (data point i {\displaystyle i} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} ), calculate a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} , the average distance that i {\displaystyle i} is from all other points in that cluster: a ( i ) = 1 | C i | − 1 ∑ j ∈ C i , i ≠ j d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle a(i)={\frac {1}{|C_{i}|-1}}\sum _{j\in C_{i},i\neq j}d(i,j)} where | C i | {\displaystyle |C_{i}|} is the number of points belonging to cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} , and d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle d(i,j)} is the distance between data points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} (we divide by | C i | − 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|-1} because the distance d ( i , i ) {\displaystyle d(i,i)} is not included in the sum). a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} can be interpreted as a measure of how well i {\displaystyle i} is assigned to its cluster (the smaller the value, the better the assignment). We then define the mean dissimilarity of point i {\displaystyle i} to some cluster C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} as the mean of the distance from i {\displaystyle i} to all points in C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} (where C j ≠ C i {\displaystyle C_{j}\neq C_{i}} ). For each data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} , we now define b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} as the average distance between i {\displaystyle i} and the points in the closest cluster (hence: "min") that i {\displaystyle i} does not belong to: b ( i ) = min j ≠ i 1 | C j | ∑ l ∈ C j d ( i , l ) {\displaystyle b(i)=\min _{j\neq i}{\frac {1}{|C_{j}|}}\sum _{l\in C_{j}}d(i,l)} The cluster with the smallest mean dissimilarity is said to be the "neighboring cluster" of i {\displaystyle i} because it is the next best fit cluster for point i {\displaystyle i} . We now define a silhouette (value) of one data point i {\displaystyle i} s ( i ) = b ( i ) − a ( i ) max { a ( i ) , b ( i ) } {\displaystyle s(i)={\frac {b(i)-a(i)}{\max\{a(i),b(i)\}}}} , if | C i | > 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|>1} and s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} , if | C i | = 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|=1} , which can also be written as s ( i ) = { 1 − a ( i ) b ( i ) , if a ( i ) < b ( i ) 0 , if a ( i ) = b ( i ) b ( i ) a ( i ) − 1 , if a ( i ) > b ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)={\begin{cases}1-{\frac {a(i)}{b(i)}},&{\mbox{ if }}a(i)b(i)\\\end{cases}}} From the above definition, s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is bounded to the interval [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]} , i.e. − 1 ≤ s ( i ) ≤ 1. {\displaystyle -1\leq s(i)\leq 1.} Note that a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is not clearly defined for clusters with size = 1, in which case we set s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} . This choice is arbitrary, but neutral in the sense that it is at the midpoint of the bounds, -1 and 1. For s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} to be close to 1 we require a ( i ) ≪ b ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)\ll b(i)} . As a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} is a measure of how dissimilar i {\displaystyle i} is to its own cluster, a small value means it is well matched. Furthermore, a large b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} implies that i {\displaystyle i} is badly matched to its neighbouring cluster. Thus an s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} close to 1 means that the data is appropriately clustered. If s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} is close to -1, then by the same logic we see that i {\displaystyle i} would be more appropriate if it was clustered in its neighbouring cluster. An s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} near zero means that the datum is on the border of two natural clusters. The mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all points of a cluster is a measure of how tightly grouped all the points in the cluster are. Thus the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset is a measure of how appropriately the data have been clustered. If there are too many or too few clusters, as may occur when a poor choice of k {\displaystyle k} is used in the clustering algorithm (e.g., k-means), some of the clusters will typically display much narrower silhouettes than the rest. Thus silhouette plots and means may be used to determine the natural number of clusters within a dataset. One can also increase the likelihood of the silhouette being maximized at the correct number of clusters by re-scaling the data using feature weights that are cluster specific. Kaufman et al. introduced the term silhouette coefficient for the maximum value of the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset, i.e., S C = max k s ~ ( k ) , {\displaystyle SC=\max _{k}{\tilde {s}}\left(k\right),} where s ~ ( k ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {s}}\left(k\right)} represents the mean s ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)} over all data of the entire dataset for a specific number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} . The silhouette coefficient describes the best possible clustering possible for a given number of clusters, as measured by the highest average silhouette score for all points in the dataset. == Simplified and medoid silhouette == Computing the silhouette coefficient needs all O ( N 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(N^{2})} pairwise distances, making this evaluation much more costly than clustering with k-means. For a clustering with centers μ C I {\displaystyle \mu _{C_{I}}} for each cluster C I {\displaystyle C_{I}} , we can use the following simplified Silhouette for each point i ∈ C I {\displaystyle i\in C_{I}} instead, which can be computed using only O ( N k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(Nk)} distances: a ′ ( i ) = d ( i , μ C I ) {\displaystyle a'(i)=d(i,\mu _{C_{I}})} and b ′ ( i ) = min C J ≠ C I d ( i , μ C J ) {\displaystyle b'(i)=\min _{C_{J}\neq C_{I}}d(i,\mu _{C_{J}})} , which has the additional benefit that a ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)} is always defined, then define accordingly the simplified silhouette and simplified silhouette coefficient s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) max { a ′ ( i ) , b ′ ( i ) } {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{\max\{a'(i),b'(i)\}}}} S C ′ = max k 1 N ∑ i s ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle SC'=\max _{k}{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i}s'\left(i\right)} . If the cluster centers are medoids (as in k-medoids clustering) instead of arithmetic means (as in k-means clustering), this is also called the medoid-based silhouette or medoid silhouette. If every object is assigned to the nearest medoid (as in k-medoids clustering), we know that a ′ ( i ) ≤ b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle a'(i)\leq b'(i)} , and hence s ′ ( i ) = b ′ ( i ) − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) = 1 − a ′ ( i ) b ′ ( i ) {\displaystyle s'(i)={\frac {b'(i)-a'(i)}{b'(i)}}=1-{\frac {a'(i)}{b'(i)}}} . == Silhouette clustering == Instead of using the average silhouette to evaluate a clustering obtained from, e.g., k-medoids or k-means, we can try to directly find a solution that maximizes the Silhouette. We do not have a closed form solution to maximize this, but it will usually be best to assign points to the nearest cluster as done by these methods. Van der Laan et al. proposed to adapt the standard algorithm for k-medoids, PAM, for this purpose and call this algorithm PAMSIL: Choose initial medoids by using PAM Compute the average silhouette of this initial solution For each pair of a medoid m and a non-medoid x swap m and x compute the average silhouette of the resulting solution remember the best swap un-swap m and x for the next iteration Perform the best swap and return to

  Read more →
• 

  Preference regression

  Preference regression is a statistical technique used by marketers to determine consumers’ preferred core benefits. It usually supplements product positioning techniques like multi dimensional scaling or factor analysis and is used to create ideal vectors on perceptual maps. == Application == Starting with raw data from surveys, researchers apply positioning techniques to determine important dimensions and plot the position of competing products on these dimensions. Next they regress the survey data against the dimensions. The independent variables are the data collected in the survey. The dependent variable is the preference datum. Like all regression methods, the computer fits weights to best predict data. The resultant regression line is referred to as an ideal vector because the slope of the vector is the ratio of the preferences for the two dimensions. If all the data is used in the regression, the program will derive a single equation and hence a single ideal vector. This tends to be a blunt instrument so researchers refine the process with cluster analysis. This creates clusters that reflect market segments. Separate preference regressions are then done on the data within each segment. This provides an ideal vector for each segment. == Alternative methods == Self-stated importance method is an alternative method in which direct survey data is used to determine the weightings rather than statistical imputations. A third method is conjoint analysis in which an additive method is used.

  Read more →
• 

  Anomaly detection

  In data analysis, anomaly detection (also referred to as outlier detection and sometimes as novelty detection) is generally understood to be the identification of rare items, events or observations which deviate significantly from the majority of the data and do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior. Such examples may arouse suspicions of being generated by a different mechanism, or appear inconsistent with the remainder of that set of data. Anomaly detection finds application in many domains including cybersecurity, medicine, machine vision, statistics, neuroscience, law enforcement and financial fraud to name only a few. Anomalies were initially searched for clear rejection or omission from the data to aid statistical analysis, for example to compute the mean or standard deviation. They were also removed to better predictions from models such as linear regression, and more recently their removal aids the performance of machine learning algorithms. However, in many applications anomalies themselves are of interest and are the observations most desirous in the entire data set, which need to be identified and separated from noise or irrelevant outliers. Three broad categories of anomaly detection techniques exist. Supervised anomaly detection techniques require a data set that has been labeled as "normal" and "abnormal" and involves training a classifier. However, this approach is rarely used in anomaly detection due to the general unavailability of labelled data and the inherent unbalanced nature of the classes. Semi-supervised anomaly detection techniques assume that some portion of the data is labelled. This may be any combination of the normal or anomalous data, but more often than not, the techniques construct a model representing normal behavior from a given normal training data set, and then test the likelihood of a test instance to be generated by the model. Unsupervised anomaly detection techniques assume the data is unlabelled and are by far the most commonly used due to their wider and relevant application. == Definition == Many attempts have been made in the statistical and computer science communities to define an anomaly. The most prevalent ones include the following, and can be categorised into three groups: those that are ambiguous, those that are specific to a method with pre-defined thresholds usually chosen empirically, and those that are formally defined: === Ill defined === An outlier is an observation which deviates so much from the other observations as to arouse suspicions that it was generated by a different mechanism. Anomalies are instances or collections of data that occur very rarely in the data set and whose features differ significantly from most of the data. An outlier is an observation (or subset of observations) which appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of that set of data. An anomaly is a point or collection of points that is relatively distant from other points in multi-dimensional space of features. Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well-defined notion of normal behaviour. === Specific === Let T be observations from a univariate Gaussian distribution and O a point from T. Then the z-score for O is greater than a pre-selected threshold if and only if O is an outlier. == History == === Intrusion detection === The concept of intrusion detection, a critical component of anomaly detection, has evolved significantly over time. Initially, it was a manual process where system administrators would monitor for unusual activities, such as a vacationing user's account being accessed or unexpected printer activity. This approach was not scalable and was soon superseded by the analysis of audit logs and system logs for signs of malicious behavior. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the analysis of these logs was primarily used retrospectively to investigate incidents, as the volume of data made it impractical for real-time monitoring. The affordability of digital storage eventually led to audit logs being analyzed online, with specialized programs being developed to sift through the data. These programs, however, were typically run during off-peak hours due to their computational intensity. The 1990s brought the advent of real-time intrusion detection systems capable of analyzing audit data as it was generated, allowing for immediate detection of and response to attacks. This marked a significant shift towards proactive intrusion detection. As the field has continued to develop, the focus has shifted to creating solutions that can be efficiently implemented across large and complex network environments, adapting to the ever-growing variety of security threats and the dynamic nature of modern computing infrastructures. == Applications == Anomaly detection is applicable in a very large number and variety of domains, and is an important subarea of unsupervised machine learning. As such it has applications in cyber-security, intrusion detection, fraud detection, fault detection, system health monitoring, event detection in sensor networks, detecting ecosystem disturbances, defect detection in images using machine vision, medical diagnosis and law enforcement. === Intrusion detection === Anomaly detection was proposed for intrusion detection systems (IDS) by Dorothy Denning in 1986. Anomaly detection for IDS is normally accomplished with thresholds and statistics, but can also be done with soft computing, and inductive learning. Types of features proposed by 1999 included profiles of users, workstations, networks, remote hosts, groups of users, and programs based on frequencies, means, variances, covariances, and standard deviations. The counterpart of anomaly detection in intrusion detection is misuse detection. === Fintech fraud detection === Anomaly detection is vital in fintech for fraud prevention. === Preprocessing === Preprocessing data to remove anomalies can be an important step in data analysis, and is done for a number of reasons. Statistics such as the mean and standard deviation are more accurate after the removal of anomalies, and the visualisation of data can also be improved. In supervised learning, removing the anomalous data from the dataset often results in a statistically significant increase in accuracy. === Video surveillance === Anomaly detection has become increasingly vital in video surveillance to enhance security and safety. With the advent of deep learning technologies, methods using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Simple Recurrent Units (SRUs) have shown significant promise in identifying unusual activities or behaviors in video data. These models can process and analyze extensive video feeds in real-time, recognizing patterns that deviate from the norm, which may indicate potential security threats or safety violations. An important aspect for video surveillance is the development of scalable real-time frameworks. Such pipelines are required for processing multiple video streams with low computational resources. === IT infrastructure === In IT infrastructure management, anomaly detection is crucial for ensuring the smooth operation and reliability of services. These are complex systems, composed of many interactive elements and large data quantities, requiring methods to process and reduce this data into a human and machine interpretable format. Techniques like the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and monitoring frameworks are employed to track and manage system performance and user experience. Detected anomalies can help identify and pre-empt potential performance degradations or system failures, thus maintaining productivity and business process effectiveness. === IoT systems === Anomaly detection is critical for the security and efficiency of Internet of Things (IoT) systems. It helps in identifying system failures and security breaches in complex networks of IoT devices. The methods must manage real-time data, diverse device types, and scale effectively. Garg et al. have introduced a multi-stage anomaly detection framework that improves upon traditional methods by incorporating spatial clustering, density-based clustering, and locality-sensitive hashing. This tailored approach is designed to better handle the vast and varied nature of IoT data, thereby enhancing security and operational reliability in smart infrastructure and industrial IoT systems. === Petroleum industry === Anomaly detection is crucial in the petroleum industry for monitoring critical machinery. A 2015 paper proposed a novel segmentation algorithm using support vector machines to analyze sensor data for real-time anomaly detection. === Oil and gas pipeline monitoring === In the oil and gas sector, anomaly detection is not just crucial for maintenance and safety, but also for environmental protection. Aljameel et al. propose an advanced machine learning-based model for detecting minor leaks in oil and gas pipelines, a task traditional methods may miss.

  Read more →
• 

  Variable kernel density estimation

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

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling

  Blockmodeling is a set or a coherent framework, that is used for analyzing social structure and also for setting procedure(s) for partitioning (clustering) social network's units (nodes, vertices, actors), based on specific patterns, which form a distinctive structure through interconnectivity. It is primarily used in statistics, machine learning and network science. As an empirical procedure, blockmodeling assumes that all the units in a specific network can be grouped together to such extent to which they are equivalent. Regarding equivalency, it can be structural, regular or generalized. Using blockmodeling, a network can be analyzed using newly created blockmodels, which transforms large and complex network into a smaller and more comprehensible one. At the same time, the blockmodeling is used to operationalize social roles. While some contend that the blockmodeling is just clustering methods, Bonacich and McConaghy state that "it is a theoretically grounded and algebraic approach to the analysis of the structure of relations". Blockmodeling's unique ability lies in the fact that it considers the structure not just as a set of direct relations, but also takes into account all other possible compound relations that are based on the direct ones. The principles of blockmodeling were first introduced by Francois Lorrain and Harrison C. White in 1971. Blockmodeling is considered as "an important set of network analytic tools" as it deals with delineation of role structures (the well-defined places in social structures, also known as positions) and the discerning the fundamental structure of social networks. According to Batagelj, the primary "goal of blockmodeling is to reduce a large, potentially incoherent network to a smaller comprehensible structure that can be interpreted more readily". Blockmodeling was at first used for analysis in sociometry and psychometrics, but has now spread also to other sciences. == Definition == A network as a system is composed of (or defined by) two different sets: one set of units (nodes, vertices, actors) and one set of links between the units. Using both sets, it is possible to create a graph, describing the structure of the network. During blockmodeling, the researcher is faced with two problems: how to partition the units (e.g., how to determine the clusters (or classes), that then form vertices in a blockmodel) and then how to determine the links in the blockmodel (and at the same time the values of these links). In the social sciences, the networks are usually social networks, composed of several individuals (units) and selected social relationships among them (links). Real-world networks can be large and complex; blockmodeling is used to simplify them into smaller structures that can be easier to interpret. Specifically, blockmodeling partitions the units into clusters and then determines the ties among the clusters. At the same time, blockmodeling can be used to explain the social roles existing in the network, as it is assumed that the created cluster of units mimics (or is closely associated with) the units' social roles. Blockmodeling can thus be defined as a set of approaches for partitioning units into clusters (also known as positions) and links into blocks, which are further defined by the newly obtained clusters. A block (also blockmodel) is defined as a submatrix, that shows interconnectivity (links) between nodes, present in the same or different clusters. Each of these positions in the cluster is defined by a set of (in)direct ties to and from other social positions. These links (connections) can be directed or undirected; there can be multiple links between the same pair of objects or they can have weights on them. If there are not any multiple links in a network, it is called a simple network. A matrix representation of a graph is composed of ordered units, in rows and columns, based on their names. The ordered units with similar patterns of links are partitioned together in the same clusters. Clusters are then arranged together so that units from the same clusters are placed next to each other, thus preserving interconnectivity. In the next step, the units (from the same clusters) are transformed into a blockmodel. With this, several blockmodels are usually formed, one being core cluster and others being cohesive; a core cluster is always connected to cohesive ones, while cohesive ones cannot be linked together. Clustering of nodes is based on the equivalence, such as structural and regular. The primary objective of the matrix form is to visually present relations between the persons included in the cluster. These ties are coded dichotomously (as present or absent), and the rows in the matrix form indicate the source of the ties, while the columns represent the destination of the ties. Equivalence can have two basic approaches: the equivalent units have the same connection pattern to the same neighbors or these units have same or similar connection pattern to different neighbors. If the units are connected to the rest of network in identical ways, then they are structurally equivalent. Units can also be regularly equivalent, when they are equivalently connected to equivalent others. With blockmodeling, it is necessary to consider the issue of results being affected by measurement errors in the initial stage of acquiring the data. == Different approaches == Regarding what kind of network is undergoing blockmodeling, a different approach is necessary. Networks can be one–mode or two–mode. In the former all units can be connected to any other unit and where units are of the same type, while in the latter the units are connected only to the unit(s) of a different type. Regarding relationships between units, they can be single–relational or multi–relational networks. Further more, the networks can be temporal or multilevel and also binary (only 0 and 1) or signed (allowing negative ties)/values (other values are possible) networks. Different approaches to blockmodeling can be grouped into two main classes: deterministic blockmodeling and stochastic blockmodeling approaches. Deterministic blockmodeling is then further divided into direct and indirect blockmodeling approaches. Among direct blockmodeling approaches are: structural equivalence and regular equivalence. Structural equivalence is a state, when units are connected to the rest of the network in an identical way(s), while regular equivalence occurs when units are equally related to equivalent others (units are not necessarily sharing neighbors, but have neighbour that are themselves similar). Indirect blockmodeling approaches, where partitioning is dealt with as a traditional cluster analysis problem (measuring (dis)similarity results in a (dis)similarity matrix), are: conventional blockmodeling, generalized blockmodeling: generalized blockmodeling of binary networks, generalized blockmodeling of valued networks and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling, prespecified blockmodeling. According to Brusco and Steinley (2011), the blockmodeling can be categorized (using a number of dimensions): deterministic or stochastic blockmodeling, one–mode or two–mode networks, signed or unsigned networks, exploratory or confirmatory blockmodeling. == Blockmodels == Blockmodels (sometimes also block models) are structures in which: vertices (e.g., units, nodes) are assembled within a cluster, with each cluster identified as a vertex; from such vertices a graph can be constructed; combinations of all the links (ties), represented in a block as a single link between positions, while at the same time constructing one tie for each block. In a case, when there are no ties in a block, there will be no ties between the two positions that define the block. Computer programs can partition the social network according to pre-set conditions. When empirical blocks can be reasonably approximated in terms of ideal blocks, such blockmodels can be reduced to a blockimage, which is a representation of the original network, capturing its underlying 'functional anatomy'. Thus, blockmodels can "permit the data to characterize their own structure", and at the same time not seek to manifest a preconceived structure imposed by the researcher. Blockmodels can be created indirectly or directly, based on the construction of the criterion function. Indirect construction refers to a function, based on "compatible (dis)similarity measure between paris of units", while the direct construction is "a function measuring the fit of real blocks induced by a given clustering to the corresponding ideal blocks with perfect relations within each cluster and between clusters according to the considered types of connections (equivalence)". === Types === Blockmodels can be specified regarding the intuition, substance or the insight into the nature of the studied network; this can result in such models as follows: parent-child role systems, organizational hierarchies, systems of

  Read more →