AI For Business Rules

AI For Business Rules — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds

Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds are mobile software applications designed to collect respiratory sounds and aid diagnosis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous applications are in development, with different institutions and companies taking various approaches to privacy and data collection. Current efforts are aimed at gathering data. In a later stage, it is possible that sound apps will have the capacity (and ethical approvals) to provide information back to users. In order to develop and train signal analysis approaches, large datasets are required. == History == The COVID-19 outbreak was announced as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020 and has affected a growing number of people globally. In this context, advanced artificial intelligence techniques are being considered as tools in aiding our response to global health crisis. Other COVID-19 apps which offer solutions for user tracking have been developed. At the same time a number of approaches which tries to use respiratory sounds and artificial intelligence to understand if the disease can be diagnosed have been proposed. A few studies are available as preprints (i.e. not yet peer-reviewed) documents. == Methodologies == The potential for using speech and sound analysis by artificial intelligence to help in this scenario, by surveying which types of related or contextually significant phenomena can be automatically assessed from speech or sound has been recently overviewed. These include the automatic recognition and monitoring of breathing, dry and wet coughing or sneezing sounds, speech under cold, eating behaviour, sleepiness, or pain. Additionally, the potential use-cases of intelligent speech analysis for COVID-19 diagnosed patients has also been presented. In particular, by analysing speech recordings from these patients, an audio-only-based model to automatically categorise the health state of patients from four aspects, including the severity of illness, sleep quality, fatigue, and anxiety, is constructed. This work shows promise in estimating the severity of illness. Machine learning methods have been explored to recognize and diagnose coughs from different diseases. These included a low complexity, automated recognition and diagnostic tool for screening respiratory infections that utilizes convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to detect cough within environment audio and diagnose three potential illnesses (i.e. bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pertussis) based on their unique cough audio features. A large-scale crowdsourced dataset of respiratory sounds has been collected to aid diagnosis of COVID-19: coughs and breathing sounds are sufficient to distinguish users affected by COVID-19 versus those affected by asthma or healthy controls. Behind these studies is the ambition that automated systems to screen for respiratory diseases based on voice, raw cough or other sound data would have positive medical applications in both clinical and public health arenas. == List of apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds ==
Read more →
Confirmatory blockmodeling

Confirmatory blockmodeling is a deductive approach in blockmodeling, where a blockmodel (or part of it) is prespecify before the analysis, and then the analysis is fit to this model. When only a part of analysis is prespecify (like individual cluster(s) or location of the block types), it is called partially confirmatory blockmodeling. This is so-called indirect approach, where the blockmodeling is done on the blockmodel fitting (e.g., a priori hypothesized blockmodel). Opposite approach to the confirmatory blockmodeling is an inductive exploratory blockmodeling.
Read more →
AdaBoost

AdaBoost (short for Adaptive Boosting) is a statistical classification meta-algorithm formulated by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire in 1995, who won the 2003 Gödel Prize for their work. It can be used in conjunction with many types of learning algorithm to improve performance. The output of multiple weak learners is combined into a weighted sum that represents the final output of the boosted classifier. Usually, AdaBoost is presented for binary classification, although it can be generalized to multiple classes or bounded intervals of real values. AdaBoost is adaptive in the sense that subsequent weak learners (models) are adjusted in favor of instances misclassified by previous models. In some problems, it can be less susceptible to overfitting than other learning algorithms. The individual learners can be weak, but as long as the performance of each one is slightly better than random guessing, the final model can be proven to converge to a strong learner. Although AdaBoost is typically used to combine weak base learners (such as decision stumps), it has been shown to also effectively combine strong base learners (such as deeper decision trees), producing an even more accurate model. Every learning algorithm tends to suit some problem types better than others, and typically has many different parameters and configurations to adjust before it achieves optimal performance on a dataset. AdaBoost (with decision trees as the weak learners) is often referred to as the best out-of-the-box classifier. When used with decision tree learning, information gathered at each stage of the AdaBoost algorithm about the relative 'hardness' of each training sample is fed into the tree-growing algorithm such that later trees tend to focus on harder-to-classify examples. == Training == AdaBoost refers to a particular method of training a boosted classifier. A boosted classifier is a classifier of the form F T ( x ) = ∑ t = 1 T f t ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{T}(x)=\sum _{t=1}^{T}f_{t}(x)} where each f t {\displaystyle f_{t}} is a weak learner that takes an object x {\displaystyle x} as input and returns a value indicating the class of the object. For example, in the two-class problem, the sign of the weak learner's output identifies the predicted object class and the absolute value gives the confidence in that classification. Each weak learner produces an output hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} which fixes a prediction h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} for each sample in the training set. At each iteration t {\displaystyle t} , a weak learner is selected and assigned a coefficient α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} such that the total training error E t {\displaystyle E_{t}} of the resulting t {\displaystyle t} -stage boosted classifier is minimized. E t = ∑ i E [ F t − 1 ( x i ) + α t h ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle E_{t}=\sum _{i}E[F_{t-1}(x_{i})+\alpha _{t}h(x_{i})]} Here F t − 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{t-1}(x)} is the boosted classifier that has been built up to the previous stage of training and f t ( x ) = α t h ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{t}(x)=\alpha _{t}h(x)} is the weak learner that is being considered for addition to the final classifier. === Weighting === At each iteration of the training process, a weight w i , t {\displaystyle w_{i,t}} is assigned to each sample in the training set equal to the current error E ( F t − 1 ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle E(F_{t-1}(x_{i}))} on that sample. These weights can be used in the training of the weak learner. For instance, decision trees can be grown which favor the splitting of sets of samples with large weights. == Derivation == This derivation follows Rojas (2009): Suppose we have a data set { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x N , y N ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{N},y_{N})\}} where each item x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} has an associated class y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} , and a set of weak classifiers { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} each of which outputs a classification k j ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{j}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} for each item. After the ( m − 1 ) {\displaystyle (m-1)} -th iteration our boosted classifier is a linear combination of the weak classifiers of the form: C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) = α 1 k 1 ( x i ) + ⋯ + α m − 1 k m − 1 ( x i ) , {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})=\alpha _{1}k_{1}(x_{i})+\cdots +\alpha _{m-1}k_{m-1}(x_{i}),} where the class will be the sign of C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})} . At the m {\displaystyle m} -th iteration we want to extend this to a better boosted classifier by adding another weak classifier k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , with another weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} : C m ( x i ) = C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) + α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{m}(x_{i})=C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})+\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})} So it remains to determine which weak classifier is the best choice for k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , and what its weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} should be. We define the total error E {\displaystyle E} of C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} as the sum of its exponential loss on each data point, given as follows: E = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C m ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{m}(x_{i})}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} Letting w i ( 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(1)}=1} and w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} for m > 1 {\displaystyle m>1} , we have: E = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} We can split this summation between those data points that are correctly classified by k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} (so y i k m ( x i ) = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=1} ) and those that are misclassified (so y i k m ( x i ) = − 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=-1} ): E = ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ( e α m − e − α m ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}}\\&=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}\left(e^{\alpha _{m}}-e^{-\alpha _{m}}\right)\end{aligned}}} Since the only part of the right-hand side of this equation that depends on k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} is ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} , we see that the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} is the one in the set { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} that minimizes ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} [assuming that α m > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}>0} ], i.e. the weak classifier with the lowest weighted error (with weights w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} ). To determine the desired weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} with the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that we just determined, we differentiate: d E d α m = d ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m ) d α m {\displaystyle {\frac {dE}{d\alpha _{m}}}={\frac {d(\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}})}{d\alpha _{m}}}} The value of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes the above expression is: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}}\right)} We calculate the weighted error rate of the weak classifier to be ϵ m = ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{m}={\frac {\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}}}} , so it follows that: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( 1 − ϵ m ϵ m ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {1-\epsilon _{m}}{\epsilon _{m}}}\right)} which is the negative logit function multiplied by 0.5. Due to the convexity of E {\displaystyle E} as a function of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} , this new expression for α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} gives the global minimum of the loss function. Note: This derivation only applies when k m ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} , though it can be a good starting guess in other cases, such as when the weak learner is biased ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b } , a ≠ − b {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b\},a\neq -b} ), has multiple leaves ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b , … , n } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b,\dots ,n\}} ) or is some other function k m ( x ) ∈ R {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \mathbb {R} } . Thus we have derived the AdaBoost algorithm: At each
Read more →
Proximal policy optimization

Proximal policy optimization (PPO) is a reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm for training an intelligent agent. Specifically, it is a policy gradient method, often used for deep RL when the policy network is very large. == History == The predecessor to PPO, Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO), was published in 2015. It addressed the instability issue of another algorithm, the Deep Q-Network (DQN), by using the trust region method to limit the KL divergence between the old and new policies. However, TRPO uses the Hessian matrix (a matrix of second derivatives) to enforce the trust region, but the Hessian is inefficient for large-scale problems. PPO was published in 2017. It was essentially an approximation of TRPO that does not require computing the Hessian. The KL divergence constraint was approximated by simply clipping the policy gradient. Since 2018, PPO was the default RL algorithm at OpenAI. PPO has been applied to many areas, such as controlling a robotic arm, beating professional players at Dota 2 (OpenAI Five), and playing Atari games. == TRPO == TRPO, the predecessor of PPO, is an on-policy algorithm. It can be used for environments with either discrete or continuous action spaces. The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} Hyperparameters: KL-divergence limit δ {\textstyle \delta } , backtracking coefficient α {\textstyle \alpha } , maximum number of backtracking steps K {\textstyle K} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Estimate policy gradient as g ^ k = 1 | D k | ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ log ⁡ π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) | θ k A ^ t {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}_{k}=\left.{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\log \pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)\right|_{\theta _{k}}{\hat {A}}_{t}} Use the conjugate gradient algorithm to compute x ^ k ≈ H ^ k − 1 g ^ k {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}_{k}\approx {\hat {H}}_{k}^{-1}{\hat {g}}_{k}} where H ^ k {\textstyle {\hat {H}}_{k}} is the Hessian of the sample average KL-divergence. Update the policy by backtracking line search with θ k + 1 = θ k + α j 2 δ x ^ k T H ^ k x ^ k x ^ k {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\theta _{k}+\alpha ^{j}{\sqrt {\frac {2\delta }{{\hat {x}}_{k}^{T}{\hat {H}}_{k}{\hat {x}}_{k}}}}{\hat {x}}_{k}} where j ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , … K } {\textstyle j\in \{0,1,2,\ldots K\}} is the smallest value which improves the sample loss and satisfies the sample KL-divergence constraint. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. == PPO == The pseudocode is as follows: Input: initial policy parameters θ 0 {\textstyle \theta _{0}} , initial value function parameters ϕ 0 {\textstyle \phi _{0}} for k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … {\textstyle k=0,1,2,\ldots } do Collect set of trajectories D k = { τ i } {\textstyle {\mathcal {D}}_{k}=\left\{\tau _{i}\right\}} by running policy π k = π ( θ k ) {\textstyle \pi _{k}=\pi \left(\theta _{k}\right)} in the environment. Compute rewards-to-go R ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {R}}_{t}} . Compute advantage estimates, A ^ t {\textstyle {\hat {A}}_{t}} (using any method of advantage estimation) based on the current value function V ϕ k {\textstyle V_{\phi _{k}}} . Update the policy by maximizing the PPO-Clip objective: θ k + 1 = arg ⁡ max θ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T min ( π θ ( a t ∣ s t ) π θ k ( a t ∣ s t ) A π θ k ( s t , a t ) , g ( ϵ , A π θ k ( s t , a t ) ) ) {\displaystyle \theta _{k+1}=\arg \max _{\theta }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\min \left({\frac {\pi _{\theta }\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}{\pi _{\theta _{k}}\left(a_{t}\mid s_{t}\right)}}A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right),\quad g\left(\epsilon ,A^{\pi _{\theta _{k}}}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right)\right)\right)} typically via stochastic gradient ascent with Adam. Fit value function by regression on mean-squared error: ϕ k + 1 = arg ⁡ min ϕ 1 | D k | T ∑ τ ∈ D k ∑ t = 0 T ( V ϕ ( s t ) − R ^ t ) 2 {\displaystyle \phi _{k+1}=\arg \min _{\phi }{\frac {1}{\left|{\mathcal {D}}_{k}\right|T}}\sum _{\tau \in {\mathcal {D}}_{k}}\sum _{t=0}^{T}\left(V_{\phi }\left(s_{t}\right)-{\hat {R}}_{t}\right)^{2}} typically via some gradient descent algorithm. Like all policy gradient methods, PPO is used for training an RL agent whose actions are determined by a differentiable policy function by gradient ascent. Intuitively, a policy gradient method takes small policy update steps, so the agent can reach higher and higher rewards in expectation. Policy gradient methods may be unstable: A step size that is too big may direct the policy in a suboptimal direction, thus having little possibility of recovery; a step size that is too small lowers the overall efficiency. To solve the instability, PPO implements a clip function that constrains the policy update of an agent from being too large, so that larger step sizes may be used without negatively affecting the gradient ascent process. === Basic concepts === To begin the PPO training process, the agent is set in an environment to perform actions based on its current input. In the early phase of training, the agent can freely explore solutions and keep track of the result. Later, with a certain amount of transition samples and policy updates, the agent will select an action to take by randomly sampling from the probability distribution P ( A | S ) {\displaystyle P(A|S)} generated by the policy network. The actions that are most likely to be beneficial will have the highest probability of being selected from the random sample. After an agent arrives at a different scenario (a new state) by acting, it is rewarded with a positive reward or a negative reward. The objective of an agent is to maximize the cumulative reward signal across sequences of states, known as episodes. === Policy gradient laws: the advantage function === The advantage function (denoted as A {\displaystyle A} ) is central to PPO, as it tries to answer the question of whether a specific action of the agent is better or worse than some other possible action in a given state. By definition, the advantage function is an estimate of the relative value for a selected action. If the output of this function is positive, it means that the action in question is better than the average return, so the possibilities of selecting that specific action will increase. The opposite is true for a negative advantage output. The advantage function can be defined as A = Q − V {\displaystyle A=Q-V} , where Q {\displaystyle Q} is the discounted sum of rewards (the total weighted reward for the completion of an episode) and V {\displaystyle V} is the baseline estimate. Since the advantage function is calculated after the completion of an episode, the program records the outcome of the episode. Therefore, calculating advantage is essentially an unsupervised learning problem. The baseline estimate comes from the value function that outputs the expected discounted sum of an episode starting from the current state. In the PPO algorithm, the baseline estimate will be noisy (with some variance), as it also uses a neural network, like the policy function itself. With Q {\displaystyle Q} and V {\displaystyle V} computed, the advantage function is calculated by subtracting the baseline estimate from the actual discounted return. If A > 0 {\displaystyle A>0} , the actual return of the action is better than the expected return from experience; if A < 0 {\displaystyle A<0} , the actual return is worse. === Ratio function === In PPO, the ratio function ( r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} ) calculates the probability of selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} given the current policy network, divided by the previous probability under the old policy. In other words: If r t ( θ ) > 1 {\displaystyle r_{t}(\theta )>1} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the policy network parameters, then selecting action a {\displaystyle a} in state s {\displaystyle s} is more likely based on the current policy than the previous policy. If 0 ≤ r t ( θ ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq r_{t}(\theta )<1} , then selecting actio
Read more →
Afghan Girls Robotics Team

The Afghan Girls Robotics Team, also known as the Afghan Dreamers, is an all-girl robotics team from Herat, Afghanistan, founded through the Digital Citizen Fund (DCF) in 2017 by Roya Mahboob and Alireza Mehraban. It is made up of girls between ages 12 and 18 and their mentors. Several members of the team were relocated to Qatar and Mexico by humanitarian and tech entrepreneur Sarah Porter following the fall of Kabul in August 2021. A documentary film featuring members of the team, titled Afghan Dreamers, was released by MTV Documentary Films in 2023. == Origins == The Afghan Girls Robotics Team was co-founded in 2017 by Roya Mahboob, who is their coach, mentor and sponsor, and founder of the Digital Citizen Fund (DCF), which is the parent organization for the team. Dean Kamen was planning a 2017 competition in the United States and had recruited Mahboob to form a team from Afghanistan. Out of 150 girls, 12 were selected for the first team. Before parts were sent by Kamen, they trained in the basement of the home of Mahboob's parents, with scrap metal and without safety equipment under the guidance of their coach, Mahboob's brother Alireza Mehraban, who is also a co-founder of the team. == 2017 and 2018 == In 2017, six members of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team traveled to the United States to participate in the international FIRST Global Challenge robotics competition. Their visas were rejected twice after they made two journeys from Herat to Kabul through Taliban-controlled areas, before officials in the United States government intervened to allow them to enter the United States. Customs officials also detained their robotics kits, which left them two weeks to construct their robot, unlike some teams that had more time. They were awarded a Silver medal for Courageous Achievement. One week after they returned home from the competition, the father of team captain Fatemah Qaderyan, Mohammad Asif Qaderyan, was killed in a suicide bombing. After their United States visas expired, the team participated in competitions in Estonia and Istanbul. Three of the 12 members participated in the 2017 Entrepreneurial Challenge at the Robotex festival in Estonia, and won the competition for their solar-powered robot designed to assist farmers. In 2018, the team trained in Canada, continued to travel in the United States for months and participate in competitions. == 2019 == The Afghan Girls Robotics team had aspirations to develop a science and technology school for girls in Afghanistan. Roya Mahboob interfaced with the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), the School of Architecture, and the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies Yale University to design the infrastructure for what they named The Dreamer Institute. == 2020 == In March 2020, the governor of Herat at the time, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Afghanistan and a scarcity of ventilators, sought help with the design of low-cost ventilators, and the Afghan Girls Robotics Team was one of six teams contacted by the government. Using a design from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and with guidance from MIT engineers and Douglas Chin, a surgeon in California, the team developed a prototype with Toyota Corolla parts and a chain drive from a Honda motorcycle. UNICEF also supported the team with the acquisition of necessary parts during the three months they spent building the prototype that was completed in July 2020. Their design costs around $500 compared to $50,000 for a ventilator. In December 2020, Minister of Industry and Commerce Nizar Ahmad Ghoryani donated funding and obtained land for a factory to produce the ventilators. Under the direction of their mentor Roya Mahboob, the Afghan Dreamers also designed a UVC Robot for sanitization, and a Spray Robot for disinfection, both of which were approved by the Ministry of Health for production. == 2021 == In early August 2021, Somaya Faruqi, former captain of the team, was quoted by Public Radio International about the future of Afghanistan, stating, "We don’t support any group over another but for us what’s important is that we be able to continue our work. Women in Afghanistan have made a lot of progress over the past two decades and this progress must be respected." On August 17, 2021, the Afghan Girls Robotics Team and their coaches were reported to be attempting to evacuate, but unable to obtain a flight out of Afghanistan, and a lawyer appealed to Canada for assistance regarding the evacuation of the team members. As of August 19, 2021, nine members of the team and their coaches had evacuated to Qatar. The founder of the team, Roya Mahboob, and DCF board member, Elizabeth Schaeffer Brown, were previously in contact with the Qatari government to assist the team members in their evacuation from Afghanistan. By August 25, 2021, some members arrived in Mexico. Saghar, a team member who evacuated to Mexico, said, "We wanted to continue the path that we started to continue to go for our achievements and to go for having our dreams through reality. So that's why we decided to leave Afghanistan and go for somewhere safe" in an interview with The Associated Press. The members who have left Afghanistan participated in an online robotics competition in September and plan to continue their education. A documentary film titled Afghan Dreamers, produced by Beth Murphy and directed by David Greenwald, was in post-production when the team began to evacuate. == 2022 == The Afghan Dreamers were involved in a training program at the Texas A&M University at Qatar’s STEM Hub. == 2023 == The Afghan Girls Robotics Team had a booth at the 5th UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries, where they displayed some of the robots the team had constructed. == Afghan Dreamers documentary == The Afghan Dreamers documentary from MTV Documentary Films premiered in May 2023 on Paramount+. The film was directed by David Greenwald and produced by David Cowan and Beth Murphy. In a review for Screen Daily, Wendy Ide wrote, "This film, with its likeable cast of girl nerds and positive message, should enjoy a warm reception on the festival circuit, and will be of particular interest to events seeking to showcase women's stories from around the world. It also serves as a timely cautionary tale – a case study on just how quickly the rights and the opportunities of women can be curtailed, at the behest of the men in power." == Honors and awards == 2017 Silver medal for Courageous Achievement at the FIRST Global Challenge, science and technology 2017 Benefiting Humanity in AI Award at World Summit AI 2017 Winner, Entrepreneurship Challenge at Robotex in Estonia 2018 Permission to Dream Award, Raw Film Festival 2018 Conrad Innovation Challenge, Raw Film Festival 2018 Rookie All Star – District Championship, Canada 2018 Asia Game Changer Award Honoree 2019 Inspiring in Engineering Award – FIRST Detroit World Championship 2019 Asia Game Changer Award of California 2019 Safety Award – FIRST Global, Dubai 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2022 World Championships, Genoa, Switzerland
Read more →
Bootstrap aggregating

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

Rprop, short for resilient backpropagation, is a learning heuristic for supervised learning in feedforward artificial neural networks. This is a first-order optimization algorithm. This algorithm was created by Martin Riedmiller and Heinrich Braun in 1992. Similarly to the Manhattan update rule, Rprop takes into account only the sign of the partial derivative over all patterns (not the magnitude), and acts independently on each "weight". For each weight, if there was a sign change of the partial derivative of the total error function compared to the last iteration, the update value for that weight is multiplied by a factor η−, where η− < 1. If the last iteration produced the same sign, the update value is multiplied by a factor of η+, where η+ > 1. The update values are calculated for each weight in the above manner, and finally each weight is changed by its own update value, in the opposite direction of that weight's partial derivative, so as to minimise the total error function. η+ is empirically set to 1.2 and η− to 0.5. Rprop can result in very large weight increments or decrements if the gradients are large, which is a problem when using mini-batches as opposed to full batches. RMSprop addresses this problem by keeping the moving average of the squared gradients for each weight and dividing the gradient by the square root of the mean square. RPROP is a batch update algorithm. Next to the cascade correlation algorithm and the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, Rprop is one of the fastest weight update mechanisms. == Variations == Martin Riedmiller developed three algorithms, all named RPROP. Igel and Hüsken assigned names to them and added a new variant: RPROP+ is defined at A Direct Adaptive Method for Faster Backpropagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm. RPROP− is defined at Advanced Supervised Learning in Multi-layer Perceptrons – From Backpropagation to Adaptive Learning Algorithms. Backtracking is removed from RPROP+. iRPROP− is defined in Rprop – Description and Implementation Details and was reinvented by Igel and Hüsken. This variant is very popular and most simple. iRPROP+ is defined at Improving the Rprop Learning Algorithm and is very robust and typically faster than the other three variants.
Read more →
Moral graph

In graph theory, a moral graph is used to find the equivalent undirected form of a directed acyclic graph. It is a key step of the junction tree algorithm, used in belief propagation on graphical models. The moralized counterpart of a directed acyclic graph is formed by adding edges between all pairs of non-adjacent nodes that have a common child, and then making all edges in the graph undirected. Equivalently, a moral graph of a directed acyclic graph G is an undirected graph in which each node of the original G is now connected to its Markov blanket. The name stems from the fact that, in a moral graph, two nodes that have a common child are required to be married by sharing an edge. Moralization may also be applied to mixed graphs, called in this context "chain graphs". In a chain graph, a connected component of the undirected subgraph is called a chain. Moralization adds an undirected edge between any two vertices that both have outgoing edges to the same chain, and then forgets the orientation of the directed edges of the graph. == Weakly recursively simplicial == A graph is weakly recursively simplicial if it has a simplicial vertex and the subgraph after removing a simplicial vertex and some edges (possibly none) between its neighbours is weakly recursively simplicial. A graph is moral if and only if it is weakly recursively simplicial. A chordal graph (a.k.a., recursive simplicial) is a special case of weakly recursively simplicial when no edge is removed during the elimination process. Therefore, a chordal graph is also moral. But a moral graph is not necessarily chordal. == Recognising moral graphs == Unlike chordal graphs that can be recognised in polynomial time, Verma & Pearl (1993) proved that deciding whether or not a graph is moral is NP-complete.
Read more →
Electronic sell-through

Electronic sell-through (EST) is a method of media distribution whereby consumers pay a one-time fee to download a media file for storage on a hard drive. Although EST is often described as a transaction that grants content "ownership" to the consumer, the content may become unusable after a certain period and may not be viewable using competing platforms. EST is used by a wide array of digital media products, including movies, television, music, games, and mobile applications. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with download to own (DTO). == Film and television == The film and television industry's $18.8 billion home entertainment market consists of rental and sell-through segments, the latter of which includes the electronic sell-through of digital content. In 2010, EST generated $683 million of total home entertainment revenues, putting it behind the more lucrative revenue streams of cable video-on-demand (VOD) and internet video-on-demand (iVOD), which brought in a combined $1.8 billion in the same period. In 2010, Apple's iTunes Store accounted for three quarters of the U.S. EST business. The rest of the EST market was captured by Microsoft (via its Zune Video platform), Sony, Amazon VOD (now Amazon Video), and Walmart (via its VUDU service). A number of industry trends indicate the future expansion of EST's share of digital distribution revenues. David Bishop, worldwide president of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, describes the following outlook: "With the launch of UltraViolet (the cloud-based digital copy locker system) establishing a common digital distribution platform later this year, prices potentially coming down on digital sales, more marketing devoted to digital sellthrough, and studios adding more value to the sellthrough product by making HD available and building in smarter extra features, we see the balance tilting even more toward owning and collecting digital movies."
Read more →
Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension

In Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension is a measure of the size (capacity, complexity, expressive power, richness, or flexibility) of a class of sets. The notion can be extended to classes of binary functions. It is defined as the cardinality of the largest set of points that the function class can shatter—that is, for which all possible binary labelings can be realized by some function in the class. It was originally defined by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. Informally, the capacity of a classification model is related to how complicated it can be. For example, consider the thresholding of a high-degree polynomial: if the polynomial evaluates above zero, that point is classified as positive, otherwise as negative. A high-degree polynomial can be wiggly, so that it can fit a given set of training points well. Such a polynomial has a high capacity. A much simpler alternative is to threshold a linear function. This function may not fit the training set well, because it has a low capacity. This notion of capacity is made rigorous below. == Definitions == === VC dimension of a set-family === Let C = { C } C ∈ C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=\{C\}_{C\in {\mathcal {C}}}} be a family of sets (also called set family, collection of sets or set of sets) and X {\displaystyle X} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set family: C ∩ X := { C ∩ X ∣ C ∈ C } . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\cap X:=\{C\cap X\mid C\in {\mathcal {C}}\}.} Here typically X {\displaystyle X} and each C ∈ C {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {C}}} are subsets of a big "universe" of possibilities U {\displaystyle U} where intersection takes place. We say that a set X {\displaystyle X} is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} if P ( X ) = C ∩ X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(X)={\mathcal {C}}\cap X} i.e. the set of intersections contains (hence is equal to) all the subsets of X {\displaystyle X} . For finite sets X {\displaystyle X} this is equivalent to | C ∩ X | = 2 | X | . {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|=2^{|X|}.} The VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is the cardinality of the largest set that is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . If arbitrarily large sets can be shattered, the VC dimension of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } . === VC dimension of a classification model === A binary classification model f {\displaystyle f} with some parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is said to shatter a set of generally positioned data points ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} if, for every assignment of labels to those points, there exists a θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that the model f {\displaystyle f} makes no errors when evaluating that set of data points. The VC dimension of a model f {\displaystyle f} is the maximum number of points that can be arranged so that f {\displaystyle f} shatters them. More formally, it is the maximum cardinal D {\displaystyle D} such that there exists a generally positioned data point set of cardinality D {\displaystyle D} that can be shattered by f {\displaystyle f} . == Examples == f {\displaystyle f} is a constant classifier (with no parameters); Its VC dimension is 0 since it cannot shatter even a single point. In general, the VC dimension of a finite classification model, which can return at most 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} different classifiers, is at most d {\displaystyle d} (this is an upper bound on the VC dimension; the Sauer–Shelah lemma gives a lower bound on the dimension). f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric threshold classifier on real numbers; i.e., for a certain threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number is larger than θ {\displaystyle \theta } and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is 1 because: (a) It can shatter a single point. For every point x {\displaystyle x} , a classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} labels it as 0 if θ > x {\displaystyle \theta >x} and labels it as 1 if θ < x {\displaystyle \theta x + 2 {\displaystyle \theta >x+2} , as (1,0) if θ ∈ [ x − 4 , x − 2 ) {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-4,x-2)} , as (1,1) if θ ∈ [ x − 2 , x ] {\displaystyle \theta \in [x-2,x]} , and as (0,1) if θ ∈ ( x , x + 2 ] {\displaystyle \theta \in (x,x+2]} . (b) It cannot shatter any set of three points. For every set of three numbers, if the smallest and the largest are labeled 1, then the middle one must also be labeled 1, so not all labelings are possible. f {\displaystyle f} is a straight line as a classification model on points in a two-dimensional plane (this is the model used by a perceptron). The line should separate positive data points from negative data points. There exist sets of 3 points that can indeed be shattered using this model (any 3 points that are not collinear can be shattered). However, no set of 4 points can be shattered: by Radon's theorem, any four points can be partitioned into two subsets with intersecting convex hulls, so it is not possible to separate one of these two subsets from the other. Thus, the VC dimension of this particular classifier is 3. It is important to remember that while one can choose any arrangement of points, the arrangement of those points cannot change when attempting to shatter for some label assignment. Note, only 3 of the 23 = 8 possible label assignments are shown for the three points. f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric sine classifier, i.e., for a certain parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number x {\displaystyle x} has sin ⁡ ( θ x ) > 0 {\displaystyle \sin(\theta x)>0} and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is infinite, since it can shatter any finite subset of the set { 2 − m ∣ m ∈ N } {\displaystyle \{2^{-m}\mid m\in \mathbb {N} \}} . == Uses == === In statistical learning theory === The VC dimension can predict a probabilistic upper bound on the test error of a classification model. Vapnik proved that the probability of the test error (i.e., risk with 0–1 loss function) distancing from an upper bound (on data that is drawn i.i.d. from the same distribution as the training set) is given by: Pr ( test error ⩽ training error + 1 N [ D ( log ⁡ ( 2 N D ) + 1 ) − log ⁡ ( η 4 ) ] ) = 1 − η , {\displaystyle \Pr \left({\text{test error}}\leqslant {\text{training error}}+{\sqrt {{\frac {1}{N}}\left[D\left(\log \left({\tfrac {2N}{D}}\right)+1\right)-\log \left({\tfrac {\eta }{4}}\right)\right]}}\,\right)=1-\eta ,} where D {\displaystyle D} is the VC dimension of the classification model, 0 < η ⩽ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\eta \leqslant 1} , and N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the training set (restriction: this formula is valid when D ≪ N {\displaystyle D\ll N} . When D {\displaystyle D} is larger, the test-error may be much higher than the training-error. This is due to overfitting). The VC dimension also appears in sample-complexity bounds. A space of binary functions with VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} can be learned with: N = Θ ( D + ln ⁡ 1 δ ε 2 ) {\displaystyle N=\Theta \left({\frac {D+\ln {1 \over \delta }}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}\right)} samples, where ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is the learning error and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is the failure probability. Thus, the sample-complexity is a linear function of the VC dimension of the hypothesis space. === In computational geometry === The VC dimension is one of the critical parameters in the size of ε-nets, which determines the complexity of approximation algorithms based on them; range sets without finite VC dimension may not have finite ε-nets at all. == Bounds == The VC dimension of the dual set-family of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is strictly less than 2 vc ⁡ ( C ) + 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\operatorname {vc} ({\mathcal {C}})+1}} , and this is best possible. The VC dimension of a finite set-family C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|{\mathcal {C}}|} . This is because | C ∩ X | ≤ | X | {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|\leq |X|} by definition. Given a set-fa
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 →
Moral graph

In graph theory, a moral graph is used to find the equivalent undirected form of a directed acyclic graph. It is a key step of the junction tree algorithm, used in belief propagation on graphical models. The moralized counterpart of a directed acyclic graph is formed by adding edges between all pairs of non-adjacent nodes that have a common child, and then making all edges in the graph undirected. Equivalently, a moral graph of a directed acyclic graph G is an undirected graph in which each node of the original G is now connected to its Markov blanket. The name stems from the fact that, in a moral graph, two nodes that have a common child are required to be married by sharing an edge. Moralization may also be applied to mixed graphs, called in this context "chain graphs". In a chain graph, a connected component of the undirected subgraph is called a chain. Moralization adds an undirected edge between any two vertices that both have outgoing edges to the same chain, and then forgets the orientation of the directed edges of the graph. == Weakly recursively simplicial == A graph is weakly recursively simplicial if it has a simplicial vertex and the subgraph after removing a simplicial vertex and some edges (possibly none) between its neighbours is weakly recursively simplicial. A graph is moral if and only if it is weakly recursively simplicial. A chordal graph (a.k.a., recursive simplicial) is a special case of weakly recursively simplicial when no edge is removed during the elimination process. Therefore, a chordal graph is also moral. But a moral graph is not necessarily chordal. == Recognising moral graphs == Unlike chordal graphs that can be recognised in polynomial time, Verma & Pearl (1993) proved that deciding whether or not a graph is moral is NP-complete.
Read more →
Graphics suite

A graphics suite is a software suite for graphics work that are distributed together. The programs are usually able to interact with each other on a higher level than the operating system would normally allow. There is no hard, fast rule regarding the programs to be included in a graphics application suite, but most will include at least a bitmap graphics editor and a vector graphics editor. In addition to these, the suite may contain VRML editors, animation editors, and morphing tools.
Read more →
Minimum Population Search

In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.
Read more →
Random indexing

Random indexing is a dimensionality reduction method and computational framework for distributional semantics, based on the insight that very-high-dimensional vector space model implementations are impractical, that models need not grow in dimensionality when new items (e.g. new terminology) are encountered, and that a high-dimensional model can be projected into a space of lower dimensionality without compromising L2 distance metrics if the resulting dimensions are chosen appropriately. This is the original point of the random projection approach to dimension reduction first formulated as the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma, and locality-sensitive hashing has some of the same starting points. Random indexing, as used in representation of language, originates from the work of Pentti Kanerva on sparse distributed memory, and can be described as an incremental formulation of a random projection. It can be also verified that random indexing is a random projection technique for the construction of Euclidean spaces—i.e. L2 normed vector spaces. In Euclidean spaces, random projections are elucidated using the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. The TopSig technique extends the random indexing model to produce bit vectors for comparison with the Hamming distance similarity function. It is used for improving the performance of information retrieval and document clustering. In a similar line of research, Random Manhattan Integer Indexing (RMII) is proposed for improving the performance of the methods that employ the Manhattan distance between text units. Many random indexing methods primarily generate similarity from co-occurrence of items in a corpus. Reflexive Random Indexing (RRI) generates similarity from co-occurrence and from shared occurrence with other items.
Read more →