AI For Business Ualbany

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

• 

  Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

  The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, commonly known as the GGE on LAWS, refers to a group of governmental experts established under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a United Nations arms control framework. The group examines legal, ethical, societal and moral questions that arise from the increased use of autonomous robots to carry weapons and to be programmed to engage in combat in various situations that might arise, including battles between countries, or in patrolling border areas or sensitive areas, or other similar roles. As of 18 March 2025, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had 128 High Contracting Parties. In the Geneva Conventions, the term "High Contracting Parties" refers to the states that have joined the conventions and are therefore bound to uphold them. Among the countries that have joined are states with tense relations or ongoing armed conflict with one another, including Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the State of Palestine, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. == Background == In 2013, the Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed on a mandate on lethal autonomous weapon systems and tasked its chairperson with convening an informal Meeting of Experts to discuss issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. Those informal Meetings of Experts were then held in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and their reports fed into subsequent meetings of the High Contracting Parties. At the Fifth CCW Review Conference in 2016, the High Contracting Parties decided to establish an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, building on the earlier expert meetings. Since then, the group has been reconvened annually. In 2023, the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the GGE on LAWS would continue its work in 2024 and 2025. The group was tasked with developing, by consensus, elements of a possible instrument, without predetermining its form, as well as other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems, drawing on existing CCW protocols, earlier recommendations, state proposals, and legal, military, and technological expertise. == 2024 == In 2024, the GGE met twice, and the group was chaired by Robert in den Bosch, the Netherlands' disarmament ambassador. The 2024 Meeting of the High Contracting Parties decided that the group would meet for 10 days in 2025, in two five-day sessions, and reaffirmed its mandate to continue work by consensus on possible elements of an instrument and other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems. == 2025 == At its first 2025 session, held in Geneva from 3 to 7 March 2025, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems discussed revisions to the chair's rolling text. The text was structured into five sections, or "boxes", though delegates held differing views on whether headings were useful or appropriate. Broadly, the discussions covered the characterization of lethal autonomous weapon systems, the application of international humanitarian law, possible prohibitions and regulations, legal review, and questions of accountability and responsibility. At its second session, held from 1 to 5 September 2025, delegations continued work on the chair's rolling text, which set out elements of a possible instrument and was organized into five thematic "boxes". == 2026 == === Developments before the 2026 session === A few weeks before the meeting, autonomous weapons drew renewed attention when the United States pressured Anthropic to revise the terms of use for its AI model Claude. Anthropic prohibited the model's use for mass domestic surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons operating without human oversight, while reports also emerged that OpenAI had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of War for the use of its AI models, reportedly stipulating that they would not independently direct autonomous weapons where human control was required. The U.S. military nevertheless continued to use Claude during its war on Iran, and there was increasing alarm about the use of AI-assisted semi-autonomous weapons in conflicts including those in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and Iran. Before the start of the sessions, Robert in den Bosch, as chair, warned that progress was urgent because technological developments were moving quickly. At the same time, although states agreed that international humanitarian law applied to LAWS, specific internationally binding standards governing such systems remained largely absent. A key divide before the session was that Russia and the United States opposed new legally binding instruments, while other states argued that new rules were necessary. According to Robert in den Bosch, the talks could lead to new rules, amendments to an existing convention, or a new treaty. === First session === From 2 to 6 March 2026, the group held its penultimate session under the group's three-year mandate. Delegations discussed the chair's rolling draft text, circulated in December 2025, on elements of a possible instrument or other measures concerning lethal autonomous weapon systems. In revised text circulated by the chair on 5 March 2026, a lethal autonomous weapon system was characterized as "a functionally integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components, that can identify, select, and engage a target, without intervention by a human operator in the execution of these tasks". The text was divided into five boxes to structure discussion. During the session, delegates conducted a first reading of the draft text, and the chair later circulated revised language for several sections. Informal consultations were also held. According to campaign groups and participating observers, support grew during the week for moving to negotiations on the basis of the rolling text, with more than 70 states said to support that step by the end of the session, though some participants warned that attempts to bridge differences risked blurring the group's core purpose. The International Committee of the Red Cross argued that the text should not only restate existing international humanitarian law, but also clarify how those rules apply to autonomous weapons and set out additional measures tailored to the specific challenges such systems raise. Stop Killer Robots likewise emphasized the need to preserve meaningful human judgment and control over increasingly autonomous systems. During the discussions, the U.S. delegation opposed the term "human control" and reportedly proposed the alternative phrase "good faith human judgment and care". Other delegations rejected that wording as too weak, while many states continued to insist that meaningful human control over weapon systems remained essential.

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary attractor

  An evolutionary attractor is a point in an evolutionary space where a selection process will always drive trait values towards that point from the region around it. Because of the importance of evolution through natural selection, often such an evolutionary space will be defined by genetic or phenotypic traits, or possibly both. In this case the selection process will be a form of natural selection. The existence of an evolutionary attractor in a biological evolutionary space does not always imply that it can be reached from all points in that evolutionary space, nor does it identify what will happen when the evolutionary attractor is reached. While an evolutionary attractor may represent a point in evolutionary space that is resistant to further selection, such as an evolutionarily stable strategy, other possibilities are available. Because identification of an evolutionary attractor on its own does not describe everything about the evolutionary space in which it lies, this has led to interest in the evolutionary dynamics surrounding evolutionary attractors and in evolutionary spaces in general. (Theoretical biologists and mathematicians working in the area may prefer the terms adaptive dynamics or evolutionary invasion analysis to evolutionary dynamics.) These fields use differential equations which allows a more complete understanding of the dynamics in evolutionary spaces including the existence or otherwise of evolutionary attractors. Advances in the study of molecular evolution have also led to the identification of evolutionary attractors at a molecular level. Because biological evolutionary processes have been studied using evolutionary game theory, a technique inspired by game theory originally derived to address economic problems, not only can evolutionary attractors be found in biology but economists studying evolutionary economic models have also identified evolutionary attractors. Evolution in biology has also inspired evolutionary computation in computer science. Many algorithms in this field use a form of selection inspired by natural selection to generate results through evolutionary algorithms. This is therefore another area in which evolutionary attractors have been identified. == Evolutionary attractors in biology == It is not probably not surprising that biology is the field where most examples of evolutionary attractors have been identified, given the importance of evolution through natural selection. === Evolutionary attractors in adaptive landscapes === An evolutionary attractor is a point in genetic and/or phenotypic trait space, that evolution will always drive trait values towards via a selection process. The concept of an evolutionary attractor arose in population genetics following the origin of the adaptive landscape originally proposed by Sewall Wright in 1932. The height of a point in an adaptive landscape is a measure of evolutionary fitness. If a point in an adaptive landscape is a peak, then selection will always drive traits towards it and it will be an evolutionary attractor. While population genetics deals with discrete genetic traits, quantitative genetics extended such concepts to deal with continuous genetic traits, where the concept of evolutionary attractor is also valid. === Evolutionary attractors in evolutionary game models === Evolutionary game theory introduced into evolutionary biology concepts originally used in economics, with the advantage that evolution could be studied in relation to strategic choices made in animal conflicts. This is of particular interest because of the concept of the evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS, a strategy that once established is resistant to invasion by other strategies. ESSs will not always be evolutionary attractors, but if they are they will persist over evolutionary time. === Dynamics around evolutionary attractors in biology === Evolutionary attractors in biology do not exist in isolation. By definition they must exist in an evolutionary trait space where selection drives all traits towards them from a region immediately around them. That is, they must be convergence stable. Eshel (1983) modified the definition of an ESS by considering individually advantageous reduction from a majority deviation: he created the term continuous stability. A continuously stable ESS can be shown to be convergence stable, therefore it will act as an evolutionary attractor. But the nature of evolutionary trait spaces in biology means that it is not possible to guarantee that the region of convergence to the evolutionary attractor covers the whole of the trait space, nor that there is only one evolutionary attractor in a particular trait space. These issues have led to the emergence of the related fields of evolutionary dynamics, adaptive dynamics and evolutionary invasion analysis, all of which use differential equations to understand the dynamics in evolutionary trait spaces. Hence, if one or more evolutionary attractor exists in an evolutionary trait space, they provide techniques to understand the dynamics in that trait space around the evolutionary attractor. === Evolutionary attractors in an ecological context === Evolution in biology does not take place in single species in isolation. Ecological interaction of species leads to coevolution. Important examples of this are host-parasite or host-pathogen interaction, which can make both the dynamics around evolutionary attractors more complex, and the occurrence and number of evolutionary attractors more diverse. Evolutionary attractors have been identified in the analysis of evolutionary epidemiology of plant pathogens. In the above study working on plant populations the authors were able to identify evolutionary attractors using methods from adaptive dynamics. A model applied to the analysis of a maize (Zea mays L.) virus identified convergence stable equilibria through simulation modelling. A related model identified evolutionary attractors in the interaction of plants with fungal pathogens. === Evolutionary attractors in molecular genetics === As mentioned above much of the consideration of evolutionary attractors in biology has been through investigation of selection at a genetic or phenotypic level or both, in a single species or in coevolving species. Advances in the study of molecular genetics now allow the study of evolutionary attractors to be taken to a molecular genetic level. Wilson et. al (2019) studied the evolution of gene regulatory networks and identified the emergence of evolutionary attractors. == Evolutionary attractors in economics == Evolutionary game theory as applied in biology was inspired by game theory originally devised for applications in economics. Game theory remains an active field of research outside of biology, and thus it is not surprising that researchers in evolutionary economics use evolutionary game theory. Evolutionary attractors have been demonstrated by economists studying the evolutionary dynamics of market entry with market dynamics based on the replicator dynamics of biological evolutionary games. == Evolutionary attractors in computing == Evolutionary computation is a branch of computer science inspired by biological evolution. Many algorithms in evolutionary computation use a form of selection. Thus evolutionary attractors have been identified in computer science as well as in biology and economics. Evolutionary algorithms have generated evolutionary attractors, probably because of the similarity between adaptive hill-climbing in evolutionary heuristics and the adaptive landscape originated to explain evolution through natural selection.

  Read more →
• 

  Dominance-based rough set approach

  The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl

  Read more →
• 

  Q-learning

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

  Read more →
• 

  Speech recognition

  Speech recognition (automatic speech recognition (ASR), computer speech recognition, or speech-to-text (STT)) is a sub-field of computational linguistics concerned with methods and technologies that translate spoken language into text or other interpretable forms. Speech recognition applications include voice user interfaces, where the user speaks to a device, which "listens" and processes the audio. Common voice applications include interpreting commands for calling, call routing, home automation, and aircraft control. These applications are called direct voice input. Productivity applications include searching audio recordings, creating transcripts, and dictation. Speech recognition can be used to analyse speaker characteristics, such as identifying native language using pronunciation assessment. Voice recognition (speaker identification) refers to identifying the speaker, rather than speech contents. Recognizing the speaker can simplify the task of translating speech in systems trained on a specific person's voice. It can also be used to authenticate the speaker as part of a security process. == History == Applications for speech recognition developed over many decades, with progress accelerated due to advances in deep learning and the use of big data. These advances are reflected in an increase in academic papers, and greater system adoption. Key areas of growth include vocabulary size, more accurate recognition for unfamiliar speakers (speaker independence), and faster processing speed. === Pre-1970 === 1952 – Bell Labs researchers, Stephen Balashek, R. Biddulph, and K. H. Davis, built Audrey for single-speaker digit recognition. Their system located the formants in the power spectrum of each utterance. 1960 – Gunnar Fant developed and published the source–filter model of speech production. 1962 – IBM's 16-word "Shoebox" machine's speech recognition debuted at the 1962 World's Fair. 1966 – Linear predictive coding, a speech coding method, was proposed by Fumitada Itakura of Nagoya University and Shuzo Saito of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. 1969 – Funding at Bell Labs came to a halt for several years after the company's head engineer, John R. Pierce, wrote an open letter criticizing speech recognition research. This defunding lasted until Pierce retired and James L. Flanagan took over. Raj Reddy was the first person to work on continuous speech recognition, as a graduate student at Stanford University in the late 1960s. Previous systems required users to pause after each word. Reddy's system issued spoken commands for playing chess. Around this time, Soviet researchers invented the dynamic time warping (DTW) algorithm and used it to create a recognizer capable of operating on a 200-word vocabulary. DTW processed speech by dividing it into short frames (e.g. 10 ms segments) and treating each frame as a unit. Speaker independence, however, remained unsolved. === 1970–1990 === 1971 – DARPA funded a five-year speech recognition research project, Speech Understanding Research, seeking a minimum vocabulary size of 1,000 words. The project considered speech understanding a key to achieving progress in speech recognition, which was later disproved. BBN, IBM, Carnegie Mellon (CMU), and Stanford Research Institute participated. 1972 – The IEEE Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing group held a conference in Newton, Massachusetts. 1976 – The first ICASSP was held in Philadelphia, which became a major venue for publishing on speech recognition. During the late 1960s, Leonard Baum developed the mathematics of Markov chains at the Institute for Defense Analysis. A decade later, at CMU, Raj Reddy's students James Baker and Janet M. Baker began using the hidden Markov model (HMM) for speech recognition. James Baker had learned about HMMs while at the Institute for Defense Analysis. HMMs enabled researchers to combine sources of knowledge, such as acoustics, language, and syntax, in a unified probabilistic model. By the mid-1980s, Fred Jelinek's team at IBM created a voice-activated typewriter called Tangora, which could handle a 20,000-word vocabulary. Jelinek's statistical approach placed less emphasis on emulating human brain processes in favor of statistical modelling. (Jelinek's group independently discovered the application of HMMs to speech.) This was controversial among linguists since HMMs are too simplistic to account for many features of human languages. However, the HMM proved to be a highly useful way for modelling speech and replaced dynamic time warping as the dominant speech recognition algorithm in the 1980s. 1982 – Dragon Systems, founded by James and Janet M. Baker, was one of IBM's few competitors. === Practical speech recognition === The 1980s also saw the introduction of the n-gram language model. 1987 – The back-off model enabled language models to use multiple-length n-grams, and CSELT used HMM to recognize languages (in software and hardware, e.g. RIPAC). At the end of the DARPA program in 1976, the best computer available to researchers was the PDP-10 with 4 MB of RAM. It could take up to 100 minutes to decode 30 seconds of speech. Practical products included: 1984 – the Apricot Portable was released with up to 4096 words support, of which only 64 could be held in RAM at a time. 1987 – a recognizer from Kurzweil Applied Intelligence 1990 – Dragon Dictate, a consumer product released in 1990. AT&T deployed the Voice Recognition Call Processing service in 1992 to route telephone calls without a human operator. The technology was developed by Lawrence Rabiner and others at Bell Labs. By the early 1990s, the vocabulary of the typical commercial speech recognition system had exceeded the average human vocabulary. Reddy's former student, Xuedong Huang, developed the Sphinx-II system at CMU. Sphinx-II was the first to do speaker-independent, large vocabulary, continuous speech recognition, and it won DARPA's 1992 evaluation. Handling continuous speech with a large vocabulary was a major milestone. Huang later founded the speech recognition group at Microsoft in 1993. Reddy's student Kai-Fu Lee joined Apple, where, in 1992, he helped develop the Casper speech interface prototype. Lernout & Hauspie, a Belgium-based speech recognition company, acquired other companies, including Kurzweil Applied Intelligence in 1997 and Dragon Systems in 2000. L&H was used in Windows XP. L&H was an industry leader until an accounting scandal destroyed it in 2001. L&H speech technology was bought by ScanSoft, which became Nuance in 2005. Apple licensed Nuance software for its digital assistant Siri. ==== 2000s ==== In the 2000s, DARPA sponsored two speech recognition programs: Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-Text (EARS) in 2002, followed by Global Autonomous Language Exploitation (GALE) in 2005. Four teams participated in EARS: IBM; a team led by BBN with LIMSI and the University of Pittsburgh; Cambridge University; and a team composed of ICSI, SRI, and the University of Washington. EARS funded the collection of the Switchboard telephone speech corpus, which contained 260 hours of recorded conversations from over 500 speakers. The GALE program focused on Arabic and Mandarin broadcast news. Google's first effort at speech recognition came in 2007 after recruiting Nuance researchers. Its first product, GOOG-411, was a telephone-based directory service. Since at least 2006, the U.S. National Security Agency has employed keyword spotting, allowing analysts to index large volumes of recorded conversations and identify speech containing "interesting" keywords. Other government research programs focused on intelligence applications, such as DARPA's EARS program and IARPA's Babel program. In the early 2000s, speech recognition was dominated by hidden Markov models combined with feed-forward artificial neural networks (ANN). Later, speech recognition was taken over by long short-term memory (LSTM), a recurrent neural network (RNN) published by Sepp Hochreiter & Jürgen Schmidhuber in 1997. LSTM RNNs avoid the vanishing gradient problem and can learn "Very Deep Learning" tasks that require memories of events that happened thousands of discrete time steps earlier, which is important for speech. Around 2007, LSTMs trained with Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) began to outperform. In 2015, Google reported a 49 percent error‑rate reduction in its speech recognition via CTC‑trained LSTM. Transformers, a type of neural network based solely on attention, were adopted in computer vision and language modelling, and then to speech recognition. Deep feed-forward (non-recurrent) networks for acoustic modelling were introduced in 2009 by Geoffrey Hinton and his students at the University of Toronto, and by Li Deng and colleagues at Microsoft Research. In contrast to the prioer incremental improvements, deep learning decreased error rates by 30%. Both shallow and deep forms (e.g., recurrent nets) of ANNs had been explored since the 1980s. Howev

  Read more →
• 

  Medoid

  Medoids are representative objects of a data set or a cluster within a data set whose sum of dissimilarities to all the objects in the cluster is minimal. Medoids are similar in concept to means or centroids, but medoids are always restricted to be members of the data set. Medoids are most commonly used on data when a mean or centroid cannot be defined, such as graphs. They are also used in contexts where the centroid is not representative of the dataset like in images, 3-D trajectories and gene expression (where while the data is sparse the medoid need not be). These are also of interest while wanting to find a representative using some distance other than squared euclidean distance (for instance in movie-ratings). For some data sets there may be more than one medoid, as with medians. A common application of the medoid is the k-medoids clustering algorithm, which is similar to the k-means algorithm but works when a mean or centroid is not definable. This algorithm basically works as follows. First, a set of medoids is chosen at random. Second, the distances to the other points are computed. Third, data are clustered according to the medoid they are most similar to. Fourth, the medoid set is optimized via an iterative process. Note that a medoid is not equivalent to a median, a geometric median, or centroid. A median is only defined on 1-dimensional data, and it only minimizes dissimilarity to other points for metrics induced by a norm (such as the Manhattan distance or Euclidean distance). A geometric median is defined in any dimension, but unlike a medoid, it is not necessarily a point from within the original dataset. == Definition == Let X := { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } {\textstyle {\mathcal {X}}:=\{x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}} be a set of n {\textstyle n} points in a space with a distance function d. Medoid is defined as x medoid = arg ⁡ min y ∈ X ∑ i = 1 n d ( y , x i ) . {\displaystyle x_{\text{medoid}}=\arg \min _{y\in {\mathcal {X}}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}d(y,x_{i}).} == Clustering with medoids == Medoids are a popular replacement for the cluster mean when the distance function is not (squared) Euclidean distance, or not even a metric (as the medoid does not require the triangle inequality). When partitioning the data set into clusters, the medoid of each cluster can be used as a representative of each cluster. Clustering algorithms based on the idea of medoids include: Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM), the standard k-medoids algorithm Hierarchical Clustering Around Medoids (HACAM), which uses medoids in hierarchical clustering == Algorithms to compute the medoid of a set == From the definition above, it is clear that the medoid of a set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} can be computed after computing all pairwise distances between points in the ensemble. This would take O ( n 2 ) {\textstyle O(n^{2})} distance evaluations (with n = | X | {\displaystyle n=|{\mathcal {X}}|} ). In the worst case, one can not compute the medoid with fewer distance evaluations. However, there are many approaches that allow us to compute medoids either exactly or approximately in sub-quadratic time under different statistical models. If the points lie on the real line, computing the medoid reduces to computing the median which can be done in O ( n ) {\textstyle O(n)} by Quick-select algorithm of Hoare. However, in higher dimensional real spaces, no linear-time algorithm is known. RAND is an algorithm that estimates the average distance of each point to all the other points by sampling a random subset of other points. It takes a total of O ( n log ⁡ n ϵ 2 ) {\textstyle O\left({\frac {n\log n}{\epsilon ^{2}}}\right)} distance computations to approximate the medoid within a factor of ( 1 + ϵ Δ ) {\textstyle (1+\epsilon \Delta )} with high probability, where Δ {\textstyle \Delta } is the maximum distance between two points in the ensemble. Note that RAND is an approximation algorithm, and moreover Δ {\textstyle \Delta } may not be known apriori. RAND was leveraged by TOPRANK which uses the estimates obtained by RAND to focus on a small subset of candidate points, evaluates the average distance of these points exactly, and picks the minimum of those. TOPRANK needs O ( n 5 3 log 4 3 ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {5}{3}}\log ^{\frac {4}{3}}n)} distance computations to find the exact medoid with high probability under a distributional assumption on the average distances. trimed presents an algorithm to find the medoid with O ( n 3 2 2 Θ ( d ) ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {3}{2}}2^{\Theta (d)})} distance evaluations under a distributional assumption on the points. The algorithm uses the triangle inequality to cut down the search space. Meddit leverages a connection of the medoid computation with multi-armed bandits and uses an upper-Confidence-bound type of algorithm to get an algorithm which takes O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n\log n)} distance evaluations under statistical assumptions on the points. Correlated Sequential Halving also leverages multi-armed bandit techniques, improving upon Meddit. By exploiting the correlation structure in the problem, the algorithm is able to provably yield drastic improvement (usually around 1-2 orders of magnitude) in both number of distance computations needed and wall clock time. == Implementations == An implementation of RAND, TOPRANK, and trimed can be found here. An implementation of Meddit can be found here and here. An implementation of Correlated Sequential Halving can be found here. == Medoids in text and natural language processing (NLP) == Medoids can be applied to various text and NLP tasks to improve the efficiency and accuracy of analyses. By clustering text data based on similarity, medoids can help identify representative examples within the dataset, leading to better understanding and interpretation of the data. === Text clustering === Text clustering is the process of grouping similar text or documents together based on their content. Medoid-based clustering algorithms can be employed to partition large amounts of text into clusters, with each cluster represented by a medoid document. This technique helps in organizing, summarizing, and retrieving information from large collections of documents, such as in search engines, social media analytics and recommendation systems. === Text summarization === Text summarization aims to produce a concise and coherent summary of a larger text by extracting the most important and relevant information. Medoid-based clustering can be used to identify the most representative sentences in a document or a group of documents, which can then be combined to create a summary. This approach is especially useful for extractive summarization tasks, where the goal is to generate a summary by selecting the most relevant sentences from the original text. === Sentiment analysis === Sentiment analysis involves determining the sentiment or emotion expressed in a piece of text, such as positive, negative, or neutral. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group text data based on similar sentiment patterns. By analyzing the medoid of each cluster, researchers can gain insights into the predominant sentiment of the cluster, helping in tasks such as opinion mining, customer feedback analysis, and social media monitoring. === Topic modeling === Topic modeling is a technique used to discover abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group documents with similar themes or topics. By analyzing the medoids of these clusters, researchers can gain an understanding of the underlying topics in the text corpus, facilitating tasks such as document categorization, trend analysis, and content recommendation. === Techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering === When applying medoid-based clustering to text data, it is essential to choose an appropriate similarity measure to compare documents effectively. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of the similarity measure should be based on the specific requirements and characteristics of the text data being analyzed. The following are common techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering: ==== Cosine similarity ==== Cosine similarity is a widely used measure to compare the similarity between two pieces of text. It calculates the cosine of the angle between two document vectors in a high-dimensional space. Cosine similarity ranges between -1 and 1, where a value closer to 1 indicates higher similarity, and a value closer to -1 indicates lower similarity. By visualizing two lines originating from the origin and extending to the respective points of interest, and then measuring the angle between these lines, one can determine the similarity between the associated points. Cosine similarity is less affected by document length, so it may be better at producing medoids that are representative of the content of a cluster instead of the lengt

  Read more →
• 

  Language identification in the limit

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

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary programming

  Evolutionary programming is an evolutionary algorithm, where a share of new population is created by mutation of previous population without crossover. Evolutionary programming differs from evolution strategy ES( μ + λ {\displaystyle \mu +\lambda } ) in one detail. All individuals are selected for the new population, while in ES( μ + λ {\displaystyle \mu +\lambda } ), every individual has the same probability to be selected. It is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. == History == It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence. It was used to evolve finite-state machines as predictors.

  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 →
• 

  Neural Networks (journal)

  Neural Networks is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal and an official journal of the International Neural Network Society, European Neural Network Society, and Japanese Neural Network Society. == History == The journal was established in 1988 and is published by Elsevier. It covers all aspects of research on artificial neural networks. The founding editor-in-chief was Stephen Grossberg (Boston University). The current editors-in-chief are DeLiang Wang (Ohio State University) and Taro Toyoizumi (RIKEN Center for Brain Science). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8.

  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 →
• 

  Dynamic time warping

  In time series analysis, dynamic time warping (DTW) is an algorithm for measuring similarity between two temporal sequences, which may vary in speed. For instance, similarities in walking could be detected using DTW, even if one person was walking faster than the other, or if there were accelerations and decelerations during the course of an observation. DTW has been applied to temporal sequences of video, audio, and graphics data — indeed, any data that can be turned into a one-dimensional sequence can be analyzed with DTW. A well-known application has been automatic speech recognition, to cope with different speaking speeds. Other applications include speaker recognition and online signature recognition. It can also be used in partial shape matching applications. In general, DTW is a method that calculates an optimal match between two given sequences (e.g. time series) with certain restriction and rules: Every index from the first sequence must be matched with one or more indices from the other sequence, and vice versa The first index from the first sequence must be matched with the first index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The last index from the first sequence must be matched with the last index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The mapping of the indices from the first sequence to indices from the other sequence must be monotonically increasing, and vice versa, i.e. if j > i {\displaystyle j>i} are indices from the first sequence, then there must not be two indices l > k {\displaystyle l>k} in the other sequence, such that index i {\displaystyle i} is matched with index l {\displaystyle l} and index j {\displaystyle j} is matched with index k {\displaystyle k} , and vice versa We can plot each match between the sequences 1 : M {\displaystyle 1:M} and 1 : N {\displaystyle 1:N} as a path in a M × N {\displaystyle M\times N} matrix from ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,1)} to ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , such that each step is one of ( 0 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} . In this formulation, we see that the number of possible matches is the Delannoy number. The optimal match is denoted by the match that satisfies all the restrictions and the rules and that has the minimal cost, where the cost is computed as the sum of absolute differences, for each matched pair of indices, between their values. The sequences are "warped" non-linearly in the time dimension to determine a measure of their similarity independent of certain non-linear variations in the time dimension. This sequence alignment method is often used in time series classification. Although DTW measures a distance-like quantity between two given sequences, it doesn't guarantee the triangle inequality to hold. In addition to a similarity measure between the two sequences (a so called "warping path" is produced), by warping according to this path the two signals may be aligned in time. The signal with an original set of points X(original), Y(original) is transformed to X(warped), Y(warped). This finds applications in genetic sequence and audio synchronisation. In a related technique sequences of varying speed may be averaged using this technique see the average sequence section. This is conceptually very similar to the Needleman–Wunsch algorithm. == Implementation == This example illustrates the implementation of the dynamic time warping algorithm when the two sequences s and t are strings of discrete symbols. For two symbols x and y, d ( x , y ) {\displaystyle d(x,y)} is a distance between the symbols, e.g., d ( x , y ) = | x − y | {\displaystyle d(x,y)=|x-y|} . int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m]) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] for i := 0 to n for j := 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := 1 to m cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } where DTW[i, j] is the distance between s[1:i] and t[1:j] with the best alignment. We sometimes want to add a locality constraint. That is, we require that if s[i] is matched with t[j], then | i − j | {\displaystyle |i-j|} is no larger than w, a window parameter. We can easily modify the above algorithm to add a locality constraint (differences marked). However, the above given modification works only if | n − m | {\displaystyle |n-m|} is no larger than w, i.e. the end point is within the window length from diagonal. In order to make the algorithm work, the window parameter w must be adapted so that | n − m | ≤ w {\displaystyle |n-m|\leq w} (see the line marked with () in the code). int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m], w: int) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] w := max(w, abs(n-m)) // adapt window size () for i := 0 to n for j:= 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) DTW[i, j] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } == Warping properties == The DTW algorithm produces a discrete matching between existing elements of one series to another. In other words, it does not allow time-scaling of segments within the sequence. Other methods allow continuous warping. For example, Correlation Optimized Warping (COW) divides the sequence into uniform segments that are scaled in time using linear interpolation, to produce the best matching warping. The segment scaling causes potential creation of new elements, by time-scaling segments either down or up, and thus produces a more sensitive warping than DTW's discrete matching of raw elements. == Complexity == The time complexity of the DTW algorithm is O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} , where N {\displaystyle N} and M {\displaystyle M} are the lengths of the two input sequences. The 50 years old quadratic time bound was broken in 2016: an algorithm due to Gold and Sharir enables computing DTW in O ( N 2 / log ⁡ log ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O({N^{2}}/\log \log N)} time and space for two input sequences of length N {\displaystyle N} . This algorithm can also be adapted to sequences of different lengths. Despite this improvement, it was shown that a strongly subquadratic running time of the form O ( N 2 − ϵ ) {\displaystyle O(N^{2-\epsilon })} for some ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} cannot exist unless the Strong exponential time hypothesis fails. While the dynamic programming algorithm for DTW requires O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} space in a naive implementation, the space consumption can be reduced to O ( min ( N , M ) ) {\displaystyle O(\min(N,M))} using Hirschberg's algorithm. == Fast computation == Fast techniques for computing DTW include PrunedDTW, SparseDTW, FastDTW, and the MultiscaleDTW. A common task, retrieval of similar time series, can be accelerated by using lower bounds such as LB_Keogh, LB_Improved, or LB_Petitjean. However, the Early Abandon and Pruned DTW algorithm reduces the degree of acceleration that lower bounding provides and sometimes renders it ineffective. In a survey, Wang et al. reported slightly better results with the LB_Improved lower bound than the LB_Keogh bound, and found that other techniques were inefficient. Subsequent to this survey, the LB_Enhanced bound was developed that is always tighter than LB_Keogh while also being more efficient to compute. LB_Petitjean is the tightest known lower bound that can be computed in linear time. == Average sequence == Averaging for dynamic time warping is the problem of finding an average sequence for a set of sequences. NLAAF is an exact method to average two sequences using DTW. For more than two sequences, the problem is related to that of multiple alignment and requires heuristics. DBA is currently a reference method to average a set of sequences consistently with DTW. COMASA efficiently randomizes the search for the average sequence, using DBA as a local optimization process. == Supervised learning == A nearest-neighbour classifier can achieve state-of-the-art performance when using dynamic time warping as a distance measure. == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping (ADTW) is a variant of DTW designed to better control DTW's permissiveness in the alignments that it allows. The windows that classical DTW uses to constrain alignments introduce a step function. Any warping of the path is allowed within the window and none beyond it. In contrast, ADTW employs an additive penalty that is incurred each time that the path is warped. Any amount of warping is allowed, but each warping action incurs a direct penalty. ADTW significantly outperforms DTW with windowing when applied as a nearest neighbor classifier on a set of benchmark time series classification tasks. == Alternative approaches == In functional data analysis, time series are regarde

  Read more →
• 

  Symbaloo

  Symbaloo is a cloud-based site that allows users to organize and categorize web links in the form of buttons. Symbaloo works from a web browser and can be configured as a homepage, allowing users to create a personalized virtual desktop accessible from any device with an Internet connection. Symbaloo users, which must be previously registered, have a page with a grid of buttons that can be configured to link to a specific page. The site allows users to assign different colors to the buttons for easy visual classification. Symbaloo allows a single user to create different pages or screens with buttons. These screens called webmix are useful to separate topics and links can be shared with other users, making them public and sending the link via email. As of 2015 Symbaloo has 6 million users worldwide and mainly used as an online education resource. Symbaloo's slogan is "Start Simple".

  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 →
• 

  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 →