AI For Student Recruitment

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

• 

  RemObjects Software

  RemObjects Software is an American software company founded in 2002 by Alessandro Federici and Marc Hoffman. It develops and offers tools and libraries for software developers on a variety of development platforms, including Embarcadero Delphi, Microsoft .NET, Mono, and Apple's Xcode. == History == RemObjects Software was founded in the summer of 2002. Its first product was RemObjects SDK 1.0 for Delphi, the company's remoting solution which is now in its 6th version. In late 2003 RemObjects expanded its product portfolio to add Data Abstract for Delphi, a multi-tier database framework built on top of the SDK. In 2004, Carlo Kok, who would eventually become Chief Compiler Architect for Oxygene, joined the company, adding the open source Pascal Script library for Delphi to the company's portfolio. Initial development began on Oxygene (which was then named Chrome) based on Carlo's experience from writing the widely used Pascal Script scripting engine. Towards the end of 2004, RemObjects SDK for .NET was released, expanding the remoting framework to its second platform. Chrome 1.0 was released in mid-2005, providing support for .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0, which was still in beta at the time - making Chrome the first shipping language for .NET that supported features such as generics. It was followed by Chrome 1.5 when .NET 2.0 shipped in November of the same year. 2005 also saw the expansion of Data Abstract to .NET as a second platform. Data Abstract for .NET was the first RemObjects product (besides Oxygene itself) to be written in Oxygene. Hydra 3.0, was released for .NET in December 2006, bringing a paradigm shift to the product, away from a regular plugin framework, and focusing on interoperability between plugins and host applications written in either .NET or Delphi/Win32, essentially enabling the use of both managed and unmanaged code in the same project. In Summer 2007, RemObjects released Chrome 'Joyride' which added official support for .NET 3.0 and 3.5. Chrome once again was the first language to ship release level support for new .NET framework features supported by that runtime - most importantly Sequences and Queries (aka LINQ). Development continued and in May 2008 Oxygene 3.0 was released, dropping the "Chrome" moniker. Oxygene once again brought major language enhancements, including extensive support for concurrency and parallel programming as part of the language syntax. In October 2008, RemObjects Software and Embarcadero Technologies announced plans to collaborate and ship future versions of Oxygene under the Delphi Prism moniker, later changed to Embarcadero Prism. The first of these releases of Prism became available in December 2008. Over the course of 2009, RemObjects software completed the expansion of its Data Abstract and RemObjects SDK product combo to a third development platform - Xcode and Cocoa, for both Mac OS X and iPhone SDK client development. RemObjects SDK for OS X shipped in the spring of 2009, followed by Data Abstract for OS X in the fall. In 2011, Oxygene was expanded to add support for the Java platform, in addition to NET. In 2014, RemObjects introduced a C# compiler which runs as a Visual Studio 2013 plugin, that can output code for iOS, MacOS (Cocoa) and Android, in addition to .NET compatible code. In addition, an IDE called Fire was introduced for macOS which works with their C# and Oxygene compilers. Together, the compiler supporting both Oxygene and C# was rebranded as the Elements Compiler, with CE# having the Code name "Hydrogene". In February 2015, RemObjects introduced a beta version of a Swift compiler called Silver as part of its Elements effort. Silver, too, could create code that will execute on Android, the JVM, .NET platform and also create native Cocoa code. Silver added new features to the Swift language, such as exceptions and has a few differences and limitations compared to Apple's Swift. In February 2020, support for the Go programming language was introduced with RemObjects Gold, including the ability to compile Go language code for all Elements platforms, and a port of the extensive Go Base Library available to all Elements languages. In 2021, Mercury was added to the Elements compiler as the sixth language, providing a future for the Visual Basic .NET language recently deprecated by Microsoft. Mercury supports building and maintaining existing VB.NET projects, as well as using the language for new projects both on .NET and the other platforms. == Commercial products == Elements is a development toolchain that targets .NET runtime, Java/Android virtual machines, the Apple ecosystem (macOS, iOS, tvOS), WebAssembly and native and Windows/Linux/Android NDK processor-native machine code in conjunction with a runtime library that does automatic garbage collection on non-ARC environments and ARC on ARC-based environments, such as iOS and MacOS. Because Java, C#, Swift, and Oxygene all can import each other's APIs, Elements effectively functions as Java bonded together with C# bonded together with Swift bonded together with Oxygene as a confederation of languages cooperating together quite intimately. Oxygene, a unique programming language based on Object Pascal, which can import Java, C#, and Swift APIs from the runtime of the target operating system; RemObjects C#, an implementation of C# programming language, which can import Java, Swift, and Oxygene APIs from the runtime of the target operating system and which is intended as a competitor of Xamarin, but Hydrogene's C# targets JVM bytecode instead of Xamarin's C# compiling to only Common Language Infrastructure byte code and needing the accompanying Mono Common Language Runtime to be present in such JVM-centric environments as Android; Silver, a free implementation of the Swift programming language, which can import Java, C#, and Oxygene APIs from the runtime of the target operating system; Iodine, an implementation of the Java programming language. Gold, an implementation of the Go programming language. Mercury, an implementation of the Visual Basic .NET programming language. Fire an integrated development environment for macOS. Water an integrated development environment for Windows. Data Abstract Remoting SDK, a.k.a. RemObjects SDK Hydra Oxfuscator Oxidizer, an automatic translator from Java, C#, Objective-C, and Delphi to Oxygene, from Java, Objective-C, and C# to Swift, and from Java and Objective-C to C#. == Open source projects == Train is an open-source JavaScript-based tool for building and running build scripts and automation. Internet Pack for .NET is a free, open source library for building network clients and servers using TCP and higher level protocols such as HTTP or FTP, using the .NET or Mono platforms. It includes a range of ready to use protocol implementations, as well as base classes that allow the creation of custom implementations. RemObjects Script for .NET is a fully managed ECMAScript implementation for .NET and Mono. Pascal Script for Delphi is a widely used implementation of Pascal as scripting language. == Involvement of other projects == The Oxygene Compiler Oxygene is a language based on Object Pascal and designed to efficiently target the Microsoft .NET and Mono managed runtimes; it expands Object Pascal with a range of additional language features, such as Aspect Oriented Programming, Class Contracts and support for Parallelism. It integrates with the Microsoft Visual Studio and MonoDevelop IDEs.

  Read more →
• 

  Silhouette (clustering)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Modes of variation

  In statistics, modes of variation are a continuously indexed set of vectors or functions that are centered at a mean and are used to depict the variation in a population or sample. Typically, variation patterns in the data can be decomposed in descending order of eigenvalues with the directions represented by the corresponding eigenvectors or eigenfunctions. Modes of variation provide a visualization of this decomposition and an efficient description of variation around the mean. Both in principal component analysis (PCA) and in functional principal component analysis (FPCA), modes of variation play an important role in visualizing and describing the variation in the data contributed by each eigencomponent. In real-world applications, the eigencomponents and associated modes of variation aid to interpret complex data, especially in exploratory data analysis (EDA). == Formulation == Modes of variation are a natural extension of PCA and FPCA. === Modes of variation in PCA === If a random vector X = ( X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X p ) T {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} =(X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{p})^{T}} has the mean vector μ p {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{p}} , and the covariance matrix Σ p × p {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } _{p\times p}} with eigenvalues λ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ λ p ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \lambda _{p}\geq 0} and corresponding orthonormal eigenvectors e 1 , e 2 , ⋯ , e p {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{1},\mathbf {e} _{2},\cdots ,\mathbf {e} _{p}} , by eigendecomposition of a real symmetric matrix, the covariance matrix Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } can be decomposed as Σ = Q Λ Q T , {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } =\mathbf {Q} \mathbf {\Lambda } \mathbf {Q} ^{T},} where Q {\displaystyle \mathbf {Q} } is an orthogonal matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors of Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } , and Λ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Lambda } } is a diagonal matrix whose entries are the eigenvalues of Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } . By the Karhunen–Loève expansion for random vectors, one can express the centered random vector in the eigenbasis X − μ = ∑ k = 1 p ξ k e k , {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}=\sum _{k=1}^{p}\xi _{k}\mathbf {e} _{k},} where ξ k = e k T ( X − μ ) {\displaystyle \xi _{k}=\mathbf {e} _{k}^{T}(\mathbf {X} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }})} is the principal component associated with the k {\displaystyle k} -th eigenvector e k {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{k}} , with the properties E ⁡ ( ξ k ) = 0 , Var ⁡ ( ξ k ) = λ k , {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k})=0,\operatorname {Var} (\xi _{k})=\lambda _{k},} and E ⁡ ( ξ k ξ l ) = 0 for l ≠ k . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k}\xi _{l})=0\ {\text{for}}\ l\neq k.} Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } is the set of vectors, indexed by α {\displaystyle \alpha } , m k , α = μ ± α λ k e k , α ∈ [ − A , A ] , {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} _{k,\alpha }={\boldsymbol {\mu }}\pm \alpha {\sqrt {\lambda _{k}}}\mathbf {e} _{k},\alpha \in [-A,A],} where A {\displaystyle A} is typically selected as 2 or 3 {\displaystyle 2\ {\text{or}}\ 3} . === Modes of variation in FPCA === For a square-integrable random function X ( t ) , t ∈ T ⊂ R p {\displaystyle X(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}}\subset R^{p}} , where typically p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} and T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} is an interval, denote the mean function by μ ( t ) = E ⁡ ( X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)=\operatorname {E} (X(t))} , and the covariance function by G ( s , t ) = Cov ⁡ ( X ( s ) , X ( t ) ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ λ k φ k ( s ) φ k ( t ) , {\displaystyle G(s,t)=\operatorname {Cov} (X(s),X(t))=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\lambda _{k}\varphi _{k}(s)\varphi _{k}(t),} where λ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}\geq \cdots \geq 0} are the eigenvalues and { φ 1 , φ 2 , ⋯ } {\displaystyle \{\varphi _{1},\varphi _{2},\cdots \}} are the orthonormal eigenfunctions of the linear Hilbert–Schmidt operator G : L 2 ( T ) → L 2 ( T ) , G ( f ) = ∫ T G ( s , t ) f ( s ) d s . {\displaystyle G:L^{2}({\mathcal {T}})\rightarrow L^{2}({\mathcal {T}}),\,G(f)=\int _{\mathcal {T}}G(s,t)f(s)ds.} By the Karhunen–Loève theorem, one can express the centered function in the eigenbasis, X ( t ) − μ ( t ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ ξ k φ k ( t ) , {\displaystyle X(t)-\mu (t)=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\xi _{k}\varphi _{k}(t),} where ξ k = ∫ T ( X ( t ) − μ ( t ) ) φ k ( t ) d t {\displaystyle \xi _{k}=\int _{\mathcal {T}}(X(t)-\mu (t))\varphi _{k}(t)dt} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th principal component with the properties E ⁡ ( ξ k ) = 0 , Var ⁡ ( ξ k ) = λ k , {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k})=0,\operatorname {Var} (\xi _{k})=\lambda _{k},} and E ⁡ ( ξ k ξ l ) = 0 for l ≠ k . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k}\xi _{l})=0{\text{ for }}l\neq k.} Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X ( t ) {\displaystyle X(t)} is the set of functions, indexed by α {\displaystyle \alpha } , m k , α ( t ) = μ ( t ) ± α λ k φ k ( t ) , t ∈ T , α ∈ [ − A , A ] {\displaystyle m_{k,\alpha }(t)=\mu (t)\pm \alpha {\sqrt {\lambda _{k}}}\varphi _{k}(t),\ t\in {\mathcal {T}},\ \alpha \in [-A,A]} that are viewed simultaneously over the range of α {\displaystyle \alpha } , usually for A = 2 or 3 {\displaystyle A=2\ {\text{or}}\ 3} . == Estimation == The formulation above is derived from properties of the population. Estimation is needed in real-world applications. The key idea is to estimate mean and covariance. === Modes of variation in PCA === Suppose the data x 1 , x 2 , ⋯ , x n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\mathbf {x} _{2},\cdots ,\mathbf {x} _{n}} represent n {\displaystyle n} independent drawings from some p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional population X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } with mean vector μ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}} and covariance matrix Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } . These data yield the sample mean vector x ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathbf {x} }}} , and the sample covariance matrix S {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} } with eigenvalue-eigenvector pairs ( λ ^ 1 , e ^ 1 ) , ( λ ^ 2 , e ^ 2 ) , ⋯ , ( λ ^ p , e ^ p ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {\lambda }}_{1},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{1}),({\hat {\lambda }}_{2},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{2}),\cdots ,({\hat {\lambda }}_{p},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{p})} . Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } can be estimated by m ^ k , α = x ¯ ± α λ ^ k e ^ k , α ∈ [ − A , A ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {m} }}_{k,\alpha }={\overline {\mathbf {x} }}\pm \alpha {\sqrt {{\hat {\lambda }}_{k}}}{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{k},\alpha \in [-A,A].} === Modes of variation in FPCA === Consider n {\displaystyle n} realizations X 1 ( t ) , X 2 ( t ) , ⋯ , X n ( t ) {\displaystyle X_{1}(t),X_{2}(t),\cdots ,X_{n}(t)} of a square-integrable random function X ( t ) , t ∈ T {\displaystyle X(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}}} with the mean function μ ( t ) = E ⁡ ( X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)=\operatorname {E} (X(t))} and the covariance function G ( s , t ) = Cov ⁡ ( X ( s ) , X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle G(s,t)=\operatorname {Cov} (X(s),X(t))} . Functional principal component analysis provides methods for the estimation of μ ( t ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)} and G ( s , t ) {\displaystyle G(s,t)} in detail, often involving point wise estimate and interpolation. Substituting estimates for the unknown quantities, the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X ( t ) {\displaystyle X(t)} can be estimated by m ^ k , α ( t ) = μ ^ ( t ) ± α λ ^ k φ ^ k ( t ) , t ∈ T , α ∈ [ − A , A ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{k,\alpha }(t)={\hat {\mu }}(t)\pm \alpha {\sqrt {{\hat {\lambda }}_{k}}}{\hat {\varphi }}_{k}(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}},\alpha \in [-A,A].} == Applications == Modes of variation are useful to visualize and describe the variation patterns in the data sorted by the eigenvalues. In real-world applications, modes of variation associated with eigencomponents allow to interpret complex data, such as the evolution of function traits and other infinite-dimensional data. To illustrate how modes of variation work in practice, two examples are shown in the graphs to the right, which display the first two modes of variation. The solid curve represents the sample mean function. The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted curves correspond to modes of variation with α = ± 1 , ± 2 , {\displaystyle \alpha =\pm 1,\pm 2,} and ± 3 {\displaystyle \pm 3} , respectively. The first graph displays the first two modes of variation of female mortality data from 41 countries in 2003. The object of interest is log hazard function between ages 0 and 100 years. The first mode of variation suggests that the variation of female mortality is smaller for ages around 0 or 100, and larger for ages around 25. An appropriate and intuitive interpretation is that mortality around 25 is driven by accidental death, while around 0 or 100, mortality is related to congenital disease or natural death. Compared to female mortality

  Read more →
• 

  Density-based clustering validation

  Density-Based Clustering Validation (DBCV) is a metric designed to assess the quality of clustering solutions, particularly for density-based clustering algorithms like DBSCAN, Mean shift, and OPTICS. This metric is particularly suited for identifying concave and nested clusters, where traditional metrics such as the Silhouette coefficient, Davies–Bouldin index, or Calinski–Harabasz index often struggle to provide meaningful evaluations. Unlike traditional validation measures, which often rely on compact and well-separated clusters, DBCV index evaluates how well clusters are defined in terms of local density variations and structural coherence. This metric was introduced in 2014 by David Moulavi and colleagues in their work. It utilizes density connectivity principles to quantify clustering structures, making it especially effective at detecting arbitrarily shaped clusters in concave datasets, where traditional metrics may be less reliable. The DBCV index has been employed for clustering analysis in bioinformatics, ecology, techno-economy, and health informatics , as well as in numerous other fields. == Definition == DBCV index evaluates clustering structures by analyzing the relationships between data points within and across clusters. Given a dataset X = x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n {\displaystyle X={x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}}} , a density-based algorithm partitions it into K clusters C 1 , C 2 , . . . , C K {\displaystyle {C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{K}}} . Each point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to a specific cluster, denoted as C c l u s t e r ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{cluster(x_{i})}} A key concept in DBCV index is the notion of density-connected paths. Two points within the same cluster are considered density-connected if there exists a sequence of intermediate points linking them, where each consecutive pair meets a predefined density criterion. The density-based distance between two points is determined by identifying the optimal path that minimizes the maximum local reachability distance along its trajectory. DBCV index extends the Silhouette coefficient by redefining cluster cohesion and separation using density-based distances: Within-cluster density distance measures how closely a point is related to other members of its cluster: a i = 1 | C c l u s t e r ( x i ) | − 1 ∑ x j ∈ C c l u s t e r ( x i ) , y ≠ x d d e n s i t y ( x j , x i ) {\displaystyle a_{i}={\frac {1}{|C_{cluster(x_{i})}|-1}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C_{cluster(x_{i})},y\neq x}d_{density}(x_{j},x_{i})} Nearest-cluster density distance quantifies how far a point is from the closest external cluster: b i = min C ≠ C cluster ( x i ) C ∈ { C 1 , … , C K } ( 1 | C | ∑ x j ∈ C d density ( x i , x j ) ) . {\displaystyle b_{i}=\min _{C\neq C_{{\text{cluster}}(x_{i})} \atop C\in \{C_{1},\dots ,C_{K}\}}\left({\frac {1}{|C|}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C}d_{\text{density}}(x_{i},x_{j})\right).} Using these measures, the DBCV index is computed as: D B C V = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n b i − a i max ( a i , b i ) {\displaystyle DBCV={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {b_{i}-a_{i}}{\max(a_{i},b_{i})}}} == Explanation == DBCV index values range between −1 and +1: +1: Strongly cohesive and well-separated clusters. 0: Ambiguous clustering structure. −1: Poorly formed clusters or incorrect assignments. By leveraging density-based distances instead of traditional Euclidean measures, DBCV index provides a more robust evaluation of clustering performance in datasets with irregular or non-spherical distributions.

  Read more →
• 

  SIP (software)

  SIP is an open source software tool used to connect computer programs or libraries written in C or C++ with the scripting language Python. It is an alternative to SWIG. SIP was originally developed in 1998 for PyQt — the Python bindings for the Qt GUI toolkit — but is suitable for generating bindings for any C or C++ library. == Concept == SIP takes a set of specification (.sip) files describing the API and generates the required C++ code. This is then compiled to produce the Python extension modules. A .sip file is essentially the class header file with some things removed (because SIP does not include a full C++ parser) and some things added (because C++ does not always provide enough information about how the API works). For PyQt v4 I use an internal tool (written using PyQt of course) called metasip. This is sort of an IDE for SIP. It uses GCC-XML to parse the latest header files and saves the relevant data, as XML, in a metasip project. metasip then does the equivalent of a diff against the previous version of the API and flags up any changes that need to be looked at. Those changes are then made through the GUI and ticked off the TODO list. Generating the .sip files is just a button click. In my subversion repository, PyQt v4 is basically just a 20M XML file. Updating PyQt v4 for a minor release of Qt v4 is about half an hours work. In terms of how the generated code works then I don't think it's very different from how any other bindings generator works. Python has a very good C API for writing extension modules - it's one of the reasons why so many 3rd party tools have Python bindings. For every C++ class, the SIP generated code creates a corresponding Python class implemented in C. == Notable applications that use SIP == PyQt, a python port of the application framework and widget toolkit Qt QGIS, a free and open-source cross-platform desktop geographic information system (GIS) QtiPlot, a computer program to analyze and visualize scientific data calibre (software), a free and open-source cross-platform e-book manager Veusz, a free and open-source cross-platform program to visualize scientific data

  Read more →
• 

  Low-rank approximation

  In mathematics, low-rank approximation refers to the process of approximating a given matrix by a matrix of lower rank. More precisely, it is a minimization problem, in which the cost function measures the fit between a given matrix (the data) and an approximating matrix (the optimization variable), subject to a constraint that the approximating matrix has reduced rank. The problem is used for mathematical modeling and data compression. The rank constraint is related to a constraint on the complexity of a model that fits the data. In applications, often there are other constraints on the approximating matrix apart from the rank constraint, e.g., non-negativity and Hankel structure. Low-rank approximation is closely related to numerous other techniques, including principal component analysis, factor analysis, total least squares, latent semantic analysis, orthogonal regression, and dynamic mode decomposition. == Definition == Given structure specification S : R n p → R m × n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}:\mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}\to \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} , vector of structure parameters p ∈ R n p {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}} , norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} , and desired rank r {\displaystyle r} , minimize over p ^ ‖ p − p ^ ‖ subject to rank ⁡ ( S ( p ^ ) ) ≤ r . {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {p}}\quad \|p-{\widehat {p}}\|\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\mathcal {S}}({\widehat {p}}){\big )}\leq r.} == Applications == Linear system identification, in which case the approximating matrix is Hankel structured. Machine learning, in which case the approximating matrix is nonlinearly structured. Recommender systems, in which cases the data matrix has missing values and the approximation is categorical. Distance matrix completion, in which case there is a positive definiteness constraint. Natural language processing, in which case the approximation is nonnegative. Computer algebra, in which case the approximation is Sylvester structured. Matrix product states, in which case the approximation is usually rescaled to have fixed Frobenius norm. == Basic low-rank approximation problem == The unstructured problem with fit measured by the Frobenius norm, i.e., minimize over D ^ ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F subject to rank ⁡ ( D ^ ) ≤ r {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {D}}\quad \|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\widehat {D}}{\big )}\leq r} has an analytic solution in terms of the singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The result is referred to as the matrix approximation lemma or Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem. This problem was originally solved by Erhard Schmidt in the infinite dimensional context of integral operators (although his methods easily generalize to arbitrary compact operators on Hilbert spaces) and later rediscovered by C. Eckart and G. Young. L. Mirsky generalized the result to arbitrary unitarily invariant norms. Let D = U Σ V ⊤ ∈ R m × n , m ≥ n {\displaystyle D=U\Sigma V^{\top }\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n},\quad m\geq n} be the singular value decomposition of D {\displaystyle D} , where Σ =: diag ⁡ ( σ 1 , … , σ r ) {\displaystyle \Sigma =:\operatorname {diag} (\sigma _{1},\ldots ,\sigma _{r})} , where r ≤ min { m , n } = n {\displaystyle r\leq \min\{m,n\}=n} , is the m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} rectangular diagonal matrix with r {\displaystyle r} non-zero singular values σ 1 ≥ … ≥ σ r > σ r + 1 = … = σ n = 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \ldots \geq \sigma _{r}>\sigma _{r+1}=\ldots =\sigma _{n}=0} . For a given k ∈ { 1 , … , r } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,r\}} , partition U {\displaystyle U} , Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and V {\displaystyle V} as follows: U =: [ U 1 U 2 ] , Σ =: [ Σ 1 0 0 Σ 2 ] , and V =: [ V 1 V 2 ] , {\displaystyle U=:{\begin{bmatrix}U_{1}&U_{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad \Sigma =:{\begin{bmatrix}\Sigma _{1}&0\\0&\Sigma _{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad {\text{and}}\quad V=:{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}&V_{2}\end{bmatrix}},} where U 1 {\displaystyle U_{1}} is m × k {\displaystyle m\times k} , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}} is k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} , and V 1 {\displaystyle V_{1}} is n × k {\displaystyle n\times k} . Then the rank k {\displaystyle k} matrix D ^ ∗ := U 1 Σ 1 V 1 ⊤ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}:=U_{1}\Sigma _{1}V_{1}^{\top },} obtained from the truncated singular value decomposition is such that ‖ D − D ^ ∗ ‖ F = min rank ⁡ ( D ^ ) ≤ k ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F = σ k + 1 2 + ⋯ + σ r 2 . {\displaystyle \|D-{\widehat {D}}^{}\|_{\text{F}}=\min _{\operatorname {rank} ({\widehat {D}})\leq k}\|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}={\sqrt {\sigma _{k+1}^{2}+\cdots +\sigma _{r}^{2}}}.} The minimizer D ^ ∗ {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}} is unique if and only if σ k > σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{k}>\sigma _{k+1}} . == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for spectral norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . Recall that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices, and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} diagonal matrix with entries ( σ 1 , σ 2 , ⋯ , σ m ) {\displaystyle (\sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\cdots ,\sigma _{m})} such that σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ σ m ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \sigma _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \sigma _{m}\geq 0} . We claim that the best rank- k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the spectral norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} , is given by A k := ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}:=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ − ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{n}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }-\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{k}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=\color {red}{k+1}}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}} . Since Y {\displaystyle Y} has k {\displaystyle k} columns, then there must be a nontrivial linear combination of the first k + 1 {\displaystyle k+1} columns of V {\displaystyle V} , i.e., w = γ 1 v 1 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 v k + 1 , {\displaystyle w=\gamma _{1}v_{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}v_{k+1},} such that Y ⊤ w = 0 {\displaystyle Y^{\top }w=0} . Without loss of generality, we can scale w {\displaystyle w} so that ‖ w ‖ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{2}=1} or (equivalently) γ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}=1} . Therefore, ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 2 ≥ ‖ ( A − B k ) w ‖ 2 2 = ‖ A w ‖ 2 2 = γ 1 2 σ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 σ k + 1 2 ≥ σ k + 1 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}^{2}\geq \|(A-B_{k})w\|_{2}^{2}=\|Aw\|_{2}^{2}=\gamma _{1}^{2}\sigma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}\sigma _{k+1}^{2}\geq \sigma _{k+1}^{2}.} The result follows by taking the square root of both sides of the above inequality. == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for Frobenius norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . We claim that the best rank k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the Frobenius norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ F {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{F}} , is given by A k = ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ F 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{F}^{2}.} By the triangle inequality with the spectral norm

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Fitness approximation

  Fitness approximation aims to approximate the objective or fitness functions in evolutionary optimization by building up machine learning models based on data collected from numerical simulations or physical experiments. The machine learning models for fitness approximation are also known as meta-models or surrogates, and evolutionary optimization based on approximated fitness evaluations are also known as surrogate-assisted evolutionary approximation. Fitness approximation in evolutionary optimization can be seen as a sub-area of data-driven evolutionary optimization. == Approximate models in function optimization == === Motivation === In many real-world optimization problems including engineering problems, the number of fitness function evaluations needed to obtain a good solution dominates the optimization cost. In order to obtain efficient optimization algorithms, it is crucial to use prior information gained during the optimization process. Conceptually, a natural approach to utilizing the known prior information is building a model of the fitness function to assist in the selection of candidate solutions for evaluation. A variety of techniques for constructing such a model, often also referred to as surrogates, metamodels or approximation models – for computationally expensive optimization problems have been considered. === Approaches === Common approaches to constructing approximate models based on learning and interpolation from known fitness values of a small population include: Low-degree polynomials and regression models Fourier surrogate modeling Artificial neural networks including Multilayer perceptrons Radial basis function network Support vector machines Due to the limited number of training samples and high dimensionality encountered in engineering design optimization, constructing a globally valid approximate model remains difficult. As a result, evolutionary algorithms using such approximate fitness functions may converge to local optima. Therefore, it can be beneficial to selectively use the original fitness function together with the approximate model.

  Read more →
• 

  Alexander Y. Tetelbaum

  Alexander Y. Tetelbaum (born August 16, 1948) is a Ukrainian American computer scientist, inventor, and academic who has contributed to electronic design automation (EDA) and artificial intelligence (AI) since the late 1960s; and holds 46 U.S. patents in EDA and related fields. Tetelbaum is the founding president of International Solomon University, the first Jewish university in Ukraine, established during a period of renewed efforts to address antisemitism in Ukraine. == Early life and education == He graduated from a Kyiv mathematical high school with a silver medal in 1966. Tetelbaum enrolled at the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute (KPI), now National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" in 1966, graduating in 1972 with an MS in Electronics with honors. He earned his PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering from KPI in 1975, with a dissertation on electronic design automation, and his Doctor of Engineering Science in 1986. == Academic career == Tetelbaum began his academic career at KPI in 1973 as a junior scientist, becoming a professor in the Computer and Electrical Engineering Department in 1980. Later, he founded and served as president of International Solomon University in Kyiv from 1991 to 1996, the first Jewish university in Ukraine. The university became a major academic center for computer science and Jewish studies in the post-Soviet era. He was a visiting and adjunct professor at Michigan State University from 1993 to 1996. == Professional career == Tetelbaum worked as an engineer at the Kiev Institute of Cybernetics from 1972 to 1973, and later, he led the Design Automation Lab at Kyiv Polytechnic Institute from 1975 to 1987. In the United States, he served as EDA manager at Silicon Graphics Corporation from 1996 to 1998 and principal engineer at LSI Corporation from 1998 to 2012. He founded and served as CEO of Abelite Design Automation, Inc., from 2012 to 2022. == Contributions in computer science == Tetelbaum has contributed to electronic design automation (EDA) and artificial intelligence (AI) since the 1960s. His early work included methods for EDA, particularly physical design automation and mathematical optimization; and he developed force-directed placement and topological routing methods. Tetelbaum generalized Rent's rule for hierarchical systems and large blocks, proposing a graph-based framework that extends applicability to arbitrary partition sizes with improved accuracy. Additional IEEE and related conference contributions from the mid-1990s include: "Path Search for Complicated Function", 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems "A Performance-driven Placement Approach of Standard Cells" (International Conference on Intelligent Systems, 1995) "Framework of a New Methodology for Behavioral to Physical Design Linkage" (38th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 1996) Statistical timing design and variations Test Methodologies These and other works and patents contributed to timing-driven placement, crosstalk reduction, clock tree synthesis, and interconnect optimization in VLSI design. == Patents == Tetelbaum holds 46 U.S. patents in EDA and related fields. Notable examples include: For the full list of patents, see Justia Patents or Google Patents. == Publications == === Early publications in the Soviet Union === Before the appearance of American books on electronic design automation (EDA), Tetelbaum published several scientific books and monographs on the subject in Russian/Ukrainian. Electronic Design Automation, Kiev: Znanie Publisher, 1975. Planar Design of Electronic Circuits, Kiev: Znanie Publisher, 1977. Formal Design of Computer Systems, Moscow: Sovetskoe Radio, 1979. CAD of Electronic Equipment: Topological Approach, Kiev: Vyssha Shkola, 1980; 2nd ed. 1981. Automated Design of Electronic Circuits (1981) CAD of VLSI Circuits, Kiev: Vyssha Shkola, 1983. Topological Algorithms of Multilayer Printed Circuit Boards Routing, Moscow: Radio i Svyaz, 1983. CAD of VLSI Circuits on Master Slice Chips, Moscow: Radio i Svyaz, 1988. Increasing the Effectiveness of CAD Systems, Kiev: UMKVO, 1991. === Scientific Monographs (English) === Minimum Number of Timing Signoff Corners (2022) Interviewing AI (2026) The AI Debate (2026) New Nostradamus Predictions: 2026: The Next Decade & Beyond (2035–2050+) (2026) For a consolidated record of Tetelbaum's publications, see Alexander Y. Tetelbaum, Wikidata Q4720205. === Other publications === Tetelbaum also published educational books on problem-solving methods: Yes-No Puzzles-Games Puzzle Games for Kids Solving Non-Standard Problems Solving Non-Standard Very Hard Problems Additionally, Tetelbaum published three thrillers: Omerta Operations Executive Director Eruption Yacht Finally, he published his memoir and an entertaining book: Unfinished Equations Artificially Intelligent Humor

  Read more →
• 

  Genetic operator

  A genetic operator is an operator used in evolutionary algorithms (EA) to guide the algorithm towards a solution to a given problem. There are three main types of operators (mutation, crossover and selection), which must work in conjunction with one another in order for the algorithm to be successful. Genetic operators are used to create and maintain genetic diversity (mutation operator), combine existing solutions (also known as chromosomes) into new solutions (crossover) and select between solutions (selection). The classic representatives of evolutionary algorithms include genetic algorithms, evolution strategies, genetic programming and evolutionary programming. In his book discussing the use of genetic programming for the optimization of complex problems, computer scientist John Koza has also identified an 'inversion' or 'permutation' operator; however, the effectiveness of this operator has never been conclusively demonstrated and this operator is rarely discussed in the field of genetic programming. For combinatorial problems, however, these and other operators tailored to permutations are frequently used by other EAs. Mutation (or mutation-like) operators are said to be unary operators, as they only operate on one chromosome at a time. In contrast, crossover operators are said to be binary operators, as they operate on two chromosomes at a time, combining two existing chromosomes into one new chromosome. == Operators == Genetic variation is a necessity for the process of evolution. Genetic operators used in evolutionary algorithms are analogous to those in the natural world: survival of the fittest, or selection; reproduction (crossover, also called recombination); and mutation. === Selection === Selection operators give preference to better candidate solutions (chromosomes), allowing them to pass on their 'genes' to the next generation (iteration) of the algorithm. The best solutions are determined using some form of objective function (also known as a 'fitness function' in evolutionary algorithms), before being passed to the crossover operator. Different methods for choosing the best solutions exist, for example, fitness proportionate selection and tournament selection. A further or the same selection operator is used to determine the individuals for being selected to form the next parental generation. The selection operator may also ensure that the best solution(s) from the current generation always become(s) a member of the next generation without being altered; this is known as elitism or elitist selection. === Crossover === Crossover is the process of taking more than one parent solutions (chromosomes) and producing a child solution from them. By recombining portions of good solutions, the evolutionary algorithm is more likely to create a better solution. As with selection, there are a number of different methods for combining the parent solutions, including the edge recombination operator (ERO) and the 'cut and splice crossover' and 'uniform crossover' methods. The crossover method is often chosen to closely match the chromosome's representation of the solution; this may become particularly important when variables are grouped together as building blocks, which might be disrupted by a non-respectful crossover operator. Similarly, crossover methods may be particularly suited to certain problems; the ERO is considered a good option for solving the travelling salesman problem. === Mutation === The mutation operator encourages genetic diversity amongst solutions and attempts to prevent the evolutionary algorithm converging to a local minimum by stopping the solutions becoming too close to one another. In mutating the current pool of solutions, a given solution may change between slightly and entirely from the previous solution. By mutating the solutions, an evolutionary algorithm can reach an improved solution solely through the mutation operator. Again, different methods of mutation may be used; these range from a simple bit mutation (flipping random bits in a binary string chromosome with some low probability) to more complex mutation methods in which genes in the solution are changed, for example by adding a random value from the Gaussian distribution to the current gene value. As with the crossover operator, the mutation method is usually chosen to match the representation of the solution within the chromosome. == Combining operators == While each operator acts to improve the solutions produced by the evolutionary algorithm working individually, the operators must work in conjunction with each other for the algorithm to be successful in finding a good solution. Using the selection operator on its own will tend to fill the solution population with copies of the best solution from the population. If the selection and crossover operators are used without the mutation operator, the algorithm will tend to converge to a local minimum, that is, a good but sub-optimal solution to the problem. Using the mutation operator on its own leads to a random walk through the search space. Only by using all three operators together can the evolutionary algorithm become a noise-tolerant global search algorithm, yielding good solutions to the problem at hand.

  Read more →
• 

  Vowpal Wabbit

  Vowpal Wabbit (VW) is an open-source fast online interactive machine learning system library and program developed originally at Yahoo! Research, and currently at Microsoft Research. It was started and is led by John Langford. Vowpal Wabbit's interactive learning support is particularly notable including Contextual Bandits, Active Learning, and forms of guided Reinforcement Learning. Vowpal Wabbit provides an efficient scalable out-of-core implementation with support for a number of machine learning reductions, importance weighting, and a selection of different loss functions and optimization algorithms. == Notable features == The VW program supports: Multiple supervised (and semi-supervised) learning problems: Classification (both binary and multi-class) Regression Active learning (partially labeled data) for both regression and classification Multiple learning algorithms (model-types / representations) OLS regression Matrix factorization (sparse matrix SVD) Single layer neural net (with user specified hidden layer node count) Searn (Search and Learn) Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Stagewise polynomial approximation Recommend top-K out of N One-against-all (OAA) and cost-sensitive OAA reduction for multi-class Weighted all pairs Contextual-bandit (with multiple exploration/exploitation strategies) Multiple loss functions: squared error quantile hinge logistic poisson Multiple optimization algorithms Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BFGS Conjugate gradient Regularization (L1 norm, L2 norm, & elastic net regularization) Flexible input - input features may be: Binary Numerical Categorical (via flexible feature-naming and the hash trick) Can deal with missing values/sparse-features Other features On the fly generation of feature interactions (quadratic and cubic) On the fly generation of N-grams with optional skips (useful for word/language data-sets) Automatic test-set holdout and early termination on multiple passes bootstrapping User settable online learning progress report + auditing of the model Hyperparameter optimization == Scalability == Vowpal wabbit has been used to learn a tera-feature (1012) data-set on 1000 nodes in one hour. Its scalability is aided by several factors: Out-of-core online learning: no need to load all data into memory The hashing trick: feature identities are converted to a weight index via a hash (uses 32-bit MurmurHash3) Exploiting multi-core CPUs: parsing of input and learning are done in separate threads. Compiled C++ code

  Read more →
• 

  Sample exclusion dimension

  In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  Cellular evolutionary algorithm

  A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) is a kind of evolutionary algorithm (EA) in which individuals cannot mate arbitrarily, but every one interacts with its closer neighbors on which a basic EA is applied (selection, variation, replacement). The cellular model simulates natural evolution from the point of view of the individual, which encodes a tentative optimization, learning, or search problem solution. The essential idea of this model is to provide the EA population with a special structure defined as a connected graph, in which each vertex is an individual who communicates with his nearest neighbors. Particularly, individuals are conceptually set in a toroidal mesh, and are only allowed to recombine with close individuals. This leads to a kind of locality known as "isolation by distance". The set of potential mates of an individual is called its "neighborhood". It is known that, in this kind of algorithm, similar individuals tend to cluster creating niches, and these groups operate as if they were separate sub-populations (islands). There is no clear borderline between adjacent groups, and close niches could be easily colonized by competitive niches and potentially merge solution contents during the process. Simultaneously, farther niches can be affected more slowly. == Introduction == A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) usually evolves a structured bidimensional grid of individuals, although other topologies are also possible. In this grid, clusters of similar individuals are naturally created during evolution, promoting exploration in their boundaries, while exploitation is mainly performed by direct competition and merging inside them. The grid is usually 2D toroidal structure, although the number of dimensions can be easily extended (to 3D) or reduced (to 1D, e.g. a ring). The neighborhood of a particular point of the grid (where an individual is placed) is defined in terms of the Manhattan distance from it to others in the population. Each point of the grid has a neighborhood that overlaps the neighborhoods of nearby individuals. In the basic algorithm, all the neighborhoods have the same size and identical shapes. The two most commonly used neighborhoods are L5, also called the Von Neumann or NEWS (North, East, West and South) neighborhood, and C9, also known as the Moore neighborhood. Here, L stands for "linear" while C stands for "compact". In cEAs, the individuals can only interact with their neighbors in the reproductive cycle where the variation operators are applied. This reproductive cycle is executed inside the neighborhood of each individual and, generally, consists in selecting two parents among its neighbors according to a certain criterion, applying the variation operators to them (recombination and mutation for example), and replacing the considered individual by the recently created offspring following a given criterion, for instance, replace if the offspring represents a better solution than the considered individual. == Synchronous versus asynchronous == In a regular synchronous cEA, the algorithm proceeds from the very first top left individual to the right and then to the several rows by using the information in the population to create a new temporary population. After finishing with the bottom-right last individual the temporary population is full with the newly computed individuals, and the replacement step starts. In it, the old population is completely and synchronously replaced with the newly computed one according to some criterion. Usually, the replacement keeps the best individual in the same position of both populations, that is, elitism is used. According to the update policy of the population used, an asynchronous cEA may also be defined and is a well-known issue in cellular automata. In asynchronous cEAs the order in which the individuals in the grid are update changes depending on the choice of criterion: line sweep, fixed random sweep, new random sweep, and uniform choice. All four proceed using the newly computed individual (or the original if better) for the computations of its neighbors. The overlap of the neighborhoods provides an implicit mechanism of solution migration to the cEA. Since the best solutions spread smoothly through the whole population, genetic diversity in the population is preserved longer than in non structured EAs. This soft dispersion of the best solutions through the population is one of the main issues of the good tradeoff between exploration and exploitation that cEAs perform during the search. This tradeoff can be tuned (and by extension the genetic diversity level along the evolution) by modifying (for instance) the size of the neighborhood used, as the overlap degree between the neighborhoods grows according to the size of the neighborhood. A cEA can be seen as a cellular automaton (CA) with probabilistic rewritable rules, where the alphabet of the CA is equivalent to the potential number of solutions of the problem. Hence, knowledge from research in CAs can be applied to cEAs. == Parallelism == Cellular EAs are very amenable to parallelism, thus usually found in the literature of parallel metaheuristics. In particular, fine grain parallelism can be used to assign independent threads of execution to every individual, thus allowing the whole cEA to run on a concurrent or actually parallel hardware platform. In this way, large time reductions can be obtained when running cEAs on FPGAs or GPUs. However, it is important to stress that cEAs are a model of search, in many senses different from traditional EAs. Also, they can be run in sequential and parallel platforms, reinforcing the fact that the model and the implementation are two different concepts. See here for a complete description on the fundamentals for the understanding, design, and application of cEAs.

  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 →