AI For Students Anthropic

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

Connected-component labeling

Connected-component labeling (CCL), connected-component analysis (CCA), blob extraction, region labeling, blob discovery, or region extraction is an algorithmic application of graph theory, where subsets of connected components are uniquely labeled based on a given heuristic. Connected-component labeling is not to be confused with segmentation. Connected-component labeling is used in computer vision to detect connected regions in binary digital images, although color images and data with higher dimensionality can also be processed. When integrated into an image recognition system or human-computer interaction interface, connected component labeling can operate on a variety of information. Blob extraction is generally performed on the resulting binary image from a thresholding step, but it can be applicable to gray-scale and color images as well. Blobs may be counted, filtered, and tracked. Blob extraction is related to but distinct from blob detection. == Overview == A graph, containing vertices and connecting edges, is constructed from relevant input data. The vertices contain information required by the comparison heuristic, while the edges indicate connected 'neighbors'. An algorithm traverses the graph, labeling the vertices based on the connectivity and relative values of their neighbors. Connectivity is determined by the medium; image graphs, for example, can be 4-connected neighborhood or 8-connected neighborhood. Following the labeling stage, the graph may be partitioned into subsets, after which the original information can be recovered and processed . == Definition == The usage of the term connected-component labeling (CCL) and its definition is quite consistent in the academic literature, whereas connected-component analysis (CCA) varies both in terminology and in its definition of the problem. Rosenfeld et al. define connected components labeling as the “[c]reation of a labeled image in which the positions associated with the same connected component of the binary input image have a unique label.” Shapiro et al. define CCL as an operator whose “input is a binary image and [...] output is a symbolic image in which the label assigned to each pixel is an integer uniquely identifying the connected component to which that pixel belongs.” There is no consensus on the definition of CCA in the academic literature. It is often used interchangeably with CCL. A more extensive definition is given by Shapiro et al.: “Connected component analysis consists of connected component labeling of the black pixels followed by property measurement of the component regions and decision making.” The definition for connected-component analysis presented here is more general, taking the thoughts expressed in into account. == Algorithms == The algorithms discussed can be generalised to arbitrary dimensions, albeit with increased time and space complexity. === One component at a time === This is a fast and very simple method to implement and understand. It is based on graph traversal methods in graph theory. In short, once the first pixel of a connected component is found, all the connected pixels of that connected component are labelled before going onto the next pixel in the image. This algorithm is part of Vincent and Soille's watershed segmentation algorithm, other implementations also exist. In order to do that a linked list is formed that will keep the indexes of the pixels that are connected to each other, steps (2) and (3) below. The method of defining the linked list specifies the use of a depth or a breadth first search. For this particular application, there is no difference which strategy to use. The simplest kind of a last in first out queue implemented as a singly linked list will result in a depth first search strategy. It is assumed that the input image is a binary image, with pixels being either background or foreground and that the connected components in the foreground pixels are desired. The algorithm steps can be written as: Start from the first pixel in the image. Set current label to 1. Go to (2). If this pixel is a foreground pixel and it is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it as the first element in a queue, then go to (3). If it is a background pixel or it was already labelled, then repeat (2) for the next pixel in the image. Pop out an element from the queue, and look at its neighbours (based on any type of connectivity). If a neighbour is a foreground pixel and is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it to the queue. Repeat (3) until there are no more elements in the queue. Go to (2) for the next pixel in the image and increment current label by 1. Note that the pixels are labelled before being put into the queue. The queue will only keep a pixel to check its neighbours and add them to the queue if necessary. This algorithm only needs to check the neighbours of each foreground pixel once and doesn't check the neighbours of background pixels. The pseudocode is: algorithm OneComponentAtATime(data) input : imageData[xDim][yDim] initialization : label = 0, labelArray[xDim][yDim] = 0, statusArray[xDim][yDim] = false, queue1, queue2; for i = 0 to xDim do for j = 0 to yDim do if imageData[i][j] has not been processed do if imageData[i][j] is a foreground pixel do check its four neighbors(north, south, east, west) : if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue1 else update its status to processed end if labelArray[i][j] = label (give label) statusArray[i][j] = true (update status) while queue1 is not empty do For each pixel in the queue do : check its four neighbors if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue2 else update its status to processed end if give it the current label update its status to processed remove the current element from queue1 copy queue2 into queue1 end While increase the label end if else update its status to processed end if end if end if end for end for === Two-pass === Relatively simple to implement and understand, the two-pass algorithm, (also known as the Hoshen–Kopelman algorithm) iterates through 2-dimensional binary data. The algorithm makes two passes over the image: the first pass to assign temporary labels and record equivalences, and the second pass to replace each temporary label by the smallest label of its equivalence class. The input data can be modified in situ (which carries the risk of data corruption), or labeling information can be maintained in an additional data structure. Connectivity checks are carried out by checking neighbor pixels' labels (neighbor elements whose labels are not assigned yet are ignored), or say, the north-east, the north, the north-west and the west of the current pixel (assuming 8-connectivity). 4-connectivity uses only north and west neighbors of the current pixel. The following conditions are checked to determine the value of the label to be assigned to the current pixel (4-connectivity is assumed) Conditions to check: Does the pixel to the left (west) have the same value as the current pixel? Yes – We are in the same region. Assign the same label to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do both pixels to the north and west of the current pixel have the same value as the current pixel but not the same label? Yes – We know that the north and west pixels belong to the same region and must be merged. Assign the current pixel the minimum of the north and west labels, and record their equivalence relationship No – Check next condition Does the pixel to the left (west) have a different value and the one to the north the same value as the current pixel? Yes – Assign the label of the north pixel to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do the pixel's north and west neighbors have different pixel values than current pixel? Yes – Create a new label id and assign it to the current pixel The algorithm continues this way, and creates new region labels whenever necessary. The key to a fast algorithm, however, is how this merging is done. This algorithm uses the union-find data structure which provides excellent performance for keeping track of equivalence relationships. Union-find essentially stores labels which correspond to the same blob in a disjoint-set data structure, making it easy to remember the equivalence of two labels by the use of an interface method E.g.: findSet(l). findSet(l) returns the minimum label value that is equivalent to the function argument 'l'. Once the initial labeling and equivalence recording is completed, the second pass merely replaces each pixel label with its equivalent disjoint-set representative element. A faster-scanning algorithm for connected-region extraction is presented below. On the first pass: Iterate through each element of the data by column, then by row (Raster Scanning) If the element is not the background Get the neighboring elements of the current element If there are no neighbors, uniquely
Read more →
Witness set

In combinatorics and computational learning theory, a witness set is a set of elements that distinguishes a given Boolean function from a given class of other Boolean functions. Let C {\displaystyle C} be a concept class over a domain X {\displaystyle X} (that is, a family of Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} ) and c {\displaystyle c} be a concept in X {\displaystyle X} (a single Boolean function). A subset S {\displaystyle S} of X {\displaystyle X} is a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} in X {\displaystyle X} if S {\displaystyle S} distinguishes c {\displaystyle c} from all the other functions in C {\displaystyle C} , in the sense that no other function in C {\displaystyle C} has the same values on S {\displaystyle S} . For a concept class with | C | {\displaystyle |C|} concepts, there exists a concept that has a witness of size at most log 2 ⁡ | C | {\displaystyle \log _{2}|C|} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of all Boolean functions over X {\displaystyle X} . By a result of Bondy (1972) there exists a single witness set of size at most | C | − 1 {\displaystyle |C|-1} that is valid for all concepts in C {\displaystyle C} ; this bound is tight when C {\displaystyle C} consists of the indicator functions of the empty set and some singleton sets. One way to construct this set is to interpret the concepts as bitstrings, and the domain elements as positions in these bitstrings. Then the set of positions at which a trie of the bitstrings branches forms the desired witness set. This construction is central to the operation of the fusion tree data structure. The minimum size of a witness set for c {\displaystyle c} is called the witness size or specification number and is denoted by w C ( c ) {\displaystyle w_{C}(c)} . The value max { w C ( c ) : c ∈ C } {\displaystyle \max\{w_{C}(c):c\in C\}} is called the teaching dimension of C {\displaystyle C} . It represents the number of examples of a concept that need to be presented by a teacher to a learner, in the worst case, to enable the learner to determine which concept is being presented. Witness sets have also been called teaching sets, keys, specifying sets, or discriminants. The "witness set" terminology is from Kushilevitz et al. (1996), who trace the concept of witness sets to work by Cover (1965).
Read more →
BrownBoost

BrownBoost is a boosting algorithm that may be robust to noisy datasets. BrownBoost is an adaptive version of the boost by majority algorithm. As is the case for all boosting algorithms, BrownBoost is used in conjunction with other machine learning methods. BrownBoost was introduced by Yoav Freund in 2001. == Motivation == AdaBoost performs well on a variety of datasets; however, it can be shown that AdaBoost does not perform well on noisy data sets. This is a result of AdaBoost's focus on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. In contrast, BrownBoost effectively "gives up" on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. The core assumption of BrownBoost is that noisy examples will be repeatedly mislabeled by the weak hypotheses and non-noisy examples will be correctly labeled frequently enough to not be "given up on." Thus only noisy examples will be "given up on," whereas non-noisy examples will contribute to the final classifier. In turn, if the final classifier is learned from the non-noisy examples, the generalization error of the final classifier may be much better than if learned from noisy and non-noisy examples. The user of the algorithm can set the amount of error to be tolerated in the training set. Thus, if the training set is noisy (say 10% of all examples are assumed to be mislabeled), the booster can be told to accept a 10% error rate. Since the noisy examples may be ignored, only the true examples will contribute to the learning process. == Algorithm description == BrownBoost uses a non-convex potential loss function, thus it does not fit into the AdaBoost framework. The non-convex optimization provides a method to avoid overfitting noisy data sets. However, in contrast to boosting algorithms that analytically minimize a convex loss function (e.g. AdaBoost and LogitBoost), BrownBoost solves a system of two equations and two unknowns using standard numerical methods. The only parameter of BrownBoost ( c {\displaystyle c} in the algorithm) is the "time" the algorithm runs. The theory of BrownBoost states that each hypothesis takes a variable amount of time ( t {\displaystyle t} in the algorithm) which is directly related to the weight given to the hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } . The time parameter in BrownBoost is analogous to the number of iterations T {\displaystyle T} in AdaBoost. A larger value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as if it were less noisy and therefore will give up on fewer examples. Conversely, a smaller value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as more noisy and give up on more examples. During each iteration of the algorithm, a hypothesis is selected with some advantage over random guessing. The weight of this hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and the "amount of time passed" t {\displaystyle t} during the iteration are simultaneously solved in a system of two non-linear equations ( 1. uncorrelated hypothesis w.r.t example weights and 2. hold the potential constant) with two unknowns (weight of hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and time passed t {\displaystyle t} ). This can be solved by bisection (as implemented in the JBoost software package) or Newton's method (as described in the original paper by Freund). Once these equations are solved, the margins of each example ( r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} in the algorithm) and the amount of time remaining s {\displaystyle s} are updated appropriately. This process is repeated until there is no time remaining. The initial potential is defined to be 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Since a constraint of each iteration is that the potential be held constant, the final potential is 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( r i ( x j ) / c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}(r_{i}(x_{j})/{\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Thus the final error is likely to be near 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . However, the final potential function is not the 0–1 loss error function. For the final error to be exactly 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} , the variance of the loss function must decrease linearly w.r.t. time to form the 0–1 loss function at the end of boosting iterations. This is not yet discussed in the literature and is not in the definition of the algorithm below. The final classifier is a linear combination of weak hypotheses and is evaluated in the same manner as most other boosting algorithms. == BrownBoost learning algorithm definition == Input: m {\displaystyle m} training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x j ∈ X , y j ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{j}\in X,\,y_{j}\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} The parameter c {\displaystyle c} Initialise: s = c {\displaystyle s=c} . (The value of s {\displaystyle s} is the amount of time remaining in the game) r i ( x j ) = 0 {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})=0} ∀ j {\displaystyle \forall j} . The value of r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin at iteration i {\displaystyle i} for example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . While s > 0 {\displaystyle s>0} : Set the weights of each example: W i ( x j ) = e − ( r i ( x j ) + s ) 2 c {\displaystyle W_{i}(x_{j})=e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+s)^{2}}{c}}}} , where r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin of example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} Find a classifier h i : X → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle h_{i}:X\to \{-1,+1\}} such that ∑ j W i ( x j ) h i ( x j ) y j > 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}W_{i}(x_{j})h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}>0} Find values α , t {\displaystyle \alpha ,t} that satisfy the equation: ∑ j h i ( x j ) y j e − ( r i ( x j ) + α h i ( x j ) y j + s − t ) 2 c = 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t)^{2}}{c}}}=0} . (Note this is similar to the condition E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} set forth by Schapire and Singer. In this setting, we are numerically finding the W i + 1 = exp ⁡ ( ⋯ ⋯ ) {\displaystyle W_{i+1}=\exp \left({\frac {\cdots }{\cdots }}\right)} such that E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} .) This update is subject to the constraint ∑ ( Φ ( r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j + s − t ) − Φ ( r i ( x j ) + s ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle \sum \left(\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t\right)-\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+s\right)\right)=0} , where Φ ( z ) = 1 − erf ( z / c ) {\displaystyle \Phi (z)=1-{\mbox{erf}}(z/{\sqrt {c}})} is the potential loss for a point with margin r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} Update the margins for each example: r i + 1 ( x j ) = r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j {\displaystyle r_{i+1}(x_{j})=r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}} Update the time remaining: s = s − t {\displaystyle s=s-t} Output: H ( x ) = sign ( ∑ i α i h i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle H(x)={\textrm {sign}}\left(\sum _{i}\alpha _{i}h_{i}(x)\right)} == Empirical results == In preliminary experimental results with noisy datasets, BrownBoost outperformed AdaBoost's generalization error; however, LogitBoost performed as well as BrownBoost. An implementation of BrownBoost can be found in the open source software JBoost.
Read more →
Generalized multidimensional scaling

Generalized multidimensional scaling (GMDS) is an extension of metric multidimensional scaling, in which the target space is non-Euclidean. When the dissimilarities are distances on a surface and the target space is another surface, GMDS allows finding the minimum-distortion embedding of one surface into another. GMDS is an emerging research direction. Currently, main applications are recognition of deformable objects (e.g. for three-dimensional face recognition) and texture mapping.
Read more →
Gitter

Gitter is an open-source instant messaging and chat room system for developers and users of GitLab and GitHub repositories. Gitter is provided as software as a service, with a free option providing all basic features and the ability to create a single private chat room, and paid subscription options for individuals and organisations, which allows them to create arbitrary numbers of private chat rooms. Individual chat rooms can be created for individual Git repositories on GitHub. Chatroom privacy follows the privacy settings of the associated GitHub repository: thus, a chatroom for a private (i.e. members-only) GitHub repository is also private to those with access to the repository. A graphical badge linking to the chat room can then be placed in the git repository's README file, bringing it to the attention of all users and developers of the project. Users can chat in the chat rooms, or access private chat rooms for repositories they have access to, by logging into Gitter via GitHub. Gitter is similar to Slack. Like Slack, it automatically logs all messages in the cloud. In late 2020, New Vector Limited acquired Gitter from GitLab, and announced Gitter's features would eventually be moved to New Vector's flagship product, Element, thereby replacing Gitter entirely. On February 13, 2023, Gitter migrated their service to a custom-branded Matrix instance that uses Element for its web interface. == Features prior to Migration to Matrix == Gitter supports: Notifications, which are batched up on mobile devices to avoid annoyance Inline media files Viewing and subscribing to ("starring") multiple chat rooms in one web browser tab Linking to individual files in the linked git repository Linking to GitHub issues (by typing # and then the issue number) in the linked Git repository, with hovercards showing the details of the issue GitHub-flavored Markdown in chat messages Online status for users User hovercards, based on their GitHub profiles and statistics (number of GitHub followers, etc.) Browsable and searchable message archives, grouped by month Connection from IRC clients Gitter on iOS support authentication using GitHub or Twitter === Integrations with non-GitHub sites and applications === Gitter integrates with Trello, Jenkins, Travis CI, Drone (software), Heroku, and Bitbucket, among others. === Apps === Official Gitter apps for Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS and Android are available. === Account registration === Like other chat technologies, Gitter allows clients to instant message each other. It allows people to authenticate using a GitHub account and join a chatroom from a web browser, thus not requiring one to install any software, or create additional online accounts. == History == Gitter was created by some developers who were initially trying to create a generic web-based chat product, but then wrote extra code to hook their chat application up to GitHub to meet their own needs, and realised that they could turn the combined product into a viable specialist product in its own right. Gitter came out of beta in 2014. During the beta period, Gitter delivered 1.8 million chat messages. On March 15, 2017, GitLab announced the acquisition of Gitter. Included in the announcement was the stated intent that Gitter would continue as a standalone project. It was published as open source under an MIT License as of June 2017. On September 30, 2020, New Vector Limited acquired Gitter from GitLab, and announced upcoming support for the Matrix protocol in Gitter, which went live by the end of the year. Gitter's features would eventually be moved to New Vector's flagship product, Element, thereby replacing Gitter entirely. On February 13, 2023, Gitter migrated their service to a custom-branded Matrix instance that uses Element for its web interface. == Implementation prior to Migration to Matrix == The Gitter web application is implemented entirely in JavaScript, with the back end being implemented on Node.js. The source code to the web application was formerly proprietary (it was open-sourced in June 2017), although Gitter had made numerous auxiliary projects available as open-source software, such as an IRC bridge for IRC users who prefer using IRC client applications (and their extra features) to converse in the Gitter chat rooms.
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 →
Ordinal regression

In statistics, ordinal regression, also called ordinal classification, is a type of regression analysis used for predicting an ordinal variable, i.e. a variable whose value exists on an arbitrary scale where only the relative ordering between different values is significant. It can be considered an intermediate problem between regression and classification. Examples of ordinal regression are ordered logit and ordered probit. Ordinal regression turns up often in the social sciences, for example in the modeling of human levels of preference (on a scale from, say, 1–5 for "very poor" through "excellent"), as well as in information retrieval. In machine learning, ordinal regression may also be called ranking learning. == Linear models for ordinal regression == Ordinal regression can be performed using a generalized linear model (GLM) that fits both a coefficient vector and a set of thresholds to a dataset. Suppose one has a set of observations, represented by length-p vectors x1 through xn, with associated responses y1 through yn, where each yi is an ordinal variable on a scale 1, ..., K. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume y is a non-decreasing vector, that is, yi ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } yi+1. To this data, one fits a length-p coefficient vector w and a set of thresholds θ1, ..., θK−1 with the property that θ1 < θ2 < ... < θK−1. This set of thresholds divides the real number line into K disjoint segments, corresponding to the K response levels. The model can now be formulated as Pr ( y ≤ i ∣ x ) = σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \Pr(y\leq i\mid \mathbf {x} )=\sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )} or, the cumulative probability of the response y being at most i is given by a function σ (the inverse link function) applied to a linear function of x. Several choices exist for σ; the logistic function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 1 + e − ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )={\frac {1}{1+e^{-(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )}}}} gives the ordered logit model, while using the CDF of the standard normal distribution gives the ordered probit model. A third option is to use an exponential function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 − exp ⁡ ( − exp ⁡ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )=1-\exp(-\exp(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} ))} which gives the proportional hazards model. === Latent variable model === The probit version of the above model can be justified by assuming the existence of a real-valued latent variable (unobserved quantity) y, determined by y ∗ = w ⋅ x + ε {\displaystyle y^{}=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +\varepsilon } where ε is normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance, conditioned on x. The response variable y results from an "incomplete measurement" of y, where one only determines the interval into which y falls: y = { 1 if y ∗ ≤ θ 1 , 2 if θ 1 < y ∗ ≤ θ 2 , 3 if θ 2 < y ∗ ≤ θ 3 ⋮ K if θ K − 1 < y ∗ . {\displaystyle y={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if}}~~y^{}\leq \theta _{1},\\2&{\text{if}}~~\theta _{1} Read more →
VITAL (machine learning software)

VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) was a Board Management Software machine learning proprietary software developed by Aging Analytics, a company registered in Bristol (England) and dissolved in 2017. Andrew Garazha (the firm's Senior Analyst) declared that the project aimed "through iterative releases and updates to create a piece of software capable of making autonomous investment decisions." According to Nick Dyer-Witheford, VITAL 1.0 was a "basic algorithm". On 13 May 2014, Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong venture capital firm, claimed to have appointed VITAL to its board of directors in order to prove that artificial intelligence could be an instrument for investment decision-making. The announcement received great press coverage despite the fact commentators consider this a publicity stunt. Fortune reported in 2019 that VITAL is no longer used. == Criticism == Academics and journalists viewed VITAL's board appointment with skepticism. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey called it "a publicity hype". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found it is "a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Simon Sharwood of The Register, wrote there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." Florian Möslein, a law professor at the University of Marburg, wrote in 2018 that "Vital has widely been acknowledged as the 'world's first artificial intelligence company director'". Vice journalist Jason Koebler suggested that the software did not have any article intelligence capabilities and concluded "VITAL can’t talk, and it can’t hear, and it can’t be a real, functional executive of a company." Sharwood of The Register noted that because VITAL was not a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws. However, in a 2017 interview to The Nikkei, Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, stated that VITAL had observer status on the board and no voting rights. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey said of VITAL, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." Vice journalist Jason Koebler said "this is a gimmick" and said "There is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found VITAL's appointment to be noncredible, saying it is "a bit of a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Osborne said that a core duty of board members to converse with each other, which the algorithm is incapable of doing, so its more likely functionality is to serve as a springboard for conversation among other board members. In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." == Machine intelligence as board member == VITAL was created by a group of programmers employed by Aging Analytics According to Andrew Garazh, Aging Analytics Senior Analyst, VITAL was not a machine learning algorithm as the necessary datasets on investment rounds, intellectual property and clinical trial outcomes are generally not disclosed. Rather, VITAL used fuzzy logic based on 50 parameters to assess risk factors. Aging Analytics licensed the software to Deep Knowledge Ventures. It was used to help the human board members of Deep Knowledge Venture make investment decisions in biotechnology companies. For instance, it supported investments in Insilico Medicine, which creates ways for computers to help find drugs in research into aging. VITAL also supported investing in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which uses the OncoFinder algorithm to choose and appraise cancer treatments. According to Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures, the motivation for using VITAL was the large number of failed investments in the biotechnology sector and the desire to avoid investing in companies likely to fail. == Ethical and legal implications == Scholars addressed questions around the safety, privacy, accountability transparency and bias in algorithms. Writing in the philosophical journal Multitudes, the academic Ariel Kyrou raised questions about the consequences of a mistake made by an algorithm recommending a dangerous investment. He raised the hypothetical where VITAL was able to persuade the board to invest in a startup that had the facade of doing research into treatment for age-associated ills, but in actuality was run by terrorists who were raising funds. Kyrou raised a series of questions about who society would fault for VITAL's mistake. As the owner of VITAL, should Deep Knowledge Ventures be held accountable, or rather should the companies that supplied data to VITAL or the people who created VITAL be held liable? Simon Sharwood of The Register wrote that because the appointment of a software program to the board directors is not legally feasible in Hong Kong, there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". Quoting a Thomson Reuters website describing Hong Kong legislation related to corporate governance, Sharwood pointed out that in Hong Kong "the board comprises all of the directors of the company" and "a director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group." He concluded that since VITAL cannot be considered a "natural person", it is merely a "cosmetic" appointment to the board and that "this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator". Sharwood further argued that corporations frequently purchase directors and officers liability insurance but that it would be practically impossible to get such insurance for VITAL. Sharwood also wrote that were VITAL to be hacked, any misinformation it outputs could be considered "false and misleading communications". In the book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence, Florian Mölein wrote that VITAL could not become a director as defined in Hong Kong's corporate laws, so the other directors just were approaching it as "a member of [the] board with observer status". Lin Shaowei raised concerns in a Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law article about how the software's appearance inspired a complex question about the relationship between corporate law and artificial intelligence. VITAL could be considered either a board director who has voting rights or an observer who does not. Lin said either choice raised questions about whether VITAL is subject to corporate law and who would be held accountable if VITAL recommends a choice that turns out to be damaging to the company. David Theo Goldberg in the Critical Times, a peer reviewed journal in Critical Global Theory, argues that VITAL processed a dataset to predict the most remunerative investment opportunities. Drawing his analysis on an article from Business Insider, Goldberg describes VITAL's decision-making predictiveness based "on surface pattern recognition and the identification of regularities and/or irregularities". In other words, Goldberg asserts that "the normativity of the surface" explains algorithmic knowledge of a "product" like VITAL. In Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari mentions VITAL as an example of the future risks that humankind faces. Harari argues that the human mind is being replaced by a world in which algorithms and data make the decisions. Specifically, it is argued that "as algorithms push humans out of the job market," executive boards driven by artificial intelligence are more likely to give priority to algorithms over the humans.
Read more →
Mark V. Shaney

Mark V. Shaney is a synthetic Usenet user whose postings in the net.singles newsgroups were generated by Markov chain techniques, based on text from other postings. The username is a play on the words "Markov chain". Many readers were fooled into thinking that the quirky, sometimes uncannily topical posts were written by a real person. The system was designed by Rob Pike with coding by Bruce Ellis. Don P. Mitchell wrote the Markov chain code, initially demonstrating it to Pike and Ellis using the Tao Te Ching as a basis. They chose to apply it to the net.singles netnews group. The program is fairly simple. It ingests the sample text (the Tao Te Ching, or the posts of a Usenet group) and creates a massive list of every sequence of three successive words (triplet) which occurs in the text. It then chooses two words at random, and looks for a word which follows those two in one of the triplets in its massive list. If there is more than one, it picks at random (identical triplets count separately, so a sequence which occurs twice is twice as likely to be picked as one which only occurs once). It then adds that word to the generated text. Then, in the same way, it picks a triplet that starts with the second and third words in the generated text, and that gives a fourth word. It adds the fourth word, then repeats with the third and fourth words, and so on. This algorithm is called a third-order Markov chain (because it uses sequences of three words). == Examples == A classic example, from 1984, originally sent as a mail message, later posted to net.singles is reproduced here: >From mvs Fri Nov 16 17:11 EST 1984 remote from alice It looks like Reagan is going to say? Ummm... Oh yes, I was looking for. I'm so glad I remembered it. Yeah, what I have wondered if I had committed a crime. Don't eat with your assessment of Reagon and Mondale. Up your nose with a guy from a firm that specifically researches the teen-age market. As a friend of mine would say, "It really doesn't matter"... It looks like Reagan is holding back the arms of the American eating public have changed dramatically, and it got pretty boring after about 300 games. People, having a much larger number of varieties, and are very different from what one can find in Chinatowns across the country (things like pork buns, steamed dumplings, etc.) They can be cheap, being sold for around 30 to 75 cents apiece (depending on size), are generally not greasy, can be adequately explained by stupidity. Singles have felt insecure since we came down from the Conservative world at large. But Chuqui is the way it happened and the prices are VERY reasonable. Can anyone think of myself as a third sex. Yes, I am expected to have. People often get used to me knowing these things and then a cover is placed over all of them. Along the side of the $$ are spent by (or at least for ) the girls. You can't settle the issue. It seems I've forgotten what it is, but I don't. I know about violence against women, and I really doubt they will ever join together into a large number of jokes. It showed Adam, just after being created. He has a modem and an autodial routine. He calls my number 1440 times a day. So I will conclude by saying that I can well understand that she might soon have the time, it makes sense, again, to get the gist of my argument, I was in that (though it's a Republican administration). _-_-_-_-Mark Other quotations from Mark's Usenet posts are: "I spent an interesting evening recently with a grain of salt." (Alternatively reported as "While at a conference a few weeks back, I spent an interesting evening with a grain of salt.") "I hope that there are sour apples in every bushel." (see also sour grapes) == History == In The Usenet Handbook Mark Harrison writes that after September 1981, students joined Usenet en masse, "creating the USENET we know today: endless dumb questions, endless idiots posing as savants, and (of course) endless victims for practical jokes." In December, Rob Pike created the netnews group net.suicide as prank, "a forum for bad jokes". Some users thought it was a legitimate forum, some discussed "riding motorcycles without helmets". At first, most posters were "real people", but soon "characters" began posting. Pike created a "vicious" character named Bimmler. At its peak, net.suicide had ten frequent posters; nine were "known to be characters." But ultimately, Pike deleted the newsgroup because it was too much work to maintain; Bimmler messages were created "by hand". The "obvious alternative" was software, running on a Bell Labs computer created by Bruce Ellis, based on the Markov code by Don Mitchell, which became the online character Mark V. Shaney. Kernighan and Pike listed Mark V. Shaney in the acknowledgements in The Practice of Programming, noting its roots in Mitchell's markov, which, adapted as shaney, was used for "humorous deconstructionist activities" in the 1980s. Dewdney pointed out "perhaps Mark V. Shaney's magnum opus: a 20-page commentary on the deconstructionist philosophy of Jean Baudrillard" directed by Pike, with assistance from Henry S. Baird and Catherine Richards, to be distributed by email. The piece was based on Jean Baudrillard's "The Precession of Simulacra", published in Simulacra and Simulation (1981). == Reception == The program was discussed by A. K. Dewdney in the Scientific American "Computer Recreations" column in 1989, by Penn Jillette in his PC Computing column in 1991, and in several books, including the Usenet Handbook, Bots: the Origin of New Species, Hippo Eats Dwarf: A Field Guide to Hoaxes and Other B.S., and non-computer-related journals such as Texas Studies in Literature and Language. Dewdney wrote about the program's output, "The overall impression is not unlike what remains in the brain of an inattentive student after a late-night study session. Indeed, after reading the output of Mark V. Shaney, I find ordinary writing almost equally strange and incomprehensible!" He noted the reactions of newsgroup users, who have "shuddered at Mark V. Shaney's reflections, some with rage and others with laughter:" The opinions of the new net.singles correspondent drew mixed reviews. Serious users of the bulletin board's services sensed satire. Outraged, they urged that someone "pull the plug" on Mark V. Shaney's monstrous rantings. Others inquired almost admiringly whether the program was a secret artificial intelligence project that was being tested in a human conversational environment. A few may even have thought that Mark V. Shaney was a real person, a tortured schizophrenic desperately seeking a like-minded companion. Concluding, Dewdney wrote, "If the purpose of computer prose is to fool people into thinking that it was written by a sane person, Mark V. Shaney probably falls short." A 2012 article in Observer compared Mark V. Shaney's "strangely beautiful" postings to the Horse_ebooks account on Twitter and music reviews at Pitchfork, saying that "this mash-up of gibberish and human sentiment" is what "made Mark V. Shaney so endlessly fascinating".
Read more →
Probably approximately correct learning

In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth
Read more →
Growth function

The growth function, also called the shatter coefficient or the shattering number, measures the richness of a set family or class of functions. It is especially used in the context of statistical learning theory, where it is used to study properties of statistical learning methods. The term 'growth function' was coined by Vapnik and Chervonenkis in their 1968 paper, where they also proved many of its properties. It is a basic concept in machine learning. == Definitions == === Set-family definition === Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set family (a set of sets) and C {\displaystyle C} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set-family: H ∩ C := { h ∩ C ∣ h ∈ H } {\displaystyle H\cap C:=\{h\cap C\mid h\in H\}} The intersection-size (also called the index) of H {\displaystyle H} with respect to C {\displaystyle C} is | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle |H\cap C|} . If a set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} has m {\displaystyle m} elements then the index is at most 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} . If the index is exactly 2m then the set C {\displaystyle C} is said to be shattered by H {\displaystyle H} , because H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all the subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e.: | H ∩ C | = 2 | C | , {\displaystyle |H\cap C|=2^{|C|},} The growth function measures the size of H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} . Formally: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H\cap C|} === Hypothesis-class definition === Equivalently, let H {\displaystyle H} be a hypothesis-class (a set of binary functions) and C {\displaystyle C} a set with m {\displaystyle m} elements. The restriction of H {\displaystyle H} to C {\displaystyle C} is the set of binary functions on C {\displaystyle C} that can be derived from H {\displaystyle H} : H C := { ( h ( x 1 ) , … , h ( x m ) ) ∣ h ∈ H , x i ∈ C } {\displaystyle H_{C}:=\{(h(x_{1}),\ldots ,h(x_{m}))\mid h\in H,x_{i}\in C\}} The growth function measures the size of H C {\displaystyle H_{C}} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H_{C}|} == Examples == 1. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-lines (rays) from a given number to positive infinity, i.e., all sets of the form { x > x 0 ∣ x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x>x_{0}\mid x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains m + 1 {\displaystyle m+1} sets: the empty set, the set containing the largest element of C {\displaystyle C} , the set containing the two largest elements of C {\displaystyle C} , and so on. Therefore: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = m + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=m+1} . The same is true whether H {\displaystyle H} contains open half-lines, closed half-lines, or both. 2. The domain is the segment [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the open sets. For any finite set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} . There are 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} such subsets, so Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} . 3. The domain is the Euclidean space R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-spaces of the form: x ⋅ ϕ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle x\cdot \phi \geq 1} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a fixed vector. Then Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=\operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} , where Comp is the number of components in a partitioning of an n-dimensional space by m hyperplanes. 4. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the real intervals, i.e., all sets of the form { x ∈ [ x 0 , x 1 ] | x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x\in [x_{0},x_{1}]|x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 , x 1 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0},x_{1}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all runs of between 0 and m {\displaystyle m} consecutive elements of C {\displaystyle C} . The number of such runs is ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle {m+1 \choose 2}+1} , so Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)={m+1 \choose 2}+1} . == Polynomial or exponential == The main property that makes the growth function interesting is that it can be either polynomial or exponential - nothing in-between. The following is a property of the intersection-size: If, for some set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} of size m {\displaystyle m} , and for some number n ≤ m {\displaystyle n\leq m} , | H ∩ C m | ≥ Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{m}|\geq \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} - then, there exists a subset C n ⊆ C m {\displaystyle C_{n}\subseteq C_{m}} of size n {\displaystyle n} such that | H ∩ C n | = 2 n {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{n}|=2^{n}} . This implies the following property of the Growth function. For every family H {\displaystyle H} there are two cases: The exponential case: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} identically. The polynomial case: Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} is majorized by Comp ⁡ ( n , m ) ≤ m n + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)\leq m^{n}+1} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the smallest integer for which Growth ⁡ ( H , n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,n)<2^{n}} . == Other properties == === Trivial upper bound === For any finite H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ | H | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq |H|} since for every C {\displaystyle C} , the number of elements in H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} is at most | H | {\displaystyle |H|} . Therefore, the growth function is mainly interesting when H {\displaystyle H} is infinite. === Exponential upper bound === For any nonempty H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq 2^{m}} I.e, the growth function has an exponential upper-bound. We say that a set-family H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C {\displaystyle C} if their intersection contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e. H ∩ C = 2 C {\displaystyle H\cap C=2^{C}} . If H {\displaystyle H} shatters C {\displaystyle C} of size m {\displaystyle m} , then Growth ⁡ ( H , C ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,C)=2^{m}} , which is the upper bound. === Cartesian intersection === Define the Cartesian intersection of two set-families as: H 1 ⨂ H 2 := { h 1 ∩ h 2 ∣ h 1 ∈ H 1 , h 2 ∈ H 2 } {\displaystyle H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2}:=\{h_{1}\cap h_{2}\mid h_{1}\in H_{1},h_{2}\in H_{2}\}} . Then: Growth ⁡ ( H 1 ⨂ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ⁡ ( H 1 , m ) ⋅ Growth ⁡ ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)\cdot \operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === Union === For every two set-families: Growth ⁡ ( H 1 ∪ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ⁡ ( H 1 , m ) + Growth ⁡ ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\cup H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)+\operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === VC dimension === The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} is defined according to these two cases: In the polynomial case, VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = n − 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=n-1} = the largest integer d {\displaystyle d} for which Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . In the exponential case VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = ∞ {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=\infty } . So VCDim ⁡ ( H ) ≥ d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)\geq d} if-and-only-if Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . The growth function can be regarded as a refinement of the concept of VC dimension. The VC dimension only tells us whether Growth ⁡ ( H , d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)} is equal to or smaller than 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} , while the growth function tells us exactly how Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} changes as a function of m {\displaystyle m} . Another connection between the growth function and the VC dimension is given by the Sauer–Shelah lemma: If VCDim ⁡ ( H ) = d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=d} , then: for all m {\displaystyle m} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ ∑ i = 0 d ( m i ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq \sum _{i=0}^{d}{m \choose i}} In particular, for all m > d + 1 {\displaystyle m>d+1} : Growth ⁡ ( H , m ) ≤ ( e m / d ) d = O ( m d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq (
Read more →
Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks

Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks (also relational blockmodeling) is an approach of generalized blockmodeling, analysing the binary network(s). As most network analyses deal with binary networks, this approach is also considered as the fundamental approach of blockmodeling. This is especially noted, as the set of ideal blocks, when used for interpretation of blockmodels, have binary link patterns, which precludes them to be compared with valued empirical blocks. When analysing the binary networks, the criterion function is measuring block inconsistencies, while also reporting the possible errors. The ideal block in binary blockmodeling has only three types of conditions: "a certain cell must be (at least) 1, a certain cell must be 0 and the f {\displaystyle f} over each row (or column) must be at least 1". It is also used as a basis for developing the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks.
Read more →
SMBGhost

SMBGhost (or SMBleedingGhost or CoronaBlue) is a type of security vulnerability, with wormlike features, that affects Windows 10 computers and was first reported publicly on 10 March 2020. == Security vulnerability == A proof of concept (PoC) exploit code was published 1 June 2020 on GitHub by a security researcher. The code could possibly spread to millions of unpatched computers, resulting in as much as tens of billions of dollars in losses. Microsoft recommends all users of Windows 10 versions 1903 and 1909 and Windows Server versions 1903 and 1909 to install patches, and states, "We recommend customers install updates as soon as possible as publicly disclosed vulnerabilities have the potential to be leveraged by bad actors ... An update for this vulnerability was released in March [2020], and customers who have installed the updates, or have automatic updates enabled, are already protected." Workarounds, according to Microsoft, such as disabling SMB compression and blocking port 445, may help but may not be sufficient. According to the advisory division of Homeland Security, "Malicious cyber actors are targeting unpatched systems with the new [threat], ... [and] strongly recommends using a firewall to block server message block ports from the internet and to apply patches to critical- and high-severity vulnerabilities as soon as possible."
Read more →
VIGRA

VIGRA is the abbreviation for "Vision with Generic Algorithms". It is a free open-source computer vision library which focuses on customizable algorithms and data structures. VIGRA component can be easily adapted to specific needs of target application without compromising execution speed, by using template techniques similar to those in the C++ Standard Template Library. == Features == VIGRA is cross-platform, with working builds on Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and OpenBSD. Since version 1.7.1, VIGRA provides Python bindings based on numpy framework. == History == VIGRA was originally designed and implemented by scientists at University of Hamburg faculty of computer science; its core maintainers are now working at Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing (HCI) University of Heidelberg. In the meantime, many developers have contributed to the project. == Application == CellCognition and ilastik uses VIGRA computer vision library. OpenOffice.org uses VIGRA as part of its headless software rendering backend; LibreOffice does so until version 5.2.
Read more →
Arabic Speech Corpus

The Arabic Speech Corpus is a Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) speech corpus for speech synthesis. The corpus contains phonetic and orthographic transcriptions of more than 3.7 hours of MSA speech aligned with recorded speech on the phoneme level. The annotations include word stress marks on the individual phonemes. The Arabic Speech Corpus was built as part of a doctoral project by Nawar Halabi at the University of Southampton funded by MicroLinkPC who own an exclusive license to commercialise the corpus, but the corpus is available for strictly non-commercial purposes through the official Arabic Speech Corpus website. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. == Purpose == The corpus was mainly built for speech synthesis purposes, specifically Speech Synthesis, but the corpus has been used for building HMM based voices in Arabic. It was also used to automatically align other speech corpora with their phonetic transcript and could be used as part of a larger corpus for training speech recognition systems. == Contents == The package contains the following: 1813 .wav files containing spoken utterances. 1813 .lab files containing text utterances. 1813 .TextGrid files containing the phoneme labels with time stamps of the boundaries where these occur in the .wav files. phonetic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Phoneme Sequence]" in every line. orthographic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Orthographic Transcript]" in every line. Orthography is in Buckwalter Format which is friendlier where there is software that does not read Arabic script. It can be easily converted back to Arabic. There is an extra 18 minutes of fully annotated corpus (separate from above but with the same structure as above) which was used to evaluated the corpus (see PhD thesis). The corpus was also used to prove that using automatically extracted, orthography-based stress marks improve the quality of speech synthesis in MSA.
Read more →