AI Grammar Tester

AI Grammar Tester — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  History of machine translation

  Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co

  Read more →
• 

  Computational learning theory

  In computer science, computational learning theory (or just learning theory) is a subfield of artificial intelligence devoted to studying the design and analysis of machine learning algorithms. == Overview == Theoretical results in machine learning often focus on a type of inductive learning known as supervised learning. In supervised learning, an algorithm is provided with labeled samples. For instance, the samples might be descriptions of mushrooms, with labels indicating whether they are edible or not. The algorithm uses these labeled samples to create a classifier. This classifier assigns labels to new samples, including those it has not previously encountered. The goal of the supervised learning algorithm is to optimize performance metrics, such as minimizing errors on new samples. In addition to performance bounds, computational learning theory studies the time complexity and feasibility of learning . In computational learning theory, a computation is considered feasible if it can be done in polynomial time . There are two kinds of time complexity results: Positive results – Showing that a certain class of functions is learnable in polynomial time. Negative results – Showing that certain classes cannot be learned in polynomial time. Negative results often rely on commonly believed, but yet unproven assumptions, such as: Computational complexity – P ≠ NP (the P versus NP problem); Cryptographic – One-way functions exist. There are several different approaches to computational learning theory based on making different assumptions about the inference principles used to generalise from limited data. This includes different definitions of probability (see frequency probability, Bayesian probability) and different assumptions on the generation of samples. The different approaches include: Exact learning, proposed by Dana Angluin; Probably approximately correct learning (PAC learning), proposed by Leslie Valiant; VC theory, proposed by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis; Inductive inference as developed by Ray Solomonoff; Algorithmic learning theory, from the work of E. Mark Gold; Online machine learning, from the work of Nick Littlestone. While its primary goal is to understand learning abstractly, computational learning theory has led to the development of practical algorithms. For example, PAC theory inspired boosting, VC theory led to support vector machines, and Bayesian inference led to belief networks.

  Read more →
• 

  Self-play

  Self-play is a technique for improving the performance of reinforcement learning agents. Intuitively, agents learn to improve their performance by playing "against themselves". == Definition and motivation == In multi-agent reinforcement learning experiments, researchers try to optimize the performance of a learning agent on a given task, in cooperation or competition with one or more agents. These agents learn by trial-and-error, and researchers may choose to have the learning algorithm play the role of two or more of the different agents. When successfully executed, this technique has a double advantage: It provides a straightforward way to determine the actions of the other agents, resulting in a meaningful challenge. It increases the amount of experience that can be used to improve the policy, by a factor of two or more, since the viewpoints of each of the different agents can be used for learning. Czarnecki et al argue that most of the games that people play for fun are "Games of Skill", meaning games whose space of all possible strategies looks like a spinning top. In more detail, we can partition the space of strategies into sets L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L n {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{n}} , such that any i < j , π i ∈ L i , π j ∈ L j {\displaystyle i Read more →

• 

  Constrained clustering

  In computer science, constrained clustering is a class of semi-supervised learning algorithms. Typically, constrained clustering incorporates either a set of must-link constraints, cannot-link constraints, or both, with a data clustering algorithm. A cluster in which the members conform to all must-link and cannot-link constraints is called a chunklet. == Types of constraints == Both a must-link and a cannot-link constraint define a relationship between two data instances. Together, the sets of these constraints act as a guide for which a constrained clustering algorithm will attempt to find chunklets (clusters in the dataset which satisfy the specified constraints). A must-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the must-link relation should be associated with the same cluster. A cannot-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the cannot-link relation should not be associated with the same cluster. Some constrained clustering algorithms will abort if no such clustering exists which satisfies the specified constraints. Others will try to minimize the amount of constraint violation should it be impossible to find a clustering which satisfies the constraints. Constraints could also be used to guide the selection of a clustering model among several possible solutions. == Examples == Examples of constrained clustering algorithms include: COP K-means PCKmeans (Pairwise Constrained K-means) CMWK-Means (Constrained Minkowski Weighted K-Means)

  Read more →
• 

  Stop Motion Studio

  Stop Motion Studio is a stop motion animation software developed by Cateater LLC. It is available as both an app for iOS and Android and as a software for Windows and Mac. Two versions of the software exist, the standard Stop Motion Studio for free, and the paid Stop Motion Studio Pro, which contains extra, more advanced features. The software is commonly used in brickfilming.

  Read more →
• 

  LamaH

  LamaH (Large-Sample Data for Hydrology and Environmental Sciences) is a cross-state initiative for unified data preparation and collection in the field of catchment hydrology. Hydrological datasets, for example, are an integral component for creating flood forecasting models. == Features == LamaH datasets always consist of a combination of meteorological time series (e.g., precipitation, temperature) and hydrologically relevant catchment attributes (e.g., elevation, slope, forest area, soil, bedrock) aggregated over the respective catchment as well as associated hydrological time series at the catchment outlet (discharge). By evaluating the large and heterogeneous sample (large-sample) of catchments, it is possible to gain insights into the hydrological cycle that would probably not be achievable with local and small-scale studies. The structure of the dataset allows an evaluation based on machine learning methods (deep learning). The accompanying paper explains not only the data preparation but also any limitations, uncertainties and possible applications. == Difference to CAMELS == The LamaH datasets are quite similar to the CAMELS datasets, but additionally feature: Further basin delineations (based on intermediate catchments) and attributes (e.g. flow distance and altitude difference between two topologically adjacent discharge gauges), enabling the setup of an interconnected hydrological network Attributes for classifying catchments and runoff gauges according to the degree and type of (anthropogenic) influence == Availability == LamaH datasets are available for the following regions: Central Europe (Austria and its hydrological upstream areas in Germany, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovakia, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Hungary) / 859 catchments CAMELS datasets are available for (ranked by publication date): Contiguous USA (exclusive Alaska and Hawaii) / 671 catchments Chile / 516 catchments Brazil / 897 catchments Great Britain / 671 catchments Australia / 222 catchments Both the CAMELS and LamaH datasets are licensed with Creative Commons and are therefore available barrier-free for the public.

  Read more →
• 

  Memtransistor

  The memtransistor (a blend word from Memory Transfer Resistor) is an experimental multi-terminal passive electronic component that might be used in the construction of artificial neural networks. It is a combination of the memristor and transistor technology. This technology is different from the 1T-1R approach since the devices are merged into one single entity. Multiple memristors can be embedded with a single transistor, enabling it to more accurately model a neuron with its multiple synaptic connections. A neural network produced from these would provide hardware-based artificial intelligence with a good foundation. == Applications == These types of devices would allow for a synapse model that could realise a learning rule, by which the synaptic efficacy is altered by voltages applied to the terminals of the device. An example of such a learning rule is spike-timing-dependant-plasticty by which the weight of the synapse, in this case the conductivity, could be modulated based on the timing of pre and post synaptic spikes arriving at each terminal. The advantage of this approach over two terminal memristive devices is that read and write protocols have the possibility to occur simultaneously and distinctly.

  Read more →
• 

  Consensus clustering

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

  Read more →
• 

  Fuse Services Framework

  Fuse Services Framework is an open source SOAP and REST web services platform based on Apache CXF for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is productized and supported by the Fuse group at FuseSource Corp. Fuse Services Framework service-enables new and existing systems for use in enterprise SOA infrastructure. Fuse Services Framework is a pluggable, small-footprint engine that creates high performance, secure and robust services in minutes using front-end programming APIs like JAX-WS and JAX-RS. It supports multiple transports and bindings and is extensible so developers can add bindings for additional message formats so all systems can work together without having to communicate through a centralized server. Fuse Services Framework is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. Fabric8 is a free Apache 2.0 Licensed upstream community for the JBoss Fuse product from Red Hat.

  Read more →
• 

  Clustering illusion

  The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or pseudorandom data. Thomas Gilovich, an early author on the subject, argued that the effect occurs for different types of random dispersions. Some might perceive patterns in stock market price fluctuations over time, or clusters in two-dimensional data such as the locations of impact of World War II V-1 flying bombs on maps of London. Although Londoners developed specific theories about the pattern of impacts within London, a statistical analysis by R. D. Clarke originally published in 1946 showed that the impacts of V-2 rockets on London were a close fit to a random distribution. == Similar biases == Using this cognitive bias in causal reasoning may result in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, in which differences in data are ignored and similarities are overemphasized. More general forms of erroneous pattern recognition are pareidolia and apophenia. Related biases are the illusion of control which the clustering illusion could contribute to, and insensitivity to sample size in which people don't expect greater variation in smaller samples. A different cognitive bias involving misunderstanding of chance streams is the gambler's fallacy. == Possible causes == Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explained this kind of misprediction as being caused by the representativeness heuristic (which itself they also first proposed).

  Read more →
• 

  Linear discriminant analysis

  Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), canonical variates analysis (CVA), or discriminant function analysis is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics and other fields, to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. The resulting combination may be used as a linear classifier, or, more commonly, for dimensionality reduction before later classification. LDA is closely related to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis, which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements. However, ANOVA uses categorical independent variables and a continuous dependent variable, whereas discriminant analysis has continuous independent variables and a categorical dependent variable (i.e. the class label). Logistic regression and probit regression are more similar to LDA than ANOVA is, as they also explain a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. These other methods are preferable in applications where it is not reasonable to assume that the independent variables have a normal distribution, which is a fundamental assumption of the LDA method. LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data. LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA, in contrast, does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on similarities rather than differences. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made. LDA works when the measurements made on independent variables for each observation are continuous quantities. When dealing with categorical independent variables, the equivalent technique is discriminant correspondence analysis. Discriminant analysis is used when groups are known a priori (unlike in cluster analysis). Each case must have a score on one or more quantitative predictor measures, and a score on a group measure. In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - the act of distributing things into groups, classes or categories of the same type. == History == The original dichotomous discriminant analysis was developed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1936. It is different from an ANOVA or MANOVA, which is used to predict one (ANOVA) or multiple (MANOVA) continuous dependent variables by one or more independent categorical variables. Discriminant function analysis is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership. == LDA for two classes == Consider a set of observations x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (also called features, attributes, variables or measurements) for each sample of an object or event with known class y {\displaystyle y} . This set of samples is called the training set in a supervised learning context. The classification problem is then to find a good predictor for the class y {\displaystyle y} of any sample of the same distribution (not necessarily from the training set) given only an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . LDA approaches the problem by assuming that the conditional probability density functions p ( x → | y = 0 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=0)} and p ( x → | y = 1 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=1)} are both the normal distribution with mean and covariance parameters ( μ → 0 , Σ 0 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{0},\Sigma _{0}\right)} and ( μ → 1 , Σ 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{1},\Sigma _{1}\right)} , respectively. Under this assumption, the Bayes-optimal solution is to predict points as being from the second class if the log of the likelihood ratios is bigger than some threshold T, so that: 1 2 ( x → − μ → 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x → − μ → 0 ) + 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 0 | − 1 2 ( x → − μ → 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x → − μ → 1 ) − 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 1 | > T {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})+{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{0}|-{\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})-{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{1}|\ >\ T} Without any further assumptions, the resulting classifier is referred to as quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). LDA instead makes the additional simplifying homoscedasticity assumption (i.e. that the class covariances are identical, so Σ 0 = Σ 1 = Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0}=\Sigma _{1}=\Sigma } ) and that the covariances have full rank. In this case, several terms cancel: x → T Σ 0 − 1 x → = x → T Σ 1 − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}{\vec {x}}={\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} x → T Σ i − 1 μ → i = μ → i T Σ i − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {\mu }}_{i}={{\vec {\mu }}_{i}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} because both sides are scalar and transpose to each other ( Σ i {\displaystyle \Sigma _{i}} is Hermitian) and the above decision criterion becomes a threshold on the dot product w → T x → > c {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\vec {x}}>c} for some threshold constant c, where w → = Σ − 1 ( μ → 1 − μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}=\Sigma ^{-1}({\vec {\mu }}_{1}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} c = 1 2 w → T ( μ → 1 + μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle c={\frac {1}{2}}\,{\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }({\vec {\mu }}_{1}+{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} This means that the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of this linear combination of the known observations. It is often useful to see this conclusion in geometrical terms: the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of projection of multidimensional-space point x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} (thus, we only consider its direction). In other words, the observation belongs to y {\displaystyle y} if corresponding x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is located on a certain side of a hyperplane perpendicular to w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . The location of the plane is defined by the threshold c {\displaystyle c} . == Assumptions == The assumptions of discriminant analysis are the same as those for MANOVA. The analysis is quite sensitive to outliers and the size of the smallest group must be larger than the number of predictor variables. Multivariate normality: Independent variables are normal for each level of the grouping variable. Homogeneity of variance/covariance (homoscedasticity): Variances among group variables are the same across levels of predictors. Can be tested with Box's M statistic. It has been suggested, however, that linear discriminant analysis be used when covariances are equal, and that quadratic discriminant analysis may be used when covariances are not equal. Independence: Participants are assumed to be randomly sampled, and a participant's score on one variable is assumed to be independent of scores on that variable for all other participants. It has been suggested that discriminant analysis is relatively robust to slight violations of these assumptions, and it has also been shown that discriminant analysis may still be reliable when using dichotomous variables (where multivariate normality is often violated). == Discriminant functions == Discriminant analysis works by creating one or more linear combinations of predictors, creating a new latent variable for each function. These functions are called discriminant functions. The number of functions possible is either N g − 1 {\displaystyle N_{g}-1} where N g {\displaystyle N_{g}} = number of groups, or p {\displaystyle p} (the number of predictors), whichever is smaller. The first function created maximizes the differences between groups on that function. The second function maximizes differences on that function, but also must not be correlated with the previous function. This continues with subsequent functions with the requirement that the new function not be correlated with any of the previous functions. Given group j {\displaystyle j} , with R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} sets of sample space, there is a discriminant rule such that if x ∈ R j {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} _{j}} , then x ∈ j {\displaystyle x\in j} . Discriminant analysis then, finds “good” regions of R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} to minimize classification error, therefore leading to a high percent correct classified in the classification table. Each function is given a discriminant score to determine how well it predicts group placement. Structure Corr

  Read more →
• 

  One-shot learning (computer vision)

  One-shot learning is an object categorization problem, found mostly in computer vision. Whereas most machine learning-based object categorization algorithms require training on hundreds or thousands of examples, one-shot learning aims to classify objects from one, or only a few, examples. The term few-shot learning is also used for these problems, especially when more than one example is needed. == Motivation == The ability to learn object categories from few examples, and at a rapid pace, has been demonstrated in humans. It is estimated that a child learns almost all of the 10 ~ 30 thousand object categories in the world by age six. This is due not only to the human mind's computational power, but also to its ability to synthesize and learn new object categories from existing information about different, previously learned categories. Given two examples from two object categories: one, an unknown object composed of familiar shapes, the second, an unknown, amorphous shape; it is much easier for humans to recognize the former than the latter, suggesting that humans make use of previously learned categories when learning new ones. The key motivation for solving one-shot learning is that systems, like humans, can use knowledge about object categories to classify new objects. == Background == As with most classification schemes, one-shot learning involves three main challenges: Representation: How should objects and categories be described? Learning: How can such descriptions be created? Recognition: How can a known object be filtered from enveloping clutter, irrespective of occlusion, viewpoint, and lighting? One-shot learning differs from single object recognition and standard category recognition algorithms in its emphasis on knowledge transfer, which makes use of previously learned categories. Model parameters: Reuses model parameters, based on the similarity between old and new categories. Categories are first learned on numerous training examples, then new categories are learned using transformations of model parameters from those initial categories or selecting relevant parameters for a classifier. Feature sharing: Shares parts or features of objects across categories. One algorithm extracts "diagnostic information" in patches from already learned categories by maximizing the patches' mutual information, and then applies these features to the learning of a new category. A dog category, for example, may be learned in one shot from previous knowledge of horse and cow categories, because dog objects may contain similar distinguishing patches. Contextual information: Appeals to global knowledge of the scene in which the object appears. Such global information can be used as frequency distributions in a conditional random field framework to recognize objects. Alternatively context can consider camera height and scene geometry. Algorithms of this type have two advantages. First, they learn object categories that are relatively dissimilar; and second, they perform well in ad hoc situations where an image has not been hand-cropped and aligned. == Theory == The Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm represents the foreground and background of images as parametrized by a mixture of constellation models. During the learning phase, the parameters of these models are learned using a conjugate density parameter posterior and variational Bayesian expectation–maximization (VBEM). In this stage the previously learned object categories inform the choice of model parameters via transfer by contextual information. For object recognition on new images, the posterior obtained during the learning phase is used in a Bayesian decision framework to estimate the ratio of p(object | test, train) to p(background clutter | test, train) where p is the probability of the outcome. === Bayesian framework === Given the task of finding a particular object in a query image, the overall objective of the Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm is to compare the probability that object is present vs the probability that only background clutter is present. If the former probability is higher, the algorithm reports the object's presence, otherwise the algorithm reports its absence. To compute these probabilities, the object class must be modeled from a set of (1 ~ 5) training images containing examples. To formalize these ideas, let I {\displaystyle I} be the query image, which contains either an example of the foreground category O f g {\displaystyle O_{fg}} or only background clutter of a generic background category O b g {\displaystyle O_{bg}} . Also let I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} be the set of training images used as the foreground category. The decision of whether I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground category, or only clutter from the background category is: R = p ( O f g | I , I t ) p ( O b g | I , I t ) = p ( I | I t , O f g ) p ( O f g ) p ( I | I t , O b g ) p ( O b g ) , {\displaystyle R={\frac {p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})}{p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})}}={\frac {p(I|I_{t},O_{fg})p(O_{fg})}{p(I|I_{t},O_{bg})p(O_{bg})}},} where the class posteriors p ( O f g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})} and p ( O b g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})} have been expanded by Bayes' theorem, yielding a ratio of likelihoods and a ratio of object category priors. We decide that the image I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground class if R {\displaystyle R} exceeds a certain threshold T {\displaystyle T} . We next introduce parametric models for the foreground and background categories with parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} respectively. This foreground parametric model is learned during the learning stage from I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , as well as prior information of learned categories. The background model we assume to be uniform across images. Omitting the constant ratio of category priors, p ( O f g ) p ( O b g ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p(O_{fg})}{p(O_{bg})}}} , and parametrizing over θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} yields R ∝ ∫ p ( I | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( I | θ ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(I|\theta )p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}} , having simplified p ( I | θ , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})} and p ( I | θ , O b g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{bg})} to p ( I | θ f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{fg})} and p ( I | θ b g ) . {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{bg}).} The posterior distribution of model parameters given the training images, p ( θ | I t , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})} is estimated in the learning phase. In this estimation, one-shot learning differs sharply from more traditional Bayesian estimation models that approximate the integral as δ ( θ M L ) {\displaystyle \delta (\theta ^{ML})} . Instead, it uses a variational approach using prior information from previously learned categories. However, the traditional maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters is used for the background model and the categories learned in advance through training. === Object category model === For each query image I {\displaystyle I} and training images I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , a constellation model is used for representation. To obtain this model for a given image I {\displaystyle I} , first a set of N interesting regions is detected in the image using the Kadir–Brady saliency detector. Each region selected is represented by a location in the image, X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} and a description of its appearance, A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} . Letting X = ∑ i = 1 N X i , A = ∑ i = 1 N A i {\displaystyle X=\sum _{i=1}^{N}X_{i},A=\sum _{i=1}^{N}A_{i}} and X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} and A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} the analogous representations for training images, the expression for R becomes: R ∝ ∫ p ( X , A | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( X , A | θ ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta )p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}\,d\theta _{bg}}}} The likelihoods p ( X , A | θ ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta )} and p ( X , A | θ b g ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta _{bg})} are represented as mixtures of constellation models. A typical constellation model has

  Read more →
• 

  Photometric stereo

  Photometric stereo is a technique in computer vision for estimating the surface normals of objects by observing that object under different lighting conditions (photometry). It is based on the fact that the amount of light reflected by a surface is dependent on the orientation of the surface in relation to the light source and the observer. By measuring the amount of light reflected into a camera, the space of possible surface orientations is limited. Given enough light sources from different angles, the surface orientation may be constrained to a single orientation or even overconstrained. The technique was originally introduced by Woodham in 1980. The special case where the data is a single image is known as shape from shading, and was analyzed by B. K. P. Horn in 1989. Photometric stereo has since been generalized to many other situations, including extended light sources and non-Lambertian surface finishes. Current research aims to make the method work in the presence of projected shadows, highlights, and non-uniform lighting. Photometric stereo is widely used in various fields, including archaeology, cultural heritage conservation, and quality control. It is now integrated into widely used open-source software, such as Meshroom. == Basic method == Under Woodham's original assumptions — Lambertian reflectance, known point-like distant light sources, and uniform albedo — the problem can be solved by inverting the linear equation I = L ⋅ n {\displaystyle I=L\cdot n} , where I {\displaystyle I} is a (known) vector of m {\displaystyle m} observed intensities, n {\displaystyle n} is the (unknown) surface normal, and L {\displaystyle L} is a (known) 3 × m {\displaystyle 3\times m} matrix of normalized light directions. This model can easily be extended to surfaces with non-uniform albedo, while keeping the problem linear. Taking an albedo reflectivity of k {\displaystyle k} , the formula for the reflected light intensity becomes I = k ( L ⋅ n ) . {\displaystyle I=k(L\cdot n).} If L {\displaystyle L} is square (there are exactly 3 lights) and non-singular, it can be inverted, giving L − 1 I = k n . {\displaystyle L^{-1}I=kn.} Since the normal vector is known to have length 1, k {\displaystyle k} must be the length of the vector k n {\displaystyle kn} , and n {\displaystyle n} is the normalised direction of that vector. If L {\displaystyle L} is not square (there are more than 3 lights), a generalisation of the inverse can be obtained using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse, by simply multiplying both sides with L T {\displaystyle L^{T}} , giving L T I = L T k ( L ⋅ n ) , {\displaystyle L^{T}I=L^{T}k(L\cdot n),} ( L T L ) − 1 L T I = k n , {\displaystyle (L^{T}L)^{-1}L^{T}I=kn,} after which the normal vector and albedo can be solved as described above. == Non-Lambertian surfaces == The classical photometric stereo problem concerns itself only with Lambertian surfaces, with perfectly diffuse reflection. This is unrealistic for many types of materials, especially metals, glass and smooth plastics, and will lead to aberrations in the resulting normal vectors. Many methods have been developed to lift this assumption. In this section, a few of these are listed. === Specular reflections === Historically, in computer graphics, the commonly used model to render surfaces started with Lambertian surfaces and progressed first to include simple specular reflections. Computer vision followed a similar course with photometric stereo. Specular reflections were among the first deviations from the Lambertian model. These are a few adaptations that have been developed. Many techniques ultimately rely on modelling the reflectance function of the surface, that is, how much light is reflected in each direction. This reflectance function has to be invertible. The reflected light intensities towards the camera is measured, and the inverse reflectance function is fit onto the measured intensities, resulting in a unique solution for the normal vector. === General BRDFs and beyond === According to the Bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) model, a surface may distribute the amount of light it receives in any outward direction. This is the most general known model for opaque surfaces. Some techniques have been developed to model (almost) general BRDFs. In practice, all of these require many light sources to obtain reliable data. These are methods in which surfaces with general BRDFs can be measured. Determine the explicit BRDF prior to scanning. To do this, a different surface is required that has the same or a very similar BRDF, of which the actual geometry (or at least the normal vectors for many points on the surface) is already known. The lights are then individually shone upon the known surface, and the amount of reflection into the camera is measured. Using this information, a look-up table can be created that maps reflected intensities for each light source to a list of possible normal vectors. This puts constraints on the possible normal vectors the surface may have, and reduces the photometric stereo problem to an interpolation between measurements. Typical known surfaces to calibrate the look-up table with are spheres for their wide variety of surface orientations. Restricting the BRDF to be symmetrical. If the BRDF is symmetrical, the direction of the light can be restricted to a cone about the direction to the camera. Which cone this is depends on the BRDF itself, the normal vector of the surface, and the measured intensity. Given enough measured intensities and the resulting light directions, these cones can be approximated and therefore the normal vectors of the surface. Some progress has been made towards modelling an even more general surfaces, such as Spatially Varying Bidirectional Distribution Functions (SVBRDF), Bidirectional surface scattering reflectance distribution functions (BSSRDF), and accounting for interreflections. However, such methods are still fairly restrictive in photometric stereo. Better results have been achieved with structured light. == Uncalibrated photometric stereo == Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is an approach in photometric stereo that aims to reconstruct the 3D shape of an object from images captured under unknown lighting conditions. Unlike classical methods, which often assume controlled or known lighting setups, this approach removes these constraints, making it adaptable to diverse and real-world environments. The advent of deep learning has revolutionized universal PS by replacing handcrafted assumptions with data-driven models. Recent approaches leverage Transformer-based architectures and multi-scale encoder–decoder networks to directly estimate surface normals from input images. Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is inherently an ill-posed problem, as it attempts to recover 3D shape and lighting conditions simultaneously from images alone. This leads to fundamental ambiguities in the reconstruction process, which manifest as systematic errors in the recovered geometry, including global distortions in the object's overall shape, and misinterpretation of surface orientation, where concave regions may appear convex and vice versa. To address the challenges of uncalibrated photometric stereo, hybrid methods have emerged that combine multi-view stereo and photometric stereo. These approaches leverage the strengths of both techniques, including geometric reliability and resolution.

  Read more →
• 

  Synaptic transistor

  A synaptic transistor is an electrical device that can learn in ways similar to a neural synapse. It optimizes its own properties for the functions it has carried out in the past. The device mimics the behavior of the property of neurons called spike-timing-dependent plasticity, or STDP. == Structure == Its structure is similar to that of a field effect transistor, where an ionic liquid takes the place of the gate insulating layer between the gate electrode and the conducting channel. That channel is composed of samarium nickelate (SmNiO3, or SNO) rather than the field effect transistor's doped silicon. == Function == A synaptic transistor has a traditional immediate response whose amount of current that passes between the source and drain contacts varies with voltage applied to the gate electrode. It also produces a much slower learned response such that the conductivity of the SNO layer varies in response to the transistor's STDP history, essentially by shuttling oxygen ions between the SNO and the ionic liquid. The analog of strengthening a synapse is to increase the SNO's conductivity, which essentially increases gain. Similarly, weakening a synapse is analogous to decreasing the SNO's conductivity, lowering the gain. The input and output of the synaptic transistor are continuous analog values, rather than digital on-off signals. While the physical structure of the device has the potential to learn from history, it contains no way to bias the transistor to control the memory effect. An external supervisory circuit converts the time delay between input and output into a voltage applied to the ionic liquid that either drives ions into the SNO or removes them. A network of such devices can learn particular responses to "sensory inputs", with those responses being learned through experience rather than explicitly programmed.

  Read more →
• 

  Bayesian hierarchical modeling

  Bayesian hierarchical modelling is a statistical model written in multiple levels (hierarchical form) that estimates the posterior distribution of model parameters using the Bayesian method. The sub-models combine to form the hierarchical model, and Bayes' theorem is used to integrate them with the observed data and account for all the uncertainty that is present. This integration enables calculation of updated posterior over the (hyper)parameters, effectively updating prior beliefs in light of the observed data. Frequentist statistics may yield conclusions seemingly incompatible with those offered by Bayesian statistics due to the Bayesian treatment of the parameters as random variables and its use of subjective information in establishing assumptions on these parameters. As the approaches answer different questions the formal results are not technically contradictory but the two approaches disagree over which answer is relevant to particular applications. Bayesians argue that relevant information regarding decision-making and updating beliefs cannot be ignored and that hierarchical modeling has the potential to overrule classical methods in applications where respondents give multiple observational data. Moreover, the model has proven to be robust, with the posterior distribution less sensitive to the more flexible hierarchical priors. Hierarchical modeling, as its name implies, retains nested data structure, and is used when information is available at several different levels of observational units. For example, in epidemiological modeling to describe infection trajectories for multiple countries, observational units are countries, and each country has its own time-based profile of daily infected cases. In decline curve analysis to describe oil or gas production decline curve for multiple wells, observational units are oil or gas wells in a reservoir region, and each well has each own time-based profile of oil or gas production rates (usually, barrels per month). Hierarchical modeling is used to devise computation based strategies for multiparameter problems. == Philosophy == Statistical methods and models commonly involve multiple parameters that can be regarded as related or connected in such a way that the problem implies a dependence of the joint probability model for these parameters. Individual degrees of belief, expressed in the form of probabilities, come with uncertainty. Amidst this is the change of the degrees of belief over time. As was stated by Professor José M. Bernardo and Professor Adrian F. Smith, "The actuality of the learning process consists in the evolution of individual and subjective beliefs about the reality." These subjective probabilities are more directly involved in the mind rather than the physical probabilities. Hence, it is with this need of updating beliefs that Bayesians have formulated an alternative statistical model which takes into account the prior occurrence of a particular event. == Bayes' theorem == The assumed occurrence of a real-world event will typically modify preferences between certain options. This is done by modifying the degrees of belief attached, by an individual, to the events defining the options. Suppose in a study of the effectiveness of cardiac treatments, with the patients in hospital j having survival probability θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , the survival probability will be updated with the occurrence of y, the event in which a controversial serum is created which, as believed by some, increases survival in cardiac patients. In order to make updated probability statements about θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , given the occurrence of event y, we must begin with a model providing a joint probability distribution for θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and y. This can be written as a product of the two distributions that are often referred to as the prior distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} and the sampling distribution P ( y ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle P(y\mid \theta )} respectively: P ( θ , y ) = P ( θ ) P ( y ∣ θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta ,y)=P(\theta )P(y\mid \theta )} Using the basic property of conditional probability, the posterior distribution will yield: P ( θ ∣ y ) = P ( θ , y ) P ( y ) = P ( y ∣ θ ) P ( θ ) P ( y ) {\displaystyle P(\theta \mid y)={\frac {P(\theta ,y)}{P(y)}}={\frac {P(y\mid \theta )P(\theta )}{P(y)}}} This equation, showing the relationship between the conditional probability and the individual events, is known as Bayes' theorem. This simple expression encapsulates the technical core of Bayesian inference which aims to deconstruct the probability, P ( θ ∣ y ) {\displaystyle P(\theta \mid y)} , relative to solvable subsets of its supportive evidence. == Exchangeability == The usual starting point of a statistical analysis is the assumption that the n values y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} are exchangeable. If no information – other than data y – is available to distinguish any of the θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} 's from any others, and no ordering or grouping of the parameters can be made, one must assume symmetry of prior distribution parameters. This symmetry is represented probabilistically by exchangeability. Generally, it is useful and appropriate to model data from an exchangeable distribution as independently and identically distributed, given some unknown parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } , with distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} . === Finite exchangeability === For a fixed number n, the set y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} is exchangeable if the joint probability P ( y 1 , y 2 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle P(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n})} is invariant under permutations of the indices. That is, for every permutation π {\displaystyle \pi } or ( π 1 , π 2 , … , π n ) {\displaystyle (\pi _{1},\pi _{2},\ldots ,\pi _{n})} of (1, 2, …, n), P ( y 1 , y 2 , … , y n ) = P ( y π 1 , y π 2 , … , y π n ) . {\displaystyle P(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n})=P(y_{\pi _{1}},y_{\pi _{2}},\ldots ,y_{\pi _{n}}).} The following is an exchangeable, but not independent and identical (iid), example: Consider an urn with a red ball and a blue ball inside, with probability 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} of drawing either. Balls are drawn without replacement, i.e. after one ball is drawn from the n {\displaystyle n} balls, there will be n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} remaining balls left for the next draw. Let Y i = { 1 , if the i th ball is red , 0 , otherwise . {\displaystyle {\text{Let }}Y_{i}={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if the }}i{\text{th ball is red}},\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} The probability of selecting a red ball in the first draw and a blue ball in the second draw is equal to the probability of selecting a blue ball on the first draw and a red on the second, both of which are 1/2: P ( y 1 = 1 , y 2 = 0 ) = P ( y 1 = 0 , y 2 = 1 ) = 1 2 {\displaystyle P(y_{1}=1,y_{2}=0)=P(y_{1}=0,y_{2}=1)={\frac {1}{2}}} . This makes y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} and y 2 {\displaystyle y_{2}} exchangeable. But the probability of selecting a red ball on the second draw given that the red ball has already been selected in the first is 0. This is not equal to the probability that the red ball is selected in the second draw, which is 1/2: P ( y 2 = 1 ∣ y 1 = 1 ) = 0 ≠ P ( y 2 = 1 ) = 1 2 {\displaystyle P(y_{2}=1\mid y_{1}=1)=0\neq P(y_{2}=1)={\frac {1}{2}}} . Thus, y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} and y 2 {\displaystyle y_{2}} are not independent. If x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} are independent and identically distributed, then they are exchangeable, but the converse is not necessarily true. === Infinite exchangeability === Infinite exchangeability is the property that every finite subset of an infinite sequence y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots } is exchangeable. For any n, the sequence y 1 , y 2 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\ldots ,y_{n}} is exchangeable. == Hierarchical models == === Components === Bayesian hierarchical modeling makes use of two important concepts in deriving the posterior distribution, namely: Hyperparameters: parameters of the prior distribution Hyperpriors: distributions of Hyperparameters Suppose a random variable Y follows a normal distribution with parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } as the mean and 1 as the variance, that is Y ∣ θ ∼ N ( θ , 1 ) {\displaystyle Y\mid \theta \sim N(\theta ,1)} . The tilde relation ∼ {\displaystyle \sim } can be read as "has the distribution of" or "is distributed as". Suppose also that the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } has a distribution given by a normal distribution with mean μ {\displaystyle \mu } and variance 1, i.e. θ ∣ μ ∼ N ( μ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \theta \mid \mu \sim N(\mu ,1)} . Furthermore, μ {\displaystyle \mu } follows another distribution given, for example, by the standard normal distribution, N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle {\text{N}}(0,1)} . The parameter μ {\dis

  Read more →