AI Headshot Corporate Free

AI Headshot Corporate Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Order-independent transparency

  Order-independent transparency (OIT) is a class of techniques in rasterisational computer graphics for rendering transparency in a 3D scene, which do not require rendering geometry in sorted order for alpha compositing. == Description == Commonly, 3D geometry with transparency is rendered by blending (using alpha compositing) all surfaces into a single buffer (think of this as a canvas). Each surface occludes existing color and adds some of its own color depending on its alpha value, a ratio of light transmittance. The order in which surfaces are blended affects the total occlusion or visibility of each surface. For a correct result, surfaces must be blended from farthest to nearest or nearest to farthest, depending on the alpha compositing operation, over or under. Ordering may be achieved by rendering the geometry in sorted order, for example sorting triangles by depth, but can take a significant amount of time, not always produce a solution (in the case of intersecting or circularly overlapping geometry) and the implementation is complex. Instead, order-independent transparency sorts geometry per-pixel, after rasterisation. For exact results this requires storing all fragments before sorting and compositing. == History == The A-buffer is a computer graphics technique introduced in 1984 which stores per-pixel lists of fragment data (including micro-polygon information) in a software rasteriser, REYES, originally designed for anti-aliasing but also supporting transparency. More recently, depth peeling in 2001 described a hardware accelerated OIT technique. With limitations in graphics hardware the scene's geometry had to be rendered many times. A number of techniques have followed, to improve on the performance of depth peeling, still with the many-pass rendering limitation. For example, Dual Depth Peeling (2008). In 2009, two significant features were introduced in GPU hardware/drivers/Graphics APIs that allowed capturing and storing fragment data in a single rendering pass of the scene, something not previously possible. These are, the ability to write to arbitrary GPU memory from shaders and atomic operations. With these features a new class of OIT techniques became possible that do not require many rendering passes of the scene's geometry. The first was storing the fragment data in a 3D array, where fragments are stored along the z dimension for each pixel x/y. In practice, most of the 3D array is unused or overflows, as a scene's depth complexity is typically uneven. To avoid overflow the 3D array requires large amounts of memory, which in many cases is impractical. Two approaches to reducing this memory overhead exist. Packing the 3D array with a prefix sum scan, or linearizing, removed the unused memory issue but requires an additional depth complexity computation rendering pass of the geometry. The "Sparsity-aware" S-Buffer, Dynamic Fragment Buffer, "deque" D-Buffer, Linearized Layered Fragment Buffer all pack fragment data with a prefix sum scan and are demonstrated with OIT. Storing fragments in per-pixel linked lists provides tight packing of this data and in late 2011, driver improvements reduced the atomic operation contention overhead making the technique very competitive. == Exact OIT == Exact, as opposed to approximate, OIT accurately computes the final color, for which all fragments must be sorted. For high depth complexity scenes, sorting becomes the bottleneck. One issue with the sorting stage is local memory limited occupancy, in this case a SIMT attribute relating to the throughput and operation latency hiding of GPUs. Backwards memory allocation (BMA) groups pixels by their depth complexity and sorts them in batches to improve the occupancy and hence performance of low depth complexity pixels in the context of a potentially high depth complexity scene. Up to a 3× overall OIT performance increase is reported. Sorting is typically performed in a local array, however performance can be improved further by making use of the GPU's memory hierarchy and sorting in registers, similarly to an external merge sort, especially in conjunction with BMA. == Approximate OIT == Approximate OIT techniques relax the constraint of exact rendering to provide faster results. Higher performance can be gained from not having to store all fragments or only partially sorting the geometry. A number of techniques also compress, or reduce, the fragment data. These include: Stochastic Transparency: draw in a higher resolution in full opacity but discard some fragments. Downsampling will then yield transparency. Adaptive Transparency, a two-pass technique where the first constructs a visibility function which compresses on the fly (this compression avoids having to fully sort the fragments) and the second uses this data to composite unordered fragments. Intel's pixel synchronization avoids the need to store all fragments, removing the unbounded memory requirement of many other OIT techniques. Weighted Blended Order-Independent Transparency replaced the over operator with a commutative approximation. Feeding depth information into the weight produces visually-acceptable occlusion. == OIT in Hardware == The Sega Dreamcast games console included hardware support for automatic OIT.

  Read more →
• 

  Data exploration

  Data exploration is an approach similar to initial data analysis, whereby a data analyst uses visual exploration to understand what is in a dataset and the characteristics of the data, rather than through traditional data management systems. These characteristics can include size or amount of data, completeness of the data, correctness of the data, possible relationships amongst data elements or files/tables in the data. Data exploration is typically conducted using a combination of automated and manual activities. Automated activities can include data profiling or data visualization or tabular reports to give the analyst an initial view into the data and an understanding of key characteristics. This is often followed by manual drill-down or filtering of the data to identify anomalies or patterns identified through the automated actions. Data exploration can also require manual scripting and queries into the data (e.g. using languages such as SQL or R) or using spreadsheets or similar tools to view the raw data. All of these activities are aimed at creating a mental model and understanding of the data in the mind of the analyst, and defining basic metadata (statistics, structure, relationships) for the data set that can be used in further analysis. Once this initial understanding of the data is had, the data can be pruned or refined by removing unusable parts of the data (data cleansing), correcting poorly formatted elements and defining relevant relationships across datasets. This process is also known as determining data quality. Data exploration can also refer to the ad hoc querying or visualization of data to identify potential relationships or insights that may be hidden in the data and does not require to formulate assumptions beforehand. Traditionally, this had been a key area of focus for statisticians, with John Tukey being a key evangelist in the field. Today, data exploration is more widespread and is the focus of data analysts and data scientists; the latter being a relatively new role within enterprises and larger organizations. == Interactive Data Exploration == This area of data exploration has become an area of interest in the field of machine learning. This is a relatively new field and is still evolving. As its most basic level, a machine-learning algorithm can be fed a data set and can be used to identify whether a hypothesis is true based on the dataset. Common machine learning algorithms can focus on identifying specific patterns in the data. Many common patterns include regression and classification or clustering, but there are many possible patterns and algorithms that can be applied to data via machine learning. By employing machine learning, it is possible to find patterns or relationships in the data that would be difficult or impossible to find via manual inspection, trial and error or traditional exploration techniques. == Software == Trifacta – a data preparation and analysis platform Paxata – self-service data preparation software Alteryx – data blending and advanced data analytics software Microsoft Power BI - interactive visualization and data analysis tool OpenRefine - a standalone open source desktop application for data clean-up and data transformation Tableau software – interactive data visualization software

  Read more →
• 

  Structured sparsity regularization

  Structured sparsity regularization is a class of methods, and an area of research in statistical learning theory, that extend and generalize sparsity regularization learning methods. Both sparsity and structured sparsity regularization methods seek to exploit the assumption that the output variable Y {\displaystyle Y} (i.e., response, or dependent variable) to be learned can be described by a reduced number of variables in the input space X {\displaystyle X} (i.e., the domain, space of features or explanatory variables). Sparsity regularization methods focus on selecting the input variables that best describe the output. Structured sparsity regularization methods generalize and extend sparsity regularization methods, by allowing for optimal selection over structures like groups or networks of input variables in X {\displaystyle X} . Common motivation for the use of structured sparsity methods are model interpretability, high-dimensional learning (where dimensionality of X {\displaystyle X} may be higher than the number of observations n {\displaystyle n} ), and reduction of computational complexity. Moreover, structured sparsity methods allow to incorporate prior assumptions on the structure of the input variables, such as overlapping groups, non-overlapping groups, and acyclic graphs. Examples of uses of structured sparsity methods include face recognition, magnetic resonance image (MRI) processing, socio-linguistic analysis in natural language processing, and analysis of genetic expression in breast cancer. == Definition and related concepts == === Sparsity regularization === Consider the linear kernel regularized empirical risk minimization problem with a loss function V ( y i , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(y_{i},f(x))} and the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm" as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where x , w ∈ R d {\displaystyle x,w\in \mathbb {R^{d}} } , and ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", defined as the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . f ( x ) = ⟨ w , x i ⟩ {\displaystyle f(x)=\langle w,x_{i}\rangle } is said to be sparse if ‖ w ‖ 0 = s < d {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}=s 0 {\displaystyle w_{j}>0} . However, as in this case groups may overlap, we take the intersection of the complements of those groups that are not set to zero. This intersection of complements selection criteria implies the modeling choice that we allow some coefficients within a particular group g {\displaystyle g} to be set to zero, while others within the same group g {\displaystyle g} may remain positive. In other words, coefficients within a group may differ depending on the several group memberships that each variable within the group may have. ==== Union of groups: latent group Lasso ==== A different approach is to consider union of groups for variable selection. This approach captures the modeling situation where variables can be selected as long as they belong at least to one group with positive coefficients. This modeling perspective implies that we want to preserve group structure. The formulation of the union of groups approach is also referred to as latent group Lasso, and requires to modify the group ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm considered above and introduce the following regularizer R ( w ) = i n f { ∑ g ‖ w g ‖ g : w = ∑ g = 1 G w ¯ g } {\displaystyle R(w)=inf\left\{\sum _{g}\|w_{g}\|_{g}:w=\sum _{g=1}^{G}{\bar {w}}_{g}\right\}} where w ∈ R d {\displaystyle w\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} , w g ∈ G g {\displaystyle w_{g}\in G_{g}} is the vector of coefficients of group g, and w ¯ g ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{g}\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} is a vector with coefficients w g j {\displaystyle w_{g}^{j}} for all variables j {

  Read more →
• 

  Inferential theory of learning

  Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) is an area of machine learning which describes inferential processes performed by learning agents. ITL has been continuously developed by Ryszard S. Michalski, starting in the 1980s. The first known publication of ITL was in 1983. In the ITL learning process is viewed as a search (inference) through hypotheses space guided by a specific goal. The results of learning need to be stored. Stored information will later be used by the learner for future inferences. Inferences are split into multiple categories including conclusive, deduction, and induction. In order for an inference to be considered complete it was required that all categories must be taken into account. This is how the ITL varies from other machine learning theories like Computational Learning Theory and Statistical Learning Theory; which both use singular forms of inference. == Usage == The most relevant published usage of ITL was in scientific journal published in 2012 and used ITL as a way to describe how agent-based learning works. According to the journal "The Inferential Theory of Learning (ITL) provides an elegant way of describing learning processes by agents".

  Read more →
• 

  JSGF

  JSGF stands for Java Speech Grammar Format or the JSpeech Grammar Format (in a W3C Note). Developed by Sun Microsystems, it is a textual representation of grammars for use in speech recognition for technologies like XHTML+Voice. JSGF adopts the style and conventions of the Java programming language in addition to use of traditional grammar notations. The Speech Recognition Grammar Specification was derived from this specification. == Example == The following JSGF grammar will recognize the words coffee, tea, and milk.

  Read more →
• 

  Universal psychometrics

  Universal psychometrics encompasses psychometrics instruments that could measure the psychological properties of any intelligent agent. Up until the early 21st century, psychometrics relied heavily on psychological tests that require the subject to cooperate and answer questions, the most famous example being an intelligence test. Such methods are only applicable to the measurement of human psychological properties. As a result, some researchers have proposed the idea of universal psychometrics - they suggest developing testing methods that allow for the measurement of non-human entities' psychological properties. For example, it has been suggested that the Turing test is a form of universal psychometrics. This test involves having testers (without any foreknowledge) attempt to distinguish a human from a machine by interacting with both (while not being to see either individuals). It is supposed that if the machine is equally intelligent to a human, the testers will not be able to distinguish between the two, i.e., their guesses will not be better than chance. Thus, Turing test could measure the intelligence (a psychological variable) of an AI. Other instruments proposed for universal psychometrics include reinforcement learning and measuring the ability to predict complexity.

  Read more →
• 

  Embedding (machine learning)

  In machine learning, embedding is a representation learning technique that maps complex, high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional vector space of numerical vectors. == Technique == It also denotes the resulting representation, where meaningful patterns or relationships are preserved. As a technique, it learns these vectors from data like words, images, or user interactions, differing from manually designed methods such as one-hot encoding. This process reduces complexity and captures key features without needing prior knowledge of the domain. == Similarity == In natural language processing, words or concepts may be represented as feature vectors, where similar concepts are mapped to nearby vectors. The resulting embeddings vary by type, including word embeddings for text (e.g., Word2Vec), image embeddings for visual data, and knowledge graph embeddings for knowledge graphs, each tailored to tasks like NLP, computer vision, or recommendation systems. This dual role enhances model efficiency and accuracy by automating feature extraction and revealing latent similarities across diverse applications. To measure the distance between two embeddings, a similarity measure can be used to find the overall similarity of the concepts represented by the embeddings. If the vectors are normalized to have a magnitude of 1, then the similarity measures are proportional to cos ⁡ ( θ a b ) {\displaystyle \cos \left(\theta _{ab}\right)} . The cosine similarity disregards the magnitude of the vector when determining similarity, so it is less biased towards training data that appears very frequently. The dot product includes the magnitude inherently, so it will tend to value more popular data. Generally, for high-dimensional vector spaces, vectors tend to converge in distance, so Euclidean distance becomes less reliable for large embedding vectors.

  Read more →
• 

  EfficientNet

  EfficientNet is a family of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for computer vision published by researchers at Google AI in 2019. Its key innovation is compound scaling, which uniformly scales all dimensions of depth, width, and resolution using a single parameter. EfficientNet models have been adopted in various computer vision tasks, including image classification, object detection, and segmentation. == Compound scaling == EfficientNet introduces compound scaling, which, instead of scaling one dimension of the network at a time, such as depth (number of layers), width (number of channels), or resolution (input image size), uses a compound coefficient ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to scale all three dimensions simultaneously. Specifically, given a baseline network, the depth, width, and resolution are scaled according to the following equations: depth multiplier: d = α ϕ width multiplier: w = β ϕ resolution multiplier: r = γ ϕ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{depth multiplier: }}d&=\alpha ^{\phi }\\{\text{width multiplier: }}w&=\beta ^{\phi }\\{\text{resolution multiplier: }}r&=\gamma ^{\phi }\end{aligned}}} subject to α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} and α ≥ 1 , β ≥ 1 , γ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 1,\beta \geq 1,\gamma \geq 1} . The α ⋅ β 2 ⋅ γ 2 ≈ 2 {\displaystyle \alpha \cdot \beta ^{2}\cdot \gamma ^{2}\approx 2} condition is such that increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } by a factor of ϕ 0 {\displaystyle \phi _{0}} would increase the total FLOPs of running the network on an image approximately 2 ϕ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{\phi _{0}}} times. The hyperparameters α {\displaystyle \alpha } , β {\displaystyle \beta } , and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } are determined by a small grid search. The original paper suggested 1.2, 1.1, and 1.15, respectively. Architecturally, they optimized the choice of modules by neural architecture search (NAS), and found that the inverted bottleneck convolution (which they called MBConv) used in MobileNet worked well. The EfficientNet family is a stack of MBConv layers, with shapes determined by the compound scaling. The original publication consisted of 8 models, from EfficientNet-B0 to EfficientNet-B7, with increasing model size and accuracy. EfficientNet-B0 is the baseline network, and subsequent models are obtained by scaling the baseline network by increasing ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . == Variants == EfficientNet has been adapted for fast inference on edge TPUs and centralized TPU or GPU clusters by NAS. EfficientNet V2 was published in June 2021. The architecture was improved by further NAS search with more types of convolutional layers. It also introduced a training method, which progressively increases image size during training, and uses regularization techniques like dropout, RandAugment, and Mixup. The authors claim this approach mitigates accuracy drops often associated with progressive resizing.

  Read more →
• 

  Schema-agnostic databases

  Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.

  Read more →
• 

  Winner-take-all in action selection

  Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.

  Read more →
• 

  Hierarchical Risk Parity

  Hierarchical Risk Parity (HRP) is an advanced investment portfolio optimization framework developed in 2016 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. HRP is a probabilistic graph-based alternative to the prevailing mean-variance optimization (MVO) framework developed by Harry Markowitz in 1952, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in economic sciences. HRP algorithms apply discrete mathematics and machine learning techniques to create diversified and robust investment portfolios that outperform MVO methods out-of-sample. HRP aims to address the limitations of traditional portfolio construction methods, particularly when dealing with highly correlated assets. Following its publication, HRP has been implemented in numerous open-source libraries, and received multiple extensions. == Key features == HRP portfolios have been proposed as a robust alternative to traditional quadratic optimization methods, including the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA) of Markowitz. HRP addresses three central issues commonly associated with quadratic optimizers: numerical instability, excessive concentration in a small number of assets, and poor out-of-sample performance. HRP leverages techniques from graph theory and machine learning to construct diversified portfolios using only the information embedded in the covariance matrix. Unlike quadratic programming methods, HRP does not require the covariance matrix to be invertible. Consequently, HRP remains applicable even in cases where the covariance matrix is ill-conditioned or singular—conditions under which standard optimizers fail. Monte Carlo simulations indicate that HRP achieves lower out-of-sample variance than CLA, despite the fact that minimizing variance is the explicit optimization objective of CLA. Furthermore, HRP portfolios exhibit lower realized risk compared to those generated by traditional risk parity methodologies. Empirical backtests have demonstrated that HRP would have historically outperformed conventional portfolio construction techniques. Algorithms within the HRP framework are characterized by the following features: Machine Learning Approach: HRP employs hierarchical clustering, a machine learning technique, to group similar assets based on their correlations. This allows the algorithm to identify the underlying hierarchical structure of the portfolio, and avoid that errors spread through the entire network. Risk-Based Allocation: The algorithm allocates capital based on risk, ensuring that assets only compete with similar assets for representation in the portfolio. This approach leads to better diversification across different risk sources, while avoiding the instability associated with noisy returns estimates. Covariance Matrix Handling: Unlike traditional methods like Mean-Variance Optimization, HRP does not require inverting the covariance matrix. This makes it more stable and applicable to portfolios with a large number of assets, particularly when the covariance matrix's condition number is high. == The problem: Markowitz's Curse == Portfolio construction is perhaps the most recurrent financial problem. On a daily basis, investment managers must build portfolios that incorporate their views and forecasts on risks and returns. Despite the theoretical elegance of Markowitz's mean-variance framework, its practical implementation is hindered by several limitations that undermine the reliability of solutions derived from the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA). A principal concern is the high sensitivity of optimal portfolios to small perturbations in expected returns: even minor forecasting errors can result in significantly different allocations (Michaud, 1998). Given the inherent difficulty of producing accurate return forecasts, numerous researchers have advocated for approaches that forgo expected returns entirely and instead rely solely on the covariance structure of asset returns. This has given rise to risk-based allocation methods, among which risk parity is a widely cited example (Jurczenko, 2015). While eliminating return forecasts mitigates some instability, it does not eliminate it. Quadratic programming techniques employed in portfolio optimization require the inversion of a positive-definite covariance matrix, meaning all eigenvalues must be strictly positive. When the matrix is numerically ill-conditioned—that is, when the ratio of its largest to smallest eigenvalue (its condition number) is large—matrix inversion becomes unreliable and prone to significant numerical errors (Bailey and López de Prado, 2012). The condition number of a covariance, correlation, or any symmetric (and thus diagonalizable) matrix is defined as the absolute value of the ratio between its largest and smallest eigenvalues in modulus. The figure on the right presents the sorted eigenvalues of several correlation matrices; the condition number is represented by the ratio of the first to last eigenvalues in each sequence. A diagonal correlation matrix, which is equal to its own inverse, exhibits the minimum possible condition number. As the number of correlated (or multicollinear) assets in a portfolio increases, the condition number rises. At high levels, this leads to severe numerical instability, whereby slight modifications in any matrix entry may result in drastically different inverses. This phenomenon, often referred to as Markowitz’s curse, encapsulates the paradox wherein increased correlation among assets heightens the theoretical need for diversification, yet simultaneously increases the likelihood of unstable optimization outcomes. Consequently, the potential benefits of diversification are frequently overshadowed by estimation errors. These problems are exacerbated as the dimensionality of the covariance matrix increases. The estimation of each covariance term consumes degrees of freedom, and in general, a minimum of 1 2 N ( N + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}N(N+1)} independent and identically distributed (IID) observations is required to estimate a non-singular covariance matrix of dimension N {\displaystyle N} . For example, constructing an invertible covariance matrix of dimension 50 necessitates at least five years of daily IID observations. However, empirical evidence suggests that the correlation structure of financial assets is highly unstable over such extended periods. These difficulties are highlighted by the observation that even naïve allocation strategies—such as equally weighted portfolios—have frequently outperformed both mean-variance and risk-based optimizations in out-of-sample tests (De Miguel et al., 2009). == The solution: Hierarchical Risk Parity == The HRP algorithm addresses Markowitz's curse in three steps: Hierarchical Clustering: Assets are grouped into clusters based on their correlations, forming a hierarchical tree structure. Quasi-Diagonalization: The correlation matrix is reordered based on the clustering results, revealing a block diagonal structure. Recursive Bisection: Weights are assigned to assets through a top-down approach, splitting the portfolio into smaller sub-portfolios and allocating capital based on inverse variance. === Step 1: Hierarchical clustering === Given a T × N {\displaystyle T\times N} matrix of asset returns X {\displaystyle X} , where each column represents a time series of returns for one of N {\displaystyle N} assets over T {\displaystyle T} time periods, a hierarchical clustering process can be used to construct a tree-based representation of asset relationships. First, we compute the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} correlation matrix ρ = ρ i , j i , j = 1 . . . N {\displaystyle \rho ={\rho _{i,j}}\;{i,j=1\;...\;N}} , where ρ i , j = c o r r ( X i , X j ) {\displaystyle \rho _{i,j}=\mathrm {corr} (X_{i},X_{j})} . From this, a pairwise distance matrix D = d i , j {\displaystyle D={d_{i,j}}} is defined using the transformation: d i , j = 1 2 ( 1 − ρ i , j ) {\displaystyle d_{i,j}={\sqrt {{\frac {1}{2}}(1-\rho _{i,j})}}} This distance function defines a proper metric space, satisfying non-negativity, identity of indiscernibles, symmetry, and the triangle inequality. Next, a secondary distance matrix D ~ = d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {D}}={{\tilde {d}}_{i,j}}} is computed, where each entry measures the Euclidean distance between the distance profiles of two assets: d ~ i , j = ∑ n = 1 N ( d n , i − d n , j ) 2 {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}={\sqrt {\sum _{n=1}^{N}(d_{n,i}-d_{n,j})^{2}}}} While d i , j {\displaystyle d_{i,j}} reflects correlation-based proximity between two assets, d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} quantifies dissimilarity across the entire system, as it depends on all pairwise distances. Hierarchical clustering proceeds by identifying the pair ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} with the smallest value of d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} (for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} ), and forming a new cluster u [ 1 ] = ( i , j ) {\displaystyle u[1]=(i,j)} .

  Read more →
• 

  Inductive bias

  The inductive bias (also known as learning bias) of a learning algorithm is the set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs of given inputs that it has not encountered. Inductive bias is anything which makes the algorithm learn one pattern instead of another pattern (e.g., step-functions in decision trees instead of continuous functions in linear regression models). Learning involves searching a space of solutions for a solution that provides a good explanation of the data. However, in many cases, there may be multiple equally appropriate solutions. An inductive bias allows a learning algorithm to prioritize one solution (or interpretation) over another, independently of the observed data. In machine learning, the aim is to construct algorithms that are able to learn to predict a certain target output. To achieve this, the learning algorithm is presented some training examples that demonstrate the intended relation of input and output values. Then the learner is supposed to approximate the correct output, even for examples that have not been shown during training. Without any additional assumptions, this problem cannot be solved since unseen situations might have an arbitrary output value. The kind of necessary assumptions about the nature of the target function are subsumed in the phrase inductive bias. A classical example of an inductive bias is Occam's razor, assuming that the simplest consistent hypothesis about the target function is actually the best. Here, consistent means that the hypothesis of the learner yields correct outputs for all of the examples that have been given to the algorithm. Approaches to a more formal definition of inductive bias are based on mathematical logic. Here, the inductive bias is a logical formula that, together with the training data, logically entails the hypothesis generated by the learner. However, this strict formalism fails in many practical cases in which the inductive bias can only be given as a rough description (e.g., in the case of artificial neural networks), or not at all. == Types == The following is a list of common inductive biases in machine learning algorithms. Maximum conditional independence: if the hypothesis can be cast in a Bayesian framework, try to maximize conditional independence. This is the bias used in the Naive Bayes classifier. Minimum cross-validation error: when trying to choose among hypotheses, select the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error. Although cross-validation may seem to be free of bias, the "no free lunch" theorems show that cross-validation must be biased, for example assuming that there is no information encoded in the ordering of the data. Maximum margin: when drawing a boundary between two classes, attempt to maximize the width of the boundary. This is the bias used in support vector machines. The assumption is that distinct classes tend to be separated by wide boundaries. Minimum description length: when forming a hypothesis, attempt to minimize the length of the description of the hypothesis. Minimum features: unless there is good evidence that a feature is useful, it should be deleted. This is the assumption behind feature selection algorithms. Nearest neighbors: assume that most of the cases in a small neighborhood in feature space belong to the same class. Given a case for which the class is unknown, guess that it belongs to the same class as the majority in its immediate neighborhood. This is the bias used in the k-nearest neighbors algorithm. The assumption is that cases that are near each other tend to belong to the same class. == Shift of bias == Although most learning algorithms have a static bias, some algorithms are designed to shift their bias as they acquire more data. This does not avoid bias, since the bias shifting process itself must have a bias.

  Read more →
• 

  Just This Once

  Just This Once is a 1993 romance novel written in the style of Jacqueline Susann by a Macintosh IIcx computer named "Hal" in collaboration with its programmer, Scott French. French reportedly spent $40,000 and 8 years developing an artificial intelligence program to analyze Susann's works and attempt to create a novel that Susann might have written. A legal dispute between the estate of Jacqueline Susann and the publisher resulted in a settlement to split the profits, and the book was referenced in several legal journal articles about copyright laws. The book had two small print runs totaling 35,000 copies, receiving mixed reviews. == Creation == The novel's creation spanned the fields of artificial intelligence, expert systems, and natural language processing. Scott French first scanned and analyzed portions of two books by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls and Once Is Not Enough, to determine constituents of Susann's writing style, which French stated was the most difficult task. This analysis extracted several hundred components including frequency and type of sexual acts and sentence structure. "Once you're there, the writer's style emerges, part of her actual personality comes out, and the computer can be programmed to make a story." French also created several thousand rules to govern tone, plotting, scenes, and characters. The text generated by Hal, the computer, was intended to mimic what Susann might have written, although the output required significant editing. French credits Hal's work with "almost 100% of the plot, 100% of the theme and style." French estimates that he wrote 10% of the prose, the computer Hal wrote about 25% of the prose, and the remaining two-thirds was more of a collaboration between the two. A typical scenario to write a scene would involve Hal asking questions that French would answer (for example, Hal might ask about the "cattiness factor" involved in a meeting between two key female characters, and French would reply with a range of 1 to 10), and the computer would then generate a few sentences to which French would make minor edits. The process would repeat for the next few sentences until the scene was written. == Legal issues == Jacqueline Susann's publisher was skeptical of the legality of Just This Once, although French doubted that an author's thought processes could be copyrighted. Susann's estate reportedly threatened to sue Scott French but the parties settled out of court; the settlement involved splitting profits between the parties but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The publication of Just This Once raised questions in the legal profession concerning how copyright law applies to computer-generated works derived from an analysis of other copyrighted works, and whether the generation of such works infringes on copyright. The publications on this topic suggested that the copyright laws of the time were ill-equipped to deal with computer-generated creative works. == Reception == The book's publisher Steven Shragis of Carol Group said of the novel, "I'm not going to say this is a great literary work, but it's every bit as good as anything out in this field, and better than an awful lot." The novel received some positive early reviews. In USA Today, novelist Thomas Gifford compared Just This Once to another novel in the same genre, American Star by Jackie Collins. Gifford concluded: "If you do like this stuff, you'd be much, much better off with the one written by the computer." The Dead Jackie Susann Quarterly declared that Susann "would be proud. Lots of money, sleaze, disease, death, oral sex, tragedy and the good girl gone bad." Other reviews were mixed. Publishers Weekly wrote, "If the books of Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins seem formulaic, this debut novel of sin and success in Las Vegas outdoes them all. And that, in a way, is the point.... All novelty rests in the conceit of computer authorship, not in the story itself." Library Journal stated "French invested eight years and $50,000 in a scheme to use artificial intelligence to fulfill his authentic, if dubious, desire to generate a trashy novel a la Jacqueline Susann. Shallow, beautiful-people characters are flatly conceived and randomly accessed in a formulaic plot ... a sexy, boring morality tale. Of possible interest to computer buffs for its use of Expert Systems and the virtual promise of more worthy possibilities; others should read Susann." Kirkus Reviews wrote: "The deal here is that author French is not the author, he's just the midwife, having allegedly programmed his computer to write about our times just the way Susann would... almost perfectly capturing glamorous Jackie's turgid but E-Z reading prose style and ultrareliable mix of sex, glitz, dope 'n' despair.... One wonders, though, if French's tale spinning PC will do as well on the talkshows as Jackie did. The computer weenies have been trying to tell us for years, garbage in-garbage out."

  Read more →
• 

  Robotic process automation

  Robotic process automation (RPA) is a form of business process automation that is based on software robots (bots) or artificial intelligence (AI) agents. RPA should not be confused with artificial intelligence as it is based on automation technology following a predefined workflow. It is sometimes referred to as software robotics (not to be confused with robot software). In traditional workflow automation tools, a software developer produces a list of actions to automate a task and interface to the back end system using internal application programming interfaces (APIs) or dedicated scripting language. In contrast, RPA systems develop the action list by watching the user perform that task in the application's graphical user interface (GUI) and then perform the automation by repeating those tasks directly in the GUI. This can lower the barrier to the use of automation in products that might not otherwise feature APIs for this purpose. RPA tools have strong technical similarities to graphical user interface testing tools. These tools also automate interactions with the GUI, and often do so by repeating a set of demonstration actions performed by a user. RPA tools differ from such systems in that they allow data to be handled in and between multiple applications, for instance, receiving email containing an invoice, extracting the data, and then typing that into a bookkeeping system. == Historic evolution == As a form of automation, the concept has been around for a long time in the form of screen scraping, so long that to early PC users the reminder of it often blurs with the idea of malware infection. Yet compared to screen scraping, RPA is much more extensible, consisting of API integration into other enterprise applications, connectors into ITSM systems, terminal services and even some types of AI (e.g. machine learning) services such as image recognition. It is considered to be a significant technological evolution in the sense that new software platforms are emerging which are sufficiently mature, resilient, scalable and reliable to make this approach viable for use in large enterprises (who would otherwise be reluctant due to perceived risks to quality and reputation). == Use == The hosting of RPA services also aligns with the metaphor of a software robot, with each robotic instance having its own virtual workstation, much like a human worker. The robot uses keyboard and mouse controls to take actions and execute automations. Normally, all of these actions take place in a virtual environment and not on screen; the robot does not need a physical screen to operate, rather it interprets the screen display electronically. The scalability of modern solutions based on architectures such as these owes much to the advent of virtualization technology, without which the scalability of large deployments would be limited by the available capacity to manage physical hardware and by the associated costs. The implementation of RPA in business enterprises has shown dramatic cost savings when compared to traditional non-RPA solutions. === RPA actual use === Banking and finance process automation Mortgage and lending processes Customer care automation eCommerce merchandising operations Social media marketing Optical character recognition applications Data extraction process Fixed automation process Manual and repetitive tasks automation Voice recognition and digital dictation software linked to join up business processes for straight through processing without manual intervention Specialised remote infrastructure management software featuring automated investigation and resolution of problems, using robots for the first line IT support Chatbots used by internet retailers and service providers to service customer requests for information. Also used by companies to service employee requests for information from internal databases Presentation layer automation software, increasingly used by business process outsourcers to displace human labour Interactive voice response (IVR) systems incorporating intelligent interaction with callers == Impact on employment == According to Harvard Business Review, most operations groups adopting RPA have promised their employees that automation would not result in layoffs. Instead, workers have been redeployed to do more interesting work. One academic study highlighted that knowledge workers did not feel threatened by automation: they embraced it and viewed the robots as team-mates. The same study highlighted that, rather than resulting in a lower "headcount", the technology was deployed in such a way as to achieve more work and greater productivity with the same number of people. Conversely, however, some analysts proffer that RPA represents a threat to the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry. The thesis behind this notion is that RPA will enable enterprises to "repatriate" processes from offshore locations into local data centers, with the benefit of this new technology. The effect, if true, will be to create high-value jobs for skilled process designers in onshore locations (and within the associated supply chain of IT hardware, data center management, etc.) but to decrease the available opportunity to low-skilled workers offshore. On the other hand, this discussion appears to be healthy ground for debate as another academic study was at pains to counter the so-called "myth" that RPA will bring back many jobs from offshore. === Impact on society === Academic studies project that RPA, among other technological trends, is expected to drive a new wave of productivity and efficiency gains in the global labour market. Although not directly attributable to RPA alone, Oxford University conjectures that up to 35% of all jobs might be automated by 2035. There are geographic implications to the trend in robotic automation. In the example above where an offshored process is "repatriated" under the control of the client organization (or even displaced by a business process outsourcer) from an offshore location to a data centre, the impact will be a deficit in economic activity to the offshore location and an economic benefit to the originating economy. On this basis, developed economies – with skills and technological infrastructure to develop and support a robotic automation capability – can be expected to achieve a net benefit from the trend. In a TEDx talk hosted by University College London (UCL), entrepreneur David Moss explains that digital labour in the form of RPA is likely to revolutionize the cost model of the services industry by driving the price of products and services down, while simultaneously improving the quality of outcomes and creating increased opportunity for the personalization of services. In a separate TEDx in 2019 talk, Japanese business executive, and former CIO of Barclays bank, Koichi Hasegawa noted that digital robots can be a positive effect on society if we start using a robot with empathy to help every person. He provides a case study of the Japanese insurance companies – Sompo Japan and Aioi – both of whom introduced bots to speed up the process of insurance pay-outs in past massive disaster incidents. Meanwhile, Professor Willcocks, author of the LSE paper cited above, speaks of increased job satisfaction and intellectual stimulation, characterising the technology as having the ability to "take the robot out of the human", a reference to the notion that robots will take over the mundane and repetitive portions of people's daily workload, leaving them to be used in more interpersonal roles or to concentrate on the remaining, more meaningful, portions of their day. It was also found in a 2021 study observing the effects of robotization in Europe that, the gender pay gap increased at a rate of .18% for every 1% increase in robotization of a given industry. == Unassisted RPA == Unassisted RPA, or RPAAI, is the next generation of RPA related technologies. Technological advancements around artificial intelligence allow a process to be run on a computer without needing input from a user. == Hyperautomation == Hyperautomation is the application of advanced technologies like RPA, artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) and process mining to augment workers and automate processes in ways that are significantly more impactful than traditional automation capabilities. Hyperautomation is the combination of technologies that allow faster application authorship (like low-code and no-code) with automation technologies that coordinate different worker types (i.e. human and artificial) for intelligent and strategic workflow optimization. Gartner's report notes that this trend was kicked off with robotic process automation (RPA). The report notes that, "RPA alone is not hyperautomation. Hyperautomation requires a combination of tools to help support replicating pieces of where the human is involved in a task." == Outsourcing == Back office clerical processes outsourced by large organisations

  Read more →
• 

  Bayesian programming

  Bayesian programming is a formalism and a methodology for having a technique to specify probabilistic models and solve problems when less than the necessary information is available. Edwin T. Jaynes proposed that probability could be considered as an alternative and an extension of logic for rational reasoning with incomplete and uncertain information. In his founding book Probability Theory: The Logic of Science he developed this theory and proposed what he called "the robot," which was not a physical device, but an inference engine to automate probabilistic reasoning—a kind of Prolog for probability instead of logic. Bayesian programming is a formal and concrete implementation of this "robot". Bayesian programming may also be seen as an algebraic formalism to specify graphical models such as, for instance, Bayesian networks, dynamic Bayesian networks, Kalman filters or hidden Markov models. Indeed, Bayesian programming is more general than Bayesian networks and has a power of expression equivalent to probabilistic factor graphs. == Formalism == A Bayesian program is a means of specifying a family of probability distributions. The constituent elements of a Bayesian program are presented below: Program { Description { Specification ( π ) { Variables Decomposition Forms Identification (based on δ ) Question {\displaystyle {\text{Program}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Description}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Specification}}(\pi ){\begin{cases}{\text{Variables}}\\{\text{Decomposition}}\\{\text{Forms}}\\\end{cases}}\\{\text{Identification (based on }}\delta )\end{cases}}\\{\text{Question}}\end{cases}}} A program is constructed from a description and a question. A description is constructed using some specification ( π {\displaystyle \pi } ) as given by the programmer and an identification or learning process for the parameters not completely specified by the specification, using a data set ( δ {\displaystyle \delta } ). A specification is constructed from a set of pertinent variables, a decomposition and a set of forms. Forms are either parametric forms or questions to other Bayesian programs. A question specifies which probability distribution has to be computed. === Description === The purpose of a description is to specify an effective method of computing a joint probability distribution on a set of variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} given a set of experimental data δ {\displaystyle \delta } and some specification π {\displaystyle \pi } . This joint distribution is denoted as: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} . To specify preliminary knowledge π {\displaystyle \pi } , the programmer must undertake the following: Define the set of relevant variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} on which the joint distribution is defined. Decompose the joint distribution (break it into relevant independent or conditional probabilities). Define the forms of each of the distributions (e.g., for each variable, one of the list of probability distributions). ==== Decomposition ==== Given a partition of { X 1 , X 2 , … , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{N}\right\}} containing K {\displaystyle K} subsets, K {\displaystyle K} variables are defined L 1 , ⋯ , L K {\displaystyle L_{1},\cdots ,L_{K}} , each corresponding to one of these subsets. Each variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is obtained as the conjunction of the variables { X k 1 , X k 2 , ⋯ } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{k_{1}},X_{k_{2}},\cdots \right\}} belonging to the k t h {\displaystyle k^{th}} subset. Recursive application of Bayes' theorem leads to: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L K ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ L K − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{K}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid L_{K-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Conditional independence hypotheses then allow further simplifications. A conditional independence hypothesis for variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is defined by choosing some variable X n {\displaystyle X_{n}} among the variables appearing in the conjunction L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 2 ∧ L 1 {\displaystyle L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{2}\wedge L_{1}} , labelling R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} as the conjunction of these chosen variables and setting: P ( L k ∣ L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} We then obtain: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ R 2 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ R K ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid R_{2}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid R_{K}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Such a simplification of the joint distribution as a product of simpler distributions is called a decomposition, derived using the chain rule. This ensures that each variable appears at the most once on the left of a conditioning bar, which is the necessary and sufficient condition to write mathematically valid decompositions. ==== Forms ==== Each distribution P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} appearing in the product is then associated with either a parametric form (i.e., a function f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} ) or a question to another Bayesian program P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L ∣ R ∧ δ ^ ∧ π ^ ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L\mid R\wedge {\widehat {\delta }}\wedge {\widehat {\pi }}\right)} . When it is a form f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} , in general, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is a vector of parameters that may depend on R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} or δ {\displaystyle \delta } or both. Learning takes place when some of these parameters are computed using the data set δ {\displaystyle \delta } . An important feature of Bayesian programming is this capacity to use questions to other Bayesian programs as components of the definition of a new Bayesian program. P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} is obtained by some inferences done by another Bayesian program defined by the specifications π ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\pi }}} and the data δ ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}} . This is similar to calling a subroutine in classical programming and provides an easy way to build hierarchical models. === Question === Given a description (i.e., P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} ), a question is obtained by partitioning { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} into three sets: the searched variables, the known variables and the free variables. The 3 variables S e a r c h e d {\displaystyle Searched} , K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} and F r e e {\displaystyle Free} are defined as the conjunction of the variables belonging to these sets. A question is defined as the set of distributions: P ( S e a r c h e d ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(Searched\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} made of many "instantiated questions" as the cardinal of K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} , each instantiated question being the distribution: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} === Inference === Given the joint distribution P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} , it is always possible to compute any possible question using the following general inference: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) ] = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] P ( Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] ∑ Free ∧ Searched [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] = 1 Z × ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&\sum _{\text{Free}}\left[P\left({\text{Searched}}\wedge {\text{Free}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \

  Read more →