AI Headshot Generator Free Reddit

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

• 

  Kernel-phase

  Kernel-phases are observable quantities used in high resolution astronomical imaging used for superresolution image creation. It can be seen as a generalization of closure phases for redundant arrays. For this reason, when the wavefront quality requirement are met, it is an alternative to aperture masking interferometry that can be executed without a mask while retaining phase error rejection properties. The observables are computed through linear algebra from the Fourier transform of direct images. They can then be used for statistical testing, model fitting, or image reconstruction. == Prerequisites == In order to extract kernel-phases from an image, some requirements must be met: Images are nyquist-sampled (at least 2 pixels per resolution element ( λ D {\displaystyle {\frac {\lambda }{D}}} )) Images are taken in near monochromatic light Exposure time is shorter than the timescale of aberrations Strehl ratio is high (good adaptive optics) Linearity of the pixel response (i.e. no saturation) Deviations from these requirements are known to be acceptable, but lead to observational bias that should be corrected by the observation of calibrators. == Definition == The method relies on a discrete model of the instrument's pupil plane and the corresponding list of baselines to provide corresponding vectors φ {\displaystyle \varphi } of pupil plane errors and Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } of image plane Fourier Phases. When the wavefront error in the pupil plane is small enough (i.e. when the Strehl ratio of the imaging system is sufficiently high), the complex amplitude associated to the instrumental phase in one point of the pupil φ k {\displaystyle \varphi _{k}} , can be approximated by e i φ k ≈ 1 + i φ k {\displaystyle e^{i\varphi _{k}}\approx 1+{\mathit {i}}\varphi _{k}} . This permits the expression of the pupil-plane phase aberrations φ {\displaystyle \varphi } to the image plane Fourier phase as a linear transformation described by the matrix A {\displaystyle A} : Φ = Φ 0 + A ⋅ φ {\displaystyle \Phi =\Phi _{0}+A\cdot \varphi } Where Φ 0 {\displaystyle \Phi _{0}} is the theoretical Fourier phase vector of the object. In this formalism, singular value decomposition can be used to find a matrix K {\displaystyle K} satisfying K ⋅ A = 0 {\displaystyle K\cdot A=0} . The rows of K {\displaystyle K} constitute a basis of the kernel of A T {\displaystyle A^{T}} . K ⋅ Φ = K ⋅ Φ 0 + K ⋅ A ⋅ φ {\displaystyle K\cdot \Phi =K\cdot \Phi _{0}+{\cancel {K\cdot A\cdot \varphi }}} The vector K . Φ {\displaystyle K.\Phi } is called the kernel-phase vector of observables. This equation can be used for model-fitting as it represents the interpretation of a sub-space of the Fourier phase that is immune to the instrumental phase errors to the first order. == Applications == The technique was first used in the re-analysis of archival images from the Hubble Space Telescope where it enabled the discovery of a number of brown dwarf in close binary systems. The technique is used as an alternative to aperture masking interferometry, especially for fainter stars because it does not require the use of masks that typically block 90% of the light, and therefore allows higher throughput. It is also considered to be an alternative to coronagraphy for direct detection of exoplanets at very small separations (below 2 λ D {\displaystyle 2{\frac {\lambda }{D}}} ) where coronagraphs are limited by the wavefront errors of adaptive optics. The same framework can be used for wavefront sensing. In the case of an asymmetric aperture, a pseudo-inverse of A {\displaystyle A} can be used to reconstruct the wavefront errors directly from the image. A Python library called xara is available on GitHub and maintained by Frantz Martinache to facilitate the extraction and interpretation of kernel-phases. The KERNEL project, has received funding from the European Research Council to explore the potential of these observables for a number of use-cases, including direct detection of exoplanets, image reconstruction, and image plane wavefront sensing for adaptive optics.

  Read more →
• 

  Ho–Kashyap algorithm

  The Ho–Kashyap algorithm is an iterative method in machine learning for finding a linear decision boundary that separates two linearly separable classes. It was developed by Yu-Chi Ho and Rangasami L. Kashyap in 1965, and usually presented as a problem in linear programming. == Setup == Given a training set consisting of samples from two classes, the Ho–Kashyap algorithm seeks to find a weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } and a margin vector b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } such that: Y w = b {\displaystyle \mathbf {Yw} =\mathbf {b} } where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } is the augmented data matrix with samples from both classes (with appropriate sign conventions, e.g., samples from class 2 are negated), w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is the weight vector to be determined, and b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } is a positive margin vector. The algorithm minimizes the criterion function: J ( w , b ) = | | Y w − b | | 2 {\displaystyle J(\mathbf {w} ,\mathbf {b} )=||\mathbf {Yw} -\mathbf {b} ||^{2}} subject to the constraint that b > 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} >\mathbf {0} } (element-wise). Given a problem of linearly separating two classes, we consider a dataset of elements { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(\mathbf {x_{i}} ,y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} where y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} . Linearly separating them by a perceptron is equivalent to finding weight and bias w , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ,b} for a perceptron, such that: [ y 1 x 1 1 ⋮ ⋮ y N x N 1 ] [ w b ] > 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\mathbf {x} _{1}&1\\\vdots &\vdots \\y_{N}\mathbf {x} _{N}&1\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w} \\b\end{bmatrix}}>0} == Algorithm == The idea of the Ho–Kashyap algorithm is as follows: Given any b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , the corresponding w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is known: It is simply w = Y + b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} =\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} } , where Y + {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} ^{+}} denotes the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse of Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } . Therefore, it only remains to find b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } by gradient descent. However, the gradient descent may sometimes decrease some of the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , which may cause some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } to become negative, which is undesirable. Therefore, whenever some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } would have decreased, those coordinates are unchanged instead. As for the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } that would increase, those would increase without issue. Formally, the algorithm is as follows: Initialization: Set b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)} to an arbitrary positive vector, typically b ( 0 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)=\mathbf {1} } (a vector of ones). Set the iteration counter k = 0 {\displaystyle k=0} . Set w ( 0 ) = Y + b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (0)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (0)} Loop until convergence, or until iteration counter exceeds some k m a x {\displaystyle k_{max}} . Error calculation: Compute the error vector: e ( k ) = Y w ( k ) − b ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {Yw} (k)-\mathbf {b} (k)} . Margin update: Update the margin vector: b ( k + 1 ) = b ( k ) + 2 η k ( e ( k ) + | e ( k ) | ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1)=\mathbf {b} (k)+2\eta _{k}(\mathbf {e} (k)+|\mathbf {e} (k)|)} where η k {\displaystyle \eta _{k}} is a positive learning rate parameter, and | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle |\mathbf {e} (k)|} denotes the element-wise absolute value. Weight calculation: Compute the weight vector using the pseudoinverse: w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} . Convergence check: If | | e ( k ) | | ≤ θ {\displaystyle ||\mathbf {e} (k)||\leq \theta } for some predetermined threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } (close to zero), then return b ( k + 1 ) , w ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1),\mathbf {w} (k+1)} . if e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } (all components non-positive), return "Samples not separable.". Return "Algorithm failed to converge in time.". == Properties == If the training data is linearly separable, the algorithm converges to a solution (where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } ) in a finite number of iterations. If the data is not linearly separable, the algorithm may or may not ever reach the point where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } . However, if it does happen that e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } at some iteration, this proves non-separability. The convergence rate depends on the choice of the learning rate parameter ρ {\displaystyle \rho } and the degree of linear separability of the data. == Relationship to other algorithms == Perceptron algorithm: Both seek linear separators. The perceptron updates weights incrementally based on individual misclassified samples, while Ho–Kashyap is a batch method that processes all samples to compute the pseudoinverse and updates based on an overall error vector. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA): LDA assumes underlying Gaussian distributions with equal covariances for the classes and derives the decision boundary from these statistical assumptions. Ho–Kashyap makes no explicit distributional assumptions and instead tries to solve a system of linear inequalities directly. Support vector machines (SVM): For linearly separable data, SVMs aim to find the maximum-margin hyperplane. The Ho–Kashyap algorithm finds a separating hyperplane but not necessarily the one with the maximum margin. If the data is not separable, soft-margin SVMs allow for some misclassifications by optimizing a trade-off between margin size and misclassification penalty, while Ho–Kashyap provides a least-squares solution. == Variants == Modified Ho–Kashyap algorithm changes weight calculation step w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} to w ( k + 1 ) = w ( k ) + η k Y + | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {w} (k)+\eta _{k}\mathbf {Y} ^{+}|\mathbf {e} (k)|} . Kernel Ho–Kashyap algorithm: Applies kernel methods (the "kernel trick") to the Ho–Kashyap framework to enable non-linear classification by implicitly mapping data to a higher-dimensional feature space.

  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 →
• 

  Fitness function

  A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex

  Read more →
• 

  Predictive text

  Predictive text is an input technology used where one key or button represents many letters, such as on the physical numeric keypads of mobile phones and in accessibility technologies. Each key press results in a prediction rather than repeatedly sequencing through the same group of "letters" it represents, in the same, invariable order. Predictive text could allow for an entire word to be input by a single keypress. Predictive text makes efficient use of fewer device keys to input writing into a text message, an e-mail, an address book, a calendar, and the like. The most widely used, general, predictive text systems are T9, iTap, eZiText, and LetterWise/WordWise. There are many ways to build a device that predicts text, but all predictive text systems have initial linguistic settings that offer predictions that are re-prioritized to adapt to each user. This learning adapts, by way of the device memory, to a user's disambiguating feedback that results in corrective key presses, such as pressing a "next" key to get to the intention. Most predictive text systems have a user database to facilitate this process. Theoretically the number of keystrokes required per desired character in the finished writing is, on average, comparable to using a keyboard. This is approximately true provided that all words used are in its database, punctuation is ignored, and no input mistakes are made when typing or spelling. The theoretical keystrokes per character, KSPC, of a keyboard is KSPC=1.00, and of multi-tap is KSPC=2.03. Eatoni's LetterWise is a predictive multi-tap hybrid, which when operating on a standard telephone keypad achieves KSPC=1.15 for English. The choice of which predictive text system is the best to use involves matching the user's preferred interface style, the user's level of learned ability to operate predictive text software, and the user's efficiency goal. There are various levels of risk in predictive text systems, versus multi-tap systems, because the predicted text that is automatically written provides the speed and mechanical efficiency benefit, which, if the user is not careful to review, results in transmitting misinformation. Predictive text systems take time to learn to use well, and so generally, a device's system has user options to set up the choice of multi-tap or any one of several schools of predictive text methods. == Background == Short message service (SMS) permits a mobile phone user to send text messages (also called messages, SMSes, texts, and txts) as a short message. The most common system of SMS text input is referred to as "multi-tap". Using multi-tap, a key is pressed multiple times to access the list of letters on that key. For instance, pressing the "2" key once displays an "a", twice displays a "b" and three times displays a "c". To enter two successive letters that are on the same key, the user must either pause or hit a "next" button. A user can type by pressing an alphanumeric keypad without looking at the electronic equipment display. Thus, multi-tap is easy to understand and can be used without any visual feedback. However, multi-tap is not very efficient, requiring potentially many keystrokes to enter a single letter. In ideal predictive text entry, all words used are in the dictionary, punctuation is ignored, no spelling mistakes are made, and no typing mistakes are made. The ideal dictionary would include all slang, proper nouns, abbreviations, URLs, foreign-language words and other user-unique words. This ideal circumstance gives predictive text software a reduction in the number of key strokes a user is required to enter a word. The user presses the number corresponding to each letter. As long as the word exists in the predictive text dictionary or is correctly disambiguated by non-dictionary systems, it will appear. For instance, pressing "4663" will typically be interpreted as the word good, provided that a linguistic database in English is currently in use, though alternatives such as home, hood and hoof are also valid interpretations of the sequence of key strokes. The most widely used systems of predictive text are Tegic's T9, Motorola's iTap, and the Eatoni Ergonomics' LetterWise and WordWise. T9 and iTap use dictionaries, but Eatoni Ergonomics' products use a disambiguation process, a set of statistical rules to recreate words from keystroke sequences. All predictive text systems require a linguistic database for every supported input language. == Dictionary vs. non-dictionary systems == Traditional disambiguation works by referencing a dictionary of commonly used words, though Eatoni offers a dictionaryless disambiguation system. In dictionary-based systems, as the user presses the number buttons, an algorithm searches the dictionary for a list of possible words that match the keypress combination and offers up the most probable choice. The user can then confirm the selection and move on, or use a key to cycle through the possible combinations. A non-dictionary system constructs words and other sequences of letters from the statistics of word parts. To attempt predictions of the intended result of keystrokes not yet entered, disambiguation may be combined with a word completion facility. Either system (disambiguation or predictive) may include a user database, which can be further classified as a "learning" system when words or phrases are entered into the user database without direct user intervention. The user database is for storing words or phrases that are not well disambiguated by the pre-supplied database. Some disambiguation systems further attempt to correct spelling, format text or perform other automatic rewrites, with the risky effect of either enhancing or frustrating user efforts to enter text. == History == The predictive text and autocomplete technology was invented out of necessities by Chinese scientists and linguists in the 1950s to solve the input inefficiency of the Chinese typewriter, as the typing process involved finding and selecting thousands of logographic characters on a tray, drastically slowing down the word processing speed. The actuating keys of the Chinese typewriter created by Lin Yutang in the 1940s included suggestions for the characters following the one selected. In 1951, the Chinese typesetter Zhang Jiying arranged Chinese characters in associative clusters, a precursor of modern predictive text entry, and broke speed records by doing so. Predictive entry of text from a telephone keypad has been known at least since the 1970s (Smith and Goodwin, 1971). Predictive text was mainly used to look up names in directories over the phone until mobile phone text messaging came into widespread use. == Example == On a typical phone keypad, if users wished to type the in a "multi-tap" keypad entry system, they would need to: Press 8 (tuv) once to select t. Press 4 (ghi) twice to select h. Press 3 (def) twice to select e. Meanwhile, in a phone with predictive text, they need only: Press 8 once to select the (tuv) group for the first character. Press 4 once to select the (ghi) group for the second character. Press 3 once to select the (def) group for the third character. The system updates the display as each keypress is entered, to show the most probable entry. In this example, prediction reduced the number of button presses from five to three. The effect is even greater with longer words and those composed of letters later in each key's sequence. A dictionary-based predictive system is based on the hope that the desired word is in the dictionary. That hope may be misplaced if the word differs in any way from common usage—in particular, if the word is not spelled or typed correctly, is slang, or is a proper noun. In these cases, some other mechanism must be used to enter the word. Furthermore, the simple dictionary approach fails with agglutinative languages, where a single word does not necessarily represent a single semantic entity. == Companies and products == Predictive text is developed and marketed in a variety of competing products, such as Nuance Communications's T9. Other products include Motorola's iTap; Eatoni Ergonomic's LetterWise (character, rather than word-based prediction); WordWise (word-based prediction without a dictionary); EQ3 (a QWERTY-like layout compatible with regular telephone keypads); Prevalent Devices's Phraze-It; Xrgomics' TenGO (a six-key reduced QWERTY keyboard system); Adaptxt (considers language, context, grammar and semantics); Lightkey (a predictive typing software for Windows); Clevertexting (statistical nature of the language, dictionaryless, dynamic key allocation); and Oizea Type (temporal ambiguity); Intelab's Tauto; WordLogic's Intelligent Input Platform™ (patented, layer-based advanced text prediction, includes multi-language dictionary, spell-check, built-in Web search); Google's Gboard. == Textonyms == Words produced by the same combination of keypresses have been called "textonyms"; also "txtonyms"; or "T9o

  Read more →
• 

  Tensor sketch

  In statistics, machine learning and algorithms, a tensor sketch is a type of dimensionality reduction that is particularly efficient when applied to vectors that have tensor structure. Such a sketch can be used to speed up explicit kernel methods, bilinear pooling in neural networks and is a cornerstone in many numerical linear algebra algorithms. == Mathematical definition == Mathematically, a dimensionality reduction or sketching matrix is a matrix M ∈ R k × d {\displaystyle M\in \mathbb {R} ^{k\times d}} , where k < d {\displaystyle k 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 →
• 

  Stress majorization

  Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i Read more →

• 

  Vulnerability assessment (computing)

  Vulnerability assessment is a process of defining, identifying and classifying the security holes in information technology systems. An attacker can exploit a vulnerability to violate the security of a system. Some known vulnerabilities are Authentication Vulnerability, Authorization Vulnerability and Input Validation Vulnerability. == Purpose == Before deploying a system, it first must go through from a series of vulnerability assessments that will ensure that the build system is secure from all the known security risks. When a new vulnerability is discovered, the system administrator can again perform an assessment, discover which modules are vulnerable, and start the patch process. After the fixes are in place, another assessment can be run to verify that the vulnerabilities were actually resolved. This cycle of assess, patch, and re-assess has become the standard method for many organizations to manage their security issues. The primary purpose of the assessment is to find the vulnerabilities in the system, but the assessment report conveys to stakeholders that the system is secured from these vulnerabilities. If an intruder gained access to a network consisting of vulnerable Web servers, it is safe to assume that he gained access to those systems as well. Because of assessment report, the security administrator will be able to determine how intrusion occurred, identify compromised assets and take appropriate security measures to prevent critical damage to the system. == Assessment types == Depending on the system a vulnerability assessment can have many types and level. === Host assessment === A host assessment looks for system-level vulnerabilities such as insecure file permissions, application level bugs, backdoor and Trojan horse installations. It requires specialized tools for the operating system and software packages being used, in addition to administrative access to each system that should be tested. Host assessment is often very costly in term of time, and thus is only used in the assessment of critical systems. Tools like COPS and Tiger are popular in host assessment. === Network assessment === In a network assessment one assess the network for known vulnerabilities. It locates all systems on a network, determines what network services are in use, and then analyzes those services for potential vulnerabilities. This process does not require any configuration changes on the systems being assessed. Unlike host assessment, network assessment requires little computational cost and effort. == Vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing == Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing are two different testing methods. They are differentiated on the basis of certain specific parameters. == Regulatory requirements == Vulnerability assessments are mandated or strongly recommended by several regulatory frameworks. In the United States healthcare sector, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to conduct periodic evaluations of their security posture, and a December 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would explicitly require vulnerability scanning at least every six months for systems containing electronic protected health information. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires quarterly vulnerability scans for organizations that process credit card transactions, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework includes vulnerability assessment as a core component of its Identify function.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized canonical correlation

  In statistics, the generalized canonical correlation analysis (gCCA), is a way of making sense of cross-correlation matrices between the sets of random variables when there are more than two sets. While a conventional CCA generalizes principal component analysis (PCA) to two sets of random variables, a gCCA generalizes PCA to more than two sets of random variables. The canonical variables represent those common factors that can be found by a large PCA of all of the transformed random variables after each set underwent its own PCA. == Applications == The Helmert-Wolf blocking (HWB) method of estimating linear regression parameters can find an optimal solution only if all cross-correlations between the data blocks are zero. They can always be made to vanish by introducing a new regression parameter for each common factor. The gCCA method can be used for finding those harmful common factors that create cross-correlation between the blocks. However, no optimal HWB solution exists if the random variables do not contain enough information on all of the new regression parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Multilinear principal component analysis

  Multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) is a multilinear extension of principal component analysis (PCA) that is used to analyze M-way arrays, also informally referred to as "data tensors". M-way arrays may be modeled by linear tensor models, such as CANDECOMP/Parafac, or by multilinear tensor models, such as multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) or multilinear (tensor) independent component analysis (MICA). In 2005, Vasilescu and Terzopoulos introduced the Multilinear PCA terminology as a way to better differentiate between multilinear data models that employed 2nd order statistics versus higher order statistics to compute a set of independent components for each mode, such as Multilinear ICA Multilinear PCA may be applied to compute the causal factors of data formation, or as signal processing tool on data tensors whose individual observation have either been vectorized, or whose observations are treated as a collection of column/row observations, an "observation as a matrix", and concatenated into a data tensor. The latter approach is suitable for compression and reducing redundancy in the rows, columns and fibers that are unrelated to the causal factors of data formation. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos in their paper "TensorFaces" introduced the M-mode SVD algorithm which are algorithms misidentified in the literature as the HOSVD or the Tucker which employ the power method or gradient descent, respectively. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos framed the data analysis, recognition and synthesis problems as multilinear tensor problems. Data is viewed as the compositional consequence of several causal factors, that are well suited for multi-modal tensor factor analysis. The power of the tensor framework was showcased by analyzing human motion joint angles, facial images or textures in the following papers: Human Motion Signatures (CVPR 2001, ICPR 2002), face recognition – TensorFaces, (ECCV 2002, CVPR 2003, etc.) and computer graphics – TensorTextures (Siggraph 2004). == The algorithm == The MPCA solution follows the alternating least square (ALS) approach. It is iterative in nature. As in PCA, MPCA works on centered data. Centering is a little more complicated for tensors, and it is problem dependent. == Feature selection == MPCA features: Supervised MPCA is employed in causal factor analysis that facilitates object recognition while a semi-supervised MPCA feature selection is employed in visualization tasks. == Extensions == Various extension of MPCA: Robust MPCA (RMPCA) Multi-Tensor Factorization, that also finds the number of components automatically (MTF)

  Read more →
• 

  Quantum neural network

  Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it

  Read more →
• 

  Wargame (hacking)

  In hacking, a wargame (or war game) is a cyber-security challenge and mind sport in which the competitors must exploit or defend a vulnerability in a system or application, and/or gain or prevent access to a computer system. A wargame usually involves a capture the flag logic, based on pentesting, semantic URL attacks, knowledge-based authentication, password cracking, reverse engineering of software (often JavaScript, C and assembly language), code injection, SQL injections, cross-site scripting, exploits, IP address spoofing, forensics, and other hacking techniques. == Wargames for preparedness == Wargames are also used as a method of cyberwarfare preparedness. The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) organizes an annual event, Locked Shields, which is an international live-fire cyber exercise. The exercise challenges cyber security experts through real-time attacks in fictional scenarios and is used to develop skills in national IT defense strategies. == Additional applications == Wargames can be used to teach the basics of web attacks and web security, giving participants a better understanding of how attackers exploit security vulnerabilities. Wargames are also used as a way to "stress test" an organization's response plan and serve as a drill to identify gaps in cyber disaster preparedness.

  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 →
• 

  ARKA descriptors in QSAR

  In computational chemistry and cheminformatics, ARKA descriptors in QSAR are a class of molecular descriptors used in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling (or related approaches such as QSPR and QSTR), a computational method for predicting the biological activity or toxicity of chemical compounds based on their molecular structure. Molecular descriptors are numerical values that summarize information about a molecule's structure, topology, geometry, or physicochemical properties in a form suitable for machine learning or statistical modeling. ARKA (Arithmetic Residuals in K-Groups Analysis) descriptors differ from traditional descriptors by encoding atomic-level information through recursive autoregression techniques, which aim to capture subtle structural patterns and improve predictive accuracy. They are designed to be both interpretable and well-suited to modeling nonlinear relationships in QSAR studies. == Comparisons == While QSAR is essentially a similarity-based approach, the occurrence of activity/property cliffs may greatly reduce the predictive accuracy of the developed models. The novel Arithmetic Residuals in K-groups Analysis (ARKA) approach is a supervised dimensionality reduction technique developed by the DTC Laboratory, Jadavpur University that can easily identify activity cliffs in a data set. Activity cliffs are similar in their structures but differ considerably in their activity. The basic idea of the ARKA descriptors is to group the conventional QSAR descriptors based on a predefined criterion and then assign weightage to each descriptor in each group. ARKA descriptors have also been used to develop classification-based and regression-based QSAR models with acceptable quality statistics. The ARKA descriptors have been used for the identification of activity cliffs in QSAR studies and/or model development by multiple researchers. A tutorial presentation on the ARKA descriptors is available. Recently a multi-class ARKA framework has been proposed for improved q-RASAR model generation.

  Read more →