AI Headshot Improver

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

• 

  Data event

  A data event is a relevant state transition defined in an event schema. Typically, event schemata are described by pre- and post condition for a single or a set of data items. In contrast to ECA (Event condition action), which considers an event to be a signal, the data event not only refers to the change (signal), but describes specific state transitions, which are referred to in ECA as conditions. Considering data events as relevant data item state transitions allows defining complex event-reaction schemata for a database. Defining data event schemata for relational databases is limited to attribute and instance events. Object-oriented databases also support collection properties, which allows defining changes in collections as data events, too.

  Read more →
• 

  Determining the number of clusters in a data set

  Determining the number of clusters in a data set, a quantity often labelled k as in the k-means algorithm, is a frequent problem in data clustering, and is a distinct issue from the process of actually solving the clustering problem. For a certain class of clustering algorithms (in particular k-means, k-medoids and expectation–maximization algorithm), there is a parameter commonly referred to as k that specifies the number of clusters to detect. Other algorithms such as DBSCAN and OPTICS algorithm do not require the specification of this parameter; hierarchical clustering avoids the problem altogether. The correct choice of k is often ambiguous, with interpretations depending on the shape and scale of the distribution of points in a data set and the desired clustering resolution of the user. In addition, increasing k without penalty will always reduce the amount of error in the resulting clustering, to the extreme case of zero error if each data point is considered its own cluster (i.e., when k equals the number of data points, n). Intuitively then, the optimal choice of k will strike a balance between maximum compression of the data using a single cluster, and maximum accuracy by assigning each data point to its own cluster. If an appropriate value of k is not apparent from prior knowledge of the properties of the data set, it must be chosen somehow. There are several categories of methods for making this decision. == Elbow method == The elbow method looks at the percentage of explained variance as a function of the number of clusters: One should choose a number of clusters so that adding another cluster does not give much better modeling of the data. More precisely, if one plots the percentage of variance explained by the clusters against the number of clusters, the first clusters will add much information (explain a lot of variance), but at some point the marginal gain will drop, giving an angle in the graph. The number of clusters is chosen at this point, hence the "elbow criterion". In most datasets, this "elbow" is ambiguous, making this method subjective and unreliable. Because the scale of the axes is arbitrary, the concept of an angle is not well-defined, and even on uniform random data, the curve produces an "elbow", making the method rather unreliable. Percentage of variance explained is the ratio of the between-group variance to the total variance, also known as an F-test. A slight variation of this method plots the curvature of the within group variance. The method can be traced to speculation by Robert L. Thorndike in 1953. While the idea of the elbow method sounds simple and straightforward, other methods (as detailed below) give better results. == X-means clustering == In statistics and data mining, X-means clustering is a variation of k-means clustering that refines cluster assignments by repeatedly attempting subdivision, and keeping the best resulting splits, until a criterion such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC) or Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is reached. == Information criterion approach == Another set of methods for determining the number of clusters are information criteria, such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), or the deviance information criterion (DIC) — if it is possible to make a likelihood function for the clustering model. For example: The k-means model is "almost" a Gaussian mixture model and one can construct a likelihood for the Gaussian mixture model and thus also determine information criterion values. == Information–theoretic approach == Rate distortion theory has been applied to choosing k called the "jump" method, which determines the number of clusters that maximizes efficiency while minimizing error by information-theoretic standards. The strategy of the algorithm is to generate a distortion curve for the input data by running a standard clustering algorithm such as k-means for all values of k between 1 and n, and computing the distortion (described below) of the resulting clustering. The distortion curve is then transformed by a negative power chosen based on the dimensionality of the data. Jumps in the resulting values then signify reasonable choices for k, with the largest jump representing the best choice. The distortion of a clustering of some input data is formally defined as follows: Let the data set be modeled as a p-dimensional random variable, X, consisting of a mixture distribution of G components with common covariance, Γ. If we let c 1 … c K {\displaystyle c_{1}\ldots c_{K}} be a set of K cluster centers, with c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} the closest center to a given sample of X, then the minimum average distortion per dimension when fitting the K centers to the data is: d K = 1 p min c 1 … c K E [ ( X − c X ) T Γ − 1 ( X − c X ) ] {\displaystyle d_{K}={\frac {1}{p}}\min _{c_{1}\ldots c_{K}}{E[(X-c_{X})^{T}\Gamma ^{-1}(X-c_{X})]}} This is also the average Mahalanobis distance per dimension between X and the closest cluster center c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} . Because the minimization over all possible sets of cluster centers is prohibitively complex, the distortion is computed in practice by generating a set of cluster centers using a standard clustering algorithm and computing the distortion using the result. The pseudo-code for the jump method with an input set of p-dimensional data points X is: JumpMethod(X): Let Y = (p/2) Init a list D, of size n+1 Let D[0] = 0 For k = 1 ... n: Cluster X with k clusters (e.g., with k-means) Let d = Distortion of the resulting clustering D[k] = d^(-Y) Define J(i) = D[i] - D[i-1] Return the k between 1 and n that maximizes J(k) The choice of the transform power Y = ( p / 2 ) {\displaystyle Y=(p/2)} is motivated by asymptotic reasoning using results from rate distortion theory. Let the data X have a single, arbitrarily p-dimensional Gaussian distribution, and let fixed K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , for some α greater than zero. Then the distortion of a clustering of K clusters in the limit as p goes to infinity is α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . It can be seen that asymptotically, the distortion of a clustering to the power ( − p / 2 ) {\displaystyle (-p/2)} is proportional to α p {\displaystyle \alpha ^{p}} , which by definition is approximately the number of clusters K. In other words, for a single Gaussian distribution, increasing K beyond the true number of clusters, which should be one, causes a linear growth in distortion. This behavior is important in the general case of a mixture of multiple distribution components. Let X be a mixture of G p-dimensional Gaussian distributions with common covariance. Then for any fixed K less than G, the distortion of a clustering as p goes to infinity is infinite. Intuitively, this means that a clustering of less than the correct number of clusters is unable to describe asymptotically high-dimensional data, causing the distortion to increase without limit. If, as described above, K is made an increasing function of p, namely, K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , the same result as above is achieved, with the value of the distortion in the limit as p goes to infinity being equal to α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . Correspondingly, there is the same proportional relationship between the transformed distortion and the number of clusters, K. Putting the results above together, it can be seen that for sufficiently high values of p, the transformed distortion d K − p / 2 {\displaystyle d_{K}^{-p/2}} is approximately zero for K < G, then jumps suddenly and begins increasing linearly for K ≥ G. The jump algorithm for choosing K makes use of these behaviors to identify the most likely value for the true number of clusters. Although the mathematical support for the method is given in terms of asymptotic results, the algorithm has been empirically verified to work well in a variety of data sets with reasonable dimensionality. In addition to the localized jump method described above, there exists a second algorithm for choosing K using the same transformed distortion values known as the broken line method. The broken line method identifies the jump point in the graph of the transformed distortion by doing a simple least squares error line fit of two line segments, which in theory will fall along the x-axis for K < G, and along the linearly increasing phase of the transformed distortion plot for K ≥ G. The broken line method is more robust than the jump method in that its decision is global rather than local, but it also relies on the assumption of Gaussian mixture components, whereas the jump method is fully non-parametric and has been shown to be viable for general mixture distributions. == Silhouette method == The average silhouette of the data is another useful criterion for assessing the natural number of clusters. The silhouette of a data instance is a measure of how closely it is match

  Read more →
• 

  Promoter based genetic algorithm

  The promoter based genetic algorithm (PBGA) is a genetic algorithm for neuroevolution developed by F. Bellas and R.J. Duro in the Integrated Group for Engineering Research (GII) at the University of Coruña, in Spain. It evolves variable size feedforward artificial neural networks (ANN) that are encoded into sequences of genes for constructing a basic ANN unit. Each of these blocks is preceded by a gene promoter acting as an on/off switch that determines if that particular unit will be expressed or not. == PBGA basics == The basic unit in the PBGA is a neuron with all of its inbound connections as represented in the following figure: The genotype of a basic unit is a set of real valued weights followed by the parameters of the neuron and proceeded by an integer valued field that determines the promoter gene value and, consequently, the expression of the unit. By concatenating units of this type we can construct the whole network. With this encoding it is imposed that the information that is not expressed is still carried by the genotype in evolution but it is shielded from direct selective pressure, maintaining this way the diversity in the population, which has been a design premise for this algorithm. Therefore, a clear difference is established between the search space and the solution space, permitting information learned and encoded into the genotypic representation to be preserved by disabling promoter genes. == Results == The PBGA was originally presented within the field of autonomous robotics, in particular in the real time learning of environment models of the robot. It has been used inside the Multilevel Darwinist Brain (MDB) cognitive mechanism developed in the GII for real robots on-line learning. In another paper it is shown how the application of the PBGA together with an external memory that stores the successful obtained world models, is an optimal strategy for adaptation in dynamic environments. Recently, the PBGA has provided results that outperform other neuroevolutionary algorithms in non-stationary problems, where the fitness function varies in time.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized blockmodeling

  In generalized blockmodeling, the blockmodeling is done by "the translation of an equivalence type into a set of permitted block types", which differs from the conventional blockmodeling, which is using the indirect approach. It's a special instance of the direct blockmodeling approach. Generalized blockmodeling was introduced in 1994 by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj. == Definition == Generalized blockmodeling approach is a direct one, "where the optimal partition(s) is (are) identified based on minimal values of a compatible criterion function defined by the difference between empirical blocks and corresponding ideal blocks". At the same time, the much broader set of block types is introduced (while in conventional blockmodeling only certain types are used). The conventional blockmodeling is inductive due to nonspecification of neither the clusters or the location of block types, while in generalized blockmodeling the blockmodel is specified with more detail than just the permition of certain block types (e.g., prespecification). Further, it's possible to define departures from the permitted (ideal) blocktype, using criterion function. Using local optimization procedure, firstly the initial clustering (with specified number of clusters is done, based on random creation. How the clusters are neighboring to each other, is based on two transformations: 1) a vertex is moved from one to another cluster or 2) a pair of vertices is interchanged between two different clusters. This process of transformation steps is repeated many times, until only the best fitting partitions (with the minimized value of the criterion function) are kept as blockmodels for the future exploration of the network. Different types of generalized blockmodeling are: generalized binary blockmodeling, generalized valued blockmodeling and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling. == Benefits == According to Patrick Doreian, the benefits of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: usage of explicit criterion function, compatible with a given type of equivalence, results to in-built measure of fit, which is integral to the establishment of the blockmodels (in conventional blockmodeling, there is no compelling and coherent measures of fit); partitions, based on generalized blockmodeling, regularly outperform and never perform less well than the partitions, based on conventional approach; with generalized blockmodeling it's possible to specify new types of blockmodels; this potentially unlimited set of new block types also results in permittion of inclusion of substantively driven blockmodels; in generalized blockmodeling, the specification of the block types and the location of some of them in the blockmodel is possible; researcher can speficy which (pair of) vertices must be (not) clustered together; this approach also allows the imposition of penalties, resulting into identification of empirical null blocks without inconsistencies with a corresponding ideal null block. == Problems == According to Doreian, the problems of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: unknown sensitivity to particular data features, examination of boundary problems, computationally burdensome, which results in a constraint regarding practical network size (generalized blockmodeling is thus primarily used to analyse smaller networks (below 100 units)), identifying structure from incomplete network information, most of generalized blockmodeling is based on binary networks, but there is also development in the field of valued networks, criterion function is minimized for a specified blockmodel, with results in issues of evaluating statistically, based on the structural data alone, problems regarding three dimensional network data, problems regarding the evolution of fundamental network structure. == Book == The book with the same title, Generalized blockmodeling, written by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj, was in 2007 awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association.

  Read more →
• 

  Data preprocessing

  Data preprocessing can refer to manipulation, filtration or augmentation of data before it is analyzed, and is often an important step in the data mining process. Data collection methods are often loosely controlled, resulting in out-of-range values, impossible data combinations, and missing values, amongst other issues. Preprocessing is the process by which unstructured data is transformed into intelligible representations suitable for machine-learning models. This phase of model deals with noise in order to arrive at better and improved results from the original data set which was noisy. This dataset also has some level of missing value present in it. The preprocessing pipeline used can often have large effects on the conclusions drawn from the downstream analysis. Thus, representation and quality of data is necessary before running any analysis. If there is a high proportion of irrelevant and redundant information present or noisy and unreliable data, then knowledge discovery during the training phase may be more difficult. Data preparation and filtering steps can take a considerable amount of processing time. Examples of methods used in data preprocessing include cleaning, instance selection, normalization, one-hot encoding, data transformation, feature extraction and feature selection. == Applications == === Data mining === Data preprocessing allows for the removal of unwanted data with the use of data cleaning, this allows the user to have a dataset to contain more valuable information after the preprocessing stage for data manipulation later in the data mining process. Editing such dataset to either correct data corruption or human error is a crucial step to get accurate quantifiers like true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives found in a confusion matrix that are commonly used for a medical diagnosis. Users are able to join data files together and use preprocessing to filter any unnecessary noise from the data which can allow for higher accuracy. Users use Python programming scripts accompanied by the pandas library which gives them the ability to import data from a comma-separated values as a data-frame. The data-frame is then used to manipulate data that can be challenging otherwise to do in Excel. Pandas (software) which is a powerful tool that allows for data analysis and manipulation; which makes data visualizations, statistical operations and much more, a lot easier. Many also use the R programming language to do such tasks as well. The reason why a user transforms existing files into a new one is because of many reasons. Aspects of data preprocessing may include imputing missing values, aggregating numerical quantities and transforming continuous data into categories (data binning). More advanced techniques like principal component analysis and feature selection are working with statistical formulas and are applied to complex datasets which are recorded by GPS trackers and motion capture devices. === Semantic data preprocessing === Semantic data mining is a subset of data mining that specifically seeks to incorporate domain knowledge, such as formal semantics, into the data mining process. Domain knowledge is the knowledge of the environment the data was processed in. Domain knowledge can have a positive influence on many aspects of data mining, such as filtering out redundant or inconsistent data during the preprocessing phase. Domain knowledge also works as constraint. It does this by using working as set of prior knowledge to reduce the space required for searching and acting as a guide to the data. Simply put, semantic preprocessing seeks to filter data using the original environment of said data more correctly and efficiently. There are increasingly complex problems which are asking to be solved by more elaborate techniques to better analyze existing information. Instead of creating a simple script for aggregating different numerical values into a single value, it make sense to focus on semantic based data preprocessing. The idea is to build a dedicated ontology, which explains on a higher level what the problem is about. In regards to semantic data mining and semantic pre-processing, ontologies are a way to conceptualize and formally define semantic knowledge and data. The Protégé (software) is the standard tool for constructing an ontology. In general, the use of ontologies bridges the gaps between data, applications, algorithms, and results that occur from semantic mismatches. As a result, semantic data mining combined with ontology has many applications where semantic ambiguity can impact the usefulness and efficiency of data systems. Applications include the medical field, language processing, banking, and even tutoring, among many more. There are various strengths to using a semantic data mining and ontological based approach. As previously mentioned, these tools can help during the per-processing phase by filtering out non-desirable data from the data set. Additionally, well-structured formal semantics integrated into well designed ontologies can return powerful data that can be easily read and processed by machines. A specifically useful example of this exists in the medical use of semantic data processing. As an example, a patient is having a medical emergency and is being rushed to hospital. The emergency responders are trying to figure out the best medicine to administer to help the patient. Under normal data processing, scouring all the patient’s medical data to ensure they are getting the best treatment could take too long and risk the patients’ health or even life. However, using semantically processed ontologies, the first responders could save the patient’s life. Tools like a semantic reasoner can use ontology to infer the what best medicine to administer to the patient is based on their medical history, such as if they have a certain cancer or other conditions, simply by examining the natural language used in the patient's medical records. This would allow the first responders to quickly and efficiently search for medicine without having worry about the patient’s medical history themselves, as the semantic reasoner would already have analyzed this data and found solutions. In general, this illustrates the incredible strength of using semantic data mining and ontologies. They allow for quicker and more efficient data extraction on the user side, as the user has fewer variables to account for, since the semantically pre-processed data and ontology built for the data have already accounted for many of these variables. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. Namely, it requires a high amount of computational power and complexity, even with relatively small data sets. This could result in higher costs and increased difficulties in building and maintaining semantic data processing systems. This can be mitigated somewhat if the data set is already well organized and formatted, but even then, the complexity is still higher when compared to standard data processing. Below is a simple a diagram combining some of the processes, in particular semantic data mining and their use in ontology. The diagram depicts a data set being broken up into two parts: the characteristics of its domain, or domain knowledge, and then the actual acquired data. The domain characteristics are then processed to become user understood domain knowledge that can be applied to the data. Meanwhile, the data set is processed and stored so that the domain knowledge can applied to it, so that the process may continue. This application forms the ontology. From there, the ontology can be used to analyze data and process results. Fuzzy preprocessing is another, more advanced technique for solving complex problems. Fuzzy preprocessing and fuzzy data mining make use of fuzzy sets. These data sets are composed of two elements: a set and a membership function for the set which comprises 0 and 1. Fuzzy preprocessing uses this fuzzy data set to ground numerical values with linguistic information. Raw data is then transformed into natural language. Ultimately, fuzzy data mining's goal is to help deal with inexact information, such as an incomplete database. Currently fuzzy preprocessing, as well as other fuzzy based data mining techniques see frequent use with neural networks and artificial intelligence.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural Networks (journal)

  Neural Networks is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal and an official journal of the International Neural Network Society, European Neural Network Society, and Japanese Neural Network Society. == History == The journal was established in 1988 and is published by Elsevier. It covers all aspects of research on artificial neural networks. The founding editor-in-chief was Stephen Grossberg (Boston University). The current editors-in-chief are DeLiang Wang (Ohio State University) and Taro Toyoizumi (RIKEN Center for Brain Science). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8.

  Read more →
• 

  Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  The Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition is an annual conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. == Affiliations == The conference was first held in 1983 in Washington, DC, organized by Takeo Kanade and Dana H. Ballard. From 1985 to 2010 it was sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society. In 2011 it was also co-sponsored by University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Since 2012 it has been co-sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and the Computer Vision Foundation, which provides open access to the conference papers. == Scope == The conference considers a wide range of topics related to computer vision and pattern recognition—basically any topic that is extracting structures or answers from images or video or applying mathematical methods to data to extract or recognize patterns. Common topics include object recognition, image segmentation, motion estimation, 3D reconstruction, and deep learning. The conference generally has less than 30% acceptance rates for all papers and less than 5% for oral presentations. It is managed by a rotating group of volunteers who are chosen in a public election at the Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence-Technical Community (PAMI-TC) meeting four years before the meeting. The conference uses a multi-tier double-blind peer review process. The program chairs, who cannot submit papers, select area chairs who manage the reviewers for their subset of submissions. == Location and time == The conference is usually held in June in North America. == Awards == === Best Paper Award === These awards are picked by committees delegated by the program chairs of the conference. === Longuet-Higgins Prize === The Longuet-Higgins Prize recognizes papers from ten years ago that have made a significant impact on computer vision research. === PAMI Young Researcher Award === The Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Young Researcher Award is an award given by the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence of the IEEE Computer Society to a researcher within 7 years of completing their Ph.D. for outstanding early career research contributions. Candidates are nominated by the computer vision community, with winners selected by a committee of senior researchers in the field. This award was originally instituted in 2012 by the journal Image and Vision Computing, also presented at the conference, and the journal continues to sponsor the award. === PAMI Thomas S. Huang Memorial Prize === The Thomas Huang Memorial Prize was established at the 2020 conference and is awarded annually starting from 2021 to honor researchers who are recognized as examples in research, teaching/mentoring, and service to the computer vision community.

  Read more →
• 

  Linear discriminant analysis

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

  Read more →
• 

  Language-Theoretic Security

  Language-theoretic security, or LangSec, is an approach to software security that focuses on input handling, complexity, and program design as strategies to improve the verifiability of computer programs. It was introduced in 2005 by Robert J. Hansen and Meredith L. Patterson at BlackHat and in 2011 by Len Sassaman and Patterson. It aims to create a formal description of which software is likely to have security vulnerabilities of particular classes, and why. It considers programs to have an inherent parser component, whether or not explicit, composed of that part of the program which operates on external input before that input is fully parsed. A central hypothesis of language-theoretic security is that vulnerabilities in software increase according to the computational power of the notional input-accepting automaton equivalent to this parser, using the definitions of automata theory. The lower bound on this computational power is the input language complexity of the program. The extent to which reducing this complexity is possible is a function of the specification of the communication protocol or file format the program takes as input. == Parsing as a security mechanism == The behaviour of a program is defined with reference to its expected input. Unexpected input being used by a program is a factor in numerous security bugs, including the so-called Android master key vulnerability (CVE-2013-4787), because accepting unexpected input renders the program's specification ambiguous. In that instance, the unexpected ambiguity came in the form of a ZIP file with duplicate filenames. If a program fully parses its input and only acts on input that unambiguously meets the specification, it follows that the program will avoid these types of vulnerabilities. This is an intentional inversion of the Postel principle. Accepting only unambiguous and valid input is a more formal requirement than input validation or sanitization, and narrows the number of possible but unanticipated program states that can be induced in an application via user input. Conversely, failure to do this is associated with security vulnerabilities. Input sanitization in particular is held to be an inadequate approach to avoiding malicious input because it inherently ignores context-sensitive properties of the input; it can therefore result in paradoxical effects, such as sanitization code activating otherwise inert cross-site scripting payloads in browsers. === Parser differentials === If the language of accepted program input is sufficiently simple, it is possible to verify that two implementations parse the same input language consistently. This is advantageous because it shows no parser differential exists between the two implementations. The requisite level of simplicity is theoretically that for which there is a solution to the equivalence problem. If the two parsers involved in CVE-2013-4787 were equivalent - that is, if they rendered the same output state given the same input state - the vulnerability could not have existed. One strategy for doing this is to publish machine-readable specifications of a format or protocol, and then use a parser generator to generate the parser code. An example of a parser generator built for this purpose is DaeDaLus. The combination of Lex with any of GNU Bison, ANTLR, or Yacc also accomplishes this. However, many parser generators allow the mixing of general purpose code with the parsing definitions, which weakens the guarantees provided by parsing. === Analysis of injection attacks === Injection attacks are generally the result of differences between the serializer (or "unparser") and the corresponding parser at a layer boundary in a system; therefore, they are a special case of parser differentials. In a SQL injection attack, for example, an attacker is able to cause the application with which they are interacting to serialize a SQL query that has different semantics than intended. In the simplest case where the payload ends a string and adds new code, the payload has crossed the code-data boundary in SQL. In language-theoretic security, this is treated as a bug in the serializer of the SQL query, which should instead be written in a way that constrains its possible outputs to those within the scope of the intended query. === Parser combinators === If a parser generator is not used, it is still possible to avoid implementation bugs by using parser combinator such as Nom to implement the parser code. This has the drawback of relying on a programmer correctly translating the specification into the language of the parser generator library, though this task is still less error-prone than hand-coding a parser. == Input format complexity == Complexity in computer programs is associated with security vulnerabilities. Within the domain of language-theoretic security, complexity is described with reference to the computational power of the abstract machine necessary to implement the program, or more particularly, to implement the parser for its input language. This complexity describes whether it is possible to show that there is no unintended or undesired functionality in the program which might be exploitable by an attacker. To be bounded in complexity, the program's input must be well-defined both in terms of form and of semantics. === Weird machines === A weird machine is a model of computation in a program that exists in parallel with, but is distinct from, the intended abstract model of computation in that program. Some classes of weird machine arise from the multi-layered nature of computer programs, or the context in which the programs run; others result from the unanticipated functionality a program has due to its complexity or to software bugs. The more complex the computation model of a program, the more likely it is to implement a weird machine. Depending on context, the weird machine may or may not be concretely useful for an attacker. Since the space of weird machines in the context of some program is the universe of all possible states that are not within the program's intended states, many exploited states including remote code execution and injection attacks belong to the domain of weird machines. A reduction in weird machines is therefore a likely correlate with reduced program vulnerability. === SafeDocs project === SafeDocs is a DARPA project undertaken in 2018 to take existing file formats, create safer subsets of them, and develop programming tools to work for the safer formats. The initial test case for this was PDF. The purpose of creating safer subsets in this case is to lower the minimum bound on parser complexity so that it becomes possible to create tools that will generate correct, normative parsers for them. == Relation to programming languages == The analytic framework of language-theoretic security assumes programs to be virtual machines that execute their input. A document that is read by an application is in this sense a form of machine code, in a generalization of the data as code idea, following the automata theory description of parsers. === Type-safe programming languages === Parsing input and serializing output are operations that consume one data type and emit another. A programming language can therefore check that data is correctly parsed and contains the expected structure by checking data types, and correct serializing (or unparsing) can be implemented as operations on the data types that are relevant to the program's output. This approach can be used to show that the recognizer and unparser patterns have been implemented. It is also possible to implement type checking across a distributed system to enforce parsing and unparsing of the expected structures and to verify that the assumptions made in designing the compositional properties of a distributed system have been followed. === Memory-safe programming languages === In the general case, spatial memory correctness is undecidable. If any proof of spatial memory correctness is to be made, it is therefore necessary to bound the complexity of the code. Interpreted languages such as Java and Python effectively accomplish this via runtime bounds checking, and frameworks for runtime bounds checking also exist for C. The effect of these strategies for spatial memory correctness are to create a halt state in place of a spatial memory correctness violation; therefore, it can be shown that the program will not violate spatial memory correctness, but in exchange, it cannot be shown in the general case that programs will not have runtime bounds checking exceptions. Some programming languages, such as Rust, accomplish this using borrow checking. The borrow checker acts to assure spatial memory correctness by compile-time reference counting. Code for which spatial memory correctness cannot be shown to not be violated therefore does not compile, inherently limiting the complexity of the spatial memory correctness of the program to what is decidable. Thi

  Read more →
• 

  Multidimensional scaling

  Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a means of visualizing the level of similarity of individual cases of a data set. MDS is used to translate distances between each pair of n {\textstyle n} objects in a set into a configuration of n {\textstyle n} points mapped into an abstract Cartesian space. More technically, MDS refers to a set of related ordination techniques used in information visualization, in particular to display the information contained in a distance matrix. It is a form of non-linear dimensionality reduction. Given a distance matrix with the distances between each pair of objects in a set, and a chosen number of dimensions, N, an MDS algorithm places each object into N-dimensional space (a lower-dimensional representation) such that the between-object distances are preserved as well as possible. For N = 1, 2, and 3, the resulting points can be visualized on a scatter plot. Core theoretical contributions to MDS were made by James O. Ramsay of McGill University, who is also regarded as the founder of functional data analysis. == Types == MDS algorithms fall into a taxonomy, depending on the meaning of the input matrix: === Classical multidimensional scaling === It is also known as Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA), Torgerson Scaling or Torgerson–Gower scaling. It takes an input matrix giving dissimilarities between pairs of items and outputs a coordinate matrix whose configuration minimizes a loss function called strain, which is given by Strain D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ( ∑ i , j ( b i j − x i T x j ) 2 ∑ i , j b i j 2 ) 1 / 2 , {\displaystyle {\text{Strain}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\Biggl (}{\frac {\sum _{i,j}{\bigl (}b_{ij}-x_{i}^{T}x_{j}{\bigr )}^{2}}{\sum _{i,j}b_{ij}^{2}}}{\Biggr )}^{1/2},} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} denote vectors in N-dimensional space, x i T x j {\displaystyle x_{i}^{T}x_{j}} denotes the scalar product between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} , and b i j {\displaystyle b_{ij}} are the elements of the matrix B {\displaystyle B} defined on step 2 of the following algorithm, which are computed from the distances. Steps of a Classical MDS algorithm: Classical MDS uses the fact that the coordinate matrix X {\displaystyle X} can be derived by eigenvalue decomposition from B = X X ′ {\textstyle B=XX'} . And the matrix B {\textstyle B} can be computed from proximity matrix D {\textstyle D} by using double centering. Set up the squared proximity matrix D ( 2 ) = [ d i j 2 ] {\textstyle D^{(2)}=[d_{ij}^{2}]} Apply double centering: B = − 1 2 C D ( 2 ) C {\textstyle B=-{\frac {1}{2}}CD^{(2)}C} using the centering matrix C = I − 1 n J n {\textstyle C=I-{\frac {1}{n}}J_{n}} , where n {\textstyle n} is the number of objects, I {\textstyle I} is the n × n {\textstyle n\times n} identity matrix, and J n {\textstyle J_{n}} is an n × n {\textstyle n\times n} matrix of all ones. Determine the m {\textstyle m} largest eigenvalues λ 1 , λ 2 , . . . , λ m {\textstyle \lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},...,\lambda _{m}} and corresponding eigenvectors e 1 , e 2 , . . . , e m {\textstyle e_{1},e_{2},...,e_{m}} of B {\textstyle B} (where m {\textstyle m} is the number of dimensions desired for the output). Now, X = E m Λ m 1 / 2 {\textstyle X=E_{m}\Lambda _{m}^{1/2}} , where E m {\textstyle E_{m}} is the matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvectors and Λ m {\textstyle \Lambda _{m}} is the diagonal matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvalues of B {\textstyle B} . Classical MDS assumes metric distances. So this is not applicable for direct dissimilarity ratings. === Metric multidimensional scaling (mMDS) === It is a superset of classical MDS that generalizes the optimization procedure to a variety of loss functions and input matrices of known distances with weights and so on. A useful loss function in this context is called stress, which is often minimized using a procedure called stress majorization. Metric MDS minimizes the cost function called “stress” which is a residual sum of squares: Stress D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ∑ i ≠ j = 1 , . . . , n ( d i j − ‖ x i − x j ‖ ) 2 . {\displaystyle {\text{Stress}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\sqrt {\sum _{i\neq j=1,...,n}{\bigl (}d_{ij}-\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|{\bigr )}^{2}}}.} Metric scaling uses a power transformation with a user-controlled exponent p {\textstyle p} : d i j p {\textstyle d_{ij}^{p}} and − d i j 2 p {\textstyle -d_{ij}^{2p}} for distance. In classical scaling p = 1. {\textstyle p=1.} Non-metric scaling is defined by the use of isotonic regression to nonparametrically estimate a transformation of the dissimilarities. === Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) === In contrast to metric MDS, non-metric MDS finds both a non-parametric monotonic relationship between the dissimilarities in the item-item matrix and the Euclidean distances between items, and the location of each item in the low-dimensional space. Let d i j {\displaystyle d_{ij}} be the dissimilarity between points i , j {\displaystyle i,j} . Let d ^ i j = ‖ x i − x j ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {d}}_{ij}=\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|} be the Euclidean distance between embedded points x i , x j {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}} . Now, for each choice of the embedded points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and is a monotonically increasing function f {\displaystyle f} , define the "stress" function: S ( x 1 , . . . , x n ; f ) = ∑ i < j ( f ( d i j ) − d ^ i j ) 2 ∑ i < j d ^ i j 2 . {\displaystyle S(x_{1},...,x_{n};f)={\sqrt {\frac {\sum _{i Read more →

• 

  Analogical modeling

  Analogical modeling (AM) is a formal theory of exemplar based analogical reasoning, proposed by Royal Skousen, professor of Linguistics and English language at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. It is applicable to language modeling and other categorization tasks. Analogical modeling is related to connectionism and nearest neighbor approaches, in that it is data-based rather than abstraction-based; but it is distinguished by its ability to cope with imperfect datasets (such as caused by simulated short term memory limits) and to base predictions on all relevant segments of the dataset, whether near or far. In language modeling, AM has successfully predicted empirically valid forms for which no theoretical explanation was known (see the discussion of Finnish morphology in Skousen et al. 2002). == Implementation == === Overview === An exemplar-based model consists of a general-purpose modeling engine and a problem-specific dataset. Within the dataset, each exemplar (a case to be reasoned from, or an informative past experience) appears as a feature vector: a row of values for the set of parameters that define the problem. For example, in a spelling-to-sound task, the feature vector might consist of the letters of a word. Each exemplar in the dataset is stored with an outcome, such as a phoneme or phone to be generated. When the model is presented with a novel situation (in the form of an outcome-less feature vector), the engine algorithmically sorts the dataset to find exemplars that helpfully resemble it, and selects one, whose outcome is the model's prediction. The particulars of the algorithm distinguish one exemplar-based modeling system from another. In AM, we think of the feature values as characterizing a context, and the outcome as a behavior that occurs within that context. Accordingly, the novel situation is known as the given context. Given the known features of the context, the AM engine systematically generates all contexts that include it (all of its supracontexts), and extracts from the dataset the exemplars that belong to each. The engine then discards those supracontexts whose outcomes are inconsistent (this measure of consistency will be discussed further below), leaving an analogical set of supracontexts, and probabilistically selects an exemplar from the analogical set with a bias toward those in large supracontexts. This multilevel search exponentially magnifies the likelihood of a behavior's being predicted as it occurs reliably in settings that specifically resemble the given context. === Analogical modeling in detail === AM performs the same process for each case it is asked to evaluate. The given context, consisting of n variables, is used as a template to generate 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} supracontexts. Each supracontext is a set of exemplars in which one or more variables have the same values that they do in the given context, and the other variables are ignored. In effect, each is a view of the data, created by filtering for some criteria of similarity to the given context, and the total set of supracontexts exhausts all such views. Alternatively, each supracontext is a theory of the task or a proposed rule whose predictive power needs to be evaluated. It is important to note that the supracontexts are not equal peers one with another; they are arranged by their distance from the given context, forming a hierarchy. If a supracontext specifies all of the variables that another one does and more, it is a subcontext of that other one, and it lies closer to the given context. (The hierarchy is not strictly branching; each supracontext can itself be a subcontext of several others, and can have several subcontexts.) This hierarchy becomes significant in the next step of the algorithm. The engine now chooses the analogical set from among the supracontexts. A supracontext may contain exemplars that only exhibit one behavior; it is deterministically homogeneous and is included. It is a view of the data that displays regularity, or a relevant theory that has never yet been disproven. A supracontext may exhibit several behaviors, but contain no exemplars that occur in any more specific supracontext (that is, in any of its subcontexts); in this case it is non-deterministically homogeneous and is included. Here there is no great evidence that a systematic behavior occurs, but also no counterargument. Finally, a supracontext may be heterogeneous, meaning that it exhibits behaviors that are found in a subcontext (closer to the given context), and also behaviors that are not. Where the ambiguous behavior of the nondeterministically homogeneous supracontext was accepted, this is rejected because the intervening subcontext demonstrates that there is a better theory to be found. The heterogeneous supracontext is therefore excluded. This guarantees that we see an increase in meaningfully consistent behavior in the analogical set as we approach the given context. With the analogical set chosen, each appearance of an exemplar (for a given exemplar may appear in several of the analogical supracontexts) is given a pointer to every other appearance of an exemplar within its supracontexts. One of these pointers is then selected at random and followed, and the exemplar to which it points provides the outcome. This gives each supracontext an importance proportional to the square of its size, and makes each exemplar likely to be selected in direct proportion to the sum of the sizes of all analogically consistent supracontexts in which it appears. Then, of course, the probability of predicting a particular outcome is proportional to the summed probabilities of all the exemplars that support it. (Skousen 2002, in Skousen et al. 2002, pp. 11–25, and Skousen 2003, both passim) === Formulas === Given a context with n {\displaystyle n} elements: total number of pairings: n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} number of agreements for outcome i: n i 2 {\displaystyle n_{i}^{2}} number of disagreements for outcome i: n i ( n − n i ) {\displaystyle n_{i}(n-n_{i})} total number of agreements: ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}^{2}}} total number of disagreements: ∑ n i ( n − n i ) = n 2 − ∑ n i 2 {\displaystyle \sum {n_{i}(n-n_{i})}=n^{2}-\sum {n_{i}^{2}}} === Example === This terminology is best understood through an example. In the example used in the second chapter of Skousen (1989), each context consists of three variables with potential values 0-3 Variable 1: 0,1,2,3 Variable 2: 0,1,2,3 Variable 3: 0,1,2,3 The two outcomes for the dataset are e and r, and the exemplars are: 3 1 0 e 0 3 2 r 2 1 0 r 2 1 2 r 3 1 1 r We define a network of pointers like so: The solid lines represent pointers between exemplars with matching outcomes; the dotted lines represent pointers between exemplars with non-matching outcomes. The statistics for this example are as follows: n = 5 {\displaystyle n=5} n r = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}=4} n e = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}=1} total number of pairings: n 2 = 25 {\displaystyle n^{2}=25} number of agreements for outcome r: n r 2 = 16 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}=16} number of agreements for outcome e: n e 2 = 1 {\displaystyle n_{e}^{2}=1} number of disagreements for outcome r: n r ( n − n r ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})=4} number of disagreements for outcome e: n e ( n − n e ) = 4 {\displaystyle n_{e}(n-n_{e})=4} total number of agreements: n r 2 + n e 2 = 17 {\displaystyle n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2}=17} total number of disagreements: n r ( n − n r ) + n e ( n − n e ) = n 2 − ( n r 2 + n e 2 ) = 8 {\displaystyle n_{r}(n-n_{r})+n_{e}(n-n_{e})=n^{2}-(n_{r}^{2}+n_{e}^{2})=8} uncertainty or fraction of disagreement: 8 / 25 = .32 {\displaystyle 8/25=.32} Behavior can only be predicted for a given context; in this example, let us predict the outcome for the context "3 1 2". To do this, we first find all of the contexts containing the given context; these contexts are called supracontexts. We find the supracontexts by systematically eliminating the variables in the given context; with m variables, there will generally be 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} supracontexts. The following table lists each of the sub- and supracontexts; x means "not x", and - means "anything". These contexts are shown in the venn diagram below: The next step is to determine which exemplars belong to which contexts in order to determine which of the contexts are homogeneous. The table below shows each of the subcontexts, their behavior in terms of the given exemplars, and the number of disagreements within the behavior: Analyzing the subcontexts in the table above, we see that there is only 1 subcontext with any disagreements: "3 1 2", which in the dataset consists of "3 1 0 e" and "3 1 1 r". There are 2 disagreements in this subcontext; 1 pointing from each of the exemplars to the other (see the pointer network pictured above). Therefore, only supracontexts containing this subcontext will contain any disagreements. We use a simple rule to identify the homogeneous supraco

  Read more →
• 

  Cellular evolutionary algorithm

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

  Read more →
• 

  Wetware computer

  A wetware computer is an organic computer (which can also be known as an artificial organic brain or a neurocomputer) composed of organic material "wetware" such as "living" neurons. Wetware computers composed of neurons are different than conventional computers because they use biological materials, and offer the possibility of substantially more energy-efficient computing. While a wetware computer is still largely conceptual, there has been limited success with construction and prototyping, which has acted as a proof of the concept's realistic application to computing in the future. The most notable prototypes have stemmed from the research completed by biological engineer William Ditto during his time at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His work constructing a simple neurocomputer capable of basic addition from leech neurons in 1999 was a significant discovery for the concept. This research was a primary example driving interest in creating these artificially constructed, but still organic brains. == Origins and theoretical foundations == The term wetware came from cyberpunk fiction, notably through Gibson's Neuromancer, but was quickly taken up in scientific literature to explain computation by biological material. Theories of early biological computation borrowed from Alan Turing's morphogenesis model, which showed that chemical interactions could produce complex patterns without centralized control. Hopfield's associative memory networks also provided a foundation for biological information systems with fault tolerance and self-organization. == Major characteristics and processes == Biological wetware systems demonstrate dynamic reconfigurability underpinned by neuroplasticity and enable continuous learning and adaptation. Reaction-diffusion-based computing and molecular logic gates allow spatially parallel information processing unachievable in conventional systems. These systems also show fault tolerance and self-repair at the cellular and network level. The development of cerebral organoids—miniature lab-grown brains—demonstrates spontaneous learning behavior and suggests biological tissue as a viable computational substrate. == Overview == The concept of wetware is an application of specific interest to the field of computer manufacturing. Moore's law, which states that the number of transistors which can be placed on a silicon chip is doubled roughly every two years, has acted as a goal for the industry for decades, but as the size of computers continues to decrease, the ability to meet this goal has become more difficult, threatening to reach a plateau. Due to the difficulty in reducing the size of computers because of size limitations of transistors and integrated circuits, wetware provides an unconventional alternative. A wetware computer composed of neurons is an ideal concept because, unlike conventional materials which operate in binary (on/off), a neuron can shift between thousands of states, constantly altering its chemical conformation, and redirecting electrical pulses through over 200,000 channels in any of its many synaptic connections. Because of this large difference in the possible settings for any one neuron, compared to the binary limitations of conventional computers, the space limitations are far fewer. == Background == The concept of wetware is distinct and unconventional and draws slight resonance with both hardware and software from conventional computers. While hardware is understood as the physical architecture of traditional computational devices, comprising integrated circuits and supporting infrastructure, software represents the encoded architecture of storage and instructions. Wetware is a separate concept that uses the formation of organic molecules, mostly complex cellular structures (such as neurons), to create a computational device such as a computer. In wetware, the ideas of hardware and software are intertwined and interdependent. The molecular and chemical composition of the organic or biological structure would represent not only the physical structure of the wetware but also the software, being continually reprogrammed by the discrete shifts in electrical pulses and chemical concentration gradients as the molecules change their structures to communicate signals. The responsiveness of a cell, proteins, and molecules to changing conformations, both within their structures and around them, ties the idea of internal programming and external structure together in a way that is alien to the current model of conventional computer architecture. The structure of wetware represents a model where the external structure and internal programming are interdependent and unified; meaning that changes to the programming or internal communication between molecules of the device would represent a physical change in the structure. The dynamic nature of wetware borrows from the function of complex cellular structures in biological organisms. The combination of "hardware" and "software" into one dynamic, and interdependent system which uses organic molecules and complexes to create an unconventional model for computational devices is a specific example of applied biorobotics. === The cell as a model of wetware === Cells in many ways can be seen as their form of naturally occurring wetware, similar to the concept that the human brain is the preexisting model system for complex wetware. In his book Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009) Dennis Bray explains his theory that cells, which are the most basic form of life, are just a highly complex computational structure, like a computer. To simplify one of his arguments a cell can be seen as a type of computer, using its structured architecture. In this architecture, much like a traditional computer, many smaller components operate in tandem to receive input, process the information, and compute an output. In an overly simplified, non-technical analysis, cellular function can be broken into the following components: Information and instructions for execution are stored as DNA in the cell, RNA acts as a source for distinctly encoded input, processed by ribosomes and other transcription factors to access and process the DNA and to output a protein. Bray's argument in favor of viewing cells and cellular structures as models of natural computational devices is important when considering the more applied theories of wetware to biorobotics. === Biorobotics === Wetware and biorobotics are closely related concepts, which both borrow from similar overall principles. A biorobotic structure can be defined as a system modeled from a preexisting organic complex or model such as cells (neurons) or more complex structures like organs (brain) or whole organisms. Unlike wetware, the concept of biorobotics is not always a system composed of organic molecules, but instead could be composed of conventional material which is designed and assembled in a structure similar or derived from a biological model. Biorobotics have many applications and are used to address the challenges of conventional computer architecture. Conceptually, designing a program, robot, or computational device after a preexisting biological model such as a cell, or even a whole organism, provides the engineer or programmer the benefits of incorporating into the structure the evolutionary advantages of the model. == Effects on users == Wetware technologies such as BCIs and neuromorphic chips offer new possibilities for user autonomy. For those with disabilities, such systems could restore motor or sensory functions and enhance quality of life. However, these technologies raise ethical questions: cognitive privacy, consent over biological data, and risk of exploitation. Without proper oversight, wetware technologies may also widen inequality, favoring those with access to cognitive enhancements. Open governance frameworks and ethical AI design grounded in neuro ethics will be essential. With the development of wetware devices, disparities in access could exacerbate social inequalities, benefiting those who have resources to enhance cognitive or physical abilities. It is necessary to create strong ethical frameworks, inclusive development practices, and open systems of governance to reduce risks and make sure that wetware advances are beneficial to all segments of society. == Applications and goals == === Basic neurocomputer composed of leech neurons === In 1999 William Ditto and his team of researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University created a basic form of a wetware computer capable of simple addition by harnessing leech neurons. Leeches were used as a model organism due to the large size of their neuron, and the ease associated with their collection and manipulation. However, these results have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, prompting questions about the validity of the claims. The computer was able to complete basic addition through electrical probes

  Read more →
• 

  Boosting (machine learning)

  In machine learning (ML), boosting is an ensemble learning method that combines a set of less accurate models (called "weak learners") to create a single, highly accurate model (a "strong learner"). Unlike other ensemble methods that build models in parallel (such as bagging), boosting algorithms build models sequentially. Each new model in the sequence is trained to correct the errors made by its predecessors. This iterative process allows the overall model to improve its accuracy, particularly by reducing bias. Boosting is a popular and effective technique used in supervised learning for both classification and regression tasks. The theoretical foundation for boosting came from a question posed by Kearns and Valiant (1988, 1989): "Can a set of weak learners create a single strong learner?" A weak learner is defined as a classifier that performs only slightly better than random guessing, whereas a strong learner is a classifier that is highly correlated with the true classification. Robert Schapire's affirmative answer to this question in a 1990 paper led to the development of practical boosting algorithms. The first such algorithm was developed by Schapire, with Freund and Schapire later developing AdaBoost, which remains a foundational example of boosting. == Algorithms == While boosting is not algorithmically constrained, most boosting algorithms consist of iteratively learning weak classifiers with respect to a distribution and adding them to a final strong classifier. When they are added, they are weighted in a way that is related to the weak learners' accuracy. After a weak learner is added, the data weights are readjusted, known as "re-weighting". Misclassified input data gain a higher weight and examples that are classified correctly lose weight. Thus, future weak learners focus more on the examples that previous weak learners misclassified. There are many boosting algorithms. The original ones, proposed by Robert Schapire (a recursive majority gate formulation), and Yoav Freund (boost by majority), were not adaptive and could not take full advantage of the weak learners. Schapire and Freund then developed AdaBoost, an adaptive boosting algorithm that won the prestigious Gödel Prize. Only algorithms that are provable boosting algorithms in the probably approximately correct learning formulation can accurately be called boosting algorithms. Other algorithms that are similar in spirit to boosting algorithms are sometimes called "leveraging algorithms", although they are also sometimes incorrectly called boosting algorithms. The main variation between many boosting algorithms is their method of weighting training data points and hypotheses. AdaBoost is very popular and the most significant historically as it was the first algorithm that could adapt to the weak learners. It is often the basis of introductory coverage of boosting in university machine learning courses. There are many more recent algorithms such as LPBoost, TotalBoost, BrownBoost, xgboost, MadaBoost, LogitBoost, CatBoost and others. Many boosting algorithms fit into the AnyBoost framework, which shows that boosting performs gradient descent in a function space using a convex cost function. == Object categorization in computer vision == Given images containing various known objects in the world, a classifier can be learned from them to automatically classify the objects in future images. Simple classifiers built based on some image feature of the object tend to be weak in categorization performance. Using boosting methods for object categorization is a way to unify the weak classifiers in a special way to boost the overall ability of categorization. === Problem of object categorization === Object categorization is a typical task of computer vision that involves determining whether or not an image contains some specific category of object. The idea is closely related with recognition, identification, and detection. Appearance based object categorization typically contains feature extraction, learning a classifier, and applying the classifier to new examples. There are many ways to represent a category of objects, e.g. from shape analysis, bag of words models, or local descriptors such as SIFT, etc. Examples of supervised classifiers are Naive Bayes classifiers, support vector machines, mixtures of Gaussians, and neural networks. However, research has shown that object categories and their locations in images can be discovered in an unsupervised manner as well. === Status quo for object categorization === The recognition of object categories in images is a challenging problem in computer vision, especially when the number of categories is large. This is due to high intra class variability and the need for generalization across variations of objects within the same category. Objects within one category may look quite different. Even the same object may appear unalike under different viewpoint, scale, and illumination. Background clutter and partial occlusion add difficulties to recognition as well. Humans are able to recognize thousands of object types, whereas most of the existing object recognition systems are trained to recognize only a few, e.g. human faces, cars, simple objects, etc. Research has been very active on dealing with more categories and enabling incremental additions of new categories, and although the general problem remains unsolved, several multi-category objects detectors (for up to hundreds or thousands of categories) have been developed. One means is by feature sharing and boosting. === Boosting for binary categorization === AdaBoost can be used for face detection as an example of binary categorization. The two categories are faces versus background. The general algorithm is as follows: Form a large set of simple features Initialize weights for training images For T rounds Normalize the weights For available features from the set, train a classifier using a single feature and evaluate the training error Choose the classifier with the lowest error Update the weights of the training images: increase if classified wrongly by this classifier, decrease if correctly Form the final strong classifier as the linear combination of the T classifiers (coefficient larger if training error is small) After boosting, a classifier constructed from 200 features could yield a 95% detection rate under a 10 − 5 {\displaystyle 10^{-5}} false positive rate. Another application of boosting for binary categorization is a system that detects pedestrians using patterns of motion and appearance. This work is the first to combine both motion information and appearance information as features to detect a walking person. It takes a similar approach to the Viola-Jones object detection framework. === Boosting for multi-class categorization === Compared with binary categorization, multi-class categorization looks for common features that can be shared across the categories at the same time. They turn to be more generic edge like features. During learning, the detectors for each category can be trained jointly. Compared with training separately, it generalizes better, needs less training data, and requires fewer features to achieve the same performance. The main flow of the algorithm is similar to the binary case. What is different is that a measure of the joint training error shall be defined in advance. During each iteration the algorithm chooses a classifier of a single feature (features that can be shared by more categories shall be encouraged). This can be done via converting multi-class classification into a binary one (a set of categories versus the rest), or by introducing a penalty error from the categories that do not have the feature of the classifier. In the paper "Sharing visual features for multiclass and multiview object detection", A. Torralba et al. used GentleBoost for boosting and showed that when training data is limited, learning via sharing features does a much better job than no sharing, given same boosting rounds. Also, for a given performance level, the total number of features required (and therefore the run time cost of the classifier) for the feature sharing detectors, is observed to scale approximately logarithmically with the number of class, i.e., slower than linear growth in the non-sharing case. Similar results are shown in the paper "Incremental learning of object detectors using a visual shape alphabet", yet the authors used AdaBoost for boosting. == Convex vs. non-convex boosting algorithms == Boosting algorithms can be based on convex or non-convex optimization algorithms. Convex algorithms, such as AdaBoost and LogitBoost, can be "defeated" by random noise such that they can't learn basic and learnable combinations of weak hypotheses. This limitation was pointed out by Long & Servedio in 2008. However, by 2009, multiple authors demonstrated that boosting algorithms based on non-convex optimization, such as BrownBoost, can learn from nois

  Read more →
• 

  Multilayer perceptron

  In deep learning, a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a kind of modern feedforward neural network consisting of fully connected neurons with nonlinear activation functions, organized in layers, notable for being able to distinguish data that is not linearly separable. Modern neural networks are trained using backpropagation and are colloquially referred to as "vanilla" networks. MLPs grew out of an effort to improve on single-layer perceptrons, which could only be applied to linearly separable data. A perceptron traditionally used a Heaviside step function as its nonlinear activation function. However, the backpropagation algorithm requires that modern MLPs use continuous activation functions such as sigmoid or ReLU. Multilayer perceptrons form the basis of deep learning, and are applicable across a vast set of diverse domains. == Timeline == In 1943, Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts proposed the binary artificial neuron as a logical model of biological neural networks. In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt proposed the multilayered perceptron model, consisting of an input layer, a hidden layer with randomized weights that did not learn, and an output layer with learnable connections. In 1962, Rosenblatt published many variants and experiments on perceptrons in his book Principles of Neurodynamics, including up to 2 trainable layers by "back-propagating errors". However, it was not the backpropagation algorithm, and he did not have a general method for training multiple layers. In 1965, Alexey Grigorevich Ivakhnenko and Valentin Lapa published Group Method of Data Handling. It was one of the first deep learning methods, used to train an eight-layer neural net in 1971. In 1967, Shun'ichi Amari reported the first multilayered neural network trained by stochastic gradient descent, was able to classify non-linearily separable pattern classes. Amari's student Saito conducted the computer experiments, using a five-layered feedforward network with two learning layers. Backpropagation was independently developed multiple times in early 1970s. The earliest published instance was Seppo Linnainmaa's master thesis (1970). Paul Werbos developed it independently in 1971, but had difficulty publishing it until 1982. In 1986, David E. Rumelhart et al. popularized backpropagation. In 2003, interest in backpropagation networks returned due to the successes of deep learning being applied to language modelling by Yoshua Bengio with co-authors. In 2021, a very simple NN architecture combining two deep MLPs with skip connections and layer normalizations was designed and called MLP-Mixer; its realizations featuring 19 to 431 millions of parameters were shown to be comparable to vision transformers of similar size on ImageNet and similar image classification tasks. == Mathematical foundations == === Activation function === If a multilayer perceptron has a linear activation function in all neurons, that is, a linear function that maps the weighted inputs to the output of each neuron, then linear algebra shows that any number of layers can be reduced to a two-layer input-output model. In MLPs some neurons use a nonlinear activation function that was developed to model the frequency of action potentials, or firing, of biological neurons. The two historically common activation functions are both sigmoids, and are described by y ( v i ) = tanh ⁡ ( v i ) and y ( v i ) = ( 1 + e − v i ) − 1 {\displaystyle y(v_{i})=\tanh(v_{i})~~{\textrm {and}}~~y(v_{i})=(1+e^{-v_{i}})^{-1}} . The first is a hyperbolic tangent that ranges from −1 to 1, while the other is the logistic function, which is similar in shape but ranges from 0 to 1. Here y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} is the output of the i {\displaystyle i} th node (neuron) and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is the weighted sum of the input connections. Alternative activation functions have been proposed, including the rectifier and softplus functions. More specialized activation functions include radial basis functions (used in radial basis networks, another class of supervised neural network models). In recent developments of deep learning the rectified linear unit (ReLU) is more frequently used as one of the possible ways to overcome the numerical problems related to the sigmoids. === Layers === The MLP consists of three or more layers (an input and an output layer with one or more hidden layers) of nonlinearly-activating nodes. Since MLPs are fully connected, each node in one layer connects with a certain weight w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} to every node in the following layer. === Learning === Learning occurs in the perceptron by changing connection weights after each piece of data is processed, based on the amount of error in the output compared to the expected result. This is an example of supervised learning, and is carried out through backpropagation, a generalization of the least mean squares algorithm in the linear perceptron. We can represent the degree of error in an output node j {\displaystyle j} in the n {\displaystyle n} th data point (training example) by e j ( n ) = d j ( n ) − y j ( n ) {\displaystyle e_{j}(n)=d_{j}(n)-y_{j}(n)} , where d j ( n ) {\displaystyle d_{j}(n)} is the desired target value for n {\displaystyle n} th data point at node j {\displaystyle j} , and y j ( n ) {\displaystyle y_{j}(n)} is the value produced by the perceptron at node j {\displaystyle j} when the n {\displaystyle n} th data point is given as an input. The node weights can then be adjusted based on corrections that minimize the error in the entire output for the n {\displaystyle n} th data point, given by E ( n ) = 1 2 ∑ output node j e j 2 ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(n)={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{{\text{output node }}j}e_{j}^{2}(n)} . Using gradient descent, the change in each weight w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is Δ w j i ( n ) = − η ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) y i ( n ) {\displaystyle \Delta w_{ji}(n)=-\eta {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}y_{i}(n)} where y i ( n ) {\displaystyle y_{i}(n)} is the output of the previous neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate, which is selected to ensure that the weights quickly converge to a response, without oscillations. In the previous expression, ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}} denotes the partial derivate of the error E ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}(n)} according to the weighted sum v j ( n ) {\displaystyle v_{j}(n)} of the input connections of neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The derivative to be calculated depends on the induced local field v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} , which itself varies. It is easy to prove that for an output node this derivative can be simplified to − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) = e j ( n ) ϕ ′ ( v j ( n ) ) {\displaystyle -{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}=e_{j}(n)\phi ^{\prime }(v_{j}(n))} where ϕ ′ {\displaystyle \phi ^{\prime }} is the derivative of the activation function described above, which itself does not vary. The analysis is more difficult for the change in weights to a hidden node, but it can be shown that the relevant derivative is − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v j ( n ) = ϕ ′ ( v j ( n ) ) ∑ k − ∂ E ( n ) ∂ v k ( n ) w k j ( n ) {\displaystyle -{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{j}(n)}}=\phi ^{\prime }(v_{j}(n))\sum _{k}-{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}(n)}{\partial v_{k}(n)}}w_{kj}(n)} . This depends on the change in weights of the k {\displaystyle k} th nodes, which represent the output layer. So to change the hidden layer weights, the output layer weights change according to the derivative of the activation function, and so this algorithm represents a backpropagation of the activation function.

  Read more →