AI Headshot Linkedin Generator

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

• 

  Direct voice input

  Direct voice input (DVI), sometimes called voice input control (VIC), is a style of human–machine interaction "HMI" in which the user makes voice commands to issue instructions to the machine through speech recognition. In the field of military aviation, DVI has been introduced into the cockpits of several modern military aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Dassault Rafale, the KF-21 Boramae and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Such systems have also been used for various other purposes, including industry control systems and speech recognition assistance for impaired individuals. == Overview == DVI systems can be divided into two major categories of functionality: "user-dependent" or "user-independent". A user-dependent system requires that a personal voice template to be generated for a specific person; the template for this individual has to be loaded onto their assigned machine prior to use of the DVI system for it to function properly. In contrast, a user-independent system does not require any personal voice template, being intended to respond correctly to the voice of any user. They can also be categorised between "discrete recognition" and "continuous recognition". Users of a discrete recognition system must pause between each word so that the DVI system can identify the separations between each word, while a continuous speech recognition system is capable of understanding a normal rate of speech. During the mid-2000s, researchers at the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands examined the use of DVI in the "GRACE" simulator; a total of twelve pilots participated in the ensuing experiment. The tests performed reportedly revealed that, while the hardware itself functioned well, several improvements were desirable prior to real-world deployment on aircraft since DVI operations actually consumed more time in comparison to traditional existing methods. Recommendations for improvements included the adoption of simpler syntax, the achievement of a greater recognition rate, and a decrease in response times; all of the issues encountered were determined to be of a technological nature, and were deemed feasible to resolve. The researchers concluded that in cockpits, especially during emergencies where pilots have to operate entirely on their own, a DVI system could be highly relevant, but that it was not of crucial importance during most other conceivable scenarios. Around the same time, evaluations of DVI systems for civil aviation purposes were conducted within the framework of Project SafeSound, coordinated by the European Union. It involved the observation of pilot workloads in real-world cockpits and contrasting them against pilot activity in flight simulators using both conventional systems and DVI assistance. The project aimed to enhance aviation safety and to decrease the workload in both ground and flight operations via the application of enhanced audio functions. == Applications == === Aviation === Prior to its widespread deployment, a handful of conventional military aircraft were converted to trial DVI systems; examples include the Harrier AV-8B and F-16 VISTA. In another case, a General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon simulator was modified with DVI for a voice control study that was undertaken by the Royal Netherlands Air Force. DVI trials have also been conducted on helicopters, including the Boeing AH-64 Apache, showing the potential to improve flight safety and mission effectiveness. Numerous modern fighter aircraft have been outfitted with DVI systems, often in combination with various other man-machine interface schemes, such as HOTAS-compliant controls and other advanced control technologies. The combination of Voice and HOTAS control schemes has sometimes been referred to as the "V-TAS" concept. A prominent fighter aircraft to be furnished with a V-TAS cockpit is the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II also features a DVI system, which was developed by Adacel. Other examples includes the Dassault Rafale and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Numerous aircraft have been planned to use DVI. At one stage, the United States Air Force had sought to integrate DVI upon the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor; however, the technology was eventually judged to pose too many technical risks at that point in time, and thus such efforts were abandoned. === Personal === By 1990, working prototypes of speech recognition systems were being demonstrated; these were being promoted for the purpose of providing an effective man-machine interface for individuals with impaired speech. Techniques employed included time-encoded digital speech and automatic token set selection. Investigations of these early DVI systems reportedly included the use of automatic diagnostic routines and limited-scale trials using volunteers. During the 2010s, various companies were offering voice recognition systems to the general public in the form of personal digital assistants. One example is the Google Voice service, which allows users to pose questions via a DVI package installed on either a personal computer, tablet, or mobile phone. Numerous digital assistants have been developed, such as Amazon Echo, Siri, and Cortana, that use DVI to interact with users. === Commercial === DVI technology has enabled automated telephone systems to be widely deployed. Many companies commonly use centralised phone systems that route callers to the correct department via such methods. Various car manufacturers have also furnished their road vehicles with DVI systems; these typically allow drivers to control infotainment systems and interact with mobile phones with more convenience than legacy methods. During the late 1980s, investigations into the use of DVI systems for controlling CNC machines and other manufacturing apparatus were underway. During the 2010s, such systems were being used for logistics and warehouse management purposes.

  Read more →
• 

  Random indexing

  Random indexing is a dimensionality reduction method and computational framework for distributional semantics, based on the insight that very-high-dimensional vector space model implementations are impractical, that models need not grow in dimensionality when new items (e.g. new terminology) are encountered, and that a high-dimensional model can be projected into a space of lower dimensionality without compromising L2 distance metrics if the resulting dimensions are chosen appropriately. This is the original point of the random projection approach to dimension reduction first formulated as the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma, and locality-sensitive hashing has some of the same starting points. Random indexing, as used in representation of language, originates from the work of Pentti Kanerva on sparse distributed memory, and can be described as an incremental formulation of a random projection. It can be also verified that random indexing is a random projection technique for the construction of Euclidean spaces—i.e. L2 normed vector spaces. In Euclidean spaces, random projections are elucidated using the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. The TopSig technique extends the random indexing model to produce bit vectors for comparison with the Hamming distance similarity function. It is used for improving the performance of information retrieval and document clustering. In a similar line of research, Random Manhattan Integer Indexing (RMII) is proposed for improving the performance of the methods that employ the Manhattan distance between text units. Many random indexing methods primarily generate similarity from co-occurrence of items in a corpus. Reflexive Random Indexing (RRI) generates similarity from co-occurrence and from shared occurrence with other items.

  Read more →
• 

  Consensus clustering

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

  Read more →
• 

  TabPFN

  TabPFN (Tabular Prior-data Fitted Network) is a machine learning model for tabular datasets proposed in 2022. It uses a transformer architecture. It is intended for supervised classification and regression analysis on tabular datasets, particularly focusing on small- to medium-sized datasets. The latest version, TabPFN-3, was released in May 2026 and supports datasets with up to one million rows and 200 features. == History == TabPFN was first introduced in a 2022 pre-print and presented at ICLR 2023. TabPFN v2 was published in 2025 in Nature by Hollmann and co-authors. The source code is published on GitHub under a modified Apache License and on PyPi. Writing for ICLR blogs, McCarter states that the model has attracted attention due to its performance on small dataset benchmarks. TabPFN v2.5 was released on November 6, 2025. TabPFN-3 was released on May 12, 2026. Prior Labs, founded in 2024, aims to commercialize TabPFN. As of April 2026, the open-source TabPFN repository had more than 6,000 stars on GitHub. == Overview and pre-training == TabPFN supports classification, regression and generative tasks. It leverages "Prior-Data Fitted Networks" models to model tabular data. By using a transformer pre-trained on synthetic tabular datasets, TabPFN avoids benchmark contamination and costs of curating real-world data. TabPFN v2 was pre-trained on approximately 130 million such datasets. Synthetic datasets are generated using causal models or Bayesian neural networks; this can include simulating missing values, imbalanced data, and noise. Random inputs are passed through these models to generate outputs, with a bias towards simpler causal structures. During pre-training, TabPFN predicts the masked target values of new data points given training data points and their known targets, effectively learning a generic learning algorithm that is executed by running a neural network forward pass. The new dataset is then processed in a single forward pass without retraining. The model's transformer encoder processes features and labels by alternating attention across rows and columns. TabPFN v2 handles numerical and categorical features, missing values, and supports tasks like regression and synthetic data generation, while TabPFN-2.5 scales this approach to datasets with up to 50,000 rows and 2,000 features. TabPFN-3 introduced a redesigned architecture with row-compression, an attention-based many-class decoder, native missing-value handling, and inference optimizations such as row chunking and a reduced key-value cache, with benchmark-validated regimes of up to 1 million rows with 200 features, 100,000 rows with 2,000 features, or 1,000 rows with 20,000 features. Since TabPFN is pre-trained, in contrast to other deep learning methods, it does not require costly hyperparameter optimization. == Research == TabPFN is the subject of on-going research. Applications for TabPFN have been investigated for domains such as chemoproteomics, insurance risk classification, and metagenomics. In clinical research, TabPFN was used in a study on the early detection of pancreatic cancer from blood samples, where it was combined with metabolomic data and reported high diagnostic performance. == Applications == TabPFN has been used in industrial and biomedical contexts. Hitachi Ltd. has been reported to use the model for predictive maintenance in rail networks, with its use described as helping to identify track issues earlier and reduce manual inspections. In the biomedical domain, Oxford Cancer Analytics has used TabPFN in the analysis of proteomic data in lung disease research. A 2025 ML Contests report noted that the winners of DrivenData's PREPARE challenge used TabPFN to generate features for gradient-boosted decision tree models. == Limitations == TabPFN has been criticized for its "one large neural network is all you need" approach to modeling problems. Further, its performance is limited in high-dimensional and large-scale datasets. == Scaling Mode == In late November 2025, Prior Labs introduced ‘‘Scaling Mode’’, an operating mode for TabPFN designed to remove the fixed upper bound on training set size. Earlier versions of TabPFN had been optimized and validated primarily for datasets of up to 100,000 rows, whereas Scaling Mode was reported to extend support to substantially larger datasets, with benchmarked experiments on datasets containing up to 10 million rows. According to Prior Labs, Scaling Mode preserves the existing TabPFN architecture, including its alternating row-attention and column-attention design, as well as the same feature-count limits as prior releases. Inference remains based on a single forward pass rather than dataset-specific gradient-descent training, while scalability is described as being constrained primarily by available compute and memory resources. Prior Labs reported benchmark results on an internal collection of datasets ranging from 1 million to 10 million rows across industry and scientific applications. In these benchmarks, Scaling Mode was compared with CatBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and TabPFN 2.5 using 50,000-row subsampling. The company stated that predictive performance improved monotonically with increasing training set size and that no diminishing returns from scaling were observed within the tested range. Prior Labs also announced the release through company and executive social media channels. TabPFN-3 later incorporated related scaling improvements, including row chunking and a reduced key-value cache, into the model architecture and inference pipeline.

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic probability

  In algorithmic information theory, algorithmic probability, also known as Solomonoff probability, is a mathematical method of assigning a prior probability to a given observation. It was invented by Ray Solomonoff in the 1960s. It is used in inductive inference theory and analyses of algorithms. In his general theory of inductive inference, Solomonoff uses the method together with Bayes' rule to obtain probabilities of prediction for an algorithm's future outputs. In the mathematical formalism used, the observations have the form of finite binary strings viewed as outputs of Turing machines, and the universal prior is a probability distribution over the set of finite binary strings calculated from a probability distribution over programs (that is, inputs to a universal Turing machine). The prior is universal in the Turing-computability sense, i.e. no string has zero probability. It is not computable, but it can be approximated. Formally, the probability P {\displaystyle P} is not a probability and it is not computable. It is only "lower semi-computable" and a "semi-measure". By "semi-measure", it means that 0 ≤ ∑ x P ( x ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \sum _{x}P(x)<1} . That is, the "probability" does not actually sum up to one, unlike actual probabilities. This is because some inputs to the Turing machine causes it to never halt, which means the probability mass allocated to those inputs is lost. By "lower semi-computable", it means there is a Turing machine that, given an input string x {\displaystyle x} , can print out a sequence y 1 < y 2 < ⋯ {\displaystyle y_{1} Read more →

• 

  Exploratory blockmodeling

  Exploratory blockmodeling is an (inductive) approach (or a group of approaches) in blockmodeling regarding the specification of an ideal blockmodel. This approach, also known as hypotheses-generating, is the simplest approach, as it "merely involves the definition of the block types permitted as well as of the number of clusters." With this approach, researcher usually defines the best possible blockmodel, which then represent the base for the analysis of the whole network. This approach is usually based on: previous analyses and theoretical considerations, using stricker blockmodel and block types, where the structural equivalence is stricker than the regular equivalence and using smaller number of classes. The opposite approach is called a confirmatory blockmodeling.

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic block model

  The stochastic block model is a generative model for random graphs. This model tends to produce graphs containing communities, subsets of nodes characterized by being connected with one another with particular edge densities. For example, edges may be more common within communities than between communities. Its mathematical formulation was first introduced in 1983 in the field of social network analysis by Paul W. Holland et al. The stochastic block model is important in statistics, machine learning, and network science, where it serves as a useful benchmark for the task of recovering community structure in graph data. == Definition == The stochastic block model takes the following parameters: The number n {\displaystyle n} of vertices; a partition of the vertex set { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{1,\ldots ,n\}} into disjoint subsets C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} , called communities; a symmetric r × r {\displaystyle r\times r} matrix P {\displaystyle P} of edge probabilities. The edge set is then sampled at random as follows: any two vertices u ∈ C i {\displaystyle u\in C_{i}} and v ∈ C j {\displaystyle v\in C_{j}} are connected by an edge with probability P i j {\displaystyle P_{ij}} . An example problem is: given a graph with n {\displaystyle n} vertices, where the edges are sampled as described, recover the groups C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} . == Special cases == If the probability matrix is a constant, in the sense that P i j = p {\displaystyle P_{ij}=p} for all i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , then the result is the Erdős–Rényi model G ( n , p ) {\displaystyle G(n,p)} . This case is degenerate—the partition into communities becomes irrelevant—but it illustrates a close relationship to the Erdős–Rényi model. The planted partition model is the special case that the values of the probability matrix P {\displaystyle P} are a constant p {\displaystyle p} on the diagonal and another constant q {\displaystyle q} off the diagonal. Thus two vertices within the same community share an edge with probability p {\displaystyle p} , while two vertices in different communities share an edge with probability q {\displaystyle q} . Sometimes it is this restricted model that is called the stochastic block model. The case where p > q {\displaystyle p>q} is called an assortative model, while the case p < q {\displaystyle p P j k {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{jk}} whenever j ≠ k {\displaystyle j\neq k} : all diagonal entries dominate all off-diagonal entries. A model is called weakly assortative if P i i > P i j {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{ij}} whenever i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} : each diagonal entry is only required to dominate the rest of its own row and column. Disassortative forms of this terminology exist, by reversing all inequalities. For some algorithms, recovery might be easier for block models with assortative or disassortative conditions of this form. == Typical statistical tasks == Much of the literature on algorithmic community detection addresses three statistical tasks: detection, partial recovery, and exact recovery. === Detection === The goal of detection algorithms is simply to determine, given a sampled graph, whether the graph has latent community structure. More precisely, a graph might be generated, with some known prior probability, from a known stochastic block model, and otherwise from a similar Erdos-Renyi model. The algorithmic task is to correctly identify which of these two underlying models generated the graph. === Partial recovery === In partial recovery, the goal is to approximately determine the latent partition into communities, in the sense of finding a partition that is correlated with the true partition significantly better than a random guess. === Exact recovery === In exact recovery, the goal is to recover the latent partition into communities exactly. The community sizes and probability matrix may be known or unknown. == Statistical lower bounds and threshold behavior == Stochastic block models exhibit a sharp threshold effect reminiscent of percolation thresholds. Suppose that we allow the size n {\displaystyle n} of the graph to grow, keeping the community sizes in fixed proportions. If the probability matrix remains fixed, tasks such as partial and exact recovery become feasible for all non-degenerate parameter settings. However, if we scale down the probability matrix at a suitable rate as n {\displaystyle n} increases, we observe a sharp phase transition: for certain settings of the parameters, it will become possible to achieve recovery with probability tending to 1, whereas on the opposite side of the parameter threshold, the probability of recovery tends to 0 no matter what algorithm is used. For partial recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}/n} for fixed P ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {P}}} , resulting in graphs of constant average degree. In the case of two equal-sized communities, in the assortative planted partition model with probability matrix P = ( p ~ / n q ~ / n q ~ / n p ~ / n ) , {\displaystyle P=\left({\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde {p}}/n&{\tilde {q}}/n\\{\tilde {q}}/n&{\tilde {p}}/n\end{array}}\right),} partial recovery is feasible with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 > 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}>2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} , whereas any estimator fails partial recovery with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 < 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}<2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} . For exact recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j log ⁡ n / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}\log n/n} , resulting in graphs of logarithmic average degree. Here a similar threshold exists: for the assortative planted partition model with r {\displaystyle r} equal-sized communities, the threshold lies at p ~ − q ~ = r {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tilde {p}}}-{\sqrt {\tilde {q}}}={\sqrt {r}}} . In fact, the exact recovery threshold is known for the fully general stochastic block model. == Algorithms == In principle, exact recovery can be solved in its feasible range using maximum likelihood, but this amounts to solving a constrained or regularized cut problem such as minimum bisection that is typically NP-complete. Hence, no known efficient algorithms will correctly compute the maximum-likelihood estimate in the worst case. However, a wide variety of algorithms perform well in the average case, and many high-probability performance guarantees have been proven for algorithms in both the partial and exact recovery settings. Successful algorithms include spectral clustering of the vertices, semidefinite programming, forms of belief propagation, and community detection among others. == Variants == Several variants of the model exist. One minor tweak allocates vertices to communities randomly, according to a categorical distribution, rather than in a fixed partition. More significant variants include the degree-corrected stochastic block model, the hierarchical stochastic block model, the geometric block model, censored block model and the mixed-membership block model. == Topic models == Stochastic block model have been recognised to be a topic model on bipartite networks. In a network of documents and words, Stochastic block model can identify topics: group of words with a similar meaning. == Extensions to signed graphs == Signed graphs allow for both favorable and adverse relationships and serve as a common model choice for various data analysis applications, e.g., correlation clustering. The stochastic block model can be trivially extended to signed graphs by assigning both positive and negative edge weights or equivalently using a difference of adjacency matrices of two stochastic block models. == DARPA/MIT/AWS Graph Challenge: streaming stochastic block partition == GraphChallenge encourages community approaches to developing new solutions for analyzing graphs and sparse data derived from social media, sensor feeds, and scientific data to enable relationships between events to be discovered as they unfold in the field. Streaming stochastic block partition is one of the challenges since 2017. Spectral clustering has demonstrated outstanding performance compared to the original and even improved base algorithm, matching its quality of clusters while being multiple orders of magnitude faster.

  Read more →
• 

  Constellation model

  The constellation model is a probabilistic, generative model for category-level object recognition in computer vision. Like other part-based models, the constellation model attempts to represent an object class by a set of N parts under mutual geometric constraints. Because it considers the geometric relationship between different parts, the constellation model differs significantly from appearance-only, or "bag-of-words" representation models, which explicitly disregard the location of image features. The problem of defining a generative model for object recognition is difficult. The task becomes significantly complicated by factors such as background clutter, occlusion, and variations in viewpoint, illumination, and scale. Ideally, we would like the particular representation we choose to be robust to as many of these factors as possible. In category-level recognition, the problem is even more challenging because of the fundamental problem of intra-class variation. Even if two objects belong to the same visual category, their appearances may be significantly different. However, for structured objects such as cars, bicycles, and people, separate instances of objects from the same category are subject to similar geometric constraints. For this reason, particular parts of an object such as the headlights or tires of a car still have consistent appearances and relative positions. The Constellation Model takes advantage of this fact by explicitly modeling the relative location, relative scale, and appearance of these parts for a particular object category. Model parameters are estimated using an unsupervised learning algorithm, meaning that the visual concept of an object class can be extracted from an unlabeled set of training images, even if that set contains "junk" images or instances of objects from multiple categories. It can also account for the absence of model parts due to appearance variability, occlusion, clutter, or detector error. == History == The idea for a "parts and structure" model was originally introduced by Fischler and Elschlager in 1973. This model has since been built upon and extended in many directions. The Constellation Model, as introduced by Dr. Perona and his colleagues, was a probabilistic adaptation of this approach. In the late '90s, Burl et al. revisited the Fischler and Elschlager model for the purpose of face recognition. In their work, Burl et al. used manual selection of constellation parts in training images to construct a statistical model for a set of detectors and the relative locations at which they should be applied. In 2000, Weber et al. made the significant step of training the model using a more unsupervised learning process, which precluded the necessity for tedious hand-labeling of parts. Their algorithm was particularly remarkable because it performed well even on cluttered and occluded image data. Fergus et al. then improved upon this model by making the learning step fully unsupervised, having both shape and appearance learned simultaneously, and accounting explicitly for the relative scale of parts. == The method of Weber and Welling et al. == In the first step, a standard interest point detection method, such as Harris corner detection, is used to generate interest points. Image features generated from the vicinity of these points are then clustered using k-means or another appropriate algorithm. In this process of vector quantization, one can think of the centroids of these clusters as being representative of the appearance of distinctive object parts. Appropriate feature detectors are then trained using these clusters, which can be used to obtain a set of candidate parts from images. As a result of this process, each image can now be represented as a set of parts. Each part has a type, corresponding to one of the aforementioned appearance clusters, as well as a location in the image space. === Basic generative model === Weber & Welling here introduce the concept of foreground and background. Foreground parts correspond to an instance of a target object class, whereas background parts correspond to background clutter or false detections. Let T be the number of different types of parts. The positions of all parts extracted from an image can then be represented in the following "matrix," X o = ( x 11 , x 12 , ⋯ , x 1 N 1 x 21 , x 22 , ⋯ , x 2 N 2 ⋮ x T 1 , x T 2 , ⋯ , x T N T ) {\displaystyle X^{o}={\begin{pmatrix}x_{11},x_{12},{\cdots },x_{1N_{1}}\\x_{21},x_{22},{\cdots },x_{2N_{2}}\\\vdots \\x_{T1},x_{T2},{\cdots },x_{TN_{T}}\end{pmatrix}}} where N i {\displaystyle N_{i}\,} represents the number of parts of type i ∈ { 1 , … , T } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\dots ,T\}} observed in the image. The superscript o indicates that these positions are observable, as opposed to missing. The positions of unobserved object parts can be represented by the vector x m {\displaystyle x^{m}\,} . Suppose that the object will be composed of F {\displaystyle F\,} distinct foreground parts. For notational simplicity, we assume here that F = T {\displaystyle F=T\,} , though the model can be generalized to F > T {\displaystyle F>T\,} . A hypothesis h {\displaystyle h\,} is then defined as a set of indices, with h i = j {\displaystyle h_{i}=j\,} , indicating that point x i j {\displaystyle x_{ij}\,} is a foreground point in X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . The generative probabilistic model is defined through the joint probability density p ( X o , x m , h ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)\,} . === Model details === The rest of this section summarizes the details of Weber & Welling's model for a single component model. The formulas for multiple component models are extensions of those described here. To parametrize the joint probability density, Weber & Welling introduce the auxiliary variables b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , where b {\displaystyle b\,} is a binary vector encoding the presence/absence of parts in detection ( b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1\,} if h i > 0 {\displaystyle h_{i}>0\,} , otherwise b i = 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}=0\,} ), and n {\displaystyle n\,} is a vector where n i {\displaystyle n_{i}\,} denotes the number of background candidates included in the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} row of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . Since b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} are completely determined by h {\displaystyle h\,} and the size of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} , we have p ( X o , x m , h ) = p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)=p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)\,} . By decomposition, p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) = p ( X o , x m | h , n , b ) p ( h | n , b ) p ( n ) p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)=p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n,b)p(h|n,b)p(n)p(b)\,} The probability density over the number of background detections can be modeled by a Poisson distribution, p ( n ) = ∏ i = 1 T 1 n i ! ( M i ) n i e − M i {\displaystyle p(n)=\prod _{i=1}^{T}{\frac {1}{n_{i}!}}(M_{i})^{n_{i}}e^{-M_{i}}} where M i {\displaystyle M_{i}\,} is the average number of background detections of type i {\displaystyle i\,} per image. Depending on the number of parts F {\displaystyle F\,} , the probability p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(b)\,} can be modeled either as an explicit table of length 2 F {\displaystyle 2^{F}\,} , or, if F {\displaystyle F\,} is large, as F {\displaystyle F\,} independent probabilities, each governing the presence of an individual part. The density p ( h | n , b ) {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)\,} is modeled by p ( h | n , b ) = { 1 ∏ f = 1 F N f b f , if h ∈ H ( b , n ) 0 , for other h {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{\textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}}},&{\mbox{if }}h\in H(b,n)\\0,&{\mbox{for other }}h\end{cases}}} where H ( b , n ) {\displaystyle H(b,n)\,} denotes the set of all hypotheses consistent with b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , and N f {\displaystyle N_{f}\,} denotes the total number of detections of parts of type f {\displaystyle f\,} . This expresses the fact that all consistent hypotheses, of which there are ∏ f = 1 F N f b f {\displaystyle \textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}} , are equally likely in the absence of information on part locations. And finally, p ( X o , x m | h , n ) = p f g ( z ) p b g ( x b g ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n)=p_{fg}(z)p_{bg}(x_{bg})\,} where z = ( x o x m ) {\displaystyle z=(x^{o}x^{m})\,} are the coordinates of all foreground detections, observed and missing, and x b g {\displaystyle x_{bg}\,} represents the coordinates of the background detections. Note that foreground detections are assumed to be independent of the background. p f g ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{fg}(z)\,} is modeled as a joint Gaussian with mean μ {\displaystyle \mu \,} and covariance Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma \,} . === Classification === The ultimate objective of this model is to classify images into classes "object present" (class C 1 {\displaystyle C_{1}\,} ) and "object absent" (class C 0 {\displaystyle C_{0}\,} ) given t

  Read more →
• 

  Principle of rationality

  The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.

  Read more →
• 

  Density-based clustering validation

  Density-Based Clustering Validation (DBCV) is a metric designed to assess the quality of clustering solutions, particularly for density-based clustering algorithms like DBSCAN, Mean shift, and OPTICS. This metric is particularly suited for identifying concave and nested clusters, where traditional metrics such as the Silhouette coefficient, Davies–Bouldin index, or Calinski–Harabasz index often struggle to provide meaningful evaluations. Unlike traditional validation measures, which often rely on compact and well-separated clusters, DBCV index evaluates how well clusters are defined in terms of local density variations and structural coherence. This metric was introduced in 2014 by David Moulavi and colleagues in their work. It utilizes density connectivity principles to quantify clustering structures, making it especially effective at detecting arbitrarily shaped clusters in concave datasets, where traditional metrics may be less reliable. The DBCV index has been employed for clustering analysis in bioinformatics, ecology, techno-economy, and health informatics , as well as in numerous other fields. == Definition == DBCV index evaluates clustering structures by analyzing the relationships between data points within and across clusters. Given a dataset X = x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n {\displaystyle X={x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}}} , a density-based algorithm partitions it into K clusters C 1 , C 2 , . . . , C K {\displaystyle {C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{K}}} . Each point x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to a specific cluster, denoted as C c l u s t e r ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{cluster(x_{i})}} A key concept in DBCV index is the notion of density-connected paths. Two points within the same cluster are considered density-connected if there exists a sequence of intermediate points linking them, where each consecutive pair meets a predefined density criterion. The density-based distance between two points is determined by identifying the optimal path that minimizes the maximum local reachability distance along its trajectory. DBCV index extends the Silhouette coefficient by redefining cluster cohesion and separation using density-based distances: Within-cluster density distance measures how closely a point is related to other members of its cluster: a i = 1 | C c l u s t e r ( x i ) | − 1 ∑ x j ∈ C c l u s t e r ( x i ) , y ≠ x d d e n s i t y ( x j , x i ) {\displaystyle a_{i}={\frac {1}{|C_{cluster(x_{i})}|-1}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C_{cluster(x_{i})},y\neq x}d_{density}(x_{j},x_{i})} Nearest-cluster density distance quantifies how far a point is from the closest external cluster: b i = min C ≠ C cluster ( x i ) C ∈ { C 1 , … , C K } ( 1 | C | ∑ x j ∈ C d density ( x i , x j ) ) . {\displaystyle b_{i}=\min _{C\neq C_{{\text{cluster}}(x_{i})} \atop C\in \{C_{1},\dots ,C_{K}\}}\left({\frac {1}{|C|}}\sum _{x_{j}\in C}d_{\text{density}}(x_{i},x_{j})\right).} Using these measures, the DBCV index is computed as: D B C V = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n b i − a i max ( a i , b i ) {\displaystyle DBCV={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {b_{i}-a_{i}}{\max(a_{i},b_{i})}}} == Explanation == DBCV index values range between −1 and +1: +1: Strongly cohesive and well-separated clusters. 0: Ambiguous clustering structure. −1: Poorly formed clusters or incorrect assignments. By leveraging density-based distances instead of traditional Euclidean measures, DBCV index provides a more robust evaluation of clustering performance in datasets with irregular or non-spherical distributions.

  Read more →
• 

  Feature selection

  In machine learning, feature selection is the process of selecting a subset of relevant features (variables, predictors) for use in model construction. Feature selection techniques are used for several reasons: simplification of models to make them easier to interpret, shorter training times, to avoid the curse of dimensionality, improve the compatibility of the data with a certain learning model class, to encode inherent symmetries present in the input space. The central premise when using feature selection is that data sometimes contains features that are redundant or irrelevant, and can thus be removed without incurring much loss of information. Redundancy and irrelevance are two distinct notions, since one relevant feature may be redundant in the presence of another relevant feature with which it is strongly correlated. Feature extraction creates new features from functions of the original features, whereas feature selection finds a subset of the features. Feature selection techniques are often used in domains where there are many features and comparatively few samples (data points). == Introduction == A feature selection algorithm can be seen as the combination of a search technique for proposing new feature subsets, along with an evaluation measure which scores the different feature subsets. The simplest algorithm is to test each possible subset of features finding the one which minimizes the error rate. This is an exhaustive search of the space, and is computationally intractable for all but the smallest of feature sets. The choice of evaluation metric heavily influences the algorithm, and it is these evaluation metrics which distinguish between the three main categories of feature selection algorithms: wrappers, filters and embedded methods. Wrapper methods use a predictive model to score feature subsets. Each new subset is used to train a model, which is tested on a hold-out set. Counting the number of mistakes made on that hold-out set (the error rate of the model) gives the score for that subset. As wrapper methods train a new model for each subset, they are very computationally intensive, but usually provide the best performing feature set for that particular type of model or typical problem. Filter methods use a proxy measure instead of the error rate to score a feature subset. This measure is chosen to be fast to compute, while still capturing the usefulness of the feature set. Common measures include the mutual information, the pointwise mutual information, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Relief-based algorithms, and inter/intra class distance or the scores of significance tests for each class/feature combinations. Filters are usually less computationally intensive than wrappers, but they produce a feature set which is not tuned to a specific type of predictive model. This lack of tuning means a feature set from a filter is more general than the set from a wrapper, usually giving lower prediction performance than a wrapper. However the feature set doesn't contain the assumptions of a prediction model, and so is more useful for exposing the relationships between the features. Many filters provide a feature ranking rather than an explicit best feature subset, and the cut off point in the ranking is chosen via cross-validation. Filter methods have also been used as a preprocessing step for wrapper methods, allowing a wrapper to be used on larger problems. One other popular approach is the Recursive Feature Elimination algorithm, commonly used with Support Vector Machines to repeatedly construct a model and remove features with low weights. Embedded methods are a catch-all group of techniques which perform feature selection as part of the model construction process. The exemplar of this approach is the LASSO method for constructing a linear model, which penalizes the regression coefficients with an L1 penalty, shrinking many of them to zero. Any features which have non-zero regression coefficients are 'selected' by the LASSO algorithm. Improvements to the LASSO include Bolasso which bootstraps samples; Elastic net regularization, which combines the L1 penalty of LASSO with the L2 penalty of ridge regression; and FeaLect which scores all the features based on combinatorial analysis of regression coefficients. AEFS further extends LASSO to nonlinear scenario with autoencoders. These approaches tend to be between filters and wrappers in terms of computational complexity. In traditional regression analysis, the most popular form of feature selection is stepwise regression, which is a wrapper technique. It is a greedy algorithm that adds the best feature (or deletes the worst feature) at each round. The main control issue is deciding when to stop the algorithm. In machine learning, this is typically done by cross-validation. In statistics, some criteria are optimized. This leads to the inherent problem of nesting. More robust methods have been explored, such as branch and bound and piecewise linear network. == Subset selection == Subset selection evaluates a subset of features as a group for suitability. Subset selection algorithms can be broken up into wrappers, filters, and embedded methods. Wrappers use a search algorithm to search through the space of possible features and evaluate each subset by running a model on the subset. Wrappers can be computationally expensive and have a risk of over fitting to the model. Filters are similar to wrappers in the search approach, but instead of evaluating against a model, a simpler filter is evaluated. Embedded techniques are embedded in, and specific to, a model. Many popular search approaches use greedy hill climbing, which iteratively evaluates a candidate subset of features, then modifies the subset and evaluates if the new subset is an improvement over the old. Evaluation of the subsets requires a scoring metric that grades a subset of features. Exhaustive search is generally impractical, so at some implementor (or operator) defined stopping point, the subset of features with the highest score discovered up to that point is selected as the satisfactory feature subset. The stopping criterion varies by algorithm; possible criteria include: a subset score exceeds a threshold, a program's maximum allowed run time has been surpassed, etc. Alternative search-based techniques are based on targeted projection pursuit which finds low-dimensional projections of the data that score highly: the features that have the largest projections in the lower-dimensional space are then selected. Search approaches include: Exhaustive Best first Simulated annealing Genetic algorithm Greedy forward selection Greedy backward elimination Particle swarm optimization Targeted projection pursuit Scatter search Variable neighborhood search Two popular filter metrics for classification problems are correlation and mutual information, although neither are true metrics or 'distance measures' in the mathematical sense, since they fail to obey the triangle inequality and thus do not compute any actual 'distance' – they should rather be regarded as 'scores'. These scores are computed between a candidate feature (or set of features) and the desired output category. There are, however, true metrics that are a simple function of the mutual information; see here. Other available filter metrics include: Class separability Error probability Inter-class distance Probabilistic distance Entropy Consistency-based feature selection Correlation-based feature selection == Optimality criteria == The choice of optimality criteria is difficult as there are multiple objectives in a feature selection task. Many common criteria incorporate a measure of accuracy, penalised by the number of features selected. Examples include Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Mallows's Cp, which have a penalty of 2 for each added feature. AIC is based on information theory, and is effectively derived via the maximum entropy principle. Other criteria are Bayesian information criterion (BIC), which uses a penalty of log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} for each added feature, minimum description length (MDL) which asymptotically uses log ⁡ n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\log {n}}}} , Bonferroni / RIC which use 2 log ⁡ p {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {p}}}} , maximum dependency feature selection, and a variety of new criteria that are motivated by false discovery rate (FDR), which use something close to 2 log ⁡ p q {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\log {\frac {p}{q}}}}} . A maximum entropy rate criterion may also be used to select the most relevant subset of features. == Structure learning == Filter feature selection is a specific case of a more general paradigm called structure learning. Feature selection finds the relevant feature set for a specific target variable whereas structure learning finds the relationships between all the variables, usually by expressing these relationships as a graph. The most common structure learning algorithms

  Read more →
• 

  Linguamatics

  Linguamatics, headquartered in Cambridge, England, with offices in the United States and UK, is a provider of text mining systems through software licensing and services, primarily for pharmaceutical and healthcare applications. Founded in 2001, the company was purchased by IQVIA in January 2019. == Technology == The company develops enterprise search tools for the life sciences sector. The core natural language processing engine (I2E) uses a federated architecture to incorporate data from 3rd party resources. Initially developed to be used interactively through a graphic user interface, the core software also has an application programming interface that can be used to automate searches. LabKey, Penn Medicine, Atrius Health and Mercy all use Linguamatics software to extract electronic health record data into data warehouses. Linguamatics software is used by 17 of the top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as healthcare providers. == Software community == The core software, "I2E", is used by a number of companies to either extend their own software or to publish their data. Copyright Clearance Center uses I2E to produce searchable indexes of material that would otherwise be unsearchable due to copyright. Thomson Reuters produces Cortellis Informatics Clinical Text Analytics, which depends on I2E to make clinical data accessible and searchable. Pipeline Pilot can integrate I2E as part of a workflow. ChemAxon can be used alongside I2E to allow named entity recognition of chemicals within unstructured data. Data sources include MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA Drug Labels, PubMed Central, and Patent Abstracts.

  Read more →
• 

  Misskey

  Misskey (Japanese: ミスキー, romanized: Misukī) is an open source, federated, social networking service created in 2014 by Japanese software engineer Eiji "syuilo" Shinoda. Misskey uses the ActivityPub protocol for federation, allowing users to interact between independent Misskey instances, and other ActivityPub compatible platforms. Misskey is generally considered to be part of the Fediverse. Despite being a decentralized service, Misskey is not philosophically opposed to centralization. The name Misskey comes from the lyrics of Brain Diver, a song by the Japanese singer May'n. == History == Misskey was initially developed as a BBS-style internet forum by high school student Eiji Shinoda in 2014. After introducing a timeline feature, Misskey gained popularity as the microblogging platform it is today. In 2018, Misskey added support for ActivityPub, becoming a federated social media platform. The flagship Misskey server, Misskey.io, was started on April 15, 2019. Misskey, alongside Mastodon and Bluesky, has received attention as a potential replacement for Twitter following Twitter's acquisition by Elon Musk in 2022. On April 8, 2023, Misskey.io incorporated as MisskeyHQ K.K. As of February 2024, over 450,000 users were registered, making it the largest instance of Misskey. Misskey.io is crowdfunded. The administrator of Misskey.io is Japanese system administrator Yoshiki Eto, who operates under the alias Murakami-san. Eiji Shinoda serves as director. In July 2023, Twitter introduced extreme restrictions on their API in order to combat scraping from bots. Some users were critical of the changes, and as a result migrated to other social networks. The number of users registering on Misskey.io, Misskey's official instance and the largest one, increased rapidly, with other Misskey instances also receiving a spike in signups. In response to this trend, Skeb, a platform for sharing art, announced on July 14, 2023 that it would sponsor the Misskey development team. In early 2024, Misskey was targeted by a spam attack from Japan. The cause of the attack is believed to be a dispute between rival groups on a Japanese hacker forum and a DDoS attack on a Discord bot. Mastodon instances with open registration were used in the attack. In November 2025, Eto announced intentions to replace ActivityPub with Misskey's own low-overhead federation system in "a few years". Shinoda later said that this was "fake news". == Development == Misskey is open source software and is licensed under the AGPLv3. The Misskey API is publicly available and is documented using the OpenAPI Specification, which allows users to build automated accounts and use it on any Misskey instance. The service is translated using Crowdin. Misskey is developed using Node.js. TypeScript is used on both the frontend and backend. PostgreSQL is used as its database. Vue.js is used for the frontend. == Functionality == Posts on Misskey are called "notes". Notes are limited to a maximum of 3,000 characters (a limit which can be customized by instances), and can be accompanied by any file, including polls, images, videos, and audio. Notes can be reposted, either by themselves or with another "quote" note. Misskey comes with multiple timelines to sort through the notes that an instance has available, and are displayed in reverse chronological order. The Home timeline shows notes from users that you follow, the Local timeline shows all notes from the instance in use, the Social timeline shows both the Home and Local timeline, and the Global timeline shows every public note that the instance knows about. Notes have customizable privacy settings to control what users can see a note, similar to Mastodon's post visibility ranges. Public notes show up on all timelines, while Home notes only show on a user's Home timeline. Notes can also be set to be available only for followers. Direct messages using notes can be sent to users.

  Read more →
• 

  Medoid

  Medoids are representative objects of a data set or a cluster within a data set whose sum of dissimilarities to all the objects in the cluster is minimal. Medoids are similar in concept to means or centroids, but medoids are always restricted to be members of the data set. Medoids are most commonly used on data when a mean or centroid cannot be defined, such as graphs. They are also used in contexts where the centroid is not representative of the dataset like in images, 3-D trajectories and gene expression (where while the data is sparse the medoid need not be). These are also of interest while wanting to find a representative using some distance other than squared euclidean distance (for instance in movie-ratings). For some data sets there may be more than one medoid, as with medians. A common application of the medoid is the k-medoids clustering algorithm, which is similar to the k-means algorithm but works when a mean or centroid is not definable. This algorithm basically works as follows. First, a set of medoids is chosen at random. Second, the distances to the other points are computed. Third, data are clustered according to the medoid they are most similar to. Fourth, the medoid set is optimized via an iterative process. Note that a medoid is not equivalent to a median, a geometric median, or centroid. A median is only defined on 1-dimensional data, and it only minimizes dissimilarity to other points for metrics induced by a norm (such as the Manhattan distance or Euclidean distance). A geometric median is defined in any dimension, but unlike a medoid, it is not necessarily a point from within the original dataset. == Definition == Let X := { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } {\textstyle {\mathcal {X}}:=\{x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}} be a set of n {\textstyle n} points in a space with a distance function d. Medoid is defined as x medoid = arg ⁡ min y ∈ X ∑ i = 1 n d ( y , x i ) . {\displaystyle x_{\text{medoid}}=\arg \min _{y\in {\mathcal {X}}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}d(y,x_{i}).} == Clustering with medoids == Medoids are a popular replacement for the cluster mean when the distance function is not (squared) Euclidean distance, or not even a metric (as the medoid does not require the triangle inequality). When partitioning the data set into clusters, the medoid of each cluster can be used as a representative of each cluster. Clustering algorithms based on the idea of medoids include: Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM), the standard k-medoids algorithm Hierarchical Clustering Around Medoids (HACAM), which uses medoids in hierarchical clustering == Algorithms to compute the medoid of a set == From the definition above, it is clear that the medoid of a set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} can be computed after computing all pairwise distances between points in the ensemble. This would take O ( n 2 ) {\textstyle O(n^{2})} distance evaluations (with n = | X | {\displaystyle n=|{\mathcal {X}}|} ). In the worst case, one can not compute the medoid with fewer distance evaluations. However, there are many approaches that allow us to compute medoids either exactly or approximately in sub-quadratic time under different statistical models. If the points lie on the real line, computing the medoid reduces to computing the median which can be done in O ( n ) {\textstyle O(n)} by Quick-select algorithm of Hoare. However, in higher dimensional real spaces, no linear-time algorithm is known. RAND is an algorithm that estimates the average distance of each point to all the other points by sampling a random subset of other points. It takes a total of O ( n log ⁡ n ϵ 2 ) {\textstyle O\left({\frac {n\log n}{\epsilon ^{2}}}\right)} distance computations to approximate the medoid within a factor of ( 1 + ϵ Δ ) {\textstyle (1+\epsilon \Delta )} with high probability, where Δ {\textstyle \Delta } is the maximum distance between two points in the ensemble. Note that RAND is an approximation algorithm, and moreover Δ {\textstyle \Delta } may not be known apriori. RAND was leveraged by TOPRANK which uses the estimates obtained by RAND to focus on a small subset of candidate points, evaluates the average distance of these points exactly, and picks the minimum of those. TOPRANK needs O ( n 5 3 log 4 3 ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {5}{3}}\log ^{\frac {4}{3}}n)} distance computations to find the exact medoid with high probability under a distributional assumption on the average distances. trimed presents an algorithm to find the medoid with O ( n 3 2 2 Θ ( d ) ) {\textstyle O(n^{\frac {3}{2}}2^{\Theta (d)})} distance evaluations under a distributional assumption on the points. The algorithm uses the triangle inequality to cut down the search space. Meddit leverages a connection of the medoid computation with multi-armed bandits and uses an upper-Confidence-bound type of algorithm to get an algorithm which takes O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\textstyle O(n\log n)} distance evaluations under statistical assumptions on the points. Correlated Sequential Halving also leverages multi-armed bandit techniques, improving upon Meddit. By exploiting the correlation structure in the problem, the algorithm is able to provably yield drastic improvement (usually around 1-2 orders of magnitude) in both number of distance computations needed and wall clock time. == Implementations == An implementation of RAND, TOPRANK, and trimed can be found here. An implementation of Meddit can be found here and here. An implementation of Correlated Sequential Halving can be found here. == Medoids in text and natural language processing (NLP) == Medoids can be applied to various text and NLP tasks to improve the efficiency and accuracy of analyses. By clustering text data based on similarity, medoids can help identify representative examples within the dataset, leading to better understanding and interpretation of the data. === Text clustering === Text clustering is the process of grouping similar text or documents together based on their content. Medoid-based clustering algorithms can be employed to partition large amounts of text into clusters, with each cluster represented by a medoid document. This technique helps in organizing, summarizing, and retrieving information from large collections of documents, such as in search engines, social media analytics and recommendation systems. === Text summarization === Text summarization aims to produce a concise and coherent summary of a larger text by extracting the most important and relevant information. Medoid-based clustering can be used to identify the most representative sentences in a document or a group of documents, which can then be combined to create a summary. This approach is especially useful for extractive summarization tasks, where the goal is to generate a summary by selecting the most relevant sentences from the original text. === Sentiment analysis === Sentiment analysis involves determining the sentiment or emotion expressed in a piece of text, such as positive, negative, or neutral. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group text data based on similar sentiment patterns. By analyzing the medoid of each cluster, researchers can gain insights into the predominant sentiment of the cluster, helping in tasks such as opinion mining, customer feedback analysis, and social media monitoring. === Topic modeling === Topic modeling is a technique used to discover abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents. Medoid-based clustering can be applied to group documents with similar themes or topics. By analyzing the medoids of these clusters, researchers can gain an understanding of the underlying topics in the text corpus, facilitating tasks such as document categorization, trend analysis, and content recommendation. === Techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering === When applying medoid-based clustering to text data, it is essential to choose an appropriate similarity measure to compare documents effectively. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of the similarity measure should be based on the specific requirements and characteristics of the text data being analyzed. The following are common techniques for measuring text similarity in medoid-based clustering: ==== Cosine similarity ==== Cosine similarity is a widely used measure to compare the similarity between two pieces of text. It calculates the cosine of the angle between two document vectors in a high-dimensional space. Cosine similarity ranges between -1 and 1, where a value closer to 1 indicates higher similarity, and a value closer to -1 indicates lower similarity. By visualizing two lines originating from the origin and extending to the respective points of interest, and then measuring the angle between these lines, one can determine the similarity between the associated points. Cosine similarity is less affected by document length, so it may be better at producing medoids that are representative of the content of a cluster instead of the lengt

  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 →