A.i Paraphrasing Online

A.i Paraphrasing Online — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Lexical Markup Framework

  Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl

  Read more →
• 

  LIBSVM

  LIBSVM and LIBLINEAR are two popular open source machine learning libraries, both developed at the National Taiwan University and both written in C++ though with a C API. LIBSVM implements the sequential minimal optimization (SMO) algorithm for kernelized support vector machines (SVMs), supporting classification and regression. LIBLINEAR implements linear SVMs and logistic regression models trained using a coordinate descent algorithm. The SVM learning code from both libraries is often reused in other open source machine learning toolkits, including GATE, KNIME, Orange and scikit-learn. Bindings and ports exist for programming languages such as Java, MATLAB, R, Julia, and Python. It is available in e1071 library in R and scikit-learn in Python. Both libraries are free software released under the 3-clause BSD license.

  Read more →
• 

  IDistance

  In pattern recognition, iDistance is an indexing and query processing technique for k-nearest neighbor queries on point data in multi-dimensional metric spaces. The kNN query is one of the hardest problems on multi-dimensional data, especially when the dimensionality of the data is high. iDistance is designed to process kNN queries in high-dimensional spaces efficiently and performs extremely well for skewed data distributions, which usually occur in real-life data sets. iDistance employs a two-phase search strategy involving an initial filtering of candidate regions and a subsequent refinement of results, an approach aligned with the Filter and Refine Principle (FRP). This means that the index first prunes the search space to eliminate unlikely candidates, then verifies the true nearest neighbors in a refinement step, following the general FRP paradigm used in database search algorithms. The iDistance index can also be augmented with machine learning models to learn data distributions for improved searching and storage of multi-dimensional data. == Indexing == Building the iDistance index has two steps: A number of reference points in the data space are chosen. There are various ways of choosing reference points. Using cluster centers as reference points is the most efficient way. The data points are partitioned into Voronoi cells based on well-chosen reference points. The distance between a data point and its closest reference point is calculated. This distance plus a scaling value is called the point's iDistance. By this means, points in a multi-dimensional space are mapped to one-dimensional values, and then a B+-tree can be adopted to index the points using the iDistance as the key. The figure on the right shows an example where three reference points (O1, O2, O3) are chosen. The data points are then mapped to a one-dimensional space and indexed in a B+-tree. Various extensions have been proposed to make the selection of reference points for effective query performance, including employing machine learning to learn the identification of reference points. == Query processing == To process a kNN query, the query is mapped to a number of one-dimensional range queries, which can be processed efficiently on a B+-tree. In the above figure, the query Q is mapped to a value in the B+-tree while the kNN search ``sphere" is mapped to a range in the B+-tree. The search sphere expands gradually until the k NNs are found. This corresponds to gradually expanding range searches in the B+-tree. The iDistance technique can be viewed as a way of accelerating the sequential scan. Instead of scanning records from the beginning to the end of the data file, the iDistance starts the scan from spots where the nearest neighbors can be obtained early with a very high probability. == Applications == The iDistance has been used in many applications including Image retrieval Video indexing Similarity search in P2P systems Mobile computing Recommender system == Historical background == The iDistance was first proposed by Cui Yu, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan and H. V. Jagadish in 2001. Later, together with Rui Zhang, they improved the technique and performed a more comprehensive study on it in 2005.

  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 →
• 

  Neurocomputing (journal)

  Neurocomputing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural computation. It was established in 1989 and is published by Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Zidong Wang (Brunel University London). Independent scientometric studies noted that despite being one of the most productive journals in the field, it has kept its reputation across the years intact and plays an important role in leading the research in the area. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2023 impact factor is 5.5.

  Read more →
• 

  Variational autoencoder

  In machine learning, a variational autoencoder (VAE) is an artificial neural network architecture introduced by Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling in 2013. It is part of the families of probabilistic graphical models and variational Bayesian methods. In addition to being seen as an autoencoder neural network architecture, variational autoencoders can also be studied within the mathematical formulation of variational Bayesian methods, connecting a neural encoder network to its decoder through a probabilistic latent space (for example, as a multivariate Gaussian distribution) that corresponds to the parameters of a variational distribution. Thus, the encoder maps each point (such as an image) from a large complex dataset into a distribution within the latent space, rather than to a single point in that space. The decoder has the opposite function, which is to map from the latent space to the input space, again according to a distribution (although in practice, noise is rarely added during the decoding stage). By mapping a point to a distribution instead of a single point, the network can avoid overfitting the training data. Both networks are typically trained together with the usage of the reparameterization trick, although the variance of the noise model can be learned separately. Although this type of model was initially designed for unsupervised learning, its effectiveness has been proven for semi-supervised learning and supervised learning. == Overview of architecture and operation == A variational autoencoder is a generative model with a prior and noise distribution respectively. Usually such models are trained using the expectation-maximization meta-algorithm (e.g. probabilistic PCA, (spike & slab) sparse coding). Such a scheme optimizes a lower bound of the data likelihood, which is usually computationally intractable, and in doing so requires the discovery of q-distributions, or variational posteriors. These q-distributions are normally parameterized for each individual data point in a separate optimization process. However, variational autoencoders use a neural network as an amortized approach to jointly optimize across data points. In that way, the same parameters are reused for multiple data points, which can result in massive memory savings. The first neural network takes as input the data points themselves, and outputs parameters for the variational distribution. As it maps from a known input space to the low-dimensional latent space, it is called the encoder. The decoder is the second neural network of this model. It is a function that maps from the latent space to the input space, e.g. as the means of the noise distribution. It is possible to use another neural network that maps to the variance, however this can be omitted for simplicity. In such a case, the variance can be optimized with gradient descent. To optimize this model, one needs to know two terms: the "reconstruction error", and the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D). Both terms are derived from the free energy expression of the probabilistic model, and therefore differ depending on the noise distribution and the assumed prior of the data, here referred to as p-distribution. For example, a standard VAE task such as IMAGENET is typically assumed to have a gaussianly distributed noise; however, tasks such as binarized MNIST require a Bernoulli noise. The KL-D from the free energy expression maximizes the probability mass of the q-distribution that overlaps with the p-distribution, which unfortunately can result in mode-seeking behaviour. The "reconstruction" term is the remainder of the free energy expression, and requires a sampling approximation to compute its expectation value. More recent approaches replace Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D) with various statistical distances, see "Statistical distance VAE variants" below. == Formulation == From the point of view of probabilistic modeling, one wants to maximize the likelihood of the data x {\displaystyle x} by their chosen parameterized probability distribution p θ ( x ) = p ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=p(x|\theta )} . This distribution is usually chosen to be a Gaussian N ( x | μ , σ ) {\displaystyle N(x|\mu ,\sigma )} which is parameterized by μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } respectively, and as a member of the exponential family it is easy to work with as a noise distribution. Simple distributions are easy enough to maximize, however distributions where a prior is assumed over the latents z {\displaystyle z} results in intractable integrals. Let us find p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} via marginalizing over z {\displaystyle z} . p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x , z ) d z , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x,z})\,dz,} where p θ ( x , z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x,z})} represents the joint distribution under p θ {\displaystyle p_{\theta }} of the observable data x {\displaystyle x} and its latent representation or encoding z {\displaystyle z} . According to the chain rule, the equation can be rewritten as p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x | z ) p θ ( z ) d z {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x|z})p_{\theta }(z)\,dz} In the vanilla variational autoencoder, z {\displaystyle z} is usually taken to be a finite-dimensional vector of real numbers, and p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x|z})} to be a Gaussian distribution. Then p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} is a mixture of Gaussian distributions. It is now possible to define the set of the relationships between the input data and its latent representation as Prior p θ ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z)} Likelihood p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} Posterior p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} Unfortunately, the computation of p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} is expensive and in most cases intractable. To speed up the calculus to make it feasible, it is necessary to introduce a further function to approximate the posterior distribution as q ϕ ( z | x ) ≈ p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})\approx p_{\theta }({z|x})} with ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } defined as the set of real values that parametrize q {\displaystyle q} . This is sometimes called amortized inference, since by "investing" in finding a good q ϕ {\displaystyle q_{\phi }} , one can later infer z {\displaystyle z} from x {\displaystyle x} quickly without doing any integrals. In this way, the problem is to find a good probabilistic autoencoder, in which the conditional likelihood distribution p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is computed by the probabilistic decoder, and the approximated posterior distribution q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is computed by the probabilistic encoder. Parametrize the encoder as E ϕ {\displaystyle E_{\phi }} , and the decoder as D θ {\displaystyle D_{\theta }} . == Evidence lower bound (ELBO) == Like many deep learning approaches that use gradient-based optimization, VAEs require a differentiable loss function to update the network weights through backpropagation. For variational autoencoders, the idea is to jointly optimize the generative model parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } to reduce the reconstruction error between the input and the output, and ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to make q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} as close as possible to p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . As reconstruction loss, mean squared error and cross entropy are often used. The Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))} can be used as a loss function to squeeze q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} under p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . This divergence loss expands to D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( z | x ) ] = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) + E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }(z|x)}{p_{\theta }(z|x)}}\right]\\&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})p_{\theta }(x)}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right]\\&=\ln p_{\theta }(x)+\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right].\end{aligned}}} Now, define the evidence lower bound (ELBO): L θ , ϕ ( x ) := E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ p θ ( x , z ) q ϕ ( z | x ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) − D K L ( q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) ∥ p θ ( ⋅ | x ) ) {\displaystyle L_{\theta ,\phi }(x):=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {p_{\theta }(x,z)}{q_{\phi }({z|x})}}\right]=\ln p_{\theta }(x)-D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({\cdot |x})\parallel p_{\theta }({\cdot |x}))} Maximizing the ELBO θ ∗ , ϕ ∗ = argmax θ , ϕ L θ , ϕ ( x ) {\dis

  Read more →
• 

  Vowpal Wabbit

  Vowpal Wabbit (VW) is an open-source fast online interactive machine learning system library and program developed originally at Yahoo! Research, and currently at Microsoft Research. It was started and is led by John Langford. Vowpal Wabbit's interactive learning support is particularly notable including Contextual Bandits, Active Learning, and forms of guided Reinforcement Learning. Vowpal Wabbit provides an efficient scalable out-of-core implementation with support for a number of machine learning reductions, importance weighting, and a selection of different loss functions and optimization algorithms. == Notable features == The VW program supports: Multiple supervised (and semi-supervised) learning problems: Classification (both binary and multi-class) Regression Active learning (partially labeled data) for both regression and classification Multiple learning algorithms (model-types / representations) OLS regression Matrix factorization (sparse matrix SVD) Single layer neural net (with user specified hidden layer node count) Searn (Search and Learn) Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Stagewise polynomial approximation Recommend top-K out of N One-against-all (OAA) and cost-sensitive OAA reduction for multi-class Weighted all pairs Contextual-bandit (with multiple exploration/exploitation strategies) Multiple loss functions: squared error quantile hinge logistic poisson Multiple optimization algorithms Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) BFGS Conjugate gradient Regularization (L1 norm, L2 norm, & elastic net regularization) Flexible input - input features may be: Binary Numerical Categorical (via flexible feature-naming and the hash trick) Can deal with missing values/sparse-features Other features On the fly generation of feature interactions (quadratic and cubic) On the fly generation of N-grams with optional skips (useful for word/language data-sets) Automatic test-set holdout and early termination on multiple passes bootstrapping User settable online learning progress report + auditing of the model Hyperparameter optimization == Scalability == Vowpal wabbit has been used to learn a tera-feature (1012) data-set on 1000 nodes in one hour. Its scalability is aided by several factors: Out-of-core online learning: no need to load all data into memory The hashing trick: feature identities are converted to a weight index via a hash (uses 32-bit MurmurHash3) Exploiting multi-core CPUs: parsing of input and learning are done in separate threads. Compiled C++ code

  Read more →
• 

  Radial basis function kernel

  In machine learning, the radial basis function kernel, or RBF kernel, is a popular kernel function used in various kernelized learning algorithms. In particular, it is commonly used in support vector machine classification. The RBF kernel on two samples x , x ′ ∈ R k {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} \in \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , represented as feature vectors in some input space, is defined as K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 σ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}\right)} ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}} may be recognized as the squared Euclidean distance between the two feature vectors. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a free parameter. An equivalent definition involves a parameter γ = 1 2 σ 2 {\displaystyle \textstyle \gamma ={\tfrac {1}{2\sigma ^{2}}}} : K ( x , x ′ ) = exp ⁡ ( − γ ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )=\exp(-\gamma \|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2})} Since the value of the RBF kernel decreases with distance and ranges between zero (in the infinite-distance limit) and one (when x = x'), it has a ready interpretation as a similarity measure. The feature space of the kernel has an infinite number of dimensions; for σ = 1 {\displaystyle \sigma =1} , its expansion using the multinomial theorem is: exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( 2 2 x ⊤ x ′ − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = exp ⁡ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ( x ⊤ x ′ ) j j ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) = ∑ j = 0 ∞ ∑ n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ′ ‖ 2 ) x ′ 1 n 1 ⋯ x ′ k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)&=\exp \left({\frac {2}{2}}\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} -{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\exp \left(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} \right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(\mathbf {x} ^{\top }\mathbf {x'} )^{j}}{j!}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right)\\[5pt]&=\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }\quad \sum _{n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right){\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x'} \|^{2}\right){\frac {{x'}_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots {x'}_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\\[5pt]&=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \end{alignedat}}} φ ( x ) = exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 ) ( a ℓ 0 ( 0 ) , a 1 ( 1 ) , … , a ℓ 1 ( 1 ) , … , a 1 ( j ) , … , a ℓ j ( j ) , … ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\|\mathbf {x} \|^{2}\right)\left(a_{\ell _{0}}^{(0)},a_{1}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{1}}^{(1)},\dots ,a_{1}^{(j)},\dots ,a_{\ell _{j}}^{(j)},\dots \right)} where ℓ j = ( k + j − 1 j ) {\displaystyle \ell _{j}={\tbinom {k+j-1}{j}}} , a ℓ ( j ) = x 1 n 1 ⋯ x k n k n 1 ! ⋯ n k ! | n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n k = j ∧ 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓ j {\displaystyle a_{\ell }^{(j)}={\frac {x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdots x_{k}^{n_{k}}}{\sqrt {n_{1}!\cdots n_{k}!}}}\quad |\quad n_{1}+n_{2}+\dots +n_{k}=j\wedge 1\leq \ell \leq \ell _{j}} == Approximations == Because support vector machines and other models employing the kernel trick do not scale well to large numbers of training samples or large numbers of features in the input space, several approximations to the RBF kernel (and similar kernels) have been introduced. Typically, these take the form of a function z that maps a single vector to a vector of higher dimensionality, approximating the kernel: ⟨ z ( x ) , z ( x ′ ) ⟩ ≈ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ = K ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle z(\mathbf {x} ),z(\mathbf {x'} )\rangle \approx \langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {x'} )\rangle =K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {x'} )} where φ {\displaystyle \textstyle \varphi } is the implicit mapping embedded in the RBF kernel. === Fourier random features === One way to construct such a z is to randomly sample from the Fourier transformation of the kernel φ ( x ) = 1 D [ cos ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w 1 , x ⟩ , … , cos ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ , sin ⁡ ⟨ w D , x ⟩ ] T {\displaystyle \varphi (x)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {D}}}[\cos \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{1},x\rangle ,\ldots ,\cos \langle w_{D},x\rangle ,\sin \langle w_{D},x\rangle ]^{T}} where w 1 , . . . , w D {\displaystyle w_{1},...,w_{D}} are independent samples from the normal distribution N ( 0 , σ − 2 I ) {\displaystyle N(0,\sigma ^{-2}I)} . Theorem: E ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = e ‖ x − y ‖ 2 / ( 2 σ 2 ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=e^{\|x-y\|^{2}/(2\sigma ^{2})}.} Proof: It suffices to prove the case of D = 1 {\displaystyle D=1} . Use the trigonometric identity cos ⁡ ( a − b ) = cos ⁡ ( a ) cos ⁡ ( b ) + sin ⁡ ( a ) sin ⁡ ( b ) {\displaystyle \cos(a-b)=\cos(a)\cos(b)+\sin(a)\sin(b)} , the spherical symmetry of Gaussian distribution, then evaluate the integral ∫ − ∞ ∞ cos ⁡ ( k x ) e − x 2 / 2 2 π d x = e − k 2 / 2 . {\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {\cos(kx)e^{-x^{2}/2}}{\sqrt {2\pi }}}dx=e^{-k^{2}/2}.} Theorem: Var ⁡ [ ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ ] = O ( D − 1 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} [\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (y)\rangle ]=O(D^{-1})} . (Appendix A.2). === Nyström method === Another approach uses the Nyström method to approximate the eigendecomposition of the Gram matrix K, using only a random sample of the training set.

  Read more →
• 

  Coherent extrapolated volition

  Coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) is a theoretical framework in the field of AI alignment describing an approach by which an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would act on a benevolent supposition of what humans would want if they were more knowledgeable, more rational, had more time to think, and had matured together as a society, as opposed to humanity's current individual or collective preferences. It was proposed by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2004 as part of his work on friendly AI. == Concept == CEV proposes that an advanced AI system should derive its goals by extrapolating the idealized volition of humanity. This means aggregating and projecting human preferences into a coherent utility function that reflects what people would desire under ideal epistemic and moral conditions. The aim is to ensure that AI systems are aligned with humanity's true interests, rather than with transient or poorly informed preferences. In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted. == Debate == Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom note that CEV has several interesting properties. It is designed to be humane and self-correcting, by capturing the source of human values instead of trying to list them. It avoids the difficulty of laying down an explicit, fixed list of rules. It encapsulates moral growth, preventing flawed current moral beliefs from getting locked in. It limits the influence that a small group of programmers can have on what the ASI would value, thus also reducing the incentives to build ASI first. And it keeps humanity in charge of its destiny. CEV also faces significant theoretical and practical challenges. Bostrom notes that CEV has "a number of free parameters that could be specified in various ways, yielding different versions of the proposal." One such parameter is the extrapolation base (whose extrapolated volition is taken into account). For example, whether it should include people with severe dementia, patients in a vegetative state, foetuses, or embryos. He also notes that if CEV's extrapolation base only includes humans, there is a risk that the result would be ungenerous toward other animals and digital minds. One possible solution would be to include a mechanism to expand CEV's extrapolation base. == Variants and alternatives == A proposed theoretical alternative to CEV is to rely on an artificial superintelligence's superior cognitive capabilities to figure out what is morally right, and let it act accordingly. It is also possible to combine both techniques, for instance with the ASI following CEV except when it is morally impermissible. In another review, a philosophical analysis explores CEV through the lens of social trust in autonomous systems. Drawing on Anthony Giddens' concept of "active trust", the author proposes an evolution of CEV into "Coherent, Extrapolated and Clustered Volition" (CECV). This formulation aims to better reflect the moral preferences of diverse cultural groups, thus offering a more pragmatic ethical framework for designing AI systems that earn public trust while accommodating societal diversity.

  Read more →
• 

  Locality-sensitive hashing

  In computer science, locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) is a fuzzy hashing technique that hashes similar input items into the same "buckets" with high probability. The number of buckets is much smaller than the universe of possible input items. Since similar items end up in the same buckets, this technique can be used for data clustering and nearest neighbor search. It differs from conventional hashing techniques in that hash collisions are maximized, not minimized. Alternatively, the technique can be seen as a way to reduce the dimensionality of high-dimensional data; high-dimensional input items can be reduced to low-dimensional versions while preserving relative distances between items. Hashing-based approximate nearest-neighbor search algorithms generally use one of two main categories of hashing methods: either data-independent methods, such as locality-sensitive hashing (LSH); or data-dependent methods, such as locality-preserving hashing (LPH). Locality-preserving hashing was initially devised as a way to facilitate data pipelining in implementations of massively parallel algorithms that use randomized routing and universal hashing to reduce memory contention and network congestion. == Definitions == A finite family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of functions h : M → S {\displaystyle h\colon M\to S} is defined to be an LSH family for a metric space M = ( M , d ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}=(M,d)} , a threshold r > 0 {\displaystyle r>0} , an approximation factor c > 1 {\displaystyle c>1} , and probabilities p 1 > p 2 {\displaystyle p_{1}>p_{2}} if it satisfies the following condition. For any two points a , b ∈ M {\displaystyle a,b\in M} and a hash function h {\displaystyle h} chosen uniformly at random from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} : If d ( a , b ) ≤ r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\leq r} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} (i.e., a and b collide) with probability at least p 1 {\displaystyle p_{1}} , If d ( a , b ) ≥ c r {\displaystyle d(a,b)\geq cr} , then h ( a ) = h ( b ) {\displaystyle h(a)=h(b)} with probability at most p 2 {\displaystyle p_{2}} . Such a family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called ( r , c r , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (r,cr,p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive. === LSH with respect to a similarity measure === Alternatively it is possible to define an LSH family on a universe of items U endowed with a similarity function ϕ : U × U → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \phi \colon U\times U\to [0,1]} . In this setting, a LSH scheme is a family of hash functions H coupled with a probability distribution D over H such that a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} chosen according to D satisfies P r [ h ( a ) = h ( b ) ] = ϕ ( a , b ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(a)=h(b)]=\phi (a,b)} for each a , b ∈ U {\displaystyle a,b\in U} . === Amplification === Given a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 , p 2 ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1},p_{2})} -sensitive family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , we can construct new families G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} by either the AND-construction or OR-construction of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . To create an AND-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if all h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,2,\ldots ,k} . Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , p 1 k , p 2 k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},p_{1}^{k},p_{2}^{k})} -sensitive family. To create an OR-construction, we define a new family G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} of hash functions g, where each function g is constructed from k random functions h 1 , … , h k {\displaystyle h_{1},\ldots ,h_{k}} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} . We then say that for a hash function g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , g ( x ) = g ( y ) {\displaystyle g(x)=g(y)} if and only if h i ( x ) = h i ( y ) {\displaystyle h_{i}(x)=h_{i}(y)} for one or more values of i. Since the members of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} are independently chosen for any g ∈ G {\displaystyle g\in {\mathcal {G}}} , G {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}} is a ( d 1 , d 2 , 1 − ( 1 − p 1 ) k , 1 − ( 1 − p 2 ) k ) {\displaystyle (d_{1},d_{2},1-(1-p_{1})^{k},1-(1-p_{2})^{k})} -sensitive family. == Applications == LSH has been applied to several problem domains, including: Near-duplicate detection Hierarchical clustering Genome-wide association study Image similarity identification VisualRank Gene expression similarity identification Audio similarity identification Nearest neighbor search Audio fingerprint Digital video fingerprinting Shared memory organization in parallel computing Physical data organization in database management systems Training fully connected neural networks Computer security Machine learning == Methods == === Bit sampling for Hamming distance === One of the easiest ways to construct an LSH family is by bit sampling. This approach works for the Hamming distance over d-dimensional vectors { 0 , 1 } d {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{d}} . Here, the family F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of hash functions is simply the family of all the projections of points on one of the d {\displaystyle d} coordinates, i.e., F = { h : { 0 , 1 } d → { 0 , 1 } ∣ h ( x ) = x i for some i ∈ { 1 , … , d } } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}=\{h\colon \{0,1\}^{d}\to \{0,1\}\mid h(x)=x_{i}{\text{ for some }}i\in \{1,\ldots ,d\}\}} , where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} . A random function h {\displaystyle h} from F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} simply selects a random bit from the input point. This family has the following parameters: P 1 = 1 − R / d {\displaystyle P_{1}=1-R/d} , P 2 = 1 − c R / d {\displaystyle P_{2}=1-cR/d} . That is, any two vectors x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at most R {\displaystyle R} collide under a random h {\displaystyle h} with probability at least P 1 {\displaystyle P_{1}} . Any x , y {\displaystyle x,y} with Hamming distance at least c R {\displaystyle cR} collide with probability at most P 2 {\displaystyle P_{2}} . === Min-wise independent permutations === Suppose U is composed of subsets of some ground set of enumerable items S and the similarity function of interest is the Jaccard index J. If π is a permutation on the indices of S, for A ⊆ S {\displaystyle A\subseteq S} let h ( A ) = min a ∈ A { π ( a ) } {\displaystyle h(A)=\min _{a\in A}\{\pi (a)\}} . Each possible choice of π defines a single hash function h mapping input sets to elements of S. Define the function family H to be the set of all such functions and let D be the uniform distribution. Given two sets A , B ⊆ S {\displaystyle A,B\subseteq S} the event that h ( A ) = h ( B ) {\displaystyle h(A)=h(B)} corresponds exactly to the event that the minimizer of π over A ∪ B {\displaystyle A\cup B} lies inside A ∩ B {\displaystyle A\cap B} . As h was chosen uniformly at random, P r [ h ( A ) = h ( B ) ] = J ( A , B ) {\displaystyle Pr[h(A)=h(B)]=J(A,B)\,} and ( H , D ) {\displaystyle (H,D)\,} define an LSH scheme for the Jaccard index. Because the symmetric group on n elements has size n!, choosing a truly random permutation from the full symmetric group is infeasible for even moderately sized n. Because of this fact, there has been significant work on finding a family of permutations that is "min-wise independent" — a permutation family for which each element of the domain has equal probability of being the minimum under a randomly chosen π. It has been established that a min-wise independent family of permutations is at least of size lcm ⁡ { 1 , 2 , … , n } ≥ e n − o ( n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {lcm} \{\,1,2,\ldots ,n\,\}\geq e^{n-o(n)}} , and that this bound is tight. Because min-wise independent families are too big for practical applications, two variant notions of min-wise independence are introduced: restricted min-wise independent permutations families, and approximate min-wise independent families. Restricted min-wise independence is the min-wise independence property restricted to certain sets of cardinality at most k. Approximate min-wise independence differs from the property by at most a fixed ε. === Open source methods === ==== Nilsimsa Hash ==== Nilsimsa is a locality-sensitive hashing algorithm used in anti-spam efforts. The goal of Nilsimsa is to generate a hash digest of an email message such that the digests of two similar messages are similar to each other. The paper suggests that the Nilsimsa satisfies three requirements: The digest identifying each message should not

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple correspondence analysis

  In statistics, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) is a data analysis technique for nominal categorical data, used to detect and represent underlying structures in a data set. It does this by representing data as points in a low-dimensional Euclidean space. The procedure thus appears to be the counterpart of principal component analysis for categorical data. MCA can be viewed as an extension of simple correspondence analysis (CA) in that it is applicable to a large set of categorical variables. == As an extension of correspondence analysis == MCA is performed by applying the CA algorithm to either an indicator matrix (also called complete disjunctive table – CDT) or a Burt table formed from these variables. An indicator matrix is an individuals × variables matrix, where the rows represent individuals and the columns are dummy variables representing categories of the variables. Analyzing the indicator matrix allows the direct representation of individuals as points in geometric space. The Burt table is the symmetric matrix of all two-way cross-tabulations between the categorical variables, and has an analogy to the covariance matrix of continuous variables. Analyzing the Burt table is a more natural generalization of simple correspondence analysis, and individuals or the means of groups of individuals can be added as supplementary points to the graphical display. In the indicator matrix approach, associations between variables are uncovered by calculating the chi-square distance between different categories of the variables and between the individuals (or respondents). These associations are then represented graphically as "maps", which eases the interpretation of the structures in the data. Oppositions between rows and columns are then maximized, in order to uncover the underlying dimensions best able to describe the central oppositions in the data. As in factor analysis or principal component analysis, the first axis is the most important dimension, the second axis the second most important, and so on, in terms of the amount of variance accounted for. The number of axes to be retained for analysis is determined by calculating modified eigenvalues. == Details == Since MCA is adapted to draw statistical conclusions from categorical variables (such as multiple choice questions), the first thing one needs to do is to transform quantitative data (such as age, size, weight, day time, etc) into categories (using for instance statistical quantiles). When the dataset is completely represented as categorical variables, one is able to build the corresponding so-called complete disjunctive table. We denote this table X {\displaystyle X} . If I {\displaystyle I} persons answered a survey with J {\displaystyle J} multiple choices questions with 4 answers each, X {\displaystyle X} will have I {\displaystyle I} rows and 4 J {\displaystyle 4J} columns. More theoretically, assume X {\displaystyle X} is the completely disjunctive table of I {\displaystyle I} observations of K {\displaystyle K} categorical variables. Assume also that the k {\displaystyle k} -th variable have J k {\displaystyle J_{k}} different levels (categories) and set J = ∑ k = 1 K J k {\displaystyle J=\sum _{k=1}^{K}J_{k}} . The table X {\displaystyle X} is then a I × J {\displaystyle I\times J} matrix with all coefficient being 0 {\displaystyle 0} or 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Set the sum of all entries of X {\displaystyle X} to be N {\displaystyle N} and introduce Z = X / N {\displaystyle Z=X/N} . In an MCA, there are also two special vectors: first r {\displaystyle r} , that contains the sums along the rows of Z {\displaystyle Z} , and c {\displaystyle c} , that contains the sums along the columns of Z {\displaystyle Z} . Note D r = diag ( r ) {\displaystyle D_{r}={\text{diag}}(r)} and D c = diag ( c ) {\displaystyle D_{c}={\text{diag}}(c)} , the diagonal matrices containing r {\displaystyle r} and c {\displaystyle c} respectively as diagonal. With these notations, computing an MCA consists essentially in the singular value decomposition of the matrix: M = D r − 1 / 2 ( Z − r c T ) D c − 1 / 2 {\displaystyle M=D_{r}^{-1/2}(Z-rc^{T})D_{c}^{-1/2}} The decomposition of M {\displaystyle M} gives you P {\displaystyle P} , Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } and Q {\displaystyle Q} such that M = P Δ Q T {\displaystyle M=P\Delta Q^{T}} with P, Q two unitary matrices and Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } is the generalized diagonal matrix of the singular values (with the same shape as Z {\displaystyle Z} ). The positive coefficients of Δ 2 {\displaystyle \Delta ^{2}} are the eigenvalues of Z {\displaystyle Z} . The interest of MCA comes from the way observations (rows) and variables (columns) in Z {\displaystyle Z} can be decomposed. This decomposition is called a factor decomposition. The coordinates of the observations in the factor space are given by F = D r − 1 / 2 P Δ {\displaystyle F=D_{r}^{-1/2}P\Delta } The i {\displaystyle i} -th rows of F {\displaystyle F} represent the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the factor space. And similarly, the coordinates of the variables (in the same factor space as observations!) are given by G = D c − 1 / 2 Q Δ {\displaystyle G=D_{c}^{-1/2}Q\Delta } == Recent works and extensions == In recent years, several students of Jean-Paul Benzécri have refined MCA and incorporated it into a more general framework of data analysis known as geometric data analysis. This involves the development of direct connections between simple correspondence analysis, principal component analysis and MCA with a form of cluster analysis known as Euclidean classification. Two extensions have great practical use. It is possible to include, as active elements in the MCA, several quantitative variables. This extension is called factor analysis of mixed data (see below). Very often, in questionnaires, the questions are structured in several issues. In the statistical analysis it is necessary to take into account this structure. This is the aim of multiple factor analysis which balances the different issues (i.e. the different groups of variables) within a global analysis and provides, beyond the classical results of factorial analysis (mainly graphics of individuals and of categories), several results (indicators and graphics) specific of the group structure. == Application fields == In the social sciences, MCA is arguably best known for its application by Pierre Bourdieu, notably in his books La Distinction, Homo Academicus and The State Nobility. Bourdieu argued that there was an internal link between his vision of the social as spatial and relational --– captured by the notion of field, and the geometric properties of MCA. Sociologists following Bourdieu's work most often opt for the analysis of the indicator matrix, rather than the Burt table, largely because of the central importance accorded to the analysis of the 'cloud of individuals'. == Multiple correspondence analysis and principal component analysis == MCA can also be viewed as a PCA applied to the complete disjunctive table. To do this, the CDT must be transformed as follows. Let y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} denote the general term of the CDT. y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} is equal to 1 if individual i {\displaystyle i} possesses the category k {\displaystyle k} and 0 if not. Let denote p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , the proportion of individuals possessing the category k {\displaystyle k} . The transformed CDT (TCDT) has as general term: x i k = y i k / p k − 1 {\displaystyle x_{ik}=y_{ik}/p_{k}-1} The unstandardized PCA applied to TCDT, the column k {\displaystyle k} having the weight p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , leads to the results of MCA. This equivalence is fully explained in a book by Jérôme Pagès. It plays an important theoretical role because it opens the way to the simultaneous treatment of quantitative and qualitative variables. Two methods simultaneously analyze these two types of variables: factor analysis of mixed data and, when the active variables are partitioned in several groups: multiple factor analysis. This equivalence does not mean that MCA is a particular case of PCA as it is not a particular case of CA. It only means that these methods are closely linked to one another, as they belong to the same family: the factorial methods. == Software == There are numerous software of data analysis that include MCA, such as STATA and SPSS. The R package FactoMineR also features MCA. This software is related to a book describing the basic methods for performing MCA . There is also a Python package for [1] which works with numpy array matrices; the package has not been implemented yet for Spark dataframes.

  Read more →
• 

  LogitBoost

  In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ⁡ ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}

  Read more →
• 

  Vero (app)

  Vero (stylized as VERO) is a social media platform and mobile app company. Vero markets itself as a social network free from advertisements, data mining and algorithms. == History == The app was founded by French-Lebanese billionaire Ayman Hariri who is the son of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri. The name is taken from the Italian word for true. The app launched officially in 2015 as an alternative to Facebook and their popular photo-blogging app Instagram. Within weeks of its release the app surged in popularity although users expressed mixed reports with some feeling confused about how the app worked. Cosplayers were early to adopt the app as their photo-sharing platform of choice, favouring the app's pinch and zoom magnification feature over Instagram's zoom feature. Other creative communities soon followed, and the app became popular with niche groups of makeup artists, tattoo artists, and skateboarders. In March 2018, Vero's popularity surged, partly helped by an exodus from Facebook and Instagram following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. In the wake of the scandal, Vero devised an advertising campaign aimed at defected Facebook and Instagram users, hoping the app's policies and privacy settings would assuage concerns over sharing personal information on the internet. Within the space of one week, the app went from being a small service, akin to Ello or Peach, to being the most downloaded app in eighteen countries. In December 2020, Vero released its most significant update to date, Vero 2.0 which introduced new features including voice and video calls, game and app posts and bookmarks, and refinements to the UI. In October 2021, Vero introduced their Desktop app (beta) with multiple post options and a re-sizable multi-column feed. == Concept and funding == Vero's content feed resembles Instagram's although users can share a wider variety of content and the app has a chronological content feed whereas Facebook and Instagram's feeds are algorithm based. Vero's business plan is also distinct from similar social media apps. Whereas its competitors such as Facebook or Instagram make money from in-app advertising revenue and the sale of user data, Vero's business plan was to invite the first one million users to use the app for free then charge any subsequent users a subscription fee. The app was entirely funded by its founder and generated additional revenues by charging affiliate fees when someone buys a product they find on Vero. == Awards == Vero was recognized at the 2021 Webbys, being named as an Honoree in the Best Visual Design - Aesthetic Category. == Controversies == === Privacy === Vero has faced some criticism over the wording of their manifesto, in particular, the statement "Vero only collects the data we believe is necessary to provide users with a great experience and to ensure the security of their accounts." Because this policy does not explicitly state that the app will not sell data on to third parties some users fear that the need to monetise the app through data might prove too tempting. Users have also complained about not being able to delete their accounts. While this was never the case, the option was hidden deep in the app's settings. === Russian involvement === Although Vero remains transparent about the app's Russian development team, they have been caught up in concerns about Russian interference on social media platforms. The app's founder Ayman Hariri was quick to dismiss the remarks as xenophobic and defend the nationality of his employees, stating in an interview with Time Magazine; "At the end of the day, where people are from is really not how anybody should judge anyone". === Criticism of the app's founder === Until 2013, Vero's founder Ayman Harari was deputy CEO and chairman of Saudi Oger, the Saudi Arabian construction company which collapsed in 2017, mired by controversies over the welfare and treatment of their employees. However, Hariri is quick to point out that he divested from the firm in 2014 and the worker's rights violations occurred after he had left the company.

  Read more →
• 

  Error tolerance (PAC learning)

  In PAC learning, error tolerance refers to the ability of an algorithm to learn when the examples received have been corrupted in some way. In fact, this is a very common and important issue since in many applications it is not possible to access noise-free data. Noise can interfere with the learning process at different levels: the algorithm may receive data that have been occasionally mislabeled, or the inputs may have some false information, or the classification of the examples may have been maliciously adulterated. == Notation and the Valiant learning model == In the following, let X {\displaystyle X} be our n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional input space. Let H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be a class of functions that we wish to use in order to learn a { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued target function f {\displaystyle f} defined over X {\displaystyle X} . Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be the distribution of the inputs over X {\displaystyle X} . The goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . Let us suppose we have a function s i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle size(f)} that can measure the complexity of f {\displaystyle f} . Let Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} be an oracle that, whenever called, returns an example x {\displaystyle x} and its correct label f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . When no noise corrupts the data, we can define learning in the Valiant setting: Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the Valiant setting if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , 1 δ , n , size ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,{\text{size}}(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition error ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle {\text{error}}(h)\leq \varepsilon } . In the following we will define learnability of f {\displaystyle f} when data have suffered some modification. == Classification noise == In the classification noise model a noise rate 0 ≤ η < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta <{\frac {1}{2}}} is introduced. Then, instead of Oracle ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x)} that returns always the correct label of example x {\displaystyle x} , algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can only call a faulty oracle Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} that will flip the label of x {\displaystyle x} with probability η {\displaystyle \eta } . As in the Valiant case, the goal of a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is to choose the best function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that it minimizes e r r o r ( h ) = P x ∼ D ( h ( x ) ≠ f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle error(h)=P_{x\sim {\mathcal {D}}}(h(x)\neq f(x))} . In applications it is difficult to have access to the real value of η {\displaystyle \eta } , but we assume we have access to its upperbound η B {\displaystyle \eta _{B}} . Note that if we allow the noise rate to be 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} , then learning becomes impossible in any amount of computation time, because every label conveys no information about the target function. Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the classification noise model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , η ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\eta )} and a polynomial p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 ≤ η ≤ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \eta \leq {\frac {1}{2}}} , 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \varepsilon \leq 1} and 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \delta \leq 1} it outputs, in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 1 − 2 η B , 1 ε , 1 δ , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{1-2\eta _{B}}},{\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},{\frac {1}{\delta }},n,size(f)\right)} , a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} that satisfies with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } the condition e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ε {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \varepsilon } . == Statistical query learning == Statistical Query Learning is a kind of active learning problem in which the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can decide if to request information about the likelihood P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} that a function f {\displaystyle f} correctly labels example x {\displaystyle x} , and receives an answer accurate within a tolerance α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Formally, whenever the learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls the oracle Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} , it receives as feedback probability Q f ( x ) {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}} , such that Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } . Definition: We say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the statistical query learning model if there exists a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} and polynomials p ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle p(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , q ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle q(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} , and r ( ⋅ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle r(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot )} such that for any 0 < ε ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon \leq 1} the following hold: Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} can evaluate P f ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{f(x)}} in time q ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle q\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} ; 1 α {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\alpha }}} is bounded by r ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle r\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} outputs a model h {\displaystyle h} such that e r r ( h ) < ε {\displaystyle err(h)<\varepsilon } , in a number of calls to the oracle bounded by p ( 1 ε , n , s i z e ( f ) ) {\displaystyle p\left({\frac {1}{\varepsilon }},n,size(f)\right)} . Note that the confidence parameter δ {\displaystyle \delta } does not appear in the definition of learning. This is because the main purpose of δ {\displaystyle \delta } is to allow the learning algorithm a small probability of failure due to an unrepresentative sample. Since now Oracle ( x , α ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\alpha )} always guarantees to meet the approximation criterion Q f ( x ) − α ≤ P f ( x ) ≤ Q f ( x ) + α {\displaystyle Q_{f(x)}-\alpha \leq P_{f(x)}\leq Q_{f(x)}+\alpha } , the failure probability is no longer needed. The statistical query model is strictly weaker than the PAC model: any efficiently SQ-learnable class is efficiently PAC learnable in the presence of classification noise, but there exist efficient PAC-learnable problems such as parity that are not efficiently SQ-learnable. == Malicious classification == In the malicious classification model an adversary generates errors to foil the learning algorithm. This setting describes situations of error burst, which may occur when for a limited time transmission equipment malfunctions repeatedly. Formally, algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} calls an oracle Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )} that returns a correctly labeled example x {\displaystyle x} drawn, as usual, from distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} over the input space with probability 1 − β {\displaystyle 1-\beta } , but it returns with probability β {\displaystyle \beta } an example drawn from a distribution that is not related to D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . Moreover, this maliciously chosen example may strategically selected by an adversary who has knowledge of f {\displaystyle f} , β {\displaystyle \beta } , D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , or the current progress of the learning algorithm. Definition: Given a bound β B < 1 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{B}<{\frac {1}{2}}} for 0 ≤ β < 1 2 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <{\frac {1}{2}}} , we say that f {\displaystyle f} is efficiently learnable using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} in the malicious classification model, if there exist a learning algorithm A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} that has access to Oracle ( x , β ) {\displaystyle {\text{Oracle}}(x,\beta )}

  Read more →
• 

  Information gain ratio

  In decision tree learning, information gain ratio is a ratio of information gain to the intrinsic information. It was proposed by Ross Quinlan, to reduce a bias towards multi-valued attributes by taking the number and size of branches into account when choosing an attribute. Information gain is also known as mutual information. == Information gain calculation == Information gain is the reduction in entropy produced from partitioning a set with attributes a {\displaystyle a} and finding the optimal candidate that produces the highest value: IG ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle {\text{IG}}(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where T {\displaystyle T} is a random variable and H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . The information gain is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. == Split information calculation == The split information value for a test is defined as follows: SplitInformation ( X ) = − ∑ i = 1 n N ( x i ) N ( x ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( x i ) N ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{SplitInformation}}(X)=-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}}} where X {\displaystyle X} is a discrete random variable with possible values x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x i {\displaystyle {x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{i}}} and N ( x i ) {\displaystyle N(x_{i})} being the number of times that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} occurs divided by the total count of events N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} where x {\displaystyle x} is the set of events. The split information value is a positive number that describes the potential worth of splitting a branch from a node. This in turn is the intrinsic value that the random variable possesses and will be used to remove the bias in the information gain ratio calculation. == Information gain ratio calculation == The information gain ratio is the ratio between the information gain and the split information value: IGR ( T , a ) = IG ( T , a ) / SplitInformation ( T ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\text{IG}}(T,a)/{\text{SplitInformation}}(T)} IGR ( T , a ) = − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T ) log ⁡ P ( T ) − ( − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T | a ) log ⁡ P ( T | a ) ) − ∑ i = 1 n N ( t i ) N ( t ) ∗ log ⁡ 2 N ( t i ) N ( t ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\frac {-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T)\log \mathrm {P} (T)}-(-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T|a)\log \mathrm {P} (T|a)})}{-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}}}}} == Example == Using weather data published by Fordham University, the table was created below: Using the table above, one can find the entropy, information gain, split information, and information gain ratio for each variable (outlook, temperature, humidity, and wind). These calculations are shown in the tables below: Using the above tables, one can deduce that Outlook has the highest information gain ratio. Next, one must find the statistics for the sub-groups of the Outlook variable (sunny, overcast, and rainy), for this example one will only build the sunny branch (as shown in the table below): One can find the following statistics for the other variables (temperature, humidity, and wind) to see which have the greatest effect on the sunny element of the outlook variable: Humidity was found to have the highest information gain ratio. One will repeat the same steps as before and find the statistics for the events of the Humidity variable (high and normal): Since the play values are either all "No" or "Yes", the information gain ratio value will be equal to 1. Also, now that one has reached the end of the variable chain with Wind being the last variable left, they can build an entire root to leaf node branch line of a decision tree. Once finished with reaching this leaf node, one would follow the same procedure for the rest of the elements that have yet to be split in the decision tree. This set of data was relatively small, however, if a larger set was used, the advantages of using the information gain ratio as the splitting factor of a decision tree can be seen more. == Advantages == Information gain ratio biases the decision tree against considering attributes with a large number of distinct values. For example, suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain ratio is used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant. These will be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's telephone number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer. Due to its high amount of distinct values, this will not be chosen to be tested near the root. == Disadvantages == Although information gain ratio solves the key problem of information gain, it creates another problem. If one is considering an amount of attributes that have a high number of distinct values, these will never be above one that has a lower number of distinct values. == Difference from information gain == Information gain's shortcoming is created by not providing a numerical difference between attributes with high distinct values from those that have less. Example: Suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain is often used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant, so they can be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's credit card number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer, but we do not want to include it in the decision tree: deciding how to treat a customer based on their credit card number is unlikely to generalize to customers we haven't seen before. Information gain ratio's strength is that it has a bias towards the attributes with the lower number of distinct values. Below is a table describing the differences of information gain and information gain ratio when put in certain scenarios.

  Read more →