KE Software is a formerly Australian-owned computer software company based in Manchester, United Kingdom, which specialises in collection management programs for museums, galleries and archives. The Axiell Group acquired the firm in 2014. == History == KE Software had its origins in investigations into electronic systems for managing natural science collections conducted in the late 1970s under a joint program of the University of Melbourne, the then National Museum of Victoria and the Australian Museum, which led to the development of the Titan Database in 1984. Much of the credit for the development of the project was due to the work of Martin Hallett of the Museum of Victoria which evolved into Textpress, and by 2000, the KE EMu database program. KE Software was bought by Axiell in 2014 and the team merged with the Axiell staff. Axiell continues to sell and support EMu. == Products == The firm has two main products: the Ke EMu Electronic Museum management system, a collections management system for museums; and Vitalware Vital Records Management System. The first version of Ke EMu was launched in 1997 and uses the Texpress database engine with client/server architecture on a Windows or Unix/Linux server. Ke Emu is consistent with the Dublin Core / Darwin Core standards for archive and museum catalogue metadata. "The company’s clients include the three largest museums in the world.: == KE EMu == KE EMu is considered one of the more effective and purpose-designed museum cataloguing programs. particularly in the creation of public interfaces to museum catalogue data. KE EMu was further developed in 1997 as a multilingual platform, which has been utilised in bilingual institutions such as the Canadian Museum of Civilisation. Subsequently this evolved into Texpress and KE EMu (standing for Electronic MUseum) in 2000, which is "now used across the world in natural science museums with huge collections'". KE EMu is used by a large number of museums and galleries around the world, including the Smithsonian Anthropological Collection, American Museum of Natural HistoryVancouver Art Gallery, New York Botanical Garden, the University of Chicago Research Archives, the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia, the National Museum of Australia, the Australian Museum, Museum of Victoria, University of Melbourne Archives, and the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand. There are over 300 clients, and more than 5000 users of the EMu software worldwide. The program has been described as providing "...comprehensive museum management (collection management plus other administrative needs for a museum), workflow and project management, flexible metadata, various stats and metrics, and comprehensive web interface with support for mobile devices and kiosks" == KE Vitalware == The firm's vitalware software is used by a number of governments and commercial organisations for managing and accessing large data sets, such as the birth records of the Trinidad and Tobago Registrar General, the Government of Anguilla, Ministry for Infrastructure, Communications, Utility and Housing, and the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services. == Further development == A specialist tracking component for KE EMu has been developed by Forbes Hawkins of Museum Victoria. This enables locations to be barcoded, and data to be updated as items are moved around the stores, or between venues, display, laboratories and other locations. This system has been considered by Museums around the world. The company has been working with Australian government agencies to digitize birth deaths and marriage registers in order to cross match identity data. The program has also been used for managing the Australian Plant Disease Database and the Australian Plant Pest Database as the program "...has several features that have proven to be invaluable for a plant disease database".
Just This Once
Just This Once is a 1993 romance novel written in the style of Jacqueline Susann by a Macintosh IIcx computer named "Hal" in collaboration with its programmer, Scott French. French reportedly spent $40,000 and 8 years developing an artificial intelligence program to analyze Susann's works and attempt to create a novel that Susann might have written. A legal dispute between the estate of Jacqueline Susann and the publisher resulted in a settlement to split the profits, and the book was referenced in several legal journal articles about copyright laws. The book had two small print runs totaling 35,000 copies, receiving mixed reviews. == Creation == The novel's creation spanned the fields of artificial intelligence, expert systems, and natural language processing. Scott French first scanned and analyzed portions of two books by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls and Once Is Not Enough, to determine constituents of Susann's writing style, which French stated was the most difficult task. This analysis extracted several hundred components including frequency and type of sexual acts and sentence structure. "Once you're there, the writer's style emerges, part of her actual personality comes out, and the computer can be programmed to make a story." French also created several thousand rules to govern tone, plotting, scenes, and characters. The text generated by Hal, the computer, was intended to mimic what Susann might have written, although the output required significant editing. French credits Hal's work with "almost 100% of the plot, 100% of the theme and style." French estimates that he wrote 10% of the prose, the computer Hal wrote about 25% of the prose, and the remaining two-thirds was more of a collaboration between the two. A typical scenario to write a scene would involve Hal asking questions that French would answer (for example, Hal might ask about the "cattiness factor" involved in a meeting between two key female characters, and French would reply with a range of 1 to 10), and the computer would then generate a few sentences to which French would make minor edits. The process would repeat for the next few sentences until the scene was written. == Legal issues == Jacqueline Susann's publisher was skeptical of the legality of Just This Once, although French doubted that an author's thought processes could be copyrighted. Susann's estate reportedly threatened to sue Scott French but the parties settled out of court; the settlement involved splitting profits between the parties but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The publication of Just This Once raised questions in the legal profession concerning how copyright law applies to computer-generated works derived from an analysis of other copyrighted works, and whether the generation of such works infringes on copyright. The publications on this topic suggested that the copyright laws of the time were ill-equipped to deal with computer-generated creative works. == Reception == The book's publisher Steven Shragis of Carol Group said of the novel, "I'm not going to say this is a great literary work, but it's every bit as good as anything out in this field, and better than an awful lot." The novel received some positive early reviews. In USA Today, novelist Thomas Gifford compared Just This Once to another novel in the same genre, American Star by Jackie Collins. Gifford concluded: "If you do like this stuff, you'd be much, much better off with the one written by the computer." The Dead Jackie Susann Quarterly declared that Susann "would be proud. Lots of money, sleaze, disease, death, oral sex, tragedy and the good girl gone bad." Other reviews were mixed. Publishers Weekly wrote, "If the books of Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins seem formulaic, this debut novel of sin and success in Las Vegas outdoes them all. And that, in a way, is the point.... All novelty rests in the conceit of computer authorship, not in the story itself." Library Journal stated "French invested eight years and $50,000 in a scheme to use artificial intelligence to fulfill his authentic, if dubious, desire to generate a trashy novel a la Jacqueline Susann. Shallow, beautiful-people characters are flatly conceived and randomly accessed in a formulaic plot ... a sexy, boring morality tale. Of possible interest to computer buffs for its use of Expert Systems and the virtual promise of more worthy possibilities; others should read Susann." Kirkus Reviews wrote: "The deal here is that author French is not the author, he's just the midwife, having allegedly programmed his computer to write about our times just the way Susann would... almost perfectly capturing glamorous Jackie's turgid but E-Z reading prose style and ultrareliable mix of sex, glitz, dope 'n' despair.... One wonders, though, if French's tale spinning PC will do as well on the talkshows as Jackie did. The computer weenies have been trying to tell us for years, garbage in-garbage out."
Local tangent space alignment
Local tangent space alignment (LTSA) is a method for manifold learning, which can efficiently learn a nonlinear embedding into low-dimensional coordinates from high-dimensional data, and can also reconstruct high-dimensional coordinates from embedding coordinates. It is based on the intuition that when a manifold is correctly unfolded, all of the tangent hyperplanes to the manifold will become aligned. It begins by computing the k-nearest neighbors of every point. It computes the tangent space at every point by computing the d-first principal components in each local neighborhood. It then optimizes to find an embedding that aligns the tangent spaces, but it ignores the label information conveyed by data samples, and thus can not be used for classification directly.
Mean squared error
In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ( θ ^ ) = E θ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ( θ ^ ) = E θ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] + E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ [ ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ [ θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ [ ( θ ^ − E θ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator
Tanagra (machine learning)
Tanagra is a free suite of machine learning software for research and academic purposes developed by Ricco Rakotomalala at the Lumière University Lyon 2, France. Tanagra supports several standard data mining tasks such as: Visualization, Descriptive statistics, Instance selection, feature selection, feature construction, regression, factor analysis, clustering, classification and association rule learning. Tanagra is an academic project. It is widely used in French-speaking universities. Tanagra is frequently used in real studies and in software comparison papers. == History == The development of Tanagra was started in June 2003. The first version was distributed in December 2003. Tanagra is the successor of Sipina, another free data mining tool which is intended only for supervised learning tasks (classification), especially the interactive and visual construction of decision trees. Sipina is still available online and is maintained. Tanagra is an "open source project" as every researcher can access the source code and add their own algorithms, as long as they agree and conform to the software distribution license. The main purpose of the Tanagra project is to give researchers and students a user-friendly data mining software, conforming to the present norms of the software development in this domain (especially in the design of its GUI and the way to use it), and allowing the analyzation of either real or synthetic data. From 2006, Ricco Rakotomalala made an important documentation effort. A large number of tutorials are published on a dedicated website. They describe the statistical and machine learning methods and their implementation with Tanagra on real case studies. The use of other free data mining tools on the same problems is also widely described. The comparison of the tools enables readers to understand the possible differences in the presentation of results. == Description == Tanagra works similarly to current data mining tools. The user can design visually a data mining process in a diagram. Each node is a statistical or machine learning technique, the connection between two nodes represents the data transfer. But unlike the majority of tools which are based on the workflow paradigm, Tanagra is very simplified. The treatments are represented in a tree diagram. The results are displayed in an HTML format. This makes it is easy to export the outputs in order to visualize the results in a browser. It is also possible to copy the result tables to a spreadsheet. Tanagra makes a good compromise between statistical approaches (e.g. parametric and nonparametric statistical tests), multivariate analysis methods (e.g. factor analysis, correspondence analysis, cluster analysis, regression) and machine learning techniques (e.g. neural network, support vector machine, decision trees, random forest).
Cloudlet
A cloudlet is a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter that is located at the edge of the Internet. The main purpose of the cloudlet is supporting resource-intensive and interactive mobile applications by providing powerful computing resources to mobile devices with lower latency. It is a new architectural element that extends today's cloud computing infrastructure. It represents the middle tier of a 3-tier hierarchy: mobile device - cloudlet - cloud. A cloudlet can be viewed as a data center in a box whose goal is to bring the cloud closer. The cloudlet term was first coined by M. Satyanarayanan, Victor Bahl, Ramón Cáceres, and Nigel Davies, and a prototype implementation is developed by Carnegie Mellon University as a research project. The concept of cloudlet is also known as follow me cloud, and mobile micro-cloud. == Motivation == Many mobile services split the application into a front-end client program and a back-end server program following the traditional client-server model. The front-end mobile application offloads its functionality to the back-end servers for various reasons such as speeding up processing. With the advent of cloud computing, the back-end server is typically hosted at the cloud datacenter. Though the use of a cloud datacenter offers various benefits such as scalability and elasticity, its consolidation and centralization lead to a large separation between a mobile device and its associated datacenter. End-to-end communication then involves many network hops and results in high latencies and low bandwidth. For the reasons of latency, some emerging mobile applications require cloud offload infrastructure to be close to the mobile device to achieve low response time. In the ideal case, it is just one wireless hop away. For example, the offload infrastructure could be located in a cellular base station or it could be LAN-connected to a set of Wi-Fi base stations. The individual elements of this offload infrastructure are referred to as cloudlets. == Applications == Cloudlets aim to support mobile applications that are both resource-intensive and interactive. Augmented reality applications that use head-tracked systems require end-to-end latencies of less than 16 ms. Cloud games with remote rendering also require low latencies and high bandwidth. Wearable cognitive assistance systems combine devices such as Google Glass with cloud-based processing to guide users through complex tasks. This futuristic genre of applications is characterized as “astonishingly transformative” by the report of the 2013 NSF Workshop on Future Directions in Wireless Networking. These applications use cloud resources in the critical path of real-time user interaction. Consequently, they cannot tolerate end-to-end operation latencies of more than a few tens of milliseconds. Apple Siri and Google Now which perform compute-intensive speech recognition in the cloud, are further examples in this emerging space. == Cloudlet vs Cloud == There is significant overlap in the requirements for cloud and cloudlet. At both levels, there is the need for: (a) strong isolation between untrusted user-level computations; (b) mechanisms for authentication, access control, and metering; (c) dynamic resource allocation for user-level computations; and, (d) the ability to support a very wide range of user-level computations, with minimal restrictions on their process structure, programming languages or operating systems. At a cloud datacenter, these requirements are met today using the virtual machine (VM) abstraction. For the same reasons they are used in cloud computing today, VMs are used as an abstraction for cloudlets. Meanwhile, there are a few but important differentiators between cloud and cloudlet. === Rapid provisioning === Different from cloud data centers that are optimized for launching existing VM images in their storage tier, cloudlets need to be much more agile in their provisioning. Their association with mobile devices is highly dynamic, with considerable churn due to user mobility. A user from far away may unexpectedly show up at a cloudlet (e.g., if he just got off an international flight) and try to use it for an application such as a personalized language translator. For that user, the provisioning delay before he is able to use the application impacts usability. === VM handoff across cloudlets === If a mobile device user moves away from the cloudlet he is currently using, the interactive response will degrade as the logical network distance increases. To address this effect of user mobility, the offloaded services on the first cloudlet need to be transferred to the second cloudlet maintaining end-to-end network quality. This resembles live migration in cloud computing but differs considerably in a sense that the VM handoff happens in Wide Area Network (WAN). == OpenStack++ == Since the cloudlet model requires reconfiguration or additional deployment of hardware/software, it is important to provide a systematic way to incentivise the deployment. However, it can face a classic bootstrapping problem. Cloudlets need practical applications to incentivize cloudlet deployment. However, developers cannot heavily rely on cloudlet infrastructure until it is widely deployed. To break this deadlock and bootstrap the cloudlet deployment, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University proposed OpenStack++ that extends OpenStack to leverage its open ecosystem. OpenStack++ provides a set of cloudlet-specific APIs as OpenStack extensions. == Commercial implementations and standardization effort == By 2015 cloudlet based applications were commercially available. In 2017 the National Institute of Standards and Technology published draft standards for fog computing in which cloudlets were defined as nodes on the fog architecture.
Clustering illusion
The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable "streaks" or "clusters" arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or pseudorandom data. Thomas Gilovich, an early author on the subject, argued that the effect occurs for different types of random dispersions. Some might perceive patterns in stock market price fluctuations over time, or clusters in two-dimensional data such as the locations of impact of World War II V-1 flying bombs on maps of London. Although Londoners developed specific theories about the pattern of impacts within London, a statistical analysis by R. D. Clarke originally published in 1946 showed that the impacts of V-2 rockets on London were a close fit to a random distribution. == Similar biases == Using this cognitive bias in causal reasoning may result in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, in which differences in data are ignored and similarities are overemphasized. More general forms of erroneous pattern recognition are pareidolia and apophenia. Related biases are the illusion of control which the clustering illusion could contribute to, and insensitivity to sample size in which people don't expect greater variation in smaller samples. A different cognitive bias involving misunderstanding of chance streams is the gambler's fallacy. == Possible causes == Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explained this kind of misprediction as being caused by the representativeness heuristic (which itself they also first proposed).