A wide-column store (or extensible record store) is a type of NoSQL database. It uses tables, rows, and columns, but unlike a relational database, the names and format of the columns can vary from row to row in the same table. A wide-column store can be interpreted as a two-dimensional key–value store. Google's Bigtable is one of the prototypical examples of a wide-column store. == Wide-column stores versus columnar databases == Wide-column stores such as Bigtable and Apache Cassandra are not column stores in the original sense of the term, since their two-level structures do not use a columnar data layout. In genuine column stores, a columnar data layout is adopted such that each column is stored separately on disk. Wide-column stores do often support the notion of column families that are stored separately. However, each such column family typically contains multiple columns that are used together, similar to traditional relational database tables. Within a given column family, all data is stored in a row-by-row fashion, such that the columns for a given row are stored together, rather than each column being stored separately. Wide-column stores that support column families are also known as column family databases. == Notable examples == Notable wide-column stores include: Apache Accumulo Apache Cassandra Apache HBase Bigtable DataStax Enterprise (uses Apache Cassandra) DataStax Astra DB (uses Apache Cassandra) Hypertable Azure Tables ScyllaDB
Learning curve (machine learning)
In machine learning (ML), a learning curve (or training curve) is a graphical representation that shows how a model's performance on a training set (and usually a validation set) changes with the number of training iterations (epochs) or the amount of training data. Typically, the number of training epochs or training set size is plotted on the x-axis, and the value of the loss function (and possibly some other metric such as the cross-validation score) on the y-axis. Synonyms include error curve, experience curve, improvement curve and generalization curve. More abstractly, learning curves plot the difference between learning effort and predictive performance, where "learning effort" usually means the number of training samples, and "predictive performance" means accuracy on testing samples. Learning curves have many useful purposes in ML, including: choosing model parameters during design, adjusting optimization to improve convergence, and diagnosing problems such as overfitting (or underfitting). Learning curves can also be tools for determining how much a model benefits from adding more training data, and whether the model suffers more from a variance error or a bias error. If both the validation score and the training score converge to a certain value, then the model will no longer significantly benefit from more training data. == Formal definition == When creating a function to approximate the distribution of some data, it is necessary to define a loss function L ( f θ ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle L(f_{\theta }(X),Y)} to measure how good the model output is (e.g., accuracy for classification tasks or mean squared error for regression). We then define an optimization process which finds model parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that L ( f θ ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle L(f_{\theta }(X),Y)} is minimized, referred to as θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{}} . === Training curve for amount of data === If the training data is { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } , { y 1 , y 2 , … y n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\},\{y_{1},y_{2},\dots y_{n}\}} and the validation data is { x 1 ′ , x 2 ′ , … x m ′ } , { y 1 ′ , y 2 ′ , … y m ′ } {\displaystyle \{x_{1}',x_{2}',\dots x_{m}'\},\{y_{1}',y_{2}',\dots y_{m}'\}} , a learning curve is the plot of the two curves i ↦ L ( f θ ∗ ( X i , Y i ) ( X i ) , Y i ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta ^{}(X_{i},Y_{i})}(X_{i}),Y_{i})} i ↦ L ( f θ ∗ ( X i , Y i ) ( X i ′ ) , Y i ′ ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta ^{}(X_{i},Y_{i})}(X_{i}'),Y_{i}')} where X i = { x 1 , x 2 , … x i } {\displaystyle X_{i}=\{x_{1},x_{2},\dots x_{i}\}} === Training curve for number of iterations === Many optimization algorithms are iterative, repeating the same step (such as backpropagation) until the process converges to an optimal value. Gradient descent is one such algorithm. If θ i ∗ {\displaystyle \theta _{i}^{}} is the approximation of the optimal θ {\displaystyle \theta } after i {\displaystyle i} steps, a learning curve is the plot of i ↦ L ( f θ i ∗ ( X , Y ) ( X ) , Y ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta _{i}^{}(X,Y)}(X),Y)} i ↦ L ( f θ i ∗ ( X , Y ) ( X ′ ) , Y ′ ) {\displaystyle i\mapsto L(f_{\theta _{i}^{}(X,Y)}(X'),Y')}
Blockmodeling linked networks
Blockmodeling linked networks is an approach in blockmodeling in analysing the linked networks. Such approach is based on the generalized multilevel blockmodeling approach. The main objective of this approach is to achieve clustering of the nodes from all involved sets, while at the same time using all available information. At the same time, all one-mode and two-node networks, that are connected, are blockmodeled, which results in obtaining only one clustering, using nodes from each sets. Each cluster ideally contains only nodes from one set, which also allows the modeling of the links among clusters from different sets (through two-mode networks). This approach was introduced by Aleš Žiberna in 2014. Blockmodeling linked networks can be done using: separate analysis: blockmodeling each level separately; conversion approach: converting all one-mode networks to the same level and joining with two-mode networks; a true multilevel approach: one-mode and two-mode networks are blockmodeled at the same time, resulting in one clustering for nodes from each level.
Language identification in the limit
Language identification in the limit is a formal model for inductive inference of formal languages, mainly by computers (see machine learning and induction of regular languages). It was introduced by E. Mark Gold in a technical report and a journal article with the same title. In this model, a teacher provides to a learner some presentation (i.e. a sequence of strings) of some formal language. The learning is seen as an infinite process. Each time the learner reads an element of the presentation, it should provide a representation (e.g. a formal grammar) for the language. Gold defines that a learner can identify in the limit a class of languages if, given any presentation of any language in the class, the learner will produce only a finite number of wrong representations, and then stick with the correct representation. However, the learner need not be able to announce its correctness; and the teacher might present a counterexample to any representation arbitrarily long after. Gold defined two types of presentations: Text (positive information): an enumeration of all strings the language consists of. Complete presentation (positive and negative information): an enumeration of all possible strings, each with a label indicating if the string belongs to the language or not. == Learnability == This model is an early attempt to formally capture the notion of learnability. Gold's journal article introduces for contrast the stronger models Finite identification (where the learner has to announce correctness after a finite number of steps), and Fixed-time identification (where correctness has to be reached after an apriori-specified number of steps). A weaker formal model of learnability is the Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) model, introduced by Leslie Valiant in 1984. == Examples == It is instructive to look at concrete examples (in the tables) of learning sessions the definition of identification in the limit speaks about. A fictitious session to learn a regular language L over the alphabet {a,b} from text presentation:In each step, the teacher gives a string belonging to L, and the learner answers a guess for L, encoded as a regular expression. In step 3, the learner's guess is not consistent with the strings seen so far; in step 4, the teacher gives a string repeatedly. After step 6, the learner sticks to the regular expression (ab+ba). If this happens to be a description of the language L the teacher has in mind, it is said that the learner has learned that language.If a computer program for the learner's role would exist that was able to successfully learn each regular language, that class of languages would be identifiable in the limit. Gold has shown that this is not the case. A particular learning algorithm always guessing L to be just the union of all strings seen so far:If L is a finite language, the learner will eventually guess it correctly, however, without being able to tell when. Although the guess didn't change during step 3 to 6, the learner couldn't be sure to be correct.Gold has shown that the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit, however, this class is neither finitely nor fixed-time identifiable. Learning from complete presentation by telling:In each step, the teacher gives a string and tells whether it belongs to L (green) or not (red, struck-out). Each possible string is eventually classified in this way by the teacher. Learning from complete presentation by request:The learner gives a query string, the teacher tells whether it belongs to L (yes) or not (no); the learner then gives a guess for L, followed by the next query string. In this example, the learner happens to query in each step just the same string as given by the teacher in example 3.In general, Gold has shown that each language class identifiable in the request-presentation setting is also identifiable in the telling-presentation setting, since the learner, instead of querying a string, just needs to wait until it is eventually given by the teacher. == Gold's theorem == More formally, a language L {\displaystyle L} is a nonempty set, and its elements are called sentences. a language family is a set of languages. a language-learning environment E {\displaystyle E} for a language L {\displaystyle L} is a stream of sentences from L {\displaystyle L} , such that each sentence in L {\displaystyle L} appears at least once. a language learner is a function f {\displaystyle f} that sends a list of sentences to a language. This is interpreted as saying that, after seeing sentences a 1 , a 2 . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2}...,a_{n}} in that order, the language learner guesses that the language that produces the sentences should be f ( a 1 , . . . , a n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},...,a_{n})} . Note that the learner is not obliged to be correct — it could very well guess a language that does not even contain a 1 , . . . , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{n}} . a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} in environment E = ( a 1 , a 2 , . . . ) {\displaystyle E=(a_{1},a_{2},...)} if the learner always guesses L {\displaystyle L} after seeing enough examples from the environment. a language learner f {\displaystyle f} learns a language L {\displaystyle L} if it learns L {\displaystyle L} in any environment E {\displaystyle E} for L {\displaystyle L} . a language family is learnable if there exists a language learner that can learn all languages in the family. Notes: In the context of Gold's theorem, sentences need only be distinguishable. They need not be anything in particular, such as finite strings (as usual in formal linguistics). Learnability is not a concept for individual languages. Any individual language L {\displaystyle L} could be learned by a trivial learner that always guesses L {\displaystyle L} . Learnability is not a concept for individual learners. A language family is learnable if, and only if, there exists some learner that can learn the family. It does not matter how well the learner performs for learning languages outside the family. Gold's theorem is easily bypassed if negative examples are allowed. In particular, the language family { L 1 , L 2 , . . . , L ∞ } {\displaystyle \{L_{1},L_{2},...,L_{\infty }\}} can be learned by a learner that always guesses L ∞ {\displaystyle L_{\infty }} until it receives the first negative example ¬ a n {\displaystyle \neg a_{n}} , where a n ∈ L n + 1 ∖ L n {\displaystyle a_{n}\in L_{n+1}\setminus L_{n}} , at which point it always guesses L n {\displaystyle L_{n}} . == Learnability characterization == Dana Angluin gave the characterizations of learnability from text (positive information) in a 1980 paper. If a learner is required to be effective, then an indexed class of recursive languages is learnable in the limit if there is an effective procedure that uniformly enumerates tell-tales for each language in the class (Condition 1). It is not hard to see that if an ideal learner (i.e., an arbitrary function) is allowed, then an indexed class of languages is learnable in the limit if each language in the class has a tell-tale (Condition 2). == Language classes learnable in the limit == The table shows which language classes are identifiable in the limit in which learning model. On the right-hand side, each language class is a superclass of all lower classes. Each learning model (i.e. type of presentation) can identify in the limit all classes below it. In particular, the class of finite languages is identifiable in the limit by text presentation (cf. Example 2 above), while the class of regular languages is not. Pattern Languages, introduced by Dana Angluin in another 1980 paper, are also identifiable by normal text presentation; they are omitted in the table, since they are above the singleton and below the primitive recursive language class, but incomparable to the classes in between. == Sufficient conditions for learnability == Condition 1 in Angluin's paper is not always easy to verify. Therefore, people come up with various sufficient conditions for the learnability of a language class. See also Induction of regular languages for learnable subclasses of regular languages. === Finite thickness === A class of languages has finite thickness if every non-empty set of strings is contained in at most finitely many languages of the class. This is exactly Condition 3 in Angluin's paper. Angluin showed that if a class of recursive languages has finite thickness, then it is learnable in the limit. A class with finite thickness certainly satisfies MEF-condition and MFF-condition; in other words, finite thickness implies M-finite thickness. === Finite elasticity === A class of languages is said to have finite elasticity if for every infinite sequence of strings s 0 , s 1 , . . . {\displaystyle s_{0},s_{1},...} and every infinite sequence of languages in the class L 1 , L 2 , . . . {\displaystyle L_{1},L_{2},...} , there exists a finite number n such
Apache Giraph
Apache Giraph is an Apache project to perform graph processing on big data. Giraph utilizes Apache Hadoop's MapReduce implementation to process graphs. Facebook used Giraph with some performance improvements to analyze one trillion edges using 200 machines in 4 minutes. Giraph is based on a paper published by Google about its own graph processing system called Pregel. It can be compared to other Big Graph processing libraries such as Cassovary. As of September 2023, it is no longer actively developed.
FMLLR
In signal processing, Feature space Maximum Likelihood Linear Regression (fMLLR) is a global feature transform that are typically applied in a speaker adaptive way, where fMLLR transforms acoustic features to speaker adapted features by a multiplication operation with a transformation matrix. In some literature, fMLLR is also known as the Constrained Maximum Likelihood Linear Regression (cMLLR). == Overview == fMLLR transformations are trained in a maximum likelihood sense on adaptation data. These transformations may be estimated in many ways, but only maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is considered in fMLLR. The fMLLR transformation is trained on a particular set of adaptation data, such that it maximizes the likelihood of that adaptation data given a current model-set. This technique is a widely used approach for speaker adaptation in HMM-based speech recognition. Later research also shows that fMLLR is an excellent acoustic feature for DNN/HMM hybrid speech recognition models. The advantage of fMLLR includes the following: the adaptation process can be performed within a pre-processing phase, and is independent of the ASR training and decoding process. this type of adapted feature can be applied to deep neural networks (DNN) to replace traditionally used mel-spectrogram in end-to-end speech recognition models. fMLLR's speaker adaptation process leads to a significant performance boost for ASR models, hence outperforming other transform or features like MFCCs (Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients) and FBANKs (Filter bank) coefficients. fMLLR features can be efficiently realized with speech toolkits like Kaldi. Major problem and disadvantage of fMLLR: when the amount of adaptation data is limited, the transformation matrices tends to easily overfit the given data. == Computing fMLLR transform == Feature transform of fMLLR can be easily computed with the open source speech tool Kaldi, the Kaldi script uses the standard estimation scheme described in Appendix B of the original paper, in particular the section Appendix B.1 "Direct method over rows". In the Kaldi formulation, fMLLR is an affine feature transform of the form x {\displaystyle x} → A {\displaystyle A} x {\displaystyle x} + b {\displaystyle +b} , which can be written in the form x {\displaystyle x} →W x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} , where x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} = [ x 1 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}x\\1\end{bmatrix}}} is the acoustic feature x {\displaystyle x} with a 1 appended. Note that this differs from some of the literature where the 1 comes first as x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}} = [ 1 x ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1\\x\end{bmatrix}}} . The sufficient statistics stored are: K = ∑ t , j , m γ j , m ( t ) Σ j m − 1 μ j m x ( t ) + {\displaystyle K=\sum _{t,j,m}\gamma _{j,m}(t)\textstyle \Sigma _{jm}^{-1}\mu _{jm}x(t)^{+}\displaystyle } where Σ j m − 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle \Sigma _{jm}^{-1}\displaystyle } is the inverse co-variance matrix. And for 0 ≤ i ≤ D {\displaystyle 0\leq i\leq D} where D {\displaystyle D} is the feature dimension: G ( i ) = ∑ t , j , m γ j , m ( t ) ( 1 σ j , m 2 ( i ) ) x ( t ) + x ( t ) + T {\displaystyle G^{(i)}=\sum _{t,j,m}\gamma _{j,m}(t)\left({\frac {1}{\sigma _{j,m}^{2}(i)}}\right)x(t)^{+}x(t)^{+T}\displaystyle } For a thorough review that explains fMLLR and the commonly used estimation techniques, see the original paper "Maximum likelihood linear transformations for HMM-based speech recognition ". Note that the Kaldi script that performs the feature transforms of fMLLR differs with by using a column of the inverse in place of the cofactor row. In other words, the factor of the determinant is ignored, as it does not affect the transform result and can causes potential danger of numerical underflow or overflow. == Comparing with other features or transforms == Experiment result shows that by using the fMLLR feature in speech recognition, constant improvement is gained over other acoustic features on various commonly used benchmark datasets (TIMIT, LibriSpeech, etc). In particular, fMLLR features outperform MFCCs and FBANKs coefficients, which is mainly due to the speaker adaptation process that fMLLR performs. In, phoneme error rate (PER, %) is reported for the test set of TIMIT with various neural architectures: As expected, fMLLR features outperform MFCCs and FBANKs coefficients despite the use of different model architecture. Where MLP (multi-layer perceptron) serves as a simple baseline, on the other hand RNN, LSTM, and GRU are all well known recurrent models. The Li-GRU architecture is based on a single gate and thus saves 33% of the computations over a standard GRU model, Li-GRU thus effectively address the gradient vanishing problem of recurrent models. As a result, the best performance is obtained with the Li-GRU model on fMLLR features. == Extract fMLLR features with Kaldi == fMLLR can be extracted as reported in the s5 recipe of Kaldi. Kaldi scripts can certainly extract fMLLR features on different dataset, below are the basic example steps to extract fMLLR features from the open source speech corpora Librispeech. Note that the instructions below are for the subsets train-clean-100,train-clean-360,dev-clean, and test-clean, but they can be easily extended to support the other sets dev-other, test-other, and train-other-500. These instruction are based on the codes provided in this GitHub repository, which contains Kaldi recipes on the LibriSpeech corpora to execute the fMLLR feature extraction process, replace the files under $KALDI_ROOT/egs/librispeech/s5/ with the files in the repository. Install Kaldi. Install Kaldiio. If running on a single machine, change the following lines in $KALDI_ROOT/egs/librispeech/s5/cmd.sh to replace queue.pl to run.pl: Change the data path in run.sh to your LibriSpeech data path, the directory LibriSpeech/ should be under that path. For example: Install flac with: sudo apt-get install flac Run the Kaldi recipe run.sh for LibriSpeech at least until Stage 13 (included), for simplicity you can use the modified run.sh. Copy exp/tri4b/trans. files into exp/tri4b/decode_tgsmall_train_clean_/ with the following command: Compute the fMLLR features by running the following script, the script can also be downloaded here: Compute alignments using: Apply CMVN and dump the fMLLR features to new .ark files, the script can also be downloaded here: Use the Python script to convert Kaldi generated .ark features to .npy for your own dataloader, an example Python script is provided:
Linear genetic programming
"Linear genetic programming" is unrelated to "linear programming". Linear genetic programming (LGP) is a particular method of genetic programming wherein computer programs in a population are represented as a sequence of register-based instructions from an imperative programming language or machine language. The adjective "linear" stems from the fact that each LGP program is a sequence of instructions and the sequence of instructions is normally executed sequentially. Like in other programs, the data flow in LGP can be modeled as a graph that will visualize the potential multiple usage of register contents and the existence of structurally noneffective code (introns) which are two main differences of this genetic representation from the more common tree-based genetic programming (TGP) variant. Like other Genetic Programming methods, Linear genetic programming requires the input of data to run the program population on. Then, the output of the program (its behaviour) is judged against some target behaviour, using a fitness function. However, LGP is generally more efficient than tree genetic programming due to its two main differences mentioned above: Intermediate results (stored in registers) can be reused and a simple intron removal algorithm exists that can be executed to remove all non-effective code prior to programs being run on the intended data. These two differences often result in compact solutions and substantial computational savings compared to the highly constrained data flow in trees and the common method of executing all tree nodes in TGP. Furthermore, LGP naturally has multiple outputs by defining multiple output registers and easily cooperates with control flow operations. Linear genetic programming has been applied in many domains, including system modeling and system control with considerable success. Linear genetic programming should not be confused with linear tree programs in tree genetic programming, program composed of a variable number of unary functions and a single terminal. Note that linear tree GP differs from bit string genetic algorithms since a population may contain programs of different lengths and there may be more than two types of functions or more than two types of terminals. == Examples of LGP programs == Because LGP programs are basically represented by a linear sequence of instructions, they are simpler to read and to operate on than their tree-based counterparts. For example, a simple program written to solve a Boolean function problem with 3 inputs (in R1, R2, R3) and one output (in R0), could read like this: R1, R2, R3 have to be declared as input (read-only) registers, while R0 and R4 are declared as calculation (read-write) registers. This program is very simple, having just 5 instructions. But mutation and crossover operators could work to increase the length of the program, as well as the content of each of its instructions. Note that one instruction is non-effective or an intron (marked), since it does not impact the output register R0. Recognition of those instructions is the basis for the intron removal algorithm which is used analyze code prior to execution. Technically, this happens by copying an individual and then run the intron removal once. The copy with removed introns is then executed as many times as dictated by the number of training cases. Notably, the original individual is left intact, so as to continue participating in the evolutionary process. It is only the copy that is executed that is compressed by removing these "structural" introns. Another simple program, this one written in the LGP language Slash/A looks like a series of instructions separated by a slash: By representing such code in bytecode format, i.e. as an array of bytes each representing a different instruction, one can make mutation operations simply by changing an element of such an array.