The directed-energy weapon wildfire conspiracy theories are claims circulating on social media and in fringe commentary that 2020s wildfires in places such as California, Hawaii and Texas were started or steered by directed-energy weapons or other lasers or directed-energy systems rather than by the documented ignition sources identified by investigators. Fact-checking organisations and newsrooms have repeatedly shown that widely shared images and clips said to depict “beams from the sky” are unrelated, miscaptioned or fabricated, and that official inquiries point to causes such as damaged or re-energised power lines, vegetation and extreme wind conditions. Coverage of the January 2025 Los Angeles fires described a resurgence of familiar hoaxes while local and federal agencies coordinated public rebuttals. == Background == Rumours linking directed-energy weapons to wildfire outbreaks appeared during earlier disaster seasons, then re-emerged at scale during the 2018 Camp Fire and again with the 2023 Maui wildfires and the 2025 Los Angeles fires. Journalists documented how large disasters reliably attract miscaptioned imagery and speculative narratives that portray official explanations as cover stories, while researchers and emergency managers noted that such claims tend to flourish during the information vacuum that accompanies fast-moving events. == Narratives and debunks == Recurring claims include assertions that videos show lasers igniting neighbourhoods, that “green” or “blue” items or roofs were spared because lasers cannot burn those colours, that trees remaining upright indicate precision targeting of houses, and that beams recorded over Hawaii or Texas came from secret platforms. Investigations show that a purported laser-strike video was actually an explosion at a Russian gas station recorded years earlier, that a photograph said to capture an “attack” was an Ohio gas flare from 2018, and that a separate video of green lights over Hawaii was captured months before the Maui fires by an astronomical camera and is unrelated. Fact-checks addressing colour myths have further explained that images of intact blue roofs were either misinterpreted or in at least one widely shared instance artificially generated, and that laser interaction with materials is not governed by such simplistic rules. == Investigations and identified causes == Authorities who examined specific incidents have published findings that contradict DEW narratives. A multi-agency investigation into the Maui disaster concluded that downed and later re-energised lines ignited an initial morning fire that re-kindled under extreme winds in the afternoon, with reports detailing the timeline and infrastructure context; summaries by national outlets echoed those conclusions. Investigators of the February 2024 Smokehouse Creek Fire in the Texas Panhandle reported that power lines ignited both the state’s largest wildfire and another major blaze, and the regional utility acknowledged its facilities appeared to have been involved; subsequent media coverage outlined the findings and regulatory follow-up. For the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, public reports from Butte County and subsequent proceedings identified PG&E transmission equipment as the source of ignition, with documentation of maintenance issues on the Caribou–Palermo line preceding the event. == Platform and agency responses == As major fires burned in and around Los Angeles in January 2025, officials from city agencies and national partners pursued a coordinated strategy to counter falsehoods by issuing timely updates, flagging fake imagery and directing residents to verified resources. Reporters described how federal emergency managers and local departments used social channels and briefings to rebut specific rumours, including claims about lasers and targeted ignition, and to clarify that early imagery often misleads during fast-moving disasters.
History of natural language processing
The history of natural language processing describes the advances of natural language processing. There is some overlap with the history of machine translation, the history of speech recognition, and the history of artificial intelligence. == Early history == The history of machine translation dates back to the seventeenth century, when philosophers such as Leibniz and Descartes put forward proposals for codes which would relate words between languages. All of these proposals remained theoretical, and none resulted in the development of an actual machine. The first patents for "translating machines" were applied for in the mid-1930s. One proposal, by Georges Artsrouni, was simply an automatic bilingual dictionary using paper tape. The other proposal, by Peter Troyanskii, a Russian, was more detailed. Troyanskii’s proposal included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on Esperanto. == Logical period == In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably — on the basis of the conversational content alone — between the program and a real human. In 1957, Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures revolutionized Linguistics with 'universal grammar', a rule-based system of syntactic structures. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem. However, real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding for machine translation was dramatically reduced. Little further research in machine translation was conducted until the late 1980s, when the first statistical machine translation systems were developed. Some notably successful NLP systems developed in the 1960s were SHRDLU, a natural language system working in restricted "blocks worlds" with restricted vocabularies. In 1969 Roger Schank introduced the conceptual dependency theory for natural language understanding. This model, partially influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University, such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. In 1970, William A. Woods introduced the augmented transition network (ATN) to represent natural language input. Instead of phrase structure rules ATNs used an equivalent set of finite-state automata that were called recursively. ATNs and their more general format called "generalized ATNs" continued to be used for a number of years. During the 1970s many programmers began to write 'conceptual ontologies', which structured real-world information into computer-understandable data. Examples are MARGIE (Schank, 1975), SAM (Cullingford, 1978), PAM (Wilensky, 1978), TaleSpin (Meehan, 1976), QUALM (Lehnert, 1977), Politics (Carbonell, 1979), and Plot Units (Lehnert 1981). During this time, many chatterbots were written including PARRY, Racter, and Jabberwacky. == Statistical period == Up to the 1980s, most NLP systems were based on complex sets of hand-written rules. Starting in the late 1980s, however, there was a revolution in NLP with the introduction of machine learning algorithms for language processing. This was due both to the steady increase in computational power resulting from Moore's law and the gradual lessening of the dominance of Chomskyan theories of linguistics (e.g. transformational grammar), whose theoretical underpinnings discouraged the sort of corpus linguistics that underlies the machine-learning approach to language processing. Some of the earliest-used machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to existing hand-written rules. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to the features making up the input data. The cache language models upon which many speech recognition systems now rely are examples of such statistical models. Such models are generally more robust when given unfamiliar input, especially input that contains errors (as is very common for real-world data), and produce more reliable results when integrated into a larger system comprising multiple subtasks. === Datasets === The emergence of statistical approaches was aided by both increase in computing power and the availability of large datasets. At that time, large multilingual corpora were starting to emerge. Notably, some were produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. Many of the notable early successes occurred in the field of machine translation. In 1993, the IBM alignment models were used for statistical machine translation. Compared to previous machine translation systems, which were symbolic systems manually coded by computational linguists, these systems were statistical, which allowed them to automatically learn from large textual corpora. Though these systems do not work well in situations where only small corpora is available, so data-efficient methods continue to be an area of research and development. In 2001, a one-billion-word large text corpus, scraped from the Internet, referred to as "very very large" at the time, was used for word disambiguation. To take advantage of large, unlabelled datasets, algorithms were developed for unsupervised and self-supervised learning. Generally, this task is much more difficult than supervised learning, and typically produces less accurate results for a given amount of input data. However, there is an enormous amount of non-annotated data available (including, among other things, the entire content of the World Wide Web), which can often make up for the inferior results. == Neural period == Neural language models were developed in 1990s. In 1990, the Elman network, using a recurrent neural network, encoded each word in a training set as a vector, called a word embedding, and the whole vocabulary as a vector database, allowing it to perform such tasks as sequence-predictions that are beyond the power of a simple multilayer perceptron. A shortcoming of the static embeddings was that they didn't differentiate between multiple meanings of homonyms. Yoshua Bengio developed the first neural probabilistic language model in 2000. Novel algorithms, availability of larger datasets and higher processing power made possible training of larger and larger language models. Attention mechanism was introduced by Bahdanau et al. in 2014. This work laid the foundations for the famous "Attention Is All You Need" paper that introduced the Transformer architecture in 2017. The concept of large language model (LLM) emerged in late 2010s. LLM is a language model trained with self-supervised learning on vast amount of text. Earliest public LLMs had hundreds of millions of parameters, but this number quickly rose to billion and even trillions. In recent years, advancements in deep learning and large language models have significantly enhanced the capabilities of natural language processing, leading to widespread applications in areas such as healthcare, customer service, and content generation. == Software ==
Curriculum learning
Curriculum learning is a technique in machine learning in which a model is trained on examples of increasing difficulty, where the definition of "difficulty" may be provided externally or discovered as part of the training process. This is intended to attain good performance more quickly, or to converge to a better local optimum if the global optimum is not found. == Approach == Most generally, curriculum learning is the technique of successively increasing the difficulty of examples in the training set that is presented to a model over multiple training iterations. This can produce better results than exposing the model to the full training set immediately under some circumstances; most typically, when the model is able to learn general principles from easier examples, and then gradually incorporate more complex and nuanced information as harder examples are introduced, such as edge cases. This has been shown to work in many domains, most likely as a form of regularization. There are several major variations in how the technique is applied: A concept of "difficulty" must be defined. This may come from human annotation or an external heuristic; for example in language modeling, shorter sentences might be classified as easier than longer ones. Another approach is to use the performance of another model, with examples accurately predicted by that model being classified as easier (providing a connection to boosting). Difficulty can be increased steadily or in distinct epochs, and in a deterministic schedule or according to a probability distribution. This may also be moderated by a requirement for diversity at each stage, in cases where easier examples are likely to be disproportionately similar to each other. Applications must also decide the schedule for increasing the difficulty. Simple approaches may use a fixed schedule, such as training on easy examples for half of the available iterations and then all examples for the second half. Other approaches use self-paced learning to increase the difficulty in proportion to the performance of the model on the current set. Since curriculum learning only concerns the selection and ordering of training data, it can be combined with many other techniques in machine learning. The success of the method assumes that a model trained for an easier version of the problem can generalize to harder versions, so it can be seen as a form of transfer learning. Some authors also consider curriculum learning to include other forms of progressively increasing complexity, such as increasing the number of model parameters. It is frequently combined with reinforcement learning, such as learning a simplified version of a game first. Some domains have shown success with anti-curriculum learning: training on the most difficult examples first. One example is the ACCAN method for speech recognition, which trains on the examples with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio first. == History == The term "curriculum learning" was introduced by Yoshua Bengio et al in 2009, with reference to the psychological technique of shaping in animals and structured education for humans: beginning with the simplest concepts and then building on them. The authors also note that the application of this technique in machine learning has its roots in the early study of neural networks such as Jeffrey Elman's 1993 paper Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Bengio et al showed good results for problems in image classification, such as identifying geometric shapes with progressively more complex forms, and language modeling, such as training with a gradually expanding vocabulary. They conclude that, for curriculum strategies, "their beneficial effect is most pronounced on the test set", suggesting good generalization. The technique has since been applied to many other domains: Natural language processing: Part-of-speech tagging Intent detection Sentiment analysis Machine translation Speech recognition Language model pre-training Image recognition: Facial recognition Object detection Reinforcement learning: Game-playing Graph learning Matrix factorization
Evolutionary algorithm
Evolutionary algorithms (EA) reproduce essential elements of biological evolution in a computer algorithm in order to solve "difficult" problems, at least approximately, for which no exact or satisfactory solution methods are known. They are metaheuristics and population-based bio-inspired algorithms and evolutionary computation, which itself are part of the field of computational intelligence. The mechanisms of biological evolution that an EA mainly imitates are reproduction, mutation, recombination and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolution (microevolutionary processes) and planning models based upon cellular processes. In most real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty. However, seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems; therefore, there may be no direct link between algorithm complexity and problem complexity. == Generic definition == The following is an example of a generic evolutionary algorithm: Randomly generate the initial population of individuals, the first generation. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population. Check, if the goal is reached and the algorithm can be terminated. Select individuals as parents, preferably of higher fitness. Produce offspring with optional crossover (mimicking reproduction). Apply mutation operations on the offspring. Select individuals preferably of lower fitness for replacement with new individuals (mimicking natural selection). Return to 2 == Types == Similar techniques differ in genetic representation and other implementation details, and the nature of the particular applied problem. Genetic algorithm – This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both). This type of EA is often used in optimization problems. Genetic programming – Here the solutions are in the form of computer programs, and their fitness is determined by their ability to solve a computational problem. There are many variants of Genetic Programming: Cartesian genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Linear genetic programming Multi expression programming Evolutionary programming – Similar to evolution strategy, but with a deterministic selection of all parents. Evolution strategy (ES) – Works with vectors of real numbers as representations of solutions, and typically uses self-adaptive mutation rates. The method is mainly used for numerical optimization, although there are also variants for combinatorial tasks. CMA-ES Natural evolution strategy Differential evolution – Based on vector differences and is therefore primarily suited for numerical optimization problems. Coevolutionary algorithm – Similar to genetic algorithms and evolution strategies, but the created solutions are compared on the basis of their outcomes from interactions with other solutions. Solutions can either compete or cooperate during the search process. Coevolutionary algorithms are often used in scenarios where the fitness landscape is dynamic, complex, or involves competitive interactions. Neuroevolution – Similar to genetic programming but the genomes represent artificial neural networks by describing structure and connection weights. The genome encoding can be direct or indirect. Learning classifier system – Here the solution is a set of classifiers (rules or conditions). A Michigan-LCS evolves at the level of individual classifiers whereas a Pittsburgh-LCS uses populations of classifier-sets. Initially, classifiers were only binary, but now include real, neural net, or S-expression types. Fitness is typically determined with either a strength or accuracy based reinforcement learning or supervised learning approach. Quality–Diversity algorithms – QD algorithms simultaneously aim for high-quality and diverse solutions. Unlike traditional optimization algorithms that solely focus on finding the best solution to a problem, QD algorithms explore a wide variety of solutions across a problem space and keep those that are not just high performing, but also diverse and unique. == Theoretical background == The following theoretical principles apply to all or almost all EAs. === No free lunch theorem === The no free lunch theorem of optimization states that all optimization strategies are equally effective when the set of all optimization problems is considered. Under the same condition, no evolutionary algorithm is fundamentally better than another. This can only be the case if the set of all problems is restricted. This is exactly what is inevitably done in practice. Therefore, to improve an EA, it must exploit problem knowledge in some form (e.g. by choosing a certain mutation strength or a problem-adapted coding). Thus, if two EAs are compared, this constraint is implied. In addition, an EA can use problem specific knowledge by, for example, not randomly generating the entire start population, but creating some individuals through heuristics or other procedures. Another possibility to tailor an EA to a given problem domain is to involve suitable heuristics, local search procedures or other problem-related procedures in the process of generating the offspring. This form of extension of an EA is also known as a memetic algorithm. Both extensions play a major role in practical applications, as they can speed up the search process and make it more robust. === Convergence === For EAs in which, in addition to the offspring, at least the best individual of the parent generation is used to form the subsequent generation (so-called elitist EAs), there is a general proof of convergence under the condition that an optimum exists. Without loss of generality, a maximum search is assumed for the proof: From the property of elitist offspring acceptance and the existence of the optimum it follows that per generation k {\displaystyle k} an improvement of the fitness F {\displaystyle F} of the respective best individual x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will occur with a probability P > 0 {\displaystyle P>0} . Thus: F ( x 1 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 2 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 3 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ F ( x k ′ ) ≤ ⋯ {\displaystyle F(x'_{1})\leq F(x'_{2})\leq F(x'_{3})\leq \cdots \leq F(x'_{k})\leq \cdots } I.e., the fitness values represent a monotonically non-decreasing sequence, which is bounded due to the existence of the optimum. From this follows the convergence of the sequence against the optimum. Since the proof makes no statement about the speed of convergence, it is of little help in practical applications of EAs. But it does justify the recommendation to use elitist EAs. However, when using the usual panmictic population model, elitist EAs tend to converge prematurely more than non-elitist ones. In a panmictic population model, mate selection (see step 4 of the generic definition) is such that every individual in the entire population is eligible as a mate. In non-panmictic populations, selection is suitably restricted, so that the dispersal speed of better individuals is reduced compared to panmictic ones. Thus, the general risk of premature convergence of elitist EAs can be significantly reduced by suitable population models that restrict mate selection. === Virtual alphabets === With the theory of virtual alphabets, David E. Goldberg showed in 1990 that by using a representation with real numbers, an EA that uses classical recombination operators (e.g. uniform or n-point crossover) cannot reach certain areas of the search space, in contrast to a coding with binary numbers. This results in the recommendation for EAs with real representation to use arithmetic operators for recombination (e.g. arithmetic mean or intermediate recombination). With suitable operators, real-valued representations are more effective than binary ones, contrary to earlier opinion. == Comparison to other concepts == === Biological processes === A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype–phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature p
Perceptron
In machine learning, the perceptron is an algorithm for supervised learning of binary classifiers. A binary classifier is a function that can decide whether or not an input, represented by a vector of numbers, belongs to some specific class. It is a type of linear classifier, i.e. a classification algorithm that makes its predictions based on a linear predictor function combining a set of weights with the feature vector. == History == The artificial neuron and artificial neural network were invented in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts in their seminal paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity". In 1957, Frank Rosenblatt was at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. He simulated the perceptron on an IBM 704. Later, he obtained funding by the Information Systems Branch of the United States Office of Naval Research and the Rome Air Development Center, to build a custom-made computer, the Mark I Perceptron. It was first publicly demonstrated on 23 June 1960. The machine was "part of a previously secret four-year NPIC [the US' National Photographic Interpretation Center] effort from 1963 through 1966 to develop this algorithm into a useful tool for photo-interpreters". Rosenblatt described the details of the perceptron in a 1958 paper. His organization of a perceptron is constructed of three kinds of cells ("units"): S, A, R, which stand for "sensory", "association" and "response". He presented at the first international symposium on AI, Mechanisation of Thought Processes, which took place in 1958 November. Rosenblatt's project was funded under Contract Nonr-401(40) "Cognitive Systems Research Program", which lasted from 1959 to 1970, and Contract Nonr-2381(00) "Project PARA" ("PARA" means "Perceiving and Recognition Automata"), which lasted from 1957 to 1963. In 1959, the Institute for Defense Analysis awarded his group a $10,000 contract. By September 1961, the ONR awarded further $153,000 worth of contracts, with $108,000 committed for 1962. The ONR research manager, Marvin Denicoff, stated that ONR, instead of ARPA, funded the Perceptron project, because the project was unlikely to produce technological results in the near or medium term. Funding from ARPA go up to the order of millions dollars, while from ONR are on the order of 10,000 dollars. Meanwhile, the head of IPTO at ARPA, J.C.R. Licklider, was interested in 'self-organizing', 'adaptive' and other biologically-inspired methods in the 1950s; but by the mid-1960s he was openly critical of these, including the perceptron. Instead he strongly favored the logical AI approach of Simon and Newell. === Mark I Perceptron machine === The perceptron was intended to be a machine, rather than a program, and while its first implementation was in software for the IBM 704, it was subsequently implemented in custom-built hardware as the Mark I Perceptron with the project name "Project PARA", designed for image recognition. The machine is currently in Smithsonian National Museum of American History. The Mark I Perceptron had three layers. One version was implemented as follows: An array of 400 photocells arranged in a 20x20 grid, named "sensory units" (S-units), or "input retina". Each S-unit can connect to up to 40 A-units. A hidden layer of 512 perceptrons, named "association units" (A-units). An output layer of eight perceptrons, named "response units" (R-units). Rosenblatt called this three-layered perceptron network the alpha-perceptron, to distinguish it from other perceptron models he experimented with. The S-units are connected to the A-units randomly (according to a table of random numbers) via a plugboard (see photo), to "eliminate any particular intentional bias in the perceptron". The connection weights are fixed, not learned. Rosenblatt was adamant about the random connections, as he believed the retina was randomly connected to the visual cortex, and he wanted his perceptron machine to resemble human visual perception. The A-units are connected to the R-units, with adjustable weights encoded in potentiometers, and weight updates during learning were performed by electric motors.The hardware details are in an operators' manual. In a 1958 press conference organized by the US Navy, Rosenblatt made statements about the perceptron that caused a heated controversy among the fledgling AI community; based on Rosenblatt's statements, The New York Times reported the perceptron to be "the embryo of an electronic computer that [the Navy] expects will be able to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence." The Photo Division of Central Intelligence Agency, from 1960 to 1964, studied the use of Mark I Perceptron machine for recognizing militarily interesting silhouetted targets (such as planes and ships) in aerial photos. === Principles of Neurodynamics (1962) === Rosenblatt described his experiments with many variants of the Perceptron machine in a book Principles of Neurodynamics (1962). The book is a published version of the 1961 report. Among the variants are: "cross-coupling" (connections between units within the same layer) with possibly closed loops, "back-coupling" (connections from units in a later layer to units in a previous layer), four-layer perceptrons where the last two layers have adjustable weights (and thus a proper multilayer perceptron), incorporating time-delays to perceptron units, to allow for processing sequential data, analyzing audio (instead of images). The machine was shipped from Cornell to Smithsonian in 1967, under a government transfer administered by the Office of Naval Research. === Perceptrons (1969) === Although the perceptron initially seemed promising, it was quickly proved that perceptrons could not be trained to recognise many classes of patterns. This caused the field of neural network research to stagnate for many years, before it was recognised that a feedforward neural network with two or more layers (also called a multilayer perceptron) had greater processing power than perceptrons with one layer (also called a single-layer perceptron). Single-layer perceptrons are only capable of learning linearly separable patterns. For a classification task with some step activation function, a single node will have a single line dividing the data points forming the patterns. More nodes can create more dividing lines, but those lines must somehow be combined to form more complex classifications. A second layer of perceptrons, or even linear nodes, are sufficient to solve many otherwise non-separable problems. In 1969, a famous book entitled Perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert showed that it was impossible for these classes of network to learn an XOR function. It is often incorrectly believed that they also conjectured that a similar result would hold for a multi-layer perceptron network. However, this is not true, as both Minsky and Papert already knew that multi-layer perceptrons were capable of producing an XOR function. (See the page on Perceptrons (book) for more information.) Nevertheless, the often-miscited Minsky and Papert text caused a significant decline in interest and funding of neural network research. It took ten more years until neural network research experienced a resurgence in the 1980s. This text was reprinted in 1987 as "Perceptrons - Expanded Edition" where some errors in the original text are shown and corrected. === Subsequent work === Rosenblatt continued working on perceptrons despite diminishing funding. The last attempt was Tobermory, built between 1961 and 1967, built for speech recognition. It occupied an entire room. It had 4 layers with 12,000 weights implemented by toroidal magnetic cores. By the time of its completion, simulation on digital computers had become faster than purpose-built perceptron machines. He died in a boating accident in 1971. A simulation program for neural networks was written for IBM 7090/7094, and was used to study various pattern recognition applications, such as character recognition, particle tracks in bubble-chamber photographs; phoneme, isolated word, and continuous speech recognition; speaker verification; and center-of-attention mechanisms for image processing. The kernel perceptron algorithm was already introduced in 1964 by Aizerman et al. Margin bounds guarantees were given for the Perceptron algorithm in the general non-separable case first by Freund and Schapire (1998), and more recently by Mohri and Rostamizadeh (2013) who extend previous results and give new and more favorable L1 bounds. The perceptron is a simplified model of a biological neuron. While the complexity of biological neuron models is often required to fully understand neural behavior, research suggests a perceptron-like linear model can produce some behavior seen in real neurons. The solution spaces of decision boundaries for all binary functions and learning behaviors are studied in. == Definition == In the modern sense, the perceptron is an algori
Automated machine learning
Automated machine learning (AutoML) is the process of automating the tasks of applying machine learning to real-world problems. It is the combination of automation and ML. AutoML potentially includes every stage from beginning with a raw dataset to building a machine learning model ready for deployment. AutoML was proposed as an artificial intelligence-based solution to the growing challenge of applying machine learning. The high degree of automation in AutoML aims to allow non-experts to make use of machine learning models and techniques without requiring them to become experts in machine learning. Automating the process of applying machine learning end-to-end additionally offers the advantages of producing simpler solutions, faster creation of those solutions, and models that often outperform hand-designed models. Common techniques used in AutoML include hyperparameter optimization, meta-learning and neural architecture search. == Comparison to the standard approach == In a typical machine learning application, practitioners have a set of input data points to be used for training. The raw data may not be in a form that all algorithms can be applied to. To make the data amenable for machine learning, an expert may have to apply appropriate data pre-processing, feature engineering, feature extraction, and feature selection methods. After these steps, practitioners must then perform algorithm selection and hyperparameter optimization to maximize the predictive performance of their model. If deep learning is used, the architecture of the neural network must also be chosen manually by the machine learning expert. Each of these steps may be challenging, resulting in significant hurdles to using machine learning. AutoML aims to simplify these steps for non-experts, and to make it easier for them to use machine learning techniques correctly and effectively. AutoML plays an important role within the broader approach of automating data science, which also includes challenging tasks such as data engineering, data exploration and model interpretation and prediction. == Targets of automation == Automated machine learning can target various stages of the machine learning process. Steps to automate are: Data preparation and ingestion (from raw data and miscellaneous formats) Column type detection; e.g., Boolean, discrete numerical, continuous numerical, or text Column intent detection; e.g., target/label, stratification field, numerical feature, categorical text feature, or free text feature Task detection; e.g., binary classification, regression, clustering, or ranking Feature engineering Feature selection Feature extraction Meta-learning and transfer learning Detection and handling of skewed data and/or missing values Model selection - choosing which machine learning algorithm to use, often including multiple competing software implementations Ensembling - a form of consensus where using multiple models often gives better results than any single model Hyperparameter optimization of the learning algorithm and featurization Neural architecture search Pipeline selection under time, memory, and complexity constraints Selection of evaluation metrics and validation procedures Problem checking Leakage detection Misconfiguration detection Analysis of obtained results Creating user interfaces and visualizations == Challenges and Limitations == There are a number of key challenges being tackled around automated machine learning. A big issue surrounding the field is referred to as "development as a cottage industry". This phrase refers to the issue in machine learning where development relies on manual decisions and biases of experts. This is contrasted to the goal of machine learning which is to create systems that can learn and improve from their own usage and analysis of the data. Basically, it's the struggle between how much experts should get involved in the learning of the systems versus how much freedom they should be giving the machines. However, experts and developers must help create and guide these machines to prepare them for their own learning. To create this system, it requires labor intensive work with knowledge of machine learning algorithms and system design. Additionally, other challenges include meta-learning and computational resource allocation.
Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation
Almeida–Pineda recurrent backpropagation is an extension to the backpropagation algorithm that is applicable to recurrent neural networks. It is a type of supervised learning. It was described somewhat cryptically in Richard Feynman's senior thesis, and rediscovered independently in the context of artificial neural networks by both Fernando Pineda and Luis B. Almeida. A recurrent neural network for this algorithm consists of some input units, some output units and eventually some hidden units. For a given set of (input, target) states, the network is trained to settle into a stable activation state with the output units in the target state, based on a given input state clamped on the input units.