Spreading activation is a method for searching associative networks, biological and artificial neural networks, or semantic networks. The search process is initiated by labeling a set of source nodes (e.g. concepts in a semantic network) with weights or "activation" and then iteratively propagating or "spreading" that activation out to other nodes linked to the source nodes. Most often these "weights" are real values that decay as activation propagates through the network. When the weights are discrete this process is often referred to as marker passing. Activation may originate from alternate paths, identified by distinct markers, and terminate when two alternate paths reach the same node. However brain studies show that several different brain areas play an important role in semantic processing. Spreading activation in semantic networks as a model were invented in cognitive psychology to model the fan out effect. Spreading activation can also be applied in information retrieval, by means of a network of nodes representing documents and terms contained in those documents. == Cognitive psychology == As it relates to cognitive psychology, spreading activation is the theory of how the brain iterates through a network of associated ideas to retrieve specific information. The spreading activation theory presents the array of concepts within our memory as cognitive units, each consisting of a node and its associated elements or characteristics, all connected together by edges. A spreading activation network can be represented schematically, in a sort of web diagram with shorter lines between two nodes meaning the ideas are more closely related and will typically be associated more quickly to the original concept. In memory psychology, the spreading activation model holds that people organize their knowledge of the world based on their personal experiences, which in turn form the network of ideas that is the person's knowledge of the world. When a word (the target) is preceded by an associated word (the prime) in word recognition tasks, participants seem to perform better in the amount of time that it takes them to respond. For instance, subjects respond faster to the word "doctor" when it is preceded by "nurse" than when it is preceded by an unrelated word like "carrot". This semantic priming effect with words that are close in meaning within the cognitive network has been seen in a wide range of tasks given by experimenters, ranging from sentence verification to lexical decision and naming. As another example, if the original concept is "red" and the concept "vehicles" is primed, they are much more likely to say "fire engine" instead of something unrelated to vehicles, such as "cherries". If instead "fruits" was primed, they would likely name "cherries" and continue on from there. The activation of pathways in the network has everything to do with how closely linked two concepts are by meaning, as well as how a subject is primed. == Algorithm == A directed graph is populated by Nodes[ 1...N ] each having an associated activation value A [ i ] which is a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. A Link[ i, j ] connects source node[ i ] with target node[ j ]. Each edge has an associated weight W [ i, j ] usually a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0]. Parameters: Firing threshold F, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Decay factor D, a real number in the range [0.0 ... 1.0] Steps: Initialize the graph setting all activation values A [ i ] to zero. Set one or more origin nodes to an initial activation value greater than the firing threshold F. A typical initial value is 1.0. For each unfired node [ i ] in the graph having an activation value A [ i ] greater than the node firing threshold F: For each Link [ i, j ] connecting the source node [ i ] with target node [ j ], adjust A [ j ] = A [ j ] + (A [ i ] W [ i, j ] D) where D is the decay factor. If a target node receives an adjustment to its activation value so that it would exceed 1.0, then set its new activation value to 1.0. Likewise maintain 0.0 as a lower bound on the target node's activation value should it receive an adjustment to below 0.0. Once a node has fired it may not fire again, although variations of the basic algorithm permit repeated firings and loops through the graph. Nodes receiving a new activation value that exceeds the firing threshold F are marked for firing on the next spreading activation cycle. If activation originates from more than one node, a variation of the algorithm permits marker passing to distinguish the paths by which activation is spread over the graph The procedure terminates when either there are no more nodes to fire or in the case of marker passing from multiple origins, when a node is reached from more than one path. Variations of the algorithm that permit repeated node firings and activation loops in the graph, terminate after a steady activation state, with respect to some delta, is reached, or when a maximum number of iterations is exceeded. == Examples ==
Non-local means
Non-local means is an algorithm in image processing for image denoising. Unlike "local mean" filters, which take the mean value of a group of pixels surrounding a target pixel to smooth the image, non-local means filtering takes a mean of all pixels in the image, weighted by how similar these pixels are to the target pixel. This results in much greater post-filtering clarity, and less loss of detail in the image compared with local mean algorithms. If compared with other well-known denoising techniques, non-local means adds "method noise" (i.e. error in the denoising process) which looks more like white noise, which is desirable because it is typically less disturbing in the denoised product. Recently non-local means has been extended to other image processing applications such as deinterlacing, view interpolation, and depth maps regularization. == Definition == Suppose Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } is the area of an image, and p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are two points within the image. Then, the algorithm is: u ( p ) = 1 C ( p ) ∫ Ω v ( q ) f ( p , q ) d q . {\displaystyle u(p)={1 \over C(p)}\int _{\Omega }v(q)f(p,q)\,\mathrm {d} q.} where u ( p ) {\displaystyle u(p)} is the filtered value of the image at point p {\displaystyle p} , v ( q ) {\displaystyle v(q)} is the unfiltered value of the image at point q {\displaystyle q} , f ( p , q ) {\displaystyle f(p,q)} is the weighting function, and the integral is evaluated ∀ q ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \forall q\in \Omega } . C ( p ) {\displaystyle C(p)} is a normalizing factor, given by C ( p ) = ∫ Ω f ( p , q ) d q . {\displaystyle C(p)=\int _{\Omega }f(p,q)\,\mathrm {d} q.} == Common weighting functions == The purpose of the weighting function, f ( p , q ) {\displaystyle f(p,q)} , is to determine how closely related the image at the point p {\displaystyle p} is to the image at the point q {\displaystyle q} . It can take many forms. === Gaussian === The Gaussian weighting function sets up a normal distribution with a mean, μ = B ( p ) {\displaystyle \mu =B(p)} and a variable standard deviation: f ( p , q ) = e − | B ( q ) − B ( p ) | 2 h 2 {\displaystyle f(p,q)=e^{-{{\left\vert B(q)-B(p)\right\vert ^{2}} \over h^{2}}}} where h {\displaystyle h} is the filtering parameter (i.e., standard deviation) and B ( p ) {\displaystyle B(p)} is the local mean value of the image point values surrounding p {\displaystyle p} . == Discrete algorithm == For an image, Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , with discrete pixels, a discrete algorithm is required. u ( p ) = 1 C ( p ) ∑ q ∈ Ω v ( q ) f ( p , q ) {\displaystyle u(p)={1 \over C(p)}\sum _{q\in \Omega }v(q)f(p,q)} where, once again, v ( q ) {\displaystyle v(q)} is the unfiltered value of the image at point q {\displaystyle q} . C ( p ) {\displaystyle C(p)} is given by: C ( p ) = ∑ q ∈ Ω f ( p , q ) {\displaystyle C(p)=\sum _{q\in \Omega }f(p,q)} Then, for a Gaussian weighting function, f ( p , q ) = e − | B ( q ) 2 − B ( p ) 2 | h 2 {\displaystyle f(p,q)=e^{-{{\left\vert B(q)^{2}-B(p)^{2}\right\vert } \over h^{2}}}} where B ( p ) {\displaystyle B(p)} is given by: B ( p ) = 1 | R ( p ) | ∑ i ∈ R ( p ) v ( i ) {\displaystyle B(p)={1 \over |R(p)|}\sum _{i\in R(p)}v(i)} where R ( p ) ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle R(p)\subseteq \Omega } and is a square region of pixels surrounding p {\displaystyle p} and | R ( p ) | {\displaystyle |R(p)|} is the number of pixels in the region R {\displaystyle R} . == Efficient implementation == The computational complexity of the non-local means algorithm is quadratic in the number of pixels in the image, making it particularly expensive to apply directly. Several techniques were proposed to speed up execution. One simple variant consists of restricting the computation of the mean for each pixel to a search window centred on the pixel itself, instead of the whole image. Another approximation uses summed-area tables and fast Fourier transform to calculate the similarity window between two pixels, speeding up the algorithm by a factor of 50 while preserving comparable quality of the result.
Multi expression programming
Multi Expression Programming (MEP) is an evolutionary algorithm for generating mathematical functions describing a given set of data. MEP is a Genetic Programming variant encoding multiple solutions in the same chromosome. MEP representation is not specific (multiple representations have been tested). In the simplest variant, MEP chromosomes are linear strings of instructions. This representation was inspired by Three-address code. MEP strength consists in the ability to encode multiple solutions, of a problem, in the same chromosome. In this way, one can explore larger zones of the search space. For most of the problems this advantage comes with no running-time penalty compared with genetic programming variants encoding a single solution in a chromosome. == Representation == MEP chromosomes are arrays of instructions represented in Three-address code format. Each instruction contains a variable, a constant, or a function. If the instruction is a function, then the arguments (given as instruction's addresses) are also present. === Example of MEP program === Here is a simple MEP chromosome (labels on the left side are not a part of the chromosome): 1: a 2: b 3: + 1, 2 4: c 5: d 6: + 4, 5 7: 3, 5 == Fitness computation == When the chromosome is evaluated it is unclear which instruction will provide the output of the program. In many cases, a set of programs is obtained, some of them being completely unrelated (they do not have common instructions). For the above chromosome, here is the list of possible programs obtained during decoding: E1 = a, E2 = b, E4 = c, E5 = d, E3 = a + b. E6 = c + d. E7 = (a + b) d. Each instruction is evaluated as a possible output of the program. The fitness (or error) is computed in a standard manner. For instance, in the case of symbolic regression, the fitness is the sum of differences (in absolute value) between the expected output (called target) and the actual output. == Fitness assignment process == Which expression will represent the chromosome? Which one will give the fitness of the chromosome? In MEP, the best of them (which has the lowest error) will represent the chromosome. This is different from other GP techniques: In Linear genetic programming the last instruction will give the output. In Cartesian Genetic Programming the gene providing the output is evolved like all other genes. Note that, for many problems, this evaluation has the same complexity as in the case of encoding a single solution in each chromosome. Thus, there is no penalty in running time compared to other techniques. == Software == === MEPX === MEPX is a cross-platform (Windows, macOS, and Linux Ubuntu) free software for the automatic generation of computer programs. It can be used for data analysis, particularly for solving symbolic regression, statistical classification and time-series problems. === libmep === Libmep is a free and open source library implementing Multi Expression Programming technique. It is written in C++. === hmep === hmep is a new open source library implementing Multi Expression Programming technique in Haskell programming language.
Stochastic variance reduction
(Stochastic) variance reduction is an algorithmic approach to minimizing functions that can be decomposed into finite sums. By exploiting the finite sum structure, variance reduction techniques are able to achieve convergence rates that are impossible to achieve with methods that treat the objective as an infinite sum, as in the classical Stochastic approximation setting. Variance reduction approaches are widely used for training machine learning models such as logistic regression and support vector machines as these problems have finite-sum structure and uniform conditioning that make them ideal candidates for variance reduction. == Finite sum objectives == A function f {\displaystyle f} is considered to have finite sum structure if it can be decomposed into a summation or average: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x ) , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x),} where the function value and derivative of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} can be queried independently. Although variance reduction methods can be applied for any positive n {\displaystyle n} and any f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} structure, their favorable theoretical and practical properties arise when n {\displaystyle n} is large compared to the condition number of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} , and when the f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} have similar (but not necessarily identical) Lipschitz smoothness and strong convexity constants. The finite sum structure should be contrasted with the stochastic approximation setting which deals with functions of the form f ( θ ) = E ξ [ F ( θ , ξ ) ] {\textstyle f(\theta )=\operatorname {E} _{\xi }[F(\theta ,\xi )]} which is the expected value of a function depending on a random variable ξ {\textstyle \xi } . Any finite sum problem can be optimized using a stochastic approximation algorithm by using F ( ⋅ , ξ ) = f ξ {\displaystyle F(\cdot ,\xi )=f_{\xi }} . == Rapid Convergence == Stochastic variance reduced methods without acceleration are able to find a minima of f {\displaystyle f} within accuracy ϵ > {\displaystyle \epsilon >} , i.e. f ( x ) − f ( x ∗ ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle f(x)-f(x_{})\leq \epsilon } in a number of steps of the order: O ( ( L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) . {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\frac {L}{\mu }}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right).} The number of steps depends only logarithmically on the level of accuracy required, in contrast to the stochastic approximation framework, where the number of steps O ( L / ( μ ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}L/(\mu \epsilon ){\bigr )}} required grows proportionally to the accuracy required. Stochastic variance reduction methods converge almost as fast as the gradient descent method's O ( ( L / μ ) log ( 1 / ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}(L/\mu )\log(1/\epsilon ){\bigr )}} rate, despite using only a stochastic gradient, at a 1 / n {\displaystyle 1/n} lower cost than gradient descent. Accelerated methods in the stochastic variance reduction framework achieve even faster convergence rates, requiring only O ( ( n L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\sqrt {\frac {nL}{\mu }}}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right)} steps to reach ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } accuracy, potentially n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}} faster than non-accelerated methods. Lower complexity bounds. for the finite sum class establish that this rate is the fastest possible for smooth strongly convex problems. == Approaches == Variance reduction approaches fall within four main categories: table averaging methods, full-gradient snapshot methods, recursive estimator methods (e.g., SARAH), and dual methods. Each category contains methods designed for dealing with convex, non-smooth, and non-convex problems, each differing in hyper-parameter settings and other algorithmic details. === SAGA === In the SAGA method, the prototypical table averaging approach, a table of size n {\displaystyle n} is maintained that contains the last gradient witnessed for each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} term, which we denote g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . At each step, an index i {\displaystyle i} is sampled, and a new gradient ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} is computed. The iterate x k {\displaystyle x_{k}} is updated with: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − g i + 1 n ∑ i = 1 n g i ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma \left[\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-g_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}g_{i}\right],} and afterwards table entry i {\displaystyle i} is updated with g i = ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} . SAGA is among the most popular of the variance reduction methods due to its simplicity, easily adaptable theory, and excellent performance. It is the successor of the SAG method, improving on its flexibility and performance. === SVRG === The stochastic variance reduced gradient method (SVRG), the prototypical snapshot method, uses a similar update except instead of using the average of a table it instead uses a full-gradient that is reevaluated at a snapshot point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} at regular intervals of m ≥ n {\displaystyle m\geq n} iterations. The update becomes: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − ∇ f i ( x ~ ) + ∇ f ( x ~ ) ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma [\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}})+\nabla f({\tilde {x}})],} This approach requires two stochastic gradient evaluations per step, one to compute ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} and one to compute ∇ f i ( x ~ ) , {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}}),} where-as table averaging approaches need only one. Despite the high computational cost, SVRG is popular as its simple convergence theory is highly adaptable to new optimization settings. It also has lower storage requirements than tabular averaging approaches, which make it applicable in many settings where tabular methods can not be used. === SARAH === The SARAH (stochastic recursive gradient) method maintains a recursive estimator of the gradient rather than storing a table of past gradients (as in SAGA) or computing periodic full-gradient snapshots (as in SVRG). At the start of an inner loop, a full gradient is computed at a reference point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} : v 0 = ∇ f ( x ~ ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=\nabla f({\tilde {x}})} . For inner iterations, with a sampled index i k {\displaystyle i_{k}} , the gradient estimator and iterate are updated by: v k = ∇ f i k ( x k ) − ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) + v k − 1 , x k + 1 = x k − γ v k . {\displaystyle v_{k}=\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})+v_{k-1},\qquad x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma v_{k}.} This recursion requires two component-gradient evaluations per step ∇ f i k ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})} and ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})} but does not need to store per-sample gradients, resulting in lower memory cost than table-averaging methods. SARAH admits linear convergence for strongly convex functions and has been extended to more general nonconvex and composite problems. === SDCA === Exploiting the dual representation of the objective leads to another variance reduction approach that is particularly suited to finite-sums where each term has a structure that makes computing the convex conjugate f i ∗ , {\displaystyle f_{i}^{},} or its proximal operator tractable. The standard SDCA method considers finite sums that have additional structure compared to generic finite sum setting: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x T v i ) + λ 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x^{T}v_{i})+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\|x\|^{2},} where each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} is 1 dimensional and each v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is a data point associated with f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} . SDCA solves the dual problem: max α ∈ R n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ∗ ( − α i ) − λ 2 ‖ 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}}-{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}^{}(-\alpha _{i})-{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\left\|{\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}\right\|^{2},} by a stochastic coordinate ascent procedure, where at each step the objective is optimized with respect to a randomly chosen coordinate α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , leaving all other coordinates the same. An approximate primal solution x {\displaystyle x} can be recovered from the α {\displaystyle \alpha } values: x = 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i {\displaystyle x={\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}} . This method obtains similar theoretical rates of convergence to other stochastic variance reduced methods, while avoiding the need to specify a step-size parameter. It is fast in practice when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is large, but significantly slower than the other approaches when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is small. == Accelerated approaches == Accelerated variance reduction methods are built upon the standard methods above. The earliest approaches make use of proximal operators t
Linear classifier
In machine learning, a linear classifier makes a classification decision for each object based on a linear combination of its features. A simpler definition is to say that a linear classifier is one whose decision boundaries are linear. Such classifiers work well for practical problems such as document classification, and more generally for problems with many variables (features), reaching accuracy levels comparable to non-linear classifiers while taking less time to train and use. == Definition == If the input feature vector to the classifier is a real vector x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} , then the output score is y = f ( w → ⋅ x → ) = f ( ∑ j w j x j ) , {\displaystyle y=f({\vec {w}}\cdot {\vec {x}})=f\left(\sum _{j}w_{j}x_{j}\right),} where w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is a real vector of weights and f is a function that converts the dot product of the two vectors into the desired output. (In other words, w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is a one-form or linear functional mapping x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto R.) The weight vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} is learned from a set of labeled training samples. Often f is a threshold function, which maps all values of w → ⋅ x → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}\cdot {\vec {x}}} above a certain threshold to the first class and all other values to the second class; e.g., f ( x ) = { 1 if w T ⋅ x > θ , 0 otherwise {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}\ \mathbf {w} ^{T}\cdot \mathbf {x} >\theta ,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} The superscript T indicates the transpose and θ {\displaystyle \theta } is a scalar threshold. A more complex f might give the probability that an item belongs to a certain class. For a two-class classification problem, one can visualize the operation of a linear classifier as splitting a high-dimensional input space with a hyperplane: all points on one side of the hyperplane are classified as "yes", while the others are classified as "no". A linear classifier is often used in situations where the speed of classification is an issue, since it is often the fastest classifier, especially when x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is sparse. Also, linear classifiers often work very well when the number of dimensions in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is large, as in document classification, where each element in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is typically the number of occurrences of a word in a document (see document-term matrix). In such cases, the classifier should be well-regularized. == Generative models vs. discriminative models == There are two broad classes of methods for determining the parameters of a linear classifier w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . They can be generative and discriminative models. Methods of the former model joint probability distribution, whereas methods of the latter model conditional density functions P ( c l a s s | x → ) {\displaystyle P({\rm {class}}|{\vec {x}})} . Examples of such algorithms include: Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)—assumes Gaussian conditional density models Naive Bayes classifier with multinomial or multivariate Bernoulli event models. The second set of methods includes discriminative models, which attempt to maximize the quality of the output on a training set. Additional terms in the training cost function can easily perform regularization of the final model. Examples of discriminative training of linear classifiers include: Logistic regression—maximum likelihood estimation of w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} assuming that the observed training set was generated by a binomial model that depends on the output of the classifier. Perceptron—an algorithm that attempts to fix all errors encountered in the training set Fisher's Linear Discriminant Analysis—an algorithm (different than "LDA") that maximizes the ratio of between-class scatter to within-class scatter, without any other assumptions. It is in essence a method of dimensionality reduction for binary classification. Support vector machine—an algorithm that maximizes the margin between the decision hyperplane and the examples in the training set. Note: Despite its name, LDA does not belong to the class of discriminative models in this taxonomy. However, its name makes sense when we compare LDA to the other main linear dimensionality reduction algorithm: principal components analysis (PCA). LDA is a supervised learning algorithm that utilizes the labels of the data, while PCA is an unsupervised learning algorithm that ignores the labels. To summarize, the name is a historical artifact. Discriminative training often yields higher accuracy than modeling the conditional density functions. However, handling missing data is often easier with conditional density models. All of the linear classifier algorithms listed above can be converted into non-linear algorithms operating on a different input space φ ( x → ) {\displaystyle \varphi ({\vec {x}})} , using the kernel trick. === Discriminative training === Discriminative training of linear classifiers usually proceeds in a supervised way, by means of an optimization algorithm that is given a training set with desired outputs and a loss function that measures the discrepancy between the classifier's outputs and the desired outputs. Thus, the learning algorithm solves an optimization problem of the form arg min w R ( w ) + C ∑ i = 1 N L ( y i , w T x i ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\mathbf {w} }{\arg \min }}\;R(\mathbf {w} )+C\sum _{i=1}^{N}L(y_{i},\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {x} _{i})} where w is a vector of classifier parameters, L(yi, wTxi) is a loss function that measures the discrepancy between the classifier's prediction and the true output yi for the i'th training example, R(w) is a regularization function that prevents the parameters from getting too large (causing overfitting), and C is a scalar constant (set by the user of the learning algorithm) that controls the balance between the regularization and the loss function. Popular loss functions include the hinge loss (for linear SVMs) and the log loss (for linear logistic regression). If the regularization function R is convex, then the above is a convex problem. Many algorithms exist for solving such problems; popular ones for linear classification include (stochastic) gradient descent, L-BFGS, coordinate descent and Newton methods.
Structural risk minimization
Structural risk minimization (SRM) is an inductive principle of use in machine learning. Commonly in machine learning, a generalized model must be selected from a finite data set, with the consequent problem of overfitting – the model becoming too strongly tailored to the particularities of the training set and generalizing poorly to new data. The SRM principle addresses this problem by balancing the model's complexity against its success at fitting the training data. This principle was first set out in a 1974 book by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis and uses the VC dimension. In practical terms, Structural Risk Minimization is implemented by minimizing E t r a i n + β H ( W ) {\displaystyle E_{train}+\beta H(W)} , where E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} is the train error, the function H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is called a regularization function, and β {\displaystyle \beta } is a constant. H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} is chosen such that it takes large values on parameters W {\displaystyle W} that belong to high-capacity subsets of the parameter space. Minimizing H ( W ) {\displaystyle H(W)} in effect limits the capacity of the accessible subsets of the parameter space, thereby controlling the trade-off between minimizing the training error and minimizing the expected gap between the training error and test error. The SRM problem can be formulated in terms of data. Given n data points consisting of data x and labels y, the objective J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} is often expressed in the following manner: J ( θ ) = 1 2 n ∑ i = 1 n ( h θ ( x i ) − y i ) 2 + λ 2 ∑ j = 1 d θ j 2 {\displaystyle J(\theta )={\frac {1}{2n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(h_{\theta }(x^{i})-y^{i})^{2}+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\sum _{j=1}^{d}\theta _{j}^{2}} The first term is the mean squared error (MSE) term between the value of the learned model, h θ {\displaystyle h_{\theta }} , and the given labels y {\displaystyle y} . This term is the training error, E t r a i n {\displaystyle E_{train}} , that was discussed earlier. The second term, places a prior over the weights, to favor sparsity and penalize larger weights. The trade-off coefficient, λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , is a hyperparameter that places more or less importance on the regularization term. Larger λ {\displaystyle \lambda } encourages sparser weights at the expense of a more optimal MSE, and smaller λ {\displaystyle \lambda } relaxes regularization allowing the model to fit to data. Note that as λ → ∞ {\displaystyle \lambda \to \infty } the weights become zero, and as λ → 0 {\displaystyle \lambda \to 0} , the model typically suffers from overfitting.
Algorithmic learning theory
Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.