In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ( | U | ) + O ( log log | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s
Easyrec
easyrec is an open-source program that provides personalized recommendations using RESTful Web services to be integrated into Web enabled applications. It is distributed under the GNU General Public License by the Studio Smart Agent Technologies and hosted at SourceForge. It is written in Java, uses a MySQL database and comes with an administration tool. == History == The development of easyrec, an implementation of the Adaptive Personalization approach, started in the course of several research and development projects conducted by the Studio Smart Agent Technologies in close cooperation with international companies. During the year of 2008 the core functionality of easyrec was developed forming the basis of research prototypes focusing on the music domain (e.g. MusicExplorer). In June 2009 a beta version of easyrec, containing basic administration features, was integrated into a movie streaming portal for evaluation purposes. Furthermore, in September 2009 easyrec was awarded a special recognition in the category “Award for Innovations – IT Innovations for an economic upswing” by the jury of the Austrian state prize for multimedia and e-business. After a comprehensive refactoring phase and the integration of the evaluation results easyrec was published on SourceForge on 18 February 2010. In course of the CeBIT tradeshow 2011 in Hanover easyrec has been awarded the German “INNOVATIONSPREIS-IT 2011”. == Principles == The following five primary goals guided the development of easyrec. It should be a ready-to-use application, not another algorithmic framework It should be easy to use, concerning installation, integration and administration It should be robust and scalable for serving real world applications It should be free of charge, so that anyone can profit from personalization features It should rely on a community-driven development == Uses == Although easyrec is a domain-agnostic, general purpose personalization system, the current Web service API is customized for providing online shops with item recommendations. Especially for small and medium enterprises, easyrec provides a low barrier entrance to personalization. == Features == A major feature of easyrec is a set of usage statistics and other business relevant information presented via an administration and management interface. Furthermore, the easyrec administrator is supported by a variety of administration and configuration functions including the manual import or adaptation of business rules. Integrators or developers benefit from the lightweight Web service APIs (REST and SOAP) as well as from the guided installation wizard. Concerning personalization functionality easyrec is providing the following services unpersonalized recommendations of the form "other users also bought/viewed/...", etc. personalized recommendation depending on individual preferences rankings such as "most bought items", "most viewed...", etc. Additionally, as an integration showcase, a MediaWiki extension was developed and is bundled with the application. Currently additional features like further recommender algorithms and a plugin-system are evaluated and prepared for integration into the easyrec system. == Architecture == The underlying architecture of easyrec is designed to be robust and scalable—separating time-consuming computations from the task of online assembling of recommendations. easyrec is designed as a multi-layer system consisting of a database layer as storage of user actions and pre-calculated business rules an application layer for hosting online and offline recommendation services and an API layer for various Web service interfaces. Moreover, the generator server contains different item association generators which create business rules that define a relation between two items.
LPBoost
Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J
Random neural network
The Random Neural Network (RNN) is a mathematical representation of an interconnected network of neurons or cells which exchange spiking signals. It was invented by Erol Gelenbe and is linked to the G-network model of queueing networks which Erol Gelenbe also invented, and with his Gene Regulatory Network models. In this model, each neuronal cell state is represented by an integer whose value rises when the cell receives an excitatory spike and drops when it receives an inhibitory spike. The spikes can originate outside the network itself, or they can come from other cells in the networks. Cells whose internal excitatory state has a positive value are allowed to send out spikes of either kind to other cells in the network according to specific cell-dependent spiking rates. The model has a mathematical solution in steady-state which provides the joint probability distribution of the network in terms of the individual probabilities that each cell is excited and able to send out spikes. Computing this solution is based on solving a set of non-linear algebraic equations whose parameters are related to the spiking rates of individual cells and their connectivity to other cells, as well as the arrival rates of spikes from outside the network. The RNN is a recurrent model, i.e. a neural network that is allowed to have complex feedback loops. A highly energy-efficient implementation of random neural networks was demonstrated by Krishna Palem et al. using the Probabilistic CMOS or PCMOS technology and was shown to be c. 226–300 times more efficient in terms of Energy-Performance-Product. RNNs are also related to artificial neural networks, which (like the random neural network) have gradient-based learning algorithms. The learning algorithm for an n-node random neural network that includes feedback loops (it is also a recurrent neural network) is of computational complexity O(n^3) (the number of computations is proportional to the cube of n, the number of neurons). The random neural network can also be used with other learning algorithms such as reinforcement learning. The RNN has been shown to be a universal approximator for bounded and continuous functions.
Variable-order Bayesian network
Variable-order Bayesian network (VOBN) models provide an important extension of both the Bayesian network models and the variable-order Markov models. VOBN models are used in machine learning in general and have shown great potential in bioinformatics applications. These models extend the widely used position weight matrix (PWM) models, Markov models, and Bayesian network (BN) models. In contrast to the BN models, where each random variable depends on a fixed subset of random variables, in VOBN models these subsets may vary based on the specific realization of observed variables. The observed realizations are often called the context and, hence, VOBN models are also known as context-specific Bayesian networks. The flexibility in the definition of conditioning subsets of variables turns out to be a real advantage in classification and analysis applications, as the statistical dependencies between random variables in a sequence of variables (not necessarily adjacent) may be taken into account efficiently, and in a position-specific and context-specific manner.
Behavior-based robotics
Behavior-based robotics (BBR) or behavioral robotics is an approach in robotics that focuses on robots that are able to exhibit complex-appearing behaviors despite little internal variable state to model its immediate environment, mostly gradually correcting its actions via sensory-motor links. == Principles == Behavior-based robotics sets itself apart from traditional artificial intelligence by using biological systems as a model. Classic artificial intelligence typically uses a set of steps to solve problems, it follows a path based on internal representations of events compared to the behavior-based approach. Rather than use preset calculations to tackle a situation, behavior-based robotics relies on adaptability. This advancement has allowed behavior-based robotics to become commonplace in researching and data gathering. Most behavior-based systems are also reactive, which means they need no programming of what a chair looks like, or what kind of surface the robot is moving on. Instead, all the information is gleaned from the input of the robot's sensors. The robot uses that information to gradually correct its actions according to the changes in immediate environment. Behavior-based robots (BBR) usually show more biological-appearing actions than their computing-intensive counterparts, which are very deliberate in their actions. A BBR often makes mistakes, repeats actions, and appears confused, but can also show the anthropomorphic quality of tenacity. Comparisons between BBRs and insects are frequent because of these actions. BBRs are sometimes considered examples of weak artificial intelligence, although some have claimed they are models of all intelligence. == Features == Most behavior-based robots are programmed with a basic set of features to start them off. They are given a behavioral repertoire to work with dictating what behaviors to use and when, obstacle avoidance and battery charging can provide a foundation to help the robots learn and succeed. Rather than build world models, behavior-based robots simply react to their environment and problems within that environment. They draw upon internal knowledge learned from their past experiences combined with their basic behaviors to resolve problems. == History == The school of behavior-based robots owes much to work undertaken in the 1980s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Rodney Brooks, who with students and colleagues built a series of wheeled and legged robots utilizing the subsumption architecture. Brooks' papers, often written with lighthearted titles such as "Planning is just a way of avoiding figuring out what to do next", the anthropomorphic qualities of his robots, and the relatively low cost of developing such robots, popularized the behavior-based approach. Brooks' work builds—whether by accident or not—on two prior milestones in the behavior-based approach. In the 1950s, W. Grey Walter, an English scientist with a background in neurological research, built a pair of vacuum tube-based robots that were exhibited at the 1951 Festival of Britain, and which have simple but effective behavior-based control systems. The second milestone is Valentino Braitenberg's 1984 book, "Vehicles – Experiments in Synthetic Psychology" (MIT Press). He describes a series of thought experiments demonstrating how simply wired sensor/motor connections can result in some complex-appearing behaviors such as fear and love. Later work in BBR is from the BEAM robotics community, which has built upon the work of Mark Tilden. Tilden was inspired by the reduction in the computational power needed for walking mechanisms from Brooks' experiments (which used one microcontroller for each leg), and further reduced the computational requirements to that of logic chips, transistor-based electronics, and analog circuit design. A different direction of development includes extensions of behavior-based robotics to multi-robot teams. The focus in this work is on developing simple generic mechanisms that result in coordinated group behavior, either implicitly or explicitly.
Unique negative dimension
Unique negative dimension (UND) is a complexity measure for the model of learning from positive examples. The unique negative dimension of a class C {\displaystyle C} of concepts is the size of the maximum subclass D ⊆ C {\displaystyle D\subseteq C} such that for every concept c ∈ D {\displaystyle c\in D} , we have ∩ ( D ∖ { c } ) ∖ c {\displaystyle \cap (D\setminus \{c\})\setminus c} is nonempty. This concept was originally proposed by M. Gereb-Graus in "Complexity of learning from one-side examples", Technical Report TR-20-89, Harvard University Division of Engineering and Applied Science, 1989.