Regulation of algorithms, or algorithmic regulation, is the creation of laws, rules and public sector policies for promotion and regulation of algorithms, particularly in artificial intelligence and machine learning. For the subset of AI algorithms, the term regulation of artificial intelligence is used. The regulatory and policy landscape for artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Regulation of AI is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks, but challenging. Another emerging topic is the regulation of blockchain algorithms (Use of the smart contracts must be regulated) and is mentioned along with regulation of AI algorithms. Many countries have enacted regulations of high frequency trades, which is shifting due to technological progress into the realm of AI algorithms. The motivation for regulation of algorithms is the apprehension of losing control over the algorithms, whose impact on human life increases. Multiple countries have already introduced regulations in case of automated credit score calculation—right to explanation is mandatory for those algorithms. For example, The IEEE has begun developing a new standard to explicitly address ethical issues and the values of potential future users. Bias, transparency, and ethics concerns have emerged with respect to the use of algorithms in diverse domains ranging from criminal justice to healthcare—many fear that artificial intelligence could replicate existing social inequalities along race, class, gender, and sexuality lines. == Regulation of artificial intelligence == === Public discussion === In 2016, Joy Buolamwini founded Algorithmic Justice League after a personal experience with biased facial detection software in order to raise awareness of the social implications of artificial intelligence through art and research. In 2017 Elon Musk advocated regulation of algorithms in the context of the existential risk from artificial general intelligence. According to NPR, the Tesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation." In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development. Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has argued that artificial intelligence is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology. Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty. One suggestion has been for the development of a global governance board to regulate AI development. In 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI. Algorithmic tacit collusion is a legally dubious antitrust practise committed by means of algorithms, which the courts are not able to prosecute. This danger concerns scientists and regulators in EU, US and beyond. European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager mentioned an early example of algorithmic tacit collusion in her speech on "Algorithms and Collusion" on March 16, 2017, described as follows: "A few years ago, two companies were selling a textbook called The Making of a Fly. One of those sellers used an algorithm which essentially matched its rival’s price. That rival had an algorithm which always set a price 27% higher than the first. The result was that prices kept spiralling upwards, until finally someone noticed what was going on, and adjusted the price manually. By that time, the book was selling – or rather, not selling – for 23 million dollars a copy." In 2018, the Netherlands employed an algorithmic system SyRI (Systeem Risico Indicatie) to detect citizens perceived being high risk for committing welfare fraud, which quietly flagged thousands of people to investigators. This caused a public protest. The district court of Hague shut down SyRI referencing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2020, algorithms assigning exam grades to students in the UK sparked open protest under the banner "Fuck the algorithm." This protest was successful and the grades were taken back. In 2024, the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights was introduced as part of growing international efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through a human rights lens. Developed through a collaborative drafting process involving scholars from the Technical University of Munich, Stellenbosch University, Ulster University, and KNUST, the initiative calls for an international conversation on a binding treaty to safeguard human rights and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the age of AI. === Implementation === AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues. The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI has been increasingly deemed necessary at the local, national, and international levels and in fields from public service management to law enforcement, the financial sector, robotics, the military, and international law. There are many concerns that there is not enough visibility and monitoring of AI in these sectors. In the United States financial sector, for example, there have been calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to more closely examine source code and algorithms when conducting audits of financial institutions' non-public data. In the United States, on January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on 'Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence', the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has published an interim report, and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. In April 2016, for the first time in more than two decades, the European Parliament adopted a set of comprehensive regulations for the collection, storage, and use of personal information, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 (European Union, Parliament and Council 2016). The GDPR's policy on the right of citizens to receive an explanation for algorithmic decisions highlights the pressing importance of human interpretability in algorithm design. In 2016, China published a position paper questioning the adequacy of existing international law to address the eventuality of fully autonomous weapons, becoming the first permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to broach the issue, and leading to proposals for global regulation. In the United States, steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. In 2017, the U.K. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill imposes liability on the owner of an uninsured automated vehicle when driving itself and makes provisions for cases where the owner has made "unauthorized alterations" to the vehicle or failed to update its software. Further ethical issues arise when, e.g., a self-driving car swerves to avoid a pedestrian and causes a fatal accident. In 2021, the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act. == Algorithm certification == There is a concept of algorithm certification emerging as a method of regulating algorithms. Algorithm certification involves auditing whether the algorithm used during the life cycle 1) conforms to the protocoled requirements (e.g., for correctness, completeness, consistency, and accuracy); 2) satisfies the standards, practices, and conventions; and 3) solves the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws), and satisfies the intended use and user needs in the operational environment. == Regulation of blockchain algorithms == Blockchain systems provide transparent and fixed records of transactions and hereby contradict the goal of the European GDPR, which is to give individuals full control of their private data. By implementing the Decree on Development of Digital Economy, Bel
BiP (software)
BiP is a freeware instant messaging application developed by Lifecell Ventures Cooperatief U.A., a subsidiary of Turkcell incorporated in the Netherlands. It allows users to send text messages, voice messages and video calling, and it can be downloaded from the App Store, Google Play, and Huawei AppGallery. BiP has over 53 million users worldwide, and was first released in 2013. == Functions == BiP is a secure, and free communication platform. BiP allows making video and audio calls, allows sharing images, videos and location. BiP includes instant translations to 106 languages and exchange rates. President Erdoğan's Communications Office opposed WhatsApp's enforcement of its updated privacy policy and announced that Erdoğan left WhatsApp and opened an account in Telegram and BiP. The Turkish Ministry of National Defense has announced that it will move information groups to BiP for the same reason. == Others == Banglalink announced a BiP messenger partnership in Bangladesh The Communications Office of President Erdoğan opposed WhatsApp's enforcement of its updated privacy policy and announced that Erdoğan left WhatsApp and opened an account in Telegram and BiP. The Turkish Ministry of National Defense has announced that it will move information groups to BiP for the same reason. The CEO of BiP is Burak Akinci. The number of downloads of the app is 80 million globally.
Dynamic time warping
In time series analysis, dynamic time warping (DTW) is an algorithm for measuring similarity between two temporal sequences, which may vary in speed. For instance, similarities in walking could be detected using DTW, even if one person was walking faster than the other, or if there were accelerations and decelerations during the course of an observation. DTW has been applied to temporal sequences of video, audio, and graphics data — indeed, any data that can be turned into a one-dimensional sequence can be analyzed with DTW. A well-known application has been automatic speech recognition, to cope with different speaking speeds. Other applications include speaker recognition and online signature recognition. It can also be used in partial shape matching applications. In general, DTW is a method that calculates an optimal match between two given sequences (e.g. time series) with certain restriction and rules: Every index from the first sequence must be matched with one or more indices from the other sequence, and vice versa The first index from the first sequence must be matched with the first index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The last index from the first sequence must be matched with the last index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The mapping of the indices from the first sequence to indices from the other sequence must be monotonically increasing, and vice versa, i.e. if j > i {\displaystyle j>i} are indices from the first sequence, then there must not be two indices l > k {\displaystyle l>k} in the other sequence, such that index i {\displaystyle i} is matched with index l {\displaystyle l} and index j {\displaystyle j} is matched with index k {\displaystyle k} , and vice versa We can plot each match between the sequences 1 : M {\displaystyle 1:M} and 1 : N {\displaystyle 1:N} as a path in a M × N {\displaystyle M\times N} matrix from ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,1)} to ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , such that each step is one of ( 0 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} . In this formulation, we see that the number of possible matches is the Delannoy number. The optimal match is denoted by the match that satisfies all the restrictions and the rules and that has the minimal cost, where the cost is computed as the sum of absolute differences, for each matched pair of indices, between their values. The sequences are "warped" non-linearly in the time dimension to determine a measure of their similarity independent of certain non-linear variations in the time dimension. This sequence alignment method is often used in time series classification. Although DTW measures a distance-like quantity between two given sequences, it doesn't guarantee the triangle inequality to hold. In addition to a similarity measure between the two sequences (a so called "warping path" is produced), by warping according to this path the two signals may be aligned in time. The signal with an original set of points X(original), Y(original) is transformed to X(warped), Y(warped). This finds applications in genetic sequence and audio synchronisation. In a related technique sequences of varying speed may be averaged using this technique see the average sequence section. This is conceptually very similar to the Needleman–Wunsch algorithm. == Implementation == This example illustrates the implementation of the dynamic time warping algorithm when the two sequences s and t are strings of discrete symbols. For two symbols x and y, d ( x , y ) {\displaystyle d(x,y)} is a distance between the symbols, e.g., d ( x , y ) = | x − y | {\displaystyle d(x,y)=|x-y|} . int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m]) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] for i := 0 to n for j := 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := 1 to m cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } where DTW[i, j] is the distance between s[1:i] and t[1:j] with the best alignment. We sometimes want to add a locality constraint. That is, we require that if s[i] is matched with t[j], then | i − j | {\displaystyle |i-j|} is no larger than w, a window parameter. We can easily modify the above algorithm to add a locality constraint (differences marked). However, the above given modification works only if | n − m | {\displaystyle |n-m|} is no larger than w, i.e. the end point is within the window length from diagonal. In order to make the algorithm work, the window parameter w must be adapted so that | n − m | ≤ w {\displaystyle |n-m|\leq w} (see the line marked with () in the code). int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m], w: int) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] w := max(w, abs(n-m)) // adapt window size () for i := 0 to n for j:= 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) DTW[i, j] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } == Warping properties == The DTW algorithm produces a discrete matching between existing elements of one series to another. In other words, it does not allow time-scaling of segments within the sequence. Other methods allow continuous warping. For example, Correlation Optimized Warping (COW) divides the sequence into uniform segments that are scaled in time using linear interpolation, to produce the best matching warping. The segment scaling causes potential creation of new elements, by time-scaling segments either down or up, and thus produces a more sensitive warping than DTW's discrete matching of raw elements. == Complexity == The time complexity of the DTW algorithm is O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} , where N {\displaystyle N} and M {\displaystyle M} are the lengths of the two input sequences. The 50 years old quadratic time bound was broken in 2016: an algorithm due to Gold and Sharir enables computing DTW in O ( N 2 / log log N ) {\displaystyle O({N^{2}}/\log \log N)} time and space for two input sequences of length N {\displaystyle N} . This algorithm can also be adapted to sequences of different lengths. Despite this improvement, it was shown that a strongly subquadratic running time of the form O ( N 2 − ϵ ) {\displaystyle O(N^{2-\epsilon })} for some ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} cannot exist unless the Strong exponential time hypothesis fails. While the dynamic programming algorithm for DTW requires O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} space in a naive implementation, the space consumption can be reduced to O ( min ( N , M ) ) {\displaystyle O(\min(N,M))} using Hirschberg's algorithm. == Fast computation == Fast techniques for computing DTW include PrunedDTW, SparseDTW, FastDTW, and the MultiscaleDTW. A common task, retrieval of similar time series, can be accelerated by using lower bounds such as LB_Keogh, LB_Improved, or LB_Petitjean. However, the Early Abandon and Pruned DTW algorithm reduces the degree of acceleration that lower bounding provides and sometimes renders it ineffective. In a survey, Wang et al. reported slightly better results with the LB_Improved lower bound than the LB_Keogh bound, and found that other techniques were inefficient. Subsequent to this survey, the LB_Enhanced bound was developed that is always tighter than LB_Keogh while also being more efficient to compute. LB_Petitjean is the tightest known lower bound that can be computed in linear time. == Average sequence == Averaging for dynamic time warping is the problem of finding an average sequence for a set of sequences. NLAAF is an exact method to average two sequences using DTW. For more than two sequences, the problem is related to that of multiple alignment and requires heuristics. DBA is currently a reference method to average a set of sequences consistently with DTW. COMASA efficiently randomizes the search for the average sequence, using DBA as a local optimization process. == Supervised learning == A nearest-neighbour classifier can achieve state-of-the-art performance when using dynamic time warping as a distance measure. == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping (ADTW) is a variant of DTW designed to better control DTW's permissiveness in the alignments that it allows. The windows that classical DTW uses to constrain alignments introduce a step function. Any warping of the path is allowed within the window and none beyond it. In contrast, ADTW employs an additive penalty that is incurred each time that the path is warped. Any amount of warping is allowed, but each warping action incurs a direct penalty. ADTW significantly outperforms DTW with windowing when applied as a nearest neighbor classifier on a set of benchmark time series classification tasks. == Alternative approaches == In functional data analysis, time series are regarde
Probit model
In statistics, a probit model is a type of regression where the dependent variable can take only two values, for example married or not married. The word is a portmanteau, coming from probability + unit. The purpose of the model is to estimate the probability that an observation with particular characteristics will fall into a specific one of the categories; moreover, classifying observations based on their predicted probabilities is a type of binary classification model. A probit model is a popular specification for a binary response model. As such it treats the same set of problems as does logistic regression using similar techniques. When viewed in the generalized linear model framework, the probit model employs a probit link function. It is most often estimated using the maximum likelihood procedure, such an estimation being called a probit regression. == Conceptual framework == Suppose a response variable Y is binary, that is it can have only two possible outcomes which we will denote as 1 and 0. For example, Y may represent presence/absence of a certain condition, success/failure of some device, answer yes/no on a survey, etc. We also have a vector of regressors X, which are assumed to influence the outcome Y. Specifically, we assume that the model takes the form P ( Y = 1 ∣ X ) = Φ ( X T β ) , {\displaystyle P(Y=1\mid X)=\Phi (X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta ),} where P is the probability and Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution. The parameters β are typically estimated by maximum likelihood. It is possible to motivate the probit model as a latent variable model. Suppose there exists an auxiliary random variable Y ∗ = X T β + ε , {\displaystyle Y^{\ast }=X^{T}\beta +\varepsilon ,} where ε ~ N(0, 1). Then Y can be viewed as an indicator for whether this latent variable is positive: Y = { 1 Y ∗ > 0 0 otherwise } = { 1 X T β + ε > 0 0 otherwise } {\displaystyle Y=\left.{\begin{cases}1&Y^{}>0\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\right\}=\left.{\begin{cases}1&X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta +\varepsilon >0\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\right\}} The use of the standard normal distribution causes no loss of generality compared with the use of a normal distribution with an arbitrary mean and standard deviation, because adding a fixed amount to the mean can be compensated by subtracting the same amount from the intercept, and multiplying the standard deviation by a fixed amount can be compensated by multiplying the weights by the same amount. To see that the two models are equivalent, note that P ( Y = 1 ∣ X ) = P ( Y ∗ > 0 ) = P ( X T β + ε > 0 ) = P ( ε > − X T β ) = P ( ε < X T β ) by symmetry of the normal distribution = Φ ( X T β ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}P(Y=1\mid X)&=P(Y^{\ast }>0)\\&=P(X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta +\varepsilon >0)\\&=P(\varepsilon >-X^{\operatorname {T} }\beta )\\&=P(\varepsilon
Oscillatory neural network
An oscillatory neural network (ONN) is an artificial neural network that uses coupled oscillators as neurons. Oscillatory neural networks are closely linked to the Kuramoto model, and are inspired by the phenomenon of neural oscillations in the brain. Oscillatory neural networks have been trained to recognize images. Complex-Valued Oscillatory network has also been shown to store and retrieve multidimensional aperiodic signals. An oscillatory autoencoder has also been demonstrated, which uses a combination of oscillators and rate-coded neurons. A neuron made of two coupled oscillators, one having a fixed and the other having a tunable natural frequency, has been shown able to run logic gates such as XOR that conventional sigmoid neurons cannot.
Eigenmoments
EigenMoments is a set of orthogonal, noise robust, invariant to rotation, scaling and translation and distribution sensitive moments. Their application can be found in signal processing and computer vision as descriptors of the signal or image. The descriptors can later be used for classification purposes. It is obtained by performing orthogonalization, via eigen analysis on geometric moments. == Framework summary == EigenMoments are computed by performing eigen analysis on the moment space of an image by maximizing signal-to-noise ratio in the feature space in form of Rayleigh quotient. This approach has several benefits in Image processing applications: Dependency of moments in the moment space on the distribution of the images being transformed, ensures decorrelation of the final feature space after eigen analysis on the moment space. The ability of EigenMoments to take into account distribution of the image makes it more versatile and adaptable for different genres. Generated moment kernels are orthogonal and therefore analysis on the moment space becomes easier. Transformation with orthogonal moment kernels into moment space is analogous to projection of the image onto a number of orthogonal axes. Nosiy components can be removed. This makes EigenMoments robust for classification applications. Optimal information compaction can be obtained and therefore a few number of moments are needed to characterize the images. == Problem formulation == Assume that a signal vector s ∈ R n {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n}} is taken from a certain distribution having correlation C ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n\times n}} , i.e. C = E [ s s T ] {\displaystyle C=E[ss^{T}]} where E[.] denotes expected value. Dimension of signal space, n, is often too large to be useful for practical application such as pattern classification, we need to transform the signal space into a space with lower dimensionality. This is performed by a two-step linear transformation: q = W T X T s , {\displaystyle q=W^{T}X^{T}s,} where q = [ q 1 , . . . , q n ] T ∈ R k {\displaystyle q=[q_{1},...,q_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{k}} is the transformed signal, X = [ x 1 , . . . , x n ] T ∈ R n × m {\displaystyle X=[x_{1},...,x_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{n\times m}} a fixed transformation matrix which transforms the signal into the moment space, and W = [ w 1 , . . . , w n ] T ∈ R m × k {\displaystyle W=[w_{1},...,w_{n}]^{T}\in {\mathcal {R}}^{m\times k}} the transformation matrix which we are going to determine by maximizing the SNR of the feature space resided by q {\displaystyle q} . For the case of Geometric Moments, X would be the monomials. If m = k = n {\displaystyle m=k=n} , a full rank transformation would result, however usually we have m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} and k ≤ m {\displaystyle k\leq m} . This is specially the case when n {\displaystyle n} is of high dimensions. Finding W {\displaystyle W} that maximizes the SNR of the feature space: S N R t r a n s f o r m = w T X T C X w w T X T N X w , {\displaystyle SNR_{transform}={\frac {w^{T}X^{T}CXw}{w^{T}X^{T}NXw}},} where N is the correlation matrix of the noise signal. The problem can thus be formulated as w 1 , . . . , w k = a r g m a x w w T X T C X w w T X T N X w {\displaystyle {w_{1},...,w_{k}}=argmax_{w}{\frac {w^{T}X^{T}CXw}{w^{T}X^{T}NXw}}} subject to constraints: w i T X T N X w j = δ i j , {\displaystyle w_{i}^{T}X^{T}NXw_{j}=\delta _{ij},} where δ i j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}} is the Kronecker delta. It can be observed that this maximization is Rayleigh quotient by letting A = X T C X {\displaystyle A=X^{T}CX} and B = X T N X {\displaystyle B=X^{T}NX} and therefore can be written as: w 1 , . . . , w k = a r g m a x x w T A w w T B w {\displaystyle {w_{1},...,w_{k}}={\underset {x}{\operatorname {arg\,max} }}{\frac {w^{T}Aw}{w^{T}Bw}}} , w i T B w j = δ i j {\displaystyle w_{i}^{T}Bw_{j}=\delta _{ij}} === Rayleigh quotient === Optimization of Rayleigh quotient has the form: max w R ( w ) = max w w T A w w T B w {\displaystyle \max _{w}R(w)=\max _{w}{\frac {w^{T}Aw}{w^{T}Bw}}} and A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , both are symmetric and B {\displaystyle B} is positive definite and therefore invertible. Scaling w {\displaystyle w} does not change the value of the object function and hence and additional scalar constraint w T B w = 1 {\displaystyle w^{T}Bw=1} can be imposed on w {\displaystyle w} and no solution would be lost when the objective function is optimized. This constraint optimization problem can be solved using Lagrangian multiplier: max w w T A w {\displaystyle \max _{w}{w^{T}Aw}} subject to w T B w = 1 {\displaystyle {w^{T}Bw}=1} max w L ( w ) = max w ( w T A w − λ w T B w ) {\displaystyle \max _{w}{\mathcal {L}}(w)=\max _{w}(w{T}Aw-\lambda w^{T}Bw)} equating first derivative to zero and we will have: A w = λ B w {\displaystyle Aw=\lambda Bw} which is an instance of Generalized Eigenvalue Problem (GEP). The GEP has the form: A w = λ B w {\displaystyle Aw=\lambda Bw} for any pair ( w , λ ) {\displaystyle (w,\lambda )} that is a solution to above equation, w {\displaystyle w} is called a generalized eigenvector and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is called a generalized eigenvalue. Finding w {\displaystyle w} and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that satisfies this equations would produce the result which optimizes Rayleigh quotient. One way of maximizing Rayleigh quotient is through solving the Generalized Eigen Problem. Dimension reduction can be performed by simply choosing the first components w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , i = 1 , . . . , k {\displaystyle i=1,...,k} , with the highest values for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} out of the m {\displaystyle m} components, and discard the rest. Interpretation of this transformation is rotating and scaling the moment space, transforming it into a feature space with maximized SNR and therefore, the first k {\displaystyle k} components are the components with highest k {\displaystyle k} SNR values. The other method to look at this solution is to use the concept of simultaneous diagonalization instead of Generalized Eigen Problem. === Simultaneous diagonalization === Let A = X T C X {\displaystyle A=X^{T}CX} and B = X T N X {\displaystyle B=X^{T}NX} as mentioned earlier. We can write W {\displaystyle W} as two separate transformation matrices: W = W 1 W 2 . {\displaystyle W=W_{1}W_{2}.} W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}} can be found by first diagonalize B: P T B P = D B {\displaystyle P^{T}BP=D_{B}} . Where D B {\displaystyle D_{B}} is a diagonal matrix sorted in increasing order. Since B {\displaystyle B} is positive definite, thus D B > 0 {\displaystyle D_{B}>0} . We can discard those eigenvalues that large and retain those close to 0, since this means the energy of the noise is close to 0 in this space, at this stage it is also possible to discard those eigenvectors that have large eigenvalues. Let P ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {P}}} be the first k {\displaystyle k} columns of P {\displaystyle P} , now P T ^ B P ^ = D B ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {P^{T}}}B{\hat {P}}={\hat {D_{B}}}} where D B ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {D_{B}}}} is the k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} principal submatrix of D B {\displaystyle D_{B}} . Let W 1 = P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 {\displaystyle W_{1}={\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2}} and hence: W 1 T B W 1 = ( P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) T B ( P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) = I {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}BW_{1}=({\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2})^{T}B({\hat {P}}{\hat {D_{B}}}^{-1/2})=I} . W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}} whiten B {\displaystyle B} and reduces the dimensionality from m {\displaystyle m} to k {\displaystyle k} . The transformed space resided by q ′ = W 1 T X T s {\displaystyle q'=W_{1}^{T}X^{T}s} is called the noise space. Then, we diagonalize W 1 T A W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}} : W 2 T W 1 T A W 1 W 2 = D A {\displaystyle W_{2}^{T}W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}W_{2}=D_{A}} , where W 2 T W 2 = I {\displaystyle W_{2}^{T}W_{2}=I} . D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} is the matrix with eigenvalues of W 1 T A W 1 {\displaystyle W_{1}^{T}AW_{1}} on its diagonal. We may retain all the eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenvectors since most of the noise are already discarded in previous step. Finally the transformation is given by: W = W 1 W 2 {\displaystyle W=W_{1}W_{2}} where W {\displaystyle W} diagonalizes both the numerator and denominator of the SNR, W T A W = D A {\displaystyle W^{T}AW=D_{A}} , W T B W = I {\displaystyle W^{T}BW=I} and the transformation of signal s {\displaystyle s} is defined as q = W T X T s = W 2 T W 1 T X T s {\displaystyle q=W^{T}X^{T}s=W_{2}^{T}W_{1}^{T}X^{T}s} . === Information loss === To find the information loss when we discard some of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors we can perform following analysis: η = 1 − t r a c e ( W 1 T A W 1 ) t r a c e ( D B − 1 / 2 P T A P D B − 1 / 2 ) = 1 − t r a c e ( D B ^ − 1 / 2 P ^ T A P ^ D B ^ − 1 / 2 ) t r a c e ( D B − 1 / 2 P T A P D B − 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lll}\eta &=&
Characteristic samples
Characteristic samples is a concept in the field of grammatical inference, related to passive learning. In passive learning, an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} is given a set of pairs of strings and labels S {\displaystyle S} , and returns a representation R {\displaystyle R} that is consistent with S {\displaystyle S} . Characteristic samples consider the scenario when the goal is not only finding a representation consistent with S {\displaystyle S} , but finding a representation that recognizes a specific target language. A characteristic sample of language L {\displaystyle L} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} where: l ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=1} if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=-1} if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle s\notin L} Given the characteristic sample S {\displaystyle S} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on it is a representation R {\displaystyle R} , e.g. an automaton, that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . == Formal Definition == === The Learning Paradigm associated with Characteristic Samples === There are three entities in the learning paradigm connected to characteristic samples, the adversary, the teacher and the inference algorithm. Given a class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } and a class of representations for the languages R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , the paradigm goes as follows: The adversary A {\displaystyle A} selects a language L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } and reports it to the teacher The teacher T {\displaystyle T} then computes a set of strings and label them correctly according to L {\displaystyle L} , trying to make sure that the inference algorithm will compute L {\displaystyle L} The adversary can add correctly labeled words to the set in order to confuse the inference algorithm The inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} gets the sample and computes a representation R ∈ R {\displaystyle R\in \mathbb {R} } consistent with the sample. The goal is that when the inference algorithm receives a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} , or a sample that subsumes a characteristic sample for L {\displaystyle L} , it will return a representation that recognizes exactly the language L {\displaystyle L} . === Sample === Sample S {\displaystyle S} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} such that l ( s ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle l(s)\in \{-1,1\}} ==== Sample consistent with a language ==== We say that a sample S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with language L {\displaystyle L} if for every pair ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} in S {\displaystyle S} : l ( s ) = 1 if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle l(s)=1{\text{ if and only if }}s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle l(s)=-1{\text{ if and only if }}s\notin L} === Characteristic sample === Given an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} and a language L {\displaystyle L} , a sample S {\displaystyle S} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} is called a characteristic sample of L {\displaystyle L} for I {\displaystyle I} if: I {\displaystyle I} 's output on S {\displaystyle S} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . For every sample D {\displaystyle D} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} and also fulfils S ⊆ D {\displaystyle S\subseteq D} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on D {\displaystyle D} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . A Class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } is said to have charistaristic samples if every L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } has a characteristic sample. == Related Theorems == === Theorem === If equivalence is undecidable for a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } over Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } of cardinality bigger than 1, then C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } doesn't have characteristic samples. ==== Proof ==== Given a class of representations C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } such that equivalence is undecidable, for every polynomial p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} and every n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , there exist two representations r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} of sizes bounded by n {\displaystyle n} , that recognize different languages but are inseparable by any string of size bounded by p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} . Assuming this is not the case, we can decide if r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} are equivalent by simulating their run on all strings of size smaller than p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , contradicting the assumption that equivalence is undecidable. === Theorem === If S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , then every characteristic sample of L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , is inconsistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . ==== Proof ==== Given a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } that has characteristic samples, let R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} be representations that recognize L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} respectively. Under the assumption that there is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} , S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} that is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , we'll assume falsely that there exist a characteristic sample for L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} that is consistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . By the definition of characteristic sample, the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} must return a representation which recognizes the language if given a sample that subsumes the characteristic sample itself. But for the sample S 1 ∪ S 2 {\displaystyle S_{1}\cup S_{2}} , the answer of the inferring algorithm needs to recognize both L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , in contradiction. === Theorem === If a class is polynomially learnable by example based queries, it is learnable with characteristic samples. == Polynomialy characterizable classes == === Regular languages === The proof that DFA's are learnable using characteristic samples, relies on the fact that every regular language has a finite number of equivalence classes with respect to the right congruence relation, ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} (where x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\sim _{L}y} for x , y ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle x,y\in \Sigma ^{}} if and only if ∀ z ∈ Σ ∗ : x z ∈ L ↔ y z ∈ L {\displaystyle \forall z\in \Sigma ^{}:xz\in L\leftrightarrow yz\in L} ). Note that if x {\displaystyle x} , y {\displaystyle y} are not congruent with respect to ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} , there exists a string z {\displaystyle z} such that x z ∈ L {\displaystyle xz\in L} but y z ∉ L {\displaystyle yz\notin L} or vice versa, this string is called a separating suffix. ==== Constructing a characteristic sample ==== The construction of a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} by the teacher goes as follows. Firstly, by running a depth first search on a deterministic automaton A {\displaystyle A} recognizing L {\displaystyle L} , starting from its initial state, we get a suffix closed set of words, W {\displaystyle W} , ordered in shortlex order. From the fact above, we know that for every two states in the automaton, there exists a separating suffix that separates between every two strings that the run of A {\displaystyle A} on them ends in the respective states. We refer to the set of separating suffixes as S {\displaystyle S} . The labeled set (sample) of words the teacher gives the adversary is { ( w , l ( w ) ) | w ∈ W ⋅ S ∪ W ⋅ Σ ⋅ S } {\displaystyle \{(w,l(w))|w\in W\cdot S\cup W\cdot \Sigma \cdot S\}} where l ( w ) {\displaystyle l(w)} is the correct label of w {\displaystyle w} (whether it is in L {\displaystyle L} or not). We may assume that ϵ ∈ S {\displaystyle \epsilon \in S} . ==== Constructing a deterministic automata ==== Given the sample from the adversary W {\displaystyle W} , the construction of the automaton by the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} starts with defining P = prefix ( W ) {\displaystyle P={\text{prefix}}(W)} and S = suffix ( W ) {\displaystyle S={\text{suffix}}(W)} , which are the set of prefixes and suffixes of W {\displaystyle W} respectively. Now the algorithm constructs a matrix M {\displaystyle M} where the elements of P {\displaystyle P} function as the rows, ordered by the shortlex order, and the elements of S {\displaystyle S} function as the columns, ordered by the shortlex order. Next, the cells in the matrix are filled in the following manner for prefix p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and suffix s j {\displaystyle s_{j}} : If p i s j ∈ W → M i j = l ( p i s j ) {\displaystyle p_{i}s_{j}\in W\rightarrow M_{ij}=l(p_{i}s_{j})} else, M i j = 0 {\displaystyle M_{ij}=0} Now, we say row i {\displaystyle i} and t {\displaystyle t} are distinguishable if there exi