Differential evolution

Differential evolution (DE) is an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a problem by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a given measure of quality. Such methods are commonly known as metaheuristics as they make few or no assumptions about the optimized problem and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. However, metaheuristics such as DE do not guarantee an optimal solution is ever found. DE is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means DE does not require the optimization problem to be differentiable, as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. DE can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. DE optimizes a problem by maintaining a population of candidate solutions and creating new candidate solutions by combining existing ones according to its simple formulae, and then keeping whichever candidate solution has the best score or fitness on the optimization problem at hand. In this way, the optimization problem is treated as a black box that merely provides a measure of quality given a candidate solution and the gradient is therefore not needed. == History == Storn and Price introduced Differential Evolution in 1995. Books have been published on theoretical and practical aspects of using DE in parallel computing, multiobjective optimization, constrained optimization, and the books also contain surveys of application areas. Surveys on the multi-faceted research aspects of DE can be found in journal articles. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the DE algorithm works by having a population of candidate solutions (called agents). These agents are moved around in the search-space by using simple mathematical formulae to combine the positions of existing agents from the population. If the new position of an agent is an improvement then it is accepted and forms part of the population, otherwise the new position is simply discarded. The process is repeated and by doing so it is hoped, but not guaranteed, that a satisfactory solution will eventually be discovered. Formally, let f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } be the fitness function which must be minimized (note that maximization can be performed by considering the function h := − f {\displaystyle h:=-f} instead). The function takes a candidate solution as argument in the form of a vector of real numbers. It produces a real number as output which indicates the fitness of the given candidate solution. The gradient of f {\displaystyle f} is not known. The goal is to find a solution m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } for which f ( m ) ≤ f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {m} )\leq f(\mathbf {p} )} for all p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } in the search-space, which means that m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is the global minimum. Let x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} designate a candidate solution (agent) in the population. The basic DE algorithm can then be described as follows: Choose the parameters NP ≥ 4 {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}\geq 4} , CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} , and F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} . NP : NP {\displaystyle {\text{NP}}} is the population size, i.e. the number of candidate agents or "parents". CR : The parameter CR ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\text{CR}}\in [0,1]} is called the crossover probability. F : The parameter F ∈ [ 0 , 2 ] {\displaystyle F\in [0,2]} is called the differential weight. Typical settings are N P = 10 n {\displaystyle NP=10n} , C R = 0.9 {\displaystyle CR=0.9} and F = 0.8 {\displaystyle F=0.8} . Optimization performance may be greatly impacted by these choices; see below. Initialize all agents x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } with random positions in the search-space. Until a termination criterion is met (e.g. number of iterations performed, or adequate fitness reached), repeat the following: For each agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the population do: Pick three agents a , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} } , and c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } from the population at random, they must be distinct from each other as well as from agent x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . ( a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } is called the "base" vector.) Pick a random index R ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle R\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} where n {\displaystyle n} is the dimensionality of the problem being optimized. Compute the agent's potentially new position y = [ y 1 , … , y n ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} =[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}]} as follows: For each i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , pick a uniformly distributed random number r i ∼ U ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i}\sim U(0,1)} If r i < C R {\displaystyle r_{i}

Automated dispensing cabinet

An automated dispensing cabinet (ADC), also called a unit-based cabinet (UBC), automated dispensing device (ADD), or automated dispensing machine (ADM)[1], is a computerized medicine cabinet for hospitals and healthcare settings. ADCs allow medications to be stored and dispensed near the point of care while controlling and tracking drug distribution. == Overview == Hospital pharmacies have provided medications for patients by filling patient-specific cassettes of unit-dose medications that were then delivered to the nursing unit and stored in medication cabinets or carts. ADCs, originally designed for hospital use, were introduced in hospitals in the 1980s and have facilitated the transition to alternative delivery models and more decentralized medication distribution systems.[2] Implementing automated dispensing cabinets as part of a decentralized or hybrid medication distribution system can improve patient safety and the accountability of the inventory, streamline certain billing processes. However, in the 2000s, the technology began to be deployed into other care settings where medication doses were stored onsite, and higher security methods were needed to control inventory, access, and dispensing of each patient dose. Settings that now deploy ADCs include long-term care facilities, hospice, critical access hospitals, surgery centers, group homes, residential care facilities, rehab and psych environments, animal health, dental clinics, and nursing education simulation. These diverse care settings share a common need to safely store, account for, and dispense individual doses of medications, especially narcotics and high-value medications, at the point of care.[3] ADCs track user access and dispensed medications, and their use can improve control over medication inventory. The real-time inventory reports generated by many cabinets can simplify the filling process and help the pharmacy track expired drugs. Furthermore, by restricting individual drugs – such as high-risk medications and controlled substances – to unique drawers within the cabinet, overall inventory management, patient safety, and medication security can be improved. Automated dispensing cabinets allow the pharmacy department to profile physician orders before they are dispensed.[4] ADCs can also enable providers to record medication charges upon dispensing, reducing the billing paperwork the pharmacy is responsible for. In addition, nurses can note returned medications using the cabinets' computers, enabling direct credits to patients' accounts. Since automated cabinets can be located on the nursing unit floor, nursing have speedier access to a patient's medications. Also, shorter waiting time ensures improved patient comfort and care.[5] == Role of automated dispensing in healthcare == Automated dispensing is a pharmacy practice in which a device dispenses medications and fills prescriptions. ADCs, which can handle many different medications, are available from a number of manufacturers such as BD, ARxIUM, and Omnicell. Though members of the pharmacy community have been utilizing automation technology since the 1980s, companies are constantly improving ADCs to meet changing needs and health standards in the industry. Several goals can be met by implementing an automated product in a healthcare facility. Patient safety can be ensured with the use of ADC technology such as barcoding. Anesthesia ADCs in operating rooms and perioperative areas may include label printing to prevent mix-ups such as errors between morphine and hydromorphone, two different opioid analgesics that frequently get confused. These systems also communicate with the pharmacy and its information management system to track medications removed and support inventory replenishment. == Key features == ADCs are like automated teller machines whose specific technologies such as barcode scanning and clinical decision support can improve medication safety. Some have metal locking drawers for added security and some have automated single-dose dispensing to prevent the need for a blind count each time a controlled substance is accessed. Over the years, ADCs have been adapted to facilitate compliance with emerging regulatory requirements such as pharmacy review of medication orders and safe practice recommendations. ADCs incorporate advanced software and electronic interfaces to synthesize high-risk steps in the medication use process. These unit-based medication repositories provide computer-controlled storage, dispensation, tracking, and documentation of medication distribution in the resident care unit. Since automated dispensing cabinets are not located in the pharmacy, they are considered "decentralized" medication distribution systems. Instead, they can be found at the point of care on the resident care unit. Tracking of the stocking and distribution process can occur by interfacing the unit with a central pharmacy computer. These cabinets can also be interfaced with other external databases such as resident profiles, the facility's admission/discharge/transfer system, and billing systems. Most ADC providers offer scalable systems since several important factors vary widely by facility such as budget, physical room size, patient population/demographics, type of healthcare facility, etc.

Dendrogram

A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts: in hierarchical clustering, it illustrates the arrangement of the clusters produced by the corresponding analyses. in computational biology, it shows the clustering of genes or samples, sometimes in the margins of heatmaps. in phylogenetics, it displays the evolutionary relationships among various biological taxa. In this case, the dendrogram is also called a phylogenetic tree. The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure". == Clustering example == For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( a {\displaystyle a} to e {\displaystyle e} ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).

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.

Random indexing

Random indexing is a dimensionality reduction method and computational framework for distributional semantics, based on the insight that very-high-dimensional vector space model implementations are impractical, that models need not grow in dimensionality when new items (e.g. new terminology) are encountered, and that a high-dimensional model can be projected into a space of lower dimensionality without compromising L2 distance metrics if the resulting dimensions are chosen appropriately. This is the original point of the random projection approach to dimension reduction first formulated as the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma, and locality-sensitive hashing has some of the same starting points. Random indexing, as used in representation of language, originates from the work of Pentti Kanerva on sparse distributed memory, and can be described as an incremental formulation of a random projection. It can be also verified that random indexing is a random projection technique for the construction of Euclidean spaces—i.e. L2 normed vector spaces. In Euclidean spaces, random projections are elucidated using the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. The TopSig technique extends the random indexing model to produce bit vectors for comparison with the Hamming distance similarity function. It is used for improving the performance of information retrieval and document clustering. In a similar line of research, Random Manhattan Integer Indexing (RMII) is proposed for improving the performance of the methods that employ the Manhattan distance between text units. Many random indexing methods primarily generate similarity from co-occurrence of items in a corpus. Reflexive Random Indexing (RRI) generates similarity from co-occurrence and from shared occurrence with other items.

The Drivers Cooperative

The Drivers Cooperative or Co-Op Ride is an American ridesharing company and mobile app that is a workers cooperative, owned collectively by the drivers. The cooperative launched in May 2021 in New York City, with the first 2,500 drivers issued their ownership certificates in a media event. The cooperative was co-founded by Grenadan immigrant and for hire vehicle driver Ken Lewis, labor organizer Erik Forman, and former Uber executive Alissa Orlando. Mohammad Hossen is the first member of the drivers' advisory board, which they plan to expand democratically as more drivers are onboarded. Other staff include software and industry veterans and in addition to co-founder Lewis, there are other drivers in management roles such as ex-driver and organizer David Alexis. The Co-Op Ride app is on the iOS and Android platforms and is built on Google Maps, Stripe, and Waze. By July, the app had been downloaded by 30,000 users and the number of drivers increased to 3,400, and by August there were 40,000 users. The cooperative is owned by the drivers themselves, and takes 15% from each ride for business overhead costs, as opposed to the 25% to 40% ride hail apps like Uber or Lyft take per ride. While being ultimately owned by the driver members, not by investors, the cooperative began with seed money from the Minnesota-based Community Development Financial Institution Shared Capital Cooperative, the local Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union, and welcomed individual donations via crowdfunding in the form of revenue sharing debt on Wefunder. Each driver is a member of the cooperative and owns one share of the company and one vote in business and leadership decisions. In addition to a larger percentage of the fees per ride driven, each driver as a part-owner will also receive a share of the company's profits after loans and other expenses are paid, in the form of weighted dividends. The drivers use their own cars. The cooperative vets its owner-members further than what is already performed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), and gives a fixed price when a car is ordered and does not engage in surge pricing. The TLC imposed a minimum payrate for mobile app ridesharing companies operating in New York city in 2018. In 2021 that is $1.26 per mile which Uber and Lyft do not pay above; the cooperative pays a minimum mileage of $1.64. The cooperative intends to be able to set aside 10% of profits to community foundations and other non-profits and community organizations. The cooperative has engaged in advocacy around a policy agenda voted on by its members. Legislation to achieve this policy goal was introduced by State Senator Julia Salazar and Assemblymember Jessica González-Rojas, with the support of a coalition led by The Drivers Cooperative, United Auto Workers Region 9 and 9A, Sunrise Movement, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, and New York Communities for Change.

Calibration (statistics)

There are two main uses of the term calibration in statistics that denote special types of statistical inference problems. Calibration can mean a reverse process to regression, where instead of a future dependent variable being predicted from known explanatory variables, a known observation of the dependent variables is used to predict a corresponding explanatory variable; procedures in statistical classification to determine class membership probabilities which assess the uncertainty of a given new observation belonging to each of the already established classes. In addition, calibration is used in statistics with the usual general meaning of calibration. For example, model calibration can be also used to refer to Bayesian inference about the value of a model's parameters, given some data set, or more generally to any type of fitting of a statistical model. As Philip Dawid puts it, "a forecaster is well calibrated if, for example, of those events to which he assigns a probability 30 percent, the long-run proportion that actually occurs turns out to be 30 percent." == In classification == Calibration in classification means transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities. An overview of calibration methods for two-class and multi-class classification tasks is given by Gebel (2009). A classifier might separate the classes well, but be poorly calibrated, meaning that the estimated class probabilities are far from the true class probabilities. In this case, a calibration step may help improve the estimated probabilities. A variety of metrics exist that are aimed to measure the extent to which a classifier produces well-calibrated probabilities. Foundational work includes the Expected Calibration Error (ECE). Into the 2020s, variants include the Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) and the Test-based Calibration Error (TCE), which address limitations of the ECE metric that may arise when classifier scores concentrate on narrow subset of the [0,1] range. A 2020s advancement in calibration assessment is the introduction of the Estimated Calibration Index (ECI). The ECI extends the concepts of the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) to provide a more nuanced measure of a model's calibration, particularly addressing overconfidence and underconfidence tendencies. Originally formulated for binary settings, the ECI has been adapted for multiclass settings, offering both local and global insights into model calibration. This framework aims to overcome some of the theoretical and interpretative limitations of existing calibration metrics. Through a series of experiments, Famiglini et al. demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in delivering a more accurate understanding of model calibration levels and discuss strategies for mitigating biases in calibration assessment. An online tool has been proposed to compute both ECE and ECI. The following univariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the two-class case: Assignment value approach, see Garczarek (2002) Bayes approach, see Bennett (2002) Isotonic regression, see Zadrozny and Elkan (2002) Platt scaling (a form of logistic regression), see Lewis and Gale (1994) and Platt (1999) Bayesian Binning into Quantiles (BBQ) calibration, see Naeini, Cooper, Hauskrecht (2015) Beta calibration, see Kull, Filho, Flach (2017) === In probability prediction and forecasting === In prediction and forecasting, a Brier score is sometimes used to assess prediction accuracy of a set of predictions, specifically that the magnitude of the assigned probabilities track the relative frequency of the observed outcomes. Philip E. Tetlock employs the term "calibration" in this sense in his 2015 book Superforecasting. This differs from accuracy and precision. For example, as expressed by Daniel Kahneman, "if you give all events that happen a probability of .6 and all the events that don't happen a probability of .4, your discrimination is perfect but your calibration is miserable". In meteorology, in particular, as concerns weather forecasting, a related mode of assessment is known as forecast skill. == In regression == The calibration problem in regression is the use of known data on the observed relationship between a dependent variable and an independent variable to make estimates of other values of the independent variable from new observations of the dependent variable. This can be known as "inverse regression"; there is also sliced inverse regression. The following multivariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the case with classes count greater than two: Reduction to binary tasks and subsequent pairwise coupling, see Hastie and Tibshirani (1998) Dirichlet calibration, see Gebel (2009) === Example === One example is that of dating objects, using observable evidence such as tree rings for dendrochronology or carbon-14 for radiometric dating. The observation is caused by the age of the object being dated, rather than the reverse, and the aim is to use the method for estimating dates based on new observations. The problem is whether the model used for relating known ages with observations should aim to minimise the error in the observation, or minimise the error in the date. The two approaches will produce different results, and the difference will increase if the model is then used for extrapolation at some distance from the known results.