Time-inhomogeneous hidden Bernoulli model (TI-HBM) is an alternative to hidden Markov model (HMM) for automatic speech recognition. Contrary to HMM, the state transition process in TI-HBM is not a Markov-dependent process, rather it is a generalized Bernoulli (an independent) process. This difference leads to elimination of dynamic programming at state-level in TI-HBM decoding process. Thus, the computational complexity of TI-HBM for probability evaluation and state estimation is O ( N L ) {\displaystyle O(NL)} (instead of O ( N 2 L ) {\displaystyle O(N^{2}L)} in the HMM case, where N {\displaystyle N} and L {\displaystyle L} are number of states and observation sequence length respectively). The TI-HBM is able to model acoustic-unit duration (e.g. phone/word duration) by using a built-in parameter named survival probability. The TI-HBM is simpler and faster than HMM in a phoneme recognition task, but its performance is comparable to HMM. For details, see [1] or [2].
Lenny (chatbot)
Lenny is a chatbot designed to scam bait telemarketers, scammers, and other unwanted incoming calls using messages. == Background == Telemarketers may be perceived by some as annoying and wasting people's time, and some deliberately attempt to scam or defraud people. In April 2018, stats published by YouMail estimated the United States received over three billion robocalls that month. Attempts to block the callers have been hindered by Caller ID spoofing. == Features == The bot was written in 2011, and development taken over by an Alberta-based programmer known as "Mango" two years later. It is driven by sixteen pre-recorded audio clips, spoken in a soft and slow Australian accent in the manner of an elderly man. The bot's original creator stated on Reddit that in building the character he asked himself the question "What would be a telemarketer's worst nightmare?" He answered with this being a lonely old man who is up for a chat, proud of his family and can't focus on the telemarketer's goal. There is no speech recognition or artificial intelligence, and the bot's software is simple and straightforward. The first four clips are played sequentially in order to grab the telemarketer's interest and begin their sales pitch to Lenny, then the remaining twelve are played sequentially on loop until the telemarketer hangs up. The program waits for a gap of 1.5 seconds of silence before playing the next audio clip, to simulate natural breaks in the conversation. The messages are purposefully vague and open-ended so they can be applied to as many conversations as possible. They include references to Lenny's children, the state of the economy, and being interrupted by some ducks outside. According to research into the bot, around 75% of callers realise they are talking to a computer program within two minutes; however, some calls have lasted around an hour. == Distribution == Though other chatbots had been developed earlier, Lenny was the first one to be released for free on a public server and could be accessed by anyone. Recordings of conversations with the bot are widely shared online on websites such as Reddit and YouTube. Though "Mango" only intended Lenny to be used against dishonest telemarketers, such as scammers, he does not mind it being used against callers who are merely annoying. The bot has also been used against political campaigners, such as a supporter of Pierre Poilievre in the 2015 Canadian federal election.
Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory
Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory (also known as VC theory) was developed during 1960–1990 by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. The theory is a form of computational learning theory, which attempts to explain the learning process from a statistical point of view. == Introduction == VC theory covers at least four parts (as explained in The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory): Theory of consistency of learning processes What are (necessary and sufficient) conditions for consistency of a learning process based on the empirical risk minimization principle? Nonasymptotic theory of the rate of convergence of learning processes How fast is the rate of convergence of the learning process? Theory of controlling the generalization ability of learning processes How can one control the rate of convergence (the generalization ability) of the learning process? Theory of constructing learning machines How can one construct algorithms that can control the generalization ability? VC Theory is a major subbranch of statistical learning theory. One of its main applications in statistical learning theory is to provide generalization conditions for learning algorithms. From this point of view, VC theory is related to stability, which is an alternative approach for characterizing generalization. In addition, VC theory and VC dimension are instrumental in the theory of empirical processes, in the case of processes indexed by VC classes. Arguably these are the most important applications of the VC theory, and are employed in proving generalization. Several techniques will be introduced that are widely used in the empirical process and VC theory. The discussion is mainly based on the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics. == Overview of VC theory in empirical processes == === Background on empirical processes === Let ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} be a measurable space. For any measure Q {\displaystyle Q} on ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} , and any measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } , define Q f = ∫ f d Q {\displaystyle Qf=\int fdQ} Measurability issues will be ignored here, for more technical detail see. Let F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} be a class of measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } and define: ‖ Q ‖ F = sup { | Q f | : f ∈ F } . {\displaystyle \|Q\|_{\mathcal {F}}=\sup\{\vert Qf\vert \ :\ f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}.} Let X 1 , … , X n {\displaystyle X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}} be independent, identically distributed random elements of ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Then define the empirical measure P n = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n δ X i , {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\delta _{X_{i}},} where δ here stands for the Dirac measure. The empirical measure induces a map F → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\to \mathbf {R} } given by: f ↦ P n f = 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}f={\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))} Now suppose P is the underlying true distribution of the data, which is unknown. Empirical Processes theory aims at identifying classes F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} for which statements such as the following hold: uniform law of large numbers: ‖ P n − P ‖ F → n 0 , {\displaystyle \|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}}{\underset {n}{\to }}0,} That is, as n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\to \infty } , | 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) − ∫ f d P | → 0 {\displaystyle \left|{\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))-\int fdP\right|\to 0} uniformly for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . uniform central limit theorem: G n = n ( P n − P ) ⇝ G , in ℓ ∞ ( F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {G} _{n}={\sqrt {n}}(\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)\rightsquigarrow \mathbb {G} ,\quad {\text{in }}\ell ^{\infty }({\mathcal {F}})} In the former case F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Glivenko–Cantelli class, and in the latter case (under the assumption ∀ x , sup f ∈ F | f ( x ) − P f | < ∞ {\displaystyle \forall x,\sup \nolimits _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}\vert f(x)-Pf\vert <\infty } ) the class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Donsker or P-Donsker. A Donsker class is Glivenko–Cantelli in probability by an application of Slutsky's theorem. These statements are true for a single f {\displaystyle f} , by standard LLN, CLT arguments under regularity conditions, and the difficulty in the Empirical Processes comes in because joint statements are being made for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . Intuitively then, the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} cannot be too large, and as it turns out that the geometry of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} plays a very important role. One way of measuring how big the function set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is to use the so-called covering numbers. The covering number N ( ε , F , ‖ ⋅ ‖ ) {\displaystyle N(\varepsilon ,{\mathcal {F}},\|\cdot \|)} is the minimal number of balls { g : ‖ g − f ‖ < ε } {\displaystyle \{g:\|g-f\|<\varepsilon \}} needed to cover the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} (here it is obviously assumed that there is an underlying norm on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ). The entropy is the logarithm of the covering number. Two sufficient conditions are provided below, under which it can be proved that the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is Glivenko–Cantelli or Donsker. A class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Glivenko–Cantelli if it is P-measurable with envelope F such that P ∗ F < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F<\infty } and satisfies: ∀ ε > 0 sup Q N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , F , L 1 ( Q ) ) < ∞ . {\displaystyle \forall \varepsilon >0\quad \sup \nolimits _{Q}N(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q},{\mathcal {F}},L_{1}(Q))<\infty .} The next condition is a version of Dudley's theorem. If F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is a class of functions such that ∫ 0 ∞ sup Q log N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , 2 , F , L 2 ( Q ) ) d ε < ∞ {\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }\sup \nolimits _{Q}{\sqrt {\log N\left(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q,2},{\mathcal {F}},L_{2}(Q)\right)}}d\varepsilon <\infty } then F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Donsker for every probability measure P such that P ∗ F 2 < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F^{2}<\infty } . In the last integral, the notation means ‖ f ‖ Q , 2 = ( ∫ | f | 2 d Q ) 1 2 {\displaystyle \|f\|_{Q,2}=\left(\int |f|^{2}dQ\right)^{\frac {1}{2}}} . === Symmetrization === The majority of the arguments about how to bound the empirical process rely on symmetrization, maximal and concentration inequalities, and chaining. Symmetrization is usually the first step of the proofs, and since it is used in many machine learning proofs on bounding empirical loss functions (including the proof of the VC inequality which is discussed in the next section). It is presented here: Consider the empirical process: f ↦ ( P n − P ) f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( X i ) − P f ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto (\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(X_{i})-Pf)} Turns out that there is a connection between the empirical and the following symmetrized process: f ↦ P n 0 f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ε i f ( X i ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varepsilon _{i}f(X_{i})} The symmetrized process is a Rademacher process, conditionally on the data X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} . Therefore, it is a sub-Gaussian process by Hoeffding's inequality. Lemma (Symmetrization). For every nondecreasing, convex Φ: R → R and class of measurable functions F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , E Φ ( ‖ P n − P ‖ F ) ≤ E Φ ( 2 ‖ P n 0 ‖ F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \Phi (\|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}})\leq \mathbb {E} \Phi \left(2\left\|\mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}\right\|_{\mathcal {F}}\right)} The proof of the Symmetrization lemma relies on introducing independent copies of the original variables X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} (sometimes referred to as a ghost sample) and replacing the inner expectation of the LHS by these copies. After an application of Jensen's inequality different signs could be introduced (hence the name symmetrization) without changing the expectation. The proof can be found below because of its instructive nature. The same proof method can be used to prove the Glivenko–Cantelli theorem. A typical way of proving empirical CLTs, first uses symmetrization to pass the empirical process to P n 0 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}} and then argue conditionally on the data, using the fact that Rademacher processes are simple processes with nice properties. === VC Connection === It turns out that there is a fascinating connection between certain combinatorial properties of the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} and the entropy numbers. Uniform covering numbers can be controlled by the notion of Vapnik–Chervonenkis classes of sets – or shortly VC sets. Consider a collection C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of subsets of the sample space X {\displaystyle
Constellation model
The constellation model is a probabilistic, generative model for category-level object recognition in computer vision. Like other part-based models, the constellation model attempts to represent an object class by a set of N parts under mutual geometric constraints. Because it considers the geometric relationship between different parts, the constellation model differs significantly from appearance-only, or "bag-of-words" representation models, which explicitly disregard the location of image features. The problem of defining a generative model for object recognition is difficult. The task becomes significantly complicated by factors such as background clutter, occlusion, and variations in viewpoint, illumination, and scale. Ideally, we would like the particular representation we choose to be robust to as many of these factors as possible. In category-level recognition, the problem is even more challenging because of the fundamental problem of intra-class variation. Even if two objects belong to the same visual category, their appearances may be significantly different. However, for structured objects such as cars, bicycles, and people, separate instances of objects from the same category are subject to similar geometric constraints. For this reason, particular parts of an object such as the headlights or tires of a car still have consistent appearances and relative positions. The Constellation Model takes advantage of this fact by explicitly modeling the relative location, relative scale, and appearance of these parts for a particular object category. Model parameters are estimated using an unsupervised learning algorithm, meaning that the visual concept of an object class can be extracted from an unlabeled set of training images, even if that set contains "junk" images or instances of objects from multiple categories. It can also account for the absence of model parts due to appearance variability, occlusion, clutter, or detector error. == History == The idea for a "parts and structure" model was originally introduced by Fischler and Elschlager in 1973. This model has since been built upon and extended in many directions. The Constellation Model, as introduced by Dr. Perona and his colleagues, was a probabilistic adaptation of this approach. In the late '90s, Burl et al. revisited the Fischler and Elschlager model for the purpose of face recognition. In their work, Burl et al. used manual selection of constellation parts in training images to construct a statistical model for a set of detectors and the relative locations at which they should be applied. In 2000, Weber et al. made the significant step of training the model using a more unsupervised learning process, which precluded the necessity for tedious hand-labeling of parts. Their algorithm was particularly remarkable because it performed well even on cluttered and occluded image data. Fergus et al. then improved upon this model by making the learning step fully unsupervised, having both shape and appearance learned simultaneously, and accounting explicitly for the relative scale of parts. == The method of Weber and Welling et al. == In the first step, a standard interest point detection method, such as Harris corner detection, is used to generate interest points. Image features generated from the vicinity of these points are then clustered using k-means or another appropriate algorithm. In this process of vector quantization, one can think of the centroids of these clusters as being representative of the appearance of distinctive object parts. Appropriate feature detectors are then trained using these clusters, which can be used to obtain a set of candidate parts from images. As a result of this process, each image can now be represented as a set of parts. Each part has a type, corresponding to one of the aforementioned appearance clusters, as well as a location in the image space. === Basic generative model === Weber & Welling here introduce the concept of foreground and background. Foreground parts correspond to an instance of a target object class, whereas background parts correspond to background clutter or false detections. Let T be the number of different types of parts. The positions of all parts extracted from an image can then be represented in the following "matrix," X o = ( x 11 , x 12 , ⋯ , x 1 N 1 x 21 , x 22 , ⋯ , x 2 N 2 ⋮ x T 1 , x T 2 , ⋯ , x T N T ) {\displaystyle X^{o}={\begin{pmatrix}x_{11},x_{12},{\cdots },x_{1N_{1}}\\x_{21},x_{22},{\cdots },x_{2N_{2}}\\\vdots \\x_{T1},x_{T2},{\cdots },x_{TN_{T}}\end{pmatrix}}} where N i {\displaystyle N_{i}\,} represents the number of parts of type i ∈ { 1 , … , T } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\dots ,T\}} observed in the image. The superscript o indicates that these positions are observable, as opposed to missing. The positions of unobserved object parts can be represented by the vector x m {\displaystyle x^{m}\,} . Suppose that the object will be composed of F {\displaystyle F\,} distinct foreground parts. For notational simplicity, we assume here that F = T {\displaystyle F=T\,} , though the model can be generalized to F > T {\displaystyle F>T\,} . A hypothesis h {\displaystyle h\,} is then defined as a set of indices, with h i = j {\displaystyle h_{i}=j\,} , indicating that point x i j {\displaystyle x_{ij}\,} is a foreground point in X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . The generative probabilistic model is defined through the joint probability density p ( X o , x m , h ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)\,} . === Model details === The rest of this section summarizes the details of Weber & Welling's model for a single component model. The formulas for multiple component models are extensions of those described here. To parametrize the joint probability density, Weber & Welling introduce the auxiliary variables b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , where b {\displaystyle b\,} is a binary vector encoding the presence/absence of parts in detection ( b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1\,} if h i > 0 {\displaystyle h_{i}>0\,} , otherwise b i = 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}=0\,} ), and n {\displaystyle n\,} is a vector where n i {\displaystyle n_{i}\,} denotes the number of background candidates included in the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} row of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . Since b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} are completely determined by h {\displaystyle h\,} and the size of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} , we have p ( X o , x m , h ) = p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)=p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)\,} . By decomposition, p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) = p ( X o , x m | h , n , b ) p ( h | n , b ) p ( n ) p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)=p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n,b)p(h|n,b)p(n)p(b)\,} The probability density over the number of background detections can be modeled by a Poisson distribution, p ( n ) = ∏ i = 1 T 1 n i ! ( M i ) n i e − M i {\displaystyle p(n)=\prod _{i=1}^{T}{\frac {1}{n_{i}!}}(M_{i})^{n_{i}}e^{-M_{i}}} where M i {\displaystyle M_{i}\,} is the average number of background detections of type i {\displaystyle i\,} per image. Depending on the number of parts F {\displaystyle F\,} , the probability p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(b)\,} can be modeled either as an explicit table of length 2 F {\displaystyle 2^{F}\,} , or, if F {\displaystyle F\,} is large, as F {\displaystyle F\,} independent probabilities, each governing the presence of an individual part. The density p ( h | n , b ) {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)\,} is modeled by p ( h | n , b ) = { 1 ∏ f = 1 F N f b f , if h ∈ H ( b , n ) 0 , for other h {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{\textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}}},&{\mbox{if }}h\in H(b,n)\\0,&{\mbox{for other }}h\end{cases}}} where H ( b , n ) {\displaystyle H(b,n)\,} denotes the set of all hypotheses consistent with b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , and N f {\displaystyle N_{f}\,} denotes the total number of detections of parts of type f {\displaystyle f\,} . This expresses the fact that all consistent hypotheses, of which there are ∏ f = 1 F N f b f {\displaystyle \textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}} , are equally likely in the absence of information on part locations. And finally, p ( X o , x m | h , n ) = p f g ( z ) p b g ( x b g ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n)=p_{fg}(z)p_{bg}(x_{bg})\,} where z = ( x o x m ) {\displaystyle z=(x^{o}x^{m})\,} are the coordinates of all foreground detections, observed and missing, and x b g {\displaystyle x_{bg}\,} represents the coordinates of the background detections. Note that foreground detections are assumed to be independent of the background. p f g ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{fg}(z)\,} is modeled as a joint Gaussian with mean μ {\displaystyle \mu \,} and covariance Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma \,} . === Classification === The ultimate objective of this model is to classify images into classes "object present" (class C 1 {\displaystyle C_{1}\,} ) and "object absent" (class C 0 {\displaystyle C_{0}\,} ) given t
Santa Fe Trail problem
The Santa Fe Trail problem is a genetic programming exercise in which artificial ants search for food pellets according to a programmed set of instructions. The layout of food pellets in the Santa Fe Trail problem has become a standard for comparing different genetic programming algorithms and solutions. One method for programming and testing algorithms on the Santa Fe Trail problem is by using the NetLogo application. There is at least one case of a student creating a Lego robotic ant to solve the problem.
Connectionist expert system
Connectionist expert systems are artificial neural network (ANN) based expert systems where the ANN generates inferencing rules e.g., fuzzy-multi layer perceptron where linguistic and natural form of inputs are used. Apart from that, rough set theory may be used for encoding knowledge in the weights better and also genetic algorithms may be used to optimize the search solutions better. Symbolic reasoning methods may also be incorporated (see hybrid intelligent system). (Also see expert system, neural network, clinical decision support system.)
Neural Networks (journal)
Neural Networks is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal and an official journal of the International Neural Network Society, European Neural Network Society, and Japanese Neural Network Society. == History == The journal was established in 1988 and is published by Elsevier. It covers all aspects of research on artificial neural networks. The founding editor-in-chief was Stephen Grossberg (Boston University). The current editors-in-chief are DeLiang Wang (Ohio State University) and Taro Toyoizumi (RIKEN Center for Brain Science). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8.