The Dynamic Graphics Project (commonly referred to as DGP) is an interdisciplinary research laboratory at the University of Toronto devoted to projects involving computer graphics, computer vision, human computer interaction, and visualization. The lab began as the computer graphics research group of Department of Computer Science Professor Leslie Mezei in 1967. Mezei invited Bill Buxton, a pioneer of human–computer interaction (HCI) to join. In 1972, Ronald Baecker, another HCI pioneer joined, establishing DGP as the first Canadian university group focused on computer graphics and human-computer interaction. According to csrankings.org, the DGP is the top research institution in the world for the combined subfields of computer graphics, HCI, and visualization. Since then, DGP has hosted many well known faculty and students in computer graphics, computer vision and HCI (e.g., Alain Fournier, Bill Reeves, Jos Stam, Demetri Terzopoulos, Marilyn Tremaine). DGP also occasionally hosts artists in residence (e.g., Oscar-winner Chris Landreth). Many past and current researchers at Autodesk (and before that Alias Wavefront) graduated after working at DGP. DGP is located in the St. George campus of University of Toronto in the Bahen Centre for Information Technology. DGP researchers regularly publish at ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM SIGCHI and ICCV. DGP hosts the Toronto User Experience (TUX) Speaker Series and the Sanders Series Lectures. == Notable alumni == Bill Buxton (MS 1978) James McCrae (PhD 2013) Dimitris Metaxas (PhD 1992) Bill Reeves (MS 1976, Ph.D. 1980) Jos Stam (MS 1991, Ph.D. 1995)
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Moral graph
In graph theory, a moral graph is used to find the equivalent undirected form of a directed acyclic graph. It is a key step of the junction tree algorithm, used in belief propagation on graphical models. The moralized counterpart of a directed acyclic graph is formed by adding edges between all pairs of non-adjacent nodes that have a common child, and then making all edges in the graph undirected. Equivalently, a moral graph of a directed acyclic graph G is an undirected graph in which each node of the original G is now connected to its Markov blanket. The name stems from the fact that, in a moral graph, two nodes that have a common child are required to be married by sharing an edge. Moralization may also be applied to mixed graphs, called in this context "chain graphs". In a chain graph, a connected component of the undirected subgraph is called a chain. Moralization adds an undirected edge between any two vertices that both have outgoing edges to the same chain, and then forgets the orientation of the directed edges of the graph. == Weakly recursively simplicial == A graph is weakly recursively simplicial if it has a simplicial vertex and the subgraph after removing a simplicial vertex and some edges (possibly none) between its neighbours is weakly recursively simplicial. A graph is moral if and only if it is weakly recursively simplicial. A chordal graph (a.k.a., recursive simplicial) is a special case of weakly recursively simplicial when no edge is removed during the elimination process. Therefore, a chordal graph is also moral. But a moral graph is not necessarily chordal. == Recognising moral graphs == Unlike chordal graphs that can be recognised in polynomial time, Verma & Pearl (1993) proved that deciding whether or not a graph is moral is NP-complete.
Swish function
The swish function is a family of mathematical function defined as follows: swish β ( x ) = x sigmoid ( β x ) = x 1 + e − β x . {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=x\operatorname {sigmoid} (\beta x)={\frac {x}{1+e^{-\beta x}}}.} where β {\displaystyle \beta } can be constant (usually set to 1) or trainable and "sigmoid" refers to the logistic function. The swish family was designed to smoothly interpolate between a linear function and the Rectified linear unit (ReLU) function. When considering positive values, Swish is a particular case of doubly parameterized sigmoid shrinkage function defined in . Variants of the swish function include Mish. == Special values == For β = 0, the function is linear: f(x) = x/2. For β = 1, the function is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU). For β = 1.702, the function approximates GeLU. With β → ∞, the function converges to ReLU. Thus, the swish family smoothly interpolates between a linear function and the ReLU function. Since swish β ( x ) = swish 1 ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , all instances of swish have the same shape as the default swish 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}} , zoomed by β {\displaystyle \beta } . One usually sets β > 0 {\displaystyle \beta >0} . When β {\displaystyle \beta } is trainable, this constraint can be enforced by β = e b {\displaystyle \beta =e^{b}} , where b {\displaystyle b} is trainable. swish 1 ( x ) = x 2 + x 2 4 − x 4 48 + x 6 480 + O ( x 8 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)={\frac {x}{2}}+{\frac {x^{2}}{4}}-{\frac {x^{4}}{48}}+{\frac {x^{6}}{480}}+O\left(x^{8}\right)} swish 1 ( x ) = x 2 tanh ( x 2 ) + x 2 swish 1 ( x ) + swish − 1 ( x ) = x tanh ( x 2 ) swish 1 ( x ) − swish − 1 ( x ) = x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)&={\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)+{\frac {x}{2}}\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)+\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)\\\operatorname {swish} _{1}(x)-\operatorname {swish} _{-1}(x)&=x\end{aligned}}} == Derivatives == Because swish β ( x ) = swish 1 ( β x ) / β {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{\beta }(x)=\operatorname {swish} _{1}(\beta x)/\beta } , it suffices to calculate its derivatives for the default case. swish 1 ′ ( x ) = x + sinh ( x ) 4 cosh 2 ( x 2 ) + 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)={\frac {x+\sinh(x)}{4\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}+{\frac {1}{2}}} so swish 1 ′ ( x ) − 1 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}'(x)-{\frac {1}{2}}} is odd. swish 1 ″ ( x ) = 1 − x 2 tanh ( x 2 ) 2 cosh 2 ( x 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)={\frac {1-{\frac {x}{2}}\tanh \left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}{2\cosh ^{2}\left({\frac {x}{2}}\right)}}} so swish 1 ″ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {swish} _{1}''(x)} is even. == History == SiLU was first proposed alongside the GELU in 2016, then again proposed in 2017 as the Sigmoid-weighted Linear Unit (SiL) in reinforcement learning. The SiLU/SiL was then again proposed as the SWISH over a year after its initial discovery, originally proposed without the learnable parameter β, so that β implicitly equaled 1. The swish paper was then updated to propose the activation with the learnable parameter β. In 2017, after performing analysis on ImageNet data, researchers from Google indicated that using this function as an activation function in artificial neural networks improves the performance, compared to ReLU and sigmoid functions. It is believed that one reason for the improvement is that the swish function helps alleviate the vanishing gradient problem during backpropagation.
Operational taxonomic unit
An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy. Nowadays, however, the term is commonly used in a different context and refers to clusters of (uncultivated or unknown) organisms, grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (originally coined as mOTU; molecular OTU). In other words, OTUs are pragmatic proxies for "species" at different taxonomic levels, in the absence of traditional systems of biological classification as are available for macroscopic organisms. For several years, OTUs have been the most commonly used units of diversity, especially when analysing small subunit 16S (for prokaryotes) or 18S rRNA (for eukaryotes) marker gene sequence datasets. == Molecular OTU by clustering of marker gene sequences == In the approach represented by DNA barcoding, a particular locus is chosen to be used as the marker gene for classification. This locus should be universally present in the scope selected, variable enough to be different among close-related species, and be flanked by conservative sequences that allow for easy amplification and detection. There are databases containing sequences for such marker genes from many different species, allowing for comparison. (Sometimes only using one locus does not provide sufficient resolution, so multiple marker genes are used. This is the case for plants, where rbcL+matK is common.) Sequences obtained this way can be clustered according to their similarity to one another, and operational taxonomic units are defined based on the similarity threshold set by the researcher. The exact threshold depends on the taxa in question and the mutational rates of the selected locus in the taxon. 97–99% are commonly used, but "it is now recognized to be somewhat arbitrary as sequence variation within and among species varies across taxa". 100% similarity (fully identical) is also common, also known as single variants. It remains debatable how well this commonly used method recapitulates true microbial species phylogeny or ecology. Although OTUs can be calculated differently when using different algorithms or thresholds, research by Schmidt et al. (2014) demonstrated that 16S-derived microbial OTUs were generally ecologically consistent across habitats and several clustering approaches. The number of OTUs defined may be inflated due to errors in DNA sequencing. === OTU clustering approaches === There are three main approaches to clustering OTUs: De novo, for which the clustering is based on similarities between sequencing reads. Closed-reference, for which the clustering is performed against a reference database of sequences. Open-reference, where clustering is first performed against a reference database of sequences, then any remaining sequences that could not be mapped to the reference are clustered de novo. Using a reference provides taxonomic context for the OTUs found. Alternatively, taxonomic context can be found after the construction of clusters by comparing representative sequences from clusters against a reference database. There are also specialized classifiers for this purpose which are much faster than naive comparison using BLAST. === OTU clustering algorithms === Hierarchical clustering algorithms (HCA): uclust & cd-hit & ESPRIT Bayesian clustering: CROP == Molecular OTU by other methods == In addition to similarity-based grouping, marker gene sequences can be sorted into OTUs using molecular phylogeny, k-mer composition, or hybrid methods combining these methods with similarity. There are also Bayesian tree-less methods and machine learning approaches. Using phylogeny often involves manually assigning terminal clades or single nodes to an OTU, so this is usually only done for refinement. Genome skimming can be used to obtain high-copy DNA without the need to choose marker genes or to design PCR primers for the chosen genes. It can provide fairly good coverage of organelle DNA and repetitive elements such as ribosomal DNA, both of which can be used like marker genes in OTU analysis. Whole-genome sequencing is more expensive and involves the production and processing of more data. By considering the entire genome, many (sometimes over 100) marker genes can be used at the same time, producing highly resolved phylogenies that correctly identify problematic taxa. It is also possible to use entire genomes for OTU assignment. For example, genomes from different bacterial species almost always have an average nucleotide identity lower than 95%, a fact that can be used to define new OTUs (and likely new species).
Lemmy (social network)
Lemmy is free and open-source, social news aggregation software for running self-hosted discussion forums. These hosts, known as "instances", communicate with each other using the ActivityPub protocol. == History == Lemmy was created by the user Dessalines on GitHub in February 2019 and licensed under the Affero General Public License. In a 2020 post, Lemmy's co-creator Dessalines wrote about the origin of the name Lemmy. "It was nameless for a long time, but I wanted to keep with the fediverse tradition of naming projects after animals. I was playing that old-school game Lemmings, and Lemmy (from Motorhead) had passed away that week, and we held a few polls for names, and I went with that." According to the Fediverse statistics sites the-federation.info and fedidb.com, Lemmy had fewer than 100 instances prior to June 2023, but grew to 455 instances with approximately 48,600 monthly active users as of 22 December 2025, with the largest instances being lemmy.world and lemmy.ml, reporting about 14,144 and 1,982 monthly active users, respectively. == Description == Lemmy is made up of a network of individual installations of the Lemmy software that can intercommunicate. This departs from the centralized, monolithic structure of other social media platforms. It has been described as a federated alternative to Reddit. Users on individual instances submit posts with links, text, or pictures to user-created forums for discussion called "communities". Discussion is in the form of threaded comments. Posts and comments can be upvoted or downvoted though the ability to downvote can be disabled by the admins of each instance. Communities are local to each instance, however users may subscribe to communities, create posts and leave comments across instances. Moderation is conducted by the administrators of each instance and moderators of specific communities. Community names begin with c/ in the URL (e.g lemmy.ml/c/simpleliving) and are mentionable using the !community@instance format. On each instance, a front page presents the user with popular posts from several communities. These posts can then be filtered according to origin: posts from the instance the user is on, or from all federated instances. It can also be made to only show posts from communities the user has subscribed to. Lemmy instances are generally supported by donations. == Relations with other social networks == ActivityPub is the protocol used to allow Lemmy instances to operate as a federated social network. It allows users to interact with compatible platforms such as Kbin and Mastodon. In June 2023, following the announcement of Reddit API service changes intended to reduce the use of third-party Reddit clients, community members discussed relocating to Lemmy and other Reddit competitors. Reddit banned a user for promoting switching to Lemmy along with the r/LemmyMigration subreddit as a whole, leading to a Streisand effect after it garnered attention on sites like Hacker News. The ban was reversed a day later. == Third-party software == Prominent third-party Reddit clients Sync and Boost which had shut down due to changes to the pricing of Reddit's API began working on Lemmy clients, with them later relaunching as Sync for Lemmy and Boost for Lemmy. Multiple other apps and browser clients have also been developed.
Distribution learning theory
The distributional learning theory or learning of probability distribution is a framework in computational learning theory. It has been proposed from Michael Kearns, Yishay Mansour, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Robert Schapire and Linda Sellie in 1994 and it was inspired from the PAC-framework introduced by Leslie Valiant. In this framework the input is a number of samples drawn from a distribution that belongs to a specific class of distributions. The goal is to find an efficient algorithm that, based on these samples, determines with high probability the distribution from which the samples have been drawn. Because of its generality, this framework has been used in a large variety of different fields like machine learning, approximation algorithms, applied probability and statistics. This article explains the basic definitions, tools and results in this framework from the theory of computation point of view. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} be the support of the distributions of interest. As in the original work of Kearns et al. if X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} is finite it can be assumed without loss of generality that X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \textstyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} where n {\displaystyle \textstyle n} is the number of bits that have to be used in order to represent any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} . We focus in probability distributions over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . There are two possible representations of a probability distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . probability distribution function (or evaluator) an evaluator E D {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} and outputs a real number E D [ y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]} which denotes the probability that of y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} according to D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} , i.e. E D [ y ] = Pr [ Y = y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]=\Pr[Y=y]} if Y ∼ D {\displaystyle \textstyle Y\sim D} . generator a generator G D {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input a string of truly random bits y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} and outputs G D [ y ] ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}[y]\in X} according to the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Generator can be interpreted as a routine that simulates sampling from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} given a sequence of fair coin tosses. A distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} is called to have a polynomial generator (respectively evaluator) if its generator (respectively evaluator) exists and can be computed in polynomial time. Let C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} a class of distribution over X, that is C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} is a set such that every D ∈ C X {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C_{X}} is a probability distribution with support X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . The C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} can also be written as C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} for simplicity. In order to evaluate learnability, it is necessary to have a way to measure how well an approximated distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} fits the sampled distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . There are several ways to measure the divergence between two distributions. Three common possibilities are Kullback–Leibler divergence Total variation distance of probability measures Kolmogorov distance Total variation and Kolmogorov distance are true metrics, while KL divergence is not (it lacks symmetry). These measures are ordered by convergence strength: closeness in KL divergence implies closeness in total variation (via Pinsker's inequality), which in turn implies closeness in Kolmogorov distance. Therefore, a learnability result proven under KL divergence automatically holds under the weaker measures, but not vice versa. Since certain measures may be more appropriate in specific applications, we will use d ( D , D ′ ) {\displaystyle \textstyle d(D,D')} to denote a selected divergence between the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} and the distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} . The basic input that we use in order to learn a distribution is a number of samples drawn by this distribution. For the computational point of view the assumption is that such a sample is given in a constant amount of time. So it's like having access to an oracle G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} that returns a sample from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Sometimes the interest is, apart from measuring the time complexity, to measure the number of samples that have to be used in order to learn a specific distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} in class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} . This quantity is called sample complexity of the learning algorithm. In order for the problem of distribution learning to be more clear consider the problem of supervised learning as defined in. In this framework of statistical learning theory a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} and the goal is to find a target function f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} that minimizes some loss function, e.g. the square loss function. More formally f = arg min g ∫ V ( y , g ( x ) ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f=\arg \min _{g}\int V(y,g(x))d\rho (x,y)} , where V ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle V(\cdot ,\cdot )} is the loss function, e.g. V ( y , z ) = ( y − z ) 2 {\displaystyle V(y,z)=(y-z)^{2}} and ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} the probability distribution according to which the elements of the training set are sampled. If the conditional probability distribution ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho _{x}(y)} is known then the target function has the closed form f ( x ) = ∫ y y d ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\int _{y}yd\rho _{x}(y)} . So the set S {\displaystyle S} is a set of samples from the probability distribution ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} . Now the goal of distributional learning theory if to find ρ {\displaystyle \rho } given S {\displaystyle S} which can be used to find the target function f {\displaystyle f} . Definition of learnability A class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is called efficiently learnable if for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \epsilon >0} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle 0<\delta \leq 1} given access to G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} for an unknown distribution D ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C} , there exists a polynomial time algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} , called learning algorithm of C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} , that outputs a generator or an evaluator of a distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} such that Pr [ d ( D , D ′ ) ≤ ϵ ] ≥ 1 − δ {\displaystyle \Pr[d(D,D')\leq \epsilon ]\geq 1-\delta } If we know that D ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D'\in C} then A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called proper learning algorithm, otherwise is called improper learning algorithm. In some settings the class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is a class with well known distributions which can be described by a set of parameters. For instance C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} could be the class of all the Gaussian distributions N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle \textstyle N(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} . In this case the algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} should be able to estimate the parameters μ , σ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu ,\sigma } . In this case A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called parameter learning algorithm. Obviously the parameter learning for simple distributions is a very well studied field that is called statistical estimation and there is a very long bibliography on different estimators for different kinds of simple known distributions. But distributions learning theory deals with learning class of distributions that have more complicated description. == First results == In their seminal work, Kearns et al. deal with the case where A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is described in term of a finite polynomial sized circuit and they proved the following for some specific classes of distribution. O R {\displaystyle \textstyle OR} gate distributions for this kind of distributions there is no polynomial-sized evaluator, unless # P ⊆ P / poly {\displaystyle \textstyle \#P\subseteq P/{\text{poly}}} . On the other hand, this class is efficiently learnable with generator. Parity gate distributions this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Mixtures of Hamming Balls this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Probabilistic Finite Automata this class is not efficiently learnable with evaluator under the Noisy Parity Assumption which is an impossibility assumption in the PAC learning fram