Lexalytics

Lexalytics, Inc. provides sentiment and intent analysis to an array of companies using SaaS and cloud based technology. Salience 6, the engine behind Lexalytics, was built as an on-premises, multi-lingual text analysis engine. It is leased to other companies who use it to power filtering and reputation management programs. In July, 2015 Lexalytics acquired Semantria to be used as a cloud option for its technology. In September, 2021 Lexalytics was acquired by CX company InMoment. == History == Lexalytics spun into existence in January 2003 out of a content management startup called Lightspeed. Lightspeed consolidated on America's West Coast. Jeff Catlin, a Lightspeed General Manager, and Mike Marshall, a Lighstpeed Principal Engineer, convinced investors to give them the East Coast company so as to avoid shutdown costs. Catlin and Marshall renamed the operation Lexalytics. Catlin took on the role of chief executive officer with Marshall working as Chief Technology Officer. Lexalytics opted to not accept venture cash. Instead, the company initially shared sales and marketing expenses with U.K. based document management company Infonic. The partner companies soon formed a joint venture in July 2008, which was later dissolved. Since then, Lexalytics has worked with many other companies, like Bottlenose, Salesforce, Thomson Reuters, Oracle and DataSift. Relationships with social media monitoring companies like Datasift tend to find Lexalytics’ Salience engine baked into the product itself. Lexalytics is used similarly to monitor sentiment as it relates to stock trading. In December 2014, Lexalytics announced the latest iteration to its sentiment analysis engine, Salience 6. Earlier that year Lexalytics acquired Semantria in a bid to appeal to a wider variety of business models. Created by former Lexalytics Marketing Director Oleg Rogynskyy, Semantria is a SaaS text mining service offered as an API and Excel based plugin that measures sentiment. The goal of the acquisition, which cost Lexalytics less than US$10 million, was to expand the customer base both within the United States and abroad with multilingual support. The engine that powers Semantria, Salience, is grounded in its deep learning ability. An example of this is its concept matrix, which allows Salience an understanding of concepts and relationship between concepts based on a detailed reading of the entire repository of Wikipedia. This matrix allows Salience to use Wikipedia for automatic categorization. Along with features like the concept matrix, Salience supports 16 international languages. The engine has earned Lexalytics a spot on EContent's “Top 100 Companies in the Digital Content Industry” List for 2014–2015. In September 2018, Lexalytics launched document data extraction market using natural language processing (NLP).

List of Ada software and tools

This is a list of software and programming tools for the Ada programming language, including IDEs, compilers, libraries, verification and debugging tools, numerical and scientific computing libraries, and related projects. == Compilers == GNAT — GCC Ada compiler and toolchain, maintained by AdaCore AdaCore GNAT Pro — commercial Ada compiler with advanced tooling for high-integrity and real-time systems Green Hills compiler for Ada — Ada compiler for embedded and safety-critical systems ObjectAda — Ada development environment for safety-critical and embedded systems == Integrated development environments (IDEs) and editors == GNAT Studio — IDE developed by AdaCore Emacs — supports Ada editing with Ada mode and syntax checking Eclipse — supports Ada through GNATbench plugin Visual Studio Code — Ada support via Ada Language Server extensions == Libraries and frameworks == See also: Ada Libraries on Wikibooks Ada.Calendar — date and time library Ada Web Services (AWS) — support for RESTful and SOAP web services Ada.Text_IO — standard library for text input/output Florist (POSIX Ada binding) – open-source implementation of the POSIX Ada bindings GNAT – Ada compiler part of GCC, which also provides an extensive runtime and library package hierarchy. GtkAda – Ada bindings for the GTK+ graphical user interface toolkit Matreshka – multipurpose Ada framework supporting Unicode, XML, JSON, and more. XML/Ada – XML and Unicode processing library == Real-time and embedded systems == Ada tasking — built-in concurrency support with tasks, protected objects, and rendezvous. Ada.Real_Time — real-time clocks, delays, and scheduling. ARINC 653 Ada profiles — for avionics real-time applications OpenMP Ada bindings — parallel programming for multi-core embedded systems Ravenscar profile — subset of Ada tasking for real-time and deterministic execution == Numerical and scientific computing == Ada.Numerics — libraries for numerical methods, linear algebra, and mathematical functions. SPARK math libraries — formal-methods-compliant numerical routines == Verification, debugging, and analysis == GNATprove — formal verification and static analysis tool for Ada and SPARK GNATstack — runtime stack analysis and checking GNATcoverage — code coverage measurement for Ada projects AdaControl — style checking and metrics for Ada == Testing frameworks == AUnit — unit testing framework for Ada GNATtest — automated testing framework for Ada == Documentation and code generation == GNATdoc — generates HTML documentation from Ada source code

Rule-based machine learning

Rule-based machine learning (RBML) is a term in computer science intended to encompass any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves 'rules' to store, manipulate or apply. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learner is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, artificial immune systems, and any other method that relies on a set of rules, each covering contextual knowledge. While rule-based machine learning is conceptually a type of rule-based system, it is distinct from traditional rule-based systems, which are often hand-crafted, and other rule-based decision makers. This is because rule-based machine learning applies some form of learning algorithm such as Rough sets theory to identify and minimise the set of features and to automatically identify useful rules, rather than a human needing to apply prior domain knowledge to manually construct rules and curate a rule set. == Rules == Rules typically take the form of an '{IF:THEN} expression', (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'result'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign}). An individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Therefore rule-based machine learning methods typically comprise a set of rules, or knowledge base, that collectively make up the prediction model usually known as decision algorithm. Rules can also be interpreted in various ways depending on the domain knowledge, data types(discrete or continuous) and in combinations. == RIPPER == Repeated incremental pruning to produce error reduction (RIPPER) is a propositional rule learner proposed by William W. Cohen as an optimized version of IREP.

Mathematics of neural networks in machine learning

An artificial neural network (ANN) or neural network combines biological principles with advanced statistics to solve problems in domains such as pattern recognition and game-play. ANNs adopt the basic model of neuron analogues connected to each other in a variety of ways. == Structure == === Neuron === A neuron with label j {\displaystyle j} receiving an input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} from predecessor neurons consists of the following components: an activation a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , the neuron's state, depending on a discrete time parameter, an optional threshold θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} , which stays fixed unless changed by learning, an activation function f {\displaystyle f} that computes the new activation at a given time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} from a j ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{j}(t)} , θ j {\displaystyle \theta _{j}} and the net input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} giving rise to the relation a j ( t + 1 ) = f ( a j ( t ) , p j ( t ) , θ j ) , {\displaystyle a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} and an output function f out {\displaystyle f_{\text{out}}} computing the output from the activation o j ( t ) = f out ( a j ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle o_{j}(t)=f_{\text{out}}(a_{j}(t)).} Often the output function is simply the identity function. An input neuron has no predecessor but serves as input interface for the whole network. Similarly an output neuron has no successor and thus serves as output interface of the whole network. === Propagation function === The propagation function computes the input p j ( t ) {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)} to the neuron j {\displaystyle j} from the outputs o i ( t ) {\displaystyle o_{i}(t)} and typically has the form p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j . {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}.} === Bias === A bias term can be added, changing the form to the following: p j ( t ) = ∑ i o i ( t ) w i j + w 0 j , {\displaystyle p_{j}(t)=\sum _{i}o_{i}(t)w_{ij}+w_{0j},} where w 0 j {\displaystyle w_{0j}} is a bias. == Neural networks as functions == Neural network models can be viewed as defining a function that takes an input (observation) and produces an output (decision) f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} or a distribution over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} or both X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} and Y {\displaystyle \textstyle Y} . Sometimes models are intimately associated with a particular learning rule. A common use of the phrase "ANN model" is really the definition of a class of such functions (where members of the class are obtained by varying parameters, connection weights, or specifics of the architecture such as the number of neurons, number of layers or their connectivity). Mathematically, a neuron's network function f ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)} is defined as a composition of other functions g i ( x ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}(x)} , that can further be decomposed into other functions. This can be conveniently represented as a network structure, with arrows depicting the dependencies between functions. A widely used type of composition is the nonlinear weighted sum, where f ( x ) = K ( ∑ i w i g i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \textstyle f(x)=K\left(\sum _{i}w_{i}g_{i}(x)\right)} , where K {\displaystyle \textstyle K} (commonly referred to as the activation function) is some predefined function, such as the hyperbolic tangent, sigmoid function, softmax function, or rectifier function. The important characteristic of the activation function is that it provides a smooth transition as input values change, i.e. a small change in input produces a small change in output. The following refers to a collection of functions g i {\displaystyle \textstyle g_{i}} as a vector g = ( g 1 , g 2 , … , g n ) {\displaystyle \textstyle g=(g_{1},g_{2},\ldots ,g_{n})} . This figure depicts such a decomposition of f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} , with dependencies between variables indicated by arrows. These can be interpreted in two ways. The first view is the functional view: the input x {\displaystyle \textstyle x} is transformed into a 3-dimensional vector h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} , which is then transformed into a 2-dimensional vector g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} , which is finally transformed into f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of optimization. The second view is the probabilistic view: the random variable F = f ( G ) {\displaystyle \textstyle F=f(G)} depends upon the random variable G = g ( H ) {\displaystyle \textstyle G=g(H)} , which depends upon H = h ( X ) {\displaystyle \textstyle H=h(X)} , which depends upon the random variable X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . This view is most commonly encountered in the context of graphical models. The two views are largely equivalent. In either case, for this particular architecture, the components of individual layers are independent of each other (e.g., the components of g {\displaystyle \textstyle g} are independent of each other given their input h {\displaystyle \textstyle h} ). This naturally enables a degree of parallelism in the implementation. Networks such as the previous one are commonly called feedforward, because their graph is a directed acyclic graph. Networks with cycles are commonly called recurrent. Such networks are commonly depicted in the manner shown at the top of the figure, where f {\displaystyle \textstyle f} is shown as dependent upon itself. However, an implied temporal dependence is not shown. == Backpropagation == Backpropagation training algorithms fall into three categories: steepest descent (with variable learning rate and momentum, resilient backpropagation); quasi-Newton (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno, one step secant); Levenberg–Marquardt and conjugate gradient (Fletcher–Reeves update, Polak–Ribiére update, Powell–Beale restart, scaled conjugate gradient). === Algorithm === Let N {\displaystyle N} be a network with e {\displaystyle e} connections, m {\displaystyle m} inputs and n {\displaystyle n} outputs. Below, x 1 , x 2 , … {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots } denote vectors in R m {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , y 1 , y 2 , … {\displaystyle y_{1},y_{2},\dots } vectors in R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , and w 0 , w 1 , w 2 , … {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},w_{2},\ldots } vectors in R e {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{e}} . These are called inputs, outputs and weights, respectively. The network corresponds to a function y = f N ( w , x ) {\displaystyle y=f_{N}(w,x)} which, given a weight w {\displaystyle w} , maps an input x {\displaystyle x} to an output y {\displaystyle y} . In supervised learning, a sequence of training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x p , y p ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{p},y_{p})} produces a sequence of weights w 0 , w 1 , … , w p {\displaystyle w_{0},w_{1},\dots ,w_{p}} starting from some initial weight w 0 {\displaystyle w_{0}} , usually chosen at random. These weights are computed in turn: first compute w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} using only ( x i , y i , w i − 1 ) {\displaystyle (x_{i},y_{i},w_{i-1})} for i = 1 , … , p {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,p} . The output of the algorithm is then w p {\displaystyle w_{p}} , giving a new function x ↦ f N ( w p , x ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto f_{N}(w_{p},x)} . The computation is the same in each step, hence only the case i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} is described. w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} is calculated from ( x 1 , y 1 , w 0 ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1},w_{0})} by considering a variable weight w {\displaystyle w} and applying gradient descent to the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x 1 ) , y 1 ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x_{1}),y_{1})} to find a local minimum, starting at w = w 0 {\displaystyle w=w_{0}} . This makes w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} the minimizing weight found by gradient descent. == Learning pseudocode == To implement the algorithm above, explicit formulas are required for the gradient of the function w ↦ E ( f N ( w , x ) , y ) {\displaystyle w\mapsto E(f_{N}(w,x),y)} where the function is E ( y , y ′ ) = | y − y ′ | 2 {\displaystyle E(y,y')=|y-y'|^{2}} . The learning algorithm can be divided into two phases: propagation and weight update. === Propagation === Propagation involves the following steps: Propagation forward through the network to generate the output value(s) Calculation of the cost (error term) Propagation of the output activations back through the network using the training pattern target to generate the deltas (the difference between the targeted and actual output values) of all output and hidden neurons. === Weight update === For each weight: Multiply the weight's output delta and input activation to find the gradient of the weight. Subtract the ratio (percentage) of the weight's gradient from the weight. The learning rate is the ratio (percentage) that influences the speed and quality of learning. The greater the ratio, the faster the neuron trains, but the lower the ratio, the more accurat

Quadratic classifier

In statistics, a quadratic classifier is a statistical classifier that uses a quadratic decision surface to separate measurements of two or more classes of objects or events. It is a more general version of the linear classifier. == The classification problem == Statistical classification considers a set of vectors of observations x of an object or event, each of which has a known type y. This set is referred to as the training set. The problem is then to determine, for a given new observation vector, what the best class should be. For a quadratic classifier, the correct solution is assumed to be quadratic in the measurements, so y will be decided based on x T A x + b T x + c {\displaystyle \mathbf {x^{T}Ax} +\mathbf {b^{T}x} +c} In the special case where each observation consists of two measurements, this means that the surfaces separating the classes will be conic sections (i.e., either a line, a circle or ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola). In this sense, we can state that a quadratic model is a generalization of the linear model, and its use is justified by the desire to extend the classifier's ability to represent more complex separating surfaces. == Quadratic discriminant analysis == Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) is closely related to linear discriminant analysis (LDA), where it is assumed that the measurements from each class are normally distributed. Unlike LDA however, in QDA there is no assumption that the covariance of each of the classes is identical. When the normality assumption is true, the best possible test for the hypothesis that a given measurement is from a given class is the likelihood ratio test. Suppose there are only two groups, with means μ 0 , μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{0},\mu _{1}} and covariance matrices Σ 0 , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0},\Sigma _{1}} corresponding to y = 0 {\displaystyle y=0} and y = 1 {\displaystyle y=1} respectively. Then the likelihood ratio is given by Likelihood ratio = | 2 π Σ 1 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x − μ 1 ) ) | 2 π Σ 0 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x − μ 0 ) ) < t {\displaystyle {\text{Likelihood ratio}}={\frac {{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{1}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})^{T}\Sigma _{1}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})\right)}{{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{0}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})^{T}\Sigma _{0}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})\right)}}

Landweber iteration

The Landweber iteration or Landweber algorithm is an algorithm to solve ill-posed linear inverse problems, and it has been extended to solve non-linear problems that involve constraints. The method was first proposed in the 1950s by Louis Landweber, and it can be now viewed as a special case of many other more general methods. == Basic algorithm == The original Landweber algorithm attempts to recover a signal x from (noisy) measurements y. The linear version assumes that y = A x {\displaystyle y=Ax} for a linear operator A. When the problem is in finite dimensions, A is just a matrix. When A is nonsingular, then an explicit solution is x = A − 1 y {\displaystyle x=A^{-1}y} . However, if A is ill-conditioned, the explicit solution is a poor choice since it is sensitive to any noise in the data y. If A is singular, this explicit solution doesn't even exist. The Landweber algorithm is an attempt to regularize the problem, and is one of the alternatives to Tikhonov regularization. We may view the Landweber algorithm as solving: min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} using an iterative method. The algorithm is given by the update x k + 1 = x k − ω A ∗ ( A x k − y ) . {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega A^{}(Ax_{k}-y).} where the relaxation factor ω {\displaystyle \omega } satisfies 0 < ω < 2 / σ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0<\omega <2/\sigma _{1}^{2}} . Here σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} is the largest singular value of A {\displaystyle A} . If we write f ( x ) = ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle f(x)=\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} , then the update can be written in terms of the gradient x k + 1 = x k − ω ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega \nabla f(x_{k})} and hence the algorithm is a special case of gradient descent. For ill-posed problems, the iterative method needs to be stopped at a suitable iteration index, because it semi-converges. This means that the iterates approach a regularized solution during the first iterations, but become unstable in further iterations. The reciprocal of the iteration index 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} acts as a regularization parameter. A suitable parameter is found, when the mismatch ‖ A x k − y ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|Ax_{k}-y\|_{2}^{2}} approaches the noise level. Using the Landweber iteration as a regularization algorithm has been discussed in the literature. == Nonlinear extension == In general, the updates generated by x k + 1 = x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k})} will generate a sequence f ( x k ) {\displaystyle f(x_{k})} that converges to a minimizer of f whenever f is convex and the stepsize τ {\displaystyle \tau } is chosen such that 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ ∇ f ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|\nabla f\|^{2})} where ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} is the spectral norm. Since this is special type of gradient descent, there currently is not much benefit to analyzing it on its own as the nonlinear Landweber, but such analysis was performed historically by many communities not aware of unifying frameworks. The nonlinear Landweber problem has been studied in many papers in many communities; see, for example. == Extension to constrained problems == If f is a convex function and C is a convex set, then the problem min x ∈ C f ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in C}f(x)} can be solved by the constrained, nonlinear Landweber iteration, given by: x k + 1 = P C ( x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}={\mathcal {P}}_{C}(x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k}))} where P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is the projection onto the set C. Convergence is guaranteed when 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ A ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|A\|^{2})} . This is again a special case of projected gradient descent (which is a special case of the forward–backward algorithm) as discussed in. == Applications == Since the method has been around since the 1950s, it has been adopted and rediscovered by many scientific communities, especially those studying ill-posed problems. In X-ray computed tomography it is called simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT). It has also been used in the computer vision community and the signal restoration community. It is also used in image processing, since many image problems, such as deconvolution, are ill-posed. Variants of this method have been used also in sparse approximation problems and compressed sensing settings.

Correlation clustering

Clustering is the problem of partitioning data points into groups based on similarity or dissimilarity. Correlation clustering is a clustering framework in which a set of objects is partitioned into clusters based on pairwise similarity and dissimilarity information, without requiring the number of clusters to be specified in advance. == Description of the problem == In machine learning, correlation clustering (also known as cluster editing) considers settings in which pairwise similarity or dissimilarity relationships between objects are known. A standard formulation models the input as an unweighted complete graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} , where each edge is labeled either + {\displaystyle +} or − {\displaystyle -} (that is, the graph is a signed graph), indicating whether the corresponding endpoints are similar or dissimilar. The goal is to find a clustering (that is, a partition of V {\displaystyle V} ) that either maximizes the number of agreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster and negative edges whose endpoints lie in different clusters—or minimizes the number of disagreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints are separated and negative edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster. Unlike other clustering methods such as k-means, correlation clustering does not require choosing the number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} in advance. It is not always possible to find a clustering with zero disagreements. For example, consider a triangle graph containing two positive edges and one negative edge. In this case, every clustering incurs at least one disagreement. Such configurations are referred to in the literature as bad triangles. From a computational perspective, optimizing the correlation clustering objective is challenging. The (decision version of the) problem is NP-complete. A large body of subsequent work has developed approximation algorithms for correlation clustering under various assumptions, including complete or general graphs and unweighted or weighted graphs, for both minimization and maximization objectives. This problem is considered one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to address it. The problem has also been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. A comprehensive literature review of early correlation clustering research is provided by Wahid and Hassini. == Formal Definitions == Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and edges E {\displaystyle E} . A clustering of G {\displaystyle G} is a partition of its node set Π = { π 1 , … , π k } {\displaystyle \Pi =\{\pi _{1},\dots ,\pi _{k}\}} with V = π 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ π k {\displaystyle V=\pi _{1}\cup \dots \cup \pi _{k}} and π i ∩ π j = ∅ {\displaystyle \pi _{i}\cap \pi _{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . For a given clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } , let δ ( Π ) = { { u , v } ∈ E ∣ { u , v } ⊈ π ∀ π ∈ Π } {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )=\{\{u,v\}\in E\mid \{u,v\}\not \subseteq \pi \;\forall \pi \in \Pi \}} denote the subset of edges of G {\displaystyle G} whose endpoints are in different subsets of the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Now, let w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} be a function that assigns a non-negative weight to each edge of the graph and let E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} be a partition of the edges into attractive ( E + {\displaystyle E^{+}} ) and repulsive ( E − {\displaystyle E^{-}} ) edges; that is, the edges are signed. The minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem is the following optimization problem: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∩ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∖ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that disagree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Similarly to the minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem, the maximum agreement correlation clustering problem is defined as maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∖ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∩ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that agree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Instead of formulating the correlation clustering problem in terms of non-negative edge weights and a partition of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges the problem is also formulated in terms of positive and negative edge costs without partitioning the set of edges explicitly. For given weights w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} and a given partition E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges, the edge costs can be defined by c e = { w e if e ∈ E + − w e if e ∈ E − {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}c_{e}={\begin{cases}\;\;w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{+}\\-w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{-}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} for all e ∈ E {\displaystyle e\in E} . An edge whose endpoints are in different clusters is said to be cut. The set δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )} of all edges that are cut is often called a multicut of G {\displaystyle G} . The minimum cost multicut problem is the problem of finding a clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } of G {\displaystyle G} such that the sum of the costs of the edges whose endpoints are in different clusters is minimal: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Similar to the minimum cost multicut problem, coalition structure generation in weighted graph games is the problem of finding a clustering such that the sum of the costs of the edges that are not cut is maximal: maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E ∖ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E\setminus \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} This formulation is also known as the clique partitioning problem. It can be shown that all four problems that are formulated above are equivalent. This means that a clustering that is optimal with respect to any of the four objectives is optimal for all of the four objectives. == Algorithms == If the graph admits a clustering with zero disagreements, then deleting all negative edges and computing the connected components of the remaining graph yields an optimal clustering. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a clustering was given by Davis: no cycle in the graph may contain exactly one negative edge. Bansal et al. discuss the NP-completeness proof and also present both a constant factor approximation algorithm and polynomial-time approximation scheme to find the clusters in this setting. Ailon et al. propose a randomized 3-approximation algorithm for the same problem. CC-Pivot(G=(V,E+,E−)) Pick random pivot i ∈ V Set C = { i } {\displaystyle C=\{i\}} , V'=Ø For all j ∈ V, j ≠ i; If (i,j) ∈ E+ then Add j to C Else (If (i,j) ∈ E−) Add j to V' Let G' be the subgraph induced by V' Return clustering C,CC-Pivot(G') The authors show that the above algorithm is a 3-approximation algorithm for correlation clustering. The best polynomial-time approximation algorithm known at the moment for this problem achieves a ~2.06 approximation by rounding a linear program, as shown by Chawla, Makarychev, Schramm, and Yaroslavtsev. Karpinski and Schudy proved existence of a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for that problem on complete graphs and fixed number of clusters. == Optimal number of clusters == In 2011, it was shown by Bagon and Galun that the optimization of the correlation clustering functional is closely related to well known discrete optimization methods. In their work they proposed a probabilistic analysis of the underlying implicit model that allows the correlation clustering functional to estimate the