Hyperscale computing

In computing, hyperscale is the ability of an architecture to scale appropriately as increased demand is added to the system. This typically involves the ability to seamlessly provide and add computing, memory, networking, and storage resources to a given node or set of nodes that make up a larger computing, distributed computing, or grid computing environment. Hyperscale computing is necessary in order to build a robust and scalable cloud, big data, map reduce, or distributed storage system and is often associated with the infrastructure required to run large distributed sites such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM Cloud, Oracle Cloud, or Cloudflare. Companies like Ericsson, AMD, and Intel provide hyperscale infrastructure kits for IT service providers. Companies like Scaleway, Switch, Alibaba, IBM, QTS, Neysa, Digital Realty Trust, Equinix, Oracle, Meta, Amazon Web Services, SAP, Microsoft, Google, and Cloudflare build data centers for hyperscale computing. Such companies are sometimes called "hyperscalers". They are recognized for their massive scale in cloud computing and data management, operating in environments that require extensive infrastructure to accommodate large-scale data processing and storage.

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).

Neocognitron

The neocognitron is a hierarchical, multilayered artificial neural network proposed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1979. It has been used for Japanese handwritten character recognition and other pattern recognition tasks, and served as the inspiration for convolutional neural networks. Previously in 1969, he published a similar architecture, but with hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1975 he improved it to the Cognitron, and in 1979 he improved it to the neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). The neocognitron was inspired by the model proposed by Hubel & Wiesel in 1959. They found two types of cells in the visual primary cortex called simple cell and complex cell, and also proposed a cascading model of these two types of cells for use in pattern recognition tasks. The neocognitron is a natural extension of these cascading models. The neocognitron consists of multiple types of cells, the most important of which are called S-cells and C-cells. The local features are extracted by S-cells, and these features' deformation, such as local shifts, are tolerated by C-cells. Local features in the input are integrated gradually and classified in the higher layers. The idea of local feature integration is found in several other models, such as the Convolutional Neural Network model, the SIFT method, and the HoG method. There are various kinds of neocognitron. For example, some types of neocognitron can detect multiple patterns in the same input by using backward signals to achieve selective attention.

Discrete diffusion model

In machine learning, discrete diffusion models are a class of diffusion models, which themselves are a class of latent variable generative models. Each discrete diffusion model consists of two major components: the forward jump diffusion process, and the reverse jump diffusion process. The goal of diffusion modeling is, given a given dataset and a forward process, to learn a model for the reverse process, such that the reverse process can generate new elements that are distributed similarly as the original dataset. A trained discrete diffusion model can be sampled in many ways, which trades off computational efficiency and sample quality. In general, higher quality data can be obtained, but at the price of higher computational cost. In standard diffusion modeling, the diffusion process takes place over a state space that is continuous space of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , but over a discrete set S {\displaystyle S} . A discrete set is simply a set where one cannot speak of "infinitesimally close" points. Points can be more or less separated from each other, but the separation is always a finite number. This in particular means the standard framework of continuous diffusion does not apply, since it uses gaussian noise, which is continuous. Nevertheless, an analogous theory can be produced. Discrete diffusion is usually used for language modeling. In practice, the state space S {\displaystyle S} is not only discrete, but finite, so this is what we will assume from now on. == Continuous time Markov process == In the case of continuous state space, during the forward discrete diffusion process, at each step t → t + d t {\displaystyle t\to t+dt} , we mix in an infinitesimal amount of gaussian noise d x t = − 1 2 β ( t ) x t d t + β ( t ) d W t {\displaystyle dx_{t}=-{\frac {1}{2}}\beta (t)x_{t}dt+{\sqrt {\beta (t)}}dW_{t}} . This changes the probability density function, by first a convolution with the density of a gaussian, followed by a scaling. In the case of discrete state space, the gaussian noise must be replaced by a noise that takes values over a finite set. For example, if the noise is the uniform distribution over S {\displaystyle S} , then the probability distribution at time t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} satisfies q t + d t ( x ) = ( 1 − d t ) q t ( x ) + d t ( 1 | S | ∑ y ∈ S q t ( y ) ) {\displaystyle q_{t+dt}(x)=(1-dt)q_{t}(x)+dt\left({\frac {1}{|S|}}\sum _{y\in S}q_{t}(y)\right)} More succinctly, ∂ t q t ( x ) = − ( 1 − 1 | S | ) q t ( x ) + ∑ y ∈ S , y ≠ x 1 | S | q t ( y ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(x)=-\left(1-{\frac {1}{|S|}}\right)q_{t}(x)+\sum _{y\in S,y\neq x}{\frac {1}{|S|}}q_{t}(y)} In general, we do not need to convolve with a uniformly distributed noise, but with an arbitrary noise process. That is, we use an arbitrary matrix Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} such that ∂ t q t ( y ) = ∑ x ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(y)=\sum _{x\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)} where Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} is called the rate matrix. Any matrix may be used as a rate matrix if it has non-negative off-diagonals, and each column sums to 0: Q t ( y , x ) ≥ 0 ∀ y ≠ x , ∑ y ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) = 0 ∀ x {\displaystyle Q_{t}(y,x)\geq 0\quad \forall y\neq x,\quad \sum _{y\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)=0\quad \forall x} A continuous time Markov chain (CTMC) is defined by a continuous function Q {\displaystyle Q} that maps any time t ∈ [ 0 , T ) {\displaystyle t\in [0,T)} to a rate matrix Q t {\displaystyle Q_{t}} . Given the function Q {\displaystyle Q} , time-evolution under the CTMC is done as follows: Given state x t {\displaystyle x_{t}} at time t {\displaystyle t} , and given an infinitesimal d t {\displaystyle dt} , the state at t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} is x t + d t {\displaystyle x_{t+dt}} , such that Pr ( x t + d t | x t ) = { 1 + Q t ( x t + d t , x t ) d t if x t + d t = x t Q t ( x t + d t , x t ) d t else {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{t+dt}|x_{t})={\begin{cases}1+Q_{t}(x_{t+dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{if }}x_{t+dt}=x_{t}\\Q_{t}(x_{t+dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{else}}\end{cases}}} This implies that the probability distribution function evolves according to ∂ t q t ( y ) = ∑ x ∈ S Q t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{t}q_{t}(y)=\sum _{x\in S}Q_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)} which is what we previously specified. === Backward process === Similarly to the case of continuous diffusion, in discrete diffusion, there exists a backward diffusion process Q ¯ t {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}} : s ( x , t ) y := q t ( y ) q t ( x ) , Q ¯ t ( y , x ) := { s ( x , t ) y Q t ( x , y ) if y ≠ x − ∑ y : y ≠ x Q ¯ t ( y , x ) if y = x {\displaystyle s(x,t)_{y}:={\frac {q_{t}(y)}{q_{t}(x)}},\quad {\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x):={\begin{cases}s(x,t)_{y}Q_{t}(x,y)&{\text{if }}y\neq x\\-\sum _{y:y\neq x}{\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x)&{\text{if }}y=x\end{cases}}} where s ( x , t ) y {\displaystyle s(x,t)_{y}} should be interpreted as the discrete score or concrete score, since, abusing notation a bit, the score function is ∇ ln ⁡ ρ t ( x ) = 1 d x ( ρ t ( x + d x ) ρ t ( x ) − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla \ln \rho _{t}(x)={\frac {1}{dx}}\left({\frac {\rho _{t}(x+dx)}{\rho _{t}(x)}}-1\right)} . If we picture the distribution q t {\displaystyle q_{t}} as a bunch of point-masses, one per state x ∈ S {\displaystyle x\in S} , then the forward diffusion from time t {\displaystyle t} to t + d t {\displaystyle t+dt} is performed by removing Q t ( x , y ) q t ( y ) d t {\displaystyle Q_{t}(x,y)q_{t}(y)dt} from the mass at y {\displaystyle y} and moving it to the mass at x {\displaystyle x} , for each pair x ≠ y {\displaystyle x\neq y} . Thus, the process is reversed in detail by the CTMC defined by Q ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}} , since Q ¯ t ( y , x ) q t ( x ) = Q t ( x , y ) q t ( y ) {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}(y,x)q_{t}(x)=Q_{t}(x,y)q_{t}(y)} . Given Q ¯ t {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}_{t}} , if we have a way to sample from q t {\displaystyle q_{t}} , then we can sample from q t − d t {\displaystyle q_{t-dt}} by first sampling x t ∼ q t {\displaystyle x_{t}\sim q_{t}} , then sampling x t − d t {\displaystyle x_{t-dt}} according to Pr ( x t − d t | x t ) = { 1 + Q ¯ t ( x t − d t , x t ) d t if x t − d t = x t Q ¯ t ( x t − d t , x t ) d t else {\displaystyle \Pr(x_{t-dt}|x_{t})={\begin{cases}1+{\bar {Q}}_{t}(x_{t-dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{if }}x_{t-dt}=x_{t}\\{\bar {Q}}_{t}(x_{t-dt},x_{t})dt&{\text{else}}\end{cases}}} === Overall plan of score-matching discrete diffusion modeling === Similar to score-matching continuous diffusion, score-matching discrete diffusion is a method to sample an initial distribution. If we have a certain function s θ {\displaystyle s_{\theta }} that approximates the true score function s θ ( x , t ) y ≈ s ( x , t ) y {\displaystyle s_{\theta }(x,t)_{y}\approx s(x,t)_{y}} , then it allows a corresponding Q ¯ θ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}^{\theta }} to be defined in the same way. If we also have a base distribution q base {\displaystyle q_{\text{base}}} such that it is easy to sample from, and approximately equal to the true terminal distribution q base ≈ q T {\displaystyle q_{\text{base}}\approx q_{T}} , then we can perform the backward CTMC with Q ¯ θ {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}^{\theta }} and q T θ := q terminal {\displaystyle q_{T}^{\theta }:=q_{\text{terminal}}} . When both approximations are good, the backward CTMC would give q 0 θ ≈ q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}^{\theta }\approx q_{0}} . This is the idea of score-matching discrete diffusion modeling. If q data {\displaystyle q_{\text{data}}} is sharp, in the sense that for some x , x ′ {\displaystyle x,x'} , we have q data ( x ) ≫ q data ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle q_{\text{data}}(x)\gg q_{\text{data}}(x')} , then the score function would diverge as 1 / t {\displaystyle 1/t} at the t → 0 {\displaystyle t\to 0} limit. To avoid this in practice, it is common to use early stopping, which is to stop the backward process at some time δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} , and sample from q δ θ {\displaystyle q_{\delta }^{\theta }} instead of q 0 θ {\displaystyle q_{0}^{\theta }} . === Tractable forward processes === The theory of CTMC works for any continuous choice of rate matrices Q {\displaystyle Q} . However, most choices are computationally expensive and cannot be used in practice. In the case of continuous diffusion, the gaussian noise is used for the simple reason that the sum of any number of gaussians is still a gaussian. This allows one to sample any x t ∼ ρ t {\displaystyle x_{t}\sim \rho _{t}} by sampling a single x 0 ∼ ρ 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}\sim \rho _{0}} , followed by a single gaussian noise z ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} , and let x t = α ¯ t x 0 + σ t z {\displaystyle x_{t}={\sqrt {{\bar {\alpha }}_{t}}}x_{0}+\sigma _{t}z} , without needing any x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} for any 0 < s < t {\displaystyle 0

Naive Bayes classifier

In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln ⁡ Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln ⁡ p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays

Inductive programming

Inductive programming (IP) is a special area of automatic programming, covering research from artificial intelligence and programming, which addresses learning of typically declarative (logic or functional) and often recursive programs from incomplete specifications, such as input/output examples or constraints. Depending on the programming language used, there are several kinds of inductive programming. Inductive functional programming, which uses functional programming languages such as Lisp or Haskell, and most especially inductive logic programming, which uses logic programming languages such as Prolog and other logical representations such as description logics, have been more prominent, but other (programming) language paradigms have also been used, such as constraint programming or probabilistic programming. == Definition == Inductive programming incorporates all approaches which are concerned with learning programs or algorithms from incomplete (formal) specifications. Possible inputs in an IP system are a set of training inputs and corresponding outputs or an output evaluation function, describing the desired behavior of the intended program, traces or action sequences which describe the process of calculating specific outputs, constraints for the program to be induced concerning its time efficiency or its complexity, various kinds of background knowledge such as standard data types, predefined functions to be used, program schemes or templates describing the data flow of the intended program, heuristics for guiding the search for a solution or other biases. Output of an IP system is a program in some arbitrary programming language containing conditionals and loop or recursive control structures, or any other kind of Turing-complete representation language. In many applications the output program must be correct with respect to the examples and partial specification, and this leads to the consideration of inductive programming as a special area inside automatic programming or program synthesis, usually opposed to 'deductive' program synthesis, where the specification is usually complete. In other cases, inductive programming is seen as a more general area where any declarative programming or representation language can be used and we may even have some degree of error in the examples, as in general machine learning, the more specific area of structure mining or the area of symbolic artificial intelligence. A distinctive feature is the number of examples or partial specification needed. Typically, inductive programming techniques can learn from just a few examples. The diversity of inductive programming usually comes from the applications and the languages that are used: apart from logic programming and functional programming, other programming paradigms and representation languages have been used or suggested in inductive programming, such as functional logic programming, constraint programming, probabilistic programming, abductive logic programming, modal logic, action languages, agent languages and many types of imperative languages. == History == The early works of Plotkin, and his "relative least general generalization (rlgg)", had an enormous impact in inductive logic programming. There were some encouraging results on learning recursive Prolog programs such as quicksort from examples together with suitable background knowledge, for example with GOLEM. However, after initial success, the community got disappointed by limited progress about the induction of recursive programs with ILP less and less focusing on recursive programs and leaning more and more towards a machine learning setting with applications in relational data mining and knowledge discovery. In parallel to work in ILP, Koza proposed genetic programming in the early 1990s as a generate-and-test based approach to learning programs. The idea of genetic programming was further developed into the inductive programming system ADATE and the systematic-search-based system MagicHaskeller. Here again, functional programs are learned from sets of positive examples together with an output evaluation (fitness) function which specifies the desired input/output behavior of the program to be learned. The early work in grammar induction (also known as grammatical inference) is related to inductive programming, as rewriting systems or logic programs can be used to represent production rules. In fact, early works in inductive inference considered grammar induction and Lisp program inference as basically the same problem. The results in terms of learnability were related to classical concepts, such as identification-in-the-limit, as introduced in the seminal work of Gold. More recently, the language learning problem was addressed by the inductive programming community. In the recent years, the classical approaches have been resumed and advanced with great success. Therefore, the synthesis problem has been reformulated on the background of constructor-based term rewriting systems taking into account modern techniques of functional programming, as well as moderate use of search-based strategies and usage of background knowledge as well as automatic invention of subprograms. Many new and successful applications have recently appeared beyond program synthesis, most especially in the area of data manipulation, programming by example and cognitive modelling (see below). Other ideas have also been explored with the common characteristic of using declarative languages for the representation of hypotheses. For instance, the use of higher-order features, schemes or structured distances have been advocated for a better handling of recursive data types and structures; abstraction has also been explored as a more powerful approach to cumulative learning and function invention. One powerful paradigm that has been recently used for the representation of hypotheses in inductive programming (generally in the form of generative models) is probabilistic programming (and related paradigms, such as stochastic logic programs and Bayesian logic programming). == Application areas == The first workshop on Approaches and Applications of Inductive Programming (AAIP) Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine held in conjunction with ICML 2005 identified all applications where "learning of programs or recursive rules are called for, [...] first in the domain of software engineering where structural learning, software assistants and software agents can help to relieve programmers from routine tasks, give programming support for end users, or support of novice programmers and programming tutor systems. Further areas of application are language learning, learning recursive control rules for AI-planning, learning recursive concepts in web-mining or for data-format transformations". Since then, these and many other areas have shown to be successful application niches for inductive programming, such as end-user programming, the related areas of programming by example and programming by demonstration, and intelligent tutoring systems. Other areas where inductive inference has been recently applied are knowledge acquisition, artificial general intelligence, reinforcement learning and theory evaluation, and cognitive science in general. There may also be prospective applications in intelligent agents, games, robotics, personalisation, ambient intelligence and human interfaces.

Quickprop

Quickprop is an iterative method for determining the minimum of the loss function of an artificial neural network, following an algorithm inspired by the Newton's method. Sometimes, the algorithm is classified to the group of the second order learning methods. It follows a quadratic approximation of the previous gradient step and the current gradient, which is expected to be close to the minimum of the loss function, under the assumption that the loss function is locally approximately square, trying to describe it by means of an upwardly open parabola. The minimum is sought in the vertex of the parabola. The procedure requires only local information of the artificial neuron to which it is applied. The k {\displaystyle k} -th approximation step is given by: Δ ( k ) w i j = Δ ( k − 1 ) w i j ( ∇ i j E ( k ) ∇ i j E ( k − 1 ) − ∇ i j E ( k ) ) {\displaystyle \Delta ^{(k)}\,w_{ij}=\Delta ^{(k-1)}\,w_{ij}\left({\frac {\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}{\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k-1)}-\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}}\right)} Where w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the weight of input i {\displaystyle i} of neuron j {\displaystyle j} , and E {\displaystyle E} is the loss function. The Quickprop algorithm is an implementation of the error backpropagation algorithm, but the network can behave chaotically during the learning phase due to large step sizes.