Shopping for the best AI logo maker? An AI logo maker is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI logo maker slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
H2O (software)
H2O is an open-source, in-memory, distributed machine learning and predictive analytics platform developed by the company H2O.ai (previously 0xdata). The software uses a distributed architecture for parallel processing on standard hardware. It supports algorithms for large-scale data analysis and model deployment. H2O is primarily used by data scientists and developers for statistical modeling and data-driven decision-making. The platform is designed to handle in-memory computations across a distributed computing environment. It offers implementations for numerous statistical and machine learning algorithms, which are accessible through various programming interfaces. The software is released under the Apache License 2.0. == Functionality and features == H2O provides a suite of supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Its core functions include: Supervised learning: algorithms in the field of statistics, data mining and machine learning such as generalized linear models, random forests, gradient boosting and deep learning are implemented for classification and regression tasks. Unsupervised learning: including K-Means clustering and principal component analysis. Automated machine learning: a features designed to automate the processes of model selection, tuning, and ensemble creation. The software can ingest data from various sources, including the Hadoop Distributed File System, Amazon S3, SQL databases, as well as local file systems. It operates natively on Apache Spark clusters through Sparkling Water. Proponents claim that improved performance is achieved compared to other analysis tools. The software is distributed free of charge, under a business model based on the development of individual applications and support. == Architecture == H2O is primarily written in Java. It uses a distributed architecture that allows the platform to cluster nodes for parallel processing and in-memory storage of data and models. Users interact with the H2O platform through several primary interfaces: Programming language interfaces: APIs are provided for the R and Python programming languages, and various Apache offerings (Apache Hadoop and Spark, as well as Maven). H2O Flow: a graphical web-based interactive computational environment that functions as a notebook interface for data exploration, model building, and scripting. REST-API: allows for integration with other applications and frameworks such as Microsoft Excel or RStudio. With the H2O Machine Learning Integration Nodes, KNIME offers algorithmic workflows. While the algorithm executes, approximate results are displayed, so that users can track the progress and intervene if needed. == History, influences, and extensions == The software project was initiated by the company 0xdata, which later changed its name to H2O.ai. The three Stanford professors Stephen P. Boyd, Robert Tibshirani and Trevor Hastie form a panel that advises H2O on scientific issues. Since its inception, H2O provides open-source machine learning libraries for enterprise use. The core H2O platform is often complemented by offerings from H2O.ai, such as H2O Driverless AI. == Reception == H2O is referenced in peer-reviewed literature regarding automated machine learning (AutoML). The platform has been categorized as a "Leader" and a "Strong Performer" in industry reports by Forrester Research. H2O (the open-source platform) and the associated commercial platform Driverless AI have been recurring winners of InfoWorld's most prestigious awards, including both the Best of Open Source Software ("Bossies") and the Technology of the Year awards.
Project workforce management
Project workforce management is the practice of combining the coordination of all logistic elements of a project through a single software application (or workflow engine). This includes planning and tracking of schedules and mileposts, cost and revenue, resource allocation, as well as overall management of these project elements. Efficiency is improved by eliminating manual processes, like spreadsheet tracking to monitor project progress. It also allows for at-a-glance status updates and ideally integrates with existing legacy applications in order to unify ongoing projects, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and broader organizational goals. There are a lot of logistic elements in a project. Different team members are responsible for managing each element and often, the organisation may have a mechanism to manage some logistic areas as well. By coordinating these various components of project management, workforce management and financials through a single solution, the process of configuring and changing project and workforce details is simplified. == Introduction == A project workforce management system defines project tasks, project positions, and assigns personnel to the project positions. The project tasks and positions are correlated to assign a responsible project position or even multiple positions to complete each project task. Because each project position may be assigned to a specific person, the qualifications and availabilities of that person can be taken into account when determining the assignment. By associating project tasks and project positions, a manager can better control the assignment of the workforce and complete the project more efficiently. When it comes to project workforce management, it is all about managing all the logistic aspects of a project or an organisation through a software application. Usually, this software has a workflow engine defined. Therefore, all the logistic processes take place in the workflow engine. == About == === Technical field === This invention relates to project management systems and methods, more particularly to a software-based system and method for project and workforce management. === Software usage === Due to the software usage, all the project workflow management tasks can be fully automated without leaving many tasks for the project managers. This returns high efficiency to the project management when it comes to project tracking proposes. In addition to different tracking mechanisms, project workforce management software also offer a dashboard for the project team. Through the dashboard, the project team has a glance view of the overall progress of the project elements. Most of the times, project workforce management software can work with the existing legacy software systems such as ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems. This easy integration allows the organisation to use a combination of software systems for management purposes. === Background === Good project management is an important factor for the success of a project. A project may be thought of as a collection of activities and tasks designed to achieve a specific goal of the organisation, with specific performance or quality requirements while meeting any subject time and cost constraints. Project management refers to managing the activities that lead to the successful completion of a project. Furthermore, it focuses on finite deadlines and objectives. A number of tools may be used to assist with this as well as with assessment. Project management may be used when planning personnel resources and capabilities. The project may be linked to the objects in a professional services life cycle and may accompany the objects from the opportunity over quotation, contract, time and expense recording, billing, period-end-activities to the final reporting. Naturally the project gets even more detailed when moving through this cycle. For any given project, several project tasks should be defined. Project tasks describe the activities and phases that have to be performed in the project such as writing of layouts, customising, testing. What is needed is a system that allows project positions to be correlated with project tasks. Project positions describe project roles like project manager, consultant, tester, etc. Project-positions are typically arranged linearly within the project. By correlating project tasks with project positions, the qualifications and availability of personnel assigned to the project positions may be considered. == Benefits of project management == Good project management should: Reduce the chance of a project failing Ensure a minimum level of quality and that results meet requirements and expectations Free up other staff members to get on with their area of work and increase efficiency both on the project and within the business Make things simpler and easier for staff with a single point of contact running the overall project Encourage consistent communications amongst staff and suppliers Keep costs, timeframes and resources to budget == Workflow engine == When it comes to project workforce management, it is all about managing all the logistic aspects of a project or an organisation through a software application. Usually, this software has a workflow engine defined in them. So, all the logistic processes take place in the workflow engine. The regular and most common types of tasks handled by project workforce management software or a similar workflow engine are: === Planning and monitoring project schedules and milestones === Regularly monitoring your project's schedule performance can provide early indications of possible activity-coordination problems, resource conflicts, and possible cost overruns. To monitor schedule performance. Collecting information and evaluating it ensure a project accuracy. The project schedule outlines the intended result of the project and what's required to bring it to completion. In the schedule, we need to include all the resources involved and cost and time constraints through a work breakdown structure (WBS). The WBS outlines all the tasks and breaks them down into specific deliverables. === Tracking the cost and revenue aspects of projects === The importance of tracking actual costs and resource usage in projects depends upon the project situation. Tracking actual costs and resource usage is an essential aspect of the project control function. === Resource utilisation and monitoring === Organisational profitability is directly connected to project management efficiency and optimal resource utilisation. To sum up, organisations that struggle with either or both of these core competencies typically experience cost overruns, schedule delays and unhappy customers. The focus for project management is the analysis of project performance to determine whether a change is needed in the plan for the remaining project activities to achieve the project goals. == Other management aspects of project management == === Project risk management === Risk identification consists of determining which risks are likely to affect the project and documenting the characteristics of each. === Project communication management === Project communication management is about how communication is carried out during the course of the project === Project quality management === It is of no use completing a project within the set time and budget if the final product is of poor quality. The project manager has to ensure that the final product meets the quality expectations of the stakeholders. This is done by good: Quality planning: Identifying what quality standards are relevant to the project and determining how to meet them. Quality assurance: Evaluating overall project performance on a regular basis to provide confidence that the project will satisfy the relevant quality standards. Quality control: Monitoring specific project results to determine if they comply with relevant quality standards and identifying ways to remove causes of poor performance. == Project workforce management vs. traditional management == There are three main differences between Project Workforce Management and traditional project management and workforce management disciplines and solutions: === Workflow-driven === All project and workforce processes are designed, controlled and audited using a built-in graphical workflow engine. Users can design, control and audit the different processes involved in the project. The graphical workflow is quite attractive for the users of the system and allows the users to have a clear idea of the workflow engine. === Organisation and work breakdown structures === Project Workforce Management provides organization and work breakdown structures to create, manage and report on functional and approval hierarchies, and to track information at any level of detail. Users can create, manage, edit and report work breakdown structures. Work breakdown structures have different abstraction
Lai–Robbins lower bound
The Lai–Robbins lower bound gives an asymptotic lower bound on the regret that any uniformly good algorithm must incur in the stochastic multi-armed bandit problem. The original result was proved by Tze Leung Lai and Herbert Robbins in 1985 for parametric exponential families. Later work extended the statement to more general classes of distributions. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The multi-armed bandit problem (MAB) is a sequential game in which the player must trade off exploration (to learn) and exploitation (to earn). The player chooses among K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms) with unknown distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})} . The player is assumed to know a class of distributions D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} such that for every k {\displaystyle k} one has ν k ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{k}\in {\mathcal {D}}} (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} may be the family of Gaussian or Bernoulli distributions). At each round t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} the player selects (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} and observes a reward X t ∼ ν a t {\displaystyle X_{t}\sim \nu _{a_{t}}} . We denote N a ( t ) := ∑ s = 1 t 1 { a s = a } {\displaystyle N_{a}(t):=\sum _{s=1}^{t}\mathbf {1} _{\{a_{s}=a\}}} the number of times arm a {\displaystyle a} has been pulled in the first t {\displaystyle t} rounds, μ ( ν ) := ( μ 1 , … , μ K ) {\displaystyle \mu (\nu ):=(\mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K})} the vector of arm means, where μ k = E X ∼ ν k [ X ] {\displaystyle \mu _{k}=\mathbb {E} _{X\sim \nu _{k}}[X]} , μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}\geq 0} the gap of arm a {\displaystyle a} . An arm a {\displaystyle a} with μ a = μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{a}=\mu ^{}} is called an optimal arm; otherwise it is a suboptimal arm. The goal is to minimize the regret at horizon T {\displaystyle T} , defined by R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] . {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\,\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)].} Intuitively, the regret is the (expected) total loss compared to always playing an optimal arm: regret = ∑ a ( cost of playing a ) × ( times a is played ) . {\displaystyle {\text{regret}}=\sum _{a}\ ({\text{cost of playing }}a)\times ({\text{times }}a{\text{ is played}}).} An MAB algorithm is a (possibly randomized) policy that, at each round t {\displaystyle t} , choose an arm a_t by using the observations received from previous turns. === Intuitive example === Suppose a farmer must choose, each year, one of K {\displaystyle K} seed varieties to plant. Each variety k {\displaystyle k} has an unknown average yield μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} . If the farmer knew the best variety (with mean μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} ) he would plant it every year; in reality he must try varieties to learn which is best. The cumulative regret after T {\displaystyle T} years measures the total expected loss in yield due to imperfect knowledge. Remarks The model above is the stochastic MAB; there also exist adversarial variants. One may consider a fixed-horizon setting (known T {\displaystyle T} ) or an anytime setting (unknown T {\displaystyle T} ). == Lai–Robbins lower bound == The theorem gives the right amount of time we should pull a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} where ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is such that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . Knowning a lower bound on the number of pull of every suboptimal arm gives a lower bound on the regret as only suboptimal arms contribute to the regret. Before stating the formal theorem we need to define what is a consistent algorithm. === Consistency (uniformly good algorithms) === Let D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} be a class of probability distributions and consider K {\displaystyle K} arms with reward distributions ν = ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu =(\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} . An algorithm is said to be consistent (also called uniformly good) on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} if, for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the expected regret R T ( ν ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )} grows subpolynomially: ∀ α > 0 , R T ( ν ) = o ( T α ) as T → ∞ {\displaystyle \forall \alpha >0,\qquad R_{T}(\nu )=o(T^{\alpha })\quad {\text{as }}T\to \infty } This assumption excludes algorithms that perform well on some instances but incur linear regret on others. === Formal lower bound === For any suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} . For a distribution ν a ∈ D {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {D}}} and a threshold x {\displaystyle x} , define K inf ( ν a , x , D ) := inf { KL ( ν a , ν ′ ) : ν ′ ∈ D , μ ′ > x } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},x,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf {\Bigl \{}\operatorname {KL} (\nu _{a},\nu '):\nu '\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mu '>x{\Bigr \}}} where KL ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} (\cdot ,\cdot )} denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Then, for any algorithm consistent on D K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} and for every instance ν ∈ D K {\displaystyle \nu \in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , every suboptimal arm a {\displaystyle a} satisfies E ν [ N a ( T ) ] ≥ ln T K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) + o ( ln T ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{\nu }[N_{a}(T)]\geq {\frac {\ln T}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}+o(\ln T)} Consequently, the regret satisfies R T ( ν ) ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln T + o ( ln T ) {\displaystyle R_{T}(\nu )\geq \left(\sum _{a:\,\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o(\ln T)} The original 1985 paper established this result for exponential families; later work showed that the bound holds under much weaker assumptions on D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . === Intuition === Consistency imposes that, for every ν {\displaystyle \nu } , the number of pulls of an optimal arm must be large. This means that μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is estimated very accurately. The goal is to determine, for a suboptimal arm k {\displaystyle k} , how many samples are needed to be confident, with the appropriate level of confidence, that μ k < μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu _{k}<\mu ^{}} . To do so, we use what is called the most confusing instance: an instance close to ν {\displaystyle \nu } such that arm k {\displaystyle k} is optimal. We define it as ν ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}} such that, for all a ≠ k {\displaystyle a\neq k} , ν ~ a = ν a {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{a}=\nu _{a}} , and ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} is chosen so that μ ~ k > μ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}_{k}>\mu ^{}} . The objective is to determine how many samples of arm k {\displaystyle k} are required to distinguish whether we are in the instance with ν k {\displaystyle \nu _{k}} or with ν ~ k {\displaystyle {\tilde {\nu }}_{k}} in terms of KL {\displaystyle \operatorname {KL} } distance. == Algorithms achieving the Lai–Robbins lower bound == Several algorithms are known to achieve the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound under specific assumptions on the reward distribution class D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . The following list summarizes a non-exhaustive list of algorithms matching the lower bound. == Extension to other problems == === Structured bandit === A more complexe is structured bandit where we know that the mean of each arm is in a set with some restriction. In this case we can prove a smaller lower bound that use the knowledge of this set. === Best arm identification (BAI) === A similar result has been proved for best arm identification, which is the same game except that, instead of minimizing the regret, the goal is to identify the best arm with probability 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } using as few rounds as possible. === Reinforcement Learning (RL) === Similar results have been proved for regret minimization in average-reward reinforcement learning. The order is also ln T {\displaystyle \ln T} , with a constant that depends on the problem.
Literature review
A literature review is an overview of previously published works on a particular topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as books or articles. Either way, a literature review provides the researcher/author and the audiences with general information of an existing knowledge of a particular topic. A good literature review has a proper research question, a proper theoretical framework, and/or a chosen research method. It serves to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and provides context for the reader. In such cases, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the work. Producing a literature review is often part of a graduate and post-graduate requirement, included in the preparation of a thesis, dissertation, or a journal article. Literature reviews are also common in a research proposal or prospectus (the document approved before a student formally begins a dissertation or thesis). A literature review can be a type of a review article. In this sense, it is a scholarly paper that presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources and do not report new or original experimental work. Most often associated with academic-oriented literature, such reviews are found in academic journals and are not to be confused with book reviews, which may also appear in the same publication. Literature reviews are a basis for research in nearly every academic field. == Types == Since the concept of a systematic review was formalized in the 1970s, a basic division among types of reviews is the dichotomy of narrative reviews versus systematic reviews. The main types of narrative reviews are evaluative, exploratory, and instrumental. A fourth type of review of literature (the scientific literature) is the systematic review but it is not called a literature review, which absent further specification, conventionally refers to narrative reviews. A systematic review focuses on a specific research question to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize all high-quality research evidence and arguments relevant to that question. A meta-analysis is typically a systematic review using statistical methods to effectively combine the data used on all selected studies to produce a more reliable result. Torraco (2016) describes an integrative literature review. The purpose of an integrative literature review is to generate new knowledge on a topic through the process of review, critique, and synthesis of the literature under investigation. George et al (2023) offer an extensive overview of review approaches. They also propose a model for selecting an approach by looking at the purpose, object, subject, community, and practices of the review. They describe six different types of review, each with their own unique purposes: Exploratory or scoping reviews focus on breadth as opposed to depth Systematic or integrative reviews integrate empirical studies on a topic Meta-narrative reviews are qualitative and use literature to compare research or practice communities Problematizing or critical reviews propose new perspectives on a concept by association with other literature Meta-analyses and meta-regressions integrate quantitative studies and identify moderators Mixed research syntheses combine other review approaches in the same paper == Process and product == Shields and Rangarajan (2013) distinguish between the process of reviewing the literature and a finished work or product known as a literature review. The process of reviewing the literature is often ongoing and informs many aspects of the empirical research project. The process of reviewing the literature requires different kinds of activities and ways of thinking. Shields and Rangarajan (2013) and Granello (2001) link the activities of doing a literature review with Benjamin Bloom's revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain (ways of thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating). === Use of artificial intelligence in a literature review === Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping traditional literature reviews across various disciplines. Generative pre-trained transformers, such as ChatGPT, are often used by students and academics for review purposes. Since 2023, an increasing number of tools powered by large language models and other artificial intelligence technologies have been developed to assist, automate, or generate literature reviews. Nevertheless, the employment of ChatGPT in academic reviews is problematic due to ChatGPT's propensity to "hallucinate". In response, efforts are being made to mitigate these hallucinations through the integration of plugins. For instance, Rad et al. (2023) used ScholarAI for review in cardiothoracic surgery.
TigerGraph
TigerGraph is a private company headquartered in Redwood City, California. It provides graph database and graph analytics software. == History == TigerGraph was founded in 2012 by programmer Yu, Ruoming, Li, Like and Mingxi, under the name GraphSQL. In September 2017, the company came out of stealth mode under the name TigerGraph with $33 million in funding. It raised an additional $32 million in funding in September 2019 and another $105 million in a series C round in February 2021. Cumulative funding as of March 2021 is $170 million. == Products == TigerGraph's hybrid transactional/analytical processing database and analytics software can scale to hundreds of terabytes of data with trillions of edges, and is used for data intensive applications such as fraud detection, customer data analysis (customer 360), IoT, artificial intelligence and machine learning. It is available using the cloud computing delivery model. The analytics uses C++ based software and a parallel processing engine to process algorithms and queries. It has its own graph query language that is similar to SQL. TigerGraph also provides a software development kit for creating graphs and visual representations. As of Mar 2024, TigerGraph version is up to version 4.2.0 TigerGraph offers free Community Edition for developers, researchers, and educators. It can be obtained from https://dl.tigergraph.com/ == Query Language == GSQL , designed by Mingxi Wu and Alin Deutsch in 2015, is a SQL-like Turing complete query language. GSQL includes additions to make it compliant with the Graph Query Language standard.
Randomized rounding
In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ( | U | ) + O ( log log | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s