For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.
Cognitive philology
Cognitive philology is the science that studies written and oral texts as the product of human mental processes. Studies in cognitive philology compare documentary evidence emerging from textual investigations with results of experimental research, especially in the fields of cognitive and ecological psychology, neurosciences and artificial intelligence. "The point is not the text, but the mind that made it". Cognitive Philology aims to foster communication between literary, textual, philological disciplines on the one hand and researches across the whole range of the cognitive, evolutionary, ecological and human sciences on the other. Cognitive philology: investigates transmission of oral and written text, and categorization processes which lead to classification of knowledge, mostly relying on the information theory; studies how narratives emerge in so called natural conversation and selective process which lead to the rise of literary standards for storytelling, mostly relying on embodied semantics; explores the evolutive and evolutionary role played by rhythm and metre in human ontogenetic and phylogenetic development and the pertinence of the semantic association during processing of cognitive maps; Provides the scientific ground for multimedia critical editions of literary texts. Among the founding thinkers and noteworthy scholars devoted to such investigations are: Alan Richardson: Studies Theory of Mind in early-modern and contemporary literature. Anatole Pierre Fuksas Benoît de Cornulier David Herman: Professor of English at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor of linguistics at Duke University. He is the author of "Universal Grammar and Narrative Form" and the editor of "Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis". Domenico Fiormonte François Recanati Gilles Fauconnier, a professor in Cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego. He was one of the founders of cognitive linguistics in the 1970s through his work on pragmatic scales and mental spaces. His research explores the areas of conceptual integration and compressions of conceptual mappings in terms of the emergent structure in language. Julián Santano Moreno Luca Nobile Manfred Jahn in Germany Mark Turner Paolo Canettieri
Stochastic variance reduction
(Stochastic) variance reduction is an algorithmic approach to minimizing functions that can be decomposed into finite sums. By exploiting the finite sum structure, variance reduction techniques are able to achieve convergence rates that are impossible to achieve with methods that treat the objective as an infinite sum, as in the classical Stochastic approximation setting. Variance reduction approaches are widely used for training machine learning models such as logistic regression and support vector machines as these problems have finite-sum structure and uniform conditioning that make them ideal candidates for variance reduction. == Finite sum objectives == A function f {\displaystyle f} is considered to have finite sum structure if it can be decomposed into a summation or average: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x ) , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x),} where the function value and derivative of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} can be queried independently. Although variance reduction methods can be applied for any positive n {\displaystyle n} and any f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} structure, their favorable theoretical and practical properties arise when n {\displaystyle n} is large compared to the condition number of each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} , and when the f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} have similar (but not necessarily identical) Lipschitz smoothness and strong convexity constants. The finite sum structure should be contrasted with the stochastic approximation setting which deals with functions of the form f ( θ ) = E ξ [ F ( θ , ξ ) ] {\textstyle f(\theta )=\operatorname {E} _{\xi }[F(\theta ,\xi )]} which is the expected value of a function depending on a random variable ξ {\textstyle \xi } . Any finite sum problem can be optimized using a stochastic approximation algorithm by using F ( ⋅ , ξ ) = f ξ {\displaystyle F(\cdot ,\xi )=f_{\xi }} . == Rapid Convergence == Stochastic variance reduced methods without acceleration are able to find a minima of f {\displaystyle f} within accuracy ϵ > {\displaystyle \epsilon >} , i.e. f ( x ) − f ( x ∗ ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle f(x)-f(x_{})\leq \epsilon } in a number of steps of the order: O ( ( L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) . {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\frac {L}{\mu }}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right).} The number of steps depends only logarithmically on the level of accuracy required, in contrast to the stochastic approximation framework, where the number of steps O ( L / ( μ ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}L/(\mu \epsilon ){\bigr )}} required grows proportionally to the accuracy required. Stochastic variance reduction methods converge almost as fast as the gradient descent method's O ( ( L / μ ) log ( 1 / ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O{\bigl (}(L/\mu )\log(1/\epsilon ){\bigr )}} rate, despite using only a stochastic gradient, at a 1 / n {\displaystyle 1/n} lower cost than gradient descent. Accelerated methods in the stochastic variance reduction framework achieve even faster convergence rates, requiring only O ( ( n L μ + n ) log ( 1 ϵ ) ) {\displaystyle O\left(\left({\sqrt {\frac {nL}{\mu }}}+n\right)\log \left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\right)\right)} steps to reach ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } accuracy, potentially n {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}} faster than non-accelerated methods. Lower complexity bounds. for the finite sum class establish that this rate is the fastest possible for smooth strongly convex problems. == Approaches == Variance reduction approaches fall within four main categories: table averaging methods, full-gradient snapshot methods, recursive estimator methods (e.g., SARAH), and dual methods. Each category contains methods designed for dealing with convex, non-smooth, and non-convex problems, each differing in hyper-parameter settings and other algorithmic details. === SAGA === In the SAGA method, the prototypical table averaging approach, a table of size n {\displaystyle n} is maintained that contains the last gradient witnessed for each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} term, which we denote g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} . At each step, an index i {\displaystyle i} is sampled, and a new gradient ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} is computed. The iterate x k {\displaystyle x_{k}} is updated with: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − g i + 1 n ∑ i = 1 n g i ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma \left[\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-g_{i}+{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}g_{i}\right],} and afterwards table entry i {\displaystyle i} is updated with g i = ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle g_{i}=\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} . SAGA is among the most popular of the variance reduction methods due to its simplicity, easily adaptable theory, and excellent performance. It is the successor of the SAG method, improving on its flexibility and performance. === SVRG === The stochastic variance reduced gradient method (SVRG), the prototypical snapshot method, uses a similar update except instead of using the average of a table it instead uses a full-gradient that is reevaluated at a snapshot point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} at regular intervals of m ≥ n {\displaystyle m\geq n} iterations. The update becomes: x k + 1 = x k − γ [ ∇ f i ( x k ) − ∇ f i ( x ~ ) + ∇ f ( x ~ ) ] , {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma [\nabla f_{i}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}})+\nabla f({\tilde {x}})],} This approach requires two stochastic gradient evaluations per step, one to compute ∇ f i ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}(x_{k})} and one to compute ∇ f i ( x ~ ) , {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i}({\tilde {x}}),} where-as table averaging approaches need only one. Despite the high computational cost, SVRG is popular as its simple convergence theory is highly adaptable to new optimization settings. It also has lower storage requirements than tabular averaging approaches, which make it applicable in many settings where tabular methods can not be used. === SARAH === The SARAH (stochastic recursive gradient) method maintains a recursive estimator of the gradient rather than storing a table of past gradients (as in SAGA) or computing periodic full-gradient snapshots (as in SVRG). At the start of an inner loop, a full gradient is computed at a reference point x ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {x}}} : v 0 = ∇ f ( x ~ ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=\nabla f({\tilde {x}})} . For inner iterations, with a sampled index i k {\displaystyle i_{k}} , the gradient estimator and iterate are updated by: v k = ∇ f i k ( x k ) − ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) + v k − 1 , x k + 1 = x k − γ v k . {\displaystyle v_{k}=\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})-\nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})+v_{k-1},\qquad x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\gamma v_{k}.} This recursion requires two component-gradient evaluations per step ∇ f i k ( x k ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k})} and ∇ f i k ( x k − 1 ) {\displaystyle \nabla f_{i_{k}}(x_{k-1})} but does not need to store per-sample gradients, resulting in lower memory cost than table-averaging methods. SARAH admits linear convergence for strongly convex functions and has been extended to more general nonconvex and composite problems. === SDCA === Exploiting the dual representation of the objective leads to another variance reduction approach that is particularly suited to finite-sums where each term has a structure that makes computing the convex conjugate f i ∗ , {\displaystyle f_{i}^{},} or its proximal operator tractable. The standard SDCA method considers finite sums that have additional structure compared to generic finite sum setting: f ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ( x T v i ) + λ 2 ‖ x ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}(x^{T}v_{i})+{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\|x\|^{2},} where each f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} is 1 dimensional and each v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} is a data point associated with f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} . SDCA solves the dual problem: max α ∈ R n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n f i ∗ ( − α i ) − λ 2 ‖ 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}}-{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}f_{i}^{}(-\alpha _{i})-{\frac {\lambda }{2}}\left\|{\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}\right\|^{2},} by a stochastic coordinate ascent procedure, where at each step the objective is optimized with respect to a randomly chosen coordinate α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , leaving all other coordinates the same. An approximate primal solution x {\displaystyle x} can be recovered from the α {\displaystyle \alpha } values: x = 1 λ n ∑ i = 1 n α i v i {\displaystyle x={\frac {1}{\lambda n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}v_{i}} . This method obtains similar theoretical rates of convergence to other stochastic variance reduced methods, while avoiding the need to specify a step-size parameter. It is fast in practice when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is large, but significantly slower than the other approaches when λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is small. == Accelerated approaches == Accelerated variance reduction methods are built upon the standard methods above. The earliest approaches make use of proximal operators t
Ho–Kashyap algorithm
The Ho–Kashyap algorithm is an iterative method in machine learning for finding a linear decision boundary that separates two linearly separable classes. It was developed by Yu-Chi Ho and Rangasami L. Kashyap in 1965, and usually presented as a problem in linear programming. == Setup == Given a training set consisting of samples from two classes, the Ho–Kashyap algorithm seeks to find a weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } and a margin vector b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } such that: Y w = b {\displaystyle \mathbf {Yw} =\mathbf {b} } where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } is the augmented data matrix with samples from both classes (with appropriate sign conventions, e.g., samples from class 2 are negated), w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is the weight vector to be determined, and b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } is a positive margin vector. The algorithm minimizes the criterion function: J ( w , b ) = | | Y w − b | | 2 {\displaystyle J(\mathbf {w} ,\mathbf {b} )=||\mathbf {Yw} -\mathbf {b} ||^{2}} subject to the constraint that b > 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} >\mathbf {0} } (element-wise). Given a problem of linearly separating two classes, we consider a dataset of elements { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(\mathbf {x_{i}} ,y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} where y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} . Linearly separating them by a perceptron is equivalent to finding weight and bias w , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ,b} for a perceptron, such that: [ y 1 x 1 1 ⋮ ⋮ y N x N 1 ] [ w b ] > 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\mathbf {x} _{1}&1\\\vdots &\vdots \\y_{N}\mathbf {x} _{N}&1\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w} \\b\end{bmatrix}}>0} == Algorithm == The idea of the Ho–Kashyap algorithm is as follows: Given any b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , the corresponding w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is known: It is simply w = Y + b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} =\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} } , where Y + {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} ^{+}} denotes the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse of Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } . Therefore, it only remains to find b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } by gradient descent. However, the gradient descent may sometimes decrease some of the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , which may cause some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } to become negative, which is undesirable. Therefore, whenever some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } would have decreased, those coordinates are unchanged instead. As for the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } that would increase, those would increase without issue. Formally, the algorithm is as follows: Initialization: Set b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)} to an arbitrary positive vector, typically b ( 0 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)=\mathbf {1} } (a vector of ones). Set the iteration counter k = 0 {\displaystyle k=0} . Set w ( 0 ) = Y + b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (0)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (0)} Loop until convergence, or until iteration counter exceeds some k m a x {\displaystyle k_{max}} . Error calculation: Compute the error vector: e ( k ) = Y w ( k ) − b ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {Yw} (k)-\mathbf {b} (k)} . Margin update: Update the margin vector: b ( k + 1 ) = b ( k ) + 2 η k ( e ( k ) + | e ( k ) | ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1)=\mathbf {b} (k)+2\eta _{k}(\mathbf {e} (k)+|\mathbf {e} (k)|)} where η k {\displaystyle \eta _{k}} is a positive learning rate parameter, and | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle |\mathbf {e} (k)|} denotes the element-wise absolute value. Weight calculation: Compute the weight vector using the pseudoinverse: w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} . Convergence check: If | | e ( k ) | | ≤ θ {\displaystyle ||\mathbf {e} (k)||\leq \theta } for some predetermined threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } (close to zero), then return b ( k + 1 ) , w ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1),\mathbf {w} (k+1)} . if e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } (all components non-positive), return "Samples not separable.". Return "Algorithm failed to converge in time.". == Properties == If the training data is linearly separable, the algorithm converges to a solution (where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } ) in a finite number of iterations. If the data is not linearly separable, the algorithm may or may not ever reach the point where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } . However, if it does happen that e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } at some iteration, this proves non-separability. The convergence rate depends on the choice of the learning rate parameter ρ {\displaystyle \rho } and the degree of linear separability of the data. == Relationship to other algorithms == Perceptron algorithm: Both seek linear separators. The perceptron updates weights incrementally based on individual misclassified samples, while Ho–Kashyap is a batch method that processes all samples to compute the pseudoinverse and updates based on an overall error vector. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA): LDA assumes underlying Gaussian distributions with equal covariances for the classes and derives the decision boundary from these statistical assumptions. Ho–Kashyap makes no explicit distributional assumptions and instead tries to solve a system of linear inequalities directly. Support vector machines (SVM): For linearly separable data, SVMs aim to find the maximum-margin hyperplane. The Ho–Kashyap algorithm finds a separating hyperplane but not necessarily the one with the maximum margin. If the data is not separable, soft-margin SVMs allow for some misclassifications by optimizing a trade-off between margin size and misclassification penalty, while Ho–Kashyap provides a least-squares solution. == Variants == Modified Ho–Kashyap algorithm changes weight calculation step w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} to w ( k + 1 ) = w ( k ) + η k Y + | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {w} (k)+\eta _{k}\mathbf {Y} ^{+}|\mathbf {e} (k)|} . Kernel Ho–Kashyap algorithm: Applies kernel methods (the "kernel trick") to the Ho–Kashyap framework to enable non-linear classification by implicitly mapping data to a higher-dimensional feature space.
Linear discriminant analysis
Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), canonical variates analysis (CVA), or discriminant function analysis is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics and other fields, to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. The resulting combination may be used as a linear classifier, or, more commonly, for dimensionality reduction before later classification. LDA is closely related to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis, which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements. However, ANOVA uses categorical independent variables and a continuous dependent variable, whereas discriminant analysis has continuous independent variables and a categorical dependent variable (i.e. the class label). Logistic regression and probit regression are more similar to LDA than ANOVA is, as they also explain a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. These other methods are preferable in applications where it is not reasonable to assume that the independent variables have a normal distribution, which is a fundamental assumption of the LDA method. LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data. LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA, in contrast, does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on similarities rather than differences. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made. LDA works when the measurements made on independent variables for each observation are continuous quantities. When dealing with categorical independent variables, the equivalent technique is discriminant correspondence analysis. Discriminant analysis is used when groups are known a priori (unlike in cluster analysis). Each case must have a score on one or more quantitative predictor measures, and a score on a group measure. In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - the act of distributing things into groups, classes or categories of the same type. == History == The original dichotomous discriminant analysis was developed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1936. It is different from an ANOVA or MANOVA, which is used to predict one (ANOVA) or multiple (MANOVA) continuous dependent variables by one or more independent categorical variables. Discriminant function analysis is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership. == LDA for two classes == Consider a set of observations x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (also called features, attributes, variables or measurements) for each sample of an object or event with known class y {\displaystyle y} . This set of samples is called the training set in a supervised learning context. The classification problem is then to find a good predictor for the class y {\displaystyle y} of any sample of the same distribution (not necessarily from the training set) given only an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . LDA approaches the problem by assuming that the conditional probability density functions p ( x → | y = 0 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=0)} and p ( x → | y = 1 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=1)} are both the normal distribution with mean and covariance parameters ( μ → 0 , Σ 0 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{0},\Sigma _{0}\right)} and ( μ → 1 , Σ 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{1},\Sigma _{1}\right)} , respectively. Under this assumption, the Bayes-optimal solution is to predict points as being from the second class if the log of the likelihood ratios is bigger than some threshold T, so that: 1 2 ( x → − μ → 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x → − μ → 0 ) + 1 2 ln | Σ 0 | − 1 2 ( x → − μ → 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x → − μ → 1 ) − 1 2 ln | Σ 1 | > T {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})+{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{0}|-{\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})-{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{1}|\ >\ T} Without any further assumptions, the resulting classifier is referred to as quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). LDA instead makes the additional simplifying homoscedasticity assumption (i.e. that the class covariances are identical, so Σ 0 = Σ 1 = Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0}=\Sigma _{1}=\Sigma } ) and that the covariances have full rank. In this case, several terms cancel: x → T Σ 0 − 1 x → = x → T Σ 1 − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}{\vec {x}}={\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} x → T Σ i − 1 μ → i = μ → i T Σ i − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {\mu }}_{i}={{\vec {\mu }}_{i}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} because both sides are scalar and transpose to each other ( Σ i {\displaystyle \Sigma _{i}} is Hermitian) and the above decision criterion becomes a threshold on the dot product w → T x → > c {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\vec {x}}>c} for some threshold constant c, where w → = Σ − 1 ( μ → 1 − μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}=\Sigma ^{-1}({\vec {\mu }}_{1}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} c = 1 2 w → T ( μ → 1 + μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle c={\frac {1}{2}}\,{\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }({\vec {\mu }}_{1}+{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} This means that the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of this linear combination of the known observations. It is often useful to see this conclusion in geometrical terms: the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of projection of multidimensional-space point x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} (thus, we only consider its direction). In other words, the observation belongs to y {\displaystyle y} if corresponding x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is located on a certain side of a hyperplane perpendicular to w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . The location of the plane is defined by the threshold c {\displaystyle c} . == Assumptions == The assumptions of discriminant analysis are the same as those for MANOVA. The analysis is quite sensitive to outliers and the size of the smallest group must be larger than the number of predictor variables. Multivariate normality: Independent variables are normal for each level of the grouping variable. Homogeneity of variance/covariance (homoscedasticity): Variances among group variables are the same across levels of predictors. Can be tested with Box's M statistic. It has been suggested, however, that linear discriminant analysis be used when covariances are equal, and that quadratic discriminant analysis may be used when covariances are not equal. Independence: Participants are assumed to be randomly sampled, and a participant's score on one variable is assumed to be independent of scores on that variable for all other participants. It has been suggested that discriminant analysis is relatively robust to slight violations of these assumptions, and it has also been shown that discriminant analysis may still be reliable when using dichotomous variables (where multivariate normality is often violated). == Discriminant functions == Discriminant analysis works by creating one or more linear combinations of predictors, creating a new latent variable for each function. These functions are called discriminant functions. The number of functions possible is either N g − 1 {\displaystyle N_{g}-1} where N g {\displaystyle N_{g}} = number of groups, or p {\displaystyle p} (the number of predictors), whichever is smaller. The first function created maximizes the differences between groups on that function. The second function maximizes differences on that function, but also must not be correlated with the previous function. This continues with subsequent functions with the requirement that the new function not be correlated with any of the previous functions. Given group j {\displaystyle j} , with R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} sets of sample space, there is a discriminant rule such that if x ∈ R j {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} _{j}} , then x ∈ j {\displaystyle x\in j} . Discriminant analysis then, finds “good” regions of R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} to minimize classification error, therefore leading to a high percent correct classified in the classification table. Each function is given a discriminant score to determine how well it predicts group placement. Structure Corr
Lucy–Hook coaddition method
The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an image processing technique for combining sub-stepped astronomical image data onto a finer grid. The method allows the option of resolution and contrast enhancement or the choice of a conservative, re-convolved, output. Tests with very deep Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) imaging data of excellent quality show that these methods can be very effective and allow fine-scale features to be studied better than on the unprocessed images. The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an extension of the standard Richardson–Lucy deconvolution iterative restoration method. For many purposes it may be more convenient to combine dithered datasets using the Drizzle method.
Probably approximately correct learning
In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth