Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.

CodeCheck

CodeCheck is a mobile app that provides consumers with information about the ingredients in cosmetic products, as well as the ingredients and nutritional values of food. Users can access this information by scanning the product’s barcode with a smartphone or by using a text-based search. The app is available for iOS and Android devices in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands. == History == CodeCheck was founded in 2010 as an association, online database, and app by Roman Bleichenbacher, who was then a student in Zurich. A website of the same name had already been launched in 2002, where users could enter information about ingredients, nutritional values, and manufacturers of products. The first round of financing took place in July 2014 and raised over 1.1 million Swiss francs, which coincided with the founding of CodeCheck AG. Investors included Doodle founders Myke Näf and Paul E. Sevinç. The company subsequently expanded to Austria and Germany. In the same year, Boris Manhart became CEO. CodeCheck GmbH was established in Berlin in 2016. The app became available in the United States in 2017 and in the United Kingdom in November 2019. In 2020, it was also launched in the Netherlands. Following insolvency proceedings, the app has been owned by Producto Check GmbH since 2022. == Functions == The app can be used to scan the barcode of food and cosmetic products. It then displays information about ingredients, nutritional values, manufacturers and certification labels. For many years, users were able to enter and edit product information themselves and indicate advantages and disadvantages of individual products. Since 2020, the app has placed greater emphasis on machine text recognition. The collected data is combined with substance ratings using an algorithm. These ratings are based on scientific studies and expert assessments, including those from the Consumer Advice Centre in Hamburg, Greenpeace, the WWF and the German Association for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND e. V.), and cannot be modified by users or manufacturers. The app also provides information on the sugar and fat content of food products. In addition, it indicates whether a product contains hormone-active substances, microplastics, palm oil, animal-derived ingredients, lactose or gluten. Since 2020, the app has displayed a climate score for food products in cooperation with the Eaternity Institute. == Financing == CodeCheck is primarily financed through native advertising and banner ads. Since 2018, the company has also offered analysis services and survey tools directly to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers. In addition, access to the API is available, enabling other companies to use the product database. With the introduction of a subscription model in 2019, the CodeCheck app can be used ad-free and in offline mode. Since 2021, CodeCheck has also offered its own “Green Label” certification for manufacturers. Products are certified if at least 90 percent of their ingredients are classified as harmless. == Awards == In May 2015, the app topped the download charts for the first time, reaching 2.3 million installations. By September 2019, the app had once again reached the top of the German app charts, surpassing five million downloads.

Margin classifier

In machine learning (ML), a margin classifier is a type of classification model which is able to give an associated distance from the decision boundary for each data sample. For instance, if a linear classifier is used, the distance (typically Euclidean, though others may be used) of a sample from the separating hyperplane is the margin of that sample. The notion of margins is important in several ML classification algorithms, as it can be used to bound the generalization error of these classifiers. These bounds are frequently shown using the VC dimension. The generalization error bound in boosting algorithms and support vector machines is particularly prominent. == Margin for boosting algorithms == The margin for an iterative boosting algorithm given a dataset with two classes can be defined as follows: the classifier is given a sample pair ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , where x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in X} is a domain space and y ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} is the sample's label. The algorithm then selects a classifier h j ∈ C {\displaystyle h_{j}\in C} at each iteration j {\displaystyle j} where C {\displaystyle C} is a space of possible classifiers that predict real values. This hypothesis is then weighted by α j ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}\in R} as selected by the boosting algorithm. At iteration t {\displaystyle t} , the margin of a sample x {\displaystyle x} can thus be defined as y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | . {\displaystyle {\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}.} By this definition, the margin is positive if the sample is labeled correctly, or negative if the sample is labeled incorrectly. This definition may be modified and is not the only way to define the margin for boosting algorithms. However, there are reasons why this definition may be appealing. == Examples of margin-based algorithms == Many classifiers can give an associated margin for each sample. However, only some classifiers utilize information of the margin while learning from a dataset. Many boosting algorithms rely on the notion of a margin to assign weight to samples. If a convex loss is utilized (as in AdaBoost or LogitBoost, for instance) then a sample with a higher margin will receive less (or equal) weight than a sample with a lower margin. This leads the boosting algorithm to focus weight on low-margin samples. In non-convex algorithms (e.g., BrownBoost), the margin still dictates the weighting of a sample, though the weighting is non-monotone with respect to the margin. == Generalization error bounds == One theoretical motivation behind margin classifiers is that their generalization error may be bound by the algorithm parameters and a margin term. An example of such a bound is for the AdaBoost algorithm. Let S {\displaystyle S} be a set of m {\displaystyle m} data points, sampled independently at random from a distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Assume the VC-dimension of the underlying base classifier is d {\displaystyle d} and m ≥ d ≥ 1 {\displaystyle m\geq d\geq 1} . Then, with probability 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , we have the bound: P D ( y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | ≤ 0 ) ≤ P S ( y ∑ j t α j h j ( x ) ∑ | α j | ≤ θ ) + O ( 1 m d log 2 ⁡ ( m / d ) / θ 2 + log ⁡ ( 1 / δ ) ) {\displaystyle P_{D}\left({\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}\leq 0\right)\leq P_{S}\left({\frac {y\sum _{j}^{t}\alpha _{j}h_{j}(x)}{\sum |\alpha _{j}|}}\leq \theta \right)+O\left({\frac {1}{\sqrt {m}}}{\sqrt {d\log ^{2}(m/d)/\theta ^{2}+\log(1/\delta )}}\right)} for all θ > 0 {\displaystyle \theta >0} .

Sufficient dimension reduction

In statistics, sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a paradigm for analyzing data that combines the ideas of dimension reduction with the concept of sufficiency. Dimension reduction has long been a primary goal of regression analysis. Given a response variable y and a p-dimensional predictor vector x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , regression analysis aims to study the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the conditional distribution of y {\displaystyle y} given x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction is a function R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} that maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R k {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , k < p, thereby reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . For example, R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be one or more linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} is said to be sufficient if the distribution of y ∣ R ( x ) {\displaystyle y\mid R({\textbf {x}})} is the same as that of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, no information about the regression is lost in reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} if the reduction is sufficient. == Graphical motivation == In a regression setting, it is often useful to summarize the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} graphically. For instance, one may consider a scatterplot of y {\displaystyle y} versus one or more of the predictors or a linear combination of the predictors. A scatterplot that contains all available regression information is called a sufficient summary plot. When x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} is high-dimensional, particularly when p ≥ 3 {\displaystyle p\geq 3} , it becomes increasingly challenging to construct and visually interpret sufficiency summary plots without reducing the data. Even three-dimensional scatter plots must be viewed via a computer program, and the third dimension can only be visualized by rotating the coordinate axes. However, if there exists a sufficient dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} with small enough dimension, a sufficient summary plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be constructed and visually interpreted with relative ease. Hence sufficient dimension reduction allows for graphical intuition about the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , which might not have otherwise been available for high-dimensional data. Most graphical methodology focuses primarily on dimension reduction involving linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . The rest of this article deals only with such reductions. == Dimension reduction subspace == Suppose R ( x ) = A T x {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})=A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient dimension reduction, where A {\displaystyle A} is a p × k {\displaystyle p\times k} matrix with rank k ≤ p {\displaystyle k\leq p} . Then the regression information for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} can be inferred by studying the distribution of y ∣ A T x {\displaystyle y\mid A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} , and the plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus A T x {\displaystyle A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient summary plot. Without loss of generality, only the space spanned by the columns of A {\displaystyle A} need be considered. Let η {\displaystyle \eta } be a basis for the column space of A {\displaystyle A} , and let the space spanned by η {\displaystyle \eta } be denoted by S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} . It follows from the definition of a sufficient dimension reduction that F y ∣ x = F y ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle F_{y\mid x}=F_{y\mid \eta ^{T}x},} where F {\displaystyle F} denotes the appropriate distribution function. Another way to express this property is y ⊥ ⊥ x ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}\mid \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}},} or y {\displaystyle y} is conditionally independent of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , given η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} . Then the subspace S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} is defined to be a dimension reduction subspace (DRS). === Structural dimensionality === For a regression y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the structural dimension, d {\displaystyle d} , is the smallest number of distinct linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} necessary to preserve the conditional distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, the smallest dimension reduction that is still sufficient maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The corresponding DRS will be d-dimensional. === Minimum dimension reduction subspace === A subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is said to be a minimum DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} if it is a DRS and its dimension is less than or equal to that of all other DRSs for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . A minimum DRS S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is not necessarily unique, but its dimension is equal to the structural dimension d {\displaystyle d} of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , by definition. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} has basis η {\displaystyle \eta } and is a minimum DRS, then a plot of y versus η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a minimal sufficient summary plot, and it is (d + 1)-dimensional. == Central subspace == If a subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , and if S ⊂ S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\subset {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} for all other DRSs S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} , then it is a central dimension reduction subspace, or simply a central subspace, and it is denoted by S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . In other words, a central subspace for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} exists if and only if the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} of all dimension reduction subspaces is also a dimension reduction subspace, and that intersection is the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . The central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does not necessarily exist because the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} is not necessarily a DRS. However, if S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does exist, then it is also the unique minimum dimension reduction subspace. === Existence of the central subspace === While the existence of the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} is not guaranteed in every regression situation, there are some rather broad conditions under which its existence follows directly. For example, consider the following proposition from Cook (1998): Let S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} and S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} be dimension reduction subspaces for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . If x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} has density f ( a ) > 0 {\displaystyle f(a)>0} for all a ∈ Ω x {\displaystyle a\in \Omega _{x}} and f ( a ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(a)=0} everywhere else, where Ω x {\displaystyle \Omega _{x}} is convex, then the intersection S 1 ∩ S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\cap {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is also a dimension reduction subspace. It follows from this proposition that the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} exists for such x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . == Methods for dimension reduction == There are many existing methods for dimension reduction, both graphical and numeric. For example, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) were introduced in the 1990s and continue to be widely used. Although SIR was originally designed to estimate an effective dimension reducing subspace, it is now understood that it estimates only the central subspace, which is generally different. More recent methods for dimension reduction include likelihood-based sufficient dimension reduction, estimating the central subspace based on the inverse third moment (or kth moment), estimating the central solution space, graphical regression, envelope model, and the principal support vector machine. For more details on these and other methods, consult the statistical literature. Principal components analysis (PCA) and similar methods for dimension reduction are not based on the sufficiency principle. === Example: linear regression === Consider the regression model y = α + β T x + ε , where ε ⊥ ⊥ x . {\displaystyle y=\alpha +\beta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}+\varepsilon ,{\text{ where }}\varepsilon \perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}.} Note that the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} is the same as the distribution of y ∣ β T x {\displ

Stochastic gradient descent

Stochastic gradient descent (often abbreviated SGD) is an iterative method for optimizing an objective function with suitable smoothness properties (e.g. differentiable or subdifferentiable). It can be regarded as a stochastic approximation of gradient descent optimization, since it replaces the actual gradient (calculated from the entire data set) by an estimate thereof (calculated from a randomly selected subset of the data). Especially in high-dimensional optimization problems this reduces the very high computational burden, achieving faster iterations in exchange for a lower convergence rate. The basic idea behind stochastic approximation can be traced back to the Robbins–Monro algorithm of the 1950s. Today, stochastic gradient descent has become an important optimization method in machine learning. == Background == Both statistical estimation and machine learning consider the problem of minimizing an objective function that has the form of a sum: Q ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) , {\displaystyle Q(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w),} where the parameter w {\displaystyle w} that minimizes Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is to be estimated. Each summand function Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} is typically associated with the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the data set (used for training). In classical statistics, sum-minimization problems arise in least squares and in maximum-likelihood estimation (for independent observations). The general class of estimators that arise as minimizers of sums are called M-estimators. However, in statistics, it has been long recognized that requiring even local minimization is too restrictive for some problems of maximum-likelihood estimation. Therefore, contemporary statistical theorists often consider stationary points of the likelihood function (or zeros of its derivative, the score function, and other estimating equations). The sum-minimization problem also arises for empirical risk minimization. There, Q i ( w ) {\displaystyle Q_{i}(w)} is the value of the loss function at i {\displaystyle i} -th example, and Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is the empirical risk. When used to minimize the above function, a standard (or "batch") gradient descent method would perform the following iterations: w := w − η ∇ Q ( w ) = w − η n ∑ i = 1 n ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q(w)=w-{\frac {\eta }{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\nabla Q_{i}(w).} The step size is denoted by η {\displaystyle \eta } (sometimes called the learning rate in machine learning) and here " := {\displaystyle :=} " denotes the update of a variable in the algorithm. In many cases, the summand functions have a simple form that enables inexpensive evaluations of the sum-function and the sum gradient. For example, in statistics, one-parameter exponential families allow economical function-evaluations and gradient-evaluations. However, in other cases, evaluating the sum-gradient may require expensive evaluations of the gradients from all summand functions. When the training set is enormous and no simple formulas exist, evaluating the sums of gradients becomes very expensive, because evaluating the gradient requires evaluating all the summand functions' gradients. To economize on the computational cost at every iteration, stochastic gradient descent samples a subset of summand functions at every step. This is very effective in the case of large-scale machine learning problems. == Iterative method == In stochastic (or "on-line") gradient descent, the true gradient of Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is approximated by a gradient at a single sample: w := w − η ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q_{i}(w).} As the algorithm sweeps through the training set, it performs the above update for each training sample. Several passes can be made over the training set until the algorithm converges. If this is done, the data can be shuffled for each pass to prevent cycles. Typical implementations may use an adaptive learning rate so that the algorithm converges. In pseudocode, stochastic gradient descent can be presented as : A compromise between computing the true gradient and the gradient at a single sample is to compute the gradient against more than one training sample (called a "mini-batch") at each step. This can perform significantly better than "true" stochastic gradient descent described, because the code can make use of vectorization libraries rather than computing each step separately as was first shown in where it was called "the bunch-mode back-propagation algorithm". It may also result in smoother convergence, as the gradient computed at each step is averaged over more training samples. The convergence of stochastic gradient descent has been analyzed using the theories of convex minimization and of stochastic approximation. Briefly, when the learning rates η {\displaystyle \eta } decrease with an appropriate rate, and subject to relatively mild assumptions, stochastic gradient descent converges almost surely to a global minimum when the objective function is convex or pseudoconvex, and otherwise converges almost surely to a local minimum. This is in fact a consequence of the Robbins–Siegmund theorem. == Linear regression == Suppose we want to fit a straight line y ^ = w 1 + w 2 x {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=w_{1}+w_{2}x} to a training set with observations ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , ( x 2 , y 2 ) … , ( x n , y n ) ) {\displaystyle ((x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2})\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))} and corresponding estimated responses ( y ^ 1 , y ^ 2 , … , y ^ n ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {y}}_{1},{\hat {y}}_{2},\ldots ,{\hat {y}}_{n})} using least squares. The objective function to be minimized is Q ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y ^ i − y i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 . {\displaystyle Q(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\hat {y}}_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}.} The last line in the above pseudocode for this specific problem will become: [ w 1 w 2 ] ← [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ ∂ ∂ w 1 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ∂ ∂ w 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ] = [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 x i ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}\leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{1}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\\{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{2}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}2(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\\2x_{i}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\end{bmatrix}}.} Note that in each iteration or update step, the gradient is only evaluated at a single x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . This is the key difference between stochastic gradient descent and batched gradient descent. In general, given a linear regression y ^ = ∑ k ∈ 1 : m w k x k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=\sum _{k\in 1:m}w_{k}x_{k}} problem, stochastic gradient descent behaves differently when m < n {\displaystyle m

Sports Card Investor

Sports Card Investor is an American sports collectibles media platform and mobile application founded by Geoff Wilson. The platform provides market data, analysis, and editorial content focused on sports trading cards and related collectibles. It operates a website, mobile app, and digital media channels covering developments in the sports card industry. The company posted its first YouTube video in July 2019, shortly before a period of rapid growth in sports card collecting in the early 2020s, which was marked by increased trading volumes and mainstream media attention. == History == Sports Card Investor was founded by Geoff Wilson, an entrepreneur and collector who began publishing sports card–related content online before launching the platform's dedicated app and subscription tools. In February 2020, the company launched Market Movers, the first website and app to chart sports card prices and track card collections. The platform expanded its media presence through partnerships and distribution agreements. In 2023, Yahoo Sports announced a new collectibles coverage initiative that included additional content from Sports Card Investor. In February 2024, the Sports Card Investor studio relocated to CardsHQ in Atlanta, Georgia, and visitors to the facility can watch Sports Card Investor videos being filmed. == Platform and content == The Sports Card Investor app provides users with pricing data, portfolio-tracking tools, and market-trend analysis for trading cards. The company also produces video and editorial content discussing market developments, grading trends, and major card releases. Coverage in industry publications has referenced Sports Card Investor in discussions about shifts in sports card licensing rights and hobby market reactions. == Industry context == The growth of Sports Card Investor coincided with a broader resurgence in trading card markets, including record sales and expanded retail presence. Mainstream outlets have cited the company and its founder in reporting on collectibles investing trends, grading practices, and market volatility. The Sports Card Investor app has attracted over 37,000 reviews on the Apple App Store, reflecting its strong user engagement within the sports card community.

Promoter based genetic algorithm

The promoter based genetic algorithm (PBGA) is a genetic algorithm for neuroevolution developed by F. Bellas and R.J. Duro in the Integrated Group for Engineering Research (GII) at the University of Coruña, in Spain. It evolves variable size feedforward artificial neural networks (ANN) that are encoded into sequences of genes for constructing a basic ANN unit. Each of these blocks is preceded by a gene promoter acting as an on/off switch that determines if that particular unit will be expressed or not. == PBGA basics == The basic unit in the PBGA is a neuron with all of its inbound connections as represented in the following figure: The genotype of a basic unit is a set of real valued weights followed by the parameters of the neuron and proceeded by an integer valued field that determines the promoter gene value and, consequently, the expression of the unit. By concatenating units of this type we can construct the whole network. With this encoding it is imposed that the information that is not expressed is still carried by the genotype in evolution but it is shielded from direct selective pressure, maintaining this way the diversity in the population, which has been a design premise for this algorithm. Therefore, a clear difference is established between the search space and the solution space, permitting information learned and encoded into the genotypic representation to be preserved by disabling promoter genes. == Results == The PBGA was originally presented within the field of autonomous robotics, in particular in the real time learning of environment models of the robot. It has been used inside the Multilevel Darwinist Brain (MDB) cognitive mechanism developed in the GII for real robots on-line learning. In another paper it is shown how the application of the PBGA together with an external memory that stores the successful obtained world models, is an optimal strategy for adaptation in dynamic environments. Recently, the PBGA has provided results that outperform other neuroevolutionary algorithms in non-stationary problems, where the fitness function varies in time.