Crossover in evolutionary algorithms and evolutionary computation, also called recombination, is a genetic operator used to combine the genetic information of two parents to generate new offspring. It is one way to stochastically generate new solutions from an existing population, and is analogous to the crossover that happens during sexual reproduction in biology. New solutions can also be generated by cloning an existing solution, which is analogous to asexual reproduction. Newly generated solutions may be mutated before being added to the population. The aim of recombination is to transfer good characteristics from two different parents to one child. Different algorithms in evolutionary computation may use different data structures to store genetic information, and each genetic representation can be recombined with different crossover operators. Typical data structures that can be recombined with crossover are bit arrays, vectors of real numbers, or trees. The list of operators presented below is by no means complete and serves mainly as an exemplary illustration of this dyadic genetic operator type. More operators and more details can be found in the literature. == Crossover for binary arrays == Traditional genetic algorithms store genetic information in a chromosome represented by a bit array. Crossover methods for bit arrays are popular and an illustrative example of genetic recombination. === One-point crossover === A point on both parents' chromosomes is picked randomly, and designated a 'crossover point'. Bits to the right of that point are swapped between the two parent chromosomes. This results in two offspring, each carrying some genetic information from both parents. === Two-point and k-point crossover === In two-point crossover, two crossover points are picked randomly from the parent chromosomes. The bits in between the two points are swapped between the parent organisms. Two-point crossover is equivalent to performing two single-point crossovers with different crossover points. This strategy can be generalized to k-point crossover for any positive integer k, picking k crossover points. === Uniform crossover === In uniform crossover, typically, each bit is chosen from either parent with equal probability. Other mixing ratios are sometimes used, resulting in offspring which inherit more genetic information from one parent than the other. In a uniform crossover, we don’t divide the chromosome into segments, rather we treat each gene separately. In this, we essentially flip a coin for each chromosome to decide whether or not it will be included in the off-spring. == Crossover for integer or real-valued genomes == For the crossover operators presented above and for most other crossover operators for bit strings, it holds that they can also be applied accordingly to integer or real-valued genomes whose genes each consist of an integer or real-valued number. Instead of individual bits, integer or real-valued numbers are then simply copied into the child genome. The offspring lie on the remaining corners of the hyperbody spanned by the two parents P 1 = ( 1.5 , 6 , 8 ) {\displaystyle P_{1}=(1.5,6,8)} and P 2 = ( 7 , 2 , 1 ) {\displaystyle P_{2}=(7,2,1)} , as exemplified in the accompanying image for the three-dimensional case. === Discrete recombination === If the rules of the uniform crossover for bit strings are applied during the generation of the offspring, this is also called discrete recombination. === Intermediate recombination === In this recombination operator, the allele values of the child genome a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} are generated by mixing the alleles of the two parent genomes a i , P 1 {\displaystyle a_{i,P_{1}}} and a i , P 2 {\displaystyle a_{i,P_{2}}} : α i = α i , P 1 ⋅ β i + α i , P 2 ⋅ ( 1 − β i ) w i t h β i ∈ [ − d , 1 + d ] {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}=\alpha _{i,P_{1}}\cdot \beta _{i}+\alpha _{i,P_{2}}\cdot \left(1-\beta _{i}\right)\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \beta _{i}\in \left[-d,1+d\right]} randomly equally distributed per gene i {\displaystyle i} The choice of the interval [ − d , 1 + d ] {\displaystyle [-d,1+d]} causes that besides the interior of the hyperbody spanned by the allele values of the parent genes additionally a certain environment for the range of values of the offspring is in question. A value of 0.25 {\displaystyle 0.25} is recommended for d {\displaystyle d} to counteract the tendency to reduce the allele values that otherwise exists at d = 0 {\displaystyle d=0} . The adjacent figure shows for the two-dimensional case the range of possible new alleles of the two exemplary parents P 1 = ( 3 , 6 ) {\displaystyle P_{1}=(3,6)} and P 2 = ( 9 , 2 ) {\displaystyle P_{2}=(9,2)} in intermediate recombination. The offspring of discrete recombination C 1 {\displaystyle C_{1}} and C 2 {\displaystyle C_{2}} are also plotted. Intermediate recombination satisfies the arithmetic calculation of the allele values of the child genome required by virtual alphabet theory. Discrete and intermediate recombination are used as a standard in the evolution strategy. == Crossover for permutations == For combinatorial tasks, permutations are usually used that are specifically designed for genomes that are themselves permutations of a set. The underlying set is usually a subset of N {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} } or N 0 {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} _{0}} . If 1- or n-point or uniform crossover for integer genomes is used for such genomes, a child genome may contain some values twice and others may be missing. This can be remedied by genetic repair, e.g. by replacing the redundant genes in positional fidelity for missing ones from the other child genome. In order to avoid the generation of invalid offspring, special crossover operators for permutations have been developed which fulfill the basic requirements of such operators for permutations, namely that all elements of the initial permutation are also present in the new one and only the order is changed. It can be distinguished between combinatorial tasks, where all sequences are admissible, and those where there are constraints in the form of inadmissible partial sequences. A well-known representative of the first task type is the traveling salesman problem (TSP), where the goal is to visit a set of cities exactly once on the shortest tour. An example of the constrained task type is the scheduling of multiple workflows. Workflows involve sequence constraints on some of the individual work steps. For example, a thread cannot be cut until the corresponding hole has been drilled in a workpiece. Such problems are also called order-based permutations. In the following, two crossover operators are presented as examples, the partially mapped crossover (PMX) motivated by the TSP and the order crossover (OX1) designed for order-based permutations. A second offspring can be produced in each case by exchanging the parent chromosomes. === Partially mapped crossover (PMX) === The PMX operator was designed as a recombination operator for TSP like Problems. The explanation of the procedure is illustrated by an example: === Order crossover (OX1) === The order crossover goes back to Davis in its original form and is presented here in a slightly generalized version with more than two crossover points. It transfers information about the relative order from the second parent to the offspring. First, the number and position of the crossover points are determined randomly. The resulting gene sequences are then processed as described below: Among other things, order crossover is well suited for scheduling multiple workflows, when used in conjunction with 1- and n-point crossover. === Further crossover operators for permutations === Over time, a large number of crossover operators for permutations have been proposed, so the following list is only a small selection. For more information, the reader is referred to the literature. cycle crossover (CX) order-based crossover (OX2) position-based crossover (POS) edge recombination voting recombination (VR) alternating-positions crossover (AP) maximal preservative crossover (MPX) merge crossover (MX) sequential constructive crossover operator (SCX) The usual approach to solving TSP-like problems by genetic or, more generally, evolutionary algorithms, presented earlier, is either to repair illegal descendants or to adjust the operators appropriately so that illegal offspring do not arise in the first place. Alternatively, Riazi suggests the use of a double chromosome representation, which avoids illegal offspring.
Elowan
Elowan is a plant-robot cyborg. Using its own internal bioelectrical signals, The plant has a robotic extension that makes it move towards light sources. Electrodes are inserted into the leaves, stem, and ground to detect the faint bioelectrical signals the plant produces. Then they are amplified so the robot can read them. So when the plant "wants" to go to light, the cyborg automatically goes to the nearest light source. Future extensions of the robot could provide: Protection, growth frameworks, and nutrients. Other factors that could make the cyborg move are temperature, soil, and gravity conditions Elowan is one in a series of plant-electronic hybrid experiments.
Population model (evolutionary algorithm)
The population model of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) describes the structural properties of its population to which its members are subject. A population is the set of all proposed solutions of an EA considered in one iteration, which are also called individuals according to the biological role model. The individuals of a population can generate further individuals as offspring with the help of the genetic operators of the procedure. The simplest and widely used population model in EAs is the global or panmictic model, which corresponds to an unstructured population. It allows each individual to choose any other individual of the population as a partner for the production of offspring by crossover, whereby the details of the selection are irrelevant as long as the fitness of the individuals plays a significant role. Due to global mate selection, the genetic information of even slightly better individuals can prevail in a population after a few generations (iteration of an EA), provided that no better other offspring have emerged in this phase. If the solution found in this way is not the optimum sought, that is called premature convergence. This effect can be observed more often in panmictic populations. In nature global mating pools are rarely found. What prevails is a certain and limited isolation due to spatial distance. The resulting local neighbourhoods initially evolve independently and mutants have a higher chance of persisting over several generations. As a result, genotypic diversity in the gene pool is preserved longer than in a panmictic population. It is therefore obvious to divide the previously global population by substructures. Two basic models were introduced for this purpose, the island models, which are based on a division of the population into fixed subpopulations that exchange individuals from time to time, and the neighbourhood models, which assign individuals to overlapping neighbourhoods, also known as cellular genetic or evolutionary algorithms (cGA or cEA). The associated division of the population also suggests a corresponding parallelization of the procedure. For this reason, the topic of population models is also frequently discussed in the literature in connection with the parallelization of EAs. == Island models == In the island model, also called the migration model or coarse grained model, evolution takes place in strictly divided subpopulations. These can be organised panmictically, but do not have to be. From time to time an exchange of individuals takes place, which is called migration. The time between an exchange is called an epoch and its end can be triggered by various criteria: E.g. after a given time or given number of completed generations, or after the occurrence of stagnation. Stagnation can be detected, for example, by the fact that no fitness improvement has occurred in the island for a given number of generations. Island models introduce a variety of new strategy parameters: Number of subpopulations Size of the subpopulations Neighbourhood relations between islands: they determine which islands are considered neighbouring and can thus exchange individuals, see picture of a simple unidirectional ring (black arrows) and its extension by additional bidirectional neighbourhood relations (additional green arrows) Criteria for the termination of an epoch, synchronous or asynchronous migration Migration rate: number or proportion of individuals involved in migration. Migrant selection: There are many alternatives for this. E.g. the best individuals can replace the worst or randomly selected ones. Depending on the migration rate, this can affect one or more individuals at a time. With these parameters, the selection pressure can be influenced to a considerable extent. For example, it increases with the interconnectedness of the islands and decreases with the number of subpopulations or the epoch length. == Neighbourhood models or cellular evolutionary algorithms == The neighbourhood model, also called diffusion model or fine grained model, defines a topological neighbouhood relation between the individuals of a population that is independent of their phenotypic properties. The fundamental idea of this model is to provide the EA population with a special structure defined as a connected graph, in which each vertex is an individual that communicates with its nearest neighbours. Particularly, individuals are conceptually set in a toroidal mesh, and are only allowed to recombine with close individuals. This leads to a kind of locality known as isolation by distance. The set of potential mates of an individual is called its neighbourhood or deme. The adjacent figure illustrates that by showing two slightly overlapping neighbourhoods of two individuals marked yellow, through which genetic information can spread between the two demes. It is known that in this kind of algorithm, similar individuals tend to cluster and create niches that are independent of the deme boundaries and, in particular, can be larger than a deme. There is no clear borderline between adjacent groups, and close niches could be easily colonized by competitive ones and maybe merge solution contents during this process. Simultaneously, farther niches can be affected more slowly. EAs with this type of population are also well known as cellular EAs (cEA) or cellular genetic algorithms (cGA). A commonly used structure for arranging the individuals of a population is a 2D toroidal grid, although the number of dimensions can be easily extended (to 3D) or reduced (to 1D, e.g. a ring, see the figure on the right). The neighbourhood of a particular individual in the grid is defined in terms of the Manhattan distance from it to others in the population. In the basic algorithm, all the neighbourhoods have the same size and identical shapes. The two most commonly used neighbourhoods for two-dimensional cEAs are L5 and C9, see the figure on the left. Here, L stands for Linear while C stands for Compact. Each deme represents a panmictic subpopulation within which mate selection and the acceptance of offspring takes place by replacing the parent. The rules for the acceptance of offspring are local in nature and based on the neighbourhood: for example, it can be specified that the best offspring must be better than the parent being replaced or, less strictly, only better than the worst individual in the deme. The first rule is elitist and creates a higher selective pressure than the second non-elitist rule. In elitist EAs, the best individual of a population always survives. In this respect, they deviate from the biological model. The overlap of the neighbourhoods causes a mostly slow spread of genetic information across the neighbourhood boundaries, hence the name diffusion model. A better offspring now needs more generations than in panmixy to spread in the population. This promotes the emergence of local niches and their local evolution, thus preserving genotypic diversity over a longer period of time. The result is a better and dynamic balance between breadth and depth search adapted to the search space during a run. Depth search takes place in the niches and breadth search in the niche boundaries and through the evolution of the different niches of the whole population. For the same neighbourhood size, the spread of genetic information is larger for elongated figures like L9 than for a block like C9, and again significantly larger than for a ring. This means that ring neighbourhoods are well suited for achieving high quality results, even if this requires comparatively long run times. On the other hand, if one is primarily interested in fast and good, but possibly suboptimal results, 2D topologies are more suitable. == Comparison == When applying both population models to genetic algorithms, evolutionary strategy and other EAs, the splitting of a total population into subpopulations usually reduces the risk of premature convergence and leads to better results overall more reliably and faster than would be expected with panmictic EAs. Island models have the disadvantage compared to neighbourhood models that they introduce a large number of new strategy parameters. Despite the existing studies on this topic in the literature, a certain risk of unfavourable settings remains for the user. With neighbourhood models, on the other hand, only the size of the neighbourhood has to be specified and, in the case of the two-dimensional model, the choice of the neighbourhood figure is added. == Parallelism == Since both population models imply population partitioning, they are well suited as a basis for parallelizing an EA. This applies even more to cellular EAs, since they rely only on locally available information about the members of their respective demes. Thus, in the extreme case, an independent execution thread can be assigned to each individual, so that the entire cEA can run on a parallel hardware platform. The island model also supports p
Artificial development
Artificial development, also known as artificial embryogeny or machine intelligence or computational development, is an area of computer science and engineering concerned with computational models motivated by genotype–phenotype mappings in biological systems. Artificial development is often considered a sub-field of evolutionary computation, although the principles of artificial development have also been used within stand-alone computational models. Within evolutionary computation, the need for artificial development techniques was motivated by the perceived lack of scalability and evolvability of direct solution encodings (Tufte, 2008). Artificial development entails indirect solution encoding. Rather than describing a solution directly, an indirect encoding describes (either explicitly or implicitly) the process by which a solution is constructed. Often, but not always, these indirect encodings are based upon biological principles of development such as morphogen gradients, cell division and cellular differentiation (e.g. Doursat 2008), gene regulatory networks (e.g. Guo et al., 2009), degeneracy (Whitacre et al., 2010), grammatical evolution (de Salabert et al., 2006), or analogous computational processes such as re-writing, iteration, and time. The influences of interaction with the environment, spatiality and physical constraints on differentiated multi-cellular development have been investigated more recently (e.g. Knabe et al. 2008). Artificial development approaches have been applied to a number of computational and design problems, including electronic circuit design (Miller and Banzhaf 2003), robotic controllers (e.g. Taylor 2004), and the design of physical structures (e.g. Hornby 2004).
Win–stay, lose–switch
In psychology, game theory, statistics, and machine learning, win–stay, lose–switch (also win–stay, lose–shift or Pavlov, named after Ivan Pavlov) is a heuristic learning strategy used to model learning in decision situations. It was first invented as an improvement over randomization in bandit problems. It was later applied to the prisoner's dilemma in order to model the evolution of altruism. In most versions, it starts either with a cooperate, then proceeds as always, or starts with a "probe" of cooperate-defect-cooperate to determine the other player's strategy. A mutual cooperation is regarded as a win. The learning rule bases its decision only on the outcome of the previous play. Outcomes are divided into successes (wins) and failures (losses). If the play on the previous round resulted in a success, then the agent plays the same strategy on the next round. Alternatively, if the play resulted in a failure the agent switches to another action. A large-scale empirical study of players of the game rock, paper, scissors shows that a variation of this strategy is adopted by real-world players of the game, instead of the Nash equilibrium strategy of choosing entirely at random between the three options.
Reparameterization trick
The reparameterization trick (aka "reparameterization gradient estimator") is a technique used in statistical machine learning, particularly in variational inference, variational autoencoders, and stochastic optimization. It allows for the efficient computation of gradients through random variables, enabling the optimization of parametric probability models using stochastic gradient descent, and the variance reduction of estimators. It was developed in the 1980s in operations research, under the name of "pathwise gradients", or "stochastic gradients". Its use in variational inference was proposed in 2013. == Mathematics == Let z {\displaystyle z} be a random variable with distribution q ϕ ( z ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z)} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a vector containing the parameters of the distribution. === REINFORCE estimator === Consider an objective function of the form: L ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[f(z)]} Without the reparameterization trick, estimating the gradient ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )} can be challenging, because the parameter appears in the random variable itself. In more detail, we have to statistically estimate: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∇ ϕ ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) f ( z ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\nabla _{\phi }\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)f(z)} The REINFORCE estimator, widely used in reinforcement learning and especially policy gradient, uses the following equality: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = ∫ d z q ϕ ( z ) ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z ) ) f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\int dz\;q_{\phi }(z)\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z))f(z)]} This allows the gradient to be estimated: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ ( ln q ϕ ( z i ) ) f ( z i ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }(\ln q_{\phi }(z_{i}))f(z_{i})} The REINFORCE estimator has high variance, and many methods were developed to reduce its variance. === Reparameterization estimator === The reparameterization trick expresses z {\displaystyle z} as: z = g ϕ ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle z=g_{\phi }(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )} Here, g ϕ {\displaystyle g_{\phi }} is a deterministic function parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a noise variable drawn from a fixed distribution p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(\epsilon )} . This gives: L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] {\displaystyle L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]} Now, the gradient can be estimated as: ∇ ϕ L ( ϕ ) = E ϵ ∼ p ( ϵ ) [ ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ ) ) ] ≈ 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∇ ϕ f ( g ϕ ( ϵ i ) ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }L(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim p(\epsilon )}[\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon ))]\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\nabla _{\phi }f(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{i}))} == Examples == For some common distributions, the reparameterization trick takes specific forms: Normal distribution: For z ∼ N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} , we can use: z = μ + σ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=\mu +\sigma \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} Exponential distribution: For z ∼ Exp ( λ ) {\displaystyle z\sim {\text{Exp}}(\lambda )} , we can use: z = − 1 λ log ( ϵ ) , ϵ ∼ Uniform ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle z=-{\frac {1}{\lambda }}\log(\epsilon ),\quad \epsilon \sim {\text{Uniform}}(0,1)} Discrete distribution can be reparameterized by the Gumbel distribution (Gumbel-softmax trick or "concrete distribution") and diffusion models. In general, any distribution that is differentiable with respect to its parameters can be reparameterized by inverting the multivariable CDF function, then apply the implicit method. See for an exposition and application to the Gamma, Beta, Dirichlet, and von Mises distributions. == Applications == === Variational autoencoder === In Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), the VAE objective function, known as the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO), is given by: ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ log p θ ( x | z ) ] − D KL ( q ϕ ( z | x ) | | p ( z ) ) {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]-D_{\text{KL}}(q_{\phi }(z|x)||p(z))} where q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is the encoder (recognition model), p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is the decoder (generative model), and p ( z ) {\displaystyle p(z)} is the prior distribution over latent variables. The gradient of ELBO with respect to θ {\displaystyle \theta } is simply E z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) [ ∇ θ log p θ ( x | z ) ] ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ θ log p θ ( x | z l ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)}[\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)]\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\theta }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})} but the gradient with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } requires the trick. Express the sampling operation z ∼ q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle z\sim q_{\phi }(z|x)} as: z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ , ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon ,\quad \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{\phi }(x)} and σ ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{\phi }(x)} are the outputs of the encoder network, and ⊙ {\displaystyle \odot } denotes element-wise multiplication. Then we have ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) = E ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , I ) [ ∇ ϕ log p θ ( x | z ) + ∇ ϕ log q ϕ ( z | x ) − ∇ ϕ log p ( z ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z)+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z)]} where z = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ {\displaystyle z=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon } . This allows us to estimate the gradient using Monte Carlo sampling: ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ , θ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L [ ∇ ϕ log p θ ( x | z l ) + ∇ ϕ log q ϕ ( z l | x ) − ∇ ϕ log p ( z l ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi ,\theta )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}[\nabla _{\phi }\log p_{\theta }(x|z_{l})+\nabla _{\phi }\log q_{\phi }(z_{l}|x)-\nabla _{\phi }\log p(z_{l})]} where z l = μ ϕ ( x ) + σ ϕ ( x ) ⊙ ϵ l {\displaystyle z_{l}=\mu _{\phi }(x)+\sigma _{\phi }(x)\odot \epsilon _{l}} and ϵ l ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{l}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} for l = 1 , … , L {\displaystyle l=1,\ldots ,L} . This formulation enables backpropagation through the sampling process, allowing for end-to-end training of the VAE model using stochastic gradient descent or its variants. === Variational inference === More generally, the trick allows using stochastic gradient descent for variational inference. Let the variational objective (ELBO) be of the form: ELBO ( ϕ ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( z ) [ log p ( x , z ) − log q ϕ ( z ) ] {\displaystyle {\text{ELBO}}(\phi )=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(z)}[\log p(x,z)-\log q_{\phi }(z)]} Using the reparameterization trick, we can estimate the gradient of this objective with respect to ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } : ∇ ϕ ELBO ( ϕ ) ≈ 1 L ∑ l = 1 L ∇ ϕ [ log p ( x , g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) − log q ϕ ( g ϕ ( ϵ l ) ) ] , ϵ l ∼ p ( ϵ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\phi }{\text{ELBO}}(\phi )\approx {\frac {1}{L}}\sum _{l=1}^{L}\nabla _{\phi }[\log p(x,g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))-\log q_{\phi }(g_{\phi }(\epsilon _{l}))],\quad \epsilon _{l}\sim p(\epsilon )} === Dropout === The reparameterization trick has been applied to reduce the variance in dropout, a regularization technique in neural networks. The original dropout can be reparameterized with Bernoulli distributions: y = ( W ⊙ ϵ ) x , ϵ i j ∼ Bernoulli ( α i j ) {\displaystyle y=(W\odot \epsilon )x,\quad \epsilon _{ij}\sim {\text{Bernoulli}}(\alpha _{ij})} where W {\displaystyle W} is the weight matrix, x {\displaystyle x} is the input, and α i j {\displaystyle \alpha _{ij}} are the (fixed) dropout rates. More generally, other distributions can be used than the Bernoulli distribution, such as the gaussian noise: y i = μ i + σ i ⊙ ϵ i , ϵ i ∼ N ( 0 , I ) {\displaystyle y_{i}=\mu _{i}+\sigma _{i}\odot \epsilon _{i},\quad \epsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I)} where μ i = m i ⊤ x {\displaystyle \mu _{i}=\mathbf {m} _{i}^{\top }x} and σ i 2 = v i ⊤ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}^{2}=\mathbf {v} _{i}^{\top }x^{2}} , with m i {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} _{i}} and v i {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{i}} being the mean and variance of the i {\displaystyle i} -th output neuron. The reparameterization trick can be applied to all such cases, resulting in the variational dropout method.
Natarajan dimension
In the theory of Probably Approximately Correct Machine Learning, the Natarajan dimension characterizes the complexity of learning a set of functions, generalizing from the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension for boolean functions to multi-class functions. Originally introduced as the Generalized Dimension by Natarajan, it was subsequently renamed the Natarajan Dimension by Haussler and Long. == Definition == Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set of functions from a set X {\displaystyle X} to a set Y {\displaystyle Y} . H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C ⊂ X {\displaystyle C\subset X} if there exist two functions f 0 , f 1 ∈ H {\displaystyle f_{0},f_{1}\in H} such that For every x ∈ C , f 0 ( x ) ≠ f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C,f_{0}(x)\neq f_{1}(x)} . For every B ⊂ C {\displaystyle B\subset C} , there exists a function h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that for all x ∈ B , h ( x ) = f 0 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in B,h(x)=f_{0}(x)} and for all x ∈ C − B , h ( x ) = f 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle x\in C-B,h(x)=f_{1}(x)} . The Natarajan dimension of H is the maximal cardinality of a set shattered by H {\displaystyle H} . It is easy to see that if | Y | = 2 {\displaystyle |Y|=2} , the Natarajan dimension collapses to the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension. Shalev-Shwartz and Ben-David present comprehensive material on multi-class learning and the Natarajan dimension, including uniform convergence and learnability. Recently, Cohen et al showed that the Natarajan dimension is the dominant term governing agnostic multi-class PAC learnability.