Versata

Versata is a privately held software company, one of several business units under the ESW Capital umbrella. Versata acquires underperforming or financially struggling enterprise software companies, integrates them into their portfolio, and makes operational changes to improve the viability and performance of the companies. == History == === Early years (1991–2000) === This company was founded in 1991 with the name Image Innovations; Naren Bakshi was co-founder and president, Kevin Fletcher Tweedy was vice president of technology, and they sold a development tool set named Image Application WorkBench that worked with Plexus Software's imaging platform. In 1997, the company name changed to Vision Software. They sold a small suite of software: Vision Builder for accelerated coding; and Vision StoryBoard Pro for creating software documentation. In 1998, their flagship product was a Java development tool named Vision JADE. In January 2000, the company changed names again, this time to Versata, and their e-business automation system, Versata Logic Suite, had three components: Versata Logic Server to host business rules written in Java, Versata Studio for developing the business rules, and Versata Connectors for connecting the logic server to IBM database servers. === Public company (2000–2006) === They went public in March 2000 during the dot-com bubble, raising about $94 million and reaching a market capitalization of over $2.5 billion despite reporting just $13 million in revenue and a $21 million loss in the prior year. In November 2000, Versata expanded into the business workflow area with the acquisition of Verve, Inc. and its workflow management system by the same name. From early 2001 through mid-2003, Versata's revenues were in quarter-over-quarter decline until Alan Baratz took over as CEO. Five consecutive quarters of growth followed until early 2005, when revenues once again took a downward plunge. In mid-2005, the company was notified by NASDAQ that it no longer met NASDAQ's requirements for continued listing, related to maintenance of a minimum amount of shareholder's equity, market value, or net income. In July 2005, Versata was delisted from NASDAQ and publicly traded on the OTC (also known as the Pink Sheets). == Versata, a business unit of ESW Capital == In January 2006, Austin-based Trilogy, Inc. acquired the company and took it private. Trilogy then proceeded to merge portions of Trilogy, specifically, Trilogy Technology Group, into Versata and began acquiring further companies, reorganizing dramatically and offshoring most technical positions to its office in Bangalore, India. From 2006 to 2008, Versata continued to make acquisitions mostly in US. Most of the employees in the acquired companies were laid -off with the majority work being offshored to its India office in Bangalore. In early 2009, Versata made another major overhaul of its business model when it asked all its employees in India to work as contractors through oDesk for a gDev which is an entity incorporated by Trilogy to manage its outsourcing activities. The only employees left in Versata were the ones in US. == Acquisitions == a Corizon was acquired by Metatomix, while Metatomix was part of Versata. b Infopia was acquired by Everest Software, while Everest Software was part of Versata. c Symphony Commerce was acquired by Quantum Retail, while Quantum Retail was part of Versata. == Legal disputes == === Patent infringement and "poison pill" lawsuits with Selectica === The legal disputes with Selectica began in 2004 (before Trilogy acquired Versata in January 2006) and lasted until 2010. While there were many suits and counter-suits, they largely centered around three issues: 2004–2006: Patent infringement in configure, price, and quote (CPQ) software 2005–2007: Patent infringement in contract lifecycle management (CLM) software 2008–2010: The "poison pill" lawsuit In 2004, Selectica and Trilogy had competing CPQ software: Selectica sold Solutions Advisor and Deal Optimization, while Trilogy sold Selling Chain. In April of that year, Trilogy Software sued Selectica for patent infringement. In 2005, before the court ruling, Trilogy made several offers to buy Selectica, but the board rejected them. In January 2006, the court ordered Selectica to pay Trilogy $7.5 million in damages. Four days after the January 2006 judgment in the first lawsuit, Trilogy announced its acquisition of Versata for an undisclosed amount. In 2005, Selectica had acquired the Determine CLM software platform, which included features that overlapped with some offered by Versata. In October 2006, Versata filed a second patent infringement lawsuit. The case was settled in 2007, with Selectica agreeing to pay Trilogy and Versata $10 million, plus up to $7.5 million in additional contingent payments. In 2008, Versata began acquiring Selectica stock. By December, Selectica's board amended its shareholder rights plan to adopt a "poison pill" with an unusually low trigger threshold: if any shareholder acquired more than 4.99% of company stock, their ownership would be diluted. The board explained that the move was meant to protect Selectica's net operating losses (NOLs), which were tax-deductible if the company returned to profitability. Under IRS Section 382, a significant change in stock ownership could cause those NOLs to be disqualified. Versata intentionally triggered the poison pill and also offered to sell back the stocks at a profit (greenmailing them), which prompted a legal dispute over whether Selectica's board had the authority to set such a low threshold and whether defending NOLs justified triggering shareholder dilution. The case ultimately reached the Delaware Supreme Court, which upheld the poison pill in October 2010, ruling in favor of Selectica. === Intellectual property lawsuit over joint development with Sun Microsystems === In 1998, Sun Microsystems hired Trilogy to help Sun's developers in California create a software configurator (later named the WC5 Configurator) that Sun's customers could use to modify products they wanted to buy, customizing products to have the features they wanted. Trilogy worked on the WC5 Configurator for several years, then Sun transferred the work to Oracle to finish. Trilogy believed that they owned the copyright to the work they'd done for Sun, and in 2006 after the merger with Versata they sued Sun for more than $100 million in damages. In April 2009, a jury ruled in favor of Sun and rejected Versata's claims. === Patent lawsuit and ruling on patents of abstract ideas with SAP === SAP developed Pricing Engine, a component in their enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. It competed with an older Trilogy product called Pricer, which was part of Trilogy's Selling Chain platform in the mid-1990s before they merged with Versata. In April 2007—the year after Trilogy acquired Versata—Versata filed a lawsuit against SAP for patent infringement. In August 2009, the jury agreed with Versata and awarded them $139 million. The court granted a new trial on damages and in September 2011, in the retrial, the jury awarded Versata $345 million. This then went to the US Court of Appeals, which in May 2013 affirmed the $345 million damages award, plus interest that had accumulated. In October 2014, Versata and SAP settled their litigation for an undisclosed amount of money. With the dispute between Versata and SAP settled, in June 2013 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviewed the validity of the patent itself, and issued a decision in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, stating that the disputed items were abstract ideas and thus under the US patent law not patentable. In July 2015, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB's decision that the challenged items were not patentable. === Trade secrets and damages dispute with Internet Brands === Internet Brands was formerly known as CarsDirect and AutoData Solutions. Like Trilogy, they made software for automakers that helped customers compare vehicles online. In the late 1990s, Trilogy and Internet Brands tried to combine their products but failed to do so, and after a December 1999 lawsuit they made a settlement agreement in May 2001. In 2008, Versata sued Internet Brands claiming they had violated the settlement agreement by making presentations to potential clients stating they had a license from Versata to use and sell Versata technical solutions; and doing so had cost Versata business with Chrysler. Internet Brands' countersuit argued that Versata had misappropriated trade secrets and asked the jury to use Versata's business relationship with Toyota—including revenue from Toyota contracts—as a benchmark to calculate damages. The jury agreed and used that data to determine a $2 million damages award in favor of Internet Brands’ subsidiary, AutoData Solutions. Versata appealed the decision, and in January 2014 the court upheld the $2 million award to Internet Brands. === Patent challenges a

Intelligent database

Until the 1980s, databases were viewed as computer systems that stored record-oriented and business data such as manufacturing inventories, bank records, and sales transactions. A database system was not expected to merge numeric data with text, images, or multimedia information, nor was it expected to automatically notice patterns in the data it stored. In the late 1980s the concept of an intelligent database was put forward as a system that manages information (rather than data) in a way that appears natural to users and which goes beyond simple record keeping. The term was introduced in 1989 by the book Intelligent Databases by Kamran Parsaye, Mark Chignell, Setrag Khoshafian and Harry Wong. The concept postulated three levels of intelligence for such systems: high level tools, the user interface and the database engine. The high level tools manage data quality and automatically discover relevant patterns in the data with a process called data mining. This layer often relies on the use of artificial intelligence techniques. The user interface uses hypermedia in a form that uniformly manages text, images and numeric data. The intelligent database engine supports the other two layers, often merging relational database techniques with object orientation. In the twenty-first century, intelligent databases have now become widespread, e.g. hospital databases can now call up patient histories consisting of charts, text and x-ray images just with a few mouse clicks, and many corporate databases include decision support tools based on sales pattern analysis.

Sammon mapping

Sammon mapping or Sammon projection is an algorithm that maps a high-dimensional space to a space of lower dimensionality (see multidimensional scaling) by trying to preserve the structure of inter-point distances in high-dimensional space in the lower-dimension projection. It is particularly suited for use in exploratory data analysis. The method was proposed by John W. Sammon in 1969. It is considered a non-linear approach as the mapping cannot be represented as a linear combination of the original variables as possible in techniques such as principal component analysis, which also makes it more difficult to use for classification applications. Denote the distance between ith and jth objects in the original space by d i j ∗ {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} , and the distance between their projections by d i j {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} . Sammon's mapping aims to minimize the following error function, which is often referred to as Sammon's stress or Sammon's error: E = 1 ∑ i < j d i j ∗ ∑ i < j ( d i j ∗ − d i j ) 2 d i j ∗ . {\displaystyle E={\frac {1}{\sum \limits _{i

Multiple correspondence analysis

In statistics, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) is a data analysis technique for nominal categorical data, used to detect and represent underlying structures in a data set. It does this by representing data as points in a low-dimensional Euclidean space. The procedure thus appears to be the counterpart of principal component analysis for categorical data. MCA can be viewed as an extension of simple correspondence analysis (CA) in that it is applicable to a large set of categorical variables. == As an extension of correspondence analysis == MCA is performed by applying the CA algorithm to either an indicator matrix (also called complete disjunctive table – CDT) or a Burt table formed from these variables. An indicator matrix is an individuals × variables matrix, where the rows represent individuals and the columns are dummy variables representing categories of the variables. Analyzing the indicator matrix allows the direct representation of individuals as points in geometric space. The Burt table is the symmetric matrix of all two-way cross-tabulations between the categorical variables, and has an analogy to the covariance matrix of continuous variables. Analyzing the Burt table is a more natural generalization of simple correspondence analysis, and individuals or the means of groups of individuals can be added as supplementary points to the graphical display. In the indicator matrix approach, associations between variables are uncovered by calculating the chi-square distance between different categories of the variables and between the individuals (or respondents). These associations are then represented graphically as "maps", which eases the interpretation of the structures in the data. Oppositions between rows and columns are then maximized, in order to uncover the underlying dimensions best able to describe the central oppositions in the data. As in factor analysis or principal component analysis, the first axis is the most important dimension, the second axis the second most important, and so on, in terms of the amount of variance accounted for. The number of axes to be retained for analysis is determined by calculating modified eigenvalues. == Details == Since MCA is adapted to draw statistical conclusions from categorical variables (such as multiple choice questions), the first thing one needs to do is to transform quantitative data (such as age, size, weight, day time, etc) into categories (using for instance statistical quantiles). When the dataset is completely represented as categorical variables, one is able to build the corresponding so-called complete disjunctive table. We denote this table X {\displaystyle X} . If I {\displaystyle I} persons answered a survey with J {\displaystyle J} multiple choices questions with 4 answers each, X {\displaystyle X} will have I {\displaystyle I} rows and 4 J {\displaystyle 4J} columns. More theoretically, assume X {\displaystyle X} is the completely disjunctive table of I {\displaystyle I} observations of K {\displaystyle K} categorical variables. Assume also that the k {\displaystyle k} -th variable have J k {\displaystyle J_{k}} different levels (categories) and set J = ∑ k = 1 K J k {\displaystyle J=\sum _{k=1}^{K}J_{k}} . The table X {\displaystyle X} is then a I × J {\displaystyle I\times J} matrix with all coefficient being 0 {\displaystyle 0} or 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Set the sum of all entries of X {\displaystyle X} to be N {\displaystyle N} and introduce Z = X / N {\displaystyle Z=X/N} . In an MCA, there are also two special vectors: first r {\displaystyle r} , that contains the sums along the rows of Z {\displaystyle Z} , and c {\displaystyle c} , that contains the sums along the columns of Z {\displaystyle Z} . Note D r = diag ( r ) {\displaystyle D_{r}={\text{diag}}(r)} and D c = diag ( c ) {\displaystyle D_{c}={\text{diag}}(c)} , the diagonal matrices containing r {\displaystyle r} and c {\displaystyle c} respectively as diagonal. With these notations, computing an MCA consists essentially in the singular value decomposition of the matrix: M = D r − 1 / 2 ( Z − r c T ) D c − 1 / 2 {\displaystyle M=D_{r}^{-1/2}(Z-rc^{T})D_{c}^{-1/2}} The decomposition of M {\displaystyle M} gives you P {\displaystyle P} , Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } and Q {\displaystyle Q} such that M = P Δ Q T {\displaystyle M=P\Delta Q^{T}} with P, Q two unitary matrices and Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } is the generalized diagonal matrix of the singular values (with the same shape as Z {\displaystyle Z} ). The positive coefficients of Δ 2 {\displaystyle \Delta ^{2}} are the eigenvalues of Z {\displaystyle Z} . The interest of MCA comes from the way observations (rows) and variables (columns) in Z {\displaystyle Z} can be decomposed. This decomposition is called a factor decomposition. The coordinates of the observations in the factor space are given by F = D r − 1 / 2 P Δ {\displaystyle F=D_{r}^{-1/2}P\Delta } The i {\displaystyle i} -th rows of F {\displaystyle F} represent the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the factor space. And similarly, the coordinates of the variables (in the same factor space as observations!) are given by G = D c − 1 / 2 Q Δ {\displaystyle G=D_{c}^{-1/2}Q\Delta } == Recent works and extensions == In recent years, several students of Jean-Paul Benzécri have refined MCA and incorporated it into a more general framework of data analysis known as geometric data analysis. This involves the development of direct connections between simple correspondence analysis, principal component analysis and MCA with a form of cluster analysis known as Euclidean classification. Two extensions have great practical use. It is possible to include, as active elements in the MCA, several quantitative variables. This extension is called factor analysis of mixed data (see below). Very often, in questionnaires, the questions are structured in several issues. In the statistical analysis it is necessary to take into account this structure. This is the aim of multiple factor analysis which balances the different issues (i.e. the different groups of variables) within a global analysis and provides, beyond the classical results of factorial analysis (mainly graphics of individuals and of categories), several results (indicators and graphics) specific of the group structure. == Application fields == In the social sciences, MCA is arguably best known for its application by Pierre Bourdieu, notably in his books La Distinction, Homo Academicus and The State Nobility. Bourdieu argued that there was an internal link between his vision of the social as spatial and relational --– captured by the notion of field, and the geometric properties of MCA. Sociologists following Bourdieu's work most often opt for the analysis of the indicator matrix, rather than the Burt table, largely because of the central importance accorded to the analysis of the 'cloud of individuals'. == Multiple correspondence analysis and principal component analysis == MCA can also be viewed as a PCA applied to the complete disjunctive table. To do this, the CDT must be transformed as follows. Let y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} denote the general term of the CDT. y i k {\displaystyle y_{ik}} is equal to 1 if individual i {\displaystyle i} possesses the category k {\displaystyle k} and 0 if not. Let denote p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , the proportion of individuals possessing the category k {\displaystyle k} . The transformed CDT (TCDT) has as general term: x i k = y i k / p k − 1 {\displaystyle x_{ik}=y_{ik}/p_{k}-1} The unstandardized PCA applied to TCDT, the column k {\displaystyle k} having the weight p k {\displaystyle p_{k}} , leads to the results of MCA. This equivalence is fully explained in a book by Jérôme Pagès. It plays an important theoretical role because it opens the way to the simultaneous treatment of quantitative and qualitative variables. Two methods simultaneously analyze these two types of variables: factor analysis of mixed data and, when the active variables are partitioned in several groups: multiple factor analysis. This equivalence does not mean that MCA is a particular case of PCA as it is not a particular case of CA. It only means that these methods are closely linked to one another, as they belong to the same family: the factorial methods. == Software == There are numerous software of data analysis that include MCA, such as STATA and SPSS. The R package FactoMineR also features MCA. This software is related to a book describing the basic methods for performing MCA . There is also a Python package for [1] which works with numpy array matrices; the package has not been implemented yet for Spark dataframes.

Occam learning

In computational learning theory, Occam learning is a model of algorithmic learning where the objective of the learner is to output a succinct representation of received training data. This is closely related to probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, where the learner is evaluated on its predictive power of a test set. Occam learnability implies PAC learning, and for a wide variety of concept classes, the converse is also true: PAC learnability implies Occam learnability. == Introduction == Occam Learning is named after Occam's razor, which is a principle stating that, given all other things being equal, a shorter explanation for observed data should be favored over a lengthier explanation. The theory of Occam learning is a formal and mathematical justification for this principle. It was first shown by Blumer, et al. that Occam learning implies PAC learning, which is the standard model of learning in computational learning theory. In other words, parsimony (of the output hypothesis) implies predictive power. == Definition of Occam learning == The succinctness of a concept c {\displaystyle c} in concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} can be expressed by the length s i z e ( c ) {\displaystyle size(c)} of the shortest bit string that can represent c {\displaystyle c} in C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . Occam learning connects the succinctness of a learning algorithm's output to its predictive power on unseen data. Let C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} be concept classes containing target concepts and hypotheses respectively. Then, for constants α ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \alpha \geq 0} and 0 ≤ β < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \beta <1} , a learning algorithm L {\displaystyle L} is an ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} iff, given a set S = { x 1 , … , x m } {\displaystyle S=\{x_{1},\dots ,x_{m}\}} of m {\displaystyle m} samples labeled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} , L {\displaystyle L} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that h {\displaystyle h} is consistent with c {\displaystyle c} on S {\displaystyle S} (that is, h ( x ) = c ( x ) , ∀ x ∈ S {\displaystyle h(x)=c(x),\forall x\in S} ), and s i z e ( h ) ≤ ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle size(h)\leq (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} where n {\displaystyle n} is the maximum length of any sample x ∈ S {\displaystyle x\in S} . An Occam algorithm is called efficient if it runs in time polynomial in n {\displaystyle n} , m {\displaystyle m} , and s i z e ( c ) . {\displaystyle size(c).} We say a concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is Occam learnable with respect to a hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} if there exists an efficient Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}.} == The relation between Occam and PAC learning == Occam learnability implies PAC learnability, as the following theorem of Blumer, et al. shows: === Theorem (Occam learning implies PAC learning) === Let L {\displaystyle L} be an efficient ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm for C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Then there exists a constant a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} such that for any 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , for any distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} , given m ≥ a ( 1 ϵ log ⁡ 1 δ + ( ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α ϵ ) 1 1 − β ) {\displaystyle m\geq a\left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}+\left({\frac {(n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }}{\epsilon }}\right)^{\frac {1}{1-\beta }}\right)} samples drawn from D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} and labelled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} of length n {\displaystyle n} bits each, the algorithm L {\displaystyle L} will output a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} such that e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \epsilon } with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } .Here, e r r o r ( h ) {\displaystyle error(h)} is with respect to the concept c {\displaystyle c} and distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . This implies that the algorithm L {\displaystyle L} is also a PAC learner for the concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} using hypothesis class H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . A slightly more general formulation is as follows: === Theorem (Occam learning implies PAC learning, cardinality version) === Let 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} . Let L {\displaystyle L} be an algorithm such that, given m {\displaystyle m} samples drawn from a fixed but unknown distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} and labeled according to a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} of length n {\displaystyle n} bits each, outputs a hypothesis h ∈ H n , m {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} that is consistent with the labeled samples. Then, there exists a constant b {\displaystyle b} such that if log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ b ϵ m − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq b\epsilon m-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} , then L {\displaystyle L} is guaranteed to output a hypothesis h ∈ H n , m {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} such that e r r o r ( h ) ≤ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\leq \epsilon } with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . While the above theorems show that Occam learning is sufficient for PAC learning, it doesn't say anything about necessity. Board and Pitt show that, for a wide variety of concept classes, Occam learning is in fact necessary for PAC learning. They proved that for any concept class that is polynomially closed under exception lists, PAC learnability implies the existence of an Occam algorithm for that concept class. Concept classes that are polynomially closed under exception lists include Boolean formulas, circuits, deterministic finite automata, decision-lists, decision-trees, and other geometrically defined concept classes. A concept class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is polynomially closed under exception lists if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A {\displaystyle A} such that, when given the representation of a concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in {\mathcal {C}}} and a finite list E {\displaystyle E} of exceptions, outputs a representation of a concept c ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle c'\in {\mathcal {C}}} such that the concepts c {\displaystyle c} and c ′ {\displaystyle c'} agree except on the set E {\displaystyle E} . == Proof that Occam learning implies PAC learning == We first prove the Cardinality version. Call a hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in {\mathcal {H}}} bad if e r r o r ( h ) ≥ ϵ {\displaystyle error(h)\geq \epsilon } , where again e r r o r ( h ) {\displaystyle error(h)} is with respect to the true concept c {\displaystyle c} and the underlying distribution D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} . The probability that a set of samples S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with h {\displaystyle h} is at most ( 1 − ϵ ) m {\displaystyle (1-\epsilon )^{m}} , by the independence of the samples. By the union bound, the probability that there exists a bad hypothesis in H n , m {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}} is at most | H n , m | ( 1 − ϵ ) m {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|(1-\epsilon )^{m}} , which is less than δ {\displaystyle \delta } if log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ O ( ϵ m ) − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq O(\epsilon m)-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} . This concludes the proof of the second theorem above. Using the second theorem, we can prove the first theorem. Since we have a ( α , β ) {\displaystyle (\alpha ,\beta )} -Occam algorithm, this means that any hypothesis output by L {\displaystyle L} can be represented by at most ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} bits, and thus log ⁡ | H n , m | ≤ ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α m β {\displaystyle \log |{\mathcal {H}}_{n,m}|\leq (n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha }m^{\beta }} . This is less than O ( ϵ m ) − log ⁡ 1 δ {\displaystyle O(\epsilon m)-\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}} if we set m ≥ a ( 1 ϵ log ⁡ 1 δ + ( ( n ⋅ s i z e ( c ) ) α ) ϵ ) 1 1 − β ) {\displaystyle m\geq a\left({\frac {1}{\epsilon }}\log {\frac {1}{\delta }}+\left({\frac {(n\cdot size(c))^{\alpha })}{\epsilon }}\right)^{\frac {1}{1-\beta }}\right)} for some constant a > 0 {\displaystyle a>0} . Thus, by the Cardinality version Theorem, L {\displaystyle L} will output a consistent hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} with probability at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } . This concludes the proof of the first theorem above. == Improving sample complexity for common problems == Though Occam and PAC learnability are equivalent, the Occam framework can be used to produce tighter bounds on the sample complexity of classical problems including conjunctions, co

Chinchilla (language model)

Chinchilla is a family of large language models (LLMs) developed by the research team at Google DeepMind, presented in March 2022. == Models == It is named "chinchilla" because it is a further development over a previous model family named Gopher. Both model families were trained in order to investigate the scaling laws of large language models. It claimed to outperform GPT-3. It considerably simplifies downstream utilization because it requires much less computer power for inference and fine-tuning. Based on the training of previously employed language models, it has been determined that if one doubles the model size, one must also have twice the number of training tokens. This hypothesis has been used to train Chinchilla by DeepMind. Similar to Gopher in terms of cost, Chinchilla has 70B parameters and four times as much data. Chinchilla has an average accuracy of 67.5% on the Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark, which is 7% higher than Gopher's performance. Chinchilla was still in the testing phase as of January 12, 2023. Chinchilla contributes to developing an effective training paradigm for large autoregressive language models with limited compute resources. The Chinchilla team recommends that the number of training tokens is twice for every model size doubling, meaning that using larger, higher-quality training datasets can lead to better results on downstream tasks. It has been used for the Flamingo vision-language model. == Architecture == Both the Gopher family and Chinchilla family are families of transformer models. In particular, they are essentially the same as GPT-2, with different sizes and minor modifications. Gopher family uses RMSNorm instead of LayerNorm; relative positional encoding rather than absolute positional encoding. The Chinchilla family is the same as the Gopher family, but trained with AdamW instead of Adam optimizer. The Gopher family contains six models of increasing size, from 44 million parameters to 280 billion parameters. They refer to the largest one as "Gopher" by default. Similar naming conventions apply for the Chinchilla family. Table 1 of shows the entire Gopher family: Table 4 of compares the 70-billion-parameter Chinchilla with Gopher 280B.

Jubatus

Jubatus is an open-source online machine learning and distributed computing framework developed at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Preferred Infrastructure. Its features include classification, recommendation, regression, anomaly detection and graph mining. It supports many client languages, including C++, Java, Ruby and Python. It uses Iterative Parameter Mixture for distributed machine learning. == Notable Features == Jubatus supports: Multi-classification algorithms: Perceptron Passive Aggressive Confidence Weighted Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors Normal Herd Recommendation algorithms using: Inverted index Minhash Locality-sensitive hashing Regression algorithms: Passive Aggressive feature extraction method for natural language: n-gram Text segmentation